IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE
SheminiAtzeret, 5774
Shmuel Herzfeld
The Torah ends with the story of the death of Moshe Rabbeinu. In the very last verse in the Torah, we are told:
“U-lekhol ha-yadhachazakahu-lekhol ha-morah ha-gadolasherasah Moshe le-eineikolyisrael. No one else could produce the signs and miracles that God let him display in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his land, or any of the mighty acts or great signs that Moses displayed before the eyes of all of Israel” (Deuteronomy, 34:11-12).
What exactly are these mighty acts of Moshe Rabbeinu that our Torah is referring to at the very end of the Torah? We might have thought it is a reference to the splitting of the sea, or the plagues of Egypt, or receiving the Torah at Sinai, or defeating the Amalekites, or bringing the manna down from heaven. Surprisingly Rashi tells us it refers to something else.
The very last Rashi (34:12) of the Torah quotes a passage from the tractate Shabbat (87a) and states, yeyasherkochakah she-shibarta!
“[This expression alludes to the incident where] his heart stirred him up to smash the tablets before their eyes, as it is said, “and I shattered them before your eyes” (Deut. 9:17). - [And [regarding Moses shattering the Tablets,] the Holy One Blessed is He gave His approval, as Scripture states, “[the first Tablets] which you shattered” (Exod. 34:1); [God said to Moses:] “Well done for shattering them!”
Of all the things for Rashi to end his commentary on the Torah (perhaps the greatest commentary in the history of our people)! Of all the things to praise Moshe for at the end of his life! Why does Rashi choose to emphasize this aspect of Moshe’s behavior—the breaking of the luchot? Why is the breaking of the tablets considered the greatest act of Moshe’s life?
There is a very powerful point here that goes to the heart of what it means to be a great spiritual leader.
Anyone can obey the law. It is not that hard to obey the law. You just have to listen and follow instructions. But Moshe Rabbeinu’s greatness was that he didn’t just obey the law. He also broke the law. He literally broke the laws. It takes special greatness to know when to break the law. Breaking the law requires insight and is dangerous. To break the law, one must know when and how to do it,and under what circumstances it is appropriate. According to Rashi, Moshe Rabbeinu’s greatest moment was when he broke the law for the sake of his people.
Moshe had come down the mountain. He saw his people sinning with a golden calf. At that moment he realized that he needed to break the tablets in order to save his people. He needed them to realize just how wrong their actions were. He needed to get their attention in a dramatic fashion. God has just given him the holy tablets after forty days on Mount Sinai. The tablets were written by God and were a gift from God. But Moshe knew that he couldn’t give them to the people. He broke the tablets, but in doing so, he saved his people.
The rabbis of the Talmud see this act of Moshe as a necessary step that was performed in order to save the souls of the people. Furthermore, they also encourage us to draw a larger conclusion from the actions of Moshe. As ReishLakish teaches us (Menachot, 99a): “Sometimes (pe’amim) the nullification of the Torah is really its foundation (bitulahsheltorahzehuyesoda), as it is written, ashershibarta, yaasherkokhakhasheshibarta.”
This idea that the breaking of the law is sometimes not only permissible, but actually essential to the survival of our faith is primarily seen in a rabbinic comment to a verse from Psalms. The verse states, “Etlaasotlashem,heifeirutoratekhah” (Psalm 119:126). This verse literally translates as: "It is time for the Lord to act, for your law has been broken.” But the rabbis, through rabbinic midrash, translate the phrase as, “It is time to work for Hashem, therefore we must destroy Your Torah!”
As Rashi in his commentary to Psalms 119: 126, states:
“Our rabbis explain this to mean that one may violate the Torah in order to make a fence for the Torah, like Gideon and also Elijah on Mount Carmel who brought sacrifices on an altar.”
The stories of Gideon and Elijah are well-known biblical stories in which the prophet violates an actual commandment of the Torah for the greater good of saving and inspiring his people. The stories of the bible do not explicitly offer a justification for the prophet’s actions so the rabbis of Talmud justify it with this verse from Psalms. Their actions necessarily violated the Torah in order to save the rest of the Torah. The rabbis justified the radical acts of Elijah and Gideon by citing this principle: it is time to serve Hashem, so we must violate His Torah.
This principle was not only for used by courageous biblical prophets. It has been used throughout Jewish history, from the time of the Talmud to the present time.
Here are two examples of how this principle was used in Talmudic times:
Tractate Yoma(69a) tells us that Shimon Hatzadik,the KohenGadol,exited the temple wearing his priestly garmentsin order to meet Alexander the Great. Since normally, a KohenGadol could not leave the Temple while wearing these garments, how could Shimon Ha-Tzadik do such a thing? Explains the Talmud that it was necessary in order to appease Alexander the Great and mollify him lest he attacked the Jewish people. In the context of Shimon Ha-Tzadik’s behavior, the Talmud invokes the principle, “Et laasotlashem, heifeirutoratekhah.”
A second example found in the Talmud has much broader implications.
Generally speaking, the Oral Torah (Torah she-ba’albeh), which makes up the entire Talmud, was originally not permitted to be written down at all. But around the second century, the rabbis began to fear that if the Oral Torah was not written down it might all be forgotten.
