The juxtaposition of sending scouts to Miriam's leprosy

At the start of Shelach, Rashi explain the reason for the juxtaposition of parshiyos:

"Send out for yourself men who will scout the Land of Canaan, which I am giving to the children of Israel. You shall send one man each for his father's tribe; each one shall be a chieftain in their midst."		ב. שְׁלַח לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אֶחָד אִישׁ אֶחָד לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָיו תִּשְׁלָחוּ כֹּל נָשִׂיא בָהֶם:
Send for yourself men: Why is the section dealing with the spies juxtaposed with the section dealing with Miriam? Because she was punished over matters of slander, for speaking against her brother, and these wicked people witnessed [it], but did not learn their lesson. — [Midrash Tanchuma Shelach 5]		שלח לך אנשים: למה נסמכה פרשת מרגלים לפרשת מרים, לפי שלקתה על עסקי דבה שדברה באחיה, ורשעים הללו ראו ולא לקחו מוסר:

We can see this in Midrash Tanchuma here:

דבר אחר: 
שלח לך אנשיםמה כתיב למעלה מן העניין? 
ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה (במ' יב א). 
ואחרי כן, שלח לך אנשים. 
זה שאמר הכתוב: לא ידעו ולא יבינו כי טח מראות עיניהם מהשכל לבותם (ישע' מד יח). 

מה ראה לומר אחר מעשה מרים שלח לך אנשים? 
אלא שהיה צפוי לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא, שיהיו באין ואומרין לשון הרע על הארץ. 
אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: לא יהיה להם פתחון פה לומר, לא היינו יודעים עונש של לשון הרע מה הוא. לפיכך סמך הקדוש ברוך הוא העניין הזה לזה, כדי שידעו הכל עונשו של לשון הרע, שאם בקשו לומר לשון הרע, יהו מסתכלין מה נעשה במרים. אף על פי כן לא רצו ללמוד. לכך נאמר: לא ידעו ולא יבינו. 
לכך כתב הקדוש ברוך הוא שלוח המרגלים אחר מעשה מרים. הוי, לא ידעו ולא יבינו, כי טח מראות וגו'.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, in Tiferes Yehonasan, after citing the pasuk and Rashi, writes:

"And the oylam asks what is this question, of why the juxtaposition? For in truth, the juxtaposition is such, that prior to this is written 'and they encamped in the wilderness of Paran', and from there, the scouts were sent. However, it appears in sefer Devarim,

'And all of you approached me and you said 'Let us send men before us' ', and in this as well the question of the oylam applies, why did they not send them prior to this, if it was in their mind to send?

But it appears that earlier, the Israelites thought that the scouts would slander Eretz Yisrael and did not with to send, for that reason. But after they saw Miriam punished because slander, such that certainly they would not lie in order to slander Eretz Yisrael, for the same thing would happen to all of them, both they and Miriam -- therefore they said just then, let us send scouts before us. And this is what Rashi explains, why the juxtaposition? And by this he meant, why did they wait until after the leprosy of Miriam. This is only to tell you that prior to this, they did not want to send, because they worried that it would come to slander. But now that they saw the destruction which would come to their souls, to see the harm to themselves, to any who would stand for falsehood and emptiness, so say things which they had not seen -- and not take mussar?! As a rhetorical question, for certainly they would do this, namely take mussar."

End quote from Tiferes Yehonasan.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, zatza"l

I like the question of the oylam. It basically supplies its own obvious peshat-based answer for the juxtaposition, and then uses that to question the derasha.

However, I am not convinced by this rereading of Rashi. It supplements with too many additional facts, which are not mentioned in Rashi's source, Midrash Tanchuma. Tanchuma has Hashem knowing beforehand that the spies would sin, but makes no mention of the background of the bnei Yisrael even suspecting this. Nor does Tanchuma mention any such expectation on the part of klal Yisrael that now the scouts would not sin. And in opposition to reading the closing words of Rashi as a rhetorical question, the text of Rashi's source, the Tanchuma itself speaks of, and indeed darshens a pasuk, about the fact that the scouts did not listen, which makes it likely that in Rashi's channeling of the midrash, he also meant it as a straightforward statement.

