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 [which the Rabbis intended by saying] that the commandments were given "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 shall remember what Amalek did to you on the way, when you went out of Egypt, how he happened upon you on the way and cut off all the stragglers at your rear, when you were faint and weary, and he did not fear God. [Therefore,] it will be, when the Lord your God grants you respite from all your enemies around [you] in the land which the Lord, your God, gives to you as an inheritance to possess, that you shall obliterate the 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 [descendents of Sennacherib]? Shmaaya and Avtalyon.

(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.