and Do not oppress a convert
Verse: ולא תלחצנו
Command: Do not oppress a convert.
Shemos 22:20
SMG
In the Parshas Mishpatim, the verse[i] states וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו. And in Parshas Kedoshim, the verse[ii] states וכי יגור אתכם גר בארצכם, לא תונו אותו. כאזרח מכם יהיה לכם הגר הגר אתכם – which was explained in the Gemara[iii] is when he has accepted upon himself the entire Torah just like one of you – then do not commit Ona’ah. There are many books [versions of the Gemara] which do not include that statement explicitly, but instead [those versions run as follows] ‘a convert who comes to accept upon himself the entire Torah, with the exception of one (1) aspect – we do not accept him [his conversion]. One who commits Ona’ah to a convert, even verbally, transgresses two (2) negative Mitzvos [α], one from the verse[iv] ולא תונו איש את עמיתו [see negative Mitzva 171] and from the verse וגר לא תונה [the negative Mitzva discussed here]. One who commits Ona’ah to a convert financially [also transgresses two (2) negative Mitzvos] one from the verse[v] אל תונו איש את אחיו [see negative Mitzva 171] and from the verse לא תונו אותו [the negative Mitzva discussed here].
As for what the Gemara[vi] states [that a person who commits Ona’ah to a convert] transgresses three (3) negative Mitzvos, that [statement] includes [the listing of] all the prohibitions [β] [being violated simultaneously] together. Similarly, if this was financial harassment, the Gemara there notes that the person violates the prohibition of [the verse] ולא תלחצנו [the negative Mitzva discussed here] and the verse[vii] וגר לא תלחץ,[1] and the verse[viii] לא תהיה לו כנשה [see negative Mitzva 185].
One should ‘walk’ with the convert beyond the letter of the law, and [when dealing with converts] do not take a legal position according to [the strict interpretation of the] laws of the Torah.
[1] Presumably, this is the same negative Mitzva 173 discussed here. Why does the Gemara count it as a separate transgression, and if it indeed is, then why does the SMG only list one Mitzva (the one based on the verse ולא תלחצנו)?
Good question. See Rashi below.
[i] Shemos 22:20
[ii] Vayikra 19:33-34
[iii] Gem. Beĉoros 30b
[iv] Vayikra 25:17
[v] Vayikra 25:14
[vi] Gem. Bava Metzia 59b
[vii] Shemos 23:9
[viii] Shemos 22:24
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[The Maharshal comments on both Mitzvos together – following the organization of the SMG.]
[α] Actually, he transgresses three (3) Mitzvos, as the SMG explains further.
[β] This is the phrase used in the Beraissa.
[γ] [The Maharshal quotes the Gemara and then proceeds to explain. The translation of this comment by the Maharshal requires extensive inserts to render it understandable in English. Therefore, to preserve the flow of ideas, I have elected to temporarily suspend my practice of adding brackets when inserting extra words, only for this comment by the Maharshal]
We learnt in the Beraissa, one who harasses a convert violates three (3) Mitzvos, but one who oppresses him violates two (2) negative Mitzvos… [The Gemara then quotes the verses. After analyzing the verses, the Gemara concludes that whether oppressing or harassing a convert, one violates three (3) negative Mitzvos in doing so.]
This is what the SMG meant when he states that one who harasses a convert violates at least two (2) negative Mitzvos, since that is the initial assumption of the Gemara. But from looking at the Gemara simply we can conclude that it is three (3) negative Mitzvos being violated since a convert is also a regular Jew and thus harassing him violates the negative Mitzva against harassing one’s fellow. As for the addition of two (2) additional prohibitions, one applies to financial harassment, and the other to verbal harassment – mirroring the prohibitions against committing these forms of harassment against a regular Jew for whom the Torah uses two (2) other verses prohibiting various forms of harassment. [See negative Mitzvos 170 and 171]
Thereafter, the SMG concludes with the Gemara’s statement regarding the number of prohibitions being violated for harassing a convert, meaning the Gemara is addressing all the prohibitions which are derived from the same term simultaneously.
