Hamaayan / The Torah Spring Edited by Shlomo Katz Mishpatim "Guided Tour to Eretz Yisrael" Volume 25, No. 18 24 Shevat 5771 January 29, 2011 Sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Jules Meisler in memory of Jules' mother Anne Meisler a"h and sister Gladys Citrino a"h Elaine and Jerry Taragin on the yahrzeits of Mrs. Shirley Taragin a"h, Mr. Irving Rivkin a"h, and Mrs. F. Rivkin a"h Dr. and Mrs. Robert Klein on the yahrzeit of his father Meyer ben Kalman, Milton Klein a"h The Katz family on the yahrzeit of uncle Avraham Abba ben Avigdor Moshe Hakohen Katz a"h Today's Learning: Tanach: Yirmiyah 25-26 Mishnah: Terumot 9:2-3 Halachah: O.C. 618:4-6 Daf Yomi (Bavli): Zevachim 80 Daf Yomi (Yerushalmi): Orlah 20 We read in our parashah (23: 20, 23), "Behold! I am sending an angel before you to protect you on the way, and to bring you to the place that I have made ready. . . For My angel shall go before you and bring you to the Emorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Canaanite, the Hivvite, and the Yevusite, and I will annihilate them." And, we will read in three weeks, in Parashat Ki Tissa (32:34 & 33:2), "Now, go and lead the people to where I have told you. Behold! My angel shall go before you . . . I shall send an angel ahead of you, and I shall drive out the Canaanite, the Emorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Yevusite." Are these two verses speaking of the same angel, or of two different angels? Rashi z"l writes that they are one and the same. He explains that, in our parashah, Hashem told Moshe that Bnei Yisrael were destined to sin, after which He would distance Himself from them and appoint an angel to lead them. Later, in Parashat Ki Tissa, Bnei Yisrael made the golden calf and Hashem followed through on what he had told Moshe. Other commentaries disagree. Notably, R' Don Yitzchak Abarbanel z"l (1437-1508; author of a significant commentary on Tanach and of numerous other works; advisor to the monarchs of Portugal, Spain and several Italian states) wrote an entire book devoted to explaining these verses. He presents twelve questions, among them: We read in Parashat Ki Tissa that Moshe objected (33:15), "If Your Presence does not go along, do not bring us forward from here." Why does Moshe not object in our parashah? R' Abarbanel explains: The angel spoken of in our parashah and the one in Parashat Ki Tissa are two different angels. In our parashah, Hashem is telling Moshe that, although Hashem will lead Bnei Yisrael with His hashgachah pratit / "individual providence" once they arrive in Eretz Yisrael, He will not relate to them in that way prior to their entering the Land. Rather, they will be lead by an angel. Moshe could not argue with this, for he understood that the desert, like any place outside of Eretz Yisrael, is unfit for a display of hashgachah pratit. Moreover, Moshe had no reason to object, since he believed at that time that Bnei Yisrael would enter Eretz Yisrael within a few weeks. This was before the giving of the Torah. Thus we read later in our parashah (24:1-3), "To Moshe He said, `Go up to Hashem, you, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Yisrael, and you shall prostrate yourselves from a distance. And Moshe alone shall approach Hashem, but they shall not approach, and the people shall not go up with him.' Moshe came and told the people all the words of Hashem and all the ordinances, and the entire people responded with one voice and they said, `All the words that Hashem has spoken, we will do'." Upon receiving the Torah, however, Bnei Yisrael attained such a lofty spiritual level that they merited to be lead by hashgachah pratit even outside of Eretz Yisrael. But then they made the golden calf, and Hashem withdrew from the close relationship that had been created by the revelation at Har Sinai. Again, he told Moshe that Bnei Yisrael would be lead by an angel, and this time Moshe objected. Notwithstanding the sin of the golden calf, Bnei Yisrael had accomplished too much to be distanced now, he argued. Furthermore, Moshe now realized that the entry into Eretz Yisrael was no longer imminent. For these reasons, he objected to Hashem's announcement that He would send an angel ahead of them. (Ateret Zekeinim) ******** "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot." (21:24) Commentaries have offered many approaches for reconciling this verse with the accepted halachah that one who damages another pays money and does not receive corporal punishment. R' Avraham Korman z"l (1907-1991; Israeli educator) explains as follows: It is important for us to know that the Torah is not a manual for judges. Rather, the Torah was given to all Jews so that every Jew will know what his obligations are at all times and in all situations. This understanding explains seemingly contradictory messages found in Tanach. For example, a lender is told not to pursue a borrower for collection (in our parashah--Shmot 22:24), while a borrower is reminded that he is a sinner if he does not pay (Tehilim 37:24). To a judge, these two verses would offer irreconcilable messages; however, that is not their purpose. Rather, the lender is being informed that his responsibility is to be patient and understanding, while the borrower is being informed that his responsibility is to pay his debts. R' Korman continues: Unlike the laws of many societies, which punish crime as a deterrent to future criminals, the Torah's aim is to uplift man so that he will avoid being an agent of harm to another person. When one person steals from a second person, the latter is not experiencing a loss that he would not have experienced anyway. Either because he sinned or for some other reason, G-d has decreed that he should suffer a loss. However, that does not excuse the thief's behavior. He should have elevated himself and not been the agent for the victim's harm. Similarly, if one person (call him Reuven) blinds another person (call him Shimon), he must pay monetary damages to the victim. If the Torah were merely a manual for judges, that is what the verse would have said. However, Reuven needs to know that he has not excused himself entirely by paying damages. Rather, Reuven must repent for being the agent of harm to Shimon, and our verse is teaching that his repentance is not complete until he is feels that, were it possible, he would willingly give his own eye to Shimon to replace the eye that Shimon lost. (Mavo La'Torah p.139) ******** "When you lend money to My people, the poor person with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him" (22:24) R' Shlomo Algazi z"l (17th century) observes: This verse is teaching that when you lend money or give charity to a poor person, you are not doing only him a favor. "When you lend money to My people, the poor person with you"-- you are doing a kindness for yourself as well. (Shaima Shlomo) ******** "Everything that Hashem has said, na'aseh / we will do v'nishmah / and we will hear!" The Midrash Rabbah relates a parable about a king who gave his servants two fragile and expensive vases to watch. As one of the servants walked out of the king's room carrying a vase, a calf nudged him and he dropped the vase on the ground, where it smashed to bits. When the king saw that the servant was trembling with fear, he said, "Be careful with the second vase." Similarly, the midrash continues, Hashem said to Bnei Yisrael after the sin of the golden calf: "You poured two cups at Har Sinai, the cup of `na'aseh' and the cup of `nishmah.' Now that you have made the golden calf and have broken `na'aseh,' at least be careful with `nishmah'." [Until here from the midrash] Why was making the golden calf considered a violation of "na'aseh / we will do" any more than it was a violation of "nishmah / we will hear"? asks R' Eliezer Dovid Gruenwald z"l (1867-1928; Hungarian rabbi and rosh yeshiva). He explains: It is generally agreed by the Rishonim (early commentaries) that Bnei Yisrael did not wilfully transgress the prohibition against making idols. In fact, their intention was noble; they simply did not feel that they could serve G-d without an intermediary. Nevertheless, before one blazes a new pathway in serving G-d, he should consult with elders and scholars, and this they did not do. This was not the first time that Bnei Yisrael had acted without consulting their elders. We read in Parashat Yitro (19:7-8), "Moshe came and summoned the elders of the people, and put before them all these words that Hashem had commanded him. The entire people responded together and said, `Everything that Hashem has spoken na'aseh / we shall do!' [So] Moshe brought back the words of the people to Hashem." Bnei Yisrael did not wait to hear the elders' advice; they immediately said, "Na'aseh / we shall do!" At first, their enthusiastic response ("na'aseh") without waiting to hear the elders' advice was considered meritorious. Later, however, when they made the golden calf instead of seeking advice, they demonstrated that their enthusiasm was simply a product of impulsiveness. In retrospect, their response of "na'aseh" was worthless. Said Hashem, "At least keep `nishmah / we will hear.' In the future, listen to your elders' advice." (Keren Le'Dovid: Parashat Yitro) ******** "Hashem said to Moshe, `Ascend to Me to the mountain and remain there, and I shall give you the stone Tablets and the teaching and the commandment that I have written, to teach them'." (24:12) What is the significance of the fact that the Luchot were made of stone? R' Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z"l (1865-1935; Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael) explains: "Those who would change the Torah pursuant to the wickedness of their beliefs" [in R' Kook's own words] say that only the spirit of the Torah is eternal. However, they claim, the deeds that result from that spirit must be modernized and brought up-to- date. In order to nullify such false assertions, Hashem gave the Aseret Ha'dibrot, which are a symbol of the covenant that includes the whole Torah, engraved in stone--a hard, unchanging material. This demonstrates that even the material manifestation of the Torah is unchanging. (Ein Ayah: Berachot ch.1 no.17)