Parshath Bë-Huqqothai (Leviticus XXVI,3-XXVII,34) 5/21/11

A.

וכל מעשר בקר וצאן כל אשר יעבר תחת השבט העשירי יהי' קדש לד': לא יבקר בין טוב לרע ולא ימירנו ואם המר ימירנו והי' הוא ותמורתו יהי' קדש לא יגאל: אלה המצות אשר צוה ד' את משה אל בני ישראל בהר סיני: (“And every tithe of cattle and ovicaprids, everything that passes under the rod, the tenth one will be holy to Ha-Shem. One may not choose between good and bad, nor may one substitute it; and if nonetheless he substitutes it, it will be that it and its substitute will be holy; it will not be redeemed. These are the mitzvoth which Ha-Shem has commanded Moshe to the bënei Yisra’él on Mt Sinai”). These three verses constitute the maftir reading, ending our parasha and the book of Leviticus.

At first blush, the last verse appears superfluous: After all, at the beginning of parshath Bë-Har we learnt that shëmitta was given with all its details at Mt Sinai, primâ facie evidence, as Hazal put it, that כל המצות נאמרו כללותיהן ופרטותיהן מסיני (“the generalities and details of all the mitzvoth were said from Sinai”; תורת כהנים שם). Since we already know that Moshe was commanded all of the mitzvoth on Sinai in order to transmit them to Israel, what purpose does this repetition serve?

Its logical connection to the description of the mitzva of ma‘sér preceding it also seems tenuous. The Torah apparently wishes to convey something to us concerning the nature of all the mitzvoth by means of this juxtaposition of ma‘sér to this restatement that all the mitzvoth were given at Sinai. What might that be?

B.

The Jewish world tends to group activities into three broad categories: There are mitzvoth ‘asé, that is, actions which are obligatory at certain times or under certain conditions. Some examples include the mitzva to eat matza on Passover; the mitzva to count the ‘omer; dwelling in a sukka and taking the arba‘a minim on Sukkoth; laying tëfillin on weekday mornings; circumcizing one’s son on the eighth day of his life; redeeming a first-born son from a kohén; and so on. Then there are mitzvoth lo’ tha‘ase, prohibitions, such as performing mëlachoth on shabbath or yom tov, eating hamétz on Passover, eating non-kosher food in general, murder, robbery, theft, etc. Between the two, lies a range of activities considered muttar, permissible, neither required nor forbidden.

It follows that performing that first class of activities is by definition tov, “good,” as is refraining from the second set, which are by definition ra‘, “bad,” as King David advised, סור מרע ועשה טוב, “turn away from ra‘ and do tov”; Psalms XXXVII, 27). The third class leaves scope for both possibilities, as Ramban famously comments on Leviticus XIX, 2: קדשים תהיו כי קדוש אני ד' אלקיכם (“you should be holy for I, Ha-Shem your G-d, am holy”) means that one should not be a naval bi-rshuth ha-Torah, “one who behaves ignobly within the confines of Torah.” The séfer Hovoth ha-Lëvavoth warns us at some length of this phenomenon, and recommends that we examine our actions constantly, לעמוד על כונתך, הרי אתה יכול להוודע על כך בעצמך כו' מזהו הגמול אתה מקוה להשיג על ידו וממי אתה מצפה לו ואם זה מאת השי"ת הרי זה שלם וגו' (“to discern your intentions; you can obtain knowledge of this by yourself... What is the benefit you hope to obtain through it, and from whom do you expect it; and if it is from Ha-Shem, this is perfect....”; שם שער ה' פרק ו' בתרגום ר' שמואל ברח"י ירושלמי מהמקור בערבית).

In other words, the “perfection” of one’s actions boils down to a matter of kavvana, of intent, with which any given action is performed: If it is lë-shém shamayim so that, for instance, one eats and drinks with the specific intent in mind that one’s strength be restored in order to learn Torah and do mitzvoth, then the act is holy, complete, perfect; otherwise, it is not. We find this brought down lë-halacha in the Shulhan ‘Aruch, שכל מעשיו יהיו לש"ש שאפילו דברים של רשות כגון האכילה והשתי' כו' וכל צרכי גופך יהיו כולם לבודת בוראך וגו' (“that all one’s actions should be for the sake of heaven, that even matters of permission such as eating and drinking... and all your bodily needs should all of them be for the service of your Creator”; או"ח סי' רל"א).

With this in mind, we note that the sëfarim ha-qëdoshim explain divrei rëshuth, matters of permission, i.e., those things which are normally considered neither obligatory nor forbidden but simply muttar have their metaphysical root and origin in the nogah, the “radiance” or “shine” of the supernal, eternal light which is the source of qëdusha, of sanctity, and hence of the Torah and its mitzvoth. This means that such things are at the knife-edge between qodesh and hol, tahara and tum’a, capable of going either way. It follows, therefore, that when an adam mi-Yisra’él accesses a proper kavvana in performing such a dëvar rëshuth, he sanctifies it, causes it to be illuminated by the supernal light of qëdusha, and thereby renders it qodesh; and if he does otherwise, halila, it can go the other way, and become a qëlippa, a “shell”, a veil obscuring and hiding that very supernal light (עיי' למשל ספר תניא ליקוטי אמרים פ"ז פ"ח ופל"ז).

