PARASHAT HASHAVUA

*********************************************************

In memory of our father, Moshe Eliezer ben Avraham Yosef

by Isaac Ely and Naomi Stillman

*********************************************************

Dedicated by Linda and Bernie Weiner

********************************************************

PARASHAT VEZOT HA-BERAKHA

Vezot Ha-Torah

By Rav Yair Kahn

I. No Other Prophet Like Moshe

The Torah ends with a eulogy for Moshe Rabbeinu. The description of Moshe’s nevu'a (prophecy) in that context is noteworthy: Moshe interacted with God directly, “face to face” (Devarim 34:10). This description is reminiscent of the incident recorded in Parashat Beha’alotekha, when Miriam and Aharon spoke against Moshe: “Has Hashem indeed spoken only with Moshe? Has He not spoken with us as well?” (Bamidbar 12:2). In response, Hashem appears to them:

And Hashem came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the Tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forth. And He said: “Hear now My words: If there be a prophet among you, I Hashem do make Myself known unto him in a vision, I do speak with him in a dream. Not so regarding My servant Moshe; he is trusted in all My house; With him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in riddles; and the similitude of Hashem does he behold. Wherefore then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moshe?” (Bamidbar 12:5-8).

Interestingly, in his “thirteen principles of faith,” the Rambam lists belief in nevu'a and the belief in the unique nevu'a of Moshe as two independent principles. In his Laws of the Foundations of the Torah (ch. 8), the Rambam explains that our faith in Moshe’s nevu'a is not rooted in nature-defying miracles, but rather in ma’amad Har Sinai, when we, as a collective, personally experienced this “face to face” prophecy: “Hashem spoke to your entire community face to face” (Devarim 5:4, see the shiur on Parashat Va'etchanan).

Rav Soloveitchik zt”l suggested that this is also the main thrust of the commandment never to forget what Hashem did to Miriam. This command is ordinarily viewed as a warning not to speak lashon ha-ra, but Rav Soloveitchik suggested that the Torah is demanding that we be constantly aware of the unique level of Moshe Rabbeinu’s nevu'a. After all, it is our faith in Moshe’s nevu'a that is the foundation of our belief in the Torah, which was given to us in its entirety by Moshe (a third principle enumerated by the Rambam). Therefore, the emphasis on the unique “face to face” nevu'a of Moshe is an appropriate ending of the Torah.

II. The Last Eight Pesukim

Our belief that the entire Torah was given by Moshe runs into difficulty when considering the final eight pesukim, which record Moshe’s death. Our sages already raised this question: “‘So Moshe the servant of Hashem died there.' Now is it possible that Moshe being dead could have written the words, 'Moshe died there'?!” (Baba Batra 15a). The beraita cites a difference of opinion regarding the solution to this problem:

The truth is, however, that up to this point Moshe wrote; from this point, Yehoshua wrote. This is the opinion of R. Yehuda, or, according to others, of R. Nehemiah. [But] R. Shimon said to him: Can the Torah scroll be short of one word? ... No; what we must say is that up to this point, the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moshe spoke and wrote, and from this point God dictated and Moshe wrote with tears, as it says [in Yirmiyahu 36], “Then Baruch answered them: He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.”

The beraita suggests two solutions – either that Yehoshua wrote the last eight pesukim of the Torah or that Hashem dictated these words to Moshe before his death. No one suggests a third option – that Moshe wrote these pesukim after he died. Although this solution would have solved the problem, the possibility is immediately negated for obvious reasons: “Now is it possible that Moshe being dead could have written the words; 'Moshe died there'?” Nevertheless, we will return to this option later.

R. Yehuda chose a path consistent with the straightforward reading of the Torah, but it seems to run counter to a basic religious tenet – that the entire Torah is comprised of the unique nevu'a of Moshe. Presumably, he limits he remarks to the final eight pesukim, but agrees to the integrity of the rest of the Torah as that of Moshe. Some commentators extended this position to include additional peripheral phrases, without undermining the authority of the Torah as a divine document delivered through Moshe.   

The position of R. Shimon, in contrast, is religiously sound, but exegetically strained. In his view, the entire Torah is the Torah of Moshe, but it is difficult to fathom that Moshe wrote of his own demise. Furthermore, it is not clear why the pasuk from Yirmiyahu had to be enlisted in support of this theory.

Consider the continuation of the gemara in Bava Batra:

Which of these two authorities is followed in the rule that ... "The last eight verses of the Torah are read by one person alone?" It follows R. Yehuda and not R. Shimon. I may even say, however, that it follows R. Shimon, [who would say that] since they differ [from the rest of the Torah] in one way, they differ in another.

