| כג וָאֶתְחַנַּן, אֶל-ה, בָּעֵת הַהִוא, לֵאמֹר. | 23 And I besought the LORD at that time, saying: |
וָאֶתְחַנַּן -- Ibn Ezra has a problem with the timing of this. Immediately above, we saw
| כא וְאֶת-יְהוֹשׁוּעַ צִוֵּיתִי, בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר: עֵינֶיךָ הָרֹאֹת, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם לִשְׁנֵי הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה--כֵּן-יַעֲשֶׂה יְהוָה לְכָל-הַמַּמְלָכוֹת, אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹבֵר שָׁמָּה. | 21 And I commanded Joshua at that time, saying: 'Thine eyes have seen all that the LORD your God hath done unto these two kings; so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou goest over. |
Also, Hashem's response to Moshe's plea ends with:
| כח וְצַו אֶת-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ: כִּי-הוּא יַעֲבֹר, לִפְנֵי הָעָם הַזֶּה, וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה. | 28 But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him; for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see.' |
which would then suggest that the command to Yehoshua was a direct response to the plea, and would therefore have to happen afterwards.
Therefore Ibn Ezra takes it as the pluperfect. That is, instead of 'I besought', it is 'I had besought'. Everything is described in the Torah as happening in the past, but pluperfect is the past of the past. Ibn Caspi does not see this as likely, for why interject in this way? Rather, Moshe continuously beseeched Hashem regarding this, from the very beginning and including after commanding Yehoshua. Shadal does not see the need for Ibn Ezra to say this, since who says that Moshe was requesting to enter as a leader? While there is a midrash similar to this, I think that that suggestion is somewhat dubious.
I think that בָּעֵת הַהִוא in both places allows both incidents to be out of order, or co-occurring. Thus, 'meanwhile'. And it might be organized topically. All of a sudden, it has become real, and final, that he is passing over the torch. This would then be the impetus for Moshe to beseech Hashem. Then, בָּעֵת הַהִוא is also connecting both events, as a sort of gezeira shava.
The impetus for this beseeching would also be the fighting of Sichon and Og. I think that what Rashi says works well not just as derash but as peshat:
| at that time: After I had conquered the land of Sihon and Og, I thought that perhaps the vow [which God had made, that I should not enter the land] was nullified, [since the land I entered was part of the land of Canaan]. | בעת ההיא: לאחר שכבשתי ארץ סיחון ועוג דמיתי שמא הותר הנדר: |
The mention of Sichon and Og is immediately above, in the perek. One need not appeal to vows being nullified, but simply, Moshe saw an opening. He had already begun the process of capture, with Hashem's approval, so perhaps Hashem would be willing to relent of His earlier decree.
Midrashim discuss why the specific language of וָאֶתְחַנַּן. Thus, as a free gift rather than as something earned. Or he asked equivalent to the gematria of וָאֶתְחַנַּן times.
While I indeed agree with Ibn Ezra and Radak that not all changes in language are particularly meaningful on a peshat level, I do think that the choice of וָאֶתְחַנַּן over its various synonyms does bear some meaning. He is throwing himself at Hashem's mercy, with a depth of emotion and perhaps some level of persistence.
לֵאמֹר -- 'as follows'. Rashi in general takes the approach that לֵאמֹר means an instruction to say something. Thus, in the most frequent pasuk in Torah, 'Hashem said to Moshe to say over'. But in this pasuk, how are we to take וָאֶתְחַנַּן, אֶל-ה, בָּעֵת הַהִוא, לֵאמֹר? Moshe must be requesting of Hashem that Hashem say something!
It is this that impels Rashi to comment (channeling a midrash):
| saying: This is one of three occasions in which Moses said before the Omnipresent,“I will not let You go until You let me know whether or not You will grant my request” (Sifrei). | לאמר: זה אחד משלש מקומות שאמר משה לפני המקום איני מניחך עד שתודיעני אם תעשה שאלתי אם לאו: |
But besides this, it sets the stage of Moshe as insistent petitioner, as in וָאֶתְחַנַּן as וָאֶתְחַנַּן times, such that the later רַב-לָךְ can imply a sufficient number of asks.
On a peshat level, here and everywhere else, לֵאמֹר simply introduces the speech.