This, it seems to me, is what the Torah wants us to take from the mitzva of ma‘sér and apply to kol ha-Torah kullah: לא יבקר בין טוב לרע, one should not choose the things which are “between good and bad,” the things at the hairline border, but rather one should strive always to be mëchavvén, to direct one’s intentions to the tov, the holy and pure purposes of Torah and mitzvoth, thereby to elevate the world, and all of our actions in it, to be illuminated by the light in which the holy Torah originates.

C.

This, perhaps, explains the juxtaposition of the other mitzvoth to ma‘sér, but it does not explain the repetitive nature of the last verse.

Hazal tell us that Mt Sinai was not a mighty mountain; to the contrary, it was chosen as the site of Mattan Torah מפני שהוא נמוך מכל ההרים (“because it is the lowest of mountains”; סוטה ה.), and yet again: "למה תרצדון הרים גבנונים" יצאה בת קול ואמרה להם למה תרצו דין עם סיני כולכם בעלי מומין אתם אצל סיני כו' אמר רב אשי ש"מ האי מאן דיהיר בעל מום הוא (“‘Why do you look askance [tëratzdun], craggy mountains?’ [Psalms LXVIII, 17] A heavenly voice rang out and told them, 'Why do wish to take Sinai to court [tirtzu din, a play on words]? All of you are defective compared to Sinai... Said Rav Ashi, 'We learn from this that one who is arrogant has a defect'”; מגילה כ"ט.). In other words, Sinai is the very symbol of modesty and humility.

This prompted Rabbi Lévi Yitzhaq of Barditchev to write: "משה קבל תורה מסיני" יש לדקדק דהוה לי' למימר "בסיני" ונראה לבאר דהנה כתוב "והאיש משה ענו נאד מכל האדם" וגו' וכן במצרים אמר "מי אנכי כי אלך" וגו' וכשאמר לו הקב"ה שיתן התורה על ידו והוא יהי' רבן של ישראל לא סירב כלל והיכן ענותנותו אמנם אדרבה היא הנותנת כי משה רבנו ע"ה הסתכל שהתורה תינתן על הר סיני והטעם כמו שארז"ל כו' וראה כי אין התורה ניתנה כי אם ע"י השפל והגרוע מהכל לכן מיד נתרצה שתנתן התורה על ידו מחמת רוב ענותנותו שחשב שאין בישראל גרוע ממנו וגו' (“‘Moshe received the Torah from Sinai’ [אבות פ"א מ"א]; one must be precise, for [the mishna] ought to say ‘on Sinai’. And it seems [possible] to explain, since it is written, ‘And the man Moshe was very much more humble than any person....’ [Numbers XII, 3], and also in Egypt, he said ‘Who am I that I should go?’ [Exodus III, 11]. Yet, when the Holy One, Blessed is He, told him that He would give the Torah through him, he did not refuse at all, and where was his humility? But rather to the contrary, it was the prerequisite, for Moshe our teacher foresaw that the Torah would be given on Mt Sinai, for the reason Hazal said [above], and he saw that the Torah would only be given through the lowliest and least of them all; therefore, he was immediately willing that the Torah be given through him because of his great humility, for he thought that none in Israel was lower than him....”; קדושת לוי ליקוטים ריש אבות).

The exemplary humility through which Moshe merited to receive the Torah directly from G-d on Israel’s behalf shines through the very first word of the Book of Leviticus, va-yiqra’, “and He called” (whence it takes its Hebrew name). In the séfer Torah the word is written with an unusually tiny final alef, and Hazal explain the reason: Moshe originally wrote the word without an alef, spelling va-yiqqor (“and he happened”), not wishing to make his level of prophecy seem any higher than that of the other nations (cf., e.g., Numbers XXIII, 4 concerning Balsam). G-d gave him a direct order to write the alef, so he complied, but wrote it very small.

If one looks in the séfer Torah, one notices the tiny alef. It is written not on the line, at the foot of the other letters, but at the top. The alef, tiny in humble self-abnegation, has had an alias....

D.

The relevance of our parasha to this season of sëfirath ha-‘omer, counting up to the day on which Israel began receiving the Torah, should be clear to all. The object of qabbalath ha-Torah, of receiving Torah and learning it, is not the mere intellectual exercise. The purpose must be qinyan Torah, its acquisition and internalization, such that it suffuses the Jewish character and comes to be applied to all situations one encounters. This is the point of the zustell, the juxtaposition, of “you shall not choose between food and bad” to the brief account of Mattan Torah: one should strive consciously always to be on the side of qëdusha and tahara, as we clarified above.

