This is the matter that G-d has commanded, saying: 'Any man or woman from the house of Israel who will slaughter a bull, a sheep or a goat and has not brought it to the entrance of the Ohel Mo'ed (Tent of Meeting) to bring it as an offering to G-d it shall be considered as bloodshed for that person, they have shed blood, and that person shall be cut off from their people." (Leviticus 17; 2-4) While the Jews were in the desert all animals had to be sacrifices on the altar in the Ohel Mo'ed, and after Temple was constructed in Jerusalem, it was prohibited to offer any sacrifices elsewhere. Not only was it forbidden, but this sin carried the most serious punishment of kares, spiritual death. This needs explanation.
Rabbi Aharon Tendler asks the following question. Why should offering sacrifices on a personal altar be forbidden? If an individual desired to offer a thanksgiving sacrifice for example, after surviving danger or the birth of a child, he would have to travel to Jerusalem in order to show their thanks to G-d. Since it could take weeks to make the trip to Jerusalem and back, most people would put off bringing their sacrifices until the next pilgrimage festival, when they had to go anyway. It would take an unusual level of devotion to maintain enthusiasm for performing the sacrifice in this way. The offerings would inevitably change from a free-willed, outpouring of love and devotion to an imposed obligation of service and commitment. Wouldn't it have been much more intense and intimate for an individual to fulfill his desire to acknowledge G-d at the very moment when His benevolent protection and guidance was revealed? Why limit the recognition of our dependency on G-d in the form of sacrifice to a single location, restricted by time and distance? And why is there such a severe punishment? Is a sacrifice at the wrong place and time not better than no sacrifice?
A similar question could be asked about prayer, which has replaced sacrifices. Though we can pray anywhere, we still have designated times and other restrictions. Why is it better to pray with a minyan in a Synagogue, rather than alone on the top of a mountain, acknowledging G-d whilst surrounded by the magnificence of His world? Why must we pray three times a day, regardless of our intent and enthusiasm, rather than those times when we truly feel the connection to G-d? The "by rote" problem that plagues the routine of prescribed daily prayer would certainly be alleviated if we prayed when we felt G-d's closeness, rather than when we are obliged to do so.
The Ramchal writes (Messilat Yesharim end ch. 1): "The essence of a person's existence in this world is solely to fulfil the Mitzvot, the serving of G-d... and that their every action, great or small, be motivated by no purpose other than that of drawing near to G-d". One of the greatest challenges with which we are faced is to ensure that our religious observance is in order to serve G-d, and not merely to make ourselves feel good.
We are sometimes filled with a sense of religious euphoria, or experience a form of revelation that inspires us to draw close to G-d. Though this moment of insight may act as the catalyst to help us perform the Mitzvot, it should not be our motivation for their performance. The challenge is not to act based on our 'needs' or spiritual desires, but rather solely in order to perform G-d's commandments. This is the meaning of the Mishna (Ethics of the Fathers 2; 4) "Perform [G-d's] will as if it were your will, in order that He may do your will as if it were His will...". The goal is to subordinate our spiritual drives to those commanded us by G-d.
This is why we may only bring sacrifices, or pray, according to specific rules of time and place. The true test is not to pray 'when we are in the mood', but rather to channel that energy so that we can pray to G-d in the most appropriate manner. Bringing a sacrifice where and when one feels like it is not worshipping G-d, but succumbing to personal religious desires. This is a form of self-idolisation, which is why the Torah gives the punishment of spiritual death. Performing only those religious rituals which 'suit' us takes us further from G-d, not closer. The inevitable result of this is a lack of spirituality.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Kedoshim summary
G-d commands the entire Jewish nation to be holy. We must respect our parents and keep Shabbat. We must not worship idols, or build them for others. When we bring a Shelamim (Peace offering) we must not leave any of the meat over to the third day. We are instructed to leave the corners of the fields and other gleanings for the poor to gather.
We are prohibited to: steal, deny a rightful claim, lie, swear falsely, withhold that which belongs to another, withhold a worker's wages, curse the deaf, place a stumbling block in front of the blind, pervert justice, favour the poor in judgement, engage in gossip, stand by while another's life is in danger, hate another in our heart. We are commanded to admonish our neighbour if he does wrong, and forbidden to take revenge or bear a grudge. We must love others as ourselves, and may not crossbreed livestock with other species, nor plant a field with different kinds of grain. We must not wear a garment containing wool and linen, nor lie carnally with a slave woman who has been partially freed.
We may not eat from the fruit of a tree during its first three years. We are forbidden to engage in occult practices or to act on the basis of omens. Men may not cut the hair on the sides of their heads or shave the edges of their beards. We may not make gashes in our skin as mourning for the dead, nor tattoo ourselves. We may not defile a woman through premarital sex. We must keep Shabbat and revere the Temple.
We are commanded not to seek out mediums or oracles. We must show respect to the elderly. We may not hurt the feelings of a convert - they shall be exactly like a born Jew - nor use false weights or measures.
Anyone who gives any of his children to Molekh (a Canaanite fire god) shall be put to death by stoning. If the people ignore his actions and don't punish him, G-d will punish him with Kares (spiritual death). If a person turns to oracles and mediums they will receive Kares. Any person who curses his mother or father shall be stoned to death. Anyone who commits adultery shall be put to death. Someone who commits incest, bestiality or sodomy shall be put to death. If a man sleeps with a woman while she is in a state of Nida (ritually impure from her menstruation) the two of them shall receive Kares.
We are instructed to safeguard all of these laws so that we may remain in the land of Israel. It is a land flowing with milk and honey that G-d has set aside for us. We must also separate between the Kosher and non-Kosher animals.
We are prohibited to: steal, deny a rightful claim, lie, swear falsely, withhold that which belongs to another, withhold a worker's wages, curse the deaf, place a stumbling block in front of the blind, pervert justice, favour the poor in judgement, engage in gossip, stand by while another's life is in danger, hate another in our heart. We are commanded to admonish our neighbour if he does wrong, and forbidden to take revenge or bear a grudge. We must love others as ourselves, and may not crossbreed livestock with other species, nor plant a field with different kinds of grain. We must not wear a garment containing wool and linen, nor lie carnally with a slave woman who has been partially freed.
We may not eat from the fruit of a tree during its first three years. We are forbidden to engage in occult practices or to act on the basis of omens. Men may not cut the hair on the sides of their heads or shave the edges of their beards. We may not make gashes in our skin as mourning for the dead, nor tattoo ourselves. We may not defile a woman through premarital sex. We must keep Shabbat and revere the Temple.
We are commanded not to seek out mediums or oracles. We must show respect to the elderly. We may not hurt the feelings of a convert - they shall be exactly like a born Jew - nor use false weights or measures.
Anyone who gives any of his children to Molekh (a Canaanite fire god) shall be put to death by stoning. If the people ignore his actions and don't punish him, G-d will punish him with Kares (spiritual death). If a person turns to oracles and mediums they will receive Kares. Any person who curses his mother or father shall be stoned to death. Anyone who commits adultery shall be put to death. Someone who commits incest, bestiality or sodomy shall be put to death. If a man sleeps with a woman while she is in a state of Nida (ritually impure from her menstruation) the two of them shall receive Kares.
We are instructed to safeguard all of these laws so that we may remain in the land of Israel. It is a land flowing with milk and honey that G-d has set aside for us. We must also separate between the Kosher and non-Kosher animals.
Acharei Mot summary
After the death of Aharon's two sons, Nadav and Avihu, G-d commands Moshe about the Yom Kippur service that Aharon will have to perform. He shall take one bull as an atonement offering for himself, his wife and all the Cohanim. The Cohen Gadol (High Priest) shall cast lots over two identical goats, one of which is offered as an atonement for the entire Jewish nation, the other symbolically bearing all the sins of the nation is sent into the desert to die by falling over the edge of a cliff. The Cohen Gadol shall enter the Holy of Holies and offer incense there. After slaughtering the bull and the goat, he shall sprinkle their bloods opposite the outer curtain of the Holy of Holies. He shall also place some of the blood on the incense altar. All of these things are performed once a year, on the tenth of Tishrei.
G-d commands the Jews not to sacrifice any animals outside of the Temple or Tabernacle. They are forbidden from sacrificing to any idols or occult spiritual powers.
G-d commands the Jews not to eat the blood from an animal. Additionally, when anyone slaughters any wild animal or bird they must spill some of the blood on the ground and cover it with earth. We may not eat any animal which dies of natural causes. Furthermore, if someone does eat from it, they become ritually impure (a law which only has significance in Temple times).
The Torah lists twenty incestuous or otherwise forbidden sexual relationships and instructs us to remain holy, and not defile ourselves with any of them. Furthermore, the land of Israel itself will not tolerate any of these perversions, and will vomit out any nation which engages in them.
G-d commands the Jews not to sacrifice any animals outside of the Temple or Tabernacle. They are forbidden from sacrificing to any idols or occult spiritual powers.
G-d commands the Jews not to eat the blood from an animal. Additionally, when anyone slaughters any wild animal or bird they must spill some of the blood on the ground and cover it with earth. We may not eat any animal which dies of natural causes. Furthermore, if someone does eat from it, they become ritually impure (a law which only has significance in Temple times).
The Torah lists twenty incestuous or otherwise forbidden sexual relationships and instructs us to remain holy, and not defile ourselves with any of them. Furthermore, the land of Israel itself will not tolerate any of these perversions, and will vomit out any nation which engages in them.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Metzora
Metzora
He will tell the Cohen saying, I have seen something like a plague in my house (14; 35)
Rashi explains that a person should not say that he has seen something which is definitely a plague in the house, but only ‘like a plague’. The source for Rashi is a Mishna in Negaim chapter 12 (Mishna 5). The commentaries there try to explain the reason for saying ‘like’ instead of definitely. Look at the Tosefot YomTov there (who brings many different explanations).
Perhaps we can explain the reason as follows. If the person would say that it is definitely a plague, he would be deciding the Halacha, that the house is certainly impure. Really this is a task that is given to the Cohen, to decide the status of the house. Sometimes there is a discolouration that look like a plague which are not, and it is the Cohen who is the expert in this. If the house owner decides the Halacha he is transgressing the prohibition of making a Halachic ruling in front of his teacher, and there is a great punishment associated with this (look in Eruvin 63a).
If so, we can better understand what the Rabbis taught in Torat Cohanim. It states there that the Cohen should give the owner of the house words of rebuke, and say, ‘my son, you should know that the plague only comes onto a house because of speaking lashon hara’. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, ‘also because of pride’.
It is not clear why they chose only those two reasons for the plague, when the gemara in Erechin (16a) gives seven different reasons – what is special about these two?
We can explain based on the Talmud there (Erechin 16a). It was taught: Rabbi Elazar ben Parta says, ‘come and see how great is the sin of lashon hara. From where? From the spies (that Moshe sent to Israel). They only spoke badly about sticks and stones (as the Torah tells us in Shelach Lecha – “They spoke bad things about the land”). If the punishment is so great for speaking about inanimate objects, how much more so will a person be punished for speaking lashon hara about another person!
We see from here that there is even a prohibition of speaking lashon hara against sticks and stones. This explains how the Cohen must rebuke the home owner. If he says ‘I have seen a plague in my house’ (meaning definitely) he is in effect saying lashon hara against his house (since he is not deciding the Halacha or saying it for any constructive purpose), which is forbidden even on sticks and stones, and even on a house. Therefore he must say ‘like a plague’ which is not saying something definitely bad about the building (and which is for the purpose of informing the Cohen that he must come to decide the Halacha).
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar comes to add that the house owner must not make a definite decision about the matter because that is the task of the Cohen. If the house owner makes the Halachic ruling in front of the Cohen that is a sign of excessive pride, which is one of the reasons that the plague came in the first place.
Therefore the midrash didn’t tell the Cohen to list all the other reasons for the plague, because they don’t have a connection to the difference between saying ‘a plague’ or ‘like a plague’.
He will tell the Cohen saying, I have seen something like a plague in my house (14; 35)
Rashi explains that a person should not say that he has seen something which is definitely a plague in the house, but only ‘like a plague’. The source for Rashi is a Mishna in Negaim chapter 12 (Mishna 5). The commentaries there try to explain the reason for saying ‘like’ instead of definitely. Look at the Tosefot YomTov there (who brings many different explanations).
Perhaps we can explain the reason as follows. If the person would say that it is definitely a plague, he would be deciding the Halacha, that the house is certainly impure. Really this is a task that is given to the Cohen, to decide the status of the house. Sometimes there is a discolouration that look like a plague which are not, and it is the Cohen who is the expert in this. If the house owner decides the Halacha he is transgressing the prohibition of making a Halachic ruling in front of his teacher, and there is a great punishment associated with this (look in Eruvin 63a).
If so, we can better understand what the Rabbis taught in Torat Cohanim. It states there that the Cohen should give the owner of the house words of rebuke, and say, ‘my son, you should know that the plague only comes onto a house because of speaking lashon hara’. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, ‘also because of pride’.
It is not clear why they chose only those two reasons for the plague, when the gemara in Erechin (16a) gives seven different reasons – what is special about these two?
We can explain based on the Talmud there (Erechin 16a). It was taught: Rabbi Elazar ben Parta says, ‘come and see how great is the sin of lashon hara. From where? From the spies (that Moshe sent to Israel). They only spoke badly about sticks and stones (as the Torah tells us in Shelach Lecha – “They spoke bad things about the land”). If the punishment is so great for speaking about inanimate objects, how much more so will a person be punished for speaking lashon hara about another person!
We see from here that there is even a prohibition of speaking lashon hara against sticks and stones. This explains how the Cohen must rebuke the home owner. If he says ‘I have seen a plague in my house’ (meaning definitely) he is in effect saying lashon hara against his house (since he is not deciding the Halacha or saying it for any constructive purpose), which is forbidden even on sticks and stones, and even on a house. Therefore he must say ‘like a plague’ which is not saying something definitely bad about the building (and which is for the purpose of informing the Cohen that he must come to decide the Halacha).
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar comes to add that the house owner must not make a definite decision about the matter because that is the task of the Cohen. If the house owner makes the Halachic ruling in front of the Cohen that is a sign of excessive pride, which is one of the reasons that the plague came in the first place.
Therefore the midrash didn’t tell the Cohen to list all the other reasons for the plague, because they don’t have a connection to the difference between saying ‘a plague’ or ‘like a plague’.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Tazria
“He shall cry out ‘impure! Impure!’” (13; 48)
The gemara in Bava Kama (92a) says: Rava asked Rabba bar Meri, ‘where is the source in the Torah for this statement that people say ‘one bad thing follows another’?’ He replied, ‘the verse states “He shall cry out ‘impure! Impure!”.
The meaning of this is that it is not enough that a person with tzora’at has this affliction on his skin, but the Torah compounded his troubles by compelling him to inform everyone that he is impure, so that they will keep away from him.
In the continuation of the Talmud there they ask many similar questions – what is the source in the Torah for a certain popular statement. The question itself ‘what is the Torah source’ implies that there should be a source in the Torah for it, and the difficulty is only in extracting it from the text. This is strange. Why should we assume that there is a source in the Torah for each of these statements perhaps they are just expressions that people say.
The answer must be based on the concept in the midrashim, that any statement which is accepted or used by everyone, must certainly be true. For example the midrash says ‘the voice of the multitude is like the voice of G-d’. Given that, we can be certain that it is contained within the Torah, since it is the source of all truth. Therefore they can ask for a source and expect an answer.
Look also at Ta’anit 9a
The gemara in Bava Kama (92a) says: Rava asked Rabba bar Meri, ‘where is the source in the Torah for this statement that people say ‘one bad thing follows another’?’ He replied, ‘the verse states “He shall cry out ‘impure! Impure!”.
The meaning of this is that it is not enough that a person with tzora’at has this affliction on his skin, but the Torah compounded his troubles by compelling him to inform everyone that he is impure, so that they will keep away from him.
In the continuation of the Talmud there they ask many similar questions – what is the source in the Torah for a certain popular statement. The question itself ‘what is the Torah source’ implies that there should be a source in the Torah for it, and the difficulty is only in extracting it from the text. This is strange. Why should we assume that there is a source in the Torah for each of these statements perhaps they are just expressions that people say.
The answer must be based on the concept in the midrashim, that any statement which is accepted or used by everyone, must certainly be true. For example the midrash says ‘the voice of the multitude is like the voice of G-d’. Given that, we can be certain that it is contained within the Torah, since it is the source of all truth. Therefore they can ask for a source and expect an answer.
Look also at Ta’anit 9a
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Pri Tzadik Metzora
Metzora (2)
“This shall be the law of the metzora on the day that he becomes pure, and he is brought to the cohen.” (Vayikra 14; 2).
The order is misleading because the metzora is forbidden to enter the camp (to see the cohen) before the purification ritual, and he sending away of the bird, as it says after, “The cohen shall go out of the camp … He (the metzora) shall immerse himself in purifying waters and become pure and afterward may enter the camp” (ibid 3-8).
However in the Zohar (Tazria 49b) it writes: (R’ Yossi said) In one place the verse says “Aharon the cohen”, and in every other place it simply says “the cohen”. This ‘cohen’ refers to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Rav Yitzchak said; doesn’t the verse state “When a person shall have the plague of tzara’at they shall be brought to the cohen” – according to you that refers to G-d! He (R’ Yossi) answered, that is correct, since the purification and holiness depends solely upon Him.
This is clear from the fact that we don’t find any other area of Halacha that is so dependent on the cohen. Until the cohen says that the person is impure he remains pure, and similarly the purification is dependent upon the cohen, as the Mishna states (Negaim 3; 1): They (the sages) say to him (the cohen), ‘Tell him he is impure’, and he says ‘Impure’. ‘Tell him he is pure’ and he says ‘Pure’. And similarly with tzara’at of houses the verse states, “The cohen instructs that they empty the house before the cohen comes to see…” (ibid 36). The items in the house do not become impure unless and until the cohen verbally declares the house impure, even though the house is afflicted with genuine tzara’at. Therefore the Zohar says that the ‘cohen’ refers to G-d, only that the human cohen acts as an emissary of G-d, and a person’s emissary is considered the same as they themselves. G-d sends in the mouth of the cohen to say ‘pure’ or ‘impure’, and this is why in the whole section of tzara’at it always says ‘cohen’, referring to G-d, with the exception of the beginning of Parshat Tazria, where it states “Brought to Aharon the cohen, or one of his sons the Cohanim” because the verse cannot be entirely removed from its literal meaning. It must be an actual cohen who sees the tzara’at and declares it pure or impure.
This is what the Talmud (Avoda Zara) means when it says “” (Proverbs 2). If they didn’t repent how can they attain life? Rather this is what it means; if they repent they will not attain the paths of life (but will die prematurely). About this the verse states “On the day of his purification…” It must be that he has repented from the sin, for if not he would not have been cured of the tzara’at. Then he is brought to the Cohen, who is G-d. This is like the Talmud about Rabbi Elazar ben Durdia , who placed his head between his knees, repented and died. A voice came out of heaven and declared ‘Rabbi Elazar ben Dordia is invited into the World to Come’. Through the intensity of his repentance he passed away and earned the World to Come in a single moment.
The main component of repentance is abandoning the sin, and whether that has been accomplished cannot be known to any person, only to G-d alone. The Rambam writes (Hilchot Teshuva) ‘Until the One Who Knows the secret things will testify about this person that they will never return to their sin.’
We find in the Talmud (Kiddushin 49b) that if someone gets married on the condition that they are completely righteous, even someone who is completely wicked is considered married – perhaps he thought about repentance at that moment. It is certainly talking about a case where the person continued to act wickedly, because if he had abandoned his sins, the Talmud wouldn’t use the language of ‘perhaps’, but rather would have said ‘because he did repent’. This appears to contradict what we said above. How can thinking about repentance be effective according to the Rambam’s guidelines for repentance? – this person has continued to be wicked! However the resolution is that when a person repents it must be to the extent that G-d testifies about this person that at that moment they have completely abandoned their sins, and if they would have the opportunity at that moment to sin they would not do so. This is considered complete repentance. Even if afterwards the Evil Inclination overpowers the person and they go back to their sinning ways. Nevertheless for that moment they did complete repentance. No person can ever know whether or not a person has repented completely. Even the person themselves may not realise the truth, for they may mislead themselves into thinking they have repented. Only G-d can know the validity of the repentance.
