The Reciprocality of the Sinai Covenant

 

In this week’s Parashah, “Ekev,” Moshe reminds Am Yisrael that obedience to G-d’s commandments, adhering to the terms and the moral code of the Covenant, entered at Sinai,   will bring blessing, security, and prosperity. Disobedience, on the other hand, will lead to hardship and loss. He reminds Am Yisrael of the ordeals and miracles that transpired in the desert, the manna, the water and G-d’s coaching and preparing them to assume nationhood.  Moshe emphasizes gratitude and humility. He warns them against arrogance whereby they attribute their prosperity to their own strength and abilities, (“My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth,” 8:17). This, he cautions, will come at the cost of losing their spirituality and faith in G-d. In other words, material abundance and depersonalization must not cause spiritual forgetfulness — Am Yisrael must remember its dependence on G-d even in times of plenty.

Moshe also reinforces the prohibition to follow the ways of other nations and the worship of foreign gods. He reproves them, again, for the sin of the “golden calf”

The name of this Parashah, “Ekev,” comes from its opening words, “Vehaya ekev tishme’un…..” “And it shall come to pass, because you will listen….” (Deuteronomy 7:12)

The word ekev, in this context, as the translation suggests, means “when it came to pass,” “because,” or “as a consequence.”  However, ekev  is derived from the Hebrew root ע,ק,ב, which, literally, means “heel.” It shares the same root as the name Ya’acov (Jacob), one of our forefathers. As many may know, in Hebrew, words that have the same root are almost always related in meaning since the root carries the core semantic idea. Who, among us, does not recall that Ya’acov was given that name when he came into the world holding onto the heel of his twin brother Esau? 

Jewish scholars, through the ages, pondered over the choice of the word “ekev” in the verse.

Rabbi Ari Kahn, for instance, asserts that “Had the Torah wished to state this wonderful result” of obeying the commandments,“in more straightforward terms, describing the ongoing relationship with G-d and the dynamic nature of His Covenant with the Jewish People, simpler words could have been employed.” Kahn further suggests that the use of the word “if” would be more appropriate since “it is the most straightforward word that connotes conditionality.”

Both Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Ekev (section 1) and Rash”i believe that the word “ekev” was deliberately selected. They point to an additional message that is conveyed by it. According to them, it refers to commandments that people might treat lightly and thus tend to “trample them under their heels.” The “heel” metaphor, they suggest, is employed to remind us that even the simplest mitzvot, those that might be neglected or underestimated, bear significant reward. 

Or Hachaim (Chaim Ibn Attar 1696-1743) also dwells on this challenging choice of word after which the parashah is named. He believes that “ekev” hints at the end of days (“at the heels of history”) - that the ultimate blessing will come when the mitzvot are fully observed.

Rabbi Sacks highlights a different theme, a very significant one, in my view, of this parashah, one that is closely related to the titular name of this essay. His interpretation leads him to conclude that it teaches us about the “Spirituality of Listening,” principally when “the listening” is to an invisible G-d.  Sacks bases his assertion on the repetitive use of the word “shema” which appears in the opening verse of the parashah, as stated in its opening verse and which is reinforced later in the parashah (11:13).

“Shema,” tells us Sacks, “means so many things, to hear, to listen, to pay attention, to understand, to internalise, to respond, to obey.” Sacks notes that it is “ one of the motif-words of the book of Devarim [Deuteronomy] where it appears no less than 92 times.” Moshe keeps reminding Am Yisrael of the need to hear what G-d is telling us, to listen to what He wants and expects of us and what He will give us in return.

“Listening and speaking,” Sacks tells us, “are forms of engagement. They create a relationship,” and listening, remarks Sacks, is at “the heart of every relationship.” This is particularly important in Judaism, which Sacks defines as “the religion of listening” that is based on “faith in a G-d we cannot see, a G-d who cannot be represented visually.”

