Parashath Nitzavim-Va-Yélech (Deuteronomy XXIX,9-XXXII,30) 9/22/11

A.

In this week’s double parasha, as the Holy Nation prepares to enter the Holy Land, Moshe promises: ד' אלקיך הוא עבר לפניך הוא ישמיד את הגוים האלה מלפניך וירשתם יהושע הוא עבר לפניך כאשר דבר ד': ועשה ד' להם כאשר עשה לסיחון ולעוג מלכי האמרי ולארצם אשר השמיד אתם: ונתנם ד' לפניכם ועשיתם להם ככל המצוה אשר צויתי אתכם: חזקו ואמצו אל תראו ואל תערצו מפניהם כי ד' אלקיך הוא ההלך עמך לא ירפך ולא יעזבך: (“Ha-Shem your G-d is the one passing before you; he will destroy these nations from before you and you will inherit them; Yëhoshua‘ is the one passing before you, as Ha-Shem has spoken. And Ha-Shem will do to them as He did to Sihon and to ‘Og, kings of the Emori, and to their land, in that He destroyed them. And Ha-Shem will give them before you, and you will do to them according to all the mitzva which I have commanded you. Be strong and be brave, fear not and tremble not before them, for Ha-Shem your G-d is the one Who goes with you, He will neither let you down not abandon you”; XXXI, 3-6).

The alert reader אשר לו חוש חי לשפה העברית (“who has a living sense of the Hebrew language”), as one of my rebbe’im was wont to say, will already have noticed several peculiarities in our passage, which is the bulk of a paragraph in the original text and thus forms an organic whole, which may not be immediately obvious in English translation:

1. For instance, all of the second person pronouns in the first verse are in the singular; the third verse abruptly shifts to the second person plural, and the final verse begins in the second person plural, but ends (beginning with the word Eloqecha, “your G-d”) in the singular once again; why?

2. Moshe first promises that Ha-Shem will destroy Israel’s enemies, as He has done before, then suddenly admonishes them that they are to be the vehicle of the Canaanites’ downfall and destruction; how are those two statements compatible?

3. Having already promised that Ha-Shem would destroy the Canaanites, Moshe adds “as He did to Sihon and ‘Og; what does that add to the promise, which He already made?

4. Finally, given that the promise was already made that Ha-Shem would fight their war for them, why is it necessary to say and repeat that they should be strong, courageous, and so on? Why should they not be strong and courageous, knowing that the Divine power which had laid low the world’s superpower of the day, Egypt, was on their side?

The entire passage begs: Dorshéni! (“Interpret me!”). So let us do so.

B.

We begin by considering a midrash: מצינו תינוקות בימי דוד עד שלא טעמו טעם חטא היו יודעין לדרוש את התורה מ"ט פנים טמא מ"ט פנים טהור כו' אחר כל השבח הזה יוצאין למלחמה ונופלין אלא שהיו בהם דילטורין היו נופלין כו' אבל דורו של אחאב כולן עובדי ע"ז היו ועל ידי שלא היו בהן דילטורין היו יוצאין למלחמה ונוצחין וגו' (“We find little children in David’s day who had not yet tasted the flavor of sin, who knew how to research Torah in order to find 49 ways to declare [a given case] tamé’ and 49 ways to declare it tahor... After all this praise, they would go out to war and there would be casualties, for there were amongst them dilatorin... But Ah’av’s generation were all idolators, but because there were no dilatorin amongst them, they would go out to war and win [bloodless] victories....”; ויקרא רבה פכ"ו סי' ב' ). The Mattë-noth Këhunna defines dilatorin as בעלי לה"ר ורכילות, slanderers and tale-bearers.

This may be compared with another midrash: גדול השלום שאפי' ישראל עובדי' ע"ז ושולום ביניהם אמר המקום כביכול איני יכול לשלוט בהם כיון ששלום ביניהם שנא' "חבור עצבים אפרים הנח לו" וגו' אבל משנחלקו מה הוא אומר "חלק לבם עתה יאשמו". הא למדת גדול השלום ושנואה המחלוקת (“Great is shalom for even if Israel are idolators and there is shalom amongst them, G-d says, as it were, I cannot control them since there is shalom amongst them, as it is said: ‘Efrayim [a metaphor for the northern kingdom of Israel, over which Ah’av ruled] is attached to idols; leave him be’ [Hoshéa‘ IV, 17]. But as soon as they are divided, what does it say? ‘Their heart is divided; now they are guilty’ [ibid., X, 2]. So you have learnt: Great is shalom, and hated mahloqeth”; בראשות רבה פל"ח סי' ו').

Shalom is commonly translated “peace”, but it means much more than that; its root connotes “whole, complete, perfect.” In Eretz Yisra’él people are commonly greeted with the question , Ma shëlomëcha? “How are you?” “How is your health, your well-being, your general situation?” By juxtaposing these two midrashim, then, we see that the secret of military victory is unity of purpose amongst the units and the individual soldiers in the army. So long as all of them are whole-heartedly devoted to the task at hand, they cannot be defeated; but when their ranks are riven with mahloqeth, with strife and division such that there is no unity of purpose then, as we have seen, there are casualties.

C.

Now, in this light, let us reëxamine our passage.

It begins in the second person singular: If there is single-minded unity of purpose, if each member of the nation is absolutely dedicated to Torah u-mitzvoth such that Ha-Shem is Eloqecha, your individual, personal G-d, then you need have no fear. G-d will fight your battles for you; “He will destroy these nations from before you and you will inherit them.” Incredible miracles will happen, and there will be no necessity for war; Yëhoshua‘ will go before you, simply as the rav and poséq, the leader and halachic authority for your generation.

Was there ever such perfect unity amongst Israel? There was indeed, at Mattan Torah. The Torah itself tells us: ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר (“And Israel camped there before the mountain”, when they arrived at the foot of Sinai; Exodus XIX, 2). My alert reader with the living sense of Hebrew will note that the verb is third person singular, prompting Rashi to comment: כאיש אחד בלב אחד (“like one man with one heart”). a unity so perfect and so wonderful that we celebrate it every year at the Passover séder, when we sing: אילו קרבנו לפני הר סיני ולא נתן לנו את התורה דיינו (“Had He brought us near Mt Sinai and not given us the Torah, it would have been enough for us!”). And not given us the Torah?!

To that extent is so perfect a unity transcendent, the utter solidarity elevating everything around it to sanctity, uniting this world with the next; as the Be’ér Moshe notes several times, Yisra’él is a notreiqon, an acronym for Yésh Shishim Ribbo’ Othiyoth La-Torah (“The Torah has 600,000 letters – counting the spaces between words, which therefore also carry meaning, as letters; this is the same as the number of men who stood at Sinai). Had that perfect unity lasted, it would have brought out the Torah which was inherent in Israel’s genotype from the Patriarchs (עיי' מה שכתבתי בא"ז ישיר לפרשת לך לך משנת תשס"ו עפ"י בראשית רבה פנ"ט סי' א' שאכן היתה התורה כעין ירושה גופנית מהאבות עד א"א). This is what such perfect unity can accomplish.

אבל שאר כל החניות בתרעומת ובמחלוקת (“But the rest of all the encampments were with murmuring and dispute”), Rashi continues, following the Mëchilta. Such unity is not the norm; so the Torah was given to Israel externally, through the medium of Moshe.

Which leads us to the second part of our passage. If there are differences in Israel, if the unity is not perfect and seamless (as the plural pronouns indicate), but there is at least no lashon ha-ra‘ to exaggerate and exacerbate the differences, such that they are respected, then the victory is not openly miraculous: It is instead like the campaign against Sihon and ‘Og, a conventional war with casualties, but it is no less assured. It is still G-d delivering the victory, but under cover of “nature,” behind the scenes, as it were.

Such differences must be, in short, differences which conform to Torah. The Mishna tells us that such a mahloqeth is possible, and terms it a mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim, a “dispute for the sake of Heaven” (אבות פ"ה מי"ז). As Rabbi ‘Ovadya mi-Bartenura goes on to comment, such a mahloqeth is characterized by a pure and genuine search for truth, for the best and most perfect form of Divine service. Such a mahloqeth is sofah lë-hithqayyém, destined to continue. The army of Ha-Shem may be divided into different regiments, but the regiments must be part of the same army.

D.

On the last clause in our passage, lo’ yarpëcha vë-lo’ ya‘azvekka, Rashi comments: לא יתן לך רפיון להיות נעזב ממנו (“He will not give you weakness, not to be forsaken by Him”). Weakness is not normally compatible with the concept of giving or granting; rather, it results from something being taken away; so what does Rashi mean?

