Building the Community of Israel
by R. Gidon Rothstein
Parshat Ki Tetzei
Discipline of Words or of Blows
Early in the parsha, we meet parents’ worst nightmare, the ben sorer u-moreh, a son who rejects the parents’ lessons and embarks on a life of hedonistic pleasures, illicitly gained. A first stage of verifying the boy is beyond reach, we read in 21;18, is ve-yiseru oto, they will discipline him, and he will not listen to them. Onkelos translates ve-yiseru as malfan yatei, will teach him, as if teaching is a version of discipline. (Rashi thinks it means they will warn him in front of three judges, then give him malkot, lashes, should he repeat his crimes.)
A chapter later, 22;18, the Torah tells us of a man who maligns his new wife, claiming she committed adultery. After her father proves the claims have no foundation in truth, the verse tells us the court will take him, ve-yiseru oto, the same words. Here, Onkelos writes ve-yalkun yatei, they will lash him.
Let’s grant that yiseru can mean to teach or give lashes. One way to get there would be to read it as “discipline,” as English translations of the first of our verses had it. If so, it suggests the proper discipline for the boy is teaching, for a falsely accusing husband lashes.
I once had a lay leader who thought all problems in a community could be solved through better education. Had I known this Onkelos then, I would have shown him he disagreed, young people are disciplined through education, older people’s discipline—perhaps because we become set in our ways as we age–has a component of force. To make sure we learn.
The Communal Role of Marriage
Emet Le-Ya’akov opens his comment to 23;3 with a reminder he has made this point a few times in the commentary already: In his view, Sefer Devarim sets up working political and communal systems for the Jewish people. Rules of kings, war, and civil society obviously fit the rubric, but he wonders about matrimonial law. It might seem to belong better in Vayikra, in the discussion of prohibited relationships (arayot).
The question is the answer, in his view (and mine, FWIW). Marriage (and divorce) are not solely a private matter for the couple or their families; it affects the local community and the nation. For example, marriage ushers the husband—traditionally, the public side of the couple and family—into full membership in the public people. Emet Le-Ya’akov points to the Talmudic phrase for those who may not marry regular Jews, pesulei kahal, invalid for full membership in the kahal, the community.
When, of course, they aren’t excluded, and many unmarrieds contribute valuably. I think he means they are not part of producing and building the future, with the assumption “building” includes children.
It explains why the presence of a new groom exempts the whole shul from Tachanun, where the presence of a mourner—who also does not say Tachanun—does not. Mourning is personal, with others coming to support and comfort the ones going through it. A wedding is a communal event, the joy belongs to the whole community, because it launches a new family in the Jewish people. The laws of those marriages, then, fully belong in Devarim.
The Sanctity of Armies
In the middle of the parsha, 23;10, the Torah establishes laws of the army camp, introduced with the warning to be careful of kol davar ra, every bad (or evil) matter/thing. Ramban reads it to warn against some of the flaws typical of non-Jewish military camps, where soldiers eat abominations, steal, extort, and even rape, shamelessly and with impunity. The most honest and straightforward of men can become cruel and insensitive in such situations, leading the Torah to admonish us to be careful.
[I chose this Ramban to review because, sadly, we live in a time where war and army service seem to have in fact dulled some sensitivities. Golda Meir wasn’t wrong about the anger we owe the Arabs for turning our young men into people they otherwise would not have been.]
Sifrei expands the category of “ra” to sexual wrongs, emblematic of those acts that led to the Canaanites’ loss of the land of Israel and what Hashem has told us can cause the Divine Presence to leave a place. The Torah’s speaking of davar ra, an evil matter (or, more hyperliterally, word), told Sifrei that it includes evil speech (slander), bad words, too.
It ratifies Ramban’s understanding that the goal of this verse is to prohibit the Jewish people from acting in a way that will “expel” the Divine Presence from among them, bringing loss in wars they should have won. It is why Sifrei speaks of those sins that cost the Canaanites the Land and caused the Divine Presence to leave.
As for lashon hara, slanderous speech? It leads to strife, which can cause Jews to hurt each other more than the enemy (self-inflicted wounds abound in the Jewish people, and are more frustrating, since they’re our own fault).
For Ramban, the Torah warns us that how we conduct ourselves in our military camps will affect the outcome of our campaigns. What is acceptable in other armies is not in our, and we need to work to maintain the highest possible standards of personal conduct.
Fleeing to Israel Does End Slavery
The Torah prohibits returning an eved kena’ani to his master if the eved ran away and came to Israel, 23;16. An eved kena’ni, remember, partially converted to Judaism when entering servitude to a Jewish master. Malbim accepts Ramban’s view, we are supposed to free this eved who fled to Israel, instead of restoring him/her to the master al adamah teme’ah, on defiled land, where not all mitzvot apply.
Malbim investigates a Sifrei which seeks the source for the prohibition against a Jew in Israel selling his eved kena’ani to a non-Jew who will stay in Israel. Sifrei ends up deciding it is asmachta, a Rabbinic rule attached to a verse to give a sense of a source.
