Aug 16, 2019 | Torat Devorah
In this week’s parshah, Moses continues his discourse to the Children of Israel. Moses, in chapter 4, renews his warning of idolatry to the people and their threat of exile, with, however, a promise of grace upon repentance. Moses, when discussing the future exile, says the following: “And the Lord shall scatter you among the peoples, and ye shall be left few in number among the nations, whither the Lord shall lead you away. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell”
(Deut. 4:27-28). The question is asked if the statement with the idols is a continuation of the previous clauses outlining the retribution lying in store for a rebellious Israel, or is it merely a further description of the sins they might commit? Here are the views of two commentators: a) Abravanel – As a result of their terrible sufferings, many Jews (so Holy Writ foretells) will be brought to forced conversion, worshipping idols but knowing full well that they are made of wood and stone. Their idolatry will be committed just to escape death…It is not mentioned here as a part of their sin but as the punishment for their misdeeds. This would constitute the climax of their sufferings – to be inwardly aware of the true faith and have to pay lip service to idols… b) Biur – This passage continues to outline the retribution that would overtake them. In my opinion, there is no greater punishment than this – for the soul to be caught in the toils of sin, till it cannot escape…as a result of the force of evil habit. There is no cure for such a soul till it makes every exertion to sunder the bonds of habit.
Nechama Leibowitz questions what the difference is between the above explanations. She explains: Both
commentators maintain that the passage describes the punishment that would overtake the Jewish people – being forced, against their better judgment, to worship idols – poetic justice for worshipping idols of their own free will, in their own land. But Abravanel interprets the passage in terms of his own age, when his
co-religionists were suffering under the terror of the inquisition, being forced to solemnly renounce their faith or be burnt at the stake. He saw them worshipping idols not because they believed in them, but only ‘to escape death.’ The 18th century author of the Biur saw the fatal attractions of Western secularism and ‘enlightenment’ as the greatest danger, threatening the integrity of the Jewish people in his own day. Emancipation beckoned the Jewish youth of his day, promising an entry ticket into European culture, in return for renunciation of their own traditional observances and faith. Each age has its own idolatry and suffering. Only one solution remained and this is outlined in the next verse: “But from thence ye will seek the Lord thy God; and thou shalt find him, if thou search after Him with all thy heart and with all they soul” (4:29). Abravanel detected in the Torah a
message of comfort to his sorely tried co-religionists. Even the Jew forcibly estranged from his faith was not lost, if he still remained true in his heart. Literalists will interpret “from thence” to allude to the places of Jewish
dispersion from whence the exiles would come to seek the true God. But Abravanel sees in it a reference to the tragic situation of the Marrano, the forced convert and evokes the ancient Rabbinic principle of the ‘The All
Merciful requires the heart.” The phrase: “if thou search after Him with all thy heart…” which is usually taken to refer to a maximum demand, calling on the whole of man to serve God, is taken, instead, to mean a minimum demand. Leibowitz explains that even if the Jew is reduced to the state of being only able to serve God inwardly, he would still find God. Does this do violence to the text? It is certainly not its plain meaning, but such
interpretation is legitimate and even obligatory. Each generation must view the Torah as personally addressed to it and directly applicable to the contemporary situation. Indeed, each individual must read and understand the sacred text in accordance with their own powers.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Aug 9, 2019 | Torat Devorah
This Shabbat we begin the reading of the last of the Five Books of Torah – the book of Devarim. In this book, Moses is the speaker as indicated by the fact that it states Hashem spoke to me” (1:42, 2:9, 3:2). Whereas in the rest of the Torah discourses begin by stating “Hashem spoke to Moses”. According to Nachmanides, the book of Devarim may be divided into three main sections: 1) 1:1-3:29. This section contains the words of reproof to the people. He discusses the experience of the children of Israel – the first generation – those who left Egypt and how they stood on the threshold of the Promised Land only to sin and defer their entry for thirty eight years. This section also witnesses Moses addressing the second generation; those who were permitted to enter the land of Canaan. 2) 4:1-26:15. This division contains the main subject matter of the book – a recapitulation and elaboration of the statutes and ordinances. 3) 26:16-end of the book. This section concludes the book with blessings, curses, and a song.