This is what the verse means “on the day that he becomes pure he is brought to the cohen”. This refers to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and the “paths of life” refers to life in the World to Come, not in this world.
This explains the Talmudic statement of “paths of life”, that it is impossible to continue to walk along the paths of life of this world and to enter the World to Come. Rather he must enter immediately into the World to Come, as the story tells, ‘a person can acquire the World to Come in a single instant’. Therefore they no longer need to be careful in this world to guard their ways because in one instant they enter the World to Come, through the earnestness of their repentance, like R’ Yossi ben Dordia.
In the Midrash Tanchuma they explain the verse “brought (huva) to the cohen” as ‘he comes’ (hu va), meaning that he must exert himself to enter. This is what R’ Yossi ben Dordia realises when he says (ibid) ‘this matter is solely dependent upon me’.
tzora’at comes for seven kinds of sin (Talmud Erechin 16a ), or for eleven (Midrash Tanchuma Metzora 10 ), but the root of all of these sins is pride, which is the way in which the serpent was able to entice Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He persuaded them to eat the fruit because of the pleasure they would receive from it, and that they would “become like G-d” (Genesis). The enticement was that they would get pleasure and become important.
This is the meaning of the verse “This is the law of the metzora on the day that he becomes pure”. He should purify himself through repentance and correct the spiritual damage done through the sin, “and be brought to the cohen”, and ‘he comes’. Like R’ Yossi ben Dordia who exerted himself to get close to G-d. Even though a person does not have to repent to the extent of R’ Yossi ben Dordia, that his soul departs his body, nevertheless a person must exert themselves to come close to G-d, and only after that will he be able to become pure and rejoin the camp of the Children of Israel.
You can also find more divrei Torah and previous parshiot at www.rabbisedley.com
“This shall be the law of the metzora on the day that he becomes pure, and he is brought to the cohen.” (Vayikra 14; 2).
The order is misleading because the metzora is forbidden to enter the camp (to see the cohen) before the purification ritual, and he sending away of the bird, as it says after, “The cohen shall go out of the camp … He (the metzora) shall immerse himself in purifying waters and become pure and afterward may enter the camp” (ibid 3-8).
However in the Zohar (Tazria 49b) it writes: (R’ Yossi said) In one place the verse says “Aharon the cohen”, and in every other place it simply says “the cohen”. This ‘cohen’ refers to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Rav Yitzchak said; doesn’t the verse state “When a person shall have the plague of tzara’at they shall be brought to the cohen” – according to you that refers to G-d! He (R’ Yossi) answered, that is correct, since the purification and holiness depends solely upon Him.
This is clear from the fact that we don’t find any other area of Halacha that is so dependent on the cohen. Until the cohen says that the person is impure he remains pure, and similarly the purification is dependent upon the cohen, as the Mishna states (Negaim 3; 1): They (the sages) say to him (the cohen), ‘Tell him he is impure’, and he says ‘Impure’. ‘Tell him he is pure’ and he says ‘Pure’. And similarly with tzara’at of houses the verse states, “The cohen instructs that they empty the house before the cohen comes to see…” (ibid 36). The items in the house do not become impure unless and until the cohen verbally declares the house impure, even though the house is afflicted with genuine tzara’at. Therefore the Zohar says that the ‘cohen’ refers to G-d, only that the human cohen acts as an emissary of G-d, and a person’s emissary is considered the same as they themselves. G-d sends in the mouth of the cohen to say ‘pure’ or ‘impure’, and this is why in the whole section of tzara’at it always says ‘cohen’, referring to G-d, with the exception of the beginning of Parshat Tazria, where it states “Brought to Aharon the cohen, or one of his sons the Cohanim” because the verse cannot be entirely removed from its literal meaning. It must be an actual cohen who sees the tzara’at and declares it pure or impure.
This is what the Talmud (Avoda Zara) means when it says “” (Proverbs 2). If they didn’t repent how can they attain life? Rather this is what it means; if they repent they will not attain the paths of life (but will die prematurely). About this the verse states “On the day of his purification…” It must be that he has repented from the sin, for if not he would not have been cured of the tzara’at. Then he is brought to the Cohen, who is G-d. This is like the Talmud about Rabbi Elazar ben Durdia , who placed his head between his knees, repented and died. A voice came out of heaven and declared ‘Rabbi Elazar ben Dordia is invited into the World to Come’. Through the intensity of his repentance he passed away and earned the World to Come in a single moment.
The main component of repentance is abandoning the sin, and whether that has been accomplished cannot be known to any person, only to G-d alone. The Rambam writes (Hilchot Teshuva) ‘Until the One Who Knows the secret things will testify about this person that they will never return to their sin.’
We find in the Talmud (Kiddushin 49b) that if someone gets married on the condition that they are completely righteous, even someone who is completely wicked is considered married – perhaps he thought about repentance at that moment. It is certainly talking about a case where the person continued to act wickedly, because if he had abandoned his sins, the Talmud wouldn’t use the language of ‘perhaps’, but rather would have said ‘because he did repent’. This appears to contradict what we said above. How can thinking about repentance be effective according to the Rambam’s guidelines for repentance? – this person has continued to be wicked! However the resolution is that when a person repents it must be to the extent that G-d testifies about this person that at that moment they have completely abandoned their sins, and if they would have the opportunity at that moment to sin they would not do so. This is considered complete repentance. Even if afterwards the Evil Inclination overpowers the person and they go back to their sinning ways. Nevertheless for that moment they did complete repentance. No person can ever know whether or not a person has repented completely. Even the person themselves may not realise the truth, for they may mislead themselves into thinking they have repented. Only G-d can know the validity of the repentance.
This is what the verse means “on the day that he becomes pure he is brought to the cohen”. This refers to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and the “paths of life” refers to life in the World to Come, not in this world.
This explains the Talmudic statement of “paths of life”, that it is impossible to continue to walk along the paths of life of this world and to enter the World to Come. Rather he must enter immediately into the World to Come, as the story tells, ‘a person can acquire the World to Come in a single instant’. Therefore they no longer need to be careful in this world to guard their ways because in one instant they enter the World to Come, through the earnestness of their repentance, like R’ Yossi ben Dordia.
In the Midrash Tanchuma they explain the verse “brought (huva) to the cohen” as ‘he comes’ (hu va), meaning that he must exert himself to enter. This is what R’ Yossi ben Dordia realises when he says (ibid) ‘this matter is solely dependent upon me’.
tzora’at comes for seven kinds of sin (Talmud Erechin 16a ), or for eleven (Midrash Tanchuma Metzora 10 ), but the root of all of these sins is pride, which is the way in which the serpent was able to entice Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He persuaded them to eat the fruit because of the pleasure they would receive from it, and that they would “become like G-d” (Genesis). The enticement was that they would get pleasure and become important.
This is the meaning of the verse “This is the law of the metzora on the day that he becomes pure”. He should purify himself through repentance and correct the spiritual damage done through the sin, “and be brought to the cohen”, and ‘he comes’. Like R’ Yossi ben Dordia who exerted himself to get close to G-d. Even though a person does not have to repent to the extent of R’ Yossi ben Dordia, that his soul departs his body, nevertheless a person must exert themselves to come close to G-d, and only after that will he be able to become pure and rejoin the camp of the Children of Israel.
You can also find more divrei Torah and previous parshiot at www.rabbisedley.com
Pri Tzadik Tazria
Tazria (3)
The Midrash Tanchuma addresses the juxtaposition of the beginning of this week’s sedra with the closing of last week’s. Shmini ends with the laws of kashrut, and Tazria begins with the laws of childbirth. The Midrash teaches that when the foetus is in the womb Hakadosh Baruch Hu teaches it the laws of kashrut; this you may eat, this you may not eat, this is pure for you, and this is impure.
We find a similar Agadata in the Talmud (Nida 30b) except that there the foetus learns the entire Torah. The Talmud there describes that they administer an oath to the foetus, saying, be righteous and not wicked. This is similar to the Midrash Tanchuma which concludes ‘he accepts upon himself in the womb all the Mitzvot of the Torah and then is born.
Why does the Midrash only mention the laws of kashrut and describe that as the whole Torah? (Look at the commentary there which asks the same question and answers differently).
The answer is that the observance of the kashrut laws encompasses all the other laws of the Torah. In the Garden of Eden the snake was only able to entice them to sin through creating a desire for the forbidden food. Someone who is careful about only eating kosher foods and imbuing them with holiness thereby keeps all the Mitzvot of the Torah, because the only way that the Evil Inclination can rule over a person is through eating and drinking, as the verse states “You shall eat and drink … Be careful lest your heart lead you astray” (Devarim 11; 15-16) .
In the Zohar it states: “The tree that Adam Harishon ate from was wheat, others say it was grapes, and others say it was a fig. These opinions do not disagree but all of these are true”. How can they all be true when they are disagreeing about the facts of what happened?
The truth is that when the Torah states “The tree of life was in the midst of the garden…” it means that the inner spirituality of each tree in the garden was the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If Adam had eaten first from the tree of life, he would have tasted in every other food that he ate the taste of Torah which is life. But when he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he made every other food contain within it the taste of that tree and this is the source of all sin.
When a person corrects this sin through eating in holiness, he thereby keeps all the Mitzvot and is saved from the challenges of the Evil Inclination.
We find this on Shabbat when the eating is in holiness, that the verse states, “One who guards Shabbat from profaning it, and guards his hand from doing any evil” (Isaiah 56; 2). That through the eating of Shabbat a person is saved from the temptations of the Evil Inclination.
Similarly we find in the Zohar that the Showbread that was eaten by the Cohanim on Shabbat put the taste of holiness into all the food they ate for the week, and thereby they were saved from the temptations of the Evil Inclination.
This is the meaning of the Midrash Tanchuma that we began with, that G-d warns the foetus that all his food should be eaten with holiness, and included within this are all the Mitzvot of the Torah. Similarly we find in the Midrash Rabba (Shemot Rabba 25) that observing Shabbat corresponds to all the Mitzvot of the Torah.
What this means is that when Israel eat in holiness on Shabbat, included within that is the observance of all the Mitzvot .
The Midrash Tanchuma addresses the juxtaposition of the beginning of this week’s sedra with the closing of last week’s. Shmini ends with the laws of kashrut, and Tazria begins with the laws of childbirth. The Midrash teaches that when the foetus is in the womb Hakadosh Baruch Hu teaches it the laws of kashrut; this you may eat, this you may not eat, this is pure for you, and this is impure.
We find a similar Agadata in the Talmud (Nida 30b) except that there the foetus learns the entire Torah. The Talmud there describes that they administer an oath to the foetus, saying, be righteous and not wicked. This is similar to the Midrash Tanchuma which concludes ‘he accepts upon himself in the womb all the Mitzvot of the Torah and then is born.
Why does the Midrash only mention the laws of kashrut and describe that as the whole Torah? (Look at the commentary there which asks the same question and answers differently).
The answer is that the observance of the kashrut laws encompasses all the other laws of the Torah. In the Garden of Eden the snake was only able to entice them to sin through creating a desire for the forbidden food. Someone who is careful about only eating kosher foods and imbuing them with holiness thereby keeps all the Mitzvot of the Torah, because the only way that the Evil Inclination can rule over a person is through eating and drinking, as the verse states “You shall eat and drink … Be careful lest your heart lead you astray” (Devarim 11; 15-16) .
In the Zohar it states: “The tree that Adam Harishon ate from was wheat, others say it was grapes, and others say it was a fig. These opinions do not disagree but all of these are true”. How can they all be true when they are disagreeing about the facts of what happened?
The truth is that when the Torah states “The tree of life was in the midst of the garden…” it means that the inner spirituality of each tree in the garden was the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. If Adam had eaten first from the tree of life, he would have tasted in every other food that he ate the taste of Torah which is life. But when he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil he made every other food contain within it the taste of that tree and this is the source of all sin.
When a person corrects this sin through eating in holiness, he thereby keeps all the Mitzvot and is saved from the challenges of the Evil Inclination.
We find this on Shabbat when the eating is in holiness, that the verse states, “One who guards Shabbat from profaning it, and guards his hand from doing any evil” (Isaiah 56; 2). That through the eating of Shabbat a person is saved from the temptations of the Evil Inclination.
Similarly we find in the Zohar that the Showbread that was eaten by the Cohanim on Shabbat put the taste of holiness into all the food they ate for the week, and thereby they were saved from the temptations of the Evil Inclination.
This is the meaning of the Midrash Tanchuma that we began with, that G-d warns the foetus that all his food should be eaten with holiness, and included within this are all the Mitzvot of the Torah. Similarly we find in the Midrash Rabba (Shemot Rabba 25) that observing Shabbat corresponds to all the Mitzvot of the Torah.
What this means is that when Israel eat in holiness on Shabbat, included within that is the observance of all the Mitzvot .
Metzora summary
Metzora is a continuation of the previous portion, Tazriah. It begins with the purification process for a Metzora (one who is afflicted with tzora'as). Once the discoloration has healed from his or her skin, the Metzora undergoes a ritual purification which involves bringing a sacrifice and immersing in a Mikva. After seven days he or she may finally return to his house. The Torah also makes provisions for one who cannot afford the full sacrifice, and prescribes a smaller offering for them to bring.
The Torah describes a form of tzora'at which is a discoloration on the walls of a house. Such a house must be quarantined. If after seven days the discoloration has spread, then the affected stones must be removed. If the mark returns, the house must be demolished. During this whole process the house is tamei (ritually impure), and anyone entering into it also becomes tamei.
The Torah describes a type of male genital discharge called Zav. This renders him, or anything that he sits or lies on, tamei. Any person or utensil that he touches also becomes tamei. Once the discharge has ceased, he must count seven clean days. On the eighth day he immerses in a Mikva to purify himself, and brings a purification sacrifice.
When a man has a seminal discharge, or a woman discharges semen after intercourse, he or she becomes tamei. They must immerse in a Mikva and become tahor (ritually pure) after nightfall.
When a woman menstruates she becomes tamei, and also renders anything which she sits or lies on tamei. She must wait seven days, immerse herself in a Mikva, thus becoming tahor at nightfall. If a man has intercourse with her before she has become tahor, he also becomes tamei and makes anything he sits or lies on tamei.
If a woman has a discharge when it is not time for her menstrual period, she must count seven clean days without any discharge before she can become tahor. During this time she also renders anything which she sits or lies on tamei. On the eighth day she must immerse in a Mikva to become pure, and then brings a sacrifice.
The Torah describes a form of tzora'at which is a discoloration on the walls of a house. Such a house must be quarantined. If after seven days the discoloration has spread, then the affected stones must be removed. If the mark returns, the house must be demolished. During this whole process the house is tamei (ritually impure), and anyone entering into it also becomes tamei.
The Torah describes a type of male genital discharge called Zav. This renders him, or anything that he sits or lies on, tamei. Any person or utensil that he touches also becomes tamei. Once the discharge has ceased, he must count seven clean days. On the eighth day he immerses in a Mikva to purify himself, and brings a purification sacrifice.
When a man has a seminal discharge, or a woman discharges semen after intercourse, he or she becomes tamei. They must immerse in a Mikva and become tahor (ritually pure) after nightfall.
When a woman menstruates she becomes tamei, and also renders anything which she sits or lies on tamei. She must wait seven days, immerse herself in a Mikva, thus becoming tahor at nightfall. If a man has intercourse with her before she has become tahor, he also becomes tamei and makes anything he sits or lies on tamei.
If a woman has a discharge when it is not time for her menstrual period, she must count seven clean days without any discharge before she can become tahor. During this time she also renders anything which she sits or lies on tamei. On the eighth day she must immerse in a Mikva to become pure, and then brings a sacrifice.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Parshat Tazria
Parsha of the Week (Rabbi David Sedley)
Striving for the Greatness of the Beginning
Last week's Torah reading ended with the laws of ritual purity and impurity caused by animals. This week continues with the laws about human purity and impurity. The Midrash notes that the order is the same as that of creation, where humans came after other life already existed:
"You [G-d] have created me after and before, and have laid Your hand upon me." (Psalms 139; 4). Reish Lakish said, "After" refers to the last day of creation, "Before" refers to the first day. [where the verse hints to the human soul with the words], "The spirit of the L-rd hovered over the face of the water". If a person merits they say to them, 'You were created before everything else in existence', but if not they say to them, 'A mosquito was created before you'. Rabbi Simlai said, 'Just as humans were created after animals and birds, so too the laws [of purity] of people follow those of animals and birds'.
Reish Lakish's cryptic statement can be understood by recognising that a person is made up of two opposites, a spiritual soul and a physical body. These two are in constant conflict, each pursuing its own desires. The soul yearns for the spiritual delights of drawing close to G-d through performing mitzvot and studying Torah. The body wants physical pleasures, chasing after money, food and physical comforts. In certain areas of our lives the soul has control, in others the body. The point of intersection between the two is where we have free choice to follow either path.
Reish Lakish explains that though the physical body was not created until the end of the sixth day of creation, the soul was present from the first. Therefore if a person follows their spiritual urges seeking to draw closer to G-d, they are defined by their soul and to them it may be said, 'You were created before anything else...'. However, if a person's decisions are made by the body and its physical desires, the soul is less discernible, and therefore they are reminded that their body was created after even the insects.
The higher the spiritual potential of something, the greater is the risk of spiritual impurity. Minerals have no soul, and therefore do not impart impurity. The vegetable kingdom has a lowly form of soul, which allows growth and movement. Animals have a higher soul, which permits thought and instinct. Humans have the highest level of soul, which is described in Jewish literature as the level of speech.
The source of impurity is the body, which leads the soul away from G-d. A newborn baby is full of potential, but this is only realised over time as it is governed less by bodily urges and needs. Therefore birth, which is the completion of the physical body imparts impurity.
It is appropriate that we read this portion so soon after Pesach, the time of the birth of the nation. Similarly the counting of the Omer, of which we are in the midst, ties in with the concept of 'Before' and 'After'. The Jews in Egypt had reached the lowest level of spiritual impurity, to the point that had they remained there even a moment longer they would have lost their spirituality completely, and thus been unable to leave. Yet after counting seven weeks they had reached the level of spiritual perfection where they could experience the revelation of G-d at Mount Sinai. In a sense this self-perfection is the inverse of G-d's creation. G-d first created the soul, and then placed it within the body which draws it away from its true purpose. The Israelite nation elevated their physical bodies to the heights of spiritual perfection.
Each year we are able to relive this growth through the counting of the Omer. The Torah commands us to count from the "day after Shabbat", which refers to the first day of Pesach. Shabbat is both the beginning of the coming week, and the end of the previous week. It is the 'Seventh day' and yet within it we find the spiritual sustenance to get us through the next week. By calling Pesach 'Shabbat' the Torah is telling us that Pesach was both the starting point from which to grow to spiritual heights, and the goal for which we aimed. The Jews were involved in physical labour that gave them no opportunity for spiritual growth. Yet they witnessed G-d's hand in Egypt, the direct revelation that they were to experience again at Mount Sinai. They entire nation was as a newborn baby, full of as yet unrealised potential, redeemed by G-d in the merit of the spiritual heights that they would reach in the future.
Just as the nation experienced spiritual growth during these weeks, we can use this same time period for our own individual growth, in preparation for our personal acceptance of the Torah at Shavuot. We count each day and week to chart the incremental spiritual growth, leading to the fulfillment of our potential.
