{
"title": "Akeidat Yitzchak",
"language": "en",
"versionTitle": "merged",
"versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Akeidat_Yitzchak",
"text": {
"Index": [],
"Author's Introduction": [],
"Mavo Shearim": [],
"": [
[
[
"",
"\"AT THE BEGINNING, THE LORD CREATED.\" ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 1 quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai commenting on Samuel II 22,36, \"Your modesty has increased my stature;\" whenever we deal with human beings, their names precede their accomplishments, their titles. Not so with the Almighty. His accomplishments are listed first, His title only afterwards. He supplies the needs of the universe; only subsequently does He mention His name. We find at the beginning of the Torah \"in the beginning He created;\" Who? \"the Lord.\" Normally, one would have expected the verse to commence \"The Lord created at the beginning.\" ",
"",
"In order to identify anything correctly, one needs definite answers to four basic questions. These are 1) What? 2) From what? 3) From whom? 4) Why? The answers to these four questions will reveal 1) the form, shape of the object of our inquiry; 2) the material it consists of; 3) who has created it; 4) what is its purpose, its function. Once we have been supplied with these answers, and proceeding from the simplest phenomenon, one can advance step by step to more sophisticated phenomena, identify them, understand their function and purpose, and eventually divine their ultimate Cause, i.e. the Creator of the universe. Since, however, we frequently fail to identify some phenomena correctly, and since the answers to all the four questions listed may not have been available, many people have resigned themselves to consider the universe as being the result of some cosmic accident, a mere coincidence. Aristotle already has disproved such a philosophy, employing three arguments. 1) Accidents are by definition exceptions, not norms. How can nature be an \"accident\" then? 2) Even when accidental happenings do occur, the result is rarely perfection, rather a pronounced lack of perfection. A similar idea is expressed in Solomon's song about the eyshet chayil the woman of valor (Proverbs 31). He asks, \"Who can find such a woman?\" The emphasis is on the word \"find\". Such a woman is not the product of some \"accident\", but the result of a process of very careful cultivation. 3) The fact that almost everything we observe serves a well understood purpose, is surely evidence that it is the result of the most careful planning. It is not accidental, but the work of a Creator, the result of a will. The predictability and order of most natural phenomena both on the ground and in space, prove that they are not products of accidents but of a monumental intellect. Any unexplained phenomenon merely points to the fact that the intellect of its Creator is far superior to that of His creature. There is no compelling reason that the creature must understand everything its Creator has done. ",
"",
"Maimonides in his Moreh Section 2, Chapters 20-23, proves that Aristotle's concept of the existence of matter prior to the Creator is false, and that only the concept of creation ex nihilo is the Jewish tradition. ",
"",
"",
"",
"Man, starting out alone, without knowledge of the outside, acquires knowledge gradually through contacts, perceptions etc. Because he is forever incomplete, by definition, forever at best progressing towards completion, man, i.e. his title appears first (in the words of Shimon ben Azzai). The reverse is true of G-d. He is by definition the ultimate Cause of everything. Knowledge of His actions confers upon us a measure of knowledge about Him. Therefore, He appears in the text after we have been informed of His activity. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"the heaven and the earth\"",
"Midrash Rabbah Exodus 15, states that Moses wrote down many things in general obscure terms, whereas David later explained these in greater detail. For example, Moses wrote in the story of creation that heaven and earth preceded the creation of light, whereas David gives the reverse account in Psalms 104,2: \"You wrap Yourself in light like a cloak, and then stretch the heavens like a carpet.\" ",
"Since the four basic elements, i.e. water, earth, wind, and fire move only in one direction, downwards in the case of water and earth, upwards in the case of wind and fire, and their motion is always arrested once their respective goals have been reached, it is clear that their path is predetermined for them, and that they are not free agents. When we observe movements in the sky, we observe unceasing motion in apparently forward and backward direction (orbit). This could suggest that the objects in motion are possessed of intelligence or are directed by intelligent beings. Since our traditions are not too clear about all this, we are permitted to reject this idea altogether and simply postulate that these heavenly bodies have been given different properties from the four fundamental elements comprising earth. Motion of the celestial bodies is on the one hand unceasing, yet their exact path is pre-calculated and departure from it is not possible either regarding their speed or direction of movement. Most Midrashim are compatible with this theory. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"THE LORD SAID, \"LET THERE BE LIGHT!\" ",
"The Midrash in Avot 5,1 states that the world was created by ten directives, though it could have been created by a single directive. This was in order to increase the culpability of those who deny the existence of G-d the Creator and to increase the merit of those who ensure the continued existence of the world by their righteousness. ",
"Since the purpose of G-d’s Torah is to enable man to achieve success, his success in turn depends on intelligent use of his freedom of choice. Such success, however, is impossible without some understanding of the way in which nature works. The story of creation therefore has to supply that understanding, just as it has to supply the knowledge that there is a Creator who presides over His entire handiwork. ",
"A solid series of natural laws is essential, else the freedom of choice would include man's ability to destroy the universe. For this reason, man's actions do not have an immediate impact on nature as a whole. On the other hand, this apparent lack of impact is used by some people as an argument to deny the whole theory that G-d is the Creator and that the performance of good or evil deeds respectively contributes to or detracts from His creation. It is questionable whether the ten directives can indeed be matched up with the ten occasions we find the word vayomer, \"He said,\" appearing in the story of the creation. It is also doubtful that if on the one hand attempts to destroy the fabric of the universe deserve special punishments, the reverse is true also, i.e. that acts designed to preserve the universe intact should merit special reward. Logically speaking, preserving a painstakingly created universe should merit less reward than preserving a universe which is based on a single directive by the Creator. Acting in accordance with natural law should merely be an act of prudence for any intelligent human being; why should it merit any reward at all? ",
"",
"We suggest therefore that the ten directives referred to in the Midrash, are the parts of the creative process as such, not the successive directions governing the developmental stages of creation. All phenomena in the universe are summed up under different headings. (A) is the essence; (B) i.e. 2-10 are the forces moderating the essence. These can be subdivided into 2) quantity, 3) quality, 4) direction, 5) the time frame they operate in, 6) the relative condition of the phenomenon when compared to its full potential, 7) its relation to other phenomena, 8) its activity, i.e. its effect on other phenomena, 9) its response to other phenomena, 10) its rationale, its attributes. Each of the aspects mentioned above has an indispensable place in the scheme of nature, and as such is part of the process of creation referred to as \"ten directives\". True, G-d could have given a single directive stipulating \"Let the universe come into existence in accordance with My image of it,” (see Rashbam). This would have meant that the universe would be so interrelated that it would have lacked distinct time frames etc., all the parts of nature that enable us to examine and admire the incomparable intelligence with which it has been planned. Nature would have been deprived of all cause and effect relationships. It would have depended exclusively on the miraculous in order to effect any changes, ever. G-d would have had to treat the whole universe as He treated the Jewish people during the forty years they wandered through the desert, when He provided all their needs, contrary to natural law. Had G-d proceeded in such a fashion, there would have been no room for the exercise of free choice, free will, since that is based on the premise that actions on our part have a causal relationship to the events which we aim to bring about by our decisions and actions. The concept of reward and punishment would not then have been applicable, since nature as a machinery for developmental activities would have been non existent. There would then have been only two ways in which things could happen: (a) accidentally; (b) personal intervention by G-d, i.e. miraculously. In either case, no change could have been attributed to man's participation. Consequently, man could not have been held responsible for setting in motion forces which he not only failed to understand, but which simply did not exist. ",
"Once the evolutionary process of nature has been revealed, he who denies its Creator surely is guilty of wilful misconduct and therefore is deserving of punishment. Solomon, in Kohelet 8,11, refers to the fact that the absence of immediate catastrophic consequences enables a sinner to act in accordance with the dictates of his heart. ",
"On the other hand, the very factor which entices man to sin is also at work when the righteous decide to disregard this factor. Temptation resisted is worth a greater reward than temptation one has never come to grips with. Isaiah 40,27, \"who gives strength to the ya-ef, tired,\" should be understood thus. The ya-ef is the inert, primordial matter which has been activated by G-d’s directives. We conclude that both natural law and special Providence are required on occasion in order to ensure the survival of mankind. The commentary of Rashi at the beginning of Parshat Bereshit goes beyond the apologetic in vindicating our claim to the land of Israel. His commentary provides the philosophical basis, namely that nothing happens as the result of mere chance, but that everything is the result either directly or indirectly of G-d’s position as owner of the universe. ",
"Problems in the text of the story: 1) Why was light created first, since there were not yet any creatures or other substances that were in need of it? ",
"2) Why, after the directive \"Let there be light,\" does the Torah say \"There was light\" instead of \"And it was so,\" as is the case after all the other directives? Why does the Torah stress \"It was good\" in all these categories; why not content itself by stating \"It was so?\" ",
"3) Why is the statement about separating light and darkness subsequent to the statement \"G-d saw the light that it was good?\" The reverse order would have seemed more logical! ",
"4) Why does the Torah state \"It was evening, it was morning? The reverse would have seemed more plausible. After all, evening is what we have left after the sun has set! ",
" 5) How could there have been evenings and mornings when there had not yet been a sun during the first three days of the creative process? ",
"6) Why does the Torah say \"One day,” instead of \"The first day,” when it describes the events that took place on day one?",
"7) The directive about separating water from water seems superfluous. The words \"Let there be a sky amongst the waters,” surely presupposes such a separation. What are \"the upper waters?\"",
"8) Why does the Torah repeat \"G-d made the sky?\" He had already given a directive \"Let there be a sky!\" (compare Ben Zoma, Bereshit Rabbah 4). ",
"9) Why is the naming of the sky mentioned when at the outset the Torah had stated “G-d created the sky and the earth?\" ",
"10) Why do we not find the statement \"It was good\" after the directives of the second day had been carried out? Why, on the other hand, do we find this expression twice during the report about what was created on the third day? ",
" 11) Why is the creation of the planetary system not reported immediately after the report about creation of the sky? This especially since the heavenly bodies preceded the earth in their causal relationship and planning? ",
"12) Why has the creation of the large sea monsters been singled out for special mention? Similarly, the special reference to chayat ha-aretz the wildlife on the sixth day? If the latter were the result of earth's activity, they should have been mentioned at the end of day three which describes earth's activity. Also, why is there no \"So it came to be,\" in those instances? ",
"13) Why was not a special day devoted to the creation of man, seeing he is so distinct from other creatures? ",
"14) When G-d said during the creation of man \"Let Us make etc.... so he will have dominion over the beasts,\" one forms the impression that his purpose is related to this tzelem image of G-d that man has been made in. ",
"15) Why has the creation of man not been described as having been \"good?\" Since the entire creative process is subsequently described as \"very good,\" why was this line not reserved for the whole process without all the individual \"it was good\" etc.? ",
"",
"16) Since the belief in creation ex nihilo (from nothing) is so important to us, why did G-d not create man first so that he would have possessed firsthand knowledge of the fact that G-d created the world out of nothing? ",
" 17) Why is G-d referred to only as elokim until chapter two verse four? "
],
[
"The First Dictum",
"And God said: ‘Let there be light’ etc.",
"The process of creation commenced with the coming into existence of primordial matters called \"heaven\" and \"earth.\" The ten directives of creation did not apply to either heaven or earth. The former exists only in the feelings of the prophets, is an intangible. The latter comprises basic materials not yet fused in any shape or form. The two are so basically different from one another that they could not have been part of any single directive. (To consider them as the first directive missing in the list of vayomer as the Mishnah in Avot 5,1 explains is satisfactory, therefore.) The spirit of G-d then hovered over this mass of inert, unfused, primordial matter described as \"earth.\" After a suitable interval, the directive \"Let there be light\" began the process of separating this mass, imbuing it with growth potential etc., including the creation of the luminaries, which, however, could not yet be placed in a functional position until a later stage. (1+2) It states \"there was light\" instead of \"it was so,\" since the contrast to the previous total darkness represented an advance that had to be emphasized. This was not merely an addition to previously created matter, but the first visible fact of development of any kind. If G-d stated that \"the light was good,\" this shows that this act had been completed and embodied all the principles connected with light, light bodies, luminaries etc. Darkness represents void, disappearance, non existence, as compared with light, which represents presence, appearance, renewal. ",
"(3) Light had to be the first of the ten directives to establish the beginning of coherent activity, since it removes a state of eternal darkness, stagnation etc. The term \"day,\" which includes periods of darkness alternating with periods of light, provides the meaningful framework for all subsequent developments. This period of light would equal in duration the previous period of darkness. In this fashion, the two periods combined would constitute a \"day.\" (4) Since the chronological sequence of events commenced with darkness followed by light, the order \"it was evening, it was morning, one day\" tells us that the term \"day\" comprises twenty-four hours divided into daylight and darkness. The statement, \"one day\" therefore describes the definition of \"day,\" not how it ranks in the order of things. The division between light and darkness is natural, automatic, since one part of the globe is forever turned away from the sun, the source of light. An artificial act of separating light from darkness was therefore not necessary. ",
"On the other hand, if the separation had been an act of separating matters which had previously been intermingled with one another, then the statement \"G-d separated between light and darkness,\" should have preceded the statement \"G-d saw the light that it was good,\" because surely then He would have seen that it was good subsequent to their separation. However, the separation of light and darkness is of a somewhat different nature, since we observe the light around the globe act as if it were constantly chasing after darkness, as if trying to catch up with it and vice versa. As we say in the opening paragraph of our evening prayer, \"He causes the light to recede from darkness and darkness from light.\" The nature of their separation then is that all their efforts notwithstanding, they do not catch up with one another (Bereshit Rabbah 83, Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish). This explanation is true, since it ascribes a function to both day and night. Each segment of the day was called by a different name, i.e. \"day\" and \"night,\" while together they make \"one whole day.\" The night takes precedence, as in reality it preceded the original daylight period. ",
"(5) When the Talmud (Chagigah 12) says that the luminaries existed since day one, but were not hung in the sky till day four, the meaning is that \"time\" had been created on the first day even though other functions of the light bodies were not performed till the fourth day. At that time, each luminary was assigned its orbit. Description of the dimension of time in human terms is not possible without reference to celestial movements, but that does not prevent the Torah from describing events in human language which could be verified by man only at a later stage. (6) In other words, the term “day” as a twenty-four-hour period is applied retroactively to the first three days, to teach that in absolute terms three periods equal to the units subsequently called \"a day,\" had elapsed during each of the phases described during the first three \"days\" of creation. ",
"",
"Having created the light bodies without as yet giving them precise directives as to their functions is equivalent to the first of the ten directives ma-a-marot we have described earlier, namely the etzem, essence, of the thing. The translation of yehi or then would be \"‘Let there be a presence,’ and there came to be a presence.\" "
],
[
"The Second Dictum",
"\"LET THERE BE A SKY IN THE MIDST OF THE WATERS!\" ",
"After creating light and establishing separation of light and darkness, the rakiyah, sky, establishes separation from otherwise never-ending rainfalls. The upper waters are the raw material all the celestial bodies are produced from. (11) Just as nature created both on earth and in the waters, angels created in the \"upper\" atmosphere. The function of angels celestially is parallel to the function of nature, i.e. \"mother earth,\" down here. In the first instance, the firmament was only sort of a dividing line. Subsequently, it became filled with the product of the \"upper waters.\" The word va-ya-ass, He made, is the reference to this latter activity of G-d in filling the skies. The \"heavens\" above are mayim of a purely abstract nature. ",
"The term \"water\" is used in three different meanings: 1) \"water\" as we know it, 2) atmosphere, 3) water as something spiritual. Our sages say, \"There is no water except Torah” (Baba Kama 17, et al). The statement, \"And so it came to be,\" embraces the coming into existence of these three distinct kinds of water. The absence of the expression ki tov, it was good, is not to be understood negatively, according to whichever reason advanced by the scholars, rather ki tov is used when something existing has been perfected. At that point its goodness becomes manifest. (10) Since during the second day's activities the celestial bodies that were to fill the sky had not been hung yet, the expression \"it was good\" is obviously not called for. Even if everything had been in place except the sun and the moon, the work would not yet have been completed to call forth the judgment that it had turned out well. ",
"(Rabbi Yossi in the Midrash supports our view in his answer to the aristocratic lady.) ",
"",
"",
"The second directive therefore determines the \"where\" of the various masses of matter created up to that point. Possibly, since the \"where\" function as such does not affect the value and quality of what has been created, the expression ki tov, it was good, is not appropriate when = describing it. "
],
[
"The Third Dictum",
"\"And God said: ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together'\" etc.",
"Since it is impossible to describe the celestial regions properly in human terms, reference to them is scant, more details being supplied about the development of the lower spheres. Their progress from the state of tohu vavohu, void and confusion, is described once the waters are concentrated and the original confusion has been eliminated. The dry part of the globe was now given the name by which the entire lower universe was known until now (eretz). The liquid part was given a name derived from the previous mayim, and called yamim, oceans. The comment \"it was good\" is to be understood as relative to the former state of confusion which had existed prior to the execution of this directive (on day one). Just as the creation of light represented progress from the former state of darkness, concentrating the water mass in one area was tremendous progress when compared to the former state of confusion. Since in this instance the condition of various basic matter was defined and determined, this directive is one of establishing matzav, a condition of existence. "
],
[
"The Fourth Dictum",
"\"And God said: ‘Let the earth put forth\" etc.",
"After the condition of the dry ground had been established, plant life of three different categories would enhance and perfect the barren earth: 1) vegetation growing spontaneously, without need for seeding, 2) shoots spreading seeds, 3) trees bearing fruit and having stems that survive from season to season. The unusual description of \"the earth produced,\" or \"the waters swarmed,\" instead of \"G-d made,\" indicates that earth, i.e. nature, engaged in an activity that becomes a vocation, an ongoing task and activity. The essential part of the fourth directive then is to describe the activity of the earth, i.e. its role in the scheme of things. G-d saw that it was good. Just as at the time of the creation of light, the tohu, void, was removed, so now the bohu, confusion, was eliminated as nature produced vegetation in an orderly and functional manner. This piece of evolutionary progress qualifies for the statement \"G-d saw that it was good;\" therefore, we find this statement repeated on the third day of creation. "
],
[
"The Fifth Dictum",
"And God said: ‘Let there be lights",
"",
"Now that vegetation had been achieved without sunshine or moonlight, the lightbodies could begin to perform their orbits in order to provide warmth for living creatures that were to inhabit the earth and its atmosphere. Winds too are a prerequisite for the normal existence of the animal kingdom. The directives for the lightbodies to be \"in the sky,\" clearly demonstrates that they had already been in existence, but were now to assume the functions described, namely to provide light, directions, indicate seasons etc. This is the \"why\" of their coming into existence. For this reason the Torah could not say \" va-yehi me-orot” and there came into being lightbodies.\" This directive then determines the \"when\" which is part of the ten definitions listed at the outset the significance of the ten directives."
],
[
"The Sixth Dictum",
"\"And God said: ‘Let the waters swarm'\" etc.",
"After life sustaining conditions had been provided, lower forms of life such as fish etc. are directed to come into existence. They had to precede the more sophisticated forms of life such as mammals, warm blooded animals. Water's power is limited to producing simple creatures. Water provided the physical shell, whereas G'd Himself imbued these creatures with life. He also provided the physical shell for water based mammals such as whales, which water was simply not able to produce. In the next stage, G'd also provided the chayut the element that put life into the bodies provided by \"mother earth\" on the sixth day. We observe that in order to provide animation, the active participation of G'd was required. Nature unaided, could not have produced any advanced form of life.",
"In biblical reports of resurrection of the dead such as in the thirty seventh chapter of Ezekiel, or the reports of individuals being brought back to life by Elijah or Elisha (Kings I 17, and Kings II 4 ), we find that prayer was needed, and only G'd could restore life. This in spite of the fact that these same prophets performed other miracles without having to resort to prayer. The statement that \"G'd saw it was good,\" appears only after the directive had been completed, i.e. after the creatures had become imbued with life in which G'd had been an active partner. (12) In describing the creation of \"the great sea monster,\" the directive included the quantification of these creatures. On the one hand their nefesh chayah separate life force, on the other hand the extent to which they are part of the general water based species is mentioned. It would not be appropriate to use the expression \" va-yehi cheyn,\" since these creatures had not been improved, but had only now come into existence. In this directive we observe the limitation of creative power supplied by G'd, which is equivalent to stating the \"how much\" in the power of production He had implanted in earth. When G'd extended the blessing enabling all living creatures to procreate, He supplied the \"quantity factor,\" namely enough to ensure survival and perpetuation of each species, and enough food supply for them to be able to survive. "
],
[
"The Seventh Dictum",
"\"And God said: ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing'\" etc.",
"After the creation of simple forms of life, the story proceeds with the creation of more sophisticated forms of life, creatures that can walk all over the earth etc.. Here too, the active participation of G'd was required, and the general tenor of the directive is meant to demonstrate the fact that such sophisticated beings could only be produced by a superior intelligence. Spontaneous evolution to this level is inconceivable. This directive can best be described as proving the \"degree of cultivation\" that had to precede the respective product of creation. That the term \"He saw that it was good\" is applicable here, is clear from the criteria we have laid down before."
],
[
"The Eighth Dictum",
"\"And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image'\" etc.",
"Since all previous creative acts had been carefully designed to restrict beings on the lower plane to their own sphere, and to restrict beings of higher planes to their own respective habitats, G'd now created a creature which, since it combined within itself elements from both spheres, becomes the medium that can establish unity in the universe through it having its roots in both the lower and upper domains. \"ruach and adamah\" are the materials man is made of. The creation, \" vayyitzer\" with the double letter yud, heralds this dual creative act. ",
"Man is assured that he can overcome mortality of the body if he allows the body to be governed by his ruach his spirit. On the other hand, his immortal soul is in jeopardy if he allows his ruach at the service of his body. Because of the unique nature of man, and because G'd was involved in his creation to the exclusion of \"mother earth,\" he rates a paragraph all to himself. The introduction of man's creation by G'd saying \"let Us create,\" also points to the distinctive character of this creation, regardless of which one of our commentators' views one accepts as to whom G'd consulted with.",
"Man was the subject of a special directive, not shared with other creatures. We do not find for instance, \"let the earth produce a horse,” or anything specific like that during the entire report of creation. All this points to the superior nature of this last act of creation, its crowning achievement when compared to the previously created beings. One understands the Talmud \"the whole world was created only for the sake of Chananyah.\" (Berachot 6). (13) If, in spite of the five advantages man is endowed with, no special day was set aside for his creation, this is to remind him that he does have a great deal in common (mortality) with his predecessors. Unless he would use his free will to surmount the disadvantage of a common fate with his inferiors, he too would succumb to death and oblivion. He would have dominion over other creatures if he merited it; otherwise, he in turn would be ruled over. Bereshit Rabbah commenting on verse 1,26, and 1,28, respectively, warns that the word veyirdu, \"and will have dominion,\" can be vocalised ve-yeradu, \"will be imposed upon.\" However, the other animals were created on the eve of the sixth day, whereas man was created in the morning, to separate between these two creations. (14) The description \"in Our image and in Our form,\" describes the how of man, and defines him as different is essence from other living creatures. This directive then is to determine qualitative measurements and definitions. "
],
[
"The Ninth Dictum",
"\"And God said unto them: ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth'\" etc.",
"After man had been created male and female, G'd directed them to be fruitful and to multiply. This was not a blessing, but a directive, a commandment. The fish were blessed with the power to multiply, as if that were the whole purpose of their existence. The repetition of the directive to assume dominion over the animal kingdom is to establish clearly what relationship is to exist between man and beast."
],
[
"The Tenth Dictum",
"\"And God said: ‘Behold, I have given you every'\" etc.",
"In the directive telling man what kind of food to consume, man is allocated the two advanced forms of vegetation, whereas the more simple, i.e. grass, is reserved for the animals. We observe in this directive the ownership relationship being defined. Man, in order to survive, has ownership claims on plant life. The reason the consumption of meat was not permitted at this stage, will be explained in Parshat Noach. The expression \"it was good,\" is not used with respect to the creation of man, since until his death, the issue remains in doubt. Depending on his lifestyle, his existence may turn out to have been worthwhile (good), or otherwise. We have read in Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Toldot, that \"G'd does not associate His name with the living,\" meaning that while alive, one cannot be certain that a person will maintain his moral plateau, will remain a tzaddik. Rabbi Meir, on the other hand, says that \"death\" is good. What he means is that only after death is it possible to know whether someone's life has been \"good.\" The Psalmist expresses it by saying (Psalms 116,15) \"the death of the righteous is precious in the eyes of the Lord.\" We do not agree that the reasons advanced for omission of the \"He saw that it was good\" following the report of the creation of man are adequate. Since the Torah reports that man was indeed created betzalmo in the image of G'd, his creation was obviously good since one cannot ascribe any deed to G'd that is other than successful, ergo \"good.\" Why else would G'd have invested so much effort in man's creation personally? On the contrary, since even the creation of the animals had been termed \"good,\" the creation of man surely was no less? ",
"(15) The statement \"and here it was very good,\" governing the entire creative process, surely included the creation of man, the species. In this way man is described as a still better product than anything that had preceded him, therefore at this juncture we find \"very good,\" for the first time. This is different from the situation on the third day when the vegetation did not represent a refinement of something that had been created previously, but was somethinmg totally different. The expression tov me-od was therefore not applicable at that time. Anything created during the six days was complete in itself, not the outgrowth, perfect or otherwise of something else; therefore it could be described as \"very good,\" as distinct from anything which developed henceforth.",
"(17) The name elokim is the only one applicable to G'd as long as everything proceeds strictly according to natural law. He is the presiding judge over nature. Man could not have been created first, as it would have contradicted normal progress from the simple towards the more sophisticated. Only when one comes to the \"descendants of heaven and earth\" does the name hashem appear, as His ability to change the laws of nature becomes revealed. His ability to display the attributes which testify to His freedom, becomes evident. He can be merciful to those He deems deserving, pitying to those who are victims of problems not due to their own errors. As Yitro expressed it: \"for Hashem is greater than any Elokim.\"",
"The appearance of the name hashem alone, occurs only after the decline of man. \"Then one began to proclaim the name of hashem.\" (Genesis 4,26) At that time, man became utterly dependent on that aspect of G'd which permits temporary suspension of the midat hadin the attribute of justice. "
]
],
[
[
" How does the Sabbath prove that G-d created the universe out of nothing? ",
"\"The heaven and the earth were finished\"",
"We read in Bereshit Rabbah 11, that Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai portrayed the Sabbath as saying to G-d, \"You have given a mate to everyone except me.\" G-d replied, \"The community of Israel will be your mate.\" When Israel stood at Mount Sinai, He said, \"Remember what I have said to the Sabbath, i.e. the community of Israel is your mate. \"This is why the Torah says ‘remember’ the Sabbath to keep it holy.\" ",
"Philosophy, speculative reasoning contemplating the universe and its rules, is apt to lead man, by stages, to the recognition that there must be a Creator etc. On the other hand, the poison that has entered the mind of man through the sin in gan eden can produce faulty conclusions, since his power to reason has been contaminated by the yetzer hara, the evil urge, i.e. the urge to assert oneself as not beholden to anyone. Abraham succeeded in employing his intellect constructively, and he exposed the fallacies the philosophers who lived in his time labored under. Successful teaching is based on one of two conditions: 1) Being in the presence of an outstanding person, observing that person's lifestyle, attending to his needs, all of which together results in the gradual comprehension of the why and wherefore of such a person's lifestyle. Exposure plus observation will do their work. 2) A second method of learning is through listening to lectures by gifted orators. The first method is vastly superior to the second, since deeds are apt to make more profound impressions than mere words. \"Greater is the personal service rendered to Torah than its teachers\" (Berachot 7). In order for the second method to be really effective, the orator's deeds must match his words. ",
"Abraham, who according to Rabbi Eliezer Hamoda-i, wore a horoscope around his neck, felt that life is being in the presence of G-d’s majesty, observing Him in action and modelling oneself after the attitudes and characteristics manifest in the universe, the universe representing an extension of the essence of G-d. For that reason, Rabbi Eliezer said that wise men from all over were attracted to Abraham, rising early in order to be able to be near him. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, who said that Abraham wore a jewel around his throat, and that whosoever was sick and looked at that jewel became cured immediately, means to tell us that Abraham was not content to act piously, but that he exerted himself to explain to others the reasons for his behavior. This is the significance of the jewel around his throat. Anyone sick in mind, due to feeling the pointlessness of his existence, would be healed upon exposure to Abraham's words and deeds. When G-d removed that jewel from Abraham's throat after his death, as we are told, and transferred it to the sun's orbit, this is an allegorical reference to nature as a whole. Anyone smitten with faulty views about the meaning of life, the universe, and the purpose of his existence, would be able to find answers through the study of astronomy, the motion of the stars in the heavens. He would be forced to conclude that all this was the handiwork of G-d, the Creator, who continues to exert His will on all these heavenly constellations. Malki Tzedek already described G-d as the owner of heaven and earth. Abraham too said, \"I raise my hand to the Lord G-d, the supreme Power, owner of heaven and earth\" (Genesis 14,22). Since Abraham saw in the universe a hand that guided inexorably, he did not implore G-d in prayer as we do today, thinking that what had been preordained would happen anyways. Abraham learned at the covenant between the pieces that \"laws of nature\" are only one, albeit most important aspect of G-d’s work, when G-d in answer to his question revealed that horoscopic prescience is not absolute, and that He the Creator reserved the right to change His law whenever He would see fit. Abraham, believing G-d, learned and assimilated a world-shaking truth on that occasion. At that point Abraham wanted to know what guarantee there was that when the time would come, G-d would indeed exercise His prerogative in order to keep a promise that seemed to conflict with natural law. This freedom of action enabled G-d as owner, to distribute the land to whomsoever he saw fit; this is why the Torah starts with \"Bereshit,” to announce who it is that has the right to dispossess nations (Psalms 111,6, \"The power of His actions He made known to the nations, to allocate to them the inheritance of other nations\"). Gradually, as that realization became worldwide, paganism retreated and fatalistic convictions became rare. True, there are still heretics, philosophers even amongst our own people who deny these facts; but this is only poisoned reasoning prompted by the yetzer hara, the evil urge. ",
"To help remove faulty perceptions, the Sabbath teaches that creative evolution came to a halt. Under normal circumstances, since that time, laws of nature do prevail. Granting of a day of rest to the Jewish people is to contrast that state of being with the erstwhile turmoil of creative activity.",
"Inasmuch as we observe during creation both activity, i.e. male forces and passivity i.e. female forces, the concept \"rest\" as represented by the Sabbath, appears to be devoid even of passivity (since it is close to bittul, negation, not like passivity which is conversion of the potential to the actual) The complaint of the Sabbath (our opening Midrash), seems inherently justified when it said \"to me You have not even given the privilege enjoyed by the passive parts of creation, namely to help convert the potential to become actual.\" G-d’s reply was that the Jewish people by observance of the Sabbath, something that appears like an \"inactivity\" at first glance, would make out of it la-assot something positive, active, i.e. masculine, the exact opposite of bittul, negation. The meaning of the verse veshamru beney yisrael et hashabbat, la-assot et hashabbat is that the Jewish people by negating work on the Sabbath, are making the Sabbath into an active, masculine phenomenon. By accepting the Torah at Mount Sinai, the Jewish people would testify to their awareness of this fundamental teaching of Torah that G-d created the universe ex nihilo, and that therefore He was a truly free Force, not beholden to any pre-existing condition or matter. ",
"If we add the concept that holiness equates with eternity and infinity, whereas profaneness equates with mortality and finitude, we understand that by treating the Sabbath as holy, we, as the mate of the Sabbath, attain immortality. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Why have the words \"and they were completed\" been used only at this stage in the story of creation and never previously? ",
"2) When the Torah writes later \"and G-d completed,\" the previous statement to that effect seems to have been superseded. Why did it appear? ",
"3) Why does the Torah say \"He completed on the seventh day,\" when in fact the creation had been completed on the sixth day? ",
"4) How can the words \"He completed on the seventh day\" be reconciled with \"He rested on the seventh day?\" ",
" 5) The blessing bestowed seems to contradict the inactivity that is inherent in the Sabbath concept. ",
"6) Why, after the statement \"He completed,\" does the Torah not continue to use the verb kilah instead of shavat? ",
"7) Why does the Torah write \"which He had created to do,\" not simply \" which He had created\" (Chapter 2,3)? ",
"8) Why are \"evening and morning\" not mentioned on the seventh day like on all the other days? ",
"Creation is divided into three main phases. 1) Creation of matter before the first evening. Its importance stems from the fact that something came into existence out of nothing. 2) Development of original matter into something organized and functional as well as the creation of creatures. Inasmuch as it now assumes a purpose, this phase is something new and important vis a vis the first phase. 3) Completion and self perpetuation of the entire creative process. Development of the egg into a living organism, the whole process of procreation in nature, is again an improvement over the original directive. At the building of the tabernacle, too, we find three stages to parallel the above mentioned phases of the creative process. They are: 1) The donation of the material; 2) Appointment of the master builder and performance of the work; 3) The actual erection of the tabernacle and its becoming functional. The latter was still to come, just as in the case of the universe or earth, its function was not to commence until the end of the actual process of creativity. In short, we have material, construction, and performance of purpose. Phase number three begins with the sixth day, \"The heavens and earth had been completed.\" This means that phases two and three had now been completed. Parallel to this, we find in the report of the construction of the tabernacle the line \"the whole construction for the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, was completed\" (Exodus 39,32). ",
"The word va-yechal, He completed, then refers to the commencement of the normal function of the universe under its own power (as supplied by G-d). As the Midrash suggests, as long as the work in a bathroom is in progress, and the plug has not been pulled, the fixtures are visible only in blurred outlines. Once the work has been completed, all the fixtures become visible in all their splendor. This is the meaning of \"He completed...all that He had done.\" The final stage was achieved not through action, but through inaction. (Shabbat) The word kilah if used, would have implied action, whereas the Torah wanted to stress the \"inaction,\" ergo shavat. Since the creative process had as its purpose continuity, such a potential had to be built into the system. The expression \"created to do\" embodies this concept; bara would have described only the process of coming into existence, whereas bara la-assot encompasses the continuity achieved through procreation of originally created phenomena. Since \"evening\" and \"morning\" testify to progress in time, i.e. motion, and the Sabbath is symbolic of arrested motion, the mention of \"it was evening and it was morning,\" would have been misleading. ",
"",
"Had it not been for the important lesson of the seventh day, the calendar would simply have six day cycles to commemorate the six days of G-d’s creative activity. Observance of the seventh day therefore demonstrates that He who sets all in motion is also free to arrest or reverse the process. "
]
],
[
[
"The planetary system is not superior to man. ",
"\"Such is the story of heaven\"",
"Bereshit Rabbah 9 brings a commentary by Rabbi Levy on the verse \"And G-d saw all that He had made, and here it was very good.\" Solomon in chapter 25,2 of Proverbs says, \"The glory of the Lord is a hidden thing, whereas the glory of kings is subject to exploration.\" Up until the end of the story of creation, we are not to investigate its details and its mechanism; starting with the part dealing with the life of man, we are to research and delve into the deeper meaning of things. ",
"One of the pillars of the philosophy which assumes that the existence of the universe preceded the Creator is that the closer something is to the original Cause of existence, the greater is its importance. Since man is the most recent creation, and therefore furthest removed from its original Cause, his importance in the overall scheme of things is negligible. ",
"Some of our Jewish philosophers have accepted the premise of the importance of being close to the original Cause. Both Maimonides and Gersonides have adopted this basic point of view. They scoff at those who interpret the verse \"They shall be as light bodies in the sky of the heavens, to give light to the earth\" as meaning that heavenly bodies have been placed there for the convenience of lowly man. One must seek allegorical meaning in those details of the report of creation of the planetary system. After all, an inventor who would spend millions to create machinery capable of supplying almost worthless trinkets would hardly be regarded as a genius. Similarly, were G-d to have employed all His power to create instruments for the convenience of someone who is merely the last in a chain of creatures preceding him, He would not enhance His reputation amongst His creatures. This line of thought is supported by the fact that all things created more recently than others, are subject to death and oblivion, whereas the things created earlier are either abstract and as such not subject to death, or are made of such durable composition that they appear destined to endure forever. Our objection to the basic argument that creatures created more recently are by definition inferior to those created previously is based on the considerations listed below. To assume that man is inferior to the animals and that the animals are inferior to plants is ridiculous; this would have to be assumed, however, if the only criterion for determining one's relative importance is the \"when\" of its creation. Bereshit Rabbah in chapter 19 refutes this theory by saying that whosoever was created more recently exercises control over things created previously. The fact that G-d personally involved Himself and all other existing phenomena in the creation of man, i.e. \"in Our image and Our form\" (Genesis 1,26), indicates that the concept of \"whatever is closer to the original source is more important\" could be applied at best to the things created up to and including the planetary system (fourth day), and that from then on the system was reversed, an idea for which we cannot find any substantiation. Also, if true, it would require that we discover other functions of the objects created earlier than the ones we know about from our observation in the universe. Also, apart from the motion of the stars and planets, we have no evidence that any of those things possesses intelligence. ",
"We who believe in a creation that is the result of the Creator's free will, as mentioned in Avot 5,1 concerning the 10 directives G-d employed to call the universe into being, believe also that whatever was created at an earlier stage was in order to enable it to serve those creatures or things which were created subsequently. The fact that they were at hand already, made the existence and function of the creatures created later more meaningful and satisfactory. It follows that the purpose of the planetary system, to provide light and seasons, navigational aids etc., is clearly spelled out in the report about their creation. The stars are mentioned last to avoid the error of thinking that they served an independent purpose. ",
"Moreover, the description of the creation of man being \"in the image of G-d\" clearly supports our view that man is the crowning glory of G-d’s handiwork, is of central significance. The statement in Kohelet 3,21 that the \"spirit of man returns to the celestial regions\" clearly shows that man is composed at least partially of something at least as close to G-d as the earliest disembodied intelligence He had created. ",
