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.

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

A.

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


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


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

B.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

C.

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

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

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

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

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

D.

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

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

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

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

Parshath Dëvarim (Deuteronomy I,1-III,22) 7/23/09

A.

Moshe begins his farewell address to Israel on the plains of Mo’av by recounting the events which had brought them there, amongst them: 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: אל תתגרו בם כי לא אתן לכם מארצם וגו'
(“And we turned and went to the desert by way of Yam Suf, as Ha-Shem spoke to me, and we circled Har Sé‘ir many days. And Ha-Shem told me, saying: Enough for you of circling this mountain; turn northwards [tzafona]. And command the people, saying: You are crossing the border of your brothers, bënei ‘Ésav who dwell in Sé‘ir; and they will be afraid of you, and you should guard yourselves very much. Do not challenge them, for I shall not give you of their land....”; II, 1-5).

The prohibition of “challenging” the Edomim had repercussions in the future; the Yërushalmi tells us, e.g.: א"ר יודן בי ר' שלום כתיב "כי ששת חדשים ישב שם יואב וכל ישראל", א"ל הקב"ה אני אמרתי לך "לא תתגרו בם" וביקשת להתגרות בם, חייך שאינן נמנין לך (“Said Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Shalom, 'It is written "For six months Yo’av and all of Israel stayed [in Edom; I Kings XI, 16]"; said the Holy One, Blessed is He, "I told you 'do not challenge them,' and you have sought to challenge them; by your life, [these six months] are not counted for you"'"; ירושלמי ראש השנה פ"א ה"א).

Rabbi Yudan has noted an apparent contradiction between two verses; in I Kings II, 11 we read: והימים אשר מלך דוד על ישראל ארבעים שנה בחברון מלך שבע שנים ובירושלם מלך שלשים ושלש שנה (“And the days which David ruled over Israel were forty years; in Chevron he ruled seven years and in Jerusalem he ruled 33 years”), whilst in II Samuel V, 5 we find: בחברון מלך על יהודה שבע שנים וששה חדשים ובירושלם מלך שלשים ושלש שנה על כל ישראל ויהודה (“In Chevron he ruled over Yëhuda seven years and six months and in Jerusalem he ruled 33 years over all Israel and Yëhuda”). The question which he is trying to answer is what happened to those six months?

B.

The incident to which Rabbi Yudan alludes is described verses of I Kings XI, 17-21: King David won a massive victory over Edom (as the nation of the bënei ‘Ésav is also known), such that only an Edomi price and a few of his father’s retainers were able to escape and flee to Egypt, where they found refuge; there were so many Edomi dead that Israel undertook to bury them. The same incident is also briefly mentioned in II Samuel VIII (as Rashi notes), and the account there concludes: בכל אדום שם נציבים ויהי כל אדום עבדים לדוד ויוישע ד' לדוד בכל אשר הלך (“...in all Edom [David] placed governors, and all Edom were servants to David; and Ha-Shem saved David wherever he went”; v. 13).

The Divine disapproval which Rabbi Yudan cites as the reason for the six months being deducted from David’s reign on the basis or our passage above does not appear evident from the navi’s account; what, then, is going on?

The Tuv Yërushalayim comments as follows on the Yërushalmi: ביאור הדבר על פי דברי הזוהר הק' על פסוק "ואברהם זקן בא בימים" דהצדיק יש לו ימים הרבה שעושה בהם מצות ומעש"ט אבל הרשע אין לו ימים כלל. דהוא עוסק בהם בעבירות. ובזה א"ש דנקרא בחייו מת כיון דאין לו ימים וק"ל. וז"ש דאותן ששה חדשים שישב יואב באדום בצויו להכרית כל זכר לא נחשב לו בחשבון שנותיו (“The clarification of the matter is according to the words of the holy Zohar [עיי' ח"א קכ"ט. והלאה] on the verse ‘And Avraham was old, come into years’ [Genesis XXIV,1], that a tzaddiq has many days in which he performs many mitzvoth and good deeds, whilst a rasha‘ has no days at all, since he spends his time engaged in transgressions; on this basis it is well established that a rasha‘ is called a dead man during his lifetime, since he has no days [which count for anything]. And this is what [G-d] said, that those six months during which Yo’av stayed in Edom on David’s orders to wipe out every [Edomi] male were not to be considered in the count of [David’s] regnal years”).

