post so far for Vayelech

Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.

2012 and 2013

1. YUTorah on Vayelech, for 2012. And for 2013, on Nitzavim and Vayelech.

2. Does Ibn Ezra deny resurrection of the dead from the Torah? A straightforward reading of his commentary would suggest that he disagrees with Chazal's alternate parse, at least on the level of peshat.

  2011

1. Vayelech sources -- from 2008, links by aliyah and perek to an online mikraos gedolos, as well as links to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. In 2009, more meforshim, plus groupings into categories like Meforshei Rashi and trup. In 2010, further expansion. And in 2011, even more meforshim, in many categories.
   .
2. YU Torah on parashat Nitzavim / Vayelech
   .
3. Would Moshe's death pain Yocheved if she was already deceased?  There are two ways of interpreting the Yalkut Shimoni, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky supports each one. Then, I bring in some girsological evidence.
   .
4. Hashem is *your* God. Does this make Moshe a heretic?  Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz asks a question based on a non-existent pesik, darshened in a particular manner. Does this derasha then make Moshe a heretic, as bad as Yeravam ben Navat?
   .
5. The order of Rashi at the start of Vayelach -  Indeed, some people reorder it.
   .
6. Elohei Neichar-HaAretz --  Why does the makef connect neichar to ha'aretz, rather than to elohei? How Ibn Ezra, Onkelos, and Shadal deal with this strange phenomenon. This on Vayelech, but I neglected to post it in its time.

2010

1. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

2009

1. Did Ibn Ezra endorse idols? A cryptic Ibn Ezra is interpreted this way, seemingly plausibly, by Mekor Chaim, one of his supercommentators.
   .
2. An alternative to Ibn Ezra as endorser of idolatry -- I didn't have time to ruminate fully on this, but here is Ibn Caspi's interpretation of this cryptic Ibn Ezra, in which Ibn Ezra is giving a reason against idolatry.
   .
3. Moshe didn't go anywhere! Despite the pasuk stating Vayelech. And there is no real "difficulty", such that there should be a reason to prefer variants to the masoretic text.

2008

• "And I am not able"-- does this mean that Moshe physically was not able, due to his advanced age? If so, what about the pasuk describing him in old with the same vigor as in his youth? And how many meforshim grapple with this.

2006

• Issi ben Yehuda's five ambiguous parses, which includes one from parshat Vayechi, as evidence of techiyat hameisim from the Torah.

2004

• A Source for ברכת התורה
• Actually crosses over to Haazinu and VeZot HaBeracha as well. A neat derivation, or hint, to the practice of saying a bracha, blessing, before and after being called up in shul for an aliya to the Torah.

