Ki Tavo
Rabbi
Bernard Fox
“And you
should say before Hashem your G-d, I have removed the sacred from the
house. And also I have given from it to
the Layve and the convert, to the orphan and to the widow, as required by your
commandments that you have commanded me.
I have not violated your commandments and I have not forgotten.”
(Devarim 26:13)
At the end of
a three-year cycle, a declaration is required regarding the giving of
tithes. In this declaration, the person
confirms that the sacred portion of the crops have been removed from the home
and properly distributed. The tithe due
to the Leyve has been given to him. The
tithe required for the support of the poor has been distributed.
This
declaration is referred to as Veydoi Maasrot.
This can be translated as “confession over the tithes.” The commentaries ask an obvious
question. Why is this declaration
described as a confession? A
confession, in halacha, is made in order to repent from a sin. This person is declaring that the laws have
been properly performed. There would
seem to be no need for a confession.
There are a
number of answers offered to this question.
Many involve providing an alternative translation for Veydoi Maasrot
that does not include the element of confession. Sforno, however, offers a very simple explanation that preserves
the straightforward translation.
Originally,
the institution of the priesthood was awarded to the firstborn. Every tribe was to be represented in this
honored group. At Sinai, the nation
sinned through association with the Egel HaZahav – the Golden Calf. The only group that opposed involvement with
this idol was the tribe of Leyve. As a
result, the Almighty removed the priesthood from the nation’s firstborn and
awarded it to Shevet Leyve – the tribe of Leyve. This meant that the other tribes would not be represented within
the priesthood by their firstborn.
Sforno
explains that we are required to acknowledge our involvement in the sin of the
Egel. This is done through the
tithes. Through these tithes we support
Shevet Leyve that was chosen for the priesthood. This indicates that we accept our responsibility for the sin of
the Egel and the consequences. Veydoi
Maasrot is an affirmation of fulfilling our obligations of tithing. This, therefore, has an element of
confession. We are confessing the sin
of the Egel.[1]
“Do not
deviate from the things that I have commanded you today to the right or left –
in order to follow other gods.” (Devarim 28:14)
Moshe
admonishes Bnai Yisrael to be faithful to the Torah. The people should not deviate from the commandments of the
Almighty. They should not worship other
gods.
This pasuk
contains a subtle difficulty. Moshe
begins by warning Bnai Yisrael against deviating from the commandments. He
tells the people they should not stray from the path of the Torah to the right
or left. This expression seems to refer to even minor deviations. The Torah is represented as a straight
path. Even a slight divergence from
this path – to the right or left – is to be avoided.
Moshe then
admonishes the nation against worshiping other gods. In the context of the passage, this admonishment seems to be an
example of the deviation Moshe had just described. This worship represents straying from the path of the Torah. However, this is not a valid example! Moshe began by stating that the people must
guard themselves against minor deviations.
He then provides an example of such a deviation. But the example is not a minor divergence
from the path of Torah. Idolatry
represents a complete rejection of the fundamentals of the Torah! Why does Moshe cite idolatry as an example
of a sight deviation?
Sforno offers
an amazing interpretation of our passage that resolves our question. He begins by interpreting the opening
statement in the pasuk. In order to
understand his interpretation a brief introduction is required. The Torah is a law revealed by the
Almighty. It is not a set of
traditions. We do not observe the Torah
because it was our ancestors’ way of life.
We are not faithful to the Torah because it is our cultural
identity. We must observe the Torah
because it is Hashem’s revealed truth.
This distinction has practical implications. We sometimes find that tradition is not completely consistent
with the law. With the passage of time,
inaccuracies or errors can creep into a community’s pattern of observance. These inaccuracies become established as
traditions, within the community. In
such instances a clear divergence develops between conventional practice and
the actual requirements of halacha.
According to
Sforno, the opening portion of the passage refers to these divergences from the
path of the Torah. Tradition must be
consistent with the law. A tradition
that in inconsistent with halacha is a divergence from the path of the
Torah. Moshe refers to erroneous
traditions as deviations to the right or left.
