Daf Ditty Megillah 31: Blessings and Curses

Look around us, search above us, below, behind.

We stand in a great web of being joined together.
Let us praise, let us love the life we are lent
passing through us in the body of Israel
and our own bodies, let’s say amen.

Time flows through us like water.

The past and the dead speak through us.
We breathe out our children’s children, blessing.

Blessed is the earth from which we grow,

Blessed the life we are lent,
blessed the ones who teach us,
blessed the ones we teach,
blessed is the word that cannot say the glory

1
that shines through us and remains to shine
flowing past distant suns on the way to forever.
Let’s say amen.

Blessed is light, blessed is darkness,

but blessed above all else is peace
which bears the fruits of knowledge
on strong branches, let’s say amen.

Peace that bears joy into the world,

peace that enables love, peace over Israel
everywhere, blessed and holy is peace, let’s say amen.

Kaddish1

1
Marge Piercy The Art of Blessing the Day: Poems with a Jewish Theme https://margepiercy.com/

2
MISHNA: On the first day of Passover, the congregation reads from the portion of the Festivals
of Leviticus (Leviticus 22:26–23:44). On Shavuot they read the portion of “Seven weeks”
(Deuteronomy 16:9–12). On Rosh HaShana they read the portion of “And on the seventh month
on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23–25). On Yom Kippur they read the portion of “After
the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first Festival day of Sukkot they read from the portion of
the Festivals of Leviticus (Leviticus 22:26–23:44), and on the other days of Sukkot they read
selections from the portion of the offerings of Sukkot (Numbers 29:12–39).

On each day of Hanukkah, they read selections from the portion of the dedication of the altar by
the tribal princes (Numbers 7). On Purim they read the portion of “And Amalek came” (Exodus
17:8–16). On the New Moon they read the portion of “And in the beginnings of your months”
(Numbers 28:11–15). And in the non-priestly watches they read the act of Creation (Genesis
1:1–2:3). The Jewish people were divided into twenty-four watches. Each week, it would be the
turn of a different watch to send representatives to Jerusalem to be present in the Temple to witness
the sacrificial service. Those remaining behind would fast during the week, from Monday to
Thursday, offer special prayers, and read the account of Creation from the Torah. On fast days,

they read the portion of blessings and curses (Leviticus, chapter 26). One should not interrupt
the reading of the curses by having two different people read them. Rather, one person reads all
of them.

On Mondays, and on Thursdays, and on Shabbat during the afternoon service, they read in
accordance with the regular weekly order, i.e., they proceed to read the first section of the Torah

3
portion that follows the portion that was read on the previous Shabbat morning. However, these
readings are not counted as a progression in the reckoning of reading the Torah portions, i.e.,
they do not proceed on Monday to read the section that immediately follows the section read on
Shabbat during the afternoon, and then the following section on Thursday. Rather, until the reading
on the following Shabbat morning, they return to and read the same first section of the Torah
portion that follows the portion that was read on the previous Shabbat morning.

On Festivals and holidays, they read a portion relating to the character of the day, as it is stated:
“And Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus
23:44), which indicates that part of the mitzva of the Festivals is that the people should read the
portion relating to them, each one in its appointed time.

§ The mishna states: In the non-priestly watches they read the act of Creation. The Gemara asks:
From where are these matters derived, i.e., why do they read the account of Creation? Rabbi
Ami said: To allude to the fact that were it not for the non-priestly watches, heaven and earth
would not endure, as it is stated: “Were it not for My covenant day and night, I would not
have set the statutes of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). God’s covenant is referring to the
offerings sacrificed in the Temple, which sustain the world.

And with regard to Abraham it is written: “And he said, O Lord God, by what shall I know
that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8). Abraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He:
Master of the Universe, perhaps, Heaven forbid, the Jewish people will sin before You, and
You will do to them as You did to the generation of the Flood and as You did to the generation
of the Dispersion, i.e., You will completely destroy them? God said to him: No, I will not do
that.

4
Abraham then said before Him: Master of the Universe: “By what shall I know this?” God
said to him: “Take Me a heifer of three years old” (Genesis 15:9). With this, God intimated to
Abraham that even if his descendants will sin, they will be able to achieve atonement through
sacrificing offerings. Abraham said before Him: Master of the Universe, this works out well
when the Temple is standing and offerings can be brought to achieve atonement, but when the
Temple will no longer be standing, what will become of them? God said to him: I have already
established for them the order of offerings, i.e., the verses of the Torah pertaining to the halakhot
of the offerings. Whenever they read those portions, I will deem it as if they sacrificed an
offering before Me, and I will pardon them for all of their iniquities.

§ The mishna states: On fast days the congregation reads the portion of blessings and curses
(Leviticus, chapter 16), and one may not interrupt the reading of the curses by having two
different people read them. Rather, one person reads all of them. The Gemara asks: From where
are these matters derived? Why does one not interrupt the reading of the curses? Rabbi Ḥiyya
bar Gamda said that Rabbi Asi said: For the verse states: “My son, do not despise the
chastening of the Lord, nor be weary of His correction” (Proverbs 3:11). If one makes a break in
the middle of the curses, it appears as if he loathes rebuke.

Reish Lakish said a different answer: It is because one does not say a blessing over a calamity.
If a second person were to begin to read in the middle of the portion of the curses, the blessing
upon his reading would be considered a blessing over a calamity. Rather, what does one do? It is
taught in a baraita: When one begins the reading, one begins with the verse before the curses,
and when one concludes the reading, one concludes with the verse after them. In this way,
neither the blessing before the reading nor after it relates directly to verses of calamity.

5
Abaye said: They taught this only with regard to the curses that are recorded in Leviticus,
but with regard to the curses that are recorded in Deuteronomy, one may interrupt them by
having two different people read them. What is the reason for this distinction? These curses in
Leviticus are stated in the plural, and Moses pronounced them from the mouth of the
Almighty. As such, they are more severe. However, these curses in Deuteronomy are stated in
the singular, and Moses said them on his own, like the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. They
are therefore less harsh and may be interrupted.

Summary

This mishnah lists the portions read on the three pilgrimage holidays, Pesah, Shavuot and Sukkot
and on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Hakippurim as well.2

Most of these are straightforward and do not require explanation.

The one slightly confusing issue is the readings for Sukkot. On the first day of Sukkot, we read
from Leviticus 23, the same reading as on Pesah. On the remaining days we read the sacrifices
listed for that day in Numbers 29:17 ff.

Sukkot differs from Pesah in that on Pesah the same musaf offerings are made every day. On
Sukkot each day has a different number of offerings. As an aside, this is one reason why we recite
the full Hallel for all seven days of Sukkot but only on the first day of Pesah.

The Recitation of the Curses of Leviticus; To Demolish or to Build?

At the start of our daf, the second-to-last in Masechet Megilla, we continue to learn the Mishna
on which parashayot to read during different Festivals and holidays.3 We learn that on fast days,
one person reads the full list of blessings and curses. On Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat
afternoons, we follow the regular order of parasha readings. In Leviticus 23:44 we are taught that
Festivals and holidays include a focus on the characters that are part of those special days.

2
https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.30b.9?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Megillah.3.5&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%2
0Mishnah&lang3=en
3
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/08/megilla-31-recitation-of-curses-of.html

6
The Gemara specifies which parashayot are read. As well, they add to the Mishna's
recommendations to reflect current practices. For example, the diaspora celebrates two 'first' days
of Pesach. The rabbis explain which parashayot to read on each day, although the Mishna only
provided instruction for the 'first' day. The rabbis create mnemonics to help us remember what to
read when. They refer to baraitot to further explain our practices. Notes help us to understand
traditions that accompany these readings.

Steinsaltz teaches us that when a portion is split to accommodate multiple readers, each section
should begin and end on a positive note. This is because we do not say blessings over
calamities. On fast days we hear the blessings and curses, and so this is particularly relevant to
remember when examining today's daf.

If we are thinking that it might be alright to pause and switch readers during the recitation of the
Leviticus curses, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar has news for us. He teaches: if old men say "demolish"
and young children say "build", then demolish. Why should we do a seemingly destructive act?
Because when elders say "demolish" what is done may actually be 'building'. Further, the
'building' done by children may actually be demolition. We can't trust our own opinions, he
teaches. Instead, we are to follow the advice of our rabbis.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:4

The Mishna states:

On Pesach we read from the passages of the festivals in Vayikra. On Shavuos we read Seven
weeks.

On Rosh Hashanah we read on the seventh month, on the first day of the month. On Yom Kippur
we read After the death.

On the first day of Sukkos we read from the passages of the Festivals in Vayikra.

On the other days of Sukkos we read from the passages dealing with the sacrifices of the festival.

On Chanukah we read from the portion dealing with the korbanos offered by the princes. On Purim
we read Then came Amalek.

On Roshei Chodashim w read and on your new moons. On the Ma'amados we read regarding the
Creation.

4
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Megillah_31.pdf

7
On the fast days we read the blessings and the curses. The curses cannot be interrupted; rather one
person gets called to the Torah and reads all of them.

On Mondays and on Thursdays and on Shabbos Mincha we read from the regular Torah reading
of the upcoming week. These verses must be repeated again on the following Shabbos.

The Mishna concludes with the verse [Vayikra 23:44]: And Moshe declared to the Children of
Israel the festivals of Hashem. This teaches us that there is an obligation to read each festival
section in its proper time.

The Gemora cites a braisa which teaches us the Torah reading for the festivals not mentioned in
our Mishna.

On Pesach we read the portions referring to this festival, and the haftorah from the Prophets should
be from Yehoshua pertaining to the Pesach of Gilgul. Presently, that we are in exile, and we
observe two days, the first day should be about Gilgul and the second day from Melachim
pertaining to the Pesach of Yoshiahu.

On the remaining days of Pesach, we read from selected small portions in which the Torah
mentions Pesach. On the last days of Pesach, we read, and it came to pass when Pharaoh sent, and
the haftorah from the Prophets should be from Shmuel and David spoke. On the eighth day (in
exile) we should read All the first-born males, and the haftorah from the Prophets, in Isaiah, as yet
to-day will he remain at Nob.

On Shavuos we read Seven weeks and the haftorah from the Prophets in Chavakkuk. Others say
that we read in the third month and the haftorah from the Prophets should be from Yechezkel
dealing with the Divine Chariot. Presently, that we are in exile, and we observe two days, we
follow both opinions, but we reverse it.

The Mishna states:

On Pesach we read from the passages of the festivals in Vayikra. On Shavuos we read Seven
weeks.

On Rosh Hashanah we read on the seventh month, on the first day of the month. On Yom Kippur
we read After the death.

On the first day of Sukkos we read from the passages of the Festivals in Vayikra. On the other
days of Sukkos we read from the passages dealing with the sacrifices of the festival. On Chanukah
we read from the portion dealing with the korbanos offered by the princes. On Purim we read Then
came Amalek.

On Roshei Chodashim w read and on your new moons.

On the Ma'amados we read regarding the Creation.

8
On the fast days we read the blessings and the curses. The curses cannot be interrupted; rather one
person gets called to the Torah and reads all of them.

On Mondays and on Thursdays and on Shabbos Mincha we read from the regular Torah reading
of the upcoming week.

These verses must be repeated again on the following Shabbos. The Mishna concludes with the
verse [Vayikra 23:44]: And Moshe declared to the Children of Israel the festivals of Hashem. This
teaches us that there is an obligation to read each festival section in its proper time.

The Gemora cites a braisa which teaches us the Torah reading for the festivals not mentioned in
our Mishna. On Pesach we read the portions referring to this festival, and the haftorah from the
Prophets should be from Yehoshua pertaining to the Pesach of Gilgul. Presently, that we are in
exile, and we observe two days, the first day should be about Gilgul and the second day from
Melachim pertaining to the Pesach of Yoshiahu.

On the remaining days of Pesach, we read from selected small portions in which the Torah
mentions Pesach.

On the last days of Pesach, we read, and it came to pass when Pharaoh sent, and the haftorah from
the Prophets should be from Shmuel and David spoke.

On the eighth day (in exile) we should read All the first-born males, and the haftorah from the
Prophets, in Isaiah, as yet to-day will he remain at Nob.

On Shavuos we read Seven weeks and the haftorah from the Prophets in Chavakkuk. Others say
that we read in the third month and the haftorah from the Prophets should be from Yechezkel
dealing with the Divine Chariot. Presently, that we are in exile, and we observe two days, we
follow both opinions, but we reverse it.

On Rosh Hashanah we read in the seventh month, and the haftorah from the Prophets Is not
Ephraim a dear son. Others say that we read, And Hashem visited Sarah and the haftorah from the
Prophets regarding Chanah. Presently, that we are in exile, and we observe two days, we read as
the others said and on the second day, we read Hashem tested Avraham and the haftorah from the
Prophets Is not Ephraim a dear son. On Yom Kippur we read After the death and the haftorah from
the Prophets For so says the Exalted and the Uplifted One. During Mincha we read about the laws
of the forbidden marriages and the haftorah from the Prophets regarding Yonah. (31a) Rabbi
Yochanan said: Wherever you find Hashem’s greatness, there you will find His humility. The
Gemora cites Scriptural references to this.

The braisa continues: On the first day of Sukkos we read from the passages of the Festivals in
Vayikra and the haftorah from the Prophets Behold, Hashem’s awaited day is coming. Presently,
that we are in exile, and we observe two days, we read on the second day the same as on the first,
but the haftorah from the Prophets is and all the men of Israel assembled.

9
The Mishna stated: On the other days of Sukkos we read from the passages dealing with the
sacrifices of the festival. On the last day of Sukkos (Shmini Atzeres) we read Any firstborn which
is preceded by mitzvos and laws regarding the Sukkos season and the haftorah from the Prophets
is and when Shlomo had concluded. On the next day (Simchas Torah, to those that are in exile) we
read the last section of the Torah, which is V’zos Habrocha and we read the haftorah from the
Prophets and Shlomo stood.

Rav Huna says in the name of Rav: Shabbos of the Intermediary Days, whether Pesach or Sukkos
we read Look, you and on Pesach the haftorah from the Prophetsis Dry bones and Sukkos On the
day that Gog comes.

The Gemora discusses other readings of the Torah and other haftoros from the Prophets.

The Mishna had stated that some of the Israelites assigned to the mishmar would stay in their cities
and read from the Torah portions pertaining to Creation. The Gemora wonders as to what the
connection between the ma’amados and Creation is. It was said in the name of Rav Ashi that if not
for the ma’amados (korbanos), the heavens and the earth would not be in existence. The Gemora
states that Avraham Avinu asked the Ribbono shel Olam by the Bris Bein Habesarim "Perhaps
Klal Yisroel will sin before You and You will do to them like You did to the Generation of the
Flood?" The Ribbono shel Olam responded that He will not. Avraham asked as to what the method
for Klal Yisroel will be to atone for their sins. Hashem responded that it will be with the bringing
of korbanos. Hashem told Avraham Avinu that even after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh,
at whenever Klal Yisroel will read the Torah portions pertaining to the korbanos, it will be regarded
as if they brought korbanos and their sins will be forgiven.

The Mishna had stated: The curses cannot be interrupted; rather one person gets called to the Torah
and reads all of them. The Gemora cites a Scriptural source for this. Rish Lakish says that it is
because a blessing cannot be recited on a curse. The Gemora explains that the reader begins with
a verse preceding the curses and concludes with a verse that follows the curses. Abaye qualifies
the ruling of the Mishna: The curses found in Vayikra cannot be interrupted, but the curses in
Devarim may be interrupted. The Gemora provides the reasoning: The curses in Vayikra are
expressed in the plural form and Moshe proclaimed them in the name of Hashem. The curses in
Devarim are in the singular form and Moshe expressed them on his own (these are less severe).

WHEREVER YOU FIND HASHEM’S GREATNESS, THERE YOU WILL FIND HIS
HUMILITY

It is said (Psalms 99:2): HaShem b’tziyon gadol varam hu al kol hamim, (before) Hashem Who is
great in Zion and Who is exalted above all peoples.

Rabbi Mordechai Bennett explains that the word gadol, great, connotes something that is at a low
level and rises to the top, whereas the word ram, high, connotes something that is consistently on
high. The nations of the world erroneously assume that Hashem remains aloof in the heavens and
thus He does not supervise the actions of those down below on earth. Rather, this administration
is under the jurisdiction of the constellations.

10
For this reason, the nation’s declare that HaShem is exalted above all peoples. The Jewish People,
however, are cognizant of the fact that Hashem is in control of every action performed by man,
and for this reason the Jewish People declare that Hashem is great in Zion, as Zion refers to
HaShem’s Chosen People.

With this interpretation we can understand what is said (Devarim 4:7): For which is a great nation
that has a G-d Who is close to it, as is HaShem, our G-d, whenever we call to Him? We refer to
HaShem as great, gadol, and He is close to us, thus obviating the need for an intermediary to submit
our requests. Rather, we can beseech HaShem directly for all our needs. This, then, is the
explanation of the statement in our Gemora. Wherever you find Hashem’s greatness, there you
will find His humility.

Where Hashem’s greatness, gedulah, is found, there you will find His humility. Hashem’s
greatness is that he resides among us and supervises all our actions.

WHEREVER YOU FIND HASHEM’S GREATNESS, THERE YOU WILL FIND HIS
HUMILITY

Rabbi Yochanan said: Wherever you find Hashem’s greatness, there you will find His humility.
The Gemora cites Scriptural references to this. The Imrei Eish says a novel explanation in this:
When Hashem provides greatness, wisdom or riches to a person, how does he know if it is coming
from Hashem or chas v’sholom from the sitra achra? Rabbi Yochanan provides him with the key.
If the gifts bestowed upon him lead to humility, this is a sign that it came from Hashem; however,
if it leads to haughtiness, this illustrates that it was not a present from Hashem.

THE PARSHAH OF "ARAYOS" ON YOM KIPPUR

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:5

The Beraisa states that the Torah reading on Yom Kippur at Minchah is the Parshah of Arayos.
Why is this particular Parshah read on Yom Kippur at Minchah?

RASHI explains that the Parshah of Arayos is read in order to arouse the people to repent. The
sins of Arayos are very severe and carry harsh punishments, but at the same time they are very
common due to man's lust for them (see Chagigah 11b). The Parshah of Arayos is read on Yom
Kippur to arouse people to repent for these sins.

Rashi's words may also explain the Gemara in Yoma (67b) which says that the Sa'ir la'Azazel of
Yom Kippur is called "Azazel" because it atones for the sins of Arayos (see Rashi there). However,
the Sa'ir of Yom Kippur atones for all sins. Why does the Gemara say specifically that it atones
for the sins of Arayos? Perhaps the intention of the Gemara there is to demonstrate the

5
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-031.htm

11
effectiveness of the Sa'ir of Yom Kippur in atoning for all sins by giving an example of a very
common and very severe sin for which the Sa'ir atones.

