Devarim 31:7-23 (Va-yelekh) - Yehoshua on the verge of taking the reins from Moshe

Devarim 31:7,8 records that Moshe gave a specific charge to Yehoshua in front of the people to be strong and courageous.  Afterwards in 31:23, G-d gave almost an identical support to Yehoshua. These two verses, 31:7,23 form a bookend of the intervening text, but why does 31:23 not follow 31:7,8, since this would join together the two charges concerning Yehoshua? Or, why is there a need for two charges to Yehoshua? In order to answer these questions, we will review the order of 31:8-23.

The first verse after Moshe’s charge is 31:9 that Moshe gave the Torah to the priests and the elders. Why was this verse recorded after Moshe's charge in 31:7,8? A possible answer is that 31:9 contains two ideas. One, the deposition of the Torah and two, Moshe is reminding Yehoshua that there are other leaders, the priests and the elders, who can help him. In 31:8, as part of his charge to Yehoshua, Moshe told Yehoshua that he was not alone since G-d was with him, and then in 31:9 Moshe was indicating to Yehoshua that also the priests and elders were with him. This explains the reference to the elders in 31:9 who did not have to be mentioned if the issue was only the storage of the Torah, but they did have to be referred to if the goal was to mention other leaders of the people. Thus, on the second occasion when Moshe gives the Torah over, 31:26, the elders are not mentioned since this was after Yehoshua had been fully appointed.

Afterwards, 31:10-13 records the law of hakhel, that every seven years all the people were to gather together to hear the Torah being read. Why did Moshe wait until after passing the leadership to Yehoshua to tell the people about the laws of hakhel? The goal of the ceremony was to increase the people's fear of G-d in the future, and hence Moshe was telling Yehoshua that this ceremony would help him in dealing with the people. Due to the ceremony, there would be a greater chance that the people would continue to listen to Yehoshua in the future, and maybe this would boost Yehoshua's confidence.

Another possible connection between hakhel and the appointment of Yehoshua is that many have argued that the hakhel ceremony was to re-create the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, see for example Jacobson, 1986, pp. 211,212. The basis for this supposition is from the Rambam, Laws of Festival Offerings, 3:6 and the use of the word hakhel in Devarim 4:10 and 18:16. Also, 31:12 records that the point of the gathering every seven years was experiential, to instill the fear of G-d into the people, which was also one of the purposes by the Decalogue, Shemot 20:17. Furthermore, Devarim 18:15-22 record that Moshe told the people that in the future they would have prophets who they would have to accept. Moshe explained that their future acceptance was based on their acceptance of Moshe at the time of the Decalogue, when they asked Moshe to speak to G-d since they were afraid of G-d continuing to speak to them. Accordingly, maybe Moshe mentioned the laws of hakhel as part of the process of appointing Yehoshua to be the next leader of the people to remind the people of their actions by Decalogue, the source of authority for all prophets. Furthermore, just as hakhel symbolized a re-enactment of the Decalogue, so too more prophets could be “re-created.” (Note, just as the hakhel was only a re-enactment of the giving of the Torah and not equal to the actual event, so too the future prophets who would be successors to Moshe would never be equal to Moshe.) Thus, the reference to the laws of hakhel might have been part of Moshe’s attempt to generate support for Yehoshua from the people or to increase Yehoshua's confidence. 

After the laws of hakhel, G-d told Moshe to bring Yehoshua into the ohel moed where G-d would speak to him, 31:14. Ramban (on 31:19) explains that the idea was for G-d to make Yehoshua a prophet in Moshe’s lifetime. 31:15 records that the cloud of G-d, a demonstration of G-d’s powers, descended upon the entrance of the ohel moed. This showed the people that G-d was talking to Yehoshua which showed G-d’s support for Yehoshua as a prophet. 

In addition, the appearance of the cloud of G-d was part of the 3rd stage of the covenantal process in the book of Devarim, see our discussion on Shemot 24 "The covenantal process." By every covenant there is a revelation from G-d (see Rashbam on Shemot 33:18), and the revelation by the covenant on the plains of Moav was the appearance of the cloud of G-d. The cloud showed the people that G-d approved of the appointment of Yehoshua to be their leader and it was the revelation that occurs by every covenant.

Afterwards, 31:16-22 records that G-d told Moshe about the song that was the witness of the covenant. When G-d finished telling Moshe the song, 31:22 records that G-d told Moshe to write the song down and teach it to the Jewish people, which means that Moshe left the tent. This implies that Yehoshua was left alone with G-d, and 31:23 records that G-d charged Yehoshua to be the next leader of the people, see Rashi, Ramban and Seforno on 31:23.

