A.
In this week’s parasha we encounter a verse well-known to every synagogue-goer: וזאת התורה אשר שם משה לפני בני ישראל (“And this is the Torah [vë-zoth ha-Torah] which Moshe placed before the bënei Yisra’él”; IV, 44). The verse is recited by the congregation after a Torah reading has been completed, during hagbahath ha-Torah, when the scroll is lifted preparatory to being closed and covered for return to the aron ha-qodesh.
The actual context in which the verse occurs is very interesting. The preceding three verses (vv. 41-43) concern Moshe’s naming the three ‘arei miqlat, the “cities of refuge,” which were located east of the Jordan River: אז יבדיל משה שלש ערים בעבר הירדן מזרחה שמש: לנס שמה רוצח אשר ירצח את רעהו בבלי דעת והוא לא שנא לו מתמול שלשם ונס אל אחת מן הערים האל וחי: את בצר במדבר בארץ במישר לראובני ואת ראמות בגלעד לגדי ואת גולן בבשן למנשי: (“Then Moshe distinguished three cities on the Jordan bank eastward. To flee thither, a murderer who unwittingly murders his fellow, whom he was not hating yesterday or the day before, and he flees to one of these cities and lives: Betzer, in the wilderness on the plain of the Rë’uvéni, and Ramoth in the Gil‘ad of the Gadi, and Golan, in the Bashan of the Mënashi”). Then, immediately, vë-zoth ha-Torah, with the conjunctive prefix which usually marks continuity with what has gone before.
Why?
B.
Our question is asked by the Ma’asei la-Melech (a commentary published together with the séfer Hafétz Hayyim ‘al ha-Torah). He begins his answer by citing Rashi’s words on v. 41: ואע"פ שאינן קולטות עד שיבדלו אותן שבארץ כנען אמר משה מצוה שאפשר לקיימה אקיימנה (“...and even though they were not effective until those which were in Eretz Këna‘an were designated, Moshe said, [Any] mitzva which it is possible to fulfill, I shall fulfill it”). From this, the Ma‘asei la-Melech concludes: שמוכח מזה שאם אי אפשר לאדם לקיים את כל המצות בשלמות מ"מ כל מה שיש ביכלתו לעשות יראה לקיים, אף אם לא יוכל עכשיו לגמור הדבר כולו. וזהו מה שאמר הכתוב אחרי אשר הבדיל משה שלש הערים שבעבר הירדן, "וזאת התורה" כו' שלכאורה אין כל קשר וחבור לפסוק זה לענין של הבדלת הערים, אבל לפי הנ"ל ניחא, היינו שהורה הוראה זו, להבדיל שלש הערים בעבר הירדן, אעפ"י שאינן קולטות עדיין, וללמד לבני ישראל, שגם המה יתנהגו באופן כזה, שכמה שיוכלו לקיים רצון השי"ת, יראו לקיים אף שלא יוכלו לגמור הדבר, וזאת התורה אשר שם משה לפני בני ישראל. (“...that it is demonstrable from this that if it is impossible for a person to keep all of the mitzvoth in perfection, nonetheless everything which is within his ability to do he should be careful to keep, even if he is not able the finish the matter entirely now. And this is what Scripture is telling us, after Moshe distinguished the three cities across the Jordan, vë-zoth ha-Torah...., for there is apparently no connexion or link between this verse and the distinguishing of the cities, but according to the above it is resolved, i.e. that Moshe issued this ruling, to distinguish the three cities on the bank of the Jordan even though they were not yet functional, and to teach the bënei Yisra’él that they, too, should conduct themselves in this way, that to the extent that they can fulfill the ill of Ha-Shem, they should be scrupulous to do so, even if they cannot complete the matter, and this is the Torah which Moshe placed before the bënei Yisra’él”).
Rashi’s rationale for Moshe’s action is based upon the statement in the Talmud (מכות י.) that Moshe was entirely aware that his distinguishing of the three cities was entirely without effect until the cities west of the Jordan would be designated, and Moshe knew that he would not live to see that. Nonetheless, his intense desire to perform mitzvoth was such that he could not resist the chance at least to begin naming the six ‘arei miqlat, and it was this lust for mitzvoth, for fulfilling G-d’s will in this world, which he sought to impart to Israel, whence our fascinating juxtaposition.
With this in mind, we can appreciate some of the things which Hazal say about Moshe; for instance, "אוהב כסף" – אוהב מצוה "לא ישבע כסף" לא ישבע מן המצות כו' שהרי משה כמה מצות וצדקות עשה כו' דכתוב "אז יבדיל וגו'" (“‘One who loves silver [kesef]’ – one who loves mitzvoth – ‘will never be sated with kesef’ [Ecclesiastes V, 13], will never be sated with mitzvoth...For how many mitzvoth and acts of justice did Moshe perform... as it is written, ‘Then Moshe distinguished....”; קהלת רבה פ"ה סי' י' יע"ע ויקרא רבס פכ"ב סי' א'). As many mitzvoth as Moshe performed, his only ambition was to perform more. In this connection, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the meaning of the root kaf-samech-pé which under-lies kesef is “yearning, longing”; the object of Moshe’s deepest longings, then, analogous to a miser’s lust for money, was doing mitzvoth.
