Veetchanan Answers



VaEtchanan 5721.

Alef.

The simple meaning of the text is Moshe challenging the people to reference a previous instance where a people was miraculously redeemed from servitude and then addressed by its God in the manner that the Revelation at Sinai took place:

דברים פרק ד

(לב) כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹקים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם הֲנִהְיָה כַּדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה אוֹ הֲנִשְׁמַע כָּמֹהוּ:

(לג) הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹקים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַיֶּחִי:

(לד) אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹקים לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לָכֶם יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם בְּמִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֶיךָ:

(לה) אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת כִּי יְקֹוָק הוּא הָאֱלֹקים אֵין עוֹד מִלְבַדּוֹ:

(לו) מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם הִשְׁמִיעֲךָ אֶת קֹלוֹ לְיַסְּרֶךָּ וְעַל הָאָרֶץ הֶרְאֲךָ אֶת אִשּׁוֹ הַגְּדוֹלָה וּדְבָרָיו שָׁמַעְתָּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ:

Rabbeinu Bachaye adduces from the text that there is a prohibition of trying to understand what took place prior to the creation of man. While the Mishna in Chagiga does impose such a restriction, there is no indication that this verse serves as the basis for it. Perhaps the reason why R. Bachaye embarked on such a discussion was due to the superfluity of the text in this regard. It would have been enough to simply state that something like this never happened previously instead of affixing a starting point to the inquiry into the past. Since there is an assumption on the part of some commentators that no words in the Tora are wasted or without meaning, consequently, R. Bachaye thought that the text is raising the issue of what sort of inquiries are off-limits. (Naturally mystics deal with this matter, and one of the main topics of the Zohar is how it was possible for God to Make room for a creation if in fact He is without limits, and therefore nowhere would be devoid of His Presence.)

Beit.

Or hath God Assayed to Go and Take Him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a Mighty Hand, and by an outstretched Arm, and by great Terrors, according to all that the LORD your God Did for you in Egypt before thine eyes?

1. The respective bases of the two interpretations of the word א-ל-ה-י-ם are:

a)  God in whom the Jews believe. Since no other deity would be capable of the miracles listed in the first part of the verse, therefore it must be referring to HaShem Himself. 

b) The gods in whom other nations believe. Since a different Name of HaShem is used together with the possessive plural pronoun of the word in question at the end of the verse,

(לד) אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹקים לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לָכֶם יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם בְּמִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֶיךָ:

     there is the possibility that the plural term that is not accompanied by the Tetragrammaton at the beginning of the verse  is referring to other objects of belief.

2.  With respect to the earlier verse,

(לב) כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹקים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם הֲנִהְיָה כַּדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה אוֹ הֲנִשְׁמַע כָּמֹהוּ:

no act of comparison to other religions or beliefs is even potentially  at issue. It is just a statement of fact that HaShem Created man, and the assumption is that the Tora would be used as the reference for accepting that fact.

3.  See 1b) above.

4.  From Amos 9:7 :

עמוס פרק ט (ז) הֲלוֹא כִבְנֵי כֻשִׁיִּים אַתֶּם לִי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְאֻם יְקֹוָק הֲלוֹא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל הֶעֱלֵיתִי מֵאֶרֶץ    מִצְרַיִם וּפְלִשְׁתִּיִּים מִכַּפְתּוֹר וַאֲרָם מִקִּיר:

Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?

one could think that in fact HaShem Did Redeem other nations in a manner similar to how He Redeemed the Jews from Egypt—the Philistines and Aram. However, the stress in Devarim 4 is not only on the Redemption, but the manner in which the Redemption took place. While HaShem may have Redeemed other nations, He did not Do it in the distinctive style of incredible miracles that made the Exodus from Egypt so out of the ordinary.

5.  If the term הנסה is understood as a reference to God “Assaying” to do something, the implication might be that He actually Wanted to Carry out a similar Redemption, but could not. By interpreting the word as a reference to doing miracles, then either He Did or He Didn’t without suggesting that there was something that thwarted His Intentions.

Gimel.

