Insights into Parshat Ki Tetze of Rav Moshe Ganz, Ram Emeritus of Yeshivat Sha’alvim, by Rav Re’uven Ungar of Sha’alvim.

“The rebellious son- Ben Sorer u’Moreh- never happened and will never happen. Why is it written in the Torah? To delve into its meaning and to receive reward” (Masechet Sanhedrin, 71a).

This statement requires clarification. Certainly there is no receiving of a reward for something that is not for real. Certainly there must be a principle to be derived from the passage of the Ben Sorer u’Morer, even though it will never transpire in actuality.

What is unique in this passage?

The gemara states that the past of the Ben Sorer u’Moreh does not warrant the punishment that awaits him: “The Ben Sorer u”Moreh is killed because of his future. Does the consumption of a large quantity of meat and Italian wine lead the Torah to instruct the Jewish Court of Law- Beit Din- to have him stoned?! Rather, the Torah understood what will happen, he will deplete the financial resources of his father, seek what he is accustomed to enjoy, not attain it, and proceed to become a highwayman and prey on society. The Torah states that it is preferable for him to die innocent as opposed to guilty” (Masechet Sanhedrin, 72a).

The Maharsha explains that the case of Ben Sorer u”Moreh will never transpire in actuality because although the Torah recognizes that there is no hope for this individual, his parents- who are charged with the responsibility of bringing him to the Beit Din- will not recognize what will happen. They will always think that there is hope for their precious son to revert to the proper path. Nevertheless, the parents can derive from the passage of the Ben Soreh u’Morer that a transgression fosters an additional transgression, as robberies that lead to gluttony have the potential to reach murder. Thus, the parents will learn to be diligent in educating their children, and to be cautious of even a small slip, as they recognize that this may lead to a large fall. If this is derived from this passage- they will receive a great reward.

Another concept should be mentioned. Contemporary human culture focuses on Humanism. Man is the center of everything. An ethical action can be summarized as: “Man is the purpose, not merely a means to reach a goal”. This attitude yields the following result: Frequent improper conduct is forgiven because “it is human”. In other words, the fact that many humans behave this way prevents this action from being classified as negative. This is the source of permissiveness in its various manifestations.

This approach does set limits on permissiveness. It punishes people who harm other people. The justification for punishment lies in the fact that this serves the interests of society. While man is the focal point, nevertheless the good of society trumps his personal welfare. At times, a harsh punishment is called for. However, capital punishment for what may transpire in the future is inconceivable. How can a person be killed for what he has not yet perpetrated? He is a human being!

Our love of humanity is different. It stems from the fact that we view man via the G-dly quality- Tzelem Elokim- in him. When we love a person- even if his actions are improper- it is due to the Tzelem Elokim found within him. This provides the value of the person. It constitutes the basis for hope and possibility that the person can repent and march in the direction of a meaningful life, befitting one bestowed with Tzelem Elokim. Such a life, and the hope and possibility of living such a life, constitute an exalted value. The absence of the possession of such a Tzelem Elokim, and the absence of the hope of possessing such a Tzelem Elokim, would remove the value of such a life- even if the person is blessed with many capabilities.

Of course, this idea does not contain an actual expression in reality. For we are never allowed to determine that all hope is lost of a person repairing his actions. However, on a theoretical level this contains an important educational message. It stresses- in a harsh manner-the responsibility of a person to be good.

This message is conveyed to us by the passage of Ben Sorer u’Moreh. In a theoretical sense we are taught that if there is a situation where there is no hope for a person to improve his ways, and that he will only decline in his misbehavior- reaching banditry and murder- he should be judged to death. Such a verdict would be to his benefit- to die innocent and not guilty. The true value of life is measured by the goodness of the person, not by external values such as material success. The death of the Ben Sorer u’Morer in such a situation protects his true life from the absolute loss of its values.

This passage teaches us what is the true value of our lives and elevates us.

Insights into Parshat Shoftim of Rav Moshe Ganz, Ram Emeritus of Yeshivat Sha’alvim, by Rav Re’uven Ungar of Sha’alvim.

The halachot pertaining to war located at the conclusion of Parshat Shoftim contain two mitzvot whose juxtaposition foster interest. The first mitzvah- in the case of an obligatory war- forbids us to leave any enemies alive- lo techaye kol neshama. The second mitzvah prohibits the cutting down of trees during warfare.

The first mitzvah- such apparent cruelty. In the obligatory war waged against the 7 nations of Canaan we are required to eliminate not only the enemy combatants, but the entire civilian population as well!

The second mitzvah is amazing in its sensitivity. At a time of war, when the normal codes of conduct disappear and many people are dying, there is a concern for the fate of the trees.

Both of these mitzvot appear in the same Torah, side by side!

Apparently this juxtaposition hints at the relationshop between Torah and ethics.

Concerning the tension that exists between the Torah and the ethical sensitivities of a person, there are two possible extreme reactions. On one hand, a person who fervently desires to be a good person, will reject the Word of Hashem that appears to be unethical! Obviously, this is not the proper path. On the other hand, a person may maintain that any ethical sensitivities are meaningless and lack importance. Such feelings are the results of human hangups and psychological frailties. They differ from society to society and are expressed in diverse forms in different historical eras. This proves their lack of integrity. Thus, we have Torah, and Torah alone, to guide us. We perform what we are commanded to do, refrain from the forbidden, and any question that arises from ethical sensitivity is devoid of validity.

This is clearly not the correct path either. We are unable, and do not want to part from our ethical feelings! Firstly, our acceptance of The Yoke of Heaven, if it is not predicated on receiving a reward, is based on our internal desire to be good. How can we suddenly relinquish this internal desire to cling to the good? In addition, the Torah encourages us to heed our ethical feelings. For example, the Torah does not suffice by commanding us to return to an indigent individual a guarantee of a loan (avot); the Torah adds “with what will he sleep?” (Shmot 22: 26). This induces the heart to fulfill this mitzvah. According to the Ramban, the mitzvah of “and you shall do what is proper and good” (Devarim 6:18) is predicated upon our ethical understanding to establish what is proper and good!

The difficult question remains. How do we comprehend the gaps that exist in certain places between the Torah and ethical sensitivity? The juxtaposition compels us to realize that the Torah demands from us exalted ethical feelings and at the same time, we are required to act in seeming opposition to what is ethical. It appears that precisely this mitzvah can open a path of understanding.

The ethical sensitivity of a person is a positive and very important feeling. Many times it directs us in our lives- and for good reason. Yet, we must recognize its limitations. One of its clear limitations is its tendency to operate intensely in the short term, and with less intensity for the long term. An action that is good in the here and now, but will generate serious ramifications over the course of time, will frequently be accepted by ethical sensitivities. The converse as well- something which is negative in the present, will not be honored by such sensitivities, even if it contains blessings further down the road.

In such a situation, the authentic and intrinsic good will state that that the overall picture must be taken into account, and to judge accordingly, even if one is forced to ignore limited ethical feelings. This is similar to a parent who suspends the feelings of mercy that would prevent him from bringing his son to a necessary operation because of the fear of pain that the operation will incur.

In reference to the prohibition of permitting members of the 7 nations to live, the Torah explains that this is in order to prevent them from teaching us to perform the abominations that they perpetrated for their gods. A great danger faced the Jewish People prior to the conquest of The Land; assimilating the values of the local culture. If G-d forbid this would come to pass, the Jewish People would not be able to fulfill the spiritual task that Hashem placed upon us to perform.

The Jewish People provided the civilized world with the ethical principles that applicable today. This was done via Christianity, which introduced principles of ethics (taken from the Torah) to a pagan world. This generated a sea change in the attitudes and actions of the nations of the world. The height of Roman culture was attending bouts between hungry lions and prisoners. The concepts that were conveyed from the world of the Tanach fostered the change.

We are to be a light to the nations, to show them the way to Hashem and His ways. This will not come to pass if the Jewish People assimilates with the 7 nations, upon entering The Land. Therefore, for the sake of the world, it was necessary to eliminate these nations (unless they accepted upon themselves the Noachide Code- see the Rambam, Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 6- or if they would leave The Land of Israel).

A human being is incapable of making such tremendous calculations. But once The King of the World has made such a calculation, it is easier for us to comprehend it. We can understand that even though in a short term view the mitzvah of eliminating the 7 nations is anti-ethical, a broader perspective conveyed by the Torah clarifies the ethical obligation contained within the mitzvah. Even if ones feelings do not accept this- due to the long range of this calculation- the calculation is correct. This mitzvah does not stem, G-d forbid from lack of ethics- rather it stems precisely from a great desire to do good.

These concepts we can derive from the juxtaposition of these two mitzvot. If one derives from the mitzvah of eliminating the 7 nations that the Torah is a set of laws without consideration of ethics, the next mitzvah- not destroying trees- negates this premise. This displays the ethical sensitivity of the Torah and serves as a springboard to seek the ethical component of other mitzvot as well, including that of eliminating the 7 nations.

Insights into Parshat Re’eh of Rav Moshe Ganz, Ram Emeritus of Yeshivat Sha’alvim, by Rav Re’uven Ungar of Sha’alvim.

The two major themes of Parshat Re’eh are:
A. “Distancing ourselves from idolatry”- A branch of this is the centrality of worshiping Hashem in The Place that He chooses- including the bringing of the first-born animal and coming there on the 3 Festivals. This theme also includes the prohibition of bringing sacrifices elsewhere as idolatry was rampant in sacrifices brought in private venues.
B. “Social Mitzvot” -Ma’a’ser Sheni, Shmitat Kesafim (cancellation of debts), Tzedaka and Ha’a’naka (providing for liberated slaves).

These two groups can be termed, respectively, “Yichud (Unity of) – Hashem” and “Derech (The Way of) Hashem”. The two groups appear to be completely removed and separate from each other. In fact, however, the bond that connects them is quite strong.

What is the connection?

The gods of idolaters are finite objects that can be described in clear terms. Idolatrous practices, especially those where the practitioners bring gifts or sacrifices, are the means through which the idolaters cling to their idols. If they have social commandments, they are non-intrinsic in their idolatrous worldview.

The Jewish Path is markedly different. The Unity of Hashem- Yichud Hashem- removing any physical element of G-d, leaves the existence of Hashem as something that cannot be comprehended on its own. It negates any description. We are certainly aware that Hashem exists. However the concept of Hashem is hazy as we do not possess the means to relate to Him in a direct fashion. All matters attributed to Him are parables.

While we do not recognize Hashem at all based on Him, we do recognize Him via His actions. For example, from how He rules over creation. As it is described in Anim Z’mirot (authored by Rabi Yehuda HaChassid) “They appraised You according to Your actions”. Thus our connection to Hashem cannot be a connection with “The G-dly Essence”. Rather it is expressed by clinging to His ways! As Chazal state, it is impossible for a human being to walk after the G-dly Presence (Shechinah), rather we are to adopt His attributes (Yalkut Shimoni, Remez 33).

Thus the groups of Mitzvot found in Parshat Re’eh are not at all removed from each other, but complement each other. For a Jew, the conclusion of Yichud Hashem is the centrality of Derech Hashem!

Insights into Parshat Ekev of Mr. David Silber of Yeshivat Sha’alvim, by Rav Re’uven Ungar of Sha’alvim.

There’s a well known idea that when one intends to perform a mitzvah but ultimately cannot do it, he/she is considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah, whereas with respect to an averah the opposite is true. Yet in this week’s parsha, Rashi explains that in the first pasuk of perek chet (ch 8) when the pasuk says “kol hamitzvah” it’s meant to be taken literally- that you only get the s’char for a mitzvah if you complete it. How do these two ideas coexist? How can it be that you get s’char for intent to do a mitzvah, but not get s’char for actually doing part of a mitzvah?

The first few pesukim of Ekev explain some of the great depth that exist in our mitzvot, and the following two ideas can help us understand the inconsistency mentioned above. On the first pasuk of the parsha, Rashi comments that the Torah chooses to use the seemingly superfluous lashon of “ekev” in order to show that the reward being mentioned applies even to the mitzvot that people usually overlook; ie. that people usually step over with their “heels”.

The Sfat Emet (Rav Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter, d. 1905) however, understands Rashi on a deeper level. He explains that the purpose of mitzvot is to find a connection to Hashem in everything that we do, and that the chiddush in the pasuk is that even the lowliest of acts- comparable to the heel, a reference to the lowest, most physical and least spiritual areas of life- if used to see Hashem in this world, can bring all the tremendous s’char mentioned.

The last pasuk in the explanation of reward for mitzvot tell us that the reason for the mitzvot is “ki lo al halechem livado yichyeh ha’adam, ki al kol motzi pi Hashem yichyeh ha’adam”- that in the midbar, by giving us the ‘maan’, we learned that we do not live on bread alone, but rather off whatever it is that Hashem gives us. The Maharal (Judah Loew ben Bezalel, d. 1609), in Sefer Netzach Yisrael, explains that “lechem” is a reference to parnasah (livelihood), and that there are three levels of “lechem”: The first level is the minimal amount required in order to live, the second is giving a person a little extra so one feels satisfied with his work and secure with what he/she has, and a third level is there for us to be mitaken, to fix for a better use. We see from here a tremendous lesson: in everything that Hashem gives us our job is to fix it, to perfect it.

Our original question was how can it be that one gets s’char for simply intending to do a mitzvah, but doesn’t receive s’char for actually doing part of a mitzvah. However, with these two ideas in mind we can now understand the reasoning: there is much more to a mitzvah than the s’char attained by having done it. The parsha is teaching us what mitzvot are all about- not simple means to gain points in olam haba, but rather they help us see Hashem in every aspect of our lives, and they are the tools that Hashem provided us so that we can be mitaken this world. Thus when someone intends to do a mitzvah properly, he has already accomplished part of the goal of the mitzvah by understanding that Hashem is a part of every aspect of his life and that he needs to do the mitzvot in order to fix this world. But when someone does only part of a mitzvah, it is a sign that his intent is not the proper intent of mitzvot, he simply wants to rack up points.

With the message of this week’s parsha, that one should be doing mitzvot not for his/her own sake, but rather for the sake of the community, to be mitaken the world and be mifarsem Kavod Shem Shamayim (publicize the honor of Heaven), hopefully we can create more ahavat chinam and bring Moshiach bimhera viyamenu amen!

Insights into Parshat Va’Etchanan of Rav Moshe Ganz, ram emeritus of Yeshivat Sha’alvim, from the Pnai Shabbat volume, by Rav Re’uven Ungar of Sha’alvim.

Parshat Va’etchanan contains the Aseret HaDibrot (10 Commandments). There are several differences in the Aseret HaDibrot recorded in Parshat Yitro and in Parshat Va’etchanan. In reference to the mitzvah of Shabbat, in Parshat Yitro the Torah employs the command to remember- Zachor- the day of Shabbat. In Parshat Va’etchanan the Torah commands us to observe- Shamor- the day of Shabbat. In addition to this difference, in Parshat Yitro the Torah records the creation of the world as the reason for Shabbat. In Parshat Va’etchanan, the exodus from Egypt- Yetziat Mitzrayim- is mentioned.

Chazal state that Zachor and Shamor were uttered by Hashem simultaneously (Masechat Shavuot, 20b). Why was Zachor recorded in Parshat Yitro in Sefer Shmot, with Shamor written in Parshat Va’etchanan in Sefer Devarim? The Maharal explains that Parshat Yitro represents the side of the Giver (Hashem)- thus the creation of the world is mentioned. Parshat Va’etchanan- as part of Sefer Devarim- represents the side of the receiver- the Jewish People. We personally experienced Yetziat Mitzrayim, thus that is mentioned (Tiferet Yisrael, Chapter 44).

Shabbat constitutes a foundation in Judaism as it testifies that Hashem is the Absolute Ruler of the world. This control is manifested in a general sense via the creation of all; and in a particular sense- yet more direct- by the Yetziat Mitzrayim of the Jewish People.

Rav Yehuda HaLevi asked the Ibn Ezra (in the introduction to the Aseret HaDibrot in Parshat Yitro) why the Torah records in the Aseret HaDibrot that Hashem took us out of Egypt and not that He created the world? The Ibn Ezra responded that only a select few recognize (on their own) that Hashem created the world, while for the masses, the experience of Yetziat Mitzrayim is easier to comprehend and to identify with. Thus “I Am Hashem your G-d” hints towards the creation of the world and suffices for the select intellectual elite; “Who has taken you out of Egypt” refers to the general public.

Why do the two motifs of Shabbat- Zachor (creation) & Shamor (Yetziat Mitzrayim) have to emanate from one sound?

At first there appears to be a contradiction. How can the Great & Mighty G-d, who creates all, choose one tiny nation and lead them via signs and wonders? The simultaneous voice indicates that there is no contradiction. The Ruler of all, is recognized by the nation who He chooses. We sing His Praise, and function as His mezuzah in this world.