Nechama Leibowitz - Insights On The Parashah

Iyunim
Weekly Insights on the Parasha
By Professor Nechama Leibowitz (1905-1997) za"l

Parashat Bereshit
Languages
New Eye on Israel Worldwide Community Jewish Time Educational Resources About Us Tools and
Links
Parashat Bereshit
Iyunim - Weekly insights on the

Jewish sources Parasha with commentaries by
Kehati Mishna Nehama Leibovitz, za"l
Parashat Hashavua
Man in the Image of God
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah God said:
Let us make man in our image and likeness
(1, 26)
English
Man was created on the sixth day and was different from all that preceded
Hebrew him. Only his creation is recorded in two stages. First God made known
His intention to create him and afterwards the account of his actual
German creation is recorded.
Russian
Man qualified for a special preamble. This separate and distinctive
Spanish treatment was, Ramban points out, a measure of his pre-eminence and
his difference in kind from the rest of the animal world whose creation was
announced in the immediately preceding passage.
Nehama's Iyunim
In Rechasim Lebik’a another and more arresting reason is advanced from
Insights on the the special preamble: “let us make” accorded to man. It paralleled the
Parasha announcement heralding the creation of woman. There God had said
(Companion) before hand: “it is not good for man to be alone...” These explanatory
announcements were not made in the case of other creatures. Their
Nehama's Gilyonot
creation was announced without any such preliminary fanfares. Why?
“They illustrated God’s fairness to all His creatures in not intimidating them
by suddenly springing on them a ruler and governor, without warning. On
Nehar Deah the contrary, he said to them, ‘come let us make man’ like a king about to
levy tax on his people, announcing: ‘come let us levy a tax on the country
Rega Lifney in your interest’.”
Shabbat
Others have found the source of man’s distinction in having been created
last, Radak states: that “it was a sign of man’s honour and elevated status
Commentary of that he was created last to make known that all mortal creatures were
Rabbi Moshe Bergman created for his sake and he was made the lord of all them.”
(in Hebrew)
Dubnow in the Biur elaborates on the same theme: “Man was the crown of
creation, a little lower than the angels, possessor of an immortal soul,
Illustrations to the capable of an intelligent acknowledgment of His creator and ruling the
Weekly Parasha, by the world by dint of his wisdom. Let us make man, the creator announced. In
Studio in Old Jaffa other words, after I have created all the foregoing for the sake of man, to
supply his needs and enjoyment, let the master enter his palace.”
Man’s status as the aim of creation and his uniqueness are underlined by
the sublime phraseology describing his creation:
So God created man in his own image;
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/bereshit.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:06:06 a.m.

Parashat Bereshit
In the image of God created He him;

male and female created He them.
The style of the verse is poetic and elevated, the fact of man’s creation
being referred to three times. The chasm separating man from the rest of
creation is stressed twice in the statement that he was created in the
image of God. Both the duties, responsibilities and glory of man derive
from this. In this book Dat Umadda (Religion and Science), Prof. Gutmann
dwells on the term: “The image of God” (p. 265):
Zelem (image) refers to the personal relationship that can

only be found between “persons”. The personality of man is
placed vis-a-vis the personality of God. For there is a
religious approach (not Jewish) that sees the religious ideal
in the effacement of man’s personality. “Man’s personality is
regarded (according to this approach as a barrier between
him and things... but this is not the case with an ethical
religion. Only as long as man is a person can he preserve his
relationship with God. Man is a world of his own and he is not
required to merge himself in nature.
In other words, every individual is equally significant before God, since

every man was created in His image.
Therefore man was created on his own, to teach you that

whoever destroys one soul is regarded by the Torah as if he
had destroyed a whole world and whoever saves one soul, is
regarded as if he had saved a whole world. (Mishna
Sanhedrin 37a)
The uniqueness of the individual, a world to himself, unrepeatable is

vividly portrayed in the continuation of the same Mishna:
The greatness of the Holy One blessed be He is thus demonstrated. For

whereas when man prints many coins from one die, each one is a replica of the
other, the Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One blessed be He stamped every
man with the die of Adam yet no one exactly resembles his fellow.
Man as soon as he was created received a special divine blessing.

However he was not the first creature to be blessed by God, but had been
preceded by the fishes. The content of both blessings is similar but a very
significant difference can be detected. Compare the blessing accorded the
fishes:
...And God blessed them,

saying,
be fruitful and multiply
with the blessing received by man—
Then God blessed them and God said unto them,
be fruitful and multiply.
The fish do not qualify for a special address to them by God. They are
merely granted the power to be fruitful and multiply. This is their blessing.
Man however, besides being given the power to be fruitful and multiply, is
especially told by God to be fruitful and multiply and is conscious of his
power to do so. What is merely an impersonal fact with regard to the rest
of the animal creation is a conscious fact with regard to man. A similar
idea is to be found in the statement in Pirkei Avot (3,14).
Beloved is man since he was created in God’s image; But it was by a special
love that it was made known him that he was created in God’s image.

Parashat Bereshit
Man who was created in God’s image is charged with a special task over
and above those applying to the rest of creation. (1,28)
And God blessed them, and God said unto them:

Be fruitful and multiply.
And fill the earth and subdue it:
And rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
heaven;
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth;
The phrase “subdue it’ is rather puzzling at first glance, bearing as it does
a bellicose significance which is at variance with the peaceful ideals that
our sages considered to be the goal of mankind. Indeed the very origin of
man in one single pair was, according to them, activated by the Divine
wish to prevent war between mankind. This point is made in the Tosefta
cited in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 88b:
Man was created alone in the world to prevent inter-family

feud. Now if in spite of the fact that he was created alone,
strife has developed between them , all the more so if two
would have been created!
The Mishna we have already referred to in Sanhedrin goes further and

derives from the creation of the first man and woman the principle of
brotherhood of man and the condemnation of any special theory.
For this reason man was created alone, for the sake of peace
between mankind, so that one man should not say to his
fellow: My father was greater than yours!
The blessing therefore to “subdue it” cannot refer to man being bidden to
make war on his neighbor. Ramban enlightens us on this point. Man he
says, was thereby given dominion over the earth to do as his will with the
rest of the animal creation, to build, uproot, plant, mine metal from the
earth and the like. The phrase, therefore, refers rather to man’s conquest
of the desert and his constructive and civilizing endeavors to build and
inhabit the world, harness the forces of nature for his own good and
exploit the mineral wealth around him. In the words of Isaiah: “the world
was not created to be waste, but to be inhabited” (14,19). It was man’s
privilege accorded to him by his Creator to have dominion over the
creation and to rule over the fish of the sea and the fowl of the air and over
every living thing that moved.
The order of creation also sets man up as a pinnacle of it all, as he comes

after the fishes on the fifth day and animals on the sixth. Let us cite once
again from the words of Gutmann on this theme:
Man is not subservient to the world. The forces of nature are not supernatural
ones that are superior to him. But he stands on the side of God against nature.
Man is in our sidra addressed in the second person by God who directs
His gaze from above to the earth below. The psalmist in Psalm 8, as he
surveys the heavens and their hosts and senses at one and the same time
both his insignificance in the whole universe and his honoured position as
a ruler on earth, directs his gaze from below to the Above, addressing God
in the second person:
When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the

moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained; What is man,
that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou
visitest him?

Parashat Bereshit
For Thou hast made him a little lower than angels, and hast
crowned him glory and honour. Thou madest him to have
dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all
things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the
beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea,
and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
Questions for Further Study
1.
“In his image”: in the mould that had been cast for him;
for all else had been created by word, but he by hand,
as it is stated (Psalm 139, 5): “Thou hast laid Thy hand
upon me.” He was stamped as coin is minted. “In the
image of God he created him”—the verse goes on to
explain that the same image prepared for him was
indeed the image of his Maker. (Rashi on Gen. 1,27)
“So God created man in his image”—the one now in

the world. (Lekah Tov)
Since the phrase “in his image” can be taken to refer to man as
many have imagined, the text proceeds to specify: “in the image of
God” as the sages say: “i.e. such and such a thing”. There are
countless examples of this in the Torah and Holy Writ. (Kaspi)
1. What is the difference between the above explanations?

(Have we three or only two separate interpretations?)
2. Which commentator have we followed in our discussion of
the sidra?
2.
“In his image” in the image of Man. Alternatively: “in

the image of God.” Awesomely: “”in the image of God
He created him.” (Bechor Shor)
What does he mean by “awesomely”? --literally: “the terrible of

awful approach”: Cf.: the phrase: “great and terrible God” or Blake
in Tiger Tiger: “thy awful symmetry.”
3.
“In the image of God he created him.” Cf.: “and at the

hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother,
will I require the life of man” (Gen. 9, 5) and: “The man
who commits adultery with a man’s wife, even if he
who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife.” (Lev.
20, 10) (Shadal)
❍ (a) What is common to all three verses?

❍ (b) Which of the explanations in question 1 does Shadal
follow?

Gilyonot - Parashat Noah
Languages
Links
Parashat Noah
Iyunim - Weekly insights on the Parasha with

Jewish sources commentaries by Nehama Leibovitz, za"l
Kehati Mishna Lesson of the flood

Parashat Hashavua Cassuto in his work From Noah to Abraham pp. 30-31, comments as
follows on the story of the deluge as related in our sidra:
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
The structure of the chapter is carefully worked out down to the last detail.
English
The story is divided into two acts of six paragraphs each. The first part
Hebrew starting at the beginning of the sidra to chapter 7 verse 24, stage by stage,
the workings of Divine justice, unleashing catastrophe on a world that has
German become filled with violence. The picture becomes progressively darker,
until only one spark of light remains to illuminate the deathly gloom
Russian characterizing the sixth paragraph (7, 17-24). This is the ark which floated
on the awesome waters that had covered everything, and which guarded
Spanish within its bounds the hope of life in the future:
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the
Nehama's Iyunim
ground,both man, and cattle, and reptile, and the fowl of the heaven; and
Insights on the they were destroyed from the earth and no one save Noah remained alive
Parasha and they that were with him in the ark.
(Companion)
The second act depicts for us the various successive stages of Divine
Nehama's Gilyonot mercy renewing life on earth. The light that had become reduced to
nothing more than a tiny dot in a world of darkness now shines brighter
and brighter, till it once again illuminates the whole of our canvas. Now we
are shown a tranquil world adorned with the rainbow, reflecting its
Nehar Deah
spectrum of colour through the clouds, as a sign of surety of life and
Rega Lifney peace for the coming generations.
Shabbat
This is the token of the covenant which I have established
between me and all flesh that is upon the earth (9, 17).
Commentary of
Rabbi Moshe Bergman The wrongdoing of the antedeluvians is alluded to in the last paragraphs
(in Hebrew) of the previous sidra, illustrated in the continuous moral decline of the
human race, from fratricide (Cain and Abel) to the glorification of battle
and the sword in Lemech’s lyrical outburst, and the deeds of the “sons of
Illustrations to the God,” who “took themselves wives of all which they chose.”
Weekly Parasha, by the
Studio in Old Jaffa These latter were “strong-arm” men who, in the words of R. David Kimhi,
“upheld the principle of might is right and there were none to deliver from
their clutches.” This picture of moral disintegration becomes steadily
blacker until it is stated at the end of the last sidra:
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/noah.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:08:57 a.m.

was only evil continually. (6, 5)
The moral crime of the generation of the flood is further described in

somewhat different phrasing, in two sentences, at the beginning of our
sidra:
The earth was also corrupt before God And the earth was
filled with violence. (6, 11)
In the opinion of our sages cited in Rashi, the first sentence refers to
sexual corruption, whilst the second refers to social crimes. (hamas )
“violence” refers to “robbery” (gezel).
In the Divine message to Noah wherein He reveals to him his dread

decision to wipe out mankind, only the last type of offence is referred to:
And God said to Noah, the end of all flesh is come before
me; for the earth is filled with violence (hamas) through them.
(6, 13)
Our sages were puzzled by the variation in the description of human

behavior, prior to the deluge in verse 11 and the naming of the sin that led
the Almighty to steal mankind’s fate in verse 13.
Here is what our sages comment on this subject in the Talmud, Sanhedrin
108a:
Said R. Yohanan: Come and see how dreadful is the power if

violence! For behold the generation of the deluge committed
every conceivable transgression, yet their fate was only
sealed when they put forth their hands to robbery, as it says:
“for the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold
I will destroy them from the earth.”
The Midrash abounds in descriptions of the wickedness of the generation

of the deluge, of the exhaustive list if inequities perpetrated by them.
Nevertheless it is always stressed that of all their numerous
transgressions, only that one specifically named, that of violence, sealed
their fate and brought down Divine judgement on them:
For the earth was filled with violence.
The Midrash aptly sums up the corrupting nature of “violence which is

capable of demoralising all that is good in human nature, and acts as an
inexorable barrier between man and his Maker.
Thus said Job (Job 16, 17): “Not for any justice in mine
hands: also my prayer is pure.” Is there the a prayer that is
impure? But he who prays to God with hands soiled by
violence is not answered. Why? Because his prayer is
impure, as it is said: “And God said, the end of all flesh is
come before me; for the earth is filled with violence.” But
since Job never committed any violence, his prayer was
pure. (Shemot Rabbah)
The words of the Neila prayer should still echo in our ears, permeated by
its ever-current theme that “we cease from oppression of our hands.” An
allusion to another concept that is the keynote of the Neila prayer is also
detected in the sidra by our sages. This concept is referred to in Ezekiel
(33, 11), pointing out that God does not desire the death of the wicked but
rather their repentance.

The Midrash weaves this theme into the fabric of the story of the building
of the ark, and the miraculous deliverance of Noah and his company
through its means.
Come and see, why did the Holy One blessed be He

command Noah to make the ark? In order that mankind
should see him engaged in its construction and repent of
their ways. Could not the Holy One blessed be He have
saved him by his word or have borne him up to Heaven by
his faith that he said to him, “Make for these an ark of gopher
wood”? Wherefore thus? But said the Holy One blessed He:
Since I say to him: “Make for thee an ark of gopher wood,”
and he becomes engaged in the work and cuts cedar wood,
they will gather around him and say to him: Noah! What
makest thou? Saith he: An ark!--Because God hath told me
that he is bringing a deluge on the earth. As a result of this ,
they will listen and will repent. So the Holy One blessed be
He thought ....but they took no notice.
(Tanhuma)
Here is another version:
Noah went and planted cedars and they asked him: These
cedars—what are they for? He said to them: The Holy One
blessed be He seeketh to bring a flood and hath told me to
build an ark for myself and household to escape in.
Whereupon they laughed and mocked at him. Towards the
end of his life he cut them down and planed them,
whereupon they said to him What art thou doing? He would
tell them and give them warning. Since they did not repent...
This again is the theme of Rashi in the next chapter (7, 12) when the
Almighty gave the generation its last chance to repent:
And the rain was upon the earth.
“And the rain was upon the earth”: Further it states: “And the flood was...
upon the earth (17)? When He caused it to descend with mercy, so that in
the event of their repenting, the rain would be one of blessing. When they
did not repent it turned into a deluge.
The last warning did not avail and the flood came and wiped them out.
Questions for Further Study:
1.
Read over the story of the flood (6, 9-9, 17) and mark the twelve
subdivisions referred to in our quotation at the beginning from
Cassuto, in the following manner:
Act 1 Act 11
(1)
6, 9-12 (7)
(2)

6, 13-22 (8)
(3)
7, 1- (9)
(4)
(10)
(5)
(11)
(6)
(12)
Pay careful attention to the conclusion of these paragraphs. What is the

significance of the similarity in phrasing that you find in the paragraphs
concerned?
2.
According to Cassuto, the parallels to be observed within these two
sections that form the story of the flood are “concentric” in
arrangement: the opening of the first section corresponds to the end
of the second, the middle of the first to the middle of the second and
the end of the first to the beginning of the second.
Explain what these correspondences in content and phrasing consist of.
3. In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japhet...
into the ark. The, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their
kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind,
and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort. (7, 13-14)
Why does the text diverge from the order of creation? (see 1, 20-25) and
mention the fowl last?
4.
“In the selfsame day enterd Noah...” – the verse teaches us that his
contemporaries used to say to him: If we were to see him go into
the Ark we would wreck it and slay him. Said the Holy One blessed
be he: I shall install him in the Ark in front of everyone and we shall
see whose words shall prevail.
“And the Lord shut him in...” -- protected him from them wrecking it. He
encircled the Ark
with bears and lions which slew them. (Rashi on Gen. 7, 13-16)
(a)
Point out which word or phrase in our text prompted the above
Midrash.
(b)
Suggest a psychological explanation for the conduct of the
generation of the deluge to fit the scene depicted in the Midrash.
(c)
Try to explain why the Torah did not include any description of the
conduct of the generation of the flood when retribution overtook
them.

Gilyonot - Parashat Lech Lecha
Languages
Links
Parashat Lech Lecha

Parashat Hashavua
Choice of Abraham
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah Ten generations elapsed between Adam and Noah. The descent of man
from Adam’s sin to the commission of murder, idolatry and immorality are
traced for us till the retribution of the deluge. A further ten generations
English elapsed between Noah and Abraham. The sins of men increased after the
deluge and the deeds of the mighty hunter Nimrod were followed by the
Hebrew dividing of humanity into languages and nations, till the almighty decided
to single out one particular individual from amongst them, and charged
German him with the mission of founding a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
This Divine act of singling out one human being has the taint of
Russian
discrimination and unfair privilige. As R. yehuda Halevi puts into the mouth
Spanish of the king of the Kazars in his philisophic classic the Kuzari, “would it not
have been better had god given his approval to all men alike?” the answer
to this question is worked out for us in a Midrash on a verse in Jeremiah
Nehama's Iyunim (51, 9):
Insights on the “Get thee out of thy country”—R. Azariah cited in this connection the
Parasha following verse: “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed;
(Companion) forsake her, and let us go everyone into his own country.” “We would have
healed Babylon” refers to the generation of Enosh; “but she is not
Nehama's Gilyonot healed”—to the generation of the flood; “forsake her” in the generation of
the dispersion; “and let us go everyone into his own country”—“And the
Lord said unto Abraham: Get thee out of thy country.”
Nehar Deah
(Bereshit Rabbah 39, 5)
Rega Lifney
Shabbat
The Midrash traces the failures of mankind in three stages. The healer of
all flesh tried to heal humanity, but it would not be healed. Adam and his
Commentary of descendants failed. A new start was made with Noah and his
Rabbi Moshe Bergman descendants. After the babel of tongues humanity became divided into
(in Hebrew) nations and no further efforts could be made to heal it. Mankind would not
return to its pristine unity and brotherhood, without a third start, in which
one people would be singled out for blessing: “And in thee shall all the
Illustrations to the families of the earth be blessed,” till all the peoples which do not now
Weekly Parasha, by the “understand one another’s speech” will become once again one family.
Studio in Old Jaffa
The above Midrash justifies the necessity for selection, since all other men
have failed, but it does not explain what justified Abraham’s election. The
Torah does not relate to us even one detail of Abraham’s previous life
which would give us reason fro understanding the Divine choice. Noah
found favour in the eyes of the Lord because, as it is distinctly stated, he
was a man righteous and perfect in his generation who walked with God.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/lech.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 10:12:50 a.m.

Even the choice of Moses at the burning bush was preceded by the
stories of how he acquitted himself in championing the cause of his
persecuted brethen in Eygpt, and of the daughters of Jethro in Midian and
of his leading his father in law’s flock. Ramban refers to this difficulty:
This passage does not clarify all the issues involved. What sense was
there in the Almighty ordering him to leave his birthplace and offering him
unprecedented rewards, without prefacing that Abraham had deserved it
by being loyal to God, or being righteous, or by telling him that by leaving
his birthplace and going to another country he would attain a greater
nearness to God/ it is more usual to find such phrases as “walk before me
and hearken to My voice and I will reward you” as in the case of David and
Solomomn, or such conditional clauses as “if you walk in my statutes,” or
“if you hearken to the Lord your God.” In the case of Isaac the Almighty
blessed him “for my servant Abraham’s sake” (26, 24). But surely there is
no sense in promising reward and blessing on account of leaving his
country.
Admittedly, oral tradition elaborates on Abraham’s inner struggle towards

recognition of the true God in his youth and his fight against idaltry at
home and abroad. We cited on p. 109ff Ramban’s reconstruction of his
early life based on that tradition. He does not link Abraham’s past, his
campaign against idol worship with his election. In contrast Ramban
explicitly traces the Almighty’s choice of Abraham to the latter’s
meritorious past:
But the real reason for the Divine promise was the fact that the Chaldeans
had persecuted Abraham for his faith in God and he had fled from them in
the direction of the land of Canaan and had tarried in Haran. Then God
appeared to him and told him to leave and go on further as he had
intended to do, inorder to serve him and rally other men to the true God in
the chosen land where his name would become great, and the nations
there would be blessed through him. Unlike his experience in Chaldea,
where he had been despised and reviled for his faith and thrown into the
furnace, in the new land He would bless them that blessed him and any
individual who would curse him would have himself be cursed.
Our sages are not content with describing Abraham as the iconclast and
fighter for the true faith even as far as martyrodom. They credit him with
observing the whole Torah, even before it was given. Our sages probably
wished to emphasise that in Judaism belief in one God and the true faith
were impossible without observance of the precepts. Whoever
acknowledges one God, must logically carry out His precepts.
If Abraham deserved being chosen by God as a result of what he

accomplished in his youth, why did the Torah fail to record his
achievements? To this Ramban answers:
But the Torah did not wish to elaborate on the opinions of the idol
worshippers and dwell on the religious issues in Abraham’s controversies
with the Chaldeans, just the same as the Torah deals very briefly with the
generation of Enosh and their innovations in idolatrous belief.
This answer is not very satisfying. Surely, the Torah could have found a
way of desribing Abraham’s struggles without giving too prominent a place
to idolatrous practices! But another answer has been suggested. Abraham
was destined to be tried ten times by the Almighty. The Torah was not
interested in Abraham as the son of Terah or the subject of Nimrod, but

only in his role as the ancestor of the jewish people, and as the beare of
the Divine message. The very fact that God had chosen him as the object
of His trials was in itself evidence that he was worthy to be chosen. The
idea is propounded in the Midrash:
" Said R. Jonathon: A potter does not test cracked jars which cannot be
struck even once without breaking. What does he test? Good jars which
will not break even if struck many times. Similarly, the Holy One blessed
be He does not try the wicked but the righteous, as it is said: “The Lord
trieth the righteous...” (Bereshit Rabbah 32)
Henceforth fron this first Lech Lecha to the end of Vayera—the last Lech
Lecha Will go from trial to tial.
1.
Get thee out of thy country,and from thy kindred, and from thy
father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee. (12, 1) take now
thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee
into the land of Moriah... upon one of the mountains which I will tell
thee of. (22, 2)
R. Levi bar Hama said: The Holy One blessed be He said to him: In
both the first and last trial I try you with “Get thee out”: “Get thee out
from thy country” and “Get thee into the land of Moriah.” (Tanhuma
Yashan 4)
Modern scholars have proved that the scirture uses key words and
phrases in order to underline the links between the different stories
in the Bible or parts of the same story. But our sages went much
further than modern scholarship. They emphasized the identity of
expressions in order to connect the incidents concerned and the
lessons to be learnd from them. Our sages wove these threads
even between precepts and facts and even between one precept
and another.
(a) Explain the connection between the two extracts which our
sages wished to emphasize?
(b) What other linguistic evidences do you find linking our passage
with chapter 22?
(c) Some commentators query: What does the word vayakom (he
arose) in 22, 3 add after the text already states vayashkem (he
arose early)? Cf. A similar insertion in Gen. 43, 15: “The men took
of the gift and the double money they took in their hand and
Benjamin too and they arose (vayakumu) and went down from
Eygpt” in contrast to “Joseph’s brothers ten went down to buy corn
from Eygpt”.
(42, 3)
(d) Can you explain why the two revelations (of chaps. 12 and 22)
do not open with the words “He (the Lord) appeared to him” as in
12, 7; 17, 1 and 18, 1?

2. What I Ramban’s view of the miracle of the fiery furnace as

emerging from the quotation we have cited?
1. What is the point of Ramban’s final thought in our second quotation

from him: “he would bless them that blessed him and any individual
who would curse himself be cursed”? What stylistic anomely did he
explain through this?
2. Which verse in the sidra of Bereshit did Ramban allude to in his
reference “the generation of Enosh and their innovations in
idolatrous belief” in our last quotation from him?
The Pedagogic Center

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Vayera
Languages
Links
Parashat Vayera

Kehati Mishna Would you Destroy the Righteous with the Wicked!
Parashat Hashavua The moral stature of the patriarch Abraham was considerably greater than
that of Noah, the progenitor of the human race. We quote here the words
Hebrew Text of the of the Zohar on this point:L
Parashah
"And Abraham drew near and said, wilt thou also destroy the righteous
with the wicked?" (Genesis 18, 23)said R. Yehuda: Who hath seen a
English
father as compassionate as Abraham? Come and see: Regarding Noah it
Hebrew
is stated (6, 13) "And God said to Noah, the end of all flesh is come before
me;...and behold I will destroy them from the earth. Make thee an ark of
German gopher wood..."; And Noah held his peace and said naught, neither did he
intercede. Whereas Abraham, as soon as the Holy One blessed be He
Russian said to him: "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and
because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see...";
Spanish Immediately, as it is stated, "and Abraham drew near and said: Wilt thou
also destroy the rightous with the wicked?";
Nehama's Iyunim God indeed afforded Abraham with the opportunity for interceding on
behalf of the sodomites,since He said to him Because the cry of Sodom
Insights on the
and Gomorrah is great, And because their sin is very grievous I will go
Parasha
down and see... (18, 20-2)
(Companion)
Nehama's Gilyonot This passage clearly mirrors the Divine intention to put Abraham to the
test to see whether he woul beseech mercy for them. Immediately after
this "Abraham drew near."; What are the exact implications of the phrase
"drew near"; in relation to the Almighty who fills the whole world with his
Nehar Deah
glory? Rashi explains this to us, basing himself on ancient Rabbinic
Rega Lifney
sources.
Shabbat
Drawing near to speak harshly (that is to join or draw near to battle ,as it
were)
Commentary of
Rabbi Moshe Bergman Drawing near to appease
(in Hebrew)
Drawing near to pray
Illustrations to the In other words, Abraham mustered all his inner resource, both his gentle
Weekly Parasha, by the and hard qualities, love and fear, mildness and boldness, ready to combat
Studio in Old Jaffa on behalf of Sodom. He argued:
It be far from Thee to do after this manner and besought:
Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once.
He boldly exclaimed:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vayera.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:17:19 a.m.

Shall not the judge of all earth do justice?
And recoiled in awe:
Behold now I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, Which am but
dust and ashes.
Let us try to understand the contents of his supplication. On whose behalf

did Abraham intercede? To save the righteous? Or the widked as well?
Here we qute the first part of his intercession:
Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city:
Will thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that
are therein?
That be far from Thee to do after this manner,
To slay the righteous with the wicked:
And that the righteous should be as the wicked,
Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice?
(18,23-25)
Our commentators have been puzzled by the seeming contradictions in

the above passage. Here we quote the remarks of Solomon Dubnow in
the Biur , to genesis:
First (v. 23) Abraham prayed that God should not slay the righteous
together with the wicked, whereas in the immediately succeeding verse he
besought God to deliver the wicked along with the righteous, even before
his first prayer had been answered. In the next verse Abraham then
reverted to his first plea to save only the righteous.
Here is a plausible solution propounded by David ben Samuel Halevi in

his work on Rashi entitled Divrei David:
It is only right that you do not destroy the righteous with the wicked, since
that is but justice and requires no prayer. My prayer is only directed at
beseeching You to deliver the whole place for the sake of the righteous.
But if my prayer is of no avail, then at least, why should you kill the
righteous since this is not a question of seeking a special favour but is
only justice!
Two principles are here enunciated, the first, that of righteous judgement.
It is this which emerges in the Torah as the quality characterizing
Abraham's conduct and which distinguishes his spiritual destiny, as
worded in the verses preceding his dialogue with the Almighty:
For I know him,
That he will command his children and his household after him And they
shall keep the way of the Lord, To do justice and judgement. (18, 19)
The phrase: "For I know him"; imlpies that this as the path that had been

morked out for him and his descendants by God. (cf. Jeremiah 1, "Before I
formed thee in the belly I knew thee";). But the destiny that had been
marked out for Abraham in the future also fitted the pattern of his conduct
in the biblical narrative. The Petriarch is true to the principles divinely
reserved for his descendants, even before he had yet been granted
children. Abraham demands the same standard of conduct, as it were,
from the Judge of the earth:
Shall no the Judge of all the earth do Justice?!
The second principle that emerges from the dialogue between Abraham
and the Almighty is the responsibilty of the righteous few towards the rest
of society, however corrupt, and their capacit to save it from destruction by
the sheer force of their own merit and moral impact. Should there exist in
Sodom, the symbol of wickedness and corruption, fifty righteous men,
should not their merit be capable of saving the whole city? Surely even
one light illuminates far more than itselfand one spark is sufficient to
penetrate the thickest darkness! Surely the "place"; constitutes but one
whole and if its heart is strong and healthy, should this not result in saving
the rest of the body?
The prophet Jeremiah formulated these same sentiments in a starker and

more extreme manner:
Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, And see now and
know, and seek in the broad places thereof, If ye can find a man, If there
be any that executeth judgement, that seeketh the truth; And I will pardon
it. (Jeremiah 5, 1)
But our sages inserted one important proviso limiting the power of the few
or the individual to save the many through their merit, finding an allusion to
their principle in the Divine answer to Abraham's first plea in our chapter:
And the Lord said:
If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city,
Then I will spare all the place for their sakes.(18, 26)
It is the repetition implied in the employing of both "in Sodom"; and "within
the city"; that provides our commentators with the clue. Ibn Ezra briefly but
significantly reveals the all important implications of this repetition:
the reason for the words "within the city"; implies that they fear the Lord in
public, compare Jeremiah"run ye to and fro throught the streets of
Jerusalem.";
In other words, the few can turn the scales and save the place, if the
righteous individuals concerned are "within the city,"; playing a prominent
part in public life and exerting their influence in its many fields of activity.
But if they merely exist, living in retirement and never venturing firth but
pursuing their pious conduct unseen and unknown, they will, perhaps,
save themselves, but will certainly not possess the spiritual merit capable
of protecting the city. The same city which forces the righteous few into
retirement so that their scrupulous moral standards should not interfere
with the injustice dominating public life, the same city is not entitled to
claim salvation by virtue of the handful of righteous men leading a
secluded life within it.
Sodom could not boast of fifty, forty, thirty, or even ten righteous men, and
if they existed, at any rate they were not "within the city."; Radak, quoting

his father, explains Jeremiah's lament referred to above in the same

sense, implying that no "man"; of any importance could be found "that
executeth judgement, that seeketh the truth"; in the streets of Jerusalem.
Here we cite the Radak an the relevant verse:
Behold David had said (Psalms 79, 2) "the dead bodies of thy servants
have they given to be meat unto the beats of the earth."; Behold, then,
there were in Jerusalem saints and servants of the Lord. How could
Jeremiah then say "if there be any that executeth judgement...!"; my
father, his memory be for a blessing, explained that Jeremiah expressly
stated "throughthe streets of jerusalem"; and "in the broad places
thereof,"; since the saints who were in Jerusalem hid inside their houses
and were not able to show themselves in the streets and public places
because of the wicked.
"Then Abraham drew near and said, Wilt Thou indeed destroy";: ...
implying that it would be decent and generous of Him to spare the whole
population for the skae of the fifty righteous ones. On the other hand, the
Almighty would be violating even the letter of the law by destoryng both
righteous and wicked. This would equate them both, giving an excuse for
those who say: "it is vain to serve God"; (Malachi 3). How much more
would the Judge of the whole earth be violating the quality of mercy. This
is the force of the repetition of "far be it from Thee";. Ultimately the Holy
One blessed be He did agree to spare the whole place for their sake,
treating them with the quality of mercy. (Ramban)
"And not spare the place";: The text does not read "the people of the
place"; since that would mean the guilty ones only, who would be meeting
their just deserts. It was only fair however not to destroy the place
completely so lomg as there remained fifty righteous persons within it. The
wicked would be destroyed with the place remaining on the map
populated by the surviving righteous.(Radak)
(a)
What is the diference between these two commentators in their
approach to the text?
(b)
Whom have we followed (see pp.185-6).

Director:

Parashat Haye Sara
Languages
Links
Parashat Haye Sara

Kehati Mishna TABLE-TALK OF PATRIARCHS’ SERVANTS

Parashat Hashavua Our previous study of this sidra was devoted to the significance of the
character test to which Rebecca was submitted by Abraham’s servant. We
Hebrew Text of the noted the qualities of compassion and goodness to all human creatures,
Parashah reflected in her act of offering to water the camels. This time we shall
confine our attention to the activities and words of the servant, and note
how admirably he fulfilled the mission with which he was charged.
English
Hebrew
The Torah relates, with a surprising wealth of detail, every action of the
servant in chapter 24 till verse 26. His experiences are recapitulated (the
German conversation with Abraham, his prayer at the well, his meeting with
Rebecca, her reaction, and the presentation of the bracelets) in the form
Russian of his report to Rebeca’s family in verse 35 to 48 of the same chapter. This
lengthy and seemingly superfluous recapitulation has excited the
Spanish comment of many of our expositors. In view of the Torah’s sparing use of
words and avoidance of every unnecessary repetition, even the addition or
subtraction of a letter, it is surprising, that we do not meet here with the
Nehama's Iyunim brief note that the servant related to them all that had occirred, as is,
indeed, the case when he returns home—
Insights on the
Parasha
And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done.
(Companion)
(24, 26)
Nehama's Gilyonot
The Torah must have obviously had a very special reason for recording
the servant’s recapitulation of his experiences. Our sages commented on
his unusual repetitiveness in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 60,11) as
Nehar Deah
follows;
Rega Lifney
Shabbat Said R. Aha: The table-talk of the servants of the patriarchs’
households is more notable (literally: “beautiful”) than the
scripture (Torah) of their descendants. Eliezer’s story is
Commentary of recorded and recapitulated, taking up to three pages,
Rabbi Moshe Bergman whereas one of the fundamental rulings of the Torah, to the
(in Hebrew)
effect that the blood of a creeping thing defiles in the same
way as its flesh, is only known to us through the superfluity of
one letter in the Scriptures (i.e. we deduce the principle that
Illustrations to the
the blood of a creeping thing defiles from th superfluous word
“the” in the verse literally translated as: “these also shall be
into you the unclean among the creeping things” (Leviticus
Studio in Old Jaffa
11,29).
The Story The Recapitulation
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/hayesara.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:23:50 a.m.

Parashat Haye Sara
1. And the Lord had blessed 35. And the Lord hath blessed ... and he
Abraham in all things. is become great: and He hath given him
greatly; flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold,
and men -servants, and maidservants,
and camels, and asses.
2. And I will make thee 37. And my master made me swear,
swear by the Lord, the God saying.
of heaven, and the God of
the earth
3. That thou shall not take a Thou shall not take a wife to my son of
wife unto my son of the the daughters of the Canaanites, in
daughters of the whose land I dwell:
Canaanites, among whom I
dwell:
4. But thou shall go unto my But thou shall go unto my father’s house.
country, and to my And take a wife unto my son.
birthplace.And take a wife
onto my son Isaac.
5. Peradventure the woman 39. Peradventure the woman willing to

will not be unto this land: follow me. ---------------------------
Must I needs bring thy son

again unto the land from
whence thou comest?
7. The Lord of heaven, 40. The Lord before whom I walk,
which took me from my
father’s house, and from the
land of my birth, and which
spake unto me...
7. He shall send His angel 40. Will send His angels with thee, And
before thee, and thou shall thou shalt take a wife for my son of my
take a wife unto my son kindred, and of my father’s house:
from thence.
8. -------------------------
Only bring not my son
thither again.
12. O Lord God of my 42. O Lord God of my master Abraham, if
master Abraham, send me now thou do prosper my way which I go:
good speed this day, and
shew kindness unto my
master Abraham.
14. And she shall say, Drink 44. Both drink thou, and I will also draw
and I will give thy camels for thy camels; let the same be the Lord
drink also: let the same be hath appointed out for my master’s son.
she that Thou hast
appointed for thy servant
Isaac: and thereby shall I
know that thou hast shewed
kindness unto my master.
15. And it came to pass 45. And before I had done Speaking in
before he had done mine heart,
speaking.

Parashat Haye Sara
17. And said, Let me, I pray 45. And I said unto her, Let me I pray
thee,drink a little water of thee. drink,
thy pitcher.
18. And she said, Drink, my 46. And she made haste, and let down
Lord: and she hastened and her pitcher from her hand, and shoulder,
let down her pitcher upon gave him drink.
her and said, Drink,
19. And when she had done And I will give thy camels drink also: So I
giving him drink, she said, I drank, and she made the camels drink
will draw for thy camels also.
also, until they have done
drinking. And she hasted,
and emptied her pitcher into
the trough, and ran again ...
to draw water, and drew for
all his camels.
22. And it came to pass, as 47. And I asked her, and said: Whose
the camels had done daughter art thou? And she said the
drinking, that the man took a daughter of Bethuel...
golden ring...and two
bracelets from her hands of
ten shekels weight of gold.
23. And said, Whose And I put the ring upon her nose and the
daughter art thou? tell me, I bracelets upon her hands.
pray thee: is there room in
thy father’s house for us to
lodge in?
26. And the man bowed 48. And I bowed down my head, and
down his head, and worshipped the Lord, and blessed the
worshipped the Lord. And Lord God by my master Abraham. which
he said, Blessed be the Lord had led me in the right way to take my
God of my master Abraham, master’s brother’s daughter unto his son.
who hath not left destitute
my master of his mercy and
his truth: I being in the way,
the Lord led me to the
house of my master’s
brethren.
Our classic commentators from Talmudic times onwards, incliding such

great medieval exegetes as Rashi and Ramban, right down to Malbim and
the “Netziv” in Haamek Davar in the last century made a point of
explaining the significance of the variations, both great and small between
these two accounts. We have the servant’s longer elaboration at the
beginning of his report to Rebecca’s family in order to emphasise
Abraham’s wealth , the glossing over of the differences in faith between
Abraham and his family in Haran reflected in the omission of phrase “the
Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the God of the earth” which
would not be appreciated in Laban’s circles (verse 3 and verse 37). We
may note the emphasis given to Abraham’s command to find a wife for his
son from among his “father’s house,” a sentiment which was not at all
uttered by Abraham, (cf. verses 39 and 5), and finally the change in order
on regard to the asking of the girl’s name and the giving of the presents.
This latter change is noted in Rashi on verse 47:

Parashat Haye Sara
“And I asked and I put”—he changed the order, for in reality,

he first gave the presents and afterwards asked, but he did
so, so that they should not catch him out and say: How did
you give her before you knew who she was?
Isaac Arama in his Akedat Yitzhak goes into more detail:
Previously the servant had emphasised that he came on a

special mission to Abraham’s family, preferring them above
all other people for his son. If he would have said that
presented the ring to Rebecca before he even knew to which
family she belonged, this would have contradicted his
previous assertion, since a man will not just give his
valuables away to no purpose. Presumably, since he gave
them to just any woman, they must have been given as
marriage gifts. This is what Rashi referred to when he stated
that Eliezer was afraid they would catch him out.
The variations referred to above and many others reveal the wonderful
judgement, discretion and devotion of Abraham’s servant in carrying out
his mission, until he brought it to a successful conclusion. No better
evidence of his success can be cited than the very words of his listeners
after hearing his persuasive eloquence:
The matter stems from the Lord:

we cannot speak unto thee bad or good
Behold Rebecca is before thee,
take her, and go,
and let her be thy master’s son’s wife,
-as the Lord hath spoken. (24, 50, 51)
Had the Torah rested content with a brief phrase to the effect that the
servant related to Rebecca’s family all that had befallen him, we would not
have been apprised of the measure of his devotion and abilities in carrying
out his master’s commands. To this our sages referrde when they stated
“the table-talk” of the servants of the Patriarch’s households is more
notable...”
1. In actual fact he (Eliezer) reported the events as they had

happened. But we cannot explain the reason for all the
additions and omissions in his account; for they are legion.
He old them all that had gone between himself and his
master, his transactions with Rebacca and that God had
providently arranged matters just as Abraham had promised.
His emphasis on this point was to impress on them that they
had no alternative. They could not stop the girl from
accepting the marriage offer since the matter was from God.
The recapitulation involves merely a variation in wording but
the sense is thae same. This unavoidable in reported
speech—it preserves the sense but not the exact wording.
(The latter sentence is a quotation from Ibn Ezra who repeats
it insisently). (Radak on 24, 39)
(a) In what way does the approach of Radak and Ibn Ezra
differ from the commentators we have fo
(b) List the pros and cons of the two approaches.

Parashat Haye Sara
2. The Lord God of Heaven who took me from my father’s house
But he did not say “the God of the earth.” Yet above he said:
“I adjured thee by the Lord God of heaven and the God of the
earth”. What Abraham meant was: Now he is the God of the
heavens and the God of the earth, since I have accustomed
people to speak of Him; but when He took me from my
father’s house He was the God of Heaven, and not the God
of earth, since the peoples of the world did not acknowledge
Him, and His name was not familiar on earth. (Rashi)
“The God of heaven and the God of earth.” The fact that the
text does not say afterwards “the God of heaven”
only—presents no difficulty; for as I have already pointed out
to you—explanation is an act of grace, and avoidance of it is
no crime. (Ibn Kaspi: Mishneh Kesef)
(a) What does Ibn Kaspi mean by “explanation is an act of grace and
avoidance of it is no crime"?
(b) What difference in principle exists between the methods of

interpretation represented here by the two commentators
(c) Cf. The words of Malchizedek and those of Abraham v. 19-22

chap.14. Which of the two commentators can find support for his
approach?
“Then the servant related to Bethuel and Laban all the things
he had done” as he find at the end of the chapter when he
returns to Isaac.
3. Why is the text brief in verse 66: “Then the servant told
Isaac all the things he had done” instead of reporting the
whole story verbatim here and not previously in v. 35-48?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Toldot
Languages
Links
Parashat Toldot

Kehati Mishna My name is Great Among the Nations

Parashat Hashavua The title is taken from the week’s Haftara which, like the sidra is
concerned with the struggle between Jacob and Esau. There are two
Hebrew Text of the verses at its beginning alluding to this subject which presents a difficulty:
Parashah
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? Said the Lord; yet I loved Jacob; but Esau
I hated, and made his mountains a desolation,
English
Hebrew and gave his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. (Malachi 1, 2-3)
German Rashi comments:
Russian
“He loved Jacob” to give him a pleasant land, “the goodliest heritage of the
Spanish
nations” (after `Jer.3, 19), a land to which all the hosts of nations
assembled. “But Esau I hated”—to drive him to the land of Seir from
before Jacob his brother...
Nehama's Iyunim
As the verse emphasises , their origins and pedigree were no different.
Insights on the Why then, in one case did God hate and, in the other, love? Was partiality
Parasha involved? Yet this same prophet who makes this apparent discrimination
(Companion) between the two brothers proceeds in verse 11 to strike a wholly different
and unusual note:
Nehama's Gilyonot
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My
name is great among the nations; and in every place offerings are
Nehar Deah presented to My name, even pure oblations; For My name is great among
the nations, saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 1, 11)
Rega Lifney
Shabbat The above passage is a unique example in Scripture of generous praise
accorded to all mankind, with regard to their acknowledgment of their
Creator. Rashi cites two explanations of the passage both echoing the
Commentary of words of our sages.
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) “My name is great among the nations”—that they call him, the God of
gods. Even he who worships idols knows that there is a God over all of
them and in every place even the gentiles offer willingly to My name. Our
Illustrations to the Rabbis explained that the passage refers to the Torah scholars who are
Weekly Parasha, by the engaged in the study of the divine service in every place. Similarly, they
Studio in Old Jaffa interpret that all the prayers of Israel that they pray in every place are to
me like a pure oblation. The Targum Jonathan gave a similar explanation:
“Wherever you do My will, I accept your prayers and my great name is
hallowed through you, and your prayers are like a pure oblation before
me.” The passage should thus read: Why do you profane My name; surely
it is great among the nations and My love and affection is for you; for
wherever you pray to Me even in the Exile your offerings are presented to
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/toldot.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 10:26:39 a.m.

My name, and are a pure oblation before Me, since through you My name
is great among the nations.
Two contrasting explanations are cited by Rashi in the name of the Sages.
Is His name great among the nations because even the gentiles offer up
to His name or is the reference to the Jewish people who are scattered
among the nations? Rambam in his Guide to the Perplexed enlarges on
this subject:
You know that no idolator worships his idol in the conviction that there is
no other god beside. No man either in the past or future imagines that the
image he made of metal, stone or wood, actually created the heaven and
earth and governs them. But they serve it as a symbol mediating between
them and the Divine, as the prophet explained when he said “Who would
not fear Thee, King of the nations...” and: “and in every place offerings are
presented to My name, for My name is great among the nations” alluding
to the Prime Cause as far as they are concerned. We have already
explained this in our great compilation. No Torah authority of ours will
dispute this fact.
Judah Even Shemuel explains the above passage in his commentary (Tel
Aviv 1935) as follows:
Here Rambam unfolds for us the chapter of idolatry and shows it in a new
light. It is not a worship of wood and stone but an outlook on the world
concerned with communing with the media that stands between us and
God; but it is a mistaken outlook and since it relates to the divine it
constitutes a very serious and harmful mistake. Every idolator knows there
is only One God in the universe. If he fails to direct his worship to Him, this
is only because he sees God as too far above him, too transcendent,
whereas the other god is nearer to him But he actually only worships the
latter symbolically. The truth is that idolators do not worship the image
except insofar far as it serves as a symbol of mediator between man and
God. The Baal and Ashtoreth, for instance, serve as symbols of
fertility—the angel standing between God and the world presiding over
fertility.
“And in every place offerings are presented to My name” alluding to the

Prime Cause as far as they are concerned. Even the idolators accept God
as the Prime Cause...The acknowledgment of God is not the heritage of
the children of Israel only, but all mankind have attained it because they
are human. It is part of their natural perception to acknowledge the Divine
and a realization of the unity of the source of the whole universe is implicit
in their make-up. Rambam’s reference to his “great compilation” alludes to
chapter one of the laws of idolatry on the Code. “No Torah authority of
ours will dispute this fact.”—We do not imagine that only we have
achieved a recognition of the existence of God and we do not say that
members of other faiths repudiate the existence of God and we do not say
that members of other faiths repudiate the existence of God.
The views of Ramban expressed here harmonise with those of our sages
sited by Rashi in his first explanation. Ibn Gabirol has expressed these
sentiments in his inimitable poetic form in his Keter Malchut:
Thou art the God of Gods and all creatures pay homage to Thee and
every created thing has been obliged to serve Thee with the honour due to
Thy name.
Thou art God and all creatures are Thy servants and serve Thee and Thy
glory suffers no diminution on account of those who serve others beside
Thee, since the intention of all of them is to achieve communion with
Thee.

What connection has the interpretation we have given for our passage
from Malachi with the context? Rashi in his first explanation adheres to the
plain sense of Scripture. The prophet is rebuking Israel. God has no
delight in their worship if they serve him in such a manner that his name is
profaned among the nations. God has other worshippers beside Israel; for
all that is created He created for His glory and even they intend to pay
homage to him. Abarbanel elaborates on this theme:
You should have learnt from the ways of the nations. Though they have
not been vouchsafed the light of the Torah...they magnify and exalt Him
and perform the most pure sacrifice that they themselves are capable of
doing according to their lights.
Let us now revert to our first question: Why did God then hate Esau? Not
because He displayed partiality but because Esau deliberately chose a
course of wickedness. Radak explains:
For their wickedness had become exceeding great before the Lord, in that
they dealt treacherously with the sons of Jacob whereas God had
commanded Israel, “Thou shall not abominate an Edomite for he is thy
brother.” But they dealt evilly with them with the maximum of their spite
and rejoiced in their destruction and exile.
The text therefore says of their land that:
They shall be called the border of wickedness
(Malachi 1, 4)
1. Why does Rambam in his Guide to the Perplexed (cited above) utilise
both the passage from Malachi and Jeremiah, whereas in his code in the
laws of idolatry he cites only the passage from Jeremiah and does not
mention the other passage from Malachi?
2. In verse 10 of Malachi chapter 1, we read: “Oh that there were among

you that would shut the doors, that ye might not kindle fire on Mine altar in
vain! I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord hosts, neither will I accept
an offering at your hand.” Rambam quotes the above passage in the laws
of Repentance in his code:
How powerful is the impact of repentance (teshuva)! Yester this man was
divorced from God of Israel, as it is stated: (isa. 59, 2): “Your inequities
separated between you and your God,” crying out to Him and not
answered. As it is stated (ibid. 1, 15): “Though you make many prayers I
will not hear”; he performs precepts but they are burnt in his presence, as
it is stated (ibid. 1, 12): “Who hath required this at your hand, to trample
My courts?”, “O that there were among you that would shut the doors that
ye might not kindle fire on Mine altar in vain!” (Mal. 1, 10). Today he has
clung to the Divine Presence as it is stated: And ye that did cling to the
Lord...” (Deut. 4, 4); he cries and is answered forthwith (Isa. 65, 24):
“Before they cry I answer,” and performs precepts which are accepted with
satisfaction and joy, as it is stated (Eccles. 9, 7): “For the Lord hath
already accepted thy deeds.” Furthermore they are yearned for, as it is
stated: “Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto
the Lord, as in the days of old and as in ancient years.”

(a)
Rambam places the verses from Isaiah chapter 1 beside our
passage. What did he wish to demonstrate through his citation of
both of them?
(b)
If we read the verses from Isaiah and then from Malachi, each one
within the context of its respective chapter, what difference between
them emerges from this linking to their contexts?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Vayetse
Languages
Links
Parashat Vayetse

Kehati Mishna Jacob's Dream

Parashat Hashavua God first reveals himself to Jacob, fleeing from his brother and birthplace,
wandering at night in the desert, sleeping in the open with a stone for a
Hebrew Text of the pillow, through the medium of a dream.
Parashah
A modern German Jewish commentator, Benno Jacob, in his work on
Genesis divides the various dreams occurring in Genesis into one of two
English
categories.
Hebrew
The first class comprise those in which God actually speaks to man (20, 3;
German 31, 24), the second class, those dreams through whose medium, God
speaks to man. Examples of the latter are the dreams of Joseph, the chief
Russian butler, the chief baker and Pharaoh. The second class are usually in form
of parables, word pictures which require elucidation.
Spanish
In Jacob's dream God actually addresses Jacob. Before that , however,
comes the picture which calls for our interpretation. Indeed there have
Nehama's Iyunim
been many attempts at such interpretation.
Insights on the
Parasha Let us quote the pictorial part of Jacob';s dream, the interpretation of
(Companion) which has preoccupied so many expositors, writers and poets down the
ages:
Nehama's Gilyonot
";And behold a ladder set upon the earth And behold the angels of God
ascending and descending on it And behold the Lord stood above it";(28,
Nehar Deah 12, 13)
Rega Lifney The following is one of the manifold midrashic interpretations of the
Shabbat dream, occurring in Midrash Tanhuma:
";And behold the angels of God ascending and descending: These are the
Commentary of princes of the heathen nations which God showed Jacob our father. The
Rabbi Moshe Bergman prince of Babylon ascended seventy steps and descended, Madea, fifty-
(in Hebrew) two and descended, Greece, one hundred steps and descended, Edom
ascended and no one knows how many! In that hour, Jacob was afraid
and said: ";Peradventure, this one has no descent?" Said the Holy One
Illustrations to the blessed be He to him: Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob...
Weekly Parasha, by the neither be dismayed, O Israel';. Even if thou seest him, so to speak,
Studio in Old Jaffa ascend and sit by Me, thence will I bring him down! As it is stated
(Obadiah, 1, 4);Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and thou set thy
nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord."
Likewise, this Midrash inspired Sforno';s comment on the dream:
";Ascending and descending ;Indeed ultimately, having gained
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vayetse.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:29:34 a.m.

ascendancy, the gentile princes will go down , and the Almighty who
forever stands above, will not forsake His people as He promised (Jer. 30,
11): For I will make a full end of all the nations wither I have scattered you,
but I will not make a full end of you.
According to the Midrash, Jacob';s dream depicts the rise and fall of
nations and their cultures on the arena of world history. What has this to
do with Jacob';s situation, his flight to Padan-Aram from the wrath of his
brother, his mission to choose a wife and carry on the seed of Abraham
and Isaac? In answer, it may be said, that the Midrash regards the dream,
not as referring merely to Jacob the individual, but Jacob as the symbol of
Israel, the embodiment of the wanderings of the Jewish people, as it is
exiled from one country top another and witnesses the rise and fall of
mighty kingdoms, Eygpt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia and Greece. The author
of the Midrash who lived during the period of the Roman Empire had not
yet witnessed its decline and fall.
Rome and the spiritual successors that took its place in Europe afterwards
are known in Medieval Rabbinic terminology by the name of ";Edom".
Their downfall is likewise foretold. The Jewish people apprehensive at the
apparently never-ending reign of the oppressor, seeing no sign of his
impending doom, cries ";Peradventure, this one has no descent perhaps
he is never going Jacob, the Divine message of reassurance is to be
found in the message of Obadiah, the prophet of the ultimate doom of
Edom.
Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and thou set thy nest among the
stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord. (Ob. 1, 4)
Jacob';s ladder is taken to imply the ladder of history. The ascent of one
nation on it implies the descent of its predecessor. The ladder is not an
endless one, but the Lord stands at its top, as the master of history,
assuring us that pride and despotism will be brought low, until His
sovereignty alone is recognized at the end of days. This ";Latter-day"
vision is described to us by Isaiah (2).
Rashi has however a completely different approach to the text. He sticks

to its plain sense. The subject of the narrative is Jacob the Patriarch on his
journey to Padan-Aram, in flight from his brother. Rashi has the following
question to raise regarding the words: ";ascending and descending”:
First the ascend and afterwards descend?
Surely, Rashi queries, the angels, the denizens of the heavens should first
have descended; the order should be the reverse. Rashi answers:
The angels that accompanied him in the Holy Land do not go outside to
the Holy Land. They therefore ascended to Heaven. Then the angels of
outside the Hol.y Land descended to accompany him.
In other words, man';s experiences in his own country are not to be

compared with his situation in a strange land. To make his way on foreign
soil, he needed different guardians from those that protected him in his
own birthplace, amidst familiar land-marks. But wherever he went, Jacob
was always furnished with Divine protection.
Rashi';s brief remark fits the picture described in the sidra perfectly. The
angels of ";outside the Holy Land accompany Jacob throughout his
tribulations, from the moment he leaves Beer-Sheba (28, 10) to his return
to Mahanaim (32, 3) after spending twenty years in exile. There he is
again confronted by angels" the guardian angels of the Homeland:

And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. (33, 2)
These experiences are echoed by the Psalmist in reference not to Jacob

the Patriarch, but to the descendants of Jacob:
For He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a
stone. (Psalm 91, 11, 12)
1.
Rambam speaks of the parables and allegorical descriptions in the
Bible in his introduction to The Guide to the Perplexed. Here we
quote the relevant remarks:
Know the figures employed by the Prophets are of two kinds: those where
every single word in the parable or allegory is significant, and is
significant, the details of the descriptions being only incidental, adding
nothing significant to the idea which is being projected. They are merely
ornamental or designed to conceal the idea that is being allegorically
described.
An example of the first class of prophetic figures is to be found in Genesis:

"; And behold, a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to
heaven; and, behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it
(genesis 28, 12). The word ";ladder" refers to one idea; ";set up on the
earth" to another; ";at the top of it reached to heaven" to a third; ";angels
of God" to a fourth; ";ascending" to a fifth; descending to a sixth; ";the Lord
stood above it (verse 13) to a seventh. Every word in this figure introduces
a fresh element into the idea presented by the figure.
An example of the second class of prophetic figures is found in proverbs

(7, 6-23): ";For at the window of my house I looked through my casement,
and beheld among the simple ones; I discerned among the youths a
young man void of understanding, passing through the street near her
corner: and he went the way to her house in the twilight, in the evening, in
the black and dark night: and behold there met him a woman with the
attire of a harlot, and subtil of heart. She is loud and stubborn; her feet
abide not in her house...So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an
impudent face said unto him, I have peace offering with me, this day I paid
my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee. I have decked my bed with
coverings of tapestry, with striped cloths of the yarn of Egypt... Come let
us take our fill of love until the morning... For the good man is not at
home...he hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the
day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with
the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as
an ox goeth to the slaughter... as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth
not that it is for his life.
The general principle expounded in all these verses is to abstain from

excessive indulgence in bodily pleasures...that man shall not be entirely
guided by his animal or material nature...
An adequate explanation of the figure having been given and its meaning
having been shown, do not imagine that you will find in its application a
corresponding element for each part of the figure; you must not ask what
is meant by ";I have peace offerings with me” (verse 14); ... or what is
added to the force the figure by the observation ";for the good man is not

at home...For all this is merely to complete the illustration of the metaphor

in its literal meaning.
Which of these two different approaches to Jacob';s dream informs the

comments of Midrash Tanhuma, Rashi and Sforno?
2.
And, behold, the Lord stood a ;(Genesis 28, 13) On what Jacob or
the ladder? Answer in accordance with the various points of view
formulated by our commentators regarding the dream as a whole.
3.
Compare the following Midrash with the one cited in our studies.
Both interpret Jacob's l ";...Behold the angels of God ascending and
descending referring to the princes of the nations. The text teaches
that the Holy One blessed be He showed Jacob the prince of
Babylon ascending and descending and that of Medea, Greece and
Edom (Rome) doing likewise. Said the Holy One blessed be He to
Jacob: Jacob, why don';t you ascend? At that moment Jacob, our
father was afraid. He said: Am I to suffer a descent just the same as
these? He said to him: If you ascend, you shall suffer no descent.
He did not believe and did not ascend.
R. Shimon b. Yosina used to expound the text (Ps. 78 ";For all this they
sinned still and believed not His wondrous works." Said the Holy One
blessed be He to him : Had you ascended and believed (Vayikra Raban
version: ";Had you believed and ascended”—note the difference) you
would never have experienced a descent. But since you have no faith,
your children will be enslaved by these four kingdoms in this world. Said
Jacob to him: For ever? He answered: ";Fear not My servant Jacob and
be not dismayed Israel, for I shall save thee from afar and thy seed from
the land of their captivity from Gaul from Spain and its neighbours. ";Jacob
shall return from Babylon and be tranquil from Medea; ";and at ease;from
Greece, ";with none to make them afraid from Edom. ";And of thee I shall
not completely destroy". but will chastise you with sufferings in order to
quit you from your iniquities and refine you
(Pesikta Derav Cahana)
(a)
What is the difference in the approach of the two Mid
(b)
What does the ladder symbol (without the angels) in t

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat VaYishlach
Languages
Links
Parashat VaYishlach

Kehati Mishna History Repeats Itself

Parashat Hashavua Ramban begins his commentary to the sidra with the following passage:
Hebrew Text of the
This chapter imparts the message that the Holy One blessed be He
Parashah
delivered His servant and redeemed him from the hand of the stronger
and sent his angel to deliver him. It further teaches us that he did not rely
on his own righteousness but made every effort to help himself. There is
English
also another message in this chapter all that happened between our
Hebrew
ancestor and his brother Esau will continually recur in our dealings with
the descendants of Esau...
German
Ramban followed the line of interpretation adopted by our sages who
Russian regarded the Patriarchs as models to be emulated by their descendants
and their experiences as the archetype of what would befall their children.
Spanish These two ideas were expressed in the phrase: "The deed of the
forefathers is a sign for the children.”
Nehama's Iyunim
Many parallels in Jewish history have been found by our commentators to
Insights on the the encounter between Esau and Jacob. Just as Jacob was taken as a
Parasha symbolic name for the Jewish people, so Esau was said to represent
(Companion)
Rome, the power that destroyed the Temple and scattered the remnants
of Israel.
Nehama's Gilyonot
At the end of the meeting between the two brothers, Esau urged Jacob to
accompany him. The latter however declined the honour and made
various excuses. This is also expounded in the symbolic sense as
Nehar Deah
prefiguring the course of Jewish history:
Rega Lifney
Shabbat Jacob wished to avoid fraternising with his brother and our sages
extracted a message from this: When Rabbi Yannai went to meet the
authorities, he used top take heed of this chapter and did not have the
Commentary of Romans escort him on his way. Once he paid no heed to this chapter and
Rabbi Moshe Bergman had the Romans escort him. Whereupon he did not reach acre till he had
(in Hebrew) sold the coat off his back. (Ramban)
Ramban explains that Rabbinic tradition regarded the story of Esau's

Illustrations to the encounter with Jacob in our sidra as: "the chapter of exile” the archetypal
Weekly Parasha, by the pattern of Israel's Diaspora existence. When Rabbi Yannai had to go to
Studio in Old Jaffa Rome to treat with the Roman authorities the "kind of Edom,” he would
take as his model, his ancestor Jacob's method of dealing with Esau. He
therefore refused to accept the offer of the powers -that- be to provide him
with an escort since, "they only befriend a man from their own purposes
and confiscate his worldly goods.”
The historic parallel in our chapter is obvious: Jacob the puny one
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vayishl.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:33:29 a.m.

confronted by the mighty Esau, and attempting to placate him. Let us

make a closer study of one remarkable verse in this encounter:
And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck and
kissed him and they wept (33, 4)
It was not only the vowel points over the phrase "and kissed him,” in the
Hebrew, that has excited attention but also the unusual display of
affection, so uncharacteristic of Esau:
Said R. Shimon B. Eliezer: Wherever you find that the letters outnumber
the vocal points, you expound the letters; where the points outnumber the
letters, you expound the points. Here, the letters do not outnumber the
points, nor the points the letters. This teaches that Esau's compassion
was aroused at that moment and he kissed him with all his heart. Said R.
Yannai to him: Why then is the word pointed above? But we must
understand that he came not to kiss him (nashko) but to bite him
(Noshkho) . Whereupon the Patriarch Jacob's neck turned to marble,
setting that wicked man's teeth on edge. What then is the implication of
the phrase: "And they wept.” This one wept on his neck and the other, on
(account of) his teeth. (Bereshit Rabbah 78, 12)
Esau sought to bite him but his neck turned to marble. This is the reason
for the points, indicating that his kiss was not a sincere one. Why did the
both weep? To what may this be compared? To a wolf which came to
snatch a ram. Whereupon the ram began butting it with his horns, the
wolf's teeth becoming entangled in them. Both of them wept; the wolf on
account of its impotence and the ram for fear its enemy might try again to
kill him. So too here with Esau and Jacob. Esau wept because Jacob's
neck had turned to marble and Jacob, for fear that Esau might return to
bite him. Regarding Jacob we have the text: "Thy neck is a tower of
marble” (Song of Songs 7, 5); regarding Esau: "Thou hast broken the
teeth of the wicked” (Psalm 3, 8)
(Tanhuma Vayishlach 4)
Two views are expressed regarding Esau's conduct, an optimistic one,

that saw a revolutionary change for the better, and a pessimistic one that
detected the old Esau behind it. Here are two more citations, expressing
opposing views:
When Jacob came to the land of Canaan, Esau came to meet him from
mount Seir full of fury, bent on killing him as it is written. "The wicked
plotteth against the righteous, and gnasheth at him with his teeth” (Psalm
37, 12). Said Esau: I shall not slay Jacob with bow and arrows but I shall
rather slay him with my mouth and suck his blood, as it is said: "And Esau
ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him
and they wept. Read not: "and kissed him” but "he bit him!” Whereupon
Jacob's neck turned to marble...as soon as Esau perceived that he had
not accomplished his desire, he became furious and gnashed his teeth, as
it is stated: "The wicked shall see and be vexed; he shall gnash with his
teeth and melt away” (Psalm 112, 10).(Pirkai derabi Nathan)
The optimistic view, reflecting perhaps the overtones of nineteenth century

emancipation and liberalism is again propounded by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch:
The allusion to weeping is a sure sign that what we have here is a

revelation of genuine humanity. A kiss can be superficial but an outburst of
tears is a strong presumption in favour of sincerity. Esau betrays his
Abrahamic origins and shows himself as not merely a cruel hunter.
Otherwise he could never have reached such a leading position in the

development of mankind. The sword alone, brute force cannot accomplish

this. Even Esau gradually relinquishes his sword and begins to feel the
chords of human love. It is Jacob who usually provides him with the
opportunity for showing his innate humanity. When the strong respects the
strong, this is discretion. But when the strong, i.e. Esau falls on the neck of
the weak, of Jacob, and casts his sword away, then we know that
humanity and justice have prevailed.
We shall not quarrel with Hirsch who didn't know what we know today
about the sword turning into holocaust an not love. Let us cite in contrast a
later Jewish sage, one of the first protagonists of the return to the
homeland through the Lovers of Zion movement. He detects, in our
chapter, a call to leave the Diaspora and rebuild the Holy Land:
Both wept, implying that Jacob's love too was aroused towards Esau. And
so it is in all ages. Whenever the seed of Esau is prompted by sincere
motives to acknowledge and respect the seed of Israel, then we too are
moved to acknowledge Esau: for he is our brother. As a parallel we may
cite the true friendship that existed between Rabbi Judah Hanasi and the
Roman emperor Antoninus, and there are many similar instances.
(Ha'amek Davar)
The head of the famed Volozhin yeshiva, author of the foregoing was not
impressed by the weeping of Esau but by that of Jacob, who, in spite of all
that he had suffered at the hands of his brother, was ready to let bygones
be bygones, so long as the smallest gesture of sincerity was forthcoming.
But cannot the text itself provide a clue to the character of Esau's display
of affection? Benno Jacob in his commentary to Genesis endeavours to
discover such a clue, by carefully comparing all the texts that speak of
similar meetings:
Jacob and Rachel:
And Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted up his voice and wept (Genesis 29,
11)
Jacob and Benjamin:
And he (Joseph) fell on the neck of Benjamin his brother and wept
(Ibid 45,14)
Jacob and Joseph:
And Joseph harnessed his chariot...and he presented himself unto him,

and fell on his neck, and wept on his neck a good while (Ibid 46, 29)
Moses and Aaron:
And he (Aaron) went and met him...and kissed him (Exodus 4, 27)
With the foregoing contrast our passage:
And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him and fell on his neck and
kissed him and wept.
None of the other encounters are accompanied by such a display of

effusiveness. Benno Jacob suggests, that this description of Esau's
running, embracing, falling, kissing and weeping is suspect. Indeed the
patriarch himself does not believe its sincerity and immediately afterwards

declines Esau's offer to escort him. Jacob went his own way, alone. Esau
turned to Seir. Jacob's home was elsewhere in the land of Canaan, but the
day would come when Esau, and there are many types of Esaus, would
come to Jacob to Mount Zion.
1.
Why did Jacob drop his first plan of action (32, 8-9): "And he divided
the people...into two camps. And he said: If Esau come to the one
camp, and smite it, then the camp which is left shall escape.” Our
sages commented (see also Rashi ad loc.) that he prepared to
employ three means of combating Esau: gifts, prayer and battle. Yet
we do not find that he made any preparations for battle, nor did he
divide the people into two camps. He divided his children according
to their handmaids, each mother with her children. What was the
reason for this change of plan?
2.
What caused Esau's change of heart the gifts or something else?
3.
Cf. Esau's and Jacob's remarks: And Esau said: I have enough, my
brother... And Jacob said:...because God hath dealt graciously with
me, and because I have enough. (33, 9-11) What difference can
you detect and what does it teach you regarding their respective
characters?
4.
"Till I come to my Lord to Seir we may understand that it is
permissible to modify one
R. Nathan said: It is obligatory to modify one's words in the interests of

peace, as it is state
A.
(I Samuel, 16, 2): "How can I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me. And
the Lord said: Take a heifer with thee and say: I am come to
sacrifice to the Lord.” (Midrash Haggadol)
Behold Esau offered to escort him till he returned to his father, in order to
pay him honour, on his return home. But Jacob replied that he would go at
his own pace, allowing Esau to repair to his own city. Jacob, however,
intimated that if he returned home by way of Esau's city, he would be glad
of Esau's guard of honour. But this was no definite promise since Esau did
not really require his presence. (Ramban)
(a) What did the above commentators find difficult in our text (3)
(b) What is the exact connotation of the word leshanot in the Midrash
which we have rendered mod
(c) Why did R. Nathan prefer to cite in support of his principle a passage
from the Prophets, passing over appropriate examples that could be
adduced from the Torah (e.g. our context: 33, 14, or 15, or 18,
(d) In What does Ramban's view as expressed above differ from that of
the Midrash Hag

"The deed of the forefathers is a sgn for the children": Professor

Heinemann in his book Darkei Ha-aggada 4, 2 observes that this
interpretation is followed in the text itself: "Often Scripture individualises a
group of people by describing them as a single person. What is described
as happening to the Patriarch really refers to his descendants." Cf.
Genesis 46, 4 the Almighty's message to Jacob: "I shall go down with thee
to Egypt and I shall surely bring thee up." Jacob, of course, was not
brought out of Egypt. It could not refer to his bones. But it must certainly
allude to his descendants who are here identified with the Patriarch.