The gemara is discussing a halakha that distinguishes the way we publically read the final eight pesukim from the public reading of the rest of the Torah. (The commentators are divided regarding the details of the difference, but that is not relevant at the moment.) The gemara initially proposes that any deviation is consistent with the position of R. Yehuda, who suggests a concrete distinction between the final pesukim and the rest of the Torah. The gemara concludes, however, that even R. Shimon’s opinion justifies differentiation; even he agrees that the final pesukim are different than the rest of the Torah, even though they were written by Moshe. However, if Moshe himself wrote the final pesukim during his lifetime, in what way are these pesukim different?

To answer our question, let’s take a closer look at the context of the pasuk in Yirmiyahu that R. Shimon enlisted to explain the final pesukim. Chapter 26 of Yirmiyahu describes the beginning of the rule of Yohoyakim, when Yirmiyahu was sent to the Mikdash to prophesize the destruction of Yerushalayim. He was attacked by a mob and placed on public trial, during which the kohanim and (false) prophets demanded that Yirmiyahu be put to death. The people and the king’s ministers argued in favor of Yirmiyahu, citing, among other things, the tragic case of the prophet Uriyahu, who was executed by Yehoyakim for similar prophesies. Yimiyahu’s life was ultimately spared.

Chapter 36 takes place on the fourth year of Yehoyakim’s rule. At this point, Yirmiyahu is barred from going to the Mikdash to publicize his nevu'a. Instead, Hashem commands him to write down the nevu'a in the hope that through this document, his nevu'a will be heard and lead to teshuva. Yirmiyahu calls upon Baruch the son of Neria to write the nevu'a and tells him to go to the Mikdash and read the manuscript to the people on a fast day. Word of the manuscript reaches the king’s ministers and they call Baruch to recite the document before them. After listening to the nevu'a, the ministers ask Baruch how the manuscript was written. This is the context of the pasuk quoted by the gemara: “Then Baruch answered them: He [Yirmiyahu] pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book.”

In order to appreciate the significance of this pasuk, it is critical to introduce an important point regarding scripture. The Tanakh is comprised of Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim. Torah is unique insofar as it contains the word of Hashem as transmitted to Yisrael through Moshe. However, what is the distinction between Nevi’im and Ketuvim, which are both divinely inspired? Several solutions have been suggested, but I would like to focus on the suggestion of R. Hutner zt”l. He asserted that the word nevua, prophecy, comes from the root “niv sefatayim” (Yeshayahu 57:19), referring to speech. Nevua was given to the prophet to be told to the people. After they were told, those that contain eternal messages were written and included in scripture in the Nevi’im. Ketuvim, on the other hand, were never intended to be spoken; their original intent was to be written (literally, ketuvim) (see Pachad Yitzchak, Shavuot 2:6).

According to this theory, the unique aspect of the sefer written by Baruch the son of Neria was that the nevu'a was transcribed before it was transmitted. Because Yirmiyahu was barred from the Mikdash and was prevented from speaking there, he asked Baruch to write down the nevu'a, according to the laws of scripture (on parchment with ink) and only later read it to the people. Based on the above distinction between Nevi’im and Ketuvim, it makes sense that when the sefer was written, it was considered as Ketuvim. The sefer of Baruch become part of Nevi’im as part of the nevu’a of Yirmiyahu only when the nevu'a was told to the nation.

Similarly, Moshe Rabbeinu is the greatest of all prophets; the communication between him and Hashem was direct, “face to face.” He transmitted the word of Hashem to Yisrael and only then wrote it down, as R. Shimon taught: “Up to this point, the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated and Moshe spoke and wrote.” However, the final eight pesukim were never transmitted orally to Yisrael. According to R. Shimon, Moshe transcribed those verses in lonely silence: “From this point, God dictated and Moshe wrote with tears.” Only after his death, when the Torah was opened, did Yisrael discover that another eight pesukim had been written.

Based on the parallel to the sefer of Baruch the son of Neria, these verses were likewise no more than Ketuvim when they were originally written. It was only after those pesukim were read to Yisrael that they became included in nevu'as Moshe and incorporated into the rest of the Torah. Thus, according to R. Shimon, the final eight pesukim carry the same religious weight as the rest of the Torah. They are included in the divine word that was transmitted to Moshe face to face, as was witnessed by Yisrael at Sinai. Nevertheless, the inclusion into the Torah occurred posthumously. Thus, Moshe, through the Torah, informed Yisrael of his death only after he had actually died.[1]

III. Read by One Person Alone

We noted that the gemara in Bava Batra notes an halakhic distinction between the public reading of the final eight pesukim and the public reading of the rest of the Torah: "The last eight verses of the Torah are read by one person alone.” There are various interpretations of this halakha. According to Rashi, these pesukim must be read together and should not be divided into separate aliyot. The Meiri brings a similar opinion that these pesukim should constitute a separate aliya and should not be combined with the verses that precede them. Both of these suggestions are building off the idea that the final eight pesukim form an organic unit. The Meiri cites another opinion that a “singular” individual should read theses pesukim. This may be the basis for the minhag of awarding “Chatan Torah” to one of the communal sages. 