TOSFOS explains that the Parshah of Arayos is read in order to prevent people from committing
a sin of Arayos on Yom Kippur itself. Since the women make themselves attractive (and come to
the synagogue) in honor of Yom Kippur, the people need an extra warning to remind them of the
severity of Arayos.

The RASHASH adds that the extra warning is especially appropriate in light of the Gemara at the
end of Ta'anis, which describes how the young women of Yerushalayim would adorn themselves
and go out to find their match on Yom Kippur.

The MACHZOR VITRI cites the Gemara in Yoma (67b) which says that when the Torah
commands, "Es Mishpatai Ta'asu" (Vayikra 18:4), it refers to Mitzvos such as Arayos for which
the reasons are obvious, and from which one would have known to refrain based on common sense.
When the verse says, "v'Es Chukosai Tishmeru," it refers to Mitzvos which seem to have no reason,
such as the Sa'ir la'Azazel. The Gemara warns that one must not think that such Mitzvos are
meaningless, but rather one must understand that they are decrees from Hash-m, and they may not
be criticized, as the verse concludes, "Ani Hash-m."

The Parshah of Arayos also ends with the words, "Ani Hash-m." This Parshah reminds the people
that just as they follow the prohibitions of Arayos willingly because the logic for those prohibitions
is obvious, so, too, the people must eagerly follow the Mitzvos which have no apparent reason,
such as the Sa'ir la'Azazel. The Parshah of Arayos is read on Yom Kippur to strengthen and declare
our Emunah in the Mitzvah of the Sa'ir la'Azazel (since one who denies the validity of that Mitzvah
cannot attain atonement through it).

TOSFOS quotes the Midrash which gives another reason for reading the Parshah of Arayos on
Yom Kippur. By reading that Parshah, we express to Hash-m that just as we are careful not to be
Megaleh Arayos, so, too, Hash-m should not be Megaleh (expose) our Ervah (our shameful sins).

THE TORAH READING AND HAFTARAH ON SIMCHAS TORAH

The Gemara teaches that the Torah reading on Simchas Torah is Parshas v'Zos ha'Berachah, and
the Haftarah is the chapter of "va'Ya'amod Shlomo" (Melachim I 8:22).

TOSFOS writes that in some places the Haftarah is the first chapter of Sefer Yehoshua, "Vayehi
Acharei Mos Moshe" (this is the common practice today). Tosfos says that although some claim
that Rav Hai Ga'on instituted that the first chapter of Yehoshua be read as the Haftarah for Simchas
Yom Tov, this practice is questionable since there seems to be no reason to disregard what the
Gemara says.

The ROSH writes that the source for reading the first chapter of Yehoshua as the Haftarah on
Simchas Torah is the Yerushalmi. (This is no reference to this Haftarah in our edition of the
Yerushalmi.)

12
What is the reason for the common practice to read on Simchas Torah a Haftarah which the Gemara
does not mention?

The ROSH (on the Mishnah) asks why the Gemara says that the chapter of "va'Ya'amod Shlomo"
is the Haftarah of Simchas Torah. The Haftarah read on Shabbos or Yom Tov must have some
connection to the Parshah which was read, but the chapter of "va'Ya'amod Shlomo" is not related
to the Parshah of v'Zos ha'Berachah. Although "va'Ya'amod Shlomo" discusses a topic relevant to
the day of Simchas Torah -- the blessing which Shlomo ha'Melech gave to the Jewish people on
the last day of Sukos -- it is not related to the Torah reading. (That it is related to the day does not
suffice.) Why does the Gemara prescribe such a Haftarah?

The Rosh answers that the Gemara means that in addition to Parshas v'Zos ha'Berachah, another
Sefer Torah is supposed to be opened from which the Parshah of the Korbanos of Shemini Atzeres
is read. Consequently, the Haftarah of "va'Ya'amod Shlomo" indeed relates to the Torah reading,
because both refer to the last day of Sukos.

The RAN explains that the Haftarah of "va'Ya'amod Shlomo" is related to the reading of Parshas
v'Zos ha'Berachah. Parshas v'Zos ha'Berachah is read not merely because it is the end of the Torah,
but because Shemini Atzeres is the last of the year's festivals. At such a time, when the Jews return
to their homes after the last festival, it is appropriate to read the blessings with which Moshe
blessed the Jewish people as recorded in v'Zos ha'Berachah. This is also the reason why Shlomo
ha'Melech blessed the nation on that day; it was the last day of Sukos, and he wanted to leave them
with a blessing. Accordingly, the Haftarah is directly related to the reading of v'Zos ha'Berachah.
It is evident from the words of the Rosh and the Ran that the reading of v'Zos ha'Berachah
expresses two completely different themes. According to the Rosh, the reading of v'Zos
ha'Berachah marks the end of the yearly cycle of the Torah reading. This theme is not related to
the Haftarah which the Gemara mentions, but it is related to the Haftarah which is read today
(Yehoshua 1), which continues where the Torah left off, so to speak, at the death of Moshe
Rabeinu.

A second theme is evident from the words of the Ran. Parshas v'Zos ha'Berachah is read because
it contains the blessing given to the Jewish people at the end of the yearly cycle of festivals. This
theme is clearly related to the Haftarah which the Gemara prescribes for Simchas Torah,
"va'Ya'amod Shlomo."

Perhaps this is the basis for the change in the Haftarah of Simchas Torah. Originally, Shemini
Atzeres was not the designated day for the completion of the reading of the Torah. Some
communities completed the Torah on the Shabbos between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur,
while others completed it at other times. In Eretz Yisrael, where the practice was to read the Torah
in a three-year cycle, they certainly did not complete it every year on Shemini Atzeres. At the time
of the Gemara, Shemini Atzeres was not the designated day on which the Torah was completed.
Rather, a Sefer Torah was taken out and Parshas v'Zos ha'Berachah was read from it in order to
read an expression of blessing at the end of the festivals. Consistent with this purpose for reading
v'Zos ha'Berachah, the Gemara prescribes "va'Ya'amod Shlomo" as the Haftarah, in which Shlomo
ha'Melech also blesses the people at the end of the yearly cycle of festivals.

13
In a later era, it became the practice to complete the yearly Torah reading cycle on Shemini Atzeres
(Simchas Torah). Consequently, the purpose for reading v'Zos ha'Berachah changed. No longer
was it read as an expression of blessing for the people, but rather it was read as the completion of
the yearly cycle of the Torah reading. The change in the theme of v'Zos ha'Berachah caused a
change in the Haftarah, so that the practice now is to read "Vayehi Acharei Mos Moshe."
(The MESHECH CHOCHMAH, end of Devarim, suggests a similar approach.)

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURSES IN PARSHAS KI SAVO

AND THOSE IN PARSHAS BECHUKOSAI

The Gemara rules that the one who reads from the Torah is permitted to pause in the middle of the
curses in Parshas Ki Savo (in "Mishneh Torah," or Devarim), but he is not permitted to pause in
the middle of the curses in Parshas Bechukosai. The reason for the difference is that the curses in
Mishneh Torah "were said in the singular (Lashon Yachid) and by Moshe himself," while those in
Parshas Bechukosai "were said in the plural (Lashon Rabim), and they were said by Hash-m
(through Moshe)."

What does the Gemara mean when it says that Moshe Rabeinu said the curses in Mishneh Torah
by himself? The entire Torah was said by Hash-m and written down by Moshe Rabeinu. How can
the Gemara say that he said the curses by himself?

TOSFOS explains that Moshe Rabeinu did not say the curses in Mishnah Torah entirely by
himself. Rather, he said them through "Ru'ach ha'Kodesh."

What does Tosfos mean? The rest of the Torah was also said by Moshe Rabeinu with Ru'ach
ha'Kodesh. In what way does Mishneh Torah differ from the rest of the Torah?

The VILNA GA'ON (cited by the OHEL YAKOV and in PENINIM MI'SHULCHAN
HA'GRA, beginning of Parshas Devarim) explains that the difference is that the rest of the Torah,
until Mishneh Torah, was expressed verbally by Moshe Rabeinu as he received the Nevu'ah from
Hash-m ("ha'Shechinah Medaberes mi'Toch Grono"). In contrast, Moshe Rabeinu communicated
Mishneh Torah to the Jewish people only after he had finished receiving the Nevu'ah from Hash-
m, and not at the moment that Hash-m spoke to him. (See also MAHARAL in TIFERES
YISRAEL, ch. 43.)

Why did Moshe Rabeinu relay the curses in Mishneh Torah in this way? Why did he wait to relate
them until his Nevu'ah had finished?

The words of the Vilna Ga'on imply that all of Mishneh Torah was taught in that manner, and not
just the curses. The MINCHAS ANI (by the author of the Aruch la'Ner,
RAV YAKOV ETLINGER) explains the reason for this. The Jewish people were unable to
endure the intense holiness of Dibur which emanated directly from Hash-m. In Mishneh Torah,
which is primarily a review of the Mitzvos (which is why it is called "Mishneh Torah"), Moshe
Rabeinu spared the people the fright of having to hear the Dibur directly from Hash-m, and he told
them the Nevu'ah after he had received it and not at the same moment that he received it. However,

14
the first time they were taught the Mitzvos (before Mishneh Torah) they needed to hear them
directly from Hash-m.

The MAHARSHA in Bava Basra (88b) explains that Moshe Rabeinu taught Mishneh Torah in
Arvos Mo'av, after the Jewish people had accepted upon themselves the obligation of "Arvus" --
responsibility for each other's actions (Sotah 37b). This is why the curses in Mishneh Torah are in
the singular form (Lashon Yachid). When he related to the Jewish people the punishments for the
various transgressions, Moshe Rabeinu needed to teach that each individual would be held
accountable for the other person's sins because of "Arvus" -- each man is responsible for the other.
He thus addressed the people in the singular form in order to emphasize that every person is
responsible for the sins of every other member of the nation. If this communication would have
come directly from Hash-m, the Jewish people would have mistakenly assumed that Hash-m was
speaking in the singular form simply because He was speaking to Moshe Rabeinu, but not to each
and every Jew. This communication had to come from Moshe Rabeinu so that it would be obvious
that it was not directed only to Moshe but to every individual member of the nation.

In contrast, the curses in Parshas Bechukosai were given before the people came to Arvos Mo'av
and before they accepted the obligation of "Arvus." At that time, the only way for an individual to
be subject to punishment is if the person himself sinned. Any person who did not sin would not be
punished. Therefore, the curses were said in the plural form (Lashon Rabim). It was not necessary
for Moshe to say it over on his own because it was obvious that the communication -- even when
spoken directly by Hash-m -- was addressed to the entire nation and not to Moshe (since it was in
the plural form).

A BLESSED NEW YEAR, A CURSED OLD ONE

The Beraisa relates in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar that Ezra instituted that the curses in
Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:14-43) be read from the Torah before Shavuos, and those of
Mishneh Torah (Devarim 28:15-68) be read before Rosh Hashanah. The Gemara explains that this
is done to symbolize that the past year should finish along with all of the curses associated with it.
The Gemara explains that Shavuos is considered a new year because the Mishnah (Rosh Hashanah
16a) says that on Shavuos the world is judged for "the fruit of the trees."

There are several difficulties with this Gemara.

First, why does the reading of curses before Rosh Hashanah symbolize a blessed new year? On
the contrary, reading the curses before Rosh Hashanah seems to be a way of "ushering in" curses,
rather than "ushering out" curses! Indeed, TOSFOS (DH Klalos) writes that the custom today is
to read a Parshah that does not mention curses on the Shabbos immediately before Rosh Hashanah,
and to read the curses two weeks before Rosh Hashanah in order to avoid reading the curses
immediately before Rosh Hashanah. Tosfos seems to give this "break" from curses so that the
curses are not read right before the beginning of the new year. What, then, does the Gemara mean?
Second, why is the set of curses in Sefer Vayikra read specifically before Shavuos, and the set of
curses in Sefer Devarim read specifically before Rosh Hashanah?

15
Third, there are actually four different days of Rosh Hashanah in the year, as listed in the Mishnah
in Rosh Hashanah. Why did Ezra institute that the "year end with its curses" only for two of them?
Fourth, the original practice in Eretz Yisrael was to read the Torah in a three-year cycle, as opposed
to the annual cycle which is practiced today (Megilah 29b). How did the Jews in Eretz Yisrael
observe Ezra's institution to read the curses before Rosh Hashanah every year if their cycle reached
each set of curses only once in three years? (MAHARATZ CHAYOS)

These questions point towards a new understanding of Ezra's enactment. Apparently, Ezra's
enactment did not require that the normal Torah reading be deliberately arranged so that the curses
are read before Rosh Hashanah. Rather, he enacted that in the course of the weekly readings, the
curses should not be read shortly after the start of a new year, because starting a year with curses
is a bad omen. He proposed that when the curses in the regular cycle of the weekly reading coincide
with a Rosh Hashanah, the reading of the curses should be advanced to the Shabbos before the
new year.

This explains why the curses of Vayikra are associated with Shavuos and those of Devarim with
Rosh Hashanah. The yearly cycle of readings naturally causes those Parshiyos to be read near those
festivals. For the same reason, Ezra had no need to make an enactment for the Rosh Hashanah
associated with Sukos or for the Rosh Hashanah associated with Pesach. No reading of curses
coincides with those days of Rosh Hashanah.

Moreover, even those who followed the three-year cycle of the Torah reading were able to fulfill
Ezra's enactment. Since it was a preventative enactment and not an active one, if the curses would
ever fall in a weekly reading shortly after a Rosh Hashanah, that reading would be advanced to the
Shabbos before the Rosh Hashanah. The enactment included no obligation to actively arrange the
readings in such a way that the curses would be read before Shavuos or Rosh Hashanah.

This explains why reading the curses before the festival is a sign of blessing for the new year. The
curses anyway must be read near the festival due to the yearly cycle. By reading them before the
festival as opposed to afterwards, we avoid "starting the year with curses" and instead usher in a
year of blessing.

A more in-depth understanding, however, may be gleaned from the words of the Midrash
(Tanchuma, beginning of Parshas Netzavim). The Midrash says that when the Jewish people heard
the "100-less-two" curses of Devarim in addition to the 49 curses in Vayikra, they did not think
that they would be able to survive all of them. Moshe Rabeinu calmed them by pointing out that
they had already sinned terribly in the desert and yet they had not been destroyed.

The Midrash then asks why the Nochrim were destroyed for their sins while the Jews were not. It
answers that when the Nochrim are punished they do not turn to Hash-m in repentance, but rather
they rebel as a result of their suffering. In contrast, when the Jews are punished, they humble
themselves and pray to Hash-m. The Midrash concludes that in that sense "the curses preserve
their spiritual integrity."

It is not only the physical suffering of punishment that arouses a reaction of contrition. The prudent
do not need to be punished; the very consideration of the wrath of Hash-m humbles them and

16
inspires them to turn their hearts and prayers to their Creator. This may have been part of the
purpose of Ezra's enactment. He wanted the people to read the curses and thereby be aroused to
repent, specifically before Rosh Hashanah, the Day of Judgment. When the people sincerely
repent, they merit to be judged for a year of prosperity. (Perhaps the reason for the common custom
to read the curses two weeks before the festival, as Tosfos says, is in order to give the people time
to repent.)

Another point deserves consideration. The number of curses in Devarim is "100-less-two," as the
Tanchuma says. This unusual way of expressing the number may imply that there are not merely
"98" curses, but rather 100 curses, two of which differ in some way from the others.

The KLI YAKAR (beginning of Parshas Netzavim) explains that the two different curses are
those specified in the verse, "Also any sickness and any punishment that is not written in this
Torah, Hash-m will bring upon you" (Devarim 28:61). The curses of "sickness" and of
"punishment" are written in the verse ("Hash-m will bring [them] upon you"), while at the same
time they are left unwritten ("any sickness and any punishment that is not written in this Torah").
These two curses are the two that are removed from the count of 100. Accordingly, the full count
of curses in Mishneh Torah is actually 100 and not just 98.

With this in mind, it may be suggested that just as Ezra's reading of the curses of Vayikra arouse
one to take heed of the 49 curses and repent, so, too, the 49 days of Sefiras ha'Omer, which begin
from the second day of Pesach and culminate at Shavuos, allude to those 49 curses. Similarly, just
as Ezra's enactment to read the 100 curses in Devarim before Rosh Hashanah reminds the people
to take heed of the curses and to repent, so, too, the 100 blasts of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah
arouse the people to awaken from their slumber and return to Hash-m.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:6

What is the Torah reading on Yom Kippur?

We learned in the Mishnah that on Yom Kippur we read Acharei Mot – where we find the
commandments to Aharon the kohen gadol about how to enter the Holy of Holies
(see Vayikra 16:1-34). Since the only person who is permitted to enter the kodesh kodashim is the
High Priest on Yom Kippur, the choice of this reading seems most appropriate. The Gemara quotes
a baraita that adds information about the haftara – Yeshayahu 58, which discusses repentance and
the ideal fast day from God’s perspective – as well as the readings for the afternoon service on Yom
Kippur. According to the baraita, during Minchah we read the laws of forbidden sexual
relations (Vayikra chapter 18) and for the Haftarah we read the entire book of Yonah.

The choice to read the laws of forbidden sexual relations on Yom Kippur seems to be an odd
one. Rashi suggests that since such sins are relatively common – given that sexual desires are part
of human nature – it therefore makes sense to offer a public call to the people to repent from such
sins on Yom Kippur. Tosafot says that it is commonplace to find women attending the synagogue
dressed in their finery to honor the holy day, so it is necessary to remind the congregation to take
6
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah3032/

17
care in their interactions between the sexes. Tosafot also mention a midrash that teaches how
reading these rules is a hint to God. We are saying to him “just as You commanded us to restrict
our activities regarding uncovering nakedness, we beseech You to show sensitivity today and
refrain from uncovering our nakedness (i.e., our sins).”

A different approach is taken by one of the later commentaries, Rabbi Yosef Messing in his Gal
Na’ul. According to him, this section of the Torah is read specifically because the Jewish people
are careful with regard to these laws, thus publicly announcing them is a statement indicating that
we are righteous in our behaviors.

Avraham Avinu asked Hashem how the Jewish people would survive if they would sin.7

Would they perhaps be destroyed, as was the fate of the generation of the Flood and those who
built the Tower of Bavel? Hashem reassured Avraham that his descendants would be forgiven
through the offerings in the Beis HaMikdash.

Avraham was still concerned. “This will protect them as long as the Beis HaMikdash is built. What
will be their guarantee to survival when the Beis HaMikdash is in a state of ruin?” Hashem
informed Avraham that whenever his children will read and study about the offerings, they will be
credited as if they actually brought them, and they will be forgiven. Mitzpeh Eisan points out that
the Toras Kohanim (Emor 10) teaches that atonement can certainly be achieved even without the
Beis HaMikdash.

