The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

Moshe bids us in Parashat Reeh (13:5), "Follow after only Hashem your God and revere only Him… and to Him you shall attach yourself…" An intriguing conversation took place between the Chafetz Chayim and the Gerrer Rebbe zt"l regarding the word "acharei" ("after") in this verse. The Chafetz Chayim noted that Chazal generally distinguish between two similar forms of this word, "achar" and "acharei." Although both translate as "after," the former denotes following immediately thereafter, while "acharei" implies a large gap. (See Rashi, Bereishit 15:1.) Based on this linguistic principle, the Chafetz Chayim questioned the use of the word "acharei" in this verse. Doesn't the Almighty want us to follow "close behind," to observe His mitzvot to the absolute best of our capability and thereby earn a close relationship with Him? Why, then, did Moshe bid us to follow "acharei" God, which suggests a wide gap between God and man? What more, this verse itself concludes with the clause, "u'vo tidbak" - "you shall attach yourselves to Him"!

The Chafetz Chayim posed this question to the Gerrer Rebbe, who offered an insightful answer. The Torah challenges one to "attach himself" to God, even when he finds himself in a situation of "acharei," when he feels distant from and rejected by God. Even when the ideal of "you shall attach yourself to Him" seems unattainable and beyond one's farthest reach, he must strive thereto nonetheless. No matter how large the gap separating between the individual and his Creator, the former must nevertheless strive for the closest possible relationship with the Almighty.

A virtually opposite approach to this very same question was taken by the famed Rosh Yeshiva of Ponivitch, Rav Shemuel Rozovsky zt"l. According to Reb Shemuel, Moshe Rabbeinu here bids us to exercise care in our effort to fulfill "u'vo tidbak" - "attaching" oneself to God. The first step towards this end necessarily entails "acharei," a substantial distance and seemingly impenetrable barrier between man and the Almighty. One cannot expect or try to achieve "closeness" with God overnight, or even "overyear," if you will. The process spans years if not a lifetime, and one must therefore never feel too comfortable with where he stands or expect to turn himself around with ease.

These two opposite approaches embody the age-old contention between the chasidim and mitnagdim. The former, accurately represented in our context by the rebbe of Ger, preached what we might call imminence, the message that God is within everyone's reach, regardless of one's past or minimal intellectual achievements. No matter how distant God seems, He is close. The mitnagdim, for whom Reb Shemuel serves as spokesperson in our controversy, highlighted what has been termed "transcendence," the iron barrier that blocks the way between the human and divine. "Closeness" with God is reserved for the select few who have applied themselves with diligence and devotion to probing the divine wisdom of the Torah and developing themselves through their unique talents and gifts. The mitnagdim therefore stressed learning over prayer: one cannot simply approach God whenever he pleases; he must first labor to understand God's essence as expressed by the Torah. According to this outlook, no matter how close God seems, He is still infinitely distant.

In a generation when much - though certainly not all - of the Torah world has found some delicate balance between these two angles (granted, some elements lean more towards one direction, others to the second), we can perhaps negate the question entirely. It makes perfect sense for the Torah to incorporate within the same verse these two opposite - but supplementary - directives: to "attach oneself" to God, while still maintaining the distance indicated by the expression "acharei." We must strive for closeness, under all circumstances, but we must also understand that no matter how "close" we come, He is - and will always be - very far away.

At risk of ruining this d'var Torah, it should be noted that the question may be out of place for an entirely different reason. When Chazal differentiated between "acharei" and "achar," they may very well have referred only to issues of passage of time. "Acharei" denotes an extended period of time passage, while "achar" means that only a short period of time has passed since the last incident recorded. Here, the term "acharei" appears in the context of conduct: we are to follow God's Word. Perhaps regarding this usage of the term no such difference exists between the expressions "achar" and "acharei."

The source for the mitzvah of "zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim" - recalling the Exodus from Egypt - appears in Parashat Reeh: "… so that you remember the day of your departure from Egypt all the days of your life" (16:3). From here Chazal derived the obligation to verbally recall the Exodus on a daily basis. The mishna in Berakhot 12b - which is included in our Haggadah - records a well-known dispute between Ben Zoma and the other Sages regarding the halakhic significance of the word "kol" - "all" - in this verse. According to Ben Zoma, this extra term comes to include the nighttime hours in this obligation; one must recall the Exodus every night as well as every day. The other Sages disagree, and derive from this word the application of this mitzvah in the Messianic era. Thus, as it turns out, Ben Zoma requires the recalling of yetzi'at Mitzrayim at night but not in the Messianic era, while the other rabbis maintain that the obligation will remain in force after the coming of the Moshiach, and no requirement exists at nighttime. The halakha follows the opinion of Ben Zoma, and we therefore recite the third paragraph of shema, which concludes with mention of the Exodus, both by day and by night.

