AND DO NOT STEAL

 

Do not murder... and do not commit adultery...and do not steal... and do not lust...

We have already remarked that here, when Moses repeats the Decalogue, all the prohibitions of sinning against the life, the marriage, the property, the happiness, and the honor of one's fellow-men, as well as the mere lusting after what is forbidden, are all taken collectively together as one thought by the copulative letter vav. And we pointed out, how, the last one, hankering, coveting , was stressed, to tell us that not only the actual criminal deed, but already the criminal thought, yea simply the longing for that which is forbidden, the breeding place of all sinful thoughts and acts, brought by God before His judgment-seat; and that thereby the one real security for social lie against crime - not to be attained by any human tribunal - is guaranteed by the loyalty of the feelings of its citizens nurtured by the fear of God.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Devarim 5:17-18, Levi translation)

 

The philosophers said that even though the continent man performs virtuous actions, he does good things while craving and strongly desiring to perform bad actions. He struggles against his craving and opposes by his action what his [appetitive] power, his desire, and the state of his soul arouse him to do; he does good things while being troubled at doing them. The virtuous man, however, follows in his action what his desire and the state of his soul arouse him to do, and he does good things while craving and strongly desiring them. There is agreement among the philosophers that the virtuous man is better and more perfect than the continent man...

When we investigated the speech of the Sages about this matter, we found that according to them, someone who craves and strongly desires transgressions is more virtuous and perfect than someone who does not crave them and suffers no pain in abstaining from them. They even said that the more important and perfect a person is - the greater will be his longing for sin, and the more acute his suffering at not satisfying his desire. They cited sources: "Whoever is greater than his friend has a greater [evil] impulse than he..." If the external meaning of these two accounts [i.e., by the philosophers and the Jewish Sages] is understood superficially, the two views contradict one another. However, that is not the case; rather, both of them are true, and there is no conflict between them at all. For the bad things to which the philosophers referred...these are the things that are generally accepted by people as bad, such as murder, theft, robbery, fraud, harming an innocent man, repaying a benefactor with evil, degrading parents, and things like these... There is no doubt that the soul which craves and strongly desires any of them is defective and that the virtuous soul neither longs for any of these bad things at all nor suffers pain from the prohibition against them.

When the Sages said that the continent man is more virtuous and his reward is greater, they had in mind the traditional laws. This is correct because if it were not for the Law, they would not be bad at all. Therefore they said that a man needs to let his soul remain attracted to them and not place any obstacle before them other than the Law.

(RaMBaM: Eight Chapters, chapter 6 - Butterworth/Weiss translation)

 

But you who cleave to the Lord your God are alive, all of you, this day (Devarim 4:4)

Yair Eldan

Both in their interpersonal relations and in their relations with God, human beings operate in the space encompassed on the one side by the desire to connect with the other, to draw near and take hold of him, and on the other side by the desire to distance oneself from the other, to disconnect from him and to leave him. On the one hand, there is the yearning for spiritual and physical connection, while on the other hand there is the fear of being swallowed up by the other and apprehension over the risk of losing oneself. Sometimes intimacy and desire grow together, but at other times the fear of loss of self causes desire for the other or for God to weaken with increasing intimacy. A verse from our parasha explicitly states: But you who cleave... are alive, all of you, this day. The nature of the cleaving [Hebrew: hidabkut] remains unclear. Hidabkut can refer to physical cleaving, but it can also refer to a more abstract connection, such as that expressed by the expression, "to hold fast to." It is then not surprising that Rabbi Elazar ben Padat asked in connection to the amei ha'aretz [ignorant laypeople]: "But is it possible to cleave to the Divine Presence? It is written, for the Lord your God is a consuming fire! Rather, anyone who marries off his daughter to a Torah scholar, or engages in business on the behalf of scholars, or benefits scholars with his wealth, Scripture accounts it to him as if he had cleaved to the Divine presence" (Ketuvot 111b). According to Rabbi Elazar, the amei ha'aretz connect to God by way of connection with Torah scholars, who represent the Divine Presence on earth. While the verse speaks literally of a natural connection with God in the form of cleaving, for Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat (who was reputed to have personally experienced several revelations of God) it is clear that the ignorant laypeople cannot draw near to God, just as they cannot draw near to fire. The story of the "Four who entered the orchard" offers a Tannaitic treatment of the possibility of connection with the Divinity:

Four entered the orchard. Ben Azzai, and Ben Zoma, Aher, and Rabbi Akiva. One of them peeked and died, one peeked and was injured, one peeked and cut down the shoots [i.e., became a heretic] and one ascended [in the Jerusalem Talmud: "entered"] safely and descended [Jerusalem Talmud: "exited"] safely. Ben Azzai peeked and died. Concerning him Scripture says: Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His loyal ones (Psalms 116:15). Ben Zoma peeked and was smitten. Concerning him Scripture says: If you have found honey, eat only your fill, etc. (Proverbs 25:16). Aher peeked and cut down the shoots. Concerning him Scripture says: Do not let your mouth bring your flesh to sin, etc. (Kohelet 5:5). Rabbi Akiva ascended safely and descended safely. Concerning him Scripture says: Draw me after you, let us run, etc. (Song of Songs 1:4). (Tosefta Hagiga 2:3-4, Lieberman edition)

This passage is part of what researchers call Hakovetz Hamisti ["The Mystical Collection"] which comprises the first seven halakhot of the second chapter of Tosefta Hagigah, which deal with ways of discussing Ma'asaeh Merkavah ["The Work of the Chariot"]. The various interpretations of the "four who entered the orchard" concentrate on determining the nature of the "orchard" - is it a kind of mystical experience, or examination of questions regarding justice, reward, and punishment in the world? I would like to deal with two problems arising from the literary editing of the passage. First of all, the passage tells a story of increasing danger facing each new scholar who enters the orchard. True, the verb lehatzitz ["to peek"] is used in connection to each of the three sages, but the formulation used in the baraita implies that Ben Zoma's "peeking" was not of the same kind as that of Ben Azzai. Elisha ben Avuya is described as having "cut down the shoots" of the orchard, that is to say, he is explicitly described as having physically entered the orchard and cutting its shoots. Finally, the braita explicitly mentions R. Akiva's further physical advance; he entered (or ascended) but also exited (or descended) the orchard. It is very difficult to understand the braita's editing unless we accept that it tells a story of increasing physical advances into the orchard (Ben Azzai's peeking, Ben Zoma's deeper penetration, Elisha ben Avuyah's cutting down of shoots, and R. Akiva's entrance and exit). Furthermore, according to the story, the further one advances in entering the orchard, the greater danger one faces. This danger is not physical, but rather spiritual. The physical danger described by the story steadily decreases while the spiritual danger grows: Ben Azzai peeked and died; Ben Zoma, who, according to the braita's development penetrated further into the orchard than did his predecessor, was physically injured but did not die. Elisha ben Avuyah actually entered into the orchard and was not physically harmed, but it is clear that something destructive happened to his character, while R. Akiva, who spent the most time being physically present inside the orchard - having both entered and exited it - was not hurt physically or spiritually. In other words, this braita treats the topic of hidabkut, since its layout follows the logic of drawing near and its accompanying dangers. The braita describes entrance into the consuming fire and drawing near to a danger zone associated with Divinity. The braita also gives an explicit answer to the question how R. Akiva managed to enter safely despite the fact that his physical entrance (i.e., his drawing near) was of the highest order. Each of the sages listed is, by way of a cited verse, associated with a different book of the Jewish canon. Ben Azzai's book is Psalms. This suggests that worshipping God with the attitude of a slave towards his master is the least dangerous option and puts one at the greatest distance from the Divinity. Ben Zoma is associated with Proverbs. According to the story's inner logic, his "peeking" alludes to a deeper entry into the orchard. Proverbs is a book of practical wisdom expressing a conservative world view that emphasizes divine reward and punishment and teaches an optimistic view of the universe. The braita is telling us that the very pursuit of practical wisdom increases danger while it also constitutes a state of greater closeness to God. Elisha ben Avuyah is connected with Kohelet. Kohelet has the structural features of a book of practical wisdom (short verses, for instance) but it is really a book of philosophical wisdom that casts deep doubts upon God's justice and His ways in the world. The editor of the braita marks Kohelet as a dangerous book (that leads to "cutting down the shoots"), but in the context of the braita it also symbolizes very great closeness to God. R. Akiva offers the optimal model. He ascended safely and descended safely, and he is associated with the Song of Songs. According to the braita, the man-woman relationship is, then, the correct formula for human-divine relations. The relationship described in the Song of Songs is an especially worthy model. While it does have a physical aspect (His left hand beneath my head, he embraces with his right), cleaving and connection are not the leading motifs; the feelings of mystery, of desire and missed opportunity are the book's signature themes. The braita connects its lesson regarding the formation of one's relationship with God and the correct distance to be maintained from Him with advice regarding which texts should be studied from the Jewish canon. In terms of its literary format, the orchard of the braita includes at once both mystical experience and philosophical speculation.

The insight that the braita treats the issue of the correct distance one should keep from God helps us to understand the composition of the entire second chapter of Tosefta Hagigah. The remainder of the chapter following Hakovetz Hamisti is chiefly devoted to one topic - the origins of disagreements in Jewish law. In this context we find halakhah 9, stating that "At first there were no disagreements in Israel," which sees such disagreements as stemming from a break in the chain of the legal tradition. In the same vein, the chapter deals with the first disagreement to arise among the zugot [early pairs of rabbinic leaders] on the question of whether one is allowed to lay one hands on the head of the animal offered as a festival sacrifice [korban hagigah]. The immediate context is, of course the laws of the festival sacrifices which are also connected to the korban hagigah. There is, however, a deeper connection - if sages transmit God's word from one generation to the next, the very development of disagreements is symptomatic of their living at an increasing distance from God. The disagreement regarding the laying of hands on the sacrifice is an embodiment of this matter - Beit Shammai prohibits it because it constitutes using an animal on a festival day (the prohibition of shevut) and therefore it should be performed on the eve of the festival. Beit Shammai views the laying of hands as involving a total transfer of identity from the one who places his hands on the animal to the animal itself (and so to in regards to semicha - the symbolic transfer of rabbinic authority from teacher to student via the laying of hands). Beit Hillel permits the laying of hands on a festival day not only because of systematic considerations (since the ordinary people like to lay their hands on the animal immediately before its sacrifice, prohibition of the laying of hands during festivals will deter them from offering sacrifices) but also because Beit Hillel does not accept the notion that the laying on of hands effects a complete transfer of identity. The gap which has a place in the relationship modeled by the Song of Songs and personified in the braita's depiction of R. Akiva is also championed by Beit Hillel. The gap, with all its shortcomings (it lacks hidabkut) and advantages (it allows for entry and exit from the orchard and leaves room for disagreement) is the central theme that informs the composition of the second chapter of Tosefta Hagigah.

Unsurprisingly, the commandments of love for God and cleaving to God weighed heavily in the controversial ruling of the High Rabbinical Court (case # 5489-64-1) which invalidated Rabbi Druckman's court and the conversion of "Plonit" [the "anonymous woman"]: "The upshot of what has been stated is that the essence of the act of conversion performed by a court constitutes the performance of a commandment because through its authority the gentile cleaves [mitdabek] to God and His commandments and attaches himself to Israel, the people of God (pg.14). Rabbi Sherman states that when a court performs a conversion it acts "within the framework of and as part of the commandment to love God" and the commandment to convert becomes a positive commandment incumbent upon the court only from the moment that the gentile agrees "honestly and from the depths of his heart to cleave [lehidabek] to God and to His commandments," that being the essence of conversion. Thus, for example, there is no commandment to convert a deaf and dumb woman (since even deaf and dumb Jews are not obligated with the commandments) and the result of such a conversion would be merely social and would not draw her in "under the wings of the Divine Presence." The Hareidi Rabbinate's one dimensional understanding of conversion as a religious act of cleaving to God without any gaps (which is expressed chiefly, of course, through the performance of commandments) stands in contradiction to the traditional Jewish approach to cleaving - the tradition that enshrines Draw me after you, let us run - which always left a gap making room for the Jewish culture of disagreement and for Jewish life with all its complexities.

Dr. Yair Edlan is a research fellow in the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Shalom Hartman Institute

 

 

I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying: "...let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan, that good hill country, and the Lebanon."

(Devarim 3:23, 25)

 

For the same state is in store for all (Kohelet 9:2) - Moses said to God: Master of the Universe, all are equal before you; you destroy the innocent and the wicked alike. The spies angered you by speaking ill of the Land, as it is said, thus they spread calumnies about the land (Bamidbar 13:32), while I served your children before you in the wilderness for forty years, and we share the same fate!?

What is this like? A king wished to marry a certain woman. He sent messengers to see whether she was beautiful or not. They went and saw her, and came to the king and said to him: "There is none as ugly and desolate as her." His best man heard and told him, "Not so, my Lord, there is no woman more beautiful than her in the world." He went to marry her, and the girl's father told the king's messengers: "I swear on the king's life that not one of you shall enter here, because you scorned her in the king's presence." The best man arrived to enter, and he told him: "You, too, will not enter." The best man said to him: "I did not see her, yet I told the king that there is none more beautiful than her in the world, while they said there is none uglier than her. Now let me be, and I will see which of us spoke truthfully."

So Moses said to God: "My Master, the spies spread calumny about the Land and said it is a country that devours its inhabitants (Bamidbar 13:32), but I did not see it, yet I praised it to your sons, and I said, the Lord your God brings you to a goodly land (Devarim 8:7). Now I shall see it and know whether my words or theirs were correct, as it is said, Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan (Devarim 3:25). He told him: you shall not go across (3:27). Moses told Him: "If so, all are the same to you - you destroy the innocent and the wicked alike."

(Tanhuma Va'et'hanan 1)

 

The Gates of Mercy are Not Locked

When Moses entered the lands of the Reubenites and the Gadites, he rejoiced and said: "It seems to me that I have been released from my vow," and he began pouring out words of supplication before the King. To what parable can this be compared? To a king of flesh and blood who decreed that his son could not enter the entrance of his palace. He entered the gates and he came in behind him, [he entered] the entrance hall and he came after him. When he arrived at the bed-chamber, he said to him: My son, you are not allowed [to follow] from this point on. Similarly, when Moses entered the lands of the Gadites and the Reubenites, he rejoiced and said: "It seems to me that I have been released from my vow." This can be understood through an a fortiori argument: Moses, who was a great sage, father of the wise and father of the prophets, even though he was aware of the decree he did not keep himself from [pleading for] mercy, all the more so in the case of other human beings [that they should always seek God's mercy], for it is said: And I pleaded to the Lord (Devarim 3).

(Sifri Balak 132)

 

Comfort Ye, Comfort Ye, My People

Zealousness is as harsh as Sheol - Elijah’s zealousness against Israel was severe. As is written, I am moved by zeal for the Lord, the God of Hosts, for the Israelites have forsaken Your covenant... Elijah should have gone to the place where his fathers stood and pleaded for mercy upon Israel, but he did not do so. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said to him: "You pleaded for your own needs, go and return to Damascus". And so is written with regards to Hezkiah: For there will be peace and truth in my days (Isaiah 39:8). The Holy One, Blessed Be He, said to him: "You have pleaded for your own needs." Comfort, oh comfort My people, says your God (Ibid 40:1), and you [Israel] have no need for Elijah’s prayer."

(Midrash Zuta, Shir Hashirim, Parasha 8)

 

Comfort, oh comfort My people - All the tribulations and the suffering and the exile are proportionate to the lack of da'at [knowledge, understanding]. When da'at will be complete, then all deficiencies will be filled, in the sense of (Nedarim 41) "If you have acquired de'ah, then what do you lack?" and as is written: Assuredly, My people will suffer exile for lacking da'at, and the essential element of eternal life - to be in the world to come - will be a result of da'at. For da'at will spread, and all will know God, and through da'at all will be part of His unity, and then all will live eternal life as He does, for through da'at all are part of Him, as was said by the Sage, "If I knew Him, I would be Him." The principle part of da'at will be in the future, as is written, For the earth will be filled with de'ah, and because of da'at, nothing good will be lacking - all will be good.

(Likutei MoHaRaN, Parasha 21)

 

 

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 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.