To'eva

From the archives of Nishma's Online Library at http://www.nishma.org/, we have chosen an article that relates to the week's parsha, both to direct you to this dvar Torah but also for the purposes of initiating some discussion.
 
The topic is the the term to'evah, usually translated as abomination. The term is often used by proponents of different ethical perspectives as a further indication of the significance of their ethical stance. The fact is, though, that the use of this term in the Chumash itself may not actually provide support for such assertions. We invite you to look at an article on this topic at http://www.nishma.org/articles/insight/spark5754-27.htm.

Parsha: Emor, "Is Sefirat ha'Omer One Mitzva or Two?"

originally posted August 9, 2015

The Rambam firmly construes Sefirat Ha'Omer as one Mitzvah. Sefer HaHinuch concurs with the Rambam's read. Abbaye, however, affirms in the Talmud that just as it is a Mitzva to count days – so it is a Mitzva to count weeks. 

These passages strongly suggest two separate Mitzvot. In Parshat Emor we read, "Tisp'ru Chamishim YOM" (Vaykira:  23: 16), while the text states in Parshat R'eih, "Sheva Shavuot Tispar Lach" . (Devarim: R'eih: 16:9) Doesn't it seem obvious that the two verses in the Torah describe two separate but equal actions?

Problem: How can an individual nowadays simply argue with the Rambam - especially without any further support? Furthermore, must I not construe the silence of so many peer reviews that as implicit acquiescence? 

A rabbinic intern recently provided an informative answer in his shiur. Rabbeinu Yerucham considers Sefirah as two separate Mitzvot! He also posits that as well. My hypothesis now has supporting evidence.

I asked the speaker how he had found this relatively obscure source. He had noted that the new edition of the Minhat Hinuch has this source cited in the footnotes. This indicates that the matter assumed to be a slam dunk by the Hinuch is, in reality, a matter of dispute. Rabbeinu Yerucham had already articulated this voice of opposition, so I need no  longer be concerned about the silence of the peer review.

Case Closed

-------------------------------------------------

Comment On Original Post.

Aside from a bit of Talmud Torah - why did I post this comment?

Sometimes we see something and we assume it to be axiomatic, mutually agreed upon. In attempting to master rational thinking, I came across the concept of "not jumping to conclusions".  After all, if Jews are always questioning,  why was the Rambam's ruling of only one mitzva never questioned? It seemed likely that seeing it as two mitzvoth was an equally good read.

Failing to research this myself, I humbly concluded that Rambam won by acclamation. Case Closed. QED. 

However, after attending a Shiur in which the rabbi found a source that did challenge this Rambam, I had to recant.  Now I realized that my question - my observation - had some validity in classic sources.  It was just unnecessary for other sources to question the Rambam once Rabbeinu Yerucham posed his challenge. I could no longer construe their silence as acquiescence to the Rambam's decision.

In fact, I could now conclude nothing. Although, I now suspect that the silence is possible confirmation that both reads are about 50-50. and therefore no one needs to enter the fray to reject either side as off-target.

This is an important principle to realize: just because we have not seen a competing source does not mean it is not there! I must also confess to not researching the matter in depth. It therefore has also taught me a bit of humility.

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Eqev, "Who Wrote the Second Luchot?"

It always seemed Pashut to me that Moshe carved the second set of luchot and that Hashem wrote on them.

Once, a Rav happened to briefly mention that Moshe wrote the latter set of luchot in his drasha. I found this far-fetched at the time. Today, I find it completely untenable.

Just take a look at the parsha. It seems clear that Hashem wrote on the second set of luchot. (Eqev: 10: 2-4)

Shalom,

RRW

Parsha: Equev, "Defining 'Eqev' via the 'Concordance Technique' "

Rashi uses the Concordance Technique  to define some difficult or ambiguous words. A great illustration is the verb "PSCh" as in "Ufasachti alleichem" (Shmoth 12:13) There Rashi offers 2 definitions:

1. "V'hamal." "Hashem will have mercy." Rashi bases this upon Yeshaya 31:5. It matches the Targum "v'Yeihos"
2. "V'dileig" based upon Melachim I 18:21. This matches the modern "passover" to skip over or to jump over

------------------------

Now for the background of "Eqev."

• Targum states Halaf meaning "in exchange." 
• Rashi Midrashically puns: "Those mitzvoth that one tramples with one's heel"

------------------------

Although Rashi himself did not choose to use the Concordance Technique here, Rashi frequently offers a subset of the range of "valid" techniques and definitions.

"Eqev" appears in Humash five times:

1. Eqev asher shama Avraham Beqoli (Breishit 22:18)
2. Eqev asher shama Avraham b'Kqoli (Breishit 26:5)
3.  Eqev hayeta Ruch Achereth imo (Bamidbar 14:24)
4. Appears in Eqev itself, in conjunction with the verb "lishmo'a" totaling four of five instances. (Devarim: 7:12)
5. Again, in Eqev. (Devarim: 8:20)

Cases 1 and 3 are the key for me. Both involve "nisayyon" IE crisis situation

1. The Aqeida
2. This is a generic use of the word "Equev," but since they both refer to Avraham, it is feasible to hook it onto one.
3. The Meraglim

This means that Eqev may be more precisely understood to mean "Halaf," in exchange for listening/obeying - or for being - "UNDER DURESS."

Now four and five can be understood.
4. "And it shall be when you obey Under Duress (you shall be blessed...)" (Devarim: 7:12)
5. "...and when you fail to obey Under Duress..." (Devarim: 8:20)

And abandon Hashem...

Shalom,

RRW

Eqev: Who Inscribed the Second Luchos?

Originally published 8/5/09, 6:45 pm.

Given:
Hashem both carved and inscribed the First Luchos.
Moshe hewed the Second set of Luchos
Who inscribed this second set?

We have some ambiguities in the text.
We can resolve them by means of the 13th principle of Rabbi Yishma'el: 'Vechein sh'nei ch'suvim  amach'chishim ze es zeh..'

First the conflicting bit:
1. Shnei Ch'suvim:
Shmos 34:1, HKBH writes the Second Luchos: "V'chasavti al halluchos"

2. Sh'mos 34 "K'sav lecha.." Moshe is writing on (luchos? Or something else?)

Although the two do not completely contradict each other, they do seem ambiguous.
This week's Parsha, Eqev, to the rescue!
The scale tipper: Hakkatuv hashlishi:

3. Dvarim Eqev Ch. 10:2-4 "v'echtov al halluchos" where it is clear that HKBH wrote on the 2nd Luchos.
I think this structure is clear. Therefore, in #2, Moshe probably wrote something else or wrote the dibros upon something else, like parchment.

KT,
RRW