"Even angels, though in some ways superior to man, inasmuch as G-d employs them to convey messages to man to protect him or execute retribution on G-d’s behalf, are clearly defined as servants of the Lord whose function it is to assure the well being of man. It is similar to the sheep being more important than the shepherd, since the latter owes his existence or vocation to the existence of the former. This line of reasoning has its limitations, as it would reduce the value of the teacher vis a vis the student and that of the prophet vis a vis the nation. Clearly then the subordinate position of the shepherd stems from his allotted task. The same applies to the position of the teacher or prophet. From the point of view of personal characteristics, the shepherd, being a human being, clearly possesses superior faculties to those of the sheep entrusted to his care. Similarly, the teacher possesses faculties superior to those of his students, and the prophet possesses faculties not shared by the other members of his nation. Angels do possess faculties which man is not privy to, and in that respect they are superior to man. On the other hand, all statements denigrating the worth of man refer only to his inferior physical shell, not to his comprehensive potential. We must also never lose sight of the fact that the entire universe was created primarily for the greater glory of G-d, and in this respect the angels, of course, possess tremendous worth, quite independent of their function in connection with man. ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 8 tells that the Torah was created two thousand years prior to the universe. This means that until Abraham began to observe Torah laws, only a few people had walked with G-d, hence the real world did not start until then (approx. two thousand years after Adam was created). The years preceding the birth of Abraham are called tohu, empty. (Sanhedrin 97) Similarly, the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish concerning Psalms 139,5 \"You have created me first and last\" means that I was first in Your planning, but last in execution. As the stage was prepared for man during the creation of the universe, so the history of mankind up until the time the Torah was given at Mount Sinai is the setting of the stage for a world in which Torah can reign supreme. ",
"Rabbi Levy is quoted in Leviticus Rabbah 20 as saying \"if the heel of man outshines the sun, will not his face outshine it even more?\" This means that if the reward man receives as a result (eykev, heel) of using his free will for constructive purposes elevates him to a status exceeding that of the planets (which are performing G-d’s will in an involuntary manner), this is proof that man himself, i.e. \"his face,\" the seat of his faculties, outranks the planets. An artist who fashions two plates, one for himself, the other for an outsider, will surely take greater pains with the plate he intends for himself. Similarly, G-d. Man who is to serve Him, was fashioned with more care than the sun which is merely to serve man and G-d’s other creatures. Planets do not require intelligence to carry out their functions. The duties of man however, are such that he requires intelligence as well as other faculties to carry them out, something the planets are not equipped with. ",
"",
"",
"",
"Problems in the text of this chapter: 1) Why does it state in chapter 2,4 \"When they were being created\" (if one ignores the Midrash on this)? 2) What do the toldot hashamayim, descendants of heaven, mentioned in that verse refer to? If it is a reference to the whole six-day cycle of creation, then the words \"on the day G-d made them\" is contradictory! If these words are connected with what follows, however, i.e. the state of vegetation prior to rainfall, i.e. that all vegetation is the direct result of rainfall, then the letter vav at the beginning of verse five does not make sense! 3) At any rate, why does the Torah report what went on before there had been any rain? Why was there a need for rain as long as man for whose sake the rain was needed had not yet been created? 4) If it did not rain because there was not yet anyone who needed the rain, i.e. man did not need to till the earth, why bother with the eyd, mist that rose from the ground? This all the more so since rain is the result of vapors that rise from the ground! 5) The customary use of the word terem suggests that something has been omitted, namely whatever went on before \"terem.” Examples are Genesis 19,4, \"Before they could lie down, the men of Sodom had already arrived,\" or Genesis 24,15, \"Before he had finished talking, Rebeccah arrived.\" What is the meaning of the word in our verse? 6) The normal syntax would have required a sentence such as \"Before there was rainfall no grass could grow on earth.\" Why does the Torah employ such a cumbersome syntax? ",
"(1) The entire story begun here extends until the second report of the creation of man and his placement in gan eden. In this way, man is indeed the consequence of, i.e. the \"descendant\" of \"heaven and earth.\" The Torah thus justifies the creation of vegetation-- though in suspended animation-- by the eventual appearance of man on the scene. This also explains why the word \"earth\" is mentioned at the end of the verse before the word \"heaven.\" \"Earth\" is mentioned first since it was to serve as the center of man's activities, his home base, so to speak. The whole paragraph then is introduced by the statement \"These were the results of heaven and earth, which G-d had planned for since the day He first created earth and heaven.\" Although vegetation did indeed exist, it did not function normally until the \"descendants,\" i.e. man was around to benefit therefrom. For why would G-d cause rain to fall as long as there was as yet no man to toil the earth?\" (2) The Torah then makes the point that man is a creature combining all four basic elements in his composition. On the one hand this makes him mortal, since such combinations cannot endure forever, on the other hand he has been endowed with the essence of immortality via his soul. The mist which rose from the earth served to combine fire, water and wind when it settles on the earth. Thus it combines with the fourth basic element, earth. When man was formed, this fusion with earth from which he had been formed had already been achieved. The personal involvement of G-d expressed by \"Let Us make man\" is what imbued man with the potential of everlasting life. Our sages have interpreted the use of the letter yud twice in the word vayyitzer, He fashioned, as referring to two creations of man, the finite (mortal) and the potentially infinite (immortal). From this point onwards, the Torah deals with the purpose of creation. (3-6) Because of the centrality of man in G-d’s plans, all the means necessary to achieve the end have been listed prior to the main event of creation, that of the making of Adam. ",
"The remarks of the Midrash quoted at the outset, do not refer to what is permissible to investigate and what is not. Proof of that is that \"hiding\" and \"examining\" are not opposites. Only \"hiding\" and \"revealing\" would be opposites. The sages also say that details of what went on in the garden of Eden, such as the nature of the tree of knowledge, will never be revealed. If so, then the element of \"hidden\" continues to exist beyond the point of the story chosen by the Midrash as the watershed in the story of creation. It is our view then that the meaning of the Midrash is thus. Until we read about the creation of man, the whole story of creation remains a mystery from the point of view of its purpose. Only when we hear about the creation of man, can we begin to unravel the purpose for which G-d had made all the preceding efforts. From this point on, and with the additions provided, the researcher can penetrate into G-d’s motivation right from the onset of the story. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"HE BLEW IN HIS NOSTRILS A LIVING SOUL. ",
"The Talmud Berachot 10 quotes a line from the famous chapter of eyshet chayil, the woman of valor, from Proverbs Chapter 31. It says there, \"She opened her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness was on her tongue.\" Is there then a Torah that is NOT loving kindness? This refers to Solomon's father David, who dwelled in five worlds and recited shirah, hymns of praise. He dwelled in the womb of his mother and said shirah since it is written in Psalms 103,1, \"My soul, bless the Lord and all my insides proclaim His holiness!\" When he saw the light of the world, the stars etc. he proclaimed a hymn of praise saying, \"Blessed be the Lord and all His hosts.\" When he suckled at his mother's breast, he composed a hymn saying, \"May my soul bless the Lord and not forget to thank Him for all His kindness\" (Psalms 103,2). He referred to the placing of the teats near the source of binah, understanding- the heart. Rabbi Abahu says this means that a woman's teats are not near the genitals, like those of the animals, and that therefore there is no need to look at the genitals when being nursed. Rabbi Yehudah says that the meaning is that the teats are not near the source of human excrement. When David saw the downfall of the wicked, he said shirah as we read \"May all sinners perish from the earth\" (Psalms 104,35). When he beheld the day of death, he said shirah as it says, \"May my soul bless the Lord, You are very great\" (Psalms 104,1). ",
"Lack of motivation results ultimately in inertia. When David illegally ordered the Jewish people counted, and Yoav could see no reason for it, he carried carelessly, failing to count the tribes of Levi and Benjamin (Samuel II 24 and Chronicles 121). Even the tribes he did count, were not reliably tabulated. Had the people known that the war by Saul against Amalek did not have plunder as its objective but had been waged purely at the command of G-d, the tragedy of Saul would have been averted (Samuel I chapter 15). If we observe the larger planets move very slowly, this may be because they are not aware of their destination and ultimate objective. Philosophers are agreed that the greater one's intelligence, the better one appreciates the distance between one's own intelligence and that of one's Creator. The less intelligent deem themselves close to G-d, whereas the most intelligent beings realize the tremendous gulf between their own intelligence and that of G-d. This is why when angels praise the Lord, they are said to refer to Him in the third person, i.e. \"blessed be the glory of His Majesty,\" whereas we humans address G-d in the second person, i.e. \"blessed are You.\" The ultimate objective of our knowledge is to know the limit imposed upon our knowledge and understanding. Moses was told (Exodus 33,20) \"You cannot see My face.\" If one presupposes that heavenly bodies are equipped with intelligence, then the large ones—which are presumably equipped with the highest intelligence because of their awareness of the limits of their intellects—lose motivation and revolve slowly. On the other hand, those stars and lesser intellects which are under the illusion that theirs is a great mind keep racing around the universe in order to achieve what they believe to be their purpose. ",
"Since only clear awareness of one's purpose results in the motivation of that particular creature to attain its destiny, the purpose of man's creation needs to be clearly demonstrated. Even the best of men such as Job, when in doubt about the purpose of his life, will either negate life when it becomes too frustrating, or live a life of sin and self indulgence. As long as survival of the soul after the death of the body is not certain, the motivation to act in a certain way in this life is quite weak. ",
"As believing Jews, we have no problem believing in resurrection of the body and survival of the soul, since the Torah is full of threats of the opposite happening as penalty for transgression of numerous commandments. If the hereafter does not exist, and there is an end to existence when the body dies, none of these warnings would have the slightest value as a deterrent to sin. In fact, if physical death were final, it is hard to understand why G-d bothered to create life, since He would then have decreed in advance that His handiwork would not endure. The Talmud would be quite right in assessing \"It is easier for man had he never seen the light of day\" (Eyruvin 13). The souls would have been far better off had they remained in the celestial regions, since fusion with a body would condemn them to death and destruction. If one assumes that all souls originate from either one of two pools, i.e. 1) the pool containing the gentile souls, and 2) the pool containing the ones intended for Jews, this would mean that the former never have a chance to find a body that could preserve their purity. If, on the other hand, all souls come from a single pool, then how can pure souls be condemned to inhabit bodies that will drag them to death and disintegration? Similarly, the question of souls forced to inhabit female bodies instead of male bodies etc. Also, even assuming that the Jews get all their souls from the same pool, a major act of discrimination against the gentiles, why are some souls forced into females i.e. the weaker of the species, making it vastly more difficult to achieve the perfection they need to attain to ensure their eventual immortality (why else are women absolved from the performance of some commandments if not for considerations of this nature)? ",
"These are but a few of the problems that trouble theologians and philosophers concerning the term neshamah, soul. The subject is swept under the rug for fear that it would produce mass desertions from (organized) religion. Job expressed his intellectual anguish about this in the words \"I am at an end, I do not know my soul, I despise my life\" (Job 9,21). Silence on the subject only deepens doubts and frustration. Discussion is apt to lead others astray who had never been alert to the fact that a problem existed, due to the shallowness of their thinking. Uttering doubts to oneself only, maybe a means to find solutions without having a negative impact on others. David, who had wanted to know the date of his death, wanted to find out if his task on earth could be completed in the time span allotted to him. He who lives one day at a time, not knowing how much time he has to complete a project, surely must be in constant terror lest all his work be in vain. ",
"",
"",
"The author concludes that nefesh, soul at birth—though superior as a life motivating force to all other living creatures, just as the human body is superior to all other living creatures—is something quite primitive. Through the life experience it develops into the kind of force that matures. \"Free will\" is part of the force that helps this \"life force\" mature and become the kind of disembodied spirit that survives the flesh at the time the body dies. \"Nefesh-Ruach-Neshamah” are the way stations in the progress of this \"life motivating force\" of man towards the formation of the disembodied immortal personality. \"Ruach hakodesh,” holy spirit, is not yet the level at which \"nevu-ah,\" prophetic insights can be achieved. That stage is reached only by the \"neshamah\" stage in a person's development. If actual nevua-ah is denied such people, it is only because their contemporaries do not deserve to be the beneficiaries of such prophetic insights (Sukkah 21). ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Our daily prayers reflect the fact that without the maturing process described, the nefesh is hardly special. \"The advantage of man over beast is vanity,\" because \"what are we and what does our whole life amount to?\" All this is so because the additional nefesh man has in its original form does not yet qualify for life after death. Israel, as a nation, has acquired the automatic right to life after death. \"Hail to you Israel, who is like you, a nation saved by the Lord?\" (Deut 33,29, see commentary in chapter 44). ",
"",
"",
"The five hymns of praise David sang on account of the five worlds he lived in, as described in our opening Midrash, refer to the following. 1) Being a creature born by woman of material that came into existence by a joint undertaking of G-d and Earth (nature), he gives thanks for his superiority to all other living creatures in the creation of which G-d was only marginally involved. 2) Once having seen the light of the world, man who faces the sky, stars etc. is superior to the beasts whose eyes are trained only towards the ground, the earth. Man learns to appreciate the works of G-d through his upright posture. 3) The third world, though metaphorically described as \"suckling on his mother's breasts,\" refers to the study of the Torah. If the Midrash had referred to the actual breast of the mother, then that stage should have been mentioned as phase two in man's development, not as phase three. 4) The fourth world is the experience of seeing the wicked receive their deserts. 5) The fifth world is the day of death; it is the realization that death of the body does not represent the disintegration of one's personality. For all these insights David sang hymns, praises to the Lord. This, then, is what Solomon referred to when he said, \"She opened her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of kindness is on her tongue\" (Proverbs 31,26). The verse \"The Lord fashioned man, dust from the earth, and blew a soul of life into his nostrils, whereupon man became a living creature\" (Genesis 2,7) describes the entire process of how man was created as matter. The \"soul\" is something which is at first a neutral force, later on a force with certain characteristics. ",
"G-d personally shaped the physical part, did not leave it to nature. That is why the Torah says \"He fashioned,\" not as in other cases \"Let the earth produce!\" (Genesis 1,20 or 1,24). The word vayipach, He blew, refers to the original form, not to a self-supporting entity. Compare Genesis 7,22, \"All who had the spirit of life in their nostrils, perished.\" Man then-- by his own efforts, not by having something blown into him by G-d-- completes the process of becoming a proper human being, converting potential achievements into actual accomplishments. The process is somewhat similar to the artist who makes a wax candle. He shapes the inert wax, inserts a wick (vegetable matter). Then along comes a man to light it and to illuminate the area around him, thus giving the candle its purpose. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"He planted a garden in Eden to the East.\" ",
"The Zohar in Parshat Beha-alotcha, quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, \"Woe to the person who says that the Torah is just telling us stories, matters of mundane significance only etc.\" ",
"",
"The stories told in the Torah, while true, do not constitute the entire teaching their text is meant to convey. One needs to be endowed with an understanding heart in order to penetrate via the story to the more profound teachings the Torah conveys by means of it. The Jewish people have been so endowed, as is pointed out by the Midrash above, from which we have quoted only a brief excerpt. We are thus able to unravel the hidden meanings which lie beyond the superficial aspects relayed in the story. The story of the garden of Eden is a case in point. One must not make the mistake of relegating the vehicle, i.e. the story, to insignificance just because it has been the carrier of more profound insights. Just as he who has intimate knowledge of the body does not deny or ignore the clothing the body is wrapped in, so the student of Torah must not ignore the plain meaning of the story. This is so regardless of the fact that the immediate interest in the story has long since been exhausted. Moses warns the people (Deut. 32,46) not to think that the Torah is only a garment for deeper truths. \"Take to heart all the words with which I have warned you this day. Enjoin them upon your children that they may observe faithfully all the terms of this teaching...for it is not a vain thing.\" The essential difference between all other writings and Torah is that the other writings are either to be taken at face value or are only to be judged by the message hidden in the text; the text itself becoming insignificant. Not so Torah. Both the text and what is hinted at are relevant. Although in ancient times, as per statements recorded in the Talmud (Chagigah 11), matters such as the story of creation were taught only on an individual basis from teacher to pupil, our situation has long since deteriorated to the point that many Torah sages, in accordance with the principle \"When it is time to act on G-d’s behalf, fracture your Torah\" (Psalms 119,26), have seen fit to write at length about these subjects. We therefore feel justified in adding our own comments about this subject. ",
"No doubt, as stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, G-d had planted the garden prior to man's creation (meaning of the word mikedem, \"since before\") at the hub of the earth, a place where all the positive influences converge and enable the successful growth of all the finest fruit. The concentration of all this excellent fruit would prove to Adam that the whole earth could support such bounty of nature. \"Eden” expresses the totality of the earth since ancient times. G-d placed man in the garden, i.e. a miniature of the globe, to make him aware of the nature of the earth, his place and task on it. Since this universe was created for the sake of man, he needed to become aware how he could preserve it. Man's physical parts are really two, as explained in chapter six. (1) G-d created man dust from the earth; (2) He blew a breath of life into his nostrils, completing the process of creating his body. Only then could man become a living creature. Given the matter supplied by G-d, as distinct from the animal kingdom which had been produced by earth, i.e. nature, the life force supplied by mother earth differs materially from the life force supplied by G-d directly. The trees whose function it was to supply man's need for nourishment, were part of the equipment of the garden. All the things necessary for man are mentioned under the heading \"pleasant to look at, good to eat,\" i.e. good as food. G-d made them grow out of the earth since they represented the needs of that part of man that had been fashioned from the dust of the earth. Of the other two trees (tree of life and tree of knowledge), no mention is made as to how they came into existence. They corresponded to man's intellectual and spiritual needs. The tree of life in particular had been designed to assure man's immortality by feeding his intellect so that it could attain independent and enduring existence. Its position in the center of the garden emphasizes that man's entire existence should revolve around what this tree symbolizes. Since matan Torah, the revelation at Mount Sinai, its place has been taken by Torah. Torah is described frequently as our source of life. Next to it was the tree of knowledge, representing practical rather than speculative reason, appealing to expediency, immediate gratification etc. The tree of knowledge was to practical reason what the tree of life was to speculative reason. Its position near the tree of life was to point out that everything it stood for should be placed in the service of the tree of life. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"There are three levels of knowledge of good and evil. 1) Complete comprehension; 2) Completely erroneous conclusions; 3) A mixture of the previous two. Anyone who falls into category two is like a beast, not knowing left from right. Such people are pere, wild, unbridled, not Adam. Compare Deut. 1,39, \"And your children who do not know this day either good or evil.\" Category One is he who knows correctly he is nolad betzelem, born in G-d’s image, as G-d Himself has testified, \"Here man has become like one of Us\" (Genesis 3,22). Category Three, i.e. those who have only partial understanding, confused knowledge, are the people who delve into the source of knowledge, making research an end in itself, as did the builders of the tower of Babel. This category comprises most of the human species. The tree of knowledge, though adjacent to the tree of life, was also close to all the other trees. The observer of the scene in the garden of Eden had three choices then. He could ignore the tree completely, and be termed sub-human. Or, he could notice it and all its attractive features, gain valuable insights through smelling it, touching it, and maybe even tasting it, though not eating its fruit. The result would be G-d like appreciation of good and evil. However, the exclusive preoccupation with it called \"eating,\" consuming it while being consumed by its charm, was forbidden and would result in mortality, abandoning oneself to the material, physical. We find in halachah, Jewish law, that whenever \"eating\" is forbidden, tasting may be permissible, since the principle is that tasting is not something of substance (Berachot 14). The deep involvement in eating from that tree produces as a corollary the result that such a person is no longer receptive to the purely spiritual/ intellectual such as represented by the tree of life. Thus one loses one's anchor in the \"higher\" world (called by our sages chut shel chessed). What happened to Adam when he abused the tree of knowledge is similar to what happened to King Saul after his failure to kill Agag king of Amalek, when hashgachah peratit, G-d’s Personal Providence, was withdrawn, and His kingdom was no longer considered G-d’s kingdom. When Isaac had said to Esau, \"Whenever he (Jacob) will reject the yoke of the Torah, you (Esau) will break the bond\" (Genesis 27,40), he also referred to the fact that G-d would then withdraw His hashgachah peratit from the people of Israel. Israel's descent to Egypt, a result of what the brothers had done to Joseph, or the survivors of the generation of spies in the desert, are all examples of the results of failures similar to what had occurred in the garden of Eden. “Mot-Tamut,\" you will surely die. The tragedy, according to Bereshit Rabbah 16, was that the mortality incurred by Adam was automatically conferred upon his entire offspring, i.e. upon the entire human species. This is the reason the word mot tamut is repeated. All the other trees, the tree of life excepted, contained life's necessities, therefore eating from those trees was permitted. ",
"When all the trees are described as \"pleasant to look at and good to eat,\" the two physically oriented life forces are referred to. The chomer and nefesh, raw material and animalistic life-force, are sustained by the intake of the fruit from all these trees. The four rivers emanating from the garden represent four forces at the command of man. 1) the Pishon, the urge to understand the why, wherefore, where, and when of rainfall and similar phenomena. All of these natural phenomena are constant testimony to the glory of their Creator; 2) Gichon, symbolizes the ability to understand the earth, i.e. farming and food production; 3) Chidekel, represents the ability to reason clearly, logically, and thereby arrive at the underlying reasons for things. It is an analytical ability. Prophecy uses this ability to divine higher truths; 4) Perat, the Euphratus, is the force that enables theological reasoning, philosophy. Many people drink from the waters of this river, some become enlightened by it, others intoxicated by it, are led astray spiritually. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"G-D SAID, \"IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE.\" ",
"We read in Sotah 2, Rabbi Samuel said that whenever Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish opened the tractate of Sotah, he would say that marriages are arranged for a person by heaven, and that each party is assigned a partner that is appropriate for what he or she deserves based on their deeds. It is written (Psalms 125,3), \"The scepter of the wicked will never rest on the land allotted to the righteous.\" Rabbi bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, \"Arranging such marriages is as difficult as splitting the sea of reeds, since it is written \"G-d makes the solitary settle in a house. He leads forth the ones chained in their bonds; read instead \"like leading forth\" (Psalms 68,7). This is however not so, since Rabbi Yehudah has said in the name of Rav that forty days before the development of the fetus, a heavenly voice announces that the daughter of X will become the wife of Y. The Talmud continues that we do not have a contradiction here. The first statement refers to the first zivvug, matching up, whereas the second statement refers to the second zivvug, matching up. ",
"It is customary to compare the unknown to the known in order to better understand the unknown. G-d is referred to in scripture as possessing limbs, although He is purely spiritual, in order to make some of His actions more comprehensible. \"As a shepherd leads a flock\" (Isaiah 40,11), or \"Your heavens are the work of Your fingers\" (Psalms 8,4). Rabbi Yudan stated, \"Great is the power of the prophets who have described the power of the Almighty in human terms, as it is said in Daniel 8,16, \"I heard a human voice\" (a voice sounding like the voice of man). The right to describe the creation of man as a fusion of dust and spirit, a joining of matter and form, is also based on such considerations. The known is described in order to make it easier to understand the unknown or the less well known. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"When the voice from the celestial regions announces who will be married to whom in the future, the reference is to the basic compatibility of man and woman based on the endowments they have come been born with. It does not refer to accomplishments of either party since they have been born, prior to their being married. The latter is called \"the second mating.\" Since matching two people on the basis of their respective accomplishments is a monumental task requiring supernatural insights, and there is also the difficulty of ensuring that they meet, it is described as not unlike the miracle of splitting the sea. Were this not so, one would have to assume that all man's endeavors are in vain, his prayers totally ineffective etc., everything in life preordained. The experiences of our ancestors are very illuminating in this context. Our Parshah reflects both kinds of \"shiduchim,\" matches. More about all this in chapter 22. ",
" Some problems in the text of our story requiring analysis: ",
" 1) What is so special about Adam needing a mate? How else could he procreate and maintain the continuity of his species? ",
"2) Why was it necessary to create woman from a part of man, not as a separate creation such as Adam had been? ",
" 3) How does the ability to call the animals by their appropriate names affect the issue? ",
" 4) Why did the Torah have to tell us that Adam did not find a suitable mate for himself amongst the animals? What could be more obvious? ",
"5) Why is the expression vayiven, He built, used when making Eve, instead of the expression vayyitzer, He fashioned, which had been used when Adam was formed? ",
"6) When Adam said \"this time it is bone of my bone,\" it sounds as if there had been a previous time when it had not been like that. ",
" 7) Why was Eve called ishah from ish and not adamah from Adam? ",
" 8) How can we prove from here that the world was created using Hebrew as the original language of man? How do we know that our holy scriptures are not a translation from some other language? ",
"9) Why would man follow his wife, and not prefer the natural, genetic bond with his father, seeing that they are both made of the same material? ",
" 10) Why is unabashed nudity reported as something praiseworthy rather than the reverse? "
],
[
"",
"",
"Some philosophers thought that true love can exist only between opposites. Dry earth requires and longs for water, moisture. Water laden skies, clouds, need to empty themselves on earth. On the other hand, all craftsmen are jealous of one another. Aristotle on the other hand holds that likes are attracted to each other. Starlings keep company with ravens as they are of a kind (Chullin 65). Since G-d is neither similar to man nor totally his opposite, some hold that a love relationship with G-d is impossible. But the prophet Maleachi 1,2 says, \"G-d says I have loved you Israel, and I have hated Esau... How can you question this?\" (based on the premise that I am neither like you nor your exact opposite. More about this in chapter 90). The fact that two brothers (Jacob and Esau), who by nature should be similar, are treated so differently, proves that character traits rather than genetic affinity, i.e. outwardly similar human beings, determine between whom love occurs. Love has positive and negative aspects. Inasmuch as even trees have been compared to humans, especially fruit-bearing trees, their destruction has been prohibited (Deut. 20,19). Animals which share even more with human beings than trees, seeing that they are living creatures, must not be destroyed needlessly and must not be made to suffer even when their destruction is in order and serves a higher purpose (Baba Metzia 32). Examples are consumption by humans, which is restricted in the case of the mother animal and its young, which are not to be slaughtered on the same day. Mother birds must be dispatched before the newly hatched chicks may be taken. An animal needs to be at least eight days old before it may be slaughtered as a sacrifice to G-d, etc. Such considerations apply in even greater measure when dealing with fellow human beings, regardless of any formal agreements to that effect. Torah legislation, when dealing with the status of gentile slaves, is most specific in detailing the degree of concern that must be shown for the physical well being of such a slave. This mutual love for fellow human beings is observed in increasing measure when these humans are part of the same race or environment. The Torah emphasizes the positive aspects of love by commanding \"Love your fellowman like yourself,\" i.e. when that fellowman is similar to yourself (Leviticus 19, 18). Love is not demanded for those utterly unlike you, such as animals etc. In fact, the feelings which we reserve for things or creatures unlike us is not love, but goodwill, pity etc. (see Psalms 102). We relate to the stones of Zion as something that we \"want,\" not as something that we \"love.\" The latter term would be a complete misnomer for phenomena not on our level. When Isaac asks Esau for \"delicious dishes the way I \"love\" them\" (Genesis 27,4), the term \"love\" does not describe the dishes, but the people whom he loves. He is saying to Esau, \"When you do what I like....l will love you.\" Proof of this is found in the verse (Genesis 25,28) \"Isaac loved Esau because he carried venison in his mouth.\" The term \"love\" cannot rightfully be applied even to parts of the body. Such parts become \"nirtzah,\" appreciated, and may become the instrument through which their owner becomes \"beloved.\" The term \" ratzon,\" goodwill, appreciation, refers also to the parts of whole things which qualify for \"love.\" For instance, Psalms 19, 15, \"May the words of your mouth engender goodwill.\" The term \"love\" is reserved for the whole person. \"Love the Lord your G-d;\" \"Love your fellowman like yourself,” i.e. identification with the other party is love. Such an identification is based on a complete appreciation of the other's qualities. This is what G-d describes when He said to Abraham, \"Take your son, your only one, the one whom you love.\" (Genesis 22,2) Love cannot survive when one of the parties undergoes a drastic change either in moral or physical stature. Jonathan volunteered to become David's deputy, to enable his love for David to survive (Samuel I 23,17). For the appreciation of the foregoing, G-d required a covenant from the Jewish people, in order to maintain the love relationship that existed and to warn Israel that unless a mutuality of interests and the deeds arising from that mutuality of interests was maintained, the love relationship would disintegrate. The factors which were mutual, i.e. the common denominator between G-d and Israel, were Torah, Sanctuary (temple), and Priesthood. These factors were needed to ensure that by concentrating on them, both G-d and Israel would maintain their identity of purpose. When people try to upset this love relationship others have with G-d, it is like craftsmen who are jealous in their hearts of fellow craftsmen, seeing that we are all children of one father. ",
"(2) Since in the animal kingdom the sole purpose of mating is the progeny, it was sufficient for the males and females of the species to have been created independently of one another. After all, their union had no purpose beyond the physical. Since man was to establish civilization and close co-operation between the males and the females would be necessary, it was deemed right to equip them with the maximum number of common characteristics, so that they would be able to identify with one another. (3) This is the meaning of \"It is not good for humans to be separate,\" i.e. for the male and the female to have separate origins. Adam's helpmate therefore will be made in a way that will enable her to become his full partner in all his tasks. In chapter 2,19, the word \" vayitzer\" spelled with only one letter yud when the animals are being created, stresses the word \"from the earth\"; whatever was created from earth was without soul and when presented before man he could immediately understand that their very nature was merely nefesh chayah, living matter, but not spirit, no intellect. It remained for Adam only to distinguish individual differences and name them accordingly. Naturally, he found no mate among these creatures. (4+6) He was put to sleep in order a) to avoid the pain of the operation; b) so that the surprise when he awoke and found a mate would make him rejoice. This is one of the reasons our sages call someone who finds a wife as \"having made a find.\" Adam found what he had missed so far, and had been hoping to find. Taking one of his own sides, created the strong chibbur, bond, that we have discussed as being the basis of mutual love. (5) The term binyan, building, emphasizes that not mere mechanics were involved. Just as the cabinet-maker who constructs a chair and a table of cedar wood, has fashioned cedar wood furniture, so the common denominator of Adam and Eve is the fact that both are humans. Therefore, they retain their original appellation. This means that Eve too is Adam in the sense that she too is human. (7) Adam emphasized that the primary bond with Eve was not sexual in nature, but a kindred spirit. Therefore, when naming her, the sexual aspect (\"She is the mother of all living humans\") was absent, and the overall human function of ish was emphasized as the predominating bond between them. The other name would have misrepresented the essence of the relationship. The absence of the letter yud in ishah pointedly avoids giving the impression that she is merely what parah, cow, is to par, bull. The former name being from the same root indicates simultaneous creation; isha being from a different root than ish, shows that woman was subsequent to Man, and that man has a certain precedence over her. This confirms that woman is man's helper, not vice versa. The words \"taken from man\" means \"subsequent to him.\" (8) The fact that Adam employed a term for his wife which corresponds to the sound of the word ish, man, is proof that Hebrew was the language he spoke, since in almost all other languages the terms for \"man\" and \"woman\" respectively are entirely different both in spelling and in sound. (9) Because the physical relationship between man and wife is stronger than the mere reproduction of the genes between father and son, man abandons even his father's home to set up a new home with the wife he has chosen. ",
"",
"",
"(10) Since Adam and Eve, when newly created, were fully grown, like twenty-year olds, perfect physical specimen, beautiful in all their parts, they had nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide. On the other hand, not having tasted from the fruit of the tree of knowledge as yet, awareness that their private parts were even more exposed than those of the animals due to their upright posture, had not yet reached them. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"THE SERPENT WAS THE SLYEST OF ALL THE BEASTS\" ",
"Bamidbar Rabbah 16 states that at the time Israel proclaimed, \"We will do and we will hear,\" G-d brought the angel of death before Him and told him, \"The whole world is within your power, except this nation which I have chosen for Myself,\" since G-d had advised that this nation should live forever, as it says, \"And you who have cleaved to G-d are alive this day...” (Deut. 4,4). Also, concerning the Divinely inscribed tablets, the verse states that the writing was the writing of the LORD, \"free\" on the tablets (Exodus 32,16). \"Do not read engraved on the tablets, i.e. charut, but cheyrut, free, i.e. free from the authority of the angel of death, free from subjugation, from suffering. When Israel sinned, due to the advice of the spies, G-d said to them, \"You have destroyed all My intentions. I had said you should live indefinitely like Myself, but you have shown a desire for death.\" This is the meaning of Psalms 82,6, \"I have said you are divine, of superior descent, but alas you are like Adam, whom I commanded one commandment in order that he should merit eternal life.\" This is proven by the statement in the Torah \"Here man has become like one of Us.\" Yet man corrupted his actions and nullified My decision, ate from the tree so that I said to him, \"You are dust and to dust you shall return.\" ",
"Aristotle, in his Ethics describes the difference between animalistic life and human life as the difference between life governed wholly by the senses and life governed by a combination of the senses and the intellect. The former, being governed wholly by his senses, may, when hungry, eat something poisonous because its sense of hunger dominates it. Man, when in possession of his intellect, would first examine the food to ensure it is wholesome. When man ignores his intellect, he becomes beast-like, a slave to his instincts. Such surrender to his senses hastens his ultimate destiny, death. When the mating urge overcomes an animal, it will mate with the first available mate, irrespective of compatibility. Humans, when guided by their intellects, would display circumspection when choosing mates as life partners. ",
"Some problems in the text of our story: 1) Why does the Torah tell us that the serpent was smarter than \"any other beast,\" when in fact it seems to have outsmarted even the two human beings? 2) What prompted the serpent to commence its dialogue with Eve with the words \"did G-d indeed forbid?\" 3) The Torah says, \"The woman saw that the tree was good to eat;\" how can one \"see\" if something is good to eat? One can only taste it! 4) Why does the Torah say, \"They saw that they were naked?\" We would have expected something along the lines of \"They were ashamed that they were naked,\" seeing that they had previously been described as being unashamed of their nudity. 5) Since they had made themselves belts to conceal their private parts, what cause was there to feel ashamed? 6) Why was G-d angry at the acquisition of a feeling of shame? Is this not a feeling that everyone should know? 7) Why was each of the three parties involved cursed in a different manner? 8) How is the name Chavah symbolic of woman's major function? 9) Why did G-d not provide man with a leather coat, if that is the proper attire for man? 10) Why is the word or spelled with the letter aleph meaning \"light\" in Rabbi Meir's version of the Torah, instead of with the letter ayin meaning \"skin?\" ",
"(1+2) The Torah describes the serpent as possessing natural slyness, as if this represented the link between beasts and man in intellectual capacity. The serpent, governed by jealousy, wanted to create a rift between Adam and Eve. The verse commencing with the words \"Did G-d really say that you must not eat from any of the trees of the garden etc.?\" can be explained in that Eve, as is the custom of women, interrupted the serpent in mid-sentence. Later, the serpent had a chance to finish the sentence by adding \"and not to touch it. You will not die.\" The words \"and not to touch it,\" were added gratuitously in order to prepare the ground for the argument that since touching the tree did not cause death, neither would eating from it. The serpent had hoped to trip Eve into interrupting once more, so that it could prove that touching the tree did not cause death. (3) The argument in favor of eating from the tree ran thus. If the fruit of the tree causes excessive preoccupation with eating, the same applies, at least cumulatively, to all the other good trees whose fruit is permitted. If the fruit of that tree causes excessive urges of a sensual nature due to its visual allure, why are all the other trees that are also visually alluring permitted? There remained only the appeal of the tree to the intellect to be dealt with before objection to eating from it would be disregarded totally. It was argued that intelligence is something positive, constructive. If by eating from the fruit of that tree, additional intelligence would be acquired, how could such an opportunity be passed up? ",
"So, \"SHE TOOK FROM THE TREE AND ATE.\" The Torah describes two considerations as having won out. 1) The external appearance of the tree was made the yardstick of what is good and what is evil. 2) The prospect of immediate pleasure outweighed the fear of the eventual harm. \"Their eyes were opened and they were naked.\" This does not describe their embarrassment, which would not have been objectionable, and would have been the result of their having enjoyed the fruit of that tree. The awareness was a form of knowledge that they needed to maintain their image. In order to do this, expensive trimmings for one's exterior are required. They therefore quickly attempted to cover themselves so that they could prove themselves superior to the animals. (9) The Torah therefore does not state that they did this in order to cover their nakedness. This is also why no mention is made of their feeling ashamed when they heard the voice of G-d, only that they hid themselves out of fear, seeing that they had transgressed G-d’s commandment. Adam said \"I heard Your voice and was afraid.\" To this G-d replied \"who told you that you are naked?\" (6) Had Adam and Eve eaten only from the trees whose fruit had been permitted, the feeling of shame would have necessitated covering only their private parts, would not have induced in them the feeling that they needed fancy clothing to prove their superior status. Only eating from the tree of knowledge could have accounted for that feeling. (7) Adam (man) added to his sin by blaming his wife, suggesting that because she had given him of the fruit, he had been bound to eat it. That is why G-d blamed him doubly now, saying 1) \"Because you listened to your wife;\" 2) \"Because you ate.\" When our sages explain Psalms 69,32, \"And this will please the Lord better than a bullock tossing its horns and showing its hooves,\" they say that this refers to the offering brought by Adam. The ox Adam offered had its horns protruding beyond his hooves. Split hooves are a sign of \"purity\" in an animal, and reconciliation with one's Maker is to be achieved by means of the sacrifice of a \"pure animal\" (or by words as described in Hoseah 14, who describes the bull as equivalent to lips). When such a reconciliation is attended by the claim that others are responsible for one's shortcomings, one distorts the concept of sacrifice. Adam did this by blaming his sin on his wife. Therefore, the Psalmist describes the signs of purity of his sacrificial bullock as having been obscured by its horns. Originally, the bull had only one horn, a sign of superior strength. It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that a horned animal is more likely to gore, to cause damage. Therefore, it would have been most fitting symbolically to serve as the sin offering for Adam. Eve fell into the same trap as Adam by blaming the serpent for her sin. The serpent, being the last party involved in the episode, did not need to be asked by G-d. It was cursed by having its former superior height reduced till it became the lowliest creature, condemned to crawling on the ground. Since the serpent had tricked Eve into eating what held allure for the eye, it would henceforth subsist on a diet of things that looked like earth, i.e. held no allure for the eye. The ongoing enmity between man and the snake, with man seeking to smash the head of the snake, is another part of the curse decreed on the latter. Woman was cursed in matters specific to her function. When she fails to become pregnant right after marriage, both parties worry about her being barren. Her pain will be greater than that of man, since even when she bears children she is not certain of her husband's love. There is the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth. Despite all this, man dominates her when it comes to marital relations. Since man was created first, and since the survival of the species depends on him (he is commanded to procreate, not she), she who was created later was clearly created for his benefit, and not vice versa. Woman's sex urge is therefore usually weaker than man's. As the Talmud says (Kidushin 2), \"It is the way of a man to try and recover what he has lost (i.e. looking for a wife), it is not the way of the lost object (woman) to go looking for its owner.\" For this reason, man displays less embarrassment in matters relating to sex. Granted that the urge for physical contact is rooted in the animalistic within us, man nevertheless has the redeeming excuse that he needs to reproduce the species. Woman does not share this redeeming aspect of the sex urge. The comparison is similar to what Solomon has stated in Proverbs 6,31-32 when he compares people who steal because of need with people who steal because of greed. The curse upon man was greater, since as a direct product of G-d’s creative activity (He personally had equipped him with the soul of life), his conduct should have been on a far higher plane than even that of his wife. He was cursed in all \"directions\" of motion corresponding to the status of being a \"living creature\" par excellence which had been his prior to his sin. The four aspects of motion can be subsumed as defined by the answers to the questions 1) where to? 2) how? 3) how much? 4) motion itself. Scriptural references for the above are \"Go for yourself from your country,\" i.e. \"where to;\" (Genesis 12,1). \"He will keep going and cry\" equals the \"how\"? (Psalms 126,6). \"Continuing to grow in intensity,\" equals the \"how much?\" (Exodus 19,19). \"Here I am going to die,\" equals the \"motion itself,\" an example of when the very nature of the motion transforms the essence of the one who is in motion (Genesis 25,32). G-d said, \"Because you listened to your wife\" 1) \"The earth is cursed,\" will not yield its fruit easily. Man is condemned to eat vegetables he has to grow and plant, since he had been too anxious to eat from the fruit of the tree for which he did not have to toil. 2) Only after having \"sweated and toiled\" will man be able to feed himself from now on. 3) \"Until you die,\" i.e. until your travels take you from above the ground to your grave below. 4) \"To dust you will return,\" you will dissolve into a multiplicity of particles (reference to how much, quantity). Instead of being a single integrated unit, you will disintegrate. 8) Originally, Adam had called Eve “ishah \", emphasizing her parity with man, i.e. ish. After the episode with the tree of knowledge, he called her chavah, emphasizing the female element within her, and the fact that she was the mother of all subsequent human beings. Between these two names, the two functions of woman are defined. On the one hand, as the eyshet chayil, woman of valor, she possesses all the ingredients that can raise her to the status of prophetess; on the other hand her function is to become a mother. A woman who fails to give birth, just like a man who is sterile, has not forfeited her major function in life, as is proven from Isaiah 56,3-5, \"Let not the barren proclaim I am but a dried-out tree.\" We hold the view that man's major function is the performance of good deeds, something quite independent of procreation. If Jacob had been angry at Rachel for demanding children, else her life would not be worth living (Genesis 30,1-2), it was precisely for this reason. When the Talmud in Nedarim 64 states that of the four categories of people who are considered as dead, one is the group that have no children, the reference is only to their perpetuating their name on this earth. When woman conducts herself true to her purpose as helpmate to man, she also retains the name ishah. When, however, she acts as a hindrance, her function is reduced to that of the female part within her, i.e. she remains only chavah, mother. (9) G-d, in His kindness, covered their entire bodies with clothing, fulfilling a wish Adam had expressed already before that. G-d had waited for this request for clothing just as He had waited for the request of a suitable mate. ",
