Parshat Ki Teze 5769

Parshat Ki Teze 5769

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Dysfunctional Relationships

Parshat Ki Teze starts with war and ends with war. It begins with a man in the heat of battle who spies an attractive woman from the opposing side, and ends with instructions regarding the ultimate battle with Amalek. In between, the portion is packed with commandments; in fact, more commandments are found in this parsha than any other.

Although tradition may discourage us from seeking out the reasons or rationale for mitzvot, here in D'varim, we may glean insights into certain mitzvot from their context.[1] Thus, the Sages discerned a cause-and-effect relationship among the first three topics in the parsha: a beautiful wife, taken in battle, will lead to a situation in which a man has one favored wife and one whom he rejects, which in turn leads to the "rebellious son".[2]

As the Sages see it, the rebellious child does not develop in a vacuum; he is the result of a dysfunctional home. This child's mother was wrested from her family and homeland. Her value system would surely be at odds with that of her Jewish husband. The dissonance felt by this child would most likely be the cause of his own antipathy to Jewish mores and tradition. Additionally, this child seems genetically challenged, as it were: The father practiced poor self-control and sought immediate gratification. Is it any wonder that this child cannot exercise self-restraint?[3]

Interestingly enough, the Rabbis felt that there never was and never would be a “real” rebellious child.[4] This is not to say that such a child never existed.[5] Rather, the courts could never successfully prosecute and adjudicate such a case, due to the myriad conditions required for a conviction:[6] One of the conditions for establishing guilt is that the rebellious son does not listen "to his father and to his mother":

דברים פרק כא

(יח) כִּי יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם:

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not listen to them; D’varim 21:18

The Talmud explains that the rebellious child will only be guilty if both parents speak with one united voice:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף עא עמוד א

משנה. היה אביו רוצה ואמו אינה רוצה, אביו אינו רוצה ואמו רוצה - אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיהו שניהם רוצין. רבי יהודה אומר: אם לא היתה אמו ראויה לאביו - אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה.

גמרא. מאי אינה ראויה? אילימא חייבי כריתות וחייבי מיתות בית דין, סוף סוף אבוה - אבוה נינהו, ואמיה - אמיה נינהו! אלא: בשוה לאביו קאמר, תניא נמי הכי, רבי יהודה אומר: אם לא היתה אמו שוה לאביו בקול ובמראה ובקומה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה. מאי טעמא - דאמר קרא: איננו שמע בקלנו מדקול בעינן שוין - מראה וקומה נמי בעינן שוין. כמאן אזלא הא דתניא: בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות, ולמה נכתב - דרוש וקבל שכר,

MISHNAH. If his father desires [to have him punished], but not his mother, or the reverse, he is not treated as a 'stubborn and rebellious son', unless they both desire it. R. Yehudah said: 'If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘stubborn and rebellious son'.

GEMARA. What is meant by ‘NOT FIT'? Shall we say that she is forbidden to him under penalty of extinction or capital punishment at the hand of Beth din; but after all, his father is his father, and his mother is his mother? — But he means not physically like his father. It has been taught likewise: R. Yehudah said: If his mother is not like his father in voice, appearance and stature, he does not become a rebellious son. Why so? — The Torah says, 'he will not obey our voice', and since they must be alike in voice, they must be also in appearance and stature. With whom does the following Baraitha agree: There never has been a stubborn and rebellious son, and never will be. Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 71a

The Talmud understood that the conditions for convicting a person as a 'rebellious child' are many, including, quite literally, that both parents have the same voice. The Mishna understood this stipulation more figuratively, in a manner surprisingly similar to our current ideas of effective parenting: The parents must be of one voice, not in pitch and cadence, but in content. The Mishna effectively turns the focus of scrutiny away from the rebellious child, and focuses on the parents and the messages this child received from them over the years. As a result, the child who is most likely to be rebellious due to the fractured home life, would be the very child whom the law exonerates of responsibility - not because he doesn’t warrant punishment[7], but because he is not seen as necessarily responsible for his actions. In the Talmudic formulation, the child gets off on a technicality: his parents' lack of physical similarity. In the Mishnaic formulation, the child is spared because of the gap between the parents' worldviews, religious and otherwise, and their failure to effectively parent their offspring.

The theme of relationships - how to build them, how to keep them intact, and how to heal them in the event that they are damaged - can be seen as the overriding theme of the parsha. This parsha treats such diverse but related topics as marriage, divorce, rape, prostitution, and even cross-dressing. Drawing a line of thought between the particulars may help us gain insight into the larger theme.

In one particular case, a very strict limitation is placed upon interpersonal relationships. In a departure from what we have come to expect in this parsha, we need not exert ourselves in an examination of the context in order to discern some reason for the prohibition; the Torah explains the prohibition in a clear statement of rationale:

דברים פרק כג

(ד) לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה’ גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לֹא יָבֹא לָהֶם בִּקְהַל ה’ עַד עוֹלָם:(ה) עַל דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדְּמוּ אֶתְכֶם בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם וַאֲשֶׁר שָׂכַר עָלֶיךָ אֶת בִּלְעָם בֶּן בְּעוֹר מִפְּתוֹר אֲרַם נַהֲרַיִם לְקַלְלֶךָּ:(ו) וְלֹא אָבָה ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיַּהֲפֹךְ ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְּךָ אֶת הַקְּלָלָה לִבְרָכָה כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ: (ז) לֹא תִדְרֹשׁ שְׁלֹמָם וְטֹבָתָם כָּל יָמֶיךָ לְעוֹלָם: ס

An Ammonite or Moavite shall not enter into the Congregation of God; to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the Congregation of God forever; Because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Bil'am the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. Nevertheless the Almighty, your God, would not listen to Bil'am; but the Almighty, your God, turned the curse into a blessing to you, because the Almighty your God loved you. You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever. Dvarim 23:4-7

Amon and Moav were raised in a strange family unit: they were both the products of incest. Their mothers were sisters who got their father drunk, and seduced him in his stupor.

בראשית פרק יט

(ל) וַיַּעַל לוֹט מִצּוֹעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהָר וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו עִמּוֹ כִּי יָרֵא לָשֶׁבֶת בְּצוֹעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב בַּמְּעָרָה הוּא וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו: (לא) וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל הַצְּעִירָה אָבִינוּ זָקֵן וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל הָאָרֶץ: (לב) לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת אָבִינוּ יַיִן וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ זָרַע: (לג) וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת אָבִיהָ וְלֹא יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקוּמָהּ: (לד) וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל הַצְּעִירָה הֵן שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת אָבִי נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם הַלַּיְלָה וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ זָרַע: (לה) וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא אֶת אֲבִיהֶן יָיִן וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ וְלֹא יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ: (לו) וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹת לוֹט מֵאֲבִיהֶן: (לז) וַתֵּלֶד הַבְּכִירָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מוֹאָב הוּא אֲבִי מוֹאָב עַד הַיּוֹם: (לח) וְהַצְּעִירָה גַם הִוא יָלְדָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן עַמִּי הוּא אֲבִי בְנֵי עַמּוֹן עַד הַיּוֹם: ס

30. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and lived in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to live in Zoar; and he lived in a cave, he and his two daughters. And the firstborn said to the younger, 'Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth; Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, 'Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also; and you go in, and lie with him, that we may preserve the seed of our father.' And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moav; he is the father of the Moavites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day. Bereishit 19:30-38

