by Rav Moshe Leib HaCohen Halberstadt , yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.
This week's Torah portion of Ki Tetze (D'varim 21,10-25,19) features very many commandments, including this one: "No Ammonite or Moabite may marry into G-d's congregation, not even the tenth generation … - because they did not welcome you with bread and water on the way when you came out of Egypt... Do not seek their peace or welfare all your days, forever." (23,4-7)
When we compare this mitzvah with the ban on first- and second-generation Egyptian converts, we can only ask in wonderment: The Egyptians, who threw our baby boys into the Nile and then cruelly enslaved us for so many years, are not permanently banned from joining our people (verses 8-9), while the Amonites – who simply committed a sin of omission by not giving us water or bread when we needed it – are banned forever!? And the Edomites, who made war upon us when we left Egypt, are permitted in their third generation, while the Moabites, who simply hired Bil'am to curse us, are permanently barred?! Where is the proportionality?
Rashi apparently sensed this difficulty, and therefore cited the Medrash Sifri. The Medrash derives from the wording of the verse that the Amonites' sin was not merely that they did not give us food and drink, but also that they caused us to sin – and one who harms us spiritually is so much worse than one who merely caused us physical harm.
Still, however, this is not the plain meaning of the Torah here. The emphasis is certainly on that they did not give us food and drink when we needed it. And so, we must understand what was so terrible about that specific thing that as a result they may not join our people, unlike other nations that actually killed and enslaved us.
The specific sin was "the matter" (al dvar, in Hebrew) of not bringing food to Israel. We know that this was a national thing, for individuals can't be expected to take upon themselves a mission such as this on their own. Can each individual therefore say that he was not to blame? Not at all; the words al dvar (from the root meaning "speak") indicate that the entire nation took counsel among themselves, as is appropriate, and all agreed that they should not bring food to Israel. (The Medrash, too, can be understood to be indicating this.) All the Moabites, too, agreed that hiring Bil'am was a good idea; it was not the idea just of one man.
What this means is that all of the Moabites and Amonites agreed that what Israel's ancestor Abraham did for their own ancestor, Lot – welcoming him into his home, rescuing him from King K'dorlaomer and his allies, and finding him land – need not be remembered at this critical time. "So what if Avram saved our great-grandfather Lot? We don't owe him or his descendants anything!"
Certainly what the Edomim and Egyptians did to Israel was much worse than simply denying them food. Their deeds as taskmasters in Egypt show their inferior character, and in fact they are not permitted to join Israel before their third generation. But what the Amonites and Moabites did was a conscious decision, by the entire nation, to ignore all the goodness that Avraham had done for Lot! Possibly they did not hurt Israel as badly as the Egyptians did, but the Egyptians did not come close to the perverse ungratefulness and hopelessly irreparable character flaws displayed by the Amonites and Moabites. This is why the Torah tells us to distance ourselves from them forever, and not even to seek their welfare.
We can learn a lesson along similar lines from King David. On his deathbed, he charged his son Shlomo to "do kindness to the sons of Barzilai the Giladite, and they shall eat at your table, for they came close to me when I was fleeing Avshalom your brother" (Kings I 2,7).
Why did David wish to reward the Barzilai family so handsomely? Because of the kindness they showed David in "coming close to me when I was fleeing" and bringing him food and drink.
The Chafetz Chaim said that this is hard to understand. Would it not have been sufficient for David to give them generous gifts in recognition of their kindness? Why did he go so far as to invite them to be practically a part of his family, eating at the king's table whenever they wish?
If we look at David's words carefully, we will understand the story more deeply. He did not say that the Barzilai family brought him close to them in his time of need, but rather that they came close to him in his time of need. Why is this considered a special kindness?
The Chafetz Chaim explains that if the Barzilites had felt that David was in desperate straits, and that they were helping him because they wished to bring him close as they would to anyone who was suffering – in such a case, they would have deserved generous gifts in return, but not more than that. Certainly there would have been no need to invite them to dine at the royal table at their leisure!
Rather, they saw David not as a "poor guy," a "wretch" of some sort, but as their King, whose servants they are! As such, the Chafetz Chaim wrote, they wished to come close to him, just as David said to Shlomo! They viewed his troubles as impermanent and certainly not something that detracted from his stature in their eyes, and they wished to honor him. For this, it was definitely appropriate for David to honor them substantially!
The virtue of the sons of Barzilai was that when they gave David bread and water, they did not feel that they were doing him a kindness. Rather, they did so out of a sense of coming close to him, and that it was a true privilege for them to help the king when it proved necessary. They truly acted like his servants, and not like someone doling out presents. In return for a good deed of this sort, one that comes with deep recognition of the honor of the royalty, one-time gifts would not be enough. Rather, the Barzilites were to be permanent fixtures at the kingly table. (Based on Hu Hayah Omer, by Rabbi Shalom Schwadron)
A simple act of kindness can tell very much about one's true character, and can even decree his future. The Amon and Moav nations showed their extreme corruption by deciding as one to ignore the kindness shown their ancestor and not bring water and bread to his descendants when they needed it. This is why they may never marry into the Jewish People. On the other hand, the sons of Barzilai exhibited greatness of character and spirit in the way they honored their king at his time of trouble, and were rewarded with closeness to the royal family.
No comments:
Post a Comment