I think the answer is more straightforward (but not necessarily as satisfying as a reread). This statement is meant to be homiletic. Yet, there are peshat reasons for the juxtaposition as well. But this is part of a genre of midrash which looks at juxtapositions and speaks to motivations and emotions of various actors. So, for instance, this is an opportunity to make a statement of the kind made by the juxtaposition of nazir and sotah -- he saw the dire effects of drunkenness and so swore off wine. And Aharon got the service of the menorah in Behaalotecha because of jealousy of the korbanot of the nesiim. And it is sparked at least in part by the sidra divisions as well. That it starts a sidra also is a likely factor in Rashi's decision to repeat the midrash here, rather than omitting it.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's Tefillin

A week or so ago, I picked up a wonderful book from the local seforim store. It is called Yahadus, and is a curriculum for learning Yahadus, in a rather nice format. Check out this PDF sample of one of their lessons, on Kiddush Hashem. You can find out more, and purchase it, at their website. I also saw it the other day at the YU Seforim Sale in the children's section for about $10 less than their listed price, so maybe check it out there.

It follows the order of the Rambam's Mishneh Torah, and presents units all all 613 Mitzvos. Such that volume 1 (for grade 4) is Sefer Madda and Ahava, volume 2 (for grade 5) is Zmanim, Nashim, Kedusha and Haflaah. Volume 3 (for grade 6) is due to come out shoftly after Pesach.

My third-grade son has greatly enjoyed these books, and I would highly recommend them.

Anyway, on page 78 of volume 2, in the section on Shevisas Yom Tov, they tell a story of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's tefillin. To paraphrase, here is what happened.

A certain Jew came to Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's town and, for an unspecified reason, without permission, decided to open up Rav Yosanan Eibeshitz's tefillin. He found the boxes to be empty! Since Chazal say awful things about those who never wear tefillin in their lives, he took Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz to bet din.

In bet din, Rav Eibeshitz asked him just when he examined the tefillin. The fellow replied that it had been on chol hamoed. Rav Eibeshitz then explained that his personal minhag was not to wear tefillin on chol hamoed, but that in the town he currently resided, the minhag was to wear it. If he overtly refrained from wearing it, then people might feel compelled to follow his minhag. Therefore, specifically on chol hamoed, he removed the parchment and wore the empty tefillin.

I find this story fascinating, on a number of levels. Not that I am entirely convinced that the story is true, for reasons I'll explain below in item 3.

1) First, why should a random Jew pick on Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz like that? It is almost like a tzitzis-check that some Rebbes in Jewish day-schools do. While talking to one of their young charges, they pat him affectionately on the back, to see if he is wearing tzitzis. Why would someone tefillin-check a Torah-great like Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, zatza'l? And what was the thought process to suspect this -- that is, why would someone go to the trouble of actually donning tefillin yet remove the parchments inside?

The answer is that R' Eibeshitz was accused by Rav Yaakov Emden of being a secret follower of the deceased Shabbatai Tzvi, and a believer in the perversion of true kabbalah, following Sabbatean kabbalah as formulated by Shabtai Tzvi's prophet, Nathan of Gaza.

Part of the beliefs of these closet Sabbateans was that it was a positive thing to outwardly appear to keep all the mitzvot but to surreptitiously violate all of them. Because in the messianic era, the mitzvos were abrogated. Not mattir assurim (who releases the bound) but mattir issurim (who permits the forbidden). Thus, a closet Sabbatean would indeed outwardly wear tefillin but secretly remove the parchment so as not to fulfill the mitzvah and to be secretly one of the poshei yisrael begufan, those in Israel who sin with their bodies.

2) Second, I find the defense offered by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz almost as damning as the actual absence of the parshiyot inside the tefillin.

For there is an overt meaning to the words, that he was trying to be non-imposing of his own personal minhag / accepted halacha on the community.

But there is a plausible secondary meaning. Recall that Sabbatean kabbalists held that it was a positive thing to secretly violate the commandments. This was because the mitzvot have a metaphysical impact on Creation and on the Divine. This is, however, time-bound. In the generations past, it was positive to do mitzvos. But in the present, in the messianic era, it was negative and damaging to do mitzvos.

The Talmud is somewhat unclear on whether one should wear tefillin on chol hamoed. On Shabbos and Yom Tov, while it was a matter of Tannaitic dispute, the conclusion is that it is not zman tefillin and is prohibited. Shabbos is already an os, a sign, and we don't need a secondary os. But does this halachic conclusion apply to chol hamoed as well. This was a dispute of Rishonim.