Striving for the Greatness of the Beginning
Last week's Torah reading ended with the laws of ritual purity and impurity caused by animals. This week continues with the laws about human purity and impurity. The Midrash notes that the order is the same as that of creation, where humans came after other life already existed:
"You [G-d] have created me after and before, and have laid Your hand upon me." (Psalms 139; 4). Reish Lakish said, "After" refers to the last day of creation, "Before" refers to the first day. [where the verse hints to the human soul with the words], "The spirit of the L-rd hovered over the face of the water". If a person merits they say to them, 'You were created before everything else in existence', but if not they say to them, 'A mosquito was created before you'. Rabbi Simlai said, 'Just as humans were created after animals and birds, so too the laws [of purity] of people follow those of animals and birds'.
Reish Lakish's cryptic statement can be understood by recognising that a person is made up of two opposites, a spiritual soul and a physical body. These two are in constant conflict, each pursuing its own desires. The soul yearns for the spiritual delights of drawing close to G-d through performing mitzvot and studying Torah. The body wants physical pleasures, chasing after money, food and physical comforts. In certain areas of our lives the soul has control, in others the body. The point of intersection between the two is where we have free choice to follow either path.
Reish Lakish explains that though the physical body was not created until the end of the sixth day of creation, the soul was present from the first. Therefore if a person follows their spiritual urges seeking to draw closer to G-d, they are defined by their soul and to them it may be said, 'You were created before anything else...'. However, if a person's decisions are made by the body and its physical desires, the soul is less discernible, and therefore they are reminded that their body was created after even the insects.
The higher the spiritual potential of something, the greater is the risk of spiritual impurity. Minerals have no soul, and therefore do not impart impurity. The vegetable kingdom has a lowly form of soul, which allows growth and movement. Animals have a higher soul, which permits thought and instinct. Humans have the highest level of soul, which is described in Jewish literature as the level of speech.
The source of impurity is the body, which leads the soul away from G-d. A newborn baby is full of potential, but this is only realised over time as it is governed less by bodily urges and needs. Therefore birth, which is the completion of the physical body imparts impurity.
It is appropriate that we read this portion so soon after Pesach, the time of the birth of the nation. Similarly the counting of the Omer, of which we are in the midst, ties in with the concept of 'Before' and 'After'. The Jews in Egypt had reached the lowest level of spiritual impurity, to the point that had they remained there even a moment longer they would have lost their spirituality completely, and thus been unable to leave. Yet after counting seven weeks they had reached the level of spiritual perfection where they could experience the revelation of G-d at Mount Sinai. In a sense this self-perfection is the inverse of G-d's creation. G-d first created the soul, and then placed it within the body which draws it away from its true purpose. The Israelite nation elevated their physical bodies to the heights of spiritual perfection.
Each year we are able to relive this growth through the counting of the Omer. The Torah commands us to count from the "day after Shabbat", which refers to the first day of Pesach. Shabbat is both the beginning of the coming week, and the end of the previous week. It is the 'Seventh day' and yet within it we find the spiritual sustenance to get us through the next week. By calling Pesach 'Shabbat' the Torah is telling us that Pesach was both the starting point from which to grow to spiritual heights, and the goal for which we aimed. The Jews were involved in physical labour that gave them no opportunity for spiritual growth. Yet they witnessed G-d's hand in Egypt, the direct revelation that they were to experience again at Mount Sinai. They entire nation was as a newborn baby, full of as yet unrealised potential, redeemed by G-d in the merit of the spiritual heights that they would reach in the future.
Just as the nation experienced spiritual growth during these weeks, we can use this same time period for our own individual growth, in preparation for our personal acceptance of the Torah at Shavuot. We count each day and week to chart the incremental spiritual growth, leading to the fulfillment of our potential.
Tazria summary
After discussing the laws of tumah (ritual impurity) regarding animals, the Torah now discusses tumah concerning humans. It starts with the laws of a woman who has given birth, and moves on to the laws of leprosy.
A person who has a mark which is suspected of having tzora'at (often mistranslated as leprosy) is brought before a Cohen (priest). He determines whether it is tzora'at and declares it tamei (impure). The different possibilities of tumah and tahara (ritual purity) are explained. Various laws are given for tzora’at of an infection or a burn. Other types of tzora’at are listed, for instance bald patches on the head or beard, white patches on the body. Someone afflicted with tzora’at must leave their home and dwell outside the camp or city until the tzora’at goes.
A garment on which appears a red or green mark is also suspected of tzora’at and must be brought before the Cohen. The procedure for determining the garment’s status is explained.
A person who has a mark which is suspected of having tzora'at (often mistranslated as leprosy) is brought before a Cohen (priest). He determines whether it is tzora'at and declares it tamei (impure). The different possibilities of tumah and tahara (ritual purity) are explained. Various laws are given for tzora’at of an infection or a burn. Other types of tzora’at are listed, for instance bald patches on the head or beard, white patches on the body. Someone afflicted with tzora’at must leave their home and dwell outside the camp or city until the tzora’at goes.
A garment on which appears a red or green mark is also suspected of tzora’at and must be brought before the Cohen. The procedure for determining the garment’s status is explained.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Shimini 2
Reasons for the Mitzvot - Keeping it all Hidden
Regarding the concept of giving reasons for mitzvot – it is difficult for me to accept the vailidity of any explanation. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b) explains that the Torah chose not to give reasons for the mitzvot for a purpose, because if we knew the reasons we may come to be lenient in their observance. The Talmud there gives examples of this. Who knows the secrets of G-d in all the Torah and mitzvot and their reasons, such that they can give an explanation or a reason. I have explained this objection at length elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the best explanation seems to me to be based on the intention of the Sages in the Yerushalmi (Peah chapter 4; halacha 2): It was taught in the name of Rabbi Shimon, there are five reasons why a person should only leave the peah (crops) for the poor at the edges of his field.
1. because of theft from the poor – so that the owner of the field can’t wait for a time when there are no poor people around and then tell one of his poor relatives to come and take the gifts before anyone else gets a chance. By leaving it at the end of the field, when he has finished harvesting there will be time for other poor people to gather.
2. because of wasting the time of the poor people – so that they don’t have to wait during the entire harvest until the owner decides to give them peah. Since he only gives it at the end of the harvest the poor will be able to gather at the appropriate time.
3. because of the cheats – so that the owner of the field cannot say that he has already given the peah, or chose for himself the best crops and only leave the bad quality grain for the poor. By giving whatever is left at the end of the field he is forced to give whatever is there regardless of quality.
4. because of the way it looks to others – that people passing shouldn’t say that the owner hasn’t left peah at the edge of his field. Since he has to leave it at the end they will see that he is still in the middle of his harvest and has not yet become obligated to leave it for the poor.
5. because the Torah says that you may not harvest the peaot (corners) of the field – and the corners means the edges.
This is incredible. First Rabbi Shimon gives four reasons that are understandable, then he ends with a fifth reason ‘because the Torah said so!’. Obviously all of the other reasons are based on this wording of the Torah, so this is not a separate reason, how can he just say ‘because the Torah said so’?
It must be that what he is saying is that even though there are many reasons why the mitzvah makes sense, nevertheless the primary fundamental reason is only because it says so in the Torah, and that is the sole basis for the obligation for the mitzvah.
In the Talmud Bavli (Shabbat 23a) it only gives four reasons for peah, and leaves out the final reason of ‘because the Torah said so’. This is because the opinion of the Bavli is that you can’t say ‘because’, since this is the foundation and the reason for everything, as we have explained.
Based on this explanation we can also understand the Talmud in Eruvin (21b) on the verse “Shlomo spoke 3000 analogies, and his songs were 1500” (Melachim 1. 5; 12). From here we learn that for every word of Torah there are 3000 analogies, and on each Rabbinic mitzvah there are 1500 reasons.
This requires explanation; why are the reasons for the mitzvot described as analogies, and the reasons for Rabbinic mitzvot as reasons?
Based on what we explained above we understand that it is impossible for us to give definite reasons for the mitzvot of the Torah, to say without a doubt this was the intention and reason of the Torah. It is impossible for a human to fully understand the depths of the reasoning of G-d, the Torah or the mitzvot. Therefore any reason that we give for a mitzvah is only an estimation or assesment based on our knowledge, similar to an analogy that someone gives for something, which is not the actual thing, but something which is similar to it, or leads to a better understanding of it. But this is not to say that the analogy is actually the thing itself. However, with Rabbinic mitzvot, the Sages themselves gave the reasons for their words, and we just have to explain, expand and develop them. But the basis of Rabbinic mitzvot are true and specific reasons. Therefore when describing the reasons for Torah mitzvot it uses the word ‘analogy’, because the reason is only ever an approximation, but with Rabbinic mitzvot the Talmud can use the word ‘reason’ because it could be the actual reason.
This may be the intention of the Rambam in giving reasons for the mitzvot. Perhaps he is only giving analogies and estimates and his opinions. However he should have been more careful to state that was what he was doing.
I also wanted to use this concept to answer a difficult passage of Talmud (Sanhedrin 17a) where it says that they only accepted someone as a member of the Sanhedrin (high court) if he was able to give 150 different reasons why a sheretz (an impure animal) should be pure. Tosefot there write that Rabbeinu Tam had difficulty with this. Why should we be interested in spurious logic, to purify something which the Torah has said is impure.
According to what we have said, though, there is a purpose to this logical exercise. Through this brilliance and logic we come to realise with certainty that there is no purpose in investigating the reasoning of the Torah and the reasons or intent of the mitzvot. If it were possible to come to a full understanding of the reasons for the mitzvot it must be that after giving 150 reasons why a sheretz must be pure, that we would reclassify it as such. Since we know that it remains impure because the Torah told us so, therefore we know that any reason or logic that we can give is not the same as the actual reason or logic of the Torah and the mitzvah. This teaches us that we must accept the mitzvot unquestioningly, without investigating or challenging them. Even in a place where human logic seems to dictate something other than what the Torah says.
This concept also explains the statement of the Talmud in Eruvin (13b): It is will known that there was noone to compare to Rabbi Meir in his generation. Why is the Halacha not in accordance with his opinion? Because his contemporaries were unable to fully understand his reasoning. He used ot say that something impure was pure, and would bring proofs, then show that something pure was impure and bring proofs for that as well. Rashi explains that he could show an equally reasoned argument for something that was the correct Halacha as for something that was not the correct Halacha. His contemporaries were unable to understand which opinions of his were in accordance with Halacha and which ones not.
We see from here that it is beyond human logic to give an exact reason for the Halacha, because Rabbi Meir was able to give an equally convincing reason and explanation for the opposite of the Halacha also.
I have also explained more on this topic of reasons for mitzvot in Parshat Acharei (Vayikra 17; 8) and also on Parshat Devarim (1; 16).
Now I will show you where we find that the Sages seem to say that you should look into the reasons for the mitzvot, against what we have just said, and we will give a resolution of the apparent contradiction.
If you look at the end of Pesachim (119a) “And her merchandise and harlot’s wages will one day become holy to G-d; it shall not be sotred nor accumulated, for her merchandise will belong to those who sit before G-d, to eat and be sated and for elegant clothing” (Yishiyahu 23; 18). Regarding this the Sages said: What is elegant clothing (lit. covered ancient)? This refers to someone who covers the things that were kept hidden by the Ancient One (meaning G-d). What are those things? The secrets of the Torah. One should not give them over to anyone but only to those who sit before G-d. Others say this refers to one who reveals the things that the Ancient One kept hidden, and they are the reasons for the mitzvot.
The Rashbam explains that the phrase ‘elegant clothing’ implies the secrets of the Torah that were originally hidden by the Ancient One. He revealed them and gave permisson to reveal them. Someone who reveals them will merit to all the rest of the things in the verse.
This explanation doesn’t come close to explaining all the difficulties in the verse. It is clear that this is a forced explanation. The verse says ‘covered ancient’, how can we take it from this simple reading to mean its opposite, uncovered? This is an extremely difficult explanation.
Apart from this, the Maharsha was right to question this whole piece. This statement blatently contradicts what they clearly said in Sanhedrin (21b) about the value of hiding the reasons of the Torah, as we cited above. In neither place did the Sages point out or deal with this contradiction.
Look at what the Rashash wrote in his commentary, where he asks all these questions. His answers are extremely difficult to accept.
Were I not afraid to offer my opinion I would say that the text of our Talmud is in error. Instead of saying ‘reveal the things…’ it should say ‘cover the things…’. Then there would be no contradiction between the sources, both would be explaining covered in terms of keeping hidden. They would only be arguing about the purpose in keeping these things covered. The first opinion refers to keeping the secrets of the Torah hidden, as the Rashbam explains. This refers to the secrets of kabbalah which may not be taught in public (as explained in the second chapter of Chagiga). The second opinion refers to keeping the reasons for the Torah hidden, because it is not appropriate to reveal them. In this way the Gemara in Pesachim does not contradict that in Sanhedrin. All the contradictions are resolved simply.
Regarding the concept of giving reasons for mitzvot – it is difficult for me to accept the vailidity of any explanation. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b) explains that the Torah chose not to give reasons for the mitzvot for a purpose, because if we knew the reasons we may come to be lenient in their observance. The Talmud there gives examples of this. Who knows the secrets of G-d in all the Torah and mitzvot and their reasons, such that they can give an explanation or a reason. I have explained this objection at length elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the best explanation seems to me to be based on the intention of the Sages in the Yerushalmi (Peah chapter 4; halacha 2): It was taught in the name of Rabbi Shimon, there are five reasons why a person should only leave the peah (crops) for the poor at the edges of his field.
1. because of theft from the poor – so that the owner of the field can’t wait for a time when there are no poor people around and then tell one of his poor relatives to come and take the gifts before anyone else gets a chance. By leaving it at the end of the field, when he has finished harvesting there will be time for other poor people to gather.
2. because of wasting the time of the poor people – so that they don’t have to wait during the entire harvest until the owner decides to give them peah. Since he only gives it at the end of the harvest the poor will be able to gather at the appropriate time.
3. because of the cheats – so that the owner of the field cannot say that he has already given the peah, or chose for himself the best crops and only leave the bad quality grain for the poor. By giving whatever is left at the end of the field he is forced to give whatever is there regardless of quality.
4. because of the way it looks to others – that people passing shouldn’t say that the owner hasn’t left peah at the edge of his field. Since he has to leave it at the end they will see that he is still in the middle of his harvest and has not yet become obligated to leave it for the poor.
5. because the Torah says that you may not harvest the peaot (corners) of the field – and the corners means the edges.
This is incredible. First Rabbi Shimon gives four reasons that are understandable, then he ends with a fifth reason ‘because the Torah said so!’. Obviously all of the other reasons are based on this wording of the Torah, so this is not a separate reason, how can he just say ‘because the Torah said so’?
It must be that what he is saying is that even though there are many reasons why the mitzvah makes sense, nevertheless the primary fundamental reason is only because it says so in the Torah, and that is the sole basis for the obligation for the mitzvah.
In the Talmud Bavli (Shabbat 23a) it only gives four reasons for peah, and leaves out the final reason of ‘because the Torah said so’. This is because the opinion of the Bavli is that you can’t say ‘because’, since this is the foundation and the reason for everything, as we have explained.
Based on this explanation we can also understand the Talmud in Eruvin (21b) on the verse “Shlomo spoke 3000 analogies, and his songs were 1500” (Melachim 1. 5; 12). From here we learn that for every word of Torah there are 3000 analogies, and on each Rabbinic mitzvah there are 1500 reasons.
This requires explanation; why are the reasons for the mitzvot described as analogies, and the reasons for Rabbinic mitzvot as reasons?
Based on what we explained above we understand that it is impossible for us to give definite reasons for the mitzvot of the Torah, to say without a doubt this was the intention and reason of the Torah. It is impossible for a human to fully understand the depths of the reasoning of G-d, the Torah or the mitzvot. Therefore any reason that we give for a mitzvah is only an estimation or assesment based on our knowledge, similar to an analogy that someone gives for something, which is not the actual thing, but something which is similar to it, or leads to a better understanding of it. But this is not to say that the analogy is actually the thing itself. However, with Rabbinic mitzvot, the Sages themselves gave the reasons for their words, and we just have to explain, expand and develop them. But the basis of Rabbinic mitzvot are true and specific reasons. Therefore when describing the reasons for Torah mitzvot it uses the word ‘analogy’, because the reason is only ever an approximation, but with Rabbinic mitzvot the Talmud can use the word ‘reason’ because it could be the actual reason.
This may be the intention of the Rambam in giving reasons for the mitzvot. Perhaps he is only giving analogies and estimates and his opinions. However he should have been more careful to state that was what he was doing.
I also wanted to use this concept to answer a difficult passage of Talmud (Sanhedrin 17a) where it says that they only accepted someone as a member of the Sanhedrin (high court) if he was able to give 150 different reasons why a sheretz (an impure animal) should be pure. Tosefot there write that Rabbeinu Tam had difficulty with this. Why should we be interested in spurious logic, to purify something which the Torah has said is impure.
According to what we have said, though, there is a purpose to this logical exercise. Through this brilliance and logic we come to realise with certainty that there is no purpose in investigating the reasoning of the Torah and the reasons or intent of the mitzvot. If it were possible to come to a full understanding of the reasons for the mitzvot it must be that after giving 150 reasons why a sheretz must be pure, that we would reclassify it as such. Since we know that it remains impure because the Torah told us so, therefore we know that any reason or logic that we can give is not the same as the actual reason or logic of the Torah and the mitzvah. This teaches us that we must accept the mitzvot unquestioningly, without investigating or challenging them. Even in a place where human logic seems to dictate something other than what the Torah says.
This concept also explains the statement of the Talmud in Eruvin (13b): It is will known that there was noone to compare to Rabbi Meir in his generation. Why is the Halacha not in accordance with his opinion? Because his contemporaries were unable to fully understand his reasoning. He used ot say that something impure was pure, and would bring proofs, then show that something pure was impure and bring proofs for that as well. Rashi explains that he could show an equally reasoned argument for something that was the correct Halacha as for something that was not the correct Halacha. His contemporaries were unable to understand which opinions of his were in accordance with Halacha and which ones not.
We see from here that it is beyond human logic to give an exact reason for the Halacha, because Rabbi Meir was able to give an equally convincing reason and explanation for the opposite of the Halacha also.
I have also explained more on this topic of reasons for mitzvot in Parshat Acharei (Vayikra 17; 8) and also on Parshat Devarim (1; 16).
Now I will show you where we find that the Sages seem to say that you should look into the reasons for the mitzvot, against what we have just said, and we will give a resolution of the apparent contradiction.
If you look at the end of Pesachim (119a) “And her merchandise and harlot’s wages will one day become holy to G-d; it shall not be sotred nor accumulated, for her merchandise will belong to those who sit before G-d, to eat and be sated and for elegant clothing” (Yishiyahu 23; 18). Regarding this the Sages said: What is elegant clothing (lit. covered ancient)? This refers to someone who covers the things that were kept hidden by the Ancient One (meaning G-d). What are those things? The secrets of the Torah. One should not give them over to anyone but only to those who sit before G-d. Others say this refers to one who reveals the things that the Ancient One kept hidden, and they are the reasons for the mitzvot.
The Rashbam explains that the phrase ‘elegant clothing’ implies the secrets of the Torah that were originally hidden by the Ancient One. He revealed them and gave permisson to reveal them. Someone who reveals them will merit to all the rest of the things in the verse.
This explanation doesn’t come close to explaining all the difficulties in the verse. It is clear that this is a forced explanation. The verse says ‘covered ancient’, how can we take it from this simple reading to mean its opposite, uncovered? This is an extremely difficult explanation.
Apart from this, the Maharsha was right to question this whole piece. This statement blatently contradicts what they clearly said in Sanhedrin (21b) about the value of hiding the reasons of the Torah, as we cited above. In neither place did the Sages point out or deal with this contradiction.
Look at what the Rashash wrote in his commentary, where he asks all these questions. His answers are extremely difficult to accept.
