Parshath Nitzavim-Va-Yélech (Deuteronomy XXIX,9-XXXI,30) 9/3/10

A.

In this year’s discussion of parshath Ki Thétzé’, we mentioned the Gra’s scheme for ordering the events of world history according to the text of the written Torah, in which its course was laid out in advance. Under the rules of this scheme, our present century, which began on Rosh ha-Shana of the secular year 1940, is represented by this week’s double parasha. As Rosh ha-Shana fast approaches, we are about to enter into the eighth decade of the eighth century of the sixth millennium, the world-year 5771.

It will be asked how such a scheme is consistent with the notion of human free will. The answer, I believe, lies in a term discussed in last week’s essay, the word hadash. Hadash, we discovered, means something “new” resulting from a process by which the essence of a previous phenomenon becomes available for further productive use. Last week, we applied this concept to Torah-learning.

In the physical realm, this process manifests itself with the selection of one of an array of choices generated by a Schrödingerian probability wave, collapsing the wave and bringing about a new node from which the next series of events, ranked by probability, is generated. In my humble opinion, such a node is called in the Holy Language a hadasha (the feminine ending indicating a single exemplar of the general class, following the example of, e.g., shoshan, “lily motif,” and shoshana, a single lily, or dema‘, “weeping, tears,” and dim‘a, a single tear.

This, I believe, is what we mean when we praise G-d every morning as ‘osé hadashoth, “Maker of hadashoth,” and again, when we call Him המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית, “Who makes new in His goodness, every day, always, the act of the beginning.” All of the nodes, all of the choices, were laid out beforehand; which ones we choose, and which as a result present themselves to us, is our function.

It is on this basis, I believe, that the Talmud observes איזהו חכם הרואה את הנולד (“Who is wise? One who sees what is/has been born”; תמיד ל"ב.), which, the Hatham Sofér explains, refers to the ability correctly to interpret history and the events unfolding around us.

With the Gra’s scheme as our guide, then, let us explore what the parasha has to tell us about our times.

B.

Our parasha opens with Moshe’s reminder to each and every member of Israel, from the highest to the lowest, of his mission לעברך בברית ד' אלקיך ובאלתו (“to enroll you in the covenant of Ha-Shem your G-d and in His ala”; XXIX, 11). As Hazal demonstrate on the basis of the phrase shëvu‘ath ala which occurs in Numbers V, 21, ala is a technical term denoting a curse which falls upon a party who swears falsely, or violates an oath (already in effect (ירושלמי סוטה פ"ב ה"ה).

The purpose of the covenant? למען הקים אתך לו לעם והוא יהי' לך לאלקים כאשר דבר לך ונשבע לאבתיך וכו' ולא אתכם לבדכם אנכי כרת את הברית הזאת ואת האלה הזאת: כי את אשר ישנו פה עמנו עמד היום לפני ד' אלקינו ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום: (“In order to establish you as His people, and He will be your G-d, as He spoke to you and swore to your forefathers.... And not with you alone am I cutting this covenant and this ala. But with those who are here with us, standing today before Ha-Shem our G-d, and with those who are not here with us today”: ibid., 12-14). Thus, as Rashi elucidates, the covenant is binding on Israel for all time, ואף עם דורות העתידות להיות (“even with generations destined to come into being”). Every soul which would ever be implanted in Israel was present at Sinai (ע"ע שבועות ל"ט., נדרים כ"ה., ושבת קמ"ו..).

Then Moshe warns of what happens, not to ordinary sinners driven by their appetites and the surrounding temptations, but to anyone who בשמעו את דברי האלה הזאת והתברך בלבבו לאמר שלום יהי' לי כי בשרירות לבי אלך למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה (“on hearing the words of this ala blesses himself in his heart to say, 'I shall have peace, for I shall go in the vision of my heart, in order to deny satisfaction to the thirsty'”; ibid., 18). G-d will enable and encourage such a rasha‘ to progress along his chosen path (so long as he has not changed his mind) until: לא יאבה ד' סלח לו כו' ורבצה בו כל האלה הכתובה בספר הזה וגו' (“Ha-Shem is not inclined to forgive him... And the entire ala written in this book awaits him”; v. 19).

This is, in fact, a fairly precise description of the spiritual pathologies which led to, and fed, the Holocaust: The rise of the falsifications of religious heterodoxy, the infatuation with totalitarian socialism, and the attempt to substitute European nationalism for Israel’s true national basis in Torah. The rest of the chapter discusses the horrific, monumental, even proverbial destruction which came about in the first few years of our century.

C.

The parasha then veers rather abruptly. After all of these horrors: ושבת עד ד' אלקיך ושמעת בקלו ככל אשר אנכי מצוך היום אתה ובניך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך (“And you shall return to Ha-Shem your G-d and you will listen to His voice according to everything which I am commanding you today, you and your sons, with all your heart and with all your soul”; XXX, 2).

We are today in the midst of this phase. After the mass destruction of the European Jewish communities, the survivors came primarily to North America and Eretz Yisra’él, where the seeds of the next phase had already been planted; as Hazal tell us, הקב"ה מקדים את הרפואה למכה (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, anticipated to blow with the cure”; מגילה י"ג: ). In the decades immediately before the Holocaust, a handful of brilliant American young men – such legendary figures as R’ Nëthan’él Quinn, R’ Mordëchai Gifter, R’ Avigdor Miller, R’ Gëdalya Shorr, and a few others – went to Europe to absorb the best of Ashkënazi Torah culture. At the same time, a few European pioneers established outposts of the yëshiva world in North America, such as Torah va-Da‘ath, Nér Yisra’él, and Hafétz Hayyim. Also already active in the United States at the end of the previous century were such Hassidic dynasties as Lubavitch (in Brooklyn), Ozherov (in the Bronx). and the Bostoner Rebbe, זצ"ל.

In the immediate post-war years, these were joined by, e.g., the Telzer yëshiva in Cleveland, Béyth Midrash ha-Gavoah in Lakewood, and the transplanted Mir in Brooklyn, as well as the relocation of German Orthodoxy in Washington Heights and the re-ëstablishment of such Hassidic powerhouses as Ger, Szatmár, Vizhnitz, etc. Those seeds blossomed into the luxuriant growth of the Torah-world we see around us now, which makes ever greater efforts to reach out to our estranged brethren.

ושב ד' אלקיך את שבותך ורחמך ושב וקבצך מכל העמים אשר הפיצך ד' אלקיך שמה (“And Ha-Shem your G-d will return your returning and have mercy on you and gather you back from all the nations whither Ha-Shem your G-d has scattered you”; v. 3). This phase, the beginning of yëmoth ha-Mashiah, will follow on the present period. It’s seeds are already planted. Even though there was never a period since the Shivath Tziyyon from the Babylonian Exile when there has not been a Jewish presence in the Holy Land, never since the Hurban Bayith Shéni has that presence been as large as it is today, and this is especially true of the Torah yishuv across the length and breadth of the country.

D.

At this point, since we are not prophets, the trail being blazed grows uncertain. What is very clear from our text is that the present phase must reach a level, a critical mass of Torah-learning, Torah-observing Jews in order for the next phase to go into effect. What appears to be the case is that we are on the cusp of that happening, that some time in the next three decades it seems likely to begin.

As every reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will attest, with few exceptions the second person pronominal forms used throughout our parasha are singular. This unremitting, relentless singularity, it seems to me, serves to remind us that a këlal consists of many përatim, individuals. It is incumbent on each and every one of us to what we can to bring about the necessary critical mass of לומדי תורה ומקיימי מצותי', those who learn Torah and uphold its mitzvoth, to bring us to the next stage. Now, entering on a new year, is a good time to start.
כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשותו (“For the matter is very close to you in your mouth and in your heart [all singular pronouns!] to do”; XXX, 14).

Parshath Ki Thavo’ (Deuteronomy XXVI,1-XXIX,8) 8/28/10

A.

Our parasha opens with the commandment that Israel’s farmers bring the bikkurim, the first fruits of the seven species through which Eretz Yisra’él is praised (olives, dates, figs, pomegranates, grapes, wheat, and barley; cf. Deuteronomy VIII, 8) to המקום אשר יבחר ד' אלקיך לשכן שמו שם (“the place where Ha-Shem your G-d chooses to make His name dwell”; XXVI, 2-3).

As our passage makes clear, the proximate cause of this is an expression of simple hakkarath ha-tov, gratitude, for the decent harvest: ושמחת בכל הטוב אשר נתן לך ד' אלקיך ולביתך וגו' (“And you will rejoice in all the goodness which Ha-Shem your G-d has given you and your household....”; ibid., 11). However, this verse is preceded by a remarkable recitation which the farmer makes: ארמי אבד אבי וירד מצרימה ויגר שם במתי מעט ויהי שם לגוי גדול עצום ורב: וירעו אתנו המצרים ויענונו ויתנו עלינו עבודה קשה: ונצעק אל ד' אלקי אבתינו וישמע ד' את קלנו וירא את ענינו ואת עמלנו ואת לחצנו: ויוציאנו ד' ממצרים ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטוי' ובמורא גדול ובאותות ובמפתים: ויבאנו אל המקום הזה ויתן לנו את הארץ הזאת ארץ זבת חלב ודבש: (“A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down to Egypt and dwelt there in small numbers, and became there a great, mighty, and numerous nation. And the Egyptians mistreated us and tormented us and placed upon us hard labor. And we cried out to Ha-Shem, G-d of our fathers, and Ha-Shem heard our voice and saw our poverty and our labor and our oppression. And Ha-Shem brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand and an outstretched arm and with great fear and signs and wonders. And He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey”; vv, 3-9).

In short, the farmer expresses gratitude not merely for Ha-Shem’s role in satisfying his immediate needs, but also for Ha-Shem’s role in guiding all of Israel’s history, from the time of the patriarchs until his day. As we shall see, this is a most appropriate preface to the rest of this parasha.

B.

A bit later on, Moshe declares: היום הזה ד' אלקיך מצוך לעשות את החקים האלה ואת המשפטים ושמרת ועשית אותם בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך: (“This day Ha-Shem your G-d is commanding you to perform these laws [ha-huqqim ha-élle] and the judgments [mishpatim] and you will keep [vë-shamarta] and perform [vë-‘asitha] them with all your heart and with all your soul”; ibid., 16).

Rashi explains Moshe’s intent: בכל יום יהיו בעיניך חדשים כאלו בו ביום נצטוית עליהם (“Every day they should be new in your eyes, as if that very day you were commanded concerning them”).
Consider the historical context of Moshe’s remarks: The Torah had been commanded forty years before, at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Israel had spent most of the subsequent forty years familiarising themselves with the Torah’s contents (the huqqim), analyzing them and formulating their ramifications and applications (the mishpatim, exercises of human judgment), committing the results to memory to preserve them and pass them on to future generations (vë-shamarta), and ordering their lives according to those results (vë-‘asitha).

It was thus impossible for the mitzvoth with their huqqim and mishpatim to be “new” in any ordinary sense of the word when Moshe uttered these words, as though they had never heard them before. Rather, what was new, what was just about to change, were the circumstances of their lives. Having spent forty years wandering the desert in a cocoon of miracles, protected and supported in a gigantic kolel so that the entire nation could engage in full-time learning, they were now about to embark on a war of conquest, followed by the division of the land amongst the tribes and the beginning of a settled, agricultural economy in which the precepts they had been learning would be applied and observed.

Moshe’s message, then, was that the Torah is timeless, that the stuff of the huqqim, faithfully preserved and carefully applied through the processes of mishpat, would serve to order and adapt their new lives to it, as they had in the past and would in future.

