Rashi, quoting the Medrash, states "why is the parsha of Sotah juxtaposed with the parsha of Nezirus? To inform us that one who he sees a Sotah in her demeaned state should accept upon himself a state of nezirus". Commenting on the words l'hazir Lashem, Rashi states that the acceptance of a state of nezirus needs to be specifically for the sake of Heaven.
What is the connection between witnessing a Sotah in her demeaned state and accepting nezirus? Why does one need to accept an unnatural state of being due to the sins of someone else? If a state of nezirus is something that will counteract the damage an individual experiences upon witnessing the Sotah being punished, then why is the nezirus described as Lashem? In actuality, it is more for an individual's benefit.
The haftarah of Parshas Naso describes the birth and the early stages of Shimshon's emergence on the historical scene. The simple explanation of its relevance to the parsha is that Shimshon is a nazir and our parsha speaks of the laws of a nazir. However, the Talmud explains that nezirus Shimshon is different than all other neziros and has its own particular laws, many of which are quite different than the standard laws originating in our parsha and expounded upon in the Talmud. Is the connection merely generic - laws of nezirus finding common ground with the most famous nazir in history? Or is there a specific connection even to nezirus Shimshon?
Aside from the distinct laws of nezirus Shimshon, there is also an interesting distinction in the history of Shimshon's nezirus. Shimshon is a nazir mibeten - from the womb. Interestingly, his conception is miraculous as well. We are told that Shimshon's mother is barren. This is not an unusual occurrence in the Bible. Some of our greatest figures were originally barren - Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel, Chana - and some of our greatest figures were born from these women through miraculous intervention - Yitzchak, Yaakov, Yosef, Binyamin, Shmuel. However, there is a clear difference. All of the women previously mentioned received miraculous intervention through interceding prayer and supplication. Many prayers were uttered before Hashem intervened. Yet, we see no prayer being uttered by or on behalf of Aishes Manoach, Shimson's mother. The angel appears to her and states matter of factly that she is barren and, behold, she will bear a child. He then proceeds to instruct her on the proper behavior during pregnancy and for the child forever more. Why is Aishes Manoach granted this miraculous favor without the requisite supplication?
As previously stated, one of the unique characteristics of Shimshon's nezirus is that it was in effect even while he was still in the womb. The verse in our parsha that introduces the laws of a nazir states ish o isha ki yafli lindor neder nazir l'hazir Lashem. If an individual CHOOSES to be a nazir, they can and these are the laws. Shimshon did not choose to be a nazir. He was born into it. That's because the nezirus of Shimshon was not about Shimshon. It was to serve Bnei Yisrael. His nezirus gave him remarkable strength to be used to save Bnei Yisrael. Indeed, there was prayer and supplication that stimulated the miraculous birth of Shimshon. Bnei Yisrael were beseeching Hashem to save them from the oppression of the Philistines. That Divine salvation came through the hands of Shimshon. Shimshon's nezirus began in the womb to emphasize that it was not his choice. His nezirus belonged, in a sense, to all of Bnei Yisrael. It was out of his control.
Therein lies the direct connection to the laws of nezirus described in Naso and the laws of nezirus Shimshon. The simple translation of the laws of the parsha describe a nezirus that is personal. However, as Rashi explains, any voluntary nazir needs to realize that every nezirus has an element of nezirus Shimshon in that it must always be Lashem. A Sotah is not merely a blemish on an individual. It is a blemish on society. The Talmud informs us that important laws of purity that distinguish between private and public domains are learned from the laws of Sotah. The episode that leads to the concept of a Sotah is a private one. However, the actions taken to rectify the situation occur in public. Even the actions of an individual done in private have an impact on Jewish society as a whole. Therefore, as Rashi explains, upon witnessing the events of a Sotah, the demeaned state of a Sotah, one needs to feel the damage done to all of Klal Yisrael. That person needs to accept a state of nezirus Lashem, accepting upon himself the responsibility of rectifying the damage to Bnei Yisrael. Accepting a sense of responsibility, a small piece of nezirus Shimshon in his or her own state of nezirus will enable the person to not only be kodesh Lashem as an individual but also help bring greater levels of kedusha to all of Bnei Yisrael.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Bamidbar
The central theme of parshas Bamidbar seems to be the reason for the name given to the entire Sefer Bamidbar. Sefer Bamidbar is called Chumash Hapekudim - the book of numbers. Parshas Bamidbar delivers a census of not only the total number of Bnei Yisrael but also the numbers of each tribe. The emphasis on the total number and the power of the community often conflicts with a similar emphasis on counting every individual.
On the words tifkadu osam l'tzivosam, the Ramban explains that the goal of every individual is to associate and attach him/herself to Knesset Yisrael. The implication being, the community trumps the individual. Individuals need to strive for greatness by joining the community rather than advancing in individual endeavors. Yet, later in the parsha, commenting on the three different usages of the term pekudayhem, the Ramban states that the reason one of those terms are used in reference to Moshe and Aharon - asher pakad Moshe v'Aharon - is to emphasize the unique opportunity that each individual has by being recognized - as a unique individual - by the greatest figures: Moshe and Aharon. Here, the Ramban seems to emphasize the importance of the individual standing out amongst the entirety of society. Each individual has a special place, recognized and appreciated by the leaders of the community. Which is it? Is the tzibur of greater importance or the individual?