Elsewhere we read: כי א-ל רחום ד' אלקיך לא ירפך ולא ישחיתך (“For a merciful G-d is Ha-Shem your G-d, he will not weaken you [lo’ yarpëcha] and will not destroy you”; Deuteronomy IV, 31), and there Rashi comments: להחזיק בך בידיו ול' לא ירפך ל' לא יפעיל הוא (“To hold you in His hands’, and the expression lo’ yarpëcha is a causative form”).

G-d’s support, Hazal tell us, is כאבא דאחיד בבנו (“like a father holding his son”; זוה"ק ח"ג קי"ב:); there is no chance of “accidental” weakness, just as a father is ever conscious that his child depends on him, and so maintains a firm and tight grip so as not to let him fall, so, too, were G-d to “let us fall”, it would be a deliberate, positive action (implied, Rashi hints, by the causative verb), and that, Rashi assures us, will never be.

This is the nature of the covenant we have entered into: If we move with perfect unity, perfect cohesiveness, as we did at Mattan Torah, all of the veils vanish before our eyes, the true underpinnings of the universe become apparent, and open miracles, without the concealing curtain of nature are the norm. If, being merely human, we differ, but differ within the frame of Torah, in the sincere and earnest search for truth on both sides of the dispute, the same things still happen, but this time behind the curtain of “nature,” with plausible deniability.

For so long as Israel remain Israel, remain true to the covenant of Sinai, however much we may differ over details and customs, He will not let us fall; He will not abandon us.

A comforting thought, in the wild and uncertain world before us, as we approach the new year.

Parashath Ki Thavo’ (Deuteronomy XXVI,1-XXIX,8) 9/16/11

A.

Our parasha this week is known for the presence of a long passage called the Tohacha, or “Rebuke.” After detailing all the blessings which would flow to Israel for heeding the Torah and doing their level best to adhere to its precepts (XXVIII, 1-14), the passage begins: והי' אם לא תשמע בקול ד' אלקיך לשמר לעשות את כל מצותיו וחקתיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום ובאו עליך כל הקללות האלה והשיגוך (“And it will be, if you do not listen to the voice of Ha-Shem your G-d to keep [i.e., “learn”] to do all His mitzvoth and His laws which I am commanding you today, and all of these curses will come upon you and engulf you”).

Our passage then proceeds to detail the horrors which, as any student of Jewish history can assure us, were all too accurate a description of our sad history: Conquest, expropriation, exile, enslavement, lives of terrible uncertainly and upheaval, תחת אשר לא עבדת את ד' אלקיך בשמחה ובטוב לבב מרב כל (“Because you did not serve Ha-Shem your G-d with joy [simha] and goodness of heart [uvë-tuv lévav] from an abundance of everything”; ibid., 47). The Talmud quotes this verse, and asks: איזו עבודה שהיא בשמחה ובטוב לב הוי אימר זו שירה (“What service is with simha and tuv lév? I would say, this is song [shira]”; ערכין י"א.).

So in the midst of plenty, all the blessings of Ha-Shem, Israel did not sing as they performed their service; for this, all the gruesome horrors of Jewish history have been heaped upon us?!. How is this justified?

B.

The great Rabbi Eliyahu Eli‘ezer Dessler זצ"ל, in his classic work the Michtav Mé-Eliyahu, discusses the conditions of gratitude (in Hebrew, hakkarath ha-tov, literally, “recognition of good”) and ingratitude (këfiyath tova, which really means something like “extinguishing” or “averting” good, by refusing to recognise it gratefully). In the course of his discussion, he makes the observation that ‘Ésav possessed the midda, the “measure” of a notél, a “taker,” in that he saw it as his right and privilege to take whatever he wanted, as much as he was able, from the world, on the theory that בשבילי נברא העולם, “For me [alone] was the world created!”; עיי' למשל סנהדרין ל"ז.), such that he is entitled to everything in it.

Such a terrible characteristic, continues Rabbi Dessler, inevitably leads to another bad midda in that he becomes këfuy tova, ungrateful for each and every good thing, for he is convinced that it is his by right and entitlement. Këfiyath tova leads to permanent dissatisfaction, envy and hatred, because the mere fact that anyone has anything which the këfuy tova would find desirable means that he is being victimized, that what he sees as his property by right is being wrongfully withheld from him. It is this sense of permanent dissatisfaction which underlies ‘Ésav’s remark on his reunion with his brother Ya‘aqov: יש לי רב, “I have much” (rov; Genesis XXXIII, 9), much but not everything, and so not enough (מכתב מאלי' ח"א קונטרס החסד פ"א וי"א).

This may be contrasted with Ya‘aqov’s character, exemplified by what he told ‘Ésav: כי חנני אלקים וכי יש לי כל (“...For G-d has been gracious to me, for I have everything [kol]”; ibid., 11). Ya‘aqov’s midda, by contrast, is that of a nothén, a “giver,” whose purpose in life is to do for others, to perform Ha-Shem’s mitzvoth out of sheer love of G-d, as a gift to Him; such a person is filled with a sense of gratitude. Indeed, the very generality of the sense is suggested by the slight grammatical anomaly between the terms hakkarath ha-tov and këfiyath tova. As my good friend Rabbi Dr Alan Corré שליט"א has pointed out to me in a different context, the masculine gender of the word tov indicates the quality of goodness in general, whilst the feminine tova points to any singular act or instance of goodness (for other examples, cf. shoshan, a lily motif, in e.g. I Kings VII, 19, 22, 26, vs, shoshanna, a single lily; dema‘, “weeping,” tears in general, vs. dim‘a, a single tear; geva‘, “hill-country,” vs., giv‘a, a single hill; and so on). Ya‘aqov’s general attitude is thus suggested by his prayer as he awaited ‘Ésav’s arrival: קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת אשר עשית את עבדך (“I am less [literally, ‘smaller’] than all the kindnesses and all the truth which You have done with Your servant”; Genesis XXXII, 11).

This is the quality with which G-d wished Ya‘aqov’s descendants to be imbued.

C.

With this in mind, our passage becomes relevant. The hint lies in the accusation being made against Israel, that we have not served Ha-Shem with joy mé-rov kol, “from,” that is, “because of” a sense that we have rov kol, “much of everything,” but not, in fact, everything.

In other words, our final exile, this one in which we have been immured for so long, with such a horrific history, came about because, in the Torah’s judgment, by the end of the Second Temple Period Israel had begun to adopt the morés of the prevailing culture, that of the Romans, descendants of Edom, that is, ‘Ésav, the overlords of that day. They had begun to become a bit këfuyei tova, which led to tzaruth ‘ayin (“envy, stinginess”), which tended to amplify every difference and disagreement between one Jew and another, resulting in the infamous sin’ath hinnam, “groundless hatred” between Jews, culminating in the Jewish War, the destruction of the Second Temple, as the Talmud informs us (יומא ט.), and our present exile.

D.

How to solve the problem? Hazal relate the phrase simha vë-tuv lévav, as we see, to shira, and shira, quite simply, is a metaphor for Torah: ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת ולמדה את בני ישראל שימה בפיהם למען תהי' לי השירה הזאת לעד בבני ישראל, Moshe enjoins is later: “Write for yourselves this shira and teach it to the bënei Yisra’él, place it in their mouths, so that I shall have this shira amongst the bënei Yisra’él for ever”; XXXI, 19; ועיי' בענין זיהוי השירה בתורה סנהדרין כ"א: ועירובין נ"ד: בין השאר). Learning Torah, teaching Torah, observing Torah, not as a burden but in the spirit of Yisra’él sabba, of our Grandfather Ya‘aqov, amidst love and joy, in the critical mass of most, if not all, of Israel will surely counter the sin’ath hinnam.

The Maharal mi-Prag, points out another way in which the shira of Torah is related to rov kol, in that כאשר יש לאדם עושר ראוי לו ללמוד ביותר בתורה אחר שיש לי כל וגו' (“when a man has wealth it is fitting for him to learn more Torah, since he has everything”), deriving the principle from our verse. Engaging in the shira mé-rov kol, then, is in his view a given, והפך זה העוני מבטל את האדם מתורתו שאי אפשר לו לעסוק בתורה שצריך להשתדל אחר מזונו ומחייתו (“and the opposite of this, poverty abates a man from his Torah, for it is impossible for him to engage in Torah, since he must scramble after his sustenance and livelihood”; דרך חיים פ"ד מ"ט ). Indeed, Hazal tell us: איזהו עשיר השמח בחלקו (“Who is wealthy? One who is happy with his lot”; תמיד ל"ב.), and: כל המבטל את התורה מעושר סופו לבטלה מעוני (“Anyone who neglects the Torah from wealth is destined to neglect it from poverty”; אבות פ"ד מי"א).

The month of Tishrei with its quartet of holy days, Rosh ha-Shana, Yom ha-Kippurim, Sukkoth, and Shëmini ‘Atzereth, is fast approaching us. No Jewish observance better exemplifies the principle of hakkarath ha-tov than Sukkoth, called by Hazal not coincidentally in our tëfilloth, zëman simhathénu, “the time of our rejoicing.” Sukkoth occurs at the harvest, specifically at the time when a person is most likely to feel the sense that yésh lo kol, “he has everything.” At this very time, Israel are enjoined to demonstrate their character as nothënim, “givers,” in that throughout the seven days of Sukkoth, 70 qorbanoth, for the benefit of the 70 other nations, are brought in the Béyth ha-Miqdash, Israel’s own qorban occurring only on the eighth day, the final holiday of Shëmini ‘Atzereth.

And during the entire time the seventy qorbanoth are being offered, each ish mi-Yisra’él leaves his permanent home to dwell in a temporary hut, one whose roof is typically constructed of the discarded remains of the harvest, stalks, branches, and vines, a demonstration that, even with regard to his life in this world, he dwells bë-tzilla di-mheimnutha, “in the shade of faith,” as the sëfarim ha-qëdoshim term the sëchach, the thatch on the hut.

We must persist in this eternal shira, we may not despair, for this spirit is destined to triumph in the world around us: והי' כל הנותר מכל הגוים הבאים על ירושלם ועלו מדי שנה בשנה להשתחות למלך ד' צב-אות ולחג את חג הסכות (“And it will be, the remnant of all the nations coming against Jerusalem will ascend, year on year, to bow to the king of Ha-Shem Tzë-vaoth, and to observe the holiday of Sukkoth”; Zechariah XIV, 16).

“Ésav’s këfiyath tova will vanish, to be replaced by hakkarath ha-tov, as the nations come to sit with us bë-tzilla di-mheimnutha.

Parashath Shofëtim (Deuteronomy XVI,18-XXI,9) 9/2/11

A.

Our parasha ends with the peculiar ceremony of the ‘egla ‘arufa, the “beheaded heifer.” As the Torah tells us, the circumstance is that a corpse is found lying in some field in the Holy Land; no-one knows who this person is, nor do the know how he died. The local rabbinic authorities, זקניך ושפטיך (“your elders and judges”), measure the relative distances from the surrounding towns to the site, to determine the one closest to the corpse. The authorities of that town are to take an עגלת בקר אשר לא עבד בה אשר לא משכה בעל: והורדו זקני העיר ההוא את העגלה אל נחל איתן אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע וערפו שם את העגל בנחל: ונגשו הכהנים בני לוי כי בם בחר ד' אלקיך לשרתו ולברך בשם ד' ועל פיהם יהיו כל ריב וכל נגע: (“heifer of beef who has never been worked, has never drawn the yoke. And the elders of that town will bring the heifer down to a barren stream-bed [nahal eithan] which will never be worked nor sown. and they will behead there the heifer in the dry stream-bed. And the kohanim bënei Lévi will approach, for it is they whom Ha-Shem your G-d chose to serve Him and to bless in Ha-Shem’s name and according to them [is settled] every quarrel and every affliction”; XXI, 3-5).

The kohanim and the local rabbis wash their hands over the beheaded calf, and declare: ידינו לא שפכה את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו: כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית ד' ואל תתן דם נקי בקרב עמך ישראל ונכפר להם הדם: (“Our hands did not shed [lo’ shafëchu] this blood and our eyes did not see. Atone for Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, and put not innocent blood in the midst of Your people Israel; and the blood will be atoned them”; ibid., 7-8).

Two things stand out in this rather riveting ritual, and beg to be explained:

Rashi summarizes the Talmud (סוטה מ"ח:) in his comments in explanation of the declaration: וכי עלתה על לב שזקני בית דין שופכי דמים הם אלא לא ראינוהו ופטרנוהו בלא מזונות ובלא לוי' (“Did it enter the heart that the elders of the local court were shedders of blood!? Rather, ‘We did not see him and dismiss him without provisions and without an escort'”). In other words, had this poor fellow passed through our town, he would not have been allowed to proceed alone, unprotected, to an uncertain fate.

That said, two things in particular stand out in this passage, and beg to be interpreted:

(1) Why does the Torah make a point of ancestry of the kohanim, who here are engaged in their core function of maintaining the relationship between the Holy Nation and Ha-Shem by maintaining the peace, calling them bënei Lévi, specifically regarding this particular occurrence? After all, every kohén is a lineal descendant of Moshe’s older brother Aharon it has been no secret ere now that they are therefore Lëviyyim.

(2) The sharp-eyed reader with a living sense will have noted that the word “shed,” sha-fëchu, is spelt not with the expected vav on the end, but rather with a hé, suggesting a feminine singular verb (“she shed”), rather than a third person plural. Why?

B.

The Even ‘Ezra asks why it is so important that the nearest town to the unfortunate deceased be involved: ויתכן שהשם צוה לעשות כן העיר הקרובה כי לולי שעשו עבירה כדומה לה לא נזדמן להם שיהרג אדם קרוב מהם ומחשבות השם עמקו וגבהו לאין קץ אצלינו (“And it would seem that Ha-Shem commanded the nearest town to do this, because, had they not committed a transgression similar to [what Rashi mentions], it would not have occurred that a person would be killed near them; Ha-Shem’s thoughts are endlessly deep and exalted for us.”)

This comment would appear to be inspired, at least to some extent, by the final verse in our parasha: ואתה תבער הדם הנקי מקרבך כי תעשה הישר בעיני ד' (“And you shall expunge the innocent blood from your midst, for you will do what is upright in Ha-Shem’s eyes”).

If the declaration made by the town’s hachamim is accurate and not mere rhetoric (we assume as a matter of course that they have done their due diligence and found no glaring instance of callous behaviour of the sort mentioned) why does this unfortunate’s innocent blood need to be expunged? Of course the inhabitants should “do what is upright in Ha-Shem’s eyes,” regardless of the tragedy discovered in their vicinity.

Hazal apply the principle which the Even ‘Ezra discerns to be at work here in many arenas. For instance, concerning the case of a sota, a woman suspected of adultery (cf. Numbers V, 11-31), followed immediately by the account of a nazir, a person who vows to abstain from wine (ibid., VI, 1-21), the Talmud relates: תניא ר' אומר למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה לומר לך שכל הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין (“It is taught: Rabbi [Yëhuda ha-Nasi’] says, 'Anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace should vow to abstain from wine”; ברכות ס"ג. וע"ע סוטה ב. ונזיר ב.). That he came to witness such a sight should be viewed as primâ facie evidence that some flaw in his character is also being highlighted; similarly, in our case, if the elders are unable to unearth any obvious case of malfeasance which might have occasioned this person’s death, the only course is to try to strengthen the town’s general level of observance, especially of the mitzvoth she-bein adam la-havéro, (“mitzvoth between man and his fellow”) in hopes of catching and correcting whatever subtle problem is being indicated.

C.

With this in mind, let us take our question of the kohanim bënei Lévi.

Hazal tell us דהא כהנים מסטרא דחסד אתו ואע"ג דאחיד אהרן בהוד בחסד נמי אחיד (“that the kohanim come from the side of hesed [‘kindness’], even though Aharon is singled out by the [sëfira of] Hod, he is also singled out by hesed”; זוה"ק ח"א רנ"ו: בהשמטות). A bit later, the Zohar goes on to explain that Hod is indicative of gëvura (“might, power”; שם רס"ו:), so that we see that Aharon, and therefore his descendants, partake of both qualities.

As it happens, this dual-rootedness of the kohanim in hesed and gëvura appears to be a direct consequence of the Levitical heritage whence they sprang: פקודא דא להיות הלויים משוררים במקדש כו' הכא צריך לחדש מלין דהא כהן איהו מקריב קרבנא ואיהו מיכאל לוי איהו גבריאל איהו צריך לנגנא ורזא דמלה "יומם יצוה ד' חסדו" דא חסד כהנא רבא כו' "ובלילה שירה עמי" דא גבורה. שירה "בכור שורו הדר לו". "ופני שור מהשמאול" וגבריאל שלוחי' וגו' (“This mitzva that the Lëviyyim be singers [mëshorërim] in the Sanctuary... Here it is necessary to originate words, for a kohén is the one who brings sacrifice [and in this, functions like the angel] Micha’él; the Lévi is Gavri’él, he is obliged to sing. And the essence of the matter is ‘By day Ha-Shem commands His hesed’ [Psalms XLII, 9] – this is the hesed of the kohén gadol [since all sacrifices are offered by day]...’and by night, sing [shira], My people’ [ibid.] – this is gëvura. [The meaning of] ‘Shira’ [may be learnt from] ‘the first-born, His ox [shor] is His splendor’ [Deuteronomy XXXIII, 17]’; ‘And the face of a shor on the left’ [Ezekiel I, 10], and Gavri’él is His emissary....”; זוה"ק ח"ג קכ"א: ברעיא מהימנא ; the entire passage hangs on rabbinic puns, gëvura and Gavri’él sharing a root, and mëshorér, shira, and shor likewise sharing a primal root).