The way to accomplish qinyan Torah requires humility, the characteristic which, as we have seen, qualified Moshe to receive and disseminate the Torah; a quality which he learnt from Mt Sinai.

Parshath Bë-Har-Bë-Huqqothai (Leviticus XXV,1-XXVII,34) 5/7/10

A.

לא תעשו לכם אלילים ופסל ומצבה לא תקימו לכם ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחות עלי' כי אני ד' אלקיכם: את שבתתי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו אני ד': אם בחקותי תלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אתם: (“You will not make for yourselves idols, and statue and pillar you will not erect for yourselves, and a carved stone you will not emplace in your land to prostrate yourselves upon it, for I am Ha-Shem your G-d. My shabbathoth shall you keep and My Miqdash shall you fear; I am Ha-Shem. If by My laws you go, and My mitzvoth you keep, and do them”; XXVI, 1-3).

Ḥazal tell us that the apparently repetitious admonition to keep G-d’s shabbathoth is stated here כנגד הנמכר לעובד כוכבים שלא תאמר הואיל ורבי עובד עבודת כוכבים ומחלל שבתות אף אני אעשה כן (“because of [a Jew] who is sold to an idolator, that you not say, 'Since my master worships idols and desecrates shabbathoth so, too, will I'”; תורת כהנים סוף פרשת בהר ועיי' תורה תמימה עה"פ סי' ו'). In other words, the prohibition represents a special case, indeed, the most stringent case, in terms of its possible consequences for the Jewish slave, of the prohibition familiar from two weeks ago, לא תלכו בחקות הגוי וגו' (“You will not go by the laws of the nation[s]….”; XX, 23; cf. also XVIII, 3 and Deuteronomy XII, 30).

What are the precise parameters of this matter of not following the laws of the nations? Which nations and what sort of laws are under discussion?

B.

A survey of the Rishonim reveals that halachic opinion appears to fall into three broad categories:

1) That the prohibition concerns only the practices of the seven Canaanite nations whom Israel was to disinherit and the Egyptians. This seems to find support from Leviticus XVIII, 3: כמעשה ארץ מצרים אשר ישבתם בה לא תעשו וכמעשה ארץ כנען אשר אני מביא אצכם שמה לא תעשו ובחקותיהם לא תלכו (“According to the deeds of the land of Egypt where you dwelt you shall not do, and according to the deeds of the land of Canaan whither I am bring you, you shall not do, and by their laws shall you not go”), as well as from Exodus XXIII, 23-24: כי ילך מלאכי לפניך והביאך אל האמרי והחתי והפרזי והכנעני החוי והיבוסי והכחדתיו: לא תשתחוה לאלהיהם ולא תעבדם ולא תעשה כמעשיהם וגו' (“For my angel will go before you and bring you to the Emori and the Hitti and the Përizzi and the Këna‘ani, the Hivvi and the Yëvusi, and I shall annihilate [them]. You will not prostrate yourself to their gods and you will not serve them and you will not act according to their deeds….”; עיי' למשל ספר יראים סי' שי"ג).

2) Other Rishonim appear to hold that the prohibition refers to the practices of any idolatrous nation, on the grounds that such nations have turned their backs on G-d (עיי' למשל ספר החננוך מצוה רס"ב).

3) And yet others appear to hold that the prohibition applies to the practices of all the other nations, whether idolatrous or not (עיי' שו"ת תשב"ץ ח"ג סי' צ"ד וקל"ג, שו"ת הרשב"א סי' שמ"ה, ושו"ת הריב"ש סי' קנ"ח). This also appears to be the opinion of the Rambam, who writes: הכל בענין אחד הוא מזהיר שלא ידמה להן. אלא יהי' הישראל מובדל מהן וידוע במלבושו ובשאר מעשיו כמו שהוא מובדל מהן במדעו ובדעותיו. וכן הוא אומר "ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים" (“All [these prohibited practices] warns of one purpose, that one not resemble [the Gentiles]; rather, a man of Israel should be distinguished from them and known by his dress and the rest of his deeds, as he is distinct from them in his knowledge and opinions, and so it says: ‘And I have distinguished you from the peoples’ [Leviticus XX, 26]”; הל' עבודת כוכבים פי"א ה"א). It is also the opinion of the Shulhan ‘Aruch (יו"ד סעיף קע"ח סי' א').

