weekly parsha

Parsha Archive  

V’zot HaBracha

I.         Divrei Halacha: The Reading of V’Zot HaBracha on Shemini Atzeret

"ויהי בישרון מלך בהתאסף ראשי עם - יחד שבטי ישראל". (דברים ל"ג:ה)

“He became King over Yeshurun when the leaders of the nation gathered – the tribes of Israel in unity.” (Devarim, 33:5)

The gemara in Rosh Hashana, 4b, discusses the differences between the holiday of Sukkot and the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. This is the famous sugya of Pazar Kashar. One of the differences is that Shemini Atzeret has its own “bracha”. Rashi explains:

“This refers to the blessing which the People blessed the ‘melech’, as a “zecher” to the time of the dedication of the Temple of Shlomo as it says, ‘On the eighth day the melech sent the People home, and the People blessed the melech’. This explanation is explicit in the Tosefta in Massechet Sukka.”

We see from Rashi that on the eighth day, the “oleiregel” [i.e. those who had come up to Yerushalyim for Chag haSukkot] who were about to leave Yerushalayim and return to their homes, would take leave of the “melech”. During the course of the “chag”, the “melech” was in contact with the “oleiregel”; he would expound the Torah in their presence and teach them. According to the Netziv, it was the “melech” who read Kohelet publicly on Sukkot. When the “chag” came to its close, the people would not leave Yerushalayim without taking leave from the “melech”, and blessing him. It would seem from the “pesukim”in Sefer Melachim that first the “melech” blessed the People, and they in turn, blessed him. The Tanach states:

“And it was when Shlomo had finished praying to Hashem this entire prayer and supplication, he stood up from having knelt on his knees before the Altar of Hashem with his hands spread out heavenward. He stood and blessed the entire congregation of Israel in a loud voice saying, Blessed is HaShem Who has granted rest to His people Israel, according to all that He has spoken; not one word has gone unfulfilled from the entire gracious promise that He pronounced through the hand of His servant Moshe.” (Melachim 1, 8:54-56)

On the eighth day, he sent the people off, and they blessed the king. They then went to their homes, joyous and good-hearted over all the goodness that Hashem had shown to His servant David and to His people Israel .” (Melachim 1, 8:66)

From the Tosefta quoted by Rashi we derive a halacha for all generations, i.e. that at the termination of the “chag”, the “oleiregel” were obligated to take leave from the “melech” by receiving his blessing and the recipricating by blessing him before leaving Yerushalayim.

The Rav, zatz”al, asked: how is this obligation to be fulfilled subsequent to the termination of “malchut”? In our day, when we have no king in Israel , a Jew makes the transition between the sanctity of the Moed and the days of Chol, at the end of the “regel”, from whom can he take leave? The Rav suggested that in the absence of a living “melech”, the blessing is fulfilled through the first “melech” of Israel , Moshe Rabbeinu. The Rambam in his commentary on the mishna (at the beginning of the second perek of Masechet Shavuot) establishes that the first “melech” was Moshe Rabbeinu. This is based on the “passuk” in our parsha:

“He became King over Yeshurun when the leaders of the nation gathered – the tribes of Israel in unity.” (Devarim 33:5)

The blessing that Israel received from the “melech” was not only a reflection of the king’s political status, but also of his status as a teacher of Torah to the people during the “regel”. It is understood, therefore, that is the absence of a King, the people can receive a blessing from Moshe, the teacher of Torah to all of Israel , the “father” of all prophets, and the master of all scholars.

The Rav explained that the reading of Parshat V’zot HaBracha was set to coincide with Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah, because this parsha serves as a departure (a “taking leave”) from Moshe Rabbeinu, and the “receiving” of a “bracha” from him. This is the fulfillment of the requirement established by the Tosefta to take leave from the “melech” at the conclusion of the “regel”. [See Shiurim LeZecher Abba, Vol. I, p. 151]

II.      Divrei Halacha: The Order of Prayer

“He said: Hashem came from Sinai – having shone forth to them from Seir, having appeared from Mount Paran , and then approached with some of the holy myriads – from His right hand He presented the fiery Torah to them.” (Devarim, 33:2)

“He became King over Yeshurun when the leaders of the nation gathered – the tribes of Israel in unity. May Reuven live and not die, and may his population be included in the count.” (Devarim, 33:5-6)

“There is none like God, O Yeshurun; He rides across heaven to help you, and in His majesty through the upper heights.” (Devarim, 33:26)

The Sifri, at the beginning of Parshat V'zot HaBeracha derives an important halacha regarding “tefilla” from the sequence of these “pesukim”.

