Answers to Haazinu

Ha’azinu 5728
Alef.

Ibn Kaspin understands the poem in the Parasha as essentially focusing upon what will occur during our involvement with Bavel, i.e., the destruction of the First Temple, Israel’s going into exile and Bavel eventual punishment at the hands of the Persians for having gone beyond their mandate with respect to mistreating the Jewish people. (This latter point is also made by commentators in order to explain why the Egyptians should be punished for having enslaved the Jews when the Brit Bein HaBetarim [Beraishit 15:13] explicitly stated that this would happen. Furthermore, minorities typically had to pay a work tax when taking up residence in another country—in the case of the Givonim who were decreed to be woodcutters and water drawers, it was the Jews who insisted on their work in exchange for being able to live in Canaan. So when in the next verse Beraishit 15:14, the Tora states that God will Judge the enslavers, this is explained as coming about because the Egyptians went further, e.g., throwing male children into the Nile, than was included in the Divine Plan.)

RaMBaN does not confine the poem in Ha’azinu to the painful experience that the Jews had with the Babylonians, but rather understands the text as not only describing what has happened in the past as well as the events of the present, but also presenting a picture of the far-off future, events that as yet have not taken place. In addition, as opposed to claiming that the non-Jews were punished for having gone beyond the Divine Authorization to only punish the Jews, RaMBaN posits that the punishment that these nations will receive is due to the attitude that inspired their readiness to inflict harm upon the Jews, i.e., their hatred for God and therefore the people associated with Him.

Beit.

1.    In both cases, Devarim 30 and 32, a point will be reached where God will no longer Persecute and Punish His People, but will Restore them to their former status. However, Devarim 30:1-2 states that any Divine Restoration will be preceded by the Jewish people repenting. No such mention is made in 32:36, where the implication is that God will Reach the limit of what He has Decided to Do to the People, and then will Begin a reconciliation process independent of any realizations on their parts.

2.    The verb to “judge” ordinarily means that an evaluation will be made without any predisposition to guilt or innocence. And if guilt is the verdict, than an appropriate punishment will be meted out. In Beraishit 15:14, since the nation that will enslave the Jews will be considered culpable, an appropriate punishment will be decided upon. In Beraishit 30:6, when Rachel says that God has Judged her, if anything, this is a finding of innocence and it is for this reason that her handmaiden Bilha gave birth to a son, Dan, a reward. In the case of Devarim 32:36, RaShI interprets that rather than lawful punishment, afflictions are imposed. Consequently, this will be more in keeping with Iyov and his accusations against God for unfairly applying afflictions rather than justifiable punishments to various individuals.

3.    In the case of Beraishit 49:47, it is predicted that Dan will avenge Jewish suffering at the hands of the Philistines. But vengeance has the quality of Mida KeNeged Mida, i.e., a fair repayment in kind for past improprieties. RaShI on 32:36 is associating afflictions and torture with the term “judging.” Pehaps a way of reconciling these two sources is to say that when man is applying punishments, he must be careful to be as just as possible because he is incapable of fine-tuning the punishments to exactly match the crime. (This is an explanation why despite the Tora stating, “An eye for an eye” the Rabbinic interpretation is that a monetary settlement will be made. While technically, the perpetrator deserves to lose his eye if he caused the loss of another’s eye, the Talmud in Bava Kama, in one of its rationales for why money is given in place of a literal loss of a limb or organ, states that since man is not able to be precise in his carrying out of such punishments, i.e., who says that during the course of taking out the perpetrator’s eye, he will become sickened and even die, therefore money which is less potentially lethal and more subject to “fine-tuning” is used.) However, when God is the One determining punishments, even if some form of torture is to be applied, He can Act with the type of precision that makes this type of action even legally acceptable.