Many scholars have taken note of the fact that the Rambam does not include this mitzvah in his list of the 613 mitzvot. Various approaches have been taken to resolve this issue. Some Acharonim, including the Keren Ora, believe that the Rambam includes this mitzvah under the same category as the mitzvah of "sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim," to discuss the events of the Exodus on Pesach eve. According to this approach, the mitzvah of "sippur yetzi'at Mitzrayim" incorporates two distinct yet related obligations: to briefly recount the Exodus twice daily, and secondly, to retell the story of our departure from Egypt more extensively on Pesach night. Rav Chayim of Brisk suggested that the Rambam did not include the daily obligation together with the annual mitzvah, but rather with another daily obligation: shema. The recitation of shema constitutes "kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim" - the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven. This acceptance entails the recollection of God's miraculous intervention to redeem us from Egyptian slavery. Therefore, the Rambam did not list the mitzvah of recalling the Exodus as an independent mitzvah, whereas it falls under the same category as the mitzvah of reciting shema. (This approach well suits the Rambam who, unlike other Rishonim, holds that all the recitation of all three parshiyot of shema constitutes a Biblical obligation.)

Rav Chayim posits a second approach, as well. As mentioned, the position of Ben Zoma, that the mitzvah of recalling the Exodus applies at nighttime, necessarily maintains that the mitzvah will not apply in the Messianic era. Now the Rambam establishes in the introduction to his list of the 613 commandments that any mitzvah not eternally binding does not earn inclusion into this exclusive list of the mitzvot. Therefore, concludes Rav Chayim, the Rambam could not have included this mitzvah as part of the 613 mitzvot.

However, some later scholars have questioned this final explanation of Rav Chayim. The Gemara there in Berakhot makes it clear that the mitzvah of recalling the Exodus will no longeapply after the arrival of Moshiach - according to Ben Zoma - because the miracle of the final redemption will overshadow the Exodus. Citing a verse from Yirmiyahu to this effect, the Gemara explains that according to Ben Zoma we will occupy ourselves in retelling the story of the final redemption rather than that of yetzi'at Mitzrayim. If so, then perhaps this obligation of "zekhirat yetzi'at Mitzrayim" in fact remains binding even after the onset of the Messianic era. It will not be irrelevant; it will merely take on a different form. The essential obligation of this mitzvah involves recognizing God's providence as manifest in His miraculous intervention in history on our behalf. Nowadays, we fulfill this mitzvah by recounting the Exodus. Upon the arrival of Moshiach, please God, we will fulfill the same mitzvah, only by recalling the great miracles of the final redemption.

Among the unique characteristics of this time of year on the Jewish calendar involves the special haftorot we recite on these Shabbatot. Generally, Chazal selected haftorot that share a common theme with the parasha. Starting from the Shabbat following Shiva Asar B'Tammuz, however, the haftara relates not to the parasha but to the season. On the first three Shabbatot following Shiva Asar B'Tammuz - which are generally the parshiyot of Pinchas, Matot-Masei and Devarim - we read three prophecies, the first two from Yirmiyahu and the third from Yeshayahu, that bemoan the sorry spiritual state of Benei Yisrael and forewarn the destruction of Jerusalem. After Tisha B'Av, we begin the seven haftorot of comfort, chanting stirring prophecies from Yeshayahu that speak of redemption and the restoration of the special relationship between the Almighty and His people.

The fact that the haftorot during this period correspond to the general time-period rather than to the specific parasha raises an interesting halakhic question: if, for some reason, a congregation mistakenly read the wrong haftara on one of these Shabbatot, do they have opportunity to make up the haftara on a different Shabbat? Throughout the rest of the year, of course, no such opportunity exists. Since the haftara relates to its specific parasha, a congregation cannot recite the haftara on a Shabbat when a different parasha is read. During these ten weeks, however, we read these haftorot because of the general themes of destruction or comfort that run throughout these prophecies (destruction in the first three, comfort in the final seven). Therefore, it stands to reason that a congregation could read a given haftara on a different Shabbat should they miss the proper haftara one week.