"We find man referred to as Adam, to signify his lofty origin (\"in His image\"); he is called enosh to signify his dependence and reliance on matter as the raw material he is made of. He is also referred to as nachash, signifying his state when surrendering to the call of the purely animalistic, and when indulging in phantasies. (Genesis 49,17) \"Snakes bite the heel of the lofty horse, and fell its rider.\" The influence of the nachash on ishah stems from the similarity of the raw material both are made of. It can be described like etzem me-atzomay, \"a bone from my bones.\" In turn, ishah as the vehicle of Adam can bring about the latter's downfall. The ability to fantasize, to use one's imagination which is man's, is also the ability to distort and misconstrue the facts and appearances thereof. In one's imagination, the restriction placed on any activity can easily be interpreted as a restriction placed on all activities. It is something arum, tricky, since it is liable to mislead. Sin always has its beginnings in the images created by the power of imagination. It fuels our will to materialize our fantasies. When Haman, who had the run of the greatest Empire in the world, felt that Mordechai's refusal to bow down to him rendered all his accomplishments null and void (\"All this is not worth a thing to me\" Esther 5,13), we have a classic example of the distorted view of things created by the figments of our imagination. This explains why the prohibition of the tree of knowledge could be equated by Eve with the prohibition of the fruit of all the trees. ",
"The Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 19,4) quoting Rabbi Yehudah ben Symon states that whatever was created more recently assumed a role of dominance over things created earlier, since more recently created beings represented closer proximity to the spiritual, were not totally wrapped up in their material existence. The fact that \"heaven\" was superior to what had been created on the first day is proof of that. The serpent argued in the same vein. Eve was afraid that unless they (the humans) ate from the tree and thereby acquired higher spiritual insights, they would be superseded at a later stage by beings who were even closer to the original source of spirituality, i.e. G-d, than man. She was afraid that man could then be placed in an inferior position. The serpent, according to those sages, claimed that G-d Himself had \"eaten\" from the tree of knowledge, and had then become capable of creating the universe. It meant to portray physical satisfactions as an end in itself, instead of merely as a means to an end. This was the great lie that the serpent tried to peddle. Anyone believing this lie to be true, is in fact a kopher be-ikkar, a true heretic (Sanhedrin 38).",
"Another Midrash tells of the serpent suggesting that human intelligence is the ultimate arbiter of what is true and what is false. Eve disagreed at first, saying that they had been warned not to think so, i.e. not to touch that which supposedly stands for knowledge. Touching, as distinct from eating, means that one uses one's intellect without making it the final arbiter of one's actions. When the serpent proved that such use of one's intellect did not have harmful consequences, Eve was tricked into believing that even absorbing, i.e. eating the fruit (i.e. total immersion in the value of perception based only on one's intellect) would pose no danger. This interpretation does not essentially differ from the previous one. \"Their eyes were opened.\" Once they became aware that their nakedness represented a state of imperfection, they tried to reassure themselves unsuccessfully that being human was superior to being animal, and the flimsy covering they made for themselves was symbolic of the fact that the advantage man enjoys over the animal is merely superficial. Both were condemned to die and leave behind on earth all the accomplishments achieved during their lifetime. ",
"If repentance has to commence at the place where the sin was committed, only the fig tree could provide the leaves, seeing that it had been instrumental in man's fall (assuming that the fig tree was the tree of knowledge). Man hid, i.e. he considered himself beyond the sphere of Divine attention, just as the animal kingdom of which he now felt a part was outside the domain of G-d’s personal supervision. Only when addressed by G-d directly did man perceive that he had been wrong in his assumptions. This in turn led to complete repentance, recognition of his error. G-d’s rhetorical question \"How could you feel naked unless you had eaten from the tree I told you not to eat from or you would become mortal,\" meant \"You came out of earth's lap naked and you will return to earth naked.\" Adam replied, \"True, I ate, but I was obliged to eat since the woman You gave me, gave me to eat.\" This stamps man as an ingrate, and woman who argued that her having succumbed was due to the serpent's enticement, claimed that her sin was natural, almost preordained. It is man's task to \"hit the snake on the head,\" to neutralize its ability to mislead us and to distort the powers of our imagination. The snake's way is underhanded, it attacks the unprotected rear. It is our task to smash it head-on. Having abused our intelligence, we are condemned to attain our perfection via the route of gaining our sustenance through toil and sweat. The animal kingdom, having remained true to its instincts, does not need to fend for a living and finds its needs readily provided for (see Rabbi Eliezer at the end of tractate Kidushin). \"On your belly you will move,\" i.e. even things suitable for you, you will find only with difficulty. This is the penalty for the serpent which had not been true to its instincts. The enmity between woman and the serpent is the disdain felt by people of sincere convictions (Torah) for those who adhere to all kinds of physical self-indulgence. The ability to crush the power of imaginary enjoyments will be greater than the power of those enjoyments to seduce, though that power will be great. The painfully slow process of pregnancy and giving birth, has its parallel in the equally gradual growth of perception of true values. Constant vigilance against falsehoods portrayed as true values in life renders such growth painful. Woman's mentor will henceforth be her husband, and he will be predominant in her thinking. \"To Adam He had said,\" He called him Adam on account of the qualities he had originally been equipped with. When true to his purpose, the earth will be blessed by his conduct, and will yield its fruit willingly. When untrue, such as during this episode, man's ascendancy over earth as a superior is naught, hence the earth does not feel it needs to respond to man's efforts. The right to use nature for his own ends is based on man's doing so in the service of his Creator. Only then does earth also serve its Creator by serving man. \"For you are dust,\" the intellectual faculties per se must not be viewed as ruach hakodesh, holy spirit. Through their being used constantly to fulfil tasks set for us by G-d, they gradually evolve, gain spiritual content, and ultimately—as in Jacob's dream with the ladder—may be transformed and become truly spiritual intellect. Adam was a pious man, who separated from Eve for 130 years once he had realized that he had brought mortality into the lives of the human species. During this period, he fasted and placed fig leaves on his flesh as a form of atonement. There are three kinds of repentance, corresponding to three types of sin. 1) Fasting is an antidote for errors committed through contamination of one's intellect through certain kinds of food or drink, which induce heretical views. 2) Sexual continence, in this case from his wife, who had seduced him into sinning. 3) The fig branches that tormented his body. When Adam called his wife chavah, he expressed the recognition that she had misled him, an act of repentance on his part. When G-d fashioned the leather coats for man, this was a sign that their repentance had been accepted. In the same way as leather garments are good for protecting the body, the light of Torah protects man's eyes. Both together are the way G-d in His kindness enables us to overcome the mortality which had resulted from eating of the tree of knowledge. Compare Onkelos on Leviticus 18,5 \"When you observe the Torah, you will live forever.\" G-d’s Torah restores life to the condemned. (10) Rabbi Meir's version of the spelling of the word or with an aleph expresses the same thought that Onkelos stated on the verse in Leviticus. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"NOW MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US\" ",
"Bamidbar Rabbah 19 comments as follows: We read in Kings 1,4 concerning king Solomon that \"he was wiser than any man.\" The comparison refers to Adam. What did Solomon's superior wisdom consist of? You find that at the time G-d contemplated making man, He consulted with the angels and said to them, \"Let Us make man in Our image and in Our form.\" Thereupon the angels said before G-d, \"Who is man that You should give serious thought to him?\" (Psalms 8,5). G-d answered them, \"The human being I intend to create will have wisdom superior to yours.\" What did G-d do to prove this? He assembled all the animals in front of the angels, and asked the angels to name them. The angels were unable to do so. When He created man, He asked him, \"What are the names of these animals?\" Adam called one \"ox,\" the next one \"horse\" etc. as is written in the Torah, \"Adam named all the beasts in the field and the birds of the sky.\" When G-d asked him, \"What is your name?\" he replied \"Adam, for I have been created from the earth.\" G-d then asked him, \"What is My name?\" Adam replied, \"My Lord.\" When G-d asked, \"Why?\" Adam replied, \"Because You are the Lord of all creatures.\" This is the meaning of the verse in Isaiah 42,8 \"I am the Lord, this is My name,” meaning that this is the name that Adam has called Me, the name I adopted among My creatures. ",
"Man is not only a creature who combines opposite extremes of creation in a state of fusion, but his powers of perception also are twofold, consisting of cognitive processes by his senses as well as cognitive processes based on his intellect. Yediah, knowledge, is what we perceive by means of our intellect. This is the result of using the upper extremes of our powers of perception. Hakkarah, on the other hand, is perception by means of feeling, sensual perception, the lower end of our range of perceptual tools. The two processes work in different ways from one another, and what is perceived intellectually is not comprehended by the senses nor is what is sensually perceived understood intellectually. Intellectual perception extends to the general, whereas sensual perception extends to the particular. Intellectually, one can perceive the nature of the earth, but not all the innumerable details in it; sensually one can feel all these infinite little details without thereby arriving at any conclusions concerning their overall nature and purpose. Children proceed empirically when learning to distinguish between sensations and between different phenomena. Only much later do they become able to form overall concepts. Intellectual beings devoid of bodies proceed in the opposite manner. Our sages view man as enveloped in darkness, but able to recognize phenomena bathed in light. Angels, on the other hand, are situated within an ocean of light, unable to recognize what is immersed in darkness. The Almighty, of course, possesses the ability to perceive both what is bathed in light and what is surrounded by darkness. In this allegory, intellect is equated with \"light.\" Man's advantage over the angels is, that in addition to intellect, he also possesses senses, enabling him to perceive the particular as well as the general by means of these senses. This is why Adam could distinguish correctly between animals, recognizing their individual characteristics. To return to the parable of light and darkness. If matter is perceived as an impediment to pure light (matter being opaque), then angels being unencumbered by matter due to their being purely spiritual beings have difficulty distinguishing different shades of matter, i.e. darkness. It is not unlike the difficulty experienced by a white man when trying to distinguish the features of, say, the Chinese. The Almighty, having created both light and matter, is thoroughly familiar with His creation. His powers of perception are entirely different from those of either man or angels. Adam had demonstrated his superior conceptual powers by naming both himself, the animals and his Creator. Since the terms \"good,\" i.e. proper, or \"gratifying,\" apply to both general concepts of knowledge as well as to particular objects of one's perception, the same needs to hold true for \"bad,\" i.e. improper and \"unpleasant,\" if we are to give meaning to the term \"knowledge.\" Interestingly, the tree of knowledge is called the tree of knowledge of \"good\" and \"evil,\" not the tree of knowledge of what is \"true\" and what is \"false.\" The serpent refers to G-d as being able to distinguish between \"good\" and \"evil.\" In Samuel II 14,17, we read of angels being defined as knowing \"good and evil.\" Why then do our sages seem to deny that angels possess the power to distinguish between good and evil? Maimonides claims that man was unique in creation because he was the only creature to possess this ability. He claims that angels recognize only objective values such as truth and falsehood, not relative values such as \"good\" and \"evil.\" If Adam called himself \"Adam,\" this was because since the raw material that he himself was made of was \"adamah,\" earth, i.e. davar murkav, matter composed of several elements. Hence, he was able to correctly identify other creatures composed of similar raw materials. He could also perceive in which way each differed from another. When the Midrash describes man's knowledge as merubah, this does not mean \"greater,\" but \"more variegated.\" A scholar who is an expert farmer at the same time, possesses a wider range of knowledge than his counterpart who is merely a theoretician. However, this advantage is merely quantitative, not qualitative. It does not mean that man's wisdom is superior to that of the angels. Since the terms \"good,” “beautiful,” “dignified” etc. are intrinsically intellectual definitions, angels naturally must know them also as well as their opposites, although they need not be capable of possessing these characteristics. Since this is so, there is no good reason not to understand \"and you will be like G-d knowing good and evil,\" as referring to the angels' ability in this regard (Genesis 3,5). In Samuel II 14,17, the wise woman from Tekoah also uses the term \"elokim\" for angels, just as G-d seems to do in our Parshah. The author rejects all those commentaries which avoid the peshat in the verses under discussion. He devotes many pages to disprove other commentators' opinions about the angels' powers of perception. ",
"The difference between angel and man lies in the freedom of will possessed by man and the absence of such freedom of choice in angels. Man is able to rise or fall morally, ethically; angels remain forever on the same plateau. Rashi and Onkelos say what they say in addition to the peshat, the plain meaning of the verse. They do so to forestall the impression that G-d is described as talking to Himself or to any of His non existent partners. We find many instances when Onkelos translates elokim as \"angels of G-d,\" such as Jacob saying \"I have seen elokim face to face\" (Genesis 32,31). In the case of the serpent using this term, seeing the serpent does not have encounters with angels, the term refers simply to elokim as the Creator and His power. Even the she-ass of Bileam did not see the angel as an angel (Numbers 22). It only saw him as a threatening obstruction. Had this not been so, she would not have said to Bileam, \"Do I usually act in this fashion?\" She would have said, \"The angel of the Lord has prevented me.\" ",
"The author is convinced that the tree of life is not merely to be understood as something allegorical, but that it existed in the flesh. Mankind still keeps trying to find the elixir of life in nature, tries to find waters with miraculous healing properties. G-d said to the angels \"as long as man had not eaten from the tree of knowledge, he could have chosen good and evil as freely as a member of the celestial army, i.e. the angels, and thus have enjoyed an infinite lifespan.\" If man would now eat from the tree of life, he would enjoy an infinite lifespan without deserving it. To prevent this from happening, G-d expelled man from the garden. As a result of this, man would have to work the soil in order to assure himself of the necessities for physical life for whatever lifespan he would enjoy on this earth. ",
"",
"Expulsion was necessary to maintain the nature of man. Had man's lifespan become unconditionally infinite through his eating from the tree of life, he would no longer have been a unique creature in the universe. He would have become a sub species of the celestial beings. By having to maintain a balance between the animalistic and the Divine, and by constantly having to face this challenge, he could remain human. Therefore, the gates of Eden had to remain closed to him. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"AND ADAM KNEW HIS WIFE.” ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 22 quotes Rabbi Eleazar ben Aroch saying, \"Three wonderful things occurred on that day. On that day they were created; on the same day they mated; and on the same day they produced offspring.\" Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha said, \"Two climbed into bed, and seven climbed out of it. Cain and his twin sister, Abel and his two twin sisters.\" ",
"In order for a work of art to be truly successful, the input must be precise; there can be neither shortfall nor surplus. Just as the absence of a vital ingredient constitutes a blemish, so any excess is considered a blemish also. Our sages, when classifying what constitutes a blemish in an animal to be offered as a sacrifice on G-d’s altar, say \"anything that is excess (such as an extra toe) is just as disqualifying as anything that is missing (Chullin 58). Naturalists have been extremely careful when defining phenomena in nature. Small tolerances and variants not allowed for in these definitions would cause us to make errors, and mistake one species for another. When defining \"life,\" for instance, the definition is \"something that feels, and consumes food and drink. If, for instance, the dimension of \"feeling\" were to be omitted, we would not be dealing with a form of life, but rather with some form of plant, vegetation. If the dimension of \"consuming food\" would be missing, we would deal with inert objects such as stones or metal. In order to define\"man\" correctly, we must remember that the Torah refers to man in different ways. He is called either \"Adam,” \"man,\" or \"woman.\" Alternately, we find him referred to as \"Adam-woman- serpent.\" It appears therefore, that unless \"man\" comprises all these elements, he just would not be \"man.\" It is for us to determine the relationships that exist between the various elements mentioned. As has been demonstrated in chapters eight and nine, the terms \"woman,\" \"Eve,\" are well understood in their respective implications. They refer to the physical aspect of \"man,\" the part which requires nourishment, the part that emotes. All these elements are ever present in man, are always part of our evaluation of him. Also, the term \"man\" is readily comprehensible inasmuch as it describes a creature equipped with the power of speech, as distinct from all other creatures. Man possesses other distinctly human qualities such as the desire for comfort, wealth, wisdom, honor etc. None of these exist among the beasts. However, the most sublime part of man, the part called \"Adam,\" refers to his intellectual faculties which place him high above being only a \"talking animal.\" This latter quality is one that is not readily seen or heard when we encounter a human being. Some people even deny the existence of such qualities in humans because these qualities are hidden within him. Even wise men seem at at times intent to conceal this aspect of man, such as when they describe man as \"a talking living creature.\" Those philosophers admit only that man possesses practical intelligence, denying that he possesses speculative reason. Aristotle stands out by recognizing that man does possess both of these intellectual powers. Since speculative reason concerns itself mostly with what might be practical and expedient in order for man to achieve comfort, wealth etc., we find the tendency of man to put his highest faculty in the service of his lowest faculty, i.e. his body's requirements. It is this fact which is lamented by Solomon in Kohelet chapter 4. When there is at least some co-operation between human beings, though it may be motivated by far from lofty motivations, Solomon sees some merit in this (see verse 9-12). Even this is not enough if one does not reach the stage of recognizing the true purpose speculative reason has been granted to man, namely to enable him to achieve ascendancy over that which is merely physical. Having established this, we understand the need of the Torah to relate the birth of Cain, Abel, the sacrifice, the murder and all the other details of the accomplishments of Cain's descendants, (though all were doomed) all of which in themselves do not deserve mention. The Torah does not report events that do not serve as a model for conveying lessons to man which are valid throughout history. If the Torah related all these details of early man's activities merely to let us know the dates and age of populated earth, the genealogy of the ten generations would have sufficed. We must follow the view of the saintly Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai who views Torah as containing soul, body, and outer garments. He sees the stories of true occurrences reported in the Torah as parables describing events of spiritual significance. Thus, though he accepts the factual occurrence of the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, the four rivers etc., he views the significance of the story as going far beyond providing a historic record of the actual events described. Rabbi Eleazar ben Aroch in the opening Midrash also has this theme in mind when he talks about three wondrous events, seeing that they occurred after the conclusion of the report of the story of Creation, after natural law had become operative. This is especially so, since the plain meaning of the text does not suggest the extraordinary nature of the events mentioned by Rabbi Eleazar. The Torah, after all, merely says, \"She conceived, became pregnant, and gave birth; she continued to give birth.\" This sounds like a very normal version of natural events. Rabbi Eleazar's thrust is to tell us that just as everything which had occurred up until now during the period of creation had been extraordinary from the point of view of natural law, so these events did not conform to natural law either. Seeing that the parents had been part of the process of creation, not part of natural law, the potential of these kinds of births had been included in the process leading up to these events. Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha refers to the same thought, namely that the nature of the offspring of man is itself still part of the creative process. Therefore, the potential for evil etc. is not something that entered man at birth, but at a later date, as a result of a sinful act. When Adam and Eve begat Cain, Eve named him thus to indicate that it was his task to \"acquire\" (from the root kanah) as much material wealth as he was able to collect. Eve felt that the main difference between man and beast was the G-d given ability to acquire things (et hashem, i.e. a quality man shares with G-d). When Eve bore Abel, he had a superior profession, one that entailed leadership and demonstration of responsibility for others. When the Psalmist compares David's elevation to leadership of men to his experiences as a shepherd (Psalms 78,71), we find that thought documented in scripture. There are many other examples of the profession of shepherd serving as a leadership course preparing those people eventually to assume positions of leadership amongst men. The reason we find Abel's birth described as \"additional\" is to teach that it was obvious that Cain's profession could not be the sum total of man's purpose on earth. When naming Abel Hevel, Eve unwittingly gave expression to the inherent inadequacy even in Abel's profession. Since the world needs far more people of the type of Cain, i.e. people who make the earth produce, than it needs \"leaders,\" Cain looked down on Abel. Regrettably, at that stage Adam and Eve thought that they had produced in their respective children all that was needed to secure successful perpetuation of their species, i.e. the producer and the preserver. As a result of meeting with success in their respective endeavors, Cain and Abel offered gifts to G-d. Although neither of the two had used his talents in the manner G-d would have preferred, G-d gave preference to the type of profession chosen by Abel. After all, Abel's profession involved primarily the use of his intellect, whereas Cain's profession involved primarily the use of muscle. ",
"It was this preference G-d displayed for Abel's profession which upset Cain and made him depressed. He could not stand the thought that his younger brother should be his leader, and should be able to exert a restraining influence on his lifestyle. ",
"Oved adamah, a farmer, is a person so preoccupied with his own material (what his body is made of) that it makes him a slave of the earth. Hence, this word defines the nature of the farmer. The Midrash describes that three people had been obsessed with the urge to subdue the earth and possess a great deal of soil. They were Cain, Noach, and Uzziah. The statement is linked to Avot 4,21, that three things hasten man's departure from this earth, i.e. jealousy, greed, and the quest for personal glory. Apparently, Cain and the other two suffered from all three obsessions. G-d addressed Himself to Cain's jealousy when He asked him, \"Why are you angry?\" He addressed Himself to Cain's greed when He asked him, \"Why is your face crestfallen?\" He addressed Himself to Cain's quest for glory when He said to Cain, \"When you are good you will be rewarded, and you will be successful.\" G-d meant that if Cain would examine himself, he would have no cause to feel inferior, but could elevate himself to a higher status. On the other hand, failing that, sin would always lie waiting at his doorstep. The combination of Cain's profession with his mental attitude invites moral corruption. It seems, that initially at least, G-d’s words found a ready response within Cain. This is why he spoke to Abel in a friendly manner. However, once they began to disagree about the fields and the vineyards, Cain changed his attitude and reverted to his former outlook. Thus, he simply killed Abel in order to remain Lord and Master of the earth. ",
"The Midrash describes the subject matter of the brothers' quarrel as being an attempt to divide the world between them. Cain took the soil, Abel everything mobile. Cain said to Abel that his goods were on his property. Abel replied that Cain's clothes were produced from the wool of his sheep. Cain demanded that Abel get off his ground, whereas Abel demanded that Cain shed his clothing. In this way they both demonstrated that they lacked the basic concepts of co-operation without which civilization is impossible. The ultimate outcome of their attitudes was murder. When G-d addressed Cain, He wanted to know, \"Where is your brother Abel,\" i.e. your guide, your leader? Cain replied, \"Am I my brother's keeper?\" He meant, \"Since I am the producer of wealth and he is merely the preserver, why does he rank above me in Your esteem? Is his name (Hevel, vanity) not already an indication that his existence is not of crucial importance in the scheme of things?\" G-d replied that since Hevel's blood is complaining about Cain's earth having absorbed it, about the injustice perpetrated on him, Cain would henceforth become a fugitive on \"his\" earth. His future experiences would teach him that he had grossly underrated the importance of \"Hevel's\" functions, since his own activities would be stymied through his brother's absence. The co-operation of the adamah, earth, with the oved adamah, the tiller of the soil who had dedicated himself to the earth, in covering up the misdeed of the latter is remarkable. Carried to its logical conclusion, the thought the Torah conveys is that by destroying Hevel, Cain had in fact destroyed himself. ",
"The Midrash which describes Cain's death as due to the death of Hevel, contains the same idea (Bereshit Rabbah 23). ",
"Elsewhere (Bereshit Rabbah 22), the Midrash describes Hevel as having had the upper hand in the struggle, with Cain lying on the ground. When Cain said, \"How will you explain my death to our father?\" Hevel relented, whereupon Cain seized the opportunity to get up and kill him. The sign G-d gave to Cain to warn others who might take the law into their own hands, was to insure that civilization could exist in future. Without regulatory statutes governing the how, when, and by whom of the administering of punishment, everyone who had once committed a misdemeanor, even if he wanted to rehabilitate himself, would forever be forced to pit himself against all of society in sheer self-defense against mob rule. ",
"We find seven different interpretations in the Midrash concerning the nature of the \"sign\" that G-d made for Cain. The seven opinions reflect seven different considerations which may prevent man from sinning. Rabbi Yehudah describes the sign as an illumination of the sun's orbit at an unusual hour. The symbolism in this would be that Cain was taught that there are things in this world beyond tilling the soil. The \"light\" refers to \"enlightenment.\" Rabbi Nechemyah, seeing that Cain at that time considered being a shepherd as the outer limit of enlightenment, felt that the light Rabbi Yehudah had talked about, would have been too advanced a message for Cain to have understood and to have an effect on him. He says, therefore, that the sign was a form of leprosy, to indicate that if acute suffering is the result of sinful behavior, such an experience would serve as a deterrent to sin in the future. We also find in the Torah that when a response to a sophisticated sign is not forthcoming, something more direct and down to earth is needed (compare Exodus chapter 3, when Moses questions whether the Israelites will accept him as their savior to be). Rabbi Abba says that Cain was given a dog, that just as the blind use the dog as a seeing eye, so Cain was given an external aid. This symbolizes man's dependence on guides which while inherently inferior to him, nonetheless assume leadership qualities for him if he does not live up to his potential. Abba Joseph says that Cain grew a horn on his forehead which would aid him in demolishing harmful philosophies, allegorically speaking. Rav says that this horn performs the function of frightening off would be murderers, i.e. the horn was to ward off physical rather than spiritual dangers. Rabbi Chanan says the horn was to serve notice that the owner was a repentant sinner. In either event, the meaning of the verse according to the last two sages would be that \"G-d set Cain up as a sign,\" i.e. as a model for others to emulate. Rabbi Levi says that Cain's judgment was suspended pending further developments, until with the onset of the deluge this also included the penalty for the original murder. In the following verse we observe a partial rehabilitation of Cain, who founded civilization by building a city for his son Chanoch, thereby continuing the task that his murdered brother had originally set for himself. ",
"",
"The Midrash states that the names of the descendants of Cain which the Torah lists, indicate that these people lived a hard life, and found their existence quite exhausting. Only very gradually did they achieve a degree of creature comfort as expressed by the two wives Lemech took for himself. ",
"One of these was to indulge him as her lord and master and remain purely decorative, whereas the other's function was to bear his children. The fact that Tzilah also bore him a son, was not planned, but rather a result of an attempt at sterilization which had failed. The accomplishments and inventions of the various people listed, show the gradual progress of civilization. With the birth of Lemech's children, there surfaced what promised to be an easier and more comfortable lifestyle, including music, superior tools, etc. This is the result of man having eaten from the tree of knowledge whose appeal had been to the esthetic, the sensual. This may have been the reason that the sister of Tuval Cain, inventor of weaponry, was Naamah, since the aim of warfare is to assure oneself of spoils and a life of comfort based on conquered loot. ",
"The Midrash which tells us that Noach's wife was called Naamah, conveys a profound meaning. Interestingly, the children of both Ada and Tzilah bear names stemming from the same root, i.e. hovalah, transfer, transmission. Their names are in no way connected with their father, whereas Naamah is mentioned only as a \"sister,\" not as someone's \"daughter.\" Their respective characters may well have been modelled after their brother rather than after their father. This was another indication that lifestyles were changing. ",
"If one follows the Midrash, Lemech appealed to his wife to have more children, the latter refused, quoting the futility of raising children who are doomed in the forthcoming destruction of the world. They based this among other reasons, on the tradition that the suspended sentence of Cain would be executed after seven generations (compare Lemech's speech). Adam realized that the two children he had sired so far could not be the foundation of mankind, therefore he decided to have more children. His intention was to reproduce himself with his spirituality intact (\"in His image, in His likeness,\" Genesis 5,3). Eve, though no longer called Chavah, was content to have Hevel replaced, even though that in itself would not have constituted progress, since Hevel too had used his intellect only functionally, not for moral self improvement. When Lemech's wives consulted Adam about their fears, the latter told them to do their duty and to trust G-d to do His duty. The women then asked Adam about his own apparent continence, accusing him of being someone who preaches but does not practice what he preaches. This aroused desire in Adam, he rejoined his wife conjugally, and produced Shet and other children. ",
"The genealogy starts with Adam, Shet etc, since this is the line that survived the deluge, and since with the advent of Enosh religion was at least being preached again. If, as the Midrash says, Adam began to desire Chavah physically not only when he was in her presence, but even when he was away from her, this poses the question why, despite advancing years, his desire grew stronger rather than weaker. The meaning of the Midrash then may be that after the conversation with Lemech's wives, Adam became more interested in the abstract. In his imagination, spiritual values began to assume more concrete forms, just as his being drawn to his wife no longer depended on her physical presence. That this tendency was present in a reinforced version in Enosh, is documented by the words \"then one began to proclaim the name of the Eternal,\" who of course, was and remains invisible, abstract. This trend became still stronger until in Chanoch we find a person whose withdrawal from the material and physical became absolute. Similarly, Methuselah, his son Lemech and Noach after him, were good people. The fact that Lemech wished for his son Noach to rescue mankind from its enslavement to the soil (Genesis 5,29), \"This one shall comfort us from our work and from the suffering of our hands,\" clearly indicates that he was aware of the inherent problem of making human existence meaningful and therefore joyous. \"Then one began to proclaim the name of the Lord.\" It is quite possible that this action by the few was a reaction to the general corruption of the concept of monotheism, and that it unfortunately had become necessary to proclaim truths which had formerly been so self-evident that nobody had needed to belabor the point. The chapter commencing with the words,\"These are the generations of man,\" concludes with the birth of Shet. He represented the third and last type of human being, one who saw in the development of his spiritual faculties his primary function, and who superseded the totally earth oriented Cain as well as the politically oriented Abel. The latter, after all, had employed his intellect only in the service of transient values. It is true that a lifetime of over nine hundred years is difficult for us to view as something \"transient.\" Since we know that most children take after their mother's brother, the corruption of the descendants of Shet is explained by the fact that they took as their wives offspring from the descendants of Cain, and that even Noach married Naamah. Thus it is easy to account for what happened. Only a small minority of humans forms the spiritual elite, and so, 1556 years after the creation of Adam, we come to the moment of truth, the deluge. The fact that we are told about man taking several wives, is necessary for two reasons. In order to populate the earth, more girls than boys had been born. Already Hevel is supposed to have had two twin sisters. On the other hand, the abundant supply of women led to immodesty, harlotry etc., hastening the corruption of nearly the entire species. ",
"\"The sons of G-d,\" describes people who lived an undisturbed long and good life, pampering themselves. The ready availability of women to cater to their needs, reinforced that mode of existence. The length of a lifetime in those days was necessary in order for people to begin to understand nature, based on long term observations of the phenomena, experiments etc. Later generations, having at their disposal the benefit of knowledge gathered by their ancestors, did not need such a lengthy lifespan. Moses in Psalms 90,10 already states that seventy years nowadays is enough for man to achieve the objectives G-d has set man. Since the descendants of Shet are properly called \"the sons of the Divine,\" while the daughters of \"Adam\" are obviously descendants of Cain, their intermarrying was bound to lead to catastrophic consequences. When G-d reacts by saying (Genesis 6,3), \"My spirit will not dwell within man ever,\" it means that He will not go on forever making excuses for them-- \"seeing that they are made of flesh\"-- as He had done in suspending sentence on their ancestor Cain. Since the people who now perpetrate all these evils are descended from a superior branch of mankind, their relapses are far less excusable. What could G-d expect from them in the future then? Therefore, G-d gave them a time limit of 120 years. This is the meaning of Psalm 82,6, \"I had said that you are G-d like, but you will die like earth bound beings.\" The timing of the deluge was arranged so that the good people who, though not worth saving, were not as guilty as the others, would have died due to normal circumstances. The fact that the chain of descendants of Shet who are mentioned by name are all recorded as having died, is proof that their death left some void. The descendants of Noach, starting with Shem are not recorded as having died. Possibly, this is to distinguish those ten generations from the ones between Adam and Noach. The reference to the nephilim is (a) to insure that the men described as \"sons of G-d\" are not confused with beings that have been sired by G-d; (b) to account for the fact that we find some descendants of the generation of the deluge having survived till the era of Moses, such as the giant Og, for instance. These people encountered by Israel in the desert some 700 years later were understandably viewed as \"sons of G-d\" by dint of their genealogy. \"When G-d saw that the evil perpetrated by man on the earth was great, and that all his thought processes were evil all day long, He regretted that He had made man\" (Genesis 6,5-6). Philosophers distinguish between evil as merely an act, and evil which had been both planned and executed. The person who commits the former can reform easily, since his thought processes have remained unaffected and can be employed to help control his actions. Not so when the evil is the product of one's thought processes. What counterweight is there then for such a person to achieve rehabilitation? It is this latter evil G-d encountered in man, and which the verse in question comments upon. Although a complete comprehension of the line \"G-d regretted\" is impossible unless one subscribes to the theory that Torah on occasion employs a human mode of speech when describing anthropomorphous actions by G-d (Kidushin 17), we will try and explain the meaning of vayinachem here and elsewhere when G-d is the subject of that term. Hitnachmut, regrets, is not a change of viewpoint when the premise for that viewpoint has remained constant. Rather, it is a re-consideration of one's plans and attitudes based on a changed set of circumstances. If a person vows to do good to a friend because he has faith in that friend's loyalty, and the friend turns into an enemy, then the cancellation of his vow to do good does not constitute a change of mind, a breaking of one's promise. Rather, it is an admission that one had erred in one's assessment of the facts which one's promise had been based on. A changed attitude then becomes an act of wisdom, a rejection of foolishness. If, on the other hand, the eventual disloyalty of the friend to whom one had vowed assistance, is foreseen, and occurs in accordance with one's expectations, then the act of having to withhold one's assistance becomes an act of regret, reconsideration. This latter regret, i.e. going back on one's promise, is considered a major character defect in human society. Therefore, those guilty of such behavior prefer to explain their actions as being the result of their own stupidity, shortsightedness. A case in point is Bileam (Numbers 22,34). He said to the angel, \"I have sinned since I have been unaware.\" Since one cannot presume lack of foreknowledge on the part of G-d, He chose to describe His resolution as an act of reconsideration rather than as an act resulting from lack of foreknowledge. When the Torah describes G-d as having reconsidered, it tells us that G-d continued to desire that He could carry out what He had originally planned, but what had now become impossible due to the conduct of the other half of the partnership between G-d and Man. In the same way G-d predicts in Deuteronomy 31, the Jewish people's corruption and the steps He would have to take to deal with that problem. In order to ensure the eventual production of the perfect tree, the planting of many trees is necessary, until eventually the perfect one will emerge. Should this not occur, refinement of the relatively best trees will lead to their eventually producing the perfect tree. G-d proceeded along similar lines with mankind. When no perfect specimen showed up after a lengthy period, the time had come to abandon earlier crops and retain only the relatively best and start the process of proliferation afresh with those specimen. This time only the seeds of the best trees which had been produced thus far were used. Although such contingencies had been part of His planning, the need to resort to them was a saddening experience. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Midrash Shocher tov on the first Psalm, writes as follows. \"The words ‘Hail to the man who did not walk...’ refer to Noach; ‘According to the counsel of the wicked,’ refers to the generation of Enosh; ‘Who did not stand next to the wicked,’ refers to the generation of the deluge; ‘Who did not reside among the scoffers,’ refers to the generation of the tower of Babel; but ‘Whose striving is toward the teaching of the Lord,; refers to the 7 Noachide laws; ‘Who meditates on His law by day and by night,’ refers to those who appreciate the inner cohesion within Torah. He said (Noach), \"Why did G-d command to bring seven pairs of the pure species into the ark? So as to offer sacrifices to G-d from among them. ‘He will be like a tree planted in well irrigated land,’ refers to the fact that G-d had set the ark on the waters; ‘Who will produce its fruit at the proper time,’ refers to Shem (Noach's son); ‘Whose leaves will not shrivel,’ refers to Cham; ‘Whose every action will be crowned with success,’ refers to Yephet; ‘Not the sinners,’ refers to the generation of the deluge, as we have learned from a Baraita. ‘The people of the generation of the deluge do not qualify for a share in the hereafter.’ ‘For the Lord knows the way of the righteous,’ refers to Noach and his sons.” ",
"Mankind can be divided into two categories. The first category consists of people who have a goal and purpose in life. These people can be subdivided into three groups. Group One is totally spiritually oriented, pursues only Divinely approved goals. This group is miniscule in numbers, due to the fact that man is made up of both physical and spiritual components, each of which exerts pressure on him. Group Two is oriented towards the physical and material only, numerically, alas, a very strong group, preferring the beast in man. Group Three combines both the physical and the spiritual elements in its orientation towards life, desiring the esthetically beautiful, the useful, the expedient which is morally good at the same time. Marriage combines the three objectives striven for by this third group. Gratification of the sex urge is channelled into the effort to reproduce the species, excessive indulgence in physical urges is curbed by the legal confines of the marriage contract. Choice of the esthetically pleasing is part of the process leading to marriage. The latter is what David describes as Torat ha-adam, (Samuel II 7,19), the teaching of mankind. Average man, due to his composition, is liable to act like the members of this third group. Combining the three objectives is not only acceptable, but is desirable in the eyes of G-d. When Solomon says, \"He who has found a woman, has found goodness,\" what he means is that these objectives can be achieved by means of life in wedlock. If Jonathan nonetheless preferred the friendship of a man to the love of a woman, this is because woman always weighs in her mind considerations of expediency, of what is functionally sound. (Samuel II 1) We find that women are described there as needing to mourn Sauls's death because of the beautiful garments they had received during his reign due to his valour in battle. The practical is important to women. ",