Were I not afraid to offer my opinion I would say that the text of our Talmud is in error. Instead of saying ‘reveal the things…’ it should say ‘cover the things…’. Then there would be no contradiction between the sources, both would be explaining covered in terms of keeping hidden. They would only be arguing about the purpose in keeping these things covered. The first opinion refers to keeping the secrets of the Torah hidden, as the Rashbam explains. This refers to the secrets of kabbalah which may not be taught in public (as explained in the second chapter of Chagiga). The second opinion refers to keeping the reasons for the Torah hidden, because it is not appropriate to reveal them. In this way the Gemara in Pesachim does not contradict that in Sanhedrin. All the contradictions are resolved simply.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Tosefet Bracha Shmini 1
Parsha of the week - Shmini.
Tosefet Bracha (R' Baruch Halevi Epstein)
“And the stork (chasida)” 11; 19
The Talmud (Chulin 64a) explains why this bird is called a chasida (kind one), because it does kindness with its friends. Rashi explains that it shares it food with them.
From here we have to ask a question on the words of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim. He gives the reason for the kashrut laws and the prohibition of eating impure animals because their nature is bad and their qualities are cruel. When a person ingests an animal with these traits they adopt these traits themselves.
This stork, the kind one, seems to contradict the Rambam’s theory, since it has a positive nature in sharing its food with others, and even so it is listed with the impure and non kosher birds.
Apart from that we must ask on the whole approach of the Rambam. How can we understand the idea of the attributes of an animal attaching themselves to someone who eats them? From the time of creation people have been eating the meat of animals and drinking their milk. Despite thousands of years of ingesting animals, we don’t find that human nature has adopted the traits or mentality of the animals that they eat. We don’t find any traces of animal nature in either the bodies or the souls of people.
Furthermore, it is explicit in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Avodah Zarah chapter 2, which is also brought by Tosefot on Avodah Zarah 26a s.v. akum): A child may nurse from a non Jewish woman or any kind of impure animal, and they may bring him milk from anywhere without being concerned about the prohibition of doing things that are disgusting.
If there was a concern that the nature of the animal can be passed on to one who eats from it, the Rabbis would certainly have been careful not to allow a child to nurse from a non kosher animal unless it was a matter of life and death. Look in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 81 where he deals with this topic.
It is therefore difficult to know where the Rambam got this idea of animal nature entering people. Perhaps it came from the medical konwledge of his time, but even so it would have been impossible for him to bring this concept wihtout any basis or source from the Sages.
In answer to our first question about the stork being a contradiction to the Rambam’s theory, perhaps we can say that the fact that it shares its food doesn’t contradict its inherent cruel nature. For example we know that the raven is one of the cruelest birds, and is used as an example of the extremes of cruelty in the Talmud (Eruvin 22a) ‘he made himself cruel like a raven’. Even so the Sages have told us that the ravens love each other (Pesachim 112b). So too with mice, they invite each other to share their food with them (Yerushalmi Bava Metziah chapter 3 ;halacha 5), and even so they are called ‘wicked mice’ (ibid.). Given these examples, it is possible that the stork who shares her food does not provide a contradiction to the Rambam’s theory that her inherent nature is cruel and bad.
We still have to explain the meaning of that Yerushalmi. Why should they call mice wicked because they invite their friends to share their food? That seems like a good trait not a negative one.
But the truth is that their words are correct. The Yerushalmi is precise in its language when it says ‘when they see lots of food’ – that is when they invite others to share with them. This implies that when they only find a small amount of food, and there won’t be enough for the others, in such a case they don’t invite any other mice to share with them. From here we see that the fact that they do invite others sometimes is not because of their good traits, but rather because of their wickedness, that they wish to destroy and ruin all of the food that they find. If they were really interested in being good they would invite their friends even when there was not enough food, but they don’t, because they are concerned that if they share a small amount they may not get enough for themselves.
Regarding the original statement that the stork is called chadisa because she shares her food with others, perhaps we can also give another reason for that name.
Based on the zoology books who call this bird ‘storch’ or ‘aist’, and it is described as having a long beak and long legs. During the winter it leaves its nest and flies south to Africa or India. As spring arrives it returns to the same nest that it left several months previously (this is what Yeremiahu hints at when he says “Even the stork in the heavens knows the appointed time” (8; 7)). They are also birds that mate for life, and they never cheat on their partners. Therefore perhaps we can say that it is called chasida because of the way that it remains faithful to the same partner for its entire life, and the word chasida here means faithful and honest. We find this meaning in the verse in Mishlei (31; 26) “the Torah of chesed is on her tongue” – which means Torah of faith. Similarly in Tehillim “He will build a world of chesed”, which, based on the explanation of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 58; 2) means the honesty of family relationships (specifically that Adam could not marry his own daughter because otherwise Cain would have had nobody to marry).
Tosefet Bracha (R' Baruch Halevi Epstein)
“And the stork (chasida)” 11; 19
The Talmud (Chulin 64a) explains why this bird is called a chasida (kind one), because it does kindness with its friends. Rashi explains that it shares it food with them.
From here we have to ask a question on the words of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim. He gives the reason for the kashrut laws and the prohibition of eating impure animals because their nature is bad and their qualities are cruel. When a person ingests an animal with these traits they adopt these traits themselves.
This stork, the kind one, seems to contradict the Rambam’s theory, since it has a positive nature in sharing its food with others, and even so it is listed with the impure and non kosher birds.
Apart from that we must ask on the whole approach of the Rambam. How can we understand the idea of the attributes of an animal attaching themselves to someone who eats them? From the time of creation people have been eating the meat of animals and drinking their milk. Despite thousands of years of ingesting animals, we don’t find that human nature has adopted the traits or mentality of the animals that they eat. We don’t find any traces of animal nature in either the bodies or the souls of people.
Furthermore, it is explicit in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Avodah Zarah chapter 2, which is also brought by Tosefot on Avodah Zarah 26a s.v. akum): A child may nurse from a non Jewish woman or any kind of impure animal, and they may bring him milk from anywhere without being concerned about the prohibition of doing things that are disgusting.
If there was a concern that the nature of the animal can be passed on to one who eats from it, the Rabbis would certainly have been careful not to allow a child to nurse from a non kosher animal unless it was a matter of life and death. Look in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 81 where he deals with this topic.
It is therefore difficult to know where the Rambam got this idea of animal nature entering people. Perhaps it came from the medical konwledge of his time, but even so it would have been impossible for him to bring this concept wihtout any basis or source from the Sages.
In answer to our first question about the stork being a contradiction to the Rambam’s theory, perhaps we can say that the fact that it shares its food doesn’t contradict its inherent cruel nature. For example we know that the raven is one of the cruelest birds, and is used as an example of the extremes of cruelty in the Talmud (Eruvin 22a) ‘he made himself cruel like a raven’. Even so the Sages have told us that the ravens love each other (Pesachim 112b). So too with mice, they invite each other to share their food with them (Yerushalmi Bava Metziah chapter 3 ;halacha 5), and even so they are called ‘wicked mice’ (ibid.). Given these examples, it is possible that the stork who shares her food does not provide a contradiction to the Rambam’s theory that her inherent nature is cruel and bad.
We still have to explain the meaning of that Yerushalmi. Why should they call mice wicked because they invite their friends to share their food? That seems like a good trait not a negative one.
But the truth is that their words are correct. The Yerushalmi is precise in its language when it says ‘when they see lots of food’ – that is when they invite others to share with them. This implies that when they only find a small amount of food, and there won’t be enough for the others, in such a case they don’t invite any other mice to share with them. From here we see that the fact that they do invite others sometimes is not because of their good traits, but rather because of their wickedness, that they wish to destroy and ruin all of the food that they find. If they were really interested in being good they would invite their friends even when there was not enough food, but they don’t, because they are concerned that if they share a small amount they may not get enough for themselves.
Regarding the original statement that the stork is called chadisa because she shares her food with others, perhaps we can also give another reason for that name.
Based on the zoology books who call this bird ‘storch’ or ‘aist’, and it is described as having a long beak and long legs. During the winter it leaves its nest and flies south to Africa or India. As spring arrives it returns to the same nest that it left several months previously (this is what Yeremiahu hints at when he says “Even the stork in the heavens knows the appointed time” (8; 7)). They are also birds that mate for life, and they never cheat on their partners. Therefore perhaps we can say that it is called chasida because of the way that it remains faithful to the same partner for its entire life, and the word chasida here means faithful and honest. We find this meaning in the verse in Mishlei (31; 26) “the Torah of chesed is on her tongue” – which means Torah of faith. Similarly in Tehillim “He will build a world of chesed”, which, based on the explanation of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 58; 2) means the honesty of family relationships (specifically that Adam could not marry his own daughter because otherwise Cain would have had nobody to marry).
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Parshat Shmini
Parsha of the Week - Happiness and Fear.
Rabbi David Sedley
This week we read about the dedication of the Mishkan (Tabernacle). This was mentioned at the end of Shemot, as the culmination of the redemption from Egypt. Not only were the Jews free physically, but spiritually they had reached the level whereby G-d's Shechina (Divine Presence) was able to dwell amongst them. The completion of the Mishkan, and the Shechina that dwelt there were also signs that the nation had been forgiven for the sin of the Golden Calf. It was a momentous day when G-d's Presence first rested upon the Mishkan. "The people saw [that G-d's Presence had entered the Mishkan] and they rejoiced and fell upon their faces" (Vayikra 9; 24).
Yet this joyous occasion was marred by the death of two of Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu. "They brought to G-d an alien fire that He had not commanded. A fire came forth from before G-d and consumed them, and they died before G-d." (ibid. 10; 1-2). However, their death was as a result of an incident that had happened almost a year earlier. When Moshe ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, the elders ascended part of the way with him. "Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel ascended Against the great men of the Children of Israel He did not stretch out His hand, for they gazed at G-d, yet they ate and drank" (Shemot 24; 10-11). Rashi explains that they gazed at G-d as they were eating and drinking, without showing proper respect, and for this they incurred the penalty of death.
The eating and drinking at Mount Sinai was not out of gluttony, but was an expression of the joy they felt at that momentous occasion. It was this same motivation that caused Nadav and Avihu to bring the alien fire that led to their deaths. The Midrash (Torat Cohanim 32) states that they were infused with happiness, and when they saw the fire descend from heaven, they wanted to add 'love to love', and brought their own fire. At both of these happiest of days Nadav and Avihu (and the rest of the nation) acted out of love for G-d, trying to draw closer to the Divine Presence. Yet they were punished for this.
In addition to the mitzvah to love G-d there is a commandment to fear Him. In the Haggadah we read "'With great fear' - this is the revelation of the Divine Presence." Each Amida concludes with the words, "May it be Your will that the Temple be rebuilt speedily and may we serve You there with fear.". The Mitzvah of coming to Jerusalem to behold the Divine Presence on each festival is called Re'iah, which is closely related to the word Yirah meaning fear.
The Rambam (Mishne Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2; 2) explains the path of come to love and fear G-d. When a person sees the wonder of creation they feel a desire to love and become close to G-d. This makes them realise how insignificant and imperfect they are in comparison to Him. So here is love which leads to fear. However, when a person is confronted with a direct revelation of G-d the effect is the opposite. Their first reaction should be reverence and fear, and only through that come to a love of G-d.
The happiest of biblical festivals was Succot, which is referred to in the prayers as simply "The time of our happiness". However the rejoicing of Succot can only follow from the fear of judgment of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. But even then the rejoicing in the Temple was tempered with fear, as the Mishna states, "The pious and righteous would dance before the people holding fiery torches in their hands" (Succah 5; 4). Only those who were already filled with reverence were allowed to rejoice in overt happiness.
With this knowledge we can resolve an apparent contradiction in the Psalms. In Psalm 2 (verse 11) King David states, "Serve G-d with fear, and rejoice with trembling". Yet in Psalm 100 (verse 2) he wrote, "Serve G-d with gladness, come before Him with joyous song". The context of the former is G-d judging the nations, through revelation of His Presence, which calls for rejoicing tinged with fear. However, in the latter, David finds G-d in nature, through the wonders of creation. This 'hidden' revelation of G-d causes rejoicing and love, and only after will we become filled with fear of G-d.
Rabbi David Sedley
This week we read about the dedication of the Mishkan (Tabernacle). This was mentioned at the end of Shemot, as the culmination of the redemption from Egypt. Not only were the Jews free physically, but spiritually they had reached the level whereby G-d's Shechina (Divine Presence) was able to dwell amongst them. The completion of the Mishkan, and the Shechina that dwelt there were also signs that the nation had been forgiven for the sin of the Golden Calf. It was a momentous day when G-d's Presence first rested upon the Mishkan. "The people saw [that G-d's Presence had entered the Mishkan] and they rejoiced and fell upon their faces" (Vayikra 9; 24).
Yet this joyous occasion was marred by the death of two of Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu. "They brought to G-d an alien fire that He had not commanded. A fire came forth from before G-d and consumed them, and they died before G-d." (ibid. 10; 1-2). However, their death was as a result of an incident that had happened almost a year earlier. When Moshe ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, the elders ascended part of the way with him. "Moshe, Aharon, Nadav, Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel ascended Against the great men of the Children of Israel He did not stretch out His hand, for they gazed at G-d, yet they ate and drank" (Shemot 24; 10-11). Rashi explains that they gazed at G-d as they were eating and drinking, without showing proper respect, and for this they incurred the penalty of death.
The eating and drinking at Mount Sinai was not out of gluttony, but was an expression of the joy they felt at that momentous occasion. It was this same motivation that caused Nadav and Avihu to bring the alien fire that led to their deaths. The Midrash (Torat Cohanim 32) states that they were infused with happiness, and when they saw the fire descend from heaven, they wanted to add 'love to love', and brought their own fire. At both of these happiest of days Nadav and Avihu (and the rest of the nation) acted out of love for G-d, trying to draw closer to the Divine Presence. Yet they were punished for this.
In addition to the mitzvah to love G-d there is a commandment to fear Him. In the Haggadah we read "'With great fear' - this is the revelation of the Divine Presence." Each Amida concludes with the words, "May it be Your will that the Temple be rebuilt speedily and may we serve You there with fear.". The Mitzvah of coming to Jerusalem to behold the Divine Presence on each festival is called Re'iah, which is closely related to the word Yirah meaning fear.
The Rambam (Mishne Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2; 2) explains the path of come to love and fear G-d. When a person sees the wonder of creation they feel a desire to love and become close to G-d. This makes them realise how insignificant and imperfect they are in comparison to Him. So here is love which leads to fear. However, when a person is confronted with a direct revelation of G-d the effect is the opposite. Their first reaction should be reverence and fear, and only through that come to a love of G-d.
The happiest of biblical festivals was Succot, which is referred to in the prayers as simply "The time of our happiness". However the rejoicing of Succot can only follow from the fear of judgment of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. But even then the rejoicing in the Temple was tempered with fear, as the Mishna states, "The pious and righteous would dance before the people holding fiery torches in their hands" (Succah 5; 4). Only those who were already filled with reverence were allowed to rejoice in overt happiness.
With this knowledge we can resolve an apparent contradiction in the Psalms. In Psalm 2 (verse 11) King David states, "Serve G-d with fear, and rejoice with trembling". Yet in Psalm 100 (verse 2) he wrote, "Serve G-d with gladness, come before Him with joyous song". The context of the former is G-d judging the nations, through revelation of His Presence, which calls for rejoicing tinged with fear. However, in the latter, David finds G-d in nature, through the wonders of creation. This 'hidden' revelation of G-d causes rejoicing and love, and only after will we become filled with fear of G-d.
Summary - Shmini
Parshat Hashavua - Shmini
This portion begins on the eighth day of preparing the Tabernacle. Aharon offers a Chatat (sin offering) and an Olah (burnt offering) and the Israelites offer a Chatat , an Olah and a Shelamim (peace offering). These are prepared by Aharon, together with a Mincha (grain offering), after which he blesses the people. Moshe and Aharon go into the Communion Tent and come out and again bless the people.
The Children of Israel are then shown G-d's glory. Fire descends from heaven and consumes all of the sacrifices on the altar. Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu, bring an unauthorised sacrifice, and a fire descends from G-d and kills them. Aaron and his sons, Elazar and Ithamar, are instructed not to mourn because they are Cohanim (Priests). Instead, the whole congregation mourns for Aharon's sons. The Cohanim are instructed never to enter the Ohel Moed (Tent of Meeting) intoxicated. Then they complete the inauguration service.
The portion continues with the kashrut (dietary) laws. Only animals that have split hooves and chew their cud may be eaten. Four animals are listed that only have one of these signs, the camel, the hyrax, the hare and the pig. Of the creatures that live in water, only those with fins and scales may be eaten. Birds that may not be eaten are listed; all other fowl may be eaten. Flying insects that walk on four legs may not be eaten, unless they have knees which extend above their feet that are used for hopping. Certain types of locust which fall into this category are listed.
Contact with the carcass of a non-Kosher animal renders a person tamei (ritually impure). Carrying the carcass also renders one's clothing tamei. There are eight small creeping animals (sheratzim) which make anyone who comes into contact with their carcasses tamei. The Torah gives some of the laws of tumah for utensils and foods which come into contact with a tamei object. Contact with the carcass of a kosher animal makes a person tamei. Eating from its carcass or carrying it also contaminates one's clothing. Any creature which crawls close to the ground, whether on its belly, four legs or many legs, may not be eaten.
This portion begins on the eighth day of preparing the Tabernacle. Aharon offers a Chatat (sin offering) and an Olah (burnt offering) and the Israelites offer a Chatat , an Olah and a Shelamim (peace offering). These are prepared by Aharon, together with a Mincha (grain offering), after which he blesses the people. Moshe and Aharon go into the Communion Tent and come out and again bless the people.
The Children of Israel are then shown G-d's glory. Fire descends from heaven and consumes all of the sacrifices on the altar. Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu, bring an unauthorised sacrifice, and a fire descends from G-d and kills them. Aaron and his sons, Elazar and Ithamar, are instructed not to mourn because they are Cohanim (Priests). Instead, the whole congregation mourns for Aharon's sons. The Cohanim are instructed never to enter the Ohel Moed (Tent of Meeting) intoxicated. Then they complete the inauguration service.
The portion continues with the kashrut (dietary) laws. Only animals that have split hooves and chew their cud may be eaten. Four animals are listed that only have one of these signs, the camel, the hyrax, the hare and the pig. Of the creatures that live in water, only those with fins and scales may be eaten. Birds that may not be eaten are listed; all other fowl may be eaten. Flying insects that walk on four legs may not be eaten, unless they have knees which extend above their feet that are used for hopping. Certain types of locust which fall into this category are listed.
Contact with the carcass of a non-Kosher animal renders a person tamei (ritually impure). Carrying the carcass also renders one's clothing tamei. There are eight small creeping animals (sheratzim) which make anyone who comes into contact with their carcasses tamei. The Torah gives some of the laws of tumah for utensils and foods which come into contact with a tamei object. Contact with the carcass of a kosher animal makes a person tamei. Eating from its carcass or carrying it also contaminates one's clothing. Any creature which crawls close to the ground, whether on its belly, four legs or many legs, may not be eaten.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Parshat Tzav
This week's portion begins with something strange. The Cohen Gadol is commanded to remove some of the ashes from the altar every morning, and place them outside the Temple. Only he can do this, and it seems strange that such a menial task should be given to one so important. The Hebrew term for this procedure is terumat hadeshen. Terumah means 'elevating' and is usually associated with particularly holy things, however this part of the service appears to be one of the least holy.
"The Cohen will wear his fitted linen tunic... he shall pick up the ashes of what the fire consumed... on the altar. He shall remove his garments and put on other garments, and he shall remove the ashes to the outside of the camp, to a pure place." (Leviticus 6; 3-4). Rashi (ibid.) explains that it is not an obligation for the Cohen to change his clothes, but the Torah is teaching us good manners. He should change so that his priestly garments should not become soiled. Rashi uses the analogy of a servant before a master who should wear different clothes for preparing the food and pouring the wine.