Similarly, at the conclusion of the count of every tribe, the Torah tells us the total of Bnei Yisrael even though we could have figured that out using simple math. Nonetheless, the Torah specifically mentions the total to inform us of the importance of the total of the community as being greater than the sum of its parts. Yet, commenting on the verse bnei Naftali, the Arizal explains that the reason that the verse says bnei Naftali without the prefix of a lamed as it uses for all the other tribes (L'vnei Asher, L'vnei Gad, etc) is simply a recognition of actual events. The Arizal explains that there was a box with papers upon which the name of every Jew was written. Each tribe would approach the box, collect the papers with the names of the individuals from their tribe and count accordingly. Since the total number was already known, the tribe of Naftali, which was the last to approach the box, did not need to count the names. After all, all that remained were of their tribe. For our sake, the point to emphasize is that every individual was recognized and counted in the process. Even though the total number was known, every individual needed to be counted. It seems that the Torah is emphasizing the opposite of what was previously assumed. Instead of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, each part has a value above and beyond their participation in the whole. Again, which is it?
Parshas Bamidbar opens with the verse vayedabeir Hashem el Moshe b'midbar Sinai b'ohel moed. Why is it necessary to mention that these events occurred in midbar Sinai? The location of these events seems inconsequential to the goal, that of counting Bnei Yisrael.
Chazal tell us that there was often conflict and petty disputes amongst Bnei Yisrael when they left Egypt. The Torah and the medrash often describe these disputes (i.e. the conflict as to the proper course of action to be taken at Yam Suf). However, once Bnei Yisrael reached Sinai these conflicts and disputes ended. Vayichan sham Yisrael negged hahar - k'ish echad b'lev echad. Unity finally arrived upon Bnei Yisrael's arrival in midbar Sinai. This desert, this lowly mountain upon which the Torah would be given, delivered an understanding of the need for unity and, simultaneously, a confidence for each individual. Sinai was where Bnei Yisrael would receive the Torah as a People, attaining their status as the Am hanivchar. Nonetheless, variant boundaries were set up so that the Elders could go beyond a certain point and Moshe even further. The Torah is an inheritance for the Jewish people, as a people - morasha KEHILLAS Yaakov. However, greatness in Torah is not an inheritance for individuals. It is not given to an individual due to his status in the community, his wealth, or his yichus. Each individual can reach the greatest heights in Torah through their own individual efforts. Nonetheless, reaching these great heights is impossible if one is not part of the Am hanivchar that received the Torah.
It wasn't until their arrival at Sinai that Bnei Yisrael realized that each individual could not reach their own respective goals and aspirations or fulfill their dreams without being inextricably intertwined with Knesset Yisrael. Upon this realization, petty squabbles ceased. It was in Sinai, where each individual would eventually receive two crowns, that each individual felt comfortable and confident enough to relinquish personal ego to join the community in full recognition that this attachment would not only benefit the community but would also benefit themselves. Therefore, the Torah specifically mentions that this counting occurred in midbar Sinai for it was here, finally, when Bnei Yisrael could be counted as individuals and as a community. It wasn't until they reached the level of unity achieved at Sinai that they were able to be counted as individuals. Each one was important enough to be recognized by Moshe and Aharon because their egos were checked. The Ramban is informing us that each individual can be counted because tifkadu osam l'tzivosam, they understood that they needed to attain an unbreakable connection to Knesset Yisrael.
The lesson of Bamidbar is not only to stress the dual significance of the tzibbur and the yachid, but also to inform us that each is essential for the other. The Rambam tells us that the Se'ir hamishtalayach brought forgiveness for numerous sins even if one did not repent. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the requirement to attain this forgiveness was merely to be part of Knesset Yisrael, to associate oneself with Knesset Yisrael. The tzibbur supersedes the individual. Yet, the Talmud tells us that if the majority of Bnei Yisrael are impure, then the Korban Pesach is brought in its proper time, as the impurity is overridden by the vastness of individuals. The appreciation of the importance of the Klal, of Knesset Yisrael as a whole, along with a simultaneous appreciation of each individual enables us to unite k'ish echad b'lev echad and, for each one of us, to once again don the dual crowns of Torah.
On the words tifkadu osam l'tzivosam, the Ramban explains that the goal of every individual is to associate and attach him/herself to Knesset Yisrael. The implication being, the community trumps the individual. Individuals need to strive for greatness by joining the community rather than advancing in individual endeavors. Yet, later in the parsha, commenting on the three different usages of the term pekudayhem, the Ramban states that the reason one of those terms are used in reference to Moshe and Aharon - asher pakad Moshe v'Aharon - is to emphasize the unique opportunity that each individual has by being recognized - as a unique individual - by the greatest figures: Moshe and Aharon. Here, the Ramban seems to emphasize the importance of the individual standing out amongst the entirety of society. Each individual has a special place, recognized and appreciated by the leaders of the community. Which is it? Is the tzibur of greater importance or the individual?