The Torah reading begins by stating: “These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel” (1:1). The word ‘these’ or in Hebrew ‘eileh’ is restrictive, especially in regard to what has been written previously. The Or Hachayyim explains the seeing Moses recorded in this book only words which he had spoken on his own initiative, the Torah wishes to emphasize that only the admonition recorded in this book were spoken by Moses on his own initiative. We are told in Megillah 31 that Moses personally composed the curses recorded in this book, and that even legislation which Moses repeated in this book he had not been commanded to repeat, but did so on his own volition. The Torah was concerned that we might conclude that just as Moses had felt free to say things of his own volition in this book, he might have done so in the previous four books. This is why the book commences with the “Eileh devarim”, “ONLY these are the words Moses spoke of his own volition, none other.”
Moses addresses the judges of the people and reviews the laws of how to deal justly and rightly with the people that come before them. In our parshah, we have directives of how judges are to judge, and later on in Devarim, we have more instructions. It states later on in Devarim: Thou shalt not pervert judgement; thou shalt not respect persons” (Devarim 16:19). Similarly, in Leviticus 19:15 it states: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favor the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.” Nechama Leibowitz , in her introduction to the book of Deuteronomy comments that our Sages have taught us not to regard any text in the Torah as merely repetitive, and they elicit for us the separate and exclusive messages of each word and phrase. She examines the implications of the repeated references to favoring the “poor” and “mighty”. The word “poor” does not only mean the destitute in worldly goods. Here is the interpretation of our sages on the text in Exodus 23: If a disreputable and a decent person stand before you in judgement do not say that since he is a disreputable, I shall view his cause unfavorably , but “thou shalt not pervert the judgement of thy poor” – he who is poor in good works (mitzvot). The judge, Leibowitz explains, has to limit his consideration to the parties standing before him in court and take no account of a person’s past, but weigh up the matter objectively on the basis of the facts presented to him. We find a similar duplication in the case of the admonition not to favor the poor man. In Exodus, we are bidden not to favor the poor man in his cause; in Leviticus not to respect the person of the poor nor favor the person of the mighty. Malbim, who specializes in clarifying the subtle differences in apparently synonymous expressions in the Torah directed his expertise to explaining our text: He says that the phrase ‘nesi’at panim’ (“lifting up the face” translated in our text by “respect the person”) implies overlooking some transgression or unsavory matter. The word “favor” comes from a Hebrew root meaning external beauty (hadar) referring to whatever is attractive in man’s eyes. It is the way of the world to make allowances for poverty and to pay respect to external appearances. The Torah therefore forewarned us against both these pitfalls. But it could be argued that though forbidden to make allowances for the poor in the question of a lawsuit, it is permissible to pay him honor and give him respect, so that his opponent should forego some of his claim. For this reason, the Torah states that it is forbidden, too, to favor i.e. to honor the poor in his cause.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Aug 2, 2019 | Torat Devorah
In commemoration of the ninth yahrzeit of our father and zaidie, Cecil A. Labow, Zisse Alexander ben Yisrael Meir Halevi, Z”L on the 3rd of AV
“Omikneh rav haya livnai Reuven , Vilivnai Gad Azom Miod.” “The children of Reuven and the children of Gad had abundant livestock”(32:1). The question is asked, why the letter vav, because if you read the previous chapter, there doesn’t seem to be a link between it and this chapter. Chapter 31 describes the war with the Midianites, and the vengeance that they took because of the Midianite women inducing them to sin. Chapter 32 is talking about livestock! So what’s the connection?
The Alschech states that not a word had been said about the fact the conquered lands were grazing lands. Now, in connection with the count of the herds of sheep and cattle, and the need to retain grazing lands, this whole matter had become an issue. So the letter vav is indeed necessary, as it links this chapter, this episode, with the count of the spoils taken in Midian.