YUTorah on Nitzavim and Vayelech

Audio Shiurim on Nitzavim-Vayeilech Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Hashem is Emes and Vadai Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: A Deeper Look at the Mitzvah to Write a SeferTorah Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Teshuva: Mission Possible Rabbi Avishai David: Do it Today! Rabbi Ally Ehrman: The Capacity To Change Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: The Power of Words Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Joshua: Failed Successor? Mrs. Shayna Goldberg: Teshuva, In G-D We Trust Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: A Reciprocal Relationship Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Cry and Beg to Hashem Rabbi Meir Goldwicht: The Power of Yishmael Rabbi Moshe Gordon: The Final Bris Rabbi Ephraim Greene: Teshuva to the Tune of Torah Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Teshuva: Human Achievement Rabbi Aryeh Hendler: Power of Expression Rabbi David Hirsch: Why is Rosh Hashana before Yom Kippur? Rabbi Jesse Horn: Understanding the Yetzer Hara for Avodah Zara Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Serving Hashem with the Heart and the Mind Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Is Teshuvah Easy? Rabbi Binyamin Kwalwasser: Never Be Satisfied in Torah Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Start With What We Already Do Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Don't Give Up on Bnei Yisrael Rabbi Ben Leybovich: Inspired Hiking Rabbi Shmuel Marcus: Hester Panim Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Three Levels of Teshuva Rabbi Yonason Sacks: Why is Nitzavim read before Rosh Hashana? Rabbi Hershel Schachter: What is "Eleh Hachukim" That Moshe Taught? Rabbi Avi Schneider: Family Business Rabbi Baruch Simon: Can every Jew really be a tzadik like Moshe Rabbeinu? Mrs. Shira Smiles: Symbiotic Song Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky: Teshuva Me'ahava and Talmud Torah Rabbi Reuven Spolter: The Ultimate Return Rabbi Moshe Stav: תשובה - רחמים ודין Rabbi Moshe Taragin: What is challenging , accessible and eternal? Rabbi Michael Taubes: Why is Nitzavim before Rosh Hashana? Rabbi Ya'akov Trump: Each to His Own: The Halacha of Writing a PersonalTorah Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: The Danger of the Downward Spiral Rabbi Avraham Willig: King Menashe and his Path to Teshuva Rabbi Andi Yudin: Being Part of the Tzibbur Rabbi Ari Zahtz: But I Wasnt Even There Articles on Nitzavim-Vayeilech Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen: Learn Torah Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: 2 types of Bechirah Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Lessons of Heaven and Earth Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Yes I Can Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Choose Life Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: תשובה וגאולה Rabbi David Horwitz: God’s “Hiding of the Face” (Hester Panim) Rabbi Aharon Kahn: Teshuvah-It's Time! Rabbi Elly Krimsky: Wood Choppers, Water Carriers and the Collective Jewish People Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: The Awesome One Will Reign Alone Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: בכל צרתם לא (קרי: לו) צר Mrs. Shira Siev Shechter: The Promise of Teshuva Rabbi Zvi Shiloni: Arami Oved Avi Parsha Sheets on Nitzavim-Vayeilech SOY (YU): Einayim L'Torah YULA Boys: Likutei Ohr YU-Torah miTzion Toronto Beit Midrash: Toronto Torah Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Nitzavim-Vayeilech See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Nitzavim-Vayeilech

New This Week The Key to Teshuvah & The Real Story of a Family Miracle Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein למשפטך עמדו היום כי הכל עבדך Rabbi Meir Goldwicht The Jewish Family  - Kedusha in a Physical World Rabbi David Lebor Balancing TalmudTorah & College Studies in YU Rabbi Yaakov Neuburger Can Our Generation Be Mechadesh Halacha? Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff Checking Tefillin and Mezuzos During Elul Rabbi Ezra Schwartz Simanim on Rosh Hashana Rabbi Michael Siev Elul: Smooth Sailing Mrs. Shira Smiles Zichronus and Shofaros In Davening Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky The Teshuvah of Nevuchadnezzar Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner Recognizing Our Kochos Rabbi Moshe Weinberger

posts so far for parshat Vayelech

Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.

2012

1. YUTorah on Vayelech

2. Does Ibn Ezra deny resurrection of the dead from the Torah? A straightforward reading of his commentary would suggest that he disagrees with Chazal's alternate parse, at least on the level of peshat.

  2011

1. Vayelech sources -- from 2008, links by aliyah and perek to an online mikraos gedolos, as well as links to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. In 2009, more meforshim, plus groupings into categories like Meforshei Rashi and trup. In 2010, further expansion. And in 2011, even more meforshim, in many categories.
   .
2. YU Torah on parashat Nitzavim / Vayelech
   .
3. Would Moshe's death pain Yocheved if she was already deceased?  There are two ways of interpreting the Yalkut Shimoni, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky supports each one. Then, I bring in some girsological evidence.
   .
4. Hashem is *your* God. Does this make Moshe a heretic?  Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz asks a question based on a non-existent pesik, darshened in a particular manner. Does this derasha then make Moshe a heretic, as bad as Yeravam ben Navat?
   .
5. The order of Rashi at the start of Vayelach -  Indeed, some people reorder it.
   .
6. Elohei Neichar-HaAretz --  Why does the makef connect neichar to ha'aretz, rather than to elohei? How Ibn Ezra, Onkelos, and Shadal deal with this strange phenomenon. This on Vayelech, but I neglected to post it in its time.

2010

1. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

2009

1. Did Ibn Ezra endorse idols? A cryptic Ibn Ezra is interpreted this way, seemingly plausibly, by Mekor Chaim, one of his supercommentators.
   .
2. An alternative to Ibn Ezra as endorser of idolatry -- I didn't have time to ruminate fully on this, but here is Ibn Caspi's interpretation of this cryptic Ibn Ezra, in which Ibn Ezra is giving a reason against idolatry.
   .
3. Moshe didn't go anywhere! Despite the pasuk stating Vayelech. And there is no real "difficulty", such that there should be a reason to prefer variants to the masoretic text.

