1

YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA

UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
The Marcos and Adina Katz
YUTORAH
IN
PRINT
Devarim 5774
Te Role of Sefer Devarim
Rabbi Solomon Drillman ztl - Writen up by Rabbi Benjamin Kelsen
T
he Ramban teaches that Sefer Devorim, the ffh
book of the Torah, was addressed to the generation
of Klal Yisroel that would be entering Eretz Yisroel.
Even though Chazal call Sefer Devorim Mishne Torah,
the second Torah, the Ramban comments that there
are some new mitzvos here which had not been taught
previously. Te Ramban ofers two reasons as to why these
mitzvos were not discussed previously. Te Ramban says
that perhaps these mitzvos are of the type called talui
baretz, dependant upon being the land of Israel for them
to be applicable. Te second explanation of the Ramban
is that these mitzvos are halachos which are not quite so
common and therefore were only mentioned at the end of
Klal Yisroels sojourn in the wilderness and the beginning
of their preparations to enter Eretz Yisroel.
However, there are several meforshim, commentators,
such as the Abarbanel the Kli Chemdah, and the Radbaz,
who object to the Rambans frst suggestion. One of
the difculties raised by these commentaries is that it is
difcult to fnd a connection between the new mitzvos
delineated here and Eretz Yisroel. While we know that
those mitzvos which would fall under the classifcation of
agriculture are generally held to apply only within the
borders of Eretz Yisroel, the new mitzvos introduced
here, such as marriage and divorce, have nothing to do with
agriculture. How can the Ramban suggest that the mitzvos
of Devorim are connected with Klal Yisroels imminent
entry in Eretz Yisroel?
However, Ramban stated his opinion previously,
especially in Parshas Acharei. Te Forefathers only
considered themselves obligated in mitzvos in the Holy
Land. For this reason, Ramban explained, Yaakov was able
to marry two sisters in the Diaspora, but upon his entrance
into Eretz Yisrael, Rachel died.
HaGaon HaRav Elchonan Wassermann, ztl hyd,
explained as follows: Tere are two aspects to each of these
new mitzvos. Te reason for the mitzvah and the legal
requirements of the mitzvah. Te Patriarchs lived before
the Torah was legally binding. Terefore, they only kept
the commandments because they perceived the reason;
the reasons only applied in Eretz Yisrael. Once the Torah
was commanded at Sinai, there is a legal obligation to keep
the commandments which is not dependent on locale.
(Koveitz Shiurim, end of Kiddushin).
In the Mishnah Torah, at the start of Hilchos Ishus, the
Rambam writes that before Matan Torah a man would
meet a woman in the market and take her home with him
as a common-law wife. However, following Matan Torah,
we were required to perform Kiddushin, the marriage
ceremony, thereby formalizing the sanctifcation of the
union.
In other words, prior to Matan Torah, marriage was a
mater of convenience, made quickly and dissolved swifly.
It is only with the introduction of Kiddushin and Gitin,
divorce, that we have the concept of sanctity added to the
equation.
Reb Chaim Brisker commented, when describing
the marriage of Yaakov Avinu to Leah and Rachel, two
sisters, that while certain relationships, such as incest,
are prohibited by their very nature and will never be
permited, there are other relationships, however,
which are only forbidden because of timing and/or
circumstance. For example, in the case of Leah and Rachel,
the marriage of Yaakov Avinu to either sister would have
been acceptable, once one sister was married to him, the
second sister could not, but only because the halachos of
Kiddushin prevents a man from having a relationship with
two sisters. For Yaakov Avinu the concept of Kiddushin
was inapplicable because it was before Matan Torah. Reb
Chaim explained that even though the Avos kept the spirit
2
YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA
UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
Straight from the Heart
Rabbi Josh Hofman
R
abbi Mordechai Pinchos Teitz, was the rabbinic
leader of the Orthodox Jewish community of
Elizabeth, New Jersey, and also a pioneer radio
broadcaster who founded and delivered, for several
decades, the weekly program Daf HaShovua, which was
the frst Talmud class ever heard over radio in America.