Similarly, at the conclusion of the count of every tribe, the Torah tells us the total of Bnei Yisrael even though we could have figured that out using simple math. Nonetheless, the Torah specifically mentions the total to inform us of the importance of the total of the community as being greater than the sum of its parts. Yet, commenting on the verse bnei Naftali, the Arizal explains that the reason that the verse says bnei Naftali without the prefix of a lamed as it uses for all the other tribes (L'vnei Asher, L'vnei Gad, etc) is simply a recognition of actual events. The Arizal explains that there was a box with papers upon which the name of every Jew was written. Each tribe would approach the box, collect the papers with the names of the individuals from their tribe and count accordingly. Since the total number was already known, the tribe of Naftali, which was the last to approach the box, did not need to count the names. After all, all that remained were of their tribe. For our sake, the point to emphasize is that every individual was recognized and counted in the process. Even though the total number was known, every individual needed to be counted. It seems that the Torah is emphasizing the opposite of what was previously assumed. Instead of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, each part has a value above and beyond their participation in the whole. Again, which is it?
Parshas Bamidbar opens with the verse vayedabeir Hashem el Moshe b'midbar Sinai b'ohel moed. Why is it necessary to mention that these events occurred in midbar Sinai? The location of these events seems inconsequential to the goal, that of counting Bnei Yisrael.
Chazal tell us that there was often conflict and petty disputes amongst Bnei Yisrael when they left Egypt. The Torah and the medrash often describe these disputes (i.e. the conflict as to the proper course of action to be taken at Yam Suf). However, once Bnei Yisrael reached Sinai these conflicts and disputes ended. Vayichan sham Yisrael negged hahar - k'ish echad b'lev echad. Unity finally arrived upon Bnei Yisrael's arrival in midbar Sinai. This desert, this lowly mountain upon which the Torah would be given, delivered an understanding of the need for unity and, simultaneously, a confidence for each individual. Sinai was where Bnei Yisrael would receive the Torah as a People, attaining their status as the Am hanivchar. Nonetheless, variant boundaries were set up so that the Elders could go beyond a certain point and Moshe even further. The Torah is an inheritance for the Jewish people, as a people - morasha KEHILLAS Yaakov. However, greatness in Torah is not an inheritance for individuals. It is not given to an individual due to his status in the community, his wealth, or his yichus. Each individual can reach the greatest heights in Torah through their own individual efforts. Nonetheless, reaching these great heights is impossible if one is not part of the Am hanivchar that received the Torah.
It wasn't until their arrival at Sinai that Bnei Yisrael realized that each individual could not reach their own respective goals and aspirations or fulfill their dreams without being inextricably intertwined with Knesset Yisrael. Upon this realization, petty squabbles ceased. It was in Sinai, where each individual would eventually receive two crowns, that each individual felt comfortable and confident enough to relinquish personal ego to join the community in full recognition that this attachment would not only benefit the community but would also benefit themselves. Therefore, the Torah specifically mentions that this counting occurred in midbar Sinai for it was here, finally, when Bnei Yisrael could be counted as individuals and as a community. It wasn't until they reached the level of unity achieved at Sinai that they were able to be counted as individuals. Each one was important enough to be recognized by Moshe and Aharon because their egos were checked. The Ramban is informing us that each individual can be counted because tifkadu osam l'tzivosam, they understood that they needed to attain an unbreakable connection to Knesset Yisrael.
The lesson of Bamidbar is not only to stress the dual significance of the tzibbur and the yachid, but also to inform us that each is essential for the other. The Rambam tells us that the Se'ir hamishtalayach brought forgiveness for numerous sins even if one did not repent. Rav Soloveitchik explains that the requirement to attain this forgiveness was merely to be part of Knesset Yisrael, to associate oneself with Knesset Yisrael. The tzibbur supersedes the individual. Yet, the Talmud tells us that if the majority of Bnei Yisrael are impure, then the Korban Pesach is brought in its proper time, as the impurity is overridden by the vastness of individuals. The appreciation of the importance of the Klal, of Knesset Yisrael as a whole, along with a simultaneous appreciation of each individual enables us to unite k'ish echad b'lev echad and, for each one of us, to once again don the dual crowns of Torah.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Behar-Bechukosai
Vezacharti es brisi Yaakov v'af es brisi Yitzchak v'af es brisi Avraham ezkor v'ha'aretz ezkor - and I will remember the covenant with Yaakov, Yitzchak, and Avraham and the Land. This verse provides a brief comforting interlude in the midst of the curses of the tochecha. Chazal point out the unusual order of the names of the Avos as well as the use of the word zechirah - remembering - for both Yaakov and Avraham but not for Yitzchak.
