פרשת דברים תש"ד - "אלה הדברים"

THESE ARE the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.

אחד עשר יום מחרב ELEVEN DAYS JOURNEY FROM HOREB — Moses said to them: “See what you brought about! There is no route from Horeb to Kadesh-Barnea as short as the way through Mount Seir, and even that is a journey of eleven days. You, however, traversed it in three days!” — for you see that they journeyed from Horeb on the twentieth of Eyar, as it is said, (Numbers 10:11—12) “And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month, on the twentieth of the month, [the cloud went up and the children of Israel journeyed out of the desert of Sinai” (which is Horeb)] and on the twenty-ninth of Sivan they sent out the spies from Kadesh Barnea, (an interval of 40 days; cf. Taanit 29a); deduct from these the thirty days they spent at Kibroth Hataavah, where they ate the flesh “a month of days”, and seven days they spent at Hazeroth for Miriam to be shut up there as a leper, it follows that in three days they traversed all that way. — To such an extent did the Shechinah exert itself to hasten your coming to the land of Canaan, but because you became degenerate, He made you travel round about Mount Seir for forty years (Sifrei Devarim 2:2).

These are the words which Moshe spoke unto all Israel. On the Mitzvot which he will mention from the beginning of Aseret haDiberot in Parashat Va'etchanan, as he said ״Moshe took upon him to expound this law" (Deuteronomy 1:5)...[needs continuation]

'אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל וגו, he means that in all the locations mentioned by him here he had communicated what follows to the people, some in each location. In all of these locations the people had angered G’d. Each time he reminded them that if it had not been for their sins they would have long since reached their destination. The locations in question were the following: 'אחד עשר יום מחורב וגו, all the 38 years that they were wandering in the desert they did not travel in a straight line, nor did they travel on well marked routes used by desert travelers. Each time they arrived at a spot where they made camp Moses reminded them that the reason that they had still not reached their final destination was due to their having committed so many sins. The proof was that אחד עשר יום יש מחורב עד קדש ברנע...דרך הר שעיר, the shortest route to Kadesh Barnea, the southern boundary of the Land of Israel is only 11 days’ march away from Mount Chorev when traveling via Mount Seir. In fact, G’d made them reach Kadesh Barnea after they set out from Chorev in only three days by leading them through the great and terrible desert. If they were still not in the Holy Land this was only due to their sins. The delay had been designed to make them have remorse and to return to G’d without mental reservations.

'אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל וגו, he means that in all the locations mentioned by him here he had communicated what follows to the people, some in each location. In all of these locations the people had angered G’d. Each time he reminded them that if it had not been for their sins they would have long since reached their destination. The locations in question were the following: 'אחד עשר יום מחורב וגו, all the 38 years that they were wandering in the desert they did not travel in a straight line, nor did they travel on well marked routes used by desert travelers. Each time they arrived at a spot where they made camp Moses reminded them that the reason that they had still not reached their final destination was due to their having committed so many sins. The proof was that אחד עשר יום יש מחורב עד קדש ברנע...דרך הר שעיר, the shortest route to Kadesh Barnea, the southern boundary of the Land of Israel is only 11 days’ march away from Mount Chorev when traveling via Mount Seir. In fact, G’d made them reach Kadesh Barnea after they set out from Chorev in only three days by leading them through the great and terrible desert. If they were still not in the Holy Land this was only due to their sins. The delay had been designed to make them have remorse and to return to G’d without mental reservations.

THESE ARE the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab.

And it came to pass, when all the kings that were beyond the Jordan, in the hill-country, and in the Lowland, and on all the shore of the Great Sea in front of Lebanon, the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard thereof,

For he had dominion over all the region on this side the River, from Tiphsah even to Gaza, over all the kings on this side the River; and he had peace on all sides round about him.

ואצוה את שפטיכם AND I COMMANDED YOUR JUDGES — I said to them: be deliberate in judgment: if a certain point of law comes before you once, twice, three times, do not say, "This point of law has already come before me several times”, but discuss it well on that occasion also (Sifrei Devarim 16:1).

ובין גרו AND BETWEEN HIS גר — this is his opponent in the lawsuit who merely heaps up (אוגר) words against him. Another explanation of AND BETWEEN HIS גר — also in a matter concerning a dwelling house (גור = to dwell), — in the division of property amongst brothers, even if it be a dispute about an oven and a kitchen range (cf. Sifrei Devarim 16:8-9; Sanhedrin 7b).

