View as Webpage

TORAH PORTION: KI TETZE

Parashat Ki Tetze

August 26, 2023 | 9 Elul 5783

Torah: Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19 Triennial: Deuteronomy 21:10-23:7

Haftarah: Isaiah 54:1-10

In this week's Torah Sparks, you'll find a D'var Torah on the parashah by Bex Stern-Rosenblatt called "Amalek or Me?", Vered Hollander-Goldfarb asks questions in her archival piece titled "Parashat Ki Tetze Self-Study", and Ilana Kurshan reflects on halakhah in a piece called "Davening or Dogwalking".

Choose a Torah Sparks Subscription!
Download TORAH SPARKS Printer-Friendly File

D'VAR TORAH

Amalek or Me?

Bex Stern-Rosenblatt

Parashah



Our parashah finishes with three chilling verses: “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you came out of Egypt, how he fell upon you on the way and cut down all the stragglers, with you famished and exhausted, and he did not fear God. And it shall be, when the LORD your God grants you respite from all your enemies around in the land that the LORD your God is about to give you in estate to take hold of it, you shall wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens, you shall not forget.”


As is the case with much of the Book of Deuteronomy, this is Moses’s retelling of prior events. The first time we heard about Amalek was back in Exodus. The story is very different there. We read that Amalek came to do battle with Israel, and we learn of Moses raising his hands up to ensure success in battle, eventually having his hands supported with stones. But there is no mention of Amalek coming to take advantage of the weak among us when we were at our worst. Moreover, God says, “Write this down as a remembrance in a record, and put it in Joshua’s hearing, that I will surely wipe out the name of Amalek from under the heavens.” In Exodus it is God who will wipe out God’s name, rather than us, the Israelites, as it is in Deuteronomy.. 


Biblical scholar Diana Lipton has a fascinating read on why Deuteronomy tells a story of Amalek as aggressor and Israel as responsible for dealing with Amalek whereas Exodus presents Amalek as having done nothing exceptionally wrong and holds God as responsible for wiping out Amalek. By reading the story told in Deuteronomy 25 about Amalek in context with the rest of Deuteronomy 25, Lipton adds a new layer of meaning. The story becomes a narrative to reinforce the laws mentioned before it in the parashah, much as in Deuteronomy Moses retells the story of Miriam getting skin disease when he mentions the laws around skin disease. They become examples, almost parables, to help us understand the importance of observing the law and how to do so. 


The law cited at length before the story of Amalek is about protecting the weakest members of society. The law of levirate marriage is intended to protect the widow and the deceased among the Israelites. Of course, these are the very people that the Deuteronomy presents Amalek as attacking - Amalek fell upon us and attacked the stragglers, the weak, those unable to defend themselves. This becomes his great crime in the Deuteronomic retelling. 


Moreover, with levirate marriage, we read that if a husband dies, leaving his wife without a son, his brother becomes responsible for fathering a child, “in the name of his dead brother, that his name be not wiped out from Israel.” The words used here are identical to the words found in the story of Amalek in Exodus and echoed in Deuteronomy. In the case of levirate marriage, the point is to prevent a name from being wiped out. In the case of Amalek, the point is to ensure that the name and the memory are wiped out. But, the law of levirate marriage continues, providing instructions for what to do when a kinsman refuses to do his duty, refuses to prevent the name and memory of his brother from being wiped out, refuses to protect the widow. Lipton posits that Deuteronomy is going so far as to imply that a kinsman who would refuse to fulfill this duty is acting just as the Amalekites did, attacking us at our weakest. The desire to wipe out the name and memory of Amalek becomes transformed into the desire to wipe out the desire inherent in ourselves to act this way, to take advantage of the weak among us rather than supporting them. 


Deuteronomy also changes who is responsible for accomplishing this task. In Exodus, God will wipe out the name of Amalek. In Deuteronomy, we will. Deuteronomy takes the difficult, seemingly genocidal story of Amalek and transforms it into a parable of Israelites communal responsibility.  It becomes a moralistic tale of why you’d best support the widow, lest someone accuse you of behaving like Amalek.

FROM THE ARCHIVE

Parashat Ki Tetze Self-Study

Vered Hollander-Goldfarb

From the Archive—5778



Those who count mitzvot claim that this parashah has more mitzvot than any other in the Torah. Most of the laws are from the sphere of our interactions with other people such as family, workers, or other nations.


  1. 21:22-23 brings a case of a person who was condemned by the court to die by hanging. The Torah warns not to leave his body there for long, but rather bury him that day. Why might the authorities leave him hanging, and what do you think is the message that Torah sends by this mitzvah?
  2. Farm animals were used for many things, among them plowing the field. We are warned not to plow using a donkey and an ox together (22:10). Why do you think that the Torah gave this prohibition?
  3. There are several laws pertaining to conduct during war. One of them seems to be a demand to cover up any excrement (23:13-15). Why might this make good sense? The Torah adds that God is with you, and so you have to keep your camp holy. Why might this incentive have been added?
  4. If you swear to give something to God, you must fulfill your commitment in a timely manner (23:22-24). What is better: to promise but fail, or not to promise? How to you relate to promises and oaths?
  5. If you are going through someone’s vineyard, you may eat your fill, but not put any grapes in your bag (23:25). What is the logic behind this law? What is the greater understanding of ownership that underlies this mitzvah?


