"Mishneh Torah" (Deuteronomy) - Ethics Precede Historical Narratives

 

“Deuteronomy is in essence a programme for the creation of a moral society in which righteousness is the responsibility of all.” - Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks

Last week’s Parashah, Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19, was Ki Teize (“When you go out to war….”). Ramba"m (Maimonides) notes that it is an extraordinarily mitzvah-rich parashah. It lists around 76 out of the 613 Torah commandments thus marking the Torah’s central practical section. It covers diverse topics including laws of war, family laws, interpersonal ethics, civil and commercial regulations as well as agricultural laws.

This week’s Parashah, Ki Tavo (“When you enter the land…”), begins with two mitzvot (Bikkurim and the declaration over tithes) that serve as culmination rituals, celebrating the conclusion of Torah life in the Land.

In his book “Deuteronomy 1-11,” the Yisraeli Biblical scholar, Moshe Weinfeld comments that both the Greek appellation of the book, deuteronomion and the Hebrew appellation "Mishneh Torah" means “repeated law” or “second law” and alludes to the fact that Deuteronomy is a (revised) repetition of a large part of the law and history of the Tetrateuch (the first four books). Unlike Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Joshua  which narrate Yisrael’s journey and events, Deuteronomy retells history selectively. According to him, Deuteronomy is the “national constitution" defining the covenantal relationship and governing principles.

Earlier Torah books, as many of us have witnessed, chronicle events, consecutively and as they happen: the story of creation, the patriarchal stories, Exodus and Numbers, Sinai and wilderness wanderings. Though Mosaic speeches appear in them, the former are generally embedded in the larger historical narrative.

Ramba”n (1194-1270) similarly asserts that Moshe’s purpose in “Mishneh Torah” (Deuteronomy) was not to recount history but rather empahsize the laws of ethics and those laws that will be relevant once Am Yisrael settles the Land.

Abrabanel (1437-1508) agrees with Ramba"n. He stresses that unlike the earlier Torah books, Deuteronomy is Moshe’s farewell address. His purpose, therefore, is not retelling history but exhortation which is aimed at stirring the people to ethical awareness before his death. The echoing of past events such as the spies, the Golden Calf, the wars with Sihon and Og is didactic. It is not used for historical reasons. Their recitation is used as ethical lessons with the goal of teaching Am Yisrael what happens when they fail to trust G-d and what blessings follow obedience. 

A number of modern Biblical scholars such as Nahum Sarna, Daniel J. Elazar, Jeffrey Tigay and others frame Deuteronomy as closer to a “Covenantal Constitution,” a book of law, a fundamental charter for Yisrael’s political, social and religious life (and other Biblically rooted constitutional traditions) rather than a historical chronicle. In other words, they believe that Deuteronomy’s narrative is often just the framework for moral and covenantal teaching. 

Dear readers, at this point, a little confession is begging to be made. When I sat down to write this essay, the titular name was not my intended topic. The decision to approach the issue, from the angle that was introduced above, ripened when I delved deeper into the text of the last two parashot, Ki Teize and Ki Tavo, successively, beyond the mere desire to refresh my memory of the text.

On the surface, the names of these two parashot suggest that Ki Tavo (“When you enter the Land….”) should logically and chronologically come before parashat Ki Teitze (“When you go out to war…”) since one would assume that Am Yisrael must first “enter” the Land before they need to “go out to war” to defend it.

It was then that I decided to embark on the ride which produced this essay. Evidently, the sequence of these two parashot has engaged the attention of Biblical commentators.

Many of them suggest that the Torah deliberately places Ki Teize before Ki Tavo. They base it on the fact that since Ki Teize is a mitzvah-packed parashah, it was necessary to list them before Am Yisrael settles in the Land.

Rabbi Obadia Sforno (1475-1550), for instance, notes that Am Yisrael would have to face battle immediately upon entry to the Land, both defensive and offensive. The laws of war, as mentioned in Ki Teize, would be needed before the “settling rituals” of Ki Tavo. He further asserts that Ki Teize is a natural continuation from Parashat Shoftim, where the Torah describes how judges and officers must guide Yisrael’s conduct in war.

Ohr Ha'Chayim has an interesting commentary about parashat Ki Teize. According to him, the battle is not just military but a lifelong war against the yetzer hara (evil inclination).Only after the inner ethical and spiritual struggles are addressed can the people truly “enter the Land” in a covenantal sense.

Rash”i and Ramba”n point out that, in Deuteronomy, Moshe is re-telling events selectively and not necessarily in a chronological order. His emphasis is on ethical lessons, not pure history.

Midrash Tanchuma also stresses that Deuteronomy’s repeated phrasing (“Take heed,” “Remember,” “Do not forget”) shows the priority of ethics and faithfulness over historical facts.