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Vayeshev
Languages
Links
Parashat Vayeshev

Kehati Mishna The Sale of Joseph

Parashat Hashavua And there passed by Midianites, merchants; and they drew and lifted up
Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels
Hebrew Text of the of silver. And they brought Joseph to Egypt.(37, 28)
Parashah
This chapter constitutes a turning point in the life of Joseph and the history
of the Jewish people; for it marks the descent of the Israelites into Egypt.
English
The interpretation of the above verse has been the subject of much
Hebrew
dispute. The accepted explanation is that of Rashi:
German This was another caravan, the text informing us that he was sold many
times.They drew- refers to the sons of Jacob they took him out of the pit
Russian and sold him to the Ishmaelites and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites and
the Midianites to the Egyptians.
Spanish
Let us try to understand Rashi. The appearance of the Midianites caravan
surprises us. We have hitherto been told:
Nehama's Iyunim
Insights on the They lifted up their eyes and behold a caravan of Ishmaelites: (37, 25)
Parasha
(Companion) Then we hear Judah's suggestion:
Nehama's Gilyonot "Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites".(37, 27)
Till that point nothing had been mentioned of Midianite merchants. Even in
Nehar Deah the very verse under study, it is stated: And they sold Joseph to the
Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, evidently according to the
Rega Lifney suggestion made by Judah which was accepted by the brethren (v. 27:
Shabbat And his brothers hearkened). What was the role of the Midianites? Where
did they fit in? Rashi tried to overcome this difficulty, following Talmudic
exegesis, by postulating a threefold sale (the brothers to the Ishmaelites to
Commentary of the Midianites to Egypt). Evidently Rashi identifies the Medanites
Rabbi Moshe Bergman mentioned at the end of the chapter:
(in Hebrew)
" and the Medanites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar... "(37, 36)
Illustrations to the with the Midianites. But he provides no explanation for the problem posed
Weekly Parasha, by the by verse 1 Ch. 39:
Studio in Old Jaffa
And Potiphar... bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites.
Even Mizrahi, Rashi's super commentary and champion is forced to admit:

I don't know what Rashi makes of this verse. Rashi's identification of the
subject of the second part of the verse withhis brethren mentioned at the
end of the previous verse (And his brethren hearkened)is followed by a
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vayeshev.html (1 de 6)26/02/2008 10:37:04 a.m.

number of commentators, though they propose different solutions to the

question of the caravans. Here is Hizkuni:
Whilst the brothers were discussing selling him to the Ishmaelites: come
let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and before the latter reached them,
Midianite merchants passed by, to whom the brothers sold him, while he
was yet in the pit, so that his weeping should not shame them. The
Midianites drew him out of the pit since they had bought him. Whilst they
were doing this, the Ishmaelites came along and the Midianites sold him to
the Ishmaelites, the Ishmaelites to the Medanites and the Medanites to
Pharaoh a total of four sales. The text states, however, that Potiphar
bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites. Why?--The tribes had sold him to the
Midianites, but this sale was not recorded , since it was only temporary.
The Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites an the Ishmaelites to the
Medanites. This third sale was likewise not recorded, since it was
concluded in haste and secrecy for fear the Medanites might retract. The
Medanites sold him to Potiphar whose suspicions however were aked
them for a guarantee that the transaction was bona fides and no one
would come to reclaim him. They brought the Ishmaelites who gave the
necessary guarantee, and that is the force of the wording of the text:he
brought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites they gave him their hand or
guarantee (cf. Gen 43, 9: I shall stand surety, from my hand shall you
require it the latter part of Hizkuni is based on Bereshit Rabbah 86).
Hizkuni's approach is rather complicated but it has two advantages: the

many candelstine sales fit in well with the atmosphere of dealings in stolen
property. The traders realised that this was no bona fides transaction and
tried to get rid of their merchandise. Similarly it disposes of the
contradiction between our texts (where Joseph is sold finally to the
Ismaelites) and the last verse of the chapter: and the Medanites sold
Joseph into Egypt, and the first verse of ch. 39:And Potiphar bought from
the hand of the Ishmaelites.
The flaw in this explanation is the fact that it presupposes two sales not
recorded in the text. For this reason we cite here Ramban who suggests
another explanation. He regards the two caravans of Midianite merchants
and Ishmaelites as one, in which the Midianites were the merchants and
the Ishmaelites the camel-drivers, so that the brothers first caught sight of
the Ishmaelite caravan and when they drew near saw Midianite merchants:
The brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites, the merchants, to trade with
him, since the Ishmaelite camel-drivers or hauliers did not engage directly
in trade they merely hired their camels themselves to traders. The text:
And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites implies that Joseph was handed
to the Ishmaelites to be transported to Egypt by them. This is also the
implication of the text: From the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought
his down thither but the Midianites were his owners; they traded with him.
That is the force of the text: The Medanites sold him into Egypt.
Ramban then shows that the Torah often attributes a deed, sometimes to
its ultimate author and at others to its intermediary or direct commissioner.
Thus Moses is sometimes credited as in (Deut. 34, 12): the great terror
Moses wrought in the eyes of all Israel,and, at others, God, as in (Duet 11,
7): all the great work God had wrought. Similarly, here, the contradiction
between: the Medanites sold him into Egypt and Potiphar bought him from
the hand of the Ishmaelites is solved by remembering that sometimes a
deed is attributed to its immediate and direct cause, and sometimes, to its
more remote, indirect one. Ibn Ezra wishes to regard the Midianites and
Ishmaelites as identical. But irrespective of the difference between these
commentators, they have this in common: The brothers who are not
mentioned in our text at all are regarded as the understood subject: they
drew Joseph out of the pit, and they sold Joseph. This interpretation would

seem to be borne out by Joseph's words, when he revealed his identity to

his brethren: I am Joseph your brother whom you sold into Egypt. But this
approach raises many difficulties. First, it leaves unexplained how Reuben
remained ignorant of the sale, though he no doubt did his best to save
Joseph and presumably kept watch on his brothers. But was he at the
time of the sale? Admittedly, the Midrash states he was engaged
otherwise (ministering to his father, subjecting himself to penance for his
relations with his father's concubine), but this is forced. Again it leaves
unexplained why the brothers did not answer him when stunned, he said:
the child is not; and as for me wither shall I go? Their silence indicates that
they were similarly stunned. That the brothers considered him really dead
seems to be indicated from a number of texts, besides the fact that
otherwise they would presumably have made an effort to trace him: e.g:
the one is not (42,13 and 32). It is obvious that this phrase implied he was
dead. Cf.: 44, 20: We said unto my lord, we have an old father and a child
of his old age, and his brother is dead. Otherwise how would Judah have
dared to make such a statement?
When amongst themselves the brothers explicitly indicated their conviction

he was dead: but verily we are guilty... did not I tell you, sin not with the
child but you did not listen, therefore also his blood is required (42, 22).
Had Rashi's contention been correct that the brothers had sold him to the
Egypt-bound caravan, why couldn't the brothers, after they had suffered
complete remorse for their act, have hoped to trace him and mend
matters? This has led Rambam and, subsequently, other commentators to
seek another way out:
And there passed by Midianites, merchants. The brothers sat down to a

meal at some distance from the pit, out of qualms of conscience and
waited for the Ishmaelites they had seen. But before the latter arrived,
others, Midianite traders passed, saw Joseph in the pit and drew him out
and sold him to the Ishmaelites, presumably without the knowledge of the
brothers. Thought the text says, whom you sold to Egypt, that was meant
only in the sense of ultimate responsibility... the Midianites passed quite
accidentally and they sold him to the Ishmaelites. But even if you wish to
say that it was the brothers who sold him to the Ishmaelites, (as his
grandfather Rashi learnt), you must say that the brothers had commanded
the Midianites to draw Joseph out of the pit, and they sold him afterwards
to the Ishmaelites.
Rashbam was forced to find another explanation by the grammatical

construction of the text. The only feasible subject of our text is the
Midianites, since they are referred to last. He observes therefore that even
Rashi's explanation that it was the brothers who drew him out can only be
accepted if we take it in the sense that the Midianites did the drawing out,
at the brothers' behest. Since this, too, is forced, Rashbam advances the
revolutionary but apt explanation that Joseph was sold without their
knowledge, thus bearing out Joseph's own contention: I was surely stolen
from the land of the Hebrews (40, 15). Many commentators have accepted
this, including Hizkuni (the latter's explanation we cited earlier is an
alternative) whose main motivation for adopting it was:
When Reuben didn't find him in the pit, they all thought an evil beast had
consumed him. They did not lie to their father. Had they really sold him,
they would have searched every country in an effort to trace whether he
was alive or dead.
Other commentators who follow this approach are Bahya, Mendelsohn,

Hirsch and Malbim. The most exhaustive treatment from this standpoint is
Samuel Lali's, in a letter quoted in Luzatto's commentary to this verse.
Here is an extract:

They moved away from the pit so as not to hear Joseph's cries of mercy
(when we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, (42, 21).
Whilst they were eating, they caught sight of an Ishmaelite caravan and
Judah said: What profit... and his brothers listened. They all agreed that as
soon as they finish eating, they would haul Joseph out of the pit and sell
him to the Ishmaelites. Whilst they were talking the Midianites passed by,
quite by accident and took him and sold him to the Ishmaelites for 20
pieces of silver. Reuben, unseen by them, rushed to the pit to haul Joseph
out and return him to his father before his brothers would have a chance
to sell him. But Reuben was stunned to find the pit empty; rent his
garments and was convinced that a bear or lion had dragged him out of
the pit alive to devour him in its lair, since there were no traces of bones
and blood. He forthwith reported to the brothers what had happened and
they believed him. Reuben blamed himself for the tragedy, since it was he
who had suggested casting him into the pit... The brothers thought up the
idea of dipping the coat in blood, in order to protect Reuben and convince
their father that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast. None of them
went in search of Joseph, because they were fully convinced that he was
no longer alive.
Joseph's statement: that you sold me is no contradiction since, as Benno

Jacob points out, sale does not cover just the financial side of the
transaction but also the more general disposing of the object,
accompanied by an undertone of bitterness and misfortune. God sold
Israel into the hands of her enemies. (Ju. 2, 14; 3, 8; 4, 2). Joseph could
have meant that his brothers had sold him, in the sense of getting rid or
disposing of him, or in the sense of indirect instrumentality.
Jacob finds a more convincing proof that it was not the brothers who sold
him. After Judah had suggested selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites, the
verse ends with the words: and the brothers hearkened, Rashi explains
this in the sense of their acceptance of his plan. But Jacob argues that it
would have an object to mean that (and the brothers hearkened to him or
to his voice, cf.: Gen. 23, 16; 30, 22; 34, 24; Ex. 18, 24; Nu. 21,3).
Vayishme'u by itself implies the contrary, that they heard him out, but
demurred, disapproved. Cf.: Gen. 35, 22: And Reuben went and lay with
Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel herad . Thus the last words of
the verse 27 does not prepare the ground for the brothers' sale of Joseph,
but the contrary: that no unanimous decision had been reached, and that
in the meantime, the second caravan drew up and hauled Joseph out.
But the main question is how does this new interpretation affect the
significance of the story as a whole. To this, Benno Jacob replies: The
tribes had not been guilty of the sin of stealing a man and selling him
(Ex.21, 12-18) punishable by death and for which there was no
atonement, being tantamount to murder. God had contrived matters that
their design was not implemented by them. Joseph was sold by strangers.
Had it been by his brothers, it would not have been a permanent sale,
since the sale by a Jew, whether to a heathen or another Jew is
redeemable. But Joseph was sold by heathens to heathens-- into eternal
slavery. This is the force of the emphasis in the text that Potiphar, an
Egyptian bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites. In spite of all this,
the almighty redeemed him from Egyptian slavery, a foretaste of what was
to happen to all Israel, all the tribes of Jacob in Egypt in the house of
bondage, from which the Lord would bring them out from slavery to
freedom.

1.
The following objections have been raised to Rashi's interpretation:
What forced Rashi to explain that the brothers sold him to the
Ishmaelites and the latter to the Midianites and not that the brothers
sold him to the Midianites and the latter to the Ishmaelites, which
would fit the text better? Explain which texts this explanation would
suit better and why Rashi, in spite of this, preferred his explanation.
2.
If we accept the plain sense that it was the brothers who sold
Joseph into Egypt, how would you explain Joseph's words to the
chief butler and baker: For I was surely stolen from the land of the
He
3.
What did Ranban wish to prove by his quotation from Deut. 11, 7.
(all the great work that God has wrought on p.
4.
Did Joseph contradict himself in stating on one occasion (40, 15): I
was surely stolen from the land of the Hebrews and on another (44,
4): whom you sold to E
5.
The contradiction between The Medanites sold him to Egypt (37,
36) and: Potiphar bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites
(39,1) is harmonised quite simply by Benno Jacob, by pointing out
that the text reports they sold him to Egypt and not to the Egyptians
or in Egypt. Ex
6.
"His brothers heard: implying they accepted his view. The Hebrew
Shema hear; wherever it implies agreement, as in Gen. 28, 7 and
the phrase naaseh ve-nishma is translated by Onkelos as ;we shall
accept. But wherever it implies hearing with the ear as in; Gen. 3, 8:
27, 5; 35, 22 it is translated by Onkelos by the word shema.
Rashi always explains the meaning of a word whether by resort to the

Aramaic Targum of Onkelos or to another example in the Bible or by
translation into the vernacular (Old French), the first time he comes across
it. Why then did Rashi wait till our sidra to explain this connotation of the
Hebrew word shema instead of in Gen. 28, 7, where it first appears and on
which he indeed bases himself?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Miketz
Languages
Links
Parashat Miketz

Kehati Mishna We are truly guilty

Parashat Hashavua Joseph's brethren went down to Egypt to buy corn at the bidding of their
father. Let us study the first six verses of chapter 42, which starts from this
Hebrew Text of the point:
Parashah
Jacob said unto his sons. Why do ye look one upon another? And
Joseph's ten brethren went down to buy corn in Egypt. But Benjamin,
English
Joseph's brother, Jacob sent not with his brethren. And the sons of Israel
Hebrew
came to buy corn amongst those that came. And Joseph's brethren came,
and bowed down themselves before him with their faces to the earth.
German
Russian We may note here that the identical subject in each of the above quoted
verses (the ten brothers) is referred to under differing epithets. They are
Spanish referred to as the sons of Jacob, Joseph's brethren, the sons of Israel. Our
commentators remarked on the significance of these variations. Jacob first
addresses his sons , dispatches them to Egypt, but as soon as we reach
Nehama's Iyunim the subject of Egypt the Biblical record prepares us and them for the
meeting with Joseph. This is explained to us as followed by Rashi:
Insights on the
Parasha
(Companion) Joseph's brethren: It is not written: the sons of Jacob, alluding to the fact
that they repented of their stealing him and undertook to conduct
Nehama's Gilyonot
themselves towards him as brothers.
Nehar Deah Benjamin was not sent along with his brothers (not with the sons of Jacob)
underlining the fact that though they were his brothers, Jacob was again
Rega Lifney guilty of favouritism and discriminated between the brothers. It is the
Shabbat whole tribe which arrives in Egypt and, as far as the Egyptians were
concerned, the group who arrived from the land of Canaan were neither
Joseph's brothers nor the sons of Jacob, but merely the sons of Israel. As
Commentary of they stood before the Egyptian prince, who, as Providence would have it,
Rabbi Moshe Bergman was also their long lost brother, the dramatic irony of the epithet, Joseph's
(in Hebrew) brethren, as they bow down to Joseph and thereby fulfill the dream,
becomes apparent. Joseph, however, does not reveal his true identity to
his brothers immediately, but speaks to them harshly. Many reasons have
Illustrations to the been advanced and these were the subject of our previous Studies.
Studio in Old Jaffa Ramban apparently quite justifiably explains, that all the suffering that he
inflicted on them from that moment until he revealed himself to them, was
intended for their benefit, in the sense implied in the following phrase
occurring in the Psalms (119) It is good for me that I have been afflicted;
that I might relate of thy statutes. This implies that the aim of all this was to
refine them and purify them, as it were, and put them to the test. In the
course of our further study of this point we shall understand this more
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/miketz.html (1 de 10)26/02/2008 10:40:34 a.m.

clearly.
On three occasions the feeling of guilt and consciousness of their

wrongdoing emerges and wells up from the words uttered by the brothers.
The first occasion occurs during their conversation, after Joseph had
released them from prison where they had been placed for three days:
And they said to one another, We are truly guilty concerning our brother,
in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we paid
no heed; therefore is this distress come upon us.
Ramban was the first to note how the information regarding Joseph's
supplication for the mercy of his brothers reaches us, indirectly, through
the remorseful reminiscing of the brothers, rather than its true
chronological context, when Joseph was standing at the pit before his
brothers. There is no mention before this chapter that Joseph had begged
them for mercy.
Here is the comment of Meir Weiss in an article on the narrative artistry of

the Bible devoted to the flashback technique, one example of which is the
passage we have quoted:
The recalling of this long buried episode here, at this juncture, represents
the awakening of the brothers' conscience. Joseph's heartrending pleas
for mercy more than any emanate from the pit now well up from the
depths of their own hearts. This constitutes the underlying intention of the
narrative in citing this detail here. It is meant to reveal what was going on
in the consciousness of the brothers at the moment indicating their
remorse.
Only now do the brothers recall that painful memory:
When he besought us and we paid no heed;
therefore is this distress come upon us.
Our commentators discussed, at length, why these feelings of guilt and

remorse are only awakened, after the brothers had suffered three days
imprisonment, and after the Egyptian governor had relented and agreed to
send them home, keeping back only one of them. Why did they not recall
the sale of their brother during the three long days in prison, when they
lived in fear of what destiny awaited them and were apprehensive that
they would not return home. Surely, this incarceration is particularly
appropriate for stimulating feelings of remorse.
In the light of this, the Akedat Yizhak (15th century provides us with an
illuminating explanation. This commentary suggests that only when they
were faced with the prospect of returning home to their father, one brother
short, did the memory of Joseph arise in their minds, by association:
Our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul. Measure for measure
the sin and its punishment were mirrored clearly before their eyes;
Therefore is this distress come upon us.
On the second occasion, they sense this retribution and their guilt even
more intensely, in the inn:
And he said unto his brethren,My money is restored; and look, it is even in
my sack: and their heart failed them and they were afraid, saying one to
another, What is this that God hath done unto us?

There are commentators, including Rashi who maintain that the last
exclamation of the brothers did not represent an admission of guilt but
rather their resentment at being placed in such a situation. But the
objection to this approach found in Haketav Vehakaballa seems to be
more acceptable;
Rashi comments on the words What is this the Lord has done to us—to
bring us to this false accusation; for the money was only returned to us to
incriminate us. This would, then show the brothers as questioning God's
justice. Surprising! Had they so quickly forgotten their confession of verily
we are guilty?
It seems to me that we have to split the sentence into two parts as

indicated by the cantillation. The tevir under zot indicates a pause. The
sentence reads: What is this? Here they simply register their astonishment
at the discovery of the money and their sorrow at the provocation. But
immediately they sensed that this was no mere coincidence by the
intervention of the Divine justice repaying them measure for measure. Just
as previously they had accepted their deserts by saying verily we are
guilty, so now they felt that they were being justly punished by being
suspected of spying and cast into the pit just as they had done to Joseph.
Simon who had played the major role in the sale of Joseph remained
under arrest in the prison. Now too the money was found in Levi's sack
who also prominently figured in the sale. They realized this was retribution
from God and accepted it exclaiming: Thou Lord has done this to us. It is
no accident but the workings of Divine justice.
Whether we accept his splitting of the sentence into two parts—into an

exclamation followed by a statement or not we must agree it most
plausible to regard the brothers' exclamation as an expression of their
concern and guilt.
Here we note the great progress that had been achieved in their sense of
sin, in comparison with the first occasion. Then too they realised the
connection between their conduct towards Joseph in the past, and what
they were suffering now. But the source of that retribution, who it was who
was responsible for linking these two events had not received explicit
recognition. Here at the inn their heart failed them (literally—went forth)
the source had been discovered:
What is this that God hath done unto us?
An even more intense realisation of their guilt and more profound sense of
remorse overcomes them on the third occasion, when the cup is
discovered. Here are Judah's words:
What shall we say unto the Lord?
What shall we speak?
Or how shall we clear ourselves?
God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants, both we, and he also with
whom the cup is found.
(44, 16)
Judah surely knew that they had not stolen the cup, neither they nor the
man with whom it had been found. He was quite aware that they had been

wrongly accused, but he was not confessing to this crime, though this was
how is was meant to be understood by the Egyptian Governor. But he was
confessing to the iniquity, not which the Egyptian had found in him but
that: god hath found out the iniquity of thy servants.
For this reason he and his brothers accepted any punishment and any
fate, realising that they deserved it. This ambivalency in Judah'' words is
referred to in the following Midrash.
What shall we say unto my Lord?—referring to the first money (in

Benjamin's sack). What shall we speak? –referring to the second money
(in Benjamin's sack), or how shall we clear ourselves?—with the cup.
What shall we say unto my Lord?—referring to the incident of Tamar,

What shall we speak?—referring to the deed of Reuben (see Genesis 35,
22), Or how shall we clear ourselves?—refferring to the deed of Shechem
(see Genesis 34).
What shall we say unto my Lord?—what shall we say to father in the land
of Canaan regarding Joseph? What shall we speak?—with reference to
Simeon, Or how shall we clear ourselves?—regarding Benjamin.(Midrash
Rabbah)
The Midrash sees a triple implication in the above verse, explaining the
words my lord in three different ways: (1) as the Egyptian governor
standing in front of them, (2) as the Lord of the Universe who knows their
guilt, (3) as their aged father in Canaan against whom they had sinned.
The Midrash unearths for us the nine different sins recalled by the text,
showing us how the brothers repented not merely of the one wrongdoing
but emulated the true baal teshuva (penitent) who sees his guilt and sin in
every step and turn, a thought which is expressed instructively in the
following phrase occurring in the psalms (51):
And my sin is ever before me
After his brothers had reached his level of penitence, remorse, and sense
of sin, Joseph can then make himself known to them.
And there passed by Midianites, merchants; and they drew and lifted up
Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels
of silver. And they brought Joseph to Egypt.(37, 28)
This chapter constitutes a turning point in the life of Joseph and the history
of the Jewish people; for it marks the descent of the Israelites into Egypt.
The interpretation of the above verse has been the subject of much
dispute. The accepted explanation is that of Rashi:
This was another caravan, the text informing us that he was sold many
times. They drew- refers to the sons of Jacob—they took him out of the pit
and sold him to the Ishmaelites and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites and
the Midianites to the Egyptians.

Let us try to understand Rashi. The appearance of the Midianites caravan

surprises us. We have hitherto been told:
They lifted up their eyes and behold a caravan of Ishmaelites: (37, 25)
Then we hear Judah's suggestion:
Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.(37, 27)
Till that point nothing had been mentioned of Midianite merchants. Even in
the very verse under study, it is stated: And they sold Joseph to the
Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, evidently according to the
suggestion made by Judah which was accepted by the brethren (v. 27:
And his brothers hearkened). What was the role of the Midianites? Where
did they fit in? Rashi tried to overcome this difficulty, following Talmudic
exegesis, by postulating a threefold sale (the brothers to the
Ishmaelites—to the Midianites—to Egypt). Evidently Rashi identifies the
Medanites mentioned at the end of the chapter:
and the Medanites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar... (37, 36)
with the Midianites. But he provides no explanation for the problem posed
by verse 1 Ch. 39:
And Potiphar... bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites.
Even Mizrahi, Rashi's super commentary and champion is forced to admit:

I don't know what Rashi makes of this verse.
Rashi's identification of the subject of the second part of the verse with his
brethren mentioned at the end of the previous verse (And his brethren
hearkened)is followed by a number of commentators, though they propose
different solutions to the question of the caravans. Here is Hizkuni:
Whilst the brothers were discussing selling him to the Ishmaelites: come
let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and before the latter reached them,
Midianite merchants passed by, to whom the brothers sold him, while he
was yet in the pit, so that his weeping should not shame them. The
Midianites drew him out of the pit since they had bought him. Whilst they
were doing this, the Ishmaelites came along and the Midianites sold him to
the Ishmaelites, the Ishmaelites to the Medanites and the Medanites to
Pharaoh—a total of four sales. The text states, however, that Potiphar
bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites. Why?--The tribes had sold him to the
Midianites, but this sale was not recorded , since it was only temporary.

The Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites an the Ishmaelites to the

Medanites. This third sale was likewise not recorded, since it was
concluded in haste and secrecy for fear the Medanites might retract. The
Medanites sold him to Potiphar whose suspicions however were aroused
by Joseph's handsome appearance. It wasn't usual for wandering slave
traders , for dark people, to be selling a white man—it was usually the
other way around! He could not therefore be a slave. He asked them for a
guarantee that the transaction was bona fides and no one would come to
reclaim him. They brought the Ishmaelites who gave the necessary
guarantee, and that is the force of the wording of the text: he brought him
from the hand of the Ishmaelites—they gave him their hand or guarantee
(cf. Gen 43, 9: I shall stand surety, from my hand shall you require it—the
latter part of Hizkuni is based on Bereshit Rabbah 86).
Hizkuni's approach is rather complicated but it has two advantages: the

many candelstine sales fit in well with the atmosphere of dealings in stolen
property. The traders realised that this was no bona fides transaction and
tried to get rid of their merchandise. Similarly it disposes of the
contradiction between our texts (where Joseph is sold finally to the
Ismaelites) and the last verse of the chapter: and the Medanites sold
Joseph into Egypt, and the first verse of ch. 39: And Potiphar bought from
the hand of the Ishmaelites.
The flaw in this explanation is the fact that it presupposes two sales not
recorded in the text. For this reason we cite here Ramban who suggests
another explanation. He regards the two caravans of Midianite merchants
and Ishmaelites as one, in which the Midianites were the merchants and
the Ishmaelites the camel-drivers, so that the brothers first caught sight of
the Ishmaelite caravan and when they drew near saw Midianite
merchants:
The brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites, the merchants, to trade with
him, since the Ishmaelite camel-drivers or hauliers did not engage directly
in trade—they merely hired their camels themselves to traders. The text:
And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites implies that Joseph was handed
to the Ishmaelites to be transported to Egypt by them. This is also the
implication of the text: From the hand of the Ishmaelites who had brought
his down thither; but the Midianites were his owners; they traded with him.
That is the force of the text: The Medanites sold him into Egypt.
Ramban then shows that the Torah often attributes a deed, sometimes to
its ultimate author and at others to its intermediary or direct commissioner.
Thus Moses is sometimes credited as in (Deut. 34, 12): the great terror
Moses wrought in the eyes of all Israel, and, at others, God, as in (Duet
11, 7): all the great work God had wrought. Similarly, here, the
contradiction between: the Medanites sold him into Egypt and Potiphar
bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites is solved by remembering
that sometimes a deed is attributed to its immediate and direct cause, and
sometimes, to its more remote, indirect one. Ibn Ezra wishes to regard the
Midianites and Ishmaelites as identical. But irrespective of the difference
between these commentators, they have this in common: The brothers
who are not mentioned in our text at all are regarded as the understood
subject: they drew Joseph out of the pit, and they sold Joseph. This
interpretation would seem to be borne out by Joseph's words, when he
revealed his identity to his brethren: I am Joseph your brother whom you
sold into Egypt.
But this approach raises many difficulties. First, it leaves unexplained how

Reuben remained ignorant of the sale, though he no doubt did his best to
save Joseph and presumably kept watch on his brothers. But was he at
the time of the sale? Admittedly, the Midrash states he was engaged
otherwise (ministering to his father, subjecting himself to penance for his
relations with his father's concubine), but this is forced. Again it leaves
unexplained why the brothers did not answer him when stunned, he said:
the child is not; and as for me wither shall I go? Their silence indicates that
they were similarly stunned. That the brothers considered him really dead
seems to be indicated from a number of texts, besides the fact that
otherwise they would presumably have made an effort to trace him: e.g:
the one is not (42,13 and 32). It is obvious that this phrase implied he was
dead. Cf.: 44, 20: We said unto my lord, we have an old father and a child
of his old age, and his brother is dead. Otherwise how would Judah have
dared to make such a statement?
When amongst themselves the brothers explicitly indicated their conviction

he was dead: but verily we are guilty... did not I tell you, sin not with the
child but you did not listen, therefore also his blood is required (42, 22).
Had Rashi's contention been correct that the brothers had sold him to the
Egypt-bound caravan, why couldn't the brothers, after they had suffered
complete remorse for their act, have hoped to trace him and mend
matters? This has led Rambam and, subsequently, other commentators to
And there passed by Midianites, merchants. The brothers sat down to a

meal at some distance from the pit, out of qualms of conscience and
waited for the Ishmaelites they had seen. But before the latter arrived,
others, Midianite traders passed, saw Joseph in the pit and drew him out
and sold him to the Ishmaelites, presumably without the knowledge of the
brothers. Thought the text says, whom you sold to Egypt, that was meant
only in the sense of ultimate responsibility... the Midianites passed quite
accidentally and they sold him to the Ishmaelites. But even if you wish to
say that it was the brothers who sold him to the Ishmaelites, (as his
grandfather Rashi learnt), you must say that the brothers had commanded
the Midianites to draw Joseph out of the pit, and they sold him afterwards
to the Ishmaelites.
Rashbam was forced to find another explanation by the grammatical

construction of the text. The only feasible subject of our text is the
Midianites, since they are referred to last. He observes therefore that even
Rashi's explanation that it was the brothers who drew him out can only be
accepted if we take it in the sense that the Midianites did the drawing out,
at the brothers' behest. Since this, too, is forced, Rashbam advances the
revolutionary but apt explanation that Joseph was sold without their
knowledge, thus bearing out Joseph's own contention: I was surely stolen
from the land of the Hebrews (40, 15). Many commentators have accepted
this, including Hizkuni (the latter's explanation we cited earlier is an
alternative) whose main motivation for adopting it was:
When Reuben didn't find him in the pit, they all thought an evil beast had
consumed him. They did not lie to their father. Had they really sold him,
they would have searched every country in an effort to trace whether he
was alive or dead.
Other commentators who follow this approach are Bahya, Mendelsohn,

Hirsch and Malbim. The most exhaustive treatment from this standpoint is
Samuel Lali's, in a letter quoted in Luzatto's commentary to this verse.
Here is an extract:
They moved away from the pit so as not to hear Joseph's cries of mercy
(when we saw the distress of his soul, when he besought us, (42, 21).
Whilst they were eating, they caught sight of an Ishmaelite caravan and
Judah said: What profit... and his brothers listened. They all agreed that as

soon as they finish eating, they would haul Joseph out of the pit and sell
him to the Ishmaelites. Whilst they were talking the Midianites passed by,
quite by accident and took him and sold him to the Ishmaelites for 20
pieces of silver. Reuben, unseen by them, rushed to the pit to haul Joseph
out and return him to his father before his brothers would have a chance
to sell him. But Reuben was stunned to find the pit empty; rent his
garments and was convinced that a bear or lion had dragged him out of
the pit alive to devour him in its lair, since there were no traces of bones
and blood. He forthwith reported to the brothers what had happened and
they believed him. Reuben blamed himself for the tragedy, since it was he
who had suggested casting him into the pit... The brothers thought up the
idea of dipping the coat in blood, in order to protect Reuben and convince
their father that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast. None of them
went in search of Joseph, because they were fully convinced that he was
no longer alive.
Reuben had kept quiet on hearing Judah's suggestion to sell Joseph

because he thought he would be able to rescue Joseph from the pit,
unseen by them, before they implemented their design. Now we may
understand why the brothers did not react to Reuben's news that the child
is not by saying we have sold him since they knew no more of his
whereabouts than Reuben himself. Similarly this explains Joseph's: I was
surely stolen from the land of Hebrew...The discrepancy between the
Medanites who sold him and Ishmaelites from whom Potiphar is said to
have bought him, may be explained by the fact that Ishmaelite is a generic
term for all descendants of Abraham other than Isaac, or they were the
descendants of Medan the son of Abraham (Gen 25, 2). But the Midianites
who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, though they too were the sons of
Abraham, were certainly others who were not in the Ishmaelite caravan.
Since the sellers and buyers could not be one and the same, they are
termed merchants (following Rashbam's explanation).
Joseph's statement: that you sold me is no contradiction since, as Benno

Jacob points out, sale does not cover just the financial side of the
transaction but also the more general disposing of the object,
accompanied by an undertone of bitterness and misfortune. God sold
Israel into the hands of her enemies. (Ju. 2, 14; 3, 8; 4, 2). Joseph could
have meant that his brothers had sold him, in the sense of getting rid or
disposing of him, or in the sense of indirect instrumentality.
Jacob finds a more convincing proof that it was not the brothers who sold
him. After Judah had suggested selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites, the
verse ends with the words: and the brothers hearkened, Rashi explains
this in the sense of their acceptance of his plan. But Jacob argues that it
would have an object to mean that (and the brothers hearkened to him or
to his voice, cf.: Gen. 23, 16; 30, 22; 34, 24; Ex. 18, 24; Nu. 21,3).
Vayishme'u by itself implies the contrary, that they heard him out, but
demurred, disapproved. Cf.: Gen. 35, 22: And Reuben went and lay with
Bilhah, his father's concubine, and Israel herad . Thus the last words of
the verse 27 does not prepare the ground for the brothers' sale of Joseph,
but the contrary: that no unanimous decision had been reached, and that
in the meantime, the second caravan drew up and hauled Joseph out.
But the main question is how does this new interpretation affect the
significance of the story as a whole. To this, Benno Jacob replies: The
tribes had not been guilty of the sin of stealing a man and selling him
(Ex.21, 12-18) punishable by death and for which there was no
atonement, being tantamount to murder. God had contrived matters that
their design was not implemented by them. Joseph was sold by strangers.

Had it been by his brothers, it would not have been a permanent sale,
since the sale by a Jew, whether to a heathen or another Jew is
redeemable. But Joseph was sold by heathens to heathens-- into eternal
slavery. This is the force of the emphasis in the text that Potiphar, an
Egyptian bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites. In spite of all this,
the almighty redeemed him from Egyptian slavery, a foretaste of what was
to happen to all Israel, all the tribes of Jacob in Egypt in the house of
bondage, from which the Lord would bring them out from slavery to
freedom.
1.
The following objections have been raised to Rashi's interpretation:
What forced Rashi to explain that the brothers sold him to the
Ishmaelites and the latter to the Midianites and not that the brothers
sold him to the Midianites and the latter to the Ishmaelites, which
would fit the text better? Explain which texts this explanation would
suit better and why Rashi, in spite of this, preferred his explan
2.
If we accept the plain sense that it was the brothers who sold
Joseph into Egypt, how would you explain Joseph's words to the
chief butler and baker: For I was surely stolen from the land of the
He
3.
What did Ranban wish to prove by his quotation from Deut. 11, 7.
(all the great work that God has wrought on p.
4.
Did Joseph contradict himself in stating on one occasion (40, 15): I
was surely stolen from the land of the Hebrews and on another (44,
4): whom you sold to E
5.
The contradiction between The Medanites sold him to Egypt (37,
36) and: Potiphar bought him from the hand of the Ishmaelites
(39,1) is harmonised quite simply by Benno Jacob, by pointing out
that the text reports they sold him to Egypt and not to the Egyptians
or in Egypt. Ex
6.
His brothers heard: implying they accepted his view. The Hebrew
Shema hear wherever it implies agreement, as in Gen. 28, 7 and
the phrase na'aseh ve-nishma' is translated by Onkelos as we shall
accept. But wherever it implies hearing with the ear as in; Gen. 3, 8:
27, 5; 35, 22 it is translated by Onkelos by the wordshema.
Rashi always explains the meaning of a word whether by resort to the

Aramaic Targum of Onkelos or to another example in the Bible or by
translation into the vernacular (Old French), the first time he comes across
it. Why then did Rashi wait till our sidra to explain this connotation of the
Hebrew word shema instead of in Gen. 28, 7, where it first appears and on
which he indeed bases himself?

Gilyonot - Parashat Vaigash
Languages
Links
Parashat Vaigash

Kehati Mishna The Rope has Followed the Bucket

Parashat Hashavua We analysed in this previous chapter of our Studies on this sidra Judah's
moving speech which marks the climax of the story of Joseph and his
Hebrew Text of the brethren. Judah uttered it at the most critical juncture. The brothers, who
Parashah had once been strangers to the feeling of brotherhood, who had, deaf to
his entreaties, sold him into slavery were now put to the test. Would they
leave the other brother, a son of Rachel too, in bondage and return to their
English aged father, once again, a brother-by-Rachel-short or would they fight to
rescue him even at the cost of their own freedom?Judah, as we have
Hebrew
noted, resorted in his speech, to every psychological and rhetorical device
German to stir the feelings of the Egyptian. Our sages, however, turned this
speech into a duel of words, a tussle between Joseph and Judah. Here is
Russian an excerpt from this lengthy verbal duel:;My Lord asked his servants,
saying: have ye a father, or a brother? (44, 19) From the outset thou didst
Spanish come upon us with a pretext. From many provinces did they come down to
Egypt to buy victuals; yet thou didst not interrogate any of them.
Peradventure we came for thy daughter's hand, or our sister's hand didst
Nehama's Iyunim thou seek? Even so, we hid nothing from thee.Joseph replied to him:
Judah! Wherefore art thou the spokesman of all your brethren, whereas I
Insights on the see in my divining goblet that thou has brothers older than thyself?
Parasha Answered Judah: All that thou seest is due to the bond that I stood for him.
(Companion) To which Joseph replied: Why didst thou not stand surety for thy brother
when ye sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver and grieved
Nehama's Gilyonot
thine old father, when thou didst say unto him: Joseph has been torn by a
wild beast , when he did thee no wrong? Regarding this one who did
wrong and stole the goblet, tell thy father: The rope has followed the
Nehar Deah bucket.As soon as Judah heard this, he cried out bitterly: How can I go up
to my father when the lad is not with me? Joseph then said to him: Come
Rega Lifney let us debate the matter. Have thine say and arrange thine arguments.
Shabbat Whereupon Judah immediately called to his brother Naphtali: go see how
many markets there are in Egypt. Whereupon he leapt forth, returned and
told him: twelve. Said Judah: I shall lay waste three of them; the rest of
Commentary of you, take each one a market and spare no one. His brethren answered
Rabbi Moshe Bergman him: Judah, Egypt is no Shechem; Should thou destroy Egypt, thou
(in Hebrew) destroyest the whole world.(Tanhuma)Judah immediately became furious
and raged at the top of his voice, so that the sound traveled four hundred
parasangs till Hushim the son of Dan heard it and leapt to his side from
Illustrations to the the land of Canaan. Both of them raged and sought to overthrow the land
Weekly Parasha, by the of Egypt.(Bereshit Rabbah)
Studio in Old Jaffa
Judah said unto Joseph: Knowest thou, that from the beginning thou didst
only seek a pretext. Thou didst first say unto us: Ye are spies. Then didst
thou add: To see the nakedness of the land, ye have come, and then: Ye
have stolen a goblet. Thou by them didst swear by the life of Pharaoh
thewicked; whereas I swear by the life of my father, the righteous one. If I
unsheathe my sword, I shall fill all egypt with corpses. Said Joseph to him:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vaigash.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 10:43:19 a.m.

If thou will unsheathe thy sword, I shall bind it round thy neck. Judah: If I
open my mouth I shall swallow thee up. Said Joseph: If thou wilt but open
thy mouth, I shall stop it up with a stone. Said Judah: What shall we say to
father? Said Joseph: I have already told thee: Tell him: the rope has
followed the bucket. Said Judah: Thou dost mete out a pervert judgement
on us. Said Joseph: Perverseness for the perverters. No greater
perversion of justice could be imagined than the sale of your brother! Said
Judah: The fire of Shechem doth burn within me. Said Joseph: the fire of
thy daughter-in-law Tamar it is I shall douse it. Said Judah: Now I shall go
forth and dye all the markets of Egypt in blood. Said Joseph: Ye were
dyers aforetimes when ye dyed your brother's coat in blood and said to
your father: He is torn to pieces.
Said Joseph: Did ye not say thus, that the brother of this one is dead? I
purchased him. I am going to call him and he will come to you. He began
to call: Joseph the son of Jacob, come to me! Joseph the son of Jacob,
come unto me! Speak with thy brethren who sold thee. Whereupon they
looked to the four corners of the house. Said Joseph to them: Wherefore
do you look hither and thither? I am Joseph your brother! Whereupon their
souls flew out and they could not answer him. Said R. Yohanan: Woe to
us on account of the day of Judgement! Woe to us on account of the day
of retribution! If in the case of Joseph who said unto his brethren: I am
Joseph your brother , their souls flew out, all the more so, when the Holy
One blessed be He stands in judgement, as it is written:Who may abide
the day of His coming? (Malachi 3, 2). And if, in this case, his brethren
were affrighted at his presence, all the more so, when the Holy one
blessed be He comes to judge us for neglect of His commands and the
violation of the torah
The Holy One blessed be he performed a(Tanhuma) miracle for them and
their souls returned.
What was the reason for this fanciful interpretation of Judah's moving
speech, this transformation of a skillfully- woven emotional appeal and
monologue into a bitter denunciatory dialogue?
But the fanciful embroidery of our sages is also skillfully built up into a
dialogue which moves, stage by stage into a climax. There is, however a
difference. Judah, in the original Biblical petition only hinted at injustice,
indirectly. In the Midrash, he beseeches, threatens and denounces, whilst
Joseph aggressively answers him back in mocking and ironic tone: The
rope has followed the bucket. The more Judah rages, the
moreJosephangers and wounds him, recalling his treatment of their
younger brother in the past. Joseph, of course, could not have said these
words. Who then is theJoseph in the Midrash, who plays the role of the
accuser? Our sages wished to personify Judah's conscience, the inner
voice of remorse which plagued him at this turning of tables.
The more Judah denounces the injustice of the regent's conduct, the more
his conscience reminds him of the injustice he inflicted on Joseph.
Thou dost mete out a perverse judgement on us. Perverseness for

perverters.
No greater perversion of justice could be imagined than the sale of you

brother!
When Judah's natural indignation at injustice knows no bounds he

threatens to envelop a whole empire with catastrophe for the slander of
innocent people on peril of starvation:

Now shall I go forth and dye all the markets of Egypt with blood.
But his conscience cooled his raging fury with the words:
Ye were dyers aforetimes when ye dyed your brother's coat in blood and
told your father: He is torn to pieces by wild beasts.
Perhaps the picture of Judah's ragings are meant to depict the effort to
drown the voice of conscience which taunted him:
Wherefore didst thou not stand surety for your brother, when you sold him
for twenty pieces of silver?
The Midrash contrasts their situation in Egypt, the justice meted out to
them, with their conduct towards their brother, on the advice of Judah, in
the past. This idea is also expressed in the text itself, in the last words of
Judah's speech:
Now therefore let thy servant, I pray thee, abide instead of the lad a
bondmen to my Lord;
And let the lad go up with his brethren
Once Judah, who here represents all the brothers, had reached the stage
of not being able to return to his father without Benjamin, being prepared
to give his life for him, the wrong they had all originally perpetrated against
their other brother was atoned for and Joseph could reveal his identity to
them.

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Vayehi
Languages
Links
Parashat Vayehi

Kehati Mishna Jacob's Testament

Parashat Hashavua Before his death, the Patriarch imparted a last wish to his favourite son,
Joseph. This wish Joseph divulged to Pharaoh, after Jacob'' death. Let us
Hebrew Text of the compare Jacob'' wording of his own dying wish to Joseph, and the latter's
Parashah reporting of it to Pharaoh:
Jacob's testament to Joseph As reported to Phar Put, I pray thee, thy

English
hand under My father made me swear, saying,my thighy and deal kindly
Hebrew
and truly with me bury me not in Egypt, I pray thee But I will lie with my
fathers,Lo I die And thou shall carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their
German dying In my grave, which I have dug for me in Place.The land of Canaan,
there thou shall bury me (Gen. 47, 29-30)(Gen. 50, 5)
Russian
The reason for the variations are abundantly clear. Joseph is cautious in
Spanish his approach to Pharaoh. As a foreigner in Egypt he did not want to offend
the susceptibilities of his host. Jacob, however, as the sturdy opponent of
the idolatrous world and Egyptian abominations did not want to be buried
Nehama's Iyunim in Egypt and said so quite bluntly to Joseph:
Insights on the
Parasha Bury me not, I pray thee, in Egypt, Thou shall carry me out of Egypt These
(Companion)
statements are not, of course, reproduced by Joseph, in reporting his
father’s wish to Pharaoh. Let us now follow Jacob’s request and the form
Nehama's Gilyonot of oath with which he adjures Joseph:
If now, I have found grace in thy sight Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my
thigh And deal kindly and truly with me
Nehar Deah
Rega Lifney The above sentiments were naturally not meant for foreign consumption
Shabbat and were addressed privately to Joseph. He therefore omitted them in his
interview with Pharaoh. On the other hand, Joseph understood how to
influence the king and persuade him to give the necessary permission for
Commentary of burying son an important personage outside the country, and allow the
Rabbi Moshe Bergman vice regent of the realm accompany the cortege.
(in Hebrew)
Joseph substituted the following wording for what Jacob had actually said:
Illustrations to the In my grave which I have dug for me in the land of Canaan, There thou
Weekly Parasha, by the shall bury me.
Studio in Old Jaffa
The reference here is, of course, to the cave of Machpelah which Jacob
had not himself dug. Joseph, however, was well acquainted with Egyptian
custom. An Egyptian nobleman always prepared in his lifetime his own
grave, and only there would he be buried. Pharaoh would therefore
appreciate the force of Jacob's request.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vayehi.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 10:46:11 a.m.

It is quite clear, therefore, that the variations, the omissions and insertions
made by Joseph were not accidental. Another point worth examining is the
conversation between Jacob and Joseph regarding the taking of an oath.
Jacob opened with a request that Joseph take an oath to carry out his last
wish:
If now I have found grace in thy sight, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my
thigh.
Joseph had not immediately acceded to his father's request by taking the
oath but answered in a general way:
And he said, I will do as thou hast said.
Our commentators express surprise as the fact that Joseph did not
immediately take the oath as requested by his father, and only did so after
being pressed a second time:
And he said, Swear unto me. And he swore unto him.
His behavior contrasted with that of Abraham's servant, who was similarly
asked by his master to swear, which he readily did:
And Abraham said to his eldest servant Put, I pray thee, thy hand under
my thigh. And I will make thee swear by the Lord, God of heaven… (24, 2)
Forthwith, the servant acceded to his master’s request:
And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master
(Ibid. 9)
The Midrash aptly explains the difference between Joseph’s behavior and
that of Abraham’s servant:
Said Rabbi Isaac: The servant acted servilely and the free man as a free
agent. The servant acted servilely, as it is said: "And the servant put his
hand Whilst the freeman acted as a free agent: "And he said, I will do as
thou has said " Bereshit Rabbah 96
A servant has to do the behest of others. Since he is not a free agent, he

must be bound an oath or otherwise compelled, to make sure that he
caries out his obligations. It does not matter whether the force applied is
moral or physical. A free agent however, is only bound by his conscience,
and chooses his own actions in accordance with his own freely arrived at
decisions.
Malbim makes a similar distinction. Joseph, Malbim explains, replied to his

father that it was better for him not to swear but rather to carry out his
obligations as part of his filial duty. It was better for him to do it out of his
own free will, rather than be bound on oath. In the latter instance, he could
not take the credit for fulfilling his obligations freely. This explanation may
help us understand Biblical and Rabbinic disapproval of vows. Man should
rather conduct himself as a free agent rather than be bound by external
artificial bonds. Nevertheless, Jacob insisted on Joseph taking an oath:
And he said, Swear unto me.

The reason for this is quite clear when we recall what we said at the
beginning about Joseph's need to placate Pharaoh and approach him
diplomatically. On oath:" My father made me swear", Joseph's request
would carry greater force in Pharaoh's eyes. Pharaoh's answer indicates
the effect Joseph's words had on him:
Go up and bury thy father as he made thee swear.
(50, 6)
1. Compare Abraham's words to his servant with Jacob's to Joseph in

the following excerpt:
“And I (Abraham) will make thee swear by the Lord God of heaven…”)
( 24,3)
Contrast the above with Jacob’s simpler form of adjuration (47, 31)
“Swear unto me”
What is the reason for this difference?
2.“…One told Joseph, behold thy father is sick” (48, 1). Behold all Joseph
praiseworthiness consisted of the great respect he paid to his father, yet
he did not go in to see him every hour!? For were it not for the fact that
that others came to tell him, “Father is sick”, wouldn’t he have known? The
purpose of this, however, is to make known unto you his righteousness,
that he did not want to be alone with his father that he should not say to
him: What did your brothers do to you? And he )Jacob( would be
prompted to curse them. For this reason he did not visit his father at
frequent intervals.(Pesikta Rabbati)
(a)
Can you find in our sidra support for the view that Jacob never knew
what the tribes had done to Joseph?
(a)
Cannot the verses in chapter 50 be considered a contradiction of
the opinion of the above quoted Midrash on this point?
3. Cf. Rashi on Genesis 49, 9 with the Pesikta quoted above:
“Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, thou art gone up.”
“He stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as a lioness; who

shall rouse him up?”
From the prey regarding that which I suspected you (Genesis 37,
33) in respect of: Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces an evil
beast hath devoured him alluding to Judah who is likened to a lion.
(Rashi)
“Thou art gone up”—thou didst disassociate thyself and say “what
profit is it if we slay our brother…” (Genesis 37, 26) (Rashi)
Can you explain this verse differently from Rashi in such a way that
it will contain no contradiction to the view expressed in the Pesikta?

“Then Joseph spoke to the house of Pharaoh saying: If I find favour

in your eyes, kindly speak in the ears of Pharaoh…”
On this Sforno comments:
For one must not enter the king’s gate dressed in sackcloth.
Can you suggest an alternative to Sforno's answer? Why did Joseph say
to Pharaoh: "My father made me swear " rather than: " I swore to my
father"?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Shemot
Languages
Links
Parashat Shemot

Kehati Mishna Who am I to Go to Pharaoh

Parashat Hashavua Five times did Moses refuse the mission he
was charged with at the burning bush. Five
Hebrew Text of the times did he present his arguments, only to be
Parashah overruled each time by the Almighty. Let us
briefly survey the five rounds:
English
Then Moses said to God: Who am I to go
Hebrew
to Pharaoh, and take the children of
Israel out of Egypt? (3, 11)
German
Moses said to God: When I actually
Russian come to the children of Israel and say to
them and they say to me, What is his
Spanish name?what shall I say to them? (3, 13)
Moses answered and said: But they will never believe me or

Nehama's Iyunim
listen to me, for they will say: The Lord has not appeared to
Insights on the thee. (4, 1)
Parasha
(Companion) Then Moses said to the Lord I have never been a man of
words, neither Yesterday, nor even the day before, nor even
Nehama's Gilyonot since Thou hast spoken to Thy servant; for I am slow of
speech and tongue.(4, 10)
Nehar Deah Finally he said: Send I pray Thee by the hand of whom Thou
wilt send. (5, 13)
Rega Lifney
Shabbat It may be observed that Moses changed his defense in each answer as if
he were seeking shelter each time behind another excuse. In his first two
replies his rejection was based on personal inadequacy; this is particularly
Commentary of evident in his second reply: What shall I say to them? On the third
Rabbi Moshe Bergman occasion he hides behind the people. Th very preamble to it, Moses
(in Hebrew) answered and said indicates that he had taken up a new line of defense.
Cassuto in his commentary to Exodus remarks that this form of
introduction to a speech does not merely connote an answer, but indicates
Illustrations to the the introduction of a new idea or fresh initiative on the part of the speaker.
Weekly Parasha, by the This is its connotation introducing the speeches in the book of Job, and
Studio in Old Jaffa here too.
After this argument too had been overruled by the Divine reply, Moses
reverted in his fourth plea to himself, this time pleading a specific
inadequacy (physical or spiritual. Our sages detected in the drawn-out
wording of this verse, its multiplicity of alsos (gam) the full force of Moses
hesitations, and the intensity of his misgivings.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/shmot.html (1 de 6)26/02/2008 10:01:20 a.m.

And Moses said to the Lord, O Lord Thus Moses addressed

the Holy one Blessed be He: You are the Lord of the world.
Do you want me to be an emissary? Behold I have never
been a man of words. The sages stated: For the previous
seven days, the Holy One blessed be He had been trying to
coax Moses to accept His mission and he had not wanted to
go till the incident of the burning bush. To this the text
alludes, as it is stated: I have never been a man of words one
(day); yesterday two: even three; the day before four; even
five; since six; Thou hast spoken seven!
(Shemot Rabbah)
After God had overruled even this argument of Moses, there came the fifth
plea, different in essence from all its precursors: send I pray Thee, by the
hand of whom Thou wilt send. It is completely unmotivated, though our
sages have endeavored to detect reasoned argument in it:
R. Hiyya the Great stated: Moses thus addressed the Holy One blessed
be He: Lord of the universe! Through me do you wish to redeem the
children of Abraham who acknowledged Thee master over all Thy
creatures! “Send, I pray Thee by the hand of Him whom Thou wilt send;.
He (Moses) continued: Who is dearer to a man, his nephew or his
grandchild? Surely his grandchild! When thou didst seek to save Lot,
Abraham's nephew, Thou didst send angels to deliver him; the children of
Abraham who are sixty myriads, me dost Thou send to deliver them! Send
the angels Thou art accustomed to sending.
But in the text itself we find just blank refusal, a final almost desperate
rebuttal, as if all his arguments had been silenced and he was left with a
barren, bewildered no.
Let us take a closer look at the first refusal. The message that Moses
received at the burning bush read:
Come now therefore and I will send thee to Pharaoh And

bring forth My people, the children of Israel from Egypt. (3, 10)
Since each half of the verse spells out a separate command, we are
entitled to infer that two distinct messages are involved. The verse does
not read: come I will send you to bring (le-hozi) forth my people. It reads:
Come I will send you and bring forth (ve hozi).
Rashi too understands the passage in this way:
Come now let me send you to Pharaoh. And if you ask what
good will it do? Bring My people out of Egypt. Your words will
have the effect of getting them out of there.
Accordingly the first half unfolds the command to undertake the mission
and no more. Whereas the second half imparts both the content of the
mission and a promise of its success. To balance this came Moses first
refusal, which was similarly composed of two darts:
Who am I to go to Pharaoh?
And take the children of Israel out of Egypt?
Our commentaries disagree on the interpretation of this double-barreled

retort. We shall deal with two converse opinions on this text. First Rashi:

Who am I? Who am I important enough to speak with kings?

and that I should bring forth the children of Israel: And even if
I am important, what have the Israelites done to deserve a
miracle to be performed for them that I should bring them out
of Egypt.
The diametrically opposed view is expressed by Rashbam:
Who am I? Moses replied to the two instructions imparted to

him by God, to go to Pharaoh and also to bring the children
of Israel out of Egypt at the commandment of Pharaoh.
And that I should bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?
Moses replied to each in order. Who am I to go to Pharaoh even to bring

him a gift and offering? Am I then of sufficient status, a stranger like me to
enter the court of the king?
And that I should bring the children of Israel out of Egypt? In other words,
even if I obtain the privilege of a royal audience and succeed in him giving
my words a hearing, what can I say that might have the faintest chance of
appealing to Pharaoh? Is Pharaoh then such a fool as to listen to me and
send away his slaves such a multitude, free from his country? whoever
explains these verses in any other way is completely misled.
Here we have a convincing example of how the so-called rationalist, they

adhere to the strict literalness of the text, the eschewer of all homiletic
exegesis may be forced into deviating from the plain sense and the
underlying meaning. Admittedly, Rashbam may find fault with his
grandfather Rashi's explanation that the wording does not suit it. For,
according to Rashi, not Moses should have been the subject of the
second half of the verse, but Israel, (as if it says: who is Israel that they
should (be brought out)? But this objection is not nearly so strong as that
which can be raised against Rashbam's interpretation.
There is one golden rule of interpretation: the particular can only be

explicated in terms of its general context. An application of this rule should
serve to convince us how wide of the mark Rashbam was in explaining
Moses' refusal in terms of political considerations.
Let us stand with Moses confronting the burning bush, which is never
consumed, observe him hide his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.
Now at this supremely sublime moment, Moses puts forward, in
Rashbam's view, prudential calculated considerations, to the effect that
the existing political constellation was not appropriate for such a
campaign, that the military junta at that moment in power in Egypt was not
ready for renegotiations regarding the sending away of the people, and
that we should beware of being misled in our appraisal of the enemy, in
regarding him as a fool, etc. Is not this just how Rashbam explains Moses
words, unaware of the fact that he has transplanted us from the burning
bush to the practical, matter-of-fact atmosphere of the council chamber of
a military headquarters? Does not the text belie this?
And God called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said,
Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, come
no nearer; put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place on
which thou standest is holy ground.
Moreover He said: I am the God of thy father, the God of

Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. And
Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. And

the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of My people

who are in Egypt (3, 4-7)
Against such a background would Moses have answered: Is Pharaoh then

a fool to listen to me and send away his slaves free from this country? In
the presence of the burning bush that was not consumed would he have
expressed doubts of a political diplomatic nature?
How much more appropriate do the words of Rashi, prince of

commentators sound than those of Rashbam the literalist? Rashi regards
Moses' words as the only possible reaction in the circumstances. In these
first moments of prophecy, in the atmosphere of Divine immanence, he
recoils at His transcendence, sensing the nothingness of man, dust and
ashes, acutely made aware of human weakness and frailty. What are we?
What is our life? What our righteousness? That he should bestow on us
His kindness from on high? It would seem that this is the plain sense of
the text and this suits the reply of the Almighty who does not deny the
unworthiness and insignificantness of the receiver of His message, but
counters with the one single assurance: certainly I will be wit thee aptly
understood by Rashi in the sense of It is not of yours (i.e. on the basis of
your deserts) but of mine (My free gift).
To Moses second argument: What have Israel done to deserve this comes
the deeply significant answer:
When thou hast brought the people out of Egypt you shall serve God on
this mount (3,12)
Rashi comments:
Regarding your question: What has Israel done to deserve being brought
out from Egypt? I have a matter of great importance connected with that
bringing out: they are destined to receive the Torah on this mount, three
months after they leave Egypt.
Not a privilege but a responsibility awaited them. Not so much as a reward

for past good behavior but as a prelude to their future destiny. This
release from slavery, this bringing forth was inspired by a purpose and
goal rather than a motivating cause.
The text contains a profound message well brought out by the Rashi we
have cited. The exodus from Egypt, the liberation from an alien yoke,
independence freedom and the like are not ends in themselves. The
return to the homeland, the transformation from dependence top
sovereignty, slavery to freedom are but instruments, the means for
achieving the ultimate goal specified in our text: the service of God (you
shall worship God). In other words, the Almighty did not release Israel
from the burden of persecution in order to set them free from all burden or
responsibility.
He wished them to become free to accept another burden threat of the

kingdom of heaven of Torah and Mizvot. This idea is repeatedly
formulated in the Torah. Sometimes the end is presented before the
means as here:
I shall walk to and for in your midst and be your God

And you will be My people.
I am the Lord your God who brought you forth from the land
Of Egypt from being slaves.
I shall break to bonds of your yoke and lead you upstanding.
(Leviticus 26, 12, 14)

At others, the means is delineated before the end:
Who brought you forth from the land of Egypt to be your God
(Numbers 15, 41)
Many are the explanations suggested for this text (3, 11-12). The right
approach is to follow the plain sense. God imparted to Moses two things:
that He was going to deliver them (by sending Moses); it was possible for
him to deliver them from the hand of the Egyptians in the land of Goshen
itself or near there, but he further promised to deliver them from that
country, altogether to the place of the Canaanite. Moses was afraid on
both counts and said, Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, I, the lowliest
of men, a mere shepherd and he a mighty king. If I order him to let the
people go, he will kill me. He further said, Who am I that I should bring
forth the children of Israel from Egypt, in the sense that You implied to
bring them to the land of Canaan; for this great nation is a wise and
understanding people and will not attach sufficient weight to my
pronouncements as to follow me to a land of peoples greater than them...
For the deliverance from Pharaoh is not dependent on them, but if
Pharaoh will listen, he will lighten their yoke and deliver them to expel from
his land. Moreover they themselves will listen to any personage (i.e.
Pharaoh). For which man will not be willing to escape for such
unprecedented slavery? But they will not be willing to enter the land of
Canaan. And so it was. The campaign against those people was difficult
for them, from the very beginning, and they feared it, both in Egypt and the
wilderness. This constituted Moses fear of Pharaoh and his fear of them (i.
e. the people).
To both of these the Lord replied. He said to him: Do not be afraid of

Pharaoh for I shall certainly be with you to deliver you. And this shall be
the sign to you, to the people, that I have sent you to them: “when you
have brought froth the people out of Egypt you shall serve God upon this
mount”. Henceforth they will accept the service of God to follow His
commandments and they will also believe in you for ever and will run after
you to wherever you command them. (Ramban)
This bringing forth will require two categories of Divine intervention, one, in
respect of Pharaoh, that Moses should be assured that he would not slay
him but would ultimately bow to his request and command , and the
second, in respect of the people, that they should accept his leadership.
For did it not happen that afterwards they said on many occasions: Better
for us to serve Egypt?
Do both these commentators follow Rashi or Rambam or adopt a different

approach?
I am not a man of words but am heavy of speech and tongue

(4, 10).
I speak labouredly stutter.
I am not fluent in the Egyptian tongue because I ran away

from the country and I am now eighty. Cf. Ezek. 3, 5 For is it
possible that a prophet whom God had known face to face
and received the Torah should stutter, especially as there is
no mention of this in Talmudic sources.