We find similar language again, a bit later, in XXVII, 9-10: היום הזה נהיית לעם לד' אלקיך: ושמעת בקול ד' אלקיך ועשית את מצותו ואת חקיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום: (“...This day you have become Ha-Shem your G-d’s people. And you shall listen to the voice of Ha-Shem your G-d, and perform His mitzvoth and His huqqim which I am commanding you today”), and the Talmud asks our question, thereby cementing the relationship between Israel’s nationhood and the Torah: וכי אותו היום נתנה תורה לישראל והלא אותו יום סוף ארבעים שנה הי'?! (“And was it then ‘that day’ that Torah was given to Israel? Was not ‘that day’ at the end of forty years?”; ברכות ס"ג:).

Rabbi Shimshon Rëfa’él Hirsch follows up to say that this was precisely why Moshe made his pronouncement on "that day," before the inception of Israel’s invasion of the Holy Land, to demonstrate that, unlike other nations whose national identity is a matter of ethnicity, a common country, and a state, Israel’s national identity begins and ends with Torah and mitzvoth. The Holy Land is holy because so many mitzvoth can only be performed there; the value of a state is its establishment of essential Torah institutions such as the Béyth ha-Miqdash and the Sanhedrin, i.e., it lies in its relation to the Torah.

With all of the above in mind, the word hadash, conventionally translated “new,” in Rashi’s comment bears re-examination. Applying our etymological theory of primal roots, the word appears to be based on a basic root dalet-vav-shin with a radical prefix héth. The primal root underlies the word dash, which means “threshing cereals” in both Hebrew and Aramaic. Threshing is a process by which the kernels are freed from the stalks and chaff, so that they can be ground into flour and put to productive use. Interestingly, Hazal employ this word to refer to sexual intercourse, which properly has a productive purpose (עיי' למשל נדה מ"א: ופסחים פ"ז:).
I have elsewhere suggested that the radical prefix héth is an intensive form of hé’, which has a causative sense (on the strength of the causative hif‘il conjugation), and so we may surmise that hadash refers to something “new” or ”renewed” by virtue of its being stripped of its carapace to reveal its essentials (i.e. analyzed) to serve a productive end. This fits perfectly with the mitzva that one engage in daily, intensive Torah-learning, revealing fresh insights and deeper understanding through the processes of mishpat. This, in my humble opinion, is what Rashi is getting at.

C.

Therefore: ארור אשר לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת לעשות אותם ואמר כל העם אמן (“Cursed is anyone who will not uphold the words of this Torah to perform them, and the entire people will say, amen”; XXVII, 26). Rashi tells us: כאן כלל את כל התורה כולה וקבלו' עליהם באלה ושבועה (“Here he included the entire Torah, and they accepted it upon themselves with an imprecation and an oath”).

Ramban builds on this to tell us what Moshe really means: אם יכפור באחת מהן או תהי' בעיניו בטלה לעולם הנה הוא ארור, אבל אם עבר על אחת מהן כגון שאכל את החזיר והשקץ לתאותו כו' איננו בחרם הזה כי לא אמר הכתוב "אשר לא יעשה את דברי התורה הזאת" אלא אמר "לא יקים את דברי התורה הזאת" לעשות כטעם "קימו וקבלו היהודים" והנה הוא טעם המורדים והכופרים כו' ואפילו הוא צדיק גמור במעשיו והי' יכול להחזיק התורה ביד הרשעי' המבטלי' אותה הרי זה ארור וגו' (“If one denies one of them, or it becomes in his eyes nullified forever, behold he is cursed; but if he has transgressed one of them, for instance, he has eaten pig or some crawling thing to satisfy his appetite... He is not [included] in this ban, for Scripture does not say ‘anyone who will not perform the words of this Torah,’ but rather says ‘anyone who will not uphold the words of this Torah,’ to perform in accordance with ‘the Yëhudim upheld and accepted’ [Esther IX, 27]; and behold, this is the reasoning of the rebels and deniers.... And even if one is a complete tzaddiq in one’s [own] deeds, [who] would be able to uphold the Torah in the hands of the evil-doers who nullify it [and does not], this person is cursed....”).

In other words, the curse does not apply to ordinary sinners; people who recognize and acknowledge the truth, but stumble on the way can be led to tëshuva. Rather, it applies to those who would numb their consciences by denying the Torah’s validity, by alleging that it is no longer relevant, and that there is some other basis to Israel’s nationhood.

The effect of such an outlook was graphically demonstrated by the fate of the northern kingdom of Israel, whose inhabitants were exiled eastwards by the Assyrians. When the Assyrians’ Babylonian successors meted out a similar fate to the inhabitants of the southern kingdom of Yëhuda about a century later, the northern tribes were nowhere to be found. They had melted away, assimilated to the local, surrounding populations.

The Yëhudim had a somewhat greater sense of national cohesion because they had had the béyth ha-Miqdash in their midst, but were ultimately spared the fate of their northern cousins by the miracle of Purim, brought about by a national wave of tëshuva, to whose culminating event Ramban alludes in his comment above: "קיימו וקבלו היהודים" – קיימו מה שקבלו כבר (“‘The Yëhudim upheld and accepted’ – they upheld what they had already [previously] accepted”; שבועות ל"ט.), the Torah and its mitzvoth.

D.

These two passages contain the entire secret of understanding Jewish history, and of Jewish survival in the face of the world’s unremitting hostility. Nothing can harm us if our adhesion to the Torah ha-qëdosha remains intact.

However, כל ישראל ערבין זה בזה (“All Israel are responsible for one another”; שבועות שם). The meaning of the last statement quoted from Ramban supra becomes clear. Whilst it is vitally important that we continue to learn, to deepen our own understanding of the ramifications and details of the mitzvoth, huqqim, and mishpatim discussed herein, it is as important that we reach out to our estranged brethren, that those who know something, even if a little, nonetheless seek to uphold the Torah on which the rësha‘im have laid hands, and impart it to those who know less. It is incumbent on us to lead lives as though we live in the proverbial “goldfish bowl,” in the hope that others may be inspired to follow the example.

So, even someone who is otherwise a tzaddiq gamur, but is indifferent to the state of the general Jewish society around him, can come to be included in the curse.

In this coming new year, with all the gathering clouds on the horizon threatening aheinu bënei Yisra’él in our Holy Land, it is good to remember that G-d directs our history, and that we have some input into its course, by upholding our national identity in Torah and mitzvoth, learning ourselves and strengthening our own observance, and taking the many opportunities we have to help our estranged brethren recognize what they, too, can and must do.

Parshath Ki Thétzé’ (Deuteronomy XXI,10-XXV,19) 8/20/10

A.

כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה והי' אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה ערות דבר וכתב לה ספר כריתת ונתן בידה ושלחה מביתו: (“For a man will take a woman and marry her, and it will be if she does not find favor in his eyes, for he has found in her an immodest thing, he shall write her a bill of divorcement [séfer kërithuth] and place it in her hand and send her from his house”; XXIV, 1).


The common term for a séfer kërithuth, found throughout the Oral Torah, is gét. Unlike the Biblical term séfer kërithuth, whose meaning is quite plain on its face (the root meaning of kërithuth being “cut off, divide, separate,” (indeed, the Yërushalmi even finds this allusion in the word séfer (“book, document”): מה ספר שהוא בתלוש אף כל דבר שהוא בתלוש (“Just as a séfer is something torn off, so anything which is torn off”; [ירושלמי גיטין פ"ב ה"ג]), the origins of the word gét are very mysterious, in that no other Hebrew word, verb or noun, appears to be derived from its root, gimmel-(yud)-téth. What does the word really mean, and how did it come to signify “divorce”?

B.

Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shëlomo Zalman Kraemer, better known to most people as the Vilner Ga’on in Yiddish or the Gr”a in Hebrew, asked our question and noted the unique, stand-alone status of the word. He concluded that since the letters gimmel and téth never occur together in any other word in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages, and that, moreover, gimmel is pronounced at the back of the throat whilst téth is pronounced with the tongue just behind the palatal ridge, they are not even close to one another within the mouth. Hence, he says, the two letters represent the essence of alienation and separation, and therefore signify divorce.


The Gr”a’s great student, Rabbi Tzëvi Hirsch (known as the Vilner Maggid), cites his rebbe’s opinion in his Margaliyoth ha-Torah, and elaborates on it.


First, he notes that in Ya‘aqov avinu’s death-bed instructions to his sons (Genesis XLIX, 29-32), every single letter of the Hebrew alphabet occurs, save the two letters gimmel and téth. So long as Ya‘aqov remained with them, alive, in their Egyptian exile, he was a unifying force, holding the bënei Yisra’él together and counteracting the tendencies toward division and dissolution which had been so evident beforehand. However, the very next verse reads: ויכל יעקב לצות את בניו ויאסף רגליו אל המטה ויגוע ויאסף אל עמיו (“And Ya‘aqov ceased commanding his sons, and gathered his feet to the bed [raglav el ha-mitta] and perished, and was gathered to his peoples”). In the phrase raglav el ha-mitta, the fateful letters gimmel and téth make their appearance. Shortly after the death of their father, the brothers began again to drift apart, a tendency which led ultimately to the shi‘bud Mitzrayim, the Egyptian enslavement, from which Moshe rescued them.

R’ Tzëvi Hirsch finds a similar development in Numbers XXVIII, 1-8, where the qorban tamid is discussed, the sacrifice offered twice daily on the altar. This passage again contains every letter in the alphabet save the fatal gimmel and téth. He finds in this an allusion to the Talmudic statement: כל המגרש אשתו ראשונה אפילו המזבח מוריד עליו דמעות (“Anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears for him”; גיטין צ:), since, again, it does not contain those two letters.

‘Ad kan Rabbi Tzëvi Hirsch. In my humble opinion, it also highlights the role which the Béyth ha-Miqdash plays in unifying Këlal Yisra’él, a rôle which even Yarov‘am ben Nëvat acknowledged, when he built two alternate temples in the northern kingdom of Israel to forestall his subjects from going to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice (cf. I Kings XII, 26-33), and once again desiring to unite with Yëhuda.

C.

Near the end of our parasha, the Torah commands us: זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים: (“Remember what ‘Amaléq did to you on the way, when you left Egypt”; XXV, 17). This, of course, refers to the two attacks on Israel perpetrated by ‘Amaléq, the first of which is detailed in Exodus XVII, 8-16. The sharp-eyed reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will already have noticed the discrepancy between the first, singular second person pronoun (lëcha, “to you”) and the second, plural pronoun in bë-tzéthchem, “when you left.”

The first Gerer rebbe, the Hiddushei ha-Ri”m, sees in the interplay between the pronouns an allusion to the change from former unity, implied by the singular pronoun lëcha, to the dissension implicit in the second, plural pronoun, in bë-tzéthchem. Rashi tells us that ‘Amaléq’s victims were חסרי כח מתחת חטאם שהי' הענן פולטן (“Those lacking strength because of their sin[s], for the Cloud[s of Glory] would eject them”). To protect the core of Israel, now united under the Torah, those who would not control themselves and accept its discipline were separated and scattered, and so rendered vulnerable to attack from outside.

The Këli Yaqar, for his part, notes that when the nation of Israel enjoys peace and unity, ‘Amaléq is unable to harm them. He focuses on the venue of the first attack, Rëfidim, and points out that the place name contains all the letters of the root פר"ד, which signifies “separate, spread, disperse”, and sees in it an allusion to the strife and dissension which filled the encampment there, and brought about their vulnerability to ‘Amaléq.

D.

