Tzav

Explaining the title word of Parshas Tzav, Rashi states: ein tzav elah lashon ziruz - the term tzav implies alacrity, zeal. Rashi continues to explain that this alacrity is necessary miyad u'l'doros - immediately, for those being commanded at that moment, and for all generations.

Rashi has a similar explanation on the opening passage of Parshas Emor. Explaining the repetition of the word AMR - emor v'amarta - Rashi explains that there is a command not only to perform the upcoming commandments but also l'hazhir gedolim al haketanim - to place responsibility upon the adults to warn the children about these laws as well.

The similarities are evident. Rashi's explanation in both Tzav and Emor implore the adults to not only observe the laws but also teach future generations. Also, both sets of commandments are directed at the Kohanim.

There are also two particularly interesting differences. Firstly, the word used as the focal point of the commandment is different. Tzav is defined as ziruz - requiring alacrity and zeal. In Emor the word used is l'hazhir - to warn and be particularly careful. The second difference is a bit more subtle and needs to be understood in the context of each respective parsha.

The commandment immediately following the term Tzav is the commandment of cleaning the Altar - v'heirim es hadeshen...v'hotzi es hadeshen. The Altar has a fire that is lit constantly - aish tamid tukad al hamizbayach lo tichbeh. The constant burning of sacrifices and the wood that is on the Altar results in an abundance of ashes. Therefore, the Altar needs to be cleaned daily. The Kohanim are commanded to clean the Altar daily. This presents an interesting contrast. The Altar is called kodshim - holy. The acts that are performed by the Kohanim are services done in the Mikdash. This, too, is referred to as avodas hakodesh. Yet, in the midst of all this holiness, the Kohanim are commanded about the most mundane of acts - cleaning the dirt. In the midst of the discussion about the holy service, Kohanim are commanded to focus on the physical, material, mundane needs to assure the proper functioning of the holy Altar.

The commandments told in Emor are about remaining in a state of purity even when one has lost a loved one. Emor/V'amarta is followed by l'nefesh lo yitama b'amav. Kohanim need to maintain a state of purity even at times of personal tragedy. In the midst of dealing with the ultimate physical tragedy, when dealing with a physical body whose holiness and spirit (contained in the neshama) has left it so that the sole concern is a concern for the physical body, even under these circumstances Kohanim are required to maintain a state of purity and holiness. Interestingly, this seems to take on the exact opposite approach we saw in Tzav. In Tzav, the Kohanim are reminded to concern themselves with physical, mundane issues even while enveloped in the holiness of the Temple service. Whereas, in Emor, the Kohanim are reminded to maintain there state of holiness and purity even while enveloped in concern for the physical.

It is this last contrast that holds the key to understanding the similarities and differences. The Torah is telling us that we need to always remember that Yahadus requires constant interaction between the spiritual and the physical, between the holy and the mundane. In Yahadus, one can never forget the holiness and purity part of humanity and Judaism. Nor can one ignore the idea that Torah was given to mortal man and, therefore, physical considerations are essential. Holiness and purity are inextricably intertwined with the physical, material mundane needs. Rashi is reminding us that this lesson needs to observed and taught to each generation as a fundamental element of Yahadus. This idea is not one restricted to the Kohanim. It is a lesson taught regarding Kohanim to teach us an additional lesson.

The idea of intertwining these elements could be considered a goal for Bnei Yisrael. Something to strive for and constantly work towards. However, for Kohanim, this concept is not merely a goal. It is an absolute requirement. Kohanim must abide by these laws or they will profane the Kehunah. Chazal are telling us that this lesson of always considering the physical needs of people and simultaneously maintaining a state of holiness is one that needs to be inculcated in our very essence as a life requirement, not merely a lofty goal to try to attain. Stating this concept to the Kohanim implores all of Bnei Yisrael - Mamleches Kohanim - to live by this concept.

However, the different words used to describe the idea - ziruz and l'hazhir - still need explanation.

