The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

In Moshe's brief review in Parashat Devarim of Benei Yisrael's experiences in the wilderness, he recounts the battle against Sichon, who responded to Benei Yisrael's request of right of passage by taking up arms against them. Moshe recalls his polite appeal to Sichon, whereby he offered a financial incentive, as Benei Yisrael would purchase provisions from the Emorite kingdom along the way: "You will supply me with food for money that I may eat, and you will give me water for money that I may drink… " (2:28). The Gemara in Masekhet Avoda Zara (37b) sees in this verse an implied association between the food and the water Benei Yisrael offered to purchased from the Emorites. Specifically, the Gemara claims, Moshe did not offer to purchase all food, but rather food which resembled water. Namely, he would buy food that has not been altered from its original, raw form, just as water, even after it is boiled, is not fundamentally changed from its original form. The Gemara thus derives from here the prohibition known as "bishul akum," or eating foods - even kosher foods - cooked by gentiles. The fact that Moshe would purchase only raw food from Sichon indicates that cooked food is prohibited.

Ultimately, however, the Gemara concludes that this prohibition does not originate from this verse. Instead, it was instituted much later, by Chazal, either as a preventative measure to limit social interaction between Jews and gentiles (Tosefot, Avoda Zara 38a), or out of concern that the gentile will add non-kosher ingredients to the food (Rashi, ibid.). The verse was cited as an "asmakhta," as a subtle allusion in the Chumash, but not as an actual source. We should note that several important conditions apply to this rule, and in certain instances food cooked by gentiles is permissible.

One question that perhaps arises pertains to the Gemara's "hava amina" (original thesis that it ultimately rejected), that the Torah itself forbids the consumption of bishul akum. Once the Gemara rejects this theory, does the previous discussion become meaningless? Is there no more any significance to the implicit association drawn between the food and water of the Emorites?

An interesting idea is cited in the name of the "Revid ha-Zahav" to explain the significance behind this "hava amina" even after its refutation. In several places in his work on the Shulchan Arukh, the Taz posits a famous theory concerning Chazal's power of legislation. Although, as we know, the Torah empowered the Sages to safeguard the Torah through the enactment of whatever measures they deem necessary, they may not enact laws that contradict an explicit verse in the Torah. Accordingly, one could question Chazal's authority to forbid bishul akum; after all, Moshe explicitly offered to purchase and eat the goods prepared by the Emorites. How, then, could Chazal issue this decree, forbidding the cooked food of gentiles, if it runs counter to an explicit verse in the Torah?

Herein lies the significance behind the Gemara's discussion. The association implied between food and water suggests that Moshe perhaps offered to purchase only raw food. Therefore, we do not have an explicit indication from Scripture that foods cooked by gentiles are permissible, and hence Chazal were licensed to issue this prohibition.

****

The opening verse of Parashat Devarim appears, at first glance, to list the places where Moshe addressed Benei Yisrael: "These are the words that Moshe addressed to all of Israel on the other side of the Jordan - through the wilderness, in the Arava near Suf, between Paran and Tofel, Lavan, Chatzerot and Di-zahav." Rashi, however, explains the verse differently. He explains that the places mentioned are the locations where Benei Yisrael committed different sins throughout the wilderness. For example, the wilderness of Paran is the region from which Moshe dispatched the scouts, and where Benei Yisrael expressed their refusal to move forward to Canaan. Tofel, Rashi writes, is where Benei Yisrael "taflu al ha-man" - where they complained to God about the manna.

It is noteworthy, however, that these two references, to the spies and the complaints over the manna, are not listed in the same manner as the other "locations" mentioned in the verse. The Torah did not simply list Paran and Tofel together with the other names, but wrote instead, "between Paran and Tofel." This would seem to imply some sort of link between these two incidents, the sin of the spies and the complaint against the manna. Rav Dovid Moskovitz (Romania, early 20^th century), in his "Gelilei Zahav," explains that the Torah here seeks to emphasize that complaining about Eretz Yisrael is tantamount to complaining about the manna. Both were given to Benei Yisrael through special divine providence, both came to our nation as a unique gift of the Almighty. Rejecting either one, then, amounts to a rejection of God Himself, Heaven forbid.

