The Profound Word

Parashat Nitzavim-Vayeileh 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Turning, Returning and Repentance

When they said REPENT REPENT

I wonder what they meant

-Leonard Cohen in The Future

Our parashah begins most dramatically:

You are all standing this day before the Lord, your God….[29:9]

This opening is fitting for it comes annually just before the first of the Fall holy days, Rosh Hashanah, the New Year, which itself commences a ten day period of Repentance culminating in Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

However, as the text unfolds, we again see Moses appealing for covenantal loyalty and worried about the dire consequences of disloyalty. He seems to have no doubt that there will be difficult moments ahead, moments of destruction and exile.

However, a later generation will come to its senses:

It will be, when all these things come upon you the blessing and the curse which I have set before you that you will consider in your heart, among all the nations where the Lord your God has banished you, and you will return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and you will listen to His voice according to all that I am commanding you this day you and your children, then, the Lord, your God, will bring back your exiles, and He will have mercy upon you. He will once again gather you from all the nations, where the Lord, your God, had dispersed you. [30:1-3]

Even if your exiles are at the end of the heavens, the Lord, your God, will gather you from there, and He will take you from there. And the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land which your forefathers possessed, and you [too] will take possession of it, and He will do good to you, and He will make you more numerous than your forefathers. And the Lord, your God, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, [so that you may] love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, for the sake of your life. [4-6]

Turning and returning will lead to reconciliation. This will be a joint effort that begins in the hearts of the nation and will lead to God’s efforts to bring them back to their land and remove from them whatever insensitivities could mislead them once again to violation of the covenant.

You will return and listen to the voice of the Lord, and fulfill all His commandments, which I command you this day. The Lord, your God, will make you abundant for good in all the work of your hands, in the fruit of your womb, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soil. For the Lord will once again rejoice over you for good, as He rejoiced over your forefathers, when you obey the Lord, your God, to observe the commandments and statutes written in this Torah scroll, when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.[8-10]

This passage together with a few others, has generated over the centuries a great literature on teshuvah, repentance. It is a dominant issue during this holiday period. While this passage is largely focused on the national picture of historical movements of exile and return, teshuvah is of utmost personal concern at this season.

Neziv picks up the theme of worship from love or fear of punishment in verse 10:when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

With all you heart and all your soul means repentance out of love. One who returns out of love remains that way permanently and never strays as does one who worships out of fear of punishment. Therefore, [for one who returns out of love] there is no suspicion to stray again.

Neziv elaborates in Harhev Davar, citing and interpreting various Biblical and Talmudic texts.

He begins with a quote from the Prophet Jeremiah [4:1-4]:

If you return, O Israel, says the Lord, to Me, you shall return, and if you remove your detestable things from My Presence, you shall not wander.

And you will swear, “As the Lord lives,” in truth and in justice and in righteousness, nations will bless themselves with him and boast about him.

For so said the Lord to the people of Judah and to Jerusalem: Plow for yourself a furrow, and do not sow upon thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and remove the foreskins of your heart, O people of Judah and dwellers of Jerusalem, lest My anger go forth and burn with none to quench it because of the evil of your deeds.

The meaning of this statement is that Jeremiah is warning the generation that if they wish to return it should be only to Me, which means out of love for God and not fear of punishment.

Also, he says, and if you remove your detestable things from My Presence, you shall not wander. In other words, this act of removal will insure that once teshuvah is accomplished it will not be subject to subsequent drifting away; it will be out of love and therefore permanent.

Jeremiah further explains the power of repentance until: And you will swear, “As the Lord lives,” in truth and in justice and in righteousness, nations will bless themselves with him and boast about him…. Here the prophet explains the reason for his exhortation [that teshuvah should be done from love] even though this is not an essential rule for teshuvah is accepted even it derives from fear. This is indicated by the Prophet Hosea who was prior to Jeremiah who said: Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. [14:2]

The Talmud in Yoma [86b] explains that this suggest teshuva out of fear [that is your failures cause you to repent out of fear of failure hsj]

Because Jeremiah is advocating teshuva out of love he must explain why he so insists.

The explanation is that Jeremiah uttered this message about two years before the destruction of the First Temple.

The Talmud {Gittin 88a] explains that: The truth is that God did a kindness [zedakah] with Israel in anticipating by two years [the numerical value of] ve-noshantem [and you grow old] the destruction of the Temple.

Neziv here quotes a text that the Talmud questions. What kind of kindness is it that God brought the destruction two years earlier? The alleged date of the destruction was to be 852 years after Moses exhortation in Deut. 4:25: When you beget children and children’s children, and you will be long established in the land….

The Hebrew phrase for you will be long established is venoshantem, from a world that means old. So, here it means you will grow old in the land, be established. The numerical value of counting the Hebrew letters is 852. This was taken to mean that the dark days predicted by Moses were 852 years later. God’s kindness therefore consisted in not letting the full term run out which would lead to dire consequences described in chapter 4. There were two years less of evil and therefore less punishment to come. Just before this two year earlier exile, Jeremiah addressed his words to the people. [A Sage participating in the discussion remarked that he was happy to learn that for God the word 'soon' meant 852 years for God had said there that the destruction would come soon.]

Here is Rashi on 4:25:

He hinted to them that they would be exiled from it at the end of 852 years, the gematria, numerical value, of the word וְנוֹשַׁנְתֶּם, but He exiled them earlier, at the end of 850 years. He did this two years earlier than the numerical value of venoshantem in order that the prophecy about them should not be fulfilled ‘that you shall utterly perish.’(verse 26) This is the meaning of what is said: And the Lord ‘hastened’ with the evil and brought it upon us, for the Lord our God is charitable [zaddik] (Dan. 9:14). He was charitable with us for He hastened to bring it [the exile] two years before its time (San. 38a; Gittin 88a)

So, if the residence in the land had continued for two more years the subsequent destruction would have been even more calamitous resulting in the total disappearance of the nation!

Neziv continues:

In Yoma [cited above] we learn that: Great is repentance with good deeds for it becomes like a shutter in the face of tragedy. This too refers to repentance from fear. [I have not been able to locate this statement, hsj.] For if out of love the image of a shutter would be inappropriate for in this case [the Talmud there says that]: For Resh Lakish said that repentance is so great that premeditated sins are accounted as though they were merits, as it is said: And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. Thus, in the case of love, there should be no mention of tragedy. And even when done from fear there should also be no tragedy. But, if there is, it cannot come during the teshuva process itself.

From this we know well understand Jeremiah’s warning to his contemporaries in the name of God: Plow for yourself a furrow, and do not sow upon thorns…. I want you to plow your hearts only in a manner that does not breed thorns. He explains how to avoid growing thorns so that: lest My anger go forth and burn with none to quench it because of the evil of your deeds. This form of repentance will be like a shutter preventing the destruction of the Temple during the period of repentance. Afterward, after the 852 year period, the repentance will stray, and then there will be no possibility of survival and rebirth, God forbid. The furrow will be filled with thorns. Therefore, if you repent, do it only to Me, out of love, and then you will never stray.

This is what God is saying here too [30:10]: when you return to the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

Again Neziv has established the priority of repentance out of love as he has done for worship out of love. Repentance, return reversion can begin out of fear of punishment, fear of the natural dire consequences of foolish behavior but it can move beyond this to a genuine love of God, love of Torah and love of the world created by God.

Neziv’s citation of Resh Lakish’s statement is very intriguing. The Talmudic Sages often speak glowingly of this power of teshuva and the reverioner, the Baal Teshuva. For example:

In the place wherein the reversioner stands even the purely righteous cannot stand.

In this view the reversioner has reached such an exalted place through the heroic efforts made in the process that even the ordinary righteous persons do not reach this level of piety. Through determination and discipline, resolve and reconstruction the Baal Teshuva has reached a plane that is special. Such is the power of return.

We can also understand this statement as bearing on the special perspective which the returnee gains through the process. The Baal Teshuva is uniquely situated; has been ‘there’ and back, knows the dangers and pitfalls in the world and the seductive pull of the secular world. There is a special kind of wisdom that comes from this experience that even the always righteous cannot have.

The Resh Lakish statement is part of a lengthy discussion in Yoma 86b. This great Talmudic Sage was himself a Baal Teshuva more than once. His career as a highway bandit and circus performer in Roman amphitheaters came to an end when he met Rabbi Yohanan. Resh Lakish is quoted in the Talmud as having said:

Great is Teshuva for through it deliberate sins are turned into errors.

Upon hearing this quotation other Rabbis remarked that they had heard a different comment in the name of Resh Lakish:

Great is Teshuva for through it deliberate sins become virtues,[ or, merits.]

What then did Resh Lakish really say? The Talmudic discussion concludes that he really said both. However, each statement referred to a different spiritual state of the person. The first statement refers to one who did Teshuva through ‘yirah’- fear; the second refers to one who did Teshuva through ‘ahavah’- love. And because ‘fear’ and ‘love’ are considered to be two stages in the religious life, I believe Resh Lakish is speaking here about two stages of Teshuva that he himself as well as others may experience.

As a Baal Teshuva Resh Lakish is uniquely situated to relate to us the dynamics of the process. He is in the ‘place’- he has the perspective not easily available to others. He realizes that from the new perspective of the returnee his past even most deliberate sins are really errors. If he had really known what was good for him he would not have done those things. At the time they seemed necessary and important; now they appear as foolish errors. They are carried forward as such into the new path.

There is more. Upon reaching the determination to change directions in life the reversioner embarks on an unknown and often fearful path, somewhat like a child learning to walk, somewhat like a reformed alcoholic returning to society. Reversioners walk in fear and trembling, overwhelmed by the possibility of backsliding, overawed by ignorance of the road taken: its roadsigns and speed limits, its soft-shoulders, its curves, mountains and valleys.

The Baal Teshuva is cautious and suspicious seeing danger everywhere, especially in the contacts and associations which predate the reversion. Sometimes the insecurity leads to a complete break with the past upsetting family and friends. The returnee may even reject the entire previous existence as empty and vain. Magnificent career accomplishments seem worthless. An attempt is made to deny or erase one’s previous self. The reversioner is plagued by guilt and hollowness. Can I ever remove the stain of my previous life? Will the old baggage I am carrying from my previous way of life always drag me down and prevent me from walking securely on the new path before God and to God? This is the way of fear.

A great challenge to reversioners comes from the second stage mentioned by Resh Lakish: making past sins into merits or virtues. Do not reject your past as valueless for it is that past that brought you in some mysterious way to this present day unexpected commitment. You have acquired experience, skills and insights that can be brought to your new commitments and elevated into the spirit of holiness. One cannot reject and deny oneself and the world about us. The way of Judaism has always been loving interaction with the world through integration and consecration. One must build the future upon the foundations of the past. Tearing down the foundations will only make for a weaker future. Resh Lakish is challenging us to realize that all that we were before Teshuva can now be considered virtues because they can now be elevated. They enable the reversioner to enter the new path with a full self unashamed and unafraid. The sinfulness of the past that was sinful is gone, forgiven; but the past itself remains. It is now seen from today’s perspective as part of the process leading to today. If Teshuva is done through love even deliberate sins are transformed into virtues. The very alienation and disinterest in tradition are now considered virtues because in retrospect- the new perspective from where the reversioner now looks- they have now led to engagement and return. They were part of the process for this particular person. If they had been different the reversioner might still be on the old path moving further away from that which today seems most precious.

All Baaley Teshuva are wonderful but the most wonderful are those who come with love. Their sincerity and openness are constantly refreshing. Their joy at each new Torah insight is inspiring. Their amazement at the wealth of treasures they discover in our tradition is a constant challenge to those who would guide them. Through love they grow to be more engaged in Torah and the blessings it brings to their lives. Involved with the community and not isolating themselves others learn from them and begin to awaken to the miraculous power of Teshuva and endless wonder of being a Jew.

Shabbat Shalom and Shanah Tovah

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Elul 25 5770

September 4, 2010

Parashat Ki Tavo 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

How to Celebrate Thanksgiving

There are older countries in the world which are based on a national historical tradition that have changed forms of government over the centuries. Then there are newer countries that are fashioned out of more recent immigrants as a refuge from religious or ethnic discrimination and persecution and the search for a better life. In some of these newer countries, such as Canada and the United States, a tradition of an annual Thanksgiving Day is celebrated. The day is designed to be universal, appealing to all segments of the population and not to any one religious or ethnic group. This is clearly a hallmark of these new and modern democratic states.

Our Parashah opens with the following:

It will be, when you come into the land which the Lord, your God, gives you for an inheritance, and you possess it and settle in it, that you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you will bring from your land, which the Lord, your God, is giving you. And you shall put [them] into a basket and go to the place which the Lord, your God, will choose to have His Name dwell there.

You shall come to the kohen who will be [serving] in those days, and say to him, “I declare this day to the Lord, your God, that I have come to the land which the Lord swore to our forefathers to give us.” The kohen will take the basket from your hand, laying it before the altar of the Lord, your God.”

You shall then call out and say before the Lord, your God, “An Aramean [sought to] destroy my forefather, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with a small number of people, and there, he became a great, mighty, and numerous nation. The Egyptians treated us cruelly and afflicted us, and they imposed hard labor upon us. So we cried out to the Lord, God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil, and our oppression. The Lord brought us out from Egypt with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm, with great awe, and with signs and wonders, and brought us to this place, and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.

Now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground which you, O Lord, have given to me.”

Then, you shall lay it before the Lord, your God, and prostrate yourself before the Lord, your God. Then, you shall rejoice with all the good that the Lord, your God, has granted you and your household: you, the Levite, and the stranger who is among you. [Deut. 26:1-11]

There are many remarkable features of this Torah equivalent of Thanksgiving Day. Firstly, the opening is reminiscent of the king portion we studied a few weeks ago:

When you come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you possess it and live therein, and you will say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations around me….”

This makes eminent sense. Get settled in the land and then make decisions on the kind of government you need. Get settled in the land and then begin to express thanksgiving. So, we can imagine that just like it took hundreds of years to make the decision on kingship, it was many years before the requisite tranquility prevailed and the annual thanksgiving process began.

This process made a deep impact on the Jewish mind. Acknowledging good things, acts of kindness or gifts, hakarat hatov, is a fundamental value in Jewish tradition. Rashi comments on the phrase and say to him:

that you are not ungrateful [for all that God has done for you].

Being ungrateful is not acceptable. Let us now look at how Moses envisions the process.

Thanksgiving involves coming to the Temple, dealing with and addressing the [High] Priest, making a declaration of gratitude and prostrating oneself before God.

The declaration comprises a brief summary of the highlights of Israel’s history until now and which may be emblematic of all its future history: an era of persecution and threat of total destruction followed by deliverance and return to its land. This is recited in a very personal manner: my forefather, I entered the land. Hundreds of years later these experiences are vivid and personal, not alienated by the turning of the clock and the pages of the calendar. As Neziv explains:

I declare this day: By bringing the First Fruits [Bikkurim] I declare that I recognize the fact that I have come to the land.

The history and deliverance must always remain personal. They are not something of the past that occurred to others. They happened to me. Therefore, I feel a sense of gratitude and I offer my thanksgiving.

There is a sense here that God has been a great success in the historical realm. God has transformed a slave people into a landed nation. Israel’s primary relationship is to God the Redeemer.

At Sinai God emerged as the great Teacher, lovingly transmitting Guidance and Instruction to the nation. This should also be a source of gratitude.

However, Moses, throughout his speeches in this Book of Devarim, Deuteronomy, Mishneh Torah, Words, is deeply worried. Over and over again he fears that the people will slip into idolatry. We must ask why? On what is his fear founded? Will the nation be so ungrateful as to forget God’s redeeming love and care?

Although I have not yet discussed this issue in this series, Neziv has a lot to say about parnassah, sustenance. He often comments that the great attraction of idolatry was based on economic sustenance. To counter this element, the special Israelite worship service is directed at insuring God’s support for the fertility of the nation and the land. This begins with the Ancestors; Isaac is the one primarily associated with Avodah, worship. After the Exodus, God sustains them in the wilderness with water, manna and other foods. So why is Moses so worried?

He is probably worried for the following reason: God has brought us to this place, and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.

Why should this be a cause of worry and not simply a cause of rejoicing?

To answer this question we have to return to a polytheistic mentality that is far removed from us today. Israel entered a fertile and prosperous land. This land is populated by idolatrous nations who have many gods each serving their different needs for sustenance: sunshine, water, fertility of field and beasts. These ‘gods’ have done a great job in creating prosperity. What would be more natural than for the average Israelite to ask his Canaanite neighbor for the secrets of prosperity? The answers would be related to the pagan worship practices of the local populations.

Moses also understood that immigrant populations are very attracted to the larger society’s culture when it is deemed more prosperous and progressive than the one they have left behind. This dynamic makes it extremely difficult for immigrant groups to maintain their identity. The land the Israelites entered was indeed prosperous. It therefore, posed a serious threat to the unique identity forged in the wilderness years under Moses’ tutelage.

All the above coupled with Israel’s sense of the great historical prowess of God could easily lead to a crisis: can our God, the master of history, also be the master of nature? We have the proven ‘successes’ of local Canaanite deities as against the unknown potential of the Redeemer and Teacher. Monotheism was not yet a proven commitment in any part of the world. Moses is correct to worry about backsliding among his nation.

The Thanksgiving ceremony includes both elements, historical and natural. God delivered us and brought us to this land. I am bringing its produce to God’s Temple where the priests and others taught us the ways and Oneness of God: I declare this day to the Lord, your God. You taught me the correct way of faith. It is our God who gives fertility to the land. Here I am with my thanksgiving offering to you and to our God: The kohen will take the basket from your hand, laying it before the altar of the Lord, your God.

The Thanksgiving Ceremony represents the triumph of this new teaching that enters the world against all other forms of then contemporary religious practice. If an Israelite can make this declaration with a full heart it means that for Israel the Oneness of God has been established. The process of bringing Torah into the world has begun. Moses can rest peacefully.

Finally, we look at another major impact of this ceremony: it became the foundation of the Passover celebration. The Haggadah, the story telling book we use on the first nights of Passover, is constructed on the basis of this declaration. Each word or phrase is related back to verses in the Exodus story of the Book of Shemot. Our declaration became the prototype for the great Thanksgiving that Passover celebrates of going from slavery to freedom, landlessness to landedness, from ancient idolatrous ancestors to the worship of the One God. These eleven verses have taught us a lot and continue to teach us today.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Elul 18 5770

August 28, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Ki Tetze 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Live Long and Prosper

The above greeting and its accompanying hand signal both made famous by Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame both derive from Jewish tradition. The hand signal is from the raised hand formation used by the Kohanim, the priestly families, when they bless the community. The greeting is from the concluding lines of various commandments in Deuteronomy and elsewhere that promise long life and prosperity as a consequence. An example is in our parashah:

…in order that it should be good for you, and you should lengthen your days. [22:7]

This formulation is reminiscent of the one attached to the commandment of honoring parents as found in the second set of the Ten Commandments [Deut. 5:16]:

Honor your father and your mother as the Lord your God commanded you, in order that your days be lengthened, and that it may go well with you on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you.

Here the order of rewards or, consequences, is reversed. Lengthening of days is first; then comes the issue of things going well. The same promises but not the same order.

Before we see what Neziv says on this we should remember his comments on the opening of Re-eh. There he takes a very naturalistic approach to the consequences of obedience to the commandments.

… in the Midrash [Rabbah] we find: From the time when God uttered this it means that ‘Out of the mouth of the Most High proceeds not evil and good’ (Lam. III, 38). The good deeds have their good consequences and the evil deeds have theirs.

This is a decidedly this-worldly approach. We create our destiny to some degree by our actions. This is also not only an individual issue. The individual is certainly affected by the good or evil actions of those around him or her. The original utterance in Re’eh is in the plural: Behold, I set before you this day. It is addressed to the society as a whole. Each person can bring good or evil consequences to others as well as themselves.

Now we also have to consider that Neziv, a representative of the Rabbinic-Talmudic tradition, would also have to deal with the non-this-worldly issues that are affected by our actions. Here we move to the realm of the individual who will receive reward or punishment, whatever that may mean, in some after-life. A good theologian will have to tie all these together in a comprehensive system. This is not an easy task. The issues are elusive and the plethora of comments in the Talmud do not always appear to be in accord. There are serious disagreements among the Sages and their statements do not lend themselves to neat packaging. Neziv will enter this long conversation that has lasted for at least two thousand years among ancient, medieval and modern rabbis. Let us see what Neziv has to say.

We have already explained earlier concerning the second set of the Ten Commandments where it says [first] “in order to lengthen your days” and then “so it shall be good for you” that this is not the natural order of someone speaking. Usually, one would speak first about the present [it shall be good for you] and then speak about the future [length of days].

I explained that this change from ordinary speech is what led the Sages to refer both these items to the future: ‘length of days’ refers to the World of the Souls which is permanently long [i. e., forever], while the good refers to the time of the resurrection [tehiya] which will be fully good. Thus we learn that here [22:7] we are referring to this world for it speaks normally first about goodness and then about length of days.

Thus it turns out that Scripture mandates a spiritual reward [ruhani] in regard to honoring parents while our present mitzvah of respecting the nest [called in Hebrew as Shiluah HaKen] is given a material reward.

This is unusual but I think it is because we are to apply one to the other. Logic suggests that reward for honoring parents is only in this world for it is a rational commandment while respecting the nest seems to be beyond logic and therefore to be rewarded in the after-life in the hidden world beyond our ordinary ways of the world.

Therefore, if Scripture had reversed the rewards I would not conclude that each will receive both rewards. [i. e., the logical honoring of parents would only be rewarded in this world while the non-rational respecting the nest would only be rewarded in the beyond]. So a spiritual reward is indicated by honoring parents to suggest that such a reward is certainly coming for respecting the nest; and a this-worldly reward is indicated for the respecting of the nest to suggest that this is certainly so for honoring parents.

In other words, the way Scripture places the rewards in each case teaches us for the other case. If the rational commandment yields benefits in the beyond then it certainly yields benefits in the here and now. If the commandment that appears to be beyond the power of reason to explain yields benefits in the here and now then it certainly must have a good impact in the great beyond.

Neziv concludes:

From all this we learn that each and every commandment has benefit in this world, in the World of the Souls and in the World of Resurrection.

Neziv then tells us that his analysis is based upon a Talmudic text [Kidd. 39b] which says the following:

This is as we learned [there]: One who performs one precept is well rewarded, his days are prolonged, and he inherits the land. Rashi there explains that well-rewarded refers to this world; inherits the land refers to the future in the World of Resurrection;… and length of days refers to the World of Souls.

Notice now a new element in the discussion: the land. Neziv therefore adds the following:

In addition, we learn from the change at the honoring parents commandment which adds: on the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you, which is not mentioned in the nest commandment. This teaches us that the essential consequences of the Torah are focused on the Land of Israel. That is why it is called the Torah of the God of the Land. Nevertheless, the Torah applies in all places [and not just in the land].

Now Neziv wants to further explore the issue and implications of the distinction between rational and non-rational commandments.

For this reason the Torah adds the notice about the land in regard to honoring parents. It is a rational commandment and reason would argue that it is therefore of equal value in any land. However, once there is a command about this [rational practice] it becomes a decree [hukkah] [which we fulfill because God commands it and not because it is rational or not].

The command of the nest is certainly a hukkah [performed because it is God's will]. Nevertheless it is performed everywhere. Thus we see that from each case we learn something to apply to the other, and all the commandments we learn from these two.