Clearly we have encountered something very deep; what is it?

C.

The previous Ozherover Rebbe זצוק"ל reminds us (באר משה פרשתנו סי' י"ח) that ‘Ésav is the physical personification in this world of the yétzer ha-ra‘, and that his sar, his directing or guardian angel, as it were, is the שורש הרע, the “root of ra‘” (עיי' זוה"ק ח"א קמ"ו. וסכה כ"ט. רש"י דה"מ אלהי'), and goes on to note that the navi’ ‘Ovadya calls ‘Ésav a har, a “mountain,” comparable to Israel: ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו (“and the rescuers will ascend Har Tziyyon to judge Har ‘Ésav”; Obadiah I, 23). The Zohar tells us of these rescuers ואילין צדיקים דאחידן בכנס"י ואקרון הר ציון, אינון הרים דסחרני ירושלים בגין דאינון מצויינין (“and these are the tzaddiqim who are concentrated in the assemblage of Israel and are called Har Tziyyon, which are the mountains surrounding Jerusalem, because they are distinguished [mëtzuyyanin]”; ח"א רנ"ו.). Thus, the navi’ ranks Israel’s tzaddiqim against the personification of the yétzer ha-ra‘.

An allusion to the yétzer ha-ra‘ can also be found in the word tzafona, says the Rebbe: The navi’ Yo’él declares ואת הצפוני ארליק מעליכם (“and the northerner [tzëfoni] will I distance from you”; Joel II, 20), and the Talmud comments זה יצר הרע שצפון ועומד בלבו של אדם (“this is the yétzer ha-ra‘ which is hidden [tzafun] and lurking a person’s heart”; סוכה נ"ב.). Indeed, ‘Ésav himself is mentioned in these terms: איך נחפשו עשו נבעו מצפוניו (“How are [the bënei] ‘Ésav discovered, drawn from their hiding places [mi-tzëfunav]”; Obadiah I, 6).

Paradoxically, Chazal tell us elsewhere that tzafona refers to Torah: אם ראיתם שמזדווג לכם ברחו לתורה ואין צפונה אלא תורה שנאמר "ויצפון לישרים תושי'" (“If you see that [the yétzer ha-ra‘ is arrayed against you, flee to the Torah, for tzafona is none other than Torah, as it has been said, ‘And He lays away [vë-yitzpun] for the upright counsel’ [Proverbs II, 7]”; דברים רבה פ"א סי' י"ט). From this juxtaposition on the same ground, so to speak, of the yétzer ha-ra‘ and Torah, the Rebbe deduces the battlefield on which we may confront our adversary, and the weapons effective against him. The yétzer ha-ra‘ is tzafun in the human heart; G-d has sequestered (tzafan) Torah for our use in dealing with it (ע”ע בבאר משה שם באריכות).

D.

Let us reëxamine our passage in the light of what we have learnt.

Rebuffed by ‘Ésav, Israel remained for a while in close proximity to his border, as was discussed in the A”Z Yashir on parshath Pinchas. They were then instructed to move northward, toward Mo’av, on whose territory they were now encamped, on the eve of the invasion of the Holy Land, and advised to leave Edom, the country of the bënei ‘Ésav, alone. That is the simple meaning of the passage.

‘Ésav, we are assured, occupies a territory legitimately his, surely true also of the yétzer ha-ra‘; the physical realm in which we find ourselves is the legitimate abode of the yétzer ha-ra‘.
The name of ‘Ésav’s country, Edom, is interesting (especially in light of the parallel “mountains” mentioned by the Rebbe supra), in that it shares its root with adam, a human being. Israel, when properly surrounded by and clad in Torah on the example of our tzaddiqim mëtzuyyanin, represent what an adam can and should be, in contradistinction to the similar Edom.

If we now turn back to the account of David’s victory over Edom, we discern that the reason for the Divine rebuke, and therefore for the six months deleted from David’s reign, was the tactics used. The attempt to exterminate the male line of ‘Ésav created an implacable, irredentist foe for David’s son in the Edomi prince who had been harbored by Egypt.