Hazal tell us that the Torah is the blueprint of the universe: קוב"ה אסתכל באורייתא וברא עלמא (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, looked into the Torah and created the universe”; זוה"ק ח"ב קס"א: וע"ע בראשית רבה פ"א סי' ב' ועוד). The universe of our perception is a four-dimensional hypersphere which is finite in all directions. Thus, one of the Divine Names is Shaddai, מי שאמר לעולמו די; “He Who said to His universe, Enough [Dai]!; זוה"ק ח"ג רנ"א:). The dimensional limits along the x, y, and z axes of perception are, of course, spatial; the dimensional limit along the t axis is temporal, and Hazal tell us what this temporal dimension is: שית אלפי שני הוי עלמא (“The universe exists for six thousand years”; ראש השנה ל"א. וע"ע עבודה זרה ט.).

Everything destined to occur over that span of time was created at the beginning, and is encoded, in some fashion, in the letters of the written Torah.

The Gr”a explained how the six thousand year span relates to the five books of the written Torah: The first millennium, he says, is encoded in the account of Creation, i.e. Genesis I-II; the second millennium is encoded in the rest of the Book of Genesis. The third is encoded in Exodus, the fourth in Leviticus, the fifth in Numbers, and the sixth – our present millennium – in Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy can be said to have ten parashoth (if we consider Nitzavim/Va-Yélech, which are read together in most years, as one). Hence, each parasha represents a century of the present millennium.

The Gr”a spent most of his lifespan (1720-1797 in the secular calendar) in the sixth century of the sixth millennium (which began with Rosh ha-Shana in the secular year 1740). When he was asked where in the sixth parasha (our parasha) there was to be found an allusion to him, one of the leading lights of his day, he answered without hesitation that it was to be found in the words אבן שלמה in XXV, 15, which commands that Israel use only honest weights and measures, an even shëléma. The initial alef is his first initial; the next two letters spell ben, “son [of]”; and the word shëléma is spelt identically with Shëlomo, his father’s name.

Continuing the Gr”a’s analysis, we note that the run-up to Israel’s greatest national calamity since the Romans’ destruction of the Second Beyth ha-Miqdash nearly 2,000 years ago, the Hurban Eiropa called in English the “Holocaust” and in modern Hebrew the Sho’a, as well as the opening acts of the Nazi genocide, occurred within the seventh century, marked by next week’s parasha, Ki Thavo’. That parasha contains near its end the tochaha, the “rebuke,” describing a time in which so many of aheinu bënei Yisra’él would fall away from Israel’s faithful core, and would be dispersed and lost.

We may find consolation in the fact that the present century, which began when the Holocaust was at its height, is characterized by Nitzavim/Va-Yélech, a parasha which describes a period of intense tëshuva. If we look about us, we cannot help but notice the immense expansion of the Ashkënazi yëshiva world which has taken place, both in North America and in Eretz Yisra’él in the 65 years since the end of the Second World War. Add to this the thriving hasidic dynasties with their many thousands of adherents, and the very robust and dynamic Sëfardic world as well, and we see how the faithful core of Israel has expanded and grown from the tiny remnant left after that war.

As we are about to enter into the eighth decade of the seventh century of the sixth millennium, we must take seriously the lesson provided by the Margaliyoth ha-Torah concerning the consequences of alienation from Israel’s core, and the Torah which unites and preserves it; we must take seriously the likely consequences of strife and disunity, as noted by the Këli Yaqar and the Hiddushei ha-Ri”m, if we are to continue on the path of tëshuva and reconciliation on which we have begun.

Parshath Shofëtim (Deuteronomy XVI,18-XXI,9) 8/13/10

A.

שפטים ושטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך אשר ד' אלקיך נתן לך לשבטיך ושפטו את העם משפט צדק: לא תטה משפט לא תכיר פנים ולא תקח שחד כי השחד יעור עיני חכמים ויסלף דברי צדיקים: (“Judges and enforcers shall you place for yourself in all your gates which Ha-Shem your G-d is giving you for your tribes, and they will judge the people [with] a just judgment. You will not pervert judgment, you will not recognize faces, you will not take a bribe [shohad], for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and falsifies the words of tzaddiqim”.) So begins our parasha.


What is very striking about the above passage is the unrelenting singularity of the pronouns used in it. Even though it appears to address communal and national institutions, ones which affect the nation or city as a whole, it is nonetheless worded entirely in the second person singular. Why should that be?


The second verse is also remarkable for its warning about bribery blinding the eyes of “the wise” and falsifying the words of tzaddiqim. In what way can the Torah consider anyone who would even contemplate taking a bribe a tzaddiq?

B.

Let us consider our second question first. The Talmud (כתובות ק"ה.) begins its discussion of the matter by asking what, precisely, the Torah is concerned about in the case of shohad: מה ת"ל אם ללמד שלא לזכות את החייב ושלא לחייב את הזכאי הרי כבר נאמר "לא תטה משפט" אלא אפי' לזכות את הזכאי ולחייב את החייב אמרה תורה "ושוחד לא תקח" (“What is the teaching to say? If it is to teach not to acquit the guilty and not to convict the innocent, it is already said, ‘You shall not pervert justice’! Rather, even to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty, the Torah has said, ‘you will not take a bribe’”).


Returning to the above passage from our parasha, Rashi explains: משקבל שוחד ממנו אי אפשר שלא יטה את לבבו אצלו להפך בזכותו (“From [the moment the judge] accepted the bribe from [one of the parties] it was impossible that he would not incline his heart toward him and overturn [the judgment] in his favor”). Hence, even if the bribe itself was unnecessary, in that the case should have been decided as it was, the fact of the bribe has the effect of casting a pall on the proceedings and rendering false even דברים המצודקים משפטי אמת (“words which are justified [dëvarim ha-mëtzuddaqim], true judgments”), i.e. words which, in any event, would have issued from a judge who was a great hacham and tzaddiq.


The Talmud concludes (שם ע"ב) that the very word shohad indicates its effect, and treats it as though it is a compound word, she—hu’ had, “that he is one” with one of the parties of the lawsuit. Applying our theory of primal roots, we confirm the Talmud’s judgment, since the meaning of the basic root חו"ד refers to something sharply pointed, reduced to a single point, and the radical prefix shin can be shown to have a causative sense (on the strength of the shaf‘él conjugation); thus, shohad is soemething intended to cause or force a false narrowing or convergence of views.

C.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל takes up the relentless singularity of our passage in his Darash Moshe. He notes that באוה"ח עמד בזה ונראה שבא להורות שהאדם צריך להיות שופט על עצמו לראות אם מעשיו מתוקנים וגם שוטר לעצמו לראות שיקיים מה ששפט עליו לעשות כו' (“In the Or ha-Hayyim [q.v.] he hit upon it, and it seems that a person must be a judge of himself, to see whether his deeds are correct, and also to be an enforcer on himself, to see that he carries out what he has judged for himself to do....”).

In other words, it is the individual who is able to judge and police himself at all times, even when no one else is watching. Indeed, it is only the individual who is capable of judging his true situation with perfect clarity and accuracy. Hence, the individual serious about serving the Al-Mighty must conduct a running self-audit.

Such an audit requires brutal honesty, and that is why our passage continues in the singular: Lo’ thatte mishpat, “you shall not pervert justice” and make excuses for yourself; lo’ thakkir panim, you will not look at your accomplishments in learning and count yourself a great man, incapable of error; vë-lo’ thiqqah shohad, you will not “bribe” yourself with inducements to look the other way, to give yourself the benefit of the doubt. Concerning yourself, there should be no doubt.

But that is not necessarily so with the society at large, and we find allusion to this difference in the first two paragraphs of the Shëma‘ (Deuteronomy VI, 4-9 and XI, 13-21). A careful reading of the first paragraph reveals that it, too, is couched entirely in the second person singular, whilst the second paragraph is primarily in the second person plural. Bearing this in mind, we note that there is no reference at all in the first paragraph to reward or punishment as a consequence of doing mitzvoth or not doing them; the passage simply tells us what we are to do. The second paragraph, however, is quite graphic in its depiction of what happens when the nation of Israel is obedient, and what happens when it is not.

This is because the first paragraph is addressed to the Jew as an individual. As an individual, he is, as we have seen, perfectly capable of assessing himself and knowing where he is on the continuum of righteousness. The second paragraph addresses the nation as a whole, the aggregate sum total of all those individual souls. Since it is impossible for the rabbinical leadership to know what is in the depths of each of those souls, some more or less objective criteria are provided, so that one can tell how the nation as a whole is faring.

D.

With this in mind, we turn to the end of our parasha, and the peculiar and unique sacrifice known as the ‘egla ‘arufa, the “broken-necked calf.”

A human corpse is found in open country, outside the jurisdiction of any town. No one knows anything of the circumstances of this poor person’s death. Careful measurements are taken, and the elders of the court of the town which is nearest have to perform this sacrifice. They carry it out, וענו ואמרו ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו (“And they answer and say, 'Our hands did not shed this blood, and our eyes did not see'”; XXI, 7).

The Talmud is led to exclaim: וכי על דעתנו עלתה שזקני ב"ד שופכי דמים הן אלא "ידינו לא שפכו", לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזונות, ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא לוי' (“And did it enter our minds that elders of the court are shedders of blood?! Rather, ‘our hands did not shed’ – he did not come to us, and we took our leave of him without [giving him] food; we did not see him, and leave him without an escort”; סוטה מ"ה: במשנה, ועיי' הגהות הב"ח ורש"י שם). (Incidentally, the sharp-eyed reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will already have noted the anomalous spelling of the word shafëchu, “shed” in our verse, with a hé’ instead of a vav. The Ém la-Miqra’ vëla-Massoreth offers amongst the proposed explanations of this anomaly the observation that the words ל"א שפכ"ה [“did not shed”] as written in our verse are composed of the initial letters of לוי' אכילה שתי' פרנסת כל הדרך, i.e. “escort, eating, drinking, provisions for the whole journey”).

Why do they make this declaration?

The Maharal mi-Prag, commenting on the passage from the Talmud, says: כי כל אשר הניחוהו ולא השגיחו עליו כאילו אין לו חלק בכלל והרי מוציאין אותו מן הכלל בני אדם, ודבר זה נקרא שפיכת דמים כאשר היו מבטלין כחו ואתרע מזלי' (“For to the extent that they left him and did not watch over him, it is as though he has no part in the community [këlal]; they are exclud-ing him from the këlal of human beings, and this thing is called bloodshed, in that they were negating his strength, and his luck went bad....”; חידושי אגדות למהר"ל על סוטה שם, וע"ע אורה אמימה על פסוקנו סי' נ"ג שגם הוא כתב כעין זה).

The Maharal’s point relates directly to what we have been discussing. An individual, alone with himself, is caught in the pitiless glare of a stark spotlight. All of his qualities, good and bad, stand out in sharp relief. Some people, of course, may be tzaddiqim gëmurim, so perfect in their righteousness that the spotlight reveals no warts or blemishes at all. But few of us indeed are in that category.

When one is part of a këlal, a member of a community, it has the effect of mitigating his blemishes somewhat, since there are doubtless others in the community more accomplished than he in those places which need work, and those areas in which he himself shines can serve, perhaps, to help others. The accumulated merits of the community at large are counted together, and each individual may benefit from them.

When our unfortunate traveler had stayed in the town, he was automatically a part of that town. When he left, he broke that connexion. Had the people of the town noticed his presence, noticed that he was about to leave, and given him food for the journey, accompanied him part way out of the town and into the open country, he would have retained that connection, and the collective merits of the community would have stood by him in his hour of need. This is why the elders of the nearest town are obliged to testify that it was not so, and that the community had not callously, uncaringly sent him away. Rather, he had not turned to them, they had not known of him.

It is precisely for this reason that we strive to pray with a minyan, to be part of a qëhilla qëdosha, a holy congregation.

