SALT – PARASHAT RE'EI

By Rav David Silverberg

MOTZAEI SHABBAT

            Among the many mitzvot discussed in Parashat Re’ei is the obligation of ma’aser sheni, the tithe that every farmer was to separate and bring with him to Jerusalem.  The Torah in this context provides a solution for those farmers who find it difficult to transport the tithe from their farms to Jerusalem: “And if the journey is very long, such that you cannot carry it, because the site where the Lord your God shall choose to place His Name will be distant from you, for the Lord your God shall bless you [with abundant produce], then you shall exchange it for money…” (14:24). Farmers who live too far to conveniently transport the ma’aser sheni tithe would exchange the produce for cash, and then bring the money with them to Jerusalem.  They would then spend the money on food and drink and partake of that food and drink in lieu of the ma’aser sheni in Jerusalem.

            The Alshikh detects in these verses an allusion to the phenomenon of wealth causing a “distance” between the individual and spiritual ideals.  The image described here in the Torah, of a successful farmer who lives too distant from Jerusalem to bring his tithe, is intended as a subtle warning that material success could distance a person from kedusha, from higher values and ideals.

            While certainly intended as a homiletic reading, the Alshikh’s insight very closely relates to one of the central themes and messages of ma’aser sheni.  This tithe differs from ma’aser rishon – the tithe given to a Levite – and from ma’aser ani – the tithe given to the poor – in that ma’aser sheni is eaten by the farmer and his family (14:26).  This obligation is not intended as a means of supporting the needy or the religious leaders.  Rather, it serves to connect the individual’s professional life with the spiritual ideals represented by Jerusalem and the Beit Ha-mikdash.  The farmer takes a percentage of his produce and brings it to Jerusalem, symbolizing the close connection that must be maintained between the workplace and the kedusha signified by the holy city.  A person may never allow any “distance” between his profession and Torah ideals, between his conduct in the workplace and the laws and values taught by the Torah.  And if such a distance is created, then, as the Torah here instructs, we must find a way to bridge that gap and ensure that our professional activities are conducted in strict accordance with the ideals of sanctity and holiness.

David Silverberg

SUNDAY

            Toward the beginning of Parashat Re’ei, Moshe instructs Benei Yisrael to destroy all the pagan articles and sites of pagan worship in the Land of Israel.  He then warns, “Do not do this to the Lord your God” (12:4).  According to the plain reading of the text, this admonition introduces the ensuing discussion about the designation of a single site in Eretz Yisrael for sacrificial worship.  Moshe tells Benei Yisrael that their mode of ritual worship should not follow the pagan model, whereby altars were erected “on the high mountains and on the hilltops, and underneath every lush tree” (12:2).  Rather, Benei Yisrael must offer their sacrifices only in the particular location which God will specify (which, of course, was the Temple in Jerusalem).  This is the first interpretation offered by Rashi to this verse.

            Rashi then cites a different explanation from the Sifrei, according to which this warning admonishes Benei Yisrael not to destroy any sacred property.  After instructing the people to destroy the sites of pagan worship, Moshe then commands them not to treat the Temple, its furnishings, or holy script in a similar fashion.  He reminds Benei Yisrael that their dismantling of pagan ritual sites does not authorize them to act similarly to their sacred sites.

            The Sifrei then proceeds to pose an obvious question: “Would you think that Israel would dismantle altars?”  Why, the Sifrei wonders, would Moshe suspect that Benei Yisrael might plan on destroying sacred property?  Rabbi Yishmael (or, in other editions, Rabban Gamliel) therefore offers an entirely different interpretation of this verse, claiming that Moshe warns Benei Yisrael not to betray God such that He would be compelled to destroy the Mikdash the way they destroyed the sites of pagan worship.

            The Rambam, however, accepts the Sifrei’s original reading of this verse, citing it as the Biblical source for the prohibition against erasing the divine Name or dismantling sacred property (see Hilkhot Yesodei Ha-Torah, chapter 6).  Apparently, there is a need to warn Benei Yisrael not to treat sacred property in the destructive manner in which the Torah commands treating objects and sites of pagan worship.

How might we explain the Torah’s concern that people might dismantle articles of sanctity the way they destroyed articles of paganism?  How do we answer the Sifrei’s question, “Would you think that Israel would dismantle altars?”