What sort of huqqoth, “laws”, are we referring to? Torath Kohanim (ibid.) speaks vaguely of massoroth and minhagim (“traditions” and “customs”). The Séfer ha-Yëré’im cited above holds that this refers to specific religious practices forbidden in Talmudic times, and indeed the Talmud lists such practices (עיי' שבת ס"ז: וע"ע תוספתא שם פ"ו), but most Rishonim appear to hold that these are practices current in those days, and do not represent the totality of what the prohibition covers. Indeed, העיקר שכל מה שמיוחד להם צריך הישראל להיות מובדל מהם אע"פ שאינו נזכר בדברז"ל כי רז"ל הזכירו הדברים שהיו נוהגים העכו"ם באותן הימים והוא הדין בכל מנהגי העכו"ם שנתחדשו בכל הזמנים שצריך הישראל להיות נבדל ממנהגם במלבוש במנהג הדבור וגו' (“the principle is that the man of Israel must be distinguished from everything which is unique to [the nations], even if it is not mentioned in the words of Hazal, for Hazal mentioned the things which the non-Jews were accustomed to do in those days, and this is the judgment concerning all non-Jewish customs which might be innovated at all times, that the man of Israel must be distinct from their customs in dress, in the manner of speech, etc.”; ב"ח על טור יו"ד שם דה"מ אסור ועיי"ש באריכות ).

C.

One practice which changed over time is our well-known Ashkënazi custom of holding the huppa, the actual wedding ceremony, outdoors. This custom has no apparent source in either the written or oral Torah; the earliest mention I can find is by the Rema, who writes: י"א לעשות החופה תחת השמים לסי' טוב שיהא זרעם ככוכבי השמים (“There are those who say that one should make the huppa under the sky as a good sign that their offspring should be like the stars of the heavens”; שו"ע אה"ע סעיף ס"א סי' א' בהגה"ה).

The Aharonim discuss this custom, and whether, in light of its having been instituted, it is even permissible to hold a huppa indoors in a synagogue, since it has become the prevailing custom amongst our Christian neighbors to hold their wedding ceremonies in church. As a precedent for changing the presumed earlier custom of holding the huppa in a synagogue, they cite Deuteronomy XVI, 22: לא תקים לך מצבה אשר שנא ד' אלקיך (“You will not erect for yourself a pillar which Ha-Shem your G-d hates”), on which Rashi comments: ואע"פ שהיתה אהובה לו בימי האבות עכשיו שנאה מאחר שעשאוה אלו חק לע"א (“and even though [the service with a pillar] was beloved by Him in the days of the patriarchs, now He hates it since [the Canaanites] made it a practice of idolatry”). Since this custom changed with the circumstances, other customs may so change, too.(עיי' חתם סופר ח"א סי' צ"ח, שו"ת מהר"י אסאד או"ח סי' ל"ח, שו"ת כתב סופר אבה"ע סי' מ"ז).

Since we are now approaching the holiday of Shavu‘oth, one more example with a direct bearing on the holiday will suffice. The Rema notes that amongst the customs of the holiday: ונוהגים לשטוח עשבים בשבועות בבית הכנסת ובבתים זכר לשמחת מתן תורה (“and it is customary to strew grasses in the synagogue and in the houses in memory of the joy of Mattan Torah”; שו"ע או"ח סעיף תצ"ד סי' ג' בהגה"ה), to which the Magén Avraham adds: ונוהגים להעמיד אילנות בביה"כ ובבתים ונ"ל הטעם שיזכירו שבעצרת נידונין על פירות האילן ויתפללו עליהם (“and it is customary to erect trees in the synagogue and in the houses, and it seems to me that the reason is that they remind [us] that on Shavu‘oth the fruits of trees are judged, and they should pray for them”; שם ס"ק ה').

That was the dispensation in the 16th and 17th centuries. If we fast-forward to the mid-19th century, we find that Rabbi Avraham Danzig of Vilna reports: הגר"א ביטל מנהג מלהעמיד אילנות בעצרת משום שעכשיו הוא חוק העמים להעמיד אילנות בחג שלהם וגו' (“The Gra abolished a custom to erect trees on Shavu‘oth because now it is the practice of the nations to erect trees on their holiday....”; חיי אדם כלל קל"א סי' י"ג), and the slightly later authority, Rabbi Yëhi’él Michel ha-Lévi Epstein of Novaradok concurs: נהגו להעמיד אילנות אמנם בדורות שלפנינו באלו האילמות והעשבים מטעמים שידעו הגדולים שבדור (“They were accustomed to erect trees, but in the generations before us they abolished the trees and the grasses for reasons which the leaders of that generation knew”; ערוך השלחן או"ח תצ"ד סי' ו'). The custom was changed because the surrounding, prevailing culture had changed.

D.

The consequence of this deliberate separation and distinction of Israel from nations is, of course, that each of us is exposed, “in a goldfish bowl,” as it were. Our purpose is to be the standard bearer of Torah, the sole source of morality in the world. This is the meaning of G-d’s statement that we are to be a mamlecheth kohanim vë-goy qadosh, a “kingdom of kohanim and holy nation” (Exodus XIX, 6). And so we stand out.

