Click here to receive the weekly parsha by email each week.
You shall say to your children: "we were slaves to pharaoh
in
(Devarim 6:21-24)
WE WERE SLAVES. And because our servitude prevented us from achieving the
perfection He had intended for us, he performed wonders, taking us out [of
(Sforno, Devarim 6:21)
COMMANDED US - And it also has become clear that the purpose of His taking
us out was to give us the Land, and for this [clarification] stand the commandments,
which are called eidut - testimony - such as the
Shabbat and appointed times which testify that God arranged nature and conducts
it with individual supervision, and the commandment to give gifts to freed servants,
and gifts to the poor, and compassion for one sold into servitude, and prohibition
of usury and false weights. All these were bound up with [the story of] the Exodus
from Egypt, for they all attest to individual supervision [hashgacha pratit] over
all the lowly and the indigent and the oppressed, and also the mitzvoth to be
observed in the Land are tied to the Exodus, because for this did He liberate us
from Egypt, to give us the Land, and this is the nature of this category of mitzvoth
called eidut - testimony.
(Malbim, Devarim 6:23)
"And you shall do that which is straight and good in the
eyes of god": on religion and morality
Yonatan Ben-Dov
Is a religious act performed by devious means invalid?
Can a moral defect impair the legitimacy of a ritual act? For example, if one brings
to the
The Prophets, who related to similar problems, tended,
of course, to the stringent approach; the prophetic fire leaves no room for compromise
in this matter. Beginning with Amos (2:7), who warned that: "They recline by every altar on
garments taken in pledge, and drink in the house of their God wine bought with fines
they imposed", through Malachi (1:13), who reproved the priests for having brought defective
animals for sacrifice: "...and so you degrade it - said the Lord of Hosts -
and you bring the stolen, the lame, and the sick". Malachi does, indeed, include
the stolen alongside the physically defective among the invalid animals, but we
note that Torah law, in Parashat Emor
((Vayikra 22:17-25), relates only to animals with physical defects, saying nothing
about a stolen animal. This difference calls our attention to the basic duality
in evaluating immorality: Is it equivalent to a physical defect with regard to the
performance of the commandment or not? This duality will find expression in all
consequent halachic decision-making (p'sikah).
Let us focus on the classic instance of moral intervention:
the stolen lulav. The Mishnah
(Sukkah 3:1) determines unequivocally that "a stolen or dry lulav is invalid". It would seem that the laconic style
of the Mishnah places the two forms of invalidity alongside
each other: the disqualification in the body of the lulav,
and the moral defect, judging both with equal degree of stringency, just as did
Malachi with regard to animals offered at the altar. Aggadic
midrashim (such as Vayikra Rabba, Emor, parasha
30) and aggadic statements quoted in the Talmudim,
support this unambiguous determination by quoting the passage from Malachi and adding
homiletic messages - "Thus his defense counsel (the lulav
intended to placate the lord) becomes the prosecutor (= the stolen lulav becomes a reminder of sin)" or the concept of "mitzvah
habaah b’aveira" - "a
mitzvah performed through a transgression".
A halachic midrash (Sifra, Emor, 12:2) supports the prohibition, which, we recall, has no basis in
the Torah, and anchors it with scripture: "And you shall take for yourselves
on the first day… for yourselves=of your own, but not the stolen." From here
on, we have not only a moral imperative with support from the Prophets, but also
a Torah prohibition. Indeed, the deliberations on this prohibition in the Jerusalem
Talmud rule clearly that the stolen lulav is always invalid
because it is a "mitzvah performed through transgression."
The discussion in the Babylonian Talmud (Sukkah 29b-31a) presents different picture. At the heart of the discussion is
a controversy between R' Ami, a Palestinian scholar, and Shmuel,
one of the earliest Babylonian Amoraim. R' Ami invalidates
the stolen lulav without reservation because it is a mitzvah
performed through transgression, Shmuel declares that
the stolen lulav is invalid only on the first day of
Sukkoth, as is written, "and you shall take for yourselves on the first
day", but on the second day (and, or course, all succeeding days of the
festival) it is permissible, just as a borrowed lulav
is permissible. This is to say that the prohibition of a stolen lulav does not derive from a moral defect, but from its failure
to meet the same requirement as a borrowed lulav; on the
first day of the festival one is obliged to shake a lulav
which is his personal property, and a stolen lulav is,
of course, not his personal property. The discussion in the Bavli
is built mainly around Shmuel's dictum. The Babylonian
Amoraim offer different way of solving the "mitzvah
performed through transgression" problem, but continue to accept Shmuel's opinion. Upon deeper thought, we reveal that the halachic midrash
"for yourselves=of your own", which was originally intended to reinforce
the moral proscription, in effect weakens it, for it limits the prohibition to the
first day alone! All the fiery proclamations about defense counsel and prosecutor,
and "mitzvah performed through transgression" are fine as aggadic pronounce-ments, but are of
only secondary importance in halachic decisions.
If we compare the issue of the lulav
to that of the stolen sacrifice, we find that the Yerushalmi
prefers the approach of the prophets, following the path of Malachi. The Bavli, on the other hand, conforms with the words of the Torah
in Emor which disqualify only animals with physical defects
and are indifferent to the moral flaw of a stolen sacrifice. According to this position,
the moral blemish cannot disqualify the ritual act.
The Rambam (Laws of Shofar, Lulav and Sukkah ;8:9) rules according to Shmuel's view:
"All those listed as disqualified because of defects as we explained, or because
of robbery and theft - are [disqualified] on the first day alone; but on the second
festive day as on the remaining days, all are acceptable". The RaAvaD, in his critique, deplores the Rambam's
moral position, and calls for the disqualification of the stolen lulav for the entire festival, as per the ruling in the Yerushalmi. Most commentators on the Talmud and halachic decisors, Rishonim and Acharonim, tended towards
the Bavli's distinctions. The Ritva
writes: "... the obligation of 'of your own' is not a stringency inherent in
the body of the four species, but Scripture was more severe regarding the first
day... therefore we are not to be more stringent in this matter as to apply that
which said
with regard to the first day to all
the other days. But anything which is disqualified because of lack of splendor [hiddur] is unacceptable by the Torah on all days
of Torah." This is to say that a dry lulav is always
disqualified because the defect is in the body of the lulav
itself; a stolen lulav is disqualified only for the first
day, because the defect is not in the body of he lulav
but derives from a special stringency which the Torah commands, and this is in effect
only on the first day. The literature of halachic decisions
is replete with deliberations in this spirit, attempting to refine the parameters
of "mitzvah performed through transgression".
How are we to understand the difference between the approaches
of the Bavli and the Yerushalmi?
Is the Yerushalmi more morally sensitive than the Bavli? On the other hand, it should be remembered that the Bavli presents a much more highly developed system of halachic discourse. The Yerushalmi
recognizes only the basic decision. This makes for great rhetorical power, but,
on the other hand, it is overly simplistic. The Bavli
recognizes more advanced methods of halachic deliberation
which facilitate presentation of a richer and more complex picture. The halachic decisor must possess tools
which enable maximum flexibility, allowing him to tailor his decisions to current
realities.
I am not a posek [adjudicator], I have not come to issue rulings, but only to contemplate this
issue against the background of contemporary conditions. Are we to maintain the
fiery ethic of the prophet Malachi and the Talmud Yerushalmi,
or should we raise high the banner of pragmatism born by the Babylonian Torah scholars?
It would seem - especially in the light of our generation's social protest - that
the mitzvah of hiddur, of splendor, lies
primarily in the moral obligation. It should be remembered that "the stolen
lulav" refers not only to the lulav stolen forcibly from another's hands; it refers also -
perhaps primarily - to the lulav which has come into the
merchant's hands through dishonest business practice; the owners or workers did
not receive adequate compensation, the lulav was taken
from private (or even from public) domain without authorization, the children who
sold them in the marketplace were not paid a fair price. Despite all this, the pragmatic
tools of the Babylonian sages can be of value in a given situation, and there is
room for them the posek’s toolbox.
Rabbi Yochanan, author of "mitzvah
performed through transgression", said elsewhere "Why was
did not go beyond the measure of
the law. Does sufficing with "Torah law" fulfill the command given in
our parasha (6:18) "And you shall do that which
is straight and good in the eyes of God"?
Dr. Yonatan Ben-Dov teaches Bible
and History of the
You are to do what is right and
what is good
The Book of Bereishit is called by the
prophets "Sefer HaYashar"
- The Book of the Upright". Explains R' Yochanan:
This is the book of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov who
were called upright, as is written "Let my soul die the death of
the upright". Jews of the
and the devastation of civilization.
(From the Netzsiv of
Volozhin's commentary "Haamek
Davar", Preface to the Book of Bereishit).
After mentioning that one should observe these three categories
of mitzvoth (Mishpatim/regulations,
eidot/testimonies, hukkim/laws)
and not test the Holy One, Blessed Be He, with regard to any of them, He decreed
(according to the midrash) in favor of compromise on matters
on which the Torah did not rule, saying - "You are to do what is right
and what is good". And because it [compromise]
will lead to peace, He called it "What is right and what is good in the
eyes of God"
(Rabeinu Bahayey, Devarim 6:17)
It would seem that the admonition which the Torah adds to all
of its laws, You are to do what is right and what is good in the eyes of the
Lord, is superfluous. All of the laws are directed towards that goal, in order
to show man the straight path. However, there are some things which are legally
permissible but which were prohibited solely on the basis of You are to
do what is right... Judaism does not stop at limiting deeds of actual evil -
it also tries to root out potential evil from the human soul. That is why there
are special admonitions that address that which is in our hearts.
(The "Admor He'Halutz" - R. Yeshayahu Shapira z"l,
as quoted by Nehama Leibowitz)
The Danger of "Idolatry" is Greater for Torah Scholars
...he especially warns Torah scholars who deal with laws and statutes, only be on your guard and guard yourself
well. This makes it clear that the Torah scholar is more likely than other people
to fall into the corruption of idolatry. So it was in reality: As Perek Helek tells us,
Yoravam, Ahav and Menashe were great Torah scholars, and they were the
first to bring idolatrous offerings and made all
(The NeTziV's Ha'Amek Davar on Devarim 4:14)
That You May Live and Come and Inherit - Inheritance of the Land Is Contingent
Upon Fulfillment of the Covenant
That you should not say "It is already written: To these
shall the land be divided - the land is ours, whether we are deserving or guilty."
Do not say so, for your entry into the land is dependent entirely on whether or
not you observe the laws and regulations.
(Hizkuni, Devarim 4:1)
There are those who believe that God's love for Israel is promised
unconditionally; they rely on such verses as, Because of God's love for you and
because of his keeping the sworn oath that he swore to your fathers did God take
you out, with a strong hand and redeem you from a house of slavery - The Holy
One, Blessed Be He, is obliged - as it were - to keep his promise and to redeem
us. But such is not the case. As long as there does not exist a generation worthy
and suitable to accept the covenant and the grace, as God swore to the patriarchs,
the Holy One, Blessed Be He, has patience, and a thousand years pass before his
eyes as if it was but yesterday; but on the other hand, it is not at all certain
that we will be able to wait a thousand generations, if we are unworthy thereof.
These words must be declared against that dangerous ideology which contains a tremendous
diminution of religious belief, to the effect that the Jewish people received a
promise of great and glorious Messianic redemption merely by virtue of the fact
that they are the Children of Israel. Those words of blasphemy and execration heard
today from the mouth of many who are assumed in their own eyes to be the loyal and
faithful of
(Y. Leibowitz: Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat
HaShavua. pp. 776-777)
With heads bowed, we mourn the untimely passing of
Eitan Melchior
z"l
Son of Hannah and Rabbi Michael Melchior
Following a severe illness
Our condolences to the grandfather, grandmothers, parents, his wife Shira
And his children, to his brothers and all the Melchior family
Oz V’Shalom - Netivot
Shalom Shabbat Shalom Editorial Board
We need your support in order that the voice
of a religious Zionism committed to peace and justice will continue to be heard
through the uninterrupted distribution of Shabbat Shalom in hundreds of synagogues,
on the Internet and via email in both Hebrew and English.
Donations in
For a
If you wish to subscribe to the email English
editions of Shabbat Shalom, to print copies of it for distribution in your synagogue,
to inquire regarding the dedication of an edition in someone’s honor or memory,
to find out how to make tax-exempt donations, or to suggest additional helpful ideas,
please call Miriam Fine at +972-52-3920206 or at ozveshalomns@gmail.com
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.
About us
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom
is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom
shares a deep attachment to the
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
Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il
For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom:
pleiser@netvision.net.il