That is, precisely, the kind relationship G-d has with Am Yisrael, as is expressed in the Sinai Covenant. It is a Covenant of reciprocality because it is a two-way exchange where each side both gives and receives. It is reciprocal because it is built on mutual obligations and commitments between G-d and Am Yisrael, rather than being a one-sided decree. G-d’s role, in this relationship, is the promise of protection, provision, guidance, and making Am Yisrael a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6). Am Yisrael’s part is the commitment to obey G-d’s commandments, including the “lightest” ones, live according to His Torah and adhere to what Sacks depicts as “life of love and love of life,” while fulfilling its role as a moral and spiritual example among the nations.

Va’etchanan - The Answer to the “Why” of Jewish Existence

 

“Those who have a “why” to live, can bear with almost any “how.” – Victor J. Frankl

 “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” – Mark Twain

Va’etchanan, this week’s Torah portion is the second portion in the book of Deuteronomy (3:23-7:11). Moshe continues his final sermon to Am Yisrael. He shares with them how he pleaded (Va’etchanan) with G-d to allow him to enter the Promised Land and sums up some of the key milestones along their journey through the desert.

“Remember the day at Mount Sinai when G-d spoke to you out of the midst of fire,” Moshe reminds them. That day, in our Jewish history, is what Mark Twain refers to, in the above quote, as “one of the two most important days” in our life as a People. It was the day Am Yisrael and the Jewish Nation were born, the day we became a “A kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation unto G-d.” (Exodus 19:6).

On that first important day, we also declared in one unanimous voice, “we shall do, and we shall harken.”

By proclaiming these words, our People, composed of a former community of tribes, most of whom were illiterate slaves, unconditionally accepted and affirmed the “what” and the “how” of our Jewish Moral Code of Law. We took upon ourselves the burden of the Mitzvot and how to follow them. I doubt many, if any, understood what they meant and “why” it was important to follow and obey them.

For the forty years of wandering in the desert, Bnei Yisrael were repeatedly taught the “what” and the “how.” During that period, though, Moshe does not dwell as much on the core of the reasons behind the mitzvot, on the “why,” or what the ancient Greeks call Telos.

As Frankl suggests above and as many of us have learned in life, knowing the “why” facilitates and eventually enables us to overcome the harshest of obstacles and hurdles posed before us on our odyssey through life. The search for the meaning of our existence requires us to discover what Twain defines as “the second most important day of our life,” the day we discover the “why.”

In his article, “The Power of Why,” Rabbi Sacks also addresses the relevance of the “why” in our life. He shares with us a TED talk by Simon Sinek, an English American author and inspirational speaker. In it, Sinek asked, “How do great leaders inspire action? What made people like Martin Luther Kind and Steve Jobs stand out from their contemporaries who may have been no less gifted, no less qualified. Sinek’s answer, tells us Sacks, is “Most people talk about the what. Some people talk about the how. Great leaders, though, start with the why. This is what makes them transformative.”

Moshe, undoubtedly, understood the importance of the concept.  Unlike other sermons delivered by him, in the past, his final farewell not only stresses the duty to follow the commandments, but it also unveils a new facet of them, thus reinforcing their solemnity. It reveals to Am Yisrael, the universal “why” behind the Mitzvot.

Though on other occasions, in the past, the decree to follow the Torah was backed by the “why,” it was, generally, in the form of personal, individual and even national rewards for following them or subsequent punishment for disobeying them. For instance, the personal merit that is attached to the Fifth Commandment which requires us to honour our mother and father, promises the granting of a long life by G-d. Likewise, as a nation, we are warned against the dire consequences of any deviation from the Law as well as promised the rewards that await us for complying with it.

However, in Moshe’s “Swan Song,” in Va’etchana,” we learn about a much bigger and more significant reason for adhering to the One G-d and His commandments. This one is a universal “why” which ascribes the importance of preserving Jewish existence and survival. “Observe them carefully for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about them and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord, our G-d is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?”  (Deuteronomy 4:6-8).

This is the big “why,” behind the “what” and the “how” that we were given in Mount Sinai. It is not merely for the gain of Bnei Yisrael as individuals, or as members of a Nation but it is also a universal benefit. It is the “why” that serves to fulfill the exceptionally enormous role that we were destined to play as “a Holy Nation unto G-d,” in the history of mankind.

May we, Am Yisrael and the Jewish People be comforted on this Shabbat Nachamu and be worthy of the role that G-d and history have allotted to us.

Shabbat Shalom

Yom Kippur and Yisraeli Democracy

 

Yom Kippur is the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. I doubt that many will disagree.

For me, Yom Kippur bears a unique significance for a few reasons. It was a tradition in my family ever since I can remember. Its reverence vibrates in every part of my essence. In addition to its piety among our Jewish Holy Days, Yom Kippur also bears poignant sadness as it brings to the surface memories of the Yom Kippur war and its painful losses.

The observance of this sacred day is commanded in the Torah, in Vayikra (Leviticus 23:28-320: “You shall not perform any work on that very day…. and you shall afflict yourselves.” Furthermore, G-d warns that any disobedience will be followed by severe punishment and any person “who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people. And any person who performs any work on that day, I will destroy that person from amidst its people.”

This, a few millennia old, directive, sounds appaling and scary, does it not? What a menacing scenario - the embodiment of theocratic dictatorship, so it seems.

The inevitable and eminent enforcement of that commandment is what some have tried to warn us against for close to a year. Yisrael, they keep parroting, is going to turn into a replica of Iran, G-d forbid.

Not quite.

On the Eve of Yom Kippur, as I was making my way to services in a nearby makeshift synagogue, dressed in white and immersed in the cloak of holiness, I watched my many fellow Yisraelis who were flocking the traffic free streets. While some were, like me, observing that commandment, others were playing with their children who were riding their bikes, some of which were electrical and enjoying themselves. A few were busy texting or speaking on their mobile telephones. Some were wearing shorts and dressed casually. I even noticed one or two drinking water out of plastic bottles. As I walked past them, I wished them “Chatima Tova,” the traditional greeting on that day. They responded in kind.

Having been warned, repeatedly, that religious dictatorship was upon us, I was surprised to see that none of the “disobedient” souls were scolded, stoned, or destroyed. My hawk eyes were searching for the secret “dress code police” ready to arrest the culprits. Alas, to no avail.

What I did sense, though, is what the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks termed as “The Dignity of Difference.”

As I approached the place of worship, I noticed many other folks entering it. They were young, they were old. They were dressed in the customary white attire while others were wearing torn jeans. Some women even entered it with their bare arms and shoulders exposed.

No one stopped them. No one scolded them. No one denied them entry, and no one sent them back home to change their garments. Surprisingly enough, even here the “theocratic dress police” was nowhere to be found.

“The Dignity of Difference,” was welcoming all who sought to pray indiscriminately.

Upon entering the room, as I always do, I seek a place in the women’s section (generally front row) and make myself comfortable. I personally prefer separate sections for men and women. Is it because of habit? Perhaps. Whatever the reason, I love it.

Before anyone jumps at me on that point, let me interject and add that separate seating for men and women is not the only setting available in Yisrael. A childhood friend of mine who wishes to sit next to her partner during prayer, elects to attend a reform synagogue. We continue to respect each other and accept our respective choices. Each to their own.

Indeed, there are those of us who continue to practice “The Dignity of Difference.”

Some parts of the service also include chanting. As a former singer, it is perfect for me. From what I know, some religious sectors bar women from joining in the invocation. They base it on Halachah. It is their choice and a difference that needs to be dignified. Exclusion of women is what a few elements in Yisrael have been warning and threatening us against. As I was singing, I stealthily checked around the hall in search for hints of the covert secret “religious police” lest its representatives come and arrest me for practicing my freedom of chanting.

Instead, “The Dignity of Difference” was smiling at me from every corner.

What did, however, catch my attention, admittedly for the first time, even though I have attended Yom Kippur services for many years, is one line, part of “Kol Nidrei,” a prayer which ushers in Yom Kippur. “Kol Nidrei” (All Vows) which is recited in Aramaic nullifies the binding nature of promises and vows in advance. They are declared invalid. All vows “are absolved, remitted, cancelled, declared null and void.” The line that struck me and sent shivers through my body is the one offering forgiveness to the entire congregation of am Yisrael and EQUALLY “to the stranger/foreigner who resides amongst them.”

Now, you tell me, dear readers, if that is not the epitome of “The Dignity of Difference.”

