ןֵכוֹשַּׁה םָתִּא וֹתְבּ םָתֹאְמוּט :Daf Ditty Yoma 56

Château de Coucy

The Chateau of Coucy ca. 1575, view from the entrance and plan, from Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, Le Premier Volume des plus excellents bastiments de (, 1576).

1 Syracuse University, George Arents Library (photo: Syracuse University)

Rather, he may say that if the Sage comes to the east, his eiruv is to the east, and if the Sage comes to the west, his eiruv is to the west. However, he may not say that if one Sage comes from here, and another Sage comes from there, he will go wherever he wishes, in either direction.

And we discussed this passage in the and asked: What is different about a case in which one stipulated that if Sages came from here and from there that he may go to whichever side he chooses, such that his eiruv is not effective? Apparently, Yehuda maintains that there is no retroactive clarification, i.e., this person cannot claim after the fact that the place where he walked is designated as the place that he initially intended for his eiruv.

However, according to this principle, when an individual establishes an eiruv to the east and to the west for the anticipated arrival of a single Sage, one should also invoke the principle that there is no retroactive clarification. Why does Rabbi Yehuda agree that if one anticipates the arrival of a single Sage and stipulates that if he comes to the east his eiruv will be to the east, the eiruv is valid?

2 And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not a true case of retroactive clarification, as the Sage had already come by twilight, but the one who established the eiruv did not yet know at which side of the the Sage had arrived. Therefore, at the time the eiruv establishes his Shabbat residence, it is clear which eiruv he wants, although he himself will become aware of that only later. In this case, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that the eiruv is valid, but he nonetheless maintains in general that there is no retroactive clarification. This accounts for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that there was no container for nests of obligatory sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, as he maintains that there is no solution for the possible mixture of the different coins.

The Gemara asks: And now that we have said and proven that according to Rabbi Yehuda there is no retroactive clarification, nevertheless he is of the opinion that one may rely on writing, as proven from the of the collection horns. If so, on as well, let us place two pedestals and write on them which one is for the blood of the bull and which is for the blood of the goat.

The Gemara answers: The reason they did not place two pedestals with writing on them is due to the High Priest’s weakness. Since he is fasting during the entire day’s service, the writing will not be on his mind; he will pay no attention to it and might become confused. As, if you do not say so, that there is concern for the High Priest’s weakness, even without writing he should also not err, as this bowl in which he collects the bull’s blood is relatively large and this one for the goat’s blood is small.

§ The mishna taught: And the High Priest sprinkled from the blood of the bull on the curtain opposite the Ark from outside the Holy of Holies. The Sages taught:

3 And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because 16 זט רֶפִּכְו לַﬠ - ,שֶׁדֹקַּה תֹאְמֻטִּמ תֹאְמֻטִּמ ,שֶׁדֹקַּה of the uncleannesses of the children of , and because of יֵנְבּ ,לֵאָרְשִׂי ,םֶהיֵﬠְשִׁפִּמוּ לָכְל - their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for ַח ֹטּ ;םָתא כְו ֵ ן ﬠַי ,הֶשֲׂ אְל הֹ לֶ לֶ הֹ אְל ,הֶשֲׂ ﬠַי ן ֵ כְו ;םָתא ֹטּ the tent of meeting, that dwelleth with them in the midst of ﬠוֹמ ,דֵ כֹשַּׁה ֵ ן תִּא ,םָ וֹתְבּ וֹתְבּ ,םָ תִּא ן ֵ כֹשַּׁה ,דֵ ﬠוֹמ .their uncleannesses .םָתֹאְמֻט Lev 16:16

“And he shall make atonement for the sacred place because of the impurities of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity”

What is the meaning when the verse states this? Just as he sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting, toward the curtain.

Furthermore: Just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary. And just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles in the Sanctuary. The last part of the verse: “That dwells with them in the midst of their impurity,” teaches that even when the Jewish people are impure, the Divine Presence is with them.

With regard to this verse, the Gemara relates: A certain Sadducee said to Rabbi Ḥanina:

Now you are certainly impure, as it is written about the Jewish people:

4 Her filthiness was in her skirts, she was not mindful of her 9 ט הָּתָאְמֻט ,ָהיֶלוּשְׁבּ אֹל הָרְכָז הָרְכָז end; therefore is she come down wonderfully, she hath no ,הָּתיִרֲחַא דֶרֵתַּו ,םיִאָלְפּ ןיֵא םֵחַנְמ ;הָּל ;הָּל םֵחַנְמ ןיֵא ,םיִאָלְפּ דֶרֵתַּו ,הָּתיִרֲחַא comforter. 'Behold, O LORD, my affliction, for the enemy הֵאְר הָוהְי תֶא - נָﬠ יְ ,יִ יִכּ ליִדְּגִה ליִדְּגִה יִכּ ,יִ יְ נָﬠ '.hath magnified himself וֹא ֵי .ב }ס{ Lam 1:9 “Her impurity was in her skirts” and the Divine Presence does not dwell upon the when they are impure. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Come and see what is written about the Jewish people: “That dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Leviticus 16:16). This indicates that even when they are impure, the Divine Presence dwells among them.

Summary1

The discuss tithing. uses the example of 100 log of . He explains the first , the , when the second tithe is redeemed in and when the wine is consumed. He suggests that only after Shabbat are these portions removed as and . This is known as breira, retroactive clarification, which is explained succinctly in a note on Yoma 55.

Today's daf includes a note that helps to explain Rabbi Meir's words. From 100 pears, two pears - one 50th - are removed as gedola. Then 10% of the 98 remaining fruit are taken as first tithe and given to a . Next, 10% of the remaining approximately 88.2 fruits is taken as second tithe. In Jerusalem, the second tithe is consumed or redeemed and then consumed. On the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle, the second tithe is given to the poor.

Rabbis Yehuda, Yossi and Shimon disagree with Rabbi Meir's validation of breira. That we could be allowed to designate something in one category or another after the fact leaves too much room for error or self-serving decisions. For example, it is unjust to determine the eiruv only when we reach the mid point between two rabbis travelling toward us for Shabbat from two different directions. Certainly we would choose to place the eiruv in the direction of our preferred rabbi.

All of this is pertinent to our discussion of the order of the Yom Kippur service. How can we assist the High Priest avoid errors? To avoid an error of placement, should we write on the stools which one should hold which bowl of blood (the goat and the bull)? Would that be helpful to the High Priest who would be weak on Yom Kippur, or would he become confused by such notes? Or can we retroactively clarify the naming of stools so that there were in fact no errors made by the High Priest?

At the end of our daf, we are reminded that the Divine Presence is said to be with the Jewish people even when they are ritually impure as a community (Leviticus 16:16). This notion will be discussed further tomorrow.

1 https://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/search?q=yoma+56

5

Clearly there is recognition of the physical and psychological state of the High Priest over the course of Yom Kippur. Frailty is mentioned a number of times with regard to the High Priest's carrying (coals) and placing, sprinkling (bowls of blood). Where is that compassion when it comes to other members of the community? Do the rabbis take seriously the High Priest's capacities only because an error on Yom Kippur could have been thought to harm the entire community? Or was there room for compassion in other circumstances but the rabbis somehow 'understood' the feelings of the High Priest more than those of others?

A "HEKESH" THAT TEACHES A HALACHAH WHICH WAS DERIVED THROUGH ANOTHER "HEKESH"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The (55b) discusses where and how the blood of the Par and Sa'ir were sprinkled on Yom Kippur. First, the blood of the Par was sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, with one Haza'ah upward and seven Haza'os downward. Second, the blood of the Sa'ir was sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim in the same manner, one Haza'ah upward and seven downward. The Gadol then went from the Kodesh ha'Kodashim into the Heichal and performed similar Haza'os towards the Paroches: one upward and seven downward from the blood of the Par, and one upward and seven downward from the blood of the Sa'ir.