Why was Yehoshua with Moshe when G-d was just speaking to Moshe in 31:16-22? Why did G-d not charge Yehoshua immediately after the cloud of G-d appeared in 31:15? Or, in other words, why does 31:23 not follow 31:15? Ibn Ezra (on 31:16) is so bothered by this question that he argues that this is another example of the Torah recording events not in their chronological order, as he claims that 31:23 occurred immediately after 31:15. I rarely like this approach, and instead Hoffmann (1961, p. 566) suggests a reasonable answer.

Hoffmann explains that Yehoshua was standing next to Moshe when the cloud of G-d descended and when G-d spoke to Moshe. G-d first spoke to both Moshe and Yehoshua together, 31:16-22 and then to Yehoshua alone, as a way of passing Moshe’s majesty to Yehoshua, 31:23. The idea is that it was not enough for G-d to have just spoken to Yehoshua alone, rather the people also had to see that G-d spoke to Moshe and Yehoshua together.

Accordingly, G-d’s charge to Yehoshua in 31:23 culminated a five part process to enhance Yehoshua’s leadership. First, Yehoshua was told that he would have assistance from the elders, 31:9, and then the laws of hakhel were mentioned, 31:10-13. Afterwards, the cloud of G-d appeared over the tent, 31:14,15, then G-d spoke to Moshe and Yehoshua together, 31:16-22 and lastly G-d spoke to Yehoshua alone, 31:23. Moshe’s charge to Yehoshua in 31:7 started this process and G-d’s charge to Yehoshua in 31:23 ended this process.

Why was there such a lengthy process? Presumably it was because Yehoshua had a very difficult task in following Moshe. Moshe had been the leader of the people for 40 years, and had done things no human would ever duplicate. It would have been only natural for the people to withhold their support for Yehoshua, as capable as he was, after having had Moshe as their leader. Thus, Moshe himself passed the leadership to Yehoshua, and G-d also raised Yehoshua’s status by making him equal to Moshe in hearing (and maybe writing, see Ramban on 31:19) the last message that G-d spoke to Moshe. G-d was not just establishing Yehoshua as a prophet but also showing the people that he was a worthy successor to Moshe.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1961, Commentary on Deuteronomy, translated by Tzvi Har-Shefer, Tel Aviv: Nezach.

Jacobson, B. S. 1986, Meditations on the Torah, Hebrew, Tel Aviv: Sinai Publishing.

Devarim 23:4,5 (Ki Teitzei) – The economic relations between Moav and the Jewish people when the Jewish people were in the desert: Too late

Devarim 23:4,5 records that people from Ammon and Moav could not join the Jewish people. The Torah explains that this restriction was “on account that they did not greet you with food and with water on the way, at your going out from Egypt, and because he hired against you Bil’am son of Be’or from Petor, (in) Aram of-the-Two Rivers, to curse you” (Fox, 1995, translation).

This verse (23:5) is difficult for two reasons. One, why does the Torah provide two reasons for the prohibition, the fact that they did not greet the Jewish people with food and that Bil’am was hired to curse the Jewish people? Only Moav hired Bil’am (Bemidbar 22:2-5), and hence a person from Ammon was prohibited from joining the Jewish people solely due to the reason that they did not greet the Jewish people with food and water, so why was this same reason not sufficient with respect to Moav? Two, Devarim 2:29 records that Moav sold the people food and water, so how could Devarim 23:4 state that they did not greet the Jewish people with food and water?

Ibn Ezra (on Devarim 2:29) records two answers to the second question. One, “in the name of the many,” is that while Moav sold the people food and water as indicated in 2:29, the problem in 23:5 was that they did not give the food freely to the people. Two, Ibn Ezra’s own approach, is that he argues that 2:29 does not state that Moav sold food to the people. 2:27,28 record that Moshe asked Sihon to allow the Jewish people to pass through his territory and Moshe offered that the Jewish people would buy food and water from Sihon. Afterwards, 2:29 records that Moshe asked Sihon to do to the Jewish people as Edom and Moav had done to the Jewish people. It is usually understood that the phrase “to do as Edom and Moav had done” in 2:29 refers back to Moshe’s offer to buy food and water in 2:28, that Moshe was asking Sihon to sell food and water to the Jewish people like Edom and Moav had sold food to the people. However, Ibn Ezra argues that the phrase “to do as Edom and Moav had done” refers back to 2:27 that Moshe was asking Sihon to let the Jewish people pass through his land as Edom and Moav had let the Jewish people pass through their lands.

