[Par-lite] for Parshat Bechukotei
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed May 1 04:37:59 EDT 2013
*********************************************
****************
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/20130501/db1eb979/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20130501/db1eb979/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list