To develop this idea a bit further, let us consider a basic difference between the incident of the spies and the grumbling over the manna; this difference will help us appreciate the association this verse appears to draw between them. Benei Yisrael's criticism of the manna seems entirely and unquestionably out of place. Can there be any greater gift than the guaranteed supply of adequate food, without any effort or exertion, and without any worry or concern over making a living? Indeed, the Sifrei in our parasha likens Benei Yisrael's whining over the manna to Adam ha-Rishon's lack of appreciation for his wife, Chava. By complaining about the manna, Benei Yisrael simply exhibited a lack of appreciation for a great divine gift.

The sin of the scouts, however, appears, at first glance, to have been of a different nature entirely. Benei Yisrael seem prepared and willing to enter and settle the land - if it could be given to them without any effort on their part. They feared, somewhat understandably (though not justifiably), the impending battles against the powerful armies of Canaan. After living a miraculous existence in the wilderness, the thought of taking up arms and fighting frightened the nation and led them to rebel.

The association implied in the verse between these two incidents teaches us that in truth, this distinction is immaterial. The rejection of God's gift out of an unwillingness to exert the necessary effort is still considered a rejection of God, tantamount to Benei Yisrael's disdain for the manna. God expects us to work for His blessings; if we refuse His blessing out of contempt for the work involved, He deems this refusal as a disinterest in His blessings altogether. Indeed, the Psalmist (106:24) described the chet ha-meraglim as follows: "Va-yim'asu be-eretz chemda" - "They rejected the desirable land." Benei Yisrael indeed acknowledged that the land was "desirable," but their refusal to proceed amounted to a "rejection" of the land.

The same can easily be applied to all areas of Judaism, and to Torah knowledge in particular. Even one who appreciates the value, beauty and sanctity of Torah study and the importance of becoming proficient in Torah knowledge could choose not to invest the time and effort necessary to achieve a respectable standard of scholarship. Parallel to the sin of the meraglim, such a decision would perhaps constitute a degree of "rejection" of the gift of the Torah. Like the Land of Israel, such a precious gift is more than worth the effort and exertion.

****

In Parashat Devarim, Moshe recounts God's order that Benei Yisrael refrain from any military action against three nations: Amon, Moav and Edom. All three of these nations were "relatives" of Benei Yisrael: Amon and Moav descended from Lot, Avraham's nephew, and Edom was founded by Esav. Interestingly, Moshe here speaks of the nation of Edom as "acheinu" - "our brethren" (2:8). In Parashat Chukat (Bemidba20:14), we find similarly that Moshe referto Benei Yisrael as the brethren of Edom. Later, in Parashat Ki-Teitzei (Devarim 23:8), the Torah forbids "despising" an Edomite, "for he is your brother." How may we understand this kinship between Edom and Benei Yisrael?

Rav Shimon Schwab, in his Ma'ayan Beit ha-Shoe'iva, suggests an interesting answer based on a simple, historical fact that appears to emerge from Tanakh. Despite the dominance of paganism in the ancient Middle East, we find no reference in Tanakh to "elohei Edom," a deity worshipped by Edom, until the time of the Judean king Amatzia, who worshipped the idol of Edom (Divrei ha-Yamim II 25:14). Though Benei Yisrael unfortunately resorted to the idolatry of the surrounding nations on many occasions throughout the Biblical period, not until this relatively late stage do we find any reference to a god of Edom. Rav Schwab speculates that until then, Edom had not worshipped idols. They perhaps believed in the existence of a single God but denied His interest in human affairs, claiming that He created the world and left it to run its own course. Since they, as opposed to all other nations of the time, resisted the tendency to idolatry, a fraternity of sorts existed between them and Benei Yisrael, the only two monotheistic nations of the ancient world. (We should add that the prophet Ovadia, who condemns Edom, makes no mention of that nation's idolatry, but rather of its cruelty and indifference to Benei Yisrael.)