This is mentioned at the end of Tractate Hullin [142a] where we learn: if in respect of so light a precept, which deals with that which is but worth an issar, the Torah said, that it may be well with thee, and that you may prolong your days, how much more so for the observance of the more difficult precepts of the Torah!

So we see that for some this nest command is a light precept. Economically, it deals with an item that is only worth a small coin, an issar. Accomplishing this precept you have only rescued an item of little value. Yet you have made a major accomplishment. Certainly the long and good life will be the consequence of the other commandments that are not so light and not so easily accomplished.

Neziv raises many issues that will have to be addressed over time. Here I would like to look at his understanding of the relationship between rational commandments and decrees, items observed because of God’s Will.

What is the difference between them?

Neziv seems to be suggesting an important distinction between the origin of a law and the authority which compels our obedience. Human reason might have come to the conclusion that honoring parents is a virtue because not honoring parents could be a major source of family and community disruption. In other words, the rationale would be to avoid potential harm caused by disharmony between the generations.

Neziv suggests that this is akin to obedience to God out of fear of painful consequences. Obedience out of love is a more lofty religious goal. This comes about when one lovingly accepts God’s decrees, trusting in God’s kindness and wisdom towards us. Obviously, the quality of our relationship with God is what is at stake.

This is another treatment of the issue of human reason in religious life. Human reason can fathom many of God’s commandments but that is not the basis for obedience. Our trust in a wise and loving God is the foundation of elevated religious life.

This concern emerges in Neziv’s highly original commentary to Deuteronomy 5:16, in the second set of the Ten Commandments:

Honor your father and your mother as the Lord your God commanded you, in order that your days be lengthened, and that it may go well with you….

He treats the phrase as the Lord your God commanded you not as a reminder of the original command in Exodus 20. Rather it is a reference to the issue of rational commandments.

Because honoring parents is a rational commandment to which all human reason agrees, Scripture here advises us that we perform this because of God’s command just as in all Torah decrees…

He then reminds us that in Exodus 20 there is the reward attached to the original command of length of days. That clearly refers to this worldly reward. That remains effective for any act of kindness is beneficial in this world.. However, in Deuteronomy the reversing of the order of benefits led the Sages to understand that honoring parents yields benefits in the after-life, that is to say, spiritual benefits in the great beyond.

Neziv returns to this issue in our passage regarding respecting the nest [22:7] and the Talmudic passage in Kiddushin 39b. In Harhev Davar he examines the second view on these issues of reward and punishment.

However, it is reported there that Rabbi Jacob disagrees and believes rather that there is no reward for mitzvah observance in this world except for acts of kindness ‘for which a person reaps benefits in this world’. Rabbi Jacob is quoted there as saying that: There is not a single precept in the Torah whose reward is [stated] at its side which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead.[Thus:] in connection with honoring parents it is written, that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you. In reference to the respecting of the nest it is written, that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.

According to him both verses refer to the future [World to Come]. But then we why the change in order: why in regard to honoring parents first is mentioned length of days and then it shall go well with you while in regard to the nest it shall go well with you is mentioned first and length of days follows.

Do not think that this is a trivial matter.

Neziv now makes again a highly original and critical connection to another Talmudic text in which Rabbi Jacob is cited.

It seems that from here R. Jacob derived what he taught in Tractate Avot [4:17]: more beautiful is one hour of Torah study and good deeds in this world, than all the life of the world to come; and more beautiful is one hour of the even-tempered spirit of the world to come , than all the life of this world. [The text we have says repentance rather than Torah study. hsj ]

It would appear that these two statements are contradictory. For if one hour of Torah study and good deeds in this world is more beautiful than all the World to Come, how can only one hour of the World to Come be more beautiful than this world which has Torah study and good deeds?

Neziv now offers his answer to this apparent contradiction based on the notions of love of God as against fear of punishment and hope of reward.

The matter is… that for one who worships God out of fear of punishment and desire for reward one hour in the World to Come is indeed worth more than all of this world. This follows R. Jacob’s view that there is no reward in this world at all. It is better for him to receive the reward in the next world. So what benefit would there be in length of days in this world since the next worldly peace of mind is much greater.

However, for one who worships out of love one hour of worship in this world is certainly more beautiful than all the next world since there is no worship in the next world. From this we see that for a loving worshiper length of days is of great value for this benefit is more pleasant and sweeter than all the World to Come.

So as we explained regarding honoring parents where it specifies as the Lord your God commanded you, that this means we should obey not because of human reason that agrees with this practice but only because God commanded. It was not necessary to specify this in the case of respecting the nest since there the whole practice is beyond human reason and therefore would only be performed because of the command itself.

Because of this, one who honors parents in this fashion is worshiping God with love, beyond normal human nature which seeks reward…. But the case of respecting the nest is done always out of fear.

Neziv seems to follow Maimonides here in acknowledging that understanding the rationale for a commandment increases our love for God for we see that God’s Will is expressed based on wisdom and love for us. However, obedience is a response to God’s Will itself and not just something that agrees with our sense of practical reason. Although we might tend to accept and obey those laws that seem beyond reason only as a fearful response, ultimately our obedience can be an expression of love even when we are unaware of a practical benefit to the law since we can attribute the same motives to all of God’s commandments.

I believe we are seeing the other side of the coin that we saw in Behukkotai and Re’eh. Neziv believes that we should look at God’s commandments as the prescriptions of a wise and loving physician. The proper response to the commandments is what we say each day: With eternal love you have loved us… for you have taught us Torah and Commandments, decrees and statutes.

God has given us Torah whose simple meaning is Teaching, Guidance and Instruction. For this we are always profoundly grateful.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Elul 11 5770

August 21, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Shofetim 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Political Theory

The distinguished society must be marked by justice. A formerly slave society is well aware of the possible imbalances in power and position that can prevail in society. They did not leave Egypt in order to re-create the injustices of that corrupt regime. Moses’ goal is clear: create a new society in which everyone feels a sense of dignity and belonging.

Shofetim are judges. Honest and caring judges are the foundation of this new vision. But other good leaders are necessary as well: priests and prophets will be involved in legal, religious and moral realms. Somewhere at the top will be the king. Let us see how this position is shaped and envisioned in the Torah.

When you come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you possess it and live therein, and you will say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations around me,” you shall set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother.

Only, he may not acquire many horses for himself, so that he will not bring the people back to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, for the Lord said to you, “You shall not return that way any more.” He shall not take many wives for himself, and his heart must not turn away, and he shall not acquire much silver and gold for himself.

It will be, when he sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah on a scroll from [that Torah which is] before the Levitic kohanim. It shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to perform them so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers, and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, in order that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel. [Deut. 17:14-20]

Clearly striking are the limitations on the king and his required submission to Torah law and study. Moses and the Torah are well aware of the corrupting influence of power.

Neziv is interested in the very institution of kingship. Is it the officially mandated form of government sanctioned and promoted by the Torah? If so, why then did it take hundreds of years of settlement in the land before a king was chosen? And, when finally instituted, why is there such resistance to it by Samuel the reigning prophet at the time who considers it an act of rebellion against God, the true King of Israel? Where then does sovereignty lie in the Torah’s view? These are interesting and very modern questions. Let us see how Neziv proceeds.

and you will say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations around me: The meaning of ‘saying’ is not in the usual sense of speaking with the mouth. Rather it is like other expressions such as “you will say I will eat meat….”

In other words what is envisioned is a time when they decide to implement a particular action. Just as in the case of eating meat there is no requirement to do so but once the decision is made then specific Torah rules will apply; so too with kingship, there is no obligation to establish a monarchy but if they do so here are the guidelines to be followed. Saying here is equivalent to thinking and deciding.

Neziv continues:

Therefore, from this expression it would seem that it is not an absolute command [mitzvah] to appoint a king but rather a voluntary issue [reshut].

However, it is known through the words of our Sages that it is indeed a mitzvah to appoint a king. Therefore, why is this expression of saying found here?

It seems that what is behind this issue is that the conduct of a state is quite different if it is governed by a kingship or one governed through the nation and its elected representatives. There are some states that cannot tolerate to be ruled by kingship while there are other states that without a [strong] king they will flounder as a ship without a captain.

Neziv believes that God understands that there are a variety of human collectives and not each one can be governed in the same way. Therefore:

This matter cannot be imposed by a commandment. In a matter that affects the entire collective there is always a question of danger to life [sakanat nefashot] which [according to Jewish law] trumps a positive command. Thus it is impossible to give an absolute commandment to appoint a king as long as there is no popular consensus to accept the burdens of kingship until they see neighboring states with kings having a more orderly system. Then, there would be an obligation upon the highest authorities [the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Council] to appoint a king. That is why the expression ‘and you shall say’ is used to indicate that all the people want it. Then you shall appoint a king….

Neziv believes that in God’s view sovereignty belongs to the people. They will decide how they should be governed and proceed accordingly. This is a very modern concept as well and lies at the foundation of democratic notions of republican government.

Neziv sees a major difference between the two instances of saying that he discussed. True one does not have to eat meat. However, if one does wish to eat meat then the preparation must take place according to what have become know as the dietary laws, Kashrut. Could one argue that government is optional in the same sense but if you decide to have government then it must be in kingship form?

He precludes this line of thinking because of how the text introduces the issue:

When you come to the land the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you possess it and live therein….

Why should this be an issue? If kingship is the sole divinely ordained form of government then even before inheriting the land it should also be in force? One could argue that Joshua was like a king and is presented in that light by Talmudic sources [Sanhedrin 19a] as well as by Maimonides in his Code of Law [Kings 1:3 and 3:8].

Neziv finally concludes that:

We must conclude that indeed this passage contains a mitzvah, a command. However, the Sanhedrin is not obligated to implement this command until the people say they want this form of government. Therefore, for three hundred years during the Mishkan period in Shiloh [i. e., prior to the building of the Jerusalem Temple] there was no king because there was no consensus among the people for it.

I have always thought of this passage in Neziv’s commentary as a profound example of his highly original approach. He is well aware of the shifting patterns of social and political thought during the modern era. The idea that society is a social contract among its members became a dominant one as the American and French Revolutions succeeded in producing new forms of consensus based government. These phenomena likely encouraged him to take a careful look at the Torah passage and to determine that it was not simply a closed issue in favor of kingship. He saw new possibilities.

Neziv lived to see the early pre-Zionist activists beginning to think about reconstituting a Jewish state in the ancient Promised Land. To this he took a positive and supportive view. This might also have led him to treat the issue of governance in a new light. After all, his disciples were eventually among the founders of the Religious Zionist movement known as Mizrachi in 1902: his son, Rabbi Meir Berlin [later, Bar Ilan] and Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kuk, eventually the first Chief Rabbi of modern Palestine. The issue was not only one of textual interpretation but of the future conduct of a new Israel in the modern world.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Elul 4 5770

August 14, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.
–

Parashat Re’eh 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Blessings, Curses and Responsibility

26. Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

27. A blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day;

28. And a curse, if you will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which you have not known.

29. And it shall come to pass, when the Lord your God has brought you in to the land which you are entering to possess, that you shall put the blessing upon Mount Gerizim, and the curse upon Mount Ebal.

30. Are they not on the other side of the Jordan, by the way where the sun goes down, in the land of the Canaanites, who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the terebinths of Moreh?

31. For you shall pass over the Jordan to go in to possess the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you shall possess it, and dwell in it.

32. And you shall take care to do all the statutes and judgments which I set before you this day. [Deut. 11:26-32]

In the opening of this parashah, Neziv sees an example of what he considers a fundamental stylistic trait of the Book of Devarim, also known as Mishneh Torah: that there are passages in the book that can only be understood as having a double meaning both required by direct interpretation. In explaining this passage in this double manner we will again see another fundamental issue that Moses believes is critical for Israel’s future. Let us see how he proceeds.

This passage has two meanings in the words of our Sages and both are obvious in the direct meaning of Scripture.