2008

• "And I am not able"-- does this mean that Moshe physically was not able, due to his advanced age? If so, what about the pasuk describing him in old with the same vigor as in his youth? And how many meforshim grapple with this.

2006

• Issi ben Yehuda's five ambiguous parses, which includes one from parshat Vayechi, as evidence of techiyat hameisim from the Torah.

2004

• A Source for ברכת התורה
• Actually crosses over to Haazinu and VeZot HaBeracha as well. A neat derivation, or hint, to the practice of saying a bracha, blessing, before and after being called up in shul for an aliya to the Torah.

Does Ibn Ezra deny resurrection of the dead from the Torah?

In parashat Vayelech, the following pasuk:

טז  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם-אֲבֹתֶיךָ; וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי נֵכַר-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר הוּא בָא-שָׁמָּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וַעֲזָבַנִי, וְהֵפֵר אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אִתּוֹ.

16 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Behold, thou art about to sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go astray after the foreign gods of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake Me, and break My covenant which I have made with them.

There is a famous gemara in Sanhedrin 90b:

Sectarians [minim]¹⁷  asked Rabban Gamaliel: Whence do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will resurrect the dead? He answered them from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, yet they did not accept it [as conclusive proof]. 'From the Torah': for it is written, And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up [again].¹⁸  'But perhaps,' said they to him, '[the verse reads], and the people will rise up?'

This pasuk is also listed in Yoma 52b as one of five pesukim which Issi ben Yehuda considers ambiguous, in the sense that it can be read associating both forward and backwards. Which to me shows that one is not obligated to believe it only binds to what follows and not what precedes.

It seems important that resurrection of the dead be deduced specifically from the Torah. To cite the Mishna in Sanhedrin 90a:

BUT THE FOLLOWING HAVE NO PORTION THEREIN: HE WHO MAINTAINS THAT RESURRECTION IS NOT A BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

Of course, there are many such derivations of this from the Torah. With "from the Torah" taken to mean Nach as well, in some sources from Chazal. Thus:

R. Yehoshua ben Levi[25] said: "Where is Resurrection derived from the Torah? - From the verse,[37] Ashrei Yoshvei Beisecha, Od Yehalelucha Selah ('Happy are those who dwell in Your house; they shall praise You forever'). The verse does not say, 'they praised You,' but 'they shall praise you.' Thus Techiyas HaMeisim is taught in the Torah.

Ashrei is not in the Pentateuch. At any rate, on our verse of vekam, Ibn Ezra writes:
וקם העם הזה -לא יתכן היותו דבק עם אשר לפניו, כי מה טעם העם הזה וזנה?!ש

"and this nation shall arise: it is not possible for it [the word וקם] to be joined to what precedes [namely, הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם-אֲבֹתֶיךָ], for then what would be this import of 'this nation and it will go astray."

In other words, considered alone, וקם could either connect to the preceding or following phrase. But there is context in the verse, and the entire verse, rather than just the single phrase, needs to be parsed. And so it is not ultimately ambiguous. And this is against Chazal's derasha or reading, that this is a support, from the Torah, for resurrection of the dead.

This is how Mekor Chaim (middle of the way down, right side) understands it. So too Mechokekei Yehuda. And so too this Perush al Ibn Ezra.

Meanwhile, Avi Ezer is ever vigilant to defend Ibn Ezra against charges of heresy. And he makes here a good point. Consider the trup on the pasuk. Note how there is an atnachta on the word et-avotecha, such that it binds with the preceding phrase, rather than the following phrase. This is how it has to be, because this is the peshat meaning of the pasuk.



Avi Ezer comments:

"Forfend for the Rav [Ibn Ezra] to take a position opposite the words of Chazal, where they said 'from where is the resurrection of the dead from the Torah? For it states 'and this nation shall arise', etc.'

Rather, he is explaining on behalf of the author of the trup, that he did not connect it to with the trup of a melech and its great ones, and why did it split off the word אֲבֹתֶיךָ with an etnachta. And he answers that it is impossible in any alternate fashion, and one who knows the trup, their pattern and function knows that the words of the Rav are correct.

