SALT – PARASHAT RE’EH

By Rav David Silverberg

MOTZAEI SHABBAT

            Toward the beginning of Parashat Re’ei (11:31), Moshe exhorts Benei Yisrael, “For you are crossing the Jordan to come and possess the land that the Lord your God is giving you; and you shall possess it and dwell in it.  You shall ensure to perform all the statutes and all the laws that I place before you today.”  The Sifrei, commenting on the clause, “you shall possess it and dwell in it,” writes, “In reward for possessing it, you shall dwell in it.”

The Ramban, in a famous passage in his critique of the Rambam’s Sefer Ha-mitzvot, cites this comment of the Sifrei as one of the proofs to the obligation of yishuv ha-aretz, taking possession of and settling the Land of Israel.  While the Rambam does not list such an obligation in his list of the 613 Biblical commands, the Ramban contends that this indeed constitutes a Torah obligation, and he points to this passage of the Sifrei as one of a number of indications to this effect.  Chazal seems to have understood that Moshe here commands the people to take possession of the land, and does not simply state a promise that this will occur.

Some have questioned the Ramban’s inference from this verse on the basis of a passage in the Gemara (Kiddushin 26a), where this verse is cited in an entirely different context.  The Gemara there searches for the Biblical source of the concept of kinyan chazaka, which means that a buyer establishes legal ownership over land by performing certain acts that signify ownership, such as constructing a fence around the property.  Rabbi Yishmael claimed that the source for this concept is the aforementioned verse in Parashat Re’ei – “you shall possess it and dwell in it.”  According to Rabbi Yishmael’s reading of this phrase, Moshe instructs the people that one may “dwell” in a property once he “possesses it,” meaning, after he actively takes possession of the property.  This verse thus forms the basis of the concept of kinyan chazaka – active possession as a means of acquiring formal, legal ownership over property.

Needless to say, Rabbi Yishmael’s reading of this verse has no connection at all to the issue of taking possession of Eretz Yisrael, and we might therefore conclude that it cannot serve as a basis for the Ramban’s view.

One fairly simple answer is to dismiss Rabbi Yishmael’s inference as an asmakhta, a secondary reading of the verse that does not necessarily negate the halakhic implications of the straightforward reading.  Thus, even if Rabbi Yishmael finds an allusion in this verse for the law of kinyan chazaka, the Ramban is still justified in building upon the plain meaning, that the Torah here speaks of an obligation to take possession of Eretz Yisrael.

Furthermore, as noted by Rav Shemuel Eliezerov in his Devar Shemuel commentary to Masekhet Kiddushin, the Gemara cites Chizkiya as suggesting a different source for the halakha of kinyan chazaka, a verse in Sefer Yirmiyahu (40:10).  We might thus simply explain that the Ramban sided with Chizkiya’s position, which infers kinyan chazaka from Sefer Yirmiyahu, and he is therefore not bound by Rabbi Yishmael’s reading of the verse.  We might add that the Sefer Ha-makneh already raised the question of why Chizkiya would eschew a source from the Torah in favor of a verse in Sefer Yirmiyahu.  In light of what we have seen, we might suggest, quite simply, that Chizkiya interpreted the verse in Parashat Re’ei as introducing the obligation of possessing Eretz Yisrael, as the Ramban understood, and he therefore had to find a different Scriptural source for kinyan chazaka.

If so, then it emerges that the famous debate between the Ramban and the Rambam as to whether there is a Torah obligation to take possession of and settle the land can actually be traced back already to the Tanna’im.  As we saw, Rabbi Yishmael and Chizkiya perhaps argue as to whether the verse here in Parashat Re’ei speaks of an obligation to possess the land or of the concept of kinyan chazaka, perhaps reflecting different views as to whether there indeed exists an independent obligation of yishuv ha-aretz.

David Silverberg

SUNDAY

            Among the many laws presented in Parashat Re’ei we find the obligation to support the members of the tribe of Levi: “Take caution, lest you neglect the Levite, all your days upon your land” (12:19).  Rashi, citing from the Sifrei, notes the Torah’s emphasis on the fact that this law applies only “all your days upon your land,” meaning, in Eretz Yisrael.  Outside the land, a Levite does not enjoy preferred status over other poor people whom the rest of the nation is obligated to support.

            The most obvious reason for this provision, as Chizkuni and Panei’ach Raza explain, is that the Leviyim did not receive agricultural lands in Eretz Yisrael.  Given their role as the attendants in the Beit Ha-mikdash, God instructed that they should not farm, and should rather be supported by the rest of the nation.  Outside the land, however, the Leviyim are entitled to acquire and till agricultural fields, and they therefore enjoy no privileges as far as charity is concerned beyond the borders of Eretz Yisrael.

            Rav Yitzchak Katz (son-in-law of the Maharal of Prague), in his notes to Panei’ach Raza, posits two other reasons why the Leviyim are not given charity privileges outside the land.  The first (which does not appear to differ all that substantially from the reason given by Chizkuni and Panei’ach Raza) relates to the fact that Eretz Yisrael is, in Rav Katz’s words, “the place of his [the Levite’s] service,” the land where the Leviyim are assigned special functions.  It is only in the land containing the Beit Ha-mikdash where the Levites bear their unique responsibilities, and thus only there Benei Yisrael bear a unique obligation to support them by granting them precedence in charity.

            Secondly, Rav Katz attributes this law to the special degree of Divine Providence in Eretz Yisrael.  He explains that in the land, God bestows blessing and grants a livelihood through direct providence, and the people must therefore respond in kind by granting special treatment to God’s attendants, the tribe of Levi.  Since the Almighty treats them in a special manner, they are likewise bound to support His servants with special distinction.  Outside the land, however, providence sustains Benei Yisrael less directly, through the normal course of nature.  As such, in chutz la-aretz, the people bear no special obligation to support the Leviyim.  Just as God supports the nation outside the land without any special privileges, they similarly bear no special responsibility toward the Leviyim, and should therefore treat needy Levites as equals to other needy members of the nation.

David Silverberg

MONDAY

            Moshe warns Benei Yisrael in Parashat Re’ei (12:29-30):

When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you are going there to dispossess, and you dispossess them and reside in their land, take heed lest you be drawn after them after they are destroyed before you, and lest you appeal to their gods, saying, “Just as these nations served their gods – I will do the same.”

The obvious question arises as to why Moshe feared that Benei Yisrael might be “drawn after” pagan gods specifically after the annihilation of these gods’ followers.  Moshe in fact emphasizes in these verses that Benei Yisrael might be tempted to embrace these doctrines “after they are destroyed before you.”  Wouldn’t the defeat of the Canaanite peoples prove the futility of their religious cults?  Shouldn’t the successful campaign serve as yet another compelling argument in favor of the belief in the one, true God, and proof of the fallacy of paganism?

            The Sifrei, cited by Rashi, indeed explains that Moshe here urges the people to learn the proper lesson from their victory over the Canaanites.  His point is precisely to instruct that they should recognize the underlying cause of their triumph – the contrast between the unlimited power of the Almighty and the futility of pagan worship.

            Others, however, explained differently.  Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, claims that Benei Yisrael might erroneously perceive the Canaanites’ pagan worship as a key ingredient to survival in Eretz Yisrael.  Even though the Canaanites were defeated by Benei Yisrael, the fact remains that they lived in the land successfully for a number of centuries.  What concerned Moshe was the possible assumption that prosperous living in the land depends upon pagan rituals, as evidenced by the hundreds of years of Canaanite presence.  He therefore reminded them that pagan worship has no intrinsic value whatsoever and contributes nothing to enabling a people to dwell peacefully and flourish in the land.

            Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch posited a much different approach, claiming that that Benei Yisrael’s attraction to paganism which Moshe feared stems from pangs of guilt that might surface in the wake of their vanquishing of the Canaanites: “You could imagine yourselves as owing something to the land and to the previous inhabitants driven out and dispossessed on your account.  You could be caught by the erroneous idea that it was up to you to carry on their mode of life in their land.”  Moshe thus impresses upon the people that they do not owe anything to the idolatrous culture of the Canaanites whose land they would possess, and they must therefore resist the instinct to memorialize that culture and lifestyle.

            Finally, Rav Eliyahu Dessler, in his Mikhtav Mei-Eliyahu (vol. 2, p. 113), cited this verse as an example of the potency of negative influences, the powerful effect of exposure to sinful ideas and conduct.  Benei Yisrael’s encounter with pagan nations threatened to draw them to idolatry despite their resounding victory over those peoples, for such is the nature of spiritually hostile influences.

David Silverberg

TUESDAY

            In a famous verse in Parashat Re’ei (12:1), Moshe proclaims to Benei Yisrael, “You are children of the Lord your God; do not make gashes in yourselves and do not make a bald area in between your eyes for a deceased person.”  Moshe here warns Benei Yisrael to refrain from the pagan practice of physically mutilating oneself or shaving one’s hair in response to personal tragedy.

            To explain the significance of Moshe’s preface – “You are the children of the Lord your God” – Seforno comments:

It is not appropriate to show extreme worry and pain over a relative that passed when a relative of more respectable stature…remains.  Therefore, [since] you are children of the Lord, who is your Father who exists forever, it is not proper to worry and mourn excessively over any deceased person.