And then, in the late 13th century, the Zohar was revealed, and took sides in this machlokes. It declared that whoever wears tefillin on chol hamoed is chayav misa, as if liable to the death penalty. This naturally had a profound effect on kabbalists, as well as many non-kabbalists. After all, now we have Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, a Tanna, taking a stand on a matter which was left unclear in the Talmud. Even so, many communities stuck with their nigleh (revealed-Torah) based halachic practice, and still wore tefillin on chol hamoed. They should not change their practice just because the kabbalists act otherwise.

Now think about the hidden message. For profound kabbalistic reasons, what the community at large is doing, and which they think is quite positive -- wearing tefillin on chol hamoed -- is actually quite negative. And those who are privy to this mystical secret are not proselytizing to the masses to change their practice. But secretly, they might act in accordance with this profound kabbalistic reason and not don tefillin. And the reason that not putting it on is negative has to do with the timing. At any other day, a weekday, it would be a mitzvah. But now donning tefillin is really a great aveira.

To spell out the parallel, wearing tefillin in general, or doing any mitzvah, in general, is now secretly, for kabbalistic reasons, a very negative thing. It used to be good, but given the timing, of the messianic era, it is actually quite negative.

In other words, the defense could serve well as a pro-Sabbatean argument.

3) Thirdly, here is why I have my doubts that the story even occurred. (Which then would make the story stand as an metaphorical defense of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz in the other charges.)

The story of the empty tefillin has obvious parallels to a story that actually did happen. I heard this from Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Leiman, and I hope I get the details right.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a kabbalist, and he wrote kameyot, amulets, for people in need. One possibly suspicious aspect of this amulet-writing was that he made people swear that they would not ever open the amulets and examine the contents. (One could imagine that he specified this requirement to protect their sanctity; or to protect against false charges based on misinterpretation; or because they contained heretical Sabbatean kabbalistic ideas.)

However, he wrote an amulet for an ill woman, and the amulet was not effective. She died, and her husband gave over the amulet to Rav Yaakov Emden to examine. Rav Yaakov Emden published a copy of the amulet in a sefer and, being a kabbalist himself, analyzed the amulet. He demonstrated references to Shabtai Tzvi.

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's published response was that this was a misreading of the amulet. Was Rav Emden asserted was a tav, for instance, was really a chet. They look similar, you see, so it is easy to understand his mistake.

Then, Dr. Shnayer Leiman came across a bit of evidence. It was a reproduction of the amulet, with all the details as described by Rav Yaakov Emden. It was notarized by a French court, and signed by two students of Rav Yonanan Eibeshitz, who declared reluctantly that indeed, this was what the amulet looked like.

Given that Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz's response was to challenge the reproduced text, but to admit (as is fairly clear to those who can understand this stuff) that if the text were as Rav Emden said, it would be Sabbatean, the obvious conclusion is that, indeed, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz was a closet Sabbatean.

But anyway, we have ample documentation for the amulet story, where a Jew opened it up, made a discovery, and there was a rejoinder by R' Eibeshitz which put him in the clear. The opened tefillin just seems like a duplicate of the story, with some details changed.

Why specifically the nefesh they made in Charan?

Summary: According to Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, because they would not make any in Canaan.

Post: At the start of parashat Lech Lecha, the following pasuk and Rashi:

5. And Abram took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother's son, and all their possessions that they had acquired, and the souls they had acquired in Haran, and they went to go to the land of Canaan, and they came to the land of Canaan.		ה. וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם אֶת שָׂרַי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת לוֹט בֶּן אָחִיו וְאֶת כָּל רְכוּשָׁם אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁוּ וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן וַיֵּצְאוּ לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן:
and the souls they had acquired in Haran: whom he had brought under the wings of the Shechinah. Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women, and Scripture ascribes to them [a merit] as if they had made them (Gen. Rabbah 39:14). (Hence, the expression אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, lit. that they made.) The simple meaning of the verse is: the slaves and maidservants that they had acquired for themselves, as in [the verse] (below 31:1): “He acquired (עָשָׂה) all this wealth” [an expression of acquisition]; (Num. 24:18): “and Israel acquires,” an expression of acquiring and gathering.		אשר עשו בחרן: שהכניסן תחת כנפי השכינה, אברהם מגייר את האנשים, ושרה מגיירת הנשים, ומעלה עליהם הכתוב כאלו עשאום. ופשוטו של מקרא עבדים ושפחות שקנו להם, כמו (שם לא א) עשה את כל הכבוד הזה, (במדבר כד יח) וישראל עושה חיל, לשון קונה וכונס:

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz writes, in Tiferes Yehonasan, an interesting diyuk on the word בְחָרָן:

"וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן -- For in Canaan they did not wish to accept geirim, for them to be encompassed within Arur (accursed), and therefore, even in the seven nations they did not accept, with the exception of the Gibeonites, who came with trickery. And therefore they only converted in Charan."