            One answer, perhaps, is that in the people’s overzealous efforts to eradicate paganism, they may seek to destroy as well elements within Judaism that bear some outward resemblance to pagan practice.  Upon seeing the pagans’ temples and altars, some among Benei Yisrael may come to the conclusion that their own Temple and altars should be destroyed along with those of the idolaters.  The passionate disdain for pagan worship – which the Torah here clearly encourages – ran the risk of spilling over into Am Yisrael’s own ritual system.  If God wants Benei Yisrael to uproot idolatry from the Land of Israel and eliminate any vestige of idol worship, the people might have thought, then they must similarly eliminate articles of Jewish worship that share external qualities with pagan ritual.

            In essence, then, the Torah here warns against reactionism, attempts to alter the Torah’s system in order to make it as different as possible from the mores followed by our religious adversaries.  When confronted with conflicting values or trends, we might be tempted to react with overzealous rejection, leading us to reject elements of our own faith that bear some resemblance to those tendencies.  Our commitment to the integrity to our Torah tradition must remain constant and perfectly objective even as we wage our ongoing battles against opposing religious and cultural trends.

            Later in Parashat Re’ei, the Torah warns against the precise opposite response to the nation’s encounter with paganism: “Guard yourself, lest you be ensnared by them [the pagan nations]…and lest you appeal to their gods, saying: The way these nations serve their gods – I shall do the same!” (12:30).  Here, the Torah addresses the opposite concern, that Benei Yisrael will seek to imitate the practices of the surrounding nations, and abandon their traditions in favor of those observed by gentile nations.

            Thus, we find in this parasha two warnings that address the two risks posed by exposure to foreign cultures.  Some might be tempted to alter the Torah to make it conform to foreign cultures, while others might seek to alter the Torah to make it more different from foreign cultures.  Both responses, of course, are fundamentally flawed and threaten the integrity of our religious tradition.  Moshe calls upon us to commit ourselves to the objective interpretation of application of Torah laws and values, and to never try to tamper with them as a means of dealing with the challenges posed by surrounding cultures.

David Silverberg

MONDAY

            Yesterday, we noted Moshe’s warning to Benei Yisrael in Parashat Re’ei that they ensure not to embrace the pagan practices that they will observe among the Canaanite nations whom they would soon encounter:

When the Lord your God cuts down before you the nations whom you are going there to dispossess, and you dispossess them and reside in their land – guard yourself lest you be ensnared by them after they are destroyed…and lest you appeal to their gods, saying: The way these nations serve their gods – I shall do the same!” (12:29-30)

Curiously, Moshe emphasizes in these verses that the people may be tempted to imitate the pagans’ religious practices specifically after those nations’ destruction at the hands of Am Yisrael.  It as after “the Lord your God cuts down before you the nations whom you are going there to dispossess,” and “after they are destroyed,” that Benei Yisrael might then say, “The way these nations serve their gods – I shall do the same!”  A number of writers raised the question of why specifically the downfall of the Canaanite peoples would lead Benei Yisrael to seek to imitate their idolatrous rituals.  Seemingly, the precise opposite should occur.  Upon seeing the futility of pagan worship, and how the one, true God easily vanquished the followers of idolatrous deities, Benei Yisrael’s Torah commitment should, seemingly, be reinforced.  Why was Moshe concerned that the people would look to embrace pagan rituals after the downfall of the pagan nations?

            It sometimes happens that the presence of opposition fuels a person’s passion and commitment.  Some people’s strongest religious feelings are reserved for those areas that have come under assault.  The flames of controversy often have the effect of igniting a passion and zeal that would not be felt otherwise.  The Rosh Yeshiva, HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein shelit”a, once suggested explaining Noach’s drastic spiritual downfall along these lines.  Before the flood, Noach represented the lone voice of morality in a world overrun by decadence.  The presence of an opposing force fueled his commitment and charged him with the firm conviction to act in a more refined manner.  After the deluge, however, when Noach found himself alone in the world and had no need to struggle against a corrupt world, he lowered his standards.  Without the energizing effect of opposition, Noach no longer displayed the devotion to higher ideals that had driven him to stand out in a sinful society.

            A similar concern may have prompted Moshe’s warning to Benei Yisrael here in Parashat Re’ei.  Once the battle against the Canaanite nations ended, and Benei Yisrael were no longer exposed to the religious pressures of pagan peoples, their passionate rejection of idolatry might begin to cool.  At this point, they may start looking more sympathetically upon the pagan practices observed by the Canaanite nations, until they are even prepared to consider adopting those practices.