MORE

Davening or Dogwalking

Ilana Kurshan

Adventures in Mishnah with My Kids



My son Matan has a hard time waking up for shul on Shabbat mornings. He tells us, rightfully so, that it is his only day to sleep late. (Like most Israeli elementary schoolchildren, he has school six days a week.) And our shul starts at 7:30, which is, in all fairness, quite early. But it is important to us that Matan come with us, and so each Shabbat morning, the whole family takes turns trying to wake him, until inevitably we give up – I don’t want the rest of us to be late, and I don’t want to have to spend the first part of shul catching up on what I’ve missed. Most weeks I leave him home with the sun streaming through his open window, telling him firmly, but warmly, “I hope and expect to see you soon – please come.” And then I come home from shul two hours later to find him, alas, still in bed.


This past week, saddened and frustrated by his poor attendance record, I suggested that we study a Mishnah in Berakhot about the proper times for davening. The rabbis instituted thrice-daily prayer, in the morning, midday, and evening. The cornerstone of each of these services is the Amidah, the standing prayer, consisting of eighteen (and later nineteen) blessings. The fourth chapter of Berakhot begins with a dispute about how late one may recite the morning prayer. According to the rabbis, it may be recited until the sixth hour of the day, that is, until midday. Before I can even get to the other opinion, Matan pipes up.


“See Ima, you don’t have to wake me for shul. I have until noon on Shabbat mornings! The Mishnah never says you have to be at shul by 7:30!” 


“Wait,” I tell Matan. “You interrupted me. Not everyone agrees that you have six hours. Rabbi Yehudah says that you have to finish davening by the fourth hour of the day, not the sixth.”


“Yeah,” says Matan. “But the fourth hour of the day is still later than 7:30.”


I remind Matan that an “hour” is not an hour on the clock, but a halakhic hour, calculated by taking the time from sunrise to sunset and dividing it into twelve equal parts. In the summer, when the days are long, a halakhic hour is longer than an hour on the clock; in the winter, it’s considerably shorter. 


“Fine,” says Matan. “But even in the winter, I don’t have to wake up that early.” 


Before we continue with the rest of the Mishnah, which is about the proper times for the afternoon, evening, and musaf (additional festival) services, I suggest that we look at the Talmud’s commentary on this Mishnah, which opens with the statement that it is a commandment to pray the morning service at sunrise (Berachot 26a). 


“How is that possible?” says Matan. “You have at least four hours, no?” Indeed, the Talmud points out this very contradiction, noting that it is only the vatikin—the scrupulous early-risers—who would pray at sunrise. “You can be one of the vatikin, but I’m not,” Matan tells me. 


It seems like the Talmud supports Matan’s position, because the rabbis go on to ask if it’s really true that according to the rabbis, one is permitted to pray the morning service for a six-hour window. The Talmud quotes Rabbi Yohanan’s teaching that if a person missed one prayer service, he or she can make it up by reciting the next service twice. Thus even if a person missed shacharit, he or she could make it up by reciting minchah twice. Indeed, to Matan’s credit, while he almost never makes it to shacharit on Shabbat morning, he has a near-perfect attendance record at minchah, in part because of his dogwalking. Matan works as a dogwalker during the week. On Shabbat afternoons, he volunteers to walk another local dog whose owner davens in our shul; he then meets the dog’s owner at minchah to return her. “Why can’t I just daven minchah twice?” Matan asks, noting that minchah takes much less time than shacharit. Again, I urge him to read on. 


The Talmud clarifies that while it’s true that a person could in theory pray all day long, one only receives “merit for prayer at its proper time” if one concludes the morning service on time, which the rabbis determine is by the fourth hour of the day, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the Mishnah. “It’s true,” I tell Matan. “You could make up shacharit by davening minchah twice. And you could even make up shacharit by davening at home alone on the porch, the way you do. But you only get merit for praying at its proper time if you make it to shul.” 


Matan needs to think this over a bit more. He is still very averse to waking up early on Shabbat mornings, and the notion of reward seems rather abstract. “If someone offered to pay you a thousand shekels to get up and come to shul, would you do it?” I ask him. He looks at me skeptically. “Matan, the reward for doing mitzvot is infinite! That’s why you should come to shul.” Matan shrugs his shoulders. “I’m not sure,” he tells me. “If I were in it for the money, I’d probably just get another dog walking job instead.”

Support Torah Sparks

 

Do you love Torah Sparks? It's brought to you by The Fuchsberg Jerusalem Center and we rely on your contributions to keep the learning going. Support Torah Sparks by making a donation to FJC or by selecting a subscription below:

Choose a Torah Sparks Subscription!

Access the Torah Sparks Archive

For more information about the Fuchsberg Jerusalem Center, please sign up for our weekly FJC Newsletter, visit our website or contact us at israel@fuchsbergcenter.org.