Reuven and Gad then aggravate Moshe by stating “…Let this land be given to your servants as a possession: do not bring us across the Jordan”(32:5) Moshe answers them “Shall your brethren go out to war, while you sit here”(32:6). He then compared them to the “Miraglim”, the spies, who “dissuaded the Children of Israel not to come to the Land that the Lord had given them”(32:9) . One can discern Moshe’s anger when he tells them that they are “A society of sinful men”(32:14)
Rabbi Moshe Lichtman, in his Book, Eretz Yisrael in The Parshah explains…. In the end, Moshe, after some clariifications, amendments, and conditions, agrees to their request. Chazal try to figure out what their “sin” was, and what they said to convince Moshe that they should not be judged harshly. Rabbi Yehudah Nachshoni (Hagut BeParshi’ot Ha’Torah) sums up the “sins” Moshe accused them of..(1) Love of material possessions( 2), rejection of the Chosen Land, (3) Lack of Jewish Unity. The Midrash underscores these three sins, and show that they are interconnected.
Two rich men arose in the world…Korach from Israel, and Haman from the Gentiles, and both of them were utterly destroyed. Why? Because their gifts were not from the Holy One, Blessed Be He, rather they grabbed it for themselves. You can see the same thing in the Children of Gad, and the Children of Reuven. They were wealthy, and possessed an abundance of livestock. But they loved their money, and settled outside the Land of Israel. Therefore, they were exiled first, before all of the other tribes. What caused this? The fact that they separated themselves from their brethren because of their possessions (BeMidbar Rabbah 22:7)
So we see that their love of money led to the rejection of the Holy Land, and their isolation from Klal Yisrael. (It is simply amazing that the Midrash compares the Children of Reuven and Gad to Korach and Haman!)
The Midrash seems to imply that the eastern side of the Jordan is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael, as it is written “they settled outside the land of Israel”. Rav Aviner, in his his “Tal Chermon” asks, “ How can the Children of Reuven and Gad be compared to the Meraglim, the spies, because they displayed a bond for the land, which was destined for them. They did not despise it!. He answers his own question. They were only concerened with their financial gain. They neglected the unity of the Jewish People, and the fact that Eretz Yisrael belongs to all of Am Yisrael. The conquest of the western side of Eretz Yisrael precedes that of Transjordan, because there are different levels of sanctity in the Land of Israel: The land of Judah, the site of the Sanctuary is the holiest place, then comes the Galilee, and last to come is the Transjordan.
We must learn the lesson that we must put our priorities in the right place and realize that the future of Am Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael is more important than our own physical comfort.
Prepared by Devorah Bat-Sheva Abenhaim and Martin S. Labow
Jul 26, 2019 | Torat Devorah
At the very end of last weeks parshah, we read that 24,000 Israelites perished in a plague which was the result of a scheme of Bilaam. Unable to harm B’nai Yisrael through a curse, he had the nation of Moav send their daughters to seduce the men of Israel. The latter were joined by the Midianite women.
This week we are told that Pinchas acted courageously and zealously to stop the immorality that was going on around him. He caused the plague to stop, and was rewarded with “Kehuna”, the priesthood.
In Chapter 25, verse 17, Hashem commands Moses TZAROR ET HA-MIDIANEEM, VI-HEEKAITAM OTAM “Harass the Midianites, and kill them”, to avenge what they did to you.
The obvious question is, why have the Midianites been singled out. Was not Moav also responsible?
Rashi explains that Moav sincerely feared B’nai Yisrael, who would be travelling through their land. Midian, on the other hand joined in a battle which was not theirs to fight. They did so out of pure hatred of Israel.
We read next week in Chapter 31, verse 6, that Moses sent Pinchas to do battle with Midian. Why did he use a “Shaliach”, a messenger to do his battle?
Tosafos explains, that we should remember that after Moses killed the Egyptian Taskmaster, he fled to Midian, and was helped by the people. It would, therefore be wrong for him to lift a hand against a nation that helped him. It was clear to Moses that the way to fulfill the command of Hashem was to have Midian avenged through someone else. Pinchas began the miztvah of defeating Midian, and Moses summoned him to complete the task.
At the beginning of Chapter 27, we read of the daughters of Tzelophchad, who appealed to Moses that they receive their deceased father’s inheritance in the Land of Israel. Their father, after all, was not amongst the insurgents who rebelled against Moses during Korach’s rebellion. Moses consulted Hashem
and was told that they had a valid argument, and that land should be allotted to them.
A few sentences later, Moses asks Hashem to appoint a person to replace him, so that B’nai Yisrael should not be “as sheep without a shepherd”.