The Ramban (on 23:5) rejects both answers quoted by the Ibn Ezra. He rejects the idea that the problem with Moav was that it sold food instead of giving the food away for free since selling the food is also reasonable and could not be sufficient cause to prohibit a person from Moav of joining the Jewish people. Ramban’s question seem cogent to me but Hoffmann (on 2:29) also likes this distinction between selling and giving away, as he argues that Moav should have been like Malki-Tzedek who brought food to Avram (Bereshit 14:19). Yet, this example is not applicable here, as Malki-Tzedek brought food as tribute and thanks for Avram, while Moav did not owe the Jewish people any thanks. Furthermore, Malki-Tzedek bought food for one person, would one expect that Moav should feed the entire Jewish nation for free? Finally, again even if they should have fed all the people for free, still as the Ramban asked was selling food so horrible a crime that they could never join the Jewish people?

The Ramban also rejects Ibn Ezra’s approach that 2:29 does not imply that Moav sold food to the people. According to Ibn Ezra’s reading of 2:29 Moshe asked Sihon to let the people pass through Sihon’s lands just as Edom and Moav had let the people pass through their lands. However, as pointed out by Ramban, the Jewish people did not pass through Edom or Moav’s land. Thus, the phrase in 2:29 “to do as Edom and Moav had done” must mean that Moshe asked Sihon to sell the people food as Edom and Moav sold the people food.

The Ramban suggests a different answer based on the fact that two reasons are recorded in 23:5 for the prohibition of Ammon and Moav to join the Jewish people. His suggestion is that one reason refers to Ammon and one to Moav. A person from Ammon could not join the Jewish people since they did not sell the people food, while a person from Moav could not join the Jewish community since they hired Bil’am. This approach answers both of the questions raised above: the Torah had to record two reasons, and 23:5 does not contradict 2:29 because with this reading 23:5 only implies that Ammon did not sell food and water to the Jewish people not Moav.

The Abravanel rejects Ramban’s answer for a grammatical reason. 23:5 switches from the plural to the singular, that “they did not greet the people” as opposed to “he hired Bil’am.” Abravanel argues that the plural in 23:5 means that both Moav and Ammon did not greet the people, while the singular in 23:5 means that only Moav hired Bil'am. Abravanel notes that also in Nehemiah 13:2,3, the plural is used to indicate that both Moav and Ammon did not greet the people. Instead, Abravanel offers a different reading of 2:29 which is not clear to me.

My guess is that the questions can be answered if we understand the geography of where the people marched in the 40th year in reference to Moav. While 2:29 records that Moav sold food to the Jewish people, the verse does not refer to all of Moav but rather to those people of Moav who lived in Ar. What and where is Ar? Tigay (JPS, 1996, p.526, footnote 6,7) writes that Ar was a city of Moav, and from 2:18 it seems that it was “situated near the border on the Wadi Arnon.” Wadi Arnon was the border between Moav and the Amorites, with Moav south of the Wadi, and the Amorites, whose king was Sihon, north of the Wadi. This means that Ar was situated in northern Moav just south of the Wadi Arnon. When the Jewish people marched in the 40th year, they skirted around Moav, and then they had to pass through the Amorite land to get to the land of Israel. The people crossed Wadi Arnon and then Moshe sent messengers to Sihon, Bemidbar 21:13-23. Moshe was already in the land of Sihon (the periphery) when he sent the messengers to Sihon, and the people were north of Moav. However, they were still close to Ar, the Moav city by the Wadi Arnon, and this offered the people of the city the opportunity to sell food and water to the Jewish people as indicated in 2:29.

This selling does not contradict 23:5 that the people of Moav did not greet the Jewish people with food and water since the people of Ar only sold the Jewish people food after the Jewish people had passed them by. When the people were marching around Moav, the people of Moav did not sell them any food or water. Accordingly, Moav did not greet the Jewish people with water and food, as greeting means to go out to a person, while Moav waited until the Jewish people passed them by to sell them food. Therefore, both Moav and Ammon did not greet the Jewish people to sell them food or water. Yet, still one could ask that if in the end some people of Moav sold food to the Jewish people, then this should have been sufficient to allow them the opportunity to enter the Jewish people? The answer is that Moav had a double sin that they also hired Bil’am to curse the Jewish people. Thus, the Torah had to mention two reasons why Ammon and Moav could not enter the Jewish community.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Devarim 16:21,22 (Shoftim) - Asherot and matzevot in the Torah

Devarim 16:21,22 record the following two prohibitions, “You are not to plant yourself an asherah (or) any-kind of tree beside the altar of G-d that you make yourself. And, you are not to raise yourself a matzevah (stone pillar) that G-d hates,” (adaptation of Fox 1995 translation). The asherah would be a carved tree, while the prohibition of any tree would be to a natural tree that had not been worked on.

