Ki Tetze | A New Perspective on the Mitzvot

I. A Speech Just for the Land?

For an extended period of time before his death, Moshe stands before the people and speaks to them. He opens his speech with sublime matters of faith and general directives (Parashot Devarim-Eikev). But as befits the way of the Torah, at a certain point the subject matter assumes a practical-halakhic bent (Parashot Re'eh-Ki Tavo). It is good to start with lofty ideas, but they must also be brought down to concrete reality. This practical section reaches its climax in our parasha; the oration turns into a list of many different mitzvot, and Ki Tetze becomes the parasha containing more mitzvot than any other.[1] The obvious question is: Which mitzvot does Moshe choose to include in this summation speech, and why specifically them?

On the simplest level, one might suggest that Moshe chooses mitzvot that are relevant to the historical moment in which the people are now living – on the verge of entering the Land of Israel. Indeed, a large number of the commandments in the previous parashot relate to public matters relevant to that historical moment: Parashat Re'eh was mainly concerned with regulating the worship of God in the Land of Israel,[2] and Parashat Shoftim primarily dealt with the form of government that was to be established there. However, this connection between the mitzvot and entering the land begins to weaken in our parasha. While it does include mitzvot related to war (relevant to conquest of the Land), such as the laws of a woman captured in war (Devarim 21:10-14) and the laws governing the purity of a military camp (23:10-15), most mitzvot in this parasha are directed toward individuals and seemingly should have appeared already in earlier collections of mitzvot. To explain this, we can examine the various mitzvot and see whether they are in fact connected to the people's entry into the Land of Israel, despite being directed to the individual. Such an examination indeed indicates that at least some of the mitzvot directed toward individuals only become relevant when the people enter the land.[3]

However, I would like to explore these mitzvot from a different angle. In my opinion, the commandments in Moshe's oration must be examined not only with respect to their content, but also with respect to the manner in which Moshe teaches them to the people. Indeed, some of the mitzvot are not related specifically to Israel's entering the land, but the way they are taught is in fact related to it.

II. Reasons for the Mitzvot

Parashat Mishpatim in the book of Shemot is quite similar to our parasha: both contain a lengthy collection of mitzvot and legal statutes, primarily related to the individual and his relationship with his environment. A comparison between the way the laws are taught in Parashat Mishpatim and the way they are taught in our parasha can help identify the uniqueness here.

When we look at Parashat Mishpatim, we see that almost all of its laws are presented to the people without a reason. This is not the place to discuss Parashat Mishpatim in its entirety, but the reader is invited to review it and see that it contains a long list of absolute rules, presented without explanation or reasoning. There are three exceptions: two relate to mitzvot connected to a proselyte, and one relates to a pauper.

These are the mitzvot connected to a proselyte:

And a stranger shall you not wrong, neither shall you oppress him; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Shemot 22:20) 

And a stranger shall you not oppress; for you know the heart of a stranger, seeing you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Shemot 23:9)

The reason for the prohibitions to wrong and to oppress a proselyte are the same: "for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."

The third mitzva for which a reason is given is similar to these two mitzvot. It speaks of the obligation to return to a pauper, toward the evening, a garment that had been taken from him as a pledge:

If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with you, you shall not be to him as a creditor; neither shall you lay upon him interest. If you at all take your neighbor's garment to pledge, you shall restore it to him by the time the sun goes down; for that is his only covering, it is his garment for his skin; wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he cries to Me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. (Shemot 22:24-26)

Here, the reasoning is that if the pledged item were retained, he would not have anything with which to cover himself when he lies down to sleep. The appearance of reasons for only these mitzvot teaches about the rest of the mitzvot in Parashat Mishpatim, which appear as decrees without reasons. These laws were given immediately in the aftermath of the exodus from Egypt. The nation of Israel was then in an initial state, after years of traumatic slavery. They had the mentality of slaves, obeying their masters without exercising judgment, and were not yet in a place to consider explanations and reasons for the mitzvot. They could accept the mitzvot only on a superficial level, as decrees without reason. They were similar to a young child, whose parents train him to follow certain rules even though his mind is not yet sufficiently developed to understand the logic behind them.

