Parshat Bechukotai 5778-A dispute of ‘Messianic’ proportions

(based on a shiur given by Rabbi Isaac Bernstein zal in London in 1993)

ו  וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ, וּשְׁכַבְתֶּם וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד; וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְחֶרֶב, לֹא-תַעֲבֹר בְּאַרְצְכֶם.

6 And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid; and I will cause evil beasts to cease out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

Rabbi Reuvan Margoliot zal (d.1971 Israel) was a very prolific author and scholar, who wrote over 100 sefarim and also reproduced famous works with his own notes on the sefer he was reprinting. One of these sefarim was called ‘Milchamot Hashem’ and was a defense of the Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim by his son, R’Avraham. In a note there Rabbi Margoliot makes an amazing observation. He quotes from the Rambam at the beginning of the 12th chapter of Hilchot Melachim:

אַל יַעֲלֶה עַל הַלֵּב שֶׁבִּימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ יִבָּטֵל דּבָר מִמִּנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. אוֹ יִהְיֶה שָׁם חִדּוּשׁ בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְּרֵאשִׁית. אֶלָּא עוֹלָם כְּמִנְהָגוֹ נוֹהֵג. וְזֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּישַׁעְיָה(ישעיה יא, ו) "וְגָר זְאֵב עִם כֶּבֶשׂ וְנָמֵר עִם גְּדִי יִרְבָּץ" מָשָׁל וְחִידָה. עִנְיַן הַדָּבָר שֶׁיִּהְיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹשְׁבִין לָבֶטַח עִם רִשְׁעֵי עַכּוּ'ם הַמְשׁוּלִים כִּזְאֵב וְנָמֵר

Rather, the world will continue in its customary way. Now, that which is said in Isaiah, “And the wolf will live with the sheep and the leopard shall lie down with the kid” (Isaiah 11:6) is a parable and riddle. 

The Rambam maintains that the Messianic world will continue with the laws of nature, as we know them and the various places in the Tenach which suggest otherwise are just allegory and parable, such as the ‘wolf lying down with the sheep’.

The Ra’avad (who was much older contemporary of the Rambam and yet commented on his work extensively, showing us how he held this work in such great esteem) comments that he disagrees with the Rambam, based on the verse we began with:

 וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה, 

which clearly indicates that the world will change and that wild animals will be removed from the world. In which case, how can the Rambam maintain that these type of expressions cannot be taken literally, as the Ra’avad argues?

The Migdal Oz , in his comments on the Rambam , answers the Ra’avad’s question by stating that this verse in our parsha would also be explained by the Rambam as an allegory to the ‘evil nations’, as with all the other verses he quotes above.

Rav Margoliat comments as to how can the Ra’avad ask what seems to be such a simple question, which is so easily answered by the Rambam, as explained by the Migdal Oz?. He suggests that the Ra’avad has another idea in mind with his question, as follows: granted that the Rambam can explain all the verses in Nach (excluding Torah) as allegory (as they come in the form of allegory in the first place), but surely the Torah is different being the prophecy of Moshe, which was received in the form of an ‘asplakaria meirah’/clear vision, as distinct from the other prophets. If so, how can the Rambam ignore this aspect of Moshe’s prophecy and treat the verse in our parsha as an allegory, when in fact the ‘peshat/literal meaning’ cannot be ignored. What does the Rambam hold regarding the Torah verses which have to explained according to the 4 levels of interpretation, including the literal interpretation, as explained above. This is the deeper meaning of the Ra’avad’s question on the Rambam.

Rav Margoliat then goes on to suggest a confirmation of this concept of the Ra’avad ( of Torah verses being taken as literal when an allegory seems to be mentioned) from the Zohar in Parshat Pekudei ,that the words of all the other prophets are expressed in the form of allegory, whereas the Torah prophecy of Moshe was on a higher level of revelation and must be seen at a number of levels , including a literal approach as well.

On the basis of the above analysis we have an amazing argument between the Rambam and Ra’avad, as to whether to take Torah verses, which seem to suggest allegory, at a literal level or not.? Rav Margoliat explains a practical halachic difference in the 2 approaches here, in the law of a thief who comes into your home to rob you (Shemot ch.22 v.1-2):

אִם־בַּמַּחְתֶּ֛רֶת יִמָּצֵ֥א הַגַּנָּ֖ב וְהֻכָּ֣ה וָמֵ֑ת אֵ֥ין ל֖וֹ דָּמִֽים׃

If the thief is seized while tunneling, and he is beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt in his case.

2

אִם־זָרְחָ֥ה הַשֶּׁ֛מֶשׁ עָלָ֖יו דָּמִ֣ים ל֑וֹ שַׁלֵּ֣ם יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם אִם־אֵ֣ין ל֔וֹ וְנִמְכַּ֖ר בִּגְנֵבָתֽוֹ׃

If the sun has risen on him, there is bloodguilt in that case.—He must make restitution; if he lacks the means, he shall be sold for his theft.

The Rambam (based on the interpretation of the Gemara on the second verse) comments that the ‘sun shining on him’ is an allegorical way of saying that if it is ‘clear as day’ to the householder that the thief does not intend to kill him (e.g. he is his father) then the householder cannot kill the thief with impunity. As a consequence of this interpretation, the Rambam maintains that this law applies whether the thief breaks in by day or night as the verse is not literally referring to the ‘sun rising’ but is a metaphor as explained above. According to the Ra’avad however, this verse in the Torah must be seen literally and therefore the defense of the householder can only apply at day and NOT at night, as the words ’sun rise’ is to be taken literally here.(aino yotze midei peshuto). See Mishnah Torah: Laws of Theft:9:8 and the comment of the Ra’avad.

We still need to investigate why the Rambam disagrees on such a fundamental point as expressed by the Ra’avad, but the argument is intriguing and deserves further analysis.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To take the subject a little further, the Lubavitcher Rebbe zal explains the meaning of this verse in our parsha, וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה based on an argument found in the Torat Cohanim on this pasuk, quoting a disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the verse means that these wild animals will be removed physically from the world. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the animals will remain in the world but will no longer be ‘dangerous animals’. Their essence will be removed but they will stay around. The argument is explained by the Rogochower Gaon (d.1936,E.Europe) as follows: Rabbi Yehuda explains the word וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי as meaning ‘to physically destroy’ these animals. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that if you remove their essence, then they are no longer a danger to you. The Rogochower Gaon links this discussion to the same Rabbis who debate(in the second perek of Masechet Pesachim) the way to destroy chametz. Rabbi Yehuda says that the chametz must be totally burned i.e. destroyed completely. Rabbi Shimon (called ‘Chachamim’ in the Mishna in Pesachim) says that as long as it is removed from the domain of the Jew (by throwing it to the wind,sea etc.) then it’s essence as chametz has been removed, without actually destroying it physically. The argument depends on the explanation of the word ‘lehashbit’ which can mean total destruction or removal of the essence, as with chametz and with the wild animals explained above, in the name of Rabbi Shimon.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe adds another extension of this idea, regarding work on Shabbat. If one performs a ‘davar sheaino mitkaven’ which means you never intended to do it, then Rabbi Yehuda says you are still liable on Shabbat, whereas Rabbi Shimon says you are exempt for this act. The same Rabbis also argue regarding 'melacha sheaino  tzericha legufa’(I.e. digging a hole on Shabbat , not for the hole itself but for the dirt.)The Rebbe explains this argument as an extension of the same idea as before. The prohibition to work on Shabbat is expressed by the word ‘tishbot’ which is the same word as found by chametz and with the ‘wild animals’ in our parsha. Rabbi Yehuda sees this word as meaning that the physical act must not exist. Therefore even if an action is unintentional or not for its own purpose on Shabbat, it is still a physical act and becomes forbidden. However Rabbi Shimon explains ‘tishbot’ as not performing the ‘essence ‘of the act on Shabbat. Therefore any act which is not ‘melechet machshevet’/an act performed with full intention/purpose is not a forbidden act on Shabbat and as such Rabbi Shimon says that although it is not allowed at the outset on Shabbat, however if you did it, you would incur no liability.

All 3 arguments revolve around the same idea: does the word ‘lishbot’ mean to not do the act or to destroy the item completely so that it no longer exists, or does it mean ‘to remove its essence’ but not destroying the item completely. I would add that the link to the original argument between Rambam and Ra’avad can also reflect this debate about the word’lishbot’.The Ra’avad sees it as a total destruction of the wild animals form the world, as seen in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the Torat Cohanim above. The Rambam may well agree with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that ‘lishbot’ may mean to remove the essence, but leaving the animals intact, as we see above in the words of the Rambam, that the world will continue in it’s natural order but without war and conflict, as represented by the allegory of the wild animals losing their essence in Messianic times.

This concept highlights the fantastic insights of the great Gaonim as we have quoted and also takes us to a new level of understanding of a verse in our parsha which we have read many times. How appropriate that this awareness is achieved before we come to Shavuot, to be made to realize the beauty and elegance of Torah and the depths of analysis we can delve into. As King David told us in Psalm 119:

גַּל־עֵינַ֥י וְאַבִּ֑יטָה נִ֝פְלָא֗וֹת מִתּוֹרָתֶֽךָ׃

Open my eyes, that I may perceive the wonders of Your teaching

Rabbi Ian Shaffer        Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach              Cherry Hill/SCW