When confronted with a mundane task while engaged in holy service, one tends to ignore the mundane task. Even if one recognizes the need to perform the mundane task, there is often debate regarding how necessary it actually is. The Talmud tells us that in a case of piku'ach nefesh, one needs to act immediately to help another even if that would entail violating the Shabbos. The Talmud further explains that the Rabbi should not command others to violate the Shabbos to help another but rather he should violate the Shabbos himself to assure that, if a similar situation were to arise in the future, no one will hesitate to violate the Shabbos to save another. Chazal understood that human nature causes one to question 'lowering' himself from his state of holiness and purity to focus on the material and mundane. Yet, by focusing on these things within the context of holiness, one actually raises the level of holiness. It is for this reason that the term ziruz is used in describing the mundane act of cleaning the Altar. When confronted with the mundane while in the midst of holiness, the tendency is to be lax and hesitant. Therefore, zirus - alacrity and zeal - is commanded specifically in these situations to counteract human tendency.

When presented an opportunity for holiness while in the midst of the mundane, there is often a tendency to jump at the opportunity for greater holiness even at the cost of ignoring the physical needs. There is often no consideration for the consequences of this additional level of 'holiness'. Yet, unnecessary chumras and misplaced chumras can often result in pain, conflict, and controversy. Therefore, when describing the concept of maintaining holiness while engaged in the physical and material parts of life, the term used is l'hazhir - care and caution. A level of holiness is an absolute necessity that can never be violated. However, Chazal ask us to be careful not to ignore the physical needs of others.. Holiness must be evident in the material and physical world. However, at times, care and caution need to be applied to assure that the physical needs are not ignored as we - with the best intentions - strive for greater holiness.

Internalizing these messages and assuring that our lives are always filled with holiness while simultaneously concerning ourselves with the physical needs of others will enable us to provide the proper foundation for our children and many generations to come.

Vayikra

The first word in Sefer Vayikra is written with an unusually small aleph. Chazal explain that this emphasizes the difference between Hashem's interaction with Moshe Rabbeinu versus the interaction with the likes of Bilam. The word used for Bilam is yikareh, without the letter aleph. The root of KRH implies a coincidence. There wasn't a calling to Bilam out of love but rather it was a calling that just happened, coincidentally. This differs from the calling to Moshe Rabbeinu that was done with great love and intent.

The question that arises from this explanation is: if the key differentiating factor is implied by the letter aleph and that letter conveys the essential theme of the lesson, then the letter aleph should have been unusually large rather than unusually small.

A second question arises out of apparent inconsistencies in Biblical usage of the term KRH - coincidence. Amalek's attack of Bnei Yisrael is described with the words asher KARCHA baderech. Chazal explain the word karcha to have a similar meaning to the root of yikareh and implies that Amalek was a people who did not believe in Divine intervention. Rather, their belief system was based on the concept that all is just coincidence. Therefore, they found natural and coincidental explanations for the events of the plagues in Egypt and the splitting of the sea. They were a people asher karcha- that believed all was coincidence.

However, there is a more positive event using the term of vayiker. Ruth and Na'ami needed some means of sustenance upon their arrival in Israel. Ruth goes out to the fields to collect the produce that, by law, is left for the poor. The verse tells us that her arrival at the field of Boaz was due to vayiker mikreha - a mere coincidence. This, too, has no letter aleph to imply intent. Instead, it uses the same root as is used by both Bilam and Amalek. Are we to understand that in describing Amalek and in describing the Divine interaction with Bilam that coincidence is evil and impure but this same concept is what led to the establishment of the Davidic dynasty, ultimately leading to Mashiach? Is this pivotal moment in Jewish history merely due to a coincidence - the same concept that we ridicule as a character trait of Amalek and Bilam?

Chazal tell us that each letter of the Aleph Bet corresponds to another level of Divine concealment. The letter Aleph is the letter symbolizing the greatest level of Divine revelation and each subsequent letter carries with it an additional layer of secrecy. Our goal is to constantly strive for the letter aleph.

