[Par-lite] for Parshat Bechukotei
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu May 19 02:17:33 EDT 2011
**********************************************************
***
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
**********************************************************
***
PARSHAT BECHUKOTAI
THE CONCLUSION OF SEFER VAYIKRA
Considering that Sefer Vayikra is primarily a book of
laws, it would certainly be appropriate to conclude those
laws
by explaining their reward - and that is exactly what we
find
in Parshat Bechukotai! Review Vayikra chapter 26 - better
known as the 'tochacha' - noting how it describes the
reward
(/or punishment) for keeping (/or defying) God's laws.
Hence, chapter 26 forms a fitting conclusion for the
entire book. So why does Sefer Vayikra add one additional
chapter (see chapter 27 /the laws of 'erchin') immediately
afterward?
In this week's shiur we attempt to explain why.
INTRODUCTION
Let's begin by clarifying our opening question.
Recall
how Parshat Bechukotai (the last Parshat ha'shavua in
Sefer
Vayikra) contains two distinct sections:
(1) the tochacha (chapter 26) -
Bnei Yisrael's reward [and/or punishment] should they
obey
[/or disobey] God's commandments;
(2) The laws of 'erchin' (chapter 27) -
A set of specific laws pertaining to the monetary
evaluation of people or property dedicated to God.
Considering that Sefer Vayikra is a book that
contains a
collection of mitzvot, a 'tochacha' would form an
appropriate
conclusion - for it outlines how God rewards (or punishes)
Am
Yisrael as a function of how they keep those mitzvot.
The first section of our shiur will explain how (and
why)
the tochacha should indeed be considered the conclusion of
Sefer Vayikra. Afterward, we'll attempt to explain why
the
Torah may have 'added on' chapter 27 to form a significant
'epilogue'.
PART ONE - A PERFECT FINALE
Recall our explanation of how Sefer Vayikra divides
into
two distinct sections:
A) Kedushat mishkan - chapters 1 -> 17.
focusing on laws pertaining to the mishkan, such as
korbanot, tum'a & tahara, etc.
B) Kedushat ha-am ve-haaretz - chapters 18 -> 25.
focusing on a wide range of laws of 'kedusha' outside
the
mishkan, to make Am Yisrael an 'am kadosh'.
As you review both the 'positive' and 'negative'
sides of
the tochacha, note how the reward and punishment relates
to
both these sections, i.e. the mishkan and the Land:
* On the positive side, should Bnei Yisrael obey the
mitzvot, then:
B) "and I will put My mishkan in your midst..."
(26:11)
A) "and the land shall give its produce..." (26:4).
* On the negative side, should Bnei Yisrael disobey
these
laws, then:
A) "I will make your mikdash desolate..." (26:31)
B) "the land will not give its produce..."
(26:20,34-35).
This only strengthens our claim that the tochacha
should
have been the last chapter of Sefer Vayikra! However, the
best 'proof' is found in its 'final' pasuk.
THE FINAL PASUK -
Let's take a look at the final pasuk of the tochacha,
to
show how it relates to both halves of Sefer Vayikra:
"These are the chukim & mishpatim, and the torot which
God
had given between Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to
Moshe" (26:46).
Clearly, this pasuk forms a summary of more than just
the
tochacha itself. Let's explain why.
Note how this final pasuk mentions two categories of
mitzvot that we are already familiar with:
1) chukim & mishpatim, and
2) torot.
This implies that whatever unit this pasuk does
summarize
- it includes both 'chukim & mishpatim' and 'torot' (that
were
given to Moshe on Har Sinai). Hence, this pasuk must
summarize more than the tochacha, for the tochacha itself
does
not contain "chukim & mishpatim", nor "torot".
Aware of this problem, many commentators attempt to
identify the wider unit that is summarized in this pasuk.
For example:
* Rashbam suggests that it summarizes both Parshiot
Behar &
Bechukotai, i.e. chapters 25 & 26. This is quite logical,
for
the laws of shmitta and yovel could be considered the
"chukim
& mishpatim". This also makes sense since both these
chapters
are included in the same 'dibbur' which began in 25:1.
However, Rashbam does not explain which laws in this
unit
fit under the category of torot.
