The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Sefer Devarim records Moshe's final admonition to Benei Yisrael before his death. The third verse of the sefer reads, "It was in the fortieth year… that Moshe addressed the Israelites in accordance with the instructions that God had given him [to transmit] to them." The Chatam Sofer affords great significance to the final clause of the verse: "… that God had given him [to transmit] to them." As we stressed by adding brackets, the verse does not actually include the words "to transmit." It actually reads, "that God had given him to them." The Chatam Sofer explains that the verse here equates God's initial teaching of the Torah to Moshe and his imparting the knowledge to Benei Yisrael. Moshe's instruction to Benei Yisrael resembled, at least in a certain sense, Ma'amad Har Sinai itself, when Moshe studied the Torah directly from God. His transmission of the laws to the people ranks no less in importance or significance. God gave him - Moshe - as well as them - Benei Yisrael - the Torah. Although the people received the knowledge from an intermediary, their learning was of equal importance.

Perhaps this explanation teaches us to blur the lines between scholars and laymen as far as the inherent importance of engagement in Torah study. Scholars and yeshiva students must never scorn or disregard the more basic level of learning of those without the privilege of investing the same amount of time and energy into advanced study. Conversely, those without advanced background may not write themselves off as unqualified to pursue a Torah education. Any sincere involvement in Torah study resembles, on one level, God's initial presentation of the Torah to Moshe. The Torah is intended to reach everyone, to each individual at his/her level of understanding and depth. God gave the Torah to all of us, just as He gave it to Moshe Rabbenu himself.

According to Rashi's explanation of the first verse of Sefer Devarim, Moshe introduces his final address to the nation by listing the places where they sinned against the Almighty. The sequence of this list, however, deviates from chronological order. The final two places mentioned by Moshe are "Chatzerot" and "Di Zahav." Rashi identifies Chatzerot as the site of Korach's disastrous rebellion, while Di Zahav refers to the golden calf. Of course, the golden calf occurred on the seventeenth of Tammuz, just three months after the Exodus, while Korach's rebellion clearly occurred later, as Benei Yisrael journeyed through the wilderness. Why did Moshe reverse the order?

It has been suggested that Korach's revolt appears first because in light of this sin the incident of the golden calf becomes far more severe. (This approach has been suggested in various forms; we present here but one of them.) As many commentaries explain, Benei Yisrael did not actually worship the golden calf; they did not view it as a deity. Rather, having grown impatient waiting for Moshe's return from the mountain, they sought a substitute for Moshe; they needed some intermediary to represent God the way Moshe had. Recognition of the people's dependency upon their leader could substantially mitigate the severity of the sin of the golden calf.

That is, until Korach's rebellion. Korach and his followers challenged the need for leadership over Benei Yisrael: "For the entire congregation is holy, and God is in their midst; why, then, do you elevate yourselves over the congregation of God?" They objected to the entire concept of a theocratic or political hierarchy; they insisted that all Benei Yisrael share equal footing and stature. Hence, once Korach's rebellion unfolded, Benei Yisrael could no longer defend their fashioning of a calf or even mitigate its severity. If they were really so desperate for leadership, if the calf really served the critical function of filling in for Moshe, then how did Korach attract so many followers in his rejection of Moshe's authority?

Therefore, the sin of Korach's revolt precedes that of the golden calf in the first verse of Sefer Devarim. It was only a result of this tragic episode that the sin of the golden calf takes on ever more severe dimensions.

In Parashat Devarim, Moshe recounts the debacle of the scouts, who returned from their mission and discouraged the people from proceeding to Eretz Yisrael. Moshe recalls, "You refused to go up [to the land] and flouted the commanded of God… You sulked in your tents…" Chazal say that the spies returned from their scouting mission on the afternoon of the eighth of Av, and that night, the eve of Tisha B'Av, Benei Yisrael wailed in their tents, bemoaning the destruction they anticipated in Canaan. This night was thus destined to be a "night of crying" for many future generations, as we know ever so sadly to this very day. But how are we to understand this association between the Tisha B'Av we observe and the incident of the scouts? Do they have anything in common other than the element of weeping?

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag clues us in on the true meaning of Tisha B'Av as it relates to the sin of the spies. If all had gone according to plans, the scouts would have simply returned and reported their findings to the people, and on the next day - Tisha B'Av - Benei Yisrael would have left Kadesh and set out to Eretz Yisrael. In essence, Tisha B'Av was to mark the beginning of the fulfillment of Benei Yisrael's destiny - the conquest of the land given to them by God for the purposes of establishing His special nation therein. This day that has become synonymous with grief was to have been the greatest of all festivals - the day on which Benei Yisrael triumphantly marches towards the land to fulfill their destiny. Instead, however, it became a day of weeping and anguish.