The Gemara (56b) cites a Beraisa which derives from a Hekesh that the blood of the Par and the blood of the Sa'ir were sprinkled in the Heichal in the same manner (towards the Paroches) that they were sprinkled in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. The Hekesh ( 16:16) associates the Ohel Mo'ed (Heichal) with the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.

The Gemara here asks how such a Hekesh can teach a about the Haza'os in the Heichal. The Gemara earlier (55a) teaches that the sets of Haza'os for the Par and the Sa'ir (one upward and seven downward) are themselves derived through a Hekesh. The specifies only the number of upward Haza'os (i.e. one) that are done with the blood of the Sa'ir; the number of downward Haza'os (i.e. seven) is derived from a Hekesh to the Haza'os of the Par. With regard to the Par, the Torah specifies only the number of downward Haza'os (i.e. seven); the number of upward Haza'os (i.e. one) is derived from a Hekesh to the Sa'ir. How can another Hekesh teach that these Haza'os are also performed in the Heichal? There is a rule that a Hekesh cannot be used to teach a Halachah for Korbanos when that Halachah is derived in the first place through a Hekesh. Only when a Halachah is written explicitly with regard to one type of can a Hekesh teach that the Halachah applies to a second type of Korban.

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-057.htm

6 The Gemara suggests three answers to this question. In its third answer, the Gemara says that the sprinklings performed in the Heichal are derived from the sprinklings performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim "at one time."

What do these words mean, and how do they answer the question that a Hekesh cannot teach a Halachah that is derived only through a Hekesh in the first place?

RASHI (DH v'Iy Ba'is Eima) explains that the Haza'os of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim that are written explicitly (one upward sprinkling for the Sa'ir and seven downward sprinklings for the Par) may serve as the source for the Haza'os in the Heichal through a Hekesh, because only a single Hekesh is employed. Once a single Hekesh is used to teach a Halachah, that Hekesh can be used to teach which are derived from a different Hekesh in the first place (and which need a "double Hekesh" to transfer them, such as the seven downward sprinklings for the Sa'ir and the one upward sprinkling for the Par).

TOSFOS (DH Chutz) questions 's explanation. He cites a number of instances in which a Hekesh is used to teach a law that is written explicitly in the verse, but the same Hekesh is not used to teach a law that is derived only from an earlier Hekesh. Tosfos explains that Rashi's intention is to say that the case here is unique in that the explicit Halachah for which the Hekesh is originally used (one upward Haza'ah for the Sa'ir and seven downward Haza'os for the Par) is an intrinsic part of the other Halachah which is derived through a double Hekesh. Both laws describe the manner in which the Haza'os were done in the Heichal. Since some of the Haza'os performed in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim are derived from a single Hekesh, the entire procedure of the Haza'os may be learned through a Hekesh. (The RITZBA, cited by Tosfos, adds that the verse itself implies that the entire procedure of the Haza'os in the Heichal should be derived from the Haza'os in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.)

(b) The RI (cited by Tosfos) explains that the Gemara means to say that the Hekesh indeed is not used to teach a Halachah that is derived only through an earlier Hekesh. Rather, the Hekesh teaches only Halachos that are written explicitly in the verse. The number of upward Haza'os is written explicitly with regard to the Sa'ir. The Hekesh which associates the Heichal with the Kodesh ha'Kodashim derives from the Sa'ir's single upward Haza'ah in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim that there also must be one upward Haza'ah for the Sa'ir in the Heichal, in addition to one upward Haza'ah for the Par in the Heichal. Similarly, the downward Haza'os in the Heichal for both the Par and the Sa'ir are derived through a Hekesh from the downward Haza'os of the Par in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim.

(c) RABEINU CHANANEL has a different Girsa in the Gemara. The Haza'os of the Heichal are learned with (and not from) the Haza'os of the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. That is, when the Torah says, "And so shall be done in the Ohel Mo'ed," it is as though it explicitly teaches the same instructions for the Ohel Mo'ed (Heichal) as it teaches for the Kodesh ha'Kodashim. A Hekesh does not teach which Haza'os are performed in the Heichal. Rather, the verse equates the Heichal with the Kodesh ha'Kodashim with regard to the Haza'os. The only Hekesh that is used is a single Hekesh which teaches that the number of downward Haza'os for the Par and Sa'ir are the same in both the Heichal and Kodesh ha'Kodashim, and the number of upward Haza'os for the Par and Sa'ir are the same in both the Heichal and Kodesh ha'Kodashim.

7

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

Sprinkling the blood of the par (sacrificial bull) on the kaporet (ark cover) in the Holy of Holies as part of the Yom Kippur service is clearly commanded in the Torah (Vayikra 16:14). The Gemara on our daf quotes a that teaches that in addition, there is a commandment is to sprinkle the blood in the direction of the parokhet (curtain), but not necessarily on the parokhet. This teaching brought Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Yossi to testify that on a visit to Rome he had the opportunity to examine the parokhet, and he saw drops of blood that he recognized as being from the Yom Kippur service. This was clear to him because the drops were in a straight row, and only the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur sprinkled the blood with such precision.

The Me’iri points out that only on Yom Kippur did the kohen gadol stand close to the parokhet when he did the zerikat ha-dam. Other sacrifices that had zerikah on the parokhet were done with the officiating kohen standing behind the golden , a distance of more than twenty amot from the parokhet, so it would have been impossible for the kohen to sprinkle the blood with any accuracy.

Rabbi Elazar was the son of the tanna Rabbi Yossi ben , and lived in the last generation before the redaction of the Mishnah by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar was, apparently, the greatest of Rabbi Yossi’s five sons, and already during his father’s lifetime he was recognized and honored by his generation.

During a difficult period for the Jews, Rabbi Elazar was part of a delegation to Rome together with Rabbi , which tried to get decrees against the Jews rescinded. Once in Rome they were miraculously given the opportunity to heal the Caesar’s daughter, who had fallen ill. They took advantage of this opportunity, and after successfully healing her, were given the opportunity to examine the Caesar’s coffers, which included the spoils of the Roman victory and sacking of the and the Temple. Rabbi Elazar’s examination of the Temple remains allowed him to return to the Sages with information about a number of the utensils from the mikdash, including the parokhet, the tzitz, etc.

Mark Kerzner writes:4

Earlier the teacher told us that the High Priest "takes the blood of the goat, puts down the blood of the bull". This is because there was only one golden stand there, otherwise he would put the blood of the bull on one golden stand first and then use the second one for the blood of the goat - and this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. The Sages say that there were two golden stands.

But why does Rabbi Yehudah insist that there was only one stand? Let them make two, and put reminder notes on them, "Bull" and "Goat!" - That is because according to Rabbi Yehudah, people don’t pay attention to reminder notes, so it would not help. - That could not be, because Rabbi

3 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_yoma_5157/ 4 http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma56.html

8 Yehudah agrees that there were thirteen collection chests in the Temple, each marked with its appropriate name, like "New shekalim," "bird offerings," etc.

He only disagrees about one chest, "Obligatory offerings," about which he says that it did not exist, and instead this money was collected manually. But why not? Even if that money is accidentally mixed in, let us take out (4) coins and say, "These coins are retroactively designated as the originally mixed in coins." To that I will answer that Rabbi Yehudah does not agree to retroactive designation, also called "bereirah".

And how do we know that Rabbi Yehudah does not accept the principle of retroactive designation? It may be deduced from the argument about tithing wine or from the argument about eruv . In any case we are by now far away from the original question. The reason Rabbi Yehudah allows only one golden stand is the weakness of the High Priest, who might easily confuse the bloods if there were two stands.