When a person designates the appropriate agricultural gifts from his field ‫ לק‬,‫ שכחה‬,‫ פאה‬,‫מעשר‬
‫ שני‬it is considered for him as if the Beis HaMikdash is built, and that he has brought all the
offerings. What, then, was the concern of Avraham Avinu of how atonement would be achieved
without the destruction of the Beis Hamikdaash ‫קדושה ראשונה קדשה לעתיד לבא‬.

Therefore, the obligation to designate teruma, etc., remain a Torah obligation. Our Gemara,
however, where Hashem told Avraham that atonement hinges upon study of the laws of the
offerings, reflects the opinion that the holiness of the Land has been cancelled until the exile ends.
In the interim, the agricultural gifts remain only as rabbinic laws, and true atonement is attained
only through Torah study.

Ta” z (Divrei David to Bereshis 32:5) cites our Gemara to explain the response of Yaakov to Eisav
before their confrontation in Parashas Vayishlach. Yaakov proclaimed, “I have dwelled (‫( גרתי‬with
Lavan.” Our sages teach that Yaakov claimed that he fulfilled all 613 mitzvos while he resided at
Lavan’s house. The question is how can this be accurate, when many mitzvos can only be fulfilled

7
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20031.pdf

18
by kohanim, and others can only be done in Eretz Yisroel? However, as we have seen, study can
take the place of actual fulfillment, when there is no other choice.

This was Yaakov’s intent, as he had studied all the philosophical concepts of the Torah.

[Hashem] said to him [Avrohom]: I have already established for them the order of the korbonos,
any time they read the parasha I will consider it as if they offered the Korban and I will forgive
them for all their transgressions.

Tur (1) writes: When a person finish reading the parasha of the Korban Olah he should recite the
that the recitation should be considered as if he offered a Korban Olah. When a person
finish reading the parasha of the Korban Chatas he should not recite a , since a Korban
Chatas cannot be brought as a voluntary offering.

Rav Yosef Karo (2), the Beis Yosef, asks: If the person is not going to make the declaration that
the recitation of the parasha of the Korban Chatas should be considered as if he offered a Korban
Chatas, why is he reading the parasha altogether? Beis Yosef answers that the reading of the
parasha atones a little if he transgressed a prohibition that warrants the offering of a Korban Chatas,
and even if he does not know that he sinned he should read the parasha. If he sinned it will atone,
and if he did not sin, it is as if he read from the Torah.

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (3), the Har Tzvi, questions the meaning of Beis Yosef’s words that reading
the parasha atones a little. From our Gemara it does not seem that there is a limit regarding the
capacity of the recitation to atone, so why does Beis Yosef apply different measures to Chazal’s
statement? Har Tzvi explains that it is illogical to assume that merely reading the parasha of the
Korban is the same as offering the Korban. If that was the case, even in the time of the Beis
HaMikdash there would be no reason to offer a Korban, for people could simply stay home and
read the parasha.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that the reading of the parasha does not provide full atonement.
Rather, the effectiveness of reading the parasha is that it protects a person from punishment until
the time that a Korban can be brought.

19
“In the place where you find the greatness of HaKadosh Boruch Hu, that is where you find His
compassionate humility.”

The Arvei Nachal, zt” l, explains this with a parable. “Once there was a great king who was
traveling to a certain destination. As he was descending from his royal coach, a very coarse
commoner had the audacity to approach the king and start to praise him. In his own simple way,
he tried to express his feelings about the greatness of his majesty. It was obvious that the servants
of the king removed that commoner from the scene as soon as they could, since such primitive
praise from such a lowly person was not considered a compliment to the king no matter how well-
meaning the man was.

Everyone understood that the fellow’s imposition on the time and attention of the king was really
a huge affront—what nerve, for such a simple person do think that he had the right to approach
the king! Had he no fear of his sovereign? He should have been afraid to make an advance toward
the king unless he had some indication that the king wished to speak to him. Not just anyone is on
an elevated enough station to praise the king. This is what bards or noblemen do with grace and
eloquence, not commoners who have not even been summoned before the monarch! “Yet Hashem
is not like this at all.

To approach Him, even the most exalted personage must rely on His great humility, otherwise it
would be no more fitting than the lowliest commoner making an advance to speak with the
mightiest ruler. Even the fact that we can call Hashem by any Name is only because of His
compassionate humility!

This is why Chazal said that anywhere you see Hashem’s greatness, that is where you see His
humility!”

When Rav Refael of Barshud, zt” l, was asked about this he would say, “This means that when
you find a person who holds Hashem in the highest possible esteem you will
always find that the person is exceedingly humble

And the inverse is also true. A person who lacks humility has no inclination to see the greatness
of Hashem!”

20
Sara Ronis writes:8

Spider-Man’s uncle famously said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” (Though he
was not the first — similar statements are found in the speeches of many 20th century statesmen,
from Winston Churchill to Teddy Roosevelt, and before that in writings composed at the time of
the French Revolution and even the Sword of Damocles, from the fourth century BCE.) Power is
famously dangerous — it can lead to a disconnect from the less powerful, a lack of empathy and
megalomania. It takes intention and effort to remember one’s responsibility to the world and one’s
fellow humans — intention and effort that Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben wanted his remarkable nephew
to be aware of.

Our daf tells us something else: With ultimate power comes ultimate humility. How ultimate?
We’re talking about God.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Wherever you find the might of the Holy One, Blessed be He, you find his
humility. This fact is written in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets, and stated a third time in
the Writings.

Rabbi Yochanan notes that when the Hebrew Bible mentions God’s ultimate power and authority,
the next verse in some way demonstrates God’s humility. And this is found in all three sections of
the Hebrew Bible: Torah, Prophets and Writings.

When we think about humility, we often think of people downplaying their accomplishments,
having no need to brag. But the examples that Rabbi Yohanan now brings highlight a different
aspect of the term:

It is written in the Torah: “For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of
lords,” (Deuteronomy 10:17) and it is written afterward: “He executes the judgment of the
fatherless and widow.” (Deuteronomy 10:18)

It is repeated in the Prophets: “thus says the High and Lofty One that inhabits eternity, whose
name is sacred,” (Isaiah 57:15) and it is written afterward: “In the high and holy place I dwell
with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive
the heart of the contrite ones” (Isaiah 57:15).

It is stated a third time in the Writings, as it is written: “Extol Him who rides upon the clouds,
whose name is the Lord,”(Psalms 68:5) and it is written afterward: “A father of the fatherless,
and a judge of widows.” (Psalms 68:6)

In a world where land and wealth were largely held by men and passed down to men, the fatherless
and the widow were particularly economically vulnerable — after all, if you don’t own land and
land equals wealth, then you are dependent on the support of others. In these verses, the all-
powerful God explicitly (and exclusively!) works on behalf of these vulnerable populations.

8
Myjewishlearning.com

21
Humility here isn’t a downplaying of God’s accomplishments but God’s commitment to justice
for those who are vulnerable.

The editors of the Talmud bring this teaching of Rabbi Yohanan in connection with their discussion
of which Torah readings and haftarahs are read on which holidays — the text from Isaiah 57 being
the haftarah for Yom Kippur. This is the connective tissue which leads the editors to cite Rabbi
Yohanan’s teaching about this verse.

The medieval commentator Rashi suggests that the haftarah from Isaiah was chosen for Yom
Kippur because it discusses both repentance and fasting. Of course, when we read the passage
from Isaiah ourselves, we likely notice that the prophet actually rejects the efficacy of fasting, and
argues instead that we need to commit ourselves to justice for the economically vulnerable:

No, this is the fast I desire:

To unlock fetters of wickedness,
And untie the cords of the yoke
To let the oppressed go free;
To break off every yoke.
It is to share your bread with the hungry,
And to take the wretched poor into your home;
When you see the naked, to clothe him,
And not to ignore your own kin. (Isaiah 58:6-7)

This kind of commitment takes effort and profound empathy. Rabbi Yohanan’s teaching connects
this commitment to the greatness of God. After all, with great power comes great responsibility,
and with great might comes (or should come) great humility.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:9

Our daf (Megillah 31b) contains a pithy teaching that conveys a lesson derived from an episode
in Sefer Melachim (The Book of Kings) - a lesson that is sadly is far too often overlooked today.
In terms of Sefer Melachim, when Rehavam (‫ )רחבעם‬the son of Shlomo ascended to the throne, he
was approached by the people with a request for a tax break: ‘Your father made our yoke heavy –
now, relieve the heavy workload and the harsh yoke your father placed upon us, and we will serve
you’ (Melachim I 12:4).

Seemingly demonstrating great wisdom, Rehavam takes a few days to seek guidance about the
matter, during which time he consulted with the elders whom had previously served his father.
They advised him: ‘If you become this people’s servant today and serve them and respond to them
by speaking kind words, then they will become your servants forever’ (ibid. 12:7).

Unfortunately, however, Shlomo ‘rejected the advice that the elders gave him and consulted with
the youngsters who had grown up with him and who now served him’ (12:8) who told him to tell

9
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

22
the people: ‘My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. Now, my father burdened you with
a heavy yoke, but I will increase your yoke…’ (12:11).

Basing himself on the lessons derived from this story, we are taught by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar
in a Beraita in today’s daf that: ‘if elders say “destroy” and children say “build”, then destroy and
do not build, for the destruction of elders constitutes an act of construction, and the building of
youths constitutes an act of destruction’. As Rabbi Alex Israel explains, ‘according to this
approach, as a rule one should prefer the mature wisdom of the elder to the unripe, inexperienced
word of the youth which lacks perspective’ (I Kings: Torn in Two p. 157).

Yet though, on first glance, this teaching offers a ‘biting critique’ of the wisdom of all youth, Rabbi
Israel then points out that Shlomo chose to heed the wisdom of ‘the youngsters who had grown up
with him and who now served him’ - which ‘denotes a group… whose entire life experience has
been framed by the wealth and luxury of the Solomonic era. They are the palace crowd, the wealthy
and privileged who have never known a day of hardship in their lives. Their disastrous advice is
not merely a function of their age, but a matter of upbringing… dismissing the burden of the
hardworking peasantry’ (ibid.). From here we learn that while wisdom often comes with age, it
also comes from those who have had a broad range of life-experiences who understand the
challenges and burdens of all, and not just the privileged.

As should be clear from here, as well as so many other teachings in the Tanach & Talmud, Judaism
places great value on seeking wisdom from those who are older and wiser, or at the very least those
with wisdom beyond their years. Yet what we are often unprepared to acknowledge is that today’s
so-called ‘influencers’, the voices who possibly we - and more likely our children and students -
turn to for insight, often lack both wisdom and years.

As we know, these so-called influencers talk about ‘building’ profiles, ‘building’ an image, and
‘building’ a reputation. Yet so much of what is ‘taught’ by such people is the vanity of vanities,
and the lifestyles promoted by many such influencers almost always promote fame, wealth and
shallowness, over family, wisdom and morality.

In this spirit, ‘if elders say “destroy”’ – meaning that they advise us to ‘destroy’ the psychological
edifices which grant such so-called influencers the opportunity to lead us away from what should
be more important to us, ‘and children say “build”’ – meaning that we should continue to build
such edifices and heed the wisdom of the latest ‘stars’, ‘then destroy and do not build, for the
destruction of elders constitutes an act of construction, and the building of youths constitutes an
act of destruction’.

23
 The Uniqueness of the Tochachah

Rabbi Yonasan Sacks writes:10

The mishna (Megillah 21a) outlines the number of individuals called to the Torah throughout
the year. Although one cannot reduce the number of required aliyos, occasionally
additional aliyos are permitted. Rashi explains that additional aliyos unnecessarily prolong
the tefillah, causing undue hardship to those who work. Accordingly, on Shabbos, Yom
Kippur, and yom tov, when melacha is forbidden, hosafos are permitted.

The Ran, however, maintains that the number of aliyos reflect the level of the kedushas
hayom, the sanctity of the day. To underscore the heightened sanctity of yom tov above chol
hamoed, the chachamim insist that on yom tov an extra person is called to the Torah. If one
would add aliyos on chol hamoed, it would appear as though one is inappropriately
equating yom tov and chol hamoed. If so, hosafos would only be allowed on Shabbos, the
pinnacle of kedushas hayom.

10
https://torahweb.org/torah/2005/parsha/rsac_bechukosai.html

24
Although hosafos are generally permitted on Shabbos, the mishna (Megillah 31a) teaches,
"ein mafsikin b'klalos, ela echad koreh es kulo - we may not interrupt the reading of the curses,
rather one person is called and reads the entire passage."

The gemara (31a) which limits the teaching to the tochacha in parshas Bechukosai offers two
explanations of this mishna. According to Rav Chiya bar Gamda amar Rabi Assi
our mishna reflects the passuk (Mishle 3), "mussar Hashem b'ni al timmas - the
admonishment of Hashem, my son, do not disdain," which underscores the inappropriateness
of interrupting mussar Hashem. Reish Lakish, however, maintains that the mishna is based
on the general principle, "ein omrim beracha al hapuranus - we do not recite a bracha on
punishment." If an aliyah was added in the middle of the tochacha, the new oleh would be
reciting a bracha on a davar ra.

The Taz (Orach Chaim 428) raises an obvious difficulty. Although the view of Reish Lakish
conforms to our common practice where each oleh recites his own brachos, the custom in the
time of the mishna was that only the first and last oleh recite brachos. If so, even if we were
to add an oleh in the middle of the tochacha, the new oleh would not recite an
additional bracha. How, then, can Reish Lakish explain the mishna in this way?

The Taz answers that although in the time of the mishna each oleh relied on the first bracha of
the kohein and the concluding bracha of the acharon, each oleh could recite his own bracha.
Indeed, if an individual called to the Torah did not hear the initial bracha, he would be
obligated to recite his own bracha. Therefore, the concern of Reish Lakish is applicable even
in earlier times.

The Nachalas Yaakov (peirush to maseches Sofirm, perek 12) based on the maseches
Sofirm and Yerushalmi suggests a novel answer. Although generally only one set
of brachos was recited for the entire krias haTorah, this was not true regarding the reading of
the tochacha. The gemara (Megillah 31b) explains that the reading of the berachos
u'klalos this Shabbos is a special enactment of Ezra. "Ezra tikein lahem l'Yisroel she'yehu
korin klalos sheb'toras kohanim kodem atzeres v'sheb'mishna Torah kodem Rosh Hashana -
Erza decreed that we should read the tochacha of Vayikra prior to Shavuos and
the tochacha of Devarim before Rosh Hashana".

As an independent takana of krias haTorah separate brachos were recited even in the time of
the mishna. Therefore, Reish Lakish explains that hosafos are forbidden.

The gemara teaches that we read the tochacha at this time to emphasize that "Atzeres nami
Rosh Hashana he d'tnan u'b'Atzeres al peiros hailan - Shavuos is also the beginning of the
year, for on Shavuos we are judged concerning the fruit of the trees." May we merit
the bracha of "Abayey v'e'teima Reish Lakish - kdai shetichle hashana v'kilaloseha"
- Shavuos should mark an end to all curse, tragedy and suffering.

25
Beracha U'Klala

The gemara our daf (Megillah 31b) explains that Ezra Hasofer established the practice of
reading the klalos sheb'Toras Kohanim, the curses found in Vayikra (26) before the yom
tov of Shavuos, and those of Sefer Devarim (28) prior to Rosh Hashana. Tosafos add, in the
name of Rabbeinu Nissim, that the klalos of Sefer Devarim, which begin in Parshas Ki Savo,
include part of Parsah Nitzavim as well. Because of this takonas Ezra, we always
read Parshas Nitzavim on the Shabbos before Rosh Hashana.

The Gaon of Vilna highlights an essential difference between the tochacha found
in Vayikra and the berachos u'kallos of Devarim. The tochacha in Vayikra is formulated in
the plural, "im b'chukosai timasu", addressing kol echad v'echad, each individual member
of Klal Yisroel. The berachos u'klalos of Sefer Devarim, however, which are statements in
the singular, embrace the totality of Keneses Yisroel.

This collective quality is emphasized by the pesukim of Parshas Nitzavim which follow
the tochacha, "v'lo itchem l'vadchem anochi koreis es habris hazos v'es ha'ala
hazos" Devarim (29:13) - "not with you alone do I seal this covenant and this imprecation."
Rashi explains that the phrase "v'lo itchem l'vadchem" includes even doros hasidim l'hiyos,
future generations. Indeed, the gemara (Sanhedrin 43b and Sotah 36b) explains that the
principal of communal responsibility - kol Yisroel areivim zeh bozeh - is rooted in this parsha.

The Rambam (Sefer Hanitzvos Shoresh 3) questions the view of the Halachos Gedolos, who
together with Rav Saddia Gaon lists berachos u'klalos as one of the 613 mitzvos. In what
sense do these berachos constitute a mitzvah l'doros?

Rav Yeruchum Perlow (Sefer Hamitzvos L'Rav Saddia Gaon, Perek 57) suggests that the
Halachos Gedolos was not referring to the ceremony and process of the tochacha which was
only a hora'as sha'a, but rather to the principle of arvus which is derived from this parsha.

The reading of the berachos u'klalos before Rosh Hashana remind us of the uniqueness
of kedushas Yisroel. May we be worthy of the fervent beracha - shetichle shana v'kililoseha -
that the conclusion of the year should mark an end of all tragedy and suffering.

26
 The Blessing of Curses: A Rosh Hashanah Puzzle

DAVID HOFFMAN writes:11

Here’s a puzzle for us to think about as we consider the spiritual work that we need to engage in
over the remaining days until Yom Kippur: The Talmud tells us—in the name of Rabbi Shimon
ben Elazar—that Ezra the Scribe decreed that, for all time, the Jewish people would read the
blessings and curses in Leviticus (Parashat Behukkotai) prior to the holiday of Shavuot and those
of Deuteronomy (Parashat Ki Tavo) before Rosh Hashanah (BT Megillah 31b). This decree is
strange. Reading these graphic and threatening chapters, which detail the good that will come if
we are faithful to God and the suffering that will be wrought if we forsake our relationship with
God, is difficult at any time. Why insist that we read them publicly as we ready ourselves to
celebrate these joyous holidays?

In our present-day communities, where we finish the Torah every year, the section of Leviticus
that includes the curses naturally falls before Shavuot. Parashat Ki Tavo in Deuteronomy—where
Moshe again offers the blessings and curses to the Israelites before they enter into the Land—also
naturally falls before Rosh Hashanah in the calendar.

However, for the Jews of the Land of Israel, who in ancient times completed the Torah in three
years, Ezra’s decree must have been quite jarring. Presumably, these communities would have had
to take out a second Torah scroll and read the curses in addition to the parashah of the week on the
Sabbaths before Rosh Hashanah and Shavuot.