Next pasuk:
| כד אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, אַתָּה הַחִלּוֹתָ לְהַרְאוֹת אֶת-עַבְדְּךָ, אֶת-גָּדְלְךָ, וְאֶת-יָדְךָ הַחֲזָקָה--אֲשֶׁר מִי-אֵל בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-יַעֲשֶׂה כְמַעֲשֶׂיךָ וְכִגְבוּרֹתֶךָ. | 24 'O Lord GOD, Thou hast begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness, and Thy strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Thy works, and according to Thy mighty acts? |
אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה -- This is pronounced Adonai Elohim. This is different from something written YKVK Elokim. This means 'my Lord, YKVK'.
Why this specific language? Perhaps it is parallel to the language of entreaty we see elsewhere. Consider the beginning of Vayishlach, 32:5:
| ה וַיְצַו אֹתָם, לֵאמֹר, כֹּה תֹאמְרוּן, לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו: כֹּה אָמַר, עַבְדְּךָ יַעֲקֹב, עִם-לָבָן גַּרְתִּי, וָאֵחַר עַד-עָתָּה. | 5 And he commanded them, saying: 'Thus shall ye say unto my lord Esau: Thus saith thy servant Jacob: I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed until now. |
I discuss this at length here, that according to a midrash, and according to peshat, לַאדֹנִי לְעֵשָׂו is actually the beginning of the text of the speech, which the servants are to say. In vaEtchanan, this does not lead with a lamed, but אֲדֹנָי as 'my master' shows the character of this as entreaty.
אַתָּה הַחִלּוֹתָ לְהַרְאוֹת אֶת-עַבְדְּךָ -- This is Moshe's opening. Hashem has already started doing this, allowing Moshe to begin the process of taking the land of Israel.
אֲשֶׁר מִי-אֵל בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ -- This does not need to be acknowledging the existence of other deities. El might mean powerful. See how various meforshim and Targumim take this. Thus, Onkelos sidesteps, rendering it as: דְּאַתְּ הוּא אֱלָהָא דִּשְׁכִינְתָךְ בִּשְׁמַיָּא מִלְּעֵילָא וְשַׁלִּיט בְּאַרְעָא, לֵית דְּיַעֲבֵיד כְּעוּבָדָךְ וּכְגִבָּרְוָתָךְ.
Next pasuk:
| כה אֶעְבְּרָה-נָּא, וְאֶרְאֶה אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה, אֲשֶׁר, בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן: הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה, וְהַלְּבָנֹן. | 25 Let me go over, I pray Thee, and see the good land that is beyond the Jordan, that goodly hill-country, and Lebanon.' |
אֶעְבְּרָה-נָּא -- Rashi writes:
| Pray let me cross over: Heb. אֶעְבְּרָה נָא. [The word] נָא is nothing but an expression of request. | אעברה נא: אין נא אלא לשון בקשה: |
But of course, Rashi knows this is not necessarily always true. Otherwise, what reason is there to say it. It is like commenting that אמר means 'say'. The alternative we might see in Onkelos:
| ג,כה אֶעְבְּרָה-נָּא, וְאֶרְאֶה אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה, אֲשֶׁר, בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן: הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה, וְהַלְּבָנֹן. | אֶעְבַּר כְּעַן, וְאֶחְזֵי יָת אַרְעָא טָבְתָא--דִּבְעִבְרָא דְּיַרְדְּנָא: טוּרָא טָבָא הָדֵין, וּבֵית מַקְדְּשָׁא. |
The word kean means 'now'. And so does Onkelos always render it. Biblical scholars say that this is indeed always the meaning of this Biblical Hebrew word, and that נָּא as a language of request is true of Mishnaic Hebrew. Still, this does fit well into the context, which is, after all, a request.
בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן -- Note the use of בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן to refer to Eretz Yisrael proper, and consider what various meforshim said about the phrase in the beginning of Devarim.
הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה -- what specific mountain? Rashi says:
| this good mountain: This is Jerusalem. | ההר הטוב הזה: זו ירושלים: | |
| and the Lebanon: This is the Temple (Sifrei). | והלבנון: זה בית המקדש: |
which then places later knowledge of the specific mekom hamikdash in Moshe's mind, when really, it was asher yivchar Hashem. Of course, if we equate Bet El = Luz with the mekom hamikdash, then there was already a Divine promise. If we don't, then I don't see that we have any foreknowledge of Yerushalayim and the Har HaBayit.