We may consider this idea when thinking about the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash which we mourn on Tisha B'Av. Chazal claim that the first Temple was destroyed because of the nation's idolatry, adultery and murder, whereas the second was taken away in punishment for sin'at chinam - internal strife and disunity. Benei Yisrael did not worship idols during the Second Temple. In fact, there was widespread Torah study at the highest level of scholarship. Am Yisrael was punished, however, for the people's inability to get along with one another. Appropriately, then, the destruction was performed by the Romans, whom Chazal often identify with Edom. Edom represents not pagan ideology, but violence and bloodshed ("and the hands are the hands of Esav" - Bereishit 27:22). Just as within Benei Yisrael brethren turned against each other, so did Edom rise against his brother and violate the fraternity that had developed by virtue of their shared commitment to monotheism.

Only once we restore our internal fraternity, will the violence of our brother, Esav, finally come to an end.

****

In recounting the incident of the scouts in Parashat Devarim, Moshe recalls, "All of you came to me" (1:22) to request that he send a scouting mission. Rashi, based on the Midrash, comments that Moshe here alludes to the chaotic manner in which Benei Yisrael approached him to submit the request. Rather than presenting themselves calmly and in an orderly fashion, they all pushed and shoved and demanded that spies be sent.

The Netziv, in his Ha'amek Davar, cites the explanation offered by his father-in-law, Rav Itzele of Volozhin, as to how this disorderly petition relates to the sin of the spies. Benei Yisrael could have potentially cast exclusive responsibility for this debacle on the spies themselves. It was they who misled the people into doubting their ability to capture the Land, so they alone are to blame. The people themselves, however, did nothing wrong. They simply sought to obtain information necessary for their imminent (or what was to be their imminent) battle against Canaan. There is nothing wrong with that. They therefore could not be held personally accountable for the tragedy. Moshe seeks to dispel this notion by emphasizing the inappropriate manner in which this entire incident began. (We will not deal here with the seeming contradiction between Moshe's account here and the narrative in Parashat Shelach, where it appears that God Himself initiated the scouting mission.) Were Benei Yisrael to have been sincerely motivated in their request, they would have proceeded in a far more calculated and controlled fashion. They would have come before Moshe respectfully and respectably, as befitting the presentation of a genuine suggestion or request. The frantic bombardment of Moshe reflected the people's panic and skepticism which prompted them to request the spies in the first place.

One of the lessons emerging from this analysis of the Midrash is the value of patient calculation and calm, clearheaded thinking in avodat Hashem. Chaos and disorder almost certainly reflect a lack of thought and consideration, which often signals a less than virtuous endeavor. That Benei Yisrael descended upon Moshe so frantically testified to the fact that they had not given sufficient thought to this matter of the spies. It is interesting to note that the Netziv himself was well-known for his patience, discipline, and emphasis on orderliness and punctuality. He is reputed to have said that a true "matmid" (diligent student) is not the one who spends all day learning Torah, but rather the one who prays during the time of prayers, studies during the time for studies, eats at mealtimes, and sleeps when his body needs rest. It is perhaps this strong belief in the value of orderliness and organization that led him to include in his commentary this idea of his father-in-law to explain this Midrash. (The Netziv generally focuses on his understanding of peshat, rather than Midrash.)

****

We find several differences between Moshe's account in Parashat Devarim of the tragic incident of the spies, and the Torah's original narrative of this event in Parashat Shelach. Among them is different records of the spies' report upon their return. In Parashat Shelach, their initial report covers three entire verses, and then several others record their debate with Yehoshua and Kalev, the two spies who tried encouraging Benei Yisrael and oppose the negative report of the others. In Parashat Shelach, the spies very briefly mention the land's superior agricultural quality and then quickly shift their focus onto the formidable armies of Canaan and the impossibility of the Land's conquest. Moshe's account of the spies' report, by contrast, consists of but seven words: "Tova ha-aretz asher Hashem Elokenu notein lanu" ("The Land that the Lord our God gives us is good" - Devarim 1:25). Moshe makes no mention of the spies' emphasis on the military power of the Canaanite nations, or their insistence on the hopelessness of any campaign to capture the Land. He rather cites their brief praise of the land and then immediately recounts, "You refused to go up." This of course portrays Benei Yisrael's response to the spies in a particularly negative light. Despite the scouts' positive report about Canaan, the nation stubbornly refused to proceed to the Land.