Tosafot quote a fascinating suggestion in the name of Rabbeinu Meshulam; that the one who reads these pesukim should also receive the aliya. In general, we appoint one person to read the entire parasha, while calling up other people for their respective aliyot. However, these eight pesukim should be read by the person receiving the aliya himself. Rabbeinu Tam rejected this position, arguing that our practice of appointing a Torah reader is a later development that did not exist at the time of the Tannaim. In the time of R. Yehuda and R. Shimon, the person who received the aliya always read the Torah as well.

Before explaining the position of Rabbeinu Meshulam, let us take a glance at one more halakha: "It is no longer the custom to translate, for what use is a translation that is not understood?" (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 145:3). The Shulchan Arukh is referring to the practice of reading the Aramaic translation of Onkelos during the public Torah reading. This practice was derived from scripture:

What is that which is written, “And they read from the book of Hashem's Torah explained…”? “The book of Hashem's Torah” – this is Scripture. “Explained” – this is translation. (Nedarim 37b)

 At first glance, we would assume that the solitary purpose of the translation is so that the people who are more familiar with Aramaic than Hebrew will understand that which is being read. Therefore, nowadays, most communities have abolished the practice of targum, as we understand Hebrew better than Aramaic.    

But consider the following Yerushalmi:

R. Hagai said: R. Shmuel the son of R. Yitzchak entered shul. He saw Huna arising to recite the Targum without appointing a person in his stead. He said to him: It is prohibited. Just as she [the Torah] was given through a middleman, so too we must treat her by going through a middleman. (Yerushalmi Megilla 4:1)

The Yerushalmi insists that the Torah reader and translator be two distinct individuals, in order to mirror the Sinai model. From this we learn that there is another idea achieved through the institution of Targum: we must pattern the public Torah reading after the giving of the Torah at Sinai, which was transmitted through Moshe. This model is maintained by the reader, who plays the role of Hashem, as it were, and the reciter of the Targum, who acts as Moshe Rabbeinu, the middleman. This idea is supported by a gemara in Berakhot:

R. Shimon the son of Pazi said: From where do we derive that the translator should not raise his voice above that of the reader? For it says [regarding ma'amad Har Sinai]: "Moshe shall speak and God will respond in His voice" … What do we derive from "in His voice"? In the same voice as Moshe. (Berakhot 45a)

Nowadays, when the practice of Targum is no longer prevalent, how do we reenact Sinai? The answer is found in another halakha: "If the Torah reader wants to receive the aliya himself, another person must stand alongside, for just as she was given through a middleman, so too we must treat her by going through a middleman" (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 141:4). In other words, nowadays, when we appoint a separate person to read the Torah, the translator was replaced by the reader. The one who receives the aliya, who reads silently, represents Hashem, as it were, while the reader, who raises his voice so that all can hear, plays the role of Moshe, the middleman. Therefore, if the Torah reader himself receives the aliya and additional person is required to act as the middleman.

Rabbeinu Meshulam argued that there is no need for a middleman with respect to the final eight pesukim. Even R. Shimon agrees that these pesukim are distinct insofar as they were never transmitted orally by Moshe, the middleman. Therefore, there is no necessity for a distinct party to translate the Torah reading in order to complete the Sinai model. In applying this idea to the halakhic reality of his time, when translating to Aramaic was no longer practiced, Rabbeinu Meshulam argued that there should be no division between the reader and the person getting the aliya regarding these pesukim.

The Rambam (Hilkhot Tefilla 13:6) offered an additional explanation for the halakha that the final pesukim should be read by one person. According to him, even though a minyan is needed for the public Torah reading, these eight pesukim can be read in shul with less than ten people. The Raavad comments: "We have never heard of such a thing… and what he wrote is something very strange.” In truth, Rambam's interpretation is strange. Why should the minyan requirement be abolished regarding the final eight pesukim? 

Based on the above, we can explain that a minyan for Torah is required because ten people constitute a minimal representation of Yisrael as a nation. The Torah refers to ma'amad Har Sinai as the day of the assembly (see Devarim 9:10). Therefore, the Torah, which must be read in accord with the Sinai model, demands the presence of at least ten people. (There may be an independent requirement for a minyan during the recital of the blessings that precede the public Torah reading.)

            Accordingly, the final pesukim, which were not transmitted to the public by Moshe, are not bound by the Sinai model. Therefore, it is reasonable that these pesukim should be exempt from the minyan requirement.