And: "קח את הלויים" וגו' הא אוקמוה דבעי לדכאה לון לאמשכא לון לאתקשרא באתרייהו בגין דאינון דרועא שמאלא וסטרא דדינא וגו' (“‘Take the Lëviyyim....’ [Numbers VIII, 6]; it is established that it is necessary to compel them, to draw them, to put them in their places, for they are of the left arm and the side of judgment [sitra dë-dina]....”; שם שם קנא:).

The kohanim, then, represent hesed arising from gëvura and din, responsible hesed, hesed which has some basis in the relative merits of those to whom it is applied. Once the original dispensation of unbridled hesed, unlimited and unrelated to its recipients’ merits (symbolized by the twenty-six verses of כי לעולם חסדו in Psalms CXXXVI, apposite the 26 generations from Creation to the generation of Exodus), which ran its course, and frustrated and blocked itself, necessitating Israel’s Exodus from Egypt and acceptance of the Torah to clear the blockage, whereupon Aharon and his sons were appointed kohanim to keep the renewed energy of hesed flowing, thus holding physical and metaphysical entropy at bay. But their management of Israel’s, and the world’s, relationship with Ha-Shem also necessitates their reaching deep into the Levitical roots.

The declaration of the local hachamim over the ‘egla ‘arufa that, to their knowledge, no-one in the nearby town was guilty of gross indifference or stinginess toward the unfortunate stranger found in the vacant field, is telling. Verse 5, after rehearsing that the kohanim are bënei Lévi, goes on to describe their function in resolving disputes and dealing with nëga‘im, afflictions of tzora‘ath. Hazal tell us, based on Leviticus XIII, 2-6, שהנגעים באים על צרות העין (“that the nëga‘im come because of stinginess”; יומא י"א:), at least those which afflict houses. But the determination that a given manifestation on the wall of one’s house is genuine tzora‘ath is made by a kohén....

Sometimes, the maintenance of the vital relationship between this world and the next requires gëvura and din in the sense of rochaha, “rebuke,” over the discovery of some neglected area of observance; in this case, an apparently subtle neglect of the mitzvoth bein adam la-havéro which led to the townspeople’s coming to witness, in their own backyard, as it were, so violent and horrifically ultimate a violation of those mitzvoth, that they might see and take heed....

That function of tochaha requires the gëvura and din inherent in the kohanim through their Levitical heritage.

D.

Which brings us to our orthographical oddity.

The Ém la-Miqra’ vëla-Massoreth notes that the phrase לא שפכה, as the words are written rather than lo’ shafëchu, “(they have not shed,” as they are read, consists of the initials of lëviya, achila, shëthiya, parnasath kol ha-derech (“escort, eating, drinking, provisioning for the whole way”), i.e. the very things which the town’s elders deny having neglected, and yet, as a result of whatever subtle flaw there has been in their observance of these very things, they have been, in however slight or indirect a fashion, parties to the premature departure of a human soul. The gimatriya or numerical value of the letter ה is “five,” and the complete human soul, known by the abbreviation נרנח"י (conventaionally vocalised neronhay, consists of five metaphysical components, from lowest to highest, nefesh, ruah, nëshama, hayya, yëhida.

Now that we are in the month of Elul, final month of the sacred year, it is customary every morning to sound the shofar, the ram’s horn whose plaintive call to tëshuva is meant to remind us, too, that even if our observance of the mitzvoth might seem exemplary, might even pass the muster of our own rabbinical authorities, there is nonetheless always room for improvement.

May we all come to recognize those areas on our own, and resolve to do better in the new year, that we not require a wake-up call such as the ‘egla ‘arufa.

Parashath Rë’é (Deuteronomy XI,26-XVI,17) 8/26/11

A.

A passage in this week’s parasha provides an example of how depths of meaning are encoded in the text of the Torah, as well as a timely lesson for this season in which we find ourselves.

בנים אתם לד' אלקיכם, Moshe tells us: “You are sons [banim] of Ha-Shem your G-d,” and then goes on to tell us the ramifications; therefore לא תתגדדו ולא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת: כי עם קדוש אתה לד' אלקיך ובך בחר ד' להיות לו לעם סגלה מכל העמים אשר על פני האדמה: (“do not cut yourselves and do not put a bald-spot between your eyes for the dead. For you are a people holy to Ha-Shem your G-d, and [it is] you [whom] has Ha-Shem chosen to become a people precious to Him from all the peoples who are on the face of the earth”; XIV, 1-2).

As Rashi points out (following Talmudic sources) the simple meaning of the above prohibitions appears to be to forbid certain excessive mourning practices prevalent amongst ancient peoples who engaged in self-mutilation as a sign of grief (עיי' יבמות י"ג:, קידושין ל"ו., מנחות ל"ז: וע"ע ספרי פרשתנו על אתר). However, this is not the only place in the Torah in which self-mutilation is proscribed (cf. e.g. Leviticus XIX, 28 and XXI, 5-6, where the prohibition is similarly posed as a condition of qëdusha, “sanctity”).

The reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will already have noted the sharp shift from the second-person plural forms of the first verse to the singular forms of the second (which are not readily apparent in the English translation). The shift is very striking, something no one would do in any ordinary narrative, and yet a glance at a sefer Torah shows that the two verses form a paragraph together, set off by blank spaces between the foregoing and following passages.

What is the change in number meant to tell us?

B.

We first take note that one of the Talmudic sources cited supra goes on a bit later to explain the phrase lo’ thithgodëdu, “you will not cut yourselves,” as meaning לא תעשו אגודות אגודות, “you will not make groups and groups” (יבמות י"ד.), in a rabbinic pun of the verb on the related word agudda, “band” or “group” (in the sense of a “faction” “cut out” of the whole), seeing in the verse a call for Jewish unity (with reference to the specific example of a single béyth din in a single city, hopelessly split between competing schools of thought, half agreeing with Béyth Shammai and half with Béyth Hillél).

With this in mind, we turn to the midrash and learn: "אספה לי" זש"ה "הבונה בשמים מעלותיו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה" למה"ד לפלטין שהיתה בנוי' ע"ג הספינות כ"ז שהספינות מחוברות פלטין שעל גביהן עומדת כך הבונה בשמים מעלותיו כביכול כסאו מבוסס למעלה בזמן שישראל עושין אגודה אחת. לכך נאמר "הבונה בשמים מעלותיו" אימתי בזמן "ואגדתו על ארץ יסדה" כו' שכינוסן של צדיקים הניי' להם והניי' לעולם וגו' (“‘Gather for Me’ [70 men...., i.e. the first Sanhedrin; Numbers XI, 16]; this is what Scripture says: ‘Who builds [Ha-bone] in the heavens His heights, and founds His group [aguddatho] on the earth’ [Amos IX, 6]. To what is the thing similar? To a pavilion built upon ships; so long as the ships are attached [one to the other], the pavilion upon them stands; thus, ‘Who builds in the heavens His heights’, is as though His throne is well founded Above at a time when Israel form one agudda. For this reason it is said, ‘Who builds in the heavens His heights’; when? At a time ‘and founds His agudda on the earth..for the association of tzaddiqim is a benefit to them and a benefit to the world’”; במדבר רבה פט"ו סי' י"ד).

Thus, we see that when Israel and our tzaddiqim, talmidei hachamim are united in their views and their efforts, it makes a tremendous impression Above, performing a necessary tiqqun. a “correction” or “adjustment”, since, as the prophet suggests, G-d’s heavenly throne, that is, His reign upon this earth, is founded upon this show of unity here below, where He established His agudda. Hence, our gëmara’s view of the prohibition lo’ thith-godëdu, that there not be other aguddoth, that we avoid mahloqeth, “controversy” and strive for unity amongst Israel. This, I believe, is why our second verse, with its reference to Israel’s qëdusha, is couched in the second person singular, to emphasize that unity.

But what does it mean that there be “one agudda” here below?

C.

The Mishna famously defines two sorts of mahloqeth: כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים ושאינה לשם שמים אין סופה להתקיים. איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים, זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי. ושאינה לשם שמים, זו מחלוקת קרח ועדתו (“Any mahloqeth for the sake of Heaven [lë-shém shamayim] will end with a continued existence, and one which is not lë-shém sha-mayim will not in the end have continued existence. Which is a mahloqeth lë-shém sha-mayim? This is the mahloqeth of Hillel and Shammai. And which is not lë-shém sha-mayim? This is the mahloqeth of Qorah and his sect [cf. Numbers XVI; אבות פ"ה מי"ז).

