דברים

The Courtroom as a Microcosm of the Battlefield

Moshe opens his first speech in Sefer Devarim by harking back to the time when the nation was still encamped at Mt Sinai. He recalls how God instructed him to commence the 11-day journey to Israel and references God's words of encouragement for the upcoming conquest. Moshe then recalls how 'at that time' (ba-et ha-hee) he appointed judges to share the burden of leadership and to deal with the people's many disputes. Thereafter, he recounts the episode of the spies and its tragic consequences.

It is eminently understandable why Moshe focused on the episode of the spies as this was an apt time to remind the people of the previous failure. By recounting the repercussions, they would be focused on not repeating those errors now. Indeed, the need for resilience and faith in the upcoming conquest would be a core theme in the rest of Moshe's speech. 

Far more challenging, however, is the reason for recounting the recruitment of judges at this point. First, the review of the judges episode interrupts the natural link between the instruction to advance towards the land and the review of the spies episode, Second, despite the use of the ba-et ha-hee phrase (which appears 15 times throughout Sefer Devarim), it is far from clear that this episode took place at this precise historical juncture as according to the sequencing of Sefer Shemot the judges were selected before Matan Torah. Third, Moshe's purpose in this speech is evidently not to provide a comprehensive review of all events, therefore each episode recalled must serve a special rhetorical purpose. This is all the more significant in the present case as we are discussing the very opening of the speech.        

To address these points we will compare the episodes of the spies and the judges as framed here within the specific context of Moshe's speech.[1]

Comparison of the two passages

There are several noteworthy points of comparison between the two passages. 

Both passages involve the presentation of a dilemma and an initiative to solve it. However, the position of Moshe and the Israelites, as well as other aspects, are inverted.

In both passages, the ‘problem’ relates, in some form, to being overwhelmed and outnumbered. In the judges passage, Moshe cannot cope with the large number of Israelites (Deut. 1:10), whereas in the spies passage the people are fearful of the size of the enemy (Deut. 1:28).

In the judges passage, Moshe presents the initiative to the Israelites, whereas in the case of the spies it is the people who take the initiative to Moshe. The contours of both initiatives are also similar. Both involve a suggestion to select a group of tribal representatives which is followed by a positive response from the other party. These thematic similarities are reflected in textual correspondences as well: 

וָאֹמַר אֲלֵכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר לֹא־אוּכַל לְבַדִּי שְׂאֵת אֶתְכֶם... הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם וַאֲשִׂימֵם בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶם׃ וַתַּעֲנוּ אֹתִי וַתֹּאמְרוּ טוֹב־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־דִּבַּרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת׃ וָאֶקַּח אֶת־רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וִידֻעִים וָאֶתֵּן אוֹתָם רָאשִׁים עֲלֵיכֶם שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים וְשָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת וְשָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת וְשֹׁטְרִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם׃ לֹא־תַכִּירוּ פָנִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט כַּקָּטֹן כַּגָּדֹל תִּשְׁמָעוּן לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי־אִישׁ כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהִים הוּא וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי וּשְׁמַעְתִּיו׃ (דברים א':ט-יז)

וָאֹמַר אֲלֵכֶם בָּאתֶם עַד־הַר הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר־יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ נֹתֵן לָנוּ׃ רְאֵה נָתַן יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ עֲלֵה רֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ אַל־תִּירָא וְאַל־תֵּחָת׃ וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כֻּלְּכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ נִשְׁלְחָה אֲנָשִׁים לְפָנֵינוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ־לָנוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְיָשִׁבוּ אֹתָנוּ דָּבָר אֶת־הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר נַעֲלֶה־בָּהּ וְאֵת הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר נָבֹא אֲלֵיהֶן׃ וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינַי הַדָּבָר וָאֶקַּח מִכֶּם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר אֲנָשִׁים אִישׁ אֶחָד לַשָּׁבֶט׃ וַיִּפְנוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ הָהָרָה וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד־נַחַל אֶשְׁכֹּל וַיְרַגְּלוּ אֹתָהּ׃ (דברים א':כ-כד) 

Most importantly, as will be discussed further below, a directive to 'not fear' is central to both episodes.

In light of the above, it is important to determine the significance of the interplay between these two episodes in the context of Moshe's speech.

Courtroom as microcosm of the battlefield

Unlike in the original narrative, when Moshe recounts the appointment of the judges, we are privy to a direct communication between Moshe and the judges. The instruction to the judges includes a directive that a judge remain objective and impartial, and not be intimidated by any party regardless of power or status:[2] 

וָאֲצַוֶּה אֶת־שֹׁפְטֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר שָׁמֹעַ בֵּין־אֲחֵיכֶם וּשְׁפַטְתֶּם צֶדֶק בֵּין־אִישׁ וּבֵין־אָחִיו וּבֵין גֵּרוֹ׃ לֹא־תַכִּירוּ פָנִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט כַּקָּטֹן כַּגָּדֹל תִּשְׁמָעוּן לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי־אִישׁ כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹקים הוּא וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי וּשְׁמַעְתִּיו׃ (דברים א:יז)

These very qualities which Moshe sought in the judges seem to have been glaringly absent when it came to the spies. When the spies reported back to the people, size made all the difference and the people were intimidated as a result:

אָנָה  אֲנַחְנוּ עֹלִים אַחֵינוּ הֵמַסּוּ אֶת־לְבָבֵנוּ לֵאמֹר עַם גָּדוֹל וָרָם מִמֶּנּוּ עָרִים גְּדֹלֹת וּבְצוּרֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם וְגַם־בְּנֵי עֲנָקִים רָאִינוּ שָׁם׃ וָאֹמַר אֲלֵכֶם לֹא־תַעַרְצוּן וְלֹא־תִירְאוּן מֵהֶם׃ (דברים א:כח)

If the judge is God's representative in the courtroom then on the battlefield that responsibility is assumed by the Israelite soldier. Just as size and relative power does not determine the outcome in the courtroom, so too it should be disregarded on the battleground. The courage of the judge thus serves as a model for the soldiery who will need to face off a formidable enemy.[3]  

The issue is one of bravery and valour, but not just. The courtroom paradigm reminds us that whilst the enemy may appear larger and stronger, overseeing the ultimate outcome is the Supreme Judge. In a sense, the battleground should be conceived of as a macrocosm of the courtroom whereby the righteous side, fighting with faith and conviction, emerges victorious.

