A Thought On Parshas Shoftim

A Thought On Parshas Shoftim

"...ki savo el ha'aretz v'y'rishtah v'yoshavtah..."
"...when you will enter the land and acquire and settle in it..." (17:14)

The Torah introduces the commandment to appoint a king upon settling the land of Israel. Chazal include this commandment within the three mitzvos which are incumbent upon us once we enter the land. The other two commandments are vanquishing the nation of Amalek, and establishing a central shrine or Bais HaMikdash. When we study the move to initiate a monarchy later on in the Book of Shmuel, it seems that we were reprimanded by the prophet for emulating the ways of the nations by wanting a king. Is it a mitzvah or is it a lapse in our sovereignty as G-d's people that we sought to imitate the other nations?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel observes that the last verb cited in the above verse closes with what would be a superfluous "hae". It would have been fine to write v'yoshavta without that letter at the end (I have omitted the English "h" here and the word is still pronounced the same. In Hebrew too the pronunciation will not change with or without the hae and in fact, the word is generally written without a hae.)

Clearly, he reasons, the letter must hint at something, and he uses its numerical equivalent of five to see an allusion to the five generations which passed from the time of our entering Israel until we appointed a king. He then suggests that the admonishment for "trying to imitate the nations" was actually a reprimand for waiting five generations, rather than doing the mitzva of appointing a king sooner.

However, he ponders, the allegation should have been that we waited, and not that we sought to imitate the nations. How are the two faults related?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel answers with a close analysis of the scriptural passages. When we look in the books of Yehoshua (13:3) and Shmuel (1 7:7), we see that in the early days,
our "Palestinian" foes (the Plishtim) did not have kings. Rather, their leader was referred to as a saran, similar to a sheik or emir. Only in the days of Shaul and Shmuel did those foes transform their sheiks into kings (see Shmuel 1 21:11). That was also five generations from the time we entered the Holy Land. If so, going back to our own parsha where the verse writes "and you will say 'let me appoint over me a king like all the nations around me' ", we could not have implemented the step of appointing an imitative king as long as there were in fact no "kings" to be found in those nations around us!

Until there was a melech among our enemies, we did not seek to appoint one over ourselves. We waited until the nations did so. That took five generations. This is hinted at, then, in our verse. A combination of reality, of fear and of seeking to imitate the nations was part of the saga. We waited and we imitated.

We are still waiting. Let's cease imitating, and in fact, as we labor and yearn to establish claim to our historical homeland once again, perhaps one day the world will catch on that it is our surrounding Plishtim who are trying to imitate us in that claim, just as they moved from sheikdoms and emirates to kingdoms with kings and presidents. Imitatio roi must become imitatio Dei once again. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Re'ae

A Thought On Parshas Re'ae

"...ae'leh ha'chukim v'ha'mishpatim..."
"...these are the statutes and rules..." (12:1)

For those who attend my Shabbos shiur following kiddush, the format of starting with a brief idea from the weekly parsha is familiar. We have a rule, however, following that short vort, which precedes my formal halacha interactive shiur, that no questions or embellishments are to follow the introductory parsha vort. It is too easy to get distracted from the central focus of the ensuing shiur. I often have to invoke the oft-quoted adage "ain mei'shivin al ha'drash" ('we do not challenge homiletic interpretations') in order to get the chavrei ha'minyan to focus on the shiur.

Now, that adage is almost colloquial. Most of us have heard it before and assume that it originates in some Talmudic tractate or other. After all, there are a number of adages which also begin with the phrase ain mei'shivin ('we do not challenge, or refute, or respond to...') in the words of Chazal and this one sounds much like something that our sages would say. Yet, when you stop and ponder it, the adage needs clarification. We Torah Jews thrive on being able to analyze, critique and question everything we hear. The entire process of Talmudic study is built on such razor-sharp inquiry. Why can't we challenge a thought which is derived through midrashic exegesis?

According to our reference books (see Michlol ha'Mamarim v'ha'Pisgamim), the saying does not appear in the Talmud at all. It originates, apparently, in a medieval commentary known as Pane'ach Raza which was written by one of the Baalei Tosafos, Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Rabbeinu Yehuda HaLevi. It appears in later sources as well. What is not clear, however, is how or where the notion or principle came to be.

To my delight, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel looks at our verse and cites a Talmudic interpretation of the words aeleh ha'chukim - these are the statutes - which instructs us that the word chok here refers to midrashos or those laws which are derived from homiletic interpretation (see Kidushin 37a). Apparently, those halachic principles which are not explicitly stated (unlike a mishpat such as "do not steal", which makes sense to us without requiring any delicate means of inferential derivation) and which we derive through intricate exegesis are called midrashos. The gemara says that our verse's use of the word chukim juxtaposed to the other word mishpatim, is making that distinction between the explicit and the derived.

Now, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel points out, we know that the "classic" case of a chok is the Para Aduma (BaMidbar 19:2). The laws of the Red Heifer mystify us because they exceed our conventional limits of logic and predictability. The Torah captions those laws as a chok, and we know from there that a chok (or chuka) is a statute which is beyond and impervious to our usual critical analysis and logic. So, our master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel reasons, if the aforementioned gemara asserts that our verse's word chukim refers to midrashos, and we know that the classic chok is one that cannot be critiqued or refuted with any tools of logic or reasoning, no matter how compelling, we now have a Biblical source for the adage which proclaims ain mei'shivin al ha'drash! Since a drash is called a chok here and a chok is not subject to challenge or critical analysis, the Torah alludes here to the idea that we respect a legitimate interpretation derived from proper tools of midrashic exegesis, and we do not attempt to challenge or refute it.

It is hard to say whether Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel came up with this brilliant insight before Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Rabbeinu Yehuda HaChasid did, but we will not concern ourselves with that question. After all, ain mei'shivin al ha'drash. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Ekev

A Thought On Parshas Ekev

"...hu Elokae ha'elokim v'Adonae ha'adonim...asher lo yisa panim..." (10:17)
"...for your G-d is G-d of gods and Lord of lords...impartial..."

Moshe Rabbeinu presents to our nation the Supreme majesty of HaShem. In describing Him as "G-d of gods and Lord of lords", however, it might seem at first glance that he is defeating his own purpose of lauding HaShem as One. A concrete reading of the verse might suggest that there is c'v some type of competition among various gods and lords and that baruch HaShem our own one has won out as Lord of lords. We know that our own one is truly our One and Only! What is learned and what is gained by implying that there are many others deities out there? Besides, what has this to do with the end of the verse which says that HaShem is impartial and takes no bribes? Impartial compared to whom? Bribes from whom?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel offers a different view of our verse. We know that the term elokim is also used (and literally can mean) a judge or judges. Since the end of the verse is clearly discussing a judicial standard (the court system is meant to be impartial and the justices are forbidden to accept bribes), the beginning of the verse is also referring to judges.

The verse means to say that our judges, our true shoftim and dayanim, merit a sense of the Divine Presence. HaShem's Presence hovers over the judges who rule according to Torah. Hence, the first clause means "HaShem is the G-d over the judges."

The second clause ties in to the close of the verse. For a judge to avoid the temptation of being biased or swayed, he must have great self control and sense of purpose. He must rule over himself. While there are different synonyms for judge (shofet, dayan, elokim...), we usually would not include the word adon - lord- on that list. Rather, the "lord" of our verse is illustrating how a judge needs to be lord over himself. He needs to be the master of his moods and his reasoning. The verse should be understood, according to Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, as "HaShem is the Lord over those judges who rule over their temptation and who remain impartial, avoiding bribes."

HaShem's Presence is sensed around Torah judges. He is the G-d of those judges, and the Lord of those who lord over themselves by remaining honest, objective and who rule by the integrity of absolute halacha.

May we merit to live within that sacred system. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Va'Eschanan

A Thought on Parshas Va'Eschanan

"...lo me'rubchem mi'kol ha'amim ki atem ha'me'at.."
"...its not because you are more numerous than all the nations..." (7:13)

A recurrent theme beneath HaShem's vow of commitment to His nation Israel is the reminder that His love is not because we are the biggest nation or most populated country. It is a puzzling reminder, nonetheless, that HaShem keeps giving us. What is the intention of that phrase "its not because you are more numerous than all the nations"? How numerous are all those nations? Who are "all those nations"? What is the point and why does this matter?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel offers two angles in understanding this vague tenet that we are less than all the nations. Obviously, it does not require advanced computing to realize that we are a small fragment of humanity and have never been otherwise. The Torah might have just said "you Jews are a pretty small group ."

His first view is that "all of the nations" refers to our ancient statistical premise that there are seventy nations. We talk about Israel likened to a sheep surrounded by seventy wolves. We have a tradition that there are seventy discrete nations or peoples from whom the entire world is now descended. The term "umos ha'olam" generally refers to those seventy groups.

Now, if you go over the Torah's accounting of the Jewish nation in the desert (Parshas Pinchas), you will find that our nation consisted of sixty five families. There were twelve tribes but these comprised sixty five families. There are fifty seven varieties of Israelites and there are eight Levite families. That totals sixty five. If so, we are less than the nations of the world by exactly five factions. 70 minus 65 equals 5. This is what the verse means that the nations are more than we are.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel offers a second view: if you look back in Bereishis (25:23) you will discover that the world's nations are referred to as le'umim - nations. (Think "Bank Le'umi" - the National Bank, and think "Beinle'umi" - the International Bank). Now, that word begins with the letter lamed, which is the tallest of the Hebrew alphabet symbols. The tower of the lamed rises above all letters. In contrast, Israel (Yisrael) begins with a yud which is the tiniest letter. Our name-symbol is a tiny yud, whereas the nations have a lamed as their representing letter symbol. (Remember that when you hear us being called Yudin or Yiddin. We are the nation of "yud" - of small representation.)

This is what the Torah alludes to here. We start off small and they start off large. Our verse refers to this mystical difference between our nation and the nations of the world. We do not draw overt material attention to ourselves, and quietly accomplish what we should. The nations of the world have largesse and material grandeur. That is a contrasting variable. HaShem wants us to accept this difference, and to remember that our material size is inversely correlated with the magnitude of our role in this world.

Good Shabbos and may the Weeks of Consolation bring us comfort and hope. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Devarim

A Thought On Parshas Devarim

"...yosef aleichem ka'chem elef pa'am'im..."
"...HaShem will increase you a thousand times..." (1:11)

The Torah repeats that HaShem promises to multiply the ranks of Jews. We will be compared to the stars of the sky, the sand of the shore, the dust of the earth. We are likened in multitude to things which cannot be counted, for they are too numerous.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel is puzzled with this. Throughout the Torah and in later writings, the Jews have been counted by one form of census or another. There is no doubt that we are a small nation, relative to the teeming throngs which inhabit this planet. When did or when will this promise be fulfilled? We have never been "beyond numbering."

He offers a novel perspective: consider sand, if that doesn't go against your grain. Notice that a little sand or a lot of sand is still called sand. In addition, if you take a bucket of sand from the sea shore and dump it somewhere else, it is still called sand. So it turns out that sand, whether transported and relocated, or subtracted from or added to, always retains its name and status.

This is the survival quality of the Jew as well. We lose numbers, we gain numbers, we are exiled hither and yon. We are transported, uprooted, scattered and banished. Yet, we remain Jews. We are known to others as Jews. We consider ourselves Jews. We never give up our name and therefore we always retain our identity.

This is the promise, explains Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, which has accompanied us throughout our history. From Egypt to Spain to Greece, England, Magdeburg, Dunkirk, Iran and America, and points in between, we are still Jews. And in the times to come, he adds, this will be the fulfillment of the prophecy (Hoshea 2:1) "Yet the Children of Israel will be counted like the sands of the sea which cannot be counted". Wherever we are found, there shall we be, still Jews.

May Shabbos Chazon make way for those better times ahead. Good Shabbos. D Fox