Parshath Nitzavim (Deuteronomy XXIX,9-XXX,20)

A.

והי' כי יבאו עליך כל הדברים האלה הברכה והקללה אשר נתתי לפניך והשבת אל לבבך בכל הגוים אשר הדיחך ד' אלקיך שמה: ושבת עד ד' אלקיך ושמעת בקלו כו' ושב ד' אלקיך את שבותך ורחמך ושב וקבצך מכל העמים אשר הפיצך ד' אלקיך שמה: (“And it will be that all these things, the blessing and the curse [cf. last week’s parasha, XXVII, 11ff.] will come upon you, and you will effect a return to your heart amongst all the nations where Ha-Shem your G-d has exiled you. And you will return to Ha-Shem your G-d and you will listen to His voice... and Ha-Shem your G-d will return your returning, and have mercy on you, and gather you back from all the peoples where Ha-Shem your G-d has scattered you”; XXX, 1-3).

The discerning reader with a חוש חי לשפה העברית, a living sense of the Hebrew language, will already have spotted what sems to be an egregious grammatical error in the above passage, somewhat disguised by the English translation: The verb v’shav which begins verse 3 is an intransitive verb, that is, it means “come back,” rather than “bring back,” where we should expect the causative/factitive form v’héshiv. The verse cries out: Darshéni! (“Interpret me!”). Clearly the Torah is trying to tell us something here; what might it be?

B.

The oddity did not escape the sharp eyes of Chazal, and so we find:בוא וראה כמה חביבין ישראל לפני הקב"ה שבכל מקום שגלו שכינה עמהן ואף כשהם עתידין ליגאל שכינה עמהן כו' והשיב לא נאמר אלא ושב מלמד שאף הקב"ה שב עמהן מבין הגליות (“Come and see how precious are Israel before the Holy One, Blessed is He, for in every place where they have been exiled the Divine Presence [Shechina] is with them, and even when they are destined to be redeemed the Shechina is with them... v’héshiv is not said here, but v’shav, teaching that Ha-Shem, too, returns with them from amongst the exiles”; מגילה כ"ט.).

As the Torah Tmima notes, Rabbi Shim‘on bar Yochai, the author of the above statement, evidently reads our verse as though the word eth is not the accusative particle, but rather means “with”: ‘And Ha-Shem your G-d will return with your returning....”

Rashi cites the above gmara in his comments on our passage, adding that the day on which the exiles are gathered in will surely be a great day, and a difficult one, for it will be as though Ha-Shem takes each person by his hands to lead him out of the exile, and cites in support Yisha‘yahu’s prophecy: ואתם תלקטו לאחד אחד בני ישראל (“and you will be collected one by one, bnei Yisra’él”; Isaiah XXVII, 12). So far so good, but Rashi then adds: ואף בגליות שאר האומות מצינו כן, "ושבתי שבות מואב", "ושבתי את שבות מצרים" (“and even concerning the exiles of other nations we find it so, ‘and I shall return the returning of Mo’av’ [Jeremiah XLVIII, 47], ‘and I shall return the returning of Egypt’ [Ezekiel XXIX, 13]”).

But if the prophets and Rashi are right in the last clause, wherever is the chibba, the extra affection, which Rabbi Shim‘on ben Yochai seems to discern in our passage? Note that it is the same intransitive verb which is used in the two prophetic statements as in our passage; it is nice to know that G-d at least does not hate us more than He does Mo’av or Egypt, but where is the evidence that He loves us more, if He similarly “returns” with their exiles as with ours?

C.

The following is based on a synthesis of the views held by a number of the supercommentaries on Rashi (והרוצה לראות את המקורות יעיין נא גור ארי' למהר"ל מפראג, יריעות שלמה להרה"ג שלמה לוריא בעמ"ס ים של שלמה, ספר הזכרון להרה"ג אברהם בקראט מגולי ספרד, באר בשדה לרה"ג מאיר מנחם בנימין דנון, ומשכיל לדוד להרה"ג דוד פרדו).