In his comment on this mishna, Rabbi ‘Ovadya mi-Bartenura explains the essence of a mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim: התכלית והסוף המבוקש מאותה מחלוקת להשיג האמת כו' מתוך הויכוח יתברר האמת וגו' (“the purpose and end which is sought from this mahloqeth is to grasp the truth...from out of the debate the truth is clarified....”). But surely in most such disputes, there can be only one thing which turns out to be true; so how can there be a mahloqeth which has a qiyyum, a continuous existence?

The Maharal mi-Prag builds on this idea: מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים יש לה קיום אף כי הם הפכים כי הוא כו' המאחד שני ההפכים כי אף שמחולקים והפכים בעצמם מ"מ מצד השי"ת הם מתאחדים כי הוא ית' שהוא אחד הוא סיבה לשני הפכים דבר זה בעצמו אחדותו ית' שאם לא הי' הוא סיבה רק לדבר אחד כאילו תאמר שהוא סיבה לאש ואם כן ח"ו עוד סיבה להיפך האש הם המים כו' וזה כו' מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל כי אף שאלו פוסלין ואלו מכשירים ואצל האדם הם שני דברים שהם הפכים מכל מקום מצד השי"ת אשר המחלוקת הזו לשמו ית' אשר הוא ית' כולל ההפכים ומן השי"ת יצאו ההפכים מצד זה הם אחד (“A mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim has a qiyyum even if [the sides] are opposites, for He is the One Who unites two opposites. For even if they are divided and opposed in themselves, nonetheless with regard to Ha-Shem they are united, for He, in that He is One, is the Source of the two opposites; this thing in itself is His unity, for if He were the cause of only one thing, it would be as if you were to say that He is the cause of fire, and if so, G-d forbid, there would be another cause for the opposite of fire, i.e. water... and this... is the mahloqeth of the House of Shammai and Hillel, for even though one forbids and the other permits [something], and to a person these are two things which are opposed, nonetheless with regard to Ha-Shem, for Whose sake this mahloqeth [occurs], and Who contains the opposites, and from Whom the opposites proceed, from His point of view they are one”; דרך חיים פ"ד).

If the purpose of the mahloqeth is to arrive at emeth (“truth”), then the fact that emeth for which both sides are striving and which originates with Ha-Shem, arises in this world from the dispute, this means that both parties to the argument will live on and remain valid for ever. As the Talmud tells us concerning the specific example of the mahloqeth béyth Shammai u-véyth Hillél, שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותו מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן (“Three years Béyth Shammai and Béyth Hillél argued, one saying, 'The halacha is like us,' and the other saying, 'The halacha is like us'; a heavenly voice came out and said, 'These and these are the living words of G-d, and the halacha is like Béyth Hillél.' And if both are the living words of G-d, why did Béyth Hillél merit that the halacha should be like them? Because they were mild and humble, learning their words and the words of Béyth Shammai; and not only that, but they would give Béyth Shammai’s precedence over theirs”; עירובין י"ג:).

This is the level of mutual respect and love necessary in a mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim.

D.

We see, then, from the Maharal’s words that the Jewish unity implicit in the deeper meaning of our verse and explicit in our midrash can embrace differences, but they must be differences whose purpose is the unambiguous search for Ha-Shem’s truth, and whose acknowledgment is made with true love and respect. In this way, it is possible for many camps to flourish in Israel, hasidim, bënei yëshiva, Sëfardim, Ashkënazim, etc. lë-mineihem.

The mahloqeth against which our verse and the midrash warn us is the destructive sort, not for the sake of heaven; such mahloqoth engender not mutual respect and love but hatred and dissent. These, two, create an impression Above; it was only a short time ago that we were reminded, on the fast of Tish‘a bë-Av, that the second Temple’s destruction was due to sin’ath hinnam, “groundless hatred” (יומא ט.). The months in which the final, des-perate battle in the Holy City took place (both times) were Tammuz and Av, which the Bënei Yisaschar tells us are called ‘éynayim, “eyes,” based on the verse from Eicha: על אלה אני בוכי' עיני עיני יורדה מים (“because of these do I weep; my eye, my eye, drips water...”; Lamentations I, 116).

This, then, is what our verse warns us against: To be in unity with our hachamim and tzaddiqim; not to engage in mahloqeth she-éynah lë-shém shamayim, which is not sanctioned and hallowed by those very tzaddiqim and hachamim, lest we make, through mahloqoth of the wrong sort, a blemish, a “bald-spot” between the ‘éynayim.

By establishing instead the unity of purpose expressed by the Maharal, the unity in diversity which embraces mahloqeth lë-shém shamayim (symbolized by the plural forms of the first verse), we can truly be banim, that is bonim, “builders,” for Ha-Shem, as Hazal tell us: תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם שנאמר "כל בניך למודי ד' ורב שלום בניך" אל תקרי בניך אלא בוניך (“talmidei hachamim increase peace in the world, as it is said, ‘All your sons [banayich], learned of Ha-Shem, and great is the peace of your sons’ [Isaiah LIV, 13]; read not banayich, but bonayich [‘your builders’]”; ברכות ס"ד.).

As a result, such mahloqoth lë-shém shamayim become not aguddoth, “factions”, but are united into aguddatho, “His faction”; as the united ships uphold the pavilion, so does the unitary truth emergent from mahloqoth lë-shém shamayim support the Divine throne, as it were, bringing about the infusion of the Shëchina ha-qëdosha in this world, whence Israel becomes the unified ‘am qadosh marked by the singular forms of our second verse.

Parashath ‘Éqev (Deuteronomy VII,12-XI,25) 8/20/11

A.

In this week’s parasha Moshe reminds Israel: וזכרת את כל הדרך אשר הוליכך ד' אלקיך זה ארבעים שנה במדבר למען ענתך לנסתך לדעת את אשר בלבבך התשמר מצותו אם לא: ויענך וירעבך ויאכלך את המן אשר לא ידעת ולא ידעון אבתיך למען הודיעך כי לא על הלחם לבדו יחי' האדם כי על כל מוצא פי ד' יחי' האדם: (“And you will remember the whole way which Ha-Shem your G-d has made you go now forty years in the desert, in order to torment you to test you to know what is in your heart, will you keep His mitzvoth or not. And He tormented you and made you hungry and fed you the man which you had not known, nor had your fathers known, in order to inform you that it is not upon bread [lehem] alone that a person lives, that it is upon everything which comes out of Ha-Shem’s mouth [kol motza’ pi Ha-Shem] that a person lives”; VIII, 2-3).

Our attention is drawn especially by the last verse; of course one needs food, here symbolized by the generic term lehem; what does the Torah wish to impart to us by contrasting lehem with kol motza’ pi Ha-Shem?

B.

The Maharal mi-Prag offers the following insight: There are, he says, three different categories of parnasa, “livelihood”: האחת כדי לפרנס ולהחיות נפשו כמו שנתן לאדם הלחם, כי הלחם הוא חיי האדם בודאי וכדכתיב "כי לא על הלחם לבדו יחי' האדם." (“The first is in order to support and give life to his nefesh, for which He gave human beings lehem, for lehem is certainly [necessary for] human life, as it is written: ‘For not upon lehem alone does a person live’”).

השני הוא הפרנסה שנתן לו אף כי אין צריך לו רק להנאתו ולטובתו ואין חיות האדם תלוי בו כמו השמן והיין, ואין צריך אלו דברים רק לתוספות הנאה ולא לצורך חיותו. (“The second is parnasa which He has given one, even though it is not essential to him, [but] merely for his enjoyment and benefit; human vitality is not dependent upon it, for instance, oil and wine; one does not need these things, they are only for additional enjoyment, and not essential to his life”).

והשלישי הוא שנותן לו הש"י אף שאינו נהנה ממנו רק שעל ידו יתוקן הדבר, כי כל דבר שברא הש"י צריך תיקון, כמו החטים לבשל, וכן הבשר וגו' (“And the third is what Ha-Shem gives one, even though he does not [immediately] benefit from it, just that by means of it a thing is improved, for everything which Ha-Shem created requires improvement/adjustment [tiqqun], for instance wheat for cooking, and similarly meat....”; נצח ישראל פ"ה וע"ע נתיבות עולם ח"א נתיב גמילות חסדים פ"א).

From the Maharal’s words, it seems logical to conclude that the first category, encompassing the absolute minimum essentials of life, is what our passage means by lehem, whilst the other two categories, food items which are beneficial but not utterly essential and the knowledge and capability to improve them (e.g., through cooking and baking), are presumably covered by the phrase kol motza’ pi Ha-Shem.

The idea that the intellectual knowledge and capability necessary for, e.g., cooking and baking is “what comes out of Ha-Shem’s mouth” seems to make sense, but such products as wine (especially if we understand by it simple grape juice, as indeed it is halachically) and olive oil are no less natural products than the ground grains implied by the word lehem; indeed, the knowledge and capability necessary to make even the simplest bread, matza, not to speak of making wine or olive oil, would seem to belong more to the third category than the first.

