{ "language": "en", "title": "Derashot HaRan", "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein", "versionTitle": "Derashot HaRan, by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein", "status": "locked", "license": "CC-BY", "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source", "versionTitleInHebrew": "דרשות הר\"ן, מתורגמות בידי רבי שרגא סילברשטיין", "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי", "actualLanguage": "en", "languageFamilyName": "english", "isBaseText": false, "isSource": false, "direction": "ltr", "heTitle": "דרשות הר\"ן", "categories": [ "Jewish Thought", "Rishonim" ], "text": [ [ "\"IN THE BEGINNING G-D CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH, AND THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND VOID, AND DARKNESS WAS UPON THE FACE OF THE DEEP, AND THE SPIRIT OF G-D HOVERED OVER THE FACE OF THE WATERS.\" (GENESIS 1:1-2)", "All of the true expositors are in agreement that the intent of these verses is that in the beginning of the creation there was created a common substance for all that is beneath the lunar orb. And though some of them hold that the intent of eth hashamayim ve'eth ha'aretz is that there were two distinct substances, that of heaven and that of earth, they are all in agreement that the second verse includes the four elements which give rise to all that is found beneath the lunar orb, namely: fire (intimated in the word \"darkness\"), air (intimated in the expression \"the spirit of G-d\"), and water and earth (subsumed in the word \"deep\"). Indeed, the Divine Wisdom mandated one common substance for all that is found beneath the lunar orb, willing the nature of existence to proceed from the possibilities implicit in its origin. It did not wish to create many things creatio ex nihilo, it being within the nature of one substance to include all. Therefore, if we must posit the substance of heaven as distinct from that of earth, it is because the heavenly form could not be generated by the earthly substance. But since all that is found from the lunar orb downwards could conceivably result from this substance, then the creation of two substances in the nether world would constitute needless creatio ex nihilo, and this miraculous, ineluctable act of creatio ex nihilo [of one common substance] suffice. It is further to be noted that the entire terrestrial creation is intended for the fulfillment of man's needs, the greatest of which is the sustenance that he derives therefrom, so that the substance of man is closely allied to what is derived from the other terrestrial composites, vegetable or animal, and is subsequently converted through his natural processes into the very substance of his body. And this is possible only by virtue of the common substance that they share, in the absence of which all this could not take place. The sages are in agreement that a simple element cannot be assimilated into a compound, though it form a part of that compound, such union being negated by the very antagonism between simple and compound: how much less conceivable is it, then, that such union could be effected between two entirely dissimilar substances. If the other terrestrial creations, then, were of a different substance from man, they would be both unassimilable with him and unfit for him. It is for this reason that everything created in common with man, namely, the terrestrial world as a whole, partakes of one substance. But the celestial world's being of a different substance is not in opposition to man in this regard, for it has nothing in common with him in point of his substance, but only in point of his form, and form undergoes no transformation.", "Now the Torah has in truth informed us that from these imperfect creations, though each in itself be completely defective, when they are joined together, there originate from them many superior composites of great perfection (for it goes without saying that these primal creations, which are the components of all existing things, are so defective as not to possess the virtues even of the inanimate objects compounded of them; how much less those of vegetable, animal, or man) — for it need not follow that an aggregate composed of defective elements partake of the defects of the separate elements of which it is compounded, but being an aggregate and a composite there inheres in it a perfection and a benefit which is not to be found in its individual constituents.", "And it is in respect of this truth impressed upon us by nature itself that our sages of blessed memory dilated upon the majesty and the awe of the congregation, to the point of their saying (Sotah 40a): \"Let the fear of the congregation be always upon you.\" And we find the chief of the prophets himself [Moses] to have been punished in this regard, having said (Numbers 20:10): \"Listen, now, you rebellious ones,\" though each one of them as an individual merited the rebuke. And they said in the first chapter of Kiddushin (36a): \"And do you think foolish children are not called children? Come and hear (Jeremiah 4:22): 'They are foolish children.' And do you think faithless children are not called children? Come and hear (Deuteronomy 32:30): '…children in whom there is no faith.'\" Their intent in this is that although each one in himself be unworthy, still, when he joins the others, the aggregate acquires a merit and an eminence greater than the sum of its parts, just as the composites of creation acquired virtues and qualities which did not exist in the distinct elements of which they were combined. Our sages have already intimated this idea in connection with the inclusion of frankincense among the spices of the incense [(Krithuth 6b): \"Any fast which does not include in it the offenders in Israel is not a fast, for the odor of the frankincense is foul, and yet Scripture reckoned it among the spices of the incense. Abbaye cited (Amos 9:6): 'And He established its (Israel's) bond upon the earth.'\"] We would expect the foulness of its odor to spoil the incense, and yet Prophecy has affirmed it to have no perfection without the frankincense. The same holds true in respect to our Divine service. The inclusion in it of sinners and offenders does not detract from it, but, to the contrary, renders it more perfect.", "But all of this, though it be confirmed by nature and substantiated by the words of our sages of blessed memory, seems exceedingly strange upon closer scrutiny, at complete variance with the premise of the Book of Ecclesiastes, in the beginning of which it is laid down that all things beneath the moon are vain and ephemeral, this assertion being subsequently borne out by proofs, the principle upon which they all revolve being that since these composites were all compounded from elements that are subject to movement and change, it must necessarily follow that the composites themselves partake of these characteristics. For there he [Solomon] also mentions all of the elements and states that none of them possesses permanence and endurance except the basest of them, the element of earth, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 1:4): \"…but the earth abides forever.\" And then he goes on to explain that the three other elements, which, in combination could conceivably contribute to perfection, especially to that of the animal kingdom, and, most specifically to man — in that the properties upon which his existence depends are moisture and warmth, all three elements possessing at least one of these properties, so that it should follow that all of these should impart to the man that is compounded of them permanence and endurance — [though one might reason thus] he goes on to state that this is impossible in that each one of the elements is subject to change. He begins with the element of fire, alluding to it by mention of its origin (Ibid 5): \"The sun rises,\" continues with the element of air, saying (Ibid 6): \"Round and round goes the wind,\" and concludes with the element of water, saying (Ibid 7): \"All the rivers run into the sea.\"", "What emerges from his words, then, is that in view of the fact that the things from which terrestrial objects are compounded are subject to change and decay, it is impossible that what is compounded from them be more perfect than they are. And after proving his point by such reasoning, he confirms his assertion — by appealing to the evidence of our senses — that all compounds partake of the characteristics of their constituents, these characteristics [in our case] being change and transformation. The words of Solomon, then, and his arguments contradict the principle that we have laid down.", "And logic would seem to do so, too, for it should follow that if an object possessing a certain characteristic, good or bad, has added to it a certain feature, correspondingly negative or positive, that characteristic should be more pronounced than it was in the first place. These two viewpoints, then, are found to be in contradiction with each other.", "The resolution is as follows. There is no doubt that the compounding of features confirming a certain characteristic, whether good or bad, will compound and intensify that characteristic. It is because of this that our sages of blessed memory exhort us to exertion in the acquisition of friends, saying (Avoth 1:6): \"…and buy yourself a friend.\" And this is the intent of Solomon's words (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12): \"Better two than one, for they have a good reward for their labor. For if one falls, the other will lift him up; but if one falls alone, there is no one to lift him up. Also, if two lie down, they will be warm, but how can one be warm? And if one attacks him, the two will stand up against him…\" That is, partnership and company is beneficial. Whether one actively exerts himself for the other or not, since there is a bond between them, it cannot be entirely without avail. This is what is intended by \"Also, if two lie down, they will be warm.\" This verse, on the face of it, seems exceedingly strange and inane, but, in reality, it attests to a truth that is borne out by experience. First, Solomon remarks upon the great good to be derived from two actively exerting themselves to assist each other, saying (Ibid 9-10): \"…for they have a good reward for their labor. For if one falls, the other will lift him up.\" Then he goes on to say that it is not only through such active exertion that one derives benefit from the company of his friend, but that even if two sit together and one does not actively exert himself to help the other, still, by virtue of their very nearness and closeness alone, each will experience an increase of natural warmth, as is noted when one draws near to another to whom he is united by bonds of affection or temperament. This derives from the closeness of the bond itself and not from any active exertion.", "Similarly, when two close friends are together, though they be still and at rest, each one will draw warmth and security from the presence of his neighbor, to the point that others will keep from harming either one of them, knowing that one will rise in the other's defense.", "It is clear, then, in respect to the acts of nature and the deeds of man that all things are strengthened and compounded by the addition of like qualities, and it should hold true, also, for base, defective characteristics that they should be strengthened by such compounding. And this is, indeed, absolutely true — but only under one specific condition: that the defect of the added constituent be common to all of the others. For example, if one possesses the evil characteristic of miserliness, then, if he is joined by another possessing the same characteristic, its evil will be compounded and intensified. However, in a collection of individuals, some possessing the defect of miserliness and others that of extravagance, then the activities of the aggregate as a collective body will be more perfect than those of its individual constituents. The same holds true with the elements. For example, if another element possessed the same defect as that of earth, then a combination of these elements would undoubtedly produce an intensification of the defect. This is the intent of the statement in Sanhedrin (71b): \"A gathering of the righteous is good for them and good for the world; a scattering of the wicked is good for them and good for the world.\" This is because the wicked share in common evil characteristics which are intensified when they are gathered together and weakened and diluted when they are dispersed. This accounts for the conduct of our father Jacob towards his sons [Shimon and Levi]: Though he regarded them as righteous, nevertheless, observing in them a common negative characteristic [aggressiveness], he said (Genesis 49:7): \"I shall scatter them in Jacob.\"", "\tAnd this is the principle behind the generation of the dispersal [dor hapalagah] and their punishment, concerning which the expositors have left us so much in the dark that we are almost like the blind groping for the wall. For what did these people do? What is their offense and what is their sin? If they wished to form a common bond, should they not merit a goodly reward for their labors? For we see all of Scripture directing us in this path, so much so that our sages have declared (Sifrei 42): \"Even idolators, so long as there is peace among them, the attribute of justice is not stretched out against them,\" basing this upon the verse (Hosea 4:17): \"Ephraim is joined [in unison] to idolatry — let him alone.\" And though there are midrashim dealing with the reasons for their being punished, they do not accord with the plain meaning of the verses. For according to the view (Genesis Rabbah 38) that they made a compact to ascend to the heavens, this is indeed to be wondered at. How could all of humanity concur in such folly? And if their sight was withheld and the eyes of their intellect blinded, then their ignorance itself should have protected them from punishment, it being written about such as these (Psalms 2:4): \"He who sits in heaven will laugh; the L-rd will mock them.\" What is more, the plain meaning would indicate that they were being punished not for what they had already done but for the potential repercussions of their deeds, it being stated (Genesis 11:16): \"Behold, they are one people, and there is one language for all of them, and this is the beginning of their doing, and now nothing will be withheld from them…\" This verse makes it perfectly clear that their punishment was prompted not by what they had already done but by a concern as to the possible consequences of their deeds. All of this places the thinker in perplexity and demands explanation. [The explanation is as follows.] All of this proceeds from and is founded upon the above-stated principle: the company of the wicked and their gathering is injurious, whether they are actively engaged in the performance of evil or not, just as the company of the good is beneficial, whether they are actively engaged in the doing of good or not, as intimated in the verse (Ecclesiastes 4:11): \"Also, if two lie down, they will be warm.\"", "This was the crucial factor in respect to the generation of the dispersal. There is no doubt that at that time all men held defective beliefs, all of mankind concurring only in their espousal of idolatry, with a few rare exceptions who had tasted and witnessed the goodness of the Light of the World. But even they could not call others to serve the L-rd together from fear of the peoples who were the ruling powers in their lands. So that the first to begin this call, Abraham, experienced what he did at the hands of Nimrod until he was compelled to leave his land and go to a different one. Now, unquestionably, for those righteous men who were unique in those generations the division of peoples and kingdoms was a good and a benefit. For when the people of a certain kingdom would oppress them, they would move on to a different land, where they could serve the L-rd as they desired, as is the case in our present-day exile. For when enforced conversion began in the Arab lands, the Jews fled to a different land, and, thence, back to the Arab lands. And this gave us a lease on life in the midst of our afflictions and our toils. At that time all the world spoke one language and they agreed that there be one head for the entire world, a leader and a regent, and that they not be spread out and divided among their dominions. It is for this reason that they chose a spacious valley, for, unquestionably, most men would choose to be as close as possible to the head of their kingdom. It is for this reason, too, that they agreed to build a tower with its \"top in the heavens,\" that is, as tall as possible (the sense of the phrase corresponding to [Deuteronomy 9:1]: \"great cities and fortified in the heavens\"). For it befitted him who was chosen as the terrestrial regent to have a palace and a tower so tall as to inspire all who saw it with awe and fear, and to be visible from afar.", "Now these people at that time sinned neither in word, deed, nor thought, but the Blessed One, who looks and sees far off, went down [i.e., penetrated] to what would result from the gathering of those wicked people. This is the intent of (Genesis 11:5): \"And the L-rd went down to see.\" That is, he saw to the depths of what would result from their deeds. And though at the time there was no evil, the gathering would ultimately prove to be bad for them and bad for the world. This, because they all subscribed to idol worship, and the valley, too, which they chose for themselves was the land of Shinar, whose chief and king was Nimrod, the high potentate of idolatry, who persecuted our father Abraham because of his opposition to it, as is well known (see Eruvin 53a). This is the intent of (Genesis 11:6): \"Behold, they are one people.\" That is: if this situation persists, they will all be of one mind; and though there is no harm in their acts at present, this is only because it \"is the beginning of their doing,\" but if they are allowed to continue, \"nothing will be withheld from them of what they thought to do in the beginning, but which they were not able to do.\" For there is no doubt that all of those generations sought to elevate their particular gods and to cause the name of the Holy One Blessed be He to be forgotten and that they failed in this only because of the division of kingdoms and lands, which afforded refuge to the servants of the L-rd. This would not be the case if they reached universal accord. For when Abraham fled Nimrod for Canaan, if Nimrod had ruled the entire universe, where would he flee from his wrath? This is the intent of the dialogue (Pesachim 87b); \"A certain heretic said to him: 'We are better than you, for it is written (I Kings 11:16): \"For Yoav remained there six months with all of Israel until he had cut off every male in Edom,\" and here you dwell among us and we do you no harm whatsoever.' He answered: 'What can you do? Destroy all of us? We are not all in your hands. Destroy those who are in your hands? You will be called a \"cut-up monarchy.\"' The heretic responded: 'By the wing [idolatry] of Rome, it is with this thought that we arise and with this thought that we lie down.'\" We are hereby taught that the only reason for their not embarking upon wholesale destruction is the non-comprehensiveness of their dominion. Therefore, because the intent of that particular generation was not evil, but the Blessed One saw that evil would result from it, He did not punish them — because they did not deserve to be punished — but He confounded their counsels and confused their tongue, for confusion of language and complete forgetfulness of it is also of avail in this regard. In sum: He saw evil in that gathering of wicked men in that they all shared a common evil characteristic; for it is impossible for a group compounded of individuals with a particular evil characteristic not to be worse than or as bad as the individuals themselves.", "And this is the rationale by which Koheleth [Solomon] substantiates his assertion that the terrestrial composites are all vain and non-enduring — this following necessarily from the fact that the individual constituent of which they are compounded partake of this same defect themselves. But this assertion does not extend so far as to dictate that all of the defects found in the individual constituents must also be found in the composites which they form. It is dictated, rather, that the mutually antagonistic defects of the individual constituents be assimilated and amalgamated in their composite to perfection and eminence. And this is the virtue of amalgamation for the individual constituents: the perfection of the constituents is found in the whole, and any defect in them is not found in the whole, but it is possible for a certain defect in one of the constituents to bring the perfection in the others from potentiality to actuality.", "And this is the idea alluded to in the inclusion of the frankincense among the spices of the incense. Though the odor of the frankincense is, in itself, unpleasant, it may possess the power to stir up and bring to the fore the properties of the other spices and to arouse their scent. Similarly, for example, if there be found in a certain group individuals possessing a defect in that their awakening faculty arouses them to unbridled revenge, their powers, though they be defective in isolation, will generate a positive arousal within the group whose members channel them along the paths of Torah. And what applies in respect to this characteristic applies to all of the others.", "And just as perfect composites are perforce formed from the imperfect elements of darkness, deep, and wind, so must a perfect aggregate and a distinguished congregation result from undistinguished individual members. One must always be heedful, then, of the honor of the congregation. If that is the case, then, in the presence of a congregation composed of such distinguished individuals, how much more so must one be heedful of discoursing upon Torah matters, especially such exalted matters as the creation, wherein the speaker must fault himself on either one of two accounts — knowing whereof he speaks or not knowing. For if he knows whereof he speaks he violates the exhortation (Chagigah 11b): \"The creation is not to be discoursed upon in the presence of two\"; and if he does not know whereof he speaks, then he implants falsehood in his soul, and demeans the honor of the congregation, and demonstrates his haughtiness. For there is no doubt that his holding forth on these matters proceeds from pride, as David wrote (Psalms 131:1): \"O L-rd, my heart is not haughty, nor my eyes vainly raised, nor have I occupied myself with lofty matters and things beyond my ken.\" This clearly demonstrates that it is pride which leads one to speak of recondite matters that are hidden from him. And the possessor of this evil characteristic is diminished in stature and rendered unfit to stand in the company of the great, as it is stated (Eruvin 54a): \"…and if he is presumptuous, the Holy One Blessed be He lowers him, and (Proverbs 16:18): \"Before destruction there goes pride.\"", "\tPride must meet with humbling for two reasons: first, because the Holy One Blessed be He metes out measure for measure, so that one's desiring to aggrandize himself beyond his worth is aptly countered by his being humbled and lowered; second, because this is the nature of the creation. All things endure and are preserved in their natural setting and deteriorate when they are removed from that setting, as evidenced with air being forced beneath water or earth being forced above air. What is more, the nature of the creation requires that the elevated be oriented towards the acquisition of lowliness and the lowly towards the acquisition of exaltedness (This accounts for the statement [Avoth 1:13]: \"He who magnifies his name loses his name\"), this being the nature of existence. And this is the intent of the verse (Genesis 2:6): \"And a mist rose from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.\" For the sun acts upon all of the elements, until the center of the earth, and by means of its motion raises mists form the two terrestrial elements [earth and water], until they convert to themselves the celestial elements, fire and air. In respect to air it is clear that it assumes the form of water and becomes rain falling to earth. And it is also in the nature of fire to behave thus, but the Blessed One in His mercy removed this possibility from the order of nature, just as He decreed that the waters be gathered together in one spot and the dry land be seen — although nature dictates otherwise.", "And this explains the phenomenon of the rainbow. For there is no doubt that this sight is a natural consequence of the sun's rays striking the moist air, as explained by the Ramban (Commentary on Genesis 9:12-17). We must perforce concur with the Greek philosophers on this phenomenon, it being evident to our senses, which cannot be denied. This being the case, it should be asked: how does the rainbow constitute a sign that there will be no more floods? Being a natural phenomenon, it should have occurred before the flood just as it occurred afterwards, and, therefore, would not constitute a sign, just as the rising of the sun in the morning does not constitute a sign, it being part of the natural order of things.", "", "", "The answer is that before the flood the terrestrial elements were oriented to dominate the element of fire and convert it to the form of water, just as they are oriented to dominate the element of air. And in that time, when there was an intensification of moisture the hot, fiery element weakened, so that this phenomenon was not observable. But [after the flood], the L-rd strengthened it with His powers; that is, He strengthened the element of fire so that it was no longer affected by the terrestrial elements and in consequence, this phenomenon was generated by the action of the sun's rays. But if things had been left in their original state then all of the celestial elements would have been oriented towards transformation into the nature of the earthly elements, for the nature of the creation demands that the lower dominate the higher and transform it into itself. And it is according to this principle that the Ramban explains (Genesis 13:16): \"And I will make your children as the dust of the earth.\" That is, the destiny of his children will parallel that of dust — all step upon it, but in the end it rises and envelops within itself those who step upon it. And if the nature of creation demands that those who are higher in nature and essence be vanquished and rendered lowly, how much more so should it follow that one who exalts himself with what he does not possess be rendered lowly. This explains the verse: \"Before destruction there goes pride,\" and the words of the sages of blessed memory: \"If he is presumptuous, the Holy One Blessed be He lowers him.\" For this, indeed, accords with the just ways of the L-rd, and the nature of the creation demands it. If so, what escape is there from this [dilemma of discoursing upon the creation]?", "The answer: All that we speak about in respect to the creation and everything that all of the sages have understood about it (outside of Divine effluence) is not in the category of \"the creation\" which our sages of blessed memory have commanded be hidden and concealed by its intimates, as we shall explain. But if so, this would seem to place our words here in the category of those homilies delivered at weddings, and the like!", "The truth is, however, that what constitutes \"the creation\" requires broad explanation. For the Rambam, of blessed memory, has said (Yesodai Hatorah 4:10-11) that \"the creation\" is the knowledge of nature, and this poses great contradictions. There is nothing in our talk of elements and their compounds which requires hiding and concealment. Furthermore, if it is, indeed, true that \"the creation\" refers to the knowledge of nature, it would be necessary to know the limit beyond which one could not make things public knowledge. For, beyond a doubt, anything which deals with nature itself and the explanation thereof should not be concealed, but to the contrary, should be publicized. For it is well known that the knowledge of medicine, and agriculture, and pasturing is derived from the knowledge of nature — so that [by this criterion] all those who live in the outlying provinces are constantly expounding \"the creation\" and are intimate with it. But neither can we say that the creation is not the knowledge of nature, for \"the creation\" is entirely founded in the terrestrial world and not the celestial, whose province is that of \"the Divine chariot.\" If \"the creation,\" then, is not the knowledge of its nature and of the factors associated with it, then what is it? This casts us into perplexity and demands explanation.", "The resolution is as follows. There is no doubt that \"the creation\" is the knowledge of nature, but not in the respect in which men know it through research, but in that respect in which knowledge of it is hidden to research and accessible only through Divine effluence. That is, all creations display two types of activities, one type resulting from their matter and the other from their form, which is their essence. Those activities resulting from matter can be understood through research and through a perception of the accidents of matter. But those resulting from form are completely inaccessible to research and can be known only in terms of what experience brings to light. But though we may know these activities from experience, we will be completely ignorant of their causes. For example, we know pepper to generate heat, and we know the cause of this heat to be the predominance within it of the element of fire — for this property is attributable to its matter. But though we know a man to laugh and a magnet to attract iron, we know this only through experience but are ignorant of the causes because these phenomena are attributable to form, knowledge of which is closed to all seekers of wisdom, not to be gained through human research alone. Now there is no doubt that those activities dictated by the matter of an object as compared with those dictated by its form are as a drop in the bucket, for the latter proceed from the truth of the object and its very essence whereas the former proceed from its accidents, which are removed from its essence. And these activities which are attributable to form are functions of the givers or giver of the form, so that understanding of them is closed to human knowledge and it must perforce be recognized that knowledge in this area is unattainable.", "This is the intent of Solomon's statement (Ecclesiastes 7:23-24): \"All this I have proved through wisdom. I said; 'I will become wise,' but it is far from me. What has been is far off and exceedingly deep. Who can find it out?\" He says that wisdom is far from him and then \"What has been is far off\" so that we not get the impression that the \"farness\" is in relation to projection into the future but that what has occurred in the past can, indeed, be understood. \"For I have found even what is past and completed too deep for me. I can find no reason for it.\" And he knew so from the knowers of wisdom themselves, this being the intent of \"All this I have proved through wisdom.\" For all of the sages have acknowledged the essence of things and the activities flowing from them to be inaccessible to analysis.", "It is for this reason that the Rambam, of blessed memory, ridiculed Galen's statement that he did not know the reason for human laughter, saying that it is impossible to know the reason for it, proceeding as it does from the essence of man and his form.", "\"The creation,\" then, is seen to be the true knowledge of nature, not that which the sages philosophize about. It is the knowledge of the true essence of things, which is a function of the givers of the form, the separate intelligences [i.e. the angels] and which, therefore, cannot be known except through prophetic Divine effluence. That is why \"the creation\" borders upon \"the Divine chariot\" and is second to it in importance; for both of these wisdoms involve apperception of the spiritual, the separate intelligences.", "And if you would ask: but if that is the case, then \"the creation\" is \"the Divine chariot\" itself: For in view of the fact that \"the creation\" is nothing other than the knowledge of the forms of things, which are functions of the givers of the forms, the separate intelligences, then, to all intents and purposes, knowledge of \"the creation\" is knowledge of the separate intelligences, which is \"the Divine chariot.\"", "The answer: It should be known that apperception of the activities of the separate intelligences embraces two areas: one, the dependence upon them of what is beneath them; the other, their dependence upon what is above them. It goes without saying that there is a great difference between these two apperceptions, that of what is above them being far greater and nobler than that of what is beneath them. In sum, then, \"the creation\" emerges as the knowledge of the true forms of things, the bond between the terrestrial existence and the angels, and \"the Divine chariot,\" as the knowledge of the linked progression of the angels from the L-rd.", "And all that we have explained here was subsumed by King-david in a particularly lofty Psalm which he composed, \"O L-rd, You have searched me out\" (Psalms 139). His intent therein is to apprise us that man's research can never lead to the knowledge of the essences of things, which are knowable only through Divine wisdom.", "I shall elucidate here several verses which are the pillars of the psalm. He begins (1): \"O L-rd, You have searched me out and You have known [me].\" Now this is cause for wonder; G-d's knowledge is not the result of research! But because David's intent was to apprise us that man's research cannot lead to true knowledge, he chose this mode of expression, i.e., Your wisdom perceives true knowledge whereas mine does not suffice for the acquisition of such knowledge. It is in this very vein that the verse continues (2): \"You knew my sitting down and my getting up; You understood my thoughts from afar.\" Now there are certainly movements in man which are far less apparent than those of sitting and rising. These were chosen, notwithstanding, to impress it upon us that man does not even know these. For a man moves himself without even possessing a knowledge of his motive tools. This being the case, the secret of my sitting and rising is known to You but not to me. For, without question, the artisan who has no knowledge of the tools demanded by his craft will make nothing, yet I function with tools that I am ignorant of! This being so, You are the Knower and not I, the doer.", "He continues (2): \"You understood my thoughts from afar.\" Because a man's knowledge of things is not of their essence but of their accidents, even when one knows the thoughts of his friend, he knows them from near but not from far, his knowledge depending upon the perceivable accidents of matter. For example, when we conclude that a man is happy, we do so through the revelation upon his face of the glory and radiance of the blood, the result of the outward expansion of nature at a time of joy through its vehicle, the blood. Similarly, when we judge a man to be sad, we do so through the revelation upon his face of the vapors of the black bile, the result of the stagnation of the natural spirit within its vehicle. And all of this, because it constitutes not the knowledge of essences but that of accidents, can be perceived only at close range — but because You possess true knowledge, You understood my thoughts from afar.", "He continues, saying that by virtue of this consideration itself it follows that nothing can be concealed from the Blessed One and that there is no possible escape from Him. Indeed, we can conceal ourselves from men in that all of their knowledge of us comes through perception of accidents, that is, what they see or feel of us (though such perceptions are not true attestations of essence), so that as long as we can conceal these accidents they will not know us. But the Blessed One who knows our truths and our essences, not by way of our accidents — though we thought to conceal our accidents, if such a thing were possible, what of it? This is the intent of (7):\"Where shall I go from Your spirit, and where shall I flee from Your face?\" He hereby shows that there is no fleeing from the L-rd on two accounts. First, a man cannot go anywhere unless the Blessed One take him there, as he prefaces: \"You knew my sitting down and my getting up.\" This applies to all of a man's movements, for only He knows their secrets, and if not for His mediation man could not execute them. He, therefore continues: \"Where shall I go from Your spirit…\" (viz. 9): Even if I spread wings as swift to fly as those of dawn, which in a moment spreads its light from east to west, and lodged in the uttermost ends of the sea, I could not escape You; for all of this fleeing and flying itself would be impossible without Your mediation. This is the intent of (10)\"There, too, Your hand shall lead me…\" That is, could I go if You did not take me? He then dispenses with this argument and adduces a second (12): \"Even darkness is not dark for You…\" That is, even if it were granted that man's nature could engineer his walking, how could he conceal himself from the Blessed One? For his ability to conceal himself from man is the result of the dependence of man's knowledge on accidents, so that as long as his accidents are concealed from men, he is likewise concealed from them. But if I concealed my accidents from You — even if I were able to do so — I would not be concealed from Your face, Your knowledge being of my essence and of my truth. He goes on to elucidate this point (15): \"My frame was not hidden from You… (16): Your eyes saw my unframed flesh…\" That is, it is a certainty that my truth and essence are not hidden from You, for if Your knowledge of me were dependent upon accident, how could I have been framed in hiddenness and knit together in the recesses of the earth? And there, too, Your eyes saw my unframed flesh. Therefore, since Your knowledge is of my truth and essence, I cannot conceal myself from You and You understand my thoughts from afar. But I — since my knowledge is dependent upon accidents — (17): \"How rare are Your thoughts to me, O G-d; how removed from me are their beginnings!\" That is, not only — needless to say — am I ignorant of their details, but even their premises and postulates, the rudiments of wisdom in general, are far removed from me and beyond the scope of my researches.", "In sum, man's knowledge and his researches do not suffice to reveal to him the truth of things in themselves but only their accidents. And even these become the province of a multitude of probers and opinions. But this province is not that of \"the creation\" at all (the latter having been relegated to the prophets and the sages of Israel), but it has been allotted to \"the nations of the lands and the families of the earth.\" And since all that we are now going to say concerning the parshah has nothing to do with this [\"the creation\"], we can attempt to understand the verses according to our ability.", "And now we return to the order of the parshah, whose unifying idea is that whatever comes later in the creation is more perfect than what comes before. For on the first day there were created the elements, the most distant from perfection, and, on the sixth day, man, the closest to perfection. And all that is created first is an entrance, introduction, and preparation for what comes afterwards. This is the plain meaning of the verses. As to the statement of the sages (Chagigah 12a) that the light created on the first day was superior to that created afterwards, there is a secret in it beyond our comprehension. But the nature of existence demands the interpretation that we have outlined. For once it is known and seen as a truth that the heavenly entities are not subject to change — being neither light nor heavy, hot nor cold, wet nor dry, and so strongly oriented to perfection and life as to exist eternally — it must follow that those material entities which are subject to the extremest degree of change are at the extremest remove from perfection. These entities are the elements, which are subject to change in the extreme. And the elements were of necessity created on the first day, for the simple precedes the compound in nature. It thus follows that the farther removed the compound from the simple elements the greater perfection it achieves, all in proportion to its removal from those material entities which are subject to the extremest degree of change, and to its approach and closeness to the heavenly entities. And this [optimum compound] is the final compound, man, especially the spirit of understanding within him, which is closer to the heavenly entities than all that exists beneath the lunar orb. Man was thus oriented to eternal life while still in this compound state, but this was countermanded by his sin, as I shall explain.", "And this is the essence of the parshah: on the first day the elements were created along with light, the elements perforce being created at that time, as we have explained, and light, too, to measure and divide among the days. For if not for light, time could not be measured at all. It is for this reason that its creation was not completed until the fourth day, there being enough of it before then for its function at that time.", "Required next in this orderly progression are heaven and earth, the progenitors of the celestial and the terrestrial. It is for this reason that the second day was specified for the creation of the firmament, and the third for the creation of the earth. And on the day of the creation of the earth there were created those entities of vegetative élan (spirit), these appropriately preceding those of animal élan as providing their necessary sustenance. And because no especially noble properties are comprised in this vegetative élan, no special day was allotted to its creation, but it was subsumed in the creation of the dry land — just as the Torah did not take pains to single out and mention the natural inanimate compounds, though they are of greater relative perfection and benefit than the simple elements on the dry land. In the same way the Torah was not intent upon assigning a special day for the creation of the vegetative élan.", "The terrestrial order now continues naturally into the creations of animal élan, but because their creation had to be preceded by the full development and completion of the luminaries, whose ultimate end it was to illumine the earth (the primeval light not sufficing for this but only to create divisions of time, as we have explained), the fourth day was set aside for the completion of the luminaries before the advent of the creations of animal élan; and with the luminaries the work of the heavens was completed. For there is no question that the luminaries are the noblest of the heavenly entities — so that the work of the heavens was completed with their creation just as the work of the earth was completed with man, his eminence vis-à-vis the earth corresponding to that of the sun vis-à-vis the heavenly sphere.", "Afterwards, on the fifth day, there were created those creatures of animal élan, such as fishes and birds, which are not on the highest scale of creation but which are undoubtedly more perfect than the creations of vegetative élan. And on the sixth day there were created the most perfect creations of animal élan and man. No special day was allotted for man's creation because all those creations that do have a special day allotted them have it in point of an inalienable superiority which they possess; but because man has the potential of descending to the level of the beats, or even lower, depending upon the degree of his rebellion, his creation did not merit a distinct day. He was made the final composite, however, so that he could remove himself further from the defective material entities and closer to the perfect heavenly ones to be more fit for permanent endurance and \"to have life cleave to him.\"", "It is for this reason that he was placed in the Garden of Eden, the choicest conceivable environment for the human species in point of atmosphere and clime. Add to this the consideration that because G-d's intent was that man devote himself to the ideational — concentration upon the phenomenological compassing his death — He placed him in an environment where he could derive his sustenance without labor and toil. True, this in itself would not suffice to invest him with eternal life, for in point of his composite nature he was still subject to deterioration, but the ascendancy of the intellect and its power would have invested his body with permanence and endurance, as it enabled Moses and Elijah to subsist without food and drink for forty days.", "And it is along these lines that I interpret (Genesis 2:17): \"For on the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.\" This is not a monition of punishment for rebellion, for if it were, Adam should not be further cursed for his sin, but receive that punishment decreed for him for transgression of the command, namely, to become mortal, and nothing more. Why, then, was the work of his hands subsequently cursed and a curse pronounced upon the earth because of him? But the key to the matter is as we have explained. All the perfection of his nature and his residing in the choicest of environments would not avail to invest him with eternal life if not for the ascendancy of the intellect and its power. And it is well known that the intellect grows in power in proportion to one's occupation with the ideational and that it diminishes through his concentration upon the phenomenological. And it is also well known that this tree (whatever its identity) possessed the property of arousing lust in man and drawing him to the phenomenological, as our sages of blessed memory have stated (Berachoth 40a): \"It (the tree) was wheat, for a child cannot call 'Father' and 'Mother' until he has tasted grain.\" This accounts for G-d's telling him (Ibid 2:17): \"And from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, do not eat from it.\" For I am informing you that on the day that you eat from it you will become mortal, for the powers of your body will grow and your intellect will weaken, and in point of your body, you are not oriented to life. This verse, then, constitutes an exhortation and its rationale, and not a monition of punishment at all. But Eve did not penetrate to the depths of the matter (and it is possible that its true meaning escaped Adam too) and because of this she took the words literally to the effect that it was in the very nature of that tree to be destructive of the body. This is the intent of (Ibid 3:7): \"And the woman saw that the tree was good for eating…\" The Torah expatiates on this to impress upon us the nature of Eve's error. Proceeding on the understanding that G-d had pronounced the tree as destructive of body because of the nature of body itself, she saw this to be impossible. For all of the scholars have already written that the odor, taste, and proximity of lethal poisons cannot be pleasant to the body, and that anything found to be pleasant to the palate or to the taste cannot be such a poison. Because of this, when Eve found the character, smell, and appearance of the fruit to be compatible with the body and the human compound, she reasoned that it could not conceivably cause death or shorten life.", "And there is no question that she was correct in her judgment insofar as it relates to the nature and composition of the body itself, for it would not weaken or undermine the body, but, to the contrary, would strengthen it and its powers. But [paradoxically] to the extent that it would strengthen the body, it would weaken the intellect to the point where it could sustain the body only within the limits of the body's own composition and nature. And it is because of this that man deserved to be punished in transgressing G-d's command. For his becoming mortal was not a punishment, as we have explained. His punishment, rather, was that in choosing the lusts of the phenomenological, he would perforce become more dependent upon them, and he would become steeped in them. For it is well known that when what a man needs is easily available to him he is not constrained to expend much thought over it and become steeped in the phenomenological. But when he sows and the ground sprouts thorns and thistles for him, he dissipates his time in emptiness and confusion in the path that he has chosen, with the result that he emerges not with acquisition but with preoccupation, that is, with unproductive activity. This is the intent of Koheleth [Solomon] (Ecclesiastes 2:26): \"For to the man that is good before Him, He gave wisdom, and knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner He gave preoccupation to gather and to bring in.\" That is, he \"acquires\" only perturbation, mental taxation, and preoccupation. And it was for this reason that Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden and placed in the dark precincts of the earth, there to ponder his ponderings.", "And the curse of the woman and of the serpent is hereby found to correspond, measure for measure, to the nature of their rebellion, their intent having been to strengthen the powers of their bodies through the eating of this fruit, as we have posited, and their curse accordingly, being the erosion of their natures and their powers. (Genesis 3:16): \"To the woman He said: 'I shall greatly increase your distress [in childbirth] and your time of gestation; in pain will you bring forth children.'\" This indicates that before she was cursed, because of the vigor of her nature and of her powers, childbirth and pregnancy were easy for her and did not involve an abundance of pain. And when she dominated her husband and enticed him, she was cursed to have him dominate her, as it is written (Ibid): \"And he shall dominate you.\" The curse of the serpent likewise lay in the erosion of his nature and his powers, and this is the reason for the enmity between serpent and man.", "And herein lies the explanation of an extremely recondite matter. How does this enmity constitute a curse to the serpent? For, unquestionably, we do not choose to pursue serpents, to injure them, and to kill them, but to the contrary, we flee as far from them as we can — would that we never met them! If so, this enmity is more of a curse to the man than it is to the snake! But the idea behind this enmity is that because the serpent was the cause of the erosion of man's nature and powers, his own nature and powers were correspondingly caused to erode to the extreme.", "(Rabbi Abraham ben Ezra has already interpreted (Genesis 3:14): \"You are more cursed than all the beasts\" as connoting a shortening of life.) It would seem, then, that all of his curse lay in his being placed at the farthest remove from the nature of man, and the nature of man being the most refined of all natures, it follows that whatever is at the farthest remove from it must be the most evil and defective of natures — and all of the signs of the curse, indeed, testify to this. This is the intent of (Ibid 14): \"You shall walk upon your stomach and you shall eat dust.\" It is well known that the only creature that stands erect is man, none of the other possessing this characteristic. However, because they are not at the farthest remove from man, they have feet which keep them above the ground so that their bodies not come in contact with it. And this [characteristic of standing erect] seems to have been shared by the serpent, too, in the beginning. But after he was cursed, he was placed at the farthest possible remove for an animal from relationship to \"the good life\" and was pressed to the earth, which, likewise, is of this base nature to a greater extent than all of the other elements. This also accounts for \"and you shall eat dust,\" upon which our sages of blessed memory have commented in Tractate Yoma (75a): \"R. Ammi and R. Assi interpret this variously, one saying: 'Even if he eats all of the delicacies of the world, he tastes only dust,' and the other: 'Even if he eats all of the delicacies of the world, he has no peace of mind until he eats dust.'\" Both of these formulations express natural truths. Being so close to the nature of earth, he can gain peace of mind only by means of it, this in point of his similarity and close relationship to the earth. It follows, too, that though he eat all of the delicacies of the world, he will taste only dust, as occurs with those of base natures, an access of earthiness, because of its bitterness, causing good wines to taste bitter. This explains the serpent's hatred of man. In proportion as he loves the dust, which is close to his nature, he hates man, who is far removed from his nature. For all things are drawn to their likes, love being a union of minds and hatred a disunion.", "And now, after this, the entire world has retained this nature and orientation. Nothing new has been generated in it, but it has remained fixed in its simple, natural pattern. This accounts for the fact that in the entire act of creation, the name Elokim [G-d] alone is used, this in point of His originating forces and bringing them from potentiality to actuality, the natural order not sufficing for this (for the name \"Elokim\" denotes \"the Possessor of power\").", "And this explains, too, the constant conjunction of the Ineffable Name with the name Elokim all the time that Adam was in the Garden of Eden. For at that time most of creation was following its natural pattern, but it still required a force above the natural, the infusion of permanent endurance into man through the will of Elokim, as we have explained. But after man was banished from the Garden of Eden and his life processes were regulated solely by his composition and nature (no supernatural force being superadded to the natural), only the Ineffable Name, G-d's essential name, is mentioned, the forces of creation having come to rest at that time.", "And the Giver of the Torah placed this entire account in the beginning of His Torah. For just as the first step in the construction of a building is the laying of the foundation upon which the entire structure is to rest, so in the very beginning of the Torah there is laid the foundation upon which the entire Torah rests; and that is, that what transpires in the world is the result not of fatalistic necessity, but of the pure will of G-d, the entire universe being in the hands of the L-rd, as clay in the hands of a potter. And, likewise, though, other-worldly ends are not specifically mentioned in connection with the mitzvoth, they are implicit in the Torah's narrative. The episode of Adam makes it clear to us that the endurance of the soul is not contingent upon that of the body so that deterioration of body would dictate correspondinG-deterioration of soul; for if it were so, it would necessarily follow that the more the body, its nature, and its powers were strengthened, the longer would endure the union between body and soul. But this episode shows it to be otherwise. For it lay in the nature of the tree of knowledge to invigorate the body and its powers, just as Eve judged — and Eve was right! But it was precisely because it increased the body's vigor that it broke the permanent bond between body and soul!", "It is thus made manifest that the body and its powers do not invest the soul with permanence and endurance, but, to the contrary, darken its powers, to the extent that the removal of this deterrent would heighten the perfection of the soul. And all of the Torah's aims in connection with the body are to be understood within this framework. That is, when it is visibly demonstrated that one can cleave to Godliness in the very haunt of the deterrent, his body, there can be no question of his achieving the most perfect possible union when the oppressive deterrent is removed. Add to this the fact that the religions of those days all followed the pattern of the religions in whose midst we find ourselves today. That is, they all gave assurances of an after-life for the soul after its separation from the body, but they \"kept their witnesses at a distance.\" For, not having inherited the truth, they could not provide a visible and tangible sign. But when our Torah made its appearance among those religions, just as it was distinguished from them in eminence, it distinguished its ends; that is, it verified them, as the others could not verify theirs.", "And just as the foundation of the Torah is the exodus from Egypt, by which it was demonstrated that Godliness was immanent among us, the necromancers being unable to emulate G-d's wonders, but fatiguing themselves in their counsels — so the Torah linked all of its objectives to clearly demonstrable phenomena, an impossibility for all other religions. But if the Torah had given assurances of reward for the soul after death, this would have seemed to place it on a par with the other religions and would evince no clearly discernible supremacy in terms of its objectives. For since all of them would then be promising intangible rewards, each one of them could strengthen itself in the affirmation that the truth lay within it alone. This is all subsumed in the verses (Deuteronomy 1:6-7): \"And keep them and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the peoples, who shall hear all these statutes and say: 'It cannot be but that this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' For where is there a great nation whose G-d is so close to it as the L-rd our G-d in all our callings to Him?\" Ostensibly, this raises a great question: how can it be stated that the statutes constitute our wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the peoples, for which reason they say: \"Surely, this great nation is a wise and understanding people\"? The very opposite would seem to be indicated. For unquestionably the statues are those mitzvoth whose reasons are not known, so that the nations of the world who deny the Torah use them as the basis for their refutations (See Yoma 62b). Judging us by the statutes, then, should lead them to regard us as a foolish people who do things without reason! The resolution, however, is that the first verse is linked with the second, which is to be understood as the rationale for the first. That is, the intent of \"For where is there a great nation whose G-d is so close to it\" is that when the aforementioned nations see that they scream but are not answered and that we are so close to the Blessed One that He answers us in all of our callings to Him, they will perforce reflect and acknowledge us to possess the wisdom and understanding which confers Divinity upon us and not upon them.", "But some explanation is still required. Why is this attributed to statutes, whose reasons are not known, more than to the rest of the Torah?", "The answer: any commanded activity which seems bizarre in terms of conventional cause and effect can result in one of two assessments: that its commander or executor is a phenomenal sage or that he is a phenomenal fool. That is, if it be seen to result in the end towards which it was directed then the doer will be regarded as a phenomenal sage, having achieved an end which no one else had foreseen. But if it is seen not to result in the projected end the doer will be regarded as a phenomenal fool, as is seen in the episode of Naaman and Elisha. When Naaman went to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy he assumed that Elisha would pray and call upon his G-d. And if Elisha had, indeed, healed him in this manner, the cure would not have appeared so wonderful to him, for all of humanity feel in their hearts that the Blessed One heeds man's prayers. A cure resulting from such prayer, then, would be regarded as natural and as containing no novelty. But when Elisha advised him as he did [to wash in the Jordan seven times], Naaman perceiving no cause and effect relationship whatsoever which might eventuate in a cure, raged at Elisha and cursed his king and his G-d, saying (II Kings 5:11-12): \"I thought he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the L-rd his G-d and wave his hand over the place and so heal the leper. Are not Amana and Parpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the rivers of Israel…\" For such a thing in which no cause and effect relationship is perceivable seems folly in its commander or performer. But in the end, when Naaman saw that it turned out exactly as the prophet had foretold and that he had been cured outside of the realm of cause and effect, he said (Ibid 15): \"Now I know that there is no G-d in all of the earth but in Israel.\" That is, because of their closeness to Him they attain things which are completely unaccountable for in terms of the natural order, and the projected end is achieved for all to see. Our verse is to be interpreted along the same lines. Our observance of the statutes constitutes our wisdom and our understanding among the nations. For when they see that Divinity resides among us and they consider that all religious codes share in common with our Torah the obvious ethical inunctions, namely, those against theft, murder, and the like — when they consider this and see, nonetheless, that Divine Immanence is ours alone, they will say: \"It cannot be but that this great nation is a wise and understanding people.\" The tone is one of forced, grudging admission in the face of what is so obvious to the senses that it cannot be denied.", "It is for this reason that the Torah did not find it necessary to explicitly link its objectives to the existence of the world to come, but adduces episodes which confirm it beyond a doubt, such as those of Adam and of the binding of Isaac. For if there were any doubt in the mind of our father Abraham as to the existence of a world to come and if he regarded reward and punishment as limited to this world alone, how could he sacrifice with his own hands his only son born to him in his old age out of fear of meeting with punishment in this world! Could any bodily punishment in his hoary old age be more bitter than this! But the Torah, positing it as axiomatic that the world and its affairs are void and vain, as nothing whatsoever in comparison with the reward awaiting one in the world to come — as Koheleth [Solomon] begins (Ecclesiastes 1:2): \"Vanity of vanities, says Koheleth —\" and concludes (Ibid 12:13): \"The end of the matter, all having been heard, fear G-d and heed His mitzvoth…\" — the Torah spoke of everything within this context to impress it upon us that the world has no permanence or endurance in itself but that it is conducted entirely in relation to our Divine service or rebellion. For the Blessed One created the world from nothingness and brought it into existence and He varies and directs its operations constantly in accordance with the purpose He intends it to serve. It is for this reason that we mention always, in our prayers and on our holidays, \"in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt\" — even on holidays which are not connected with the exodus at all, such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur — for the exodus attests to the fact that the Blessed One desires us, and leads us, and shows us the path on which to ascend to the celestial world.", "Therefore, just as the Giver of the Torah begins with the creation of the world, this being the root of the Torah and its foundation, as we have explained, so He concludes His Torah with the signs and wonders demonstrated through the faithful prophet in the land of Egypt. For although it is written (Deuteronomy 34:10): \"And there arose not another prophet whom the L-rd knew face to face,\" because this was not evident to all, it was added (Ibid 11-12): \"For all of the signs and wonders which the L-rd sent him to do in the land of Egypt … and for all of the great awe which Moses wrought in the eyes of all of Israel.\"" ], [ "\"I HAVE LOVED YOU, SAYS THE L-RD. AND YOU SAY: IN WHAT HAVE YOU LOVED US? IS ESAU NOT JACOB'S BROTHER, SAYS THE L-RD. AND YET I HAVE LOVED JACOB AND I HAVE HATED ESAU…\" (MALACHI 1:2-3)", "The plain meaning of the verse is that the L-rd's love for us is demonstrated by the fact that Esau, being equal to Jacob in point of being his brother should also have shared equally in the inheritance, but did not. For the Blessed One loved Jacob, his land being blessed of the L-rd, and the inheritance of Esau was a confounded one. Now this is cause for wonder. For the Blessed One does not follow the practice of the mortal father, who includes corrupt, shameful sons in the inheritance along with the others; His practice is, rather, to provide a lavish inheritance for His loved ones and to cut off those He holds accursed, without regard to considerations of familial relationship, these being meaningless to Him. It is, therefore, my view that the very nature of Esau's role as our nemesis and arch-foe among all the other nations, in point of being Jacob's brother, as I shall explain — it is my view that this is the context in which the verse states that the L-rd's loving Jacob and bringing him to his rest [inheritance] and cutting off Esau as a nation makes manifest His lovingkindnesses and benevolence to the House of Israel.", "And that is because in all the many other nations there was found none to harbor anger and envy towards the Jewish hegemony as did Esau. For the other nations who preceded Abraham had already seen that the Blessed One had chosen him and that his children deserved to inherit the kingly realm. For this reason they did not envy his hegemony at all. And it indeed befits the peoples who branch out from the family of Abraham not to envy the seed of Isaac but to accord honor to the children of the Mistress [Sarah], for thus had their father taught them. And so, left to their own natures, they would not inflict any injury upon the holy ones beloved of the L-rd, and they would not be envious of Israel's hegemony. But Esau, being Jacob's brother, the son of the same noble mother — Esau would, indeed, be envious of his brother and the son of his mother. He would rise against him and seek to undo him if the Blessed One would not set his designs to naught in His love of Jacob. For this reason it is stated that from the tranquility of the abodes of Jacob and the desolation of the cities of Esau and the L-rd's not permitting the latter to do him any harm, Jacob can discern that the L-rd loves him. For Esau will have found no defect in Jacob and will not have been able to wreak destruction upon him in the intensity of his envy.", "And in this context can be understood the homilies of our sages (Megillah 6a) on the verses (Genesis 25:23): \"and the one people shall be stronger than the other people\" and (Ezekiel 26:2): \"I shall be filled with her that is laid waste,\" which they expounded as importing that they cannot both be equal in greatness, but that if one is \"full\" the other must be \"waste.\" It may be asked why this should be the case with Edom [Esau] more than with any other nation. And the answer will be along the lines mentioned above, with some additional explanation. And that is, in view of the fact that there is no reason for any other nation to envy Jacob, it is possible for other nations to exercise great sway even when there is kingdom in Israel. For the reign of the other nations in their lands, according to their tongues, does not oppress Israel at all, their having nothing to do with Israel. But Esau, the first-born, would be angry for his inheritance, saying: \"I, too, am a crown prince; we have the same father.\" It is for this reason that Jacob's ascent dictates the descent of Esau. The descent of Jacob, however, does not proceed from the ascent of Esau; but the ascent of Esau dictates the descent of Jacob — not inherently, G-d forbid, as the descent of Esau is dictated by the ascent of Jacob, but fortuitously. And that is, if not for the Blessed One's righteousness to Jacob and the humbling of his foes, when He apportions lots to all the peoples and establishes nations in tranquility, whom, among all the many nations, would He more greatly desire to accord the throne of honor than Esau, the son of the beloved mother, whose fathers, Abraham and Isaac walked before Him? For this reason it is dictated that Esau be exalted among the nations when Jacob and his children do not attain to kingdom.", "This is what would be demanded by these cogent considerations and this is, indeed, corroborated by experience and by the testimony of the prophets. And this is the intent of the verse (Genesis 36:31): \"And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before a king reigned over the children of Israel.\" Why must Scripture state \"before a king reigned…\" if not to inform us that precisely because there was no king in Israel in those days there was a king in Edom. For if Israel had attained to kingdom there would be no king in Edom, kingdom indeed departing from them, as we see, when a king arose in Israel. For David, king of Israel, appointed deputies over them and did not allow them kings, this situation obtaining until the time of Yehoshafat, as it is written of that time (I Kings 22:48): \"There was no king in Edom; a deputy was king.\" And this situation persisted until the time of Yehoram, of whom (because of his sins and his following the house of Achav) it is written (II Kings 8:20): \"In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah and they made a king over themselves.\" And they had kings until the exile, as it is written (Ibid 22): \"And Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah until this day,\" the Jews not being sufficiently righteous to cut off a king from Edom. In the time of the second Temple, however, Edom was subservient to Israel, Hyrcanus making them guards of Jerusalem and causing them to enter the covenant of circumcision. And in the days of Agrippas, when Jerusalem was taken, Edomite regiments came to the assistance of Judah.", "It is apparent from all this that all the days that the Blessed One prospered us, He trod down the peoples of Edom beneath us; and when we undermined our Tower of Strength, Edom girded its loins in might. For our sages have already made it clear to us that our present exile is the exile of Edom. For though Rome \"the cutter\" has been our undoing and it is considered part of Greece (Onkelos translating [Numbers 24:24] \"And tzim from Kittim\" — \"and troops will be summoned from Rome\" and Kittim is one of the sons of Yavan (Greece) (see Genesis 10:4]), still, its kings were from Edom, as was much of its population, Onkelos translating (Lamentations 4:22): \"Your iniquity is remembered, daughter of Edom,\" as \"Your sin is visited upon you, Rome, you wicked one, built up in Italy and filled with people from the children of Edom.\"", "This is what we have seen to be the case with the passage of time vis-à-vis Edom — that when the Blessed One raised the staff of our strength, Edom's hand was lowered; and when we were lowered and cringing, he grew in destructive power. And, as to what will transpire with the continued passage of time, the prophets have already described it as following this pattern until (Ovadiah 1:18): \"And the house of Jacob shall be fire and the house of Joseph, flame, and the house of Esau, stubble… (Ibid 21): and liberators shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the L-rd's.\" That is, though Esau has fallen and risen many times, he will not fall never to rise again until Jacob rises never to fall again.", "We see, then, that the hegemony was apportioned to these two twins, each to inherit it at different times. And because of this strong bond between them they were both called \"the generations of Isaac,\" for which reason the parshah opens (Genesis 25:19): \"And these are the generations of Isaac…\" That is, these two, Jacob and Esau, the subjects of this Parshah, are the generations of Isaac. For though Esau was an evildoer, he is still reckoned as Isaac's son — unlike Ishmael (Genesis [21:10]: \"…for the son of this bondwoman will not inherit with my son, Isaac\"), who is not accorded the honor of being referred to as \"the generations of Abraham,\" as Isaac is, for which reason it is added \"Abraham begot Isaac.\" The reason for this is that Isaac and Ishmael were not equally beloved of Abraham; but he made Isaac the apple of his eye and bequeathed to him the glory of his wealth, whereas to the sons of the concubines he gave gifts and sent them away form Isaac. After that they had no relationship with Isaac whatsoever and deserved to be forgotten. This was not the case, however, with Jacob and Esau vis-à-vis Isaac — to the point that it was almost Esau who was his favorite son! For both of them were the sons of the noble mistress [Rivkah], attached to each other from birth and conception, and conjoined in kingdom almost forever, as I have explained. For this reason Esau's name cannot be forgotten, though he be an evil-doer, for our fates are so inextricably intertwined. For this reason both of these children are referred to as \"the generations of Isaac,\" and the parshah goes on to describe how their later history is foreshadowed.", "It is first stated that their mother did not conceive them within the conventional framework of nature (for she was barren), but as a result of Isaac's entreaties of the Blessed One on her behalf. These were accepted and she was healed. This may, at first glance, evoke doubt and wonder. For Rivkah did not fall to Isaac's lot adventitiously, but she was the woman designated for him by the L-rd (as seen in the episode of Eliezer). How, then, could He have chosen a barren woman as the lot of His \"bound one\"? This cannot be resolved except through the dictum of our sages of blessed memory (Yevamoth 64a): \"The Blessed One desires the prayers of the righteous.\" For in this way He draws them close to Him, the soul uniting itself with its Creator in an abundance of prayer which cannot fail of acceptance.", "As far as its being written (Genesis 23:21): \"And Isaac prayed next to his wife,\" our sages (Yevamoth 64a) expounded this as implying that Rivkah prayed together with Isaac, but that (Genesis, Ibid): \"the L-rd was entreated of him,\" and not of her. But, according to this interpretation, it should have been written \"And Isaac and Rivkah prayed.\" It may be, however, that the interpretation is derived from her prayer not being specifically mentioned but her praying being implied in the expression \"next to his wife,\" this being consistent with homiletic interpretation.", "The plain meaning, however, I understand along the following lines: One whose nature is changed, though it is changed miraculously, must first be adapted to what he is being changed for and cannot simply attain to what is foreign to his nature while still in his original state. Similarly, in our case, it is not to be understood that Rivkah, while still in her original state, with defective reproductive organs dictating barrenness, nevertheless conceived and gave birth. It was not so. Rather, as a result of Isaac's entreaties, the Blessed One modified her nature and rendered her constitutionally capable of conception.", "However, such operations entail the activation of mediating effluences between ourselves and the Blessed One. For, apparently, changes in the terrestrial presuppose changes in the celestial, our sages saying in this connection (Mechilta Beshalach 2): \"The Holy One Blessed be He does not exact payment from a people until He exacts it from its heavenly plenipotentiaries first.\" Several verses are adduced in corroboration of this principle, among them (Isaiah 24:1): \"The L-rd shall punish the host of the high ones,\" and (Exodus 12:12): \"And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.\"", "Now this seems exceedingly strange, that His wrath against the evils of the lower beings embraces the higher ones arrayed before him. (15)However, upon closer analysis, this will be found to be a necessary corollary. For that which is possible becomes necessary upon the materialization of its causes. For example, it may be said that rain tomorrow is a possibility; but if we posit that its causes have already materialized, i.e., that the mists have already risen and that the inner, middle air has already saturated them with water, then this possibility becomes necessary. And it is impossible that it not rain except through some miraculous intervention, the changing of the necessary cause. And in view of the fact that that necessary cause has a necessary cause of its own, it is impossible that the highermost cause not be changed in some way, for all of existence is interlinked — end to end. And it is in this context that our sages said: \"The Holy One Blessed be He does not exact payment from a people until He exacts it from its heavenly plenipotentiaries first.\" For these peoples, for the most part, worshiped these heavenly influences; and if the latter, which generate power and strength for Egypt, remain entirely unaffected, though their very stronghold be assailed, the people will not be destroyed for all of this unless the hand of its supporter and strengthener be weakened.", "Similarly, the remediation of any creation requires an effluence reaching it and effecting such remediation through agents of which we have no knowledge. But when this remediation comes through a supplicant, it would seem that this supplicant himself is a mediating agent through which the effluence comes to rest upon the object of his supplications. For this reason, when Eliyahu brought back to life the son of the widow of Zarefat (I Kings 17:21), he stretched himself out upon him three times, the boy's substance thereby being readapted for the reception of life. And Elisha, too, when he brought back to life the son of the Shunamite woman (II Kings 4:34), lay down upon him and placed his mouth to his mouth, instructing first (Ibid 29): \"and lay my staff upon the face of the child.\" And Jacob, likewise, said (Genesis 48:9): \"Take them to me and I will bless them,\" and he placed his hands upon them. All of this demonstrates that the effluence is conditioned for the object of the blessing through the agency of him who pronounces the blessing or the prayer, for which reason it is desirable that the first be in close proximity to the second or even in contact with him if possible.", "This is the rationale for Isaac's praying \"next to his wife,\" so that he could the more focus his mind upon her and draw down the remediating effluence which would annul her barrenness. The effectiveness of the mediation being a function of proximity, he placed her as close as possible to him, there being no more optimum moment than that of his standing in prayer before the L-rd.", "\tAfter recounting the miraculous nature of this conception, the parshah goes on to relate how the origins of these children foreshadow and illumine their later history. First we are told that the brothers warred with each other while yet in the womb, until their mother, in the consciousness that nothing of this kind had ever happened to a pregnant woman before and that it must perforce presage something of great moment, determined to probe it by making inquiry of the L-rd. This is subsumed in (Genesis 25:22): \"And the children wrangled within her, and she said: 'If so, why am I thus?' And she went to inquire of the L-rd.\"", "\"If so\" is very aptly interpreted in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 63:6): \"R. Chaggai said in the name of R. Yitzchak: 'We are hereby taught that Rivkah went around asking pregnant women: \"Did you ever experience travail of this kind?\"'\"", "In this context the verse is to be interpreted as meaning that after she had asked these women if they had ever experienced anything similar and had been answered in the negative, she said: \"If so, why am I thus\" — placed in this strange situation which was never the lot of others? (The Midrash itself does not explicitly interpret the conclusion of the verse, but R. Abraham ibn Ezra interprets it in this manner, and it is, indeed, an apt interpretation.)", "After ascertaining that her situation was atypical, she went to inquire of the L-rd by way of prophets (or she isolated herself for the reception of the spirit of the L-rd, which would reveal it to her) what would be her latter end (according to Rashi of blessed memory) — that is, she yearned to know what was presaged by this strange phenomenon. And though the Ramban takes exception to this interpretation, saying that he had never encountered \"inquiry of the L-rd\" as connoting anything other than prayer, as in (Psalms 34:5): \"I have inquired of the L-rd…\", (Amos 5:4): \"Inquire of me and live,\" (Ezekiel 20:3): \"As I live, I will not be inquired of by you\" — it would seem that the following escaped his notice (II Kings 8:8): \"And the king said to Hazael: 'Take a present in your hand, and go meet the man of G-d, and inquire of the L-rd by him, saying: \"Shall I recover from this disease?\"'\" and, similarly, (Ibid 1:2): \"Go and inquire of Ba'al Zevuv, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover form this disease.\" These latter inquiries are to determine what will transpire — as is the case here, Rivkah yearning to know the import of the strange thing occurring to her.", "And the Blessed One apprises her that the phenomenon is not simply the result of her bearing two fetuses alone, but of her bearing two nations, each of them destined to become a great nation in its own right. And, what is more, these peoples will separate themselves from her innards. That is, the divergence will not take a long time in coming, but will begin, and will continue unabated, from the time of their leaving her womb. And these two peoples will not be equal in strength, but one will be stronger at one time, and the other, at a different time. And the reason for their estrangement will be that the elder will serve the younger, a state insupportable by human nature except within a framework of strife. It was deliberately not arranged otherwise — that the elder dominate and the younger serve him — for this would not result in strife and contention, the younger not balking at subservience to the elder. (In this connection our sages expounded [Kethuvoth 103a]: \"'Honor eth your father' — this [\"eth\"] includes your older brother.\"), but the first-born will not find it in his heart to humble himself to his younger brother, and the latter's solicitation of the dominance accorded him will be an ever-present cause of strife and dissension between them. This is the signification of their wrangling in the womb, each desiring ascendancy over the other.", "The cause of this, however, is perplexing; for, beyond a doubt, these fetuses were not created so greatly at odds with each other as to begin battling in the stomach! There is no escape, then, from positing a natural cause for this phenomenon, that cause being, in my view, the diametric opposition of the nature of the one to the nature of the other. For Esau was (Genesis 25:25): \"reddish, all over like a hairy cloak,\" indicating boiling humors and an excess of vapors, whereas Jacob was a smooth-skinned man, of quiescent humor and dormant vapors. And this was paralleled in their ways and deeds, Esau being a man of the field, seeking movement, his feet not planted in his home, and Jacob, a dweller of tents, \"glorying in dwelling at home.\" Now these fetuses, being thus disparate in nature, would undoubtedly be naturally oppressive to each other. For those things which are mutually antagonistic attack and forcefully repel each other. For this reason the fetuses wrangled in the womb.", "But if this was a natural phenomenon, as we have posited, how can it be seen as presaging their future relationships? The answer is along the lines we have indicated. Their natural antagonism itself was a miraculous phenomenon. For antagonistic temperaments among individuals are attributable to the difference in their parentage. And if they are to be attributed to the stellar system, the distinguishing factor becomes the moment of conception and birth. This being the case, twins should be similar in their nature and in the character traits attendant upon it, their natures and organs having been created in the same womb at the very same moment. And even if we assume that the two forms are not invested at the same moment, still, the time lapse is not so great as to warrant the assumption of antagonistic stellar systems. To this should be added the fact that the effect of stellar influence is determined by the nature of the material acted upon, and, in view of the similar material natures of twins how could such a radically different stellar effect be accounted for? The opposition of their natures, then, being so unnatural a phenomenon, we must conclude that it was directly generated by the Blessed One Himself as a sign presaging all that would occur to these children.", "According to this premise, their nature was changed for no other reason than to cause what transpired with them in their mother's stomach to serve as a foreshadowing of what would befall us in the end of days, so that those living at that time would be prescient of their destiny.", "Or it may be said that the Blessed One desired to make Esau the instrument of His wrath against Israel, for which reason He implanted within him a nature antagonistic to that of Jacob, so that they should be correspondingly antagonistic in character traits, these being the basis of hate or love between human beings. To this should be added the fact that the Blessed One, knowing that Esau and his children would be \"rebels against the light,\" invested the brothers with qualities which would arouse hatred between them so that Esau would keep his distance from the borders of Israel and not be drawn there to stake his claim. (The thoughts of the L-rd are deep; we cannot see their ends.)", "In any event, what transpired with them in the womb was an augury of what would transpire with them all the days of their lives. Similarly, what transpired with Jacob upon his leaving the womb is a sign and omen of what will transpire with us in the end of days. For he left with his hand grasping the heel of Esau. And there is no question that this was not an adventitious occurrence. For when the Holy One Blessed be He chastised Jacob for his ingratitude in the face of all the lovingkindnesses He had accorded him, He said (Hosea 12:4): \"In the womb, he seized his brother by the heel and in his strength he prevailed against a god [the angel of Esau].\" And if this were an adventitious act, why should He chastise Jacob because of it? This is compounded by the fact that it is a highly unnatural occurrence. A fetus is extremely frail. How, then, could he have been grasping his brother's heel? Undoubtedly, then, this was a Divine intimation of what would occur in the end of days, that at the end of Esau's reign Jacob would seize his kingdom, and would, in that sense, be grasping his heel. And this is, indeed, what will transpire in the future as stated in the prophecy of Ovadiah (Ovadiah 1:18): \"And the house of Jacob shall be fire and the house of Joseph, flame, and the house of Esau, stubble…\" after which it is written (Ibid 21): \"and liberators shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the L-rd's.