“The Dignity of Difference” amid members of any nation as well as towards the strangers amongst them is one of the most important pillars of any democracy. It is part of the Jewish D.N.A and is evident in almost every aspect that characterizes the modern-day State of Yisrael, the National Home of the Jewish People. Yom Kippur is but one example.

It is noteworthy to mention that the group which sets up these makeshift synagogues is “Herzliya Torah Center” (Garin Torani) headed by Tsachi Weiss. Tzachi and his team have been doing it for several years thus making participation in the High Holy Days accessible to all who wish to partake in them. The service is conducted by residents of Judea and Samaria who leave their homes and families during this special time of year to bestow upon us the blessing of the experience.

And what an experience it has been.

Chatima Tova to you, fellow Jews and Am Yisrael and a wonderful year to all.

 

 

Do Clothes Maketh a Man? In the Case of the High Priest, Yes

 

Garments are the frame that man creates, both towards himself – that which he wishes to be - and towards others and what they think about him. It also serves his role, assists, and allows him in performing his job

The finery of the Temple Priests, especially that of the Kohen Gadol High Priest (which is the focus of this article) is one of the main themes of this week’s Parashah, “Tetzaveh” (You Shall Command). These are described in exhaustive details as are their fabrics, ornaments, their function, and the accompanying protocol to wearing them.

 “Make sacred garments for your brother Aharon to give him dignity and honour,” G-d tells Moshe (Shemot 28:2). There are four pieces of clothing that are peculiar to the High Priest, described in Shemot 28:4-5.

The directive from G-d to Moshe is to make “a breastplate {containing twelve precious stones inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of Yisrael}, an ephod {an apron like garment}, a robe, and a Tzitz {a headdress with a golden plate worn on the forehead bearing the inscription “Holy to G-d”}. They are to make these sacred garments….Have them use gold, and blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen.” (Shemot 28:4-5). (It is important to note that these are to be worn all days of the year, except for Yom Kippur when the High Priest wears only white).

According to Ramba”n (13^th century, Spain), “these garments resemble those of royalty in form. At the time of the Torah, the monarchy would have worn such clothing. The tunic signifies leadership just as Yoseph was presented by his father with a ‘tunic of many stripes’…thus Aharon was to be clothed as a king of ancient times…….the miter is still worn by royalty and nobility to this day….the breastplate and ephod are regal attire and the headband is still a crown. The material used to make these garments, namely gold, sky-blue, purple and crimson, are precious and rare.”

Despite the similarities between the garb of the High Priest and those of a king, they differ in substance. Unlike kings, the attire of the High Priest constitutes “Bigdei Kodesh” (holy vestments).

Their sacred nature is signified in a few ways.

The first is rooted in their inclusion in the instructions for building the Mishkan (Tabernacle) and its furnishings. This suggests that these garments are not the personal property of the High Priest but rather a part of the Mishkan’s sacred components, as described in Shemot 39:1-31.

Additionally, the fabrics used to manufacture the garments of the High Priest are made and styled in the same fashion of those used in the most sacrosanct sections of the Mishkan. They are to be worn only when the High Priest enters the interior part of the sanctuary, twice daily, morning and evening.

The unique essence of the Priestly garb is further stressed by Rabbi Inyani Bar Sasson (3^rd century). According to him, each of the Priestly robes is intended to atone for a particular sin committed by members of Am Yisrael akin to the function of the sacrifices (Babylonian Talmud, Zevachim 68). He claims that it is not by coincidence that the Parashah addressing sacrifices is adjacent to the one focusing on Priesthood. Rabbi Bar Sasson lists offences, light as well as serious, for which different Priestly clothing items grant clemency.

The detailed directive describing the opulent garments of the High Priest, and their role have engaged Jewish sages over the years. Of particular interest was the command to “Make pomegranates of blue, purple and scarlet yarn around the hem of the robe, with gold bells between them….Aharon must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the Lord and when he comes out, so that he will not die” (28:33-35).

Rabbenu Bahya (Spain, c. 1050-1120) suggests that the bells serve two purposes. The first is akin to knocking on the door of the Entrance Hall of the inner Sanctuary to announce the arrival of the High Priest. According to him, since the Divine Kingdom is similar to an earthly one, anyone who abruptly enters the king’s hall is sentenced to death. To support his claim, Rabbenu Bahya, cites the Book of Esther 4:11, “All the king’s officials and the people of the royal provinces know that for any man or woman who approaches the king in the inner court without being summoned, the king has but one law: that they be put to death.”

Image of a golden bell ornament believed to be worn by a High Priest or another important leader from Second Temple period discovered in Yerushalayim in 2011

The second objective of the bells, proposes Bahya, is to alert G-d’s angels. Even though G-d and His celestial servants know all, it is important to alert them lest they harm the High Priest for interrupting the Divine repose.

The Rashba”n argues that the bells are there as a public notice for people announcing the approach of the High Priest. It serves as a warning in order to comply with the commandment which forbids the presence of anyone in the Hall when the High Priest is about to perform his holy duties.

Hezekiah ben Manoach (13^th century) suggests that the bells are there to remind Am Yisrael of prayer times and divert their attention towards that duty. He also believes that the bells help distinguish between the High Priest and the lay ones.

Clothes have cultural and social significance. The main message in this week’s Parashah presents us with another kind, a holy one, decreed by G-d Himself.

Judging by the opening verses of the Parashah, one cannot help but surmise that the main intent of the Priestly garb is to bestow “dignity and honour” upon those wearing it. This tendency goes hand in hand with the commandments concerning the construction of the  Mishkan and its unique vessels. They are aimed at spurring the awareness that the G-d of Yisrael is the G-d of the whole universe. It is, therefore, only appropriate that His servants, should, likewise, appear majestic, be dressed in “splendid and fine clothes…to be held in great reverence by all” (Ramba”m).

The Fifth Commandment – Man’s Compelling Interaction with G-d

 

In my last article, I mentioned that the Fifth Commandment, the Mitzvah to “honour thy father and mother” is a subject that has engaged many commentators. The core of that deliberation rests on the question as to whether that directive relates to Man’s interaction with his fellow Man or to that between Man and G-d.

I also pointed out in that article that it is the only Commandment which carries a reward, a Divine reward, “So that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your G-d gives you.”  Moreover, in D’varim (Deuteronomy) 5:15, the Divine incentive for following that commandment is expanded. Not only will one live a long life for honouring their parents, but they “will also prosper” on the land that G-d gives them. Hence, it, further, reinforces the concept that this Mitzvah is not only restricted to the realm of humans but is closely connected and anchored in our relationship with G-d, its author.

The importance of revering our parents has been stressed by numerous Jewish scholars. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, for instance, asserts that G-d favours honouring one’s parents over exalting Him.

Both Ramba”n and Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim of Lutschitz rationalize the importance of this Commandment by asserting  that just as we are required to revere G-d, our Creator, so should we honour those who are His partners in our creation. In the words of Chaza”l, “there are three partners in the creation of Man: G-d, his father and his mother. When a Man honours his mother and father, G-d said: ‘I consider it as though I live among them and am respected by them”” (Kidushin 30:51). As Rabbi Sacks ZT”L points out, “G-d is seen in the Torah as a father, a parent, ’My first born son Yisrael’” (Shemot 4:22).

In his attempt to summarize parent - child relationship, Ramba”m suggests that our parents are in a sense our Torah. Our parents’ authority is akin to the word of G-d. They are the source of our heritage and code of conduct in the same way that the Torah is the foundation of our Divine legacy (Hilchot Mamrim).

Ramba”n, who links the Fifth Commandment to the first four ones which solely address the relationship between Man and G-d, proposes that the ways to honour our parents are “too numerous to count.” On one issue, however, scholars agree. Though children are obligated to help their parents with any chore, they should refuse to partake in any activity which offends G-d. Ramba”m adds that even when disagreeing with a parent, the child should do it in a dignified manner.