The distinction between Divine interaction and mere coincidence is not one of fact. It is a state of mind. Yahadus espouses the idea of Divine interaction and control at every moment of history and life. Intellectually and religiously we recognize this to be fact. However, we do not always apply it to each action or event in our lives. Perhaps we talk the talk but is our state of mind really one that believes that there are no coincidences?

Amalek's state of mind was that nothing has Divine interaction. Everything is coincidence. If there ever was a yad Hashem it ended with the end of Creation. All that happens in the world now is merely coincidence, part of the laws of nature or even the phenomena of naturally unusual occurrences. Bilam believed that Hashem's appearance to him was just a coincidence. There was nothing special about these appearances other than they happened to happen to him and not others. So, too, Bilam could explain that Hashem's appearance to Moshe was just a coincidence. In the course of nature and human events, Divine revelation comes to certain people. This state of mind is one of impurity and potentially evil.

The verse describes Ruth's arrival at the field of Boaz as a coincidence. However, Na'ami does not accept this idea. Upon hearing of this 'coincidence' from Rus, Na'ami exclaims that this is the yad Hashem acting on their behalf, guiding Ruth to the field of Boaz, her potential redeemer. Ruth immediately accepts this explanation and follows the wishes of her mother-in-law to return to Boaz' field and allow the yad Hashem to continue its course. Na'ami and Ruth's state of mind does not accept things that seem to be coincidence as such. Even a basic chore like going out to work in the fields is seen as one with Divine interaction and concern.

It is not the word of vayiker, the perception of coincidence that is wrong. It is the acceptance of occurrences and actions as coincidence that is wrong. Many events occur in our lives that seem like they are simply nature taking its course. Nonetheless, we need to know that even in the course of human events, in the natural flow of nature, there are no coincidences. The Yad Hashem is everywhere constantly. This the lesson of the aleph in vayikra. The aleph - the letter that symbolizes the greatest revelation of Divine intervention - is often very small. It might be difficult for us to see the aleph - the Yad Hashem - in a variety of things. Nonetheless, we need to know that it is there. Moshe Rabbeinu always saw the aleph in everything, no matter how small it appeared to the world. Bilam never saw the aleph. Moshe is our role model. No matter how small the aleph seems to be, no matter how much things seem like they are mere coincidences, we must always strive to see the aleph and to assure that vayikra - the call to us from Hashem is one filled with love.

Vayakhel

There are a number of different terms employed by the Torah to describe Moshe Rabbeinu's interaction with Bnei Yisrael: vayedabeir Moshe, vayomer Moshe, vayetzav Moshe. In Parshas Vayakhel the Torah chooses to utilize the term vayakhel Moshe. Vayakhel is a term implying a gathering of the masses, a need for unity and togetherness.

Vayakhel begins with a brief discussion of Shabbos and then focuses on the building of the Mishkan. Shabbos has already been discussed at Marah, Har Sinai and, Parshas Ki Sisa. Similarly, the Mishkan has been discussed in several previous parshiyos. Yet, the Torah feels the need to connect them in Vayakhel and to employ the term of kahal in its introduction. Why?

There are several other well known events where the term kahal is utilized. There is even a mitzva described by the name - hakhel - when all of Bnei Yisrael gather in the Beis HaMikdash to hear the reading of parts of the Torah from the king.

The story of mei merivah, resulting in Moshe and Aharon's punishment and prevention from entering Eretz Yisrael began when Bnei Yisrael gathered - vayikahalu - to confront Moshe and Aharon and complain about a lack of water. Korach's rebellion also began as a gathering -vayikahalu al Moshe v'al Aharon.

Gathering the nation into a single entity can facilitate unity. K'ish echad b'leiv echad. When all of Bnei Yisrael are unified it is a powerful force that is assured to be successful. On the other hand, gathering into one unit improperly can lead to conflict and rebellion. Of the examples raised, two of them define the benefits of this gathering while two epitomize the dangers. How are we to differentiate between them?