דברים פרק ד

(לז) וְתַחַת כִּי אָהַב אֶת אֲבֹתֶיךָ וַיִּבְחַר בְּזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו וַיּוֹצִאֲךָ בְּפָנָיו בְּכֹחוֹ הַגָּדֹל מִמִּצְרָיִם:

(לח) לְהוֹרִישׁ גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֻמִים מִמְּךָ מִפָּנֶיךָ לַהֲבִיאֲךָ לָתֶת לְךָ אֶת אַרְצָם נַחֲלָה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה:

(לט) וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל לְבָבֶךָ כִּי יְקֹוָק הוּא הָאֱלֹקים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת אֵין עוֹד:

דברים פרק ז

(א) כִּי יְבִיאֲךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָא שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ וְנָשַׁל גּוֹיִם רַבִּים מִפָּנֶיךָ הַחִתִּי וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁי וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי שִׁבְעָה גוֹיִם רַבִּים וַעֲצוּמִים מִמֶּךָּ:

(ב) וּנְתָנָם יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְהִכִּיתָם הַחֲרֵם תַּחֲרִים אֹתָם לֹא תִכְרֹת לָהֶם בְּרִית וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם:

(ג) וְלֹא תִתְחַתֵּן בָּם בִּתְּךָ לֹא תִתֵּן לִבְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ לֹא תִקַּח לִבְנֶךָ:

(ד) כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי וְעָבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְחָרָה אַף יְקֹוָק בָּכֶם וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ מַהֵר:

(ה) כִּי אִם כֹּה תַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם מִזְבְּחֹתֵיהֶם תִּתֹּצוּ וּמַצֵּבֹתָם תְּשַׁבֵּרוּ וַאֲשֵׁירֵהֶם תְּגַדֵּעוּן וּפְסִילֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ:

The difference in the two verses that precipitated a different word order with regard to the words ממך and מפניך is the listing of the specific nations in Chapter 7, something that is not done in Chapter 4. When the inventory of nations are listed, then the words are separated, with the adverbial pronoun, מפניך, modifying the verb ונשל that appears before the listing of the individual nations, and ממך modifying the adjective עצומים which is mentioned after the list is completed. In Chapter 4, since the two adjectives גדולים and עצומים appear next to one another, the two adverbial pronouns are also next to one another.

Daled.

דברים פרק ד

(מא) אָז יַבְדִּיל מֹשֶׁה שָׁלֹשׁ עָרִים בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִזְרְחָה שָׁמֶשׁ:

(מב) לָנֻס שָׁמָּה רוֹצֵחַ אֲשֶׁר יִרְצַח אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בִּבְלִי דַעַת וְהוּא לֹא שֹׂנֵא לוֹ מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְנָס אֶל אַחַת מִן הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וָחָי:

1.  RaShI and RaShBaM appear to be addressing different issues.

a)  RaShI wonders why if the three cities that Moshe designates will not serve as cities of refuge until the ones in Israel are officially declared, and this will not involve Moshe, since he is not permitted to enter Israel, why even set aside the three altogether?

b)  RaShBaM raises the question of why Moshe’s verbal presentation is interrupted at this point by his setting aside these cities. Shouldn’t he first complete all that he has to tell the people?

2.  RaShBaM wonders why the verses in Devarim give the impression that Moshe has decided on his own to set aside these three cities, without HaShem Commanding to do so. However, when one reviews the verses in Parashat Masai where the idea was originally mentioned, one sees that this act is Commanded by HaShem:

במדבר פרק לה

(ט) וַיְדַבֵּר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר:

(י) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן:

(יא) וְהִקְרִיתֶם לָכֶם עָרִים עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה לָכֶם וְנָס שָׁמָּה רֹצֵחַ מַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה:

(יב) וְהָיוּ לָכֶם הֶעָרִים לְמִקְלָט מִגֹּאֵל וְלֹא יָמוּת הָרֹצֵחַ עַד עָמְדוֹ לִפְנֵי הָעֵדָה לַמִּשְׁפָּט:

(יג) וְהֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר תִּתֵּנוּ שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה לָכֶם:

(יד) אֵת שְׁלֹשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ מֵעֵבֶר לַיַּרְדֵּן וְאֵת שְׁלֹשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה:

(טו) לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַגֵּר וְלַתּוֹשָׁב בְּתוֹכָם תִּהְיֶינָה שֵׁשׁ הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לְמִקְלָט לָנוּס שָׁמָּה כָּל מַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה:

3.  Ibn Ezra states that the text’s mentioning of Moshe’s setting aside the three cities was not an interruption in his presentation, but merely states the date on which Moshe made his presentation. RaMBaN feels that this is not in accordance with the simple meaning of the verses. If in fact we were being told when Moshe was giving his address, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to do so at the beginning of his words rather than at this point?

4.  According to RaMBaN, Chapter 4 is a transition between the general adjuration to adhere to the Mitzvot, and when Moshe begins to explain the specifics of certain Mitzvot. The setting aside of the three cities of refuge is a type of modeling on the part of Moshe, demonstrating not only the importance of keeping the Commandments, but also carrying them out whenever the possibility presents itself.

5.  RaMBaN is emphasizing the point made earlier at the beginning of Devarim:

דברים פרק א (א) אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בַּמִּדְבָּר בָּעֲרָבָה מוֹל סוּף                           בֵּין פָּארָן וּבֵין תֹּפֶל וְלָבָן וַחֲצֵרֹת וְדִי זָהָב:

רמב"ן דברים פרק א פסוק א

...ולכך יפרש בכאן "אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל" ושם "ויקרא משה אל כל ישראל", כי ביאור התורה ותשלום המצות צריך להיות במעמד כל ישראל כאשר היה במתן התורה...

No one should be able to say that they weren’t present when the Covenant and the explanations were given and therefore are unaware of what they are expected to do.

6.  Klee Yakar expands the idea that RaShI presents by stating that even if a different generation ends up completing the Mitzva that the parent generation begins, the parent generation should nevertheless carry this out. The term “אז” emphasizes that Moshe at that point personally demonstrated what he meant regarding this idea. From RaShI one might have thought that even if the Mitzva is never completed, you should at least start it. Klee Yakar sees this more as a matter of continuity, with Commandments being completed across generations. It would appear that Klee Yakar would be able to apply the following Mishna in Avot to his interpretation:

משנה מסכת אבות פרק ב משנה טז

הוא (רבי טרפון) היה אומר לא עליך המלאכה לגמור ולא אתה בן חורין ליבטל ממנה...

From Devarim 4:40, Klee Yakar can bring the following proof:

דברים פרק ד (מ) וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת חֻקָּיו וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִיטַב לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן תַּאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ כָּל הַיָּמִים: פ

Fulfilling the Commandments is not only to the benefit of the parent generation, but also their descendants. Klee Yakar’s innovative interpretation suggests that the offspring don’t simply ride the coattails of their progenitors, but they are tasked with completing/continuing anything that those who came before them were unable to complete.

Heh.

RaShI defines the future form in Devarim 4:41 as indicating that Moshe very deliberately carried out this action. Of the examples that Nechama cites, it would seem to me that the only case of the future tense where a similar understanding is implied would be:

שמואל א פרק א

(ה) וּלְחַנָּה יִתֵּן מָנָה אַחַת אַפָּיִם כִּי אֶת חַנָּה אָהֵב וַיקֹוָק סָגַר רַחְמָהּ:

(ו) וְכִעֲסַתָּה צָרָתָהּ גַּם כַּעַס בַּעֲבוּר הַרְּעִמָהּ כִּי סָגַר יְקֹוָק בְּעַד רַחְמָהּ:

(ז) וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁנָה בְשָׁנָה מִדֵּי עֲלֹתָהּ בְּבֵית יְקֹוָק כֵּן תַּכְעִסֶנָּה וַתִּבְכֶּה וְלֹא תֹאכַל:

Elkana would deliberately give Chana an extra portion each year, and Penina would deliberately aggravate Chana each year.

4