Similarly, the Talmud asks: מפני מה נתאוה משה ליכנס לא"י וכי לאכול מפרי' הוא צריך אלא כך אמר משה הרבה מצות נצטוו ישראל ואין מתקיימין אלא בא"י אכנס אני בארץ כדי שיתקיימו כולן על ידי וגו' (“Why did Moshe lust [nith’avve] to enter Eretz Yisra’él? Did he need to eat of its fruit? Rather, Moshe said, Israel have been commanded many mitzvoth which are only fulfilled in Eretz Yisra’él; let me enter the Land so that they will all be fulfilled by me!”; סוטה י"ד.), whence we see again that Moshe’s motivation was the opportunity to perform yet more mitzvoth.
However, the fact is that this appears to contradict a ma’amar Hazal: כל מי שמתחיל במצוה ואינו גומרה ובא אחר וגומרה נקראת על שמו שגמרה (“Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not finish it, and another comes and finishes it, it is called by the name of the one who finished it”; דברים רבה פ"ח סי' ה'), i.e. the first party to the transaction gets no credit for the final performance of the mitzva. So how do we reconcile the two?
The answer, it seems to me, is implicit in the phrase vë-zoth ha-Torah: Moshe wished to communicate to Israel his love for mitzvoth, a lust for mitzvoth, such that it did not matter to him whether or not he got credit for performing it; it was enough to do, as the Ma‘asei la-Melech says, whatever was possible to do.
C.
The phrase zoth ha-Torah occurs in other contexts as well. For instance, in Numbers XIX, 14, we find: זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל (“Zoth ha-Torah, a person for he dies in a tent”), which finds explanation in the Talmud: אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליהם (“Words of Torah are only fulfilled by one who kills himself over them”; גיטין נ"ו:), and the Maharsha elucidates further that such a person is ממית גופו ומסלק ממנו מותר התאוה (“killing his body [in that] he eliminates from himself excess lust [ta’ava]”), i.e. he places himself firmly in control of his physical nature and its animating yétzer ha-ra‘.
Similarly, in Leviticus VII,37 we read: זאת התורה לעלה למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם וגו' (“Zoth ha-Torah for the ‘ola, the minha, and the hattath and the asham....”), prompting the Talmudic question: מאי דכתיב "זאת התורה לעלה וגו" כל העוסק בתורה אין צריך לא עולה ולא מנחה ולא חטאת ולא אשם (“Anyone who engages in Torah needs neither an ‘ola nor a minha nor a hattath nor an asham”; מנחות ק"י.), whence we learn yet again of the primal and overrid-ing importance of Torah.
And finally in ibid., XIV, 54 we read: זאת התורה לכל נגעי הצרעת ולנתק: (“Zoth ha-Torah for all afflictions of tzora‘ath and for the scall”), on which Hazal ask: מניין אתה אומר כהן שבקי בנגעים ולא בנתקים, בנתקים ולא בקרחת, בנגעי אדם ולא בנגעי בגדים, בנגעי בגדים ולא בנגעי בתים שלא יראה את הנגעים ת"ל "זאת התורה לכל נגעי הצרעת וגו'" (“Whence do you say, A kohén who is expert in afflictions and not in scalls, in scalls and not in a bald patch, in afflictions of human beings and not in afflictions of clothing, in afflictions of clothing and not in afflic-tions of houses, that he not see [i.e., rule upon] the afflictions? It is taught by zoth ha-Torah for all afflictions of tzora‘ath....”; תורת כהנים פר' מצורע שם), i.e. that one who would make halachic rulings must be expert in every aspect of the field in which he intends to function.
D.
From the foregoing we conclude that the phrase zoth ha-Torah has a unique function within the Torah’s text. Whilst much of the rest of Torah is devoted to precise descriptions of the mitzvoth in all their precise detail, zoth ha-Torah has the function of delineating the atmosphere and climate within which Torah-learning and –observance are to take place; rather than laying down the letter of the law, as it were, zoth ha-Torah serves to define the spirit of the law. Through it, Moshe sought to impart values such that Torah-learning would not be a dry intellectual exercise, however stimulating, nor a set of ever more restrictive and claustrophobic rules, but the vibrant heart inspiring the noblest aspirations toward ever deeper, more meaningful, more precise and careful observance of the Torah’s mandates.
Thus, Hazal derive from it that those who would rule for others less steeped in the Torah’s wisdom must be expert in all aspects of their field; that the only way to avoid sin and truly promote Israel’s welfare is through diligent occupation in Torah; that one’s Torah-learning must be internalised, and utilised to bring the physical world under the Torah’s control; and that long and assiduous effort in this regard will serve to convert the physical ta’avoth of the yétzer ha-ra‘ into metaphysical ta’avoth for mitzvoth, so strong that it will not matter whether or not one is actually credited with a given mitzva; the sheer joy of beginning to undertake some previously unexperienced aspect of Divine ser-vice will be its own reward.
This is what we are affirming every time the Torah is read, as we assert: Vë-zoth ha-Torah asher sam Moshe li-fnei Bënei Yisra’él.
No comments:
Post a Comment