“The Torah teaches us that when Moshe Rabbeinu wanted to petition Hashem for the needs of Klal Yisrael, he didn’t immediately begin with his prayer, but rather he first praised Hashem saying “Hashem miSinai ba ...” (“HaShem came from Sinai”); only afterwards did Moshe present the prayers “Yechi Reuven” (Let Reuven live, etc.) After Moshe completed the prayers, he concluded with praise, saying “Ein k’Kel Yeshurun” (There is none like God, O Yeshurun).

I would like to apply the rule of the Sifri to explain the sequence of the “Birchat Chatanim”, the seven “berachot” which are recited under the “chupa” and repeated during the first week of marriage. Rashi in Masechet Ketubot, 8a (beginning with “mesame'ach chatan v’kalla”) explains the meaning of the sixth bracha: “Same'ach t’samach re’im ha’ahuvim...” Rashi writes: “This ‘bracha’ is a tefilla offered on behalf of the couple. [Those gathered] bless them that they should be happy together and successful all their days”. The question arises: if the nature of the blessing is a tefilla, what about the other “berachot” which are clearly “shevach” (praise to Hashem)? I would suggest, based on our Sifri, that the “berachot” were organized with an opening “beracha” of “shevach”, in which we praise Hashem for creating man in His image; then we pray for the couple in the blessing “Same'ach tesamach re’im ha’ahuvim”, then we conclude with another “beracha” of praise, thanking Hashem for creating the joy of marriage. [Note: for a more detailed discussion of the nature of “sheva brachot”, see our article in Techumin, Vol. VI, p. 101-117].

III Divrei Halacha: The Status of the Final Verses in the Torah

The Rambam write:

“One is permitted to recite the last eight pesukim of the Torah in the Beit Knesset with less than a minyan, even though they are part of the Torah and Moshe said these words from the ‘Gevurah’ (HaShem). Since it would seem from the simple meaning of the pesukim that they were written after Moshe’s death, they are different. Therefore, it is permissible for an individual to read them [i.e. to recite the berachot over them in the synagogue reading even when there isn't a minyan present.” (Rambam, Hilchot Tefilla, 13:6)

The Rambam seems to be saying that because one might have the mistaken impression that these eight “pesukim” were written after Moshe’s death, therefore, they can be read by a “yachid” without a “minyan”. This seems very odd: why should the “halachic status” of these eight “pesukim” change because of a mistake? Since, in fact, these “pesukim” were written by Moshe Rabbeinu, they should have the same status as the rest of the Torah.

The Rav, zatz”al, suggested a novel interpretation of the Rambam. What is unique about the last eight pesukim” of the Torah is that at the time Moshe wrote these “pesukim” which describe his own death, he was still alive! Thus, at the moment of their writing, these “pesukim” were devoid of truth and meaning. Therefore, they could not have been sanctified by Moshe at the time of their writing. Their “kedusha” would emerge later, following Moshe’s death. “Kedushat HaTorah” is applicable because all of the Torah is truth. Therefore the Kedushat HaTorah of the last eight “pesukim” could only come into being subsequent to Moshe’s passing. Based on this unique status, the Rambam concluded that these eight “pesukim” have different “Halachot” of “keri’ah” (reading). Normally the reading of the Torah is considered a “davar shebi'kedusha” which requires a “minyan”. But the Rambam holds that since the writing - by Moshe - of the last eight “pesukim” did not generate “kedushat haTorah”, therefore, the “kedusha” of these “pesukim” is of a lesser stature, and the requirement of ten males for the reading of the Torah as a “davar she’bi’kedusha” does not apply to these “pesukim”. [Note: for a more detailed discussion of this topic, see Rav H. Schechter, “Nefesh HaRav”, p. 321-322].

IV . Divrei Halacha: The Mishkan at Shiloh

In the blessing Moshe Rabbeinu bestowed upon Yosef, it says

"ורצון שוכני סנה"

“And the goodwill of Him that dwelt in the bush”.