A person finds himself with a bottle of beverage moments before Shabbos, and he desires to designate the various tithes, only to realize that he has no other bottle to use to apportion the Rebbe Meir allows this person to verbally declare the , רב י הר selections.5 Using the concept of various portions, and to actually extract them after the rest of the beverage is consumed. After .” לחימ “ declaring the proper formula, the Gemara says he may drink after he has been

There is a dispute among the how to translate this line of the Gemara. Rashi learns that profane) of the portion – ילוח ן as we find the word , לחימ ) the person “must redeem the kedushah designated as with money.” The redemption of the kedushah off this portion of the beverage before drinking it is a necessary procedure.

notes that in order to transfer kedushah, the ma’aser must be in a specific ( לה ו חק .Tosafos (D.H place, and this is lacking in our case where the beverage is blended together in one container. as we find the word ,( לחימ ) Therefore, Tosafos learns that the Gemara means “he should begin ”.to begin) and drink immediately— חתהל י ליחה

that we could be dealing in a case where the person ( י”יר Tosafos Yeshanim explains (according to declared that the ma’aser sheni would be in the north of the bottle, thus enabling the person to do Yet he rejects this suggestion, because the Mishnah does not state that the designation of the. לוליח ma’aser was in a specific spot. Tosafos also rejects this possibility, because we are discussing a as Shabbos is beginning, and specifically attributing a place for the יב ן תושמשה case which occurs ma’aser as Shabbos begins is prohibited. Ramban (to Chullin 14a) points out a practical consideration of this case.

5 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20056.pdf

9

We cannot be dealing in a case where he assigned the ma’aser a specific spot, because a liquid is fluid, and its contents always flow.

The Ohr Zaruah (1) writes that the custom in his locale on a day in which two Sifrei Torah are read was to remove both Sifrei Torah together (2) . When the shaliach tzibur finished reading from the first he would take the second Sefer Torah and only then would he hand the first Sefer Torah away. This is recorded as halachah by Rema (3). The basis for holding the first object until taking the second is based upon our Mishnah (4), which indicates that the Kohen Gadol would first take the blood of the bull that he will use for sprinkling, and only then would he put down the blood of the goat. This is independent of the dispute between R’ Yehudah and Rabanan concerning the number of stands in the Sanctuary needed to hold blood.

The Magen Avraham (5) challenges the proof from our Gemara (6) which relates that when corrected the shaliach tzibur he told him to say, “He [the Kohen Gadol] placed down the blood of the goat and then took the blood of the bull.” The implication is that the correct practice is to put down the first object and then take the second.

The Magen Avraham resolves his challenge by suggesting an alternative reason for the Kohen Gadol’s practice. The reason the Kohen sets down the goat blood before lifting the bull blood is because otherwise, he would have to lift the bull blood with his left hand which is not acceptable for korbonos.

Therefore, he had no choice than to set down the goat blood first. Since this is not an issue concerning Sifrei Torah the halachah as stated by Rema remains in force.

10

Rav Tzaddok HaKohen from Lublin, zt”l, explains that we are still called the “portion of Hashem” even if we are mired in defilement. This is because a Jew by nature is always connected to Hashem, and this is the Divine Presence that never leaves his innermost self.

During the Bolshevik revolution, there were many bloody battles between those still loyal to the Czar, and the Communists. The only thing that held steady throughout the period was that the Jews inevitably suffered wherever the “Whites” were in conflict with the “Reds.” It didn’t matter which side came out on top; either way, the winners would invariably claim that the Jews were traitors and deserved punishment. Once, the Reds came to a small Russian village and completely overtook the area. Immediately, they declared that the local Jews were guilty of and should be put to . The Bolsheviks rounded up the Jews in the town square and prepared a firing squad.

The entire village was forcibly assembled, but one could still hear a pin drop just before the soldiers were ordered to fire. In that village, there was a pharmacist whom everyone quite reasonably assumed was not Jewish. In the heavy silence, this pharmacist started to push his way forward, and tried to join the three hundred condemned Jews.

11 The villagers tried to hold him back, not realizing why he wanted to risk his own life. The pharmacist continued to struggle, and cried: “I am also a Jew! If it is the fate of all the Jews to die, I should not be spared!” When the villagers saw that the pharmacist had managed to push himself through to join the Jews they began to fight the soldiers for the man’s life. “Who will heal us and prepare our medicines? You must spare him!” The Bolsheviks decided to spare the man, and also gave up on executing the Jews of the village. The revelation of this man’s eternal connection to the God of the Jewish people saved three hundred other lives!

Netziv’s Elucidation

For, I, Adonoy, dwell. The explanation is that this verse gives the reason for the two previous matters: This pollution causes the exile of Yisroel from Eretz Yisroel and exiles the Shechinah

12 (Divine Presence). We might say we understand the reason for the exile of the Shechinah, since the Shechinah cannot dwell in a place of pollution, but why should Yisroel go into exile?

Surely the sin itself is not so serious, since we are talking about a case of which was thought to be permissible, and if so, why should Yisroel be exiled because of the pollution of the land? Scripture explains to us the reason, “For, I, Adonoy, dwell among Bnei Yisroel.” I cannot cause My glory to dwell in Eretz Yisroel because of the pollution, thus, I must go into exile outside the Land.

Therefore, I must draw the essential dwelling place of Yisroel after me so that I can dwell amongst them outside the land, and it follows that the Shechinah dwells amongst Yisroel even outside Eretz Yisroel.

Baal Shem Tov Achrei Mot, Comment 6

I heard in the name of the Baal Shem Tov, who would bring close (proselytize) even sinners, When they were not in a state of grandiosity (about their religious status) and would distance himself from religious (ba’alei Torah) who were certainly far from being sinners, when they were in a state of self grandiosity and explained his attitude in the following manner:

“when they are sinning and know they are sinners, and as a result had a low self image, (lowly in their mind) then the Almighty was with them for he “dwells among them (even) in their impurity” but for the one who is not a sinner, since he is in a state of self grandisoty, the Almighty is not with him, for ( 5a)6 “both he and I cannot co-exist together”

6 Sota 5a

13

Pri Chaim on Avot 4:4

Viollet-le-Duc, Coucy: hypothetical reconstruction of the inner court, donjon, and chapel, from Dictionnaire raisonne de l'architecture, 1895. Syracuse University

Rav Ḥisda says, and some say that says: Concerning any person who has arrogance within him, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: He and I cannot dwell together in the world,

14

השמ ב ן י ע ק ב :Rabbi ben of Coucy, also known as Moses Mikkotsi (Hebrew Latin: Moses Kotsensis), was a French Tosafist and authority on Halakha (Jewish law). He ; קמ ו צ יצוק is best known as the author of one of the earliest codifications of Halakha, the . Moses of Coucy lived in the first half of the thirteenth century. His name suggests he was born or raised in Coucy in Northern France. He was a descendant of a family of distinguished scholars. He was the brother-in-law of Tosafist Shimshon of Sens and Shimshon of Coucy (HaSar MiCoucy). He studied under Judah of Paris, and Yehudah HaChasid. Following in the latter's footsteps he traveled through Provence and to strengthen religiosity among the Jews and teaching them the way to serve God. The correct rendering of the word —"from Coucy"—was discovered by Zunz. Moses' maternal grandfather was Ḥayyim ben Hananeel ha-Kohen of Paris. Nothing is known of Moses' life before he settled in Paris to study under Judah ben Isaac, the great French tosafist. He received instruction also from a certain (Tos. Yeshanim to Yoma 11a, 70b), who cannot be positively identified, but who may have been either the poet Joseph of Chartres, mentioned in the "SeMaG" (Prohibition No. 113), or the tosafist Joseph ben Baruch. Moses mentions occasionally Simson ben of Sens and Baruch ben Isaac of Worms, author of the "Sefer ha-Terumah"; it is usually believed, especially of the latter, that they were his teachers, although he does not expressly call them such. In 1235 Moses traveled in France, and in 1236 in Spain, lecturing publicly in the synagogues on the prescriptions of the Mosaic law and admonishing his audiences to observe them, at the same time, however, emphasizing the that mere observance of the oral law to the neglect of and brotherly consideration toward others, irrespective of faith or race, cannot be counted as meritorious ("SeMaG," Prohibition No. 64; Commandments Nos. 7 and 74). In Spain he found that a number of Jews had married Christians and Mohammedans, and he succeeded in bringing about their divorce (Prohibition No. 112; Commandment No. 3, end). He knew the French, Spanish, and Arabic languages, and was an eloquent speaker; hence he was called "ha-darshan" (the preacher; see "Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecæ Senatoriæ Civitatis Lipsiensis," p. 203, No. xvii.). In 1240 Moses was one of the four rabbis who, in a public in Paris, were required to defend the against the accusations of Donin; R. Jehiel, however, was the only speaker among them. In 1250 Moses finished his "Sefer Miẓwot," afterward called "Sefer Miẓwot ha- Gadol" (abbreviated "SeMaG") in order to discriminate it from an extract arranged by Isaac of Corbeil and called "Sefer Miẓwot ha-Ḳaṭon" (abbreviated "SeMaḲ").