In Tractate Sotah [37b], we find: a blessing and a curse, [the purpose is to indicate] that the blessing must precede the curse. It is possible to think that all the blessings must precede the curses; therefore the text states ‘blessing’ and ‘curse’, i. e., one blessing precedes a curse and all the blessings do not precede the curses….

In this text the Sages look at the expression ‘ a blessing and a curse.’ They see a prescription for a certain order in the dramatic moment that will take place on these mountains. At least one blessing must be given prior to the mention of any curses. It is obvious that this ‘blessing and curse’ is referring to the events at Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal mentioned in the subsequent verses.

However, the Sages also believe that another message is contained in the passage.

In commenting on the opening: Behold, I set before you this day, Neziv says:

However, in the Midrash [Rabbah] we find: From the time when God uttered this it means that “Out of the mouth of the Most High proceeds not evil and good” (Lam. III, 38). The good deeds have their good consequences and the evil deeds have theirs. I have already explained this at the beginning of Parashat Behukkotai.

So the Sages explain ‘I set before you’ that all is dependent upon your actions. This is similar to what is later found in Parashat Nizavim [30:15] [Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil....]

This explanation of our verse is also necessary for it says ‘a curse if you will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way which I command you this day, to go after….

Neziv sees the interpretation of the midrash as following from the verse which emphasizes the actions of the people in not observing the good deeds, the commandments, which God has given them, and in following after the ways of idolatry.

The verse in Nizavim follows a section that contains the following:

11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not hidden from you, nor is it far off.

12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?

13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14. But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it.

In other words, there is a theme throughout this book that emphasizes our own choices and their consequences. Obedience to the commandments is dependent upon us, not dependent upon anything remote, exotic, or mysterious. It begins with our choice and may encounter obstacles along the way which we will have to overcome. Thus, says Moses, choose life; choose the commandments; choose the covenant.

Neziv concludes his commentary on this passage by again reminding us of the double nature of many passages in Deuteronomy:

This is one of the reasons why this book is known as Mishneh Torah for there are many passages from now on that cannot be explained in their direct sense unless in two meanings.

Neziv is very committed to what may appear to be a very functional approach to commandment observance. They are part of the order, din, through which God created the universe. Therefore, they function in a significant manner and have real consequences. They coincide with the actual structures of nature and are not just ‘nice’ things to do or ‘not nice’ things to avoid.

One of his foundations for this approach is this midrashic interpretation of the verse from Lamentations: Out of the mouth of the Most High proceeds not evil and good. What is so interesting is that in looking at numerous translations of the Bible this verse is given a question mark at its conclusion so that it reads: Out of the mouth of the Most High proceeds not evil and good? Or, Do not both evil and good come out of the mouth of the most High?

In other words, this reading is in direct contrast to Neziv’s [and the midrash]. It would mean everything, the good and bad, comes from God.

What we have here is a serious theological dispute about the nature of the world in which we live, our relationship to God, as well as reward and punishment. These are not small matters.

Neziv takes a naturalistic approach. God created the world in this orderly fashion and we function within that order. We cannot really step outside. We must learn to navigate the orderliness in order to survive. God was gracious to us for giving us the Teaching, Guidance and Instruction, all meanings of Torah. It is this loving gift that enables us to live a good life as good deeds create good consequences.

Neziv returns again to this theme in his comments to 32:6. The passage there reads:

4. The Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice; a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

5. Not his the corruption, but his children are blemished; they are a perverse and crooked generation.

6. Do you thus blame the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? Is not he your father who has created you? Has he not made you, and established you?

As part of a lengthy comment on this passage, Neziv cites a verse from Hannah’s prayer [in I Sam 2:3]:

Talk no more so very proudly; let not arrogance come out of your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

Neziv explains:

The meaning is that reward and punishment come from the deed. It is as if God does nothing. However, after God founded the world, Out of the mouth of the Most High proceeds not evil and good as I wrote in Re’eh and Behukkotai.

If so, then the one who is punished is like an infant who is injured by the wheels of the machine when he puts his hand into the machine which cause damage as they perform their function. It makes no sense to say that the inventor of the machine should relent from the machine performing its tasks because this is only a child.

The world is like a large machine spread unrelentingly over human activity…. If a person eats something damaging for the stomach there is no relenting from this process so that it will not hurt him. So, too, nature is unrelenting for a sinner unless through repentance which is therapy. As Isaiah said, and return, and be healed. [6:10] The Talmud says, [Meg. 17B] ‘return and be healed?, That refers to the healing [power] of forgiveness.

Freedom, choice and responsibility are the only ways to true blessings.

[ For a previous discussion on this theme see Parashat Behar Behukkotai, God the King or God the Physician? The Commandments and their Consequences in this website archive: http://theprofoundword.com/2010/05/]

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Av 27 5770

August 8, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Ekev 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Learning, Leadership and its Dangers II

The intensity of Neziv’s criticism of his own scholarly fraternity might be surprising to us. Usually we would expect to find members of this group defending the honor of their class despite serious disagreements with individual members from time to time. This dynamic might even be natural for any group which engages in constant study of any subject matter. There are disagreements possible on questions of data, interpretation and the long or short range policies that are suggested.

But Neziv goes further. The group of rabbinical scholars engaged in Torah studies consider themselves the natural leaders of the nation, their kings if you will. As such, Neziv holds himself and his colleagues to a very high standard. They must carefully weigh their thoughts and comments. They must understand that they are responsible for what happens to the community and that this responsibility obtains even when they are not to blame for a particular event.

Let us look, for example, at the opening of this parashah.

And it will be, because you will heed….

The word translated as ‘because’, ekev, is related to the word for ‘heel.’ This prompts a midrashic comment brought by Rashi:

If you will heed the minor commandments which one [usually] tramples with his heels.

That is to say, items that a person may treat as of minor importance.

I think that we would all agree that today there is a significant majority of even very serious Jews who treat many of the commandments in this manner. They believe in God and are very careful about many practices and traditions but are not convinced that many of the practices that were always considered to be as conforming to God’s will are still of great concern to God. This may result from inconvenience in today’s world or from some notion that modern values preclude a certain behavior. Without judging and responding to this phenomenon we must accept it as real.

We would also probably agree that rabbis would not be to blame for these attitudes. On the contrary, rabbis would certainly oppose them. However, what should be a proper rabbinical response? Should a rabbi withdraw from the general Jewish society with a group of loyal followers while denouncing the ‘rebels’ as heretics? Or, is a rabbi to take responsibility for them, find ways to teach them and include them , bringing them closer to God’s Torah and its obligations? It is in the context of this question that we must look at Neziv’s comments and ask what prompted his concerns.

Some years ago I published an article in the Edah Journal [Vol. 1:1] called: “As Swords Thrust Through The Body”: The Neziv?s Rejection of Separatism. It is a study of a responsum in Neziv’s collection of responsa called Meshiv Davar. Although responsa are usually Halakhic in nature, this one is Halakhic but also deals with a major policy question of our time. I will now quote from that article at length. You will recognize passages that we have dealt with in this series as he pulls them together to make his case.

The modern era presents Jews with many dilemmas. In responding to these challenges Jews have taken differing approaches and developed varying degrees of attachment to the traditional Jewish life guided by halakhah. Before modernity, it was assumed that the system of halakhah shaped every Jew?s life into a series of obligations and responsibilities that programmed daily life according to time, place and circumstance. Modernity shattered that assumption.

Those Jews who attempted to cling most intensely to the traditional lifestyle of halakhah became known as Orthodox, initially a derogatory term used by reformist elements of the Jewish community to describe its more conservative members. Since the Enlightenment, Orthodox and non-Orthodox tensions have become a permanent feature of modern Jewish life.

Orthodoxy can be understood as a resistance movement against the forces of dissolution Jews face in modern times. Reform also saw itself as resisting the enticements of conversion to Christianity. Today?s Conservative movement also claims that it resists the powers of assimilation. Seen in this perspective, Orthodoxy is the most radical of the resistance movements to the forces of assimilation and integration, displaying the highest degree of conscious rejection of modern values. As such, Orthodoxy is often characterized by its heightened sense of siege, while the other movements appear more at ease with modernity.

As there are varieties of non-Orthodox ideologies, so too there are varieties within Orthodoxy itself in the modern era. The nineteenth century saw these types crystallize into various distinct elements: Hasidic, Lithuanian Yeshiva, Hungarian and German Neo-Orthodoxy associated with Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. As constituents of Orthodoxy they share a common commitment to halakhic observance as a necessity of any authentic representation of Judaism. They disagree, however, on various attitudinal questions that shape their responses to the particular challenges of modern living. These are in the areas of general education, the role of women, and Zionism, to name but a few.

During the past decades intra-Orthodox tensions have escalated. Those who identify with the attitudes of Modern Orthodoxy have sometimes been overwhelmed by strident criticisms coming from the Ultra-Orthodox community. The latter have at times engaged in a campaign to delegitimate the positions of the former on a variety of subjects. Modern Orthodox have been portrayed as weak, compromising, and not truly committed to halakhic procedures and requirements.

Modern Orthodox representatives have sought models for their positions in earlier times. Many models have been found wanting, however, for they represent pre-modern views that purportedly fail to consider the new dangers that inhere in contemporary life. The question remains whether there are modern authorities who are aware of modern conditions and yet favor the positions that have come to be associated with Modern Orthodoxy.

One of the most intensely debated issues within Orthodoxy has been the question of the Orthodox relationships to non-observant Jews and to organizations that advocate a non-Orthodox or secular form of Judaism. Should observant Jews disassociate from them or engage them in some areas of joint interest?

As one of leading Orthodox rabbis of the nineteenth century, Neziv, confronted this issue in a number of his works. Let us see what he has to say.

I. On the Integrity and Unity of Israel

For Neziv, maintaining the integrity of Israel is a primary covenantal obligation. He derives this responsibility from his understanding of the covenant between God and Abraham, one that includes Abraham?s descendants as well. Neziv considers the specific obligation for Jews to keep themselves separate from other nations to be Biblical in origin:

“And He said to Abraham, your children shall be strangers in a foreign land. They will be enslaved and persecuted for four hundred years. I will then judge the nation that enslaved them and they will depart with great wealth,” (Genesis 15:13?14).

Neziv expounds on the fundamental significance of this imperative:

“In addition to being a prophecy that this will occur, it is an instructive warning for the future: your children shall be strangers, visitors among the nations and must not wish to mix with them, becoming similar to them in life-style and manners. Therefore, it is written of Jacob, ?He visited there [Egypt]? (Deut. 26:5), which means that he did not go there with the intention to dwell permanently.”

He also discusses this theme in Harhev Davar to Genesis 15:14:

“Your children shall be strangers”?This is also a promise. That is, because of all the troubles they will not have to assimilate, God forbid, into the nations they enter to be like them in order not to suffer any longer. Furthermore, this is a revelation of God’s will (gilui da’at Ha-Shem) that we be only strangers and not seek to better ourselves among the nations by being like them and as citizens. Although to human judgment it appears to be the opposite in that if we become citizens and be considered part of them they will not harm us. Thus we learn from the case of Laban that this is not so.

Neziv establishes the separate integrity of Israel that must be maintained for the future. He leaves open the question of what to do about unity when confronted with those who are casual about the integrity of the nation through their lack of observance of the traditional covenantal mitzvot. We will address this specific question as we move along, but first it is important to observe how the Neziv addresses the obligation to maintain unity among Jews.