And it is astonishing that the author of Mekor Chaim explained the words of the Rav in their plain sense, and did not worry for the honor of Chazal."

I think that concern for the honor of Chazal may be misplaced. As the pasuk states, לא תכירו פנים במשפט. Chazal can stand up for themselves. And quite probably, they knew that on a peshat level, the verse cannot read straight if one associates vekam with what precedes. Rather, it is clearly a derash. And Chazal (I would argue) can maintain that a derash operates independently of what the pasuk says on a peshat level.

While Ibn Ezra could be referring to the trup, which of course must give a straight parsing of the pasuk, even Avi Ezer realizes that this reading is a bit forced. Was he referring to the gemara in Sanhedrin? Perhaps. He might have also been referring to Issi ben Yehuda's five, as we see in Vayigash that Ibn Ezra plays with this idea and even suggests his own ambiguous parse, to add to the five. But Ibn Ezra will often give a peshat at odds with Chazal, which occasionally will cause Avi Ezer to say that an erring talmid of Ibn Ezra must have written that particular comment.

It is to the greater honor of both Ibn Ezra and Chazal to have them say what they really say.

YUTorah on parashat Vayelech

Audio Shiurim on Vayeilech Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: A Deeper Look at the Mitzvah to Write a Sefer Torah Rabbi Chaim Brovender: The Last Days of Moshe  Rabbi Ally Ehrman: The Special Relationship Between Hakhel And The King Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Joshua: Failed Successor?  Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Mitzvah of Writing a Sefer Torah  Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Roots of Sin  Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Start With What We Already Do  Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Don't Give Up on Bnei Yisrael Rabbi Shmuel Marcus: Hester Panim Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Three Levels of Teshuva Rabbi Baruch Simon: Man as a Holech  Mrs. Shira Smiles: Symbiotic Song  Rabbi Reuven Spolter: The Real Peace Process of Teshuvah  Rabbi Moshe Taragin: What is challenging , accessible and eternal?  Articles on Vayeilech Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: The Significance of Hakhel  Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Torah To Go Rabbi David Horwitz: God’s "Hiding of the Face" Rabbi Aharon Kahn: Teshuvah--It's Time! Parsha Sheets on Vayeilech Einayim L'Torah: Vayeilech 2005 Toronto Torah: Netzavim-Vayyelech 5771 Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Vayeilech See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Vayeilech

New This Week U’Netaneh Tokef: Understanding the Martyrological, Midrashic and Talmudic Roots  Rabbi Kenneth Brander Sod HaTeshuvah Rabbi Meir Goldwicht Divine Judgment and the Power of the Moment  Rabbi Alan Haber The Difference Between Rosh Hashanah, the Aseres Yimei Teshuva, and Yom Kippur  Rabbi Jesse Horn The Nature of the Aseres Yimei Teshuva Rabbi Michael Rosensweig License to Kill? Exploring the Limits of Free Will in Tanach, History, and Halacha  Rabbi Etan Schnall Always Give 100 Percent  Rabbi Avi Schneider Free will and teshuva  Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank

Elohei Neichar-HaAretz

Summary: Why does the makef connect neichar to ha'aretz, rather than to elohei? How Ibn Ezra, Onkelos, and Shadal deal with this strange phenomenon. This on Vayelech, but I neglected to post it in its time.

Post: In revii of Vayelech, we encounter a strange makef:

I would have expected a makef to join elohei to neichar, not neichar ha'aretz. As written, it almost seems that it means that they are foreign to the land, rather than them being foreign gods. (Going along with the makef, the kametz under the chaf reduces to a patach. Thus, neichar rather than neichaar. This is the construct form, rather than the absolute.)

Ibn Ezra says about this:

אחרי אלהי נכר הארץ -ידענו כי השם אחד והשנוי יבוא מהמקבלים והשם לא ישנה מעשיו, כי כולם בחכמה. ומעבודת השם לשמור כח הקבול כפי המקום, על כן כתוב: את משפט אלהי הארץ, על כן אמר יעקב: הסירו את אלהי הנכר והפך המקום הדבק בעריות, שהם שאר. והמשכיל יבין.

"We know that Hashem is One, while any change comes from the recipients. And Hashem does not change His actions, for all of them are is wisdom. And it is of the service of Hashem to preserve the receiving force in accordance with the place. Therefore it is written, 'the mishpat of the Elohei of the land.'