This is how the Talmud tractate Temurah (14b) explains the problem. There is a verse that teaches with respect to the written Torah (Torah she-bikhtav), “write for your self these words” (Exodus, 34:27). This means that we must write the Torah she-bikhtav, but that we may not write Torah she-ba’albeh. Bu then the Talmud raises a challenge to this teaching from the fact that two great rabbis, R. Yochanan and ReishLakish would examine a book of the Oral Law (aggadah) on Shabbat. How could these rabbis clearly violate this rabbinic principle against writing down the Oral Law? So the Talmud answers, “Et laasotlashem, heifeirutoratekhah.” The Talmud explained using this verse it is preferable that one letter of the Torah be uprooted so that the Torah itself should not be forgotten! Amrimutavtiakertorahve-al tishtakechtorah mi-yisrael.
It is preferable that one verse be uprooted in order that the Torah not be forgotten.
This idea has also been applied throughout Jewish history in certain circumstances when there was thought to be an overriding individual or communal need.
In twelfth-century Northern Europe, Sefer Hasidim (200) cites this verse as a proof text to allow a woman to dress like a man or a man to dress like a woman (normally a biblical prohibition) in order walk securely amongst the gentiles.
In his introduction to his great philosophical work, MorehNevuchim (Guide to the Perplexed), Maimonides acknowledged that he was very aware that in writing a work based upon synthesizing Greek philosophy with the Torah he was radically breaking new ground. Yet, he contended that he needed to reveal the secrets of the Torah. He writes: “The words I am writing are on a topic that has been hidden. There is no other work on this topic other than this one. So how can I now begin to write about them…? “Et laasotlashem, heifeirutoratekhah.”
In the modern era this basic principle was used in a responsum of the great, ChofetzChaim, when he justified the opening of the Beit Yaakov educational system for girls. Even though there had never been a formal system of education for Jewish girls, the ChofetzChaim felt that it was necessary to deviate from tradition in order that we not lose all of our girls to assimilation.
Does this principle have any relevance in our lives today?
I want to talk about this principle and how it relates to the Agunah crisis.
I find the Agunah crisis to be a major problem for our faith community. In today’s post biblical, post-Talmudic, post-medieval world, what was once a perfect system is now an imperfect, broken system that needs to be fixed.
I believe with all my heart that if we had rabbis in our midst of the stature of the Talmudic sages or of the stature of Maimonides and Rashithat we would then not have an Agunah crisis anymore.
The great rabbis of the Talmud would have stood up and declared, “Et laasotlashem, heifeirutoratekhah.”
They would have said that the get was never intended for use as blackmail against a woman. Just the opposite, it was originally intended to protect women from a man ending a marriage without providing for his wife. The Talmud in tractate Ketubot is filled with takanot of rabbis that were instituted in order to protect the woman from such abuse.
A rabbi on par with the rabbis of the Talmud would use this principle to create atakkanahthat would offer a comprehensive solution to the Agunah crisis.
But today our tradition teaches us that after the closing of the Talmud our rabbis are limited in their ability to implementtakkanot. Our veneration of our ancient rabbis and the decentralization of our community prevents the easy implementation of new takkanot.
Nevertheless, even thoughwe might not be able to broadly apply the principle of Et laasot, we can and should still use this teaching to influence our behavior.
Here are the words of R. ShlomoLuntchitz (Prague, d. 1619) in his commentary to the Torah (KeliYakar, Devarim, 17).
“Our sages say (Sanhedrin 17a) that we don’t appoint a person to the Sanhedrin until he knows how to purify a sheretz. The reason is because sometimes under extenuating circumstances (horaatsha’ah) he will need to rule against the Torah because of Et laasotlashemheifeirutoratekhah. At that time the scholar will be able to add to the logic of Etlaasot certain minority view points that were previously discarded in the face of the majority, and the scholar can now follow the minority view, like Elijah at Mt. Carmel.”
If we follow this teaching of R. Luntchitz we can make great strides in the Agunah crisis.
The reality is that on a case-by-case basis, if we aggressively utilize certain rabbinic rulings then we can find solutions to help individual Agunot. A recent courageous ruling by a Beit Din of Rav David Bigman, Rosh Yeshiva of YeshivatMaalehGilboa, was just published. It annulled a marriage of a woman who was an Agunah. I now have plans to work with other rabbis in figuring out how we can create a center for a group of rabbis to come together in order to help women figure out which arguments can best be utilized in their specific case to help free them from their chained marriage. After we come up with the legal theory that will help each woman we then need to work with these women to find Batei Din that will hear their cases and on an individual basis apply these rationales.
I believe that the rationalesand the Batei Din already exist. We just have to do a better job of connecting all the dots.
Moshe’s greatness was he knew both when it was appropriate to break the law and how to break the law in an effective manner. We are not near his level of greatness. Thus, we don’t have his level of insight into how to break the law today. But we can know when the law needs to be broken and that for that reason, when it is appropriate to find rabbinic rationales to support a chained person’s unacceptable situation!
There are two things that I am planning on doing with respect to Agunot. Both of these ideas are still very much, unfinished products, so I will share them with you only in general terms.
1-First and foremost I want to find a rabbinic solution to this crisis. In the words of Rabbi Bigman, “there is an immediate solution which is not comprehensive and a comprehensive solution which is not immediate.” I want to fully explore and aggressively push this idea of finding a solution that is immediate even though it is not comprehensive.
2-Second, I am working with some amazing lawyers to come up with a solution that will provide some relief to Agunot through the American legal system.
The time has come to serve Hashem. We cannot put this issue on the back burner because if we continue to do so we run the risk of undermining everything else in our beautiful faith.