I've seen har harov translated as 'good hill-country', as synonymous with Levanon, in which case it does not need to refer to a specific mountain.
Next pasuk:
| כו וַיִּתְעַבֵּר ה בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלָי; וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֵלַי, רַב-לָךְ--אַל-תּוֹסֶף דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד, בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה. | 26 But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and hearkened not unto me; and the LORD said unto me: 'Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter. |
וַיִּתְעַבֵּר -- 'was wroth'. But the specific choice of וַיִּתְעַבֵּר was surely influenced by אֶעְבְּרָה-נָּא of the previous pasuk. This is word-play.
See Tehillim 106, which tells over the story of what happened in the midbar, and is likely an interpretation of this pasuk:
Tehillim is interpretation, by a very early (and inspired) source, but we may argue with said interpretation. There are then many ways of interpreting these pesukim in Tehillim, but וַיֵּרַע לְמֹשֶׁה, בַּעֲבוּרָם might well be on the basis of וַיִּתְעַבֵּר ה בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם.
If so, this is not something separate from Mei Merivah and Moshe's actions. So we don't need to obliterate Moshe's fault in this.
Alternatively, Hashem was still not pleased with the entire situation, and did not wish to have the scenario of Moshe leading the Israelites into the land. Indeed, history would likely have played out much differently.
Playing into this is also the following rather difficult series of pesukim in Devarim perek 1, in which Moshe not entering and Yehoshua leading them is placed in the aftermath and response to the cheit hameraglim:
with גַּם-בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה, בִּגְלַלְכֶם matching וַיִּתְעַבֵּר ה בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם. See what various rationalist Rishonim say about primary and secondary causes. This could be the Divine plan even before Moshe's action at Mei Merivah.
Meanwhile, I would read pesukim 37-38 as a topical parenthetical insertion, rather than something that happened at particularly that time.
רַב-לָךְ -- Rashi writes:
| It is enough for you: Heb. רַב-לָךְ [interpreted as:“you have a master רַב.” I.e., pray no more], so that people should not say,“How hard is the Master, and how obstinate and pressing is the disciple!” (Sotah 13b) Another explanation of רַב-לָךְ [explained as “you have much”]: More than this is reserved for you: Much is the goodness that is kept for you. (Sifrei) | רב לך: שלא יאמרו הרב כמה קשה והתלמיד כמה סרבן ומפציר. דבר אחר רב לך הרבה מזה שמור לך, רב טוב הצפון לך: |
I saw a beautiful midrashic comment associated with רַב-לָךְ, reading it into the nullification of vows mentioned earlier. Moshe said to Hashem, if you won't let me enter because of nullifying the vows, we know that one can nullify vows. Thus, earlier, by Vayoel Moshe, in Shemot 2:
| 21. Moses consented to stay with the man, and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses. | כא. וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת צִפֹּרָה בִתּוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה: | |
| consented: Heb. וַיּוֹאֶל, as the Targum [Onkelos] renders: (וּצְבִי), and similar to this: Accept (הוֹאֶל) now and lodge (Jud. 19:6); Would that we had been content (הוֹאַלְנוּ) (Josh. 7:7); Behold now I have desired (הוֹאַלְךְתִּי) (Gen. 18:31). Its midrashic interpretation is: וַיּוֹאֶל is] an expression of an oath (אלה), he [Moses] swore to him that he would not move from Midian except with his consent. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:33, Tanchuma, Shemoth 12] | ויואל: כתרגומו. ודומה לו (שופטים יט ו) הואל נא ולין, ולו הואלנו (יהושע ז ז), הואלתי לדבר (בראשית יח כז), ומדרשו לשון אלה, נשבע לו שלא יזוז ממדין כי אם ברשותו: |
Yet Hashem, as Moshe's Rav, nullified it. So could Hashem get His own vow nullified? So Hashem responds רַב-לָךְ, You, Moshe, have a rav, but I do not, and so I cannot cancel my own vow.
Certain aspects of Hashem's reply, such as רַב-לָךְ and אַל-תּוֹסֶף דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד suggest a lack of patience on Hashem's part. Can this be true, theologically speaking? Was Moshe too much of a nudge? Or should we say, as Rashi suggests, that רַב-לָךְ is Hashem telling him that Moshe has received much good. Or as according to another midrash, that אַל-תּוֹסֶף דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד is because if Moshe would press his case, Hashem would have felt compelled to give in, which would not have been a good thing.