The month of Elul is now upon us, and we are in the approach to Rosh ha-Shana and a new year. We must all consider ourselves “travelers” in this world, and as such, we must reflect: In one month’s time, if each of us stays only within his little space, he will be caught and judged in the pitiless glare of his own qualities alone. However, if we join as members of a serious congregation, consisting of people who in the main are striving to be bënei Torah, consciously trying to subject themselves to Rabbi Feinstein’s self-examination, we and they will benefit from our collective merits, and we shall enjoy an inscription in the book of life for health, happiness, and all good things.

May it only be so.

Parshath Rë’é (Deuteronomy XI,26-XVI,17) 8/6/10

A.

ראה אנכי נתן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה (“See, I am placing before you today a bëracha and a curse (qëlala). So begins our parasha.

The Sforno explains the very stark choice which this verse represents as follows: הביטה וראה שלא יהי' ענינך על אופן בינוני כי אמנם אנכי נותן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה שהם שני הקצוות כי הברכה היא הצלחה יותר מן המספיק ע"צ היותר טוב והקללה היא מארה מחסרת שלא יושג המספיק. שניהם לפניכם להשיג כפי מה שתבחרו (“Look and see that your affairs will not be in any mediocre fashion, for I am really placing before you today a bëracha and a qëlala which are two extremes, for the bëracha is success beyond what is sufficient on the better side, and the qëlala is a depriving execration, such that what suffices will not be obtained. Both of them are before you to be achieved, as you choose”).

After all, as our parasha also informs us later on, בנים אתם לד' אלקיכם כו' כי עם קדוש אתה לד' אלקיך בך בחר ד' להיות לו לעם סגלה מכל העמים אשר על פני האדמה (“You are sons to Ha-Shem your G-d.... For you are a people holy to Ha-Shem your G-d; He has chosen you to become His treasure-nation [‘am sëgulla] from all the nations which are on the face of the earth”; XVI, 1-2).

Having accepted the bargain at Sinai, Israel has evermore been subject to the obligation to live up to the mandates of the Torah. The Talmud points out that: בין כך ובין כך אתם קרוים בנים (“one way or the other, you are called sons”, i.e., whether we are observant or not, citing in support, amongst other verses, בנים לא אמון בם (“sons with no trust in them [bam]”; Deuteronomy XXXII, 20; קידושין ל"ו.).

In his comments on this verse, Rashi observes אין גדולי נכרים בהם כי הוריתים דרך טובה וסרו ממנה (“My great ones are not recognizable amongst them, for I taught them a good way and they departed from it”), going on to note that the unusual word émun, translated here “faith,” is related to omén in Esther II, 7, where it connotes training or raising a child, as well as לשון אמונה כו' אמרו בסיני נעשה ונשמע ולשעה קלה בטלו הבטחתם (“an expression of faithfulness... they said at Sinai ‘We shall do and we shall hear,’ and in a short while broke their promise....”).

The first paragraph of the Shëma‘ teaches us ושננתם לבניך ודברת בם (“And you will teach [words of Torah] to your children and speak about them”; Deuteronomy VI, 7), and the sëfarim ha-qëdoshim have long noted the odd word bam where we expect bahem, seeing in it an allusion to both the Written Torah, which begins with béyth, bë-réshith, “In the beginning” (Genesis I, 1), and the Oral Torah, which begins with mem, mé-eimathai, “From when” (ברכות פ"א מ"א). It seems to me likely that its recurrence in our verse is again an allusion to the “good path” to which Rashi refers.

So we see that, whilst G-d will not abandon us, and will continue to treat us as His children, neither will He coddle us, should we choose not to strive to live up to His expectations. Whether we are blessed or cursed depends upon us.

So what does it mean to be a holy nation?

B.

It is told of Rabbi David Leibovitz זצ"ל, founding rosh yëshiva of Yëshivath Hafétz Hayyim, that he was conversing with a lady who remarked, "Men darf zain frum un gut (One must be pious and good)." "Neyn," he gently corrected her, "Men darf zain gut un frum (No, one must be good and pious)." Some of the ramifications of Rabbi Leibovitz’s emphasis for a holy people are evident in our parasha.

Somewhat later, we read: כי יהי' בך אביון מאחד אחיך וכו' פתח תפתח את ידך לו ותתן לו די מחסרו אשר יחבר לו: השמר לך פן יהי' דבר עם לבבך בליעל לאמר קרבה שנת השבע שנת השמטה ורעה עינך באחיך האביון ולא תתן לו וגו' (“For there will be amongst you a poor man [evyon] of one of your brothers...Opening shall you open your hand to him and granting shall you grant him enough for his need which is lacking him. Guard yourself lest an unworthy thing be with your heart, to say, the seventh year has drawn near, the shëmitta year, and you look malevolently at your impoverished brother and do not give to him....”; XV, 7-9).

The Talmud (גיטין ל"ו.) records: רבי אומר "וזה דבר השמטה שמוט" בשתי שמטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמטת קרקע ואחת שמטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים וגו' (“Rabbi [Yëhuda ha-Nasi’] says, ‘And this is the matter of the shëmitta, shamot [release]’ [ibid., v. 2]; Scripture speaks of two shëmittoth, one is shëmittath qarqa‘ [under which cropland must lie fallow every seventh year] and one is shëmittath kësafim [under which debts are nullified]; at a time when you are releasing land, you are releasing funds....”). Plainly, the context of our parasha’s passage is the reluctance to lend to the poor in the shadow of the approaching shëmitta year, when the debt would be cancelled.

Rambam uses the passage to apply to lending to the poor in general (which, as he also notes, is actually derived from Exodus XXII, 24), concluding והתורה הקפידה על מי שימנע מלהלוות לעני שנאמר "ורעה עינך על אחיך האביון" (“And the Torah is stringent with one who refuses to lend to the poor, for it is said, ‘and you look malevolently on your poor brother’”; הל' לוה ומלוה פ"א ה"א).

The Lehem Mishne explains Rambam’s logic: וי"ל דמ"מ מיית ראי' דהוי איסור למנוע להלוות משמטה דכתיב בי' "ורעה עינך באחיך האביון" משמע דקפיד על מה שעינו רעה שאינו רוצה להלוות (“And one may say that he brings evidence that there is a prohibition of refusing to lend from shëmitta, concerning which it is written, ‘and you look malevolently at your poor brother’, indicating that [G-d] is concerned with the malevolent look, for he does not want to lend”). In other words, the impending shëmitta is only being used as an excuse for the miser’s stinginess. The stinginess is the issue, and needs the work.

C.

With this in mind, consider the encounter between Rabbi ‘Aqiva and the evil Roman military governor of Judaea, Turnus Rufus, recorded in the Talmud. Turnus Rufus asked: אם אלקיכם אוהב עניים הוא מפני מה אינו מפרנסן? (“If your G-d is such a lover of the poor, why does He not support them?”), Rabbi ‘Aqiva answered: כדי שניצול אנו בהם מדינה של גיהנם (“In order that we might be rescued through them from the judgment of Geihinnom”; בבא בתרא י.).

It is brought down in a multitude of sources that the Alter of Kelm questioned Rabbi ‘Aqiva’s explanation: What is it about the mitzva of tzëdaqa, of charitable giving or lending, which is more protective from punishment than any of the other mitzvoth?

He answered that the secret lies not in performing the mitzva simply because G-d wills it, and we wish to perform His will (important as that is); it lies in feeling the poor man’s pain and plight as though it were one’s own. Observed in this way, the merit of the mitzva of tzëdaqa is uniquely able to protect us from punishment for other transgressions.

An illustration of this quality may be found in a story I have heard concerning Rabbi Eliyahu Hayyim Meisels of Łódź, Poland, who was known for his empathy. One particularly brutal winter day, he set out to collect from a wealthy man who had the reputation of being a miser. When the householder saw the rabbi at his door, he bade him quickly come in, but the rabbi insisted on remaining outside to make his appeal. When the rich man protested that he could not stand the cold, the rabbi told him that he was there to collect for people so destitute that they could not afford a fire even on such a day. The putative miser saw the point, and gave generously.

D.

This, it seems to me, is the point of what Rabbi Leibowitz was quoted as saying above: That in order to fulfill the purpose for which Israel came into existence, an ‘am qadosh la-Shem (nation holy to Ha-Shem”) which is perceived as fit to bear the standard of Torah in the world, it is necessary to observe especially the mitzvoth she-béyn adam la-havéro (“between man and his fellow”) in a fashion which is li-fnim mi-shurath ha-din, more than a formal observance of the Torah’s requirements.

To paraphrase, it is necessary to make the conscious effort to be good, in order to be truly frum.

Parshath ‘Éqev (Deuteronomy VI,12-XI,25) 7/30/10

A.

והי' עקב תשמעון את המשפטים האלה ושמרתם ועשיתם אתם ושמר ד' אלקיך לך את הברית ואת החסד אשר נשבע לאבתיך: ואהבך וברכך והרבך וברך פרי בטנך ופרי אדמתך כו' ברוך תהי' מכל העמים וגו' (“And it will be, because [‘éqev] you will hear these judgments and you will keep and do them, Ha-Shem will keep the convenant and the kindness which He swore to your fathers. And He loves you, and will bless you and will increase you, and He will bless the fruit of your belly and the fruit of your land.... Blessed will you be by all the peoples....”). Thus opens our parasha.

The number of occurrences of one or another grammatical permutation of the root בר"ך, “bless,” in the above passage is striking. The usage of the word is interesting: If Israel keep their side of the deal which was struck at Sinai, G-d will “bless” them; the nations will bless them (translating the last verse according to the Talmudic reading [עיי' ירושלמי ברכות פ"ח ה"ח]; it can also be read “more blessed than all the peoples”); and yet, whenever we recite bërachoth they begin with a standard formula ברוך אתה ד' אלקינו מלך העולם (“Blessed are You, Ha-Shem our G-d, King of the universe....”) which appears to suggest that G-d can be blessed.

What exactly is a bëracha, a “blessing?” What does the term really mean? What is Israel here being promised?

B.

In addition to conveying the sense of blessing, the root also underlies the apparently, at first glance, unrelated words berech, knee, and bërécha, a pond or pool. The letters’ gimatriya, 222, is mathematically interesting, since its three letters consist of the number two in escalating orders of magnitude, units, tens, and hundreds. The sëfarim ha-qëdoshim assert that the number “two” (i.e., the letter béyth) signifies increase, since the halachic minimum of any plural term in the Torah is two (note that the second verse in our passage supra follows u-vérachëcha, “and He will bless you” with the parallel vë-hirbecha, “and He will increase you.” Contrast this with the root of the generic term for curse, אר"ר, which begins with an alef whose numerical value, one, is indicative of stasis, of a lack of increase, as we see from that word’s first occurrence in Genesis II, 17: ארורה האדמה בעבורך בעצבון תאכלנה כל ימי חייך (“Cursed is the ground because of you, in travail will you consume it all the days of your life”). Compare this not only with our passage, but also with, e.g., Exodus XXIII, 25: ועבדתם את ד' אלקיכם וברך את לחמכם ואת מימיכם וגו' (“And you will serve Ha-Shem your G-d, and He will bless your bread and your water”), i.e., increase them.

This provides a clue, and a path to understanding the etymology of at least one of the other words. Colloquially, we tend not to use the verb bérach so much as the noun bëracha, and in general we speak of “making bërachoth.” This, in fact, is precisely what the verb itself, in the factitive pi‘él conjugation, signifies: To bring a bëracha into being.

The words bëracha and bërécha are, in fact, spelt identically, only vocalised slightly differently. As a bërécha is a pool or reservoir of water, so is a bëracha a reservoir of metaphysical energy, infused into our world by our action in affirmatively recognising that G-d runs His world and is in fact the Author of everything in it. Thus, the declaration of Baruch Atta Ha-Shem with which we begin each bëracha recited over food, over some pleasure or amazing sight, before performing a mitzva, or on hearing good news, is not our “blessing” G-d, but rather our recognition that the Source of all blessings in the world is the Creator of all.