In the later years of his life, Rabbi Teitz had severe throat
problems, to the extent that his doctor told him not to
speak publicly. Despite these strict orders, however, he
decided to deliver a talk at a simcha, or joyous occasion,
that he was atending. He prefaced his remarks by saying
that even though his doctor had given him strict orders not
to speak publicly, he had no fear that any harm would come
to him from his words, because they would be coming
from the heart. Tis remark, although its medical merits
may be open to question, can help us understand the
opening sections of Moshes farewell address to the Jewish
nation, as recorded in this weeks parsha.
In parshas Devorim, Moshe begins his farewell address
to the nation by recounting some of the events that
occurred since he was sent by God to be their leader.
We mentioned in last years Netvort to parshas Devorim
(available at Torahheights.com) that Moshes long oration,
which lasted thirty-six days, from the frst of Shevat until
his death on the seventh of Adar, poses a great difculty
for the commentators. Tis is especially so in light of
the Talmudic statement that Moshe said the section of
blessings and curses in the book of Devorim from his
own mouth. Some commentators explain this to mean
that whereas, in regard to the rest of the Torah, God spoke
directly through Moshes mouth, meaning that Moshe
delivered Gods message to the people at the same time
that he received it, in regard to the section of blessings
and curses in the book of Devorim, Moshe frst heard
Gods message, and then delivered it to the people. Other
commentators, understanding this Talmudic statement
diferently, and in a broader sense, explain it to mean that
the entire book of Devorim was said by Moshe on his own
to the Jewish nation, albeit through divine inspiration,
and was later said over to him by God to be writen in the
Torah as he had delivered it. However we understand this
Talmudic statement, it certainly tells us that Moshe did not
sufer from a lack of communication skills. Tis seems to
be in confict with what Moshe himself told God when He
frst asked him to speak to the Jewish people, as recorded
in parshas Shemos and again in parshas Vaeira. Tere,
Moshe told God I am not a man of words.. I am heavy
of mouth and heavy of speech (Shemos 4:10). Last year
we ofered an approach that reconciles these seemingly
contradictory sources, but I would now like to suggest a
diferent approach based on a comment of Rabbi Avrohom
Shmuel Binyomin Sofer, known as the Kesav Sofer, on this
weeks parsha.
Te Kesav Sofer cites the Midrash Rabbah (Devorim
1:2) which relates the opening words of parshas Devorim,
Tese are the words (that Moshe spoke), to a verse in
Mishlei (28:23), He who rebukes a man shall in the end
fnd more favor than he that fatered with the tongue.
Te midrash explains that Moshe is the one who rebuked
Yisroel, and he found more favor in their eyes, in the
end, than did Bilaam, who fatered them but eventually
caused them to sin. Te Kesav Sofer explains that the
people accepted Moshes words, despite the fact that he
had given testimony on himself that he was not a man
of words, because his words came from the heart, and
therefore entered into the heart. One is reminded here
of the story concerning Rabi Avrohom Kalmanowitz of
the Mir yeshiva in Brooklyn, who approached Henry
Morgenthau, Jewish Secretary of the Treasury in the
administration of FDR during World War Two and asked
of the mitzvos, the actual halachos were not yet in efect.
Interestingly, Rashi on Parshas Chayei Sarah, as well as the
Daas Zekeinim on Parshas Vayeishev, state that there was
indeed a ceremony of sorts conducted by the Avos and the
Shivtei Koh. HaRav Drillman explained that while this is
true, Reb Chaim meant to say that even though there was
a ceremony the Halachic consequences of Kiddushin and
Gitin were not yet being applied.
It is with this understanding, explained the Rav, ztl,
that the Ramban states that the mitzvos unique to Sefer
Devorim are talui baretz associated Kiddushin with
Klal Yisroels entrance into Eretz Yisrael, because it was
only at that point that the Marriage of Klal Yisroel to the
Ribbono Shel Olam as the Am HaNivchar was completed.
3
YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA
UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
D
euteronomy 1:9-18 states:
Tereupon I said to you, I cannot bear the burden
of you by myself. Te L-RD your God has multiplied
you until you are today as numerous as the stars in the sky.-
May the L-RD, the God of your fathers, increase your numbers
a thousand fold, and bless you as he promised you.-How can I
alone bear the trouble of you, and the burden, and the bickering!