Jewish law and Jewish living emphasizes boundaries. Boundaries are not meant to limit but rather to focus. A Yisrael is not less capable of avodas Hashem than a Kohein by virtue of the fact that he cannot perform many of the services in the Mikdash. He is just as capable of reaching the greatest heights of avodas Hashem as even the Kohein Gadol. He is merely charged with focusing his efforts in different areas. The Kohein is charged with certain mitzvos. Fulfillment of these mitzvos enables the Kohein to perform his avodas Hashem. The Yisrael is also charged with certain mitzvos. Fulfillment of these mitzvos enables the Yisrael to perform his avodas Hashem. By fulfilling his commandments, he is able to reach the greatest heights, just as the Kohein is. Attempting to serve in another's capacity causes one to lose focus on what he needs to do.

The Talmud tells us that two kings cannot rule simultaneously. The Talmud also tells us that we should support governing bodies because without effective government people would destroy each other. Not everyone can be the ruler. But having no ruler, no leadership, is equally fraught with danger.

The gathering of Hakhel is the gathering of men, women, and children. The entire nation gathers to hear the words of the Torah. However, there is a process of the reading for Hakhel. The Talmud describes the procession that is implemented leading to the reading of the Torah. The Torah is read by the king. There is a recognizable order and boundaries are well defined. Roles and responsibilities are delineated. Out of this order comes a gathering that makes such a positive impression that the Torah tells us it will have a lasting impact on all the attendees.

The gathering of Bnei Yisrael against Moshe and Aharon at mei merivah, the gathering of Korach and his entourage against Moshe and Aharon were disorderly. Chazal tell us that the gathering against Moshe and Aharon to complain about the lack of water had children jumping ahead of adults. Korach's argument was kulam kedoshim u'madua tisnas'u al kehal Hashem. Everyone is equal. You - Moshe and Aharon- should not be charged with any different responsibilities than the rest of Bnei Yisrael. Let us create a community of anarchy. In both scenarios, order and discipline were ignored. A gathering of such magnitude without order and discipline is sure to lead to conflict and controversy.

Parshas Vayakhel intends to teach this lesson. The description of Shabbos in Vayakhel first describes the six days of work and then Shabbos. There is an order. The melacha chosen to be emphasized is described unusually: lo se'va'aru aish bechol moshvoseichem b'yom haShabbos - do not kindle a flame in your gathering places on the day of Shabbos. Fire, when controlled, brings warmth and light. Uncontrolled, it can bring destruction. Shabbos defines order and discipline. It comes after the six days of the work week. The discipline necessary in its observance is clear, from the requirement to cease weekday work on Friday to its conclusion on Saturday night. But if observed properly, it brings warmth and light to our entire lives from the Source of warmth and light.

The Mishkan, too, defines this combination. The Mishkan/Mikdash is the place where all can come to pray and serve Hashem. Yet, not everyone can perform all the services within it. Everyone was able to participate in its building in any manner they chose -kol nediv libo. Yet, the actual blueprint was delivered by Hashem through Moshe and the actual construction was led by Bezalel and Ahaliav. There were boundaries, orders for the services, discipline in its implementation. If the boundaries are protected and order and discipline observed, then the Mikdash, too, enables us to bask in the glory of the Shechinah.

This lesson of unity, boundaries, order, and discipline acting in unison is the one the Torah is teaching by its use of the term vayakhel and the resulting gathering to discuss both the laws of Shabbos as well as those of the building of the Mishkan.

Ki Tisa

In the beginning of parshas Ki Sisa the Torah tells us about Shabbos. At the conclusion of this section the verse states: vayehi kechaloso ledabeir ito - it was the conclusion of this conversation. The verse then tells us that Hashem gives the Tablets to Moshe Rabbeinu and that the Tablets are written b'etzba Elokim. Then there is a separation of the parshiyos (symbolized in our chumashim with the letter 'peh'), implying that this verse that refers to the Tablets is connected to the section that discusses Shabbos.  However, the chapter actually ends with the conclusion of the discussion of Shabbos while a new chapter begins with the introduction of the Tablets, implying that the verse regarding the Tablets is actually connected to the following discussion regarding the sin of the golden calf. It seems that this verse regarding the Tablets acts as a bridge between the section discussing Shabbos and that discussing the golden calf. What is the connection?

