WHEN A MAN HAS TAKEN A BRIDE, HE

SHALL NOT GO OUT WITH THE ARMY OR BE ASSIGNED TO IT FOR ANY PURPOSE; HE SHALL BE EXEMPT ONE YEAR FOR THE SAKE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD,

TO GIVE HAPPINESS TO THE WOMAN HE HAS MARRIED.

(Devarim 24:5)

He shall be exempt one

year for the sake of his household – The [parallel] passage in parashat

Shoftim refers to someone who is engaged to a woman

but has not yet married her; if he goes to war he is sent back home. Since he

has gone off to war with his brothers and then returns, it would not be proper

for him to stay at home completely exempt [from the war effort]; he should

repair the roads for those going out to battle and supply them with water and

food. However, here [the Torah] refers to someone who was engaged to a woman

and married her; he should not go off to war, nor repair roads for them, nor

supply them with water and food. That is why additional verses were required to

include [one who has built a new] house or [planted a new] vineyard, in order

to show that they have the same rule as [one who has married] a bride.

(Hizkuni Devarim

24:5)

Clearly

at the root of these laws lies the point of view that a state, the concept of a

state as a whole, only has reality in the actual numbers of all its individual

members, but apart from them, or next to them, one cannot consider the

existence of a state as a concept in itself. So that the national welfare can

only be sought in the well-being and happiness of all the single individuals,

hence every flourishing and happy home is a contribution to the realization of

the goal set for the entire nation, hence has to be met by the nation with

careful, encouraging, and promoting consideration.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Devarim

24:5, Levy translation)

"This

is the way of our Torah"

Nahem

Ilan

This week brings the tenth anniversary of the passing of

before her death. The following article is written in her memory.

The Torah commentary written by the Spanish exegete, Rabbeinu Bahya ben Asher is primarily a work of compilation. Bahya was one of the leading students of the RaShBA, R. Shelomo ben Aderet, the leading Spanish

sage of the end of the 13^th century; he also arranged for the ROsh (Rabeinui Asher) to become

the rabbi of Toledo in 1306.

While discussing the laws of the Sabbatical Year in parashat

Re'eh, R. Bahya mentions

the period in which he wrote his commentary – the year 5091 (1291 CE). The

commentary is based primarily upon that of the RaMBaN,

who lived in Spain about

fifty years earlier and who left his indelible stamp upon biblical exegesis to

this day. Bahya also made use of Ibn

Ezra and Rashi's commentaries and Talmudic and midrashic literature. In the introduction to his

commentary, Bahya explicitly mentions its compilational character, while also stating that "it

is impossible for a house of study to be bereft of new interpretations" (Hagiga 3a). An example of such exegetical innovation

can be found in a short passage from Bahaya's

comments on the commandment You must not

sell her for money (Devarim 21:14), which refers to the eshet yefat to'ar [the beautiful captive woman] who is discussed in

the beginning of the parasha.

Bahya begins by explaining the meaning

of the word titamer [sell for money]; here he

follows RaMBaN's comments on the passage. Next Bahya discusses the literary connection of the eshet yefat to'ar passage with the material following it, citing

the midrash on the

relationship between the eshet yefat to'ar and the section

on the ben sorer umoreh

adds a twist of his own on which I shall focus:

We learn from the juxtaposition of these passages that

transgressions bring additional transgressions in their wake. The marriage [to

the eshet yefat to'ar] was unworthy, and even though she converted, it

was not a perfect conversion. She only converted out of fear of the sword, and

even regarding one who wants to convert of his own volition the Sages said that

he must be investigated to see whether he wishes to convert for money, or in

order to win a position of power, or out of fear, or from lust; if he is a man

he might have cast his eyes upon a Jewish woman, and if she is a woman she

might have set her eyes upon an Israelite boy. Such is the way of our Torah! It

believers amongst them, one overcoming with the power of the sword anyone

who refuses it, forcing them to believe, the other trying to win people over

with the power of discourse, smooth talk and seduction, falsely attributing

words to God, as Daniel prophesized…[my emphasis – N.I.]. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Biur al ha'Torah C.D.

Chavell edition, vol 3, Jerusalem 5642, pg. 389)

The first part of the above passage is based upon RaMBaM's Mishneh Torah. Later, Bahya discusses the laws of conversion without proposing

any genuinely new ideas. However, Bahya does add

three crucial points to the RaMBaM's presentation:

A) Even though about a century and a half had passed since

the Almohads forced the Jews of Spain to convert to

Islam or flee the country, the trauma of that episode had not receded. For Bahya, Islam is Islam of the sword.