The seven preparatory days in which the Cohanim, the Mishkan and all the utensils were sanctified and dedicated for holy use is described at the end of the portion. During this period Moshe served as the priest, since the Cohanim had not yet been sanctified. The Talmud (Ta'anis 11b) finds that Moshe wore a plain white tunic, and Tosefos (Chagiga 6b) explains that this was for practical reasons. Had Moshe worn the priestly garments, this would mean that it is permissible for anyone to wear them. In addition to this, the vestments had not been consecrated for service, and had Moshe worn them this would have taught us that in the future (e.g. the Second Temple) the priestly garments could be worn before consecration. It is clear why Moshe could not wear priestly clothing, but why should his garments be plain white?
The Cohen Gadol wore plain white clothing when he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. The Talmud (Yoma 23b) entertains the possibility that the Cohen should wear the clothes in which he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur for the daily removal of the ashes. Though the Talmud reject this suggestion we have to understand the assumptions underlying this suggestion.
One of the greatest dangers facing a person in a position of authority is that it can lead to pride. Judaism views pride as equal to idolatry in its severity. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Cohen Gadol, as the intermediary between G-d and the nation, should not fall victim to pride. Clothing brings honour to a person, as we see from Rabbi Yochanan who would refer to his clothes as ‘my honourable ones'. Though he has been sent to perform the holiest task on the holiest day, by wearing plain garments the Cohen Gadol retains his humility. Similarly, Moshe, the most humble of all men, wore a plain white tunic when consecrating the Mishkan and Cohanim. He allowed no room for his pride.
We can now understand why it is important for the Cohen Gadol to personally remove the ashes from the altar. By performing such a menial task he is reminded daily of the need for humility. Since the very act itself is one designed to instill humility, there is no need for him to wear the white garments of Yom Kippur. Maybe this is the reason for the name terumat hadeshen. Through the humility which this act instills the Cohen is actually elevated, as the Talmud (Eruvin 13b) states: If someone chases after honour, it flees from them, but if they flee from honour it comes to them.
"The Cohen will wear his fitted linen tunic... he shall pick up the ashes of what the fire consumed... on the altar. He shall remove his garments and put on other garments, and he shall remove the ashes to the outside of the camp, to a pure place." (Leviticus 6; 3-4). Rashi (ibid.) explains that it is not an obligation for the Cohen to change his clothes, but the Torah is teaching us good manners. He should change so that his priestly garments should not become soiled. Rashi uses the analogy of a servant before a master who should wear different clothes for preparing the food and pouring the wine.
The seven preparatory days in which the Cohanim, the Mishkan and all the utensils were sanctified and dedicated for holy use is described at the end of the portion. During this period Moshe served as the priest, since the Cohanim had not yet been sanctified. The Talmud (Ta'anis 11b) finds that Moshe wore a plain white tunic, and Tosefos (Chagiga 6b) explains that this was for practical reasons. Had Moshe worn the priestly garments, this would mean that it is permissible for anyone to wear them. In addition to this, the vestments had not been consecrated for service, and had Moshe worn them this would have taught us that in the future (e.g. the Second Temple) the priestly garments could be worn before consecration. It is clear why Moshe could not wear priestly clothing, but why should his garments be plain white?
The Cohen Gadol wore plain white clothing when he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. The Talmud (Yoma 23b) entertains the possibility that the Cohen should wear the clothes in which he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur for the daily removal of the ashes. Though the Talmud reject this suggestion we have to understand the assumptions underlying this suggestion.
One of the greatest dangers facing a person in a position of authority is that it can lead to pride. Judaism views pride as equal to idolatry in its severity. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the Cohen Gadol, as the intermediary between G-d and the nation, should not fall victim to pride. Clothing brings honour to a person, as we see from Rabbi Yochanan who would refer to his clothes as ‘my honourable ones'. Though he has been sent to perform the holiest task on the holiest day, by wearing plain garments the Cohen Gadol retains his humility. Similarly, Moshe, the most humble of all men, wore a plain white tunic when consecrating the Mishkan and Cohanim. He allowed no room for his pride.
We can now understand why it is important for the Cohen Gadol to personally remove the ashes from the altar. By performing such a menial task he is reminded daily of the need for humility. Since the very act itself is one designed to instill humility, there is no need for him to wear the white garments of Yom Kippur. Maybe this is the reason for the name terumat hadeshen. Through the humility which this act instills the Cohen is actually elevated, as the Talmud (Eruvin 13b) states: If someone chases after honour, it flees from them, but if they flee from honour it comes to them.
Parshat Tzav (Daf Hashavua)
I wrote this while in Edinburgh many years ago and it was printed in 'Daf Hashavua' which can be found at here
Leave me a message with your comments.
Shavua Tov
"Clothes Maketh the Man" Rabbi David Sedley - Edinburgh Synagogue
------------------------
The second half of this week's Torah portion describes the investiture of
the Kohanim by Moses. Moses dressed Aaron and his sons, anointed them with
oil, offered the inauguration sacrifices and performed all the sacrificial
rites. This ceremony lasted for seven days, and for the entire week Moses
served as the Kohen.
The white robe
--------------
Moses' role as Kohen was alluded to at the time of the Burning Bush: 'The
wrath of G-d burned against Moses, and He said, 'Is there not Aaron your
brother, the Levite? ...' (Shemot 4:14) The Talmud (Zevarchim 102a)
explains that Moses was punished for arousing G-d's anger: 'I had intended
that kehunah (priesthood) would come forth from you. Now it will not be so,
rather he (Aaron) will be a Kohen and you will be a Levite. The Sages
stated that Moses only served as Kohen for the first seven days.'
The Talmud (Ta'anit 11b) asks, 'What did Moses wear for those seven days of
inauguration? Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosi stated, 'It is clear that Moses
wore a white robe when he was serving in the Tabernacle for those first
seven days'. How is it possible that the Torah describes the garments worn
by the Kohanim in such detail, without which we would have no way of
knowing how they should be dressed, yet it is 'clear' that Moses wore a
simple white robe?
The public face
---------------
Carl Gustav Jung held that we each have a persona which we use to show
ourselves and others who we are. However, a persona does not necessarily
give us an insight into persons themselves, rather it shows what they and
society expect of them. A persona is only a mask for the collective psyche,
a mask that feigns individuality, and tries to make others and oneself
believe that one is an individual, whereas one is simply playing a part in
which the collective psyche speaks'. (The Practice of Psychotherapy, C.W.
16 p.53)
Billy Joel describes how our public face sometimes hides our true selves.
'We all have a face that we hide away forever, and we take them out and
show ourselves when everyone is gone. Some are satin, some are steel, some
are silk and some are leather, they are the faces of the stranger but we
love to try them on' (The Stranger). Sometimes we create an image through
physical satin, silk and leather. Our clothing indicates who we are to
society which expects certain people to dress in a certain way. For example
an accountant is expected to wear a suit and tie but a plumber is not.
People 'dress for success', or 'dress to kill', to show that they belong to
a certain group, or to show that they do not belong to a particular
collective with its specific viewpoint. Hamlet stated that 'The apparel oft
proclaims the man' (Hamlet 1:3).
Insignia
--------
Clothing can give us a 'social face', but it also influences us and helps
us to define ourselves. We wear certain clothes to portray ourselves to
others, but that same clothing influences us, and sometimes also defines us
to ourselves. This is the reason behind Jewish religious garb. The Torah
tells us that the purpose of Tzitzit is 'that you may see it and remember
all the commandments of G-d, and perform them; and not explore after your
heart and after your eyes...' (Bemidbar 15:39). Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato
explains: 'There is a deeper concept included in this commandment. Man must
wear G-d's insignia, very much as a vassal wears the insignia of his
master. This is part of accepting G-d's yoke and subjugating oneself to
Him.' (Derech Hashem 4:6:6)
Dual Functions
--------------
The Talmud (Nedarim 35b) teaches that Kohanim have to serve a dual
function, as G-d's representatives to the nation, and as representatives of
the people to G-d. They had to inspire awe in the nation, as they
personified G-d's forgiveness of His people, and they had to be supplicants
before G-d on behalf of the Jewish people.'You shall make holy garments for
Aaron your brother, for honour and splendour.' (Shemot 28:2). The Rambam
explains that the clothes indicated the role of the Kohanim as showing
'honour' to G-d as servants of the people and showing the 'splendour' of
G-d to the nation. In order to enable the Kohanim to fulfil their dual
role, they needed garments which would atone for the nation, yet at the
same time show G-d's splendour to them.
Moshe Rabbeinu did not require the external trappings of exquisite clothing
in order to inspire awe in the nation or to remind him of his relationship
with G-d. His whole essence proclaimed those roles. Moses was both the
'Moses, the man of G-d' (Devarim 33:1), speaking for G-d to the nation, and
'Moses My servant' (ibid 34:5), faithfully serving as the representative of
the people. As he had no need for special clothing, he could wear the plain
white linen garb of the angel Gabriel, who appeared to Ezekiel as the man
clothed in linen' (Ezekiel 10:2).
Leave me a message with your comments.
Shavua Tov
"Clothes Maketh the Man" Rabbi David Sedley - Edinburgh Synagogue
------------------------
The second half of this week's Torah portion describes the investiture of
the Kohanim by Moses. Moses dressed Aaron and his sons, anointed them with
oil, offered the inauguration sacrifices and performed all the sacrificial
rites. This ceremony lasted for seven days, and for the entire week Moses
served as the Kohen.
The white robe
--------------
Moses' role as Kohen was alluded to at the time of the Burning Bush: 'The
wrath of G-d burned against Moses, and He said, 'Is there not Aaron your
brother, the Levite? ...' (Shemot 4:14) The Talmud (Zevarchim 102a)
explains that Moses was punished for arousing G-d's anger: 'I had intended
that kehunah (priesthood) would come forth from you. Now it will not be so,
rather he (Aaron) will be a Kohen and you will be a Levite. The Sages
stated that Moses only served as Kohen for the first seven days.'
The Talmud (Ta'anit 11b) asks, 'What did Moses wear for those seven days of
inauguration? Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosi stated, 'It is clear that Moses
wore a white robe when he was serving in the Tabernacle for those first
seven days'. How is it possible that the Torah describes the garments worn
by the Kohanim in such detail, without which we would have no way of
knowing how they should be dressed, yet it is 'clear' that Moses wore a
simple white robe?
The public face
---------------
Carl Gustav Jung held that we each have a persona which we use to show
ourselves and others who we are. However, a persona does not necessarily
give us an insight into persons themselves, rather it shows what they and
society expect of them. A persona is only a mask for the collective psyche,
a mask that feigns individuality, and tries to make others and oneself
believe that one is an individual, whereas one is simply playing a part in
which the collective psyche speaks'. (The Practice of Psychotherapy, C.W.
16 p.53)
Billy Joel describes how our public face sometimes hides our true selves.
'We all have a face that we hide away forever, and we take them out and
show ourselves when everyone is gone. Some are satin, some are steel, some
are silk and some are leather, they are the faces of the stranger but we
love to try them on' (The Stranger). Sometimes we create an image through
physical satin, silk and leather. Our clothing indicates who we are to
society which expects certain people to dress in a certain way. For example
an accountant is expected to wear a suit and tie but a plumber is not.
People 'dress for success', or 'dress to kill', to show that they belong to
a certain group, or to show that they do not belong to a particular
collective with its specific viewpoint. Hamlet stated that 'The apparel oft
proclaims the man' (Hamlet 1:3).
Insignia
--------
Clothing can give us a 'social face', but it also influences us and helps
us to define ourselves. We wear certain clothes to portray ourselves to
others, but that same clothing influences us, and sometimes also defines us
to ourselves. This is the reason behind Jewish religious garb. The Torah
tells us that the purpose of Tzitzit is 'that you may see it and remember
all the commandments of G-d, and perform them; and not explore after your
heart and after your eyes...' (Bemidbar 15:39). Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato
explains: 'There is a deeper concept included in this commandment. Man must
wear G-d's insignia, very much as a vassal wears the insignia of his
master. This is part of accepting G-d's yoke and subjugating oneself to
Him.' (Derech Hashem 4:6:6)
Dual Functions
--------------
The Talmud (Nedarim 35b) teaches that Kohanim have to serve a dual
function, as G-d's representatives to the nation, and as representatives of
the people to G-d. They had to inspire awe in the nation, as they
personified G-d's forgiveness of His people, and they had to be supplicants
before G-d on behalf of the Jewish people.'You shall make holy garments for
Aaron your brother, for honour and splendour.' (Shemot 28:2). The Rambam
explains that the clothes indicated the role of the Kohanim as showing
'honour' to G-d as servants of the people and showing the 'splendour' of
G-d to the nation. In order to enable the Kohanim to fulfil their dual
role, they needed garments which would atone for the nation, yet at the
same time show G-d's splendour to them.
Moshe Rabbeinu did not require the external trappings of exquisite clothing
in order to inspire awe in the nation or to remind him of his relationship
with G-d. His whole essence proclaimed those roles. Moses was both the
'Moses, the man of G-d' (Devarim 33:1), speaking for G-d to the nation, and
'Moses My servant' (ibid 34:5), faithfully serving as the representative of
the people. As he had no need for special clothing, he could wear the plain
white linen garb of the angel Gabriel, who appeared to Ezekiel as the man
clothed in linen' (Ezekiel 10:2).
Summary - Tzav
G-d instructs the Cohanim (priests), through Moshe, the laws concerning the sacrifices. They are commanded to remove the ashes each morning from those sacrifices that were left burning over night. They are also instructed to ensure that a fire is continually burning on the altar. They are told how to offer the flour offerings that are brought by the nation. They are also told what sacrifice a Cohen is to bring on the day he is appointed as Priest. That same flour offering is brought daily by the High Priest.
Explicit instructions are given for the procedures for sacrificing the sin offerings (Chataot), the guilt offerings (Ashamim) and the peace offerings (Shelamim)
The people of Israel are commanded not to eat the cheilev (certain pieces of fat) or blood from any animal. The Torah commands that certain pieces of the meat from the Shelamim are given to the Cohanim to eat.
The portion ends with the anointing of Aaron and his sons as Cohanim. Moshe acts as High Priest during their initiation ceremony. He must dress the Cohanim, anoint them, and offer sacrifices on their behalf. The Cohanim are instructed to stay in the Ohel Moed (Communion Tent) for seven days to complete their inauguration.
Explicit instructions are given for the procedures for sacrificing the sin offerings (Chataot), the guilt offerings (Ashamim) and the peace offerings (Shelamim)
The people of Israel are commanded not to eat the cheilev (certain pieces of fat) or blood from any animal. The Torah commands that certain pieces of the meat from the Shelamim are given to the Cohanim to eat.
The portion ends with the anointing of Aaron and his sons as Cohanim. Moshe acts as High Priest during their initiation ceremony. He must dress the Cohanim, anoint them, and offer sacrifices on their behalf. The Cohanim are instructed to stay in the Ohel Moed (Communion Tent) for seven days to complete their inauguration.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Vayikra 2
“When a person from you will bring a sacrifice” (1; 2)
The idea of sacrifices, their reasons and their purpose, seems on a surface level very difficult for us to grasp and understand. On the whole topic of sacrifices the Rambam gives an explanation in the third section of Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) in chapter 3. In summary he understands that the sacrificial rites were because it was difficult for the Israelites to abandon the customs of the surrounding nations which they had been living with for hundreds of years. These nations all offered all kinds of sacrifices to their gods, therefore G-d commanded us with ‘kosher’ sacrifices that would be acceptable to Him in order to wean us from them. This idea of the Rambam’s seems similar to an idea presented in the Talmud (Temura 27a): If there is a permitted way of doing something a person won’t choose to do it in a forbidden way. They would prefer the holy and proper way of doing it.
The Ramban in Parshat Bereishit (4; 3-4) attacks the Rambam. He writes: this will shut the mouth of those who are very confused about the purpose of sacrifices. By ‘confused’ he means this Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, sicne he was the first of the commentaries to speak about this issue in this way (apart from that hint in the Talmud). The reason that the Ramban objects to Rambam’s understanding is simple. In the times of Cain and Abel there were no other people in the world (apart from Adam and Eve), yet they offered sacrifices which were pleasing to G-d. Therefore the idea that sacrifices are a response to the idolatry of the nations doesn’t make sense.
Furthermore the Talmud in Shabbat (28b) says that Adam also brought a sacrifice when he was the only person in world.
Even though this appears to be a very strong attack, but in reality it is not a valid challenge at all. We will explain this shortly. Now we will just point out that this is not a claim against Rambam, since he wasn’t the one who invented this idea. Rather it is explicit in the Midrash Rabba on Acharei Mot on the verse “each man that will slaughter an animal” (17; 3):
Each person from the house of Israel who will slaughter an ox, sheep or goat within the camp, or outside the camp and not bring it to the Ohel Moed as a sacrifice in the Mishkan, it will be considered like murder for that person. Rabbi Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi Levi by way of analogy: this is like a prince who became very disgusting and would eat meat that was diseased or decaying. The king said, ‘if only he would eat at my royal table regularly he would become repulsed by those foods’. So too with Israel, who were desperate to chase after idols while they were in Egypt, and they used to offer sacrifices to the demons and other forbidden things. This led them to suffer all kinds of punishments. G-d said, ‘if only they would bring sacrifices to my Ohel Moed they would be separated from idolatry and be saved from punishment.
It couldn’t be more clear that the words of the Rambam are simply the ideas of this Midrash. It is unfortunate that the Rambam didn’t bring his source for this, which would have saved him from so much criticism and so many attacks.
The Midrash is similar to the words of the Mechilta (although there it is abbreviated) on the verse “Draw and take for yourselves a sheep and offer the Pesach sacrifice” (Shemot 12; 21). What does it mean ‘to draw’? Withdraw from your idolatry (i.e. from sacrificing to idols) and offer the Pesach sacrifice to G-d.
Even more than this, the basic idea of the Rambam is in the Torah itself in Parshat Acharei Mot. After it finishes discussing the obligation to bring sacrifices to the Ohel Moed it states: “You shall bring them there so that ou shall no longer offer sacrifices to the demons which you lust after”. What could be more explicit than that?
It is also clear from the Talmud (Temura) on the verse in Pinchas “Be careful to offer my sacrifice, my food” – to me and not to any other master. These few words contain the same deep and long idea of the Rambam.
Therefore it is unfortunate that the Ramban chose to use this idea as a stick with which to beat the Rambam. It is an idea which is explicit in the Torah, Talmud, Midrash and Mechilta. If he has a difficulty with this idea he should have tried to explain the text of the Chumash to answer his difficulty rather than dishonouring the Rambam.
Regarding the Ramban’s challenge from the sacrifices of Cain and Abel (and Adam) we have already said that it is ‘apparently’ a difficulty. The word ‘apparently’ was intentional because the truth is that there is no difficulty at all. The desire for idolatry was from the time of creation. We can perhaps explain the reason and basis for this desire. Originally the relationship between G-d and people was so close and apparent that it was almost like the relationship between two people. People would speak with G-d almost like with close friends and near acquaintances, like we find many times in the book of Bereishit, and like G-d spoke later with Moshe. The verse states “G-d spoke with Moshe face to face like a person speaks with his friend” (Ki Tissa). Because of this closeness they held the mistaken idea that it was possible to honour and give gifts to G-d through physical offerings. They thought that sacrifices was in some way giving glory to G-d.
After the later generations started worshipping idols they retained their earlier custom of offering sacrifices, and added many more kinds of sacrifices, details and rituals, as is normal when you have many people with false ideas. This concept reached Egypt and the Israelites became infected with this idea because of their intermingling with the Egyptians. They learnt from their hosts about sacrificing to idols and statues. Therefore now, in the desert, they were commanded to separate from them. Since it was difficult for them to separate from what had been their custom for centuries, therefore G-d gave them a way of transforming this idea into a holy one, as explained above.
G-d should forgive the Ramban for his attack on the Rambam.