And the SMG applies the Gemara to both financial and verbal harassment. Even though there is no direct proof of this, nevertheless this follows the logic in the Gemara since the Torah uses the same term of לא תונה in expressing both prohibitions. As for why the Torah uses different terms when expressing both prohibitions for a convert, that is to stress that even though they are full-fledged Jews, there is still a separate prohibition against harassing them, besides the regular prohibition against harassing a Jew.
Similar to this line of reasoning, [the SMG] writes explicitly about financial harassment for a Jew, but he changes around all the verses, and he writes that תלחצנו applies to financial harassment, and his statements are very astonishing and do not follow the section of the Gemara at all. [See negative Mitzva 170]
RASHI
Interestingly, on the verses quoted by the SMG as the source for these two (2) Mitzvos, Rashi notes there are three prohibitions:
- On the verse וכי יגור אתכם גר בארצכם, לא תונו אותו, Rashi notes לא תונו and states that one is forbidden to tell a convert that previously he had worshipped idols, and now he is coming to learn Torah which was given from the Almighty.
- On the verse וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו, Rashi first notes וגר לא תונה as the prohibition against verbal harassment, translating it into old French as ‘contrarier’ which means to annoy or antagonize – [similar to how once can use the English phrase ‘to be contrary’ to refer to someone who is expressing an opposite viewpoint out of spite].
- Rashi then continues by quoting ולא תלחצנו, and comments that this is done by stealing financially [from the convert].
This seems to imply that Rashi is of the opinion that there are three prohibitions here, the prohibitions against:
- thieving from a convert.
- being disdainful to a convert,
- harassing or annoying a convert, and
Discussion by SMS
The Gemara[i] has a slightly different wording on the examples provided when it comes to verbal harassment, as compared to Rashi’s example.
- For a Ba’al Teshuva, one may not remind him of his prior deeds.
- For the descendant of converts, one may not remind him of the deeds of his ancestors.
- For a convert himself, one may not tell him that the mouth that ate not kosher is not coming to learn Torah which was said by the Almighty.[1]
Presumably, Rashi on the Torah provides a slightly different example since a convert eating non-kosher is not a problem – in fact, the Torah states that the non-kosher food should be given to the Citizen Converts, as it says לגר אשר בשעריך תתננו ואכלה – why then would that be an incident that would be a source of harassment for the Righteous Convert. He was simply obeying the Torah when he ate the non-kosher food prior to converting. Therefore, Rashi coopts the phrase for the descendent of converts from the Gemara as being applicable to prohibit.
Rashi’s approach explaining that there are three (3) prohibitions also explains why the verses repeat the prohibition of Ona’ah for a convert, which the SMG does not explain. This could also provide an alternative explanation for the Gemara’s statement that there are three (3) negative Mitzvos violated in harassing a convert. [β]
[1] A reference to Moshe who refused to nurse from a non-Jewish lady since his mouth would ultimately talk to G‑d and thus couldn’t suckle non-Jewish milk. A similar phrase was used in the Midrash in reference to that incident.
[i] Gem. Bava Metzia 58b
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- תלחצנו – Oppression
We find the term לחץ used by the Egyptians in their oppression of the Jewish people, as it says in the verse[i] וגם ראיתי את הלחץ אשר מצרים לחצים אתם, and we find the term used in a more prosaic sense when Bill’am was traveling to curse the Jews, and the donkey squeezed herself against the wall to avoid the angel, she compressed Bill’am’s foot, laming him thereby, as it says in the verse[ii] ותלחץ אל הקיר, ותלחץ את רגל בלעם אל הקיר. Perhaps we can thus state that there is an element inferred of physical consequences to לחץ, unlike Ona’ah which harassment might be completely verbal, emotional or mental.
[i] Shemos 3:9
[ii] Bamidbar 22:25