(Rashbam)
He couldn't speak clearly; certain sounds were difficult for him to

pronounce. He who says that he had forgotten Egyptian is incorrect, for he
pleaded two disabilities – heavy of speech and tongue. Further God's
answer “Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh a man dumb” is
not referring to linguistic fluency but to some congenital disability. This is
the meaning of “I shall be with thy mouth and teach thee” (4, 12) –give you
words which are not difficult to pronounce.” (Ibn Ezra)
Let Ibn Ezra point out to us which letters are not to be found in Moses'
message to the people (omitted because he could not pronounce them),
apart from the fact it is blasphemy to suggest that God would choose to
give the Torah to his people by an emissary who could not pronounce the
words written therein. Actually what is meant is that Moses was not a man
of words, an eloquent and glib speaker, which fits in with the description
“that the man Moses was very meek, more than all men upon the earth.”
This is similar to Jeremiah's plea: ‘Behold I cannot speak', except that
Jeremiah could add: ‘for I am a child'. But Moses was old and it was even
more difficult for him, after so many years of shepherding his sheep, to go
and argue with a great monarch. (Shadal)
List the different interpretations of the phrase: “heavy of speech” as the

emerge from the foregoing commentators.
Summarise the arguments of Rashbam against Rashi, Ibn Ezra against

Rashbam, Shdal against Ibn Ezra.
Which of the above explanations best fits the Divine reply (vv. 11-12)?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Vaera
Languages
Links
Parashat Vaera

Kehati Mishna Can a A miracle Convince?

Parashat Hashavua When Pharaoh shall speak to you saying,
Perform for yourselves a wonder; Take thy staff
Hebrew Text of the and throw it down in front of Pharaoh
Parashah
And it will turn into a serpent (7, 9)
English
This was the instruction given to Moses before
Hebrew entering Pharaoh’s presence on the second
occasion. On the first, their audience with him
German was accompanied by no sign or wonder. They
came to Pharaoh "in the name of the God of
Russian Israel", and presented their demand: "Let my
people go!" In the face of Pharaoh’s
Spanish blasphemous reply, "I know not the Lord and
moreover, I will not let Israel go" they had no answer. Pharaoh retaliated
by intensifying the bondage. On this occasion, however, emissaries of the
Nehama's Iyunim Lord appeared once again but this time accompanied by a sign and
wonder.
Insights on the
Parasha
(Companion)
But they were distinctly warned that they were not to make the power of
God manifest nor to perform the wonders before Pharaoh called for such
Nehama's Gilyonot proofs. Alshikh emphasised that God had said:
Do not volunteer such a display lest it be thought that you had deliberately
prepared a conjuring act, but wait till Pharaoh says: "Perform a wonder".
Nehar Deah
But Abarvanel asks:
Rega Lifney
Shabbat Why should Pharaoh ask them at all for this? Surely he had no desire
either to hear their message or see their wonders, as he told them in the
first audience (v. 4): "Go to your burdens"? How then came God to say
Commentary of that Pharaoh would ask them for a wonder, as if that was his desire?
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) There is an even more serious difficulty. Ahaz king of Judah spurned
Isaiah the prophet’s offer of a sign to confirm the promise of God. Here is
how the Midrash motivates his refusal:
Weekly Parasha, by the Isaiah said to him: "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God, ask it either in the
Studio in Old Jaffa depth", that the dead should come to life, "or in the height above", i.e. that
Elijah should descend from heaven. He answered him: I know He has the
power to do it but I do not want the name of Heaven to be hallowed
through me, as it stated: "I will not ask, neither will I try to Lord" (Isa. 7, 11-
12)
(Tanhuma Yashan, Vayetze 92)
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vaera.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 09:56:46 a.m.

If that was Ahaz king of Judah’s attitude, all the more so, Pharaoh’s!
Would he wish the name of Heaven to be hallowed, His power
demonstrated before all his wise men and magicians by signs and
wonders?
It is most reasonable to accept the view of those who maintain that

Pharaoh was sure that these two old men of foreign extraction would not
be capable of producing a sign, and that precisely because of this he
would demand one. For let us recall what happened between the first and
second audience (v. 1-4): aggravation of the bondage which sent the
officers of the children of Israel, who saw their brethren in their evil plight,
running to Pharaoh to intercede both for themselves and their brethren.
But when their supplications were of no avail, they turned to Moses and
Aaron and regarded them – not Pharaoh – as the source of all their
troubles. It was they who had annoyed Pharaoh, lowered the prestige of
the people and caused the aggravation of their sufferings. Pharaoh had
achieved his goal. The increased severity of the persecutions did not
intensify the hatred of him but kindled in the masses distrust of their
leaders and even animosity against them. All that remained was to
disgrace these two in public, show their impotence and they would be
isolated, pilloried not only by the magicians and wise men but even by
their own people. Consequently Pharaoh would say: "Perform a wonder
for you" (not as he was used to saying: "Perform me a wonder"), since he
required no wonder. He had known from the beginning that these
emissaries were powerless. But he said: If you wish to show your power,
on the contrary, perform a wonder for yourselves and we shall see!
Alshikh who usually interprets the word le’mor – "saying" in the sense of
saying to others ("And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying" implying he
said it to Israel), is forced to make an exception here in the passage:
"when Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying , Perform a wonder for you".
He explains its force in the sense that Pharaoh would ask for a wonder
only in order to have his say against Moses, to have a chance of showing
up Moses’ impotence, and not in order to seek proof of the authenticity of
Moses’ mission.
Since this sign and wonder was calculated to unnerve Pharaoh, as well as
authenticate the mission of the emissary, Pharaoh was not vouchsafed the
same sign that was given Israel. Moses was given a special sign for the
Israelites:
Cast it to the ground and he cast it to the ground and it became a serpent.
To Pharaoh it was:
And cast it before Pharaoh that it became a dragon.
This difference is rather vaguely interpreted in Cassuto’s commentary to

Exodus:
Instead of the serpent most appropriate to the desert, in which form the
sign was transmitted to Moses, comes here the dragon or crocodile most
appropriate to the Egyptian milieu.
But Cassuto did not observe the sting in this shift from a serpent to a
crocodile, as the Midrash pictured it:
The Holy One Blessed be he said: This villain boasts and calls himself a
dragon, as it is written (Ezek. 29, 3): "The great dragon (referring to
Pharaoh) that lieth in the midst of his rivers" (i.e. the Nile and its canals).
Go tell him: See this staff, it is a piece of dry wood; it shall become a

dragon with life and soul and swallow up all the other staffs, and it is
destined to revert to a dry piece of wood.
You likewise, I created you from a putrid drop and gave you empire and
you boasted and said (ibid.): "My river is mine own and I have made it for
myself." Behold I shall turn you back to nothingness and chaos. You
swallowed up all the staffs of the tribes of the children of Israel, behold I
shall cause you to disgorge all you have swallowed.
What God had commanded was performed:
The Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh and did so as the Lord had
commanded,
Aaron threw the staff down in front of Pharaoh and his courtiers and it
turned into a dragon.
As I frequently the case, the Torah refrains from unnecessary and

laborious recapitulation. Pharaoh’s response "Perform for yourselves a
wonder" is omitted and the whole action compressed into one verse. Our
sages commented:
“ They did so as the Lord commanded” – they did nothing till Pharaoh
demanded a portent from them just as the Holy One Blessed be he had
briefed them. Hence when that happened and only then: “Aaron threw
down his staff”.
In Or Ha-hayyim the same point is elicited from an unnecessary

duplication:
The duplication (1) ";so" – (2) "as the Lord commanded" (either would
have sufficed) bears a twofold implication: (1) they did exactly what was
required (2) they did not do it till Pharaoh demanded the sign – as God
had commanded.
With all this, we observe that the performance of the wonder, even its
symbolism of the overthrow of Egypt made no impression upon Pharaoh.
Why? The Midrash gives us an answer and explains how Pharaoh
avoided the logic of the wonder and invented a convenient rationalisation
that dispelled the terror and indeed any impact of the sign.
And Pharaoh called to the wise men and magicians". At that moment
Pharaoh began to mock them and cluck after them like a hen, saying to
them: Such are the wonders of your God! In the usual way, people bring
merchandise to a place where it is needed. Do they bring fish to Acre? [i.e.
coals to Newcastle]. Don’t you know that I am the master of all magic
arts? He immediately sent for and brought the children from their schools
for them to do likewise… Jahanai and Mammre (two magicians) said to
Moses: You are bringing straw to Afaraim (city famous for its flour and
straw). (Shemot Rabbah 9, 4)
We see from here that the sign or wonder can only impress the one who is
psychologically prepared to be convinced. Even Elijah who in his zeal for
the Lord, resorted to this method of persuasion by miracle realized how
momentary was its impact. Was not pharaoh aware of the worthlessness
of all the magic of Egypt? It was not this that shook Pharaoh when he
said: "I know not the Lord". When was his obstinacy shaken? This we
shall see in the next chapter.

1. On the subject of the sign and wonder authenticating a prophet’s

mission,
read Deut. 13, 2-6. Cf. Also Rambam in his code, Yesodei Hatorah 8, 2-3:
…Every prophet who will arise after Moses our teacher we may not
believe in him on the strength of the sign alone that we should say: If the
sign comes to pass we shall hearken to all that he says. On the contrary, it
is on the strength of the commandment that Moses commanded in the
Torah and said "a prophet will the Lord thy God raise up unto thee, from
the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him you shall
hearken" (Deuteronomy, 18, 15). Just as he commanded us to reach a
verdict on the strength of witnesses even though we do not know whether
they have testified the truth or not, so he commanded us to hearken to this
prophet even though we do not know whether the sign he gave is a true
one or mere trickery and sorcery.
Therefore, if a prophet should arise and perform signs and great miracles
and endeavour to controvert the prophecy of Moses our teacher, we may
not hearken to him, and we may be sure that those signs were performed
through trickery and sorcery. For the prophecy of Moses our teacher is not
authenticated by signs that we may array one sign against another, but we
beheld it with our eyes and heard it with our ears just as he heard it.
Here we cite Moses Mendelssohn’s reply to the arguments of the Swiss

priest Lavater who chose to adduce supernatural signs and wonders as an
argument in favour of the truth of his faith:
According to the laws of my faith miraculous acts are no touchstone of

truth, and a miracle cannot be accepted with moral certainty as evidence
that a prophet has been sent by God. Only the giving of the Torah on the
day of the full assembly of the people face to face constitutes the
authentic testimony. For then the emissary required no evidence of his
mission, since all the people heard with their ears the divine command. I
find positive proofs in the Bible of the power of false prophets to perform
wonders (for example, what can we say of the Egyptian magicians? And in
Deuteronomy 13, 2 mention is made of a prophet or dreamer to whom we
must not hearken even if signs come to pass and that we must put him to
death). I am not able to decide whether these miracles were performed by
magical means or an abuse of power given to them for a good purpose. At
any rate I think that it cannot be denied that the Torah clearly does not
accept miracles as positive evidence of a divine mission.
Cf. Also the Biur:
It is stated "And giveth thee a sign or wonder". In other words, there

appears on the scene a person who declares himself to have been sent by
God to call upon the people to serve other gods. In confirmation of his
mission he prophesies that a certain thing will come to pass. To such a
prophet we are bidden not to hearken. It is axiomatic that a person who
bolsters up his rejection of the existence of God or denial of His wisdom,
kindness and goodness by recourse to signs and wonders, is contradicting
the very thing he has set out to prove. One who denies one of the
creator’s attributes, denies all of them. For instance a denial of God’s
infinite justice and uprightness denies also His omnipotence and
omniscience. One cannot acknowledge one of the attributes and repudiate
the rest, since it is denying the unity of His name which is indivisible. How
can such a man maintain that he is sent by God to deny one of his
essential attributes! What difference does it make after such a self-

contradictory declaration whether it is accompanied by sign or wonders?
It would seem that what is related in Exodus 4, 1-8 and in our chapter (7,
9) contradicts what is stated in Deut. 13, 2-6. Explain the contradiction and
how it can be harmonised with the help of Rambam and Mendelssohn.

Director:

Parashat Bo
Languages
Links
Parashat Bo
Iyunim - Weekly insights on the Parasha

Jewish sources with commentaries by Nehama Leibovitz,
Kehati Mishna
za"l
Parashat Hashavua THE IMPACT OF CURSE AND BLESSING
Hebrew Text of the The story of Balaam presents a number of difficulties, some of which we
Parashah have dealt with on previous occasions. We shall devote our Studies this
time to discussing the following question asked by Abravanel:
English Why did God prevent Balaam from cursing the Israelites? Why should
they have cared about his curse, as long as the Lord blessed his people
Hebrew with peace?
German
The Torah places no faith in divination and magic. Only the heathen
Russian deities were limited in their powers which were circumscribed by occult
laws. They were powerless to break a spell or dissolve the potency of a
Spanish malediction. But such was not the portion of Jacob. Even Balaam had to
admit that - there was no divination in Jacob. The whole of our sidra is
concerned with discrediting superstition and belief in magical practices.
Nehama's Iyunim This is the aim of the story of the ass. Balaam was proceeding to curse a
whole nation with his mouth. He, the seer and prophet, who claimed to
Insights on the probe the mysteries of time could not even see what his ass beheld.
Parasha
(Companion) The most foolish of animals confronted the wisest of men.
Yet the moment it spoke, he was confounded.
Nehama's Gilyonot
[Bamidbar raba 20, 12]
Nehar Deah In that event, greater force is added to our original question. What
significance, indeed, could be attached to the curse of such a personality
Rega Lifney
and why was it necessary to turn it into blessing? Some commentators
Shabbat
suggest that this was done to teach Balaam a lesson, that he was not his
own master. No magic rites (build me seven altars etc.) could prevail over
the Supreme Master. He had no choice but utter the words the Almighty
Commentary of
had put into his mouth (And the Lord put a word in the mouth of Balaam
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
23, 5), even if they were the opposite to what he wished to say.
(in Hebrew)
Others however maintain that the curses were turned into blessings not so
much as to teach Balaam a lesson as to benefit Israel. Did Israel need his
blessing? Surely the Almighty was the true source of all blessing and it
was He who blessed Israel? The answer given to this is that Balaam`s
Studio in Old Jaffa
words objectively speaking, maledictory or otherwise, were of no effect. It
depended on the Almighty to do good or evil. But subjectively, from the
point of view of the Israelies, themselves who had been reared in Egypt on
magic and superstition, his utterances as sorcerer-in-chief of the nations,
were bound to have a considerable impact. This is the explanation
outlined by Joseph Ibn Kaspi:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/bo.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 09:53:25 a.m.

Parashat Bo
The curse of Balaam had no objective potency neither in terms of the

author or the deed. Its effect must only be considered from the point of
view of those at the receiving end, i.e. the Israelites. Balaam, was a
renowned sorcerer and people were impressed both then and now by
sorcerers and diviners. There is no point in asking the reason for the belief
of Balak and his company just as there is no reason for doing so in the
case of Jacob and Esau, who attached such importance to their father`s
blessing. If they did, how much more so the Israelites of those days, in
particular the women and children, who would be greatly affected by the
maledictions of such a renowned sorcerer!
A true friend will save his colleague any pain, even if he knows that no
danger will ensue. Similarly the Almighty, out of the abundance of his love
for Israel prevented Balaam from cursing them, though he was aware that
his curses were impotent. But the Almighty did not rest content with this.
He went so far as to make Balaam bless the people to give them pleasure,
as it is stated: The Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam
(Deuteronomy 23,6) ... The reason of this was - because the Lord loveth
thee -. Similarly it is recorded in Joshua (24,9-10): Balak called Balaam to
curse you. But I would not hearken to Balaam; therefore he even blessed
you; so I delivered you out of his hand. This means that God delivered the
Israelites out of his hand, according to his idea of the power of his own
words and that of some of the children of Israel. At any rate, He delivered
them from hearing his curse... all out of love for his people. (Tirat Kesef)
Abravanel makes a similar point:
Balaam`s sorcery was world famous. Balak referred to his

renown when he said:
For I know he whom thou blessed is blessed, and he whom

thou cursest is cursed... Had Balaam cursed Israel, the
surrounding nations would have plucked up courage and
gone to battle with Israel on the strength of his curses. But
when they heard how God had turned them into blessings,
they would then realize who was Master... and would lose all
desire to fight His people. From this point of view, the turning
of Balaam`s words into blessing served a very useful
purpose. This same psychological warfare is referred to by
Joshua (2,9): I know that the Lord hath given you the land,
and that your terror is fallen upon us. How did Rahab know
all this if not from Balaam`s prophetic blessings?
There are other authorities however who maintain that neither Balaam`s
nor Israel`s good was exclusively involved. The Almighty was concerned
to protect all his creatures from error. He does not want to be instrumental
in bolstering superstition. Had Balaam cursed, the Moabites would
certainly have assumed that the reason why the Israelites refrained from
attacking them was due to their effect, and not because the Almighty had
forbad them to- be at enmity with Moab neither contend with them...
(Deuteronomy 2,9). This explanation closely follows Luzzatto`s:
Israel had been forbidden to attack Moab. Had Balaam cursed, the latter
and Balak would have boasted that they had succeeded in wording off the
Israelites. They might even have gone forth to fight them like the Edomites
did. Israel would have retreated and the name of God would have been
discredited.
A similar explanation involving the consideration of hillul hashem is

advanced by Anslem Astruk:
The Almighty`s warning- thou shalt not curse the people-was

Parashat Bo
given not because Balaam was capable of doing harm, since-

the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps... But this
was done to preclude the inhabitants of the land from
ascribing any retribution the Israelites might suffer for their
sins to the effect of Balaam`s curses. The Almighty wished to
bring home to His people their disobedience, immediately, as
a father chastiseth his son. He wished too to preclude
misguided talk impugning His omnipotence. Compare
Numbers 14,14 and Exodus 22,12.
That was the reason why-God`s anger against Balaam was

kindled because he went-(Numbers 22,22), not that he would
do any damage, but because some of his hearers would
ascribe any retribution they might suffer for their sins to the
effect of his curse.
[Midreshei Torah]
There is a difference between the two latter approaches. Luzzatto regards

the Divine action against Balaam as an expedient of temporary effect only,
to weaken the morale of Israel`s enemies, as well as to sanctify the name
of God publicly. Whereas Astruc regards it as an expedient with a long-
term effect, to preclude Israel attributing all their sufferings, in their future
history, to the effect of Balaam`s curse, instead of to the incurring of
Divine displeasure through their disobedience. This would be a Hillul Ha-
shem, a desecration of the Divine name.
The almighty turned Balaam`s curses into blessings not to save Israel
from their hurt but all the peoples from being led further into superstitious
beliefs.
1. Astruc compares our context with the intercession of Moses after the
misconduct of the spies [numbers 14] and the golden calf [Exodus 32].
Explain the connection.
2. And Balak...saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites...[22, 2]. The
two kings on whom we relied were not able to withstand them. How much
less will we be able to! Consequently- Moab was sore afraid...
What is the point of Rashi`s explanation and what impression does he

correct? What prompted his comment? In answering, compare Rashi`s
comment to Genesis 18, 3 on the first word to the sidra.
3.
And the sent of messengers unto Balaam to call him saying,

Behold there is a people come out of Egypt; Behold, they
cover the face of earth, and they abide over against me...[22,
5]. A nameless people who have broken out like slaves to
carve out estates for themselves and dwell in a land not their
own.
[Haàmek Davar]
What textual variation prompted the foregoing?

Parashat Beshalah
Languages
Links
Parashat Beshalah

Kehati Mishna
za"l
Parashat Hashavua Strike the Rock

Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
Rephidim was the last in the series
of murmurings reported in this
sidra. In the first one we heard the
English Israelites bemoaning their fate
when they caught sight of the
Hebrew Egyptians pursuing them (14, 10-
12). The second occasion was
German when they arrived at Marah (15, 22-
24); “they could not drink the
Russian water of Marah because it was
bitter”. On the third occasion,
Spanish when they entered the wilderness
of Zin, they gave vent to their
nostalgia for the fleshpots of
Nehama's Iyunim Egypt. Here we have a fourth
occasion where the people rose up
Insights on the against the Lord and Moses.
Parasha
(Companion) All the congregation of the people of Israel moved on from the
wilderness of Zin by stages, according to the commandment
Nehama's Gilyonot of the Lord and camped at Rephidim; but there was no water
for the people to drink.
Nehar Deah Therefore the people found fault with Moses and said, give us
water to drink. And Moses said to them, Why do you find fault
Rega Lifney with me? Why do you put the Lord to the proof?
Shabbat
But the people thirsted there for water and the people
murmured against Moses and said why did you bring us out
Commentary of of Egypt, to kill me and my cattle with thirst?
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) So Moses cried to the Lord saying: What shall I do with this
people? A little more and they will stone me.
Illustrations to the (17, 1-4)

Studio in Old Jaffa The above verses prompt a question. This is how it is
formulated by Abarbanel:
Why the duplication of “the people thirsted for water and

murmured”, when the text has already
alluded earlier to the lack of water and the grumblings of the
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/beshal.html (1 de 7)26/02/2008 09:49:54 a.m.

Parashat Beshalah
people (5. 2)?
Do verses 2 and 3 describe a gradually increasing sense of

bitterness? Was their sense of grievance soundly based?
Cassuto maintains in his Commentary to Shemot that the
Israelites here faced the greatest misfortune:
“There was no water for the people to drink”. This time the
situation was much more serious than that described in the
two previous accounts. At Marah they found bitter waters,
and later in the wilderness, suffered from a rationing in their
diet but now they were faced by the greatest misfortune of
desert travelers: water was completely unobtainable.
“But the people thirsted there for water”: this tells us nothing
new but gives, according to the conventional narrative
technique, a detailed account of what was generally stated in
verse 2, explaining what the murmurings that the people
directed at Moses consisted of
According to this interpretation, the thirst alluded to in verse

2, is not to be regarded as a further stage in the aggravation
of their feeling of thirst. They had already suffered from lack
of water before coming to Rephidim, and there were therefore
objective grounds for their bitterness, as Abraham,
Rambam’s son has suggested:
Here their ferment was more intense than at Marah , because

their thirst had become more aggravated, as the text bears
witness: “But the people thirsted there for water “. Also at
Marah they did find water, but it was bitter and they were,
placated because Moses sweetened it. The very sight of water
even if unfit for drinking is sufficient to relieve the parched;
here however water was entirely non-existent.
But most commentators differ, regarding the dissention as an

inevitable consequence of objective conditions of lack of
water. Thus R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, in his work Ma’saei Ha-
shem, understands their complaints to have been prompted
not by actual scarcity but by the impossibility of storing it.
Evidently at Rephidim they had not enough water in their

vessels. Their complaint was not just that they had not
enough water to drink but that they always wanted to have
enough in their vessels as standby. For this reason they had
wanted to go easy with the water, not to drink all the water in
their vessels. So it is stated: “They encamped in Rephidim
but there was not water for the people to drink”.
The dissatisfaction of man with what he has, with what he is

provided daily, his desire for an illusory security in the stores
he has stocked up was reflected, as we have seen, in the
Israelites’ attitude to the manna granted to them daily and
only for the day, and in particular in the reaction of those who
left some over for the morrow.
The reasons then for the people finding fault was not, as
Cassuto makes out, the actual lack of water, which is, indeed,
the greatest of misfortunes, but illusory need. This is how Ha-
ketav Veha-kabbalah explains it, finding support for this
interpretation in the actual wording of the text, in the
anomalous Hebrew phrasing e mayim lishtot ha’am (“no
water for the people to drink”). He comes to the conclusion
from a comparison of texts (Num. 25, 17: zaroring”), that the
Hebrew infinitive root form used here: lishtot has the

Parashat Beshalah
implication of continuos action, in contradistinction to the

gerund noun formation shetiya, “the drinking”:
Had it said there is no water lishtiyat – “for the drinking of”

the people, it would have meant they had no water at all, not
even in their vessels.
But since the text states “there was no water for the people
lishtot—“to drink”, i.e. to keep on drinking from, the
implication is that they had not enough for a continuous
supply, but if they had wanted to ration their requirements,
they would have had enough.
Both according to Ma’saei Ha-shem and Ha-ketav Veha-

kabbalah the objective conditions were arduous, but not
sufficiently serious to justify their outburst. Had they been
willing to ration themselves, they would have had enough.
But a more extreme attitude is taken up by Ha’amek Davar,
who attributes their grumblings entirely to subjective factors,
to the people’s lack of faith:
The text should have read simply “there was no water for the
people” or “there was no water for the drinking of the
people”. But the actual wording of the text implies that they
were not thirsty at all, but the people said there was no water
to drink, and Moses divined this and therefore reprimanded
them saying: Why do you find fault with me, when you know I
cannot do anything without God. If you wish, submit your
complaint to God. “Why do you put the Lord to the proof”:
Surely he knows that you are not really thirsty but that you
only wish to put him to the proof.
We may now understand why their thirst is not indicated till

verse 3 after they had already quarreled with Moses in verse
2, because earlier on, when the quarrel broke out with Moses
“they were not thirsty at all but the people said that there was
no water to drink”. According to Cassuto, verse 3 contains no
more than particulars of what is referred to in a general way in
verse 2. According to the Ha’amek Davar, verse 3 introduces
a new stage not alluded to in verse 2. This is how Ha’amek
Davar explains the connection:
“The people thirsted there for water”: the punishment of

those who put the Lord to the proof overtook them, that they
suffered real thirst, as alluded to in the Mishnah Peah (8, 9):
“he who is in no need of charity yet takes, will not depart this
world before he is reduced to the need of asking for it… and
whoever is neither lame nor blind, yet makes himself like one
of them shall not die of old age until he becomes one of them,
as it is stated (Prov. 11, 27): “He that seeks evil shall get it”. In
the same way those who grumbled of thirst without cause,
gratuitously, were eventually reduced to it. With other
generations the punishment does not come at once, but only
in old age, whereas in the wilderness, the place of the
manifestation of the Divine Presence, retribution overtook
them immediately.
Only against such a background can we understand Moses’

reaction:
Why do you find fault with me?
Why do you put the Lord to proof?
If we accept the interpretation of Rambam’s son and Casuuto

Parashat Beshalah
that their grumbles were objectively justified, or even if we

accept that of Ma’saei Ha-shem and Ha-ketav Veha-kabbalah
that there was at least, some justification, it is impossible to
understand why their plea for water should have been called
“putting the Lord to the proof”, According to the Ha’amek
Davar, however, their murmurings were completely
unjustified. Their demands involved the assumption that God
was unaware of their real situation. According to this
explanation we may readily understand Moses’ statement in
verse 4, where he does not ask for water for them, but gives
vent to the angry outburst: “What shall I do to this people? A
little more and they will stone me?”
Moses did not use the affectionate term “my people”, as he

did when he interceded for them after the sin of the golden
calf, but the distant one of “this people”. The Almighty, on the
other hand, understands the feelings of His people. They had
still not shaken off the dust and mortar of Egypt; the
taskmaker’s shout was still ringing in their ears and the swish
of his whip was still not forgotten. His answer was full of
compassion and understanding:
Pass on before the people and take with you some of the
elders of Israel and take in your hand the rod with which you
struck the Nile and go.
And strike the rock and water shall come out of it that the
people may drink. (17, 5-6)
Two apparently unnecessary phrases in the above passage

have preoccupied our commentators. What purpose is served
by the phrase, “pass on before the people”? Two different
views are represented in our commentators. The Midrash
regards it as a rebuke to Moses for his impatience:
“What shall I do with this people? A little more and they will
stone me”. Moses thus addressed the Holy One blessed be
He: Lord of the universe! Whatever I do I shall be killed. You
tell me not to order them about, but to “carry them in your lap
as a nurse carries a suckling child” (Num. 11, 12), while they
seek to stone me? The Holy One blessed be He answered
Moses: Is that the way you talk? Pass on before the people
and we shall see who will stone you! He began to pass before
them. All the Israelites stood up as he passed by and behaved
with the greatest respect and reverence. The Holy One
blessed be He said to Moses: How often have I told you not to
order them about, but to lead them like a shepherd his flock;
remember it was for their sake that I brought you out of Egypt
and on account of them will you find favour, grace, life and
honour before Me. (Midrash Tanhumah Beshallah 22)
Rashi, with his customary pithiness, condenses this same

idea into his comments on: “Pass on before the people”:
And see if they stone you. Why have you slandered My

children?
The Zohar is even more explicit in its account of God’s

defense of Israel against Moses’ accusation:
So it is always the case that the Holy One blessed be He

stands up for the rights of the righteous more than his own.
Here Moses complained: “Soon they will stone me”. God
replied: Now is not the time to stand up for your rights but
pass over before the people and we shall see who will dare to

Parashat Beshalah
raise his hand against you. Are you in their power or in Mine?
But or Ha-hayyim regards this phrase not as a rebuke to

Moses for his outburst, but as indicating the Almighty’s
fatherly concern for Israel:
The Lord told him to pass before the people out of concern
for the safety of the people, knowing that they were suffering
from thirst and their lives might be endangered if they waited
much longer. Pass on before the people so that they should
thereby know that you are going to find water, in order to
allay their burning thirst in the meantime.
The second apparently unnecessary phrase “with which you

struck the Nile” has been the subject of comment by our
sages in Mekhilta. Here it is as formulated by Rashi ad loc:
“The rod with which you struck the Nile” – What is the point
of this phrase? But the Israelites used to say that the rod was
only designed for inflicting punishment – it inflicted the
plagues on Pharaoh in Egypt. For this reason the text states:
“with which you struck the Nile” – let them now see that it is
designed also for bringing good fortune.
The lesson of this is clear: Objects have no independently

good or bad uses, neither have the forces of nature; it is God
who uses them for His own needs, and man has only to fear
God.
Ibn Ezra concludes from the wording “the people found fault”
rather than “all the people” (as is stated in the case of the
manna) that there are two parties, one that had no water –
they strove with Moses, and the other that still had some left
from Alush – they simply wished to put the Lord to the proof.
To the fault finders, Moses answered, “Why do you find
fault”; let us all cry to the Lord; to the testers, he said, “Why
do you put the Lord to the proof”.
What is Ibn Ezra’s proof that there were two parties?
Find another passage in our sidra that lends itself to a similar

explanation.
Is Ibn Ezra’s approach here similar to that of Cassuto or

Ha’amek Davar or entirely different?
Cf. The following two passages:
“The people found fault with Moses and they said (va’yomru):
Give us water” (2)
The people grumbled against Moses and (it) said (va’yomer):

why then did you bring us out of Egypt! (3)
Can you explain the reason for the switch from plural in verse
2 to singular in verse 3?
Why does verse 3 specify as the object of kill: “me and my

children and my cattle” rather that state briefly “to kill us with

Parashat Beshalah
thirst” as in 14, 11?
The following question has been prompted by the comment of

the Mekhilta cited in Rashi’s formulation on p. 280:
How could the Israelites regard Moses’ rod as being

exclusively associated with punishment? Surely they had
seen it divide the water?
Cf. Rashi we cited on Moses’ rod with the following

comments of his:
“The Lord rained…” (Gen. 19, 24) reechoed in Job 36, 31: “for
with them he judges the peoples, provides food in plenty”.
When God wishes to correct His creatures he sends down fire
from Heaven as in the case of Sodom, where He wishes to
send manna – from Heaven: “I shall rain bread from Heaven
on you”.
“Aaron returned to Moses” (Num. 17, 15): Why incense?

Because the Israelites maligned the incense saying: It is a
killer. It brought about the death of Nadab and Abihu, the
burning alive of two hundred and fifty men. Said the Holy one
blessed be He: I’ll show you that it can stop a plague: it is sin
that is a killer.
“If the serpent had bitten a man and he looked”. (Num. 21, 8).
The one who had suffered a bite was only cured if he looked
at the copper serpent in the right frame of mind. Our Rabbis
commented: Does the serpent really kill or bring to life? But
when Israel looked upward and subjected themselves to their
Father in Heaven they were cured, otherwise they pined away.
“Then Moses cried to the Lord” (17, 4) reflecting credit on

Moses, indicating that he did not say: just because they are
finding fault with me I am not going to intercede on their
behalf: but in spite of that: “Moses cried to God”. (Mekhilta)
What is the difference between the way the Mekhilta here and
Tanhuma (on p. 279) understand the phrase “then Moses
cried”?
Where else can you find in the sidra a “cry” carrying the same
connotation given it here by Mekhilta?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Yitro
Languages
Links
Parashat Yitro

Kehati Mishna Anokhi

Parashat Hashavua The Ten Commandments begin with the
declaration; "I am (Anokhi) the Lord thy God
Hebrew Text of the and conclude with the injunction "thou shalt not
Parashah covet"
Much discussion is to be found in our

English
commentaries both old and new, centering
Hebrew
around the question whether the opening
phrase of the Decalogue ";I am the Lord"
German constitutes one of the Ten Commandments,
since, in contradistinction to what follows, it is
Russian not phrased in the form of either a negative or
positive precept. It stands out in splendid
Spanish isolation possessing the character of a
declaration rather than a commandment. This point is made by Crescas,
the renowned Spanish Jewish philosopher (1340-1410) in his work Or Ha-
Nehama's Iyunim shem:
Insights on the
He who includes among the list of positive precepts belief in existence of
Parasha
God falls into common error. The very character of the term mizvah
(Companion)
indicates by definition, that it can only apply to matters governed by free
Nehama's Gilyonot will and choice. But faith in the existence of God is one of those things
which are not governed by free will and choice. Consequently the term
mizvah (commandment) cannot apply to it.
Nehar Deah
Abarvanel advances a similar view:
Rega Lifney
Shabbat The phrase " I am the lord thy God " constitutes no commandment, either
dogmatic or practical, but is merely a preface to the subsequent
commandments and injunctions, a declaration making known to the
Commentary of Children of Israel, Who was addressing them
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) Rambam, however, in his Sefer Ha-mizvot (Book of Divine Precepts) and
in his famous Code considers the first verse of the Decalogue to constitute
a positive mizvah. Moreover he makes into the first and foremost mizvah,
Illustrations to the laying down that it embodies the “most fundamental of fundamentals and
Weekly Parasha, by the the pillar of all sciences". Here are the relevant citations;
Studio in Old Jaffa
The first mizvah is that he commanded us to believe in the Deity, that is,
that we believe that there is a cause and motive force behind all existing
things. This idea is expressed in the statement; " I am the Lord thy
God."(Sefer Ha-mizvot, Mizvah 1)
It constitutes the most fundamental of fundamentals and pillar of all
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/yitro.html (1 de 7)26/02/2008 09:46:20 a.m.

sciences to know that there is cause bringing into existence all existing
things, and that all that exists on heaven and earth and between them,
exists only through the truth of his existence
The knowledge of this concept constitutes a positive precept, as it is said:

" I am the Lord thy God ", and whomsoever it enters his mind to think that
there is any other god besides, transgresses thereby a negative precept,
as it is said: " Thou shalt have no other gods before Me", and repudiates a
fundamental principle, since this is the most important principle on which
everything depends.(Code, Yesodei Hatorah I, 6)
A significant variation between Rambam's wording of this precept in the

Sefer Ha-mizvot and the code has been observed. In the former, he calls
on us to believe in the Deity. In the latter, we are no longer enjoined to
believe there is a first cause or informed that the belief in this concept
constitutes a positive precept. He writes that it is fundamental to know
there is a first cause and that the knowledge of this concept constitutes a
positive precept".
A well-known rabbinic dictum cited by Rambam in his guide affords a clue

to the change in wording:
R. Simlai expounded; Six hundred and thirteen precepts were transmitted

to Moses at Sinai Said R. Hamnuna, What is the textual support (for this
figure)?Moses commanded us torah" (Deut. 33, 4). TORAH adds up to
611 (tav=400; vav=6; resh=200; heh=5). Anokhi and lo yihyeh (the first
two commandments of the Decalogue: " I am the Lord" and "You shall
have no other gods", are not counted since they heard them directly from
God (and not via Moses).
(Makkot 23b)
This idea is further elaborated by Rambam:
They mean that these words (the first two commandments) reached them
just as they reached Moses our Teacher. But it was not Moses who
transmitted it to them. For these two principles, I mean the existence and
unity of God, are knowable by human speculation alone. Now with regard
to everything that can be known by demonstration, the status of the
prophet and that of everyone else is equalThe Torah states: “Unto thee it
was shown")
Malbim makes an interesting attempt to accept Rambam's view of anokhi

as a commandment and yet meet the objection raised by Crescas:
In his code Rambam deliberately changed the wording from “believe" to

“know". He wished to stress the intellectual basis of this precept. This as
he pointed out in the Guide is based on the rabbinic dictum that we heard
the first two commandments of the Decalogue directly from God, implying
purely intellectual apprehension. In other words, the whole of Judaism
apart from these two precepts is based on faith, faith in Moses as the
messenger of God; faith that all that he commanded constituted the
authentic message of God. But these two commandments—the existence
and oneness of the Divinity is attained by the direct exercise of men's
intellectual faculties. The Lord implanted these concepts in him from birth.
They are innate ideas. A Man has only to look into his own soul to
discover them just as he develops all the rest of his faculties. There was
no need to receive them from Moses as an act of faith. They were
therefore imparted directly by God who fashioned man's soul. The precept
consists of making every effort to clarify our knowledge of this, in
accordance with the text (Job 12,9): “Who cannot fail to discover that the

hand of the Lord is behind all this".
Whether we take the first verse of the Decalogue to be a commandant

(Rambam) or merely a preamble (Abarvanel), one thing is clear. It is not
formulated as a principle as in: “thou shalt know this day that the lord, He
is God in heaven above and the earth beneath: there is none else". It is
not stated as an impersonal law as in (22, 23): “He who sacrifices to the
gods except to the Lord alone shall be utterly destroyed". It takes the form
of a personal proclamation, a manifest of Divine revelation " I am the lord
thy God who brought thee out of Egypt".
The syntax of this verse, familiar though it is, or perhaps just because of
its familiarity, is far from clear. There are no two possible readings:
(1)[(anokhi adonai)(elohekha)]
[(I the Lord)(am thy God)]
NP;VP
As Ibn Ezra maintained:
Take the first commandment to mean that we are to believe with a faith
transcending all doubt that " the Lord" whose name is written but not
uttered is alone our God.
(2) [(anokhi)(adonai elohekha)]
[(I)(am the Lord thy God)]
NPVP
This is the reading followed by Shadal:
Anokhi is the subject and the succeeding words form the predicate. This is
the division followed by the cantillation. We could divide the sentence
differently and link anokhi to adonai and insert there a pause making (I the
Lord) the subject and (am thy God who) the predicate. The reading would
then be: "I who am called ‘the Lord', am alone thy God who watches over
thee by a special providence, who already brought thee out of Egypt."
This is indeed how N. Herz Weisel explicates the text, and Ibn Ezra too.
But in my opinion if that were the case the verse should have read: "I the
Lord am thy God who brought thee out" (hoziyakha and not as it actually
states: hozetikha "that brought thee out") or: "I the lord am Thy God;
because (ki) I brought thee out" or: "I the Lord am thy God, I brought thee
out" The first reading therefore indicated by the cantillation is the correct
one in my view.
But Shadal's proof from hozetikha is far from convincing. His own
formulation of the reading that he rejects (Ibn Ezra) adds the relative
clause "who has already brought thee out" (asher kvar hozetikha). In other
words, in his view, whoever regards "thy God" as the predicate does not
read asher hozetikha as a restrictive relative clause at all, but rather as
non-defining as if it said, I the Lord am thy God, I brought thee out. This is
far removed from Ibn Ezra's understanding of the text and all who follow in
his footsteps.
Benno Jacob who takes issue with Shadal (incidentally most non-Jewish
scholars regard "the Lord" as the predicate) advances the following
objection to his reading. We should not forget that the Ten

Commandments follow chapter 19 and the whole preceding narrative of

the exodus. Israel were well aware of who was addressing them. God did
not reveal Himself on Sinai to proclaim Himself. They had already made
His acquaintance. He made known to them certain other aspects of the
Godhead:
By anokhi He referred to the person of God. He was not an impersonal

idea one speaks about or believes in but the living God directing his "I" to
the "Thou" of the hearer who can, by that same token address him as
"Thou". The I (anokhi) whose name is "the Lord". He is thy God in this,
that I brought thee outThe text does not read: ki hozetikha "because I
brought thee out" since this bringing out constituted the actuality of his
being thy God not the reason for it. His role as your Lord consists of this
bringing out, this intervention in your life, this direction given you, this
leading of you from Egypt to this point. Hosea evidently understood the
verse in this way too: "I the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt".
This close linking of "thy God" and "who brought thee out", the latter
defining the former as a restrictive relative, provided Rabbi Yehuda Halevi
with an answer to the famous question he posed Ibn Ezra and which he
put in the mouth of the King of the Khazars: The latter had criticized the
Rabbi's declaration of faith which echoing the opening words of the
Decalogue went: "We believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
who brought the children of Israel out of Egypt".
Here is the relevant citation from Ibn Ezra:
R. Judah Halevi, may he rest in honour asked me; Why did the text read:
"I the Lord am thy God who brought thee out of the Land of Egypt" and
not: "who made heaven and earth and made you too"? This was my
answer to him. Know that not everyone is capable of attaining the same
level of faith. Some believe in God on the basis of hearsay. Those in
authority tell them it is written in the Torah given by God to Moses. Should
a heretic question their faith they are dumbfounded because they don't
know what to answer. One who aspires to master the sciences which are
stepping stones to the desired goal will see the work of God in the animal,
mineral and vegetable around him, in the human body, the workings of
every limb..he will master astronomy and the laws of nature. The ways of
God will lead the philosopher to a knowledge of God. This is what Moses
meant when he said: "Make known to me Thy ways and I shall know
thee" (Ex. 33, 13). The Almighty stated in the first commandment: "I the
Lord am thy God". Only a person of deep intellectual attainments will be
satisfied with this formulation. The message of "I (am) the Lord" will satisfy
the intellectual elite of any nation.
Now God had performed signs and wonders in Egypt till He brought them
out from there to become their God. Thus said Moses (Deut. 4, 34): "Has
God tried to take one nation from another". In other words, God did for
Israel what He did for no other people Moses referred to the impact of the
miracles the Almighty performed in Egypt when he stated (4, 35): "You
were made to see that you might know that the Lord He is God". Everyone
saw them—both the scholar and the laymen, old and young. He also
added to the impact through the revelation of Sinai when they heard the
voice of God (4, 36) "From the heavens did He cause thee to hear His
voice, to instruct thee."
Finally he referred to the absolute conviction that there is no God besides

Him, to be attained by the believer through clear proofs; "know this day
and keep in mind that the Lord He is God, there is no other". "I the Lord"
was meant for the intellectual: "who brought thee out" for the non-
intellectual.

But Judah Halevi's answer is completely different. Here is a summary

following Isaak Heinemann:
All other medieval authors, in presenting Judaism pass from the general to
the particular. They dwell first on the justification of faith in God and
consider hereby to have proved the justification of religion as a contact
with God and as a belief in historical revelation.
But Halevi does not start with natural phenomena and from there proceed
to the Creator. The fact of revelation, recognised in ancient times and in
their own days is the proof of the belief in God; whereas the attribution of
organic wonders to a cosmic intelligence is firstly less convincing and
acceptable, and secondly only leads to a God of metaphysics, and not a
God of religion who is concerned for the individual and expects a definite
reaction from him.
Fundamental for Halevi is the distinction between Aristotle's God, to whom

"speculation alone conduces" and the God of Abraham for whom "the soul
yearns". Moses does not invoke the Creator in pressing Pharaoh to let the
people go but the God of the Hebrews".
Heinemann observes that Ibn Ezra's answer we cited above is

diametrically opposed to Halevi's. For the latter, faith in the Creator of
philosophical theology is inferior to the religious experience of God's
miracles. He who has discovered God in the abnormal will recognise Him
in the "wonders of everyday". Even an image such as "God's hand", or
apostrophizing of God as light has more effect on us than all abstractions.
Halevi unlike Ibn Ezra teaches us that metaphysical conceptions of God
are a poor substitute for the real thing and are designed for those who are
incapable of rising to the level of faith. Note that Halevi does not explain
the phrase ehyeh asher ehyeh in philosophical abstract terms as does the
Rambam ("the existing that is existent") but: "The existing one, existing for
them whenever the seek me. Let them seek for no stronger proof than My
presence among them and accept me accordingly". If this then is the true
connotation of ehye asher ehye then God had made Himself known both
to Moses at the first revelation and Israel on Sinai as the One who was
always in contact with them: "I the Lord am thy God who brought thee out
of Egypt".
Let us now return to the end of the verse to the last two words: mi-bet'
avadim "from the house of serfdom". What is the purpose of this latter
prepositional phrase when Egypt has already been mentioned by name?
This extended delineation of Egypt as a "house of serfs" throws into bold
relief by contrast the all-pervading purpose of their release therefrom:
On bringing the people out of Egypt you shall serve God on this mountain.
(3, 12)
They were redeemed from the serfdom of man so that they could serve
God. Prior to the prohibition of serving anyone or anything beside God in
the second commandment; Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve
them" the phrase "from the house of serfs" is added to underline the link
between the first and second commandments.
Benno Jacob draws attention to the contrast between the two

phrases—"from the land of Egypt" "from the house of serfs". The former
centre of ancient culture, the home of the wise men, famed for its pyramid
and art. But for Israel it was nothing more than a house of serfs. The
whole grand superstructure was built on human slavery. In Benno Jacob's
view that last two words of the first commandment are meant to teach us
that "if a land of culture has no room for freedom then the servant of God

renounces culture". Accordingly: "I have brought you out of the land of
Egypt, from the house of serfs!"
Anokhi implies we should know and love Him with all our hearts, cling to
him and be ever aware of His presence and the fear of Him should never
depart from us.
(Ibn Ezra, Short Commentary)
How does Ibn Ezra, in the light of the above scan the syntactical structure
of our verse?
For what purpose does Ibn Ezra quote Deut. 4, 34-36, 39 in the extract
giving his answer to Judah Halevi?
Does Ibn Ezra understand the subject of 4, 34 as referring to God with a

capital G or merely a god with a small G?
Abarvanel makes the following comment on Halevi's question:
The next employs three terms (to describe God) (1) the special four letter
name " the Lord" (2) " thy God" (3) " who brought thee out of the land of
Egypt" indicating three motivations for obeying His commandments and
observing them. The first reason of His being the Lord a name connoting
His essence through which He created the universe, deriving from a root
meaning "existence" i.e. who brought into existence and created all. In
other words, since I gave you existence and being- it is only right that you
observe My commandments. The second aspect to be thy God i.e.
watching over and guiding you. No star or guardian angel rules your
destiny. I alone am thy God who leads you and therefore you are
obligated to observe My commandments. The third aspect: I released you
from Egypt a forbidding country ruled over by a forbidding monarch,
appropriately known as a house of serfs, a land of no return for those
imprisoned therein. My kindness in securing your release from their
warrants that you carry out My commandments and walk in My path as it
is stated; "My servants they are whom I released from the land of Egypt".
How does Abarvanel answer this question?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Mishpatim
Languages
Links
Parashat Mishpatim

Kehati Mishna Two acts of help

Parashat Hashavua If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his
ass going astray, Thou shalt surely
Hebrew Text of the bring it back to him again. If thou see
Parashah the ass of him that hateth thee lying
under its burden And would forbear to
help him Thou shalt surely release it
English with him. (23, 4-5)
Hebrew
The context of these two precepts - the
German restoring of lost property and the giving of help
in relieving an animal of its burden - is puzzling.
Russian They come right in the middle of a paragraph
dealing with the administration of justice, to be
Spanish precise, following a verse prohibiting partiality
to the poor and preceding one prohibiting prejudice against the poor. The
two verses we wish to study seem to come between two obviously closely
Nehama's Iyunim linked passages. Our early commentators did not pay much attention to
the internal sequence of the rulings in the Sidra. Ibn Ezra states quite
Insights on the
bluntly:
Parasha
(Companion)
Let me clarify one principle before I begin my explication:
Nehama's Gilyonot every sentence of ruling stands on its own. If we can find a
reason linking the verses, we shall link them as far as
possible. If not, we shall assume that the fault lies in the
limitations of our knowledge.
Nehar Deah
Rega Lifney Ibn Ezra does indeed try to uncover such links but his efforts are not
particularly successful. Other commentators pay more attention to this
Shabbat
problem.
Commentary of Here are two more recent commentators.

Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) First Shadal on the words: "thou shall surely bring it back to him again":
Above the text deals with situations where love is the undoing
Illustrations to the of justice-don't throw in your lot wit the wicked-don't follow the
Weekly Parasha, by the majority in any unjust cause, don't be partial to the poor. Now
Studio in Old Jaffa in contrast the text deals with cases where hate is the
undoing of justice. quot;Meetingquot; and quot;seeingquot;
the property of your enemy is followed by the prohibition of
perverting the judgement of the needy since it is apparent
disreputable character of the needy which prejudices you
against him.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/mishpatm.html (1 de 7)26/02/2008 09:42:25 a.m.

Cassuto fits our passage into the general context on the basis of his
verbal association approach:
Verse 6, You shall no pervert the justice due to your

'evyon' (usually rendered: quot;poorquot;) in his suit,
appears, at first, surprising, since it was already stated in v.3:
quot;nor shall you favour a poor manquot;, and it seems an
unnecessary repetition. But we may presume that the word
'evyon' here is not the usual word meaning, poor and needy,
but another substantive from the stem 'ava', 'avi' - found in
other Semitic languages, and possibly originally also in
Hebrew, which means quot;to refuse, be unwillingquot;.
Accordingly, the noun denotes here an quot;opponentquot;,
quot;adversaryquot;, and is synonym of the nouns
'oyev' (quot;enemyquot;) and 'sone' (quot;one who
hatesquot;). This signification makes it easier to understand
the use here of the pronominal suffix, second person (-kha),
which would not have been justified if 'evyon' had been
employed in its usual connotation (the position is different in
Deut. 15, 11: quot;to your brother, to your needy and to your
poor, in the landquot;). If this be so, we have here a
prohibition corresponding to the two preceding admonitions:
when you are called upon to adjudicate between your enemy
and someone else, do not pervert the judgement against your
enemy, because he is your enemy. The three verses of this
group thus contain three synonyms, your enemy - one who
hates you - your adversary, just as in the three verses 17-19
of chapter XXII we find three synonyms for the death-penalty.
Shadal looked for a common psychological love-hate factor linking the

rulings enunciated in v.1-6. But his explanation lacks plausibility. Love is
not necessarily the factor prompting one to bear false witness in favour of
the wicked and follow the majority in an unjust cause. It might just as
easily be hatred for the opposing party.
An objection may be raised against Cassuto's explanation of the word

'evyon'. It is not the only time this word appears and wherever it does, it is
a synonym for 'oni' (poor). In this verse 11 it is used in that sense (as
Cassuto himself admits). His unusual explanation of the word 'evyon' here
is evidently dictated purely by the desire to find an associative of the
verses still remains.
Let us now try to understand the verses as they stand irrespective of any
linking between the immediately preceding and succeeding passages.
Who is the quot;enemyquot; ('oyev') and the quot;haterquot; ('sonei') in the
passage? Rambam poses the following question on our verse:
How is it conceivable that one Jew should have another Jew

for an enemy, when the Torah states-quot;thou shalt not hate
thy brother in thine heartquot; (Lev. 19,17)? (Code Rozeah
13)
Our sages postulated a situation were hating is permitted:
R. Eliezer states: The verse deals with a proselyte who has

relapsed into idolatry. R. Isaac states - The verse deals with
a Jewish transgressor. (Mekhilta)
Rambam basing himself on the view of R. Nahman b. Isaac in the Talmud

Pesahim (113b) proffers the following explanation:
For instance, if he alone saw him commit a transgression and

warned him, but he heeded not. In such a case it is his duty
to hate him until he repents and turns back from his
wickedness. Nevertheless, if he had not yet repented and he
found him recoiling at the load, it is our duty to assist him in
loading and unloading and not leave him in mortal danger.
Peradventure he will be delayed on the journey for the sake
of his property and will be brought to danger, the Torah
holding Jewish life dear, whether of the wicked or righteous...
However, in addition to the commentators who explain quot;thine

enemyquot; to imply one who is a legitimate object of hatred, we find
another and more simple explanation:
R. Nathan said: What is the implication of the phrase: Thine

enemy? It refers to a situation in which someone becomes
your enemy, temporarily, as a result of striking your son or
picking a quarrel with you. (Mekhilta)
Rashbam made the same point when, with his customary brevity he wrote:
quot;the text describes realityquot;. Malbim maintains that the

verse treats of someone who is your enemy, even though
you have no moral right to hate him. You have not succeeded
in conquering your evil instincts and this man happens to be
your enemy. Accordingly, the Torah is not here legislating for
an ideal world, where people do not hate each other, but
takes into account the grim reality, that people do not achieve
the desired observance of: quot;thou shalt not hate thy
brother in thy heartquot;. The Torah lays down rules of
behaviour even for such an admittedly immoral situation,
where two people are hostile to one another, enjoining such
acts of assistance as relieving the ass of an enemy of its
burden and the returning of his lost property. Theses small
deeds of goodwill would, it was hoped, eventually lead to the
removal of the hatred, in accordance with scriptural demand.
Verse 5 poses difficulties of a syntactic and semantic nature. The syntactic

problem is: where does the conditional clause ki tire'h quot;if thou seequot;
end and where does the matrix sentence begin? The second problem is
what is the connotation of the root a'z'v that occurs here three times. If the
connotation is consistent throughout how can the text affirm and deny the
same action in the same sentence?
Rashi makes the following comment:
Ki here has the force of quot;perhapsquot; which is one of the

four connotations of ki. The verse thus reads: quot;Perhaps
you may see his ass lying under his burdenquot;. quot;and
would forbear to help himquot;, to be read as a question.
'azov ta'zov 'imo: an expression of assistance as in (Deut.
32,36) quot;assisted and helpedquot; ('azuv) and Neh. 3, 8:
vaya; azvu Jerusalem up to the wall-i.e. they filled it up with
earth and helped to strengthen the wall. Similarly (Deut. 7,
17): quot;When thou sayest in thine heart, these nations are
too numerous for mequot; should you say so? -quot;Do not
fear themquot;
What prompted Rashi to read the first part of the verse as posing a

hypothetical question? Why didn't he read it in the same way as he did the
ki clauses of all the other rulings (ki tikne; ki yinazu anashim quot;when
two men quarrelquot; and in verse: ki tifga'...)?
Because in his view the matrix clause or quot;cutquot; in the complex

sentence does not begin at vehadlta (and thou forbear) but at 'azov (thou
shall surely release). Hadalta is a coordinate of the opening clause. He
cannot therefore read it as a simple quot;openquot; conditional statement,
but must read it as a question. Otherwise there would be an internal
contradiction. The point is well put by Rashi's super commentator Wolf
Heiden Heim, in Havanat Hamikra:
The reading: quot;if thou see the ass of him that hateth thee
and forbear to help him-help him quot; makes no sense.
Since you have refrained from helping him how can you help
him? Rashi therefore explains ki in the sense of quot;
perhapsquot; which qualifies to the second verb vehadalta:
quot;should you see and should you want to withhold your
assistance. Don't do such a thing. But give him every
assistance!
The same applies to the supporting text cited from Deut. There too the
reading quot;when you say in your heart, these nations are too numerous
for me...do not fear themquot; makes little sense. It must be read as a
hypothetical question. Should it occur to you to fear them, then I tell you:
Don't be afraid.
In Rashi's view a'z'v implies quot;helpquot;. In this he was preceded by Ibn

Janah who based this connotation on its use in Nehamia 3, 34: quot;Will
the restore at will (ha-ya'azvu) will they sacrificequot; and (ibid. v. 8): quot;
They restored (va-ya'azvu) Jerusalem...quot; Where it connotes
strengthening and rebuilding. He also cited the nominal ma'aziva referring
to the ceiling plaster which is likewise used for strengthening the building.
The meaning has thus been extended to the loading of burdens: quot;you
shall surely help himquot; which involves the idea of strengthening and
building.
Several commentators accepted Rashi's division of the verse agreeing

with him that the second sentence quot;and forbear to helpquot; is
coordinate with the first. But they do not accept his semantic interpretation
that we have here an underlying question marker. The reading disqualified
by Rashi, (quot;and if you forbear to them, helpquot;) as contradictory is
made sense by them. Here is the way one of them, Avraham ben Ha-
rambam, justifies the reading:
In other words, if your anger or sense of grievance forces you to withhold

your assistance from him do not yield to it but help him unload, in spite of
yourself.
Benno Jacob echoes, though quite unknowingly, this explanation:
When you see the ass of him that hateth thee..and your first thought will
be to ignore him and refuse to extend a helping hand: You will say to
yourself: Shall I do a good turn to one who has treated me so badly? The
Torah calls on you not do so but to do everything to help him.
But most of our commentators, modern and ancient, link the second
clause quot;and forbear to help himquot; to the matrix sentence. The
condition ends at the first line after quot;burdenquot;gt; But the differ over
their interpretation of the root a'z'v, some accepting Rashi and Ibn Janah's
view, others rejecting it. Ibn Ezra takes the latter view and read the verse:

Forbear to leave it to him alone but untie the knots with him
and leave the burden so that it will fall down on both sides
and the ass will get up.
Ibn Ezra takes a'z'v in its customary sense of leavequot;. He extends this
basic sense to cover the idea of quot;releasequot;, an interpretation
followed by many expositors. Cassuto reverted to Rashi's rendering of
a'z'v basing himself, however, on comparative Semitic usage. But
syntactically he follows Ibn Ezra:
quot;You shall cease to forsake (azobh) himquot;, that is, you

shall refrain from leaving your enemy in perplexity. On the
contrary, 'azobh ta'azobh with him - you shall arrange
together with him the load on the ass's back. There is a play
here between the two verbs, which have acquired in Hebrew
an identical form, although their derivations and significations
are different. Azabh with original Zayin, means quot;to
forsakequot;, whilst azabh, with a Zayin that derives from
Daled, means quot;to arrangequot;, and is from the same
stem as the noun ma'azibha (quot;Pavementquot;) and the
verb wayya az (quot;pavedquot; or quot;repaired) in Neh. 3,
8, corresponding, to South Arabian dhb and Ugaritic db.
Possibly the two Hebrew verbs were differently pronounced,
and the quip was clear in the ancient Hebrew pronunciation:
Do not forsake (ta'azobh), but, on the contrary, arrange the
load (ta'adhobh)
Many principles of moral conduct can be learned from these verses. His
behavior towards you must not be a yardstick for you behavior towards
him. quot;Thou shall not take vengeance nor bear a grudgequot; states
the Torah (Leviticus 19, 18) and in Proverbs (25,21) we have: quot;If thine
enemy be hungry, give him bread, and if he be thirsty, give him water to
drinkquot;. Negative avoidance of evil is not sufficient. The positive doing
of good is demanded to lend your enemy a helping hand. The Targumim
expounded the spirit of the text even if they did not reflect surface reading.
Onkelos reads: quot;leave completely all that is in your heart against
himquot;. Targum Jonathan: quot;At that moment completely leave
(forget) the hatred in your heart against him and help to release and load
the burdenquot;.
The Torah did not confine itself to the abstract moral injunction of: quot;
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heartquot;, but provided in these two
verses practical guidance on how to achieve this and eradicate hatred
from ones heart. The restoring to him of his lost property is one step
nearer reconciliation. But it does not necessarily lead to intimate contact.
The article can be returned without a word being exchanged or through a
third person. Helping him to load and unload a beast, on the other hand,
involves direct personal contact and cooperation. The situation is vividly
portrayed for us by the Midrash:
quot;Thou hast established uprightnessquot; (Psalms 99, 4),

R. Alexandroni stated: To ass drivers who hated each other
were travelling along the same road. The ass of one of them
fell down. The other saw it but passed him by. After he had
passed by he said: It is written in Holy writ quot;if you see the
ass oh him that hateth thee..you shall surely release it with
himquot;. Forthwith he went back to help him with the load.
The other began to think things over and said: So and so is
evidently my friend and I didn't know it. Both went into a
roadside inn and had a drink together. What led to them

making it up? One of them looked into the Torah. That is the
meaning of the text: quot;Thou hast established
righteousnessquot;. (Tanhuma Yashan Mishpatim)
There is a further point to consider. The difference in the wording between

the two phrases: quot;When thou meet the ox of thine enemyquot;, and
quot;when thou see the ass of thine enemyquot; underlines another
aspect of these moral injunctions. In the case of returning lost property,
The Torah goes no further then demanding that we restore it to its owner,
only when we happen to light on it. We are not enjoined to run after it. In
the case of the ass suffering under its burden, however, we are told to go
to the owner's assistance, even when we but see it from afar. We have to
leave our own business and go and help, since here suffering to the
animal is also involved. As is stated in the Psalms: quot;His mercy is upon
all His worksquot;, and the Almighty is concerned that we both assist our
neighbour and also relieve the animal's suffering. How are we enjoined to
behave should there be a conflict of interests, such as between an enemy
and a friend, between man and beast? Let us compare two verses on the
same subject. In our sidra we have:
If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under its
burden, and wouldst forbear to help him; thou shalt
surely release it with him. (23, 5)
Later it is stated:
Thou shalt not see thy brother's ass or his ox fallen

down by the way, And hide thyself from them; Thou shalt
surely help him to lift them up again. (Dueteronomy 22, 4)
On this our sages commented as follows:
quot;Thou shalt surely help [with] himquot; - this refers to the

duty of relieving the animals of its burden. Further it is stated:
thou shalt surely help [with] him to lift up againquot; - this
refers to the duty of the loading. (Mekhilta)
Rabbinic tradition tells us that where two cases calling for our help are
involved, the one requiring unloading takes priority over the one calling for
loading. The reason is obvious: Releasing the burden involves relieving
the animal's suffering. But the Gemara cited another situation underlining
an important principle:
Friend requires unloading, enemy, loading - our first duty is

attend to our enemy in order to discipline our instincts. (Bava
Mezia 32b)
In other words, the duty of relieving the suffering of animals must give way
to the more important obligation of moral improvement, of breaking the evil
inclination. There is thus on order of precedence in fulfilling our moral
duties. We are not at liberty to make our own rules and regulations
regarding the scale of values to be observed. We must not act like those
whom the prophet condemned: quot;the sacrificers of men kiss
calves' (Hosea 13, 2), like those who proclaim their solicitude for animals
but ignore the suffering of humanity.
But even altruism has its limits. The Torah defines those just as carefully
in order to leave no room for the exploitation of human goodwill. Here is
Rambam's restatement of the Talmudic rulings on this subject:
If he found his fellow's beast lying down under its burden, it is his duty to

relieve it and load it again, even in the absence of the owner, as it is said:
quot;thou shalt surely help [with] him to lift up again', (the doubting of the
verb form translated by quot;surelyquot;) implying, in all circumstances. In
that case, why did the Torah add the additional word quot;with himquot;?
From this we learn that if the owner of the beast was originally present, but
then went and sat himself down and said to the one who met him: quot;
Since the moral duty is incumbent on you, if you wish to unload by
yourself, unload!quot; In such a case he is absolved from his duty, since it
is stated quot;with himquot;?
The Torah is concerned not only with protecting the one needing help but
also with the one called upon to help. Otherwise both will suffer. The
former will become accustomed to relying on others, will abuse his
privilege. The latter will harden his heart in order to defend himself against
unreasonable demands for assistance ultimately refusing even the
deserving cases.

