The above pasuk characterizes the observance of Hashem’s mitzvos as the primary vehicle of demonstrating our obedience to Him. We are to listen to Hashem’s voice for the sole purpose of fulfilling His law. In return for this life of service to Him, we have been promised an abundance of material blessing wherever we go. Wherever we may be, we will be accompanied by Hashem’s blessing. One simple criterion must be met: “To obey Hashem in order to fulfill His laws.” Material wealth should serve as a means, but never as the goal, for the Jewish people. We will…
Back to Home -> Ki Savo ->
Horav Elchonon Wasserman Z”l explains the distinction between the term “am” and the term “goy”, both of which are commonly translated as “nation”. “Goy” connotes an autonomous nation which is settled in its own land under its own governance. In contrast, “am” implies a people or large group of individuals who speak the same language and maintain a common culture. They comprise a “nation” despite their lack of their own land. This differentiation clarifies Moshe’s declaration to Bnei Yisrael, “Today you have become an am”, for they had accepted the Torah, which was written in seventy languages on the…
The closing words of this paragraph “from beneath the heaven” is enigmatic. Is it not obvious that Amalek’s name will be erased from “beneath the heaven”? Is there any other place which is not “beneath the heaven”? Perhaps we may suggest the following homiletic exposition. We live in a period during which the cultures which comprise civilization have reached previously unimagined heights of wisdom. Modern man has become enlightened in all areas of science, medicine, and the humanities. It would seem that such heinous evil as the Amalakim were capable of executing was forever gone. The dark ages of humanity…
The Talmud in Megillah 18a explains the apparent redundancy in regard to the mitzvah of blotting out Amalek’s name. The Talmud states that the “remembrance” should be by word of mouth, while the “do not forget” should be borne in our hearts. It is not sufficient to harbor the hatred toward Amalek in our hearts. This abhorrence towards Amalek must be articulated verbally. It seems incongruous that a people who have determined justice and love to be fundamental guiding principles, a people who extol the virtue of kindness, should maintain a mitzvah to harbor enmity towards another nation. Our…
Included in the imperative to remember Amalek’s heinous deed is the obligation to reflect upon the place where this incursion transpired. This seems enigmatic! Why should it be necessary to remember the place? Should it not be sufficient to simply remember the act? In Hilchos Melachim (8:5) the Rambam states that it is a mitzvah to constantly remember Amalek’s evil deeds and the fact that he ambushed us as we left Egypt. This memory serves as a source to propagate yet greater animosity towards him. This image, however, does not yet explain the significance of the location of the tragic…
The contrast in these pesukim is striking. On the one hand, we are positively enjoined to maintain a strict degree of holiness. On the other hand, we are admonished not to degrade ourselves by acting licentiously. Do not the mitzvos of the Torah focus on establishing us as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation? Therefore, it seems incongruous that a nation which willingly has accepted the entire Torah should need to be cautioned regarding debauchery. It is unlikely that these two antagonistic attitudes coexist within the same individual. Obviously, a nation, whose goal is to maintain a hallowed…
The Torah commands us to return a lost ox or lamb to its rightful owner, warning us not to avoid performing this deed. The Ibn Ezra notes that this imperative applies under all circumstances, including a contingency in which the finder is preoccupied with another endeavor. Indeed, he states, that even if one is overwhelmed by the tumult of war, the confusion of hastily bidding farewell to family members, or the fear of personal injury or death, he is still expected to notice a stray lamb and return it to its owner. Should not the Torah have excused someone experiencing…
The Mishna in Sotah (45b) explains that the elders absolve themselves from the blame in the death of this unfortunate man. Their evidence is that no man came into their presence who was allowed to depart without food or leave without an escort. Rashi extends this concept with the interpretation that “we did not send him away without food thereby forcing him to steal, through which he was killed.” Failure to exercise communal responsibility towards the unfortunate is an indictment of Jewish leadership. If a Jew becomes a criminal, the Jewish leadership in particular and the community as a whole…
Rashi interprets the word “that he did not “begin” to live in the house, to be related to the term “lubjw” thereby denoting “beginning.” Rashi’s explanation offers an insightful interpretation of the concept of “lubjw” or “education.” The focus of education should be dual. First, because education is an ongoing lifelong process, we can only “begin” to educate. We never complete our education. Second, a teacher or “lbjn” must view his role as one who effects the “beginning,” by motivating the student to use his own skills. A teacher who spoon-feeds the material to the student will not properly prepare…
The Iben Ezra explains that the “shofet” (judge) referred to in this pasuk is a “king” who commissioned the writing of his Torah written under the guidance of the Kohanim. This indicates that the Leviim were instrumental in teaching Torah to the judges and other leadership of Klal Yisrael. This implication is consistent with the words of the Rambam (Hilchos Shmitta 13:12). He explains that because of this Divine mandate, the tribe of Levi did not receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael. Their responsibility to devote every moment to promulgating Torah to Klal Yisrael did not allow the Leviim time…