11
https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/blessing-of-curses/

27
At any rate, Ezra’s mandate presents us with a question: Why did Ezra believe it was critical that
the Jewish people read the blessings and curses before Rosh Hashanah? Asked differently, in what
ways might hearing this section of the Torah be important for our spiritual work during this season?

On the most visceral level, reading the blessings and curses at a time when we are focused on
imagining new and nobler versions of ourselves and our communities highlights the stark
consequences of our choices. If we make good choices, good things will happen. If we make poor
choices—well, less good things await us. Our behavior and choices really do have consequences
in the world. Using the liturgy to confront the darkness that is promised if we do not choose well
may keep us on the right path. I think there is something to this, but I believe there is a richer and
more meaningful connection between the blessings and curses and Rosh Hashanah.

The Talmud—in the name of Abaye—suggests a more optimistic answer to our question: “So that
the year may end along with its curses.” As we finish the year, we read all of the curses—putting
them behind us, as if to say, so should our troubles be behind us. Then we can begin the new year
with a clean slate, fresh for our new ways of being in the world, without any negative baggage.
Indeed, this is a lovely framing for the end of one year and the beginning of another. But I still
believe there is more behind Ezra’s insistence on reading the blessings and curses in public as our
communities move into Rosh Hashanah.

A curious geonic (7–10th century) tradition referenced by Maimonides provides deeper insight
into Ezra’s decree. Most often, when we read the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy, we
experience them as promises of reward for loyalty to the Covenant and threats of violent
consequences for rejecting God. However, Maimonides shares a tradition that conceptualizes the
blessings and curses in a completely novel way.

Maimonides suggests that hearing the blessings and curses in Parashat Ki Tavo, which come when
the Israelites are about to enter into the Land of Israel before the original conquest, constituted the
fulfillment of an actual mitzvah! (Kelal shelishi in Sefer Hamitzvot) This is a startling assertion,
transforming the blessings and curses from a series of promises and threats to the level of
commandment. But what was this mitzvah?

In a very provocative remark, the Talmud suggests that prior to entering into the Land of Israel,
the nation as a whole was held accountable only for the public misdeeds of individuals. If a person
sinned in private, only the individual who misbehaved was held accountable. But as the nation
prepared to cross the Jordan River, something changed. From that moment onward, the entire
community of Israel became culpable for even the private misdeeds of other people (BT Sanhedrin
43b)! We are commanded to recognize our interconnectedness. Blessings would be earned and
experienced by the group.

Communal calamity would be the price for individual destructive decisions. Thus, when the
Israelites stood at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval, they heard the blessings that await those who
listen to God’s commandments and the punishments promised to those who disobey—but they
also heard a message that transcended all of these specifics. The entire nation was asked to
understand itself as radically interconnected and to appreciate the imperative that emerges from
this realization.

28
The mitzvah embedded in these verses of the promises and curses, then, is the mitzvah of arevut:
seeing the profound interconnectedness of the Jewish people. Each Jew is the “guarantor” (arev)
of every other Jew. That is, each Jew is fundamentally responsible for all other Jews. Through the
blessings and curses of Parashat Ki Tavo, the Torah is saying, we are in this project of living
together.

Areveut—feeling and acting on a sense of responsibility for those around us—in Judaism does not
fall under the category of altruism. Helping someone else is not an act of kindness. It is bound up
in a fundamental responsibility that we must all feel toward others. Just as I am responsible for my
own ethical life, I am responsible for that of others as well. If my neighbor falls and fails, it is my
pain and my failure too. And if I receive blessing, it is not simply because I as an individual have
earned it; the group also shares responsibility for my success.

I like to think that these ideas stand behind the reasons for Ezra’s decree to read the blessings and
curses before Rosh Hashanah. At a time when many of us are focused on our own individual
growth and betterment, we are reminded of the profound interconnectedness of all our
communities and lives. I can’t be a better person if I ignore the state of the individuals in my
community. This is the mitzvah of arevut that I personally need to hear as I move into this holiday
season.

‘Agents and Demons’ Parashat Behar-Bechukotai 5781

Ari Sacher writes:12

12
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/agents-and-demons-parashat-behar-bechukotai-5781/

29
The Tochecha (Admonition) is a graphic description of what will happen if we abandon G-d and
His Torah. It is read twice a year, once in the portion of Bechukotai and once in the portion of Ki
Tavo. The Talmud in Tractate Megilla [31b] teaches that the Tochecha is always read in close
proximity to the holidays of Shavuot, the day commemorating the giving of the Torah, and Rosh
Hashanah, the Day of Judgement. This is in order to make its message more relevant: The Torah
is the source of life. Leaving it will surely lead to death.

The Tochecha begins with a warning [Vayikra 26:15-16]: “If you do not obey Me and you do not
observe all these commandments, if you reject My laws and spurn My rules, so that you do not
observe all My commandments and you break My covenant, I in turn will do this to you…” Noting
the Torah’s subsequent warning [Vayikra 26:18] “If, for all that, you do not obey Me, I will go on
to discipline you sevenfold for your sins”, our Sages in the Midrash suggest that
the Tochecha presents a quid pro quo (mida k’neged mida) in which the Jewish People are
punished for each of the seven sins enumerated in its opening verse[1]: [1] Not listening to G-d,
[2] not performing His commandments, [3] rejecting His laws, [4] spurning His rules, [5] not
observing His commandments, [6] breaking His covenant, and [7] not repenting for our sins[2].
Over the years, many of the commentators have gone down this path of quid pro quo, mapping the
punishments in the Tochecha with the sins that caused them.

Midway through the Tochecha, we are introduced to the concept of “keri” [Vayikra 26:21]: “If
you remain hostile (keri) toward Me and refuse to obey Me, I will go on smiting you sevenfold for
your sins.” Our Sages in Midrash, noting that the word “keri” shares its root with the word
“mikreh (coincidence)”, assert that the Torah is adjuring us not to explain away our punishments
as mere coincidence or happenstance. Only if we understand how we are being punished, can we
understand why we are being punished.

30
Not recognizing this causal relation will result in deadly repercussions [Vayikra 26:24]: “I too will
remain hostile (keri) to you: I in turn will smite you sevenfold for your sins.” If the Jewish People
attribute punishment to mere randomness, to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, then G-
d will, quid pro quo, cloak His punishment in randomness, rendering it all the more difficult to
recognize that we are being punished and making it impossible to take the necessary steps to
remedy the situation. Rabbi Chaim ben Atar, known as the Or HaChaim HaKadosh, who lived in
Morocco in the first half of the eighteenth century, teaches that if the Jewish People do not get the
message and if they remain blind to the cause and effect, eventually G-d’s quid pro quo response
will begin to break down. Additional randomness will be progressively added to the punishment
until it becomes impossible to extrapolate the cause from the effect. G-d will go completely
undercover in what our Sages refer to as “Hester Panim (Hiddenness of the Divine
Countenance) [3]”.

Before presenting an alternate explanation for the concept of “keri”, some historical background
is necessary. We were rudely introduced to the concept of phantom traffic jams in the summer of
2005. We were returning home to Manchester from Birmingham, where we had spent the day
visiting Cadbury World, definitely one of the Seven Wonders of the World. It was a Friday, but
because Shabbat came in so late, we thought that leaving at 2:00 pm would give us sufficient time
to get home and prepare for Shabbat. What should have been a short two-hour drive turned into a
four-hour nightmare. Soon after we got onto the highway, traffic suddenly came to a standstill.
About thirty minutes later, just as suddenly, the traffic dissipated. This cycle repeated itself
multiple times. The fascinating thing was that there we could see no discernible cause for the traffic
jams — not an accident nor a policeman with a radar – nor was there a clear reason for their sudden
dissipation.

Phantom traffic jams are easily modelled and can be reproduced and predicted using simulations.
Each car is modelled as an “autonomous agent” or “cellular automaton”. An autonomous agent
senses the environment and reacts to stimuli via a set of rules. A well-known autonomous agent is

31
“Conway’s Game of Life”, devised by John Conway in 1970. The Game of Life is played on a
grid, where each point on the grid is either “dead” or “alive”. The state of a point is determined by
its immediate neighbours: not enough living neighbours causes a point to die of loneliness while
too many living neighbours causes it to die of starvation. The game is run iteratively, where at
each iteration, or generation, each point on the grid re-evaluates whether it is dead or alive. When
visualized, the Game of Life exhibits interesting and predictable patterns.

Highway traffic can be modelled as a set of autonomous agents, where each agent (car) will attempt
to maintain a certain speed and to keep its distance from nearby agents. Simulations can
demonstrate how small perturbations to the system, such as one driver hitting his brakes or one car
merging onto an already-full highway, can cause traffic to quickly come to a standstill.
Autonomous agents can also be used to simulate pedestrians. In 2015, a stampede that broke out
in Mecca caused the deaths of more than 2400 pilgrims. Subsequent modelling and simulation
showed how the stampede was the result of traffic patterns that were shaped by a four-story
pedestrian bridge. Oddly enough, that bridge had already been redesigned after a similar incident
in 2006.

The use of autonomous agents to simulate traffic is somewhat dehumanizing. Human beings —
both drivers and pedestrians — their thought processes, their decisions, their goals, and their
conscious, are reduced to a point on a grid that blinks on or off according to a few simple rules.
Life becomes deterministic and freedom of choice ceases to exist. It is almost demonic. This
concept of causal determinism was formulated by the French mathematician and physicist Pierre-
Simon Laplace. Laplace hypothesized the existence of a “demon” that possesses complete
knowledge of the universe at any particular time, allowing it to perfectly predict the future and
flawlessly retrace the past via the laws of mechanics.

With our newly found knowledge of agents and demons, we can revisit the concept of “keri”.
Rather than equating “keri” with the word “mikreh (coincidence)”, I propose equating “keri” with

32
the word “kara (happened)”. I suggest that that the Torah is adjuring us not to face life
deterministically, as a series of events that transpire while we stand back and watch helplessly.
Man is adjured to use his freedom of choice to counter determinism. He is ordered to shape his
future according to G-d’s will. The Tochecha warns us that if we refuse to accept this mission, if
we allow the world to be governed by deterministic laws of physics, then G-d will grant us our
wish and He will no longer shield us under His Divine wings.

Last Thursday, on the holiday of Lag Ba’omer, tens of thousands of Jews flocked to the town of
Meron, as they do every year, to celebrate at the tomb of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. For reasons
that are still unclear, a stampede ensued and forty-five people were tragically crushed to death.
This stampede, like the one in Mecca, could easily have been predicted using autonomous agents.
It was an accident waiting to happen. I would never, Heaven forbids, attribute this tragedy to
punishment for some sin but we must, nevertheless, learn something from it. The tragedy in Meron
could and should have been prevented, by reducing the number of celebrants or by using
autonomous agents to adjust the topography of the site in a way that made extreme overcrowding
less probable. Instead, we acted with keri, daring the laws of mechanics to work. G-d did not
intervene and forty-five people lost their lives.

As we read the Tochecha this week, let us vow to act as agents of G-d, not with determinism, but
with determination.

[1] This list is the one proposed by the Or HaChaim HaKadosh. It differs slightly by the list proposed in the Midrash Sifra. For

our purposes, it will suffice.

[2] “Not repenting” is not explicitly mentioned in the opening verse of the Tochecha but it appears numerous times in the course

of the Tochecha.

[3] The approach of the Or HaChaim HaKadosh can be used to explain an ensuing verse [Vayikra 26:28] “I will act against you in

wrathful hostility (hamat keri)”. The term “hamat keri”, literally “the heat of keri”, can be understood as randomness that has been

repeatedly amplified.

33
 The Blessing and the Curse, and the List of “the Cursed”

Rav Amnon Bazak writes:13

A. The Blessing and the Curse

Our parasha describes the procedure for the proclamation of the blessing and the curse on Mt.
Gerizim and Mt. Eival. First Moshe divides Bnei Yisrael into two groups, with half of the tribes
connected to the blessing and the other half to the curse:

The focus then shifts immediately to the Levites: “The Levites answered and said to every man of
Israel with a loud voice” – and then the Torah lists the “cursed,” each time concluding with the
same formula: “The whole nation said, Amen.”

This description raises a number of difficulties:

13
https://www.torahmusings.com/2014/09/blessing-curse-list-cursed/

34
 1. It would appear that the list of the “cursed” is itself the “curse” that is previously
mentioned. But if this is the case, what is the “blessing,” and why is it not mentioned
explicitly?
2. What is the relationship between the role of the tribes and the role of the Levites? At
first it seems that it is the tribes who are blessing and cursing, but further on the text
appears to be telling us that it is the Levites who perform the declaration – at least for
the curses.
3. From the verses it is not clear what the role of the tribe of Levi is: on the one hand, the
tribe of Levi is included among those who declare the blessings, but on the other hand,
it is they who enumerate the categories of the “cursed.”

Before attempting to solve these difficulties, let us take note of another important source for an
understanding of the parasha – the description of the actual process as it took place, in Sefer
Yehoshua (8:33-34):

The commentators propose two principal ways of understanding the parasha. Most (including
Rashi, Rashbam and others) base their explanation on the Mishna in Massekhet Sota (32a):

According to this approach, the list of “cursed” had a corresponding list of “blessed.” The “full
text” was read by the Levites, while the tribes themselves did nothing, except to answer “Amen”
for each of the blessings and the curses. The Gemara (37a) addresses the dual role of the Levites,
raising several possibilities:

35
According to R. Eliezer and R. Yoshia, the tribe of Levi was divided into two groups (with opinions
divided as to the criteria for the division), while Rabbi maintains that all the Levites actually stood
down below.

Whichever interpretation we adopt, the approach of the commentators, according to Chazal,

creates difficulties in relation to the literal text:

1. If, indeed, “the curse” mentioned at the beginning of the parasha is identified with the
list of categories of those who are “cursed,” it is not clear why the “blessed” are not
mentioned – especially since in the beginning we are told explicitly, “These shall stand
for the blessing.” How can it be that only the curses are mentioned?
2. Chazal’s approach leaves us unclear as to the division of the tribes and their roles, since
everyone answers “Amen” to all the blessings and all the curses.
3. Concerning the role of the tribe of Levi, even if we accept the opinions of R. Eliezer or
R. Yoshia – which are closer to our understanding of the literal text in Sefer Yehoshua
– we must still ask why our parasha makes no mention of this division.

It seems, therefore, that Ibn Ezra’s interpretation may sit better with the literal text. In his view,
“According to the literal text, the blessing is: ‘You shall be blessed in the city…,’ while the curse
is the opposite – witness Sefer Yehoshua.” In other words, the blessings and the curses are those
mentioned in the parasha of the rebuke, further on in chapter 28. We may bring several proofs for
this understanding:

1. The parasha of the blessings and the curses upon Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Eval is mentioned
for the first time in chapter 11, where the description appears as follows (verses 26-29):
“See, I give before you this day a blessing and a curse: the blessing, THAT [IF] YOU
WILL LISTEN TO THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD YOUR GOD WHICH
I COMMAND YOU THIS DAY: And the curse, IF YOU WILL NOT LISTEN TO
THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD YOUR GOD, and you stray from the path
WHICH I COMMAND YOU THIS DAY… And it shall be, when the Lord your God
brings you to the land where you are coming to inherit it, and you shall give the blessing
upon Mt. Gerizim and the curse upon Mt. Eival.” This description is very close to the
description in chapter 28: “IT SHALL BE, IF YOU WILL LISTEN TO THE VOICE

36
 OF THE LORD YOUR GOD, to observe and perform all of HIS COMMANDMENTS
WHICH I COMMAND YOU THIS DAY… Then all of these blessings will come upon
you… And it shall be IF YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE LORD
YOUR GOD, to observe and perform all of HIS COMMANDMENTS and statutes
WHICH I COMMAND YOU THIS DAY, then all of these curses shall come upon you
and overtake you.”

2. Six tribes “stand for the blessing,” the other six – for the curse. Correspondingly, in the
parasha of the rebuke the word “blessed” appears six times (verses 3-6), and likewise
the word “cursed” (verses 16-19).

3. Ibn Ezra himself bases his interpretation on the verses in Sefer Yehoshua. From the
verses cited above – “Thereafter he read all the words of the Torah, the blessing and the
curse, as all that is written in the Sefer Torah” – it indeed appears that it was Yehoshua
himself who read the parasha of the blessings and the curses on that occasion.

However, even if we adopt this understanding, we are left with a difficulty: why does the Torah
stop in the middle of the description of the blessings and the curses, and insert the description of
the declaration by the Levites and the list of the “cursed”? What is the relationship between the
two subjects?

B. “Cursed is the Man Who Does Not Uphold the Words of This Torah”
It appears that, according to Ibn Ezra’s approach, the ceremony on Mt. Eival and Mt. Gerizim was
divided into two parts. During the first part, the Levites stood and recited the list of the “cursed”
exclusively, and – as it appears from Sefer Yehoshua – during this stage the Levites stood between
the two mountains. During the second part, the blessings and curses listed in chapter 28 were
uttered, and here the Levites had no special function. From Sefer Yehoshua it would appear that
the blessings and curses were not actually uttered by the tribes themselves, but rather by Yehoshua,
as representative of the nation as a whole.

It seems that the two parts of the ceremony express two ways of serving God. The second part, in
which the blessings and curses are uttered, expresses the idea that observance of the
commandments leads to blessing, while abandoning them causes much suffering. This gives
expression to the recognition of the connection between obeying God and the way of the world,
which operates directly in accordance with the behavior of Bnei Yisrael. If only this way existed,
it would appear to leave the choice between blessing and curse in mortal hands, such that if man
decided to take upon himself the danger of the curses and suffering, for not observing the
commandments, he would be entitled to do so. [1]

Clearly, this possibility does not actually exist, for the obligation to observe the Torah and its
commandments not only arises from the fact that this is the way of blessing, but is a function of

37
Bnei Yisrael’s obligation to serve God, Who took them out of Egypt and led them in the desert.
Therefore, the list of “cursed” in the first part expresses the idea that even if there were no blessing
for one who upheld the Torah, one who did not do so would still be cursed. In answering “Amen,”
the entire nation accepted upon itself the obligation of fulfilling the commandments – even without
the intention of receiving reward. It is specifically prior to the presentation of the two options
before the nation that the fundamental obligation to fulfill the commandments must be emphasized
– independently of the matter of reward and punishment.

This duality finds expression in the words that Moshe declares to Bnei Yisrael at the beginning of
the “speech of the commandments” (Devarim 6:20-25), in response to the anticipated question by
the next generation: “If your son shall ask you tomorrow, saying, What are these testimonies and
statutes and judgments, which the Lord our God has commanded you?”

