IF A BIRD'S NEST CHANCES BEFORE

YOU ON THE ROAD, ON ANY TREE, OR ON THE GROUND, AND [IT CONTAINS] FLEDGLINGS OR

EGGS, IF THE MOTHER IS SITTING UPON THE FLEDGLINGS OR UPON THE EGGS, YOU SHALL

NOT TAKE THE MOTHER UPON THE YOUNG.YOU SHALL SEND AWAY THE

MOTHER, AND [THEN] YOU MAY TAKE THE YOUNG FOR YOURSELF, IN ORDER THAT IT SHOULD

BE GOOD FOR YOU, AND YOU SHOULD LENGTHEN YOUR DAYS.

(Devarim

22:6-7)

If a bird's nest chances

before you on the road

– This also is an explanatory commandment, of the prohibition you shall not

kill it [the dam] and its young both in one day (Vayikra 22:28), because the reason for both [commandments]

is that we should not have a cruel heart and be discompassionate, or it may be

that Scripture does not permit us to destroy a species altogether, although it

permits slaughter [for food] within that group. Now, he who kills the dam and

the young in one day or takes them when they are free to fly [it is regarded]

as though he cut off that species.

Now, he [RaMBaN] wrote in the Guide

of the Perplexed (3:48) that the reason

for the commandment to release the mother bird when taking its nest and the

prohibition against killing the dam with its young in one day is in order to

admonish us against killing the young within the mother's sight, for animals

feel great distress under such circumstances. There is no difference between

the distress of man and the distress of animals for their young, since the love

of the mother and her tenderness to the children of her womb are not the result

of reasoning or [the faculty of intelligent] speech, but are produced by the

faculty of mental images which exists among animals even as it is present in

man. But if so the main prohibition in killing the dam and its young applies

only when killing [first] the young and [then] the dam [but not vice versa,

whereas the Torah forbids it to be done either way]! But it is all an

extraordinary precaution, and it is more correct [to explain them as

prohibitions] to prevent us from acting cruelly.

And the Rabbi [RaMBaN] said

further: "do not contradict me by quoting the saying of the Sages (Berakhot 33b), 'He who says in his prayer: Even to a

bird's nest do Your mercies extend [etc., they silence him,' which would seem

to imply that there is no reason other than the Will of God for the commandment

to release a dam when taking its nest], for that is one of two opinions,

namely, the opinion of the Sage who holds that the commandments [of the Torah]

have no other reason but the Will of the Creator. We follow the second opinion

that there is a reason for the commandments." And the Rabbi [RaMBaM]

raised a difficulty from a text in Bereishit Rabbah (44:1) [which contradicts his theory that there is

a reason for every commandment]. The text reads: "And what difference does

it make to the Holy One, blessed be He, whether an animal is slaughtered from

the front of the neck or the back? Surely you must say the commandments have

been given only for the purpose of refining [disciplining] men through them, as

it is said, Every word of God is refined (Proverbs 30:5)… But those Aggadic statements presenting difficulty to the Rabbi,

are in my opinion, intended to express another thought as follows: The benefit

from the commandments is not derived by the Holy One Himself, exalted be He. Rather,

the advantage is to man himself, to withhold from him physical harm or some

evil belief, or unseemly trait of character or to recall the miracles and

wonders of the Creator, blessed be he, in order to know the Eternal. It is this

"for the purpose of refining men," that they may become like

"refined silver," for he who refines silver does not act without

purpose, but to remove therefrom any impurity. So, also, the commandments

eliminate from our hearts all evil belief, and [are given] in order to inform

us of the truth and to recall it always.

(RaMBaN

Devarim 22:6, based on Chavel translation)

How he happened upon you on the way

Debbie Weissman

From

among the wealth of fascinating topics found in our parasha, I decided to focus

on a single word from the maftir, which also serves as the maftir

for Shabbat Zakhor. More precisely, I will concentrate on one exegetical

approach to that word. The word in question is korkha ["happened

upon you"]. Here is the complete passage:

You

remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heavens. You shall not forget! (Devarim 25:17-19)

Rashi

first explains the word as an "expression of happenstance" [lashon

mikreh], and this is surely the plain meaning of the text. In English we

would say, "Amalek met you, he happened upon you." But then

Rashi adds a section interpretation:

 [It is] an expression denoting heat and cold [kor].

