Date: September 8th 2022

Parshat Ki Seitze (23:5) contains a prohibition against marrying someone from the nations of Ammon and . This dictate applies to all future generations, even if the moabite or ammony becomes a convert to Judaism. The Torah mentions two reasons for this restriction. The first reason is that when the Jews passed by when traveling from Egypt to Israel, they did not offer them food and water. The second reason is that they hired Bilam to curse the Jews and thereby destroy them.

The simple understanding of the pasuk is that both reasons are applicable to both Ammon and Moav. The Commentary of Ramban (ibid.) Poses the question that in Devarim (2:29) the pasuk specifically states that the nation of Moav did indeed sell food and water to the Jews. The Ramban answers that the two reasons are each referring exclusively to each of the two nations, Ammon did not supply them with food or water and Moav hired Bilam to destroy them completely. However, they are lumped together in this prohibition because they share a common theme – a deficiency in the trait of appreciation. Ammon and Moav were descended from Lot and his two daughters who were saved from the destruction of Sodom by Avraham, the progenitor of the Jewish nation. Nevertheless, both nations acted against the Jews many generations later thereby exhibiting a lack of appreciation towards Avraham’s descendants for the good their forberrers received from their great-great grandfather. The Ramban goes o
n to say that the nation of Amon isentioned first because their lack of appreciation was even worse than that of Moav. He explains that the Jews were warned when traveling through their vicinity not to attack the nations of Ammon and Moav, a fact that both nations were aware of. As a result, the nation of Moav had the grace to come out to the Jews and offer to sell them provisions. Ammon however, despite having knowledge that the Jews were not going to harm them, refused to show any hospitality.
Upon closer examination the explanation for the prohibition against marrying a Moabite seems difficult to understand. Moav was banned from entering the Jewish nation for a lack of appreciation of the good Lot received from Avraham exhibited when they went and hired Bilam to destroy the entire nation. Was the act of hiring Bilam itself not a far greater act of evil than the accompanying lack of gratitude? Yet it seems from the Ramban that the prohibition stems only from the lack of appreciation. Murdering a single person is a capital crime while lacking appreciation is not a direct violation of a specific Torah obligation. In this case, Moav was engaging in trying to wipe out a nation of several million people.
It seems that if Lot had never been saved by Avraham and the Moabites later tried to wipe out the Jews they would not have faced an eternal ban against joining the Jewish nation. In fact, the Egyptians, who subjugated the Jews horribly and committed many acts of infanticide were only banned for three generations. Evidently, as far as a person’s suitability for the holiness of Torah Judaism, a severe flaw of character such as ingratitude is more detrimental than even the terrible act of attempted genocide. It may be true that the intended destruction of the Jews was a far worse act but it was motivated by the fear of annihilation and interest of self-preservation. It was not indicative of a fundamental character flaw. However, their display of ingratitude was an act of flawed character and showed a degradation of the stature of their national’ personality and soul - even more so than the act of attempting to commit mass murder. *
We can take this idea a step further. As mentioned above, the Ramban explains that the nation of Ammon was considered worse even than Moav. However, if we compare the actions of the two nations the behavior of Moav would seem to be far worse. Their lack of appreciation was demonstrated by their attempt to wipe the Jews out and the Ammonites did not show gratitude only in that they failed to show the proper hospitality. The Ramban understands that although when viewed from the standpoint of actual harm the Moabites were far worse than the Ammonites, when viewed through the lens of the underlying character makeup, the fact that the Ammonites were inhospitable without proper cause was indicative of a much greater flaw.


Something akin to this striking idea appears in the writings of Rabbi Chaim Vital (1543-1620), one of the greatest Kabbalists of his era. Part 1 Gate 2 of his work Shaar Hakedusha (The Gateway Of Holiness). contains a section titled “The Damage Done From Bad Middos.” Below is a translation with most of the Kabbalistic references omitted.

“The middos are not included in the 613 mitzvos. However, they are crucial preparations for the 613 mitzvos in their fulfillment or annulment. Therefore, the bad middos are far worse than the sins themselves. And through this, you will understand what our Sages said (Talmud Shabbos 105b) "Whoever gets angry, it is as if he has worshipped idols". The sages teach that idolatry is the equal of violating all the 613 mitzvot. And likewise, they said (Sotah 71) "Whoever has arrogance, it is as if he is a Kofer b'ikar - who rejects the essence of G-d, and it is fitting to chop him down like a tree that was worshipped as an idol. Furthermore, when one is arrogant, his dust will not budge at the time of the Resurrection of the dead." And there are many more Talmudic sayings similar to these…therefore we find that one should be more careful of (avoiding) bad middos than of fulfilling the positive and negative mitzvos, because through possessing good middos, one will easily fulfill all
of the mitzvos”


The following vignette echoes the concept of this Ramban. Rabbi Dovid Liebowitz (1889-1941) was an outstanding student of the great Slabodka Yeshiva in prewar Lithuania. He emigrated to the USA in the 1920’s and founded the Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim in New York.

There was once a deeply religious, elderly Jewish woman who remarked to him, “Rebbe, m’darft zein frum, un m’darft zein gut” (Rebbe! One must be extremely devout, and one must be good). To her surprise, he replied, “M’darft zein gut, un m’darft zein frum” (One must be good, and one must be extremely devout). Taken aback, the woman adamantly insisted, “M’darft zein frum, un m’darft zein gut.” To which he replied again, “M’darft zein gut, un m’darft zein frum.” He finally responded and said that we must learn from Hashem - the Torah contains numerous references to the fact that Hashem is good but it does not indicate whether or not He is extremely devout.
“Tzu Go-tt un tzu laat” (to G-d and to man) is an old Yiddish way of praising someone. “Tzu Go-tt” connotes being exemplary in fulfilling the mitzvos between man and G-d, such as prayer and observing Shabbos. “Tzu laat” refers to a person of sterling middot and personal character. Based on the words of the Ramban the expression should perhaps be revised. “Tzu laat un tzu Go-tt”.


* An additional lesson can be learned from this Ramban. The story of Avraham and Lot took place hundreds of years before the incident of Bilam. The moral obligation to feel a sense of gratitude is so great that even hundreds of years later, the descendants who are generations removed from the incident are so much obligated to remember and feel the debt of appreciation that not doing so was considered a major red flag.


--
You are subscribed to Jewish Heritage Initiative using example@example.com

You may automatically unsubscribe from this list or change your subscription
by visiting http://www.jhicambridge.com/mail/mail.cgi/list/parsha

For more information, visit http://www.jhicambridge.com or send mail to jhi@jhicambridge.com
__________________________________

Mailing List Powered by Dada Mail
http://www.jhicambridge.com/mail/mail.cgi/what_is_dada_mail/