First we are told the set-up of the tribes for the announcement of the blessings and the curses. Immediately following this we are told what the curses are. Where did the blessings go?
Rashi (27:12) suggests, following the Talmud Sotah 32a, that each of the curses, which are explicitly there, had a converse blessing that was implicitly there. So if the curse was, "Cursed be he who degrades his father and mother", the blessing was "Blessed be he who does not degrade his father and mother."
"...The Levites turned their faces towards Mount Gerizim and began with the blessing: “Blessed be the man who does not make a graven or molten image…,” and these [the tribes on Mount Gerizim] and these [the tribes on Mount Ebal] answered “Amen!” Then [the Levites] turned their faces towards Mount Ebal and began with the curse, saying: “Cursed be the man who makes any graven [or molten] image…,” and these [the tribes on Mount Gerizim] and these [the tribes on Mount Ebal] responded “Amen!” The Levites then turned their faces once again towards Mount Gerizim, and said: “Blessed be he who does not degrade his father and mother,” [and the tribes on Mount Gerizim and those on Mount Ebal responded “Amen!” The Levites] would then turn their faces once again towards Mount Ebal, and say: “Cursed be he who degrades his father and mother,” [and the tribes on Mount Gerizim and those on Mount Ebal responded “Amen!”]. Thus [it would continue] in this manner for all of them [the blessings and curses] until [the very last curse, namely (verse 26)]:“Cursed be the one who does not uphold [the words of this Torah].”Seforno says very similarly. He opines that the reason the blessings weren't mentioned explicitly was because the emphasis was the curses, in that each person who violates it is punished individually for their crime, the community isn't punished for it. Keli Yakar suggests a different, perhaps more midrashic answer, that since the essential part of blessings are meant for the next world, which is hidden, and only the perot are in this world, so too the blessings are hidden and is there implicitly.
Ibn Ezra (27:14), after noting the Talmud's answer, suggests that on a pshat level, the curses listed here are not the curses referred to as "the blessings and the curses", but rather the blessings are located in the beginning of the next chapter, "Baruch Ata Ba'Ir..." And he thinks that the mentioning of the blessing and curse in Joshua 8:33-34 proves this to be true, because only the blessings of Deuteronomy 28 would be relevant to the Israelites finally entering Israel. And see the Malbim and Ralbag to Joshua 8:33.
Shadal agrees with the Ibn Ezra, and disagrees with Rashi and the Talmud. Without naming them, he says that "the mind cannot tolerate" a suggestion that was made by earlier sages, "kadmonim", that the blessings were the converse of the curses listed. For why would there be a need to bless people for not sleeping with animals, or for not hitting their fellow?
However, he notes that Ibn Ezra is difficult, for what are these curses doing here interrupting the announcements of the blessings and the curses mentioned previously? These curses shouldn't be here! He answers that after much thought, he has come up with something wonderful and correct. That is, why is there blessings and curses being announced anyway? What is their purpose? He proposes that generally, the blessings and curses in the Torah were telling the Israelites that so long as everyone acts appropriately, everyone gets blessed. If people don't act appropriately, everyone gets cursed. That's scary! This would freak the people out. What if someone sins in private? Are we required to knock down everyone's doors to make sure that people aren't sinning?
These curses here teach that the private sinner is the only one who gets punished, it does not reflect badly on the community. Later on in Deuteronomy, that Torah tells us that "the hidden things are for God". Indeed, it is to tell us that we are not required to interrogate and harass every person. Thus, we are told to start that "Arur Ha'Ish" - only the person who sins is cursed.
This has two advantages at this point. First, let no one say that if I sin in private, so what? I won't get punished because the community is good. This is wrong, you will get punished individually even if the community in general is good. Secondly, the nation should not despair that they are being asked to maintain a police state to prevent any one person from sinning in private. This is incorrect - they are not required to do so, each person will get his own if this is done in private.
