The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

In Parashat Re'ei the Torah warns Benei Yisrael, "Be sure not to abandon the Levi as long as you live in your land" (12:19). The Rambam (Sefer ha-Mitzvot, lo ta'aseh 229; Hilkhot Chagiga 2:14) lists this halakha as one of the 365 prohibitions, or mitzvot lo ta'aseh, in the Torah. It requires one on Yom Tov to give the Levi the tithes due to him and help him rejoice by providing him with food. In Hilkhot Chagiga, the Rambam introduces this halakha amidst the requirement to share the meat of one's festival sacrifices with the poor and needy. The Rambam considers this not merely as part of the general requirement of charity, but a law specific to the festivals. The same applies to this prohibition against "abandoning" the Levi: part of the celebration of Yom Tov in Yerushalayim involves assisting the Levi'im, who owned no land of their own and relied solely upon the generosity of the other tribes, to enjoy the festival.

The Sefer ha-Chinukh (mitzva 450) formulates the mitzva slightly differently, and seems to focus exclusively on the required tithes. This prohibition forbids one from withholding the tithes owed to the Levi'im, particularly on the festivals, when the Levi'im need food with which to rejoice. The Rambam appears to broaden the obligation beyond the tithes themselves, to include general assistance in the festival celebration.

Rashi, commenting on this verse, notes the significance of the final clause - "as long as you live in your land." He writes that this prohibition applies only when Benei Yisrael live in Eretz Yisrael; in exile, the Levi'im bear no special status with regard to this halakha, and a poor Levi does not take precedence over any other poor Jew. (The Shulchan Arukh - Y.D. 251:9 rules otherwise; see Magen Avraham, O.C. 201:4.) The Chizkuni elaborates a bit further, noting that in the Diaspora the situation of all Jews resembles that of the Levi in Eretz Yisrael: they do not have an assigned portion in their land of residence. Since this prohibition flows from the fact that the Levi'im did not receive a portion in the land, it cannot apply when all Jews share that same condition.

Rav Meir Simcha ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, however, in his Meshekh Chokhma, suggests otherwise. He seeks to explain the juxtaposition between this verse and what immediately follows - "When the Lord enlarges your territory." The Meshekh Chokhma views this juxtaposition as a subtle allusion to future times, when the territory of Eretz Yisrael will expand, at which point the Levi'im will indeed earn a portion in the land. (This is based on the Semag, lo ta'aseh 276.) By introducing the topic of the land's expansion with this prohibition concerning the Levi'im, claims Rav Meir Simcha, the Torah implicitly extends this prohibition to that future period - when even the Levi'im will possess land. Apparently, he understood that the requirement to assist the Levi'im exists independent of their condition of having no land; their spiritual status as the religious leaders and teachers itself requires that Benei Yisrael afford them honor and assistance.

This approach, however, becomes somewhat questionable, perhaps, in light of a verse later in the parasha: "Do not abandon the Levi in your community, for he has no hereditary portion as you have" (14:27). This verse seems to imply that the prohibition against "abandoning" the Levi evolves from this tribe's not having received a portion in the land.

*****

Yesterday we looked at the Torah's prohibition in Parashat Re'ei, "Be sure not to abandon the Levi as long as you live in your land" (12:19). As we saw, this introduces a formal mitzva to support the Levi'im and provide their needs, particularly on the festivals.

While this halakhic interpretation of the verse is clearly codified and accepted, it may have implications beyond the narrow, halakhic context. Rav Dovid Moskovitz, in his Gelilei Zahav, interprets the verse as focusing on the spiritual role of the Levi'im among the nation. (We briefly made note of this towards the end of yesterday's discussion, with regard to the approach of the Meshekh Chokhma.) Benei Yisrael are urged never to "abandon" the Levi, meaning, never to lose their connection with their religious leaders, "kol yamekha" - literally, "all your days," even when they do not interact with the Levi'im directly. The people must somehow sustain their relationship with the Levi'im at all times, such that the inspiration and guidance gained from their leaders continue to accompany them throughout their lives.