Similarly, the way to confront the yétzer ha-ra‘ is not on its own turf, directly through physical means. The means is to access the true, metaphysical realm which initiates and causes all activity in the physical world through Torah and mitzvoth. We cannot eliminate the yétzer ha-ra‘; it is a natural consequence of this world’s having come into existence. What we can do is bring it under control, and bend it to holy purposes, by heeding the wise counsel of the Torah. This is what the navi’ is conveying to us, I believe, when he tells us that all of Edom were servants to David, and that Ha-Shem kept him out of trouble wherever he went, through the medium of Torah.

We are now in the Nine Days, the period of the final assault on Jerusalem which culminated in the destruction of the Holy Temple at the hands of the Romans, descendants of Edom, as Chazal tell us. The Nefesh ha-Chayyim, in the first sha‘ar, points out that everything in our physical world exists only because there is a metaphysical counterpart in the ‘alma dë-qushta. It is the metaphysical roots of our world to which we have access through Torah and mitzvoth or, G-d forbid, their neglect. It was only possible for the Romans to breach the walls of the Holy City, and put the torch to the Temple, because first, through our many sins, the Heavenly Temple had been reduced to a tottering, hollowed-out shell.

When the Béyth ha-Miqdash shel Ma‘ala is restored, through our following our tzaddiqim mëtzuyyanin in application of Torah and mitzvoth, we shall once again have the Béyth ha-Miqdash shel Mata. Let that be our goal.

Parshath Dvarim (Deuteronomy I,1-III,21) 7/20/07

A.

The Book of Deuteronomy consists primarily of Moshe’s final address to Israel, as they stood on the plains of Mo’av opposite the city of Jericho, poised for the invasion of the Holy Land. Much of our parasha is taken up with Moshe’s recapitulation of the path they had taken over the last forty years, both literally and figuratively, to arrive at this point.

ויהי כאשר תמו כל אנשי המלחמה למות מקרב העם: וידבר ד' אלי וגו' (“And it was that when all the men of war had finished dying from amongst the people. And Ha-Shem spoke to me....” II, 16-17). The “men of war,” the Talmud informs us, were the generation of the yotz’ei Mitzrayim, condemned to end their days in the desert and never enter the Promised Land, in the wake of their panic-stricken reaction to the negative report which had been brought back by the spies sent out by Moshe thirty-eight years before.

That report had been delivered on 9 Av 2449. Over all these years, the generation of adults who had witnessed G-d’s miraculous pounding into submission of the Egyptian super-power, the drowning of her army at Yam Suf, and the revelation at Sinai and attendant miracles in the desert had been dying off. Each Tish’â b’Av (the date in Hebrew), the date would be announced, and the bnei Yisra’él would dig their graves and lie down in them, lest they die in the course of the night. When morning came, those whose time had not yet come would arise from the graves and go on about their business.

In the year 2488, on Tish’â b’Av, the people had followed the same custom. Only, this year, nobody had died. They were surprised; had they erred in the date? So the next night, they did the same. Again, no-one has perished. And the next night, and the next night.... Finally, on 15 Av, as they beheld the full moon, they realised that the gzéra, the Divine decree, had been fulfilled, and no one else was destined to die in the desert. Wild with joy, they established 15 Av as a holiday, which the Talmud compares in greatness to Yom Kippur (תענית ל:, עיי' רש"י, רבנו חננאל, ותוספות שם בשם איכה רבתי ).

The gmara goes on to list other historical events associated with 15 Av, each a cause for rejoicing in its own right: On this day, young women whose fathers had died without sons and as a consequence had inherited their fathers’ estates, were allowed to marry young men from other tribes of Israel than their own (on completion of the conquest and distribution of the land; cf. Numbers XXVII, 1-11; the prohibition had been in effect for one generation., in order to keep all the land allotted to each tribe together). On this same date, later on, the ban which had been imposed by the rest of Israel on the tribe of Binyamin was lifted, and they were once again permitted to marry members of other tribes (cf. Judges XXI). And also on this day, King Hoshea ben Ela of the northern kingdom of Israel abolished the guards who had been stationed on the roads to prevent any of its subjects from making pilgrimage to Jerusalem since the separatist kingdom’s founding by Yerov’am ben Nevat (cf. I Kings XII, 25-33), once again permitting them.

B.

The holiday was overtaken by events, overshadowed by that other day in the month of Av which looms so large in Jewish, indeed, in world history, the Ninth.