At first glance, this hardly seems fair on Moshe's part. We already noted yesterday that some could have vindicated the nation's response to the spies' report in light of the simple fact that the scouts actively discouraged the people. They specifically tailored their report to give the impression that the effort to capture Canaan is futile. Moshe eliminates this contention here by, seemingly, altering the facts and giving an inaccurate description of the scout's report. Why would he do this?

We may perhaps answer this question in light of the following comments of the Seforno on the verse, "You refused to go up": "You exposed your wickedness, [demonstrating] that the mission was not to choose the places that were better for you now, as I had thought… but rather you intended through this mission to see if you could capture it, and this was because you did not believe in God that He would give it to you." According to the Seforno, Moshe thought the people requested this mission simply for them to decide which places they should occupy first. Their response, however, doubting their ability to capture the Land, reflected their true goal in the mission - to determine the feasibility of the conquest, an expression of their distrust of G.

This is perhaps why Moshe deliberately omits the scouts' discouraging remarks about the armieof Canaan. Had the nation been driven by sincere motives in requesting the mission, then all they would have heard from the scouts was the superior quality of the land. The issue of the feasibility of the conquest would not have interested them, for it would have been a foregone conclusion. Had they truly trusted God, then all they would have taken from the scouts' comments was their observations concerning the land's quality. Moshe therefore mentions only this segment of the scouts' report, as this should have been all that Benei Yisrael heard. But since their initial demand for spies was prompted by skepticism, they focused on the continuation of the spies' report, which brought them to rebel against God and refuse to proceed to the Land.

****

In the first chapter of Yeshayahu, read annually as the haftara on the Shabbat immediately preceding Tisha B'Av, the prophet foresees the ultimate atonement of Am Yisrael's sins: "Be your sins like crimson, they will turn snow-white; be they red as the blood of worms, they will turn to wool" (Yeshayahu 1:18). The Talmud Yerushalmi in Masekhet Shabbat (9:3) writes that this verse refers to the "chut shel zehorit," the red string that hung over the innermost sanctum of the Beit ha-Mikdash. Chazal say that each year, on Yom Kippur, when the kohen gadol performed the special atonement service and thereby brought atonement to Benei Yisrael, the red string would turn white, symbolizing the nation's regained purity. The kohen would show the string to the whole nation who would then break out in celebration. According to the Yerushalmi, this verse in Yeshayahu alludes to a distinction in this regard between the two Batei Mikdash. In the first Temple, the nation's sins turned snow-white, as foreseen in the first clause; during the period of the second Mikdash, the people's iniquity could transform only into wool, and could not become pure white as snow.

Rav Meir Simcha ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, in his Meshekh Chokhma on our parasha, uncovers the depths of this passage in the Gemara by drawing a second distinction between the two clauses in the verse. Not only does the verse distinguish between the shades of white attained in the two periods, but it also enlists different analogies to depict the "redness" of sin: "shanim" (translated here as crimson), and "tola" (translated here as "worm's blood"), respectively. "Shanim" generally refers to a white string dyed red; "tola," by contrast, speaks of blood itself, which is, of course, colored red intrinsically. Rav Meir Simcha explains that this distinction parallels the different levels of iniquity between the periods of which we speak. During the time of the first Bet ha-Mikdash, as much as the people sinned, they remained intrinsically "white," or pure. Though the dyed themselves red with sin, they nevertheless retained an inherent identity of purity. Indeed, as the Meshekh Chokhma quotes, the Yerushalmi towards the beginning of Pei'a attributes the military success of the generation of Achav, who introduced widespread idolatry to his kingdom, to the loyalty and friendship among people during the time. Benei Yisrael in this period worshipped idols but somehow retained their intrinsic "whiteness." During the period of the Second Temple, however, Benei Yisrael's essence no longer remained pure. They not only sinned, but they became inherently sinful; they were no longer a white string dyed in red, but rather analogous to blood.

This is why, it would seem, this second exile has lasted many times longer than the first. During the Babylonian exile, Benei Yisrael merely had to repent for their evil ways; after the destruction of the Second Temple, Benei Yisrael must change themselves fundamentally and inherently, in order to regain their intrinsic purity.

****

Moshe opens his brief historical survey in Parashat Devarim by recounting God's command that Benei Yisrael once and for all depart from Mount Sinai: "The Lord… spoke to us at Horeb, saying: You have stayed long enough at this mountain. Start out and make you way to the hill country of the Emorites… " (Devarim 1:6-7). The Chatam Sofer, in his work on Chumash, "Torat Moshe," suggests a Midrashic reading of this verse. The term, "rav lakhem," which, according to the peshat reading, means, "It has been enough," may also be interpreted as, "It was too much for you." This reading, the Chatam Sofer writes, would accommodate Chazal's negative assessment of Benei Yisrael's departure from Mount Sinai, that they fled like schoolchildren, afraid of receiving more commandments. The Chatam Sofer then applies this line of interpretation to the next verse, God's instruction to Benei Yisrael to "make your way to the hill country of the Emorites." Chazal claim that Esav at times is referred to as an Emorite (Bereishit Rabba 97:6, cited in Rashi, Bereishit 48:22). The verse thus alludes to the chain reaction set off by Benei Yisrael's having "fled" Sinai. Their fear of more mitzvot reflected their spiritual fatigue and desire for comfort and physical luxury, which led them to the sin of the scouts, where they refused to confront the challenges necessary to capture and settle the land. Chazal, in a famous Midrash (Masekhet Ta'anit 29a), associate the tears shed by Benei Yisrael upon hearing the scouts' report, which occurred on Tisha B'Av, with the annual crying on this same date mourning the exile. Somehow, the sin of the spies left an indelible impact upon Benei Yisrael, to the extent that we can even attribute future exiles to that single event.

These verses, then, allude to the progression from Benei Yisrael's weariness from Torah and mitzvot to all future exiles. From "rav lakhem," the people's spiritual fatigue, we arrive at Esav, the "Emorite," or exile.

The Chatam Sofer's reading of these verses becomes even more insightful when we consider how it so sharply contrasts with a different Midrashic interpretation of the same verse. Rashi cites from a Midrash the following explanation of the term, "rav lakhem": "You have achieved much greatness and reward for your dwelling on this mountain: you built the Mishkan… you received the Torah, you appointed for yourselves the Sanhedrin… " According to this Midrash, God here informs Benei Yisrael that they have already made remarkable achievements at Sinai; it was therefore time to move forward and bring the Torah they studied with them to Eretz Yisrael. This Midrash very closely relates to the simple reading of the verse, that God simply tells Benei Yisrael that they have remained long enough at Sinai; the time has come to continue onward.

The contrast between the Chatam Sofer's Midrashic reading and that presented by Rashi has much to teach us concerning our attitude to Torah and mitzvot. According to one reading, Benei Yisrael achieved great stature and reward over the course of their stay at Sinai; according to the Chatam Sofer, the verse refers to the people's perception that they stayed their too long, such that the mitzvot become a bother. This beautifully reflects the stark contrast between the truth about Torah and mitzvot and the way we unfortunately tend to view them. In truth, they are our most precious treasure, the means by which we connect to the Almighty and become His beloved people. All too often, however, we look upon them from our shortsighted, worldly perspective and feel overburdened by the demands of Jewish practice. The Chatam Sofer teaches that when we turn the "rav lakhem" of greatness and glory into the "rav lakhem" of a childish fear of religious responsibility, then "the hill country of the Emorites" becomes the exile of Edom. Through our enthusiastic attitude to mitzvot and our genuine sense of good fortune at having the privilege of serving our Creator, we can turn our exile back into "the hill country of the Emorites," a thriving, proud, and secure nation in our homeland, serving the Almighty in the rebuilt Beit ha-Mikdash.

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

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

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