Posts
PARASHA DEVARIM
DEUTERONOMY 1:01-3:22
RABBI ARTHUR SEGAL
"Jive Talkin' "
SYNOPTIC ABSTRACT:
Who wrote the Book of Deuteronomy? What can we learn from its
inconsistencies with the first Four of the Five books of Moses? Was King
Og really a giant who survived the great Flood? Did the Second Temple
really get destroyed over a party invitation? Were Moses and the
Israelite soldiers really allowed to eat pork? Are we causing blindness
if we do not share Jerusalem? To learn these answers, and even more, we
invite you to read further.
As we move into the final months of our summer we begin the last of the
five books of Moses. The Hebrew title "Devarim" means "words." An older
Hebrew name for this book was "Mishna Torah" which means "the repetition
of the Torah." The English language title of this book is Deuteronomy
which is derived from Greek and Latin and means "second law."
As the Jews are camped on the east bank of the Jordan River ready to
cross over into the promised land under Joshua's command, Moses begins
his final discourses. In this parasha, Moses reviews the journey from
Sinai to Kadesh and gives a veiled rebuke with an "exhortation to
obedience" to God's laws, as Rabbi J. Hertz writes. The laws of the court
system of judges are reviewed. Moses retells of the spies' mission but
blames Israel for sending them. In the original story Moses makes the
decision to send the spies. The encounters with the
tribes of Esau, Seir, Moab and Og are reviewed. The inheritance of the
tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manesseh, who will live in what is now
known as Jordan, are recounted.
Any honest reading of this last book will lead to difficulties, as there
are so many inconsistencies with wordings and historic details as told in
the first four books of Moses. Not only are laws reviewed with new
wordings but more than 70 new laws are introduced. Modern critical
biblical theorists conclude that this text was written at a different
time, perhaps even in Ezra's era, after the return from exile in Babylon.
Traditionally these problems are handled differently.
Traditionally these inconsistencies are answered by saying that Moses
held back laws dealing with farming until we were ready to conquer the
land of Israel. Even the Talmudic sage Abaye , when trying to explain
God's different rebukes in Leviticus chapter 26 and Deuteronomy chapter
28, says that Leviticus' rebuke is God's words and that Deuteronomy's
rebuke is Moses's words (Talmud Bavli Tractate Megillah 31B). The Vilna Gaon (genius Rabbi Eliyahu Zalman of the
eighteenth century) says that the first four books were heard directly
from God on Sinai by Moses and that Moses quoted God's words to Israel.
This fifth book was heard by Moses on Sinai and told to Israel 40 years
later in Moses's own words. This is why, according to the Vilna Gaon,
there is inconsistency. Onkelos in his 90 C.E. Aramaic translation of the
Torah (the Targum) calls this book a "copy" of the Torah, but not an
exact copy. He explains that where in the first four books we read the
phrase repeated so many times "God spoke to Moses saying...," we read in
this fifth book the phrase "God spoke to me saying...." The Talmudic
rabbis go further. They say that these 70 new laws were really part of
the Oral Law and that Moses decided to select these 70 and write them
down as it was a good time to do this. This is how the rabbis allowed
themselves permission 1,700 years later to redact and write the rest of
the Oral Law in what is called the Mishna and its Gemorra (discussions).
Those two combined eventually formed the Talmud.
The sages teach that the Book of Deuteronomy was taught by Moses during
the last five weeks of his life. They say he died on Adar 7 (Talmud Bavli Tractate
Kiddushin 38A). Moses started teaching this book, the rabbis say, on the
first of Shevat. This leads to a voracious debate about who wrote the
last eight verses of Deuteronomy. They agree that Joshua did but that
Moses, who could foresee the future, told him what to write.