The Ba'al Haturim gives two rather intriguing explanations. The Ba'al Haturim explains that the word zechira is mentioned by Yaakov and Avraham but not by Yitzchak because Yaakov and Avraham observed Torah and mitzvos both in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz l'Aretz while Yitzchak only observed Torah and mitzvos in Eretz Yisrael. He also points out that there are times when Avraham is mentioned first of the Avos and times when Yaakov is mentioned first, but there is not occurrence of Yitzchak being mentioned first. This, he explains, is due to the fact that Yitzchak intended on giving the blessing of hevei g'vir l'achecha to Eisav, placing Eisav ahead of Yaakov. As a result, Yitzchak cannot be mentioned ahead of the other Avos.
These explanations seem difficult. At first glance, they appear to be punishments for Yitzchak's actions. But why would Yitzchak be punished for never leaving Eretz Yisrael? Wasn't he commanded to remain in Eretz Yisrael and commanded not to leave? Don't we attribute greater holiness to Yitzchak as an olah temimah and due to his uninterrupted connection to the Land? Similarly, why is Yitzchak punished for attempting to abide by the law of the firstborn? The Ramban in Bereishis explains that in the times of Genesis the firstborn had certain rights as the one to take his father's place. This was the general law. The law of bechorah could not be violated without a Divine decree to do so. Avraham violated the law of bechora by having Yitzchak be his heir. Avraham was able to do so only because he was commanded to do so through the prophecy of ki v'Yitzchak yikarei lecha zera. Absent this Divine command, Avraham would also have been bound by the law. Yitzchak might have been fully aware of the character of Eisav. Perhaps he was not fooled at all by Eisav and never thought him to be worthy of the blessings. Nonetheless, Yitzchak, the man of mishpat/judgement, adheres to the law. Yitzchak epitomizes the understanding that all mitzvos are to be observed as chukim, even those that we understand. Yitzchak recognizes that his knowledge is not to be used to question Divine commands and, therefore, he must comply with the law even if he, based on his human intellect, does not understand. Yitzchak was unaware of the prophecy given to Rivkah stating verav ya'avod tza'ir. He was unaware of the prophecy that placed Yaakov ahead of Eisav. His intent, as the man of mishpat/judgement, was to abide by the law. Why should he be punished for that?
We can approach the commentary of the Ba'al Haturim from different angles. Firstly, we can approach it directly, through the direct understanding of the comment. The absence of the word zechirah and Yitzchak's placement in the middle of the Avos is not necessarily due to sins. Nonetheless, the facts are that he, indeed, did not observe the Torah and mitzvos outside the Land and he did intend on delivering the blessing to Eisav. Although he acted in accordance with the law and his conduct was proper and even admirable, nonetheless the fact remains that he never lived outside of the Land and that he intended on giving Eisav the brachos. The consequences of this are that the verse refers to him differently than it does to Avraham and Yaakov. The power of the Torah in helping Bnei Yisrael throughout history needs to be a power that can survive Jewish sovereignty in the Land as well as persecution in exile. Yaakov and Avraham provided that power more than Yitzchak, simply because they had the opportunity to do just that. Similarly, Yitzchak's intent to give Eisav the blessings might have been proper. Nonetheless, the intent would have placed Yaakov below Eisav. Bnei Yisrael would have been negatively impacted. Therefore, the reward of being placed at the head is not available to Yitzchak. This, then, is not so much a punishment as it is a realization of the facts.
However, there is another angle through which to approach the comments of the Ba'al Haturim. The fact that Yitzchak is never mentioned first is a result of Yitzchak's personality and qualities. Yitzchak is the middle link of the unbreakable three-linked chain. Yitzchak's role is to absorb the teachings of the previous generation and faithfully pass those lessons on to future generations with all its power and inspiration. Yitzchak does not get the glory of the initiator nor the glory of the implementer. Nonetheless, implementation of the lessons of Avraham and promulgation of those lessons to the entirety of the Jewish people cannot happen without the faithful, unrecognized, steadfast persistence of Yitzchak remaining faithful to the teachings of Avraham and selflessly giving those lessons and the glory of their implementation to Yaakov. Yitzchak is never mentioned first because that would undermine his importance and his role. Yitzchak was willing to give the blessings to Eisav because he was faithfully observing the law, or so he thought. When confronted with the realization that Yaakov was the rightful heir to the blessings, he bestowed them upon him, as a faithful link in the unbreakable chain. Yitzchak's willingness to remain virtually anonymous and as a background figure even in the most important of events, his willingness to adhere to the law rather than insist upon his own interpretation, define him. Placing him at the head would not accurately represent who he is.
In the same vein, the word zechirah is actually mentioned regarding Yitzchak. However, it is stated in connection with the Land - v'ha'aretz ezkor. Yitzchak does not need his own memory. The memory of the Land is sufficient recognition for him. Yitzchak's observance of Torah in the Land provided a powerful foundation that enabled Bnei Yisrael to survive in exile. The eternal connection of Bnei Yisrael to the Land provides the emotional support necessary to survive all the challenges of exile along with the eternal hope of redemption and return. Yitzchak's achievement was to unassumingly provide the unbreakable chain to Avraham and the eternal connection to Eretz Yisrael. Being mentioned in the middle of the Avos and having his zechirah toed to the Land, defines Yitzchak.