I think אַל-תּוֹסֶף דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד simply is to demonstrate the finality of Hashem's decision in this matter. And so וַיִּתְעַבֵּר יְהוָה בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם is not some new incidence of anger.
Next pasuk:
| כז עֲלֵה רֹאשׁ הַפִּסְגָּה, וְשָׂא עֵינֶיךָ יָמָּה וְצָפֹנָה וְתֵימָנָה וּמִזְרָחָה--וּרְאֵה בְעֵינֶיךָ: כִּי-לֹא תַעֲבֹר, אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה. | 27 Get thee up into the top of Pisgah, and lift up thine eyes westward, and northward, and southward, and eastward, and behold with thine eyes; for thou shalt not go over this Jordan. |
וְשָׂא עֵינֶיךָ -- Hashem is allowing Moshe a literal fulfillment of Moshe's request, to see. As Rashi writes:
| and see with your eyes: You requested of Me “Let me… see the good land” (verse 25). I am showing you all of it, as it says: “And the Lord showed him all the Land” (Deut. 34:1). | וראה בעיניך: בקשת ממני (פסוק כה) ואראה את הארץ הטובה, אני מראה לך את כולה שנאמר (דברים לד, א) ויראהו ה' את כל הארץ: |
Is this showing of a miraculous nature, more than a human being could actually see. I would not dismiss that midrash as peshat, possibly.
(Ibn Caspi reads this as a boon, rather that a method of refusal.)
יָמָּה וְצָפֹנָה וְתֵימָנָה וּמִזְרָחָה -- a way of denoting the full breadth of the land. Could it otherwise be that looking in all compass directions from his vantage point would show different parts of Eretz Yisrael? How?
Next pasuk:
| כח וְצַו אֶת-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְחַזְּקֵהוּ וְאַמְּצֵהוּ: כִּי-הוּא יַעֲבֹר, לִפְנֵי הָעָם הַזֶּה, וְהוּא יַנְחִיל אוֹתָם, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה. | 28 But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him; for he shall go over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit the land which thou shalt see.' |
וְצַו אֶת-יְהוֹשֻׁעַ -- This is not a new command, but part of the rejection of Moshe's request. Just as he commanded Yehoshua beforehand, so shall he continue to charge Yehoshua now.
אֶת-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה -- This is not Hashem rubbing salt in Moshe's wounds. Rather, part of Moshe's request, from before, was to be able to complete the endeavor of conquering the land, and thus acting as agent for Hashem in fulfilling His promise to the avot. Moshe was excited at having started to process.
Hashem is telling him that, though Moshe will die, and his mission is over, the mission will continue with Moshe's successor. Moshe's surveying the land is a way of appreciating what Hashem will soon indeed grant to the Israelites. And it is almost a form a chazaka, acquisition, in parallel with Avraham's chazaka. And Yehoshua, Moshe's attendant, will be the one to carry out this actual conquering of the land.
Next pasuk:
| כט וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא, מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר. {פ} | 29 So we abode in the valley over against Beth-peor. {P} |
The petucha binds this to the preceding section. Alternatively, it could be the beginning of the next section. Are there different speeches in different locations, or a single long speech? Regardless, here the binding does seem to be in both directions. The relation to the preceding is וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא, while Moshe was just instructed to ascend the rosh hapisgah, where we saw Bilaam ascend to rosh hapisgah. The relation to what follows is to call to mind what happened in Bet Peor, and to connect to (next perek):
| ג עֵינֵיכֶם, הָרֹאוֹת, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה ה, בְּבַעַל פְּעוֹר: כִּי כָל-הָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ אַחֲרֵי בַעַל-פְּעוֹר--הִשְׁמִידוֹ ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, מִקִּרְבֶּךָ. | 3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did in Baal-peor; for all the men that followed the Baal of Peor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from the midst of thee. |
Shadal (also Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite) takes it as follows:
ונשב בגיא: מאחר שלא שמע אלי נתעכבנו שם, ופה אמות.Thus, it is a consequence. Because Hashem refused the request, we stayed there, and there Moshe will die.