It is this recognition which leads the Talmud to declare: חייב אדם לברך על הרעה כשם שמברך על הטובה (“A person is obligated to make a bëracha over something bad, just as he is obligated to make a bëracha over something good”; ברכות נ"ד. במשנה), that is, we must accept the judgments and challenges of life in the same spirit as the recognizably, demonstrably good things, and understand that they, too, are for our good.

In this respect, then, we can understand the second odd word, berech. The ability to infuse energy into the cosmos is granted to those who submit, who bend their knees. As we say thrice daily in the ‘Aleinu: ואנחנו כורעים ומשתחוים ומודים לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא (“And we bow and prostrate ourselves and acknowledge before the Kings of kings of kings, the Holy One, Blessed is He”).

C.

But the fact is that everything in the universe came into being at the beginning, in the form of an utterance of G-d. The essential structure underlying every object and phenomenon in the universe is “encoded”, as it were, in the letters of the Holy Language which express them, and in the way in which they are configured. לעולם ד' דברך נצב בשמים (“For the world, Ha-Shem, Your word is established in the heavens”; Psalms CXIX, 89), which can also be read to mean, “Forever (i.e., as long as the universe lasts) Your word is established....” This is reflected in the physical world by he by now well-known equivalency between matter and energy (E =mc²), and by the law of conservation of energy, i.e. that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Hence, the total amount of mass-energy in the system is constant; what changes is the ratio of mass to energy.

If so, what does it mean to infuse additional metaphysical energy into this world from outside the system? The fact is, that whilst the metaphysical letters themselves are immutable once established, their configurations, or tzirufim, can be changed, and our parasha provides an excellent example of how this process works.

A bit later on, we read: ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך והיית חרם כמהו שקץ תשקצנו ותעב תתעבנו כי חרם הוא (“And you will not bring an abomination into your house, and you will be banned [hérem] like it; reviling you will revile it and abominating you will abominate it, for it is hérem’; VII, 26).

The Ba‘al ha-Turim notes the double occurrence of the word hérem in our verse, and points out that סמיך לי' "כל המצוה" לאמר שהעובר על החרם כעובר על כל המצות (“next to it [in the verse immediately following] is ‘every mitzva’, to say that one who violates the hérem is as if he violates all the mitzvoth”), a point which he backs up by noting that the gimatriya of hérem is 248, the same as the number of évarim (loosely translated “limbs”) counted by Hazal in the human body.

The consequence, in short, of having anything to do with idolatry is a negative effect on every part of one’s body. However, he goes on, sincere tëshuva, repentance for having anything to do with it, can effect a change, and erase the sin. The change is effected by changing the configuration of the letters, so that חרם, hérem, becomes רחם, rahém, “mercy,” a point which he buttresses by reference to the prophet, ברוגז רחם תזכר, “in anger, You remember mercy” (Habakkuk III, 2). Spelt the same, though vocalised differently, is rehem, a womb, the portal through which the sacred animating soul enters this world. The energy which we can bring into the world, allows us to affect the fundamental configurations underpinning our world.

D.

And this brings us to the relevance of our parasha to Israel in every time and place.

Later on still, the Holy Land is called an ארץ אשר ד' אלקיך דרש אתה תמיד עיני ד' אלקיך בה מרשית השנה ועד אחרית השנה (“Land which Ha-Shem your G-d seeks out; always are the eyes of Ha-Shem your G-d upon it, from the year’s beginning until year’s end”; XI, 12).

The word mé-réshith, roughly, “from [the] beginning,” in our verse is spelt anomalously, lacking an alef between the réysh and the shin. Hazal take note of the anomaly, and explain it to mean: כל שנה שרשה בתחלתה מתעשרת בסופה (“Any year which is poor [rasha] at its beginning becomes rich at its end”; ראש השנה ט"ז:). Rashi explains this concept of a year being “poor” at its beginning, שישראל עושין עצמן רשין בר"ה לדבר תחנונים ותפלה כענין שנאמר "תחנונים ידבר רש" (“that Israel make themselves poor [rashin] on Rosh ha-Shana for the sake of supplications and prayer, as the matter is said, ‘a poor man [rash] speaks supplications’ [Proverbs XVIII, 23]”).

I have heard in the name of Rabbi Hayyim Friedländer זצ"ל, late mashgiah of Yëshivath Ponevesh, an elaboration of this idea. He explains it as meaning that one must come honestly to, and internalize, the realisation that in fact one’s entire fate over the next year, one’s safety, health, family and financial situations, one’s life itself, is entirely determined Rosh ha-Shana. One must truly understand that, as of the first of the year, he has nothing to his name, and must earn it all from scratch, as it were, through his bërachoth, tëfilloth, vë-thahanunim.
This brings us to a consideration of the primal root, רו"ך, from which בר"ך is derived by prefixation.

The meaning of this primal root can be discerned from, e.g., II Kings XXIII, 19-20, in which the young King Yoshiyahu is told by G-d through a prophet: יען רך לבבך ותכנע מפני ד' בשמעך אשר דברתי על המקום הזה ועל ישביו להיות לשמה ולקללה ותקרע את בגדיך ויבכה לפני וגם אנכי שמעתי נאם ד': לכן הנני אספך על אבתיך וגו' (“Since your heart is contrite [rach] and you have submitted before Ha-Shem when you heard what I said about this place and its inhabitants [that they would] be for desolation and a curse, and you tore your garments and wept before Me, I, too, have heard. Therefore, behold I shall increase you over your fathers....”).

The heart of the ability to make efficacious bërachoth, it seems, is contrition and submission, רו"ך, to which the letter béyth, signifying “increase” is prefixed. If we can follow Rabbi Friedländer’s advice, and recognize and accept that we have nothing and are wholly dependent on the Master of the Universe, our bërachoth should be efficacious, and all good things increased, this coming Rosh ha-Shana.

Parshath Va-Ethhannan (Deuteronomy III,23-VII,11) 7/23/10

A.

This week’s parasha contains not only Moshe’s account of the founding of Israel, the Torah nation, at Ma‘amad Har Sinai when פנים בפנים דבר ד' עמכם בהר מתוך האש (“Face to face Ha-Shem spoke with you on the mountain from amidst the fire”; V, 4) and Israel heard the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth, the Ten Utterances often mischaracterized as the “Ten Commandments” (the word for commandment being mitzva, of which the Torah contains 613), but also numerous other passages familiar to us from our daily prayers, or regular participation in synagogue services or holiday rituals.

For instance, there is ואתם הדבקים בד' אלקיכם חיים כלכם היום (“And you who are clinging to Ha-Shem your G-d are living all of you today”; IV, 4), recited as the séfer Torah is being unrolled for reading on shabbath; the first paragraph of the Shëma‘, the fundamental declaration of Jewish faith recited thrice daily (VI,4-9); and also כי ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר מה העדת והחקות והמשפטים אשר צוה ד' אלקינו אתכם: ואמרת לבנך עבדים היינו לפרעה במצרים ויצאנו ד' ממצרים ביד חזקה (“For your son will ask you tomorrow to say, 'What are the testimony and the laws and the judgments which Ha-Shem our G-d has commanded you?' And you will say to your son, 'We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and Ha-Shem brought us out of Egypt with a strong hand”; ibid., 20-21).

This last is recognisable as the question which the hacham, the “wise son” asks, and the answer which the Haggada shel Pesah prescribes for him. The Haggada famously includes three other sons, the rasha‘ (“evil-doer”), the tam (“simple son”), and she-éyno yodéa‘ li-sh’ol (“one who does not know how to ask”), prescribing in each case a unique response. This, as numerous commentators on the Haggada note, demonstrates that there is no single approach to Torah education; rather, each person’s unique circumstances must be borne in mind in imparting the Torah to him.

With this in mind, let us consider an insight which I have heard in the name of Rabbi Moshe Tukatshinsky זצ"ל, late mashgiah ruhani of the Slobodka yëshiva in Bënei Bëraq.

B.

Much more than the four specific examples offered by the Haggada shel Pesah, Hazal advise us שבעים פנים בתורה, there are “seventy facets in the Torah” (במדבר רבה י"ג סי' ט"ו וע"ע זוה"ק ח"א מ"ז: ונ"ד., ח"ג רט"ז. ועוד ); each passage, each word, is subject to seventy possible interpretations.
Rabbi Tukatshinsky suggests that this number is not coincidental, citing in evidence a verse recorded in a prayer of Moshe: ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה ואם בגברות שמונים שנה וגו' (“The days of our years are seventy years, and if through strength, eighty years....”; Psalms XC, 10), i.e. the normal lifespan of a human being can be expected to last about seventy years, in exceptional cases, eighty some years. Therefore, he suggests, Ha-Shem loaded seventy levels of profundity into the Torah, so that uncovering them, year by year, should be the prime occupation of our lives.

But, continues Rabbi Tukatshinsky, it is hardly fair to expect a newborn infant to engage in even the simplest Torah study; first, it is necessary for him to learn to speak, to read, and begin to acquire some mental maturity. Hence, Rabbi Tukatshinky holds that childhood is entirely a time of preparation, and that the actual obligation to being uncovering the seventy levels does not begin until the age of 13, when a boy becomes bar mitzva and is obligated to observe the Torah.

‘Ad kan Rabbi Tukatshinsky. It should be noted in passing, then, that it is here that the additional years of gëvura, of “strength” or “heroism” come into play, and also that, lë-shittatho, Rabbi Tukatshinsky passed away at the age of 83, presumably on completion of the task he had been set.

C.

The implications of Rabbi Tukatshinsky’s insight will also serve to illuminate another passage in this week’s parasha. A bit later on, we read: ולא תתחתן בם בתך לא תתן לבנו ובתו לא תקח לבנך: כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי ועבדו אלהים אחרים וחרה אף ד' בכם והשמידך מהר: (“And you will not marry into [the other nation]; your daughter shall you not give to his son, and his daughter shall you not take for your son. For he will turn your son away from Me and they will serve other gods, and Ha-Shem’s anger will flare up against you and He will destroy you swiftly”; VII, 3-4).

As Rambam points out, אחד שבעים עממין ואחד כל אומות באיסור זה (“it is the same regarding the seven [Canaanite] nations, and all [other] nations concerning this prohibition”; הל' איסורי ביאה פי"ב ה"א).
This prohibition is one of a relatively small number in the written Torah for which the Torah also provides the rationale. Israel is not a nation like the other nations. As Bil‘am said of Israel, in the first of his aborted attempts to curse them for Balaq, הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב (“Behold a people dwells alone, and is not counted amongst the nations”; Numbers XXIII, 9). Just before Ma‘amad Har Sinai, G-d told Moshe that the purpose for which Israel was to come into being was to become His ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation”; Exodus XIX, 6). Israel, and therefore each individual member of Israel, was to be completely dedicated to G-d’s service, primarily elucidating His Torah, observing its tenets, and applying its principles to all of the problems of life so as to sanctify even the most mundane activities, making them all aspects of Divine service.

The reason, then, that we are not to intermarry with the nations of the world is not because they are ethnically inferior to us or less refined. Rather, it is because a native of another nation cannot be expected to possess the dedication to Ha-Shem’s service which a native of Israel should have. The inevitable result, as the Torah warns us, is that the foreigner’s family will turn your son (or your grandson, as Hazal have it [קידושין ס"ח:]) away from the dedication to Divine service, to elucidating the seventy facets of Torah, every Jew’s life’s work. (Perhaps the number of original nations, also seventy, constitutes another allusion to this concept, as a friend suggests).