According to Seforno, Moshe instructs the people not to display hopelessness and despair in the facd of tragedy – by engaging in the pagan rituals of self-mutilation – but rather to appreciate the fact that no matter what or who a person loses, he still has his “Father,” the Almighty.

            A slightly different reading might emerge from the Rambam’s comments in Hilkhot Matenot Aniyim (10:2) concerning the obligation of charity to the poor:

A person never becomes impoverished as a result of [giving] charity, and no evil or harm is caused because of charity… All Israel and those who join them are like brothers, as it says, “You are children of the Lord your God.”  And if a brother does not have compassion for a brother, who will have compassion for him?  And to whom shall the poor of Israel raise their eyes – to the gentiles who despise them and pursue them?  Indeed, their eyes are raised only to their brethren.

According to the Rambam’s comment, the implication of the verse, “You are children of the Lord your God” relates to the Benei Yisrael’s relationship to one another, rather than their relationship to God.  It means that all members of the nation are bound to one another and should be able to depend upon one another during times of need and distress.

            This reading may yield a slightly different interpretation than that proposed by Seforno.  Namely, Benei Yisrael needn’t despair or excessively mourn in response to tragedy, because they are all “the children of the Lord”; they are all brothers.  A sense of national identity, the knowledge that each Jew belongs to a single “family,” can serve as a meaningful source of comfort during periods of calamity and hardship.  Just as family members can turn to one another for financial, emotional or logistical assistance when the need arises, so should all members of Am Yisrael be able to rely on one another to provide support and aid during difficult times.

David Silverberg

WEDNESDAY

            Twice in Parashat Re’ei, the Torah employs the term beliya’al in reference to sinful conduct.  The first context is the discussion of the ir nidachat, a city whose entire population adopted idolatry: “If you hear in one of your cities...[that] evil [beliya’al] people went forth from among you and misled the residents of their city…” (13:13-14).  Later, the Torah uses this term to describe potential lenders who refuse to loan money to the poor: “Take heed, lest there be an evil [beliya’al] thing in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the sabbatical year, is approaching – and you will thus be stingy toward your brother, the destitute man, and you will not give to him.  He will call to the Lord because of you, and you will bear a sin” (15:9).

            On the basis of this parallel, the Gemara (Ketubot 68a) establishes, “Whoever hides his eye from charity is considered as though he worshipped idols.”  The use of the same term in reference to these two transgressions indicates a kind of equation between them, thus leading the Gemara to conclude that refusing to help the poor is akin to worshipping idols.

            In what way does a person who refuses to give to the poor resemble an idolater?

            Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary to this verse, explains, very simply, that disregarding the poor amounts to the idolization of money.  A person who refuses to part with some of his wealth for the benefit of those in need prioritizes his material assets over ethical values, and in this sense can be called an “idolater,” somebody who worships wealth, rather than God.

            We might add another explanation for the comparison drawn by the Gemara.  The context of the second instance of beliya’al is loan requests made in the sixth year of the shemita cycle, as the shemita year, which cancels all outstanding debts, approaches.  The Torah demands potential loaners to agree to lend their money despite the likelihood that the funds will never be returned; this is a sacrifice that the Torah calls upon the wealthy members of the nation to make, for the benefit of the underprivileged.  By comparing a prospective lender’s refusal in this case to idolatry, the Gemara perhaps seeks to impress upon us the importance of personal sacrifice as an integral component of Jewish observance.  It is not enough to believe in God as the Creator and Ruler of the world, to denounce pagan beliefs and accept the basic tenet of God’s existence.  This fundamental acceptance also requires the willingness to make sacrifices to fulfill the divine will, as expressed in the obligation of shemitat kesafim (the remission of debts on the seventh year).  A person who refuses to make sacrifices for the sake of avodat Hashem, the Gemara teaches, is equivalent to an idolater, because although he acknowledges the existence of the one, true God, he fails to acknowledge the practical implications of that belief.  He as yet overlooks his obligation as a servant of God to set his personal interests and concerns aside for the sake of fulfilling the will of his Creator.

David Silverberg

THURSDAY

            The Torah in Parashat Re’ei outlines the general procedures concerning an eved ivri, the indentured Hebrew servant.  A servant is normally released by his master after six years of work, but if the servant prefers remaining in his master’s service, the master performs a special ear-piercing ceremony and the servant remains under him until the yovel (“jubilee”) year.

            In describing the situation of a servant who chooses to remain with his master, the Torah writes, “Should he [the servant] say, ‘I shall not leave you,’ because he will love you and your home, for it is good for him with you…” (15:16). 

