ר"ע תיתד תונויצל ינויערה גוחה ,םולשו זוע
"...and that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goats (se'irim)...": This refers to the demons; they are called se'irim because one's body shudders (yista'er) when one sees them. (Note similarly that crazy people see demons in the form of goats.) The phrase "no more" teaches us that the Israelites made such sacrifices in Egypt. (Ibn Ezra to Lev. 17:7; hinted at in Ibn Ezra to Lev. 16:7).
"Your lips are like a crimson thread." This refers to the crimson thread [that was tied to the goat designated to be sent to the wilderness as atonement for the sins of Israel]. "and your speech (midbarech) is pleasant." This refers to the goat sent [to the wilderness (midbar)].
The Israelites said before the Holy One Blessed Be He: Master of the Universe, we have only the crimson thread and the sent goat. He said: "'Your lips are like a crimson thread.' The trembling of your lips is as beloved to me as the crimson thread."
Rabbi Abahu said about this (Hosea 14): "Instead of bulls we will pay with our lips:" How will we pay instead of with bulls and the sent goat? With our lips. "And your speech (midbarech) is pleasant:" Your desert (midbar) is pleasant, your speech is pleasant. (Midrash Rabbah to Song of Songs, Chapter 4).
"The sent goat." Since it is an atonement for "all of Israel," the High Priest confesses over it using the phrasing "all of Israel, as it says "...and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites...." The sent goat atones for all the sins in the Torah – minor and major, whether one sinned on purpose or by accident, whether one knew that one sinned or not – all are atoned for by the sent goat. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Teshuvah 1:2). In our day, when the Temple no longer exists and we have no atoning altar, there is nothing left but repentance. Repentance atones for all sins. Even regarding a lifelong evil person who repents at the end of life, nothing of their evil is remembered, as it says "the evil of an evil person will not cause their failure, on the day they repent from their evil." Yom Kippur itself atones for those who repent. (ibid. 1:3).
The phrase "I am the Lord" or "I am the Lord your God" is characteristic of the first part of the portion of Kedoshim (Lev. 19). In some cases it concludes a single verse, as in "You shall each revere your mother and father, and keep my Sabbaths; I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:3), and in other cases it concludes a group of verses on the same topic, as in "You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another. You shall not swear falsely by My name, profaning the name of your God; I am the Lord" (19:11-12). Rashi explains the connection between these two verses as follows: "If you have stolen, you will eventually deny and lie...you will eventually swear falsely." However, sometimes the connection between the two verses of the group is not apparent at first glance. In this article, we will discuss one such group:
"You shall not render an unfair decision: do not favor the poor or show deference to the rich; judge your relative fairly. Do not go about as a talebearer among your countrypeople. Do not 'stand upon' (lit.) the blood of your fellow person; I am the Lord" (19:15-16).
The conclusion "I am the Lord" groups these two verses together. However, it is difficult to see how the topics of talebearing and "standing upon blood" are related to the prohibition against biased judgments.
First we shall consider the prohibition against talebearing. According to the familiar explanation accepted by the Sages, this prohibition is almost equivalent to the prohibition of slander. The exact prohibition is that of "saying something disgraceful about a fellow person, even if it is true" (Maimonides, Hilkhot De'ot 7:2). However, there are two other explanations which, although less well known, come closer to the plain sense of the text. First, according to Ibn Ezra, what is being referred to here is a talebearer who acts like Doeg the Edomite, who told Saul what Achimelech had done to David; this in turn led to the murder of the people of Nov, city of priests. Second, according to one opinion of the Sages, this is a warning to a husband who spreads an evil report about his wife (Ketubot 46a). These two explanations may seem very different from each other, yet they have something in common: they both concern a person who turns in an innocent person to the ruling authority, thereby leading to that person's death. The only difference between the explanations is in the way the killing is carried out. What Doeg told about Achimelech was true, however, since he told this truth to an evil authority, he led to the killing of an innocent person. The case of the husband who spreads an evil report about his wife is the opposite: although he speaks before a just court, he lies to them, thus also leading to the death of an innocent person.
The general rule is as follows: One is permitted, even commanded, to speak the truth before a just court. At the same time, one is forbidden to speak the truth before an unjust court, and one is forbidden to lie before a just court.
Following this line of reasoning, the plain-sense explanation of the prohibition "Do not 'stand upon' the blood of your fellow person" is that presented by the Targum ascribed to Jonathan. This explanation is also found in Torat Kohanim. The meaning of the prohibition is: It is forbidden to stand idly by while false witnesses carry out a plot against an innocent person. Rather, anyone possessing evidence which can counter the plot is obligated to submit it to the court, so that bloodshed can be avoided.
According to this, the connection between the two verses grouped together by the conclusion "I am the Lord" is quite clear. Both of these verses seek to prevent the court, or the ruling authority, from engaging in injustice or bloodshed. The first verse is directed to the court, warning the judges not to make biased judgments; the second verse is directed to anyone who submits to the court, or ruling authority, evidence which has the power to bias the judgment. Also included in this warning are people standing by, who, in their avoidance of giving positive testimony about the accused, cause the court to make a biased judgment.
It remains for us to explain the Sages' midrash, in which they interpreted the prohibition "Do not go about as a talebearer among your countrypeople" as meaning that it is forbidden to slander someone even by saying something which is true. Based on our above discussion, this interpretation seems far from the plain sense of the text.
However, this interpretation is actually an expansion on what we have said here according to the plain sense of the text. Our Sages teach us something important in this midrash:
When a person says something disgraceful about another individual, that person assumes that no harm has been done, since the listener is not a court and has no authority to punish. However, this is a mistaken assumptions, because the listener is part of the human community, and there is no crueler court than the human community. When the human community hears something disgraceful about an individual, this in itself creates a hostile community opinion which has more power to harm than do a hundred judges. And since the community lacks the means by which to investigate and render a just decision, it is liable to punish unjustly – and its punishment is harsher than any punishment meted out by a court.
Therefore, it is not enough to prohibit saying something disgraceful individual which is a lie about an individual. It is even forbidden to tell the truth, since this case is also comparable to someone who tells the truth before a cruel and unjust court whose judgments are lies, and yet which has the power to cause great harm. This is what the Sages teach us in their midrash on the words, "Do not go about as a talebearer among your countrypeople."
Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, winner of the 1999 Israel Prize for Torah Literature, teaches at Yeshivat Har Etzion in Alon Shvut.
Eli Willchick dealt with the famous question of why the name of Moses does not appear in the Passover Haggadah. Basing himself on the fact that familiar personalities are not called by name in the Torah portion of Shemot, Willchick argues that this is because these figures do not represent themselves, but rather their nation. He also says that this is done in order that the lessons learned from their actions will be pertinent rather than personal. Therefore, explains Willchick, our identification with the Exodus from Egypt might have been lessened had Moses been mentioned in the Haggadah, because: (a) "Since we do not know Moses, we cannot picture ourselves as part of the story," and (b) We may come to think that the miracles and wonders took place because of Moses, when actually, the hero of the story is the entire nation. Willchick also argues that even though Moses' name actually appears in the portion of Shemot, we should still conclude (since other names are missing) that Moses was born and attained his stature by virtue of these "anonymous individuals"; if these individuals had acted differently, Moses would not have been born and not have attained his stature.
1. "We do not know Moses." – What sort of argument is this? We know Moses from the same source that we know about the Exodus from. Have we "been privileged" (in the author's words) to know the nation, but not Moses?
2. Willchick draws his conclusion from small selections in the portion of Shemot in which certain figures are not mentioned by name. However, in Shemot itself and in many other portions where these figures appear, they are mentioned by name numerous times. In the portion of Va'era (Ex. 6:14-28) the Torah takes the trouble to interrupt the flow of the narrative in order to list the exact names of all the "anonymous people," as well as many others! So, if someone wishes to investigate, for example, why the verse says "His sister stood" rather than "Miriam stood," we could suggest that this is because as long as Moses' name has not been mentioned, neither is Miriam's. But we could not argue that the reason her name is not mentioned is that this is a "public," indefinite Miriam, because the text explicitly identifies her many times.
3. Willchick writes: "If the intent of the portion of Shemot is to emphasize Moses' importance, then the lesson it teaches is precisely this: A leader is born and attains stature by virtue of anonymous individuals." Has Shemot "failed" in fulfilling its intent, or is Willchick mistaken about the lesson? What is the relevance of the presence or absence of names to the supposition that if individuals had acted differently, Moses would have been different? If Pharaoh's daughter had been mentioned by name, Willchick would still have been able to suppose that had she not disobeyed her father's orders, Moses would not have lived. Altogether, the supposition itself is highly flawed: our imaginations can invent many things that would have happpened if people had acted differently.
4. Willchick cites the midrash "Do Moses hands etc." as proof that Moses is not the hero of the Exodus story, but rather the entire nation of Israel is the hero. But is this really the lesson of the midrash? And how can one totally ignore the entire period of Moses' leadership, from his standing before Pharaoh to his guidance of the people during the Exodus and for forty years in the desert, always exhibiting endless self-sacrifice and patience?
5. The question of why Moses' name is missing from the Haggadah is, as mentioned, famous. Many answers have been given, one of which is similar to this discussion (but having a different purpose): that the authors of the Haggadah wished to plant the hope for redemption in the hearts of the nation living in exile. They left Moses' name out in order that we not think that only Moses can bring about redemption.
6. A final note: Moses is mentioned in the Haggadah, albeit only once. "...Rabbi Yosi the Galilean says: How do we learn that the Egyptians were afflicted with ten plagues in Egypt...and at the sea it is written: "The Israelites saw the great hand...and believed in God and in Moses his slave."
Emanuel Shelo
Ra'anana
Actually, I did not find these notes to be a direct engagement with the arguments in my article. Rather, they concern points incidental to the main issue. I will respond briefly to a number of points:
1. Moses' name does in fact appear once in the Haggadah, in the course of the discussion of the question of how many plagues the Egyptians suffered at the sea, where the following verse is brought in the name of Rabbi Yosi: "The Israelites saw the great hand...and believed in God and in Moses his slave." In spite of this, as Mr. Shelo points out, the quesion of why Moses' name does not appear in the Haggadah is famous; it has been treated often in the past and even in the present (see the article by Chaim Chefer in Yediot Achronot, the seventh day of Passover). The reason for this is that the mention of Moses' name is not brought as part of the story of the Exodus, but rather is mentioned only incidentally, as part of a quotation that is cited to address another topic.
2. I emphasized in the article that the portion of Shemot is characterized by the absence of names, in contrast to the portions preceding it. This is true from after the beginning of the portion, which deals with the names of Jacob's sons who went down to Egypt. I tried to explain that the change which the Torah makes is intended to emphasize the transition from stories about individuals to the story of a nation, or in order to emphasize the fact that, often, a leader is born and exists by virtue of the work of anonymous individuals. This is what is unique about Shemot. The fact that later portions mention some of these heroes by names does not detract from the uniqueness of the portion of Shemot and the lesson we can learn from it.
3. Shelo argues that, in my article, I addressed "if" and imaginary questions. With all due respect, I did not do this at all. I did not argue that had the Torah revealed the names, history would have been different. I claimed, and I still claim, that concealing the names leads to a different attitude toward the story, for better or for worse. I attempted to explain how I believe the Torah wished us to relate to the story told in Shemot, and why it chose the avenue of concealing the names.
4. Did I really ignore Moses' leadership? But the nation of Israel would have been redeemed in any event, in light of the covenant God made with Abraham our patriarch. Moses was the means which enabled the covenant to be fulfilled, by virtue of his greatness and leadership. However, the "hero" of the story, then and forever, is the nation of Israel and not one leader or another, not even Moses.
5. Ultimately, it seems that the commentary brought by Shelo – according to which the reason that Moses is not named in the Haggadah is in order to plant hope in the nation that redemption will come even without Moses – expresses precisely the same idea I did in my article. For "Everyone has to view oneself as if they personally came out from Egypt"; this coming out is not dependent of Moses. It is not clear to me why Shelo views the interpretation he brought as "similar but having a different purpose."
Our best wishes to Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, member of our movement, upon his being honored with the 1999 Israel Prize for Torah Literature. This brings honor to our movement, to the Israel Prize, and to the entire nation of Israel.
|
|
|
| |
| Home |
The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help! |
What's New Activities and Current Events |
Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel |
|
|
|
|
Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English) |
Search Our Site | Links To Peace Movements |
Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
©
Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.