Parashas Ki Saytzay 5774

“No Amonite or Moavite may enter the congregation of G-d” because “they did not offer you bread and water, on the road when you left Egypt” (D’varim 23:4-5). In “Iyun HaParasha” (#13), the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” is questioned, since this slight on the part of Amon and Moav occurred during the 40th year in the desert, after the “desert generation” (actually the generation that left Egypt) had already died. Why mention leaving Egypt now? What relevance does what happened almost 40 earlier have with Amon and Moav’s lack of hospitality?

There are actually three times in this week’s Parasha that the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” is used. We are supposed to “remember that which Hashem your G-d did to Miriam on the road when you left Egypt” (24:9) and “remember that which Amalek did to you on the road when you left Egypt” (25:17), both of which happened in the first two years after the exodus from Egypt. Since they were so soon (relatively speaking) after leaving Egypt, this expression is not out of place in either of these verses. Nevertheless, by seeing what it adds to “remembering” those occurrences, we may be able to apply it to what happened in the 40th year as well.

Explaining the commandment to remember what happened to Miriam, that she was punished for speaking negatively about her brother Moshe by contracting a skin disease, Rashbam tells us that “even though she was a prophetess and was Moshe’s sister, she was not given any special treatment and had to be shut in (out of contact with others) for seven days.” He then says that the words “on the road when you left Egypt” are meant to teach us “that even though they were busy getting ready to travel (from Chatzeiros, see Bamidbar 12:17), the nation did not leave until after [her seven days of defilement had ended]; certainly this is true of every other person.” In other words, this expression provides added context, that the need for anyone who contracts this skin disease to be “closed in” for a week is so important that even when it caused the entire nation to be delayed for a week, it still had to be implemented (and on nobility, no less).

Explaining why the Torah adds “on the road when you left Egypt” regarding Amalek’s attack, Malbim references what he wrote in Parashas B’shalach, that none of the usual reasons for waging war applied, two of which are negated by adding “on the road when you left Egypt.” The Children of Israel had no land (yet) to conquer, as they were “on the road,” so the attack couldn’t have been in order to capture land from them. They were not approaching Amalek’s boundary either, as they had just “left Egypt,” so there was no reason for Amalek to stage a pre-emptive attack to prevent being attacked. (Malbim then shows how the next verse negates the three other reasons why a war is waged.) In other words, the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” provides context showing how wicked Amalek was, explaining why G-d declared war on them (see Sh’mos 17:16).

It could therefore be suggested that the expression “on the road when you left Egypt” regarding Amon and Moav was meant to provide context indicating how grievous their sin was, or why it was considered a sin. After all, if a foreign nation passes near a country’s boundary, they would understandably be concerned that the foreigners’ motives weren’t friendly, and not providing them with sustenance would be understandable as well. However, in this case, the Children of Israel had asked Amon and Moav permission to pass through their land peacefully (see Shoftim 11:17).When they refused, rather than attacking, Israel moved on, past their land (11:18) and asked Sichon permission to pass through his land instead (11:19), at which point Sichon attacked Israel (11:20, see also Bamidbar 21:21-23 and D’varim 2:26-32). There was therefore no reason for Amon or Moav to be concerned that the Children of Israel were going to attack them. (They might have even been aware that G-d had expressly forbidden Israel from attacking them, see D’varim 2:9 and 2:19, see also https://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2010/06/24/parashas-balak-5770/.)

Without any concern of being attacked by the nation passing near them through the desert, one whose ancestor (Avraham) had treated their ancestor (Lot) so well, Amon and Moav should have shown them some hospitality, but didn’t. By adding “on the road when you left Egypt,” Moshe was providing the context indicating that this was the case. The Children of Israel hadn’t reached their “homeland” yet, even when they reached the boundaries of Amon and Moav, as they were still “on the road.” And even though it was close to 40 years since they had left Egypt, because they hadn’t yet reached their destination, it was still considered part of their trip from Egypt to the Promised Land. Yet, even though there was no danger of being attacked, Amon and Moav still didn’t offer any sustenance.

Parashas Ki Saytzay 5773

“When you build a new house, you shall make a protective structure for your roof, so that you shall not put blood in your house when the one who falls from it falls. Do not plant different species [together]” (D’varim 22:8-9). Rashi (22:8) tells us that the series of commandments within which these are taught were taught together because of the concept of “mitzvah goreres mitzvah,” doing one mitzvah will lead to (the opportunity) to do another mitzvah. If one fulfills the mitzvah of “shiluach ha-kan” (sending away a mother bird before taking her offspring), which was taught immediately before these verses, he will have the opportunity to build a guardrail around the roof of a new house (i.e. he will become a homeowner). This in turn will lead to becoming a landowner, which presents the opportunity of planting crops without creating any forbidden mixtures.