            The message of this warning, then, is that our commitment to Torah must grow out of a genuine recognition of its inherent value and importance, and not simply be the result of the exhilaration of controversy.  If our religious devotion is fueled only by the desire to defend ourselves against our detractors, then our devotion will quickly subside once the battle is won.  Moreover, our devotion will be limited to those areas subject to controversy, at the expense of the rest of Torah.  Moshe therefore warns Benei Yisrael to remain committed to Torah observance even in the absence of opposition, to be sincerely devoted irrespective of the need to struggle and wage battles against our adversaries.

David Silverberg

TUESDAY

            Yesterday, we discussed the verses in Parashat Re’ei in which Moshe expresses his concern that Benei Yisrael might seek to adopt the practices of the pagan nations after defeating them in battle:

When the Lord your God cuts down before you the nations whom you are going there to dispossess, and you dispossess them and reside in their land – guard yourself lest you be ensnared by them after they are destroyed…and lest you appeal to their gods, saying: The way these nations serve their gods – I shall do the same!” (12:29-30)

As we noted, the question arises as to why Benei Yisrael would be attracted to pagan mores after defeating their adherents.  Seemingly, their resounding military victory over the Canaanite peoples would underscore the futility of their religious practices.  Why, then, was Moshe concerned that Benei Yisrael would be “ensnared” by the lure of pagan ritual?

            Rav Zalman Sorotzkin, in his Oznayim Le-Torah, insightfully suggested that Benei Yisrael might have been impressed by the tenacity of their adversaries in Canaan.  Moshe foresaw the possibility of the surviving Canaanites persisting in their efforts to retain their hold on the land and resist the Israelite conquest.  Even after Benei Yisrael’s successful campaign, some Canaanites might unrelentingly continue fighting rather than surrender.  Moshe’s concern was that some among Benei Yisrael might feel respect and admiration for the people’s determination and resolve.  They might then conclude that only the true faith could motivate people to persist with such conviction and fortitude.  Moshe therefore urged Benei Yisrael to remember even upon seeing the Canaanites’ tenacity that “they have done to their gods all the abominations to God, which He despises; they even burn their sons and daughters in fire to their gods” (12:31).  The impressive commitment shown by the pagans to their rituals must not blind Benei Yisrael to the depravity and repugnance of their culture.

            Conviction can sometimes be misleading.  People who observe hard work and dedication to meaningless causes can easily be deceived into affording value to those causes.  The sacrifices that people make on behalf of a certain pursuit should not mislead us into assuming that the pursuit is a valuable or even legitimate one.  We must not be tempted to say, “I shall do the same” in response to impressive displays of loyalty and subservience to vanity that that we see around us.  Our passion and conviction must be reserved solely for genuine avodat Hashem, and not for the vain pursuits to which we see people around us devote so much of their time and energy.

David Silverberg

WEDNESDAY

            The Torah in Parashat Re’ei reiterates a number of the laws of ma’akhalot asurot (forbidden foods), including the prohibition against eating meat from a neveila – a kosher animal that died through means other than proper slaughtering (14:21).  Instead of eating such meat, the Torah commands, one should give it to a gentile: “you shall give it to the foreigner in your midst and he shall eat it, or it shall be sold to a gentile.”  Whereas most ma’akhalot asurot are forbidden for consumption and for any other kind of benefit, meat from a neveila is forbidden only for eating; one may derive benefit from neveila meat, such as by selling it to a gentile.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Avoda Zara (20a) cites a debate among the Tanna’im in interpreting the practical implications of this verse.  The Torah here allows “giving” a neveila to a “foreigner” (“ger”), and “selling” it to a “gentile.”  The term ger in this context refers to a ger toshav, a gentile who accepted upon himself the seven Noachide laws and lives peacefully among Benei Yisrael, and whom the Torah requires Benei Yisrael to help support.  According to one view in the Gemara, the view of Rabbi Yehuda, a Jew who owns a neveila may only give it for free to a ger toshav, or sell it to another gentile.  Rabbi Yehuda takes this verse at face value, as allowing one only to “give it to the foreigner in your midst” (a ger toshav) or that “it shall be sold to a gentile.”  Rabbi Meir disagrees, and allows even selling the meat to a ger toshav or giving it as a free gift to another gentile.  However, Rabbi Meir reads this verse as demanding giving precedence to the ger toshav over other gentiles.  Meaning, if a ger toshav is available, one must give the neveila meat to him as a free gift, rather than sell it to a gentile.