Pick fom each of your tribes men who are wise, discerning, and
experienced, and I will appoint them as your heads.
You answered me and said, What you propose to do is good.
So I took your tribal leaders, wise and experienced men,
and appointed the heads over you: chiefs of thousands, chiefs
of hundreds, chiefs of ffies, and chiefs of tens, and ofcials for
your tribes.
I further charged your magistrates as follows:Hear out your
fellow men, and decide justly between any man and a fellow
Moshe Rabbenus Retelling of his Appointment of Judges
Rabbi David Horwitz
him to exercise his infuence on the president to help
rescue the Jews of Europe. Morgenthau was spurred into
action, and his eforts helped create, in 1944, the War
Refugee Board, which was instrumental in saving, by one
estimation, perhaps 100,000 Jews from Nazi clutches. He
later remarked that although he did not comprehend the
Yiddish language in which Rabbi Kalmanovitz spoke, he
understood everything he said, because of the emotional,
heartfelt way in which he delivered his message. In the case
of message, also, according to the Kesav Sofer, Moshes
words came from the heart, and, therefore, the people
understood what he was saying, despite what may perhaps
be described as his throat condition.
Based on the Kesav Sofers explanation of the reason for
the efectiveness of Moshes oration, we can understand
what seems to be an interruption in the fow of his
message. Moshe begins his words of rebuke to the people
by telling them that the trip to the Holy Land should really
have lasted only eleven days, but they ended up traveling
in the wilderness for forty years, due to their sins. Now,
however, he tells them, they are ready to enter the land.
At this point, Moshe describes the process of choosing
judges to handle any cases of litigation that may arise
among them. Why did Moshe choose this moment to
mention this entire episode? What did the appointment
of judges have to do with what he was in the middle of
telling them? Rabbi Shlomo Goren, in his Toras Hamikra,
explains this apparent interruption by referring to the
Talmudic statement that the appointment of proper judges
is worthy of keeping the Jewish nation alive and setling
them upon the Holy Land (see Rashi to Devorim, 16:20).
Te purpose of a judicial system is to maintain peace
among the nation, and in order for the Jewish people to
endure in the land, they must care for each other and work
together as a unit. Only judges who had a feeling of love for
their people would be able to adjudicate their disputes in a
manner that would maintain the cohesiveness of the unit.
Perhaps, then, Moshe was ofering himself as an example
of how a judge should deal with the people. Although
Moshe spoke words of rebuke to them, he did it in a way
that made his inner feeling of love for them palpable, and,
in that way, his rebuke was accepted. So, too, the judges
needed to approach their task of judging cases in way that
demonstrated their desire to bring peace to all involved in
their adjudication.
Actually, the section of appointing judges that Moshe
mentions during his oration was already recorded, with
some diferences in detail, in parshas Yisro, when Moshes
father-in-law, suggested that he set up such a system. Te
Torah there tells us that this incident occurred on the next
day, (Shemos 15:13) which the midrash, cited by Rashi
there, explains to mean the day afer Yom Kippur. Rav
Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, ztl, explained this to mean that
when a judge considers a case, he must have in mind the
experience of Yom Kippur. Just as we all hope that, on Yom
Kippur, God will judge us with mercy, and not on the basis
of strict justice, so, too, should the judge strive to judge
the cases he handles in this way. In this spirit, said Rav
Soloveitchik, the Talmud urges judges to use the method
of peshara, or judicial compromise, in judging cases,
rather than strict justice, in order to give consideration
to the human weaknesses of both sides, and arrive at an
amicable solution. It was, then, this approach to judging
the nation that Moshe wished to inculcate in the men
he appointed, so that they would follow his example of
sincerity and love in approaching the problems that were
certain to confront them upon entering the land.
4
YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA
UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment:
hear out low and high alike. Fear no man, for judgment is
Gods. And any mater that is too difcult for you, you shall
bring to me and I will hear it.
Tus I instructed you, at the time, about the various things
that you should do.
It is interesting to compare these verses with Exodus 18:
13-27 and to notice the numerous discrepancies between
the two accounts. Te Torah there states:
Next day, Moses sat as magistrate among the people, while
the people stood about Moses fom morning until evening. But
when Moses father-in-law saw how much he had to do for the
people, he said, What is this thing that you have undertaken
for the people? Why do you act alone, while all the people
stand about you fom morning until evening?