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Terumah
Languages
Links
Parashat Terumah

Kehati Mishna The Ark and its Poles

Parashat Hashavua The ark is the first article of furniture in the
Tabernacle.
Hebrew Text of the This point is the theme of the following Midrash:
Parashah
They shall make an ark of shittim-wood
What is written above? Bring me an
English
offering. Forthwith: They shall make an
Hebrew
ark of shittim-wood.
Just as the Torah came first before
German everything else, so in the making of the
Tabernacle the Ark came first before all
Russian the other article of furniture.
Just as the light came first before all
Spanish other objects of creation, as it is written (Gen. 1, 3): Then
God said, Let there be light, so too in the case of the
Tabernacle. The Torah which is called light, as it is written
Nehama's Iyunim (Prov. 6, 23): For the commandment is a lamp and the Torah
a light - its component preceded all the other articles of
Insights on the
furniture.
Parasha
(Companion)
The ark is one of the most prominent articles of furniture in the
Nehama's Gilyonot Tabernacle. More verses are devoted to it than any other (13 verses). The
Sages of the Midrash too, pointed to the unusual wording of the opening
command:
Nehar Deah
An alternative explanation: Why is the third person plural -they shall make-
Rega Lifney
used here instead of the usual second person singular: you? R. Judah
stated in the name of R. Shalom: Let all come and occupy themselves
Shabbat
with the ark so that they should all qualify for the Torah.
Commentary of Rambam explains R. Judah's statement to imply that all the Israelites
Rabbi Moshe Bergman should participate in the construction of the ark because of its supremely
(in Hebrew)
sacred role in housing the tablets of the Law, by donating articles of gold
for it or helping Bezalel a little or directing their minds to it.
Illustrations to the Or Ha-hayyim gives amore elaborate explanation stressing the concept of
Weekly Parasha, by the the division of labour and the sharing of all Israel in all that is necessary
Studio in Old Jaffa for the implementation of the whole Torah. The Torah was given not
merely for private inspiration but for the public weal. All have a part to
play, each in accordance with his capacity and role.
The change in the wording from the second person singular to the third
person plural is top illustrate that the essence of the Torah can only be
fulfilled by Israel as a whole. No single individual can perform all the
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/teruma.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 09:38:19 a.m.

precepts of the Torah. For instance, a priest cannot fulfill the bestowing of
the 24 priestly gifts, the redemption of the firstborn etc., whilst an Israelite
cannot fulfill the positive commands of the sacrifices and the same applies
to the Levite. But, taken as a whole, the Israelite people can keep the
entire gamut of Jewish observances. For this reason the Torah states:
they shall make the ark.
As we have often noted the slavish adherence to the literal wording of the
text can often blind one to its real inner meaning. This, for instance, is
what Ibn Ezra has to observe on the text:
Since the text originally stated: they shall make Me a

sanctuary, it begins here with the wording; they shall make
an ark.
Cassuto similarly observes in his commentary to Exodus (p, 328):
The reversion to the third person plural instead of the 2nd

person singular is meant here to link up with the phrase: the
children of Israel shall make me a sanctuary, and, first of all,
they shall make me an ark.
We may justifiably wonder at these literalists as to whether they really

imagined that their noting of the correspondence between the person of
the verb here and in verse 8 actually provides an answer to the question.
Surely verse 8 is the conclusion of the first section which contains the
general order to bring the offering, and construct the Tabernacle. There
the section begins in the plural, asking the children of Israel to bring God
an offering: they shall bring Me an offering...they shall make Me a
sanctuary...and so they shall do. Our text, on the other hand, starts anew
section containing all the details of the making of the furniture, followed by
the details of the making of the Tabernacle, in all of which the second
person singular; you shall make is repeatedly used. The only place where
there is a deviation from this usage is the ark. Does not the very
faithfullest interpretation of the text, the plainest sense in its profoundest
connotation, imply that here we have the singling out of the ark for a
special role, the enlisting, in contrast to all the other appurtenances, of all
Israel in its making? Must we not admit that the Midrash has plumbed the
depths of the text's plainest and literal sense?
Regarding the details of the moving of the ark the following is said:
And you shall make poles of acacia wood

And overlay them with gold
And insert poles into the rings on the sides of the ark with
which to carry the ark.
The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark;
They shall not be removed...
The above passage explains how the ark was to be carried and contains
the prohibition against removing the rings from the ark. Here we cite the
final Halakhic ruling as formulated by Rambam in his Code (Klei Ha-
Mikdash 2, 12-13):
When the ark is moved from place to place it is not moved on

a beast or a wagon but it must be carried on the shoulder.
Because David forgot and had it moved on a wagon, the
breach broke out against Uzzah. This duty of carrying it on
the shoulder is distinctly stated: for the services of the holy
things belonged to them: they bore them upon their shoulders
(Num. 7, 9). The porters carried it facing each other, their

backs to the outside, their faces inwards, taking care that the
poles should not slip out of the rings, since he who removes
one of the poles from the rings is liable to the penalty of
lashes, as it is stated; the poles shall remain in the rings of
the ark, they shall not be removed therefrom.
The prohibition against the removal of the poles from the ark is puzzling.
No such prohibition applies to the poles of the table or those of two altars.
This prohibition which in all the enumerations of the 613 Divine precepts
seems purely a technical matter. What is its point? Admittedly, it would
seem sufficient that the Torah has so commanded. We are not to probe
the reasons. But though we must never make the reason the be-all and
end-all of the precept, we may certainly study it from all angles, and look
for reasons, but not the reason- the raison d'etre, which can be no other
than the fact that God ordained it.
Rambam strongly objects to those who imagine that the difference

between mortal and Divine ordinances is that the former are motivated
and the latter unmotivated and reasonless:
God forbid, but the contrary is the case. The purpose of them
all (i.e. the commandments, statutes and judgements) are to
promote our wellbeing, as Moses pointed out (deut. 4, 6): this
is your wisdom in the sight of the peoples who when they
hear these statuses will say, surely this great nation is a wise
and understanding people. Even the hukkim (the name given
to the decrees and statutes of God and seem arbitrary and
not founded on reason) convince the nations of their wisdom
and understanding? If they are reasonless, neither bringing
advantage nor removing evil, why should those who observe
them come to be viewed by others as wise and
understanding? But we must conclude that every one of the
613 commandments is designed to inculcate some truth or
remove some erroneous opinion or to establish proper social
relations or combat injustice or train the character.
In the conviction that every precept possessed its own inner reason, our
Sages and commentators, ancient and modern suggested many and
various reasons for them. Some like the Sefer Ha-hinukh were satisfied
with attributing a purely technical role to the prohibition of: thou shalt not
remove them:
The ark is the dwelling place of the Torah, our foundation and glory, and
we have to show it the greatest reverence and respect. We are bidden not
to remove its poles, since we might be called upon to go forth with the ark
in haste, and in the hurry of the moment forget to examine whether the
poles are properly secured and, God forbid, the ark might slip from our
hold. If the poles are always secured in their place such a thing could
never happen, since the ark would always be ready for transportation.
Hizkuni makes a similar point. The Almighty wanted to minimise the

handling of the ark on account of its holiness. He also suggests that the
text indicates that the poles fitted very tightly into the rings, and could not
easily be removed, so that the ark would be securely carried however
difficult the terrain. An alternative suggestion of his is that the poles did not
need to be removed, since they were in no one's way, because the ark
stood in the Holy of holies, which only the high priest entered once a year.
The poles, however, had to be removed from the other articles of furniture
such as the altar, since people brushed past them frequently, and they
would be in the way. They were only inserted during transportation; and
the poles shall be on the two sides of the altar when it is being carried (27,
7).

But this type of explanation does not satisfy the mind that searches for the
ethical and intellectual inspiration. Those who accordingly interpreted the
Tabernacle symbolically and allegorically include such outstanding Jewish
scholars as Ralbag, Abarvanel, Malbim, S.R Hirsch. Here we shall quote
several such views.
Kli Yakar regards the permanent attachment of the poles to the ark as
symbolic of the unbreakable links between Israel and the Torah. The poles
perpetually fixed in the rings of the holy ark embodies the principle
formulated by Isaiah (59, 21) that: My spirit...and My words shall not
depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants...from
henceforth and forever or by Joshua (1, 8): this book of the law shall not
move from your mouth.
Others, however, regarded the prohibition to remove the poles as

symbolic of the mobility of the Torah, not tied to any locality, confined to
no particular country or state.
This is Hirsch's contribution:
The poles of the ark symbolise, on the physical [plane, the

ubiquitous mission of the ark and what it housed-to be carried
beyond its place to wherever circumstances demanded. The
commandment: The poles shall not be removed embodied
the eternal message that the Torah is not parochial, restricted
to the particular country where the temple is situated.
Independence of place is an essential characteristic of the
Torah. This is reflected in the fact that this prohibition of
removing the poles from the ark applies only to the ark, but
not to the other appurtenances, to the table, the lampstand
etc. The latter symbolising Israel's material and spiritual
fulfillment are inextricable linked to the land of Israel. But this
is not the case with the Torah.
The Gemara in Yoma (72a) states that the poles can be wrenched free but
cannot be slid out easily. In other words, the prohibition of removal is
based on the assumption that removal is possible. We may not remove
them, but they may be wrenched out by force. But even then the ark
remains intact and waits for new bearers.
Ha'amek Davar shares a similar approach but takes into consideration not
only our text but a number of other verse which indicate a striking
similarity between the poles of the ark and those of the outer altar of gold,
on the other:
Bezalel was commanded during the actual construction of the ark to insert
the poles ready for carrying. The same thing is written regarding the outer
altar (27, 7): its poles shall be inserted in the rings. This does not apply to
the table and inner altar (the altar of gold for instance) where the making
of the poles and rings is recorded, but not their insertion in position.
The same is true of the description of the execution, in Vayak'hel of the

commands transmitted in Terumah. Regarding the ark it is stated: And he
brought the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry thereby the
ark; the altar: And he inserted the poles into the rings on the sides of the
altar wherewith to carry it. This is not stated with regard to the table and
inner altar. For this reason in Pekudei, on the occasion of the moving of
the Tabernacle, it is recorded (39, 35): the ark of the testimony and it's
poles... the altar of bronze and its poles. But with regard to the table and
inner altar, the poles are not mentioned as being brought, since with the
two former articles of furniture (the ark and outer altar) the poles went

together with the appurtenances to which the belonged.
The message this conveys would seem to be that the Jewish people have
throughout their wanderings undertaken the twin commitment of Torah
and Avodah (prayer which now fills the role of the Temple service
symbolised in the Ark and Outer Altar respectively. The table and Inner
Altar, on the other hand, symbolise Jewish Sovereignty and Priesthood,
respectively. These two concepts become relevant only when the Jewish
people live in their own land, in Erez Israel.
Like all the reasons advanced for the various commandments we can
never know if this is the one intended by their giver. We cannot be sure
that either Hirsch or the Neziv (Ha'amek Davar) were in harmony with the
plain sense of the text. But the Torah's transcendence of spatial
limitations, the spread of its message to every corner of the globe are
irrefutable facts, to the furtherance of this process the prophet surely
referred when he foretold that:
From Zion shall the Torah go forth And from the word of the
Lord from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2, 3)

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Tezaveh
Languages
Links
Parashat Tezaveh

Kehati Mishna Keep the Lamp Burning

Parashat Hashavua The Torah has hitherto concentrated exclusively on the commandments
relating to the construction and lay-out of the Tabernacle, the manufacture
Hebrew Text of the of its chief articles of furniture: Ark, Table, Menorah and Altar. Our Sidra,
Parashah in contrast, opens with a commandment relating to the daily functioning of
the Tabernacle as a place of worship:
English
Thou thyself command the children of Israel to bring thee Pure oil of
Hebrew
pounded olives for lighting to cause the lamp to burn continually. (27, 20)
German Three aspects of the text have puzzled and preoccupied our
commentators: the wording, the context and the message. The command
Russian phrase deviates in a number of ways from the pattern used in parallel
contexts in the Torah. The previous Sidra too - Terumah - opens with a
Spanish command to raise contributions from the children of Israel towards the
building of the Tabernacle and its service. Let us compare the wording:
Nehama's Iyunim
Speak to the children of Israel to bring... (25, 2) Thou thyself
Insights on the command the children of Israel to bring... (27, 20)
Parasha
(Companion) Our sages pointed out the semantic implications of the fact that some
precepts were introduced by a "command" rather than "speakquot; word:
Nehama's Gilyonot
A command implies now and for all times. (Sifrei: Naso,
beginning)
Nehar Deah
Two further connotations are added to quot;commandquot;:
Rega Lifney
Shabbat R. Judah b. Batira: quot;Commandquot; invariably implies extra
enthusiasm as it is stated (Deut. 3, 28): quot;Commandquot; Joshua,
strengthen and fortify himquot;. R. Shimon b. Yohai stated: quot;
Commentary of Commandquot; invariably occurs in the context of monetary loss, as it is
Rabbi Moshe Bergman stated (Lae. 24, 2): quot;Command the children of Israel to bring thee pure
(in Hebrew) oil...quot;.
Commentators to the Sifrei including Ramban (on Lev. 6, 2) have pointed

Illustrations to the out that R. Judah b. Batira and R. Shimon b. Yohai complement rather
Weekly Parasha, by the than take issue with one another.
Studio in Old Jaffa
Malbim who dwells at length on the different connotations of apparently
synonymous words carefully distinguished between 'emor' and 'zav', quot;
sayquot; and quot;commandquot; respectively (see Lev. 6, 8). He
concludes that this distinction holds good in the narrative portions of the
Torah. But where specific laws are introduced as commands it does not
matter whether the expression of command is followed by the Hebrew
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/tezaveh.html (1 de 9)26/02/2008 09:33:49 a.m.

imperative 'emor' or 'dabber' + [to the children of Israel]. In both cases,

these two verbs will share the connotations of quot;commandquot; (zav)
and imply (1) enthusiasm, (2) now, and (3) for all time. Malbim points out
that the phrase quot;throughout your generationsquot; is added in the
context of the lighting of the lamps because the reader might well have
thought that this ordinance only applied to that particular generation.
The literalists have taken the same view, as for example Rashbam:
Above we find: quot;Speak to the children of Israel to bring

Me an offeringquot; implying only on that one occasion for
the Tabernacle. But here this command is for all time, to
provide oil for lighting, year in , year out. That is why the text
employs the phraseology: quot;Thou thyself commandquot;
since every expression of quot;commandquot; implies quot;
for all timequot;. Similarly all other expressions of command
found in the Torah imply now and for all time.
What Moses was called upon to do, at the beginning of our Sidra is thus
substantially different from all other things he was asked to perform in the
context of the Tabernacle. Midrash Ha-gadol indeed illustrates how, unlike
all the other commandments associated with the Tabernacle which
became obsolete with the destruction of the Tabernacle, this particular
one remained intact during the period of exile;
quot;Thou thyself Commandquot;. Why the expression of quot;

commandquot; rather than quot;sayquot; or quot;speakquot;?-- to imply:
enthusiasm, now and for all time...Though the Temple was destroyed and
the lamps became obsolete we have the synagogues and houses of
study, our quot;miniature templesquot; in which we perpetuate the kindling
of the lights.
But we have not yet exhausted our study of all linguistic anomalies of our
text. The very combination of: quot;Thou-thyself shalt commandquot; is
puzzling. It is unusual in Biblical Hebrew for the pronominal to precede the
verb unless some special emphasis is intended.
This unusual Hebrew word sequence occurs three times in the sidra;
Thou-thyself command the children of Israel to bring thee

(27, 20)
Thou-thyself bring Aaron thy brother near thee (28, 1)
Thou-thyself speak to all the wise hearted (28, 3)
Rambam dwells on the anomalous wording only in our context where he

observes that it was meant to emphasise that Moses was to personally
command them to bring the oil. But he offers no explanation why this
precept was singled out for such personal command by Moses.
A comparison of parallel passages reveals a further anomaly in the

wording:
An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me (20, 24) (Rashi:

from the very beginning its construction should be in My
name).
Bring Me an offering (25, 2) Rashi: In My name).
Make Me a sanctuary (25, 8) (Rashi: Make in My name a
holy house).
In contrast, the precept of kindling the lamp reads:

...bring unto thee pure olive oil (27, 2, also Leviticus 24, 2)
Our commentators tried to elucidate the primary meaning of quot;to

theequot; in various ways:
The phrase quot;unto theequot; implies that they should bring

it before him, for him to see whether it was pure and properly
pounded. (Ramban)
Since Moses entered the sanctuary at all times, it is stated: quot;bring for
theequot;, for your benefit to give you light when you enter, though,
admittedly it is a precept binding on all generations. (Abarvanel)
Abarvanel, however, himself realised the objection to his explanation, to

which he draws attention in his final observation. The precept was not in
fact designed exclusively for Moses, but for all time.
Meshekh Hokhmah elaborates on the idea propounded by Abarvanel

giving it greater depth:
Though our sages have observed (Vayikra Rabbah 1, 13)

that Divine communion only took place with Moses in the
daytime as indicated by the phrase (Ex. 6, 28): quot;On the
day God spoke to Mosesquot;, nevertheless whilst the lamps
were lit it was like the day even at night, and then He spoke
to him. The text must be understood in the sense of quot;
Take for theequot; for thy benefit. A person's mind is only
clear when it is light and we associate light with joy. Moses
required the conditions appropriate for achieving Divine
communion and these involved a mood of wellbeing and joy.
But (unlike Moses) quot;it was an everlasting statute
throughout your generations for the children of Israelquot;
(Ex. 27, 21). For future generations it was quot;a statutequot;
without reason, a decree of the Almighty.
The Midrash which Meshech Hokhma alludes to discusses the criteria

distinguishing Hebrew prophecy from the Divine inspiration granted to the
gentiles. The crystal clear quot;day-timequot; or Menorah -illuminated
luminosity of the former is contrasted with the uncertain murkiness of the
latter, which takes place in the obscure mistiness of the night. In this way
Biblical prophecy is differentiated from mystic-religious ecstatic states. The
clarity and luminosity of Revelation is thus alluded to in the Hebrew
prepositional phrase: eilekha quot;for theequot;.
But there are other Midrashic commentators who do not stress the positive
connotations of eilekha in the sense of quot;for your benefitquot;. Rather
they stress what it rejects-its negative implications. This reading illustrates
their theological approach to all the acts of worship in the sanctuary, the
sacrifices and sacred dues of all kinds:
quot;Take unto theequot;. Said R. Samuel Bar Nahmani: For

quot;theequot; and not for Me. I do not require any light.
(Menahot 86b)
The Midrash elaborates on this idea. We cite here some examples of its
approach:
Both R. Avina and Rabbi Berechiah gave two illustrations. R.

Avina said: The sun is one of My ministers and when it
shines, no creature can withstand its glare. Do I then need
your light? Said R. Aha: quot;It pleases the Lord, for his

righteousness' sake, to magnify the Torah and make it

honourablequot; (Isaiah 42, 21). I came only to endow you
(with many precepts, to give man the opportunity of gaining
merit by observing them).R. Avina gave another illustration:
The lightening is one of the products of ethereal fire, darting
its flashes from one end of the world to the other.
Do I then need your light? Said R. Aha...(as above).
R. Berechiah said: the eyeball provides vision for man
through its black part (the pupil) and not the white. Said the
Holy one Blessed be He: I have created light even in the
midst of darkness. Do I need your light? Said R. Aha...(as
above). R. Berechiah gave another illustration: quot;and the
earth was waste and void and darkness was upon the face of
the deepquot; (Genesis 1, 2). What follows? quot;and God
said, Let there be lightquot;. Said the Holy One Blessed be
He: I have even created light in the midst of darkness. Do I
then need your light? Said R. Aha...(as above).
Our sages thus illustrated the idea of God as the bountiful giver rather
than receiver in various ways. The great chain of being ranging from
magnificence and scale of the solar system to the delicate diminutiveness
of such tiny mechanisms as the human eye insistently reminds us of His
transcendence and the marvels of His creative powers. Man's own puny
stature is shown in its true perspective.
The second question that preoccupied our classic commentators from the
Midrash onwards was: What is the significance of the precept quot;to
cause a lamp to burn continuallyquot;? We have already noted in the
previous chapter that most of our commentators are not satisfied by the
aesthetic-psychological approach epitomized by Rambam. They wanted to
know what actual quot;messagequot; is conveyed to us by the Menorah
and its components. The text itself, as we have seen, does not allow us to
regard it as a purely technical precept associated with the building and
assembling of the Tabernacle. What then is the inner spiritual meaning of
this everlasting light that is to burn quot;from evening to morning before
the Lord?quot; Let us first compare two Midrashim which regard the lamp
as a symbol of the guidance and education of the individual:
See how words of Torah give light to man when he is occupied with them.
But whoever is not so occupied and is ignorant, he stumbles. It may be
compared to one who is standing in the dark. He feels his way, comes up
against a stone and stumbles thereon, comes up against a gutter, falls
therein, his face striking the ground. Why? Because he went without a
lamp. So it is with an ignorant man no words of Torah. He comes up a
against a transgression and stumbles thereon. Regarding him the Holy
Spirit cries: quot;He shall die of lack of instruction quot;. (Prov. 5, 23). Why
does he die? Because he is ignorant of Torah and goes and sins, as it is
stated (ibid. 4, 19): quot;The way of the wicked is in thick darkness and
they know not on what they stumblequot;. Whereas those who are
occupied with Torah give light everywhere! This may be compared to one
who is standing in the dark. He saw a stone and did not stumble, he saw a
gutter and did not fall. Why? Because he had a lamp with him, as it is said
(Ps. 119, 105): quot;Thy words are a lamp to my feetquot;, and quot;
Though thou runnest , thou shalt not stumblequot; (Prov. 4, 12). (Shemot
Rabbah 36, 3)
What is the meaning of the text: quot;For the commandment is a

lampquot;? But whoever performs a commandment has kindled, as it
were, a lamp before the Holy One Blessed be He and revives his soul, as
it is stated (Prov. 20, 27): quot;The soul of man is the lamp of the
Lordquot;.

The first Midrash regards the lamp - which symbolises words of Torah - as
showing man his way through life, saving him from obstacles or from
falling. This approach is eminently pragmatic. Study of Torah makes one
wise and thus prevents one falling into error. Woe betide the ignorant
man, the layman who has not studied! How will he save himself from
errors and, in particular, from their evil consequences? In contrast, the
second Midrash does not regard the lamp as a symbol of the Torah
studied but of the commandment performed. In spite of this, it is this
Midrash which eschews the pragmatic approach, refusing to evaluate the
commandment in terms of its practical benefits or its reward in terms of
deliverance from obstacles and from falling. It refers instead to the
spiritually refining process set in motion by the performance of a
commandment. The soul of man is uplifted and quot;revivedquot; thereby.
But the kindling of the lamp is otherwise evaluated in the following
Midrash:
What is the meaning of the text; quot;For the commandment is a

lampquot;? - Man's heart frequently prompts him to perform a good deed
(quot;commandmentquot;), but the evil inclination inside him says: quot;
Why should you perform a good deed at the expense of your pocket?
Before you give to others, give to your children (i.e. charity begins at
home). But the good inclination says to him: Give for a worthy cause (quot;
commandmentquot;). See what is written! For the commandment
(mitzvah: good deed, worthy cause) is a lampquot;. Just as the light of a
lamp remains undimmed, though myriads of wicks and flames may be lit
from it, so he who gives for a worthy cause does not make a hole in his
own pocket. Wherefore it is written: quot;For a commandment is a lamp
and Torah a lightquot;. (Shemot Rabbah, ibid.)
Here too the Midrash speaks of the individual and here too the kindling of
the lamp is a symbol for the performance of a good deed. But the Midrash
does not evaluate the lamp in terms of the spiritual, material, practical or
moral benefit it brings the one who lights it. The Midrash sees rather the
blessing that lamp brings to others, to those who kindle their lamp from it.
In this manner, the light of a lamp differs from all other material benefits in
the world which if man shares with his fellow, his portion decreases and
his fellow's increases. The light of the lamp, on the other hand, supplies
light to others without diminishing its own light in any way. The light of the
lamp can thus serve as a symbol for wisdom and spiritual treasures. For
this reason our sages compared Moses' bestowing of his spirit on the
seventy elders, on the one hand to a lamp [Rashi, Num. 11, 17], but the
transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua, on the other, to the emptying
of the contents of one vessel into another. What was added to the second
denuded to the first. But here we are not talking of study or the imparting
of knowledge but of the performance of a good deed. If a good deed has
been performed-though it might have involved a loss of time and money-
the doer has not really lost (the loss is merely superficial involving things
whose diminution cannot be termed loss if we evaluate them in terms of
Torah and good deeds). His neighbours and friends whether they benefit
directly from the good deed or merely bask in its light-all of them light their
lamp from his, effecting a general increase in light.
So far the individual and his lamp. But what constitutes the light and lamp
of Israel as a whole? The ner tamid quot;everlasting lampquot; in the
Temple is a religious rite incumbent on the Jewish people as a whole. The
priest who is commanded to arrange the lamp is the emissary of all Israel.
Said the Holy One Blessed be He to Moses: Say to the

children of Israel: In this world you stood in need of the light
of the Temple and other lamps are lit from its light . But in the
world-to-come, in virtue of that lamp, I shall bring you the
King Messiah who is likened to a lamp, as it is said (Ps. 132,

17): quot;there will I cause to flourish a horn for David, I will

set a lamp for mine anointedquot;. (Tanhuma Tezaveh 8)
The Midrash compares this world with the world-to-come. In both cases
the lamp does not serve the needs of the Holy One Blessed be he but
those of Israel. In our world of present reality we are captives of our five
senses and riveted by our auditory and visual perceptions to concrete
symbols, to a Temple, sacred appurtenances, the light of a lamp. But in
the days of the Messiah there will be no further need of tangible symbols,
a concrete outer garment, if God will help us to kindle in our souls the light
of the Torah.
The idea underlying the Midrash is embodied by Jeremiah in speaking of

another symbol, in speaking of the Ark and its role today and in time-to-
come-quot;in those daysquot;.
And it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied ands

increases in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall
say no more: The ark of the covenant of the Lord; neither
shall it come to mind; neither shall they make mention of it;
neither shall they miss it; neither shall it be made any more.
At the time they shall call Jerusalem, the throne of the Lord...
(Jer. 3, 16-17)
On the sentence: quot;they shall no more say: the ark...quot; Rashi

comments:
Because their whole ingathering will be holy and I will dwell therein as if it
was the ark.
Just as the first three Midrashim quoted evaluated the lamp in terms of the
individual, first describing the benefits accruing to him and then the
benefits to his fellow from one act of kindling, so the Midrash speaks of the
value of the lamp to Israel alone and then concludes with the benefits
accruing to the whole world from that same light:
Said the Holy One Blessed be He: In this world you need a
lamp, but in time-to-come (Isaiah 60, 3): quot;and the nations
shall walk by the light and kings by the brightness of thy
risingquot;. (Tanhuma, ibid.)
Now we come to our third question: the context of the precept.
Abarvanel asks why this command was inserted at this juncture. Surely,
he argues, its proper place would have been after the Tabernacle's
completion and the placing in position of the menorah and all the vessels.
Aaron and his sons had not yet been consecrated for the priesthood. What
point then was there, at this juncture, in briefing them on the kindling of the
menorah - which forms an integral part of the service?
Evidently those who regard the kindling of the lamp as a purely technical
device for lighting up the sanctuary will find no justification for placing this
mizvah at this point. Here we are still preoccupied with the sanctuary's
construction, rather than the rites and ceremonies associated with the
Divine service, which are dealt with in Leviticus. Furthermore, if it is merely
a technical point why mention it at all in the Torah? There is no mention of
all the other purely technical chores associated with keeping the sanctuary
clean and tidy. Lighting surely falls in the same category!
Our commentators account for its mention, at this juncture, by regarding it,
not as just one more detail of the service in the sanctuary. They sought a

spiritual motivation for its mention here, before the Tabernacle's

completion. Light which constitutes the first of Divine creations (quot;let
there be lightquot;) to which all living creatures are drawn, the opposite of
which serves as a symbol of doom and destruction, forms a familiar motif
in the Scriptures. The Torah is compared to light: quot;For the
commandment is a lamp and the Torah a lightquot; (Proverbs 6, 23) and
Israel is destined to be the light of the world: quot;Nations shall walk by thy
lightquot; (Isaiah 60, 3). The Almighty too is the light of the individual
person (quot;the Lord is thy light and salvationquot; Ps. 27, 1) and also the
light of Israel: quot;arise my light, for thy cometh and the glory of the Lord
doth shine upon theequot;, (Isaiah 60, 1). It is therefore not surprising to
find that our commentators and ancient preachers regarded the
commandment to kindle the menorah as symbolising the study of Torah,
the observance of the commandment and Divine worship, as a whole.
How apt is the symbolism of the fourteenth century philosopher-poet
Yedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi in his didactic poem: Behint 'Olam:
The Torah and man combined comprise the Lamp of God on earth. The
Torah is the flame issuing from the flash of Him that dwelleth in the
heavens. Man, (comprising body and soul) is the torch that draws light
from it. His back is the twining wick and his soul-the pure olive oil. Through
their intertwining and fusion (torch and flame) the whole house becomes
filled with light.
The function and purpose of this precept, the first to be performed in the
Temple of the Lord was: quot;to fill the whole house with lightquot;.
1. Abarvanel asks:
Surely this chapter is repeated in emor (Leviticus 24, 1-4) which is indeed
the proper context. Why was it inserted here out of context?
1. Answer his question.

2. In connection with your answer, explain the reason for the
difference in wording between the two passages: quot;Thou-thyself
command the children of Israel that they bring...quot; (Tezaveh0
and: quot;command the children of Israel, that they bring...quot;
(Emor)
.
2. Here we cite two approaches to this precept:
The Lord commanded us that a lamp should be alight in the Temple in

order to enhance its glory in the eyes of the beholders; for this is the way
that people enhance their own homes with illuminations. The idea
underlying this is to indicate awe and humility. We have already said that
inner character is formed by good actions. This is all based on our
fundamental principle that the precepts that have been ordained by God
are attuned to the capacities of those called upon to observe them.
Admittedly, the mystics have discovered profound mysteries in theses
matters, but we shall devote ourselves to their plain aspect. (Sefer Ha-
hinukh)
The sanctuary embodied the idea of the all embracing unity of Israel. The
Tabernacle and its service were in tended as an abode for the light of the
Divine Presence. The commandment went forth therefore to the general
body of the people to bring to Moses pure olive oil to purify their souls to
be ready for the light. Then through the medium of Moses, who brought

the Torah and the Divine light down to earth, he would kindle the lamp
which embodied the soul of Israel, to cause an eternal light to ascend.
This light came from the Torah which was placed in the Ark of the
Covenant from which vicinity he would arrange the lamps before the Lord
continually. (Malbim)
1. Explain in your own words the italicised passages.

2. What is the difference between the two approaches to the precept?
3. quot;To cause a lamp to burn (literally, to ascend)

continuallyquot; (Exodus 27, 20) - that the flame should
ascend of its own. (Sifra on Leviticus 24, 2)
This expression of ascending, describing the act of kindling a lamp is only

employed in respect of the candelabrum in the Tabernacle. It alludes to
the action of the priest in applying the flame to the wick, which is ready to
be kindled continually quot;until the flame ascends of its ownquot;. The
task of the teacher of Judaism is to make himself superfluous to his pupils.
It is not his function to keep the people-the ordinary folk who receive
instruction from him-continually dependent on him. (Hirsch)
1. Explain what the menorah and the act of its kindling symbolised in
Hirsch's view. Where can you find support for this symbolism in
other parts of the Scripture?
2. Where in the Torah can you learn that one of the functions of the
priest was to teach the Torah?
3. Whom is Hirsch criticising when he describes the true relationship
that should exist between the priest and the ordinary people, his
disciples?
4. To cause a lamp to burn continually (tamid).
Every night is called tamid, as the usage in Num. 28, 3: quot;a continual
burnt-offeringquot; ('olat tamid) which implies quot;dailyquot;. The word
tamid is also used in connection with the meal-offering (Lev. 6, 13) which
merely implies, half in the morning and half in the evening. But the word
tamid used in connection with the show bread means from one Sabbath to
the next. (Rashi)
Tamid means nightly. But there is a use of tamid more puzzling than this:
quot;And it shall be on his forehead tamidquot; (28, 28). Whenever he
donned the mitre, the holy diadem had always to be there. (Ibn Ezra)
1. How do the two commentators explain the word tamid?

2. What does Rashi mean by his qualification: quot;but the word tamid
used in connection with the show bread...quot; What is the force of
his quot;butquot; here?
3. In what way does Ibn Ezra find the tamid of 28, 38 quot;more
puzzlingquot; than the tamid in our verse?

Director:

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
Languages
Links
Parashat Ki Tisa

Parashat Hashavua
The Breaking of the Tablets
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah And it came to pass as he approached
the camp And saw the calf and
dancing, That Moses’ anger burned
English As he hurled the tablets from his
hands And shattered them at the foot
Hebrew of the mountain. (32, 19)
German Our commentators dealt with many difficulties

posed by this passage. We shall choose two of
Russian
them: one relating to the first half, the other to
Spanish the second.
Nehama's Iyunim Moses’ “anger burned”. He had just been

engaged in a confrontation with god in an attempt to placate His anger,
Insights on the had questioned his very right to be angry and finally implored Him to “turn
Parasha from Thy fierce anger”. Now he was angry. There is no contradiction.
(Companion) Moses’ duty as a prophet was to intercede for the people (cf. Gen. 20, 7
“for he is a prophet and will pay for you”). But as the man of God it was his
Nehama's Gilyonot duty, too, to imitate God. What aroused His ire should displease him too.
But the real question is not why Moses was angry at all, but why he was
Nehar Deah angry at that particular moment, on approaching the camp and witnessing
the scene. Surely it had all been depicted for him quite clearly by the
Rega Lifney Almighty:
Shabbat
Thy people have corrupted themselves… Thy have turned
aside from the way… They have made themselves a molten
Commentary of calf Prostrated themselves to it Sacrificed to it And they have
Rabbi Moshe Bergman said: These are thy gods… (32, 7-8)
(in Hebrew)
What new thing had he witnessed? Why did his anger burn just now? This
question is put in the mouth of God:
Weekly Parasha, by the Moses descended from heavens holding the tablets. Whence
Studio in Old Jaffa that he did not break them until he actually saw them with his
own eyes (what was happening)? From the text: “It came to
pass that as he approached the camp and saw the calf”, That
moment “Moses’ anger burned”. Said the Holy One Blessed
be He: Moses, didn’t you take my word for it that they had
made a calf? (Devarim Rabbah)
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/kitissa.html (1 de 10)26/02/2008 09:09:16 a.m.

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
The answers given by the commentators to the problem can be said to

represent one of two approaches. Some suggest that what Moses saw
down below did not completely tally with what God had told him when he
was still on top of the mountain. The “dancing” was an item missing from
the earlier Divine “preview”. This fact would seem to be syntactically
marked too.
The verb “saw” va-yar’ has two conjoined objects “calf’ and “dancing”. But
oddly, the first is specified: “the calf” (ha-‘egel); the second is unspecified;
u-meholot (and dancing). The deictive is not repeated in the second noun
phrase as is normal in Hebrew usage. Ibn Ezra solves this
characteristically by indicating that the second deictive is understood, the
first one “carrying over to the other one as well”. Such a deletion or
“extension of the first deictive to act for the second or even third” calls for
no other exposition, in Ibn Ezra’s view.
But he fails to explain why the Torah chose to resort to this deletion or
extension just here. Why did not the text repeat the definite article before
the second object, as is more usual? The difficulty is at once resolved if
we accept that it reflects the fact that the calf was known from God’s
message to him on the mount. He saw the calf; the one that God had told
him about beforehand. But he saw dancing for the first time.
Other commentators suggest that it was this discrepancy between what he

had been told and what he saw there and then that sparked his anger,
thus answering our question earlier.
The essence of Divine worship is to perform it with joy and a

glad heart. By the same token, for those who transgress His
will, hope remains for the one who sins and grieves over it, to
repent and make amends. But he who revels in his iniquity,
is, God forbid, a hopeless case. The Almighty did not tell
Moses that they were in addition enjoying themselves. He
was therefore not all that angry. But when he saw the calf
and dancing—that they were actually enjoying it too—then
his anger burned. (Alshikh)
Sforno put the same point more briefly:
“And the two tablets of testimony in his hand”. He thought

that when he reached them they would have already
repented of their deed, and if not, he would break the tablets
in front of them in order to stir them to repentance. “And he
saw the calf and dancing”. Then he saw that they were
revelling in their iniquity cf.: “when thou doest evil, then thou
rejoicest” despair of being able to remedy matters and spur
them to repent and become worthy of the tablets.
In other words, it was not the making of the calf that led to his anger—that
was already known to him before—but the people’s attitude to the deed. It
was their subsequent conduct, the revelry and the absence of any
remorse which brought him to despair. Hirsch elaborates the same point
of view, in his commentary to the Pentateuch:
So long as the false conceptions of idolatry are rooted merely

in the intellect, they can be eradicated by enlightenment and
instruction. Misconceptions can be corrected by the force of
truth. The gates of repentance are thus still wide open. But
when idolatrous concepts break through the bounds of the
intellect and begin to demoralise the practical behaviour of
man, his uncontrollable passions becoming consecrated in a
public cult on the altar of falsehood, then they develop and

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
thrive to their heart’s content. As easy as it is to enlighten the

intellectually misled, so it is difficult to recall to repentance the
unruly mob demoralised by corrupt and immoral behaviour.
So long as Moses knew only of the sin of the golden calf and
its deification, he felt that he could bring the people back to
the path of the Torah. Consequently he brought down the two
tablets. But as soon as he saw the calf and the dancing, he
realised that the idolatrous poison had already wrought its
havoc and given free reign to their evil passions, breaking all
the bounds of moral conduct. He now realised that a new
people would have to be created, capable of fulfilling this
Torah. Without a moment’s forethought and hesitation he
cast the tablets from his hands and broke them, indicating
that the people were neither worthy nor capable of receiving
the Torah he had brought them down.
Some commentators resort to a psychological explication. It was not any

new information that prompted Moses’ anger but the impact of actually
seeing something that he had previously only heard about. Arama
suggests that in his second and probably more definitive answer:
I imagine that though Moses did not doubt for a moment that
they had perpetrated a very serious transgression, he could
not conceive that things had reached the pitch of actually
making a molten calf. Perhaps they had done something
disgraceful which was termed making a molten calf. Perhaps
even if they had made one, not all were involved. Perhaps
the Divine message of: “Thy people have corrupted
themselves” implied nothing more than in Joshua’s case
when He said: “Israel has sinned; even transgressed My
covenant…what is more, they have taken of the forbidden
thing, stolen too, and on top of that denied it and put it in their
own vessels as well” (Joshua 7, 11). (Only one offender was
actually involved—Achan). And even if they had sinned
perhaps they had repented or some had protested. When he
arrived he realised that the report was literally true.
His second answer:
This is not such a difficult problem when we remember that

seeing is a much more vivid experience than hearing, even
though we have no doubt whatsoever of the truth of what we
have heard.
Even Moses, the master of prophetic vision, in spite of hearing the

information regarding the golden calf direct from the Almighty, could not
visualise the scene of idolatrous worship as vividly as if he had actually
seen it with his own eyes. Only when the ugly scene stared him in the
face, did his anger well up.
A much more difficult problem is posed by the second half of our verse—
the act of breaking the tablets. What did Moses hope to achieve thereby
and who authorised him to do it?
The following proposal of Rasbam (s.v va-yeshlakh mi-yado (“he hurled

from his hands”) is implausible:
When he beheld the calf, all his vitality ebbed away from him and he just
managed to push the tablets far enough away so as not to fall on his feet,
like a person for who the burden becomes too much. So have I seen in
Pirkei Derabbi Eliezer (“Moses could not carry himself nor the tablets and

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
cast them from his hands and they broke”). That is its plain sense.
Rashbam similarly notes in Deuteronomy that “I broke them” implies: “I

could not muster enough strength”.
Apparently, Rashbam a literalist par excellence veers far from the plain
sense here. There is no clue in the text for his interpretation that Moses’
physical strength had ebbed away. On the contrary, it emphasises his
positive and energetic action:
“I grasped hold of the two Tablets, I cast from my hands And I broke them”.
Not that they broke of their own accord.
Our original question thus remains unanswered. What did Moses hope to
achieve by this deliberate act of destruction? Be’er Yizhak’s formulation is
even more pointed:
The action of breaking the tablets appears strange and

astonishing, prompted seemingly by anger. Yet we know that
it is forbidden to break even the smallest vessel, how much
more so an object as sacred and precious as this!
The answers suggested are many and varied. Some of our sages regard
Moses’ action as a part of his programme of intercession and extenuation
of Israel’s sin, an attempt to share some of the blame with them:
“Therefore He said He would destroy them, had not Moses

His chosen stood before Him in the breach (psalms 106, 23)”.
R. Samuuel b. R. Nahman said; When Israel were engaged
in that deed, the Holy One Blessed be He sat in judgement
upon them to condemn them, as it is said “Now let Me alone
that I may destroy them”… He came to pass final sentence,
as it is said: “He that sacrificeth to the gods, save unto the
Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed”. What did Moses do?
He took the tablets from the Almighty’s hand in order to
assuage His wrath. To what may this be compared? To a
prince who sent a marriage-broker to betroth a woman on his
behalf. He went but she had compromised herself in the
meantime with another. What did he do? He took the
marriage deed which the prince had given him wherewith to
betroth her and tore it up. He said: Better she should be
judged as unmarried woman than a married one. Moses did
likewise. As soon as Israel perpetrated that deed, he too took
the tablets and broke them. Moses further said: Far better
they be judged as inadvertent sinners than as deliberate
ones, as if to say, had they seen their punishment they would
not have sinned.
(Shemot Rabbah 43, 1)
Moses is pictured here as the pleader of Israel’s cause, trying to extenuate

their wrongdoing. A similar approach but with a more optimistic ending is
outlined in Avot De Rabbi Natan:
…He (Moses) took them (the tablets) and joyfully made his
way down (the mountain). As soon as he beheld the
abhorrent spectacle of the worship of the calf, he said: How
can I give them the tablets? I shall be involving them in
serious breaches of the commandments rendering them from
liable to death at the hand of Heaven, since it is written
thereon: “Thou shalt have no other God besides Me”…R.

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
Yose the Galilean said: Let me tell you a parable. To what

can it be compared? To asking of flesh and blood who said to
his steward; Go and betroth for me a damsel, comely and
chaste, of seemly conduct. The steward went and betrothed
her. After he had betrothed her, he discovered that she had
played the harlot with another man. He immediately reasoned
thus with himself: If I give her the marriage document now, I
shall be condemning her to death, but I shall tear it up and
separate her from her master forever. Moses the righteous
one argued in similar vein. How can I give Israel these
tablets? I shall thereby be involving them in serious breaches
of the commandments rendering them liable to the death
penalty. For thus it is written: “He that sacrificeth to the gods
save to the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed”. Instead I
shall break them and reform the people. Moses’ action net
with the approval of the Omnipotent, as it is stated: “The
tablets, which thou didst break” implying: “More power to thee
for having broken them!”.
The following Midrash underlines to an even greater degree the self-

sacrifice of Moses the faithful shepherd:
“And I saw and behold you had sinned against the Lord your
god’ (Duet. 9, 16). When he saw there was no future hope for
Israel, he threw in his lot with theirs and broke the tablets,
and said to the Holy one blessed be He: They have sinned,
but so have I with the breaking of the tablets. If you forgive
them, forgive me too; as it is said; “and now, if thou wilt
forgive their sin” forgive mine too. But if thou dost not forgive
them, do not forgive me but “blot me out I pray Thee from
Thy book which thou hast written”.
(Shemot Rabbah)
According to the above three Midrashim, Moses’ motive in breaking the

tablets was in defense of Israel, to provide an extenuation for their sin, to
throw his lot in with theirs. But Rashi found this explication unacceptable.
It was too far removed from the plain sense of the text according to which
Moses’ action was sparked off by his anger:
“Moses’ anger burned”. Rashi only felt obliged to incorporate those

Midrashic explanations which kept as close as possible to the context.
Rashi, accordingly, adopted the reading of the Talmud (Shabbat 87a), in
his comment to the text: “he hurled the tablets from his hands”:
If with regard to the Passover which is but one of the

commandments, the Torah ordained that “no apostate may
partake thereof” (Ex. 12, 43), where the whole Torah is
involved and all Israel are apostates, how mush more so!
According to the foregoing, Moses wished to punish the Israelites

severely, when he beheld that they were unworthy of the precious gift he
carried. By their rash deed they had broken the covenant between them
and their Father in heaven. He therefore broke them at the foot of the
mount in front of them.
Abarvanel observes:
I imagine that Moses broke them at the place where he built

the altar beneath the mountain on the day of the giving of the
law, just as one tears up a legal document that has been
dishonoured. He did not break them on the mountain itself
when he was first apprised of the sin of the calf, but he broke

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
them in the camp. For had Isarel not seen the Tables intact,
the awesome work of the Lord, they would not have been
moved by the fragments, since the soul is more impressed by
what it sees, than by what it hears. He therefore brought
them down from the mountain to show them to the people,
and then break them before their very eyes.
Isaac Arama propounds yet another view, though he, likewise, starts from
the assumption that Moses meant to shock them:
Perhaps he saw fit to do it in order to teach them a lesson

and shock them, as our Sages say (Shabbat 105b) in the
name of R. Yohanan b. Nuri: “He who wears his garments in
anger and breaks vessels in anger and scatters his money in
anger shall be accounted in your eyes as one who
worshipped idols, for such are the workings of the Evil
Inclination. Today it says to him, Do this! And tomorrow it
says to him, do that! Till it eventually prompts him to worship
idols and he goes along and does it”.
The Talmud continues its discussion on this subject, making one

reservation. Anger not prompted by selfish motives but by the desire to
discipline one’s household is not tantamount to idolatry. If a man wishes
merely to impress on the members of his household his shock and
disappointment at their misconduct, in order to correct them, he is inspired
by educational motives. Isaac Arama applies this principle to our case:
When Moses approached them he saw that the calf the Lord
had referred to was literally a calf, neither more nor less, and
that the tumult he had heard was the sound not of pain but of
uninhibited idolatrous revelry. “Moses’ anger burned and he
cast from his hands the Tablets and broke them beneath the
Mount”, to draw attention and shame them.
The text in Deuteronomy aptly fits this interpretation: “When I

turned and went down the mountain I saw and behold that
you had sinned against the Lord your God, you had made for
yourselves a molten calf, you had quickly turned aside from
the way the Lord had commanded you, then I grasped hold of
the two tablets and cast them from my two hands and broke
them before your eyes”.
In other words, Moses saw no other way of bringing the Israelites to their
senses than by breaking the very Tablets he had received at the hand of
God at Sinai, before their very eyes.
The Neziv gives a similar interpretation in Ha’amek Davar:
The text describes the greatness of Moses, how he took the

calf and burned it and no man resisted him, whereas they
had forced Aaron to make it. This was because Moses, with
deep psychological insight had not broken the Tablets on the
mount, but resolved to bide his time in order to do it when it
would make the greatest impact on them, shocking them and
grieving them to such an extent, that they would not have the
heart to resist his harsh corrective measures. He broke a
unique treasure before their eyes.
But was Moses’ action as deliberately geared to an educational aim as

these commentators have made out? Did he really, as Neziv suggests,
“bide his time” till the psychological moment arrived? Such a picture does

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
not emerge from the text. It implies quite the contrary:
It came to pass as He approached the camp and saw…

Moses’ anger burned and he hurled…
It was not a premeditated act but a spontaneous reaction sparked off by

indignation. Rambam therefore adopted an entirely different approach
answering not the question what purpose Moses had in mind but what
caused him to act:
Moses did not hesitate to break them because his anger was
roused at the sight of their evil conduct. He could not control
himself…(on 32, 16). When I saw you dancing in front of the
calf I could not control myself and I broke the tablets…(on
Deut 9, 17).
Rambam could not envisage that Moses whose heart was certainly full of
love of God, Israel and the Torah could have possessed at that moment
enough sang-froid to plan anything deliberate, either with a view to
lightening their punishment or shocking them out of their complacency
when he broke the tablets. What happened was quite unplanned. In
Rambam’s view it was not physical but spiritual weakness that overcame
him, anger and mental anguish at what they had done: “He could not
control himself”. Admittedly it is difficult to accept the idea that Moses
deliberately planned to break the tablets. But the alternative—that it
happened in a spontaneous fit of anger without any thought at all is
equally implausible. A recent commentator has proposed an explication
which appears to capture both aspects—the indignation and pain that
overcame him at that moment and the educative aim of combating idolatry
in his day and for all time that informed his action. We quote here the
relevant extracts from Meshech Hokhma (s.v. va-yehi ka-asher karav el
ha-mahaneh “it cam to pass as he approached the camp”):
Torah and faith are the essentials of the Jewish nation. All
the sanctities—The Holy Land, Jerusalem etc., are
secondary and subordinate entities hallowed in virtue of the
Torah. Time and space therefore are no limiting factors in the
Torah context. Its observances and duties apply to every
man from the highest –Like Moses the man of God –to the
lowest, and in all countries, both in Eretz Israel and outside
(except for those precepts connected with the soil of the Holy
Land).
The author repeatedly emphasises that there is only one source of

holiness. No intrinsic holiness resides in places, houses or vessels, not
even in the greatest of men. Even Moses himself was termed by our Sages
—the “go-between”—the messanger who brought the Torah from on high
to earth. But it was not his Torah. This conception of holiness is too
refined to be grasped by man who is the slave of his senses and who can
only perceive things through them.
The people therefore sought for ways and means of

materialising their conceptions, and when they saw that
Moses was delayed, their faith was undermined and they
sought to make a calf. It was this that Moses condemned,
that they should imagine he was unique, and that there
existed any intrinsic holiness outside God Himself, his
absence prompting them to make a calf. “I am a man just like
yourselves and the Torah is not dependent on me and even
had I not reappeared, the Torah would persist without any
change”.

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
Do not imagine that the temple and Tabernacle are

intrinsically holy. Far be it! The Almighty dwells amidst His
children and if they transgress His covenant these structures
become divested of all their holiness. Violent men came and
profaned the Temple; Titus entered the Holy of Holies
together with a harlot and no harm befell them, since its
holiness had lapsed. Even the Tablets—“the writing of God”—
were not intrinsically holy, but only so on account of you. The
moment Israel sinned and transgressed that was written
thereon, they became mere bric a brac devoid of sanctity.
To sum up, there is nothing intrinsically holy in the world save

the Lord Blessed be He, to whom alone reverence, praise
and homage is due. The holy comes into being in response
to specific Divine commandments, as for example those
calling on us to build Him a house of worship or sacrifice
offerings to Him. Now we may understand why Moses on
perceiving the physical and mental state of the people
promptly broke the Tablets. He feared they would deify them
as they had done the calf. Had he brought them the Tablets
intact, they would have substituted them for the calf and not
reformed their ways. But now that he had broken the Tablets,
they realised how far they had fallen short of true faith.
For this reason God approved of Moses’ action and said

“More power to thee for having broken them”. By this he had
demonstrated that the Tablets themselves possessed no
intrinsic holiness.
R. Meir Simha now proceeds to explain the reason for the broken pieces
being placed in the Ark:
It was the first Tablets which were the work of God—that

were broken, not the Tablets hewn by Moses, which
remained whole; demonstrating that no holiness resides in
any created thing other than that invested in it by Israel’s
observance of the Torah in accordance with the will of the
creator and His holy name.
The allusion is to the Talmud (Shabbat 87a):
We have learnt in a Baraita: Three things did Moses so of his

own mind and the Holy One Blessed be He gave it His
blessing…he broke the tablets…whence that the Holy One
Blessed be He gave it His blessing? From the text (34, 1)
asher shi-barta (which thou didst break) yishar kohakha she-
shibarta (more power to thee for having broken them).
The play on words is rather puzzling. Rashba asks:
What cue is there in the wording of the text to warrant their

association of the Hebrew relative: asher with the verb: asher
(“confirm”) ?
The classic commentaries on Rabbinic homiletic exposition have

proposed the following explanations:
The text should have read simply: al ha-luhot ha-shevurim

“on the broken tablets”: Why asher shibarta “which thou didst
break”? What difference does it make who broke them? But
the text gave him credit for it, approved his breaking of them

Gilyonot - Ki tisa
and ruled out punishment for it.

(Me’or Enayim)
It should have read she-shibarta (assimilating the relative to

the verb in the form of a prefix). Alternatively, the whole
relative clause: “which thou didst break” is superfluous. It
would have been adequate to end the verb with: “the first
tablets”, as in (34, 4): “He hewed two tablets of stone like the
first ones”. These were the holy ones he had broken.
(Maharsha)
I have heard in explanation reference made to the text (Deut.

10, 2): “which were on the first tablets which thou didst break
and put (them) in the ark”. Both sets of tablets, the whole and
broken ones were placed in the ark. Had their breaking
constituted a sin, the accuser (i.e. the first tablets) could not
have been put together with the defender (i.e. the second
tablets). We must conclude then that the breaking was
valued by him.
(Rashba)
The latter explanation of the Midrash asher = yishar kohakha depends on

other homiletic sources which in turn hinge on allusions and nuances of
other biblical texts. It is far from elegant to find the cue for the explanation
in the wording of the text itself. On this account alone the proposal
outlined in Torah Temimah is far more satisfying:
It is not usually considered decent to remind a person of

something he had done in anger or on the spur of the
moment. It can only embarrass and aggravate him.
Accordingly, had God disapproved of Moses’ breaking the
tablets it would not have been right to add the words “which
thou didst break” when referring to the first tablets. It would
only have aggravated him, especially as there was absolutely
no necessity to refer to it. The “like the two first tablets” would
have done. Since the text does add: “which thou didst break”
the expositor concluded that, on the contrary, God had
approved of the breaking. What is more, He said to him
“More power to thee for doing it”.

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Vayak’hel
Languages
Links
Parashat Vayak’hel

Kehati Mishna The Recapitulations

Parashat Hashavua The last two Sabbath readings of Shemot
(Exodus) revert to the subject of the
Hebrew Text of the Tabernacle. The details outlined so
Parashah painstakingly in Terumah and Tezaveh and part
of Ki-tissa engage our attention once again.
Sometimes the subject is treated in a very
English general way without going into details of design
or construction, as Moses did, when he first
Hebrew
called on the people to respond to the Divine
German appeal to contribute materials of the
Tabernacle (35, 5-19). At others, every stage of
Russian implementation is detailed as in the recounting
of the accomplishments of Bezalel and his
Spanish fellow-craftsmen in producing the various items of furniture for the
Tabernacle. Here the whole gamut of activities is recapitulated – the
materials, the design, measurements and manufacture (36, 8 – 38, 20).
Nehama's Iyunim The Tabernacle requisites were specified by name when they were
presented to Moses (39, 33-41) and listed once more when God gave
Insights on the Moses command to erect the Tabernacle and place each item of furniture
Parasha in position. They are listed again in the course of the account of the
(Companion) execution of this command. All this repetition is puzzling. Here is
Abarvanel’s formulation of the difficulty:
Nehama's Gilyonot
We find that the Torah records on five occasions in both a

detailed and general way the construction of the Tabernacle
Nehar Deah and all that was involved. The most puzzling repetition is the
one where Moses said to Israel: "And let every wise man
Rega Lifney among you come and make all that the Lord hath
Shabbat commanded, the Tabernacle, its tent…" (35, 10) enumerating
in detail all the things which God had commanded them to
do. It would have been sufficient for the verse to have ended
Commentary of with the words: "and make all that God hath commanded".
Rabbi Moshe Bergman Why was it necessary to list the articles once more?
(in Hebrew)
On the recapitulation in Pekudei Abarvanel observes:
Instead of laboriously repeating that they brought to Moses,
the Tabernacle, the tent and all its vessels etc. etc. listing
Studio in Old Jaffa once again all the vessels in turn, surely it would have
sufficed to write: "Then they brought to Moses the complete
work of the Tabernacle. Moses surveyed all the work,
observed that they had carried it out just as the Lord had
commanded, so had they done. And Moses blessed them".
Why keep on recapitulating the details?
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vayakel.html (1 de 6)26/02/2008 09:19:12 a.m.

Rashi and his school (Rashbam, Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni etc.) do not
concern themselves with this problem. Spanish Jewish commentators, on
the other hand, pay a great deal of attention to it. Their answers are
various.
Ramban differentiated between the general listing of the items comprising

the Tabernacle and the detailed specification of their design and
production:
Moses had to outline to the congregation exactly how much

was involved in the Tabernacle so that their contribution
would be to commensurate with the needs. Theses were
great and to demonstrate them he exhaustively listed all the
items --: "the Tabernacle, its tent cover, beams etc. The
repetition of the definite article: "the Tabernacle, the ark, the
table etc. implied those items whose detailed specifications
would be subsequently transmitted to the craftsmen involved.
Now he merely listed them by name for the benefit of the
congregation.
Ramban subsequently (on 36, 8) proffers a detailed explanation of the five

recapitulations that he discovered in the narrative.
The construction of the Tabernacle, in the course of its

fivefold repetition is treated both generally and specifically.
First, in Terumah: make this and make that –in detail,
followed, second, by a general outline (31, 6-11). The Divine
instructions were conveyed to Moses in this form for the
benefit of Bezalel, Aholiab and their fellow-craftsmen. They
had to be given a complete though general picture of what
was involved to enable them to plan their work properly.
Third, when describing how Moses actually transmitted the
instructions he had received to the people and the skilled
craftsmen, the text contents itself with a general listing of the
items involved which is not in itself complete (35, 10). "they
came and carried out all the Lord had commanded: the
Tabernacle, its tent, cover etc.". But many of the details as
outlined in God’s original instructions to Moses in Terumah
are omitted—such as the curtains and their measurements.
Obviously from the fact that they are subsequently referred to
when the completion of each item of the Tabernacle is
described we may be sure that they got the message. The
text wished to imply that Moses actually alluded to every item
but did not need to tell them exactly what to do. Moses had
only to mention the need for five pairs of curtains and the
designers immediately understood of their own accord how
they should be fitted with hooks and eyes etc. The lacunae in
the text convey to us the full extent of their personal skill and
initiative.
Next the execution of the project is described in exactly the

same painstaking detail as the original instructions which
God had commanded him and subsequently that he
surveyed and approved of the finished product. All the
intervening chapters recapitulating the details of design, the
lists of items etc. could well have been omitted.
What the text wished to emphasise was that Moses repeated

in general outline what was involved for the purpose of
arousing the people to make their contributions
commensurate with the needs, as well as to give the
craftsmen an adequate picture of the project they were being

asked to undertake. The latter would then decide whether

they were capable of undertaking it and if so plan its
execution accordingly.
The execution is reported verbatim, recapitulating all the

stages and details imparted in the original instructions. The
general and detailed accounts of the execution of the project
are followed by a summary report of the completed work
presented to Moses: "They brought the Tabernacle to Moses,
the tent and all its furniture, its sockets and bars…" (39, 33).
The reason for this recapitulation is to convey the fact that
they presented it, complete in the proper order. No one
brought his finished work along until the whole project was
complete, in the proper order. No one brought his finished
work along until the whole project was complete, as the text
observes (in the verse preceding that recording the bringing:
"When all the service of the Tabernacle of the tent of
meetings was completed" (39, 32). Once it was completed,
but not before, they all assembled and presented all the
items in the proper order.. First they announced: "Master,
here is the tent and here its furniture’, followed by: Here is the
Ark and here its poles" and so on.
So much for Ramban’s motivation of the recapitulations and abridgements

indulged in by the text in its treatment of the construction of the
Tabernacle. He concludes by offering a general explanation of the
numerous repetitions both in their verbatim and abbreviated form:
They reflect the love and esteem with which the Tabernacle
was viewed by the Almighty, the numerous recapitulations
being designed to increase the reward of those engaged in it.
The same idea is contained in the rabbinic dictum: "the table –
talk of the Patriarch’s servants was more precious to the Holy
One blessed be He than the Torah of their descendants. The
story of Eliezer runs into two or three folios…"whereas the
fundamentals of the Torah itself are often conveyed to us
only through the clue of a redundant word or letter. Obviously
then their table-talk was more precious to Him than the Torah
of their descendants.
Or Ha-hayim echoes Ramban:
The reason for the repetition in the story of the Tabernacle’s

construction is similar to that advanced by our sages with
regard to the recapitulations of Abraham’s servant Eliezer in
Genesis (24, 39). Since the story was so precious to him, it
was recorded twice over. Similarly the story of the
Tabernacle was recorded twice because it was beloved by
Him.
The foregoing commentators both equate the recapitulations in our Sidra

with those in Genesis 24. The differences between them, however, are not
lightly to be ignored. In the latter, the recapitulation form an integral part of
the narrative. The variations in wording between the original story and the
reports given by the servants are numerous and of obvious significance.
Eliezer underlines, even exaggerates any detail that might impress
Rebecca’s family, lightly passes over and even suppresses anything that
might repel them. In our Sidra the recapitulations are almost verbatim (the
minor differences will be treated further on). The explanation offered by
Ramban or Or Ha-hayim will not satisfy the curiosity of the student. Why
should this particular narrative be more highly valued than those
conveying the very fundamentals of Judaism.

Ralbag introduces the problem by stating the hypothesis that we ought to

accept no redundancies in Holy Writ. The very perfection of the Torah
should preclude the assumption of superfluous wording. Why could not
the Torah have disposed of the whole construction of the Tabernacle with
the words; "Bezalel carried out the whole project of the Tabernacle as God
had commanded Moses…?" Ralbag reluctantly admitted that he had failed
to find an adequate answer for these and suchlike recapitulations which
abounded in Scripture. He nevertheless did offer one general motivation
for the recapitulations. They were a stylistic device: "the way writers in
those days at the time of the Giving of the Torah used to tell their tales.
The prophet merely followed the narrative conventions".
Only in the last 150 years with the development of the literary historical
approach do we find this type of explanation being advanced. Cassuto, for
instance, explains the recapitulation in terms of the narrative conventions
of the ancient east. It is usual for an account of the execution of a certain
series of acts previously outlined to repeat verbatim the acts that were
executed and not to report merely that they were executed. The difference
between Ralbag and modern scholars is that the latter based their findings
on actual records discovered in their days. Ralbag, on the other hand,
merely suggested this might be so without having any independent data
on which to base it.
Just the same, Ralbag’s explanation is not adequate (the same applies to
Cassuto and others). The question remains: Why did the Torah choose to
follow the convention of verbatim recapitulation in matters that seem
purely technical, whereas in identical contexts of command and execution,
it often omits completely either one or the other?
Ralbag evidently sensed the inadequacy of his own explanation since he

propounded various other solutions. In the second of theses he suggested
that the Torah deliberately indulged in apparent inconsistency and
anomalous narrative treatment, dealing in summary fashion with subjects
that obviously called for more detailed treatment and elaborating where
brief mention would have sufficed as a method of focussing and
foregrounding. The sole motivation of this inconsistency was to prompt the
reader to search for an appropriate explanation of the brevity or
elaboration, in each and every case. Ralbag’s two explanations
complement each other, and do not warrant Abarvanel’s cavil:
I have noted Ralbag’s suggestions. All of them together add

up to one big nought.
The allegorists whose views we cited in our discussions of Terumah

obviously found no hint of redundancy in the recapitulations of mere
"technical" details. On the contrary, every item, every contour of the
design, every figure in the measurements was charged with symbolic and
mystical significance. Here is a contribution of Hirsch to the subject;
Let us bear in mind that the Tabernacle and its

appurtenances, are symbols, and that no symbol is valid
unless it has been expressly made for that. Thus even the
sacramental validity of the writing on the parchment in a
Scroll of the Law which has no other meaning outside the
symbolic depends solely on having been written by the scribe
for its express holy purpose. In addition, the scribe must write
the names of God in Scriptures for the express purpose of
the holiness of His name, a purpose which must be uttered
by his lips at the time of writing. Since all the vessels in the
Tabernacle –the Ark, the table, the candelabra, the curtains,
the vestments – possess an immediate literal application as

articles of daily use, all the more so do their symbolic

implications completely depend on the consciously sacred
purpose informing their construction.
The Biur (Mendelssohn) adopts a somewhat different approach:
When the Almighty chose His people, He foresaw in His

wisdom, that they would require all kinds of skills in the
pursuit of their common life together in their own land. These
skills may be divided into the following categories: (1)
essential—without which man cannot attain happiness such
as those required to procure him food, clothing and housing;
(2) useful skills required for the maintenance of the roadways
and bridges, and for the production of articles of daily use in
metal and other materials; (3) artistic skills which introduce
pleasure into human life and ornament it, such as those
involved in embroidery, art sculpture, etc. All these
employments are to the credit and advantage of the nation so
long as they do not exceed the bounds of disrection and do
not border on extravagance. Over-indulgence in all the above
fields is detrimental, particularly in the case of artistic skills
which can destroy the state since they lead to the pursuit of
pleasure, effete living, envy and strife and ultimate anarchy. It
is possible that just as God commanded His people to
dedicate the first fruits of their persons, soil and cattle to Him
(cf. The dictum of our sages: "there exists nothing, the first-
fruits of which are not dedicated to heaven"), so he desired
that they offer to him the first fruits of their thoughts and
abilities and dedicate them to His service in the form of the
Tabernacle, its appurtenances and vestments. This would be
instrumental in sanctifying all their affairs since they would
remember the Lord in all their deeds and would not go astray
in pursuit of luxury and vanity.. "For a skill which was not
employed in the Tabernacle cannot be accounted a skill", and
it is not right for a God-fearing Jew to occupy himself with
such.
The above explanation does not then dwell on the allegorical significance
of each and every vessel and attempt to provide a symbolic
correspondence in the spiritual world for all the objects mentioned. Instead
the instructions to build the Tabernacle, to work in wood, metal gold and
silver may be compared to the ordinances of the first-fruits and first-born in
which the worshipper dedicates his goods to the Almighty in
acknowledgement of his creator’s bounty. In this case it is not the products
of man’s work and skills that are dedicated, but the most precious of his
endowments, his skill and mental capacities. Before the Israelites settled
down in their homeland, before they managed to build their own house
and vineyard, they were called upon to dedicate their skills and abilities to
God, that the first-fruits of their work should be for the sake of Heaven.
The full exploitation of human skill is highly esteemed by the Torah which
evidently does not approve the ideal set by Jonadab the son of Rechav ,
cited in Jeremiah 35, 6. Man had been charged by God at creation with
the task of conquering and civilising the world by his skills. The dangers of
over-exploitation, of extravagance and demoralisation which are
concomitants of man’s misuse of his powers underly the instruction to
build the Tabernacle:
No regulations were prescribed by the Almighty governing

the development of human skills laying down what was to be
considered essential, desirable or extravagant, since this was
a matter dependant on ever changing circumstances, God

did not therefore wish to fix any preconceived limits. When

the children of Israel would enter their homeland and rest
from their enemies and prosper, they would have more
opportunity to engage in various labours and would certainly
have no need to renounce artistic, ornamental pursuits. It
may be noted that till the day of Solomon, the Ark of the Lord
was housed behind a curtain and when Solomon ruled and
Judah and Israel dwelt each man under his vine and silver
and gold were plentiful in Jerusalem, the Almighty
commanded them to build a Temple. The king too built a
palace and all kinds of magnificent edifices, an ivory throne...
We may note the attainments of those days and would that
matters had not exceeded those limits! But subsequently the
love of pleasure and luxury exceeded all bounds, and we
know what happened. No definite limit can be prescribed in
these matters which must be decided in accordance with the
prevailing circumstances. The surest safeguard is, however,
contained in the following admonition of our Sages: "let all thy
deeds be for the sake of Heaven". Through observance of
this principle man will be able to distinguish between good
and evil and not be ruled by his passions. The Almighty
therefore did not prescribe any limits but commanded that
they dedicate all their deeds and thoughts to Him and
consecrate the first-fruits of their work to the Lord blessed be
He and blessed be His name, who has singled us out form
the peoples and given us true law and goodly statutes for is
to love Him and fear Him always.
The Torah did not therefore content itself with recording the instructions to
build the Tabernacle, but repeated each detail of their execution. This was
done in order to stress the symbolic significance of each detail, the
dedication of each labour to God in preparation for life in the Promised
Land.

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Pekudei
Languages
Links
Parashat Pekudei

Kehati Mishna The Basin and Stand

Parashat Hashavua
In our Sidra Moses renders account of the contributions donated to the
Hebrew Text of the
Tabernacle, how much they totalled and what they were used for. The
Parashah
metals comprised gold, silver and bronze. Regarding the latter it is stated:
The bronze of the offering was seventy talents and two thousand four
English
hundred shekels(38,29)
Hebrew
What did they use the bronze for? This we are told in the subsequent
German verses (30-31):
Russian
And with it he made sockets for the door of the tent of meeting, the bronze
Spanish
alter, and its bronze grating.
The sockets in the court and gate, the tabernacle pegs, too, were made of
Nehama's Iyunim bronze as well as- all the pegs in the court round about... But there existed
yet another bronze vessel, certainly more important than the pegs and
Insights on the sockets alluded to here. This vessel is not mentioned here but only later in
Parasha the list of all the vessels brought to Moses towards the end of the next
(Companion) chapter (39,39):
Nehama's Gilyonot The bronze alter and its grating of bronze, its posts, and all its vessels, the
basin and its stand.
Nehar Deah Abravanel quite rightly includes this point among all the other questions
that he posed on the Sidra:
Rega Lifney
Shabbat He mentioned the vessels made of bronze; sockets, alter and grating and
all the vessels of the alter and so forth, but the basin and stand that we
know were also made of bronze, as it is stated: And thou shalt make also
Commentary of a basin of bronze with a stand of bronze... (30,18), is not mentioned here.
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) The answer he gives is that followed by all our commentators:
The reason why he did not mention here the basin and stand which was
Illustrations to the also made of bronze was because the text only refers, at this juncture, to
Weekly Parasha, by the the bronze that had been donated as a free offering by the children of
Studio in Old Jaffa Israel, as it stated: The bronze of offering...
The basin and stand were not made out of that bronze but out of the
mirrors of the women who crowded (zevòs- the exact meaning of this
word and the passage as a whole will be discussed later) at the door of
the tent of meeting. The basin and its stand were therefore not mentioned
here since they were not made of that same bronze.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/pekudei.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 09:24:40 a.m.

Abravanel alludes here to a passage in the previous Sidra, which is

usually joined to ours and read together:
And he maid the basin of bronze and its stand of bronze, from the mirrors
of the women who crowded at the door of the tent of meeting. (38,8)
This text poses many problems both as regards content and language.
What does the phrase: maròt hazovòt asher zavù mean? Ramban
adheres to the plain sense of the text:
We may perhaps take it in its plain sense that he maid the basin and stand
out of the mirrors of the women who crowded in a great host (zava-hebrew
for hosts or army ; cf.: the Lord of hosts, zevaòt) and assembled at the
door of the tent of meeting to give their mirrors as a freewill offering. The
bronze of the mirrors was designated for this vessel because of its smooth
polished hollowed-out surface. When the women saw this they gathered in
their hosts to donate the mirrors for the making of the basin and stand.
He thus renders the text: The women who crowded at the tent of
meeting... who gathered and stood round, in their hosts to hand over their
gift. We shall meet another interpretation later on. But the inner meaning
of the text transcends linguistic considerations. What prompted Moses in
the first place to use the mirrors of the women for the making of a vessel
in which the priests would wash their hands and feet on entering the tent
of meeting (Ex. 30,17-21), enabling them to sanctify their deeds?
Hirsch devoted a great deal of attention to explaining the symbolic

significance of the various appurtenances of the tabernacle and their
respective functions in the Divine service. He likewise draws attention to
this unusual feature:
It is deeply significant that the vessel designated for consecration of hands

and feet i.e. dedicated to elevating and refining the animal movements
and instincts of man should be made from such a crucial boudoir item as a
mirror, an object which draws attention to the human body as an object of
sensual desire.
Ibn Ezra`s solution to the problem is diametrically opposed to this:
It is customary for every women to make up her face every morning and
look in a bronze or glass mirror in order to adjust her hair style and
ornaments as mentioned in Isaiah 3. The Israelite women behaved exactly
as the Ishmaelite woman today. But there were pious women in Israel who
overcame this worldly temptation and freely gave away their mirrors
because they found no more need to beautify themselves but came
instead daily to the door of the tent of meeting to pray and hear religious
discourses for their edification. The text says: Who crowded at the door of
the tent of meeting...because there were many of them.
Ibn Ezra discovered the appropriateness of the mirrors for this sacred use
in the fact that the women who brought them as an offering to the
Tabernacle symbolized thereby their rejection of vanity. The greatness of
these women lay, in Ibn Ezra`s words, in the fact that they overcame
worldly temptations and found no more need to beautify themselves...
It was not then the physical composition and configuration of the mirrors
that warranted their metamorphosis into basin and stand for consecrating
hands and feet but rather the unselfishness and spiritual dedication that
the gift of them implied. Midrash Tanhuma adopts an entirely different

approach. Rashi draws on it but we shall cite his source in full:
You find that when the Israelites suffered hard labour in Egypt that
Pharaoh decreed that they should not sleep at home nor have relations
with their wives. Said R.Simeon b.Halafta: What did the daughters of
Israel do? They would go down to draw water from the river. Whereupon
the Holy One Blessed be He prepared small fishes for them inside their
jars. They would cook some, sell some and buy with the proceeds wine
and go out into the fields and give their husbands to eat there. After they
had eaten they took their mirrors and looked into them together with their
husbands. She said: I am more comely than you. He said: I am more
comely than you. In the course of this (tctc-a-tctc), their sexual desire was
aroused and they became fruitful and multiplied, the Holy One Blessed be
He forthwith remembering them (i.e. blessed them with issue), as it is
stated: and the children of Israel were fruitful and swarmed and multiplied
and became exceedingly mighty... It is written regarding them: and the
land was filled with them...but the more they afflicted them, the more they
multiplied... Through the merit of those same mirrors which they showed
their husbands arousing their sexual desire in the midst of the hard labour,
they raised up all the hosts, as it is stated (Ex. 12): all the hosts of the lord
went out of the land of Egypt and (12, 51): the lord did bring the children of
Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.
As soon as the Holy One Blessed be He told Moses to make the

Tabernacle, all Israel came along to contribute. Some brought silver, some
gold or brass, onyx and stones to be set. They readily brought everything.
Whereupon the women said: What have we to contribute to the offering of
the tabernacle? They came along and brought the mirrors and presented
themselves to Moses. When Moses saw the mirrors he was furious with
them. He said to Israel: Take sticks and break the legs of those who
brought them. What use are such mirrors?
Said the Holy One Blessed be He to Moses: Moses! You look down on
them! It was these mirror which raised up all these hosts in Egypt! Take
them and make out of them the basin and its stand for the priests in which
they can purify themselves, as it is stated: And he made the basin and its
stand of bronze out of the mirrors that raised up hosts...-those same
mirrors which raised up all these hosts.
Rashi echoes this Midrash:
The daughters of Israel came along with the mirrors they gazed into to
adorn themselves. Even those they did not withhold from bringing as an
offering to the tabernacle. But Moses rejected them because they were
maid to satisfy the evil inclination. Whereupon the Holy One Blessed be
He said to him. Accept! For these are dearer to me than every thing else,
because through them the women raised up countless hosts in Egypt.
When their husbands were weary from the hard labour, they would go
along and bring them food and drink, give them to eat and take the
mirrors. Each one would look into the mirror together with her husband
and egg him on with wards saying: I am more comely than you . In the
course of this they would arouse their husbands` desire and copulate,
becoming pregnant and giving birth there, as it is stated: Under the apple
tree I aroused thee (song of songs 8, 5). To this the text- Mirrors that
raised up hosts- refers, whereof the basin was made...
Grammatically the word zovòt is explained as a transitive verb in the

sense of- that raise-the hosts of Israel. Symbolically the mirrors do not
evoke the triviality and vanity of their conventional use but the survivalist,
lifegiving purpose that they served.

The same instinct or impulse which can lead man to perversions, filth and
destruction can also lead him to creativity, the building of a house and the
continuity of the nation. Our Sages referred to this idea when they
interpreted the double syllable word used for heart (le-vav) instead of the
single syllable word (lev) in the text- Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart (levakha), to mean- with the two hearts- or impulses:- with
the good impulse and the evil impulse...

1. Note how Rashi adapts his Midrashic source. What does he omit,
abbreviate, change or elaborate on? What is the general aim
underlying his editing?
2. See Ex. 30, 17-19: And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying: Thou
shalt also make a basin of bronze in which to wash; and thou shalt
put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and thou shalt put
water their feet in it... Our commentators ask: Why were not the
measurements of this vessel given just as they were given for the
other vessels, for the table, candlestick and altar? Try to answer this
question by referring to the verse we have studied (38, 8).

Gilyonot - Parashat VaYikra
Languages
Links
Parashat VaYikra
Iyunim - Weekly insights on the Parasha with commentaries

by Nehama Leibovitz, za"l
Jewish sources
Kehati Mishna THE RATIONALE OF THE SACRIFICES

Parashat Hashavua The sacrificial laws are like a sealed book to us: we comprehend neither
their basic meaning nor their purport of their rules and regulations. Indeed,
Hebrew Text of the their lapse since the destruction of the temple may have blunted our
Parashah feelings for the sacrifices. We shall endeavor to understand the views of
some of our Sages and commentators on the underlying meaning of the
sacrifices.
English
Let us begin with the great controversy between Maimonides and
Hebrew Nahmanides on the subject. In two passages Maimonides deals with the
meaning of the sacrifices in his Guide for the Perplexed. Thus, at length,
German in Part III, Ch. 32:
Russian
It is impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other;
Spanish the nature of man will not allow him suddenly to discontinue
everything to which he has been accustomed. Now God sent
Moses to make (the Israelites) a kingdom of priests and a
Nehama's Iyunim holy nation (Ex. 19:6) by means of the knowledge of God.
Cf.: “Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart,
Insights on the that the Lord is God” (ibid. 5:39). The Israelites were
Parasha commanded to devote themselves to His service; cf.: “and to
(Companion) serve Him with all your heart” (ibid. 11:13); “and you shall
serve the Lord your God” (Ex. 23:25); “and you shall serve
Nehama's Gilyonot Him” (Deut. 13:5). But the general mode of worship in which
the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing
animals in temples containing images, to bow down to those
Nehar Deah images, and to burn incense before them. It was in
accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in
Rega Lifney the whole creation, that He did not command us to give up
Shabbat and to discontinue all these modes of worship; for to obey
such a commandment would have been contrary to the
nature of man, who generally clings to that which he is used;
Commentary of it would in those days have made the same impression as a
Rabbi Moshe Bergman prophet would make at present if he called us to the service
(in Hebrew) of God and told us His name, that we should not pray to Him,
not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should
serve him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason
Illustrations to the God allowed these rituals to continue: He transferred to His
Weekly Parasha, by the service that which had formerly serves worship of created
Studio in Old Jaffa beings, and things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us
to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to build unto Him a
temple; cf.: “and they shall make unto Me a sanctuary” (Ex.
25:8); to have the altar erected to His name; cf.: “An altar of
earth thou shall make unto Me” (Ibid., 20:21); to offer the
sacrifices to Him; cf.: “If any man of you bring an offering unto
the Lord” (Lev. 1:2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vayikra.html (1 de 9)26/02/2008 10:50:47 a.m.

before Him. he has forbidden us to do any of these things to

any other beings.
By this Divine plan the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly
great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly
established; this aim was achieved without deterring or confusing the
minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were
accustomed and which alone was familiar to them.
Realizing the revolutionary character of his view, whereby the purpose of

the entire sacrificial service (which occupies a significant position in the
Torah) was merely designed to diminish an evil by steering it in the right
direction, Maimonides argues the question as follows:
I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you
will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose
that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are
fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have
been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other
things; as if they were only the means which He employed for His primary
end? What prevented Him from making His primary end a direct
commandment to us, and to give us the capacity of obeying it? Those
precepts which in your opinion are only the means and not the end would
then have been unnecessary. Hear my answer, which will cure your heart
of this disease and will show you the truth of that which I have pointed out
to you.
There occurs in the Law passage which contains exactly the same idea; it
is the following: “God led them not through the way of the land of the
Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the
people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but God led
the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea’, etc
(Ex. 13:17). Here God led the people about, away from the direct road
which He originally intended, because He feared they might meet on that
way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by
another road in order to achieve His original aim. In the same manner God
refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition
would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned
commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread
the knowledge of Him (among the people), and to cause them to reject
idolatry.
It is contrary to man’s nature that he should suddenly abandon all the

different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has
been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were
considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person trained to
work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things, or similar things,
should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real
giants. It was the result of god’s wisdom that the Israelites were led in the
wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a well known fact that the
rough conditions of desert travel produce tough fighters, whilst the reverse
(soft conditions) is the source of faint-heartedness; besides, another
generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to
degradation and slavery. All the traveling in the wilderness was regulated
by Divine commands through Moses; cf.: “At the commandment of the
Lord they rested, and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed”.
In the same way the sacrificial portion of the Torah was prompted by
Divine wisdom, according to which people are allowed to continue the kind
of worship to which they have been accustomed, in order that they might
acquire the true faith, which is the chief object (of God’s commandments).

Since the sacrificial service is not the primary object (of the
commandments about sacrifice), while supplications, prayers and similar
kinds of worship are nearer to the primary object, and indispensable for
obtaining it, a great difference was made in the law between these two
kinds of service. The one kind, which consists in offering sacrifices,
although the sacrifices are offered to the name of God, has not been
made obligatory for us to the same extent as it had been before. We were
not commanded to sacrifice in every place, and time, or to build a temple
in every place, or to permit any who desires to become a priest and to
sacrifice. On the contrary, all this is prohibited unto us. Only one temple
has been appointed, “in the place which the Lord shall choose” (deut.
12:26); in no other place is it allowed to sacrifice; cf.: “Take heed to
thyself, that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou
see” (ibid. 12:13); and only the members of a particular family were
allowed to officiate as priests. All these restrictions served to limit this kind
of worship, and keep it within those bounds within which God did not think
it necessary to abolish sacrificial service altogether. But prayer and
supplication can be offered everywhere and by every person. The same is
the case with the commandment of tzitzit (Num. 15:38); mezuzah (Deut.
6:9; 11:20); tefillin (Ex. 13:9, 16); and similar kinds of Divine service.
Accordingly, the Prophets frequently reprove their fellow-men for being

over-zealous and exerting themselves too much in bringing sacrifices; the
prophets thereby proclaimed that sacrifices were not essential, and God
does not require them. Samuel therefore said, "“has the Lord as great
delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the
Lord” (1 Sam. 15:22)? Isaiah exclaimed, “To what purpose is the multitude
of your sacrifice unto me? said the Lord” (Isa. 1:11).
Maimondes finds support for his view in the Torah. Indeed, the Torah
states explicitly that all animals slaughtered for food must be brought to
the Tent of Meeting to be offered up as sacrifices: “ To the end that the
Children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open
field, that they may bring them to the Lord to the door of the Tent of
Meeting, to the priest…. And they shall no more their sacrifices to the
demons, after whom they have gone astray”
(Lev. 17:5-7). He sees further support for his view in the severely
restrictive rules which determine the place, time and person who may
perform the sacrificial ritual; it is performed only in the Sanctuary and only
by a priest, the descendant of a particular lineage. Evidently, the offering
up of a sacrifice must not be an impetuous act spawned by a momentary
elation and liable to degenerate into idol worship.
However, not satisfied with this explanation, Maimondes proceeds to

explain certain details of the sacrificial service. In his Guide for the
Perplexed (Part 111, Ch. 46) he states:
……that the Egyptians worshipped Aries, and therefore

abstained from killing sheep, and held shepherds in
contempt. Cf. “behold we shall sacrifice the abomination of
the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone
us?” (Ex. 8:22) and “for every shepherd is an abomination to
the Egyptians” (Gen. 46:34)….Most idolaters objected to
killing cattle, holding this species of animal in great
estimation. Therefore the people of Hodu (India) up to this
day do not slaughter cattle even in those countries where
other animals are slaughtered. In order to eradicate these
false principles, the Torah commands us to offer sacrifices of
only three kinds: “You shall bring your offering of the cattle,
the herd and of the flock” (Lev. 1:2). Thus the very act which
is considered by the heathen as the greatest crime, is the

means of approaching God, and obtaining His pardon for our

sins. In this manner, evil principles, diseases of the human
soul, are cured by other principles, which are diametrically
opposed.
The sacrifices should thus keep us away from idol worship and blot it out
of our memory, following Maimondes’ general view that the purpose of the
Torah and its Laws is to achieve man’s total dedication to serve the Lord,
and only the Lord, which requires an absolute rejection of idolatry and its
aberrations, since “the whole aim of the Torah is to eradicate those ideas
from our hearts.”
In his work on the rationale of the mitzvot, Professor Yitzchak Heinemann

affirms that Maimondes has been misunderstood by many who accorded
him the odd distinction of being the forerunner of the repudiators of all
“ceremonial” commandments. Accordingly, the sacrificial service marked a
deficient religious perception which would be abolished eventually with the
progress and refinement (!) of the human race, whereas Maimonides
explicitly accepts it as constituting a Service to God – albeit in an indirect
form.
The following passage from Hilkhot Me’ila 8:8 clears up any

misconception:
It is fitting for man to meditate upon the laws of the holy

Torah and to comprehend their full meaning to the extent of
his ability. Nevertheless, a law for which he finds no reason
and understands no cause should not be trivial in his eyes.
Let him not “break through to rise up against the Lord lest the
Lord break forth upon him” (Ex. 19:24); nor should his
thoughts concerning these things be like his thoughts
concerning profane matters. Come and consider how strict
the Torah was in the law of trespass! Now if sticks and
stones and earth and ashes become hallowed by words
alone as soon as the name of the Master of the Universe was
invoked upon them, and anyone who comported with them as
with a profane thing committed trespass and required
atonement even if he acted unwillingly, how much more
should man be on guard not to rebel against a
commandment decreed for us by the Holy One, blessed be
He, only because he does not understand its reason; or to
heap words that are not right against the Lord; or to regard
the commandments in the manner he regards ordinary
affairs.
Behold it is said in Scripture: “You shall therefore keep all My

statutes, and all Mine ordinances, and do them” (Lev. 20:22);
whereupon our sages have commented that “keeping” and
“doing” refer to the “statutes” as well as to the “ordinances”.
“Doing” is well known; namely, to perform the statutes. And
“keeping” means that one should be careful concerning them
and not imagine that they are less important than the
ordinances. Now the “ordinances” are commandments whose
reason is obvious, and the benefit derived from doing them in
this world is well known; for example, the prohibition against
robbery and murder, or the commandment of honoring one’s
father and mother. The “statutes”, on the other hand, are
commandments whose reason is not known. Our sages have
said: My statutes are the decrees that I have decreed for you,
and you are not permitted to question them. A man’s impulse
pricks him concerning them and the Gentiles reprove us
about them, such as the statutes concerning the prohibition

against the flesh of the pig and that against meat seethed
with milk, the law of the heifer whose neck is broken, the red
heifer, or the scapegoat.
How much was King David distressed by heretics and

pagans who disputed the statutes? Yet the more they
pursued him with false questions, which they plied according
to the narrowness of man’s mind, the more he increased his
cleaving to the Torah; as it is said: “The proud have forged a
lie against me; but I with my whole heart will keep Your
precepts” (Ps. 119:69). It is also said there concerning this:
“all Your commandments are faithful; they persecute me
falsely, help You me” (ibid. 119:86).-
All the laws (concerning the) offerings are in the category of

statutes. The sages have said that the world stands because
of the service of the offerings; for through the performance of
the statutes and the ordinances the righteous merit life in the
world to come. Indeed, the Torah puts the commandments
concerning the statutes first; as it is said: “You shall therefore
keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances which if a man do, he
shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5)
(Tr. from A Maimonides Reader by I. Twersky)
The views expressed by Maimonides in his Guide, denying the intrinsic

value of the sacrificial service which was a mere concession leading
indirectly to the desired goal found many opponents. In his commentary
on Lev. 1:9 Nahmanides takes issue with Maimonides, after citing 3:46 of
the Guide (not his detailed exposition in 3:32 cited above):
His statements are preposterous. They “heal the great hurt superficially”*
(i.e. provide a shallow answer to a difficult problem), and render “ the table
of the Lord disgusting” by limiting its use to placate the wicked and the
foolish. But the Torah states that they (the sacrifices) are “food of the
offering made by fire for a sweet savor” (and thus have an intrinsic value
and not the mere polemical role of abolishing distorted conceptions).
Furthermore, this will not cure the perverse Egyptian concept but will
rather enhance it. The wicked Egyptians worshipped Aries and Taurus
(ram and bull) because they ascribed to these animals special powers,
and therefore did not eat them. Now if they are offered up as sacrifices to
God, this would bestow the highest honor and distinction, and this is what
they actually do…. In order to counteract that distorted idea it would be
more proper to eat to one’s delight the very animals they consider
forbidden and abominable (i.e. neither offer them up on the altar nor
sprinkle their blood on it, but merely consume the animals holy to them,
denying their sacredness and divine power).
Nahmanides further argues that if the sacrifices were confined to the war
against idolatry, then the earliest sacrifices ought to have arisen after the
advent of idolatry. However, this is contradicted by the Torah thus:
Behold, when Noah and his three sons came out of the ark—
there were no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world—he
offered up sacrifices which pleased God as the Torah states
“And the Lord smelled the sweet savor” (Gen. 8:21), and as a
result He said in his heart, “I will not again curse the ground
any more for man’s sake”. Similarly: “And Hevel, he also
brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat parts thereof.
And the Lord had respect to Hevel and to his offerings” (Gen.
4:4), although at that time there was no trace of idolatry in the
world…Moreover, the sacrifices are described as: “My

sacrifice, my bread for my offering made by fire, for a sweet

savor to me” (Num. 28:2). It is unthinkable that they lack any
benefit or purpose other than the elimination of idolatry from
its foolish followers.
Nahmanides then propounds an alternative explanation which, as we shall

see presently, does not reveal the depths of his mind:
A more acceptable rationale is the one set out as follows: Seeing that
human conduct is expressed in thought, speech and action, God instituted
that a person who has committed a transgression and offers a sacrifice,
shall place his hands on it—symbolizing the deed, make a confession—as
a reminder of the misused power of speech, and burn with fire the bowels
and kidneys—which are the organs of thought and lust, and the legs—
symbol of the human hands and feet, instruments which serve man in all
his activities. And the blood shall be sprinkled on the altar—representing
his life-blood. All this should make him realize that having sinned against
God with his body and soul, he would deserve to have his blood spilled
and his body burned. However, God in his infinite mercy, accepts this
substitute for an atonement, and its blood in lieu of his, its main organs in
place of his, the portions (of the sacrifice eaten by the priests) so as to
sustain the teachers of the Torah that they may pray for him. Accordingly,
the daily sacrifice is offered up because of the masses who are constantly
caught up in the web of sin. This explanation is plausible and appeals to
the mind even as the expositions of the Aggada. However, in the context
of (mystical) truth, the sacrifices contain hidden mysteries…
The words “a more acceptable rationale” imply that this view is merely
preferred to that of Maimonides, while the real explanation is contained in
the mystical teachings of the Kabbala. This, however lies beyond our
present scope.
But how can the scriptural reference to “a sweet savor” be reconciled with
the Psalmist’s exclamation: “for You desire not sacrifice, or else I would
give it, You delight not in burnt offering” (51:18) or: “You do not desire
sacrifice or meal offering, You have dug open my ears, burnt offering and
sin offering You have not required” (40:7). On the other hand we read:
“then will You be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt
offering and whole burnt offering…”(51:21).
In Tractate Menahot 110a, our sages state:
Do not think that He needs the food, for it is written: “If I were
hungry, I would not tell you, for the world is Mine and the
fullness thereof” (Ps. 50:12), and “For every beast of the
forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all
the birds of the mountain, and the wild beasts of the field are
mine” (ibid. 10-11). I did not tell you to offer sacrifices so that
you may say: I shall comply with His wishes so that He may
fulfil mine (Rashi explains: I shall do God’s will, to offer him a
sacrifice, for He needs it; I shall bribe Him And He will fulfill
my wishes). It is not for my gratification that you offer the
sacrifices (Rashi: It is not my purpose to impose upon you
the offering of sacrifices), as it is written: “you shall offer it
that you may be accepted” (li’retzonhem—“by your will” i.e.,
for your need—(tr.) (Rashi: To satisfy your needs, i.e., to fulfill
My commandments, that you may gain atonement).
The view offered by the Sefer HaHinikh (see Portion Bo) on the role of the
practical mitzvot also explains the obligation to offer sacrifices as rooted in
human nature and psychological make-up. According to Maimonides,
neither biblical. Nor modern man can worship God “in thought only,

without practice.” This idea is propounded also by the Sefer HaHinukh,

portion Terumah – Commandment 95, concerning the Building of the
Temple) in his commentary on the sin offering:
As already stated, the mind is influenced mainly by deeds. It is therefore

not enough for the sinner to cleanse his mind and commit himself to avoid
further sinning with mere words. For this purpose a significant act must be
performed, i.e., the sinner must take a he-goat from the sheep-pen and
strive to reach the Kohen at the Temple where the ritual of sin-offering will
be carried out fully as specified in the Torah. This weighty act will impress
upon the sinner’s mind the gravity of his transgression so as to avoid it in
the future.

1 . In his Sefer haZikaron, Ritba; reacting to Nahmanides’ comment (after
quoting Maimonides’ Guide, 3:46), writes:
Our Master (Nahmanides) of blessed memory, rejects the

explanation of the sacrifices offered in the Guide for the
Perplexed. We need not here repeat his words. It is my
opinion that the genuine (kabbalistic) tradition concerning the
sacrifices and Maimonides’ apparently feeble rationale
caused the Master (Nahmonides) to criticize him
(Maimonides) for the sake of the sanctity of the Torah and
God’s holy Name, in the context of the sacrifices. However,
Maimonides chose his name and many other explanations of
the commandments in order to provide them with some
meaning and to furnish the masses with some rationale
arguments against heretics, rather than believing these to be
the principal reasons…
With all due respect to our great Master (Nahmanides) and

his divinely inspired words, his zeal confused him and
prevented him from examining thoroughly Maimonides’
statement. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that
Maimonides’ explanations contain some elements which do
not accord with those of the kabbalists or other scholars.
However, there is neither error nor contradiction in the
method he follows, for his carefully presented arguments are
full of wisdom and logic.
Let me humbly point out views which Nahmanides wrongly

attributes to Maimonides, thus employing arguments which
are irrelevant to Maimonides’ method of interpretation—and
may the Almighty lead us onto the path of truth.
Our Master, whose pardon I beg, writes that “this is his

(Maimonides’) lengthy exposition.” However, it appears that
at the length of his exposition did not facilitate its
comprehension, for our Master (Nahmanides) apparently
concluded that in Maimonides’ view the sacrifices were
instituted to repudiate the views of the wicked and the foolish,
i.e. the Egyptians and Chaldeans. I, however, with my limited
intellect, do not glean this from his words. Maimonides’
general view of the sacrifices is set out in Part 3, chapter 32
of his work, and which the following is an excerpt (quoting
from “now God sent” until “and not by action” as cited at the
beginning of our introduction).
This clearly demonstrates that according to Maimonides the

sacrifices were meant to eliminate the erroneous conception

from the minds of our own people, who had also succumbed
to idol worship. Unfortunately, our ancestors did not cleanse
themselves of that abomination, even after having become a
Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation. Thus, Moses
declared: “for I know that after my death you will surely
become corrupted” (deut. 31:29). This is how they acted
throughout many generations until they brought upon
themselves the dispersion. All this is common knowledge.
Maimonides’ comment quoted by Nahmonides indeed

appeared in the Guide 3:46, but it refers to the specific
animals the Torah declares fit for the altar, and not to the
rationale of the sacrifices as such dealt with in chapter 32,
which I have quoted. As for the animals fit for sacrifice, i.e.,
why oxen, sheep and goats have been singled out from
among all other animals, this is treated at the beginning of
the said chapter (46): “The precepts of the eleventh class are
enumerated in the Section on Divine Service (Sefer Avodah)
and the Section on Sacrifices (Sefer haKorbanot) of
Maimonides’ Codex (Hayad haHazakah). We have described
their distinction in general terms. I will know offer reasons for
each precept separately, as I understand them”.
It is clear from the above text that Maimonides’ general and

substantive explanation of the sacrifices is not in ch. 46 but
rather in ch. 32. It is astonishing that our master overlooked
it. This oversight must have been due to his zealous Torah
champion ship, as I have already mentioned.
(Ritba offers additional arguments in favor of Maimonides.)
1. Explain wherein, Ritba’s view, lay Nahmanides’ misunderstanding

of Maimonides.
2. How can we prove that Nahmanides bases his criticism on part 3,
chapter 46 of the Guide and completely ignores chapter 32?
3. e . Which two factors account for Nahamnides’ radical and
unjustified criticism, according to Ritba?
1 . “You do not desire sacrifice or meal-offering, You have dug open my

ears, burnt-offering and sin-offering You have not required” (Ps. 40:7).
Radak comments:
Zevah, ‘sacrifice’, refers to the peace offering while minhah,

‘meal offering,’ denotes fine flour mingled with oil (see Lev.
3:1 and 2:1-16). The ‘burnt-offering’ atones for sins by
omission (nonobservance of positive commandments). Hatat
(sin) signifies the sin offering (see Lev. 4:24). The above
verse declares, “you do not desire…You have not required.”
Similarly Jeremiah says: “for I did not speak to you fathers,
nor command them in the day that I brought them out of the
land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices” (7:22).
Yet the Torah commands us (Numbers 28) to offer up a burnt
offering daily! The answer to this question is that at first God
only commanded the children of Israel to hearken to His
voice, as He said in Mara, “If you will diligently hearken to the
voice of the lord your God, and will do that which is right in
his sight…” (Ex. 15:26).
It was only when they began to sin that God commanded

them to offer up sacrifices—private offerings by those who
had transgressed, and daily congregational sacrifices, for

there are always sinners who do not know the rites of

atonement, and this is effected by congregational sacrifices if
the sinner repents. If Israel had not sinned in the desert, God
would not have given us the laws of sacrifices, for at first He
commanded them, saying, ‘Obey my voice’” (7:23). Also
there is no mention of the sacrifices in the Ten
Commandments, which incorporate the whole Torah. Those
who do not sin do not require sacrifices, and are preferred by
God to those who sin and atone for it with sacrifices. Thus
Samuel states: “Has the lord as great delight in burnt
offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold to obey is better than sacrifice.” (Sam. I, 15:22). The
Psalm quoted contains the same idea: “you do not desire
sacrifice or meal offering…burnt offering and sin offering you
have not required. You have dug open my ears,” i.e., open
them that I may obey your voice.
1. Does Radak tend to agree with Maimonides concerning the

meaning of the sacrifices or does he differ?
2. On what does Radak base his view that the sacrifices were
instituted only after Israel “began to sin,” seeing that the daily
sacrifice is mentioned in Tetzave (which precedes Ki Tisa in which
the sin of the Golden calf is related)?
3. Both Maimonides (see above) and Radak adduce Samuel’s
admonition “Has the Lord as great a delight…” What does each
endeavor to prove by it?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Tzav
Languages
Links
Parashat Tzav

Kehati Mishna Tzav

Parashat Hashavua Let them praise the Lord for his steadfast love and for his wonderful works
to the children of men
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
Whereas our studies in Parashat Vayikra dealt with the general meaning
of the sacrifices, the present chapter will focus on “ the sacrifice of peace
offering” (zevah shelamim), mentioned both in vayikra and in Tzav(7:11-
English
16).
Hebrew
The meaning of this term has been the subject of varied interpretations.
German
Our sages in sifra156 (lev. 3:1) express different views. We shall cite
Russian some of them:
Spanish
Rabbi Yehuda said: Whoever brings Shelamimbrings shalompeace into
the world. Another explanation: It harbors “peace” for all parties; the blood
Nehama's Iyunim and inward parts—for the altar, the breast and shoulder—for the priests,
the skin and meat—for the owners. R. Naphtali Herz Weisel elaborates on
Insights on the this theme in his Biur:
Parasha
(Companion) It is, as our Rabbis maintained, an expression of peace…Plural in form, it
should read shelomim, as in Psalm 69; 23: “Let their table before them
Nehama's Gilyonot become a snare, and when they are in peace (shelomim) let it become a
trap…” The current form (shelamim) serves to designate the sacrifice.
Language searches for different forms in which to express different
Nehar Deah nuances. Semantically, however, it corresponds to shalom…and
shelamim. In the singular, shalomexpresses prosperity and well-being (cf.
Rega Lifney Gen. 37:14 and 43:27). Troubles afflict the soul and once the soul is
Shabbat delivered from trouble and suffering, it is at peace. The peace offering
reflects an abundance of joy, of gratitude to God for one’s well-being or for
deliverance from trouble. By thanking God for his goodness, he brings on
Commentary of himself Divine grace that ensures his welfare. Not so the godless who say
Rabbi Moshe Bergman “The might of my own has gotten me this wealth” (Deut. 8:17), or: “It was a
(in Hebrew) chance that happened top us” (I Sam. 6:9). They will be tossed about like
the sea… there is no peace for the wicked, says the Lord” (Is. 57:20-21).
Illustrations to the But this explanation does not cover the case related in Judges, in the war
Weekly Parasha, by the of the tribes with Benjamin:
Studio in Old Jaffa
Then all the children of Israel, and all the people went up, and came unto
Bet-El, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until
even; and they offered burnt-offerings before the Lord. (Judges 20:26)
In the light of this, Hoffman, though eventually accepting Weisel’s view,

not the following:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/tzav.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:51:36 a.m.

However, the most plausible of all is the view of our Sages that
shelamimshares its roots with shalom, peace, or shalem, perfect. This
may reflect the contentment of the worshipper who recognizes that this is
the result of his cleaving to God, and acknowledges this through the
peace-offering. Or it may betoken a search for perfection and deliverance
of one suffering from despair and longing for Divine succour to keep him
intact. This he expresses through the shelamim, whereby he declares that
his own peace and well-being are inextricably bound up with cleaving to
God.
If we accept the theory of the common root of shelamimand shalom, the

connotation would be, as Rashi and others explain, shelamim, an offering
that brings peace to the altar, the priests and the offerer. Thus the name
would be particularly apt and meaningful, for the shelamim-offering
constitutes a meal shared by the altar, the priests and the offerer. This is
truly a repast of peace—a peace offering which reflects the harmony
between the offerer, the Lord and his servants.
There are three kinds of peace-offerings: todah—thanksgiving; neder—

vow; and nedavah—freewill and offering. The Torah begins with the todah:
7:11 And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings…
7:12 If he shall offer it as thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice
of the thanksgiving unleavened cakes…
We not that todah (Thanksgiving) appears twice in the verse, evidently in

two different meanings. Since the offering is called sacrifice of
thanksgiving (zevah todah), we must conclude that in the first part of the
verse todah (thanksgiving) signifies no more than a sense of gratitude.
Our Sages, basing themselves on Psalm 107, ruled:
Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav. On e has to render thanks in the
following four instances for it is written: “: After a sea voyage, after
crossing the desert, after an illness and on emerging from prison.
(Berakhot 54b).
After a sea voyage, for it is written: “They that go down to the sea in
ships…these saw the works of the Lord…raised the stormy wind-…they
mount up to the sky, they go down again to the depths…they cry to the
Lord in their trouble. And He brings them out in their distresses…then they
are glad because they are quiet…Let them praise the Lord for His
steadfast love, and for his wonderful works to the children of men (Ps.
107: 23-31).
After crossing the desert, for it is written: “They wandered in the

wilderness…hungry and thirsty…Then they cried to the Lord…He led
them forth by the right way….. let them praise the Lord for His steadfast
love…..” (ibid.,4 – 8).
After an illness, for it is written: The foolish were afflicted on account of

their sinful way… their soul abhorred all manner of food… then they cried
to the Lord…. He sends His word, and heals them …let them praise the
Lord for His steadfast ….” (ibid.,17 – 21).
On emerging from prison, for it is written: “ Such as sat in darkness and in

the shadow of death… because they had rebelled against the words of
God…. He brought down their hearts with labor ……..Then they cried to
the Lord …. He brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death…..
Let them praise the Lord for His steadfast love…..” (ibid., 17 – 21).

Rashi summarizes the above as follows:
“ If he shall offer it as thanksgiving”: If he offers it for an experience that

calls for thanksgiving, any miraculous deliverance granted him, such as
returning from a sea voyage, a desert journey, coming out of prison or
recovering from an illness, for all of which thanks are due, as it is written,
“Let them praise the Lord for His steadfast love, and for His wonderful
works to the children of men, and let them sacrifice the sacrifices of
thanksgiving” (Ps. 107:21 – 22) – if he vowed to offer a sacrifice for one of
these, they are peace-offerings of thanksgiving, with which bread must be
brought and which must be consumed within one day and one night.
It is noteworthy that neither the Gemara nor Rashi employ the standard
halakhic term hayav (bound) but tzerikhin (need to). R. Josiah b. Joseph
Pinto (called Rif, in his commentary on Ein Yaakov), offers the following
explanation: It is no mere Torah obligation; rather those delivered must
feel an inner urge to thank the Lord for His gracious love.
Anyone belonging to the four categories mentioned in Psalm 107 must

bring a thanksgiving offering and recite the Hagomel (He Who does
good…) blessing, corresponding to the four times that the verse, : “Let
them praise the Lord appears in this chapter.
However, the Rabbis have ruled that those emerging from any danger
must recite the Hagomelblessing. The recognition of unfailing Divine grace
ought to mark the attitude of all creatures towards the Creator.
At the end of Parashat Bo, Rambam dwells on the importance of

remembering and recounting the Exodus from Egypt. He stresses that by
remembering the miracle of the Exodus, we bear witness “that there is a
Creator Who is omniscient, providential and omnipotent … and the great
miracles testify to the truth of God’s existence and of the Torah as a
whole. “Thus our gratitude to the Creator constitutes the goal of human
existence:
All the mitzvotare designed to foster our faith in God and our
acknowledgement of Him as our Creator – this, indeed, is the object of the
creation. Thus, the purpose of raising our voices in prayer, the
establishment of synagogues, and the merit of communal worship, is to
provide a place where people congregate to thank the Lord Who created
them and brought them into existence, and to proclaim publicly: We are
your creatures!
To be sure, out thanksgiving is not confined to miraculous deliverance and

extraordinary circumstances that mandate the Hagomel blessing.
Rendering thanks to the Creator is a daily duty as pointed out by the
Ramban:
Proceeding fthe perception of the great and manifest miracles, man

acknowledges the less apparent implicit wonders; this acknowledgement
is a fundamental Torah concept. Faith in Torat Moshe is unthinkable
without our recognition that all happens to us individually or collectively is
miraculous, rather than being the function of nature and the mechanism of
the world.
We can now understand the Midrashic reference to the end of times:
All offerings will be abolished, except the thanksgiving –offering (Vayikra

Rabba 9,2).

1. “If he shall offer it as a thanksgiving” (7:12).
Haketav veHakaballah comments:
According to S.D. Luzatto, the expression hoda’ah, gratitude,” in Rabbinic

parlance contains also an element of “submission,” as in the biblical use of
the term. The root of hoda’ah is yado, cognate with hand (yad). In Hebrew,
“to give the hand to” means submission, as in “We have given the land of
Egypt” (Lam. 5:6). The submissive element in “thanks” signifies the
acceptance and recognition of the Master’s authority, though not out of
fear or expectation. (This is the key to King Solomon’s prayer: “when Your
people Israel are smitten down before the enemy…and shall return again
to You, and hoduYour Name”; “hodu” translated “confess” signifies humble
submission, the prerequisite for teshuva– penitent return to God…)
Th thanksgiving-offering signifies submission to God’s will. Accordingly

Assaf, after stating that God spurns burnt-offerings and sacrifices, “For
every beast of the forest is Mine,” yet counsels, “offer to God thanksgiving,
and pay your vows to the Most High” (ps. 50:8-14). While God does not
desire burnt-offerings and sacrifices, which are offered up as holocausts to
gratify God who does not need our gifts – He does desire the peace
offerings, which are consumed by the owners, and which fall into two
categories:
● as a thanksgivingto mark our submission to His will for all the kindness
He has shown us in the past;
● vows and freewill offering expressing the supplications of the heart

concerning the future. “And call upon Me in the day of trouble”
corresponds to the vows and freewill offerings, and, “I shall deliver you,
and you shall glorify Me” to the thanksgiving offering (ibid., 15.)
Explain whether haKetav veHakabbalah’s rendering of Psalm 50:14

follows the plain sense of the verse.
1. Compare Rashi’s comment on verse 12: “if he shall offer it as a

thanksgiving”, cited above, with Psalm 107. Note the different order
of the four instances of the hagomelblessing in the Psalm and in
Rashi:
Psalm 107 Rashi Vayikra 7:12 Desert travelers Sea voyagers Released
prisoners Desert travelers After recovery from illness Released prisoners
Sea voyagers After recovery from illness (lit., ‘he who recovered etc.’)
1. Can you account for the change of order in Rashi?
2. Why are the first three in the plural and the last one in the singular
in Rashi?
1. Further to Rashi’s comment on v. 12—“if he shall offer it as a

thanksgiving”:
Why does Rashi find it necessary to say: “If he offers it as

thanksgiving for any miracle that happened to him”, before

enumerating the instances? (cf. Rashion Psalm 100:1)
2. “Do good in Your favor to Zion, build the walls of Jerusalem. Then
shall You be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt-
offering and whole burnt-offering: (Ps. 51:20-21).
Ibn Ezra comments:
“Sacrifices of righteousness” refer to the peace-offerings; “burnt offerings”

refer to the daily and additional (musaf) sacrifices.
Why are the sin-and guilt-offerings not mentioned in this verse?
5. “If he shall offer it as thanksgiving (al todah), then he shall offer with the
sacrifice of thanksgiving (al zevah hatodah) unleavened cakes…” (7:12).
Explain the difference, if any, between the two uses of al.

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Shemini
Languages
Links
Parashat Shemini

Kehati Mishna By those who Are Near unto me Will Be Sanctified

Parashat Hashavua The great tragedy occurred at the supreme festive moment, before the
eyes of all Israel and Aaron, the bereaved father, Moses explains:
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
And Moses said to Aaron:
This is that which the Lord spoke, saying:

English
Hebrew By those that are near unto Me will I be sanctified, and before all the
people I will be glorified. And Aaron was silent.
German
Russian Two questions arise. First, we do not find in the Torah that God had thus
spoken to Moses: “ moreover, what is the message of this enigmatic
Spanish
statement, and how was it to comfort a bereaved father?
Nehama's Iyunim
Rashi answers both questions:
Insights on the “ That is which the Lord spoke: Where had He spoken thus? In the verse
Parasha “And there I will meet with the children of Israel and it (the Sanctuary) shall
(Companion) be sanctified by My glory” (Ex. 29:43)—read not “by My glory” but “through
My honored ones.”
Nehama's Gilyonot
Moses said to Aaron: Aaron, my brother, I knew that this house would be
sanctified by those who are cherished by God, and I thought it would be
Nehar Deah either through me or through you. Now I see that these (two sons) are
greater than I and you.”
Rega Lifney
Shabbat Following the method of the Midrash, Rashi answers our first question by
citing a verse containing a similar idea.
Commentary of Ibn Ezra comments here as in other instances:

Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) “This is that which the Lord spoke”: God has already informed me that he
would reveal His glory through those that are near unto Him.
Illustrations to the We need not ask where this was said, for many Biblical dialogues remain
Weekly Parasha, by the unrecorded. Thus it is futile to search for the source of “This ... the Lord
Studio in Old Jaffa spoke.” This is also Nachmanides’ view in 9:2 and elsewhere.
“And he said to Aaron, Take thee a young calf” (9:2). Moses had been
instructed concerning these offerings, as stated later (v.6), “this is the
thing which the Lord commanded you to do,” though this is not mentioned
in the Torah. Similar instances are: “This is the thing which the Lord
commands: fill an omer of it to be kept (Ex. 16:32) and “I am the God of
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/shemini.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:52:23 a.m.

Bet-El…” (Gen. 31:13, which is reported by Jacob though not written in the
Torah. I have also pointed out several instances of this in the passage
dealing with the Pesah laws (cf. Ex. 10:2 and 11:1).
Here, however, Nahmanides differs, challenging both Rashi and Ibn Ezra,
“ That is which the Lord spoke”: Where had He spoken thus?” He

proceeds to quote Rashi with the following variation “Now I see that these
are holier than I and you” and concludes: “thus Rashi, base on the
Midrash."
Accordingly means that it (the Sanctuary) will be sanctified in the sight of

all the people through those who glorify Me, and they will know that I dwell
in it. Ibn Ezra likewise says: " This is that which the Lord spoke: i.e. in the
past, when God informed me that He would reveal His glory through those
that are near unto Him… According to Ibn Ezra this statement was not
recorded on the Torah; God explained to Moses His ways, that such is the
principle involved. But I think it is uncalled for in the plain sense. Indeed,
God’s decrees, thoughts and ways are all termed davar (i.e. word or
thing). As in "I spoke, dibarti, to my own heart” (Ecc. 1:16), which means “I
thought” or “This is - the reason why Joshua circumsized,” (jos. 5:4) or
“Because of -- -- the money that was returned in our sacks” (Gen. 43:18);
“And let her be your master’s son’s wife as the Lord -- has spoken” (Gen.
24:51), i.e. Decreed; or “…. He laid its foundation with Aviram, and set up
its gates with his youngest son, Seguv -- according to the word of the
Lord, which He spoke to Joshua, the son of Nun" (1 Kings 16:34).
Accordingly, Moses said: this has happened because God reached the
decision that "By those who are near unto Me will I be sanctified,” i.e. they
may not break into My sanctity, " and before all the people I will be
glorified,” i.e. they must respect My Sanctuary.
The example from Gen, 24 is most telling: there Rashi, too, does not ask.
"where did He say so?" R. Yitzchak Arama, author of Akedat Yitzchak
(Section 59) comments similarly:
It is, as we explained, the tragic event itself that constitutes the Divine
dibur, whereby He addresses His people and His devout followers .
Let us now analyze the meaning of "that which the Lord spoke," its
immediate as well as its historical relevance.
Yalkut Shimoni offers an illuminating explanation of, “By those who are
near unto Me will I be sanctified”:
“Our God comes, and does not keep silence; a fire devours before Him,
and it is very `tempestuous round about Him” (Ps. 50:3). A human ruler is
feared more by his distant subject than by those close to him. It is not so
with God, for those close to Him are more awe-stricken than those far
removed, as it is stated: “By those who are near unto Me will I be
sanctified.”
N.H Weisel elaborates in his Biur:
In my opinion Moses assured Aaron not to harbor the dreadful thought

that God has punished his sons with His consuming fire because they had
sinned covertly. On the contrary, they were holy men, close to God, whose
downfall was a result of their greatness, for it is God’s way to be sanctified
through those near unto Him…God dealt with them sternly for an offence
prompted by the love of and yearning for God. Thus, they exemplified the
lesson that God is holy and beyond the notions of man. Men tend to spare

and favor those near and dear to them, but God pursues the opposite
course.
Evidently, a superior status rather than diminishing a person’s liability,

imposes additional obligations. Similarly, Moses’ exclusion form the
Promised Land, for an apparently minor offence, was the result of his
superior standing. The Biur dwells on this point:
A similar fate befell Moses and Aaron who for solitary failing at the waters
of Meriva, were punished with death…There the Torah also states, “And
he was sanctified by them.” There is an analogy here, seeing that Nadav
and Avihu were anointed priests, who strove to sanctify themselves and to
master the order of the service, yet they died even before concluding their
first assignment. Thus also Moses spared no effort to lead the Israelites
into the Promised Land, but died just as they were about to enter it.
The prophets apply this concept of superior responsibility on a national

scale and not only to the chosen few.
Amos 3:2
You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will
punish you for all your iniquities.
Your very election as partners in God’s covenant, as the sole transmitters

of the religious ideal, has yielded the privilege of "therefore I will punish
you for all your iniquities.” This is in contrast to the misconception of
Amos’ contemporaries and that of later generations as well, who thought
to base their claim to a privileged position on Divine election. “And before
all the people I will be glorified” according to Rashi, is the lesson taught by
the severe punishment meted out to the great and honored—“those near
unto Me.”:
“And before all the people I will be glorified”: When God judges the pious
He is venerated, exalted and extolled. IF these are treated thus (people
will say) how much more the wicked. This is the meaning of “O God, You
are feared out of Your holy places” (Ps. 68:36): read not out of your
Sanctuary but of your sanctified ones.
R. Yizhak Arama elaborates:
Blessed be the true and just Judge whose laws and decrees arouse fear
and trembling. Seeing that He favors not His sanctified ones, what can be
the prospects of us ordinary people? Such was Moses’ message to Aaron
when he declared: “this is that which the Lord spoke, saying: By those that
are near unto Me will I be sanctified, and before all the people I will be
glorified.
1. Rashi here twice resorts to al tikre – whereby the reading of a

particular word is changed. In Shnei Luhot haBrit (Shlah) we find
the following explanation of this exegetic device:
We find al tikre several times in the Ta. I have learned from my

teachers that this method is applied whenever a grave textual
problem calls for a different reading of a word, than that in the
verse: “ And all your children shall be taught of the Lord, and great
shall be the peace of your children:--do not read (al tikre) banayikh
(your children) but bonayikh (your builders) …here the second “your

children “ is superfluous, since great shall be “their peace” would

have sufficed. A further example is: “that keeps the Sabbath and
does not profane it (meyhaleloi)”—read not meyhalelo, but mahul lo
he is forgiven (i.e., for other trespasses). This change was induced
by the Shabbat being feminine, this verb should read mehalelah…In
some cases, however, al tikre does not deal with a problematic text
but merely serves as a mnemotechnic device for preserving a
lesson.
What textual problems prompt the al tikre in the verses under

consideration?
2. “ And Aaron was silent” (10:3).
Abarvanel:
Vayidom Aharon – his heart turned to lifeless stone (domem –mineral),

and he did not weep and mourn like a bereaved father, nor did he accept
Moses’ consolation for his soul and left him and he was speechless.
R. Eliezer Lipman Lichtenstein – Shem Olam:
Scripture chose vayidom rather than vayishtok, (synonyms of silence).

The latter signifies the abstention from speaking, weeping, moaning or any
other outward manifestation as “They reel to and fro, and stagger like a
drunken man” (Ps. 107:27), followed by, “then are they glad because
vayishtoku -- they are quiet” (ibid., 30). The verb domem however,
connotes inner peace and calm…Accordingly Scripture describes the
saintly Aaron as vayidom and not merely as vayishtok, thus emphasizing
that his heart and soul were at peace within, that rather than questioning
the standards of God, he justified the Divine verdict.
1. Point out the difference between the two explanations.
2. Which view follows the plain meaning and context?
3. Which view is supported by Ps. 37:7 and Lament, 3: 28?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Tazria
Languages
Links
Parashat Tazria

Kehati Mishna And on the Eighth Day… Shall be Circumcised

Parashat Hashavua Maimonides, Sefer haMitzvot (Precept 215):
Hebrew Text of the
The Torah commands us to circumcise our sons, as the Lord
Parashah
said to Abraham: “every manchild along you shall be
circumcised” (Gen. 17:10). The Torah states that those who
transgress this commandment incur the punishment of karet.
English
Hebrew The Sefer haHinukh records this mitzvah in Parashat Lekh Lekha, and not
here in Tazria, adding that this commandment was not confined to
German Abraham, but rather “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between
Me and you and your seed after you…and he that is eight days old shall
Russian be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations” (Gen.
17:10-12).
Spanish
Several commentators ask why this commandment is repeated in
Parashat Tazria.
Nehama's Iyunim
Insights on the Sefer haHinukh Parashat Lekh Lekha, Mitzvah 2, offers a comprehensive
Parasha answer:
(Companion)
This commandment is repeated in Parashat Tazria…even as
Nehama's Gilyonot many other commandments are recapitulated several times
in the Torah, each time for a specific purpose, as explained
by our Sages.
Nehar Deah
But he does not explain the “purpose” in the present context. According to
Rega Lifney Or haHayim, the repetition in Tazria teaches us that the law of
Shabbat circumcision overrides the Shabbat seeing that it must be performed “on
the eighth day.” Since this did not apply to Abraham, it was not mentioned
in Genesis!
Commentary of
Rabbi Moshe Bergman Abraham was commanded to circumcise; he was not require to observe
(in Hebrew) the Sabbath. Had he failed to perform the circumcision on the Sabbath, he
would have acted improperly – God forbid. It was therefore, pointless of
God to command Abraham to circumcise even on the Sabbath; Indeed,
Illustrations to the had such a command been issued there, rivers of ink would have to be
Weekly Parasha, by the spilled to explain it.
Studio in Old Jaffa
This provides an halakhic answer to our problem. Toledot Yitzhak (R.
Yitzhak Karo) views differently the incorporation of circumcision in the text
dealing with uncleanness. He asks:
If the Torah deems it necessary to repeat the law of the circumcision

(having recorded it in the Lord’s commandment to Abraham in Genesis
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/tazria.html (1 de 6)26/02/2008 10:53:50 a.m.

17:9-10…), this is not the right place! Surely the Covenant of the
Circumcision (Brit Milah) is holy and pure—why then associate it with
uncleanness, as if placing a Kohen into a graveyard?!
He answers:
Man has been created for the sole purpose of serving his
Creator. Thus having created man, “the Lord God took the
man, and put him in the Garden of Eden…And the Lord
commanded the man…” (Gen. 2:15-16). Likewise here, after
stating, “…and born a man child,” the Torah states: “on the
eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,” for
he was born to fulfill God’s commandments – and the Brit
Milah is the first and foremost mitzvah, without which he is
not a Jew. Through circumcision he accepts the yoke of the
kingdom of Heaven, having been marked to serve the Lord
and fulfill all His commandments. Hence, the mitzvah of Milah
appears in conjunction with the birth of a male child.
This analogy between Adam and new-born child aptly reminds us of the
basic purpose of human existence—service of the Almighty.
We can cite here but some of the many reasons suggested for the mitzvah
of circumcision. Several scholars place it on an “hygienic” basis. Akedat
Yitzhak includes this among the “seven benefits” he enumerates, claiming
that it prevents the accumulation of decayed semen under the foreskin,
which frequently necessitates surgery, beyond the ritual requirement,
evidently, timely circumcision prevents disease.
However, many commentators reject this reason arguing that God would
hardly create man with a defect so that he might then remove it. Indeed
the text (Gen. 17:10-11) contains no medical element: “This is My
covenant which you shall keep…every manchild among you shall be
circumcised. And you shall circumcise…and it shall be a token of the
covenant.” A more recent commentator notes that “This is My covenant”
introduces this law, and “it shall be a token of the covenant” concludes it,
thus underscoring the role of the covenant in the circumcision.
Dwelling on the duplication, Ha’amek Davar comments:
“And it shall be a token of the covenant” as a mark of the

Almighty’s alliance with you, and not as a prophylactic
remedy.
However, the element of hygiene may have been adduced by the earlier
commentators as a consequence and not as a reason of the mitzvah.
Radak take an altogether different approach:
“ and you shall circumcise” (Gen. 17:11): This, like tzitzit,

tefillin and their mitzvot shall be a token of remembrance.
However, being imprinted on the human body, it is the
strongest sign of all…The Lord chose this particular organ as
the common instrument of sin, and the principal source of
carnal lust. The Brit Milah, by reminding the Jew of the Divine
commandments when about to transgress with that organ,
will prevent him from sinning. He will not follow his unbridled
desires like an animal, but satisfy them within the confines of
the Torah, to reproduce and to maintain his health.
Similarly, Nahmanides:

“This is My covenant which you shall keep”;…the purpose

according the our sages, was to mark this turbulent and
seducing organ with a reminder that it function within
mandatory and legitimate limits.
Accordingly, this precept fulfills an educational and disciplinary role in the

relationship of man towards his Creator. It harbors a permanent warning
against the sinful use of the organ of reproduction: it elevates carnal
activity to the level of a mitzvah…
Reading beyond the personal level, Maimonides (Guide, part III. Ch. 49)
examines the national and social aspects of this mitzvah:
There is one more very important factor to the commandment

of circumcision: The physical sign as a unifying factor for all
those who believe in the One God. For an outsider will not go
to such great pains in order to infiltrate, for some reason, the
ranks of another religion. Only for reasons of sincere faith
would man undergo circumcision or subject his sons to it, for
this is not just an incision on the hip or a cut on the arm, but a
far more serious operation.
There is love and solidarity among bearers of the same sign—

the Brit Milah. It is this Covenant that God made with our
Patriarch Abraham as a token of acknowledgement of the
One and Only God. And all those who undergo circumcision
enter into Abraham’s Covenant and confirm the Oneness of
God: “To be a God to you, and to your seed after you” (Gen.
17:7).
This reason is as important as, or perhaps even stronger

than the first.
Our faith in God and fulfillment of the Torah cannot be

complete without circumcision.
Akedat Yitzhak lists the unifying factor of the Brit Milah among the seven
aspects of the circumcision:
The second purpose…that this sign may serve to unite (all

members of the Covenant) in an even stronger bond of
mutual love and help. This, as Aristotle notes in Part VIII of
his Ethics, is beneficial and necessary for the people in all
walks of life – for the rich, to protect them against envy and
strife; for the poor- from the ‘violence done to the poor and
the sighing of the needy’ (Ps. 12:6): for the young—to show
them the way to abandon youthful folly and the sins of
immaturity; and for the aged—to help them and support them
in the weakness and ailments of their old age.
Now since God was pleased to make Israel worthy, and

therefore gave them a copious Torah and many
commandments, for whose fulfillment the need of each
other’s help is even more necessary than in other matters,
the Lord in his wisdom decided to mark them all with them
same distinctive feature. This will be a potent factor in
fostering love and peace among them, for they will all
worship the same God of their Covenant and carry His seal.
They will be at peace with the loyal to one another, in the
spirit of the Prophet’s admonition: “Have we not all one
Father…why do we deal treacherously every man against his

brother?” (Malachi 2:10). Likeness and relationship spawn

love and are certain to preserve it…as Maimonides has
written in his Guide Part III Ch. 49, on which we have
elaborated.
The expression ‘carry His seal’ often represents the essence of the Brit
Milah. Thus, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor:
“ AnI will make My Covenant between Me and you”: I will put

a seal on you flesh as a sign that you are My servant. Thus, it
is usual for slaves to wear a badge on their clothes as a mark
of submission and allegiance to their masters. Thus
according to the Talmud (Shabbat 58a), a slave may not
pass into the street on the Sabbath with his badge around his
neck or on his garment.” As for us, the Almighty has stamped
His badge on our flesh to mark us as His servants—and it is
irremovable.
This expression though not Scriptural, appears in our grace after meals
(birkat hamazon) –“And for your Covenant which You have sealed in your
flesh.”
Akedat Yitzhak’s “sixth reason” merits close attention:
The sixth reason concerns the spirit in which this precept is

fulfilled. Beyond the other benefits is the fact that it is
performed at God’s behest…and not out of any rational
considerations. For granted all the attendant benefits, which
prompts the Jew to perform it, is the Divine injunction. This is
meant by, “Walk before Me, and be perfect” (Gen. 17:1)…
and by Rabbi Meir’s statement; “Brit Milah is so vital, that
without it the lord would not have created the world, for it is
stated (Jer. 33:25):
“ If I had not appointed My Covenant (which endures) day

and night, the ordinances of heaven and earth I would not
have created” (Nedarim 31b). Thus, by the spirit expressed in
this act, milah is counted among the Divine precepts for
whose sake the Lord created the heaven and the earth…
which accords with Rabbi Akiva’s doctrine concerning the
refinement of humanity.
Let us quote Rabbi Akiva fully in order to understand his view. In Tanhuma
Tazria 5 we read:
Turnus Rufus the wicked the wicked once asked rabbi Akiva:
Whose works are superior, those of God or those of man? He
answered him: Those of man are superior.
Answered Turnus Rufus: But look at heaven and earth, can

man make their like? Rabbi Akiva replied: Do not draw on
what is above human experience and control, but rather on
that which is within our range. He said to him: Why do you
circumcise? He answered: I knew you would ask this
question, and so I anticipated you by declaring that human
works are superior to those of God. Thereupon Rabbi Akiva
brought him ears of corn and cakes. He said to him: the
former are the works of God, the latter of man. Are not the
latter superior to the ears of corn?
Turnus Rufus, however countered; If He requires

circumcision, why does not the child leave the mother’s

womb circumcised? Rabbi Akiva replied: Why indeed, does
the umbilical cord come out with him and he is suspended by
his navel and his mother cuts it? as for your query why he is
not born circumcised, this is because the Holy one Blessed
be He has given the commandments for the sole purpose of
refining our character through them. This is why David
declared: “The word of the Lord refined” (Ps. 18:31).
Arama’s “sixth reason” for the Brit Milah is educational; this he likewise
discerns in the comment of R. Akiva. Accordingly, it is not anatomy, the
timing (on the “eighth day…”) or the essential character of the mitzvah that
count. As in the case of the other mitzvot, the salient point lies in the spirit
of its performance as an act of worship, in harmony with the Divine will.
This is reflected in Ibn Ezra’s terse comment on opening the verse of the
chapter dealing with the Brit Milah: “Walk before me and be perfect”, i.e.,
do not query the purpose of the milah.
Benno Jacob on Genesis, after stressing that circumcision is a

conventional sign adds, in the wake of rabbi Akiva, that the Brit Milah is
designed to improve on creation, sublimate nature and elevate it to the
level of the super-natural. Thus God changed Abram’s name to Abraham,
with the circumcision. Nominal change was to reflect the physical
transformation. Thus also God’s designation of Adam upon creation, and
the change of Yaakov into Yisrael, marked them as new creatures,
transcending their former ‘natural,’ existence. Accordingly, circumcision as
a human act performed at God’s behest marks the perfection of human
nature. Benno Jacob comments:
In the Torah man’s original garments were Divine gift, and

not the product of human resources and cunning –a
complement to the work of creation. Just as this
‘improvement’ open’s man’s moral history, so circumcision
lays the foundation for the Jewish faith.
There is a noteworthy parallel between the sign and the Divine Covenant
with Abraham and his descendants and that granted Noah and mankind.
The Torah recounts that “Noah walked with god,” and in the opening verse
concerning the Brit Milah God calls upon Abraham to “walk before Me,
and be perfect”, in both instances God said, “and I will establish My
Covenant with you” (Gen. 9:11 and !7:7). With Noah it was to be “the
everlasting covenant between God and every living creature,” and with
Abraham an everlasting covenant between God and Abraham’s seed. In
his essay “On the meaning of the key-words in biblical stories,” Martin
Buber notes:
There (concerning the flood), though addressed to mankind

at large, it is a visible, cosmic and transient sign, whereas
here (Circumcision), the symbol of national identification, is
discreet, physiological and permanent; there the occasional
sign is God’s work, here it is performed by man.

