Archive for the ‘Sifri’ Category

Parshas Haazinu commences with the dramatic  appointment of Heaven and earth to be  witnesses and guarantors to the Covenant between G-d and Israel.

There is a distinct disparity between the verbs used in the opening verse:

א. הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וַאֲדַבֵּרָה וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ אִמְרֵי פִי

1. Listen, O heavens, and I will speak! And let the earth hear the words of my mouth. (Devarim 32:1)

Heaven is requested to listen to the proceedings with “הַאֲזִינוּ”, literally “to incline one’s ear”. Whereas the earth is merely told “to hear” – “תִשְׁמַע”. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch picks up on this point and explains it as follows: “Inclining one’s ear” expresses a greater degree of readiness to listen to what is being said than “hearing”. For surely one can hear without exerting any effort, or even without wishing to; but  “to incline one’s ear” clearly means that one wishes to make an effort to listen and be concerned with what is going on.

We can now understand the reason why Heaven is commanded with a more active imperative and the earth a more passive one. The upholding of the Covenant comes in first place from Heaven and only then, indirectly,  is it unfolded on earth. Heaven is indeed active, the earth more passive; for all blessings, and indeed curses, of the physical development of the earth and its dependants  (human social conditions) hinge on extraterrestrial cosmic conditions which exist in what we term “the heavens”. What is to develop on earth must commence with the actions of the heavens. This is why God directly commands the heavens in this manner, whereas the earth is given a more passive role, for its conditions arise as a direct result of the goings on in Heaven.

The Sifre compares this introduction of Moshe’s speech to one given by Yeshaya. Yeshaya uses similar language and remarks: “shemu hashamayim, vehazini ha’aretz” (Yeshaya 1:2); this is the exact terms used by Moshe except the phrases are rearranged.The Sifre remarks: “Since Moshe was close to heaven he therefore said “הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם” and since he was far from earth he said “וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ”. Yeshaya came and said “shemu shamayim” since he was far from heaven and “vehazini ha’arerz” because he was close to earth.

 The Sifre means that since Moshe was one of the greatest prophets of all, he stood closer to Heaven than to earth and therefore had the ability to demand this of Heaven. Yeshaya, although on a higher spritual plane than we can understand, was not on the level of Moshe and therefore stood nearer to earth than Heaven.  What we have said above of the relationship between heaven and earth is the underlying reason for these verses of the Sifre. Since Moshe considered himself to be near the active, dispensing activities of the Heaven, he used this language. Yet Yeshaya felt this would be above his station and that his mission was more akin to the passive earth and so he speaks accordingly.

During this Festival-rich period of our calender it is vital that we remember this idea – that everything we have and achieve is preordained by a higher power than ourselves. Our hopes, dreams, and desires, while requiring effort on our own part, depend very much on the will of Heaven. And if we are at all able to influence this, it is by strengthening the bond between G-d and ourselves through doing and appreciating the mitzvos בין אדם למקום as well as those בין אדם לחבירו.

Jewish law is often misrepresented as being focused on retribution and having an almost sadistic desire for violent punishment: nothing could be further from the truth. It does, in fact, demonstrate many ways to be acquitted as well as ways of rehabilitation for the offender. The essence of rehabilitation is clearly seen in this weeks parsha. Note the following:

כִּי-יִהְיֶה רִיב בֵּין אֲנָשִׁים, וְנִגְּשׁוּ אֶל-הַמִּשְׁפָּט וּשְׁפָטוּם; וְהִצְדִּיקוּ, אֶת-הַצַּדִּיק, וְהִרְשִׁיעוּ, אֶת-הָרָשָׁע. וְהָיָה אִם-בִּן הַכּוֹת, הָרָשָׁע–וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו, כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ בְּמִסְפָּראַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ, לֹא יֹסִיף:  פֶּן-יֹסִיף לְהַכֹּתוֹ עַל-אֵלֶּה מַכָּה רַבָּה, וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ 