Moses replied to his father-in-law, It is because the people
come to me to inquire of God. When they have a dispute,
it comes before me, and I arbitrate between a man and his
neighbor, and I make known the laws and teachings of God.
But Moses father-in-law said to him, Te thing you are
doing is not right; you will surely wear yourself out, you as well
as the people. For the task is too heavy for you; you cannot do
it alone. Now, listen to me, I will give you counsel, and God be
with you! You act for the people in behalf of God: you bring
the disputes before God, and enjoin upon them the laws and
the teachings, and make known to them the way there are to go
and the practices they are to follow. You shall also seek out fom
among all the people capable men who fear God, trustworthy
men who spurn ill-goten gain; and set these over them as
chiefs of thousands, hundreds, ffies and tens. Let them exercise
authority over the people at all times; let them bring every major
dispute to you, but decide every minor dispute themselves. Make
it easier for yourself, and let them share the burden with you. If
you do all this-and so God commands you- you still be able to
bear up; and all these people will go home content.
Moses heeded his father-in-law and did just as he had said.
Moses chose capable men out of all Israel, and appointed them
heads over the people- chiefs of thousands, hundreds, ffies, and
tens. And they exercised authority over the people at all times:
the difcult maters they would bring to Moses, and all the minor
maters they would decide themselves. Ten Moses bade his
father-in-law farewell, and he went his way to his own land.
Te most obvious diference between the two sources,
of course, is the omission of Yitro from Moses description
of the events in Deuteronomy. But there is another
important distinction. In Sefer Devarim, there is a note of
weariness in Moses account that is totally diferent from
the account in Sefer Shemot. Only in Devarim do we fnd
the exclamation, How can I alone bear the trouble of you,
and the burden, and the bickering! What can account for
this diference?
Rav Lichtenstein once suggested that the diference in
emphasis between the two accounts stems from the fact
that in Sefer Devarim, Moshe is recounting the events from
his own personal perspective. He had already endured
40 years of hardship and pain leading the troublesome
children of Israel. He was constantly aware that because of
the events at Mei Meribah, he could not be allowed to set
foot in Eretz Yisrael, the land he longed for so desperately.
Even afer the forty years were over, he still had to endure
their complaints of the populace. Tus there was an
inevitable note of weariness that set in, when recalling the
events that transpired forty years earlier.
Scientists now understand that human memory is not
merely a passive retrieval of impressions, as the eighteenth
century Scotish philosopher David Hume thought. It
is an active, dynamic process. As long as we are alive, we
are fltering our memories of past events through all the
subsequent events that transpired afer the events that
we are remembering. (A good book that pertains to this
topic is by Mary Warnock and is titled Imagination. It
ispublished by the University of California Press, 1978.)
Pursuing this idea further, a comment by Ramban
regarding a discrepancy between Moshes retelling of the
account of the spies and the original account in Sefer Ba-
Midbar can now be more fully understood. Deuteronomy
1:45 states:
Again you wept before the L-RD, but the L-RD would not
heed your cry or give ear to you.
But, as Ramban (ad loc.) remarks,
Tere (in the Book of Numbers, 14:45) Scripture did not
mention this weeping, for there was no need to mention it. But
Moses mentioned it now...
But why did Moshe mention it now?
Ramban continues:
...as praise that they (the children of Israel) regreted their
sin, and to tell them that this sin was too great to forgive
because the great oath (of God) had already been pronounced,
and a Heavenly decree accompanied by an oath cannot be rent.
(Ramban: Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy [Chavel
edition], p. 23.)
Perhaps davka now in Sefer Devarim Moshe had a
5
YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA
UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
Profts and Prophets
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks
T
here are few more blazing passages in the whole
of religious literature than the frst chapter of the
book of Isaiah, the great vision, chazon, that
gives its name to the Shabbat before Tisha BAv, the saddest
day of the Jewish year. It is more than great literature. It
expresses one of the great prophetic truths, that a society
cannot fourish without honesty and justice. It could not
be more relevant to our time.