Thus, the curses here are actually a blessing in disguise. The "blessing and the curse" are indeed this one list of curses. And Joshua wanted to emphasize this as well.
He says this may explain the question even children ask - why was the entire nation plagued for the one sin of Achan, who stole the spoils? His answer is that true, the community was not required to investigate and knock down doors to find who is sinning, and if Reuven sleeps with his step-mother that is his own issue, others are not responsible for this. But once the people start offering gifts to God, they better investigate how these funds were acquired, to make sure it didn't come from stolen property etc, that is their responsibility. The fact they didn't is a sin of the community as a whole.
Interestingly, my grandfather, Rabbi Chaim Zev Bomzer, believes the exact opposite idea - that we were responsible even for the hidden sins of our fellow, and to make sure that we can influence for good instead. If we let the hidden things fester, we will all be punished. In a dvar Torah on Nitzavim addressed to Joel Bloom (now Rabbi Joel Bloom) I assume for his Bar Mitzvah, my grandfather writes:
In the beginning of Parshat Nitzavim, we find:(Deuteronomy 29:9-14) “You are standing this day all of you before the Lord your G-d: your leaders, your tribes, your elders, and your officers, even all the men of Israel. Your little ones, your wives, and your stranger that is in the midst of your camp, from the hewer of your wood unto the drawer of your water. That you should enter into the covenant of the Lord your G-d--and into His oath--which the Lord your G-d makes with you this day. That He may establish you this day unto Himself for a people, and that He may be unto you a G-d, as He spoke unto you, and as He swore unto you fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath. But with him that stands here with us this day before the Lord our G-d, and also with him that is not here with us this day.”
The chapter ends with (Deuteronomy 29:28) “The hidden things belong to the Lord, our G-d, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever: that we must fulfill all the words of this Torah.” In this parsha, Moses before his passing gathered Israel in the Plains of Moab on the banks of the Jordan River before they would enter the land of Canaan. Moses entered into a covenant with G-d in addition to the previous covenants. This covenant was made with all Jews - children, men, women, and even with all future generations. On the words, (Deuteronomy 29:14) “also with him that is not here with us this day,” Rashi comments, “Af im dorot ha’atidim lihyot - Even with future generations.” (And see Nachmanides as well.) The need for this new covenant is described dramatically to warn Jews who will be in exile and will be influenced by idolatry, that there will be dire consequences the Torah delineates who will sin, (Deuteronomy 29:17) “lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turns away this day from the Lord our G-d, to go to serve the gods of those nations…” So, it is an individual, a family, or even a tribe that sins. But who will go into exile? The entire people! Why? This covenant ties the responsibility upon every individual who affects Klal Yisrael. This adds a new dimension of responsibility. Even if the majority will not nullify the covenant, and there continues to be many who continue to connect themselves to the tradition of the covenant, whether many or a few sin, the entire people will suffer. If the sinner is a man, woman, or even a whole family, it is probable that the entire people did not pay attention, doesn’t even know about it, and it is among the “nistarot” - “hidden [sins]” (Deuteronomy 29:28) that G-d knows, and they imagine that G-d will not punish the klal because of that. But if a whole tribe rejects the covenant of G-d, then surely this is known and “niglot” - “revealed” (ibid.), revealed to us and our children and we must get rid of this evil, and if not, then surely all will suffer the consequences - this is the halakhic concept of “kol yisrael arevim zeh la’zeh - all of Israel are responsible for each other.” The law of “arevut” is applied halakhically in many cases. The principle applies to the sheliach tzibbur who leads the prayers, to tekiat shofar - the blowing of the Shofar for everyone in synagogue, the concept of being “motzei” others, and some say even to the concept of “shelichut” in general which affects kiddushin, gittin, hakravat korbanot, hafrashat terumah, and many more.