Lot, the ne’er-do-well nephew of the illustrious Avraham, saw his world crumble around him. His first tragic mistake was taking leave of Avraham: His status as the heir apparent of Avraham's fortune should have placated him, and smoothed over any ill will that had developed between the shepherds of his flocks and Avraham's shepherds. Avraham, known for his delight in taking in strangers, realized that there was only one solution for the conflict, and suggested a parting of the ways:

בראשית פרק יג

(ז) וַיְהִי רִיב בֵּין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה אַבְרָם וּבֵין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה לוֹט וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי אָז יֹשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ: (ח) וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל לוֹט אַל נָא תְהִי מְרִיבָה בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶיךָ וּבֵין רֹעַי וּבֵין רֹעֶיךָ כִּי אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים אֲנָחְנוּ:(ט) הֲלֹא כָל הָאָרֶץ לְפָנֶיךָ הִפָּרֶד נָא מֵעָלָי אִם הַשְּׂמֹאל וְאֵימִנָה וְאִם הַיָּמִין וְאַשְׂמְאִילָה:

And there was strife between the herdsmen of Avram’s cattle and the herdsmen of Lot’s cattle; and the Canaanite and the Perizzite lived then in the land. And Avram said to Lot, 'Let there be no strife, I beg you, between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen; for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself, I beg you, from me; if you will take the left, then I will go to the right; or if you depart to the right, then I will go to the left. Bereishit 13:7-9

Avraham speaks of “left and right,” normally understood as north and south, yet Lot travels eastward, to a place that reminds him of Egypt, which in itself was not known for its morality: He travels to Sodom.

בראשית פרק יג

(י) וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת כָּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת ה’ אֶת סְדֹם וְאֶת עֲמֹרָה כְּגַן ה’ כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר: (יא) וַיִּבְחַר לוֹ לוֹט אֵת כָּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן וַיִּסַּע לוֹט מִקֶּדֶם וַיִּפָּרְדוּ אִישׁ מֵעַל אָחִיו: (יב) אַבְרָם יָשַׁב בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְלוֹט יָשַׁב בְּעָרֵי הַכִּכָּר וַיֶּאֱהַל עַד סְדֹם: (יג) וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים לַה’ מְאֹד:

And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw the valley of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before God destroyed Sodom and Amorrah, like the garden of God, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar. Then Lot chose for himself the valley of the Jordan; and Lot journeyed east, and they separated themselves, one from the other. Avram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom. 13. But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinners before God. Bereishit 13:10-13

There is something terribly wrong with a person who would leave the tent of Avraham and choose a place like Sodom. Sodom looked to him like an oasis; surely, Lot was motivated by aspirations of wealth and power. But soon Sodom was destroyed, his home gone, and even his wife was lost. He escaped with only the clothes on his back and his two daughters, products of the Sodomite educational system. These daughters each present Lot with sons, Moav and Amon, each of whom are progenitors of great nations.

These sons enter the world with a stigma: Their father/grandfather has made countless bad decisions, and their mothers instigated incest with their own father. It is not hard to surmise how such children would have felt: hurt, angry, disenfranchised, full of resentment. Yet the Torah teaches a remarkable lesson: These nations are forbidden to the Jewish people; descendents of Amon and Moav are not to be accepted as converts to Judaism. But why? Not because they are genetically inferior, or racially tainted, but “because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Bil'am the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.”

The second half of the verse is understandable: They conspired to curse the Jews, reason enough for maintaining a healthy distance. Moreover, the "Plan B" tactic employed by Amon and Moav in their quest to destroy Israel was even more telling: The daughters of Moav were sent to seduce the men of Israel[8]. Given the history and origins of these nations, we begin to understand that their basic character has not changed. This, too, could have been a valid reason for excluding them from the Congregation for all time. But this deeply disturbing incident is not cited in our parsha. Rather, it is their failure to greet us in the desert with food and drink that illustrates their unsavory character.

Why would we expect Moav to live up to this highly elevated moral standard? We can only assume that the answer lies in their forefather Lot's background: Lot grew up in Avraham’s tent. Despite Lot’s possible feelings of abandonment, despite Moav and Amon’s feelings of rejection, despite the dysfunctional family that produced Moav and Amon, they should have known better, and behaved as any relative of Avraham knew was the proper way to deal with others - certainly with relatives. They are expected to behave as Avraham would have, to greet travelers with food and drink. In this instance, the Torah is unforgiving. We are not meant to summon up “understanding” or "empathy" for those who are products of a dysfunctional home, children born of twisted relationships, the products of incest who may have suffered ridicule, who could have blamed their parents for all their problems. The Torah rules that a positive educational message should have filtered through, and not only the negative feelings of resentment and anger. Despite their origins and upbringing, the descendents of Lot should have performed kindness.

The lesson for all of us is unavoidable: Human beings - children and adults -are often tempted to blame others for their own shortcomings, but the Torah does not allow us to place the blame with our upbringing, our parents or ancestors, or other situations beyond our control. Every human being has Free Will; this means that, along with any negative experiences, there are positive lessons that each of us may have learned from the challenges in our past. The responsible individual must choose to reject the negative and distill positive lessons from any given experience. Cycles of abuse and pain can and must be broken, as the case of Amon and Moav illustrates: Even many generations down the line, we have the right to expect moral behavior on the part of Lot's descendents. Despite Lot's many failings, despite the challenging background and difficult life-experiences of his descendents, God has expectations of those raised in the Tent of Avraham. Amon and Moav, as descendents of Lot, had so many positive lessons to learn. They were punished for choosing to focus on their own feelings of disenfranchisement, their experiences of cruelty and selfishness, their own anger and sense of fatalistic doom. For their choices, and not for their history, they are forever banned from the Congregation of God.

The case of the rebellious son teaches us that even though the trajectory of this human tragedy can be anticipated, and the law will exculpate the child, it is ultimately his own choices, his own use of Free Will, that will either uplift him or cause him to crash.

Each and every one of us, emotional scars and personal failures notwithstanding, is called upon by the laws of the Torah to make a similar choice. We are reminded, through the unlikely example of Amon and Moav, that we are all descendents of someone who grew up in the tents of Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivka, Ya’akov, Rachel and Leah. There is greatness within our collective memory, and therefore within our abilities and our selves. Focusing on anger and failure can easily develop into self-fulfilling, negative prophesies, leading down the path to the "rebellious son", to fractured homes and decimated communities. Alternatively, we can each make the conscious choice to learn positive lessons from our negative experiences, and raise ourselves as individuals and families to the higher moral ground prepared for us by our ancestors.

---

[1] See Talmud Bavli Yevamot 4a.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת יבמות דף ד עמוד א

ואמר רב יוסף: אפילו למאן דלא דריש סמוכים בעלמא, במשנה תורה דריש.