Rashi explains the reason why this request immediately follows the episode of Bnot Zelopchad. Moses felt that if the daughters were entitled to inherit the land, were not his own children entitled to be handed the leadership of the people? Rabbi Mordechai of Chernobel explains that Moses was concerned that the very sin that prohibited him entry into the land of Israel would prevent his children a chance at inheriting leadership. When he was told that Zelophchads’ daughters would not suffer from any misdeeds, he realized that his sin had nothing to do with his children. Hashem simply wished that Joshua, Moses own disciple assume the leadership, and lead the nation into the land of Israel.
The parshah ends on a rather unique note. Chapter 29 contains 39 sentences, all of which deal with sacrifices. Nachmanadies explains why this chapter is different. Previously, Moses communicated the instructions exclusively to Aaron and his sons, and here, the detailed instructions are being addressed to all of the Children of Israel.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Jul 19, 2019 | Torat Devorah
The Midrash states: “What is the difference between the prophets of the Jewish people and the prophets of the nations of the world? The prophets of Israel forewarned the nations not to transgress. However the prophets of the nations created breaches to destroy mankind so that it should have no connection with the world to come. The prophets of the Jewish people expressed the Attribute of Mercy, while their prophets expressed cruelty. Bilaam, the prophet of the nations, wanted to uproot and destroy an entire nation. This is the reason the Torah tells us the story of Bilaam. It is so that one should understand why there is no longer Divinely inspired people (prophets) among the nations of the world. If the power of prophecy would be given to an individual from the nations, it would be used for destruction, as Bilaam had done. Bilaam, being given prophecy, is the reason the nations of the world cannot claim at the end of time that G’d did not grant them the same opportunity as He had the Jewish people.”
The Torah states when Bilaam was on the way to curse the Jewish people, “G’d’s wrath flared because he was going, and an angel of Hashem stood on the road to impede him. Bilaam was riding on his donkey…The donkey saw the angel of Hashem standing on the road with his sword drawn in his hand….” The Midrash asks, “Why did the angel have a drawn sword in his hand? The angel could have blown upon Bilaam and caused him to die. As we see regarding the destruction of the army of Sancherev. When Sancherev had come upon the Jewish people with millions of troops to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple, the verse states, ‘The angel of Hashem went forth and had smitten the camp of Ashure. He had blown upon them and they dried-up.’ Why did the angel come upon Bilaam with a drawn sword, when he could have simply blown upon him? The angel said to Bilaam, ‘The power of the mouth was given to Yaakov. As the verse states, ‘The voice is the voice of Yaakov and the hands are the hands of Esav.’ It also states regarding the nations of the world, ‘By the sword you shall live…’ But you, Bilaam, took hold of the craft of the Jewish people and came upon them with your mouth (to curse them). Therefore, when I come upon you I shall do so with your craft (the sword).’ This is the reason the angel came upon Bilaam with a drawn sword.”
Rashi cites Chazal who explain that before Balak commissioned Bilaam to curse the Jewish people he had consulted with the Midianites in order to ascertain the secret power of the leader of the Jewish people. They had told him that the power of their leader lies in his mouth, his verbal expression. They therefore summoned Bilaam to counter Moshe, with his power of expression to curse the Jewish people. However, Balak and the Midianites had no understanding of the essence of Moshe’s power. The effectiveness of Moshe’s ability emanated from his unique dimension of spirituality. Moshe had no relevance to evil, as Bilaam had. He was imbued with holiness only to carry out the Will of G’d. The only commonality between Moshe and Bilaam was that both of their expressions emanated from their mouth. Although Bilaam’s curse was lethal, as it had proven to be, it had no relevance to his spirituality; but rather, it was rooted in his evilness/physicality. Chazal tell us that when Moshe had killed the Egyptian in Egypt when he was beating a Jew, he had done so through the enunciation of one of the Names of G’d. His killing of the Egyptian, through verbal expression rather than a physical act, was an indication of the spirituality of Moshe. Bilaam was known for his “evil eye.” Chazal tell us that when Bilaam initially wanted to bless the Jewish people, G’d had said to him, “Do not bless them. They do not need your blessing.” It is as one says to a bee, “We do not need your honey and we do not need your sting.” This is because a blessing that emanates from an evil source is the equivalent of a curse.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Jul 12, 2019 | Torat Devorah
The Torah states the following: “The Children of Israel, the whole community, arrived in the desert of Tzin in the first month and the people settled in Kadesh. Miriam died there and was buried there.” (Numbers, 20:1). There are many questions that need to be answered from this seemingly simple verse such as: Why does the Torah tell us what month the Israelites arrived – not usually found when the Torah reports arrivals; Why did the Torah emphasize that the whole congregation arrived?; Why did Miriam’s burial have to be mentioned and later on the absence of water as affecting the entire congregation?
Torat Moshe explains that our sages say that Moses and Aaron were busy with the funeral arrangements for Miriam, when they saw a multitude approaching. Moses was somewhat nonplussed, but Aaron felt that the people had surely come to pay their last respects to Miriam. Moses did not think so, for if Aaron had been correct, the people would have approached in an orderly procession. The confused mob approaching suggested to Moses that these people had something to complain about. When the people overheard this, they quarreled with Moses, and left Aaron out of it. In fact, they should have paid their respects to Miriam for a variety of reasons, not the least of it the fact that they had enjoyed a water supply for 40 years due to her merit. It was due to their indifference that God let it come to a critical situation. Should one argue that the people had been unaware that their water supply had been due to Miriam’s merit, God had stopped the supply IMMEDIATELY when Miriam had died, to bring home this lesson to the people who had either not known or had pretended not to know. Mention of their arrival in the desert, and the date, is to tell us that lack of water was not due to the natural habitat, nor to the time of year. At winter’s end, there is plenty of moisture remaining from the rainy season. Neither was the absence of water due to unfriendly terrain, since the people had settled there – in Kadesh – obviously a place fit for habitation. Water disappeared ONLY with the death of Miriam. This proved that the death of the righteous woman had caused the absence of water. The congregation was denied water now, because they had neglected to give water to Miriam after her death.
The red heifer plays a central role in the process of purifying someone who becomes “tamei”, i.e., spiritually tainted. A Jew becomes tamei when he or she comes into contact with a corpse, and as long as you are tamei you may not enter the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (Bamidbar 19:13,21). However, this condition is treatable. A red heifer is slaughtered and burned, and its ashes are used to create a mystical potion with purifying powers. A kohen sprinkles the contaminated Jew with the red heifer ash mixture and the Jew then returns to a normal state of tahara, i.e. spiritual purity (19:1-12). (Obviously, these laws have been out of use ever since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.) This procedure is hard enough to understand, but here’s the clincher: The kohen who administers the sprinkling becomes tamei! The very same process that purifies the contaminated Jew contaminates the kohen (19:21). Several great medieval rabbis independently compiled listings of the 613 biblical mitzvot. But the most innovative of these works is undoubtedly the Chinuch (anonymous, 13th century). Besides the basic listing, the Chinuch also speculates about the meaning and purpose of every mitzvah. This makes for a fascinating blend of law, ethics, and philosophy. When it comes to the red heifer, however, the Chinuch throws in the towel. “Although my heart emboldened me to write hints of the reasons for the other mitzvot… when it comes to this mitzvah my hand goes weak and I am frightened to open my mouth about it at all. For I have seen how our sages of blessed memory wrote at length of its deep mysteries and the vastness of its theme…” (Chinuch, mitzvah 397). Rabbi Yaakov Kamanetzky (1891-1986) questions the Chinuch’s nervous reaction to the red heifer. The Chinuch knew that all mitzvot are ultimately beyond our understanding. Mortals can’t expect to fathom the myriad of divine reasons for mitzvot. Although we certainly do appreciate the beauty and relevance of every mitzvah, we need to remember that we are only dipping beneath the surface of great depths of meaning. As the Chinuch himself admits, his explanations of the mitzvot are no more than surface level interpretations. He never claimed that his suggestions were all there is to it. So why won’t the Chinuch provide us with some insights into the red heifer? If he managed to supply a reason or a message for each of 612 other mitzvot in the Torah, why not finish the job? Rabbi Kamanetzky explains that the Chinuch did not at all give up when it came to the red heifer. He indeed does reveal its message. The red heifer’s message is the very fact that it is completely unknowable. This is a fundamental principle for all of Torah. There comes a point with every mitzvah where we must recognize that our human minds are limited. There is more to this world than we can ever know. There is a spiritual reality.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
