Rabbi Dov Kramer on the Parsha

Taking a Closer Look (Rabbi Dov Kramer)

Although our Parasha is referred to as “Ki Savo” (or sometimes just “Savo”), the first word of the Parasha is “v’haya,” meaning “and it will be” (Devarim 26:1). The Sifre’s comment on this word has led to much discussion, including whether the Sifre actually commented on this word. The Sifre’s second comment (or first, if there was no comment on “v’haya”) has also led to much discussion, with some using the latter to explain the former. Let’s take a closer look at this Sifre.

The Parasha starts by teaching us the mitzvah of “Bikurim,” bringing the first fruits to the Temple, a mitzvah that didn’t apply until we entered the Promised Land, conquered it, and divided it up by assigning specific portions to each Tribe and to each family within the Tribe (see Rashi on 26:1). It is therefore seems quite puzzling that the Sifre starts off by telling us that the word “v’haya” always means “immediately.” How could the Sifre tell us that the mitzvah of “Bikurim” applied “immediately” if it didn’t apply until 14 years later? For this reason, several commentators insist that these words were never really part of the Sifre. And, in fact, if you look at the way the Sfre is quoted by Yalkut Shimoni, these words are put in parenthesis, indicating that they do not really belong. The same is true of the Sifre printed with Malbim’s commentary, although Malbim acknowledges that it is in older manuscripts of the Sifre. Last year (5769), Raavad’s commentary on the Sifre was published. Since he comments on these words, he obviously had them in his version of the Sifre. Midrash Hagadol and Midrash Lekach Tov, which are compilations of Midrashim made by Rishonim (early commentators), both include this explanation of the word “v’haya,” so they must have had this comment in their versions of the Sifre as well. This led Rabbi Dovid Pardo (Sifre D’vei Rav) to say that despite the difficulty with this comment, it would still be difficult to just erase these words from the Sifre.

The Sifre’s second comment is also puzzling, as it tells us that by using the opening words “and it will be when you come to the land” to teach us this mitzvah, Moshe was telling the nation to “do the mitzvah that is discussed here, for as its reward you will enter the land.” How can the reward (being able to enter the Promised Land) come years before the mitzvah that it is a reward for can be done?

As I mentioned, these issues are addressed by numerous commentators, and some of their approaches (or aspects of their approach) are incorporated below. For those interested in seeing the sources I used (or was “mechaven” to), as well as others that address one or both of these issues, please see Raavad, Haga’os U’Biurim L’Chacham Kadmon Sefardi, Toldos Udum, Sifre D’vei Rav, Malbim, Meir Ayin, Otzer Hamidrashim, and Sefer Sarasi.

Sifre D’vei Rav says that the usual way of saying that the mitzvah currently being discussed brings about the reward just mentioned is “do this mitzvah,” not “do the mitzvah discussed here.” By telling us that the mitzvah to be done is “what is discussed here” (and not just “this one,” the Sifre is alluding to the previously discussed mitzvah, not the one that is about to be discussed. In this case, the previously discussed mitzvah was remembering that Amelek did everything they possibly could to prevent us from carrying out G-d’s mission, and because they would always keep trying, to wipe them out. We had to wait until after we were in a position to carry out the last part (which would be after appointing a king), but the “remembering “ part, which was a prerequisite to carrying out the rest of the mitzvah, had to be done right away (and be done consistently). It makes sense that being able to enter the Promised Land would result from fulfilling this mitzvah, as if we start the process of avenging “G-d’s war” (see Shemos 17:16), He will give us the tools necessary to finish it, which includes getting the land and settling it.

Sifre D’vei Rav brings a similar example from the Sifre’s comments regarding appointing a king (Devarim 17:14). Moshe also prefaces that mitzvah with “when you enter the land” (although there is no “v’haya” there), upon which the Sifre says, “do the mitzvah discussed here, for as its reward you will enter the land.” Sound familiar? The same issue we had on the Sifre’s second comment in our Parasha applies here. However, if the Sifre is referring to the mitzvah discussed right before this one (making sure we have a judicial system that has a central authority, with the same laws applying to everybody, see www.rabbidmk.posterous.com/parashas-shoftim-5770), it makes sense. Moshe is telling us that if we put things into place now, at Arvos Moav when everyone is together, we can cross the Jordan River and spread out without being concerned that each locale will have its own set of laws. If the mitzvah we must start to keep in order to enter the Promised Land can be done before we cross into it, this second issue is resolved.