A matter 'too difficult'

When the people approach Moshe at the beginning of the story of the spies, their words closely mirror the case of a judge who is unable to deal with the matter before him and must escalate to Moshe:

...לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי־אִישׁ כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹקים הוּא וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי וּשְׁמַעְתִּיו׃ (דברים א:יז)

רְאֵה נָתַן ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ עֲלֵה רֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' אֱלֹקי אֲבֹתֶיךָ לָךְ אַל־תִּירָא וְאַל־תֵּחָת: וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כֻּלְּכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ... (דברים א:כא-כב)

A matter ‘too difficult’ for the judges is generally understood as a matter too technically complex. In other words, where a verdict cannot be reached by the judges, Moshe acts as the final arbiter of the law. However, if we read the clause as a direct continuation of the injunction to ‘fear no man’, then it obtains a new (or additional) meaning. The case which must be escalated to Moshe is one where, due to the profile of the case or the parties involved, there is a risk that the judge will be overawed.[4] 

This alternative reading becomes highly relevant in the context of the spies. The initiative to send spies may be construed as a strategic move, but it may also expose underlying fear and hesitation. Moshe intimates here (albeit with the benefit of hindsight) that the people were motivated by the latter. Due to their fear and lack of faith, the matter was indeed 'too difficult for them', and as a result they brought the matter to him.[5] At the same time, Moshe identifies the fearless and autonomous persona of the judge as the paradigm for the soldier in the upcoming conquest.

Judge as foil to slave 

To gain a fuller appreciation of the relevance of the judges passage to the opening of Moshe's speech, one must also consider bear in mind the complexity of transition from slaves to sovereign nation. The absolute dependency of the Israelites upon their Egyptian masters, provides an important backdrop to the fear of waging battle and entering the land. Settling the land presupposes an autonomous existence on the individual and national level, which is polar opposite to the life of the slave. This is a well attested motif constantly lurking in the background to the wilderness sojourn. 

In this regard, the persona of the judge could not be more different from that of the slave. By maintaining impartiality, fierce independence, and resisting all external pressures, the judge expresses a personal autonomy which stands in marked distinction to the slave.[6] The former Israelite slaves establishing their own judiciary, therefore becomes a defining symbol of their emancipation.

Just as important as the process of independent adjudication, is its stated objective. When laying out the mandate of the judges, Moshe does not simply require the judge to withstand intimidation, but emphasises the need to hear everyone equally regardless of status: "Hear out your fellow men, and decide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger… hear out low and high alike". This ideal - to give an equal voice to all members of society – stands in stark relief to the imbalance of power inherent in the system of slavery.[7]

The autonomy exhibited by the judge, coupled with their mandate to provide equal treatment to all, is critical to shaping the values and identity of the new nation which is a key focus of Sefer Devarim.[8] In sharp contrast to ancient Near Eastern norm, the Torah endorses a system of collective power sourced in the individual and community, rather than a system of exclusionary power whereby the king and the elite dominate. We therefore find that the conventional status of king as elected son of God is supplanted by the collective polity of Israel referred to as ‘sons of God’ (Deut. 14:1); in place of the scribal and priestly elite, Israel as a collective is to become a ‘wise and discerning nation’ (Deut. 4:6) and a ‘kingdom of priests’ (Ex. 19:6). The powers of a king are severely curtailed and a strong ambivalence hangs over the entire institution.[9] It is therefore instructive that the appointment of the judges, tasked with listening to everyone on equal terms, opens the book of Devarim. 

A similar emphasis can also be discerned in the process through which the judges were appointed. In what might be described as an early example of judicial independence, Moshe reports that he directed the people to select the judges (havu lakhem),[10] and the judges themselves are considered representatives of the people.[11] This is a surprising twist given that the pretext for the appointment was the excessive pressure exerted on Moshe personally, creating an expectation for the judges to be cast as representatives of Moshe. It is also important to highlight that the selection was based exclusively on individual qualities (see v.15) and not on pedigree. Thus, even as the judiciary was established, the people were to take an active role in terms of both selection and composition. The move is significant as, beyond its democratic underpinnings, it aligns the Israelites with the objectives of the judiciary and the required qualities. 

In summary, the importance of the judges passage in the opening of Moshe's valedictory speech serves several linked purposes. The fundamental decision to appoint judges represents a diffusion of power and diversity of leadership. The consultation initiated by Moshe coupled with selection of the judges by representatives of the people, democratises the process and fuels collective participation. The function of the judiciary highlighted by our passage - to ensure justice for all and equality before the law – promotes the conception of equal standing before God. Finally, the God-fearing but courageous persona of the judges alludes to the autonomy and independence required on an individual and national level, as the Israelites seek to establish themselves as a free and sovereign nation.

 

 

 

---

[1] For various alternative explanations of the placement of the judges passage, see Ramban, Abravanel and R' D.Z. Hoffman. Note that our focus here is on the interaction between these two episodes within Moshe's speech, and not the apparent contradictions with the earlier narratives. 

[2] Some rabbinic authorities deduced based on Sifri and Rambam that a judge is required to endanger his life rather than abscond, see Bach (C.M.12:1). This is particularly interesting for the purposes of the comparison proposed here between the battlefield and the court. 

[3] This proposition takes on additional significance when we account for the fact that the judges in those days were military personnel (the overlap of position is noted by Abravanel and R' Hoffman, as well as modern scholars). 

[4] One viewpoint found in the Talmud is that the change from davar ha-gadol to davar ha-kasheh reflected a deliberate modification on the part of Moshe to Yitro's original plan (TB Sanhedrin 8a; Rashi, Num. 27:5). 

[5] Rashi's commentary is on point:

ותקרבון אלי כלכם. בְּעִרְבּוּבְיָא; וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר "וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כָּל רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם וְזִקְנֵיכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ הֵן הֶרְאָנוּ וְגוֹ'", אוֹתָהּ קְרִיבָה הָיְתָה הוֹגֶנֶת – יְלָדִים מְכַבְּדִים אֶת הַזְּקֵנִים וּשְׁלָחוּם לִפְנֵיהֶם, וּזְקֵנִים מְכַבְּדִים אֶת הָרָאשִׁים לָלֶכֶת לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֲבָל כָּאן "וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כֻּלְּכֶם" בְּעִרְבּוּבְיָא – יְלָדִים דּוֹחֲפִין אֶת הַזְּקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים דּוֹחֲפִין אֶת הָרָאשִׁים (ספרי)

[6] The following definition of personal autonomy is useful for our purposes: 

“Personal autonomy (also referred to as ‘individual autonomy’) refers to a psychological property, the possession of which enables agents to reflect critically on their natures, preferences and ends, to locate their most authentic commitments, and to live consistently in accordance with these in the face of various forms of internal and external interference. Personally autonomous agents are said to possess heightened capacities for self-control, introspection, independence of judgment, and critical reflection; and to this extent personal autonomy is often put forth as an ideal of character or a virtue, the opposite of which is blind conformity, or not ‘being one’s own person’.” (“Autonomy: Normative,” by M. Piper, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://iep.utm.edu/)

[7]  As always, there is a gap between theory and practice as the prophets were constantly calling out the miscarriage of justice. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson could quill the words ‘all men are created equal’ and still be a slave owner. Nevertheless, the articulation of the vision sets the direction of travel.