One of the more difficult things to comprehend in the story of the golden calf are the actions of Aharon. What was Aharon thinking? If Bnei Yisrael were interested in worshipping an idol, how could Aharon be involved in such an endeavor, even if it was merely a stalling tactic?

The Jewish people approach Aharon and say kum aseh lanu eloh-im. Our standard interpretation is that they were requesting an idol to act as a god. However, there is another definition of the word eloh-im. It can also mean a leader. Aharon assumed that Bnei Yisrael were merely requesting leadership. They feared that Moshe would not return and recognized that they needed leadership to continue. The verse seems to bear this out: kum aseh lanu eloh-im ki zeh Moshe ha'ish...lo yadanu meh hayah lo. Aharon's definition of the word as a request for a leader is one he lived himself. When Moshe was hesitating in accepting the role of messenger to save Bnei Yisrael from Egypt, Hashem assures him that Aharon will be by his side. Hu (Aharon) yihyeh lecha l'peh v'atah (Moshe) tihyeh lo leloh-im. Hashem states that Moshe will be an eloh-im to Aharon. Surely, Hashem was not telling Moshe that Aharon will be his G-d. Rather, the word was implying a leadership role for Moshe. It is for this reason that Aharon agrees to the request of Bnei Yisrael. He is not concerned about a violation of idol worship simply because this is not the the intent of Bnei Yisrael.

If this assumption by Aharon is a correct one then what was so terrible about the sin of the golden calf that its punishment persists to this very day? Bnei Yisrael were not rebelling against Hashem or Moshe. In fact, this could be considered a compliment to Moshe. They recognized the tremendous void that would exist without Moshe, and understood that they could not reach higher levels of divine service without great leadership. Hence, their request.

Perhaps their initial request was not their sin. The sin and the resulting punishment was for what happened next. After the golden calf is fashioned, Bnei Yisrael exclaim aileh elohecha Yisrael asher he'elucha me'eretz Mitzrayim - this is your god, Israel, that brought you up from Egypt. This is not true. Even if the intent of Bnei Yisrael was merely to obtain a new leader, they still needed to recognize reality. This idol did not take them out of Egypt. It did not even exist at the time of the Exodus. Bnei Yisrael attributed false powers to the golden calf. It is not a far leap to go from attributing false powers to something to worshipping it. Once Bnei Yisrael attributed false powers to the golden calf they headed down the path towards idol worship and rebellion against Hashem.

The Torah talks of Shabbos in several places. Often different themes are used in its description. The theme in Ki sisa is shemirah: veshamru, u'shemartem, shamor. The verses emphasize the requirement to refrain from work on Shabbos. Why is this the emphasis in Ki Sisa?

Violating Shabbos is often based on the belief that if a person refrains from work then it will not get done and a loss will be incurred. The person, thereby, attributes false powers to himself, believing that he controls the world and his success when, in actuality, Hashem does.

The verse regarding the Tablets connects the section discussing Shabbos and that discussing the golden calf. The Tablets are also often referred to by different names: luchos, luchos habris, luchos ha'edus. In Ki Sisa, the luchos are referred to as the luchos ha'edus. Edus implies fact. When witnesses come to testify, their edus (testimony) creates halachic fact. If the testimony is accepted then the Court assumes their statements as factual; so much so that we will even potentially inflict capital punishment.

The verse also describes the Tablets as written b'etzba elokim. At the time of the plagues the words etzba elokim are used by Paroh's 'magicians' to describe the power of Hashem: even the finger of Hashem is more powerful than they are.

The verse of the Tablets describes the idea of testimony of fact and the power of Hashem. We need to accept the omnipotence of Hashem as fact and not attribute false powers to anything or anyone else. Attributing false powers to things and people was the sin of the golden calf. Recognizing that Hashem is the source of all is the lesson of Shabbos. Observing Shabbos with the factual knowledge that the source of all is Hashem will enables us to overcome the flaw of the golden calf and bring us close to avodas Hashem.