At the urging of a number of individuals, I have finally decided to commit Torah thoughts down into a less ephemeral form than words on the wind. I pray that these ideas that so inspire myself find an audience in the souls of others. To be honest, I find myself often with more questions than answers, a predilection which neatly lends itself to the title - most of what I will post will be an explanation of that which I find confounding, most regularly in the Parsha.
The laining of Ki Teitzei is full of juxtapositions of unique mitzvos, and Chazal have a field day divining meaning behind them. Of particular note is the introductory aliyah where the gemara famously notes the progression between Eishes Yefas Toar to parental favoritism to adolescent rebelliousness. The week prior, I had posed a question (for which I still lack a concrete answer) - throughout Shoftim, we delineate many layers of mitzvot connected to the procedures of war. What stymied me was why the Rabbis decided to cleave this list in twain - LAST week is the parsha of Ki Teitzei LaMilchamah, so why do we start with that principle this week?
Conversely, there is a very confusing juxtaposition later on in the parsha: the first two passukim of the sixth aliyah (24:5-6) are mushed together in a single segment that deals with the principle of shanah rishonah and, alternately, the violation of taking specific objects as collateral.
Of particular note is the exact wording of the second passuk.
In deviation to the future norm, I would like to suggest a singular solution to these enigmas. While we operate on principle of "ayn hamikra yotzei midei peshuto," the concept of rechaim varechev in this parsha is, in fact, a reference to the marriage itself. Fundamentally, all marriages go through periods of friction, particularly at the start where the two halves are learning to function together. Their communion serves as the mill and their joined experience is the grist that is transformed through their efforts into the nourishment of their collective self - the singular nefesh of the passuk. In removing the chosson from the kallah, we obstruct their ability to adjust to each other, to wear each other smooth through their period of initial friction. If you swap the stones from different mills, they will not sit properly on their bases - they do not understand how to work in unison, to properly fill the needs of their improper partner.
Parshas Shoftim may be properly nicknamed as "Governance." It operates as a compendium of rules for organizing society into an operating, cohesive unit. Among the tasks delineated are those surrounding the conducting of a war. The conquest of the land of Israel is an ultimate expression of the physical nationhood under the leadership of Yehoshua, and thus is a fitting capstone to the discussion of governance.
Ki Teitzei, despite what its opening implies, is devoid of discussion of war per se. It's focus is the concept of "The Struggle" - the process of handling the daily internal conflicts a person might face between his lower and upper selves. Hence, even those mitzvos listed that directly discuss the battlefield address not the waging of war but the tools and methods an individual uses to prevent himself from succumbing to his animal nature. It is in light of this that we forbid the newlywed from attending the front lines - the formative period of his marriage must be dedicated to understanding and being understood by his new zivug so that they might, together, form the partnership necessary for the growth of their collective, unified soul.
24:6 Lo yachvol reichaim varechev ki nefesh hu chovel.Rashi, in explaining pshat, ignores both this juxtaposition and the famous Chazal we mentioned earlier at the beginning of the parsha, and explains that the millstone is used for sustenance - the production of ochel nefesh. This presents a quandary, because of the relative rarity (and immobility) of millstones vis a vis the general population - why not forbid taking pots as collateral, which are ubiquitous and readily loaned? Additionally, if the prohibition is based upon the preservation of sustenance, than it would be more appropriate to use the phrase "ki nafsho hu" - the life of the borrower is bound to the object, which makes Rashi's interpretation both complete and cogent and would obviate the need for the additional "chovel" at the end. Thirdly, why delineate both the top and bottom stones as separate items - if both are forbidden, why not simply state one? All of these are side points to the major quandary: how is this connected at all to the principal of shanah rishonah?
In deviation to the future norm, I would like to suggest a singular solution to these enigmas. While we operate on principle of "ayn hamikra yotzei midei peshuto," the concept of rechaim varechev in this parsha is, in fact, a reference to the marriage itself. Fundamentally, all marriages go through periods of friction, particularly at the start where the two halves are learning to function together. Their communion serves as the mill and their joined experience is the grist that is transformed through their efforts into the nourishment of their collective self - the singular nefesh of the passuk. In removing the chosson from the kallah, we obstruct their ability to adjust to each other, to wear each other smooth through their period of initial friction. If you swap the stones from different mills, they will not sit properly on their bases - they do not understand how to work in unison, to properly fill the needs of their improper partner.
Parshas Shoftim may be properly nicknamed as "Governance." It operates as a compendium of rules for organizing society into an operating, cohesive unit. Among the tasks delineated are those surrounding the conducting of a war. The conquest of the land of Israel is an ultimate expression of the physical nationhood under the leadership of Yehoshua, and thus is a fitting capstone to the discussion of governance.
Ki Teitzei, despite what its opening implies, is devoid of discussion of war per se. It's focus is the concept of "The Struggle" - the process of handling the daily internal conflicts a person might face between his lower and upper selves. Hence, even those mitzvos listed that directly discuss the battlefield address not the waging of war but the tools and methods an individual uses to prevent himself from succumbing to his animal nature. It is in light of this that we forbid the newlywed from attending the front lines - the formative period of his marriage must be dedicated to understanding and being understood by his new zivug so that they might, together, form the partnership necessary for the growth of their collective, unified soul.
No comments:
Post a Comment