The articles in this column are transcriptions and adaptations of shiurim by Rav Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, zt”l. The Rav’s unique perspective on Chumash permeated many of the shiurim and lectures he presented at various venues over a 40-plus-year period. His words add an important perspective that makes the Chumash in particular, and our tradition in general, vibrant and relevant to our generation.
This week’s d’var Torah is dedicated in honor of the bris of Chaim Yonasan Zev Halpern who carries the names of his great grandfathers Rabbi Chaim Zev Bomzer and Gene Greenzweig, zichronam l’vracha.
In Parshas Ki Tavo, Moshe presents the people with the blessings (baruch) and curses (arur) that were to be proclaimed at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval. Rashi quotes the Gemara (Sotah 36) that the nation was divided into two groups of six tribes, with each group ascending one of the two mountains, Gerizim and Eyval. The Levites pronounced each proclamation in the form of a blessing when facing Mount Gerizim and in the form of a curse when facing Mount Eyval. In both cases, the specific group answered “Amen.”
Why did the Torah specify these 11 (or 12, depending on how one counts) sins as the ones that were to be proclaimed? Is there a common denominator between them? Ibn Ezra (27:14) says that the common thread between the curses is that they involve sinning surreptitiously. Indeed, the Torah uses the word baseyser very frequently in this section, to underscore the clandestine nature of these transgressions. See, for example, the arur associated with makleh aviv v’imo, belittling and disrespecting one’s parents, and the set of arur proclamations associated with idolatry.
Others are of the opinion that these 11 or 12 proclamations are universal precepts that apply also to a ben Noach, a non-Jew. They can all be classified among the 7 Noahide laws a non-Jew is commanded to fulfill. [Note this does not apply to the final arur, for one who does not keep the laws of the Torah, which is a general admonition and does not refer to a ben Noach.]
It would appear that according to this opinion, the obligation to honor one’s parents applies to a non-Jew as well. This obligation would be subsumed under the general and broad category of dinim, civil law including torts and damages, which require non-Jews as well to live a moral and civilized life. In this context, then, the prohibition against accepting bribes or giving misleading advice would fit under the category of dinim, even though these sins are not subsumed under the category of stealing.
According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah was stressing through this covenant that hypocrisy was forbidden. It was not permitted to ostensibly behave according to Torah law in public, but to violate the law in private, baseyser. This is the concept of genevas da’as, misleading and deceiving someone else.
Rambam, in Moreh Nevuchim, cites the lone scriptural reference to genevas da’as, from Isaiah (66:17): “They that sanctify themselves and purify themselves to go unto the garden, one after another in the midst, those who eat swine’s flesh and the detestable things and the rodent, shall perish together, thus says the L-rd”.
The prophet admonishes those who eat swine’s flesh in private, yet in public, in the gardens, they appear sanctified and pure. They present themselves as tzaddikim, righteous people.
These words of Isaiah, divrei kabbalah, provide our lone source that there is a separate prohibition of genevas da’as that extends beyond the base prohibition of the initial sin itself, in this case eating of the swine’s flesh.
In summary, these 11 (or 12) items are singled out because: