Shabbos Parashas Ha'azinu - 5777

Shabbos Parashas Ha'azinu - 5777

Rabbi Hal Miller

I had said, 'I will scatter them, I will cause their memory to cease from man', were it not

that the anger of the enemy was pent up, lest the tormenter misinterpret, lest they say,

'our hand was raised in triumph, and it was not Hashem who accomplished all this.'

[Devarim 32:26-27]

These two verses are very difficult. Our translation, from the Artscroll Stone Edition Chumash,

is not agreed upon by others. Many questions can be asked on the wording, no matter whose

interpretation one follows.

Artscroll bases their view on Ramban, and defines "I will scatter them" to refer to the exile of

the ten tribes. "I will cause their memory to cease" refers to the exile of Yehudah and Binyamin,

to include the kingdom of David. Detractors of the Torah then claim that G-d did not do this, in

order to "salvage His prestige" since He had promised that the Jewish people would survive.

They claim here that He was going to destroy them until they came to power. Ramban says

that our verse shows that all the nations sinned, but since Israel remained His loyal servant,

only they would be saved.

The Hertz Chumash translates "I would have said I would make an end of them, I would make

their memory cease from among men." This changes our verse from an explanation of what

G-d did in the past, to G-d explaining what He might have done.

Rav Hirsch seems to concur with Ramban in the beginning, but then splits off. He interprets,

"I said I would relegate them into a corner, let their remembrance cease from among men."

While it indicates what G-d did, as opposed to Hertz' approach, it does not either match Hertz'

"make an end of them", nor Ramban's "scatter them" when Hirsch says "relegate them into

a corner." The Diaspora as we know it seems closer to the "scatter" approach, while the use

of Uganda or other country, often discussed as a Jewish "homeland" a generation ago, is

close to Rav Hirsch's view, where the Jews would be in their own corner of the world.

Nechama Leibowitz takes one from each side. She writes it, "I thought I would make an end

of them, I would make their memory cease from among men." This follows the Hertz approach

of discussing what G-d might have done, then the Ramban with the act of destruction of the

people.

Even more interesting is the phrase "were it not". This seems to say that the anger of our

enemies somehow forced G-d to change His mind about something. Is that even possible?

Did He stop Himself from destroying the Jews because of something other people said or did?

Or as Rashbam put it, "had it not been for My fear of becoming annoyed". Could G-d become

annoyed at the other nations? That implies not only could He become annoyed, but that He was

not annoyed until people did something to cause His annoyance.

Leibowitz explains when she writes, "It is the Divine purpose to raise the spiritual standards of

His creatures... Here, the Almighty, as it were, expresses concern and apprehension that this

ultimate purpose would be obstructed and undermined, that on the contrary, mankind would

become further estranged from G-d by the effects of His vengeance on Israel for their misdeeds.

The Divine judgment on Israel is therefore annulled for fear of desecrating the name of G-d."

G-d's purpose here in relenting from punishing the Jews is not because He is afraid, chas v'shalom,

of anybody, but because He knows that the enemies of the Jews will be looking to claim victory

over G-d, to make excuses to stray from the laws that He set for them. G-d destroying the Jews

would merely give the rest of the nations the idea that they were successful against His people,

and that they would consider this permission to abandon all law.