Rabbi Berlin discusses the concept of Jewish unity in numerous places. One of the most vivid of his points is made in regard to Deuteronomy 32:9, “Indeed, the Lord’s portion is His people; Jacob is the rope of His allotment.” Neziv seizes upon the image of the rope and comments:

The entire nation (umah) is here compared to a rope that is wound with many threads. In the Sifre the explanation is given: Just as the rope is composed of three strands so too Jacob is third of the Ancestors. According to my understanding the simile is that Israel is likened to a thick rope composed of tens of thousands of strands. At the top the rope is tightly wound while at the bottom the strands are individually distinct. Similarly, the Holy Blessed One, as it were, is the Soul of Souls to whom all the souls of Israel are tightly bound above. Below each one has an individual soul. This is why Israel is called “goy ehad”, one nation, for they are united in their root above. (Ha-Ameq Davar, Deut. 32:9)

In Genesis 49:24 he reiterates much the same point, but extends the image:

This is why the Sages teach (San. 84) that when an Israelite suffers the Shekhinah says ‘I have been disgraced.’ It is as if we moved one of the individual strands at the bottom of the rope. This would affect the top of the rope as well. This is the great Strength of Jacob (Avir Ya’akov) [an expression which the Neziv understands as a name of God.] For this reason it is forbidden to take vengeance against each other.

Neziv also connects this idea to Leviticus 19:18 the ‘love’ commandment: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord.” On this verse he comments:

From the language of the Yerushalmi I learned another explanation for the juxtaposition in this verse (i.e. the connection between not taking vengeance and being loving.) The Yerushalmi explains (Nedarim 9:4) ‘You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen.’ This is like one who while cutting meat his hand slips and cuts his other hand. Will he now cut his hand [that had slipped while holding the knife to avenge its error?] [No.] It says be loving to your neighbor as yourself. Rabbi Akiva says: “This is a great principle in the Torah.”

This means that vengeance is like one who is carelessly cutting meat.? Would it enter his mind to now hit or cut the first hand in vengeance? This is why the obligation to be loving follows the prohibition of vengeance. Even though one’s own life and welfare have precedence over that of others the other is like oneself. It is improper for one limb to strike another. Even if one limb already did so no vengeance would be sought for it. So too one should not seek vengeance against someone who has hurt you. This is why it says ‘as yourself,’ for all Israel is one being (kol yisrael nefesh ahat).

Israel is God’s rope that descends into the world from above. Israel?s essence is derived from God in Heaven, her ‘Soul of Souls.’ As the rope descends its threads become more distinct, reflecting each Jew’s individuality. Israel is God’s portion, and as such the fate of the individual threads and the rope itself reflect the status of God’s name and glory in the world. If a Jew is injured by another Jew or by a gentile, God’s position in the world is diminished. That is, God suffers along with injured Israel.

This function served by Israel is not a voluntary one. Willy-nilly, every Jew belongs to this metaphysical category. All are part of the mystery. Just as we are human and cannot be otherwise, so too we are Jews bound in covenant with God and cannot be otherwise. Leviticus 19:18 serves as another metaphor for Jewish unity according to the Neziv. Israel is one being with distinct limbs. The limbs must never forget that they all belong to one being, and therefore vengeance upon another Jew constitutes an attack on one?s own body. As such, it is self-destructive, irrational and unjustifiable.

Rabbi Berlin often treats the question of Jewish communal harmony in the face of deep division of opinion on fundamental subjects. His comments often focus on the issue of sinat hinam, [gratuitous hatred] which the Talmud (Yoma 9a) maintains led to the destruction of the Temple and exile. Neziv believes that excessive intra-Jewish friction brought about the great tragedies in Jewish history. However instructive talmudic comments may be, they refer to an era safely removed from modern times. Nevertheless, Neziv applied these talmudic teachings to his contemporary reality and the intense divisions brought about by the various Jewish responses to modernity.

An article in the journal Mahazikei Ha-Dat occasioned the Neziv’s most thorough comments on the subject. In response to this article Neziv wrote a lengthy essay that was later printed with his responsa. It appears in Meshiv Davar as 1:44 entitled, “On Right and Left.” Neziv directly addresses the contemporary scene.

I saw an article entitled “Right and Left” in the journal Mahazikei Ha-Dat, Volume 3, by one of the editors in which an important question is raised. Since it is our responsibility to participate in efforts to strengthen the faith of Israel I could not desist from presenting my thoughts on this issue to the members of Mahazikei Ha-Dat, may God bless them. Anyone else who has anything to respond and clarify in these matters in another way let their words come and enlighten our lives. For although we are removed geographically from one another we are close to each other in our desire and willingness to arrive at the goal with the help of the knowing and guiding God.

The author of the original article attempted to divide the Jewish community into three parts: the Right (the righteous or saintly), who remove themselves from all earthly matters not even benefiting to the extent of a small finger’s worth; the Left (the wicked), who either out of ignorance or brazen willfulness throw off the yoke of Torah and religion; and the Center, who innocently follow the ways of the world without rejecting the Torah. Neziv took exception to this division, finding it confused and unacceptable:

With all due respect, I believe that the author does not follow through on his initial question. He began with the question of whether there are three different trends in our religion and faith and concludes that the Left is equivalent to a rejection of the Torah and religion. In other words, the Left is outside of our faith.

Also confusing is the expression ‘maybe’ concerning the three trends. What kind of question is this? We have always had three trends: the completely righteous, the wicked and the intermediate. The question really should be whether among the followers of our faith and religion, among those who do not reject Torah, there are to be found three groups. This is the question that should be properly researched.

Neziv moves the discussion towards the subjects of love of God and devequt, the intense connectedness to God. After all, these are the goals of Torah. If there are three trends in Judaism, they must be defined in terms of this over-arching objective. Neziv’s discussion of ahavat Ha-Shem, the love of God, also yields three trends, differently defined. The one who is on the Right is one whose mind is continually imbued with love and attachment (devequt) to God, and who closely approaches the Shekhinah. This is truly the way of piety (hasidut), which is impossible except for one who separates from the world. The one who stands on this exalted level finds it difficult to associate with other people even to teach them Torah and morals. Every interaction with others interrupts the intellectual connectedness that is impossible without isolation (hitbodedut).

Regarding the latter two categories, Neziv writes:

There is a second God worshiper who observes all the details of Torah but who does not know the taste of love and devequt. This one does not separate at all to achieve this love. These are called Leftists for they are removed from extreme closeness to the Shekhinah and the Spirit of Holiness (Ruah Ha-Qodesh).

There are also those who follow a middle path. During recital of keriat shemah and tefillah their minds approach love and devequt of God while the rest of the day they are occupied with worldly affairs. Those on this intermediate way are also called pious (hasidim), but in a different manner than the ones above: They are hasidim in deeds.

In this context he issues a warning on zealotry:

Now let us look at Levi and Pinhas who both were zealous against sexual immorality and were totally devoted on this issue. Yet Pinhas rose to the highest level, while Levi was rebuked by his father. There are many similar instances. The explanation is that [zealousness] requires great precision to evaluate the activity according to time and place. It is also necessary to understand many Torah principles that are not always clear. Thus it is impossible to be this type of hasid except through Torah study. The way of hasidut through love of God and devequt, which one imagines does not require Torah learning but only sincerity (temimut), isolation and intention for love of God, is not correct. Even the one who prepares for and clings to love of God requires at least being very careful not to deviate from the way of Torah. Holy desire and love ‘more intense than death’ should not lead away from reason.

Neziv insists that any disrespect for the middle group is sinful. In the middle are many hasidim, pious followers of the way of Torah:

The result of our explanation is that not all of those who follow the middle path in the service of God are to be considered middling [in their commitment], for many of the Centrists can be considered as sincerely pious [hasidim]. Not in the sense of those immersed in isolation in love and devequt, but in the sense of hasidim in deeds as we explained above according to the words of our sages.We might think that those in the center are the ones who neither reject the yoke [of Torah] but are not careful in observance. However, it is clear that in the middle category there are many gradations ranging between the two poles of righteous and wicked.

Neziv continues his response to the author of the Mahazikei Ha-Dat article now focused on the question of those Jews outside the realm of commitment to one of the three trends. Should we disassociate ourselves from them? The original author is an advocate of separation, fearing that modern times threatens the middle hasid more than in the past.

Neziv describes the siege attitude that has characterized much of Orthodoxy in modern times. It can be summarized as follows: Judaism is in greater danger than ever before. Since this is the worst generation in history, there is much about which to be afraid. Isolation and separation are, therefore, the strategies to adopt. These strategies have come to be defining qualities of what is now called Ultra-Orthodoxy. Neziv strongly disagrees with this assessment of the historical reality:

We must realize that the facts are not as the writer reports, namely, that there has never been a generation so rejecting as our own. This is not true at all. Even when we first entered our Holy Land and for many generations following thereafter the desire for idolatry was prevalent and, indeed, burned as intensely as an oven as the Talmud (Sanhedrin 102b) says. It was obvious that no one could be certain of avoiding this idolatrous trend unless one behaved in the way of hasidut continually turning one’s mind to the way of God.

During the first Temple period idolatry was a major issue continuously addressed by the prophets, yet they never advocated separation from the idolaters. Since the passion for idolatry among Jews has long been overcome, those terrible times have passed. Today’s problems are different:

In our generation, however, there has been an increase in unbelievers with faulty ideas concerning the authority of the Talmud, for example. Our sages have said (Avodah Zarah 27b) that a person should not engage in business with a heretic. The Talmud explains that heretics attract others to follow them. For this reason one who is not cautious is in danger of being drawn to them after a while.

This is an obvious reference to the Reform movement, which questioned talmudic authority and is a different phenomenon than ordinary moral or spiritual weaknesses. It therefore requires a different response and a carefully well thought-out strategy. Thus Neziv passionately disagrees with the writer’s suggestion:

Now the author presents his thoughts and proposal to be careful of this generation and to separate completely from them as Abraham did from Lot. With the pardon of the writer, this advice is as harsh as swords thrust through the body and survival of the nation! When we were sovereign in our Holy Land, as during part of the Second Temple period, the land was lost, the Temple was destroyed and Israel exiled because of the dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees. This caused much gratuitous hatred (sinat hinam) leading to unjustified murder. Thus, when a Pharisee saw someone being lax in a certain matter, even though he was not a Sadducee but only sinning in this matter, because of tremendous sinat hinam he judged him to be a Sadducee who can be legitimately harmed. From this mistaken attitude numerous allegedly justified and holy murders multiplied. It is not far-fetched to think that this can occur today. A member of Mahazikei Ha-Dat might see someone and imagine that he does not follow his way in proper worship of God. He will then judge him to be a heretic and separate from him. They will then chase (rodef) each other (with intent to harm) in the erroneous belief that this is justified, God forbid. The entire people of God will be destroyed, God forbid.

This consideration is critical in the Diaspora condition, for only if we stay together can we resist the dangers of assimilation:

All this would be true even if we were sovereign in our own land. How much more certain when we are downtrodden in exile scattered like sheep among the nations. In exile we are likened to the ‘dust of the earth’ as the Holy Blessed One told Jacob: your descendants shall be like the dust of the earth. The nations are likened to flood waters as is written in Isaiah (17:12): “Ah, the roar of many peoples that roar as roars the sea.” There is no hope for a block of dust against floodwaters unless the dust becomes a solid rock. A flooding river would then only roll the stone from place to place but not altogether destroy it. Israel among the nations has no hope unless it becomes the ‘rock of Israel.’ If we become united into one union no nation or culture can destroy us. So, therefore, how can anyone advise us to separate from our fellow Jews? The nations would then wash us away little by little, God forbid.

This partial citation from the above mentioned article gives us a glimpse of Neziv’s concerns. They are worthy concerns with which we deal every day. Later on in our series we may return to some more of these issues as we come to the conclusion of Moses’ final speeches to his nation.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that what he is looking for is the model of leadership we saw with Joshua. [See the discussion in Parashat Pinhas] Not a person whose ‘spirit follows his flesh’, but a person of independent spirit, with a clear vision of the situation and its inherent responsibilities beyond his own selfish needs and those of others. If great Torah sages are to be leaders of the nation they too must display these qualities.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Av 20 5770

July 31, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Va-ethanan 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Your Wisdom and your Understanding in the Eyes of the Nations:

Learning, Leadership and its Dangers

Moses continues his words, his final speeches to the nation. We have already seen from Neziv’s introduction to this book that a fundamental goal of Moses is to instill study as an important national commitment that will help insure the future. This week we see what else Moses considers as essential to Israel’s future in fulfilling its purpose.

Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, as the Lord, my God, commanded me, to do so in the midst of the land to which you are coming to possess.

You shall keep [them] and do [them], for that is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations, who will hear all these statutes and say, “This great nation is a wise and understanding nation. [4:5-6]

Rashi explains;

You shall keep [them]: This refers to study.

and do [them]: according to its apparent meaning.

Doing the statutes and ordinances [or, judgments] for Rashi seems to suggest actual doing or observing, performing them. Keeping them involves study. Rashi uses the word mishneh or mishnah. As we know, these imply study.

Neziv agrees that keeping involves study. But he adds that mishnah refers to what has already been analyzed and decided. This is what we should keep. However, doing suggests that we should not be content with only what has been done in the past. We must renew the study.

He taught that in every generation we should keep what has been analyzed and decided in the previous generation and add to it through further analysis in order to enhance the Torah.

It is this constant study and growing of the body of Torah knowledge which will lead to the view of other nations:

Through your abundant growing of Torah knowledge concerning the Written Torah, the nations will look wondrously on these developments of enhancing the Torah through the wisdom and understanding of Israel.

Through continuous intensive study God’s wisdom and guidance for the world is continually revealed.

Those same nations who want to know how this is done will hear about the methods through which the laws are derived.

Here Neziv is referring to the classic thirteen methods of interpretation that are applied to the Torah text in order to derive further knowledge.

They will say, “This great nation is a wise and understanding nation,” for they can use these principles to so effectively explain the Torah commandments. This can only be done through the judgments that are derived through the power of the Talmudic process.

The nations, themselves, not having access to these principles, cannot know if in fact this method of study is necessary for Torah study. However, they will see something else that will be remarkable:

For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is at all times that we call upon Him? [7]

Neziv comments:

They will see the greatness of Israel in the eyes of God through the Talmud for through this so much so that God is near to us “at all times that we call upon Him.”

At the beginning of Tractate Hagigah (12b), the Sages say that whoever studies Torah at night will have a thread of grace above them during the day, as it says, “By day may the Lord grace you with faithful care, so that at night a song to God may be with me, a prayer to the God of my life” (Ps. 42:9). When will the thread of grace be drawn over them during the day? Through the fact that their prayers will be fitting and acceptable.

In Tractate Tamid (32b) the Sages comment that those who study Torah at night have the Shekhinah with them, for it says, “Arise, sing out in the night” -one should study Torah at night through the beginning of the watch-periods (ashmuroth) for this is the Song of Torah which continues until the end of the night through the watches, in order that a person be filled with loving devotion when standing for prayer at the beginning of the new day. In this way, “Pour out your heart like water in the presence of the Lord!”….

Thus, the nations see how great is Talmud study in God’s eyes.

Furthermore, says Moses:

And which great nation is it that has just statutes and ordinances, as this entire Torah, which I set before you this day? [8]

Neziv comments:

They will also marvel that the insights derived from careful study of the texts through the special methods will appear just and correct according to human reason as well. In any event all will be suggested at in the texts through the interpretations. This means that this wisdom as well [human reason] is necessary for the proper understanding of the texts. This is true in all parts of the Torah even those areas not based on human reason and are not accessible to the nations.

Moses now sounds a cautionary note. After the glowing celebration of Torah learning he worries that something fundamental will be forgotten:

But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children’s children, the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, “Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children…. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. [9-10,15]

Rashi explains Moses’ concerns:

But beware,lest you forget the things: Only then, when you do not forget them, and will [therefore] do them in their proper manner, will you be considered wise and understanding, but if you distort them because of forgetfulness, you will be considered fools.

For Rashi the question is about forgetting to observe the commandments. This will lead us to be looked at as fools.

Neziv expresses Moses’ concerns in a very different manner. As important as learning is, it is not the foundation of Israel’s commitment. That foundation can only be the memory of the awesome events at Sinai and the awe and reverence it inspired. That moment produced a profound Yirat Shamayim, fear of Heaven and genuine piety. That is the foundation of Torah study as well for without it Torah study can go awry. Only if the foundation of piety is secure can Torah learning perform its tasks as well.

Through Torah analysis it can happen that it turns into a danger.

There is a Talmudic discussion in Nedarim of the verse ‘Umenahliel bamot, umebamot hagay’. The words are broken down to mean: Those who inherited [the Torah, their special nahalah[=inheritance] are lifted up. But if from this lifting up one becomes haughty The Blessed Holy One will bring him down low.

I have already explained there [Nu.21:19-20] that the fall of a scholar from his values is a much greater tragedy than for an ordinary person who was never a scholar…. This is what happens to a scholar who lacks Yirat Shamayim, true piety.

We must understand that the Blessed Holy One wished to instill true piety in Israel at Sinai. Therefore, the Torah was given with sounds of thunder and flashes of light. At that time Moses said to Israel: “…for God has come in order to exalt you, and in order that His awe shall be upon your faces, so that you shall not sin.” [Ex. 20:17]

I explained there that this means that that wondrous event should be fashioned in the souls forever to inspire true piety. So here Moses teaches to protect body and soul so that Torah study and analysis should not lead, God forbid, to forget that which you had seen. That is, you saw God speak and heard the Ten Words [Commandments] through the media of sparks and flames as is later explained here by Moses: [The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.] [12]

So, arrogance is a danger to scholarship and learning. A scholar must be rooted in Sinai, and humbled by it, like all others and not get carried away with self-importance.

But why this fear of the scholarly group getting involved in idolatry too? What is nagging Moses, and Neziv, to pursue this line of concern?

As the shift from the first tablets to the second took place, a shift in learning style occurred as we have seen described by Neziv in Parashat Ki Tissa. In order to include Israel in the covenant in a more active sense the power of innovation [hiddush] was born. After studying the received wisdom of their predecessors, the scholarly fraternity must engage in hiddush to provide guidance for the new generation. While this is encouraged herein lies a danger as well. All this intensive learning and analysis can be misused as well to justify measures that would be against the Torah. Let us see how Neziv develops this point based on numerous Talmudic texts and brought at verse 14.

Now, Moses wishes to inform us of what will be even though it does not seem obvious…. It is the essence of this message. Moses here warns about all possible kinds of idolatry as he will explain.[14-24] All this continues from the beginning of our Parashah wherein Moses warns the scholars in particular who occupy themselves with statutes and judgments. From here we see that scholars are liable to fall into idolatrous depravity more so than ordinary persons.

This actually did happen in our history. For example, the Talmud in Helek reports that three outstanding scholars who were kings of Israel brought Israel to worship idols: Jeroboam ben Nebat, Ahab and Manasseh.

In the Book of Lamentations [1:9] we read: See, Lord, our suffering, for the enemy is great. I explained later [Deut. 28:59] in the name of a midrash that this refers to the evil inclination, for scholars have a greater evil inclination than ordinary people. This makes sense because the scholar in his wisdom can find ways to permit things [that should be forbidden] and reverse the living words of God. Furthermore, he distorts the mind so that we think it is not only permitted but commanded.

Neziv has entered into one of his popular and oft-addressed themes: the dangerous aspects of scholars and learning. It is quite remarkable that he is unafraid to attack his own group but feels that there is ample precedent for this in the ancient rabbinic texts. Rather than seeing study as the cure and prophylactic miracle for all ills, he also knows of its hazards. Wittingly or unwittingly, knowingly or unknowingly scholars can cause serious trouble for the community. If scholars are going to be leaders they must accept responsibility for the affairs of the community, even for its tragedies. They cannot blame others.

He cites a lengthy Talmudic discussion [Sukkah 52a] in which various rabbis comment on the Yetzer HaRa, the evil or selfish inclination found in all humans.

In Tractate Sukkah [52a] we find an interpretation of the verse “The northerner I will remove from you” [The words for north and hidden are similar which leads to the conclusion that] to mean that I will remove the selfish desire that is hidden in the human heart [for it lead to the destruction of the first Temple of Jerusalem]…. Abaye says, among scholars it is strongest.

This refers not to the ordinary selfish inclination that is visible in all people and inclines one to violate the Torah out of desire. This is the obvious inclination and not really hidden. But there is a hidden inclination as well which misleads us and convinces us that the sin is really a good deed required by God. In this regard, scholars have a greater evil inclination than ordinary folk who just wish to quietly follow their instincts.

Furthermore, when a scholar acts many others are disposed to follow him. Through his teachings and explanations he is able to engage hearts and minds which an ordinary person who sins cannot do.

This is why Moses especially warns the scholars concerning idolatry and presented to them the image of Torah revelation at Sinai as filled with awe and wonder. He hoped this would prevent them from stumbling and causing others to stumble as well.

Neziv is unstinting in his criticism of the scholarly class. Throughout his commentary he returns to this theme. However, at this time of the year he believes that the message is especially appropriate, for this Parashah always falls just after the conclusion of the three week mourning period commemorating both destructions of the first and second Temples.

In Harhev Davar he adds the following:

We should know that just as in the first destruction which was essentially caused by idolatry… and the chief instigators of this sin were the great Torah scholars, so too for the second destruction which came because of baseless hatred [among Jews, sinat hinam].

The foundation of this was excessive love of money as expressed in the Toseftah at the end of Menahot. This led them to what they considered permissible murder [of each other]…. Here too the great Torah scholars were the chief instigators….

Why then did Moses express his warnings here in regard to idolatry and not other possible failings? Neziv continues:

Moses emphasized in his warning the issue of idolatry because at that time in history this inclination was dominant. However, when we examine both of these sins [idolatry and love of money] which appear quite remote from each other we see that they really stem from one source: they concern human sustenance [parnassat ha-beriot]. This was expressed in the desire for idolatry during the First Temple era and the love of financial profit during the Second Temple period.

He concludes this dramatic indictment with the following:

And it is still dancing among us!!

Society and culture have changed through the millenia. However, human needs have not. If we look carefully at human behavior we see the same fundamental pressures continue to prevail in our world, challenging us to meet them within the guidelines of our laws and traditions.

Idolatry was part of a culture that promised sustenance to its adherents through the worship of various powers of nature that do provide us with our needs. It must have been extremely difficult to ignore idolatry as the lone nation in the world doing so. The temptations were real and involved serious economic, social and political risks. Hence, the First Temple era was dominated by this issue: prophets condemned while kings faltered.

During the Second Temple era we do not find idolatry as an issue in Jewish life. Human sustenance must be sustained but this was done without recourse to actual idolatry. Other issues of critical importance emerged. When they gave way to baseless hatred of other community elements the seeds of disaster were planted. One could pursue one’s sustenance without regard for others’ well-being. They could be removed for pleasure or profit. Ultimately there is no justification for hatred in the community. It is always baseless and most inappropriate when instigated by Torah scholars whose task is to be leaders of the community but can turn into its destroyers. Concerning this Moses and Neziv were worried. We should be as well.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Av 13 5770

July 24, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Devarim 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Parting Words

The story is told about a questioner who asked Albert Einstein what figure from past history he would most like to meet and what he might ask on the occasion. Surprisingly named Moses as that figure and said he would ask Moses if he ever thought that his teachings and laws would have lasted so long.

The final of the Five Books of Moses, Devarim, begins this week. While Moses is the central figure in three prior books, this book is different. It is presented not about Moses but Moses is presenting his review and his perspective on the events of his forty year leadership career. As well, he looks to the future of the nation. He alerts them of the dangers that lie ahead and appeals to their loyalty to the Covenant established at Sinai and confirmed at Horeb as the desert wanderings terminate. These are Moses’s words, Devarim. From here our final image of Moses the person, the leader will emerge.