15

Page from the First Edition of the "Semag," Rome (?) Before 1480. (From the Sulzberger collection in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York.)

The "SeMaG."

The "SeMaG" of Moses of Coucy deals with the 365 prohibitions and the 248 commandments of the Mosaic law, separately expounding each of them according to the Talmudic tradition and the decisions of the Rabbis. The relation of this code to those of the Spanish and Franco-German schools, and especially to ' initial work "Sefer ha-Miẓwot,

Rav Elchanan Samet writes:7

7 https://haretzion.linnovate.co.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-/parashat-ekev/parashat-ekev-where-torah-do-we-derive- prohibition

16

I. The Two Dreams of R. Moshe of Coucy

At the end of the fifth millennium, R. Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy (France) wandered among the cities of Spain and Provence and preached to the Jewish communities there. R. Moshe, one of the most important Tosafists of his generation, rebuked his audiences for their lax observance of certain mitzvot and guided them toward adopting good traits and distancing themselves from their wayward ones. His preaching made a deep impression on those who heard him and saved many of them from sin.[1]

Another result of R. Moshe of Coucy's extended journey was that upon his return to France he began to compile his Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (the Semag), considered one of the most important halakhic texts written in the .[2] This is what he writes in the introduction to his work concerning the circumstances that brought him to write it:[3]

And it came to pass, when I was brought by Heaven to wander among the lands to reprove the exiles of Israel, that I set my mind on orally arranging the mitzvot, each mitzva on its own… so that I make no mistakes in my rebuke. In several places, I was asked to write the foundations of the mitzva based on proofs and to make of this a book. I feared doing so, to publicize a work of

Torah, for "surely I am brutish, unlike a man, and have not the understanding of a man" (Mishlei 30:2).

At the beginning of the sixth millennium,[4] the matter came to me in a vision in a dream:

"Arise, compile a work of Torah in two parts!" I contemplated the vision, and there were two

17 parts – to write a book of the positive commandments in the first part and a book of the negative commandments in the second part.[5]

Therefore, I Moshe ben Yaakov, set my mind to write the two books…

R. Moshe concludes the introduction to his book with an account of another dream:

Also with regard to the negative commandments, a vision in a dream came to me, saying: "You forgot the principle: ‘Beware lest you forget the Lord your God’ (Devarim 8:11).” For it had not been my intention to include this in the count of the prohibitions. Rabbeinu Moshe [ben

Maimon, the Rambam] similarly did not mention it in his count.

I contemplated the matter in the morning, and, lo, it is a great foundation in the fear of God, and I included it among the great principles in its place.[6]

This second vision is a mystery that requires a resolution, and the author alludes to this resolution when he writes: "I included it among the great principles in its place." Let us proceed in the wake of R. Moshe's allusion, and see how the author resolved the mystery of his dream.

II. Beware lest you forget the Lord” – Should this be counted among the 613

Torah Commandments?

In the first orations concerning the mitzvot in the book of Devarim, we encounter two similar verses. In Parashat Va'etchanan it is stated:

18 6:10-11: And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you into the land which He swore to your fathers… great and goodly cities, which you did not build, and houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which you did not hew, vineyards and olive-trees, which you did not plant, and you shall eat and be satisfied,

12: then beware lest you forget the Lord, who brought you forth out of the land of , out of the house of bondage.

13: You shall fear the Lord your God; and Him shall you serve, and by His name shall you swear.

14: You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the peoples that are round about you;

15: for a jealous God, even the Lord your God, is in the midst of you; lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and He destroy you from off the face of the earth.

And in Parashat Ekev it is stated:

8:7: For the Lord your God brings you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths, springing forth in valleys and hills;

8: a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates; a land of olive-trees and honey;

9: a land wherein you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall not lack anything in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills you may dig brass.

10: And you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you.

19 11: Beware lest you forget the Lord your God, in not keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command you this day;

12: lest when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built goodly houses, and dwelt therein;

13: and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your and your is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied;

14: then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage;

15: who led you through the great and dreadful wilderness…

16: who fed you in the wilderness with manna, which your fathers knew not…

17: and you say in your heart: My power and the might of my hand has gotten me this wealth.

18: But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He that gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.[7]

The two similar verses that we marked in bold in the citations above – "beware lest you forget the

Lord" – are formulated as clear commands, as negative precepts. As R. Avin taught in the name of R. Ila'i (Eiruvin 96 and parallel passages): "Wherever it says 'beware,' 'lest,' or 'do not,' this indicates a negative commandment."

Did the enumerators of the mitzvot include this prohibition in their count of the mitzvot?

III. Those who counted this prohibition and those who did not count it

20 Two main systems for counting the mitzvot are found among the and Rishonim who occupied themselves with this area of Torah study. The first is the system of the author of the Halakhot Gedolot, whose enumeration of the mitzvot in his book was widespread throughout the Diaspora over the course of many generations. Many enumerators of the mitzvot followed the Halakhot Gedolot's system, both in France and in Spain, as well as in Islamic countries.[8]

About two generations before R. Moshe of Coucy began to compile his book, the Rambam published his Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, which presented a new system for counting the mitzvot. This system is based on clear principles, which are formulated in the introduction to his book – the fourteen "roots."[9]

R. Moshe of Coucy was the first enumerator of the mitzvot who used the Rambam's system as the basis for his book of mitzvot, and there are only a few differences between their two counts.[10] In the body of his book, R. Moshe often mentions the Rambam and his rulings in the , to the point that it may be argued that the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol is the wide gate through which the

Rambam's teachings entered the world of the French Tosafists.[11]

The Halakhot Gedolot, in his enumeration of the negative commandments (#150), counts as a mitzva the verse, "Lest you forget the Lord,"[12] but he does not explain the meaning of the prohibition.

21 R. Eliezer of Metz in his book, the Yere'im, in which he enumerates the mitzvot following the system of the Halakhot Gedolot, also counts this prohibition (no. 360 in the Sefer Yere'im Ha-

Shalem edition), but he tries also to explain its content:

"Beware lest you forget the Lord" – It is written in Parashat Va'etchanan: "Beware lest you forget the Lord," which means that a person must not forget to accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven and that he must recite the Shema every day.[13] And according to the authority who says in Berakhot (21a) that the recitation of Shema is by Rabbinic decree, it means that a person must always remember his Creator and His commandments.[14] And "lest he forget" is a negative commandment, as R. Ila said: "Wherever it says 'beware,' 'lest,' or 'do not,' this indicates a negative commandment."

The Ramban, at the end of his strictures on the Rambam's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, in the first of "the negative commandments that the Rambam forgot,"[15] counts this negative commandment in the wake of the Halakhot Gedolot:

That not one of us forget belief in God… for we were commanded in the first mitzva [positive commandments] about accepting the kingdom of Heaven… This is what the Blessed One said: "I am the Lord your God who has brought you forth from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage" ( 20:2), which is the mitzva of believing [in God]… And He repeated a prohibition to deny this… This is what is stated: "Beware lest you forget the Lord (your

God)[16] who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" (Devarim 6:12). He means by this that we must not forget the principle of God and deny

22 or doubt it… And He offered proof for the aforementioned [positive] commandment and [negative] prohibition – the exodus from Egypt with signs and wonders…

And He repeated this prohibition again, saying: "Beware lest you forget the Lord your God, in not keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command you this day" (Devarim 8:10). This is also a prohibition to forget belief in God, and to deny because of that the Torah and the commandments…

This mitzva from the verse: "Beware lest you forget the Lord your God" was mentioned by the author of the Halakhot [Gedolot].

