FOR HE SHALL REMAIN IN HIS CITY

OF REFUGE UNTIL THE HIGH PRIEST DIES, AND ONLY AFTER THE HIGH PRIEST HAS DIED,

MAY THE MURDERER RETURN TO THE LAND WHICH IS HIS POSSESSION.

(Bamidbar 35:28)

until the High Priest… dies For he causes the Divine Presence to rest upon Israel

and thus prolongs their lives, whereas the murderer causes the Divine Presence

to withdraw from Israel and thus shortens their lives. He is not worthy of

standing before the High Priest. Another interpretation: Because the High Priest

should have prayed that such a misfortune not befall

Israel during his lifetime.

(Rashi 35:25)

The accidental manslayer was exiled in order

to calm the blood-avenger. Exile kept the avenger from seeing the one who caused

the accident, which would have enraged him because of his kinsman's death. In

his anger he would have failed to distinguish between accidental and

intentional [killing] and would be drawn to spill innocent blood. Scripture

made his return dependent upon the death of the High Priest, who was the most

honored of Israelites and beloved by all of Israel. There is a psychological

reason why that [death of the High Priest] would calm the blood-avenger: the

new incident causes the old to be forgotten and great trouble silences lesser

troubles. Sorrow overcomes the heart and soothes rage. One finds solace for one's

own individual problems in the problems of the community. Now comes a new situation – the death of the High Priest. The

entire nation is sorry and troubled, and this will soothe the avenger's anger. He

will forget what befell him or take notice of the difference between the

accidental and the premeditated.

(R.

Yitzhak Shemuel Reggio 35:25)

This is the statute of the Torah

Moshe Lanzman

Eleazar

water, and whatever is not used in fire you shall pass through water.

This

is the second time that the Torah uses the expression hukkat

hatorah ["statute of the Torah"]. The

first time was in connection with the red heifer. There Rashi comments:

Because

Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel, saying, "What is this

commandment, and what purpose does it have?" Therefore, the Torah uses the

term "statute." I have decreed it; You have

no right to challenge it. (Rashi on Bamidbar

19:2, Judaica Pres

translation)

The

words hukkat hatorah

make a clear and direct demand for belief. At times, the Patriarchs had been

called on to demonstrate their faith, as in Abraham's trial of the Akeda, but this is the first instance in which the

nation, including future generations, faced such a demand. The call to faith

offers an opportunity to think about faith and its place in our lives as

thinking creatures endowed with critical faculties.

It

seems to me that the essence of faith in Judaism involves a deep feeling of

contradiction. On the one hand, there is rational, critical thought, which

grants us the basic feeling of reality's existence. On the other hand, there is

the categorical imperative of our direct experience of an entity that surpasses

our understanding.

This

dialectical relationship is vital to human development. Small children

investigate both themselves and the world, since their acquaintance with the

world includes unfathomable experiences that invite investigation. If children

learn to depend both upon critical thinking as well as upon direct experience,

they become hungry for development; they are open to the world and unafraid of

that which is beyond them. If, however, they learn to fear this dialectic, they

recoil from the new and lean upon the familiar in order to overcome their fear

of the unknown.

HaRav Dessler called this developmental situation "the point

of decision." In the course of one's life, one encounters many situations

in which the known and the unknown are mixed up together. Sometimes one must

choose one's way in such situations. When the situation is familiar and one has

already been through it in the past and is satisfied with past decisions made

in such situations, choosing is quicker and easier. However, when the situation

is new and includes unfamiliar and distressing elements that give one no rest,

then one has reached a "point of decision." If such a person is

overcome by anxiety, he deludes himself into thinking that the situation is

familiar and chooses the familiar and the accepted route. However, if the

person is deeply aware of the point of decision and remains connected to the

fundamental freedom of choice, he will take a risk and prepare himself for the

consequences. That is the kind of faith that can propel one forward into a

fuller humanity.

Agnon's

story "The Abduction," which appears as a chapter in Chapters from

the Book of the State, illustrates choice born of fear as opposed to

choice born of freedom. Agnon tells of a state that is at the mercy of

orators. It is never delivered from its woes because every time an important

problem comes up the orators gather together and make speeches until the

problem passes and is replaced by an even worse problem. It should be mentioned

that Agnon wrote this story about twenty years before the creation of the State

of Israel, so that it contains a spark of prophecy.

The

leading orator, Mr. Shrienholtz, is kidnapped by a desperate gang of youths on his way to

delivering an important speech. When he complains about the injustice committed

against him, the boys answer him: "God forbid that we should wish evil to

anyone, but many troubles have come upon the state and we have no doubt that

most of them arise because we spend the better part of our days in lectures and

we never get around to action. If we are incapable of turning the public's

attention away from the speechifiers than we must

remove the speechifiers from the public in order that

each person's minds be free to think on its own about

how he spends his days and years."

Shrienholtz is

amazed when he realizes that they intend to hold him until after the occasion

of the scheduled speech. Two of his guards suggest a number of possibilities

that could help him pass the time until after the speech's scheduled hour. They

ask him, "Which do you choose, sir?" He answers: "I choose that

lightning come forth from heaven and destroy the both of you!" In his

anxiety, Shrienholtz retreats to the developmental

world in which he always thought that he could control even the forces of

nature with his oratorical powers. By the way, the story ends on an optimistic

note that shows Shrienholtz is not completely

imprisoned by his fearful reactions. I recommend that people should study this

short and wonderful story.

So –

the necessity of dealing with a point of choice can bring one to employ either

their fear or their freedom. The manner in which one makes this

choice influences the manner in which he contends with the tension arising from

the contradiction between rational-critical thought and the direct experience

of the unknown. Often, the fearful reaction causes a person to make one of two

choices: to choose rationally, and thus lose the direct climactic experience

represented by artistic creativity, or to choose direct experience at the

expense of forfeiting rationalism, thus losing the opportunity to deeply

internalize the experience into one's essence through the struggle to achieve

complete understanding of the experience to the greatest extent possible. Choice

from freedom allows a person to continue – exactly like a child gradually

making his first acquaintance with the world – to courageously confront his

choice and sometimes to even achieve a solution that integrates the two

components into a new and exciting creation.

Therefore,

it is a mistake to claim that there is no choice in faith. On the contrary – complete

faith is impossible without freedom.

Dr. Moshe Lanzman is a school

and developmental psychologist

And Moses spoke

to the leaders of the tribes

There is no doubt that all of the commandments including all

of their principles and details were spoken to Moses at Sinai. However, Moses

did not teach them immediately, but rather at the appropriate times and places.

There was no reason for him to teach anyone the laws of the annulment of vows

while he was still alive because he, may peace be upon

him, served as the unique expert of his generation, annulling vows and oaths

whenever necessary. Now, however, his death was nearing, and he saw fit to

teach the leaders of the people the laws of the annulment of vows, for they

would replace him in this matter. That is why he only commanded the leaders of

the tribes; there was no reason to teach the laws of vows to all of the

Israelites. It may have even been necessary to hide these laws from them lest

they take to making oaths frivolously, but he did teach the law to the tribal

leaders.

(R. Yitzhak Reggio, Bamidbar

30:2)

The vengeance

of Children of Israel – the

Vengeance of God?

Seek vengeance,

the vengeance of the Children of Israel… We have already

noted in our commentary on Bereishit 4:15 the

relationship of nakam (revenge) to koom (stand)… vengeance reestablishes

justice which was trampled by iniquitous feet, or it lifts up the personality

that was degraded to dust. The avenger identifies with that which he desires to

raise up. From this we can understand the preposition mem – Avenge

the Israelite people from the Midianites. The goal is not to subdue the enemy and to give

them their just deserts; had the Torah wished to say that, it would have used the

grammatical form for take vengeance against – (using the

preposition bet). But the goal

is to return and raise up Israel from the Midianites, to liberate

her spiritually and morally and to free her from the fear of their craftiness.

(Rabbi S. R. Hirsch on Bamidbar

31:2)

Expansion of Boundaries:

Halutziut [pioneering] or Concern for

Possessions

For the western

western boundary.

(Bamidbar 34:6)

Among the Sons of Gad and the Sons of Reuben were many

wealthy people, and they possessed much livestock and

they loved their possessions, and therefore they settled outside the land, and

they separated themselves from their brothers for the sake of the property.

Therefore they were first of the tribes to go into exile, as is written (I

Chronicles 5) And they exiled them, the

and half the tribe of Menasheh.

(Rabeinu Behayey on Bamidbar 32:2)

This is to say, their adding territory to the Land of Israel

was in no way a matter of halutziut; rather,

they were concerned about their own property. "Therefore they were exiled

first"… The series of dispersions began with the exiling of the tribes

of Reuben and half of Menasheh which had settled on

the eastern side of the Jordan, and since these tribes had split from their

brothers because of their property, they were the first to go into exile.

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva

Shanim shel Sihot al Parashiyot ha'Shavu'a p. 746)

You

shall not defile the land in which you live, for I

the Lord abide among the Israelite people.

 (Bamidbar

35:34)

You shall not

defile: Corruption will not defile the Land. Alternatively, it may be read as a

command, since I abide in it, and not for the

land's sake, rather for the Israelites' sakes, that is why it says abide

among the Israelite people.

(Ibn Ezra loc. cit)

…however, if the People Israel does not in its

essence and behavior constitute a dwelling place for the Divine Presence, then

clearly the Land will also not serve as a dwelling place for the Divine

Presence. It should be pointed out that none of the long process during which

Israel became a nation and was given the Torah took place in the Land, but

rather in the course of the journey towards the Land. In other words, Israel

did not become the Lord's nation because it entered the Land. The opposite is

true: in consequence of its being the Lord's nation, Israel entered the Land.

(Y. Leibowitz:

Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat

HaShavu'a pg. 754)

And you shall not corrupt the land – do not cause the Land

to be corrupted for you. For the

blood corrupts Rabbi Yoshiya says: It [yahanif = corrupt] is an acronym [for] yahon af

land cannot be atoned for – Why does it say this? Because

it says, and there [in the valley,] they shall decapitate the calf (Devarim 21:4).

Should I understand that if the murderer is found after the calf is decapitated

that he would go unpunished? We learn the answer from the verse, The land cannot be atoned for. The land cannot be atoned for – the

calf is like the man [the High Priest upon whose death the accidental murderer

returns from exile], just as [punishment] is postponed by the man, so too it is

pure of defilement, while all other lands are not pure of defilement. Abide

among the Israelite people – could [He abide] among a [mere] hundred or

among a [mere] thousand [people]? The verse teaches us: among the Israelite

people. Some say, among each individual tribe, while others say, among all

the tribes [together]. Rabbi Nehorai says: for I

the Lord abide [among the Israelite people] – even in exile? The verse

teaches us: in the land. [Does

God dwell] in the Land even while you are in exile? The verse teaches us, among

the Israelite people – when the Israelites are in the Land and not when

they are out of the Land. You shall not defile the land – Scripture

tells us that bloodshed defiles the Land and expels the Divine Presence. It was

because of bloodshed that the Temple was destroyed. There was an incident

involving two priests who were of equal status and who were running and

ascending the ramp [of the altar]. One of them entered the space of four cubits

around the other – he took a knife and stabbed him in the heart. Rabbi Zadok stood on the steps of the hall and said: Our

brothers, the House of Israel, listen! It says: If someone slain is found in

the land… your elders and magistrates shall go out… (Devarim 21:1,2). On whose behalf shall we bring the eglah arufa

(decapitated calf)? For the city or for the Temple?

The whole assembled

public began to cry. Next, the boy's father came and said to them: Our

brothers, I am [telling you of your] atonement, my son

is still convulsing, and the knife has not been ritually defiled. This teaches

were with blood shed. And so it says,

he also spilt much innocent blood, etc. (II Kings 21:16).

From this they said: The sin of bloodshed causes the Divine Presence to leave

Israel and defiles the Temple.

(Yalkut Shimoni Bamidbar 35, 788)

I now establish my

covenant with you (Bereishit 9:9) – On the

condition that you do not shed innocent blood, I will establish

my covenant with you not to destroy the earth again. However, the shedding of

innocent blood will ruin the land, as it says, you shall not pollute the

land, and the land can have no expiation, etc., but for all other

transgressions only the perpetrator shall be struck but the land will not [be

affected].

(Seforno Bereishit 9:9)

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 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.