This describes the explanation of the Ba'al Haturim as one that does not see the flaws in Yitzchak's actions but rather the power of his personality, the selflessness of his commitment to the survival and success of Bnei Yisrael, the greatness of his position as the forefather that symbolizes the unbreakable chain back to Avraham and the eternal bond to Eretz Yisrael.
The Ba'al Haturim gives two rather intriguing explanations. The Ba'al Haturim explains that the word zechira is mentioned by Yaakov and Avraham but not by Yitzchak because Yaakov and Avraham observed Torah and mitzvos both in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz l'Aretz while Yitzchak only observed Torah and mitzvos in Eretz Yisrael. He also points out that there are times when Avraham is mentioned first of the Avos and times when Yaakov is mentioned first, but there is not occurrence of Yitzchak being mentioned first. This, he explains, is due to the fact that Yitzchak intended on giving the blessing of hevei g'vir l'achecha to Eisav, placing Eisav ahead of Yaakov. As a result, Yitzchak cannot be mentioned ahead of the other Avos.
These explanations seem difficult. At first glance, they appear to be punishments for Yitzchak's actions. But why would Yitzchak be punished for never leaving Eretz Yisrael? Wasn't he commanded to remain in Eretz Yisrael and commanded not to leave? Don't we attribute greater holiness to Yitzchak as an olah temimah and due to his uninterrupted connection to the Land? Similarly, why is Yitzchak punished for attempting to abide by the law of the firstborn? The Ramban in Bereishis explains that in the times of Genesis the firstborn had certain rights as the one to take his father's place. This was the general law. The law of bechorah could not be violated without a Divine decree to do so. Avraham violated the law of bechora by having Yitzchak be his heir. Avraham was able to do so only because he was commanded to do so through the prophecy of ki v'Yitzchak yikarei lecha zera. Absent this Divine command, Avraham would also have been bound by the law. Yitzchak might have been fully aware of the character of Eisav. Perhaps he was not fooled at all by Eisav and never thought him to be worthy of the blessings. Nonetheless, Yitzchak, the man of mishpat/judgement, adheres to the law. Yitzchak epitomizes the understanding that all mitzvos are to be observed as chukim, even those that we understand. Yitzchak recognizes that his knowledge is not to be used to question Divine commands and, therefore, he must comply with the law even if he, based on his human intellect, does not understand. Yitzchak was unaware of the prophecy given to Rivkah stating verav ya'avod tza'ir. He was unaware of the prophecy that placed Yaakov ahead of Eisav. His intent, as the man of mishpat/judgement, was to abide by the law. Why should he be punished for that?
We can approach the commentary of the Ba'al Haturim from different angles. Firstly, we can approach it directly, through the direct understanding of the comment. The absence of the word zechirah and Yitzchak's placement in the middle of the Avos is not necessarily due to sins. Nonetheless, the facts are that he, indeed, did not observe the Torah and mitzvos outside the Land and he did intend on delivering the blessing to Eisav. Although he acted in accordance with the law and his conduct was proper and even admirable, nonetheless the fact remains that he never lived outside of the Land and that he intended on giving Eisav the brachos. The consequences of this are that the verse refers to him differently than it does to Avraham and Yaakov. The power of the Torah in helping Bnei Yisrael throughout history needs to be a power that can survive Jewish sovereignty in the Land as well as persecution in exile. Yaakov and Avraham provided that power more than Yitzchak, simply because they had the opportunity to do just that. Similarly, Yitzchak's intent to give Eisav the blessings might have been proper. Nonetheless, the intent would have placed Yaakov below Eisav. Bnei Yisrael would have been negatively impacted. Therefore, the reward of being placed at the head is not available to Yitzchak. This, then, is not so much a punishment as it is a realization of the facts.
However, there is another angle through which to approach the comments of the Ba'al Haturim. The fact that Yitzchak is never mentioned first is a result of Yitzchak's personality and qualities. Yitzchak is the middle link of the unbreakable three-linked chain. Yitzchak's role is to absorb the teachings of the previous generation and faithfully pass those lessons on to future generations with all its power and inspiration. Yitzchak does not get the glory of the initiator nor the glory of the implementer. Nonetheless, implementation of the lessons of Avraham and promulgation of those lessons to the entirety of the Jewish people cannot happen without the faithful, unrecognized, steadfast persistence of Yitzchak remaining faithful to the teachings of Avraham and selflessly giving those lessons and the glory of their implementation to Yaakov. Yitzchak is never mentioned first because that would undermine his importance and his role. Yitzchak was willing to give the blessings to Eisav because he was faithfully observing the law, or so he thought. When confronted with the realization that Yaakov was the rightful heir to the blessings, he bestowed them upon him, as a faithful link in the unbreakable chain. Yitzchak's willingness to remain virtually anonymous and as a background figure even in the most important of events, his willingness to adhere to the law rather than insist upon his own interpretation, define him. Placing him at the head would not accurately represent who he is.