According to the Ramban, this mitzva partners with the first of the Ten Commandments, the mitzva of "I am the Lord your God." In other words, it is a prohibition that complements that positive commandment. The content of the mitzva according to the Ramban is similar to the content of the mitzva according to the Yere'im.

The Rambam, however, does not include the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan or the similar verse in Parashat Ekev in his enumeration of the mitzvot. Why does he refrain from doing so, when these verses are clearly formulated as prohibitions?

The answer to this question seems to hang on the fourth principle in the Rambam's introduction to his Sefer Ha-Mitzvot:[17]

The fourth rule: that it is inappropriate to enumerate commands that include all of the commandments.

23 Some commandments and prohibitions in the Torah do not relate to a specific matter, but rather encompass all of the mitzvot, as if to say: Do all that I have commanded you, and take heed of all that I have prohibited to you, or: Do not disobey anything that I have commanded you. There is no room to enumerate such a command as a separate mitzva, because it does not command the performance of any specific action, that it be a positive commandment, nor does it prohibit any specific action, that it be a negative commandment.

In Parashat Va'etchanan, the verse does not explain what is included in the prohibition to forget

God, but from what is written in the following verse in a positive formulation: "You shall fear the

Lord your God, and Him you shall serve," we learn that forgetting God involves not fearing Him and not serving Him. If so, this is a general command that relates to many other commandments, and perhaps even to all of them.[18]

In Parashat Ekev, the verse itself, "Beware lest you forget the Lord your God," explains what is included in this forgetting: "in not keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command you this day."

It is clear, therefore, why the Rambam did not count these verses as negative commandments, and it is also clear why it had not been R. Moshe of Coucy's intention "to include this in the count of the prohibitions," and in that way to follow in the footsteps of the Rambam.

IV. Resolving R. Moshe’s dream – The verse in Parashat Ekev in its context

24 But here comes the vision in the dream and informs R. Moshe: "You forgot the principle: 'Beware lest you forget the Lord your God.'" It is clear that in this dream R. Moshe is told that the verse in Parashat Ekev – the verse that is cited in the dream – has a new and unique meaning that is not found in other mitzvot. What is that meaning?

R. Moshe informs us that when he contemplated the dream in the morning, he understood that "it is a great foundation in the fear of God." He further informs us that he included this prohibition

"in its place." All that we have to do, then, is look for where R. Moshe included the prohibition that is based on this verse in his enumeration of the mitzvot.

In negative commandment no. 64, R. Moshe writes:

"Beware lest you forget the Lord your God" – This is a warning against Israel becoming arrogant when the Holy One, blessed be He, bestows good upon them, and saying that they acquired all of this through their own effort and toil, and not showing gratitude to the Holy One, blessed be He, because of their arrogance. To this the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan answers: "And houses full of good things, which you did not fill… and you shall eat and be satisfied, then beware lest you forget" (Devarim 6:11-12).[19]

This explanation which we gave [at the beginning of this mitzva to the verse in Parashat Ekev] is explicit in the verses that [immediately] follow: "Lest when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and your gold is multiplied… then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your

God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt… and you say in your heart: My power and

25 the might of my hand has gotten me this wealth. But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He that gives you power to get wealth."

From here we derive the prohibition that a person not be arrogant about what he received from the

Creator, whether wealth, or beauty, or wisdom. Rather, he must be humble and low-spirited before

God and man and thank his Creator for having graced him with that virtue.

R. Moshe proceeds to expand upon the matter by citing verses from the Torah, the , and the Writings, and from the words of in praise of humility and in condemnation of arrogance. We learn from what he says that his remarks here summarize the sermons that he delivered during the days of his wanderings in the cities of Spain. He concludes by saying:

I preached in public about humility, but it was not my intention to connect it to this prohibition and to count it.[20] So too, R. Moshe [the Rambam] does not include this or mention it in his enumeration of the negative commandments.

When I reached the point of finishing the negative commandments, I saw in a dream in a night vision: "You forgot the principle: 'Beware lest you forget the Lord your God.'" And I contemplated the matter in the morning, and, lo, it is a great foundation in the fear of God, and I included it with the help of He who gives wisdom to the wise.[21]

What new understanding did R. Moshe reach in the wake of his dream? It seems that his new insight was that we must learn the meaning of our verse from the broader context in which it is found, and not from the verse itself. For in the verse itself, immediately following the prohibition to forget God, it says: "in not keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His statutes,"

26 from which it may be inferred that forgetting God means not keeping His commandments. This is apparently how the Rambam and how initially also R. Moshe of Coucy understood the verse, and therefore they did not count it as one of the . In the dream, however, R. Moshe was informed that this verse contains a great principle in the Torah, a new principle that was not stated previously in the Torah.

R. Moshe read the verse in its broader context and discovered that the explanation of the verse appears in the continuation of the Torah's words:

Verse 11 Verses 12-14 Beware lest Lest when you have eaten and are satisfied… you forget the Lord your God and you forget the Lord your God…

If so, forgetting God here means that your heart will be lifted up because of your success in the land, and you will say in your heart: "My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth."

The non-observance of the mitzvot, discussed in the latter part of the verse, is not an explanation of the first part ("you shall forget the Lord… in not keeping His commandments"). Rather, it notes the result of forgetting God,[22] of man's arrogance regarding his successes and his forgetting

God's kindnesses toward him. The expected result of this mindset will be the cessation of observance of the commandments, for our commitment to them is strongly connected to our

27 recognition of God's kindness toward us when He brought us out of Egypt and acquired us as His lot, bringing us to this goodly land.[23]

V. Is the meaning of the prohibition in Parashat Va’etchanan identical to that of the prohibition in Parashat Ekev?

Is the parallel verse in Parashat Va'etchanan – "Beware lest you forget the Lord" – to be understood in similar fashion, as prohibiting a person to be arrogant about his achievements and to forget the acts of kindness that God performed for him?

This is, indeed, the view of R. Moshe of Coucy, as he explains in his words in negative commandment 64 (cited in the previous section and discussed in note 19).

The fact is, however, that there is no need to assume that the two similar verses are identical in meaning. The verse in Parashat Va'etchanan warns about forgetting God in a context that is entirely different from that in Parashat Ekev. We are not dealing there with achievements that a person reaches by way of his power and the might of his hand, which are liable to cause him to lift up his heart and forget God's kindnesses toward him. On the contrary, all the achievements there are those that God gave him as a gift, without his bothering with them at all:

6:10-11: goodly cities, which you did not build, and houses full of all good things, which you did not fill,

28 and cisterns hewn out, which you did not hew, vineyards and olive-trees, which you did not plant

We dealt with the meaning of that prohibition to forget God in our study for Parashat Va'etchanan, first series, and briefly noted it in our study of that parasha last week.

In any case, the explanation of the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan is irrelevant to the novel insight of R. Moshe of Coucy regarding the verse in Parashat Ekev, to which he was directed in his dream.

VI. The negation of arrogance in the Torah in the remarks of other Rishonim

Other Rishonim learned the evil nature of arrogance from other places in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, and from the words of Chazal.[24] The author of the Halakhot Gedolot, and in his wake the author of the Yere'im, counted in their list of the positive commandments the commandment to be "humble in spirit" (Halakhot Gedolot, positive commandment 165; Yere'im, no. 362). But the author of the Yere'im concedes: "But I did not find a source [in the Torah for this mitzva], other that the Torah's praise for the humble, as it is written: 'Now the man Moshe was very modest' ( 12:3), from which we learn that there is a mitzva for a person to be modest and humble in spirit." Obviously, the Yere'im's source cannot serve as the basis for counting the mitzva among the 613 biblically ordained mitzvot, at least not according to the counting system of the Rambam and of R. Moshe of Coucy.