He cooled you off and made you [appear] tepid, after you were boiling hot, for

the nations were afraid to fight with you, [just as people are afraid to touch

something boiling hot]. But this one, [i.e., Amalek] came forward and started

and showed the way to others. This can be compared to a bathtub of boiling

water into which no living creature could descend. Along came an irresponsible

man and jumped headlong into it! Although he scalded himself, he [succeeded to]

make others think that it was cooler [than it really was]. (Judaica Press translation)

By

jumping into the water, he showed that they were cool.

That

is to say that Amalek paved the way for all the anti-Semites and enemies of

Israel who followed. According to the accepted traditional exegesis, when

Amalek attacked the Israelites in the wilderness it was not because of some

legitimate disagreement regarding territory or some other significant factor,

but rather out of sheer cruelty. Thus Amalek became the symbol of wickedness.

I

would now like to share with you an additional idea, one that I found in Etz

Hayim, a Torah commentary that was produced recently by the Conservative

Movement in North America:

The

Israelites, leaving Egypt on the way to Sinai, had been confident and

enthusiastic. The real sin of Amalek was that he robbed them of their idealism,

teaching them that the world is an unreliable and dangerous place.

The

Holy One blessed be He did us a favor by having Sennacherib come and mix up the

ancient nations so that we are today unable to identify Amalekites. According

to another approach, today Amalek is not an ethnic category at all, but rather

an ideological-normative category. I want to make it clear that I do not

identify Amalek or Amalekism with any particular religious or national group. I

understand the commandment to erase the memory of Amalek in terms of the struggle

against Nazism and similar ideologies, rather than as a command to perpetrate

ethnic cleansing or some other form of genocide, God forbid. Beyond that, as

Jews we must search out the "Amalekism" that lurks within us (as

Rabbi S.R. Hirsch and many other commentators have stated).

Nonetheless,

in connection with the present philosophical context: During the dark years of

the (second) Intifada, there was an impression that the suicide bombers were

robbing Israel's children not only of their physical security; they were also

robbing them of their feelings of emotional security, their joie de vivre,

their faith in the world. I think that the same thing is happening today to the

children of Sderot and the other communities near Gaza; it is also happening to

their fellow children across the border inside the Gaza Strip. I fear that it

will take a long time to restore the joy of youth and the feeling of security

that has been taken away from young people on both sides of the border.

In

the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Welsh poet George Herbert said,

"The best revenge is to live well." Our answer to the various

Amalekites must be to continue living as Jews with moral values and a social

conscience.

On

the Purim holiday, which commemorates the struggle against Amalek-Haman, it is

customary to get so drunk "that one cannot tell the difference between

'Cursed be Haman' and 'Blessed be Mordechai.'" One method for dealing with

a cold strange world – a method popular among many peoples – is to get drunk.

I

would like to add to the method of drinking the other commandments of that

holiday: the Purim Feast, gifts to the poor, and mishloah manot [sending

gifts of food to neighbors] – commandments which build a supportive community. That

is also a way of dealing with a cruel world, with a difficult reality, and with

life's various tribulations. May we restore our faith and trust, succeed in

softening our hard existence, and restore enthusiasm and confidence in life to

ourselves and to our children.

Dr. Debbie

Weissman was recently elected President of the International Council of

Christians and Jews

The War Against

Amalek—Joint Battle of The Holy One, Blessed Be He, and Man Against Evil

R. Yehoshua ben Levi [said] in the name of R. Alexandri: One

verse says, Blot out the memory of Amalek and another says, for I

shall blot out – how can both be fulfilled?

(Tanhuma, Ki

Tetseh 11)

It must be emphasized that in its wider meaning, the

"war against Amalek" is the war against injustice

and evil in the world, tied from Creation to the human nature of all

men. In this respect, Israel is no different from all other nations of the

world and peoples of all lands.

