A Quick Torah Thought

This week's parshah presents one of the most difficult topics in the Torah. Soldiers, who were weeded out for their spiritual caliber, and fear of God, were allowed, in a volitional war to act in a way deemed ever so immoral in the modern age. In no uncertain terms, they were allowed to rape a woman in the heat of war.  There are, as most know, two dichotomous interpretations about the series in which these events would unfold - some say the woman could be raped on the battlefield, and others say she had to be brought back to the soldier's home and only after a month moratorium, could she then be ravaged by the man, but that nowithstanding, the main current in rabbinical thought is that war is so macabre and dreadful that one loses control of his very will to some extent and so were certain deeds to not be sanctioned they would be executed in contravention of the law.  I spoke today to two former soldiers, one who fought in the Yom Kippur war, and the other in the First Lebano...

 Are the Jewish people allowed to show mercy to the 7 Canaanite nations? Interestingly, there is little consensus on that point. The Ramban went against the grain, disputing the less forgiving approach of his contemporaries. According to the simple meaning of the text, unlike those nations outside of Israel, the Jewish people are not allowed to show any remorse whatsoever to the people within the promised land. There are some stark historical exceptions, i.e. cases where the Jewish people did not eradicate the inhabitants of the land, and the Ramban relies on one in particular in his view that the inhabitants of the land do not have to be put to death. He cites Shlomo Ha'melech, who employed members of the 7 nations when building the Beit Hamikdash. Other examples could be Rachav, who Calev and Atniel told would not be put to death, and which tradition teaches, ultimately married Yehoshua. The Gibeonites, or the Givonim, who weren't accepted into the fold because of their cru...

The Torah explicitly permits one to eat meat, in fact seeing it as an integral pleasure of life. A dichotomy is made between those offerings which need to be brought in a sacred place, the one that "God has chosen," and those which can be eaten within one's own domicile. The firstborn, and sacrificial offerings dedicated to the temple must be eaten in Hashem's domain, but those which you would like for your own pleasure, commands God, can be eaten outside of that sacred domain. In fact, wealth, and growing affluence – and its effect on meat consumption – is considered an expression of God's munificence, and largesse. In Devarim (12:20), the Torah states, "When Hashem expands your boundaries as He has promised, and you will say, 'We will eat meat,' because you will yearn to eat meat, you shall surely fulfill your yearning to eat meat." Rashi states that in this instance Hashem has taught us proper behavior; the Torah has already stated that we a...

What's the "Achilles' heel" of the Jewish people? Rashi comments that it's hubris.  Let me explain.  The word ekev in Hebrew has multiple meanings. It typically means heel. It is also a preposition, though, signifying causality: for example, in light of, or as a result of, or consequently - or summarily. Regardless of which preposition you choose, it means that as a result of A, you get B. In this week's parsha, in light of your observance of Hashem's tenets and ordinances, you will be heaped with blessing. If not, likewise warns Hashem, you will suffer the ill-fated consequences. The other preposition is similar; if you do such and such, at the end  you will get the intended benefit or reward.  Rashi finds a middle ground between the different approaches, and states that if you fulfill the mitzvot typically trampled upon, as a result you will summarily receive your due reward.  The difficulty this poses, in my humble opinion, is that in any society, socio...