Te Talmud (Shabbat 31a) states that when we leave
this life and arrive at the world to come, the frst question
we will be asked will not be a conventionally religious one
(Did you set aside times for learning Torah?) but rather,
Did you act honestly [be-emunah] in business? I used to
wonder how the rabbis felt certain about this. Death is,
afer all, the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no
traveller returns. Te answer it seems to me is this passage
from Isaiah:
See how the faithful city has become a harlot! She once was
full of justice; righteousness used to dwell in herbut now
murderers! Your silver has become dross, your choice wine is
diluted with water.Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves;
they all love bribes and chase afer gifs. Tey do not defend the
cause of the fatherless; the widows case does not come before
them. (Is. 1: 21-23)
Jerusalems fate was sealed not by conventional religious
failure but by the failure of people to act honestly. Tey
engaged in sharp business practices that were highly
proftable but hard to detect mixing silver with baser
metals, diluting wine. People were concerned with
maximising profts, indiferent to the fact that others
would sufer. Te political system too had become corrupt.
Politicians were using their ofce and infuence to personal
advantage. People knew about this or suspected it Isaiah
does not claim to be telling people something they didnt
already know; he does not expect to surprise his listeners.
Te fact that people had come to expect no beter from
their leaders was itself a mark of moral decline.
Tis, says Isaiah, is the real danger: that widespread
dishonesty and corruption saps the morale of a society,
makes people cynical, opens up divisions between the
rich and powerful and the poor and powerless, erodes
the fabric of society and makes people wonder why they
should make sacrifces for the common good if everyone
else seems to be bent on personal advantage. A nation in
this condition is sick and in a state of incipient decline.
What Isaiah saw and said with primal force and devastating
clarity is that sometimes (organised) religion is not the
solution but itself part of the problem.It has always been
tempting, even for a nation of monotheists, to slip into
magical thinking: that we can atone for our sins or those of
society by frequent atendances at the Temple, the ofering
of sacrifces, and conspicuous shows of piety. Few things,
implies Isaiah, make God angrier than this:
Te multitude of your sacrifceswhat are they to me?
says the Lord When you come to appear before me, who
has asked this of you, this trampling of my courts? Stop
bringing meaningless oferings! Your incense is detestable to me
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.Your New Moon festivals
and your appointed feasts my soul hates. Tey have become a
burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread
out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes fom you; even if
you ofer many prayers, I will not listen.
Te corrupt not only believe they can fool their fellow
humans; they believe they can fool God as well. When
moral standards begin to break down in business, fnance,
trade and politics, a kind of collective madness takes hold
of people the sages said adam bahul al mamono, meaning,
roughly, money makes us do wild things and people
come to believe that they are leading a charmed life, that
luck is with them, that they will neither fail nor be found out.
Tey even believe they can bribe God to look the other way.
In the end it all comes crashing down and those who sufer
special reason to mention the weeping of benei Yisrael.
Moshe, realizing that although he had done teshuvah for
his mysterious sin at Mei Meribah, he could still not enter
Eretz Yisrael. Te gezerah of God was fnal. But Moshe had
acquired a deep empathy for the rest of benei Yisrael who
were also denied the opportunity to enter the land. He
wished to state that they cried as praise that they regreted
their sin, as Ramban put it.
Te ways of God are inscrutable. Moshe Rabbenu
reached the heights of identifcation with the travails of his
fellow Israelites while at the same time he accepted that the
Will of God, the Judge, is unalterably fnal.
6
YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA
UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
most tend to be those who deserve it least.
Isaiah is making a prophetic point but one that has
implications for economics and politics today and can be
stated even in secular terms. Te market economy is and
must be a moral enterprise. Absent that, and eventually it
will fail.
Tere used to be a belief among superfcial readers
of Adam Smith, prophet of free trade, that the market
economy did not depend on morality at all: It is not from
the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker
that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their
own interest. It was the brilliance of the system that it
turned self-interest into the common good by what Smith
called, almost mystically, an invisible hand. Morality was
not part of the system. It was unnecessary.