These are the words which Moses spoke to all Israel…. [1:1

Again, we find that the book has another name in Jewish tradition which gave birth to the name Deuteronomy. The Hebrew is Mishneh Torah, not an easy term to translate. The term Deuteronomy suggests a copy or repetition of many teachings. However, the Hebrew Mishneh can have many other meanings. Let us see how Neziv approaches the name of this book and how his approach gives us insight into Moses' vision for the continuity of Israel's future. We will look at his introduction to the book.

This book is called Mishneh Torah. The Tosafists, at the beginning of Gittin, wrote that this term means to repeat what came earlier. This explanation was also favored by Ramban so much so that when he came to various commandments in the parashiot of Shofetim and Ki Tetzeh [roughly chapters 16-25] he interprets various commandments as being parts of earlier commandments already written [in Exodus, etc...] Thus, he claims that shiluah ha-ken [sending away the mother bird from the nest before hunting the babies] is part of the commandment of Oto ve’et beno [not slaughtering the mother cow and its calf on the same day.] This is very surprising to me. These commandments are far removed from each other.

Furthermore, repetition of mitzvot is found earlier [in Exodus] such as in the parashiot Mishpatim and Ki Tissah. None of these repetitions is superfluous as I explain in those places.

Also, in this book there are not that many repetitions. Again, what is repeated [has a purpose and ] is not superfluous.

Neziv thus dismisses these earlier views and tries to chart a new direction of thinking:

Therefore, it seems to me that the meaning of this name is as is explained in [the ancient Aramaic translation of the Torah] Targum Onkelos, and is found in chapter 17:18 [where the tem Mishneh Torah is found: patshegen Oraita. This means a commentary and explanation until the Torah is clearly understood.

Neziv makes this claim despite the fact that contemporary Hebrew dictionaries translate patshegen as being a copy or summary of a text. He is here following Rashi's understanding of Onkelos on 17:18 who says:

And it will be, when he the King] sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself two copies of this Torah on a scroll from….

Here Mishneh Torah is translated as ‘two copies’ basedon Rabbinic tradition that the king had one scroll with him at all times and another remained behind in his palace.

Now Rashi:

two copies of this Torah-: i.e., two Torah scrolls, one that is placed in his treasury, and the other that comes and goes with him (San. 21b). [I.e., a small scroll, which the king carries with him. Thus the Talmud derives Mishneh from the Hebrew shenayim, meaning two.] Onkelos, however, renders Mishneh, as patshgegen, a copy. He interprets [the word] in the sense of repeating and uttering. [I.e., one copy of the Torah, which the scribe would write while uttering the words before he writes them, deriving Mishneh from the Hebrew shinun, studying.]

The Torah’s emphasis on writing a scroll is very suggestive. The Halakhic rules for such writing are many and quite detailed. They include the requirement for the scribe to utter the words before doing the writing itself. This becomes an act of study as well as one of writing.

The word Mishneh has many possible roots. In fact, however, the Book of Devarim uses the term shinun and many others as Moses emphasizes the paramount importance of Torah study for the future of the nation. This is Neziv’s point:

The principle and essence of this book is to alert us as to the importance of intensive Torah study to find out the precise meaning of text which we call Talmud.

All the instructions and the many words with which Moses encouraged them were for this purpose: that they take upon themselves the yoke of Talmud for many reasons as are explained throughout the book.

This is the reason why the book is called Mishneh Torah, based on the study of Torah, shinun.

There certainly is a strong emphasis in this book on study and many different terms are used for it. Shinun, as in the Shema paragraph: veshinantem le-banekhah, you shall teach your children. It is also the source of mishnah, the name for the earliest collection of rabbinic law. Also, ve-limadetem otam et beneykhem, again, teach your children. Here the root limud is the source of Talmud, which became the Rabbinic name for Torah study and eventually the name for the great work that collects the early rabbinic discussions which aim to clarify all the laws and commandments.

However, Neziv does not ignore the Talmudic text of Sanhedrin 21b brought by Rashi above. There the sense of Mishneh is double. But he interprets this in a different manner than heretofore. He points to another interesting aspect of the book.

If we were to wish to explain it in the sense of doubling… the intention would be towards the unique way of interpreting the texts of this book. Given the rabbinic principle that a verse does not depart from its most direct meaning we find that many verses in this book cannot be properly interpreted except with double meanings. For we find very often the expressions of keeping and doing the mitzvot, statutes and judgments [hukkim umishpatim.] The meaning of keeping and doing for mitzvot is unlike that of keeping the statutes and judgments. Keeping the mitzvot means performing them. However, keeping the statutes and the judgments means establishing the laws [Halakhah.] This [too] is meant by calling this book Mishneh Torah.

Neziv then points to a passage in the Book of Kings [2Kings 22:14] where the word Mishneh appears: she lived in Jerusalem in the mishneh. The ancient Aramaic translation called Targum Jonathan explains mishneh as Bet Ulpanah, a school. However, it also means between the walls. Hence, two possible or probable meanings are correct.

Neziv now treats the question of the king’s obligation to write a Torah scroll as found in 17:18.

And it will be, when he sits upon his royal throne, that he shall write for himself Mishneh Torah on a scroll from [that Torah which is] before the Levitic kohanim.

He begins with a Midrash Rabbah [6] quote:

Rabbir Simeon bar Yohai said: The Mishneh Torah was emblematic of Joshua. When God revealed Himself to him he found him sitting with Mishneh Torah in his hand….

We learn from here that this books many kinds of teachings…. Even though the obligation of the king was to write the entire Torah, in any event the focus was on this book [Devarim]. The king should regularly look into it in order to achieve the purposes explained in it:

And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, to keep all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to perform them, so that his heart will not be haughty over his brothers, and so that he will not turn away from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, in order that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel. [19-20]

This book has a special role to play for the king. Although Moses was not called a king, in many ways he functioned as such. Joshua too did not have that title, but like Moses functioned as such. Devarim is Moses reflection on his vision of leadership for Israel and Joshua, his successor continues this tradition.

We understand from this that that whoever studies carefully the teachings herein which come from Moses and his spirit of holiness, each person will find milk and honey according to his position in life. So much so that Joshua, great teacher of Israel that he was, constantly studied it. Each one will understand according to his potential and will find the right path to follow according to his activities in the world. The light of this book will be a ‘lamp unto his feet.’

However, the primary teaching of the book is the strengthening of the statutes and judgments which is the Talmud of Israel., which effect the life of the nation and Judaism [Yahadut] in general. Concerning this [i.e., intensive Torah study] the second covenant was established at the plains of Moab and again at Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal, to establish [through study] the words of Torah.

This is a foundation stone for the elite: those who intensely study and those who support these endeavors.

This is the reason this book is called Mishneh Torah: to sharpen [le-shanen] the sword of Torah to strengthen and advance the battle of Torah forward. [May] This will bring us strength and light. Amen!

The final point adds another meaning to mishneh. It is also used in the sense of sharpen. This fits well with the rabbinic idea of the Torah as a ‘sword of Torah’, as the main weapon for Israel’s struggles to achieve its goals in the world.

So the first answer Moses would give to Professor Einstein would be that I did expect my teachings to continue for I insisted on the primacy of study. This includes personal study, teaching of children and public community study as reflected in the weekly Sabbath Torah reading and the institutions of learning, Yeshivot. If these commitments continue there is reason to hope that Moses’ teachings will last forever.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Av 6 5770

July 17, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Mattot- Massei 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

The End of Balaam and the Midianites

There is a crack in everything….

-Leonard Cohen

Moses is given one final task before his death: retribution against the Midianites.

The Lord spoke to Moses saying, “Take revenge for the children of Israel against the Midianites; afterwards you will be gathered to your people.” [31:1-2]

Although it turns out that Moses does a variety of other chores prior to his death this one earns the notice about being prior to his death. He then addresses the people:

So Moses spoke to the people, saying, “Arm from among you men for the army, that they can be against Midian, and carry out the revenge of the Lord against Midian. [3]

Notice how this has become the revenge of the Lord.

How did this transformation take place? Based on our previous discussion of the Balaam material we can say that anyone attempting to halt Israel’s march through history is by necessity one who opposes God’s purpose in history. Not a surprise, therefore, that this is the conclusion of a midrash brought by Rashi:

For anyone opposing Israel is reckoned as opposing the Holy One, blessed is He. [Mid. Tanhuma Mattot 3, Nu. Rabbah 22:2]

Soon a formidable army is mustered from each tribe and they go out to battle.

They mounted an attack against Midian, as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed every male. And they killed the Midianite kings upon their slain: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian, and Balaam the son of Beor they slew with the sword. [7-8]

What is happening? What did the Midianites do that warranted such a vicious response? Why was Balaam also killed? Last time we heard from him he was busy praising Israel. What did he do to earn his death by the sword in this war against Midian?

Let us see exactly what is the Midian issue.

Remember when Balak was alarmed at Israel’s march through the wilderness:

Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites. Moab was very afraid of the people, because they were many; and Moab was distressed because of the people of Israel. Moab said to the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all who are around us, as the ox licks up the grass of the field. Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time. He sent messengers therefore to Balaam, the son of Beor….[22:2-5]

Neziv thinks that Midian was a confederation which rotated leadership among its constituents. At this time, Balak, as king of Moab, seems to be at the head of the confederation. Or, they may have been Moab’s allies in some other way. In any event, Balak brings his concerns to the elders of Midian, maybe some type of federal administrative body. With their authorization the attempt to engage Balaam is made. They have now become responsible for what unfolds.

After Balaam finished with Balak we are told that:

Balaam arose, went, and returned home, and Balak went on his way.[24:25]

Seems innocent enough. But then we hear of a horrible turn of events in the Israelite camp:

Israel stayed in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people to the sacrifices of their gods; and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods. Israel became attached to Baal Peor ; and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. The Lord said to Moses, Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up before the Lord in the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. Moses said to the judges of Israel, Slay you every one his men who were attached to Baal-Peor.

Behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought to his brothers a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the people of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the Tent of Meeting. When Pinhas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; He went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague ceased from the people of Israel. Those who died in the plague were twenty four thousand.[25:1-9]

An outbreak of idolatry leads to the outbreak of a plague [Heb. Magefah] Often the Sages interpret magefah as being related to a sword. This would suggest that we might have here an outbreak of fighting in the Israelite camp, a civil war. This can also be supported by the violent actions of Pinhas. If this is so, then a civil war just before the entry into the land would be a major catastrophe, disrupting harmony and morale and jeopardizing the whole venture. How fortunate for Moab and its allies in the Midianite coalition.

Is this just a fortunate turn of events for them? Actually, we are told that the above woman just happened to be the daughter of a Midianite king:

The name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was chief over the people of a father’s house in Midian.[25:15]

Soon matters are clarified.

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Harass the Midianites, and strike them;

For they harass you with their plots which they contrived against you in the incident of Peor and in the incident of Cozbi their sister, the daughter of the Midianite chieftain, who was slain on the day of the plague [that had come] because of Peor. [25:16-18]

The Torah clearly considers these events not a matter of coincidence. There was a plot to divide and demoralize Israel devised by Midian in the aftermath of Balaam’s failure. Who was the architect of this plan? The hired consultant. None other than our old ‘friend’ Balaam.

Rashi citing the Talmud says at 25:1:

to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab: As a result of Balaam’s advice, as is stated in Heilek (Sanh. 106a).

And again Rashi on 25:18, shows the complicity of all the Midianites in the plan:

For they distress you: in the incident of Cozbi: By submitting their daughters for prostitution so as to entice you to stray after Peor.

Later on, at 31:8, again quoting a midrash:

the five kings of Midian: Do I not see that the verse lists five [kings]? Why was it necessary [for Scripture] to say five? But it is to teach you that they were all equally involved in the conspiracy, and they all received the same punishment. Balaam went there [to Midian] to receive his reward for the twenty-four thousand that had fallen from Israel as a result of his advice, and now he left Midian to meet the Israelites, and he offered them harmful advice. He said to them, ‘If, when you were six hundred thousand, you could not overcome them, and now with twelve thousand, you come to fight?’ They gave him his just deserts-in full, without depriving him in the least. [Sifrei Mattoth 40]

So Balaam did not slip gracefully away. He advised the alliance how to entrap Israel. Then he tried to discourage the military force from attacking the alliance. He turned out to be an implacable enemy who ultimately cause the sword to descend upon Israel resulting in the deaths of 24,000 people. His just deserts are to die by the sword as well.