29 The Rambam deals at length with humility and its opposite – arrogance – in Hilkhot De'ot, chapters

1-2.[25] However, the mitzva in the Torah that he notes in Hilkhot De'ot is not specific to this attribute, but rather relates to all the traits discussed in these halakhot. At the beginning of Hilkhot

De'ot, the Rambam sets the positive commandment, "And you shall walk in His ways" (Devarim 28:9) – "to emulate His ways," and in chapter 1, halakhot 5-6, he writes: "We are commanded to walk in these intermediate paths, and they are good and straight paths – as it is stated: 'And you shall walk in His ways.' … A person is obligated to accustom himself to these paths and [to try to] resemble Him to the extent of his ability."

The Ramban cites a specific source in the Torah for the prohibition of arrogance. In Parashat

Shofetim, in the section dealing with the laws pertaining to a king, it is stated:

…And he shall write him a copy of this law in a book… And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord… that his heart be not lifted up above his brothers, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left… (Devarim 17:18-20).

The Ramban comments about this (s.v. levilti rum levavo me-echav):

An allusion is made here in the Torah to the prohibition of arrogance, for the verse prohibits arrogance and an uplifted heart to the king, and all the more so to others, who are not fit for that… For arrogance is to God a contemptible and abhorrent trait, even for a king, for greatness and exaltation are God's…

30

The Ramban sees in this verse only an allusion, for there is no explicit prohibition here that can be enumerated among the 613 biblically ordained mitzvot. The words, "that his heart be not lifted up above his brothers," serves as the reason for the mitzva cast upon the king to write a book of the law and read it all the days of his life.[26] The Rambam already writes in his introduction to his Sefer Ha-Mitzvot in the fifth principle that "the reason for a mitzva is not to be counted as a separate mitzva."

Even the kal va-chomer argument advanced by the Ramban – "for the verse prohibits arrogance and an uplifted heart to the king, and all the more so to others" – is not certain. Perhaps the Torah prohibits arrogance specifically for the king, because of the damage that this quality could cause his functioning in Israel. But the arrogance of an ordinary person hurts nobody else but himself, and so perhaps we cannot learn from the prohibition applying to the king that it applies also to an ordinary person.

It turns out that finding an explicit verse that forbids arrogance to the entire people of Israel and to each of its individual members – a verse that can be included in the enumeration of the mitzvot – is the novel contribution of R. Moshe of Coucy in his Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, an insight that he merited from Heaven because of his humility.[27]

VII. Arrogance as a bad personal trait and arrogance as a sin of the people of

Israel in the land

31 Is the arrogance that is forbidden based on the explicit source in our parasha the same arrogance that is discussed by the other Rishonim mentioned in this study (Halakhot Gedolot, Yere'im,

Rambam, Ramban)? The answer to this question seems to be no.

The other Rishonim discuss the negation of arrogance as a personal trait of an individual, which corrupts his personality and harms the wholeness of his soul. The arrogance that the Torah negates in our parasha, in contrast, is discussed in a national-historical context: The Torah consistently addresses the people of Israel as a whole ("for the Lord your God brings you into a good land… then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt…"; and similarly in the continuation, though it is clear that the people of Israel is comprised of individuals to whom the Torah's warning relates. The cause of the negative arrogance of the Torah's addressee – the people of Israel – is its economic success in the goodly land, to which God brought it, success which it achieved through its toil; the content of its arrogance is forgetting "the Lord who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage"; and the cure for this is remembering the great historic kindnesses that God performed for His nation when He took them as His people and led them through the wilderness. The danger of this arrogance is also a general national danger – the cessation of the observance of the commandments and going after other gods.

In fact, even R. Moshe, author of the Semag, when he comes to define the prohibition at the beginning of his words in negative prohibition 64, formulates it in such a way that it corresponds to the meaning of the parasha:

32 This is a warning against Israel becoming arrogant when the Holy One, blessed be He, bestows good upon them, and saying that they acquired all of this through their own effort and toil, and not showing gratitude to the Holy One, blessed be He, because of their arrogance.

R. Moshe does, however, expand this prohibition of arrogance to each and every individual in all times and in all places:

From here we derive the prohibition that a person not be arrogant about what he received from the Creator, whether wealth, or beauty, or wisdom. Rather he must be humble and low-spirited before God and man, and thank his Creator for having graced him with that virtue.

In the continuation, he brings sources for the need for humility in the spirit of his last words, e.g., the verse concerning Moshe, "Now the man Moshe was very modest."

Despite the educational and religious truth of his words, it is doubtful whether they necessarily follow from what is stated in Parashat Ekev. It is difficult to see in the negation of the personal arrogance described in his words (arrogance regarding the wealth, beauty, or wisdom enjoyed by the individual) a biblical prohibition that is rooted in our parasha.

It is possible that even R. Moshe did not intend to equate the two types of arrogance, and therefore he writes: "From here we derive the prohibition that a person not be arrogant." That is to say, personal pride is not the arrogance banned by the Torah, but nevertheless the meaning of the biblical prohibition can be expanded to include it, even if it is not exactly what the Torah forbids.

33

To summarize, the Torah forbids the people of Israel with an explicit prohibition to act with arrogance with regard to their achievements in the land that God gave them, and to forget that these achievements were made possible by way of the kindnesses that God performed for them.

Personal arrogance is also a perverse trait, in all places and at all times and in every context, as we learn from various sources in the Torah. Some enumerators of the mitzvot count the opposite of arrogance – the trait of humility – as a positive commandment.

R. Moshe of Coucy's novel insight in his Sefer Mitzvot Gadol corresponds to the plain meaning of the verse, but only by combining his words regarding the special prohibition falling upon Israel as a nation – "You shall not forget the Lord your God" – with the words of the Rambam concerning the obligation falling upon the individual to perfect his character traits – especially in the matter of arrogance – will we come to a full appreciation of the Torah's attitude toward arrogance in all its contexts: "But the humble shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace" (Tehillim 37:11).8

8 Translated by Strauss

34 [1] R. Moshe left for Spain in 1236 and his journey lasted several years. The mitzvot that have a prominent place in his sermons are Torah study, , mezuza and tzitzit, the prohibition of marrying a non-Jewish woman, honest business practices, and the prohibition of deceiving a non-Jew.

[2] This book has been preserved in many manuscripts and was published in many editions.

Prominent Rishonim and wrote commentaries on it, and various arbitrators among the Rishonim relied on it in their rulings. R. Yehoshua Boaz included it together with the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, the Tur, and the Shulchan Arukh among the halakhic works that he references in his work, Ein Mishpat on the Talmud.

[3] All the citations from the Semag are from the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol Ha-Shalem edition, vol. I, published by Machon

Yerushalayim and Machon Shlomo Auman, 5753.

[4] In the year 5000 (1240-1241). By then, R. Moshe had already returned to France. In that same year, he participated in the great debate with the apostate Donin, which was conducted in Paris at the court of the French king, Louis IX, along with three other

Jewish authorities, headed by R. .

[5] In practice, R. Moshe put the book of negative commandments before the book of positive commandments (in the spirit of

"Turn away from evil and do good"), the opposite of the order in the Rambam's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot.

[6] The inclusion of the story about the two dreams brings R. Moshe to conclude his introduction with the following emotion- filled words:

The Lord God knows that as far as I know I am not lying about the visions. And the Lord God knows that I mentioned them in this book only to strengthen Israel in Torah and rebuke, and that the purpose of the Lord might prosper by his hand.

[7] The similarity between these two passages is not simply in the verse that appears in both, but is rather much broader. We noted the relationship between them in our study for Parashat Va'etchanan, first series, "Ha-Shefa Ha-Chomri Le-Sugav U-Le-

Sakanotav." The present study is connected to the conclusions reached in that study.