"However, there is a second group of people, those who lead a life totally lacking in direction and purpose, imposing no restraint on the bestial part of their nature. These people are described by Solomon (Proverbs 2,14) as \"enjoying doing evil.\" Such people can cheer tightfistedness at the same time as they cheer wastefulness, as long as the objective of both is wicked and evil. Yotam in chapter nine of the book of Judges, describes these people when he lambasts the citizens of Shechem in the famous parable of the thornbush being elected as king of the trees. Although this category of people is united by a common denominator, they do not share unity of purpose and are therefore at odds with one another. Their apparent common purpose masks the diversity of their personal lust and depravity. The opposite is true when one observes apparent dissension among pious people, whose dissension does not concern fundamental objectives, but merely the methods to be employed in order to achieve their common objectives. Just as an oriental would honour a king by not appearing in the king's presence with his head uncovered, whereas an occidental would not appear before a king until he had first removed his headgear, the common denominator being that both desire to pay homage to the king, so pious Jews may sometimes disagree on the means of honouring G-d, but their disagreement stems from their desire to honour G-d. What unites them therefore, is far more formidable than what divides them. The opposite is true of wicked people, who are only interested in themselves, and whose union when there is such is merely organizational, not organic. Compare the discussion on “eylu ve-eylu divrey elokim chayim,” both versions are words of the living G-d and are true (Chagigah 3). This is why the Mishna in Avot 5,20 teaches that all disagreements which have as their objective the promotion of matters spiritual, will endure, meaning both parties involved will achieve their purpose. Hillel and Shammai's arguments were all centred on the desire to perform the will of G-d. This is also demonstrated in Joshua Chapter 22 after the tribes residing on the East bank of the Jordan had erected an altar. After it had become clear to the other tribes that their motivation had been pure, not divisive or idolatrous, not only was civil war averted, but good relations were restored. ",
"Considering that Adam and his three sons founded a civilization that failed, even Noach and his three sons did not fare much better. In fact, we pointed out that in the absence of the words \"he died\" in their genealogies, there is a hint that their respective deaths did not leave behind a void that needed to be filled. When the sages debated whether it \"is more comfortable for man to have been born, than it would have been if he had never seen the light of the world\" (Eyruvin 13), they concluded that from that point of view it would indeed have been preferable not to have been born at all (see chapter 8). The names of Noach's three sons indicate how they should act and which character traits they were supposed to cultivate meticulously. Shem, who replaced Shet, Adam's third son, who had been born in the image of the Lord, was supposed to wear the crown of the good name (\"Better a good name than good oil,\" Kohelet 7,1). It was to be his task to concentrate on the spiritual aspects of life. Cham, the least illustrious, would replace Cain who had been hotblooded, had followed his baser urges inordinately. Yephet, as his name indicates, was to strive after the esthetically acceptable, influenced by the spirit of Shem, thus representing the functional and useful in life, almost like what Hevel had represented in his time. Actually, it was the duty of those three sons to atone for and rectify the errors of their respective forefathers. When Noach became a man dedicated to the soil and became drunk, his son Cham decided to follow his father's example in emphasizing the earthy, material, and in indulging his senses (Genesis 9,19). Just as Adam had failed in his time, so Noach too had failed to uphold the highest standards of which man is capable. Cham invited his brothers to drink and get drunk, but they refused. Putting the blanket over their shoulders was merely a way of using clothing to restrain one's urges; their approaching their father backward is symbolic of the way one approaches a dangerous situation with caution by keeping one's head facing the danger, but keeping one's body facing the other way. In this manner they were able to pinpoint the exact location of their father, without viewing his indecently exposed body. The repetition of the word \"backwards\" suggests this interpretation. The nature of Noach's curse clearly demonstrates that Noach realized that the material instinct in man is undeniable-- for the multitude-- but must be harnessed so that it does not exercise unbridled power. Therefore, he decreed for Cham a state of servitude to the other two brothers, each of whom represented higher attributes of man. The blessing that G-d would feel at home in the tents of Shem is made dependent on Cham and what he stands for being held in check, in a state of servitude to the former. ",
"The opening Midrash then must be viewed in the following sense. The complimentary ashrey, hail, goes to the \"Man\" i.e. a term used for the species, including all its attributes, much like \"Adam\" was used as a term describing the human species, describing him who is representative of his species. Noach is praised for not following the wicked ways of the age of Enosh, but for choosing to serve his Maker. Neither did he make common cause with the people of the generation of the deluge. He did not join the excesses of the generation who built the tower of Babel. Rather, he followed the teachings of G-d, i.e. the seven Noachide laws that apply universally. By following these commandments, he reached an understanding of how things interrelate in this world. A practical example of this is that when G-d commanded him to take seven pairs each of the pure species, Noach realized that they must be meant to serve as offerings. “He was like a tree planted on the water divide,” G-d planted the ark on the waters. \"Whose fruit will appear at the right time\" refers to his son Shem. \"Whose leaf will not wither\" refers to his son Cham. Shem who had appreciated the way his father's conduct had been rewarded by G-d, was bound to beget at least some outstanding issue. Cham is naught but the leaf, compared to the \"fruit\" which is Shem. \"Successful\" refers to Yephet, who combines the traits of spirituality with esthetics and the functional. That G-d never again destroyed the species, was due to the presence of such people as Yephet. \"Not so the wicked,\" i.e. the generation of the deluge who have no share in the world to come.\" Because G-d knows the way of the righteous\" refers to Noach. "
],
[
"",
"",
"It is a fundamental rule of our faith that reward or punishment follow as a result of actions performed by man who is free to determine his course of action. Another fundamental rule of our faith is the conviction that man's actions interact with the way nature operates. If one conceives of man as a microcosm and of nature as the macrocosm, the former exercises profound influence on the workings of the latter. Perversion in man, ultimately results in major malfunctions in the cosmic forces controlling the universe. One can conceive of the universe as an orchestra in which each instrument plays its assigned part. Should an instrument fail consistently, the disharmony created will disable the entire orchestra. Perhaps the comment by our sages about David's harp starting to play all by itself (Berachot 3) may be understood simply. When man does his share, the entire orchestra comes alive and worships its Maker. On the one hand, nature is supposed to provide the planet's sustenance; on the other hand, man distributing nature's bounty in a fair and equitable manner complements nature's work and completes the task of performing the will of the Creator. There are numerous verses in scripture supporting this thesis of the interaction of the laws of nature and human behaviour. \"If you walk in My statutes etc\" (Leviticus 26,1-13) is followed by a list of at capacity. On the other hand, if you do not, nature will react accordingly (verses 14-20 same chapter). The statutes referred to are the laws of nature. G-d used the Torah as the blueprint for creation, hence the interdependence of the observance of Torah laws and the normal functioning of nature. Our sages go so far as to list seven basic sins and the distortions in nature that these sins will eventually bring in their wake (Avot 5,10). These penalties are not viewed as retribution, but as the natural corollary of the manner in which the microcosm functions within the macrocosm. Fortunately, nature is an extremely complex system, therefore aberrations in human behaviour affect only part of the system, not the whole. Were this not so, total destruction of the earth as we know it would have occurred frequently. As it is, the manifestations of malfunctions in nature affect only limited areas and mirror specific human aberrations. Perhaps the statement that the universe was created by ten directives instead of a single one (Avot 5,1) also suggests that G-d had wanted to insulate parts of the universe from other parts, to insure that man's misconduct would not result in destruction of G-d’s entire handiwork at one stroke. The very name of the musical instrument known as aley assor, the ten stringed one, may hint at the ten spheres of creation, which when working together in harmony, represent the universe in its most perfect condition. The ten directives, as our sages explain, represent G-d’s patience with His creatures. That is why G-d waited ten generatioms before He brought on the deluge. Again, we find ten generations between Noach and Abraham. G-d excercised patience during all these generations until Abraham emerged on the scene and began the task of reversing human aberrations. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Why are the \"generations\" of Noach mentioned both before and after the deluge? Why is the name Noach repeated at the outset of the Parshah? What is the meaning of \"with G-d walked Noach?\" 2) Why does the Torah mention the sin of that generation repeatedly? 3) Why does the Torah speak about maintaining a covenant with Noach, when we have never been told about the existence of such a covenant? 4) Why were the people of Noach's time not warned before being punished? If these people were guilty by natural law, why spell out the Noachide laws afterwards? After all, these laws had been known, had always been in effect! Why was water chosen as the instrument of the people's punishment? 5) The repeated mention of Noach's age at the time the deluge started needs explaining. The entire passage seems full of unnecessary repetitions. Also, some of the dates appear to be conflict. ",
"(1) Since Noach became a founder of mankind, similar to Adam, he is first introduced as a descendant of his ancestors. Once he has been chosen to be the sole survivor, he is again introduced, this time as the forefather of all subsequent human beings. \"He walked with G-d\" means that he incorporated all the virtues that indicate that man has been created in the image of G-d. His righteousness was not confined to matters of money etc., but encompassed all parts of his personality. The difference between Abraham and Noach lay in the fact that the circumcision enabled Abraham to become tamim, perfect, and to walk \"before\" G-d. The names of the sons are repeated since they reflect not only the fact that Noach had sired them, but their respective characters are hinted at in their names. These sons, after all, became the founders of three distinctly different lifestyles and outlooks amongst mankind. (2) The fact is that corruption of mankind translates into corruption of the laws of nature through the influence of man's actions on the universe. The statement in the Torah then underlines this connection of the upheaval in the world with the behaviour of its inhabitants. (3) Noach, who acted properly and maintained his part of universal harmony, deserved to be saved on that account. Water which is held in check constantly through Divine decree, ensuring that it stays within its bounds, is released from such constraints as it is a midah keneged midah, tit for tat, kind of punishment. Man's lack of restraint brings about the release of the waters from all the restraints they had been under. (3) The covenant that G-d \"maintains\" then is that the waters will not cause damage to him who has acted in harmony with the laws of the universe. \"Enter the ark!\" G-d has to give detailed instructions to assure Noach that essentially all species would survive, else Noach's own survival would lose most of its meaning, and at the end of the deluge he would be faced with a universe that could no longer regenerate itself. Secondly, he had to make provisions for an extended stay in the ark. (4) Man's punishment can either be viewed as a natural event, not as retribution, since as we have stated, conduct contrary to the harmony inherent in the universe will result in upheavals; or it was retribution. When one fumigates a house, having exhausted other means of ridding oneself of vermin, one's prime purpose is to keep the house in good shape. Here, too, G-d was fumigating His universe, so to speak, in order to get rid of the harmful leeches inhabiting it. Since there was no good reason to save these people, they fell victim to the need to cleanse the earth. Since earth had been created, all sins committed by man were punishable by death; only when the Jewish people accepted Torah at Sinai did they receive laws, the transgression of some of which carried a lighter sentence. Mankind had therefore been doomed, no special warning had been called for. \"Noach made the ark.\" In spite of the tremendous inconvenience incurred, plus the fact that Noach could hardly have had in mind to build an ark large enough to accomodate representatives of all creatures, he carried out all G-d’s instructions without question or hesitation. He entered the ark before the deluge, mipney hamabul, on account of the deluge which was to occur. The forthcoming event was as vivid before his mental eye as if it had already occurred. The repetition of \"on that day, Noach entered the ark\" in verse 13, indicates merely that though the ark had already served as his residence, he did not know the precise date on which the deluge would start. Now that it had started, he stayed inside, and G-d closed the door from the outside. (5) The dates given emphasize that G-d waited out the one hundred and twenty years that He had given man to repent and reverse his course. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"THE DELUGE CONTINUED FOR 40 DAYS.\" ",
"There were ten generations between Adam and Noach, to demonstrate the long-wearing patience of G-d. All those generations had angered G-d, until He brought on the deluge (Avot 5,2). ",
"Although it is a scientific fact that major physical phenomena are reversible, G-d’s ability to destroy earth proves that it had not always existed, that He had created it. Otherwise, whence would G-d have taken the power to destroy it? The fact that the reversals of certain phenomena are the product of G-d’s free will and did not happen of their own, needs to be demonstrated. The verse (Jeremiah 31,10) \"He who disperses Israel will gather it in,\" which might indicate the opposite, when viewed superficially, does in fact not prove that such reversals occur automatically. Jeremiah does not refer to the ingathering as being an automatic corollary of a previous dispersal, but as an act of G-d requiring supernatural means. This is demonstrated clearly by the context of the whole chapter in which this verse appears. Shepherds do likewise with their flocks, and so does the Lord. Sometimes He scatters in order to discipline, sometimes He collects people. All this is due to G-d exercising benevolent Personal Providence. This is true also when such happenings occur as part of the shepherd's vocation. When we talk about natural phenomena, the same does not hold true. Gideon, who wanted to see if the wool which is naturally moisture absorbent could also be made moisture repellant at the will of G-d, had his wish fulfilled (Judges Chapter 6). Thereby the power of G-d to reverse the laws of nature which He Himself had formulated had been demonstrated. Similarly, King Hezzekiah (Kings II, chapter 20). When the king saw the shadow of the sun dial reversing itself, he had found proof of the Creator's ability to reverse the seemingly irreversible processes of nature. The story of the deluge also demonstrates that He who has established natural law can also reverse it. Thereby He proves that His existence had preceded the laws of the universe, else He could not have demonstrated mastery over these laws. G-d therefore is able to decree after the deluge that natural law shall not again cease to function normally. Summer, winter, heat, and cold will all alternate at predictable intervals, as stated in Genesis 8,22. Noach and his sons, having witnessed first a universe which functioned beautifully then a universe in the process of destruction and lastly a newly functioning universe, were the witnesses for all future generations of the truth of the claim that G-d had created the universe ex nihilo. According to the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 11, the technical method that brought about the flood was the relocation of two stars forming the Pleiades. Even if mankind were to serve G-d, but under the mistaken impression that the laws of nature are immutable, such service of G-d would degenerate if man grew to believe that they were only in touch with intermediaries such as the sun and the moon, and that the Lord Himself would forever unconditionally allow these intermediaries to possess independent power which could not be curbed. At this point, the author engages in polemics against all those Jewish philosophers who, in common with their Greek counterparts, attempt to explain away most of the miracles. He singles out Ralbag especially. He defends the Rambam as having been wilfully misunderstood by some who read his commentary. He ascribes the tendencies of some commentators to rob the story of miracles of their fundamental value to two considerations. 1) No one can perform miracles that outclass those performed by Moses. 2) The beneficiaries of such miracles were not worthy of such far-reaching changes in nature to be performed for their sake. The Talmud Shabbat 53 relates that a husband whose wife died while leaving behind a small baby was in a predicament since he could not afford to hire a wet nurse to nurse the baby. A miracle occurred; the father's nipples produced milk on which the baby fed and survived. Rabbi Joseph views this as an extreme compliment to the father for whose sake such a great miracle was performed. Abaye, on the other hand, feels that it points out the unworthiness of the father, since G-d had to resort to supernatural means to supply the infant's needs. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the father's position was such that a miracle was not denied him, in order for him to fulfil his function of raising the infant. We have to view the role of pious men and prophets at various times in our history in a similar light. On the one hand, the generation of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, were praised because there was no need for a rainbow to appear during their respective lives (Ketuvot 76). They were praised for the fact that no miracles were needed in their time. No doubt, had the need arisen, these men would have been able to call on the power of miracle to be used on behalf of their contemporaries. Jacob moved a rock meant to be removable only by a whole group of shepherds. On the other hand, when praying for victory against Amalek, Moses’ss hands were so weak they had to be supported. This does not make Jacob superior to Moses. Certain needs arise at certain times. Only at those times can it be determined whether a miracle is in place to meet those needs. Examples are numerous. Joshua's commanding the sun and moon to be arrested in their orbits, does not denigrate the powers of Moses one iota. Had Moses found himself in the same predicament Joshua had found himself in, he would have been able to perform a similar miracle. Even a Yehu, a king of Israel who had failed to remove the golden calves Jerobam had erected, was enabled to wipe out all the priests of the Baal singlehandedly, something none of those greater than he had been able to do. Elijah and Elisha revived the dead, feats not credited to Moses, yet no one puts down Moses’s abilities on account of that. If you will, the revelation at Mount Sinai, and Moses’ss role in it as well as the participation of the entire nation, so outclass and overshadow any miracles performed by anyone subsequently or prior to that, that Moses’ss honor as the prophet/miracleworker par excellence can never be called into question. At that time, Moses had been instrumental in a chidush ha-olam, a renewal of the universe, so to speak. What happened was such a thorough reversal of all natural laws that the work of later prophets pales into relative insignificance by comparison. If this were not so, the miracles predicted in Yoel chapters three and four, would not be capable of being performed without relegating Moses to an inferior position vis a vis the Messiah or whoever will be G-d’s instrument when the time comes to fulfil those prophecies. In fact, all subsequent miracles are ascribed by G-d to Moses, when G-d promises in Exodus 34,10 that all the miraculous acts which are yet to occur are based on what G-d does for, with, and through Moses. In Moses, as it were, rests the fountainhead of all miracles ever performed by any prophet after him. In all of the Torah, we do not find any events which would constitute fulfilment of G-d’s promise to Moses made at that point. Joshua 11,16 makes it clear that throughout his career as leader of the Jewish people, his role remained that of being Moses’ss disciple. Nothing he did is to be understood as being innovative. It may have been Moses’ss desire to personally carry out these miracles as demonstrations of G-d’s power, which prompted him to request permission from G-d to cross the river Jordan. G-d’s denial of this request was coupled with the assurance that indeed his disciple would perform such miracles, thus fulfilling G-d’s promise to Moses in Exodus 34,10. The instructions to Moses to invest Joshua with part of his own glory and Moses’ss subsequent action cause our sages to comment that whosoever leaves behind him pupils fit to take his place has not in fact died at all (Midrash on Numbers 26,20). Our sages have accepted the principle that the Torah occasionally employs language in the manner people do in their every day speech. Therefore, we find both exaggeration and hyperbole. This fact, however, is not sufficient reason to explain away the very miracles that demonstrate the power of the Creator. There is also no foundation for the assumption of some commentators that miracles involving extra terrestrial matters are of inherently greater significance than miracles involving behavior of phenomena that we are familiar with on earth. In fact, one could argue the reverse with at least equal persuasion. If one can change phenomena that occur on earth despite the fact that their celestial causes have NOT been altered, this is more remarkable than changing patterns of behavior by phenomena whose celestial causes have either been neutralised, interfered with, or have been reversed. If, for instance, someone's arm can stay the wheel of a watermill in spite of the fact that the flow and pressure of the stream that activates it has not diminished, this is more remarkable than halting such a wheel by stopping the flow of water to it. If Daniel told Darius that the angel of G-d shut the lions' mouths, this is more remarkable than if the angel had merely killed the lions. We have discussed such events in chapter fifteen, also in chapter thirty-eight, in connection with the Passover in Egypt. The statement in Deut.34,10 that there never arose another prophet comparable to Moses, does not refer to Moses’sd power as a performer of miracles, but to the fact that no one since ever attained the face to face relationship with G-d that the Torah testifies Moses had achieved. The effortlessness with which Moses performed miracles, as compared to the need of other prophets to engage in prayer beforehand etc., proves how much Moses was on G-d’s \"wavelength,\" so to speak. ",
"If one considers, as the Rambam does, for instance, that man is a microcosm compared to the universe, the macrocosm, and that the six days of creation symbolize the six thousand years of human existence on earth followed by one thousand years of transformation pending the advent of the messianic age, one may also see some significance in the seventy years allotted to man on this earth. If the first two thousand years of mankind's history are considered tohu, chaos, a period in which man was subject to juvenile errors, mistakes etc. and that this was why there was a need for a deluge after about sixteen hundred years, then in the life of individuals also, the juvenile years are the underlying cause of sinfulness. G-d’s resolve not to bring another deluge was due to recognition of this factor. Immaturity as a cause of sin is prevalent both in the species and in the individuals. If our sages describe the yetzer hara, evil urge as appearing in seven different guises, they refer to manifestations of the evil urge in seven different forms during seven different decades of man's life. Since with advancing age the evil urge within us weakens, his name changes also. The name ra refers to the way it manifests itself during the first ten years of our lives. At that time, we do not possess within us a force that compensates for the evil urge, something all of us have been born with. A youth's activities are largely dictated by the very immaturity of the victim of this \"evil.\" Moses called the evil urge arel, the uncircumcised one; David referred to ist as tamey, impure. Solomon called it the soneh, the \"hater.\" Isaiah called it michshol, hindrance, obstruction. Ezekiel called it tzefoni, the viper. If one were to subscribe to the theory that life has existed since time immemorial, that the universe existed prior to G-d, we would face the problem of how to account for the sudden depravity of man after millions of years of uninterrupted forward development. According to the theory of Solomon in Kohelet, the concept of kadmut ha-olam, the universe preceding G-d, pyramidical development of the human race is impossible; all there could be would be a never ending repetitious cycle of happenings. Clearly, according to such thinking, the very term \"development\" would be a misnomer. This is what Solomon means when he keeps talking about \"what has been is what will be.\" ",
"The author, when discussing G-d’s answer to Job's enquiry (Job 37-38), states that the peculiarly suspended letter ayin in reference to the resha-im, the wicked, may signify that these people are not absolutely bad, are not beyond redemption. This is what has prevented G-d from producing the kind of destruction on earth that would eradicate them together with their wickedness. When G-d tells Jonah how He feels about the creatures in Nineveh; He explains His relationship to His creatures even when the latter are imperfect or corrupt due to a variety of causes (Jonah 4,11). The repeated reports of mankind's corruption at the end of Parshat Bereshit as well as at the beginning of Parshat Noach (6,5;6,6;6,11; 6,13) indicate the degree of patience G-d displayed before He felt impelled to take drastic action. Viewing the extended periods of time-- one hundred and twenty years twice-- granted man to reverse his ways, any criticism of G-d must be utterly rejected. There simply was no other way left for G-d to prove His kingship except by exercising His prerogative to impose and carry out sentence. ",
"The Mishnah quoted at the beginning of our chapter, draws attention to three things then: 1) The world was created by ten imperatives issued by a living G-d. 2) The ten generations of man that angered G-d demonstrate the principle of reward and punishment in this world. 3) Reluctance with which G-d imposed the penalty involving the destruction of His handiwork, and the long patience G-d showed while waiting for man to mature. ",
"Some problems in the text: ",
" 1) Why does the Torah give such painstaking detail regarding the various dates during the deluge? The whole story is in danger of being misinterpreted as the retribution by a vengeful deity! ",
" 2) Why are the numbers and days reported in such a confused manner that one has to relate different dates to different subject matters in order to escape becoming involved in inconsistencies and discrepancies? ",
"3) The apparent contradiction of water rising for one hundred and fifty days after the rain had stopped at the end of forty days and \"the fountains of the deep had been closed.\" ",
" 4) Why does the story of the raven not parallel the experience with the dove? ",
"The author, after having taken issue with other commentators, points out that the line \"the waters remained strong for one hundred and fifty days\" (Genesis 7,24) is not to be understood as an additional rising of the water levels for one hundred and fifty days after forty days of rainfall. Rather, for a total of one hundred and fifty days the water level remained high enough for the surface of the earth to remain flooded. The highest levels of flood waters were recorded at the end of the first forty days, when the water level was fifteen cubits higher than the tallest mountain top. After that, the waters receded gradually. Since the ark could not come to rest anywhere till after one hundred and fifty days, the waters are still described as govrim, strong, prevalent. Though mountain peaks may have appeared prior to that, the turbulence prevented the ark from settling anywhere. At the end of one hundred and fifty days, on the seventeenth of Nissan, the turbulence subsided. The Arrarat mountain chain is rated as relatively low. After the initial forty days of G-d having completed His act of retribution, He activated a wind to accelerate the drying up process (G-d remembered Noach etc.). By the first day of Tammuz, the tenth month, surrounding mountain tops became visible. Forty days after that, about the tenth of Av, Noach sent out the first bird, a procedure repeated three times at seven day intervals. This brings us to the first day of Ellul. Between then and the first day of Tishrey, the gradual drying of the earth's surface continued. Another fifty-seven days later, the process had reached a stage enabling Noach and his passengers to leave the ark. (4) Because it had breached the sexual etiquette of the creatures in the ark (Sanhedrin 108), the raven was sent out as soon as Noach could be certain that he could survive outside the ark, not in order to determine the extent of the progress of the atmosphere's drying out. Since dogs and Cham could not survive outside the ark at that stage, they were not expelled from the ark, though they too had breached the sexual etiquette imposed on all passengers of the ark. With the dispatch of the dove, Noach's active search for resumption of a normal life on earth begins. The end of the paragraph illustrates G-d’s great Providence, in that not a single creature had failed to survive the long and arduous trip in the ark. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"HE SMELLED THE SWEET ODOR OF THE SACRIFICE AND SAID ‘I HAVE PLACED MY RAINBOW IN THE SKY ETC.’\" ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 35 states that the rainbow in the sky is a sign between G-d and all living creatures. This refers to the quality of justice in the heavens (the hard one) and the quality of justice on earth (the soft one) (Berachot 59). Rabbi Alexandri quoting Rabbi Yehudah ben Levi says that anyone who sees the rainbow needs to prostrate himself, since Ezekiel 1 compares the brilliance of the rainbow to the brilliance of the celestial entourage and we read there that the prophet prostrated himself when he had that vision. The sages in the land of Israel rejected that argument, since it would appear as if such a person were worshipping the rainbow. They agreed however, that the recital of a benediction is in order. The formula is the one we retain until this day, \"Who remembers the covenant and keeps His word.\" ",
"Just as it is inconceivable for G-d to create a creature and endow such a being with all the Divine qualities, since the image of Divinity itself would suffer thereby, so it is impossible to imagine that the Almighty in His capacity of absolute perfection would act unfairly or unjustly towards anyone or anything in His universe. Were He to do so, our concepts of what constitutes absolute perfection would be shattered. This thought is expressed by Moses (Deuteronomy 10,17-18), \"For the Lord your G-d is the Lord of all lords, Master of masters; the great Power, the mighty and awesome One, who does not show favor or accept bribes. Rather, He does justice with the orphan and the widow, loves the stranger and gives him food and clothing.\" This teaches that the very essence of being \"the Lord of lords\" makes it impossible for Him to be reduced to the physical. His very perfection makes it impossible for Him to be unjust. Abraham understood quite correctly when he asked, \"It is obviously impossible for the Lord of the universe not to do justice and kill the good together wih the wicked!\" (Genesis 18,25). Similar thoughts are expressed in Job chapter 34 and Jeremiah chapter 12. This subject will be discussed in connection with the \"induced\" obstinacy of Pharaoh. Because man is frequently perplexed by the seeming paradox of the suffering endured by the righteous and the success of the wicked, David proclaims in Psalms 145,17, \"The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and full of kindness in all His deeds.\" Despite the rule of justice-- a general guideline—chessed, kindness is employed in all His actions whenever possible (whenever the recipients benefit thereby). Some serious problems in our Parshah: ",
"1) If the kind of offerings brought by Noach results in an apparent change of G-d’s attitude towards man, so much so that a promise never to bring another deluge, i.e. all encompassing collective punishment is elicited, why had such information been withheld from man until that time? 2) If, on the other hand, the punishment had been just and fair, why did G-d decide to change His strategy in the future? If chessed, kindness i.e. a system making allowance for man's weakness was to be employed from now on, why had it not been employed previously? ",
"3) What special merit existed from now on which prompted G-d to conclude a covenant to make no more deluge? If Noach's merit had been inadequate to protect his own generation from destruction, how could it be adequate to protect all future generations? Besides, we do not find that mankind holds Noach in high esteem for this accomplishment! ",
"4) The fact that, scientifically speaking, the rainbow is a perfectly natural phenomenon surely does not make it something that reminds G-d of a special relationship with mankind. ",
"5) When G-d refers to \"when I see it... I will remember,\" this is strange. Surely He does not require these memory joggers in all His perfection. ",
"6) If the rainbow does indeed serve as a warning of impending doom, and reminds either party of the covenant that this doom must not be allowed to occur, the frequent appearance of the rainbow surely is psychologically counter productive? Man will not believe that he is in any immediate danger when the rainbow appears too often! ",
"7) Why does the Torah say \"G-d said in His heart\"? Why did He not communicate this thought to Noach audibly? ",
"8) The prophet Isaiah 54,10 refers to an oath by G-d rather than to a covenant. What is the difference, and why are different terms used for the same event? We also have a number of questions in connection with the building of the tower of Babel that require clarification: ",
"1) On the one hand, it seems inconceivable that people could be foolish enough to try and conquer heaven, as implied in Sanhedrin 109. On the other hand, if their entire purpose had been to \"let us make a name for ourselves,\" as reported in the text, why would G-d mind all that much? The desire to avoid being dispersed all over the globe seems a harmless enough objective! ",
"2) Why does the Torah need to tell us in Genesis 11,3 for what purpose the clay that was fired would be used? ",
"3) G-d appears almost reluctant when He says \"now that they are one people and one language, must We not prevent them from carrying out all their designs?\" ",
" 4) The actual interference with the people's plans seems far more radical than the original intent indicated in verse 6! ",
"5) If these people sinned against their Creator, as our sages understand this, why were they not punished in a manner similar to the people of Sodom? ",
"(1+2) The survivors of the deluge and their descendants were chastened by the occurrence of the deluge, and it was impressed upon them for many generations that corruption in man does not go unpunished. Also, henceforth, man would no longer have a common origin, but would be descended from one of the three sons of Noach, thus making complete unanimity of purpose and lifestyle among the various tribes almost impossible. (3) When G-d refers to having smelled the fragrance of Noach's sacrifice, this very improvement in man's potential is what He means. Complete agreement amongst all of mankind to act against their Creator has become genetically and environmentally almost impossible. This in turn guarantees that there will never again be a need for a deluge, i.e. simultaneous destruction of the species. (2) The reason given \"that the heart of man is evil, stems from its youthfulness\" (Genesis 8,21) means that the nature of man prior to the deluge was different, could all be traced to a single cause, his common ancestor. This cause had been changed dramatically. From now on, only his personal immaturity could account for man's wickedness, but he would not be weighed down by the collective wickedness of earlier generations and its hereditary impact. In other words, the burden of \"the original sin\" had now been removed from the post Noachide generations. Inasmuch as the creation of man as a species was not really complete until this change had occurred, we understand that G-d felt \"sad\" before the deluge that He had to proceed in this manner to bring about the transformation of man. (7) It is not appropriate for the Creator to \"voice\" that sentiment to someone else, therefore He is described as having said it \"in His heart.\" Moreover, since G-d had referred to the inner thoughts of man, i.e. \"the images produced in the heart of man,\" His response also would not be revealed openly. The principle of midah keneged midah, measure for measure, is at work here. Creator and creature each do their own separate planning. In order that the promise not to destroy mankind (earth) again, would not be misinterpreted to mean that there would no longer be a destruction of man, the Torah continues by saying that the seasons, planetary orbits, etc. would continue to function regularly, i.e. the laws of nature would not be suspended as such, but local destructions such as the destruction of the wicked society of Sodom etc. will continue to be possible. G-d proceeds to tell Noach and his sons the positive aspects of the new world order, implying that the deluge had been worthwhile, in view of this new development. (Chapter 9,9-17) The fact G-d addressed all of them, supports our view that each one of them represented the source of the future of mankind. He includes in the covenant the animals to make it clear that they too will not again be subject to mass destruction as had been experienced during the deluge. (4+5) G-d re-interprets the meaning of the midat hadin, the attribute of justice, to mean that collective punishment from now on is applicable only when the wicked have acted collectively rather than individually, separately. Since such conduct from now on is practically impossible due to the diversity of man's ancestry, He can reassure man by a visible sign of this state of affairs. The reference \"I have given My bow in the cloud,\" indicates that the rainbow is not a new phenomenon. The fact that it refracts light into different colors, is parallel to the fact that from now on man, though descended from Noach, refracts into different types through the simultaneous experiences of Noach's three sons during the deluge. Each one of them will bequeathe a slightly different outlook to his respective offspring. To explain the significance of the rainbow, we must appreciate three facts. ",
"1) Every polished object reflects the image of another object nearby. ",
"2) If such object happens to be transparent, it does not reflect anything. ",
"3) Generally speaking, a person with normal vision sees better than a person whose eyesight is impaired. Yet there are certain types of diseases of the eye which cause the person afflicted to see shapes and images not visible to people with normal eyesight. These shapes and images are, of course, not real, and therefore not true, yet the owner of the diseased eye is not aware that his eyes are deceiving him. ",
"Rabbi Yitzchak proceeds to illustrate that the phenomenon we call eyesight, vision, at certain times and at certain angles, creates an image which, while known to us empirically, defies our ability to analyze and explain its cause. It therefore ranks with those phenomena which were created after sunset but before nightfall of the sixth day of creation (Avot 5,6). Scientists have concluded that the appearance of the rainbow after a downpour signifies immediate dispersal of rainclouds, clearing skies. This would be in line with the significance of the rainbow as described in the Torah. It also demonstrates that the concentration of disastrous rain was limited to a section of the earth, not its entire surface. Similarly, a rainbow over a relatively clear area of sky would signal approaching rainfall in other areas of the globe. (6) The whole ot brit, sign of the covenant would correspond to the moral lessons absorbed during the great flood. This in turn would make it unlikely that all of mankind would once more deserve terminal punishment at the same time. It is therefore the very naturalness of the rainbow's appearance that will recall to G-d the changed nature of man on earth. The Talmud in Ketuvot 77 states that in the generation of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi no rainbow was ever seen. This was due to two causes. 1) Reminders to G-d were not necessary, due to the righteousness of the leaders of that generation, a fact which was brought home to the people of that era by the absence of rainbows and the continued existence of the earth in spite of such absence. 2) Since the normal appearance of the phenomenon signifies rainfall due to G-d’s general Providence, in the generation of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi people were under G-d’s particular Providence, the proof of which was the absence of the rainbow. Rainfall in those days occurred simultaneously all over the earth at times which did not conflict with normal human outdoor activities. The verse in Isaiah 54,10 quoted earlier about no more deluges in the future does not constitute a promise which negates the attribute of justice, i.e. no undeserved preferential treatment was promised, rather it is a reference to the changed nature of man which makes the need for any future deluge obsolete. In the fullness of time and in accordance with prophetic visions, in the messianic age, all desire to deviate from the ways of the Lord will cease, and man observing G-d’s will in full will become a natural phenomenon at all times. This is what the Talmud (Shabbat 151) has in mind when it interprets \"the days when I have no more desire\" (Kohelet 12,1) as referring to the messianic age. One may then view the perfect state of man as something that existed or will exist at three distinct points in time. 1) At creation; at that time man was perfect, but that perfection was of an extremely fragile nature. 2) Immediately after the deluge, at that time, perfection was due to the personal experience that perfection was the only way to avoid disaster recurring. 3) In messianic times, when perfection will no longer be so fragile since it is the result of personality growth. ",
"Upon further reflection it will be seen that the Midrash quoted at the outset views the rainbow as constituting a compromise between the attribute of justice as applied in heaven and vis a vis celestial beings on the one hand, and between the attribute of justice as applied on earth. The latter is weak and somewhat flexible, so that there is really no way of pairing the two naturally. Above, in the celestial regions, there is no forgetting, no favoritism etc. Down here on earth however, things are different. We now witness the completion of man's creation, so to speak, when these two qualities of justice are being merged by means of the rainbow, which serves as the outward symbol of this merger. ",
"Rabbi Joshua ben Levi demands that he who sees the rainbow prostrate himself since he now acknowledges the profound wisdom of his Creator and the various stages in which He created man. In the land of Israel however, they scoffed at this idea, since the onlooker who did not know why such a person prostrates himself would think that the act of prostrating oneself was a way of worshipping the rainbow. However, there is agreement on the need for reciting an appropriate benediction. The formula for such benediction-- regardless of the various wordings suggested by different sages-- testifies to our being aware that the phenomenon is not new, but a reminder of man's merit. Describing examples of faith, David says in Psam 33,4, \"For the word of the Lord is upright and all His work is performed in faithfulness.” “He stores up floods in treasure chambers\" (verse 7). As a result of \"who loves righteousness and faith” (verse 5), the potential destructive powers of water have been suspended (verse 7). \"He who gathers the waters of the sea as a wall.\" The only force which keeps these walls suspended is emunah, His dependable faith,(verse 9). \"For He spoke, and it came into being, He commanded and it endured.\" The word of G-d’s covenant decreed for things to remain the way they were (va-yehi). To allow waters on their destructive path, no word would have been needed, silence would have sufficed. (8) The prophet Isaiah has G-d not only take Israel back as a wife after He divorced her for cause, but offers additional assurance that no future divorce would occur. This is the meaning of G-d’s oath. Similarly, the rainbow is that \"oath\" that there will not again occur a complete break between G-d and mankind as had been the case when the deluge was decreed. ",
"(1) The story of the tower of Babel is the corollary of this newly established covenant. On the one hand, the episode of Noach getting drunk illustrated that the attitudes of his three sons had indeed not remained identical. On the other hand, the Torah seems to stress their unity of purpose which resulted in the enterprise of building the tower of Babel. Mankind believed that their goal must be a unified one, and that all of them should reside close together. Observing the order prevailing in the heavenly constellations and the fact that they all seemed arranged around a central figure, i.e. the sun, they decided to build their civilization by emulating that system. They did this once they had moved into the valley out of their mountain caves, having learned to use rainproof bricks for building.d, in His wisdom, did not intend for mankind to remain closely bunched together. Man erred in believing that their concentration was an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. When urbanization is the means to achieve moral perfection of man, then it is laudatory. (2) Granted that stones and rocks are more enduring building materials than fired bricks, the fact that they were prepared to abandon the former in favor of the latter showed that their primary objective was the policy of clustering together, as stated in Genesis 11,5, \"Lest we be scattered on the face of the earth.\" Having thus traded a higher moral purpose for the lower political purpose of togetherness, G-d decided to interfere before further unwelcome negative manifestations had a chance to develop. Man's collective thinking had become dangerously close to the thinking of Cain, who had excelled at being a \"builder of cities\" (Genesis 4,17) and who also believed that this would bring him closer to heaven. (4) G-d decided that some physical dispersal, while preserving the spiritual ideal of striving towards moral perfection intact, was preferable to mere physical togetherness. In this way, parallel to the advent of the deluge, a further step was taken towards making man concentrate on the attainment of higher objectives. (5) When G-d \"descended,\" He examined their basic reasoning. When He found that their actions were rooted in their being united, i.e. like a regiment, single-minded and of identical modes of expression, He decided to change the course of their actions and disperse them. Thus, He caused linguistic changes due to change of habitat. Unity henceforth ought to prevail in their striving to become servants of the Lord etc., not in matters pertaining to boundaries etc. Thus, their error was of a kind that did not require further corrective action (punishment). One of the basic lessons we learn is that man must employ his speculative faculties and not remain content with remaining static. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"G-D BLESSED NOACH\" ",
"Bar Kapparah, in Ketuvot 5, explained that the deeds of the righteous are greater than the creation of heaven and Earth. It is written, \"Also My hand set the foundations of the earth, and My right hand spanned the heavens.” Concerning the deeds of the righteous however, it is written, \"The sanctuary of G-d which Your hands (pl) have established\"(Exodus 15,17). A Babylonian by the name of Rabbi Chiyah objected, saying that it is written in Psalms 95,5, \"His hands have fashioned the land masses.\" Rabbi Nachman explained that this refers to His fingers, since it says \"When I behold the heavens, the work of Your fingers\" (Psalms 8,4). Another objection was raised; it says, \"The heavens proclaim the glory of G-d and the expanse of the sky, the work of His hands (Psalms 19,2). The passage means, \"What tells the important work of the righteous? the skies. By what means? By means of the rainfall.\" ",