Sforno now
reconciles the closing portion of the passage with the opening portion. Moshe admonishes the people not to follow
other gods. These “other gods” are not
idols or heathen deities. These “other
gods” are ancestors or respected leaders who inadvertently established
erroneous customs or traditions. We do not follow these traditions out of
respect to these leaders. Instead, we
must remain faithful to the Torah. We
are not loyal to our ancestors. We are
true to the Torah.[2]
This
explanation resolves the difficulty in the pasuk. The entire passage deals with minor deviations from the path of
halacha. Moshe begins by admonishing
the people against these divergences.
He then explains that these deviations can be caused by an irresponsible
attitude toward traditional observances or conventions. This attitude is motivated by an
inappropriately, uncritical relationship towards our ancestors. We must guard ourselves against this
attitude and concentrate on fulfilling the will of the Almighty.
“And
foreigners will build your walls, and their kings will minister to you. For although in My anger I struck you, in My
favor I have had mercy upon you.” (Yishayahu 60:10, Haftorah for Parshat Ki
Tavo)
In the
haftorah for our parasha, the Navi discusses the redemption of Bnai
Yisrael. He reveals that nations that
may have previously persecuted Bnai Yisrael will acknowledge this redemption. The walls of Yerushalayim will be
rebuilt. These nations will participate
in this project.
This pasuk
seems inconsistent with Torah law. Maimonides explains that it is prohibited to
accept donations from non-Jews for the building of Yerushalayim’s walls. Yerushalayim must be completely identified
with Bnai Yisrael. Accepting
contributions from other nations for the building and maintenance of the city’s
walls compromises this identity.[3] If these contributions are not accepted, it
follows that direct participation is also prohibited. Yet, our passage states
that foreign nations will directly participate in the rebuilding of
Yerushalayim’s walls! How can we
reconcile this passage with the halacha?
It is notable
that Maimonides seems to contradict himself on the issue of non-Jewish
participation in the building of Yerushalayim.
As we have shown above, Maimonides maintains that non-Jewish
participation is prohibited. However,
in another instance, Maimonides takes the opposite position.
Maimonides,
explains that every war must be preceded by an offer of peace. This even applies to the war waged to
conquer the land of Israel. Prior to
waging war with the nations that occupied the land of Israel, we were required
to offer a peaceful settlement. The
Torah specifies some of the elements of this settlement. One of the elements is that the nations must
accept political suzerainty of Bnai Yisrael.
The nation must pay tribute.
This tribute includes monetary payment and providing labor for national
projects. Maimonides explains that
among these projects is maintenance of the walls.[4] He is apparently referring to the walls of
Yerushalayim! How can we reconcile this
law with the prohibitions against non-Jewish participation in the building of
Yerushalayim’s walls?
Rav Meshulam
David Soloveitchik offers an excellent solution to our problem. He observes that the prohibition against
non-Jewish participation in the building of the walls of Yerushalayim has a
purpose. The city must be completely
identified with Bnai Yisrael. Non-Jewish
participation compromises this identity.
Through participating in the building of the walls other nations would
become participants in the city’s building or maintenance. Their identity would become related to the
city.
Rav
Soloveitchik explains that this consideration does not restrict every form of
non-Jewish participation in the city’s building and maintenance. Specifically, it allows for participation
rendered as tribute to Bnai Yisrael. In
such a circumstance, the nation does not contribute as an independent
nation. The nation participates as a
act of recognition of Bnai Yisrael’s suzerainty. No foreign identity becomes attached to the city. The city retains its exclusive association
with Bnai Yisrael.[5]
Based upon
this distinction, our problem is solved.
Maimonides does not contradict himself.
He explains that as a general rule foreign participation in the building
and maintenance of Yerushalayim’s walls is prohibited. However, he explains that participation
offered as tribute does not violate this prohibition. This is because participation is only prohibited when it
compromises the city’s identity.
Participation provided as tribute does compromise this identity. The Navi’s prophecy is also consistent with
the law. Apparently, the Navi is
prophesizing that former enemies will be vanquished. As vanquished nations, these foreign peoples will offer tribute
to Bnai Yisrael. Part of this tribute
will be their participation in the rebuilding of the city they had
destroyed. This tribute does not
compromise the identity of the city.
[1] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Devarim 26:13.
[2] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Devarim 28:14.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Matanot Aniyin 8:8.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6:31.
[5] Rav Shimon Yosef Miller, Shai LaTorah (Jerusalem 5755), volume 3, pp. 318 - 319.