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 Prof. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh (1930-1998), one of the greatest investigators of Islamic culture and its medieval and modern interactions with Judaism. I had the honor of studying with Hava for seventeen years, up until just a few weeks 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 [rebellious child]. These are well known ideas - but Bahya 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 is not like other faiths that court the nations and try to expand the number of 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 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 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.