Indeed, the Mishna Berura rules that such a possibility exists (see Mishna Berura 428:22 and Sha'ar Hatziyun 16). The only condition is that the missed haftora appears side-by-side the haftara with which it is to be read. For example, the haftara for Parashat Pinchas, the first of the three Shabbatot before Tisha B'Av, is taken from the opening chapter of Yirmiyahu. On the following week, Shabbat Parashat Matot-Masei, we read the continuation of that prophecy, the second chapter of Yirmiyahu. Therefore, the Mishna Berura rules that if a congregation missed the haftara on Shabbat Parashat Pinchas, they may "double-up" on the following week and read the first two chapters of Yirmiyahu, which make up the haftorot for both Shabbatot. The same applies to the haftorot of Shabbat Parashat Ekev ("Vtomer Tziyon") and Shabbat Parashat Shoftim ("Anokhi anokhi"), which appear side-by-side in Yeshayahu (49-51). If the proper haftara was not read on Shabbat Parashat Ekev, then two weeks later, on Shabbat Parashat Shoftim, the congregation should insert the haftara for Shabbat Parashat Ekev before the regularly-scheduled haftara for that week, which continues the prophecy of the haftara for Ekev.

Yesterday, we spoke of the special haftorot read during this time of year, which correspond not to the theme of the weekly Torah portion, but rather to the themes of destruction - on the three Shabbatot prior to Tisha B'Av - or comfort - on the seven Shabbatot thereafter. Interestingly, there is considerable discussion regarding years when - unlike this year - Rosh Chodesh Elul occurs on Shabbat Parashat Reeh. Here, two special haftorot compete for public reading on this Shabbat - the special haftara for Shabbat Rosh Chodesh and the haftara of comfort scheduled for Shabbat Parashat Reeh. The prevalent custom among Ashkenazik communities is to read the haftara for Shabbat Rosh Chodesh, since it, too, speaks of comforting Jerusalem: "Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her! Join in her jubilation, all you who mourned over her… As a mother comforts her son so I will comfort you; you shall find comfort in Jerusalem" (Yeshayahu 66:10-13). Therefore, by reading this haftara we mention both themes - that of Rosh Chodesh (which appears later in the haftara) as well as comforting the embittered city of Jerusalem. However, even among those who have adopted this practice, there are many communities who still make a point of making up the missed haftara. Two weeks later, on Shabbat Parashat Ki-Tetze, they add the haftara of Parashat Reeh after reciting the regular haftara of that Shabbat, an option allowed for by the juxtaposition of these two haftorot in Sefer Yeshayahu 54 (see yesterday's S.A.L.T.).

The predominant practice among the Sefaradim, however, is to give preference to the regularly-scheduled haftara for Parashat Reeh. However, in order to publicize the observance of Rosh Chodesh, upon the conclusion of the haftara they read the first and last verses of the haftara for Shabbat Rosh Chodesh. These communities generally do the same when this Shabbat marks Erev Rosh Chodesh, when generally the special haftara of "machar chodesh" is read. They read the standard haftara for Shabbat Parashat Reeh and then add the first and last verses of the haftara for Erev Chodesh. Other communities, interestingly enough, draw a distinction between Shabbat Rosh Chodesh and Shabbat Erev Rosh Chodesh. Should Shabbat Parashat Reeh coincide with Rosh Chodesh itself, then these communities will read the haftara for Shabbat Rosh Chodesh. They will not, however, afford preference to the haftara of "machar chodesh" over the haftara for Shabbat Parashat Reeh when it occurs on Erev Rosh Chodesh. Apparently, these communities believe that the custom of reading a special haftara on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh is a far stronger custom than that of reading a special haftara for Shabbat Erev Rosh Chodesh.

Parashat Reeh includes the law of the "meisit umadi'ach," the individual who tries to lead others towards idolatry. Moshe admonishes us not to listen to the inciter, who is himself liable for the death penalty. When presenting the situation of the "meisit," Moshe warns that the culprit will tell his family and friends, "Come let us worship other gods, whom neither you nor your fathers have experienced…" (13:7). Whereas the Torah does not feature quotation marks, a critical ambiguity in this verse requires clarification. Is this entire sentence the words of the inciter, or should the end quotation marks appear in the middle of the sentence, after the word "gods"? According to this second option, Moshe's imaginary "meisit" encourages his peers to worship other gods, and then Moshe himself reminds the people that these gods are foreign to Benei Yisrael and have never found a place within the religious mores of the people. (This is how the Jewish Publication Society's translation of Tanakh punctuates the verse.) According to the first interpretation, the "meisit" himself describes the idolatry as a mode of worship never before accepted by the Jewish people.

Clearly, the second option, that the final clause was articulated by Moshe, appears more attractive. After all, why would the "meisit" himself depict the idolatry whose worship he seeks to promote as foreign? Would that not defeat his purpose? Wouldn't he try to minimize the stigma against idol worship as much as possible? The second possibility, by contrast,makes perfect sense. Moshe seeks to strongly discourage idolatry even in the face of strong pagan influences, and therefore highlights the traditional enmity harbored by Benei Yisrael towards foreign modes of worship.

Much to our surprise, however, one of the prominent commentaries understands the entire verse as included in the words of the "meisit." "Haketav V'hakabbala" understands that the inciter himself, as part of his effort to draw support for his beliefs, tells potential followers, "Comes let us worship other gods - whom neither you nor your fathers have experienced." "Haketav V'hakabbala" explains that the inciter hopes to persuade others that were they or their ancestors to have had exposure to these different modes of worship, they would have taken on these reforms. It was only due to their spiritual blindness and cloistered religious upbringing that they never tried anything different. Indeed, "whom neither you nor your fathers have experienced" serves as a most effective means of persuasion. It arouses curiosity and interest in something new and criticizes current norms for inhibiting innovation and religious creativity.

In our day and age it is easy to see why this approach to the verse now appears as the more correct interpretation. In his profound wisdom, Moshe anticipated the arguments posed by champions of religious change throughout the generations. He knew full well that "the grass is always greener on the other side." People will challenge tradition on the grounds that it served only as a default in the absence of exposure to other options. Moshe therefore instructs us, "Do not assent or give heed to him." We are to remain steadfast to our ancient teachings and traditions, for in this case, the grass is certainly no greener anywhere else.

The mitzvah of tzedaka appears in Parashat Reeh: "…you must open your hand and lend him sufficient for whatever he needs." Beyond the actual mitzvah of giving, the Sefer Mitzvot Katan - "Semak" - includes in his list of the 613 mitzvot two prohibitions related to charity that one violates in his heart and mind. First, the Torah prohibits, "Do not harden your heart." One may not entertain the thought that he bears no responsibility to assist another in need. The moment one harbors such notions in his mind, he violates this prohibition, regardless of how large a check he writes to the pauper thereafter. Likewise, the Torah admonishes, "Give him readily and have no regrets when you do so." During and after giving charity, one may not regret having surrendered his money for the sake of others. Doing so lessens the likelihood of one's giving further donations to other people in need. The Torah therefore prohibits bemoaning the loss of assets given to charity.

What emerges, then, is a requirement of general attitude that extends well beyond the simple act of giving. The Torah obligates us not only to give to others, but to feel a genuine sense of responsibility towards others. One's giving must evolve out of this keen awareness that every Jew, on some level, bears the burden of responsibility to helping his brethren in distress. If so, then this applies not only to financial difficulties but to all crises people encounter. While certainly a level of realism must be maintained - let's face it, no one person will solve all the world's problems - nevertheless some level of personal accountability must be sensed. We cannot feel content by simply giving donations or lending an occasional helping hand; we must feel an ongoing sense of personal obligation towards the welfare of all of acheinu Benei Yisrael.

Parashat Reeh concludes with the mitzvah of simchat Yom Tov, to rejoice on the festivals: "You shall rejoice in your festival, with your son and daughter… and you shall be only joyous." The commentaries grappled with two difficulties in this verse. Firstly, the verse repeats the obligation twice. It begins, "You shall rejoice in your festival," and then concludes, "you shall be only joyous." Secondly, the final clause of the verse reads, "v'hayita akh same'ach" - "you shall be ONLY joyous." What does this clause come to exclude? We shall be "only joyous" to the exclusion of what?

Rav Shemuel Gantzfried answers both questions based on the well-known comments of the Rambam in Hilkhot Yom Tov. Unlike other Rishonim, the Rambam maintains that this mitzvah of simchat Yom Tov applies even in the post-Temple period, whereas it extends beyond the specific joy experienced in the Bet Hamikdash. It requires not only the offering of festive sacrifices, but all types of enjoyment and delights. However, the Rambam warns that this joy must not be confused with levity and frivolity. A fine but discernible line must be drawn between joy for the sake of the mitzvah and ungodly silliness. The Rambam stresses that even on Yom Tov, when the Torah obligates one to enjoy himself and maintain high spirits, one cannot serve his Creator through lightheadedness and frivolity.

This, suggests Rav Gantzfried, is what the final clause of the verse teaches us: "you shall be only joyous." Meaning, the Torah comes to limit the scope of the "joy" spoken of in the beginning of the verse, when it commends us to rejoice. This joy must take on a sacred, spiritual character, a joy that evolves from our appreciation of God's blessings and the opportunity we have to observe His commandments and follow the path laid down for us by the Torah.

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