You may eat every clean bird.

But these are those from which you shall not eat: The eagle [or the griffin vulture], the ossifrage, the osprey...

And the stork, and the heron and its species, and the hoopoe, and the atalef.

(Devarim 14:11, 12, 18)

 

Some species of bird, such as the crow, are cruel. Some are kind, such as the stork, which treats its fellows kindly. Some are compassionate, such as the bird called rahum; it is named rahum after rahamim - compassion. The Sages did not interpret this as meaning that it was compassionate towards its fellows, for it was called rahum - with the shuruk vowel, in the pa'ul construction. It is not called raheim, with the letter being vocalized with the tzeirei vowel, which would imply compassion towards others. Rather it is rahum, the letter het being vocalized with the shuruk, meaning compassion in itself, and it refers to compassion entering the world. That is why they said: since the rahum has arrived, compassion has come to the world.

(MaHaRaL: Netzah Yisrael 42)

 

And it was on the eighth day A midrash connects this with the verse, With a kind one, You show Yourself kind, with a sincere man, You show Yourself sincere (Psalms 18:6)... It also says in the midrash that the verse refers to Moses, etc. When did he become kind [literally, enter hassidut]? When he said, show me Your glory. But earlier it is written, and Moses hid his face! But now he was concerned with the needs of Israel, so he prayed for Israel's sake with devotion. He is the hassid who is not concerned with himself, like the stork which treats its fellows kindly, as is stated, "Mine is yours and yours is yours - [that is the policy of a] hassid." Our Rabbi Moses acted for all the Israelites, as it is written, for today the Lord is appearing to you, and this is as is stated in the midrash, that the Holy One, blessed be He, came to him in hassidut, etc. - I will pass all my goodness before you, etc., for there it is written, and I will favor when I wish to favor, etc., as is stated, "Even if he is not decent, even if he does not deserve it." Here this was fulfilled with the construction of the Tabernacle, for [the verse] and the glory of the Lord was shown to you [plural] refers to all of the Israelites, as it is stated, that the Tabernacle was a testimony, etc. that the Holy One blessed be He had made his peace with Israel regarding the sin of the [golden] calf.

(R. Avraham Mordekhai Alter of Gur, Imrei Emet, 5669)

 

You shall surely provide him - How Does One Provide to a Servant?

Itay Marienberg-Milikovski

Our parasha is one of the three parshiyot of the Torah which deal with the laws of servitude (Shemot 21:1-11; Vayikra 25: 39-55; Devarim 15: 12-18). The contradictions between these three passages are quite apparent and many pens have been worn down in attempts to harmonize them. Here we shall relate to a single detail which appears in our parasha alone.

If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you for six years, and in the seventh year you shall send him forth free from you. And when you send him forth free from you, you shall not send him forth empty-handed. You shall surely provide him from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your vat, you shall give him from what the Lord, your God, has blessed you. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord, your God, redeemed you; therefore, I am commanding you this thing today... You shall not be troubled when you send him free from you, for twice as much as a hired servant, he has served you six years, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in all that you shall do (Devarim 15:12-18)

The obligation to supply the servant with provisions upon the completion of his period of servitude is one of the prominent innovations of the laws of servitude in the book of Devarim; it jibes well with the moral direction of the book in this passage and in all passages treating the relationship of the strong to the weak in society. The uniqueness of these laws of servitude to our parasha does not weaken their force; it seems that the differences between the three different versions of the laws of servitude, which our generation experiences as a spiritual and religious challenge that we must work to overcome, actually served the Sages by creating the ground for a wider synthesis. Amazingly - or perhaps not so surprisingly - the contradictions between the various passages lay the foundations for a more complex formulation of religious law. For instance, the Sages take pains to emphasize that the obligation to supply provisions - which is only mentioned in Devarim - is not limited to the type of servitude mentioned in the passage, rather it applies equally to types of servitude mentioned in other passages: "Could it be that only one who is freed after six years is given supplies? From where do we learn that it is also owed to one who is freed on the Jubilee year, or upon the master's death, or to a Hebrew female servant freed upon her displaying signs of sexual maturation? It is learned from [the three expressions of freeing] you shall send, when you send, and when you send (Sifrei Devarim 119).

The discussions regarding the commandment to supply provisions usually move along a tense continuum between "charity" and "wages." The double system of provisions mentioned in our parasha may already allude to this tension: one the one hand, provisions are given in commemoration of the slavery in Egypt, while on the other hand it involves proper recompense for the servant's work. This dichotomy becomes increasingly evident in the statements of the Tana'im, Amora'im, Rishonim, and Aharonim. While vacillation between the two extremes allows for the delineation of the commandment (be it described as an act of charity or as an obligation), it does not fully express the range of the commandment's latent possibilities. There are many ways to pay a wage and many ways to give charity. Both of these economic relations can humiliate or respect the receiver.

I wish to claim that our parasha invites exegesis that clarifies not only what must be given to the freed servant, but also the psychological and social conditions in which the giving is to take place. First of all, let us pay attention to the list of items changing hands: You shall surely provide him from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your vat, you shall give him from what the Lord, your God, has blessed you. The master is not required to give the servant money nor is he told to give him the product of the threshing-floor or the wine vat. Rather, he must share the means of production with the servant. He does not merely provide the servant with supplies that will allow him to make do for some period of time; he does not merely provide the foundations for the servant's new start and economic independence. Rather, his act of giving also does something towards blurring the boundary between master and servant. Control of the means of production is no longer a capitalist monopoly - it has also spread to the working class. It is also interesting to note in this context that the word master - adon - is completely absent from our parasha. Furthermore, while the term eved - "servant" or "slave" - is used in reference to the historical Egyptian enslavement and to the permanent servitude of one who chooses not to go free after six years, in any event it is not used in connection with "normative" servitude. Secondly, if we pay close attention to the servant's explanation of why he does not want to go free, we discover a difference between it and what the servant says in Shemot. In Shemot the servant relates to that book's special legal provisions (the woman and her children will belong to the master and he shall leave alone, verse 4) and states that his family ties require him to remain in his master's house - and if the servant says, "I love my master, my wife and my children, I shall not go free (Shemot 21:5) - and the sensitive reader will question the nature of the servant's love for his master. In our parasha the law regarding the servant's wife has changed, and the authenticity of his positive relationship with his master comes to the fore: And it will be, if he says to you, "I will not leave you," because he loves you and your household, for it is good for him with you (Devarim 15:16). Perhaps even the mention of the Exodus from Egypt functions here in a similar strain. Let us remember the gold and silver vessels and the garments that the Egyptian masters gave their Israelite servants out of neighborliness [re'ut] - if only a momentary neighborliness - as was suggested by the Sages in Sifrei Devarim 120: "Just as in Egypt I provided for you... so too you shall provide for him. Just as in Egypt I gave to you generously, so too you shall give to him generously."

Thirdly, let us be sensitive to the formulation, And when you send him forth free from you, you shall not send him forth empty-handed (Devarim 15:13). The word reikam - "empty-handed" - serves here as an adverb specifying a fundamental and essential characteristic of the act of freeing the servant, one that is indispensable and cannot be seen as an unimportant detail. However the servant is sent off, he must not be sent off "empty-handed." The Midrash Rut Rabbah reminds us "The word reikam is used in reference to Egypt - and when you shall leave, you shall not leave empty-handed (Shemot 3:21). Reikam also appears in reference to the Hebrew servant - And when you send him forth free from you, you shall not send him forth empty-handed (Devarim 15:13). Reikam is also used in reference to festival pilgrims - and the shall not see My face empty-handed." We have already commented on the connection to the Exodus from Egypt. What can be learned from the connection between the passage regarding the Hebrew servant and the passage regarding the pilgrimage? When commanding three pilgrimages each year the Torah emphasizes the obligation of the pilgrims/servants to bring something with them when they come to see the face of their God and master. This may be a sacrifice, the redemption offering for a first-born donkey, and so on. In this context, the Torah uses the same expression found in the passage describing the master giving provisions to his servant. This time there is no blurring of the distinction between servant and master; rather, it the whole hierarchy is overturned. We see from the pilgrimage laws that it is the servant who must make offerings to his God/master. That means that when the human master gives provisions to his freed servant, he is actually playing the servant's part.

This comparison offers an additional message. The giving is not a goal in itself, but rather a means for "seeing the face," i.e., a means towards establishing an encounter. The mere transfer of property is not the whole story. The prophet Isaiah (1:11-12) already warned us of this in his profound criticism of Israel; Of what use are your many sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I am sated with the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle; and the blood of bulls and sheep and hegoats I do not want. Of what use are your many sacrifices to Me? says the Lord. I am sated with the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle; and the blood of bulls and sheep and hegoats I do not want. When you come to appear before Me, who requested this of you, to trample My courts?

When material goods take center stage, interpersonal relations become objectified; they may - God forbid - deteriorate to the stage where they are measured solely in economic terms of gift-giving. In such circumstances the road is short to inauthentic giving where it becomes an almost open declaration of the lordship of the more powerful party who glories in his generosity. In contrast, when giving is simply a means and a symbol, inter-human relations take on an entirely different hue, as is witnessed by a further instance of the term reikam - its appearance in the scene where Boaz sends Ruth from the threshing-floor: And she came to her mother-in-law, and she said, "Who are you, my daughter?" And she told her all that the man had done to her. And she said, "He gave me these six barleys, for he said to me: Do not come empty-handed to your mother-in-law." And she said, "Sit still, my daughter, until you know how the matter will fall, for the man will not rest until he has resolved the matter today" (Ruth 3:16-18). Sometimes six barleys are enough to forge a bond of solidarity. According to the interpretation being offered here, the Torah is not only telling the master to provide his servant with sheep, threshing-floor, and wine-vat. It is also demanding that he see the servant's face - that very face whose distinguishing features may have become invisible to him during the course of six years of back-breaking and soul-breaking class subordination.

As these words are being written it appears that Israeli society, through the agency of its Knesset representatives, is moving farther and farther away from the humanist direction that finds repeated expression in the book of Devarim. The new Immigration Authority's actions against refugees, asylum seekers, and foreign workers - not to say foreign "slaves" - as well as the "infiltrators" law prohibiting aid to refugees that is up for discussion by the cabinet, all cast their shadow over the possible realization of the values found in our parasha. Instead of promoting responsibility and a stance of sensitivity, as the book of Devarim would teach us, the law has become a value in itself within a violent and aggressive political discourse. In these days in particular we must go back to proclaim the ancient message that has become thread-bare with repetition: and remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt. If only we would remove the mask of lordship from ourselves to finally see the face of the other!

Itay Marienberg-Milikovski is married and father to a son. He studied and taught at Yeshivat HaKibbutz HaDati Ein Tzurim. Today he teaches at Kehillat Yedidya's evening beit midrash in Jerusalem and organizes its activities. He is pursuing an MA in Hebrew literature at the Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and is a member of the editorial board of the Hazmana LePiyut website.

 

The Saintly Man and the Man who Curbs his Passions: Who is Better?

Philosophers unanimously agree that the latter [the saintly man] is superior to, and more perfect than, the one who has to curb his passions, although they add that it is possible for such a one to equal the saintly man in many regards. In general, however, he must necessarily be ranked lower in the scale of virtue, because there lurks within him the desire to do evil, and, though he does not do it, yet because his inclinations are all in that direction, it denotes the presence of an immoral psychic disposition... When, however, we consult the Rabbis on this subject, it would seem that they consider him who desires iniquity, and craves for it (but does not do it), more praiseworthy and perfect than the one who feels no torment at refraining from evil... At first blush, by a superficial comparison of the sayings of the philosophers and the Rabbis, one might be inclined to say that they contradict one another. Such, however, is not the case. Both are correct and, moreover, are not in disagreement in the least, as the evils which the philosophers term such and of which they say that he who has no longing for them is more to be praised than he who desires them but conquers his passion are things which all people commonly agree are evils, such as the shedding of blood, theft, robbery, fraud, injury to one who has done no harm, ingratitude, contempt for parents, and the like. The prescriptions against these are called commandments, about which the Rabbis said, "If they had not already been written in the Torah, it would be proper to add them"... There is no doubt that a soul which has the desire for, and lusts after, the above-mentioned misdeeds, is imperfect... When, however, the Rabbis maintain that he who overcomes his desire has more merit and a greater reward (than he who has no temptation), they say so only in reference to laws that are ceremonial prohibitions. This is quite true, since, were it not for the Torah, they would not at all be considered transgressions.

(RaMBaM Eight Chapters, chapter 6, based on Gorfinkle translation)

The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Wants Life, and Is Not Interested In Human Sacrifice

Neither add to it - because you are liable to add something which He abominates. Such would be the case were you to desire to adopt additional forms of worship of the Blessed God, for sometimes the additional forms of worship may be abominable to him, such as the burning of children.

(Seforno, Devarim ibid., ibid.)

 

It is written: Neither add to it nor take away from it. Immediately preceding and adjacent to that we read they even offer up their sons and daughters in fire to their gods. But regarding commandments in general, the Holy One, Blessed Be He, did not warn against adding such laws as serve to create barriers and restrictions for the protection of the Torah.

(Hizkuni, Devarim 4:2)

 

It is not sufficient that you avoid worshipping their gods in these ways; it will be a transgression if these forms of worship be directed to the one God, your Lord. For the significance of worship of their gods is the complete opposite of what is desirable to your God, just as the way of your God is the total negation of their gods. Your God is the God of Life; their gods are gods of death. Their gods of nonsense take pleasure in destruction; the desire of your God is self-elevation and renewal of life.

(Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, ad loc.)

 

The place chosen by the Lord (Devarim 12:11)

Today, after more than 3000 years, when we come across the words Unto the place which the Lord shall chose, almost unthinkingly and directly, our consciousness immediately points to - Jerusalem. And not just the city, but the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, as the chosen place of which the Torah speaks. But this must be known and publicized: in the Book of Devarim, as in the entire Torah, there is no hint that Jerusalem is the place destined to be that chosen place, or perhaps it was selected to be the place which God will chose; we know, as historic fact, that Jerusalem became the chosen and special place only about five hundred years after receiving the Torah, when King David captured this Jebusite city... Similarly, neither in the Book of Joshua, in which there is first mention of Israel's battle against the King of Jerusalem, nor even in the Book of Judges, which tells of the capture of Jerusalem by the Tribe of Judah, a conquest which, it seems, did not last for generations, is there a single hint that Jerusalem was set aside from all other places in the land for the purpose of serving the Lord. All these facts indicate that although from the beginning the Torah commanded that a particular site be chosen for the Holy Service, the Torah leaves it up to history to determine its location.

(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat HaShavua, p. 825)

 

 

 

 

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 payable 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 NIF 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 to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

 

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.

4,500 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.