Parashath Bë-Har-Bë-Huqqothai (Leviticus XXV,1-XXVII,34) 5/18/12


A.

וידבר ד' אל משה בהר סיני לאמר: דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם כי תבאו אל הארץ אשר אני נתן לכם ושבתה הארץ שבת לד': (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe on Mt Sinai [bë-Har Sinai] to say: Speak to the bënei Yisra’él and say to them, For you will come to the land which I am giving you; and the land will rest, a shabbath la-Shem”). So begins this week’s double parasha.

In commenting on the above passage, Rashi quotes the midrash Torath Kohanim: מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני והלא כל המצות נאמרו מסיני? אלא מה שמיטה נאמרו כללותי' ודקדוקי' מסיני אף כולן נאמרו כללותיטהן ודקדוקיהן מסיני. כך שנוי' בת"כ ונ"ל שכך פירושה וגו' (“What has the subject of shëmitta to do with Mt Sinai? Were not all the mitzvoth said from Sinai [mi-Sinai]? Rather, just as the general principles and details of shëmitta were said mi-Sinai, so were the general principles and details of all of them said mi-Sinai. So is it taught in Torath Kohanim, and so does its interpretation seem to me....”)

If we consider this midrashic comment on our passage, two things stand out: Surely the point of departure of our midrash should be the phrase bë-Har Sinai: Since all of the mitzvoth were said at Sinai, why does the Torah find it necessary to mention it again specifically in connexion with shëmitta? However, the actual wording of the question, מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני, suggests that there is some reason to think that shëmitta should be divorced from the other mitzvoth and their Sinaïtic origin. This requires elucidation.
Then there is the peculiar change in wording which occurs in the midrash: Though our passage speaks of G-d addressing Moshe bë-Har Sinai, the midrash consistently answers the question by using a different case prefix, mi-Sinai, repeating the word three times. Why?

Finally, we note that shëmitta also finds mention in the Sifrei, in a somewhat similar vein: There, the thesis that the mitzvoth were commanded at Sinai only in general terms, and the details left for Moshe’s final address to Israel on the plains of Mo’av (i.e., the book of Deuteronomy) finds refutation in that, of all mitzvoth, shëmitta is not to be found in the repetition in that address in Mo’av (שם, סדר דברים, פיסקא א' ), to indicate that its details were taught only at Sinai, as indeed were those of all the other mitzvoth. If so, the ques-tion again returns: Why is this mitzva in particular singled out for this distinction?

B.

We start by turning to the first mishna in Avoth, which begins: משה קבל תורה מסיני  (“Moshe received the Torah mi-Sinai....”). Many commentators note the odd language: Did Moshe not receive the Torah bë-Sinai, from G-d?

To quote one of those commentators, the Ésh Dath: אמרו במדרש עשרת הדברות : מפני מה זכה משה להיות חתן תורה עקב ענוה ויראה שהיתה בו כו' הרי שמשה רבינו הי' ענו מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה. וכבר ידענו כי לכן ניתנה התורה דוקא על הר סיני משום עניוותו כמו שאמרו כו' "ושפל רוח יתמך כבוד", זה סיני שהשפיל את עצמו לומר שאני נמוך ועל ידי כך תמך הקב"ה את כבודו עליו (“[Hazal] said in the Midrash ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth: Why did Moshe merit to be the groom of the Torah? Because of the ‘anava [‘humility’] and yir’a [‘awe’] within him....So Moshe our Teacher was more humble than any person on the earth, and we already know that for this reason the Torah was given on Mt Sinai because of its humility, as [Hazal] said, ‘And the low of spirit will bear honour’ [Proverbs XXIX, 23], this is Sinai, which humbled itself to say ‘I am low’, and because of that, the Holy One, Blessed is He granted His glory upon it [במדבר רבה פי"ג סי' ה']”).

ולכן, concludes the Rebbe, אמר התנא "מסיני" ולא "בסיני" כי משה למד מסיני כי רק על ידי עניוות יתירה זוכים לקבל את התורה וה"פ משה קבל תורה מסיני שלמד מסיני כיצד לזכות לקבלה (“And there-fore the Tanna said mi-Sinai and not bë-Sinai, because Moshe learnt from Sinai that only through exemplary humility does one merit to receive the Torah, and this is the meaning of Moshe qibbél Torah mi-Sinai, the hat learnt mi-Sinai how to merit receiving it”).

This, then, is the lesson driven home by the fact that (despite popular opinion and Arab legend), Har Sinai was a rather humble and modest hill: That ‘anava is the quality essen-tial to qinyan Torah.
Acceptance of the Torah mi-Sinai, that is, with the Sinaïtic quality of ‘anava, brings about the seeming paradox that performance of its mitzvoth reaches great spiritual heights. If we bear in mind that the midda of ‘anava is essentially passive, in the category of שב ואל תעשה, like the mitzva of shabbath, which largely involves refraining from action, we may see an allusion to this in that a mitzva which is dependent on the earth (and therefore lowly in character), shëmitta, is in fact a shabbath la-Shem.