{This in 2 Melachim 17:21:

כו  וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לְמֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר לֵאמֹר, הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר הִגְלִיתָ וַתּוֹשֶׁב בְּעָרֵי שֹׁמְרוֹן, לֹא יָדְעוּ, אֶת-מִשְׁפַּט אֱלֹהֵי הָאָרֶץ; וַיְשַׁלַּח-בָּם אֶת-הָאֲרָיוֹת, וְהִנָּם מְמִיתִים אוֹתָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר אֵינָם יֹדְעִים, אֶת-מִשְׁפַּט אֱלֹהֵי הָאָרֶץ.

26 Wherefore they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying: 'The nations which thou hast carried away, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.'

}

and therefore Yaakov said, 'cast off the Elohei HaNeichar'. And it {meaning Bet El where Yaakov was now} is the opposite of the place which was connected in indecency, which was incest. And the maskil will understand."

When Ibn Ezra writes in this cryptic manner, it is difficult for the uninitiated to understand. (I based my translation above on Yahel Or, in Mechokekei Yehudah.) Indeed, as I discussed two years ago, Mekor Chaim understands this comment by Ibn Ezra as a partial endorsement of idols outside the land of Israel.

I think this is associated with the strange placement of the makef. It is the neichar-ha'aretz, that they are foreign to the specific land. But otherwise, it (either the actions or the idols) might have been OK, from Hashem's perspective.

Onkelos deals with the makef in a different way, I think. He writes:

לא,טז וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הִנְּךָ שֹׁכֵב עִם-אֲבֹתֶיךָ; וְקָם הָעָם הַזֶּה וְזָנָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי נֵכַר-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר הוּא בָא-שָׁמָּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ, וַעֲזָבַנִי, וְהֵפֵר אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אִתּוֹ.

וַאֲמַר יְיָ לְמֹשֶׁה, הָא אַתְּ שָׁכֵיב עִם אֲבָהָתָךְ; וִיקוּם עַמָּא הָדֵין וְיִטְעֵי בָּתַר טָעֲוָת עַמְמֵי אַרְעָא, דְּהוּא עָלֵיל לְתַמָּן בֵּינֵיהוֹן, וְיִשְׁבְּקוּן דַּחְלְתִי, וִישַׁנּוֹן יָת קְיָמִי דִּגְזַרִית עִמְּהוֹן.

That is, neichar is a stand-in for nochri. And so neichar ha'aretz are the 'nations of the land', amemei ar'a. And elohei means 'idols of'. If he thought that elohei neichar meant foreign gods, then I would have expected the word עממי to be in absolute, rather than construct form. That is, עממיא. How would it join to the next word, ארעא? I would say that it would be with a joining ד, as in דארעא. Related, check out Targum Yonasan, which has טעות עממיא. It strangely omits the word ארעא, perhaps because of this very difficulty.

Shadal approaches the issue as follows:

טז ] נכר אין ענינו עם נכרי, אבל הוא דבק עם אלקי ( אלקי הנכר של אותה הארץ) ובאה מילת נכר מדובקת במקף ע"ד ( ישעיה נ"ו ד') בית תפלתי, שענינו בית תפלה שלי, שאעפ"י שהיחס הוא לבית ולא לתפלה, הנה הוא מדובק למילת תפלה, וכן ( למטה ל"ב י"ד) חלב כליות חטה. ומילת בקרבו חוזרת לעם הארץ, יושב הארץ אעפ"י שלא נזכר.

"Neichar does not mean a foreign nation, but rather it is connected with elohei (that is, the elohei neichar of that particular land). And the word neichar comes connected with a makef in the same sense as (Yeshayah 56:7), בְּבֵית תְּפִלָּתִי, whose meaning is 'my house of prayer' {J: rather than 'house of my prayer'}, for even though the association to the house and not to the prayer, behold it is connected {morphologically} with the word 'prayer'. And so too (below, in Devarim 32:14, in Haazinu):

יד  חֶמְאַת בָּקָר וַחֲלֵב צֹאן,  {ס}  עִם-חֵלֶב כָּרִים וְאֵילִים  {ר}  בְּנֵי-בָשָׁן וְעַתּוּדִים,  {ס}  עִם-חֵלֶב, כִּלְיוֹת חִטָּה;  {ר}  וְדַם-עֵנָב, תִּשְׁתֶּה-חָמֶר.  {ס}

14 Curd of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and he-goats, with the kidney-fat of wheat; and of the blood of the grape thou drankest foaming wine.