The significance of this question, as we may learn from the answer, is not “what” in the informative
sense, but rather “For what reason are we obligated to accept upon ourselves the testimonies,
statutes and judgments?” [2] The answer to this question is a double one:

1. “You shall tell your son: We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, and God took us out of
Egypt with a strong arm. God performed great and terrible signs and wonders for Egypt
and for Pharaoh, and for all his household, before our eyes. He took us out of there in
order to bring us and to give us the land which He promised to our forefathers. God
commanded us to perform all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God.”
2. “That it be good for us all the days, to give us life as this day. And it shall be a kindness
for us, if we shall observe and perform all of this law before the Lord our God, as He
commanded.”

The obligation of observing the commandments arises, then, both from our service of God and
from the fact that such behavior is “good for us.”

It seems that the difference between the parasha of “the blessings and the curses” and the list of
the “cursed” is also expressed in the question of the speakers. In the parasha of the blessings and
the curses, as we have said, the tribes assume an active role, thereby expressing their recognition
of the connection between the functioning of the world and the observance of God’s
commandments. This view, focusing on human choice, should theoretically be uttered by Bnei
Yisrael, in order that they will internalize the content of what they are saying. They should note
the difference between the blessing and the curse in their lives, arriving at the correct conclusion:
“You shall choose life.”

The list of those who are “cursed,” on the other hand, is uttered only by the Levites, while the rest
of the nation merely answers, “Amen.” The Levites here represent God, while Am Yisrael,
answering “Amen,” is the other party to this agreement, in which the nation accepts the obligation
upon itself even without discernible reward. This view, more reminiscent of the coercion of “He
suspended the mountain over them like a cask,” presents not a possibility to be considered, but
rather an obligation that must be accepted.

38
Now we understand the difference between the presentation of the curse in the first part as opposed
to that in the second part. In chapter 28, the Torah lists the blessings and the curses in great detail,
with the various declarations of “cursed” relating to different aspects of human life – “Cursed will
you be in the city, and cursed will you be in the field,” etc. In chapter 27, by contrast, the Torah
says only “Cursed be he who…,” with no explanation as to how he will be cursed. The difference
is clear: chapter 27 expresses the gravity of failure to fulfill the commandments, and hence it is
sufficient to use the word, “cursed.” Chapter 28, on the other hand, expresses the idea that the
world operates in accordance with the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the commandments, and
therefore there is a need for some elaboration as to how the fulfillment of the commandments
influences all spheres of life.

C. Uniqueness of the “Cursed”

In conclusion, let us briefly consider the special common denominator among all twelve of the
“cursed.” Ibn Ezra already points out that what is common to the list of transgressions is the
possibility of committing them in private, and concerning two specific transgressions this is
mentioned explicitly: “Cursed is the man who makes a graven image or carved idol, an
abomination to God, the work of a craftsman’s hands, and places it IN SECRET… Cursed is one
who strikes his neighbor IN SECRET.” Ibn Ezra explains how it is that the other transgressions
here likewise are usually performed secretly:

Indeed, we may bring proof for this principle from a different parasha in the Torah, where again
we find that a representative of the tribe of Levi curses a person who has transgressed, while an
Israelite answers, “Amen” – as described explicitly in the parasha of the Sota (Bamidbar 5:21-22):

39
Here again, there is a significant emphasis on the fact that the entire process takesplace specifically
because the suspected transgression took place in secret: “It is unknown from the eyes of her
husband and IT WAS HIDDEN; and she was defiled but there was no witness, and she was not
caught.” The parasha of Sota gives expression to and recognition of faith in God, Who knows all
secrets, even when deeds are hidden from mortal eyes.

Likewise in our parasha: the emphasis on the curse for deeds committed in secret highlights the
central message of the parasha, namely, acceptance of the yoke of Heaven in every situation and
under all conditions, even when matters are hidden from human eyes and cause no apparent
damage to the person who has transgressed.14

Endnotes
The existence of two parts of the ceremony on Mt. Eival and Mt. Gerizim is attested to from the verses in Sefer
↑1
Yehoshua, which divide the ceremony quite clearly into two parts:
1. “All of Israel, with its elders and its officers and its judges, stood on this side and the other side of the
Ark, before the Kohanim [and] the Levites, bearing the Ark of God’s Covenant – including the
stranger and the native born, half facing Mt. Gerizim and half facing Mt. Eival, as Moshe the servant
of God had commanded AT FIRST, to bless the nation of Israel.”
2. “AND AFTERWARDS he read all the words of the Torah, the blessing and the curse, according to all
that is written in the Sefer Torah.”
It seems obvious that the second part refers to the list of blessings and curses in chapter 28, which is related –
according to our approach, based on Ibn Ezra – to the division of the tribes. In light of this it seems that the first part
must refer to the list of “cursed,” which was said “at first.” This, of course, involves some difficulty in the syntax:
“As Moshe, the servant of God, had commanded AT FIRST, TO BLESS the nation of Israel,” but we may resolve
this wording in one of two ways:
1. Rav Hoffmann, in his commentary on Devarim, presents a lengthy explanation attempting to resolve
the contradictions between the description in our parasha and the description in Yehoshua; inter alia
he suggests that by cursing someone who does not uphold the commandments, the entire nation merits
a blessing.
2. It is possible that the expression “to bless the people” is in fact a euphemism for cursing them. This
phenomenon appears elsewhere in Tanakh: see, for example, Melakhim I 21:13 – “Navot BLESSED
(cursed) God and the king”; Iyov 1:5, 11. We may also explain the verses in Sefer Yehoshua in a
completely different way, which would not contradict our thesis in any way – see Rav Hoffmann.

In the Pesach Haggada we find this question posed by the wise son. In fact, in all four places in the Torah where the
↑2
subject of anticipated questions by children is addressed, the meaning of the question, on the literal level, is always
why the commandments should be observed. The Haggada, seeking to express the important idea that every child
must be addressed in accordance with his individual nature, interprets the verses in such a way as to match the
various characters, and it is for this purpose, obviously, that it changes the answers from the original ones presented
originally in the Torah. This applies also to the question by the “wise son,” where the Haggada changes the
significance of the question, making it indeed into an informative question (seemingly based on the assumption that

14
This essay originally appeared on Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

40
 the wise son would have no need to ask about the very obligation of fulfilling the commandments); hence the
answer given to him is likewise informative: “You shall tell him of the laws of the Pesach….”

Rashbam suggests a similar explanation.

↑3

Are the Curses in the Torah really Blessings in disguise?

Yehuda Lave writes:15

By viewing the troubles and joys of our lives as part of a continuum we can uncover blessings
even in the most challenging curses.

15
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/are-the-curses-in-the-torah-really-blessings-in-disguise/

41
Are the blessings and curses really polar opposites? Might they be opposite ends of the same
continuum?

At times the pain that we encounter in our lives is overwhelming and seems insurmountable. In
such moments, the philosophy of Heschel, the spirit of the Baal Shem Tov, the wisdom of Frankl,
may seem beyond our grasp. All these teachers chose to find the relationship between curses and
blessings, and we are left wondering how they were able to make that choice.

One way to understand the interconnection between curses and blessings can be found at the
beginning of this week’s portion. Moses teaches the Israelites the importance of expressing
gratitude for all that God has given them: They are free, they are blessed with plenty to eat, and
they have good leadership. Any similarities between those troubling times and our times today are
no coincidence. Moses teaches the Israelites about tithing, explaining that ten percent of their crops
should be given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. When performed with a
generous spirit and a grateful heart, their actions will bring them blessings from God.

In order to find gratitude during challenging life situations, we have to look beyond ourselves and,
at the same time, deep within ourselves. Doing that requires a tremendous amount of inner strength,
which we can draw from the support of our community and God’s loving-kindness. In
combination, our friends and our faith can enable us to transcend the challenge and find a blessing
embedded within a curse–and perhaps even convert a curse into a blessing.

We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when confronted with a
hopeless situation when facing a fate that cannot be changed. For what then matters is to bear
witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into
a triumph, to turn one’s predicament into a human achievement. When we are no longer able
to change a situation–just think of an incurable disease such as inoperable cancer–we are
challenged to change ourselves.

“I will remember My covenant with Yaacov and also My covenant with Yitzchak; I will also
remember My covenant with Avraham, and I will remember the Land”.

The Parasha begins with nine verses of reward if we choose to obey Hashem. Following this, there
is an extended elaboration of curses if we choose not to. The verse above is quoted within these
verses of curses. How is Hashem remembering the covenant of the fathers and the Land a bad
thing? Some commentators have explained that this is indeed expressing a problem. It would be
one thing if a nation sins, but for the nation that descended from Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaacov,
which has such a strong bond with the Holy Land of Israel – it is far worse.

The Tokheha (Admonishment) refers to these passages of curses that Moses relayed to the
Israelites by way of moral lesson and warning. These curses are repeated twice in the Torah,

42
in Parashat Be-Hukotai (Lev. 26:14-46) (read last week in the synagogue) and in Parashat Ki-
Tavo (Deut. 28:15-69).

In the Mishnah, these verses are called curses (kelalot). They were customarily read on public fast
days, as the Mishnah (Megillah 3,6) informs us: “On fast days, [one reads] blessings and curses,”
and on other set occasions, as stated in the baraitha (Megillah 31b): “It is taught: Rabbi Simeon
ben Eleazar says: Ezra instituted that the Israelites read the curses in Torat Kohanim (=Leviticus)
prior to Atzeret (Shavuot), and those in Deuteronomy prior to the New Year,” so that “the old year
and its curses come to an end.” In the Jerusalem Talmud, as well, these passages are referred to
as “the curses in Leviticus and the curses in Deuteronomy,” but in the Midrash, they are called
admonishments (tokheha), not curses, as it says there: “for they are not curses, rather they are
admonishments.”

Due to its content, reading the Tokheha would cast fear upon the congregation, especially upon the
person called up to the Torah for this passage. However, in several Hassidic courts, the
admonishments were viewed as curses that embedded in the great blessings. This notion was
apparently derived from the Zohar, which held that all admonishments are actually blessings, even
if on the surface they appear to be curses.

Elijah appeared and said: Arise, Rabbi Simeon, awaken from your slumber. How fortunate you
are that the Holy One, blessed be He, is mindful of your honor. All the promises and consolation
of Israel are written in these curses. Consider, when a king loves his son, although he might curse
him and beat him nevertheless, he loves him from the bottom of his heart. Thus, even though the
Holy One, blessed be He, uttered curses, His words were said lovingly. Outwardly they appear as
curses, but they are great beneficence since these curses were said lovingly.

Based on this passage, the Admor Rabbi Samuel of Sokhatshov wrote:

Regarding the blessings and curses in our books, it follows from the holy Zohar and
the New Zohar that underneath they are all blessings; indeed, there are more blessings hidden
in curses than blessings outwardly revealed… As with the creation of the world, which
outwardly is a material world but contains an inner essence, it appears, … the inner essence of
the world is entirely good, and only in the outward manifestations of the worlds is really bad, …
It is well-known that everything that is secret and concealed has superior quality, therefore the
blessings that are enveloped in the garb of curses are even more elevated… This explains why
Ezra instituted that the blessings and curses be read on the Sabbaths preceding the Feast of
Weeks and the New Year so that the old year and its curses come to an end… For it is well-
known that reading the passage rouses the matter, and the curses as well are roused; and on the
Sabbath, Israel absorbs the inner essence that the admonishments contain, which are instructive
blessings, and the outer parts, which are curses, become annulled, and the old year and its
curses come to an end… In this way, Israel prepares itself for the festival.

Thus, we see that the great leaders of Hassidism transformed the curse into a blessing. It is told
of Rabbi Nahum of Tchernobil, a sickly man afflicted with all sorts of ailments, in his youth spent
the Sabbath on which the Admonishment was read with the Ba’al Shem Tov. When he was
specially selected to come up to the Torah for the passage containing the Admonishment, at first,

43
he became somewhat faint. But then, as the Ba’al Shem Tov began reading from the Torah scroll,
Rabbi Nahum felt all his pains gradually dissipating, limb by limb, and by the time the reading
was through, his body had become entirely healed.

Also, when the Maggid of Kozienice heard the Admonishment read in the Beit Midrash and the
words of Scripture reached his ears, “Your carcasses shall become food for all the birds of the sky
and all the beasts of the earth, with none to frighten them off” (Deut. 28:26), he let out a loud
cry. Afterward, at the dinner table, he said:

Prayers that are not said in fear and trembling are called carcasses. But He who hears all prayers
has mercy on His creatures. He instills in the heart a lofty inspiration, so for once one can pray
with sincere devotion, and then one’s prayer becomes mighty and swallows up all the weak prayers
and flies like a bird to the gates of Heaven.

This view that the curses contain great hidden blessings led to competition in certain places over
the purchase of this aliyah to the Torah. Rabbi Ovadiah Hadaya once reported:

I heard there are certain places where they compete one with another for the purchase of this aliyah,
and the one who wins makes a great feast for the entire congregation at the synagogue. There are
other places where a certain person might traditionally have the claim to this aliyah and no one
else may take it from him. It is clear that whoever considers them blessings has the reward of all
the hidden blessings in them being fulfilled for him. And conversely, whoever (Heaven forbid)
considers them curses, brings on himself these curses just as one might tempt fate, and in this
regard, it is said: what business have you prying into the secrets of the Merciful One? Pleasantness
will come to those who hear them, and they will be blessed with good.

This notion also finds expression in the literature describing by-gone days in Jerusalem:

Not everyone was afraid to be called up to the Torah for these verses of curses. It is told of the
merchant Hizkiah Tajir that his success in business was actually due to his having been called up
to the Torah for this aliyah. In order to dissuade the masses from believing that being called up to
the Torah for this aliyah brings misfortune, the Rishon le-Zion Rabbi Jacob Meir himself used to
take the aliyah to the Torah for this passage of the week’s reading.

A Lot to Process

Little Rivkah Shulman was in Junior Kindergarten at Eitz Chaim preschool. Her favorite time of
the day was when the Morah taught parsha. Morah Dinah was telling the story of Lot and Sodom.
“There was a man named Lot,” Morah Dinah explained, “who was warned to take his wife and
flee out of the city, but his wife looked back and was turned to salt.”

Concerned, Rivkah asked, “What happened to the flea?”

44
 A Covenental Partnership Parashiot Behar-Bechukotai, 5770

Yaakov Bieler writes:16

16
https://rayanotyaakov.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/5770-bechukotai.pdf

45
46
47
 The Great Rebuke

Rabbi Ari Kahn writes:17

The "style" of this week's Torah portion -- which marks the end of the Book of Leviticus -- departs
somewhat from the style of the other portions in this book and indeed from the style of the entire
Torah.

In place of the narrative or recitation of legal strictures to which we have become accustomed,
Bechukotai contains an extensive tochecha, "rebuke."

Here, the Torah calls on man to follow the law indeed and in spirit and warns of the consequences
of abandoning its teachings and God.

This is one of two major rebukes in the Torah, the other coming at the end of the Book of
Deuteronomy.

This is one of two major rebukes in the Torah, the other coming at the end of the Book of
Deuteronomy.

17
https://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48924202.html

48
The context of the rebuke at the end of Deuteronomy, before the people enter the land, seems
natural and understandable. On the eve of this enormous event, as the Jewish people face the
responsibilities and challenges of their encounter with the peoples of the Promised Land, the Torah
imparts extensive warning does not stray from the word of God.

On the other hand, the section of rebuke here in Parshat Bechukotai, is not as readily placed in
context, coming in the very middle of the Torah, with the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy
still to follow.

Of course, we must remember that the Jews were not originally supposed to wander the desert for
40 years; indeed, the decree declaring that the sojourn would be prolonged did not come until after
the episode of the spies, which had not occurred by this point in the narrative.

At this point in the text, at the completion of the Book of Leviticus, the Jews should be preparing
to enter the Holy Land. Therefore, we can see the rebuke here as similar in context to the rebuke
which will appear at the end of the book of Deuteronomy.

REBUKES AND CURSES

But why were each of these sections recorded for posterity then? Especially when the Jews did not
enter the land as per God's original plan?

Nachmanides addresses this issue in his commentary on this Torah portion:

According to Nachmanides, this rebuke -- which he equates with a curse -- refers to the destruction
of the First Temple. Nachmanides adds that the destruction of the Second Temple is alluded to in
the second rebuke at the end of Deuteronomy.

His source is actually this passage in the Zohar:

Our conclusion must be that, according to Nachmanides, a parallel exists between God's original
plan to bring the people into Israel and the First Commonwealth of Israel that arose so many years
later.

Furthermore, he draws a parallel between the Second Temple and the second, alternate plan to
enter the land that is described in Deuteronomy.

49
Despite the fact that these teachings were related in a specific context to a specific audience, they
are recorded in the Torah because they contain information which will be vital for future
generations.

DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLES

A number of sections in the Talmud record various reasons for the destruction of the two Temples,
and the subsequent exiles. Clearly something as momentous as this could have multiple causes.

The most famous teaching regarding the destruction of both Temples is recorded in the Talmud
in Yoma 9a-b:

These reasons for the destruction enumerated by Rav Yochanan ben Torta have entered into the
consciousness of the Jewish community, to the point that we would expect some reference to these
imputed sins in the Torah text which would prove Nachmanides's theory. Analysis of the rebuke
in this Torah portion reveals one word -- keri, "against Me" -- which is repeated time after time to
describe the type of behavior which would lead to destruction:

'If you walk contrary to Me, and not listen to Me...' (Leviticus 26:21)

The term keri, "against Me" is used no less than seven times within a short span of text in our
Torah portion -- see Leviticus 26:21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 40, 41 -- and never mentioned again in the
entire Torah!

The word is translated as "against Me" or "contrary to Me" actually comes from the
root kareh meaning "happenstance." The implication is that all the terrible curses listed will result
if we take God for granted.

THE ATTITUDE OF HAPPENSTANCE

The worldview which results from the attitude of keri is one in which God ceases to be an integral
part of the individual's life.

This is the beginning of a process which may lead to a far more dangerous conclusion: as God is
forgotten, man deludes himself into thinking that life is merely a series of coincidences. He
believes that there is no divine hand guiding his personal or world history. The conclusion of such
an approach is atheism.

50
The Torah ascribes such a world view to Amalek, the quintessential enemy of the Jewish people:

The term korcha, "happened," is derived from the same root as keri.

Rashi explains the term korcha as "a term of coincidence." Rashi's short comment teaches that the
spiritual power of Amalek emanates from a world view that all is coincidence, blind meaningless
fate, and that there is no higher or greater significance to life.

When the Jews become bogged down in a spiritual quagmire, they were susceptible to the attack
of Amalek. When the Jews behaved like Amalek, the real Amalek appeared.

The Jews in the desert failed to appreciate the Divine presence that enveloped and protected them,
and they became their own enemies; they became Amalek. Therefore, the real Amalek appeared
and attacked. Their only recourse was to pray to God -- an explicit expression of faith and
cognizance of the existence of a Divine Being.