ובין גרו AND BETWEEN HIS גר — this is his opponent in the lawsuit who merely heaps up (אוגר) words against him. Another explanation of AND BETWEEN HIS גר — also in a matter concerning a dwelling house (גור = to dwell), — in the division of property amongst brothers, even if it be a dispute about an oven and a kitchen range (cf. Sifrei Devarim 16:8-9; Sanhedrin 7b).

לא תכירו פנים במשפט YE SHALL NOT RESPECT PERSONS IN JUDGMENT — This is addressed to him whose office it is to appoint judges — that he should not say, Mr. So-and-so is a fine or a strong man, I will make him a judge; Mr. So-and-so is my relative, I will make him a judge in the city, — while in reality he is not expert in the laws, and consequently he will condemn the innocent and acquit the guilty — I will account it unto him who appointed him as though he had shown favor in judgment (Sifrei Devarim 17:1).

כי המשפט לאלהים הוא FOR THE JUDGMENT IS GOD’S — Whatever you take from this man unjustly you will compel Me to restore to him; it follows, therefore, that you have wrested judgment against Me (Sanhedrin 8a).

תקרבון אלי [AND THE CAUSE THAT IS TOO HARD FOR YOU] BRING TO ME [AND I WILL HEAR IT] — On account of this utterance (that he could decide difficult cases) the law regarding the daughters of Zelophehad evaded him (Sanhedrin 8a; see Rashi on Numbers 27:5). Similarly, Samuel said to Saul (I Samuel 9:19), “I” am the seer. Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, I will let you know that you are not a seer”. And when did he let him know this? When he came to anoint David. For Scripture states, (I Samuel 16:6, 7) “And when he saw Eliab he said, Surely before the Lord stands his anointed one”. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "Did you not say, “I” am the seer? Look not at the outward appearance” (Sifrei Devarim 17:7).

כי המשפט לאלהים הוא FOR THE JUDGMENT IS GOD’S — Whatever you take from this man unjustly you will compel Me to restore to him; it follows, therefore, that you have wrested judgment against Me (Sanhedrin 8a).