\" And this is the intent of the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 63:12): \"A certain general asked one of the sages of the house of Siloa: 'Who shall take over the kingdom after us?' The latter immediately brought a smooth piece of parchment and wrote upon it (Genesis 25:25): 'And after that his brother came out with his hand grasping Esau's heel.' The former thereupon remarked: 'Behold, old words from a new elder.'\" It is apparent, then, that Jacob's grasping his brother in the womb was portentous and not adventitious. The Blessed One chastises Jacob for ingratitude [for His lovingkindnesses] over having grasped his brother just as he chastises him for ingratitude [for His lovingkindnesses] over having prevailed against the angel.", "But some explanation is still needed. For Jacob's having prevailed against the angel was beneficial in itself, that angel being the heavenly plenipotentiary of Esau, as we are told by our sages (Genesis Rabbah 67:2). His prevailing against him connotes the angel's not contesting Jacob's domination of Esau, but consenting to Isaac's blessing in full, as is implied by (Genesis 32:30): \"And he blessed him there.\" And this is in accordance with our sages' dictum: \"The Holy One Blessed be He does not exact payment from a people until He exacts it from its heavenly plenipotentiaries first.\" But Jacob's grasping Esau in the womb was merely a portent of what was to come and not anything beneficial in itself deserving of mention in the Blessed One's chastisements to Jacob.", "Perhaps this is to be resolved along the lines suggested by the Ramban (Lech Lecha 12:20) that the concretization by an act of an image presaging a future state is to be taken as a guarantee of the inevitable occurrence of that state. And it is for this reason that the prophets accompanied their prophecies with acts, as in the case of Jeremiah, who commanded Seraya (Jeremiah 51:63-64): \"And it shall be, when you have finished reading this book, that you shall tie a stone to it and cast it into the midst of Perat. And you shall say: 'Thus shall Bavel sink…'\" And, similarly, with Elisha who, when King Yoash had placed his hand upon the bow, said to him (II Kings 13:17): \"'…shoot.' And he shot. And he said: 'The arrow of the L-rd's deliverance, and the arrow of deliverance from Aram…'\" And it is further written there (Ibid 19): \"And the man of G-d was angry with him and said: 'You should have struck five or six times. Then you would have smitten Aram until they would have been consumed. But now you shall smite Aram three times.'\" It is seen, then, that when one performs an act at G-d's bidding symbolic of what is prophesied for the future that symbolic act is to be taken as a guarantee of the occurrence of what is prophesied. Therefore, the Blessed One, in his chastisement of Jacob, is telling him that He has performed a kindness for him by guaranteeing His word and confirming His decree that Jacob will seize an existing kingdom in the end of the days of Esau's reign. Before that reign will have expired he will already have seized it, grabbed it by the heel, as it were.", "His grasping of his brother in the womb intimates what is prophesied by Ovadiah: \"And the house of Jacob will be fire … and liberators shall ascend…\" The Blessed One hereby embodied this intimation in an act, thus making the fulfillment of what is intimated a necessity, that when Esau is consumed and sinners cut off there will rule a king in Israel, presiding on the throne of the Blessed One.", "However, this view of the Ramban's of symbolic acts as guarantors of future states is cause for wonder. For this casts uncertainty and indefinitiveness upon those forecasts not bolstered by symbolic acts as not being necessary of fulfillment; for if they were, why should some of them be reinforced by symbolic acts assuring fulfillment if they would be fulfilled in any event? The answer would seem to be that such symbolic acts accompany only those forecasts which, by their very nature, are not strongly suggestive of fulfillment — namely, forecasts of evil. These are not certain of fulfillment for, the Blessed One being long-suffering, if the nation destined for that evil repents, He removes His wrath from them, as we find in the case of Ninveh. It is for this reason that one is not confirmed as a true prophet through prophecies of evil; for these need not perforce materialize. [If, however, he accompanies them with a symbolic act, they become subject to the same considerations as prophecies of good.] And it is for this reason that such symbolic acts accompany only forecasts of evil, as in \"Thus shall Bavel sink and not arise.\" And the forecast concerning Aram, too, though it was a forecast of good for Yoash, king of Israel, was one of evil for Aram. And the possibility existed [in the absence of a symbolic act] that Aram might repent of its evil way and the Blessed One remove His wrath from them. For this reason symbolic acts had to accompany such forecasts; but a forecast of good does not require a symbolic act to insure its fulfillment.", "But what shall we do? For the Ramban extends his principle to the prophecies of good to Abraham, most of which were reinforced by symbolic acts! Listen, then, to what I shall tell you. There is nothing in the nature of a good forecast which makes it more susceptible of fulfillment than an evil forecast. For just as the attribute of justice dictates that an evil decree be annulled upon the repentance of its objects, so does it dictate that the objects of a promised good have that good withheld from them if they adopt evil ways. There is no difference whatsoever between the two, as is explicitly stated by the verse (Jeremiah 18:9-10): \"And at another time I spoke concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom to build and to plant; but if they do evil in My sight, not to listen to My voice, then I shall repent of the good…\" However, if things proceeded along these lines; that is, if good and evil forecasts would change, there would be no way in which to confirm the truth of a prophet. (For signs and wonders can be contrived in many ways which have nothing of truth about them.) It was therefore necessary for the Blessed One to establish some of the forecasts as firm and unchangeable. He did not choose to do so with the evil forecasts, for it would be in violation of His mode of conduct to do evil to those who returned to Him. It was the good forecasts, then, which had to be positive of fulfillment; for if they were not, a true prophet could not be discriminated.", "And this being so only because of this need, it follows that wherever this need does not obtain, things should revert to their original nature — that is, good forecasts should be just as susceptible of change as evil ones. And it is understood that such a need obtains only in respect to a prophet whom we are commanded to heed, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:15): \"Him shall you heed.\" For if there were no way of discriminating the truth of his prophecy, we could not be commanded to heed him. But in respect to our forefathers, who were not in this category — that is, the category of the prophets whom we were commanded to heed — in respect to them the forecasts retained their original natures. That is, the good forecasts were just as susceptible of annulment as the evil ones (with the exception of those forecasts accompanied by symbolic acts — in which case all the forecasts were guaranteed, good and bad alike!).", "And this resolves many problems. For Isaac blesses Jacob and says to him (Genesis 27:29): \"Be a lord over your brother…\" Now this is not the prophecy destined to materialize in the end of days when \"Jacob will be a flame, etc.\"; for when Esau will be consumed he will be free of his master! There is no escaping the fact that the forecast applies to a time when Esau is still alive. It is also not to be understood as implying that he will be a lord only for a limited time, for one is not blessed in being told: Today you will be a lord, and you will spend the rest of your time in exile and servitude. The blessing, then, can only be understood as applying to the greater part of the time, but how is this seen to coincide with reality! And even if the Blessed One causes David's horn to be exalted [i.e. brings the redemption] tomorrow, most of our time will have been spent in servitude to our brothers, in bondage to the sons of our mother! How much more so in that we are told by our sages that we now find ourselves in his [Edom's] exile and we cannot hope to be redeemed from it until there arises the high priest for the Urim Vetumim to destroy Esau and render us free of our master. We can only say, then, that our sins have cut down the time span of that goodly presaged state. For Isaac was not in the category of those prophets whom we are commanded to heed; his forecasts, therefore, retained their original natures, all of them being susceptible to change in accordance with the actions of their objects.", "The sum, then, all of the forecasts of our forefathers which were not accompanied by a corroborative symbolic act were susceptible to change relative to the actions of their objects. And for this reason no such acts obtained in the case of these fetuses except those which intimated inevitable occurrences: namely, the grasping of the heel by the hand (for it is impossible that Jacob not \"grasp\" the kingdom when the sinners will have been cut off) and the fetuses' wrangling with each other.", "However, although we do not know the natural cause of the grasping of the heel, we do know that their wrangling with each other was dictated by their mutually antagonistic natures. This diametric opposition of their natures, however, was a function of miraculous intervention, the Blessed One desiring that they not be compatible with each other for the reasons mentioned above. And so it was, indeed, the ways and acts of the one being entirely unlike those of the other. For Esau \"knew hunting.\" He was a man of stratagems, hunting requiring much cunning, as explained by R. Abraham [ibn Ezra]. And he was a man of the field, loving movement. And Jacob was the complete opposite in both respects. He was a simple man, not learned in stratagem and subtlety (as explained by Rashi, of blessed memory), and he was a dweller of tents, disdaining movement.", "And the acts, too, which they participated in were geared to arouse hatred and envy. First (in this connection), Jacob's strange appropriation of Esau's birthright demands explanation. For how could Jacob, the \"simple man,\" ask Esau to sell his birthright to him for a mess of lentils? In general, this episode raises many questions. First, how could this righteous man desire what is not his and tell his neighbor: \"Sell me your inheritance?\" Second, how could he so cheat him as to take such a noble birthright for such a cheap, shameful price? Even if Esau, in his ignorance, would consent to such a thing, Jacob should counter his corruption and not cheat him in this unheard of manner. And even if we grant that the selling of the birthright had no monetary implications at all, that the first-born's receiving a double portion was something originated by the Torah, never having obtained before, and that the selling of the birthright had implications of honor alone — that the younger brother receive the honor due the elder — it still does not seem befitting of Jacob to ask Esau to exchange his honor for something worthless. And even if we adopt that view which holds that the birthright was sold not for a mess of lentils but for its full value, the chain of events leading to the sale is still very difficult to follow. For if Jacob evinced a desire for the birthright, there should have been a cogent mediating catalyst causing Esau to accede to the transference of his honor to Jacob for full payment. But for Esau to come back weary from hunting, to ask for something to \"restore his soul,\" and for Jacob to exploit this to snatch away his birthright — this, indeed, demands explanation.", "And this explanation is forthcoming in the words of our sages of blessed memory (Bava Bathra 16b) to the effect that on that day Abraham had died and Jacob was cooking a lentil dish for the mourner's meal. Esau, it seems, was not present at Abraham's demise at all, his eye had shed no tear for his death, and his heart had not broken over Isaac's mourning, but he related to them heartlessly and shamefully and pursued his frivolities in the field. Even when he chanced to come home and found Jacob busy preparing the mourner's dish for his father, he did not sit down, as was the custom, to nod his head in woe and to console, but he shouted out in the manner of the carousers (Genesis 25:30): \"Pour me some of this red, red stuff!\" That is, I'll open my mouth, and you pour it down! (as Rashi explains). And when Jacob saw him thus abhorrently demeaning his fathers, he was extremely pained that Isaac's honor should be more deeply stamped upon Esau than it was upon himself. For the respect due the elder son by the younger derives from the father's image being more deeply stamped and impressed upon the former in point of his being \"the first of his strength.\" For this reason the younger brother is required to honor the elder, as our sages have explained (Kethuvoth 103a). But if Esau demeaned his fathers, how could their honor be more deeply impressed upon him than upon Jacob! For this reason, Jacob, seeing the evil of his ways, said to him: Because I consider my fathers the crown of my glory, and because (49)\"As this day\" I relate to them more deeply than you do (Genesis 25:31): \"Sell as this day your birthright to me.\" That is, let our relationship to our father in the days to come be as it is this day. For it is not right that you walk around all day with the stench of your field and I follow in the footsteps of our father, and yet, whenever you feel like it, you vaunt yourself, saying that our father's name is more deeply impressed upon you than upon me.", "And Esau bethought himself of the path he had chosen for himself and answered (Ibid 32): \"Behold, I go to die. Why, then, should this birthright be mine?\" The meaning here is as follows: Good men always follow in the footsteps of their virtuous forefathers, as our sages have stated (Erchin 16b): \"One should never abandon the 'trade' of his fathers.\" All this, so that he be called by the name of his fathers. And the opposite is the case with those who do not walk in the path of their fathers — he causes their name to be forgotten until their memory is almost obliterated. This is the intent of \"I go to die…\" That is, I have not chosen to follow the way of my fathers, whose glory is to dwell at home; but I love the life of the wilderness, to walk by myself to the lairs of lions and to hunt. What profit is there, then, in my fathers' name being conferred upon me if their ways are not my ways.", "And Jacob saw that the selling of the birthright would be to Esau's shame and humiliation. He, therefore, said (Genesis 25:32): \"Swear to me as this day.\" His intent was not that this bind Esau for fear of his soul. For one such as he would not be bound by a vow or any manner of oath. (Our sages have already said [Bava Bathra 16b] that Esau had perpetrated five transgressions on that day, one of which was denial of the Holy One.) But because he foresaw the possibility that the sale might be contested (the birthright accorded by such a father as Isaac not being barterable for money), he desired to confirm the sale through Esau's oath, so that no further litigation be necessary if Esau contested the transaction. (To this should be added the fact that it is the practice of the peoples to this very day to secure those transactions which have some inherent weakness by means of an oath on the part of the leaser or seller.)", "It is then related that Jacob gave the bread and the pottage to Esau, who reveled in the filling of his belly and shamed the birthright. Even after he had gone he did not regret his folly and his wickedness and say: \"What have I done!\" This is the intent of (Genesis 25:34): \"And he ate, and he drank, and he arose, and he went away, and he shamed…\" That is, even after he went away. Indeed, we never find him regretting the act at all, except in conjunction with his complaint over losing the blessing, as it is written (Ibid 27:36): \"He took my birthright, and now he has taken my blessing.\" It is only when he has a mundane complaint that he spills out everything along with it. In addition to this, he realized then that the tie between Isaac and his children was an extremely valuable commodity, \"for His blessed ones shall inherit the land\" (Psalms 37:22). It is for this reason that he worried about the birthright. Add to this the fact that at the time he was more than sixty years old, whereas his shaming of the birthright had taken place when he was a callow youth of fifteen, for which reason he made light of it and sold it for a mess of lentils (or received full payment for it, though this is not stated explicitly, according to those who subscribe to this view).", "Whatever the case, the matter is understood and Jacob's actions vindicated along the lines I have set forth.", "With all this there is no doubt that when Esau bethought himself of what had taken place and the dizzying spirit that had confounded him departed from him, he despised Jacob for this. For just as the brothers had been made diametrically opposed in nature, generating little love and much hatred in consequence of this difference, so their deeds, too, contributed to the intensification of Esau's contempt for Jacob. For though Jacob did only what it was right for him to do, still, his acts and deeds vis-à-vis Esau were manifested in such a way as to cause even the flesh of the dead to be sentient of them and the very shades to quake — how much more so an \"earth-shaker\" such as Esau!", "And as far as the sale of the birthright itself is concerned, though Jacob played upon him, still, he willingly consented and had no one but himself to blame; but in the episode of the blessing, how could his anger be contained! After having aspired to his father's blessing, after having been moved to this aspiration by his father himself and not through his own arousal — after all this to have Jacob come and snatch away his blessing! Is there anything more potent than this to \"sow discord among brothers\"?", "And the nature of this \"blessing\" itself demands explanation. For there are only two possibilities here. The first is that Isaac's blessing took the form of plain prophecy, the revelation of what would transpire with these children in the future (not that Isaac's soul was inclined to one of the sons, whose good he desired and for whom he prayed). According to the first possibility the purpose of the savory foods (which Isaac asked Esau to prepare) was not that the soul of Isaac unify itself in love of the son who prepared these foods with the intent of praying for his prosperity, but that his soul be readied for the communion which would enable it to reveal his future. This has its parallel in the answer given to Saul by his servant, viz. (I Samuel 9:8): \"I have in my hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver. I will give that to the man of G-d and he will tell us our way,\" and, as Yerovam said to his wife (I Kings 14:3): \"And take with you ten loaves, and cracknels, and a bottle of honey, and go to him. He will tell you what will become of the child.\"", "G-d forbid that this be the hire of the prophet! My understanding of it is that because the spirit of prophecy does not come from G-d to the prophet of itself, but he must solicit it. It cannot be attained unless he suppresses all of his natural forces so that the soul may isolate itself for communion with that ethereal spirit. Now nature militates against this, so that in its time of nourishment it is impossible for the soul to achieve the requisite solitude under the stress of rebelling nature. For this reason the prophet must receive something pacifying to nature so that it \"consents\" to this solitude and leaves off its oppression, a kind of \"giving the devil its due.\" This seems to have been a common practice among the prophets, so much so that Amatziah said to Amos (Amos 7:12): \"Prophet, go. Flee to the land of Judah and eat bread there, and prophesy there.\" That is, take gifts for the purpose of prophesying. (55)And this explains how the false prophets could have found so much place for their lies as to take the hire of their prophecy in public, as it is written (Micah 2:11): \"If a man walking in wind and falsehood would lie, saying: 'I will preach to you of wine and strong drink,' he would even be the preacher of this people.\" If the true prophets did not follow this practice, then the greed and falsity of the false prophets would be transparent. (But let us leave this now, for it is not really in place here. In point of its strangeness, however, I felt that it warranted some comment.)", "In any event it is apparent that it was the practice of the prophets to take some kind of repast to assist them in attaining the solitude necessary to predict something, though they had no particular inclination in the direction that prediction would take, whether for good or for evil. If we say that Isaac's blessing was of this plain prophecy type, unoriented towards the good of its object at all, then the \"savory foods\" are to be understood along the aforementioned lines. Or, if you wish, you may simply conclude that their purpose was to place Isaac in a happy frame of mind, our sages saying (Shabbath 30b) that the Shechinah comes to rest upon one only in the midst of joy.", "Whatever the case, Isaac's benediction would not take the form of blessing and prayer but of prediction of the future, unaffected by Isaac's merits or prayers at all. This is one of the possibilities. The second is that through the merits of Isaac and through his benediction, a combination of prayer and prediction, the object of the benediction is blessed in the manner intended.", "Both of these possibilities, however, present formidable questions. For if his blessing were nothing more than prediction of the future, why should this be of such grave concern to Rivkah as to cause her to devise all of these stratagems certain to arouse envy and hatred between them? And why should she, too, not be desirous of knowing what the future holds for each of her sons? So that the plain meaning of the verses would seem to make it apparent that it is by virtue of his blessing that they are to inherit the good contained within it, all or most of it — as per the second possibility.", "But here, too, there is a formidable problem. And that is, he who is blessed attains what is contained in the blessing — whether all or part — in the merit of Isaac and his benediction, then how can Jacob attain all this by turning aside the intent of Isaac, the agent of the prayer and the entreaty? For even if we grant that the Blessed One will not (under these circumstances) be entreated of Isaac to give the rule to Esau as he intended, how could He be entreated to give it to his rival, Jacob (if this assumption is, indeed, true, that Jacob profited from this benediction only by virtue of Isaac's praying). How could his entreaty sadden him and his prayer turn against him to the point that in anxiety for Esau Isaac cries out: \"And he will be blessed, too!\" That is, once it has left my mouth it cannot be retracted. In short, the matter of the blessing, regardless of which of the possibilities we assume, is extremely puzzling.", "My understanding of it is as follows: Jacob, even before the blessing of Isaac, was destined for lordship, the Blessed One having told Rivkah while they were still in the womb: \"And the elder will serve the younger.\" However, Isaac did not know of this prophecy; for, apparently, the prophets in those days were not permitted to publicize their prophecy, not being acknowledged prophets, as were those afterwards in the period of the prophets. And even the latter, it would seem, require blanket or specific permission from the Blessed One, our sages having stated (Yoma 4b): \"'And the L-rd spoke to Moses from the tent of meeting, to say' — R. Menassia said in the name of R. Menassia Rabbah: \"How do we know that if one tells something to another the latter should not repeat it unless he is expressly told to do so? From the verse '…from the tent of meeting, to say.'\" And if this was the case with Moses, it certainly should have held true for the other prophets in those days — that when the Blessed One revealed His secrets to his servants, the prophets, they were not to publicize them. For this reason Isaac did not know that Jacob was already destined for lordship — to the point that he was ready to bless Esau to rule over his brother! ", "Rivkah, however, though knowing what the Blessed One had stated concerning Jacob, was extremely troubled when she heard that Isaac desired to bless Esau (knowing of his love for him), fearing that Isaac's benediction and prayer might gain dominion for Esau though it had been destined for Jacob. The reason for this (as I have explained above) is that the prophecies of those days were not certain of fulfillment. For which reason she worried that Isaac, through his prayer, might cause the kingdom to revert to Esau. By means of this amazing stratagem, then, she caused Jacob to be blessed. And though she knew that Jacob would not receive anything by virtue of a blessing which was objectionable to Isaac (this being incompatible with the nature of a blessing, as I have written above), still, knowing that Jacob had been destined for lordship, she assumed (correctly) that when the Blessed One's spirit would come to repose upon Isaac to bless the one standing between his hands, the L-rd would put the words in his mouth and declare all the good in store — whether by virtue of the blessing or by virtue of that already ordained — for the hegemony of Jacob.", "And two ends would thereby be served: first, Isaac, through his prayer, would not cause the hegemony to revert to Esau; the second, that Jacob's dominion over Esau would be more firmly established. For, as I have written above, the prophecies of those days, which were not certain of fulfillment, received confirmation only when combined with a symbolic act imaging what was prophesied. And because the prophecy communicated to Rivkah — \"And the elder will serve the younger\" — was not repeated to Isaac and he did not know of it at all, there is no doubt that it was strengthened when the Blessed One repeated it to Isaac, and Jacob, its object, was blessed through it.", "It is my understanding, furthermore, that when Isaac blessed Jacob, he did so not being entirely sure whether it was Jacob or Esau he was blessing. We find several expressions of reservation in this regard: first, (Genesis 27:20): \"How come you have found it so quickly, my son?\" Again (Ibid 21): \"Come close, and let me feel you, my son.\" And yet a third time (Ibid 22): \"The voice is the voice of Jacob but the hands are those of Esau.\" Now there is no doubt that a voice is a more trustworthy sign than hands. From all of this it is apparent that it was not clear to Isaac for a certainty that this was Esau standing before him — in spite of which doubt he blessed him, acquiescing in either possibility [that it be Esau or Jacob]. For there is no doubt that Isaac loved Jacob and desired any blessing for him which would not result in harm to Esau. Accordingly, he resolved that this blessing be for the one standing between his knees. And even if it were Jacob this would cause no harm to Esau, for it would be impossible for Jacob to receive by virtue of his blessing something that was objectionable to Isaac and contrary to his intent. For this reason he assumed that if it were Jacob, the Blessed One would not place in his mouth anything injurious to Esau; and if Jacob would be blessed in something which would not result in harm to Esau, this would be perfectly agreeable to him, for Jacob, too, had issued from his loins. In sum, all that he desired was that his blessing be productive of good, even if Jacob were its object. And being inclined to believe that it was, in fact, Esau (though this had not been conclusively established), he did not hesitate to bless him. And the Blessed One, loving Jacob, placed in Isaac's mouth when he blessed him, all the good destined for Jacob, whether by virtue of Isaac's blessing itself or by virtue of what had already been ordained for him in respect to dominion (and Isaac would never have presumed to request dominion for Esau).", "And when Isaac finished blessing Jacob and saw that the Blessed One had placed in his mouth the words \"Be a lord to your brother,\" he assumed this to confirm beyond a doubt that the one who had been blessed was Esau, not knowing that Jacob would not accede to kingdom by virtue of his blessing but that it had already been accorded him. For this reason, when Esau entered, Isaac was seized with great trembling and said (Ibid 33): \"Who was it, then…\" — in spite of which he concluded: \"And he will be blessed, too.\" For he then realized that Jacob would not attain to dominion through his blessing (for this could have been contested as having been given in error), but that \"the thing had gone forth from the L-rd.\" And though [— thus the implication of \"And he will be blessed, too\" —] I could cause it to revert to you through my prayers, this would not be proper, for how could I challenge His desire! It is for us, too, to desire what the exalted L-rd has desired!" ], [ "\"AND THE L RD SAID TO MOSES AND TO AARON IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, SAYING: 'THIS MONTH IS THE BEGINNING OF MONTHS FOR YOU. IT IS THE FIRST FOR YOU OF THE MONTHS OF THE YEAR'\" (EXODUS 12:1-2)", "Though the general principles, and details, and implications of the G-dly Torah were stated by Moses, this mitzvah [of the Paschal lamb], which is the first that was commanded to Israel, was stated to both [Moses and Aaron]. For both were instrumental in the redemption from Egypt, for which reason it was only fitting that they share jointly in the mitzvah whose cause and underlying idea is the redemption. In addition, the prophecy of Aaron preceded that of Moses, as stated to Eli [the high priest] (I Samuel 2:27): \"Did I not appear to the house of your father [Aaron] when they were in Egypt in the house of Pharaoh?\" The allusion is to the parshah in Ezekiel (20:7) prophesied by Aaron in Egypt (Shemoth Rabbah 3:16) . And when the Blessed One remembered our ancestors for the good foretold them, to redeem them from the servitude and exile of Egypt, Moses was selected for this task. But he, in his great humility, shrank back from this exalted embassy. Add to this his statement that because he was \"heavy of mouth and tongue\" it would not serve the honor of the Holy One for him to be the Blessed One's emissary to the Jews and to the king of the nations, as it is written (Exodus 4:10): \"…for I am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue.\" And the Blessed One's response to this was (Ibid 14): \"Do I not know that Aaron, your brother, the Levite, will speak? And he is even now coming out to meet you, and he will see you and be happy in his heart.\" That is, I know the excellence of his qualities, that he will not take the least offense at your being the head of the L rd's embassy and his being only the spokesman. \"And he is even now coming out to meet you.\" That is, not only is he not offended by this, but when he sees you in this eminence he will rejoice in his heart. Our sages of blessed memory have already remarked upon this as being a great quality in Aaron, for which he was duly rewarded, viz. (Shabbath 139b): \"As a reward for 'and he will see you and he will rejoice in his heart,' he merited the breast-plate of judgment upon his heart.\" And because Aaron did not envy Moses' having been chosen for prophecy, though he preceded him, the Blessed One honored him by having them share jointly in the first mitzvah.", "But there is a question here which should be considered, namely, why should the Blessed One not have perfected Moses completely so that he would not require anyone along with him? For there is no doubt that Moses and his eminence transcended nature, the Blessed One having perfected him miraculously, bringing him to a level unattainable by the power and ability of man, as it is written (Deuteronomy 34:10): \"And there will not again arise a prophet like Moses.\" This verse apprises us that Moses' prophecy and plane were supernatural, unattainable by men through natural means. For if it were thus attainable, how could it be stated \"And there will not again arise a prophet like Moses?\" The Blessed One \"does not withhold good from its proprietors\" to keep them from an eminence which is attainable by them. The intent of the verse, rather, is to inform us that the phenomenon of Moses was in the category of miracle and wonder, an exception to the natural order. For though the investiture of a human being with the spirit of prophecy is a possibility within the realm of nature, when such an investiture does occur, one's bodily faculties wane to the point that his bodily activities are suspended. But for such an investiture to obtain while one is fully awake, standing on his feet, in full possession of his faculties \"as when one speaks with his neighbor\" — this is not within the province of nature. For one who has attained such a level has virtually become a human being and a separate intelligence at the same time. And it is this [the supernatural nature of Moses' prophecy] that the afore-mentioned verse is apprising us of. That it is a supernatural phenomenon originated by the Blessed One, whereby He exalted Moses through His power, as with the other wonders that He originated for the establishment of Torah. And this was the most essential of all, so that no other prophet could deceitfully presume to be prophesying something which contravened the words of Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him. For the Blessed One has herein apprised us that what Moses attained was supernatural, miraculous, and that this miracle will be performed for no one else in the world as it was for Moses. We know, then, that anyone who contradicts him must be lying; for Moses attained to a level which no one else in the world will ever attain. He became a separate intelligence. That is, he was not susceptible of change and impressionableness so that his intellect would be more assertive at one time than at another, but all of his times were alike in terms of perceptive ability. And this is intimated in the ruling of our sages of blessed memory (Yoma 3b) that a six-day separation period is required by the high-priest before the Day of Atonement and by the priest who is to burn the red heifer. They derive this from the revelation at Mount Sinai, in respect to which it is written (Exodus 24:16): \"And the glory of the L rd rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered him for six days.\" Why six days? This is the archetype for the six-day separation requirement for all who would enter the encampment of the Shechinah.", "Now there is a formidable question here. How could our sages have derived the ruling for the separation of the high-priest before the Day of Atonement and for the priest who burned the red heifer from the separation of Moses? We do not learn from the greater instance to the lesser one to be more stringent in the latter instance than in the former! If that unprecedented, exalted encounter required separation, how can this dictate separation for the high-priest on the Day of Atonement and the priest who burned the heifer!", "The answer: Change and impressionableness obtain only in the presence of opposites, a thing changing neither relative to itself nor relative to what is similar to it, but only relative to its opposite. Therefore, the separate intelligences, being free of opposites are free of change and are always active intellects, not being assertive at one time and dormant at others. We, however, embodying opposites, are subject to change, being sometimes wise and sometimes fools, knowing after ignorance and being ignorant after knowledge, being all wise in potential, but always having to convert the potential to the actual. And even after bringing some of our faculties from potentiality to actuality and gaining knowledge, dullness and darkness reassert themselves so that we must again restore to actuality what had once emerged but retreated back to dullness. All men are on this plane; it is not within the province of nature to rise above it. Moses our teacher, however, being on a supernatural plane, as has been explained, was exalted above this. He was an active intellect, possessing no faculty which had not been brought to actuality. And, furthermore, his intellect, after having become active, did not assimilate weariness and defect so as to revert to potentiality. For his intellect remained completely unveiled and insusceptible of opposition, Moses having become a separate intelligence. This is borne out in his saying (Numbers 9:8): \"Stand and I will hear what the L rd will command concerning you,\" the implication being that he was ready for prophecy whenever he wished. And it is well known that the separation periods referred to by our sages served the purpose of providing isolation during these periods for reflection upon the ways of the L rd and upon the Divine service to be performed. In this way one would divest himself of the material imaginings interfering with his perfection and thus convert his potentiality to actuality. This is a necessity, however, only for those whose intellects are susceptible of both potentiality and actuality [in effect, all men except Moses]. But Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, being an active intellect — why should he require separation! Was there any veil or troubling imagination that he had to rid himself of? If there were, how could he prophesy at all times? For this reason it is asked \"Why six days?\" That is, there is no doubt that this separation is not required for Moses, for he had no need of it. The verse, then, must be the archetype for the six-day separation requirement for all who would enter the encampment of the Shechinah, the requirement to be derived for all men a fortiori from the case of Moses, who was in no need of separation at all, all times being alike to him because of his transcendent nature.", "There is certainly room for the question, then, if the Blessed One conferred this supernatural perfection upon Moses, why should He have allowed him to lack from that perfection something [i.e., glibness of speech] which most men possess in great perfection within the framework of nature itself! And if you would contend that the conditions for the prophetic eminence consist only in the virtues of intellect and not in the perfection of all other qualities connected with the physical faculties — this is not so! For our sages state (Nedarim 38a): \"R. Yonathan said: 'The Holy One Blessed be He causes His Shechinah to come to rest only upon one who is wise, strong, wealthy, and humble, Moses serving as the prototype for all of these criteria.'\" Now strength and wealth are neither virtues of intellect nor virtues of character, in spite of which they are conditions for prophecy. And though there are some who understand \"strong\" in this connection as suppressing one's evil inclination, and \"wealthy\" as possessing the quality of contentment and rejoicing in one's lot, they are obviously mistaken. For in Nedarim, in reference to Moses' serving as the prototype for all the criteria, \"strong\" is corroborated by (Deuteronomy 9:17): \"And I took hold of the two tablets,\" and \"wealthy\" by (Exodus 34:1): \"Hew for yourself two tablets of stone — both of which have no connection whatsoever with virtues of intellect or of character. But the fact of the matter is that a prophet must possess all of the perfections which gain him esteem in the eyes of the populace, so that they will more readily heed his words and he will more readily secure for them the betterment for which purpose he was sent. If this be so, how could Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, have been lacking the perfection of speech? There is no doubt that after the virtues of intellect and those of character, there is no quality more appropriate for a prophet than this, having always to speak, as he does, before large populations — so much so that the very word \"navi\" [prophet] derives from his constant speaking, tracing itself to \"niv sefataim\" [the expression of the lips]. And we find Moses himself expressing amazement over this, how it could be, after he had been chosen as a prophet that his speech impediment was not removed, viz. (Exodus 4:10): \"I am not a man of words; neither yesterday, nor the day before, nor since You have spoken to Your servant.\" There is no question that this is an expression of wonder — How is it that since You have spoken to Your servant his speech impediment was not removed? And the only answer he received from the Blessed One was (Ibid 11): \"Who makes a man's mouth…,\" which, seemingly does not dispel the wonder at all!", "And we have seen our sages taking great pains to negate the imputation of the least bodily defect to Moses, viz. (Sotah 12b): \"'And she beheld a youth crying and she pitied him; and she said: 'This is one of the Hebrew children' (Exodus 2:6): — first she calls him a youth and then a child! He was a child, but his voice was that of a youth. R. Nechemiah countered: 'If so, you are imputing a defect to Moses!'\" If this is cause for wonder, how can they not wonder about Scripture's calling him a stammerer!", "The answer: There being nothing of greater moment for mankind than the Torah and the receiving of it, it befits the nation that receives it to be given the strongest possible indications that the Torah is true and for all elements to be removed from those indications and from the experience in general that might engender any doubts as to its Divine origin. This is the entire import of the exodus from Egypt. The Blessed One willed the origination of the wonders which marked that redemption (beyond a doubt the prelude to the Torah) to demonstrate to all of Israel that what is withheld from nature is not withheld from the Blessed One. For this is the very cornerstone of our religion, and one who denies it denies his faith in general and completely dismisses the concept of reward and punishment. And since this is the pole upon which the Torah revolves, He desired that this become manifest in the land of Egypt, the land of diviners and necromancers. For what is there demonstrated as outside the realm of nature — necromancy, a branch of the natural arts, being impotent to perform it — what is there demonstrated as outside the realm of nature certainly lays claim to our belief as an act of G d and as an incontrovertible demonstration that what is beyond the scope of nature is not beyond the powers of G d. If these signs and wonders had been originated in a land devoid of the magic arts, the \"cornerstone\" would still be subject to an undermining doubt, the possibility remaining that people would ascribe all the signs to magic, regarding them all as possible within the scope of nature.", "This is the idea intimated by our sages of blessed memory (Menachoth 85a): \"Yochni and Mamre said to Moses: 'Are you bringing straw to Ophriim [a city rich in straw?' He answered: 'People say: \"Take your greens to a place of greens.\"'\" That is, Yochni and Mamre, Egyptian magicians, assumed that the signs performed by the true prophet were the products of magic, and in the baseness of their thoughts censured him for attempting to deceive the people in a land full of these magic arts. And Moses responded: \"People say: 'Take your greens to a place of greens.'\" That is, if one is expert in something his true eminence will be recognized only in a land containing men who are highly proficient in that thing itself. For there the greatness of his art can be tested against theirs, just as really excellent greens are more likely to be sold in a city rich in greens, their superiority being more readily discriminated in such a place. In the same way it is fitting that Moses' signs be tested in this land, where they will be more highly valued than in any other land. For in such a land they will be readily discriminated as products of Divine power, as beyond the scope of human ingenuity. The entire exodus was arranged, then, in such a way as to obviate any doubt of its having been the outcome of absolute Divine power.", "And for this reason Moses was invested with all the perfections of the prophet to make manifest the Divinity of his calling, and divested, with deliberate intent, of lucid speech, so that it not be thought that it was his eloquence which made Israel and its leaders his followers. For men with glib tongues have been known to attract multitudes and to have their lies taken for truth. The very opposite, however, is the case with one whose speech is impaired. Even the truth he speaks will not be accepted unless it be absolutely transparent. It was for this reason that Moses was divested of lucid speech. His stammering was not an adventitious phenomenon. And this accounts for the Blessed One's answer to Moses' wonderment (\"I am not a man of words; neither yesterday, nor the day before, nor since You have spoken to Your servant\"), the Blessed One answering: \"Who makes a man's mouth or who makes one mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind?\"", "The answer was sufficient unto Moses' question, a subtle idea being implicit within it. For, in truth, the absence of something is not properly denoted by the terms \"doing\" and \"making,\" [and muteness, being the absence of speech, is not properly designated by the term \"making\"]. For the presence of something and its absence are not in the same conceptual category as two opposites. The latter are not accounted for by one cause, but each has a different cause, so that the verb of doing can be properly applied to each one of them. For example, in relation to whitening and blackening, one who whitens a black garment creates whiteness, for the cause of the whiteness is not simply the absence of the cause of the blackness, but a new cause — whitening. Each operation, therefore, is correctly referred to by a distinct verb of action. But this is not the case with presence and absence, for there the cause is one and the same. Therefore, it is the factor of presence which is designated by the verb of action, and not that of absence, which is simply a function of the absence of causation. For example, the rising of the sun over the earth is referred to as the cause of light, the light resulting directly from that cause; but darkness, which is the absence of light, does not result from a distinct cause of its own, but from the absence of the cause of light, so that the terms \"making\" and \"creating\" are not properly applied to it. It can only be spoken of in terms of absence, for it is nothing in itself, but only the absence of something else. The same is true in respect to speech and muteness. Their relationship is not one of two opposites, each produced by a distinct cause and each requiring a distinct verb of action; their relationship, rather, is one of presence and absence. For muteness is not a distinct state in itself, but the absence of speech. So that, grammatically speaking, it is incorrect to say that the Blessed One \"makes\" muteness, muteness resulting not from a cause, but from the absence of a cause.", "The sages have already written, however, that linguistic extension allows the suspension of the cause of presence to be referred to as the creation of absence, as in (Isaiah 45:7): \"He forms light and creates darkness,\" where \"creation\" is not technically applicable to darkness, which is the absence of the cause of light. Similarly, we speak of one who has put out a lamp as having made it dark. But here we must distinguish between three levels of meaning, in two of which one can be said to have \"caused\" the darkness in terms of linguistic extension and in one of which he can not be said to have caused it at all. The first instance of \"causing\" darkness is putting out a lamp. This, through linguistic extension, comes closest to the idea of causing. The second instance is stopping someone who wishes to light a lamp in the house, in which case the preventer can, in a sense, be said to have \"caused\" the darkness. The third instance, wherein one cannot be said to have caused the darkness even in terms of linguistic extension, is failing to light a lamp in one's house. This, however, applies only in respect to human beings; it is not so with the Blessed One. For just as He is the cause of all manners of presence, so is He the cause of all manners of absence, as I shall explain.", "It is evident that anything which cannot be said to have occurred by chance because of the orderliness of its arrangement and nature implies the presence of an intending agent. For example, a book, ordered as it is, with letters and words, will, beyond a doubt, not be said to have occurred by chance, but to have proceeded from an intending agent. In sum, then, an ordered act unquestionably implies the presence of an arranging and originating actor. In this respect there is no difference between Divine acts and human acts. The difference consists in the following: Any lack in a human act, i.e., its absence, does not necessarily imply deliberate intent towards its absence on the part of the actor, unlike the presence of an ordered human act, which does imply such intent. For an ordered act cannot arise without the intent of an actor, whereas its absence can arise from one of three causes: 1) deliberate intent that it be absent; 2) its not occurring to the potential doer, so that it remains absent; 3) its occurring to the potential doer but his lacking the ability to perform it, for which reason it remains absent. This, however, applies only to the acts of human beings. It is not so with those of the Blessed One. Therefore, absence in a human act cannot be attributed to the acting of the human being at all, such absence not necessarily implying intent on the part of the actor, originating, as it may, from other factors. Absence in the deeds of the Blessed One, however, is absolute indication of intent on His part in the same way that His actual deeds indicate such intent. For just as His act is impossible without His intent, so is its absence impossible without His intent.", "And this is the intent of the Blessed One's answer to Moses: \"Who makes a man's mouth or who makes one mute…?\" That is, how can you regard your absence of lucid speech as adventitious, for who makes, etc.? That is, just as speech, the presence of a faculty, is impossible without His intent, so is the absence of speech in the mute a function of His intent, there being nothing adventitious in His acts, neither in the presence of something nor in its absence. Everything is to be ascribed to Him, for all proceeds from Him with absolute intent. Moses was thereby apprised that his speech impairment had been \"created\" (for the reason mentioned above).", "Our sages of blessed memory expounded this (Exodus Rabbah 3:20): \"'Who makes a man's mouth?' — the L rd said to Moses: 'If you are not a man of speech, do not be concerned about it. Have I not created all the mouths in the world, and have I not made mute whom I willed? Have I not made some blind to sight and others receptive to sound? And had I willed that you be a man of speech, you would, indeed, have been so. But my desire is to perform a miracle through you. When you speak, your words will be distinct, for I will be with your mouth,' as it is written (Exodus 4:12): 'And now, go, and I will be with your mouth.'\" But, notwithstanding this, because Moses, being a stammerer, found it difficult to speak with Pharaoh, the Blessed One assigned Aaron to him as a spokesman. And though Aaron was older than Moses and had preceded him in prophecy, he was not envious of him. And our sages of blessed memory have already remarked upon this as being a great quality in Aaron, for which he was duly rewarded, viz. (Shabbath 139b): \"As a reward for 'and he will see you and he will rejoice in his heart,' he merited the breast-plate of judgment upon his heart.\"", "Now this demands explanation. Why should this be seen as Aaron's reward for the goodness of his heart in respect to the prophecy of Moses rather than as one of the many eminences he possessed by virtue of the high-priesthood?", "The answer: Our sages of blessed memory have already apprised us that all of the judgments of the Holy One Blessed be He are measure for measure. This holds for reward as well as for punishment. The Blessed One desired that it be so in order that the idea of Divine Providence be implanted in the hearts of men. For if the goodly reward were not of the same character as the good deed, people might attribute it to chance and nature. But when the reward is of the same character as the good deed, it is then acknowledged as stemming from Him and as intended by Him to reward the good with good. It is for this reason that our sages regarded this as Aaron's reward for this act rather than as one of the many eminences he possessed by virtue of the high-priesthood, in that it is clearly seen as a particular eminence resulting from a particular act. For it is well known that the breast-plate afforded knowledge of the future; and this was not properly the province of Aaron, such knowledge being in the domain of the prophet and not in that of the priest. For just as the province of the prophet is the foretelling of the future and not that of sacrifices at all, so the province of the priest is that of sacrifices and not the foretelling of the future. And if you would contend that since the Blessed One desired that the high-priest officiate in eight vestments, of which the breast-plate is one, that it was by virtue of his high-priesthood that Aaron attained this eminence, this is not so. For the breast-plate did not foretell the future by virtue of its being a breast-plate alone, but by virtue of the urim vetumim which were between its folds and which were not in the category of the high-priest's vestments. For in the second Temple there were no urim vetumim, in spite of which the high-priest officiated in eight vestments, the urim vetumim not being counted among them. A further proof is that the urim vetumim are not mentioned at all among the high-priestly garments in the section dealing with the fashioning of those garments, as noted by the Ramban, it being stated (Exodus 39:8): \"And he made the breast-plate\" and not \"And he made the urim vetumim.\" For this was not among the work of the artisans at all, but Moses himself was commanded in respect to it, as it is written (Ibid 28:30): \"And you shall place upon the breast-place of judgment the urim and the tumim.\" And he did, accordingly, as written (Leviticus 8:8): \"And he placed upon the breast-plate the urim and the tumim.\" All of this indicates that the urim vetumim are not counted among the high-priestly vestments. If so, why should Aaron have merited them? And our sages answer that he merited them as the goodly reward for an act relating to their very character in which he demonstrated the goodness of his heart. To wit, though he preceded Moses in prophecy, he did not envy him when he was selected as the prophet. For this reason the Blessed One accorded him the most exalted eminence in the foretelling of the future though that eminence does not properly relate to the domain of the priesthood. Because he did not envy the prophecy of Moses, he merited a degree of foretelling the future equivalent to or even greater than that of prophecy itself. For our sages have already apprised us (Yoma 73b) that the revelations of the future provided by the urim vetumim are more binding than those provided by prophecy, viz.: \"Although the decree of the prophet can be annulled, the decree of the urim vetumim is not annulled, as it is written (Numbers 27:21): \"And he shall inquire for him of the judgment of the urim before the L rd' — just as a judgment is not annulled, the decree of the urim vetumim is not annulled.\" We see, then, that Aaron attained a degree of greatness close to that of prophecy, and, what is more, that he merited it for himself and for his children after him. And all of this because he assisted Moses in the exodus and was not envious of him.", "And it is for this reason that the mitzvah which marks the beginning of the giving of Torah was addressed to both of them, viz. (Exodus 12:1): \"And the L rd said to Moses and to Aaron… 'This month is the beginning of months for you. It is the first for you of the months of the year.'\" It should be explained why it is written \"for you,\" and not simply \"This is the beginning of months.\" The reason is that since the zodiac is spherical and rotates with circular movement, it is not really susceptible of divisions of beginning or end. And though the sages have written that this time period [Nissan] is very appropriately the beginning of the time reckoning, this is only by way of speaking, in point of the goodness and equableness of its clime. Such discrimination is possible with respect to solar days, the sun being the cause of all this [beneficence]. But with respect to the lunar count, which is our criterion, neither this month nor any other can properly be referred to as the beginning or the end of months. This is why it is written \"This month is the beginning of months for you.\" That is, though there is no intrinsic reason for its being the beginning of months, it is fitting that it be the beginning for you in that you were redeemed and initiated into Torah in it. For it well befits us that all of our reckonings be based on foundations of Torah and not upon the natural order. For all that transpires with us is not a function of the natural order but of reward and punishment.", "And it is for this reason itself that we reckon the creation of the world from Tishrei, though the halachah is according to R. Yehoshua, that the world was created on Nissan, viz. (Rosh Hashanah 12a): \"The sages of Israel reckon the flood according to R. Eliezer and the time cycles according to R. Yehoshua, for the world was created on Nissan.\" And, notwithstanding this, they reckon the flood, that is the years of the generations, according to R. Eliezer! This demands explanation.", "The answer: Since the world is judged on Tishrei, it is not fitting that the number of its years be reckoned according to its repeated annual cycles. For such numeration is appropriate in terms of its natural, necessary returning to its original starting point at the end of the year; but its existence does not depend upon its nature, but upon its judgment. For this reason the Tishrei-Tishrei reckoning is the appropriate one. For the completion of the cycle from Tishrei to Tishrei is indication to us that the judgment dictated that the world continue from the Tishrei past to the one following. (It emerges, then, that our reckoning for years is based on an accepted tradition of our faith, unlike our reckoning for months.) This is the intent of \"This month is the beginning of months for you.\"", "But our sages of blessed memory see this [\"for you\"] as intimating that this mitzvah [of establishing the time of the new moon] is relegated to beth din, and that anyone who takes issue with them over anything they have decided — though they [the sages] may have erred in their decision — is in disagreement with the Torah. This is evidenced in the episode of R. Gamliel's ordering R. Yehoshua to appear before him on the day that should be the Day of Atonement according to his [R. Yehoshua's] reckoning, and R. Yehoshua's complying (Rosh Hashanah 21a). For the Torah commanded us to follow the ruling of the sages of the generation — even if it is the opposite of the truth — precisely because it is their consensus and their view.", "And this is the intent of (Chagigah 3b): \"He expounded further (Koheleth 12:11): 'The words of the wise are as goads' — just as a goad directs an ox along its furrow to bring life to the world, in the same way words of Torah direct the hearts of those who study it from the paths of death to those of life.\" The intent here is that just as the goad guides the ox in the making of a straight furrow and keeps it from straying here and there and the result of that straightness is life for the world, namely, grain and fruit, in the same way words of Torah guide men's hearts and make them wise. And not the type of wisdom which results in injury or in erroneous views, but which provides the true knowledge whereby a man may attain his goal. For there are types of wisdom which enlighten a man's heart but direct him from the ways of life to those of death, providing him with evil acumen which can lead to his undoing. But the Torah does not leave those who study it with wrong views or base character traits, as Solomon, may peace be upon him, said (Proverbs 2:10-12): \"When wisdom enters your heart and knowing is pleasant to your soul, knowledge will guard you; understanding will keep you, to save you from the way of evil…\" The intent is that when one acquires wisdom and it enters his heart and is as pleasant to his soul as a precious vessel, he gains great benefit for himself. For the knowledge guards over him and the understanding keeps him and saves him. And it is made clear in the words of our sages that the type of wisdom referred to here is that of Torah, as is evident from their homily on (Ibid 19): \"All who go to her shall not return.\" It is this type of wisdom which directs the hearts of those who study it from the ways of death to the ways of life.", "And they stated further (Chagigah 3b): \"'the people of the gatherings' (Koheleth 12:11) — these are the Torah scholars, who sit in groups and study Torah. These pronounce unclean and these pronounce clean; these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit; these pronounce forbidden and these pronounce permitted. Lest you say, this being the case… how can I study Torah from now on [in the face of this variance in the rulings of the Torah scholars]? Scripture tells us that they were all (Ibid) 'given by one shepherd.' All the words of Torah were stated by one leader [Moses] from the mouth of the Omnipotent One, as it is written (Exodus 21:1): 'And G d spoke all of these words, saying…'\" They expound the word \"all\" as implying that even the words of those who did not attain to the truth were stated to Moses on Sinai.", "Now this, indeed, must be understood. How can it be said that both rulings in a halachic dispute were stated to Moses by the Omnipotent One! Shammai says (Iddyoth 1:2) that the requirement for chalah begins from a kav; Hillel says that it begins from two kavim. Only one of these can be true; the other must be untrue. How can it be expounded, then, that something untrue issued forth from the mouth of the Omnipotent One?", "The understanding is as follows: All of the Torah — both the written and the oral — was given to Moses on Sinai, as our sages have stated (Megillah 19b): \"R. Chiyya b. Avin said in the name of R. Yochanan: 'From the verse (Deuteronomy 9:13) \"…and upon them according to all the words…\" we infer that the Holy One Blessed be He showed Moses all of the Torah's deductions and all of the scribes' deductions and what the scribes were destined to originate, namely, the reading of the Megillah.'\" \"The scribes' deductions are the disputes and differences of view among the Torah scholars — and all of them were taught to Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, by the Omnipotent One with the provision that the decision be according to the consensus of the sages of the respective generations. And this underlies the episode of R. Eliezer Hagadol and his dispute, concerning which we are told (Bava Metzia 59b) that R. Yehoshua arose and declared (Deuteronomy 30:12): \"It is not in the heavens!\" What is the intent of \"It is not in the heavens\"? It has already been given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and in it is written (Exodus 23:2): \"After the multitude to incline [judgment].\" Now it was clear to all that R. Eliezer was closer to the truth than they, that all of his signs were truthful and righteous, and that heaven itself had ruled him correct — in spite of which they acted according to their consensus. Since their judgment inclined to \"unclean,\" though they knew that their consensus was at variance with the truth, they did not wish to pronounce it clean. What is more, had they pronounced it clean they would have been transgressing against their reason, which inclined to \"unclean,\" the decision having been relegated to the sages of the generations.", "And because this mitzvah is the beginning of the Torah it is intimated in this parshah, just as the root of reward and punishment is herein intimated. For, this mitzvah, being the beginning of the Torah, it is fitting that there be alluded to in it the rationale of the mitzvoth. And we are herein shown that in performing the Blessed One's commandment we are saved from harm — just as this mitzvah [of the Paschal lamb] was seen to have saved them from the plague in Egypt. All this to enforce the belief that the keeper of the mitzvoth is above nature and not subservient to the galaxy and its forces. This is the intent of (Moed Katan 16b): \"I rule man, and who rules Me? The righteous man; for I make a decree and he annuls it.\" That is, I have not made him subservient to nature.", "And this conviction is enforced in all of the Torah's beginnings, of which there are three. The first is this mitzvah. In this beginning the Blessed One caused the Jews to see with their own eyes that a mitzvah changes nature. For the Jews were not saved from the plague of the first-born that raged in Egypt by the blood sprinkled on the door post and the two side-posts, but by the mitzvah that it constituted. The second beginning was in Marah, concerning which it is written (Exodus 15:25): \"And he shouted to the L rd. And the L rd showed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters and the waters became sweet. There He made for Himself a statute and an ordinance, and there He proved them.\" That is, the L rd proved the nature of His statute, proving whether it was effective in the removal of the malady, and all saw that, indeed, it was so. For as far as the tree itself was concerned (which was a hardofni according to our sages), that, if anything, should have increased the bitterness of the waters instead of sweetening them. The third beginning was the revelation at Mount Sinai, which beyond a doubt was entirely supernatural, all the Jews there attaining to the level of prophecy. And there is no doubt that one who sees with prophetic vision, beholds and sees the truth, and knows that the Torah and its mitzvoth are above the natural order. And all of these are strong confirmation of the existence of reward and punishment and of the eternal survival of the soul after its separation from the body, as I shall explain.", "\tIt is evident that none of the three élans [\"spirits\"] — the vegetative élan in plants, the animal élan in non-speaking animals, and the verbal élan in man — it is evident that none of these is perceived by the senses. Still, we are convinced of their existence through their activities. For when we observe a plant moving to all of its sides and consider that nature in itself does not suffice for this (natural movement being only from mid-point to circumference or circumference to mid-point), it is obvious to us that there must be in the plant kingdom a different type of origin which dictates this type of movement, and we call this origin the \"vegetative élan.\" And when we observe animals to possess this type of movement, and, in addition, to perceive and move at will, and we consider that neither nature nor the vegetative élan in itself suffices for this, it is obvious to us that there must be in the animal kingdom an \"animal élan,\" which is a composite of both faculties, the vegetative and the animal, the latter faculty being that of perceiving and moving at will. And when we observe these faculties in man, and, in addition, a different faculty, that of intellect, and we consider that the animal élan does not suffice for this, it is obvious that there must be in the kingdom of man a distinct origin which is a composite of all three faculties; the vegetative, the animal, and the intellective. It is clear, then, that the existence of these élans is known only through their activities and not in any other way. And just as we infer the existence of these élans from their activities, so should the nature of their existence and survival be determined by what we see of their activities in respect to endurance and deterioration. Now in the vegetative and animal realms we behold all existence and survival to depend upon material objects and nothing else. It therefore follows that the respective faculties should perish with the perishing of the bodies in which they inhere. But when we behold man's existence to be at variance with natural processes, it follows that his origin, his soul, is not drawn after and subservient to the body. Indeed, we observe the very opposite to be the case — that the body endures in conjunction with things that contravene its nature and deteriorates in conjunction with things that should have furthered its existence. Therefore, it follows that man's body is drawn after his soul. And when we perceive that the soul sustains itself and its body through things [mitzvoth] that make an impress upon it [the soul], and that it causes its body to deteriorate through things which are inimical to it [the soul] and make no impression whatsoever upon the body, we understand that its existence is centered in itself and that the things which cause the body to deteriorate do not cause it [the soul] to deteriorate, but it remains upon the deterioration of the body. And it is for this reason that the rewards stated in the Torah in conjunction with the blessings are all material, for in the materialization of these things which are evident to the senses our hearts are strengthened in the conviction that the body is subservient to the soul and not the soul to the body. And if the Torah had stated the rewards as spiritual ones, accruing to the soul after its separation from the body, it is possible that this would raise doubts. The Torah, therefore, chose this way, so that it would be perfectly clear to all that they are not governed by the natural order but by something transcending the order of nature.", "And it was in the solidifying of this great pillar upon which all is built that signs and wonders were constant in Israel, so that this conviction be securely implanted in their hearts. (For the signs were not originated to the end of their believing in Torah, that belief having been gained absolutely by what they witnessed at Mount Sinai with their own eyes, as it is written (Exodus 3:12): \"And He said: 'For I will be with you [Moses]. And this is the sign that I have sent you: when you take the people out of Egypt, you will serve G d on this mountain.'\" And it is also written (Ibid 19:9): \"…so that the people hear when I speak with you, and also in you they will believe forever.\") It was rather, so that this conviction [of their transcending the order of nature] be implemented in their hearts that signs and wonders were constant in Israel. Therefore, in this mitzvah, which marks the beginning of the Torah, this conviction was confirmed. For this mitzvah would save them from the plague of Egypt, as it is written (Ibid 12:13): \"And the blood shall be to you for a sign … and I shall pass over…\"", "Still, their being saved was conditional, viz. (Ibid 22): \"But none of you shall leave the door of his house until morning,\" upon which our sages commented (Bava Kamma 60a): \"Once the destroyer has been permitted to destroy, he does not discriminate between the righteous and the wicked.\" Two principles are herein subsumed. The first, that the L rd is not wont to change the natural order but preserves it in is usual course, barring an exceptional need. The second, that all things have generic causes, not specific ones. The things that reach individuals from the Blessed One do not reach them without mediation, for if they did, a righteous man would never perish together with a wicked one. This is what Solomon stated in his wisdom (Koheleth 5:7): \"If you see the oppression of the poor and the perversion of judgment and justice in a province, do not marvel at the matter; for higher upon higher is the Watcher, and there are higher things over them.\" That is, if you see oppression in a province, a good man broken by a judgment entirely undeserved in point of his goodness and perfection, and a seemingly good man cheated of justice, do not wonder how the Blessed One can desire to permit this. For if the causes of events were distinct and specific, affecting particular individuals and isolated entities, there would be room for such wonder. But this is not the nature of causation. All things, rather, proceed within a hierarchy, in a causal chain, level upon level, with ever higher levels succeeding. All causes being generic, then, for G d to relate directly to each individual would entail a transformation of the nature of existence, something which He did not desire. For this reason He said to them: \"But none of you shall leave the door of his house until morning.\" This also resolves some formidable doubts in relation to many things which ostensibly indicate an erosion of Divine Providence. And all of these noble principles were intimated in this mitzvah, the first commanded to Israel — according to our sages of blessed memory (Mechilta Bo 3) on the New Moon of Nissan.", "And the eminence of this choice day, which marks the beginning of the Torah, merited ten crowns, as our sages stated (Shabbath 87b): \"'And it was on the first month of the second year on the first day of the month that the tabernacle was erected' (Exodus 40:17) — it was taught: 'That day took ten crowns.'\" And in this time we await the final redemption. For R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua argue as to whether we will be redeemed in Nissan or in Tishrei, arguing, as they do, whether the world was created in Nissan or in Tishrei. But they both agree in this — that in the same time that the world was created we are destined to be redeemed. And since the halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua, who says that the world was created on Nissan (as stated there: \"The sages of Israel reckon the time cycles…\"), it follows that the halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua, who says that on Nissan we will be redeemed. And this, indeed, is the verdict of R. Yehoshua, who says (Rosh Hashanah 11a): \"On Nissan the world was created; on Nissan our fathers were born; on Nissan they were redeemed; and on Nissan we are destined to be redeemed.\" " ], [ "\"AND THE GLORY OF THE L-RD RESTED ON MOUNT SINAI, AND THE CLOUD COVERED HIM [MOSES] [OR IT, THE MOUNTAIN] FOR SIX DAYS, AND HE CALLED TO MOSES ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM THE MIDST OF THE CLOUD\" (EXODUS 24:16)", "Our sages differ on the interpretation of this verse, some saying that it refers to the preparation for the giving of the Torah, and that the phrase \"vayechasehu he'anan\" is to be understood as: \"And the cloud covered it,\" namely, the mountain — as it is stated (Yoma 4a): \"R. Akiva says: '\"And the glory of the L-rd rested on Mount Sinai,\" from Rosh Chodesh [Sivan] and the cloud covered it,\" the mountain, \"and He called to Moses.\" Moses and all of Israel were standing there, but the verse singled him out to accord him special honor.'\" R. Yossi Haglili, however, holds that the period after the giving of the Ten Commandments is being referred to, as indicated there (Ibid), and that Moses ascended in a cloud, and was covered in a cloud, and was sanctified in a cloud, in order to receive the Torah for Israel in purity, the interpretation of the verse being: \"And the glory of the L-rd rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered him,\" Moses. And this took place after the giving of the Ten Commandments (as stated there [Ibid]), which marked the beginning of the forty days. This is the view of R. Yossi Haglili, and this is the basis of the ruling (Ibid 3b) that all who enter the encampment of the Shechinah require a six-day separation period beforehand, as does the high-priest before the Day of Atonement, and the priest who burned the red heifer, as stated (Ibid 2a): \"Seven days before the Day of Atonement they would remove the high-priest from his house to the cell of the Phalhedrin,\" and (Ibid 3b): \"Seven days before the burning of the red heifer, they would remove the priest who was to burn it from his house to the cell on the northeastern side of the Temple. \"Their rationale was that just as Moses required a six-day separation period for that unprecedented, sacred encounter, so should all who would enter the encampment of the Shechinah for a special, sacred act require a similar period of separation. This is the intent of (Ibid 3b): \"But where does the master derive it from? From Sinai, as it is written: 'And the glory of the L-rd rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered him for six days….' Why six days? This is the archetype for the six-day separation requirement for all who would enter the encampment of the Shechinah.\"", "There are two formidable questions here, however. The first: how could our sages have derived the ruling for the separation of the high-priest on the Day of Atonement and for the priest who burned the red heifer from the separation of Moses? We do not learn from the greater instance to the lesser one to be more stringent in the latter instance than in the former! If Moses required separation for that unprecedented sacred encounter, it is not thence to be derived that such separation is required for the high-priest on the Day of Atonement for his one-day service or for the priest performing the single act of burning the red heifer.", "The second question: even if we assume that our sages do not regard these distinctions as crucial, but hold that since we find [in the case of Moses] that entrance into the encampment of the Shechinah for a particular purpose requires a six-day separation period the same is to be required for all such entries, whether more or less critical than that of Moses, the question still remains: if so, why did Moses not require such separation for the receiving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, just as we require separation for all who enter the encampment of the Shechinah, regardless of the purpose?", "The answer to both of these questions is one: Moses required separation not for his own sake, but to serve as an example and as a model for succeeding generations. That is, it goes without saying that separation is required for one who would transfer from one state to another to predispose himself to the reception of an effluence or the doing of a deed to which he was not predisposed before. But this was not the situation with Moses at all. For since we see that he prophesied whenever he wished, as we have it by tradition from the verse (Numbers 9:8): \"Stand and I shall hear what the L-rd will command concerning you,\" indicating that he was predisposed to prophesy at all times, he had no need for separation to predispose himself further. The purpose of his separation was, rather, to serve as an example and as a model for future generations that all who would enter the encampment of the Shechinah should separate themselves beforehand and not make light of the entry by omission of such separation. And it was for this reason that Moses required no separation for the revelation at Mount Sinai, there being no need for it as far as he himself was concerned. His separation at the beginning of the forty days, however, was necessary as a precedent for the generations. This is the intent of: \"But where does the master derive it from? From Sinai, as it is written: 'And the glory of the L-rd rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered him for six days.' Why six days? This is the archetype…\" That is: what is the purpose of these six days? Moses did not require separation, for he was predisposed to prophecy at all times, as we have written. And if he did require separation, why did he not require it before the revelation at Mount Sinai? This being the case, what purpose did this separation serve? It must be, then, that it serves as an archetype; that is, not as a requirement for Moses but as a precedent for the generations that all who would enter the encampment of the Shechinah require a six-day separation period in advance.", "However, Moses' constant predisposition to the highest form of prophecy is a wondrous phenomenon that demands explanation. For how is such a thing possible for an intellect bound up in a body, even in a body of one distinct element — how much more so in a body which is a compound! Such a thing would be conceivable only in an entity which is insusceptible of change, such as the separate intelligences or the heavenly bodies, which, undergoing no change, either in themselves or through the agency of anything outside of them, remain always in one constant state and are unaffected by anything. But, as concerns the natural entities beneath the lunar orb, though they be simple or compound, it is impossible that they not be affected or changed, either by the opposites residing within them if they are compound, or by those outside of them if they are simple — as air and water are mutually affected and changed by each other though they be simple elements in themselves. Therefore, Moses our teacher, whose body was compounded of four elements — how could he have been constantly predisposed to a single experience? This is a phenomenal, nature-transcending wonder!", "The answer: the prophecy of Moses our teacher was, indeed, miraculous, transcending the power of man. This is the intent of the verse (Deuteronomy 34:10): \"And there will not arise [kam] anymore in Israel a prophet like Moses.\" That is, there shall never again arise anyone who will attain his level. (The word \"kam\" in the present serves for both the past and the future, this being a constant in our language). The Torah, being eternal, states, \"There will not arise.\" Down to the latest of times it will be attested: \"There will not arise,\" the intent being that there will never again arise anyone among the Jews who will attain to his level of prophecy. Now if such an attainment were within man's nature, why would the Torah say this? The Blessed One \"does not withhold good from the deserving.\" It must be teaching us, then, that such a thing is unattainable by human nature and that the Blessed One wished to confer this power upon Moses for the sake of the Torah, and He did not wish to confer it upon others.", "However, the phenomenology of this wondrous manifestation I take to be as follows: All things which proceed sequentially in a causal chain indeed require an ordered relationship from source to recipient. This relationship must be preserved. And if the recipient is not oriented to the reception of what is projected, that relationship will be nullified or impaired. But what reaches a prophet from the Blessed One Himself without any mediation whatsoever, does so in the absence of such a relationship and requires no predisposition on the part of the recipient. So that if the Blessed One so wishes, He can inspirit trees and stones just as He can inspirit the man who is the paragon of creation and who is destined to acquire perfection of intellect. For the predisposition of the recipient is required only by those effluences which are projected through mediating agencies and which are, therefore, limited to and bound by the capacity of the recipient. Since, however, the Blessed One desired to confer prophecy upon Moses without anything intervening, as intimated in (Numbers 12:8): \"Mouth to mouth I speak to him,\" it follows that he was uniformly predisposed at all times; for the L-rd was in no way constrained from projecting His effluence upon him continuously, and this effluence was in no way limited by Moses' predisposition.", "Along the same lines is to be explained a highly recondite matter in this section (Exodus 23:20-21): \"Behold, I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Take heed of him and hearken to his word. Do not disobey him, for he will not forgive your sins, for my Name is within him.\" There are two formidable questions in these verses: the first, G-d's severity and His intimidation of the Jews not to disobey the angel because he would not forgive their sins, seeming to say, as it were: \"Do not think to conduct yourselves with him as you did with Me, your having disobeyed Me and I having forgiven your sins. For this is not his way. He will not forgive your sins as I did.\" This seems to defeat the entire purpose of the angel, viz. (Ibid 33:2-3): \"And I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanites… for I will not go up in your midst, for you are a stiff-necked people, lest I destroy you on the way.\" It would appear from this that it was for Israel's good that He designated an angel for them. For, in view of the fact that they were given to sinning, it would go easier with them with an angel than with the Blessed One. But the above verse indicates otherwise, viz.: \"for he will not forgive your sins\" — as I do!", "And the second question: How can He say: \"for he will not forgive your sins,\" on which Rashi comments that he is only a messenger and does not have the power of forgiveness. This is, indeed, cause for wonder. Forgiveness should not be expected from him, but from the Blessed One who is the source of forgiveness and who can forgive as at first! And if we take this to mean that the Blessed One will not desire to forgive because of the slight to his honor, it should be written not \"for he will not forgive your sins,\" but \"for I will not forgive your sins.\" The expression \"he will not forgive\" is, indeed, strange, as if to say that we are to accept him as a kind of intermediary deity between the Blessed One and ourselves. This is likewise the tone of: \"Take heed of him and hearken to his word. Do not disobey him…\" And we are certainly not to accept any mitzvah or exhortation from any other but the L-rd Himself!", "The answer, however, is as we have written. That is, \"for I will not go up in your midst, for you are a stiff-necked people, lest I destroy you on the way\" and \"for he will not forgive your sins\" are, indeed, antithetical, but in different directions. For the evil attendant upon their transgressing the words of the Blessed One in His direct providence over them would derive from their rebellion against His word, and the punishment would correspond to their transgression of His word, which could conceivably result in their annihilation and not merely in some reversal in their fortunes. This is the intent of \"lest I destroy you on the way\" — a cataclysmic punishment, which is to be sorely feared. But the evil attendant upon transgressing the word of the angel is not a function of punishment but of the confounding of the effluence and ordinance which he projects upon them. And though such a disorientation cannot be corrected, it is not cause for such great fear as the complete annihilation which could result from G-d's direct governance of them.", "The explanation of the matter is that when the Blessed One governs them directly, though their contravening His word results in punitive evil, there is both severity and attenuation in this. Severity, in their being subject to punishment so great that it could annihilate them, as indicated in \"lest I destroy you on the way.