[2] See the comments of Rashi 21:11

רש"י דברים פרק כא פסוק יא

ולקחת לך לאשה - לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע. שאם אין הקב"ה מתירה ישאנה באיסור. אבל אם נשאה, סופו להיות שונאה, שנאמר אחריו (פסוק טו) כי תהיין לאיש וגו' וסופו להוליד ממנה בן סורר ומורה, לכך נסמכו פרשיות הללו:

[3] See comments of the Ibn Ezra D’varim 21:18

אבן עזרא דברים פרק כא פסוק יח

וסובא - מרבה לשתות והוא המשתכר. והנה זה כמו אפיקורוס, כי לא יבקש חיי העולם הזה, כי אם להתענג בכל מיני מאכל ומשתה. ונסמכה זו הפרשה בעבור אשת יפת תאר

[4] Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף עא/א

דתניא בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר.

There never has been a stubborn and rebellious son, and never will be. Why then was the law written? That you may study it and receive reward.

[5] The Talmud op. cit. relates that the grave of such a child was seen by Rav Yochanan

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף עא עמוד א

אמר רבי יונתן: אני ראיתיו, וישבתי על קברו.

R. Jonathan said: ‘I saw him and sat on his grave.

[6] See Toldot Yitzchak D’varim 21:18

תולדות יצחק דברים פרק כא

כי יהיה לאיש בן סורר ומורה, אמרו בגמרא [סנהדרין עא א] שלא היה ולא עתיד להיות, וכל כך תנאים איתא בגמרא עליו, שקרוב לנמנע שימצא אלא דרוש וקבל שכר,

[7] This child himself is not punished for what he has done, rather it is anticipated how this child will continue to degenerate morally if he continues upon the same trajectory.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף עא עמוד ב

משנה. בן סורר ומורה נידון על שם סופו, ימות זכאי ואל ימות חייב.

Mishnah. A stubborn and rebellious son is tried on account of his ultimate destiny: let him die innocent and let him not die guilty.

[8] Bamidbar 25:1

במדבר פרק כה

(א) וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּשִּׁטִּים וַיָּחֶל הָעָם לִזְנוֹת אֶל בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב:

Parshat Shoftim 5769

Parshat Shoftim 5769

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Whither Truth?

At times of indecision, when ambiguity reigns and man does not know what the Divine Law expects of him, the Torah offers a path out of the darkness:

דברים פרק יז

(ח) כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם לְדָם בֵּין דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ:(ט) וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט:(י) וְעָשִׂיתָ עַל פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה’ וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ:

If there arises a matter of judgment that eludes you, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between plague and plague, being matters of controversy inside your gates; then shall you arise, and go to the place which the Eternal, your God, shall choose; And you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge who shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall declare to you the ruling of judgment; And you shall do behave according to the ruling which they shall pronounce from that place which the Lord shall choose; and you shall take care to do according to all that they instruct you; D’varim 17:8-10

This passage presents the problem, as well as a seemingly straightforward and reasonable solution: A multi-tiered system of jurisprudence is established to resolve disputes and clarify the law. The sentence which immediately follows this passage, though, is potentially troublesome:

דברים פרק יז

(יא) עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ וְעַל הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָסוּר מִן הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל:

According to the sentence of the Torah which they shall teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall do; you shall not stray from the sentence which they shall declare to you, to the right, nor to the left. D’varim 17:11

The judges in this system possess absolute authority; we are not to deviate from their rulings “to the right or left”. Rashi felt this phrase requires some explanation:

רש"י דברים פרק יז פסוק יא

(יא) ימין ושמאל - אפילו אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין, וכל שכן שאומר לך על ימין ימין ועל שמאל שמאל:

Right and left – even if they say to you that right is left and left is right, certainly if they tell you right is right and left is left. Rashi D’varim 17:11

Rashi's comments take the authority of the judges even further, to an almost unthinkable extreme: even if an individual's certainty regarding a specific question of law is as unequivocal as his knowledge of his own right and left hands, he must nonetheless bow to the authority of the judges, and accept their ruling even if it completely contradicts his own certainties. Rashi's comments, rather than clarifying the verse, seem to lead us away from the straightforward meaning of the text: While the passage began with a situation of doubt, Rashi's comments regard a situation of certainty. At least one of the individuals involved in a dispute over interpretation of the law is, in fact, as certain of the veracity and their own opinion as they are of their own right and left hands. Either one of the adjudicants, or one of the judges, does not share the doubts of the other parties involved, but is unable to convince the others. As a result, the decision that is reached is one that this individual “knows” to be wrong. Rashi insists, based on the seemingly superfluous words “right and left,” that the dissenting individual, be he a judge or a plaintiff, must accept the ruling of the majority, no matter how certain he is that his own opinion is correct .

But how can a person be expected to follow a ruling, especially in matters concerning Divine Truth, which he knows to be wrong?

The Ramban softens the blow somewhat, by adding one more phrase: Even if you think they are wrong, you are obligated to accept the judgment handed down by the majority of the judges. According to this approach, the dissenting opinion is not based on absolute knowledge or certainty; the dissenter believes the others to be incorrect. Nonetheless, says the Ramban, the dissenter must bow to the rule of the majority and adhere to their interpretation of the law.[1]

We are faced, then, with the larger philosophical problem: abandoning what you know to be true, in fulfillment of this commandment to embrace the ruling of the judges. The Sefer Hachinuch addresses this problem, and offers a practical approach:

ספר החינוך מצוה תצו

…כלומר שאפילו יהיו הם טועים בדבר אחד מן הדברים אין ראוי לנו לחלוק עליהם אבל נעשה כטעותם, וטוב לסבול טעות אחד ויהיו הכל מסורים תחת דעתם הטוב תמיד, ולא שיעשה כל אחד ואחד כפי דעתו שבזה יהיה חורבן הדת וחלוק לב העם והפסד האומה לגמרי. ומפני ענינים אלה נמסרה כוונת התורה אל חכמי ישראל, ונצטוו גם כן שיהיו לעולם כת מועטת מן החכמים כפופה לכת המרובין מן השורש הזה, וכמו שכתבתי שם במצות להטות אחרי רבים.

…meaning even if they are mistaken in a particular ruling it is not appropriate for us to argue with them, rather we follow their mistake. For it is better to suffer one mistake, and to remain devoted (subject) to their well-informed opinions, rather than have each and every individual act according to his own opinion, for that would cause a destruction of the religion, cause a division among the people, and the complete loss of the nation. It is for these reasons that the intention of the Torah was transmitted to the Sages of Israel, and it was commanded that the minority would always submit to the minority, along the lines of what I have described as the Mitzva to accept the majority opinion. Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 496

The Chinuch is afraid of anarchy, of legal, social, national chaos. He does a pragmatic calculation, and concludes that it is better to suffer occasional mistakes than to risk the collapse of the entire system.

Yet what is the effect of such pragmatism on the Divine system of law? What is the relationship of human error with the Word of God? The laws in question are part of a Divine system; these are Gods laws. Surely, these human mistakes – which we have been commanded to follow! - must certainly dilute the Divine.

Divine law has a weak link: the human component – man. Nonetheless, God entrusts man as a partner in the process of revealing Divine Truth to the world. Part and parcel of this system of Divine Law is this verse in Parshat Shoftim, in the 17^th chapter of D’varim: The commandment to adhere to the decisions handed down by the judges of each generation is one of the mitzvot of the Torah, a Divine Law. The question is, what happens when one Divine Law collides with another Divine Law? What happens when the judges are mistaken and they rule that left is right and right is left? In such a case, by adhering to the decision of the judges and “transgressing” against the substance of a law regarding which they are mistaken, we are, in fact, following the procedure prescribed by the Torah in this very verse.

And yet, despite this explanation we are left with a queasy feeling: How can a Torah-observant Jew possibly do something against the Torah – even if the Torah itself instructs him to do so? The victory of procedure over substance is a hollow victory, which leaves our thirst for truth unsatisfied.

The Vilna Gaon addresses this issue in his explanation of a very well-known and very troubling passage in the Talmud regarding an argument between Rabbi Eliezer and all the other sages on a point of law. Rabbi Eliezer musters one sign from heaven after the other to “prove” his position, yet the sages reject each heavenly “proof” as irrelevant to the subject at hand:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף נט עמוד ב

תנא: באותו היום השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו. אמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - חרוב זה יוכיח. נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה, ואמרי לה: ארבע מאות אמה: אמרו לו: אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב. חזר ואמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - אמת המים יוכיחו. חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם. אמרו לו: אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים. חזר ואמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו. הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול. גער בהם רבי יהושע, אמר להם: אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה - אתם מה טיבכם? לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע, ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של רבי אליעזר, ועדין מטין ועומדין.

It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they (the other sages) did not accept them. Said he to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!' Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place. Others say [it was] four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,' they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!' Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. 'No proof can be brought from a stream of water,' they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the Beit Midrash prove it,' whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Yehoshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what right have you to interfere?' Hence they did not fall, in honor of R. Yehoshua, nor did they resume their upright position, in honor of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Talmud Bavli Bava Metziah 59b

As a last resort, Rabbi Eliezer finally calls upon the ultimate arbiter; he asks that Heaven adjudicate and issue a decision. Remarkably, the heavens open up and a voice rings out in support of Rabbi Eliezer:

תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא מציעא דף נט עמוד ב

חזר ואמר להם: אם הלכה כמותי - מן השמים יוכיחו. יצאתה בת קול ואמרה: מה לכם אצל רבי אליעזר שהלכה כמותו בכל מקום! עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר: לא בשמים היא. - מאי (דברים ל') לא בשמים היא? - אמר רבי ירמיה: שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני, אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול, שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כ"ג): "אחרי רבים להטת".

Again he said to them: 'If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!' Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!' But R. Yehoshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.' What did he mean by this? — Said R. Yirmiyah: Since the Torah has already been given at Mount Sinai, we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because long ago You wrote in the Torah at Mount Sinai, (Shmot 23), "After the majority must one incline." Talmud Bavli Bava Metziah 59b[2]

This is the ultimate victory of procedure over substance; essentially, the Rabbis tell God Himself to "mind his own business." They knowingly, adamantly, set aside the truth, and teach God Himself, as it were, a lesson: Truth may take a beating, but procedure must take precedence.

But how could they proceed? How could they ignore what they now know to be the true opinion? Rabbi Eliezer was the only one to have seen the truth, and he was unable to convince his fellow judges and scholars of the logic of his opinion. Nor was there a decisive legal precedent upon which to rely. When Heaven interceded, when all of the natural world was upended by Rabbi Eliezer's truth, should the majority of the sages not have abandoned their own position, which was clearly less valid than the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?

The Vilna Gaon explained the concept based on the following Midrash:

בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשת בראשית פרשה ח

א"ר סימון בשעה שבא הקב"ה לבראת את אדם הראשון, נעשו מלאכי השרת כיתים כיתים, וחבורות חבורות, מהם אומרים אל יברא, ומהם אומרים יברא, הה"ד (תהלים פה) חסד ואמת נפגשו צדק ושלום נשקו, חסד אומר יברא שהוא גומל חסדים, ואמת אומר אל יברא שכולו שקרים, צדק אומר יברא שהוא עושה צדקות, שלום אומר אל יברא דכוליה קטטה, מה עשה הקב"ה נטל אמת והשליכו לארץ הה"ד (דניאל ח) ותשלך אמת ארצה, אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבון העולמים מה אתה מבזה תכסיס אלטיכסייה שלך, תעלה אמת מן הארץ, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים פה) אמת מארץ תצמח, … ר' הונא רבה של צפורין אמר עד שמלאכי השרת מדיינין אלו עם אלו ומתעסקין אלו עם אלו בראו הקב"ה, אמר להן מה אתם מדיינין כבר נעשה אדם.

R. Simon said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, came to create Man, the ministering angels formed themselves into groups and parties, some of them saying, 'Let him not be created,’ whilst others urged, ‘Let him be created.' Thus it is written, 'Love and Truth fought together, Righteousness and Peace combated each other" (Tehilim 85, 11). Love said, 'Let him be created, because he will dispense acts of love’; Truth said, Let him not be created, because he is compounded of falsehood’; Righteousness said, ' Let him be created, because he will perform righteous deeds’; Peace said, ‘Let him not be created, because he is full of strife.’ What did God do? He took Truth and cast it to the ground. Said the ministering angels before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why do You despise Your seal? Let Truth arise from the earth!’ Hence it is written, "Truth springs up from the earth" (ib. 12). … R. Huna the Elder of Sepphoris, said: While the ministering angels were arguing with each other and disputing with each other, the Holy One, blessed be He, created (Man). Said He to them: ‘Why are you debating (to no avail)? Man has already been made! Midrash Rabbah – Bereshit 8:5

The creation of man defies the attribute of Truth, the very Seal of God. Man's nature, with all its foibles and inner contradictions, cannot even approximate truth as it exists in Heaven. This is the point of the Midrash: The act of creation required an admission that man could not exist, nor should he be expected to exist, according to the level of absolute, Divine Truth which exists in Heaven. When God flung Truth to the earth, He effectively relinquished control upon truth; moreover, here on earth, there is a different level of truth, which is as least partially based upon human understanding. Truth on earth – human truth – is based necessarily on human nature. It is created by the majority opinion of our scholars; it is born of their collective understanding of Divine Law. And when the scholars are mistaken in substance, when their conclusions are erroneous, we can take comfort in the knowledge that, had God expected man to always completely identify with truth as it exists in Heaven, man never would or could have been created.[3]

This concept may help us understand another difficult episode in the Torah: When Moshe descends Mount Sinai with the Tablets of Stone in his hands, he has already been informed of the terrible sin perpetrated by the people: He was told, while he stood at the peak of the Mountain in God's Presence, that the people had strayed and had built a Golden Calf. When Moshe saw the outrage with his own eyes, he threw the Tablets to ground, shattering them.

שמות פרק לב פסוק יט

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֵגֶל וּמְחֹלֹת וַיִּחַר אַף מֹשֶׁה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מידו מִיָּדָיו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר:

And it came to pass, as soon as he came near to the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing; and Moshe’s anger burned hot, and he threw the Tablets from his hands, and broke them beneath the mount. Sh’mot 32:19

At face value, it seems that Moshe acted out of anger, and he vented his emotions on the Tablets. However, the Talmud reports that Moshe's behavior was, in fact, supported by God.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף פז עמוד א

ומנלן דהסכים הקדוש ברוך הוא על ידו - שנאמר (שמות לד) 'אשר שברת'; ואמר ריש לקיש: 'יישר כחך ששיברת'.