Tis was a misreading of Smith, who took morality
very seriously indeed and wrote a book called Te Teory
of Moral Sentiments. But it was also a misreading of
economics. Tis was made clear, two centuries later, by
a paradox in Games Teory known as Te Prisoners
Dilemma. Without going into details, this imagined two
people faced with a choice (to stay silent, confess or
accuse the other). Te outcome of their decision would
depend on what the other person did, and this could not
be known in advance. It can be shown that if both people
act rationally in their own interest, they will produce an
outcome that is bad for both of them. Tis seems to refute
the basic premise of market economics, that the pursuit of
self-interest serves the common good.
Te negative outcome of the Prisoners Dilemma
can only be avoided if the two people repeatedly fnd
themselves in the same situation. Eventually they realise
they are harming one another and themselves. Tey learn
to co-operate, which they can only do if they trust one
another, and they will only do this if the other has earned
that trust by acting honestly and with integrity.
In other words, the market economy depends on moral
virtues that are not themselves produced by the market,
and may be undermined by the market itself. For if the
market is about the pursuit of proft, and if we can gain at
other peoples expense, then the pursuit of proft will lead,
frst to shady practices (your silver has become dross, your
choice wine is diluted with water), then to the breakdown
of trust, then to the collapse of the market itself.
A classic instance of this happened afer the fnancial
crash in 2008. For a decade, banks had engaged in
doubtful practices, notably subprime mortgages and
the securitization of risk through fnancial instruments
so complex that even bankers themselves later admited
they did not fully understand them. Tey continued to
authorize them despite Warren Bufets warning in 2002
that subprime mortgages were instruments of mass
fnancial destruction. Te result was the crash. But that
was not the source of the depression/recession that
followed. Tat happened because the banks no longer
trusted one another. Credit was no longer freely available
and in one country afer another the economy stalled.
Te key word, used by both Isaiah and the sages, is
emunah, meaning faithfulness and trust. Isaiah in our
hafara twice uses the phrase kirya neemana, faithful city.
Te sages say that in heaven we will be asked, Did you
conduct your business beemunah? meaning, in such
a way as to inspire trust. Te market economy depends
on trust. Absent that, and depend instead on contracts,
lawyers, regulations and supervisory authorities, and there
will be yet more scandals, collapses and crashes since the
ingenuity of those who seek to sidestep the rules always
exceeds those whose job it is to apply them. Te only safe
regulatory authority is conscience, the voice of God within
the human heart forbidding us to do what we know is
wrong but think we can get away with.
Isaiahs warning is as timely now as it was twenty-seven
centuries ago. When morality is missing and economics
and politics are driven by self-interest alone, trust fails
and the society fabric unravels. Tat is how all great
superpowers began their decline, and there is no exception.
In the long term, the evidence shows that it is sounder
to follow prophets than profts.
Og Stands Tall on the Stage of History
Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald
I
n his recapitulation of the events leading up to the
peoples entry into the land of Israel, Moses recalls
the defeat at the hands of Israel of two great ancient
kings, Sihon, the king of the Amorites, and Og, the king of
Bashan. (Te original stories of the defeat of Sihon and Og
are recorded in Numbers 21:21-35.)
Because the people of Edom did not permit the ancient
Israelites to cross through their land, the children of Israel
7
YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA
UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
were forced to turn eastward toward the Jordan and travel
through the territories that belonged to the fearsome rulers,
Sihon and Og. Despite Israels request to pass through his
land, Sihon declines to give permission and mobilizes his
army to batle Israel. Te Israelites, however, smite Sihon
and the Amorites by the sword, taking possession of their
land. Although these lands were not intended to be a part of
biblical Israel, Israel occupied all the Amorite cities, as well
as the capital city, Heshbon, and its suburbs.
Marching even further north toward the Bashan, Israel
encounters the giant Og, who rallies his army to do batle
with the Israelites in Edrei. Afer being reassured by G-d
not to fear Og, the Israelites smite the King of Bashan, his
sons and all his people and take possession of his lands as
well (Numbers 21:34).
While there is very limited information regarding
Og in the biblical text, the Midrash creates an elaborate
biography of the King of Bashan.
Te Midrash Tanchuma in Leviticus 12, depicts Og as
a paradigm of wickedness, citing the verse in Isaiah 57:20,
which states that the wicked are like the troubled sea.