Rabbi Shlomo Ephraim of Lutschitz elaborates on this point.  In his book “Kli Yakar,” he notes that the proximity between the Fourth Commandment to “Remember the Shabbat” and the following Fifth one proves that the will of G-d precedes the directive to honour our parents. At the heart of both these commandments, though, rests the duty to honour G-d. Shabbat reminds us that G-d created the world and thus we should honour Him. Shabbat teaches us that there is one big Father in the universe and that His wish surpasses that of our small father, our physical one. These two commandments are further linked in Vayikra (Leviticus 19:3), “Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Shabbats. I am the Lord your G-d.”

Additional support and confirmation of the unique and discernable interconnection between Man and G-d, in the Fifth commandment, is provided in this week’s Parashah, “Mishpatim.”

In it, the Torah elaborates on the forms of punishment for two forms of transgressions against one’s parents. The first is “Whoever strikes his father, or his mother shall be put to death” (Shemot 21:15). The second, “Anyone who curses their mother and father must be put to death” (Shemot 21:17). The kind of execution differs between the two, again, pointing at the interconnectedness between the Fifth Commandments and Man’s relationship with G-d.

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 66:71) asserts that death by stoning is the punishment for the first sin. In contrast, the punishment for the second one is death by strangulation (Sanhedrin 84:72). Judging by the four forms of biblical death penalties, stoning, burning, beheading and strangulation, the first is the most painful whereas the last is the least.

Ramba”n reasons that the act of cursing is more severe than that of striking in two ways. The first, it is more common thus the severe punishment is used as a deterrent to prevent it from deteriorating to a physical attack. The second, which again stresses the interrelation between the Fifth Commandment and the first four, is that cursing is not only a transgression against one’s parents but against G-d as well since, in the Torah, a curse includes the mentioning of  G-d’s name in vain which goes against the Third Commandment.

Honouring one’s parents is a practice that should go without saying.  It is a logical one, a basic moral debt which is consensual the world over. Am Yisrael, though, is the only People for whom it is a Commandment, one which is decreed by G-d!.

 

The Ten Commandments – The Divine Component in Interpersonal Ethics

 

 

                           “Can we see the trace of G-d in the face of a stranger?” -   Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

The Ten Commandments have engaged Jewish and non-Jewish scholars over the centuries. 

Many believe that they can be divided into two columns. The first five, on the right, address the Mitzvot governing the interactions between Man and G-d. The left column, many claim, addresses the interpersonal and social intercourse with our fellow Man. I doubt that anyone can disagree with that claim, except, perhaps, question the fifth Commandment, the Mitzvah of honouring our parents, which is placed in the right column and may be perceived as one relating more to human interaction rather than to Man and G-d. 

This might, indeed, be the case, unless we fail to notice that it is the only Commandment which is rewarded, “so that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your G-d gives you.” The Divine incentive for following the fifth Commandment explicitly keeps G-d in the equation of human interaction.

Chaza”l teach us, on several occasions, that though the Mitzvot, in both columns, are equally important, the last five bear significant weight with regards to conducting our daily affairs as members the human race.

In this article, I will try to show that the practice of morality between Man and his fellow Man reflects the character of G-d and serves Him no less than it serves us, humans. In other words, breaching any of the last five Commandments is not only a transgression against our fellow Man but against G-d as well.

“You shall not murder,” is the sixth Commandment, the first in the left column. This prohibition stems from the concept that Man was created in G-d’s image. This hints at the unique and high status of Man that somewhat resembles G-d.  Hence “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for G-d made man in his own image” (Bresheet 9:6). An act of murder disrupts the order of the universe. Therefore, the blood of the murdered cries out from the ground (Bresheet 4:10). It is a crime against G-d and is irremediable. The following law in Shemot 21:28 sheds light on the severity of this violation: “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stones to death, and its meat must not be eaten.” Why is the bull punished? Does it have criminal responsibility? The only way to make sense of this law is through the underlying principle of the Biblical law. The animal ravaged an image of G-d. For such a heinous deed, it must pay the price. It must be stoned, and its meat prohibited for consumption. Furthermore, the Biblical view of the uniqueness and superiority of human life leads to another conclusion. The value of the life of a human being is above and beyond all values. It cannot be measured by money nor by another human’s life. Neither can it be compensated. The Torah is very clear about that: “Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die.” (Bamidbar 35:31).

