ON THE PARSHA Parshas Ki Seitzei by Dovid Lipman, Jerusalem The World Of The Supernatural (25:18) "...who met up with you on the way..." It is Amalek, not Eisav, who succeeded in 'cooling off' the faith of the Jews. (The word for 'met up with you' can also be translated as 'cooled you off'.) What's the difference between Amalek and Eisav? The Midrash (brought by Rashi, Breishis 29:11) says that Elifaz, Eisav's son, was ordered by his father to kill Yaakov, who was on the way to Charan to get married. Elifaz caught Yaakov, but could not bring himself to kill him, for he'd been raised by his grandfather, Yitzchak. "Still," Elifaz pleaded with Yaakov, "I need some help! How can I ignore a command of my father's?" Yaakov suggested Elifaz take all of his possessions - for being poor is similar to death - to fulfill the order. R' Chaim Shmuelevitz points out this remarkable mixture of good and evil (brought about by being fathered by a rasha and raised by a tzaddik), that Elifaz couldn't kill, but still didn't see how he could ignore an order to kill. Amalek was Elifaz's son. The gematria of Amalek is equal to 'safek' - 'doubt', because that nation insisted upon considering evil an acceptable possibility, but not abandoning good either. Eisav is not as dangerous, because at heart he is clearly an enemy, and we resist his influence. But confusion is contagious. It has an air of 'open-mindedness' - but conceals the cold reality that an open mind is an empty mind. A Time To Laugh (25:4) "Don't muzzle a threshing ox." Why does this belong at the end of the section on giving lashes? Because it explains the last law of that section - being careful not to give an extra lashing to the evildoer. One could ask: this man is wicked - he follows his animal desires - does he deserve to be treated with human dignity? Answers the Torah: True, but we must have pity on animals, too... Worthy Of Note (25:8) "...and he will stand and say, 'I don't want to marry her.'" The gemara (Moed K. 21a) says he actually does not have to stand up, so why is the term used? In addition, why does the woman take off his shoe? One explanation, based on the principle (Nefesh HaChaim 1:10, derived from the pasuk in Zech. 3:7) that angels are called "standers" and people are called "walkers", is as follows: This man knows it's a mitzva to marry his sister-in-law, but it could endanger his own marriage. He chooses stability over risk, which is called standing - as opposed to walking, which can be risky, but leads to growth when guided by the Torah (one 'gets somewhere'). People are created with two feet to remind them to be walkers, not standers (angels have two foot, but no knees - see Yech. 1:7 and Rashi). So the woman removes his shoe, to imply - you ARE stable, but to be stable you only need one shoe, because you only need to use one foot. It's only real people, the 'walkers', who make progress - they are the ones who are using both feet. From the Gemara (24:1) Gittin 90a - A man must not divorce his wife unless he finds her to be immoral, as is implied directly by the pasuk. (24:1) Kiddushin 4b - If the woman tries to perform the 'kiddushin' which creates marriage, it is ineffective, as the pasuk states clearly that it must be done by the man. (24:1) Gittin 20a - A bill of divorce must be written with the intended wife in mind - for it says that he shall write it FOR HER. Rare And Unusual Words (23:22-24) "Neder"/"Nedavah". The former word is exclusively used when speaking of the evil of vows, but when we are told to KEEP vows, the latter term is introduced. The Ran in Nedarim (9a) explains that while "Neder" is a commitment to give, only "Nedavah", which implies 'giving' itself, is a true commitment, because when one really commits, one can be sure the giving will eventually be done. So the kind of vows we should make and keep are "Nedavah", a total commitment one can be sure will be kept, but a "Neder", meaning 'just' a promise, should be avoided, because a less-than-total commitment might be broken.