Gilyonot - Parashat Kedoshim
Languages
Links
Parashat Kedoshim

Parashat Hashavua
AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
All the laws of this chapter derive from the transcendent commandment –
English You shall be holy. They encompass the gamut of human activities and
relations, private, social and spiritual, his attitude towards the weak and
Hebrew needy and his conduct towards his enemy and oppressor. These
guidelines reach their climax in the verse which heads this section. The
German
text is puzzling both in content and wording. Our sages declared that
Russian Man is partial to himself. This is fundamental, as reflected in R. Akiva’s
ruling that Your life takes precedence over your fellowman’s. How then
Spanish are we to love others as ourselves, with equal force, irrespective of their
conduct?
Nehama's Iyunim Rashbam qualifies the requirement, thus:
Insights on the
Love thy neighbor as thyself – only if he is – your neighbor, i.
Parasha e., virtuous but not if he is wicked, as it is written, the fear of
(Companion) the Lord is to hate evil (Prov.8:13).
Nehama's Gilyonot
Thus (according to R. David Rozin’s interpretation of Rashbam) love him
only if he is righteous, but not if he is a villain, in which case you must
follow King Solomon’s dictum: “the fear of the Lord is to hate evil; avoid
Nehar Deah him and shun his company.”
Rega Lifney
Rashbam, the noted exponent of the plain sense, here seems to deviate
Shabbat
from his principle. The text affords no hint of any such distinction between
the righteous and the wicked. Rather, it employs the neutral,
comprehensive term – fellow. The identification of this term with an
Commentary of
“Israelite” is conclusively refuted by its use in “Let every man ask of his
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
neighbor and every woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver and jewels of
(in Hebrew)
gold…” (Ex. 11:2), where it evidently refers to the Egyptians.
Nahmanides qualifies the subject of the commandment “love thy

neighbor as thyself,” rather than the object, thereby also addressing
himself to the unusual form of to your neighbor rather than thy neighbor.
Studio in Old Jaffa
The phrase “love thy neighbor as thyself” is not meant literally, since man
cannot be expected to love his neighbor as his own self. Moreover, R.
Akiva has ruled that your life takes precedence over your fellowman’s.
The Torah here enjoins that we should wish upon our neighbor the same
benefits that we wish upon ourselves. Perhaps this is the reason for the
dative instead of the accusative form of the verb phrase, as also in “And
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/kedoshim.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:55:21 a.m.

thou shalt love him (the stranger) as thyself” (19:34). Indeed, sometimes
a person may wish upon his neighbor certain benefits only, e.g., wealth,
but not wisdom, and the like. But even if he wishes his cherished friend
well in everything e.g., wealth honor, learning and wisdom, he will not do
so unstintingly, but will still insist on a larger share of the benefits. It was
this shortcoming that the Torah condemned. Rather, a man should wish
his fellow well in all things, just as he does in his own case, and place no
limitations upon his love. Thus, in the case of Jonathan and David, it says
that Jonathan loved him as his own soul (I Sam. 20:17), since he had
removed all jealousy from his heart, declaring “And thou shalt rule over
Israel” (ib. 23:17).
This view underlies Hillel’s negative formulation moving the golden rule of
Judaism from the realm of abstract sentiment into that of concrete action:
“ what is hateful to you do not do to your fellow” (Shabbat 31a). This

removes the problem posed in the Biur:
If the text means that a man must love his fellow as himself, it is hardly
conceivable that the Almighty should command something which is
beyond human capacity. Moreover, feelings such as hate and love are
hardly the object of commands, since they are not under human control.
To fulfill such a command to the letter, man would have to grieve for his
fellow’s sorrows just as he grieves for his own. This would be intolerable,
since scarcely a moment passes without hearing of some fellow Jew’s
misfortune…Hillel therefore correctly interpreted this passage in a
negative manner: What is hateful to you do not do to your fellow – at
least do nothing to your neighbor which you would not like to be done to
yourself. It is obvious that we must never insult or cause hurt to any man,
whether wicked or righteous, except through the proper judicial
procedure or by way of loving admonition in order to correct his behavior.
Just as the Torah ordained the death penalty for the shedder of the blood
of any man, saint or sinner, scholar or simpleton so does the command to
respect our neighbor’s feelings and interests apply to every human being
without distinction.
More plausible, however, is the view that takes the phrase as thyself not
as qualifying the degree of love, but as motivating the principle embodied
in the text – he is as thyself, a human being like yourself. This is the view
R. N.H. Weisel offers after analyzing the other views:
The word as thyself is not usually used adverbially, but rather adjectivally,
meaning similar to you, cf. Gen. 44:18, For thou art as Pharaoh, i.e., your
position is similar to Pharaoh; or There is none so discerning and wise as
thou art (ib. 41:39). Likewise here the meaning is: Love thy neighbor who
is as thyself – like you, created in the image of God, a human being like
yourself.
This encompasses all of humanity created in the image of God. R. Akiva

was referring to this in his comment, This is a fundamental principle in the
Torah, restated by him thus in the Mishna, “Beloved is man, for he was
created in the image of God” (Avot 3, 14). Even if he sinned, he can
reform his conduct for he was created in the image of God and was
endowed with free will and is able to control action...The correct
translation of this phrase is, Love thy neighbor for he is like yourself…If
meant as thyself, i.e., you should love him as you love yourself, then we
could dispense with Hillel’s interpretation, which would actually diminish
the scope of this maxim. Furthermore the Torah would not be indicating
the extent of this love, for the usual Hebrew expression for such ideal
love is as he loves his own soul, as Scripture states in the case of David
and Jonathan, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul (ib. 20:17).
Accordingly, the text here should have read And love thy neighbor as you

own soul. If every Jew must love his fellow as his own soul, there would
be nothing extraordinary about the love of David and Jonathan, yet David
declared in his elegy on Jonathan, Thy love to me was wonderful, more
than the love of women (2 Sam. 1:26). Thus as thyself means because
he is as thou and the verse is to be understood in its literal meaning,
contrary to Nahmanides’ explanantion.
This view gains further support from v. 34 of our chapter:
The stranger who resides with you shall be treated the same as the
native-born, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for you were
strangers in the land of Egypt.
Were thyself to indicate the extent of the love, then an association with
slavery would be irrelevant. Not so if thyself denotes one who is like
yourself, who needs your love. Thus we read further, for you know the
heart of a stranger, seeing that you were strangers in the land of Egypt
(Ex. 23:9). This elucidates our own verse: Treat your neighbor lovingly,
for he is a human being like yourself, and therefore you know his quest
for love.
In conclusion, let us quote Ben Azai, who challenged R. Akiva’s above

dictum. Here is the full record of the dispute in Sifra Kedoshim 45:
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: R. Akiva said: This is the
fundamental principle of the Torah. Ben Azai said: This is the book of the
generations of man (Gen. 5:1) transcends the weight of that.
Bereshit Rabba 24, 7 elaborates:
Do not say, since I was shamed let my neighbor be similarly shamed,

since I was cursed. Said R. Tanhuma: If you act thus, know whom you
are shaming—in the likeness of God made He him (Gen. 5:1).
However, there are different kinds of love. One does not love one’s
animal as one loves one’s child, nor love one’s chattel as one’s spouse,
nor money as one’s vine or fig tree. And even within a particular category
of love there exist differences of intensity. Thus a father may love his
youngest son more than his eldest, or one may prefer one’shorse to
one’s donkey. Whenever a choice has to be made, the more or better
loved will gain preference.
Accordingly, the Torah commands us to love our neighbor with the

highest quality of the love we reserve for ourselves. Whenever the two
loves do not actually clash, we must confer upon our neighbor whatever
we would confer upon ourselves. However, there remains a difference in
intensity. Thus, love for oneself may precede that of neighbor if it is
detrimental to one’s own legitimate interests, as formulated in the
Rabbinic dictum, your life takes precedence over that of you neighbor.
Thus love of one’s fellow man is not measured by the love of oneself. He,
indifferent to his own lot, must not ignore the plight of his neighbor,
whose Divine image commands consideration and respect. Hence, Ben
Azzai did not single out “And love thy neighbor as thyself, with its
emphasis on human equality, “but the text testifying to the origin of
mankind, as fearing the Divine image. Here lay the fundamental principle
of Judaism:
This is the book of the generations of Man,

In the day that God created mankind,
In the likeness of God He made him.

Gen. 5:1
When editing the Biur, Moses Mendelssohn added this comment to

that of N.H Weisel’s:
Though his (Weisel’s) commentary is incisive and plausible, it does

not reflect the plain sense of the text. In my view, this passage is to
be understood as follows: The commandment not to hate applies
not only to cursing or perpetrating hostile acts but also hatred in
one’s heart.
Indeed, several commandments of the Torah are addressed to our

dispositions, for they too can be controlled by the mind. Thus we
are commanded not to covet (see Ibn Ezra ad.loc.) and to love, e.g.,
to love him (the stranger) as thyself, not to take vengeance, not to
bear a grudge, neither verbally nor in thought. We are enjoined to
love our neighbor as we love ourselves. This does not refer to
quantity but to quality. Let us explain these terms in the realm of
emotion. Let us take the example of love which can extend even to
inanimate objects.
In sum, the Torah here does not refer to the scope but to the quality
of love. Provided there is no conflict of interests, you must love
your neighbor as yourself in every way, i.e., not for selfish motives
as you love your property, but for the sake of the loved one – as you
love yourself.
1. Explain the difference between Mendelssohn’s and Weisel’s

explanation.
2. Whose interpretation is borne out by the reading accents?
3. What is the difference between the dative and the accusative

form in the very phrase according to Mendelssohn’s
interpretation?

Director:

Parashat Emor
Languages
Links
Parashat Emor

Parashat Hashavua
Eye for Eye
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
Few are the verses from the Bible which have been so frequently and
widely misunderstood by Jew and non-Jew as verse 24:20, from which our
English title is taken. This misconception has transformed our text into a symbol,
the embodiment of vengeance at its cruelest level. One who wishes to
Hebrew express his opposition to forgiveness, concession, and compensation,
insisting instead on his pound of flesh, on retaliation of the most brutal and
German painful kind, resorts to the phrase: “Eye for eye,” a formula which conjures
up a vision of hacked limbs and gouged eyes. Even he who is familiar with
Russian the traditional Rabbinical interpretation of our text, “eye for eye,” i.e.,
monetary compensation, does not rule out the possibility of this being
Spanish
merely an apologetical explanation, a later toning down of ancient
barbarity, humanization of the severity of the Torah by subsequent
generations.
Nehama's Iyunim
Insights on the But this is not the case. On the contrary, our Sages and commentators
Parasha adduce many and varied proofs indicating that the plain sense of the text
(Companion) can be no other than monetary compensation. We shall cite here several
of these proofs.
Nehama's Gilyonot
Let us first read the phrase in its context. It occurs twice in the Scriptures:
Nehar Deah If men contend and one strike the other with a stone or with
his fist, but he does not die, but is confined to bed; Ex. 21:18
Rega Lifney
Shabbat If he gets up again and walks abroad with his staff, then the
one who struck him shall be acquitted; only he shall pay for
the loss of time and have him thoroughly healed. 21:19
Commentary of
Rabbi Moshe Bergman If men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that she
(in Hebrew) have a miscarriage, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be
fined… 21:22
Illustrations to the But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 21:23
Studio in Old Jaffa eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:24
burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 21:25
The second occasion is in our Parasha :
And he who kills any man shall surely be put to death. Lev.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/emor.html (1 de 8)26/02/2008 10:56:19 a.m.

Parashat Emor
24:17
And he who kills a beast shall make it good, life for life. 24:18
If a man maim his neighbor; as he has done, so shall it be

done to him; 24:19
breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has
maimed a man, so shall it be done to him. 24:20
And he who kills a beast, shall make it good; an he who kills

a man, shall be put to death. 24:21
The Talmud (Bava Kamma 83b-84a) adduces a whole series of

arguments providing that these verse must allude to monetary
compensation for the injury inflicted. Here are two of them:
R. Shimon bar Yohai stated: Eye for eye – money. You say
money, but perhaps it means literally an eye? In that case if a
blind man blinded another, a cripple maimed another, how
would I be able to give an eye for an eye literally? Yet the
Torah states (Lev. 24:22): One law there shall be for you – al
law that is equitable for all of you.
It was taught in the school of Hezakia: Eye for eye, life for
life, and not a life and an eye for an eye; for should you
imagine it is literally meant, it would sometimes happen that
an eye and a life would be taken for an eye, for in the
process of blinding him he might die.
These two arguments are based on the wording of the text disproving the
literal interpretation of the grounds that lex talionis cannot be practically
implemented (R. Shimon b. Yohai) or that its execution is not compatible
with the maintaining of any sort of equivalence between the crime and the
punishment (The school of Hezekiah), while the expression “eye for eye”
by all accounts indicates an equitable correspondence between the deed
and its recompense. Saadya Gaon resorted to these same arguments in
his polemics twice in his Pentateuchal commentary – in Exodus and in our
Parasha. Let us study both carefully. In Ex. 21:24 he states:
“Eye for eye”: Rav Saadya said we cannot take this text
literally. For if a man deprived his fellow of a third of his
normal eyesight by his blow, how can the retaliatory blow be
so calculated as to have the same results, neither more nor
less, nor blinding him completely? Such an exact
reproduction of the effects is even more difficult in the case of
a wound or bruise which, if in a dangerous spot, might result
in death. The very idea cannot be tolerated. Ben Zuta (a
Karaite) retorted: But surely it is explicitly written: (Lev. 24:20)
As he has maimed a man so shall it be rendered to him. The
Gaon answered: The word on, implying so shall punishment
be imposed upon him. Ben Zuta retorted: As he did, so shall
be done to him! The Gaon replied: We have in the case of
Samson (Judges 15:11): As they did to me, so I did to them,
and Samson did not take their wives and give them to others
(as they had done to him, but only punished them. Ben Zuta
retorted: What if the attacker was a poor man, what would be
his punishment? The Gaon replied: What if a blind man
blinded one with normal eyesight, what should be done to
him? The poor man can become rich and pay; only the blind
man can never pay for what he did!

Parashat Emor
To sum up: We cannot give an adequate explanation o the precepts of the

Torah without relying on the words of our Sages. For just as we received
the written Torah from our forefathers, so we received the oral Torah –
there is not difference between them.
The Karaite attacked the Rabbinic interpretation on two counts, first from
the wording of the text. The Gaon demonstrated that the two phrases do
not necessarily bear out the Karaite interpretation. (Benno Jacob notes
that the case of Adoni-Bezek – As I have done, so God has requited me
(Judges 1:7) is no proof to the contrary, for there he uses a different verb
in each clause of the phrase, and is therefore not comparable to our
verse). The proof from Samson is the clearest indication that the
phraseology when… implies an equivalent or analogous, but not identical
punishment. The Karaite then forsook the argument from the wording of
the text and attacked the Rabbinical interpretation from the point of view of
feasibility of its implementation. Here he evidently did not realize that by
doing so he was advancing the objection that could be raised against all
judicial fines. Just as he asked: What if the attacker is a poor man, so he
could have asked: What if any defendant on whom a fine was imposed
was a poor man? He thus played into R. Saadya’s hands by showing him
that the same flaw in execution that could be pointed out in the monetary
interpretation could be objected in the literal one, bringing in R. Shimon b.
Yohai’s argument.
The other context where Ibn Ezra cites Saadya Gaon’s polemic with Ben
Zuta is in our Parasha (24:19):
“So shall be done to him” Samson similarly said: “as they did
to me so I did to them” (Judges 15:11). The Gaon adduced
common sense arguments showing that breach for breach
cannot be taken literally (but only monetary compensation is
indicated), since the original blow was inflicted inadvertently.
How then can an identical blow be deliberately inflicted? And
if administered on a dangerous spot, the victim might die.
The same applies to the eye. If the victim was deprived of a
third of his sight, how can such a defect be exactly
reproduced in the smiter? But the view of tradition is correct
that a monetary equivalent is meant. As for the argument,
what if the inflictor is poor? Our answer is: the text speaks of
the usual case, and furthermore, the poor man may become
rich. Their argument may also be countered by the case of
the blind man who blinded a person with normal sight.
Here Saadya Gaon resorts to the argument of the school of Hezekia – Eye
for eye, and not a life and an eye for an eye.
But the Talmud does not confine itself to purely technical arguments that
rule out the feasibility of executing lex talionis. It adduces other texts too,
one of which (cited also by Benno Jacob) we cite here:
Scripture states: “you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who
is guilty of death” (Num. 35:31), implying that for the life of a murderer you
may take no ransom, but you may take ransom Bava Kamma for the main
organs of the human body which do not grow back (Bava kamma 83b).
The wording of the text, “who is guilty of death” that there are other crimes
not punishable by death. If we study the context we shall find it implied
that a guilt other than capital offense can only be that a person who maim
another.
If the text therefore states that the ransom may not be taken for the

Parashat Emor
murderer, if follows that where capital punishment is not involved, ransom

should be taken.
This is one of the arguments advanced by Maimonides in Hilkhot Hovel

uMazik 1, 3-6:
The text: “as he maimed a man, so shall it be rendered

him” (Lev. 24:20) does not mean the literal inflicting of the
identical maiming on the guilty person, but merely that though
the latter deserves such maiming, he pays the monetary
equivalent. For we are told: You shall take ransom for the life
of a murderer, implying that ransom is ruled out only in the
case of a murderer, but is indicated in the case of one who
maims another…
Whence that is the statement “eye for eye” monetary compensation is

indicated? Since it is stated: bruise for bruise, and we have the explicit
ruling thereon: If a man strikes his fellow with a stone or his fist…he shall
only pay for the loss of time and have him thoroughly healed (ex. 21:18-
19) indicating that the “for” in bruise for bruise refers to payment, and the
same applies to the “for” in the other limbs.
Though all these things would seem implicit in the wording of the Written
law, transmitted directly by Moses from Mount Sinai, all come under the
heading of a practical ruling handed down to us. So our ancestors saw
matters judged in the court of Joshua, of Samuel the Ramathite and every
court that has existed since the day of Moses until now.
The first proof advanced by Maimonides is the last one we cited from the
Talmud, based on Numbers 35:31. But we may observe that he does not
regard it as convincing, since he explicitly asks immediately afterwards:
Whence that monetary compensation is indicated? Lehem Mishne, one of
Maimonides’ commentators, indeed queries this approach, asking:
Surely, Maimonides has already proved his point from the

verse “you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer”
which rules out the taking of ransom in the case of a
murderer, but not for maiming the main organs of the human
body: Why then does he ask, Whence?
He answers that from the first text, it may only be proved that ransom may
be taken from maiming, but not—since it is an indirect proof from a
negative statement – that it must be taken, and that counter-maiming is
ruled out. Maimonides therefore goes on to demonstrate that there are no
two options and that “eye for eye” can mean monetary compensation only.
His proof is indeed convincing, and we shall revert to it later. Maimonides,
however, was not content with it. But his conclusive argument is that such
is our tradition as handed down by word of mouth from one generation to
the next in every court of law that existed from the days of Moses onwards.
We cite here Rabbi A.Y. Kook’s observation:
The author states that Maimonides’ view that bodily harm is

made good by monetary compensation is based on the Oral
Law handed down by Moses from Sinai, and that “eye for
eye” is not to be taken literally. This is truly Maimonides’
opinion.
However, it should be noted that R. Solomon Luria, in his Yam shel

Shelomo (at the beginning of Chapter 8 of Bava Kamma takes issue with
Maimonides and regards the interpretation of the written text as

Parashat Emor
conclusive, and the plain sense of it bears it out. For if “eye for eye” were
to be taken literally, bruise for bruise would have to be understood
likewise. Yet this is ruled out since the Torah states explicitly, “he shall
only pay for the loss of time and have him thoroughly healed” (Ex. 21:19).
Thus, monetary compensation is due for bodily harm caused.
Benno Jacob also goes to this chapter for additional proof, citing the
subject arrangement of the verses 18-22. They all deal with bodily harm,
and are divided into two sections, the first of which is further subdivided as
follows:
1. Bodily harm inflicted by man on his fellow:
1. Deliberate: 18-19 (re slave: 20-21)
2. Inadvertent: 22-25 (re slave: 26-27)
1. Bodily harm inflicted by the ox of another: 28-31 (re slave: 32).
Now where is “eye for eye” or “tooth for tooth” mentioned in the text?
Surely in connection with inadvertent action, whereas in the case of
deliberate maiming, we are explicitly told (v. 19) that only loss of time and
medical care has to be paid for. Were “eye for eye” to be taken literally,
the penalty for inadvertent maiming would be greater than that for
deliberate one.
But Benno Jacob learns the monetary implications of “eye for eye” form
the very wording of our text, in contrast to most of our commentators who
maintain that the literal wording does indicate that the actual cutting off of
a limb is envisaged, but that we must resort to exegesis. B. Jacob
adduces proof from the word thou shalt give (Ex. 21:23), indicating that we
take nothing from the smiter but that he is compelled to give, which can
only mean compensation. Had the text meant counter-maiming, it would
not have employed the term give which implies getting or taking
something from the other party. Had the text meant the removal of a limb,
what in such a case would the victim have received in his hand, so to
speak, from the smiter?
But his main proof is from the word “for”. He shows that the fact that “for”
implies monetary equivalence rather than identity is proved not only by
some texts, as:
He shall let him go free (on account of) his eye

Ex. 21:26
or
It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be

weighed for the price thereof,
Job 28:15
But that in his view in no text does “for” ever imply the identity of the
exchange. On the contrary, “for” has an entirely different usage. A is called
on to give, do, or suffer instead of B, because B cannot give, do, or suffer
that same thing. “For” never implies that A has to give or suffer anything
because B has given or suffered the identical thing. This, according to
Benno Jacob, is the source of all the misunderstanding of our text. This
may be proved from the Biblical succession of kings. One king dies and
another rules in his stead. Because his predecessor is no longer capable
of ruling, his successor comes along, and exercises his functions in place
of him. Or, Avraham offers up the ram for a burnt-offering in place of his

Parashat Emor
son. Yitzhak was not offered up, so the ram came as a substitute. Not that
the ram was offered up too, just because Yitzhak had been offered up,
which would be the interpretation if we followed the approach mistakenly
adopted by those who take “eye for eye” literally.
The same point emerges from Judah’s words in Genesis 44:33:
And now, I pray thee, let thy servant remain instead of the
lad, a slave to my lord. Gen. 44:33
In other words, let not Benjamin be the slave, but I shall be the slave
instead of him. there are many such examples. The one most appropriate
to our context is Joshua 2:14:
“Our lives—for yours,” i.e., if you will not divulge our whereabouts and
betray us, and you are caught, we shall give ourselves up to be killed and
you shall not be killed. This is the force of the word “for” – instead of the
suffering or the death of the other. Accordingly. “eye for eye” implies that
he who plucks out the eye of his fellow shall give something to the victim
which will come in place of that eye which can no longer perform its
functions, and that is monetary compensation.
In this respect, Benno Jacob takes issue with most commentators, both
ancient and modern, Jewish and non-Jewish, who maintain that the text
does literally mean the actual maiming of the smiter. According to Jacob,
the literal wording of the text can mean nothing else but monetary
compensation.
But we may ask, as does Maharal of Prague and many others in his Gur
Arye supercommentary on Rashi, why, if money is indeed indicated, does
not the text state explicitly, he shall pay him the value of his hand or
blemish? He answers:
That we should not imagine that once the smiter has paid
compensation, he is completely quit, just as in the case of
killing a beast where he pays up andhas no further
obligations. But that is not the case. Though he has
compensated the victim for the injury, he has still not
discharged his obligation until he has asked his forgiveness.
For this reason, the Torah states that the punishment would
be to be similarly maimed if that were possible, but that is
impossible since, as the Talmud explains, sometimes the
smiter may be blind and he blinded his victim in one eye,
and, “as he has done to him” cannot be complied with. It is
therefore monetary compensation that has to be paid.
This basic difference between causing bodily harm to man and animal is
outlined by Maimonides in Hilkhot Hovel uMazik 4, 9-11:
One who causes bodily injury to his fellow cannot be

compared to one who damages his goods. For once the
damage to the goods has been made good, the guilty party
has made atonement, whereas he who causes bodily injury
to his fellow, though he has paid him the five dues (injury,
pain, loss of time, medical care, shame) he has made no
atonement even if he offered up on the altar all the rams of
Navot. His iniquity is not forgiven until he has asked the
victim’s forgiveness and been forgiven. It is forbidden for the
injured party to be cruel and unforgiving. This is not the
Jewish way, but as soon as the guilty party has sought his
forgiveness and made supplication once or twice, and he

Parashat Emor
knows that the smiter sincerely regrets his action, he should

forgive him. The quicker he forgives, the better, and his
action meets with approval of the Sages. There is further
difference between bodily injuries and damage to his goods.
He who instructs his fellow to blind him or cut off his leg,
guaranteeing him exemption from all liability, is yet liable in
respect of the five dues (i.e., the injured party would have to
be paid for the injury, pain, loss of time, medical care, and
shame involved though he did it with the victim’s consent).
In other words, a man cannot dispose of his limbs in the same way as he
can dispose of his property since his limbs, his body, are not under his
authority. He is not master of his body, but He to Whom both body and
soul belong is Master of them.
One who pays compensation for the loss of sight does not make good the
damage as one who damages his fellow’s goods. The money only serves
to make good the monetary damage involved in the loss of the eye or
hand, but the actual loss of the eye can never be made good. Injury to
another human being is a crime that cannot be made good by ransom or
monetary payment.
This is the reason why the Torah did not use the expression, He shall pay
for his eye. This emerges even more clearly from the verse of our Parasha
which we cited at the beginning. After the punishment for mortally injuring
a man or beast is stated (v. 17-18) comes the punishment of the one who
causes bodily injury to which the punishment for the one who injures a
beast is not juxtaposed. For in the case of man the difference between
mortal injury (murder) and maiming is qualitative (death—money),
whereas in the case of beast there is merely a quantitative difference
between killing it ad injuring it (greater or lesser compensation according
to the injury).
Our Parasha concludes by contrasting both:
He who kills a beast shall make it good, but he who kills a

man shall be put to death. 24:12
The verse appears superfluous, a repetition of the previous, unless we

bear in mind that it wishes to impress upon us the difference between
man’s responsibility for his fellow’s goods and his responsibility for his
fellow’s life as a human being created in the image of God.
1. Talmud Bava Kamma 84a states:
Rav Ashi stated: The implication of tahat may be

analogically ascertained from (the subject regarding)
ox. Here it is written, eye for eye, and it is written there
(Ex. 21:36), He shall surely pay ox for ox. Just as in
the latter case monetary compensation is indicated, so
also here.
Does the above interpretation agree with any proofs cited in this
chapter?
2. In his HaKetav veHaKabalah, R. Yaacov Tzvi Mecklenburg

observes on Lev. 24:19-20:

Parashat Emor
This passage is very difficult. The plain sense would seem to

indicate clearly that the Torah prescribes a bodily punishment
for the one who inflicts bodily injury, a course which runs
counter to man’s nature. The true meaning has been handed
down to us by our Sages: the inflicter of injuries could never
receive a bodily punishment, but should pay compensation.
The commentaries have therefore said that the Torah
mentions here only what punishment the inflicter of bodily
injuries deserves – as he had done, so shall be done to him,
that is to say, that he should by rights have received such a
punishment. But this will not satisfy the thirst of those that
search for truth. How comes the Torah to refer to the
punishment that should have been inflicted on him, and
ignore his real punishment?
Does the above confirm in its assumptions to what we cited in the name of
Benno Jacob or any other of the views referred to in the chapter?
For study in depth of “eye for eye” we strongly recommend: Rabbi J.

Horowitz, Franfurt am Main: Auge um Auge, Zahn um Zahn, Festschrift zu
Hermann Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage, Seite 609-658 Bruno Cassirer
Verlag, Berlin 1912.

Director:

Parashat Behar
Languages
Links
Parashat Behar

Parashat Hashavua
The Land shall keep a Sabbath to the Lord
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When you come to the
land which I give you, then shall the land keep a Sabbath to the Lord.
English Regarding this verse Alshikh asks:
Hebrew When you come to the land which I give you: “ There is none who does
not know that it is God Who gives, for the earth is the Lord’s, and the
German
fullness thereof, and this is also stated several times in the Torah . It
Russian therefore seems superfluous here – why does the Torah mention it?
Spanish Man is possessed of a strong feeling of proprietorship. It is perhaps most

strongly rooted in the peasant who dwells and lives on his own land. The
sensation of mine is fraught with danger. It is to counter it that the Torah
Nehama's Iyunim emphasizes that the Land is a gift from God to Israel, and in order to
remind him that not the power and the might of his hand have gotten him
Insights on the his wealth.
Parasha
(Companion) Then the land shall keep a Sabbath to the Lord.
Nehama's Gilyonot
25:2
Rashi comments (citing Sifra):

Nehar Deah
Rega Lifney “To the Lord”: For the sake of the Lord, as it is stated in regard to the
Shabbat Sabbath day.
The commentators on Sifra and Rashi’s supercommentators observe that

Commentary of none of the Festivals, not even Yom Kippur, is predicated Sabbath to the
Rabbi Moshe Bergman Lord. This distinction has fallen only to the Sabbath day and to the
(in Hebrew) Sabbath year, indicating a close link between them. Indeed, we find
juxtaposition of the two in Parashat Mishpatim:
Illustrations to the And six years thou shall sow thy land, and shall gather in its fruits,
Studio in Old Jaffa Ex. 23:10>
but the seventh year thou shall let it rest and lie fallow…
23:11
Six days thou shall do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shall rest…
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/behar.html (1 de 11)26/02/2008 10:56:59 a.m.

Parashat Behar
23:12
A study of verses 2-8 in our chapter which deal with the subject of the
Sabbath Year reveals an even closer link between the Sabbath Year and
the Sabbath day.
…then shall the land keep a Sabbath to the Lord
Lev. 25:2
Six years thou shall sow thy field, and six years thou shall prune the
vineyard, and gather in its fruit.
25:3
But in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the
land, a Sabbath for the Lord;
Thou shall neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.
25:4
That which of its own accord of thy harvest thou shall not reap, nor
gather the grapes of thy undressed vine, for it shall be a year of rest
for the land.
25:5
And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be food for you, for thee
and for thy servant and for thy maid and for thy hired servant and
for thy stranger that sojourns with thee.
25:6
We note the poetic style of these verse, the metrical harmony between the
verses dealing with field and vineyard (first part of v. 3, and of verse 4, and
beginning of v. 5) as well as the chiasmus – in v. 3 the order is predicate –
object (sow thy field, prune thy vineyard), whereas in v.4 the order is
object-predicate (thy field thou shall not sow, thy vineyard thou shall not
prune), and this occurs also in v. 5.
Derivatives of the root Sabbath appear seven times, either as a verb or as

a noun. This is reminiscent of the first chapter of Genesis, which is divided
into seven passages, and where “that it was good” appears seven times.
Prof. M.D. Cassuto draws our attention to some other multiples of seven in
Genesis 1:
The first verse contains seven words, the second fourteen, i.e.,
twice seven. The seventh passage, dealing with the seventh day,
contains three successive verses, each one with seven words:
(And by the seventh day God ended His work which He had done)
(7 words in Hebrew)
(And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done)
(7 words in Hebrew) (And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it)

Parashat Behar
(7 words in Hebrew)
The number of words in the seventh passage is 35—(5X7). That all this is
just coincidence, is inconceivable.
Indeed, many commentators consider that, similarly to the Sabbath day,

the remembrance of the Creation is the main reason for the Shemitah year
of rest for the land. And this is one of the reasons that R. Yitzhak Arama
states for the Shemita year, in his work Akedat Yitzhak, Chap. 69:
…its purpose is to bring home to us the Truth, , and to open our ears and
illuminate our hearts through great and wonderful signs, and to open the
eyes of those who are steeped in the illusions of this world, and are
addicted to earthly labor. But seeing that they (the Children of Israel)
agreed to serve God out of love, He enlightened us and opened for us
windows in order to open the blind eyes, to bring those that sit in darkness
out of the prison house, and to bring out of prison those who are prisoners
of their own greed, shackled by vain and futile things. He fixed periodical
milestones in the course of our days, weeks, and years, which cannot go
unnoticed, unless we foolishly ignore them and are blind to them…For the
six days of work and the seventh day of rest bear testimony that the world
was created by God’s will…and this is the genuine sign and symbol for
truth of God’s existence…and this is the most fundamental article of faith
of every believer…
This analogy between Shemitah and Shabbat is emphasized also by the

author of the Meshekh Hokhma, since Shemitah, like Shabbat testifies
that the world was created by the Lord—for the Land is mine (Lev. 25:23).
And he found a further allusion to this principle in the Torah:
Six years: The six years correspond to the six days of

Creation. Similarly, Torat Kohanim points out that the seventh
day of Creation and the seventh year are both referred to as
Sabbath to the Lord. It may be noted also that “that it was
good” is stated twice both on the third and on the sixth day! It
is therefore that the Tithe for the poor must be given every
third and sixth year, in order to be good to one’s fellow man.
This is a very appropriate hint.
However, he considers this only as one of the reasons for the Shemitah
precept, and in another place he makes the following observation:
The reasons for Shemitah are many and unfathomable,

known only to God the Omniscient. This, let it be understood,
is indicated by “Sabbath to God.”
The reading of the texts will show the conspicuous similarity between the
Shemitah law and the commandment to rest on the Sabbath day. The
designation of the Shemitah year as the Sabbath of the land is not without
significance. The Torah thus bears out as being the most obvious reason
the one which underlies both the Sabbath day and the Sabbath Year. And
the principal reason for the Shabbat (without ignoring a wealth of reasons,
including some mentioned in the torah) is without a doubt, for in six days
that Lord made heaven and earth.
The ideological importance of the belief in the Creation of the world lies
not in its lesson about the formation of the universe but as Prof. Y.
Guttman writes in his work Dat uMada (Religion and Science) (Jerusalem
5715-1955), p. 263:

Parashat Behar
Rather than in the origin of the world, faith is interested in

teaching man about his origin. The ideological import of the
account of the Creation is to show man that God is Master
and lord of the world: the universe is His creation. And I am
His creature.
The idea of our dependence on God, His sovereignty and of our duty to
accept the yoke of His commandments is based on our belief that He has
made us, and we are His. The Sabbath and the Shemitah year are,
therefore, reminders of God’s creation of the world.
However, not all commentators have accepted this as being the reason—
and certainly not the only reason—for the law of Shemtah. In order to
understand the various interpretations of the significance of the Shemitah
year, we must first know something about its basic rules. We shall content
ourselves with tow rules referring to the resting of the land. Maimonides.
Hilkhot Shemitah veYovel 1,1;
It is a positive commandment to suspend work on the land and the

cultivation of trees.
Maimonides,Hilkhot Shemitah 4, 24:
It is a positive commandment to release all agricultural produce on the

seventh year, as it is stated (Ex. 23:11) “but the seventh year thou shall let
it rest and lie fallow.” Thus, whoever, encloses his vineyard, or fences in
his field on the seventh year, violates a positive c. So, too, if he gathers in
all his produce into his house. Rather let him abandon it all and allow
everything unrestricted access, as it is stated (ibid., ibid.) “…that the poor
of thy people may eat.” He is permitted to bring into his house small
quantities, as is done in the case of abandoned produce.
Thus there are two precepts to be complied with by the Jew in the
Shemitah year, which will leave their imprint on life during that year; The
suspension of all agricultural work, and the renunciation of ownership of all
agricultural produce, declaring it public property. (we shall not now deal
with the third precept, the cancellation of all monetary debts mentioned in
Parashat Re’e (Deut. 15:!-11).
Whoever wishes to find a reason for the institution of the Sabbatical year
of the land, must bear in mind, not only one, but both above mentioned
aspects of the Shemitah year. We present some of the views regarding
the reason for the Shemitah laws, in their chronological order, and will
subsequently classify and compare them.
Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, 3,39:
As to the precepts enumerated in the laws concerning the year of

Shemitah and the Yovel (Jubilee) year, some of them imply sympathy with
our fellow men and promote the well-being of mankind; for in reference to
these precepts it is stated in the Torah: That the poor of thy people may
eat (Ex. 23:11); and besides, the land will also increase its produce and
improve when it remains fallow for some time.
The first motive explains the precept of renunciation of all produce

(mentioned by Maimonides in Chapter 4), and the second reason a purely
agricultural one—explains why the land must lie fallow.
Many commentators reject the agricultural motive:
Abarvanel strongly repudiates this explanation:

Parashat Behar
The truth is that this is not so.
And Abarvanel adduces two arguments against Maimonides’ view. One

from verses 20-21, from whose text it is obvious that uninterrupted
working of the land for six years does not result in its weakening, but on
the contrary—its yield will be exceedingly bountiful (in the sixth year). We
cite Abarvanel;
If the Torah is concerned about the natural weakening of the

land in consequence of working year after year, how then is it
going to yield produce for three years?
A counter-argument could be that what the Torah promises is not a natural

phenomenon, but as it explicitly states—this will occur if you will keep the
Lord’s commandments:
25:21
And I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it
shall bring forth fruit for three years.
The text and style of the verse indicate clearly a very special and
wondrous blessing. However, there is another argument which motivates
the rejection of the agricultural reason for the Shemitah law.
We find that argument in Akedat Yitzhak 89, whose author also opposes
this idea of Maimonides:
Our Sages have said (Avot 5,11): Captivity comes into the
world on account of…and the neglect of the year of rest for
the soil. Why should this transgression be punished so
severely?…If the suspension of work is for the benefit of the
soil, in conformity with the custom of farmers to let the land
lie fallow for some years, in order that it may gather strength
and yield more…then their failing to keep the Shemitah law…
will be punished by the resulting poor crops—why should
they be punished with exile into captivity?
Other commentators adduce the text of the verse for their counter
argument. Thus Keli Yakar states:
Many affirm that the purpose of the rest for the land is it
reinvigorate it and increase its field. The master
(Maimonides) also adopted this view. However, many
commentators reject it, arguing that if that had been the
purpose of the Torah—to avoid the weakening of the soil—
why should the violation of this law be punished by exile…
Furthermore, in this case the Shemitah year would not be a
Sabbath to the Lord) but for the benefit of the land.
On the other hand the commentators agree with Maimonides’ first reason,
of social significance, i.e., sympathy with our fellow men and to promote
the well-being of mankind, or as expressed by the author of Minhah
Belulah:
And the land shall keep a Sabbath to the Lord: this law was
given in order that we may show sympathy for our fellow men
who have neither land nor vineyards, and that they may be
happy in the Shemitah year, as the rich are happy every
year.

Parashat Behar
Giving emphasis to brotherhood and not only to equality, Keli Yakar in

Deut. 31:12 explains the Shemitah of the land, relating it to the Shemitah
(cancellation) of debts:
Gather the people together: The Shemitah year contains

factors conducive to union and peace. For since no sowing
and planting is allowed, the poor may eat freely and none
may store produce and treat it as his own, this undoubtedly
creates favorable conditions towards peace, because all
strife originates from the attitude of “mine is mine” and people
claiming their rights. But in the seventh year all are equal –
this can indeed generate peace.
The Or Hahayim sees also in the last verse of the Shemitah chapter an
allusion to the atmosphere of peace, which the Shemitah promotes, as
being the reason for the commandment:
“Shall be food for you” – for thee and for thy servant and for thy maid and
for thy hired servant and for thy stranger that sojourns with thee (v.6):
Although the above-mentioned had already been included in the general
statement for you (plural), the Torah enumerates them. Why then does the
Torah state for you? It would have sufficed to state: And the Sabbath
produce of the land shall be food for thee and for thy servant, etc. But (for
you) precedes for thee, etc., in order to intimate that the sequence in the
list that follows does not indicate any priority (contrary to the example of “If
there be among you a poor man, one of my brethren, within any of thy
gates” (Deut. 15:7) (se Rashi’s comment), where the sequence indicates
that the poor of your city have priority over those of other cities). The
collective implies that in regard to food in the Shemitah year all are equal
and none enjoy any priority.
However, all the reasons cited explain only or mainly the precept of the
renunciation of ownership, but not the suspension of agricultural work.
Let us, therefore, cite Ibn Ezra’s very concise comment in deut. 31:10-12:
At the end of every seven years: At the beginning of the year. And that
they may learn: Throughout the years, including the Sabbath days.
In this case, the suspension of work (in the Shemitah year) is to facilitate
the study of the Torah.
Among the several reasons adduced, the Akedat Yitzhak elaborates on

this point emphasizing the danger inherent in continual work without limits
which leaves no time for matters of spiritual interest:
The second point …that the seven years of work and the
suspension of work in every seventh year causes us to
realize that our mission on earth is not to be slaves to the soil
but a much higher and nobler one. Work should only serve
the purpose of providing food and other needs, while our task
is to attain to the supreme end; the purpose of giving this
land to this people was not to be brought into the land in
order to be enslaved by it, and addicted to tilling it and gather
in the crops and enrich themselves, as do the other nations in
their lands, as it is stated, “… let them dwell in the land and
trade in it; for the land, behold, it is large enough for
them” (Gen. 34:21). Their purpose is to accomplish
themselves and seek perfection, according to the will of their
Creator, while satisfying the needs of their sustenance.

Parashat Behar
In order to underscore this vital task they were given this

great sign to remind them that they should work the land six
years and let is rest in the seventh, to make them realize that
earthly work
And toil were not intended to be the road to man’s might but
something from which they should take a rest for the sake of
the Lord. This is implied in the verse, “And the Sabbath
produce of the land shall be food for you, for thee and for thy
servant and for thy maid and for thy hired servant and for the
sthat sojourns with thee,” this should bring home to you the
fact that you should work no more than just to provide food
for you, your servant and maid, your hired servant and the
stranger, i.e. the poor among your people. Any surplus
should be given to the cattle and beasts of the land.
Accordingly, the Shemitah year should lift man out of his materialism.
Interestingly, Akedat Yizhak cites Hamor, the father of shekhem, as the
archetype of the seeker of material gains, of those enslaved by it (the soil)
and its cultivations, work it and gather in the crops, as representing this
outlook on life, who wishes to persuade his townspeople to undergo even
conversion to the Jewish faith for the purpose of commercial expansion
and the raising of the material quality of life.
Now comes the Shemitah year with its two demands—suspension of

work, implying the foregoing of profit, and the renunciation of ownership,
with the consequent renouncing of existing possessions – in order to gain
the right moral values. R.A.Y. Kook, following this idea, explains admirably
the meaning of Shemitah, in the introduction to his work Shabbat HaAretz
(The Sabbath of the Land):
The treasure of the nation, the Divine blessing that is

implanted in it, the order of the world, the righteous and good
life, lived in harmony with justice and honesty, peace and
tranquility, grace and courage, permeated by the all-
embracing contemplation of the Diviner purpose, as it exists
in the national soul—none can be activated in the day-to day
life. The very nature of this life obfuscates the spiritual
majesty of the Divine soul (which dwells in the nation) and
prevents its bright and shining light from penetrating the
profane reality.
Life can only be perfected through the affording of a

breathing space from the bustle of everyday life. The
individual recovers from the influence of the mundane at
frequent intervals, every Sabbath day…What the Sabbath
achieves regarding the individual, the Shemitah achieves
with regard to the nation as a whole. This nation (in which the
Divine spirit dwells prominent and eternal) has special need
of expressing from time to time the revelation of its own
Divine light at its fullest brightness, not suppressed by the
cares and toil of the passions and rivalries of everyday life, so
that the totality of the soul’s purity may be revealed within it.
And if that callousness which is bound to be present in the
life of a community, causes the deterioration of the moral
standard of life, and the constant conflict between the ideal
heeding of the appeal top practice of loving kindness and
truthfulness, compassion and pity, on the one hand, and the
raging oppression, coercion, and pressure of the quest for
material gain, inevitable in daily life, on the other, cause the
distancing of the Divine light from the cognitive capacity of
the nation…The periodical suspension of the normal social

Parashat Behar
routine raises this nation—when morally settled—spiritually

and morally, and crowns it with perfection. This is achieved
through the divine content that is rooted in the nation, and
which stands high above any social system and order, and
which raises and perfects the social order.
A year of solemn rest is essential for both the nation and the
land, a year of peace and quiet without oppressor and tyrant
—he shall not oppress his neighbor and his brother, for a
Shemitah has been proclaimed to the Lord. It is a year of
equality and rest, in which the soul reaches out towards
divine justice, towards God who sustains the living creatures
with loving kindness. There is no private property and no
punctilious privilege but the peace of god reigns over all in
which there is the breath of life. It shall be a Sabbath of the
land to you for food, for your manservant and hired servant
and the sojourner who sojourns with you, and for your cattle
and the animalism your land, all its produce shall be for food.
Sanctity is not profaned by the exercise of private
acquisitiveness over all this year’s produce, and the
covetousness of wealth stirred up by commerce is forgotten.
For food – but not for commerce. Generosity and
gratefulness for the blessing of God over the fruits of the
earth – for food – but not for loss (Pesahim 52b – that is, it is
forbidden intentionally to spoil food fit for human
consumption). Man returns to the pristine nature before he
required drugs to combat disease, which is largely the result
of upsetting the equilibrium of life, and is symptomatic of his
divorcement from nature in its spiritual and material aspects.
For food and not for drugs, for food and not for making an
emetic (Sukkah 40b). Pour out a spirit of sanctity and nobility
over all! – it shall be a solemn Sabbath for the land, a
Sabbath to the Lord.
Thus Ibn Ezra and Rav Kook see in the raising of the spiritual level the
main purpose of the Shemitah, through the farmers dedicating the year to
the Torah studies and thus reaching higher spiritual levels, as Ibn Ezra
explains. R. Kook, on the other hand, sees in the suspension of the
normal social order of labor, of the quest for sustenance, of commercial
activities (including the cancellation of debts), in the abstention from the
profanation of the holy as reflected in the passionate consciousness of
private property – in all these he sees a means of purifying the soul and of
uncovering and activating the Divine treasure which dwells in the soul of
the nation.
Nothing more need be added to his words.
1. Sefer haHinukh, Mishpatim 84, states;
It is our duty to fix firmly in our minds that the universe was
created by God, as it is stated: For in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth (Ex. 19:11), and on the seventh, on which
He created nothing, He decreed rest for Himself. And in order
to eliminate from our minds any idea of another, earlier deity,
as propounded by those who negate the Torah and deny its
authenticity, we were bidden to cultivate our faith in God the
Creator day by day and year by year, and to count six years
and rest in the seventh. Thus we shall always remain
conscious of this fact. The counting of the six years recalls
the count of the six weekdays and the seventh day of rest.

Parashat Behar
That Torah commands us not only to refrain from all

agricultural work but also to renounce the ownership of the
seventh year’s produce. This should remind man that the
earth yields its produce not because of its power and
capacity, but because there is a God who is Master over it
and its owner. And whenever their Lord wishes He
commands the owner to renounce his ownership over the
produce of the land.
A further purpose of this commandment is to foster man’s

generosity. For generosity is indeed genuine when, as in the
case of Shemitah, no reciprocity can be expected.
Yet another objective of the Shemitah law is to cultivate and

strengthen man’s faith in God. For he who prevails over the
accustoms himself to renounce once every seven years
ownership of all the produce of his land, inherited from his
forefathers, will never be consumed by avarice nor be
plagued by lack of faith.
1. What according to the Sefer haHinukh, are the reasons for the law
of Shemitah?
2. Are they identical or similar to some of the reasons mentioned in

our studies above?
1. Six years thou shall sow thy field, and six years thou shall prune thy
vineyard (25:3).
Nahmanides comments:
Six years: This is the style of the Torah, as also in Ex. 20:9:
“Six days shall thou labor and do all thy work,” or “six days
thou shall do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shall
rest” (ib. 23:12)… In the Midrash, R. Yishmael says: When
Israel heeds God’s will, they keep one
Shemitah, every seven years, as it is stated: “Six years thou

shall sow thy field.” But when Israel do not heed his will, then
they keep four Shemitot in seven years. How so? They
plough one year (but do not sow) and sow the next, then
again they plough one year and sow the next – thus there will
have been four Shemitot in seven years.
1. what problem does our verse pose?
2. What is the proof Nahmanides adduces from Ex. 20 and 23?
3. Wherein lies the difference between R. Yishmael’s inof the future

tense of thou shall sow and Nahmanides’ explanation that this is the
style of the Torah?
1. That which grows of its own accord of thy harvest thou shall not
reap, nor gather the grapes of thy undressed vine (25:5).
Rashi comments:
That which grows of its own accord of thy harvest: Even if you did not sow
it, and it grew out of seed that fell to the ground during the harvest – that is
called Safiakh.

Parashat Behar
Thou shall not reap: You cannot keep it as at other harvests, but you must
renounce ownership of it.
Nezircha: Ownership of which you did not renounce, denying them to your
fellow men from whom you have withheld (from the root nezer – to
abstain) them.
Not gather: Those you may not gather, but only from those made public
property by renunciation of ownership.
Nahmanides comments:
That which grows of its own accord of thy harvest:…and the untended
vine which was neither hoed nor pruned is called Nazir because the owner
kept away from it (from root nezer –abstain), as in…because they are all
estranged from Me through their idols (Ez. 14:5)—left me, or in – that they
separate themselves from the holy things of the Children of Israel (Lev.
22:2), rendered by Onkelos –forsake, abandon), which you abandoned
and left to be overgrown by thistles and thorns. A vineyard which had
been laid waste and not cultivated may have been called nazir (Cf. Is.
5:6), i.e., the vineyard of a nazarite who is forbidden to drink wine or eat
either fresh or dry grapes, and therefore does not cultivate it. Likewise
long hair is referred to as cut of thy hair, and cast it away (Jer. 7:29) owing
to the long hair of the nazarite who may not cut his hair. The same
analogy explains the expression “They grow in cultivated vineyards”. The
Torah decrees that that which grows of its own accord should not be
reaped, and the grapes from an untended vineyard should not be
gathered. The oral law explains that they may not be reaped and gathered
for yourself only. This must be a year of rest for the land when sowing and
pruning are prohibited, a Sabbath of the land, and whatever produce, not
planted by human hands, that it yields may be consumed by all of you
together – you, your poor beast and domestic animal.
Minha Belula
Nezircha: The Torah applies the name nezirim to the unpruned vines, by
analogy with the nazarite who may not cut his hair. Or it may be related to
nizro akher – they are gone away backward (Is. 1:4), for their owner has
turned his back on them, as if they were not his.
1. In how many different ways has invei nezirkha been interpreted/

2. How many different interpretations link invei nezirkha with the
nazarite ( a person who vows abstention from wine and grapes)?
3. There is a parallelism in the structure of this verse ( as well as
between the first phrase of v. 3 and the last of v.4). Which of the
interoperations of invei nezircha is reflected best in the parallelism
invei nezircha-sfiach kezircha
4. What misconception does Nahmanides wish to preclude with his
concluding statement…these prohibitions, etc.
5. Does Nahmanides’ interpretation of the prohibitions agree with
Rashi’s?

Parashat Behukotai
Languages
Links
Parashat Behukotai

Parashat Hashavua
The Blessing
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
The Parashah is popularly known as the Tochecha, the reproof (more

English precisely, the minor reproof, as against that in Ki Tavo (Duet.28), the great
reproof). But is this title justified, seeing that the Parashah opens with the
Hebrew theme of blessings?
German
This name reflects a superficial glance at the Parashah, wherein thirty
Russian verses consist of reproof or curses as against thirteen of blessings.
Spanish Ibn Ezra was one of the first to protest against the misnomer, thus:
“Upright” (26:13)… the empty-headed have asserted that

Nehama's Iyunim these curses exceed the blessings, but that is not true.
Insights on the
The blessings were stated in a general fashion, the curses in detail, in
Parasha
order to frighten and deter the hearers. A closer look at the text will reveal
(Companion)
that it bears me out.
Nehama's Gilyonot
R. N.H. Weisel in his Biur (26:16) elaborates on Ibn Ezra’s viewpoint:
I go further than this and say that the blessings outnumber

Nehar Deah
the curses. If you consider our view of the distribution of the
Rega Lifney curses, you will infer from the abundance of curses God’s
Shabbat kindness and mercy for His people. Thus, with the blessings
God promised that if they followed His statuses, they would
immediately enjoy the entire range of infinite blessing.
Commentary of Accordingly, if they disobeyed and violated His covenant, all
the curses should likewise materialize immediately. However,
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
the text states that even if they rebelled, they would not be
(in Hebrew)
struck by all the curses at once. Rather, first they would
suffer minor blows, to deter them and make them repent. If
they failed to repent, God would strike them with but one
series of curses. If they still refused to repent, God would
expose them to the second range of curses. And if they
Studio in Old Jaffa
persisted in their rebellion, the third and fourth wave would
set in. Only if they still refused to reform, would the major
curse materialize.
Our Parashah thus reflects the principle which our sages discerned
throughout Scriptures, whereby the measure of Divine Goodness
outweighs that of Divine retribution (cf. Yoma 76a).
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/behukota.html (1 de 7)26/02/2008 10:57:40 a.m.

Parashat Behukotai
There is likewise an asymmetry between the prerequisites of the blessings

and those of the curses.
Before the blessing the Torah states:
If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments

and do them 26:3
Before the curses the Torah states:
But if you will not hearken to Me, and will not do all these
command. 26:14
And if you shall despise, or if your soul abhor My

judgements, so that you will not do all My
commandments, but that you break My Covenant. 26:15
The standards applied to the blessings evidently differ from those relating
to the curses. Thus, the curses are not to be administered upon the mere
transgression of the laws; only upon despising and abhorring them, as
noted by Seforno:
If you shall despise My statutes – beyond mere violation, you

will despise them;
And if your soul loathe My judgements—consciously…i.e.,

loathe them as one might willfully spew out something
objectionable…
Thus the preconditions of the blessings radically differ from those of the
curses.
But the blessings as such (23:1-13) give rise to a different and more
complex question, variously posed by our commentators:
R. Yosef Albo, in his Sefer HaIkkarim 39,4:
Jewish authorities throughout the ages have never ceased

puzzling why the Torah omits to specify any spiritual benefits
alongside the material gains that it lists. Moreover, since the
Torah does not mention the spiritual benefits which constitute
the principal reward, why does it elaborate the material
benefits which are not the main reward?
R. Yizhak Arama, in Akedat Yithak, Behukotai:
Adherents of religion who believe in Divine reward and

punishment (for those who please or anger God,
respectively), assail the Torah’s silence concerning the
spiritual remuneration that constitutes the chief aim of the
Torah, which holds up transitory, material rewards, as the
goal of those obedient to its laws.
R. Yitzhak Abarvanel, Behukotai 26:
Why does the Torah confine its goals and rewards to material
things, as mentioned in his comment, and omit spiritual
perfection and the reward of the soul after death – the true
and ultimate goal of man? Our enemies exploit this text and

Parashat Behukotai
charge Israel with denying the principle of the soul’s

judgement in the afterlife.
Whereas Albo poses this problem within the Jewish context, Abarvanel is
concerned with the critique of Judaism by Christian theologians who point
to the sublime reward promised in their doctrines, as demonstrating the
superiority of their own religion. R. Judah HaLevi in the Kuzari (1, 104)
puts in the mouth of the king of the Kazars the arguments of Muslim
theologians on this subject. The Kazar king turns to the Jewish
philosopher and says:
I note that the reward held out by other faiths are greater and
more substantial.
From the context and the gist of the scholar’s reply it is evident that the
Kazar king is referring to the afterlife.
The view that the Bible did not subscribe to an afterlife, and that the
ancient Israel believer was content with the material boons of timely rain
and bountiful crops, and that only after the exile did they substitute the
Hereafter, to compensate themselves for the loss of their land, represents
a native concept of the formation of religions and human yearnings.
Kaufmann in his classic (Hebrew) History of the Israelite Religion (Vol. V,
Life and Death), was not the first to refute this and similar fallacies, He
states:
The belief in the soul’s separate existence from the body

after death is most ancient, and is even claimed to mark the
very beginning of the religion. This doctrine is found in the
Scriptures as well.
The view that Scripture refrained from affirming the

immortality of the soul as a dogma owing to its repudiation of
the cult of the dead (especially the Egyptian version) from
which Israel was to be weaned is unacceptable. The Torah
repudiates paganism in toto ( not only the Egyptian cult of the
dead). The view of the individual’s lack of importance in
ancient Israel and hence no need for a belief in the eternity of
the individual’s soul was felt, is incorrect. We have seen that
the individual was considered important.
We cite some of the answers offered by our classical commentators to this

problem.
Ibn Ezra (Deut. 32:39):
I, even I, am He…I kill and I make alive”: Many claim that life
in the Hereafter can be inferred from this verse, since it
states first I kill and then I make alive. Similarly, the Lord kills
and gives life, He brings down the grave and brings up…
(there follow several other verses which allude to the
afterlife). But I feel that the Torah was given to all, and not to
an individual alone, whereas only one in a thousand van
fathom the Hereafter, for it is profound.
But many commentators argue that the Torah does not take account of
popular fallacies. Thus, the rejection of anthropomorphism was hardly
within the primitive person’s grasp. Yet, the Torah declares “you saw no
likeness,” concerning the Revelation on Mount Sinai. Elsewhere we read
that the leaders of Israel saw god, and ate and drank (Ex. 24:11), which
cannot be taken literally. Here the Torah “Relied upon the intelligent” (Albo

Parashat Behukotai
ad loc.), without being concerned about possible misunderstanding.

Rather it was guided by the principle that the righteous shall walk therein
and the wicked stumble therein (Hoshea 14:10). It is inconceivable that
such an important principle as the immortality of the soul and the
Hereafter should be omitted by the Torah on account of its being beyond
the grasp of the uninitiated.
Let us cite Nahmanides’ view on this problem (Ex. 6:2):
And god spoke to Moses:…the reward of virtue and

punishment of vice is miraculous. Left to nature or to the
constellations, his deeds would neither add to nor detract
anything from his fate. Indeed, all reward and punishment in
this world promised by the Torah constitutes mysterious
miracles. They may appear as natural phenomena, yet in
actual fact, they denote reward and punishment. The reason
that the Torah elaborates the reward in this world and omits
the recompense of the soul in the world of the souls, is
because the former is a supernmiracle whereas the survival
of the soul and its reunion with God is a natural process,
whereby the soul returns to its Divine progenitor.
Nahmanides comments similarly on the concept of karet (“cutting off” i.e.,

premature death) (Lev. 18:29):
“(They) shall be cut off:” …you must realize that the

punishment of cutting off the soul implies a firm assurance of
the immortality of the soul and of a Divine reward in the
Hereafter. By stating “this soul shall be cut off from before
Me,” the torah teaches us that only the soul of the sinner is
cut off, for its iniquity, but other souls, which have not sinned
will live eternally and enjoy the Divine splendor. This is so
because the human soul is the lamp of the Lord which He
breathed into our nostrils…and so it rests in its natural setting
and will not die. It is not composite and thus is not subject to
generation and dissolution as are compound substances.
Indeed, it is intrinsically imperishable as are the immaterial
intelligence’s (i.e., angels).
It is therefore unnecessary for the Torah to state that as a

reward for a good deed the soul will live forever. It states
rather that as a punishment for transgressing, the soul will
become tarnished and defiled and thus cut off from its natural
life of eternity. Accordingly, the torah chose the term karet, as
with a branch cut off from a tree that brought it forth. As
already noted, all the rewards and punishments promised by
the Torah are supernatural, mysterious miracles…thus it (the
Torah) does not hold out eternity (for the soul) which is
natural (and therefore, self-evident).
In our Parasha (26:12), Nahmanides sums up this view briefly:
"And I will walk among you”: The torah does not mention here
the eternal life of the soul in the world of the souls and in the
Hereafter after the resurrection, for the soul’s endurance is
constitutional, as I have explained in the context of karet. It is
the punishment which brings about extinction of the guilty
souls, whilst the others, by their very nature, live forever.
We have quoted Nahmanides extensively to demonstrate the consistency

of his view of immortality as the natural consequence of the soul’s Divine
source. Hence the Torah’s silence on immortality, just as it omits to

Parashat Behukotai
mention other natural phenomena.
The Akedat Yizhak provides a different solution (Sha’ar 70):
Indeed, the spiritual bliss whose source is the Torah and the
reward of the Divine commandments, are more than amply
recorded in the frequent accounts throughout the Torah of
the Shekhinah (Divine Presence) resting in our midst and in
the ongoing communion with the Divine thus attained by us…
And so in the present Parashah the cardinal and
transcendent reward of the Commandments is held out: “And
I will set My dwelling among you…And I will walk among you,
and I will be your God” (26:11-12). How could the critics fail
to perceive the intensity of the Divine communion and the
spiritual wealth attained by members of our nation while still
dwelling in this ephemeral world wherein our souls remain
anchored in the crudeness of the earth. How much more so
will this come to pass upon man’s separation from the matter.
This wondrous message underlines Moses’ declaration: “But
you that did cleave to the Lord your God are alive every one
of you this day…” – this day, in your this-worldly existence,
wherein you are able to experience, the proximity of and
communion with God.
The elation and joy caused by the Divine reward of the God fearing
already in the present world, as expressed above, recall the Psalmist’s
renunciation of all benefits in the present of future worlds, once he has
discovered the true reward, thus, But as for me, the nearness of God is
my good (73:28).
If, in our earthly lives we experience the proximity of God and even
communion with the Divine, how much more so will the soul be able to
bask in the Divine Glory in the world to come.
Countering the claim of a superior spiritual reward of the soul in Christian

dogma, Abarvanel (following, as often, Akedat Yizhak) retorts as follows:
How can the Gentiles flourish their reward after death, seeing
that we Jews attain that (spiritual) bliss and communion with
the Divine in this life.
Rambam’s comment in two places deals chiefly with Albo’s second

question:
Why, at all, did the Torah mention material rewards? In his introduction to
Chapter XI (Helek) of Sanhedrin, he states:
The idea behind the material rewards promised in the Torah

is as follows. The almighty says to you: If you perform the
precepts I shall assist you to carry them out and to perfect
yourself through them and remove from you all obstacles in
your path. For a man cannot perform the precepts if he is
sick, hungry, or thirsty, in the hour of battle or under siege.
The Almighty therefore promised that He would rid them of
these situations and that they would enjoy health and
tranquility, enabling them to perfect their knowledge and
merit the Hereafter. These material rewards are thus not an
end in themselves but a means. Conversely, if they
transgress the Torah, evil would overtake them, preventing
them from carrying out the precepts – “because thou did not
serve the Lord thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of

Parashat Behukotai
heart, by reason of the abundance of all things; therefore

shall thou serve thy enemy” (Deut. 28:47-48). If you ponder
over this deeply, you will discern that the Torah means to tell
you the following: If you have performed some of the
precepts out of love and by dint of your own efforts, I shall
help you to perform all of them and remove any obstacles in
your path. But if you forsake and despise them, I shall put
obstacles in the way of your performance, till you are
deprived of spiritual perfection and immortality. This is the
implication of our sages’ dictum: The reward of a precept is a
precept.
In his Hilkhot Teshuvah 9,1, Maimonides elaborates on the same theme.

(Owing to the importance of Maimonides’ statement, we cite it in full).
It is known that the reward for the fulfillment of the

commandments and the good to which we will attain if we
have kept the way of the Lord, as prescribed in the law, is life
in the world to come, as it is said, “That it may be well with
you, and that you may prolong your days” (Duet. 22:7), while
the retribution exacted from the wicked who have abandoned
the ways of righteousness prescribed in the Torah is
excision, as it is said, “That soul shall be utterly cut off; his
iniquity shall be upon him” (Num. 15:31). What then is the
meaning of the statement found everywhere in the Torah that
if you obey, it will happen to you thus; if you do not obey, it
will be otherwise; and all these happenings will take place in
this world, such as war and peace; sovereignty and
subjection; residence in the Promised Land and exile;
prosperity in one’s activities and failure and all the other
things predicted in the words of the covenant (Lev. 26, Deut.
28)? All those promises were once truly fulfilled and will again
be so. When we fulfill all the commandments of the Torah, all
the good things of this world will come to us. When, however,
we transgress the precepts, the evils that are written in the
Torah will befall us. But nevertheless, those good things are
not the final reward for the fulfillment of the commandments,
nor are those evils the last penalty exacted from one who
transgresses all the commandments. These matters are to be
understood as follows: The Holy One blessed be He, gave us
this law – a tree of life. Whoever, fulfills what is written therein
and knows it with a complete and correct knowledge will
attain thereby life in the world to come. According to the
greatness of his deeds and abundance of his knowledge will
be the measure in which he will attain that life.
The Holy One Blessed be He, has further promised us in the Torah that if
we observe its behests joyously and cheerfully, and continually meditate
on its wisdom, He will remove from us the obstacles that hinder us in its
observance, such as sickness, war, famine, and other calamities; and will
bestow upon us all the material benefits which will strengthen our abilito
fulfill the Law, such as plenty, peace, abundance of silver and gold. Thus
we will not be engaged all our days in providing for our bodily needs, but
will have leisure to study wisdom and fulfill the commandment and thus
attain life in the world to come. Hence, after assurance of material
benefits, it is said in the Torah, “And it shall be righteousness to us, if we
observe to do all this commandment before the Lord our God as He
commanded us” (ibid. 32:15), the true Judge will deprive the foresakers of
all those material benefits which only served to encourage them to be
recalcitrant, and will send upon them all the calamities that will prevent
their attaining the life hereafter, so that they will perish in their wickedness.
This is expressed by the Torah in the text: “Because you did not serve the

Parashat Behukotai
Lord your God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, by reason of the
abundance of all things, therefore hall you serve your enemy whom the
Lord shall send against you” (ibid. 28: 47-48).
Hence, all those benedictions and maledictions promised in the Torah are
to be explained as follows: If you have served God with joy and observed
His way, He will bestow upon you those blessings and avert you those
curses, so that you will have leisure to become wise in the Torah and
occupy yourselves therewith, and thus attain life hereafter, and then it will
be well with you in the world which is entirely blissful and you will enjoy
length of days in an existence which is everlasting. So you will enjoy both
worlds, a happy life on earth leading to the life in the world to come. For if
wisdom is not acquired and good deeds are not performed here, there will
be nothing meriting a recompense hereafter, as it is said, “For there is no
work, no device, no knowledge, no wisdom in the grave” (Eccles. 9:10).
But if you have forsaken the Lord and have erred in eating, drinking
fornication, and similar things, He will bring upon you all those curses and
withhold from you all those blessings till your days will end in confusion
and terror, and you will have neither the free mind nor the healthy body
requisite for the fulfillment of the commandments so that you will suffer
perdition in the life hereafter and will thus have lost both worlds – for when
one is troubled here on earth with diseases, war or famine, he does not
occupy himself with the acquisition of wisdom or the performance of
religious precepts by which life hereafter is gained.
( Translated from A Maimonides Reader by I. Twersky)

Director:

Parashat Bamidbar
Languages
Links
Parashat Bamidbar

Parashat Hashavua
The second roll - Call of Israel
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah And the lord spoke unto Moses in the wilderness of
Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first
day of the second month, in the second year after they
English were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, Take ye the
sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after
Hebrew their families, by the house of their fathers, with the
number of their names, every male by their polls; From
German twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth
to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by
Russian
their armies.
Spanish (1, 1 - 3)
The fourth book of the Pentateuch, Bamidbar, opens with the census
Nehama's Iyunim conducted by Moses and Aaron of all the tribes from which it derives it’s
name “Numbers”. The first chapter is replete with numbers of each tribe
Insights on the and the total aggregate. This is also not the first census taken of the
Parasha children of Israel. They had already been numbered prior to the erection of
(Companion) the Tabernacle (Exodus 30, 11 - 16; 38, 25 - 26). The sockets of the
Tabernacle were made from the proceeds of the money contributed by
Nehama's Gilyonot those that were numbered.
In our sidra they are numbered again; every detail is carefully given
Nehar Deah including the date - “on the first day of the second ( i.e. Iyar) month in the
second year” - one month after the erection of the Tabernacle.
Rega Lifney
Shabbat The question that immediately arises is what need had the divine law to
include this minute statistical data? What moral purpose does it serve for
future generations and why had Moses been commanded so solemnly to
Commentary of number them a second time, on this particular date? Our common sense
Rabbi Moshe Bergman interpreters, the leading representative of whom is Rashbam ( Rashi’s
(in Hebrew) grandson ) proffers a clear - cut explanation.
“Take the number of all the congregation”:

Illustrations to the This was on account of the fact that they had to enter Eretz
Weekly Parasha, by the Israel and those from twenty years and upwards were eligible
Studio in Old Jaffa to go forth in the army into battle. For on the twentieth day of
the second month the matter was broached, as it is written in
Numbers 10, 11,29:
“We are journeying to the place which the Lord hath
promised to give to you”; for this reason the Holy One
blessed be He ordered them to be numbered at the
beginning of this month.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/bamidbar.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 11:15:41 a.m.