We might add that this reading of the verse will help us fit it into the context in which it appears. The preceding verses deal with the obligation to bring one's ma'aser sheni ("second tithe") and personal sacrifices specifically to the Bet ha-Mikdash ("the place that the Lord your God will choose" - 12:18). More generally, virtually all of chapter 12 of Sefer Devarim until this verse is devoted to the centrality of the Mikdash in religious life. This prohibition may come as a sort of qualification of this theme. The importance and centrality of the Temple notwithstanding, one must never forget the Levi. Unlike the kohanim, whose primary role involved the Temple service, the Levi'im were scattered throughout the land and served as the nation's teachers and rabbinic leaders. Perhaps the Torah here emphasizes that although the Temple must form the focal point of religious ritual, Benei Yisrael must not neglect the local religious establishment. As important as a centralized location for worship is, the people must also connect with religious personalities back home, in their communities, to ensure that the spirituality of the Mikdash permeates their day-to-day life.

*****

Parashat Re'ei repeats the laws concerning indentured servitude (15:12-18), which we encountered for the first time back in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 21:1-6). The Torah requires the "owner" of the indentured servant to set him free after six years of service. If, however, the servant decides to remain in his master's service, then the master conducts a ritual whereby he pierces the servant's ear, rendering him bound to the master until the jubilee year.

The Gemara in Masekhet Kiddushin (22b) explains the significance of the ear with respect to this servant. Chazal view this ritual as a punishment against the servant for voluntarily taking upon himself an additional term of servitude. The ear that heard the Almighty declare at Sinai, "For it is to Me that the Israelites are servants," and not servants of servants, is pierced, reflecting the servant's violation of this principle.

The obvious question arises, why, then, does the Torah not ordain ear-piercing for any Torah violation? Does not any transgression involve defiance of God's command at Sinai?

The answer perhaps lies in a careful reading of the Torah's description in Parashat Re'ei of the servant's condition: "Should he say to you, 'I do not want to leave you,' for he loves you and your household, because it is good for him with you… " (15:16). A close examination of this verse reveals two processes of cause-and-effect. First, the servant wishes to remain "for he loves you and your household." Then the verse explains why he loves his master and his household - "because it is good for him with you." In other words, the servant is satisfied with his treatment by his master, and thus feels a sense of loyalty towards him. His master feeds him and supports him well, so in return he is more than happy to remain his servant.

In effect, such an attitude threatens to bring the Jew back to Egypt, to undermine the entire process of yetzi'at Mitzrayim and Matan Torah. God freed us from bondage specifically to impress upon us the notion that only He provides our needs, and we must therefore direct our loyalty to Him alone. The nation stood at Sinai and heard God's voice so that tunderstand that from now on they receive from Him and His Torah, rather than from any taskmaster or overlord. The indentured servant prefers taking orders from a flesh and blood master because he enjoys the comfort and security offered by this arrangement. He has thus placed his trust in a human being, rather than in the Almighty, effectively reversing the process Benei Yisrael underwent beginning with the Exodus and culminating in the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. (Based in part on Rav Yechiel Michel Mushkin, "Mikhlal Yofi" on Parashat Re'ei)

One general question that emerges from this Gemara in Kiddushin is why the Torah permitted voluntary servitude at all. If, as the Gemara establishes, the Torah sees in this a violation of a most fundamental axiom, that our loyalties must be directed to God alone, then why did He permit the extension of indentured servitude? This question deserves independent treatment and lies beyond the scope of our discussion.

****

Parashat Re'ei features of a discussion of the "navi sheker" - the false prophet, who advocates idolatrous worship and performs wonders and miracles to confirm his authenticity. The Torah forbids Benei Yisrael from heeding his advice (13:4) and declares a death penalty upon such a prophet (13:6). The Netziv, in his Ha'amek Davar, asks a very frank, straightforward question concerning this entire discussion: how is such a case possible? Why would Moshe (the speaker in Sefer Devarim) have been concerned that the nation might follow a prophet who condones idolatry - a prohibition explicitly forbidden in the Ten Commandments? (True, Benei Yisrael worshipped idols on many occasions throughout Biblical history; but here we speak of a single individual who leads the nation to paganism.)