[8] a. The feature that characterizes the Halakhot Gedolot's system of enumerating the commandments is the division of the

613 mitzvot into four groups: 71 punishments (at the hand of man or the hand of God); 277 ordinary negative commandments; 200 positive commandments; 65 matters that are cast upon the community. This division does not accord with what is stated in the

Talmud ( 23b) that the 613 commandments are divided into 365 negative precepts – the number of the days of the solar year – and 248 positive precepts – the number of the organs in the human body. Many traditional commentators and academicians have attempted to reconcile the Halakhot Gedolot's list with the division in the Talmud, but failed to come up with a clear resolution. b. The following enumerators of the mitzvot followed the Halakhot Gedolot's system: R. Saadya Gaon (on which R. Yerucham

Perlow wrote his commentary); Rabbeinu Eliyahu ha-Zaken (end of the Geonic period); R. Yitzchak al-Bartziloni (contemporary of the Rif); R. Shelomo Ibn Gabirol (one generation later); the Azharot of "Ata Hinchalta," the author and time of which are

35 unclear, though some date it very early; R. Eliezer of Metz, a disciple of , in his book, the Yere'im; R. Chefetz ben

Matzliach, fragments of whose enumeration of the mitzvot are extant; additional Azharot that have been partially preserved and attest to their authors' following the system of the Halakhot Gedolot.

Of course, there are minor and major differences among these different counts of the mitzvot, between themselves and between them and the count of the Halakhot Gedolot, just as in there are differences between different versions of the count of the Halakhot

Gedolot itself. Regarding all this, see Halakhot Gedolot, ed. Hildesheimer (Jerusalem, 1987), vol. III, in the preface to "the introduction to Sefer Halakhot Gedolot," pp. 12-28.

[9] The Rambam divides the mitzvot into two groups – 248 positive precepts and 365 negative precepts, in accordance with what is stated in the Talmud. He does not count Rabbinic mitzvot, and he clarifies his decisions regarding the enumeration of various mitzvot, both in the introduction and in the book itself.

The disagreement between the Rambam and the Halakhot Gedolot and those who follow his system relates both to the method of counting and to the many dozens of mitzvot that are counted in one system and are missing in the other, replaced by other mitzvot.

[10] It is worth noting that R. Moshe was not familiar with the Rambam's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, which was written in Arabic, but only with his abridged count of the commandments at the beginning of his Mishneh Torah and in the body of the book, at the beginning of each set of halakhot that bears a title.

[11] a. One generation before R. Moshe, one of the Tosafists, R. Eliezer of Metz, authored a work enumerating the commandments, but he followed the system of the Halakhot Gedolot. b. R. Moshe's admiration for the Rambam, which led him to follow in his footsteps, is reflected in his introduction to the Sefer

Mitzvot Gadol, wherein he describes the development of the Oral Law from Moshe Rabbeinu to the Rambam, where he ends his account. This is how he describes the Rambam:

Later their words [of the Geonim and of the Rif] were also obscure, because the minds diminished, and there arose that great man,

Rabbeinu Moshe bar Maimon. He was from Cordova in the land of Yishmael [Muslim Spain], and he composed a work from the entire Torah, an attractive and praiseworthy work, and he illuminated the eyes of Israel. He was a wondrous master of all wisdom; no one in recent generations was like him, and many were strengthened in Torah by way of his books, which spread through the land of Edom and the land of Yishmael.

[12] In the Hildesheimer edition of Halakhot Gedolot (Jerusalem, 5743), vol. III, "Hakdamat Halakhot Gedolot – Minyan Ha-

Mitzvot," p. 51, and editor's note beginning on p. 50. It is not clear whether the Halakhot Gedolot is citing the verse in Parashat

Va'etchanan or the verse in Parashat Ekev, in which it is stated: "the Lord your God" (and so indeed the verse is cited in a different version of the Halakhot Gedolot). It is possible that the reference is to both verses.

[13] R. Avraham Abba Schiff, author of the To’afot Re’em commentary to Sefer Yere'im Ha-Shalem, explains the derivation of the Yere'im: "The verse in Parashat Va'etchanan… does not explain the situation to which it refers. Regarding this our master says

36 that it may be derived from what is written before it – namely, acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven through the recitation of Shema." The section of "And it shall be, when the Lord your God shall bring you" (6:10-15), in which our verse appears, follows the section of Shema (6:4-9).

[14] The difference between the two explanations offered by the author of the Yere'im is not fundamental: The Shema contains an acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and the prohibition not to forget to recite the Shema is "that a person must not forget to accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven" – namely, "that a person must always remember his Creator and

His commandments," as formulated in the second explanation. In practice, of course, there is a difference between the two explanations.

[15] Sefer Ha-Mitzvot Le-Ha-Rambam im Hasagot Ha-Ramban, ed. Chavel (Jerusalem, 5741), p. 395.

[16] The words in parenthesis do not appear in the verse that is cited, which is the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan.

[17] Based on the translation from Arabic to Hebrew by R. Y. Kafiah (Jerusalem, 5731), p. 18.

[18] This is how R. Yitzchak De Leon, author of the Megilat Esther on the Rambam's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, explains the Rambam's decision not to include the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan in his count.

[19] The editor of Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, ed. Machon Yerushalayim and Machon Shlomo Auman, notes here (note 1) that these words imply that the Semag counts in this negative prohibition the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan (and only in the continuation of his words, in the next passage, does he relate also to the similar verse in Parashat Ekev). According to this, he suggests that we emend the wording of the verse brought at the beginning of this negative prohibition, and erase the words "your God," which appear only in the verse in Parashat Ekev.

However, Yehuda Galinsky in his article (see starred note at the beginning of our study) and in his response to the editor (Sifra Ve-

Saifa, 45), is correct in his argument that the opposite is true: The Semag's point of departure is precisely the verse in Parashat

Ekev, which he cites at the beginning of the mitzva and which was mentioned to him in his dream. With the words: "To this the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan answers," R. Moshe adds that also the verse in Parashat Va'etchanan should be understood in this sense. Immediately afterwards he goes back to the main verse discussed in his words – in Parashat Ekev – and he shows that the verses adjoining the verse, "Beware lest…," prove that this forgetting is the arrogance and the denial of God's goodness.

That this is the correct understanding of the words of the Semag follows not only from the considerations raised by Galinsky, but from the fact that only in Parashat Ekev does the context unequivocally prove that the issue under discussion is arrogance (see below in this section), whereas in Parashat Va'etchanan this cannot be proven from the context or from the wording. See further in section V below.

[20] There were two things that the Semag had not intended to do: a. to turn the trait of humility about which he had preached into a prohibition that forbids arrogance. b. to count the verse, "beware lest…," in his enumeration of the negative commandments.

37 [21] These last words, which appear in Aramaic in the original, are taken from Daniel 2:21, from Daniel's blessing of God for revealing to him Nevuchadnetzar's dream and its interpretation. These words of Daniel exemplify the appropriate human recognition that the wisdom, might, and glory that human beings merit are gifts from God, for which one must show gratitude. It is possible that it is for this reason, and owing to the context of dream interpretation, that the author of the Semag integrated these words into the conclusion of his remarks.

[22] This is how the Ramban interpreted the matter in his words that were cited in section III. He explains the prohibition of forgetting as a prohibition to deny God, but when he explains in this manner also the verse in Parashat Ekev, he says: "This too is a prohibition to forget one's faith in God and to deny because of this the Torah and the mitzvot."

[23] This was stated in a previous oration in our book in Parashat Va'etchanan (6:20-25):

When your son asks you in time to come, saying: What mean the testimonies, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which the Lord our God has commanded you? Then you shall say to your son: We were Pharaoh's bondmen in Egypt; and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand… that He might bring us in, to give us the land which He swore to our fathers. And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes….