Do the hands of Moses make war? ... Rather this teaches us the whole time that the Jews looked
heavenward and dedicated their hearts to their Father in heaven they were victorious, if not they
fell [in battle] (Mishna Rosh Hashana 3:8).

The Mishna stresses that the victory was not achieved through some magical intercession on the
part of Moses -- who raised his hands to heaven and the Jews won, but when he got tired and could
not keep his hands up, they lost. What brought victory was the prayer of the people.

Because the people had failed to properly appreciate God, they took Him for granted. The opposite
attitude, as expressed by prayer, mended the rift which had been formed between them and God.

A WORLD WITHOUT GOD

When the people are rebuked in this Torah portion, they are warned not to lead a life based on this
philosophy of coincidence, for this approach -- seeing the world without God -- is the first step
toward an abandonment of all values. This idea is expressed in a Tosefta, (Shavuot 3:6) which asks
"Who is the most dangerous man"? The Tosefta's answer is that the atheist, even if he is a moral
man, is most dangerous, because there is no basis for his morality.

In the eyes of the Tosefta, today's moral atheist today may be tomorrow's murderer. For example,
pure logic that abhors murder may not prohibit euthanasia; quite the contrary, it may justify it.

Similarly, the Jews who had no longer felt a connection with God soon found themselves alienated
from God to the extent that idolatry, sexual licentiousness and bloodshed not only were no longer
taboo, but they had also become the norm.

51
The Talmud's expression of this phenomenon is fascinating:

This source seems difficult to understand. If Jews of that time were actively engaged in Torah
study but merely forgot to make the proper blessings, should this terrible destruction be the
consequence?

Rather, the Talmud is being purposely succinct. This concise language points out a "secularization"
of what should be holy: One who does not make a blessing prior to learning is making a statement
about his learning. The Torah learned in this fashion is something mundane, perhaps intellectually
stimulating, but it is not part of a dialogue with the Divine.

Torah learned for reasons of intellectual stimulation is not part of a dialogue with the Divine.

The person who can learn the Torah (as literature, for example) and not feel the breath of eternity
on his face, is lacking a piece of heaven; such a person is missing the holiness -- the very essence
of Torah learning.

Only those who have created the break in their minds between themselves and God's personal
involvement in their lives can forget to make a blessing on learning, and transform a potential
rendezvous with the Divine, Eternal God into a mere intellectual exercise.

We may now look back at the teaching of Nachmanides and the Talmudic tradition regarding the
destruction of the First Temple. The connection between the "happenstance" attitude of keri and
the total moral breakdown of Jewish society which led to the destruction becomes clearer.

GROUNDLESS HATRED

However, the destruction of the Second Temple raises a more serious challenge; our tradition
teaches that the cause for the destruction was the "groundless hatred" which was prevalent at that
time. In this case of the second rebuke (in the Book of Deuteronomy), the Torah gives us a clear
reason for the calamities which have befallen upon us:

The Torah informs us, in clear, unequivocal terms, what spiritual deficiency would be cause for
the rebuke to come to fruition. How is the failure to serve God with joy related to the groundless
hatred which brought about the destruction?

Rabbi Yochanan Zwieg once taught an idea which would explain the connection. He noted that
there is one person in Tanach who is described as having the trait of "joy and gladness of heart":

52
How strange, that Haman, the most famous of Amalek's descendants, should serve as a prototype
for proper behavior! The fact of the matter is that Haman had every right to be happy. The queen
herself had just invited him to a second, private party, with only the king and queen in attendance.
He saw himself as a success. Arguably there was not a richer, more powerful man in all the
kingdom, and Haman knew it.

Haman had everything going for him. Nonetheless, when he saw Mordechai, who refused to bow
to him, Haman was filled with anger. After recounting to his loved ones all his good furtune,
Haman says:

Let us consider Haman's "plight." He is the most powerful man in the empire, save the king
himself. He is rich, has a loving, supportive wife, many children, countless wealth. He has one
minor problem: There is this one Jew who refuses to deify him, but Haman has already put a plan
into action that will wreak his vengeance on Mordechai. Not only is Mordechai to die, but his
entire extended family will die with him. Haman's demented mind called for a holocaust in
response to being slighted by one man.

But the knowledge that Mordechai and all the Jews would soon be dead was not enough to satiate
the evil within Haman -- he needed more. His hatred was so consuming that he displayed
remarkable carelessness in his decision to execute Mordechai.

Even a cursory glance at the king's records would have made Haman realize that targeting
Mordechai as an individual was unwise. Yet Haman's anger seethed, he needed vengeance and he
needed it immediately.

Haman unable to enjoy the gifts bestowed upon him because he was fixated on hatred toward
Mordechai.

This overwhelming anger caused Haman's downfall. He was unable to enjoy the gifts bestowed
upon him because he was fixated on anger and hatred toward Mordechai.

It is interesting to note that Haman is a descendant of Amalek and represents "Amalekian"

philosophy. This philosophy begins with seeing the world without a God and leads to Haman
seeing himself as a deity. From this warped perspective we can understand his anger toward
Mordichai, who refused to bow down.

53
The sudden fall of Haman was precipitated by his hate. His hate obliterated his "joyful and glad
heart." We can therefore conclude that there is, in fact, a connection between a joyful heart and
groundless hatred. One can expel the other.

THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE

When we take the broader perspective, an interesting pattern emerges: When the Jews acted like
Amalek and took God for granted, they were exiled, and soon found themselves under the rule of
thumb of a crazed Amalakian despot, as if the Divine message was "If you choose Amalek and
their world-view over Me, I will fulfill your wish."

Divine justice was exact. The people who saw life as coincidence found themselves confronted by
the leading representative of coincidence -- Haman, who promptly drew lots to determine the
proper time to destroy the Jewish nation.

Just as their ancestors before them, when the Jews turned to their Father in Heaven, admitted that
they have erred, and fully accepted the dominion of the Almighty, the power that Haman had over
them dissipated. The Jews were victorious.

As a gift, God leaves the Jews with a phenomenal lesson in how not to behave as they are about to
re-enter the Land of Israel and rebuild the Temple. God reiterates, in the Book of Esther, His
message that man must worship God with joy and appreciate all the good in his life. Otherwise,
man runs the risk of turning his joy into hate and turning the Temple to rubble.

Let us not repeat this same mistake. Instead let us turn to the teaching of the Sages:

Who is considered wealthy? He who is happy with his share. (Avot 4:1)

It is this happiness which is the key to Avodat Hashem, "the service of God." It was the lack of this
happiness which destroyed the Temple. Relating to God with this type of attitude will surely
contribute to the rebuilding of the Temple.

Let us return to the concluding teaching of Rabbi Yochanan ben Torta:

But the Third Temple, may it be built speedily in our days ... many nations will gather and say, let
us go to the Mountain of God, to the House of the Lord of Jacob ... arise let us go up to Zion to the
Lord our God. (Tosefta Minachot 13:4)

When we cease to act like the nations of the world, and they begin to act like we are supposed to,
history will reach its apex, and a wonderful new day will dawn. God's presence will emanate from
Zion. And war will become a thing of the past. The world will become a joyful place, with no
hatred, and all people will serve God with joyfulness and gladness of heart. May we all live to see
and partake of the joy on that day. Amen!

54
 Art by Yoram Raanan

Blessings and Curses

Adin Even-Israel (Steinsaltz) writes:18

6
Unlike Parshat Ki Tetzei, which has an abundance of laws, Parshat Ki Tavo contains few
halachot. Instead, Parashat Ki Tavo is replete with curses.

The Talmud states, following the implication of the passage, “These shall stand to bless the
people…and these shall stand for the curse”,1 that at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal there were
two formulas. Those standing for the curse pronounced the curses as they appear in the Torah, and
those standing for the blessing pronounced an opposite formula: “Blessed is he who does not make
a graven or molten image,” “Blessed is he who does not dishonor his father and mother,” and so
forth.2

If a “blessing formula” was in fact pronounced, why does the Torah cite only the curses and not
use the positive language of the blessings? Why is the blessing formula only implied and not

18
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4850872/jewish/Blessings-and-Curses.htm

55
written in the Torah explicitly? While it is true that the Torah generally tends to be concise, positive
language could still have been used, especially in light of the Talmud’s assertion that the Torah
goes to great lengths, often employing circumlocutions, in order to use clean, decent language.3

Too Much Good

It is far simpler to create a curse than to create a blessing. This is not because people are generally
wicked, but because the moment something diverges from its usual order, it is already a curse.
Normally, there is more of a basis for curses than for blessings, because only the optimal state is
considered a blessing. Whether it is too hot, too cold, or too rainy, if it is not perfect then it is a
curse. Thus, the margin for the optimal is very narrow, and if conditions incline even slightly to
one side, it is already no longer optimal. As the Talmud says, “Your people…can endure neither
too much good nor too much punishment”.4 Even if one is given more and more of something, he
will not necessarily be better off.

The pauper says, “Give me neither poverty nor riches, but provide me with my daily bread”.5 That
is to say, both a pauper and a wealthy person face unique problems and trials connected to their
station. One should not strive for maximum prosperity, because this does not guarantee that the
situation will truly be better. In fact, after a little too much prosperity, it stops being pleasant; after
a little more, it becomes unpleasant; and finally, it becomes painful. In anything concerning the
physical pleasures of this world, there is a stage at which the more one receives, the more
unpleasant it becomes.

In light of this, there is more of a basis for curses than for blessings in our world. But despite this,
we have one powerful claim to make before G-d when we pray for blessing: By now, all the curses
described throughout Tanakh – those in Leviticus, those here in Deuteronomy, and those
in Ezekiel – have all been fulfilled. I knew a woman who was the only girl to survive the Vilna
Ghetto. She and her family were very far from Judaism, and she said that she was moved to return
to observance when she encountered the Tokheĥa section in Parashat Bechukotai; she saw that

56
everything that is written there came true. People did not think or believe that these things could
come about, and the fact that all the curses came true caused her to experience a change of heart.
While all the curses seem to have been realized, however, we are still waiting for the fulfillment
of many of the blessings.

The Talmud relates that Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues once saw a fox emerging from the site of
the Holy of Holies, and Rabbi Akiva laughed, saying, “So long as Uriah’s prophecy [‘Therefore
shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain
of the House as the high places of the forest’]6 had not been fulfilled, I was afraid that Zechariah’s
prophecy [‘Old men and women shall yet sit in the broad places of Jerusalem’]7 might not be
fulfilled. Now that Uriah’s prophecy has been fulfilled, it is quite certain that Zechariah’s prophecy
will be fulfilled”.8

In this sense, we, too, should laugh. G-d was faithful in bringing upon us the curses, so He will
surely bring upon us the blessings as well. So long as all these things had not been fulfilled, one
could say that it will happen in far-off times. But now that, in our times, curses that no one would
have believed would occur have come about, the blessings, too, will surely be fulfilled.

Even the final curse, “There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as slaves and maids,
but there will be no buyer”9 – which no one would have believed could occur – we have witnessed
in recent memory.

Leaving the Sheltered Environment

In this Parsha, as in other places in the Torah, many harsh things are described. Why are so many
curses necessary? Why is it necessary to threaten the people with such dire consequences for
disobedience? Why can’t the Torah always speak pleasantly?

Seeing as the Torah nevertheless frequently insists on expressing itself in the form of curses,
apparently this is necessary. Although the Torah certainly contains its share of blessings, it is truly

57
difficult to be a Jew, and the curse section written here only emphasizes just how difficult it is.
While we can understand the need for both the carrot and the stick, it is still a great challenge to
accept this reality.

One of the main purposes of yeshivas, beyond allowing students to study Torah for its own sake,
is to prepare students for the future. Despite this, a yeshiva is essentially a closed place, a sheltered
environment, and a yeshiva student cannot truly feel how difficult it is to be a Jew. In such an
environment, one struggles primarily with subtleties and nuances of faith and Torah. To be sure,
there are occasionally major struggles, but the challenges and temptations faced by a yeshiva
student are immeasurably fewer than the temptations that exist outside. As a result, it is sometimes
hard to leave such a sheltered environment, and because of this, many students indeed avoid
leaving this shelter at all. However, when these students are forced to leave, for one reason or
another, this becomes a moment of dangerous crisis.

There was a time when psychologists discouraged parents from telling their children frightening
stories. Now, however, the opposite is encouraged; the claim is that if children never hear about
the dark side of life, they will grow up with a distorted view of life. If we shield them from evil,
telling them that the world is entirely delightful and everyone is good, they will have difficulty
coping with the real world when they grow older.

Death, for example, is frightening, and there were societies – such as the kibbutzim of the past –
that distanced children from any exposure to it. I once attended the funeral of a teacher in a certain
kibbutz, and I didn’t see anyone under the age of twenty-three; they had all avoided coming. This
attitude is an attempt to push aside the fact that such a thing exists.

A person like that who emerges from a sheltered environment and faces reality will have a harder
time dealing with it. At one stage or another, everyone encounters lies and deceit, and when a child
grows up under the illusion that there are no thieves and liars in the world, the result may be a
major personal crisis.

58
The Challenge

Despite the Torah’s message that, “It is not in heaven…It is not beyond the sea…It is something
that is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it”,10 in our world it
is hard to be a Jew. The Torah merely says that it is possible, that the Torah contains nothing that
a person cannot live up to. But this does not mean that it is easy, because we live among human
beings and not in a sheltered environment where there is almost no exposure to the evil inclination.

To be sure, our sages advise us that “if this repulsive scoundrel [the evil inclination] confronts you,
drag him to the beit midrash”,11 but sometimes we forget that the scoundrel is with us in the beit
midrash as well. As the Kotzker Rebbe once remarked, “this scoundrel” implies that there is yet
another scoundrel: the one in the beit midrash.

All of this is not meant to frighten us. The purpose of the curses is to make us aware that following
the Torah presents a great challenge, and the more we are exposed to the world, the greater the
challenge becomes. It is a challenge that comes along with both blessings and curses. We must
remain undaunted by these curses, rising to meet the challenge.

59
 Why is G-d So Angry?
– In Honor of the 45 souls tragically taken from us in Meron –
Two days before my father passed away, I wrote this article. Little did I know how these words
would come to console me and many others as we walked through “the valley of the shadow of
death,” helping us reach the state of “I shall not fear.” With a profound tragedy ripping yet
again through the hearts of our nation, I hope these words can now again serve them well to
conquer the fear as they walk through their deep valley…

Rabbi Simon Jacobson writes:

Dear Rabbi Jacobson,

I am an avid reader of your weekly e-mails and appreciate your personal and spiritual take on what
otherwise would be for me irrelevant tradition. Having grown up in an observant home with no
warmth or spirituality (and worse), I came to resent anything that was “dry ritual.” I therefore am
very grateful to you for having opened up a resonating perspective that I never knew was there.
In this vein I would like to ask you how you would explain the many curses used in the Torah.
What possible benefit – besides fear and alienation – can curses contain?

As you know, many people are easily turned away from Biblical thought when they read the
terrible misfortunes that will befall people for their sins. It is demoralizing and creates the
impression that G-d is a very angry entity, filled with wrath and vengeance.

Some would even argue that it is Rabbis like you who later came and “softened” up the Biblical
version of G-d and turned it into a spiritual and loving relationship. But the G-d of the Bible doesn’t
seem like someone you could or would want to have a relationship with?!

I am sorry for being so blunt or perhaps disrespectful, but I have learned from your writing that
you welcome such questions and appreciate the direct approach rather than masquerades.

Thank you for listening,

Dear,

Thank you for your trusting words, and yes, I do appreciate your direct question, and will respond
in a more formal tone in the following essay on this week’s Torah portion.

This week’s Biblical Torah portion enumerates forty-nine (!) curses that will befall those that
transgress the law (Leviticus 26:14-43).

60
For the record, this is the first of three places in the Torah where we read what is known as the
“tochacha” (the admonition or rebuke), which describes the harsh consequences of forsaking the
Divine commandments. The second and third are in the beginning and the end of the book of
Deuteronomy (Devorim and Ki Tovo respectively).
Traditionally these sections are read quickly and in a lower tone than the rest of the Torah reading.
No one is invited up to the Torah (in an “aliya”) for these sections. Instead, the Torah “reader”
unceremoniously recites the blessings before and after the reading, but he is not called up.

Which of course brings us to the big question: Why would G-d want to curse His own children?!
A bizarre Talmudic story about Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai will help illuminate us. Rabbi Shimon
once sent his son, Rabbi Elozor, to a couple of distinguished sages for a blessing.

The sages conferred upon him a strange string of “blessings:” “May it be His will that you sow
and not reap. That you bring in [merchandise] and not let out [sell it], and that you invest and not
have a return. That your house be destroyed, and your inn settled. That your table be confused, and
you should not see a new year.” (!!)

This episode is all nice and fine. But the commentaries are troubled by the obvious question: Why
did the esteemed sages not bless Rabbi Elozor in open and direct terms, and instead cloaked their
blessing in cryptic language that only Rabbi Shimon was able to decipher?!
Several different explanations are proffered:

1. The sages did so in order to challenge and sharpen Rabbi Elozor (Maharsha).
2. They did so in order to honor Rabbi Shimon, that he be the one that interprets, and thus
blesses his son. In effect Rabbi Elozor would be blessed twice (Rif. Iyun Yaakov).

61
 3. A blessing is more effective when it isn’t pronounced out loud in public (three people
is considered public) (Iyun Yaakov).
4. They did so for Rabbi Elozor’s good. At times when a blessing is stated outright, the
“voice of judgment” (of the “prosecuting angels”) challenges the merit of the recipient,
questioning whether he truly deserves this blessing. The sages therefore disguised their
blessing in language that sounds like a curse, knowing that the “prosecuting angels”
cannot read their minds, so as not to provoke and stir up any resistance to these
blessings (Nezer Hakodesh, cited in Eitz Yosef).

Even after all these explanations, it still seems odd that the sages would use the language of curses
to convey a blessing! To elicit Rabbi Shimon’s interpretation or to mask their intentions from the
“prosecutors” could have easily been achieved by using neutral language. Why the need to use
terms that can seem “offensive”?! True, a blessing “disguised” as a curse is easier to “smuggle”
by the forces of judgment, but it still requires explanation.

To understand the deeper meaning of these blessings dressed up in the “garments” of “curses”
requires a penetrating look into the forces that lay beneath the surface of existence in general.
Which will also explain why of all people its Rabbi Shimon was who illuminated the inner meaning
of these blessings.

The deeper meaning – and inner dimension – of all experience is to be found in what is called the
“inner wisdom.”