\" Attenuation, in that if the Blessed One desired to forgive their sins they would be as disposed to receive His effluences and His ordinance as at first. For the effluences which proceed directly from the L-rd with nothing intervening do not depend upon the predisposition of the recipients, as I have written. But the Blessed One, in His compassion upon Israel and in His concern lest their punishment result in their annihilation, instructed them to abide by the ordinance of the angel, saying \"Take heed of him…\" And this is not by way of command and exhortation; but, for example, if a prophet would receive a prophecy through the agency of this angel that they should first do battle with the Emorites, they should not transgress his word by warring with the Hittites and Perizites, for this would result in evil with no hope of forgiveness. For the effluences proceeding from distinct, limited agencies cannot be changed, unlike those acts which are not mediated by such agencies. Therefore, though [under the ordinance of the angel] they were assured against punitive annihilation, they had to be extremely heedful of the evil proceeding not from punishment but from the undermining of the angel's governance and ordinance, an evil which could not be reversed. If, for example, the angel's governance at that time were limited to a particular land, how could they expect to be benefited by him if they went to a different land? This would be absolutely impossible. And there is no doubt that angels are limited to particular spheres of governance, and only in particular matters, as we find, viz. (Daniel 10:20): \"the guardian angel of Greece\" and \"the guardian angel of Persia.\" And our sages state (Pesachim 118a): \"When Nebuchadnezzar cast Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah into the fiery furnace, Yorkmi, the angel of hail, arose before the Holy One Blessed be He and said: 'Let me go and cool off the furnace,' at which Gabriel arose before the Holy One Blessed be He and said: 'The honor of the Holy One Blessed be He is not best served thereby. But let me, the angel of fire, go and cool it from the inside and heat it from the outside, so that there be a miracle within a miracle.'\" It is thus indicated that in the absence of miraculous intervention Yorkmi has power only to cool and Gabriel only to heat, and the same principle applies in all such cases. Therefore, if one is under the ordinance of an angel's effluence, if he disrupts the reception of that effluence, he cannot hope for correction. This is the intent of \"for he will not forgive your sins.\"", "And the Ramban questions here (Exodus 33:12) as to why Moses did not pray in this instance that they not be governed by an angel, as he did after they had made the golden calf, when the Blessed One said to him: \"And I will send an angel before you,\" and Moses prayed before Him and said: \"If Your presence does not go, do not take us up from here.\" And after he accepted this here, how did he think to profit through the incident of the golden calf and to nullify it? But this is not at all difficult to me. For the Blessed One did not tell Moses here that He would go up from them as He did in the incident of the golden calf, viz. (Ibid 33:3): \"for I will not go up in your midst…\" And though He told him \"I will send an angel,\" it does not follow from this that the L-rd would not be there. For Scripture likewise states (Ibid 12:12): \"And I will pass through the land of Egypt…,\" which our sages of blessed memory expounded (Mechilta, Bo 7): \"I and not an angel…\" And even so, angels destroyed along with Him, as they expounded (Ibid 11): \"'And you, let no man go out from the door of his house until morning' (Exodus 12:22) — this indicates that when the angel has been authorized to destroy he does not discriminate [between the good and the wicked]…, as it is written (Isaiah 26:20): 'Go my people, come into your chambers…'\" It is clear, then, that though the Holy One Blessed be He in Himself and in His majesty passed through Egypt, with all this, the angels destroyed along with Him, as it is written (Zechariah 14:5): \"And the L-rd my G-d shall come, all the holy ones with You.\" Therefore, it does not follow from \"And I will send an angel before you\" that the Blessed One in Himself and in His majesty not also be there. Why should \"And I will send an angel before you\" present any more of a difficulty than (Exodus 23:28): \"And I will send hornets before you\"? But just as the hornets were to serve as the L-rd's mace, so would the angel serve as His instrument of destruction. And for this reason neither the Jews nor Moses were distressed by this at all. But later, when He told them explicitly \"for I will not go up in your midst…,\" they were fully cognizant of what this imported, as it is written (Ibid 33:4): \"And the people heard this evil thing, and they mourned, and no man put his ornaments upon him.\" That is, when the people heard this evil thing, the departure of G-d's providence form them, they mourned for what they had lost and did not put on their ornaments.", "According to R. Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag), the \"ornaments\" referred to are those conferred upon them with the giving of the Torah, namely, the Torah ethic, which is the ornament and perfection of him who abides by it. He goes on to explain that they removed the ornament that they had received at Mount Chorev; that is, they freed their necks from the yoke of Torah. The reason for their doing so was that upon accepting the yoke of Torah they had been assured that the Torah would place them securely under Divine providence; and when they saw that this had been denied them they felt as if the Torah were no longer of any benefit to them, and they rebelled, as it were, a second time. This is the intent of the Blessed One's words to Moses (Ibid 5): \"Tell the Children of Israel: 'You are a stiff-necked people,'\" and you cannot free yourselves of the defective notions you grew up with. And because of this, if I go up in your midst for just a short while you will meet with destruction because of the punishment that I would bring upon you for rebelling against Me. And now, you have presumed to sin even more and to divest yourselves of your ornaments! (for the word \"hored\" [divest] is used here in its infinitive form as expressing amazement). I shall know what to do with you! And in Exodus Rabbah (45:4) it is written: \"What are these 'ornaments'? R. Shimon b. Yochai says: 'The weapons that the Holy One Blessed be He had given them with the Ineffable Name inscribed upon them.'\" At that juncture, Moses prayed that this sore decree be revoked — not the deputation of the angel, but G-d's not going up in their midst, as he stated: \"If Your presence does not go, do not take us up from here.\" He did not ask that the angel not go up with them, but that He not consign them to the exclusive governance of an angel or of a star and remove His providence from them.", "What is to be wondered at, however, is why Moses prayed that G-d revoke what He had said, for, apparently, G-d's saying \"for I will not go up in your midst\" stemmed from His compassion for the Jews and from His concern lest they meet with the destruction attendant upon their evil ways if He were in their midst. And the language of the verse bears this out, for it is not written \"for I will not go up in your midst, for you are a stiff-necked people\" alone, but there is added \"lest I destroy you on the way.\" This is as if to say: I am saying this not for My sake, but out of compassion for you, from concern of what would befall you otherwise. And this is further borne out by G-d's response to Moses relative to the Jews' distress in this regard (\"And the people heard this evil thing, and they mourned\" [Exodus 33:4]) — \"And the L-rd said to Moses: 'Tell the Children of Israel: \"You are a stiff-necked people. If I went up in your midst for just one moment…'\" (Ibid 5). That is, do not be aggrieved over this, for in your state this is better for you than if I were to walk in your midst, in which case you would be in mortal danger. After this, how could Moses pray: \"If your presence does not go…\"? Why should he not fear what the L-rd Himself did? This is analogous to a doctor's telling a patient that normally healthful foods are not good for him because of some defect in his nature, though they are good for healthy people — in which case it would be foolhardy for the patient to respond that he desired them notwithstanding, regardless of the outcome. This is, indeed, a formidable question demanding resolution. And there are many such questions in connection with this parshah.", "The first: After Moses told the Blessed One (Ibid 12): \"Behold, You say to me: 'Bring up this people…'\", he should have prayed immediately: \"If Your presence does not go…\" He did not do so, but said, rather (Ibid 13): \"And now, if I have found favor in Your eyes, show me now Your ways…\" Now this is certainly a commendable and worthy request, but it seems to have nothing to do with the issue at hand.", "The second: After the Blessed One said to him (Ibid 14): \"My presence will go…,\" how could Moses have answered: \"If Your presence does not go…,\" imputing doubt to what the Holy One Blessed be He had stated as a certainty.", "The third: After the Holy One Blessed be He reiterated (Ibid 17): \"This thing, too, that you have spoken, I will do,\" how could Moses say yet a third time (Ibid 34:9): \"If I have found favor in Your eyes, O L-rd, let the L-rd walk in our midst\" — and offer as a reason: \"for they are a stiff-necked people\"! In sum, this parshah demands extensive explanation.", "This is how I view it. In the beginning, Moses complained to the Holy One Blessed be He, saying (Ibid 33:12): \"Behold, You say to me: 'Bring up this people,' and You have not let me know whom You will send with me.\" That is, after having chosen for the benefit of the Jews that they be governed by an angel, if I have found favor in Your eyes, You should have informed me of the identity of that angel and not have spoken to me in innuendo, with veiled visage. After having expressed this as a complaint, Moses did not wish to pray first that the Blessed One walk with them, fearing what the Blessed One Himself feared, that this might result in their destruction. He prayed, rather, for that which would obviate this apprehension, saying (Ibid 13): \"If I have found favor in Your eyes, show me now Your ways…\" That is, \"Show me Your ways,\" namely, Your attributes, so that by knowing them I will find favor in Your eyes and be in a position to pray for the Jews and forestall any affliction threatening them by reason of any sin. In this way, Your apprehension, \"lest I destroy them on the way,\" will be removed,\" and see that this nation is Your people\" (Ibid). That is, see that this is the more appropriate way, for it will obviate the danger of their destruction and You will not have to go up from them anymore in order to remove this threat. For they are Your people and it is not fit and becoming for a compassionate father to remove himself from his children; it is more appropriate that he remove evil from them in this way. To this the Blessed One answered (Ibid 14): \"My presence will go when I give you rest.\" That is, this does not demand the revelation of My ways. As far as your saying that it is not right for Me to separate myself from them in that they are My people, I have no intention of doing so, for My presence will go in their midst when I give you and them rest — that is, when they will be in the land of Israel, where they will rest for all time.", "This, however, demands explanation. Why should the apprehension \"for I will not go up in your midst, for you are a stiff-necked people, lest I destroy you on the way\" — why should this apprehension not obtain in the land of Israel as it does in the desert?", "The answer: That sin which is cause for apprehension on the Blessed One's part as potentially resulting in the destruction of the Jews is idol worship, to which the sin of the golden calf was similar in character. For the other transgressions do not arouse the Blessed One's wrath to such a great extent; idol worship is to be much more feared in this regard. And there is more reason for apprehension of this sin in the desert than in the land of Israel. For the Jews knew that the other lands were under the ordinance of stars and constellations, as our sages state (Kethuboth 110b): \"All who live in the land of Israel, it is as if they have a G-d; all who live outside the land of Israel, it is as if they do not have a G-d.\" This is because the other, gentile lands are under the ordinance of heavenly plenipotentiaries, an ordinance which cannot be changed except through miraculous, Heavenly intervention (this being the intent of \"for he will not forgive your sins\"). Therefore, if one lives outside the land of Israel, because he is under the ordinance of a star or of a constellation, his prayer is not so readily accepted as it would be if he lived in the land of Israel, which is not under the dominion of a chief, an officer, or a ruler, but of the Blessed One Himself, as it is written (Deuteronomy 31:16): \"and they go astray after the strange gods of the land\" — indicating that all gods, except the Blessed One Himself, are strangers in that land. And because the Jews knew this, they would be more apt to stray into idol worship outside the land of Israel, the province of other powers (as they, indeed, said [Exodus 32:1]: \"Arise and make us a god which will go before us\") than they would in the land of Israel itself. Add to this the fact that they would more likely cleave to the Holy One in the holy land than outside it and that there is more reason for apprehension that rebellion against the word of G-d would result in destruction in the desert than in the land of Israel in that the desert is a place fraught with the danger of \"snakes, serpents, scorpions, and drought, no water being there\" (Deuteronomy 8:15), so that destruction is more of a possibility there than in other places. This is not as the pseudo-pious would have it, that the power of G-d is constant in all places, for good or for evil. This is not so, but the Blessed One has stamped it into the nature of things that loss is more likely to result in dangerous places than in others, so that if He is not constantly providential of one in such places but abandons him to the vicissitudes of time, then evil will certainly befall him, unlike the case in other places, where there is not cause for such apprehension. Therefore, the Blessed One said to Moses: This does not require My apprising you of My ways, for I have no intention of separating Myself from you, but My presence will go in your midst when I grant rest to you — and them (what is stated of Moses applying to all of Israel, as in \"to heed you on the way,\" where the meaning is obviously not to heed Moses alone). But this did not suffice for Moses, who answered (Exodus 33:15): \"If Your presence does not go, do not take us up from here.\" That is, if Your presence does not go, we should not move from this spot at all. For how will it be known that we have been singled out from the other nations if not by Your going with us now? For when we are in the land of Israel, they will attribute our fortune not to us but to the land, seeing that when we were not in the land You did not walk in the midst of our camp. And the Blessed One acknowledged this, saying (Ibid 17): \"This thing, too, that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in My eyes and I have known you by name.\" He elaborated here, saying \"for you have found favor in My eyes\" in response to Moses' first having said (Ibid 12): \"and You said: 'I have known you by name and you have also found favor in My eyes'\" — indicating thereby that He was doing so by virtue of Moses' having found favor in His eyes. And He added \"and I will know you by name,\" in response to \"and You said: \"I have known you by name,'\" not as Moses said (Ibid 16) \"so that I and Your people be singled out from all the peoples,\" but \"because you have found favor in My eyes.\" And this is also by way of intimating that His acquiescing in walking in their midst and not governing them through an angel would be limited to the days of Moses alone; but afterwards, in the days of Joshua, the aforementioned angel would lead the Jews until they came \"to the rest and to the inheritance,\" as we shall explain.", "And after the Blessed One acquiesced in this, it followed that Moses revert to his first request, that the L-rd apprise him of His ways, whereby He could be conciliated upon Moses' praying for the Jews in the event of their sinning. For in the absence of this, the Blessed One's apprehension would reinstate itself and it would be better for the Jews if the Blessed One separated Himself from them. He, therefore, returned to his original request, stating it more expansively this time, seeing this to be a time of favor, saying (Ibid 18): \"Show me, I pray You, Your glory.\" Moses did not aspire hereby to perceive the truth of the Blessed One's essence. G-d forbid that he do so, for there is ample proof that His essence is known only to Himself and that it cannot be otherwise. (One of the sages was once asked: \"What is the Creator?\" and he answered: \"If I knew Him, I would be Him.\") But from the Blessed One's response (Ibid 20): \"for no man can see me while he is alive,\" it would seem that Moses' request was to perceive him while his soul was yet united with his body as the soul perceives Him after its separation from the body and that his body not impede him in any way. And the Blessed One answered that this was impossible, saying \"For no man can see Me while he is alive.\" And this is the view of our sages of blessed memory, viz. (Torath Cohanim, Vayikra 1:5): \"In their lifetime they do not see Him, but they see Him in their death.\" Therefore, the Blessed One said to Moses (Ibid 19): \"I will cause all My goodness to pass before you, and I will proclaim the Name of the L-rd before you, and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and merciful to whom I will be merciful.\" He intimated to him thereby what He apprised him of in the Thirteen Attributes, that through them his prayer would be accepted to elicit mercy even for those unworthy of it, as our sages of blessed memory have stated (Berachoth 7a): \"'And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious' — though he be undeserving…\" And since it is somewhat irregular for the Blessed One to be merciful to those not deserving mercy, the language is veiled. And the Blessed One designated a spot for him where He would apprise him of His ways, the Thirteen Attributes through which He is reconciled. And because the Blessed One had not yet explicitly assured Moses that He would atone the sin of Israel, but had stated it only in a veiled fashion, viz.: \"and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious…\", for this reason Moses reiterated his request, as one desiring to clarify a matter because of its supreme importance, saying, as it were: Let me make it perfectly clear what we are asking: \"If I have found favor in Your eyes, let the L-rd walk in our midst, for they are a stiff-necked people,\" and if they are consigned to the governance of the angel they will rebel against him and he will not forgive their sins — but 'walk in our midst' only on condition that when we set before You this order of prayer we be assured that You will forgive our transgressions and our sins. For it does not suffice me that You say \"and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious,\" which sounds like \"to a man not a man, at a time not a time.\" In this event perhaps there would be more benefit in their being governed by an angel than by the L-rd's walking in our midst. But I implore You that the Blessed One go [in our midst], and I need Your governance because they are a stiff-necked people for whom it would be very unlikely not to rebel against the angel's word. And if they do rebel, You have already said \"for he will not forgive your sins,\" this not being in his nature. Therefore, we need Your governance, for You can forgive. But we ask this only on condition that we be assured of forgiveness for our rebellion when we pray before You to forgive our transgressions and our sins — that is, our collective transgressions and sins. And in this way we will derive only benefit from Your governance of us and no loss at all, and we will thus be Your people and Your inheritance. And the Blessed One acquiesced in this, too, saying (Ibid 34:10): \"Behold, I am making a covenant…\" That is, there will be a firm covenant between Me and you, which will never \"return empty-handed.\" This is the view of our sages of blessed memory, viz. (Rosh Hashanah 17a): \"There is a firm covenant in respect to the Thirteen Attributes that they will never return empty-handed, for it is written 'Behold, I am making a covenant.'\"", "And He continued (Ibid): \"Before all your people I will do wonders that had not been created in all the earth and among all the nations…\" For though great wonders had been performed for them in the land of Egypt and upon the sea, those wonders were prompted by the Blessed One's desire, not by that of the Jews. But the wonders wrought by this covenant are even more wondrous than the previous ones, for they are prompted by Israel's desire, the Thirteen Attributes not returning empty-handed when set forth in the specified manner. (Or it may be that \"I will do niflaoth\" refers to Moses' request [Ibid 33:16] \"so that I and Your people be singled out\" [veniflinu], as Onkelos understands it.)", "Whatever the case, what emerges from this parshah is that Moses attained what he sought and that the Jews' being a stiff-necked people is a reason for its being beneficial to them that the Blessed One depart from them and they be consigned to the governance of an angel — so long as they are not assured of the Blessed One's forgiveness. But so long as they possessed specific means of reconciling Him, their stiff-neckedness would be a reason for the Blessed One's governance being more beneficial to them in that the angel cannot forgive their transgressions. This is the intent of (Ibid 23:20) \"Take heed of him and hearken to his word.\" And afterwards (Ibid 21) it is stated \"for my Name is within him,\" which relates to the beginning of the verse. )For this verse contains two commands and two reasons; that is, \"Take heed of him and hearken to his word. Do not disobey him, for my Name is within him; do not disobey him, for he will not forgive your sins.\"But explanation is required as to why the Blessed One's name being within him must be given as a reason for heeding him and hearkening to his word. For it is well known that an angel comes only through the agency of the Blessed One and not of his own accord.", "It would seem from the plain meaning of the verse, however, that we are commanded to be more deferential of this angel than of another, that because the Name of the Holy One Blessed be He is within him, we should accord him great honor, as we do with the Blessed One Himself. And our sages of blessed memory have already expounded that the angel in question here is Metatron, whose name is as that of his Master's, viz. (Sanhedrin 38b): \"A certain heretic said to R. Adda: 'It is written (Exodus 24:1): \"And to Moses He said: 'Come up to the L-rd.'\" It should be written \"Come up to Me!\"' R. Adda answered: 'The reference is to Metatron, whose name is the same as his Master's.'\" Whether or not we understand the exact intent of our sages here, there is no question that they see a great difference between this angel and others, only this one being accorded the four-letter name of the L-rd. It is for this reason that the Holy One commanded us to deport ourselves with this angel as we do with Him.", "And this resolves a great problem — Joshua's bowing down to an angel, viz. (Joshua 5:14): \"And he [the angel] answered: 'No, but I am captain of the host of the L-rd. I have come now.' And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and he bowed down to him…\" This is, indeed, great cause for wonder. How was this permitted to Joshua when it is written (Exodus 20:4): \"…that are in the heavens above […do not bow down to them\"], concerning which our sages of blessed memory say (Mechilta, Yithro 6): \"This includes the ministering angels.\" And there is no question that just as it is forbidden to sacrifice and to bring offerings to any but the L-rd Himself, so is bowing down similarly forbidden, as stated by our sages of blessed memory (Sanhedrin 60b): \"…both he who sacrifices, he who offers incense, he who pours a libation, and he who bows down…\" And I find no reference to anyone bowing down to an angel except Balaam (who was not one of us), of whom it is written (Numbers 22:31): \"…and he bowed down and prostrated himself.\" But Jacob saw an angel and did not bow down to him, and David conducted himself likewise (viz. I Chronicles 21). And so we find with Daniel. He saw an angel and accorded him great honor, saying (Daniel 10:17): \"How can the servant of my lord speak with this [i.e., you,], my lord?\" — but he did not bow down to him, this not being permitted. How, then, was Joshua permitted to bow down to the angel that appeared to him?", "The answer, however, is that the angel which appeared to Joshua was the very angel spoken of here, viz. (Exodus 23:20): \"Behold, I am sending an angel before you…\" But Moses had forestalled the advent of this angel all the days of his life so that they be governed only by the Blessed One Himself. Therefore, after the death of Moses, it is this very angel that appeared to Joshua. And so it is written in Tanchuma (Mishpatim 18): \"I am the one who came in the days of Moses, your master, but he rejected me and did not want me to go with him.\" And he added that no plenipotentiary was to be assigned them all the days of Moses. And when Moses died, that plenipotentiary reassumed his role and was seen by Joshua, as it is written (Joshua 5:13-14): \"And it was, when Joshua was in Jericho … and he [the angel] answered: 'No, but I am captain of the host of the L-rd. I have come now…\" This is foreshadowed in \"Behold, I am sending an angel before you.\" And because Joshua knew this to be the angel of whom it was said \"for my Name is within him,\" he saw it fitting to bow down to him as he would before the L-rd, and he did so. And this is the reason for its being written in this parshah (Exodus 23:24): \"Do not bow down to their gods and do not serve them,\" which is, ostensibly, out of place here, this exhortation already having appeared in the Ten Commandments. The reason for its appearance here, however, is that since this angel being sent to the Jews was to be accepted and accorded honor approaching that accorded the Blessed One Himself — it being written \"Take heed of him,\" implying that it was permitted and fitting to bow down to him — because of this there is repeated the exhortation \"Do not bow down to their gods…\" That is, though I have permitted you to defer and to bow down to this angel, do not take this as a license to bow down to the gods of the peoples (who also serve angels or the heavenly host). This angel alone may be bowed down to, for my Name is within him.", "There is also another reason for its being stated here \"Do not bow down to their gods.\" It is my view that the root of idol worship was the notion that angels or the heavenly host could exert a beneficent or maleficent influence upon one in accordance with their will. This error originated in the following manner: Though these agencies do not have the power to do good or evil in themselves, they cannot be barred from exerting an influence more or less in accordance with the predisposition of the recipients. So that, for example, the moon will increase moisture in terrestrial bodies as they are predisposed to receive moisture, and the sun will heat them as they are predisposed to receive heat, and so, in relation to the other stars and to the angels that are above them. However, the predisposition of terrestrial bodies to receive the influence and effects of the celestial ones can be secured either by conditioning through recognized natural procedures, such as heating with hot or by cooling with cold or by conditioning through things whose nature is hidden and which operate by virtue of certain phenomenological properties. Now those objects which acquire a predisposition through the recognized, natural qualities of things generating this predisposition provide no ground for doubt and do not serve as the basis for the error of idolatry. But the type of things which predispose bodies to acquire the effluence of celestial entities by virtue of certain phenomenological properties, their hidden natures, as it were — these things caused ignorant men to stray into idol worship. For in their ignorance of the natures of these properties it did not occur to them at all that these things could produce a change in the nature of the body of the recipient, and they could attribute their efficacy to no other cause than the favor these operations found in the eyes of the celestial emanators, the angels or stars, as it were, who, witnessing these activities, increased their effluence to the bodies of these recipients. And this was the root and foundation upon which idolatry was built and which led its practitioners to sacrifice and bring offerings to an angel or a star to gain its favor. And this contravenes the truth in two ways. First, because there is nothing in our deeds which can cause any kind of satisfaction or distress whatsoever to any of the celestial entities, there being nothing whatsoever in common between our deeds and their natures. Second, because the energy or effluence emanated by them is limited. They cannot increase or diminish it in and of themselves but only in relation to the predisposition of the recipients, contrary to the view of the idolators, who see these changes as stemming from the emanators. And this is the reason for its being written here \"Do not bow down to their gods\" after the statement \"Take heed of him and hearken to his word…\" That is, after I have permitted you to hearken to the voice of this angel and to bow down to him in view of his distinctive exaltation over the other angels — the fact that my Name is within him — notwithstanding all this, I have told you that he will not forgive your sins, being only a deputy in My embassy — then what should be the case with the other angels, who are not on his level, and, certainly, with the hosts of heaven! Can you not understand from this that they have no power to do good or evil in themselves? That being the case, do not bow down to their gods and do not serve them, for no benefit will accrue to you from this as you might imagine.", "What we have written here resolves many questions and explains some very recondite matters. For there is no question that those who were drawn after idol worship and who became its devotees, as we learn from Scripture and from the words of our sages of blessed memory — there is no question that they were not fools. Beyond a doubt, experience confirmed them in their expectation of benefit from their idolatrous acts, for if this were not the case, so many sound individuals would not have strayed into idolatry generation after generation. But it is as we have said. In the early times there were many acts which were known to result in great benefit. There was no error on this score but only in the conception of the means by which this benefit was derived. In reality, it derived solely from the nature of the thing acted upon; but the practitioners of these acts attributed the benefit to the will of the acting and protecting agency and compounded their sin by bringing offerings and sacrifices to the heavenly host. It follows from this that anything which is known to derive from the predisposition of the recipient is beneficial in truth and permitted by the Torah, and what is thought to derive from the will of the celestial agent is vain and empty and in the realm of idolatry. Therefore, every act which does not contain the intent of drawing down the favor of a celestial agent and which is not distinctly idolatrous is not in the forbidden category of \"the ways of the Emorites.\"", "And this would seem to be implied by the Rambam of blessed memory in the Moreh Nevuchim (III:36), where he writes that the statement of our sages (Shabbath 67a): \"All therapeutic practices are not in the category of the ways of the Emorites\" is to be understood as importing that everything dictated by reason is permitted and everything else is forbidden. He writes there: \"Do not be perplexed by their permitting a gallow's nail or the tooth of a fox [for therapeutic purposes], for the efficacy of those things at that time was regarded as confirmed by experience, just as the application of the herb called \"fiunia\" in Arabic to an infected sole. For anything confirmed by experience (though it not be decreed by reason) is permitted for therapeutic purposes, in the same way that purgative drugs are permitted.\" It follows from this that what is forbidden by the Torah are those vain, inane practices designed to draw down the favor of the affecting agency, practices which have no basis in truth. But to predispose the recipient by manifestly natural means or through the action of certain recondite, phenomenological properties — this was not forbidden by the Torah at all.", "What does cause me wonder, however, is the Torah's explicit prohibition of witchcraft, a prohibition included in this parshah, viz. (Exodus 23:23): \"and do not practice their deeds.\" There is no doubt that witchcraft is founded in truth, though the Rambam writes in the aforementioned chapter that it is a vain matter, containing no truth. This is contrary to the view expressed by our sages of blessed memory in many places. To cite one instance (Chullin 7b): \"A certain woman tried to get some soil from beneath the feet of R. Chanina [in order to kill him through an incantation pronounced over the soil]. He said to her: 'Go and take it; it is written (Deuteronomy 4:35): \"There is none else beside Him.\"'\" The Gemara goes on to ask: \"But did R. Yochanan not say: 'Why are they [practices of witchcraft] called keshafim? Because they deny the heavenly retinue…'!\" And the answer is given: \"R. Chanina is different, for he possessed great merit.\" It is quite clear from this that the sages regarded witchcraft and its effects as real and not as just imagined. According to what we have written, then, witchcraft should be permitted in respect to the predisposition of the recipient (it being obviously a vain thing in respect to the activation of an agent in the heavenly host). Why, then, did the Torah forbid it?", "This wonder was resolved for me by a statement of our sages in tractate Sanhedrin (67b): \"'Belateihem' — this refers to demonology; 'Belahateihem' — this refers to witchcraft.\" Rashi, commenting on the latter states that witchcraft is executed through the agency of destructive angels. This itself provides the needed explanation. That is, through witchcraft terrestrial bodies are predisposed to receive the impression and effluence of destructive angels, something which, indeed, merits the interdiction of the Torah. For though the practitioner may not harbor any vain intent in respect to the acting agency, still, the Blessed One did not wish us to predispose any of the terrestrial bodies to the acquisition of an impression or effluence from the destructive angels. For they were created to serve as the instruments of the L-rd's wrath, not to continuously generate their powers within the universe, but to be used only when He desired to destroy a nation or classes of individuals, as in the case of the plague of the first-born and the like. This explains our sages' statement: \"Why are they called keshafim? Because they deny the heavenly retinue.\" That is, the Blessed One created the world in such a way that only the beneficent effluences would be continuously projected, and the maleficent ones, not always, but only when He desired them for a temporal contingency, and those who practice witchcraft predispose terrestrial objects to acquire the impressions of maleficent agencies, contrary to the intent of the order of the Heavenly retinue." ], [ "\"R. YONATHAN SAID: 'THE HOLY ONE BLESSED BE HE CAUSES HIS SHECHINAH TO COME TO REST ONLY UPON ONE WHO IS WISE, STRONG, WEALTHY, AND HUMBLE, MOSES SERVING AS THE PROTOTYPE FOR ALL OF THESE CRITERIA.'\" (NEDARIM 38a)", "It is well known that the Blessed One, desiring to create this world for His honor, and its ultimate purpose being that mankind serve Him, it follows that there reach man from Him an effluence higher than intellect, the prophetic effluence, to perfect the soul so that it may glow in the Light of Life. Intellect alone does not suffice for this, for if we are ignorant of the essence and truth of something, we cannot know what is beneficial or detrimental to it. For example, if we are ignorant of man's nature, we cannot know which things will promote his equilibrium or restore him to it if it has been upset. First we must conceptualize his nature and grasp its truth as far as we are able, after which we can pursue the knowledge of which things are beneficial to it and which detrimental. It follows, then, in respect to the soul, whose truth we could never know through our researches, that we would perforce remain ignorant of those things which are inimical or salutary to it if there had not reached us a Divine prophetic effluence higher than intellect whereby there was made known to us those things which are desired by the Blessed One and which leave a positive impress upon the soul — those things being the mitzvoth of the Torah and its exhortations. Now there is no doubt that one who would receive this effluence [a prophet] would have to be perfect in the virtues of intellect and of character. For it does not befit the spirit of the L-rd to rest upon a man devoid of good character. \"For the perverse man is the abomination of the L-rd\" (Proverbs 3:32). And not only for this reason alone, but also because of the natural order of things, it being well known that all things, in point of the attraction of likes and the repulsion of opposites, draw close to what is similar to them in nature and away from what is dissimilar. Accordingly, one who devotes himself to intellect and the goodly virtues draws close to the separate intelligences and disposes himself to unification with them. For a man has two orientations, an upper orientation and a lower one; when he reflects upon and perfects himself in the realm of intellect and cultivates good character, he breaks away from the terrestrial and rises upwards; and when he leaves the realm of intellect and inclines to the material, he descends downwards. This is intimated in the visions of our father Jacob in the dream of the ladder, viz. (Genesis 28:12): \"And, behold, the angels of G-d ascending and descending on it.\" It was revealed to him that that place was propitious for prophecy and that from it men could rise to perfect themselves, but that so long as they were alive it was impossible that this be a continuous, unbroken rising, but that, rather, they would rise so long as they occupied themselves with the needs of their souls and fall to the extent that they ceased from this to occupy themselves with the needs of their bodies. And the implication to be drawn from this was, as far as possible, to increase those things which abet rising and decrease those which compel falling. Now if this be true with respect to essential material needs, that it is impossible for one who occupies himself with them to be upwards-oriented, how much more so is it true that if one is steeped in evil impulsions, in luxurious lust for material things — how much more so is it true that it will be impossible for him to draw close to the separate intelligences and will, perforce, be far removed from them. This is the rationale for R. Yonathan's saying that the Holy One Blessed be He causes His Shechinah to come to rest only on one who is wise and humble, these traits epitomizing the virtues of intellect and those of character, respectively.", "What demands explanation, however, is why a prophet must also be strong and wealthy. Some interpret \"strong\" in this connection as asserting one's intellect over one's lusts, and \"wealthy,\" as possessing the quality of contentment, likening R. Yonathan's categories to those mentioned by Ben Zoma (Avoth 4:1). They are obviously mistaken, however, for once \"humble\" is included it is no longer necessary to mention \"strong\" and \"wealthy\" [in the aforementioned sense], for our sages of blessed memory have said (Avodah Zarah 20b): \"Humility is greater than all of the other traits.\" They explain that it is impossible to attain humility without having previously attained purity, holiness, fear of sin, and the other qualities mentioned there. This being so, it is obvious that the humble man rules his evil inclination and that he has achieved contentment; for if his inclination rules him and he is constantly anxious over what he has not acquired, it is impossible for him to have achieved the other qualities.", "\tAnd there is no doubt that these qualities [wisdom and humility] perfect the soul and free it from the terrestrial, causing it to cleave to the celestial until it is ready for prophecy. And if one deviates from wisdom and humility — the virtues of intellect and character — the bodily faculties within him will grow strong (his material element appertaining to the animal in him and not to the man) and will create a great gulf between him and the Blessed One. As the prophet has said (Isaiah 59:2): \"Your transgressions have made a separation between you and your G-d…\" Therefore, the prophet must divest himself of lowliness and embody the true perfections, wisdom and humility. Also posing a difficulty to their interpretation is the fact that \"strong\" is derived (Nedarim 38a) from its being written (Exodus 40:19): \"And he spread the tent over the tabernacle,\" concerning which Rav said (Shabbath 92a): \"Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, did so,\" and it is written (Exodus 26:16): \"The length of the beam shall be ten ells.\" And it is asked there (Nedarim, Ibid): \"Perhaps he was tall and small [in strength]!\" and it is answered: \"[We know that he was strong] from the verse (Deuteronomy 9:17): 'And I took hold of the two tablets…,' and we learned that the tablets were six ells long, six ells broad, and three ells wide. We know that he was wealthy from the verse (Exodus 34:1): 'Hew for yourself two tablets of stone' — you may keep the chippings for yourself.\" And they also derived this from Jonah, as it is written (Jonah 1:3): \"And he paid its hire,\" concerning which R. Yochanan said: \"The hire of the whole ship.\" And R. Romnos said: \"The hire of the whole ship was four thousand golden dinars.\" It is clear, then, that \"strong\" and \"wealthy\" are to be taken literally. Also posing a difficulty to their interpretation is (Shabbath 92a): \"…Let us derive it from Moses Perhaps Moses is different, for the master said: 'The Shechinah comes to rest only upon one who is wise, strong, wealthy, and tall.'\" Now there is no eminence of character or of intellect in being tall! It is obvious, then, that \"strong\" and \"wealthy\" are to be taken literally.", "\tIt should be explained, however, why a prophet must be wealthy and tall. As far as his being strong, we can understand that one who is sent out to chastise a great multitude must be extremely courageous and turn back for nothing, as the Blessed One exhorts Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:17): \"Therefore, gird your loins, and arise, and speak to them all that I command you; do not be afraid of them, lest I make you afraid of them.\" But why must a prophet be wealthy and tall?", "\tThe answer: If the prophet required prophecy only to perfect himself and for no other person, then it would stand to reason that he should prophesy in whom there was found those qualities which perfect the soul, whether his body be perfect or defective. But the prophet, in that he prophesies to the multitude and apprises them of what the Blessed One has commanded them, must be acceptable and desirable to all classes — the lovers of wisdom, the lovers of wealth, and the lovers of strength — and he must embody all of the goodly virtues. It is well known, as a matter of fact, that he is called a prophet [navi] only because he constantly communicates to the masses what the Blessed One commands him, a spokesman being referred to as a \"navi,\" as it is written (Exodus 7:1): \"And Aaron, your brother, will be your prophet [navi].\" The intent is not that the divine effluence shall adhere to Aaron and the future be inquired of him, but rather that he communicate what Moses \"places in his mouth.\" It is for this reason that the prophet of the baal is also called \"navi,\" the word being derived from \"niv sefataim\" [the expression of the lips]. The prophet must, therefore, possess the intellective and the social virtues. This is the reason for our sages' criterion of \"tall,\" a tall person being more impressive to the masses, as they say (Bechoroth 45b): \"How do we know that the Holy One Blessed be He glories in a tall person…\" Accordingly only a tall person should address the masses, so that his words make a greater impact, as our sages have stated (Ta'anith 16a): \"The rabbis taught: 'If an elder is present, he addresses them. If not, a sage addresses them. If neither an elder nor a sage is present, a man of imposing stature addresses them.\" And this is, likewise, the intent of (Jeremiah 1:6): \"I do not know how to speak, for I am a youth.\" He does not say that he is not righteous or saintly, but that, though he is worthy of prophecy in point of spiritual perfection, since he does not know how to speak he should not be sent on the Blessed One's embassy and publicize what He has commanded him.", "\tThere now presents itself the question of Moses, the \"prince of the prophets,\" being a stammerer and requiring Aaron, his brother, to be his interpreter. And it cannot be answered that since this was his nature he was left to it, the Blessed One not wishing to make an exception in this regard. For it is well known that the entire \"phenomenon\" of Moses was supernatural, it being impossible for one to ascend to his plane in a natural manner, as it is written (Deuteronomy 34:10): \"And there will not again arise a prophet like Moses.\" We have hereby been informed that the prophecy of Moses our teacher was supernatural, that the Blessed One, miraculously, brought him to a level of perfection which no human being can attain through natural means. For if he could, how could it be written: \"And there will not again arise a prophet like Moses\"? The Blessed One \"does not withhold good from its proprietors\" to keep them from an eminence which is attainable by them. The intent of the verse, rather, is to inform us that the phenomenon of Moses was in the category of miracle and wonder, an exception to the natural order. For though the investiture of a human being with the spirit of prophecy is a possibility within the realm of nature, when such an investiture does occur, one's bodily faculties wane to the point that his bodily activities are suspended. But for such an investiture to obtain while one is fully awake, standing on his feet, in full possession of his faculties \"as when one speaks with his neighbor\" — this is not within the province of nature. For one who has attained such a level has virtually become a human being and a separate intelligence at the same time. And, such a miraculous transformation occurring in his nature, it should have been relatively \"easy\" to give him lucid speech. As a matter of fact, we see Moses himself wondering why it was that if he was made a prophet his speech impediment was not removed, viz. (Exodus 4:10): \"I am not a man of words; neither yesterday, nor the day before, nor since You have spoken to Your servant.\" There is no doubt that this last phrase is an expression of amazement, i.e., How is it possible that after You have spoken to Your servant my stammering still has not disappeared? And the only answer that the Blessed One gave him for this was (ibid 11): \"Who makes a man's mouth…,\" which, seemingly does not dispel the wonder at all!", "\tAnd we have seen our sages taking great pains to negate the imputation of the least bodily defect to Moses, viz. (Sotah 12b): \"And she beheld a youth crying and she pitied him; and she said: 'This is one of the Hebrew children' (Exodus 2:6): — first she calls him a youth and then a child! He was a child, but his voice was as that of a youth. R. Nechemiah countered: 'If so, you are imputing a defect to Moses!'\" If this is cause for wonder, how can they not wonder about Scripture's calling him a stammerer!", "\tThe answer: There being nothing of greater moment for mankind than the Torah and the receiving of it, it befits the nation that receives it to be given the strongest possible indications that the Torah is true and for all elements to be removed from those indications and from the event in general that might engender any doubts as to its Divine origin. This is the entire import of the exodus from Egypt. The Blessed One willed the origination of the wonders which marked that redemption (beyond a doubt, the prelude to the Torah) to demonstrate to all of Israel that what is withheld from nature is not withheld from the Blessed One. For this is the very cornerstone of our religion, and one who denies it denies his faith in general and completely dismisses the concept of reward and punishment. And since this is the pole upon which the Torah revolves, He desired that this become manifest in the land of Egypt, the land of diviners and necromancers. For what is there demonstrated as outside the realm of nature — necromancy, a branch of the natural arts, being impotent to perform it — what is there demonstrated as outside the realm of nature certainly lays claim to our belief as an act of G-d and as an incontrovertible demonstration that what is beyond the scope of nature is not beyond the powers of G-d. If these signs and wonders had been originated in a land devoid of the magic arts, the \"cornerstone\" would still be subject to an undermining doubt, the possibility remaining that people would ascribe all the signs to magic, regarding them all as possible within the scope of nature. This is the idea intimated by our sages of blessed memory (Menachoth 85a): \"Yochni and Mamre said…,\" as explained in The Third Discourse.", "\tAnd for this reason Moses was invested with all the perfections of the prophet, to make manifest the Divinity of his calling, and divested, with deliberate intent, of lucid speech, so that it not be thought that it was his eloquence which made Israel and its leaders his followers. For men with glib tongues have been known to attract multitudes and to have their lies taken for truth. The very opposite, however, is the case with one whose speech is impaired. Even the truth he speaks will not be accepted unless it be absolutely transparent. It was for this reason that Moses was divested of lucid speech. His stammering was not an adventitious phenomenon.", "\tAnd this accounts for the answer to Moses' wonderment (\"I am not a man of words…\"), viz.: \"Who makes a man's mouth or who makes one mute…?\" The answer satisfies the question. For, in truth, the absence of something is not properly denoted by the terms \"doing\" and \"making,\" [and muteness, being the absence of speech, is not properly designated by the term \"making.\"] For the presence of something and its absence are not in the same conceptual category as two opposites. The latter are not accounted for by one cause, but each has a different cause, so that the verb of doing can be properly applied to each one of them. For example. In relation to whitening and blackening, one who whitens a black garment creates whiteness, for the cause of the whiteness is not simply the absence of the cause of the blackness, but a new cause — whitening. Each operation, therefore, is correctly referred to by a distinct verb of action. But this is not the case with presence and absence, for there the cause is one and the same. Therefore, it is the factor of presence which is designated by the verb of action and not that of absence, which is simply a function of the absence of causation. For example, the rising of the sun over the earth is referred to as the cause of light, the light resulting directly from that cause; but darkness, which is the absence of light, does not result from a distinct cause of its own, but from the absence of the cause of light, so that the terms \"making\" and \"creating\" are not properly applied to it. The same is true of muteness, which is not a distinct state in itself, but the absence of speech. So that, grammatically speaking, it is incorrect to say that the Blessed One \"makes\" muteness, muteness resulting not from a cause, but from the absence of a cause.", "\tThe sages have already written, however, that linguistic extension allows the suspension of the cause of presence to be referred to as the creation of absence, as in (Isaiah 45:7): \"He forms light and creates darkness,\" where \"creation\" is not technically applicable to darkness, which is the absence of the cause of light. Similarly, we speak of one who has put out a lamp as having made it dark. However, even in linguistic extension there is a great difference between presence and absence, the first connoting the presence of intent, whether the act be Divine or human, and the second, not connoting intent (to be observed in the nature of the deed) on the part of the doer. For the ordered deed can come only from the intent of the doer, but the absence of a deed can stem from one of three causes: 1) deliberate intent that it be absent; 2) its not occurring to the potential doer, so that it remains absent; 3) its occurring to the potential doer, but his lacking the ability to perform it, so that it remains absent. This, however, applies only to the deeds of human beings. It is not so with those of the Blessed One. For just as His act is impossible without His intent, so is its absence impossible without His intent; and just as He is the cause of all manners of presence, so is He the cause of all manners of absence. This is the intent of \"Who makes a man's mouth or who makes one mute…?\" That is, how can you regard your absence of lucid speech as adventitious, for who makes, etc.? That is, just as speech, the presence of a faculty, is impossible without His intent, so is the absence of speech in the mute a function of His intent, there being nothing adventitious in His acts, neither in the presence of something nor in its absence. Everything is to be ascribed to Him, for all proceeds from Him with absolute intent. Moses was thereby apprised that his speech impairment had been \"created\" (for the reason mentioned above).", "\tOur sages of blessed memory expounded this (Exodus Rabbah 3:20): \"'Who makes a man's mouth?' — The L-rd said to Moses: 'If you are not a man of speech, do not be concerned about it. Have I not created all the mouths in the world, and have I not made mute whom I willed? Have I not made some blind to sight and others receptive to sound? And had I willed that you be a man of speech, you would, indeed, have been so. But my desire is to perform a miracle through you. When you speak, your words will be distinct, for I will be with your mouth,' as it is written (Exodus 4:12): 'And now, go, and I will be with your mouth.'\" It is hereby made clear that Moses' speech impediment was intended by the Blessed One, that it was not \"decreed\" by his nature but created by the Blessed One at the very outset. It is not that he was thus by nature and left, unaltered, to his nature; but Moses was a supernatural, absolutely miraculous phenomenon.", "\tFor the level of prophecy attainable by a human being is either that of a dream or that of a vision, as it is written (Numbers 12:6): \"I make Myself known to him in a vision; in a dream I speak to him.\" In both of these, the prophecy is imaged in parables and riddles, as in Yaakov's case, where it is written (Genesis 28:12): \"And he dreamed, and, behold, a ladder set upon the earth and its top reaching to heaven, and, behold, angels of G-d ascending and descending on it.\" The purpose of this parable was to show him the superiority of the land of Israel to other lands, it being the ladder upon which the righteous, who are referred to as \"angels of G-d,\" ascend to heaven. For if the intent were to teach him that everything was done in this land through the agency of angels, the parable consisting in the angels walking through the land and bringing word back to the L-rd, saying, \"We have walked through the land,\" as in the case of the Satan (Job 1:8), it should have been written \"angels of G-d descending and ascending on it,\" the first act preceding the second. \"Angels of G-d\" in this instance, then, allude to the righteous, who scale the ascents in the land of Israel. And for this reason it is written \"ascending and descending on it,\" for it is impossible that the ascent of the righteous be an unbroken one, a man, as we have indicated, having two orientations, one upwards, the other, downwards. And it is impossible, so long as he has a body that he be exclusively upwards-oriented, but he must also be downwards-oriented towards the management of his body. This is what is alluded to in the parable of \"angels of G-d ascending and descending on it.\" And the Blessed One revealed this to Jacob so that the land of Israel be precious in his eyes and so that he make it his destination after his marriage.", "\tAnd He informed him also that in leaving the land of Israel he required greater protection than when he was in the land. This is to be inferred from the verse (Genesis 28:16): \"And I will be with you, and I will protect you wherever you go, and I will return you to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you.\" Every \"until\" in Scripture denotes one of two things: either the cessation of something at a particular time, as in (Exodus 24:14): \"And to the elders he said: 'Wait for us here until we return to you,'\" the implication being that they should not wait after their return (this being the sense of \"until\" in the preponderant number of instances in Scripture), or (in a case where something should more likely obtain beyond that particular time), the obtaining of that thing even up to that time (and needless to say, beyond that time, when it is more likely to obtain). Of this second variety is (Genesis 49:10): \"The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the scepter from between his feet, until Shiloh comes,\" in which the meaning is that even when the kingdom \"hovers\" between the tribes and it be dictated that the tribe of Judah have no kingship whatsoever, still, so long as there is a king in Israel, Judah's punishment will not be so great as to divest him entirely of the staff of kingdom — until Shiloh, the anointed king [Messiah] comes, at which time the kingdom will even more obviously not depart from him. And of this variety, likewise, is the \"until\" in \"for I will not leave you until I have done…\" For the meaning cannot be: I will not leave you until then, but afterwards I will leave you. The meaning, rather, is as follows: G-d informs Jacob that the union between the righteous and the Blessed One being stronger in the chosen land than outside it, it should follow that He leave him [now that Jacob is leaving the land], but his going being for the purpose of fulfilling his father's command, viz. (Genesis 28:6): \"Do not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan,\" the Blessed One will protect him and be with him [even there], for one who cleaves to good people inclines his heart to service of the L-rd and one who does not do so causes his seed to be removed from Him.", "\tAnd though Lavan, the father of Rachel and Leah, was an idol-worshipper, Isaac preferred that Jacob choose a bride from Lavan's family rather than from the daughters of Canaan. The reason for all this is as follows: A man has free will and can choose whichever way he wishes, as it is written (Deuteronomy 30:15): \"See, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil — and choose life.\" If one denies this, it is as if he denies the entire Torah. And not only does he undermine the foundations of Torah, but he also denies the manifest nature of reality. For it is apparent that nature contains three categories: necessary, possible, and impossible, and that those things which are possible are as hidden to nature as they are to us. If it were not so, one would know what his neighbor would do momentarily or he would be just as ignorant of such deeds of his own as he was of his neighbor's. But the nature of reality plainly demonstrates otherwise — that a man's deeds are in his own hands, that he is not compelled or restrained.", "\tBut notwithstanding this, it cannot be denied by any means that a man has certain natural predispositions which incline him towards certain good or bad characteristics respectively. And these predispositions are transferred from father to son, for they are inherent natural inclinations (though they do not constitute compulsions). Therefore, since the daughters of Canaan possessed these evil predispositions, our forefathers chose to keep far from them and to enter into unions with those who were not similarly predisposed, though they served idols. For the aforementioned predispositions are inherited by one's children and are in the category of those physical sicknesses referred to in the medical treatises as \"hereditary illnesses.\" Now the mitzvoth and transgressions of the Torah fall into two classes. There are some that jointly affect body and soul, and others that affect only the soul alone. The latter effect, though it be extremely severe, is not transferred to the offspring, there being no ties of familial relationships between souls. But those transgressions which affect soul and body jointly for the bad perforce transfer these effects to the offspring. And the transgressions which thus affect both body and soul are those which border upon character traits, such as hatred, envy, cruelty, slander, and the like. These make an evil imprint on the soul in that they are both transgressions and evil characteristics. And, in addition to this, they make an evil imprint on the body, as I shall explain.", "\tIt is clear and well known that just as the humors affect the traits, so the traits affect the humors. For just as it is dictated that one with hot, boiling blood be inclined to anger, so is it dictated that one who always becomes angry implant in his nature a predisposition to anger. The same is true of all personality traits. Therefore, one who habituates himself to these evil traits predisposes his nature to them, and, in most cases, the nature of the children is patterned after that of their parents. Accordingly, it followed that the evil characteristics of the men of Canaan be passed on to their children after them. (But though Lavan served idols it did not follow that his children's nature correspond to his in this respect at all.) For what demands the greatest circumspection are those things which border on the character traits and the influences attributable to the temper of one's heart, this being the beginning, the root, the spring, and the source of most of a man's characteristics, as our sages of blessed memory have said (Yerushalmi Berachoth 1:5): \"Give Me your eyes and your heart and I shall know that you are Mine.\" Though the eyes are here conjoined with the heart, it is not by virtue of their possessing any special influence of their own, but by virtue of their transmitting impressions and perceptions to the heart. As Scripture states (Proverbs 4:23): \"Of all watchings watch your heart, for from it are the issues of life.\" The commentators have explained that \"from it\" refers to the \"watchings,\" the intent being to exhort one to take heed not to make light of any watchings,\" i.e., the gates and fences that were instituted by our sages; for though they may be insignificant in his eyes, the \"issues of life\" depend upon them. This is their understanding, and it is undoubtedly true, but it does not seem to be the intent of the verse. For if it were, it should not have been stated \"your heart,\" the gates and fences being the province of act and not of heart. It would seem, then, that \"from it\" refers to the heart and not to the watchings and that it subsumes a wondrous idea and an extremely noble analogy, the analogy being in the realm of the material and the analogue in that of the spiritual, and both containing the same idea and with the same subject. This is the most perfect type of analogy possible and it achieves the optimum realization of the very purpose of analogies, as I shall explain.", "\tIt is well known that intellect contemplates and perceives its rarefied objects in themselves; it does not require them to be clothed in material vestments. But the nature implanted in a human being does not accede to this, but requires that all of its percepts and concepts be material things that can be sensed by physical senses. Therefore, when intellect wishes to guide nature and to edify it with a subtle understanding, it must do so through the agency of a gross, perceptible analogy that is attuned to it and from which it can educe the intended teaching. Intellect follows, in this respect, the practice of the accomplished sage who desires to apprise his disciple of a subtlety beyond his understanding. First he trains him with ideas less subtle than the first but close to it in nature to habituate him to the type of thinking required. The same is true of intellect vis-à-vis nature, and this is the purpose of most analogies; but they vary, however, from subject [of analogy] to subject [of analogue]. Consider, for example, the following analogy of Solomon, may peace be upon him (Ecclesiastes 9:14): \"There was a little city with few men within it. And a great king came against it and besieged it and built great siegeworks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he saved the city through his wisdom, but no one remembered that poor man.\" This is an analogy to encourage and edify a man. For all of a man's senses and lusts are at the beck and call of the evil inclination, the \"great king\" of the analogy. And the helpers of a man's intellect are very few, so that at first glance it would seem too weak and frail to conquer this king, who has already built great siegeworks — man's senses and lusts. Still, as will be clearly seen, this poor man, who is held to be of no account, will save the city through his wisdom from the hands of this mighty king. So the intellect, though it seem no match for the evil inclination, can humble and reduce it, for a little truth can vanquish much falsehood as a little light vanquishes much darkness. Now this analogy, though corresponding to the analogue, differs from it in subject. And this is true of most of Solomon's analogies in The Book of Proverbs. Another case in point is his analogy for the ignorance to be found in one who is lax in his pursuit of wisdom, viz. (Proverbs 24:30): \"I went by the field of a lazy man and by the vineyard of a man lacking a heart. And, behold, it was all grown over with thorns, and nettles had covered it over, and its stone wall was broken down.\" The intent here is that if one is not absolutely zealous in his pursuit of wisdom, most of its concepts will be foreign to him and ignorance will assert itself over him, as our sages have stated (Sifrei, Ha'azinu 306): \"Let us sift through the halachoth so that they do not raise rust.\" Now all of these analogies are true and directed to one idea, but they vary in subject. It is very rare to find an analogy corresponding to the analogue in its very subject, and, at the same time, for the analogy to be in the realm of the material and the analogue in that of intellect — and our present analogy embodies both of these perfections!", "\tFirst, to explain something which is at the root of the analogy and the analogue. It is well known that an error which arises in the beginning of any analysis, though it be extremely slight, will lead to far greater deviations than will result from a far greater error which does not arise in the beginning. For example, imagine a great circle with many radii projecting from its center to its circumference. It is possible that the distance between the radii at the circumference be a mile or more, though they meet at one point in the center of the circle. Now if one finds himself at this center point and wishes to travel to a distant place along one of these radii, if he errs between one radius and another, the error, at that point, will be imperceptible. Notwithstanding this, however, that slight, initial error will cause him to stray much more than an error in the middle of the way, though the later error at the outset, involve a visibly greater movement from his path. For the beginning error perpetuates itself; not so, the later one. And this is the intent of \"Of all watchings watch your heart, for from it are the issues of life.\" \"From it\" refers to the heart. Now this verse contains a \"gross\" material element — the analogy — and a subtle, intellectual element — the analogue. The analogy is clear. The heart is the source of life, from which all the faculties derive. For even according to those who hold that the faculties are three-fold — spiritual, vitalistic, and natural — all agree that their origin and prime material source is the spirit emanating from the heart. Therefore, nature is extremely solicitous in guarding the heart and in rejecting any elements inimical to it. For, being the beginning of things, the slightest injury to it does more damage than the greatest injury to any of the other organs. For this reason it does not tolerate abscessing, or disconnecting and rejoining, or great variations in climate. The analogy, then, is to protect the heart against anything which might injure it and to be extremely solicitous of its health, all the faculties deriving from it and the slightest mistake affecting it severely, as is the case, in general, with all mistakes affecting beginnings. This is the analogy, and it is true in its own right. The analogue, however, is of a more subtle, spiritual nature. And that is that the characteristics of the heart, which are referred to as the \"spiritual affectors\" are the root of all Divine service and the root of all transgressions. And it is for this reason that our forefathers did not enter into alliances with the daughters of Canaan, for the evil predispositions of their hearts were inheritable by their children after them, as we have explained (these predispositions affecting soul and body and being transferable in respect of the latter).", "\tHowever, to see the characteristics of the heart as the root of all Divine service requires close analysis. For the mitzvoth of the Torah are of three kinds. Some involve beliefs and ideas alone, such as the belief in the existence of the Blessed One, Divine providence, and reward and punishment. As far as these mitzvoth are concerned, there is no doubt that the heart is their beginning, root, and foundation, so much so that they almost do not depart from it but have in it their inception and culmination. This class of mitzvoth does not affect the body directly, but only adventitiously. The second class are the character-trait mitzvoth, such as charity and lovingkindness. These undoubtedly have their root and foundation in the heart. And because this class includes so many of the mitzvoth, our sages (Sabbath 31a) adduce the episode of the gentile, who, coming to Hillel and asking to be taught the entire torah on one foot, was answered: \"'Love your neighbor as yourself' — the rest is commentary; go out and study.\" The intent here is that one who implants this goodly characteristic in his heart will find most of the mitzvoth easy. This class of mitzvoth affects soul and body alike, as do the act-oriented mitzvoth, which point to a particular thing warranting our belief, such as the eating of matzoh as a reminder of the exodus from Egypt, dwelling in sukkoth as a reminder of that past experience itself, and resting on the Sabbath as a reminder of the creation. These mitzvoth, though they are executed by organs other than the heart, since their ultimate intent is the imprint of their associated idea on the soul, the heart may be regarded as their beginning and their root. The third class are those mitzvoth whose reasons are not evident to the multitude and which are referred to as \"statutes.\" These mitzvoth, though seemingly unreferrable to the heart, are not so; for they, too, must be performed with complete intent for the sake of Heaven, though their reasons not be apparent.", "\tThe root and foundation of mitzvoth, then, is the heart, and it is there that they have their beginning. And since the slightest error occurring in the beginning causes greater deviations than a greater error occurring later, Solomon says \"Of all watchings watch your heart…\" That is, be extremely zealous in nurturing the characteristics of your heart until they have reached the point of perfection; and guard your heart form every evil characteristic, though it be the slightest of the slight. For \"from it\"; that is, from the heart \"are the issues of life\" for the soul. This being so, it must be scrupulously guarded against \"beginning errors.\"", "\tIt thus emerges that thought in Divine service and fulfillment of mitzvoth is the fruit of mitzvoth and the source of Divine service; and correspondingly, the thought root in transgression is the root of rebellion. This is the intent of the statement of our sages (Yoma 29a): \"Thoughts of transgression are worse than the transgression itself\" (and see The Sixth Discourse). And though the Rambam interprets this aptly in the Moreh Nevuchim to the effect that one who rebels against the Blessed One in his thoughts does so with the highest element of his being, while one who rebels against Him with his body does so with the lowest element, I understand this in yet another way: One who repeatedly falls into transgression must have in his heart a certain evil prompting and the root of an evil thought, for otherwise, how could he sacrifice something as precious as eternal reward for a worthless, transitory thing? To be capable of this there must perforce be in his heart a certain evil thought. And in this respect the wicked fall into different classes. There are some who are brought to this pass by denial of the existence of the Blessed One, as it is written (Psalms 14:1): \"The wretch has said in his heart: 'There is no G-d.' They have corrupted themselves; they have performed abominations. There is none of them that does good.\" That is, the wretch, by saying in his heart that there is no G-d delivers himself up to all the transgressions. And there are others who are brought to this pass by denying divine providence, as it is written (Psalms 10:13): \"Why does the wicked man rebel against G-d? He says in his heart: 'You will not seek out…'\" and (Ezekiel 8:12): \"G-d has forsaken the land.\" And there are yet others who are brought to this pass by denying reward and punishment, inventing rationalizations in doing so, and thereby abandoning themselves to all the desires of their heart. This is the intent of the verse (Proverbs 26:9-10): \"As a thorn enters into the hand of a drunkard, so does an aphorism into the mouth of a fool [viz.]: 'The Maker of all does greatly; He rewards the fool, and He rewards transgressors.'\" That is, just as a drunkard standing among the roses sometimes intends to pick a rose but comes up with a thorn instead, in the same way a fool sometimes thinks to come up with instructive, soul-enriching aphorisms but comes up with a painful \"thorn\" instead, one of his favorites being that the Blessed One, the Maker of all, is so expansive in His acts that He does not discriminate between His servants and the transgressors of His will, but all are equal to Him and He rewards them all. It thus becomes clear that those who are given to transgressions are so because of certain evil thoughts in them in the realm of heresy. And this is the intent of \"Thoughts of transgression are worse than the transgression itself.\" For the deed component of a transgression is but one transgression, whereas its thought component is denial of the roots of all the mitzvoth. For it is impossible that one be constantly drawn to transgression otherwise (unless he be a complete fool and ignoramus). And it is in this respect that our sages said (Sotah 3a): \"An man does not transgress unless there enters into him a spirit of folly.\" Their meaning is as follows: It is impossible for one to transgress unless there be in his heart denial of the roots of the Torah, in which case he would not simply be referred to as a \"transgressor\" but as a \"heretic.\" Therefore, one shunning this, it cannot be that he will transgress unless there enter into him a spirit of folly.", "\tIt is clear, then, that the major element in mitzvoth and transgressions is intent. This being so, the thoughts of the heart are the root of Divine service and of rebellion. And this is the intent of \"Of all watchings watch your heart…,\" for the promptings whose root and source is in the heart provide a great entrance for cleaving to G-d and drawing close to Him, even those promptings which do not constitute mitzvoth and transgressions, such as joy and sadness. As our sages have said (Pesachim 117a): \"'A song of David' — first he sang and then the Shechinah came to rest upon him. This teaches us that the Shechinah comes to rest upon one not in the midst of lassitude or sadness or jesting or light-headedness or idle talk, but only in the midst of the joy of a mitzvah, as it is written (II Kings 3:15): 'And now, get for me a minstrel. And it was, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the L-rd was upon him.'\" Now the greatest possible cleaving of a man to his Creator is his being invested with the Shechinah, and this cleaving must be generated by a prompting of the heart. The reason for this is that the prophetic faculty requires a bodily faculty, that of imagination, and this faculty is strengthened by pleasing and pleasurable sensations.", "\tAnd hereby is resolved a great question, namely: how could the Blessed One have desired that Isaac bless Jacob not knowing that he was Jacob but thinking he was Esau? For though the power of the blessing was not diminished thereby, as we have written [in The Second Discourse], still, it would have been more seemly, when Isaac was blessing Jacob, to know whom he was blessing. Furthermore, this caused the eternal hatred of Esau to Jacob, the latter having contrived to deprive him of his blessing, which would not have been the case had Isaac received a special spirit of prophecy to bless Jacob.", "\tThe answer: Scripture makes it clear that Isaac loved Esau, undoubtedly not knowing of his evil deeds, as our sages have apprised us (Tanchuma, Toldoth 8). And if there had come to him a prophecy that he put aside his eldest son, whom he loved, and bless Jacob instead, there is no doubt that this would have saddened him; and this sadness would have prevented the spirit of the L-rd from coming to rest upon him in perfection. For this reason the Blessed One desired him to think that he was blessing his beloved son, Esau, so that his heart expand in joy and he attain the godly spirit to the full extent of his powers. And this is, likewise, the reason for Isaac's saying to Esau (Genesis 27:4): \"And make me savory food, as I love, and bring it to me and I will eat it, so that my soul bless you.\" That is, so that his soul expand and rejoice and the spirit of prophecy come to rest upon it. And it is because of this factor that the Blessed One desired that Jacob think he was blessing Esau when he was, in reality, blessing Jacob.", "\tNow if you will ask: Why should the blessing avail for Jacob, and why did Isaac say (Ibid 37): \"But I have made him your lord, and I have given him all of his brothers as servants … and what shall I do now for you, my son!\" How could he have made Jacob a lord if he had intended to give all to Esau! Did we not learn in respect to vows (Nedarim 11:5): \"If his wife made a vow and he thought his daughter made it, or if his daughter made a vow and he thought his wife made it … he must annul it again,\" for what is said to one person on the assumption that he is a different person does not avail him at all. This being so, why should Isaac have said \"and what shall I do now for you my son?\" Furthermore, why did Esau not challenge the blessing itself instead of merely protesting (Ibid 38): \"Do you have just one blessing, my father?\" He should have said: \"That blessing was given in error and will not avail him; give it to me!\"", "\tThe answer: The prophet does not exercise any choice in his prophecy, neither in its content nor in its words. He is simply a receptacle for it, comparable in this regard to a mirror that will reflect only in proportion to the sun's action upon it. The spirit of the Blessed One comes to the prophet with ordered, limited words; he does not supply the words for what he has perceived. This is what David intended in (II Samuel 23:2): \"The spirit of the L-rd spoke in me, and His word upon my tongue.\" That is, that revelation came to him by the spirit of the Blessed One — and not just the idea, for which he had to frame the words; but the words, too, were placed by the L-rd upon his tongue. He exercised no choice in them at all, but simply served as a vessel through which the light of prophecy was seen and through which the words of godly speech were heard.", "\tAnd this was the situation of Isaac vis-à-vis Jacob. For if the blessings had proceeded from Isaac himself, there is no question that they would have been of no avail to Jacob and that Esau could have challenged them, as indicated. But all of these blessings were stated by the spirit of G-d, Isaac merely serving as a vessel for that Divine power and speech, standing in the same relation to it as a trumpet to a man's breath. For this reason the value of the blessings was in no way diminished by Isaac's intent to bless Esau. For the blessings took effect not because of Isaac's intent but because of G-d's spirit coming to rest upon him to bless whoever was before him and between his hands. This has its parallel in nature. For example, if one wishes to sow barley but has wheat in his hand, there is no doubt that if he sows the wheat it will sprout wheat as if that were what he intended in the first place. In the same way, the prophet exercises no control over his prophecy, but is its vessel alone.", "\tAnd Isaac's words to Esau (Genesis 27:33) \"And I ate of all before you came, and I blessed him, and he will be blessed, too\" are not to be interpreted as signifying that Isaac would go back and confirm the blessing upon Jacob. For if this were its meaning then Esau would have great cause for complaint against his father and he did not give vent to such complaint at all. To the contrary, we find Isaac saying to him \"and what shall I do now for you, my son?\" the implication being: If I could fulfill your request I would gladly do so. And after being \"filled with great trembling,\" how could Isaac confirm the blessing in the very midst of his shock, saying \"and he will be blessed, too\"? The meaning, rather, is \"and I blessed him\" unknowingly, but, in spite of this, \"he will be blessed\"; for the blessing proceeded not from Isaac, but from the spirit which rested upon him. (The \"too\" in \"and he will be blessed, too\" emphasizes the \"trembling,\" viz. \"Who is this that caused me to bless him, and who, perforce, will remain blessed?\") It is clear, then, that the blessings themselves suffer in no way from Isaac's blessing Jacob and intending Esau, but that, to the contrary, they are magnified as a result of the greater expansion of Isaac's heart attendant upon his misapprehension.", "\tTo this should be added the fact that the Blessed One, \"who scans the actions of men and brings counsel from afar,\" wished to create animosity between the brothers, so that when the one sinned the other would be \"the staff of His wrath and the rod of His anger\" to chastise him. And He implanted this in the nature of these two brothers by making them opposites and generating therefrom all of their activities. The entire episode follows this theme. First it is written (Genesis 25:22): \"And the children wrangled within her, and she said: 'If so, why am I thus?'\" which our sages expounded (Genesis Rabbah 63:6) to the effect that when Rebeccah became conscious of the fetuses' strange movements, she asked the pregnant women if something like this had ever happened to them, and when answered in the negative said: \"If so,\" this not being the way of nature, \"why am I thus\" placed in this strange situation which was never the lot of others? (Ibid): \"And she went to inquire of the L-rd\" — (that is, of a prophet) to be apprised why this was happening, and he answered her, viz. (Ibid 23): \"And the L-rd said to her: 'There are two nations in your womb, and two peoples will separate themselves from your innards.'\" He thereby informed her that these two fetuses would be the progenitors of different mighty nations and peoples, who would be entirely incompatible with each other and unable to co-exist in peace, but (Ibid): \"One people will overpower the other.\" It was for this reason that the Blessed One implanted in these two fetuses natures of the very opposite extremes. This is evidenced both in their physical features and in their character traits. In their physical features — Esau was ruddy and hairy, attesting to his hot-blooded, passionate nature; whereas Jacob was smooth-skinned, attesting to his good, even-tempered nature. And their character traits paralleled their natures. For though character is not dictated by nature, it is undeniably predisposed by it. For this reason it is written (Ibid 27) that Esau \"knew hunting\" (his nature inclining to stratagems and subtleties, the like being employed in the trapping of animals) and that he was \"a man of the field\" (seeking movement, his feet not planted in his home). And Jacob possessed the opposite of these two tendencies. He was \"a simple man,\" walking uprightly and \"glorying in dwelling at home.\" Their physical features and their character traits, then, show them to be of diametrically opposed natures, the Blessed One having created them thus (but not having compelled them to be good or evil). And this is the natural reason, in my view, for the two fetuses being antagonistic to each other while yet in the womb. For I do not believe that these two fetuses were invested with a prophetic effluence which foreshadowed their destiny. In any event an explanation in terms of nature is called for, and that is that their antagonism stemmed from the Blessed One's having created them diametrically opposed in nature, so that their natures contended with each other in the womb itself (though they were not pre-determinedly good or evil). And because every natural force, when it encounters its opposite, either attempts to overpower it or flees before it, each one of those fetuses sought through its natural force to overpower the other or to escape it. This is the intent of \"Vayitrotzatzu\" [\"and they wrangled\"], which connotes both running and striking. And this was deliberately intended by the Blessed One so that each one be imbued with hatred and aversion towards the other. For similarity of natures produces similar character traits and invites love, whereas dissimilarity in natures produces a corresponding dissimilarity in character traits and arouses hatred. (In my view, the serpent in Genesis is to be understood in the same manner, but this is not the place for it [see The First Discourse]). In sum, the brothers were implanted with diametrically opposite natures to create between them a root of hatred.", "\tAnd the Blessed One superadded to this the factor of primogeniture. For it is well known that the transference of legacies and the appropriation of what is due another by cause of it is often a strong cause of estrangement between brothers. And because this factor was not yet so pronounced (Esau having acceded in selling the birthright), the Blessed One superadded the factor of the blessing, engineering it in such a way that Esau would attempt to obtain it and Isaac intend to bless him, notwithstanding which it would be fully bequeathed to Jacob, as we have explained. This was a strong, enduring cause furthering the Blessed One's aim of generating hatred between the two brothers and between their children, a hatred that would last until the end of days. For the seed of Esau will not cease from nationhood until the days of the Messiah, as indicated in the words of Daniel. Daniel saw four creatures, three of which were interpreted to him as symbolizing Media, Persia, and Greece, respectively, as indicated there (Daniel 8:20-21), the fourth being identified by our sages as Amalek [=Edom=Esau]. And Daniel prophesied that Israel would be given over into his hands until the end of the time period alluded to there in five places. And, as seems to be indicated from the plain meaning of the verses, the time in question was not made clear even to Daniel's satisfaction. For in the first vision it is stated (Daniel 7:25): \"And he [the fourth] shall wear out the holy ones of the most High and think to change times and laws. And they shall be given into his hand for a season, and seasons, and half a season.\" And Daniel did not understand this, as it is written (Ibid 28): \"My thoughts greatly confounded me and my color changed, but I kept the matter in my heart.\" And in the second vision it is asked (Ibid 8:13): \"How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice and the transgressions of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden underfoot?\" — and answered (Ibid 14): \"For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings then the sanctuary shall be restored.\" And here, too, it is written (Ibid 27): \"And I, Daniel, fainted and was sick for days … and I was astonished at the vision, but no one understood it.\" And at the end it is written (Ibid 12:6): \"And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river: 'How long shall it be until the end of the wonders?'\" And he answered (Ibid 7): \"For a time, times, and a half; and when the crushing of the power of the holy people shall have been completed, all these things shall be finished.\" And here, too, he says (Ibid 8): \"And I heard, but I did not understand.\" And here, too, the response is (Ibid 9): \"Go, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end.\"", "\tAnd it is no wonder that the words were concealed and closed up, there being two reasons for this: the first, the very nature of the matter, which warrants secrecy and concealment so that the populace not be confounded by its great duration; the second, the progressive diminution of prophecy at that time. It is well known that the criteria of prophecy are clarity or its relative absence. For example, the prophecy of the \"prince of the prophets,\" Moses, was characterized by complete clarity, as it is written (Numbers 12:8): \"…manifestly, and not in riddles.\" It follows from this that towards the close of the period of prophecy the visions be completely unclear. It is for this reason that the visions of Zechariah were of this nature, to the extent that the expositors are completely befuddled by them. And for this reason, too, it is no wonder that the \"reckoners of the ends\" of the exiles calculated and erred and \"grew weary in searching for the door.\" This was the case with respect to the two exiles in which we were redeemed, though the times of the redemption were explicitly stated in Scripture. Of the redemption from Egypt it is written (Genesis 15:13): \"For your children shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years,\" in spite of which the children of Ephraim calculated and erred and were premature in their attempted termination of the exile (Sanhedrin 92b). The same occurred with the second redemption, though its time was stated with relative clarity, viz. (Jeremiah 29:10): \"After the completion of seventy years in Bavel, I shall remember you…\" And concerning this our sages say (Megillah 11b-13a) that Belshazzar calculated and erred, Ahasheurus calculated and erred, and even Daniel calculated and erred. Now if this was the case with explicit prophecies designating determinate years, what should be the case with the redemption deliberately alluded to in veiled words — \"season and seasons, and time and times, and two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings\"!", "\tIn any event, it is clear from the words of Daniel that the fourth creature is Amalek. For he reckons those peoples symbolized by the creatures, each of which seized the reign from its neighbor, and it is known from the words of our sages that Amalek [Rome] seized the reign from Greece and asserted its power over her. And it is Amalek that exiled us from our land, which is the domicile of the Shechinah, as revealed to Jacob in his prophetic vision of the ladder and by the singling out of that place Beth-El [the house of G-d], for the vision. For He showed him when he left Lavan and returned to the land of Israel that that land possessed a great eminence over other lands and that the soul was there disposed to cleave to the Celestial Light, as it is written (Genesis 32:2): \"And Jacob went on his way and angels of G-d met him.\" \"met him\" implies that angels always walk in that land and so are to be met by one who enters it. And it is for this reason that Jacob called that place Machanaim [camps]. For there are three levels of habitation: the habitation of the celestial encampment, the heavens; the habitation of the terrestrial encampment, the entire earth — with the exception of the land of Israel; and the land of Israel itself, which is both the habitation of the terrestrial encampment (human beings dwelling there) and the habitation of the celestial encampment (\"for I have met there a camp of angels\"). That place, then, was well worthy of the appellation \"camps.\" And this is the intent of (Ibid 3): \"And Jacob said when he saw them: 'This is the camp of G-d,' And he called that place Machanaim.\"" ], [ "\"WITH WHAT SHALL I COME BEFORE THE L-RD AND BOW MYSELF BEFORE THE HIGH G-D? SHALL I COME BEFORE HIM WITH BURNT OFFERINGS, WITH CALVES OF A YEAR OLD? WILL THE L-RD BE PLEASED WITH THOUSANDS OF RAMS OR WITH TEN THOUSANDS OF RIVERS OF OIL? SHALL I GIVE MY FIRSTBORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION, THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL? HE HAS TOLD YOU, O MAN, WHAT IS GOOD: AND WHAT DOES THE L-RD REQUIRE OF YOU, BUT TO DO JUSTICE AND LOVE LOVINGKINDNESS AND WALK HUMBLY WITH YOUR G-D?\" (MICAH 6:6-8)", "It is the Rambam's view, and a fundamental principle, that with the doing of any one of the mitzvoth alone, one merits life in the world to come. This is, likewise, the view of the Rosh. And the Rambam states this explicitly in his commentary on the Mishnah (Makkoth 3:16). The Mishnah states: \"R. Chanania b. Akashya said: 'The Holy One Blessed be He desired to make Israel meritorious. He, therefore, increased for them Torah and mitzvoth…,'\" upon which the Rambam comments: \"It is one of the fundamentals of faith in the Torah that when one fulfills any one of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvoth as prescribed and as fitting, and he does not allow it to become intermixed with any worldly motive whatsoever, but does it entirely for its own sake, out of love for the L-rd, as I have explained to you (Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1), he thereby merits life in the world to come. This is the intent of the aforementioned statement, that because the mitzvoth are many it is inconceivable that one should not perform one of them correctly and perfectly in his lifetime and through that performance insure immortal life for his soul. This principle receives confirmation in R. Chanina b. Teradyon's asking (Avodah Zarah 18a): 'Where do I stand in respect to life in the world to come?' and being answered [by R. Yossi b. Kisma]: 'Is there any deed that would qualify you for it? Is there any mitzvah that you executed perfectly?' Whereupon he answered that he had once performed the mitzvah of charity with the greatest possible perfection, and he thereby merited life in the world to come.\"", "Now though this is certainly an extremely precious principle, which should be embraced and not rejected, it is not at all alluded to in the citation adduced by the master. For R. Yossi b. Kisma certainly did not doubt that R. Chanina b. Teradyon had fulfilled any one of the mitzvoth. He was only asking to be told one detail of the performance to satisfy his own desire for mitzvoth and for perfection in Divine service. For that one detail would be representative of the others, much more so when it would be a great indicator of goodly traits and excellent characteristics, as it was in the case of R. Chanina b. Teradyon.", "My own view of the principle enunciated by the master is as follows: The Blessed One, for His great Name's sake, commanded to Israel through Moses His prophet six hundred and thirteen mitzvoth, designating reward for each one of them. But there is no doubt that the reward is not the same for each of them, as our sages have stated (Avoth 2:1): \"Run to perform a lesser mitzvah as a greater one, for you do not know the reward of mitzvoth.\" And there are one or two, or two or three or more, the reward of which is equivalent to that of many other mitzvoth combined. But the Torah did not wish to specify these rewards so that men would not pursue only those mitzvoth whose reward is relatively great and forsake those of relatively lesser reward, as mentioned in the Midrashim. And this concealment and lack of specification was designed to result in gain. For, not knowing which of the mitzvoth promised greater reward, all men would pursue all mitzvoth, saying: \"Perhaps this is the mitzvah of greatest reward and value.\" This would result in one's attaining the greatest possible perfection of which he was capable, through his fulfilling all of the mitzvoth. And this was the intent of the Blessed One, the Giver of the Law, in this concealment. And according to this cogent premise, it is possible, and, indeed, true that in performing one mitzvah perfectly all of his days one may attain life in the world to come. But this is not true of all mitzvoth. For there are certain mitzvoth which, in themselves, will not result in life in the world to come and which will be rewarded in this world alone and enter into the category of (Kiddushin 39b): \"He whose merits are more than his transgressions is considered to have fulfilled the entire Torah and not to have omitted even one letter of it.\" But there is no doubt that there are some mitzvoth of such great value and reward that even a few of them will cause one to merit life in the world to come. This is the intent of (Makkoth 23b): \"R. Simlai expounded: 'Six hundred and thirteen mitzvoth were given to Moses at Sinai… David came and established them at eleven, as it is written (Psalms 15): \"Who will dwell in Your tent…\" Isaiah came and established them at six…\"", "I understand this as follows: There is no question that David, may peace be upon him, and those who came after him did not diminish or abridge the mitzvoth of the Torah in any way. No thinking man entertains any doubt in this respect, for \"a prophet may not originate anything\" (Megillah 2b). The intent is, rather, as I have said, that each one of these — Moses, David, Isaiah, Micah, and Habakkuk, may peace be upon them — sought the greatest good of the Jews, but each one did so in accordance with his particular generation. Moses our teacher, hoping that the men of his generation and their descendants would fulfill all of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, did not wish to reveal the relatively greater reward of some mitzvoth over the others, so that the latter, offering relatively less reward, not be forsaken. For, the matter being left in concealment, all of Israel would pursue all of the mitzvoth on the possibility that any one of them might contain the greater reward, and they would thus achieve complete perfection for their souls. This was the intent of Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him.", "King-David, however, seeing that most of the men of his generation had furthered themselves from the attainment of perfection, realized that what Moses had regarded as beneficial would, in their case, be detrimental because of their inadequate zealousness for the fulfillment of the entire Torah, and that revealing to them some of the mitzvoth of especially great value would generate in them zealousness towards their acquisition. It is for this reason that David came and established them at eleven, it having been received by him as a tradition that the reward for these eleven was exceedingly great (just as all of the other traditions handed down by the prophets), and he revealed this to the men of his generation so that they would be zealous in their regard and thus merit life in the world to come. And though there are among these eleven mitzvoth some whose reward is much greater than that of the others and not at all equal, David concealed this fact for the very same reason that Moses concealed revelation of reward in respect to all of the mitzvoth. For just as Moses hoped that the men of his generation would fulfill all of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvoth, concealment being of great benefit in this regard, as we explained, so David, may peace be upon him, hoped that the men of his generation would fulfill all of these eleven mitzvoth, to which end the concealment of relatively greater reward of one mitzvah over the other was of great benefit.", "And when the generations further deteriorated in the days of Isaiah, he saw that the concealment desired by David would prove detrimental, for they would not fulfill these eleven mitzvoth, and if a lesser number, of great value, were revealed to them they would fulfill them and thus merit life in the world to come. He, therefore, established them at six. And in the days of Micah, when there was a further deterioration, he established them at three, namely (Micah 6:8): \"to do justice, and love lovingkindness, and walk humbly.\" Our sages explained (Makkoth 24a): \"'To do justice' — this is judgment; 'and love lovingkindness' — this is the bestowal of lovingkindness; 'and walk humbly' — this is the taking out of the dead and the taking in of the bride. Now does this not provide an a fortiori lesson! If in relation to those things which are not customarily done in a covert manner we are told by the Torah 'and walk humbly,' how much more so in relation to those which are [should we deport ourselves with modesty]!\" Their intent is that even those things which are normally publicized (such as those things which are done at the rejoicing of the bridegroom) should not be overly publicized, but should be as limited in publicity as possible. It would be well, then, now that the custom has spread to deliver discourses at weddings, to confine these discourses to the wedding hall itself; for even in relation to those things which are not done covertly we are instructed \"and walk humbly.\"", "(Micah 6:6): \"With what shall I come before the L-rd?\" There is no doubt that all of existence is pure lovingkindness, as it is written (Psalms 89:3): \"The world is built of lovingkindness.\" For nothing came before us for which we would merit reward. But His good is constantly with us, and because of its very constancy and our having become habituated to it, we are ignorant of it! As it is written (Hosea 11:3): \"And I 'habituated' Ephraim. I took them by their arms. And they did not know that it was I who healed them!\" That is, because of the great good that the Blessed One did to Ephraim, they were ignorant of it and did not regard it as good at all, for one does not feel that to which he becomes accustomed.", "And among the great goods that the Blessed One has bestowed upon us, one of His supreme lovingkindnesses, is having so gauged the mitzvoth that they can be performed easily, without great exertion. For the Blessed One wished to make us meritorious and He did not impose arduous labors upon us which we would come to despise, as our sages explained (Taanith 4a) in respect to the verse (Jeremiah 19:5): \"…which I did not command, and which I did not speak, and which did not even enter my mind.\" And this is especially apparent in respect to repentance. For reason would dictate that a foolish servant who rebelled against a great king who had bestowed upon him the greatest of goods — reason would dictate that he would be spurned and that he would be seized with the greatest of desires to give all that he possesses, even his sons and daughters, in atonement of his sins. And this would indeed be fitting and proper. But the Blessed One was extremely lenient in this regard, and chose repentance, commanded us in respect to it, and set forth its provisions very leniently — regret for what had passed and resolution to improve one's deeds in the future — assuring us implicitly that with the fulfillment of these provisions our prior sins would be completely forgiven. This is an awesome wonder and an extremely exalted lovingkindness.", "All of this is herein subsumed by the prophet. He says, by way of suggestion, that it is fitting and dictated by reason that the sinner be of this mind and that he say: \"With what shall I come before the L-rd — so that He forgive me for my sins? Can anything avail me for this? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings…? Will the L-rd be reconciled with thousands of rams as atonement for my sins? And if all these will not suffice, will it avail me if I offer my first-born in atonement of my transgression and the fruit of my belly for the healing of the sin of my soul?\" Here Rabbeinu Yonah pointed out (Shaarei Teshuvah I:25) that for peshaim [transgressions], which are acts of rebellion, as mentioned in Yoma (31b), \"my first-born\" is stated, this being the dearest sacrifice; and for chataim [sins], which are inadvertent acts, \"the fruit of my belly\" is stated. All these are the words of the prophet by way of suggestion as being appropriate for the sinner as a man yearning to attain something so precious that nothing is too dear to offer for it so long as he acquires what he is yearning for — atonement for his sins.", "And the response to this is: \"He has told you, O man, what is good, and what does the L-rd require of you…\" That is, this would, indeed, be fitting, and reason dictates as you say. But the Blessed One has dealt wondrously with you and does not desire of you thousands upon thousands of rams and ten thousands of rivers of oils, or your first-born, or the fruit of your belly, as it is written (Jeremiah 19:5): \"…which I did not command, and which I did not speak, and which did not even enter My mind,\" as explained by our sages (Taanith 4a). He asks of you only proper conduct; that is, \"to do justice…,\" extremely easy things which can be very quickly attained. And there is no doubt that this wondrous lovingkindness grants absolute success, insuring the good of those who arouse themselves to repentance, but it works to the detriment of those evil men who do not bestir themselves to repent. For if repentance demanded what reason dictated be expended for it, such as thousands of rams and ten thousands of rivers of oil, and the first-born, and fruits of the belly, then there would be some rationalization for the wicked; for though all that is required should indeed be given for it, still, the inclination of man's heart being evil, they could not find it in their hearts to take on these arduous toils. But, now that the Almighty has made repentance so easy, what rationalization can be found for one who does not arouse himself to it? This is the intent of (Succah 52b): \"[In the days of the Messiah] the evil inclination will appear to the wicked [in retrospect] as a strand of hair, and they will say: 'How could we not have cut this strand of hair?'\" And this is, likewise, the intent of the verse (Hosea 13:9): \"You have destroyed yourself, O Israel, for I was your help.\" That is, the great help and the generous invitation [to repent] that the L-rd gave Israel for their Divine service, intending thereby great success for them — this intent in itself will be the destruction of the wicked, divesting them of an excuse \"for having left My Torah.\" This is the intent of the prophet in (Ibid 14:20): \"Return, O Israel, to the L-rd your G-d, for you have stumbled in your iniquity,\" after which it is indicated how repentance can be attained if it requires thousands of rams, it being stated that this, indeed, is not required, but only one's regretting what has passed, resolving to improve his conduct in the future, imploring mercy of the Blessed One that one's repentance be accepted, and G-d's granting his request and becoming reconciled with him. This is the intent of (Ibid 3): \"Take with you words and return to the L-rd. Say to Him: 'Forgive all iniquity and take good, and let our lips pay calves.'\" After this we are assured that if we do this, the wrath of the L-rd will turn from us, viz. (Ibid 5): \"I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely; for My wrath is turned away from him.\" \"I will love them freely\" intimates that the penitent, in reality, should not be accepted with words alone (in keeping with the suggested formula of the prophet: \"With what shall I come before the L-rd and bow myself before the high G-d? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the L-rd be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my belly for the sin of my soul?\") — but he is accepted freely, in an access of lovingkindness.", "After this it is written (Ibid 10): \"Whoever is wise let him understand these things; whoever has understanding, let him know them. For the ways of the L-rd are straight, and the righteous will walk in them and the sinners will stumble in them.\" It must be explained why the prophet includes this verse here, within the context of repentance. The explanation, however, is readily understood along the lines we have mentioned. That is, the Blessed One's having provided for us the ways of repentance is beneficial for the good and detrimental to the wicked. This is the intent of \"The ways of the L-rd are straight.\" That is, the ways of the L-rd are straight — they are not hilly or crooked, but straight ways which can be traversed with no great effort at all. The righteous will, accordingly, walk upon them; but the wicked will stumble by virtue of the very straightness of these ways! It would have been better for them if those ways were not so straight as they are, for then they would have had some excuse for not traversing them, an excuse which they lack in consideration of the fact that these ways are straight, broad, and optimally traversable — in spite of which they do not bestir themselves to repent!", "And sometimes calamities occur in faraway places and in the distant isles to arouse Israel to repentance and to fill them with fear and trepidation lest the disaster descend upon them, as the prophet writes (Zephaniah 3:6-7): \"I have cut off nations. Their high places are desolate. I have laid their streets waste, without a passerby. Their cities are destroyed, without a man, without an inhabitant. I said: 'Surely, you will fear Me; you will accept chastisement…'\" And when they refuse to be chastised by the evil descending upon the others, it draws closer and closer to them. And there is no doubt that one who witnesses these calamities (which are, in truth, the warnings of the Blessed One) and persists in his evil way is comparable to one who transgresses and is warned, in which case he incurs the death penalty with repeated transgressions. Therefore, there is no doubt that in these times one must earnestly seek healing for the soul and give it precedence to the healing of the body. This is the intent of King-David, may peace be upon him (Psalms 41:5): \"I said, O L-rd, be gracious to me. Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You.\" That is, when I was ill I prayed for the healing of my soul, and made that the focal point of all my exertions, not the healing of my body. And there is no question that every thinking man should place the healing of his soul before that of his body. For even as concerns bodily ailments the question is raised in the practice of medicine: If there are two ailments affecting two organs, which organ should be healed first? And the answer is given that the following take priority: first, that organ which is in greater danger; second, that organ which is the cause of the other's illness; third, that organ whose healing is a prerequisite for the healing of the other. And all of these three apply to the healing of body and soul. For there is no doubt that the danger to the soul is greater than that to the body, the body being ephemeral and the soul eternal. And there is likewise no doubt in my mind that the illnesses of the soul are the cause of the bodily ailments and that the latter cannot be healed without the soul being healed first. As our sages state (Berachoth 33a): \"In the locale of R. Chanina b. Dosa there was a killer serpent. When they came and told R. Chanina about it, he went and placed his heel upon its lair. The serpent bit him — and died, whereupon R. Chanina took it to the study hall and said: 'See, my children, it is not the serpent that kills, but sin!'\" It is hereby plainly indicated that spiritual ills are the cause of bodily ills and that the healthy soul repels all causes of bodily death. And if one would err and say that this is true only of R. Chanina b. Dosa or of those like him but that it does not even remotely apply to the common run of mankind, this would be an error indeed and a complete misapprehension. For the health and sickness of the soul follow the same path as the health and sickness of the body. And just as you see men of such defective constitutions and weak organs that even the weakest forces injure them, their bodies, because of their weakness, being unable to offer any resistance to these forces — in the same way, those whose souls are defective will not repel any counter-force whatsoever. And just as those who are healthy can, in the access of their health, withstand some of the things that are normally injurious to the body, in the same way healthy souls can withstand injurious influences in proportion to their health. And just as one in the prime of health, by drinking theriac or other such specifics can ward off the effects of all of the poisons and not be injured by them, in the same way, that soul which is in the prime of health, which yearns for mitzvoth and drinks the theriac of repentance — that soul will repel all adverse influences, and this was the estate of R. Chanina b. Dosa and of all those like him.", "And this is the assurance of the faithful prophet (Exodus 15:26): \"If you listen to the voice of the L-rd your G-d and you do what is right in His eyes, and you heed His mitzvoth and observe all His statutes — then all of the ailments that I placed upon Egypt I shall not place upon you, for I am the L-rd who heals you.\" Many wonder about this verse. How can He say: if you do perfectly all I have commanded you, then I will not kill you with terrible illnesses as I cut off those who rebelled against Me and sinned against me! Two misapprehensions are at the root of their wonder. First, their thinking that the Blessed One is offering only the assurance that He will not place upon His servants all of the ailments … This is indeed to be wondered at! How can He assure His servants that He will not place upon them all of the ailments [implying that He will, indeed, place upon them some of them]! Second, their thinking that since not all of the ailments were placed upon the Egyptians then this verse does not amount to an assurance that all of the ailments will be removed from the Jews! As a result, this verse is entirely incomprehensible to them.", "I understand the verse as follows: First it is written (Ibid 25): \"And the L-rd showed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters and the waters became sweet. There He made for Himself a statute and an ordinance, and there He proved them.\" Now this \"proof\" needs explanation. For there is no question that proof serves one of two purposes: the good of the one being proved or the common good. The good of the one being proved: when the mind of the righteous man is of choice quality and he is steadfast in fear of the L-rd, the L-rd puts him to the proof so that his goodly thoughts may be translated into action. Therefore, He will test only that righteous man who can stand the test. This is the intent of (Psalms 11:5): \"The L-rd tries the righteous,\" concerning which the Midrash states (Genesis Rabbah 32:3: Tanchuma Vayera 20): \"The Creator does not test defective vessels which break as soon as He knocks upon them.\" The common good: that all see how far-reaching is love of the Blessed One in the hearts of those who love Him and use what they see as an example and a model for their own conduct. This and only this is the basis for G-d's proving someone. For there is no question that He does not prove one to determine if he can withstand the trial; for the Blessed One has complete and absolute fore-knowledge and entertains no doubts whatsoever. In the aforementioned trial, however, I find neither of these two purposes being served, but the very opposite! For those being tested derived no benefit from the test, but, to the contrary, were harmed by it, by not withstanding their trial and complaining against Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him; and, accordingly, the good of others was not hereby served in that they themselves could not withstand their trial!", "It seems to me, however, that \"and there He proved them\" refers to the aforementioned \"statute and ordinance\" [and not to the people], the intent being that there in Marah He made for Himself a statute and an ordinance and there He proved the statute that He had made for Himself, demonstrating empirically that it was in the nature of His statute and ordinance to remove illness. For our sages of blessed memory have already stated in Yelamdeinu (Tanchuma Beshalach 24) that the tree which Moses cast into the waters was a hardofani [a creeper], which is known to increase bitterness and to pollute sweet waters, and not to heal bitter waters. In spite of this, however, it healed against its nature, having been cast [into the waters] by the mitzvah of the Blessed One. This explains the juxtaposition: \"And he said: 'If you listen to the voice of the L-rd your G-d and you do what is right in His eyes, and you heed His mitzvoth and observe all His statutes — then all of the ailments that I placed upon Egypt I shall not place upon you, for I am the L-rd who heals you.'\" The meaning of \"all of the ailments\" here is \"from among all of the ailments,\" the word \"all\" meaning variously \"all\" and \"from among all,\" as explained in Bechoroth (3a) and Sanhedrin (78a). We find this to be an assurance, then, of the removal of all the illnesses through the performance of all the mitzvoth.", "\"For I am the L-rd who heals you\" has puzzled the expositors. How can \"healing\" be understood without sickness beforehand? I understand it as follows: It is well known that doctors do not heal an illness intrinsically but adventitiously, and that they are called \"healers\" only by extension. For they do not understand the inter-relationship between the drugs they employ and the nature of man, so that whatever they do is a function of the \"tools\" they use. If they agree with man's nature, they will cure the illness, and if they disagree with it they will aggravate the illness. And if they neither agree nor disagree with it, then they will have no effect whatsoever. But the Blessed One is the true Healer, who heals intrinsically, His acts not being subservient to the tools that He employs, but the tools being subservient to Him! And He can remove any ailment by any means which He desires. Therefore, it is written: Do not wonder at My assuring you of the removal of illness through the observance of statutes and ordinances, there seeming to be no relationship in your eyes between these — \"for I am the L-rd who heals you,\" and I can remove from you any ailment through any means I desire. For just as you saw Me heal the sickness of the water by that which in its nature should have aggravated it, in the same way you may believe that I can remove illness from your midst through means which, in your eyes, seem to have no relationship to it whatsoever. And this was, likewise, His intent in telling Moses (Numbers 21:8): \"Make for yourself a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole.\" For the Blessed One had sent fiery serpents upon them, having singled out this punishment for their having spoken in vain against G-d and Moses. For in their other complaints, though they had sinned, it was in respect to one of their needs, such as meat or water. But in this instance [their complaint over the manna] they lacked for nothing, but simply reflected a great evil in their souls, nothing other than wickedness of heart, debasing the choicest of foods, the manna. Their sin was slander, and the slanderer is comparable to the serpent in that just as the serpent injures for no cause but simply to satisfy his evil nature, in the same way, the slanderer spews evil from his mouth, not deriving any benefit thereby, but simply giving vent to the great evil within him. This is the intent of the statement of our sages (Ta'anith 8a): \"In the future all of the animals will gather before the serpent and say to him: 'A lion tramples and eats; a wolf tears and eats; but you — what pleasure do you have?' And he will answer (Koheleth 10:11): 'What benefit is there to the man of the tongue [the slanderer]?'\" And because they had shown the evil of their hearts, He sent against them the most evil of the snakes, the fiery serpents, unparalleled in venomousness (and there transpired with the Jews what transpired). Afterwards, when they admitted their sin and repented, as it is written (Numbers 21:7): \"And the people came to Moses and said: 'We have sinned, for we have spoken against the L-rd and against you…'\", the Blessed One said to Moses: \"Make for yourself a fiery serpent…\" The Ramban remarks very aptly that this, if anything, should have aggravated their illness, for it runs counter to the healing art for those bitten by a serpent to gaze upon it, such gazing being extremely injurious to them. But here the Blessed One specifically commanded them to gaze at the form of the serpent to impress it upon them that all of their affairs were in the hands of Heaven, that they had not been consigned to the ways of nature or of chance at all, that with the fulfillment of all of the Torah there need be no fear of fatal agents, as potent as they may be, as witness the episode of R. Chanina b. Dosa and the serpent.", "We can recognize from this incident how the righteous man takes precedence to the entire universe. For what R. Chanina b. Dosa did with the serpent vis-à-vis himself is equivalent to what Moses our teacher did at the command of the L-rd for all of Israel — and even greater than it. For just as gazing at the brazen serpent should have increased the venom, but, instead, rejected it, in the same way R. Chanina b. Dosa should, according to the laws of nature, have been killed by the serpent, but, instead, he repelled and killed it. This is the intent of our sages' statement (Berachot 6b): \"What is the meaning of (Koheleth 12:13): '…for this is all men'? This righteous man takes precedence to the entire world.\" Others say (Ibid): \"The entire world was created only to accompany this righteous man.\" Imagination rejects this idea, but intellect confirms it. The rejection by imagination that the entire world was created for the sake of one righteous man — that rejection itself falls a thousand and ten-thousand fold before the gaze of the intellect. And this being so, is this not the height of folly and blindness, the intellect's knowing within itself that it can raise the soul to supreme heights or that it is esteemed over and above the entire world, and still to be pulled along after one's desires as an ox eating grass! And if one would be tempted to say that he could never attain such perfection except through unusual wisdom or through perfect Torah knowledge, our answer is: there is no doubt that the reward for Torah study is extremely great — so much so that our sages have said (Yerushalmi Chagigah 1:8): \"The Holy One Blessed be He overlooked idol worship, illicit relations, and the spilling of blood, but He did not overlook neglect of Torah study.\" That is, though the first three obtained during the time of the first Temple, its destruction was attributed to neglect of Torah study alone, as it is written (Jeremiah 9:12): \"…because they forsook My Torah.\" In spite of this, however, I find in the words of the sages that one who dedicates his body and soul to the Blessed One and yearns for His service can attain greater heights than one who has reached the pinnacle of wisdom, viz. (Berachoth 20a): \"Why were miracles performed for the early sages and not for the later ones? Can we attribute it to the greater learning of the former?…\" The Gemara goes on to answer that [to the contrary, the later sages possessed learning in greater measure, but] \"The Merciful One desires the heart.\" They have hereby indicated that it is not wisdom which is the prime criterion, but perfection of intent in the performance of good deeds. For the major objective is not so much the performance of good deeds as the intent of the heart in their performance. Reflect for a moment on this dimension of intent. One who, in intent, cleaves to the Blessed One, even when he is engaged in mundane activities, such as pursuit of a livelihood or of acquisitions — even then he is serving Him perfectly. But one who, in his mind, does not cleave to the Blessed One, even when he thinks that he is serving Him, he is rebelling against Him. This is the intent of the prophet (Isaiah 29:13): \"With their mouth and with their lips they honor Me, but their hearts they are far from Me,\" and (Jeremiah 12:2): \"You are close to their mouths but far from their reins.\" For what counts most is not the act of the mitzvah or the clacking of the lips but the intent of the heart. This is the intent of our sages' statement (Avodah Zarah 35a): \"Sweeter to me are the words of the sages than the wine of [the written] Torah.\" For the words of the sages are fences, guards, and protective measures for the mitzvoth themselves, and one who makes fences and adds precautions for the observance of the mitzvoth demonstrates thereby that he does not perform them by rote but with perfect intent. And this is the prime objective of mitzvoth and their ultimate end. For one who thus perfects himself in the slightest mitzvah that he performs confirms and exemplifies thereby all of the goodly convictions. The same applies to his mundane affairs, having made their end the service of the Blessed One and nothing beside it.", "And it is in this area that most people go astray, their error extending in all directions. For the plain person, when he sees good, saintly men occupying themselves with the affairs of the world — as we see our forefathers to have placed great emphasis upon planting and upon the keeping of livestock (and our sages have stated [Chullin 91a]: \"'And Jacob remained alone' — for some small vessels\") — when the plain man sees this, he says in his heart: \"The saints, in spite of all of their saintliness, preoccupy themselves with worldly affairs. Why should I not do so too?\" Woe to those men who see but who do not know what they are seeing! For they see only the outward act but not the inner intent. For the righteous do all things towards a good, appropriate end, and the rest of mankind, towards no end whatsoever!", "How reminiscent this is of Hippocrates' question in his treatise, Hanhagath Hamiddoth, as to why most people cannot discriminate between the good doctor and the bad one. His answer is that this is due to the latter's employing the same materials as the former. For just as the good doctor employs potions, drugs, salves, and powders, so does the foolish one make use of the very same things. It is just that the wise doctor does all things with the right intent and at the right time, whereas the foolish one acts without sufficient intent and at the wrong time. In the same way, both the saint and the plain person occupy themselves both with mitzvoth and with mundane activities, but whereas all of the activities of the saintly are perfect Divine service because of their perfect intent, the service of the latter, even when they serve the L-rd directly, is not perfect; for intent is what is uppermost in the performance of mitzvoth.", "And the same is true of transgressions. Their thought component is more severe than the act itself. This is how I understand the statement of our sages (Yoma 21a): \"Thoughts of transgression are worse than the transgression itself.\" And though the Rambam explained it very aptly in the Moreh Nevuchim (III:8) to the effect that when one rebels against the L-rd in his thoughts, he rebels against Him with his noblest faculty, his intellect, whereas when he transgresses with his body, he does so with his least significant component, matter — though he thus explains it very aptly, there is a new idea which I would wish to add. That is, if one constantly transgresses and does not repent, some evil thought or root expands in his heart. For if it were not so, how could he constantly persist in sacrificing what is precious and noble for fleeting, ephemeral things and render himself perpetually liable to grave punishment — if not for the expansion of some evil root in his heart.", "And in this respect the wicked are divided into certain classes. There are some whose transgressions bring them to deny the Blessed One's existence. Of these it is written (Psalms 14:1): \"The vile one says in his heart: 'There is no G-d.'\" And there are some who are brought thereby to deny Divine Providence alone, as it is written (Ibid 10:13): \"Why does the wicked man defy G-d, saying in his heart: 'You will not seek out'?\" And there are others who are brought thereby to deny reward and punishment to assume that the Blessed One confers good upon the wicked as He does upon the good. This is the intent of Solomon's statement (Proverbs 26:9-10): \"As a thorn picked up by the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools. The Master creates everything. He rewards the fool and He rewards the transgressors.\" That is, just as a drunkard standing among roses sometimes intends to pick a rose but \"picks\" a thorn instead, in the say way, the fool sometimes thinks to formulate beneficial, instructive parables, but instead of coming up with useful parables, he comes up with \"thorny\" painful ones instead. It is one of his pet sayings, for example, that the Blessed One, the Creator of everything, does not discriminate between the transgressors of His will and His servants — all men are equal to Him; He rewards them all, the fools and the transgressors of His mitzvoth. It is seen, then, that the thoughts born of transgressions are worse than the transgressions themselves. For the eating of forbidden fats is but one transgression, but the thought is the overturning of cornerstones of the Torah. Our sages stated similarly (Sotah 3a): \"A man does not transgress unless there enters into him a spirit of folly.\" That is, he will not transgress without this folly being present within him — the intent to overturn the cornerstones of Torah.", "It thus becomes clear that the major factor in mitzvoth and transgressions is intent. And it follows that though two may perform the same act, the reward of one may be immeasurably greater than that of the other — where the latter performs the act without intent and, as it were, in a state of doubt, thinking: \"If it doesn't help, it won't hurt,\" and the former performs the act with perfect intent. This is alluded to in the verse (Isaiah 10:20): \"And it will be on that day that the remnant of Israel and the saved of the house of Jacob will no longer lean on their smiter, but they will lean on the L-rd, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.\" And that act which was the greatest and the farthest removed from human nature was that of our father Abraham, may peace be upon him, in the binding of Isaac. For he would have incurred no punishment whatsoever if he did not sacrifice him, the Blessed One not having commanded him to do so. And, furthermore, the L-rd had assured him (Genesis 21:12): \"…for in Isaac shall seed be called to you.\" And the language of the verse bears this out, viz. (Ibid 19:2): \"Take, na, your son…,\" it being well known that this term [\"na\"] is not one of command, but of request [i.e. \"I pray you\"], G-d indicating that it would find favor in His eyes if Abraham waived the assurance and sacrificed his son. And if Abraham had responded: \"But You have given me no seed but him and assured me in him, and how can I do this?\" he would not be considered as having sinned and would have incurred no punishment. In spite of this, in his great love for the Blessed One he found it in his heart to sacrifice him — for the sole purpose of doing the Blessed One's will, though no punishment would have overtaken him had he not done so. This is the significance and essence of the binding of Isaac.", "And this is borne out in Yerushalmi (Ta'anith 2:4): \"R. Abba b. Avin said in the name of R. Yochanan: 'Abraham said before the Holy One Blessed be He: \"L-rd of the Universe: it is clear and evident to You that when You asked me to sacrifice my son upon the altar, I could have countered: 'But You told me: \"…for in Isaac shall seed be called to you,\" and now You tell me to bring him up as a burnt-offering! But, G-d forbid, I did not respond in this manner but suppressed my inclination in order to do Your will. L-rd of the Universe, may it be Your will that when the children of Isaac are brought into affliction, with no one to intercede on their behalf, that You intercede on their behalf.' And the L-rd will see and remember for them the binding of Isaac, their father, and He will be filled with mercy for them.\"", "How many cornerstones were secured with this noble act! First, the love of the Exalted One in the heart of those who love Him. Second, the absence of any doubt in respect to the prophecy of our prophets that they are being spoken to by the L-rd — for if such a doubt were possible, how could Abraham have done this awesome deed! Third, faith in life after death. For if reward and punishment obtained only in this world, could it be seriously entertained that our father Abraham, may peace be upon him, would sacrifice his only son so that he could eat all kinds of delicacies thereafter! There can be no doubt whatsoever in the mind of any thinking man after this deed performed by [Abraham] \"the pillar of the universe\" that the soul in its service of the Blessed One will enjoy a reward beyond comprehension or conception — \"No eye has seen what no G-d but You will do for him that aspires to Him\" (Isaiah 64:3). One capable of such a deed truly leans upon the Holy One of Israel in truth. And He has assured us that in time to come, when He is revealed to us in truth, as he was to Abraham our father, may peace be upon him, we will lean upon Him in truth, just as he did.", "And in being told \"The remnant of Israel and the saved of the house of Jacob will no longer lean on their smiter, but they will lean on the L-rd, the Holy One of Israel, in truth,\" we are being told a wondrous thing indeed. And that is that, beyond a doubt, in respect to those forces operating against a man, the closer they are to the man himself, the weaker their power to rescue him and to attenuate his evil, and the proportionately farther away, the stronger. The analogy given is a man's being sentenced to be flogged. The injuring instrument closest to him is the whip, which has no power whatsoever to attenuate his injury. Least removed from the whip is the smiter, the representative of the official or the judge. He is more powerful in this regard than the closest cause, the whip, but he is still weak in the rescuing of the smitten one, being permitted only to reduce the force of the lashes a little, but not to suspend them, being, as he is, subject to the authority of the official or the judge. The official and the judge, similarly, though they be a more distant cause, cannot exert full jurisdiction, being answerable to the king. Yet this poor, smitten fool appeals to the smiter or to the judge and not to the official or to the king, who really wields the authority. Not so the wise man — he turns to the most distant cause, the king. This is reminiscent of our present state of affairs. We lean upon our smiters and all of our preoccupations are with the close causes, which have little power to save us. It is in this regard that Scripture indicted the Jews for soliciting the kings of Egypt. And it was, likewise, in this regard that it indicted Asa, viz. (II Chronicles 16:12): \"Even in his illness he did not seek the L-rd, but the physicians.\" Similarly, those who fear foul air and make their entire goal the improvement of its quality, as others do in respect to foul foods — such as these turn to correct weak, close causes and lean upon their smiters. But he whose eyes have been opened by the L-rd leans upon Him. He improves his deeds and regrets his past evils and thereby obtains healing for both his soul and his body. As our sages of blessed memory have stated (Yoma 86a): \"R. Chamma said: 'Great is repentance, for it brings healing to the world, as it is written (Hosea 14:5): \"I will heal their backslidings; I will love them freely.\"'\" And R. Shmuel b. Nachman said in the name of R. Yonathan (Yoma 86b): \"Great is repentance, for it lengthens a man's days and years, as it is written (Ezekiel 18:27-28): 'And when the evildoer turns away from his evil … he shall indeed live.'\" And though one's repentance proceed from suffering and affliction it is accepted and valued by the Blessed One, this being one of His profound kindnesses. This is subsumed in the verses (Deuteronomy 4:29-31): \"And you will seek from there the L-rd your G-d, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things come upon you in the end of days, and you return to the L-rd your G-d and heed His voice. For the L-rd your G-d is a merciful G-d; He will not forsake you and he will not destroy you. And He will not forget the covenant of your fathers — what He swore to them.\"Indeed, there is somethinG-demanding explanation here, for our sages stated (Yoma 86b): \"Who is regarded as a penitent? R. Yehudah answered: 'One who was confronted with the transgression once, twice, and three times, and desisted from it.' R. Yehudah qualified the statement: 'With the same woman, at the same age period, and in the same place.'\" If this be so, how can one who has passed the days of his youth ever perform a complete repentance? And if you would say that this is, indeed, the case, that his repentance can never be perfect and complete, this is not so. For it is stated by our sages (Kiddushin 40b): \"Even if one was completely wicked all of his days and he repents at the end, no [former] wickedness is to be held up to him, as it is written (Ezekiel 33:12): 'And the wickedness of the wicked one will not be a stumbling block to him in the day that he repents of his evil.'\" Now \"at the end\" he is not in the same age period! And, similarly, our sages have said (Yerushalmi Chagigah 2:1): \"'You return a man until dust' (Psalms 90:3) — [You return him with repentance] until his life is crumbling into the dust [at death].\" The matter, however, is to be understood as follows:", "Repentance provides two great benefits, the atonement of past sins and an increase in merit. For if one ceased from his transgressions and repented of them, then aside from being granted atonement for his previous sins, he is credited with having fulfilled a positive commandment, one which our sages have informed us confers the ultimate in reward. It is this second aspect of repentance to which the Gemara in Yoma is referring; for it is stated there (Ibid): \"Great is repentance, for it causes willful sins to be regarded as merits, as it is written (Ezekiel 33:19): 'And when the evildoer turns away from his evil and does what is lawful and right, upon them [(even his transgressions)] he shall live!\" It is further stated there: \"Great is repentance, for through one man's repentance the entire world is forgiven.\" It is seen, then, that the repentance referred to in Yoma serves not only to atone past sins but even to add great merit. And it is in respect to this type of repentance that the question is asked: \"Who is regarded as a penitent?\" That is, who is regarded as having performed such a great repentance that it not only atones his previous sins but even increases his merits. And the answer is given: \"One who was confronted with the transgression…\"", "The answer to our question, then, [as to how one can repent if he cannot fulfill the requirement of \"the same age period\"] is that his repentance, indeed, does not increase his merits, but it suffices to atone his previous transgressions. However, this repentance must also be complete. It is not enough that one say \"But we have sinned and been guilty\" with his mouth and lips and not constantly search out his deeds. But all men must always examine their ways, both in respect to the transgressions between man and G-d and those between man and his neighbor, and their transgressions must be constantly before their eyes. For we see our righteous anointed one [David] to have said (Psalms 51:5): \"For I know my offenses and my sin is constantly before me\" — in spite of our sages' having said (Shabbath 55b): \"All who say that David sinned are mistaken.\" Notwithstanding this, because there was some inadvertent element of sin, he placed it constantly before his eyes and was worried and afflicted by it, as it is written (Psalms 38:19): \"For I will declare my transgression; I will worry over my sin\" — though he did not commit the ostensible sin and though \"all who say that David sinned are mistaken.\"", "However, it should be explained why the sin with Batsheva is written down plainly, as if David actually sinned, when it is the practice of Scripture to veil inadvertent sins and to conceal them, as our sages state (Shabbath 96b): \"The Torah concealed it and you reveal it!\" And how much more so should it have been concealed in the case of David, who prayed for such concealment, viz. (Yoma 86b): \"There were two good leaders in Israel — Moses and David. Moses said: 'Let my stain be recorded,' as it is written (Numbers 20:12): '…because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me.' David said: 'Let my stain not be recorded,' as it is written (Psalms 32:1): 'Blessed is he whose offense is forgiven, whose sin is covered.'\" This being the case, why does Scripture describe the episode of Batsheva and Uriah in such a way as to make it appear that David was guilty of a blatant sin?", "The answer: what is revealed to and concealed from our eyes are great principles for penitents, as our sages stated (Avodah Zarah 5a): \"If an individual sins, he is told: 'Go to the individual [i.e., David, and repent as he did].'\" It is for this reason that Scripture portrays David as having committed an awesome sin. For that little wherein our sages acknowledge David as having gone astray is accounted relative to him as it would be to the average man who had sinned in the manner indicated by the plain meaning of the verses. And Scripture thereby informs us that even when one is guilty of a grievous sin he is [upon repentance] granted atonement for it, just as it was granted to David in spite of his sin's being a grievous one according to the plain meaning of the verses and his being more liable to punishment by virtue of his great uprightness and the Holy One's hair's-breadth punctiliousness with those of His \"inner circle.\" This is borne out further in the instance of Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him — \"…because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me.\" And our sages came and enlightened us according to their true tradition that David did not commit the sin indicated by the plain meaning of the verses. And we likewise learn from this other things of great benefit, one of which is that the penitent must place his sins constantly before his eyes. For we see that David, though he did not actually sin, still said \"…constantly before me.\" Therefore, all men should reflect upon their acts at set times and examine the details of all of their deeds in order to return to the L-rd with complete repentance. And after this it is not right for a man to allow his heart to succumb to weakness and to be in trepidation of affliction. But he should strengthen his trust, trusting in the Blessed One alone. For even at a time of great fright and grave danger one is expected to strengthen his heart in trust in the Blessed One, as it is written (Psalms 62:9): \"Trust to Him at all times,\" upon which Rabbeinu Yonah comments: \"'Trust to Him at all times,' for even in the most frightening of times, when the gates of rescue seem irrevocably locked, the Blessed One is a Shield to those who trust in Him.\" As the prophet says (Nachum 1:7): \"The L-rd is good as a stronghold in the day of affliction, and He knows those who take shelter in Him. And when the flood rages by, He will make waste its place.\" That is, the Blessed One is good to those who take shelter in Him in the day of affliction, for He will not relate to them with the attribute of justice, but in a more favorable manner. And He knows and protects those who take shelter in Him, so that even when the flood rages by He will make waste only the place that he designates for it. And we, indeed, see that in many places a decree went forth against a people or an individual, and when they improved their ways they averted the calamity, as in the case of the people of Ninveh, and in that of Hezekiah, against whom a decree was pronounced by a prophet and who was saved by complete repentance, the Blessed One saying to him (Isaiah 38:5): \"I have heard your prayer…\" Even the evil Nebuchadnezzar was advised by Daniel (Daniel 4:24): \"Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you and redeem your sins through charity\" — and this, indeed, is what transpired. (55)And we find (Shabbath 156b) accounts of individuals who, though condemned to death by nature and by the decree of the stars, succeeded in revoking all this through the perfection of their deeds. For our affairs are not determined by the natural order at all but by the providence of the L-rd of the Universe over us in accordance with the goodly beliefs we implant in our souls and the mitzvoth that we perform. And it is through these that He destined us to inherit the land and to acquire length of days, as it is written (Deuteronomy 4:39-40): \"And know it this day, and return it to your heart, that the L-rd, He is G-d in heaven above and upon the earth below; there is no other. And keep His statutes and his mitzvoth that I command you today, so that it be well with you and with your children after you, and so that you prolong your days upon the earth that the L-rd your G-d gives you all of your days.\"" ], [ "(CHAGIGAH 3A): \"THE RABBIS TAUGHT: 'R. YOCHANAN B. BROKA AND R. ELAZAR B. CHASMA ONCE WENT TO VISIT R. YEHOSHUA IN PEKI'IN. HE ASKED THEM: \"WHAT NOVELLA DID YOU LEARN IN THE HOUSE OF STUDY TODAY?\" THEY ANSWERED: \"WE ARE YOUR DISCIPLES AND WE DRINK FROM YOUR WATERS.\" HE RESPONDED: \"THIS NOTWITHSTANDING, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A HOUSE OF STUDY WITHOUT NOVELLAE. WHOSE SABBATH WAS IT [TO EXPOUND]?\" \"IT WAS THE SABBATH OF R. ELAZAR B. AZARYAH.\" \"AND WHAT DID HE EXPOUND?\" \"'GATHER THE PEOPLE TOGETHER, MEN, AND WOMEN, AND CHILDREN' (DEUTERONOMY 31:12) — IF MEN COME TO STUDY TORAH, AND WOMEN COME TO LISTEN, WHY DO CHILDREN COME? TO GIVE REWARD TO THOSE WHO BRING THEM\" —WHEREUPON R. YEHOSHUA SAID: \"YOU HAD SUCH A BEAUTIFUL PEARL IN YOUR HAND AND YOU WANTED TO KEEP IT FROM ME!\"'\"", "This answer, \"We are your disciples and we drink from your waters,\" is by way of asking permission to speak before one greater than they in wisdom. But there is cause for wonder here as to why the Gemara questions further (Ibid b): \"Why did they not tell him outright?\" and finds itself constrained to answer: \"Because of something which had happened in the past.\" What is so unusual about their not wishing to discourse in wisdom before him before asking his permission? The answer: The rationale behind the Gemara's question is that since R. Yehoshua himself asked them, their answer should not have required the solicitation of his permission, this being presupposed. To this should be added the fact that these two did not state an idea or a homily that they had originated, but simply repeated what they had heard from R. Elazar b. Azaryah, who was R. Yehoshua's equal in wisdom and the head of a yeshivah. And the Gemara answers that in spite of this, because of something that happened in the past, they would not repeat what they had heard before soliciting his permission. For [as that past occurrence indicates] the sages are wont to take offense at this because those speaking to them are lesser than they in wisdom, though they may be repeating the words of one just as great or even greater than they. For thus [(this being the past occurrence in question)] R. Eliezer took offense at R. Yossi b. Dromaskis in Lod.", "", "We are herein apprised of three homilies delivered by R. Elazar b. Azaryah. The first is that cited above. The second: \"He expounded further (Deuteronomy 26:17): 'You have exalted the L-rd today' and (Ibid 18): 'And the L-rd has exalted you today' — the Holy One Blessed be He said to Israel: \"You made Me a distinct entity in this world. Therefore, I will make you, too, a distinct entity in this world. You made me a distinct entity in this world, as it is written (Ibid 6:1): \"Hear, O Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One.\" I, too, will make you a distinct entity in this world, as it is written (I Chronicles 17:21): \"And who is as Your people, Israel, a single nation on the earth.\"'\" Now there is cause for wonder in \"You made Me a distinct entity in this world\"; for \"Hear, O Israel\" is not a declamation of Israel in praise of the Blessed One, but a mitzvah commanded to us by the Blessed One to believe in His oneness. And if our subscribing to this principle renders Him a distinct entity, then it would have to be maintained that our subscribing to \"I am the L-rd your G-d,\" the mitzvah to believe in His existence, renders Him yet another entity — so that if we continued in this manner we would find Him to constitute several entities!", "In my view, however, the homily here alludes to the following (Pesachim 56a): \"R. Shimon b. Pazi expounded (Genesis 49:1): 'And Jacob called to his sons and said: \"Gather together and I will tell you what will befall you in the end of days\"' — Jacob desired to reveal the end of days, but the Shechinah departed from him, whereupon he said: \"Can it be, G-d forbid, that there is impurity in my seed, as with Abraham, my father's father, from whom Ishmael issued, and as with Isaac, my father, from whom Esau issued?\" At this, all of his children answered: \"Hear O Israel, the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One.\" \"Just as there is only one L-rd in your heart, so there is only one L-rd in ours.\" According to this homily, this verse, though it constitutes a positive commandment, had already been stated by the tribes. The L-rd had already been praised by it though it is set down in its place as a mitzvah decreed for all generations. This is the intent of \"You made Me a distinct entity in this world.\"", "The third homily mentioned there is stated as follows: \"He further expounded (Koheleth 12:11): 'The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well driven in, the people of the gatherings, given by one shepherd' — just as a goad directs an ox along its furrow to bring life to the world, in the same way words of Torah direct the hearts of those who study it from the paths of death to those of life.\" The intent here is that just as the goad guides the ox in the making of a straight furrow and keeps it from straying here and there, and the result of that straightness is life for the world, namely, grain and fruit, in the same way words of Torah guide men's hearts and make them wise. And not the type of wisdom which results in injury or in erroneous views, but which provides the true knowledge whereby a man may attain his goal. For there are types of wisdom which enlighten a man's heart but direct him from the ways of life to those of death, providing him with evil acumen, which can lead to his undoing. But the Torah does not leave those who study it with wrong views or base character traits. As Solomon, may peace be upon him, said (Proverbs 2:10-12): \"When wisdom enters your heart and knowing is pleasant to your soul, knowledge will guard you; understanding will keep you, to save you from the way of evil, from the man who speaks perversity.\" The intent is that when one acquires wisdom and it enters his heart and is as pleasant to his soul as a precious vessel, he gains great benefit for himself. For the knowledge guards over him, the understanding keeps him and saves him from the way of evil, and the man who speaks perversity will not ensnare him in his net.", "And it is made clear in the words of our sages that the type of wisdom referred to here is that of Torah, as is evident from their homily (Avodah Zarah 17a) on (Ibid 19): \"All who go to her shall not return and not attain the paths of life,\" from which they deduce that all who repent of heresy perish, [it having become so deeply rooted in them that to break it they must break themselves]. And this idea has already been alluded to, viz. (Kiddushin 30b): \"'And you shall place [vesamtem — these words of Mine upon your heart]' — sam tam [a perfect drug]. The Torah is compared to a drug of life. This is comparable to a man's giving his son a heavy blow and placing a plaster on his wound…\" That is, one need not fear the attack of the evil inclination while he is occupied in Torah study, for such study will guard him against it. This is the intent of \"Words of Torah direct the hearts of those who study it from the paths of death to those of life.\"", "It is stated further (Chagigah, Ibid): \"'the people of the gatherings' (Koheleth 12:11) — these are the Torah scholars, who sit in groups and study Torah. These pronounce unclean and these pronounce clean; these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit; these pronounce forbidden and these pronounce permitted. Lest you say, this being the case … how can I study Torah from now on [in the face of this variance in the rulings of the Torah scholars]? Scripture tells us that they were all (Ibid) 'given by one shepherd.' All the words of Torah were stated by one leader [Moses] from the mouth of the Omnipotent One, as it is written (Exodus 20:1): 'And G-d spoke all of these words, saying…'\" They expound the word \"all\" as implying that even the words of those who did not attain to the truth were stated to Moses at Sinai.", "Now this, indeed, must be understood. How can it be said that other rulings in a halachic dispute were stated to Moses by the Omnipotent One! Shammai says (Iddyoth 1:2) that the requirement of chalah begins from a kav; Hillel says that it begins from two kavim. Only one of these can be true; the other must be untrue. How can it be said, then, that something untrue issued forth from the mouth of the Omnipotent One? The understanding is as follows: All of the Torah — both the written and the oral — was given to Moses on Sinai, as our sages have stated (Megillah 19b): \"R. Chiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yochanan: 'From the verse (Deuteronomy 9:10) \"…and upon them according to all the words…\" we infer that the Holy One Blessed Be He showed Moses all of the Torah's deductions and all of the scribes' deductions and what the scribes were destined to originate, namely, the reading of the Megillah.'\" \"The scribes' deductions\" are the disputes and differences of view among the Torah scholars — and all of them were taught to Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, by the Omnipotent One without the decision for each specific dispute. But he was given a guiding principle for the ascertainment of the truth, namely (Exodus 23:2): \"After the multitude to incline [judgment],\" and also (Deuteronomy 17:11): \"Do not turn aside from the thing that they tell you.\" And when disputes multiplied among the sages, if it were a case of one against many, the halachah was established according to the majority. If it were a case of many against many or one against one, the decision was according to the view of the sages of that generation, this decision having already been relegated to them, as it is written (Ibid 9): \"And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, or to the judge that shall be in those days.\" Similarly, \"Do not turn aside…\" We see, then, that permission was given to the sages of the generations to rule on the disputes of the sages according to their own view, even if their predecessors were greater and more numerous than they. And we have been commanded to abide by their consensus whether it corresponds to the truth or is at variance with it.", "And this underlies the episode of R. Eliezer Hagadol and his dispute, concerning which we are told (Bava Metzia 59b) that R. Yehoshua arose and declared (Deuteronomy 30:12): \"It is not in the heavens!\" What is the intent of \"It is not in the heavens\"? It has already been given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and in it is written (Exodus 23:2): \"After the multitude to incline [judgment].\" Now it was clear to all that R. Eliezer was closer to the truth than they, that all of his signs were truthful and righteous, and that heaven itself had ruled him correct — in spite of which they acted according to their consensus. Since their judgment inclined to \"unclean,\" though they knew that their consensus was at variance with the truth, they did not wish to pronounce it clean. What is more, had they pronounced it clean they would have been transgressing against their reason, which inclined to \"unclean,\" the decision having been relegated to the sages of the generations, and their consensus constituting the command of the L-rd.", "And along these lines the following can be understood (Bava Metzia 86a): \"He [Rabbah bar Nachmani] sat on the stump of a palm tree and studied. In the study hall of the heaven they were arguing: If the plague-spot precedes the white hair, one is unclean; if the white hair precedes the plague-spot, he is clean. If there is a doubt [as to which preceded which], the Holy One Blessed be He says \"clean\" and the entire study hall of heaven says \"unclean.\" They said: 'Who shall decide? Let Rabbah bar Nachmani decide, for he is unsurpassed in ahaloth [the laws dealing with such matters].' …The angel of death could not approach him for his mouth never ceased from his learning. He thereupon produced the sound of a troop of horsemen [searching for him]. Hearing this, Rabbah bar Nachmani said: 'Better that I die and not fall into the hands of the authorities.' He thereupon ceased from learning and expired with the words \"clean, clean\" upon his lips. At this, a heavenly voice came forth and said: 'You are fortunate, Rabbah bar Nachmani; your body is clean and your soul expired in cleanliness.'\"", "There are some formidable questions here. First, why should souls after leaving their bodies concern themselves with matters such as plague-spots? Second, after having ascertained the Blessed One's ruling to be \"clean,\" how could they maintain \"unclean\" and require the decision of Rabbah bar Nachmani? In consideration of these two questions, we shall interpret this aggadah in the following manner: It is a clear and acknowledged fact that though the soul is not body nor a faculty of the body, still, its residence in the body makes material impressions upon it to the point that it must reside in a material locale after leaving the body. It follows from this that Gan Eden is in the terrestrial world, for transition from one extreme to another is extremely difficult unless it be effected by degree. And since in the beginning its residence was in a material place alone, it is removed to a middle place between the material and the immaterial. And this constitutes the superiority of Gan Eden to other places, just as the land of Israel is superior to other lands. And this is what is found throughout the Gemara, that when the soul resides in the terrestrial world the body is the locale of its residence, as in the case of (Berachoth 18b): \"I am looking for Abba.\" And we see, too, that for this reason Jacob did not bury Rachel in the land of Israel, even though he was near it, so that when her children passed by there she would pray for them, as it is written (Genesis 48:7): \"As for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died in the land of Canaan on the way, when there was but a little way to come to Efrat, and I buried her there on the road to Efrat, which is Bet Lachem.\" This is by way of self-vindication to Joseph as Rashi explains there in his commentary. And, in truth, his burying Rachel outside the land of Israel so that she should cry for her children when they passed by there is strong indication of the soul's habitat and mooring being in the locale of the body, more so than in any other locales in the terrestrial world. And all this because of its prior residence in the body, which left material impressions upon it. Therefore, it is no wonder if the soul occupies itself with material wisdoms. Add to this the fact that the separate intelligences, by virtue of the effluence constantly streaming in upon them from the Blessed One, must constantly occupy themselves with wisdom. This accounts for the ever-recurring expression in the Gemara, \"the study hall of heaven,\" and for the statement of our sages (Berachoth 64a): \"Torah scholars have no rest, neither in this world nor in the next.\" This being the case, it is not to be wondered at that the soul occupies itself with the subject of plague-spots.", "And now there remains the second question — how could there have been a doubt in what was ascertained from the Blessed One Himself? But this aggadah is explained along the lines we have mentioned. Although they knew that in terms of absolute truth the ruling in a case of doubt was \"clean,\" they still maintained \"unclean.\" For since Torah decisions had been relegated to them in their lifetimes and their intellects dictated \"unclean,\" the ruling should have been \"unclean,\" though this ruling was at variance with the truth. For this is what human intellect dictates, and though the truth may be with the others, their view is not to be the criterion for performance in the ways of the Torah, just as the disputants of R. Eliezer did not rule \"clean,\" although a heavenly voice had come forth declaring that this was, indeed, the halachah. And there was no doubt in their minds that this proceeded from the Blessed One, just as they entertained no doubt concerning the other signs that he performed. In spite of this, however, they said: \"It is not in the heavens.\" And for the same reason they said: \"Who shall decide? Let Rabbah bar Nachmani decide.\" And his decision was not meant to ascertain the truth, for they had no doubt whatsoever about this, as we have written; his decision was, rather, that the human intellect, according to Torah and the hermeneutic principles by which it is expounded, dictates a ruling of \"clean.\" The others' ruling of \"unclean\" proceeded from shortcoming of intellect relative to human intellect or from insufficient Torah study in their lifetimes. Still, if those who ruled \"unclean\" were more numerous than the school of Rabbah bar Nachmani, who ruled clean, though his view is closer to the truth than theirs, the majority would not act on a solitary ruling of \"clean.\" It is for this reason that the Torah decreed that the ruling of the majority must prevail and that the individual must defer to it though he is certain that they are at variance with the truth, for this was the Blessed One's intent in (Deuteronomy 17:11): \"Do not turn aside…\"", "Two things are subsumed in this negative commandment. First, we are commanded to abide by their consensus in their decisions relating to the judgments of the Torah, such as clean and unclean, liable and not liable. Second, we are not permitted to depart form the fences or the measures that they institute by way of making a fence for the Torah. Therefore, all who transgress the laws of shvuth [rabbinical enactments barring certain occupations on Sabbaths and festivals] transgress a negative commandment of the Torah, namely: \"Do not turn aside.\" There is no difference in this respect between moving a needle from the sun to the shade on Sabbath or walking out in nail-studded shoes (as in an incident that transpired) or [the Torah prohibitions of] eating forbidden fats or plowing with an ox and an ass hitched together. As to the Gemara's dicta (Sabbath 33a): \"A matter of doubt relating to a rabbinical prohibition is to be decided leniently,\" (Pesachim 4b): \"Minors are believed in respect to rabbinical prohibitions,\" (Shabbath 154b): \"They did not establish their regulations in cases where monetary loss would result,\" (Berachoth 19b): \"out of respect to human dignity [they waived their prohibition],\" or [their doing similarly] in many cases, because of \"the joy of the festival\" — all this is because of their own stipulation. This is the view of the Rambam of blessed memory and he stated so explicitly (Hilchot Shoftim 1).", "And if you would question this view from what is stated in Shabbath (23a) in respect to the Channukah lamp, that one must recite the benediction \"who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us,\" whereupon it is asked: \"Where were we commanded? R. Ivya said: 'In :Do not turn aside.\"' R. Nechemiah said: 'In (Deuteronomy 32:7): \"Ask your father and he will relate it to you; your elders, and they will tell you\"'\" — this last view giving the impression that our obligation to heed the sages derives only from a scriptural supporting verse [and not from an actual scriptural commandment], \"Ask your father and he will relate it to you…\" being only a supporting verse, whereas according to what we have stated above we should perforce adopt the view of R. Ivya, who derives the obligation from \"Do not turn aside\" —", "The answer is as follows: There is a dispute only regarding the Channukah lamp. R. Ivya is of the opinion that just as all of the rabbinical decrees, laws, and fences derive from the negative commandment of \"Do not turn aside,\" as explained in Berachoth (19b), so the mitzvoth that they originate derive from that commandment itself. R. Nechemiah, however, is of the opinion that only those things which have a basis in the mitzvoth of the Torah can derive from that commandment, but mitzvoth originated by the rabbis have only the scriptural support [but not commandment] of \"Ask your father…\" The rationale for this is that those things which are superadded to the mitzvoth of the Torah themselves are, in effect, an interpretation of the Torah, the sages saying, for example, that a mixture of wool and linen constitutes kilaim and that everything in the category of shvuth constitutes a forbidden Sabbath labor. But the rabbis' command to light a Channukah lamp can in no way be derived from this commandment, for it is not within the province of (Deuteronomy 17:8): \"If there be a matter of judgment [of a Torah mitzvah] too difficult for you…\" [followed by \"Do not turn aside\"]. It is rather to be derived from \"Ask your father…,\" which is a general behest to defer to the sages. However, the decrees, the judgments, and the measures which they institute for the mitzvoth of the Torah themselves are all in the category of \"Do not turn aside,\" and if one transgresses one of the laws of shvuth it is as if he had transgressed one of the negative commandments of the Torah itself.", "For the major part of Torah and of reward for its observance is subsumed in the decrees of the sages and their measures relating to things which cannot be derived from the Torah itself, as is concluded from the following (Gittin 60b): R. Elazar said: 'The greater part of Torah is written and the lesser part, oral, as stated (Hosea 8:12): \"Though I write for him the multitudes of My Torah, they are reckoned as a strange thing.\"' R. Yochanan said: 'The greater part is oral and the lesser part is written, as stated (Exodus 34:26): \"…for through [lit., \"through the mouth of\"] these words I have made a covenant with you.\"' But what does R. Yochanan do with \"Though I write for him the multitudes of My Torah\"? He sees it as an expression of wonder, viz.: \"Shall I write for him the multitudes of My Torah? Are they [even the little that I have written] not reckoned as a strange thing?\"", "Now, in truth, even R. Elazar, who says that the greater part of Torah is written does not intend by this that most of it can be understood from what is explicitly stated therein; for it is impossible that the reader not misinterpret most of the mitzvoth or even all of them. His intent is rather that the hermeneutic principles by which the Torah is expounded generate most of the Torah, and that included herein are the six hundred and thirteen mitzvoth of the Torah, their interpretations, and their explanations. This being the case, most of the Torah is intimated in writing. R. Yochanan takes issue with this, saying that most of the Torah is oral, his contention being that both those things which were commanded orally to Moses on Sinai and the measures instituted by the sages to make a fence for the Torah come under the heading of \"most of the Torah.\" And it would seem that the Gemara concludes according to R. Yochanan, who says: \"The Holy One Blessed be He entered into a covenant with Israel only for the sake of the oral law,\" the intent being that the major reward is in relation to what the sages originate and in the measures that they institute to make a fence for the Torah. And it is for this reason that R. Yehoshua, when he responded to R. Yishmael's question (Avodah Zarah 29b) as to why the sages had forbidden the cheeses of gentiles (and he did not wish to answer for the reason stated in the Gemara) — it is for this reason that he responded: \"How do you read (Song of Songs 1:2): 'For Your love is better than wine' or 'For your [Israel's] love is better than wine'? R. Yishmael answered: 'For your love is better than wine,' and R. Yehoshua said: \"It is not so, for the neighboring verse (Ibid 3) states: 'For fragrance Your ointments are goodly.'\" And even though it is written in the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 29b) that \"he diverted him to another matter\" — that is, R. Yehoshua did not reveal to R. Yishmael the reason for the prohibition but prevented him from pursuing the question, he, in fact, did give him a generic reason, namely, \"For Your love is better than wine,\" alluding thereby to what is stated in the Gemara (Ibid 35a): \"The congregation of Israel said to the Holy One Blessed be He: 'L-rd of the universe, the words of Your scribes [lit., \"Your beloved ones\"] are sweeter to me than the wine of Torah.'\" This is to be understood along the aforementioned lines.", "That is, when the sages concur in the issuance of a decree it is as if it had just been stated by the Omnipotent One to Moses on Sinai. And, in truth, it follows that Israel should receive a greater reward for what they take upon themselves of their own free will than for what they are commanded to do and they do perforce. And do not challenge me with the oft-mentioned dictum of the sages: \"Greater is he that is commanded and does than he who is not commanded and does\" and with their statement concerning Dama ben Netina (Kiddushin 31a): \"Now if one who is not commanded and does is so greatly rewarded, how much more so one who is commanded and does!\" — for I have three rebuttals to this challenge.", "The first rebuttal. It is well known that the reward we receive for our Divine service is commensurate with the effort we put into it, as our sages have stated (Avoth 5:23): \"According to the toil is the reward.\" And it is also well known that one who performs a deed that he has not been commanded to perform is not so greatly belabored by the evil inclination against its performance as is one who has been commanded to perform it. This is the underlying idea behind what is mentioned by our sages (Yoma 67a, b): \"From Jerusalem until Tzuk was ninety ris, seven and one half ris to every mil, and at every succah they told him: 'You can have some food; you can have some water.'\" Now they did this only to assuage his desire, for he was not constrained to fast, as stated in the Gemara (Ibid): \"It was taught: 'No one ever needed this, but there is no comparison between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket.'\" Therefore, if one is commanded and does, being belabored by his evil inclination but overpowering and subduing it, his reward is greater than that of one who performs a mitzvah that he has not been commanded to do and which he can omit whenever he wishes. But what has been concurred in by the sages of Israel becomes to us and to them after they have reached their consensus just as a mitzvah explicitly stated in the Torah in relation to which we are in the class of those who do upon command.", "The second rebuttal. Among the mitzvoth there are many which are related to particular entities and which are specific for them, such as the mitzvoth pertaining specifically to the land of Israel and mitzvoth pertaining specifically to the priestly class but not to others. Therefore if one performs a mitzvah without being commanded his reward will not be very great, for it is possible that the Blessed One does not desire his performance or that of this class, not having commanded him. And though all the ways of the Torah are ways of pleasantness, it is possible that there are reasons for the particular mitzvoth being assigned only to the particular classes to whom they are assigned. For example, our sages indicate (Sanhedrin 58b) that whereas a Jew who observes the Sabbath merits great reward a gentile who does so incurs the death penalty. And even though we do not extend this to other mitzvoth but observe only the restraints specifically imposed by them (for if the above principle were so extended, it would be forbidden, G-d forbid, for one to observe mitzvoth which he was not commanded to observe), still, we can conclude in respect to other mitzvoth that one who has not been commanded to perform them and does so may not be fulfilling the intent and inner orientation of the mitzvah to the same extent as one whom the Blessed One has commanded to perform it. But when the sages decree something, the Blessed One's concurrence is presupposed, so that it is as if He Himself commanded what they decreed and His intent is known to be fulfilled.", "The third rebuttal. If the Blessed One received some benefit from one's performance of the mitzvoth it would follow that one who performed without being commanded should be rewarded just as one who performed upon command — and even more than he. But since the Blessed One is in no way benefited by mitzvoth or harmed by transgressions it is seen that the orientation of Torah is to confer merit upon Israel. This being so, one who is commanded and performs is greater than one who performs without being commanded, the Blessed One desiring to confer merit upon the one and not upon the other. But the Blessed One has conferred upon us generically the merit proceeding from observance of the words of the scribes. In sum, all of the reasons for greater reward accruing to one who performs upon command obtain in respect to the decrees of our sages of blessed memory. And for this reason there is even greater reward in fulfilling their decrees than in fulfilling the words of the Torah themselves as we have explained.", "And Rabbeinu Yonah of blessed memory gives yet another reason. It is well known that fear of the L-rd is the foundation of mitzvoth, as it is written (Deuteronomy 10:12): \"And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you but to fear Him?\" And the measures and fences of the sages are the foundation of the road to fear, their having provided measures and distances lest one violate the prohibitions of the Torah themselves in the manner of a property owner who fences off his field, it being so dear to him as to bar others from entering it. As it is written (Leviticus 18:30): \"And watch My watching\" — \"Make a watching for My watching\" (Yevamoth 21a). And most of the decrees and fences and furtherings from prohibitions are among the essentials of fear, so that one who is especially heedful of them merits great reward, as it is written (Psalms 19:52): \"Your servant, too, was heedful of them; in keeping them there is great reward.\" And this is the rationale behind \"The words of the scribes are sweeter to me than the wine of Torah.\" For their fences and decrees are the essentials of fear, and the reward for the mitzvah of fear is over and against many mitzvoth, serving, as it does, as their foundation.", "And just as we find the words of the sages to be greater than those of Torah itself, so the punishment of one who transgresses them is correspondingly greater. Our sages have already stated (Berachoth 4b): \"All who transgress the words of the scribes incur the death penalty.\" Now this is cause for wonder. How is it possible that one who transgresses a positive commandment of the Torah does not incur the death penalty and one who transgresses one of the negative commandments incurs only forty stripes, whereas one who transgresses one of the laws of shvuth incurs the death penalty!", "The answer: A Jew who transgresses the words of the Torah under pressure from the evil inclination is punished according to the judgments of the Torah. But one who transgresses the words of the sages while he observes the words of the Torah does so not because of the evil inclination but because of his scorn for the sages' decrees and he therefore incurs the death penalty.", "Lest you contend that though the reason suffices, whence do our sages derive this death penalty, it not being found in the negative commandment of \"Do not turn aside,\" the answer lies in several other questions which follow in the wake of the first. For we find many individuals to have incurred great punishments for a single transgression the severity of which is not made manifest in the Torah, viz. (Sotah 5a): \"Why was Asa punished? Because he conscripted sages for palace duties,\" (Sotah 35a): \"'And the anger of the L-rd burned against Uzzah and G-d smote him there for his error' (II Samuel 6:7) — R. Yochanan and R. Elazar differ here, one saying: 'for his forgetfulness…'\" That is, he did not stop to consider: \"If the ark supports its supporters, is it not capable of supporting itself!\" And so with the men of Beth Shemesh (Sotah 35a): \"'…because they looked at the ark of the L-rd' (I Samuel 6:19) — Because they looked, He smote them? R. Avahu and R. Elazar differ here, one saying that they continued harvesting as they bowed, and the other, that they also added words: \"Who angered you [that you did not rescue yourself from captivity], and who appeased you [that you decided to return]?\" Now we find no allusion for the death penalty in these instances in all the ways of the Torah as we find no allusion for it in the instance of one's transgressing the words of the sages. We find Reuven, too, to have incurred a great penalty for a minor transgression, viz. (Shabbath 55b): \"R. Shmuel b. Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonatan: 'All who say that Reuven sinned are mistaken, for it is written (Genesis 35:22): \"And the sons of Israel were twelve\" — this teaches us that they were all equal in saintliness,'\" and (Ibid): \"R. Shimon b. Elazar said: 'Spared was that righteous one from that sin and he never came close to doing that deed. Is it possible that his children would stand on Mount Eval and declare (Deuteronomy 27:20): \"Cursed be he that lives with his father's wife\" if he himself had been guilty of that sin! How, then, am I to understand (Genesis 35:22): \"And he lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine\"? He protested the shaming of his mother, saying: \"If my mother's sister [Rachel] was my mother's rival, should the maidservant of my mother's sister [Bilhah] be my mother's rival!\" — at which he arose and transferred her bed [to the tent of his mother, Leah].'\" Now if this was the case — that he did not sin and all who say that he did sin are mistaken — then how could this \"sin\" have caused him to lose three crowns? That of the first-born, that of the priesthood, and that of royalty?", "The answer to all of these questions is that the punishments stated in the Torah are generic ones, applicable to all men. But there are other punishments which vary according to the individual circumstances. For one who transgresses the Torah because of the evil inclination receives forty stripes for transgressing one negative commandment, but one who transgresses the Torah out of indifference shames the word of the L-rd in doing so, and there is not the slightest detail of the Torah which one transgresses in this context for which he does not incur the death penalty. The rationale for this is that one who transgresses the Torah because of his evil inclination sins only in that deed alone, but one who does so through his scorning the word of the L-rd negates all of Torah with that deed. And this varies further in respect to the individual transgressors. For there is greater rebelliousness in one of the Blessed One's saints and intimates sinning and rebelling against Him than in another's doing so. Therefore, all Jews who transgress the words of the sages incur the death penalty, for they are doing so through scorning the word of the L-rd and transgressing not only \"Do not turn aside,\" but the entire Torah.", "Now if one would ask: Where is this intimated in Torah or in the words of the sages? it is clearly enunciated in the following (Sanhedrin 99a): \"The rabbis taught (Numbers 15:31): '…for he shamed the word of the L-rd' — this refers to one who denies that Torah was given from Heaven.\" And it is stated there: \"R. Natan says: 'This refers to all who are not watchful of their learning.'\" Now this must be understood, for our sages have stated (Menachoth 99b): \"If one recited the Shema in the morning and in the evening he has fulfilled the mitzvah of (Joshua 1:8): 'The book of this Torah shall not depart from your mouth'\", and (Nedarim 8a): \"What new thing are we being told? That one may spur himself to the doing of a mitzvah by making a vow? We have already derived this from the first statement of R. Gidel! We are being told, rather, that one may satisfy his obligation to learn Torah by merely reciting the Shema in the morning and in the evening, for which reason his vow does not constitute an oath superimposed upon a previously existing oath.\" This being the case, how can it be said that because he is not watchful of his learning he is in the category of \"for he shamed the word of the L-rd\"?", "The answer: one who does not engage in Torah study does not shame the word of the L-rd, but one who does engage in it and is not watchful of his learning does shame the word of the L-rd and incurs the death penalty. We have thus shown that all who transgress words of Torah by way of scorning them incur the death penalty. And this is the intent of \"All who transgress the words of the sages incur the death penalty.\" The words of the sages being the foundation of the quality of fear, one who transgresses their words demonstrates thereby that he has divested himself of fear of Heaven. For it is well known that the purpose of the entire Torah is to acquire the fear of Heaven and not to attain wisdom, for our perception of wisdom is extremely limited. We have already seen him [Solomon], of whom it is written (I Kings 5:11): \"And he became wiser than all men,\" when confronted with the parshah of the red heifer, to have remarked (Ecclesiastes 7:3): \"I said I would be wise, but it is beyond me.\" This theme is greatly dilated upon in Job. Our obligation to study in the beginning is only so that we may arrive at the deed, it being impossible for one who is not knowledgeable of a mitzvah to perform it as well as one who is. This is the intent of King Solomon, may peace be upon him, in (Proverbs 14:34-35): \"Righteousness exalts a nation, and the lovingkindness of the peoples is as a sin-offering. But the King desires a wise servant and His wrath is against him who acts shamefully.\" That is, even though righteousness exalts the nations and their lovingkindnesses are as sin-offerings for them, still, their reward is not so great as that of the Jews who act likewise, for the gentiles are not expert in the details of the mitzvoth. But the end of Torah is to attain fear of Heaven. It is for this reason that all who transgress the words of the sages incur the death penalty, for they undermine the foundation. As King Solomon writes (Proverbs 1:7): \"Fear of the L-rd is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom and instruction.\" His intent is that the beginning and foundation of knowledge is fear of the L-rd. One who has a foundation can build upon it. The proof of this is that the fools, who do not take fear of the L-rd to heart, despise wisdom and instruction.", "But there is a question here. We are saying that fear of the L-rd is the foundation of the Torah, and this is stated in many places, viz. (Shabbath 31b): \"R. Yehudah said: 'The Holy One Blessed be He created His world only so that He be feared, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 3:14): \"And G-d wrought so that He be feared,\"'\" (Ibid): \"R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Elazar in the name of R. Shimon: \"The Holy One Blessed be He has nothing else in His world but fear of Heaven alone, as it is written (Job 28:28): \"And he said to man: 'Behold, fear of the L-rd — that is wisdom and to depart from evil is understanding.'\" And it is explicitly written (Deuteronomy 10:12): \"And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you? Only to fear the L-rd your G-d.\" What emerges from all this is that fear of the Blessed One is the intent of the creation and the foundation of the Torah. But the following gives us a different impression (Sotah 22b): \"There are seven [negative] types of perushim [abstainers from transgression]… a porush out of love and a porush out of fear\" (that is, out of love of reward and fear of punishment). One who serves out of fear is listed here in the category of the wicked! It is stated further there: \"Abbaye and Rava said to the Tanna: 'Do not include [as negative types] a porush out of love and a porush out of fear, for R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav: \"Let one always occupy himself with Torah and with mitzvoth, and even shelo lishmah [not for their own sakes], for by doing so shelo lishmah he will come to do so lishmah [for their own sakes].\"'\" The only point of contention here is that he should not be placed in the category of the truly wicked, but whatever the case may be, his service is referred to as lo lishmah! And in the same tractate we learned (31a): \"Two disciples were seated before Rava. One of them said to him: 'It was read to me in my dream (Psalms 31:20): \"How great is the good which You have stored up for those who fear You, which You have performed for those who trust in You in the sight of the sons of men.\"' The other said to him: 'It was read to me in my dream (Ibid 5:12): \"But let all those that put their trust in You rejoice. Let them ever shout in joy because You defend them. And let those who love Your name be joyful in You.\"' Rava responded: 'You are both perfectly righteous, but you [the first] out of fear, and you [the second] out of love.\"'\" Now this is even more difficult than the first question. How can he call \"perfectly righteous\" one who is included in the class of the seven perushim or one of whom it is said: \"Let one always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvoth, and even shelo lishmah\"!", "The answer to all of these questions is that those who serve out of fear are of two types. The first type serves the Blessed One for reward, so that He bestow good upon him in this world and the next, and out of fear that the Blessed One will punish him for his transgressions in this world with loss of his children or of his wealth or with other evils. In sum, he performs mitzvoth and pushes aside transgressions only for his own benefit, out of compassion for his soul and his body. This is the type referred to as \"a porush out of love and a porush out of fear\" or as being in the category of those who perform mitzvoth shelo lishmah. The second type of service out of fear is that in which the soul is impressed by the exaltedness, and might, and wonders of the Blessed One, this impression being absorbed by the soul and being constantly immanent within it and assimilated by and inscribed in the heart. In this type, the soul is invested with great fear; humility and modesty constantly pervade it, and it is impossible for it to transgress the word of the L-rd. This type of fear can be compared to that of a servant for his master or of a son for his father, obtaining, as it does, even when it is known that violation of the command will not result in punishment. Job exhorted towards both of these motivations in one verse in which he praises himself [against his accusers] as having attained them, viz. (Job 31:23): \"For the fear of the Almighty was upon me, and because of His grandeur I could not [sin].\" It is in respect to the second type that it is stated throughout the Gemara that fear of the L-rd is the foundation of all, and it is in respect to this type that the Gemara in Sotah says: \"You are both perfectly righteous, but you out of love and you out of fear.\"", "And this is the intent of (Deuteronomy 5:26): \"Would that they had this heart in them to fear Me…\" It is not stated that they should fear punishment or love reward, but that they should implant His fear in their hearts and fulfill His mitzvoth, this being the end of man. It is written: \"Would that they…,\" for even though the Holy One Blessed be He is not benefited not harmed by our deeds, still He desires that we be righteous, as our sages state (Avodah Zarah 5a): \"Im you walk in My statutes…\" (Leviticus 26:3) — Im is a term of imploration,\" as in (Psalms 81:14): \"Im [would that] My people listened to Me…\" And this is the desired end in the creation of the world.", "And one of the great happenings forecast for the time of the Messiah is (Zephaniah 3:9): \"For then I will become for the peoples a clear language, so that all of them will call in the name of the L-rd and serve Him with a single will.\" That is, all the nations will revert to our faith in the principles of the Torah and in its details, according to our knowledge of it. This is the intent of (Avodah Zarah 24a): \"What answer did the sages give to R. Eliezer? (Isaiah 60:7): \"All the sheep of Kedar [Yishmael] will be gathered to You.\" R. Eliezer responded: 'They will all convert of themselves in time to come, as it is written: \"For then I will become for the peoples a clear language.\"' Abbaye asked: 'Perhaps they will only abandon idolatry' [but not other perversions]. R. Yosef answered: 'It is written \"…and serve Him with a single will\"' [implying that their service will be the same as that of Israel's].\" It is clear, then, that all of the peoples will revert to our faith in all details and minutiae of the mitzvoth, as indicated. And this is the intent of (Eichah Rabbah 2:17): \"'What shall I liken to you and console you' (Lamentations 2:13) — when I liken you, I shall console you.\" The interpretation, as is well known, is that all of our quarrels with the nations stem from our difference in faith, as our sages stated (Shabbath 89a): \"One of the sages asked R. Cahana: 'Did you hear why it is called Mount Sinai?' He answered: 'Because it is the mountain on which miracles [nissim] were performed for Israel.' 'But in that case it should have been called Mount Nissai!' 'Say, rather, because it is the mountain on which a goodly sign [siman] was performed for Israel.' 'But in that case it should have been called Mount Simnai!' He responded: 'Why don't you frequent the company of R. Pappa and R. Huna the son of R. Yehoshua who study the aggadoth of R. Chisda and Rabbah the son of R. Huna, both of whom say: \"Why is it called Mount Sinai? Because it is the mountain on which descended the hatred [sinah] of the gentiles.\"'\" Similarly, (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2:5): \"'If you find my Beloved, tell Him that I am sick with love' (Song of Songs 5:8) — Tell Him that all of the \"sicknesses\" that the nations of the world bring upon me come only because of my loving Him.\" The meaning is that because the Blessed One separated us from all the nations, not to intermarry with them and not to eat forbidden foods, this furthering and separation from them has inevitably caused this hatred. This is the intent of \"When I liken you, I shall console you.\" That is, when I liken you with the other nations, so that they will all be of the same faith with you, I will console you. For then the consolation will be complete, with no subsequent worry of war or of the hatred of the aforementioned nations against us.", "And this is as the Midrash (Eichah Rabbah 2:17) concludes: \"When the day arrives, 'The L-rd alone will be exalted on that day'\" (Isaiah 2:17). This refers to the time of our Messiah. And this is what was intimated by Jacob (Genesis 49:10): \"The staff shall not depart from Judah nor the sceptre from between his feet until Shiloh shall come, and his shall be the gathering of the peoples.\" As Onkelos translated \"…forever, until Messiah comes, to whom the kingdom belongs, and to whom the peoples will give obedience.\" The intent of \"and his shall be the gathering of the peoples\" is that all will be gathered to him and he will teach them his judgments. The interpretation of the verse is as follows: \"The staff shall not depart from Judah\" to one of his brothers, for the kingdom in Israel will always be with the tribe of Judah. Similarly, the sceptre shall not depart from between his feet to be given to a different tribe. For so long as there is rule in Israel, Judah will be the ruler, until the advent of Messiah, the last of the kings of Israel. The idea is not that kingship shall never depart from Israel, for it is explicitly stated (Deuteronomy 28:36): \"The L-rd shall bring you and the king whom you have set over you to a nation…,\" and the prophet [Jacob] would not assure the Jews that they would under no circumstances go into captivity so that Judah could reign over them. The meaning is, rather, that it will not depart from him to another of his brothers, and as long as there will be kingdom in Israel, it will reside in no other tribe but that of Judah.", "And in this regard the Ramban writes (Genesis, Ibid) that the kings of the other tribes who ruled Israel after David, misappropriated the inheritance and transgressed the wishes of their father and when Israel continued to appoint over themselves king after king from the other tribes and did not return to the kingdom of David, they transgressed their elder's [Jacob's] wishes and were punished, as Hosea says (Hosea 8:4): \"They have set up kings, but not from Me.\" And this accounts for the punishment of the Hasmoneans, who ruled in the second Temple. For they were extremely saintly, and if not for them Torah would have been forgotten, in spite of which they were severely punished, to the point that, as our sages say (Bava Bathra 3b): \"Anyone who says 'I come from the house of the Hasmoneans' is a slave\" — this, because they reigned though they were not of the seed of Judah and they removed the staff and the sceptre completely. These are his words, and they are, indeed, to be wondered at. For if so, the assurance of Jacob was not fulfilled even though the removers of Judah's reign were punished. For if a prophet assures one that he will not be injured and will not fall into the hands of his foes and he does fall, even if his blood is avenged, the prophet's assurance has not been fulfilled. And this verse is neither a command nor an exhortation to Jacob's sons, but a presaging of what is to come to pass, and if those who ruled in Israel transgressed this, the assurance was greatly undermined and fulfilled only in the days of David and Solomon.", "In my view, however, this parshah intimates to each tribe what will befall him, just as the episode of Samson was intimated to the tribe of Dan, Jacob alluding to it by saying (Genesis 49:16): \"Dan shall judge his people…,\" our sages commenting (Sotah 9b) that \"that bites the horse's heels\" (Genesis 49:17) refers to the two pillars upon which the Philistine temple rested, and that when Samson saw that he had fallen into the hands of his foes he called out (Ibid 18): \"In Your salvation I hope, O L-rd!\" In the same way, what is stated of Judah is stated by way of apprisal and assurance, so that \"The staff shall not depart from Judah\" is to be taken as meaning that though their kings would sin, their punishment would not be so great as to cause the kingdom to be removed from them and to depart from them entirely.", "And this is intimated in the Blessed One's words to Solomon (I Kings 11:11-12): \"And the L-rd said to Solomon: 'Because this was with you, and you did not keep my covenant and my statutes which I commanded you, I shall tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. But in your days I will not do it, for David your father's sake. But I will tear it out of the hand of your son…\" Therefore, Jacob assured Judah that even though his kings would sin, their sins would not go so far as to cause them to lose the reign completely, as the Blessed One says to Solomon (Ibid 13): \"But I will not tear away all the kingdom. I will give one tribe to your son for David my servant's sake and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen.\"", "And, indeed, all the days of the first Temple the kings were from Judah and the kingdom did not depart from them. The kingdom of Saul, too, presents no difficulty to us, though in his days there was no regent from the tribe of Judah. For the assurance was not that there would never arise a king in Israel who was not from the tribe of Judah, as we have explained, but that once their kingdom began it would never depart from them and never break off from them entirely.", "Therefore, Saul ruled even though there was no regent or king of the tribe of Judah, for there was none in the tribe of Judah as fit to rule as he, as Scripture testifies (I Samuel 10:24): \"…for there is none like him among all the people.\" And Jacob had only assured Judah that from the time his rule would begin it would not depart form him, the idea of \"departure\" applying only to something that has already begun.", "And the rule of the Hasmoneans also presents no difficulty here. For Scripture assures Judah only that when Israel, in themselves, have the option of kingship it shall not be cut off from the tribe of Judah; the reign will always be theirs so long as it is Israel's to accord. But there was no assurance that no one would ever wield authority if he were not from the tribe of Judah, and the kings who ruled in the second Temple ruled not in their own right but as deputies of the kings of Persia and Rome and of others beside them. In any event, the intent is not that kingdom and reign never fall to one of Judah's brothers, but that it never depart from his tribe entirely so long as there is rule in Israel. But when Israel was in exile without king or officer, there was no assurance that rule would remain in the tribe of Judah.", "And our sages understand this in another way, that Jacob assured Judah that some form of authority would never depart from his tribe, whether in their land or in exile, and he likewise assured him that Torah would never depart from his seed, as stated in Sanhedrin (5a): \"'The staff shall not depart from Judah' — these are the exilarchs in Bavel, who wielded authority over the people; 'nor the sceptre [or law-giver] from between his feet' — these are the grandchildren of Hillel, who taught Torah before the multitude.\" Two assurances are subsumed here: the first, that a leader and commander will never be cut off from his seed even when we are in exile; the second, that his seed will always occupy themselves in Torah, as stated in Yoma (26a): \"Rava said: 'You do not find a Torah disciple who renders halachic decisions that does not come either from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. From Levi, as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:10): \"They shall teach Your judgments to Jacob.\" From Issachar, as it is written (I Chronicles 12:32): \"And from the sons of Issachar, those who know understanding for the times.\"' Why not also include Judah, for it is written (Psalms 60:9): \"Judah, my law-giver\"? We are speaking of those who correctly derive the halachah from their learning.\" We see, then, that even though Judah's seed was not assured of arriving at the truth, they were assured of never ceasing from Torah study.", "And our sages have yet another view in the Midrashim, namely, that this assurance materializes only after the coming of the redeemer, the assurance being that even though the kingdom may cease from his tribe for a certain period, after Messiah comes it will never cease from his seed. \"Until Shiloh shall come\" is understood, in this context, as \"when Shiloh shall come.\" This is mentioned in Genesis Rabbah (99:10) and in Yelamdeinu, viz.: \"'The staff shall not depart from Judah' — this is the throne of kingdom, as it is written (Psalms 45:7): 'Your throne, O G-d, is for ever and ever.' 'And the sceptre from between his feet' — when there comes the one of whom it is written (Isaiah 28:3): 'The crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim shall be trodden under feet.' 'Until Shiloh shall come' — when there comes the one to whom the kingdom belongs. 'And his is the blunting of the peoples' — when there comes the one who blunts the teeth of all the nations of the world, as it is written (Micah 7:16): 'They shall lay their hands on their mouths, their ears shall be deaf.'\" It is clear from their words that the assurance does not take effect until after the coming of the redeemer. And they expounded similarly (Genesis Rabbah 97): \"'The staff shall not depart from Judah' — this is Messiah, the son of David, who is destined to subjugate the kingdoms, as it is written (Psalms 2:9): 'You shall break them with a rod of iron.' 'And the sceptre from between his feet' — these are the inhabitants of Yavetz. 'Until Shiloh shall come' — all the peoples of the world are destined to bring a gift to Messiah, the son of David, as it is written (Isaiah 18:7): 'In that time a present shall be brought to the L-rd of hosts.'\"", "And this is explained in many places, that in the time of Messiah all of the peoples will acknowledge the Blessed One, as the prophet assures us (Zechariah 14:9): \"On that day the L-rd will be one and His name will be one.\" That is, at present His name is one in the mouths of all peoples, for all peoples believe themselves to be serving G-d and calling upon His name — though they differ on the nature of the Divinity! What emerges, then, is that His name is one, but He is not one in the mouths of all. In the end of days, however, they shall perceive Him, and He shall be one just as His name now is one. This is the intent of (Ovadiah 1:21): \"And saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau; and the kingdom will be the L-rd's.\" (Zechariah 14:9): \"And the L-rd will be King over all the earth. On that day the L-rd will be one and His name will be one.\" " ], [ "\"AND HE SAID: 'HEAR, I PRAY YOU, MY WORDS; IF THERE BE AMONG YOU A PROPHET, I, THE L-RD, MAKE MYSELF KNOWN TO HIM IN A VISION AND SPEAK TO HIM IN A DREAM'\" (NUMBERS 12:6)", "The Blessed One wished to rebuke Aaron and Miriam for just having spoken against Moses, as it is written (Ibid 1): \"And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Kushite woman [Tzipporah] that he had taken.\" And He informed them that though their motives were pure, they had erred in speaking against him.", "As to the reason for their speaking against him only now and not having done so before, I understand it as follows: Up to now, because he was entirely, at all times, preoccupied with the leadership of Israel, they regarded him as one engaged in a mitzvah and, therefore, absolved from another mitzvah [in this case, to live with his wife], and they judged him in the scale of merit. But now, when he asked the L-rd to have others join him in the leadership of Israel so that it not devolve upon him alone, and he was, indeed, joined by seventy of the elders of Israel, they assumed that this mitzvah was now binding upon him, and for this reason they spoke against him. However, though their motives were pure, they nevertheless sinned, for they both spoke against him without having asked him the reason for his conduct. In addition, they compared their prophecy to his and did not accord him the honor due him, saying (Ibid 2): \"Did the L-rd speak only with Moses? Did He not speak with us also?\" And the L-rd answered that Moses had acted correctly and that they had sinned against him, apprising them of a great difference between their prophecy and his by virtue of which separation from his wife was, indeed, in order, as we shall explain. The verse states: \"Hear, I pray you [na], my words,\" upon which Sifrei (Numbers 103) comments: \"'Na' is a term of imploration. Now should we not draw an a fortiori conclusion from this? If He who spoke and caused the world to come into being spoke imploringly, how much more so should flesh and blood speak supplicatingly!\"", "Now the nature of this imploration must be understood. If they had sinned and the Blessed One was rebuking them, would it not be to their advantage and honor to inform them first of the sin for which they were being punished? \"Open rebuke is goodly\" (Proverbs 27:5) — why should there be imploration here? I understand the matter as follows: Prophetic visions were difficult for Aaron and Miriam and outside their natures, for they were not ready for prophecy at all times as was Moses but had to prepare themselves first to receive it. This revelation, however, came to them suddenly, as it is written (Ibid 4): \"And the L-rd spoke suddenly…\" Moses experienced no difficulty in this regard, for he was always ready for prophecy and there was nothing in his body which was antagonistic to it and which militated against its sudden access. This was not the case, however, with Aaron and Miriam. Therefore, the sudden coming of prophecy was extremely difficult for them. For when one's nature undergoes a sudden change from one extreme to the other, he experiences trauma and pain. The situation of Aaron and Miriam in this respect could be compared to that of one who, after standing in pitch darkness for a long period of time, was suddenly exposed to brilliant light, the result being loss of vision and extreme pain. And because \"the Holy One Blessed be He is not harsh with His creations\" but was now constrained to employ harsh suddenness to impress it upon them that Moses had acted correctly and they had erred in speaking against him — for, prophecy coming to him suddenly, he had to be ready for it at all times — because of this, He used the term \"na,\" a term of imploration according to our sages of blessed memory, requesting that they excuse, as it were, this sudden revelation, it being demanded by the nature of the situation.", "And according to the words of R. Avraham [Ibn Ezra], who explains \"na,\" in all instances, as meaning \"now,\" there is corroboration for his interpretation in this parshah, Moses praying (Ibid 13): \"Almighty, na, heal her na\" — that is, heal her now — and the Blessed One answering: \"I have heard your prayer and I will heal her, but not now, for (Ibid 14): \"if her father had spat in her face, would she not be in shame seven days?\" How much more so after having been castigated by the Shechinah! The context would seem to indicate that \"na\" means \"now\" or that it is a term connoting both \"now\" and imploration. In this respect, the word \"na\" is seen to serve very aptly in our case, too, the Blessed One saying to them: \"Hear, na, my words\" — that is, though it not be in your natures to receive revelation suddenly, but only after preparation and prior apprisal, in spite of this, receive it now, so that you know and understand that Moses acted properly. And there is no question that this was antagonistic to the natures of Aaron and Miriam in terms of their preparation for prophecy.", "And, in my opinion, this is the reason for Moses' being called together with Aaron and Miriam. For it must be explained: why did the Blessed One call Moses at this time? We do not find that He had previously spoken with Moses about this matter at all! The Ramban of blessed memory explains that He desired Moses to be there to witness G-d's jealousy for his honor and because G-d would forgive them only upon their entreating him and being reconciled with him. Now this interpretation is compatible with the view of R. Nathan, who says (Sifrei, Bamidbar 100): \"They spoke against Moses even to his face, as it is written (Numbers 12:2-3): 'And the L-rd heard; but the man, Moses, was extremely humble' and suppressed the slight\" But according to him who says (Ibid): \"'And the L-rd heard' — this teaches us that no one else was there, but they spoke between themselves\" — according to this view, Moses did not know of their sin at all. And even now, that G-d was being jealous for his honor, Moses was not aware of it. For the words \"If there be among you a prophet…\" were stated to Aaron and Miriam alone. This being the case, why should Moses have been called to stand there? He knew nothing of their sin against him and would have had to hear it from their own mouths, not having heard it from the L-rd.", "In my view, however, it was absolutely necessary that Moses be called. Because Aaron and Miriam lacked the power to receive prophecy suddenly, it was necessary that Moses join them, so that when it was projected upon Moses, who was fit and prepared for it, it would extend thence to Aaron and Miriam, who were not fit for such an effluence at that time. This parallels what the Blessed One said to Moses concerning the seventy elders (Numbers 11:17): \"And I will go down, and I will speak with you there, and I will take ['veatzalti'] of the spirit that is upon you and place it upon them.\" Onkelos translates [\"veatzalti\"] \"and I will add\"; for, apparently, the seventy elders were not in themselves worthy of receiving prophecy at that time. But, being projected to Moses, it was thence projected on to them, though they were not all prepared for it. And this is the pattern with the miracles and wonders of the Torah — that something serve as the root for the extension of a miraculous occurrence, as in the episode of the cruse of oil (II Kings 4). And this accounts for Moses' joining the seventy elders and for his joining Aaron and Miriam in the present instance.", "And, in my view, the effluence of wisdom and that of prophecy follow the same channels, both flowing from the Blessed One to the soul through the agency of the separate intelligences. And just as, when two prophets, one greater and one lesser, share a prophecy, the effluence reaches the disciple to a greater degree than is warranted by his nature, by virtue of his sharing it with the master — in the same way, when master and student share wisdom, the effluence reaches the latter to a greater degree than is warranted by his nature, by virtue of his sharing it with his master and teacher.", "And this is the crucial reason, in my view, for the progressive diminution in prophecy and wisdom generation after generation, as is universally acknowledged and as is testified to by our sages of blessed memory, viz. (Eruvin 53a): \"The minds of the early sages were as broad as entrance halls…\", (Sabbath 112b): \"If the early sages were angels, we are men…\" (Eruvin 53a): \"Our minds absorb as much as a finger in hard wax.\" The reason for this, as I see it, is that from the time of Moses our teacher until the present all of the prophets and sages have been in a progressive cause and effect relationship. And just as with conventional cause and effect, the further the distance from the original cause, the weaker the effect, so with the sages and the prophets. For Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, was the first effect of the First Cause of wisdom and prophecy, as Scripture testifies (Numbers 12:8): \"Mouth to mouth I speak to him…\" Because of this, he received these two effluences [wisdom and prophecy] in their greatest perfection. Joshua received these effluences through the agency of Moses, as it is written (Ibid 27:18): \"And you shall place your hand upon him,\" and (Ibid 23): \"And he placed his hands upon him.\" Similarly, the prophets that followed received the effluences through the agency of Joshua, as our sages of blessed memory have stated (Avoth 1): \"Moses received the Torah from Sinai…\" This is the intent of (Deuteronomy 34:10): \"There shall not arise again a prophet such as Moses.\" For the Blessed One \"does not withhold good from those who walk in perfection\" (Psalms 84:12). The idea is, rather, that this is a necessary consequence, just as it is a necessary consequence that the last level of the angels not be of the same degree of perfection as the first. For all who follow Moses receive the effluences through him and through the agency, progressively, of those who came after him, so that when the student is joined with the master, the effluence is intensified for the student by virtue of the emanation, reaching the master. It is for this reason that our sages of blessed memory exhorted us to study with one greater than we, saying (Kethuvoth 111a): \"One who learns by himself cannot be compared to one who learns from a teacher.\" And this is the intent of Rebbi's statement (Eruvin 13b): \"The reason I am greater than my colleagues is that I saw R. Meir from the back. And if I had looked upon his face, I would have been that much greater, for it is written (Isaiah 30:20): 'And let your eyes see your teacher.'\" For, in accordance with the intensity of the effluence reaching the master, and reflected in his face, as it is written (Ecclesiastes 8:1): \"A man's wisdom will brighten his face\" — so is the relative intensity of the effluence that reaches the student.", "And this is how I see the episode of Elisha with Elijah, viz. (II Kings 2:9-10): \"And it was, when they passed over, that Elijah said to Elisha: 'Ask what I shall do for you before I am taken away from you.' And Elisha said: 'I pray you, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.' And he answered: 'You have asked a hard thing. Still, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.'\" The plain meaning is that Elijah tells Elisha that he has asked a difficult thing. For since you are affected through me and receive the effluence through my agency, it is impossible for you to attain a level higher than mine, the effect not being able to rise above its cause. But if you see me when I am taken from you, being present when the effluence reaches me with greater intensity than it does today, as will be the case when I am taken from you (for there is no question that at that time Elijah rose immeasurably above what he was until then) — if you see me at that time, and the effluence reaches you through me, it shall be so for you, i.e., you shall have a double portion of what I have today through the agency of the level that I attain to at that time. But if not, it shall not be so, for you cannot, through my agency, reach a level higher than my own unless you are with me when I attain the great effluence, at which time through my mediation and through your participation with me in the accession of that effluence, more of it will reach you than you are now ready for. And this is the idea behind calling Moses together with Aaron and Miriam, as it is behind the progressive diminution of prophecy and wisdom generation after generation, as I have explained.", "And it seems to me, too, that aside from the effect of participation of prophet with prophet and sage with sage on the quality of the wisdom that is received, there is yet another dimension to the situation. That is, there is no question but we should believe that just as when the Temple existed, that sanctified abode was distinctly predisposed to the effluence of prophecy and wisdom, to the extent that through its mediation this effluence was transmitted to all of Israel — so should it follow that the prophets and saints be predisposed to the reception of wisdom and prophecy to the extent that through their mediation they project it upon all who are fit for it, even though the latter not be in immediate conjunction with them, but simply by virtue of the fact that they [the latter] find themselves in their generation, these prophets and saints themselves constituting a kind of sanctified Temple. The Ramban of blessed memory writes in his commentary (Deuteronomy 11:22): \"And it is possible with men on this level [of cleaving to the L-rd] that even in their lifetimes their souls are bound up in the \"bond of Life,\" for they themselves are the abode of the Shechinah, as indicated in the Kuzari.\" It is possible that the Ramban has our idea in mind, too. Therefore, when certain generations are blessed with prophets and saints, they receive the effluence, and, through their agency, can project it upon all the men in their generation who are fit to receive it, especially upon those who draw close to them and participate with them. And this is true not only in their lifetimes; but even after they have died, their burial places are likely to possess certain elements of that effluence. For their bones, which, in their lifetimes had been vessels for the receiving of the Divine effluence still retain enough of their former eminence and glory to suffice for this. Because of this our sages of blessed memory have stated (Sotah 34b) that one should prostrate himself on the graves of the righteous and pray there. For prayer in such places is more readily received because of the presence there of bodies which had formerly been receptacles of the Divine effluence.", "And this is not to be wondered at. For we find the Blessed One telling Moses (Exodus 4:17): \"And this rod, take in your hand…\" This rod, because it was in Moses' hand when he stood upon Mount Sinai, and Divinity came to rest upon it, so that the first sign was performed through it — because of this, afterwards, it was instrumental in the performance of the other signs, the Almighty commanding that it be used for all of the signs performed in Egypt. And the rod was effectual in this respect not only when it was moved, but even when it was simply present. For we find the Blessed One telling Moses at the latter \"waters of contention\" (Numbers 20:8): \"Take the rod and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and speak…\" Moses was not herein instructed to strike the rock at all, but only to speak to it, in spite of which it is stated: \"Take the rod.\" This indicates that the mere presence of the rod was instrumental in the performance of that miracle, and that Moses' sin lay in striking the rock. This, too, is the view of Rashi according to the words of the Aggadah. The Ramban, however, dismisses this, saying that since Moses was commanded to take the rod it was implied that he was to strike the rock — for if the intent were that he only speak to it, why would he need this rod in his hand? In truth, however, this is no question. For just as we must perforce admit that the movements of the rod were instrumental in the performance of the miracles, though they lay neither in the nature of the rod nor in the nature of its movements, in the same way it is possible for the mere presence of the rod to be a factor in the performance of a miracle.", "But because Moses' sin in this episode is so cryptic as to have given rise to much conjecture, I have seen fit to enlarge upon this subject and to express my view. I shall begin with three premises.", "The first premise: It is the desire and will of the Blessed One to keep the world on its natural course as far as possible. Nature being precious in His eyes, He alters it only when it is absolutely necessary to do so. This accounts for Moses' asking (Numbers 11:22): \"Shall flocks and herds be slain for them…?\" Moses was assuming that the Blessed One would not originate a miracle and a wonder for them in vain, simply to fill their stomachs, and he wondered, on the premise of the world following its natural course: How would there be enough meat for this vast multitude? And because this natural course is precious in the eyes of the L-rd and desired by Him, as we have written, sometimes, when He must originate a miracle and a wonder, He combines with it something natural to be a kind of support to it, though that natural element in itself not be sufficient for the miracle but only supportive of it. As Elisha said to the wife of one of the prophet's sons (II Kings 4:2): \"Tell me what you have in the house…\" and being answered that she had only a cruse of oil, he instructed her (Ibid 3): \"Go and borrow vessels from abroad, from all of your neighbors, empty vessels, and do not be sparing…\" all those vessels subsequently being filled from the one cruse of oil. Now there is no question that it was impossible in point of nature for so much oil to come forth from a cruse which contained almost no oil at all. In spite of this, the prophet desired to satisfy G-d's will that there be some kind of natural support for the miracle. This is the first premise.", "The second premise: The elements are transmutable from one extreme to the other. For example, earth, under progressive disintegration and humidification, is convertible to water. The same is true of the other elements — let alone the compounds. This is axiomatic to thinking men and experience testifies to it.", "The third premise: When a thing once acquires a certain form, even if the form subsequently departs from that thing, it will be easier for that thing to acquire that form once again. This is, likewise, testified to by experience. For example, if water has once been heated and has acquired the form of heat, though it subsequently cool, it will more easily be re-heated than water that has never been heated before because the first heating will have rendered the molecules more permeable to heat. The effect will be even more pronounced if the water has not remained cool for a long time. Even a piece of wood or a wick that have once been used to kindle a fire or a lamp will more readily ignite after having been extinguished than they did at first. It is from this premise that R. Yehoshua arrives at the conclusion (Rosh Hashanah 11a) that Israel is destined to be redeemed in the month of Nissan, the reasoning being that since this month had already been pre-conditioned by the redemption of the fathers [from Egypt], it follows that it should serve the same purpose for the sons: \"In Nissan our forefathers were born; in Nissan they were redeemed; and in Nissan they will be redeemed again.\"", "After these three premises, which are testified to by experience, and after asking the reader's indulgence for holding forth on matters which are removed from me, I shall, for all that, proceed to express my view, bolstered, as it is, by the words of our sages of blessed memory.", "There is no doubt that this rock from which water had flowed for forty years, or close to it, though it had been stopped up by the death of Miriam — there is no doubt that it was more greatly predisposed to the flowing of water than it had been in the beginning. (This follows from the third premise.) And because the first time it lacked this predisposition entirely, the Blessed One said to Moses (Exodus 17:5-6): \"Pass before the people and take with you of the elders of Israel; and the rod with which you smote the river, take it in your hand and go. I will stand before you there on the rock in Chorev, and you will smite the rock, and water will issue forth from it, and the people will drink.\" Because the rock was not at all predisposed to the issuance of water, the Blessed one commanded that Moses take in his hand the rod which, because of the Divinity residing upon it, had been instrumental in the performance of the miracles, and that he strike the rock with that rod so that it acquire permeability and malleableness and be converted to the form of water (for the element of earth can thus be converted to that of water, as indicated in the second premise). Now there is no doubt whatsoever that if a vast multitude pounded away at that rock interminably with hatchets and with hammers, not a single drop would issue forth. Still, striking the rock with the rod was effectual in that this rod served as the potent natural instrument supporting the miraculous act (as explained in the first premise). This is the first consideration in respect to the rock.", "The second consideration is as follows: The Blessed One did not tell Moses to strike the rock with the rod at all. All He told him was to take the rod and speak to the rock, the rod only needing to be before the rock, its mere presence there, by virtue of the power invested in it by the L-rd, being instrumental in the issuance of the water. He did not command him to strike the rock for this was not necessary, the rock being more greatly predisposed to give forth water than it was the first time in that much water had already flowed from it for a long period of time, so that now it was [not waterless but] only stopped up. And the language of the verses themselves completely substantiates this interpretation. For whereas the first time it is written: \"Smite the rock and water will issue forth from it,\" here it is stated: \"And it will give forth its water,\" the connotation being that it give forth the water that is already contained in it and which must only be freed from a temporary blockage. The Ramban, of blessed memory, is perplexed by this phrase [\"its waters\"] and is hard pressed to explain it. He need not be, for the explanation is, apparently, as I have given it. The first time, then, the Blessed One required that he strike the rock with his rod; the second time, He did not require this, but only that he place the rod before the rock. A convenient analogy in this regard is a beginning student's not paying attention unless his teacher strikes him with rod or thong, and, later, coming to attention merely upon being shown the thong. To this should be added the fact that many things are affected by other objects even when not in immediate contact with them, but merely through the agency of some intervening force.", "And Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, grew angry with the Jews and said to them (Numbers 20:10): \"Hear now, you rebellious ones, shall we bring forth water to you from this rock!\" Now, with all due respect to Moses, he should not have become angry with them. For we see that because they were justified in their request for bread, the Blessed One gave it to them with a shining countenance; how much more, then, should this be the case with their request for water, which is even more essential to life than is bread. And if their sin lay in saying (Ibid 4): \"And why did you bring the congregation of the L-rd to this desert?\" — the first time, when they asked for bread, did they not also say (Exodus 16:3): \"Would that we had died by the hand of the L-rd in the land of Egypt…\" in spite of which G-d granted their request the very first time with a shining countenance. And even Moses did not become angry with them at all, just as he did not become angry in that entire episode. And if every time the Jews complained they were accounted as sinning, the severity of their sin is not at all apparent from the plain meaning of the verses.", "I understand the matter as follows. The Jews, for all of their complaints, never regretted leaving Egypt, except in the episode of the spies, where it is written (Numbers 14:4): \"And one man said to his brother: 'Let us appoint a chief and return to Egypt'\" — for which the \"well-known\" punishment was decreed upon them at that time. But all that they said in their other complaints (Ibid 20:4-5): \"And why did you bring the congregation of the L-rd to this desert?\" \"And why did you take us up out of Egypt?\" — all this was in the manner of a son whining to his father. They saw that the Blessed One granted Moses all that he requested. They, therefore, implored Moses that he lead them to their land over a well-trodden path and not by way of a dry, parched, wasteland. Or, if they had to go through the desert, that he, at least, provide for all their needs there. For they knew that the Blessed One would not deny anything that he requested and they attributed their difficult circumstances to insufficient compassion on his part. Because of this they complained to him incessantly — for this reason, and for no other. Accordingly, it was unbefitting of Moses to grow angry at their legitimate request, our sages of blessed memory stating in this respect (Tanchuma, Chukath 9): \"Because he gave way to anger (saying \"Hear now, you rebellious ones,\" something unbefitting of him), he gave way to error.\" And his error was in assuming — because he had been told the first time: \"And strike the rock,\" and he was told now: \"Take the rod\" — his error was in assuming that the Blessed One desired him to strike the rock now, too, as at first. And the result of this erroneous assumption was that he struck the rock twice with his rod. Apparently, the first time only a few drops issued forth, as stated by our sages of blessed memory (Midrash Tanchuma 9) (though what they say is not entirely consistent with this interpretation). In any event, this fact would seem to be corroborated by the Scriptural account itself. For if the water had issued forth in abundance the first time, Moses would not have had to strike the rock a second time. It is obvious, then, that the first time only an insufficient amount issued forth. This is attributable to the fact that (although, in terms of the striking itself, more water should have issued forth than there did the first time), because the act was not performed in conformance with the Blessed One's will, what should have been an aid became a deterrent; for the act was not a natural one, but dependent upon the Blessed One's will. And there is no question that when Moses struck the rock the first time, fruitlessly, he must have been struck with surprise, as one whose work did not materialize as intended — at which he struck the rock a second time, attributing his first failure to the possibility of inadequate communion with the Blessed One resulting in an imperfect act. He, therefore, struck the rock a second time, at which time the water came gushing out — not because of the second striking, but because the water that had started to drip suddenly burst forth. It is even possible that the second striking diminished the flow of the water, for \"all who would add to the mitzvah of the L-rd diminish it.\" Now, unquestionably, the people, to whom some of this would have been transmitted through his movements and gestures, would begin to entertain the doubt that it was through their ingenuity that Moses and Aaron had brought forth water for them from the rock. And this is the intent of the verse (Ibid 20:12): \"Because you did not believe in Me…\" That is, you were not scrupulous enough with My words to believe that the nearness of the rod to the rock itself would suffice to bring the waters. If you had done as you should, I would have been sanctified this time, too, before the eyes of the Children of Israel, and they would acknowledge My might and My strength, but now, the thing was done by you in such a way as to bring doubt into the hearts of the Children of Israel, contrary to My intent that this time, too, My name be sanctified before their eyes.", "In any event we find that the showing of the rod and its mere presence was instrumental in the performance of the miracles by virtue of the Divinity residing upon it. How much more so should it follow that when Moses joined the other prophets in prophesy they would acquire by virtue of his participation with them more than they could acquire on their own power. Therefore, when the Blessed One desired that Aaron and Miriam prophesy suddenly, something that was not in their own power. He included Moses with them. And this is the reason itself for His saying (Numbers 11:16-17): \"Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and its officers, and take them to the tent of meeting, and let them stand there with you. And I will go down, and I will speak with you there, and I will take of the spirit that is upon you and place it upon them.\" For it is possible that all of those seventy elders were not fit in themselves to receive prophecy if not for Moses' participation with them.", "And I have yet another thought on this matter. It is well known that the common good and societal organization is best served when its leadership proceeds from one, distinct head. It is for this reason that the Jews were commanded to appoint a king, so that the leadership be organized and proceed from one head, distinct within it, and not be dissipated among a number of heads, as it is written (Proverbs 28:2): \"For the sin of the land, its princes are many.\" Because of this the Blessed One placed the leadership of Israel entirely in Moses' hands, until he tired of it and requested that other men share it with him. The Blessed One was apprehensive of the loss that this might entail, the possibility of discord in the leadership and the disorganization that would thereby result. For though one prophecy would reach all of them, if their spirit would not be one, then this difference would be reflected in their prophecy. For our sages of blessed memory have already informed us (Sanhedrin 89a) that no two prophets prophesy in one style. Therefore, the Blessed One, in this instance, acted as the wise doctor who must administer a certain drug for a desired therapeutic end but, at the same time, is cognizant of a certain danger that may result from its administration. The analogue in this instance is the possibility that the participation of seventy elders with Moses in the leadership of the people might lead to discord and disorganization. The Blessed One, cognizant of this, averted the danger by not investing each of them with a distinct spirit but rendering all of them as branches deriving their nourishment from one choice root — Moses our teacher, of blessed memory. This would produce the desired accord and create a unified leadership proceeding from one head.", "This explains what is stated further in the parshah (Numbers 11:27-28): \"And the youth ran and told Moses, saying: 'Eldad and Medad are prophesying within the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses from his youth, answered and said: 'My lord, Moses, imprison them!'\" The words of Joshua certainly require explanation. What is their offense and what is their sin in prophesying, that he should ask Moses to imprison them because of this? According to what we have written, however, it is clear. Joshua saw these two as militating against the divine intent of having all of them derive nourishment from the spirit of Moses to the end of universal accord and consent. These two were making a head of themselves and desiring to prophesy by a distinct spirit. And though the spirit of the L-rd in their mouth was true, their prophesying to Israel in a distinct style was liable to result in disorganization and ineffective leadership. For this reason Joshua asked that they be placed into prison, where they could prophesy for themselves.", "To this should be added the factor that Joshua was jealous for the honor of Moses. For it would seem that these two [Eldad and Medad] preferred a distinct spirit within themselves rather than an emanation from the spirit of Moses. And though this was not their intent at all, Joshua erred in this regard. For according to the view that these two remained in the camp, it was their humility which resulted in their prophesying thus, it being stated (Sanhedrin 17a): \"The Rabbis taught: 'And two men remained within the camp' — some say: 'They [their ballots] remained within the ballot box. For when the Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: \"Gather to me seventy men,\" Moses said: \"How can I do this…?\" [at which he was advised to use ballots].' R. Shimon says: 'They remained in the camp itself. When the Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: \"Gather to me seventy men,\" Eldad and Medad said: \"We are not worthy of that distinction,\" at which the Holy One Blessed be He said to them: \"Because you have diminished yourselves, I shall add greatness to your greatness.\" And what greatness did He add to them? All of the other prophets prophesied and ceased; they prophesied and did not cease.'\"", "Now according to the view of R. Shimon, Joshua erred as to their intent. For they, in their humility, drew back, and the Blessed One conferred prophecy upon them because of their eminence. Joshua, however, thought that they remained in the camp because they did not wish their spirit to be a derivative of Moses' spirit and desired to be heads in themselves. Because of this he said: \"My lord, Moses, imprison them!\" They deserve to be put into prison so that the leadership of Israel not suffer because of them. And according to the view that their ballots remained within the ballot box, the explanation is even simpler. These two saw that the Blessed One did not desire them to be prophets at that time, in spite of which they prophesied [\"mitnabim\"] in the camp. \"Mitnabim\" here is used reflexively, in the sense of one bringing something upon himself, as with these, who secluded themselves and did all in their power to attain prophecy. And though they did not attain it, they are still called \"mitnabim,\" as in the case of (Proverbs 13:7): \"There is one who would become wealthy [mitasher], but has nothing,\" where one is referred to as \"mitasher\" though he has not attained the wealth. It is for this reason that Joshua said to Moses: \"My lord, Moses, imprison them!\" For since they strengthened themselves against the Divine will, they, indeed, deserved to be put into prison.", "In addition to this, Joshua suspected that their exertions to attain prophecy were motivated not so much by a desire for prophecy as by envy at not having been selected for the leadership of Israel together with the seventy elders. For up to now they had not exerted themselves to attain prophecy, so that it seemed that they were interested not so much in prophecy itself as in lording it over the congregation by means of it. For this reason Joshua asked: \"My lord, Moses, imprison them!\" — that is, let their punishment be measure for measure. Because they desired to lead the Jews and make them subservient to themselves, it was only fitting that Moses punish them by divesting them even of self-leadership! For when one is in prison, not only (needless to say) is the direction of others not in his hands, but even his own conduct and all of his movements are ruled over by others. But Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, in his modesty, answered and said (Numbers 11:29): \"Are you jealous for my honor?…\" That is, there is nothing in what they are doing for me to be concerned about. For as far as jealousy for Moses' honor, Moses was not concerned about this at all. And he was likewise, not apprehensive that their acts might adversely affect the leadership, in that they would act through the agency of prophecy, granted them by the L-rd. This is the intent of Moses' words (Ibid): \"Would that all of the L-rd's people would prophesy, that the L-rd would place His spirit upon them.\" That is, if they exerted themselves to attain to leadership over Israel through some potentially destructive agency, there would, indeed, be cause for concern. But if the L-rd concurred in their act and placed His spirit upon them, there would be no reason whatsoever to fear that the leadership might be undermined. For \"no evil thing descends from Heaven,\" the L-rd having already taken adequate precautions against this in having conferred prophecy through Moses upon the seventy elders of His desire.", "There were two reasons, then, for their sharing prophecy with Moses: the first, so that they be of one accord; the second, so that in union with him, they attain a level of prophecy that it was not in their power to attain individually.", "But Moses' joining Aaron and Miriam was only for the purpose of their attaining prophecy suddenly through Moses' participation with them. For it cannot be maintained that the purpose was to demonstrate to Moses G-d's jealousy for his honor. For this is compatible only with the view that they spoke against Moses to his face, there being a difference of opinion in this regard, viz. (Sifrei, Bamidbar 100): \"(Numbers 12:2): 'And the L-rd heard' — this teaches us that no one else was there, but they spoke between themselves. R. Nathan says: 'They spoke against Moses even to his face, as it is written: \"And the L-rd heard; but the man, Moses, was extremely humble\" and suppressed the slight.'\"", "\tNow these verses demand explanation according to both views. For according to the view that no one else was there, but they spoke between themselves, what reason is there for stating (Numbers, Ibid 3) \"but the man, Moses, was extremely humble\"? Even one who is not humble does not take offense at what he does not hear! It seems to me that the intent of the verse would be to inform us that G-d's jealousy for the honor of Moses did not stem from His knowledge that the matter would come to Moses' ears and he would take umbrage at it — for Moses was extremely humble and, in his great virtue, would not take to heart anything said about him — but the Blessed One rebuked them and punished Miriam for speaking against one greater than they. And according to the view that they spoke against Moses even to his face, the intent of the sequence of the verses would be to inform us that the punishment visited upon Miriam for speaking against Moses resulted from G-d's jealousy alone and not from Moses' spirit being aroused and working against Miriam in any way. For some souls possess this affective power. For just as the spiritual soul itself is influenced by the separate intelligences, so, the matter of this terrestrial world is subservient to the soul, and the soul can affect it. And just as each intellect (as is well known) works upon its body, a man's bodily temperament changing according to the thoughts and activities of his intellect, so an intellect may be so highly affective as to leave an impress not only upon its own body, but even upon the bodies of others. (The \"evil eye\" [ayin hara] mentioned by our sages of blessed memory is of this order of things.) And this is not attributable to the perfection and eminence of the soul but to its being invested with an evil envy by the powers playing upon it upon its union with the body. And so that we not think that the change in Miriam's body and its leprous condition were in any way due to the action of Moses' soul upon Miriam's body (which would not be a tribute to Moses but a slight against him), the Torah informed us that this was not the cause, that the cause was, rather, the Blessed One's jealousy for the honor of Moses, with no arousal on Moses' part whatsoever, with no activation of his soul against her body in any respect. This is the intent of: \"And the L-rd heard.\" All that occurred resulted from the Blessed One's having heard their speaking against him and being jealous for his honor and not in any way from Moses' reactions, for Moses was extremely humble.", "As to the immanence of these powers in the soul, our sages of blessed memory have spoken of this in tractate Sabbath (156a): \"One who is born under Mars will be a spiller of blood. R. Ashi said: 'Either a thief or a blood-letter; either a slaughterer or a mohel.' Rabbah said: 'I was born under Mars [and am in none of the above categories]!' Abbaye answered: 'The master, too, punishes and kills in his capacity as a judge].'\" It is hereby clearly indicated that a soul may have a distinct disposition to affect the bodies of others.", "But there is a question here which must be resolved. For it would seem according to this that a man, according to his constellation [mazal] rebels through transgressions or pursues mitzvoth, it being stated there (Ibid): \"One who is born under Jupiter [Tzedek] will be righteous [tzadkan]. R. Nachman b. Yitzchak said: 'He will be especially exemplary in the mitzvah of charity [tzedakah].' One who is born under Mars will be a spiller of blood.\" Now this is certainly to be wondered at. For if mitzvoth or transgressions proceed from mazal, there is no room for reward or punishment.", "There are two answers here. Mazal, in respect to mitzvoth and transgressions, merely predisposes; it does not compel. One who is born under Tzedek is not compelled to be a tzaddik but is only predisposed in that direction. Similarly, one who is born under Mars is not compelled to be a spiller of blood, but is predisposed to it. The reason for this is that mazal acts upon bodies until it leaves an impression in them. In spite of this, however, it does not act upon the soul, which is above it. It follows from this that everything relating to nature will be affected by mazal, but acts of mitzvah or transgression, which are above the realm of nature, will be dictated by the activity of the soul. And this in two respects. The first: the soul, having dominion over the body, can change the evil disposition invested in it by the mazal. So that, for example, if one is born under Mars, though it is dictated by his mazal that his blood be hot and boiling, predisposed to murder, still, the soul, in its power of dominion over the body, can quiet that boiling. This is the first respect. The second: though the boiling not be quieted, the soul can turn it to good and not employ it for evil. For mazal does not dictate specific acts but only characteristics, and it is within the province of the soul to employ a single characteristic for good or for evil. This is the intent of (Ibid): \"R. Ashi said: 'Either a thief or a blood-letter; either a slaughterer or a mohel.'\" Now a slaughterer and a mohel are both possessed of the same characteristic, one manifestation of that characteristic being commendable, the other, reprehensible. It is seen, then, that a mazal cannot compel the doing of mitzvoth or transgressions but can only create a predisposition — and the soul has power over that predisposition, as we have indicated.", "And this is the intent of (Niddah 16b): \"The angel appointed over conception is called \"Laylah\" [\"Night\"]. He takes the drop, places it before the Holy One Blessed be He and asks: 'This drop — what shall be of it? A wise man or an ignoramus? A wealthy man or a pauper?' But he does not ask whether it shall be a righteous man or a wicked one.\" It is hereby indicated that wisdom and wealth are attributable to the status of the mazal at conception or birth, but not goodness or badness. And this is also the intent of their statement (Sabbath 156a): \"It was taught: 'R. Chanina says: \"A mazal makes wise and a mazal makes wealthy, and there is a mazal for Israel.\"'\" R. Yochanan said: \"There is no mazal for Israel.'\" It is clear from this that wisdom and wealth are attributable to mazal, and even R. Yochanan admits this. For though he says \"There is no mazal for Israel,\" his intent is not that mazal does not affect these areas, but that through prayer and charity mazal can be changed for the good. This is how Rashi interprets it there, and this is what is implied by the context. And R. Chanina holds that prayer and charity cannot change mazal in these areas, those of wisdom and wealth; but, as far as the doing of mitzvoth and transgressions is concerned, there is no sage who denies that mazal has no power in this area. This is the intent of (Moed Katan 28a): \"Offspring, life, and sustenance are dependent not upon merit, but upon mazal\" — only material things are attributed to mazal, not spiritual ones.", "However, a difficult question still remains to be resolved. From the words of R. Chanina it would seem that in the material areas mazal exercises an inexorable influence that can in no way be controverted by prayer or charity. This is how Rashi understands it and this is, likewise, implied by the context. For it cannot be said that R. Chanina's intent is that mazal predisposes in these areas and that the predisposition can be changed through the merit of mitzvoth. For it is stated there: \"The episode of Shmuel also demonstrates that there is no mazal for Israel\"; \"The episode of R. Akiva also demonstrates that there is no mazal for Israel.\" And the episodes recorded there demonstrate that mazal can, indeed, be changed through the merit of mitzvoth. Therefore, even R. Yochanan, who says: \"There is no mazal for Israel\" admits that the stellar system does exercise an influence in these areas, maintaining only that this influence can be changed through the performance of mitzvoth. R. Chanina, then, who disagrees with him, saying: \"There is a mazal for Israel,\" must hold that the activity of the stellar system in these areas cannot be changed. This raises a great question concerning the material rewards of the Torah, such as long life, health, wealth, and the like. For according to R. Chanina all of these are determined by the system of mazal, mitzvoth and transgressions affecting these areas in no way whatsoever. Likewise, according to this view, our prayers relating to these things should be entirely ineffectual. This is difficult, indeed, and requires explanation.", "The answer, as I see it, is as follows. A man may escape the influence of an adverse mazal in two ways: the first, by not being in the place where the mazal manifests itself, or being there but protecting himself in such a way that the mazal [though potent] cannot injure him; the second, though being in a place where the mazal normally manifests itself, neutralizing the power of the mazal so that it leaves no impression whatsoever upon him. This is analogous to saying that one may escape being burned by fire in two ways: the first, moving away from it and standing in a place where it cannot harm him, or smearing himself with salamander blood so that it cannot injure him, though it does not lose its potency thereby; the second, standing in a place where it would, indeed, injure him if it retained its potency, but neutralizing its potency by extinguishing it. Similarly, a person may escape the adverse influence of a mazal in these two ways, if they obtain. First, by not being in the place where the mazal manifests itself, or, if he finds himself in that place, by doing something as a result of which the mazal will not affect him adversely, though it will not lose its potency. So that, for example, if the mazal system dictated intense, burning heat, he could place himself within the framework of cold and thus escape the influence of the mazal without detracting from its potency in any way. This is the first expedient by which one can rescue himself from the evil of the mazal or the stellar system. And in this connection R. Chanina and R. Yochanan are in complete agreement, differing in no way whatsoever. For even R. Chanina, who says: \"There is a mazal for Israel, will admit that by this expedient one can escape the power of the mazal, that is, by the Blessed One's putting it in the hearts of the doers of His will to perform acts which will save them from the adverse influences of the mazal system, without the system being weakened in any way. R. Abraham (Ibn Ezra has already testified to this.) And on this will hinge all of the material rewards of the Torah and all of our daily prayers according to R. Chanina. But as to whether a man can, through his merit, weaken the power of the mazal itself without taking any defensive measures — simply to attenuate its power so that it makes no impression upon him, as was the case with Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in the fiery furnace, their entering into it and employing no stratagem whatsoever to save themselves, in spite of which it had no adverse effect whatsoever upon them — whether one can thus neutralize a mazal is where R. Chanina and R. Yochanan disagree, R. Chanina holding that this is absolutely impossible, and R. Yochanan holding, that this, too, is possible, that a mitzvah in itself can prevent a mazal from adversely affecting the one who observes it. And the context itself shows this to be the case, viz. (Shabbath 156a): \"And Rav, too, holds that there is no mazal for Israel, for R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav: 'How do we know that there is no mazal for Israel? For it is written (Genesis 15:5): \"And He took him Abraham outside…\" Abraham said: \"L-rd of the Universe, I have looked at my mazal and seen that I am not fit to have children,\" at which the L-rd answered: \"Go out of your mazal, for there is no mazal for Israel. What leads you to this conclusion? The fact that Tzedek is in the west? I shall turn it around and set it up in the east.\" And this is the intent of the verse (Isaiah 41:2): \"Who caused Tzedek to rise in the east?\"'\" He does not say that He will create conditions that will protect him from the effect of the mazal, but that He will change the mazal itself, so that the mazal itself can make no impression upon him. And the other episodes recorded there (\"The episode of Shmuel also demonstrates that there is no mazal for Israel\"; \"The episode of R. Akiva also demonstrates that there is no mazal for Israel\"; \"The episode of R. Nachman b. Yitzchak also demonstrates that there is no mazal for Israel\") — all of these indicate that the mitzvah itself can neutralize the mazal with no other expedients being necessary.", "Whatever the case, there is complete concurrence among the sages of Israel that this terrestrial world is subject to the influence and control of the stellar system unless Divine service nullify its mandated effect. It follows from this that if one's merit is not so great as to cause a change in the mazal system on his behalf or to cause him to be so closely superintended by Divine Providence as to have the Blessed One place it into his heart to perform an act which would protect him against the adverse influence of the mazal — so long as one of these two does not obtain, it follows that he will be punished even though he is not liable to that punishment on the basis of his deeds. This is the intent of (Moed Katan 28a): \"Offspring, life, and sustenance are dependent not upon merit, but upon mazal,\" and, likewise (Bava Kamma 60a): \"'And you, let no man go out of the door of his house until morning' (Exodus 12:22) — once the destroyer has been permitted to destroy, he does not distinguish between a righteous man and a wicked one.\"", "And herein is resolved the great dilemma in G-d's conduct of the world: \"the righteous man who suffers, and the wicked man who prospers.\" For if the heavenly influences manifesting themselves in this terrestrial world were all specific, so that one star would attach to one man alone, the Blessed One assigning it to him individually to compensate him in accordance with his deeds, this would, indeed, be cause for wonder. But this is not the case, for the ordinance of the terrestrial world is generic, so that it is impossible to expect continuous good uninterrupted occasionally by evil. This would be analogous to expecting the sun to ripen grain and fruits and not beat down on the head of the righteous man walking on the road in the period of Tammuz so that he not contract the illness to which he is thus predisposed. In the same way, when a certain malignant influence is released upon a place or clime, it will not manifest itself as the Blessed One's striking with rod or thong only specific individuals but as a generic maleficent force, which will cause injury even to him who does not deserve to be punished by it, unless his merit be so great that the Blessed One save him through an alteration of nature.", "And herein, too, is resolved a formidable question: The Blessed One commanded that the Levites be set aside for the work of the sanctuary in place of the first-born and declared it to be incumbent on all of Israel to subsidize them in view of His having appropriated for Himself all of the first-born in Israel by virtue of His having saved them from the plague of the first-born in Egypt. Since He thus appropriated them for Himself, and they, through their own sins, disqualified themselves for His service, it was only fitting that they hire others in their place. This is the intent of (Numbers 8:16-17): \"For they [the Levites] are entirely given to Me from the midst of the Children of Israel in place of those who open every womb, the first-born of all among the Children of Israel; I have taken them for Myself. For Mine are all the first-born of the children of Israel, both man and beast. On the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them unto Me.\" That is, on the day that I smote the first-born of Egypt and did not kill them, I acquired them for Myself. Now this is, indeed, cause for wonder. Why should He have acquired them through having smitten the first-born of Egypt, who were deserving of punishment, and not having smitten them, who had sinned in nothing! Would a king be justified in telling someone: \"I have acquired you as a servant by having killed that man for having killed another, and not having killed you\"? This would certainly be unthinkable. And yet, that is what seems to be transpiring here!", "The answer, however, is that the influences projected upon the terrestrial world do not reach specific individuals through specific agencies but through generic ones, for the Blessed One does not wish to change nature in accordance with each individual. And when the Blessed One desired to smite the first-born of Egypt, He originated a maleficent force relating to the first-born. For all of the first-born share a common, unifying trait, there being no doubt that the womb which had never produced a fetus is not of the same nature as one which has already produced offspring. And in point of that difference, it is possible that all of the first-born have a proneness to contract something which is hidden from our eyes. It is for this reason that the mitzvah of sanctification of the first-born applies to the first-born of the womb, the common, unifying trait existing in the first-born of the mother and not in those of the father at all. And though it is stated in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Bo 19): \"'There was no house where one had not died' (Exodus 12:30) — if the house did not contain a first-born, the eldest of the house died in place of the first-born\" — this is by way of hermeneutics, but the plain meaning is that only those first-born who were the first of the womb were smitten. And the common, unifying factor would dictate that such first-born of Israel also be smitten, if they were left to nature. It is for this reason that the Blessed One said that by protecting and saving them from the impending evil He had sanctified them unto Him.", "It is hereby made clear that when a certain maleficent influence is originated, even one who does not deserve to be punished for his deeds will come to harm, unless he has a particular merit which will cause the Blessed One to protect him against the force that has been set into motion.", "This should resolve the dilemma of \"the righteous man who suffers, and the wicked man who prospers.\" As to the verse (Psalms 73:3): \"For I was envious of the revelers; I saw the prosperity of the wicked\" — this is to be understood as a lament over the actuation of this principle and not as an expression of ignorance as to its existence. The same applies to (Ibid 13-14): \"It is but in vain that I have purified my heart and washed my hands in cleanliness. For I have been afflicted all the day and chastised every morning.\" It is as if to say: if the essence and end of requital were the goods and evils of this world, one would perfect his deeds in vain unless he attained an exalted eminence by which nature would be changed for his sake. But so long as the world follows its natural pattern, the good man will be visited with pain and suffering. Since, however, the ultimate, essential requital is that for the soul in the world to come, no dilemma remains here, for every deed will there be brought to \"the accounting house.\" And this is the intent of (Ibid 21-22): \"For my heart was embittered; my reins were pricked. And I was foolish and did not know… (Ibid 17): …until I entered the sanctuary of the Almighty — then I understood their end.\" That is, the distribution of reward and punishment in this world is confounding. One cannot discern in it the justice of the Blessed One's judgments, but must remain foolish, beast-like, in contemplating them — until he comes and sees what the Blessed One has stored away for the righteous and for the wicked, at which time he will understand their end. For it is there and not in this world that the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked is revealed. And this itself is the intent of the sealer of the epoch of prophecy (Malachi 3:13-14): \"'Your words have been strong against Me,' says the L-rd. And you say: 'What have we spoken against You?' You have said: 'It is vain to serve G-d, and what profit is it that we have kept His charge and walked darkly before the L-rd of hosts?'\" And Malachi concludes (Ibid 18): \"'And they shall be mine,' says the L-rd of hosts, 'on that day which I choose… and you will return and see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves G-d and one who does not.\" That is, the ultimate and essential requital will take place in the world to come. But it is possible that in this world the wicked man may live in repose and the good man suffer adversity under his governing mazal. As stated by our sages of blessed memory (Sabbath 156a): \"One born under the moon will suffer much evil.\" And this, in fact, stands to reason. For since the spheres exert their influence on this terrestrial world, it follows that they should produce a corresponding effect. And there is no cause for wonder in anything of a material nature being subject to this ordinance. What does require explanation is how characteristics of the soul can be subject to this ordinance if the soul itself is not subject to it but to that which is higher than it.", "The answer, however, is that if the soul generated these characteristics in itself and not through the agency of the body, there is no doubt that they would not be subject to mazal at all. Since, however, its projecting or being affected by these characteristics is mediated by bodily vessels, it follows that when these vessels are altered by mazal, its activities, too, are altered. This is the intent of (Shabbath 156a): \"One who is born under Tzedek will be righteous. One who is born under Mars will be a spiller of blood. Rabbah said: 'I was born under Mars [and am not a spiller of blood].' Abbaye answered: 'The master, too, punishes and kills [in his capacity as a judge].'\" The intent of the answer is that his being born under that star invested him with a predisposition to punish those who wronged him, some individuals possessing a strong predisposition in this direction.", "And for this reason it is stated (Numbers 12:3): \"But the man, Moses, was extremely humble.\" That is, all of the punishment visited upon Miriam did not stem from the arousal of Moses' soul at all, but from the Blessed One's jealousy for the honor of Moses, against whom they had spoken and whose prophecy they had likened to their own, saying (Ibid 2): \"Did the L-rd speak only with Moses? Did He not speak with us, too?\" And the Blessed One informed them that it was not as they thought, but that a great difference existed between the prophecy of Moses and theirs, viz. (Ibid 6): \"And He said: 'If there be a prophet among you, I, the L-rd make Myself known to him in a vision.\" That is, if someone is a prophet, he attains prophecy in one of two ways: either in a dream, whose nature is known, or in a vision, in which the prophet's powers are suspended and his mind alone remains operative. This was not the case, however, with Moses, but (Ibid): \"I speak to him mouth to mouth,\" as one man with his neighbor. These things require extensive explanation but I must be brief.", "There is one question, though, that I shall discuss. One of the distinct attributes of the prophecy of Moses is that he was disposed to prophecy at all times, viz. (Ibid 9:8): \"Stand, and I will hear what the L-rd will command you,\" unlike the other prophets. Now this distinction would constitute a reason and an explanation for Moses' separating himself from his wife, something unnecessary for the other prophets. This being so, the Blessed One should have apprised Aaron and Miriam of this distinction in rebuking them, constituting as it did an eminence in the prophecy of Moses and the rationale countering their criticism of him. All of the other attributes and eminences mentioned in this section, viz. (Ibid 8): \"I speak to him mouth to mouth, and manifestly, not in riddles, and he sees the aspect of the L-rd…\" — all of these, though, indeed eminences in the prophecy of Moses, do not constitute such rationales.", "The answer: That distinct eminence which we mentioned, Moses' being disposed to prophecy at all times, is what the Blessed One apprised them of in this verse in the most perfect form possible. For there are two types of knowledge: the first, knowledge of the existence of a thing; the second, knowledge of its existence and of the reason for its existence. There is no doubt that when something is known in its causes, that knowledge is far greater than when it is known in point of its existence alone. Therefore, if the Blessed One had informed them that Moses was disposed to prophecy at all times, unlike the other prophets, they would, indeed, know the fact, but they would have no knowledge whatsoever of its causes. Now, however, the Blessed One apprised them of it in such a way that they knew both of its existence and of its causes.", "The nature of this apprisal must be prefaced by a well known axiom: a thing undergoes change not in respect of itself and not in respect of what is similar to it, but in respect of its contrary. For this reason, the separate intelligences, being insusceptible of any antagonism, remain always active intellects. The same applies to the soul after its separation from the body and disengagement from its moorings. For the soul's being subject to change and transformation while yet in the body, being at one time ignorant and at another wise, is due not to its own nature, but to the antagonistic, oppressive forces of the body. Therefore, when the powers of the body oppose the soul, the soul changes; and when they do not oppose it, it remains unchanged (for it does not change of itself, as we have explained). Therefore, the Blessed One immediately apprised them that the other prophets prophesied only in a dream or in a vision, whose common denominator is the suspension of the powers of the body, whereas the prophecy of Moses was not of this nature; but he prophesied while standing and in full possession of his faculties, just as one speaks to his neighbor, mouth to mouth. It was to be inferred from this that the bodies of the other prophets were antagonistic to their prophesying, whereas Moses' bodily powers did not oppose his prophesying in any way. And it followed from this that the other prophets were not disposed to prophecy at all times, in point of their opposing bodily powers, whereas Moses was predisposed to it at all times, free as he was, of any antagonistic, encumbering power. The Blessed One thereby apprised them of the distinction in terms of its existence and in terms of its causes — the most perfect form of knowledge.", "In addition to this, He apprised them that his prophecy was not received by means of the imaging faculty as was the case with the other prophets. This is the intent of (Ibid 7): \"In all of My house, he is trusted.\" The commentators have interpreted this as referring to a familiar of the household, as it were, who comes and goes as he pleases. But I see in it something different, namely, that the prophecy of Moses was more trustworthy than that of the other prophets, as I shall explain. It is well known that the faculty which deceives man constantly is the imaging faculty, which causes the confusion of one thing with another which has no real existence at all. All of the other prophets prophesied by means of this faculty, seeing things which did not actually exist. We shall illustrate this with one of the prophecies, which shall serve as the rule for the others. Zechariah prophesied, saying (Zechariah 4:2-3): \"I looked, and, behold, a candlestick all of gold, with a bowl upon the top of it, and seven lamps to it, and seven pipes to the seven lamps, which were upon the top of it; and two olive trees were by it, one upon the right side of the bowl and the other upon the left.\" Zechariah was not seeing anything that actually existed. Though he says: \"I looked, and, behold, a candlestick,\" he did not see it at all; but since his prophecy came through the imaging faculty, it seemed to him as if he were, indeed, seeing that vision. The truth of the vision lay [not in what he saw, but] in what was intended by it, the analogue, as it is written (Ibid 11-14): \"Then I asked him [the angel]: 'What are these two olive trees…' and he answered: 'These are the two anointed ones.'\" Though what was intimated and intended was true, the entire vision was not true, but only imaged. This was not the case, however, with Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him. For, since his prophecy was not received by means of the imaging faculty, nor through parable or riddle, as it is written: \"I speak to him mouth to mouth, and manifestly, not in riddles,\" it follows that: \"In all of My house, he is trusted.\" That is, he is to be believed concerning everything he claims to have seen in My house — for everything is true in itself, exactly as he says he saw it.", "Blessed is the L-rd forever, Amen, Amen. " ], [ "\"AND I IMPLORED THE L-RD AT THAT TIME, SAYING\" (DEUTERONOMY 3:23)", "It is well known that one who wishes to correct another who has gone astray in some respect can do so in two ways. First, he can apprise him of his wrong and reprove him concerning it never again to repeat it. For so long as one averts his eyes from his sin it is impossible for him to repent of it, just as the sick man who does not acknowledge his illness cannot be cured. This is the intent of David's statement (Psalms 51:5): \"For I know my offenses and my sin is constantly before me.\" This is the first way. The second way is to apprise him that great eminence awaits him, that for all his wrongdoing he is still beloved and desired by the one who wishes his closeness. In these two ways Moses corrected Israel. First he opened with words of chastisement, apprising them, in brief, of all their past wrongs. All of this is included in the section \"These are the words.\" After this, so that they not lose hope and despair of coming to cleave to the Blessed One in their shame before Him over all their wrongdoing, he informed them in this parshah that they are still desired by the Blessed One — even more so than he, the patriarch of Torah, wisdom, and prophecy. And he demonstrated this to them, showing them that because he had gone astray in a certain matter and had slighted the honor of Israel — though they had gone astray in the same matter — still, the L-rd did not wish to forgive his sin. This is the intent of the verse (Deuteronomy 3:26): \"And the L-rd was angry with me for your sake, and He did not listen to me.\" And in [the section] \"These are the words\" it is written (Ibid 1:37): \"And the L-rd was also angry with me because of you, saying: 'You, too, shall not come there.'\" The meaning of these two verses is not the same. In (1:37) \"These are the words,\" Moses, correcting the Jews by rebuke, as I have written, says to them: \"And the L-rd was also angry with me because of you, saying.\" That is, you caused evil not only to yourselves but also to me, for because of you, as a result of your conduct, the L-rd was angry with me. All this by way of rebuke for their sin. But here (3:26) this is not the intent. Rather, correcting them by way of apprising them of their eminence and of the great love that the L-rd has for them, he informs them that the L-rd did not accept his petition for the sake of Israel's honor. For there is a great difference between (1:37) \"because of you\" [biglalchem] and (3:26) \"for your sake\" [lema'anchem]. Add to this the fact that in the first case biglalchem refers to the arousal of the anger, in which Israel was certainly a contributing factor, whereas in this case lema'anchem refers to the reason for Moses' prayer not being heard and the Blessed One's unwillingness to forgive him. This is the intent of the homily in Yelamdeinu: \"'Vayitaber with me for your sake' — How is 'Vayitaber' to be understood? R. Yehudah and R. Nechemiah differ on this, one seeing the meaning as 'And He was filled with [evrah] wrath against me,' and the other as 'He made me as a pregnant woman [ubárah] who cannot sit down because of her fetus [ubaráh].' The Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: 'You will serve as an example for future judges — that men not come before judges for judgment and be cursed by them!'\" And in Sifrei (on Deuteronomy 3:26) it is written: \"'And the L-rd said to me: \"It is enough for you.\"' He said: 'Moses, you will serve as an example for future judges. They will say: \"Now if G-d did not forgive Moses, the wisest of the wise and the greatest of the great, because he said: 'Listen, now, you rebellious ones,' and it was decreed that Moses not enter the land of Israel, then those who delay justice and those who pervert justice, how much more so!\"'\" Our sages thus make it clear that the meaning of this verse is that the Holy One Blessed be He did not accept Moses' prayer for the sake of the Jews' honor.", "But these medrashim misled some of the expositors, giving them the impression that Moses' sin was in saying \"Listen, now, you rebellious ones.\" And this is not the case, for Scripture plainly indicates his sin as (Numbers 20:12): \"…because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel,\" and the language is entirely inconsistent with Moses' prime sin being regarded as his slighting the honor of Israel [though the Ramban is hard pressed with the interpretation].", "The truth of the matter is, however, that Moses sinned primarily in a different respect in the episode of the waters of contention, and because I have already explained his sin elsewhere (The Eighth Discourse), I shall not do so here. And though his prime sin was not in saying \"Hear, now, you rebellious ones,\" he did err in that expression itself, so that it in itself could have led to the other, graver, error, as our sages of blessed memory stated (Sifrei, Matot 157): \"Because he lapsed into anger, he lapsed into error.\" And I have already explained in this regard that the error was not the anger itself but something else which resulted from it. And our sages of blessed memory were \"awakened\" to this interpretation by observing that this parshah stressed the honor and eminence of Israel and that Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, was apprising them of the Blessed One's great love for them. Accordingly, the interpretation of \"And the L-rd was angry with me for your sake\" could not possibly be the same as \"And the L-rd was also angry with me because of you.\" For if it were so, then these would be words of rebuke and not words of desire and love. Their interpretation of the verse is thus consistent with the context, i.e., Moses is apprising them that though his real sin was not this one [\"Hear, now, you rebellious ones\"], still, the Blessed One would have forgiven his offense and bypassed his transgression had there not been conjoined with it some slight to the honor of Israel.", "And another question is also hereby resolved. That is, it is well known that repentance atones for all of the transgressions in the Torah, even willful ones. If so, why should Moses' prayer have been unavailing in securing G-d's forgiveness for his sin? For though the Holy One Blessed be He is exacting with His saints to the degree of a hairs-breadth (Yevamoth 121a), this only causes the slight sins that they commit to be regarded as the grave sins of others; but how is it possible that what suffices for the grave sins of others should not suffice for their slight sins! If this is the criterion, then even in the world to come pain and suffering should not suffice to cleanse a saint even of a slight, unintentional sin, G-d forbid. And we are well familiar with the statement of R. Yishmael in relation to the four categories of atonement (Yoma 86a) that repentance and death atone for everything. And even if it be contended that there was an element in this sin of desecration of the Name of the L-rd (as in fact there was, Scripture stating [Numbers 20:12]) \"…because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me\"), still, it is cause for wonder that the prayer and merit of Moses should not have availed him to enter the land of Israel and that his sin should not in some way have been atoned.", "The attention of our sages was drawn to all of these points in this Midrash, and they apprised us of the truth and essence of the matter. And that is that the Blessed One is full of mercy and forgives even the gravest of sins between man and G-d, but wherever forgiveness of the sin would result in injury to others it is impossible to erase it in any way whatsoever. This is the intent of the words of King David, may peace be upon him (Psalms 51:6): \"To You alone have I sinned, and what is evil in Your eyes have I done.\" And Moses therefore said to the Jews: \"And the L-rd was angry with me for your sake,\" to indicate to them the eminence of the congregation. For he had sinned to the Blessed One and had intoned many prayers and supplications over it and not been answered, the reason being the presence in his sin of a slight to the honor of Israel. And though this was not his real sin the Blessed One indicated that he should in no way be forgiven so as to serve as an example to future generations that all men be extremely circumspect not to slight the honor of the congregation. For the congregation, by virtue of its plurality, attains an eminence and a distinction that it is impossible for the individual to attain.", "And Moses further intimated this to Israel in this parshah, saying (Deuteronomy 3:29): \"And we sat in the valley, opposite Beth Peor,\" which our sages of blessed memory expounded (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 29): \"He said to them: 'See the difference between me and yourselves. How many prayers, petitions, and supplications did I intone, and yet the decree stood fast that I not enter the land, whereas you angered Him in the desert forty years, as it is written (Psalms 95:10): \"Forty years was I angry with this generation,\" and, what is more, the greatest among you bowed down to Peor, and now, Israel, you are new! The past has been forgiven!'\" It is therein made clear that Moses' saying \"And we sat in the valley…\" is not by way of rebuke, to reprove them for the episode of Peor (for this is not the nature of this parshah, as I have written, the element of rebuke appearing before, in the parshah \"And these are the words,\" viz. [Deuteronomy 1:1]: \"…in the desert, in the wasteland\"); but, to the contrary, it is stated here to reveal to them their greatness, that though their leaders committed a grave sin, they are still more beloved by the L-rd than he is. And the reason for this is that the congregation, by virtue of its plurality, attains an eminence which is greater than the sum of its parts, as nature itself demonstrates.", "And it is for this reason that our sages of blessed memory dilated in many places on the honor of the congregation and specified a minimum number necessary for the residing of the Shechinah upon them, viz. (Yevamoth 63b): \"'Return, O L-rd, to the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel' (Numbers 10:36) — this teaches us that the Shechinah does not reside upon less than two ten thousands of the thousands of Israel…\" And we find in their words various specified numbers for the residing of the Shechinah upon Israel. They have likewise exhorted us to join with ourselves always as many as possible, even sinners and offenders. I have expanded on the rationale for this in several sections of the Genesis Discourse (I).", "But now I shall mention a new idea that has come to mind: We see that even in the realm of gross, material objects the Blessed One, in His wisdom, has provided for arrangements, and layers, and many levels, so that all would be properly ordered, progressively, from one extreme to the other. For example, the thinnest matter is not directly connected to the thickest, but to that which is less thin than itself — but still thin — and so on, progressively, until the thickest is reached. Now if the Blessed One has implanted this order in things because of their difference in kind and species, it certainly follows that this order or something similar to it would characterize the components of a progressive effluence which are similar neither in nature nor in essence, but in name alone. And it follows from this that since the Blessed One wished to confer upon us a prophetic effluence proceeding from Himself that this effluence be arranged in very many layers between Himself and us. For if it were not so, this would appear even more inconceivable to anyone contemplating it with the eye of intellect than the idea of one's being in immediate contact with the sun (whose mass has been estimated as many times that of the earth), and the sun's generating its natural heat and awakening his intellect and strengthening all of his faculties. This is more readily entertainable to any thinking man than the possibility of assimilating the effluence proceeding to us from the Blessed One in the absence of any mediation whatsoever.", "It is, nonetheless, true, however, that the greater the man the less he requires of such mediation; and the lesser [the man], the more, less refined, mediation he requires. This is what was intimated by Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, in this parshah (Deuteronomy 4:11): \"And you drew near and stood at the foot of the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire until the heart of heaven: darkness, cloud, and mist.\" The last three words are stressed to inform them that the profusion of Divine effluence at that exalted encounter required (in point of their frailty) many mediating agents tending to thickness. This is the intent of the numeration: \"darkness, cloud, and mist.\" The duplication here stresses the grossness of the mediating agents. And all this was needed for Israel, but not for Moses. For though when the Blessed One spoke with Moses there was a pillar of cloud between them, as indicated by the plain meaning of the verse, viz. (Exodus 33:9): \"And it was when Moses came to the tent that the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the entrance to the tent…,\" and (Psalms 99:6-7): \"Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call upon His name; they called upon the L-rd and He answered them. In a pillar of cloud He spoke to them…\", these verses seeming to indicate that most of G-d's converse with Moses was mediated by a pillar of cloud — still, even if we say that this was so, this mediation was not so gross as to be referred to as \"darkness, cloud, and mist.\" The latter variety was necessitated by the relative frailty of Israel.", "And this is how I understand the verse (Exodus 19:9): \"And the L-rd said to Moses: 'Behold, I am coming to you in a thick cloud, so that the people hear when I speak with you, and in you, too, they will believe forever.\" That is, the Blessed One was, as it were, apologizing to Moses for appearing to him in this prophecy with such thick mediation (as indicated by the phrase \"a thick cloud\" rather than just \"a cloud\" or \"a pillar of cloud.\" \"Thick\" stresses the thickness of the cloudiness and is comparable in its signification to \"darkness, cloud, and mist\"). And He makes it clear that this thickness is required not for Moses' sake, but because He wished to make Israel worthy of hearing His words, which they could not receive except through the thickness of that mediating agent. And He adds that aside from desiring to confer this privilege upon Israel, there derived from it another profound benefit, their believing in Moses forever by virtue of their having participated in his prophecy. It is for this reason that he exhorts them in this parshah, saying (Deuteronomy 4:9): \"But take heed to yourself and heed your soul extremely lest you forget the things that your eyes saw.\" For at that encounter the truth of the Torah was confirmed beyond any doubt whatsoever, to which end the afore-mentioned mediation was required, as I have explained.", "In any event, it is apparent that if in material things, which are identical in essence, there must be many layers, a) this must certainly be true of things which are related in no way whatsoever, hardly even in name. b) It is for this reason that the Blessed One instituted the tabernacle, the sanctuary and its vessels, and the sacrifices offered therein. For they are receptacles and preliminaries for an entity designed by the Blessed One's will. For what is called a pillar of cloud, or fire, or any name you like — that entity is designed by the Blessed One's will, not through a natural progression, but through a progression known only to the Blessed One Himself. That progression is achieved through the ordering of sanctuary, vessels, and sacrifices, or through a different ordering that is hidden from us. c) And the resultant entity, which is, in truth, a discrete entity, involves the sanctuary as a far more exalted form than the form evident to us and invests us with a supernatural influx of perfection and prophetic power. And it is well known that the created entity through which the effluence is transmitted will fail of such transmission in the absence of agents capable of its reception. And because as individuals vary there vary predispositions and perfections, so that, conceivably, the least of individuals might possess a predisposition lacking in the most perfect, and because the projector as projector fully realizes itself in projecting all that it is in its power to project, d) it follows that perfect progression dictates for the perfection of the projector the presence of receptive agents that are capable of receiving all that is being projected. For example, let us posit a teacher of great perfection in various modes of learning, let us say the thirteen exegetical principles by which Torah is expounded. It will be his fulfillment to have so many students that between all of them there will be established a predisposition to receive the effluence of each of these principles. And though there be before him distinguished disciples whose perception encompasses most of these principles, still he would be deficient in projection if he could not project among all of them all of the modes and attributes of his perfection. And it is in this very connection that our sages of blessed memory said that the Shechinah comes to reside only in the presence of such and such a number. This is because the mediating effluence between the Blessed One and ourselves must realize itself from potentiality to actuality in all that it can potentially project. And because the predispositions to receive those perfections vary with the number of recipients, so that the absence of recipients amounts, in effect, to the absence of the projector, our sages of blessed memory have stated (Yavomoth 63b) that all who do not engage in propagation cause the Shechinah to absent itself from Israel. This is to be understood quite literally in terms of what we have written. It must likewise be assumed that the mediating agents are not of one type. For since our sages of blessed memory have apprised us of different requisite numbers for the residing of the Shechinah, it must be that there are different types of mediating agents (Let this suffice). It follows from this that the eminence of the congregation is greater than that of the individual, though his be the quintessence of greatness. And this is the premise on which Moses informed the Jews that the Blessed One would not forgive his sin because he had slighted their honor.", "And it is likewise intimated in the Midrash that what Moses requested he requested within the framework of grace and not because he saw himself worthy of it, viz. (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 26): \"'And I supplicated the L-rd at that time' — This is as the verse states (Proverbs 18:23): 'The poor man speaks entreatingly.' Two goodly leaders arose for Israel — Moses and David, king of Israel — and they could have attributed the existence of the world to their good deeds. Yet, they asked of the Holy One Blessed be He only a gift of grace.\" The reason for this is that when the righteous man reflects upon his sin against the Blessed One, in point of His majesty and exaltedness, he feels within himself that his sin can in no way be atoned, knowing a sin to be severe in proportion to the greatness of the one sinned against. It follows from this that if His greatness is infinite then the sin is of infinite severity. This is the intent of the statement of our sages (Shabbath 88b): \"They [the righteous] act out of love and rejoice in afflictions,\" regarding their afflictions as naught in proportion to their sins. This is also alluded to in the words of the prophet (Hosea 5:13): \"When Ephraim sees his sickness and Yehudah, his wound, then Ephraim will go to Ashur and send to King Yarev. But he will not be able to heal you, and he will not cure you of your wound.\" The analogy here is to a sick man who is ignorant of the cause of his illness and unable to be cured so long as his ignorance persists. It is thereafter written (Ibid 15): \"I the L-rd will go and return to My place until they are guilty and seek My face.\" That is, until they acknowledge themselves as guilty, this being the prerequisite for repentance and correction of deed. For one's averting his eyes from his sins will not conceal them from the eyes of the Tester of reins and heart, as it is written (Isaiah 65:6): \"Behold, it is written before Me; I will not be silent, but will repay,\" and (Ibid 7): \"Your sins and the sins of your fathers together, says the L-rd.\" That is [(on the stylistic level)], their denying their sins will not cause them to be hidden from Me. They are written down before Me; how, then, can I not remember them? Even the sins of their fathers are exposed before Me. How, then, can they think that because they forget Me I will forget them!", "All of this because the beginning of repentance is that a man place his sin before his eyes, as it is written (Psalms 51:4): \"And my sin is always before me.\" And it is also written \"until they are guilty,\" for so long as they do not acknowledge their guilt they will not be cured. And this is the intent of (Hosea 7:1): \"When I heal Israel, then the transgression of Ephraim will be revealed and the evils of Shomron…\" Now this is indeed cause for wonder, for the very opposite would seem to be dictated, as it is written (Jeremiah 50:20): \"In those days and at that time the transgression of Israel will be sought, but it will not be there; and the sins of Judah, but they will not be found.\" If so, how can it be stated here that when Israel is healed, the transgression of Ephraim will be revealed! The verse, however, is to be understood as follows: The Prophet is comparing the forgiving of a sin to a doctor's coming to heal a grave wound over which has formed a surface coating of skin and flesh, the boil lurking beneath. That doctor will not begin to be able to heal the wound unless the patient allows him to open it, widen its edges, and bare its core. This is what the Blessed One is saying. At the time when Israel is healed, their sin will have to be revealed, for otherwise it cannot be healed. However, just as when the skillful doctor has opened the wound, widened its edges, and healed it, the wound will be sought and not be found, in the same way, after Israel has performed a perfect repentance and been cured of its sin, the sin will be sought and not be found. The administration of the treatment, however, requires the revealing of their sins; they cannot be cured otherwise. This is the intent of \"until they are guilty\" — that is, until they acknowledge themselves as guilty and bare their sins to Me. Then they will seek the L-rd and say (Hosea 6:1): \"Let us go and return to the L-rd; for He has torn and healed us. He has smitten us and He will bind us up\" — unlike the king of Ashur, who had the power only to do evil but not good, as it is written (Isaiah 10:5): \"Woe, Ashur, the rod of My anger!\" The verse continues (Hosea 6:2): \"After two days, He will revive us. On the third day He shall lift us up and we shall live before Him.\" That is, when they will have repented completely after having placed their sins before their eyes, then all the days of their affliction, though extremely long, will be considered only as two days, all of their afflictions seeming as nothing in proportion to their sins — as is, indeed, the case. This is the intent of the statement: He will revive us from the days of affliction and exile, which amount to two days relative to our sins. The idea corresponds to (Ezra 9:13): \"For You, our G-d, have been sparing, below our sins; and You have given us deliverance such as this.\" That is, the Blessed One does not exact payment of a man according to his sins, but far below them, as it is written (Deuteronomy 85): \"And know in your heart that just as a man chastises his son, so the L-rd your G-d chastises you.\"", "Since I have already expanded on this in the discourse, \"And now, O Israel\" (The Tenth Discourse), I shall not do so now. But one of the ways in which the Blessed One's chastisement of Israel is similar to a father's chastisement of his son is that just as a father does not smite a son in accordance with his evil, not killing him when he incurs the death penalty, but many times feeling, because of his great love and compassion for him, that he has exacted from him more than his due — so it is with the Blessed One vis-à-vis Israel. This is the intent of the verse in the haftarah on this section (Isaiah 40:2): \"Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and call out to her, for her time of affliction is ended, for her sin has been pardoned, for she has received from the hand of the L-rd double for all her sins.\" This is cause for wonder. Does the Blessed One exact from a person more than his sin? Are not all the verses full of His being great in lovingkindness and forgiving of sin and offense? And does the verse not explicitly state: \"For You have been sparing below our sins\"? How, then, can it be stated that Jerusalem has received double from the hand of the L-rd for all her sins? Scripture, however, is speaking here in the language of man in respect to the goodness of the Holy One Blessed be He — just as a man speaks of having beaten his son too much, when the truth is that he never beats him as much as he really deserves. This is the intent of King David, may peace be upon him (Psalms 18:36): \"And Your right hand supported me, and Your humility increased me.\" That is, a man is far from realizing his perfection. It is the Blessed One who \"increases\" and perfects him. Notwithstanding this, when the righteous man looks into his heart and considers whom he has rebelled against, it is manifest to him that he can gain atonement only through the great mercies of the Holy One Blessed be He.", "And it is for this reason that our sages of blessed memory expounded \"And I supplicated\" [Vaethchanan] as a request for a gift from the Blessed One. And so understood the parshah is well explicated, whether or not the idea of a gift is being alluded to in the word \"Vaethchanan\" itself. For it is written thereafter \"at that time, saying,\" the meaning being that since Moses saw his sin as too great to forgive, he did not pray for its atonement immediately, after the Holy One Blessed be He had told him \"…because you did not believe in Me,\" but only \"at that time,\" after he had conquered Sichon and Og. For if one requests of a king something which he deserves in point of his deeds then all times are alike and appropriate to him. But if one requests something which can be given to him not in point of his deserts but only as an act of grace, it befits him to wait until such a time as is propitious for asking grace from the king. This is the intent of the homily of our sages (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 26): \"'At that time' — this is analogous to the situation of the inhabitants of a province who desired that the king make their province a royal colony. Once, two of his foes were defeated by him, at which they said: 'The time is now propitious for our asking the king to make our province a colony.' In the same way, Moses desired that the Holy One Blessed be He allow him to enter the land. When he beheld the downfall of Sichon and Og, he said: 'This is the right time for me to ask the King to be permitted to enter the land.' This is the intent of \"At that time.'\" They have hereby made it clear that Moses requested this as an act of grace, not deeming himself worthy of it in point of his deeds.", "And along these lines what follows is also well explicated, viz. (Deuteronomy 3:24): \"O L-rd G-d, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand.\" I have not found this satisfyingly explained by any of the commentators. R. Abraham [Ibn Ezra] adduces a forced explanation to the effect that since there is no end to the Blessed One's wonders Moses says that all he has seen until now was only the beginning, for which reason he says \"You have begun.\" But according to his words, if all that he has seen until now was only the beginning, how does this jibe with his concluding (Ibid 25): \"Let me go over and see the good land\"? It does seem to be well explicated, however, along the lines we have indicated. That is, Moses, in his humility and in magnifying the severity of his error did not regard himself as worthy of seeing the land. He therefore begins by conciliating his Creator, saying: \"O L-rd G-d, You have begun…\" as if to say: all I have seen now was not initiated by me in any way, for even in the beginning I was not worthy of it, but it is You who have begun to show. For in view of the Blessed One's greatness and man's lowliness no one can even begin to approach the Blessed One and witness His greatness and His mighty hand unless He himself draw him close and reveal it to him. This is the intent of (Jeremiah 30:21): \"'And I will cause him [the Messiah] to draw near, and he will approach Me. For who would himself presume to approach Me?' says the L-rd.\" That is, though he be the most perfect of men, it would be wrong of him to approach me unless I first drew him near, after which he could come closer to Me. Therefore, Moses said: Though I know that I am not worthy of seeing the land, was I not also unworthy in the very beginning of seeing Your greatness and Your mighty hand! And if You showed me only what I was worthy of seeing, I would not have seen what You showed me. But You have begun to show Your servant all of this glory. This being so, I implore You, be even more gracious to me. \"Let me go over and see the good land,\" though I not be deserving of it.", "Moses was employing rhetorical emphasis here. Having opened: \"You have begun to show,\" he concluded: \"Let me go over and see.\" That is, just as You showed me this, show me that in Your great grace. But Moses was not contenting himself with seeing the land alone, as our sages have stated (Sotah 14a): \"Now did he need to eat of its fruit or sate himself of its goodness? He was saying rather: 'There are many mitzvoth bound up with the land; may it be Your will that they be fulfilled by me.'\" Many mitzvoth bound up with the land cannot be fulfilled by seeing alone. It is obvious, then, that Moses was employing this word [\"see\"] for its rhetorical effect. Or his intent may have been to ask for a little at a time. Or he may have wanted to impress it upon the Jews that the Blessed One did not even grant him this, \"for their sake,\" that is, because he had slighted their honor. All this by way of encouraging and arousing them to strengthen themselves in fear of the L-rd in view of their being so greatly beloved in His eyes.", "Furthermore, in my view, his saying \"at that time\" serves the purpose of apprising us that even after the Jews had sinned in the affair of Peor, the Blessed One was jealous for their honor and did not want to forgive Moses \"for their sake.\" If \"at that time\" had not been stated, we would get the impression that he implored the L-rd at the time of his sin, before the Peor affair, in which case the Blessed One's concern for their honor would be no great cause for wonder. But \"at that time,\" after they had stumbled into idolatry — with all this, His love did not depart from them. This shows that he related to them as a father to his son, who though he [the son] rebel grievously, he will not cast him from his presence. This is the intent of the concluding statement (Deuteronomy 3:29): \"and we sat in the valley opposite Beth Peor.\" Why is this mentioned here? Only to stress what was stated before, viz.: G-d's becoming angry with me was for your sake and for your honor, after we had sat in the valley opposite Beth Peor and there had transpired what had transpired there (Perish the mention!). And this is the intent of our sages of blessed memory in the afore-mentioned homily (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 29). And it is in this vein that the verse continues (Deuteronomy 4:1): \"And now, O Israel, hear the statutes and the judgments…\" That is, since you are so greatly beloved by Him it well befits you to hear His statutes and His judgments.\"", "\"The statutes and the judgments\" are cited, comprising, as they do, the entire Torah. Afterwards, the particular virtue of each [that is, of each category] is specified. First, statutes are singled out, viz. (Ibid 4:6): \"And keep them and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the peoples, who shall hear all these statutes and say: 'It cannot be but that this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'\" This verse is in refutation of the evil inclination, which would cause one to say: \"Why should I observe these statutes and be ridiculed by all of the nations,\" our sages of blessed memory stating (Yoma 67b) that the evil inclination and the peoples of the world single out these [the statutes] out for attack in that their natures and reasons are not evident. Scripture therefore assures us that this [lasting ridicule] will not be the result, but, to the contrary, the statutes will cause the peoples to say: \"It cannot be but that this nation is a great and understanding people.\" And the reason is stated (Ibid 7): \"For where is there a nation so great whose god is so close to it as the L-rd our G-d in all our callings to Him?\" This is to be understood as follows: One who does a strange thing for no apparent reason certainly deserves to be reckoned a fool and an ignoramus if no evident good results from what he has done. But if something of wondrous benefit does result, then the more bizarre the deed the more wondrous a sage will the doer be reckoned. This is analogous to one man's effecting a cure with conventional medicines and another's doing so through strange agents whose use is in no way dictated by reason, in which case the second will certainly be considered the more phenomenal sage, having achieved what is seemingly supernatural. The same is true here. For when the peoples see that you fulfill these statutes which are incompatible with reason, such as sacrifices and the like, and they see, furthermore, that through them the Shechinah resides with you and is closer to you than to all other peoples, then they will perforce have to admit that this is so not by virtue of laws legislated for the good of society (for all peoples and societies have such laws and customs, and why do they not achieve the eminence that you do?) They will thus be compelled to admit that though these statutes are superficially ludicrous, they are, in reality, not so, and they will perforce be constrained to acknowledge \"that this great nation is a wise and understanding people.\" This is what is connoted by \"It cannot be but that this great…\" That is, though on the surface they seem to be a foolish people, the results of their deeds force us to conclude that they are a wise and understanding people.", "After this, statute and judgments are combined and praised together, viz. (Ibid 8): \"And where is there a nation so great that has righteous statutes and judgments as all this Torah…\" Now this is to be wondered at. For though the judgments may be referred to as \"righteous,\" even on the surface level, it seems inappropriate to use the term \"righteous\" for statutes. The interpretation, however, is as follows: Scripture is telling us that the nations will not ridicule the statutes in the end for two reasons: first, because they will see with their own eyes the good proceeding from them, as it is written: \"For where is there a nation so great…,\" and, second, because after they see that the judgments, whose reasons are apparent, are righteous, they will be forced to conclude that the statutes, though their reasons are not similarly apparent, must also be righteous. Just as today, if we know of an outstanding sage, who composes treatises and does everything with great wisdom, understanding, and knowledge — if we see something among his words or deeds the reason for which is not clear to us, we give it the benefit of the doubt and say that, undoubtedly, if all of this man's writings and words, and deeds are so righteous and imbued with such truth and integrity, then that thing also whose reason we do not understand must also be invested with rightness, truth, and integrity, and any imperfections or shortcomings that we sense must be [not in that thing but] in ourselves. This is the intent of \"that has righteous statutes and judgments.\" That is, it stands to reason that just as the judgments are righteous, the statutes, too, must be righteous.", "After this it is written (Ibid 9): \"Only take heed to yourselves and heed your souls exceedingly, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw.\" Two things are to be inferred from the connection between this verse and what precedes. First, it is as if the Jews are being told: though you will see the Blessed One to be close to you in all your callings to Him, do not allow the later wonders to cause you to forget the earlier ones, as people are wont to do. As our sages of blessed memory have expounded (Sifrei on Deuteronomy 6:6): \"'And these words that I command you today shall be upon your hearts' — let them not be as an antiquated ordinance, which nobody pays heed to; but let them be as a new ordinance which all are wary of.\" And for this reason it is written here: \"Only take heed…\" That is, though you will always behold miracles and wonders, let them not be so precious in your eyes because of their newness to make you forget the old ones, as men are wont to do, but take heed to yourselves lest you forget that exalted encounter, for it is the pillar of the Torah, as the commentators have explained at length.", "And \"Only take heed to yourselves and heed your souls exceedingly\" is stated in yet another connection, viz., the conclusion (Deuteronomy 4:12): \"…but you saw no form, only a voice,\" and, similarly (Ibid 15): \"and heed your souls exceedingly, for you saw no form…\" The connotations of \"Only take heed to yourselves and heed your souls exceedingly\" and \"And heed your souls exceedingly\" are the same. It is as if one were to say to his neighbor: \"Take great care lest you fall into the hole that you are in danger of falling into.\" This is the intent of the aforementioned phrases. That is: In the beginning it was stated: \"For where is there a nation so great whose god is so close to it as the L-rd our G-d in all our callings to Him?\" Now one might be caused to err by this and to impute some link or bond to the Blessed One and so come to attribute to His Divinity some corporeal elements. For this reason it is stated: though you witness this [G-d's closeness to you] always, take heed to yourselves, and heed your souls exceedingly, lest you forget that exalted encounter in which the Blessed One came closer to His creations than He had ever come before or than He will ever come thereafter, and still, this did not result in your witnessing any form that you could attribute to Him (for He does not have one); but you heard only \"a voice of words\" alone, which was a created voice [and not a voice emanating from G-d Himself].", "And it is for the same reason that we say in our prayers, in the third benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh, \"You are holy,\" as explained in the Kuzari (3:17). For having said first that He causes the wind to blow and brings down rain and that he heals the sick and releases the bound — so that this does not lead us to attribute any corporeality to His Divinity, we say thereafter that though He does, indeed, perform all these things, He is removed from and exalted above all corporeal factors. And this is, likewise, the intent of (Deuteronomy 4:11): \"Only take heed to yourselves…\" and its iteration, \"And heed your souls exceedingly, for you saw no form… (Ibid 16) lest you become corrupt and make a carved idol.\" The nexus of these last two verses is strange, and the commentators do not shed any light on it. I understand it as follows: Take great heed of your souls, for though the Blessed One desired to leave the most enduring impression possible of that exalted encounter, to the extent that He originated and created darkness, cloud, mist, flames, and voices — with all this He did not desire to originate and create any form, though this would be indicated for the creation of a more enduring impression of the encounter, visible impressions being etched more deeply into the imagination than audible ones. Just as He originated a created voice, without apprehension as to its superficial suggestion of corporeality, and was not deterred thereby, why should He not have originated a created form to implant that encounter more deeply in their hearts? He was, however, deterred in this case \"lest you become corrupt…\" For you would think to benefit your souls by making an image of the form that you saw in order to perpetuate the impression of the encounter for your children and grandchildren, but the result will be that your children after you will worship that form or ascribe corporeality to the Blessed One because of it. It is for this reason that this exhortation was repeated many times in this parshah. Add to this the fact that the nations were very much attracted to idol worship in earlier times, and even in the time of the Temple, as our sages have stated (Sanhedrin 102b): \"When R. Ashi came to the episode of the three kings [who have no share in the world to come], he said: 'Tomorrow we shall discourse on the subject of our colleagues' [these kings]. Following this Menasheh appeared to him in a dream and said to him: '…If you had lived in that generation, you would have lifted the skirts of your cloak to run to serve idols.'\" Now there is no doubt that their penchant for idol worship proceeded from their great wisdom and their ability to employ it for the drawing down of heavenly powers. It did not proceed from their ignorance, for though they were wicked, they were not fools.", "And this is the intent of the verses (Deuteronomy 4:25-28): \"When you beget children… and the L-rd will scatter you among the nations… and you will there serve gods that are the work of men's hands, wood and stone, not seeing…\" On the surface, this is cause for wonder. What is this verse doing in the context of the punishment for idol worship? It would seem that this is what caused Onkelos to translate: \"And you will there serve nations that worship false gods,\" being constrained to translate it thus for otherwise it would constitute a transgression and not a punishment. But it would seem to me that the interpretation, according to the plain meaning of the verse, is as follows: If, when you are in the land, you will become corrupt and make idols in the likeness of anything, doing so from your great acumen, and being so entranced by your acumen as not to be deterred from employing it for what is evil in the eyes of the L-rd, thereby angering Him — then your punishment will be that you will be exiled from your land and He will exile you among the nations, and you will lose your wisdom and the understanding of your understanding ones. Following the customs of your forefathers, you will serve images, but this service will not reflect wisdom and it will not result in the drawing down of heavenly powers. Unlike the service of the images in your land proceeding from the afore-mentioned acumen, this service will proceed from complete ignorance and nothing whatsoever will result from it. This is the intent of the conclusion: \"…not seeing, and not hearing…\" That is, there will not be seen by virtue of serving them those unique phenomena that were seen to proceed from the service of the images in your land — there being no question as to the manifestation of such phenomena, because of which the Torah voiced repeated exhortations against idol worship.", "Add to this the fact that (in my view) the peoples regarded idol worship as appropriate and necessary, and as dictated by reason itself! This, contrary to what the Rambam of blessed memory has written in the first chapter of the laws of idol worship (Mishneh Torah) to the effect that the essential error behind idol worship from the beginning was people's saying that the Blessed One had created stars and constellations and accorded them honor in their roles of servants serving Him on high, and that they, therefore, deserved praise, glory, and honor, the King desiring that His servants be honored. Accordingly, they became idolators to gain the Creator's favor, according to their perverse theories. This is the opinion of the Rambam, which he may have been led to by having found a similar idea in one of the Midrashim or in one of the early books of idolatry that may have come to his hands. It is my view, however, that reason itself led them to this conclusion, their being of the school of those philosophers who thought that the Blessed One exercised no will or providence over the creation and that everything in the universe proceeds mechanically. All who subscribe to this view see the opposite view as absolute rebellion against the Blessed One and as the attribution of defect to Him, thinking, as they do, that He is extremely exalted above all this [direct governance of this \"lowly\" universe]. Reasoning thus perversely, and knowing for a fact that the stars and constellations act upon and influence the terrestrial world, so much so that each nation had a star of its own, as it is written (Deuteronomy 4:19): \"And lest you lift your eyes to the heavens, and when you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, and you go astray and bow down to them, and worship them, the L-rd your G-d having set them aside for all the peoples under the whole heaven\" — knowing this and reasoning in their perverse wisdom that through their worship they would obtain bounty and success from the stars, they became entirely stepped in this perverse conviction — to the point that the accursed women said (Jeremiah 44:18): \"And from the day we left off burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked all things.\" Such thinking would have confounded intellect completely if the Torah had not enlightened us, as it is written (Psalms 119:105): \"Your word is a lamp to my feet.\" For there is no question that all who were of those convictions would not look upon idol worship as rebellion and perversity, being more likely to see as rebellious one who served the Blessed One than we, today, of the true conviction, see one who serves idols! And it is not that they denied His existence, for all peoples acknowledge this, as it is written (Jeremiah 10:7): \"Who will not fear You, O King of nations; for to You it is fitting. For among all the sages of the nations and in all their kingdoms there is none like You.\" Our sages explained (Menachoth 110a): \"They called Him the 'G-d of gods.'\" That is, they admitted that He was the cause of all causes and that everything emanated from Him — but by way of mechanics, not by way of will. It followed from this that all who served Him, thinking that the Blessed One could show favor to them or protect them, were imputing a defect to Him [preoccupation with the \"lowly\" world]. And it followed, likewise, that one should serve the stars and the constellations in order to draw down their intrinsic effluence (according to their perverse views). There is no doubt that reasoning itself would have brought one to this pass if the Torah had not enlightened us to the contrary. Therefore, unaided reason causing one to think that idol worship constitutes exaltation of the Blessed One, and the opposite, denigration, the Torah had to repeatedly exhort us otherwise, to impress it upon us that this was not so, that idol worship did not exalt the Blessed One, but, to the contrary, angered Him.", "And this is how I understand the statement of our sages (Makkoth 24a): \"We heard 'I am the L-rd your G-d' and 'You shall not have any other gods' from the All-Powerful Himself.\" For if this is not understood as we have said there is cause for wonder here, viz. the stranger a thing is the more verification it requires, and the more apparent it is to reason the more readily should it be believed. And in view of the fact that our forefathers were not simpletons who believed in all things, as befitting them, but only in those things which had been confirmed to them beyond a doubt, as is apparent in many places in the Torah, it would follow that they should not accept until they had heard them from the All-Powerful Himself, the categorical mitzvoth, those with no apparent reason. But the perspicuous ones, those dictated by reason and which every reasoning man, by virtue of the intellect implanted in him, would believe and acknowledge — why should these have to be heard from the All-Powerful? Do we require sign and proof to belief in first principles, such as that the whole is greater than the part, or, what is close to it [in obviousness], the first mitzvah, which is, according to the Rambam, to believe that there is a First Cause from whom all things derive, as he wrote in his Sefer Hamitzvoth and as he expanded in Sefer Hamada (Yesodei HaTorah 1:1): \"The foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdoms…\"? Reason itself dictates this. There is no heretic in the world whom, if he wanted to deny this, we could not force to concede it to be true by means of irrefutable logical arguments. This being so, why did it have to be stated by the All-Powerful? This would more naturally commend itself to Moses' belief than (Deuteronomy 22:11): \"Do not wear a garment of wool and linen mixture [shaatnez].\" And, similarly, \"You shall not have any other gods before Me\" is more congenial to belief than (Leviticus 19:19): \"Do not sow your field with mixed seed.\" For the very beginnings of thought adduce the inappropriateness of serving aught but the L-rd Himself. True, it could be answered that though these two mitzvoth are completely perspicuous, still, because they are the pillar and root of the Torah, the Blessed One desired that they reach us through Him alone, with no mediation whatsoever — and this would be a valid reply.", "I should like to add something, however, along the lines I have mentioned, and that is that the first mitzvah, \"I am the L-rd your G-d\" is not to believe that there is a First Cause from whom all things derive, as the Rambam would have it. This is not at all connoted by the language (though the idea is implicit in it). The essence of the mitzvah, rather, as I understand it, is to believe in \"Torah from Heaven\" in general, that the words and exhortation of the Blessed One reach us. It is therefore stated \"I am the L-rd your G-d,\" this exalted Name, the Tetragrammaton, designating the First Necessary Cause, and serving here not as the object of a command to believe but as the subject of a self-evident belief concerning which they entertained no doubt whatsoever — the existence of a necessary cause. What was being originated now and commanded as an article of belief was (as embodied in the statement): \"I am that Necessary Cause, your Leader (this being the signification of Elokecha [\"your G-d\"], continuing \"who took you out\" — as one says to his friend: \"Don't you recognize me? I am the one who did this and this for you\"), stating along these lines \"who took you out of the land of Egypt.\" The essence of this mitzvah, then, is to believe that from Him whom we already know to be the Necessary First Cause (knowing this as an indisputable dictate of the reason implanted in man) — from Him there reach us mitzvoth and exhortations — as opposed to that perverse view which would reason and believe this to constitute the ascription of failing and defect to the Blessed One. This is the first mitzvah — in essence, to believe that the Blessed One governs and exhorts us. The second mitzvah is \"You shall not have any other gods before Me.\" That is, \"Serve no other god in the world but Me. Serve Me alone, for I govern you.\" Now these two mitzvoth are not dictated by reason. Reason, to the contrary, would cause us to err and reach the opposite conclusion (if Torah had not enlightened us otherwise), that the L-rd is exalted above all our acts and affairs, and far be it from Him to give thought to commanding us and exhorting us — as per the philosophers' belief, a belief upon which they built their entire perverse edifice (may it speedily fall apart and be uprooted!). And even the prophets, though they knew the truth of the matter for what it was, wondered at it, saying (Psalms 8:5): \"What is man that You are mindful of him…,\" and, similarly (Job 7:17-18): \"What is man that You magnify him and that You set Your heart upon him? That You remember him every morning and try him every moment?\" This being so, if the Torah had not enlightened us, our reason would cause us to think and to believe that the Blessed One was too exalted for His mitzvoth and exhortations to reach us and that it was inappropriate to serve Him at all, such service showing us to believe that He is affected by our deeds and that He is in some way dependent upon and bound to us, and it would be fitting, rather, for us to serve the stars, with which we did, indeed, have a bond. And we would consider all this to be the absolute truth and deem all those who thought likewise magnifiers and exalters of the Blessed One and all who thought otherwise ascribers of imperfection to Him. This is the intent of the statement of our sages: \"We heard 'I am the L-rd your G-d' and 'You shall not have any other gods' from the All-Powerful Himself.\" This is stated by way of analogy, viz., if a certain man, though one of the chief officers of the king, and one of the most intimate of his entourage, were to command us in aught that might seem to be a detraction from and demeaning of \"the crown of his kingdom,\" it would befit us to place no credence in his command and to respond that we would in no way abide by it unless we heard it from the king himself, face to face and mouth to mouth (though we would believe this officer in respect to everything else that he commanded us in the king's name). So it is with these two mitzvoth.", "And this is the very opposite of what the Rambam says in the Moreh Nevuchim (II:33), where he thus explains \"We heard 'I am the L-rd your G-d' and 'You shall not have any other gods' from the All-Powerful Himself\": \"The existence of the Blessed One and His oneness can be perceived by human reason, and in respect to anything which can be proved, the perception of the prophet and of all others who know it is equal; the former has no advantage.'\" The other commandments, however, are in the category of the prescribed and accepted and not in that of what is perceived by intellect.\" The Rambam's words and mine are at two opposite poles. I have already written that the first commandment is not to believe in the existence of the L-rd, and that the language does not connote this at all. And though the idea is implicit in the verse because of the mention of the Blessed One, it is by way of speaking of something that is well known and accepted and that need not be commanded anew. The second commandment, likewise, is not to believe that the Blessed One is one, as the Rambam would have it. For if the basic error of the idolators were what the Rambam said it to be in Sefer Hamada (Hilchoth Avodah Zara 1:1), this would not necessitate their believing in many gods.", "The more likely explanation, then, is as I have written, that because reason would arrive at the opposite of these two commandments, it was necessary that we hear them from the All-Powerful Himself. And even if one would contend that though reason concluded that the Blessed One does not command us or exhort us and that it is inappropriate to serve Him as we do, still it would not conclude that we should therefore serve idols — it would still be necessary for us to have heard \"You shall not have any other gods\" from the All-Powerful Himself. The explanation is as I have already written. The first commandment is to believe that the Blessed One concerns Himself with us and commands and exhorts us. Now there is no doubt that intellect would decree the opposite of this, regarding it as the ascription of imperfection to the Blessed One. Having to hear this command then from the All-Powerful Himself, not befitting us to believe it from anyone else, it was necessary that the L-rd speak thus with us: \"I am that Necessary Cause from whom there come to you mitzvoth and exhortations, commanding you [in this instance] not to do this thing [to have other gods]. And, from this point on, now that you know for a certainty that I command and exhort you, it behooves you to believe the additional mitzvoth and exhortations by way of the prophets.\" The nature of the matter demands that we hear from Him at this juncture a command or exhortation, whether it be close to intellect or distant from it; and He chose the mitzvah to be the exhortation against idolatry, it being the most appropriate to issue from His own mouth, especially so in that service of the Blessed One Himself is so antagonistic to reason that all of the nations gravitated to idol worship, for which reason the Torah repeatedly exhorted against it. And we have been informed in this parshah that the Blessed One does not delay the punishment of the idolator, as it is written (Deuteronomy 4:26): \"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day that you shall soon perish…\"", "However, though idolatry be the gravest transgression in the Torah, still we have been assured that when we return to the Blessed One we will find Him, as it is written (Ibid 29): \"And if you seek from there [the lands in which you have been dispersed] the L-rd your G-d, then you will find Him — if You seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.\" The phrase \"from there\" calls for explanation. It is to be understood as follows: Though, in our view, the Shechinah resides only in the land of Israel and not outside it, as it is written (I Samuel 26:19): \"For they have driven me out this day from being joined to the inheritance of the L-rd\" — still, though (according to common parlance) the Blessed One is not found outside the land of Israel, you will find Him even there if you seek Him.", "And He was even more munificent to us in lovingkindness, saying (Deuteronomy 4:30): \"When you are afflicted and all of these things come upon you in the end of days, and you return to the L-rd your G-d and listen to His voice…\" That is, even if you repent only because you are being afflicted, still, if you return to the L-rd, He will hear you because He is merciful, and He will not forget the covenant that He made with your fathers.", "Afterwards it is written (Ibid 32): \"For ask now of the former days…\" The juxtaposition of these verses is so strange that the Ramban was constrained to interpret \"For ask now of the former days\" as referring to the beginning of the parshah, to the effect that the Blessed One will not forgive the idolator or postpone his punishment because of His having done for you what He did for no other nation. This is not implied by the context, however, because there intervene many verses which have nothing to do with this idea at all. For after being profuse in words of consolation, saying that the Blessed One will accept our repentance and that we will find Him when we call upon Him, why should Moses suddenly revert to the beginning to explain why the Blessed One will not postpone the punishment of idolators?", "It is, therefore, my view that these two verses, \"For the L-rd your G-d is a merciful G-d…\" and \"For ask now of the former days\" are the rationale for the immediately preceding verses in which we are assured that even if we do not seek the Blessed One from the pureness of our hearts but in the extremity of afflictions, He will nonetheless listen to our voices. And this is, indeed, a wondrous thing, that after having rebelled and having done what is evil in the eyes of the L-rd to anger Him, and, even after that, not having taken it to heart to repent before Him except in the extremity of afflictions — with all this, to have our repentance accepted by Him! We find Yiftach expostulating with the men of Gilead (Judges 11:7): \"And why do you come to me now, when you are in distress!\" How, then, is it possible for the Blessed One, the Majestic and Exalted, to tolerate something which an ordinary human being would not tolerate, to place the dignity of a mere mortal above His own! Moses supplies the rationale for this, saying: Do not wonder about this, \"for the L-rd your G-d is a merciful G-d; He will not forsake you and He will not destroy you,\" and though you do not merit this, still, \"He will not forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them.\" And do not wonder how the covenant of your fathers will suffice for all this, \"for ask now of the former days… was there ever anything so great as this\" that the Blessed One has done for you? As he concludes (Deuteronomy 4:33): \"Did a people ever hear the voice of G-d…\", sealing his words with (Ibid 37): \"…and because He loved your fathers.\" That is, all of these wondrous, awesome things He did not for your sakes, but because He loved your fathers. And just as these great, awesome things were done for your fathers, so you can believe that the Blessed One will accept your repentance that proceeds from affliction for the sake of the covenant of your fathers, though this be wondrous indeed.", "The juxtaposition here has a parallel in that referred to by our sages, viz. (Berachoth 10a): \"Why was the parshah of Avshalom (Psalms 3) juxtaposed with that of Gog and Magog (Psalms 2)? To teach you that if one questions [the Gog and Magog parshah]: 'Would a servant rebel against his master?' answer him: 'Would a son rebel against his father? But it happened. Here, too, it will happen.'\" The idea is that when someone is skeptical as to the factuality of a strange phenomenon, when he is shown something equally strange whose existence he must perforce acknowledge, his mind confirms the first and he believes in it, too. The same idea is operative in our case, viz.: if it is strange in your eyes that the Blessed One would do something so strange because of the covenant with your fathers, then ask of the former generations and see that He did for them something equally strange or even stranger.", "In any event, though he assured us that even repentance proceeding from our afflictions would be accepted, he stipulated the condition, \"if you seek Him with all your heart and all your soul.\" The idea behind this is that those whose repentance proceeds from afflictions fall into one of two classes. There are those in whose hearts repentance is not firmly implanted, who, though they call out to the L-rd in their affliction, do not really undergo a change of heart and outlook, but who, sensing relief after the passing of their afflictions, harden their hearts and return to their folly. Of such as these it is written (Jeremiah 2:27): \"…and in the time of their affliction they say: 'Arise and save us.'\" To exclude this variety of repentance, he says \"if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.\" That is, your repentance must be of the second variety in which afflictions humble the heart. For in a time of tranquility a man inebriates himself with the pleasures and lusts of this world; and there is no doubt that if in such a time he resolves to \"rid himself of his wine,\" his repentance is of the choicest kind. But Scripture assures us that even if one's repentance is not of this kind but he returns to the Blessed One from the midst of afflictions, if he returns to Him with his whole heart and soul, his repentance being so firmly embedded in his heart that even after the afflictions have passed he girds himself with strength and renews his energies to cleave to the Blessed One and glorify and praise Him for His bountifulness to him — this is considered a perfect repentance and it is accepted.", "It is in this connection that King David, may peace be upon him, wrote (Psalms 71:14): \"But as for me, I will always hope and I will add to all Your praises.\" The idea here is that there are some people who hope to the Blessed One only when they are being afflicted and praise Him only while He is favoring them with some good, only to forget about Him afterwards. An analogous situation would be that of the sick man, who, in the throes of his illness, consumes himself in hoping to his G-d, who, upon arising and walking on his cane, thanks the Almighty for His mercies to him and expansively recites the benediction \"Who bestows good upon the guilty,\" and who, upon being restored to his health, can find in his heart neither the knowledge nor the understanding to bless the L-rd and praise His name, his earlier afflictions having been forgotten and having vanished form his sight. David therefore says: This is not my way, but I always hope to the L-rd — not in times of suffering alone, but even in times of tranquility. And though I may have occasion to praise Him in the midst of a multitude for having saved me in the time of my affliction, I will not diminish my praising and blessing of His name afterwards, but I will even add to His praises.", "In this way, even though one's repentance may be initiated by affliction, still, if the repentance is a complete one it is acknowledged and accepted. This is the intent of \"if you seek Him with all your heart and all your soul.\" And this is the precondition for the Blessed One's redeeming us from among the nations and leading us erect back to our land. But even repentance of lesser perfection is of avail, protecting against afflictions and reducing suffering, as it is written (Deuteronomy 30:1-4): \"And it will be, when all of these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse… then the L-rd your G-d will return your captivity and have mercy upon you… If your outcasts be at the ends of the heavens — from there will the L-rd your G-d gather you, and from there will He take you.\" The parshah is to be understood as follows [in The Tenth Discourse]." ], [ "\"AND NOW, O ISRAEL, WHAT DOES THE L-RD YOUR G-D ASK OF YOU? — ONLY TO FEAR THE L-RD YOUR G-D, TO WALK IN ALL HIS WAYS, AND TO LOVE HIM, AND TO SERVE THE L-RD YOUR G-D WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL\" (DEVARIM 10:12-13)", "This parshah is connected and bound up with the one preceding it. There the Jews were warned against two things: first, attributing their success to their own power; second, attributing their conquest of the land to their own merits, it being written above (Ibid 8:12-18): \"Lest you eat and be sated, and build goodly houses and inhabit them, and your herds and your flocks increase… and you say in your heart: 'My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.' Remember the L-rd your G-d, for it is He who gives you the power to attain wealth.\" That is, though it be true that men have proclivities in certain areas, some being predisposed to the acquisition of wisdom and others to the type of deliberation leading to appropriation and acquisition, so that in this respect there is some validity to the rich man's saying: \"My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth\" — still, though this power be implanted in you, remember who gave it to you and whence it came. This is the intent of: \"Remember the L-rd your G-d, for it is He who gives you the power to attain wealth,\" as opposed to: \"Remember that the L-rd your G-d gives you the wealth.\" For the latter would imply that the power implanted in a man is not an intermediary agency in the acquisition of wealth, and this is not so. Therefore, it is stated: though your power may have given you this wealth, remember who gave you the power — the Holy One Blessed be He.", "Following this it is written (Ibid 9:1): \"Hear O Israel, you are passing over the Jordan today to come and inherit nations greater and mightier than you…\" Here it is not written: \"and you will say in your heart: 'My power and the might of my hand…,'\" but (Ibid 4): \"Do not say in your heart, when the L-rd your G-d casts them out before you: 'In my righteousness the L-rd has brought me to inherit this land…'\" It is as if Moses were saying: Hear me, Israel, in yet another apprehension that I have concerning you. You are crossing the Jordan to come to inherit nations greater and mightier than you. I have no apprehension that you will attribute your overcoming them to your own power, for they are greater and mightier than you, and you have heard from the men that you sent to spy out the land that the most courageous of men cannot stand up against these giants. You know today that it is the L-rd who will humble them, and you will not attribute their defeat to yourself, knowing that you lack the power to defeat them. But I fear that you might say in your heart that though it was the L-rd who defeated them and not your power, still it was your righteousness and the uprightness of your heart that caused Him to do so. For it is the nature of a man's pride and the haughtiness of heart that perverts his counsels to attribute his successes to himself in some manner. So that when his successes are in the area of acquisition, or wisdom, or goodly counsel, he sees his wisdom as the operative factor; and when he recognizes his success as being above his power and his counsel, he attributes it to his merit. Therefore, Moses says about the conquest of these mighty nations, which is clearly beyond the scope and power of the Jews: I fear that you might attribute your victory to your righteousness. Do not do this, for you are a stiff-necked people, and in point of your merit you are not worthy of this. For you have sinned and rebelled many times against the glory of G-d (as mentioned in abundant detail in this parshah, and as epitomized [Ibid 9:24]: \"You have been rebellious against the L-rd from the day that I knew you\"). After dilating upon the multitude of their offenses and sins, as stated in the parshah, Moses says (Ibid 10:12): \"And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you? — only to fear…\" That is, you see that all you possess would not suffice to absolve you of your great guilt, and, yet, notwithstanding this, the Holy One Blessed be He asks only that you fear Him and love Him.", "The idea here is parallel to that stated by the prophet (Micah 6:6): \"With what shall I come before the L-rd and bow down before the high G-d… Will the L-rd be requited with thousands of rams?\" The subject here is the attitude appropriate for the sinner — that all he could possibly give in atonement, should, from the standpoint of reason, be absolutely insufficient, and that the punishment itself should be the severest conceivable. For it is axiomatic that the punishment for rebellion should correspond to the magnitude of the commander. It should be greater for disobedience of the king's viceroy than for disobedience of a lesser official, and greater still for disobedience of the king himself than for disobedience of his viceroy. For just as the greatness of the obligation to fulfill the command varies with the greatness of the commander, so should vary, in similar measure, the severity of the punishment for non-fulfillment of the command. And if the commander is infinitely exalted, it follows that the punishment for transgression of His command should itself be infinite, or — in the absence of such punishment — the severest that can possibly be exacted, just as a son, unable to requite his father fully, is obligated to him within the limits of possibility. It should have followed, then, in view of the impossibility of assigning a punishment commensurate with rebellion against the L-rd, that the punishment be at least the greatest within the realm of possibility. This is the intent of \"With what shall I come before the L-rd and bow down before the high G-d?\" That is, in view of His being the \"high G-d,\" the most exalted and elevated imaginable, with what can I come before Him and be reconciled to Him? Will my first-born suffice in requital of my offense, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? And the answer is given (Ibid 8): \"He has told you, O man, what is good and what the L-rd requires of you…\" For though it should have been as you say, that all you own should have been given in atonement for your offense, the Holy One Blessed be He does not demand this of you, for He does not desire your destruction, but only the amendment of your soul, your self, and your life.", "And this idea itself was what was intended by Moses, of blessed memory, in the juxtaposition of this parshah with that preceding it. He says: \"And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you…\" That is, though you have sinned against and offended Him, He does not desire your destruction, and asks of you only that you fear Him. And all of the afflictions that He brought upon you in the desert were not intended as punishment, but only to bring you to this end. As the verse itself states (Ibid 8:5): \"And know in your heart that just as a man chastens his son, so the L-rd your G-d chastens you…\" The parallel is that the Holy One Blessed be He observes two principles of conduct in afflicting us, similar to those observed by a father in chastising his son. The first is that he never chastises him with a punishment fully commensurate with the severity of the sin. So that if his sin is a mortal one, he will not kill him, and if it is one that warrants beating, he will not beat him with the rod to the extent of his evil, but the punishment will always be less than the offense. The second is that the father's punishment is not intended as an end in itself, but as a corrective for his son, so that if the father sees that his son has repented of his conduct and will not revert to it, he will not punish him at all, but will rejoice in his heart that punishment is not necessary. G-d's chastisement of us, similarly, follows these two paths. First, He never punishes a man in proportion to the severity of his sin, as it is written (Psalms 103:9): \"He has not dealt with us according to our sins, and has not requited us according to our transgression.\" And Ezra said (Ezra 9:13): \"For You, our G-d, accorded us less than our sins, and granted us deliverance such as this.\" Second, G-d's punishment of men is not an end in itself but is intended as a corrective or as a defense against others' learning from their deeds. For punishment in itself is not commendable — if it were so, the Torah would not exhort us against it, as it is written (Leviticus 19:18): \"Do not take revenge and do not bear a grudge against the children of your people.\" For the Torah does not interdict good acts but commands that they be done, and since revenge was interdicted, we can deduce that it is not commendable in itself. As to G-d's being described as (Nachum 1:2) \"a jealous and vengeful G-d,\" he is not so described by virtue of His revenge in itself, but by virtue of the good that proceeds from it. This is the intent of our sages' dictum (Bereshith Rabbah 51:3) that nothing evil descends from Above. For it is inconceivable that categorical evil should stem from the Absolute Good and the source of all gods, but all that proceeds from Him must serve the end of good. Therefore, all of G-d's punishments in this world are of this orientation: either to correct the sinner himself, so that he repents of his evil way, or, if he does not accept such correction, to serve as warning to others not to emulate him.", "But the punishments of the world to come cannot be of this nature, for the soul does not acquire further correction there, but, essentially, remains eternally what it was upon its separation from the body. Similarly, these punishments cannot be intended to correct others, for they are entirely hidden from the inhabitants of this world. Therefore, since punishment is not a good in itself to the Holy One Blessed be He, We must say that the punishments of the world to come are natural results, visiting the soul because of its very essence, guilt-ridden with the sins of this world. For just as it is impossible for a man to cut one of his nerves without experiencing pain, so it is impossible for a man to rebel against the Holy One Blessed be He and die in his rebellion and not be visited by the punishments of the world to come. This seems to be indicated in respect to the eternal punishments that one's soul undergoes there. As far as the temporal ones are concerned, such as those mentioned by our sages (Rosh Hashanah 16b): \"They descend to Gehinnom and scream and ascend,\" or (Ibid 17a): \"They descend to Gehinnom and are judged there for twelve months\" — it seems that two factors are combined here: the first, such punishment visiting such a soul as a natural consequence; the second, the suffering of Gehinnom conducing to a good end, the soul being purged there so that it can bask in the Divine Radiance. But the exact form of this purging and refinement is hidden to our understanding — much more so to our eyes — and if we open our mouths in possible conjecture and in the seeming drift of the words of the sages, we shall be but as dreamers. It is better, then, that we remain silent in this regard. It is only the exigencies of our discussion that caused me to mention as much as I did.", "In any event, what does emerge from all I have written, is that the Holy One Blessed be He does not desire punishment for the evil-doer as an end in itself, as it is written: \"What does the L-rd your G-d ask of you? — only to fear.\" That is, though you have greatly angered Him, He does not desire your death, and He does not ask of you a thousand rams and ten thousands of rivers of oil. He asks nothing of you — only to fear the L-rd your G-d.", "But this parshah presents three formidable problems. First, its being stated: \"What does the L-rd your G-d ask of you? — only to fear…\" It would seem that fear of the L-rd is the highest level one can achieve. This being the case, there is no doubt that man's nature does not incline towards it, but, to the contrary, is extremely antagonistic towards it. And this is borne out, first, by Scripture itself; second, by the words of the Scribes; and third, by common experience. Scripture states (Bereshith 8:21): \"For the inclination of a man's heart is evil from his youth,\" and David said (Psalms 103:14): \"For He knows our inclination; He remembers that we are dust.\" And our sages have stated (Bereshith Rabbah 34:14): \"Shamed is the dough whose baker testifies about it that it is evil, as it is written: 'For the inclination of a man's heart is evil from his youth.'\" And they said further (Kiddushin 30b): \"A man's evil inclination regenerates itself against him each day, as it is written (Bereshith 6:5): 'Only evil all the day,' and it desires to kill him, as it is written (Psalms 37:32): 'The evil one looks to the righteous one and desires to kill him,'\" and (Berachoth 17a): \"R. Alexandri, at the conclusion of his prayers, would say: 'L-rd of the Universe, it is absolutely clear to You that I want to do Your will. What deters me? The \"yeast in the dough\" and the yoke of the kingdom. May it be Your will, O L-rd our G-d and G-d of our fathers, that You humble them before us and behind us so that we can return to do Your will with a full heart.'\" It is apparent from this that the evil inclination is a deterrent even to those whose desire and will is to honor their Creator. The words of Scripture and of the sages, then, make it clear that the nature of man is not predisposed to this sublime state but is highly antagonistic to it. And common experience confirms this. It is axiomatic that what is inherent in the nature of a thing will manifest itself in the majority of instances, and that its non-appearance will constitute the minority instance and the exception to the rule. So that, for example, it being the nature of summer to be warm, we expect most summers to be so, and if it transpires that a certain summer is not warm, we attribute this to the minority factor and to chance. Similarly, it being the nature of a man to love his children and his relatives, most men will do so, and if it happens that a certain man does not, we regard this as a minority phenomenon or as chance. This being the case, if man's nature were inclined and oriented to the attainment of this exalted state, it would follow that most men would have attained it, for all men choose good and aspire to it. Common experience shows us that men do all in their power to attain high station, though such eminence be only deceptively good. How much more so would we expect most men to have attained this true, eternal eminence if their nature were inclined to this attainment! And since those who do attain it in its full perfection as delineated here — that is, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, and to serve Him with all one's heart and soul — since those who do thus attain it are so few as to lead one to surmise that only one in a thousand ever reach it, we would be justified in concluding that it is not at all easy for a man to achieve but very difficult indeed. If so, how can Moses say \"What does the L-rd Your G-d ask of you?\" In view of the difficulty of its attainment this would be tantamount to saying that He asks of you only that you be like Abraham or like Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him! Our sages addressed themselves to this question, asking (Berachoth 33b): \"Is fear of the L-rd a small thing!\" and answering: \"Yes, to Moses it is a small thing. The situation is analogous to a man's being asked for a large vessel. If he has it, it seems to him as if he is being asked for a small vessel; whereas if he is asked for a small vessel and he does not have it, it seems to him as if he is being asked for a large vessel.\"", "This requires explanation. It would seem from their words that because fear of the L-rd was a small thing to Moses, he, therefore, portrayed it as such to others, though it is a big thing to them. This is, indeed, cause for wonder. It is not the way of the truly wise man to construe what is easy for him as being easy for others. This would be analogous to one who possessed a million talents of gold telling someone who possessed not even a single silver talent that he was asking of him only a single golden talent. It is not wisdom that would prompt such a request. Nor would it be wisdom that would prompt one who could carry three kikars to tell one who could not even carry a half kikar: \"I am asking of you only that you carry a single kikar.\" Yet Moses would seem to be making just such a request of Israel! This is the first question.", "The second problem lies in the statement (Devarim 11:2-7): \"And know this today, for it is not your children who have not known and who have not seen the chastisement of the L-rd your G-d… and His signs and acts… and what He did to the army of Egypt… and what He did to you in the desert… and what He did to Dathan and Aviram… for your own eyes have seen…\" Now these verses all mention types of punishment that the Holy One Blessed be He brought upon transgressors of His will. But such a motivation is not appropriate for directing one to service of the L-rd out of love with all his heart and soul; it will lead him, rather, to serve Him out of fear of punishment. And it cannot be contended that this motivation is thematically conjoined with \"only to fear the L-rd your G-d,\" for since the phrase continues: \"to walk in all His ways and to love Him,\" it is obvious that the \"fear\" intended is of the highest variety, that is, fear proceeding from the exaltedness and greatness of G-d and not from dread of His punishment. For one who fears Him from the latter motivation alone is referred to as occupying himself with Torah and mitzvoth \"shelo lishman\" [not for their own sakes]. This is made clear in the chapter \"Haya Notel\" (Sotah 22b): \"There are seven [negative] types of perushim [abstainers from transgression] … a porush out of love and a porush out of fear\" (that is, out of love of reward and fear of punishment); \"and the sages said to the Tanna: 'Do not include [as negative types] a porush out of love and a porush out of fear, for R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav: \"Let one always occupy himself with Torah and with mitzvoth, and even shelo lishmah, for by doing so shelo lishmah he will come to do so lishmah [for their own sakes].\"'\" It is clear, then, that one who occupies himself with Torah and mitzvoth out of love of reward or fear of punishment is regarded as doing so shelo lishman. And Rashi, in his commentary, has questioned from this source the statement in the chapter \"Keshem\" (Ibid 31a): \"What difference is there between one who serves G-d out of love and one who serves Him out of fear? There is this difference: We learned: 'R. Shimon b. Elazar said: \"Greater is he that serves out of love than he that serves out of fear, for the merit of the second is suspended [as protection over his descendants] for a thousand generations, whereas the merit of the first is suspended for thousands\"'\" — whereupon Rashi asks: \"How can serving G-d out of fear cause merit to be suspended for a thousand generations if it is referred to above as occupying oneself with Torah and mitzvoth shelo lishman?\" — and he answers that the motivation referred to above is love of reward and fear of punishment, whereas that referred to here is fear of the L-rd, that is, awe of His majesty.", "Both of these motivations are subsumed in one verse in which Job retorts in praise of himself against his accusers, featuring himself as always having shunned the vile and pursued the worthy (Job 31:23): \"For the fear of the Almighty was upon me, and because of His grandeur I could not [sin].\" First he attributes his uprightness to his great fear of G-d and of the retribution meted out by His messengers for opposition to His will, this type of fear being mentioned first by virtue of its being the first, immediate response; and then he says: \"And because of His grandeur I could not sin.\" That is, even if I did not regard the punishment that would befall me for rebellion, still, because of the image of His majesty that I have implanted in my heart I could not transgress His word. And this is the true fear of the L-rd that is mentioned in the verse under discussion.", "And because this noble theme, that of fear of the L-rd, is difficult to conceptualize at the outset, I shall explain it as far as I can. Fear, generically, is one's moving back and gathering up his powers within himself when he senses danger from a certain quarter. This formulation encompasses all of a man's fears. And when one images the magnitude of the L-rd's exaltedness, His scrutinizing all that he does, both in secret and in the open — combining with this a consciousness of his mediocrity and of the poverty of his intellect — this true image fills him with trembling. A parallel within the realm of our experience is one's trembling when he must stand and speak before a great king, a hoary personage, renowned and acknowledged for the perfection of his wisdom and his virtues. Though one be certain that no harm will befall him in the king's presence, in spite of this, he will tremble and quake in the knowledge of his insignificance beside the other's exalted majesty, and he will be weighed down by the consciousness of his not being worthy to stand before the king. This would seem to be the true image for fear of the L-rd in general. However, the image for fear of transgressing His words is also drawn along these lines. For each of a man's faculties fears doing something or approaching something which is antagonistic to its nature. And just as the faculty of touch, for example, fears approaching the fire, which is antagonistic to it, in the same way the intellect fears transgressing G-d's mitzvoth, its nature judging that it is appropriate to follow His command and that to transgress His words is antagonistic to it. Therefore, such transgression will be feared in itself, without attention to considerations of punishment. And the healthier and more perfect the soul, the more pronounced will be this type of fear. One should, therefore, greatly rejoice if he finds within his soul such fear and such high impressionableness, for the more there is, the greater attestation to the health and perfection of his soul. This is the intent of the verse (Psalms 2:11): \"And rejoice in trembling\"; that is, rejoice in the trembling that seizes you in His presence. At first glance, this is paradoxical. How can one rejoice in the trembling that overtakes him if trembling and rejoicing are opposites? But it is as I have said. One's fearing what he should fear is an attestation to his soundness, and one's not fearing what he should fear is a sign of defect. For example, just as fear of putting one's hand near the fire is a sign of soundness, to the extent that not being afraid to do so bespeaks either the beclouding of one's intellect or the atrophying of his sense of touch and being afraid to do so attests to the health of both, that is, of intellect and of sense — in the same way, fear of the L-rd and fear of transgressing His words attest to perfection of soul and health of intellect. And this is the fear spoken of in this parshah, for which reason it is conjoined with \"to walk in all His ways and to love Him.\"", "The appropriate inducement to this type of fear is imaging the L-rd's deeds, His wonders, and the magnitude of His acts — in which case it should have been written: \"And know this today, for it is not your children, who did not know and who did not witness the revelation at Mount Sinai, and the sounds, and the flames, and the shofar blast, and the smoking mountain, and the pillars of fire and cloud that went before them for forty years.\" These are inducements to the true love and fear of G-d, and not the mention of the destruction of His foes and the retribution meted out to transgressors of His will. For accounts of the latter and of things like them induce one to serve the L-rd out of fear of punishment. This is the second problem.", "The third problem lies in the statement (Devarim 11:6): \"and what He did to Dathan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav, the son of Reuven; how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all that stood at their feet, in the midst of all of Israel.\" There is cause for wonder here. Why mention Dathan and Aviram and not Korach, the central figure in the rebellion — Dathan and Aviram having joined him because they were his neighbors. Korach, being the central figure, should have received greater mention. This is the third problem.", "The resolution of all three problems centers around one principle: attainment of true love and fear of G-d is easy in one respect and difficult in another. First I shall define the sense in which something is termed \"easy\" or \"difficult\" by saying that \"easy\" is taken to signify the attainment of something for which there is a natural inclination, and, \"difficult,\" the opposite, that is, the attainment of something for which there is no natural inclination. Just as throwing a stone down is very easy because a stone has a natural downwards orientation, and throwing a stone up, very difficult, because it does not have an upwards orientation but the very opposite — in the same way it will be seen that love and fear of G-d is easy in one respect and difficult in another. And in this way the nature of the love of G-d will be explained, as will that of the fear of G-d, though this requires a lengthy explanation.", "I will say, then, that a man possesses two faculties, one of which is upwards-oriented and naturally inclined in that direction, and the other downwards-oriented and inclining in that direction. And, as in the case of all things, as we have written above, each one of these can very easily attain what it is naturally inclined towards. The upper-oriented faculty is the faculty of intellect, which aspires to intellective percepts and which loves and desires them. For love in all things is imaging something pleasing to a certain faculty, which, when being imaged, stimulates the aspirational faculty toward the attainment of the object of that faculty, and which, when being attained, causes its faculty to rejoice in the attainment of that which is distinctly its own. For example, one who loves food, first images its taste and its pleasantness to the palate. This image catalyzes a yearning and a desire, a desire for the attainment by the sense of that which it senses. And when the latter is attained the sense rejoices in having attained the distinct object of its desire. In the same way, the intellective faculty, whose objects are in the realm of intellect — when it images these objects in a general way, it is aroused to attain them in detail and in perfection. And when they are developed within it, it rejoices in them in the very quintessence of joy — for the stronger the faculty, and the more perfect the object, the greater the enjoyment. And since the intellective faculty of man is the strongest of all his faculties, and its objects the most perfect, it follows that it must rejoice more greatly in its attainments than all of the other faculties in theirs. And the objects of this faculty being those of intellect and excellence, it follows that the more excellent the object, the greater the resultant joy. The intellect, then, will love and desire to cleave to the L-rd in the greatest possible intimacy; that is, to contemplate His ways and wonders and what may be inferred from them. And when it reflects upon these it will rejoice in the quintessence of joy, having attained its most perfect possible object. It follows, too, from this that the intellect will be drawn after His mitzvoth with a strong yearning. For the intellect always selects what is worthy and flees what is vile, and this by virtue of the nature of the thing in itself [apart from considerations of consequences]. And the intellect sees it as binding and as most gratifying to abide by the will of this perfect Commander — even without taking into consideration the fact that the mitzvah is desirable in itself and the transgression repugnant (the Torah not commanding the one and forbidding the other if it were not so). Even without this consideration the intellect sees it as mandatory to abide by His will. As if we were to picture to ourselves a perfect man in the isles of the sea, whom we knew to be wiser than all men, including King Solomon, and so perfect in all of the virtues as to allow of no additional perfection, and this perfection being impressed upon us each day by what reaches us of his writings and sayings — there is no doubt that all healthy-souled men would be moved by their intellects to follow his will, even without giving thought to considerations of reward and punishment. And there is no doubt that to the extent of the former's perfection the good man would be drawn after him. It follows, then, that if one is found to be infinitely perfect — as the Holy One Blessed be He — the intellect should be infinitely drawn after Him. Add to this what is axiomatic to intellect — that whatever the Torah commands is desirable and whatever it forbids, repugnant, whether or not the intellect perceives the reason for its being so; and the intellect always selects the desirable and flees the repugnant. The intellect, then, by virtue of its very nature, loves the L-rd, aspires to His mitzvoth, and flees all that the Holy One Blessed be He has forbidden as one flees a serpent. One who serves the L-rd after this fashion, not out of love of reward or fear of punishment, serves the L-rd out of love, and reward will inevitably follow. In this respect, it is very easy to attain true love and fear of G-d, one's nature inclining naturally towards it.", "I have already written that ease of attainment is a function of a natural inclination for the object to be attained. It is in this respect that Moses says: \"And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you? — only to fear…\" That is, He is not asking something overburdensome of you, something beyond your nature; to the contrary, you have a natural inclination for it and will rejoice in its attainment. The reason most men do not attain it is the extreme difficulty it presents in a different respect, the antagonism to it of the lower-oriented faculty of man, whose natural inclination is opposite that of the intellect — namely, the imagination. This faculty is constantly oriented towards the lusts that man shares in common with the animals, and the senses are far more subservient to it than they are to the intellect. This, for three reasons: first, because of their similar natures, the imagination and the sense all being corporeal faculties, while the intellect is a distinct, non-corporeal entity, and all things are attracted to their like — second, because those imaged objects under the dominion of imagination are tangible and visible, whereas the objects of the intellect are intangible and invisible — and, third, because of the precedence of the dominion of imagination in time. One's imagination rules his senses from the time he is born, his intellect not doing so until he attains the age of reason. This is the intent of our sages' statement (Medrash Hagadol Bereshith 4:7): \"The evil inclination precedes the good by thirteen years, as it is written (Bereshith 4:7): 'At the door [of life] lies sin.'\" The senses, then, meet a similar fate as those foolish men who are ruled for many years by a foolish king. His reign, from long habit, becomes so natural to them that they will be averse to the leadership of a more perfect monarch. And this is the intent of King Solomon's analogy (Ecclesiastes 4:13, 15, 16): \"Better the poor, wise child than the old, foolish king, who can no longer care for himself… I have seen all of life that transpires under the sun with the second child, that stood up after him. There is no end to all the people — to all whom he came before; the later ones, too, will not rejoice in him.\" The explanation is as follows: Because the people have become accustomed to the rule of the first, the fool, they will not rejoice in the rule of the wise child, which is more perfect than that of the first. The same is true with imagination and intellect relative to the senses. Because the dominion of the imagination over the senses and the awakening faculty preceded the dominion of the intellect over them, therefore, its reign is more pleasing to most people than that of the intellect, though the latter is superior. And, with the ascendancy of imagination and the senses, intellect sinks and is lost, as an infant captured by the gentiles. It does not rejoice in its unique objects and is not awakened to them. It is in this respect that love and fear of the L-rd are difficult for most people.", "But between the two faculties, each with its respective objects, there is a great difference. For the intellective faculty is always uniformly stimulated by its objects, these objects being eternally enduring. The relatively greater or lesser arousal from time to time is a function neither of the objects themselves nor of the intellect — for the relationship between the intellect and its objects is eternally fixed — but rather of the respectively varying sway of the imagination over the intellect. The imagination, however, is different, for it changes in accordance with changes in its objects, as well as with changes in its senses, growing stronger or weaker relative to the lusts of the senses as the latter wax or wane in strength. This explains why imagination grows stronger and exercises a greater sway over intellect in youth than it does in old age. And this would seem to be the intent of the statement of our sages (Kinnim 6): \"R. Shimon b. Akashya said: 'Elderly ignoramuses, the older they grow, the more their minds are tossed about, as it is written (Job 12:20): \"He removes the speech of the trusty and takes the understanding of the aged\" — but elderly Torah scholars, the older they grow, the more settled their minds become, as it is written (Ibid 12): \"With the old, there is wisdom, and, with length of days, understanding.\"'\" The meaning here is not that elderly Torah scholars increase in wisdom the older they grow, for it is possible that this is not so. In view of the fact that the intellect requires bodily vessels, it is possible that when one grows very old and these vessels grow correspondingly weak, the intellect will weaken accordingly. Therefore, the Tanna does not say \"wisdom increases in them\" (though this is the version in chapter \"Hashoel\" [Shabbath 152a]), but rather, \"the more settled their minds become.\" That is, elderly Torah scholars, who, in their youth, abandoned the lusts of the world and chose the path of good — the older they grow, the more settled their minds become. They grow more at peace with themselves and their minds acquiesce more and more in their earlier abnegation. For in their youths, though they acquiesced in the abandonment of the lusts and luxuries of the world, it is impossible that their youthfulness should not sometimes have swayed them towards their enjoyment. And though their intellects would counter this tendency and prevent them from indulging themselves, it is impossible that they should not have desired these things somewhat and that their minds could have been completely settled, caught as they were between these two contending forces. But the older they grow and the weaker their lusts become, and the more they see that all their imaginings in respect to the things of this world are transitory and evanescent, vanishing between their very fingers, then their intellects need no longer wage a counter-offensive, and their minds are at rest. But the very opposite is the fate of the elderly ignoramuses. For in their youths they were enticed by the lusts of the world, and their minds were settled at that time, giving little heed to the objections of the intellect. But the older they grow, the more the world slips away from them and they from it. They see that all they desired and chose in their youths is void and vacuous and that they have inherited only falsehood. As a result, their minds are not settled in respect to what they had acquiesced in. In spite of this, however, because they had not learned righteousness and had grown accustomed to evil ways, it is not in the power of their intellects to remove them completely from the path that they had trodden until now. Therefore, the older they grow, the more they are buffeted about between two paths. This is the intent of our sages in \"their minds are tossed about.\" The analogy is to a tempest-tossed vessel caught in the middle of the sea, contending waves moving it in different directions. The mariners are powerless to keep it to an even course, but sometimes it veers in one direction and sometimes in another. The same is true of those who are enticed by the lusts of this world as they grow older. In their youths their minds were at rest, and in their old age they are tossed about. For it is the nature of the imagination to see only what is before its eyes. It does not see the future, and it images the immediate good as continuous and never-ending.", "Therefore, when life proceeds normally and the goods of the world continue, imagination gathers strength to war against intellect and to press it downwards, against its inclination. For the images then behave in practice according to what has been imaged and do not deviate from it. At such times it is very difficult for most people to attain love and fear of G-d because of the warring of imagination and its subservient senses. But when adversities occur and happenings which deviate from the normal pattern, so that imagination must perforce humble itself and concede that (Psalms 58:12) \"there is a G-d who judges the earth\" beyond the natural order of things, and when a man is shaken upon occasion by witnessing frightful events and renewed afflictions — then his uncircumcised heart must bow and give up the war against the intellect.", "When one finds himself in such circumstances, it is very easy for him to fear and love the Holy One Blessed be He because his intellect finds itself without an opponent; and intellect, by itself, always aspires upwards and it is not beyond its powers to rise and behold the countenance of the L-rd of Hosts. It is in this respect that Moses said to the Jews: \"What does the L-rd your G-d ask of you…\" For this thing depends upon you and it is very easy in terms of the power of your intellect; for its nature inclines towards it and it is easy to attain all things for which there is a natural inclination. And if you should contend: True, this may be easy for intellect, but it is very difficult for imagination to acquiesce in this, for it is drawn after the images it forms of the things of this world, and man, whose source is dust is drawn after it — to this Moses counters: \"And know this today, for it is not your children who have not known and who have not seen the chastisement of the L-rd your G-d.\" That is, if I were speaking with your children, who did not know and who did not witness punitive retribution in this world, they could say that their imaginations enticed them into seeing the successes of the world as eternal, for they had not seen G-d overturning the seats of kingdom to execute His justice against the transgressors of His will. But you, you have seen the chastisements of your G-d, how could you be enticed by imagination? Have you not seen how the L-rd dashed to the earth and glory of Egypt that was ensconced in might? And you saw, too, how many punishments G-d brought upon you in the desert for your own sins. This is the intent of (Devarim 11:5): \"And what He did to you in the desert until you came to this place\" (Moses does not elaborate here and speaks only in general terms in deference to the honor of the Jews). And you saw, too, what he did to Dathan and Aviram… And you cannot say that this was a natural phenomenon (fissures sometimes occurring in the earth), for they were \"in the midst of all of Israel,\" and they alone perished in their sin. And since (Ibid 7) \"your own eyes have seen all of the acts of the great [and awesome] L-rd,\" you should not be enticed by this world at all. It is for this reason that Dathan and Aviram are mentioned, and not Korach, the central figure in the rebellion; for man's imagination craves the lusts and pleasures of this world not for himself alone, but to bequeath them to his children — to the point that this constitutes the major objective of most men, so that they give almost no thought to themselves. They infest their souls with sin and heap up transgressions so that they can cause their children to inherit their palaces and dwellings. But this inheritance is a \"hasty one, which shall not be blessed with endurance\" (see Proverbs 20:21) — so that sometimes, at a man's very height, the fortune he amassed unjustly will leave him in the middle of his days (see Jeremiah 17:11), and he will be left with his transgression alone.", "And I would be inclined to say that this is intimated in the verse (Deuteronomy 23:23): \"When you make a vow to the L-rd your G-d, do not delay in paying it, for the L-rd your G-d will require it of you and you will be left with the transgression [alone].\" That is, do not delay in paying it because of your love of money, thinking that you will make use of it in the interim or that the Temple treasurers will overlook your vow and the money will remain with you. For the L-rd will require it of you, and the only thing you will be left with is the transgression alone. And it goes without saying that he will not succeed in establishing his children in comfort by bequeathing to them the fruits of oppression and theft. Notwithstanding this, however, it is the nature of imagination to gravitate in this direction, so that most of a man's efforts in the acquisition of wealth are for his children. He does not really feel that he will depart from the world so long as he has children there and grandchildren after them, children being a part of their parents. Therefore, Moses exhorted them not to be victimized by their imagination in this regard, this, too, having no permanence. Did you not see what G-d did to Dathan and Aviram, smiting with the rod of His wrath their houses and their tents until not a trace was left of them? It is for this reason that he mentions them and not Korach, for the children of Korach did not die, as indicated there (Numbers 7:15). But Dathan and Aviram were swept away in a fury, nothing whatsoever remaining of them. It is your own eyes, then, that have seen all of the great things that the L-rd has done and there is no room for you to be enticed by the deceits of the imagination. And it is, therefore, easy for you to attain love and fear of the L-rd, for this is the natural inclination of your intellects and it is very easy for something to attain the object to which it is naturally attracted so long as there is no opposing force standing in its way. These are the words of Moses to Israel.", "I would say that our present state of affairs corresponds closely to the above situation, and that is why I opened with this parshah — to draw the following parallel: Our ancestors did not witness the chastisements of the L-rd to the degree that we have witnessed them. In their days the land was inhabited and at peace, and life followed its natural course. The negev and the shefelah were inhabited, and, together with this, \"their little finger was thicker than our thighs.\" And if there were a few among them who were enticed by the vanities of the world this would not be cause for surprise. But we have been witness to the chastisements of our G-d for thirteen years now, a complete reversal of the natural order of things. For the evil [the Black Plague] descended in that year [1348] upon most of the inhabitants of the earth, bringing upon them unusual afflictions which it is impossible to attribute to the workings of nature. Every enlightened individual must acknowledge them as \"the finger of G-d.\" For the sicknesses common to man may be attributed to his nature, unlike strange, exotic illnesses, which must be regarded as the punishment of G-d to man in His constant surveillance of him. And this is intimated in this parshah, as it is written (Deuteronomy 7:15): \"And the L-rd will remove from you every illness, and all of the sore afflictions of Egypt that you knew He shall not place upon you, but He will place them upon all of your foes.\" \"Every illnesses\" refers to ailments common to man. In respect to these it is written \"And the L-rd will remove from you every illness,\" their being almost endemic to man in the proneness of his nature to them, whereas in respect to the afflictions of Egypt \"remove\" is not stated, those afflictions not arising from man's nature so as to necessitate their being removed; He assures them rather that they will not be placed upon them. The affirmation is to be inferred from the negation — for after having been assured that even the conventional illnesses would be removed, they really required no assurance that those sore afflictions to which men are not naturally prone would not be visited upon them. But assurance and intimation are herein combined, the implication being that if they do not heed the words of the L-rd these afflictions will be visited upon them. The language of Scripture, then, agrees with what is dictated by intellect — that sore, exotic afflictions are not the adventitious byproducts of man's nature, but rather \"the finger of G-d.\" And it is such afflictions that we witnessed with our own eyes, reaching out and engulfing all in that year, until in the space of just one year the world underwent a more radical change than it had ever undergone previously in the course of two hundred years. And in many places it happened as it happened with Dathan and Aviram, many men — they and all that was theirs — being completely wiped out, until their inheritance reverted to their foes. I am not saying that this happened because of their sins, but that it happened. And we, too, in these days and in this time are being constantly alarmed by reports that in lands not at all distant from ours there are happening things of the kind which happened in our land and which we witnessed with our own eyes. This being so, how can our evil inclination and our deceitful imagination make any claim upon us? How can they arouse us to rebellion and drive us from domicile in the inheritance of the L-rd? Is it not our own eyes that have seen the chastisements of the L-rd our G-d and His strong hand exhorting us not to fall prey to false, temporal vanities? Is it not easy for us to return to the Holy One Blessed be He with a whole heart, as dictated by our intellect, unimpeded by any hindrance or deterrent, untrammeled by the Satan or by any evil intercessor?", "And it would seem that all of our sages' profuse praise of afflictions, their saying (Berachoth 5a): \"All whom the Holy One Blessed be He desires He oppresses with afflictions,\" and their expatiating upon this theme in many aggadoth — it would seem that all this is to be understood in the above light. For there is certainly room for the question: What purpose is served by the afflictions of this world? And if one answered: The purging of sin — the question would remain: If the Holy One Blessed be He exacted punishment only in the world to come, are not His scales righteous ones, which measure out punishment exactly in accordance with one's sins? What does one stand to gain, then, by beginning to pay for his sins in this world? And if one answered that the gain lay in the fact that the punishments of the world to come are greater and more severe than those of this world, the Holy One Blessed be He can certainly draw the correct proportion. For example, if one's sins dictated that he be afflicted in this world for a seven year period, he could be afflicted in the world to come for one moment. And since the punishment can thus be proportioned, no one who is liable to punishment would not elect to have it postponed for as long as possible and not have it begin immediately. It must perforce be, then, as I have said — that because the imagination implanted in man constantly wars with his intellect, desiring to banish it entirely, and because this imagination is humbled by afflictions, it is found that the Blessed One is doing a great kindness with His creations by bringing afflictions upon them; for in consequence of this, the power of their evil inclination is weakened and they are reconciled with their Creator.", "\tSeen in this light, they may be regarded as the \"afflictions of love\" spoken of by our sages, viz. (Ibid): \"If one sees afflictions coming upon him, let him examine his deeds, as it is written (Eichah 3:40): 'Let us examine and search out our ways.' If he examined them and found a sin, let him repent of it, as it is written (Ibid.): 'And return to the L-rd.' If he examined them and found no sin, let him attribute his afflictions to neglect of Torah study, as it is written (Psalms 94:12): 'Fortunate is the man whom You afflict, O L-rd, and whom You teach from Your Torah.' If he posited this assumption, but found it unwarranted, it is certain that his afflictions are 'afflictions of love,' as it is written (Proverbs 3:13): 'For whom the L-rd loves, He chastises.'\"", "Many have asked: What purpose is served by these \"afflictions of love\" in the absence of sin? My answer is that it is impossible for any tzaddik — though he does not sin and fulfills all of the mitzvoth — it is impossible for any tzaddik not to be somewhat hindered by the lusts of the world from cleaving to his Creator (unless he be on the highest conceivable level of righteousness). In spite of this, he is not considered a sinner or a transgressor — for Joshua was not a sinner for not having attained Moses' level. Because of this the Holy One Blessed be He sometimes brings afflictions upon tzaddikim, though they have not sinned, so that they remove themselves even further from the affairs of this world and not be enticed by it at all. The Ramban (Torath Ha'adam, Sha'ar Hagmul) has a different approach to this question, but I shall not elaborate in order not to tire the reader.", "And I would say that the Torah's statement to the effect that even repentance proceeding from affliction is accepted, as it assures us (Deuteronomy 4:30-31): \"When you are in distress, and you are beset by all these things… He will not forsake you, for the L-rd your G-d is a G-d of mercy…\" — I would say that this statement should be understood in the above light. What is intended here is not repentance to escape affliction, for such repentance, though it may avail to ward off what is feared, is of an extremely inferior variety, as we see from the expostulation of Yiftach (Judges 11:7): \"And why do you come to me now, when you are in distress!\" And though the mercies of the L-rd indeed be great, the aforementioned verses are not to be understood along these lines, as may be demonstrated from the preceding verse (Devarim 4:29): \"If you seek from there the L-rd your G-d you will find Him — if you seek Him with all your heart and all your soul.\" One who seeks the L-rd only to escape affliction does not seek Him with all his heart and all his soul. But the matter is to be understood as we have said. In days of tranquility one does not discriminate things correctly because of the imagination implanted within him, which preys upon him and always places before his eyes this world and its lusts. But when things are bitter for one, he cannot be enticed in this manner. As a result, he has a clear perception of the truth, and he seeks the L-rd, not just to escape affliction, but with his whole heart and soul. For the intellect, in the absence of a deterrent, follows its natural inclination, and that inclination causes one to cleave to its object and confers upon him the joy of basking in the Divine radiance.", "It is in this respect that our sages said (Yerushalmi Chagigah 2:1): \"(Psalms 90:3): 'You return a man until dust' — [You accept repentance] even when his life is vanishing into dust.\" If this is not understood as I have explained, it presents a great difficulty. What good is his repentance at such a time, when he gives up what he cannot take along? Or, as the familiar proverb has it: \"When the thief lacks what to steal, he sets himself up as a saint.\" In the light of what has been stated, however, it is very cogent and clear. When one experiences adversity, the imagination implanted within him does not war with his intellect and it is easy for him to love the L-rd and to rejoice in what his nature is inclined to rejoice in. This is the intent of Moses' statement to the Jews: \"What does the L-rd your G-d ask of you? — only to fear.\" That is, since you have witnessed the chastisements of your G-d, it is easy for you to attain this level.", "But the above-cited words of our sages (Berachoth 33b): \"Is fear of the L-rd a small thing? Yes, to Moses it is a small thing. The situation is analogous to a man's being asked for a large vessel, etc.\" — these words still demand explanation. For it would seem that our sages are not answering this question along the aforementioned lines but that their intent is to say that since Moses found it easy of attainment he portrays it as such, as though it were easy for them. And I have already written above that this is cause for wonder, for it is not reasonable to gauge what is easy or difficult for another by what is easy or difficult for oneself. A closer look, however, will show that there is no cause for question. For our reservation applies only in respect to something that is easy to the speaker and not possibly easy to the one he is addressing, but this state [fear of the L-rd] is of an entirely different nature, being within the capabilities of all men. And the man who has attained it describes it truthfully as easy of attainment in the respect that all of the exertion and toil expended in its attainment are as nothing compared to the exalted thing that is attained; so much so, that one who pictures it to himself in all the glory of its exaltedness will not find its pursuit toilsome even in the very midst of his toils to attain it, as in (Bereshith 29:20): \"And they were but as a few days in his love of her.\" But one who does not picture and discriminate it as such will see it as extremely difficult of attainment, though in truth it be very easy in point of its nature. This can be compared to one's having tried out a certain occupation, having found it easy, and telling others who think it difficult because they have not tried it out: \"Believe me, it is quite easy.\" This is how I interpret the words of our sages. In any event, Moses' saying \"And know this today\" and the rest of the parshah are seen to be cogently interconnected according to our interpretation. And the verses may also be understood according to our sages' interpretation. For there is no doubt that when the world is visited with distress and adversity it is easier for a man to return to His Creator. How much more so should we return, in our time and in our epoch when the L-rd has smitten such a multitude, to examine our deeds and repent both of those sins between man and his Creator and those between man and his fellow man.", "And there are three considerations which cause me special concern in respect to two sins that men are constantly guilty of — the first, vows and oaths; and the second, causeless hatred. What leads me to say this is that I find even one of these considerations to intensify a transgression and make it more serious. The first consideration is the severity of the sin in itself, its being comparable to idol worship, murder, and adultery. The second, the fact that one constantly falls into it. The slightest thing in the world if it is doubled over many times, becomes extremely strong — as we see a constantly redoubled strand of flax to be stronger than a fiber of iron. And, as our sages commented on the verse introducing this parshah (Devarim 7:12): \"And it shall be ekev you hear\" — (Tanchumah Ekev 1): \"If you hear [observe] the slight mitzvoth that one is prone to tread down with his heel [ekev].\" And this is the intent of (Psalms 49:6): \"Why should I fear in the days of evil? The sin of my heels encompasses me.\" That is, I do not fear the major transgressions, for I do not go astray in them, but I do fear the lesser ones, which, because one regards them as minor, he transgresses constantly, as a result of which they are transformed to the severest of the severe. Repetition of a sin, then, intensifies and strengthens it. The third consideration — its being a sin to which man's nature is not prone. For a man can offer some rationalization for what his nature is prone to, as it is written (Ibid 51:6): \"Behold, I was shaped in sin, and in sin did my mother conceive me.\" And our sages have stated (Yoma 19b): \"And what does the Holy One Blessed be He say? — (Bereshith 4:7): 'Sin lies at the door [of life]'\" But a man cannot rationalize what he is not naturally prone to. And if even one of these three factors in itself intensifies and strengthens a sin, how grave must a transgression be in which they are all combined! And in the sin of vain and false oaths I see men constantly going astray in these three areas. They take oaths on anything and everything until it becomes virtually a custom or force of habit for them to do so — and they do not take heed as to whether they are swearing truly or falsely. There is no doubt that this transgression in itself is one of the gravest in the Torah, for concerning it it is written (Shemoth 20:7): \"For the L-rd will not absolve…\" Those who swear falsely have been likened to those who incur the penalty of cutting-off [kareth] or the judicial death penalty, for it is as if they deny the Holy One Blessed be He. They imply that what they are swearing to is as true as the Holy One Blessed be He, and if they swear falsely, see what they have wrought! This sin, then, is found to be severe in itself and in point of its being constantly repeated. For there is no end to the oaths that the habitué pours forth from his mouth. And as to the populace in general, they pour forth literally a flood of oaths. There is no rationalizing this sin because the nature of man is not prone to it. This one transgression, then, is found to contain all three elements which place the stamp of gravity on any sin whatsoever. Community oaths are also extremely severe, and they require amendment. And causeless hatred also falls into this class in that it is a transgression that one constantly persists in and that affords no benefit or enjoyment to a man which would cause his nature to incline towards it. It is for this reason that our sages placed causeless hatred over and against three transgressions: idol worship, illicit relations, and murder — for man's nature inclines more to these three than it does to causeless hatred (to explain the how and why of this would take too long) and because it is only once in a long while that one succumbs to them, whereas one constantly succumbs to causeless hatred.", "These are general areas in which men constantly go astray. As far as particular sins are concerned, \"everyone knows the afflictions of his heart,\" and everyone is obliged to heal himself as far as he is able. One who completes his repentance is, indeed, to be praised. One who does not complete it, however, but only begins it without completing it, has, notwithstanding this, attenuated his offense. For even one who embarks upon repentance lightens his punishment.", "I derive this from (Deuteronomy 30:1-3): \"And it will be, when all of these things come upon you, the blessing… and you return to your heart… and you return to the L-rd your G-d… then the L-rd your G-d will return your captivity and have mercy upon you, and He will return and gather you from all the nations…\" These verses demand a close reading. First it is stated \"and you return to your heart,\" and then \"and you return to the L-rd your G-d\"; and the latter verse, too, first states \"then the L-rd your G-d will return your captivity,\" and then \"and He will return and gather You from all the nations.\" Why these pairs? The apparent explanation is as follows: First it is written \"and you return to your heart\" — that is, if you have resolved upon repentance in your heart, but have not yet completed it by fulfilling it in deed — and then you strengthen yourself to complete it, as it is written \"and you return to the L-rd your G-d and listen to His voice\" — the result will be that the L-rd will reward you in kind for each of these two returnings. For the first, your resolving to return in your heart, \"the L-rd your G-d will return your captivity and have mercy upon you.\" That is, he will make all your captors look compassionately upon you (\"return\" [shav], in this context, being understood as \"ease,\" as in [Isaiah 30:15]: \"In ease [shuvah] and gentleness you will be saved\"), but He will not redeem you entirely for this alone; for just as you have not completed your repentance, He will not complete your redemption. But for the second returning, your returning to the L-rd your G-d and listening to His voice — that is, completing your repentance entirely — \"He will return and gather you from all the nations\" — that is, He will complete your redemption entirely, it being written afterwards: \"If your outcasts be at the ends of the heavens, from there the L-rd your G-d will gather you, and from there He will take you. And the L-rd your G-d will bring you to the land which your fathers inherited, and you will inherit it. And He will do good to you and multiply you more than your fathers.\"", "\"Blessed is the L-rd forever; Amen, Amen.\" " ], [ "\"JUDGES AND OFFICERS SHALL YOU APPOINT IN ALL YOUR GATES THAT THE L-RD YOUR G-D GIVES YOU, ACCORDING TO YOUR TRIBES, AND LET THEM JUDGE THE PEOPLE A RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT\" (DEUTERONOMY 16:18)", "Rashi writes in his commentary: \"Appoint righteous, expert judges to judge righteously.\" He was constrained to interpret it thus, for if it were understood as an exhortation to the judges to judge righteously, this is already stated afterwards (Ibid 19): \"Do not pervert judgment.\" He, therefore, interprets it as meaning that the judges who are appointed should be capable of judging righteously; that is, that they should be righteous and expert. And thus is it stated (Sifrei 17): \"'A righteous judgment' — but is it not already written 'Do not pervert judgment' by saying: 'This man is prepossessing; this man is my relative' (and I will make him a judge)? This must be an exhortation, then, to appoint a judge who is righteous and expert.\" And this is certainly so, for the expression \"and let them judge the people\" itself connotes that this is not a positive commandment but a descriptive, narrative statement. The baraitha cited in Sifrei is simply an additional indication that this must be so in point of its being stated afterwards: \"Do not pervert judgment.\" Thus far, the verse according to the midrash of our sages.", "I understand the plain meaning of the verse as follows: It is accepted that men need judges to judge between them, for in their absence (Avoth 3:2) \"One man would swallow the other alive\" and the world would become corrupt. And every people requires some form of government, the sage going so far as to say: \"Even thieves recognize the necessity of justice within their society.\" And Israel needs this just as the other nations do. But they also need judges for an additional reason — to enforce the laws of the Torah and to punish those liable to stripes or to judicial death penalties, whether or not their transgression is detrimental to society. And, certainly, these two considerations entail two functions, respectively: one, punishing a man in accordance with true justice; the other (though he not be liable to punishment in terms of true justice), punishing him for the benefit of society and the exigencies of the hour. The Blessed One assigned each of these functions to distinct functionaries. He commanded that judges be appointed to administer true, righteous judgment. This is the intent of \"and let them judge the people a righteous judgment.\" That is, the verse indicates the function and jurisdiction of these judges, saying that the purpose of their appointment is to judge the people with a judgment that is true and righteous in itself, and that their jurisdiction does not extend beyond this function. And because the needs of society are not completely served with this alone, G-d provides for the appointment of a king.", "We shall explain this further in respect to one of the aforementioned considerations. We learned (Sanhedrin 40b): \"The rabbis taught: 'The witnesses are to be cross-examined in the following manner: Do you recognize him [the defendant]? Did you warn him and did he acknowledge the warning? Did he commit the crime knowing it was punishable by death? Did he kill right after you had warned him?…'\" Unquestionably, all of these are prerequisites for a \"righteous judgment.\" For why should a man be killed for a transgression which he did not know to be punishable by death? This explains the necessity for his acknowledgment of the warning and for all of the other things mentioned in that baraitha. This is the true, righteous judgment in itself, that was assigned to the judges. But if law-breakers were punished in this context alone, the structure of society would break down completely, for, in the absence of the fear of punishment, the number of murderers would dramatically increase. Therefore, for the well-being of society, the Blessed One mandated the appointment of a king, as stated in this parshah (Deuteronomy 17:14-15): \"and when you come to the land… place a king over you…,\" this constituting a mitzvah to appoint a king, according to the tradition of our sages of blessed memory (Sifrei, Sanhedrin 20b). And the king can punish without prior warning as he deems fit for the good of the kingdom. We find, then, that the appointment of a king serves a common purpose for Israel and for the other peoples who require a societal structure, and that the appointment of judges serves a distinct purpose for Israel, as stated: \"and let them judge the people a righteous judgment.\" That is, the purpose of the judges and the area of their jurisdiction is the administration of judgments that are righteous and true in themselves.", "Pursuing this further, in light of the fact that our Torah is distinguished from the ethical codes of the nations by mitzvoth and chukim [statutes], it follows that these mitzvoth and chukim have nothing whatsoever to do with societal structure at all, but that their sole purpose is to effect the investiture of the Divine Immanence within our nation and to cause it to cleave to us. Whether this is apparent to us (as in the case of the sacrifices and all that transpires in the Temple) or unapparent (as in the case of the statutes, whose reasons were not revealed), there is no doubt that they are oriented to effecting this investiture and this cleaving — although their manner of doing so defies reason. And our ignorance in this regard is not at all surprising, for if we are ignorant of the reasons for so many natural phenomena (whose existence can, nonetheless, not be denied), then how much more ignorant should we be of the reasons for the investiture and cleaving to us of the Divine Immanence! And our holy Torah is herein distinguished from the ethical codes of the nations, which have nothing to do with such things, but only with the regulation of society.", "Therefore, I hold (and it should, indeed, be believed) that just as the statutes do not enter at all into the societal area but are exclusively confined to the investiture of the Divine Immanence — in like manner, the judgments [mishpatim] of the Torah enter, to a great extent, into this last area, so that they are divided, as it were, between effecting the investiture of the Divine Immanence among us and furthering the societal common good. And it is possible that they are more greatly oriented to the more sublime area than they are to the ordering of society, for this last function is completed by the king that we appoint over us. The function of the judges and the Sanhedrin, however, is to judge us with judgments which are true and righteous in themselves, and which cause the divine Immanence to cleave to us, whether they do or do not completely fulfill the societal objective. It is therefore possible [paradoxically] that some of the judgments and laws of the nations will be found more effective in furthering societal order than some of the laws of the Torah. We lose nothing thereby, however, for whatever is left incomplete in this regard is completed by the king, and, of course, we gain great eminence thereby, for the laws of the Torah, being righteous in themselves (as stated: \"and let them judge the people a righteous judgment\"), ennoble us through the investiture and cleaving of the Divine Immanence.", "It is for this reason that the chief and most select of the judges would stand in the place where the Divine Immanence manifested itself, this being the idea behind the presiding of the Men of the Great Assembly in the chamber of hewn stone [lishkath hagazith]. And it is for this reason that our sages of blessed memory said (Avodah Zarah 8b): \"When they [the members of Sanhedrin] saw that murderers had multiplied, they said: 'Let us exile ourselves from our place, so as to put into effect (Deuteronomy 17:10): \"And you shall do according to the thing that they tell you from that place\" — this teaches us that the place is the critical factor'\" [so that in exiling themselves from their place, they suspended the death penalty]. And all that our sages have said in this regard is to be understood along the same lines, viz. (Sanhedrin 7a): \"Every judge that judges truly causes the Shechinah to reside in Israel, as it is written (Psalms 82:1): 'G-d stands in the congregation of the Almighty; He judges in the midst of the judges.'\" And, similarly, (Shabbath 10a): \"Every judge that judges truly — even one moment in the day — is regarded by Scripture as if he were a partner to the Holy One Blessed be He in the creation, it being written here [in respect to judging] (Exodus 18:13): 'from morning until evening,' and there [in respect to the creation] (Genesis 1:5): 'and it was evening and it was morning.'\" This \"partnership\" is an allusion to what we have been saying — that just as in the creation the Divine effluence manifested itself in the terrestrial world, it being the source of all that was created, so, every judge that judges truly draws down that effluence, whether or not his judgment completely fulfills the societal requirements. For just as the sacrifices, though entirely outside the realm of natural cause and effect, made manifest the Divine effluence, so was this effluence drawn down by the judgments of the Torah, though these judgments had to be supplemented with the edicts of the king to guarantee a well-ordered society. We find, then, that judges were appointed to administer the judgments of the Torah alone, judgments righteous in themselves (as stated: \"and let them judge the people a righteous judgment\"), and the king was appointed to supplement these judgments with whatever was required for a well-ordered society and dictated by the needs of the hour.", "And do not challenge me with (Sanhedrin 46a): \"It was taught: R. Eliezer ben Yaakov said: 'I have heard that beth din administers stripes not according to the Torah — not to transgress what is written in the Torah, but to make a fence for the Torah'\" — which seems to imply that beth din is appointed to legislate in accordance with the exigencies of the times. It is not so. In those times when there were a Sanhedrin and a king in Israel, the Sanhedrin would judge the righteous judgment alone and would not institute anything beyond this unless they were empowered by the king to do so. But when there was no king in Israel, the judge embodied two functions, that of the judge and that of the king, as we find (Ibid 49a): \"Amasa expounded 'but' ['ach'] and 'only' ['rak']; he went and found the rabbis studying Torah, and said: \"It is written (Joshua 1:18): 'Every man who rebels against you [Joshua]…' I would think [that Joshua had absolute power] even [in respect to nullifying] words of Torah. This is ruled out by (Ibid): 'Only ['rak' — without extending this unlimited power to Torah] strengthen yourself and be courageous.'\" This shows Joshua to have had the powers of a king even though he was not a king [but a judge]. And our sages of blessed memory, likewise, apply (Deuteronomy 33:5) \"And there was a king in Israel\" to Moses [although he was not a king].", "It is also possible that everything connected with the mitzvoth of the Torah, whether in the category of righteous judgments or in that of temporary exigency was relegated to beth din, whereas in the realm of the relations between man and man, what involves righteous judgment alone was relegated to beth din (as written: \"and let them judge the people a righteous judgment\"), but anything beyond that was relegated to the king and not to the judge. Two benefits would result from this: one, completely perfect — the investiture of the Divine Immanence and its cleaving to the people; the other, the perfecting of the societal order, which, if not completely perfected by the judgments would be so perfected by the king. It is seen, then, that the greater part of judgment and its essence, was relegated to beth din, and only a relatively minor part to the king. And this was the sin of Israel in requesting a king, a matter which many of the earlier authorities find very perplexing, viz.: if they were commanded to appoint a king, as it is written (Deuteronomy 17:14): \"And when you come to the land… and you will say: 'I will place a king over me…'\", this being one of the three things they were commanded to do upon entering the land, according to our sages of blessed memory (Sanhedrin 20b) — then what was their sin in requesting a king?", "In my view it was this: they desired that the administration of justice between man and his neighbor be preponderantly in the hands of the king. This is the intent of the verse (I Samuel 8:4-5): \"And all the elders of Israel gathered together and they came to Samuel to Ramah, and they said to him: 'You have grown old, and your sons have not gone in your ways; now place a king over us to judge us as all the nations.'\" I understand this as follows: The Jews saw societal good as being better served by a king than by judges. Therefore, they said: \"You are old and cannot judge anymore, and your sons are not worthy of investing us with the Divine Immanence, for they do not walk in your ways. Therefore, it is fit that we have a king and that we be judged through him.\" This is the intent of \"Place a king over us to judge us as all the nations.\" And they were greatly mistaken in this. For the sons of Samuel, though they were not so saintly as their father, were still not perverters of judgment, as stated by our sages of blessed memory (Sabbath 55b): \"R. Shmuel b. Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonathan: 'All who say that the sons of Samuel sinned are greatly mistaken, as it is written (I Samuel 9:1-3): \"And it was when Samuel became old… and his sons did not walk in his ways\" — they did not walk in his [exceptionally saintly] ways, but they did not sin. How then, am I to understand (Ibid 2): \"And they turned aside after profit, and they took bribes, and they perverted judgment\"? They did not emulate the example of their father. For Samuel, the righteous one, would make the circuit of all the places of the Jews and judge them in their cities, as it is written (Ibid 7:16): \"And he made the circuit of Beth-El, Gilgal, and Mitzpeh, and he judged Israel.\" But his sons did not do thus, but sat in their cities in order to increase the income of their deputies and scribes.'\" And since they did not, for all of this, pervert judgment [in the literal sense], their judging of the Jews in accordance with the Torah would still have resulted in Israel's being invested with the Divine Immanence, but the Jews at that time gave greater priority to governmental considerations. If they had simply asked \"Place a king over us,\" or if they had specifically requested a king to lead them in their wars, there would be no sin in this, but, to the contrary, it would be a mitzvah. Their sin lay in asking: \"Place a king over us to judge us as all of the nations,\" the judgment to come from the king and not from the judges of the Torah. This interpretation is substantiated by Samuel's reaction (Ibid 8:6): \"And it was evil in Samuel's eyes when they said: 'Give us a king to judge us.'\" It is not simply written \"Give us a king,\" for if they had said only this, it would not be evil in his eyes. What disturbed him was \"to judge us.\" and because of this G-d said to Samuel (Ibid 7): \"It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected My rule over them.\" That is, they prefer natural government to Divine Immanence.'\"", "And when Samuel reproved them, they did not abandon their original intent, but only slightly ameliorated their request, saying that they desired a king not for judgment alone but for leadership in war. This is the intent of (Ibid 20): \"And we, too, will be as the other nations, and our king will judge us, and he will go out before us, and he will fight our wars.\" And, therefore, Samuel rebuked them afterwards, saying (Ibid 12:16-17): \"Even now, stand and see the great thing that the L-rd will do before your eyes. It is the time of the wheat harvest today; yet I will call upon the L-rd and He will bring thunder and rain.\" That is, know that you have erred in choosing a king on the basis of the assumption that your natural needs will be better served thereby. For it is not so, but, to the contrary, one who cleaves to the L-rd can alter the natural order according to His will. For it is the time of the wheat harvest today, a time of no rain within the natural order; but, by means of the Divine Immanence that cleaves to me, I will alter the natural order and He will bring thunder and rain. Therefore, you should have chosen what would have been likely to invest you with the Divine Immanence — the justice of the judges, concerning which it is written: \"and let them judge the people a righteous judgment\" — more than the justice of the king, who judges according to his will. For this is the difference between the judge and the king, the judge being more subservient to the justice of the Torah than the king. It is for this reason that the king was exhorted and commanded to have a second Torah scroll with him (Deuteronomy 17:18-20): \"And it shall be, when he sits upon his throne of kingdom, let him write for himself… and let it be with him… that his heart not raise itself above his brothers and that he not depart from the mitzvah…\" That is, because the king sees that he is not so subservient to the laws of the Torah as the judge he requires additional exhortation not to depart from the mitzvah right or left and not to vaunt himself above his brothers because of the great powers given him by the Blessed One. But the judge does not need all of these exhortations because his powers are confined to the judgments of the Torah alone, as written: \"and let him judge the people a righteous judgment,\" and he was already exhorted not to turn from these judgments in any way whatsoever, viz. (Ibid 16:19): \"Do not pervert judgment.\"", "And the judge was further exhorted not to take a bribe — even to judge a righteous judgment, as it is written (Ibid): \"Do not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and distorts righteous judgments.\" Rashi of blessed memory writes: \"'For a bribe blinds' — if a judge has taken a bribe from one of the litigants it is impossible for him to listen to his claims without being prejudiced in his behalf; 'and distorts righteous judgments' — words of righteousness, judgments of truth.\" Rashi was constrained to interpret it thus, seeing the verse as redundant otherwise. He, therefore, interpreted \"for a bribe blinds\" not as referring to the final verdict but to the disposition of a bribed judge to be overly zealous in seeking to strengthen the case of the one who bribed him, as in the episode of R. Yishmael b. R. Yossi (Kethuboth 105a), who thought to himself as he walked along (after resisting what was not even a bribe): \"If he [the \"briber\"] wants to, he can use this claim; and if he wants, he can use this claim.\" This being the case, the bribe can distort the judgment, which should be the result of objective truth. This is how Rashi, of blessed memory, interprets it.", "I would say that the plain meaning of the verse is that bribery obtains even when the judge's intent is to render a truthful judgment — and this for two reasons: the first, it is to be feared that the bribe will blind his intellect, though he assumes himself to be rendering a true judgment. This is the intent of \"for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise.\" The second: \"and compromises righteous judgments.\" That is, even if the judge renders a true judgment it will appear to him who has lost the case that the judge perverted justice because of the bribe that he took. For one of the benefits of justice is that even he who loses his case is not sad about it, as stated in Sanhedrin (7a): \"One who is walking along the road after beth-din has taken his cloak from him, should do so singing. Shmuel said to R. Yehudah: 'There is an explicit verse to this effect (Exodus 19:23): \"And all this people shall go to their place in peace.\"'\" This is an additional reason that the Torah forbade taking a bribe though one's intent is to judge truly: the fact that the bribe causes a righteous judgment to be seen in a negative light. \"Viyesalef\" [\"and compromises\"], in this context, then, is to be understood in the manner of (Proverbs 21:12): \"Because the righteous one knows the house of the wicked, he construes [\"mesalef\"] the deeds of the wicked as evil.\" That is, because the righteous one understands and knows the deeds of the wicked, he construes their acts as evil even if, superficially, they seem to be good. Here, too, the bribe causes a righteous judgment to be seen in a bad light, to be construed negatively by him who loses the case. \"Viyesalef\" here is used transitively (though it is generally used intransitively), just as \"yeaver\" [\"blinds\"], for added forcefulness.", "After the commandment to appoint judges who will administer righteous judgment, the Torah begins speaking of that transgression whose punishment and chastisement requires the greatest zealousness on the part of the judges — idol worship and what proceeds from it. And though the root precedes the branches and their offshoots in nature and in sequence, still, [the Torah begins with the latter instead of with idol worship proper] precisely because the latter is less severe, and, therefore, more likely to be fallen into, as opposed to idol worship proper, which most men shun, and which is, therefore, far less likely to be fallen into, as intimated in the parshah and as I shall explain.", "The Torah proceeds with the injunction against planting a tree in the Temple mount (even without the intent of worshipping it), though there is nothing inherently wrong in this. Because the Emorites followed this practice in their houses of idol worship, however, we were commanded to keep away from their practices in order to keep away from them; for the imaginations of weak-minded men have a proclivity for false analogies, though there be great differences between the subjects of the analogies. It is for the very same reason that the Torah forbade sacrificial mounds (Deuteronomy 16:22), although they were beloved in the days of our forefathers, as Rashi writes in his commentary, because the Emorites were in the practice of using them for idol worship. Following this it is written (Ibid 17:1): \"Do not sacrifice to the L-rd your G-d an ox or a sheep that has a blemish.\" The sequence needs explanation. Why does this exhortation follow that against idol worship? I have seen Rabbi Abraham [Ibn Ezra's] explanation here, but have found it inadequate.", "I understand the sequence as follows: Because of its just having been stated that the Blessed One despises sacrificial mounds because the Emorites loved them — although He loved them before — we might get the impression that just as we reject what they espouse, we should espouse what they reject. And since they do not sacrifice an animal with a missing limb, as explained in tractate Avodah Zarah (5b), we should not reject such animals, but we should reject those blemishes which they do not reject and not reject those which they do. Therefore, the Torah tells us that this is not so, that we are forbidden to sacrifice to the Blessed L-rd any animal that has a blemish or any defect of any kind whatsoever. And the reason follows (Ibid): \"for it is an abomination to the L-rd your G-d.\" That is, all of the other things banned by the Torah to keep us from emulating their deeds are not such things forbearance from which will demean Divine service, but sacrificing a defective animal to the L-rd will demean this service, as it is written (Malachi 1:8): \"Offer it now to your governor. Will he be pleased with you, or will he show favor to you?\"", "After exhorting against all those things which are forbidden because of their identification with idol worship, the Torah begins speaking of the punishment for idol worship itself, doing so last because of its relative rarity. It begins (Deuteronomy 17:2): \"If there be found in your midst, within one of your gates…\" And because it is so unexpected that any Jew would go and serve idols, unlike the case with the other transgressions of the Torah to which many might succumb under the pressure of their evil inclination, it is accordingly written (Ibid 4): \"And it was told to you, and you heard, and you inquired well.\" We find this expression three times in the Torah. The first, in relation to a city that has been turned to idolatry (Ibid 13:15): \"And you inquire, and you search it out, and you ask well\"; the second, here, in relation to idol worship: \"and you inquired well, and the thing was true and correct\"; the third in relation to contriving witnesses [edim zomemim] (Ibid 19:18): \"And the judges shall inquire well.\" And though our rabbis of blessed memory have expounded this as dictating diligent inquiry for all monetary judgments, and they have derived from it that whatever applies to one [of the three cases] applies to the other, as stated in the beginning of the chapter \"They would Subject them to Seven Inquiries\" (Sanhedrin 40a), it being stated in the Gemara: \"How do we know these things? R. Yehudah answered: 'We know it from the verses: \"And you inquire, and you search it out, and you ask well\" in relation to a city that has been turned to idolatry; \"And it was told to you, and you heard, and you inquired well\" in relation to idol worship; \"And the judges shall inquire well\" in relation to contriving witnesses'\" — still, I contend that it was so written in these three places alone to impress it upon us that in any case [such as these] where the alleged occurrence is rare, the judges should accept the testimony and punish the suspect only after the most thoroughgoing inquiry, the exhaustiveness of the inquiry to be proportionate to the rarity of the occurrence. Unquestionably, there is no transgression in the Torah more severe than that of idolatry, which, in point of its severity, should have the fewest number of transgressors, which no one should be suspected of, and which, consequently, no one should be punished for except after the most exacting inquiry. But what is even rarer is that an entire city should consent in such a severe transgression, for which reason the Torah dilated upon the need for the most exhaustive inquiry, and searching out, and questioning, compounding its terms — \"And you inquire, and you search it out, and you ask well\" — such a thing being extremely rare because of the severity of the transgression. And because the numbers involved are very great, the witnesses should be believed only after the completest of cross-examinations. One idol worshipper, however, is not so rare as many, for which reason the judges were not commanded to be so exhaustive in their inquiry in this regard as in the case of an entire city, it being written in the latter case: \"And you inquire, and you search it out, and you ask well,\" and in the former, only: \"and you inquire well.\" Still, because it is far less common for one to fall prey to idol worship than to the other transgressions, the Torah wrote \"and you inquired well,\" to teach us that no Jew should be suspected of such an abomination and punished for it without thorough inquiry.", "The verse for contriving witnesses is similar to that for an individual who worships idols, it being written of the first: \"And the judges shall inquire well.\" The language teaches us that contriving witnesses are not so rare as a city turning to idol worship but on the same level of rareness as an individual worshipping idols. And this must be understood, for it [this rarity] is not attributable to the severity of the transgression, there being many transgressions in the Torah that are just as severe. The reason is, rather, as I shall explain: It is well known that even the confirmed liar is not given to saying things that are bound to be proven false. This is the rationale behind the statement of our sages of blessed memory (Yevamoth 93b) that even a woman [who is not eligible as a witness] is believed in respect to something whose falsity [if it were false] would have to come to light. And it is also well known that most liars do not invent new things that never happened at all but rather lie about and change the form and character of something which did, in reality, occur, so that, the event actually having taken place, their falsehood concerning it will not be detected. And if the liar occasionally be found who invents something that is entirely new, this is strange indeed. But it is the epitome of strangeness to find a liar so gross as to testify to his having seen something in a certain place when he was never there at all at the time of the alleged event — for such a liar would be in mortal fear of those who had seen him elsewhere at that time and who would throw up his shame in his face. And this is precisely the \"contriving witnesses\" situation. For they are testifying to something having occurred at a certain place and at a certain time, and their refuters come and say that they were not in that place at all at that time; and such egregious liars (if they are, indeed, lying) are rare, indeed. It is because of this rarity that the Torah commanded us to make a very thorough inquiry before we punish these witnesses to determine whether they could, indeed, be guilty of such a horrendous lie. And it is because of this very factor that the Torah commanded us to give credence, after such an inquiry, to the second pair of witnesses above the first, although (all other things being equal) they find themselves in a strict two-versus-two situation, as indicated by our sages of blessed memory (Sanhedrin 27a). The reason is that it is less to be expected that the second pair are lying than the first; for although both are placing themselves in a situation which can ultimately be brought to light, the second pair do so to a greater extent than the first. For the first may have done so on the assumption that no one had seen them in a different place at the time in question, for which reason they chanced this rare falsehood. But, if the second pair are lying, how could they not fear the refutation of the first pair who are, most probably, telling the truth and who could very easily obtain the testimony of the inhabitants of the place in question (who would have seen them there at the time of the alleged incident) as to whether it did or did not take place. It is obvious, then, that so long as the first pair have not proved that they are telling the truth, the second pair are to be believed.", "And this in no way contradicts what the sages of blessed memory have said (Ibid): \"the law of contriving witnesses is a novelty, for why should the second pair be believed any more than the first pair?\" The intent here is that it is not the way of the Torah to rely upon circumstantial evidence but upon the testimony of two witnesses. For the Torah gave as much credence to the two commonest individuals (so long as they are not ineligible to testify) as it did to Moses and Samuel, whom we know would not alter the slightest detail, even of a casual conversation. Therefore, our relying on the second pair rather than on the first on the basis of the rationale we have given is, indeed, a novelty, a deviation from the normal pattern of the Torah. In any event, the indication is as we have written — that because a lie of such proportions [on the part of the first pair] would be such an egregious abomination, the Torah required exhaustive inquiry before the second pair are believed and the verdict is reached on the basis of their testimony.", "Following the enumeration of the mitzvoth of the judges, their powers, their areas of jurisdiction, and their prime task — the eradication of any vestige of idol worship — the Torah begins to explain to the judges how to conduct themselves if confronted with a doubt. And the judges are commanded to rely in such an instance upon the opinion of the great beth din presiding in the chamber of hewn stone [lishkath hagazith], as it is written (Deuteronomy 17:8-11): \"If there be concealed from you a matter of judgment… then you shall arise and go up to the place that the L-rd your G-d will choose… According to the Torah that they teach you and according to the judgment that they tell you shall you do. Do not depart from the thing that they tell you right or left…\" On this the tradition of our sages of blessed memory has come down to us (Sifrei, Shoftim 154): \"Even if they tell you that right is left and that left is right.\" That is, even if it is obvious to you that the ruling of the Sanhedrin is not in accordance with the truth, in spite of this, heed them. For this is what the Blessed One decreed, that we conduct ourselves in the laws of the Torah and its mitzvoth according to their decisions, whether these decisions do or do not accord with the truth. This is exemplified in the episode of R. Yehoshua and R. Gamliel (Rosh Hashanah 25b), R. Gamliel [the Nassi] commanding R. Yehoshua to come to him with his staff and his money on the day of Yom Kippur according to his [R. Yehoshua's] reckoning, and R. Yehoshua complying. For once the Torah has relegated the power of decision to them, then what they decide represents the L-rd's commandment. And this is the basis of our conviction concerning the mitzvoth of the Torah and its laws that we are fulfilling the will of the Blessed One so long as we rely upon the ruling of the great sages of the generation respecting them.", "And this is the intent of (Chagigah 3b): \"Lest you would say: 'If these say \"unclean\" and these say \"clean,\" how can I learn Torah from now on?' — the verse (Ecclesiastes 12:11) tells us: 'They [words of Torah] were all given by one shepherd' — one leader stated them at the behest of the L-rd of all creation, as it is written (Exodus 20:1): 'And the L-rd spoke all of these words.'\" It is hereby affirmed that the words of those who rule \"unclean\" and those who rule \"clean,\" those who rule \"unfit\" and those who rule \"fit\" were all stated by Moses at G-d's behest. Now this is impossible unless understood as we have explained it. For, in view of the fact that the words of those who rule \"unclean\" and those who rule \"clean\" are mutually contradictory, how can it be that both accord with the truth, and how can it be that both were received by Moses from the L-rd? \"Can there be a doubt in the mind of G-d?\" (Berachoth 3b). The idea, however, is as we have explained. The L-rd has relegated all of these decisions to the sages of the generations and has commanded us to abide by them, so that their ruling on anything represents G-d's command to Moses. And it is our conviction that if they rule against the truth — even if we know this to be the case through a heavenly voice [bath kol] or through a prophet — we are not to deviate from the ruling of the sages. This is exemplified in the episode of R. Eliezer Hagadol and the sages (Bava Metzia 59b). Although R. Eliezer gave great, formidable signs that the truth lay with him, and a bath kol came forth from heaven and said: \"What business have you with R. Eliezer, with whom the halachah universally accords?\" — in spite of this, they refused to concur with him and excommunicated him in convocation [for refusing to recant]. For the Blessed One did not relegate the resolution of halachic doubts to a prophet or to a heavenly voice but to the sages of the generation. This is the import of R. Yehoshua's arising and proclaiming (Deuteronomy 30:12): \"It is not in the heavens!\"", "And it is deduced further (Temurah 15b, 16b) that not only are we not to give priority to the ruling of the prophets above that of the sages, but that even when all the sages are in doubt, that doubt is not to be resolved by a prophet, but it is better that it remain a doubt. For it is stated there that in the period of mourning over Moses' death three hundred halachoth were forgotten, and when Joshua was bidden to solicit them from G-d, he responded: \"It is not in the heavens.\" And it is further written there that all of Israel rose up against Joshua to stone him, at which the Holy One Blessed be He said to him: \"It is forbidden to reveal them to you; go and preoccupy them with war.\"", "Now there is room for question here. All of this is compatible with the view that the mitzvoth of the Torah have no reasons at all, but are exclusively the expressions of G-d's will. According to this view, since, for example, a thing cannot be clean or unclean in itself, the uncleanliness or cleanliness simply being a function of G-d's will, it follows that the rulings of the sages of the generations cannot be in contradiction with the truth and that our souls can never be adversely affected in our abiding by these rulings. But since we do not subscribe to this view, but hold that everything that the Torah has forbidden to us is intrinsically injurious to us and leaves a negative imprint on our souls, though we may be ignorant of the reason — according to this view, if the sages rule on something unclean that it is clean, will that thing not be harmful to us and do what it is in its nature to do in spite of the sages' having ruled it to be clean? If doctors, for example, ruled a certain drug to be of neutral warmth when it was, in reality, of the fourth degree of warmth, it would certainly not operate in the body according to the ruling of the doctors but according to its nature. Likewise, if the Torah forbade something to us because of its intrinsic harmfulness to the soul, how can the sages' permitting it change its nature! This would be impossible if not through some miracle. It would seem far wiser in such cases to consult a prophet or a bath kol, for in so doing we would be apprised of the inherent truth of things.", "The answer: a) The operation of this mitzvah [to abide by the rulings of the sages] within the framework of the Torah parallels the operation of the natural faculties within the framework of nature. That is, just as these faculties have been invested in man or in a natural operation relating to man for his gain, and, for the most part, are productive of his well-being, although sometimes, in exceptional instances, they themselves conduce to his loss, nature has not countermanded this loss, for this is its optimum operational framework. So it is with the operation of this mitzvah. b) To illustrate, a man's digestive apparatus is indispensable to him, its absence meaning death. Still, though in the overwhelming number of instances what is digested is salutary to the body, there are times when through these very digestive processes the body absorbs things which, in the course of time, produce illness — and nature does not countermand this, its central role being the benefaction of the whole and not the negation of exceptional, maleficent, individual instances — this being its optimum operational framework. c) So it is with this mitzvah. The Torah sought to obviate the ubiquitous threat of dissension and controversy and the making of the Torah into two Torahs, and it achieved this end by relegating the resolution of doubts to the sages of the generations, whose rulings are preponderantly beneficent and in accord with righteous judgment. For the errors of the great sages are far fewer than the errors of those who are inferior to them in wisdom. And how much less prone to error are the Sanhedrin, who preside before the Blessed One in His sanctuary, His shechinah residing among them. And though the possibility (albeit extremely remote) exists that they may sometimes err, the Torah was not concerned about the slight loss that this might entail, knowing that it would be more than absorbed by the resultant constant, preponderant good — and, besides, as in the case with nature, more optimum effectiveness could not be achieved.", "There are several reasons for the Torah's relegating the resolution of doubts to the sages rather than to the prophets. First, it is obvious that prophets do not prophesy at all times. What, then, would we do on those days when the word of the L-rd was withheld from them? Furthermore, it was revealed and known to the L-rd that a time would come when our sins would \"seal off vision and prophet\"; and if the resolution of doubts were relegated to the prophets, what would we do when visions were suspended? We would \"wander forth to seek the word of the L-rd and not find it.\" The Divine Wisdom, therefore, decreed that this function be relegated to the sages, who never departed and who never will depart from Israel, as we have been assured (Isaiah 59:21): \"It shall not depart from the mouth of your children.\" In addition, the words of the prophet on which the Torah commands us to rely are not insusceptible of doubt, as will be explained. The Torah therefore chose to assign the resolution of doubts to the sages, who would have to conform to it [the Torah] with reason and proof, rather than to the prophets, whose words are confirmed only by signs, which signs themselves are susceptible of doubt.", "But I would go even further and say that it is impossible for any decision of Sanhedrin to be injurious to the soul — even if they caused one to eat forbidden food by pronouncing it permissible. For the good accruing to one's soul in abiding by the decision of the sages, the teachers of the Torah (such obedience being more prized by the L-rd than anything else, as it is written [I Samuel 15:22]: \"To obey is better than to sacrifice\") — such good will neutralize any potential evil in the forbidden food. And the same will hold true for the body. When the food is eaten within this context, its destructive potential will be neutralized (unless it is extraordinarily potent). This is the case with one who abides by the mitzvoth of Sanhedrin. Even if they err and permit forbidden food to him, his abiding by their decision will immunize his soul to any potential evil in the food. Therefore, the Torah commanded: \"Do not depart from the thing that they tell you, right or left.\" Thus far, the judges and what relates to them.", "And because a well-ordered society is not achieved through judges alone but requires the complement of a king, as we have explained, the Torah now turns to the commandment of his appointment, saying (Deuteronomy 17:14): \"When you come to the land… and you say: 'I will place a king over me as all the nations around me…'\" Apparently, \"I will place\" is an intimation of what was actually to occur in the days of Samuel, as explained by the Ramban of blessed memory.", "But I would add to the interpretation of these verses, saying that the intent is: When you come to the land, though you may be overcome by the desire to be like the nations around you and to have your lives ordered primarily by the king (a desire which is not at all appropriate for you), still, take heed not to desire to be like them completely. For they appoint their king on the basis of popular acclaim, but you, do not allow your desire to rule you so completely that you say: \"I will place a king over me as all the nations around me,\" for this does not befit you. Take care not to establish a king according to all the desire of your soul, but let that king be (Ibid 15) \"him who the L-rd your G-d chooses,\" upon which Sifrei (Deuteronomy 157) comments: \"by the word of a prophet.\"", "And because the powers of a king are so great that he is not subservient to the laws of the Torah as is a judge, and where the danger exists that if he is not perfect in his fear of the L-rd he might exert more authority than is necessary for the good of the nation, he was commanded that a Torah scroll be with him at all times, as it is written (Ibid 18-19): \"And it will be, when he sits upon his throne of kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah… and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all of his days, so that he learns to fear the L-rd his G-d, to heed all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them.\" That is, in respect to the mitzvoth of the Torah in general, if the king abrogates a mitzvah of the Torah for the good of the kingdom, he should be in no way motivated by the desire to transgress words of Torah or to cast off from himself the yoke of the fear of Heaven, but his intent should be \"to heed all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them.\" In all that he adds or detracts, his intent should be the greater observance of the statutes and mitzvoth of the Torah. So that, for example, if he orders a murderer killed in the absence of witnesses or prior warning, his intent should be not to impress the people with his power, but to strengthen the mitzvah of \"Thou shalt not kill\" and keep it from being undermined.", "And because he exercises great sway and is susceptible to pride, he was exhorted to guard against it, as it is written (Ibid 20): \"So that his heart not be lifted up above his brothers.\" This is a generic exhortation, to king and commoner alike, the king being singled out for two reasons: first, because he is more prone to succumb to pride and haughtiness; second, so that the commoner shun pride, a fortiori from a king's being warned against it. This is how the Ramban of blessed memory explains it.", "I would say, however, that there is a respect in which pride is even less appropriate for a king in point of his kingship than it is for the rest of the populace in point of any superior qualities that they might possess. For it is well known that kingship is not an intrinsic quality of the king's, but is rather something accorded him by the Blessed One or by the people for the common good — or for his good. This is Solomon's intent in: a) (Ecclesiastes 4:13-14): \"Better a poor wise child than an old foolish king, who can no longer take heed; for out of prison he came forth to reign.\" It is seen, then, that kingship is not an intrinsic quality of the king's, but a title accorded him for the good of the kingdom. It is proper, therefore, that the king not see himself as a governor and ruler over the people, but as a servant of G-d charged with their welfare. This is the intent of b) (Horioth 10a): \"Do you think I am giving you rule? I am giving you servitude!\" As it is written (I Kings 12:7): 'And they spoke to him, saying: \"If you will be a servant this day to this people…\"'\" And this was David's intent in c) (Psalms 24:7): \"Lift up your heads, O you gates… and let the King of Glory enter.\" It was found to be interpreted thus in a privy scroll of Rabbeinu Yonah: All kings of flesh and blood do not rule over glory, but glory rules over them. To the extent that the people accord their king glory, to that extent will they have kingdom. So that, if they should desire to divest him of all of his glory, they would be divested of all of their kingdom. It is found, then, that kings do not rule over glory, but glory rules over them. But the Blessed One is, in truth, the King of Glory, truly ruling and reigning over it. And since the glory of the king and of his kingdom are not for himself but for his people, it follows that it is less appropriate for him to vaunt himself in his kingdom than for a sage to vaunt himself in the wisdom which he has acquired, the object of the kingdom being first and foremost, not his own betterment, but that of the people.", "The king was, therefore, singled out for this mitzvah, it being stated: \"So that his heart not be lifted up above his brothers.\" And it is written further (Ibid): \"and that he not depart from the mitzvah, right or left,\" concerning which Rashi comments: \"Even the slight mitzvah of a prophet.\" In this respect, a king is more subservient to a prophet than a judge is, for judges are not subservient to prophets in the laws of the Torah, as I have written above.", "Thus far, the appointment of the two classes of functionary — judges and king — and their respective areas of jurisdiction. Next to be provided for is their sustenance and the ordering of their affairs so that they can properly fulfill the task for which they were appointed. Kings required no special provisions in this regard, for they ruled over the entire land and all was theirs. But such provisions were necessary for the judges, most of whom were from the tribe of Levi by virtue of being less preoccupied than the other Jews, not having been granted a lot or portion among them. And thus we learned in Sifrei (Deuteronomy 153): \"'And you should come to the Cohanim and to the judge' — it is a mitzvah that Cohanim and Levites be included in the beth din, as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:10): 'They shall teach your judgments to Jacob.'\" It is for this reason that the Torah begins with the provisions for the Cohanim, saying it is better that they not have a lot among the Jews so that they not be prevented by their preoccupations from completing their work in the Temple and freeing themselves to study Torah in order to judge the people a righteous judgment. The Torah, therefore, allotted them portions of the sacrifices offered in the Temple: the flesh of sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, and others — (Ibid 18:2): \"the fire-offerings of the L-rd and His portion shall they eat.\" And from the people there was allotted them all that was necessary for their sustenance (Ibid 3-4): \"And this shall be the Cohain's portion from the people. The first of your corn…\" Now this encompasses all of a man's basic needs: from the offerings and tithes, corn, wine, and oil; from the offerers of sacrifices, flesh to flavor their repasts; and from the first shearing, their necessary clothing (this shearing being allotted them for this purpose, as stated by our sages (Chullin 137a): \"Sheep whose wool is hard are exempt from the first shearing, it being written (Job 31:20): 'And he was warmed with the fleece of my sheep.'\" For, the first shearing having been allotted the Cohanim only for purposes of clothing, those sheep whose wool was hard, and thus not fit for this purpose, were exempt from this requirement.)", "The Torah thus provided for all of their basic, constant needs. But, in addition to these normal requirements, there are always unexpected expenses. To provide for the latter, the Torah, correspondingly, allotted them certain non-constant, adventitious acquisitions, such as consecrated fields and the reversion of a convert. The Torah thereby provided for all of their needs and contingencies, allotting them the constant for the constant and the adventitious for the adventitious.", "In this manner, the material requirements of the judges, the warders of the law, were provided for. For no special provisions were required for the kings, their needs being fulfilled by their very station; and the judges, who did require such provisions, were thus duly provided for.", "This having been completed, the Torah next exhorted us against \"the ways of the Emorites.\" It is well known that most of these practices have one of two ends. The first is to derive some benefit in this world through the acquisition of possessions or through victory in war. To this end, special times of \"propitious\" hours are utilized for each undertaking, according to their beliefs. The second is to gain knowledge of the future. And it is well known that those who were most prone to such inquiry and most ardently in quest of it were the kings, who were especially desirous of it for the conduct of their wars and of their many undertakings. Because of this, most of the kings of Israel went astray in this regard, so that we see even Saul, the anointed of the L-rd, soliciting a medium to know what his end would be (I Samuel 28). For this reason, this exhortation [against emulating the ways of the Emorites] is placed in juxtaposition with the mitzvah of appointing a king, to teach the king to guard against this stumbling block and not be led astray by his eager anxiety in this regard, his desire to learn every detail of what will befall him in his affairs. For the Blessed One will fulfill all of his needs, making it unnecessary for him to depart in any way from the framework of Torah. Therefore, after the enumeration and prohibition of all these things, it is written (Deuteronomy 18:13): \"Be innocent with the L-rd your G-d,\" which, according to the commentaries, constitutes a mitzvah that a man walk in innocence with the Blessed One and not be overwise and over-solicitous to inquire through \"the ways of the Emorites\" as to his latter end. This is in consonance with the teaching of our sages of blessed memory (Pesachim 113b): \"Whence do we know that the Chaldeans are not to be inquired of? From the verse: 'Be innocent with the L-rd your G-d.'\"", "From the continuation of the parshah, however (\"Because these nations which you will inherit give heed to soothsayers and diviners…\"), it would seem that the plain meaning of the verse parallels what was stated above in respect to the lot of the Cohanim after their exclusion from a portion and an inheritance with all of Israel, the idea there being: \"Since I have excluded them from inheritance and possession, I must provide for their needs in some other way.\" Here, too, we have a parallel situation, viz.: It is well known that all peoples have a consuming desire to know their destiny in all of its details. This desire is even more pronounced in their kings, who have an even greater need for such knowledge. Therefore, after all of these practices were banned to them, it was necessary to make a kind of restitution, so that they would not be in a position of disadvantage to the other nations at the very beginning of their enterprise. The parshah, therefore, continues: \"You will be tamim with the L-rd your G-d,\" \"tamim\" unquestionably being used here in the sense of \"complete.\" That is: do not fear that you will lack anything by giving up these practices that have been forbidden to you, for you will be \"complete\" with the L-rd your G-d — you will lack for nothing. For though the Blessed One forbade all these things to you, He has made you much more complete in doing so. This is the intent of the juxtaposition: \"Because these nations which you will inherit give heed to soothsayers and diviners.\" That is, the ultimate in their foreknowledge of their affairs and their details is gained by way of soothsayers and mediums. And this knowledge, in itself, is deficient. For though the soothsayers and diviners may be able to foretell some aspects of the future, their knowledge in no way enables them to foretell all. As the prophet says in mockery of Pharaoh (Isaiah 47:13): \"Let now the astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from something of what will come upon you,\" concerning which our rabbis of blessed memory have it by tradition (Genesis Rabbah 5:2): \"Something, but not all.\" What is more, they misinterpret what they see, so that their foreknowledge may result in loss contrary to their anticipated gain! Therefore, the benefit of the soothsayers and diviners is not complete, but extremely deficient. But (Deuteronomy 18:14): \"You have not been thus consigned by the L-rd your G-d\"; for He has provided prophets for you to fulfill all that you turn to them for. This is the intent of (Ibid 15): \"A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, such as I, will the L-rd your G-d establish for you. Him shall you heed.\" And it is well known that the prophet's benefit lies not only in his commandments respecting the laws of the Torah, but also in his apprising us of what we cannot see (what the diviners were formerly solicited for), as in the episode of Saul and the asses.", "But a question still remains here. For though, as far as foreknowledge is concerned, we may have gained more than we lost by abandoning the ways of the Emorites, prophecy being more perfect in this regard, there is still room for the question: how have we gained from the prohibition against soothsaying, the determination of propitious times for particular undertakings, or from that against augury, the ascertainment of whether one will or will not prosper? Now, according to the Rambam of blessed memory, this is no question at all, for he subscribes to the view of the naturalists, who hold that there is no such thing as good or bad constellations, that the constellations possess no powers whatsoever, that all of the thought of the Emorites on these things was vain, that we sacrifice nothing in not resorting to these practices, that whatever the Emorites ascribe to the stars comes not from the stars at all but from their imaginations, and that all of the corroborations they seem to find in the stars exist only in their minds, as we find with the devotees of sand lots and the like.", "His words, however, are open to doubt, for this does not seem to be the view of our sages of blessed memory, who mention (Shabbath 156a, b) many acts which seem to indicate that constellations do exert an influence upon a man unless they are counteracted by mitzvoth. It, therefore, remains to be explained why the Torah forbade those practices. Just as it compensated through the prophet for the loss of pre-knowledge formerly gained through the medium, why did it not likewise compensate for what was lost in abandoning these practices?", "The answer: The Torah forbade all those things, though some benefit might be derived from them, because preoccupation with them might cause one to extol and magnify the constellations, and, possibly, even serve them, on the assumption that their beneficence or maleficence proceeded from [the constellations'] choice or will, and that they would exert, respectively, as men engaged in acts beloved or hated of them. And this is absolute error, for though we acknowledge the constellations to exert maleficent or beneficent influences, they exert them [these influences] not as a result of their will but as a result of the nature which the Blessed One has implanted in them and which is in no way altered by our acts. For just as it is impossible for fire not to burn flammable objects, so it is impossible for Mars not to generate heat. It follows, then, that all that men do to propitiate the stars is absolute vanity. And, so that we not fall into this error, which unquestionably, is a kind of idol worship, the Torah forbade to us even the determination of propitious times, though, conceivably, some benefit could result from this. However, it compensated for this lost benefit by all of its mitzvoth and exhortations. For there is no doubt that the maledictions and blessings mentioned in the Torah are all of the import that if we abide by the ways of Torah and mitzvoth we are not subject to nature or to the influences of the constellations. And the Torah had no need to spell out how we would be compensated for what we lost in abandoning these practices, for the entire Torah revolves around this implicit compensation [of the subservience of nature to mitzvoth]. What did have to be spelled out was the compensation for our loss of foreknowledge, that compensation being provided for by the prophet. And it is intimated that the perception of the prophet is of extremely great perfection. For the awesome vision perceived by the prophet is not within the power of human nature to absorb. It is for this reason that there is repeated here (Deuteronomy 18:16) what had already been stated in parshath Va'etchanan: \"According to all that you asked of the L-rd your G-d in Chorev on the day of your assembly, saying: 'Let me not hear again the voice of the L-rd my G-d, and let me not see this great fire again, lest I die.'\" This is an intimation of the rationale for implicit reliance upon his words, it being stated beforehand (Ibid 15): \"Him shall you heed\" — the idea being that he perceives what it is not in the power of human nature to absorb.", "The Torah thus commanded us to rely upon a prophet who prophesied in the name of the L-rd, as it is written: \"Him shall you heed\"; and it threatened punishment for the transgressor of his words, as it is written (Ibid 19): \"and it shall be, that man who does not heed My words which he speaks in My name, I shall require it of him.\" But it does not explain how the prophet is to be tested to ascertain whether he is indeed a true prophet whose words warrant belief. Now, just as the Torah entertained the apprehension (Ibid 20): \"and if you say in your heart: 'How can I know the thing that the L-rd did not speak?'\" it should have anticipated the question: \"How can I know the thing that He did speak?\" The Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 10:1-2) implies that the aforementioned verse subsumes two questions — \"How can I know what He did not speak?\" and \"How can I know what He did speak?\" — and one answer: Just as the prophet's speaking in the name of the L-rd and his word's not materializing is clear indication that his prophecy is not what the L-rd has spoken, in the same way, his speaking in the name of the L-rd and his prophecy's materializing completely, nothing of it failing to come to pass, is clear indication that the L-rd has spoken. But the Rambam himself questions his words (Ibid 5): How is this clear indication that the prophet has spoken in the name of the L-rd? The soothsayers and diviners also prognosticate the future, and what difference is there between them and a prophet? He resolves this question by answering that whereas some of the prognostications of the soothsayers and diviners materialize and others do not, as it is written (Isaiah 47:13): \"Let now the astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators stand up and save you from something of what will come upon you\" — all of the words of the prophet are fulfilled, as it is written (II Kings 10:10): \"For nothing shall fall to the earth of the word of the L-rd.\" The master, therefore, concludes that the prophet is tested time and again, and if what he says always comes to pass, then he is to be categorically accepted as a prophet of the L-rd.", "And though his words are true in themselves; that is, that this is, indeed, the difference between the soothsayers and diviners and the prophet, still, I cannot accept his interpretation of the verse, for the words do not connote what he says. That is, it does not necessarily follow from its being written that a prophecy's not materializing is proof that the L-rd has not spoken it — it dos not follow from this that the converse is true, that its materializing is proof that the L-rd has spoken it. For though one say that a non-observer of Sabbath is not a tzaddik, it does not necessarily follow from this that the converse is true, that an observer of Sabbath is a tzaddik. And the Rambam's view, in itself [aside from his interpretation of the verse], does not seem correct to me. For it seems from his words that the prophet must be tested before we grant him credence in such a way that there can be no possible doubt that he is speaking in the name of the L-rd. But here he contradicts himself! For he himself writes (Yesodei HaTorah 9:3) that the prophet is to be believed when he gives a sign, even though there is no proof positive that this sign is coming from the L-rd and not from magic and sleight of hand; in spite of this, we have been commanded to accept his words by the verse: \"Him shall you heed.\" And it is explained in tractate Sanhedrin (89a, b) that there are two criteria for believing him: his giving a sign to corroborate his words, or the materialization of his past prophecies, it being stated there: \"'He who makes light of the words of a prophet [is to be put to death]]' — How is one to know [who is a true prophet] so as to be liable to punishment [for not heeding his words]? By the giving of a sign. But in the case of Micah (I Kings 20) a sign was not given and punishment was nonetheless exacted! __ When one has already been established as a true prophet [as Micah had been] it is different. For if you do not say this, then how could Isaac have heeded Abraham on Mount Moriah [to be sacrificed by him]? How could Elijah have been heeded on Mount Carmel to offer sacrifices outside of the Temple precincts? It must be, then, that when one has already been established as a true prophet it is different.\" It is herein made explicit that when a prophet gives a sign he is to be believed, though the sign may have been produced by sleight of hand or by magic. If so, why should he not be believed if he correctly prophesies the future one time, even without testing him repeatedly, and even though it is possible that his foreknowledge was gained through divination. For though all divinations do not materialize, it is possible for a single divination to materialize — especially when the diviner does not elaborate upon all of the details of the divination but speaks only in terms of the general outlines that are clearest to him.", "Therefore, I would say that the Torah asked only: \"How can I know the thing that the L-rd did not speak?\" for it is impossible to put to death one who falsely prophesies in His name unless we know for a certainty that what he says was not spoken by the L-rd. And to this end the Torah instructs us that non-materialization of his prophecy is absolute, categorical indication that the L-rd has not spoken it. But it cannot be asked: \"How can I know the thing that the L-rd did speak?\" For this would imply that the prophet was not to be believed unless we were absolutely certain that the L-rd had spoken that thing. And this is not so, for we believe him on the basis of a sign, even though the authenticity of the sign [as proceeding from the L-rd] is subject to doubt. It is for this reason that the Torah did not simply state: \"And it shall be, that man who does not heed My words, I shall require it of him,\" But it elaborated and wrote: \"…who does not heed My words which he speaks in My name.\" The implication is: even though they cannot be proved to be My words, since he speaks them in My name, I shall require punishment of all who do not believe Him.", "In any event, it still remains to be explained why the Torah did not teach us the ways by which a true prophet may be discriminated. It is possible, however, that these are alluded to in the expression \"such as I\" [(Deuteronomy 18:15): \"A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, such as I…\"]; that is, one whose prophecy is substantiated as mine was. And it is well known that the prophecy of Moses, may peace be upon him, was substantiated in two ways: first, through the signs, which sufficed for the Jews' believing that the L-rd had remembered them and had seen their affliction, a prognostication, to all intents and purposes, of their future deliverance, as it is written (Exodus 4:30-31): \"And he performed the signs before the people, and the people believed, and they accepted [Moses' words] that the L-rd had remembered the Children of Israel and had seen their affliction.\" And these signs further sufficed for their believing in a temporary commandment, that of the Pesach, which they performed at his bidding. This is the ultimate in credence which can be granted any prophet originating anything in the course of the generations. But Moses had an additional uniqueness in this respect in terms of what our ancestors saw at Mount Sinai and passed down to us — this, so that it be impossible for us to doubt Moses' prophecy in the least detail, regardless of any sign that any future prophet might give in contravention of his Torah. This is the intent of the verse (Ibid 19:9): \"Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud so that the people might hear when I speak with you, and so that they might believe in you, too, forever.\"", "As I see it, \"Behold, I come to you…\" is a kind of apology of the Blessed One to Moses. For it is well known that the darkness, the cloud, and the mist were protective shields against the absorption of the brilliant light which was manifested there. And it is equally well known that no shield intervened between the Blessed One and Moses, as it is written (Ibid 33:11): \"And the L-rd spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his neighbor.\" Therefore, the Blessed One says: \"Behold, I come to you…\" — and do not wonder at this, for though you yourself do not require it, I am doing this not for you but for the honor and elevation of the people, so that they themselves hear when I speak with you. And because they have not reached your level of prophecy and have had no experience with it, if I reveal to them the brilliant light and the voice reaches their ears with nothing intervening, their natures will come asunder and they will perish. For if now, with the interposition of the thick cloud, they said: \"Let me not hear again the voice of the L-rd my G-d, and let me not see this great fire again, lest I die,\" what would have been the case if there were no cloud interposing! This is comparable to one's desiring to show something extremely bright to two people at the same time, one whose eyes are so strong as not to be affected by the brilliance, and the other whose eyes are so weak as to be unable to tolerate it. The latter's presence will necessitate a veil between the viewer and the object. This is the intent of: \"Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud so that the people might hear.\" That is, I wish to honor the people and enforce their belief by having them witness this with their own eyes. And an additional benefit will result from this, viz.: \"and so that they might believe in you, too, forever.\" That is, if a prophet subsequently arrives upon the scene, who originates signs through sleight of hand and magic to the end of causing the Jews to depart from Your Torah, they will know that these signs are without substance. In sum, all that credence in a prophet entails is relying upon him as we did upon Moses in the beginning; namely, upon his prognostication of a future event, performing a [temporary] commandment at his bidding, as we did in the case of Moses, the permanent mitzvah of Pesach for all generations having been promulgated from the giving of the Torah onwards. The phrase, then, \"from your brothers, from your midst, such as I,\" is an intimation that we should rely upon him and give him credence on the basis of the very same things which caused us to give credence to Moses in the beginning, as it is written (Exodus 4:31): \"And the people believed.\"", "But there is a question here, for after the splitting of the Red Sea we find it written (Ibid 14:31): \"And they believed in the L-rd and in Moses, His servant,\" the implication being that before this their belief was not perfect.", "The answer: As soon as Moses performed the signs they believed in him implicitly, as it is written: \"And the people believed.\" For why should they believe in him any more after the splitting of the sea than they did after all of the signs that he performed in Egypt, all of which were highly supernatural occurrences? But herein are resolved many of the great doubts which attach to the exodus from Egypt. That is: in the beginning, when he performed the signs, they believed in him implicitly. But afterwards, they saw with their own eyes confounding things which could only be explained retroactively. For after the L-rd remembered the Children of Israel, and desired to rescue them from the hand of Egypt and cause them to inherit the land that He had promised to our forefathers, and after He had commanded Moses to speak to the elders of Israel, viz. (Ibid 3:16-17): \"Go and gather the elders of Israel and say to them…I have remembered you… and I have said that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt… to a land flowing with milk and honey…\" — after all this, what reason was there to practice deception upon Pharaoh and tell him (Ibid 18): \"The G-d of the Hebrews has called upon us, and now let us go three days in the desert and sacrifice to the L-rd our G-d\"? This is the way of underlings who do not have the upper hand and who, desiring to flee, must scheme against their master. Why should Moses and Aaron, the messengers of the L-rd, not have declared peremptorily to Pharaoh that the time of Israel's redemption had arrived and that he would enslave them no longer? Does the L-rd lack the power to humble the heart of Pharaoh and force his submission even to an ultimatum? If ten plagues would not suffice for this, He could multiply them more and more. And this is, indeed, reason for the Jews to begin doubting the embassy of Moses though they had believed him in the beginning on the basis of the signs, as it is written: \"And the people believed.\" For they could entertain the legitimate doubt: \"If he is really the Blessed One's messenger, why is he afraid to tell Pharaoh the truth?\"", "This is certainly a recondite matter which requires explanation. Even if we accept the forced answer that this was done in order to demonstrate the stubbornness of Pharaoh, his refusal to heed the word of the L-rd even in the granting of a relatively simple request, there is still great cause for doubt in the directive (Ibid 11:2): \"Speak, I pray you, in the ears of the people that they ask, each man of his [Egyptian] neighbor, and each woman of her [Egyptian] neighbor, vessels of silver and vessels of gold.\" This is, indeed, great cause for wonder. For though the people of Egypt owed them the wages of their servitude, as stated in tractate Sanhedrin (91a), it did not befit them to take what was due them by stealth and deception. Even if they did not have the upper hand this would be unbecoming in them. How much less warranted was it now that the hand of the L-rd had asserted itself. Why did they not simply say: \"Give us this and this amount of money that you owe us for our work\"? Our sages of blessed memory have said (Bava Kamma 27b): \"Do not enter your neighbor's property without permission even to take what is rightfully yours, so that you not appear to him as a thief — but 'break his teeth' and tell him: 'I am taking what belongs to me!'\" All of these things are cause for wonder in themselves and could certainly cause the Jews to begin to doubt Moses' embassy.", "The resolution of these two difficulties is one. It is among the ways of the L-rd to bring counsel from afar to cast His enemies into our hands and to take His revenge of them, as the prophet states (Isaiah 25:1-2): \"You are the L-rd my G-d. I will exalt You. I will praise Your name. For You have wrought wondrously, counsels from afar in faithfulness and truth. For you have made of a city a heap…\" That is, the L-rd brings counsels from afar to avenge himself wondrously of His foes in the manner that He chooses. Now the Blessed One desired to punish the Egyptians with the same element [water] whereby they conspired against the Jews, as stated by Jethro (Ibid 18:11): \"Now I know that the L-rd is greater than all gods, for [He punished them] by the very thing wherein they conspired against them.\" He, therefore, desired to manipulate events in such a way that they, through their own free choice, would enter the water and perish there. Now if Moses had apprised Pharaoh in the very beginning that the time of Israel's redemption had arrived, he would undoubtedly have given in under the weight of the plagues and have pursued them no further. For why should he pursue them after having let them go and sent them away when they were still in his hand? For this reason the Blessed One did not desire that Moses tell Pharaoh the truth, but rather that the Jews were going to offer sacrifices for three days, so that when he would later be told that the people had fled he would think as he did, indeed, think, and as it was right for him to think under the circumstances — that all that had been done by Moses came not from the Blessed One but from stealth and deceit. For if not so, why should he have \"stolen his heart\" by saying that they were going only to sacrifice? And it is for this reason itself that He directed \"that they ask each man of his neighbor…\" For though the Egyptian money was theirs and they could have taken it by force, He directed that they take it by stealth, even though this would seem exceedingly strange to the Jews. This is the intent of: \"Speak, I pray you [na], in the ears of the people.\" \"Na\" is a term of imploration (Berachoth 9a). It is as if to say: \"I know them to be courageous men, who are averse to deceit and guile. Still, implore them in My name that they do as I ask and not ask the reason.\" And when the king of Egypt and his people were told that the Jews were fleeing, there is no doubt that they suspected them of being \"men of blood and deceit.\" For if this were not the case, why should they have schemed against them in this manner? And all of this was certainly cause for them to pursue the Jews. For if Moses had commanded at the outset that they send the Jews away and not pursue them and give them their wages as well, there is no question that they would not have stirred from their places. And the motive for all of these things was hidden from the Jews — and possibly, even from Moses himself. For this reason there was certainly cause for them to begin to doubt the embassy of Moses, though they had believed in it implicitly in the beginning. And this is intimated in (Ibid 14:31): \"And Israel saw the mighty hand…\" That is, then they recognized that all that had been hidden from them until then and had given them cause for doubt was only a ploy to cause the Egyptians to enter the sea of themselves. And this itself is the intent of what is written concerning the splitting of the sea (Ibid 21): \"And the L-rd caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night…\" Now, unquestionably, this wind would not suffice to split the sea; but the Blessed One desired to mislead Pharaoh into thinking that what was transpiring was natural and not miraculous. For if he regarded it as a miracle, he would not pursue them. And it should not be wondered how it could be among the ways of the L-rd to mislead him thus — for He misled him even more by commanding the Jews to encamp before Pi Hachiroth, thereby leading the Egyptians to think that their idol would avenge their shame (Mechilta, Beshalach 1). Hereby are resolved many doubts which every thinking person should entertain.", "What emerges from all we have written is that in the beginning the Jews believed in Moses on the basis of the signs. We thus know the criterion by which a prophet is to be believed; and it was, therefore, sufficient for him to say: \"A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, such as I.\" That is, one whose prophecy is substantiated in the same way that mine was. And as far as its being written in relation to the splitting of the sea: \"And they believed in the L-rd and in Moses, His servant,\" this is in point of the resolution of their doubts and the unraveling of the intervening perplexities with the resultant realization that \"the ways of the L-rd are just\" and extremely lofty, so that \"if the sage would seek to know them, he could not find them.\" We thus find in the redemption from Egypt that at the very time the redemption was unfolding itself and the Jews were witnessing themselves being redeemed, and, together with all this, observing acts and deeds which were the very reason for their redemption — in spite of all this, they could not fathom the motive for what was occurring until the Blessed One revealed it to their very eyes. How much more understandable, then, is our own ignorance of our future redemption. This is the intent of the Rambam's statement (Hilchoth Melachim 12:2): \"It will not be known how these things will come to pass until they come to pass.\" " ], [ "\"IF THERE BE CONCEALED FROM YOU A MATTER OF JUDGMENT — BETWEEN BLOOD AND BLOOD, BETWEEN LAW AND LAW, OR BETWEEN PLAGUE SPOT AND PLAGUE SPOT, MATTERS OF CONTENTION WITHIN YOUR GATES, THEN YOU SHALL ARISE AND GO UP TO THE PLACE THAT THE L-RD YOUR G-D WILL CHOOSE\" (DEUTERONOMY 17:8)", "This parshah is the root of the Torah and its foundation, for it is impossible that all of the sages be in accord in respect to all of the specific cases arising every day. Therefore, to eliminate doubt from Israel, the Torah commanded that the deciding body be the Sanhedrin, thus precluding the possibility of any unresolved issue in their time. And thus is it stated by our sages (Sanhedrin 88b): \"It was taught: R. Yossi said: In the beginning there was no dispute in Israel, but the beth-din of seventy-one would sit in the chamber of hewn stone, and two courts of twenty-three each would sit, one at the entrance to the Temple mount and the other at the entrance to the Temple court, and the other courts of twenty-three would sit in all the cities of Israel. If a question of judgment arose, the city court was consulted. If they had heard the ruling, they stated it… they would then go to the chamber of hewn stone, where the Sanhedrin sat from the daily morning offering until the daily afternoon offering (on Sabbaths and festivals they sat in the Temple fort). The question was presented to them. If they had heard the ruling, they stated it, and if not, they took a count. If the majority ruled unclean, the verdict was unclean; if clean, then it was clean. When there was an increase in the number of disciples of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel who were not completely versed in the law, controversy grew in Israel, and the Torah became as two Torahs.\" And because this strikes at the very foundations of the religion, the sages were extremely severe in the punishment of a \"rebellious elder\" — to the point that even if beth-din would wish to pardon him they are not permitted to do so, so that controversy not spread in Israel.", "But this raises a question. According to this parshah the power of ultimate decision was given only to the Great Sanhedrin, and only in their designated place, for our sages of blessed memory have said (Ibid 14b): \"If he [the rebellious elder] found them [the Sanhedrin] in Beth Pagi and rebelled against them, I might think that this constitutes rebellion. The Torah, however, tells us (Deuteronomy 17:8): 'Then you shall arise and go up to the place.' This teaches us that the place is the critical factor.\" Whence, then, do we know that we must abide by the decisions of the sages in all of the generations?", "The answer: we derive this from the verse (Exodus 23:2): \"After the multitude to incline [judgment].\" This constitutes a categorical injunction to follow the majority of the sages in the rulings and judgments of the Torah (with the exception of those things which they explicitly excluded from this rule). As it is stated in the first chapter of Chullin (11a): \"Whence is derived the dictum of the rabbis that the majority rules? Whence is it derived? It is explicitly written: 'After the multitude to incline [judgment]!' The question does not concern a manifest majority such as the nine shops or the majority of a Sanhedrin…\" And this is a categorical injunction. It is not limited to a specific time or place. Our rabbis of blessed memory stated accordingly in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (7a): \"The rabbis taught: If one asked a particular sage and he said 'Unclean,' he should not ask a different sage in order to receive a ruling of 'Clean.' If he asked one sage and he said 'Forbidden,' he should not ask a second sage in order to receive a ruling of 'Permitted.' And if there were two, one saying 'Permitted' and the other 'Forbidden,' or one 'clean' and the other 'Unclean' — if one of them is greater in wisdom and in number, his ruling should be followed, and if not, the more stringent ruling should be followed.\" (\"Number\" is to be understood as the number of sages of his generation to concur with his words.) And this is derived from the aforementioned verse. This is the consensus of the Gemara and it is not open to dispute; and it is a positive commandment of the Torah. For at that time the sages of Israel were congregated in the yeshivoth in their thousands and ten thousands, to the point that it is stated (Kethuboth 106a): When the rabbis left the study hall of Abbaye (some say that of Rava; others, that of R. Pappa; and others, that of R. Ashi), two hundred rabbis were added [to his table] and they called themselves 'orphans of orphans.'\" And since the rulings of the Gemara represent the rulings of the majority of these rabbis, we are obligated to abide by them on the basis of this mitzvah of \"After the multitude.\"", "And if you would ask: \"If our obligation to heed the words of the sages stems from 'After the multitude,' then how are we to understand (Berachoth 19b): 'Great is human dignity, which overrides a negative commandment in the Torah'? Rav bar Sheva stated in the presence of R. Cahana that the negative commandment referred to is (Deuteronomy 17:11): \"Do not deviate [from the words of the judges].\" In the West [Eretz Yisrael], they ridiculed this, saying: \"'Do not deviate' is a Torah prohibition!\" [Why, then, should it be overridden by a rabbinical concern for human dignity?] At this, R. Cahanah said to them: \"A great man has said something; do not ridicule it.\" [His meaning was that] all rabbinical enactments are empowered by 'Do not deviate,' and the rabbis waived this power when human dignity would be compromised thereby.\"' It would seem from here that our obligation to heed the words of the sages stems from 'Do not deviate,' but according to what was stated before, 'After the multitude' should have been given as the basis!\"", "The answer: Our obligation to obey Sanhedrin embraces two areas: the first, what they explain in respect to the laws of the Torah; the second, all of the fences and ordinances which they institute. The sages of the generations following them we are obligated to obey in what they explain in respect to the laws of the Torah, this being subsumed in \"After the multitude.\" But we are not enjoined to heed their fences and ordinances by \"After the multitude,\" this only stating that the rule of the majority is to be applied in the clarification of the judgments of the Torah, into which category fences and ordinances do not enter at all. The injunction to abide by the latter is a kind of extension of \"Do not deviate.\" That is, just as the power was given to Sanhedrin to be the teachers of Torah and its dignitaries, in the same way it is fitting that this power be accorded the great Torah sages of Israel in all generations. It is for this reason that fences and ordinances are linked to \"Do not deviate.\" But in the explanation of the laws of the Torah the obligation to obey the sages derives directly from \"After the multitude.\"", "As to the statement that \"the place is the critical factor,\" this applies only to capital cases, as explained in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah (8b) and not to the interpretation of Torah, which it is the province of the sages of all generations to explain according to their understanding, whether their explanation constitute the absolute truth or not. It is their judgment which is the critical factor here, as is illustrated in the episode of R. Yehoshua and R. Gamliel, the latter [the Nassi at the time] commanding the former to appear before him with his walking stick and his money on the day that was Yom Kippur according to R. Yehoshua's estimate. (See Rosh Hashanah 25a) And this is the intent of the statement in the first chapter of Bava Bathra (12a): \"Amemar said: 'A sage is greater than a prophet, as it is written (Psalms 90:12): \"…and a prophet has a heart of wisdom.\" Which is made secondary to which? The lesser is made secondary to the grater.'\" This all stems from the fact that the prophet's power is limited to saying what he has heard; he may not add anything from his own understanding. And if he speaks the truth, we must heed him; if not, we must not heed him. As regards the sage, however, whether he does or does not speak the truth, we must heed him. What follows, however, requires explanation, viz.: Know this to be true, for a great man said something which had been stated in the same manner by a great man before him.\" According to our interpretation there seems to be no relationship between the subject and the proof. The same applies to what follows: \"Perhaps both of them were born under the same constellation.\" The entire discussion requires extensive interpretation and explanation:", "It is axiomatic that a relationship can be posited only between things of the same kind. If they are not of the same kind, then even if they are of the same class, no descriptive comparison can be made. So that it cannot be said, for example, that one red is brighter or more beautiful than another green. For though they both fall within the class of color, since they do not correspond in kind, they are not susceptible of comparison in terms of more or less. Therefore, since Amemar has said that \"a sage is greater than a prophet,\" we must say that there resides in a sage prophetic power. For if this were not the case, no comparison could be made in terms of relative greatness though one did possess great qualities that the other did not. This is the intent of Abbaye's statement: \"Know this to be true, for a great man said something which had been stated in the same manner by a great man before him.\" That is, know it to be true that a sage possesses prophetic power, for a great man said something, which no one else, no other sages as great as he, could originate or deduce; and yet another sage who came before him originated exactly the same idea, likewise being the only sage in his time to do so. If the power of intellect alone had been operative here, how can it be that thousands of sages of comparable intellect could not have conceived the same idea — while these two conceived it in exactly the same manner down to the last detail! Intellect alone could not have achieved it; something higher than intellect must have been superadded here, namely, prophecy. This is countered by Rava: \"Why so, perhaps both of them were born under the same constellation!\" That is, it is well known (as held by our sages of blessed memory) that the intellect, being a \"separate intelligence\" is identical in the bodies of all men. Why, then, do its powers differ for different men, some men being oriented to wisdom and others not? This is perforce attributable to one of two factors: the matter, or the giver of the form and initiator of existence. In point of the matter; even if the giver of the form be the same for two men, if one operate within superior matter and the other within inferior matter, it is impossible that the powers of the two men acted upon will correspond in all respects. This is the intent of (Shabbath 156a): \"He who is born under the star chammah will be enlightened and wise because it is the scribe of the sun.\" The statement is in respect of the acting agency. It is not to be understood that two men born under the star chammah — one, of the choicest of humors and of the finest brain composition, and the other, of the most turgid and clouded humors — it is not to be understood that they will, notwithstanding, be equal in their receptiveness to wisdom. Though they were born in the same instant this would not be so, for though the acting agency is the same, a) the resultant act varies according to the variance of the subjects within which that agency operates. This is obvious with a minimum of reflection. And this is the manner in which the powers of intellect vary in relation to the nature of the body.", "b) But they vary, too, in relation to the giver of the form, the time here being the moments of conception and birth. This is the basis of Rava's counter-question: \"Why so?\" That is, how does the fact that two men conceive something which no others can conceive indicate that sages possess the power of prophecy? Perhaps their unity of conception is traceable to their being born under the same constellation, for which reason the powers of their psyches and intellects are in accord. And though they are not of the same bodily natures, since the acting agency is the same, their ideas and views will concur although they may be at variance with many others. The basis of Rava's question here is the giver of the form and not bodily nature, identity of which is extremely rare or non-existent. It is for this reason that Rava adduces a new proof: \"Know this to be true, for a great man said something which had been stated in the same manner by R. Akiva ben Yosef.\" His meaning here is that it is impossible that any sage in our time be identical with R. Akiva ben Yosef with respect to the giver of the form. Their levels and intellects would perforce be far apart. How, then, could their complete unanimity on this matter be explained?", "But, still, R. Ashi persists: \"Perhaps in relation to this particular matter they are of one constellation.\" That is, the distant heavenly causes are concealed from us, and perhaps there is such a cause engendering unity in this matter but not in all. It is for this reason that R. Ashi adduces a new proof: \"Know this to be true, for a great man said something which had been stated in the same manner as 'a law to Moses upon Sinai.'\" This proves indisputably that prophetic power is operative here, for \"a law to Moses upon Sinai\" cannot be generated by intellect but is above it. For if the law could be derived through intellect its derivation would be relegated to the sages, just as the other judgments of the Torah, and there would be no need for \"a law to Moses upon Sinai.\" Since we see, then, that this sage conceived something which is above the powers of intellect, we must conclude that he conceived it through a prophetic power residing within him.", "And since sage and prophet have the attribute of prophecy in common, and the sage has an added superiority in that his judgments proceed from his intellect and must be heeded whether true or false, it can, indeed, be said that \"a sage is greater than a prophet.\"", "And there is yet another respect in which a sage is greater than a prophet. A prophet's credibility is dependent upon a sage, but a sage's credibility is not dependent upon a prophet. For if a prophet would command us not to heed a sage, he himself would not be heeded. The discrimination of a prophet, however, is left to the sages, the Torah having written (Deuteronomy 18:15): \"A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, such as I, will the L-rd your G-d raise up for you; him shall you heed.\" No criteria are given for the discrimination of a true from a false prophet. And though it is written (Ibid 21-22): \"And if you ask: 'How shall I know the thing that the L-rd has not spoken? Whatever thing the prophet say in the name of the L-rd and that thing not come to pass, then that thing was not spoken by the L-rd…\" — this does not necessarily imply the converse, that whatever does come to pass has been spoken by the L-rd. For the verse just negates inclusion [into the ranks of prophecy of one whose words do not come to pass]; it does not imply a converse but is only partially prescriptive. Therefore, when the Torah writes \"Him shall you heed,\" why does it not include the criteria for heeding him? It must be, then, that these criteria were left to the sages; and it is on this basis that the sages established prerequisites for acceptance as a prophet, such as wisdom, strength, wealth, and the like. If one meets these conditions and he commands us to observe the Torah or to abide by certain temporary injunctions, then, if he produces a sign or wonder, he is to be heeded. This is the view of the former sages of blessed memory.", "And Scripture tells us that this prophet has been accorded us in place of the soothsayers and diviners employed by the other, idolatrous nations, in order to outdo their performances. For, indeed, the soothsayers and diviners are knowledgeable of certain things through which benefit may be derived, and the L-rd accorded us greater perfection in this area by means of the prophet. This is the intent of (Ibid 9-18): \"When you come to the land which the L-rd your G-d has given you, do not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations. Let there not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, a diviner… For these nations which you shall inherit heed the soothsayers and diviners, but the L-rd your G-d has not rendered you thus… I shall raise up a prophet…\" It is seen, then, that the idea of the prophet is to suppress those arts and to outdo them.", "And this was, indeed, effected in the beginning of the prophesying of the faithful prophet [Moses]. At that time, the magicians and soothsayers were humbled and suppressed. And it was a Divine stratagem to have all of this transpire in the very hotbed of necromancy [Egypt], where the grandeur of his signs would be more clearly discriminated than in a land devoid of such arts. This is the intent of (Menachoth 85a): \"Yochni and Mamre said to him [Moses]: 'Are you bringing straw to Ofraim, the city of straw!' He answered: 'People say: \"Take greens to the place of greens.\"' The meaning is as follows: Yochni and Mamre assumed that these signs displayed by the faithful prophet were produced through the agency of those stratagems common to necromancy. They, therefore, took him to task for deceiving the people according to their wretched minds) in the midst of a land full of such trickery. And Moses countered: \"People say: 'Take greens to the place of greens.'\" That is, the excellence of one who is perfect in something cannot be recognized except in a place where that thing is present to a certain extent. By way of analogy, if one possesses the most excellent of greens, he will be more apt to sell them in a city where there is an abundance of greens and where their relative superiority would, in consequence, be more easily recognized. This was precisely Moses' situation. We find, then, that the prophet outdoes all that the diviners do, and with a greater degree of perfection. For just as the diviner foretells matters affecting the individual, so does the prophet (as evidenced in the episode of the lost asses, in which Saul consulted the prophet Samuel). Therefore, when the Torah interdicted these occult arts, prophecy was provided as a replacement.", "The verse goes on to state: \"Let there not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, a diviner…\" \"One who passes his son or daughter through fire\" patently refers to the worship of Moloch. \"A diviner\" [kosem] — there are some men whose imaging power is so strong that they can sense and foretell somewhat of the future. This power must be aroused, and to this end they resort to certain motions and stratagems. This is what Scripture refers to in (Hosea 4:12): \"My people ask counsel of a piece of wood; their staff speaks to them!\" \"A soothsayer\" [meonen] — one who engages in the selection of days, as mentioned in Sanhedrin (65b): \"Today is propitious for going forth,\" \"Tomorrow is propitious for buying,\" \"The eves of Sabbatical years are propitious for grain; the uprooters of beans shall not suffer for it.\" \"An augurer\" [menachesh] — as indicated (Ibid): \"One who says: 'His bread has fallen from his mouth' [Let him be wary!], 'His staff has fallen from his hand,' 'His son calls him from behind,' 'A raven calls him,' 'A deer has crossed his path,' 'There is a snake on his right,' 'There is a fox on his left,' 'Do not begin [your collection] with me,' 'It is morning,' 'It is the New Moon,' 'It is the conclusion of the Sabbath.'\"", "\tAnd if one would ask: if one is forbidden to resort to these signs and is called an augurer if he does so, how are we to understand (Chullin 95b): \"Rav would test [propitiousness] by means of a ferry\" [if it came towards him, he would see it as a propitious sign]. What difference is there between a ferry and a deer crossing one's path? — the answer is: though Rav tested propitiousness by means of a ferry, he did not make his future action entirely dependent upon the result of that test, but only sought some indication of whether he would meet with success; and even if the sign was that he would not, he would not, because of this, abandon his undertaking, knowing as he did that the Blessed One can change everything according to His will. Augury is forbidden only to him who relies upon it implicitly, as is made clear there (Ibid): \"And even so [even though the meat in question had been under constant surveillance], Rav did not eat of that meat. Why not, if it had been under constant surveillance? It must be because he had [unlawfully] resorted to augury [and therefore banned to himself the fruits, as it were, of that augury]. But did not Rav himself say that any augurer who is not like Eliezer the servant of Abraham and Jonathan the son of Saul is not an augurer?\" That is: if he does not rely implicitly upon his augury as did Eliezer the servant of Abraham, who said (Genesis 24:14): \"And it will be that maiden to whom I say: 'Hand down your pitcher that I may drink' — and who answers: 'Drink, and I will also give your camels to drink' — she is the one whom You have designated for your servant Isaac,\" and as Jonathan the son of Saul, who said (I Samuel 14:10): \"And if they say thus: 'Come up to us' — then we shall go up, for the L-rd has given them into our hand\" — if one does not rely implicitly upon his augury as these did, then he is not considered an augurer. And Rav did not rely implicitly upon his augury but only said: \"A ferry is coming towards me — it is a good day for wayfarers.\" He did not say that if a ferry came towards him he would go, and that if it did not, he would not.", "But if you would ask: Then these two [Eliezer and Jonathan] were confirmed augerers! How can such a thing be said of righteous men such as these? The answer: augury is forbidden only insofar as it is not dictated by intellect, but whatever is dictated by intellect is not augury but \"the way of the world,\" and differs in no way from saying: \"If it rains tomorrow, we shall sow,\" and the like. And what these two did was dictated by intellect. Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, who knew all that befell his master's son to be the direct result of Divine Providence — especially the wife that fell to his lot — posited that the woman most excellent in character would be the woman for Isaac. How would he recognize her? If she were a maiden who, although young in years, did not stay at home but went out to draw water, a task demanding great effort and toil, and if in addition, she were so strong in character as to take no account of all her toil but to find it easy to do good to one she did not even know — this would, indeed, reflect sublimity of character and show her to be the woman falling to the lot of the righteous. This is not augury but profound exercise of intellect.", "The same applies to Jonathan, the son of Saul, who sought to do something that no wielder of sword and spear had ever done before — to smite, together with his arms-bearer, a great multitude, and also to pass through a narrow opening through which thousands upon thousands could not readily flee, as the verse testifies (I Samuel 14:4): \"And between the passes…,\" and as is seen from his being constrained to move through the pass on his hands and feet. When it occurred to him to undertake this great act of heroism, he sought to know whether they [the Philistines] were courageous or fearful. If he found them to be courageous, he would not attempt it, but if he found them to be fearful, he would know their natures not to be predisposed to heroism. For the \"movements\" of fear and of heroism are opposites. The movement of fear is from the outside to the inside, whereas that of heroism is from the inside to the outside. The reason for the difference is that fear is engendered by thin, cool, watery blood. Because of its coolness and thinness, outward movement is difficult for it and movement from the outside to the inside easier. It is for this reason that it is quickly impressed by fear-inspiring objects. The movement of heroism, on the other hand, is engendered by thick, hot, non-sluggish blood, which in the abundance of its heat and thickness generates a strong current which facilitates its movement from inside to outside and renders its possessors insusceptible of fear and anxiety. These responses are foreign to those of heroic nature, for anxiety consists in the impression of the feared image upon the imagination, and those of heroic nature, because of the swiftness and strength of their impulse to revenge are invested with the image of its fulfillment, which image drives out that of danger. This is the intent of (Leviticus 19:14): \"Do not curse the deaf.\" This is not limited to the deaf, for our sages have stated (Mechilta Mishpatim 19): \"How do we know that all men are included? Because it is stated (Exodus 22:27): '…among your people do not curse.'\" The intent is, rather, as follows: When the psyche is aroused to revenge upon the wronger in accordance with the image impressed upon the imagination, that arousal is not allayed until revenge has been taken commensurate with the image of the wrong affixed there, such compensation causing a remission of the arousal and the vanishing of the image from the imagination. Sometimes this compensation is achieved through curses and oaths alone, so that the arousal undergoes remission to the extent of the wrong's reverting to the wronger in the form of vilification. Sometimes, however, the wrong is more severe, so that the arousal is not allayed until it has taken the life of the wronger and cast it out of existence, this being its ultimate end. But there are other times when the psyche's arousal is too weak to demand punishment for the wronger (this because of the smallness of the wrong) and it is appeased by shouting (or, in the most extreme form, cursing) alone [i.e., even without the wronger's awareness]. So that lest we get the impression that the Torah forbade cursing a Jew only because of the suffering and pain he feels upon hearing himself cursed but that cursing a deaf man is not forbidden — lest we get this impression, the Torah informed us that it was solicitous not only of the man being cursed but also of the utterer of the curse — that he not accustom himself to the seeking of revenge and thus orient his nature to moderation. But this is, in fact, the characteristic feature of the heroic man, who is naturally oriented in this direction! Therefore, Jonathan sought to learn whether they were predisposed to heroism or to flight. And when he discovered that they were predisposed to fear and terror, he rose up against them, and wrought, and succeeded. This was not augury, but intellect probing \"the way of the world.\" As to the statement: \"Any augurer who is not like Eliezer, etc.,\" this is to be understood as meaning that anyone who does not place the same kind of implicit trust in forbidden augury as Eliezer and Jonathan placed in their stipulations in the realm of the permitted — any such person is not to be regarded as an augurer. And when Rav tested propitiousness by means of a ferry, he was not placing implicit trust in these tests.", "And if you would ask: is it not stated (Chullin 95b): \"R. Yochanan would test [propitiousness] through a young child [i.e. through certain things the child would say]\"? And the implication is that he relied implicitly upon this as did Eliezer the servant of Abraham, for it is stated further (Ibid): \"When Rav died…\" [See text for implication]. The answer is that this testing was not within the framework of augury but within that of prophecy, as our sags of blessed memory stated (Bava Bathra 12b): \"R. Yochanan said: 'When the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to fools and young children.'\"", "\"A conjurer [chover chaver]\" (Deuteronomy 18:11) is one who pronounces incantations, as explained in Sifrei (Shoftim 172). And all of these arts — divination, soothsaying, and augury — are all referred to by our sages of blessed memory as \"the ways of the Emorites.\" Within the body of these practices, however, some are forbidden and some permitted. The Rambam's view on this is that anything not dictated by rational considerations is forbidden and anything else, permitted. This view is based on the statement in Tractate Sabbath (67a): \"Abbaye and Rava both agree that anything within the province of healing is not in the category of 'the way of the Emorites.'\" The implication is that anything dictated by reason is not within the category of \"the ways of the Emorites\" and that anything else is. This is the intent of the question which follows (Ibid): \"Is this to imply that anything not within the province of healing is in the category of 'the ways of the Emorites'? Did we not learn: 'A tree that is losing its fruits should be coated with red paint and be weighted down by stones so as to weaken it [its over-richness being responsible for the fruit loss]'?\" That is: we can understand weighing it down, this being dictated by reason, but what healing is effected by coating it with red paint? There are no cause and effect considerations or other natural considerations which would warrant this. And the Gemara answers: \"So that people notice its condition and pray that it be healed.\"", "The Rambam states (Moreh Nevuchim 3:37) that all of the practices of witchcraft are not dictated by reason. He divides these practices into three classes: those dependent upon specific times, those dependent upon specific objects, and those dependent upon specific human activities, such as dancing, slapping, laughing, smoking something, or speaking certain words, intelligible or unintelligible.", "This is, indeed, to be wondered at, for there are things permitted in the Gemara which are not dictated by reason and which include all or parts of these classes! A case in point (Sabbath 67a): \"R. Yochanan said: 'For high fever, let one take a knife all of iron and go to a place where there is a vardina [a type of bush] and tie a white thread upon it. The first day let him cut a little notch in it and say (Exodus 3:2): \"And the angel of the L-rd appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush.\" The second day let him cut a little more and say (Ibid 3): \"And Moses said: I will turn back and see.\" And the next day let him cut a little more and say (Ibid 4): \"And the L-rd saw that he had turned back to see.\"'\" Now herein are comprised specific human activities, specific times, and a specific plant!", "And it is stated further (Ibid): \"If a bone lodged in his throat, let him bring the same kind, place it on his skull, and say: 'One-one-down; swallow-swallow-down; one-one'; and this is not in the category of 'the ways of the Emorites.' If a fish bone lodged in his throat, let him say: 'You prick as a needle; you are locked up as in cuirass; down-down.'\" None of these are dictated by reason, and, according to the view that \"this is not in the category of the ways of the Emorites\" applies to all of the things listed until the end of the chapter, there are many things among them that would seem to belong in the classes which the Rambam ascribes to the category of witchcraft.", "Furthermore, the Rambam states in Sefer Hamada (Hilchoth Avodah Zarah 11): \"All of these are vain, empty things pursued by ignoramuses, and they have no foundation in fact whatsoever.\" This statement is to be greatly wondered at, for the sages stated (Chullin 7b) in relation to the woman who tried to get some soil from beneath the feet of R. Chanina [in order to kill him through an incantation pronounced over the soil]: \"R. Chanina is different, for he possessed great merit\" [the implication being that such things are effective against those who do not possess such merit]. Also, if these things are entirely unfounded in fact, then why did the sages permit some of them and forbid others, when they are all outside the realm of natural cause and effect? And they also permitted [for curative purposes (Sabbath, Ibid)] the egg of a chargol [a king of locust], the tooth of a fox, and the nail from a stake. Now none of these are dictated by reason or by natural cause and effect.", "The answer: All things act in one of two ways: naturally or phenomenologically. The phenomenological also acts through nature, the difference being that the natural is dictated by reason whereas the phenomenological is accepted by reason but not dictated by it. An example of the natural is the tendency of cold objects to generate cold and of warm objects to generate warmth (whether or not acted upon by the affected bodies). This tendency is dictated by reason.", "An example of the phenomenological, which is accepted by reason but not dictated by it, is along these lines. It is well known that the perfect properties are found in bodies not given to change and that the imperfect ones are all found in bodies highly susceptible to change. So that the celestial bodies, not being subject to change at all, are the most perfect, and the elements, being the most changeable of things, are the most imperfect. It follows from this that the compound is superior to its simple component elements to the extent that the combination diminishes and repels change. It is for this reason that the most perfect composite will possess the greatest perfection. (This composite is the spirit of understanding.) And there are some composites which acquire perfection in themselves [by virtue of the very fact that they are composites], although their component elements remain distinct, and others that acquire it by means of the fusion of elements within the composite. Some composites give rise to the vegetative élan and others to the animal élan, and others, such as man, become predisposed to the acquisition of a human soul — all of these properties and perfections being acquired according to the compositions and natures of the composites.", "Now the reason for the manifestation of a certain property and the reason for the action of nature is one and the same. For if one would ask why fire burns, the answer would perforce resolve itself into the statement that fire is heat, which is nothing more or less than saying that it is the nature of fire to burn. The same answer, in principle, would be given to the question of why a stone is pulled downwards — and the very same answer would perforce be given to the question of why a magnet attracts iron, namely, because it is its nature to attract! Now this answer will not satisfy the masses because they cannot envisage any act not being attributable in some way to cold or heat, wetness or dryness, lightness or weight. But the truth is that our ignorance of the reason for the manifestation of a property [such as magnetism] is not in any way greater than our ignorance of the reason for any other [\"natural\"] operations, this ignorance being comprised of two factors: the first, our ignorance of the original activators, that is, the primal causes which brought this property into existence; the second, our ignorance of the nature of the recipient, that is, the reason for the greater affectiveness of one object rather than another to the property in question. And this ignorance is no more referable to phenomenological manifestations than to the other \"natural\" ones, created as it is by colors, odors, and the like, which qualities we know to be generated by the original activators — whose own source is the Blessed One. And we know, too, that the reason for their existence, the particular natural predisposition for their emergence, is inherent in the nature of the object. And we have posited this nature as a function of the relative values of its individual components. But the reason for the predisposition of these simple elements to these particular combinations — this we shall never know.", "After these prefaces let it be clearly stated that when Abbaye and Rava say that all those who seek to effect a cure are not operating within the framework of \"the ways of the Emorites,\" they are not necessarily assuming that this cure is dictated by reason. Their meaning is, rather, that all those who seek to effect a cure based upon the tendency of certain things [because of the phenomenological properties residing in them] to favorably alter the condition of the sick person — all who operate from this orientation are not operating within the framework of \"the ways of the Emorites.\" For whatever one makes use of, be it drugs or words, for the sole purpose of favorably altering the condition of the sick person is in no way forbidden and partakes in no way whatsoever of \"the ways of the Emorites.\" And even the drawing of a particular design is permitted for therapeutic purposes, as indicated in the Gemara (Sabbath 65a): \"One may walk out [on the Sabbath] with a coin on the tzinit. What is the tzinit? The sole of the foot [in this case, an infected sole].\" The Gemara then asks: \"Why necessarily a coin? If hardness is the curative factor, why not use a shard? If [the absorption of] silver is the curative factor, why not use silver plate? And if the design is the curative factor, why not draw a design on wood? Abbaye answered: 'It is to be understood from this that all three factors in combination are necessary.'\"", "And we are speaking here of a curative agent of this type [the phenomenological; in the above case, the design]. For there is no difference whatsoever between resorting to this or to the herb called \"fiunia\" in Arabic. And all that the Gemara permits is of this type. What it forbids because of \"the ways of the Emorites\" and what is acknowledged to be forbidden by the Gemara is of a different type whatsoever. There were certain primitive peoples who sought, by act or word, to derive benefit from certain objects by drawing down to them the favor of certain heavenly powers. All things of this type, whether they have some basis in fact or none whatsoever, were forbidden because of \"the ways of the Emorites\" and the ways of idol-worship.", "And because in abandoning these arts we lose some of the benefits to be derived therefrom, the Torah tells us (Deuteronomy 18:15): \"A prophet from your midst, from your brothers, such as I, will the L-rd your G-d raise up for you; him shall you heed.\" And it threatens punishment for him who rebels against the prophet (Ibid 19): \"And it shall be that the man who does not heed My words, which he speaks in My name — I shall require it of him.\"", "But it is to be wondered at: How can the Torah punish without specifying the criteria for accepting the prophet? Just as it anticipated the question (Ibid 21): \"How shall I know the thing that the L-rd has not spoken, it should have anticipated the question: \"How shall I know the thing that the L-rd has spoken\"! Our rabbis of blessed memory raised this question in Sanhedrin (89b): \"'He who makes light of the words of a prophet [is to be put to death]' — How is one to know [who is a true prophet] so as to be liable to punishment [for not heeding his words]? By the giving of a sign. But in the case of Micah (I Kings 20) a sign was not given and punishment was exacted nonetheless! When one has already been established as a true prophet [as Micah had been] it is different. For if you do not say this, then how could Isaac have heeded Abraham on Mount Moriah [to be sacrificed by him]? How could Elijah have been heeded on Mount Carmel to offer sacrifices outside of the Temple precincts? It must be, then, that when one has already been established as a true prophet it is different.\" Two criteria are hereby stated: the first, the giving of a sign for his words; the second — in the event of his not giving a sign — the materialization of his past prophecies, in which case a sign would not be necessary for each new prophecy.", "However, there is still something to be wondered at. Why should this not have been intimated in the parshah? Why should the Torah not have legislated for the anticipated question \"How shall I know the thing that the L-rd has spoken?\" just as it did for the question \"How shall I know the thing that the L-rd has not spoken\"? The answer: this is, indeed, intimated in the expression \"such as I.\" That is, he must confirm his prophecy just as I did — by signs.", "And if you would ask: but the prophecy of Moses was confirmed not by signs but by the evidence of their eyes, as intimated to Moses in the beginning of his prophecy (Exodus 3:12): \"And He said: 'For I will be with you. And this is the sign that I have sent you: when you take the people out of Egypt, you will serve G-d on this mountain.'\" The meaning is as follows: Moses had asked (Ibid 11): \"Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?\" That is, I am not the man to be entrusted with such a great embassy. And the Blessed One answered that he would have the power to perform the embassy through His being with him, but that true belief in his having been deputed to do so would come only with the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai when all would attain prophecy [and thereby confirm the truth of Moses' prophecy]. And this is the intent of (Ibid 14:31): \"And they believed in the L-rd and in Moses, His servant.\" The truth of every prophet's prophecy, then, should have to be confirmed just as Moses' was, and not by signs alone!", "The answer: there is no prophet who can be believed to a greater extent than Moses was before the revelation at Mount Sinai — through the giving of signs alone! For even before that time Moses had been believed in respect to certain details of Pesach, and a prophet is not to be believed to institute a mitzvah for all time, as our sages have stated (Temurah 16a): \"'These are the mitzvoth' — a prophet may not institute anything after this.\" He is not even believed to rule upon any matters in the Torah unresolved by the sages, as is indicated in the Gemara (Ibid): \"R. Yehudah said in the name of Rav: 'When Moses our teacher was about to enter Gan Eden, he said to Joshua: \"Ask of me any doubts that you have.\" Joshua replied: \"My master, did I leave you for even one moment? Is it not written in the Torah (Exodus 33:11): 'And his servant, Joshua the son of Nun, did not depart from the midst of the tent'!\" Immediately, Joshua's powers weakened, he forgot three hundred halachoth, three hundred doubts arose in his mind, and all of Israel rose against him to kill him. At this the Holy One Blessed be He said to him: \"To tell you is impossible; go and busy them with war [to turn their attention away from you], as it is written: (Joshua 1:1): 'And it was after the death of Moses the servant of the L-rd that the L-rd said to Joshua… (11) …prepare food for yourselves…'\"'\" And it is stated further (Temurah, Ibid): \"R. Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: 'Three thousand halachoth were forgotten in the period of mourning for Moses our teacher. The Jews said to Joshua: \"Ask [that they be revealed to you].\" Joshua responded: (Deuteronomy 30:12): \"It [Torah] is not in the heavens.\" They said to Shmuel: \"Ask.\" He responded: \"'These are the mitzvoth' — a prophet may not institute anything after this.\"'\" A prophet can not be believed, then, either to institute a mitzvah or to explicate it, but only to give temporary commands alone, and Moses was believed in this respect on the basis of signs alone.", "\"'Such as I', then, intimates: \"Let the prophet be believed on the same grounds that I was believed.\" The Torah, therefore, is not constrained to tell us how we can know that the Blessed One has sent a prophet, but it does anticipate the question: \"How shall I know the thing that the L-rd has not spoken?\" And it answers: \"Whatever thing the prophets say in the name of the L-rd and that thing not come to pass…\" For, perforce, all of what the L-rd has spoken must come to pass.", "All of this, however, is contingent upon the condition that good is being prophesied, for a prophecy of evil can be nullified, as in the case of Ninveh. A prophecy of good, however, cannot be nullified, and this is the proof of our ultimate redemption. As Jeremiah said to Chananiah ben Azur (Jeremiah 29:9): \"That prophet who prophesies for peace, when that prophesy materializes, it is known that the L-rd has sent that prophet in truth.\"", "Blessed is the L-rd forever. Amen, Amen. " ] ], "sectionNames": [ "Chapter", "Paragraph" ] }