Rashi famously notes the unique unity with which Israel undertook that holy purpose. Exodus XIX, 2 reports their arrival at Sinai: ויסעו מרפידים ויבאו מדבר סיני ויחנו במדבר ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר (“And they traveled from Rëfidim, and came to the Sinai desert, and they camped in the desert; and Israel camped [va-yihan] there opposite the mountain”). Every verb in the sentence save the last is plural, prompting Rashi to comment that they uniquely camped before the mountain כאיש אחד בלב אחד (“like one man with one heart”).

D.

In the haftara read this shabbath, the navi’ sings of Israel’s redemption from the final exile: נחמו נחמו עמי יאמר אלקיכם: דברו על לב ירושלם וקראו אלי' כי מלאה צבאה כי נרצה עונה כי לקחה מיד ד' כפלים בכל חטותי': (“Be comforted, be comforted My people, your G-d will say. Speak to Jerusalem’s heart and call to her, for her populace has been filled, for her transgression is forgiven, for she has taken from Ha-Shem’s hand a double measure [kiflayim] for all her sins”; Isaiah XL, 1-2). The double measure, kiflayim, refers to the destruction of both the First and Second Temples.

Indeed, our parasha foreshadows what was to come when that perfect unity of purpose broke down, והפיץ ד' אתכם בעמים ונשארתם מתי מספר בגוים אשר ינהג אתכם שמה (“And Ha-Shem would scatter you amongst the peoples [ba-‘ammim] and you would remain few in number amongst the nations [ba-goyim] whither Ha-Shem would lead you [asher yënahég Ha-Shem ethchem shamma]”; IV, 21), in which the Ba‘al ha-Turim discerns the gimatriya of ba-‘ammim (162) equivalent to béyn ha-Bavliyyim (“amongst the Babylonians”); that of ba-goyim (61) to uv’Madai (“and in Media”, i.e. the Medio-Persian state); that of yënahég (68) to bë-Yavan (“in Greece,” i.e. the Hellenistic world); and that of shamma (365) to mé-Romiyyim, “from [the] Romans,” i.e. western civilization, the final stage of the exile from which we shall be extricated).

Hence, all of the stages of our eventual exile were known at Israel’s founding. Why has this last stage gone on so much longer than all the earlier ones?

An answer is found in comparing Rashi’s comment on Exodus XIX, 2, supra, with one he makes on XIV, 10, where we read that at Yam Suf וישאו בני ישראל את עיניהם והנה מצרים נסע אחריהם וגו' (“...the bënei Yisra’él raised their eyes and behold, Egypt was pursuing them....”). The singular participle noséa‘ modifying Mitzrayim, “Egypt,” is as exceptional as the singular verb va-yihan at Ma‘amad Har Sinai, and Rashi similarly writes that the Egyptians were בלב אחד כאיש אחד (“with one heart, like one man”).

But note the difference in word order between the above comment and this one. Rabbi Yitzhaq Hutner זצ"ל in his Pahad Yitzhaq, explains that Israel’s unity is organic, essential and necessary to Israel’s survival in the world, whilst the nations are fundamentally disunited, and come together only temporarily, when their interests coincide. Thus, Israel’s unity of purpose, the desire to serve Ha-Shem (the “single heart”), derives from that organic unity, the “single man,” whilst for the nations, the “single man” is derived from their temporarily shared desire, the “single heart.”

This aspect of the nations is discernible by the coalition of Muslim fanatics and Leftists who oppose us today, having nothing whatever in common save their hatred of Israel, the same emotion which drove the Egyptians. But Israel’s unity is through Torah, as Rabbi Sa‘adya Ga’on famously declared in his Emunoth vë-Dé‘oth: אין אומתנו אומה אלא בתורה, “Our nation is not a nation, save through the Torah.” Every attempt to reduce our nationhood to an ethnic distinction, as is true of the nations of the world, is doomed to failure.

It is incumbent on us to do all we can to restore Israel’s unity on the basis of Israel’s true Torah culture. If we do our part, and there is an אתערותא דלתתא, an “awakening here below,” there will surely be an answering אתערותא דלעילא, an “awakening Above,” as the navi predicts in the passage supra, כי א-ל רחום ד' אלקיך לא ירפל ולא ישחיתך ולא ישכח את ברית אבתיך וגו' (“For a merciful G-d is Ha-Shem your G-d; He will not leave you and will not destroy you, and will not forget your forefathers’ covenant....”; Deuteronomy IV, 31).

Parshath Dëvarim (Deuteronomy I,1-III,22) 7/16/10

A.

This week’s parasha begins Moshe’s farewell address to Israel, which occupies most of the Book of Deuteronomy. The address comprises two intertwined elements: a recapitulation of Israel’s history ere now, with a masterfully delivered reminder and rebuke about the mistakes made along the way, and a recapitulation with additional details of the 613 mitzvoth (whence it is also known as Mishné Torah, translated as the Greek phrase underlying the English name, Δεύτερος νόμος, “Second Law”).


As in most cases, the name of the parasha derives from its first verse: אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל בעבר הירדן במדבר בערבה מול סוף בין פארן ובין תפל ולבן וחצרת ודי זהב: (“These are the words [ha-dëvarim] which Moshe spoke to all Israel on the bank of the Jordan, in the desert, on the plain, before Suf, between Paran and Tofel and Lavan and Hatzéroth, and Di Zahav”).


The Shlah ha-qadosh famously remarks (פרשת ןישב שצ"ז.) that the parashoth are related to the season in which they are read. As Dëvarim is usually read during the Nine Days from rosh hodesh Av to the Ninth of Av, the anniversary of the destruction of the Holy Temple, as it is this year, let us consider how they might be related.

B.

A careful examination of the apparently painstakingly detailed geographic description in the verse reveals that no such place exists (the first clue is “the bank of the Jordan, in the desert”; The Jordan Valley has never been describable as a “desert”). The Targum Onqëlos helpfully interprets them: אוכח יתהון על דחבו במדברא ועל דארגיזו במישרא לקבל ים סוף בפארן דאתפלו על מנא ובחצרות דארגיזו על בשרא ועל דעבדו עגל דדהב (“...he rebuked them because they had sinned in the desert, and angered [G-d] on the plain before Yam Suf; in Paran, because they fell upon the man; and at Hatzéroth, where they angered [G-d] because of the meat; and because they worshipped the Golden Calf”).


Rashi follows the Sifrei to comment on our verse: לפי שהן דברי תוכחות שהכעיסו לפני המקום בהן לפיכך סתם את הדברים והזהירם ברמז מפני כבודן של ישראל (“Because they are words of rebuke for angering the Al-Mighty in [these instances], he therefore said these words in an obscure fashion and only hinted at them because of the honor of Israel”).


Apart from thus providing a model on how to deliver an effective rebuke in fulfillment of the mitzva of הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך(“you shall surely rebuke your fellow”; Leviticus XIX, 17), Moshe was, I think, teaching another lesson, to us as well as to that generation, through his indirect presentation. Let us briefly examine each of the above instances.


The first instance, “in the desert,” says Rashi, is בשביל מה שהכעיסוהו במדבר (“for what they did to anger Him in the desert”); he offers in evidence Exodus XVII, 2: ויצמא שם העם למים וילן העם על משה ויאמר למה זה העליתנו ממצרים להמית אתי ואת בני ואת מקני בצמא (“And the people thirsted there for water, and the people complained about Moshe and said, 'Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to kill me and my children and my cattle with thirst?'”).


The second instance is “on the plain,” שחטאו בבעל פעור בשטים בערבות מואב (“where they sinned with Ba‘al Pë‘or at Shittim on the plains of Mo’av”); cf. Numbers XXV, 1-9.


The third instance, “before Suf” related to the cry of the fugitives caught between Yam Suf and the onrushing Egyptian chariotry: המבלי אין קברים במצרים לקחתנו למות במדבר מה זאת עשית לנו להוציאנו ממצרים: הלא זה הדבר אשר דברנו אליך במצרים חדל ממנו ונעבדה את מצרים כי טוב לנו עבוד את מצרים ממתנו במדבר .(“Are there not any graves in Egypt that you took us to die in the desert? What is this that you have done to us to take us out of Egypt? Is this not the thing which we told you in Egypt, Leave us alone and let us serve Egypt, for serving Egypt is better for us than dying in the desert”; ibid., XIV, 11-12).


The fourth and fifth instances are “between Paran and Tofel and Lavan”: הוכיחן על הדברים שתפלו על המן שהוא לבן שאמרו "ונפשנו קצה מלחם הקלוקל" ועל מה שעשו במדבר פארן ע"י המרגלים (“he rebuked them over the words with which they insulted [tafëlu, whence Tofel] the man, when they said, ‘Our soul is revolted by the light bread’ [Numbers XXI, 5] and over what they did in the desert of Paran through the spies [ibid., XIV, 1ff.]”).


The sixth, Hatzéroth, he tells us, refers either to the revolt of Qorah (ibid., XVI) or to the fact that they did not learn from the example of Miriam (ibid., XII, 1-16) and engaged in lashon ha-ra‘ in the aftermath of that revolt, in the same place (ibid., XVII, 6-8).


The seventh instance is that of the golden calf: הוכיחן על העגל שעשו בשביל רוב זהב שהי' להם שנאמר "וכסף הרביתי להם וזהב ועשו לבעל" (“he rebuked them over the calf which they had made because they had so much gold, as it is said, ‘Silver I amassed for them, and gold, and they made it into a ba‘al’ [Hosea II, 10]”; ע"ע ברכות ל"ב.).


In the last instance, the prophet offers a novel explanation of the sin of the golden calf which is not part of the complex of causes discussed so thoroughly in Exodus XXXII (and cf, A”Z Yashir, Parshath Ki Thissa’ 5770), which Rashi highlights, and which I believe provides a clue to all of the cases mentioned here by Moshe: They were overwhelmed by their sudden, new-found wealth. Within a matter of days they had gone from rags to riches and were wholly unprepared to deal with their new reality.

A careful reading of all of the instances above shows that such a case could be made in each of them. Thus, at each turn in the desert when the yotz’ei Mitzrayim faced some momentary lack (in the case cited, water), they reacted instinctively, because the concept of relying on Divine Providence was so new to them. The same can be said when they found themselves with no way out at Yam Suf; it took the extraordinary courage of Nahshon ben ‘Amminadav, who began to wade into the water, to break the spell. Similarly, the man, the weird, supernatural food which fell from the sky, and which did not induce any of the normal bodily functions involving the alimentary canal, must have seemed very spooky and strange to them. The reaction to the report of the mëragglim that the Promised Land was very rich, but also exceedingly well defended, likewise struck terror since, bë-derech ha-teva‘, a rabble of ex-slaves could not hope to overcome the well-equipped, disciplined armies and strong fortifications of the Canaanites.

Even Qorah’s revolt is understandable as the reaction of natural skepticism to all of the new customs and practices being introduced by Moshe in accordance with the Torah.

There remain the incident at Shittim, and the lashon ha-ra‘ in the wake of Qorah’s revolt. In these, I believe, lies the connexion to the Nine Days.

C.

The Talmud tells us that the cause of the First Temple’s destruction was the prevalence of ‘avoda zara, gilluy ‘arayoth, and shëfichath damim (“idolatry, sexual impropriety, and bloodshed”), and the proximate cause of the Second Temple’s demise was the rather more nebulous sin’ath hinnam (usually rendered “baseless hatred”; יומא ט:).