"One of the wonders and axioms of nature is the fact that all things created earlier are inferior to those created later. Nature proceeds from the primitive towards the sophisticated. Man being the last in a string of creations is therefore the most perfect and the most sophisticated (Bereshit Rabbah 19). Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Simon states that all things created subsequent to something else enjoy dominion over those things created prior to them. Man is therefore the most dominant creature, none daring to raise their heads against him. We do not observe fully-grown camels attack lion cubs or baby tigers, since in the order of things the species created earlier is instinctively aware of its inferior status vis a vis the products of a later stage of creation (Psalms 104,2). \"How great are Your works, O Lord.\" The Talmud Shabbat 121 asks, \"Why is it that a live baby does not need to be guarded against mice? The answer is that nature operates in such a way that even helpless, unarmed man is superior to the animals.” \"The fear and dread of you will be on all living creatures of the earth.\" (Genesis 9,2). Natural laws apply on the assumption and with the proviso that man-- supreme creature that he is-- lives up to his purpose and abilities. Natural laws are suspended on the occasion when a miracle is performed. This can be due to part of mankind having lost \"the image of G-d in which he was created,\" or to all of mankind having forfeited this image due to their collective sinful conduct. The miracle is in fact based on the covenant made by G-d with His entire creation that when the occasion arises, its subservience to the will of the Creator will be demonstrated by its deviating from its normal behavior. Generally, the \"normal\" behavior is proof that nature is not a deity, but that its conduct is controlled, not free. This \"normality\" is reversed on occasion in order to demonstrate the same point by nature's inverted behavior. The fact that nature, after having once \"run wild,\" returns to its usual pattern is proof that the very deviation was due to the will of G-d. Example is Exodus 14,27, \"The sea returned to its normal state at the turn of morning.\" There are numerous other examples of this. When nature acts totally out of character on a prolonged regular basis, that fact reflects on the state of man. When the animal kingdom has observed man acting animalistically, it ceases to show obeisance to man, and the rules we read in this Parshah concerning the natural awe that animals display for humans no longer apply. The same is true of such phenomena as wind, fire, and water, all of which demonstrate their destructive potential against man under such circumstances. Had man lived up to his destiny, those elements would not represent any danger to us, and harnessing their useful potential would not be a struggle, but they would willingly put all their power at our disposal. A king whose closest advisors act rebelliously cannot expect loyalty and obedience from the populace at large. Similarly, disobedience by man against G-d leads to corruption in other sections of the universe, right down to the basic elements. When Hillel said, \"When I am present, everyone is present\" (Sukkah 53), what he meant was, \"When man is O.K.,every thing is O.K.,\" i.e. all other creatures and parts of the universe behave predictably and beneficially. When the leaders of the people behave in exemplary fashion, the population at large is apt to emulate such behavior. The reverse is true also. This is why the Talmud in Shabbat 151 interprets Psalms 49,13, \"But man with all his honor will not outlast the night,\" to mean that under the adverse conditions man has created himself, he will not be better off than the beasts. When stating that lions do not attack humans when there are at least two humans-- and the observation is made that we know from experience that this simply is not so-- the Talmud answers that this only proves that the men who have been attacked by the lions lacked the qualities that make up the kind of person who is entitled to enjoy mastery over the beasts. The tribes of Reuben and Gad exhorted Joshua to \"be strong and brave.\" The first time they refer to the self confidence he needs to display as a leader. The second time they refer to the mastery over inner temptations he must acquire in order to command the unswerving loyalty and obedience of the people (compare Joshua chapter 1). While he had been in the ark providing for all the animals, Noach-was protected, although the animals had previously been corrupted through the perversion of mankind. When Isaiah describes his vision of the lion eating straw, this refers to the restoration of a state of nature as had occurred after the deluge in Parshat Noach (Isaiah 11,7). When the lions fail to attack Daniel in the den, this is merely a demonstration of the natural order of things, the lions having become sensitive to the type of man who faced them (Daniel chapter 6). Daniel describes the impotence of the lion against him as being a result of his upright behaviour towards G-d and his loyal conduct vis a vis the king. Not having eaten any treyfah food or drunk prohibited wine intended for pagan libations was part of the control over the evil urge that Daniel had exercised. This had imprinted on his face the aura of being a moral man, something animals can sense. The same idea is true concerning other elements of nature that can hurt or even destroy man. Such destruction, if and when it occurs, is due only to man's corruption and nature's subsequent insensitivity to man. Chananyah and his companions were unharmed by the fire in the furnace Nebuchadnezzar had thrown them into, because they, like Daniel, represented man as envisaged by G-d. They had therefore been able to hold nature in check. The discussion cited in Pessachim 118 between the angel in charge of hail and Gabriel illustrates our point. The angel in charge of hail had volunteered to quench the fire in the furnace. Gabriel replied that this would not be meaningful since water, the natural enemy of fire, would simply have been viewed as having had the upper hand over the fire in the furnace. However, the angel Gabriel being the angel in charge of fire, would descend and, while heating the furnace from the outside, cool the inside, and thus save the three men. This would be a far more convincing miracle. When Abraham had been thrown into Nimrod's furnace, G-d handled his salvation personally, drawing a parallel between His own uniqueness and the unique personality of Abraham the monotheist. Abraham deserved to be saved by the One and Only One whom he served directly. The reverse can be true also. The wild ass that bit Rabbi Chaninah died of its bite, since it had attacked a man who had been free from sin (Berachot 33). As the latter proclaimed, \"Death is not caused by the snake but by sin.\" Kings I Chapter 20, tells of an incident when someone not normally afraid of lions due to his superior moral level was nonetheless killed by a lion as a penalty for having disregarded the order of a prophet. ",
"The very idea of Israel's selection as G-d’s pilot project is based on the fact that it is the part of the human species which has preserved more of the original tzelem elokim, Divine image, than any other section of humanity. G-d has described the relative standing of the Jewish people among the nations, as similar to the standing of humans vis a vis the animal kingdom. In other words, the nations of the world are aware of our dominance and are afraid of us. This is so at least as long as Jews deserve such status due to their moral superiority. We are described as treating our Canaanite adversaries as if they were \"our bread\" to be consumed by us (Numbers 14,9). Prior to tackling Goliath, David explains to the startled Saul that his experiences with the lion and the bear, both of which he had slain, convinced him of his chance against the uncircumcised blasphemer (Samuel I Chapter 17). David rejected armour and sword, since his victory over the beasts had also not been due to external weapons. David's enquiry about the type of reward the slayer of Goliath would receive is based on the assumption that killing an uncircumcised blasphemer such as Goliath cannot in itself be much of a heroic deed, since the \"laws of nature\" almost guaranteed victory to any good Jew, and the risk involved was not of the kind which would call for a major reward. The reputation acquired by such deed should in itself suffice as reward. Obviously, David's companions did not understand his meaning, as seen from their response to David's enquiry. However, Saul's advisors sensed David's meaning when David said \"let no adam have fear of him.\" The adam David referred to was the kind of a person who had preserved his tzelem elokim, Divine image. Such a person would not have reason to fear the Philistine. Baba Metzia 114 teaches, \"Israel is referred to as adam; the nations of the world do not qualify for such appellation.\" Upon being challenged by Saul, David detailed past events in his life as proof for his confidence. He attributed his success to G-d, and was confident that the same G-d would grant him success against Goliath. \"The Philistines will be no better than one of those beasts.\" To emphasize our point, the book of Samuel relates that David rejected the armor, to show that his superiority did not stem from such sources, but was in the nature of things. After the battle (Samuel I 17,55), Saul wanted to know, \"Who is this lad?\" a strange request indeed, since his family status etc. had been common knowledge. David had performed as a regular harpist at Saul's Court (Samuel I 16,19). At that time, Saul had begun to wonder about David's ultimate destiny. In view of the fact that his own son Jonathan had performed deeds of valor of a similar nature previously, we can understand the love and mutual attraction that existed between David and Jonathan. The two shared the distinction of being adam in the full sense of the word. This is what our sages call \"a love which is not based on something tangible, something material\" (Avot 5, 16). The love is for the basic qualities in the other person. When the Torah says \"Love your fellow man like yourself,\" the \"yourself\" referred to is that same human quality (Leviticus 19,18). ",
"We now turn our attention to the aggadah cited in the name of Bar Kapparah at the outset of this chapter. G-d’s handiwork is being described as having been constructed with one hand, i.e. yadee, whereas the work of the tzaddikim is described as the result of yadecha, \"both Your hands.\" The idea is that the works of \"heaven and earth,\" i.e. \"nature,\" are a \"single\" path, there is no allowance for deviations. Nature is confined to strict rules, is not allowed to alternate behavior patterns. Tzaddikim, who operate under the personal guidance of G-d, i.e. hashgacha peratit, experience happenings which, while apparently defying natural law, are in effect expressions of true natural law, i.e. the rules laid down by G-d before there had been corruption in His universe. This is what the angel Gabriel had meant in Pessachim 118 when he said, \"I will heat the furnace from the outside and cool it on the inside. In this way it would be a miracle within a miracle.” When Rabbi Chiyah the Babylonian questioned Bar Kapparah saying that the Psalmist had said after all, \"His hands have fashioned continents,\" meaning that G-d had indeed used both His hands when creating the universe, he was answered that the spelling of the word yadav is in the singular, lacks the letter yud which would indicate that it is used in the plural. Also, the plural evident in the word yatzaru (certainly a plural ending meaning \"they fashioned\"), referred to the hand having fingers (plural), not to two hands being used. Upon the further question \"u ma-assey yadav magid harakiyah”, indicating that G-d had been using both hands, he was told that this quotation from Psalms referred to the works of the tsaddikim, not to the works of G-d Himself. Whereas nature, i.e. G-d’s creation, operates on one wavelength (yado), the tzaddikim are able to employ or activate additional wavelengths, thanks to the good deeds they have performed. Rainfall, necessary for the success of nature, is promoted by the deeds of the tzaddikim. When the tzaddik activates phenomena that appear to be anti natural, he only demonstrates the future character of nature, i.e. its subservience to G-d’s ultimate and most cherished creature, i.e. man. The two hands then represent the apparent cause of events and the real cause of events. It is this that Gabriel had in mind when he simultaneously heated the outside of the furnace while cooling its inside. The apparent cause of nature is what is observed on the outside, the true cause is what goes on inside. ",
"Having referred to man's intellectual superiority over the animal kingdom on several occasions, the Torah turns to our physical superiority and dominion over the animals by permitting animals to serve as our food. Far from depriving even the most primitive creature of a meaningful exterior, the Torah is most emphatic that the appearance of each creature be maintained by insisting that there be no crossbreeding between species. The eating of animals had been prohibited to earlier generations in order to prevent man who had already been deeply corrupted from absorbing more animalistic characteristics, which in turn would have hastened his total corruption. When the Talmud forbids meat intake to the am ha-aretz, the ignorant person, the term means primitive man, the kind of person whom it is permitted to kill even on the Day of Atonement, even when the latter occurs on the holy Sabbath (Pessachim 49). In other words, it refers to a member of the human race who is so depraved, has lost all claim to being numbered among the human species. When someone like that eats meat, he undoubtedly destroys further whatever vestige of humanity he had still retained. ",
"Since the deluge had been the great rehabilitation of the human race or what had remained of it, man's image had been completely restored. It was he who had insured the survival of the animals, having tended to them and fed them on a round-the-clock basis for an entire year. Man had thereby acquired the right to exercise dominion over them in greater measure than ever before. By serving man as food, the animal is actually elevated in stature, seeing that serving a master of higher stature is a promotion vis a vis serving a master of more humble stature. Of course, the need to consume meat, as opposed to the ability to digest heavenly food such as the manna, is a relative shortcoming in man. More of this in the section dealing with manna. Once the consumption of meat had been permitted, certain restrictions such as the consumption of living tissue or blood from a living animal were imposed. The reasons for this will be discussed in Chapter 64. Also, should the animals act contrary to their supposed nature, they are warned of heavenly retribution. They must know that they are not to attack and kill man, nor are they allowed to feed on human remains. In the case of man versus man, the main concern of the legislation is man killing man, since injuring him for food consumption is uncharacteristic. Possibly, the wording indicates heavenly retribution in cases where witnesses are lacking and murderous intent cannot be presumed. Only man, \"he who spills the blood of man\" (Genesis 9,6), is subject to retribution by a human Court of Law. Animals will be dealt with by celestial tribunal only. Only after the Torah had been given to the Jewish people do we find a law that makes beasts subject to human justice, as in the case of the bull which has gored a human being, especially if that bull was the property of a human being, who is charged with negligent supervision (Exodus 21,29). "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Rabbi Yitzchak in Bereshit Rabbah 39 began to explain the verse (Psalms 45,11) \"Hearken daughter and behold, incline your ear and forget your kinfolk and your father's house.\" This is comparable to someone who walks along the way and sees a tower go up in flames. He says to his companion, \"Surely this tower has no owner.\" The owner of the tower immediately looks down and shouts \"I am the owner.\" Something similar happened when Abraham said to the people, \"You think the universe has no owner?\" G-d immediately looked down upon him and said \"I am the owner of the universe, go and leave your country etc.\" ",
"Man's beginnings, i.e. the potential he is born with, call it genes or whatever, are a gift of G-d, something beyond his control. Similarly, G-d’s help is required for man to be able to bring to fruition all the potential he has been equipped with at birth. However, on the way toward the attainment of his potential, man must employ all his willpower, endurance, diligence etc. though all of these by themselves do not guarantee that he will meet with success. ",
"In particular, all his intellectual faculties, though G-d given, do not necessarily lead him to the right conclusions. In order to progress from ignorance toward understanding the works of G-d, one must understand the laws of nature as manifest in our universe; subsequently, one may acquire some insights into the workings of the Divine. Chapter thirty in Proverbs illustrates that man without the assistance of G-d is naught. \"Agur\" describes himself as ignorant, possessing neither knowledge of the natural sciences nor knowledge of the metaphysical. His very name indicates that he is desirous of amassing knowledge. The same applies to his partner \"Ittiel,\" who desires close communion with G-d. The thrust of the message is that as long as no one has offered prophetic insight, \"Who ascended to heaven?\" \"What is my name or the name of my son?\" i.e. I amount to nothing as long as I am not in possession of inside knowledge of our tradition. The entire chapter outlines the handicaps someone like Abraham labors under when he endeavors to discover truth, not having the revealed word of G-d to assist him in his quest. The only path which is guaranteed to lead to success is \"the word of the Lord is refined, pure\" (Proverbs 30,5). If our faculties are inadequate to reveal to us the truths about the workings of the physical universe, how much less adequate are they to make us privy to the workings of the spiritual spheres (Isaiah 44,24)? The prophet, in describing G-d’s exclusive involvement in developing the physical universe and asking \"Who is with Me?\" i.e. \"Who helped Me?\", makes it clear that man's insight into the heavenly part of the universe is even less imaginable. ",
"",
"Though man's original equipment is supplied by G-d, and though his eventual accomplishments are subject to G-d’s benevolent guidance or otherwise, the fact that he was created \"in the image of G-d,\" i.e. was given free choice, has made him the master of his own destiny. This means that he can achieve whatever he is capable of achieving since the means to do so have been placed at his disposal to use at his discretion. Once man begins to travel the path towards what his natural talents enable him to achieve, he can count on the active assistance of His Maker to facilitate his progress along that route. \"He who comes to purify, is extended help\" (Shabbat 104). This is what Moses meant when he said (Deut.30,11-14), \"This commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you....in fact it is quite close to you.\" If one applies oneself properly to the truth of G-d’s revealed word, i.e the Torah, then appreciating it becomes a simple matter. From that point onwards there are no real impediments or difficulties in achieving one's aim. In this respect, the fortitude of Abraham surpassed that of anyone before him, since during the preceding generations people had become progressively more corrupt until they endangered the survival of their species. Even the few whose conduct at the time of their respective deaths merited a suspended sentence had failed to look toward heaven for inspiration to recognise their Creator. They were content merely not to question the tradition that G-d had indeed created the universe. Noach was such a person. His righteousness was tamim, whole, meaning he continued to believe what Lemech his father had believed and what both his father and his grandfather Methuselah had taught him. He made no intellectual effort to understand the basis for this belief or to develop it so that it would influence his personality development. \"IN HIS GENERATIONS,\" i.e. through successive generations his righteousness remained static, did not become dynamic. His heart was pure, but his intellect was not involved. In Deut. 18,14, we are told, \"Be whole with the Lord your G-d,\" that we are to accept the truths taught by our prophets. This means in particular that the request of the Jewish people at Mount Sinai to have Moses talk to them and be the intermediary between G-d and them would result in a perfect and enduring faith. The belief resulting from the experience of revelation is called emunah of a temimut quality. There are two ways of acquiring this absolute faith. The easy way is study of the Torah, a method granted to the Jewish people. The other way is via intellectual analysis, the only method available to man prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. This method does not only require the determination of the truth seeker, but active help from G-d Himself. Those who in their search for understanding of this truth also employ all their intellectual faculties, arrive at a far deeper and lasting understanding. This is why David told his son Solomon, \"Now my son Solomon, know the G-d of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart, a willing soul\" (Chronicles I 28,9). Abraham's tremendous achievement was that though he did not have the tradition of a Noach since both his father and grandfather had been pagans (Joshua 24,2), he began to develop this faith through an intellectual approach. At first, he concentrated on demonstrating the complete bankruptcy of the belief held by his contemporaries. Afterwards, having travelled as far as it is possible to travel by means of one's intellect alone, with the help of G-d’s Personal Providence, he arrived at that level of faith in his Creator which the Torah describes as \"He believed in the Lord, and the Latter gave him credit for this\" (Genesis 15,6). Later, at the time of his cirumcision, Abraham would be asked, \"Walk in front of Me,\" to demonstrate a degree of faith that surpasses what his intellect can comprehend. In this way, he would outclass Noach who had only \"walked with G-d,\" his faith only keeping step with his intellectual faculties, never exceeding them. ",
"The Midrash, according to Rabbi Yehudah, describes the difference between Noach and Abraham in the story of the king who had two sons. To the younger one the king said \"Walk with me,\" whereas to the senior one he said \"Walk ahead of me.\" Noach, whose faculties were limited, was told \"Go with Me,\" whereas Abraham who possessed outstanding intellect, was told \"Walk in front of Me.\" Rabbi Nechemyah in Bereshit Rabbah 30 views Noach as walking in clay and being rescued by G-d, whereas Abraham viewed G-d as being confined to dark alleys; he proceeded to illuminate the alleys for G-d through a window. G-d responded by suggesting that instead of illuminating a window in Mesopotamia, Abraham should illuminate the land of Canaan. Clearly, the Midrash's analysis is similar to our own, except that the two Rabbis make differences in degree. According to Rabbi Yehudah, Noach's faith was an uncritical acceptance of everything handed down by his father, and therefore caused him to walk in darkness. He needed G-d to enlighten him. Abraham, on the other hand, according to Rabbi Nechemyah endeavored to illuminate the darkness surrounding the existence and knowledge of G-d by using his mind. G-d extended His help to Abraham with both hands as it says, \"For I know him, so that he will command his children and household after him to observe My commandments.\" This was the natural result of recognising the existence of His Creator (Genesis 18,19). As long as Abraham's actions were not the result of instructions from G-d, he is not praised, and his exploits are not specifically mentioned. Even when he sanctified G-d’s name by allowing himself to be thrown into Nimrod's furnace rather than worship him as a deity, this is not reported in the Torah, since this action demonstrated his intellectual integrity only, not his faith. Faith is something that G-d demands from us. At the time when the Torah introduces the personality of Abraham to the reader, no such demand had been made upon him, since no promise had been made to him either as compensation for demonstrating faith. ",
"The parable mentioned at the outset describes a similar quest. The burning tower represents the light dispensed by the study of astronomy and astrology, which are central to man's endeavour to learn more about the universe. The ultimate truth discovered by Abraham was that even the apparently ultimate causes of motion in the universe-- the stars-- must have someone who was responsible for setting them in motion in the first place and who controls their orbit. This conviction, once acquired, made Abraham engage in arguments with his contemporaries. This led G-d without further ado to promise Abraham the land of Canaan and command him to leave his homeland. Although Abraham was aware by now that G-d does interfere in the fate of man, seeing he had been saved from Nimrod's furnace because he had preferred death to living a lie, the extent of G-d’s involvement in the affairs of man was not yet clear to Abraham. Perhaps he thought that G-d’s involvement in individual lives was reserved for occasions when man fought for the recognition of the truth, i.e. the recognition of the existence of G-d. Interestingly, whenever we find Abraham proclaiming the truth,\"He called out in the name of G-d,\" we never find that he prays to be spared troubles, as his grandson Jacob was in the habit of doing later. This was no doubt due to the fact that he was still convinced of the value of astrology, and therefore considered that much of man's fate had been preordained, was not subject to personal interference by the Creator. Only after having experienced further acts by G-d, such as the events in Egypt, his victory over Lot's captors etc., did the whole concept of hashgachah peratit, G-d’s guidance of man's individual fates, unfold before his eyes. Even when apprised of the fact that his victory over the four kings had been possible only due to G-d’s help, and when promised great reward, he does not pray for children, but only complains about the ultimate futility of any reward in the absence of children of his own. When he displays faith in G-d’s promise that he will have children, this act of faith is recorded as worthy of complimentary mention by G-d. This is why immediately following Abraham's display of faith, G-d assures him that these children will ultimately attain spiritual maturity after a period of painful spiritual and physical adolescence in a country not their own. ",
"The Midrash states that Abraham was saved from the fiery furnace through the merit of Jacob (Bereshit Rabbah 63). It quotes as its source for this strange statement Isaiah 29,22, \"Thus said the Lord to the house of Jacob who redeemed Abraham.\" The meaning is that although Abraham did not pray for deliverance at the time he was thrown into the furnace, the fact that he was destined to have a grandson who would know how to pray prompted G-d to save Abraham, in order for such a grandson to make his debut in history in due course. This is also what Solomon meant when he said, \"The crown of grandfathers are their grandsons\" (Proverbs 17,6). All of the foregoing testifies to Abraham's personality developing gradually and to the fact that his eventually attaining great spiritual stature was helped by all the trials and tribulations he underwent during his lifetime. ",
"Some problems in the text of our story: ",
" 1) Why did G-d speak to Abraham though we have not been told of a single achievement on his part? ",
"2) Why did Abraham have to leave his homeland, seeing he had already been saved from danger in his homeland? ",
"3) What special blessing is the \"I shall make you a great nation,\" seeing that many of his contemporaries have also become founders of nations? Even Lot became the founding father of two nations! Why did Abraham have to be promised immunity from those who would curse him? Who would be likely to curse him? ",
"4) Since the Torah had already stated that \"Lot went with him,\" why did the Torah repeat \"he took his wife and Lot?\" ",
"5) Why did the Torah stress that \"the Canaanite was in the land,\" when at the same time we are told that a descendant of Shem was king there at that time? ",
"6) Why was G-d’s promise so concise when at a later occasion, after his separation from Lot, G-d became so much more specific? Why do we need two promises covering the same subject? ",
" 7) Why did Abraham not proclaim the name of G-d at the time he erected the first altar? ",
"8) Why did Abraham not remain in Canaan during the famine, relying on G-d’s promise, instead of involving himself in all the difficulties with the Egyptians, Sarah's marital status etc.? Why did G-d remain silent at the time and did not offer guidance? Why do we not hear of Abraham praying for guidance? Why did he not pray for children as he did at a later occasion? Why did he plan to deceive Pharaoh instead? ",
"9) What prompted Abraham's sudden declaration \"I know you are a beautiful woman?\" ",
"10) Why did Abraham not say, \"When the Egyptians see you, you will say you are my wife,\" instead of \"They will say she is his wife?\" Why does Abraham seem as perturbed about Sarah's survival as about the chance of his own death? At the very least, this seems unfortunate phraseology. ",
"11) The idea of securing favors through the practice of deception seems unethical, not worthy of a man of Abraham's calibre. ",
"12) Since the Egyptians never even enquired about Sarah's marital status, but took her to the palace as soon as they set eyes on her, why did Abraham not use the same defense for his deception as he used later at the Court of Avimelech? He said then that \"I was afraid that there was no fear of the Lord in this place.\" After all, Abraham had not practiced any deception until after violence had been perpetrated? What defense would Pharaoh have been able to offer? ",
" 13) Why does the Torah bother to report the arguments between Abraham's shepherds and Lot's shepherds? Why even bother to tell us that G-d communicated with Abraham after the separation from Lot? ",
"14) Why do we need to know about the campaign the four kings waged against the kings in the valley of Sodom? If it is only to teach us about Abraham's rescue of Lot, the story could have commenced with the battle in the valley of Sidim. Why tell us who informed Abraham of Lot's capture; the mere fact would have sufficed! ",
" 15) Why was the arrival and blessing of Malki Tzedek mentioned as having occurred during the negotiations between Abraham and the king of Sodom about the spoils of war? ",
"We consider an uncircumcised person as a human being with a severe physical defect as is evident from many verses in Scripture. Our sages describe Bileam's inability to stand in the presence of the Shechinah as due to his being uncircumcised. On the two occasions that G-d appeared to Abraham prior to his being circumcised, he is reported as having fallen down on his face. On the other hand, when he has subsequent visions or visitations by G-d, he was able to remain seated or even standing such as when the angels approached him after the circumcision. When we find conflicting opinions among the sages regarding the age at which Abraham first recognized his Creator, namely whether at the age of three or at the age of forty-eight, the conflict may be due to the mitzvah of orlah being a three-year concept in the Torah (Bereshit Rabbah 64 and Nedarim 32). Trees that are less than three years old are considered uncircumcised, their fruit is forbidden. Since man has been compared to trees, i.e. \"for man is like the tree of the field\" (Deut. 20,19), it may be that our sages meant that although Abraham recognized G-d while still physically an arel, uncircumcised, the number three being merely a symbolical age, the nature of his philosophical and ethical progress underwent such a change after his circumcision that anyone who referred to Abraham by his original name \"Abram\" is guilty of a misdemeanor, since that name had applied to a totally different personality. (1+2) All the communications between G-d and Abraham prior to his being circumcised involve a relationship short of the level of prophecy. Such communications we find addressed to others, such as Avimelech and Laban. Even the fish that swallowed Jonah received this kind of communication from G-d. Since Abraham had attained recognition of his Creator by means of his intellect, G-d wanted to remove him from an environment which was so hostile to his further moral and philosophical progress. (3) Since Sarah, Abraham's wife, had been described as barren already in Parshat Noach, the promise that Abraham would not only become a father but a founder of nations in another country, is indeed a special blessing. ",
"According to Bereshit Rabbah 39, Abraham reportedly said to G-d, \"Did not Noach become the founding father of seventy nations?\" G-d however, replied that the nation of which it would be said \"Who is such a great nation?\" (Deut 4,7) will be descended from Abraham. The need to state that those who curse Abraham will be cursed, is ample proof of his erstwhile unpopularity, and of the fact that Abraham had to suffer greatly for his beliefs. Henceforth, however, his detractors would be cursed, and he himself would be visibly blessed. In fact, his very existence would promote blessings for the rest of mankind. (4) Abraham departed Ur Kasdim and Charan, thereby fulfilling G-d’s command. By retaining his wife and nephew however, the separation from his \"birthplace\" and \"father's house\" was less than complete. Also, he was careful to take along his material wealth. He not only did not protest the company of Lot etc., but he actively solicited that company, i.e. vayikach, he took. (5) This is why the Torah mentions the presence of those people three times. Abraham proceeded unimpeded until Shechem, notwithstanding the fact that the Canaanite was at that time in the process of driving the Semites out of the country. In such troubled times, a newcomer like Abraham could have expected to suffer at the hands of both adversaries in the struggle for possession of that country. (6) At that time, G-d promised Abraham that the present turmoil would not produce permanent ownership of that land by the Canaanites, but that this land would ultimately belong to a nation yet to be founded by Abraham. In fact, had it not been for the conquest by the Canaanites, taking the land from the Semites and giving it to one family, i.e. the descendants of Abraham, would have been difficult to justify. Gittin 38 explains the justification for Israel's conquest of the land of Sichon and Og in a similar fashion, i.e. the illegal conquest of most of Ammon and Moab by Sichon and Og had paved the way for Israel dispossessing Sichon and Og eventually (in a war started by Sichon). (7) In response to that promise by G-d, Abraham built an altar, but could not very well proclaim his true belief in G-d and call for others to follow him until near Bet El; he settled down in a peaceful atmosphere. Proclaiming the sovereignty of G-d there would be more likely to produce positive results, away from the turmoil of war in other parts of the country. (8) Perhaps because he was still in the company of Lot and other less idealistically inspired fellow travellers, as well as lacking the benefits of circumcision, he decided to ride out the famine in Canaan in neighbouring Egypt. For that reason, he may not have received direct guidance from G-d on the subject. Probably, Abraham considered the certainty of impoverishment, animosity, and likely attack by surrounding tribes, as outweighing the possible dangers in Egypt. Jacob was moved by similar considerations when he complained about his sons' delay in travelling to Egypt to secure a food supply. The appearance of being affluent was in itself capable of inviting attack from those less fortunate (Genesis 42). Similarly, the four outcasts in Kings II Chapter 7 considered any chance of survival in the enemy camp as offering a better chance than certain death by famine in the city or in their primitive place of refuge. No doubt, Abraham had instructed Sarah to assume this brother/sister relationship even before they arrived in Egypt, since he could not reasonably have expected the Egyptians to make enquiries about Sarah's marital status. Surely, the normal thing was for a man to travel with his wife. (9+10+11) Therefore, the brother/sister relationship had to be demonstrated at the outset, so as to prevent any danger to Abraham. He assumed that either his goodwill would be sought actively, i.e. \"so that I shall benefit on your account,\" or that at the very least his survival would be assured i.e. \"I shall remain alive on your account.\" David's conduct in Gat (Samuel I Chapter 22) was motivated by the same considerations. In view of the fact that the Egyptians would most likely react to Sarah's physical beauty, Abraham referred to the fact of her beauty as something that had, of course, been known to him for a long time, but not until then had it been a factor to be considered in their public behavior. (12) He also realized that in the event of his own death, Sarah would consider her own survival under such circumstances as a fate worse than death. Therefore, the entire household maintained the fiction of Abraham and Sarah being brother and sister, so that when Pharaoh later said, \"She also said he is my brother,\" he meant that Sarah had only confirmed the facts which he had already ascertained. There could not therefore be a question of him having stolen another man's wife. The Torah testifies that there had in fact been no need to deny the husband/wife relationship in order to protect themselves against Pharaoh. After Abraham had used all the intellectual faculties at his command to survive the trip to Egypt, G-d now intervened to prevent Pharaoh from forcing his attentions on the presumably single Sarah. G-d’s intervention had become necessary to prevent Abraham and Sarah having problems as a result of their machinations, not despite their machinations. Pharaoh was obviously smitten by G-d in a way that made him impotent, and demonstrated to him that the punishment inflicted upon him was related to his attempt to rape Sarah. Pharaoh did not blame Abraham for having taken precautions to protect himself and his wife, knowing full well that these precautions were justified. What Pharaoh did object to was that Abraham had not at least told him privately, i.e. lee (the word is used repeatedly), what the true relationship between Sarah and him had been. The fact that he had to issue a command to his people not to molest Abraham (Genesis 12,20) proves that Abraham's estimate of the morality of Pharaoh's subjects had been quite accurate. That Abraham could not use the argument he was later to use with Avimelech was obvious, since Pharaoh had challenged Abraham concerning Abraham's evaluation of himself, and not his evaluation of his people. Just because his people were more law-abiding in matters of morality than the Egyptians, Avimelech could challenge the fact that Abraham had seen fit to use deception, and construe it as an insult against his people. The events that occurred in Egypt at this time serve to disabuse us of two erroneous attitudes. 1) The belief that if only human intellect, effort and caution is employed, success is guaranteed. 2) That since everything is in the hands of G-d anyways, our efforts to alter that which seems in store for us are futile and doomed to failure. Therefore, a life of passive acceptance of all dangers ought to be the only path to follow. Abraham had employed all his wits, had made extensive efforts, taken precautions, all to no avail; only then did G-d intervene to smite Pharaoh at the critical moment. Isaiah 50,10-11 conveys a similar lesson. In verse 10, a person relying on G-d is depicted as walking in darkness, relying solely on G-d to provide light. In verse 11, however, those who rely on their own light exclusively, are also scored by the prophet. When the following verse (Isaiah 51,2) states, \"Look towards Abraham and Sarah,\" the message is clearly that the proper way to behave can be learned only by studying what happened to our two ancestors who were called upon to act and whose actions and efforts were blessed by G-d. The Torah proceeds to tell us that Abraham returned to where he came from, that he accumulated material wealth. Though he returned greatly enriched materially, his spiritual path only took him back to Bet El, he had not made notable progress in that area of his life. This may have been due to his having kept Lot, whom he should not have taken along in the first place, at his side. He should have observed G-d’s original command in its entirety. (13) Under the circumstances, G-d now began to prepare the scenario that would lead to the separation of the two men. The scenario was provided by the fact that the land could not support their combined wealth. The company of Lot was no longer suitable for the tzaddik. The mention of the Canaanites as well as the Perusites being in the land of Canaan which they were in the process of conquering from the descendants of Shem, provided the contrast to the rift that developed between the shepherds of Lot and those of Abraham. Abraham realized that the quarrel between the shepherds would lead to an estrangement between their respective masters and, though he was the senior, offered Lot the choice of the areas available. He could have driven Lot away by force, but refrained, thereby demonstrating that material possessions were not uppermost in his system of values. Lot was unabashed in choosing the most fertile land, ignoring the fact that its inhabitants were the most sinful people, more sinful than the ones G-d had bidden Abraham to part company with when He had ordered him out of Ur. Abraham's essential strength of character was displayed clearly in this event, and this is one of the reasons why immediately upon the departure of Lot, we read about the explicit promise of G-d regarding the future ownership of the land of Canaan. This time G-d is much more specific in the promise, seeing that Abraham had renounced material wealth as a primary consideration in his thinking. Also, the apparent success of the Canaanites wresting more of the land from the Semites as evidenced by the two Canaanite tribes already settling there made it necessary for G-d to point out that such possession by the Canaanites would be temporary. We also observe that as long as Abraham remained in the company of Lot, he suffered the temporary absence of his wife, i.e. he was imposed upon. (14) Immediately after his separation from Lot, he becomes capable of defeating the mightiest four kings of their time when he liberates Lot and secures a great deal of booty. No doubt the sequence of these events is to teach that Abraham's spiritual growth had been impeded by the physical proximity of Lot, and could now resume its normal progress. The details about the exploits of these four kings serve to underline their power and the greatness of Abraham's achievement in defeating them. Also, although Abraham had heard about Lot's capture only by implication, he had reacted promptly. The palit, escapee, in 14,13 probably only related to the fact that the five kings had lost the battle and that any survivors had been captured. Abraham having \"heard\" must be understood in a sense similar to Genesis 23,16, when Abraham had not really \"heard\" with his ears. Or, like in Esther Chapter 4, when Mordechai is reported as having \"heard\" about the plot to assassinate the king. That, too, may not have been \"hearing\" in the literal sense of the word. Despite those quite imprecise reports, Abraham mobilized the forces at his command to engage in a war in order to rescue his nephew. Even at this stage, Abraham had not ceased to feel brotherly responsibility for the safety of Lot. (15) During the encounter with Malki Tzedek, who appeared while Abraham was discussing the spoils of war with the king of Sodom, who himself had been a prisoner rescued by Abraham, the former acknowledged that the spoils rightfully belonged to Abraham. Abraham, however, demonstrated his attitude towards material possessions even more clearly on this occasion. The king of Sodom had the nerve to offer Abraham the spoils, though they were not even his to dispose of. Abraham swore an oath that he would not allow the king of Sodom to lose even a shoelace, except for the food which had been consumed by Abraham's soldiers during the campaign. Abraham was not motivated by haughtiness; he simply did not want his attitude to material wealth to be compared to that of the king of Sodom. He did not want the Sodomites to think that if part of his wealth had its physical origin in the former belongings of the Sodomites, the whole of his wealth must be of similar caliber. He wanted to emphasize that whereas the purpose of the Sodomites was to accumulate wealth in this world, he himself was interested in accumulating wealth in a higher world. In an allegorical sense, one may see in the king of Sodom's invitation the lure of Satan who says to the warrior who has risked his life to amass the spoils of war, \"Give me your soul and take for yourself the material things in life.\" This, of course, is the path which will leave man eventually bereft of both material and spiritual values when he dies. Abraham's response to all those who follow in his footsteps throughout the ages has been, \"I have raised my hand to G-d, I will not benefit in the least from the material gains of this struggle, I will not sell my soul except to the extent that physical comforts are instrumental in ensuring my success in my efforts to attain spiritual maturity.\" This too is the attitude towards wealth expressed by Solomon in Kohelet 5,18. \"Also when the Lord gives a man wealth and properties, and He gives him the power to enjoy those and to benefit from his toils, all this is a gift from the Almighty.\" Since perfection of the human being is unattainable without the help of G-d, and is achieved only gradually, step by step, it is fitting that Abraham from hereon in makes further progress on the ladder of spiritual achievements. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram\"",
"Concerning the verse, \"Do not be afraid, Abraham,\" a call to Abraham by G-d after the latter had defeated Kedorleomer and his allies, Rabbi Levi in Bereshit Rabbah 44 is quoted as saying that Abraham was afraid on two accounts. 1) That he might have killed some innocent people in battle. 2) That the kings might regroup and attack him. ",