Earlier Torah books (Genesis-Numbers), as we have learned, contain a lot of narrative: the patriarch, the Exodus, the wilderness journeys with laws interwoven into the story. Deuteronomy, on the other hand, retells history intermittently and uses it mainly as a teaching tool for forming an ethical and just society under G-d’s sovereignty. Whereas the Tetrateuch focuses on what happened in the past, Deuteronomy has its eyes on the future and emphasizes what should be done. Shabbat Shalom

"B’Shalach,” Denotation vs. Connotation

 

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” –Mark Twain

On several occasions, I have lectured and written about the challenges that translation poses. Through translation, we are exposed not only to different languages, but also to the lifestyle, customs, and world view of those who speak those languages. Such “cultural exchanges,” through their creators prompted people like George Steiner to say: “without translation, we would live in districts that border silence.” The same tone emanates from Anthony Borgess who maintains that “Translation is not a matter of words only; it is a matter of making intelligent a whole culture.”

This brings me to this week’s Parashah, B’Shalach. It gets its name from the verse that opens it “VaYehi B’Shalach Par’o et ha’am” Shemot (Exodus) 13:17. The English translation of the verse states: “When Pharaoh let the People go…”

The Hebrew verse and its English translation, I believe, do not convey the same message. Their incongruity is an example of the difference between “denotation,” the literal definition of the word and “connotation” which is an idea or feeling that the word evokes aside from its literal definition. The translation, in my view, misses a very important aspect of the history of our Jewish culture.

The Hebrew word, “shalach,” literally means “sent.” Yes, it also means “release.” However, the translation into “let go” is, in the words of Twain, not “the right word,” it is, rather, “the almost right word.” Had the Torah wanted to tell us that Pharaoh ‘Let” the people go, it could have used a different Hebrew word such as “"תן which means precisely “let” or “allow” and which expresses the same notion as the English translation purports.

There is a reason, in my view, that the Torah uses the word “shalach”. It is a major component of the story of the Exodus and plays a big role in forming the essence of what has later become Am Yisrael. In fact, the choice of that specific word has engaged many Biblical scholars over the centuries.

Ohr HaChaim (Rabbi Moshe ben Atar 1696-1743) not only wonders about the choice of that word. He also goes one step further and poses the following question, “why did the Torah use “when Pharoah sent” rather than “when G-d took us out of Egypt?”

The root, “shalach,” is used each time Moshe turned to Pharaoh in a plea to release the people. G-d, according to Ohr Ha’Chayim, wanted to teach Pharoah a lesson. He wished to coerce Pharaoh into releasing and sending away the people against his will, if merely to avenge for the latter’s boldness and audacious statement: “who is the Lord that I should obey him and send Yisrael’ I do not know the Lord nor shall I send Yisrael” (5:2). Furthermore, G-d delivered on his promise to Moshe to not only bring Pharoah to release the people but to banish them, drive them out: “Then the Lord said to Moshe, I will bring one more plague on Pharoah and on Egypt. After that, he will send you from here and when he does, he will drive you out completely” (11:1). And that is what indeed happened. Following the plagues that G-d brought upon Egypt, Pharoah eventually caved in and, at the right moment, called Moshe and Aharon in the middle of the night, begged and urged them to hasten their departure, take the people, get out of Egypt and go worship G-d (12:31).

Ohr Ha’Chayim also notes that, according to the Mekhilta*, throughout the negotiations with Pharoah, Moshe keeps asking him to send, liberate his people, “Shalach et Ami,” which is of paramount importance. The Exodus must have Pharoah’s stamp of approval. Hence the first verse of this Parashah, “When Pharoah sent the people,” comes to tell us that the people left Egypt with permission and lawfully. In fact, all of Egypt implored them to leave: “The Egyptians urged the people to hurry and leave the country. ‘For otherwise,’ they said, ‘we will all die!’” (12:33).

The message of this Parashah is that the people did not leave clandestinely, under the cloak of darkness. They left in broad daylight along with their livestock and other possessions.  Moreover, in 14:5, the Egyptians themselves later admit that they sanctioned the Exodus which is added proof that the people did not run away or leave without prior approval. It is of prime importance to G-d that every human being recognizes that Pharoah and the Egyptians sent the people out of their free will.

Rash”i further elaborates on the choice of the word “shalach.” According to him, the use of the word suggests that Pharoah sent his officials to escort the people to ensure that they return to Egypt after three days (14:5). Rash”i claims that these officials were nothing but “איקטורין” (actors, imposters, even spies). That is what “Erev Rav,” (multitudes) mentioned in 12:38, he explains, means. They were Pharoah’s emissaries disguised as the Children of Yisrael. Their task, suggests Rash”i, was to incite, confuse and cause the latter to sin and eventually return to Egypt.

That, however, is a subject for another article, dear readers.

Shabbat Shalom Am Yisrael and fellow Jews and a wonderful weekend to all

 *A rule of scriptural exegesis in Judaism, attributed to any several authors.