Balaam’s advice is directly referred to in the text. His last remarks to Balak begin with the following:

And now, I am going to my people. Come, I will advise you what this people will do to your people at the end of days.[24:14]

Rashi brings a Talmudic text:

Come, I will advise you: what action you should take. What is that counsel? ‘The God of these [people] hates immorality [thus, entice them to sin with your women'] as it is related in [the chapter of] Heilek (Sanh. 106a). The proof that Balaam offered this counsel to cause them to stumble through immorality is that it says, ‘They were the ones who were involved with the children of Israel on Balaam’s advice” (31:16).

Let us see how this Talmudic text sees the unfolding of the story:

Now, behold I go unto my people; come, therefore, and I will advise you what this people shall do to thy people in the latter days. But he should have said, What thy people shall do to this people? R. Abba b. Kahana said: It is as one who, cursing himself, refers his malediction to others. He [Balaam] said thus to him [Balak]. ‘The God of these hates immorality, and they are very partial to linen. Come, and I will advise thee. Erect for them tents enclosed by hangings, in which place harlots, old women without, young women within, to sell them linen garments.’ So he erected curtained tents from the snowy mountain [Hermon] as far as Bet ha-Yeshimot [i. e., right from north to south], and placed harlots in them, old women without, young women within. And when an Israelite ate, drank, and was merry, and issued forth for a stroll in the market place, the old woman would say to him, ‘Do you not desire linen garments?’ The old woman offered it at its current value, but the young one for less. This happened two or three times. After that she would say to him, ‘You are now like one of the family; sit down and choose for yourself.’ Gourds of Ammonite wine lay near her, and at that time Ammonite and heathen wine had not yet been forbidden. Said she to him, ‘Would you like to drink a glass of wine?’ Having drunk, [his passion] was inflamed, and he exclaimed to her, Yield to me! Thereupon she brought forth an idol from her bosom and said to him, ‘Worship this!’ ‘But I am a Jew’, he protested. What does that concern you? she rejoined, nothing is required but that you should uncover yourself, while he did not know that such was its worship. ‘Nay’, [said she,] ‘I will not leave you before you have denied the Torah of Moses your teacher,’ as it is written, They went into Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame, and their abominations were according as they loved. [San. 106a]

Tradition understood that Balaam posed a double-sided danger to Israel. There was the danger of physical destruction through attacks and wars. At first, Balaam is trying to weaken Israel’s defenses so that they could be stopped on their march through history.

When that did not work he tried a more subtle but yet equally dangerous strategy. He somehow knew that maintaining a separate identity would not be an easy task for Israel. They would long for and be vulnerable to social approaches by outsiders that seemed to promise acceptance. Through intimate contacts with others they could be enticed away from their demanding commitments as God’s treasured people. Balaam not only knew the daily moment of chaos in the physical universe. He also knew the potential chaos in the hearts of Israel, the profound conflict that each Israelite faces in choosing to remain separate from the world and the temptation to join the world to seek a more normal existence.

Maybe Balaam also knew of the forced acceptance of the Torah at Mt. Sinai which created a crack in the acceptance of Torah as we saw earlier. [Parashat Ki Tissa] Balaam knew that there is a ‘crack in everything,’ and he knew how to find the cracks and exploit them.

Balaam was indeed a dangerous enemy. His advice caused an armed civil conflict just before the entry into the land was supposed to take place. The conflict and temptation have remained until today and like Amalek will not go away.

Neziv points out [31:2] that a place in which a person sinned becomes a dangerous place for him and others for when they visit there they can be vulnerable to sin once again. He refers to a Talmudic comment [Sot. 14A] which says:

R. Hama son of R. Hanina also said: Why was Moses buried near Bet-Peor? To atone for the incident at Peor.

The Tosafot commentary there brings a midrash:

Every year at the time when Israel sinned with the daughters of Moab, at that very time, Bet Peor rises up to accuse [Israel] and remind us of the sin. When it sees Moses’ grave it descends once again.

Moses is still looking out for us and inspiring us to continue our unique and blessed way in the world. His last act was counter the effects of Peor and he continues to do so until this day.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Tammuz 28 5770

July 10, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

Parashat Pinhas 5770

The Profound Word

Howard S. Joseph

http://TheProfoundWord.com

Leadership of the Flesh

In honor of our son, Rabbi Josh Joseph, upon his appointment as a vice-president of Yeshiva University.

“Take for yourself Joshua… a man of spirit….“

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

-Winston Churchill

The time has arrived. Moses’ glorious career of leadership will soon be over. He will pass away prior to the entry into the land.

The Lord said to Moses, “Go up to this mount Abarim and look at the land that I have given to the children of Israel. When you have seen it, you too will be gathered to your people, just as Aaron your brother was gathered. Because you disobeyed My command in the desert of Zin when the congregation quarreled, [when you were] to sanctify Me through the water before their eyes; these were the waters of dispute at Kadesh, in the desert of Zin. [27:12-14]

How does Moses respond? Although when he retells the story in Deuteronomy he suggests that he prayed to enter the land. Neziv suggests that he only meant to enter the land as a private citizen, not as the leader. Here, however, no mention is made of that request. Rather his first request is that a new and competent leader be selected.

Moses spoke to the Lord, saying: “Let the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who will go forth before them and come before them, who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” [15-17]

Rashi cites a Sifrei Midrash text which lauds Moses’ selflessness:

Moses spoke to the Lord: This [verse comes] to let us know the virtues of the righteous, for when they are about to depart from the world, they disregard their own needs and occupy themselves with the needs of the community. [Sifrei Pinchas 23]

Moses is then told by God:

The Lord said to Moses, “Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun, a man of spirit, and you shall lay your hand upon him. And you shall present him before Eleazar the kohen and before the entire congregation, and you shall command him in their presence. You shall bestow some of your majesty upon him so that all the congregation of the children of Israel will take heed.” [18-20]

As we shall see, all of this raises the thorny questions of leadership of a community, society or nation. It also raises the question of what is a community? Why is it so difficult to govern? While today we may see democracy as the best form so far it is certainly not perfect and it may not be the best and final form forever. Let us look at Moses’ view of what are the requirements of good leadership.

Moses addresses God in an unusual manner:

Let the Lord, the God of spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,…

This is the second appearance of this name in the book of Bemidbar. The first mention was at 16:22:

They fell on their faces and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?”

Rashi there explains following the midrash:

O God, the God of the spirits: [God Who] knows the thoughts [of every man]. Your attributes are not like those of earthly beings. A mortal king against whom part of his country transgresses does not know who the sinner is, and, therefore, when he is angry, he metes out punishment upon them all. But as for You, all thoughts are revealed before You, and You know who the sinner is.? [Midrash Tanhuma Korach 7, Num. Rabbah 11]

In other words, the God of the spirits of all flesh is understood as the God who knows the true inner workings of each person.

Here as well, Rashi quotes a similar midrash focusing on God’s knowledge of the individual mind of each of us.

God of the spirits: Why is this said? He said to Him, “Master of the universe, the character of each person is revealed to you, and no two are alike. Appoint over them a leader who will tolerate each person according to his individual character.” [Mid. Tanhuma Pinhas 10]

This is indeed a wonderful statement of the challenges of leadership. Human diversity demands a tolerance and responsiveness to individuality on the part of a good leader. However, Neziv seems to sense that something important is missing from these comments. They ignore the choice of the term the spirits of all flesh. Why is this term of choice in this context? What is it about the fleshiness of humans that would lead to this usage?

At 16:22, Neziv begins to develop what he thinks this might mean. He cites his own comments on earlier and later instances of the use of flesh.

In Gen. 6:3 the Torah tells us God’s reaction to human failings:

The Lord said, “Let My spirit not quarrel forever concerning man, because he is also flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.”

Neziv comments there:

The spirit which I placed in humans which is human intelligence and reason…. The spirit and reason become flesh which is a synonym for desire…. The meaning is that the spirit deteriorates a bit until it becomes as flesh. All this is a fact of nature but also made it known through [Biblical] prophecy.

So early in the Torah we find a warning that human reason is not to be overestimated. It sinks to the level of fleshly desire and does not always maintain its lofty potential.

Neziv continues this line of thought in our Bemidbar texts. At 16:22 he says:

All flesh: this means that the human spirit is soft and easily seduced, just as flesh is soft…. Furthermore, we can explain that the spirit is like flesh in that it pursues its own pleasure, just as the body pursues pleasure….

Now we return to our passage on the issue of leadership. Here he continues this line of thought:

We explained earlier that flesh refers to physical pleasure. In every person the spirit which is the power of reason follows their pleasure. Therefore, it is difficult to truly lead Israel and requires a person who is strong minded and not interested in his own pleasure.

Neziv seems to understand Moses’ request for an ish, a man, as a strong personality, who can put aside his own self-interest for the good of the community.

When God recommends Joshua as that person, he is called a man [ish] of spirit; the term flesh is absent. Neziv explains:

His spirit, that is his mind,is very independent, and is not drawn after a willfulness for his own benefit or for that of others.

The leader requires a strong independent spirit that is selfless as well as resistant to the demands of special interests and focuses on the needs of each person in the community. This is an immensely difficult task for even the quality of reason of individuals is not always independent and objective for each person is easily swayed by their desires. Reason can end up being a rationalization of our own particular needs and not an objective exercise searching for the welfare of the community. It is important to have a leader who understands this fleshiness of people, who knows how easily they can be swayed by their own not necessarily so noble desires as well as by someone such as Korah and his collaborators.

There is also in God’s instruction a sober alert as to the stresses of leadership.

…you shall present him before Eleazar the kohen and before the entire congregation….

The Hebrew term translated here as ‘present’ literally means to lift or stand him up. Neziv says:

This lifting up is for the purposes of establishing his leadership over them. Nevertheless, this is really servitude for he must serve them in that he leads them. That is why it says to lift him before Elazar the Kohen as well as later [v.21], He shall stand before Eleazar the kohen and seek [counsel from] him] which shows his secondary position [to the High Priest]. For truly, leadership is also subordination.

Yes. A leader is a public servant. His service involves servitude, the subordination of his own needs to that of the community. Yet, even so, even the most respected leader is somewhat secondary to the citizens who would like to go about their own affairs with as little interference as possible from their leaders. He also must consult with the other leadership institutions in the society as we see in v. 21. Neziv comments there:

He shall stand before Eleazar the kohen: here standing clearly means secondary and below him at the time when he asks of direction from God.

There is clearly some separation of powers here. The political leader, even the later kings, cannot be a totalitarian autocrat. He must write and keep a Torah scroll with him at all times. He must consult with the High Priest on major questions. After all, God is the true leader and discerning God’s will is necessary for proper governance.

This is why Joshua seems to be the right choice. Various midrashim speculate that Moses may have been hoping for one of his children to follow him. However, it was Joshua, Moses’ steady and loyal disciple during the entire desert experience, who was most prepared. He was with Moses in the Meeting Tent to hear the commands of God, to study them and help transmit them to the people. We also know of his military prowess. That is why we find our old friend lekhah, for yourself, in God’s instruction concerning Joshua:

Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun….

Neziv explains:

For your satisfaction, as Joshua was his most distinguished and long-standing disciple.

A truly satisfying moment for Moses, at last.

Shabbat Shalom

Hayyim Shemuel Yosef

Tammuz 21 5770

July 3, 2010

A weekly parashah essay based on the writings of Rabbi Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Neziv, in Ha’amek Davar [HD] and Harhev Davar [HRD]. Please feel free to distribute this material for educational purposes. All rights reserved.

-