אם בחקותיתלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אתם, Rashi tells us, is couched in a לשון בקשה, an “expression of request.” G-d asks, even begs, that we follow His mizvoth. The initial word, im, more conventionally means “if” (as it was so translated above). If we follow the mitzvoth, we are assured, the rain will fall, the crops will grow, and the holy people will dwell securely in the Holy Land. If not, our parasha warns us: והשמדתי אני את הארץ וגו' (“And I, Myself, will destroy the land....”; ibid., 32). G-d will down the very edifice which He erected in establishing ‘am Yisra’él in Eretz Yisra’él, ואבדתם בגוים ואכלה אתכם ארץ איביכם (“And you will be lost [va-avadtem] amongst the nations, and the land of your adversaries will absorb you”; ibid., 38). If Israel will not live up to the commitment made at Sinai, the normal processes of history will apply, and Israel’s fate will not be different from those of, say, the Assyrians and Babylonians.

With one difference: ואף גם בזאת בהיותם בארץ איביהם לא מאסתים ולא געלתים לכלותם להפר בריתי אתם כי אני ד' אלקיהם: וזכרתי להם ברית ראשנים אשר הותאתי אתם מארץ מצרים לעיני הגוים להיות להם לאלקים אני ד': (“And even with this, whilst they are in the land of their adversaries, I shall not despise them utterly, nor loathe them so as to eliminate them, to overturn My covenant with them, for I am Ha-Shem their G-d. And I shall remember My covenant with the first ones whom I brought out of the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations to be their G-d; I am Ha-Shem”; ibid., 44-45).

There is always, throughout the long night of our exile, the faithful remnant of Israel, loyal to Torah, maintaining the necessary distinctions between themselves and the nations amongst whom their brethren have been “lost”; in their merit, and the merit of their fathers, they, too, will be redeemed, as the prophet sings: ובאו האובדים בארץ אשור והנדחים בארץ מצרים והשתחו לד' בהר הקדש בירושלם (“And those lost [ha-ovdim] in the land of Ashur, and those exiled in the land of Egypt, will come and bow down to Ha-Shem on the holy mount, in Jerusalem”; Isaiah XXVII, 13) soon, in our day.

Parshath B’Har/B’chuqqothai (Leviticus XXV,1-XXVII,34) 4/15/09

A.

This week’s double parasha considers the Torah’s example of “tough love,” the institution of the ‘eved ‘ivri, or “Hebrew servant.”

Should it ever happen that a member of klal Yisra’él becomes so destitute that he has no idea where his next meal is coming from, or such that he is driven to steal property for which he is unable to pay restitution when he is caught, it is possible for him to be sold into ‘avduth. The laws governing such a person are such that the master who purchases him would only do so in a spirit of redemptive rehabilitation, so that the poor fellow will be accustomed to regular work habits, will acquire a skill or trade so that he is never again reduced to such and, on his release, is provided with the tools, etc., necessary to practice that trade.

The typical period for which an ‘eved ‘ivri is sold is six years; however, under extreme circumstances in which such an ‘eved refuses to accept his freedom and insists on remaining with his master, the ‘avduth can be extended to the next yovél, when, every fiftieth year, the freeholds are returned to the original families who owned them. In such a year, the ‘eved has no choice (cf. Deuteronomy XXV, 12-18, קידושין י"ב: וי"ד).

Our passage, ends with: כי לי בני ישראל עבדים עבדי הם אשר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים אני ד' אלקיכם (“For to Me are the bnei Yisra’él servants, My servants are they, whom I brought forth from the land of Egypt; I am Ha-Shem your G-d”; XXV, 55). This verse is immediately followed by: לא תעשו לכם אלילים ופסל ומצבה לא תקים לכם ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחות עלי' כי אני ד' אלקיכם: את שבתתי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו אני ד': (“You will not make for yourselves idols and statue[s], and a plaque shall you not erect for yourselves, nor shall you place a stone upon which to prostrate yourselves, for I am Ha-Shem your G-d. My sabbaths shall you observe and My sanctuary shall you fear; I am Ha-Shem”; XXVI, 1-2).

But of course the Torah has told us all of this before; the prohibition against idolatry and admonition to observe shabbath are part of the ‘asereth ha-Dibbroth (cf. Exodus XX, 2-5, 8-11).

Why must they be repeated here? And why the constant drumbeat of Ani Ha-Shem?

B.

It is evident from the above that Torah considers a servile relationship between one human being and another repugnant, infra dignitatem humanam. The Talmud puts it explicitly in explaining why it is that a recalcitrant ‘eved ‘ivri who refuses to be freed has a hole bored into his earlobe: מה נשתנה אוזן מכל איברים שבגוף? אמר הקב"ה אוזן ששמע בהר סיני כי לי בני ישראל עבדים ולא עבדים לעבדים והלך זה וקנה אדון לעצמו לפיכך נרצע (“How is the ear different from all [the other] limbs in the body? Said the Holy One, Blessed is He, An ear which heard on Mt. Sinai ‘For to Me are the bnei Yisra’él servants’, and not servants of servants, and [then] went and acquired a lord for himself; therefore [that ear] is bored”; קידושין כ"ב:).