The idea of Canaan being arur is based on the pasuk in Noach:

כה  וַיֹּאמֶר, אָרוּר כְּנָעַן:  עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים, יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו.

25 And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

and there is a nice connection drawn between the conduct of the avos and the conduct of their Israelite descendants. And it is a nice neo-midrash focused on the specification of Charan, which we can figure out anyway that that was their source location, they were obviously coming from, so why need mention it?

What gives me pause is that one can simply say that at this point in time, they were coming from Charan, where they (midrashically) made converts. They did not yet arrive in Canaan, so they could not be expected to make converts there, yet. Furthermore, what about Eliezer, who was their servant, and who descended from Canaan? Maybe there is a difference in that there were no plans to marry slaves.

The severity of one who curses his parents

Summary: Compared to one who strikes them. According to R' Yonasan Eibeshitz, it is because the curser admits to Hashem's hashgacha, yet tries to bring Him into this evil. Or, because the striker can be excused, since striking is the fault of a person's animal soul.

Post: Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz writes on parashat Mishpatim:

"And one who strikes his father or mother, he shall surely die. And his death sentence is with strangulation. And this that it was more stringent with cursing than striking, for one who curses his father or mother is punished with stoning.


It seems that the reason is that at times, the striking is due to his thinking that the world runs in its set path, and Hashem does not direct the lower world. And if so, his punishment will not be as severe as the one who knows that Hashem directs, and even so, sins. And behold, for striking, there is to say that the one who does this thinks that Hashem does not direct, chas veshalom. But one who curses, he is the one who curses via the Divine Name, and if so, his intent is that Hashem should intercede in this. And so he admits to Hashem's direction, and requests that Hashem aid him in this evil. Perforce, his punishment is more severe.


Another plausible reason for why the penalty for cursing is more severe than that of striking is that the striking of one's father or mother, that is the act of an animal. For so does a calf, when it grows older, it hits the cow and does not sense whether it is its mother or not. And so too, a person has an animal soul, as the Zohar darshens upon the verse ויהי האדם לנפש חיה. And so, there is to the striker a bit of an excuse, for the animal soul within him caused this. But one who curses via the Name, this is not the act of an animal, but rather his Intelligent soul. And therefore, his punishment is more severe.


And therefore, the Torah interjects between the one who strikes his father or mother, and the one who curses, and writes between them וגונב נפש, to make a separation. Why is theft of a person more severe than the theft of an animal? For a person has an upper intellect, from the likeness of the Omnipresent. And one who sins in this, sins regarding this likeness. And so is the law regarding one who curses, for he casts his hand in his intellect, in likeness of the Omnipresent."

For more on the tripartite soul: the rational soul, the animal soul, and the vegetative soul, see here.

Three reasons for Yaakov to avoid being buried in Egypt

Summary: R' Yonasan Eibeshitz explains why each is necessary.

Post:

29. When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called his son Joseph and said to him, "If I have now found favor in your eyes, now place your hand beneath my thigh, and you shall deal with me with lovingkindness and truth; do not bury me now in Egypt.

כט. וַיִּקְרְבוּ יְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָמוּת וַיִּקְרָא לִבְנוֹ לְיוֹסֵף וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי וְעָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת אַל נָא תִקְבְּרֵנִי בְּמִצְרָיִם:

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz writes:

"In the midrash it states three reasons why Yaakov did not wish to be buried in Egypt.

1. in the end, its dust would become lice
2. that the dead of chul laAretz only live via the pain of underground rolling
3. so that the Egyptians should not make him a deity.

And it appears that all three were necessary specifically, for one would not have sufficed. For behold, they ask about the chacham the Kuzari that he answered the king of the Khazars that Goshen was from Eretz Yisrael, such that they did not slaughter the paschal lamb outside. And if so, it is difficult why Yaakov put Yosef to all the trouble to bury him in Eretz Yisrael because of the underground rolling, and did not command him to bury him in Goshen. However, he knew that the dust of Goshen would not be smitten with lice, and that the Egyptians would say that this was because Yaakov was buried there that this occurred, and they would make him a deity.