The only reasons that can be shared at this stage relate to mitzvot directly connected to Israel's bondage in Egypt. Those reasons they can understand: not to wrong or oppress a stranger, as they themselves had been abused not so long ago; how to treat a pauper who has only one garment to his name, a situation similar to their own recent experience. However, explaining the rest of the laws could actually complicate matters and make it more difficult for the former slave nation.

In contrast, in the collection of mitzvot in our parasha, many mitzvot are given together with an explanation and a reason.

Let us briefly review the reasons for the mitzvot found in our parasha, in order to show how the tendency has been reversed:

• A woman captured in war must not be sold: "…you shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have humbled her" (Devarim 21:14).
• The son of a “hated wife” must not be discriminated against with respect to his inheritance: "for he is the first-fruits of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his" (21:17).
• A stubborn and rebellious son must be put to death, in order to deter the rest of the people: "so shall you put away the evil from the midst of you; and all of Israel shall hear, and fear" (21:21).
• A person sentenced to death by hanging must be buried on the same day: "for he that is hanged is an affront to God" (21:23).
• There is an obligation to build a railing along the edge of one's roof: "that you bring not blood upon your house, if any man fall from there" (22:8).
• One who accuses his wife of not being a virgin at the time of marriage must be punished: "because he has brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel" (22:19).
• A woman who was raped in the field must not be punished: "for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, so is this matter" (22:26).
• If a married woman slept with a man in the city, they must both be killed – the man because he humbled the woman, and the woman because she did not cry out (22:24).
• One must not marry an Amonite or a Moavite, because they did not meet Israel with bread and water (23:5).
• One must not abhor an Edomite: "for he is your brother" (23:8).
• One must not abhor an Egyptian: "because you were a stranger in his land" (23:8).
• The purity of the camp must be maintained: "for the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp" (23:15).
• A man who take a wife does not go out to war during the first year, so that he can make his wife happy (24:5).
• A poor man must be paid his wages on the same day: "for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it" (24:15).
• Various commandments involving taking care of orphans and widows are explained through mention made of the slavery in Egypt (24:22).
• A sinner must be given forty lashes, but no more than that: "lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then your brother should be dishonored before your eyes" (25:3).
• The brother of a married man who died without children is to marry the widow (yibum, levirate marriage) so the husband's name will not be erased from of Israel (25:6).
• The remembrance of Amalek must be blotted out because of the injury he inflicted upon Israel in the wilderness (25:17).

Even the mitzvot that are not explained are mostly mitzvot whose reasons are self-evident: the mitzvot of returning lost property and of sending away the mother bird before taking its young; the prohibitions of incest, of harlotry, of handing over a slave who had run away from his master, of kidnapping, and of muzzling an ox treading grain. It should be noted that this tendency is also evident in the previous parashot, Re'eh and Shoftim, which are an integral part of the same “oration of the commandments.” This is not the forum to expand upon the matter, but one who examines those parashot as well will see that almost all of the mitzvot there appear together with a detailed explanation.[4]

If we broaden our view to the entire book of Devarim, we see that how the mitzvot are taught relates to the general progression presented by the entire book.

In the shiur on Parashat Devarim, I dealt at length with the difference between the first generation that came out of Egypt and the second generation. As mentioned there, the first generation experienced the slavery of Egypt on their own bodies. This was a down-trodden generation that only understood the language of actions and orders. It is less appropriate to communicate with such a generation through the channel of speech. There is no room for its members to develop high-level insights or sensitivity. Therefore, Sefer Devarim, the book of words, was given specifically to the second generation. For the same reason, sublime orations on matters of faith appear for the first time in the first parashot of the book, as these topics accord with the loftier psyches of the second generation.