The incident at Shittim was caused by the active seduction of the Mo’avi women, under the enthusiastic leadership of their Midyani sisters of people not yet accustomed to the mitzva of ולא תתרו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם (“And you will not be drawn after your heart and after your eyes, for which you are lusting”; Numbers ). The price of their favors was submission to ‘avoda zara (op. cit., ע"ע). The history of the kingdoms preserved in the books of Kings and Chronicles reveals that it was the ruling class, those most exposed to foreign influence through their conduct of the kingdoms’ diplomatic affairs and international trade, amongst whom idolatry was lodged. If we read carefully the accounts of the disastrous reigns of Ah’av, ‘Athalya, Mënashe, and Amon, it becomes clear that the bloodshed resulted from their suppression of the opposition of the common people, spurred on by the Torah-leadership in the guise of the prophets. Thus, “on the plain” was a stark warning of what, unfortunately, eventually happened.

The case of the Second Temple requires some thought. In a certain sense, “baseless hatred” is an oxymoron. Ask anyone why he hates another, and you will receive a full set of reasons. The baselessness of the hatred relates to those reasons’ objective reality.

The books of ‘Ezra-Nehemya reveal that the society in Israel after the shivath Tziyyon consisted largely of the most enthusiastic ba‘alei tëshuva, “penitents,” resulting from the work of the Anshei Kënesseth ha-Gëdola. Over time, under the stresses of Greek and Roman overlordship, the upper classes again became corrupted (some of them becoming the Tzëduqim, Boethosim, and Mithyavnim), and even the Orthodox majority came to be divided amongst themselves, as the Zealots who fomented the rebellion against the Romans rose from their ranks (cf. the account in Josephus’ Jewish War). The common people (‘am ha-aretz) came to be estranged from the learned class (Përushim, Havérim) through misunderstandings, documented in the Talmud, and we may be certain that lashon ha-ra‘ played a prominent rôle in that estrangement.

Hence, the relevance of our parasha to the season in which it is read.

D.

But הקדים הקב"ה את הרפואה למחלה (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, put the cure before the disease; ).
As noted above, our parasha begins with the word élle (אלה, “these”), one of only six parashoth to begin with the letter alef. Of these, four begin with the word élle. As we established last week, the main meaning of the root of alef relates to learning (cf. Job XXXIII, 33; ע"ע אותוית דרבי עקיבא אות א').

The séfer Pa‘anéah Raza takes note of these facts, and points out that there are also six sëdarim (“orders”) into which the Talmud is divided. Four of these orders contain gëmara, as well as mishna, in the Talmud Bavli, and these four sëdarim comprise 36 massechtoth (‘tractates”), which happens to be the gimatriya of élle.

Conversely, he notes that in five massechtoth in the six orders, the first mishna begins with an alef, which he relates to the Hamisha Humshei Torah, the Five Books of the Written Torah. Hence, the second component of Deuteronomy, the complete Torah whose careful study and observance comprise the remedy for all the failings to which Moshe alludes in the first verse.

During this season of mourning for our great loss, let us resolve to do everything possible to eliminate the incidence of lashon ha-ra‘ amongst Israel, and thereby hasten its restoration and our redemption.

Parshath Mattoth-Massë‘ei (Numbers XXX,2-XXXVI,17) 7/9/10

A.

וידבר ד' אל משה לאמר: נקם את נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים אחר תאסף אל עמיך: וידבר משה אל העם לאמר החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא ויהיו על מדין לתת נקמת ד' במדין: אלף למטה אלף למטה לכל מטות ישראל תשלחו לצבא: ותמסרו מאלפי ישראל אלף למטה שנים עשר אלף חלוצי צבא: (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe to say, 'Take the vengeance of the bënei Yisra’él from the Midyanim; after, you will be gathered to your peoples. And Moshe spoke to the people to say, From amongst you men are to be equipped for the army, and they will be upon Midyan to wreak the vengeance of Ha-Shem on Midyan. A thousand per staff, a thousand per staff [elef la-matte] of all the staffs of Israel shall you send to the army. And there shall be given over from the thousands of Israel a thousand per staff, twelve thousand men equipped for the army”; XXXI, 1-5).

Israel had ample reason to wreak vengeance on Midyan, as we learnt in the last two parashoth. However, two oddities stand out in the passage supra which require comment, and suggest that this war was more than it seems on the surface:

(1) The change in language between G-d’s command to Moshe (niqmath bënei Yisra’él) and Moshe’s transmittal of that command to Israel (niqmath Ha-Shem); and

(2) The odd repetition of the phrase elef la-matte, occurring three times in the course of two verses.

B.

Hazal take note of the first issue: הקב"ה אמר נקמת בני ישראל ומשה אמר נקמת ד' במדין. אמר הקב"ה להם אינו אלא דיקו שלכם שגרמו לי להזיק אתכם. אמר משה רבון עולמים אם היינו ערלים או עובדי ע"ז או כופרי מצות לא היו שונאין אותנו ואינן רודפין אחרינו אלא בשביל תורה ומצות שנתת לנו. הלכך הנקמה שלך לתת נקמת ד' במדין: (“The Holy One, Blessed is He said, 'niqmath bënei Yisra’él,' and Moshe said, 'niqmath Ha-Shem bë-Midyan.' Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'It is only your injury which caused Me to hurt you.' Said Moshe, 'Master of the worlds, if we were uncircumcised, or idolators, or deniers of mitzvoth, they would not hate us and persecute us; rather, it is for Torah and mitzvoth which You gave to us. Therefore, the vengeance is Yours, "to wreak the vengeance of Ha-Shem on Midyan"’”; במדבר רבה פכ"ב סי' ב' וע"ע מתנות כהונה שם ד"ה בתנחומא ).

Rashi simply comments שהעומד כנגד ישראל כאלו עומד כנגד הקב"ה (“that one who stands against Israel is as though he stands against the Holy One, Blessed is He.”).

The Sifrei makes another point: that מואב ומדין מימיהם לא עשו שלום זה עם זה שנאמר "המכה את מדין בשדה מואב" וכשבאו להלחם עם ישראל עשו שלום זה עם זה ונלחמו בישראל (“since their beginnings, Mo’av and Midyan had never ,made peace, as it is written, ‘who smote Midyan in the field of Mo’av’ [Genesis XXXVI, 35], and when they came to fight with Israel, they made peace one with the other and fought against Israel”; פרשתנו פיסקא ה' בגירסת הגר"א), and the Nëtziv elaborates: דלכן קינא ד' יותר במדין ממואב משום שהמואבים הראו לישראל פנים של אהבה ולא גלו שנאת לבבם משום שהיו מתיראים שהיו שוללים אותם כו' אבל מדינים לא היו יראים מהם וגלו מצפוני לבבם ונתקוטטו ובזזו אותם וגו' (“that Ha-Shem was more zealous concerning Midyan than Mo’av, because the Mo’avim showed Israel a face of love, and did not reveal the hatred of their heart, because they were afraid of [Israel] that they would annihilate them... But the Midyanim were not afraid of them and revealed the sentiments of their heart and fought and plundered them....”; עמק הנצי"ב שם ד"ה אלא מאת מדינים).

It seems clear that the Midyani animus toward Ha-Shem and His Torah ran very deep and was of ancient origin, even pre-dating the founding of Israel, the Torah-nation, at Sinai, as evident from the Midyani hostility to Yithro, kohén Midyan, when he came to recognize the Most High (cf. Exodus II, 16-17), and from the later Midyani alliance with the equally implacable ‘Amaléq (cf., e.g., Judges VI, 3, I Samuel XIV, 6). It is plain that something very deep and significant was occurring in this war, something beyond a mere reprisal raid. What might it have been?

C.

The account of the Midyani War follows immediately on a passage concerning the laws governing oaths (shëvu‘oth) in Israel, which seems unrelated to the war. Yet, the account of the war begins with vav ha-hibbur, translated “and,” strongly suggesting a connection between the two.

The initial passage is also introduced oddly, Moshe saying, “this is the word (ze ha-davar) which Ha-Shem has commanded.” The Sifrei comments: כשם שנתנבאו כל הנביאים ב"כה אמר" כך נתנבא משה ב"כה אמר" ומוסיף "זה הדבר" (“Just as all the prophets prophesied with ‘Thus said [Ha-Shem]’, so did Moshe prophesy with ‘thus said’, adding ‘ze ha-davar’”; פרשתנו פיסקא א' בגירסת הגר"א).

The Bë’ér Moshe explains that the significance of this addition is that it denotes a revelation to Moshe, on a level far above that of the other prophets (and therefore certainly beyond us), of the metaphysical underpinnings of our universe. The universe came into being through G-d’s utterances, as a cursory review of Genesis I reveals. It continues to exist, and what we are pleased to consider the laws of nature remain consistent, because those utterances, those “words,” endure. This finds allusion in many biblical verses, e.g. לעולם ד' דברך נצב בשמים (“For the universe [lë-‘olam], Ha-Shem, Your word is established in the heavens”; Psalms CXIX, 89), or ודבר אלקינו יקום לעולם ודבריו חיים וקיימים לעד (“And the word of our G-d stands for the universe [lë-‘olam] and His words live and exist for ever”; Isaiah XL, 8).

The essence of all physical objects and phenomena in this world, the information content, the DNA, as it were, necessary for them to exist, is contained in the combinations of letters of the words in the Holy Language which describe them, ואלו היו האותיות מסתלקות כרגע ח"ו וחוזרות למקורן היו השמים והארץ אין ואפס ממש והיו כלא היו כלל כו' וכן כל הברואים שבכל העולמות עליונים ותחתונים וגו' (“and if the letters were to vanish for an instant, G-d forbid, and return to their Source, the heavens and the earth would literally be negated and nothing, and would be as though they never were... and so it is with all created things in all the worlds above and below...;עיי' תניא שער היחוד והאמונה פ"א ).

This also applies to the organization of all of the nations; each of them is sustained by the letters, whether that nation has in general a positive function in the world, or a negative one (עיי' תיקוני זהר קט"ז: ). Even in the latter case, ועוד כח אחד של קדושה המחיי' אותם וכו' וכשאנו מסלקים אותו הנקודה המחיי' אותם אז היו ספירות דקליפה נשארים מתים ואין להם חהות (“there is yet a single power of sanctity which sustains them... and if we remove that point which sustains them, then the negative forces remain dead and have no vitality”; פרי עץ חיים שער הקרבנות פ"ה).

This was Moshe’s task, explains the Rebbe; Moshe was the only one who thoroughly understood the combinations of letters which had been twisted and debased by the Midyanim, and was therefore the only one able to clarify those letters and return them to sanctity, thus disabling the very real disruptive capacity of Midyan. The root of nëqama, “vengeance,” נק"ם, implies the primal root קו"ם, “arise, stand up,” שהרי משה שורש הדעת של ישראל, לפיכך ציוה לו השי"ת "נקום נקמת בני ישראל" ויתפרש הלשון "נקום נקמת" על הקמת האותיות הנפולות בידי המדינים (“For Moshe is the root of Israel’s knowledge, therefore Ha-Shem commanded him nëqom niqmath bënei Yisra’él, and the phrase nëqom niqmath is clarified in reference to raising up the letters [haqamath ha-othiyoth] fallen at the hands of the Midyanim”).

Midyan, of Avrahamic origin like Israel, product of his union with Qëtura (cf. Genesis XXV, 1) represented so fundamental a warping of those letters that only Moshe was capable of reaching out and down to untangle the skein of their combinations and restore the letters to their sanctity.

After that it was up to Israel to keep them straight, and that is where the phrase elef la-matte comes in.

D.

The root of the word elef, אל"ף, has several connotations which appear unrelated: There is a sense of primacy or leadership (aluf, “chief”); of intensive, immersive learning and teaching (the verbs alaf and illéf; cf. Job XXXIII, 33, ואאלפך חכמה [“and I taught you wisdom”]); and the number 1,000 (elef). In my humble opinion, the root is indicative of the potential resident in every individual (alef, first letter of the alphabet with a gimatriya of one), which can be multiplied a thousand-fold and rising to leadership through the power of learning, the diligent study of the Torah taught Israel by Moshe. Indeed, Hazal define אל"ף as a notreiqon: א'מת ל'מד פ'יך שתזכה לחיי העה"ב (“Your mouth has learnt truth that you will merit the world to come’; אותיות דר' עקיבא א').