The bnei Yisra’él were freed from such servitude forever at the Exodus from Egypt, as the Talmud tells us elsewhere, and as we dutifully recite at the séder every Passover: חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאלו הוא יצא ממצרים (“A person is obligated to see himself as if he [personally] has come out of Egypt’: פסחום קט"ו:).

Of course, even though there have been enough periods in our history when the average ben Yisra’él has, unfortunately, known all too well how it feels literally to be liberated from, e.g., Nazi or Communist slavery, this is not true for all generations and certainly not for most of us alive today. Chazal pointedly link liberty to Mattan Torah, the event to which Israel were heading fifty days out from the Exodus, and tell us: "חרות על הלחות", אל תקרא "חרות" אלא "חרות" שאין לך נן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה, וכל מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה הרי זה מתעלה שנאמר "וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות (“‘Engraved on the tablets’ [Exodus XXXII, 16], read not ‘engraved’ [charuth] but ‘freedom’ [chéruth, spelt identically], for no one is a free man save one who is engaged in Torah study, and anyone who is engaged in Torah study is exalted, as it is said, ‘from Mattana [‘Gift’, an allusion to the giving of the Torah] to G-d’s heritage [Nachli’el], and from Nachli’el to Bamoth [i.e., ‘High Places’; Numbers XXI, 9]”; אבות פ"ו ברייתא ב' וע"ע פי' ר' עובדי' מברטנורה ורוח חיים לר"ח מוואלאזשין שם).

Clearly whatever issues the ‘eved ‘ivri needs to resolve in his life, he will not have a problem with idolatry or Sabbath observance whilst in the service of his beneficent Jewish master. However, as has already been noted supra, there have been times when Israel have been in bondage to hostile and inimical foreigners. So, Rashi tells us, our admonitions are כנגד זה שנמכר לנכרי שלא יאמר, הואיל ורבי מגלה עריות אף אני כמותו, הואיל ורבי עובד ע"א אף אני כמותו, הואיל ורבי מחלל שבת אף אני כמותו לכך נאמרו מקראות הללו וגו' (“concerning one who has been sold to a foreigner, that he not say, Since my master performs sexual improprieties, I, too, am like him; since my master serves foreign gods, I, too, am like him; since my master desecrates the Sabbath, I, too, am like him; for this reason, these Scriptures were said”).

Hence, the repetition of Ani Ha-Shem: כל המשעבדן מלמטה כאלו משעבדן מלמעלה; one must always remember that G-d runs the world, and that slavery down below was decreed up above; therefore, the opportunity to resist degradation of these sorts will present themselves to faithful Israel.

C.

The Be’er Moshe discerns a deeper but still related meaning to our passage. He begins by quoting the séfer Sha‘arei Ora of Rabbi Y. Giktilia: דע כי כשהאדם שומר שבת כהלכתו נעשה כמו כסא ומרכבה להשי"ת לפיכך נקרא השבת מנוחה מלשון נח כי שמו ית' נח על האדם ושוכן עליו כמלך על כסאו וסימן "וינח ביום השביעי" (“Know that when a person observes the Sabbath according to halacha he is made like a throne and vehicle for Ha-Shem, may He be blessed; therefore the shabbath is called ‘rest’ [m’nucha] from the verb nach, for His blessed Name comes to rest [nach] upon the person and dwells upon him like a king sitting upon his throne, and the sign is ‘and He rested [va-yanach] on the seventh day”).

The Rebbe זצ"ל sees an allusion to this phenomenon in the Sabbath morning liturgy: לא-ל אשר שבת מכל המעשים ביום השביעי נתעלה וישב על על כסא כבודו תפארת עטה ליום המנוחה, ענג קרא ליום השבת, זה שיר שבח של יום השביעי שבו שבת א-ל מכל מלאכתו ויום השבת משבח ואומר, מזמור שיר ליום השבת טוב להודות לד' וגו' (“To G-d, Who rested from all the acts [of Creation] on the seventh day, arose and sat upon His throne of glory [kissé’ kvodo], vested the day of rest [yom ha-m’nucha] with beauty, [and] called the Sabbath day a delight. This is a song of praise of the seventh day, on which G-d rested from all His creative labor, and the Sabbath day [itself] gives praises and says, "A hymn of the Sabbath day – it is good to thank Ha-Shem....“), wherein we see that shabbath is called both a kissé’ and m’nucha.