[8] Regarding the meaning of the phrase havu lakhem, compare Rashi and the Netziv in their respective commentaries. Netziv understands that the people were themselves responsible for the selection (as we have suggested), whereas Rashi provides a more restricted meaning.

[9] See J. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke With Ancient Political Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 59-68; 114-117.

[10] The appointment of a king is tied to a request of the people to replicate the 'surrounding nations' suggesting a sub-optimal scenario. In Sefer Shmuel the request for a king is fiercely criticised. Whether in fact the appointment of a king is an absolute command was the subject of a tannaitic dispute (TB Sanhedrin 20b). The negative position reflects the view of R. Nehorai which is elaborated upon at length by the Abravanel (Deut. 17:3 and 1 Sam. 8:4). 

[11] The judiciary, as described here, may not be defined as independent in the modern sense, as Moshe (the executive branch) was the supreme authority who dealt with the ‘difficult’ cases. However, the system prescribed for the post-Moshe era (Deut. 16:18-17:14), including the establishment of the central judiciary, notably omits any role for the king or the prophet (or oracle for that matter) and may indeed be the earliest known model of judicial independence which entailed separation of powers. See D. C. Flatto “The Historical Origins of Judicial Independence and Their Modern Resonances”, 117 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 8 (2007), http://yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-historical-origins-of-judicial-independence-and-theirmodern-resonances

וזאת הברכה

The Final Verse of the Torah and the Yad Chazakah of Moshe

The last two verses in the Torah read as follows:

לְכׇל־הָאֹתֹת וְהַמּוֹפְתִים אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכׇל־עֲבָדָיו וּלְכׇל־אַרְצוֹ׃ וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל: (דברים לד:יא-יב)

Rashi explains that the Yad ha-Chazakah in the final verse refers to Moshe 'receiving of the Torah with his hands'. At first glance, Rashi's comments are surprising as he is allocating the ‘hand’ in the verse to Moshe and not to God, distinguishing it from earlier references where the Yad Chazakah phrase refers to God's actions. Rashi's final gloss adds a further twist:

שֶׁנְּשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לִשְׁבֹּר הַלּוּחוֹת לְעֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וָאֲשַׁבְּרֵם לְעֵינֵיכֶם" (דברים ט') וְהִסְכִּימָה דַעַת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדַעְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ" (שמות ל"ד) — יִישַׁר כֹּחֲךָ שֶׁשִּׁבַּרְתָּ

Not only is the Yad Chazakah appropriated for describing the uniqueness of Moshe, but the verse captures the standout event in which Moshe acts spontaneously rather than as 'messenger of God’ (see previous verse) – smashing the tablets given to him by God and inscribed by God himself.[1]

The Torah does not directly comment on God's reaction to Moshe breaking the tablets, though we may reasonably assume that he approved of the action.[2] It was this act which – according to Rashi - represented Moshe's crowning achievement and, ironically, which the Torah signs off on.

The boldness of Moshe's actions and the message to be derived therefrom, are further highlighted in the original text of the Talmud (unrelated to this verse) which Rashi weaves into his commentary: [3]

אמר ריש לקיש פעמים  שביטולה של תורה זהו יסודה דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת אמר לו הקב"ה למשה יישר  כחך ששברת (בבלי מנחות צט:)

Whilst we may assume that Rashi's final comment has a pedagogical function,[4] the opening for such an interpretation arises from the oddity that the text appears to attribute the Yad Chazakah to Moshe's actions rather than God's.

Aware of the difficulty in the verse, Ramban explains that the verse simply means to say that Moshe was an instrument of implementation for the Yad Chazakah of God:

וטעם אשר עשה משה שהכין והראה זה לעיני כל העם כלשון ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן (בראשית יב ה) וימהר לעשות אותו (שם יח ז) לעשות את יום השבת (דברים ה׳:ט״ו) כי משה לא עשה היד החזקה והמורא הגדול רק הכין אותם ובעבורו נעשו לעיני כל ישראל

Though this may reflect the plain sense, it does not fully address the anomaly. As respectively pointed out in the supercommentaries of R. Eliyahu Mizrachi (1455-1525) and R. Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718), if this was the intent, the verse should say either אשר עשה ה' ביד משה or אשר עשה משה על פי ה'. In fact, God is not mentioned at all in the verse. The inescapable impression is that the Yad Chazakah is referring directly to Moshe and this requires explanation.

Unique leader or unique generation?

To appreciate the significance of our verse, we should compare with another passage in Devarim which I think contains the 'source' of our verse:

כִּי שְׁאַל־נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר־הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ לְמִן־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל־הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד־קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם הֲנִהְיָה כַּדָּבָר הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה אוֹ הֲנִשְׁמַע כָּמֹהוּ׃ הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ־הָאֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַיֶּחִי׃ אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה לָכֶם ה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּמִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֶיךָ: (דברים ד:לב-לד)

The passage contains the same elements as our verse except for the fact our verse 'replaces' God with Moshe. In addition to the textual similarity, the function of both passages is similar insofar as both are used to highlight to the audience (or reader) a one-off phenomenon. The earlier verse discusses the unique experiences of the generation of the exodus and the later verse – with reference to the same events – relates the uniqueness of Moshe's prophecy and accomplishments.

The interplay between these verses suggests there is an interdependency between Moshe's unique status and God's special providence with respect to that generation. This should not be so surprising. It is surely not just fortuitous that the most elevated prophet lived in the generation destined to experience God's most intense revelation (described as a face to face encounter akin to Moshe's personal encounter). Put differently, Moshe's uniqueness as a prophet seems to have been an integral part of the exceptional providence and revelation experienced by that generation.[5]

The fact that Moshe was born with unique capability is already implied at the beginning of his life:

וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי־טוֹב הוּא (שמות ב:ב)

The phrase 'she saw him that he was good' alludes to the story of creation where this refrain describes every process of creation but one. With the creation of man it is not written 'it was good' as the completeness of man can only be obtained through the exercise of freewill which is not predetermined. Yet in relation to Moshe's birth this is exactly what the Torah says. We need not be so extreme as to say that Moshe had no free choice,[6] however it suggests there was a strong element of providence with respect to Moshe's life including attaining his unique prophetic status.

Since revelation is a choice of God and not fixed into the natural order,[7] the Torah can therefore say with certainty that there will not be another prophet like Moshe - in the same way it can guarantee that there will not be a similar revelation as experienced by that generation. It is as much a comment about the special status of that generation as it is about the personal achievement of Moshe.