First, consider the phrasing of our pronouncement and those of our two prophets: Clearly, G-d is speaking directly through Yirmyahu and Yechezqel, without any prologue: “I, Myself, for My reasons, will return Mo’av from exile, and Egypt from exile.” The implication is that Mo’av and Egypt themselves have no input into the matter, but are mere pawns being moved about on the board of history: First, they are sent into exile, then they are brought out, and both times it is a matter of high Divine policy which dictates the matter.

Contrast this with Moshe’s pronouncement: Your G-d, Israel, will send you into exile; there, you will first “effect a returning” (and here, the causative/factitive form of the verb is used, va-hashévotha). This sincere effort initiated by Israel will be successful: “And you will return to Ha-Shem your G-d, and you will listen to His voice....” And then, as a result, Israel will return from exile, and G-d Himself, who has shared and the burdens of His people in exile (as any parent suffers when he must punish a child), will return as joyfully as they from it.

The impression is heightened if we next consider that both prophetic verses refer to the nations of Mo’av and Egypt in the collective, the aggregate; nowhere does it say that each and every Mo’avi or Mitzri will return from the exile -- only that the collective entities of Mo’av and Egypt will be returned. Careful examination of our passage, however, reveals that each and every second person pronoun in it is singular; G-d will see to it that each and every one of faithful Israel will be pulled out of exile, b’yadav mamash, “actually by his hands” (as Rashi writes), by the Holy One, Blessed is He. No one will be left behind. Hence, the chibba yetheira noted by Rabbi Shim‘on ben Yochai.

D.

The point, it seems to me, is this:

Ha-Shem yithbarach is nosé’ b‘ol, sympathetic and empathetic, with all of His creatures, as may be gleaned from the use of the intransitive verb in all three citations: He shares the pain of exile with everybody who endures it. In evidence of this Divine quality, there is the well-known drasha which speaks of Israel’s song of triumph as their oppressors’ army is being wiped out at Yam Suf. When the mal’achim sought to join in the song, G-d rebuked them: מעשי ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה?! (“My creatures are drowning in the sea and you are singing?!”; מגילה י:).

But the nations of the world are undiscerning and largely clueless; they are כל גוים שכחי ד' (“All the nations, forgetful of Ha-Shem”; Psalms IX, 18), mere pawns on the board of history. Faithful Israel, cognizant of the truth, we are in fact able to effect our own redemption, by initiating the “return” of which our passage speaks; we are assured that such a t’shuva, such a return, on the part of each and every individual, when it reaches the critical mass necessary, will be successful; and the result will be that we, with G-d’s help, will have brough about not only our own redemption, but that of the Shechina, kav’yachol.

To be borne in mind, as we approach a new year, in this most propitious season of t’shuva.

Parshath Nitzavim/Va-Yélech (Deuteronomy XXIX,9-XXXI,30) 9/7/07

A.

כי המצוה הזאת אשר אנכי מצוך היום לא נפלאת היא ממך ולא רחקה הוא: לא בשמים היא וגו' (“For this commandment which I am commanding you today is not too wonderful for you, and it is not too far away: It is not in heaven....;" XXX, 11-12).

The Talmud recounts: שאלו אנשי אלכסדרי' את רבי יהושע בן חנניא, מתים לעתיד לבוא צריכין הזאה או אין צריכין? אמר להם לכשיחיו נחכם להם, איכא דאמרי, לכשיבוא משה רבינו עמהם (“The people of Alexandria asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, 'Will the dead of the future require sprinkling [of water mixed with the ashes of a para adumma, when they are resurrected, to remove the tum’a of death] or not?' He told them, 'When they are resurrected we shall consider their case,' and there are those who say [that he added], 'When Moshe our teacher comes with them;'” נדה ס"ט:).