Next pasuk, which is in perek 4:
| א וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל, שְׁמַע אֶל-הַחֻקִּים וְאֶל-הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם, לַעֲשׂוֹת--לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ, וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם, נֹתֵן לָכֶם. | 1 And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, giveth you. |
מְלַמֵּד אֶתְכֶם, לַעֲשׂוֹת -- the word לַעֲשׂוֹת binds distantly to שְׁמַע, not that Moshe is teaching them in order to do them. Ibn Ezra interprets this strangely and locally as:
מלמד אתכם לעשות -כי עיקר הלמוד לעשות המצות.
but I don't see that.
לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ -- see the context of dying in a plague as in Baal Peor, as in pasuk 3.
וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ -- is the implication that otherwise they will lose out on the opportunity to inherit the land, just like Moshe and the dor hamidbar lost out, or is the implication that while they are inheriting the land under Yehoshua's leadership, they will be more or less successful in it? I lean towards the latter. Thus וּבָאתֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם as one entity, and thus אֲשֶׁר ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם, נֹתֵן לָכֶם.
Next pasuk:
| ב לֹא תֹסִפוּ, עַל-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם, וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ, מִמֶּנּוּ--לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-מִצְוֹת ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי, מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם. | 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. |
Once one adds or subtracts to the Divine law, it is no longer so Divine.
Shadal writes a good rationalist reason for this, even for good laws:
לא תוסיפו: צריך שתשמעו אל החוקים והמשפטים האלה לא בלבד לעשותם, כי גם לעשותם בלי תוספת ומגרעת, וכל זה מפני שהרבה מתועבות העכו"ם נמשכו מעט מעט מן המנהגים הקדמונים אשר היו בעצמם ישרים; וע' למטה י"ב כ"ט, ל, ל"א י"ג א
"One needs to listen to these chukim and mishpatim, not only to perform them, but to perform them without any addition or subtraction, and all of this is because many of the abominations of the gentiles developed slowly from the customs of the earlier ones, which were themselves straight."
Shadal also gives a practical concrete example from a span elsewhere in sefer Devarim, where changes to the worship of Hashem by adoption from other cultures as an addition are prohibited. Thus, Devarim 12:39-13:1 reads:
| א אֵת כָּל-הַדָּבָר, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם--אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ, לַעֲשׂוֹת: לֹא-תֹסֵף עָלָיו, וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ. {פ} | 1 All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. {P} |
Note how the petucha binds this pasuk in 13:1 to the preceding, rather than like the Christian separation where in begins the next perek about a false prophet. Thus, the diminishing or adding is adoption of local Canaanite customs into the typical service of Hashem, rather than, say, adding an extra parasha to tefillin.
Rashi writes:
| Do not add: for instance, by inserting five sections into the tefillin [instead of four], by using five species for the [commandment of] lulav [on Succoth] instead of four], or by attaching five fringes [instead of four]. And so too, וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ nor diminish [from it i.e., three instead of four]. | לא תספו: כגון חמש פרשיות בתפילין חמשת מינין בלולב וחמש ציציות, וכן ולא תגרעו: |
These details have halachic precision and significance. It is changing the actual performance of the mitzvah. A pair of tefillin with an extra section is invalid; five fringes are not four fringes. See also Ramban here.
לא תוסיפו -And he continues.
כגון חמש פרשיות בתפילין חמשה מינין בלולב חמש ציציות, וכן לא תגרעו, לשון רש"י.וכך אמרו בספרי (ראה):
מנין שלא תוסיף על הלולב ועל הציצית?
ת"ל: לא תוסיפו.
ומנין שאין פוחתים מהן?
ת"ל: לא תגרעו.
מנין שאם פתח לברך ברכת כהנים לא יאמר הואיל ופתחתי לברך אומר ה' אלוהי אבותיכם יוסף עליכם?
ת"ל הדבר, אפילו דבר לא תוסף עליו. אבל לא באלה בלבד אמרו, אלא אף הישן בסוכה בשמיני בכוונה לוקה, כמו שמוזכר במסכת ראש השנה (כח ב), וכן אם יעשה החג ששה עובר בלאו הזה:
See Ibn Caspi on 4:1, on וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל, how this is introducing Moshe's informing them of new mitzvos and explaining the old mitzvos in better detail.