"Since becoming a morally perfect personality is impossible unless one is in possession of all possible virtues, it is almost impossible to encounter a morally perfect human being, since no one has been endowed with all these virtues. The only way to progress towards moral perfection then is to refine and and constantly purify one's personality. First, impure elements in one's personality have to be eliminated, then the remaining acceptable raw material has to be brought to a state high polish. Just as a mirror which has been silvered with faulty material and the backing of which has not been polished properly, cannot reproduce a true image, so a person cannot reflect Torah and truth in a proper manner unless he has perfected himself in the aforementioned fashion. In Deut. 4,9-10, Moses warns the Jewish people that if they allow the purity they had enjoyed at Mount Sinai to become tainted, they will be headed down the path of corruption. Our soul is like a mirror which reflects the images it has absorbed. Unless the mirror is kept in perfect condition, it will reflect distorted images. Even marginal failings in a person's character distort his whole personality. Maimonides points this out in Chapter seven of his introduction to the tractate Avot. Prophetic visions departed from the prophets when they were angry, i.e. when they suffered personality lapses. A perfect character can also not be attained unless it is accompanied by a high level of intellectual accomplishments. Similarly, true wisdom cannot be attained without accompanying moral accomplishments. Since we come across many people who possess either moral or intellectual accomplishments but rarely both, we must assume that what we observe are the results of natural endowment only. These endowments do not reflect the results of their owners having refined them in order to attain the maximum achievements they are capable of in either field. Only when morality is the outgrowth of one's intellect can we be sure that such morality is comprehensive and extends to a person's entire personality. This in spite of the fact that certain traits are not necessarily observable by outsiders unless the need arises to demonstrate that their owner indeed possesses such good traits. In Proverbs 20,5-12, Solomon points out that it is a common error to attribute a virtuous personality to someone who has merely displayed a few virtues, without our probing if these virtues are natural or have been acquired, i.e. developed. If these virtues are natural, they are quite meaningless in an ethical sense. Only the Lord can pronounce judgment about whose virtue has been acquired and whose constitutes a natural trait. One way of realizing that it is natural is if one sees a person practice one particular virtue, whereas in all other areas of life that person disregards most virtues. This would prove that such an individual did not come by the virtue he did practice thanks to his own efforts, but that he was fortunate enough to have been born with it. Our sages in Kiddushin 39 tell us that \"He who performs one mitzvah is given credit, his lifespan is extended, and he inherits the land of Israel. He, however, who neglects to perform one mitzvah will experience the reverse.\" Obviously, the performance of one single mitzvah cannot qualify for all that much reward, something which is normally made contingent on the fulfilment of all mitzvot. It is equally obvious that a person who fails to perform a single mitzvah does not need to be told that he does not rate a reward for that failure. The meaning of the passage then is that he who performs one mitzvah in all its ramifications, qualifies for this great reward, because in order to do what he did, all his virtues had to be involved. The manner in which we relate to the that we have an opportunity to perform, reveals the attitude we have towards all mitzvot if we were able to perform them. The Talmud, when questioning the special reward offered those who perform the commandment of honoring father and mother, answers that anyone who performs a commandment thereby exceeding his natural inclination to do so, is in line for such special reward. Since it is natural for a person to honor his father and mother, the Torah, and subsequently the Talmud, use this mitzvah as the example to illustrate the principle involved. Similarly, when the Talmud (Sotah 3) says that if someone has commenced performing a mitzvah, one urges him to complete it. The word \"a mitzvah,” is the same as \"any mitzvah\" or all mitzvoth. The attitude displayed when performing a mitzvah signals whether such an act would lead to the performance of other mitzvoth. The famous principle of \"mitzvah gorreret mitzvah,\" that performance of one good deed leads to the performance of other good deeds, reflects the same thought. If any of these good deeds have been performed because of natural inclinations, such performance is no guarantee of the performance of other good deeds in the future; therefore, no credit is given to the one performing it. The Talmud in Horiot 10 tells us that the verse \"The ways of the Lord are straight, the righteous can walk therein, whereas the wicked will stumble therein\" (Hoseah 14,10), means that he who eats the Passover because he is hungry and wants to stuff himself is called a sinner though he complies with the ritual; this teaches us the same lesson. Abstention from pork should not be dictated by one's natural revulsion to eating pork, but should be due to the Torah having prohibited it (compare Torat Kohanim Parshat Kedoshim 89). Rabbi Akiva in Sofrim 4 relates how it happened to him that even preoccupation with a mitzvah due to a pure motivation, involved him in a sinful act, because he did not have his priorities right. He had dragged a body for six miles on the Sabbath in order to bring it to proper burial. He had been unaware that such a body, if there are no relatives whose duty it is to perform the burial rites on it, automatically acquires the ground it lies on. This would make the act of moving it on the Sabbath unnessary and a transgression against the law of carrying in the public domain on the Sabbath. The Rabbis chided Rabbi Akiva, saying that he had been guilty of a transgression every step of the way. Aristotle in Ethics Chapter four, also argues that the validity of, say, generosity as a virtue derives from the nature and personality of the donor. Therefore, he who gives to the wrong cause or for the wrong motive, cannot be described as \"liberal\" or \"generous.\" This trait of \"generosity of heart\" was an essential ingredient in Abraham's personality, which is always in evidence in conjunction with other virtues, all of which contributed to refinement of his personality even further. No doubt, Abraham had recognized that the acquisition of material wealth could not be the ultimate purpose in life, that there had to be higher values than that. Not only that, but such knowledge could only be attained through prophetic insight. In his search for truths, of which Isaiah 64,3 has said, \"No human eye has beheld them without the help of G-d,\" the term machazeh, vision, is most appropriate at this point. Maimonides in his Moreh, chapter forty-five section two, already pointed out that the lowest level of such prophetic insight is comprehension by means of the parable. Indeed, most of the message Abraham receives during the revelation at the \"covenant between the pieces\" is by means of the parable. Concerning man's natural fear of the day when the strange union of body and soul is dissolved, the day of death, G-d reassures Abraham that he should not entertain any fear. Concerning all his other worries, G-d reassures him of His continued support. He also tells him that the reward will be of quite a different calibre than is normally understood by the term \"reward.\" G-d’s promise regarding future possession of the land by Abraham's descendants is believed. Abraham, aware of the great difficulties faced by any human being who tries to live up to these lofty principles, asks for a sign to reassure him that his heirs will be able to muster the moral strength to qualify for the fulfilment of these promises. The answer, couched in terms of the sacrifice and what it symbolized, is in accordance with both the views of Rabbi Nechemyah and those of Rabbi Chiyah as stated in Bereshit Rabbah 44. The divided animals represent the nations and their respective leaders, all headed for eventual destruction. The undivided bird, by contrast, represents the Jewish people who will endure and withstand the attack by the vultures, thanks to the merit of their ancestor Abraham. But over and above that, there are inherent values that guarantee the fulfilment of G-d’s promise in due course. ",
"Rabbi Assi, in the same Midrash, describes it somewhat differently. Seeing that Abraham's question referred only to the chances of future generations, G-d’s answer matched the question. Rabbi Assi describes Abraham as taking a hammer and beating down on the carcasses, which, however, withstood his hammering. Thereupon Abraham used the power of repentance to chase away the vultures. The parable is that there are two ways of insuring character growth; either suffering, which is character refining, or repentance. Since suffering is limited in time, and after too long a period may become counterproductive through the victim having died before his character had been sufficiently refined, the power of someone else's merit may have to be employed by G-d to revive such a victim. G-d explained to Abraham that after four generations of suffering, designed to steel his descendants against moral decay, salvation would have to occur. The darkness Abraham saw in his vision, was the suffering of his descendants which would ensure that they would eventually inherit the land G-d had promised (after four generations). Abraham himself, would not have to undergo suffering, of course, as part of this process of readying Israel for nationhood. Abraham accepted G-d’s explanation that the power of sacrifices would be of a redeeming quality should his descendants suffer moral lapses. He was concerned, however, over what would take the place of these sacrifices during periods when, owing to the absence of a temple, such sacrifices could not be offered. Regarding this eventuality, he was shown that the experience of exile coupled with suffering would constitute the way his descendants' sins could be expiated. The concept of \"who remembers the sins of the fathers to the children\" revealed to Moses at a later stage (Exodus 34,7) is already embodied in the statement about the fourth generation of Jews having to wait for the fourth generation of depraved Emorites having exhausted their claim to continued existence in the land of Canaan. The covenant concluded at that time has still not been fulfilled in its entirety. Therefore, we still live on the strength of it, awaiting the total fulfilment, i.e. inheritance of the lands of all the ten tribes mentioned in the promise. \"The great river\" is, after all, identical with the river emanating from Eden, whose waters irrigated the entire globe. Isaiah 58,11-12 envisages Israel as the well-irrigated garden which provides sustenance for the whole of mankind, in due course. Abraham's fears about the future are thus laid to rest, as mentioned in the Midrash we quoted at the outset. Abraham, who had feared that among the soldiers he had slain in liberating Lot there could have been good persons, was thanked by G-d instead for having done the Lord's work for Him. He had removed unwanted thorns and thistles. Success in such an enterprise does not constitute reward in itself, on the contrary, it merely qualifies Abraham for even greater rewards in the future. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) What is the special significance of G-d appearing to Abraham in a machazeh, vision, an expression never previously used when G-d communicated with Abraham? ",
"2) Who was Abraham afraid of? One does not usually fear inadequate reward, rather one fears some kind of disaster. Besides, what reward does one qualify for if one merely rescued one's brother? ",
"3) Why would Abraham consider any reward which he in turn could not bequeathe to his children as not being worthwhile? Why did he repeat \"You have not given me any seed?\" ",
"4) The answer \"Here the word of G-d was to Abraham\" seems rather oblique. Could this not have been stated in a more forthright manner such as \"G-d said to Abraham?\" ",
" 5) Why did G-d delay so long in granting Abraham and Sarah children? ",
"6) What faith did Abraham display in response to G-d’s promise which he had not already displayed previously, so that this should merit special praise at this juncture? Why did he say afterwards \"through what may I know that I will inherit?\" ",
" 7) How does the series of offerings suggested by G-d answer Abraham's request for proof? What does the promise of ripe old age signify at this point? ",
"8) If Sarah recognized that it was G-d who had denied her children, why did she not ask G-d just as Rebeccah would do when she found herself in the same predicament? She had, after all, invited G-d to judge between her and Hagar! ",
"9) Since G-d was going to give Sarah a son in the end, why had it been necessary for Hagar to become Abraham's wife altogether? Why did the angel have to appear to Hagar several times? What did Hagar mean with the words \"Have I even here seen Him, that He sees me?\" (Genesis 16,13). ",
"It is an accepted principle that the donor should advise the recipient of a gift so the latter can express his appreciation (Shabbat 10). The reason G-d desires the prayers of the tzaddikim, the righteous, is so that man can express his gratitude for the favors G-d does for him every single day (Yevamot 30). Even the good which man deserves because of merits he may have accumulated, contains elements of grace, since the idea that a lessee of a field who pays his dues to the owner may ask for a reward is absurd. Where would the lessee be without the owner? This is the meaning of Psalms 62,13, \"When You pay man his deserts, You perform an act of kindness.\" This is why righteous people never demand what they deserve, and always ask only for an act of kindness, a gift. (5) G-d, on the other hand, goes far and beyond any merit man has accumulated when He recompenses him. Had G-d granted Abraham and Sarah children in their youth, they would never have been sure whether this had required G-d’s personal intervention in their fates, or whether it had been a natural occurrence. This is why G-d waited until they had become aware of their need, and would pray for it to be granted. Since Abraham still did not get around to praying, G-d had to provoke him into the comment, \"See You have not given me any seed!\" (2) He wanted Abraham to realize that the riches he had returned to the king of Sodom, or even the glory attained through his military accomplishments, were minor compared to the reward G-d had still in store for him, and that he had no cause to fear that the four kings would return with reinforcements. So G-d evoked the desired response from Abraham when the latter asked Him, \"What can You give me, seeing You have denied me children?\" (1) That is the point at which G-d took Abraham \"outside,\" to acquaint him with the fact that considerations based on horoscopic knowledge were not absolute, that He, G-d could and would alter the fate in store for Abraham, which according to horoscopic constellations seemed to preclude his having natural issue. (3) The oblique introduction \"and here,” shows that G-d had held His response in store all the time, but that He had had to wait for Abraham's complaint (statement of resignation) to be able to reveal to him that he would become a father. (6) Abraham's belief in this hashgachah peratit, G-d’s personal Providence, is what was new, and for this he deserved credit. Having established that Abraham was bothered by his childlessness to the point of speaking out about it, the Torah reports that Sarah too was upset about it, and proceeded to do what was in her power to relieve the problem. (8+9) She did this by offering Hagar as a wife to Abraham also. Although both Abraham and Sarah knew a great deal about the power of G-d, they were still under the impression that it was not within His domain to change the physical nature of barrenness. Therefore, they did not pray, since they had no reason to believe that prayer would be a key to success. Their knowledge of G-d was restricted to their conceiving of Him as the ultimate Cause, but not as the constant guardian of individual fates. Ultimately, this lack of understanding prompted the angel in Genesis 18,14 to say, \"Is anything too wonderful for G-d (to accomplish)?\" ",
"The taunts Sarah suffered at the hands of Hagar prompted her to proclaim eventually, \"May G-d judge between me and you,\" thus invoking G-d to become part of their quarrel, something almost amounting to prayer, which is what G-d had been waiting for. Once this level of prayer had been reached, prayers for the household of Avimelech, the good people in the city of Sodom etc. were merely a natural development. It was G-d’s intention, to demonstrate the difference between a son of Abraham who had been conceived after he had undergone circumcision, and the caliber of a son that was conceived before Abraham had attained that spiritual level. ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 46 states that the line in Kohelet 3,1 \"Everything has its time, there is a season for all things,\" refers to the day Abraham was circumcised. It says in the Torah, \"The very day Abraham was circumcised\" (Genesis 17,26). Abraham could just as easily have been circumcised at the age of 48, when he first recognized His Creator. Or, he could have been circumcised at the age of 70, when G-d made the covenant with him. Again, he could have been circumcised at the age of 85, before Ishmael was conceived. However, in order to show that Isaac had been conceived in purity and was therefore a different person, G-d waited with the commandment until Abraham was 99 years old. (9) When the angel found Hagar the first time, though she was not lost but at a well of water on a well marked route leading to Shur (Genesis 16,7), his question seemed to suggest that she was lost. In fact, he meant to ask her, \"Are you aware that you are in danger of going from a good place to a bad place, that instead of improving your lot you will worsen it?\" Hagar replied, \"I cannot help myself; I am forced to flee my mistress, even though I know that I may be heading towards spiritual disaster.\" A fugitive concerned with what he escapes from, does not pay too much attention to where he may be headed. The angel said to Hagar, \"Instead of contemplating what you are running away from, think of what you may be getting into.\" Therefore, subject yourself to your mistress, since I assure you that the future of the son you carry within you will make it all worthwhile.\" The Torah relates the entire conversation in order to show that any character weakness of Ishmael was not due to the mother's lack of character, but that Hagar had absorbed enough spiritual values in the home of Abraham to qualify to become the mother of his children. In fact, the emphasis of four times \"the angel said to her,\" is to draw our attention to the fact that Hagar had received as many communications from G-d at this point as had Abraham himself. Surely this is to teach us that she was a suitable vehicle for bearing his child. The contents of the four conversations between the angel and Hagar roughly paralleled those between G-d and Abraham up to that date, i.e. the order to remain apart from her homeland and family, the promise of issue and its development into a nation, the difficulties that would be faced by her descendants at some time. All this resulted in Hagar gaining a deeper understanding of the Providence of G-d, realizing that He was a Personal G-d who was talking to her. When she said, \"I had to reach this stage to become aware of someone who sees me,\" she meant that she had had to go through previous stages of cognition of the existence of G-d, only to have His power and interest demonstrated to her in such personalised fashion. Rabbi Samuel bar Nachman in Bereshit Rabbah 45 comments that the episode can be compared to a king who ordered a lady to walk in front of him. The lady hid her face out of fear of the king, but leaned on a maidservant. In this manner the maidservant beheld the face of the king, though her mistress did not. Hagar's experience was analogous. She now realized that she herself had become worthy to behold the face of the king in her own right, though up to that point her vision of him had only been through her association with her mistress. After all these visions which Hagar experienced, it is obvious that any fault in her son's character did not originate in her, but only in the fact that his father had not yet been circumcised when he sired him. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine\"",
"The Talmud Nedarim 31 relates the following. Rabbi Eleazar son of Azaryah said, \"The foreskin is ugly, since evil people are characterized as having it.\" Jeremiah 9,25 says, \"For all the nations are uncircumcised.\" Samuel I 17,36 describes Goliath as being an uncircumcised Philistine. In Samuel II chapter one, we read about \"the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoicing.\" Rabbi Ishmael said, \"Great is circumcision for thirteen covenants were entered into on account of it.\" Rabbi Yossi said, \"The commandment of circumcision is great since it overrides the commandment of the Sabbath.\" Rabbi Nechemyah said that circumcision is great since Moses was not allowed to tarry with performing it for even one hour. Rabbi Meir said that circumcision is great since Abraham was not called \"perfect\" until he had circumcised himself, as is written, \"Walk before Me and become perfect, and I will place My covenant between Myself and you.\" Another thought. Milah is great because but for it G-d would not have created the universe, as we know from Jeremiah 33,25, \"If not for My covenant, neither day nor night, nor the laws of heaven and earth would I have established.\" Rabbi Shimon said, “Milah is great since it is of equal weight to all the other commandments in the Torah as is stated (Exodus 24,8), \"This is the blood of the covenant on account of which G-d entered into a covenant with you concerning all these matters.\" ",
"The task of all philosophers is to explain the purpose underlying our universe. Enquiry into the reason the universe exists, is independent of one's belief in the eternity of matter or one's belief in creation ex nihilo. Whereas it would be foolish to enquire into the reason for each detail in the universe as we observe it, since this would be far beyond our powers of comprehension, enquiry into the overall purpose is not only permissible, but desirable. We who believe in creation ex nihilo certainly are entitled to examine reasons both for the creation and for man's place in the universe. It goes without saying that the world such as it is, is an expression of the will of the Creator; however, we may try to understand what the Creator had in mind when He so willed the universe to come into existence. Assuming that the world was created for the sake of man, and that man was made in order to serve his Creator, this still does not answer the question why the Creator has need of man. Indeed, in the ne-ilah prayer at the conclusion of the Day of Atonement, we state quite clearly that even our righteousness is quite unable to make a contribution to G-d’s completeness, His perfection,\"If he is righteous, what does he give You?\" Nonetheless, once aware of our own inadequacies plus the fact that He could have created man without the six phases of creation leading up to the ultimate creation of man, it still behooves us to try and comprehend G-d’s will in this matter. To understand why G-d took so much trouble before He created man may be put into better focus by the following parable. ",
"A great and wise king, ruling an extensive realm, built a great and beautiful city. Inside it, he built a tower and a palace designed to inspire awe in all those who beheld its beauty. He took his eldest son, arranged for him to marry the daughter of another satellite king, brought the couple to the palace and gave it to them as a present. The couple made the palace their home. They lived there for many years until a tyrant king took the palace away from the great king's son by superior force. The king who had built the palace, restored it to the couple on two separate occasions, using his own army to defeat the tyrant king. By the third time, the tyrant king had become so powerful that he expelled the son and set fire to the palace. The great king became so angry at this, that he swore a sacred oath not to resume his own throne until he had avenged himself on the tyrant king and had restored his son to his rightful position. Having heard this story, who would enquire into the reason the great king had established his kingdom in the first place? The listener's concern would focus on the fate of the prince and on what happened to the palace. Similarly, when the Torah describes the creation of heaven and earth, this is to be understood as the setting within which man operates. There follows the story of man, his successes, his failures. From Noach-Abraham-lsaac, down to Mount Sinai when the firstborn son (Israel) was mated with the Torah (his wife), and was given the palace (the land of Israel) to live in. Twice the son has been dislodged; by the Babylonians following whom G-d restored Israel (His son) to the Holy Land. Subsequently, numerous efforts were made to dislodge Israel and to destroy the palace, until the Romans destroyed the palace and scattered the people to all parts of the globe. After G-d’s anger at His son had subsided, G-d swore an oath that His kingdom would not be complete until He had restored Israel to its homeland (Tanchuma Parshat Ki Tetze). This, and nothing else, is the subject that all prophecies past present and future deal with. From the parable it becomes clear that the universe serves man, has been created for man, but specifically for the people of Israel, who are the subject of almost all prophetic pronouncements ever made. Therefore, the statement that the world has been created for man (Baba Metzia 114) is correct, when one considers that the term \"man\" refers to \"Israel,\" the only nation that on occasion has risen to the level that \"man\" was created for, and for whose sake the creation of the universe became a worthwhile undertaking. ",
"When we now pursue the question of what is G-d’s goal in having man serve Him, seeing that we have established that man's efforts do not contribute to the state of G-d’s perfection, then the answer is that it is the will of G-d, not because of His need for man. Rather it is because of His generosity and kindness in affording man the opportunity to reach a level of wisdom and piety that enables him to appreciate G-d and His glory. Our sages in Avot 6,9 tell us that G-d possesses five acquisitions in this universe. They are: heaven and earth, Torah, Abraham, Israel and the holy temple. Since we have proof from scriptures that G-d owns the entire universe, i.e. \"the earth is filled with Your property” (Psalms 104,24), what can be the meaning of that Mishnah? The answer cannot lie in the specific references to the word kinyan, possession, in the Mishnah. It is significant that the verses from Scripture quoted there to support the statement of the Mishnah, do not mention the term kinyan in connection with \"heaven and earth.\" Even in the case of Israel, although one of the verses quoted mentions the term kinyan, the second verse quoted in support of the same statement does not mention kinyan. The meaning of our sages must be that G-d acquired these five possessions to serve as the instruments by means of which He can bestow His kindness and generosity on man, to let him rise to the lofty position of comprehending His greatness. G-d, as it were, \"needed\" these five possessions to carry out His plan for the ultimate elevation of mankind. When Solomon describes the Torah as having been \"acquired by G-d\" (Proverbs 8,22), this means that G-d has planned to use the Torah as a tool to implement His grand design. When Isaiah describes the function of heaven and earth as \"the footstools and throne of G-d\" respectively, he similarly underlines that they are merely tools in the hands of G-d. Just as acquisitions serve as a means to and end, so these five acquisitions serve as a means to the end which G-d pursued when He created man. Abraham being described as \"blessed\" to the supreme G-d by Malki Tzedek the king of Salem underlines the fact that, being a priest, his function was to teach the people about G-d (Maleachi 2,7; Genesis 14,18-20). We explained that in connection with the pearl that hung around Abraham's throat in chapter 4. Israel, instructed already by its forefathers who spread knowledge of G-d, is to do so in even greater measure. It will act as such tool, as will the holy temple representing the benevolent Presence of the Shechinah on this earth. Nothing could serve more directly as a tool to acquaint people with the power, generosity and splendor of G-d. Contrary to man, who is considered foolish when he fails to employ all his faculties for his own advantage, G-d is concerned with employing these five tools (faculties) to promote the advancement of His creatures rather than Himself. ",
"After ample scriptural evidence that the Jewish people are to be viewed as a gift to the world by means of whom G-d’s Providence and power will be demonstrated, Abraham their patriarch was the human being who had found favor in the eyes of G-d to become that nation's founding father. Though the Torah had described the heroic nature of Noach in his time, and though he alone had been found worthy of saving the entire human race, G-d had not foreseen an active role for Noach, describing him merely as a tzaddik, i.e. better than his contemporaries. We have explained in chapter 16, that the temimut of Noach consisted of the fact that he followed the tradition of his father and grandfather meticulously, but that he lacked the intellectual drive to search for truths beyond the fact that G-d was the Creator etc. ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 29 states that Rabbi Shimon said, \"G-d made three finds in this world. One is Abraham, ‘You have found his heart true before You’ (Nechemyah 9,8). The second one is David, ‘I have found My servant David.’ (Psalms 89,21). The third one is Israel, ‘Like grapes in the desert, I have found Israel’ (Hoseah 9,10).” Rabbi Shimon was questioned by his colleagues who asked, “Does not the Torah also mention Noach as having been a find of G-d, seeing it says \"Noach found favor in the eyes of G-d?\" (Genesis 6,8). Rabbi Shimon answered \"Noach found, G-d did not find.\" Upon examination, you will find that the three finds represented three profound principles. Abraham primarily expounded the existence of G-d. David propounded the truth of the reward and punishment principle, composing many hymns on the subject. Israel propounded the Power of G-d, be it in Egypt or many subsequent historic events involving Israel. When the prophet describes the finding of Israel as like the finding of grapes in the desert, he draws attention to the unexpected nature of the find. The emergence of Israel was almost as if it had already been despaired of ever coming about. When it did finally happen, it was unexpected. Not so David, who emerged as the result of a diligent search for just such a person (Samuel I chapter 13). Abraham, on the other hand, was like the result one obtains after refining an orebody waiting for the precious metal to distil and crystallize in the crucible. The objection of Rabbi Shimon's colleagues was, \"Did not Noach also demonstrate the Power and glory of G-d through the deluge and his being saved?\" The answer was that this had not been G-d’s purpose when He saved Noach; in fact, there had been no one left to prove G-d’s Power to who had not already been aware of it though personal experience. When Israel appeared on the stage of history, however, G-d proclaims that He will demonstrate His Power by punishing Egypt for its treatment of Israel (Exodus chapters 7,9,10 and 14). All these quotes prove that Israel could have been saved by many other means, but that it served as a tool for G-d to demonstrate His Power through them. Since Abraham had become the founding father of this nation, it is only proper that he should be no less vis a vis Israel than Noach had been vis a vis the human race. Since G-d had made a covenant with Noach, promising to keep the human race going forever, G-d had to make a covenant with Abraham, promising to keep Israel going forever, and for Abraham to maintain his distinctive lifestyle and to transmit it to his descendants. G-d has granted man three faculties with which to achieve the level of perfection he is capable of achieving. 1) Willingness to listen to and absorb words of wisdom by those who teach him. 2) A basic intelligence characterized by his ability to communicate his thoughts by speech. 3) The ability to reason speculatively and to arrive at ideas not presented to him by outsiders in a finalized form. Unless man possesses all these three faculties, he cannot attain his purpose. When he does possess them, he is well equipped to advance towards his perfect state. Since man is inclined towards evil from his early youth, \"for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth on\" (Genesis 8,21), and this is an impediment to his achieving his goal, G-d in His great kindness equipped Abraham/Israel with a tool to counteract this impediment by legislating circumcision of the male on the eighth day of his life. Vayikra Rabbah 25 writes, “It says ‘at eight days old.’ Where does he have to be circumcised? If at the ear, he does not hear properly yet; if at the mouth, he does not speak yet; if at the heart, he cannot think yet. So where shall he be circiumcised? Clearly it must be from part of his body. Rabbi Tanchum remarked that since there is no foreskin which is exclusive to the female of the species, the foreskin referred to must be that of the male organ.” When viewed objectively, these questions posed in the Midrash can hardly be taken at face value, since all the other areas mentioned could have been subjected to a surgical procedure. However, since a surgical procedure of the mouth for instance, would also affect the ear's ability to hear and the heart's ability to understand, the effect of such surgery would have been self-defeating. The three organs are needed to be fully operative to help man achieve his goals. Moreover, unless the organ circumcised does itself benefit through that procedure, how can it hope to improve the function of the remaining organs? This is the reason that the Midrash which describes Abraham as a High Priest, could not conceive of the same person becoming a baal mum, physically defective. Such a defect would nullify his priestly status. All of this is true despite the fact that we have scriptural proof for also the other above mentioned organs being described as arel, uncircumcised. Since the male organ is also described as \"the body's summit,\" the point at which all the body's forces coalesce, whoever touches that area is as if he had touched the whole body, the whole person. Whoever reduces its power is as if he had weakened the whole body. We observe that surgery in the face results in a loss of hairgrowth; frequently one's voice is affected also. Similarly, surgery on the male organ leaves its mark on the whole person. When the Talmud (Baba Batra 16) states, \"Woe to the person whose children are female,\" the meaning is that it is shameful to have children who allow the physical to dominate them like women. Surgery on the male organ then inhibits the owner from being too preoccupied with his body, makes it easier for him to concentrate on the development of mind and soul. It is clear then why this mitzvah had to be given to Abraham prior to Isaac having been conceived. ",
"When Bereshit Rabbah 48 tells us that Abraham sits at the entrance of purgatory and prevents any circumcised Jew from being consigned to that detination, the meaning is that between the combined effects of circumcision, (physical) and Torah (spiritual), the fate that is reserved for the uncircumcised could not possibly be in store for circumcised Jews. Rabbi Eleazar in the opening statement quoted refers to the triple effect of speech, mind, and hearing, and that is the reason he quotes the three verses from scripture. The first verse refers to the lack of power of speech, someone who boasts of the wrong attributes (Jeremiah 9,22). The second, Goliath, lacks brains or he would not blaspheme (Samuel I chapter 17). The third are the daughters of the uncircumcised who refuse to listen to the voice of mussar, moral instruction, and who rejoice when they hear that the representative of moral values (Saul) has been slain (Samuel II chapter 1). As a diamond sparkles best when in a suitable setting, so the purest soul unless placed in a superior body cannot perform at optimal ability. This is why a baal mum, a physically blemished person must not perform temple service. Otherwise, his physical blemish might affect his soul, thus preventing him from drawing down from on high all the blessings that the priest ought to channel to his people. Because it is the purpose of the commandments to refine those who perform them, man was not born circumcised, so as not to deny him the effects performance of that mitzvah would have on the development of his personality. ",
"",
"The fact that Rabbi Ishmael draws attention to the thirteen times the word brit, covenant, is mentioned suggests that there are additional fringe benefits accruing to those who experience circumcision. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Why would a ninety-nine year-old who has spent a lifetime being pious, have to be commanded, \"Be perfect, walk before Me?\" What else had Abraham been doing all his life? 2) Why is the fact that \"he fell on his face\" mentioned twice in the story? 3) The statement \"As far as I am concerned, My covenant is with you...you will be a father of many nations etc.,\" after the statement \"I will give My covenant between Me and you\" also the third mention of \"I will maintain My covenant etc.\" seems completely unnecessary! 4) Why do our sages say that anyone calling Abraham by his former name Abram is guilty of a transgression, whereas anyone calling Israel Jacob, is not guilty of a transgression? 5) Why is Sarah referred to by her new name even before we have been informed that she would be given a new name? 6) Why did G-d not seem to take offence when Abraham considered it unlikely for a hundred year-old man to sire a child, whereas when Sarah at ninety considered it unlikely that she would become a mother, G-d responds \"is anything too wonderful for G-d?\" 7) The very idea of one-hundred year-old people begetting seemed quite commonplace in those days, seeing that we find Abraham siring six more children from Keturah over forty years later. 8) Why would Abraham ask for Ishmael to live? Who had endangered his life? 9) Why do we have to be told the details of Ishmael's future successes and his descendants? 10) Why do we need the statement about \"G-d finished speaking to Abraham and rose up?\" ",
"(1) Although Abraham had lived a life of ever increasing dedication to G-d and His presumed laws, all of this had been achieved by him employing his mental faculties and natural good traits. Specific commands enabling Abraham to demonstrate that his actions were motivated by obedience to G-d’s will had been lacking. Until this point, Abraham had assumed that G-d’s laws would not conflict with the human mind, i.e. that when such commands would be issued, they would automatically be comprehensible and make sense to him. At the covenant between the pieces, G-d had first removed Abraham's philosophy from the restrictions imposed upon it while one implicitly accepts the laws of astrology. Now, with the commandment of circumcision, He also removed the element of logic, a factor which determines true and false values. This fact is demonstrated in an even greater degree when Abraham later on will be commanded to sacrifice Isaac. This is the principle of Shaddai, that G-d tells Moses as having sufficed to secure the unquestioning co-operation of Abraham. G-d told Moses that in Abraham's generation He did not need to justify His demands on His chosen, not like Moses who had demanded that G-d justify His treatment of the Jewish people. (2) G-d, so to speak, said, \"Because I am ‘Shaddai,’ do not be too sure of your philosophical convictions, but obey Me unequivocally.\" Seeing that Abraham still had to undergo physical changes in order to become \"perfect,\" Abraham was overcome by a new sense of reverence. He expressed this by twice prostrating himself before the glory of G-d. He felt inadequate to stand upright before G-d until after the sign of the covenant had been performed on him. ",
"(3) Bereshit Rabbah 47 discusses that the two occasions on which Abraham fell down correspond to the two mass circumcisions performed, one by Moses in Egypt prior to the Exodus, the other by Joshua after crossing the river Jordan. Absence of circumcision necessitates nefilah, a fall. Temporary absence of the Shechinah, Divine Presence, follows if absence of circumcision becomes a conscious shortcoming. This is why we have the re-introduction \"as for Me, here My covenant is with you.\" This resumes the former relationship which had been interrupted by the awareness that one was still blemished and hence unworthy. The reference is to the covenant between the pieces which is still in effect. Because of that covenant, you will become the founder of many nations. Since you will now become transformed into a still more worthy and superior human being, your name will reflect the change in your status. The difference between the descendants through the son yet to be born and the ones from the son already alive (Ishmael), may have been hinted at in the promise that the latter would sire princes and a great nation, whereas Isaac would produce \"kings of nations.\" This new covenant that \"I will maintain,\" refers to an agreement embracing also the descendants of Abraham, not only Abraham himself, as in the previous covenant. The promise that G-d will remain accepted as G-d by Abraham's descendants throughout the generations, is the covenant of the enduring nature of the spiritual salvation granted to Abraham's descendants. As such it is the implementation of Abraham's own spiritual perfection. This would remain accompanied by material blessings until such time as the very multitude of descendants would prove the value of G-d’s promise and covenant by their very existence. Just as the granting of a title without the accompaniment of material reward becomes significant if both the recipient of the title and the one bestowing it are well known personages, so some generations, hence, that condition would apply to Jacob's descendants. 4) Meanwhile, however, the material blessings bestowed by G-d on Abraham and his descendants serve to illustrate the existence of the covenant between G-d and them. The new name of Abraham, embodying far greater blessings than the ones promised while he had still been uncircumcised, make the previous name pale by comparison, and reference to Abraham by his previous name is therefore tantamount to denial of his role in history. (3) The repeated references \"you shall observe My covenant,\" stresses that Abraham's advanced age notwithstanding, the performance of circumcision on Abraham's body will enable Isaac to be born of hallowed seed. The statement following \"this is My covenant\" explains the exact nature of circumcision for now and all subsequent generations of Jewish males. The fact that the retention of the foreskin is a blemish, and therefore a voluntary blemish, has to be emphasized also; therefore, in Genesis 17,14, the negative commandment concerning Jews who refuse to remove this blemish on their bodies. The words \"You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin,\" emphasize the fact that retaining it is something degrading. The early age at which this has to be performed emphasizes that all the senses of a person are enhanced and liable to come closer to perfection the sooner the foreskin is removed. The \"eternal covenant\" which is promised as a result of observance of the commandment of circumcision is an assurance of the intimate relationship between G-d and Israel, hinted at in the words of our sages who speak of thirteen covenants as included in the act of circumcision. The negative commandment, and the exclusion from the Jewish people of those who transgress it, underlines the advantages to be gained by observing this mitzvah. The choice of the expression me-amme-ha, from its people (plural), refers to the loss of both worlds for those who wilfully neglect performance of this commandment. ",
"(5) After all these instructions, Abraham is advised that all the blessings in store for him will be shared by his wife in equal measure; therefore, her name also is to be changed. Just as a prince's wife becomes a queen when her husband becomes king, so Abraham's change of status brought in its wake a similar change of status for his wife. Interestingly, changes of status of the wife do not automatically confer a higher status on the husband, since we do not find that the prophetess Hulda's husband became a prophet (Isaiah chapter 8). ",
"(8) According to some, the promise that Abraham and Sarah would sire a child, made Abraham wonder if perchance Ishmael was destined to die, since otherwise his existence would have enabled G-d to fulfil His promise to Abraham to become the ancestor of a multitude of nations in a far more natural way. This consideration prompted Abraham to pray for Ishmael's continued existence. (6) When Abraham questioned G-d’s promise, his concern was legitimate, whereas when Sarah did so she had no such legitimate concern. Therefore, G-d criticized Sarah without criticizing Abraham. However, it is more likely that Abraham's remark was just as unseemly as Sarah's later, just as was that of Moses when he questioned G-d’s ability to feed all of Israel meat in the desert (Numbers 11,21). Since however, it was a day of glad tidings, a day on which Abraham had cheerfully accepted the commandment to circumcise himself, G-d did not want to spoil the occasion by criticizing him. Similarly, on the day the Torah was given, the leaders of Israel were not punished, although their conduct was deserving of punishment (Exodus 24, see Vayikra Rabbah 20). When G-d did criticize Sarah eventually for her similar lack of belief, He did so via Abraham. \"Why does Sarah laugh?\" (Genesis 18,13). He could have criticized Sarah without addressing Abraham on the subject. However, G-d wanted Abraham to get the message that he, too, had erred in a similar fashion on the same subject. (9) As it was, G-d’s answer was only meant to emphasize that Sarah deserved to bear a son. Ishmael's future was not in doubt at all. Abraham was to call the new son Isaac, as a reminder that he had considered his conception and birth as too amusing a flight of fancy to entertain seriously. G-d would let Ishmael become great, but the new covenant under discussion would be maintained with Isaac. (10) The statement that \"G-d had finished speaking with Abraham\" proves, that this whole vision had been of a superior nature compared to previous ones. This vision was more like the ones Abraham would enjoy from this point on, though in this instance we still find Abraham falling down due to the overwhelming impact of G-d’s Presence. The promptness with which Abraham carried out G-d’s commandment reflects the newly won awareness that he was as yet incomplete as a human being. Rabbi Berechya points out in Bereshit Rabbah 39 that in promising Isaac, G-d did not say, \"I will place you,\" but rather \"I will make you.\" This indicates a direct action on G-d’s part, similar to such actions by G-d during the creation of man. The meaning is \"When I make a new creature out of you, be fruitful and multiply!\" When G-d had made a covenant with Noach, the sign of which was the rainbow, He limited the power of the forces of water and assured the continued existence of man. He promised that the future of a nation based on Abraham and Isaac would be assured just as the future of mankind had been assured through the covenant with Noach. No matter what sins will call for retribution, the nation as a whole will not perish. This implies that Israel's character even amid persecutions due to its infidelity vis a vis the Almighty, will exhibit traits that will qualitfy it for eventual redemption. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"And the LORD appeared unto him",
"Bereshit Rabbah 48 quotes Isaiah 33,15-17, \"He who walks righteously,\" meaning Abraham, seeing that the Torah writes that he will command his sons and household after him to act righteously (Genesis 18,19). \"He speaks uprightly;\" this too refers to Abraham, since we read in Song of Songs 1, \"The upright ones love you.\" \"He who disdains profit gained through oppression.\" This too refers to Abraham, since the Torah testifies in Genesis 14,23, that Abraham refused to take as much as a shoelace from the booty of war. \"He shakes off his hands in order not to hold bribes in them.\" This also is a reference to Abraham who said to G-d, \"I raise my hand high to G-d who dwells on high\"(Genesis 14,22). Rabbi Yehudah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, \"G-d lifted him beyond the horizon, since He said to Abraham, ‘Please look at the skies.’ The term habet for ‘look’ always means to look down rather than up. Abraham was asked to look down at the sky since he had been transported beyond it.” \"His fortress is his stronghold,\" refers to the protective clouds G-d spread over Israel in the desert. \"His bread was supplied, his waters were dependable,\" refers to the angels whom Abraham had hosted. \"The king in his beauty your eyes behold,\" refers to Abraham's vision of G-d after his circumcision. So far Isaiah. ",
"Philosophers have confirmed what we are taught in Nedarim 38 that the gift of prophecy is bestowed only on those who combine wisdom, physical prowess, and material wealth. It is not a gift that one obtains accidentally; if someone lies down at night as a fool, he certainly will not awake as prophet. ",
"The view of some that the term prophet used to be applied to whoever happened to be the person of outstanding caliber in his generation, and that the definition is therefore not subject to objective criteria, is incorrect. Those who believe that prophecy is merely confirmation by G-d of wisdom acquired previously are also mistaken. The idea that a blind man-- through frequent usage-- may know his surroundings well, and regaining his eyesight will merely find confirmation of the truth of what he had surmised, is also not correct. If the onset of prophecy would not bestow additional information on the prophet, it would not be worth having. Whoever thinks along those lines belongs to the people who wish to limit the freedom of the Creator to change preordained events. Such people are therefore not of our faith! Anyone one who thinks in these terms cannot believe any part of the Torah which involves the supernatural or the miraculous. Solomon, in Proverbs 30,7-8, asks to be spared such fallacious logic as is expressed in the four generations of the verses following (10-14). ",
"",
"",
"Despite many opinions to the contrary, the events related in our verse did indeed take place. Abraham did not see all these events only in his mind's eye. True, there are occasions in the Bible when visions described very graphically-- such as Ezekiel's trip to Jerusalem (Ezekiel Chapter 8)-- were in fact merely visions. Those instances do not prove that all supernatural encounters of outstanding men were merely visions of the mind and spirit. The wealth of detail reported about these encounters, such as reports of sitting, standing, running, etc. bear out the claim that these events took place physically. There are numerous reasons for the visions and encounters Abraham was granted which are listed at the beginning of our Parshah: ",
"1) To reward Abraham for prompt fulfilment of the commandment to circumcise himself. If it is G-d’s practice to appear to those who build altars for Him, surely those who undergo circumcision deserve so even more (The reference is to the revelation of the Divine Presence as the result of erecting the tabernacle in the desert, Exodus 40,34 to end). ",
" 2) Abraham had been concerned that the flow of visitors would stop once people found out that he had circumcised himself. He needed to be reassured on that score. ",
"3) The incidence with the angels is to illustrate Abraham's behavior with any stranger, his loving kindness, personal involvement, ensuring that his wife in the kitchen responded equally generously. Had this whole vision only been a dream, none of these qualities of Abraham could have been proven. The reason the Torah lists only one such example of Abraham's conduct is, that once it has been recorded, it will impress itself on the reader like the engraving of stone by the king's sword will leave a permanent impression. ",
"4) G-d used this opportunity to indirectly rebuke Abraham for having doubted that Sarah would bear a child for him, a promise made at the time Abraham had been commanded to circumcise himself. For these reasons, all these things happened to Abraham rather than to Sarah. ",