 If there is a quarrel between men, and they approach the tribunal, and they [the judges] judge them, and they acquit the innocent one and condemn the guilty one. and it shall be, if the guilty one has incurred [the penalty of] lashes, that the judge shall make him lean over and flog him in front of him, commensurate with his crime, in number.  He shall flog him with forty [lashes]; he shall not exceed, lest he give him a much more severe flogging than these [forty lashes], and your brother will be degraded before your eyes.  (Deut. 25: 1-3)
For a number of reasons there are many Halachic discussions of these verses; but for now we can look at the change of name of the offender. The verses start by calling the accused הָרָשָׁע-the evil one then quite quickly use the friendly name of אָחִיךָ-your brother. The Sifri on this pasuk understands this apparent misnomer to be teaching us a moral lesson. Namely, that once the Offender has accepted punishment he is once again part of our people, connected by Ahavas Yisroel.

Practically speaking in halachah, while someone is considered a רָשָׁע they are excommunicated. That is, they are forbidden from taking part in religious ceremonies and also from civil law (for example giving testimony in court). Yet when the person has undergone the prescribed punishment his religious and civil rights and obligations are reinstated as a full member of Am Yisroel. This led to a specific enactment by the sages, known as “takkanat ha-shavim”, a rule designed to remove any obstacles to repentance.

An example of this is found in massechet Gittin (5:5): “If a beam which was acquired by robbery has been built into a building, restitution for it may be made in money so as not to put obstacles in the way of penitents.” The rule is, that in a case of robbery, the guilty party must return what he has taken to the rightful owner (Lev. 5:23). This makes obvious sense. If a thief were merely allowed to make a monetary compensation rather than return the stolen object, the law would, in effect, allow someone to acquire an object – albeit at a price – through unlawful means. That is clearly morally wrong, even to an atheist. Yet this rule was suspended for cases where returning the stolen object would cause the thief to incur a massive loss. This is the case in the Mishnah in Gittin; in order to restore the actual beam to its rightful owner the thief would have to demolish his own house. Although the sense of guilt at the original crime might induce remorse in the thief and an effort to return stolen goods; Nonetheless, if this would involve disproportionate loss the thief might decide that restitution was too dear and decide against giving the object back. “So what?”, even a fairly reasonable man might say. “Surely the thief, by breaking the law, has forfeited any claim on the courts’ clemency. What matters is the right of the original owner of the beam- not the rights of the thief”. Yet Jewish law ruled otherwise. To be sure, the owner must be compensated for his loss, for without this he would have suffered an injustice. But we must have concern for the offender too, and must remove obstacles to becoming a law-abiding person.

Our sages went further still. In Massechet Bava Kama (94b) we find a remarkable principle: “if robbers or usurers [repent, and of their own accord] are prepared to restore what they have wrongly taken, it is not right to accept it from them, and one who does so is not acting with the approval of the sages.” This does not apply to a convicted criminal – only a person who has, without any prompting other than a guilty conscience, has decided to confess and make amends. This is “brought down” by Rambam (Hilchot Gezelah 1:13): “Even though robbing someone is like taking their life…we must help [a thief who repents on his own accord] and pardon him in order to bring him to the right path.

There are other principles articulated by the sages which help an ‘offender’ to atone for his misdeeds and feel fully accepted back by Klal Yisroel (not referring to his criminal past to take one example). These teachings were ahead of their times as justice in ancient times was not tempered with mercy, but like so many of the moral truths given to our forefathers on Har Sinai, they are radical and eternal. Jewish law is concerned not only to protect the rights of those who have been wronged, but also to help the offenders rebuild their lives. Only acts are forever wicked, never a person; and we put this into practice by welcoming the penitent back as our brother and equal

Beautiful kesubot
and custom art by
Rav Yoel Rakovsky.
Call 02 628 5346 or
visit ituryn.com

Categories