{where perhaps he is focused on the makef preceding? Regardless, it is the [chelev of the kelayot] [of the wheat] , not the [chelev] [of the kelayot of the wheat].}

And the word בקרבו (in אֲשֶׁר הוּא בָא-שָׁמָּה בְּקִרְבּוֹ) refers to the nation of the land, residents of the land, even though it is not {explicitly} mentioned."

Thus, the makef does not imply an association between nechar and ha'aretz which is stronger than between elohei and neichar.

This sounds to me plausible. But even if it is not true, Shadal has explained elsewhere that trup is not dispositive. And so, which the trup might parse it one way, we can still explain it in other ways.

The order of Rashi at the start of Vayelech

Summary: Why is it in this particular order? Indeed, some people reorder it.

Post: At the start of Vayelech,

2. He said to them, "Today I am one hundred and twenty years old. I can no longer go or come, and the Lord said to me, "You shall not cross this Jordan."

ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא וַה' אָמַר אֵלַי לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה:

Rashi writes:

		אנכי היום: היום מלאו ימי ושנותי ביום זה נולדתי וביום זה אמות:
		וה' אמר אלי: זהו פירוש לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבא, לפי שה' אמר אלי:
		וילך משה וגו', לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבא : יכול שתשש כחו, תלמוד לומר (דברים לד, ז) לא כהתה עינו ולא נס לחה. אלא מהו לא אוכל, איני רשאי שנטלה ממני הרשות ונתנה ליהושע. דבר אחר, לצאת ולבא בדברי תורה, מלמד שנסתמו ממנו מסורות ומעינות החכמה:

That is, (A) he explains (in d"h אנכי היום) as being his age, precisely, to the day, such that he will die the same day he was born.

(B) Then he explains (in d"h וה' אמר אלי) that the meaning of לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא is that he 'cannot' go and come because of this Divine command. That va in vaHashem functions as a 'because'.

(C) Then, (strangely,) there is a new d"h from the first words of the parasha (as if starting over) until לא אוכל עוד לצאת ולבא, where Rashi says that 'I might have thought that his strength was sapped. Therefore it informs us (Devarim 34:7) 'his strength was not weakened, etc.' Rather, 'I am not able' means that I am not permitted, for it was taken from me and given to Yehoshua.'

(D) Then, a דבר אחר, that 'to go and come' means within the realm of Torah, etcetera.

As I read through the Levush HaOrah on Vayelech, I consulted with this (Chabad, based on Judaica Press) Rashi, and was extremely perplexed. The Levush described a purported problem with the ordering of the statements in Rashi, but the problematic order he discussed did not seem to match the order above.

So I looked in a Mikraos Gedolos and saw that these statements are in a different order.

This order is:

(C)
(B)
(A)
(D)

This makes a lot of sense. (C), the d"h from the beginning of the parasha until 'I am not able', explaining that it could not be that his strength was actually sapped, but rather implied lack of permission, leading into (B), וה' אמר אלי, showing that this was the cause of his not being able. Then, somewhat strangely, (A), which goes earlier in the pasuk. And then (D), a davar acher, given an entirely different explanation of the not being able.

Quick checking of certain manuscripts seemed like it was in the latter order. But one should check further, to see that basis for the reordering above.

The Levush HaOrah, after citing Rashi, says:

"They ask why Rashi does not explain the דבר אחר (D) immediately above, after he explained (C) 'I am not able, that permission was taken from me [and given to Yehoshua]'; he should have said immediately (D) davar acher, I am unable to come and go in divrei Torah, etc."


To interject, it seems that the objection is to the insertion of (B) and (A) between (C) and (D). He continues:

"And I say that this is not a question. For that which he explained (B) upon וה' אמר אלי is an explanation of 'I am not able, etcetera.' Also, that which he explained (A) upon היום as that today {specifically} my years have been filled, all this goes according to his {first} explanation of 'I am not able', namely that 'permission has been taken from me, etc', and upon this stands וה' אמר אלי, as the explanation of 'I am not able', and it is not some other matter.