For the stability of the universe is not a given, it is conditional. אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה, G-d told Yirmëyahu, חקות שמים וארף לא שמתי (“If My covenant does not exist by day and by night, I did not set the laws of heaven and earth”; Jeremiah XXXIII, 25; ע"ע עבודה זרה ב:, שבת פ"ח. וזוה"ק ח"ג קצ"ג. וקצ"ח: ). Once Moshe made the world safe for the Torah-nation, the rest is up to us.

We see today that implacable enemies of Israel, Leftists and Muslim fanatics who otherwise have nothing in common, are united in their hatred of Israel, much as Midyan and Mo’av were, (interestingly, the Muslims also originating from the union of Avraham with a woman other than Sara), the Leftists, whose timidity might have prevented them from venting that hatred, now emboldened to do so. The secret of untwisting the skein, of nullifying this unholy partnership, is in our hands; as our parasha teaches us, it was placed there by Moshe, when he fought Midyan.

Parshath Pinhas (Numbers XXV,10-XXX,1) 7/2/10

A.

The theme of this week’s parasha is the continuity of the këhunna in Aharon’s line of descent. Originally, it was intended that the first-born male of every family in Israel would serve as a kohén (whence the requirement that a first-born son be redeemed through the ceremony of pidyon ha-bén). When G-d decided instead to entrust the këhunna to Aharon, the formulation used, Aharon u-vanav (“Aharon and his sons”), was ambiguous, in that it could be understood literally, or to refer to all of his descendants. Our parasha’s confirmation of Pinhas ben El‘azar ben Aharon ha-kohén in the bërith këhunnath ‘olam, the “eternal covenant of the këhunna,” removes all previous ambiguity. Therefore the latter part of our parasha revisits the qorbanoth, whose sacrifice constitutes one of the kohén’s core functions, providing additional details concerning them.

Specifically, our eye is drawn to the sacrificial order of rosh hodesh, the beginning of the month. After detailing the nature and order of sacrifice, the Torah concludes: זאת עלת חדש בחדשו לחדשי השנה (“This is the ‘ola [‘sacrifice burnt completely on the altar’] of the month at its renewal for the months of the year”; XVIII, 14), and then adds in the very next verse, almost as an after-thought, ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לד' על עלת התמיד (“And one male goat as a sin-offering [hattath] for Ha-Shem on top of the ‘ola of the tamid [the sacrifice offered regularly twice daily]”).

For what hét’ (“sin”) does this hattath atone?

B.

The Talmud deals with our question.

In the first mishna in Shavu‘oth, we learn: ועל שאין בה ידיעה לא בתחלה ולא בסוף שעירי הרגלים ושעירי ראשי חדשים מכפרין (“And in [a case of tum’a] concerning which [the person who became tamé’] had knowledge neither at the beginning nor at the end, the holiday and rosh hodesh goats atone” שם ב.). In short, the hattath atones when someone becomes tamé’ without being aware of it.
Later on, the gëmara takes up this mishna, and Rabbi Yëhuda explains the rationale: אמר קרא "ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לד'" חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא ד' יהא שעיר זה מכפר (“Says the verse, ‘and one male goat for a hattath for Ha-Shem,’ [for] a hét which no-one recognizes but Ha-Shem, this goat will atone”; שם ט.).

A bit later in the parasha, we note, e.g., concerning Passover: שעיר חטאת אחד לכפר עליכם (“And one goat, a hattath to atone for you”; ibid., 22; cf. also 30; XXIX, 5, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34 and 38), and the difference in the wording between this and rosh hodesh prompts Réysh Laqish to ask: מה נשתנה שעיר של ר"ח שנאמר בו "לד'" אמר הקב"ה שעיר זה יהא כפרה על שמיעטתי את הירח (“How is the goat of rosh hodesh different that about it is said ‘for Ha-Shem’? Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'This goat is an atonement [kappara] because I diminished the moon!'”).

To understand this remark, we must turn elsewhere in the Talmud; כתיב "ויעש אלקים את שני המאורות הגדולים" וכתיב "את המאור הגדול ואת המאור הקטן" ואמרה ירח לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע אפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד?! אמר לה לכי מעטי את עצמך. אמרה לפניו רבש"ע אמרתי לפניך דבר הגון אמעיט את עצמי?! כו' חזי' שלא קא מיתבא דעתה, אמר הקב"ה הביאו כפרה עלי שמיעטתי את הירח וגו' (“It is written, ‘And G-d made the great luminaries’ [Genesis I, 16], and it is written, ‘the great luminary and the small luminary’ [ibid.]; and the moon said before the Holy One, Blessed is He, Master of the Universe! Is it possible for two kings to use the same crown? He told her, Go and diminish yourself. She said before Him, I said before You a proper thing; I should diminish myself?!...He saw that she was not pacified; said the Holy One, Blessed is He, ‘Bring a kappara for Me because I diminished the moon....”; חולין ס:).

The sun and moon, the “great luminaries”, are of course physical objects; however, their movements and properties are directed by metaphysical sarim, “angels,” as it were, and it is their conversation with the Creator to which we are being made privy. The verse in Genesis implies that at first both were of the same size, and only subsequently did the moon become small.

Hazal tell us דכד ברא קוב"ה לשמשא ולסיהרא גזר לשמשא דאתחזא למיהוי שולטנא דעשו וגזר על סיהרא למיתב בעלמא דין שולטנא דיעקב ומני עליהון רברבין תקיפין כו' וההוא רברבנא דאתמני על סיהרא בגין אומה דיעקב בעא מן קוב"ה דאתיהב שולטנא לסיהרא בעלמא דין כו' אמר קוב"ה וכי מה בעינא אומה דיעקב אלא לעלמא דאתי כו' אבל בעלמא דין לכי מעטי את עצמך ואשתעבידי בגלותא למזכי לעלמא דאתי וגו' (“that when the Holy One, Blessed is He, created the sun and the moon, He decreed upon the sun that it appear to constitute the dominion of ‘Esav, and decreed upon the moon that it establish in this world the dominion of Ya‘aqov, and appointed over them mighty sarim... And the sar which had been appointed over the moon on behalf of the nation of Ya‘aqov asked of the Holy One, Blessed is He, that dominion be given to the moon in this world... Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, 'Why do I need the nation of Ya‘aqov, save for the world to come... but in this world, go, diminish yourself, and be subjected in the Exile to merit the world to come....”; זוהר חדש י"ד.). Even though this world is not Israel’s natural abode, we are here to “establish dominion,” to infuse sanctity as the ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (“kingdom of kohanim and holy nation”; Exodus XIX, 6) and thereby disestablish Edom.

The Maharsha notes that the male goat (sé‘ir) is emblematic of Edom/‘Esav (cf., e.g., Genesis XXXIII, 16, XXXVI, 20), whose power is in and of this world. The sacrifice of the sé‘ir reduces Edom’s strength, ושיהי' גם לישראל לפעמים ממשלה בעוה"ז כירח הזו שפעם שהיא מתגדלת בתחלת החדש ופעם שהיא מתקטנת בסף החדש וכן הוא הענין בכנסת ישראל וגו', (“such that Israel, too, will at times have reign in this world like this moon, which first waxes at the month’s beginning, and wanes at the months’s end; so is it with the assemblage of Israel”; חולין שם ד"ה א"ל ועיי' כל דבריו שכתב באריכות).

Israel can only prosper in this world, in which we are, individually and collectively, exiled, by first breaking the power of ‘Esav/Edom through the power of tëshuva and atonement, as embodied in the sé‘ir of rosh hodesh.

C.

If the above is so, why is this appeasement of the moon’s sar termed a hattath la-Shem? One approach is that of the ‘Aruch, who comments: שעיר זה כפרה לישראל ועלי לקביע שמן כפרה זו וקבעתי ר"ח להפיס דעתה של ירח (“[G-d says] this sé‘ir is a kappara for Israel, and it is for Me to fix the time of this kappara, and I fixed rosh hodesh to appease the moon”; מובא בתוס' לשבועות שם ד"ה שעיר).

Hence, lë-halacha, as noted in the mishna cited supra and codified by Rambam (הל' שגגות פי"א ה"ט), the hattath applies to Israel, whence we read lachem, “for you,” concerning, e.g., Passover. La-Shem, “for Ha-Shem,” shows the Divine timing of the së‘ir rosh hodesh. But as we have seen, G-d says explicitly הביאו עלי כפרה, which certainly seems to mean, “Bring on My behalf a kappara....” Let us enlist the aid of the Maharal mi-Prag to dig a bit deeper.

D.

The Maharal notes that the Torah applies the conventional concepts of hattath and kappara to human beings; the notion that G-d committed an improper act requiring atonement is untenable on its face. Rather, consider what the words really mean, כי כל הסרה וסילוק נקרא כפרה כו' ולפיכך מה שאמר "הביאו קרבן כפרה עלי" הוא סילוק התרעומת במעשה ד' כו' כי זה מדת הש"י שנותן מעלה תחת שפלות שהגיע לו עד שהכל שוה כו' ולא נמצא תרעומות אצל הבורא וזה מה שנתן לה קרבן בראש חודש, שלא תמצא בחמה ובכל שום צבא השמים מדריגה זאת שנגד שנתן לה מיעוט וגו' (“for any removal or dismissal is called kappara... and so what He said, ‘Bring a qorban kappara on My account,’ refers to the removal of any dissatisfaction [tir‘ometh] with Ha-Shem’s act... For it is a measure of Ha-Shem, to grant a heightened status [ma‘ala] to offset any degradation, until everything is in balance... and no tir‘omoth with the Creator are found; hence, that He gave her a qorban on rosh hodesh, not found with the sun or any of the celestial host, this degree being compensation for her diminution....”).

So kappara reëstablishes the Divinely desired balance and harmony between Creation and its Creator; the issue, as always, lies with the creature, not with G-d.

Wherein lies the ma‘ala conferred by the qorban? יש לך לדעת כי הקרבן שנקרא בשם הזה מורה על הקירוב שיש ביום הזה אל הש"י יותר מבשאר הימים והנה המיעוט של הירח גורם להתקרבות אל הש"י אשר מקרב השפלים והקטנים כו' ולכך ראוי שיהי' יום זה שמיעט הירח כו' בהתחדשות הירח ובאותו זמן הירח הוא יותר קטן ולכך הוא מקבל על ידי זה גם כן קירוב וגו' (“It is for you to know that a qorban, because it is called by this name, points to the closeness [qiruv] to Ha-Shem one has on this day more than other days, and the moon’s diminution causes this closeness to Ha-Shem, Who brings close the lowly and small.... And so it is fit that this day when He diminished the moon.... be at the moon’s renewal, and at the same time be at its smallest, through which it receives also qiruv....”; באר הגולה, באר רביעי).

The bottom line of hattath, then is kappara, the removal of tir‘omoth intervening between G-d and man. The primary function of the moon being temporal, allowing Israel to mark the months, sacrifice of the sé‘ir at rosh hodesh breaks the power of ‘Esav, source of tum’a, and enables Israel’s mission to establish dominion in this world, and merit the next.

The sanctity of holidays differs from that of shabbath, in that shabbath is wholly Divinely ordained, but Israel determine the actual days on which the holidays are fixed in any given year by fixing the rashei hodashim. Here, too, the sé‘ir rosh hodesh is symbolic: it is up to us to do tëshuva, bring about kappara, and remove any tir‘ometh preventing the mission’s fulfillment.