And how do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave His approval? Because it is said, 'Which you broke;' and Resh Lakish interpreted this: 'More power to you that you broke'. Talmud Bavli Shabbat 87a

In light of the Midrash we read earlier, we begin to realize that when Moshe threw the Tablets of Stone, the words of Torah written by the Hand of God, to the ground – his behavior paralleled that of God Himself: Just as God threw Truth the ground in order to create Man, so Moshe threw the words of Torah, the Divine Truth given to us on Sinai, to the ground at the foot of the Mountain. Throwing the Tablets to the ground was, in effect, the same action. As Moshe descended from heaven to the spectacle unfolding in the camp, he fully grasped the vast chasm that separates heaven and earth. Moshe had just seen and experienced Truth in heaven; he had a unique perspective of the impossibility of effectively carrying that level of pure Truth down to earth.

Moshe's behavior was meant to serve as a reminder to God: By throwing truth to the earth, God Himself acknowledged that man is tainted and limited. If man were judged based upon heavenly Truth, we would all be found guilty. There would be no chance for our survival, no justification for our existence. But once truth is flung to the earth, a new, human standard is created, by which man can be judged. God Himself, by casting Truth to the earth, had set aside pristine, Divine Truth, and created man. When that man sinned, and was at risk of annihilation, Moshe followed in God's footsteps by throwing the Tablets to the ground. By mimicking the Divine gesture which enabled man's very creation, Moshe makes a powerful argument for man's exoneration, for forgiveness: Man, who cannot be perfect and was never meant to be perfect, has this other standard of truth to use in his defense. Even when man has transgressed against God and against His attribute of Truth in the most profound way, he has this to fall back on. He can yet plead with God.

In fact, all forgiveness is, in a sense, a corruption of truth: When man sins, there should be punishment - unavoidable, natural, unyielding consequences. Yet we might suspect that those who desperately seek truth and are perturbed by any perceived lack of truth caused by the triumph of procedure over substance in the legal system, are not as demanding and truth-seeking on Yom Kippur. Would they desperately ask God to treat them with pure truth - and the justice it must necessarily bring in its wake - or would they seek compassion and clemency, a softer, more understanding scale of truth and justice?

Even when we sincerely attempt to understand God’s rules and laws, to discern and adhere to the Divine Truth that is transmitted in the laws of the Torah, we may sometimes fall short. It is important that we know that we are not expected to live according to Truth as it exists in heaven; that sort of Truth was always out of our reach.[4] Broken truth, truth on the ground, is the foundation of Creation, and the key to our continued existence.[5]

---

[1] See Ramban D’varim 17:11

רמב"ן דברים פרק יז פסוק יא

וענינו, אפילו תחשוב בלבך שהם טועים, והדבר פשוט בעיניך כאשר אתה יודע בין ימינך לשמאלך, תעשה כמצותם, ואל תאמר איך אוכל החלב הגמור הזה או אהרוג האיש הנקי הזה, אבל תאמר כך צוה אותי האדון המצוה על המצות שאעשה בכל מצותיו ככל אשר יורוני העומדים לפניו במקום אשר יבחר ועל משמעות דעתם נתן לי התורה אפילו יטעו, וזה כענין רבי יהושע עם ר"ג ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בחשבונו (ר"ה כה א):

[2] To properly understand this passage it is important to read it in context, including the conclusion of this passage. I hope to return to this text for a fuller treatment of the entire passage at a later date.

[3] Kol Eliyahu commentary to Talmud Bavli Bava Metzia 59b

ספר קול אליהו על אגדות על הש"ס

יבואר על פי המדרש (ב"ר ח. ה) בשעת בריאת העולם חסד אמר יברא וכו' אמת אמר אל יברא מפני השקרים מה עשה הקב"ה השליך אמת ארצה שנאמר (תהלים פה. יב) אמת מארץ תצמח וצדק משמים נשקף וכו', והכוונה כך הוא דאמת אמר אל יברא מפני השקרים ר"ל מפני שהאמת צולל בין אלפים מבוכות וספקות ואי אפשר לבני אדם לקלוע בשכלם אל נקודת האמת מה עשה הקב"ה השליך אמת ארצה ר"ל שמסר האמת לשרי התורה והחכמה למטה בארץ כפי שיסכימו הם כן יקום שנאמר אמת מארץ תצמח, ומשנתן הקב"ה התורה לישראל צוה בעצמו שאם יולד איזה ספק בתורה יקום פסק הלכה שבין החכמים החולקים דוקא כפי שיבינו שרי התורה ולא זולתם ואליהם הבטיחה התורה (דברים יא. יז) על פי התורה אשר יורוך וגו', על כן כשיצא הבת קול ואמר הלכה כר"א עמד ר' יהושע על רגליו ואמר לא בשמים היא ר"ל שכבר יצא הפסק דין מיד הדיין על כן אין אנו משגיחין בב"ק ולא בשום נברא בעולם במה שנוגע בעניני הדת רק כפי הסכמת חכמי התורה למטה בארץ.

[4] See the introduction to Responsa Igrot Moshe by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Oruch Chaim volume 1.

[5] See Rav Nachman of Breslov's similar formulation: Liqutei Halachot, Laws of Interest, law 5.