By attributing God’s wonders to Moshe and refraining from any specific reference to God, the verse alludes to the pitfalls of overdependency and the danger of confusion between God and messenger. In doing so, the verse provides an insight (and critique) regarding Moshe's character as leader which also defines the generation he led. It thereby establishes the limits of such leadership (necessary and formative though it was) and provides the reason a leadership transition was required for the next generation as they entered the land. 

Moshe's hands and God's hands

Though this is the only occasion that the Yad Chazakah refers directly to Moshe, this is not the first time that God's hands are seemingly 'switched' for Moshe's hands. The most explicit revelation of the hand of God is of course at the splitting of the sea:

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה' בְּמִצְרַיִם וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה' וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ (שמות יד:לא)

The passages immediately following the splitting of the sea consist of a series of challenges the nation faced on their journey to Mt Sinai. The series culminates in the battle of Amalek which contains many contrasting features with the battle of the sea (the first in the series). The progression of the series is a complex topic in of itself, however relevant to our discussion is the focus on Moshe's hands. Instead of seeing God's mighty hand, the people now see the hands of Moshe and it is Moshe's own hands that appear to be steering the course of the battle.

The absence of God in the battle of Amalek is so striking that it led the Sages to ask rhetorically whether Moshe's hands were really controlling the outcome:

וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים משֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ' (שמות יז), וְכִי יָדָיו שֶׁל משֶׁה עוֹשׂוֹת מִלְחָמָה אוֹ שׁוֹבְרוֹת מִלְחָמָה?! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִסְתַּכְּלִים כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וּמְשַׁעְבְּדִין אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם הָיוּ מִתְגַּבְּרִים. וְאִם לָאו, הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין. (משנה ראש השנה ג:ח)

As discussed in a previous post the overreliance on Moshe and the need for leadership diffusion, are major themes in the battle of Amalek. This is symbolised in Moshe's faltering hands and the required support provided by Aharon and Chur. This same theme feeds into the advice provided by Yitro to appoint judges in order to reduce the dependency on Moshe.

Subsequently, when Moshe ascends Mt Sinai we are reminded through various ways of the previous ascent at the time of the battle of Amalek. Only this time the tablets (containing the 'words' of God) are in Moshe's hands instead of the staff. By forming the golden calf in Moshe's absence, however, the people demonstrated how deeply entrenched their dependency on Moshe was. They were not yet ready to replace the staff of God with the words of God. As a result, Moshe's hands falter and the tablets are smashed.[8] 

As discussed on many occasions the period in the wilderness must be seen as a period of maturation for the newborn nation. During this stage of development, it was necessary to have an elevated leader with a direct channel of communication with God to instantaneously address their needs. The goal was that these formative years would stay forever ingrained in the national memory as emphasized on many occasions throughout the book of Devarim. However, the model was not intended for the long term as it creates a cycle of dependency on miracles and on Moshe. The negative effects of such dependency were plainly evident in the episode of the golden calf and - as alluded to above – were not wholly unexpected. God therefore planned to ween them off their dependency to enable them to stand on their own feet – both physically and spiritually.

Moshe's legacy therefore lies in representing the Yad Chazakah of God. As discussed above, as a conduit for revelation there is the inherent danger that the Yad Chazakah is attributed directly to him and Moshe becomes a substitute address for God.[9] It is this tension which is reflected in the ambiguity of our verse as to whether the Yad Chazakah is that of God or of Moshe.

Following a similar theme, R. Yoel Bin Nun argues that the song of Ha’azinu as the conclusion to Devarim is a foil to the song at the sea which he calls the song of the 'Yad Chazakah'. The song at the sea was a euphoric response to Divine salvation. Such was the unilateral nature of that intervention that even prayer was not called for:

ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם תַּחֲרִישׁוּן׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה מַה־תִּצְעַק אֵלָי דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִסָּעוּ׃ (שמות יד:יד-טו)

Ha’azinu in contrast, is intended to be sung in the depth of crisis where faith must be mustered through listening and not passive spectation:

הַאֲזִינוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וַאֲדַבֵּרָה וְתִשְׁמַע הָאָרֶץ אִמְרֵי־פִי (דברים לב:א)

זְכֹר יְמוֹת עוֹלָם בִּינוּ שְׁנוֹת דּוֹר־וָדוֹר שְׁאַל אָבִיךָ וְיַגֵּדְךָ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְיֹאמְרוּ לָךְ (דברים לב:ז)[10]

It is the song of the sea which is the legacy of Moshe's leadership whereas the song of Ha’azinu is reserved for the next generation and only taught following the appointment of Yehoshua.

The Torah emphasizes that these were the characteristics of that generation but not a model for the future. The world of Moshe and the generation of the exodus was one of signs and wonders – the power of the hand, whilst post-entry to the land it would be one of listening to the word of God.

 

---

[1] It is worth adding that the smashing of the tablets - assuming it was deliberate - is seemingly at odds with the prohibition of destroying holy objects which Moshe will later command (see Devarim 12:3-4)

[2] Rashba derives this from the fact that the broken pieces were placed in the ark (though this is also not explicitly mentioned in the text). The Mizrachi quotes the Rashba but notes that the Talmud understood that God approved from the redundancy in the verse (Shemot 34:1) '…the first tablets which you smashed'. See also the Torah Temimah commentary of R. Baruch Epstein (1860-1941) on the above verse which neatly explains the exegesis.  

[3] The Sifri sees a reference to the breaking of the tablets in the final verse but Rashi adds the passage from the Talmud in Menachot which is not mentioned in the Sifri.

[4] In terms of peshat, Rashi's explanation is difficult as there is no (clear) hint to the breaking of the tablets in the verse. Furthermore, the second half of the verse does not describe an additional event and Rashi already interpreted the Yad Chazakah as referring to the receiving of the tablets. The pedagogical function is particularly relevant as these are the final words of his commentary (compare to the opening comments on the first verse of the Torah).

[5] It can also be seen that Moshe's prophetic distinction is intrinsically linked to the status of the nation during the esoteric dialogue at the 'cleft of the rock':

וְעַתָּה אִם־נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת־דְּרָכֶךָ וְאֵדָעֲךָ לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה (שמות לג:יג)

וּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע אֵפוֹא כִּי־מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲנִי וְעַמֶּךָ הֲלוֹא בְּלֶכְתְּךָ עִמָּנוּ וְנִפְלֵינוּ אֲנִי וְעַמְּךָ מִכָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה (שמות לג:טז)

[6] Such a suggestion is made by the Meshech Chochma of R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926) in the introduction to Shemot. He contends this was necessary to guarantee that Moshe would perfectly transmit the Torah. But even he only claims this happened once Moshe had exercised his freewill to arrive at such a level.