In the same vein, the word zechirah is actually mentioned regarding Yitzchak. However, it is stated in connection with the Land - v'ha'aretz ezkor. Yitzchak does not need his own memory. The memory of the Land is sufficient recognition for him. Yitzchak's observance of Torah in the Land provided a powerful foundation that enabled Bnei Yisrael to survive in exile. The eternal connection of Bnei Yisrael to the Land provides the emotional support necessary to survive all the challenges of exile along with the eternal hope of redemption and return. Yitzchak's achievement was to unassumingly provide the unbreakable chain to Avraham and the eternal connection to Eretz Yisrael. Being mentioned in the middle of the Avos and having his zechirah toed to the Land, defines Yitzchak.
This describes the explanation of the Ba'al Haturim as one that does not see the flaws in Yitzchak's actions but rather the power of his personality, the selflessness of his commitment to the survival and success of Bnei Yisrael, the greatness of his position as the forefather that symbolizes the unbreakable chain back to Avraham and the eternal bond to Eretz Yisrael.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Emor
The end of parshas Emor reports the episode of the mekalel - the one who publicly blasphemes Hashem. The episode is introduced with the word vayetze - and he went out. Wondering about the mekalel's original location, Rashi ponders where the mekalel has gone out from. One of the explanations that Rashi delivers in the name of Rav Berechiah of the Talmud is that he went out from the previous parsha. The preceding verses of the Torah describe the Shulchan - the show table in the Mishkan upon which were placed the loaves of show bread. The bread was placed on the shulchan at the beginning of each week and lasted - remaining fresh - for the entire week when a new batch of bread was baked to replace the previous week's batch. The mekalel is disturbed by this idea, perceiving a desecration of Hashem by allowing days old bread to be 'offered' to Hashem when one knows that any king would require, and be worthy of, fresh bread daily. Although the logic of the argument is understandable, it is difficult to comprehend why the mekalel was so disturbed by this to lead him to a most despicable sin of blasphemy.
The description of the shulchan is preceded by the parshas menorah - the description of the menorah and its lighting in the Mikdash. The two descriptions have many similarities. However, there is one interesting distinction to focus upon. The shulchan uses the word bris - covenant. The shulchan and its showbread are described as being a covenant between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael whereas the menorah is not described as such. Interestingly, the sacrifices themselves also do not contain the idea of a covenant. However, this same word - bris/covenant - is used in describing the salt that is to be brought with every sacrifice - al kol korbancha takriv melach. The term bris defines an intimate relationship between the parties of the covenant.
The mekalel seems to be struggling with a philosophical issue. He understands that there is the world of nature and there is the world of the supernatural. However, the fact that a covenant was made with the sacrificial portion of salt implies that the covenant is with nature. The world of miracles is for the Mikdash. Heavenly fires consuming the sacrifices, the light of the Menorah never extinguishing, the fire of the altar never wavering are part of the supernatural that exists specifically in the Mikdash. However, the covenant with Bnei Yisrael is made with the melach - salt - the ingredient used as a natural preservative. Miracles are momentary but for things to be preserved and last they need to exist within nature. The mekalel believes that the covenant with salt teaches us this lesson. Therefore, he struggles with the show bread. The show bread is not preserved through natural means. Rather, Divine intervention assures that the bread will not turn stale even after a week. This miracle is acceptable to the mekalel. His problem is that it, too, is defined as a bris, a covenant. The bris that Hashem made with Bnei Yisrael is that miracles are fleeting events. Long term success and preservation requires utilizing nature and natural resources. How, then, can a covenant be made equally with salt - the symbol of longevity and preservation through nature- and the show bread - a symbol of miraculous intervention to assure longevity and preservation?
Struggling with this contradiction, the mekalel resorts to blasphemy. If sustenance and longevity can be achieved through the supernatural then why does Hashem require us to be involved with and rely upon nature? In a sense, the mekalel's belief system has been shattered. His reason for being, his work ethic, his ambition and motivation have been shattered. Why does he need to pursue his lifestyle if Hashem could miraculously give him the same results without any effort?
The fact that the mekalel is punished assures us that his logic is flawed. Indeed, the covenant between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael is both in the natural and supernatural worlds. Miracles are not merely fleeting events nor are they restricted to a single place, even one as holy as the Mikdash. The bris we have assures us that there are natural resources to be used to assure our preservation, growth, and success. In addition, we are assured that Divine intervention in the form of supernatural events can happen overtly or surreptitiously. Everything, even nature, is a miracle and everything, even miracles, is natural for Hashem.
