A Quick Torah Thought

 Ever so many have the misconception that in fact Moshe said the last 8 commandments. That is far from the case.  Though the leaders of the Jewish people did in fact ask that Moshe share God's word instead of Moshe, Rashi - who famously shared the abovementioned Midrash, namely that Moshe said the last eight, makes an important qualification.  All 10 were said by God in one shot; everyone on a corporeal level, as palpable as can be, knew that God had spoken to them. It became part of them. But - and this is an important but, only the two, their essence, and extrapolation were shared by Hashem, whereas, vis a vis the final 8, only the clalim , main essence/message were shared by Hashem, but Moshe thereafter, expressed the necessary details so that the people could understand them. This is manifest by the fact, Rashi shares, that the first two are stated in first person, the latter 8 in third. 

The book of Devarim at first glance could seem extraneous; in most senses, it is a recap of the annals of events that relate to the Jews that transpired before it. Its aim is not to give over a multitude of new laws, or share how new earth-shattering events unfolded, but rather to tell over, and recount what was already known.  On a parental level, and an educational level, I can relate to the central idea of the book of Devarim. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks shared another idea, or concept, in a different context that I think could be instrumental in understanding my intent. He argued in one of the articles in his Covenant and Conversation series that the societies, or people, who are most successful are those who tell over the story right (he suggests that that could be the reason for the mitzvah to relate the Exodus to our children), and in another piece, he shares that an individual or family which celebrates its achievements is most likely to succeed. Those ideas are particularly insig...

What role does feminism play in keeping and/or annulling vows? The Torah clearly states that under certain circumstances a father has the right (and perhaps, even the obligation) to annul his daughter's vows, and a husband, his wife's. How does that play into modern times, women empowered, holding top level positions that often surpass those of men? In biblical times, there most certainly was the concept of a man as the head of a household, one that has undergone a certain level of attrition or erosion. Perhaps in the Ethiopian community one can see some vestige of that approach/philosophy; in the typical village home, the father ate – and was most certainly served, and only thereafter were the children allowed to eat. A certain right or dignity, perhaps a loaded word in its own right, was accorded to him. When the Talmud in Brachot speaks about the time from which a man is allowed to say Shema Yisrael , one of the opinions in the Mishna is when a poor man has eaten his humbl...

The Torah, in this previous week's parshah, talks about the laws of inheritance, yet one blatant lacuna is the notion that a father should inherit the son. To the best of my knowledge, the laws of inheritance only appear in one place, and they appear in reference to the daughters of Tzelafchad, who sought from the depths of their heart to gain an inheritance in the Land of Israel despite the absence of a male inheritor. When posing their query to Moshe Rabbeinu, he instructs them to wait, and is instructed by Hashem the correct order of inheritance in the absence of a son. First, were there to not be a son, the daugher inherits, and then, if there is no daughter, the paternal uncle inherits, and then, if there is no paternal uncle, the father's paternal uncle inherits his nephew's assets. Why, if I may ask, does the Torah make no mention of the father of the deceased inheriting his daughter or son's assets? When something is absent from the Torah, the convention/concept...

The Medrash is very profound in its contrast between Moshe Rabbeinu, the prophet of the Jews, and Bilaam, that of the non-Jews. Bilaam, states the Medrash was Hashem's way of communicating to the non-Jews that they were not worthy of prophecy, that Hashem's presence was ill-suited for the non-Jew.  One quality or trait after the next, the Medrash records what it was that Bilaam had, his unique strengths, fortitude, charisma, wisdow, and that notwithstanding every one of his strengths went to naught, was used to destroy the world, and not construct it, impoverish it rather than enrich it.  Where, in my opinion is this most epitomized? In the discourse between Bilaam and his ass. Bilaam, it is evident, has little emotional attachment. The ass doesn't use pathos when he turns to him, but rather logos;  "After I've shown you the greatest loyalty, couldn't you have conceived that something else had happened here?" And Bilaam, outsmarted by his ass answers, ...