"An additional purpose of these encounters is to acquaint Abraham with the scope of Personal Divine intervention, and how it extends both to groups of people and to individuals. It also taught Abraham about the effectiveness of prayer, when it is offered to save someone from evil decrees. The fact that G-d takes the trouble to re-examine what He had already known about the Sodomites, is the subject of prophetic revelation to Abraham, and triggers the dialogue about the manner in which the innocent should be spared. We know already from Genesis 6,5 that G-d is aware of the state of man, whether good or sinful. \"G-d saw that man's wickedness upon the earth had become widespread, and that thoughts of evil preoccupied man all day long.\" Abraham stood facing G-d while fully awake, when he made his plea on behalf of the good people of Sodom. The reference to \"was still standing\" is to the continuity of prophetic insights granted to him at the opening of our Parshah. He \"approached\" refers perhaps to a spot from which Sodom was visible, or to a location Abraham considered suitable for prayer. For this reason, we read at the end of the dialogue that \"Abraham returned to his place.\" The fact that on the following morning Abraham returned to the spot from which he had offered his prayer (Genesis 19,27-28), and looked down on what had been Sodom, Gomorrah etc., indicates the place at which he had prayed the previous evening. ",
"The whole life story of Abraham reveals that he advanced step by step both morally and spiritually. At the outset he had been a \"prophet\" among his contemporaries, as defined by them, by virtue of the purity of his lifestyle. This is what the Midrash meant when it referred to Abraham \"walking in righteousness.\" Then he reached the level of being a prophet in the community he lived in, by reason of his superior intelligence (compare Midrash dover meysharim). As such, he instructed the people in wisdom directly, not only by means of his lifestyle. After he had achieved the level of rejecting material wealth acquired through oppression or even gifts from oppressors and had vowed that only G-d Himself should be the One he felt indebted to, he qualified for the first level of prophecy as defined by our standards, and G-d appeared to him in a nocturnal vision (machazeh). As a result of this, Abraham overcame the limitations his belief in astrology had imposed on him. He was raised to a level beyond the \"shell of the sky\" (see our opening Midrash). For the first time he became privy to visions beyond the realm of the natural. From then on, due to a change in name and his circumcision, he kept advancing so that his conduct secured for his descendants the protection of the heavenly cloud cover, the travelling well, and the supply of bread from the celestial regions. All of this was achieved with the help of the mitzvah of circumcision. The ultimate purpose of Abraham's progress had been described by the Midrash in the words \"he was allowed to glimpse the king in his majesty.\" ",
"",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Why did the site where G-d appeared to Abraham have to be mentioned? It seems of no consequence. Also, what was the subject matter of that vision? Even our sages seem to view it as merely bikkur cholim, a visit to the sick! ",
"2) Why did Abraham start running towards the three men after they had already reached him, i.e. ve-hinney? ",
"3) Why is Abraham's long winded invitation to the men reported in full? Why did Abraham first address one of the three men and subsequently the others? Why did he do so much personally, seeing he had hundreds of servants? Why did he interfere in the way Sarah managed her kitchen by issuing instructions to her as to the kind of flour she should use? ",
"4) Why does the Torah describe Abraham as standing \"over\" the angels under the tree while the latter ate? ",
"",
" 5) What was the point of the whole mission? Abraham had been told before the circumcision that he would have a son by Sarah. Surely he must have told Sarah about this vision! Why would he have concealed such a promise from her? ",
"6) Since the angel enquired about Sarah's whereabouts, why did he turn around and tell Abraham \"I shall return to you,\" instead of to \"both of you\" or \"to Sarah?\" ",
"7) Why did G-d seem to mind Sarah's laughter, although He had not seemed to mind Abraham's laughter, though it is described in similar terms? If Sarah had acted improperly, why did the angels question Abraham about it? They should have questioned Sarah directly. The angel in affirming, should have said, \"I shall return to her next year etc.\" Why would Sarah lie out of fear; on the contrary, she should have admitted the truth because of her fear! ",
"8) Why did G-d have to give a reason for revealing the impending fate of Sodom to Abraham? He had not given any explanations to Noach before He brought on the deluge. Since G-d had remained in uninterrupted conversation with Abraham, why did the Torah report only \"G-d said,” instead of \"G-d said to Abraham?\" Where did Abraham \"approach\" from suddenly? He had been standing praying to G-d immediately before this! ",
"9) What is the real reason for G-d saying, \"I will still go down and have a look?\" ",
"10) Why does the Torah have to mention that Abraham \"was still standing before G-d?\" Where else would he be? He surely had not taken French leave. ",
"Abraham's prayer indicates that his original concern had only been the simultaneous destruction of good and wicked people. Later on, he seemed concerned about anyone being killed, i.e. \"the whole town.\" What brought about this change? ",
"11) Why was the number fifty chosen as the starting point, i.e. as the number of righteous people that would suffice to save the whole city for their sake? The usual explanation which divides the number fifty equally amongst the five towns involved does not stand up, since the singular is used when speaking about the cities, i.e. ha-ir by both Abraham and G-d. Why did Abraham reduce the number by five the first time, whereas later he lowers the target number always by ten at a time? ",
" 12) Why did Abraham apologize each time after he had lowered the initial number to forty-five? ",
"13) Since the result of Abraham's pleas was zero and therefore would not show Abraham as a successful interlocutor, why was all this reported in so much detail? ",
"(1) Since fulfilment of the commandment to circumcise himself and all the male members of his household simultaneously could put his whole household in jeopardy in the event of a hostile attack, Abraham might have decided to temporarily move close to his allies Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, in order to discourage any attack. Therefore, it is reported where G-d spoke to Abraham. Even though Abraham was only in temporary quarters, he qualified for the vision. That Abraham had greatly risen in stature is clear from the fact that he did not have to move from his seat when G-d spoke to him, as he had on previous occasions. Our sages say that G-d came to visit Abraham on the third day of his being sick due to the effects of the circumcision (Baba Metzia 86). Since Abraham and Sarah hosted what looked like very ordinary individuals in such a generous fashion, it was fitting that the reward for such hospitality should be announced by one of the guests himself. (2) This is the reason why all the details of this act of hospitality are worth recording. Abraham could have skipped having dinner guests this once, in view of his state of health; he could have withdrawn into his tent long before the travellers had a chance to reach him. Instead, he ran forward, imploring them, as if they were doing him a favor by dining with him, instead of his doing them a favor by inviting them. (3) He begged one of them to interrupt his journey, so as not to be guilty of detaining all three of them. However, the hospitality offer was extended to all three of them, so that they would not misinterpret his first statement as \"Please do not pass by.\" The dot on the word \"my lord\", indicates that what these men were going to say to Abraham later, would be a message from the Shechinah, the Divine Presence. Abraham offered little, to prove that he did not mean to delay his guests unduly, knowing that had they really been interested in food, they would not have chosen to take a route that bypassed population centers with ample food supplies. However, he emphasized the quality of the bread which, since it refreshes the heart as proven in many other places in the Bible, restores one's spirits also. By rushing about personally and attending to all the details, he caused his guests a minimum of delay. The angels followed the talmudic dictum, \"When in Rome, do as the Romans do\" (Bereshit Rabbah 48). When Moses went to heaven, he did not eat or drink; when the angels came to earth, they ate and drank. The fact that their eating is especially mentioned teaches that one is to conform with local customs. Their purpose in eating, of course, was to derive the spiritual nourishment contained in the food. Just as abstinence from certain types of food is prescribed because of the negative influence of such food on our spiritual equipment, so consumption of the right kind of food at the right time and in the correct amount is of benefit to our spiritual equipment (compare Chapter 32). Further details about this can be found in Numbers Chapter 28, in connection with the daily offerings. (4) The fact that Abraham is described as standing in a position enabling him to wait on the travelers and to observe them in detail, is to show that they really did eat the food served to them. (7) After all these efforts on Abraham's part, the angels enquire after Sarah. They want Abraham present for the message, so that from the criticism they will voice about Sarah's attitude, Abraham will realize that he himself should have been subject to similar criticism from G-d at the time G-d had made the promise to him, although at that time G-d had not voiced such criticism. When the prophet Elisha asked the woman what he could do for her (Kings II Chapter 4), he had been inspired by the tidings Abraham and Sarah had received in our Parshah in return for their hospitality. He assumed that the woman and her husband would qualify for a similar reward, just as later proved to be the case. (5) We must assume that Abraham had indeed not told Sarah about her becoming a mother, in order for G-d to tell her directly. Perhaps he felt that if she heard such a promise only second hand, she would be even more incredulous than he himself had been when G-d had told him directly. G-d had reserved this moment to criticize Abraham, and that is the reason he was asked, \"Why did Sarah laugh?\" Her denial may be understood as follows. When one's conduct is questioned by someone superior to oneself, it is seemly to appear bashful and to ask rhetorically and deprecatingly \"Could I really have been guilty of such a misdemeanor?\" Sarah's \"denial\" then and the \"fear\" mentioned is the reverence Sarah felt for the words of the angels. Or, as Maimonides says, the fact that she had no idea that these men were angels made her discount their words. Only after she realized that these men had been able to read her mind did she become afraid. She denied only having laughed at the fact that the prediction had been made in the name of G-d. When the angels departed, Abraham accompanied them, unaware that he was in fact impeding their task in Sodom. The angels on their part refrained from discussing their mission until G-d said, \"Shall I hide from Abraham etc.\" Thereupon they began to discuss it, no longer concerned if Abraham was listening. (8) Two preconditions are needed to allow one to be present when the judge makes his judgment. 1) An intimate relationship with the accused, such as being father, mother, master, servant etc. 2) An individual who is truly searching for justice. In the first case, the father is allowed to be present since he could assist in the defense of his son; in the second case, such a third party would learn moral lessons from the judgments imposed and instil those lessons in his own environment. In Abraham's case, he qualified on both counts. He was destined to become the father of a multitude of nations, and thus had a paternal interest in other human beings; also as a truth-seeking individual, he would instruct his household and environment in ways to apply the judgments he had observed in the making. G-d decided to view Abraham in this role, because having made all the promises to Abraham, his involvement in the decision-making process about the punishment for the people of Sodom etc., would ensure further that all G-d’s promises concerning Abraham's seed would be fulfilled. The expression yadativ, for I know him, instead of hikartiv, is not accidental. The latter expression is used when one knows someone intellectually, understands how his mind works; the former refers to knowing how someone's heart, someone senses work. It is clear that when G-d speaks, He always uses yadati, since He has such intimate knowledge of all of us. The difference between G-d’s \"knowledge” and our \"knowledge\" is that man arrives at an understanding of a whole only after having comprehended the parts and then combining knowledge of the parts to obtain an overview of things. The reverse applies to G-d. He has a knowledge of man's whole personality. Only on special occasions does He examine the constituent parts of man. In this instance, G-d was well aware of the character and actions of the Sodomites. (9) This knowledge was reinforced by the complaints of the victims of the Sodomites. G-d still had to check if these complaints constituted exceptions to the general behavior of the Sodomites within their city. If so, i.e. \"as its outcry that has come to Me,\" if indeed all the Sodomites participated in that kind of behavior, that would mark their end, their destruction. If not, other kinds of retribution might be in order. The test then would be the way the Sodomites would treat the angels that had come to Lot (strangers to the townsfolk). Contrary to the view held by some, that nissayon, test, is designed to make the meritorious person emerge victoriously from such test, and that those unable to prove themselves, G-d does not bother to test at all. I do not believe that that is the function of tests. When G-d gave the Israelites the man, heavenly bread, the Torah writes, \"In order to test them if they will walk in My teachings or not\" (Exodus 16,4). We observe in that instance that some people failed the test. Similarly, the case of the false prophet, the appearance of which is described by the Torah as a test of the people's true faith (Deut. 13,4). We know that numerous people failed such tests when confronted by false prophets at various times in our history. Here, too, the arrival of these strangers at Lot's house is made the final test of the population's attitude. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. (10) When Abraham overheard the conversation between the angels, and they had departed from him, he decided to remain standing before G-d to approach Him on behalf of the people who appeared doomed. Since the angels had obviously had permission to discuss their mission in Abraham's presence, Abraham felt obliged to engage G-d in conversation about it. His opening remarks were as follows, \"Since You obviously will not destroy the righteous together with the wicked, if by chance there are fifty righteous people, will You really rather destroy than save the place on account of the fifty righteous people within it?\" The few innocents left to themselves, especially if minors, would ultimately suffer the same fate as the adults that had been killed, and thus G-d’s justice would appear as not having distinguished between the guilty and the innocent (the example of Nineveh being saved on account of the innocent children who needed parents to look after them is discussed in Chapter 13 in a slightly different context). Abraham referred to two possibilities: a) chalilah, unthinkable, to kill both the guilty and the innocent simultaneously; b) It would not appear just even if the innocent would die merely because their environment had been destroyed and they had been left to fend for themselves in impossible circumstances. (11) Abraham chose the number fifty as an opening gambit, because on the one hand, forced migration by such a group of people is a major hardship, whereas a larger number of people form a self-contained unit and can easily form a new community. Fifty are not yet enough to survive comfortably on their own strength and resources. (12) When Abraham saw that G-d concurred readily, he surmised that there simply were not fifty good people in Sodom; therefore, he lowered the target figure gradually. The justification \"since I have started to speak already,\" signifies that he is aware he has already overstepped the bounds of propriety, that he is asking lifnim mishurat hadin, something beyond the demands of justice. As the numbers get smaller, and removal of so few people from the city is less of an upheaval, Abraham each time justifies his continued pleading on behalf of the innocent. Once it had become clear that there was only Lot that could be saved, saving him rather than saving the city became the easier solution. The mention of G-d departing from Abraham indicates that, for the moment, Abraham's prophetic powers had ceased to be operational. False prophets, however, never experience the difference between the time G-d is in contact with them and when they have been tuned out. ",
"The contrast of the hospitality of an Abraham with that of Lot is demonstrated by the manner of the invitation. Abraham rushes to welcome strangers; Lot, though he sees distinguished strangers like angels, waits until the last possible moment to invite them in. It is evening, the men have nowhere to go; they look distinguished, a time when it is natural to offer hospitality. Abraham, on the other hand, had been busy talking to G-d, was in physical discomfort. It certainly was not the time of day when one expected visitors to drop in. Despite all this, and the nondescript appearance of the strangers, Abraham invites them in a manner that makes them feel they are honoring him by accepting the invitation. Lot invites the strangers in a manner that makes them keenly aware that they are a burden for him. He asks them to detour, to be gone first thing in the morning; he does not even mention food. Only after the men make it clear that they have no other place to go but to spend the night in the street, does Lot become persuasive in a belated effort to make up for the ungracious manner in which he had tendered the invitation originally. (13) Again, G-d had engineered things in a way that would afford Him an opportunity not to let Abraham's prayer go completely unanswered. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"The men of the city\"",
"The Mishnah in Avot 5,13 refers to four categories of people. One category lives according to the slogan, \"What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours.\" This is described as an average type of attitude. Some say that this is the attitude of Sodom. The second category of people live according to the slogan, \"You are welcome to what is mine, and I expect to be welcome to what is yours.\" This is the attitude of ignorant people. The third category lives by the principle \"What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine also.\" This is a wicked attitude. The fourth category lives by the principle, \"What is mine is at your disposal, and what is yours is yours.\" This is a pious attitude. ",
"Money can be used in four different ways. There are those who will employ their own funds, but will not use other people's money even as a loan. There are those who will employ other people's funds both willingly and reluctantly, if forced by circumstances. When such people use other people's money willingly, this can involve gifts, exchanges by means of barter, and other services. The first method is called shurat hadin, strict law. This is so, since such person will automatically impose on others restraints he has imposed upon himself. For this reason, he will not make his money available to others for whatever purpose. Such people fit the description of the first category mentioned in our Mishnah. The first method (in the Mishnah), being by far the most common, is called that of the am ha-aretz, the common people, the average person. The third method, involving complete disregard for other people's property, is labelled \"wicked,\" and the last method stemming from a generous heart is described as the way of the pious, the devout. All commentators agree that the reason the first method is called \"average\" is because it represents a point midway between the two extremes possible. On the one hand, by not fulfilling the commandment to be helpful to our fellow man, people practicing this approach to life deny themselves the uplifting experience that fulfilment of such mitzvot entails. On the other hand, the fact that they scrupulously avoid infringing on other people's property, is insurance against their ever becoming guilty of theft, robbery, a whole register of transgressions. The minority opinion, viewing the lifestyle of the first category as like that of the Sodomites, bases itself on the verse in Ezekiel 16,49, \"This then was the sin of Sodom your sister; surfeit of bread, undisturbed peace were hers and her daughters, but the hand of the poor and the needy they did not support.\" According to this, one may be puzzled at the fate of Sodom, seeing that they acted in a manner described as \"average.\" Rabbi Nathan, who is normally the author of sayings in a Mishnah which contains such a statement as \"there are some who say,\" tells us that \"the golden mean,\" normally the path in life to be chosen, in this instance led to the destruction of those who were content to follow it. Aristotle in Ethics Book four, classifies as \"the liberal man,\" i.e. as the average type, the one who shares his wealth with others who deserve it at the proper time and at the proper place and for the proper purpose. Such a person would also not be averse to accept help under similar conditions. This is no doubt acceptable behavior, and makes the problem of understanding the author of our Mishnah, who describes the \"What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours\" principle as an average attitude, even harder to understand. Furthermore, even though on rare occasions the desire not to touch other people's money may be motivated by the fear of violating someone else's property rights, in the vast majority of cases, the reason is simply that one does not want to be called upon to reciprocate on future occasions. Although in some cases the desire not to become a burden to others may be the reason one does not want to share, in the majority of cases it is simply an inability to give, to share with others, to extend help. How then can two combinations of negative attitudes be called \"average?\" It also seems hard to understand why a person who freely gives but refuses to receive help from others when the need arises, can be described as pious. Anyone who pursues such a course persistently will become insolvent and, at one stage or another, a burden on the community. The person who practices the principle of \"he who hates gifts will live\" (Proverbs 15,27), raises the suspicion that his attitude is really anti social, negative. After all, how can there be “giving\" unless there are people willing to \"receive?\" In fact, however, this method is not one of refusing to accept anything, rather the pious person is generous both in heart and in spirit. He does not view his property as really his to dispose of. On the other hand, he does not view what is generally called \"his generosity\" as a basis entitling him to use someone else's property in return or exchange. In that respect he differs greatly from the am ha-aretz, the ignorant, whose willingness to share is based only on the realization that he will be likely to benefit from such behavior sooner or later in at least equal measure. To understand the meaning of \"average\" or \"median,\" we must not assume that it is necessarily a halfway mark between two extremes. Let us assume that a very greedy individual aims to amass ten million dollars. On the other extreme of the scale, let us assume that a modest individual is content with amassing one hundred dollars. The \"average\" or \"median\" then is not an amount approximating five million dollars, which would be equivalent to the \"golden mean.” Everyone realizes that such a definition of the \"golden rule\" would be quite erroneous. From this it follows that in matters of giving and taking, the median can only mean \"not to take\" (i.e. accept) while at the same time \"not to to give.\" This is the halfway mark between greedy possessiveness and generous largesse. Still, this does not yet explain why on the frequent occasions when Israel seemed guilty of far greater sins than the ones quoted from Ezekiel above (as compared to those of Sodom), it was not punished, despite constant warnings by its prophets. Lamentations 4,6 makes it clear that Israel's sins were far greater than Sodom's. Moreover, why did Ezekiel ignore the behavior of the Sodomites described in our Parshah, surely a far more serious crime than merely refusing to share one's wealth? It is also puzzling that the Israelites who went to avenge the crime of Givah and made war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judges Chapter 19), suffered repeated setbacks at the hands of the people of Benjamin. As a matter of fact, the Benjaminites had perpetrated their crime on a fellow Jewess, not on aliens like the men of Sodom in our Parshah. Also, whereas the men of Sodom never had a chance to carry out their evil designs, the men of Givah had executed their heinous deed. Clearly then, Israel had sinned more grievously than the men of Sodom. Concerning the opinions offered that the other tribes retaliated against Benjamin illegally, there are only two possibilities. If indeed the tribes acted illegally, why did the tribe of Benjamin not emerge victorious? If, on the other hand, the attack by the tribes was legal, why did Benjamin succeed in inflicting such tremendous losses on the other tribes on two separate occasions? We may find the answer in Aristotele's Ethics Chapter 7 Section 10. We know from Abraham's prayer that G-d does not punish the innocent together with the guilty. His ways are always perfect. The difference then lies in the distinction between someone called rasha, evil, and someone called chote, someone committing an isolated sin. The latter merely lacks self-control, his body having become somewhat corrupt, whereas his mind and spirit have not been perverted. The rasha, however, is corrupt both in body and in mind. From this there follow two other distinctions. 1) The rasha is not subject to having remorse, since his corrupt mentality does not allow him to be reminded of the error of his ways. The chote, however, once his passions have cooled, will be reminded by his mind of the wrong he has done and is afforded an opportunity to repent and mend his ways. 2) The chote, because of his unimpaired mind is curable, whereas the rasha due to his perverted mind, is already incurable, since there is nothing left to start the process of the cure, the healing of mind and body. The problem of Sodom was that theirs was not just a crime of unbridled passion which ignored existing laws that should have restrained the people. These people had legislated the kind of laws which would prevent those laws from acting as a restraint against their evil inclinations. They legislated penalties against those who would breach the principle of \"What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours.\" If someone were to step out of line and extend help to outsiders, he would be in defiance of the local laws and face death, even if his crime had only involved offering benefits to a third party at no cost or inconvenience to the donor. This is what really put them at the wrong end of the two extremes of greedy possessiveness and kind hearted generosity (Baba Batra 12). Our Torah has bent over backwards to include a host of legislation regulating our conduct in matters of extending help to others, both of a financial or physical nature. Tzedakah, loving kindness, interest-free loans, redeeming the property of an impoverished relative that has been sold to satisfy debts, are all part of this legislation. Even assisting an enemy when loading or unloading his donkey or taking into one's yard livestock lost by some neighbor at one's own expense to safeguard it on behalf of the absentee owner, are all examples of how not to emulate the behavior practiced by the Sodomites. Sodomite legislation prohibiting hospitality was designed to frighten off would be visitors and to ensure undisturbed life for its inhabitants. ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 50 discusses that the decision of the Sodomites to rob and rape every stranger was designed to establish a reputation that would keep strangers away. Their main concern was only their unwillingness to share their wealth. Their chet, criminal act, as distinct from their wickedness ra, namely the raping of strangers, was only incidental, not basic to their character. We can now understand Ezekiel who pronounced that the sin of Sodom was that they would not help the poor or destitute. When Jeremiah proclaims, \"The iniquity of my people was greater than the chet of Sodom,” he refers to that failing of the Sodomites that was merely incidental, namely their immorality (Lamentations 4,6). Ezekiel does not bother to mention that sin, since it was not endemic to their character, could have been atoned for. The Talmud Sanhedrin 109 lists numerous examples of the Sodomites' misdeeds, all of which reflect the perverted monetary judgments that were the vogue there. On the evening when the angels arrived, the Sodomites merely behaved in a time honored fashion, not aware that the measure of their guilt had reached a state which called for Divine retribution. The men of Givah however, were quite different. Their laws were perfectly good, they only failed occasionally to live up to the standards of these laws and gave vent to their passions. For that reason, they did not deserve a rain of sulphur and brimstone. The leaders of the city should have punished the perpetrators of the crime. Since they neither interfered nor brought the rapists to justice for publicly committed crimes of the most vulgar kind, it became the duty of the other tribes to discipline the tribe of Benjamin (At this point the author criticizes leaders of his own generation for failing to deal with prostitutes and on occasion even harboring them and providing them with food and shelter, under the pretext that their plying their trade diminished the incidence of adultery). Any relatively insignificant sin, when committed in public and condoned by silent tolerance, becomes a big sin and threatens to assume the dimension of the sins committed by the people of Sodom who had hallowed their practices by enshrining them in law. Concerning the tribes who attacked Benjamin and initially suffered heavy defeats, our sages in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 38 tell us that these same tribes had been guilty of allowing the idolatrous image of Michah to flourish, without troubling themselves over G-d’s honor which was constantly being insulted thereby. They therefore had to pay the price when they showed that they considered the honor of the slain concubine and that of her husband as more deserving to be upheld than the honor of G-d. Altogether, before attacking their brother tribe, they should have undertaken to purge themselves of any wrongdoing, in order to be in a position to carry out a punitive expedition with a minimum of casualties. Our sages in Sotah 40 tell us that even when proceeding against pagans the verse, \"He who is afraid must withdraw from battle” (Deut 20,8), refers to someone who feels he is guilty of some sin. If one goes to war against fellow Jews, one must most certainly purify oneself from sin before engaging in such an undertaking. Also, it would have been proper to obtain permission from G-d first to wage such a campaign. Even after their initial failure, when the tribes asked G-d if they should continue the war with \"my brother Benjamin\" (Judges 20,23), their philosophical concern was with the permissibility of engaging in civil war, not with their worthiness to conduct a punitive campaign without being free from guilt themselves. Only after having suffered the second defeat, having lost another eighteen thousand dead and a session of fasting, contrition sacrifice, and prayer, did the tribes receive the assurance of success of their efforts on the third attempt. Having seen how the attitude of \"What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours\" can reduce people to the level which borders on \"What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine also,\" i.e. an attitude which once brought about the destruction of mankind at the time of the deluge, it is obvious that this must not be an attitude to be adopted. In his dealings with Avimelech, Abraham demonstrated that it is perfectly all right to share one's possessions, and when the need arises to accept help from one's fellow human being. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Since it was the purpose of the Sodomites to teach strangers not to come to Sodom, how could Lot's offer of his two daughters' virtue be expected to satisfy the townspeople? What is the meaning of Lot's answer, \"This is why the men have come into my house?\" Was this not exactly what the Sodomites objected to? How could Lot's argument help to assuage their outrage? 2) Why would the Sodomites get angry at Lot trying to \"judge\" them, when in fact, far from judging them, he was pleading with them? 3) What was all the urgency the angels subjected Lot to, and what was the reason of his hesitancy? Why could the angels not lead Lot gently and slowly, instead of jeopardizing part of their mission by their haste and their allowing Tzoar to survive? 4) What is the meaning of the line, \"G-d remembered Abraham and sent away Lot?\" Did the angels not say to Lot, \"I forgive you also for this?\" 5) What possessed Lot's daughters to commit incest with their father? The argument that their father was the only male left in the world was surely spurious, since they knew that the whole town of Tzoar had been spared! 6) Why did Abraham move away to a different part of the country where he was practically unknown now that he knew Sarah was about to conceive? 7) Why did G-d not appear to Avimelech before the latter appropriated Sarah, and save Sarah all the anguish? 8) When Avimelech justified his conduct to G-d, he referred only to statements made to him by Abraham and Sarah, not to the fact that intimacy with Sarah had not even taken place. Why? The Torah's comment that he had not touched Sarah also seems out of place at that juncture! 9) After Avimelech had been told by G-d that he would die, why did G-d tell him to give Sarah back to Abraham? Would that not be the natural thing for him to do anyways? 10) Why did Abraham stress in his reply to Avimelech that he had thought \"there is no fear of the Lord in Palestine?\" He had not made such a comment to Pharaoh at the time! Who required Abraham to reveal that Sarah was indeed the daughter of a brother, and therefore a sister of his? 11) Why did G-d announce that Abraham would pray for Avimelech? The report in the following paragraph already mentions Abraham's prayer and its having been successful. 12) Sarah's question, \"Who has told Abraham that Sarah would nurse children?\" is very strange! Since she had herself heard the prophecy of her becoming the mother of a son before she had become pregnant, they had both known about this for some time. 13) Why did Sarah try to banish Ishmael, seeing that she was aware that Abraham loved him? Why did G-d side with her? 14) Why did the angel attribute the miracle of saving Hagar and her son to Ishmael, when the latter had not even raised his voice in prayer? How could the Torah state \"G-d listened to the voice of the lad?\" 15) When Abraham and Avimelech concluded a treaty, the seven sheep are first described as testimony to Abraham having dug the well, yet in the same sentence they are given as the reason the site was named \"Beer Sheva.\" How is this to be understood? ",
"(1) When Lot faced the people of Sodom, he had shut the door so that the angels would not overhear the negotiations and the indecencies that the Sodomites planned to perpetrate on them. Their objective was to reinforce their image as being anti-strangers, so that this kind of news would make others shun their city. Lot's argument was that the townspeople's quarrel was only with him, not with them, since it had been he who had breached the town's regulations. His guests could not have known about these regulations. He offered his daughters as expiation for his own disloyal conduct, not as substitute for the strangers. The reference \"that is why the men came to my house for shelter\" means they did not know that the laws of Sodom forbade visitors; they are not guilty therefore. (2) In their reply gesh hal-ah, \"out of our way,\" the townspeople refused to accept this argument, and threatened to deal more harshly with Lot than with the strangers, since he, Lot, had dared put his own interpretation on the rights and wrongs of the case. Lot had classified the strangers as not subject to the town's jurisdiction. Therein lay his sin, in the eyes of the townspeople. The old man in Givah however, had not used his daughter and the concubine to atone for his mistakes as Lot did, thereby acknowledging the town's laws as proper and just. He had done so simply to relieve the pressure and the threat of death to himself and his guest. (3) When the angels saw that the whole town was of one mind, and that even Lot's sons-in-law considered the idea of heavenly retribution as absurd-- believing that no such retribution was called for-- they realized that G-d’s criteria, \"if I see that what is happening is as bad as what I have heard, that is the end,\" had been met. Destruction was called for. The pressure on Lot was designed to make him pray for the survival of Tzoar, since there were an insufficient number of good people there who could have insured the town's survival. The arrival of Lot in Tzoar would augment that meager number of good people there. All this was to show Abraham that G-d had not only met the conditions Abraham's prayer had called for, but that G-d had done His best to engineer things in such a way that the right conditions would be created. (4) Because He remembered Abraham and his prayer, He sent Lot away in such a manner. For a similar reason, on the morrow, when Abraham would return to that spot, Sodom would be gone. (5) Lot's daughters thought that Tzoar had been spared only for the sake of their family, and that upon their departure, it too would be destroyed, as in fact they thought that the whole earth would be laid waste like at the time of the deluge. The entire story is told to put misdeeds perpetrated against Israel by nations who owed their entire existence to the prayer of Israel's first ancestor Abraham into perspective. At the same time, it also explains how two \"pearls\" in Jewish history, Ruth and Naamah, respectively, came out of those two nations and made their magnificent contribution to Jewish history by becoming ancestors of the ultimate redeemer, the Messiah, so that David as well as Rechavam both had blood from those nations flowing in their veins. (6) Concerning Abraham's migration to the South after this catastrophe, the sages in the Midrash offer a variety of insights. Some say that Abraham was afraid that the neighborhood would henceforth be shunned by travellers, thus limiting his opportunities to proselytize. Others believe that Abraham wanted to put some physical distance between himself and the bastards born to Lot by his daughters. I believe the reason is to be found in Abraham's new destiny, acquired simultaneously with his name having been changed. To become the founder of a variety of nations requires physical exposure to different societies. He had to move to areas where he was not yet well known, in order to be able to continue his life's work. Abraham's again asking Sarah to claim that she was his sister, despite his experiences in Egypt, proves that she had indeed regained a youthful appearance as a result of the angel's blessing. Her desirability once again posed a problem to both herself and Abraham, as proved by the prompt action of Avimelech seizing her. (7) If G-d did not immediately restrain Avimelech, it may have been in order to help Abraham's economic progress while in the land of the Philistines, and to demonstrate that a G-d-fearing man could enjoy great material prosperity. G-d had to communicate with Avimelech for two reasons: 1) His own personal standard of morality was superior to that of Pharaoh. 2) In the years that had elapsed since his stay in Egypt, Abraham had attained a much higher spiritual level, and as a result he qualified for more prompt Divine assistance. While in Egypt, Abraham had not yet been able to appreciate the personal intervention in his affairs that G-d would demonstrate; now however, he was well aware of that. For that reason, Pharaoh was alerted to his wrongdoing only through the plagues inflicted upon him and his household. In the case of Avimelech, however, G-d communicated with Avimelech by spelling out his complaint to him in a dream. (8) Since beney Noach, i.e. ordinary non Jews, are automatically guilty of the death penalty if they transgress those laws that apply to them-- of which adultery is one-- the Torah has to mention the fact that an adulterous relationship had not yet taken place. Therefore, G-d could confirm to Avimelech that indeed he was not yet guilty of death. Avimelech countered that since whatever he had been about to do had been the result of being misled by both Abraham and Sarah, such an act should not have been considered a crime even if he had committed it, and that therefore no question of guilt could arise. G-d replied to Avimelech that it was true that vis a vis his countrymen he had not sinned, but that He, G-d, knew that vis a vis Him a sin had been committed, since it had only been due to G-d’s interference, i.e. making him impotent, that he had not yet committed adultery. (9) He should not think, however, that since he had begun in innocence, he could now keep the lady and consider himself free from guilt as a result of Abraham and Sarah having tricked him. He would have to restore Sarah to Abraham, who, being a prophet, was aware that Sarah had not been touched due to G-d’s intervention. Abraham would pray for the king, allowing for the fact that he had not intended to commit adultery. Avimelech was warned not to become an intentional sinner at this stage. (10) Avimelech now wanted to know from Abraham why he had felt the need to go to such lengths of deception to protect himself. Abraham replied that since the fear of G-d would not act as a restraining influence on Avimelech's subjects, he had had to look for other deterrents. Being afraid that Avimelech would say now-- just as Pharaoh had done-- \"You could at least have told me that she is your wife,\" Abraham could not very well tell him that such a revelation might not have been deterrent enough. Therefore, he mentioned that Sarah was indeed kind of a sister to him. Since it had been legal at that time to marry blood relations of such a category as Abraham and Sarah, i.e. a niece, a lie had in fact never been uttered. Avimelech had simply failed to ascertain whether there was an additional relationship that existed between Abraham and Sarah beyond their being brother and sister. Hence he had only himself to blame for the complications that had arisen. Abraham explained that it had long been his practice to describe Sarah as his sister, ever since they had started to wander and had not yet reached the site of a permanent settlement. The expression hittu, is used on numerous ocasions in the same sense as hiflig, i.e. to cause to depart (compare Genesis 21,14;37,15; Psalms 107,4). In presenting gifts to Abraham, Avimelech behaved in an appropriate manner. Inasmuch as he had contravened the principle of \"What is yours is yours\" by appropriating Sarah without asking Abraham whether she also happened to be his wife, he atoned now by using the \"What is mine is yours\" principle. (11) Also, of course, he was interested in Abraham praying for his impotence to be cured. To Sarah, he remarked reprovingly that the thousand pieces of silver he had given to Abraham as her dowry had served as an eye cover to let everyone think that she had been free to marry, and that though G-d knew well enough that she had not had marital relations, no one else would know about this. He told her to mend her ways and not again practice this kind of deception. The Torah merely reports that Sarah accepted the rebuke gracefully, and indicated her being prepared to avoid creating such a misleading impression in the future. Another meaning could be that Avimelech meant \"although I have paid a thousand pieces of silver to your brother, you should not have accepted this and caused suspicion about your status amongst all the people around you.\" Abraham's prayer, recorded at this juncture, was the first prayer that Abraham offered that had not been triggered or prompted by someone else, but was offered completely of his own initiative. It seems, according to Bereshit Rabbah 52 that \"something that had kept him tied up, had now been released.\" This refers to another step forward in Abraham's development toward the complete and perfect personality. By announcing beforehand that Abraham would pray, the Torah further underlined this landmark in Abraham's development. \"G-d remembered Sarah as He had said,\" by making her pregnant. \"He did for Sarah as He had said,\" He timed the event as promised. Sarah's exclamation means, \"Let anyone who wants to mock do so, I am willing to bear it, even if G-d has made people mock me; the important thing is \"He made a laughter, a joy for me.\" (12) The words mi millel, who would have foretold, seem an added expression of thanksgiving, such as \"how wonderful he who foretold Abraham that Sarah would nurse children,” for I have indeed born a son in his old age. There are numerous examples of the use of the word mi in this sense. Compare Isaiah 49,21 \"Who has born me these?\" (masculine usage of the verb yalad, gave birth), or Isaiah 63,1 \"Who is this that comes from Edom\"? (13) The display of excessive joy at the meal celebrating the weaning of Isaac, may have caused Ishmael to become concerned lest he lose part of his heritage, and he may have mocked Sarah and her having given birth in her old age. This may have angered Sarah sufficiently to ask that both Hagar and Ishmael be expelled from the household. Associating Ishmael's behavior with his mother was meant to convey Sarah's opinion that Ishmael had acted as he did only because he was Hagar's son, not because Abraham was his father. Abraham was naturally disturbed for his son's sake, but G-d intervened by telling him to give Sarah carte blanche in the matter. ",
"(14) Shmot Rabbah 1 tells us that Abraham was inferior to Sarah in prophetic insights. This may have been because she realized the fact that her son was Abraham's major issue. She was not beclouded in her judgment by the love for another son, begotten while he had not yet been circumcised. Abraham scrupulously carried out Sarah's instructions re the expulsion, and did not provide Hagar and Ishmael with money or luxuries beyond their immediate needs for survival. The \"voice\" of the lad that G-d heard needs to be understood in the same sense as \"The voice of your brother's blood calls to Me\" (Genesis 4,10), meaning G-d became aware of the great pain and discomfort suffered by Ishmael. That is why the angel said to Hagar, \"Why are you afraid and raise your voice?\" The Lord has already heard the suffering of the lad, even though the latter did not raise his voice. \"As he is there\", i.e. the situation he finds himself in is enough to warrant My intervention. The angel's appearance and instructions confirm the worthiness of Hagar that we have discussed in previous chapters when she had encounters with angels. The whole problem of her seed had been that Ishmael had been conceived while his father had still been uncircumcised. (15) Avimelech and his commander-in-chief had convinced themselves that G-d was with Abraham through three outstanding events. 1) His victory over Kedorlomer; 2) The safe return of Sarah to him after two royal kidnappings, including his own; 3) The birth of Isaac at an unbelievably old age of the parents, the other having barren up to then. For these reasons they wanted to conclude a peace treaty with Abraham. Abraham was willing and capable of swearing an oath. He said \"I can certainly swear,\" since my honesty is not in doubt. Avimelech's honesty, however, had been cast in doubt by the actions of his servants who had been hounding Abraham's well diggers. There was reason to suspect that Avimelech had connived with, or at least condoned, the actions of his servants. Abraham wanted to study Avimelech's reaction to his complaints before entering into a treaty with someone who might be untruthful, making Abraham guilty of loving the enemies of G-d. Avimelech accepted the rebuke and replied in a proper manner, namely that justice would be done in all three areas: 1) The perpetrator of the crime would be removed from his post and be disciplined. 2) The wrong itself would be corrected. 3) Someone would be appointed to supervise that the judgment would be executed. Avimelech personally excused himself in three ways: 1) He did not know who the guilty party was, therefore he had not been able to punish that person. 2) Since Abraham had not even lodged a complaint until just then, he, Avimelech, could not possibly have redressed the wrong already. 3) He himself had only heard about the complaint just then, hence he could not have appointed a royal commission of enquiry already. When Abraham realized from the explanations offered that Avimelech had no intention of disputing the ownership of the wells, he took the sheep to proceed with the oath which had been suggested, and made a covenant. The seven extra sheep are roughly the equivalent of the field on which the well was situated, and would serve as testimony that Abraham had dug the well, not merely found it and used it. Since in dealing with royalty, he did not want to insult the king by appearing to place too much emphasis on what was after all a minor transaction, he gave Avimelech generous gifts before setting aside the seven sheep. Therefore, Avimelech asked, \"What are the seven sheep that you put aside?\" Abraham then answered him that those were to be the symbolic evidence that he had dug the well, and that the only thing that belonged to Avimelech was the ground the well was situated on. It was common practice at that time that anyone who found water on publicly owned land could claim the water as belonging to him. The name Beer Sheva first and foremost recalls the transaction connected with the well. However, beyond that, the site should be remembered as the spot at which the fateful covenant between Abraham and Avimelech had been concluded. The name therefore had a dual significance. By planting an orchard and staying there at least another thirty-eight years, Abraham introduced G-dliness into the land of the Philistines. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"AFTER THESE EVENTS, G-D TESTED\" ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 55, in explaining the verse, \"You have given a banner to those that fear You, to raise themselves to its heights before the might of wisdom\" (Psalms 60,6), states, \"Mast after mast, in order to raise them high in the world, like the mast of a ship. All of this for what purpose? In order to provide visible justification for G-d’s quality of din, justice. Should someone say to you that G-d acts arbitrarily, enriching whomsoever He wishes to enrich, crowning whomsoever He wishes to appoint king, you can answer him, ‘Do what Abraham did!’ When that someone will say, ‘What did he do?’ You will say, ‘When he was ninety-nine years old, he circumcised himself, and after all the pain etc. G-d said to him to take his son and to sacrifice him.’\" ",