Parashat Bamidbar
This census, according to this explanation, was therefore of a military

nature in order to determine the forces at Moses’ disposal and organize
them for battle. This seems reasonable enough especially since the
census only applied to those who had reached the age of twenty and
upward, an age which was considered also by our Sages as the ideal one
as far as physical endurance and capacity when they said “twenty year old
to pursue” (Pirkei Avot). This explanation receives added confirmation
from the fact that the Levites were not numbered along with the rest of the
tribes, as it is written:
Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take
the sum of them among the children of Israel: But thou
shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of
testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all
things that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle,
and all the vessels thereof; and they shall minister unto
it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle.
(1, 49 - 50)
It is clear from here that the Levites were not numbered because of their
special role in the sacred service on account of which they were relieved
from military duties.
But there are still a number of difficulties which remain unexplained. Why
did the Torah elaborate so much on the details of the census instead of
merely informing us of the total number of Israelites at the disposal of
Moses for the purpose of battle? Nahmanides, who seeks to distil the
maximum moral and mystical significane from the sacred text suggests
three approaches to this problem:
It was necessary for the Torah to record the total number

after giving the details because Moses and Aaron had been
commanded to ascertain the number of the people and the
number of each tribe, for this was the manner of kings to
number the people.
But I have not understood the reason for this
commandment, why God ordered it (i.e. to record the
general total). It was necessary to know the number of each
tribe separately for the purpose of the arrangement of the
camp according to standards, but why was it necessary to
know the general number?
Perhaps the idea was to make known His loving kindness
unto them, that when their fathers went down to Egypt they
numbered only 70 souls and now they were as the sand of
the sea. And after every pestilence and plague He
numbered them in order to make known that Though He
woundeth, His hands make whole again, in accordance with
what our Sages said “out of an abundance of love for them
He numbers them frequently”.
Further he that comes before the father of all the prophets

(Moses) and his brother the consecrated of the Lord (Aaron)
and is known to them by his name gains thereby merit and
life… For they would place upon them their eye for good and
beseech mercy for them:
” May the Lord God of your fathers add unto you
according to this a thousand times” and not diminish your
number… I have further seen in Bamidbar Rabbah on the
text “With the number of their names… by their polls” as
follows:
The Holy One blessed be He ordered Moses to number

Parashat Bamidbar
them in a manner that would confer honour and greatness

on each one of them, individually. Not that you should say to
the head of the family: “How many are there in your family?
How many children have you?” But rather all of them should
pass before you in awe and with the honour due to them and
you should number them.
That is what is meant when it states: “According to the
number of names from the age of twenty years and
upwards by their polls”.
Perhaps in addition this was also the manner of kings when
going to war. Now the Children of Israel were ready to enter
the land and do battle with the kings of the Amorites who
were on the other side of the Jordan, as it is said “We are
journeying towards the place which the Lord has said”;
and Moses and the Princes required to know the number of
soldiers available… For the Torah does not rely on miracles
that one should pursue a thousand, and this is the reason
for the statement “all that are able to go forth to war in
Israel”.
( Nahmanides on Numbers 1, 45)
Nahmanides gives here three reasons, mentioning last the strategic,

military consideration which Rashbam referred to. Nahmanides in
emphasising that we must not rely on miracles but must make all the
necessary preparations for meeting the enemy is true to his approach in
other places, particularly with regard to the spies, the dispatch of which
into the Holy Land he regarded as a correct expedient adopted by all
conquerors, since the Torah would not advocate relying on miracles.
Nevertheless, we have no greater believer in miracles, both hidden and
revealed, in Jewish history than Nahmanides.
It was he who said: No one of us can have a portion in the law of Moses
our teacher until we believe that in all matters and circumstances
affecting us we are surrounded by miracles and that they are not just
natural and ordinary phenomena, whether concerning the public or the
individual. All happens according to the decree on High. On this same
theme Nahmanides makes another observation:
The Torah orders matters to be conducted in the normal

human fashion, leaving the miracles to be performed for the
God - fearing in secret, since it is not the divine desire to
change the nature of the world.
(Nahmanides on Deuteronomy 20, 8)
We may learn from these statements a valuable lesson regarding the

maintaining of the judicious balance between trust in God and self - help,
avoiding the twin dangers of relying overmuch on God in the sense of:
“the heavens will be merciful”, and human vainglory in the sense of: “my
power and the might of mine hand have gotten me this wealth”. On
account of this Nahmanides does not rest content with the strategic
rational motivation of this census but adds a further reason and explains
as well why this numbering had to be individual.
Special importance is attached to this latter consideration in our days, in
view of the ideologies that subject the individual to the mass and see in
him a cog in the machine of state assuming that if one human being is
destroyed there is always another one to take his place.
In contrast to this, Nahmanides emphasises that the census was
personal and individual “according to their polls” impressing on us the
value and sterling worth of each and every soul which is a unique

Parashat Bamidbar
specimen of divine creativity and a world of its own. Isaac Arama in his
Akedat Yizhak calls attention to this same feature of the census which
came to demonstrate that:
They were not just like animals or material objects, but each one had an
importance of his own like a king or priest and that indeed God had
shown special love towards them and this is the significance of
mentioning each one of them by name and status; for they were all equal
and individual in status.
The other reason mentioned by Nahmanides, alluded to first, and

probably first in importance in his opinion, is the fact that this census was
designed to call attention to the miracle of our existence. This idea is
uppermost in the verse which we recite on the Seder night in relating the
miracle of the Exodus:
Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and

ten persons; and now the Lord thy God hath made thee
as the stars of heaven for multitude
( Deuteronomy 21, 22)
Nahmanides further points out that this census took place after the
pestilence and plague. He points to the moral of Jewish history: we have
not succumbed in spite of decimation through suffering and persecution.
On the contrary we have increased and multiplied.
Our sidra refers them in the dry language of statistics and numbers to the
miracle of Israel’s survival. This idea is phrased in philosophical terms by
Bahya in his Hovot Ha - levavot:
If someone will in these days (when the age of miracles is

no more) seek a parallel to what took place in our ancient
history (i.e. the miracles in the Bible), let him look frankly at
our status among the nations from the time of the exile and
our relationships with them. In spite of the fact that we
neither publicly nor privately fall in with their ways and they
are aware of this, it is as He our Creator has promised us
(Leviticus 26, 44): “ And yet for all that, when they be in
the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away,
neither will I abhor them…” and it is said (Psalms 124, 1 -
2): “If it had not been the Lord who was on our side now
may Israel say; If it had not been the Lord who was on
our side, when men rose up against us…”

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Nasso
Languages
Links
Parashat Nasso

Kehati Mishna The Priestly Blessing

Parashat Hashavua And the Lord spoke unto Moses , saying, speak unto
Aaron and unto his sons , saying , Thus ye shall bless
Hebrew Text of the the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless
Parashah thee, and keep thee: The Lord make His face shine upon
thee, and be gracious unto thee: The Lord lift up His
countenance upon thee, and give thee peace, And they
English shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will
bless them. (6, 22 - 27)
Hebrew
German The priestly benedictions are familiar to every Jew who visits the
synagogue, so familiar indeed that we are perhaps inclined to forget their
Russian true content and fail to appreciate their profound significance. Simple as
their wording appears these benedictions have puzzled many of our
Spanish classic commentators. Here is one of the difficulties involved as phrased
by Isaac Arama the author of Akedat Yizhak:
Nehama's Iyunim
What purpose is served by the fact that this precept enjoins that these
benedictions should proceed from the priests to the people? Surely it is He
Insights on the
on high Who blesses and what is gained or added whether the priests
Parasha
bless or refrain from doing so? Is it up to them to assist Him?
(Companion)
Nehama's Gilyonot Indeed the very wording of the verses prompts this question. The
blessings are introduced by an order addressed to the priests “thus ye
shall bless” and conclude with the divine statement “And I will bless them”.
An easy solution to the above dilemma would be to take the object of the
Nehar Deah
last phrase “I will bless them” as referring not to all Israel but to the priests
Rega Lifney engaged in blessing Israel, as Ishmael observes in the Talmud (Hullin
49a):
Shabbat
We have learned regarding the blessing of Israel; but regarding a blessing

Commentary of for the priests themselves we have not learned. The additional phrase
Rabbi Moshe Bergman “And I will bless them” (repairs this omission and) implies: the priests bless
(in Hebrew) Israel and the Holy One blessed be He blesses the priests.
But most of our commentators have not accepted this interpretation

Illustrations to the including the Rashbam. He explains that the priests were not commanded
Weekly Parasha, by the to bless the people as one individual blesses another but to invoke the
Studio in Old Jaffa divine blessing on them. God promised to respond to their prayer that He
bless and guard Israel. A similar idea is expressed by our sages in the
Midrash Tanhuma:
Said the House of Israel to the Holy One blessed be He: Lord
of the Universe, you order the priests to bless us? We need
only Thy blessing. Look down from Thy holy habitation and
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/nasso.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 11:19:18 a.m.

bless Thy people. The Holy One blessed be He replied to

them: Though I ordered the priests to bless you I stand with
them together and bless you.
These sentiments of our Sages underline that it is not the function of the
priests which is all - important. Their benedictory function is even more
reduced and deprived of any independent significance in the following
citation from our Sages:
How do we know that Israel should not say: Their blessings

are dependent on the priests? And that the priests should not
say: We shall bless Israel? The Torah states “And I will bless
them”. (Sifrei)
You might think that if they (the priests) desired to bless

Israel they would be blessed and that if they did not, they
would not be blessed? The Torah states: “And I will bless
them”. Willy - nilly “I will bless them” from heaven. (Sifrei Zota)
But the above statements of our sages, careful, as they are to avoid any
suggestion of the magical efficacy of the priestly blessing, do not give us a
clear answer to the question of the House of Israel:
Lord of the Universe, you order the priests to bless us? We

need only Thy blessing.
Since the verb bless (in Hebrew Berech) appears in two different
contexts, first with reference to the priests and then with reference to God,
it is suggested by Abravanel that there is a difference in the implications of
the verb in these two contexts.
“Blessing” is a homonym referring both to the good emanating from God

to His creatures as in “And the Lord blessed Abraham with all” (Genesis
24) and the blessing proceeding from man to God above in the sense of
praise, as in “And David blessed the Lord” (I Chronicles 29). Then there is
the blessing given by one person to another which is neither to be
compared to the abundance of grace emanating from God nor to the
praise proceeding from His creatures, but rather constitutes a supplication
by the author calling on God to bless the person concerned. Into this
category falls the priestly blessing. . . They merely invoke the divine
blessing on Israel. Accordingly only the phrase “and I will bless them“ and
“the Lord bless thee” in the first section come under the category of divine
blessing in the sense of an outpouring of His goodness unto man, whilst
the “blessing“ of human beings is nothing more than a prayer, an
invocation and not a real gift. Hirsch in his comments on our subject
illustrates how the Torah wished to rule out any suggestion of creation of a
priestly caste endowed with any special power of blessing:
The priest who blesses in but an instrument, a medium

through which the benediction is expressed. The death of the
two sons of Aaron (Leviticus 10) the first heirs to the
priesthood emphasised the irrevocable law that only service
“which God had commanded” - could be considered service.
Service which “the Lord had not commanded” - human deeds
and machinations constitutes something alien and the very
opposite of the service desired by the Lord. This same
principle applied to the priestly benediction ”thus shall ye
bless the Children of Israel” - only thus and no deviation
whatsoever is permitted … Only after being summoned by
the congregation do they recite the blessing, with the
representative of the congregation acting as the prompter so

that the congregation invokes the divine blessing through the

vocal medium of the priests.
The question then arises why do we need the priest at all? This principle
of enlisting human cooperation in the work of God is to be found in many
places. In Deuteronomy (10, 16) we read:
And ye shall circumcise the foreskin of your hearts.
Later we read (30, 6):
And the Lord thy God shall circumcise you heart.
Similarly in Ezekiel (18, 31) we read:
And make you a new heart and a new spirit.
Whilst later (36, 26) we read:
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit…
This symbolic cooperation between God and man is referred to in the

Talmud (Shabat 89a):
When Moses ascended on high he found the Holy One blessed be He

adoring the letters (of the Torah) with crowns. The Holy One said to him:
Moses ,is it not customary in your town to ask after a person’s welfare?
Moses answered him: does a slave greet his master so? The Holy One
answered him :You should at any rate have given Me a helping hand. (i.e.
wished me success in My work).
Rabbi H.Y. Pollak ,one of our commentators, interprets this Midrash as

follows:
The Holy One asked Moses whether he had done all in his power as a
leader to promote the welfare and moral perfection of his society. Moses
however had thought that it was not within human capacity to purify and
perfect human society beyond the limits set to their nature by God. To
which God replied that though everything was ultimately dependent on His
will it was man’s duty to purify himself and society through upright
conduct. Only in such a manner would they be fit to receive the blessing of
God, just the same as the earth cannot profit by the rain and the dew until
it is properly sown and plowed. That was the meaning of the Almighty’s
reply: You should at any rate have helped Me.
The human assistance that God requires is implied in the order to the
priests to bless the Children of Israel and prepare their hearts “they shall
put My name on the Children of Israel”, just as the ground is prepared by
the farmer for the rain. The exact formula for the benediction is laid down
in the Torah and is not left to man. The blessing is divided into three parts,
each one containing two verbs and the name of God in the middle. Here is
the first section of the blessing as explained by our commentators:
“May the Lord bless thee”- that thy goods may be blessed.
(Rashi)
This implies the blessing appropriate to each person; to the

student of Torah success in his studies; the businessman - in
his business, etc. (Ha’amek Davar)
“And keep thee” - that plunderers should not come and take

your property. He who gives a gift to his slave cannot

safeguard it from everyone and if thieves come and take it
what benefit has he therefrom? But the Holy One blessed be
He He both gives and stands guard… (Rashi)
A blessing requires guardianship so that it should not, God

forbid, be turned to a wrong purpose. The Torah scholar
requires guardianship to save him from pride and bringing the
name of the Lord into disrepute, and the like. The
businessman requires guardianship against his wealth
becoming a stumbling block to him as in the case of Korah
and Naboth, and in its literal sense, against theft and loss.
(Ha’amek Davar)
Whichever interpretation we accept,the blessing referred to in the first

section is material.
“May the Lord make His face shine upon thee, and be
gracious unto thee…” This is the light of Torah that He should
enlighten your eyes and heart in Torah and grant you
children learned in Torah, as it is said: ”For the
commandment is a lamp and the Torah a light”. (Bamidbar
Rabbah 11,6)
The second section of the benediction refers to spiritual blessing and we

may take the phrase” be gracious unto thee” to imply the good will and
respect inspired by the one who engages in the study of Torah.
The third section adds to and sums up the previous:
The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
In this connection it is fitting to quote the following dictum of our sages in

Sifra (Behukotai):
Peradventure you will say (in comment on the blessing in Leviticus 26,3 -
6: ”And ye shall eat your bread to the full…and I will give peace in the
land”) food and drink is all well and good, but without peace they are worth
nothing! The Torah therefore states “and I will give peace in the land” - for
peace outweighs all else.
Accordingly the three sections of the priestly benedictions illustrate an

ascending order, starting with a blessing concerned with man’s material
needs and then dealing with his spiritual wants, and finally reaching a
climax combining both these factors together, crowning them with the
blessing of peace. This ascending order and increasing surge of blessing
is reflected in the language and rhythm. The first phrase consists of three
words, the second of five, and the third of seven:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:

The Lord make His face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

Parashat Bahaalothekha
Languages
Links

Kehati Mishna
za"l
Parashat Hashavua When The Ark Set Forth

Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
And it came to pass, when the Ark set forward, that
Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be
English
scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.
Hebrew And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, unto the
many thousands of Israel. (10, 35 - 36)
German
These verses are enclosed both in Sefer Torah and the printed
Russian Pentateuch by two special symbols in the form of a large inverted nun.
The Talmud draws attention to this marking:
Spanish
Our Rabbis taught: “And it came to pass, when the ark set
forward, that Moses said…”. The Holy One blessed be He
Nehama's Iyunim
made special markings above and below for this passage.
Insights on the (Shabbat 115b)
Parasha
(Companion) What is the explanation of these markings and the meaning of the inverted
nun? The Sifrei states that:
Nehama's Gilyonot
It was marked with points above and below.
Nehar Deah It may be assumed therefore that the whole of this passage was marked
by points from above and below, i.e. from the beginning to the end, the
Rega Lifney same was as there are individual words in the Torah crowned by dots.
Shabbat This passage then was marked by symbols to denote that it should be
pointed. In order that the nun ( the first letter and abbreviation of the
Hebrew verb “to point”) should not be mistaken for a letter it was inverted.
Commentary of But what is the significance for enclosing this passage in distinctive
Rabbi Moshe Bergman marking? We cite here the explanation of Rabbi Judah Hanasi, the editor
(in Hebrew) of the Mishnah:
Because it constituted a book on its own. For R. Shemuel bar

Illustrations to the Nahmani said in the name of R. Yohanan: “She hath hewn
Weekly Parasha, by the out her seven pillars” (Proverbs 9,1) - these are the seven
Studio in Old Jaffa books of the Pentateuch; according to whom? According to
Rabbi (Judah Hanasi) (Shabbat 116a)
In other words, this passage constitutes a book on it’s own, thus dividing
Bamidbar into three books, which, with the addition of the other four books
of the Pentateuch makes seven. But it still remains for us to discover the
reason for singling out this passage for such special distinction. Let us first
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/behaalo.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 11:22:52 a.m.

study the two verses concerned more closely. Moses’ invocation to the
Almighty to “rise up” when the Ark moved forward and to “return” when it
rested, giving the impression that it was Moses who determined the
journeyings and haltings of the Ark contradicts what was previously stated
that it journeyed only in accordance with the commandment of theLord.
This point is made in the Sifrei on the sidra:
“And Moses said, rise up, Lord”, and another verse says: “At
the commandment of the Lord they rested and at the
commandment of the Lord they journeyed”. How can these
two verses be reconciled? To what may this be compared?
To a king who was going on a journey accompanied by his
bosom friend. When he resumes his journey he says: I shall
not go forward until my friend gives the order, and when he
halts he says: I shall not halt until my friend comes along.
This reconciles the verses “And Moses said rise up, Lord”,
and “At the commandment of the Lord they journeyed…”
This Midrash graphically illustrates the highest degree of communion and

closeness between man and his maker, and the complete identity of aim.
Hirsch notes that Moses’ invocation: ”rise up “ succeeds immediately the
act that has been fulfilled, in accordance with the principle expressed by
Rabban Gamaliel in Pirkei Avot.
Make His will thy will who are the “enemies” and “ them that
hate Thee” that are scattered as a result of the divine ‘”rising
up”?Here is the answer given by the Sifrei: Can there be
enemies of he who spoke and the world came into being?
But the verse informs us that whoever hates Israel is as if he
hates the Omnipotent. Similarly, it is said(Exodus 15):”and in
the greatness of Thine excellency thou hast overthrown them
that rose up against Thee”. Can there be rebels against the
Omnipotent? The verse informs us that whoever rises up
against Israel it is as if he rose up against the Omnipotent.
Similarly, it is stated (Psalms 74,23)”Forget not the voice of
Thine enemies: the tumult of those that rise up against Thee
continually”.Because of whom?Similary it is stated (Psalms
83,2)”For lo, Thine enemies make a tumult:and they that hate
Thee lift up their heads”.Because of whom?”They have taken
crafty counsel against thy people”.And it is also stated
(Zecharia 2):”For He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of
His eye”.It is not stated “the eye” but “His eye”-of the
Omnipotent.
Accordingly the enemies of Israel are synonymous with the enemies of

God. Whether we are worthy or not of this title: those bent on our
destruction regard us as the standardbearers of truth and justice and the
representative of the divine Law. And it is for this reason that they
persecute and hate us.
Hirsch, commenting on this passage, that Moses was aware that enemies
would rise up against the Torah from the moment that it was given. Its
demands for justice and alteuism were bound to antagonise aggressors
and tyrants and stand in the way of their designs. The Torah’s call to
holiness would not only arouse hatred, but also also active persecution.
The concluding verse:” Returned O Lord unto the many thousands of

Israel” present a syntactical difficulty. The Hebrew verb: shuv is usually an
intransitive verb implying “return”, and yet it is followed by the phrase
“many thousands of Israel” as a direct object.
The English translation gets over the difficulty by inserting the preposition

“unto” which, however, is not in the Hebrew original. Other commentators

have rendered shuv in the transitive sense of “return”(bring back). The
commentry Da’at Zekenim paraphrases our verse as follows:
May it be granted that all the thousands and tens of

thousands of Israel returned to their place according to their
number with none lacking. ”Return” is here taken in the sense
opf “bring back” as in the verse “The Lord will bring back thy
capitvity” (Deuteronomy 30,3).
Others interpret the verb shuv in the sense of “causing to rest”:
Give the myriads of Israel rest that they may be no more

disturbed. (Ibn Ezra)
Sforno also takes it in the sense of rest ,but in an intransitive sense:
“Rest O Lord amongst the myriads of Israel”-let Thy presence

rest in our midst.
Sforno also explains the numbers , literally :”ten thousand thousands” in

its plain sense as referring to the actual figure of Jewish men, women and
children at the time. But Hirsch draws attention to the unusual order of the
Hebrew numerical description in which the large figure “ten thousands”
precedes the smaller unit “thousand” instead of it reading “a thousand ten
thousands”(cf. Genesis 24):”Be thou the mother of thousands of millions”,
instead of millions of thousands).He therefore interprets it to refer to the
myriads of people who would swell the nation in the future times, in other
words the tens of thousands that will be added to the already exisiting
thousands. The verse therefore is a timeless invocation and not limited to
the period in the wilderness.
He who rose up to scatter His enemies and remove wickedness from the
earth would dwell once more amongst the tens of thousands of His
children and followers from all peoples. This passage then which our
Sages regarded as a book on its own alludes to the period described by
the prophet Zechariah(2,15)in the following manner:
When the ark set forth
And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day,and shall be My
people:and I will dwell in the midst of thee….

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Shlach
Languages
Links
Parashat Shlach

Kehati Mishna Had God Changed his Mind?

Parashat Hashavua In this chapter we shall deal with the end of the section on the spies - with
the last verse. Their punishment had already been explained to them and
Hebrew Text of the been given added force by being worded in the form of an oath:
Parashah
As I live, saith the Lord, surely as you have spoken in My ears, so will I do
to you. (14,28)
English
Hebrew They had "begged": "Would that we had died in the land of Egypt, or
would that we had died in this wilderness". Accordingly:
German
Your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness from twenty years old and
Russian upward, you that have murmured against Me. (14, 29)
Spanish
And your children shall be wanderers in the wilderness forty years and
shall bear the brunt of your strayings until your carcasses be consumed in
Nehama's Iyunim the wilderness. After the number of days in which you spied out of land,
shall you bear your iniquities, even forty years, and you shall know My
Insights on the displeasure. (14, 33-34)
Parasha
(Companion) The punishment was immediately felt when death overtook the evil
congregation of the ten spies (14, 37):
Nehama's Gilyonot
And these men that brought an evil report of the land died by the plague,
before the Lord.
Nehar Deah
After all this the people mourned. On the morrow (14, 40):
Rega Lifney
Shabbat They rose up early in the morning and went up to the top of the mountain
saying, Lo we are here and we will go up to the place which the Lord has
promised; for we have sinned.
Commentary of
Rabbi Moshe Bergman The reaction to this was (vv. 41-43):
(in Hebrew)
Why do you now transgress the commandment of the Lord seeing it shall
not prosper? Go not up for the Lord is not among you. ...But they insisted
Illustrations to the on going up to the top of the mountain; nevertheless the ark of the
Weekly Parasha, by the covenant of the Lord and Moses did not budge from the camp.
Studio in Old Jaffa
The result of this behaviour of theirs (14, 45):
The Amalekite and the Canaanite who dwelt in that hill country descended
and fell upon them and crushed them even to Hormah.
Our commentators have been puzzled by this. Arama thus words the
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/shlach.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 11:26:19 a.m.

difficulty in his Akedat Yizhak:
After they had presumed to go up to the top of the mountain, Why did not
the ark of the Lord and Moses move from the camp and why were the
gates of repentance shut against them? Does not this story violate the
golden rule that he who acknowledges his sin and forsakes it shall find
grace? Was it not the Lord’s desire that they should overcome their fear,
that they should not be afraid of the people of the land and go up and
fight? Were they not bidden: "Go up! Be not afraid, neither be dismayed".
Was not their action in ascending the mountain what was expected of
them? Or had the Lord changed his mind?
We find a similar problem in the messages of two great Hebrew prophets.

Isaiah called on his brothers:
Keep calm and be tranquil; fear not nor let your heart be faint. (Isaiah 7, 4)
He demanded resistance to the enemy had promised that salvation would

come. But when Jeremiah saw his king rising up and the people
enthusiastic for rebellion, he prophesied catastrophe and destruction,
demanded immediate surrender and acceptance of the overlordship of the
king of Babylon, even himself bearing the yoke on his own neck as a
symbol of the humbling that had been ordained. Had God changed His
mind? This is not the case. Not the God who defends His city
unconditionally, who does not allow the stranger and enemy to enter its
gates is the living God in whom we are to put our trust. Nor is God who
destroys and overturns, the God of retribution, the living God in whom we
are to believe. Buber thus explained it in his work on The Teaching of the
Prophets :
It is immaterial whether the prophecy involves salvation or catastrophe.

What matters is that the prophecy, irrespective of its content, should fit in
with the Divine demand at that particular historic moment. In times of
unjustified complacency, a message of shattering catastrophe is called for,
the finger pointing at impending destruction in history. On the other hand,
in times of great tribulation, from which deliverance is still possible, in
times of remorse and repentance an encouraging message of salvation is
in keeping.
When Jeremiah called for surrender and acceptance of the yoke of the
king of Babylon, he knew that the people could no longer be purified and
restored to the true path except through arduous sufferings involving the
destruction of the temple and the yoke of exile. It was no longer possible
"to build and to plant" without fulfilling the message of "to root out and pull
down, to destroy and overthrow".
The work of rebuilding could not be contemplated before the process of

destruction and uprooting had been endured. The same applies to our
subject. Their inability to go and occupy the land became clearly manifest
in the statement: "Let us appoint a leader and let us return to Egypt", in
that weeping that they wept on that night. Now matters could not be
remedied without them accepting what had been imposed on them. Their
words: "Lo we are here and we will go up" constituted no repentance
unless they accepted their sentence, humbled themselves and bore their
punishment. Divine punishment is itself the cure for their ills, the path of
repentance. So Maimonides explains the purpose of their wanderings in
the wilderness:
Man cannot be expected suddenly to leave the state of slavery and toiling
in bricks and straw and the like, wash his soiled hands at the spur of the
moment and fight with giants... It was therefore part of the Divine wisdom

to make them wander around the wilderness until they had become
schooled in courage. For, as is well know, a nomadic existence under
spartan conditions breeds courage, and the reverse, cravenness. In
addition a new generation of people grew up who had known no
humiliation and bondage.

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Korach
Languages
Links
Parashat Korach

Parashat Hashavua
The Grievances of Korah and Company
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
English Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kehath, the son of Levi, and
Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of
Hebrew Reuben took men: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the
children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in
German
the congregation, men of renown.
Russian
And they gathered themselves up against Moses and against
Spanish Aaron, and said unto them, ye take too much upon ye, seeing
all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the
Lord is among them: wherefore then lift
Nehama's Iyunim (16, 1-3)
Insights on the Who were the two hundred and fifty men who followed Korah, Dathan and
Parasha Abiram to rebel against Moses who led the children of Israel out of Egypt
(Companion) through the desert, the prophet of the Lord who received the Torah at
Sinai? What was their grievance?
Nehama's Gilyonot
According to Iba Ezra, this rebel band contained grumblers and

malcontents of all kinds. Included were Levites who felt aggrieved at being
Nehar Deah appointed to minister to the priests, Reubenites who considered they had
been deprived of the birthright which had been transferred to the tribe of
Rega Lifney Joseph. According to Iba Ezra they suspected Joshua (an Ephraimite) of
Shabbat using his influence to favour his own tribe over others. Then there were
the firstborn of Israel who felt aggrieved because the privilege of
priesthood had been taken from them and granted to the Levites who had
Commentary of not served the golden calf. It is easy to fan the flame of discontent and
Rabbi Moshe Bergman such a procedure would be made unusually easy if we accept
(in Hebrew) Nahmanides timing of the rebellion straight after the incident of the spies.
Nahmanides states:
Illustrations to the Were anyone to have questioned Mosesauthority at any other time, the
Weekly Parasha, by the people would have stoned him outright, since they ardently loved Moses
Studio in Old Jaffa their leader and obeyed him. Consequently Korah put up with the high
office filled by Aaron the firstborn with the lofty station of the Levites and
all Mosesdeeds .But when they arrived at the wilderness of Paran and the
Isralites were burnt at Taberah (Num. 11,1-3) and died at Kibort Hataavah
(verses 33-34) and sinned with the spies, the princes of the tribes being
killed by the plague and the people condemned to die in the wilderness,
then the people became bitter and some began to doubt the wisdom of
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/korach.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 11:30:18 a.m.

Moses leadership. it was this moment that Korah found opportune to start
his mutiny and this was the significance of his reference to them being
brought to be killed in the wilderness.
Korah wished to cannel all this smouldering discontent to his own benefit.
But the Torah does not afford us details of the way he went around
fanning their discontent against Moses. This our Sages reconstructed for
us applying the following verses to the situation.
Happy is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked and in
the way of the sinners hath not stood and in the seat of scorners hath not
sat.
(Psalms 1,1)
Commenting on this verse the Midrash (Shoher Tov) states: In the seat of
scorners...; this refers to Korah who made scorn of Moses and Aaron.
What did Korah do? He assembled all the congregation as it said: ;And
Korah gathered all the congregation against them;. He began to speak to
them words of scorn, saying: There was once a widow in my
neighbourhood who had two fatherless daughters and one field. When she
came to plough, Moses said to her: Thou shalt not plough with an ox and
an ass together; (Deut. 22, 10). When she came to sow, he said to her
Thou shalt not sow thy field with divers seeds; (Leviticus 19, 19). When
she came to reap and stack the corn, he said to her, Leave gleanings
(leket ) the forgotten sheaf (shikhehah ) and the corner of the field ( pe'ah )
for the poor. When she came to thresh, he said to her, Give tithes, priestly
dues, the first and second tithes. She justified heaven's pronouncement
and gave him. What did this poor women do? She went and sold her field,
and purchased with the proceeds two lambs, to clothe herself from its
shearing and enjoy its products. As soon as they gave birth, Aaron came
and said to her: Give me the firstborn, since the Holy One blessed be He
hath said: Every firstborn that shall be born of thy herd and flock, the male
one, shalt thou consecrate to the Lord thy God;. She justified heaven's
pronouncement and gave him the offspring. The time came for shearing
and she sheared them - came Aaron and said to her, Give me the first of
the shearing since the Holy One blessed be He said (Deut. 18, 3):The first
of thy grain, thy wine and oil and the first of the shearing of thy flock shalt
thou give to him;. Thereupon she said: Since I have no more strength to
withstand this man, I shall slaughter them and eat them. As soon as she
had slaughtered them, Aaron came and said to her: Give me the shoulder,
two cheeks and maw (Deut. 18, 3). Whereupon she said: Even after I
have slaughtered them I am not delivered from his hand. Let them then be
forbidden ( herem ) my use. Said Aaron to her: In that case it is all mine
since the Holy One said:Every devoted thing (herem - expression of
prohibition, exclusion from ordinary usage) in Israel shall be thine; (Num.
18, 14). He took them, departed and left her weeping with her two
daughters. Such was the lot that befell this unfortunate woman! So much
they do in the name of the Holy One blessed be He!
In the above excerpt, the Torah, whose ways are the ways of peace is
seen through distorted spectacles. All Korah's ranting contains the familiar
rabble-rousing ingredients of demagogy.
In the first place, there is no constructive criticism of the law, no reasoned

argument but merely a hardship story containing personal details
regarding how a particular person suffered from the rigours of the law.
Naturally, the hero of the story has to be someone whose very name will
excite compassion, a widow. Whose heart would not melt at the sight of a
widow's suffering? Yet the Torah's decree knows no mercy!
Second, the story omits to mention that that same oppressed and

wronged widow victimised, as it were, by the cruel decrees of the Torah is

together with the orphan and stranger, the subject of very special concern
and protective legislation - Thou shalt not take a pledge of a widow's
garment.
(Deut. 24, 17)
Thou shalt not afflict any widow and the fatherless.

(Exodus 22, 21) The very same widow who when she owns
property is obliged to give leket, shikhehah and pe'ah, is
entitled to them, when in need.
When thou reapest thy harvest and hast forgotten a sheaf in
the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it. It shall be for the
stranger, fatherless and widow.
When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the
boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless and
widow.
(Deut. 24, 19-20)
Like any demagogue, Korah stresses the obligations rather than the
privileges. Just as the taxpayer only sees the burden imposed on him and
not the benefits in the way of health, education, public security and other
public services that he enjoys in return, so Korah depicts the Torah to the
malcontents as demanding, extorting and giving nothing in return.
Third, Korah's speech does not lack the familiar stock-in-trade of the
demagogue, the weapon of personal abuse. Aspersions are cast on the
legislator bringing the law or its executor into disrepute. so much they do
in the name of the Holy One...
Accordingly, not the Torah was to blame but rather its administrators,
Moses and Aaron who had disorted its regulations to suit their own needs,
and that of their officials and minions.
This was how our Sages pictured Korah's methods of misleading the
people, of the way he took; implying as Rashi explains took with words;,
that is, seduced the people. Many will ask how is it possible to conceive
that the people who had been redeemed from slavery, for whom the
waves of the sea had parted, who had received the Torah at Sinai, amidst
thunders and lightnings, led by the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night -
how was it conceivable that a people vouchsafed such miracles could
succumb to the guile and abuse of one such as Korah?
This was indeed the case. Though two hundred and fifty officially took the
plunge and went over to Korah, many more were influenced by his words,
as the succeeding chapters indicate. True: The precepts of the Lord are
upright - making glad the heart.
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

(Psalms 19, 9) But the heart of man is crooked and there is
no light which man through his stupidity and
shortsightedness, cannot succeed in dimming and darkening.

Parashat Hukkat
Languages
Links
Parashat Hukkat

Kehati Mishna MYSTERY OF THE RED HEIFER
Parashat Hashavua The chapter on the Red Heifer with which our Sidra begins is one of the
most mystifying in the Torah. Our Sages observed that it was one of the
Hebrew Text of the matters which even the wisdom of the wisest of men failed to fathom:
Parashah
“This is the statute of the Torah”. R. Isaac opened with the
text: “All this I have tried (to fathom) by wisdom; I said, I
English will get wisdom; but it was far from me” (Ecclesiastes 7,
23). Thus spoke Solomon: I succeeded in understanding the
Hebrew whole Torah, but, as soon as I reach this chapter about the
Red Heifer, I searched, probed and questioned, “I said I will
German
get wisdom, but it was far from me” .
Russian (Yalkut Shimoni 759)
Spanish We shall similarly not pretend to fathom it completely but shall present
some of the observations of our commentators and Sages thereon.
Nehama's Iyunim R. Joseph Bechor Shor (one of the Tosaphists) adopts a completely
rational approach:
Insights on the
Parasha
The rites pertaining to the Red Heifer were designed to
(Companion)
discourage association with the dead, prompted by the
Nehama's Gilyonot bereaved’slove for the departed, and excessive grief.
Alternatively, that people should not make a practice of
consulting the dead or familiar spirits, the text pronounced
the defilement of the dead person as more contaminating that
Nehar Deah all other defilements, making it the prime source of
uncleanliness, defiling both man and vessels and defiling as
Rega Lifney
well through overhanging (ohel ).
Shabbat
Also on account of human respect, that people should not come to using
human skin for coverings and human bones for articles of use just as we
Commentary of
use the skin of animals; it is disrespectful of humanity. Our Sages made a
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
similar point (Hullin 122a): “Why has the skin of a corpse been declared
(in Hebrew)
unclean? That a person should not use his parent’s skin for coverings”.
The greater the love, the greater the defilement. The text likewise went to
the strictes lengths in its requirements, demanding the ashes of a red
heifer which are an expensive item.
Studio in Old Jaffa
The foregoing exposition would seem to be an oversimplification, not in
keeping with the mysterious irrational characterof the whole chapter and
certainly does not afford an explanation of the strange details of the rite.
Others have adopted an allegorical, homiletic approach. Here is an extract

from Sforno’s elaborate explanation:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/chukkat.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 11:33:18 a.m.

Parashat Hukkat
The crux of the mystery is its property of contaminating the

pure and purifying the contaminated. Perhaps we may catch
a little of its significance in our attempt to understand the
observance . . . one of the fundamental requirements is that
the heifer had to be completely red. The prophet has
explained that sin is described as red; cf.: “though your sins
be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1,18).
We should bear in mind that the Torah recommends the golden mean- all
extremes are undesirable . . . there is no better way of rectifying misdoing
(the crooked) regaining the middle way than by veering to the other
extreme. The cedar symbolises pride, the hyssop, the opposite. The
scarlet thread between symbolises that both are sinful. It has been said
that Saul was punished for not caring about his own dignity (erring on the
side of humility).
Thus though this precept is a statute which has not to be questioned,

possessing without doubt a sublime meaning known to the King who
commanded it, it contains an allusion to the way of repentance to be
followed by every sinner - that he should tend to the other extreme in
order to regain the middle path and be purified. But while this corrective
measure is beneficial and purifying for the sinner, it is wrong and defiling
for every pure heart.
But the Talmudic sage Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai adopts an entirely
different approach, far removed from the allegorical. His words are highly
instructive for us today.
A certain heathen asked R. Yohanan ben Zakkai: The rites

you perform in connection with the Red Heifer smell of
witchcraft! You bring a heifer, burn it, grind it and take its
ashes. You sprinkle two or three drops on one of you who is
contaminated with corpse defilement and say to him, You are
clean. Said R. Yohanan b. Zakkai to him: Have you never
been possessed by a demon? He answered: No. - Have you
never seen a man possessed by a demon? He answered:
Yes. - And what do you do for him? - We bring herbs and
make them smoke beneath him, and throw water on him and
the demon is exorcised. He answered: Let your ears hear
what your mouth has spoken. The spirit of defilement is the
same as your demon. We sprinkle on it the waters of
purification and it is exorcised.
After the heathen had left, R. Yohanan’s disciples said to

him: Him you have put off with a straw, but what answer will
you give us? He replied to them. By your life, neither does
the dead defile nor the water purify, but the Holy One blessed
be He said: It is a statute I have laid down, a decree that I
have decreed and you are not authorised to violate my
decree.
The heathen required a rational explanation, appealing to his common

sense. The Torah’s defilement is a kind of disease or evil spirit. The red
heifer’s ashes are no more than a kind of cure for the disease, a demon-
repellent. But he could tell his disciples, students of the Torah and who
accepted its yoke, the truth. Uncleanliness is not an integral part of nature,
neither in the corpse nor in the one who comes in contact with it. It is not a
demon or pest originating in the corpse itself. The ashes of the heifer and
the waters of the sin- offering have no intrinsic purificatory properties. It is
a Divine commandment. That alone determines the defilement of the
cropse and the purificatory properties of the ashes. It is the
commandments that refine the human soul.

Parashat Hukkat
Let us not be among those who seek for rational explanation for those
things, to which the laws of reason do not apply. May we be like the
disciples of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who accept the yoke of the
statutes (hukkim ), just as they do the yoke of the other commandments of
the Torah.

Director:

Balak
Languages
Links
Parashat Balak

Kehati Mishna
za"l
THE IMPACT OF CURSE AND BLESSING
Parashat Hashavua
Hebrew Text of the The story of Balaam presents a number of difficulties, some of which we
Parashah
have dealt with on previous occasions. We shall devote our Studies this
time to discussing the following question asked by Abravanel:
English Why did God prevent Balaam from cursing the Israelites? Why should
they have cared about his curse, as long as the Lord blessed his people
Hebrew with peace?
German The Torah places no faith in divination and magic. Only the heathen
deities were limited in their powers which were circumscribed by occult
Russian
laws. They were powerless to break a spell or dissolve the potency of a
Spanish malediction. But such was not the portion of Jacob. Even Balaam had to
admit that - there was no divination in Jacob. The whole of our sidra is
concerned with discrediting superstition and belief in magical practices.
Nehama's Iyunim This is the aim of the story of the ass. Balaam was proceeding to curse a
whole nation with his mouth. He, the seer and prophet, who claimed to
Insights on the probe the mysteries of time could not even see what his ass beheld.
Parasha
(Companion) The most foolish of animals confronted the wisest of men. Yet the moment
it spoke, he was confounded.
Nehama's Gilyonot
[Bamidbar raba 20, 12]
Nehar Deah In that event, greater force is added to our original question. What
significance, indeed, could be attached to the curse of such a personality
Rega Lifney and why was it necessary to turn it into blessing? Some commentators
Shabbat suggest that this was done to teach Balaam a lesson, that he was not his
own master. No magic rites (build me seven altars etc.) could prevail over
the Supreme Master. He had no choice but utter the words the Almighty
Commentary of had put into his mouth (And the Lord put a word in the mouth of Balaam
Rabbi Moshe Bergman 23, 5), even if they were the opposite to what he wished to say.
(in Hebrew)
Others however maintain that the curses were turned into blessings not so
much as to teach Balaam a lesson as to benefit Israel. Did Israel need his
Illustrations to the blessing? Surely the Almighty was the true source of all blessing and it
Weekly Parasha, by the was He who blessed Israel? The answer given to this is that Balaam`s
Studio in Old Jaffa words objectively speaking, maledictory or otherwise, were of no effect. It
depended on the Almighty to do good or evil. But subjectively, from the
point of view of the Israelies, themselves who had been reared in Egypt on
magic and superstition, his utterances as sorcerer-in-chief of the nations,
were bound to have a considerable impact. This is the explanation
outlined by Joseph Ibn Kaspi:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/balak.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 11:36:28 a.m.

Balak
The curse of Balaam had no objective potency neither in terms of the

author or the deed. Its effect must only be considered from the point of
view of those at the receiving end, i.e. the Israelites. Balaam, was a
renowned sorcerer and people were impressed both then and now by
sorcerers and diviners. There is no point in asking the reason for the belief
of Balak and his company just as there is no reason for doing so in the
case of Jacob and Esau, who attached such importance to their father`s
blessing. If they did, how much more so the Israelites of those days, in
particular the women and children, who would be greatly affected by the
maledictions of such a renowned sorcerer!
A true friend will save his colleague any pain, even if he knows that no
danger will ensue. Similarly the Almighty, out of the abundance of his love
for Israel prevented Balaam from cursing them, though he was aware that
his curses were impotent. But the Almighty did not rest content with this.
He went so far as to make Balaam bless the people to give them pleasure,
as it is stated: The Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam
(Deuteronomy 23,6) ... The reason of this was - because the Lord loveth
thee -. Similarly it is recorded in Joshua (24,9-10): Balak called Balaam to
curse you. But I would not hearken to Balaam; therefore he even blessed
you; so I delivered you out of his hand. This means that God delivered the
Israelites out of his hand, according to his idea of the power of his own
words and that of some of the children of Israel. At any rate, He delivered
them from hearing his curse... all out of love for his people. (Tirat Kesef)
Abravanel makes a similar point:
Balaam`s sorcery was world famous. Balak referred to his renown when
he said:
For I know he whom thou blessed is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is
cursed... Had Balaam cursed Israel, the surrounding nations would have
plucked up courage and gone to battle with Israel on the strength of his
curses. But when they heard how God had turned them into blessings,
they would then realize who was Master... and would lose all desire to
fight His people. From this point of view, the turning of Balaam`s words
into blessing served a very useful purpose. This same psychological
warfare is referred to by Joshua (2,9): I know that the Lord hath given you
the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us. How did Rahab know all
this if not from Balaam`s prophetic blessings?
There are other authorities however who maintain that neither Balaam`s
nor Israel`s good was exclusively involved. The Almighty was concerned
to protect all his creatures from error. He does not want to be instrumental
in bolstering superstition. Had Balaam cursed, the Moabites would
certainly have assumed that the reason why the Israelites refrained from
attacking them was due to their effect, and not because the Almighty had
forbad them to- be at enmity with Moab neither contend with them...
(Deuteronomy 2,9). This explanation closely follows Luzzatto`s:
Israel had been forbidden to attack Moab. Had Balaam cursed, the latter
and Balak would have boasted that they had succeeded in wording off the
Israelites. They might even have gone forth to fight them like the Edomites
did. Israel would have retreated and the name of God would have been
discredited.
A similar explanation involving the consideration of hillul hashem is

advanced by Anslem Astruk:
The Almighty`s warning- thou shalt not curse the people-was given not
because Balaam was capable of doing harm, since- the guardian of Israel
neither slumbers nor sleeps... But this was done to preclude the

Balak
inhabitants of the land from ascribing any retribution the Israelites might
suffer for their sins to the effect of Balaam`s curses. The Almighty wished
to bring home to His people their disobedience, immediately, as a father
chastiseth his son. He wished too to preclude misguided talk impugning
His omnipotence. Compare Numbers 14,14 and Exodus 22,12.
That was the reason why-God`s anger against Balaam was kindled
because he went-(Numbers 22,22), not that he would do any damage, but
because some of his hearers would ascribe any retribution they might
suffer for their sins to the effect of his
curse. [Midreshei Torah]
There is a difference between the two latter approaches. Luzzatto regards

the Divine action against Balaam as an expedient of temporary effect only,
to weaken the morale of Israel`s enemies, as well as to sanctify the name
of God publicly. Whereas Astruc regards it as an expedient with a long-
term effect, to preclude Israel attributing all their sufferings, in their future
history, to the effect of Balaam`s curse, instead of to the incurring of
Divine displeasure through their disobedience. This would be a Hillul Ha-
shem, a desecration of the Divine name.
The almighty turned Balaam`s curses into blessings not to save Israel
from their hurt but all the peoples from being led further into superstitious
beliefs.
1. Astruc compares our context with the intercession of Moses after the
misconduct of the spies [numbers 14] and the golden calf [Exodus 32].
Explain the connection.
2. And Balak...saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites...[22, 2]. The
two kings on whom we relied were not able to withstand them. How much
less will we be able to! Consequently- Moab was sore afraid...
What is the point of Rashi`s explanation and what impression does he

correct? What prompted his comment? In answering, compare Rashi`s
comment to Genesis 18, 3 on the first word to the sidra.
3. And the sent of messengers unto Balaam to call him saying, Behold
there is a people come out of Egypt; Behold, they cover the face of earth,
and they abide over against me...[22, 5]. A nameless people who have
broken out like slaves to carve out estates for themselves and dwell in a
land not their own.
[Haàmek Davar]
What textual variation prompted the foregoing?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Pinhas
Languages
Links
Parashat Pinhas

Parashat Hashavua
Coping with Zeal
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah The beginning of our sidra concludes the story of Balaam’s malicious
efforts to discredit Israel in the eyes of the Almighty, by seducing them to
commit immorality. The background to this story is filled in by the following
English excerpt from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a) which discusses the subject:
Hebrew
Balaam said to them: Their God detests immorality . The Israelites hanker
German after linen garments. Let me give you some advice. Set up stalls and
install in them harlots to sell them linen wares…When the Israelites were
Russian
eating and drinking and rejoicing and strolling in the market place, she
Spanish
would say to him: Thou art like one of the family, sit down and choose for
thyself! Gourds of Ammonite wine stood by her…Said she to him: Wouldst
thou drink a cup of wine? As soon as he had drunk it, the evil inclination
Nehama's Iyunim
burned within him and he said to her: Yield to me! She then took her idol
out of her bosom and said to him: Worship this! He said to her: Am I not a
Insights on the Jew? Said she to him: What carest thou…moreover I shall not yield top
Parasha thee till thou has repudiated the Law of Moses thy Teacher, as iot is stated
(Companion) (Hosea 9, 10): “They went to Baal Peor, and separated themselvese onto
that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved”.
Nehama's Gilyonot
At the end of the foregoing sidra, it is related how Pinhas stepped into the
breach to turn away the wrath of God. In his zeal for his God, he slew a
Nehar Deah
man on the spur of the moment, without trial, or offering previous warning,
Rega Lifney without legal testimony being heard, and in defiance of all the procedures
Shabbat of judicial examination prescribed by the Torah, which in practice render a
conviction well nigh impossible. His deed of summary justice, taking the
law into his hands, constituted a dangerous precedent, from the social,
Commentary of moral and educational angle. Yet what has the Torah to comment on his
action?
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew)
And the Lord spake unto Moses saying:
Illustrations to the Pinhas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My
Weekly Parasha, by the wrath away from the children of Israel, while that I consumed not the
Studio in Old Jaffa children of Israel in My jealousy. (25, 10-11)
It sounds strange that such a reward is prescribed for such a deed.
The Sages in the Jerusalem Talmud state that Pinhas’ deed did not meet
with approval of the religious leaders of his time, that is of Moses and the
elders. One of them goes so far as to say that they wanted to
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/pinchas.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 11:39:28 a.m.

excommunicate him, had not the Holy Spirit leapt forth and declared:
And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant Of an
everlasting priesthood; &9;Because he was zealous for his God, and
made an atonement For the children of Israel.
Rabbi Baruch Epstien, the author of the Pentateuch commentary Torah

Temimah interprets the attitude of the Sages in the following manner:
Such a deed must be animated by a genuine, unadulterated spirit of zeal

to advance the glory of God. In the case, who can tell whether the
perpetrator is not really prompted by some selfish motive, maintaining that
he is doing it for the sake of God, when he has actually committed
murder? That was why the Sages wished to excommunicate Pinhas, had
not the Holy Spirit testified that his zeal for God was genuine.
Rabbi Kook makes a similar point in his commentary to the Prayer Book
on the Birkat haminim (Blessing against the Heretics) which occurs in the
weekday amida. This prayer beginning “For the slanderers let there be no
hope…” breathes vengeance on those traitorous to their people. Curiously
enough, this unusually bitter prayer was formulated in its present form by
the Talmudic sage known as Samuel Ha-katan distinguished for his love
of his fello creatures and whose motto, according to Pirke
Avot, was enshrined in the verse (Proverbs 24,17): “Rejoice not when
thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth”.
Rabbi Kook explains:
Any sage distinguished for his piety and learning is capable

of formulating prayers breathing sentiments of mercy and
love. But such a prayer as this one , so full of hate and
condemnation
Is bound to arouse the private feelings of animosity and spite,

on the part of the author, against the enemies and
persecutors of his people. Such a prayer must therefore
originate with one noted for the holiness and purity of
character and entire lack of the passion of hatred. Such a
man was Samuel Ha-katan. One could be sure that he was
dominated by completely unselfish considerations and
inspired by the purest of motives, and had removed from his
heart all private feelings of hatred for the persecutors of his
people.
Now, perhaps, it is easier to understand the connecting link between

Pinhas’ deed, terrible in itself, and the reward prescribed byGod:
Behold I give unto him my covenant of peace.
(25,12)
We do not need to accept Abarvanel’s suggestion that it implied Divine

protection against the next-of kin of the victim, Zimri, who was of a
distinguished family, and who would, no doubt, wish to avenge his death.
The covenant of peace need not be interpreted As a Divine guarantee of
personal safety from molestation, but rather in the sense understood by
rabbi Zvi Yehuda Berlin, the renowned principal of Volozhin Yeshiva in his
commentary Ha’amek Davar: The Divine promise of a covenant of peace
constitutes rather a guarantee of protection against the inner enemy,
lurking inside the zealous perpetrator of thje sudden deed, against the

inner demoralization that such an act as the killing of ahuman being,

without due process of law is liavble to cause.
The Neziv (Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin) expressed this idea in the
following manner:
In reward for running away the wrath of the Holy One blessed be
He, He blessed him with the attribute of peace, that he should not
be quiock-tempered or angry. Since, it is only natural that such a
deed as Pinhas’ should leave in his heart an intense emotional
unrest afterwrd, the Divine blessing was designed to cope with this
situation and promised peace and tranquility of soul.
1. “And the name of the Israelite that was slain was Zimri, a
prince of the chief house among the Simeonites” (Numbers
25,14)
To make known the praiseworthiness of Oinhas, that

although a prince was involved, this did not prevent Pinhas
from being zealous for the profanation of the name of God.
That is why the verse reveals to these the name of the victim.
(Rashi)
“And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was
Cozbi the daughter of Zur: he was head over a people, and of
a chief house in Midian”. (Numbers 25,15).
To let thee know the extent of the hatred of the Midianites

who went so far as to prostitute a king’s daughter in order to
bring Israel into sin.
(Rashi)
The Maharal of Prague (18th Century), author of the work Gur

Aryeh, asks why Rashi did not make the same comment on
the second as on the first verse, to the effect that it was
intended to reflect credit on Pinhas, who did not stop slaying
a princess, in order to sustain the honour of God’s name?
Find in Rashi’s own words an answer to this question.
2. On the same two verses, the author of the Pentateuch

commentary, Or Ha-hayyim, asks if the Torah intended, in
the last resort, to divulge the names of the victims and not
leave them under a veil of anonymity as in the case of the
man “who gathered sticks on the Sabbath day” (Numbers
15,32), then why did it not immediately insert their names in
Chapter 35,6 at the beginning, instead of waiting trill now and
having to repeat the phrases: “And the name of the man”,
“and the name of the woman?”
Suggest why the names of the victims of Pinhas’ zealous deed

wewre inserted in our sidra and not in the previous, at the beginning
of the story.

Gilyonot - Parashat Mattot
Languages
Links
Parashat Mattot

Parashat Hashavua
The Lesson of Balaam's end
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah Behold, these caused the children of Israel Through the counsel of
Balaam,
English To revolt so as to break faith with the Lord in the matter of Peor…
Hebrew This is the first occasion on which the Torah names Balaam as the
instigator of the plot to lead the Israelites into sin at Baal Peor. During the
German
whole of the Scriptural account of the deed in the previous chapters, no
Russian mention is made of Balaam’s connivance at the deed. On the contrary:
Spanish
And the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.
Nehama's Iyunim (25,1)
Insights on the We noted how the Almighty vented His wrath on the Israelites for their
Parasha backsliding and how He commanded them to harass the Midianites for
(Companion) their complicity in the deed of “the matter of Peor”. But Balaam’s share is
not alluded to. Luzzatto comments as follows on this omission:
Nehama's Gilyonot
On his way home Balaam passed through Midian and heard how the
Israelites had committed harlotry with the daughters of Moab and had
Nehar Deah thereby been led into idolatry. He then realized that this was the only sure
method of undermining Israel. He therefore advised the Midianites to send
Rega Lifney their choicest maidens to seduce the Israelites into idolatry. In this way
Shabbat they would forfeit the Almighty’s protection.
The question why Balaam’s share in the matter of Peor is not immediately
Commentary of
recorded still remains to be answered. As we have noted on other
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
occasions, the Torah often omits in one part of the narrative important
(in Hebrew) details, only to allude to them, at a later stage. Our Sages referred to this
phenomenon in the following phrase:
The scriptures record matters briefly in their original context only to
elaborate at greater length elsewhere. (Literally: “The words of the Torah
Studio in Old Jaffa
are poor in their place and rich elsewhere”).
Here we shall select two other examples of this from the many that
abound in Scriptures. In the story of Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31, 36-
42), the former only details the conditions under which he worked and
refers to Laban’s exploitation of his devotion at the very end. During the
whole time that Jacob worked for Laban described in chapters 29 and 30,
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/mattot.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 11:42:02 a.m.

the narrative makes no mention of the conditions under which Jacob

worked and how Laban changed his wages ten times. Only when Jacob
had left Padan Aram and Laban catches up with him, are we treated to a
graphic description of those conditions, in Jacob’s outburst of righteous
indignation (ibid. 31, 36-42). These details fill in what was lacking in our
previous vague picture of Jacob’s relations with Laban.
Another instance is afforded us in 1 Samuel 28,3. Only in the part of the

narrative where King Saul stands helpless and “the Lord answered him
not, neither by dreams…” and he turns to the witch, are we told of his
earlier struggle to destroy the sorcerers and soothsayers in Israel (ibid.
28,9).
Nahmanides refers to this literary device in Genesis 31, 7:
“Your father hath mocked me, and changed my wages…” – this was
literally true, though the narrative makes no mention of this in the Torah…
Scripture is often brief in one context only to elaborate in another.
But why did the torah omit details in one context only to put them in later?
The explanation in the two examples we quote above is not hard to
discover. The narrative is silent so long as Jacob himself was silent and
controlled his indignation, all the time he worked for Laban. But after 20
years of exploitation, Jacob gave vent to all that he kept within him during
that time. Had these details been coldly reported to us in their strict
chronological order, would they have touched the deepest chords of our
feelings in the same way? Similarly in the case of Saul, had the narrative
first described to us the king’s struggle to wipe out the soothsayers at a
time when he had assumed kingship and was carrying out the will of God,
it would have borne no special significance for us. He was after all, merely
carrying out the command of the Torah. It is only when King Saul himself
has to go and consult one of them, that the point is driven home how low
he had been brought and how deeply he had been humiliated.
Now let us try to understand why the Torah deferred mentioning Balaam’s
complicity in the matter of Peor till after his death at the hands of the
Israelites, described in this sidra. Why was not Balaam’s responsibility for
the matter of Peor recorded in the context of that story?
Evidently, the Torah wished to teach us a special lesson.
Though it was Balaam who instigated the daughters of Midian to strike a

blow at the purity of Jewish family life, though he was the evil genius who
thought out the plan, the moral responsibility ultimately rested on the
Israelites themselves. They were guilty:
And the people began to commit harlotry.
(25,1)
The narrative only recorded the sin of the Israelites and their retribution of
his own acts. Provocation does not free the victim of responsibility.
The words of the Master (God) and the words of the disciple—whose word
must we obey?
Man’s first loyalty is to the moral law, to God. But that does not imply that
the provoker to immorality, the misleader is free from responsibility. When
therefore the retribution that overcame Balaam is alluded to – when he
was slain in battle by the Israelites:

Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with sword.
(31,8)
--his complicity in the sin of the Israelites is also referred to:
Behold, these caused the children of Israel,
Through the counsel of Balaam,
To revolt so as to break faith with the Lord in the matter of Peor…
(31, 16)

Director:
Web Site Manager:

Gilyonot- Parashat massei
Languages
Links
Parashat Massei

Nehama Leibovitz, za"l
Kehati Mishna
Parashat Hashavua
The Commandment to Settle (in) Eretz
Israel
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah And the lord spoke unto Moses in the plains of Moab by
the Jordan at Jericho, saying:
English Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them:
Hebrew
When ye pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan,
German Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land
from before you, And destroy all their figured stones,
Russian And destroy all their molten images, And demolish all
their high places.
Spanish
And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, And
dwell therein; For unto you have I given the land to
Nehama's Iyunim
possess it. (33, 50-53)
Insights on the
Parasha The passage beginning with the phrase: “When ye pass
(Companion) over the Jordan…” belongs to a class of Biblical
statements which occurs quite frequently elsewhere,
Nehama's Gilyonot particularly, in the book of Deuteronomy. They are all
distinguished by making the observance of the precept
enunciated therein dependent on the children of Israel
entering the Holy Land. Thus we have: “When thou art
Nehar Deah
come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth
Rega Lifney thee…” (Deuteronomy 17, 14; 26, 1); “And it shall come
Shabbat to pass, when the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the
land wither thou goest to possess it” (ibid. 11, 29). In
Leviticus too (19,23) we have: “And when ye shall come
Commentary of into the land”.
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) In cases such as these it is not always clear where the
conditional clause “when ye come…” ends, and where
the main clause, setting forth the commandment which
Illustrations to the applies on entering the land, begins. The reason for this
Weekly Parasha, by the is a grammatical ambiguity peculiar to the Hebrew
Studio in Old Jaffa
language in the use of vav joining the clauses together.
It may mark merely a continuation of the conditional
clause; “If or when this happens and also this, then…” or
the beginning of the main or operational clause implying:
”If or when this happens, then observe such and such a
command”. In our context it will become clear, after
closer study, that the conditional clause finishes with
verse 51 (with the words: “to the land of Canaan”) and
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/masei.html (1 de 7)26/02/2008 11:44:58 a.m.

the command which the Israelites are called upon to

observe begins with the phrase: “then ye shall drive out
all the inhabitants of the land from before you”.
Twice in the verse with which we introduced the chapter

the expression: ve-horashtem “And thou shalt possess
them” occurs. From a superficial glance, it would seem
that verse 53 is merely a repetition of verse 52. But as
several commentators have pointed out this is not so. In
52 it is stated: “thou shalt dispossess the inhabitants of
the land”. Whereas in 53, it is stated: “Ye shall possess
the land and dwell therein”. Rashi takes the second
vehorashtem to imply a precondition for their
subsequent settlement rather than an outright command:
“Ye shall possess the land” – take possession of it from

its inhabitants, then “ye may dwell therein” – safely exist
there. Otherwise ye shall not be able to exist there.
The two verse do not then duplicate each other,

repeating the order to inherit or occupy the land by
dispossessing the inhabitants. The second verse adds
the warning that if the Israelites do not dispossess the
inhabitants first, they will never succeed in maintaining
themselves in the country safely. Nahmanides interprets
the verse differently:
In my opinion, this constitutes a positive command of the

Torah wherein He commanded them to settle in the
land, and inherit it; for He gave it them; and they should
not reject the heritage of the Lord! Should it enter their
mind, for instance, to go and conquer the land of Shinar
(Babylon) or Assyria or any other country and settle
therein, then they would have transgressed a
commandment of the Lord.
Ve-horashtem does not imply, therefore, “dispossession”

of the indigent inhabitants, as Rashi explains, but rather
the “inheritance” of one’s patrimony. The emphasis is
not on securing themselves in the country but rather on
the taking up of the Divinely granted heritage of the
Lord”. Just the same as a Jew is not morally free to do
what he likes with his own life but has a duty to preserve
it, so he cannot live where he likes. But the place where
he should spend his divinely granted gift of life is
prescribed for him. Should a Jew say, “Shinar” or
“Assyria” and not the Land promised and destined for his
people he is violating the Divine will.
Nahmanides outlines the duty of settling Eretz Israel at

greater length in his strictures on Maimonides’ Sefer Ha-
mizvot (Book of Divine precepts) which are devoted to
explaining the points on which he differs from the latter
in his method of numbering the 613 precepts of
Judaism. In this case, Nahmanides takes Maimonides to
task for his not including the duty to settle Erez Israel as
a separate mizvah. Maimonides dwells at length in many
parts of his works on the paramount and indispensable
importance of Eretz Yisrael, in the perspective of
Judaism, but does not specify its settlement as one of
the 613 precepts referred to in the Torah.