These prohibitions are troubling since Avraham appears to have planted an ashera, Bereshit 21:33, and Yaakov, Bereshit 28:18, 35:14, and Moshe made matzevot, Shemot 24:4.

Rashi (on 16:22) explains that in the time of the patriarchs G-d liked them, but after the Canaanites adopted them as part of their pagan ritual, G-d hated them. Yet, did the Canaanites really not use these items for idolatry in the times of the patriarchs?

The Ramban (on 16:22, also see comments on Bereshit 26:5) notes that the Canaanites also had altars as part of their pagan worship, but altars did not become prohibited. Ramban suggests that the altars could not have been prohibited since they were essential to offering sacrifices, while the matzevot are not needed to offer sacrifices, which means that they could be abolished once they were adopted by the Canaanites.

Ibn Ezra (on 16:22) suggests that the prohibition of matzevot (also asherot?) was only when the matzevot were made with the intention of using them for idol worship. However, if they were made to worship G-d as by Yaakov (and by Moshe?), then they would be permitted. Yet, there is no indication in 16:21 of a distinction between permitted and forbidden matzevot, or good and bad worship that is associated with the pillars.

My guess is that first one has to distinguish between pillars that are used for worship at all and others that are types of monuments to re-call events, that the latter case would be permitted. Most likely this was the case by the pillars that Moshe put up, the pillar that Yehoshua put up, Yehoshua 24:26,27, and Yaakov’s matzevah for Rahel, Bereshit 35:20. The prohibitions in 16:21,22 are then referring to a pillar or a tree that is used in some ways for religious actions, certainly idol worship but even worship of G-d.

In addition, maybe by Avraham and Yaakov, G-d always hated their ashera and matzevot, but He tolerated them since he knew that they were using them to worship Him. However, before Moshe died the people had to be told that asherot and matzevot were no longer going to be tolerated, even if they were intended to be used for the worship of G-d.

This explanation is similar to the Rambam’s approach by sacrifices, Moreh 3:32, that G-d “suffered the above mentioned kinds of worship (sacrifices) to remain” (Pines, 1963, p. 526) since mankind could not conceive of a worship of G-d without sacrifices. Likewise, in this case, G-d initially did not prohibit the asherot and matzevot since they were used with good intentions. However, by the asherot and matzevot, they were eventually prohibited, possibly because they were not considered by the people as being crucial to the worship of G-d as opposed to sacrifices, and hence the people could accept their prohibition.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Pines, Shlomo, 1963, Translation of Guide to the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Devarim 15:7,8 (Re'eh) - The idea of charity in the Torah

Rambam (Laws of gifts to the poor, 7:1) writes, “It is a positive commandment to give charity to the poor according to what the poor requires…as it says, “You shall open your hand to him, Devarim 15:8, and “When your brother sinks down and his hand falters beside you, than shall you strengthen him as a sojourner and resident-settler, and he is to live beside you… your brother shall live beside you, Vayikra 25:35,36. Whoever sees a poor person and does not give charity violates a negative commandment as it says, “You are not to toughen your heart, you are not to shut your hand to your brother, the needy one, Devarim 15:7.” 

While all the verses quoted by Rambam clearly refer to helping the poor, it is striking that all the verses are referring to lending money to the poor and not to giving money outright as one normally thinks of charity. Rambam quoted Vayikra 25:35,36, but deleted the beginning of Vayikra 25:36 which records that one must not charge the poor interest. This warning shows that the case of helping the poor is a loan, and not an outright gift. Similarly, Devarim 15:7,8 record that one must give to the poor, but the end of 15:8 explains that the giving is through a loan. The following verse, Devarim 15:9, records that one should not think that because the seventh year is coming one will not give to the poor. The concern for the seventh year is only because a loan is annulled in the seventh year. This issue of annulling a loan is irrelevant if one gives a gift to the poor because one has no obligation to return a gift. Accordingly, 15:9 shows that the giving to the poor mentioned in 15:7,8,10 is a loan and that is why the advent of the seventh year is problematic for the giver/ lender since he expects to receive his money back from the poor and now he would not. 

