|
Topics in this digest: Beshalach
5764
This is from
two weeks ago…last week I was in Israel.
Rabbi Leff
I have a confession to make. I’m a
shortcut junky. I love finding and taking shortcuts. I
regularly drive into Vancouver; having tried different routes, I feel I
know which route is faster for which time of day. The other day we
were heading into Vancouver and Lauri was driving. I told her to
turn up Number One road, because going that way to Westminster you avoid
one stop light compared with some other routes you might take. Which
of course means saving what, 30 seconds? IF you miss the light?
When I go skiing at Whistler, I always go from
Creekside because it saves lots of time compared with parking in the
Village. And you get there first.
I managed to complete a four year college
degree while serving in the Army for three years…through finding some
legal “shortcuts.”
Sometimes I’ll daven behind the wheel of the
car if I’m running short on time. Which really is OK to do. In
the Shema, we say that we should recite these words “while sitting at home
and while going on the road.” This sort of impatience with wasting
time is very common with entrepreneurs. I read a study about
entrepreneurs years ago which said, among other things, that entrepreneurs
often had beards and wore loafers because they didn’t like to waste time
with shaving or tying their shoes. You’d never guess why I noticed
that!
I think shortcuts are given a bum rap.
Taking shortcuts is NOT the same as cutting corners. It is entirely
possible to take shortcuts and do it completely safely. Taking
shortcuts was a common thing even back in the days of the Talmud.
The Talmud records many discussions about whether it is OK to take a
shortcut through someone’s fields…and the answer depends on what time of
year it is, and whether taking the shortcut could damage his crops.
Even if I’m a little extreme in my love for
shortcuts and impatience with wasting time, we can all relate to it.
None of us likes to waste time. None of us likes to take
substantially more time to get where we are going than necessary.
Which makes the opening of this week’s Torah
portion all the more mysterious. The very beginning of this week’s
parsha, page 265 in your Hertz chumash, reads “And it came to pass, when
Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not by the way of the
land of the Philistines, although it was nearer; for God said, ‘The people
may have a change of heart when they see war, and return to Egypt.’”
The phrase I translated as “although it was nearer,” “ki karov hu,” is
actually a rather complicated phrase to translate.
Ki usually
means “because” or “for,” as in “ki l’olam chasdo,” for His kindness is
eternal. In the Talmud, tractate Shavuot (49b), Resh Lakish teaches
that the word “ki” is translatable by four expressions: ‘if’, ‘perhaps’,
‘but’, and ‘because’. Resh Lakish didn’t even list “although” as one
of the options!
If we take a
survey of translations of the Bible, we find the following:
Hertz (and
King James): “although that was near”
JPS: “although it was nearer”
Artscroll: “because it was near”
These two different translations of the word
“ki:” although and because, reflect an argument between the rabbis.
Rashi and Ibn Ezra say it should be translated “because.” Rabbi Moses says
“although.” Ramban, Nachmanides, would add another translation.
He says the correct reading is “WHICH” was near.
These three interpretations represent a
grammatical argument: is the phrase “ki karov hu” a clause of cause
(because), a clause of concession (although), or a relative clause
(which).
Superficially, the clause appears to be a
clause of cause. It sounds like the Torah is saying God specifically
did NOT take the people that way BECAUSE it was the short path. The
obvious problem with this is put forth by Mizrahi: “The directness of the
route constitutes a good reason for following it, rather than avoiding it!
Yet here the opposite is stated!” This is what led R. Moses (and
Hertz, King James, and JPS) to go with the translation of “ki” as
“although.” The problem with translating the word as although is
there is nothing in the scriptural context to understand the clause in
this sense.
Ramban deals with this by saying in the
context it simply means “which,” so Ramban would read the verse as saying
“He did not lead them via Philistine territory which was near, (and which
route was really preferable), because God reasoned the people may change
their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.
If we look at what happens right after God
brings the people out of Egypt, He had good reason to be concerned they
would run back to Egypt. No sooner are they free of slavery then
they start complaining how much better life was in Egypt than out in the
desert, far from the fleshpots.
I suggest that
“Occam’s razor” applies in this situation, as in so many others. I
think Ramban and R. Moses are going through unnecessary contortions.
The context tells us that the shorter route was in fact less desirable.
God did not take the Israelites by the Philistine territory, davka,
specifically, BECAUSE it was close. Not only might the Jews want to
run back to Egypt, but the shortest route would NOT have been the best for
the people.
This was a
generation that had grown up as slaves in Egypt. They weren’t really
ready to deal with all of the challenges life and God were throwing their
way. There were two important things coming soon: receiving the
Torah, and conquering the land of Israel. This was a generation not
yet ready for EITHER of those two critically important tasks.
For the Torah
to be more than just another book, it needs to be approached with a
certain attitude. There are many reasons why the slaves might not
have been ready to receive the Torah. The Baal Shem Tov, the Besht,
says we have to do teshuvah BEFORE studying (receiving) Torah. The
Besht says that the Torah is an amplifier—it will make a righteous person
more righteous, but it can make a wicked person more wicked. So the
generation of slaves, kvetchers, and complainers needed to develop into a
generation that was more suitable to receive God’s words.
The other big
task facing the people was to conquer Israel. This was also a task
which required a great deal of preparation. Slaves are not used to
governing themselves, they are not used to fighting, they are not used to
putting their lives on the line for something they believe. What
better way to toughen a people and get them ready for war than 40 years of
living in the desert? After that time, they must have truly been a
“lean, mean, fighting machine.”
The message is the shortest path is not always
the best path. Even those of us who are enamored of shortcuts and
saving time should remember the advice given in a Kate Wolf song:
“Sometimes let a back road take you home.”
Shabbat
Shalom,
Rabbi Leff
It is a great mitzvah to serve God with
great joy, always...R. Nachman of Breslov
Rabbi Barry Leff
Beth Tikvah Congregation
9711 Geal Road
Richmond, BC V7E 1R4
phone: (604) 271-6262
fax: (604) 271-6270
web: www.btikvah.ca
email: rebbarry@yeladim.org
Top of page |