Furthermore, recall our explanation in Parshat Tzav
that
a 'torah' implies a procedural type of law, e.g. 'torat
ha-
chatat' - how the kohen executes the chatat offering, etc.
Within chapters 25 & 26, it is difficult to pinpoint any
such
'procedural' law.
* Ibn Ezra claims that this pasuk summarizes not only
Parshat Behar (i.e. Vayikra chapters 25 & 26), but also
Parshat Mishpatim, i.e. Sefer Shmot chapters 21 - 23!
Ibn Ezra's interpretation is based on his
understanding
that the tochacha in Parshat Bechukotai is none other than
the
'sefer ha-brit' mentioned in Shmot 24:7 [i.e. in the
Torah's
description of the ceremony at Ma'amad Har Sinai when Bnei
Yisrael proclaimed 'na'aseh ve-nishma']. (See Ibn Ezra on
Vayikra 25:1 and Shmot 24:7.)
However, it seems rather strange to find a summary
pasuk
for Parshat Mishpatim at the end of Sefer Vayikra!
* Ramban agrees with Ibn Ezra that this pasuk forms a
summary of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as well.
However,
he reaches this conclusion from a different angle. Ramban
claims that this parshia of the tochacha was actually
given to
Moshe Rabbeinu during his second set of forty days on Har
Sinai, and serves as a 'replacement' covenant - to replace
the
conditions of the original na'aseh ve-nishma covenant (as
described in Shmot 24:7). As such, this summary pasuk
summarizes the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as well. [See
Ramban on 25:1, towards the end of his lengthy peirush to
that
pasuk. This complicated (but important) Ramban is based
on
his approach to the chronological order of Chumash, but it
is
beyond the scope of this shiur.]
In any case, our above question regarding Ibn Ezra's
approach would apply to Ramban's as well.
* Rashi offers the 'widest' understanding of this
summary
pasuk. He claims that this finale pasuk summarizes not
only
the entire 'written law' of the entire Chumash, but also
the
entire 'oral law' as well!
It is interesting to note that from among all of the
commentators, only Rashi deals with the problem of
determining
the precise meaning of "torot". Rashi solves the problem
by
quoting the Midrash that it refers to 'Torah she-bikhtav
u-
ba'al peh'. However, this interpretation is quite
difficult
for (according to simple pshat) the word 'eileh' [these]
at
the beginning of 26:46 summarizes what has been written
thus
far, and not what has not been written yet.
* Seforno follows a direction similar to Rashi, but
appears
to be a bit more 'realistic'. He claims that this pasuk
summarizes all of the mitzvot that were mentioned in
Chumash
thus far, i.e. before Parshat Bechukotai. However,
Seforno is
not very precise concerning exactly which mitzvot are
summarized by this pasuk.
In our shiur, we will follow Seforno's 'lead' and
show
how this final pasuk may actually form a summary pasuk for
all
of the mitzvot found in Sefer Vayikra! Our approach will
be
based on identifying more specifically what the phrases
chukim
& mishpatim and torot (in 26:46) may be referring to.
A FITTING FINALE
Recall once again how Sefer Vayikra divides into two
sections (see above), and how the second half of the Sefer
begins in chapter 18 with a set of five psukim that form
an
introduction. [See 18:1-5 and our shiur on Parshat
Acharei
Mot.]
As you review those psukim, note how these psukim
actually introduce an entire set of chukim u-mishpatim.
For
example:
"Observe My mishpatim and keep My chukim to follow them,
I
am the Lord your God. Keep My chukim & mishpatim..."
(18:4-
5. See also 18:26-30!).
Therefore, the phrase chukim ve-mishpatim in our
'finale
pasuk' (26:46) could be understood as the summary of the
second half of Sefer Vayikra (chapters 18->25), as it
refers
to the numerous chukim u-mishpatim that are recorded in
that
section.
Furthermore, note how often we have found this phrase
in
the second half of Vayikra: see 19:19 & 37, 20:8 & 22, and
25:18!
In a similar manner, the word torot could be
considered a
summary of the laws found in the first half of the Sefer.