Indeed, the greatest tragedy of all is wasted potential and missed opportunity. Tisha B'Av amply reflects the tormenting sorrow of a dream that collapsed on the brink of its realization. The Bet Hamikdash afforded us opportunities and privileges of which we are probably not even aware. Benei Yisrael abused the privilege of the Mikdash, licensing themselves to engage in corruption and deceit viewing the Temple as a self-sufficient means of atonement. In this week's haftara, Yeshayahu laments and condemns the people's overconfidence in the efficacy and power of sacrifices, which leads them to ignore everything else. They abused the privilege of the Temple. Tragically, they turned the source of blessing and sanctity into that of corruption and evil. God therefore punished them with a Tisha B'Av - the day that was earmarked for joy and jubilation but turned into a day of sorrow and grief.

Rashi comments on our parasha (1:5) that Moshe Rabbenu taught Sefer Devarim to Benei Yisrael in all seventy languages known to mankind at the time. Why must Benei Yisrael hear the same material repeated so many times in different dialects, if they could hear it once and understand it fully?

The Ketav Sofer answers that the repetition of Sefer Devarim served to transmit a critical lesson to the people on the brink of their entry into Eretz Yisrael. This sefer consists primarily of guidelines and instructions regarding Benei Yisrael's life in the land. Moshe repeats over and over again that these laws are to observed upon their entry into Israel. Benei Yisrael may have gotten the impression that only in the land of Israel do these laws apply; should they be exiled, then they ought to adopt the culture and lifestyle of their surroundings. Moshe therefore made a point of reviewing his final sermon to the people in all vernaculars, stressing the point that Although the ideal situation is clearly an independent Jewish nation in Eretz Yisrael, the Torah applies with the same authority in every locale and in every situation. Benei Yisrael may never excuse themselves from the demands of the Torah. No matter what language theyspeak, in whichever culture they are submerged, they are bound by the eternal Word of God.

Among the events Moshe recounts in Parashat Devarim is his establishment of a judicial hierarchy for the people. He recalls his frustration with his inability to personally handle the steady stream of legal cases presented before him: "I said at that moment, I cannot bear the burden of you by myself." Somewhat surprisingly, Rashi adds that this statement of Moshe actually originated from God Himself. It wasn't Moshe's own limitations that led to the establishment of an entire judicial network, but God required such an overhaul.

Based on Rashi's approach, Rav Moshe Feinstein arrives at a fascinating interpretation of the verse. Moshe declared, "lo ukhal levadi," which we would generally interpret as "I am unable… by myself." However, as Rav Moshe points, at times the verb y.ch.l., which generally denotes capability, refers to legal ability (see Devarim 12:17). Thus, in our verse, Moshe declares that he is prohibited, not practically unable, to lead the people by himself. Why?

Rav Moshe explains that Moshe Rabbenu, specifically because of his unique stature, could not serve as the only role model for the people. If he would represent the only example of Jewish leadership, the masses would be discouraged from aspiring to greater heights and achievements. They could never attain the stature of Moshe - why would they even bother, then, to reach for something higher than their current status? Only if they had exposure to leaders to whom they could relate, great people closer to their own level, could they be inspired to continually progress forward.

Thus, the appointment of judges and leaders under Moshe served not only the practical need of alleviating the burden from Moshe's shoulders. If this were the only issue, perhaps Moshe would have been able to cope. Rather, the judicial overhaul ensured that the people had inspiring figures to whom they could look for guidance and whose example they could follow. The hierarchy Moshe instituted allowed everyone to find a leader suitable for him, one who could speak to him on his individual level and guide him accordingly.

On all public fast days, including Tisha B'Av, we insert the "annenu" prayer in our shemoneh esrei service and read the Torah portion called "vayechal," which tells of Moshe's successful plea on behalf of Benei Yisrael in the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf. (On Tisha B'Av we conduct this reading only at mincha, whereas on other public fasts we read this portion at shacharit, as well.) An interesting halakhic question arises when many or most of those in attendance have, for whatever reason, broken their fast. May the congregation still recite the standard prayers of a public fast if fewer than ten men present are currently fasting?

We find among the Rishonim two general views. The Meiri (Megila 3b) notes that when Benei Yisrael came under attack by Amalek (Shemot 17), Moshe, Aharon and Chur (their nephew) observed a fast. From here the Meiri derives that a public fast requires a minimum of three participants in order to qualify as such. Therefore, the special additions to the prayer service may not be included should fewer than three people in attendance be fasting.