In the essence of arevut there is a well-known argument in the Talmud (TB Sanhedrin 43b) between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemia on the verse we quoted, “The hidden things belong to the Lord, our G-d, but the revealed things apply to us and to our children forever...” The question is why there are dots on the word “to us and our children” and on the first letter, ayin, of “ad” - “until”?
Rabbi Yehudah says: This teaches us that there was no punishment for the nistarot until Israel crossed the Jordan. The peshat is - G-d will punish the sinners for their hidden sins, but rest of the nation will not suffer for them. Once, however, it becomes niglot, then they are “to us and our children” - we all pay. The dots are necessary to teach is that we were exempt from the nistarot until we crossed the Jordan!
So Rabbi Nechemia said to him: Could there be punishment on the nistarot at all? Doesn’t it say “ad olam”, that the nistarot done now [before crossing the Jordan] will be punishable forever [only to the person who committed the sin]? Rather, it means that just as there is never public punishment for nistarot, so too there was no public punishment for the niglot until they crossed the Jordan. The Talmud asks, why, then, was all of Israel punished for the sin of Achan who stole the spoils? The answer: Because it was not completely private - his wife and children knew!
The result is that according to Rabbi Yehudah, now, as they are in the plains of Moab, they entered the covenant and became responsible for even the nistarot, which wasn’t true in the desert. In the land of Israel, they were culpable, the whole nation, even on the nistarot.Rabbi Nechemia asks: How can one ever be punished for the hidden sins of another? How can that be fair? Rather, people are never punished for the nistarot of the other. But after they cross, the brit arevut would apply to the niglot, and all are punished for the niglot sins of the individual.
Truthfully, each opinion is difficult.
According to Rabbi Yehudah, how could the Just Judge punish the whole nation for the evil deeds of individuals?
According to Rabbi Nechemia, even the Talmud points out his position is difficult because of the story of Achan in Joshua, which proves that the individual can cause everyone to be punished. And even with the answer the Talmud gives that his wife and children knew, seems insufficient, for how can their knowledge make it the fault of nation, that the whole nation could be punished because of them?
It is most difficult to understand. At least let us discuss the common denominator between these two positions. Both agree that arevut is applicable only upon entering into the Land of Israel. But should the concept of arevut apply to nistarot? There are four explanations, four sevaras for Rabbi Yehudah’s position that once they enter the land, they are all responsible even for the nistarot of the individual:
1. All Jews are one unit, one body. When one sins, the whole body is hurt.
2. The basis of Am Yisrael is bound to G-d and the relationship between the individual and the people. When one sins, the “Am Yisrael” relationship to G-d is hurt.
3. Jewish leaders are obligated to look for individuals and their hidden problems. When they fail, everyone fails.
4. We must educate the generation to avoid sin. If people sin, we haven’t done enough to educate.
Arnold Ehrlich, the 19th century koifer and genius, takes a completely opposite approach to that of Shadal in his Mikra Kepshuto. It's amazing how contemporaries like Shadal and Ehrlich could differ just based on religious orientation!
When Israel crossed the Jordan to become a sovereign people, then the mutual responsibility took effect. It is the kedusha of the Land of Israel which charged up the people of Israel to be responsible for each individual who is considered a limb of the body of Israel.
Ehrlich suggests a very simple answer based on Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. That is, the rabbis later on wanted to focus on the curses to get people to stay in line. People keep the commandments much better because of negative reinforcement than positive reinforcement. And we know that they had these blessings in the time of Joshua, as they were read before entering the land of Israel. Thus, rabbis at some later time removed the blessings to scare the people through the curses to focus on repenting.
He even suggests in a footnote that this occurs many times in ancient times and also the rabbis of the Talmud - where there are many stories filled with tragedy and not so many positive stories. His example is the Talmudic history of the Hasmoneans vis a vis Hanukkah, which is overwhelmingly negative. Indeed, the Hasmoneans are clearly removed from the Hanukkah story, only a short line of their victory given to them, and the focus becomes of the oil and the miracle, which to them was really was saved them!
No comments:
Post a Comment