All the verses quoted by the Rambam to support the obligation to give charity as a gift only refer to giving a loan to the poor and not an outright gift. To the best of my knowledge there is no verse in the Torah that requires one to give charity as a gift to the poor on a regular basis. There is an obligation to give to the poor during the festivals, Devarim 16:11,14, and there is an obligation to give ma’aser oni, Devarim 14:28,29, but that is only once every third year. Also, a freed slave receives a gift from his previous owner, 15:12-18 but that is a one time payment to the freed slave. Finally, there are laws that obligate one to let the poor work in the fields, shemitta, gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field, but all these cases are not gifts, since the poor is allowed the opportunity to work. 

The welfare obligation in the Torah is mainly a loan based charity system. This point might not only seem to contradict all standard assumptions about religious practice, but also would seem to make the Torah very callous towards the poor. How could it be that the Torah does not obligate one to give to the poor gifts on a regular basis? One is obligated to give loans to the poor, but why should the poor be under some obligation to return money they received? It is very possible that the poor will not be able to return the money since they need the money for consuming goods, and there is nothing to return. This is a legitimate question, but the loans are annulled every seven years, which means that the poor did not remain in debt forever. Thus, the annulling of the loans is a crucial part of a loan-based system of charity because this law makes the loan into a gift and removes the potentially crushing burden of debt. This is why, as argued above, the annulling of the loans had to be recorded in conjunction with the obligation to lend to the poor. Yet, if the annulling of the loans makes every loan into a gift, why have a loan in the first place, why not just obligate people to give gifts to the poor whenever the poor need money? 

The answer to this question is that while charity is considered a virtuous act, it has at least two negative results. One, charity lowers the dignity of the receiver, but a loan has the minimum amount of loss of dignity. (See Rambam’s eight levels of charity, Laws of gifts to the poor, 10:7-14.) The second problem is that receiving charity tends to induce people to stop trying to help themselves and they remain beneficiaries of further charity. This attitude means that a person will remain permanently poor and always in need of assistance.  Rambam recognizes this problem, as within the laws of charity he writes (Laws of gifts to the poor, 10:18) “A man should always exert himself and should sooner endure hardship than throw himself as a dependent upon the community. The Sages admonished, ‘Make your Sabbath a weekday, sooner than become dependent.” (Translation from Twersky, 1972). Yet, notwithstanding these moral statements, still the tendency remains for people to get too comfortable with receiving charity.

The loan based charity system might be an attempt to remove this problem. Even thought all loans eventually become annulled, when every loan is given, there is an obligation to pay back the money. Clearly if the person receiving the money is physically unable to work and pay back the money, then both parties know there is no way the money will be returned. However, if the receiver is able-bodied, then the obligation to return the money exists, and this obligation serves as a stimulus for the receiver to work to payback the loan. Thus, the Torah requires one to loan freely lend to the poor, but as the money is a loan and not a gift, then the goal is for the poor to use the money to get out of poverty and not to become life-long recipients. The above rationale for the loan based charity system can explain other laws in the Torah relating to charity. 

Why only on festivals and only once every third year by maaser oni is one obligated to give to the poor? Tigay (1996, p.144) writes that the food donated once every third year would “presumably suffice for the intervening years” and that ‘presumably certain public locations were designated for the deposit, distribution and long-term storage of the produce.” These assumptions are because he argues that “it is unlikely that the poor were to be fed only two years out of seven.” His assumptions that the food would suffice for so many years depends on the amount produced and donated versus the number of poor people and their needs. While certainly possible, this would seem to presume large quantities of food being donated. Yet, if it is correct, then the poor should have had no need for food during the shemitta year, which was one of the intervening years, but we know that the during the shemitta year the poor were allowed to work the fields, Shemot 23:11. It seems more likely that the food for the poor would suffice for a short period of time at best, and then one must explain why the poor were only given food once every three years? 

The answer is that the Torah does not want the poor to expect gifts on a regular basis, and thus these obligations are limited. When they are given, they serve as a merciful break to the poor, but as they are limited, the poor know they have to work as they cannot come to depend on these gifts on a regular basis. Similarly, the gifts to the freed slave are one-time gifts to help the slave start again, but since it is one time payment, as the slave cannot depend on more money. Finally, the laws that allow people to work in the fields do not encourage dependency since the people have to work to get their food. 

For a more complete discussion of these issues, see my article, Of biblical interest, brotherhood and charity, International Journal of Social Economics, 2003, vol. 30 pp. 788-797.