The seventh Commandment is “Lo Tin’af.” In English it translates into, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” The Hebrew root of “Na’af” means, betrayal or disloyalty. Here, is used to describe infidelity in a matrimonial relationship when one of the parties engages in an extramarital affair. Since the marriage contract is of Divine origin and Divinely sanctioned, it is clear why any violation of it will offend G-d. It is well evident in the case of Yoseph when his master’s wife asks him “to come to bed” with her. Yoseph’s response is “My master has withheld nothing from me except you because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against G-d?” (Bresheet 39:9).

As some commentators note, the term became a metaphor for Idolatry. Jewish tradition uses marriage as a metaphor to the relationship between Am Yisrael and G-d. Therefore, Am Yisrael needs to give G-d the same absolute fidelity that a wife exercises for her husband. The use of term intimating adultery to describe the worship of other gods is already made in Shemot 34:16: “and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods.”

Later, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, explicitly use the term when allegorizing Am Yisrael to a prostitute and adulteress: “How sick is your heart, declares the Lord G-d, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute……Adulterous wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (Ezekiel 16:30-32). “For the land is full of adulterers,” (Jeremiah 23:10).

“You shall not steal,” is the eight Commandment. Everyone knows that theft in any shape of form is an immoral act.

Aside from theft in its common meaning, I wish to draw the readers’ attention to another, more serious kind of robbery, where it becomes an act against G-d. In his interpretation of the Ten Commandments, the great Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (200 CE) perceives that it is not merely an act committed against individuals when their assets are stolen. He believes that it is also aimed at acts committed by bigger and more powerful robbers. He refers to those in power, the law givers who use their power to enrich themselves, rob whole cities without worries since, allegedly, they are above the law, while in the name of ruling and leadership commit what is, in fact, theft. That is precisely what Samuel warned Am Yisrael against in his harsh and famous sermon when they demanded to appoint a king (Shmuel 1, Chapter 1:10-18).

The ninth Commandment, likewise, states that which is, clearly, obvious, “Thou shall not bear false witness,” which is translated into the prohibition to lie. Again, as in the previous Commandments, it is not merely a transgression against our fellow Man but also against G-d. The Midrash wishes to stress the necessity to adhere to the truth, to reality. If a person testifies falsely, it means that what happened did not happen. It implies that there is no significance to existential concepts such as, honesty, truth reality and existence which are so important to Man and thus turns reality into something meaningless. If anyone can describe the world as they wish, then there is no Creator, no creation, there is nothing and everything is relative. In the words of the prophet Isiah (43:10), “’You are my witnesses,” Declares the Lord.’” Man’s vocation is to be a witness to the existence of G-d.

Finally, the tenth Commandment, warns us not covet our neighbour’s house, his wife his male or female servant, his ox, donkey or anything that belongs to them. On the surface, it seems that this Commandment strictly relates to interpersonal relations. Here, again, Jewish scholars debate its Divine rationale.

Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (Spain 1164-1092), for instance, clams that this prohibition is not meant to protect our neighbour from the act of coveting. He, asserts, rather, that one is prohibited from coveting that which G-d forbids or refuses to give us. Man, he believes, should be content with that which G-d has bestowed upon him.

Ramba”m sees the divine prohibition in this Commandment from another angle. According to him, it serves as a safeguard from other, worse offences. Lust, he believes, leads to covet which in turn leads to theft quoting Micah 2:2 “The covet lusts after the fields and seize them.” That eventually may induce bloodshed as the example of Ahab and Navot shows.

The Ahab and Navot sorrowful matter recounted in Melachim I (Kings I) chapter 21, is indeed a typical example where coveting the property of one’s neighbour’s leads to murder. And, as was established earlier, murder is not only a crime against our fellow Man but an offence against G-d as well.

Whichever way we interpret or understand the Ten Commandments, one fact remains clear. They are meant to improve Mankind and keep the order of the universe intact. What then is a better way to achieve it than, as Rabbi Sacks, ZT”L suggests, seeking to “see the trace of G-d in the face of a stranger?”

Shavua tov, Am Yisrael and a wonderful weekend to all