But if one was a judge accepted as an expert for the public, then he may judge cases even as the lone judge. Rav Naḥman said: One such as I may judge cases of monetary law as the lone judge. And similarly, Rabbi Ḥiyya said: One such as I may judge cases of monetary law as the lone judge. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the meaning of: Such as I, in the statements of these Rabbis? Did they intend to say: Such as I, in that I have studied and have the skills to extrapolate and derive new rulings on the basis of earlier decisions, and have also received permission to judge as the lone judge? But accordingly, if one has not received permission to judge as the lone judge, his judgment is not a valid judgment? Or perhaps this is not the correct reading of the statements, and the halakha is that even though he did not receive permission to judge as the lone judge, his judgment is nevertheless a valid judgment? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from the following case: Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, once adjudicated a certain case and erred in his ruling. Upon recognizing his error, he came before Rav Yosef to ask what he should do. Rav Yosef said to him: If the litigants accepted you upon themselves as the lone judge, and both had agreed that they would accept your ruling, you are not liable to pay restitution to the party who lost the case due to your erroneous ruling. But if they did not accept you on themselves, but were rather compelled to be judged before you, you must go and pay restitution. And learn from it that even in a case where one did not receive permission to judge as the lone judge, his ruling is a valid judgment. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case. § Rav says: One who wants to adjudicate a case and wants to be exempt from payment of restitution if he errs in his judgment must receive permission from the Exilarch to judge cases. And similarly, Shmuel says: In such a case he must receive permission from the Exilarch. Once he receives permission, even an erroneous decision carries halakhic force and therefore it is as if he did not err. Since the Gemara mentioned the importance of a judge receiving authorization from the Exilarch, it now discusses the scope of this authority. It is obvious that from here to here, meaning relying on permission granted by the Exilarch in Babylonia in order to adjudicate cases within Babylonia, and from there to there, relying on permission granted by the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael in order to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, the authorization is effective. And it is also obvious that from here to there, relying on permission granted by the Exilarch to adjudicate cases within Eretz Yisrael, it is also effective, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than that of the Nasi. This is so since the Exilarch here in Babylonia may be termed a scepter, i.e., a ruler with actual power of governance, and the Nasi there in Eretz Yisrael is only a staff, i.e., a legislator with limited power. This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet until Shiloh comes” (Genesis 49:10). The term “Shiloh” is understood as a reference to the Messiah, and therefore the verse is interpreted as delineating the authority of Jewish rulers during the exile, before the Messiah comes. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah”; these are the Exilarchs in Babylonia, who are empowered by the government and consequently subjugate the Jewish people as with a scepter. “Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet”; These are the grandchildren of Hillel the Elder who hold the position of Nasi and teach Torah in public, but do not have authority to actually enforce their judgments. If one has permission from there, from the Nasi, and wants to adjudicate cases here in Babylonia, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an incident that occurred: Rabba bar Ḥana adjudicated a case in Babylonia and erred. He came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask what he should do. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: If the litigants accepted you upon themselves, you are not liable to pay restitution to the party who unjustly lost the case, but if not, go and pay. But Rabba bar Ḥana received permission from the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael; therefore, learn from this incident that permission from there to adjudicate cases here is not effective. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that this is the case. The Gemara asks: And is this permission not effective? But when Rabba bar Rav Huna was involved in a dispute with the members of the house of the Exilarch he said: It is not from you that I received permission to judge cases. I received permission from my father, my master, i.e., Rav Huna, and my father, my master, received permission from Rav, and Rav from Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, it seems that permission received in Eretz Yisrael is in fact effective in Babylonia. The Gemara rejects this proof: He was merely standing up to them with words alone, but there was no halakhic validity to his statement. The Gemara asks: But since permission to judge received in Eretz Yisrael is not effective in Babylonia, why did Rabba bar Ḥana need to receive permission when he left for Babylonia? What was the value of that permission? The Gemara answers: The permission is effective for the cities that stand on the borders of Babylonia, which are not entirely in the jurisdiction of Babylonia, so permission from Eretz Yisrael is effective there. § What is the specific nature of this permission? The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar Ḥana descended to Babylonia, his uncle Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My brother’s son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi Ḥiyya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may adjudicate. Rabbi Ḥiyya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may declare such an animal permitted. Similarly, when Rav, who was also Rabbi Ḥiyya’s nephew, descended to Babylonia, Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My sister’s son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi Ḥiyya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded: He may adjudicate. Rabbi Ḥiyya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may not declare such an animal permitted. This incident raises several questions, which the Gemara asks in sequence. What is different concerning this Sage, Rabba bar Ḥana, that Rabbi Ḥiyya called him: My brother’s son, and what is different concerning that Sage, Rav, that Rabbi Ḥiyya called him: My sister’s son? And if you would say that this was the situation: Rabba bar Ḥana was his brother’s son and Rav was his sister’s son, but doesn’t the Master say: Aivu, Rav’s father, and Ḥana, the father of Rabba bar Ḥana, and Sheila, and Marta, and Rabbi Ḥiyya, were all sons of Abba bar Aḥa Karsala from Kafrei? Consequently, Rav would also be Rabbi Ḥiyya’s brother’s son. The Gemara answers: Rav was his brother’s son who was also his sister’s son, as Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half-brother married Rabbi Ḥiyya’s half-sister; while Rabba bar Ḥana was his brother’s son who was not his sister’s son. Therefore, he referred to Rav in a manner that emphasized the additional relationship. And if you wish, say instead that he called him: My sister’s son, for a different reason:

תקרבון אלי [AND THE CAUSE THAT IS TOO HARD FOR YOU] BRING TO ME [AND I WILL HEAR IT] — On account of this utterance (that he could decide difficult cases) the law regarding the daughters of Zelophehad evaded him (Sanhedrin 8a; see Rashi on Numbers 27:5). Similarly, Samuel said to Saul (I Samuel 9:19), “I” am the seer. Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “By your life, I will let you know that you are not a seer”. And when did he let him know this? When he came to anoint David. For Scripture states, (I Samuel 16:6, 7) “And when he saw Eliab he said, Surely before the Lord stands his anointed one”. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "Did you not say, “I” am the seer? Look not at the outward appearance” (Sifrei Devarim 17:7).