Therefore, if the explanation of היום is that today, specifically, my days and years have been filled, this is to say that specifically on the day of his death, 'permission has been taken from me', and not before then, as he explains later on that there is no rulership on the day of dath. And so all this stands as well upon the explanation of 'I am not able' as we explain it, that 'I am not able' means that permission was taken from him, etc.'


However, if the explanation of 'I am not able to go and come' refers to words of Torah, etc., then the explanation of  וה' אמר אלי is like, 'and furthermore, Hashem has said to me, and is not an explanation of 'I am not able, etc.'.


So too, the explanation of היום is not an explanation of היום in particular as the day of death, to say that היום my days and years have been filled, but rather it is possible that it refers to another day, which is a long time before the day of his death, saying that that day the wellsprings of wisdom were closed to him {J: ideas pulled from the davar acher}, and not specifically the day of his death. 

Therefore, after Rashi explained the entire matter based on the commentary of 'I am not able, etc.' that permission was taken from him, etc., he returned to the pasuk {J: text} of 'I am not able to go and come', and explained upon it another explanation, and said davar acher, to go and come in words of Torah, etc."

I agree with most of this. I agree that (B) has a firm place between (C) and (D). But I don't find his explanation about (A) so compelling. Perhaps one could view it instead as two passes through the text. That way, (C) he starts at vayelech until lo uchal, and (B) sets up a consistent shitta. Then he goes for another pass, and so starts at the earlier d"h (A) and works his way to the davar acher (D).

posts so far for parshat Vayelech

Here is a link to the mobile version of these posts. This will allow you to print each post without worry for the advertisements on the sides.

  2011

1. Vayelech sources -- from 2008, links by aliyah and perek to an online mikraos gedolos, as well as links to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. In 2009, more meforshim, plus groupings into categories like Meforshei Rashi and trup. In 2010, further expansion. And in 2011, even more meforshim, in many categories.
   .
2. YU Torah on parashat Nitzavim / Vayelech
   .
3. Would Moshe's death pain Yocheved if she was already deceased?  There are two ways of interpreting the Yalkut Shimoni, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky supports each one. Then, I bring in some girsological evidence.
   .
4. Hashem is *your* God. Does this make Moshe a heretic?  Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz asks a question based on a non-existent pesik, darshened in a particular manner. Does this derasha then make Moshe a heretic, as bad as Yeravam ben Navat?
   .
5. The order of Rashi at the start of Vayelach -  Indeed, some people reorder it.
   .
6. Elohei Neichar-HaAretz --  Why does the makef connect neichar to ha'aretz, rather than to elohei? How Ibn Ezra, Onkelos, and Shadal deal with this strange phenomenon. This on Vayelech, but I neglected to post it in its time.

2010

1. Length of days -- Does it refer to long life, or long dwelling in the land of Israel?

2009

1. Did Ibn Ezra endorse idols? A cryptic Ibn Ezra is interpreted this way, seemingly plausibly, by Mekor Chaim, one of his supercommentators.
   .
2. An alternative to Ibn Ezra as endorser of idolatry -- I didn't have time to ruminate fully on this, but here is Ibn Caspi's interpretation of this cryptic Ibn Ezra, in which Ibn Ezra is giving a reason against idolatry.
   .
3. Moshe didn't go anywhere! Despite the pasuk stating Vayelech. And there is no real "difficulty", such that there should be a reason to prefer variants to the masoretic text.

2008

• "And I am not able"-- does this mean that Moshe physically was not able, due to his advanced age? If so, what about the pasuk describing him in old with the same vigor as in his youth? And how many meforshim grapple with this.

2006

• Issi ben Yehuda's five ambiguous parses, which includes one from parshat Vayechi, as evidence of techiyat hameisim from the Torah.

2004

• A Source for ברכת התורה
• Actually crosses over to Haazinu and VeZot HaBeracha as well. A neat derivation, or hint, to the practice of saying a bracha, blessing, before and after being called up in shul for an aliya to the Torah.

Hashem is *your* God. Does this make Moshe a heretic?

Summary: Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz asks a question based on a non-existent pesik, darshened in a particular manner. Does this derasha then make Moshe a heretic, as bad as Yeravam ben Navat?

