Oroh V'Simchoh

Meshech Chochmoh
on the Weekly Parsha

subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha| Previous Issues

For sponsorships and advertising opportunities, send e-mail to:SHOLOM613@AOL.COM


OROH V'SIMCHOH - MESHECH CHOCHMOH ON PARSHAS VO'ES'CHANAN 5767 BS"D

Ch. 4, v. 14: "Laasos'chem osom BO'ORETZ" - Rabbi Shimshon R'fo'el Hirsch points out that the bnei Yisroel are responsible for all mitzvos outside of Eretz Yisroel as well, save the mitzvos that are land bound or Mikdosh connected. The intention of our verse is to say that we should do them in any location, as indicated by the cantellation of "zokeif koton" on "laasos'chem osom," indicating a stop in the phrase before the word "bo'oretz". This means that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled everywhere. Afterwards there is the add on of "bo'oretz," where the mitzvos are done in the best manner (See Ramban Dvorim 11:18).

The MESHECH CHOCHMOH explains these words by saying that "laasos'chem" means to FORCE you to comply, as we find in the gemara K'suvos 77a, "Ein M'ASIN ello lifsulos." On the basis of the words of the Rashb"o on the gemara Shabbos 88a the MESHECH CHOCHMOH says that the rule of the religious courts forcing people to fulfill positive mitzvos (K'suvos 86a) only applies once the bnei Yisroel live in Eretz Yisroel. Thus, "laasos'chem osom," - to FORCE you to do them is only "bo'oretz."

Perhaps another explanation can be offered along the lines of the MESHECH CHOCHMOH. In the desert when people did not comply with Hashem's mitzvos He furthered the manna from them and their portions required much preparation before being edible, as mentioned in the gemara Yoma 75a. However, Hashem always gave them manna even if they sinned greatly. However, upon entering Eretz Yisroel, the Torah says, "Hishomru lochem ...... v'sartem, v'otzar es hashomayim v'lo y'h'yeh mottor v'ho'adomoh lo si'tein es y'vuloh va'avadtem m'heiroh ......" (Dvorim 11:16,17). Hashem clearly tells us that when not complying in Eretz Yisroel He will force us to do the mitzvos under threat of otherwise being driven from the land through lack of sustenance.

Ch. 5, v. 14,15: "V'shorcho vachamorcho v'chol b'hemtecho , V'zocharto ki evved hoyiso b'eretz Mitzrayim" - In the version of the Ten Commandments in Shmos, when the command of remembering Shabbos is mentioned (20:10), there is no mention of refraining from having one's ox and donkey work. The MESHECH CHOCHMOH explains that in the earlier version the Torah gives the reason for keeping Shabbos as a remembrance of the creation of the world (verse 21). Since all animals were included in the creation, a ben Yisroel is commanded to have his animals refrain from working, and there is no reason to point out any particular species. However, in our verse the Torah gives a second reason for keeping Shabbos, as a remembrance of our having been enslaved to Egypt and being redeemed by Hashem. This is of such great importance that Hashem has given us the mitzvos of tefillin (Shmos 13:16) as a remembrance on one's body, tzitzis (Bmidbar 15:41) on one's garments, and Shabbos and the Yom Tov of Pesach in the realm of time, as continual, repetitive reminders of the central event of the exodus from Egypt. Since the first-born of an ox and of a donkey have been sanctified as a remembrance of what transpired in Egypt and upon the bnei Yisroel's exodus (Shmos 13:12,13), one might think that there is no further need to exemplify this with an ox or a donkey. Therefore there is a need to specifically mention these two species as still falling under the rule of refraining from work on Shabbos.

I don't fully understand the words of the MESHECH CHOCHMOH. Although it is understood why the verse would not mention species whose first-born require no redemption, i.e. a horse, but there are others that do, such as a goat or a sheep. If so, why does the Torah specifically only mention an ox and not the others, as we find in Vayikroh 22:27, "Shor o chesev o eiz?"

Ch. 5, v. 17,18: "V'lo saa'neh v'rei'echo eid shov, V'lo sachmode eishes rei'echo" -And you shall not testify against your friend negligible tesitimony, And you shall not lust your friend's wife - Why is there a conjunctive Vov connecting these two verses? The Baal Haturim answers that a person might falsely testify that someone is dead to allow himself to marry the "widow." (The Rabbis have made an injunction that one who does testify to the death of a husband, he may not marry the widow.)

The Meshech Chochmoh says that with this insight (he quotes the Rashbam, but in our print it is in the Baal Haturim) we understand why the verse here says "shov," - negligible, while in the first set of Commandments it says "sheker," - false. Since this is a prohibition against falsely stating that a husband has died, in the future he will likely appear, and we will see that the testimony is worthless.

FEEDBACK AND SUBMISSIONS ARE APPRECIATED. SHOLOM613@AOL.COM

See also Sedrah Selections, Chasidic Insights and Chamisha Mi Yodei'a


Back to This Week's Parsha | Previous Issues


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael Classes,
send mail to parsha@shemayisrael.co.il

http://www.shemayisrael.co.il
Jerusalem, Israel