The idea of sacrifices, their reasons and their purpose, seems on a surface level very difficult for us to grasp and understand. On the whole topic of sacrifices the Rambam gives an explanation in the third section of Moreh Nevuchim (Guide for the Perplexed) in chapter 3. In summary he understands that the sacrificial rites were because it was difficult for the Israelites to abandon the customs of the surrounding nations which they had been living with for hundreds of years. These nations all offered all kinds of sacrifices to their gods, therefore G-d commanded us with ‘kosher’ sacrifices that would be acceptable to Him in order to wean us from them. This idea of the Rambam’s seems similar to an idea presented in the Talmud (Temura 27a): If there is a permitted way of doing something a person won’t choose to do it in a forbidden way. They would prefer the holy and proper way of doing it.
The Ramban in Parshat Bereishit (4; 3-4) attacks the Rambam. He writes: this will shut the mouth of those who are very confused about the purpose of sacrifices. By ‘confused’ he means this Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, sicne he was the first of the commentaries to speak about this issue in this way (apart from that hint in the Talmud). The reason that the Ramban objects to Rambam’s understanding is simple. In the times of Cain and Abel there were no other people in the world (apart from Adam and Eve), yet they offered sacrifices which were pleasing to G-d. Therefore the idea that sacrifices are a response to the idolatry of the nations doesn’t make sense.
Furthermore the Talmud in Shabbat (28b) says that Adam also brought a sacrifice when he was the only person in world.
Even though this appears to be a very strong attack, but in reality it is not a valid challenge at all. We will explain this shortly. Now we will just point out that this is not a claim against Rambam, since he wasn’t the one who invented this idea. Rather it is explicit in the Midrash Rabba on Acharei Mot on the verse “each man that will slaughter an animal” (17; 3):
Each person from the house of Israel who will slaughter an ox, sheep or goat within the camp, or outside the camp and not bring it to the Ohel Moed as a sacrifice in the Mishkan, it will be considered like murder for that person. Rabbi Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi Levi by way of analogy: this is like a prince who became very disgusting and would eat meat that was diseased or decaying. The king said, ‘if only he would eat at my royal table regularly he would become repulsed by those foods’. So too with Israel, who were desperate to chase after idols while they were in Egypt, and they used to offer sacrifices to the demons and other forbidden things. This led them to suffer all kinds of punishments. G-d said, ‘if only they would bring sacrifices to my Ohel Moed they would be separated from idolatry and be saved from punishment.
It couldn’t be more clear that the words of the Rambam are simply the ideas of this Midrash. It is unfortunate that the Rambam didn’t bring his source for this, which would have saved him from so much criticism and so many attacks.
The Midrash is similar to the words of the Mechilta (although there it is abbreviated) on the verse “Draw and take for yourselves a sheep and offer the Pesach sacrifice” (Shemot 12; 21). What does it mean ‘to draw’? Withdraw from your idolatry (i.e. from sacrificing to idols) and offer the Pesach sacrifice to G-d.
Even more than this, the basic idea of the Rambam is in the Torah itself in Parshat Acharei Mot. After it finishes discussing the obligation to bring sacrifices to the Ohel Moed it states: “You shall bring them there so that ou shall no longer offer sacrifices to the demons which you lust after”. What could be more explicit than that?
It is also clear from the Talmud (Temura) on the verse in Pinchas “Be careful to offer my sacrifice, my food” – to me and not to any other master. These few words contain the same deep and long idea of the Rambam.
Therefore it is unfortunate that the Ramban chose to use this idea as a stick with which to beat the Rambam. It is an idea which is explicit in the Torah, Talmud, Midrash and Mechilta. If he has a difficulty with this idea he should have tried to explain the text of the Chumash to answer his difficulty rather than dishonouring the Rambam.
Regarding the Ramban’s challenge from the sacrifices of Cain and Abel (and Adam) we have already said that it is ‘apparently’ a difficulty. The word ‘apparently’ was intentional because the truth is that there is no difficulty at all. The desire for idolatry was from the time of creation. We can perhaps explain the reason and basis for this desire. Originally the relationship between G-d and people was so close and apparent that it was almost like the relationship between two people. People would speak with G-d almost like with close friends and near acquaintances, like we find many times in the book of Bereishit, and like G-d spoke later with Moshe. The verse states “G-d spoke with Moshe face to face like a person speaks with his friend” (Ki Tissa). Because of this closeness they held the mistaken idea that it was possible to honour and give gifts to G-d through physical offerings. They thought that sacrifices was in some way giving glory to G-d.
After the later generations started worshipping idols they retained their earlier custom of offering sacrifices, and added many more kinds of sacrifices, details and rituals, as is normal when you have many people with false ideas. This concept reached Egypt and the Israelites became infected with this idea because of their intermingling with the Egyptians. They learnt from their hosts about sacrificing to idols and statues. Therefore now, in the desert, they were commanded to separate from them. Since it was difficult for them to separate from what had been their custom for centuries, therefore G-d gave them a way of transforming this idea into a holy one, as explained above.
G-d should forgive the Ramban for his attack on the Rambam.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Vayikra
“He called (Vayikra) to Moshe” (1; 1)
The Ba’al HaTurim on this verse explains that the letter aleph of Vayikra is small so that it will look like the word vayikar (happened). Moshe wanted to have the language of happenstance which shows that G-d just came incidentally to the prophet, like it says regarding Bilam (Bamidbar 23; 4) “G-d happened (vayikar) upon Bilam”. Therefore Moshe asked G-d to write a small aleph in the Torah.
This is a very difficult comment of the Ba’al HaTurim. We find many times that the word Vayikra is used regarding Moshe. For example in Yitro (Shemot 19; 3), Mishpatim (Shemot 24; 16). In addition, why would Moshe want to be similar to Bilam in this regard? Especially as the Sages learn the word vayikar to imply many disgusting things – look at Rashi there, and the Zohar parshat Balak page 210b.
However we can explain the hint of the small aleph according to a comment of the Shach on Yoreh Deah 245; 8 in the name of the Kol Bo. He writes in the name of ‘the Rabbis said’ that we begin teaching children from Vayikra, because G-d has said, let the pure children come and learn the section that deals with purity. Perhaps it is to this that the small aleph alludes (to the small children learning (aleph means to learn).
The Shach and the Kol Bo didn’t bring the source for this custom. We should point out where it comes from. It says in the Midrash Tanchuma on parshat Tzav (14): Rabbi Asia said, why do the children begin learning from Vayikra? Because all the sacrifices are written in it. Since they are pure and don’t know the taste of sin, therefore G-d said that they should begin learning the section that deals with sacrifices. Let the pure ones come and involve themselves with the process of purification (through sacrifices) and I will consider it as if they were standing and offering the sacrifices before Me. This teaches you that since the destruction of the Temple when we have no more sacrifices (which keep the world in existence), if it were not for the children learning the parshiot of sacrifices the world would not be able to exist.
It is therefore correct that the Shach brought this statement in the name of the Kol Bo in the name of ‘the Rabbis said’, since it is in fact from Rabbi Tanchuma the author of that Midrash. He was one of the great Amoraim mentioned many times in both the Yerushalmi and the Midrash Rabba.
Look also regarding this at the Zohar on parshat Vayechi (234b) and on parshat Tzav (239a) on the verse “This is the Torah of the Olah, the Mincha and the Chatat” (7; 37).
Regarding this custom of beginning to teach the children from Vayikra the Shach writes that this is still the custom today (and he lived t the beginning of the 17th century). However, nowadays, we have lost this custom, along with so many of the ancient and beautiful customs of earlier generations, and they shall never be heard of or seen again.
The Ba’al HaTurim on this verse explains that the letter aleph of Vayikra is small so that it will look like the word vayikar (happened). Moshe wanted to have the language of happenstance which shows that G-d just came incidentally to the prophet, like it says regarding Bilam (Bamidbar 23; 4) “G-d happened (vayikar) upon Bilam”. Therefore Moshe asked G-d to write a small aleph in the Torah.
This is a very difficult comment of the Ba’al HaTurim. We find many times that the word Vayikra is used regarding Moshe. For example in Yitro (Shemot 19; 3), Mishpatim (Shemot 24; 16). In addition, why would Moshe want to be similar to Bilam in this regard? Especially as the Sages learn the word vayikar to imply many disgusting things – look at Rashi there, and the Zohar parshat Balak page 210b.
However we can explain the hint of the small aleph according to a comment of the Shach on Yoreh Deah 245; 8 in the name of the Kol Bo. He writes in the name of ‘the Rabbis said’ that we begin teaching children from Vayikra, because G-d has said, let the pure children come and learn the section that deals with purity. Perhaps it is to this that the small aleph alludes (to the small children learning (aleph means to learn).
The Shach and the Kol Bo didn’t bring the source for this custom. We should point out where it comes from. It says in the Midrash Tanchuma on parshat Tzav (14): Rabbi Asia said, why do the children begin learning from Vayikra? Because all the sacrifices are written in it. Since they are pure and don’t know the taste of sin, therefore G-d said that they should begin learning the section that deals with sacrifices. Let the pure ones come and involve themselves with the process of purification (through sacrifices) and I will consider it as if they were standing and offering the sacrifices before Me. This teaches you that since the destruction of the Temple when we have no more sacrifices (which keep the world in existence), if it were not for the children learning the parshiot of sacrifices the world would not be able to exist.
It is therefore correct that the Shach brought this statement in the name of the Kol Bo in the name of ‘the Rabbis said’, since it is in fact from Rabbi Tanchuma the author of that Midrash. He was one of the great Amoraim mentioned many times in both the Yerushalmi and the Midrash Rabba.
Look also regarding this at the Zohar on parshat Vayechi (234b) and on parshat Tzav (239a) on the verse “This is the Torah of the Olah, the Mincha and the Chatat” (7; 37).
Regarding this custom of beginning to teach the children from Vayikra the Shach writes that this is still the custom today (and he lived t the beginning of the 17th century). However, nowadays, we have lost this custom, along with so many of the ancient and beautiful customs of earlier generations, and they shall never be heard of or seen again.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Parshat Vayikra
Preparing for Greatness
This week we begin a new book of the Chumash, Vayikra. The book is predominantly about the sacrificial rites of the Temple and Tabernacle so the English name seems more appropriate than the Hebrew. Leviticus indicates that the book deals with the work of the Levites (priests). How is the Hebrew name of Vayikra apt for this section?
The book begins, "He called (Vayikra) to Moshe, and G-d spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying...". Rashi's opening comment on this portion is: Each time G-d spoke to Moshe, told him something, or commanded him, He first called to him. This is a word denoting love and closeness, as we find with the ministering angels, "They call one to another..." (Isaiah 6; 3). However, when G-d speaks to non-Jewish prophets He appears to them 'incidentally', as the Torah states, "The L-rd happened (Vayikar) upon Bilam".
Since G-d called first to Moshe before every prophecy, why did Rashi not make this comment until now? And what difference does it make if G-d calls first before speaking to a prophet, or just appears to them? We would have expected the message of the prophecy to be important, but not necessarily whether G-d first gives the prophet a warning or not. Ohr Gedaliyahu (on Vayikra) explains that when G-d called to Moshe it was as if He was saying 'Prepare yourself to come near to Me'. This is what Rashi means by calling Vayikra a term of closeness, that it gave Moshe an opportunity to prepare himself and draw near to G-d. The Midrash (Rabba, Devarim Ki Tavo 7-9) finds a hint to this from the way G-d gave the Torah to Moshe. The verse states "G-d called to Moshe to the top of the mountain - and Moshe elevated himself" (Exodus 19; 20). In a similar vein, when a man comes up to read from the Torah, he must first be 'called up'.
We see therefore that through calling G-d gives a person an opportunity to prepare themselves to come close to G-d. In this way the Torah that they will receive will not be merely tangential to them, but they will be able to absorb it, to make it part of themselves. This is the opposite of what happened with Bilam. G-d came to him 'incidentally', without calling to him first. Though Bilam received a message through prophecy, we see that this fact had no effect on Bilam's personal conduct. He still remained greedy, cunning, and steadfast in his hatred of the Jews.
We see this idea in the main topic of Vayikra which is sacrifices. The Hebrew word for sacrifice is Korban, which comes from the root Karov, meaning closeness. Though the whole concept of sacrifices, and the mechanism through which it works seems very strange and foreign to us now, we can accept the principle that bringing an animal to the Temple is a symbol of giving something to G-d. Particularly nowadays, that prayer has replaced sacrifices, we understand that this gives us a chance to give of ourselves to G-d, and through this draw close to Him.
We believe that G-d lacks nothing, and since He created us we would not have expected that there is anything that we could possibly give to him. However, Rabbi Dessler (Michtav Me'Eliyahu - Kuntrus HaChessed) writes that the only way to truly come to love someone is through giving to them (which is perhaps the opposite of the way we normally view things). If we were not given any opportunity to give to G-d we would also not be able to come to love Him. Therefore in His kindness He commanded us to bring certain sacrifices, and nowadays prayers in their place, to offer to Him. In this way we can elevate ourselves, and come to love G-d. With this understanding we see that the commands about the sacrifices are analogous to G-d's calling before revealing Himself to a prophet. It gives the opportunity to turn G-d's unilateral love into a relationship, and enables humans to attach themselves to G-d.
This week we begin a new book of the Chumash, Vayikra. The book is predominantly about the sacrificial rites of the Temple and Tabernacle so the English name seems more appropriate than the Hebrew. Leviticus indicates that the book deals with the work of the Levites (priests). How is the Hebrew name of Vayikra apt for this section?
The book begins, "He called (Vayikra) to Moshe, and G-d spoke to him from the tent of meeting, saying...". Rashi's opening comment on this portion is: Each time G-d spoke to Moshe, told him something, or commanded him, He first called to him. This is a word denoting love and closeness, as we find with the ministering angels, "They call one to another..." (Isaiah 6; 3). However, when G-d speaks to non-Jewish prophets He appears to them 'incidentally', as the Torah states, "The L-rd happened (Vayikar) upon Bilam".
Since G-d called first to Moshe before every prophecy, why did Rashi not make this comment until now? And what difference does it make if G-d calls first before speaking to a prophet, or just appears to them? We would have expected the message of the prophecy to be important, but not necessarily whether G-d first gives the prophet a warning or not. Ohr Gedaliyahu (on Vayikra) explains that when G-d called to Moshe it was as if He was saying 'Prepare yourself to come near to Me'. This is what Rashi means by calling Vayikra a term of closeness, that it gave Moshe an opportunity to prepare himself and draw near to G-d. The Midrash (Rabba, Devarim Ki Tavo 7-9) finds a hint to this from the way G-d gave the Torah to Moshe. The verse states "G-d called to Moshe to the top of the mountain - and Moshe elevated himself" (Exodus 19; 20). In a similar vein, when a man comes up to read from the Torah, he must first be 'called up'.
We see therefore that through calling G-d gives a person an opportunity to prepare themselves to come close to G-d. In this way the Torah that they will receive will not be merely tangential to them, but they will be able to absorb it, to make it part of themselves. This is the opposite of what happened with Bilam. G-d came to him 'incidentally', without calling to him first. Though Bilam received a message through prophecy, we see that this fact had no effect on Bilam's personal conduct. He still remained greedy, cunning, and steadfast in his hatred of the Jews.
We see this idea in the main topic of Vayikra which is sacrifices. The Hebrew word for sacrifice is Korban, which comes from the root Karov, meaning closeness. Though the whole concept of sacrifices, and the mechanism through which it works seems very strange and foreign to us now, we can accept the principle that bringing an animal to the Temple is a symbol of giving something to G-d. Particularly nowadays, that prayer has replaced sacrifices, we understand that this gives us a chance to give of ourselves to G-d, and through this draw close to Him.
We believe that G-d lacks nothing, and since He created us we would not have expected that there is anything that we could possibly give to him. However, Rabbi Dessler (Michtav Me'Eliyahu - Kuntrus HaChessed) writes that the only way to truly come to love someone is through giving to them (which is perhaps the opposite of the way we normally view things). If we were not given any opportunity to give to G-d we would also not be able to come to love Him. Therefore in His kindness He commanded us to bring certain sacrifices, and nowadays prayers in their place, to offer to Him. In this way we can elevate ourselves, and come to love G-d. With this understanding we see that the commands about the sacrifices are analogous to G-d's calling before revealing Himself to a prophet. It gives the opportunity to turn G-d's unilateral love into a relationship, and enables humans to attach themselves to G-d.
Summary - Vayikra
The book of Vayikra (literally ‘He called’, known as Leviticus in English), is primarily concerned with the Cohanim (Priests) and the Mishkan (Tabernacle). In this week's portion, G-d instructs Moshe to tell the people about korbanot (sacrifices). The different types of korbanot are listed and explained. The first group of korbanot mentioned are the olot (singular olah), or burnt offerings. The type of korban that one brings depends on one's wealth, either an animal, a dove, or a meal offering. After being slaughtered and prepared, each of these is completely burnt on the altar.
Another type of korban is that of the first grain, bikurim. This is to be brought as soon as the grains have ripened on the stalk. A shlamim (peace offering) is a voluntary sacrifice of either a cow, a sheep or a goat. After it has been slaughtered, parts of it are burnt on the altar, and the meat is eaten by the person who brought it. The next group of korbanot are the chatot (sin offering, singular chatat) which were brought after inadvertently committing certain sins. The Torah lists different types of chatat which would be brought by the Cohen Gadol (High Priest), the entire community, a Prince of a tribe, or a regular person.
Another korban is the guilt offering, asham,which includes the korban oleh v’yored (varying sacrifice). It is brought if a person who has witnessed an event refuses to testify. It is also brought if a person makes a verbal oath and forgets about it, or if someone becomes tamei (impure) and enters the Temple. A fixed asham is brought if a person accidentally derives benefit from something dedicated to the Temple. It is also brought when someone is unsure whether they transgressed certain prohibitions for which they should bring a chatat, or if he takes a false oath, denying possession of a deposit or a found object.
Another type of korban is that of the first grain, bikurim. This is to be brought as soon as the grains have ripened on the stalk. A shlamim (peace offering) is a voluntary sacrifice of either a cow, a sheep or a goat. After it has been slaughtered, parts of it are burnt on the altar, and the meat is eaten by the person who brought it. The next group of korbanot are the chatot (sin offering, singular chatat) which were brought after inadvertently committing certain sins. The Torah lists different types of chatat which would be brought by the Cohen Gadol (High Priest), the entire community, a Prince of a tribe, or a regular person.
Another korban is the guilt offering, asham,which includes the korban oleh v’yored (varying sacrifice). It is brought if a person who has witnessed an event refuses to testify. It is also brought if a person makes a verbal oath and forgets about it, or if someone becomes tamei (impure) and enters the Temple. A fixed asham is brought if a person accidentally derives benefit from something dedicated to the Temple. It is also brought when someone is unsure whether they transgressed certain prohibitions for which they should bring a chatat, or if he takes a false oath, denying possession of a deposit or a found object.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Pekudei
“Moshe blessed them…” (39; 43)
Rashi explains that the blessing was ‘May it be G-d’s will that He rest His Shechina (presence) in your handiwork’ (in other words in this Mishkan that you have made).
Why did they need this bracha? G-d had already promised them “Make for Me a Mikdash, and I will dwell in your midst” (Terumah 25; 8). Based on this promise the people should have been sure that the Shechina would rest in the Mishkan even without Moshe’s bracha.
Perhaps we can explain based on the Yalkut (Midrash) on Melachim (I 6; 7) on the verse “the House (Temple) when it was built…”. This teaches that a large portion of the work was done miraculously by the shamir worm (which would cut through solid materials by crawling over them). Many of the stones and gems were cut to size using this shamir worm, and they would miraculously be cut to exactly the right dimensions. This is the meaning of ‘when it was built’, by itself. This miracle showed G-d’s close connection to the building of the Temple.
In the construction of the Mishkan there were no public miracles like this. All fo the cutting of materials had to be done by the people themselves. Moshe was concerned that perhaps the fact that G-d did not provide miracles for the construction showed that He was not completely happy with what they had done. Therefore Moshe was concerned that perhaps the Shechina would not dwell there, in the construction that they had made themselves.