            The Gemara in Masekhet Kiddushin (22a) comments that the phrase, “it is good for him with you” is instructive regarding the way a master must treat his eved ivri.  The description of a servant living “with” his master, the Gemara remarks, indicates that he must enjoy an equal standard as the master; in the Gemara’s words, he must be “imekha be-ma’akhal imekha be-mishteh” – “with you in food, and with you in drink.”  A master may not subject his servant to difficult living conditions; instead, he must allow him to live at the same standard as the other members of the household.

Interestingly, however, the Gemara goes even further, requiring a master to afford his servant precedence in cases of limited goods.  If a master has only a small supply of fresh bread, he must give the fresh bread to the servant and take the stale bread for himself.  If there is only a single comfortable mattress or pillow, it must be given to the servant.

The obvious question arises as to how the Gemara inferred this halakha from the phrase, “it is good for him with you,” which, if anything, emphasizes the equal status that one must grant his servant.  On what basis did the Gemara establish that one’s servant takes precedence over himself?  What more, the Gemara in Masekhet Bava Metzia (62a) famously rules that a person must care for his own life before caring for the life of others, based on the verse in Sefer Vayikra (25:36), “ve-chei achikha imakh” (“your brother shall live with you”).  The Torah requires supporting one’s fellow in need so that he can live “with you,” indicating that a person must first ensure to sustain himself before exerting efforts to sustain others.  Why does the Gemara interpret imakh in that verse as affording precedence to the individual himself, whereas in the context of the eved ivri the same phrase has the precise opposite connotation, namely, that one must grant precedence to the servant?

Rav Dov Weinberger, in his Shemen Ha-tov (vol. 3), cites this question in the name of Rav Elchanan Wasserman, and suggests the following answer:

When we discuss two people of equal stature, we can say “your life takes precedence.”  But when one is on a lower status and lowly in his own eyes, as he was sold as a servant due to his situation, such that if you do not treat him with importance he becomes even lowlier in his own eyes, then you are required to grant him precedence even over yourself, because otherwise you are degrading him excessively.

In the context of an indentured servant, the requirement to ensure equality demands granting him precedence, which helps to rebuild his damaged self-esteem.  Given the humiliation of his stature of servitude, it is necessary to grant him special privileges in order to help bring him to view himself on equal standing as the master.  Thus, affording the servant precedence indeed fulfills the obligation to treat him as one’s equal, in light of the default status of inferiority with which he views himself.

David Silverberg

FRIDAY

            The final section of Parashat Re’ei discusses the various mo’adim, the festivals that Benei Yisrael must observe over the course of the year.  Twice in this context (16:11, 16:14) the Torah commands that we rejoice on this occasions together with our households and the underprivileged: “You shall rejoice…you, your son, your daughter, your servant and your maidservant, and the Levite…and the foreigner, orphan and widow…”

            Rashi (16:11) comments, “The Levite, foreigner, orphan and widow - four of Mine corresponding with four of yours – your son, your daughter, your servant and your maidservant.  If you make Mine joyous, then I will make yours joyous.”  God promises that if a person shares his Yom Tov celebration with “His four,” the underprivileged members of the nation (the Leviyim were generally poor because they could not own agricultural land), then He will ensure to enhance the joy and celebration of that person and his household.

            This comment reflects a notion that emerges from other contexts, as well, namely, that God treats the poor and underprivileged as the members of His family, so-to-speak.  As Rashi writes, the four categories of people in need – the Levite, foreigner, orphan and widow – parallel the four members of one’s household – the son, daughter, servant and maidservant.  The poor generally have few people on whom to rely and to whom they can turn for emotional and financial support.  Particularly, foreigners, orphans and widows often feel a dire sense of loneliness and instability due to their difficult family situations.  God therefore assumes the role of “father of orphans and judge of widows” (Tehillim 68:6), protector of the vulnerable members of society who defends them against those who seek to abuse their disadvantaged state.  The Almighty indeed warns those who abuse the underprivileged, “If you torment him, it shall be that if he cries out to Me, I will assuredly hear his cries.  I will become incensed and I shall kill you by the sword…” (Shemot 22:22-23).  God treats crimes against the underprivileged as a personal offense against Himself, as it were, and He therefore responds with harsh retribution as though He had been personally betrayed.

            For this reason, Yom Tov celebrations must include assistance and support of the needy members of the nation.  On the festivals Benei Yisrael are to come to the Beit Ha-mikdash to celebrate together with the Almighty: “Three times a year, all your males shall appear in the presence of the Lord your God…” (16:16).  He commands that as part of our festive visit, we bring gifts, as it were, both to Him – the special festival sacrifices – and to the members of His family – charity to the underprivileged.  The observance of Yom Tov is therefore not complete without charitable donations, without ensuring that the special members of God’s “household” are cared for adequately and respectably, in reward for which God promises to extend His blessings to us and our households, as well.

David Silverberg