He closes with a broad expansion I had not realized. The verse prohibits returning a slave to his master after s/he has come to be saved with you. Malbim thinks the reference to “his master” is superfluous, since from whom else would a slave flee? He says the verse wants us to save slaves even if they only flee from their masters, not to us, in the sense of intending to join the Jewish people.
No one can live in Israel without accepting the Noahide laws, but if a non-Jewish slave flees a master and declares his/her interest in living in Israel, observing those laws, Malbim says we must provide sanctuary. [It’s surprising, since, generally, an eved kena’ani has already gone to mikveh to accept mitzvot; maybe Malbim means a non-Jewish slave who agreed with the master before entering servitude that s/he would not convert.]
I will not take it to any further Zionistic ends than he already has, but Malbim, following Ramban (a known Zionist), thinks our verse says Israel is the place slaves are welcome to go, to find a better life, free of serving their Jewish master in a defiled land, if they accept the minimum of the way of life obligatory on them by Torah law.
Honest Measures Can Also Be a Problem
The Torah warns us not to have two kinds of weights, big and small, 25;14. Were they both incorrect, there is no need to say big and small, Kli Yakar notes. He therefore argues one of these measures was accurate, and is part of the problem, because it provides cover for the dishonest one.
No merchant can always shortchange customers, s/he would never get away with it. The more sophisticated cheat has an honest weight, too, and much of the time sells accurately, using the mismeasure only enough to make extra money without getting caught. When a dissatisfied client complains, the merchant can point to all the customers who got exactly what they ordered, and can produce an accurate weighing stone to show the authorities.
The honesty supports the dishonesty and becomes tainted by it; it is why Mishlei 20;10 says both of such a man’s weighing stones are an abomination to Hashem.
The Connection to Amalek
He thinks it explains the link Rashi draws between the commandment to remember what Amalek did to us, 25;17, and weights and measures, having false weights and measures will lead Hashem to bring enemies upon us.
Kli Yakar thinks it has always been Amalek’s role. Tradition attributed Amalek’s attack to the Jews of the desert having questioned whether God was present amongst them, as Shemot 17;7 says. Yalkut there has the view of R. Eliezer, the Jews had said, if God provides our needs, we will serve Him, an insecure attachment to and trust in God.
Such insecurity, Kli Yakar says, is what leads to cheating in business [a comment based on his times, I suspect, Jews he saw or heard cheating did it because they felt unsure they could support themselves].
The cheater hides from people and acts as if God does not see. Sotah 9a tells us—in the context of an adulteress— God brings into the open sins people consciously hide. Amalek attacking is supposed to remind us of the origins of that episode, and bring to light the cheaters in our midst [another interesting jump: should Amalek attack, Jews will be sure it is a reaction to a sin of doubting God, leading to cheating, and will ferret out those cheaters].
Honesty can be honest, or can lay the groundwork for dishonesty. It starts with ignoring the Eye that sees all, Who will ensure the exposure of secret sins.
A few steps along the way to building a healthy Jewish nation: disciplining malfeasants in the way that will be effective for each; marriages as essential to communal membership; fielding armies of impeccable morality; welcoming those who flee to us; and knowing that trying to hide our misdeeds from God only bring worse consequences.
Other Comments We Saw This Time:
Meshech Chochmah, Devarim 21;10, U-netano
Rashi, Devarim 21;11, Ve-lakachta
Rashi, Devarim 21;12, Ve-asetah
Ramban, Devarim 21;12, Ve-asetah et tziporneha
Rashi, Devarim 21;13, Ve-hesirah
Ramban, Devarim 21;18, Ben sorer
Rashi, Devarim 22;1, Ve-hit’alamta
Rashi, Devarim 22;2, Le-ish acher
Rashi, Devarim 22;4, Imo
Onkelos, Devarim 22;5, cheli gever, simlat isha
Ha’amek Davar, Devarim 22;5, Lo yihyeh
Ramban, Devarim 22;6, Ki yikarei
Meshech Chochmah, Devarim 22;22, U-vi’arta
R. David Tzvi Hoffmann, Devarim 22;25-27, Ha-halachah
Onkelos, Devarim 23;2-4, lo yavo bi-kehal Hashem
Ramban, Devarim 23;5, Al devar
Rashi, Devarim 23;9, Banim
Rashi, Devarim 24;1, Ki matza bah
Meshech Chochmah, Devarim 24;1, Ve-hayah im lo
Ramban, Devarim 24;4, Acharei
R. Hirsch, Devarim 24;4, Acharei asher hutama’ah
Onkelos, Devarim 24;6, ki nefesh hu chovel
Torat Moshe, Devarim 24;8, Hishamer
Rashi, Devarim 24;9, Zachor
Sforno, Devarim 24;16, Lo yumtu
Ibn Ezra, Devarim 25;2, Kedei rish’ato
HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Devarim 25;5, Yevamah yavo
Rashi, Devarim 25;17, Zachor
Onkelos, Devarim 22;21, 22, 24, and 24;7, u-vi’arta ha-ra
Or HaChayim, Devarim 23;6, Ve-lo avah
Or HaChayim, Devarim 23;10, Ki tetzei
Ramban, Devarim 23;19, Lo tavi