            Tosafot raise the question as to why, according to Rabbi Meir, the Torah would impose such a requirement.  If a person has merchandise, he is entitled to sell it to whomever he pleases.  Nowhere do we find any requirement to give merchandise as a gift even to a fellow Jew rather than sell it to a gentile.  Why, then, does the Torah require giving neveila meat to a ger toshav, rather than selling it to an ordinary non-Jew?

            Tosafot answer, quite simply, that in a predominantly Jewish community, neveila meat has very little value to a Jew.  With such a small clientele, a Jew looking to sell a neveila will be forced to sell it at a very low price.  The Torah therefore required that he give the meat as a gift to a ger toshav, who, by receiving free meat, would save a significant sum of money on his grocery bill.  It is only if no ger toshav is available that the Jew may try to sell the meat to other gentiles.

            Rav Eliyahu Re’em (cited by Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank in Har Tzvi) commented that in light of Tosafot’s understanding of this halakha, we may conclude that one is required to give a neveila as a gift to a ger toshav only if the recipient will likely eat the meat.  According to Tosafot, this requirement is due to the small benefit that the Jew stands to derive by selling the meat to a gentile, as opposed to the more substantial benefit it will provide the ger toshav who would save money on his meat expenses.  Hence, if the ger toshav would not eat the meat (such as if he did not like meat), there is no requirement to give him the neveila as a gift instead of selling it a gentile.  Rav Re’em added that for this reason, the Torah emphasizes that “you shall give it to the foreigner in your midst and he shall eat it” (“va-akhalah”).  The Torah stresses that one must give the neveila to a ger toshav only if he will indeed eat the meat, and not if he will discard or sell it.  (This theory is also cited in the name of Rav Chayim of Brisk, in the Netziv’s additions to his Ha’amek Davar and in Ma’atikei Shemu’a, vol. 2, p. 156.  See also Rav Zalman Sorotzkin’s Oznayim Le-Torah commentary to this verse.)

David Silverberg

THURSDAY

            Parashat Re’ei introduces the law of ir nidachat, a city whose inhabitants worship idols.  The Torah requires that if it is discovered that indeed all the city’s residents have resorted to idol worship, the residents must all be executed and the city – together with all its property – must be burned.

            The status of ir nidachat is subject to numerous conditions, to the extent that Rabbi Eliezer, cited in Masekhet Sanhedrin (71a), claimed that this situation never actually occurred.  Among these conditions, according to Rabbi Eliezer, is that there is not a single mezuza or other sacred writ in the entire city.  If somewhere in the city there is a mezuza, Sefer Torah or tefillin, the city cannot obtain the status of ir nidachat.  The reason, Rabbi Eliezer explains, is that the presence of a sacred item precludes the possibility of fulfilling the Torah’s command to burn the entire city.  The Torah explicitly demands burning “kol shelalah” (“all its property” – 13:7), and earlier in Parashat Re’ei (12:4 – “lo ta’asun kein l’Hashem Elokeikhem”) the Torah forbids destroying sacred articles.  Therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the obligations of ir nidachat cannot apply if even a single sacred article is present in the city.

            Many later writers addressed the question of why the Gemara does not apply here the famous principle of asei docheh lo ta’aseh – an affirmative command overrides a prohibition.  Seemingly, the situation of an ir nidachat with a mezuza is a classic case of an affirmative command that clashes with a prohibition: the Torah requires burning the city’s property, but doing so would transgress the prohibition against destroying sacred articles.  At first glance, the rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh should dictate that the city’s property – including the mezuza – must be burned despite the violation entailed.

            Rav Moshe Feinstein, in his Iggerot Moshe (O.C. 4), concludes on the basis of the Gemara’s discussion that the rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh does not apply to the prohibition of destroying sacred articles.  If the destruction of sacred property – such as burning a mezuza – is necessary for the performance of a mitzva, one should not perform the mitzva.  Rav Moshe does not (at least in this context) explain why the rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh is suspended in this situation.  But the work Ke-motzaei Shalal Rav cites Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson as positing the same theory and explaining that ordinarily, a mitzvat asei (affirmative command) overrides a lo ta’aseh (prohibition) because the glory one brings to the Almighty through the performance of a mitzva warrants transgressing the prohibition.  In the case of destroying articles bearing the divine Name, however, the honor brought to God through the fulfillment of a mitzva pales in comparison to the dishonor caused by the destruction of sacred articles.

            Rav Moshe applies his theory to the situation of a patient suffering from a highly contagious infection who was admitted to a medical facility that burned everything brought into the premises so that the illness could not spread.  The patient inquired as to whether he could bring his tefillin with him to wear during his stay in the hospital, knowing that the hospital staff would seize and destroy the tefillin after his release.  Based upon this Gemara (among other factors), Rav Moshe ruled that the patient should not bring his tefillin to the hospital, since the mitzvat asei of wearing tefillin does not override the prohibition of destroying (even indirectly) sacred articles.  (This was the view of several other authorities, as well.  However, Rav Yaakov Breish of Zurich, in his Chelkat Yaakov (O.C. 19), disagreed, and allowed a patient in this situation to bring his tefillin.)

David Silverberg

FRIDAY

            Yesterday, we discussed the view of Rabbi Eliezer recorded in Masekhet Sanhedrin (71a) concerning the ir nidachat – the idolatrous city.  The Torah in Parashat Re’ei (13:7) instructs that if an entire city is discovered to have resorted to idolatry, the residents must be executed, and all the city’s property must be burned.  Rabbi Eliezer contended that if there was even a single sacred article in the city – a mezuza, Torah scroll or tefillin – then the city cannot obtain the status of ir nidachat.  Since the Torah forbids destroying such objects, the laws of ir nidachat, which require burning all the city’s property, cannot be implemented, and thus it does not become an ir nidachat.

            As we mentioned, many later writers addressed the question of why the Gemara does not apply in this context the famous rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh, which means that an affirmative command overrides a prohibition.  Seemingly, the mitzvat asei (affirmative command) that requires burning the property of an ir nidachat should override the prohibition that forbids destroying sacred articles.

            In yesterday’s discussion, we cited Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe O.C. 4) as concluding on the basis of this passage in the Gemara that the prohibition against destroying sacred articles indeed marks an exception to the rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh.

            Other Acharonim, however, explained differently.  The Arukh La-ner suggested an entirely different reading of Rabbi Eliezer’s comments, focusing on the Torah’s specific formulation of this obligation.  The Torah requires burning “kol shelalah” – “all its property.”  According to the Arukh La-ner, Rabbi Eliezer understood this verse to mean that Benei Yisrael must burn the city’s property only if all the property in the city is “shelalah” – its own possessions.  The fact that the Torah forbids destroying sacred articles demonstrates that these articles are not human possessions; they belong to the Almighty.  As such, the obligation of “kol shelalah” cannot be fulfilled if a mezuza, for example, is included among the city’s possessions.  Since not all its possessions can truly be said to belong to the city, it is not eligible to become an ir nidachat.

            A different explanation is offered by Rav Eliezer Deutsch, in his work Peri Ha-sadeh (cited in Ke-motzei Shalal Rav).  The Peri Ha-sadeh contends that the rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh applies only if the entire mitzva is achieved through the violation of a mitzvat lo ta’aseh.  In the case of burning the property of an ir nidachat, transgressing the prohibition against destroying sacred articles achieves only a small part of the mitzva, which requires destroying all the property in the city.  As such, we cannot apply the rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh, and Rabbi Eliezer therefore concluded that the obligations of ir nidachat cannot be fulfilled if a sacred article is present in the city.

            According to both the Arukh La-ner and Peri Ha-sadeh, the reason why the mitzva does not override the prohibition in this case has nothing to do with the particular gravity of the prohibition against burning sacred property.  It rather relates to the specific circumstances regarding the ir nidachat.  As such, we cannot conclude on the basis of the Gemara that the rule of asei docheh lo ta’aseh does not apply to the prohibition against destroying sacred property, as Rav Moshe concluded.  According to these Acharonim, then, we might indeed allow a mitzva to be performed even if it entails the destruction of sacred articles.  As we saw yesterday, Rav Moshe ruled that it would be forbidden for an ill patient to bring his tefillin with him to a hospital, if the hospital’s policy was to burn everything brought onto its premises to prevent the spreading of infection.  In his view, as we discussed, the mitzva of tefillin does not override the prohibition against causing the destruction of tefillin.  According to the Acharonim mentioned above, however, it would seem that the mitzva would override the prohibition in this case, and therefore the patient would be allowed to bring his tefillin with him to the hospital even if he knows they will be destroyed as a result.

David Silverberg