Shemos Again and Again

When we learn the Parshios and Haftoros, our minds are constantly challenged. Sometimes we come across a Passuk that is difficult to understand for its content, and we ask ourselves about the purpose of a Mitzvah or a story. Other times we are stymied by the language of a Passuk, causing us to question how a specific word or phrase is to be understood, and why it was chosen. Once in while, however, we come across a Passuk that calls out for explanation in its very existence—one need not have a firm grasp of its context to sense that further explanation is necessary. If we endeavor to view such a Passuk through the lens of Chazal and the Meforshim, however, we will often find that important lessons lay beneath a curious surface.

This week’s Haftorah is taken from Sefer Yeshaya and, perhaps mirroring the Parsha which speaks about the first throes of Galus Mitzrayim, has an overall dour tone. The Navi criticizes every part of Klal Yisroel: there is Tochacha aimed at the Aseres HaShevatim as wells as Malchus Yehuda, at the Kohanim and even at the Neviim. It seems that at the moment of this Nevuah no one in Klal Yisroel was living up to their promise. So negative and harsh are the words of the Haftorah that Chazal instructed us, as part of their Takana, to skip a number of Pessukim in the Navi in order to end the Hafotrah on a positive note. As with many of the Nevuos in Sefer Yeshaya, the true meaning of the words is sometimes hard to grasp, but there is one Passuk in particular that seems to beg explanation.

In the section devoted to the Tochaca of Malchus Yehuda, the Navi poses a question: “Es Mi Yoreh De’ah V’Es Mi Yavin Shemuah Gemulei Mechalav Atikei MiShadayim.”. To whom, asks the Navi, can the Dvar Hashem be taught? To young children, newly weaned of their mothers’ milk? Rashi explains that the Dor to which the Navi spoke was so depraved that the only ones who could possibly by worthy of receiving the Dvar Hashem would be young, unsullied children.

The next Passuk, which seems to be a continuation of the same theme is, on its face, very difficult to decipher: “Ki Tzav L’Tzav Tzav L’Tzav Kav L’Kav Kav L’Kav Zeir Sham Zeir Sham.” Though the word “Tzav” usually means a command and “Kav” means a line, it is nearly impossible to understand how they are to be understood in this Passuk. We must, of course, rely on the Meforshei HaPshat to guide the way.

Rashi explains that the Navi is again speaking about the breakdown in communication between Bnei Yisroel and their leaders, the Neviim. The words “Tzav L’Tzav” refer to the fact that when the Navi issues a Tzivuy from Hashem, the people respond with a contrary Tzivuy. Similarly, the words “Kav L’Kav” refer to the comparison between he “Kav Hatzedek”, the Derech HaYashar, and that of Resha. Finally, the words “Zeir Sham Zeir Sham” speak about the way that Bnei Yisroel belittle the predictions of the Navi, remarking that the days of darkness will last for a short amount of time.

Radak seems to indicate that the Navi is speaking about the capacity of the people to accept and learn from the Navi. In this view the entire Passuk can be understood to mean that the Navi must teach each Mitzvah slowly, “Tzav L’Tzav”, in a process that is as painstaking as a mason who must moves his string, or “Kav”, before laying each new course of brick. So deficient is Bnei Yisroel in their ability to connect to the Torah, due to their years living away from the proper Derech, that they can only be taught as though they were schoolchildren.

The approaches of Rashi and Radak are not at all uniform—Rashi sees the Navi as leveling a much harsher criticism of Bnei Yisroel, referring to their insistence on refuting their leaders. Radak, on the other hand, understands the Passuk to be telling us a sad reality—the ability of the people to learn has been curtailed by their Aveiros. That said, in both Pshatim the focus is on the people, and their ability or willingness to be Mekabel from the Neviim.

There is, however, another approach that is found within the Divrei Chazal.

There is a passage in Tana Divei Eliyahu that describes the reward that awaits Tzaddikim in the Yemos Hamoshiach. The Passuk in Yechezkel tells us that they will receive a “Lev Chadash and a Ruach Chadasha” as well as a “Lev Basar” to replace their “Lev Even”. The Medrash explains that these are all necessary in order to understand the Torah “SheHen Kefulin B’Chol Makom”, which is repeated twice. What follows is a discussion of the various Mitzvos that are taught within the first four Chumashim and repeated in Sefer Devarim.

The Medrash then speaks about those that do not appreciate the Torah, and its repletion in Sefer Devarim, treating it as “Tafel”, unimportant or sundry. The Kaviyachol calls out to us, saying: “Tzivisi Eschem B’Tzeschem MiMitzrayim Tzivisi Eschem B’Sefer Tochachos”, the Mitzvos were given at the beginning of the time in the Midbar and at the end. In addition, “Kivisi Eschem”, Hashem waited for us for 480 years before we built the Bais Hamikdash and another 410 years afterward. Despite these facts, however, Hashem sees no “Koras Ruach” from us—we have squandered our potential and opportunities for growth and connection.

This final part of the Medrash is based on is our Passuk: “Ki Tzav L’Tzav Tzav L’Tzav Kav L’Kav Kav L’Kav”. The words “Tzav L’Tzav” refer to the repetition of certain Tzivuyim in Sefer Devarim and the words “Kav L’Kav” speak of the Kivuy that HKBH has for us.

Although it is starkly different than that of the Meforshei HaPshat, the fact that this approach is found in a Medrash lends it a certain amount of weight. That said, it is important to understand how the words of the Medrash fit into the context of the Nevuah. The Navi seems to be speaking about the refusal or inability of Bnei Yisroel to properly gain from their Neviim. How does the “Tzav L’Tzav” of Sefer Devarim, or the statement of “Kivisi Eschem” relate to this overall message?