However, why did he not command to bury him in the Nile {J: which would not have lice and so the Egyptians would not make him a deity}? And one must say the reason is because of the underground rolling. And also, without this, there is to consider that behold, they were able to make him a deity in Eretz Yisrael as well. And so too, why should it bother him if there were lice upon his grave above? Perforce, one must give all the reasons."

One can read the midrash in Midrash Rabba here.

There is an additional reason given in Midrash Rabba besides these three:

דבר אחר: יעקב אמר שלא יפדו בי המצרים. הם משתחוים לשה ואני נמשלתי בשה, שנאמר (ירמיה נ) שה פזורה ישראל. ובמצרים כתיב: (יחזקאל כג)אשר בשר חמורים בשרם. 
וכתיב: (שמות לד) ופטר חמור תפדה בשה, הוי, אל נא תקברני במצרים. 

In terms of why Yaakov might be concerned about lice upon his grave above, the midrash elsewhere says that the ground up to two amos down turned to lice, and IIRC, the minimum burial depth for a mes is two amos. Would these lice bother him? Perhaps we could refer to the Talmudic statement in Berachos 18b:

And R. Isaac said [commenting on this]: The worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living?

Maybe we could extrapolate to other sorts of pain. Or perhaps a living person does not like the thought of what would happen to his body after death.

All this operates on the assumption that the midrash must work together with the teretz of the Kuzari. This is not a necessary assumption. Perhaps the Kuzari was not thinking of these midrashim. And what about the midrashist?

1. He can assert that there was no requirement for the Pesach Mitzrayim to be in Eretz Yisrael
2. He can agree with the Mechilta and with Targum Yonasan that Hashem flew the Jews to Israel for Pesach Mitzrayim, and then brought them back,

Regardless, this dvar Tirah is a rather nice and clever construction, and we can appreciate it for its merits.

Hashem is *your* God. Does this make Moshe a heretic?

Summary: Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz asks a question based on a non-existent pesik, darshened in a particular manner. Does this derasha then make Moshe a heretic, as bad as Yeravam ben Navat?

Post: In the third pasuk of Vayelech, we read:

Note the munach under the word hu and the vertical bar after it. This is a munach legarmeih, a disjunctive accent which precedes a revii, in this case the revii which appears over the word lefanecha. Alas, some have mistaken the vertical bar associated with munach legarmeih for a pesik, which is a lighter separating accent, which divides words in special (often semantically motivated) cases, where the typical division of trup would otherwise fail.

In Tiferes Yehonasan on Vayelech, after citing this pasuk, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz writes:

"And there is written after the word hu as pesik, which informs that the word hu is associated to that which precedes it, namely Hashem Elokecha."

To interject, what I think he means is that this then forms a sentence "Hashem, Elokecha Hu" -- "Hashem is your God." This, to the exclusion of my {=Moshe Rabbenu's} God. This would be a somewhat heretical statement. He continues:

"It seems that one should explain. For apparently, there is to analyze. For behold, Yeravam sinned in this, that he said "Hashem your God", which was like being kofer be'ikkar, chas veshalom."

To interject once again, Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz is referring to I Melachim 13:6. A prophet predicts the destruction of Yeravam's alter at Bethel 300 years from then by King Yoshiyahu. King Yeravam puts forth his hand to command the seizure of the prophet, and his hand was frozen. He asks the prophet to pray on his behalf:

ו  וַיַּעַן הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל-אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים, חַל-נָא אֶת-פְּנֵי ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעֲדִי, וְתָשֹׁב יָדִי, אֵלָי; וַיְחַל אִישׁ-הָאֱלֹהִים, אֶת-פְּנֵי ה, וַתָּשָׁב יַד-הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵלָיו, וַתְּהִי כְּבָרִאשֹׁנָה.

6 And the king answered and said unto the man of God: 'Entreat now the favour of the LORD thy God, and pray for me, that my hand may be restored me.' And the man of God entreated the LORD, and the king's hand was restored him, and became as it was before.

In asking for this prayer, he refers to Hashem as "your God", meaning the God of the prophet, but not his own God. Thus, this is heresy. Is Moshe saying the same thing? Rav Eibeshitz continues:

"And would Moshe, the faithful shepherd, speak such words?! Rather, in a simple way we are able to answer that the Shechina was speaking from within Moshe's throat. And if the Shechina was speaking, it is perfectly fine to say 'Hashem your God'.