What, then, does kol motza’ pi Ha-Shem really mean?

C.

The Haqal Yitzhaq offers an insight, courtesy of the Shpitivker Rav, in his séfer Vikkuha Rabba.

The Rav begins by calling our attention to a peculiar argument recorded in the Talmud: מלכא ומלכתא הוו יתבי מלכא אמר גדיא יאי ומלכתא אמרה אימרא יאי אמרו מאן מוכח כהן גדול דקא מסיק קרבנות כל יומא אתא איהו אחוי בידי' אי גדיא יאי יסק לתמידא (“The king and queen were sitting; the king said, 'A kid [gadya] is better'; and the queen said, 'A lamb [imra] is better.' They said, 'Who can decide?' The kohén gadol, who offers sacrifices every day. [The kohén gadol] came over, and signed with his hand: If a gadya is better, let it be offered for the daily sacrifice [tamida]”; פסחים נ"ז.).

That this odd dispute involves something rather deeper than an idle discussion of whether a kid or lamb tastes better is suggested by the fact this passage also occurs elsewhere (כריתות כ"ח:) with minor changes, one of which enables us to identify the royal personages involved as Alexander Yannai, the first of the Hashmona’im to insist on calling himself a king, an avid follower of the heterodox Tzëduqim (“Sadducees”), and thus a fierce opponent of the hachamim, whom he persecuted, and his pious queen, Shëlomtziyyon Alexandra, sister of Rabbi Shim‘on ben Shatah, whom she contrived to hide from her husband the length of his reign in the very palace, as well as by the rather gruesome fate of the kohén gadol in the story (עיי"ש). The Vikkuha Rabba allows us to penetrate to the depths of the debate.

The Rav begins by noting the obvious truism that, in every time and every place, there are people who are relatively rich, and those who are poor. The king, he tells us, was arguing that the status of any of these people was purely a matter of mazzal (seeing the word gadya as a pun on the Hebrew word gad, roughly, “good fortune”). Mazzal, formed on the root nun-zayin-lamed which connotes “flow,” is a source of metaphysical energy which “flows” to a person. (The meaning of the root underlying gad, by the way, is to “draw down” such energy). One’s relative wealth or poverty, he wanted to argue, is purely a matter of the flow of beneficent energy one gets from a fixed source, whether it be a flood or a mere trickle.

Not so, argued the sagacious queen; one’s status is ever a matter of Divine decree (imra being viewed as a pun on amar, “say”). If the king’s view reflects reality, then whether one is rich or poor should be a fixed condition, immutable, based on the mazzal established for one at birth. Yet, one can see that the rich can become poor, and vice versa. Hence, one’s status is a matter of continual review in the Divine tribunal; what G-d decrees will be the case.

They decided to put the matter to the kohén gadol, who was expert in the sacrifices offered daily in the Béyth ha-Miqdash whose purpose is to ensure the well-being of Israel, both as individuals and as a nation, as well as that of the nations of the world. The kohén gadol’s answer shows that he sided with the queen. If prosperity or poverty were purely a matter of gadya/gad, then the condition is tamida, “constant, continual” (which is the literal meaning of the name of sacrifice offered twice daily in the Béyth ha-Miqdash).

After citing the Vikkuha Rabba’s explanation of this gëmara, the Haqal Yitzhaq quotes another, in apparent support: אין מזל לישראל (“Israel has no mazzal”; שבת קנ"ו. ונדרים ל"ב.), i.e. Israel’s prosperity does not involve a fixed source of metaphysical energy, unlike that of the other nations, but is wholly dependent upon Ha-Shem’s decree. However, Tosafoth ad loc. cite another, seemingly contradictory gëmara: בני חיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא אלא במזלא (“Life, children, and sustenance are not dependent on merit but on mazzal”; מועד קטן כ"ח.), on which they conclude מכל מקום על ידי זכות גדול משתנה אבל פעמים שאין המזל משתנה (“Nonetheless through a great merit it may change, but sometimes the mazzal does not change”), i.e. mazzal has some measure of influence on an individual human being’s cir-cumstances. The Rebbe notes that the gimatriya, the numerical value, of the Aramaic mazzala (used in the above-cited gëmara), 78, is the same as that of lehem, וזהו "כי לא על הלחם לבדו" על המזלא "יחי' האדם כי על כל מוצא פי ד'" דהיינו אומרא במאמר הקב"ה "יחי' האדם" ודייקא על הלחם לבדו דהיינו שאינו תלוי במזל לבד אבל המזל מסייעו שיבוא בנקל לקבל ישועת השי"ת במהרה (“and this is ‘that not upon lehem alone’ -- on mazzal -- ‘does a person live, that on kol motza’ pi Ha-Shem’ – i.e., the utterance, by the pronouncement of the Holy One, Blessed is He – ‘does a person live’; and specifically on lehem alone, that is, that he is not dependent upon mazzal alone, but mazzal helps him, that he should come more easily to receive Ha-Shem’s salvation quickly”).

D.

So it is, in fact, just as the Maharal said, that lehem signifies the bare, animal facts of human existence as provided in nature – life, children, sustenance – but the ability to add to it, or to make anything of it, comes by Divine decree. The first is a matter of mazzal (itself a Divine decree, of course, but one made at a distance, by G-d the First Cause and Prime Mover, as opposed to G-d viewed as Israel’s Heavenly Father).

But it is interesting that the Haqal Yitzhaq writes of “dependence” only in connection with this state of nature, this mazzal, the implication being that living ‘al kol motza’ pi Ha-Shem is somehow independence. To see why, I believe, it is necessary to look at the preceding verses in our passage, for life is a test, one whose purpose is to prove, not to Ha-Shem the Omniscient, but to ourselves התשמר את מצותו אם לא, “will we keep His mitzvoth or not.” It is in our power to influence the Divine decree, to bring about the זכות גדול or “great merit” mentioned by Tosafoth, by deliberately choosing a life of Torah and mitzvoth.

A salient thought, as we move toward the month of Elul, whose letters, comprising the initials of אני לדודי ודודי לי, “I am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine”; Song of Songs VI, 3), proclaim the opportunity for tëshuva through G-d’s closeness, in preparation for the New Year and Yom Kippur.

Parashath Va-Ethhannan (Deuteronomy III,23-VII,11) 8/13/11

A.

In this week’s parasha we encounter a verse well-known to every synagogue-goer: וזאת התורה אשר שם משה לפני בני ישראל (“And this is the Torah [vë-zoth ha-Torah] which Moshe placed before the bënei Yisra’él”; IV, 44). The verse is recited by the congregation after a Torah reading has been completed, during hagbahath ha-Torah, when the scroll is lifted preparatory to being closed and covered for return to the aron ha-qodesh.

The actual context in which the verse occurs is very interesting. The preceding three verses (vv. 41-43) concern Moshe’s naming the three ‘arei miqlat, the “cities of refuge,” which were located east of the Jordan River: אז יבדיל משה שלש ערים בעבר הירדן מזרחה שמש: לנס שמה רוצח אשר ירצח את רעהו בבלי דעת והוא לא שנא לו מתמול שלשם ונס אל אחת מן הערים האל וחי: את בצר במדבר בארץ במישר לראובני ואת ראמות בגלעד לגדי ואת גולן בבשן למנשי: (“Then Moshe distinguished three cities on the Jordan bank eastward. To flee thither, a murderer who unwittingly murders his fellow, whom he was not hating yesterday or the day before, and he flees to one of these cities and lives: Betzer, in the wilderness on the plain of the Rë’uvéni, and Ramoth in the Gil‘ad of the Gadi, and Golan, in the Bashan of the Mënashi”). Then, immediately, vë-zoth ha-Torah, with the conjunctive prefix which usually marks continuity with what has gone before.

Why?

B.