[7] Contrary to the view sometimes attributed to Maimonides based on his various statements about God's immutability and acquisition of prophecy

[8] According to Rashbam Moshe's hands really do falter due to his dismay. Even if the action is deliberate, the literary impression is the opposite of the battle of Amalek. It should be noted that the textual parallels with the battle of Amalek are mostly contained within the passage where Moshe comes down the mountain and breaks the tablets.

[9] We have previously suggested (see here) that the Yad Chazakah is also reflected in Moshe's own character. Commencing with the actions of his ancestor Levi in Shechem, continuing with the first action of his career when he (rashly?) smites the Egyptian, and ending when he smites the rock instead of engaging his power of speech. At the burning bush Moshe says perceptively about himself he is 'not a man of words' which seems to be a deep statement of character rather than a particular speech impediment. In the same dialogue, Moshe argues the people will not heed his voice and is only reassured when God provides him with miraculous signs and promises they will 'listen to the voice of the signs'. It is therefore not surprising that Moshe's leadership is ultimately taken away from him when he fails to exchange the power of the staff for words. 

[10] R. Yoel Bin Nun (see here) also shows that, from the vantage point of Devarim, signs and wonders are associated with the false prophet whilst speech becomes the characteristic of the true prophet.

 

נצבים

Concealed Matters

At the conclusion of the על חטא recital on Yom Kippur, the following verse is referenced:

הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַה' אלקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ עַד־עוֹלָם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת׃ (דברים כט:כח)

The meaning in the context of the Viduy prayer is very apparent. We can only formally confess the sins which are revealed (i.e. known) to us yet also request forgiveness for those that we are unaware of (i.e. that we may have committed unknowingly):

אֶת הַגְּלוּיִים לָנוּ וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינָם גְּלוּיִים לָנוּ. אֶת הַגְּלוּיִים לָנוּ כְּבָר אֲמַרְנוּם לְפָנֶיךָ. וְהוֹדִינוּ לְךָ עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינָם גְּלוּיִם לָנוּ לְפָנֶיךָ הֵם גְּלוּיִים וִידוּעִים.

In the original context, however, the meaning of the verse is different.[1] The passage starts with the discussion of the individual who considers himself outside the scope of the covenant, or at least immune to its consequences:

פֶּן־יֵשׁ בָּכֶם אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה אוֹ מִשְׁפָּחָה אוֹ־שֵׁבֶט אֲשֶׁר לְבָבוֹ פֹנֶה הַיּוֹם מֵעִם ה' אלקינוּ לָלֶכֶת לַעֲבֹד אֶת־אלקי הַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם פֶּן־יֵשׁ בָּכֶם שֹׁרֶשׁ פֹּרֶה רֹאשׁ וְלַעֲנָה׃ וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃ (דברים כט:יז-יח)

Although on the surface these verses serve to warn the individual who thinks he can act under the radar, the metaphor of the weed and wormwood suggests the true purpose is to alert the wider community to the infectious nature of the individual’s sin. It is thus the community's responsibility to ensure collective compliance.

The simultaneous messaging to the individual and the community is further developed in the subsequent verses which describe the resulting destruction and exile:

לֹא־יֹאבֶה ה' סְלֹחַ לוֹ כִּי אָז יֶעְשַׁן אַף־ה' וְקִנְאָתוֹ בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא וְרָבְצָה בּוֹ כָּל־הָאָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה וּמָחָה ה' אֶת־שְׁמוֹ מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ וְהִבְדִּילוֹ ה' לְרָעָה מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכֹל אָלוֹת הַבְּרִית הַכְּתוּבָה בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה׃ וְאָמַר הַדּוֹר הָאַחֲרוֹן בְּנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר יָקוּמוּ מֵאַחֲרֵיכֶם וְהַנָּכְרִי אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא מֵאֶרֶץ רְחוֹקָה וְרָאוּ אֶת־מַכּוֹת הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא וְאֶת־תַּחֲלֻאֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר־חִלָּה ה' בָּהּ׃ גָּפְרִית וָמֶלַח שְׂרֵפָה כָל־אַרְצָהּ לֹא תִזָּרַע וְלֹא תַצְמִחַ וְלֹא־יַעֲלֶה בָהּ כָּל־עֵשֶׂב כְּמַהְפֵּכַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה אַדְמָה וצביים [וּצְבוֹיִם] אֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ ה' בְּאַפּוֹ וּבַחֲמָתוֹ׃ וְאָמְרוּ כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם עַל־מֶה עָשָׂה ה' כָּכָה לָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת מֶה חֳרִי הָאַף הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה׃ (דברים כט:יט-כג)

The first verse gives the impression that the sinner is being directly threatened with individual retribution. The next verse, though, is suddenly discussing retribution against the tribe and then the nation. The reader is caught off-guard as the field of the retribution rapidly widens.

The confusion is heightened by a literary quirk. Normal rule of language would suggest that the referent of the pronoun appended to the verb והבדילו (verse 20) is the last mentioned noun i.e. the individual sinner (verse 19). However, it quickly becomes apparent that the subject matter has moved to the wider tribe, notwithstanding that the previous mention of the tribe was way back in verse 17. A similarly switch happens when the scope of destruction shifts from tribe to entire nation in the subsequent verse. All of a sudden the country is desolate and the nation has been exiled. 

This appears to be an example of where literary form follows function. The reader is made to experience the powerful contagious effect of the individual sinner as the retribution subtly spreads from person to tribe to nation without the reader fully realising until it is over. The physical destruction thereby mirrors the process of spiritual corruption. 

This, therefore, continues the dual message. On the one hand, there is a threat to the individual that he is not automatically protected by the communal shield of righteousness. On the other hand, there is a stark warning directed towards the community of the negative spiritual and physical implications if the actions of the individual are allowed to persist. This duality continues into the final verse which may be seen as a summary of the passage:

הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַה' אלקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ עַד־עוֹלָם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת׃ (דברים כט:כח)

There is indeed a limit to what a community can do to prevent individual sin. To the extent that the sins are genuinely hidden, then the actions of the individual are fully in the domain of God to deal with it as He sees fit (how He does so is itself a 'hidden' matter). The second part of the verse sets outs the communal responsibility to deal with the matters which are within their capacity to prevent.[2]

In summary, the individual is wrong in thinking that he is protected on account of the community and the community is wrong in thinking that they will not be impacted by the actions of the individual. Arguably, these are but two sides of the same coin as the error of the former is sourced in the latter - the individual is not protected by the community because he ends up corrupting the community so he is destroyed with it. How these intricacies play out, however, are part of the inner workings of God and the passage seems to be deliberately ambiguous in portraying the directness and timeliness of the response to the individual. 