B) According to Bahya,

Christianity is characterized by a culture of disputations, which reached its

zenith in the second half of the 13^th century and the beginning of

the 14^th century. Bahya must have been

aware of the price that the RaMBaN had to pay for

winning the disputation of 1263 – he was forced to flee to the eastern extreme

of the Mediterranean – to the Land of Israel. Bahya claims that the Christian style of debate was "smooth

talk and seduction, falsely attributing words to God." There are two

components to this claim: the Christians both cajole their interlocutors and

misrepresent the Jewish faith, all in the hope of converting Jews.

C) Bahya's decision to build his

arguments upon Daniel's prophecy is neither accidental nor incidental. Since

Daniel's prophecy gives ambiguous dates of future events, it offers convenient

proof texts for the various positions, both Jewish and Christian. Bahya is not the first to base his arguments on Daniel – it

is sufficient to mention that R. Saadia Gaon and RaMBaM are among those

who preceded him. True, those two leaders did not engage in controversies with

the Christians – at least not directly – but their words served as effective

authorization and "ammunition" for some of the Jewish disputants in

13^th century Spain.

And so?

Bahya's statement, "The way of our Torah! It is

not like other faiths that court the nations and try to expand the number of

believers amongst them" illuminates three essential characteristics of any

interpretive move:

A) Any interpretive effort tries to overcome the tension

between the "here and now" and the "there and then" – especially

when dealing with a text that is thought and held to be canonical. The chasm

broadens with the passing years, increasing the need for more sophisticated and

strenuous efforts of bridging the gap.

B) Often, the interpretive effort springs not from the text

but rather from life itself. In other words: while in terms of the literary

process, the interpretation derives from the text, life supplies the deeper

motivation. Often, the text serves only as an opportunity – or even an excuse –

to express ideas; that is why it is enough to offer some textual hint at some

idea, even though the text is not the idea's true source. An idea has its own

independent existence. The exegete or darshan

finds it necessary to anchor his novel thoughts in Scripture merely because he

is presenting them before a conservative audience. Often the exegete/darshan will take pains to camouflage and blur the

novelty of his ideas, claiming that everything can be found in earlier texts.

C) Therefore, the mere fact that some issue is mentioned in

an exegetical text does not tell us anything about the exegetical difficulty

involved. The naïve reader should not be led astray by some idea's

location or particular context, trying to find at any cost a real connection

between the commentator's words and their textual underpinnings. Sometimes the

connection is secondary and the important part is found in appended ideas that

can stand on their own. I think that this is

especially true in the case of a work that was intended from the start as a

compilation of earlier materials, making no claim to its own novelty. A careful

investigation of the way earlier works are quoted, and especially the

identification and explication of the author-compiler's own amendments and

original thoughts can allude to and sometimes even uncover the weak-points and "soft

underbelly" of the exegete and his contemporaries.

The short passage that I brought from Bahya

tells us what his culturally formative experiences were. They show us just how

threatened he felt by aggressive Islam, even as he lived in a Christian

environment 150 years after the wave of militancy had passed from the world,

and how much his understanding of the Christianity of his time and place was

influenced by the culture of disputations.

This and other passages go further than the author's

explicit statements in allowing us to uncover and restore part of the cultural

context in which the commentary was written. The passage makes a contribution

that goes beyond its immediate literary context – it makes an essential

contribution towards our understanding of the commentary and its background.

Prof. Nahem Ilan teaches in the MA in Jewish

Studies Program at the Lander Institute in Jerusalem (founded by Touro College)

When

you encounter your enemy's ox or ass wandering, you must take it back to him.

When

raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him.

(Shemot

23:4-5)

If

it back to your fellow.

(Devarim 22)

Your fellow's ox but in Mishpatim

it is written of your enemy. In the chapter Arvei

Pesachim (Pesachim, Chap.

10) it says: Is it permissible to hate? It is written, You shall not hate your fellow in your heart?! The

question is resolved by explaining the passage thus: He saw his fellow

performing a sin, and this occurred prior to the sin of the golden calf, when

all belonged to the kingdom of a holy nation; then it was permissible to hate

if one witnessed a transgression. But after the sojourning in which they

stumbled and sinned, should one see his fellow sinning, if he searches his own

behavior he will find a number of obstacles and problems. Therefore it is

forbidden to hate such a man. It is permitted only to one who

himself avoids evil, and is a perfectly righteous man in his ways. But it is

very difficult to find such a person, and in regard to this it is written,

"I have seen men of high caliber, but they are few." Therefore it is

written your fellow.

