Parashas Ki Savo
16 Elul 5769
September 5, 2009

Daf Yomi: Bava Basra 15

Guest Author:
Rabbi Mendel Kaufman

Young Israel of Briarwood, NY

 

 

This week’s sedrah begins with the mitzvah of bikurim, the first fruits. The farmer brought the early ripening fruits to the Bait Hamikdash and while handing the fruits over to the Kohen, he made a declaration. The declaration begins with the words Arami ovid avi, vayered mitzraimah ─ “The Amoriti (Laban) wished to destroy my father (Yaakov) and he went down to Egypt.” The declaration goes on to describe the enslavement of the Jewish people and their subsequent redemption and arrival in the Land of Israel. The land has provided us with these fruits for which we express our gratitude to G-d.

 

The beginning of the declaration needs explaining. In the first sentence, we connect the hostility that Laban showed to Yaakov, to the Jewish people. It appears as if we are blaming Laban for Yaakov’s descent into Egypt.

 

If we study the chronology of Yaakov’s life as recorded by Rashi at the end of the sedrah Toldot (Berashit 28:9), we will find that the two events had nothing to do with each other. In fact, the two events (Yaakov fleeing from Laban and his descent into Egypt) took place over 30 years apart. Laban had a lot to answer for by his treatment of Yaakov. But, causing Yaakov to go to Egypt does not seem to be one of them.

 

If we examine what the Torah tells us about Laban and Pharoah, we can find that there is an important connection between them. This connection is so important because we have to realize that we, the Jewish people, are facing today the same challenges from our enemies that we faced during Biblical times.

 

Let us first examine Laban by going back to the end of the sedrah Vayeitze (Beraishit 31:36-43). Yaakov flees from Laban who catches up to him. Yaakov sets forth his grievances as to how hard he worked for Laban. Does Laban acknowledge the hard work or express one word of appreciation for Yaakov’s dedication? No, of course not. He says (31:43) “the daughters are my daughters; the sons are my sons; the sheep are my sheep; and all you see are really mine...” In other words, Laban is rewriting Jewish history.

 

Now let us see what the Torah tells us about Pharoah. At the beginning of Shemot (1:8), we read “And a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Yosef.” Again, this is another attempt to rewrite Jewish history. This is the connection between Laban and Pharoah ─ both attempted to harm the Jewish people by rewriting their history. And this is the goal of our enemies today ─ to rewrite Jewish history.

 

The most obvious example of this insidious campaign is, of course, Holocaust denial. But we have to be aware, and use all means at our disposal to combat other examples of history being rewritten. The Palestinians are engaged in an extensive campaign to rewrite the history of Eretz Yisrael, sometimes with breathtaking audacity. This is most notable by the extraordinary statement made years ago by Yassir Arafat, when he claimed there never was a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, and therefore the Jews had no claim to it. To us, such absurdities are laughable. But we must realize that Arafat and his minions are dead serious; and the ignorant of the world ─ many of whom are looking for any excuse to stick it to Israel ─ are prepared to accept their assertions as historic facts.

 

The obligation we have to history could be the explanation of a puzzling incident the Torah describes at the end of Bereishit (50:10-11). Here, the Torah describes the huge procession that brought Yaakov from Egypt to Chevron for burial.

 

The Torah states (50:10) “And they came to Goren Ha’atid, and they eulogized him there a great eulogy, and they conducted for his father a mourning period of seven days.” In the next verse, it states: “and the inhabitants of the land, the Cannanites, saw their mourning period at Goren Ha’atid and they said ‘this is a great sorrow for Egypt’ and therefore they called (the place) Aveil Mitzrayim (the mourning place for Egypt) that is in Transjordan.”

 

It is puzzling why the Torah should find it necessary to tell us about this great eulogy and, particularly, why it should be significant to us ─ to make it part of the eternal record of the Torah ─ that the inhabitants of the land named the place “the mourning place of Egypt.” My belief is that the explanation is in fact very significant to us because it exposes the tactics of the enemies of the Jewish people through all generations. The family of Yaakov left the Land of Canaan, settled in Egypt, and resided there for 17 years ─ almost a generation. The people of Canaan wanted to establish as an accepted fact that the family of Yaakov now belonged to Egypt and had severed all ties to the Land of Canaan. So, when the Canaanites saw this huge procession, bringing Yaakov back to Canaan, they wanted to declare that the children of Yaakov were not returning to their ancient patrimony; they were returning as citizens of their new country (Egypt). Therefore, they named the place “A Mourning Place of Egypt.”

 

Today also, the opponents of Israel want to declare Israel as an alien outpost of the West in the Middle East, which they claim actually belongs to the Arabs. They wish to rewrite Jewish history and to deny the fact that Jews are returning to Eretz Yisrael, to their ancient patrimony.  

 

We Jews must keep our history ever before us and we must pray and strive for the ultimate redemption which will, at long last, bring Jews from all over the world to their rightful home.

 

Shabbat Shalom.

* * * * *

THE WEEKLY SIDRA- KI SAVO Rabbi Moshe Greebel

     As is well known, the Torah contains two Tochachos- severe reprimands and graphic curses for those who violate the Torah.  The first of these two Tochachos appears at the end of Toras Kohanim (Vayikra), while the second appears in Mishna Torah (D’varim), in this week’s Sidra.      Concerning these Tochachos, the Mishna in M’gillah 31a instructs:      “…..The section of K’lalos (curses of the Tochacha) may not be broken up.  But, must all be read by one person…..”      Basically, the Tochacha may not be broken up into multiple Aliyos (goings up to the Torah), but must be incorporated in one Aliya.  But, does this apply to both Tochachos?  The Gemarah in M’gillah 31b, on the above Mishna, teaches:      “Said Abaye, ‘This rule was laid down only for the curses in Vayikra, but in the curses in D’varim a break may be made……”      That is, only the K’lalos of the Tochacha in Toras Kohanim (Vayikra) must be read in one Aliya.  Those in Mishna Torah (D’varim) may be broken up into several Aliyos. The Gemarah now supplies us with a reason for this:      “What is the reason?  These (of D’varim), addressed Yisroel in the plural number, and Moshe uttered them from the mouth of HaShem.  And these (of Vayikra), addressed Yisroel in the singular, and Moshe uttered them in his own name.”     

Therefore, because the Tochacha in Vayikra is in the singular form, it is more severe than the Tochacha in this week’s Sidra in Sefer D’varim, which is in the plural form.  But, why should this be so?  The Yalkut Y’hudah, citing the Gra (the Vilna Gaon- Rabbeinu Eliyahu Kramer 1720- 1797) of blessed memory, explained this in the following manner.      Whenever the plural is utilized in Tanach (24 books of the Jewish Bible), it always refers to a specific group of Yisroel.  However, whenever in Tanach the singular form is utilized, it at all times refers to all of Yisroel.  Let us consider a few examples of this.     

The expression in T’hillim 118:2 reads ‘Yomar Na Yisroel’- Let Yisroel now say (singular).  In other words, Yisroel (all Jews collectively) are written of in the singular form.       However, in the same chapter of T’hillim in Passuk (verse) 3, it states, ‘Yomru Na Bais Aharon’- Let the house of Aaron now say (in the plural form).  Here, not all Yisroel is being written of- only the Bais Aharon, the Kohanim, in the plural.      As well, in the same chapter of T’hillim Passuk 4, it states, ‘Yomru Na Yirei HaShem’- Let those who fear HaShem say (again in the plural).  Here as well, the fearers of HaShem are a select group, referred to in the plural.     

Therefore, concluded the Gra, the K’lalos in Vayikra were said in the singular, meaning they were a necessary admonishment for the entire nation who sinned- a very serious indictment.  Here, the K’lalos may not be broken up, but read in the same Aliya.       However, the K’lalos in D’varim were said in the plural form, which means that they were not necessary for all of Yisroel who sinned, but only for a select group of them who sinned.  The severity of these K’lalos being somewhat lighter, they may be broken up into several Aliyos.      It should however, be said here, that it is not the custom in our times, to break up even the K’lalos in D’varim.      The Torah is not satisfied by a man who considers only himself, but by a man who considers himself in regards to all his Jewish brethren.  This principle can well be seen from the Gemarah in Sh’vuos 39a:      “…..This teaches us that all Yisroel are sureties one for another!”

     As Jews, we are all responsible for the failings of each other.  We are all bonded together, so to speak, one responsible for every other.  May we learn to always consider others in everything we do.  

     May we soon see the G’ulah Sh’laimah in its complete resplendency- and in our times.  Good Shabbos.