The Netziv therefore claims that this section addresses a situation of crisis, when disease or some other calamity has struck a given town or community. In situations such as these, desperation leads people to search for "quick-fix" solutions to their problems; they are more open and willing to try new solutions and abandon previously-held beliefs. Several elements in the text work beautifully with this approach, as the Netziv shows in his commentary to these verses. For example, Moshe describes the false prophet as encouraging his audience to worship "other gods whom you have not experienced" (13:3). The false prophet capitalizes on the people's desperation and offers them a brand new mode of worship, guaranteed, he claims, to once and for all extricate them from their current crisis. Moshe warns the nation, "Do not heed the words of that prophet… for the Lord your God is testing to you to see whether you really love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul." According to the Netziv, the "test" here refers not to the false prophet (as most commentators explain - see, for example, Rashbam and Ramban), but to the crisis or danger facing his audience. Difficult times challenge the Jew to reaffirm his unwavering faith in God and to follow His eternal guidance, rather than succumb to the temptation to discard old religious doctrines in favor of new ones. Herein lies the true test of the false prophet: will we persistently adhere to our heritage even when faced with new crises and hardship, or will we heed the advice and promises of the false prophets to abandon our past as a supposed means of securing our future?

This approach of the Netziv may enhance our understanding of a Midrashic passage relevant to this section. After urging Benei Yisrael not to be misled by the false prophet, Moshe adds, "Follow none but the Lord your God and fear none but Him… " (13:5). The Ketav Sofer cites from the Midrash Tanchuma (this passage does not appear in our versions of the Midrash Tanchuma) a brief discussion regarding the clause, "fear none but Him." The Midrash asks, "What is fear?" It answers with two examples: the fear of God exhibited by Yosef (Bereishit 42:18), and that of Iyov (Iyov 1:1). These two instances of fear of God share one important common denominator: they both took place amidst success and prosperity. The verse cited regarding Yosef appears after his rise to power in Egypt, when his country had become the only nation in the region with grain. Yosef effectively became the second most powerful man in the Middle East at that time and led Egypt to unparalleled wealth, power and dominance. Similarly, the first verse of Iyov, proclaiming Iyov's fear of God, describes his loyalty before the suffering cast upon him by the Satan, when he enjoyed wealth, joy and prosperity.

In light of the Netziv's understanding of the verses upon which this Midrash is based, we may suggest that the Midrash seeks to convey an important lesson. According to the straightforward meaning of the text (as understood by the Netziv), this verse bids us to retain our loyalty to God during difficult and trying times, not to abandon our faith in an attempt at new solutions. The Midrash, however, reminds us that yirat Shamayim (fear of God) poses a challenge not only during times of crisis, but during times of prosperity, as well. Although in the immediate context the verse stresses the importance of fearing God when faced with hardship, it must be applied more generally as well, to all situations and all contexts. Even in periods of success, we must be reminded to remain faithful to God and His commandments.

*****

Yesterday we looked at the section in Parashat Re'ei dealing with the "navi sheker" - the false prophet. The Torah demands that we disregard an alleged prophecy advocating foreign worship and issues a death sentence against a so-called prophet who delivers such a so-called prophecy. In this context Moshe tells Benei Yisrael that in such a situation, "the Lord your God is testing you to see whether you really love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul" (13:4). Yesterday, we saw the Netziv's unique interpretation of this clause. The standard explanation, however, is that the wonders and miracles performed by the false prophet constitute the test. Benei Yisrael must exhibit the firmness of their loyalty to the Almighty, such that even miraculous "evidence" will not turn their hearts away from Him.

The Sifrei records an interesting debate between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Akiva as to the circumstances the Torah here addresses. Rabbi Yossi adopts the plain meaning of the text, by which a charlatan manages somehow to overturn the rules of nature in an attempt to draw a following to his pagan ideology. Rabbi Yossi emphasizes that God will indeed allow a false prophet to perform miracles, in order for Him to test Benei Yisrael's loyalty. Rabbi Akiva, however, refuses to believe that the Almighty "should halt the sun, moon, stars and constellations for the sake of the idol worshippers." He cannot accept the possibility of an idolater manipulating the natural forces to further his theological cause. Rabbi Akiva therefore proposes a novel interpretation of the verse, that it describes a true prophet who had formally performed miracles to authenticate his prophecy, but who later turned around and sought to lure Benei Yisrael to idolatry.

The Abarbanel suggests a third approach, which, like that of Rabbi Akiva, entails deviating from the straightforward implication of the text. He claims that the prophet does not actually perform wonders and miracles, but rather captivates his audience such that they attribute supernatural powers to him. (The Abarbanel actually reads this approach into the two views in the Sifrei.)

Clearly, Rabbi Yossi's approach emerges most directly from the Torah's words. Professor Nechama Leibowitz, in her Studies to this parasha, develops the theme latent within Rabbi Yossi's position. That God will allow for the reversal of nature in order to test Benei Yisrael's commitment reflects a much broader concept: we cannot accurately assess a given phenomenon based on its external success and appeal. Professor Leibowitz draws two examples, one from a Midrash and another from later in Jewish history, to this notion. In Parashat Lekh-Lekha (16:4), the Torah relates that Hagar, Sara's maidservant whom she gave to Avraham in marriage, conceived immediately after her marriage. The ease with which she conceived led Hagar to look scornfully at her mistress, Sara. Rashi explains her line of reasoning: "This Sara, she is not the same inside as outside. She shows herself as righteous, but she is not righteous - for she did not earn pregnancy all these years, whereas I conceived immediately." Hagar erred in that she arrived at definitive conclusions based on external, rather than essential, consideratios. Her distorted thinking interpreted Sara's infertility as a conclusive indication of her unworthiness.

Professor Leibowitz adds that this very concept has been employed by Jewish thinkers over the centuries in response to one of Christianity's central arguments against Judaism. Christian theologians have often viewed the extraordinary and unparalleled oppression suffered by the Jewish people as proof of their having been rejected by God. Our tradition has taught us, however, to pay no heed to the miracles of the false prophets. We must assess theories and ideologies based on essential criteria, by considering the heart of the matter, rather than be misled by external factors.

*****

Yesterday we discussed the debate recorded in the Sifrei concerning the situation of the "navi sheker" - or false prophet - which the Torah describes in Parashat Re'ei. The Torah addresses a case where the alleged prophet performs a wonder or miracle to verify his authenticity (13:2-3). Rabbi Yossi interprets the verse literally, that the Almighty grants false prophets the power to overturn nature in order to test Benei Yisrael's loyalty. Rabbi Akiva rejects such a notion and suggests an alternate explanation of the verse. The prophet of which we speak had originally served as a true prophet, and invoked supernatural phenomena as proof of his authenticity. He later turned away from Judaism and sought to exploit the people's trust in him to lure them to idolatry.

The Netziv, in his commentary to the Sifrei (as opposed to his commentary on the Chumash, where, as we saw two days ago, he develops an entirely different approach), notes that Rabbi Akiva expresses this position elsewhere, as well, in Masekhet Avoda Zara 55a. The Gemara there tells that a certain Jew (or gentile - see Maharsha there) asked Rabbi Akiva why there have been occasions when an idolater would appeal to his god for a cure to his illness and he is indeed cured. How can we, who reject paganism, explain such a phenomenon? Rabbi Akiva answered that when God casts an illness or some other crisis upon an individual, the time for the cure or alleviation of the condition is predetermined (though it can be hastened through prayer and repentance - Maharsha). God will not delay the cure just because it would otherwise coincide with the patient's appeal to his god and hence appear to validate idolatry. The Netziv explains that according to Rabbi Akiva, the idolaters in fact had no supernatural powers whatsoever; at times, however, they could determine when the given period of illness was to end. This follows consistently with Rabbi Akiva's position in the Sifrei, that God does not grant powers to idolaters for purposes of testing Benei Yisrael.

It would appear that the Netziv understood that Rabbi Akiva disagrees with the position of Rav Yehuda, whom the Gemara cites immediately following this discussion of Rabbi Akiva. Rav Yehuda was asked how to explain an incident that occurred where an idolater's god appeared to him in a dream during a drought and informed him of what ritual he could perform to bring rain. In his explanation, Rav Yehuda enlisted the concept of, "ha-ba le-tamei mesayin lo; ha-ba le-taher mesayin lo." In other words, God helps man progress in whichever direction he follows, be it for sin or for virtue. Those who pursue idolatry will be encouraged by finding ample room to seemingly substantiate their beliefs. According to Rav Yehuda, it would seem, God indeed enables the pagans to exert some manipulative control over nature in an attempt to prove their beliefs. This seems to run counter to the view of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that God never granted supernatural powers to idolaters.

*****

Over the last few days we have discussed the verses in Parashat Re'ei dealing with the "navi sheker," or false prophet. Should someone come along and urge the nation, based on an alleged prophecy, to worship idols, we are commanded "lo tishma el divrei ha-navi ha-hu" - "do not listen to the words of that prophet" (13:4). At first glance, this verse appears to simply forbid us from following the alleged prophet's counsel, meaning, we must refrain from worshipping idols as he recommends. This is indeed the position of the Ramban, in his critique of the Rambam's Sefer ha-Mitzvot (lo ta'aseh 28). For this reason, he writes, we need not list this prohibition as one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah. Since, in effect, all this verse forbids is pagan worship, which of course is mentioned several times earlier in Chumash, it does not introduce any new, independent prohibition.

The Rambam, however, indeed lists this prohibition as the twenty-eighth of the mitzvot lo ta'aseh (prohibitions) of the Torah. He does so because he understands the verse much differently than the Ramban. According to the Rambam's reading, the verse requires "that we refrain from questioning him or asking him or saying to him, 'What is this sign of yours, and what is this wonder of yours… '" In other words, "do not listen" means we may not show any interest whatsoever in the supposed prophet's presentation. This verse therefore does not merely reiterate the prohibition against idolatry, but rather forbids taking any interest in a false prophet or engaging him in any way.

The Malbim, in his commentary to this verse, suggests that the source of the Rambam's understanding of the verse appears in the Sifrei. Commenting on this clause, the Sifrei remarks, "ve-lo tachzor bo" ("you shall not return to him"). The Malbim explains this to mean that after the false prophet's presentation we may not return to him to learn more about his prophecy. On this basis, suggests the Malbim, the Rambam interpreted the verse as forbidding engagement with the false prophet.

The Netziv, however, in his commentary to the Sifrei, claims that this phrase, "ve-lo tachzor bo," is a corrupted text of the Sifrei. The correct version of the text, he argues, is that of the Vilna Gaon's version, which reads, "ve-lo ha-chozer bo" - "and not the one who retracts." According to this text, this comment of the Sifrei continues the discussion that immediately precedes this passage. As we discussed over the last two days, the Sifrei cites the position of Rabbi Akiva that this verse deals with a true prophet of God who abandons Judaism and suddenly advocates paganism. The Sifrei - according to the Netziv's reading - then adds, "ve-lo ha-chozer bo" - if the prophet repents and retracts his call to idolatry, then he reassumes his status as prophet. We may therefore accept any prophecies delivered thereafter, despite the period in which he strayed from the correct path and promoted idolatrous worship.

In any event, according to the Netziv's version of the text, the Sifrei cannot serve as a source for the Rambam's position, as the Malbim suggested.

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 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