(Rabbi Meir Simkha

of Dvinsk, Meshekh

Hokhma, Devarim 22a)

…A person who observes the commandments may not consider

his fellow an enemy or hater; one who does not accept the yoke of Torah and commandments

will probably not feel obligated to return a lost object, and consequently will

not return it – thus it would seem that these passages serve no purpose.

Therefore the Rav explains the

terms your enemy and your hater figuratively, as directed towards

the sinner – that transgressor who is objectively hated, and is rightfully

considered to be "the enemy" and "the hater" of the one who

keeps the Torah and the commandments. Only one who

avoids evil and is a perfect tzaddik [righteous

man] in his ways, may have some justification for hating the wicked person.

Right before receiving the Torah, Israel declared

We will do and we will listen, they were

a kingdom of His holy people, and every member of Israel was

presumed to observe the commandments and worship the Lord. Within the framework

of this people, a sinner was defined as one who dismantles the walls of the

world, and it was permissible to relate to him as an "enemy" or a

"hater," because he was an aberrant phenomenon.

On the other hand, parashat Ki Tetze was given about forty

years after the sin of the calf, to the second generation of those who left Egypt, who

were all classed as sinners and rebels against God and his Torah, they were

termed expressly a breed of sinful men. Actually, we – the children of all

subsequent generations – are in this category. In this state of things, if one

discerns in his fellow a sin of any sort, it is proper that he should first

examine his own doings; without doubt he will find blemishes and perversions. Since

we, today, are all immersed in sin, and "men of high caliber" are

few, no one in Israel has the

right to relate to another as an "enemy" or "hater" even if

he is a sinner. One should view him as "his brother", for he is no

better than the other, and whoever finds disqualification and blemish in his

fellow, disqualifies him with his own blemish.

In these circumstances no one has the right to disqualify

others, and we do not have the right or justification to consider them

"enemies" or "haters"; all of us, because of our many

transgression "we people are brothers" and we are obligated to

assist anyone in distress without close examination of his tzitzit.

(Y. Leibowitz:

Sheva Shani, shel Sihot al Parashat

ha'Shavu'a, p. 864)

Eradication

of Amalek – Then and Now

Eradicate

the memory of Amalek – said Israel before

The Holy One, Blessed Be He: "Master of the Worlds, You say to erase the

memory of Amalek!? We are but flesh and blood, we are

temporary – You, who live and exist for eternity, remember!"

The

Holy One, blessed be He, replied: "My sons, all you have to do is to

recite the parasha of Amalek

yearly, and I will consider it as though you have erased his name from this

world."

(Pesikta Rabbati 12)

And so with the mitzvah of eradication of the memory of Amalek, as it is written, Erase

the memory of Amalek. It is a positive commandment

to always remember his evil deeds and his ambush, in order to arouse his

enmity, as is written, Recall that which Amalek

did to you – tradition explains – Recall verbally; Do

not forget in

your heart; it is forbidden to forget his enmity and his hatred.

(Maimonides,

Laws of Kings 5:5)

Do not forget: Do not forget this, should a day come and you will wish to resemble Amalek, and – like him – you will not recognize your duty

and will not know the Lord, but you will seek opportunities, in matters small

or great, to exploit your superiority in order to harm people. Do not forget

this, should a day come, and you should desire to relinquish your duty and your

mission as Israel, which you accepted upon yourself

to fulfill in mankind. Do not covet the laurel wreaths which a foolish world

makes for those happy people who destroyed the happiness of others. Remember

the tear-soaked earth from which sprouted the laurel for those wreaths. Don't

forget this when the day comes and you yourself will suffer from arrogance and

the violence of Amalek. Guard your erect stature!

Guard humanity and the values of justice which you learned from your God. The

future is yours, and eventually humanity and justice will vanquish arrogance

and violence, and you, yourself, have been sent to announce and to bring closer

– through your destiny and your example – this victory and this future.

Do

not forget – and

in order that you do not forget, Remember – From time to time renew in

your heart the memory of Amalek and what you have

been told about his future.

 (Rabbi

S.R. Hirsch, Devarim 25:19 – written approximately

in 1860!!)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be

made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear

in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B.

4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for

local donations.

US and

British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may

be made through:

New Israel

Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC

20090-1588, USA

New Israel

Fund of Great Britain,

26 Enford Street, London

W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL

FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations

and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel

Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite

607, New York, New

York 10017 USA

All contributions should be

marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat

Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel.

It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land

of Israel and it no less views

peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's programs include both educational and

protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend

programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint

seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on

issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to

issues of particular religious relevance.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace

oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz

VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel

and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's educational forums draw people of different

backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish

knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of

peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an

ideological vacuum in Israel's

society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the

furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to

engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli

Arabs and with Palestinians.