4.    The problem is the possibility of misconstruing what the prepositional phrase “ועל עבדיו” is modifying. Whose servants are we talking about? If the order is left as the verse has it, then it is possible that the servants are those of “His People”, the servants of the Jewish People. But by reversing the word order, it is clear that the verb is connected to the same subject as was the verb in the first phrase, i.e., God. And if that is so,  the possessive pronoun in “עמו” clearly relates to God, and not the Jewish people.

5.    Perhaps by changing the term used for God from Hashem to HaKadosh Baruch Huh, RaShI is indicating that a change overcomes the Divine when He Moves from the throne of judgment to the throne of mercy. The One, Unchanging Deity, at least from our vantage point, appears to Change and Sets off to treat Israel differently than He has to this point.

Gimel.

1.    RaShI interprets “Azlat Yad” as the hand of the enemy that becomes increasingly oppressive vis-à-vis the Jewish people.

       Ibn Ezra interprets the term to refer to the ebbing away of the strength of Israel .

       From the context of the verse in Devarim 32, it would appear to support Ibn Ezra. The beginning of the verse talks about God afflicting his people. A way in which one can measure when that affliction has reached its maximum effectiveness is not so much the power of the oppressor as the condition of the oppressed. When they have no more strength, God no longer has to Send afflictions to them.

2.    RaShI understands “Azuv” to refer to a type of leader for the Jews who could rally and organize them.

       Other commentators explain “Azuv” as (Ibn Ezra) Jewish captives that have either been taken or abandoned, or (R. S.R. Hirsch) the property of the Jews that they no longer care about due to the oppressions.

3.    While RaShI in Devarim sees the phrase “Atzur VeAzuv” as a function of the inability of the Jews to resist the inroads of the oppressors who have become increasingly powerful, since in Melachim Alef, the phrase is preceded by a derogatory comment to the effect of how weak the descendents of Yiravam are going to be not within the context of military action, but rather that they simply will be “cut off”, i.e., their line will end, it is not necessary to introduce the concept of national or military leadership. 

Daled.

1.    The syntactical problem in the verse is how does “Amo” relate to the opening phrase “Harninu Goyim”? There seems to be a preposition missing. As for the ideational issue, if “Goyim” relates to the nations of the world, why will they rejoice or give praise when God will avenge what has happened to the Jews? Either they are the ones who will be suffering judgment for what they personally did to the Jews, and they would hardly be rejoicing over that. If it is referring to other nations who are third parties to the entire sequence of events, why would they necessarily rejoice or give praise when they see these things?

2.    RaShI: The idolaters (“Goyim”) will praise (“Yeranenu) the Jews (“Amo”, i.e., His—HaShem’s—Nation) for their commitment and loyalty to God despite all of the years of suffering at the hands of their enemies.

        Bechor Shor: “Goyim” = the Jews, when they are scattered in different countries, as opposed to being unified in a single country. Therefore despite their being scattered, they are still considered “Amo” (God’s Singular people). And they will (“Yeranenu”) rejoice when they are avenged.

        ShaDaL (quoted by Bechor Shor): The other nations will rejoice (as opposed to RaShI’s interpretation that they will praise Israel for their steadfastness) when the Jews are avenged. (Bechor Shor opposes this latter interpretation when he states that we, the Jews, would be satisfied if other peoples would simply be nice to us, even if they don’t rejoice on our behalves. And furthermore, why should they rejoice at all when the enemies of the Jews are being punished?

3.    Tehillim 117 would appear to assume that the nations would “praise” HaShem in the event that they become convinced that worshipping Him is the proper religion and they consider converting or at least rejecting their idolatry. However, for them simply to praise God or for that matter His People simply because the Jews are avenged and their enemies are punished, does not logically follow that this should elicit praise on the part of either the enemies themselves or outside onlookers. (I think that while ShaDaL’s view is the weakest of the three presented, RaShI’s interpretation is not much better. Then again, Bechor Shor’s leap to assume that “Goyim” really is a reference to the Jews is quite radical as well.)