But the emphasis given by our midrash to shëmitta with all its details brings into focus the very next verse: שש שנים תזרע שדך ושש שנים תזמר כרמך ואספת את תבואתה ובשנה השביעית שבת שבתון יהי' לארץ שבת לד' וגו' (“Six years you will sow your field and six years you will pruine your vineyard and gather its produce; and in the seventh year there will a shabbath of resting for the land; a shabbath la-Shem”).

The shëvuth of shabbath, whether it is the weekly variety or that of shëmitta, is dependent on the fruits of the preceding period; hence, even mitzvoth which are primarily classed as שב ואל תעשה, such as shabbath, have a component which can be seen to be classed as קום ועשה, requiring positive action. Thus, both types of mitzvoth require trans-mission mi-Sinai to inculcate the fact that qinyan Torah requires ‘anava, which in turn can motivate and inform even the most mundane activity, and guarantee that they be crowned with success.

C.

This principle resonates throughout the second half of our double parasha as well: אם בחקתי תלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו ועדיתם אתם: ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם וגו' (“If you go by My laws and keep My mitzvoth and do them: And I shall give your rains in their time....”; XXVI, 3). The physical well-being of the world is thus dependent on Torah-observance.

Rabbénu Bëhayé notes that the parshiya (roughly, “paragraph”) in the séfer Torah which begins with this verse extends through v. 13. Our verse begins with alef and v. 13 ends with tav, the first and last letters of the holy alphabet, indicating that the world’s physical well-being is dependent on learning and observing Torah from alef to tav.

But if this is so, then why do we find eminent talmidei hachamim in dire poverty? 

Rabbi Hayyim Volozhiner offers the following:

 אחרי אשר כתוב בתורה "אם בחקתי תלכו וגו' ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם" וכל טובות העולם הזה מובטח לשומרי תורה ומה זה אשר עובד ד' ידכה ישוח אבל הטעם הוא כי בשורש כל המצות מעוררים רב טוב ושפע עצום בכל העלמות ומוריד מזון ורווח. אך אם עושי המצות מעוטים, ואין צינורים לשפע הטוב רק מהמעטים, וד' יתברך שמו ברחמיו חפץ חסד שיהי' חיים ושפע לכל בני אדם גם לאינם ראויים. ונוטל השפע מהמעטים השרידים יראי ד' ומחלק לכל בני אדם. לפעמים למי שבשבילו בא הכל, לעצמו אינו מגיע וכמו שאמרו על ר' חנינא בן דוסא "כל העולם ניזון בשביל חנינא בני, ופי' השל"ה "בשביל" לשון דרך וצנור כו' וחנינא בני די לו בקב חרובין" וכי רק צינורו מוריד שפע לעולם ולעצמו לא הי' מגיע כי הי' מסתפק במועט וגו'
(“Since it is written in the Torah, ‘If you go by My laws... And I shall give your rains in their time’, and all the good of this world is promised to those who keep the Torah, how is it that one who serves Ha-Shem can be oppressed and destitute? But the reason is that at the root of all the mitzvoth [which they do], they awaken great good and huge abundance [shefa‘] in al the worlds, and bring down nourishment and sustenance. But if those doing mitzvoth are few, and the only conduits for the shefa‘ of good are because of the few, and Ha-Shem in His mercy desires kindness, that all people should have life and shefa‘, even the undeserving, He takes the shefa‘ from the few, remaining G-d fearers and distributes it to everybody. Sometimes, nothing is left for a person because of whom [shebi-shvilo] everything comes [into the world], as Hazal said of R’ Hanina ben Dosa, ‘The entire world is sustained bi-shvil Hanina my son [and the Shela”h notes that a shvil is a path or conduit]... and Hanina my son suffices with a bushel of carob’ [ברכות י"ז:], since it as only his conduit bringing down shefa ‘ to the world, and for himself nothing was left, for he was content with little....”; רוח חיים לאבות פ"א מ"ג החל מד"ה ויתכן).

D.

There is a phrase which one hears bandied about a great deal to-day, tiqqun ‘olam. The phrase can be translated roughly “rectifying, repairing the world.”

Our parasha is a clear object lesson in what tiquun ‘olam really means: If you would rectify the world, open another conduit! Dedicate more time to Torah learning, carry out the mitzvoth with greater kavvana and precision, live your daily lives with the intent that everything be done so that Torah can be learnt and observed. All of these will bring greater abundance and sustenance into the world, and thereby expand the “pie” to be distributed (as R’ Hayyim Volozhiner has so movingly written).

The tremendous opportunity and responsibility for the world’s well-being which Mattan Torah presents us is a worthy subject for contemplation as we enter the last week of the sëfira and prepare to accept the Torah anew.

No comments: