THE LORD WILL LEAD YOU AND YOUR KING WHOM YOU WILL HAVE ESTABLISHED OVER YOU, TO A NATION UNKNOWN TO YOU OR YOUR FATHERS; AND THERE, YOU WILL SERVE OTHER DEITIES [MADE] OF WOOD AND STONE.

(Devarim 28:36)

 

And there you will worship gods, man's handiwork

This is the greatest of punishments; none of the torments that befall a man are harsh compared to this evil and bitter disease in which the soul sinks into the depths of abomination. He is inescapably caught up in the net of sin and the soul can know no greater pain than when it recognizes its sin and rebellion, remaining unable to stand up against the habit of transgression. This punishment accords with the Sages' dictum: "The wages of transgression are - transgression." There is no balm for such a soul until it gathers up all its strength to struggle and free itself of the bonds of habit, as is written in the next verse, and you will find Him, if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.

(Rabbi Yitzhak Shmuel Reggio, Devarim 4:28)

 

After you, following your bad choice, have worshipped false gods, you shall be exiled among the nations and worship other false gods, not of your choosing, but rather from coercion (Don Yitzhak Abarbanel). It is well known that people get disgusted with things that they are forced to do, that is why it says next, And from there you will seek the Lord your God. And so we find that after they were exiled to Babylon and forced to prostrate themselves before a golden idol that their inclination towards the worship of false gods was broken and they ceased whoring after other gods, except for a few people in the Second Temple period who strayed after the Greek gods. And they did so not because they liked worshipping false gods, but rather in order to find favor in the eyes of the kings and princes.

(ShaDaL Devarim 4:28)

 

 

For my children, Nili and Amit

Upon their entering the covenant of marriage

These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.(Devarim 28:69)

Chaim Rubinstein

A covenant is entered into by partners; by parties sharing a common interest; by the strong and the weak. A covenant is signed when there are weaknesses, when there are weak points, breaks in the defenses. When there is a need for mutual reconciliation. The covenant expresses reciprocal obligation; embrace, dialogue, understanding, and mutual loyalty. Walking together towards common goals. The parties to the covenant unite forces, property, and tools. The covenant transforms the partial into a whole.

God entered into a covenant with Abraham: On that day, the Lord formed a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt until the great river, the Euphrates river (Bereishit 15:18).

And again in the covenant at Horeb: and Israel encamped there opposite the mountain... and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "So shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel, 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and [how] I bore you on eagles' wings, and I brought you to Me. And now, if you obey Me and keep My covenant, you shall be to Me a treasure out of all peoples, for Mine is the entire earth. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of princes and a holy nation'" (Shemot 19:1-2).

When the Israelites cross the Jordan they are to renew the covenant with God, as is described in our parasha:

When you cross the Jordan, the following shall stand upon Mount Gerizim to bless the people... And the following shall stand upon Mount Ebal for the curse... The Levites shall speak up, saying to every individual of Israel, in a loud voice (Devarim 27:12-14).

Rashi explains:

to bless the people As it is found in Tractate Sotah (32a): Six tribes ascended to the top of Mount Gerizim and [the other] six to the top of Mount Ebal; the kohanim , the Levites and the [holy] ark stood below in the middle. The Levites turned their faces towards Mount Gerizim and began with the blessing: "Blessed be the man who does not make a graven or molten image...," and these [the tribes on Mount Gerizim] and these [the tribes on Mount Ebal] answered "Amen!" Then [the Levites] turned their faces towards Mount Ebal and began with the curse, saying: "Cursed be the man who makes any graven [or molten] image...," and these [the tribes on Mount Gerizim] and these [the tribes on Mount Ebal] responded "Amen!...Thus [it would continue] in this manner for all of them [the blessings and curses] until [the very last curse, namely (verse 26)]: "Cursed be the one who does not uphold [the words of this Torah]." (Judaica Press translation)

The covenant was entered into from a position of weakness, from the place were the parties to the covenant were not protected, the break in the fence. The covenant grants the protection of each to the other. The covenant is a patch upon the weak spot. Covenant is a link between its parties, between separate bodies that are mutually linked by a contract.

The covenant is formed at a place of weakness and transforms it into a point of strength. The weak-point is fortified. The People Israel join a covenant with the God of its land. The covenant strengthens and continues the covenant made at Horeb.

In the valley, a less protected place, the priests and Levites stand and make the covenant between the parts of the people and their God. The covenant is made in the central town of the Land's residents, the Canaanites. The place where the covenant is made symbolizes the motivation behind the covenant: two mountains linked by the valley that lies between them. A covenant made of part, Covenant between the Pieces [Brit ben haBertarim]. The covenant of circumcision. Please place your hand beneath my thigh - at the weak point.

The ceremony renewing the covenant is performed as the Israelites' first deed upon their entering the Land. Upon entering a new stage in the life of the nation, they renew their covenant with God:

These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. (Devarim 28:69)

Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this Torah, to fulfill them. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' (Devarim 27:26)

The covenant obligates one party to obey all the words of the Torah and the other party to protect the People Israel. This convocation symbolizes the convocation at Sinai but at a higher stage - not in the desolate wilderness, an unknown and irrelevant land, but rather in the homeland which is to give the people succor. The Land which was abandoned when Jacob left it with seventy others and now hundreds of years later the people return to it. With the renewal of its settlement comes the renewal of the covenant. As with Horeb, here too there are mountains and a valley or plain. The physical attributes parallel the spiritual ones - the unification of the people of the hills and the valleys, of the children of the matriarchs with the children of the maidservants. Like the unity symbolized by the ephod, the ceremony symbolizes the unit of all the tribes of Israel. The center of the Land of Israel lies between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. The place of unification is also the place of separation. Hundreds of years later the Kingdom of Israel will be torn from the Kingdom of Judah in this place where the covenant was made.

This is the covenant:

You have selected the Lord this day, to be your God, and to walk in His ways, and to observe His statutes, His commandments and His ordinances, and to obey Him. And the Lord has selected you this day to be His treasured people, as He spoke to you, and so that you shall observe all His commandments. (Devarim 26:17-18)

In his book on Parashat haShavua (page 890), Yeshayahu Leibowitz cites a surprising explanation of the covenant between God and Israel. In his Mikra KiPshuto Ehrlich suggests that the he'emarta ["has selected you" or "spoken of you"] of the covenant should be understood in the light of the phrase asa ba ma'amar [literally: "performed a word with her"] that is used in reference to a yabem [man who enters into a levirate marriage] who takes in his yevama; it alludes to sexual relations. That is to say: the covenant between God and Israel is similar to the covenant between husband and wife. It is a covenant that is renewed from time to time.

Targum Onkelos translates the words et Hashem he'emarta [You have selected the Lord] as hashem hatavta, and Hashem he'emirkha [the Lord has selected you] as hashem hatevakh. He uses a word related to the Hebrew hativa. Jastrow's dictionary states that word hatav comes from the Arabic hatab, which means "betrothal." That means that ha'amara refers to someone betrothing his beloved. The covenant between God and Israel is a lover's covenant, each loves and honors the other and wants to establish reciprocal relations in which God gives the Torah and His Godly protection, and the People Israel return love to Him by observing his commandments. It is a lovers' discourse. That is the intent of the following midrash:

You have selected the Lord this day... And the Lord has selected you this day... The Holy one blessed be He said to Israel: You made Me one unit in the world and I shall make you one unit in the world. You made me one unit in the world, for it is written, Hear O Israel, the Lord is your God, the Lord is one (Deavrim 6). And I have made you one unit in the world, for it is said, And who is like unto Israel, one nation in the land (II Chronicles 17). (Hagigah 3a)

In ancient times the betrothal and the wedding were separate from each other. So too with the relationship between Israel and its God: the covenant of Horeb, made in the desolate wilderness is separated from the covenant made with Israel upon its entry into the Land of Canaan, a land teeming with false gods. The first curse is, Cursed be the man who makes any graven or molten image an abomination to the Lord, the handiwork of a craftsman and sets it up in secret! And all the people shall respond, saying, 'Amen!' (Devarim 27:15). There are two covenants, the first made when the people were freed of their yoke of slavery and the second upon their entry as a free nation into their homeland. The covenant is renewed immediately after the Jordan is crossed: Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord God of Israel on Mount Ebal. As Moses, the servant of the Lord, commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the Law of Moses (Joshua 8:30).

The covenant undertaken in the hills of Shekhem was only the beginning; the relationship between lover and bride would yet see many crises, ups and downs, as are known to us from the books of the prophets, and as occurs with every couple that must work on their relationship, to continue and sustain it, to endure by communicating and engaging in dialogue. They do not turn their backs on each other and relate to difficulties as to challenges which they must go through together. As we read in the love poetry of the Song of Songs (4:8-9):

With me from Lebanon, my bride, with me from Lebanon shall you come; you shall look from the peak of Amanah, from the peak of Senir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from mountains of leopards. You have captivated my heart, my sister, [my] bride; you have captivated my heart with one of your eyes, with one link of your necklaces.

Chaim Rubinstein, Ben Brit (Son of the Covenant)

 

Readers Respond (to Devorah Greinman's article in the Re'eh edition)

Devorah Greniman's article (Shabbat Shalom number 564) offers a worthy example of a relevant political interpretation of Torah law. She begins with the prohibition against "spilling blood" and ends with an emotional comment on the use of cluster-bombs in inhabited areas. Her citation of the great scholar Jack Milgrom (referring to his article on "Blood" in the Encyclopedia Judaica) was also of great importance. Milgrom points out that the prohibition against eating blood is unique to Israel and is without parallel in the other cultures of the ancient East. I will further support these ideas with a quotation from RaMBaM which grants a "social" commandment priority over a "religious" commandment (and I purposefully cite it now on the eve of the High Holy Days).

In Hilkhot Rotzeyah 4:9, RaMBaM places the prohibition against spilling blood at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of commandments, even above the prohibition against idolatry: "For even though there are sins more serious than bloodshed, none destroys the inhabitation of the world as does bloodshed." That is to say that murder is worse than idolatry, because it destroys human civilization. Furthermore: "Even idolatry, and it is unnecessary to mention prohibited sexual relations or Sabbath desecration, are not like bloodshed. For those sins are transgressions of man against God, but bloodshed is a sin of man against his fellow and anyone who has committed that sin is completely wicked." This halakhah, which grants total priority to "social" commandments over "religious" commandments, is fantastic, and apparently unique in our literature (this complements Milgrom's claim).

Up to this point we are in agreement, and from here on we are in disagreement. I fully support the stand taken by Netivot Shalom against social injustice and bloodshed, but it is precisely that Archimedean point that led me to the Right. I cannot acquiesce to the Left's tolerance of the terrible bloodshed undertaken by Moslem society, systematic bloodshed that is a way of life.

The Mideast conflict is between two civilizations which are radically different from each other in regard to two central issues. While Jewish society (this is a generalization, but a justified one) abhors bloodshed (the "blood" mentioned by RaMBaM-Milgrom-Greniman), Moslem society "sanctifies" blood. In addition, while Jewish society takes responsibility for it actions, and even for sins that it did not actually commit (apparently, a pathological consequence of chronic breast-beating over sins: ashamnu bagadnu... - "We have incurred guilt, we have betrayed... "), Moslem society never takes responsibility for anything, and especially not for the tide of blood with which it has flooded our land and the entire world. The Right protests, but the Left barely stammers.

In conclusion: it is good that Shabbat Shalom raises the alarm regarding social injustices and rejects the "sanctification" of blood, for that is the whole Torah. However, it should reach an opposite political conclusion, and our violent neighbors, who inscribed these negative values upon their banner, should not enjoy anyone's moral and political support - certainly not the support of people of peace.

Your comrade and halfway sympathizer (that is to say, a comrade who shares your moral sentiments, but not their political application),

Amnon Shapira, Tirat Tzvi

 

Devorah Greniman, author of the article, replies:

I am honored that Dr. Amnon Shapira chose to relate to my article. That being said, I find it difficult to understand why Dr. Shapira feels that I engaged in giving "a relevant political interpretation of Torah law."

Relevant - yes - but political? I did relate to events from the last war in Lebanon - the IDF's use of cluster bombs in inhabited areas - but I did not take a stand regarding the justness or usefulness of the war itself. Furthermore, I qualified my words with the understanding that sometimes the use of such weapons must be considered in order to protect the lives of our soldiers - a qualification that would seem to sit well with Dr. Shapira's position. As a mother who currently has two sons serving as combat soldiers, I do not take that factor lightly.

And so, Dr. Shapira agrees that there is no place for disagreement over the fact that the Torah requires that exceptional care be taken in everything involving bloodshed. If so, why is the expression of this concern immediately identified with a leftist political position? Is it because the blood in question is that of Arab civilians in time of war, and not Jewish blood, which is always "thicker"? I think that the clear position stated by Dr. Shapira on this issue does not lead to the conclusion that in time of war one is allowed to strike at the enemy - civilian and combatant - without taking any moral restraints into account. I naively thought that followers of the Torah both of the "Right" and of the "Left" would agree on precisely this issue.

Dr. Shapira goes on to claim that Moslem society "sanctifies" blood [quotation marks are from the original text - D.G.] while Jewish society abhors bloodshed, and that Moslem society "never takes responsibility for anything" while Jewish society "takes responsibility for it actions." Take notice - suddenly we turn from the discussion of classical Jewish texts to generalizations about Moslem and Jewish societies. I am not well acquainted with Islamic literature, and so I cannot express an opinion on the positions Islam takes generally as regards blood and bloodshed. As for society, that, I believe, is to be judged by its own eyes and according to its own norms and conscience, and not by the deeds and norms and conscience presumed by others. Our own society is far from being free of bloodshed, as a quick glance at the daily newspapers of any day will demonstrate. As I have tried to point out, the Torah does not merely require us to take responsibility for bloodshed after the fact, but rather to always take the greatest care in such matters - before the deed and during the deed. By "stammering" something (to borrow Dr. Shapira's expression) following the violent death of non-combatants and innocents, we have not yet accomplished anything in the eyes of the Torah.

War is violent, and talk of "purity if arms" is an oxymoron. Nevertheless, the fact that apparently we cannot do without bloodshed at this time does not absolve us of the obligation to take great care in such matters. This is not just another factor to be considered among the whole constellation of factors, rather it is the supreme factor, as Dr. Shapira has claimed, following RaMBaM. I hope that we can both agree on that point.

 

 

 

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.