ספר ליקוטי הלכות - הלכות רבית הלכה ה

וְזֶה שֶׁמְּסַיְּמִין הַתּוֹרָה לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַתְחִילִין מִיָּד, בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים וְכוּ'. כִּי רַזַ"ל דָּרְשׁוּ עַל פָּסוּק זֶה, "אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל", שֶׁשִּׁבֵּר אֶת הַלּוּחוֹת. וְזֶהוּ בְּחִינָה הַנַּ"ל, כִּי מֹשֶׁה רָאָה גֹּדֶל הַחֻרְבָּן שֶׁחָטְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל כָּךְ וְעָבְרוּ עַל כָּל הַתּוֹרָה וְעָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עַד שֶׁהָיָה מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין הָאֱמֶת עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה לְהַרְחִיק וּלְהַאֲבִיד אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַר הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, הֶרֶף מִמֶּנּוּ וְאַשְׁמִידֵם וְכוּ'. עַל - כֵּן הִשְׂכִּיל מֹשֶׁה וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַלּוּחוֹת לָאָרֶץ, זֶה בְּחִינַת 'וְתַּשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה' הַנַּ"ל, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ הִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הָאֱמֶת לָאָרֶץ עַל שֶׁקִּטְרֵג עַל בְּרִיאַת הָאָדָם וְכַנַּ"ל, כְּמוֹ כֵן עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה וְדָבַק בּוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַלּוּחוֹת, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת, בְּחִינַת תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת, הִשְׁלִיכָם לָאָרֶץ, לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁאַף - עַל - פִּי שֶׁהֵם תּוֹרַת אֱמֶת, אַף - עַל - פִּי - כֵן מֵאַחַר שֶׁעַל יָדָם עוֹלֶה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁאֶפֶס תִּקְוָה וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהִתְפַּלֵּל עוֹד עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַל - כֵּן הִשְׁלִיכָם אַרְצָה וְהִרְחִיקָם מֵעַל פָּנָיו וְחִזֵּק אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְהַאֲמִין שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַשִּיג עַמְקוּת דַּעְתּוֹ כְּלָל, עַד שֶׁהֵבִין שֶׁאַף - עַל - פִּי - כֵן הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ רוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם, וְעַל - יְדֵי זֶה הִרְבָּה לְהִתְפַּלֵּל עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁפָּעַל בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁנִּתְרַצָּה הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ וּמָחַל לָהֶם וְצִוָּה לוֹ לִפְסֹל לוּחוֹת שְׁנִיּוֹת. וְזֶהוּ בְּעַצְמוֹ בְּחִינָה הַנַּ"ל, בְּחִינַת וְתַשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה, וְעַל - יְדֵי זֶה בְּעַצְמוֹ אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמַח וְכַנַּ"ל. וּכְמוֹ כֵן עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה, כִּי אִם לֹא הָיָה מַשְׁלִיךְ הַלּוּחוֹת וְהָיָה הַקִּטְרוּג גָּדוֹל, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, עַד שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֶבָדִין, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, וְאָז הָיָה הָאֱמֶת מִתְעַלֵּם לְגַמְרֵי, כִּי אֵין מִי שֶׁיְּגַלֶּה הָאֱמֶת בָּעוֹלָם כִּי אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל. עַל - כֵּן הִשְׁלִיךְ הַלּוּחוֹת, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת, בִּבְחִינַת וְתַשְׁלֵךְ אֱמֶת אַרְצָה, וְהִתְחַזֵּק בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ כִּי הֶאֱמִין שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַשִּיג אֲמִתַּת דַּעְתּוֹ כִּי מְאֹד עָמְקוּ מַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו, וְזָכָה שֶׁעָלְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְנִתְרַצָּה לוֹ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ וּמָחַל לוֹ וְצִוָּה לוֹ לִפְסֹל לוּחוֹת שְׁנִיּוֹת, שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת תַּעֲלֶה אֱמֶת מִן הָאָרֶץ, בְּחִינַת אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמָח וְכַנַּ"ל. וְעַל - כֵּן אַחַר לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, מַתְחִילִין מִיָּד בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים, שֶׁהוּא סוֹפֵי תֵּיבוֹת 'אֱ'מֶ'ת, כַּמּוּבָא. לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁזֶּה עִקַּר הָאֱמֶת כְּשֶׁיּוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין כְּלָל וְאֵין מִתְרַחֲקִין בְּשׁוּם אֹפֶן, רַק מַתְחִילִין בְּכָל פַּעַם, שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת 'לְעֵינֵי כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל' - 'בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים', שֶׁמֹּשֶׁה בְּעוֹצֶם כֹּחוֹ הִמְשִׁיךְ דֶּרֶךְ זֶה עַל - יְדֵי שְׁבִירַת לוּחוֹת שֶׁהוֹדָה לוֹ הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ וְאָמַר לוֹ, יִשַּׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁשָּׁבַרְתָּ. שֶׁעַל - יְדֵי זֶה יוּכַל כָּל אֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְהִתְחַזֵּק אֶת עַצְמוֹ לְהַתְחִיל בְּכָל פַּעַם, שֶׁזֶּהוּ בְּחִינַת הַתְחָלַת הַתּוֹרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹקִים, סוֹפֵי תֵּיבוֹת 'אֱ'מֶ'ת. כִּי רַק זֶהוּ עִקַּר אֲמִתַּת הָאֱמֶת שֶׁלֹּא יִתְרַחֵק עַל - יְדֵי הָאֱמֶת, רַק יָבִין וְיֵדַע שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין כְּלָל וּצְרִיכִין לְהַתְחִיל בְּכָל פַּעַם מֵחָדָשׁ, כִּי אֲמִתַּת רַחֲמָיו שָׂגְבוּ מְאֹד וְכָל יְמֵי חַיֵּי הָאָדָם יוּכַל לְהַתְחִיל לְהִתְקָרֵב לַהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב, "תָּשֵׁב אֱנוֹשׁ עַד דַּכָּא" - עַד דִּכְדּוּכָא שֶׁל נֶפֶשׁ. כִּי חַסְדֵי ה' לֹא תָמְנוּ וְלֹא כָלוּ רַחֲמָיו לְעוֹלָם:

Parshat Re’eh 5769

Parshat Re’eh 5769

Rabbi Ari Kahn

In the Eyes of God and Man

The Chosen Place

The central motif of Parashat Re’eh is the obligation to create a central place of worship at a location of God's choosing:

דברים פרק יב

(ה) כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל שִׁבְטֵיכֶם לָשׂוּם אֶת שְׁמוֹ שָׁם לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ וּבָאתָ שָׁמָּה:

But to the place which the Eternal, your God, shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, to his habitation shall you seek, and there you shall come; D’varim 12:5

When the Israelites enter the Land they are commanded to seek out a place of holiness, the place which was designated for the worship of God. All other idolatrous, cultic practices and forms of worship are forbidden; only service of the one true God is permitted. The other laws in the parsha are related to this central theme, although they take on various forms: Some are polemical, specifically addressing the substance of pagan practice, while others address more subtle, authoritative issues, such as the laws against the false prophet who undermines or corrupts faith in God and leads the people to idolatry.

The laws of forbidden food may be ancillary to this theme. In the Temple, only specific animals may be offered in sacrifice. Similarly, outside of the Temple, there are also specific animals which are may be eaten. The Rambam goes so far as to suggest that some of the laws of kashrut are themselves a polemic against pagan practices.

In Parshat Re'eh, the festivals are introduced, with the exception of Shabbat, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This "peculiarity" may also be related to the theme of centralized worship in the Temple: Only the three holidays which require pilgrimage are included. The message of this parsha is driven home, both by what is taught - and by what is not: The Temple is the central place of worship, and pagan practice is prohibited.

To be Good and Righteous

In the midst of these laws we find the following instruction:

דברים פרק יב

(כח) שְׁמֹר וְשָׁמַעְתָּ אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּךָּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ עַד עוֹלָם כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה הַטּוֹב וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ: ס

Observe and hear all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you forever, when you do that which is good and right (literally, straight) in the eyes of the Eternal, your God. D’varim 12:28

Rashi explains what “good and right” mean:

רש"י דברים פרק יב פסוק כח

הטוב - בעיני השמים: והישר - בעיני אדם:

The good – in the eyes of Heaven; the right (straight or upright) – in the eyes of man. Rashi D’varim 12:28

Rashi's comments here seem somewhat strange. Why is man brought into the equation, when the verse in question speaks only of man's relationship with God? “Good and right in the eyes of the Eternal, your God” does not involve any interpersonal relationship; why would Rashi force this sort of wedge into the verse? To be fair, we should note that Rashi's comment is not the fruit of his own imagination. As is his wont, Rashi explains the verse by incorporating an ancient rabbinic comment on this phrase.[1] Yet this observation does not solve our problem; it merely pushes it back a few generations. Why did those earlier sages insert the additional perspective of human perception into a verse that concerns man's relationship with God alone? Furthermore, why did Rashi choose this specific comment to explain the verse? What convinced Rashi that this is the "straightforward" meaning of the text?