Our question is asked by the Ma’asei la-Melech (a commentary published together with the séfer Hafétz Hayyim ‘al ha-Torah). He begins his answer by citing Rashi’s words on v. 41: ואע"פ שאינן קולטות עד שיבדלו אותן שבארץ כנען אמר משה מצוה שאפשר לקיימה אקיימנה (“...and even though they were not effective until those which were in Eretz Këna‘an were designated, Moshe said, [Any] mitzva which it is possible to fulfill, I shall fulfill it”). From this, the Ma‘asei la-Melech concludes: שמוכח מזה שאם אי אפשר לאדם לקיים את כל המצות בשלמות מ"מ כל מה שיש ביכלתו לעשות יראה לקיים, אף אם לא יוכל עכשיו לגמור הדבר כולו. וזהו מה שאמר הכתוב אחרי אשר הבדיל משה שלש הערים שבעבר הירדן, "וזאת התורה" כו' שלכאורה אין כל קשר וחבור לפסוק זה לענין של הבדלת הערים, אבל לפי הנ"ל ניחא, היינו שהורה הוראה זו, להבדיל שלש הערים בעבר הירדן, אעפ"י שאינן קולטות עדיין, וללמד לבני ישראל, שגם המה יתנהגו באופן כזה, שכמה שיוכלו לקיים רצון השי"ת, יראו לקיים אף שלא יוכלו לגמור הדבר, וזאת התורה אשר שם משה לפני בני ישראל. (“...that it is demonstrable from this that if it is impossible for a person to keep all of the mitzvoth in perfection, nonetheless everything which is within his ability to do he should be careful to keep, even if he is not able the finish the matter entirely now. And this is what Scripture is telling us, after Moshe distinguished the three cities across the Jordan, vë-zoth ha-Torah...., for there is apparently no connexion or link between this verse and the distinguishing of the cities, but according to the above it is resolved, i.e. that Moshe issued this ruling, to distinguish the three cities on the bank of the Jordan even though they were not yet functional, and to teach the bënei Yisra’él that they, too, should conduct themselves in this way, that to the extent that they can fulfill the ill of Ha-Shem, they should be scrupulous to do so, even if they cannot complete the matter, and this is the Torah which Moshe placed before the bënei Yisra’él”).

Rashi’s rationale for Moshe’s action is based upon the statement in the Talmud (מכות י.) that Moshe was entirely aware that his distinguishing of the three cities was entirely without effect until the cities west of the Jordan would be designated, and Moshe knew that he would not live to see that. Nonetheless, his intense desire to perform mitzvoth was such that he could not resist the chance at least to begin naming the six ‘arei miqlat, and it was this lust for mitzvoth, for fulfilling G-d’s will in this world, which he sought to impart to Israel, whence our fascinating juxtaposition.

With this in mind, we can appreciate some of the things which Hazal say about Moshe; for instance, "אוהב כסף" – אוהב מצוה "לא ישבע כסף" לא ישבע מן המצות כו' שהרי משה כמה מצות וצדקות עשה כו' דכתוב "אז יבדיל וגו'" (“‘One who loves silver [kesef]’ – one who loves mitzvoth – ‘will never be sated with kesef’ [Ecclesiastes V, 13], will never be sated with mitzvoth...For how many mitzvoth and acts of justice did Moshe perform... as it is written, ‘Then Moshe distinguished....”; קהלת רבה פ"ה סי' י' יע"ע ויקרא רבס פכ"ב סי' א'). As many mitzvoth as Moshe performed, his only ambition was to perform more. In this connection, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the meaning of the root kaf-samech-pé which under-lies kesef is “yearning, longing”; the object of Moshe’s deepest longings, then, analogous to a miser’s lust for money, was doing mitzvoth.

Similarly, the Talmud asks: מפני מה נתאוה משה ליכנס לא"י וכי לאכול מפרי' הוא צריך אלא כך אמר משה הרבה מצות נצטוו ישראל ואין מתקיימין אלא בא"י אכנס אני בארץ כדי שיתקיימו כולן על ידי וגו' (“Why did Moshe lust [nith’avve] to enter Eretz Yisra’él? Did he need to eat of its fruit? Rather, Moshe said, Israel have been commanded many mitzvoth which are only fulfilled in Eretz Yisra’él; let me enter the Land so that they will all be fulfilled by me!”; סוטה י"ד.), whence we see again that Moshe’s motivation was the opportunity to perform yet more mitzvoth.

However, the fact is that this appears to contradict a ma’amar Hazal: כל מי שמתחיל במצוה ואינו גומרה ובא אחר וגומרה נקראת על שמו שגמרה (“Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not finish it, and another comes and finishes it, it is called by the name of the one who finished it”; דברים רבה פ"ח סי' ה'), i.e. the first party to the transaction gets no credit for the final performance of the mitzva. So how do we reconcile the two?

The answer, it seems to me, is implicit in the phrase vë-zoth ha-Torah: Moshe wished to communicate to Israel his love for mitzvoth, a lust for mitzvoth, such that it did not matter to him whether or not he got credit for performing it; it was enough to do, as the Ma‘asei la-Melech says, whatever was possible to do.

C.

The phrase zoth ha-Torah occurs in other contexts as well. For instance, in Numbers XIX, 14, we find: זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באהל (“Zoth ha-Torah, a person for he dies in a tent”), which finds explanation in the Talmud: אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליהם (“Words of Torah are only fulfilled by one who kills himself over them”; גיטין נ"ו:), and the Maharsha elucidates further that such a person is ממית גופו ומסלק ממנו מותר התאוה (“killing his body [in that] he eliminates from himself excess lust [ta’ava]”), i.e. he places himself firmly in control of his physical nature and its animating yétzer ha-ra‘.

Similarly, in Leviticus VII,37 we read: זאת התורה לעלה למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם וגו' (“Zoth ha-Torah for the ‘ola, the minha, and the hattath and the asham....”), prompting the Talmudic question: מאי דכתיב "זאת התורה לעלה וגו" כל העוסק בתורה אין צריך לא עולה ולא מנחה ולא חטאת ולא אשם (“Anyone who engages in Torah needs neither an ‘ola nor a minha nor a hattath nor an asham”; מנחות ק"י.), whence we learn yet again of the primal and overrid-ing importance of Torah.

And finally in ibid., XIV, 54 we read: זאת התורה לכל נגעי הצרעת ולנתק: (“Zoth ha-Torah for all afflictions of tzora‘ath and for the scall”), on which Hazal ask: מניין אתה אומר כהן שבקי בנגעים ולא בנתקים, בנתקים ולא בקרחת, בנגעי אדם ולא בנגעי בגדים, בנגעי בגדים ולא בנגעי בתים שלא יראה את הנגעים ת"ל "זאת התורה לכל נגעי הצרעת וגו'" (“Whence do you say, A kohén who is expert in afflictions and not in scalls, in scalls and not in a bald patch, in afflictions of human beings and not in afflictions of clothing, in afflictions of clothing and not in afflic-tions of houses, that he not see [i.e., rule upon] the afflictions? It is taught by zoth ha-Torah for all afflictions of tzora‘ath....”; תורת כהנים פר' מצורע שם), i.e. that one who would make halachic rulings must be expert in every aspect of the field in which he intends to function.

D.

From the foregoing we conclude that the phrase zoth ha-Torah has a unique function within the Torah’s text. Whilst much of the rest of Torah is devoted to precise descriptions of the mitzvoth in all their precise detail, zoth ha-Torah has the function of delineating the atmosphere and climate within which Torah-learning and –observance are to take place; rather than laying down the letter of the law, as it were, zoth ha-Torah serves to define the spirit of the law. Through it, Moshe sought to impart values such that Torah-learning would not be a dry intellectual exercise, however stimulating, nor a set of ever more restrictive and claustrophobic rules, but the vibrant heart inspiring the noblest aspirations toward ever deeper, more meaningful, more precise and careful observance of the Torah’s mandates.

Thus, Hazal derive from it that those who would rule for others less steeped in the Torah’s wisdom must be expert in all aspects of their field; that the only way to avoid sin and truly promote Israel’s welfare is through diligent occupation in Torah; that one’s Torah-learning must be internalised, and utilised to bring the physical world under the Torah’s control; and that long and assiduous effort in this regard will serve to convert the physical ta’avoth of the yétzer ha-ra‘ into metaphysical ta’avoth for mitzvoth, so strong that it will not matter whether or not one is actually credited with a given mitzva; the sheer joy of beginning to undertake some previously unexperienced aspect of Divine ser-vice will be its own reward.

This is what we are affirming every time the Torah is read, as we assert: Vë-zoth ha-Torah asher sam Moshe li-fnei Bënei Yisra’él.

Parashath Dëvarim (Deuteronomy I,1-III,22) 8/5/11

A.

This week’s parasha launches us into the fifth and last book of the Humash, most of which is devoted to Moshe’s farewell address to Israel on the eve of their invasion to retake the Holy Land from the occupying Këna‘anim, who had conquered it from the bënei Shém during the Patriarchal period, over two centuries earlier. In the course of his long, address Moshe’s recounting of many of the events of which we have already learnt in the previous three books provides us with additional insights into those events.

For example, Moshe says: ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף כאשר דבר ד' אלי ונסב את הר שעיר ימים רבים: ויאמר ד' אלי לאמר: רב לכם סב את ההר הזה פנו לכם צפנה: ואת העם צו לאמר אתם עברים בגבול אחיכם בני עשו הישבים בשעיר וייראו מכם ונשמרתם מאד: (“And we turned and went to the desert, by way of Yam Suf, as Ha-Shem had spoken to me; and we stayed around Mt. Sé‘ir for many days. And Ha-Shem said to me to say: 'It has been long for you, sitting round this mountain; turn yourselves to the north [tzafona].' And the people, command to say, 'You are passing the border of your brothers the bënei ‘Ésav, and they will be afraid of you, and you must be very watchful'”; II, 1-4).