But, in another way, it seems to me that according to the first answer, it is difficult to fit with Rashi's commentary, who {on the second pasuk in Vayelech:

2. He said to them, "Today I am one hundred and twenty years old. I can no longer go or come, and the Lord said to me, "You shall not cross this Jordan."

ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא וַי־הֹוָ־ה אָמַר אֵלַי לֹא תַעֲבֹר אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה:

on לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא, in saying
דבר אחר, לצאת ולבא בדברי תורה, מלמד שנסתמו ממנו מסורות ומעינות החכמה:
, }

said that the wellsprings of wisdom were closed to him. And if so, prophecy was taken from him. {And so, the first answer is difficult, for it could not have been Hashem speaking from his throat.}


Rather, it appears such, that it is stated in the gemara that whoever dwells outside the land of Israel is compared to one who has no God. And here, the nation of Israel is traveling to Eretz Yisrael, while he did not go. Thus, he is like one who has no God. And therefore he said, "Hashem is your God".

This ends my citation of Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz.

While I interspersed my comments throughout, I'll put a bit more analysis here. I am reluctant to grant each of the assumptions along the way. (a) First, this is not a pesik. It is a munach legarmeih. (b) Even if it were a pesik, it would not serve to join hu to the previous phrase. Rather, it would introduce a pause into the new phrase, starting with hu. In other words, in hu over lefanecha, it would perhaps bring greater distance between the action and the Actor, with a capital A. (c) Indeed, if we lop off hu to fit with the preceding, then the following statement, over lefanecha, does not work grammatically. In the present tense, Biblical Hebrew does not drop pronouns. (d) While Yeravam does say "Hashem Elokecha", this is in context of his having made an idolatrous altar and opposing a prophet of Hashem. And Yeravam does not say specifically "Hashem Elokecha Hu". Moshe uses the word "Hashem Elokecha" many many times throughout Chumash, albeit without "Hu". We can find an innocuous implication to "Hashem Elokecha Hu", which needs not be heretical.

Granting all these assumptions, though, there are clever and nice answers.

Torah is accessible to all

Summary: A lovely homiletic, midrashic, explanation of the pesukim by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. We don't need ruach hakodesh, mazal, or living in Eretz Yisrael to attain Torah.

Post: The relevant pesukim in Nitzavim, discussed also in this other post:

11. For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away.		יא. כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם לֹא נִפְלֵאת הִוא מִמְּךָ וְלֹא רְחֹקָה הִוא:
12. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"		יב. לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲלֶה לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:
13. Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?"		יג. וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲבָר לָנוּ אֶל עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ וְיַשְׁמִעֵנוּ אֹתָהּ וְנַעֲשֶׂנָּה:
14. Rather,[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.		יד. כִּי קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ:

In Tiferes Yehonasan, after cited portions of these pesukim, Rav Eibeshitz writes:

"That you should not say that to understand Torah and to learn it, this mitzvah he speaking of, requires the achieving of ruach hakodesh, as the generation of the wilderness attained, for from the heavens Hashem spoke with them. And there are, as well, many mitzvos which were commanded of old because they attained ruach hakodesh, when they were upon the Sea {yam}, as they {=Chazal} said, 'a maidservant saw upon the {Reed} Sea more that Yechezkel and the prophets saw {Mechilta, 3}.' 


Or you might say that it is dependent upon mazalot {planetary influence}, for {Shabbat 156a} "mazal makes one wise". And this is 'it is not in heaven'. And also, when you are in chutz la'aretz -- in the Diaspora, which is called medinat haYam, as is stated in the gemara in Gitten -- you could say that Torah is only understood in Eretz Yisrael, for 'the air makes one wise'; and this is 'over the sea'. And this tells us that it is not so, but rather, in every place, all is in the hands of mankind. And understand this."

I don't really have anything to add to this devar Torah. It is a nice homiletic message. And one that runs somewhat counter to what certain unnamed individuals would say, in boosting Eretz Yisrael as the only purpose of Judaism.

Why is וְכִבַּסְתֶּם translated as וּתְחַוְּרוּן?

Summary: Onkelos strays from his usual path. Is this a violation of the rule laid down by Rashi in parshat Tazria?