We can rely on the Karaites for entertainment here. Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite writes:
"What shall the Baalei HaKabbalah do, who add to a niddah {rather than a zava} seven clean days, and to each day of Moed one extra day, and thus sanctify the profane. And like this is {Melachim I 12:33}:
| לג וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה בְּבֵית-אֵל, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי--בַּחֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּדָא מלבד (מִלִּבּוֹ); וַיַּעַשׂ חָג לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְהַקְטִיר. {פ} | 33 And he went up unto the altar which he had made in Beth-el on the fifteenth day in the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and went up unto the altar, to offer.{P} |
"
This is not criticism in interpretation of Torah law, but in how dinim deRabbanan add to the Torah. The answer would likely be along the lines of that Rabbinic enactments don't fall under bal tosif, especially since it is well known that it is derabbanan.
Yet that first example is admittedly a galling one. We saw it the other day in Daf Yomi Niddah, daf 66a:
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב התקין רבי בשדות ראתה יום אחד תשב ששה והוא שנים תשב ששה והן שלשה תשב שבעה נקיים אמר ר' זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליה שבעה נקייםOr, in English:
R. Joseph citing Rab Judah who had it from Rab stated: Rabbi ordained at Sadoth,32 If a woman observed a discharge on one day she33 must wait34 six days in addition to it.35 If she observed discharges on two days she33 must wait34 six days in addition to these.36 If she observed a discharge on three days she33 must wait34 seven clean days.37 R. Zera stated: The daughters of Israel have imposed upon themselves the restriction that even if they observe a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed they wait on account of it seven clean days.After the entirety of masechet niddah, with all the calculations, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ordained for unlettered people a stringent simplification. And Rabbi Zera describes an even greater stringency which the daughters of Israel imposed on themselves, that even for seeing a drop the size of a mustard seed (with no hargasha, even such a small amount, and not long enough to be rendered a zavah gedolah) she practices not like a niddah but like a zavah.
The effect of this is to generally double the amount of time a man and wife must be separated. Not to mention how treating this as a zavah intersects with other halachot to impose even further stringencies. This is a rather major shift in halacha. And this seems like it was a grass-roots imposition of a minhag. Indeed, a bit later in the gemara, it is referred to as a minhag that is not universally accepted, at least at that time:
Raba took R. Samuel out for a walk38 when he discoursed as follows: If a woman39 was in protracted labour40 for two days and on the third she miscarried she must wait seven clean days; he being of the opinion that the law relating to protracted labour41 does not apply to miscarriages and that it is impossible for the uterus42 to open without bleeding. Said R. Papa to Raba: What is the point in speaking of one who was in protracted labour for two days seeing that the same applies even where there was the minutest discharge, since R. Zera stated, The daughters of Israel have imposed upon themselves the restriction that even where they observe only a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed they wait on account of it seven clean days? — The other replied: I am speaking to you of a prohibition,43 and you talk of a custom which applies only where the restriction has been adopted.44Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Elman has a whole discussion of this topic, where it seems that the likely reason the daughters of Israel accepted this stringency upon themselves is not to simplify the laws of niddah, but to match the stringencies of the surrounding Zoroastrian culture / religion. They did not want to be less "frum" than their neighbors. Thus:
Although medieval Talmudic commentaries assume that [the menstrual policy of tractate Niddah] was a rabbinically inspired severity, it is clear from Rava’s response to R. Pap (in B. Niddah 66a) that he considered this stringency to be a custom, and not a prohibition. The Babylonian Talmud itself testifies to the popular origin of this stringency—perhaps in response to a “holier than thou” attitude perceived by the populace as emanating from their Persian neighbors, a social pressure to which the rabbis themselves sometimes responded (e.g. B. Sanhedrin 37b). Surely, we must conclude that Babylonian Jewish women did not have to remain isolated on spare rations in a windowless hut for up to nine days, as was prescribed for Zoroastrian menstruant women.If so, then this sort of borrowing is precisely the sort discussed by the Torah, in theme, as discussed in the pesukim cited by Shadal above.
