Understanding Ruth and Naomi through Ki Tavo; plus those curses on Mt. Eival

The opening chapter of Parshat Ki Tavo (Devarim/Deuteronomy 26) uses the term יהו-ה אלהיך no fewer than eleven times in its 19 verses.

In most of these instances it is Moshe addressing the individual Israelite. In one instance it is the phrasing the individual Israelite must use when presenting his bikurim/first fruits offering to the kohen (verse 3). In one instance (verse 7) it uses the term “ה אלהי אבותינו” (first person plural) and in one instance (verse 14). “ה אלהי (first person singular).

Only once does יהו-ה appear unaccompanied by any variant of אלהים (verse 8).

The first question is why the need for the אלהים altogether. Surely the Israelites understood very well who יהו-ה is without the reinforcing noun אלהים.

Furthermore, what is the implication of אלהיך – your God in the second person singular? Shouldn’t the phrasing be יהו-ה אלהינו our collective אלהים or the simpler יהו-ה אלהים? After all wasn’t it Moshe’s’ אלהים also? Or, as in the case of verse 3, is it only the priest’s אלהים, not the אלהים of the one who is bringing the first fruits?

And why, in verse 8 is the אלהים dropped altogether ויוציאינו ה ממצרים ביד חזקה :, (and God took us out of Egypt with a strong hand), and likewise in verse 18  ה האמירך היום להיות לו לעם סגולה, (God separated you today to be for Him a chosen people)?

I would like to suggest that there is a distinction to be made here between the יהו-ה and the אלהיך insofar as the former is referring to God as the unquestioned, overarching ruler of the universe, while the אלהיך is the same God personalized and customized to the individual Israelite.

As is true for most of us (and I speak for myself) who are at least nominally believers; we accept in the abstract that there is יהו-ה out there, and that this is His universe. But that’s where our awareness, indeed our very consciousness of His presence, stops. Which is why Moshe, when addressing us as individuals adds the אלהיך as a pointed reminder that God’s macro-presence does not obviate His micro-presence. And this is something for which we need a constant individual reminder.

A hint regarding this is embedded in our bikurim utterance to the priest. After all, if anyone should need no reminder about who and what God is, it is the kohen. And yet each Israelite must tell “the kohen who shall be there at that time”; הגדתי היום לה’ אלהיך כי באתי אל הארץ (I have told today to the Lord your God etc.)

Sforno explains that the reason the Torah says “the kohen who shall be there at that time” is because one cannot count on the priest who is on duty to be particularly “great in wisdom”. Indeed, as hereditary priests, our kohanim come in all spiritual shapes and sizes, none of which diminish from their ritual privileges. We see this all the time when men of questionable character are called up for the first aliyah to the Torah, or ascend to the proscenium in order to give us the priestly blessing. Thus, clearly, kohanim often need a bit of a reminder that יהו-ה is not just in the sky, but that he is very much אלהיך the priest’s individual God as well.

While I have not scoured Scripture to verify this, I believe there is no single instance in the Torah when a convert is ever addressed with the term יהו-ה אלהיך. A convert is likely the only Jew who needs no such reminder. Having made the difficult choice of becoming a Jew, he or she is ever-mindful of their personal אלהים and need no prodding. Perhaps this is why we are prohibited from ever reminding a convert that he is a ‘ger’.

Let us segue for a moment to the archetypal convert, Ruth and her famous words to Naomi  ואלהיך אלהי and your God is my God.

What exactly was going on here?

We can take it for granted that Naomi wasn’t exactly a paradigm of spiritual awareness. Apparently she had no problem abandoning Eretz Israel with her ambitious, assimilationist sons who sought their fortune among the Moabites. Nor do we sense any objection on her part to their marrying out of their faith. And, clearly had her sons prospered in Moab and had they had progeny there, Naomi would have lived out her years among the gentiles and her gentile grandchildren with no second thoughts.

That she was returning to Israel was a purely practical decision. Bereft of her sons, penniless, starving, an alien in an alien land, she decides to go home and throw herself at the mercy of her kinfolk.

Hence it is hardly likely that she served as any spiritual role model for her daughter-in-law Ruth to emulate.

By contrast, Ruth had absolutely no reason to go to Eretz Israel. She was a princess; young, beautiful, well connected, childless. In other words she would have everything going for her had she elected to remain in Moab.

We can therefore infer that Ruth’s motivation for going to Eretz Israel had nothing to do with her dead husband, and little to do with her former mother-in-law Naomi. Like our Patriarch Abraham, Ruth was a sui generis believer in God. By declaring to Naomi ואלהיך אלהי it is she who is prodding Naomi to remember who her God is, not the other way around. Much as Moshe is prodding each of us, and each of us must prod the often subpar priest. Because like the kohen, and like the ordinary Israelite, we come by our status via the accident of birth. By contrast, Ruth achieves her status as a Jew by dint of her own personal revelation and discovery of God.

We can now understand why there is no mention of אלהיך in verse 8. The reference to God who took us out of Egypt is pure יהו-ה and the אלהי אבותנו (verse 7) is the overarching Divinity made manifest to the entire world as the God of the Israelites past, present and future. This is the God of the universe and the God of all the Israelites;the macro God performing manifest miracles. At a time like this we, hopefully need no individual reminders.

About those curses at Mt. Eival

In the latter part of the Parsha we have the Israelites shouting “Amen” to a series of curses in the event one violates any of an itemized list of prohibitions.

The fascinating this is that virtually all of these prohibitions are common sense. One would think there is no need to single out such obvious no-nos as encroaching on another’s turf; mis-directing a blind person (which includes cheating in business); cohabiting with ones father’s wife or with an animal; or perverting the verdict of an orphan, widow or stranger. After all these are things about which we should need no reminders.

If anything one would need reminders to drink halav Yisrael, or to consume only glatt kosher meat (and not just ANY glatt kosher meat), or to wear kaful shmoneh tzitzit with black stripes, or, Heaven forefend, to not hear a woman’s voice singing.

Yet, oddly enough, in very religious communities (of all faiths I may add) we know of altogether too many cases of pedophilia, extra-marital affairs, incest, and unethical business practices – especially unethical business practices. And there is no dearth of beth dins that pervert justice. At the same time few among the devout need to be reminded not to drink ordinary milk, or consume ordinary kosher meat, or heaven forefend, attend a concert in which a woman’s voice might be heard.

Indeed our generation has reached such spiritual heights that we are now witness to gender-segregated buses, gender-segregated tombstones, and even gender-segregated sidewalks in the very neighborhoods where these other, seemingly obvious violations, are occurring with distressing regularity.

Perhaps the time has come for us to be a little less frum and a little more ehrlich. How about we just keep kosher for a while and not get into such a snit about kol isha; that we work a lot harder at our business ethics and our respect for the inviolability of others. How about we become a bit less obsessive about black hats and a bit more focused on the integrity of beth dins. Somehow I don’t think it can hurt.

What do you think?