There are two types of wisdom, which correspond to two types of experience:

1) Conscious or revealed wisdom – which comprehends conscious or revealed experience. This

is the wisdom of most sciences – physical, social and political – the understanding of our empirical
and sensory experiences (what we see, hear, taste, touch and smell).
2) Unconscious or hidden wisdom – which relates to the unconscious and hidden dimensions of
reality, the suprasensory energy that makes existence tick.
The Torah too has these two corresponding dimensions: The Outer Torah, it’s revealed dimension
(nigleh), and the Inner Torah, hidden beneath the surface (nistar).

On the surface things may appear one way. Beneath the surface they may appear entirely different,
sometimes even diametrically opposed as to the way they seem on the outside.

Take yourself as an example: How much of your outside (body language, facial expressions,
conversations) expresses your inner self? Indeed, the deeper you travel into the intimate recesses
of your psyche, the fewer words we have to express ourselves. Sometimes a laugh, a cry, an “oy-
vey” expresses more than volumes can. On the deepest level silence is often the most profound
expression of all (the “silent voice” in the words of the Zohar).

62
This is because the outer world and the inner world are two entirely different, even dichotomous,
paradigms. How does your conscious match up with your unconscious? Do you even want to
know?

Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (known as the Alter Rebbe, author of Tanya and founder of Chabad
Chassidus), in his Likkutei Torah, uses this principle to explain that the “curses” in our Torah
chapter are “in truth, nothing but blessings”, blessings in disguise.

On an ostensible level – the conscious, revealed dimension – they appear as curses. On this level
they too serve a “blessed” purpose to attack the “negative” forces of existence. No one would
consider it a curse when white blood cells mercilessly destroy harmful bacteria in order to protect
the body from infection.

But in an even deeper dimension – in the unconscious, hidden dimension – the inner workings of
these apparent “curses” are nothing but profound blessings, so profound that they can only be
expressed in a concealed and disguised fashion. They are actually deeper blessings than the ones
we can openly recognize! [Rabbi Schneur Zalman goes on to explain the blessings in some of the
ostensible “curses” in our chapter].

The Tzemach Tzedek in his gloss on Likkutei Torah of his grandfather, Rabbi Schneur Zalman,
equates this concept with the above related Talmudic story with the blessings “disguised” as
curses: These blessings originate in the unconscious level of experience.

For this reason, the blessings need to be concealed not in neutral terms but in “cursed” language:
Only then are they truly concealed. The formula works like this: The more sublime and intimate
the experience, the more concealed it is. Therefore, the most sublime blessings of all are couched
in the most dreadful terms.

This also explains why Rabbi Shimon was the one to recognize the profound blessings bestowed
on his son, Rabbi Elozor:

Rabbi Shimon is the primary source of the “Inner Torah.” Coupled with his Talmudic genius,
Rabbi Shimon is the preeminent mystic of his times; the author of the Holy Zohar – the classic text
of the inner wisdom of Kabbala.

Rabbi Shimon therefore was most fittingly able to see beneath the surface of the sages’ expressions
and reveal their inner meaning – the profound blessings they carried, blessings that come from the
“hidden” and “unconscious” cosmic levels, greater than blessings that are expressed in a revealed
way.

63
One way to explain the power of Rabbi Elozor’s blessings: In foresight the sages saw that Rabbi
Elozor in his lifetime would face difficult challenges with his children, including perhaps the
horror of losing a child in his lifetime or other forms of premature deaths of children. In order to
preempt any such tragedies, the sages ingenuously and intentionally used words that could sound
like just such curses, so as to so-to speak “fulfill” (in physical expressions) these premonitions.
But in truth they infused these words with the deeper meaning and intention of blessings, as spelled
out by Rabbi Shimon. In effect, by using these negative expressions the sages bestowed the greatest
of all blessings on Rabbi Elozor: They released him of his need to actually experience any such
loss, and instead be blessed with good life and marriage for him and his children.

In practical terms that each of us can relate to, we too must recognize that in our lives we receive
two types of blessings, corresponding to our two forms of experience: Conscious and unconscious.

There are blessings that are apparent and revealed for all to see. But then there are blessings that
are camouflaged, sometimes in “garments” that don’t appear to the naked eye to be blessed.

But the naked eye is just that: Naked. It sees very little and understands even less.

These deeper blessings can take on the shape of formidable challenges in our lives. They can take
on the shape of “special children” (as discussed in previously here), or perhaps a loss that at the
moment seems irreplaceable.

Lest it be misunderstood, by all means we always ask for revealed blessings, and we deserve to
see with our naked eyes the gifts of life. Yet, when we are faced with a seemingly insurmountable
difficulty, never underestimate the possibility of it containing profound blessings, and your ability
to reveal them.

Yes, after all is said and done, we were given the power to reveal the “unrevealable.” G-d created
and gave us the resources, but He concealed them in this world of ours. Everything valuable in the
world lies hidden. From precious stones to oil, from hidden potential to genius talents. We have
the ability – and responsibility – to excavate these resources and bring them to the surface.

On Lag B’Omer, the yahrzeit and day of celebration of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (also known by
his acronym: Rashbi), his ability to see and reveal the inside becomes more accessible to us.

A concluding story:

As a child, Rabbi DovBer of Lubavitch, along with the rest of the congregation, would listen to
the weekly Torah reading read by his father, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi. One year, his father
was out of town on the Shabbat when the chapter Ki Tavo is read, a chapter that includes a section
of admonition (not 49 but 98 curses). After hearing the Admonition read by the substitute Torah

64
reader, the child was so emotionally upset that even a month later his father was unsure whether
his son would be able to fast on Yom Kippur. The child was later asked, “Why were you not
disturbed this way when the admonition was read in past years?” The child replied, “When father
reads it, no curses are heard.”
Yes, it all depends on who’s doing the reading. We all project our attitudes on others. When “father
reads” – the father that see the inner soul even in the darkest places – we hear blessings.

May we all open our ears to hear how “father” reads and reveals the profound blessings in all of
our lives.

Leviticus 26, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos

Additional 21160 ff. 81v & 182r, 2nd half of 13th century. British Librar

Comparing Curses

Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are often lumped together, as the two great curses, but their

careful comparison reveals some fundamental and surprising differences.

65
Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler writes:19

Hardly a day goes by when I do not consult Jacob Milgrom’s work—his commentary on Leviticus
is truly magisterial. He introduced me to Priestly literature in a course on Numbers (‫ )במדבר‬in 1978
at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As R. Yitz Greenberg did in his piece “Meeting the
Challenge of Critical Scholarship with Leviticus,” I too would like to acknowledge his many
contributions, and much of what I say below is based on his observations.[1]

The Great Rebukes (‫)תוכחות‬

The Torah contains two long sets of curses: one at the end of Leviticus, in ch. 26,[2] the other at
the end of Deuteronomy, in ch. 28.[3] Both begin with short blessings and are immediately followed
by much longer curses. These sections are traditionally called the ‫ – תוכחות‬the rebukes—a term
rarely found in the Bible, and oddly never used in Lev 26 or Deut 28. These are customarily read
quickly and quietly—a bar or bat mitzvah’s dream! But in this quiet and haste, their structure and
meaning are often lost.

The Utility of Comparison

Comparisons teach us a great deal—it is often difficult to understand something on its own terms,
but once it is compared to something similar, either explicitly or implicitly, its meaning becomes
clearer. Comparing the two rebukes highlights deep differences between them, differences so great
that they are unlikely to be from the same hand. This comparison offers an important case example
in the utility of seeing the Torah as a layered text, written over time by different people or groups,
and brings into focus some of the significant differences between the two great ancient streams of
tradition: the Priestly school, represented here by Leviticus,[4] and the Deuteronomic school,
represented by Deuteronomy.

19
https://www.thetorah.com/article/comparing-curses

66
“If You do Not Heed”: Leviticus vs. Deuteronomy

The similar openings ‫“ – ואם לא תשמעו לי‬if you do not heed” and some common following
terminology should not lull the reader into a false sense that the texts are similar. Deuteronomy
insists that grievous covenant infractions will lead to the unleashing of “all these curses” (‫ָכּל־‬
‫ )ַהְקָּל֥לוֹת ָהֵ֖אֶלּה‬at one time, whereas Leviticus is structured as a set of escalating curses.

As Milgrom has noted, the Leviticus curses are gradated, and organized into five groups, with
clear transitional statements in-between, and each set of punishments imagined to be worse than
the previous set.[5] This structure of five sets of curses, corresponding to the five sets of blessings
at the beginning of the beginning of the chapter, finds no parallel in Deuteronomy. The curses in
Leviticus are also built around the number seven, which often implies completeness in the Bible.
Not only is this “seven” (‫ )שבע‬emphasized through explicit repeated mentions (see vv. 18, 21, 24
and 28), but certain key words such as “to eat (‫ ”)אכל‬and “hostile [6] (‫ ”)קרי‬are found seven times.
Deuteronomy has no equivalent structure.

The Leviticus curses are also structured to suggest that God will act in a measure for measure
factor against Israel. This idea, expressed explicitly in Lev 26:16, ‫אַף־ֲא ֞ ִני ֶ ֽאֱﬠֶשׂה־ ֣זּ ֹאת ָלֶ֗כם‬, “I in turn
will do this to you,” does not typify from Deuteronomy 28.[7] Although measure for measure
punishment (as it is called later: ‫—מידה כנגד מידה‬a post-biblical term) is found often in the Bible, it
is especially common in the rebuke in Leviticus, and indeed typifies H.

The Anthropomorphic Depiction of God in P and H

The punishing God of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is also depicted differently. Leviticus’s God is
anthropomorphic, in contrast to Deuteronomy, which depicts a non-anthropomorphic deity
bringing about Israel’s punishment.[8] In Leviticus 26, for example, God sets his face against Israel,
‫( ְוָנַת ִ֤תּי ָפַנ ֙י ָבֶּ֔כם‬v. 17), walks with them, ‫( ְוָהַלְכ ִ֧תּי‬v. 24), and ultimately decides not to smell their
offerings, ‫( ְו ֣ל ֹא אָ ִ֔ריַח ְבּ ֵ֖ריַח ִניֹֽחֲח ֶ ֽכם‬v. 31). This typifies P and H, but not D—beginning already in the
Priestly Genesis 1:27, humanity is created in the divine image.

67
The Reason for Exile

While both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 offer exile as the climactic punishments, the reason
the people are exiled differs sharply. In Deuteronomy, the exile is part of the general punishment
for sins, while Leviticus, in part, explains the need for exile in these terms:

In other words, according to H, the land acts as a type of a sponge that absorbs the sin that is
specific to the land—Israel’s lack of observance of the sabbatical year, called earlier in Lev 25.1-
7, ‫ַשַׁ֤בּת ַשָׁבּתוֹ ֙ן‬, “a Sabbath of complete rest.”[9] Strikingly, this is not atoned for by repentance,[10] but
by the land resting so that it can catch up on the sabbatical years during which it did not lie fallow
(cf. 2 Chr 36:21).

Deuteronomy, at the beginning of ch. 15, knows of the sabbatical year, but it calls it by a different
name (‫)ְשִׁמ ָ ֽטּה‬, and only understands it in terms of debt-remission, but not land-fallowing. Thus, the
image of Lev 26.34-35 would have been totally alien to Deuteronomy, which in in contrast, offers
a very different reason for the exile, having nothing to do with missed sabbatical years (Deut
28:45):

68
Is the Covenant Permanent?

The idea of a covenant between Israel and its God is fundamental to both Deuteronomy and
Leviticus,[11] and the blessings and curses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are presented
within each book as rewards or punishments from God for fulfilling or violating this covenant. But
just as the contents of these two covenants are not identical, and their structures differ, the final
punishments for covenant violation contrast sharply. Deuteronomy ends very pessimistically:

This fits the tone of ch. 28, which imagines not only the exile of Israel from its land, but its total
destruction, with the key word, “wiped out (‫ד‬-‫מ‬-‫)ש‬,” repeated surprisingly often, as if to emphasize
that Israel really will be totally and completely annihilated:

69
In contrast, the term “wiped out” is never used in reference to Israel in Lev 26. Thus, Deuteronomy
and Leviticus reflect two fundamentally different notions about the covenantal relationship
between God and Israel.[12] Deut 28 can imagine the disappearance of Israel—or at the minimum,
Israel removed from its land, scattered among the nations, and slowly fading to oblivion.[13] In

70
contrast, the author of the great rebuke in Leviticus insists that God will remember the patriarchal
promise, the empty land will cleanse itself from Israel’s lack of sabbatical observance, and even
in exile God will remember Israel—he will not destroy them or abrogate his covenant with
them.[14]
This represents a huge difference in theological perspective: in Deut 28, Israel fades away—as a
result of Israel breaking the covenant, God is released from any obligations toward Israel, and then
are destroyed, while Lev 26 suggests that this is impossible, for the covenant always remains in
force. Thus, the final words of God’s speech in Lev 26 note that God will recall on Israel’s behalf
the covenant with the ancestors whom he redeemed from Egypt:

Conclusion
It is quite possible that H knew some form of D, and its more positive evaluation of Israel’s future
reflects a reaction against D’s pessimism.[15] Or perhaps this section of Leviticus was written after
the return from exile, and predicts, retrospectively, that even in exile God cannot forget his people
Israel, leading to the remarkable idea that the covenant is permanent. Fortunately for the survival
of Judaism, the more optimistic perspective of the curses of Leviticus 26 “won” over the more
pessimistic viewpoint of Deuteronomy 28, offering perpetual hope rather than the idea that Israel
may be destroyed forever.

71
Footnotes

1. It is certainly suitable for his work and name to frame TheTorah.com’s treatment of Leviticus—he was both a rabbi and

a professor, deeply committed to bringing Jewish scholarship into mainstream biblical studies, and critical biblical

scholarship into the Jewish community. The three volumes were published between 1991-2001 as part of the Anchor

Bible Series by Doubleday.

2. The final chapter of Leviticus, chapter 27, is in its entirety an addition; it fits in neither thematically not structurally. That

chapter (v. 34) concludes with a formula similar to that found at the end of ch 26:

‫ה ָ֛וה ֶאת־ֹמֶ֖שׁה ֶאל־ְבּ ֵ֣ני ִיְשָׂרֵ֑אל ְבַּ֖הר ִסי ָֽני׃‬-‫ֵ֣אֶלּה ַהִמְּצ֗וֹת ֲאֶ֨שׁר ִצ ָ֧וּה ְי‬

These are the commandments that YHWH gave Moses for the Israelite people on Mount Sinai.
Together these formulae form what scholars call a repetitive resumption or resumptive repetition—a translation from

German Wiederaufnahme. These are found frequently in the Bible and serve various functions, but often mark an

editorial insertion. Therefore, biblical scholars are alert to these repetitions, which are useful markers of additions. (For

more on this, see Zev Farber’s TABS essay, “The Resumptive Repetition (Wiederaufnahme).”) If we were editing

Leviticus now, we would have inserted Lev 27:1-33 before Lev 26:46 so that the book concluded only once. Editors of

the Bible were often more conservative; they left the text as it was, and then added to it, and when they were finished

their addition, they repeated or paraphrased the verse immediately before the addition, as if to say, “now let’s go back to

where we were.”

3. I will be treating both rebukes as a literary whole, though this is debated in scholarship. Their unity or history of

composition is immaterial for the arguments I am adducing.

4. I am using the term “Priestly” here very broadly, to include both P, the main Priestly document, and H, the Holiness

Collection (predominantly in Lev 17-26), a later addition to, and reinterpretation of P, which nevertheless is from the

same broad school.

72
 5.

6. The meaning of this key word is not fully certain; others render it “contrariwise.”

7. It is, however, found there e.g., in v. 63.

8. Although it avoids anthropomorphisms, this passage, like others in Deuteronomy, is full of anthropopathisms, namely

attributing human emotions to God.

9. This concept is also found in Numbers 35:33-34, also a Priestly text.

73
10. Repentance is a key Deuteronomic, but not Preistly, theological conception. Indeed, the first biblical use of ‫ שוב‬in the

sense of repentance is found in Deut 4:30.

11. For a recent summary, see Christoph Koch, “Covenant II. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” Encyclopedia of the Bible and

its Reception 5.901-906.

12. Jeffrey Stackert, “Distinguishing Innerbiblical Exegesis from Pentateuchal Redaction: Leviticus 26 as a Test Case” in The

Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman et al. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,

2011), 369-386.

13. Deuteronomy 30:1-10, which is likely later than 28, adds a positive coda to Deuteronomy’s rebuke.

14.

15. Although he does not suggest this here, Stackert (op cit.) shows many other cases where H knows, and reworks D.

74
 DRIVEN MAD
Rabbi David Kasher writes:20

All week, I’ve been thinking about this book, “As a Driven Leaf,” by Milton Steinberg.

It’s a beautiful book, and if I say nothing else this week, let me recommend you read it. The book
is a unique mixture of genres and influences: a historical novel, written by a practicing rabbi with
a doctorate in philosophy, which centers around the life of Elisha ben Abuya, the Talmud’s most
famous heretic. But instead of roasting him, as we might have expected, Steinberg paints an
extremely sympathetic picture of Elisha’s struggle with traditional belief. This ancient story, then,
also comes to serve as reflection on modern atheism and the loss of faith.

20
https://parshanut.com/post/173772819641/driven-mad-parshat-behar-bechukotai

75
But here’s what I spent half the week wondering: Why did Steinberg take the name of the book
from this week’s parsha? Parshat Bechukotai is famous for its long middle section, called
the Tochecha, or: ‘The Rebuke!’ In it, the Torah describes all the terrible things that God will do
to the people of Israel if they, “do not obey me and do not observe my commandments…and break
my covenant.” (Lev. 26:14-15)

And it’s a nasty list: sickness and starvation, attacks by wild beasts and enemy nations, and -
perhaps worst of all: “You shall eat the flesh of your sons and daughters.” (v. 29) Then, finally,
exile and constant terror: “I will scatter you among the nations, and I will unsheath the sword
against you.” (v. 33)

It’s awful stuff, hard to read - so hard, in fact, that the tradition is to tear through it quickly and
quietly during the public synagogue reading.

Towards the end of the Tochecha, there’s one very unusual curse, and it is here that we find the
phrase that Steinberg borrowed:

As for those of you who survive, I will cast a faintness into their hearts in the land of their
enemies. The sound of a driven leaf will set them to flight. Fleeing as though from a sword,
they will fall, though none pursues. (Leviticus 26:36)

‫ ְוֵאין ֹרֵדף‬,‫ֶח ֶרב ְוָנְפלוּ‬-‫ ְוָנסוּ ְמנַֻסת‬,‫ קוֹל ָﬠֶלה ִנָדּף‬,‫ ְבַּא ְרֹצת ֹא ְיֵביֶהם; ְו ָרַדף ֹאָתם‬,‫ ְוַה ִנְּשָׁא ִרים ָבֶּכם– ְוֵהֵבאִתי ֹמ ֶר~ ִבְּלָבָבם‬.