וזה שאמר הכתוב "את שבתתי תשמרו ומקדשי תיראו" והסמיך שבת למקדשכי גם ביה"מ נקרא בשם כסא כדכתיב "כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו" והיינו שע"י השבת זוכים להיות כסא ומרכבה לשמו ית' כדוגמת ביה"מ שהשרה הקב"ה שכינתו (“And this is why the Scripture says, ‘You will keep My Sabbaths and My Sanctuary shall you fear’, and juxtaposed shabbath to the miqdash, for the Béyth ha-Miqdash, too, is called kissé’, as it is written, ‘A throne of glory [kissé’ kavod] on high from the beginning [is] the place of our Sanctuary’ [Jeremiah XVII, 12], that is, by means of the Sabbath one merits to be a throne and vehicle for His blessed Name according to the example of the Béyth ha-Miqdash which the Holy One, Blessed is He has infused with His Presence”).

Thus, even ba-zman ha-zeh, in our time, every Jewish home is potentially a Divine Sanctuary, every Sabbath or holiday table (for yom tov is also called shabbath; cf. XXIII, 11, גור ארי' שם) a sacrificial altar if we but will it, and observe the sabbath and holidays in that spirit. Though the nations enslave us down below, they can’t take that away from us. As Rashi notes, G-d has said שטרי קודם, “My deed of ownership has precedence.”

D.

A bit later on in our double parasha, we read ונתתי משכני בתוככם ולא תגעל נפשי (“And I shall place My dwelling amongst you, and My soul will not loathe you;” XXVI,11). This, too, applies to our generation, as the Ha‘améq Davar writes: אע"ג שבכל עת היותר טובה יש בקרב ישראל אנשים פרטים שמעשיהם מתועבים, מכ"מ בזכות כל ישראל השכינה בקרבם וגו' (“Even though at the best of times there are in the midst of Israel individual people whose deeds are unworthy; nonetheless, in the merit of all [the rest of] Israel, the Divine Presence is amongst them....”).

Even in our present debased state, those who study and observe the Torah (in general) and the Sabbath (in particular) serve to exalt all of Israel, and make it possible, when he is ready, even for “one whose deeds are unworthy” to aspire to become a throne and a vehicle for His blessed Name.

Parshath B’Chuqqothai (Leviticus XXVI,3-XXVII,34) 5/23/08

A.

אם בחקותי תלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו ועשיתם אתם: כו' ונתתי שלום בארץ ושכבתם ואין מחריד והשבתי חי' רעה מן הארץ וגו' (“If in My laws you will go, and My mitzvoth you will keep, and you will do them. And I shall grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and nothing will make you tremble; and I shall abate bad wild animals from the land....” XXVI, 3-6).

The midrash records the following dispute concerning our passage: רבי יהודה אמר עוקרן מן העולם, רבי שמעון אמר משביתן שלא יזיקו (“Rabbi Yehuda said, [G-d will] eradicate them from the world; Rabbi Shim’on said, [He will] pacify them so that will not cause damage;” תו"כ פרשתנו פ"ב סי' א').

The question at hand is: What actually is the nature of the dispute?

B.

We begin by noting a distinction which is made in the mishna: הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס, הרי אלו מועדין. רבי אליעזר אומר, בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדין, והנחש מועד לעולם (“The wolf and the lion and the bear and the panther and the leopard are mu’âdin [“noxious, dangerous, liable to cause damage”]. Rabbi Eli’ezer says, When they are bnei tarbuth they are not mu’âdin, but the snake is always mu’âd;” ב"ק ט"ו:). Rashi explains the phrase bnei tarbuth to mean שגדלן אדם בביתו (“that a man has raised them in his household”), i.e. domesticated them.

Even though Rabbi Eli’ezer’s opinion is not halacha psuqa (עיי' רמב"ם הל' נזקי ממון פ"א ה"ו, שו"ע ח"מ סי' שפ"ט סע' ח'), it nonetheless demonstrates that there is a hava amina, a presumption, of a difference between the two classes of dangerous animals: The higher mammals are, at least in theory, domesticatable, whilst snakes are not.

With this in mind, we turn to our next Talmudic source, and find: מיום שחרב בית המקדש אף על פי שבטלו סנהדרין, ארבע מיתות לא בטלו.לא בטלו!? הא בטלו להו! אלא דין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו, מי שנתחייב סקילה או נופל מן הגג או חי' דורסתו, ומי שנתחייב שריפה או נופל בדליקה או נחש מכישו -- והארס שורפו (רש"י שם) (“From the day the [Second] Temple was destroyed, even though the Sanhedrin was abolished, the four death sentences were not abolished. Not abolished?! They were abolished! Rather, the judgment of the four death sentences was not abolished: One who is guilty of [a crime entailing] sqila (stoning) either falls from a roof, or a wild animal tramples him; one who is guilty of [a crime entailing] sreifa (burning) either falls into a fire or a snake bites him -- and the venom burns him; Rashi ad loc.; כתובות ל.).

In other words, when the earthly Sanhedrin was abolished, the jurisdiction for capital crimes passed to the truly Superior Heavenly Court, the Béyth Din shel Ma’âla, and the sentences are carried out though mitha bidei shamayim - death at the hands of heaven - whose earthly agents include wild animals. Sqila is equated to dying beneath the claws of a lion; sreifa to death by snake-bite.

With both of these in mind, we turn to yet a third place, where we learn: כל חייבי מיתות שנתערבו זה בזה, נידונין בקלה. הנסקלין בנשרפין, ר' שמעון אומר נידונין בסקילה, שהשריפה חמורה, והחכמים אומרים נידונין בשריפה שהסקילה חמורה (“All who were liable for [different] deaths and became confused one with another, are executed according to the lightest sentence. [If] those who were to get sqila were mixed with those who were to get sreifa, Rabbi Shim’on says they are executed by sqila, since sreifa is more severe, and the Chachamim say that they are executed by sreifa, since sqila is more severe;” סנהדרין ע"ט: במשנה).

C.

So where does this leave us?

Sqila, we have seen, is likened bidei shamayim to an attack by a mammalian predator, whilst sreifa is compared to a snake-bite. The Chachamim consider sqila more severe than sreifa, and Rabbi Shim’on the opposite. We may presume (since the gmara does not cite a third opinion in his name) that Rabbi Yehuda sides with the Chachamim.

For now, let us put this aside, and consider Ramban.

C.

Ramban also takes note of our midrash, explaining כי תהי' ארץ ישראל בעת קיום המצות כאשר הי' העולם מתחלתו קודם חטאו של אדם הראשון, אין חי' ורמש ממית האדם, כמו שאמרו, "אין ערוד ממית אלא חטא ממית" (“that Eretz Yisra’él would be at a time of mitzva observance as the world had been from the beginning, before the first man’s sin, [when] there is no man-killing animal, as Chazal say, ‘It is not the viper which kills, but the sin’ [ברכות ל"ג.]”).

This original, pristine state of nature, in which there was neither predator nor prey, is described in Genesis I, 31: ולכל חית הארץ ולכל עוף השמים ולכל רומש על הארץ אשר בו נפש חי' את כל ירק עשב לאכלה וגו' (“And to all the wild animals of the earth, and to all thr birds of the heavens and and to every crawling thing upon the earth in which there is a living nefesh [I have given] every green grass as food....”). The eventual return of this state, Ramban goes on, is also the subject of several prophetic revelations (cf., e.g., Isaiah XI, 7-8).

Ramban goes on to emphasize כי לא הי' הטרף בחיות הרעות רק מפני חטאו של אדם, כי נגזר עליו להיות טרף לשניהם והושם הטרף טבע להם גם לטרף זו את זו כידוע, כי בטרפם האדם פעם אחת הוסיפו להיות רעות יותר, וכן אמר הכתוב "וילמד לטרוף טרף אדם אכל" (“for predation became part of [the nature of] wild animals only because of the first man’s sin, for it was decreed that he would become prey for their teeth, and it was implanted in their nature also to prey on one another, as is known; for having preyed on man once they became progressively worse; and this is what Scripture says, ‘and it learnt to tear its prey; it ate man’ [Ezekiel XIX, 3]”).

But, he continues, this is a temporary condition, which will one day be altered: על כן אמר הכתוב על ימי הגואל היוצא מגזע ישי כי ישוב השלום בעולם ויחדל הטרף כאשר הי' בטבעם מתחלה (“Therefore Scripture has said concerning the days of the redeemer who will come from the line of Yishai that peace will return to the world and predation will cease, as had been their nature from the start”).

Now let us reconsider our midrash.

It seems to me that both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shim’on are striving to tell us how completely the phenomenon of dangerous animals will vanish from the earth: Not only the most severe sorts of wild animals will cease to be a problem, but also the less severe. For Rabbi Yehuda, the less severe is the snake; therefore, he says, G-d will eradicate them from the earth, עוקרן מן הארץ, since snakes cannot be tamed or domesticated. Rabbi Shim’on, for his part, feels that not only the more severe snake will be abated, but also the less severe wolves, bears, etc., and therefore G-d will pacify them, משביתן שלא יזיקו.

Hence, the dfifferences in their language.

D.

The most thought-provoking part of Ramban’s comment is his conclusion: והכוונה היתה בו על חזקי' שבקש הקב"ה לעשותו משיח ולא עלתה זכותם לכך והי' המעשה על המשיח העתיד לבא (“And the intent [of the passage in our parasha] was concerning [King] Chizqiyahu whom the Holy One Blessed is He sought to make Mashiach, but the merit of [that generation] was insufficient for this (עיי' סנהדרין צ"ד.), and the matter came to refer to the Mashiach who is destined to come”).

Once again, as in last week’s parasha, a tale of lost opportunity. But, Ramban has assured us, the opportunity need not remain lost. We can, indeed, create a paradise on earth in Eretz Yisra’él. The operative condition is that it will occur בעת קיום המצות, as he says, when mitzva observance is general amongst Klal Yisra’él.

A thought well worth our consideration as we count up to Shavu’oth and our rededication to the Torah and Its mitzvoth.