What makes Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya’s response remarkable is the fact that in numerous places we find that the Talmud assigns this role of resolving doubts and settling irresolvable conflicts to the prophet Eliyahu when he returns heralding the advent of ha-Melech ha-Mashiach, our “anointed king." Thus, for instance, we find a debate concerning whether or not wine can serve as the basis for a meal requiring recitation of birkath ha-mazon, the “grace after meals," which ends with: לכשיבוא אלי' ויאמר אי הויא קביעותא (“When Eliyahu will come, he will say whether it constitutes the basis [of a meal];” ברכות ל"ה:). Or, to cite another example, יבוא אלי' וילמדנו אם עור פלוני כשר לתפלין (“Eliyahu will come and tell us whether such-and-such a hide is kosher for t’fillin”; שבת קי"ח:). Indeed, the common Talmudic term תיקו is made up of the initials of תשבי יתרץ קושיות ואיבעיות (“The Tishbi [i.e., Eliyahu; cf. I Kings XVII, 1] will resolve difficulties and questions”; עדיות פ"ח מ"ז, תוס' יו"ט שם).

So why does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya appear to dissent from the others concerning
Eliyahu?

B.

The Talmud records a famous dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua, at the head of the Sanhedrin, and Rabbi Eli’ezer ben Hyrkanos, one of the greatest sages of that age, also known as Rabbi Eli’ezer “the Great." The technical details of the dispute do not concern us here, but Rabbi Eli’ezer stubbornly held to his point of view despite a clear majority against him, and attempted to prove his case by working various miracles. Rabbi Yehoshua, for his part, either dismissed or nullified each of the miraculous events.

At the end, Rabbi Eli’ezer summoned a bath qol, a “heavenly voice”, which proclaimed: מה אצלכם לרבי אליעזר שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום (“What is between you and Rabbi Eli’ezer, according to whom the halacha is decided in every place?”), whereupon Rabbi Yehoshua arose and quoted our passage: לא בשמים היא: The Torah is not in Heaven, but ever since the revelation at Sinai has been given into the hands of the Rabbis to administer (בבא מציעא נ"ט:). Furthermore, as the Talmud attests elsewhere, Rabbi Yehoshua asserted this principle that אין משגיחין בבת קול, “one may not accept the evidence of heavenly voice," often (עיי' למשל יבמות י"ד.).

It should also be noted before we go forward that Rabbi Yehoshua, without the patronymic, is always a reference to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya (נזיר כ"ו:, רש"י שם).

Now consider that Eliyahu was unique, in that he did not die as other men (II Kings II, 1-14), even Moshe. The implication of this is made plain by a halachic ruling of the Trumath ha-Deshen. Asked to esplain whether or not Eliyahu’s wife had been permitted to remarry after the prophet’s unique ascent into Heaven, he concludes that Eliyahu had achieved the status of a mal’ach, an “angel," ויש לומר דאשת רעהו אסורה ולא אשת מלאך שכולו רוחני ולא גופני (“And one may say that it is the wife of one’s fellow who is prohibited [to marry] and not the wife of a mal’ach, [since a mal’ach] is entirely spiritual and not corporeal”; ח"ב סי' ק"ב).

If, by ascending to Heaven in the way that he did, Eliyahu was in some fashion uniquely transformed into a mal’ach, as the Trumath ha-Deshen suggests, then he would arguably constitute a “heavenly voice," not unlike the bath qol. If so, Rabbi Yehoshua would discount his help: לא בשמים היא; he would prefer the decision of the rabbinical authorities of that day, with the help of the resurrected Moshe (as well as himself; note that he had answered “we shall consider” [נחכם] not “they will consider”).

But even without Eliyahu’s unique status, the fact is that it is decided halacha that in questions of halachic interpretation, ever since Sinai אין הנביא רשאי לחדש דבר (“a prophet is not permitted to say anything new”; רמב"ם הל' יסודי התורה פ"ט ה"א), a principle which protects Israel from the potential chaos which might result from false prophets. There was only one revelation of the Torah, to Moshe, at Sinai.

If so, what do the rest of Chazal expect from Eliyahu? Why did they differ from Rabbi Yehoshua?

C.

To understand, we turn to another episode recorded in the Talmud.