The metaphor of the 'moist and the dry'

The above sheds light on an enigmatic phrase in the earlier verse:

וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃

This phrase as well as several others find parallels in the episode of the destruction of Sedom (one being explicit):

Bereshit 18-19	Devarim 29
הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה צַדִּיק עִם־רָשָׁע	לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה
וַה' הִמְטִיר עַל־סְדֹם וְעַל־עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת ה' מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת־הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וְאֵת כָּל־הַכִּכָּר וְאֵת כָּל־יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה׃ וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח׃	גָּפְרִית וָמֶלַח שְׂרֵפָה כָל־אַרְצָהּ לֹא תִזָּרַע וְלֹא תַצְמִחַ וְלֹא־יַעֲלֶה בָהּ כָּל־עֵשֶׂב כְּמַהְפֵּכַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה אַדְמָה וצביים [וּצְבוֹיִם] אֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ ה' בְּאַפּוֹ וּבַחֲמָתוֹ׃
כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו	וְאָמַר הַדּוֹר הָאַחֲרוֹן בְּנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר יָקוּמוּ מֵאַחֲרֵיכֶם[3]
וַה' אָמָר הַמְכַסֶּה אֲנִי מֵאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה׃	הַנִּסְתָּרֹת לַה' אלקינוּ וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ עַד־עוֹלָם לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת

In the case of Sedom, the basis of Avraham's appeal was that a core community of the righteous should enable the entire city to be saved - presumably on account of their potential to positively influence their environment. In fact, establishing such a community as was missing in Sedom becomes the raison d'etre of the Jewish nation and explains the placement adjacent to the story of the announcement of Yitzchak's birth in which Avraham is told:[4]

וְאַבְרָהָם הָיוֹ יִהְיֶה לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל וְעָצוּם וְנִבְרְכוּ בוֹ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ׃ כּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ אַחֲרָיו וְשָׁמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ ה' לַעֲשׂוֹת צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט לְמַעַן הָבִיא ה' עַל־אַבְרָהָם אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר עָלָיו׃ (בראשית יח:יח-יט)

The individual in our passage cynically exploits this model. Having concluded that he can do as he pleases and rely on the merits of the wider community to shield him, he casts off any personal responsibility. This is perhaps the meaning of the parable in the verse: the abundance of water (merit) in the moist (righteous) will supply the parched (wicked).[5] The sinner believes that the wicked will be able to freeride off the actions of the righteous. The consequence is that his selfish attitude spreads through the community. Rather than mutual responsibility and a spread of righteousness, the nation implodes on account of its wickedness and lack of responsibility. Instead of becoming a light unto the nations, the world takes heed from the scale of the punishment.

---

[1] The reference to the verse in the Viduy is nevertheless a legitimate adoption of the basic principle of the verse, namely that God is aware of sins hidden from us. It may also be said that the entire Viduy section is pluralised and therefore the sins said to be אינם גלויים לנו may indeed refer to sins committed by others which are unknown to us (not just sins which we committed unknowingly) and therefore cannot be confessed. This latter approach aligns better with the plain sense of the verse.

[2] This explanation is similar but not identical to Rashi and Rashbam. I have suggested here (as others have taken it to mean) that the נסתרות also captures the way God deals with the sinner. 

[3] This additional parallel was noted by Daniel Loewenstein of AlephBeta.

[4] It is noteworthy that the birth of Yitzchak is presented as a direct result of Avraham’s act of hospitality towards the three 'strangers'. The new nation is thus literally built on a model example of spreading righteousness beyond one’s home. This contrasts to the situation of Sedom whose inhabitants appear to be characterised by their disdain for strangers and visitors, presumably due to the potential drain on resources. It is hardly surprising that such a self involved environment cannot harbour or be reached by a community of righteous.

[5] The precise attitude of the sinner when he says these words is challenging to interpret (assuming they are the words of the sinner and not the Torah’s verdict - see Ramban). The approach I have taken is that the sinner believes he will be protected because his personal fate is tied to the community who he assumes will adhere to the covenant. He himself is therefore free to pursue his heart’s desires. In this sense the words שלום יהיה לי are to be taken at face value (i.e. he genuinely believes no harm will come to him). The word ספות is derived from יסף meaning to ‘add’. This is similar to Ibn Ezra’s second (preferred) explanation.

Alternatively, the sinner is dismissive of the effect of the covenant altogether and believes that ultimately punishment will come and everyone will be 'swept' (from the root ספה) away together, whether one is righteous or wicked. This fits better with the usage and context in the Sedom episode. According to this interpretation when the sinner says שלום יהיה לי he means to say that, on a personal level, he will not suffer directly from his actions or at least there will be no immediate consequence. (See first explanation of Ibn Ezra in the name of Ibn Janah.)

כי תבוא

Return to Egypt: Promise, Command, and Curse[1]

The Tochacha concludes with the following ominous verse:

וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ ה' מִצְרַיִם בָּאֳנִיּוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה׃ (דברים כח:סח)

The verse threatens a reversal of the redemptive process in which God took the Jews out of slavery from Egypt - the very foundation of the covenant as expressed in the first commandment. The apparent severance of the covenant is tragically reflected in the full circle return to slavery in Egypt.

Setting aside for the moment the shock of this prospect and its theological implications, the reference within the verse – בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ  - requires explanation. Where did God previously say that they will never again see [the way to] Egypt?

There are two potential candidates as to the source of the reference in our verse:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָעָם אַל־תִּירָאוּ הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה' אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת־מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם לֹא תֹסִיפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד עַד־עוֹלָם׃ (שמות יד:יג)

רַק לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא־יָשִׁיב אֶת־הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס וַה' אָמַר לָכֶם לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד׃ (דברים יז:טז)

The first-mentioned verse in Parashat Beshalach implies a promise that the people will never again need to set sight on the Egyptians (following the miracle of the splitting of the sea), whereas the second verse in Parashat Shoftim appears to be an instruction that the people themselves should not return to Egypt. Note, however, that the verse in Shoftim itself seems to be referencing back to the verse in Beshalach when it says: ...וַה' אָמַר לָכֶם

The clear difference between these verses leads the Ibn Ezra to suggest that, despite appearance, the verse in Shoftim is not a reference to the Beshalach verse at all. Rather it is a reference to some other communication not recorded in the Torah. The Ramban alternatively suggests that the communication referred to in Shoftim is a self-reference (i.e. now God is saying...), and there was no separate communication.