The covenant with Bnei Yisrael contains both aspects. Our intimate relationship with Hashem requires us to expend our energies in utilizing natural resources to achieve the greatest of goals, to persevere, to succeed, and to assure our eternal existence. Simultaneously, our intimate relationship with Hashem assures us that supernatural assistance is available and constant to support our efforts and equally assure our success and our eternal existence.
The description of the shulchan is preceded by the parshas menorah - the description of the menorah and its lighting in the Mikdash. The two descriptions have many similarities. However, there is one interesting distinction to focus upon. The shulchan uses the word bris - covenant. The shulchan and its showbread are described as being a covenant between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael whereas the menorah is not described as such. Interestingly, the sacrifices themselves also do not contain the idea of a covenant. However, this same word - bris/covenant - is used in describing the salt that is to be brought with every sacrifice - al kol korbancha takriv melach. The term bris defines an intimate relationship between the parties of the covenant.
The mekalel seems to be struggling with a philosophical issue. He understands that there is the world of nature and there is the world of the supernatural. However, the fact that a covenant was made with the sacrificial portion of salt implies that the covenant is with nature. The world of miracles is for the Mikdash. Heavenly fires consuming the sacrifices, the light of the Menorah never extinguishing, the fire of the altar never wavering are part of the supernatural that exists specifically in the Mikdash. However, the covenant with Bnei Yisrael is made with the melach - salt - the ingredient used as a natural preservative. Miracles are momentary but for things to be preserved and last they need to exist within nature. The mekalel believes that the covenant with salt teaches us this lesson. Therefore, he struggles with the show bread. The show bread is not preserved through natural means. Rather, Divine intervention assures that the bread will not turn stale even after a week. This miracle is acceptable to the mekalel. His problem is that it, too, is defined as a bris, a covenant. The bris that Hashem made with Bnei Yisrael is that miracles are fleeting events. Long term success and preservation requires utilizing nature and natural resources. How, then, can a covenant be made equally with salt - the symbol of longevity and preservation through nature- and the show bread - a symbol of miraculous intervention to assure longevity and preservation?
Struggling with this contradiction, the mekalel resorts to blasphemy. If sustenance and longevity can be achieved through the supernatural then why does Hashem require us to be involved with and rely upon nature? In a sense, the mekalel's belief system has been shattered. His reason for being, his work ethic, his ambition and motivation have been shattered. Why does he need to pursue his lifestyle if Hashem could miraculously give him the same results without any effort?
The fact that the mekalel is punished assures us that his logic is flawed. Indeed, the covenant between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael is both in the natural and supernatural worlds. Miracles are not merely fleeting events nor are they restricted to a single place, even one as holy as the Mikdash. The bris we have assures us that there are natural resources to be used to assure our preservation, growth, and success. In addition, we are assured that Divine intervention in the form of supernatural events can happen overtly or surreptitiously. Everything, even nature, is a miracle and everything, even miracles, is natural for Hashem.
The covenant with Bnei Yisrael contains both aspects. Our intimate relationship with Hashem requires us to expend our energies in utilizing natural resources to achieve the greatest of goals, to persevere, to succeed, and to assure our eternal existence. Simultaneously, our intimate relationship with Hashem assures us that supernatural assistance is available and constant to support our efforts and equally assure our success and our eternal existence.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Acharei Mos- Kedoshim
The phrases 'ani Hashem ' and 'ki kadosh ani' occur a number of times in parshas Kedoshim. However, there are only two commandments that conjure up the memory of the Egyptian experience. Interestingly, both are contained in a small five-verse section of Kedoshim.
V'chi yagur itcha ger...v'ahavta lo kamocha ki geirim heyitem b'eretz mitzrayim - love the stranger like yourself because you, too, were strangers in Mitzrayim. 'Moznei tzedek avnei tzedek eifas tzedek v'hin tzedek yihyeh lachem ani Hashem Elokeichem asher hotzeisi eschem me'eretz Mitzrayim' - be honest and faithful in weights and measurements. I am Hashem your God who took you out of Egypt.
Firstly, we need to understand why these two commandments utilize the memory of the Egyptian experience. Second, we must understand an interesting distinction between the two statements regarding Mitzrayim. The commandment regarding the stranger emphasizes our exile in Egypt. It charges us to remember the persecution and pain we suffered and implores us to act differently when the wheel has turned and we are the landowner rather than the stranger. The commandment regarding weights and measurements does not require us to remember the Egyptian exile but rather the Egyptian exodus. We are asked to remember that we were taken out of Egypt rather than remember what life was like while there. Why the distinction?
Kedoshim is filled with commandments. Many of the commandments relate to the interaction of a person and Hashem, a person and his family, a person and his community. These two commandments, however, relate to people beyond the normal scope of Knesset Yisrael. Dealing with the stranger is a commandment to include others who were previously seen as different and from whom we were commanded to separate. The laws of weights and measures applies to all business dealings irrespective of the background, religion, or ethnicity of the buyer.