But here are the words of Nahmanides:
We have been commanded in the Torah to take

possession of the land which the Lord, Blessed be He
granted to our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
and not to leave it in the hands of others or allow it to
remain desolate, as it is stated, “Thou shalt possess the
land and dwell therein, for to you have I given the land
and you shall inherit the land which I swore to your
fathers”. The exact boundaries of the territory covered
by this religious obligation are delineated for us in the
Torah (Deuteronomy 1, 7). A proof that this is a special
mizvah can be adduced from the Almighty’s order to the
spies, “Go up and possess it, as the Lord hath spoken to
you, fear not and be not dismayed” (Ibid. 1, 21)…And
when they refused to go up, it is written, “And you
rebelled against the word of the Lord…” This indicates
that we are dealing with a specific precept and not
merely a promise.
I consider that the hyperbolic statements of our Sages

regarding the greatness of the mizvah of residing in the
Holy Land proceeded from their concern to carry out this
explicit command of the Torah. They stated, for
instance, that he who leaves Eretz Yisrael for the
Diaspora shall be in thine eyes as him that committed
idolatry as it is written” “For they have driven me out this
day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord, saying:
Go, serve other gods” (1 Samuel 26,19).
The mizvah applies for all time, even during exile, as it is

evident from many places in the Talmud. Compare the
Sifrei: “It happened that Rabbi Judah be Batira and R.
Matya ben Harash and R. Hanina the nephew of R.
Joshua and R. Yohanan were journeying to the
Diaspora. On reaching Palatium (a place outside Eretz
Israel) they recalled Eretz Israel and their eyes filled with
tears and they rent their garments and applied to
themselves the following verse: “Thou shalt possess
them and dwell in their land”, whereupon they retraced
their steps and went back home, saying: The residence
in Eretz Israel is equal in weight to all the mizvot in the
Torah”.
We may appreciate the force of the last mentioned

rabbinic statement as well as the other sentiments, if we
bear in mind that there can be no complete observance,
in all spheres of life, of the precepts of the Torah, except
in Eretz Israel. That is why King David is held to have
implied that his expulsion from the Holy Land by Saul
was tantamount to telling him to go and worship idols:
At all times should a man reside in Eretz

Israel, even in a city inhabited mostly by
heathens. Let him not reside outside the
Land, even in a city inhabited by Jews.
Since whoever resides in Eretz Israel is like
to him who has a god, whilst whoever
resides outside it is like him who has no
god, as it is stated (Leviticus 25, 38): “To
give you the land of Canaan, to be your
God. “Do you mean to say that whoever

does not reside in the land of Israel has no

god?! But what is meant is—Whoever
resides outside the land is as if he worships
idols. David said so too: “For they have
driven me out this day from abiding in the
inheritance of the Lord (i.e. in Eretz Israel,
from where he fled from the anger of Saul),
saying go, serve other gods” (1 Samuel 26,
19). But whoever told David to go serve
other gods? But this teacyou that whoever
resides outside the Land of Israel is as if he
served idols. (Ketubot 110b)
In other words, the Torah cannot be

observed in its entirety except in a society
wholly governed by its precepts and not in
an alien framework ruled by other ideals.
Admittedly there are personal religious
obligations that can be observed anywhere,
even by a Jewish Robinson Crusoe on his
desert isle, but the Torah, as a whole,
implies a complete social order, a judiciary,
national economic and political life. That
can only be achieved in the Holy Land and
not outside it.
The precept enjoining us to occupy Eretz

Israel and make it our permanent home:
“Ye shall possess the land and dwell
therein”, is motivated by one good reason –
For unto you have I given the land to

possess it.
(35, 53)
It is above assumption which Rashi utilizes

in his celebrated first comment to the
Pentateuch, in explaining why it begins with
the story of Genesis:
Should the nations of the

world say: Ye are robbers in
occupying the land belonging
to the seven nations, Israel
replies: The whole world
belongs to the holy One
Blessed be He; He created it
and gave it to whomsoever he
desired. In accordance with
His will He gave it to them (the
seven nations), originally, and
in accordance with His will He
took it from them and gave it
to us.
This was the sole reason for our title to the

Land. The Almighty ordered us to take

possession of it. In the whole book of
Genesis no mention is made of the good
properties of the land, that it flowed with
milk or honey. On the contrary, we are told,
on many occasions, that there was a
famine in the land. The Patriarchs’ loyalty to
it was tested. Abraham returned to it after
leaving it in time of famine and Isaac was
not permitted to forsake it, even in time of
famine. The reason that is given is simply:
For unto thee, and not thy seed, I will

give all these lands.
It is the Almighty who determines the

boundaries of nations. He allotted Israel its
place in the world just the same as He did
for other peoples:
Have not I brought up Israel out of the

land of Egypt,
And the Philistines from Caphtor,
And Aram from Kir?
(Amos 9, 7)
What then is the difference between Israel’s

relationship to its homeland and that of
other nations to theirs? The difference is
just this. Israel is aware that this land was
granted it by the Almighty. This is not just a
matter of history but involves for Israel a
moral obligation, the responsibility to
observe a particular way of life in that land.
According to Nahmanides, the Israelites
were specifically commanded to take
possession of Eretz Israel and live there to
fulfill their religious mission.
This perhaps is the implication of that

strange statement in the Midrash regarding
the Almighty’s words to Jacob, ordering the
Patriarch to return to his homeland, after
twenty years of exile and servitude in
Laban’s house:
“Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to

thy kindred; and I will be with
thee” (Genesis 31, 3) – Your father is
waiting for you, your mother is waiting for
you – I myself am waiting for you.
(Bereshit Rabba 77)
Nahmanides also emphasises that just as it

is obligatory to wrest the land from the
peoples who defiled it with their evil deeds
and not to emigrate therefrom, so it is

equally important not to leave the land

desolate.
We should not leave it in the hands of

others or allow it to remain desolate.
This task of conquering and taming the

desert on God’s earth had already been
implied in the first command given to man
“Fill the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1,
22) on which Nahmanides comments:
He granted man power and government in

the land to do as he wished…to build,
uproot, plant and mine metal from its hills.
The picture is however not complete

without referring to its other side. Just as
the former inhabitants of the land had been
expelled for their misdeeds so would “God’s
own country” vomit the Israelites, should
they contaminate it with their practices. The
divine gift of the land was not unconditional
but, as stated at the end of our sidra (35,
33-34):
So shall ye not pollute the land wherein ye

are, defile not therefore the land which ye
shall inhabit, wherein I dwell; for I, the Lord
dwell among the children of Israel.
1. What is the syntactical structure of

verse 53 according to the
explanation of
Rashi and Nahmanides cited above?
2. What prompted Rashi to add at the

end this comment: “Otherwise, you
will not be able to exist there”,
though there is no hint in the text for
this statement?
3. Then shall those that remain be as

thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your
sides.
(Numbers 33, 55)
On this phrase “then shall those that

remain”, Rashi adds the words, “they shall
be to your hurt”. What prompted Rashi to

add this comment? What do they add to the

meaning of the text?

Director:
Web Site Manager:

Parashat Devarim
Languages
Links
Parashat Devarim

Parashat Hashavua
Judge Righteously
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah In this sidra Moses recapitulates, in his address to the
children of Israel the history of their fathers’ wanderings. He
begins from the moment, thirty-eight years previously, their
English parents had stood on the threshold of the promised land
which they had forfeited on account of their misconduct.
Hebrew Moses describes how he had prepared the children of Israel,
at that time, for the entry into their patrimony by appointing
German leaders and officers. Here is the message he gave their
judges:
Russian
Spanish And I charged your judges at that time, saying:

Hear the causes between your brethren, and
judge righteously between a man and his
Nehama's Iyunim brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye
shall not respect persons in judgement; ye shall
Insights on the hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not
Parasha be afraid of the face of any man; for the
(Companion) judgement is God’s. (1, 16-17)
Nehama's Gilyonot Besides the general rule to deal justly, many detailed
regulations of judicial procedure are derived from every word
and turn of phrase in the above text. In the first verse the
Nehar Deah word “hear” as well as the unusual adverbial qualification
“between” are the subject of exegesis.
Rega Lifney
Shabbat Said R. Hanina: This constitutes an admonition to the court
not to hear the words of one litigant before his opponent has
arrived, and an admonition to the litigant that he should not
Commentary of present his case to the judge before his opponent arrives.
Rabbi Moshe Bergman Apply the text: “Hear the cause between your brethren”.
(in Hebrew) (Talmud, Sanhedrin 7b)
The hearing of the litigant in the absence of the other may

Illustrations to the give rise to partiality, since the one cannot correct the
Weekly Parasha, by the impression given by the other. But even if both are present
Studio in Old Jaffa there are still dangers to be avoided in the interests of justice.
These may also be deducted from the wording of our text as
the author of Or Ha-hayyim observes:
What is the point of the text telling us to hear the cause

between your brethren? Surely without hearing them out,
there can be no case! Why is the unusual infinitive form
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/dvarim.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 12:08:33 p.m.

Parashat Devarim
shamo’a (hear) used instead of the imperative shim’u (hear

ye)? The implication to be drawn, however, is that the judges
must be patient and hear them out. If one of the litigants
wishes to bring more evidence or arguments, the judges
should not cut him short but they must ‘hear’ continuously.
Further, if the case has been tedious and longwinded the
judges should not adjourn the case till much later, but they
should hear it out, till the end, without intermission. The
Torah thus prohibits the injustice of protracted legal
proceedings and demands swift justice.
This same text also teaches the judge to go behind the words
of the litigants and get at the truth, and though the arguments
and evidence of one superficially appear to be decisive, if he
feels they are not in good faith, he should use his own
judgement. Hear the cause between your brethren implies
that he should pay attention to every nuance of their
utterances and all that takes place in court between them in
arriving at the truth.
The word “hear” is understood in the sense of “pay attention”

“grasp”. The equal treatment to be accorded to both litigants
can be distilled from the word “between”.
The judge must not serenely look at one and avert his gaze
from the other, but his hearing must be “between”, equally
balanced – if he looks at one he should look at the other, if he
averts his gaze, it should be from both or from neither…A
certain pious and scholarly judge R. Moses Berdugo would
avert his gaze from both, because he felt that if he gazed at
one of them his opponent was bound to be flustered for the
moment. He said that the text “hear the cause of your
brethren” implied that it was the duty of the judge simply to
hear, and nothing more, and let the words of the litigants
reach his ears without making the slightest differentiation
between them both. In this way you will “judge righteously
between a man and his brother”. (Or Ha-hayyim)
Here we have the affirmative formulation of justice. The next

verse gives us the negative formulation followed once again
by an affirmative demand:
Ye shall not respect persons;

Ye shall hear the great and small
The demand to mete out impartial treatment to both parties

recurs in all the four Biblical contexts dealing with judicial
matters:
Thou shalt not pervert the judgement of thy poor

in his causes; neither shalt thou favour a poor
man in his cause. (Exodus 23, 6, 3)
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgement;

thou shalt not respect the person of the poor,
nor favour the person of the mighty, but in
righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
(Leviticus 19, 15)
Thou shalt not pervert judgement; Thou shalt

not respect persons. (Deuteronomy 16, 19)

Parashat Devarim
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. Here we shall
deal with the implications of the repeated references to
favouring 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, Since he is
a disreputable person, I shall view his cause
unfavourably but “thou shalt pervert the
judgement of thy poor” –he who is poor in good
works (mitzvot). (Mekhilta Ex. 23, 6)
The judge has to limit his considerations 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 favour the
poor man. In Exodus we are bidden not to favour the poor
man in his cause; in Leviticus not to respect to person of the
poor nor favour the person of the mighty. Malbim who
specialises in clarifying the subtle differences in apparently
synonymous expressions in the Torah directed his genius to
explaining our text:
The phrase nesi’at panim (“lifting up the face” translated in

our text by “respect the person”) implies overlooking some
transgression or unsavoury matter cf.: “peradventure he will
(yisa panai) accept me” (Genesis 32, 21)… “See I have
accepted (nasati panekha) thee concerning this thing also
that I will not overthrow the city” (ibid. 19, 21). The word
“favour” comes from a Hebrew root meaning external beauty
(hadar) referring to whatever is attractive in man’s eyes; cf.
“the fruit of a goodly (hadar) tree…” “The majesty (hadrat) of
the king is in the multitude of people” Proverbs 14, 28; “the
beauty (hadar) of the old men is the hoary head” (ibid. 20, 29)
etc.
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 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 favour i.e. to honour the poor in his
cause.
The Torah was not concerned, in this context, with protecting

the weak but with upholding justice, since as it concludes in
our sidra: “the judgement is God’s” The implication of this
cryptic expression is to be found in Jehoshaphat, king of
Judah’s words to his judges:
Consider what ye do; for ye judge not for man,

but for the Lord; He is with you in giving
judgement. Now therefore let the fear of the
Lord be upon you; take heed and do it; for there
is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect
of persons, nor taking of tribes. (2 Chronicles

Parashat Devarim
19, 6-7)
The commentary to Rashi on Chronicles explains the

significance of the above as follows:
Do not say: What difference does it make if we

are partial to our friends or pervert the
judgement of the poor and favour the rich?
Surely the judgement is not God’s. For this
reason it states that it is “for the Lord”. If you
have convicted the innocent it is as if you have
deprived your Creator of something and
perverted the judgement of heaven. Therefore
“consider what ye do; ye judge not for man, but
for the Lor”. Perhaps you will then argue, why
should I take upon myself all this responsibility
and trouble (to suffer punishment if I make a
mistake)? The text adds: “with you in giving
judgement”; in other words, it is your bounden
duty to deliver judgement on the basis of the
facts in front of you.
The administering of justice is a Divine charge entrusted to

man by God, both a duty and a privilege.

“Between…the stranger” (gero) (Deuteronomy 1,
16); this refers to his opponent in court who
heaps up (oger) arguments against him. Another
explanation: even with regard to living
accommodation (ger sojourner, one who
sojourns), in the sharing out between brothers,
even of an oven and cooking stove. (Rashi)
What difficulty did Rashi find and why was not one
explanation sufficient?
“Ye shall hear the great and small alike” – that

the case involving a peruta should be as
important to you as one involving a hundred, so
that if it comes first, do not put it off till the last.
Another explanantion: Do not say, this one is
poor and the other rich, and it is a sacred duty to
support the poor. I shall acquit the poor man so
that he can make a decent living. Another
explanation: That you should not say, How can I
slight this rich man for the sake of a denar? I
shall acquit him and when he goes out I shall
say to him: Give him what you owe him. 4|
(Rashi)
What difficulty, in the text, prompts Rashi’s explanation?
Why was Rashi not satisfied with his first explanation?
What are the exact implications of the phrase: “make a

decent living”?

Parashat Devarim
What common denominator is shared by the last two

explanations? Why was not one of them sufficient?

Director:

Gilyonot - Parashat Va-Etchanan
Languages
Links
Parashat Va-Etchanan

Kehati Mishna Doing the right and decent thing

Parashat Hashavua The main principles of Judaism – the prohibition of idolatry, the principles
of the unity, love and fear of god, the Decalogue, the duty of studying the
Hebrew Text of the Torah – all are given an honourable mention in this sidra. It also constantly
Parashah emphasises the obligation to actually carry out and faithfully observe all
the precepts contained in the torah. First:
English
Now, O Israel listen to the statutes and judgements Which I am teaching
Hebrew
you for the purpose of practice (4, 1)
German See, I have taught you statutes… For you to practice in the land you are
going to possess. (4, 5)
Russian
Then again as a concluding refrain to the account of the Giving of the
Spanish
Torah:
Nehama's Iyunim you. Stray not to the right or left. (5, 29)
Insights on the After these numerous exhortations to put the commandments, statutes
Parasha and judgements into practice in their daily lives, the Torah once again calls
(Companion) upon us to
Nehama's Gilyonot Diligently observe the commandments of the lord your God,
His testimonies and statutes which He commanded thee and
do what is right and good in the eyes of the Lord
Nehar Deah
The question that immediately springs to mind is: Surely this exhortation to
Rega Lifney do what is right and good is already implied in all the numerous injunctions
Shabbat already enjoined in the torah. Surely one who strictly obeys all the positive
and negative commands in the Torah ipso facto fulfils the admonition to do
what is “right and good in the eyes of the Lord”! What new obligation then
Commentary of does this admonition imply? Or is it perhaps merely a summary of all that
Rabbi Moshe Bergman has been stated previously? We must, of course, assume that the Torah
(in Hebrew) does not multiply injunctions merely for rhetorical effect. We have,
therefore, to seek the specific contribution of this verse to the whole, one
which we could not have deduced from any other dictum in the Torah.
Weekly Parasha, by the Both Rashi and Ramban explain that this verse implies a further divine
Studio in Old Jaffa injunction not included in what has been recorded previously:
That which is right and good” – this implies a compromise

beyond the letter of the law. (Rashi)
Ramban this time agreeing with Rashi elaborates on his explanation:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vaet.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 12:05:37 p.m.

The idea behind this command is as follows: At beginning He

asked us to observe “his statutes and testimonies which He
had commanded thee” and now He wished to add that you
should do that which is upright and good in His eyes, even in
regard to those things where no specific divine command
applies, since He loves that which is good and upright. This is
a very important principle since it is impossible to record
every detail of human behaviour in the Torah embracing
man’s relations with his neighbours and friends, his business
affairs, national and local welfare. But after He had made
reference to many aspects such as “thou shalt not go tale-
bearing”, “thou shall not take vengeance nor bear a grudge”,
“thou shall not stand by the blood of thy neighbour”, “thou
shall not curse the deaf”, “thou shall rise up before the hoary
head”, etc., He included a general injunction to do that which
is good and upright in every matter, accepting where
necessary even a compromise in a legal dispute and going
beyond the letter of the law.
The Ramban’s words will become clearer if we compare them with

another precept occurring in the Torah, enunciating the most sublime
principle of divinely ordained conduct.
Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel… Ye

shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy.
(Leviticus 19, 2)
But one question still remains for us to clarify. Surely he who observes all
the precepts in the Torah will find himself, of necessity, fulfilling the
highest principles of holiness enunciated in the above citation. Holiness
and righteousness are surely the logical noncomitants of a total
observance of the divine precepts. Is it conceivable that one who observes
loyally all the moral and ritual observances of the torah should fall short of
the standards of holiness and uprightness implied in the injunctions
already referred to of: “ye shall be holy” and “thou shalt do that which is
upright and good?”
According to Ramban such a state of affairs is indeed conceivable.

Commenting on the above verse from Leviticus he states:
“Separate yourselves from immorality…For whenever you

find safeguards against immorality, you find holiness.” This is
Rashi’s interpretation but Talmudic comment on this same
text limits itself to the following general phrase: “ye shall be
separate”.
In my opinion the separation referred to here is not merely to abstention

from immorality as Rashi maintains but rather to the abstention invariably
referred to in the Talmud, the practicers of which we termed perushim
(ascetics). Since the torah warned us against immorality and forbidden
foods but permitted marital relations and the partaking of meat and wine,
the immoderate person might abuse these dispensions, overindulging in
permitted sexual relations and in eating and drinking, maintaining in
common with all foolish people that this was not specifically prohibited by
the Torah. He would be a fool by authorisation of the torah (naval bi-reshut
ha-torah). For this reason the Torah adds to its list of explicit prohibitions
and injunctions a general admonition to be holy, to sanctify oneself
through minimizing hid indulgence in even permitted enjoyments, in food
and drink and sex. The Nazirite abstainer is called “holy” by the Torah.
Similarly every man should sanctify himself till he attains a higher state of
holiness and separation, as it was said of R. Hiyya that he never indulged

in idle conversation.
Ramban thus shows how is possible for a man to keep to the letter of the
Torah and yet violate its spirit. Often in everyday life there are cases to
which no direct and explicit injunction of the Torah applies. But we are
called upon to act in these circumstances in accordance with the general
principle of holiness and righteousness. This is the implication of those
two admonitions “ye shall be holy” and “thou shalt do that which is upright
and good”. We may note that, in the former, Ramban confines his
examples to precepts governing relations between man and man. Our
Rabbis explained the verse in our sidra to refer to relations between man
and man in which the individual is called upon not always to stand upon
his rights but rather to agree to a compromise in the interests of a higher
morality. Here we quote an instructive example of the application of this
divine exhortation to practice holiness in our everyday lives:
Rabbah bar Hana’s porters broke him his jars of wine (the
Gemara explains that the contract made the porters liable for
breakages). He took their cloaks (as a pledge for their
compensation they were liable to pay). The porters came to
Rav to plead their case. Said Rav to him: Give them back
their cloaks. Bar Hana replied: Is this the law!? Rav replied:
Yes, “In order that you may go in the way of the
upright” (Proverbs 2, 20). So he returned them their cloaks.
The porters then said to him: We are poor men and have
worked hard all day and we are hungry and have nothing.
Said Rav to him: Go and pay them their wages. Bar Hana
replied: Is this then the law!? Rav replied: Yes! – “And the
paths of the righteous shall thou keep” (Proverbs 2, 20).
(Bava Mezia 83a)
A further example of the supreme importance of acting in the spirit rather

than the letter of the law is epitomized in the following rabbinic saying:
Said R. Yohanan: Jerusalem was destroyed only because

they acted in accordance with the letter of the Torah and did
not go beyond it. (Bava Mezia 30b)
The practical legal implications of these general moral injunctions may be

seen from the following restatement of rabbinic rulings in Maimonides’
Code. These admonitions to be holy and deal uprightly were not intended
to be merely high-sounding phrases:
He who sells his land to another is obliged to give his

neighbour who has an adjoining field precedence in any sale.
Even if the purchaser is a scholar, a neighbour and a
kinsman of the vendand the adjoining landowner an ignorant
man and complete stranger, the latter takes precedence and
may evict the purchase. This is in accordance with the
principle stated in Scriptures “and thou shall do that which is
right and good”. Our Sages said that since it is all one sale it
is only right and good that the adjoining landowner should
have prior right of purchase over the one whose fields are far
away. (Code Shekhenim, 12, 5, see Bava Mezia 108a-108b)
A court that has made an order for the creditor to take the
actual property of the debtor or property under mortgage in
the hands of a purchaser and subsequently the debtor or the
purchaser or their heirs acquire enough means and bring the
money to the creditor, the property may be discharged and
such a seizure for debt is always returnable to the original
owner in accordance with the principle “and thou shall do that

which is right and good”. (Loveh U-malveh 22, 16, see Bava
Mezia 16b)
Although by law it would seem that a man can sell his land to anyone he
wishes the Torah demands the exercise of the maximum moral
consideration.
Let us conclude our study with a quotation on this subject from a modern
religious Jewish thinker, R. Yeshaya Shapiro the “rabbi halutz” (d. 1942),
who lived as a farmer in Kfar Piness in the Sharon valley in the Holy Land.
The injunction of “ye shall be holy,” implies that the letter of the law must
not be strictly adhered to, but as Ramban phrases it “one should follow the
intention of the Torah”. Whoever wishes to achieve a perfect observance
of the Torah cannot rest content with adhering to it explicit rulings. He
must penetrate deeper in order to arrive at the ultimate aim of these
rulings. He must penetrate deeper in order to arrive at the ultimate aim of
these rulings. He must not only think of that which is good and upright in
his own eyes but that “which is upright and good in the eyes of the Lord”. It
would seem that this latter injunction added by the Torah to its list of
rulings is superfluous since all the divine precepts are designed to show
mankind the right way of living. However, there are many things which are
permitted by the letter of the law and are only forbidden from the point of
view of “thou shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord”.
Regarding the seizing of property for a debt our rabbis stated that the law
does not demand the return of such property, but it is to be returned in
accordance with the injunction of “thou shall do that which is right…” This
special injunction demonstrates that Judaism does not rest content with
limiting active evil doing, but also aspires to eradicate potential evil from
the soul of man.

Director:

Parashat Ekev
Languages
Links
Parashat Ekev

Kehati Mishna
za"l
Parashat Hashavua THE MANNA TEST
Hebrew Text of the And thou shalt remember the long trek along which the Lord
Parashah thy God hath let thee those forty years in the wilderness, that
He might afflict thee, to put thee to the test to know what was
in thy heart, whether thou wouldst keep His commandments,
English or not and He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and
fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy
Hebrew
fathers know...Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna,
German which thy fathers knew not; that We might afflict thee, and put
thee to the test, to do thee good at thy latter end. (8, 2---3, 16)
Russian
Both in our sidra (above) and in Exodus (16) the manna is described as a
Spanish trial or test (nisayon) for Israel. Our commentators have remarked on the
unusual nature of this trial. Usually a test or trial is something to be borne,
an unpleasant experience or burdensome duty. Abravanel queries:
Nehama's Iyunim
What test was implied in the provision of their daily bread in
Insights on the
the form of manna, with a double portion on the Sabbath eve.
Parasha
Surely this was a great kindness, rather than a test?
(Companion)
Nehama's Gilyonot Rashi explains this difficulty, in the first context where it appears, in
Exodus where the Almighty announced the sending of the manna:
"That I may put them to the test, whether they will walk in My
Nehar Deah
law or not" --- to see if they will heed the precepts connected
Rega Lifney herewith, that they should not leave over, and not go out
Shabbat gathering on on the Sabbath.
The test was not then in the gift of the manna itself but in the instructions
Commentary of accompanying it. The way the Israelites honored these instructions would
Rabbi Moshe Bergman serve as a pointer to their loyalty to the Divine commands, to see "whether
(in Hebrew) they will walk in My law or not''. But by the same token, surely every
precept in the Torah can be termed a test or trial? We may detect,
however, in the wording of the text, that the trial had nothing to do with the
Illustrations to the instructions governing the manna 'but with the actual enjoyment of the
Weekly Parasha, by the Heavenly food. The life of luxury and ease they would enjoy in virtue of the
Studio in Old Jaffa manna would constitute the greatest trial of all:
"That he might put thee to the rest"' if you will do )3is will,
when He grants you sustenance, without suffering. (Sforno)
In other words. would the Israelites continue to fear God and keep His
commandments In times of prosperity? But we may object to this
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/ekev.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 12:03:40 p.m.

Parashat Ekev
explanation on the grounds that the diet of manna in the wilderness is

represented as a burden. an affliction and not as an enjoyment.
Nahmanides suggests a more plausible explanation:
The situation in which the Israelites were placed regarding

the manna represented a great trial for them since they
entered a desert without food of any sort and with no way
out. They were totally dependent on the daily portion of
manna which rained down and melted in the heat of the sun.
They hungered for it greatly, but bore all their suffering in
obedience to God who might have led them through an
inhabited route. He chose however to confront them with this
trial in order to test their eternal loyalty to Him...
In other words, Nahmanides maintained that the manna constituted a trial

for the Israelites owing to its unusual nature. Neither they nor their fathers
had known it. It was an unpopular, strange food which was not given them
in abundance and could not be stored. Each day was viewed with
apprehension by the hungry Israelites who waited expectantly for the
manna and were assailed by the doubt that it would not suffice. The
author of Ha-ketav Va-ha-kabalah clarifies the meaning of the term "trial''
used in the Bible:
God who is all-knowing requires no proof. His trial is rather to

prove to the person himself the limits of his own capacities.
"'That I might put thee to the test" means that God will bring
man into such a situation which will be able to prove to man
himself the extent of his Faith and trust in Him.
The Biur suggests the following approach to our text:
By being placed in a position of absolute reliance on the

Almighty for their daily sustenance, they would become
habituated to trust in Him and their faith in God would
become part and parcel of their nature.
If we understand the manna as symbolizing the dependence of man on

His Maker, the two references to the manna at the beginning and end of
the passage we first quoted, aptly suit the context, which speaks of the
wonderful natural wealth of the land they were going to possess:
For the Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land a land of
brooks of waters, of fountains ... a land of wheat, barley...
wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, a land
whose stones are iron and out of whose hills thou mayest
mine copper... Beware lest thou forget the Lord thy God. (8, 7
—11)
We are accustomed to regarding this passage as the classic description of

the fertility and other wonderful qualities of the holy land. But we must not
ignore its other implication. The Torah sings the praises of the land to
emphasize too the moral dangers and pitfalls that such gifts might bring
with them.
Although the life of the Israelites in the promised land would no longer be
dependent on water being extracted from the rock or on manna dropping
from heaven.. nevertheless even the normal rainfall and all the natural
gifts of the land were similarly derived from the Creator and not in virtue of
their own power and might of their hand.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/ekev.html (2 de 3)26/02/2008 12:03:40 p.m.

Gilyonot Parashat Reeh
Languages
Links
Parashat Re'eh

Kehati Mishna I have Set Before You a Blessing

Parashat Hashavua This sidra. the first in our book to be largely composed of laws an religious
precepts, begins with a passage dealing with the subject of reward and
Hebrew Text of the punishment:
Parashah
See, I have set 'before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if
ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you
English
this day:
Hebrew
And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God,
German but turn aside from the way which I command you this day, to go after
other gods, which ye have not known. . (11, 26--28)
Russian
This passage which promises blessing to the obedient and threatens the
Spanish
disobedient with a curse postulates, too, the fundamental Jewish principle
of freewill. The Midrash understands the opening words of our text as
implying this:
Nehama's Iyunim
Insights on the "Behold I have set... blessing and a curse..." Said R. Eliezer: As soon as
Parasha the Almighty uttered these words at Sinai,"out of the mouth of the most
(Companion) High proceedeth not evil and good"
Nehama's Gilyonot (Lamentations 3, 38); but evil overtakes those who commit evil and good
those who do good.
Nehar Deah (Devarim Rabbah 4. 3)
Rega Lifney Many commentators have been puzzled by the fact that the Hebrew word
Shabbat for evil in the text from Lamentations occurs in the plural form (ra'ot
='evils') whereas the word for good (tovah) is in the singular. Here is the
explanation of the Ha'amek Davar:
Commentary of
Rabbi Moshe Bergman The Almighty. in His abounding grace. provides His creatures with one
(in Hebrew) single good prior to the deed, as an incentive to good works. In view of
this, only one good proceeds from the most High, whereas retribution and
sufferings do not proceed From Him, but overtake man in direct
Illustrations to the relationship to his deeds -- his sinful acts.
Studio in Old Jaffa We shall revert to the foregoing idea later. Meanwhile we shall deal with
another apparent anomaly, this time in the opening text. The anomaly is
only apparent in the Hebrew, since the English translation does not reflect
the discrepancy. The passage states: "...a blessing, if (asher) ye obey...";
"a curse if (im) ye will not obey". The usual reading would have been the
conditional im in both cases. A more faithful English rendering would be:
"A blessing that ye obey . . . a curse if ye will not obey". But what is the
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/reeh.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 12:01:30 p.m.

Gilyonot Parashat Reeh
point of this variation? Malbim the great nineteenth century Jewish

commentator who made a study of Biblical Hebrew semantics gives the
following explanation:
"A blessing that ye obey", implying then that the very obedience to the
Divine commandments constitutes the blessing. Do not imagine that there
is any this-worldly reward outside the good deed itself. It is not like the
case of the master who rewards his servant for loyalty and punishes him
for disobedience, where the servant's due Is dependent on the master's
whim and is not inherent in the action itself. The parallel is to the doctor
who assures his patient that he will be well, as; long as he adheres to the
regimen he prescribes, and that otherwise he will die.
"The consequences are here inherent in the deed itself.
The idea propounded by Malbim echoes the rabbinic dictum that the
reward of a mizvah is a mizvah -- virtue is its own reward. But this dues
not explain why the Torah changes its attitude in respect of sinful deeds
and uses the conditional im. Surely it is equally true to state that sin brings
its own punishment -- the reward of a transgression is transgression!
Bahya goes further than Malbim and explains the different implications of
asher and im in our context:
Im is an expression of doubt which was therefore inappropriate in

connection with obedience to the Torah, but quite appropriate in the
context of punishment. The text therefore uses asher - an expression of
certainty with reference with this theme. Rabbi Phinehas said: When
Moses was about to depart this world. God said to him. "Behold thy days
approach to die". Whereupon Moses replied: Master of the Universe, after
all my labours, thou sayest unto me: "Behold thy days approach to
die?" (Deuteronomy 31, 14). "1 shall not die but live and declare the works
of the Lord"(Psalm 118. 17). Thereupon God said: You cannot prevail in
this matter: "For this is the destiny of all men" (Ecclesiastes 12, 13).
Moses then said: ask of Thee one favour before I die, that as I enter the
Hereafter, all the gates of Heaven and the deep be opened for them to
see that there is none beside Thee. Whence this? For it is said: "Know this
day and lay it to thine heart, that the Lord he is God...there is none
else" (Deuteronomy 4, 39). Whereupon God replied: You declare: "There
is none else ('od)." I too say: "And no one else (ed) hath arisen in Israel
like unto Moses..." (Ded to man for him to enjoy and serve his Maker on
condition that he would be obedient to the wishes of its Creator, whereas
the curse comes only afterwards in the event of man's subsequent
disobedience. This is the reason for the divergence of phrasing. The world
is not originally evil and full of misfortune to be redeemed by man's own
good works. On the contrary: "How manifold are thy works O Lord, all of
them hast thou made in wisdom'' (Psalm 104, 24). All the ugliness and
misfortune are consequences of the evil committed by man: "and the
curse if ye will not obey". The same Psalm refers to this: "Let the sins be
consumed out of the earth and the wicked will be no more, bless thou the
Lord O my soul". Once human evil has been eradicated the pristine purity
of Divine creation will be restored when everything was "made in wisdom"
and the state of blessing comes back into its own: "Bless the Lord, O my
soul, Praise ye the Lord".
Now we may appreciate the observation of the Ha'amek Davar cited at the
beginning. "Out of the mouth of the Lord proceedeth not evil(s) and good",
since man himself is responsible for the evils. Good is in, the singular
however, since there is one supreme good which proceeds from God and
that is the good granted to mankind beforehand, in anticipation of its
obedience.
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/reeh.html (2 de 3)26/02/2008 12:01:30 p.m.

Gilyonot - Parashat Shoftim
Languages
Links
Parashat Shoftim

Kehati Mishna Protect the Tree, Protect Man

Parashat Hashavua This sidra which provides us with guidance on how to behave in going
forth to battle, on relations with comrades in-arms, the enemy and
Hebrew Text of the prisoner, includes too a passage concerning our relations with the plant
Parashah world.
When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war

English
against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by
Hebrew
wielding an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them,
but thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field
German man, that it should be besieged of thee? Only the trees of
which thou knowest that they are not trees for food, them
Russian thou mayest destroy and cut down, that thou mayest build
bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it
Spanish fall. (20, 19-20)
The last clause of verse 19 is difficult to understand. We shall first cite

Nehama's Iyunim Rashi who regards it as a rhetorical question motivating the prohibition:
Insights on the
Parasha Ki has here an interrogative meaning: "Really?" Is the tree of
(Companion)
the field a man who is besieged by you, to suffer famine and
thirst just like the inhabitants of the city? Why then should
Nehama's Gilyonot you cut it down?
The Jewish Publication Society version of the Bible reproduced above

follows, like that of Buber--Rosenzweig, Rashi's explanation. Ibn Ezra
Nehar Deah
however differs and refuses to see here an interrogatory statement. He
Rega Lifney disposes of the suggestions that the word "not" or the interrogative
Shabbat Hebrew prefix (ha) is to be understood in order to make it read, as Rashi
wished: "Is the man a tree of the field to be besieged of thee?" Ibn Ezra
asks: "What point is there in saying:'Don't cut down a fruit tree because it
Commentary of is not like man who can flee from you'.” He continues:
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) In my opinion, we have no need of all this. But this is the meaning: "for
thou mayest eat them and thou shalt not cut it down for the tree is man's
life."' for he taketh a mans life to pledge" i.e. he taketh in pledge
Illustrations to the something on which man depends for his livelihood.
Studio in Old Jaffa Hirsch followed Ibn Ezra, basing himself on the rabbinic dictum in the
Sifrei which reads:
The life of man is only from the tree.
These two explanations reflect not only divergent grammatical approaches

to the text. Some regard it as a utilitarian precept designed to protect man
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/shoftim.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 11:59:20 a.m.

Gilyonot - Parashat Shoftim
from the willful destruction of things from which he derives benefit. The
author of Sefer Ha-hinukh who always tried to detect an educational
motive behind every mitzvah commented as follows:
This precept is designed to inculcate love of the good and

beneficial. This will lead to the avoidance of destructiveness
and the promotion of our well being This is the way of the
pious and the worthy who love peace and rejoice in the well
being of all men. bringing them near to the Law. They do not
suffer the loss of even a grain of mustard, being distressed at
the sight of. any loss or destruction. If they can help. they
prevent any destruction with all the means at their disposal.
But it is otherwise with the wicked. the embodiments of
destructive spirits who revel in the corruption of the world.
Corrupting themselves. Man is measured by his own
yardstick. In other words. he is always affected by his own
attitude, and he who desires good and rejoices in it, will
always be granted to enjoy it.
The above explanation fits in with the idea that the tree in the text is
merely an example, a prototype. Our Sages understood the prohibition to
destroy fruit trees as implying that it was forbidden willfully to destroy
anything of benefit to mankind. Here is Maimonides' formulation of the law:
One may not cut down fruit-bearing trees outside the

(besieged) city (for purposes of war) nor divert from them the
water conduit, so as to make them wither as it is stated: "thou
shalt not destroy the trees thereof'. Whoever cuts them down
is liable for the penalty of lashes. But this does not apply
merely to the case of a siege, but in all cases. Whoever cuts
down a fruit bearing tree, in a destructive manner, is liable to
lashes. But it may be cut down. if it damages other trees or
causes harm to neighbouring fields or because it fetches a
high price. The Torah only forbad willful destruction. This is
the case not only with trees. But whoever breaks utensils,
tears garments, demolishes a building, stops up a well and
willfully destroys food violates the prohibition of "thou shalt
not destroy..." (Mishneh Torah, Melakhim 6, 8, 10)
We are not precluded from making use of God's creations. Indeed we are
bidden "subdue it", exploit to the full the natural resources He has placed
at our disposal. conquering the desert and uprooting vegetation where it
causes damage. But it is willful destruction of the gifts of nature that have
been bestowed on us that we are warned against.
It does not matter whether the object of our destructive efforts belongs to
us. No man has an exclusive right to even his own property. The earth is
the Lord's and the fullness thereof. the Psalmist states. Everything is
granted to us in trust. Besides. man must be protected against self-
destruction. Once man is allowed to rule himself and his property without
let or hindrance, there is no knowing where it will lead him. The Talmud
formulates this danger as follows:
He who in anger tears garments. breaks his utensils. squanders his

money! shall be accounted by you as if he worshipped idols. For such are
the workings of the evil inclination. Today he says to you: Do this and
tomorrow, Do the other, till the point is reached when he says to you,
Serve idols, and he will go and do so. (Shabbat 105b)
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/shoftim.html (2 de 3)26/02/2008 11:59:20 a.m.

Gilyonot - Parashat Ki tavo
Languages
Links
Parashat Ki tavo

Kehati Mishna TRIBULATIONS OF EXILE - BLESSING IN

DISGUISE
Parashat Hashavua
Hebrew Text of the

Parashah
The chapter of Retribution (Tokheha), as it is termed, outlining the evils in
store for a backsliding Israel which takes up the greater past of our sidra
English proceeds in ascending order from more usual upheavals and catastrophes
to sickness and plague, drought and famine, war and persecution until the
Hebrew Climax of exile and expulsion from the homeland is reached:
German And the Lord shall scatter thee among all peoples, from the
one end of the earth unto the other end of the earth; and
Russian
there thou shalt serve other gods, which thou hast not known,
Spanish thou nor thy fathers, even wood and stone. And among these
nations shalt thou have no repose, and there shall be no rest
for the sole of thy foot; but the Lord shall give thee there a
Nehama's Iyunim trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul.
(28, 64--65)
Insights on the
Parasha The second half of verse 64 stating that they would serve other gods of
(Companion) wood and stone seems to run counter to the sequence of the passage and
not to fit in with the crescendo of catastrophes awaiting a disobedient
Nehama's Gilyonot Israel. Is this statement regarding their ultimate acceptance of idolatry a
reference to the sin on account of which they would forfeit their homeland?
This explanation does not suit the context where it is distinctly stated that
Nehar Deah they would serve idols "there"- whilst in exile. Moreover all the verses
'beginning from 59 onwards dwell on their exile and the attendant
Rega Lifney sufferings, the subject of the sin which would cause it having already been
Shabbat alluded to. As Rashi observes sufferings do not evoke iniquities but blot
them out. The reference here therefore to their serving idols must allude,
in keeping with the context, to a part of their retribution. In accordance with
Commentary of this explanation Rashi, following the Targum Onkelos, states:
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew) "And there thou shalt serve other gods" -- In accordance with
the Targum (Aramaic version) not the literal serving of idols
but rather the paying of dues to heathen priests.
Weekly Parasha, by the However, Rashi's explanation does not take account of the explicit use of
Studio in Old Jaffa the phrase "and there thou shalt serve other gods". Abravanel's
suggestion which is coloured by the religious persecutions of his times is
more suited to the wording of the text: As a result of their desperate
situation in the lands of their dispersion, hounded by unspeakable
persecution, many of them would succumb, against their will. to the
demands of their persecutors and embrace alien faiths and idolatrous
worship, in which they did not really believe. Knowing them to be of wood
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/kitavo.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 11:56:57 a.m.

Gilyonot - Parashat Ki tavo
and stone that could neither see nor hear, they would worship them only in
order to escape death. The idolatry referred to here is thus not in the
sense of sin, but rather as part of the punishment inflicted on them, that
they would be brought to such a state or being forced, against their will to
serve idols, although inwardly believing in God. Jews would thus be forced
to serve idols not out of conviction but against their will knowing it to be
false and foolish. This is indeed a terrible fate and punishment for having
worshipped idols of their own free will in their ancestral homeland. Isaac
Arama, a contemporary of the Abravanel who likewise lived during the
time of the Spanish expulsion, finds an allusion in the text to his own
troubled times:
We may possibly find an allusion in this verse to the time

when thousands of Jews would change their religion as a
result of suffering and persecution. Regarding this the Torah
states “and among the nations they would not have no
repose”. For although they would assimilate the among
nations they would not find thereby relief since the nations
would still constantly revile them and denounce them as we
indeed seen in our day when a part have perished in the
flames of the inquisition, a part have fled and yet others
continue to live in fear of their lives. Indeed as is foretold in
Scriptures we have no rest among the nations and our lives
stand in doubt before us. We have not been so fortunate as
the ten tribes who when they were exiled were not scattered
but were subject to a foreign yoke as one people in Assyria
and Babylon; whereas we are dispersed in all parts of the
world, persecuted on all sides and we have no ease or rest in
all our habitations until there is no city or state where we do
not suffer repressive measures.
Thus the forcible conversion to idolatry and acceptance of alien creeds

against their will do not constitute the worst punishment yet in store for
them. Even assimilation and acceptance of the dominant faith would not
solve their problems and give them relief. The nations of the world would
still not accept the Jewish people as part of their community and their
barriers would still not be removed. But this inassimilable quality of the
Jewish people may be considered a special dispensation of the Almighty
intended for the good of his people. This is indeed how the Abravanel
understands it:
Scripture states: “ And among these nations shalt thou have

no repose and there shall be no rest for the sole of thy foot”.
This alludes to what the prophet Ezekiel elaborated on more
explicitly when he stated (20, 32)”And that which cometh into
thy mind shall not be at all, in that way, We will be as the
nations, as the families other countries to serve wood and
stone. As I live, saith the Lord G-d, surely with a mighty hand
and with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, will I
be King over you”.
We are thus left no alternative but to accept the yoke of heaven and be
servants of G-d. Our Sages however found a message of consolation in
this very same verse:“But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot,
and she returned unto the ark” (Genesis 8, 9). R. Judah ben R. Nahman in
the name of R. Shimon stated: If it had found a resting place it would not
have returned. Parallel to this we find (Lamentations 1) “She dwelleth
among the heathen, she findeth no rest”—if she would have found rest
she would not have returned. Parallel to this we find: And among these
nations shalt thou have no repose and there shall be no rest for the sole of
thy foot”—thus if they would have found rest they would not have returned.
(Bereshit Rabba 33, 8)
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/kitavo.html (2 de 3)26/02/2008 11:56:57 a.m.

Gilyonot - Parashat Nitzavim
Languages
Links
Parashat Nitzavim

Kehati Mishna It is not Heaven

Parashat Hashavua We shall devote our attention in this chapter to one of the many passages
dealing with Jewish fundamentals that occur towards the end of the Torah:
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is
not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven,
that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and
English
bring it us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? Neither
Hebrew
is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go
over the sea for us, and bring it to us, and make us to hear it,
German that we may do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy
mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. (30. 11--14)
Russian
Our commentators differed regarding the interpretation of this passage
Spanish from our sidra. The question to be decided is whether "this
commandment" refers to the duty of repentance dealt with in the foregoing
verses (ibid. 1--10). or whether the whole Torah. its obligations and
Nehama's Iyunim precepts is being summed up in the one phrase: "this commandment".
Insights on the
Parasha Nahmanides adheres to the former opinion, that the passage refers to the
(Companion)
mitzvah of repentance (teshuvah), the Torah wishing to emphasize that
nothing stands in its way and no man can find valid excuses of time. place
Nehama's Gilyonot and circumstance to defer the duty of returning to God. Commenting on
the passage: "though any of thine be driven out into the outmost parts of
heaven..." he states:
Nehar Deah
Though you are still scattered amongst the peoples. you will still be able to
Rega Lifney return to the Lord and do all that I have commanded you today: for the
Shabbat matter is not beyond you or too wonderful for you. but it is near to you to
perform. at all times and in all places. This is the implication of the
passage. in that they should confess their iniquity and that of their
Commentary of forefathers with their mouths. and return in their hearts to the Lord and
Rabbi Moshe Bergman now accept the Torah for generations, as it is written: "Thou and thy
(in Hebrew)
children with all thy heart and with all thy soul".
From here it is abundantly clear that Nahmanides connects, "this

Illustrations to the commandment" with the duty of repentance outlined at the beginning of
Weekly Parasha, by the the chapter. Teshuvah, it is emphasized, is not dependent on external
Studio in Old Jaffa conditions, on where the Jewish people lives or on the pressure of alien
cultures. It is purely a matter of individual free choice. It depends on his
resolution to return to the Divine source, however far he has become
alienated from it, and however numerous the barriers that have grown up
between him and his Creator: "but the word is very nigh unto thee. in thy
mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it".
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/nitzavim.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 11:53:21 a.m.

Albo the great medieval Jewish philosopher in his Sefer Ha Ikkarim ("Book
of Principles") takes a similar view. regarding all the three sections of the
chapter as forming one whole:
A look at Nitzavim will convince us that the context is dealing with the
subject of repentance: "See I have set before thee life and good...to love
the Lord. hearken to His voice and to cleave unto him" (30. 15. 20). The
chapter begins by outlining the precept of repentance calling on us to "turn
unto the Lord with all thy heart... and soul" After this, the text extols the
value of teshuvah by indicating how easy it was to achieve: "For this
commandment is not too hard for thee... it is not in heaven... very nigh
unto thee". The text is certainly alluding to teshuvah. A pointer to this are
the words: "in thy mouth and in thy heart to do it". Teshuvah involves
confession of the lips and remorse of the heart. The phrase: "it is not in
heaven . · ·" places an even greater value on teshuvah, implying that no
effort is too great, even if it involves ascending to heaven. in order to
achieve repentance. Reason postulates that no amends made by the
sinner can be
adequate. How much more so does this apply to mere verbal repentance
which is recommended by the prophet Hosea when he states: "take with
you words and return unto the Lord". A special act of Divine grace must be
presumed to make such repentance acceptable. Therefore the text calls

on us to "choose life". After it has demonstrated the facility of repentance,
the text maintains it is only reasonable that we should not neglect the
opportunity, which is a matter of life and death for us. The "life" alluded to
is that which is attained in the observance of this precept of repentance
and its aim: "to
love the Lord thy God and hearken to His voice and cleave unto Him: for
that is thy life and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the
land . · ·"
Albo thus takes the view that the context indicates that we are dealing with
the commandment of teshuvah. Most of our commentators hold this view
to be untenable and maintain we are dealing with the whole complex of
Jewish observance. Our Sages in the Talmud assume this to be the case,
in their discussion of the passage:
Set apart fixed times for Torah study (i.e. make every effort
and use every subterfuge to promote Torah) as R. Avdimi bar
Hama observed on the text: "It is not in heaven.. · nor beyond
the sea". "It is not in heaven' -- if it would be in heaven you
would be obliged to go up after it. "It is not beyond the sea'. --
if it would be beyond the sea, you would be obliged to cross It
in pursuit. (Eruvin 55a)
Rashi echoes the above dictum and his comment prompted his super
commentator Mizrahi to pose the following question:
The text states the very opposite. that if the Torah was in heaven, no man
could bring it down to teach it. You must conclude that the text does not
mean that we would have to go up to heaven to get it, if the Torah was
there.
The answer to this query is to be found in the wording of the text itself. It
could have read simply: "It is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off: it is
not in heaven nor beyond the sea". This is sufficient to provide the
contrast to the closing, determining phrase, "but the thing is very nigh unto

thee...". The fact that it necessary to add the phrase: "That thou shouldst
say, Who shall go up for us to heaven... that thou shouldst say, Who shall
go over the
sea and bring it...'' indicates that if it was really so inaccessible, we would
still be naturally obliged to go after it. The formulation of the question
presumes its validity. The text thus lends itself to two divergent meanings:
That if the Torah would have been inaccessible -- beyond the sea or in
heaven. thy would have had the valid excuse to argue, Who shall go up to
heaven etc. Now that it was nigh unto thee, they had no further excuse.
That if the observance of this commandments involves going up to the

heaven for enlightenment or beyond the sea,its importance is so great that
we would be in duty bound to yearn to attain it,crying out,Who will go up to
heaven or beyond the sea to bring it to us? How much more so since it is
actually nigh unto us ,is it our duty to embrace it and cleave unto it out of
love,as a girdle cleaves to the loins of a man"(Jeremiah 13,11) (Beer
Yizhak)
Both interpretations read the question as a rhetorical one. The difference

is that according to one reading the rhetorical question bears a negative
inference(Isaiah 40,12 who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his
hand ?Jeremiah 16,20"Shall a man make unto himself gods?)According to
the other reading the rhetorical question bears a positive, beseeching
connotation (See :II Samuel 23,15 "Who will give me water to drink?)
Though the first reading sound more plausible, yet the Beer Itzhak prefers
the second reading:
The reader can see himself that the second interpretation is to be

preferred Beside the consideration that the subject itself is so all important
and rightly demands that we go to the ends of the earth in its service,the
first reading bears the objection that it contains nothing new. Did not the
Israelites know that the Torah was not in heaven? At most ,it was
sufficient to state that it was not in heaven, nor beyond the sea.The
additional questions support our contention and lend plausibility to the
second reading.
Thus we have two aspects to our text."It is in heaven"emphasizes the

facility and feasibility of Torah affording therefore no excuse for neglect .It
also implies the heavy responsibility devolving on the students and
scholars of the Torah. Since it is not in heaven,man can no longer rely on
heavenly guidance but must interpret it and teach it himself with his own
resources.
The Torah is not the property of a privileged caste of priests and initiates.
It is not in heaven but in our midst. It is the duty of all to study, teach and
practice its tenets.
Question for further study:
1.Why did the Torah employ two negative phrases"not in heaven,not

beyond the sea"instead of resting content with one?Explain the reason for
the order in which they occur?

Parashat Haazinu
Languages
Links
Parashat Haazinu

Kehati Mishna BIRD'S EYEVIEW OF JEWISH HISTORY
Parashat Hashavua Let us begin our study of this sidra with Nahmanides' summary of the
contents and significance of the Song that Moses taught the people:
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah This song constituting for us a true and faithful witness,
plainly tells us all that will befall us, opening first by
describing the kindness God bestowed on us since He chose
English us for His people, followed by a record of His bounty towards
us in the wilderness, and how He disinherited mighty nations
Hebrew for us. Indeed, from an overabundance of good things, our
rebellion against God is foretold -- how we would descend to
German
worshipping idols. Then it is recorded how we would
Russian consequently incur Divine wrath, being finally expelled from
the land and dispersed, as has indeed befallen us.
Spanish Subsequently the Song relates that the Lord will ultimately
repay our enemies and wreak His vengeance on them. For
their hatred and persecution of Israel were not motivated by
Nehama's Iyunim the fact that Israel did commit idolatry like themselves but
that Israel did not commit such deeds, preferred to be
Insights on the different, refusing to eat of their sacrifices and spurned their
Parasha heathen cults and strove to eradicate them as it is written:
(Companion) "For thy sake are we killed all the day long" (Psalm 44, 23).
Consequently. they maltreat us out of hatred of God and He
Nehama's Gilyonot will avenge such insult. It is plain that the Song speaks of our
ultimate redemption . .. testifying that we will suffer Divine
reproof, accompanied by the promise that our memory will
Nehar Deah nevertheless not be blotted out, but that God will forgive us
our sins and repay our enemies for His name's sake. This is
Rega Lifney as the Sifrei has it: "Great is this Song, as it embraces the
Shabbat present, the past and the future, this life and the Hereafter''.
Were this song merely to constitute our horoscope as foretold
by an astrologer, it were ment for us to believe in it, since all
Commentary of its contents up till now have been confirmed by events, with
Rabbi Moshe Bergman not the slightest deviation: how much more so should we
(in Hebrew) wholeheartedly believe in and await the fulfillment of the
words of God through the mouth of His most trusted
prophet...!
Weekly Parasha, by the Note what Nahmanides says regarding our incuring of Divine wrath" and
Studio in Old Jaffa how we would experience his reproof, in spite of which, however. he
would not completely blot out our memory, but would, on the contrary,
forgive our sins and repay our enemies for His name's sake. This change
over from Divine wrath being vented on us through the medium of the
enemies of Israel to the latter's punishment by that very same hand, for
His name's sake is the theme of the following verse in the sidra:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/hazinu.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 11:51:05 a.m.

Parashat Haazinu
I thought I would make an end of them, I would make their

memory cease from among men: Were it not that I dreaded
the enemy's provocation, Lest their adversaries should
misdeem, Lest they should say, Our hand is exalted, and not
the Lord hath performed all this. (32, 26-27)
This verse contains a very daring anthropomorphism indeed, attributing to

God the sentiment of fear, as it were: "Were it not that I dreaded the
enemy'', and has no parallel in the Torah. Ibn Ezra's attempt to weaken its
force by stating that the verse speaks in human terms is totally inadequate
to explain away the unusual boldness and starkness of the expression,
when applied to the Sovereign of all mankind.
It is the Divine purpose to raise the spiritual standards of His creatures,

improve heir well-being in all respects till the stage is attained when as
recorded in the familiar Aleinu prayer: "All theinhabitants of the world will
acknowledge and know that it is to Thee every knee must bend, and by
Thee every tongue must swear". In our sidra, the Almighty, as it were,
expresses concern and apprehension that this ultimate purpose would be
obstructed and undermined, that, on the contrary, mankind would become
further estranged from God by the effects of His vengeance on Israel for
their misdeeds. "Were it not that I dreaded the enemy's provocation, lest
their adversaries should misdeem, lest they should say, Our hand is
exalted and not the Lord hath performed all this". The Divine judgement on
Israel is therefore annulled for fear of desecrating the name of God. This
same concern is expressed by Moses when he sought to avert the Divine
decree on Israel when they sinned with the Golden Calf:
Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For evil did
he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains. (Exodus 32,
12)
It is again the subject of Moses' intercession with God after the sin of the
spies:
Now if thou kill all this people as one man, Then the nations
which have heard the fame of Thee will speak saying:
Because the Lord was not able to bring this people to the
land. . . Therefore He hath slain them in the wilderness.
(Numbers 14, 15--16)
This concern over desecrating the Devine name-hillul ha-shem asumes a

much more intence and extreme form in our sidra. Here it is the Almighty
himself who is, as it were, "concerend" over the world being misled and
diverted from the path leading mankind spiritually forward. He is fufilled
with the apprehension lest His name be brought into disrepute instead of
sanctified and His sovereignty universally recognized and acknowledged,
which is the ultimate goal of all creation:
Were it not that I dreaded the enemy's provocation lest they

should misdeem, lest they should say our hand is exalted
and not the Lord hath performed all this.

Director:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/hazinu.html (2 de 3)26/02/2008 11:51:05 a.m.

Parashat Ve-zot Ha-brachah
Languages
Links
Parashat Ve-zot Ha-berachah

Kehati Mishna Moses Man of God

Parashat Hashavua The last sidra of the Torah contains Moses' parting benediction to the
tribes, to the whole people and the record of his death and burial.
Hebrew Text of the
Parashah
In the opening verse, Moses is given a title that has never been accorded
him previously in the Torah:
English
And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the
Hebrew
children of Israel, before his death. (33, 1)
German
Some commentators consider that this title was accorded him to stress the
Russian prophetic origin and force of the words he utters there; that they did not
merely proceed from his own mouth, but were endowed with Divine
Spanish authority. This is the view of Ebn Ezra.An opposite view is taken by other
commentators including Hirsch. The title implies, on the contrary, that
these were Moses' own words; that of the faithful shepherd of his flock,
Nehama's Iyunim bidding farewell to his people. In contradistinction to the Song he taught
the people in Ha'azinu and, for that matter, the rest of-·his utterances in
Insights on the
the Torah which were, as is often stated: "according to the mouth of the
Parasha
Lord". For this reason, the Torah underlines the fact that though it was
(Companion)
Moses who uttered these words. it should be remembered that Moses was
Nehama's Gilyonot nevertheless "the man of God" The author of the commentary Ha 'amek
Davar sees a connection between the title "man of God" and the timing. It
was accorded to Moses just before his death:
Nehar Deah With death at hand. there was enkindled in Moses a Divine
flame. Like a flickering candle that bursts into brilliant flame
Rega Lifney
just before it burns out, so that soul of the righteous man on
Shabbat
departing this world and about to enter the Hereafter, rises
aloft with a spiritual impetus more in tune with its own
ethereal nature... Moses then attained the highest degree of
Commentary of
spiritual perfection.
Rabbi Moshe Bergman
(in Hebrew)
However, he is accorded yet another title in the very last action associated
with him, a title that had previously been employed by the Almighty when
He rebuked Miriam and Araon for speaking ill of Moses and comparing
themselves with him. There God called him: "My servant
Moses'' (Numbers 12, 7) which is, no doubt, the highest honour that could
Studio in Old Jaffa
be paid him:
So Moses the servant of the Lord died there. (34, 5)
The same title was accorded him in the book of Joshua when God
entrusted the leadership of Israel to Joshua with the words:
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/vezot.html (1 de 3)26/02/2008 11:48:55 a.m.

Moses my servant is dead.
There exists a wealth of Midrashic legends associated with Moses' last

moments. on his hearing the ominous tidings: "Behold thy days approach
that thou must die", especially with regard to his pleadings with the
Almighty to release him from, or postpone for him, the fate of all mankind.
Here we shall quote one extract from the Midrash on our sidra dealing with
this theme.
Rabbi Phinchas said: When Moses was about to depart this

world. God said to him. "Behold thy days approach to die".
Whereupon Moses replied: Master of the Universe, after all
my labours, thou sayest unto me: "Behold thy days approach
to die?" (Deuteronomy 31, 14). "I shall not die but live and
declare the works of the Lord"(Psalm 118. 17). Thereupon
God said: You cannot prevail in this matter: "For this is the
destiny of all men" (Ecclesiastes 12, 13). Moses then said:
ask of Thee one favour before I die, that as I enter the
Hereafter, all the gates of Heaven and the deep be opened
for them to see that there is none beside Thee. Whence this?
For it is said: "Know this day and lay it to thine heart, that the
Lord he is God...there is none else" (Deuteronomy 4, 39).
Whereupon God replied: You declare: "There is none else ." I
too say: "And no one else (od) hath arisen in Israel like unto
Moses..." (Deuteronomy 34, 10). (Devarim Rabbah 11. 5)
Here Moses' request is not to see the Holy Land, to lead Israel thereto, or
to fight their battles. He wishes his days to be prolonged that he may
"declare the works of the Lord" and at any rate, if that could not be granted
him, that he should, at least, be vouchsafed one, last, great miracle which
would open the eyes of everyone to perceive that "there is none beside
Thee". In other words, Moses who understood the working of human
nature, who knew that. though the Israelites had witnessed the plagues of
Egypt, the departure from exile, the wonders of the Red Sea and their
forty years' wanderings in the wilderness the manna, quails, the pillar of
cloud and fire and, above all, the Revelation at Sinai, Moses was well
aware that, in spite of all this; "For I know that after my death ye will utterly
corrupt yourselves and turn aside from the way..." (Deuteronomy 31, 29).
He therefore requested one favour, that he should be vouchsafed a final
miracle, granting his people a true perception of the exclusive
omnipotence and omniscience of Divine existence:
That all the gates of Heaven and the deep be opened for
them to see that there is none beside Thee, as it is said:
"Know therefore this day, and lay it to thine heart, that the
Lord He is God in Heaven above and upon the earth
beneath; there is none else".
What is the implication of the Divine reply, the apparent play on the word
'od: "You declare there is none else ('od). I too say And no one else ('od)
hath arisen in Israel like unto Moses". God answers that Moses' request
has already been acceded to, as far as possible, without infringing on
man's free will. There is no more clearer revelation of God than the
contents of the Torah itself, Torat Mosheh -- as it is termed, in which it is
related regarding:
All the signs and wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in
the land Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all
his land. And in all that mighty hand, and in all the great awe
which Moses showed in the sight of all Israel. (Deuteronomy
end)

What Moses had requested had already been granted. All the
gates of Heaven and the deep had been opened and "unto
thee it was shown for thee to know that the Lord He is God;
there is none else beside Him'' (4, 35).
This same thought that our Torah is the supreme example of Divine
Revelation to mankind is expressed in the Psalmist's eulogy of the Torah:
The Law (Torah) of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul,

The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eye.
(Psalms 19, 8-9)
In contradistinction to the spiritual clarity of Divine Revelation in the Torah

"enlightening the eyes", Moses' end, as described therein, constitutes a
mysterious and unknown chapter:
And he buried him in the valley, in the land of Moab over

against Beth Peor: but no man knoweth of his burying unto
this day. (34 6)
The very subject of the sentence "And he buried him" is mysterious and
unexplained, an impression that is intensified by the end of the verse "that
no man knoweth of his burying..."
Note also that it does not say, kivro, his "burial place'', but kevurato, his
"burying" referring to both the mode and location of his burial.
The Ralbag's (Rabbi Levi ben Gershon. Gersonides) comment on this

verse is particularly illuminating and sounds the most plausible of all that
has been said on this subject:
It is indeed a very strange phenomenon that as much as the

Torah took great pains to describe the exact location of
Moses grave: "in the Land of Moab, in the valley, over
against Beth Peor", in spite of all this. the Holy One blessed
be He so devised it that no man knoweth of his burial place,
so that generations to come should not go astray and
worship him as a deity.

Director:

Nechama Leibowitz - Insights On The Parashah

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nechama Leibowitz - Insights On The Parashah

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Iyunim

Weekly Insights on the Parasha

By Professor Nechama Leibowitz (1905-1997) za"l

Iyunim - Weekly insights on the

So God created man in his own image;

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/bereshit.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:06:06 a.m.

In the image of God created He him;

Zelem (image) refers to the personal relationship that can

In other words, every individual is equally significant before God, since

Therefore man was created on his own, to teach you that

The uniqueness of the individual, a world to himself, unrepeatable is

The greatness of the Holy One blessed be He is thus demonstrated. For

Man as soon as he was created received a special divine blessing.

...And God blessed them,

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/bereshit.html (2 de 5)26/02/2008 10:06:06 a.m.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them:

Man was created alone in the world to prevent inter-family

The Mishna we have already referred to in Sanhedrin goes further and

The order of creation also sets man up as a pinnacle of it all, as he comes

When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/bereshit.html (3 de 5)26/02/2008 10:06:06 a.m.

Questions for Further Study

“So God created man in his image”—the one now in

1. What is the difference between the above explanations?

“In his image” in the image of Man. Alternatively: “in

What does he mean by “awesomely”? --literally: “the terrible of

“In the image of God he created him.” Cf.: “and at the

❍ (a) What is common to all three verses?

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/bereshit.html (4 de 5)26/02/2008 10:06:06 a.m.

Iyunim - Weekly insights on the Parasha with

Kehati Mishna Lesson of the flood

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/noah.html (1 de 5)26/02/2008 10:08:57 a.m.

was only evil continually. (6, 5)

The moral crime of the generation of the flood is further described in

In the Divine message to Noah wherein He reveals to him his dread

Our sages were puzzled by the variation in the description of human

Said R. Yohanan: Come and see how dreadful is the power if

The Midrash abounds in descriptions of the wickedness of the generation

For the earth was filled with violence.

The Midrash aptly sums up the corrupting nature of “violence which is

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/noah.html (2 de 5)26/02/2008 10:08:57 a.m.

Come and see, why did the Holy One blessed be He

Here is another version:

And the rain was upon the earth.

Questions for Further Study:

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/noah.html (3 de 5)26/02/2008 10:08:57 a.m.

Pay careful attention to the conclusion of these paragraphs. What is the

Explain what these correspondences in content and phrasing consist of.

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/noah.html (4 de 5)26/02/2008 10:08:57 a.m.

Parashat Lech Lecha

Iyunim - Weekly insights on the

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/lech.html (1 de 4)26/02/2008 10:12:50 a.m.

Admittedly, oral tradition elaborates on Abraham’s inner struggle towards

If Abraham deserved being chosen by God as a result of what he

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/lech.html (2 de 4)26/02/2008 10:12:50 a.m.

Questions for Further Study

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/lech.html (3 de 4)26/02/2008 10:12:50 a.m.

2. What I Ramban’s view of the miracle of the fiery furnace as

1. What is the point of Ramban’s final thought in our second quotation

The Pedagogic Center

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehama/lech.html (4 de 4)26/02/2008 10:12:50 a.m.

Iyunim - Weekly insights on the Parasha with

It be far from Thee to do after this manner and besought: