“You shall not see your brother's ox or sheep straying [and getting lost] and ignore them. [Rather,] you shall return them to your brother.” (Devarim 22:1)
The Yalkut Shimoni (Parshas Ki Saitzay 930) states as follows: “We see from this Passuk that there is a Mitzvah of returning a lost ox to one’s brother [or anyone else who is a friend]. But where do we find that the Mitzvah of returning a lost ox exists for the ox of one’s enemy? The Passuk in Shemos 23:4, when discussing the same Mitzvah, employs the language of returning, ‘the ox of your enemy.’ [When taking the two above referenced Passukim together,] the implication is that an ox owned by anyone [your friend, your enemy or anyone else must be returned.] [However,] why does this Passuk in Devarim use the term, ‘your brother’s ox?’ [This Passuk is extra, because if you know that there is a Mitzvah to return your enemy’s ox, all the more so, there would be a Mitzvah to return your brother’s ox?] Rather, the Torah needed to write this [“your brother’s ox”] ‘Kneged HaYetzer’ to address ‘the evil inclination.’”
There is a debate as to how to interpret the last line of the Midrash above - that the Torah needed to write, “your brother’s ox” to address the evil inclination.
Rabbeinu Hillel, a Rishon that wrote a commentary on the Sifrei (section 222) explains that both Passukim need to be written to teach that when one is faced with two lost items – one owned by his brother and one owned by his enemy – he should give precedence to the one owned by his enemy so that he will have practice in overcoming his evil inclination as the evil inclination makes it harder to return the animal of your enemy than that of your brother. This is also the understanding of the Malbim.
Rav Avrohom Gumbiner ZT”L, the author of the Mogain Avraham, however, provides a different explanation in his Zayis Ra’anan commentary on the Yalkut Shimoni. He writes that the Torah needed to write both Passukim, one for “brother’s ox,” and one for “enemy’s ox,” to teach us that if we contemplate that this enemy is still [Jewish and is] our brother, then we will overcome our evil inclination to not return his lost item to him. The Ramban in this week’s Parsha seems to explain the Midrash the same way.
We see an extraordinary lesson from the Mogain Avrohom above. Sometimes our negative feelings towards our enemies can cause us to obscure the truth and thus rationalize improper behaviors and assumptions – in this case, “I am not under an obligation to help my enemy.” The Torah here is telling you that if you contemplate the fact that your enemy is still your brother, you will do the right thing and help him.
What is fascinating is that the person already knows that the ox belonged to his enemy who is still part of his Jewish brethren, even before the Torah told him so! There is no “new information” here. How then does this help him see his true obligation to help his enemy?
The answer is one of emphasis and focus. The Torah is telling us that if we emphasize a positive idea, “Focus on the fact that this man is your enemy, but he is also your brother!”- then that can help us do the right thing even if we already know what we are being told to focus on.
Note: This week’s edition of the Emes Parsha Sheet is a repeat of a prior edition – the editor is out of town.