Now, we encounter a similar trend in relation to the giving of the practical commandments, as it is now more appropriate to teach the Torah along with its reasons and meanings. In this way, the people will be able to internalize the Torah’s teachings and connect with them, by understanding the ideas that stand behind them. It would be wrong to continue to treat them as little children who are supposed to accept the commandments as decrees that have no reason.[5]

III. The Beginning of the Oral Law

Beyond the characteristics of the second generation being more suited for studying the Torah with its reasons, it seems that the change is also connected to the service of God in the Land of Israel. I discussed in the shiur on Parashat Re'eh the new way that God was to be worshipped in the land: the people of Israel would settle throughout the country and establish themselves there, to live their lives independently while maintaining a connection to God through the central holy place. Our study of Parashat Shoftim showed that this shift takes place in relation to governmental institutions as well. Ideally, the people of Israel should manage their affairs independently, while maintaining a connection with the judge and the priests in the Temple.

This new model, an established and independent people managing their affairs in the light of the way of the Torah, also requires a change in how Torah is studied. If the mitzvot had continued to be given as a collection of commands without reasons, it would have been very difficult to operate independently. It is necessary to understand the ideas and general spirit behind the laws in order to be able to apply them to changing circumstances and lead full lives based on them.

This, essentially, is the role of the Oral Law. It can be argued that the roots of the Oral Law lie here, in the oration of the commandments. Moshe presents the mitzvot with their explanations and reasons, and thus the laws can be developed and applied in the changing realities of life.

In light of this, the book of Devarim constitutes a sort of seam connecting the Written Law and the Oral Law. The book was indeed given under God's guidance, but by Moshe, who explains.[6] Only in this way can the people of Israel continue the process across generations of developing the Oral Law, and thus allow the people of Israel to continue leading Torah lives in an independent manner.

IV. “An Abomination to the Lord”

Keeping the mitzvot based on an understanding of their logic is an important stage in the service of God, but there is also something limited about it.

Consider as an example a marital relationship, in which one of the spouses makes a request of her partner. The request can be understandable and logical to the partner. Understanding the logic mobilizes him to action and he carries out the request. This mobilization teaches us little about the relationship between them, because ultimately the partner who receives the request acts on the basis of his own personal logic, and not in response to his spouse. Alternatively, one can imagine a situation in which the one spouse asks for something from her partner, but is unable to explain the logic behind it. It is not a capricious or negative request, but a deep desire that she has difficulty explaining in a rational manner. In such a case, she will reveal her need and her request to her partner, but will not be able to justify it with logical reasons. A good marital relationship will bring the partner to accede to the request, even if he does not understand it, simply because it is her desire. (Of course, it can also happen in the reverse.) This responsiveness indicates a deep connection between them, which causes each of the parties to act on behalf of the other just because it is their spouse's wish, even without complete understanding.

In the oration of the commandments in the book of Devarim, the people of Israel are expected to reach such a level in their relationship with God. Regarding some of the commandments, no logical reason is offered, but it is stated that the act in question is an "abomination" in the eyes of God. There is no attempt made here to convince the people of the logic of the mitzva, but only to state that these actions are despicable in God’s eyes and therefore they are asked to refrain from doing them.

The expression "abomination" appeared only twice before in the Torah (Vayikra 18:22; 20:13), while in the oration of the commandments in Devarim[7] it becomes commonplace, appearing as an explanation for eleven commandments.[8] For example, it is stated in our parasha that a man must not wear a woman's garment and vice versa "for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God" (22:5). For the same reason, one must not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog to the Temple (23:19). The same explanation is also offered for certain ethical commandments, "for all who do such things… are an abomination to the Lord your God" (25:16). God requests that we refrain from committing injustice because it is an abomination in His eyes, over and beyond the social reasoning underlying the prohibition.

These requests, to refrain from doing certain things purely because they are abominable in the eyes of God, indicate a new and more intimate relationship with God. This is part of a broader tendency in Devarim towards building a new relationship between the people of Israel and God. It is a bond of mutual love. The mitzva to love God appears for the first time at the beginning of the oration of the commandments (Devarim 6:5; 11:1, 13). Paralleling this, in the same section of the speech, God's love for His people is described for the first time. It suddenly turns out that this is what drove God to take them out of Egypt in the first place:

But because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, has the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (7:8)[9]  

This explanation for the exodus from Egypt could not have appeared in the book of Shemot. At that time, the people of Israel were not yet in a state of mind to create a relationship of love with God. They were still in a mental state of slavery, able only to obey orders, and could not have built a love relationship, which has an egalitarian aspect, with God. Within such a relationship of mutual love, one can talk about refraining from certain actions simply because they are not to God's liking. This fact – within a relationship of love – suffices.