אמר ר' יוסי, פעם אחת הייתי מהלך בדרך ונכנסתי לחורבה אחת מחורבות ירושלים להתפלל. בא אלי' זכור לטוב ושמר לי על הפתח עד שסיימתי תפלתי. לאחר שסיימתי תפלתי אמר לי שלום עליך רבי ואמרתי לו שלום עליך רבי ומורי. אמר לי בני מפני מה נכנסת לחורבה זו? אמרתי לו להתפלל ואמר לי הי' לך להתפלל בדרך ואמרתי לו מתיירא הייתי שמא יפסיקו בי עוברי דרכים ואמר לי הי' לך להתפלל תפלה קצרה. באותה שעה למדתי ממנו שלשה דברים, למדתי שאין נכנסין לחורבה ולמדתי שמתפללין בדרך ולמדתי שהמתפלל בדרך מתפלל תפלה קצרה.

(“Said Rabbi Yossi, 'Once I was traveling and entered one of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray. Eliyahu the well-remembered came, and waited for me at the entrance until I had finished my prayer. After I had finished my prayer, he said, "Peace be on you, Rabbi." I said to him, "Peace be on you, my Rabbi and teacher." He asked me, "My son, why did you enter this ruin?" I said, "To pray." He said, "You should have prayed on the way." I said, "I was afraid that passers-by might disturb me." He said, "You should have prayed an abbreviated prayer." From that moment I learnt three things: I learnt that one should not enter a ruin, and I learnt that one prays on the way, and I learnt that one who prays on the way should pray an abbreviated prayer;'" ברכות ג.).

The great Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes was very much disturbed by this account, and asked: ואיך למד הש"ס דינים אלו מאלי'? (“And how did the Talmud learn these points of law from Eliyahu?”), on the basis of our passage. He answered: ואפשר לומר דאם אלי' אומר דינים מצד הנבואה, אזי שייך "לא בשמים היא" ו"אין נביא רשאי לחדש דבר", אבל אם אומר מלתא מטעם מה ששמע מפי חכמים אחרים, אזי שומעין כו' אלי' אמרם מה ששמע בבית המדרש (“And it is possible to say that if Eliyahu says halachoth as a matter of prophecy, then 'it is not in Heaven' and 'a prophet is not permitted to say anything new' applies, but if he says something on the authority of other scholars, then they would listen... Eliyahu had said what he had learnt in the béyth midrash”).

In other words, a claim to resolve halachic questions as a matter of prophetic revelation has to be dismissed, but if a prophet should say a svara, a halachic theory, or transmit a massora, a tradition learnt in the béyth midrash, it is as acceptable as anyone else’s contribution, since it is also subject to the same rigorous Talmudic analysis as anyone else’s contribution. It is not “Torah from Heaven."

This, too, seems reasonable. Why would Rabbi Yehoshua seem not to agree with it?

D.

It must be noted that the Torah, in fact, is not an artefact of this world. Its creation predated the creation of the universe; indeed, it is the blueprint for the universe (עיי' בראשות רבה פ"א סי' ב', ועוד). It is therefore the case that all Torah, from the contents of the séfer Torah to the most recent chiddush heard at the daf yomi shi’ur, comes into existence בסייעתא דשמיא, “with the support of Heaven." Torah represents, in essence, the metaphysical reality encapsulating and actuating our physical realm, which it contains. This supernal, metaphysical Torah has been injected into our world, and placed in our hands, in a physical dress, the words and letters of the Torah, as we received it at Sinai and, I would venture to say, also as transmitted by the modulated changes in air pressure which we call speech (עיי' רמב"ן, הקדמה לפירוש התורה).

The Torah mandates physical actions, to be performed in this world by the physical Israel. It follows, then, that Torah can only be brought into this world by physical, and not metaphysical, means. It is we who are the intermediaries between this world and the next; mal’achim do not have a role to play in this.

So the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and the rest of Chazal would seem to boil down to the status of Eliyahu. Rabbi Yehoshua, it seems, holds that a mal’ach can have no influence whatever in clarifying halachoth; now that he is in Heaven, he is, as it were, a bath qol. The other chachamim would seem to hold like the Mahara”tz Chajes, that so long as Eliyahu restricts himself to telling us what he had learnt in his béyth midrash, filling in the gaps which the passage of time and decline of the generations have inevitably created in our Torah knowledge.

And, of course, we shall eventually also have the resurrected Moshe, and be able to hear Torah directly from our original teacher.