The reader with a living sense of the Hebrew language will note that, with the sole exception of the word tzav, “command!”, the last two verses of the above passage are couched entirely in the second person plural; in other words, they consist of nothing else than tzavei ha-‘am, “commandments to the people.” If so, why does Moshe use the preceding verse to tell us nothing other than that G-d spoke to him (rather than, e.g., “to him to the bënei Yisra’él,” as we might expect from numerous other passages). What does the unusual emphasis on Moshe at this juncture have to tell us?

B.

The midrash tells us: א"ר חייא אמר להם אם ראיתם אותו שמבקש להתגרות בכם אל תעמדו כנגדו. אלא הצפינו עצמיכם ממנו עד שיעבור עולמו הוי "פנו לכם צפונה". א"ר יהודה בר שלום אמרו לו ישראל רבש"ע אביו מברכו "על חרבך תחי'" ואתה משביר עמו ואתה אומר לנו הצפינו עצמכם מפניו ולהיכן נברח. אמר להן כו' ברחו לתורה. ואין צפונה אלא תורה שנא' "יצפון לישרים תושי'". ד"א מה צפונה א"ר יצחק אמר הקב"ה המתינו עד עכשיו מלך המשיח לבא ויקיים "מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך". (“Said Rabbi Hiyya, '[G-d] said to [Israel], If you have seen that [‘Ésav] seeks to challenge you, do not stand opposite him; rather, hide [hatzpinu] yourselves from him until his world passes; this is ‘turn yourselves tzafona’.' Said Rabbi Yëhuda bar Shalom, 'Israel says to Him, Master of the Universe, "[Ésav’s] father blesses him, 'by your sword you shall live' [Genesis XXVII, 40] and You support him, and you tell us, hatzpinu ‘atzmëchem mi-panav!? ['Hide yourselves from him']!? Where shall we flee?" He told them... "Flee to the Torah"; and tzafona refers only to Torah, as it is said, "He will hide away [yitzpon] for the upright a gift" [Proverbs II, 7].' Another interpretation: To what does tzafona allude? Said Rabbi Yitzhaq, 'The Holy One, Blessed is He, said, "Wait until now; the Anointed King to come will fulfill, ‘How great is Your goodness which You have hidden away [tzafanta] for those who fear You’ [Psalms XXXI,20]”'"; דברים רבה פ"א סי' י"ז).

The midrash sees in our passage not a mere recapitulation of an isolated incident on the way to the plains of Mo’av, but Israel’s entire future history with ‘Ésav/Edom. The key to the midrash is a series of puns involving the root tzadi-pé-nun which underlies the word tzafona in our passage, as well as the words hatzpinu, yitzpon, and tzafanta.

Rabbi Hiyya opens by recording G-d’s advice that Israel avoid confrontation and conflict with “Ésav/Edom “until his world passes,” i.e., until his time at center stage of world his-tory is over (עיי' מתנות כהונה שם). Instead, he advises, hatzpinu ‘atzmëchem, “hide your-selves” from him, evidently implied by the Torah’s turn of phrase “turn yourself tzafona”. Rabbi Yëhuda bar Shalom responds to him with Israel’s rejoinder: Yitzhaq blesses ‘Ésav/Edom with military success, and G-d Himself supports him on that world-stage; where, then, can Israel hide? Whither can they flee? “Flee to the Torah,” the “hidden gift”, again implied in the root of tzafona; Torah is our refuge in a world dominated by ‘Ésav.

But the midrash goes on to supply the ultimate answer: ‘Ésav’s time on the stage of world history is limited. If Israel stay the course, keep out of ‘Ésav’s way, and shelter in the refuge of Torah, they will finally see ha-melech ha-mashiah, their anointed king; the reign of Edom will be over, and all those who had remained faithfully engaged in the pur-suit of Torah and its implementation in the world will see G-d’s goodness asher tzafanta, “which You had hidden away” for them until that time.

C.

Elsewhere, the Or ha-Hayyim makes a remark which serves to buttress the world-view embodied in our midrash: Commenting on Exodus XXVII, 20, he advises in the name of the Zohar Hadash that Israel’s gë’ula, our redemption from our final exile, is entirely dependent on the merits of continuous Torah-study. This the Zohar Hadash derives from the verse: גם כי יתנו בגויים עתה אקבצם (“Also since they will give amongst the nations, at that moment shall I gather them up”; Hosea VIII, 10), interpreting the verb yittënu, “they will give” as a reference to teaching and learning (even to-day, we speak of “giving shi‘urim”). The implication is that so long as there is insufficient Torah in Israel, less than a certain “critical mass,” as it were, the gë’ula will not come.

Hence, concludes the Or ha-Hayyim, Israel’s entire future was utterly dependent on Moshe and his efforts to inculcate Torah, the love of Torah, the unslakable thirst for Torah in Israel, whence G-d tells him: ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל ויקחו אליך שמן זית זך כתית למאור (“And you will command the bënei Yisra’él and they will bring to you pure olive-oil, pressed for illumination.” Hazal note in numerous places that both olive oil and the clean, clear light which it gives off when it burns are metaphors for Torah (עיי' בין השאר ברכות נ"ז., הוריות י"ג:, שיר השירים רבה פ"א סי' י"ט, פסיקתא זוטרתא לפ' ברכה ל"ג כ"ד ועוד ).

If we now re-read our passage in the light of the midrash, Zohar Hadash, and Or ha-Hayyim cited above, we find that Moshe prophesied that Israel’s final exile, in those countries dominated by ‘Ésav/Edom, i.e., Western civilization, would be long and arduous: “as Ha-Shem had spoken to me, around Mt Sé‘ir for many days.” But the means was given to Israel to break that exile: “turn yourselves tzafona”, devote yourselves to Torah and the Divine ‘avoda which flows from it and we will have a refuge from the worst ‘Ésav can do; more than that, we actively contribute to bring the final gë’ula about, by patiently waiting as we pursue Torah and yet more Torah, creating that critical mas, until such time as G-d’s great goodness will be revealed to those who have kept the faith.

Moshe’s role in all this is central; “And Ha-Shem said to me to say.”. It is Moshe’s “saying” to us, the Torah which he brought down from Sinai and taught so diligently to Israel, which Israel are to elaborate and work up to create that critical mass.

But our passage ells us that, in addition to teaching Torah, Moshe was to “command the people,” i.e., all the people, including those who might not be amongst the biggest talmidei hachamim, that since they would be skirting close to their “brothers” the bënei ‘Ésav, those very bënei ‘Ésav would stand in fear and awe of the Torah-nation; nonetheless, the people would have to be very watchful and careful.

Of what?

D.

Hazal famously tell us that Israel merited redemption in Egypt because they did not change their names, language or dress, and did not mix with the Egyptians. This was not the proximate cause, of course: That was the incredible moral courage required for our ancestors to make the first qorban Pesah. Consider: The Egyptians, citizens of the proud super-power of their day, had been beaten into the ground; famine, in the wake of the ten Makkoth, was certain. But the Egyptian army, one of the most powerful forces in the world at that time, was still intact, and the Egyptians were seething with hatred. At this moment, the bënei Yisra’él unhesitatingly heeded the call to slaughter the Egyptian creator god, always represented as a ram, before their very eyes at the height of his ascendancy (Nisan falls under the zodiacal sign Aries). That was the act which brought about Israel’s redemption.

But the opportunity to perform that mitzva came about only because the bënei Yisra’él were still bënei Yisra’él. After 210 years in the Egyptian exile, they had not adopted foreign names, the Egyptian vernacular, or manners and customs. In other words, they clung to their patriarchal traditions with both hands.

Hence, Moshe says that he was ordered to exhort Israel: You will be passing along the border of your “brothers” the bënei ‘Ésav. You will have to live beside them, do business with them, coöperate with them. You will inevitably form friendships with them. Do not get too close. Be very careful in your dealings with them, do not adopt their values, remain bënei Yisra’él in all particulars, so that, when the time comes for this exile of “many days” to end, you will be able to seize the opportunity presented you to bring it to an end.

This was not directed at the Torah-scholars, the rabbinical leadership and learned ba‘alei bayit, but at the ‘am, the lowest common denominator in Israel. It is a warning to us directly from Moshe that we at least cling to our traditions, that we at least remain Jews, in order to expect the gë’ula.

Now that we are in the Nine Days leading up to the anniversary of the Temple’s destruction with which our present, long exile with ‘Ésav/Edom began, this reminder of Moshe’s warning is most pertinent: Remain steadfast, intensify the study and spread of Torah wherever possible, and we can bring it to its conclusion.