Perhaps we can answer this question based on a better understanding of Sefer Devarim. If we can understand why, in fact, some Mitzvos were repeated in Arvos Moav, we may be able to better grasp the message of this Medrash.

There are two Pessukim at the beginning of Sefer Devarim which discuss the purpose of Moshe’s words in Arvos Moav. The first tells us that in the fortieth year of the Midbar, in the eleventh month, “Diber Moshe El Bnei Yisroel K’Chol Asher Tziva Hashem Oso Aleihem”, Moshe spoke to Bnei Yisroel and taught them that which Hashem had commanded him. After discussing, in greater detail, when and where this took place, the Passuk tells us: “Ho’il Moshe Be’er Es HaTorah HaZos”. Rashi explains that the word “Ho’il” means “Hischil” and the Passuk is telling us that on that day, in that place, Moshe began to explain the Torah to Klal Yisroel.

These are the two Pessukim which introduce what is known as “Mishna Torah”, the review of the Torah that Moshe undertook in his final days, and which makes up most of Sefer Devarim. What is not clear from these Pessukim, or the following ones, is what exactly comprised this review, and why Moshe carried it out.

Rav Hirsch, in his Pirush on Sefer Devarim, notes that the Passuk uses the term “K’Chol Asher Tziva” and not “Kol Asher Tziva”. He explains that this is because Moshe did not in fact review the entire Torah, or all of the Mitzvos, as part of Mishna Torah. In fact, during his address to Klal Yisroel that comprises Sefer Devarim, Moshe spoke about many Mitzvos that had not yet been taught at all. nonetheless the entire Sefer is called Mishna Torah, indicating that the new Mitzvos and those that had already been taught, are part and parcel of the same message.

After very briefly mentioning all the Mitzvos that are new, as well as all those that were previously mentioned, Rav Hirsch explains the purpose of Sefer Devarim.

As we know, Moshe Rabbeinu was Niftar just as Klal Yisroel stood ready to enter Eretz Yisroel. There were therefore Mitzvos that would be newly relevant—such as Mitzvos HaTeluyos B’Aretz, Ir Hanidachas or Egla Arufa, which only apply in Eretz Yisroel. In addition, there were some Mitzvos whose observance would be altered by a new reality. R’ Hirsch points out that when the Moadim are discussed in Sefer Bamidbar it is only the Regalim that are mentioned and not Shabbos, Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur, this is because, although the Yomim Tovim were of course celebrated in the Midbar, the Mitzvah of Aliah L’Regel would now take affect. Yet other Mitzvos—such as those warning us to distance ourselves from Avodas Zarah—were already discussed, and even applicable in the Midbar, but needed new Chizuk as we entered a strange land.

We see, then, that the purpose of Mishna Torah, in its entirety, was to prepare Klal Yisroel for their new reality. Moshe Rabbeinu understood which Mitzvos would need to be retaught as we stood at the precipice, and Hashem instructed him to reveal Mitzvos that had not previously been relevant, in order to prepare us for our new home.

The Netziv, in Ha’amek Davar, sees another benefit in the Mishna Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu. He explains, based on various Chazal, that when Moshe originally taught the Torah to Bnei Yisroel, he did so in a very factual way. They were told the Mitzvos and Halachos, but not the way in which to derive them. As we know, much of Halacha is based on Torah She’Baal Peh, which requires one to Darshan the Pessukim, to see meaning in the addition of a letter or word, or its absence. The rules and methods for these Drashos are clearly defined, and an important part of the Mesorah, but they were not originally revealed to Klal Yisroel.

The words “Ho’il Moshe Be’er Es HaTorah HaZos”, explains the Netziv, tell us that it was at this time that Moshe explained these secrets, the tools of Drashos, to Bnei Yisroel. The reason for this change is also related to the time at which it was made. In the Midbar, we had the luxury of living in close proximity to Rabban Shel Yisroel, Moshe. Upon entering Eretz Yisroel, however, a less centralized existence would prevail, and in order to maintain the Mesorah it was important that the Klalim of Drashos were understood for it was in this way that Torah She’Baal Peh would endure.

The common theme of both these approaches is that Mishna Torah was a way to prepare Klal Yisroel for a new reality, for a new situation. Their arrival in Eretz Yisroel brought with it a host of changes, and Moshe Rabbeinu ensured that Bnei Yisroel understood that the Torah was shaped for that eventuality as well. Once they entered the land, there was a new era, one in which they had permanent homes and cities, but no permanent dwelling for the Shechina—a period that lasted for 480 years. Then, Shlomo Hamlech built the Bais Hamikdash and for the next 410 years a new reality prevailed, in which the Shechina was Shorer in our midst.

The Navi tells us “Ki Tzav L’Tzav Tzav L’Tzav Kav L’Kav Kav L’Kav” and the Medrash explains: “Tzivisi Eschem B’Tzeschem MiMitzrayim Tzivisi Eschem B’Sefer Tochachos” and “Kivisi Eschem”. The message is clear: in all situations, the Dvar Hashem is accessible. Whether we are in the Midbar, or in Erez Yisroel, whether we have a Bais HaMikdash or not, we can have a relationship with HKBH. This was the Tochacha being given to Bnei Yisroel: we were given Neviim but failed to connect with them. Lest we blame this on our reality, on our situation in life, we are reminded “Ki Tzav L’Tzav Tzav L’Tzav Kav L’Kav Kav L’Kav”. No matter where, no matter when, there is a way to connect to the Dvar Hashem, and any failure to do so rests with us.

This is of course a vital message for us all as we transverse our own realities: there is a Tzivuy for every circumstance, and HKBH is Mikaveh for us always: “Tzav L’Tzav Kav L’Kav”.