Post: In parashat Matos, we encounter the following pasuk and targum:

לא,כד וְכִבַּסְתֶּם בִּגְדֵיכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וּטְהַרְתֶּם; וְאַחַר, תָּבֹאוּ אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה.  {ס}

וּתְחַוְּרוּן לְבוּשֵׁיכוֹן בְּיוֹמָא שְׁבִיעָאָה, וְתִדְכּוֹן; וּבָתַר כֵּין, תֵּיעֲלוּן לְמַשְׁרִיתָא.  {ס}

In Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, R' Yitzchak Isaac Morgenstern tells over something he heard from R' Yonasan Eibeshitz:

Basically, he notes the translation of וְכִבַּסְתֶּם as וּתְחַוְּרוּן, and notes that this is a problem for a rule laid down in the very last Rashi on parashat Tazria. That Rashi claimed that when it is translated along the lines of וּתְחַוְּרוּן, it means that it is for the purpose of cleaning / whitening, while where it is translated ויצטבע it means that it is immersion (for the sake of purity). He does not give an answer.

The Rashi in Tazria is here (my translation):

58. But the garment, the warp or woof [threads] or any leather article which is washed, and the lesion disappears from them, shall be immersed a second time, and it shall be clean.		נח. וְהַבֶּגֶד אוֹ הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ הָעֵרֶב אוֹ כָל כְּלִי הָעוֹר אֲשֶׁר תְּכַבֵּס וְסָר מֵהֶם הַנָּגַע וְכֻבַּס שֵׁנִית וְטָהֵר:
		וסר מהם הנגע: אם כשכבסוהו בתחלה על פי כהן, סר ממנו הנגע לגמרי:
shall be immersed a second time: a language of immersion. That Targum of כבוסין, washing, in this parasha is a language of whitening, ויתחוור, with the exception of this which is only for the sake of immersion. Therefore, its translation is ויצטבע. And so too all washing of clothing which is for immersion is translated ויצטבע.		וכבס שנית: לשון טבילה. תרגום של כבוסין שבפרשה זו לשון לבון ויתחוור, חוץ מזה שאינו ללבון אלא לטבול, לכך תרגומו ויצטבע, וכן כל כבוסי בגדים שהן לטבילה מתורגמין ויצטבע:

By parasha in Tazria, Rashi does not mean 'sidra'. Indeed,

Why is Moshe's death after the war against Midian?

Summary: Last year, I presented one reason from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. Here is another one, having to do with the laws of ritual purity.

Post: The pasuk in Matos, with the instruction to take revenge on the Midianites, is:

ב  נְקֹם, נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֵת, הַמִּדְיָנִים; אַחַר, תֵּאָסֵף אֶל-עַמֶּיךָ.

2 'Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites; afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.'

And there are various midrashim about this juxtaposition. For instance, that Moshe immediately acted, without delay, even though this meant his demise. But other diyukim are made into just why this juxtaposition is made. Here is another one by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz. In Midrash Yehonasan, he writes:

That is, he refers us to Sanhedrin daf 39a:

A certain Min said to R. Abbahu: Your God is a priest, since it is written, That they take for me Terumah [wave offering].³⁹  Now, when He had buried Moses,⁴⁰  wherein did He bathe [after contact with the corpse]?⁴¹  Should you reply, 'In water: is it not written, Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?⁴²  — 'He bathed in fire,' he answered, 'for it is written, Behold the Lord will come in fire.'⁴³  'Is then purification by fire effective?' 'On the contrary,' he replied, 'bathing [for purposes of purification] should essentially be in fire, for it is written, And all that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water.'⁴⁴ 

This is a nice back-and-forth, with perhaps a hidden encoded meaning. And this may require an understanding of Christian theology. I don't possess such knowledge, but I can Google. Thus, for instance:

The best place to start any discussion of this ritual is Erdsman's Le Baptême de Feu. Here Origen is cited as having consistently confirmed the baptism of fire as a purification ritual:

At the Jordan river, John awaited those who came for baptism. Some he rejected, saying, "generation of vipers," and so on.3 But those who confessed their faults and sins he received. In the same way, the Lord Jesus Christ will stand in the river of fire near the "flaming sword." If anyone desires to pass over to paradise after departing this life, and needs cleansing, Christ will baptize him in this river and send him across to the place he longs for. But whoever does not have the sign of earlier baptisms, him Christ will not baptize in the fiery bath. For, it is fitting that one should be baptized first in “water and the Spirit.” Then, when he comes to the fiery river, he can show that he preserved the bathing in water and the Spirit. Then he will deserve to receive in addition the baptism in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and power for ages of ages. Amen

Thus, in this gemara, the Min, which means early Christian, believed in the necessity of baptism, purification by water, and was told that actually the purification by fire is the preferable one. Perhaps; perhaps not. Perhaps it has to do with the limitations on the Infinite, such that the Min was arguing that it could not have been Hashem Himself who buried Moshe. See here for an example of a Christian who believes that Christ buried Moses, rather than Hashem. Similarly, the prooftext that Hashem is a kohen also could be a reference to Hashem restricting Himself, so as to dwell amongst the bnei Yisrael {vayikchu li terumah veshachanti besocham}.