Post: In the third pasuk of Vayelech, we read:

Note the munach under the word hu and the vertical bar after it. This is a munach legarmeih, a disjunctive accent which precedes a revii, in this case the revii which appears over the word lefanecha. Alas, some have mistaken the vertical bar associated with munach legarmeih for a pesik, which is a lighter separating accent, which divides words in special (often semantically motivated) cases, where the typical division of trup would otherwise fail.

In Tiferes Yehonasan on Vayelech, after citing this pasuk, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz writes:

"And there is written after the word hu as pesik, which informs that the word hu is associated to that which precedes it, namely Hashem Elokecha."

To interject, what I think he means is that this then forms a sentence "Hashem, Elokecha Hu" -- "Hashem is your God." This, to the exclusion of my {=Moshe Rabbenu's} God. This would be a somewhat heretical statement. He continues:

"It seems that one should explain. For apparently, there is to analyze. For behold, Yeravam sinned in this, that he said "Hashem your God", which was like being kofer be'ikkar, chas veshalom."

To interject once again, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz is referring to I Melachim 13:6. A prophet predicts the destruction of Yeravam's alter at Bethel 300 years from then by King Yoshiyahu. King Yeravam puts forth his hand to command the seizure of the prophet, and his hand was frozen. He asks the prophet to pray on his behalf:

ו  וַיַּעַן הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים, חַל-נָא אֶת-פְּנֵי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעֲדִי, וְתָשֹׁב יָדִי, אֵלָי; וַיְחַל אִישׁ-הָאֱלֹהִים, אֶת-פְּנֵי ה, וַתָּשָׁב יַד-הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵלָיו, וַתְּהִי כְּבָרִאשֹׁנָה.

6 And the king answered and said unto the man of God: 'Entreat now the favour of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me.' And the man of God entreated the LORD, and the king's hand was restored him, and became as it was before.

In asking for this prayer, he refers to Hashem as "your God", meaning the God of the prophet, but not his own God. Thus, this is heresy. Is Moshe saying the same thing? Rav Eibeshitz continues:

"And would Moshe, the faithful shepherd, speak such words?! Rather, in a simple way we are able to answer that the Shechina was speaking from within Moshe's throat. And if the Shechina was speaking, it is perfectly fine to say 'Hashem your God'.


But, in another way, it seems to me that according to the first answer, it is difficult to fit with Rashi's commentary, who {on the second pasuk in Vayelech:

2. He said to them, "Today I am one hundred and twenty years old. I can no longer go or come, and the Lord said to me, "You shall not cross this Jordan."

ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא וַי־הֹוָ־ה אָמַר אֵלַי לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה:

on לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא, in saying
דבר אחר, לצאת ולבא בדברי תורה, מלמד שנסתמו ממנו מסורות ומעינות החכמה:
, }

said that the wellsprings of wisdom were closed to him. And if so, prophecy was taken from him. {And so, the first answer is difficult, for it could not have been Hashem speaking from his throat.}


Rather, it appears such, that it is stated in the gemara that whoever dwells outside the land of Israel is compared to one who has no God. And here, the nation of Israel is traveling to Eretz Yisrael, while he did not go. Thus, he is like one who has no God. And therefore he said, "Hashem is your God".

This ends my citation of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz.

While I interspersed my comments throughout, I'll put a bit more analysis here. I am reluctant to grant each of the assumptions along the way. (a) First, this is not a pesik. It is a munach legarmeih. (b) Even if it were a pesik, it would not serve to join hu to the previous phrase. Rather, it would introduce a pause into the new phrase, starting with hu. In other words, in hu over lefanecha, it would perhaps bring greater distance between the action and the Actor, with a capital A. (c) Indeed, if we lop off hu to fit with the preceding, then the following statement, over lefanecha, does not work grammatically. In the present tense, Biblical Hebrew does not drop pronouns. (d) While Yeravam does say "Hashem Elokecha", this is in context of his having made an idolatrous altar and opposing a prophet of Hashem. And Yeravam does not say specifically "Hashem Elokecha Hu". Moshe uses the word "Hashem Elokecha" many many times throughout Chumash, albeit without "Hu". We can find an innocuous implication to "Hashem Elokecha Hu", which needs not be heretical.

Granting all these assumptions, though, there are clever and nice answers.