Both these positions are difficult. The similarity between the verses seems too coincidental to ignore. In contrast, Chazal assumed it was indeed a reference back to Beshalach and reinterpreted the verse in Beshalach as an injunction:

כיוצא בו וה' אמר לכם לא תוסיפון, והיכן אמר? כי אשר ראיתם את מצרים (ילקוט שמעוני רז:א)

בשלשה מקומות הזהיר המקום לישראל שלא לחזור למצרים שנא' כי אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום לא תוסיפו לראותם עד עולם, ואומר וה' אמר לכם לא תוסיפון לשוב בדרך הזה עוד, ואומר והשיבך ה' מצרים באניות בדרך אשר אמרתי לך לא תוסיף עוד לראותה (מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל יד:יד)

The Rambam accepted the position of the Mechilta in citing the verse in Beshalach as the source of the prohibition of returning to Egypt, though he was very aware that this ran counter to the plain meaning:

כי אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום לא תֹסִפו לראֹתם עוד עד עולם (שמות יד:יג). ואף על פי שפשט הלשון שהוא הודעה בא לנו בקבלה שהוא אזהרה (ספר המצוות לא תעשה מו, קאפח) 

עד שיבא הכתוב השלישי ויכריע ביניהם

Chazal's approach - at least insofar as it connects the two earlier verses - seems to be supported by the composition of the third verse in Parashat Ki Tavoh. A careful study of our verse shows how it contains and blends components of both earlier verses:

וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ ה' מִצְרַיִם בָּאֳנִיּוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה׃

The 'seeing' element (לראותה) is based on the verse in Beshalach whereas the words 'והשיבך' and 'דרך' are derived from the Shoftim verse. The result is a new verse which does not exactly match either of the earlier verses. This third verse speaks of not 'seeing' the 'route' to Egypt which seems to be an odd formulation as reflected in the difficulty in translation.[2] This further suggests that we are dealing with an artistic blend of the two earlier verses.

What seems to be happening is that there are two stages of progression. In the first stage, the verse in Shoftim reframes the earlier promise from God as a responsibility of the people. In the second stage, in our verse, the earlier promise and the later injunction are merged and the distinction between them is dissolved. 

It would seem that the purpose is to highlight the mutuality of God's promise on the one hand and the people's responsibility on the other. God threatens to take the people back to Egypt in breach of his ‘promise’ that they should not see Egypt again. Why? Because the people have abrogated their commitment not to return to the way of Egypt (the significance of which will be discussed below).

This in turn reflects a wider point underpinning the blessings and curses, namely that the Torah's ‘promises’ - positive and negative - are in fact conditional and intertwined with the behavior of man. This correspondence is particularly apparent from the refrain of the Mt Sinai Tochacha:

וַהֲלַכְתֶּם עִמִּי קֶרִי... וְהָלַכְתִּי אַף־אֲנִי עִמָּכֶם בְּקֶרִי

The return to Egypt therefore acts as a paradigm for the system of providence policing the covenant as a whole. From the perspective of both God (the promise that the people will not again set sight on Egypt) and the people (their responsibility not to return), the prospect of returning to Egypt is the ultimate symbol of the collapse of the covenant.

Return to Egypt as the antithesis to faith in God 

It is noteworthy that the notion of returning to Egypt in the broader sense is associated with a lack of faith in God as the following examples illustrate.

1. The reason provided for not travelling via the land of the Philistines is due to the fear that their immature faith will cause them to return to Egypt:

וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת־הָעָם וְלֹא־נָחָם אלקים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא כִּי אָמַר אלקים פֶּן־יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה׃ (שמות יג:יז)

2. At the splitting of the sea, not setting sight ever again on the Egyptians is a prelude to ‘seeing’ the hand of God. This suggests that the connection with Egypt is somehow antithetical to faith in God.

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָעָם אַל־תִּירָאוּ הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה' אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת־מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם לֹא תֹסִיפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד עַד־עוֹלָם׃ (שמות יד:יג)

וַיַּרְא יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַיָּד הַגְּדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה' בְּמִצְרַיִם וַיִּירְאוּ הָעָם אֶת־ה' וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בַּה' וּבְמֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ׃ (שמות יד:לא)

3. In the episode of the spies, the desire to return Egypt reflects their lack of faith in God's ability to lead them into the land:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל־אָחִיו נִתְּנָה רֹאשׁ וְנָשׁוּבָה מִצְרָיְמָה׃ (במדבר יד:ד)

4. In dealing with the laws of the monarchy, the prohibition of returning to Egypt is stated in connection with the acquisition of horses reflecting an obsession with military might and dependency on Egypt, substituting faith in God:

רַק לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא־יָשִׁיב אֶת־הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס וַה' אָמַר לָכֶם לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד׃ (דברים יז:טז

5. Chizkiyahu is heavily rebuked by Yeshayahu for forging an alliance with Egypt which may reflect a similar point:

הוֹי הַיֹּרְדִים מִצְרַיִם לְעֶזְרָה עַל־סוּסִים יִשָּׁעֵנוּ וַיִּבְטְחוּ עַל־רֶכֶב כִּי רָב וְעַל פָּרָשִׁים כִּי־עָצְמוּ מְאֹד וְלֹא שָׁעוּ עַל־קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־ה' לֹא דָרָשׁוּ׃ (ישעיה לא:א)

In summary, returning to or reliance on Egypt is synonymous with lack of faith and betrayal of the covenant. If the people back out of the covenant through a physical or spiritual return to Egypt then God will reciprocate and actively return the people to Egypt. The initial promise that the people will never again set sight on Egypt is made at the climax of the redemption from Egypt at the splitting of the sea. The climax of the Tochacha which threatens a return to Egypt is an effective reversal of the earlier promise. Bridging the promise and curse, and reconciling them, is the middle verse - the responsibility of the people themselves not to turn towards Egypt.[3]

The novelty of Teshuva

The most disturbing aspect of the verse is the apparent finality. The verse implies that the covenant may be permanently severed when Israel does not fulfil its obligations.

This ought be not so surprising in light of the fact that the God-Israel covenant was heavily modelled on the suzerain-vassal covenants which were common in the ancient Near East.[4] These covenants which were generally political in nature, invoked heavy retribution upon the party that violated their commitments and did not allow for second chances. The God-Israel covenant was revolutionary (so as far as we know today) in appropriating the format and protocol for use between a deity and a nation, whereby fear of the suzerain is replaced with fear of God.