The “dwelling” in this verse is interpreted by the gemara as a symbolic reference to the “Mishkan” of Shiloh , which was situated in the part of Eretz Yisrael that belonged to the tribe of Yosef. The gemara in Masechet Zevachim, 118b, establishes that Shiloh had certain laws of “mikdash”, e.g. “karbanot” could only be sacrificed inside the “Mishkan” of Shiloh, not on a “bama” (temporary alter) outside of the “Mishkan”. Furthermore, just as “kodshimkalim” and “maasersheini” could be eaten in the area of the “Mikdash” known as “machaneh Yisrael”, so, too, these could be eaten within “Mishkan Shiloh”. There was, however, a very new halacha with regard to Shiloh , namely, that “kodshim kalim” and “maaser sheini” could be eaten “b’chol haro’eh”. What does “b’chol haro’eh” mean? It means any vantage point from which one could see Shiloh .

The Brisker Rav, zatz”al, analyzes the concept of “b’chol haroeh”, and offers two possible definitions: 1) The area of “b’chol haro’eh” is considered “machaneh Yisrael” with regard to “Mishkan Shiloh”; 2) “b’chol haro’eh” is not “machaneh Yisrael”; nevertheless, there is a separate “din” that with regard to “kodshim kalim” and “ma’aser sheini”, these are considered a “makom achila” [i.e. a place fit for consumption]. According to the latter definition, although the location of “b’chol haroeh” lacks the sanctity of the “Machaneh Yisrael”, nevertheless, it is considered suitable for the eating of “kodshim”.

The Brisker Rav proves from a sugya in Zevachim, 116a, that Shiloh did not have a “machaneh Yisrael” at all. Furthermore, the gemara in Masechet Temura, 21a, raises the possibility that even in Yerushalayim “maaser sheini” could be eaten “b’chol haro’eh”, even though the “machaneh Yisrael” was limited to the area within the walls that surrounded Yerushalayim. It could only mean that “b’chol haro’eh”, despite the fact that it lacks “kedushat machaneh Shechina”, was considered a “makom achila” as far as “maaser sheini” is concerned. [For a more detailed discussion, See: “Brisker Rav Al HaTorah”, beginning of Parshat Re’eh.]

Divrei Hashkafa: “Breaking Down the Torah Into Its Component Parts”

In the introduction to his great work on the “Sheiltot”, the Netziv presents a fundamental analysis of the various parts of the Torah. He bases his thesis on the “passuk” in “Parshat V'zot Haberacha”

“Vayomar: Hashem miSinai ba...v’ atah m’rivivot kodesh mimino eish dat lamo” (He said: HaShem came from Sinai...and then approached with some of the holy myriads – from His right hand He presented the fiery Torah to them.) (Devarim, 33:2)

The words “eish dat” indicate the two segments of the Torah 1) The laws which determine what we may and may not do; this is called “dat”, as it says in Megillat Esther : “K’dat ma la’asot”; 2) The concealed part of Torah which must be brought to light. Just as sparks can be joined together to create a torch, so, too, the halacha must be rigorously analyzed through analogy and “chakirah”, in order to clarify and define the underlying principles upon which the halacha is based. This process is comparable to creating a fire, and only at the end of the process is the halacha made clear as a bright light. This part of the Torah is called “aish”, and cannot be clarified without hard work and brilliant insight.

From the time of Yehoshua, the student of Moshe Rabbeinu, doubts and questions regarding halacha arouse. These questions were debated by the great scholars of that generation, and the final halacha was determined by a vote. In the Talm udi c language, the term “nimnu v’gamru” indicates that the majority of the sages determine the halacha, as the Torah mandates: “acharei rabim l’hatot”. Through this process, “aish” gives rise to “dat”. From this torch, new sparks are generated and these sparks, when joined together, form a new torch. Thus, the process of “aish dat” continues throughout the history of “Torah she’baal peh”. In the generation following Yehoshua, new questions arose, questions which had not been investigated during the time of Yehoshua. The later generation assumed – as a clear given – the conclusions of the previous generation. Those earlier conclusions, after all, had become “dat”, i.e. clear and fundamental rules of halacha, and only in the light of those rules could the new process of “aish” continue. The Rambam, in his introduction to his commentary on the Mishna, is careful to differentiate between two concepts: 1) “Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai” and 2) “Hilchata g’miri lah”. Whereas the first category includes halachot which were handed down by Moshe Rabbeinu, and were clear and absolute from the start [i.e. they were always “dat”], the second category includes those halachot which were unclear, and were subject to dispute amongst the “chachamim”. During the generations that analyzed those debatable halachot, votes were taken to determine the final “halacha l’maaseh”. From “aish” came “dat”; the vote to determine “dat” is indicated by the word “gemiri”. The Netziv uses this distinction to clarify many difficult sugyot in shas.