[24] And as stated in section IV, even the author of the Semag, in negative prohibition no. 64, brings such sources, which clarify the negation of arrogance and the obligation of humility, and about which he preached in the years of his wanderings even before it occurred to him to enumerate as a negative precept the prohibition of arrogance.

[25] We expanded on the position of the Rambam regarding the traits of humility and arrogance in our article, "Ha-Harchaka Mi-

Gova Ha-Lev U-Min Ha-Ka'as – El Derekh Ha-Emtza o ad Ha-Katzeh Ha-Acher? Iyyun Be-Hilkhot De'ot, Perakim 1-2," in our book, Yad Le-Rambam, pp. 9-28.

[26] So it would appear from the simple reading of the verses. This gives rise to the question: How does constant reading of the

Torah ensure that the king's "heart be not lifted up above his brother"? (The continuation of the verse: "that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left," on the other hand, is quite understandable).

The Ibn Ezra, s.v. le-vilti rom levavo, answers as follows: "If he were free from the mitzvot." That is to say, a person's subjugation to the mitzvot serves as a barrier before arrogance. We already saw at the end of section IV that in the verse, "Beware lest…," in Parashat Ekev the connection is expressed in the opposite direction: A person's arrogance will lead him to stop observing the commandments. So too in the section dealing with the king, we can connect the two reasons that the Torah gives for king's obligation to read the Torah: If the king's heart is lifted up, he is liable to turn away from God's commandments.

However, the connection between the king's reading of the Torah and its preventing him from becoming arrogant can be understood in a different manner: It is not his observance of the mitzvot in itself that will prevent the king's arrogance, but rather the Torah's words of rebuke that will bring him to remember at all times God's acts of kindness toward Israel. It is precisely the passage under

38 discussion in this study – the very passage from which the author of the Semag derived the explicit prohibition of arrogance – that is liable to have such an influence.

It seems that because of the difficulty with which we opened this note, Ri Bekhor Shor (and in his wake the Chizkuni) explained that the words, "that his heart not be lifted up above his brothers," do not serve as a reason for the king's obligation to read the

Torah in the preceding verse (19), but rather for the prohibition, "neither shall he multiply to himself silver and gold," in the verse that precedes that (18). Only the continuation of the verse, "and that he turn not aside from the commandment," does he explain:

"This is the reason for the book of the law that goes out and in with him."

Support for this interpretation may be brought from the fact that the Torah offers reasons for the first two prohibitions cast upon the king, "Only he shall not multiply horses to himself" and "neither shall he multiply wives to himself," but no reason is given for the third prohibition, "neither shall he multiply to himself silver and gold." According to Bekhor Shor, the reason is given below, in the words, "that his heart not be lifted up above his brothers." The connection between these two things finds expression also in our parasha (8:12-14): "Lest when you have eaten and are satisfied… and your silver and your gold is multiplied… then your heart be lifted up and you forget the Lord your God…."

[27] Rabbi Moshe's great humility is also expressed in the way he concludes his remarks in negative commandment no. 64 – the prohibition of arrogance:

A few days later, I examined the book in the first chapter of Sota (5a), and there it is explicitly stated: From where do we derive a prohibition for the haughty of spirit?... R. Nachman bar Yitzchak said: From here: ‘Your heart be lifted up, and you forget,’ and it is written: ‘Beware lest you forget the Lord (your God)’ [this is the reading in the common text]. And in accordance with what R.

Avin said in the name of R. Ila'a: Wherever it is stated "beware," "lest," "do not," this indicates a negative commandment.

These explicit words of the gemara raise a question: Why didn't the other enumerators of the mitzvot, and even R. Moshe himself, take them into consideration? Why did he not remember them, to the point that he needed a vision in a dream to direct him to a verse cited explicitly in a Talmudic passage that explains it as a prohibition of arrogance?

The answer to this is that not in all places where Chazal say that a particular matter is subject to a negative precept or a positive precept should their words be understood literally as indicating that we are dealing with a Torah commandment. Sometimes they try to find Scriptural support for something that is not a Torah commandment. According to R. Nachman bar Yitzchak, there is another statement in the gemara that learns the "prohibition" from a verse in the Prophets: "From where do we derive a prohibition of the haughty in spirit? Rava said in the name of Ze'iri: 'Hear you, and give ear; be not proud' (Yirmeyahu 13:15)."

One who reads these two statements one after the other is likely to understand that like the first statement, the second statement was made in the manner of , and not as a halakhic assertion of a negative commandment by Torah law. But following the dream of the author of the Semag, and after his reexamination of the verses in Parashat Ekev and his understanding based on the

39 context that the plain meaning of "Beware lest you forget" is a prohibition of arrogance, the passage in tractate Sota became illuminated in a new light.

Indeed, R. Nachman bar Yitzchak does not bring as direct proof for his words the verse, "Beware let you forget the Lord your

God," for at first glance that verse does not appear to be connected to arrogance. He begins by citing the verse after it, "then your heart be lifted up, and you forget the Lord your God," and only then does he go back and bring the verse that precedes it and is explained by it: "Beware lest you forget." This is the very same process that R. Moshe underwent in his dream! God is Always with us, even after We Transgress

Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski writes:9

The Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurities (Vayikra, 16:16).

“Even when they are in a state of contamination, the Divine Presence is with them” (Yoma 57a).

Although disobeying the Divine will sets up a barrier between man and God, it is somewhat like a one-way mirror. We cause ourselves to be distant from God, but He is never distant from us. This is rather easy to understand. We sometimes see children who reject their parents, but regardless of how defiant the may be, the parents' love for him is as intense as ever, and they long for his return to them.

When R' Mendel of Kotzk first joined the court of R' Simchah Bunim of P'shis'che, the latter asked him, “Young man, where is God?” R' Mendel answered, “The entire world is full of His glory.” R' Simchah Bunim repeated, “Young man, I asked you, where is God?” R' Mendel answered, “There is no place that is devoid of Him.” R' Simchah Bunim persisted, “Young man, I am asking you, where is God?” R' Mendel said, “If my answers do not satisfy you, then you tell me.” R' Simchah Bunim said, “God can be found wherever He is welcomed.”

“He who is haughty of eye and large of desire, him I cannot tolerate” ( 101:5). Of a vain and arrogant person the Talmud quotes God as saying, “He and I cannot share the same dwelling” (Arachin 15b). God is indeed everywhere, but He withdraws His presence from a vain and arrogant person.

Committing a sin is not necessarily a denial or rejection of God. A person may simply have been overwhelmed by an urge that he did not suppress or may not have realized that a sin causes him to be distant from God. However, a vain, egotistical person is one who is his own god. Inasmuch as

9 https://www.aish.com/tp/b/insights-on-the-torah/God-is-Always-With-Us-Even-After-We-Trans

40 there cannot be two gods, if a person thinks himself to be god, he cannot believe in the true God. There is no form of idolatry as absolute as the person who himself.

In my writings on self-esteem, I suggested that vanity and conceit are desperate defenses whereby a person tries to cope with a sense of unworthiness. I was thrilled to find that no less an authority than Rabbeinu Yonah validates this concept. “The vain person seeks to compensate for his feeling of defectiveness by means of grandiosity” (Rabbeinu Yonah al HaTorah, p. 156). A person with healthy self-esteem does not seek the praise and recognition of others to remind him that he has value.

If a person truly believes that he possesses a Divine neshama, soul, he will realize that he has great worth, and even if he may have gone astray in his behavior, he is nevertheless worthy by virtue of his Divine neshama. Anyone with a profound feeling of unworthiness must be in denial that he has within himself the breath of God.

Man's closeness to God is by virtue of his soul, which craves to be united with its Source. Denial of having a Divine neshama precludes a close relationship with God.

God is with us even if we have sinned. As long as we feel a desire to be close to God, we know ourselves to be of His essence, and that we are capable of becoming more spiritual. This opens the door to teshuvah, repentance, and this is why the above verse is contained in the narrative of the Yom Kippur service.

41