"Amalek" is not only a term for that person or

nation that attacked Israel as they exited Egypt; the "Amalek" that

Israel is commanded to obliterate is the symbol of evil and injustice, that

Amalekism which the Torah, in our parasha, precedes with, It is abomination

before God, all who do these, all who practice injustice.

From this we derive that this is a milhemet mitzvah – an

obligatory war – incumbent not on Israel alone; it is even a war of

God against Amalek, and as such it is in its very essence an eternal war,

and therefore it is expressed as a war from generation to generation. This

also explains the appearance of I will obliterate and You will

obliterate; it is an eternal war waged by God and his people as one.

(Y. Leibowitz ,

Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat haShavu'a, pg. 877)

Evil Is Not

Biological and Is Not Hereditary

It was taught [in a berayta]: Naaman was a resident

alien [ger toshav]; Nebuzaradan was a righteous proselyte [ger tsedek];

the descendents of Haman taught Torah in

B'nei Barak; descendents of Sisra taught children in Jerusalem;

descendents of Sennacherib taught Torah in public. And who were these

(Gittin 57b)

When you encounter your enemy's ox or ass wandering, you must

take it back to him.

When you see the ass of your enemy lying under its burden and

would refrain from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him.

(Shemot 23:4-5)

If you see your fellow's ox or sheep gone astray, do not

ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow.

(Devarim 22)

Your fellow's ox but in Mishpatim it is written of your

enemy. In the chapter Arvei Pesahim (Pesahim, 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 discover 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)

Readers Respond

(To Pinchas

Leiser's article in the Ekev edition)

I would like to respond to the

opening and concluding passages is this learned article. The author calls Lord

Balfour's utterance, "A land without a people for a people without a land,"

a false slogan. The author chooses to adopt the "truth" of the new

radical left, which is annoyed by the existence of the State of Israel, at

least in its present form. At best this is not held to be the only

"truth."

Obviously there will different

accounts of the demographic situation predating the organized immigration of

Jews to the Land of Israel. After all, the Palestinians have their own claims

to forward. One hundred and fifty years ago Mark Twain described what he saw in

his visit to the Land of Israel in very dark hues. Here he found absolute

desolation; he traveled a long way without meeting a single soul, and,

according to his description, even the country's flora exhibited that

desolation. Here is a thesis no less credible than that which calls Lord

Balfour's statement a lie: that one hundred and thirty years ago on the eve of

the first Aliyah, the Land of Israel had a population of about 300,000, half of

which was Jewish and the other half what is today called Palestinian. Just as

the Jewish population expanded through immigration, so did the Palestinian

population.

I am sorrowed by the fact that

the author found it necessary to quote the Satmer Rebbe at length. That rabbi

is known for his opposition to and strong hatred of Zionism. There hardly is or

was another such extremist rabbinical personality. Oz Ve'Shalom is an

ideological circle for religious Zionism – what does it have to do with such an

extreme approach?

Lastly – My strength and the

might of my hand. Obviously we must not puff ourselves up with pride

with such thoughts. However, in order that the prophecy of Zachariah mentioned

in the article's conclusion be realized, it would be best that no one in our

neighborhood doubt our strength and the might of our hand…

Aryeh Reichart, Ramat Gan

Pinchas Leiser, author of

the article and editor of Shabbat Shalom, replies:

I thank Mr. Aryeh Reichart for

his response; it offers me an opportunity to clarify things that might not have

been stated in a sufficiently clear fashion.

I do not think that one

historical or literary testimony or another regarding the number of non-Jewish

residents in the Land of Israel makes any difference whatsoever in connection

with the danger of an ethnocentrism which ignores the existence of another

people in this region. This has nothing to do with "the new radical

left." Those for whom the existence of a Jewish and democratic state is

important should be especially alert to the realities that surround us. These

include, among other things, the existence of another people in this region.

I hope that no one suspects us

of being overly favorable towards the Satmer Rebbe's anti-Zionism, but does

that excuse us from having to contend with some of his theological arguments?

I think that intellectual

honesty and moral integrity demand that we listen to our ideological opponents;

we should relate to the task of contending with their ideas a challenge.

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.

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 that 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.

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.