Te Midrash explains that, like the sea, the wicked fail to
learn from previous failures. Just as the waves do not learn
from previous waves that they cannot overwhelm the land,
so the wicked fail to learn from the punishments of other
wicked people. Afer all, Pharaoh tried to defeat the Jewish
people and was beaten down, but Amalek did not learn from
Pharaoh. Sihon and Og should have learned from Amalek,
but instead turned a blind eye to Israels military successes,
went out to atack Israel and were roundly defeated.
It is important to note that Og is not always characterized
in the Midrash as being entirely negative. In Genesis 14,
we are told that the powerful four kings defeated the king
of Sodom and captured Abrams nephew, Lot, and all
his possessions. Genesis 14:13 informs us: Vahyavo,
hapahleet, and the fugitive came and told Abram the
Hebrew who dwelt in the Plains of Mamre the Amorite
that his brother, Lot, had been taken captive. Abram
subsequently makes war with the powerful four kings
and defeats them, rescuing Lot. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo
Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible)
ofers two elucidations of who this fugitive might be.
According to the literal meaning, Rashi suggests that it was
Og, who escaped from the batle with the four kings. Tis
interpretation is based on the verse in Deuteronomy 3:11
that says that only Og was lef of the remnant of the Refaim.
Te Midrash Bereishith Rabbah agrees that the fugitive
was Og; however, it identifes him not as a refugee from
the war, but as the one who escaped the destruction of the
generation of the food. Te allusion to Og in the verse in
Deuteronomy is that only Og remained of the Refaim, the
giants, who lived prior to the Flood.
Te Yalkut, in Deuteronomy 8:10, states that when Moses
and the children of Israel came to Edrei and were about to
wage war with Og, Moses raised his eyes and saw Og siting
on a high wall with his feet reaching the ground. Struck
by Ogs gigantic stature, Moses was seized with fear, to the
extent that G-d had to assure him not to be afraid. Moses
then proceeded to wage war with Og and vanquished him.
Te rabbis ask: Why should the great Moses have been
afraid of Og? Tey suggest that Moses was fearful that the
merits of Ogs good deed, informing Abram that his nephew
Lot had been captured by the four kings, would make it
impossible for Israel to defeat the King of Bashan.
Rashi, however, ofers an alternate negative
interpretation, suggesting that Og was not being at all
altruistic when providing this information to Abram.
Rather, Og was certain that Abram would be killed
atempting to rescue Lot, and that Og would then be able
to abscond with Abrams beautiful wife, Sarai (Sarah).
Og is frequently depicted by the Midrash as being
enormously large and powerful. When Moses went out
to wage war against Og, Og announced deprecatingly:
How large is the camp of Israel? Tree parasangs in
circumference? I will pluck up a mountain three parasangs in
circumference, hurl it at them, and kill them. He proceeded
to lif a mountain three parasangs in circumference and
carried it on his head. But the Holy One sent ants that bored
holes in it, so that it slipped down around Ogs neck. He
tried to pull it up, but since his teeth began juting out from
both sides of his mouth, he could not pull it past them.
Given Ogs enormous size, how did Moses vanquish
him? Te Midrash tells us that Moses, who himself was
10 cubits tall, took an ax that was 10 cubits in length,
jumped 10 cubits high into the air, and struck Og on his
ankles, killing him. Again stressing the great bulk of Og,
the Midrash relates a story of Abba Saul, who had been
a gravedigger. On one occasion, Abba Saul chased a deer
who fed from him and entered the thigh bone of a gigantic
corpse. Abba Saul recounts that he pursued the deer into
the bone for three parsangs, but he neither caught up with
the deer, nor reached the end of the thigh bone. When
he returned the way he had come, he was told that the
enormous thigh bone was part of the corpse of Og, the
8
YUTORAH IN PRINT A PROJECT OF YESHIVA
UNIVERSITYS CENTER FOR THE JEWISH FUTURE Devarim 5774
Download thousands of audio shiurim and articles at www.yutorah.org
king of Bashan.
Scripture in Deuteronomy 3:11 underscores the
enormous stature of Og by writing about his special sleeping
accommodations: Heenay arso eres barzel, behold his
bed was an iron bednine cubits was its length and four
cubits its width by the cubit of a man. Te commentators
explain that Og was so big and so heavy that ordinary
wooden furniture could not support him. Others suggest
that the Bible is referring to Ogs bed when he was a baby,
that his cradle would break because Og was so strong.