Alternatively, we could explain based on the wording of the bracha, ‘the Shechina should rest in your handiwork’. Perhaps it is not referring to the totality of the Mishkan, but rather to each individual part of its construction. He blessed them that everything that they did should be done with blessing. This is similar to the phrase we say in the ‘Mi Sheberach’ – ‘G-d should send blessing on all the works of your hands’. The phrase ‘cause His Shechina to dwell’ sometimes applies to success, like we find in the Gemara (Shabbat 56a) on the vese “David behaved himself wisely in all his ways and G-d was with him” (Shmuel I 18; 14) – this means that the Shechina was with him, and everything that he did would turn out for the best. Perhaps this is what Rashi means also, when he uses the language of ‘blessing’ to describe Moshe’s prayer.
Rashi explains that the blessing was ‘May it be G-d’s will that He rest His Shechina (presence) in your handiwork’ (in other words in this Mishkan that you have made).
Why did they need this bracha? G-d had already promised them “Make for Me a Mikdash, and I will dwell in your midst” (Terumah 25; 8). Based on this promise the people should have been sure that the Shechina would rest in the Mishkan even without Moshe’s bracha.
Perhaps we can explain based on the Yalkut (Midrash) on Melachim (I 6; 7) on the verse “the House (Temple) when it was built…”. This teaches that a large portion of the work was done miraculously by the shamir worm (which would cut through solid materials by crawling over them). Many of the stones and gems were cut to size using this shamir worm, and they would miraculously be cut to exactly the right dimensions. This is the meaning of ‘when it was built’, by itself. This miracle showed G-d’s close connection to the building of the Temple.
In the construction of the Mishkan there were no public miracles like this. All fo the cutting of materials had to be done by the people themselves. Moshe was concerned that perhaps the fact that G-d did not provide miracles for the construction showed that He was not completely happy with what they had done. Therefore Moshe was concerned that perhaps the Shechina would not dwell there, in the construction that they had made themselves.
Alternatively, we could explain based on the wording of the bracha, ‘the Shechina should rest in your handiwork’. Perhaps it is not referring to the totality of the Mishkan, but rather to each individual part of its construction. He blessed them that everything that they did should be done with blessing. This is similar to the phrase we say in the ‘Mi Sheberach’ – ‘G-d should send blessing on all the works of your hands’. The phrase ‘cause His Shechina to dwell’ sometimes applies to success, like we find in the Gemara (Shabbat 56a) on the vese “David behaved himself wisely in all his ways and G-d was with him” (Shmuel I 18; 14) – this means that the Shechina was with him, and everything that he did would turn out for the best. Perhaps this is what Rashi means also, when he uses the language of ‘blessing’ to describe Moshe’s prayer.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Relevant Parsha
As I was browsing the web I found htis very interesting parsha blog. Have a look and let me know what you think (I hae no connection with it, just thought it looked good)
The Relevant Parsha
The Relevant Parsha
Monday, March 12, 2007
Parshat Vayakhel
Selflessness, Prayer and Mishkan
The Ba'al HaTurim (commentary on Exodus 40; 33) points out the seemingly redundant repetition of the phrase, "As G-d commanded Moshe" after each item for the Mishkan was constructed. He explains that as a reward for Moshe's pleading for the Jews after the sin of the Golden Calf, when he said, "Please erase me from your book", G-d constantly repeats Moshe's name in this portion. The Ba'al HaTurim notes further that the phrase "As G-d commanded Moshe" appears eighteen times in this portion, corresponding to the eighteen blessings of the weekday Amida. The phrase, "As G-d commanded, so they did" appears once, and corresponds to the additional nineteenth blessing against heretics. How are these three ideas - Moshe's pleading, the Amida, and the construction of the Mishkan - related?
The Talmud (Berachot 28b) asks what the eighteen blessings of the Amida correspond to. Several answers are given: Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Shmuel says they correspond to the eighteen times G-d's name is mentioned in Havu LaShem B'nei Eilim (Psalm 29), Rav Yosef says that they are in place of the eighteen times G-d's name is mentioned in the Shema and Rav Tanchum says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that they correspond to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine.
It seems understandable to relate the blessings of the Amida to mentions of G-d's name, since the purpose of prayer is to create a connection with G-d. However, what is the connection between the Amida and the spine? The Talmud hints at the answer to this with another statement of Rav Tanchum in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that one should bow during the Amida to the extent that the vertebrae stick out. For Rav Tanchum it seems that the essence of the Amida is subjugation to G-d's will, evidenced through bowing. Elsewhere (Bava Kamma 16a) the Talmud states that a person's spine transforms into a snake after seven years if they do not bow during Modim. We understand the metaphor of the Talmud, if a person refuses to show humility before G-d, and does not bow in thanksgiving, they come to resemble the snake of the Garden of Eden, who also rebelled against its Creator.
This self-nullification in the presence of G-d is what Moshe did on Mount Sinai. After the sin of the Calf, Moshe was prepared to sacrifice himself in order to save the nation. The Rashbam (commentary on ibid. 32; 32) explains that "Erase me from Your book" refers to the book of life. Moshe was prepared to give up his role in this world and the next in order to save the nation. This is the ultimate in subjugation and humility. Moshe felt that he did not deserve any merit in his own right, but that his only value was as the leader of the people. Therefore if they were to be wiped out, he would forfeit his share of both worlds.
The construction of the Mishkan involved months of skilled and difficult work. Though everyone brought donations for the Mishkan, only a few people had the requisite skills to fashion the materials according to the Divine blueprints. Eventually, when Moshe assembled everything and the nation saw the beauty of the structure, with its gold, silver and precious gems, along with colourful woven tapestries, it would have been natural for those involved in the construction to take a certain satisfaction and pride in their work. However, this would have negated everything that the Mishkan represented. How can a human being using their body, which is a gift from G-d, to fashion the materials which were created by G-d, according to a plan given by G-d, take any personal pride in their accomplishments? This is similar to the statement of Pirkei Avos (2; 9), "If you have learnt much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself, since you were created for this very purpose".
Therefore the Torah repeats the phrase, "As G-d commanded Moshe" eighteen times, to show that the Mishkan was constructed with the same selflessness which Moshe embodied. The only purpose was to fulfill the will of G-d. Similarly, in prayer, we should strive for this commitment to serving G-d. We do not make requests of G-d for our own pleasure, but so that we will be better able to perform the will of our Creator.
The Ba'al HaTurim (commentary on Exodus 40; 33) points out the seemingly redundant repetition of the phrase, "As G-d commanded Moshe" after each item for the Mishkan was constructed. He explains that as a reward for Moshe's pleading for the Jews after the sin of the Golden Calf, when he said, "Please erase me from your book", G-d constantly repeats Moshe's name in this portion. The Ba'al HaTurim notes further that the phrase "As G-d commanded Moshe" appears eighteen times in this portion, corresponding to the eighteen blessings of the weekday Amida. The phrase, "As G-d commanded, so they did" appears once, and corresponds to the additional nineteenth blessing against heretics. How are these three ideas - Moshe's pleading, the Amida, and the construction of the Mishkan - related?
The Talmud (Berachot 28b) asks what the eighteen blessings of the Amida correspond to. Several answers are given: Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Shmuel says they correspond to the eighteen times G-d's name is mentioned in Havu LaShem B'nei Eilim (Psalm 29), Rav Yosef says that they are in place of the eighteen times G-d's name is mentioned in the Shema and Rav Tanchum says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that they correspond to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine.
It seems understandable to relate the blessings of the Amida to mentions of G-d's name, since the purpose of prayer is to create a connection with G-d. However, what is the connection between the Amida and the spine? The Talmud hints at the answer to this with another statement of Rav Tanchum in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that one should bow during the Amida to the extent that the vertebrae stick out. For Rav Tanchum it seems that the essence of the Amida is subjugation to G-d's will, evidenced through bowing. Elsewhere (Bava Kamma 16a) the Talmud states that a person's spine transforms into a snake after seven years if they do not bow during Modim. We understand the metaphor of the Talmud, if a person refuses to show humility before G-d, and does not bow in thanksgiving, they come to resemble the snake of the Garden of Eden, who also rebelled against its Creator.
This self-nullification in the presence of G-d is what Moshe did on Mount Sinai. After the sin of the Calf, Moshe was prepared to sacrifice himself in order to save the nation. The Rashbam (commentary on ibid. 32; 32) explains that "Erase me from Your book" refers to the book of life. Moshe was prepared to give up his role in this world and the next in order to save the nation. This is the ultimate in subjugation and humility. Moshe felt that he did not deserve any merit in his own right, but that his only value was as the leader of the people. Therefore if they were to be wiped out, he would forfeit his share of both worlds.
The construction of the Mishkan involved months of skilled and difficult work. Though everyone brought donations for the Mishkan, only a few people had the requisite skills to fashion the materials according to the Divine blueprints. Eventually, when Moshe assembled everything and the nation saw the beauty of the structure, with its gold, silver and precious gems, along with colourful woven tapestries, it would have been natural for those involved in the construction to take a certain satisfaction and pride in their work. However, this would have negated everything that the Mishkan represented. How can a human being using their body, which is a gift from G-d, to fashion the materials which were created by G-d, according to a plan given by G-d, take any personal pride in their accomplishments? This is similar to the statement of Pirkei Avos (2; 9), "If you have learnt much Torah, do not claim credit for yourself, since you were created for this very purpose".
Therefore the Torah repeats the phrase, "As G-d commanded Moshe" eighteen times, to show that the Mishkan was constructed with the same selflessness which Moshe embodied. The only purpose was to fulfill the will of G-d. Similarly, in prayer, we should strive for this commitment to serving G-d. We do not make requests of G-d for our own pleasure, but so that we will be better able to perform the will of our Creator.
Summary - Vayakhel/Pekudei
Vayakhel
Moshe assembles the Children of Israel, reviews with them the laws of Shabbat, then instructs them in the building of the Tabernacle. Each person brings whatever their heart motivates them to bring. The women bring precious jewels and spun wool and linen. The men bring silver, copper, wood and cloth. The princes of each tribe bring the stones for the High Priest's breastplate and shoulder pads, and spices and oil.
Betzalel is designated by G-d as master craftsman and Oholiav as his assistant. Moshe summons them, and others with the wisdom and insight to build G-d's Sanctuary. The people continue to bring gifts every day, until they have more than enough materials. Moshe commands the people to stop bringing gifts.
The Torah lists the items made for the Tabernacle, starting with the curtains, the cover, the planks, the partitions and the screen. They the vessels; the Ark, the Cover, the Table, and the Menorah. The two altars - the Incense Altar out of gold and the Burnt Offering Altar from copper. A special copper wash basin is constructed for the Cohanim to wash their hands and feet. Lastly, the courtyard is made by surrounding the area with lace hangings with an embroidered screen at the entrance.
Pekudei
Pikudei begins with the accountings (pikudim) of the materials for the Tabernacle. It lists which materials, and how much of them, were used. It also explains how the priestly garments are made: the ephod, the breastplate, the robe, the headplate, the tunics, the turban, the breeches, the hats and the belt.
The Tabernacle is completed and brought to Moshe. He sees that all the work has been done as G-d commanded, and blesses the workers. G-d gives Moshe instructions how to erect the Tabernacle. On the first of Nissan, in the second year after leaving Egypt, the Tabernacle is erected by Moshe.
After Moshe has placed all the items in the Tabernacle as commanded by G-d, the Cloud of Glory comes to rest upon it. When the Jews are encamped, the cloud remains there by day, and becomes a pillar of fire by night. When the cloud rises from the Tabernacle, it is a sign for the Children of Israel to continue their travels.
Moshe assembles the Children of Israel, reviews with them the laws of Shabbat, then instructs them in the building of the Tabernacle. Each person brings whatever their heart motivates them to bring. The women bring precious jewels and spun wool and linen. The men bring silver, copper, wood and cloth. The princes of each tribe bring the stones for the High Priest's breastplate and shoulder pads, and spices and oil.
Betzalel is designated by G-d as master craftsman and Oholiav as his assistant. Moshe summons them, and others with the wisdom and insight to build G-d's Sanctuary. The people continue to bring gifts every day, until they have more than enough materials. Moshe commands the people to stop bringing gifts.
The Torah lists the items made for the Tabernacle, starting with the curtains, the cover, the planks, the partitions and the screen. They the vessels; the Ark, the Cover, the Table, and the Menorah. The two altars - the Incense Altar out of gold and the Burnt Offering Altar from copper. A special copper wash basin is constructed for the Cohanim to wash their hands and feet. Lastly, the courtyard is made by surrounding the area with lace hangings with an embroidered screen at the entrance.
Pekudei
Pikudei begins with the accountings (pikudim) of the materials for the Tabernacle. It lists which materials, and how much of them, were used. It also explains how the priestly garments are made: the ephod, the breastplate, the robe, the headplate, the tunics, the turban, the breeches, the hats and the belt.
The Tabernacle is completed and brought to Moshe. He sees that all the work has been done as G-d commanded, and blesses the workers. G-d gives Moshe instructions how to erect the Tabernacle. On the first of Nissan, in the second year after leaving Egypt, the Tabernacle is erected by Moshe.
After Moshe has placed all the items in the Tabernacle as commanded by G-d, the Cloud of Glory comes to rest upon it. When the Jews are encamped, the cloud remains there by day, and becomes a pillar of fire by night. When the cloud rises from the Tabernacle, it is a sign for the Children of Israel to continue their travels.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Ki Tissa 2
“Aharon called and said ‘tomorrow is a festival for G-d’” (32; 8)
Rashi tries to figure out what Aharon means by this – which festival is he referring to? It seems to me based on the end of Talmud Ta’anit (30b): There was no happier day for Israel than the day that the tablets were given.
Aharon was certain that the next day Moshe would arrive and bring the tablets, and there would be a festival.
We must also examine how this statement fits with another statement that says: There was no happier day for Israel than Yom Kippur (Ta’anit 26b). They can’t both be the happiest day. Perhaps we can explain that the happiness of Yom Kippur was purely physical. It was the day that the women would go out to the fields and the men would seek a spouse. The day that the tablets were given was purely spiritual. Therefore they could each be the happiest day in their own realm. Alternatively, we could answer based on the Midrash Rabba that it was on Yom Kippur that Moshe descended the mountain for the final time with the second set of tablets. In that case there would be no contradiction between the two sources.
“Let me know Your ways” (33; 13)
The Talmud (Brachot 7a) says that this was Moshe’s request to know the ways of G-d. ‘Why are there righteous who suffer and wicked who prosper?’ The Talmud there gives many different explanations.
I am amazed. It seems that there is a very simple and basic answer to this question. The Talmud in Nida (16b) says that before the creation of a child they announce in Heaven all the aspects of his life. Whether he will be strong or weak, wise or foolish, rich or poor. The only thing that is not decided before birth is whether he will be righteous or wicked, since this depends on a person’s free choice. This is the one area where G-d gives a person free will, to decide how they will relate to Him. ‘Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven’.
It turns out therefore that if a person’s lot is to be poor, and he decides by himself to become righteous, this would be a case of ‘righteous who suffer’. Conversely if it is decreed that a person will be rich, yet they decide to be wicked, we would view this as the ‘wicked who prosper’. This is obvious and simple. Perhaps Moshe was asking a more complicated question (which would explain why the Talmud doesn’t give this answer).
Rashi tries to figure out what Aharon means by this – which festival is he referring to? It seems to me based on the end of Talmud Ta’anit (30b): There was no happier day for Israel than the day that the tablets were given.
Aharon was certain that the next day Moshe would arrive and bring the tablets, and there would be a festival.
We must also examine how this statement fits with another statement that says: There was no happier day for Israel than Yom Kippur (Ta’anit 26b). They can’t both be the happiest day. Perhaps we can explain that the happiness of Yom Kippur was purely physical. It was the day that the women would go out to the fields and the men would seek a spouse. The day that the tablets were given was purely spiritual. Therefore they could each be the happiest day in their own realm. Alternatively, we could answer based on the Midrash Rabba that it was on Yom Kippur that Moshe descended the mountain for the final time with the second set of tablets. In that case there would be no contradiction between the two sources.
“Let me know Your ways” (33; 13)
The Talmud (Brachot 7a) says that this was Moshe’s request to know the ways of G-d. ‘Why are there righteous who suffer and wicked who prosper?’ The Talmud there gives many different explanations.
I am amazed. It seems that there is a very simple and basic answer to this question. The Talmud in Nida (16b) says that before the creation of a child they announce in Heaven all the aspects of his life. Whether he will be strong or weak, wise or foolish, rich or poor. The only thing that is not decided before birth is whether he will be righteous or wicked, since this depends on a person’s free choice. This is the one area where G-d gives a person free will, to decide how they will relate to Him. ‘Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven’.
It turns out therefore that if a person’s lot is to be poor, and he decides by himself to become righteous, this would be a case of ‘righteous who suffer’. Conversely if it is decreed that a person will be rich, yet they decide to be wicked, we would view this as the ‘wicked who prosper’. This is obvious and simple. Perhaps Moshe was asking a more complicated question (which would explain why the Talmud doesn’t give this answer).
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Tosefet Bracha - Ki Tissa 1
“They said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt’” (32; 4)
According to the simple reading of the story, they should have said ‘this is our god who brought us out’. It should have used the first person plural, rather than the third person, and the description of the calf should have been in the singular (this is your god). For comparison (l’havdil bein kodesh l’chol) when they saw G-d at the crossing of the sea they said ‘This is my G-d’.
But we can explain based on the Midrash that it was the Erev Rav (mixed multitude) who built the calf. These were people from other nations who left Egypt with Israel, as it says in Parshat Bo (12; 38) “Also Erev Rav went up with them”. Rashi explains there that it was a mixture of many different nations who ‘converted’ and left with the Israelites. We will explain in Parshat Netzavim (on the verse “From your wood choppers to your water drawers”) that they fooled Moshe into thinking that they were sincere in their conversion. However they only converted in outward appearance, but not with their hearts.
They wanted to cause the Israelites to sin with the golden calf, as Rashi explains earlier (verse 7) “your nation has sinned”, that it refers to the Erev Rav. The Zohar also explains on an earlier verse (verse 1) “The people saw that Moshe tarried on the mountain” – who was this people? It was the Erev Rav. Rashi also explains in parshat Beha’alotecha on the verse “The people were complaining” (11; 1) – the word ‘people’ always means wicked people. Similarly in the Midrash Raba (Balak 20): Everywhere that it says ‘the people’ it always speaks derogatorily. We find many references to ‘the people’ when it talks about sin. For example in Isaiah (49; 1) “The people who go in darkness”, or in Yeremiah (8; 5) “Why is this people so wild?”
Once they succeeded in their plan to build an idol and they managed to persuade some of the Israelites to join with them, they weren’t satisfied, and tried to honour the idol in front of the rest of the Israelites. They said to the Israelites “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt”. They used the plural language for ‘gods’ and ‘brought’ as a sign of respect, for in Biblical Hebrew we find that plural language is a honorific way of speaking. For example it says “Let us make man” (Bereishit 1; 26), “Let us descend” (ibid. 11; 7) etc.
The Erev Rav intended to honour the calf and make it great so that the sin and punishment of the Israelites would increase. ‘To push the rock after the fallen’ to quote the Talmud in Erechin (30b).
This explains why Nechemia changed the language. When he repeats all of Jewish history to the people who returned from Bavel he uses the singular “They also made for themselves a graven calf, and they said ‘this is your god who brought you out of the land of Egypt’.” (Nechemiah 9; 18). He changed from the plural to the singular to show that the Erev Rav had intended to give honour to the calf with their usage of the plural, and he did not wish to give it any honour at all.
According to the simple reading of the story, they should have said ‘this is our god who brought us out’. It should have used the first person plural, rather than the third person, and the description of the calf should have been in the singular (this is your god). For comparison (l’havdil bein kodesh l’chol) when they saw G-d at the crossing of the sea they said ‘This is my G-d’.