Is there a division of labor amongst the various segments of Klal Yisrael, whereby some were given charge over “dat”, and others over “aish”? The Netziv finds the answer to this question in the respective “berachot” of Ya’akov Avinu (in Parshat VaYechi) and Moshe Rabbeinu (in Parshat V’Zot HaBarcha). Whereas Moshe blessed the tribe of Levi with authority of “hora’ah”, as it says,

“Yoru mishpatecha l’Yaakov” (They shall teach Your ordinance to Yaakov) (Devarim, 33:10),

Yaakov blessed the tribe of Yehuda with the authority of lawgiver, as it says:

“Lo yasur shevet m’Yehuda u’mechokek mibein raglav.” (“The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda nor a scholar from among his descendents.”) (Breishit, 49:10)

The Netziv explains that the establishment of “halacha l’maaseh”, i.e. of “dat”, is given to the tribe of “Levi”. Their “hora’ah”, however, was only of a temporary nature. They would respond to a question in halacha as it applied the moment it was raised. “Shevet Levi” was not blessed with the ability to reveal the deeper underlying principles of the halacha that would establish precedents and principles for further generations. It was the tribe of Yehuda which was given the ability to analyze the fundamentals of halacha through “chakira” and “pilpul”. Whereas Levi was given the power of “dat”, Yehuda was granted the ability of “aish”. Once Yehuda applied his profound “chachma” (wisdom) to define the principles of the halacha, the light of Torah would shine so brightly that these principles could clarify the halacha for generations to come. Yehuda lacked the ability to “pasken” a halachik question “on the spot”. The latter “koach” was given to Levi who, with the Help of HaShem, could make a quick “shikul hada’at” (decision) and establish “dat” as it applied to the particular issue, at the particular moment in which it was raised. Due to the fact that Yehuda locked that ability, the gemara in Yoma, 31a, says about Yehuda that they did not conclude “shima'ata aliba d’hilchata” (the ‘sugya’ according to the final halacha). Yet in Baba Kama, 92a, the gemara seems to say just the opposite, namely that Moshe Rabbeinu blessed Yehuda “V’ezer mitzarav tiheyeh” (And may You be a Helper amongst enemies.) (Devarim, 33:7), which is understood to mean that the members of this tribe were able to understand the depths of the “sugya” and conclude the halacha. The Netziv explains that the latter gemara (in Baba Kama) is referring to the halacha as it was clarified through rigorous investigation and analysis. This required a dialectic “pilpul” amongst “chavrutot” (groups of students), and, at the end of the process, the halacha was clearly formulated by the members of Yehuda.

Based on the distinction between “eish” and “dat”, the Netziv explains a curious statement in Masechet Eruvin, 53a. The gemara contrasts Shaul HaMelech with David HaMelech. Shaul was “lo galei masechta”; whereas David was “galei masechta”. Rashi interprets the gemara as saying that Shaul did not merit “hora’ah”, i.e. the ability to pasken halacha. This is difficult since the gemara bases its conclusion on the verse “U’v’chol asher yifne yarshia” (Shmuel 1, 14:47 ), which describes Shaul’s successes. The Netziv suggests that Shaul was a descendent of Binyamin; the latter was blessed by Moshe Rabbeinu with the blessing “Yishkon lavetach alav” (dwell securely by him) (Devarim, 33:12). This blessing implies that the scholars of the tribe of Binyamin would be able to decide halachik questions according to their judgment at the moment the questions arise; however, they will not determine the halacha for all generations. David HaMelech, a descendent of Yehuda, while lacking the ability to decide the halacha based on some intuitive “flash” (“shikul hada’at”), through hard work hard and dialectic analysis could reveal the “eish” of Torah for generations to come. This is what the gemara means when it says that David was “galei masechta”.

In the light of the Neziv’s analysis, we can appreciate how each individual Talmid Chacham must utilize the talents and abilities which have been bestowed upon him by HaShem to continue the process of understanding and clarifying the halacha. Klal Yisrael is richer because of the heterogeneous makeup of its Torah scholars. Each of us has inherited his own particular complexion of abilities through the “berachot” of Yaakov and Moshe. And each of us can utilize his abilities to contribute to Klal Yisrael and Torat Yisrael.

May we dedicate ourselves to that task and bring about the fulfillment of “v’haeir eineinu b’Toratecha, Amen!”