Musar su Deuteronomio 4:5

There is little point in looking for moral ethical messages in this portion when the entire portion is literally filled with such messages. In fact the same can be said of most of the Book of Deuteronomy. Moses' principal purpose in writing this book called משנה תורה, review of the Torah, was to ensure that the new generation would relive in their minds what the previous generation had actually experienced, and that they would draw the appropriate moral conclusions from all this and engrave it on their collective memories.

The Torah writes in Deut. 4,5: “ראה למדתי אתכם חקים ומשפטים,” "See I have taught you statutes and social laws, etc." G–d has taught us both the kind of laws the meaning of which it is given to us to perceive, and others whose meaning is not given to us to perceive. The reason why we have been taught laws the meaning of which we are able to understand, is so that we should be ready to accept on trust those laws which are beyond our understanding. Put differently: the very nature of גזרות, those laws detached from direct contact with the highest domain of רשימה, lead us to faith in the validity of חק. Now we will explain the 4 domains briefly referred to when we first introduced the Midrash on the meaning of the red heifer legislation. "Torah" is referred to in four different expressions, i.e. 1) תורת ה'; 2) תורת אלוקים, as we know from Nechemiah 8,8: ויקראו בספר בתורת האלוקים מפורש, ושום שכל, ויבינו במקרא, "They read from the book of the Lord's Torah, and explained it, putting their mind to it, and they understood the reading." 3) We find Torah referred to as תורת אמת; 4) We find Torah referred to as תורת האדם. These four expressions are in reality four nuances of what are basically two "Torahs." The first two are נסתרות, concealed matters, whereas the last two are נגלות, aspects of Torah whose meaning has been revealed. Each category has its subcategories. The first concealed "names" of Torah refer to the respective meanings of the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d, as well as to the meaning of the name אלוקים. The former contains the secret of ה' אחד ושמו אחד; as such it is applicable to the abstract spiritual world. The latter, on the other hand, which is equal in numerical value to the word הטבע, "nature," clearly describes G–d or Torah respectively being manifest in our physical world. In Exodus 18,11, we find that Yitro said עתה ידעתי כי גדול י-ה-ו-ה מכל האלוקים. He had realized that the dimension of G–d when He is called Yedud, (we will use this description when we mean the four-lettered Ineffable Name) is beyond the one when He manifests Himself as אלוקים. 2) We find in Exodus 9,16, that G–d told Moses that the purpose of the final three plagues was "למען ספר שמי," and the "name" referred to was Yedud. 3) G–d describes His name as Yedud in Exodus 6,3. In that instance, He makes it plain that this had been an aspect of Him that had not previously been revealed. 4) When the activities of Moses are described in the concluding verses of the Torah (Deut. 34,11), Moses is described as the messenger of the Yedud dimension of G–d. His function in performing the miracles referred to there had been to expand Israel's consciousness of G–d as the Master of טבע, i.e. the dimension of אלוקים, and to teach them that there are dimensions to G–d which are far beyond that realm. This aspect of G–d we have earlier referred to as רשימו.

This is also what is alluded to in Deut. 4,5, ראה למדתי אתכם חקים ומשפטים, "see I have taught you statutes and social laws." The Torah compares the statutes to the social laws. The message is that just as there are easily appreci-ated reasons for the social legislation of Torah, so we must believe that the reasons underlying the חקים are equally good. They are not רק, empty, devoid of logic. On the contrary: if that is our impression, it proves that we are devoid of reason and good sense, are empty (compare Deut. 32,47). In the same verse, the משפטים, social laws are compared to the חקים, statutes, to make us appreciate that there are hidden meanings to these social laws which failed to meet the eye when we read them and thought we had understood their total meaning.