But we can explain based on the Midrash that it was the Erev Rav (mixed multitude) who built the calf. These were people from other nations who left Egypt with Israel, as it says in Parshat Bo (12; 38) “Also Erev Rav went up with them”. Rashi explains there that it was a mixture of many different nations who ‘converted’ and left with the Israelites. We will explain in Parshat Netzavim (on the verse “From your wood choppers to your water drawers”) that they fooled Moshe into thinking that they were sincere in their conversion. However they only converted in outward appearance, but not with their hearts.
They wanted to cause the Israelites to sin with the golden calf, as Rashi explains earlier (verse 7) “your nation has sinned”, that it refers to the Erev Rav. The Zohar also explains on an earlier verse (verse 1) “The people saw that Moshe tarried on the mountain” – who was this people? It was the Erev Rav. Rashi also explains in parshat Beha’alotecha on the verse “The people were complaining” (11; 1) – the word ‘people’ always means wicked people. Similarly in the Midrash Raba (Balak 20): Everywhere that it says ‘the people’ it always speaks derogatorily. We find many references to ‘the people’ when it talks about sin. For example in Isaiah (49; 1) “The people who go in darkness”, or in Yeremiah (8; 5) “Why is this people so wild?”
Once they succeeded in their plan to build an idol and they managed to persuade some of the Israelites to join with them, they weren’t satisfied, and tried to honour the idol in front of the rest of the Israelites. They said to the Israelites “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt”. They used the plural language for ‘gods’ and ‘brought’ as a sign of respect, for in Biblical Hebrew we find that plural language is a honorific way of speaking. For example it says “Let us make man” (Bereishit 1; 26), “Let us descend” (ibid. 11; 7) etc.
The Erev Rav intended to honour the calf and make it great so that the sin and punishment of the Israelites would increase. ‘To push the rock after the fallen’ to quote the Talmud in Erechin (30b).
This explains why Nechemia changed the language. When he repeats all of Jewish history to the people who returned from Bavel he uses the singular “They also made for themselves a graven calf, and they said ‘this is your god who brought you out of the land of Egypt’.” (Nechemiah 9; 18). He changed from the plural to the singular to show that the Erev Rav had intended to give honour to the calf with their usage of the plural, and he did not wish to give it any honour at all.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Parshat Ki Tissa
Replacement Idols
In this week's Torah portion we read about the sin of the Golden Calf. Many questions can be asked on this topic; how could the nation who heard G-d's voice and accepted the Torah only a few weeks earlier suddenly rebel against Him and begin to worship idols? However, I want to address the issue of why, of all the idols they could have made, they built a calf. (Look in the Ramban's commentary to this section for a kabbalistic idea). The simple answer is that they had seen the Egyptians worshipping cows, and were merely imitating the rituals of their former masters. However, it seems strange that having seen what happened to the Egyptians, and knowing that G-d was greater than any of their gods they would chose to revert back to that form of idolatry.
If we look at the words of the Torah we find that the original intent of the Israelites was not to build an idol in place of G-d, but rather in place of Moshe: The people gathered around Aharon and said to him, "Rise up and make for us gods that will go before us, for we know not what has become of this man Moshe who brought us up from the land of Egypt" (Exodus 32; 1). The word elohim which is translated here as gods is also often used to mean judges, and thus the simple interpretation of this verse is that they want another leader in place of Moshe, who has disappeared. Only after the calf was built did some of the people begin to say that it was in place of G-d.
Moshe had been the one to lead them through the desert, mould them into a nation, and provide them with the Manna (which according to the Talmud fell in the merit of Moshe). When they looked for a suitable substitute they remembered Yosef, who had been the viceroy in Egypt, made Egypt into the superpower of the ancient Middle East, and provided food for the people through his careful planning and storing. He seemed like the perfect person to take over in place of Moshe. The only problem was that he had been dead for over 200 years. However, they were carrying his coffin with them, and they remembered the blessing that Ya'akov had given to Yosef on his death bed. "A charming son is Yosef, a charming son to the eye; the girls stepped the see the rising ox" (Genesis 49; 22). Yosef is associated with the image of an ox. When Moshe wanted to find where his coffin was buried in the Nile, he threw in a piece of parchment containing the words "arise ox" and his coffin rose to the surface. That same piece of parchment was used when they built the Golden Calf to bring it to life. (Midrash Shir HaShirim 1; 11).
However, there was also another side of Yosef that the people tried to capture in their idol, that of youthfulness. He is described several times in the Torah as a na'ar, an adolescent. Yosef throughout his life retained qualities of youthfulness, such as a desire to maintain physical beauty, a belief that nothing is impossible, and the naiveté and honesty which led him to be sold by his brothers in the first place. When Pharaoh elevated Yosef to power he tried to turn him into an 'adult' by giving him a new name and identity. Yet as we see from the verse above the girls were flocking to look after him, and he retained his charming youthfulness.
The people who built the calf wanted these qualities in their new leader. Idols often take the form of youthful heroes, with invincible powers. The Talmud also tells us that the main motivation for the Jews to build the Golden Calf was to permit to themselves the sexual liaisons that had been forbidden by the Torah and Moshe. Therefore, they didn't build an ox as their god, but a calf. The proof that the people were primarily interested in the youthful qualities of the Calf is from the Midrash (Tanchuma 8, quoted in Rashi v. 22) regarding the laws of the red heifer (which we read today as our special Maftir). Symbolically the 'cow' came to atone for the sin of the 'calf' as if to say let the mother come and clean up the mess left by her child. The calf is the young child, created by the young nation, in their quest to escape from the confining laws they had received at Sinai.
The irony of the situation is that Yosef himself went to great lengths to prevent the Egyptians themselves from worshipping cows. The Midrash (Bereishis Rabti 712) explains that when Yosef told the Egyptians to "Bring your cattle (as payment for the grain)" (Exodus 47; 16) his intent was to wean them from their idols. However, his plan backfired on his descendants, who themselves began to worship the very idol that Yosef had removed from the Egyptians.
In this week's Torah portion we read about the sin of the Golden Calf. Many questions can be asked on this topic; how could the nation who heard G-d's voice and accepted the Torah only a few weeks earlier suddenly rebel against Him and begin to worship idols? However, I want to address the issue of why, of all the idols they could have made, they built a calf. (Look in the Ramban's commentary to this section for a kabbalistic idea). The simple answer is that they had seen the Egyptians worshipping cows, and were merely imitating the rituals of their former masters. However, it seems strange that having seen what happened to the Egyptians, and knowing that G-d was greater than any of their gods they would chose to revert back to that form of idolatry.
If we look at the words of the Torah we find that the original intent of the Israelites was not to build an idol in place of G-d, but rather in place of Moshe: The people gathered around Aharon and said to him, "Rise up and make for us gods that will go before us, for we know not what has become of this man Moshe who brought us up from the land of Egypt" (Exodus 32; 1). The word elohim which is translated here as gods is also often used to mean judges, and thus the simple interpretation of this verse is that they want another leader in place of Moshe, who has disappeared. Only after the calf was built did some of the people begin to say that it was in place of G-d.
Moshe had been the one to lead them through the desert, mould them into a nation, and provide them with the Manna (which according to the Talmud fell in the merit of Moshe). When they looked for a suitable substitute they remembered Yosef, who had been the viceroy in Egypt, made Egypt into the superpower of the ancient Middle East, and provided food for the people through his careful planning and storing. He seemed like the perfect person to take over in place of Moshe. The only problem was that he had been dead for over 200 years. However, they were carrying his coffin with them, and they remembered the blessing that Ya'akov had given to Yosef on his death bed. "A charming son is Yosef, a charming son to the eye; the girls stepped the see the rising ox" (Genesis 49; 22). Yosef is associated with the image of an ox. When Moshe wanted to find where his coffin was buried in the Nile, he threw in a piece of parchment containing the words "arise ox" and his coffin rose to the surface. That same piece of parchment was used when they built the Golden Calf to bring it to life. (Midrash Shir HaShirim 1; 11).
However, there was also another side of Yosef that the people tried to capture in their idol, that of youthfulness. He is described several times in the Torah as a na'ar, an adolescent. Yosef throughout his life retained qualities of youthfulness, such as a desire to maintain physical beauty, a belief that nothing is impossible, and the naiveté and honesty which led him to be sold by his brothers in the first place. When Pharaoh elevated Yosef to power he tried to turn him into an 'adult' by giving him a new name and identity. Yet as we see from the verse above the girls were flocking to look after him, and he retained his charming youthfulness.
The people who built the calf wanted these qualities in their new leader. Idols often take the form of youthful heroes, with invincible powers. The Talmud also tells us that the main motivation for the Jews to build the Golden Calf was to permit to themselves the sexual liaisons that had been forbidden by the Torah and Moshe. Therefore, they didn't build an ox as their god, but a calf. The proof that the people were primarily interested in the youthful qualities of the Calf is from the Midrash (Tanchuma 8, quoted in Rashi v. 22) regarding the laws of the red heifer (which we read today as our special Maftir). Symbolically the 'cow' came to atone for the sin of the 'calf' as if to say let the mother come and clean up the mess left by her child. The calf is the young child, created by the young nation, in their quest to escape from the confining laws they had received at Sinai.
The irony of the situation is that Yosef himself went to great lengths to prevent the Egyptians themselves from worshipping cows. The Midrash (Bereishis Rabti 712) explains that when Yosef told the Egyptians to "Bring your cattle (as payment for the grain)" (Exodus 47; 16) his intent was to wean them from their idols. However, his plan backfired on his descendants, who themselves began to worship the very idol that Yosef had removed from the Egyptians.
Summary Ki Tissa
G-d instructs Moshe (Moses) to take a census. All the males over twenty must give half a shekel of silver, as an offering to G-d, and the number of people will be determined by counting the total amount of silver.
G-d instructs Moshe to make a copper washstand. The Cohanim must wash their hands from this before entering the Ohel Mo'ed (Communion Tent). G-d gives Moshe the recipe for the anointing oil. He instructs Moshe to anoint the Ohel Mo'ed, the Ark and all the other vessels, to sanctify them. Moshe must also anoint Aharon and his sons to sanctify them as Cohanim (Priests). G-d gives Moshe the recipe for the incense, which is to be offered in the Ohel Mo'ed.
G-d tells Moshe that He has selected Betzalel ben Chur as the main craftsman for building the Ohel Mo'ed and its vessels. Oholiav ben Achisamach will be his assistant. G-d tells Moshe to instruct the Jews about the laws of Shabbat, and the punishment for not observing it. Shabbat will be an eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.
Moshe receives the two tablets of testimony written by G-d. Meanwhile the people realise that Moshe has not returned when expected and feared he is dead. They ask Aharon to make them an oracle to lead them. He tries to stall them, but eventually melts down gold and a golden calf emerges from the fire. The people begin to offer sacrifices to this idol, and get up to enjoy themselves.
G-d tells Moshe to descend the Mount as the people have become corrupt. G-d threatens to destroy them all and begin a new nation from Moshe. Moshe asks for their forgiveness or else erase his (Moshe's) name from the Torah; G-d accepts his prayer. When Moshe sees the nation practising idolatry he smashes the tablets and destroys the calf. The sons of Levi punish the transgressors, executing 3000 men.
Moshe sets up his tent outside the camp, and the Cloud of Glory came to it. Moshe ascends Mount Sinai again and asks G-d to show him how He conducts the world. Moshe is told to stand in the crevice of a rock and G-d shows him His "back". Moshe is instructed to make new tablets and G-d makes a covenant with the nation; He will drive out the nations from before them and they will observe His commandments. They are commanded against idol worship, intermarriage and the combination of milk and meat and are taught the laws of Pesach, the first born animals, the first fruits, Shabbos, Shavuos and Succos. When Moshe descends with the new tablets, his face is radiant from his contact with G-d and he must wear a mask over his face so that people can look at him.
G-d instructs Moshe to make a copper washstand. The Cohanim must wash their hands from this before entering the Ohel Mo'ed (Communion Tent). G-d gives Moshe the recipe for the anointing oil. He instructs Moshe to anoint the Ohel Mo'ed, the Ark and all the other vessels, to sanctify them. Moshe must also anoint Aharon and his sons to sanctify them as Cohanim (Priests). G-d gives Moshe the recipe for the incense, which is to be offered in the Ohel Mo'ed.
G-d tells Moshe that He has selected Betzalel ben Chur as the main craftsman for building the Ohel Mo'ed and its vessels. Oholiav ben Achisamach will be his assistant. G-d tells Moshe to instruct the Jews about the laws of Shabbat, and the punishment for not observing it. Shabbat will be an eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.
Moshe receives the two tablets of testimony written by G-d. Meanwhile the people realise that Moshe has not returned when expected and feared he is dead. They ask Aharon to make them an oracle to lead them. He tries to stall them, but eventually melts down gold and a golden calf emerges from the fire. The people begin to offer sacrifices to this idol, and get up to enjoy themselves.
G-d tells Moshe to descend the Mount as the people have become corrupt. G-d threatens to destroy them all and begin a new nation from Moshe. Moshe asks for their forgiveness or else erase his (Moshe's) name from the Torah; G-d accepts his prayer. When Moshe sees the nation practising idolatry he smashes the tablets and destroys the calf. The sons of Levi punish the transgressors, executing 3000 men.
Moshe sets up his tent outside the camp, and the Cloud of Glory came to it. Moshe ascends Mount Sinai again and asks G-d to show him how He conducts the world. Moshe is told to stand in the crevice of a rock and G-d shows him His "back". Moshe is instructed to make new tablets and G-d makes a covenant with the nation; He will drive out the nations from before them and they will observe His commandments. They are commanded against idol worship, intermarriage and the combination of milk and meat and are taught the laws of Pesach, the first born animals, the first fruits, Shabbos, Shavuos and Succos. When Moshe descends with the new tablets, his face is radiant from his contact with G-d and he must wear a mask over his face so that people can look at him.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Tosefet Bracha Tetzaveh 2
“You shall make an altar for offering incense” (30; 1)
It is very strange that this parsha is here, when logically I would have expected it in parshat Terumah, where we have the instructions for all the other utensils in the Mishkan. Parshat Tetzaveh deals only with the clothes of the Cohanim, so this instruction seems very out of place.
Perhaps we can say based on the explanation in Parshat Korach. Korach and his followers were arguing and challenging the rights of Aharon to be the Cohen Gadol. It was through the incense that the argument was resolved (when Aharon’s incense offering was accepted by G-d, and all the challengers were killed). This showed that Aharon had the honour of being Cohen Gadol based on Divine decree, not nepotism. This is explicit in the verse (Bamidbar 17; 5) “An eternal remembrance for the Children of Israel that nobody who is not a descendent of Aharon should offer the incense”.
Since it is in this Parsha that Aharon becomes sanctified to be the Cohen Gadol, that is why the mitzvah of building the incense altar comes in this parsha – to show that through the incense Aharon’s authority was Divinely sanctioned, and nobody has the rights to challenge it.
We can give another allegorical answer as to why it does not appear in parshat Terumah. Rav Ya’abetz writes in his siddur that the reason we recite ‘pitum haketoret’ (the recipe for the incense) at the end of Shacharit is for the same reason that we bring out the incense at the end of a meal (and recite the blessing over it – Talmud Brachot 42b). The Talmud’s word for the incense after a meal, mugmar is the Aramaic translation of the Torah word for incense ketoret as we see from Shir Hashirim (3; 6) “From the incense (ketoret) of myrhh and frankincense. The Aramaic translation is m’tagmara (mugmar). Therefore in this parsha which deals with the clothing, and after the preceding parsha that deals with the utensils, and the order of the consecration of the Cohanim, comes the incense, to show that everything ‘smells good’ and will find favour with G-d.
But it is not at all clear why we use the word mizbeach (altar) in regard to the incense altar. The root of the word mizbeach is zevach meaning animal sacrifice. Why does the Torah use this word for the implement that was used for offering the incense? This implement should be called a maktir.
Perhaps this is why the Sages explain allegorically that the word mizbeach is an acronym for mechila (forgiveness), zechut (merit), bracha (blessing) and chaim (life) (Vayikra Rabba). This teaches us that the incense brings all these good things to the world. See also Talmud Ketubot 10b.
It is very strange that this parsha is here, when logically I would have expected it in parshat Terumah, where we have the instructions for all the other utensils in the Mishkan. Parshat Tetzaveh deals only with the clothes of the Cohanim, so this instruction seems very out of place.
Perhaps we can say based on the explanation in Parshat Korach. Korach and his followers were arguing and challenging the rights of Aharon to be the Cohen Gadol. It was through the incense that the argument was resolved (when Aharon’s incense offering was accepted by G-d, and all the challengers were killed). This showed that Aharon had the honour of being Cohen Gadol based on Divine decree, not nepotism. This is explicit in the verse (Bamidbar 17; 5) “An eternal remembrance for the Children of Israel that nobody who is not a descendent of Aharon should offer the incense”.
Since it is in this Parsha that Aharon becomes sanctified to be the Cohen Gadol, that is why the mitzvah of building the incense altar comes in this parsha – to show that through the incense Aharon’s authority was Divinely sanctioned, and nobody has the rights to challenge it.
We can give another allegorical answer as to why it does not appear in parshat Terumah. Rav Ya’abetz writes in his siddur that the reason we recite ‘pitum haketoret’ (the recipe for the incense) at the end of Shacharit is for the same reason that we bring out the incense at the end of a meal (and recite the blessing over it – Talmud Brachot 42b). The Talmud’s word for the incense after a meal, mugmar is the Aramaic translation of the Torah word for incense ketoret as we see from Shir Hashirim (3; 6) “From the incense (ketoret) of myrhh and frankincense. The Aramaic translation is m’tagmara (mugmar). Therefore in this parsha which deals with the clothing, and after the preceding parsha that deals with the utensils, and the order of the consecration of the Cohanim, comes the incense, to show that everything ‘smells good’ and will find favour with G-d.
But it is not at all clear why we use the word mizbeach (altar) in regard to the incense altar. The root of the word mizbeach is zevach meaning animal sacrifice. Why does the Torah use this word for the implement that was used for offering the incense? This implement should be called a maktir.
Perhaps this is why the Sages explain allegorically that the word mizbeach is an acronym for mechila (forgiveness), zechut (merit), bracha (blessing) and chaim (life) (Vayikra Rabba). This teaches us that the incense brings all these good things to the world. See also Talmud Ketubot 10b.
Tosefet Bracha Tetzaveh 1
“And his voice was will be heard when he comes into the holy” (28; 35)
In the Mesorah on this verse it says that the word v’nishma (and we will hear/ and it/ he will be heard) appears three times in Tanach. Once here, once in Parshat Mishpatim in the phrase na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and we will hear), and once in Megillat Esther v’nishma patshegen hamelech (the decree of the king was heard). It is not clear what the connection is between these three verses.
Perhaps we can explain that the Mesorah here is hinting at the prayer that the Cohen Gadol said after coming out of the Holy of Holies. The verse says “He will atone for himself, and his brothers and all of Israel”. He will atone for himself, for all the other Cohanim (his brothers) and one for all of Israel.
This is what the Mesorah is hinting to us. “His voice will be heard” – his own prayer. “We will do and we will hear” – for all the Cohanim, who have the task of serving G-d in the Temple. “The decree of the king was heard” was a decree for all of the world and all of klal Yisrael.
In the Mesorah on this verse it says that the word v’nishma (and we will hear/ and it/ he will be heard) appears three times in Tanach. Once here, once in Parshat Mishpatim in the phrase na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and we will hear), and once in Megillat Esther v’nishma patshegen hamelech (the decree of the king was heard). It is not clear what the connection is between these three verses.
Perhaps we can explain that the Mesorah here is hinting at the prayer that the Cohen Gadol said after coming out of the Holy of Holies. The verse says “He will atone for himself, and his brothers and all of Israel”. He will atone for himself, for all the other Cohanim (his brothers) and one for all of Israel.
This is what the Mesorah is hinting to us. “His voice will be heard” – his own prayer. “We will do and we will hear” – for all the Cohanim, who have the task of serving G-d in the Temple. “The decree of the king was heard” was a decree for all of the world and all of klal Yisrael.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