Te Midrash elaborates further on the verse in
Deuteronomuy 3:11, which states that only Og remained
of the remnant of the Refaim. Te Midrash suggests that
as the foodwaters swelled, Og sat himself on one of the
rungs of the ladders of Noahs ark, and swore to Noah and
to his sons that he would be their slave forever. With that
assurance, Noah proceeded to punch a hole in the ark, and
through it handed food to Og every day. Now it is clear
why the verse refers to Og as Te Fugitive, rather than a
fugitive. Te Fugitive indicates that he was someone who
had already been known at the time to have escaped from
peril, having previously escaped from the Flood.
An alternate view, cited in the Talmud Zevachim 113b,
is that Og was so tall that he was able to stand on the side of
the ark and not drown in the water. Other views, recorded
in tractate Niddah, are that the water reached only to Ogs
ankles, or that Og ran to the land of Israel during the food,
where there was no food (Rashi, Niddah 61a).
Te rabbis also ofer a gematria interpretation that is
based on Genesis 7:23, which states, Vayeeshaayr ach
Noach, that only Noah survived the food. Te rabbis say
that the Hebrew leters ach Noach add up to the value
of 79, the exact value of the name Og in Hebrew. Tus,
besides Noah and his family, only Og remained.
Te Midrash further relates that when Isaac was born,
Abraham made a great feast (Genesis 21:8). Rabbi Judah
Barsimeon says, Do not read a great feast, but rather a
feast for great personages. Og and all the great ones [the
giants] like him were at the feast. Og was asked, Didnt
you say that Abraham is like a barren mule who could not
beget a child? Looking dismissively at Isaac, Og said,
So what is this gif? Is it not a puny litle thing that I can
simply crush with my fnger? G-d was angry that Og had
belitled His gif to Abraham [the infant Isaac]. As you
live, said G-d, you will see thousands of myriads issue
from his [Isaacs] childrens children! And it was at the
hands of Isaacs descendants that the evil Og was to fall
(Midrash Genesis Rabbah 53:10).
What accounts for the unusually extensive atention
given Og in the Midrash is uncertain. Certainly, scriptures
lyrical description of Ogs oversized bed and/or cradle
(Deuteronomy 3:11) can easily lead to fantasies about
giants and visions of massive creatures. Even the
inconsistency of hundreds of years that separate the story
of Noah from those of Abraham and Moses do not seem
to ratle the Midrashic creativity. Perhaps the message that
binds the Midrashic narratives together is that the Jewish
people, with the help of G-d, have the power to vanquish
their enemies, no mater how large or powerful. It is a
lesson that must not be dismissed.
Good for no Reason
Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn
T
his Shabbos, in synagogues across the country, we
begin reading the book of Devarim. According to
the Talmud in Avodah Zarah (28a) this book is
also called Sefer HaYashar, the Book of the Upright. Why is
this the alternative name for Devarim? Because it contains
within it the verse vasisa hayashar vhatov and you shall
do the right and the good. Question: If containing the
word yashar is what qualifes a book for being called Sefer
HaYashar, why isnt Shemos (Exodus) called Sefer HaYashar
as it contains the verse Vhayashar beinav taaseh? R.
Eliezer Rabinowitz suggests that perhaps it is not so much
the word yashar as it is the uniqueness of the verse vasisa
hayashar vhatov. Tis verse is marshaled in numerous
situations in the Talmud to suggest that we act on occasion
beyond the leter of the law. One example (Bava Metziah
16b) deals with lending requirement. Our verse instructs
the lender to go the extra mile for the borrower. Tis week
begins the nine days. Te nine days leads up to Tisha Bav,
which commemorates the destruction of the Holy Temple.
Te 2nd Temple was destroyed on account of sinaas chinam
baseless hatred. Rav Kook was famous for coining the
famous converse: that the Temple will only be rebuilt on
account of ahavas chinam baseless love. Baseless love is
essentially and you shall do the right and the good. It is
about going beyond that which we are required to do simply
because it is yashar, it is right.