Meanwhile, there was a major focus within Chazal in the opposite direction. In Berachot 4a, which we are going to learn in a few days in Daf Yomi:
A prayer of David … Keep my soul, for I am pious.9 Levi and R. Isaac:10 The one says, Thus spoke David before the Holy One, blessed be He; Master of the world, am I not pious? All the kings of the East and the West sleep to the third hour [of the day], but I, at midnight I rise to give thanks unto Thee.11 The other one says: Thus spoke David before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the world, am I not pious? All the kings of the East and the West sit with all their pomp among their company, whereas my hands are soiled with the blood [of menstruation], with the foetus and the placenta, in order to declare a woman clean for her husband.12Rather than being soiled with the blood of war, his hands are soiled from menstrual blood, to permit a woman to her husband. And in Yoma 9a-b:
א"ר יוחנן בן תורתא מפני מה חרבה שילה מפני שהיו בה שני דברים גלוי עריות ובזיון קדשים גלוי עריות דכתיב (שמואל א ב, כב) ועלי זקן מאד ושמע את כל אשר יעשון בניו לכל ישראל ואת אשר ישכבון את הנשים הצובאות פתח אהל מועד ואע"ג דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן כל האומר בני עלי חטאו אינו אלא טועה מתוך ששהו את קיניהן מיהא מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו שכבוםThe severe sins of the sons of Eli include causing a woman to wait an extra day before returning to be with her husband. And yet, there is this major transformation in Jewish law, likely modeled after non-Jewish practice, coming from the hamon am, in which we halve the number of days a woman can be with her husband (not to mention harchakot) and cause untold amount of suffering of people grappling with infertility. It certainly seems like something is wrong here.
Chizkuni sees the innovation of sending scouts, something Hashem did not command, and the insistence on conquering after Hashem said no, as an example of bal tosif / bal tigra with catastrophic results corresponding to the consequences described in this pasuk. Chizkuni also has a teshuva to the minim (such as Karaites) who see all the Rabbinic laws in the Talmud as innovations violating bal tosif. He points out that the peshat context in both instances of bal tosif / bal tigra is in adding to worship of Hashem. See inside.
וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ, מִמֶּנּוּ -- not necessarily as a separate commandment. Rather, kol hamosif gorea.
Next pasuk:
As mentioned earlier, this is associated with the earlier לְמַעַן תִּחְיוּ in pasuk 1. Perhaps if the bal tosif relates to foreign worship, as in the pesukim Shadal mentioned, and as Chizkuni mentioned, the connection to Baal Peor is clearer. Otherwise, the connection specifically to Baal Peor confuses me a bit. At the very least, the instruction was given when they were in the vicinity, so it is something to be pointed to. Maybe it is simply fealty to Hashem, as opposed to attaching oneself to Baal Peor vayitzmedu levaal Peor. And the not adding nor subtracting is an idiomatic way of saying not to veer away from such worship. And that then leads well to the next pasuk:
ג עֵינֵיכֶם, הָרֹאוֹת, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה ה, בְּבַעַל פְּעוֹר: כִּי כָל-הָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ אַחֲרֵי בַעַל-פְּעוֹר--הִשְׁמִידוֹ ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, מִקִּרְבֶּךָ. 3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did in Baal-peor; for all the men that followed the Baal of Peor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from the midst of thee.
| ד וְאַתֶּם, הַדְּבֵקִים, בַּה', אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם, הַיּוֹם. | 4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day. |
Those who cleave to Hashem. Also, it relates to the prohibition of idolatry mentioned later in pasuk 15.
Next pasuk:
| ה רְאֵה לִמַּדְתִּי אֶתְכֶם, חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוַּנִי, ה אֱלֹהָי: לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן--בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בָּאִים שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ. | 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and ordinances, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the midst of the land whither ye go in to possess it. |
לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן -- Shadal connects this to bal tosif and bal tigra: לעשות כן: כן דוקא בלא תוספת ומגרעת.
Besides this, perhaps Moshe is stating that he has not added nor subtracted from what Hashem has commanded him, when he related those mitzvot to bnei Yisrael.
בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ -- as we should expect, Ramban picks up on this bekerev ha'aretz aspect:
אמר לעשות כן בקרב הארץ - להזהיר על כולם, כי יש חוקים רבים ומשפטים שאינן נוהגין בחוצה לארץ. או ירמוז שעיקר המצות כולן בארץ כמו שרמזתי בסוד הארץ (ויקרא יח כה):Perhaps to be continued, but likely not this week...
No comments:
Post a Comment