(If I wanted to reject the Min's words, I would point out that Hashem is Himself compared to fire. Thus, on the pasuk in Devarim,

Devarim 10:20

And (1) you will fear the Lord, your God; (2) Him you shall worship/serve; and (3) to Him you will cleave; and (4) by His Name you shall swear.

Ketubot 111b asks,

…Is it possible to cleave to the Divine Presence? Isn’t it written, (Devarim 4:24) “Because the Lord, your God, is a Consuming Fire, He is a Zealous God”?  But rather anyone who marries off is daughter to a Tora scholar, who engages in business arrangements with Tora scholars, who benefits Tora scholars from his possessions, the text considers him as if he has cloven to the Holy One, Blessed Be He…

And we know fire is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Thus, Berachot 22a:

"It has been taught, Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra used to say: The words of the Torah are not susceptible to Tumah [commonly translated 'impurity']. It happened that a disciple standing before Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra spoke hesitatingly [evidently he was tameh (one who is in a state of Tumah)- being a ba'al keri, one who has had a seminal emission- thought that he was debarred from uttering words of Torah]. He said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words be clear, for the words of the Torah are not susceptible to Tumah. For it is said: "Is not My word like fire, says the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:29)? As fire is not susceptible to Tumah, so are words of Torah not susceptible to Tumah."

And so Hashem, although being a kohen, would not be susceptible to tumah.)

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz, for his purposes, takes this gemara literally. And since the pasuk about purification of vessels by fire is stated about the vessels captured in Midian, until that law was given, Hashem was not about to bury Moshe, and so Moshe was not ready to die.

The fear of war

Summary: What is so terrible about a right of passage?

Post: On a pasuk in Bechukosai, Rashi comments (citing the Sifra):

6. And I will grant peace in the Land, and you will lie down with no one to frighten [you]; I will remove wild beasts from the Land, and no army will pass through your land;

ו. וְנָתַתִּי שָׁלוֹם בָּאָרֶץ וּשְׁכַבְתֶּם וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי חַיָּה רָעָה מִן הָאָרֶץ וְחֶרֶב לֹא תַעֲבֹר בְּאַרְצְכֶם:

and no army will pass through your land: It is unnecessary to state that they will not come to wage war, but [they will not come] even to pass through your land from one country to another. — [Torath Kohanim 26:9]

וחרב לא תעבר בארצכם: אין צריך לומר שלא יבאו למלחמה, אלא אפילו לעבור דרך ארצכם ממדינה למדינה:

Revach notes a dvar Torah from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz:

In the Brachos, the Torah promises us that when we keep the Torah and Mitzvos, "V'Cherev Lo Sa'avor B'Artzichem; No sword will pass through your land." (Bichukosai 26:6)   Rashi says, "Even a friendly army will not travel through Eretz Yisrael to fight someone else."  What is so terrible with giving a right of passage through our land?  Isn't that what we requested of the nations surrounding Eretz Yisrael when we were in the Midbar?

Rav Yehonoson Eibushitz explains that even a friendly army is quite threatening looking.  The sight of them would keep us on the path of Torah and mitzvos, lest we face an enemy like the one we see.  Then. we would do mitzvos out of Yirah or fear rather than Ahava or love.  Hashem promises us that He will let us serve Him with love, peacefully, without tainting our minds with frightful visions and lowering our level of avoda from ahava to yirah.

It is a nice derasha, but I don't think that it is really peshat in the midrash. Rather, more straightforwardly, no country really wants another country traipsing through their country. Even the Bnei Yisrael had difficulty in the midbar, with various countries refusing passage -- even when they offered to pay for their water and keep to the main road!

And to be able to refuse passage to another country, even a super-power, demonstrates sovereignty. No one can force you to allow their army to pass through. If you can make such a refusal, then your country is not just safe, but secure and militarily powerful. This is what King Yoshiyahu tried to do, but his country was not mighty enough, either from a military perspective or, as the midrash notes, from a zechus perspective.