Recall how the word torah was used numerous times to
describe
the various procedures regarding korbanot. The most
obvious
example would be Parshat Tzav where the phrase 'zot
torat...'
introduced each category of korbanot (see 6:2, 6:7, 6:18,
7:1,
7:11) and also formed its summary (see 7:37!).
However, this phrase was also found numerous times in
Parshat Tazria/Metzora as well (see 12:7; 13:59;
14:2,32,45;
and 15:32).
Furthermore, even though this phrase is not mentioned
by
the other mitzvot in this section, most of its laws are of
a
procedural nature and could easily fall under this
category of
torot. Certainly, the seven day 'milu'im' & 'yom
ha-shmini'
ceremonies (chapters 8 & 9) are procedures and hence could
be
understood as torot, as is the yearly 'avoda' of the kohen
gadol on Yom Kippur (see chapter 16).
Hence, the word torot in 26:46 can be understood as a
summary of the procedural laws found in the first half of
Sefer Vayikra.
Thus, the final pasuk of the tochacha (26:46) becomes
an
almost 'perfect ending' for the entire sefer:
"These are the chukim & mishpatim [summarizes the second
half - chapters 18 thru 25] and the torot [summarizes
the
first half - chapters 6 thru 17] which God had given
between
Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to Moshe" (26:46).
The phrase chukim & mishpatim summarizes Part Two of
Sefer Vayikra, while the word torot summarizes Part One!
THE TOCHACHA & SEFER SHMOT
Even though we have shown how this finale pasuk
(26:46)
forms a beautiful conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, it
contains an
additional phrase that explains why it could be considered
a
conclusion for the laws in Sefer Shmot as well. [If so,
this
would help us appreciate Ibn Ezra & Ramban's peirush as
well,
and the chiastic structure discussed in our shiur on
Parshat
Behar.]
Let's take a closer look at this finale pasuk, noting
the
second half of the pasuk:
"These are the chukim u-mishpatim, and the torot which
God
had given - beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael - between Himself
and
Bnei Yisrael, on Har Sinai through Moshe" (26:46).
This special phrase: 'beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael' may
highlight the covenantal nature of the mitzvot of Sefer
Vayikra. To explain why, we need only quote a pasuk that
we
are all familiar with from 'shabbos davening' [our sabbath
prayers]. Note how the Torah uses an almost identical
phrase
as it describes how Shabbat should be considered a
'brit'.:
"Ve-shameru Bnei Yisrael et ha-shabbat... - to keep it
as a
day of rest for all generations - brit olam - an
everlasting
covenant - beini u-vein Bnei Yisrael - an eternal
sign..."
(see Shmot 31:16-17).
In fact, this very concept of brit is emphasized
several
times by the tochacha itself:
"... ve-hakimoti et briti itchem" (26:9)
"... lehafrechem et briti" (26:15)
"ve-zacharti et briti Yaakov ve-af et briti
Yitzchak..."
(26:42)
"ve-zacharti lahem brit rishonim asher hotzeiti..."
(26:45).
If this interpretation is correct, then we have found
an
additional thematic connection between the laws of kedusha
in
Sefer Vayikra and the purpose of Matan Torah as described
at
brit Har Sinai. As we have explained, the mitzvot of
Sefer
Vayikra function as a vehicle thru which the goal of brit
Sinai - "ve-atem tiheyu li mamlechet kohanim ve-goy
kadosh" -
can be achieved. (See Shmot 19:4-6.)
[Once again, note how this thematic connection can also
explain the chiastic structure that connected the laws
in
Sefer Shmot & Sefer Vayikra, as explained in our shiur
on
Parshat Behar.]
Hence, the phrase 'beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael' in this
summary pasuk may emphasize how the mitzvot of Sefer
Vayikra
strengthen the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael, as
forged at Har Sinai, where Am Yisrael took upon themselves
to
become God's special nation.
THE TOCHACHA & SEFER BREISHIT
Thus far, we have shown how the tochacha forms a
fitting
conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, and thematically relates
back to
covenant at Har Sinai as described in Sefer Shmot. One
could
suggest that it may contain a certain element that
thematically returns us to Sefer Breishit as well.
Recall our explanation of how Gan Eden represented an
ideal environment in which man was capable of developing a
close relationship with God. In that environment, man's
reward for obeying God was a prosperous life in Gan Eden;
while his punishment for disobeying God's commandment was
death - i.e. his banishment from Gan Eden.
The two sides of the tochacha describe a similar
environment for Am Yisrael living in Eretz Yisrael.
Should
they keep God's laws, Am Yisrael can enjoy a prosperous
and
secure existence in their land.
For example, 'im be-chukotai teilechu...', i.e.
should
you follow God's laws, then 've-achaltem le-sova be-
artzechem' -you will enjoy prosperity in your land (see
25:3-
6). - This would be in contrast to man's punishment when
he
was expelled from Gan Eden with the curse of 'be-ze'at
apcha
tochal lechem' (see Breishit 3:17-19).
Recall as well how God was 'mithalech' in Gan Eden
(see
Br.3:8). Similarly, He will now 'mithalech' in Eretz
Yisrael
together with His Nation: 'v'e-ithalachti betochachem, ve-
hayiti lachem l-Elokim, ve-atem tihiyu li le-am' (see
Vayikra
25:12).
On the other hand, should Bnei Yisrael not follow
God's
laws ('ve-im lo tishme'u..'), they will be faced with a
troubled existence, culminating with their expulsion from
the
land (26:33), parallel to man's banishment from Gan Eden.
(This parallel between Gan Eden and Eretz Yisrael was
already
introduced at the beginning of the second half of Sefer
Vayikra- see 18:24-30).
[In this manner, the Midrashim that identify Gan Eden as
Eretz Yisrael relate to more than its geographical
location;
rather they underscore a major biblical theme.]
PARSHAT 'ERCHIN' - WHY HERE?
We return now to our original question. If the final
pasuk of the tochacha forms such an appropriate ending for
Sefer Vayikra, why does the Torah place 'parshat erchin'
immediately afterward (instead of beforehand in Sefer
Vayikra)? After all, the laws of erchin, especially those
relating to yovel (see 27:16-25), would have fit nicely
within
Parshat Behar, together with the other laws relating to
yovel.
[See Ramban on 27:1]
Furthermore, the laws relating to the dedication of
objects to the Temple treasury could have been included
much
earlier in Sefer Vayikra, possibly in Parshat Vayikra
together
with other laws concerning voluntary offerings.
The simplest explanation is that the Torah did not
want
to conclude the Sefer on a 'sour note', i.e. with the
tochacha, preferring instead to conclude with something
more
positive.
[Sort of like a adding on a 'happy ending' by selecting
a
'parshia' that could have been recorded earlier, and
saving
it for the conclusion.]
The Ibn Ezra offers an explanation based on 'sod',
relating to the deeper meaning of 'bechor' and 'ma'aser'
(see
last Ibn Ezra in Vayikra).
Seforno differentiates between these mitzvot (in
chapter
27) that are voluntary, and the mandatory mitzvot
summarized
in 26:46. Because those mitzvot constituted the essence
of
the brit, they were summarized separately. Once those
mitzvot
were completed in chapter 26, chapter 27 records the
mitzvot
of Har Sinai that were not part of that covenant. (See
Seforno 26:46.)
One could suggest an alternative approach, by
considering
once again the overall structure of Sefer Vayikra.
Recall from our study of Parshat Vayikra that the
first
five chapters (i.e. the laws of 'korban yachid') were
given to
Moshe Rabbeinu from the ohel mo'ed (see 1:1), while the
next
two chapters (the torot of the korbanot in chapter 6-7) we
given from Har Sinai (see 7:37-38). Furthermore, since
the
laws of Parshat Vayikra were given from the ohel mo'ed,
they
must have been given only after the shechina had returned
to
the mishkan on the yom ha-shmini, and hence after the
story of
the seven day 'milu'im" & "yom ha-shmini' - as recorded in
Vayikra chapters 8-10.
Therefore, it appears as though the laws in Parshat
Vayikra were placed intentionally at the beginning of
Sefer
Vayikra, even though they chronologically belong in the
middle
of the Sefer.
Thus, we conclude that even though both the opening
and
concluding units of Sefer Vayikra belong within the sefer,
the
Torah records them as a 'header' and 'footer' instead.
The following chart reviews this structure:
CHAPTERS TOPIC
========= =====
* HEADER
1->5 the laws of korban yachid (mitzvot)
I. TOROT of: [first section]
6->7 - how to bring korbanot
8->10 - how the milu'im were offered
11->15 - yoledet, metzora, zav, zava
16->17 - how to enter kodesh kodashim
II. CHUKIM U-MISHPATIM [second section]
18->20 - kedushat ha-am
21->22 - kedushat kohanim
23->25 - kedushat zman u-makom
26 TOCHACHA ( & summary pasuk/ 26:46)
* FOOTER
27 the laws of erchin (mitzvot)
Now we must explain why specifically these two
parshiot
were chosen to serve as the 'book-ends' of Sefer Vayikra?
SPECIAL 'BOOKENDS'
Parshat Vayikra and the parshia of erchin share a
common
theme. They both deal with an individual dedicating an
object
to 'hekdesh'. Both also begin with cases where a person
offers a voluntary gift (nedava): Parshat Vayikra begins
with
ola & shlamim while parshat erchin begins with the
voluntary
offering of the value of a person, animal, or field.
[Vayikra deals with korbanot actually offered on the
mizbeiach (kodshei mizbeiach) while erchin deals with
the
value of objects which cannot be offered, their value
is
given instead to the 'general fund' of the Temple -
'kodshei bedek ha-bayit'.]
One could suggest that the Torah intentionally chose
parshiot dealing with the offerings of an individual,
primarily the voluntary offerings, to form the 'book-ends'
of
Sefer Vayikra for the following reason.
As we have seen, Sefer Vayikra focuses on the kedusha
of
the mishkan and of the nation. These lofty goals of the
Shchina dwelling upon an entire nation can easily lead the
individual to underestimate his own importance.
Furthermore,
the rigid detail of the mitzvot of Vayikra may lead one to
believe that there is little room for self-initiated
expression in his own relationship with God, as our
covenantal
obligations could be viewed as dry and technical.
To counter these possible misconceptions, the Torah
may
have placed these two parshiot at the opening and
concluding
sections of Sefer Vayikra - to stress these two important
tenets of 'avodat Hashem'. Despite the centrality of the
community, the individual cannot lose sight of the value
and
importance of his role as an integral part of the communal
whole. Secondly, the rigidity of Halacha should not
stifle
personal expression. Rather, it should form the solid
base
from which the individual can develop an aspiring,
dynamic,
and personal relationship with God.
shabbat shalom
menachem
===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
fA. It should be noted that Abarbanel does raise this
possibility that the final pasuk of the tochacha
summarizes
only chapter 26, and not larger unit. Note how this
forces
him to explain the phrases chukim u-mishpatim & torot in a
very different manner.
B. WHEN WERE THE MITZVOT OF SEFER VAYIKRA GIVEN?
In our shiur, we explained that the torot mentioned
in
Parshat Tzav were given on Har Sinai. How about the torot
in
Tazria Metzora, or basically, how about the rest of the
mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra - were they given from the ohel
mo'ed
or earlier when Moshe was on Har Sinai? The psukim do not
tell us.
Based on the above shiur, we can suggest that most
all of
the mitzvot in Vayikra were actually given on Har Sinai,
but
are recorded in Sefer Vayikra for simply thematic reasons
(i.e. 'torat kohanim'). Surely, Parshat Tzav states
explicitly that its torot were given to Moshe on Har Sinai
(7:37-8).
Therefore one can also assume that all of the torot
mentioned in the Sefer were given on Har Sinai. In fact,
this
can explain Shmot 24:12 which states that Moshe went up to
Har
Sinai to receive the torah & mitzva - one could suggest
that
the mitzva refers to the laws of the mishkan which Moshe
is
about to receive that are recorded in the remainder of
Sefer
Shmot (see Shmot 25:1-4!). If so, then torah may refer to
the
torot (that relate to the mishkan). However, most of
these
torot are recorded in Sefer Vayikra and not in Sefer
Shmot.
[ha-torah may also refer to the mitzvot of Sefer
Devarim,
but that is a topic for a different shiur. [note
Devarim
1:5 and the word torah throughout that Sefer.]
In a similar manner one could understand that the
chukim
u-mishpatim recorded in Sefer Vayikra may also have been
given
to Moshe on Har Sinai. To support this, see Devarim 5:28
and
its context, as well as Shmot 24:1-4.
Therefore the mention of Har Sinai in this final
pasuk
does not limit its interpretation to referring only to
Behar/Bechukotai, rather strengthens its interpretation as
a
summary of the entire Sefer. It is also likely that
certain
other mitzvot that were given in reaction to events that
occurred after 'hakamat ha-mishkan', i.e. after Nadav and
Avihu died etc.) may have been given from the ohel mo'ed,
but
there is no reason why we cannot understand that all the
other
mitzvot recorded in the sefer were first given to Moshe
during
his 40 days on Har Sinai. Except of course those mitzvot
that
were given directly to Aharon, which indicate that they
were
given from the ohel mo'ed, and the mitzvot that were given
in
response to a question that Moshe did not have the answer
for.
C. A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE WITHIN SEFER VAYIKRA
In the above shiur, we have noted a connection between
the
opening and closing parshiot of Sefer Vayikra. This
suggests
a possibility of a chiastic structure within Sefer Vayikra
itself.
See if you can find this structure, noting how chapters
18 and
20 'surround' chapter 19, the connection between chapter
21
and chapter 16 in relation to the kohen gadol, chapters 22
and
11-15 in relation to tum'a & tahara, chapters 9-10 to
chapter
23 in relation to cycles of 7 & 8, chapter 24 and chapter
8 in
relation to the keilim of the mishkan, and chapters 6-7
and
chapters 25-26 in relations to mitzvot given at Har Sinai
(see
finale psukim of both sections), 've-akmal'!
D. THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
As we explained above, the "tochacha" in Parsha
Bechukotei
(chapter 26) would have been a most fitting conclusion for
Sefer Vayikra. Nonetheless, Sefer Vayikra adds one
additional
chapter, detailing the laws of "erchin" - i.e. the
'monetary'
assessment of various individuals - should their value be
dedicated to God.
Even though these laws seem to be rather technical,
from
a certain perspective they do reflect the value of every
individual. But what does that have to do with the
conclusion
of Sefer Vayikra? As Ramban points out (see middle of
his
commentary to 26:11), the "tochacha" describes 'reward and
punishment' at the national level. In other words, it
promises prosperity in relation to the land's agriculture,
political stability, security, and military success (see
26:1-
11). On the 'down side' - it describes primarily national
calamities show Bnei Yisrael not keep God's laws. On
the
other hand, God does not promise every individual (in this
world) reward for his good deeds, or punishment for his
sins.
There may be some thematic logic behind this
distinction.
As Bnei Yisrael were chosen to be 'nation' that will
represent
God among the nations of the world, we are judged as a
nation;
and rewarded as a nation. If we are successful in making
a
'Name for God' by keeping His mitzvot properly, God will
not
only 'dwell in midst' (see 26:11-12), He will also provide
us
with material reward - that enables the nation to continue
'the good job'. On the other hand, should we embarrass
God by
our poor behavior as His special nation, God promises to
consistently punish us, to various levels, until we
finally
'learn our lesson' (see 26:14-- or even without
repentance,
should our situation becomes too pitiful (see Devarim
32:36).
[To support this point, note the phrase "l'einei
ha'goyim" - in the eyes of the nations -in the finale
pasuk (see 26:45 in its context), emphasizing the
connection between God's covenant with the people of
Israel and their influence on the rest of mankind.]
This thematic conclusion, however accurate, can lead
to a
very dangerous conclusion. If God's primary interest with
His
people is at the national level, then maybe the fate of
each
individual may not so be important [ask the early leaders
of
communism (like Stalin), if you know your history].
One could suggest, that it may be specifically for
this
reason that Sefer Vayikra chose specifically the laws of
"erchin" - reflecting the value of each individual - as
its
conclusion, to 'balance' this possible misunderstanding of
the
"tochacha". Surely, the primary focus of the Bible is on
the
existence of Am Yisrael as a nation, but to truly act as
God's
special nation - the importance of every individual must
not
be under-emphasized.
E. THE CONCLUSION OF VAYIKRA & SHAVUOT
As many commentators point out, the "tochacha"
relates
directly to the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael at
Har
Sinai. [Note the tell-tale phrase: "beini u'bein Bnei
Yisrael
b'Har Sinai" in its concluding pasuk (see 26:46), as well
as
the parallel pasuk at the conclusion of the "tochacha" in
Devarim (see Devarim 28:69 - "milvad ha'brit asher karat
item
b'chorev"). See also Chizkuni on Shmot 24:7!]
Even though all the mitzvot of the Torah are
important,
it seems that certain mitzvot, i.e. mitzvot of Parshat
Behar
in Vayikra chapter 25, were singled out to be part of the
'official covenant.
[Note that all the psukim from 25:1 thru 26:46 form a
single unit, as they are introduced by the same
dibur.]
One could offer a very 'zionistic' explanation for
this,
as the laws in chapter 25 deal the "kedusha" of the Land
of
Israel in regard to keeping the laws of "shemitta" &
"yovel"
(see 25:1-13). In other words, one of God's primary
considerations of how God will (or will not) punish us,
depends on how meticulously we keep the laws of the
"shemitta"
year. [Note as well 26:34.]
On the other hand, chapter 25 contains much more that
the
'technical' laws of "shemitta". If you read that chapter
carefully, you'll note how its primary topic is the
consequences of the laws of "shemitta" - reflecting the
Torah's desire that Bnei Yisrael fulfill every aspect of
the
laws of social justice.
For example, as soon as we mention the laws of Yovel,
the
Torah immediately reminds us not to use those laws as
'technical loophole' to make a tricky 'real-estate deal'
(see
25:14-17!
Then, the Torah explains why these laws are so
important,
as God reminds us that our purpose as a nation is to be
humble
servants of God, rather than a group of wealthy landlords
exploiting poor serfs (see 25:23-24).
The clincher of this direction are in the following
thirty some psukim (see 25:25-55), which describe our
communal
obligation to help our neighbors in financial distress, by
lending them resources so they won't need to either sell
their
land or even themselves!
Thus, even though the first thirteen psukim seem to
describe the technical laws of "shemitta" & "yovel", the
remaining forty some psukim focus primarily on assuring
social
justice for the poor and needy. In fact, by quoting the
Torah's brief reference to the laws of "shemitta" in
Parshat
Mishpatim, we find that the very purpose of these
'technical
laws' is to ensure social justice:
"Six years thou shall sow thy land, and gather its
produce,
but the seventh year thou shall let it rest and lie
fallow,
that the poor of thy people may eat..." (Shmot 2310-11)
[Note as well how social justice was a primary theme
in
most of the laws of Parshat Mishpatim as well.]
To provide additional support, I'd like to suggest
that
the Torah's reminder to keep God's "chukim u'mishpatim" in
25:18 may not be referring to the laws of "shemitta" but
rather to the laws of Vayikra chapters 18 & 19, for the
simple
reason that the opening psukim of chapter 18 introduce
exactly
what God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are all about (see related
TSC
shiur on Parshat Acharei Mot). For those who don't
remember,
the intro in Vayikra 18:1-5 leads us to the conclusion
that
God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are none other than the laws of
Parshat "Kedoshim Tihiyu" (i.e. Vayikra chapter 19)!
If these observations are correct, then the thrust of
God's covenant with His people at Har Sinai, and
especially
His promise of reward (or punishment) should we keep (or
not
keep) His mitzvot, relates primarily to the ability of
Bnei
Yisrael to create a society characterized by acts of
social
justice ("tzedek u'mishpat" - see Breishit 18:17-19!),
thus
setting an example for other nations to learn from (see
Devarim 4:5-8).
Should we emphasize this direction, as we meticulously
keep
all of God's mitzvot, may we be worthy of God's promise
of:
"And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie
down,
and none shall make you afraid; and I will cause evil
beasts
to cease out of the land, neither shall the sword go
through
your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they
shall
fall before you by the sword... and your enemies shall
fall
before you by the sword. And I will have respect unto
you,
and make you fruitful, and multiply you; and will
establish
My covenant with you!" (see Vayikra 26:6-9)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20110519/9c1fdf9e/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bchuk1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49673 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20110519/9c1fdf9e/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list