After all the actual destruction, as if to add insult to injury, God sends some kind of panic that
keeps us in fear.

And there’s that phrase: “A driven leaf.” Specifically, it is the sound of a driven leaf. So, I start
thinking, what’s that got to do with Milton Steinberg’s book? What does this leaf tell us about the
fate of a heretic?

It is an unusual image, so I turn to the commentators to see how they’ve understood it. Rashi -
always my first stop - says the following:

It seems Rashi is first trying to figure out a technical question - how does a leaf, blowing along in
the wind, make noise? Answer: it hits other leaves. But the image he describes is one in which the
leaf is being pushed around, almost as if it’s being beaten. There seems to be an element of
suffering, a feeling of misery, attributed to this little leaf. And maybe Steinberg is drawing on
those qualities with his title. The heretic is doomed to be the outcast, tormented by his search for
truth, battered about and rejected by everyone around him.

There is another interesting interpretation of the ‘driven leaf’ phrase. This one is from the Sifra,
the Halachic Midrash to Leviticus, and it emerges from a chilling rabbinic story:

76
After their pathetic moment of panic, the rabbis suddenly realize that the danger isn’t outside of
them, but a feeling within. The leaf here isn’t just a metaphor for their own frailty and oppression.
It becomes the phantom oppressor itself, the little noise in the night which is mistaken for
approaching monsters. But the monsters don’t exist anymore; they’re only in our heads. After
years of trauma, we’re jittery and suspicious. Like a dog that’s been beaten too many times and
flinches even when you go to pet her.

In other words, the final curse is paranoia. After all our suffering and exile, the ultimate tragedy is
that we will never fully recover. We will always live in fear, looking over our shoulders, convinced
that at any moment, they’re coming for us again.

This also fits the biblical language well: “I will cause faintness in their hearts… though none
pursues.”

But…what does any of this have to do with Elisha ben Abuya?

Well, maybe Steinberg is saying that once Elisha ceased to believe, he was cursed to live in
constant anxiety, to wander restlessly through a harsh world without hope of redemption. Or
maybe he’s simply suggesting that the greatest battles are the ones that take place in our minds.
Maybe?

Except that I’ve been totally wrong the whole time.

I go back and open the book… and immediately realize that Steinberg is referencing a different
verse altogether. A different driven leaf. There, on the otherwise blank first page, is the epigraph:

Ah, of course - Job! Of course, Steinberg is referencing Job! Job is the ultimate tortured soul in
the Bible, and the one who has the most reason to doubt God. In fact, that’s the whole point of that

77
very dark book: Satan is given permission - by God - to bring unparalleled sufferings upon Job, in
order to see if he will renounce his faith. Which Job, somehow, does not.

So, Steinberg is comparing Elisha ben Abuya to Job. But unlike with Job, this time, in the battle
between faith and doubt, faith finally loses.

Well, that makes much more sense. And the context of the quote is more fitting as well. It speaks
of God “hiding His face” - seeming to be absent in the world. And here the leaf is not the sound
that sends you needlessly running. It’s you, running from the idea of God, even as it continues to
eat away at you, to “harass” you.

Ok, that’s much better. And here I was trying to tease out some loose association to a verse in our
parsha. After all that, I just got the quote wrong! My mistake.

But wait. Not so fast. Is there really no connection here to the 'driven leaf’ in Leviticus, the one
that sends us running scared?

For the book of Job itself, at least, is almost certainly referencing the earlier 'driven leaf,’ from
The Rebuke. The clue is that in same chapter, fifteen lines above, Job says:

Job is indeed a man of faith - but not of simple faith. The God Job acknowledges is the terrifying
and brutal one we meet here in our parsha. Yet somehow, Job still remains faithful. He begins
verse 15 by offering a paradoxical pledge of continued belief, even in the face of total annihilation:

Faithful he may be, but Job does not simply submit. He does not simply accept the God who allows
such suffering. In fact, he brings his case against God in the same language that God brought a

78
case against Israel, the language of rebuke. And here is that language yet again, at the beginning
of the chapter:

Then Job proceeds to ask God the questions from Steinberg’s quote: 1.) “Why do you hide your
face?” - Where are You, God? And 2.) “Will you harass a driven leaf?” - Why do You cause
such suffering, God? Why are You so cruel?

This is a direct reference to the curse of the driven leaf from Leviticus, and the implication is that,
in whole of 'The Rebuke’ from Leviticus, this is the one that’s really beyond the pale. It is bad
enough that God should inflict physical suffering. But psychological torture?! That’s too much.
Job continues to believe in God, yes, but he can no longer justify God’s actions.

Steinberg’s Elisha ben Abuya simply takes the case one step further: A God like that isn’t just
cruel, but altogether absent.

Steinberg is quoting Job, yes. But Job is quoting Parshat Bechukotai. And through these three
layers of text, Job, Elisha ben Abuya and Milton Steinberg are joining together to put God on trial.

Wilt Thou harass a driven leaf?

79
 The Curse of the Law

Baruch Sterman writes:21

The late seventies: I was not yet twenty, commuting to college between my home in New Jersey
and New York City. Trudging each day through the Port Authority bus station, I would regularly
be approached by missionaries of varying beliefs, my kippah apparently marking me a worthy
target. Politely, I would assure them that I was not interested, but one day curiosity took control
and I stopped to engage a young man (a Jew for Jesus) in conversation. After all, I had just returned
from a year at Gush where we had a weekly class in “Da Mah Le-hashiv,” responses to missionary
arguments, and I, perhaps a bit brashly, felt that I had amassed the knowledge and experience to
counter any argument.

And indeed, the conversation went fairly well from my standpoint. The verses from Tanakh that
my new friend brought as proof of prophecies fulfilled by Jesus were generally mistranslations,
and he did not impress me as a particularly deep thinker. “I see you are more knowledgeable than
I am,” he finally said, “but I really would like you to meet my teacher.” Years of yeshiva
indoctrination had my imagination spinning with thoughts of cults and kidnapping, but I
nonetheless accepted the invitation (with the stipulation that we meet in a very public place).
Timothy and I met for coffee at a Howard Johnson’s in Times Square for what turned out to be a
fascinating discussion which lasted for four hours. Mainly, I listened. As before, the Biblical verses
which he interpreted as indications or predictions made no impression on me, as I could read them
in the original Hebrew and place them in their actual context. The miracles that did or did not
happen I likewise dismissed, referencing Deuteronomy 13:3-4, “If the sign or portent comes true…
do not heed the words of that prophet,” which explicitly disqualifies miracles as a basis for
rejecting established Torah precepts.

Though many topics were touched on and the fundamental differences between our faiths
explored, there was one particular argument of his that intrigued me. “Salvation through the law
is a notion that is inherently flawed,” Timothy contended. “We all agree that no one is without sin,
and the Bible clearly states that one who sins is cursed. Therefore, everyone working within that
theological system, that is to say, Judaism, is inevitably cursed.” The way to salvation, he
continued, is not through commitment to the law, but rather via faith in the one who nullified the
curse through his suffering. Leaving aside the difficulties with the alternative proposed by Timothy
(its logical inconsistencies, its shirking of personal responsibility, and other problematical moral,
religious, and historical consequences), the argument itself interested me. I left the meeting
unscathed theologically, but with a deep desire to learn more and research the topic more fully.

Timothy was referring to a doctrine first articulated by Paul known as The Curse of the Law. In a
sermon to the Galatians (a pagan community in the Anatolian region of Turkey), Paul says, “For
all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who
does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law’” (Galatians 3:10). Paul is

21
https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/parshat-ki-tavo-the-curse-of-the-law/

80
quoting a verse in this week’s Torah portion, Parshat Ki Tavo, relating to the ceremony of
blessings and curses to be recited on Mounts Gerizim and Eval when the Israelites entered the
Land of Israel. The last of the twelve curses is a general catch-all coming after a list of very specific
transgressions:

The second part of Timothy’s argument, that no one is without sin, also finds expression in the
Bible. The author of Ecclesiastes points out what we all know to be true, “For there is not one good
man on Earth who does what is best and doesn’t sin” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). It would appear, then,
that sooner or later, the curse in Deuteronomy would be leveled against every single Jew. Rashi
does not deny that this is the case. His explanation of the verse is straightforward: “Here (in these
words) he included the entire Torah [under a curse], and they took it upon themselves with a curse
and an oath.” Other commentators, such as Ibn Ezra, are bothered by this possibility. Thus, they
mitigate the scope of the curse somewhat, claiming that it applies only to one who transgresses the
specific sins mentioned previously in the curses, who sins in private, or similar limitations.

While these commentators address the troubling conclusion that results from the juxtaposition of
these verses, they do not address the Pauline doctrine directly. To find a classical commentator
who does directly and clearly respond to this doctrine, we must turn to Ramban (Nahmanides).
Among classical Jewish commentators, no one understood Medieval Christian theology and the
challenges posed by its proponents to Jews better than he; after all, he himself defended the Jewish
position in the famous Disputation of Barcelona in late July 1263. There, in front of King James
of Aragon, the apostate Sephardic Jew known as Pablo Christiani attempted to prove the truth of
Christianity in a public debate with Ramban, hoping to convert other Spanish Jews and even
Ramban himself. In the short-term, the King was deeply impressed by Ramban’s arguments saying
memorably, that he had never heard an “unjust cause so nobly defended.” He even paid a public
visit to the Jewish synagogue that Friday night as a mark of his respect. Ramban, however, had
had deep reservations about participating in the debate to begin with, sensing that no good would
come of it, and indeed, that turned out to be the case. Though granted complete freedom to speak
without fear of retaliation, he was ultimately forced to flee Spain and in 1267 settled in Israel in
the Old City of Jerusalem.

Ramban in his commentary on Deuteronomy 27:26 first quotes Rashi, then gives his own
innovative explanation:

81
The verse, Ramban claims, is not talking about the typical sinner who falls short of perfect
adherence to the law for any one of a number of reasons such as lack of self-restraint or laziness.
Such a person has no doubt transgressed the law and is expected to repent. However, so long as
one believes by and large in the overall system and admits that observing the commandments is
the proper thing to do, the curse does not apply to him, even if at times he falters.

Ramban grounds his interpretation in a careful reading of the text:

Ramban supports his remarkable explanation by referencing the famous verse from the Book
of Esther (9:27), (another Jewish hero who defended her people before a foriegn king) which
describes the Jewish people’s spontaneous affirmation of their obligation to the Torah using the
same term (k-y-m) as the verse in Deuteronomy. Based on this language, he deflects Paul’s
challenge by asserting that a run-of-the-mill sinner is not the object of this curse so long as he
accepts the Torah upon himself and feels obligated by it. Indeed, no man on Earth can live up to a
level of perfection entirely free from sin, misjudgment, lapse of moral or religious fortitude or
downright weakness, or negligence. Those types of faults, however, make one human, not cursed.
With Ramban’s (re-)interpretation, Paul’s entire premise crumbles and his assertion that salvation
under the law is impossible is rendered invalid.

But with deftness worthy of a master swordsman, Ramban not only parries Paul’s attack, but pivots
to rebound the verse – and the curse – back against the Pauline challenger. The curse is not leveled
against a normal sinner, but rather it applies to one who rejects the eternal validity of the system,
to one who claims that observing the law is no longer capable of “benefiting and rewarding,” i.e.,
of effecting salvation. Ramban was certainly familiar with Paul’s message to the Galatians and the
polemical use of this verse, and it would certainly seem that his term “rebels and infidels” is
referring to Christians, or more specifically to Jewish apostates who converted to Christianity. As
in the story of Bilaam who came to curse Israel but ended up blessing them, Ramban takes Paul’s
doctrine which aimed to curse the Jews and bless their detractors and transforms that very doctrine
into the precise object and focus of that same curse. The curse is not directed at those who try (but
sometimes fail) to uphold the Law (namely, the Jews), but rather at those who deny the eternal
validity of the Law (i.e., apostates such as Paul and Pablo Christiani).

Ramban ends this piece with a somewhat unusual Aggadic note. The Midrash gives an alternate
explanation to the phrase “who does not uphold” in our verse, claiming that these words are
directed to the magbihah, the one who literally holds up (mekim) the Torah scroll for the
congregation to see at the reading of the Torah portion. They exhort him to fulfill his duty with the
utmost attention: special care must be taken as he “…lifts it up and shows the text to the right and
left, to the front and back, since it is a Mitzvah for all the men, women, and children to see the text

82
and to bow and say ve-zot ha-Torah, ‘and this is the Torah which Moshe placed before the Children
of Israel.’ ”

In light of his interpretation of the verse and its context as part of the Christian polemic it
engendered, one wonders if the hagbah tradition took on a deep and poignant significance to the
Jews in Medieval Christian Europe. To those outside the synagogue who claimed that the law of
Moshe was no longer valid, the devout pointed directly at the ancient text of the Torah scroll,
exclaiming and passionately affirming “ve-zot ha-Torah” – this is the Torah, unchanging and
binding. That phrase resonates with the words of the ninth of Maimonides’ thirteen principles of
faith:

Ramban urges his fellow Jews to cherish the Torah scroll and appreciate every single word it
contains. And there is good reason to cherish it. Rather than leading to inevitable despair,
adherence to the Law is the eternal path towards physical and spiritual well-being, as proclaimed
again and again in this week’s Torah portion:

By explicitly rejecting Paul’s Curse of the Law, Ramban, echoing the words of the prophet, has in
effect, “turned the curse into a blessing” (Nehemiah 13:2), as he reminds us not to despair of our
all too human shortcomings, and to embrace the truth of the Torah and its eternal relevance.

83
 Want to Understand 2020? Look at 1840.

How one seminal moment in Jewish mystical life provides profound insight into
our present moment

DOVID BASHEVKIN writes:22

December (2020) is now upon us, time for end-of-year summations, but good luck getting really
excited about 2021: Out there, in the plague-ridden world, it’s still 2020, this strangest of all years
any of us had ever lived through.

How to understand the strange confluence of events that is making

this annus particularly horribilis? Unsurprisingly, a whole cottage industry of historical analogies
has sprung up overnight, with some pontificators saying 2020 is a lot like 1918, the year of the
Spanish flu, and others saying our moment is more reminiscent of the 1930s, the decade of gleeful
descent toward fascism and unreason.

We Jews in particular are conditioned to play these sorts of games. We have a whole holiday
dedicated to it: Tisha B’Av, the catchall day for various historical catastrophes, each strangely

22
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/belief/articles/why-2020-is-like-1840

84
occurring on the exact same date and reminding us that history sometimes has a nasty way of
repeating itself. And so, let us indulge: What is 2020 really like?

Allow me an unorthodox contribution: 2020 is a lot like 1840.

In case you’re not familiar with that particular moment in the 19th century, consider The New York
Times’ review of a book published last year, The Europeans: Three Lives and the Making of a
Cosmopolitan Culture by Orlando Figes. Here’s how the review begins, with the world of 1840 in
medias res:

I thought about this passage a lot during the early days of COVID-19, watching Jimmy Fallon
broadcast live from his home and marveling that he and I basically used the same technologies and
enjoyed the same production values. This change, I thought, wasn’t just about the ways in which
technology erased many of our existing inequalities and barriers. It was about making us rethink
our entire approach toward knowledge itself. How do we know what we know isn’t a question we
ask every day or every year; when we bother to stop and contemplate it, miraculous things happen.

I mean that literally: An obscure passage in the Zohar, the seminal work of Jewish mysticism,
states that during the sixth century of the sixth millennia of the Jewish calendar the gates of wisdom
will be opened. Naturally, the prediction sparked a debate within the Jewish community about how
this should be interpreted, with some optimistic about the promised revolution in knowledge and
others skittish.

This debate, slow brewing for years, bubbled up in the Jewish calendar year 5600, or, as it is better
known, 1840. Rabbi Jacob Lifschutz, the famed handler of the central Jewish leader at the time,
Rabbi Yitchak Elchanon Spektor, was skeptical. He wrote:

All this building didn’t particularly make Lifschutz happy. As one scholar recounts, the rabbi
associated the year 1840 with “the heightening of the crisis of modernity,” and longed instead for
simpler, older times when the best minds of the generation had to worry about nothing more than
the sacred and eternal duty of studying Torah. Other rabbis, it’ll come as no surprise, felt

85
differently: David Einhorn, for example, an early Reform rabbi, was excited about modernity’s
leaps, and believed that the new technologies and ideas would help rescue Jews from the
backwardness of their sheltered shtiebel lives. At a rabbinic conference, he even went as far as
suggesting transforming Tisha B’Av from a day of sadness into a day celebrating Jewish dispersal
throughout the world.

And so, the Jews quibbled. But not all of them, and not always: A surge in anti-Semitism, bolstered
by the famous blood libel known as the Damascus affair, brought unexpected coalitions of Jews
together. And some Jewish mystics took advantage of the anxiety everywhere in the air and leaned
into the difficult moment to produce profound and stirring ideas that still inspire us today. Rabbi
Mordechai Yosef Leiner, for example, started his Hasidic court, the Hasidut of Izhbitz, in 1840,
seeing the moment of turmoil and upheaval as a joyous rapture in which “the words of Torah can
become more accessible and attainable to the minds of mankind.”

Izhbitz modeled a rare fusion of modern sensibilities with traditional Hasidic sensitivities, meeting
the uncertainties brought about by the year’s technological, political, and economic changes with
optimism and resilience. Where others saw a period where traditional religion was simply obsolete
and others just saw anxiety over its demise, Rabbi Leiner and others saw opportunity: Previous
generations, they argued, were pressed by physical hardships to think of little more than survival.
Now that technology has freed so much of our time and our space, it was time to reconsider the
essential questions of humanity.

Which brings us back to 2020. Amid all the tragedy and death of the pandemic, there were also
some remarkable opportunities uncovered. Communities learned how to celebrate, mourn, and
study together in ways previously unseen. Buried underneath the medical crisis was also a
reiteration of the crisis of modernity. What does it mean to be essential? Without a normal
economy, people began to ask themselves how to construct meaning in a world where typical work
environments—the great distraction of the modern era—were suddenly closed. Yuval Harari, in
his book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, muses:

Within a matter of days, 2020 forced us all to at least imagine where we would turn for such a
quest.

And so, now that it’s almost New Year’s Eve and our minds are still set on renewal, let us
remember one last teaching as we prepare for the final leg of this terrible, horrible, no good, very
bad year. The Talmud, in Tractate Megilah 31b, says that we read the curses at the end of the Torah
right before Rosh Hashanah as a reminder that “the year should end along with its curses and a
new year should begin with all of its blessings.”

This year, 2020, certainly feels like an apt year for such a prayer. But 1840 is a reminder that
blessings don’t emerge in a vacuum—they arise not in spite of generational challenges but because
of the challenges that each year faces.

86
So, in that sense, 2020 should end along with its curses and propel us to see the blessings and
opportunities that 2021 brings our way.

87