Good and Right

A closer look at the two central words of this phrase may give us more insight. "Good" and "straight" are intrinsically different concepts: Good is an absolute term, a value statement. To know and declare something to be good, one needs an overarching, independent perspective.[2] The term "right" is far more subjective; what is right in one situation may be wrong in another. The Maharal makes this point in his comments on Rashi: Ultimately, only God has the perspective to see what is good – absolutely good. At best, all that man can discern is whether something is straight or twisted.[3]

The Ramban grapples with this verse as well, and refers the reader back to a verse in last week's parsha, V'etchanan:

דברים פרק ו

(יח) וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי ה’ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וּבָאתָ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה’ לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ:

18. And you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of God; that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land which God swore to your fathers, D’varim 6:18

Here the word “good” clearly refers to "God’s sight", to God's unique perspective. The Ramban regards this statement as an overriding commandment of the Torah – to be decent:[4] While there are many commandments that teach specific actions which must be performed or avoided, in the Ramban’s view this is a broad law which creates an umbrella for other interpersonal laws.[5] Thus, aside from specific obligations and prohibitions, the Torah also legislates decency. The Ramban reiterates this view regarding our verse in Parshat Re'eh.

While we have no trouble accepting that the Torah is in favor of decency, or even that this overriding commandment is extremely important, we are none the wiser as to its introduction at this particular juncture, in the context of the centrality of the Temple and the rejection of idolatry. Why is this principle of interpersonal law taught here?

Jerusalem is Surrounded By Mountains

Understanding more about the Temple and Jerusalem may provide a solution to this quandary. There is an interesting dichotomy between the chosen place of worship – eventually identified as the Temple in Jerusalem - and pagan worship which was practiced elsewhere. In this week’s parsha we find a phrase, echoed numerous times in Scripture, used to describe the practice of idolatry:

דברים פרק יב

(ב) אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת כָּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל הַגְּבָעוֹת וְתַחַת כָּל עֵץ רַעֲנָן:

You shall completely destroy all the places where the nations which you shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree; D’varim 12:2

The mountains, hills and trees in this verse seem an apt description of the Land of Israel, but this is no innocuous guide to the landscape. This seemingly benign phrase provides insight into the psyche of the sinner. The Land of Israel is full of mountains, hills and trees. A person who wanted to serve his idol could easily and immediately turn to any available mountain, hill or tree. This made idolatry extremely accessible; it was a wonderful solution, an "instant" salve for those in need of immediate gratification.

Not so Jerusalem. As the psalmist sings,

תהלים פרק קכה

(ב) יְרוּשָׁלִַם הָרִים סָבִיב לָהּ …

Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains… Psalm 125:2

This is not only a lesson in geography or topography, this is a spiritual statement. Getting to Jerusalem, to the Temple, requires an arduous climb. Like the physical world, the spiritual world has rules; in modern parlance, one might say “No pain, no gain.”[6] Spiritual growth is necessarily the result of hard work, long hours, introspection; this is the path to enlightenment, and it is represented by the metaphor of the physical Jerusalem. Whereas idolatry was practiced under every tree, on every hill, on every mountain, required no effort, was immediately available like a narcotic for an addict in withdrawal--it provided no growth. Idolatry is just a "quick fix".

Serving God requires an act of surrender. Man must first recognize that he is created in God’s image; then, he can worship his Maker. The idolater worships his own handiwork. Instead of an act of submission, it is an act of narcissism. In serving God, man must recognize the impossible chasm between God’s greatness and man's failings; this is the starting point for the grueling journey. It is man's striving to shorten this divide, to bridge the chasm by learning to emulate God, that creates spiritual growth. Only when man acknowledges that he may be able to emulate God, to draw closer to the source of holiness and spirituality, but will never breach the gulf, is man a true servant of God.

A central place of worship was not merely about geography; it was more than a socially-accepted, nationally-appointed place to pray and serve God. It was meant to be transformative. Religious growth is designed to combat man's self-absorbed, self-involved proclivities. Climbing to Jerusalem was the polar opposite of idolatry, bringing about a metamorphosis that cancelled out self-indulgence and immediate gratification.

Despite all this, the climb to Jerusalem for pilgrimage may not have been enough to uproot underlying pagan attitudes. A person who came to Jerusalem to perform sacrificial rites may have confused the Jewish festivals with pagan service of a needy god. Man still stood the risk of perfunctory performance, devoid of religious transformation.

Such a schism results in a compartmentalized worldview: On the one hand, man serves God in Jerusalem; on the other hand, his personal life is unaffected. He lacks decency in his relationships with his fellow men. The idolatry is still there, buried beneath the religious practice, for such a person is still worshiping himself, submitting to his own needs, seeking immediate gratification. Service of God is a perfunctory gesture if the person performing it is unwilling to emulate God in their everyday dealings with others, to strive for and maintain a level of spirituality and holiness that flows from the spiritual apex of Temple sacrifice, but reaches far beyond. While he may have served God on the festival, a person who does not make the transformation in the interpersonal sphere has not surrendered to God. In the words of our verse, it is not enough to do only what is good in the eyes of God; we also need to do what is "straight" in the eyes of man, for these concepts are intertwined. Neither perspective is sufficient; only the two perspectives together will bring harmony between man and God and between man and man. Only when we make that climb, and allow the surrender of our own will to permeate all of our relationships, will we realize the prophetic vision expressed by King David in his Song of Ascents, recited by the Levites on the final steps leading to the Temple[7]:

תהלים פרק קכה

(א) שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת הַבֹּטְחִים בַּה’ כְּהַר צִיּוֹן לֹא יִמּוֹט לְעוֹלָם יֵשֵׁב: (ב) יְרוּשָׁלִַם הָרִים סָבִיב לָהּ וַה’ סָבִיב לְעַמּוֹ מֵעַתָּה וְעַד עוֹלָם: (ג) כִּי לֹא יָנוּחַ שֵׁבֶט הָרֶשַׁע עַל גּוֹרַל הַצַּדִּיקִים לְמַעַן לֹא יִשְׁלְחוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים בְּעַוְלָתָה יְדֵיהֶם: (ד) הֵיטִיבָה ה’ לַטּוֹבִים וְלִישָׁרִים בְּלִבּוֹתָם:(ה) וְהַמַּטִּים עֲקַלְקַלּוֹתָם יוֹלִיכֵם ה’ אֶת פֹּעֲלֵי הָאָוֶן שָׁלוֹם עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל:

A Song of Ascents: Those who trust in God shall be like Mount Zion, unassailable and abiding forever. As Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains, so God surrounds his People, from this time forth and forever more. For the scepter of the wicked shall not rest upon the share allotted to the righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands to do wrong. God is good to those who are good, and to those who are straight (upright) in their hearts. As for those who turn aside to their crooked ways, God shall lead them away with the evil doers; but peace shall be upon Israel. Psalm 125

Peace upon Israel is dependent upon our own actions, upon our own quest to combine the two perspectives of the verse in Parshat Re'eh, reflected in King David's Songs of Ascent to the Temple: Only by surrendering our will to God's perspective, and allowing this perspective to shape and define the human interactions that comprise our personal lives, will we bring about lasting peace. We must be "good" in God's eyes, which will help us to know how to be "righteous" in the eyes of our fellow men. The mountain is steep, the climb arduous; the distance we must travel is immense, seemingly impossible. But the first step is the difficult one: the abandonment of self-serving idolatry, the sacrifice of self-service for true service of God. When man takes this first step, those last fifteen Steps of Ascent to the Temple in Jerusalem come into sight, and we can almost hear the songs of the Levites.

May those who are still crooked be made straight and righteous. May we all find the courage to take that first step on the climb to Jerusalem, on the path to becoming "good in the eyes of God" and "upright in the eyes of man." May there be peace upon Israel.