The Egyptian experience - both the persecution experienced while in the exile as well as the exodus and redemption from it - is seen as a uniquely Jewish experience. The persecution was one that was directed at the Jewish people as a people. The exodus signified the intimate, hashgacha pratis relationship between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael, ultimately leading to our designation as mamleches kohanim v'goy kadosh. Few events are more uniquely Jewish than the experience of exile and exodus from Egypt.
But keeping these experiences and the knowledge gained from them to ourselves is not the function of Bnei Yisrael. The charge of the Jewish people is to take these unique experiences and convert them to universal messages. The charge is to be a light unto the nations. Experiences - positive and negative - are to be learned from and taught with. These two commandments symbolize this requirement. The Torah commands us to remember the persecution we experienced in Egypt and rather than perpetuate this evil by doing the same to others, we are commanded to eradicate the evil; rather than perpetuate prejudice, division of classes, inequality, we are commanded to include, respect, and support all citizens.
Similarly, the Torah commands us to act honestly and fairly in our dealings with all others. We are asked to remember the exodus from Egypt to help us in this endeavor. The redemption from Egypt was done with careful and exacting measurement. Halalu ovdei avodah zarah v'halalu ovdei avodah zarah. The promise to our ancestors, the mitzva of Korban Pesach and Bris Milah were essential distinctions that enabled the redemption to be achieved. Rather than utilizing that exacting measurement as a distinguishing factor between us and others, we are commanded to deliver that message of fair practice universally by being an example of honesty and fairness.
The Egyptian experience depicted in these verses spans the persecution to the redemption. The laws described in these verses are ones that apply to our interactions with people beyond the normal scope of the Knesset Yisrael community. The connection is one that implores us to take all of our experiences - whether perceived as uniquely Jewish or not - and convert them into universal messages, espousing and expanding the glory of the Torah and assuring the achievement of our mission to be an or l'amim.
V'chi yagur itcha ger...v'ahavta lo kamocha ki geirim heyitem b'eretz mitzrayim - love the stranger like yourself because you, too, were strangers in Mitzrayim. 'Moznei tzedek avnei tzedek eifas tzedek v'hin tzedek yihyeh lachem ani Hashem Elokeichem asher hotzeisi eschem me'eretz Mitzrayim' - be honest and faithful in weights and measurements. I am Hashem your God who took you out of Egypt.
Firstly, we need to understand why these two commandments utilize the memory of the Egyptian experience. Second, we must understand an interesting distinction between the two statements regarding Mitzrayim. The commandment regarding the stranger emphasizes our exile in Egypt. It charges us to remember the persecution and pain we suffered and implores us to act differently when the wheel has turned and we are the landowner rather than the stranger. The commandment regarding weights and measurements does not require us to remember the Egyptian exile but rather the Egyptian exodus. We are asked to remember that we were taken out of Egypt rather than remember what life was like while there. Why the distinction?
Kedoshim is filled with commandments. Many of the commandments relate to the interaction of a person and Hashem, a person and his family, a person and his community. These two commandments, however, relate to people beyond the normal scope of Knesset Yisrael. Dealing with the stranger is a commandment to include others who were previously seen as different and from whom we were commanded to separate. The laws of weights and measures applies to all business dealings irrespective of the background, religion, or ethnicity of the buyer.
The Egyptian experience - both the persecution experienced while in the exile as well as the exodus and redemption from it - is seen as a uniquely Jewish experience. The persecution was one that was directed at the Jewish people as a people. The exodus signified the intimate, hashgacha pratis relationship between Hashem and Bnei Yisrael, ultimately leading to our designation as mamleches kohanim v'goy kadosh. Few events are more uniquely Jewish than the experience of exile and exodus from Egypt.
But keeping these experiences and the knowledge gained from them to ourselves is not the function of Bnei Yisrael. The charge of the Jewish people is to take these unique experiences and convert them to universal messages. The charge is to be a light unto the nations. Experiences - positive and negative - are to be learned from and taught with. These two commandments symbolize this requirement. The Torah commands us to remember the persecution we experienced in Egypt and rather than perpetuate this evil by doing the same to others, we are commanded to eradicate the evil; rather than perpetuate prejudice, division of classes, inequality, we are commanded to include, respect, and support all citizens.
Similarly, the Torah commands us to act honestly and fairly in our dealings with all others. We are asked to remember the exodus from Egypt to help us in this endeavor. The redemption from Egypt was done with careful and exacting measurement. Halalu ovdei avodah zarah v'halalu ovdei avodah zarah. The promise to our ancestors, the mitzva of Korban Pesach and Bris Milah were essential distinctions that enabled the redemption to be achieved. Rather than utilizing that exacting measurement as a distinguishing factor between us and others, we are commanded to deliver that message of fair practice universally by being an example of honesty and fairness.
The Egyptian experience depicted in these verses spans the persecution to the redemption. The laws described in these verses are ones that apply to our interactions with people beyond the normal scope of the Knesset Yisrael community. The connection is one that implores us to take all of our experiences - whether perceived as uniquely Jewish or not - and convert them into universal messages, espousing and expanding the glory of the Torah and assuring the achievement of our mission to be an or l'amim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)