Nevertheless, the way the verses are broken up into paragraphs indicates that the commandments to build a guardrail and not to plant forbidden mixtures have an even closer connection than that. After all, they are contained in the same paragraph (constituting the entire paragraph), while other mitzvos taught in bunches each have their own paragraph (even if there is a reason why these paragraphs are adjacent to each other). For example, the mitzvah of “shiluach ha-kan” (22:6-7) is contained in its own paragraph. So is the mitzvah of putting fringes on four-cornered garments (22:12), despite its following immediately after the prohibition of wearing wool and linen together (22:11) in order to teach us that these two are the preferred materials for the garment (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 9:1) and for the fringes themselves (ibid 9:2-3), as well as teaching us that fulfilling a positive commandment (wearing “tzitzis”) overrides a concurrent prohibition (wearing wool and linen together). The mitzvah of planting forbidden mixtures together is not even in the same paragraph as the two other forbidden mixtures that follow it (22:10-11). Why would the Torah group the prohibition against planting forbidden mixtures with the requirement to put a fence around a roof rather than with the other forbidden mixtures? What additional connection is there between this forbidden mixture and taking safety precautions?

The Chinuch (Mitzvah #546) explains the necessity of avoiding dangerous situations even though the Creator is in complete control: “Although G-d, blessed is He, supervises human details and knows everything that they do, and whatever happens to them, whether good or bad, is through His decree and command based on their merit or guilt… nevertheless a person must protect himself from normal occurrences because G-d created His world and built it on the foundations of the pillars (i.e. laws) of nature, and decreed that fire burns and water extinguishes the flame. Similarly, [the laws of] nature demand that if a large rock falls on a person’s head that it crushes [it], or if someone falls from a high roof to the ground that he dies. And He, blessed is He, graciously provided the human body by blowing into it a living soul with the ability to think and protect the body from whatever might happen [to it]… And since G-d made the human body subject to [the laws of] nature — as His wisdom required, being that it (the human body) is of a physical nature — He commanded him (the human) to protect [himself] from [these] occurrences. For nature, which he (the human) is given over to, will do to him whatever its laws demand if he does not protect himself from it.” In other words, if the homeowner does not build a guardrail, G-d will not (necessarily) intervene to miraculously save someone from falling off the roof. Or, as Abarbanel puts it (quoting Akeidas Yitzchok), “the guardrail will help someone who would have [otherwise] fallen, [i.e.] without there being any specific divine intention [for him to fall].” This is also what the Talmud seems to mean when it says (Bava Basra 144b) “everything [that happens to a person] is in the hands of heaven except for cold and heat” (i.e. getting sick); as Tosfos explains (d”h Hakol), “the effects (of the cold) are not the results of a decree, meaning that they could have been prevented” (i.e. by wearing a coat).

That being the case, one might think that, since we must take matters into our own hands in order to prevent the laws of nature from inflicting damage, perhaps these laws aren’t so perfect after all, or, at the very least, can be adjusted when there is reason to. If I can (and should) affect nature to the extent of interfering with what would otherwise happen, i.e. building a guardrail to stop the law of gravity from pulling someone to the ground, or wearing a coat so as not to catch a cold, maybe I should try and improve upon nature as well. But the Chinuch tells us otherwise:

“For G-d, blessed is He, created His world with wisdom, understanding and knowledge, and made and formed all things that were formed according to what each needed, appropriate to be set up that way forever; blessed is He that knows. And this is what is meant when the verse about creation says, ‘And G-d saw all that He made and behold it was very good’ (B’raishis 1:31)… And since G-d knows that all that He made was set up perfectly for its intended purpose in this world, He commanded every species to produce fruits/offspring according to its own species, as it says in the [Torah’s narrative of the] order of creation, and species should not combine with each other, so that they do not lose any bit of their perfection.”

Where does the Chinuch say this? In Mitzvah #244, explaining why there are forbidden mixtures. As he continues, “We are therefore prevented from mating different species of animals, and also warned against combining different plants and [different] trees.” (See also Mitzvah #62, where he explains that the problem with sorcerers is that they try to abuse G-d’s creation by changing things from their intended uses, including combining things in a forbidden manner.) Ramban (Vayikra 19:19) writes a similar explanation for the prohibition against these mixtures: “For G-d created for all living creatures, [whether] plant life [or] animal life, the [different] species in the world, giving them the ability to reproduce so that they can exist forever, for as long as He, may He be blessed, wants the world to continue. And He commanded (i.e. set up their nature) that they should bring out their own species (offspring just like them), not to change forever, as it says (B’raishis 1:12, 21 and 24/25) ‘according to their species.’ …And one who grafts together two species changes and goes against the act of creation, as if thinking that G-d didn’t finish His job completely.” Preventing adverse natural consequences while operating within the laws of nature is appropriate (and necessary); changing nature in order to “improve” it is not.

It is therefore possible that the Torah put these two mitzvos together, in the same paragraph, precisely because one teaches us that we should do what we can within the laws of nature to prevent its unfavorable effects, while the other teaches us that we should not try to change nature itself. This contrast becomes more obvious with these two otherwise dissimilar mitzvos paired together, separated from other mitzvos, including from those taught right before and right after them, by giving them their own paragraph.