Ha lehetséges, zsidótól vegyünk – látszólag a protekcionizmus forrása.
When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one another.
Rási is így magyarázza a Midrás alapján, de talmudi forrás nincsen.
'וכי תמכרו וגו AND IF THOU SELL [OUGHT TO THY FELLOW… YE SHALL NOT OVERREACH ONE ANOTHER] — According to its plain sense the verse intimates what it literally means: (i. e. as translated above). But there is also a Midrashic interpretation: Whence can it be derived that if you sell anything you should sell it to your Israelite fellowman? From what Scripture states: “And if you sell — ,לעמיתך sell it to one associated with you by nationality”. And whence can it be derived that if you intend to buy anything that you should buy it of your Israelite fellow? From what Scripture states “or if thou buy ought — מיד עמיתך, at the hand of one associated with thee, buy it” (Sifra, Behar, Section 3 1).
acquire from the hand of your fellow, you shall not wrong, one man, his brother.") Whence is it derived that when you sell, you shall sell only to your fellow (Jew) (i.e., giving him first choice)? From "And if you sell a selling to your fellow." And whence is it derived that when you buy, you shall buy only from your fellow? From "or acquire from the hand of your fellow." This tells me only of land, of which Scripture is speaking (viz. Devarim 15:13). Whence do I derive (the same ["your fellow"] for) a movable object? From (the superfluous) "a selling" — to include a movable object. Whence is it derived that (the law of) ona'ah ("wronging") does not apply to land? From "or acquire from the hand … you shall not wrong" — ona'ah applies to a movable object, (which is transferred from hand to hand), but not to land.
Az egyik legismertebb forrás Toszfot, aki szerint ha a nem zsidó olcsóbban árul, vehetünk tőle. Remo híres tesuvája ezt igyekszik cáfolni.
Áteret Páz 1:3:10 vázlatos áttekintése:
https://claude.ai/share/23af6aee-6a0d-4962-b015-1d971f7c77b0
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir explain the wording of the verse? The Gemara answers: That word, “or,” teaches that one should give precedence to giving to a resident alien over selling to a gentile. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that since you are commanded to sustain a resident alien, as it is stated: “And he shall live with you” (Leviticus 25:35), and you are not commanded to sustain a gentile, there is no need for a verse to teach that one should give precedence to a resident alien.
...
Ez a szugja végig az eladás preferenciáiról szól, itt említ is nochrit, és az idézett szabályt itt sem hozza. (Metivtá?)
The Gemara clarifies this ruling: If a buyer bought the field from a gentile it does not apply, as he can say to the neighbor: It is better for you that I bought the field, as I have chased away a lion for you from the border; since the neighbor certainly prefers having a Jewish neighbor to having a gentile neighbor. If a seller sold a field to a gentile, the gentile is certainly not bound by the command of: “And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:18). The gentile is therefore under no obligation to refrain from purchasing this land. Nevertheless, we certainly excommunicate the one who sold it to the gentile until he accepts upon himself responsibility for all damage resulting from accidents that might befall the neighbor on the gentile’s account.
A Sulchán Áruch is igen egyértelműen ezt az álláspontot látszik hozni. (És ehhez Remo nem is szólt hozzá...)
Noha a kontextus itt igazából az ingatlan, aminek a szomszédsága egykor valós veszélyeket is rejthetett. Ugyanez a BM-beli szugja.
...
Toszfot lesitáto, ha pénzt veszítünk vele, akkor inkább ne legyünk protekcionisták.
...
Ros hozza Rábénu Tám nevében ugyanezt, és fontos lábjegyzetet fűz hozzá: ha duplaannyit ajánl, akkor meg is van, hogy mit tervez: elűzni a szomszédját – emiatt tilos.
...
De annyira nem egyszerű, mert a Tur azt is hozza, hogy ha egyáltalán nincs zsidó vevő, akkor ne adja el, még akkor sem, ha alapfenntartás miatt lenne rá szüksége. Hogy ez a kettő miért nem mond ellent egymásnak (hiszen a nullánál csak többet kapna), azt nem találtam meg.
...
...
Remo híres nyomda-copyright responzuma adresszálja a kérdést, pont az az érdekes, hogy ő az első hivatkozási alap a Midrás után.
...