Aside from the disastrous report of the m’ragglim with its resultant panic-stricken revolt and concomitant Divine decree, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed both times on this day (the first time by the Babylonians, the second by the Roman); the city of Beitar, last strongpoint of Shim’on bar Kochva in the final revolt against the Romans, was taken and its inhabitants slaughtered; simultaneously, the sacred ground of Jerusalem was ploughed and sown with salt by the Romans.

For these reasons, the mishna rules, משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה (“When the month of Av enters we minimise our rejoicing;” שם). The day’s inauspicious nature has continued down through the ages, and many other evil events have been associated with it (for instance, the First World War began on Tish’â b’Av).

The Yerushalmi, in discussing our passage, poses the question: מה יעשו גדולי הדור ואין הצבור נדון אלא אחר רובו, שכן מצינו שכל ל"ח שנים שהיו ישראל כמנודים לא הי' מדבר עם משה (“What do the great men of the generation do, since the public is judged according to its majority; for we find that the entire 38 years that Israel were, as it were, ostracized, [G-d] did not speak to Moshe....” ירושלמי תענית פ"ג ה"ד).

As the Qorban ha-Êida, ad loc., explains, the gmara does not wish to imply that G-d’s silence was absolute; rather, לא הי' מדבר עם משה ביחוד וחיבה, בלשון וידבר שהוא מורה על חוזק הדבור וחיבה יתירה (“He was not speaking with Moshe in private, affectionately, as suggested by the word ya-yedabbér which indicates animated speech and exceptional affection”).

This was, in short, Israel’s first experience with the phenomenon known as hestér panim.

C.

Hestér panim, literally “hiding of [G-d's] face,” is the term used by the Torah to describe the alienation from our Heavenly Father which results from failure to observe His commandments. The Torah gives us fair warning: Should we ignore the mitzvoth, G-d will be angry with us, ואנכי הסתר אסתיר פני ביום ההוא (“And I shall hide My face on that day....” Deuteronomy XXXI, 18).

G-d still runs His world, to be sure, but His beneficence in doing so is far less apparent. Rather than the warmth and affection evident in a close “I-Thou” relationship, we find ourselves relegated instead to the colder, more distant third person (compare, for instance, the pronouns used in Deuteronomy XI, 13-16 with the following verse, 17).

As a result of Moshe’s choice to send out the m’ragglim (cf. Numbers XIII, 2, Rashi ad loc.) and the bad reaction engendered by their report, Moshe and Israel were not cut off utterly; Divine guidance continued to be given, and mitzvoth were elucidated and clarified. What was missing was the intimacy and warmth; communication had become curt, cold, and impersonal.

Until that magical 9 Av 2488, when nobody died. On the subsequent 15 Av, when Israel were certain that the gzéra had been lifted, it was confirmed: וידבר ד' אלי, “And Ha-Shem spoke to me!” אלי הי' הדבור, exulted Moshe; the speech was to me!” The warmth and intimacy had returned to the Divine voice....

D.

The hey to dealing with the present state of hestér panim, I believe, can be discerned from what we have learnt of the interplay between 9 Av and 15 Av. Review the occasions which the Talmud associates with 15 Av, and you will note they were all acts of reconciliation, the ending of alienation of part of Israel from another.

Our present long and bitter exile began with the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans. That destruction, the Talmud tells us, was the result of sin’ath chinnam, of “groundless hatred” between Jews (יומא ט:). It is time and long past time for the alienation to end, for the wearers of kippoth srugoth to grasp the hands of those of us who wear bekeshes, shtreimelach, and black hats; nor should those hands, when outstretched, be refused.

The name of the month of Av is derived from an Aramaic root which means something like “to bear fruit,” especially young, tender shoots (cf., e.g., Daniel IV, 9, as well as numerous places in the Talmud, especially the Yerushalmi; see also Job VIII, 12 and Song of Songs VI, 11 for rare instances of its use in Hebrew). The év, the young, tender fruit of Av, is the immediately following month of Elul.

Elul, the Séfer ha-Toda’â reminds us, is formed of the initials of אני לדודי ודודי לי, “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” (Song of Songs V, 6). In the wake of the alienation in Av, G-d makes Himself especially available to reconciliation with Israel during Elul, if we will only take the invitation and make the requisite effort.

May Tish’â b’Av this year pass uneventfully, without adding to the chain of sorrows, and may the healing begin immediately thereafter.