There is one slight problem with Sifr D’vei Rav’s approach. The Sifre never uses the expression “do this mitzvah,” so the expression “do the mitzvah discussed here” doesn’t necessarily mean “the mitzvah just discussed;” this could be the way the Sifre says “do the following mitzvah.” As a matter of fact, the Sifre uses the expression “do the mitzvah that is discussed here” seven times (all in Devarim). Nevertheless, the same issue of being rewarded before the mitzvah can be done would apply to the other five as well.

The first (Devarim 12:20) is rather straight-forward, as the reward of widened boundaries (and an allowance for eating meat outside the Temple compound) comes if we follow the previously described mitzvah of eating all the offerings by the Temple. The reward of G-d “cutting down the nations [in Canaan] from before us” (12:29) comes for “doing one mitzvah discussed here” (the only instance where the word “one” is added), which implies either one of the mitzvos discussed previously (not eating blood and bringing all of your offerings to the Temple) or one of the mitzvos about to be discussed (not worshipping the deities the nations worshipped and not worshipping G-d using the forms of worship they used for their deities). Since the ones described afterwards include the expression “after they have been destroyed from before you” (12:30), it would be kind of difficult for the reward for doing something after they were destroyed to be getting rid of them. Therefore, here too, it must be doing a mitzvah previously discussed that brings about this reward. The next one (18:9) is a bit trickier, as the mitzvah described before the reward of entering the land is either allowing Kohanim to perform services in the Temple even when it is not their turn (see Rashi on 18:7) or not “learning to do the abominations of these nations.” If we can assume these things (i.e. “Molech” and black magic) were known about even before they crossed the Jordan River, it would be at least as likely that “being completely faithful to Hashem, your G-d” (18:13) would be the mitzvah referred to. However, here the Sifre adds the word “bisecharcha” (“as your reward”) to end its comment, separating the reward (and what turns out to be its cause) from the next mitzvah. Here too, we see the expression “discussed here” to be referring to the previously discussed mitzvah. Similarly, (18:14) is to drive out the nations living there after having crossed into the land rather than the reward being to cross over in the first place; if we don’t mimic their ways after we cross, we will be able to drive them out. (The mitzvah discussed after this one being a continuation of what was discussed before it, and that one being the one after the previous “reward,” makes it impossible for the expression to mean “the next mitzvah.”) The fifth (19:8) discusses the cities of refuge, as we will be rewarded with wider boundaries, necessitating additional cities of refuge, if we set up the cities of refuge properly in our original boundaries. In this case, it is the same mitzvah, so the Sifre must be referring to setting up the first cities of refuge in order to merit needing to set up additional ones. Therefore, although one of Sifre D’vei Rav’s main arguments for his approach (that the Sifre would use a different expression) falls away, I think the approach itself is valid, and is pretty much implied in some the seven cases.

We are still left with our first question, how the Sifre could say that “v’haya” means immediately if the mitzvah of “Bikurim” won’t start until years after entering the land. However, the verse (26:1) doesn’t just mention “entering the land,” it also mentions “inheriting it and dwelling in it,” i.e. conquering it and dividing it up, and the mitzvah of “Bikurim” does start immediately after that. The question becomes why we would think otherwise, necessitating the Torah to tell us that it starts immediately after everyone is settled, and/or why the Sifre had to point it out to us.

Once we’ve established that “v’haya” doesn’t mean “right this second,” but “right after certain conditions have been met” (i.e. right after the land was conquered and divided up), everything falls into place. When the prophet (Micha 4:1) tells us that “it will be at the end of days,” the “v’haya” teaches us that it will occur right away, at the beginning of the “end of days,” not well after they have started. Although the mitzvah of remembering what Amalek did started right away, the mitzvah to wipe them out didn’t start until after there was a king. Nevertheless, since it started right after the first king was appointed, Moshe used the word “v’haya.” Appointing the king, though, was not required right away (and if anything, should have been delayed more), so there is no “v’haya” there. In order to contrast the “coming to the land” regarding appointing a king and the “coming to the land” regarding “Bikurim,” Moshe had to add “v’haya” by the latter and leave it out by the former. Additionally, as the Malbim points out, the mitzvah of separating “Chalah” from dough did not apply to dough that was already kneaded, only to dough that was kneaded after the land was conquered and divided up. Similarly, the prohibition against “Urlah” (fruit from the first three years) didn’t apply to trees that had already been planted, only to those that were planted after the land was conquered and divided up. “Bikurim,” on the other hand, applied even to something that had been planted before the land was conquered. Therefore, Moshe told them that “Bikurim” applied “immediately.” Not “immediately” after they entered the Promised Land, but “immediately” after it was conquered and divided up.