V. The Three Pilgrimage Festivals

The gap between God's relationship with his people in the book of Shemot and His relationship with them in the book of Devarim can be seen in the descriptions of the three pilgrimage festivals, which appear in both books. Let us go back to Parashat Mishpatim, which we have already seen in comparison to our parasha. This is how the mitzva of the three pilgrimage festivals is described there:

Three times you shall keep a feast to Me in the year. The feast of unleavened bread shall you keep… and none shall appear before Me empty; and the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you sow in the field; and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year, when you gather in your labors out of the field. Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord [ha-adon, "the Master"] God. (Shemot 23:14-17)

The image of God here is that of a "master," who commands his servants to come and appear before him. They must not come before Him empty-handed – they must bring Him an offering from the grain of their fields.

In contrast, the account of the festivals in Parashat Re'eh, part of Moshe's oration of the mitzvot in the book of Devarim, presents an entirely different picture:

0bserve the month of Aviv, and keep the Passover to the Lord your God… And you shall keep the feast of weeks to the Lord your God after the measure of the freewill-offering of your hand, which you shall give, according as the Lord your God blesses you. And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God…

You shall keep the feast of booths seven days… And you shall rejoice in your feast, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your man-servant, and your maid-servant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within your gates. Seven days shall you keep a feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord shall choose; because the Lord your God shall bless you in all your increase, and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be altogether joyful. Three times in a year shall all your males appear before the Lord your God in the place which He shall choose; on the feast of unleavened bread, and on the feast of weeks, and on the feast of tabernacles; and they shall not appear before the Lord empty. (16:1-16)

The commandment to appear before God on a pilgrimage festival is not presented in a brief, technical manner as it was in Parashat Mishpatim. Instead, it is spread over sixteen verses that present a picture of joy and festivity. This joy stems from the abundance and blessing given by God, through the Land of Israel. The people thank God for all the goodness given to them and come to rejoice before Him. The Lord does not appear here as the "Master," as in the book of Shemot, but as "the Lord your God" – God who helps you and provides you with goodness. You, for your part, are required to come, thank Him, and rejoice before Him. The atmosphere here between God and the people is on a more equal footing and grows out of a mutual relationship.

VI. The Book of Shemot Alongside the Book of Devarim

The process we have described draws a linear line of development between the book of Shemot and the book of Devarim. The book of Shemot shows the beginning of a relationship with God – one that is more immature and suitable for a people with a slave mentality. In contrast, the book of Devarim presents a higher developmental stage, in which the people form a mature and reciprocal relationship with God. This connection allows for talking about observing mitzvot out of love and not just out of obedience.

This description raises an obvious question: Why do we need the book of Shemot? Why is it important for us to know the beginning of the journey, rather than to directly see the desired more mature relationship with God?

It seems that the course from the book of Shemot to the book of Devarim does not only reflect an event that took place in the past. Each of us advances during our development from the book of Shemot to the book of Devarim. We begin as little children obediently accepting the rules given from above. Our initial connection with God and His teachings often comes from such a place. However, over the course of our personal and religious development, we must try and move forward to the book of Devarim and establish a mutual and more mature relationship with God – a relationship that involves love and desire, not just coerced obedience.

Moreover, it seems that the process is not only linear. These two mental states continue to exist within each of us – a mature and mutual place before God, but alongside it, a childish-obedient place. In the latter, we observe the mitzvot out of obedience to the "the Master," and not only out of an experience of love and a close relationship.

Both books teach us about these two mental places. While the goal is to move forward to the book of Devarim, the book of Shemot also continues to be present in the background.

(Translated by David Strauss)