In verses 1-5 Moses mentions places but not the events that took place
there. The sages teach that Moses, not wanting
to embarrass the Israelites, did not mention their sins directly but only
the locations of the sins. This is why these first five verses are
labeled the "veiled rebuke." Yet the Talmudic rabbi Yochanan says he
"has reviewed all of the scriptures but has not found any place named
Tophel or Laban" (Deut 1:01). His colleagues answer that Tophel can be
rendered "tephel" (complaint) and that Laban means "white." Therefore,
Moses was secretly rebuking the Israelites for complaining about the
manna. Yet another rabbis posits that Tofel refers to the sin of the
golden calf (ha Egel). The rabbis cannot decide where Arabah is. They
decide it means the plain where the Midianite women seduced the Israelite
men. And the unknown place of Di-zahab refers to the gold (Hebrew zehav)
that God let the Jews take with them from Egypt. The rabbis agree that
Paran is mentioned to remind us of the sin of the spies as they began
their journey from Paran.
The rabbis learn from this rebuke that "any leader who does not chastise
his community is held responsible for their sins" (Talmud Bavli Tractate Shabbat 54B).
They go on to say that properly criticizing a person is a lost art and
that "in the days preceding the arrival of Moshiach...there will not be
any criticism" (Tractate Sotah 49B). Rashi says that this means that no
one could criticize another now, as we all sin to one degree or another,
so no one has the right to point fingers. On the other hand, we are to
"love criticism, for as long as there is criticism in the world,
pleasantness comes to the world, good and blessing come to the world, and
evil is removed from the world" (Tractate Tamid 28A).
In Deut. 01:6-8 we are told of Israel's boundaries, which are in
conflict with the boundaries given only days before in the last parasha
of Numbers. Our land now extends to the Euphrates River in modern Turkey
or Iraq. Rashi tries to explain that this means that Israel will have
this land when the Messiah comes. No one dared to ask Rashi why we would
need any land borders during the messianic age if we were all to be at
peace. Perhaps some lions will miss the message and want to eat lambs
instead of sleeping with them.
In Deut. 01:9-18 the laws of judges are reviewed. I invite you to turn to
Exodus 18:13-26 and compare the two sections. When the Torah repeats
these laws it adds and subtracts details. Jethro is not mentioned. Jethro
was a Midianite. Forty years before, the Midianites were our allies. Even
Moses's wife was a Midianite . Now they are painted as idol worshippers
and seductresses. In Exodus Jethro gives Moses the idea for the use of
judges. The parasha in Exodus is named for him. In Deuteronomy it is God
who gives this law. Did Moses forget about his father-in-law Jethro? Or
was Deuteronomy composed 800 years later?
When you study Devarim this summer please keep a lookout for
inconsistencies. Note how the story of the spies in Deut. 01:19-46 is
retold with subtle twists. Moses blamed the Israelites for sending the
spies when it is clear in Numbers that God left the choice to Moses. And
what is even more amazing is that Moses in 01:37 blames Israel for his
own punishment of not being allowed to go in to the Promised Land.
But we were just told that Mt. Nebo is within the borders of the Promised
land and that Gad and Reuben are living there.
Note also that in verse 01:44, the story of the battle with the Amorites
is retold. This battle took place after the Jews' moxie returned after
they first lost faith while listening to the spies . The text says that
the Amorites pursued the Israelites "as the bees would do." What is the
Hebrew word for these flying stinging insects? "Devarim!" Is the author
trying to say (as we learned about the "grasshopper eyes" [Num. 13:33])
that our own words defeated us?
The defeated King Og, given only a few words in Numbers, is now described
at a giant with an "iron bed" nine cubits in length and four cubits in
width measured by "the cubit of that man" (Deut. 3:11). Targum Yonatan
(another Aramaic translation of the Torah by a student of Rabbi Hillel)
writes that Og was one of the race of giants that survived the flood. The
Rashbam (Rabbi Shlomo ben Meir, Rashi's grandson, of twelfth-century
France) says that when Og was a baby he was so big he broke his wooden
cradle. Does Deuteronomy differ with the Noah story as well?
The rabbis had a tough time with reconciling the different wording of
the histories in Deuteronomy and the rest of the Chumash (Five Books of
Moses). The battles and the spoils of war are described differently. In
Talmud Bavli Tractate Chulin 17A, when comparing Numbers 31:3-14 and 31:31-41
to Deuteronomy 3:01-11, the rabbis go so far as to say that God gave
permission during the war with King Sichon and his Amorites for the Jews to eat "katlei de
chaziri--dried pork rinds."
They are forced to this conclusion because in
Deut. 6:10-11 God says that the Jews can use the houses that they did
not build and the food and supplies found within them when they conquer
the land. Since King Og's and King Sichon's land is listed as part of the
inheritance of the Jewish people, everything we took from them, including
their non-kosher foods and utensils was able to be eaten or used "as is."
It was only after these wars that Elazar gave the rules about koshering
pots and pans.
For millennia no rabbi was able to state publicly a critical theory of
this book's authorship. Talmud Bavli Tractate Sanhedrin 90A warns that "one who
says Torah is not from heaven is a heretic and will have no share in the
world to come." The fact that this was written shows that some
rabbis must have thought about what we have the luxury today to call "the
critical theory of biblical authorship." The Ramban (the thirteen-century
Spanish Nachmonides) was forced to conclude that non kosher food captured
while conquering Israel was permissible based on his reading of
Deuteronomy. The Rambam (the twelfth-century Spanish and Egyptian
Maimonides) says that non kosher food is only allowed if the Israelites
are hungry. Conquering a land can certainly build-up one's appetite for
pork rinds.
The authors of Deuteronomy--and perhaps the books of Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings as well--emphasized centralization of worship and
governance. In 622 BCE the High Priest Hilkian found the book of
Deuteronomy while the Temple was undergoing restoration. This prompted
King Josiah to undertake a major religious reformation. He purged Israel
of paganism and centralized all sacrifices in Jerusalem. He also
re-instituted Passover, which had been neglected since the days of the
Judges (2 Kings 22:23).
Rabbi Jeffrey Tigay writes that some scholars thought that Deuteronomy
was written during King Josiah's reign. He suggests that it was written
in King Hezekiah's term a century or two before. Hezekiah also was
antipagan. There is a vigorous monotheistic antipagan theme in
Deuteronomy. However, much of this book dates back to the ancient times
of farmers and herders. There are no city-type laws for merchants,
artisans, commerce or even real estate. Tigay believes that some sections
of this book go back to the united monarchy in David's time of 1000
B.C.E.
Because Deuteronomy places emphasis on rituals taking place on Mt.
Gezirim and Ebal, near Shechem, Rabbi Tigay believes that it was written
in the north, and not written in Jerusalem. He believes that refugees
from the northern kingdom of
Israel fleeing to the south during the Assyrian invasion brought this
book with them. The fall of the northern kingdom lead to some serious
soul-searching in Jerusalem and Tigay believes that King Hezekiah used
the text with its rebukes of paganism in order to reform and centralize
worship in his southern kingdom of Judah.
Regardless of its authorship, we can agree that this book of Deuteronomy
was inspired divinely and we can learn much from it. This parasha is
always read in coordination with the fast day of Tisha B'Av. This is the
ninth day of Av. The fast is in
commemoration of the destruction of both Temples. It is recorded that
other sad events also took place on this same date in history, such as
the date the Jews were ordered to leave Spain during the 1492 Inquisition.
(Columbus in his diary complains of the unusual amount of traffic in the
harbor on the day of his departure due to the expulsion.)
The Talmud teaches that the Second Temple was destroyed because Jews
hated each other over petty things. The rabbis tie this teaching into
this week's Torah portion with the veiled, non-embarrassing way that Moses
rebuked B'nai Israel.
They tell the story in Tractate Gittin 57A of Bar
Kamtza. Just before the Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem a certain man
made a large wedding feast. He hated Bar Kamtza because of some petty
matter. Somehow the "postal service" got the mail mixed up and Bar Kamtza
got an invitation. He thought it was a peace offering of friendship and
attended. The host, however, had no wishes to restore their friendship
and tried to eject Bar Kamtza from the party. Bar Kamtza offered to pay
for his meal to avoid the embarrassment of ejection. The host refused.
Bar Kamtza offered to pay for half of the cost of the party. The host
also refused. Bar Kamtza offered to pay the entire feast's expenses and
the host still said "no!"
Bar Kamtza, publicly humiliated, went to the Roman authorities and
claimed that the Jews were rebelling. The Romans began an investigation
and found that indeed Jews had not subordinated themselves to Rome. The
Talmud says this marked the beginning of the end of Jerusalem, the Temple
and the Second Jewish Commonwealth. The Talmud goes on to say that not
one person, not even a rabbi, jumped to Bar Kamtza's aid to shield him
from embarrassment. The Talmud demands that "one ought to jump into a
fire rather than cause someone else embarrassment." The name Kamtza means
"small thing." Bar Kamtza means "son of a small thing" , which is even
smaller. We can learn that the smallest "devar" (word) can sting like a
"davar" (bee) and cause someone emotional embarrassment and harm. I think
we also were supposed to learn this lesson as children when we
were read the fairy tale "Sleeping Beauty."
The Midrash teaches "Great is peace, such that even if Israel is
worshipping foreign Gods, but all are at peace with each other, God
declares 'I will not defeat them.' As it says in Hosea 4:17 'Ephriam is
joined to idols--let him alone!' However if Israel's hearts are divided
against each other, 'they shall bear their guilt.'" The Talmud records in
Tractate Peah 1A that Rabbi Aba says, "the generations of King David were
all righteous but since they were guilty of infighting, they would go out
to war and be defeated. However the generations of King Ahab were
idolaters, but since they were not guilty of infighting, they would go
out to war and prevail."
We are all Jews regardless of whether we think that the Torah was given
on Mt. Sinai or it was written in bits and pieces over the centuries. We
are all Jews regardless of whether we are shomar Shabbat (observant of
the Sabbath) or not. We are all Jews regardless of
whether we follow kashrut (the dietary laws) or eat "pork
rinds." As long as we have our petty quarrels over what
even traditionalists say that God calls "Bar Kamtza", it does not matter
what part of Jerusalem is given or not given to the Palestinians. God
would rather us be idol worshippers and forgot about Him if man could
live in peace.
God wants us "to live by the law, not die from it." Let me relate the true story of the composer Charles
Valentin Morhange Alkan. Alkan was a nineteenth-century contemporary and
friend of Frederic Chopin, Franz Liszt, Ms. George Sand and Victor Hugo.
They entertained each other in and around Paris. Alkan was the Monty
Python of his time. His "Marcia Funebre sulla Morte d'un Pappagallo" for
four singers and chamber ensemble is hilarious. The translation of course
is "Funeral March on the Death of a Parrot." Alkan parodies the religious
and operatic music of his time. The singers enter with "As-tu dejeune,
Jacot?" the French equivalent to "Polly want a cracker?"
Anyway, Alkan disappeared from sight for years when he, a Jew, reclused himself to
study Torah and Talmud. According to David Dubal's The Art of the Piano,
Alkan died in 1888 when he "reached for his beloved Talmud, which was
resting on top of a massive bookcase, and the structure toppled over,
crushing the emaciated musician to death at the age of 75." The laws and
Halacha in the Talmud and Torah are fine for some. But let's not die
fighting with each other over them.
It would be nice if we could remember that our Temple and the city of
Jerusalem was not dedicated only to the Jewish people. I know this runs
contrary to popular perception. In I Kings 8:41-43 King Solomon
specifically asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who came to the
Temple. Non-Jews were permitted to bring animal offerings and pray in the
Temple. During Sukkot, 70 bulls were offered as sacrifices. The Talmud
explains that this corresponds to the 70 nations of the world at that
time. Isaiah called the Temple "a house of all nations." The Talmud
further states that the Romans never would have destroyed the Temple if
they knew the benefit they received from it. In Derech Eretz Zuta it is
written that "the world is like a human eyeball...and the pupil is
Jerusalem." We are taught that the world is for all people. Without the
pupil, the eye is blind. We are taught "not to put a stumbling block
before the blind." We are also taught not to blind anyone and what the
penalties are for poking out another's eye. Therefore, can we deny the
"pupil of this world's eye" to any people?
If we cannot make peace among ourselves, how can we ever agree to live in
peace with our Arab cousins? Let us keep the thought of "shalom" in our
hearts and minds when we remember the destruction and suffering of our
people--and all people--this Tisha B'Av.
Shabbat Shalom,
RABBI ARTHUR SEGAL
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