---

[1] Sifri Re‘eh, piska 27. Rashi follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas Rabbi Yishmael inverses the teaching; the latter reads “good” as in the eyes of man, while “straight” is in the eyes of God.

ספרי פרשת ראה פיסקא כז

וכי תעשה הטוב והישר. הטוב בעיני שמים והישר בעיני אדם דברי ר' עקיבא. ר' ישמעאל אומר הישר בעיני אדם והטוב בעיני שמים. וכן הוא אומר משלי ג ומצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלהים ואדם:

[2] See Rashi Bereishit 1:7, and the comments of the Torah Temima D’varim chapter 12 note 113

רש"י בראשית פרק א

…ומפני מה לא נאמר כי טוב ביום שני, לפי שלא נגמרה מלאכת המים עד יום שלישי, והרי התחיל בה בשני, ודבר שלא נגמר אינו במילואו ובטובו, ובשלישי שנגמרה מלאכת המים והתחיל מלאכה אחרת וגמרה, כפל בו כי טוב שני פעמים, אחד לגמר מלאכת השני ואחד לגמר מלאכת היום:

תורה תמימה הערות דברים פרק יב הערה קיג

קיג) נראה דמכוין לפרש כן הלשונות האלה ע"פ מש"כ רש"י בפ' בראשית (א' ז') דכל דבר שלא נראה גמר ענינו ותכליתו אינו יוכל להקרא טוב אע"פ שבתחלתו נראה טוב, יעו"ש. ולפי"ז דבר הנראה לטוב בעיני אדם אפשר רק לקרוא בשם ישר, מה שנראה ישר לעינים בשעתו, אבל לא בשם טוב, יען כי לתכלית שם טוב דרוש לדעת עתידות הדברים ותוצאותיו מה שאי אפשר לאדם קצר עין לראות, ולכן א"א לומר הטוב בעיני אדם כי אם בעיני ה' הרואה לתכלית וקץ. ודעת ר' ישמעאל לדרוש בענין אחר, וקבענו כדעת ר"ע דבעלמא הלכה כותיה מחבירו, וכ"כ רש"י כאן

[3] Maharal Gur Aryeh D’varim 12:28

ספר גור אריה על דברים פרק יב פסוק כח

הטוב בעיני שמים וישר בעיני האדם. ומה שלא פירש איפכא, דהשתא הוי "הישר" דבק אל "בעיני ה'", וזה מסתבר יותר לפרש. ויראה כי יותר יש לפרש "הטוב" 'בעיני שמים', כי לשון "טוב" נאמר על דבר שהוא טוב בעצמו, אבל אינו נראה לבריות. ולפיכך יאמר "הטוב" 'בעיני שמים', כי השם רואה ללב, ויודע אם הוא טוב. אבל אדם לא ידע זה בעיניו. אבל לשון "ישר" הונח ראשונה על כל דבר ישר ואינו מעוות, והישר והמעוות הוא למראית העין, והאדם יש לו מראית עין גם כן, לכך יתפרש "הישר" 'בעיני אדם'. וזה ידוע, כי יאמר על הקו - שהוא ישר או מעוות - למראית העין. ואתיא זה כרבי עקיבא בספרי. אבל לרבי יוסי הוי איפכא; "הישר" 'בעיני ה'', ו"טוב" 'בעיני הבריות', שצריך לעשות טוב לבריות, ואין צריך לעשות טוב אל השם יתברך, רק שיהיו מעשיו ישרים. וכאשר תדקדק עוד תמצא דבר עמוק במחלוקת זה, ואין להאריך:

[4]Ramban D’varim 6:18

רמב"ן דברים פרק ו

וזה ענין גדול, לפי שאי אפשר להזכיר בתורה כל הנהגות האדם עם שכניו ורעיו וכל משאו ומתנו ותקוני הישוב והמדינות כלם, אבל אחרי שהזכיר מהם הרבה, כגון לא תלך רכיל (ויקרא יט טז), לא תקום ולא תטור (שם פסוק יח), ולא תעמוד על דם רעך (שם פסוק טז), לא תקלל חרש (שם פסוק יד), מפני שיבה תקום (שם פסוק לב), וכיוצא בהן, חזר לומר בדרך כלל שיעשה הטוב והישר בכל דבר, עד שיכנס בזה הפשרה ולפנים משורת הדין, וכגון מה שהזכירו בדינא דבר מצרא (ב"מ קח א), ואפילו מה שאמרו (יומא פו א) פרקו נאה ודבורו בנחת עם הבריות, עד שיקרא בכל ענין תם וישר:

[5] In a similar fashion the Ramban understands the commandment to be holy as an umbrella for laws between man and God. See Ramban on Vayikra 19:2. Rabbi Moshe of Drohitchin (1705-1781) in his work Magid Mishna (commenting on Rambam, Mishne Torah Laws of Neighbors 14:5) combines both teachings of the Ramban (though he cites neither):

רמב"ן על ויקרא פרק יט פסוק ב

ולפי דעתי אין הפרישות הזו לפרוש מן העריות כדברי הרב, אבל הפרישות היא המוזכרת בכל מקום בתלמוד, שבעליה נקראים פרושים: והענין כי התורה הזהירה בעריות ובמאכלים האסורים והתירה הביאה איש באשתו ואכילת הבשר והיין, א"כ ימצא בעל התאוה מקום להיות שטוף בזמת אשתו או נשיו הרבות, ולהיות בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו, וידבר כרצונו בכל הנבלות, שלא הוזכר איסור זה בתורה, והנה יהיה נבל ברשות התורה:

מגיד משנה הלכות שכנים פרק יד הלכה ה

קדם אחד וקנה וכו'. מבואר בהלכות וכ"כ ז"ל ועניין דין בן המצר הוא שתורתנו התמימה נתנה בתקון מדות האדם ובהנהגתו בעולם כללים באמירת קדושים תהיו והכוונה כמו שאמרו ז"ל קדש עצמך במותר לך שלא יהא שטוף אחר התאוות וכן אמרה ועשית הישר והטוב והכוונה שיתנהג בהנהגה טובה וישרה עם בני אדם ולא היה מן הראוי בכל זה לצוות פרטים לפי שמצות התורה הם בכל עת ובכל זמן ובכל ענין ובהכרח חייב לעשות כן ומדות האדם והנהגתו מתחלפת לפי הזמן והאישים והחכמים ז"ל כתבו קצת פרטים מועילים נופלים תחת כללים אלו ומהם שעשו אותם בדין גמור ומהם לכתחילה ודרך חסידות והכל מדבריהם ז"ל ולזה אמרו חביבין דברי דודים יותר מיינה של תורה שנאמר כי טובים דודיך מיין:

[6] See Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik “Man of Faith in the Modern World,” Reflections of the Rav volume 2 (Rabbi Avraham Besdin, ed.), page 137.

[7] Talmud Bavli Sukka 51b

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוכה דף נא עמוד ב

על חמש עשרה מעלות היורדות מעזרת ישראל לעזרת נשים כנגד חמש עשרה (מעלות) [שיר המעלות] שבתהלים, שעליהן לוים עומדין בכלי שיר ואומרים שירה.

There upon the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, corresponding to the Fifteen Songs Of Ascents In the Psalms. It was upon these that the Levites stood with their instruments of music and sang their songs. Talmud Bavli Sukka 51b