The other view is posited by the Rashba (Shut HaRashba 81), who requires a full minyan of fasting worshipers to warrant the inclusion of "annenu" in the service. This opinion is codified in the Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 566:3).

However, the Maharam Ben Chaviv ("Shut Kol Gadol" 14) significantly qualifies this ruling of the Rashba. He distinguishes between a fast day declared by a community in light of an urgent crisis, and the public fast days that have become affixed to our calendars (Asara B'Tevet, Shiva Asar B'Tammuz, Tisha B'Av, and Tzom Gedalya; Yom Kippur, of course, is a different issue entirely). Maharam Ben Chaviv contended that only with regard to self-imposed communal fasts did the Rashba require a quorum of ten individuals fasting to conduct the special fast day services. On the fixed fast days, however, so long as six or seven worshippers are fasting, then the community may be considered as a "fasting community," and the appropriate additions to the prayer service may be conducted.

As far as the final halakhic ruling, the Sha'arei Teshuva (566) rules that seven fasting people in attendance are required, while the "Shut Keren David" (O.C. 16:2), Sha'arei Efrayim (8:108) and "Shut Yashiv Moshe" (148) maintain that six fasting attendees suffice. Rav Yona Metzger of Tel-Aviv notes that the prevalent practice is to require only six fasting worshippers. Therefore, although we generally shy away from reciting berakhot when their requirement is in doubt, when an established custom exists we follow the custom even when it entails the recitation of berakhot. Hence, even when only six worshippers are fasting, the various additions may be recited.

(Taken from Rav Yona Metzger's column, "Pinat Hahalakha," Oneg Shabbat, 3 Menachem-Av, 5756.)

Lest we forget about the destruction of the Temple, Chazal instituted several measures to bring to mind the tragedy of the churban. Specific rituals are observed during particularly festive occasions to underscore the incompleteness of our joy in the absence of our Bet Hamikdash. Clearly, the most widespread of these customs apply to the wedding ceremony. There is a time-honored tradition to conclude the "tena'im," the mutual agreement of the two families to bring their children together in marriage, by breaking a dish. Similarly, the "chupa" (canopy) ceremony is customarily brought to an end with the groom's breaking of a glass. (Interestingly, the prevalent custom in Yerushalayim is for the groom to break the glass before the recitation of the "sheva berakhot," not after.)

Several attempts have been made to explain why we differentiate between the "tena'im" and the "chupa," breaking a dish at the former and a glass at the latter. One possible explanation (see Piskei Teshuvot, 560:9) draws a subtle distinction between the function of the breaking at the "tena'im" and that during the "chupa." As opposed to the actual wedding ceremony itself, the engagement, solidified by the "tana'im," does not carry with it intense festivity and celebration. (Recall that the original "tena'im" were drawn up and signed at the betrothal; most Ashkenazic communities today conduct a ceremonial, commemorative "tena'im" minutes before the "chupa.") Therefore, there is no need to lower the level of celebration at the "tena'im" as we must at the actual wedding. All that is required is a reminder of the destruction of the Temple, fulfilling the verse, "If I forget you, Yerushalayim, let my right hand be forgotten." In other words, while the glass-breaking at the "chupa" serves to subdue the level of festivity, the glass-breaking at the "tena'im" is meant to merely bring to mind the destruction. Therefore, at the "chupa" we break an expensive glass, which symbolizes wealth and luxury. A plate, by contrast, is somewhat more basic and does not cause the same distress when broken as does a glass. (Considerable discussion in the poskim exists regarding whether or not we must break specifically an expensive glass - see Yabi'a Omer vol. 4, 9. This approach obviously assumes that we must break a glass of significant value.)

Another difference between the customs at the "tena'im" and the "chupa" surrounds the issue of who does the breaking. The prevalent practice calls for the parents (usually the mothers) to break the dish at the "tena'im" while the groom himself breaks the glass under the canopy. The simplest explanation for this discrepancy seems to be that we choose the "breaker" based on who stands at the center of the current celebration. At the "tena'im" (at least in generations past), the major players are clearly the parents. They arranged the marriage and entered into an agreement with the other set of parents to bring their child into the union. The betrothal is therefore their celebration; the bride and groom still have time before their big day a. At the "chupa," of course, the bride and groom themselves are the "ba'alei simcha," the ones with the most to celebrate. Therefore, specifically they must see to it that the recollection of the destruction of the Mikdash temper their joy and introduce a meaningful, solemnizing element to their celebration.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

(c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion

Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il