Yet this is not the whole story. There is of course the possibility of Teshuva which is mentioned in a separate speech in next week’s Parashah. Despite being a separate speech, from a literary standpoint, the passage of Teshuva reads as a natural continuation of the verses preceding the final verse about returning to Egypt. The reversal of the key aspects of punishment and exile within the Teshuva passage can be seen from a quick comparison of the two passages:

Tochacha:

וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֱיִיתֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם לָרֹב כִּי־לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל ה' אלקיךָ׃ וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׂשׂ ה' עֲלֵיכֶם לְהֵיטִיב אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַרְבּוֹת אֶתְכֶם כֵּן יָשִׂישׂ ה' עֲלֵיכֶם לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם וְנִסַּחְתֶּם מֵעַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה בָא־שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃ וֶהֱפִיצְךָ ה' בְּכָל־הָעַמִּים מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אלקים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ עֵץ וָאָבֶן׃ (דברים כח:סב-סד)

Teshuva:

וְהָיָה כִי־יָבֹאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ בְּכָל־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הִדִּיחֲךָ ה' אלקיךָ שָׁמָּה׃ וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד־ה' אלקיךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְקֹלוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃ וְשָׁב ה' אלקיךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ וְרִחֲמֶךָ וְשָׁב וְקִבֶּצְךָ מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר הֱפִיצְךָ ה' אלקיךָ שָׁמָּה׃ אִם־יִהְיֶה נִדַּחֲךָ בִּקְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם מִשָּׁם יְקַבֶּצְךָ ה' אלקיךָ וּמִשָּׁם יִקָּחֶךָ׃ וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ ה' אלקיךָ אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יָרְשׁוּ אֲבֹתֶיךָ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְהֵיטִבְךָ וְהִרְבְּךָ מֵאֲבֹתֶיךָ׃ ... וְהוֹתִירְךָ ה' אלקיךָ בְּכֹל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶךָ בִּפְרִי בִטְנְךָ וּבִפְרִי בְהֶמְתְּךָ וּבִפְרִי אַדְמָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה כִּי יָשׁוּב ה' לָשׂוּשׂ עָלֶיךָ לְטוֹב כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׂשׂ עַל־אֲבֹתֶיךָ׃ כִּי תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה' אלקיךָ לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו הַכְּתוּבָה בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה כִּי תָשׁוּב אֶל־ה' אלקיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃ (דברים ל:א-י)

This begs the question - if the Teshuva process is indeed so foundational, why was it not included at the end of the curses? Why does the verse threatening a return to Egypt close out the epic Tochacha, suggestive of total severance of the covenant? To make matters worse, the final verse even with the words והשיבך ה' creating a false impression that we are about to hear a comforting message about return and Teshuvah. The alert reader of the Torah may be induced to recall Devarim Ch. 4 which unmistakably resembles the final passages of the Tochacha, yet there the threat of exile is immediately followed by the prospect of Teshuva and return.[5]. In a painful twist, however, the verse instead directs the action of return towards Egypt.

The explanation relates to the point already mentioned. The Tochacha sets out the consequences for the nation based on conventional covenant. Under this model, if the nation defaults, the covenant is voided. Teshuva, on the other hand, belongs to a different world entirely (and hence a different speech) based on a relationship of love which transcends the technical legalities of the covenant. The world of Teshuva assumes that fundamentally the two sides of the relationship wish to stay together such that any separation is only temporary.

Like the Tochacha, the Teshuva passage contains a similar interedependency between Man's responsbility and God's action.Each step of return initiated by man is met with a corresponding step of God: 

וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד־ה' אלקיךָ... וְשָׁב ה' אלקיךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ וְרִחֲמֶךָ

Reversing the mutual distancing of the Tochacha epitomised by the return to Egypt, the steps to bring the sides together become increasingly intense as the Teshuva process unfolds and the two sides move ever closer.[6]

Two alternative forms of return

To the list of parallels between the Tochacha and the Teshuva passage we may now add one more. As just discussed, the Hebrew word for return representing the Teshuvah process is the same word which describes the return to Egypt:

וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ ה' מִצְרַיִם

וְשָׁב ה' אלקיךָ אֶת־שְׁבוּתְךָ

This establishes the two forms of return as two alternatives. The Teshuva process provides an alternative to the return to Egypt. Not just as an alternative ending, but as a perpetual opportunity to restore the relationship. This too may be hinted in the last verse:

וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה

On the face of it, the prospect of not being acquired even as a slave represents a state of hopelessness and complete rejection. Within this state of despair, however, also lies the consolation. If no one will acquire them as slaves this is because they have been eternally redeemed and forever acquired by God as His chosen people:

כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, עבדַי הם אשר הוצאתי אותם מארץ מצרים (ויקרא כה:נה)

This is the silver lining in the curses which hints that the door remains open for Teshuva. The return to Egypt can forever be replaced with a return to God.[7]

 

 

---

[1] Inspired by R. (Prof.) Mordechai Sabato's article: פרשת כי תבוא - והשיבך ה' מצרים באוניות

[2] The Lord will send you back to Egypt in galleys, by a route which I told you you should not see again (JPS)

The Lord will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. (NIV)

Hashem will return you to Egypt in ships, on the way of which I said to you, "You shall never again see it!" (Artscroll)

[3] It is worth noting that the episode of the splitting of the sea in which the 'promise' appears, highlights the passivity of the people in relation to God:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הָעָם אַל־תִּירָאוּ הִתְיַצְבוּ וּרְאוּ אֶת־יְשׁוּעַת ה' אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם הַיּוֹם כִּי אֲשֶׁר רְאִיתֶם אֶת־מִצְרַיִם הַיּוֹם לֹא תֹסִיפוּ לִרְאֹתָם עוֹד עַד־עוֹלָם׃ ה' יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם וְאַתֶּם תַּחֲרִישׁוּן׃

The unilateral nature of a promise is well suited to this context where God acts alone and the people are bystanders. The reframing of the promise as an injunction reflects the greater independence and responsibility of the more mature nation which is a hallmark of Sefer Devarim.

[4] For discussion of the comparisons, see for example, R. Moshe Shamah, Recalling the Covenant, p.886-890. The general point is well founded and accepted across the spectrum of modern scholars. The debates centre around the specific covenant model adopted by the Torah.

[5] Devarim 4:27-31

וְהֵפִיץ ה' אֶתְכֶם בָּעַמִּים וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם מְתֵי מִסְפָּר בַּגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר יְנַהֵג ה' אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה׃ וַעֲבַדְתֶּם־שָׁם אֱלֹהִים מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי אָדָם עֵץ וָאֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִרְאוּן וְלֹא יִשְׁמְעוּן וְלֹא יֹאכְלוּן וְלֹא יְרִיחֻן׃ וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּם מִשָּׁם אֶת־ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וּמָצָאתָ כִּי תִדְרְשֶׁנּוּ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃ בַּצַּר לְךָ וּמְצָאוּךָ כֹּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד־ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלוֹ׃ כִּי אֵל רַחוּם ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יַרְפְּךָ וְלֹא יַשְׁחִיתֶךָ וְלֹא יִשְׁכַּח אֶת־בְּרִית אֲבֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָהֶם׃

[6] See R. (Prof.) Yonatan Grossman, פרשת נצבים - תשובת ישראל ותשובת ה'.

[7] See Sabato, ibid