"Physical life, by definition, presupposes the ability to feel, to react to, and perceive physical phenomen a. Life is on the wane in proportion to the inabצצility of the living person to continue to feel, react to, or perceive said phenomena outside his body. Spiritual life, similarly, presupposes an awareness and responsiveness to spiritual stimuli and spiritual phenomena. Should a wise man cease to react to such spiritual stimuli, he simply ceases to be a wise man. Since G-d is the personification of wisdom, the most alive Being, He must therefore be the most receptive to and most aware of spiritual stimuli and thought waves in the universe. In other words, G-d’s awareness of what goes on in the spiritual part of human beings (their minds) is beyond doubt, since it is part of the very definition of \"G-d.\" There are a variety of opinions concerning the exact nature of this knowledge G-d possesses about how and what every person thinks and feels. There are those who argue that if G-d were to be aware of all the constantly changing nuances of feelings humans undergo, such knowledge would detract from the grandeur of G-d, making Him party to all the trivia which are ultimately of no consequence. These people are described by David in the words, \"They say the Lord does not see, and the G-d of Jacob does not comprehend\" (Psalms 94,7). They believe that G-d is aware only of the ultimate result of everything, not of the progress towards that outcome. They thereby limit G-d’s absolute knowledge of Himself, seeing that He is not subject to change and development. Another view holds that G-d is the ultimate Cause of all existence and must therefore have an awareness of all creatures, but that this awareness diminishes in direct ratio to its proximity to the Creator. An example would be this. G-d created the land mass. In instructing earth to produce vegetation trees etc, this was a step further removed from the ultimate Cause, therefore G-d’s awareness of vegetation, trees etc. is of a lower order. Others argue that G-d cannot acquire comprehension of creatures which undergo a change in their development due to the passage of time. Man's insights, quality of perception, etc. develop with the passage of time. G-d being eternal, not subject to change due to the passage of time, therefore is not supposed to be privy to the changes occurring within different personalities. ",
"Reviewing the various philosophic concepts about G-d’s omniscience, they all share one common denominator. They endeavor to establish the rationale for human behaviour contrary to the will of G-d.",
"Job in chapter 10 uses the argument that the fact that he has been afflicted is proof that G-d is unaware of his righteousness, and similarly unaware of the wickedness of others who deserve punishment. By asking G-d if He needs to see like humans, i.e. develop an image gradually by absorbing a number of partial images, Job indicates that he had thought that G-d’s knowledge was of a different caliber, namely an awareness of the total picture, not just the parts which combine to make up that total. ",
"At any rate, we believe in the complete and detailed awareness by G-d of man's deeds, thoughts, hopes etc. Granted that we are unable to fully comprehend the nature of this knowledge of G-d, its existence has been spelled out in the Torah and holy writ so many times that it cannot be doubted. The very attempt to try and understand His mind by using our limited powers of perception is not only foolish, but shows a lack of faith on our part. Abraham was taught this lesson both at his circumcision and on the occasion G-d asked him to offer his son Isaac as a total offering. Both commandments completely defy our way of reasoning. They prove, therefore, that we cannot arrogate to ourselves the right to presume what His will would be. All attempts to define the nature of His knowledge, therefore, are childish. Suppose man decided to sacrifice his dearest possession out of love for G-d, what good is it to G-d, what need does He have for it? Besides, if that person has that much love for G-d, why not present G-d with his own life, surely his dearest possession?! The fact that G-d has gone out of His way to tell us about His awareness of our individual psyches as well as our deeds is to avoid His appearing deficient in any way in our eyes. If G-d says to Abraham after the akeydah, \"Now I know that you are G-d-fearing,\" this shows that Abraham's motives are well known to G-d. If Sarah is accused of harboring certain unworthy thoughts (Genesis 18,13), this clearly shows G-d’s awareness of all that goes on in any individual's mind. The question arises why we need to know of this process of G-d’s knowledge altogether, seeing we do not understand it? There are two answers. Someone ignorant of the state of world affairs is considered both an ignoramus and a fool. G-d says, \"How can information be withheld from Me?\" The idea is \"How can I be considered ignorant?\" Ignorance would result in reduced stature. Man, too, by being given certain information is raised in stature, though he may not comprehend how this information is arrived at. We all know that spectacles are apt to improve one's failing vision. Glasses, though an aid to seeing, do not have independent vision themselves. How can any person who needs spectacles in order to improve his vision judge the quality of the eyesight of someone who does not require spectacles? Our study of optics teaches that the image is recorded by our eye upside down, distorted. Only with the aid of our mind are we able to compensate for that distortion. Surely there is a lesson here for us. We must not compare the quality of our \"seeing\" to His \"seeing\". In Psalm 94,9, David already mocks those who belittle G-d’s knowledge of the minutia and trivia, by exclaiming ,\"Shall the Creator of the eye be unable to see?\" When our sages tell us that the Torah uses the idiom of human language to convey concepts that are beyond our imagination, it is this kind of thing they have in mind. This is why Maimonides explains in Moreh 1 Section 52, that all anthropomorphic expressions relating to G-d are to be understood as describing G-d’s activities, not His essential attributes. At the end of the akeydah, when G-d is reported as having gained a new insight, i.e.\"Now I know that you are G-d-fearing,\" this creates an erroneous impression. What is meant is that G-d was as aware of the changed state of mind and degree of piety of Abraham after the event as He had been aware of Abraham's previous state of mind and piety. ",
"Purpose of subjecting man to tests and trials: ",
"Trials may have three purposes: 1) The examiner wants to establish beyond doubt the truth of a theory, such as the medicinal qualities of a herb he has discovered. For that truth to be established, the herb must be given to a patient. This is what Gideon did in the threshing ground (see Judges Chapter 6). 2) The person undergoing the test wants to prove to himself that he is capable of passing. In this latter event, the examiner may have been perfectly aware of the examinee's abilities, but he is willing to allow the demonstration of the student's prowess. An action is called shalem, whole, when it has been proven in practice. Though G-d knew very well that Abraham would pass this test, it was important to demonstrate to Abraham that he had indeed displayed obedience at a time it counted most, when it conflicted with all he had learned about G-d’s ways in the past. This category of test is the most common we encounter in the Bible. 3) The examiner wishes to prove to outsiders the quality of the person who passes the test. At first glance, the akeydah seems to fit only the second category of the tests listed. Even a large audience watching Abraham preparing to slaughter Isaac and withdrawing the knife at the last moment, would not credit Abraham with having passed a tremendous test; even were a prophet to inform that audience of the reason Abraham had behaved as he did, their reaction might be that the whole spectacle had been a deliberately staged stunt. Obviously, the akeydah could not fit Category One, since He is omniscient and did not require proof for Himself. It would appear then that this test only served the purpose of convincing Abraham of his own ability to display obedience. The even greater achievement would be to divorce Abraham from any formerly held philosophical convictions. Only by commanding an act that represented the height of foolishness when viewed from a philosopher's point of view could the total loyalty of Abraham to his G-d be demonstrated beyond question. The inner turmoil that might have been caused in a person of lesser stature might have been replaced in Abraham's case by the thought that he might have done something to forfeit the promise of future generations based on Isaac, and that only by sacrificing Isaac could he, Abraham, atone for whatever wrong he had committed. Abraham's act then could no longer be construed as self-seeking or motivated by the hope to increase the merit of his descendants, since by his very act he destroyed those descendants. Imagine a king who had promised one of his noblemen that the king's daughter would marry the nobleman's son, and that said nobleman's son would succeed the king to the throne. Sometime later, the king orders both the nobleman and his son into battle against an enemy country. When the nobleman went into battle, knowing that if the king's son is killed in battle all the king's promises would prove worthless, he had demonstrated an act of supreme loyalty. The nobleman's conduct proved to all and sundry his unselfishness and sincere loyalty to the king. Abraham demonstrated at the akeydah that he placed spiritual values and accomplishments beyond any material successes. Were this not so, even the threat of suffering physical punishment at the hands of G-d would not suffice to make Abraham kill his son with his own hands. But even concerning Category One of the purpose of tests listed above, this too may apply. Having designed a test that resulted in the refinement of Abraham's faith, loyalty and obedience, G-d does create a new knowledge, and therefore a new person, one that had not existed before. So the \"now I know\" that the Torah reports G-d as having said refers to a person not previously at the height of his spiritual powers. Concerning the third category, that of convincing outsiders of the mettle of the person undergoing the test, this too might apply. Ever since the act of the akeydah has been recorded in the Torah, it is as if it had been witnessed by millions. Interestingly, the story of the binding of Isaac has never been challenged as a historical fact. Just as we are told that the miracle Moses performed at the sea of reeds instilled faith in Moses forever, there are other events which leave their indelible mark. The akeydah fulfilled also the third purpose that may sometimes be the objective in arranging trials and tests. ",
"",
"When we want to test the ultimate skill of an engineer, we are not so much concerned with his diploma, his knowledge of theory, but we apply stress tests to the structure built by him. We evaluate the product in light of the performance which has been promised according to the design. These criteria are not applicable when assessing moral virtues. Hence we must examine the intent rather than the content when viewing commission of a deed. The Talmud in Kiddushin 40 tells us that good intentions are equated with good deeds, because once having embarked on a morally correct path, even if the intent has never been consummated, if non consummation was due to circumstances beyond the control of the person in question, such a person is assured of his reward. The temple was called \"the house of David\" (Kings I Chapter 8) though David never built it. We recite Psalm 30 \"A hymn on the occasion of the dedication of David's house.\" This relates to an event which took place eight years after David had died. On the other hand, evil acts are punishable even when not due to evil intent, since such acts are effective and result in evil. The statement (Yoma 29) that criminal thoughts are worse than criminal acts, applies only when such criminal thoughts have been translated into criminal acts. Immoral intent by itself is not punishable. The only exception to this rule is the contemplation of idol worship. The reason is that a major part of idol worship is an attitude of mind. In view of this, we can appreciate that no useful purpose would have been served in Abraham completing the act of sacrifice, seeing that the moral intention had been clearly demonstrated at the moment the angel was instructed to stay Abraham's hand. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Why was Isaac called Abraham's \"only\" son, when in fact he was an \"only\" son only of Sarah? 2) Why did G-d not spell out which mountain Abraham was to go to? How can our sages in Taanit 4 claim that the akeydah was not a commandment to Abraham? 3) Why are all the preparatory steps Abraham took reported? 4) How could G-d say, \"Now I know,\" when in fact Abraham had been stopped short of carrying out the original request? 5) Why is the request to sacrifice Isaac reported as coming from G-d directly, whereas the order to desist is reported as having been conveyed merely by an angel? 6) Why did the angel have to call Abraham twice? 7) Why is all the credit for this supreme act of obedience given to Abraham, whereas we do not hear a word of praise for Isaac? 8) Why do our sages say that the ram Abraham found and sacrificed, had been created after sunset on the sixth day of creation (Avot chapter 5)? What does Rabbi Eleazar mean when he says that the donkey on which Abraham rode on that occasion, Moses later rode on his mission to Egypt, and the Messiah will ride on in the future? ",
"(2) G-d employed \"soft\" language in requesting Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, since Abraham, who had asked for the life of the sinners in Sodom could be expected to ask G-d to spare the life of his son. On the other hand, G-d did not repeat Abraham's name when addressing him, usually a sign of endearment, so that the request would be perceived as being quite definitive in spite of it having been preceded by the word \"please.\" (1) The reason Isaac is described as an \"only\" son is that one cannot love several people with exactly the same intensity. The reference to Isaac as Abraham's only son simply means \"the one who enjoys your special love.\" You love him because he has something that his brother does not have. ",
"(2) The vagueness in describing the site of the sacrifice, as well as the distance to be traversed till arriving at that site, were all meant to give Abraham a chance to reflect on what he was about to do. Speedy decisions are liable to produce second thoughts; a resolve of this nature which has had three days to mature, however, is not likely to be revoked at the last moment. The problem that G-d appears to have reversed His original intention, and that this is not compatible with His own statement \"G-d is not like man in that he deceives, when He says something, will He not carry it out?\" (Numbers 23,19), can be resolved. The letter lamed in Hebrew has several functions. It can mean tachat, instead of, such as in Genesis 11,3, when the invention of kiln dried bricks is described. There it means \"the bricks served them instead of stones.\" Similarly, the line \"offer him there le-olah,” is to be understood \"if you elevate him (ha-alehu), he will henceforth serve the same purpose as an olah, total offering. In this way, Abraham's understanding of what he had been commanded differed from the true meaning of the command. There had in fact never been a cancellation of the command. ",
"A different solution may be the very vagueness of the command. Not only was the exact location of the place where the sacrifice was to be offered not spelled out at the outset, but we do not find G-d becoming more specific as time went on. No particular mountain is ever mentioned. Therefore, by the failure to specify the mountain, the command had never actually been completed. Abraham had simply jumped the gun in his eagerness to obey what he thought he had been commanded. The words \"He arrived at the place\" or \"He saw the place from a distance\" simply refer to the general area, not the exact site, since none had been specified. (3) Psychology teaches that decisions to perform extremely unpleasant tasks are often split-second decisions, motivated by the desire to get the inevitable over with as soon as possible. When a man prepares carefully for the fulfilment of a mitzvah, Divine commandment, saddling his donkey, splitting kindling, getting his servants to accompany him, such actions cannot be ascribed to a sudden impulse, but are the result of mature deliberation. To make sure that we understand this, the Torah lists all the steps that Abraham took in preparing to carry out the commandment. Inasmuch as chamor, a donkey is symbolic of chomer, matter, and inasmuch as vayachavosh, he saddled, is an expression of kevishah, conquest, subjugation, Abraham's saddling and riding the donkey is symbolic of the victory of mind over matter. Abraham had conquered material considerations that could have impeded him in carrying out the mitzvah. He had mobilized all his spiritual resources. Man, being composed of both the physical and the spiritual, achieves his perfection when he succeeds to put the former in the service of the latter. (8) After the completion of the physical world at the end of six days, the period immediately preceding the Sabbath, the spiritual seal that was the crowning glory of creation, a number of things emerged that indicated that the physical and spiritual were capable of being fused together. What was accomplished by Abraham when he took Isaac to be slaughtered was paralleled by Moses when he took his family from the safety of the house of Yitro and proceeded towards Egypt where persecution awaited him and his family. ",
"In the case of Bileam riding the she-ass, the matter is reversed. A female animal is normally mounted by the male. He who rides the she-ass is saying then that the physical is in charge. Since the physical can be either active or passive, the picture drawn of Bileam is merely that of the interaction of active and passive physical forces. When Abraham is reported as taking the two lads with him, we can picture him thinking that these two strangers were allowed to live, whereas his own son was to die. By including this statement in the narrative, the Torah testifies that this consideration too did not sway Abraham or arouse his parental compassion causing him to question G-d’s command. He split the firewood, so that in the event none could be found at the site of the sacrifice, he would not use that non availability as an excuse to put off carrying out the mitzvah. The answer Abraham gave to Isaac's question \"Where is the lamb for the offering?\" is a classic. On the one hand, Abraham is able to suppress his compassion, on the other hand, he manages to avoid frightening his son at that moment. All the subsequent steps described, such as building of the altar, arranging the wood pile, binding Isaac, are part of the picture of unfaltering devotion of Abraham to the performance of the mitzvah at hand. Had it not been for the angel who had to call him twice, he would not have stayed his hand. This is why G-d could proclaim, \"I know (already) that you are G-d fearing,\" since the objective of the trial had not been the slaughter of Isaac but the degree of obedience Abraham could demonstrate. (4) The meaning of \"now I know\" is not the acquisition of a new dimension of knowledge that G-d had not possessed before, but that He was able to demonstrate knowledge of a deed without the deed actually having been performed. ",
"(5) At the very moment this occurred, the angel could proclaim \"Now!\" The order to desist was conveyed through an angel, since during waking hours only Moses has been granted direct communication from G-d without his having previously prepared for such communication (Moreh Nevuchim Section 2 Chapter 45). (7) Isaac, having accompanied his father, completely unaware of the nature of the journey until he asked about the whereabouts of the lamb, had very little time to consider the implications of what was involved; therefore, the major merit is attributed to Abraham, whose deed was after all something he would have to live with for the rest of his life. Isaac's contribution was limited to suffering the binding on the altar without raising an objection. When looking around, Abraham saw a ram. Later on he realized that this ram had been caught by its horns in the thicket. He realized then that this was not accidental, but that that ram must have been intended as the sacrifice instead of Isaac. His original words to Isaac that \"G-d will look for the lamb my son,\" had come back to him. This prompted him to name the spot \"G-d will see.\" (The tone sign zakef katan followed by the zakef gadol supports our interpretation of the word achar). (8) Of the things reportedly created after sunset on the sixth day, but before the onset of the Sabbath (Avot 5,6), the ram sacrificed by Abraham at that time was one. Anything created after the creation of man was created only after all the forces of nature had been assigned their respective tasks and had thus been placed at man's disposal. Beings created later signify then that they belong to the physical world only marginally, that they are as yet incomplete, waiting to be assigned their eventual function, seeing that the Sabbath arrived before they could be assigned their proper place in the scheme of things. Having been created before the Sabbath makes these beings part of the yesh me-ayin process, part of the Creation ex nihilo; on the other hand, their ultimate function is left to a free willed decision by whoever will put such beings to use. ",
"When Abraham sacrificed the ram, he was not yet certain if that act had been accepted as a substitute for Isaac and would be considered equivalent to his having actually sacrificed Isaac physically. He called the place \"the mountain where it is proper to demonstrate obedience (fear) of the Lord,\" to indicate what he had come to accomplish there. Beyond this, he expressed the hope that also in the future this site would be looked up to as the place where his act of obedience had been duly noted. The second call of the angel confirmed to him that his intention had in fact been considered by G-d as if he had already carried out the deed, and this would benefit the whole of mankind through his descendants, and that the world at large would know all about it. Something else created after sunset on the sixth day of Creation, and being activated when a suitable opportunity presented itself, is the \"mouth of the earth\" which swallowed Korach and his followers. Moses suggested that if a gehinam had not yet been created, this would be a good time to create it and to consign Korach and his followers to it. The use of the earth's \"mouth\" then had not yet been decreed, and awaited an opportunity for man to trigger it (compare Bamidbar Rabbah 18). The same consideration can be applied to the other examples listed in that Mishnah in Avot. Abraham returned to Beer Sheva to lead a life of spreading blessings for his fellow men (he planted the Eshel). As pointed out in the opening Midrash, the ultimate justification for subjecting the righteous to trials lies in the fact that such tzaddikim emerge spiritually elevated. When such righteous people also enjoy material success, the midat hadin, G-d’s attribute of justice, can point out that such material wealth had not been bestowed arbitrarily, but had been earned the hard way by its recipients. In Michah 6,8, we are taught that the trial of the akeydah in its applied sense had become the claim G-d has on all of us. The moral imperative which the call to the akeydah represented, and which Abraham had demonstrated to be within man's capacity to respond to, has since become the call addressed to each one of Abraham's descendants, even if no first born is needed as an actual sacrifice on the altar. The commandment to blow the shofar, the ram's horn, on New Year's day, is to remind the midat hadin, attribute of justice, of the successful trial of Abraham, and of the fact that the hachna-ah, submissive feelings, evoked in us at the sound of the shofar, are the symbolic akeydah of each one of us. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"ABRAHAM HAD BECOME OLD\" ",
"In Niddah 16, Rabbi Chaninah ben Papa explained that the angel in charge of pregnancy is called \"Laylah,\" night, since we read in Job 3,3, \"And laylah said a man has been conceived.\" The angel takes a drop of semen, presents it in front of the Almighty and asks in His Presence, \"What shall become of this drop? A wise man or a fool, a rich man or a poor man, a strong one or a physically weak one?\" He does not ask whether the person will be righteous or wicked. This is in accordance with the dictum taught by Rabbi Chaninah that \"All is in the hands of heaven except fear of heaven,\" since the Torah has said, \"Now O Israel, what does the Lord ask of you except to fear Him etc.\" (Deut. 10,12-13). ",
"Since we have proof from all parts of the Bible that it is the nature of man to follow \"woman\" whose ways are crooked and perverted, how can man escape that trap? He has after all two \"women\" to contend with. One is the \"woman\" that accompanies him from birth, concerning which the Torah has stated \"male and female He created them\" (Genesis 1,27), as well as \"this one shall be called ‘woman’\" (Genesis 2,23). See the parable which explains all this a little further on. The second woman is the one he acquires from the outside, the world at large, through marriage. These two kinds of matings have been discussed briefly in Chapter eight. Since the male is inclined to seek physical comforts and enjoyment, he is apt to follow the demands made upon him by these two women, to do their bidding, since they are the ones who provide him with these comforts. Since the first woman already turned out to be a trap for man, the situation becomes aggravated when he freely chooses another woman, i.e. a wife. A look at the life story of Samson illustrates how someone who starts out pure, a heroic figure at that, can become ensnared by women until he cannot escape their clutches (Judges Chapter 14). Even the wisest of men, Solomon, was led astray by women (Kings I 11,4), \"His wives turned his heart aside.\" Or, consider Achav the king of Israel, who was led astray by his wife Izzebel (Kings I 16,31). Solomon, in Kohelet 7,26, states, \"I have found something worse than death-- woman.\" It is clear from all this that in order to escape the enticements represented by \"woman,\" one requires tremendous assistance. If man's attaining his perfection depends on the quality of the two women in his life, and both their characters would be determined in heaven, like the first one that accompanies him from birth, and who was not subject to his free choice, then everything in his life (including his character) would depend on mazzal, i.e. the horoscopic constellations plus environmental factors prevailing when he is born, (compare Aristotle Ethics Chapter 10, Essay 3) This also appears to coincide with the statement in Sotah 2 that forty days before the fetus assumes final form, a heavenly voice proclaims who would be this fetus's life partner in the future. From all the above it seems impossible to escape the conclusion that our path in life is predetermined by forces beyond our control. We also find our sages saying that birth under certain signs of the zodiac influences a person's character traits. In Shabbat 156, we are told that Israel is subject to mazzal, i.e. environmental and hereditary factors. Also, Rabbi Chaninah states that such factors contribute to whether a person will be rich or poor. On the other hand, we have Rava in Moed Katan 28 stating that whereas mazzal determines a person's economic status etc., it does not affect his personal merits. These discussions in the Talmud are not merely of a hypothetical nature, but examples from real life are cited of scholars experiencing totally different experiences in their lives though their merits were deemed similar. The life story of two outstanding scholars are meant to illustrate the point made by Rava. Rabbah, pious to the point where a prayer offered by him for rain would be answered immediately, died at the age of forty, had buried sixty next of kin during his short life, and had hardly enough money to live on bread made of barley flour. His contemporary Rav Chisdah, on the other hand, married off sixty next of kin, lived to be ninety years old and was so wealthy that even his dogs enjoyed luxuries. This example is cited in support of the claim that mazzal is of overriding influence in matters of one's success in life on this planet. These quotes all represent difficult questions vis a vis our belief in personal providence, hashgachah peratit, as opposed to mazzal, when it comes to the fate of Jews both nationally and individually. Our opening Midrash moreover seems self contradictory. If G-d decrees concerning wealth as well as concerning physical prowess of a person, all of which are necessary for a person to function at their optimal ability, how can such people attain their potential if they are handicapped from birth? We have a tradition that a person cannot attain the status of prophecy unless he is endowed with certain physical and material attributes. If these factors are subject to the caprice of mazzal, how can a person be blamed for not attaining that moral level? The fact that righteousness and wickedness respectively are not predetermined by the angel Laylah becomes relatively meaningless, since the attributes which help man to become righteous may be denied him by the very same angel. The Mishnah in Avot 2,6 states that an uncivilized person, bor, cannot be G-d fearing. So what chance do people who are genetically underequipped at birth have to reach ideals set for man, and to share in the reward in store for achieving such ideals? G-d then would have decreed the outcome by default, by denying the attributes that help man achieve his shleymut, perfection! Where is the concept of freedom of will and choice, then, and what sense would reward and punishment make if all our deeds are more or less preconditioned? The answer is, of course, that both physical and mental equipment which man receives prior to birth provides him with tendencies to act in a certain way. His will is not involved in any way. He remains free to follow these tendencies or fight them using his intellect, willpower, and heart. Isaiah 66,3 states clearly that responsibility for the sinners' actions is their own because \"they chose their respective paths.\" ",
"When Rav Ashi, in Shabbat 156, advises the person born under the zodiac sign of Mars (symbolising bloodshed) to engage in vocations involving blood, such as becoming a ritual slaughterer or a mohel, someone who circumcises babies, this is meant to help such a person counteract his natural tendencies, sublimate them, channeling them into constructive activities. If Rav Ashi had been of the opinion that such a person's actions were predetermined, his advice would be totally gratuitous. Claiming that mazzal influences our lives, and claiming that mazzal governs our lives are two totally different propositions. Why would the Torah make rainfall dependent on our conduct (Leviticus 26,1-5) if our behavior were not free? The idea of receiving a reward for decisions made under duress would be difficult to swallow. Rabbah and Rav Chisdah, though sharing character traits and accomplishments, were born under different mazzalot. Each achieved what it was possible for him to achieve considering his respective mazzal. Perhaps Rav Chisdah having been born under the influence of a favourable mazzal, needed ninety-two years to achieve on this earth what Rabbah who had been born under an unfavourable mazzal had been able to achieve in forty years, seeing that he had to overcome so many obstacles? Consider the following parable. A king had two ministers. They both enjoyed equal status at Court. One was appointed commander of the king's land based forces, the other was made commander-in-chief of his navy. The commander of the navy obviously had the more challenging task. His task necessitated that he be away from home and family a great deal of the time, would be deprived of the comforts of home. He would also be deprived of the counsel and proximity of the king. The situation of Rav Chisdah and Rabbah may be viewed in a similar light. The Rabbis said in Taanit 2 that G-d reserved three keys for Himself which He did not entrust to messengers (nature). They are: 1) the key to life; 2) children, i.e. the key to being able to have them. 3) rainfall, i.e. the key to livelihood. The Talmud supplies scriptural proof for the fact that G-d retained these keys personally. In view of this, how is it possible to argue that three keys are not subject to one's merit, i.e. that one's behavior does not influence one's access to what these keys stood for? Why would G-d keep these three keys to Himself, except to use them in accordance with people's individual merits? Surely G-d did not keep them to Himself in order to use them capriciously! The answer is that although to begin with, these keys and their availability are subject to mazzal, man's merit does affect their availability. Abraham, according to his mazzal, would not have had children. Due to his merit however, G-d intervened and superimposed His will on that of natural law (compare Shabbat 156). Isaac found himself in a similar situation. Vaye-atar lo, G-d allowed Himself to be entreated by him (Genesis 25,21). G-d allowed Isaac's prayer to activate the key to \"children.\" Compare also Taanit 25, the story involving Rabbi Eliezer ben Pedot. Because we have clear proof concerning these three matters from the lives of our historical giants, these instances were singled out for mention. When Rabbi Akiva, in Yevamot 50, says that those who deserve it have their lifespan completed rather than increased, this is based on his conviction that G-d has decreed the maximum good for each person at the beginning of such person's life. However, this maximum good is subject to review, i.e. reduction, if man does not live up to his respective potential. ",
"Our opening Midrash confirms our view. Rabbi Chaninah says that in spite of the fact that many aspects of a person's life are predetermined (provisionally), G-d did not predetermine man's moral development. This is entirely up to his own volition. The original determination of man's physical and material attributes is due to the leeway given to the angel, i.e. to the intermediary otherwise known as \"nature.\" However, since G-d has reserved to Himself the keys to life, livelihood, and the ability to have children, those three matters are subject to G-d’s override if man's merit suffices. This is in line with the statement by Rabbi Akiva in Avot 3,15, \"While everything is foreseen, freedom of choice has been granted.\" The name laylah, mentioned by Rabbi Chaninah as the name of the angel in charge of presenting the embryo before G-d, symbolizes two concepts. 1) Night is a time when positive elements such as light are absent. 2) It is the time when one hopes for improvement, rebirth, renewal (see Psalms 130,6 “Shomrim laboker,” one yearns for morning and what it is expected to herald). Man cannot tolerate the idea that things are decreed irrevocably, that only negative forces exist. He feels that he aught to be the master of his own fate. It is quite in line with these expectations of man, then, that G-d says, \"All I am asking of you is that you revere Me etc.\" (Deut 10,12). ",
"The Talmud Sotah 2 also says that marriage partners are provided for man only in accordance with his deeds, his moral accomplishments. This statement does not contradict the statement about the angel predetermining who should marry whom. The idea portrayed is that the partner that comes with a person at birth is the genetic and environmental equipment which we commonly term mazzal. When man chooses a wife, however, he does so on the basis of the merit he has acquired since his birth. The original mazzal can be augmented or neutralized in one of two ways. 1) Man remains free to overcome natural handicaps by willpower, determination, perseverance etc. 2) G-d extends active help, hashgachah peratit, based on that individual's merit. It is customary for mazzal and merit to complement each other. This was so in the case of Abraham who was born with many positive endowments, i.e. mazzal tov. By meriting G-d’s help, he was able to neutralize the one area in which he had been disadvantaged at birth, his sterility. This accomplishment on the part of Abraham and Sarah resulted in their son Isaac being born with excellent environmental and hereditary factors, mazzal tov. By the time Jacob was born, the mazzal had improved even further due to environmental and hereditary input of two generations. Life in an environment of an Abraham and an Isaac does create certain tendencies which then become part of one's mazzal. In this connection we observe Abraham telling his servant Eliezer, who was concerned about his chances of finding the right wife for Isaac, that the G-d who had seen fit to promise the land of Canaan to his descendants and who had protected them thus far, would intervene to facilitate the finding of the proper wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,40). All this underscores the importance of choosing a suitable life partner, one that can help one achieve one's maximum potential. The original \"woman,\" i.e. the equipment man receives at birth, is meant to help man work towards his olam haba, eternity, by employing his intellect etc. The second \"woman,\" his wife, is meant to smooth his path in this world, help him cope with the problems of a mundane existence, and in that process to free him for pursuits of a spiritual nature. It is for this reason that throughout the Bible both “man” and \"woman\" appear side by side. \"Male and female He created them-- the side He had taken from man into a woman\" (Genesis 2). ",
"The author elaborates on this theme by appending a complete commentary on the chapter \"the woman of valour\" at the end of Proverbs (chapter 31). ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"The Talmud Sanhedrin 22 states that anyone whose \"first wife dies, is as if the temple had been destroyed in his lifetime.\" Rabbi Alexander compares such a tragedy to someone having lost his eyesight, the world becoming dark for him. Rabbi Abahu says that a person experiencing such a trauma loses his ability to make sound judgments. It is clear that neither of the three Rabbis quoted, refers to the natural physical wife, i.e. what we have termed \"the second mating.\" It must refer to someone who has lost his mazzal, i.e. who has corrupted it. What the Rabbis are talking about is that just as we have a tradition that the wicked are called \"dead\" already during their lifetimes (Berachot 18), so in this example they are referring to those who have abused their G-d given endowments to the point that they have forfeited them. Our Parshah, though obviously dealing with the \"second zivvug,” mating, may nonetheless contain some allegorical comments about the first zivvug. When the \"lives\" of Sarah are described, this may be a reference to the fact that Sarah had converted her original mazzal into the kind of personality that \"lived\" on, beyond physical death, inspired her husband for the rest of his natural life, not to mention her son. The fact that man is able to overcome the mazzal, i.e. zivvug rishon, may be hinted at in the verse \"and to the woman He said, ‘Towards your man (husband) will be your inclination, and he can be in charge of you.’\" (Genesis 3,16). If we view \"woman\" in this verse as the \"first zivvug,” the meaning is \"although it is your tendency to exert influence over your partner, he in turn can exercise control over you\" (if he tries). ",
"\"And the life of Sarah was\"",
"",
"When noting this allegorical meaning, one can also understand the Zohar who comments that the words “bekiryat arba\" do not refer to the location of Sarah's death, but refer to the cause of her death. The four basic materials that form the human body are to separate by Divine decree when the time has arrived for the body to separate from the soul. Sarah did not die as a result of the nachash, the serpent, i.e. personal sin. The words hee Chevron added to bekiryat arba hint at the chibbur, the remains of Sarah's soul which was joined to the tzror hachayim, eternal life in store for the righteous. ",
"",
"",
"Some problems in the text: ",
"1) Why does the Torah tell us about Abraham mourning Sarah? He appears to have done no more than the customary thing. What are we to learn from this episode? 2) Why did Abraham introduce the request to be given a burial ground by referring to his status as either a citizen or a guest, when all the time he had in mind to make full payment for the burial ground? 3) Why do we have the constant references to \"hearing,\" \"listen to me,\" \"listen to us,\" \"please listen?\" Were these people hard of hearing? 4) Why does the Torah have to emphasize that Ephron answered \"in the earshot of all assembled?\" We have already been informed that Ephron sat \"among all those present?\" 5) Why is there a constant repetition of the word \"burial\" in the discussion? 6) Why was the purchase concluded so publicly, \"within the sight of all the Hittites present and assembled?\" Surely the financial transaction alone would have sufficed? ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 58 explains the statement in Kohelet 1,5, \"And the sun rises and the sun sets,\" which appears too commonplace a truth to be worth mentioning, as meaning that G-d insures that before the setting of one sun, another sunrise has already been arranged. Thus Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi was born before the death (sunset) of Rabbi Akiva. So also, was Rivkah born before the death of Sarah. ",
"Our physical universe is arranged in such a way that the sun shines somewhere all the time, due to the earth revolving on its own axis once in twenty-four hours. Our spiritual universe has been arranged similarly by G-d, so that spiritual light is always available somewhere. Abraham thought that due to the fact that he appealed in public and used such language as \"give me,\" the bystanders would ask for clarification of the conditions he had in mind. Abraham would then have been able to explain that though he was prepared to pay handsomely, he would still consider the townspeople's approval as a gesture of kindness and friendship. (1,2,5) Since from a halachic point of view, i.e. Jewish law, a mourner preoccupied with arranging the funeral of his next of kin must preoccupy himself exclusively with the needs of the dead about to be buried, Abraham is reported as having only that purpose in mind when negotiating the purchase of the cave of Machpelah. His emphasis on his status as a resident implies his preparedness and ability to pay, whereas his reference to his status as a stranger implies that he depends on the goodwill of his immediate neighbors. Abraham understood the nuance of \"no one will deny you his grave since you are a prince,\" as meaning that though your request will be granted, it will be granted only grudgingly. (3) \"No one will deny,\" is not equivalent to \"we will each one of us volunteer.\" Their emphasis on \"to bury your dead,\" further emphasizes that only due to the immediate need would they concur in this transfer of land to Abraham. Abraham understood very well what was in their minds, though he addressed himself only to their spoken thoughts. He explained that he did not want any burial ground, but that the reason he was asking in public was to enlist everyone's support to persuade Ephron to sell the cave of Machpelah. He did not want to appropriate the cave in the hope that he would not be denied after the event, but he wanted to pay full value, and still consider the acquisition as if it had been a present to him. (4) Ephron, as one of the Hittites present, had said previously, \"No Sir, I did offer my grave willingly, and if you want the cave, I will not retract. Neither did I expect money, since you had not mentioned that previously. Concerning your wish that my fellow citizens entreat me, there is no call for this. I have given it to you in their presence, go ahead and bury your dead in the meantime.\" By this he hinted, that at a later stage one could negotiate compensation. Abraham acknowledged his words, bowing, however insisting that he too had originally planned payment, and could not in good conscience profit now by accepting Ephron's generous gift. Only under such terms, i.e. full payment, could he proceed to bury his dead. After all these subtleties, Ephron finally spelled out the price, emphasizing that considering Abraham's immediate need, the price was ridiculously low, purely nominal. Since he had found a willing listener in Abraham, the latter had the amount weighed at the most respected money merchant, whereupon the land became Abraham's for all time. The public character of the sale was intended by Abraham from the outset, to forestall any subsequent complaints either by groups or individuals. This was to become his permanent home, here he and Sarah were to have their last resting places. Just as a man's body was not divided up to be buried in several places, so man and wife who had shared a happy marriage were never to be parted in death either. Abraham had delayed the purchase to await an opportunity such as the need for a burial ground, which would make it impossible for his request to be denied. (6) \"After he buried his wife.\" He was not willing to proceed until the transaction had been completed. When a tzaddik is careful in all the minutiae of a transaction, this is called mishpat, justice. When a rasha, wicked person plans deviously, it is called mirmah, deceit (Proverbs 12,5). Thus we find by the end of the transaction, that the spelling of Ephron's name shows a letter missing, to show us that he had been too greedy. Abraham, however, had a letter added to his name indicating that his approach to life was the opposite of Ephron's. He appeared to offer little, but in fact gave a great deal. Compare Proverbs 28,22, \"In the haste of the greedy to acquire more wealth, he overlooks the fact that he stands to lose that which he already owns.\" ",
"",
"Since the Torah approves of the following order in life: 1) building a house, 2) a vineyard (livelihood), 3) taking a wife, we read about the betrothal of Isaac at the end of this Parshah, just as at the story of man's creation his betrothal was the culmination of the process of his creation (compare laws about exclusion from military service Deut. 20,5-7 and Talmud Sotah 44). Apart from the fact that it is foolish to assume responsibilities such as marriage without due preparation, it also results in the husband having no time to achieve his earthly tachlit, purpose, since he will not have leisure to study Torah (Kiddushin 29). The fact that Isaac waited till the age of forty, i.e. the age at which one reaches binah understanding, insight, indicates that such maturity is needed. Even an Esau made a point of getting married at the age of forty, to demonstrate his own maturity to one and all (Bereshit Rabbah 65). Under such circumstances, what the Talmud calls zivvug sheyni, the second mating can take place, and G-d matches partners so that they complement each other suitably. ",
"More problems in the text: 1) Since we had been told previously that Abraham was old, why did the Torah not at least word this statement differently now (forty years later)? It could have been described as \"very old\" or words to that effect. The answer of our sages about the meaning being the departure of youth's hormones seems inadequate in view of the fact that Abraham fathered six more children after this. The Ramban's comment about the different grammatical meaning of the words ba and ba-im, respectively, is simply not sustainable. 2) In what way is the statement \"And the Lord had blessed Abraham in everything\" more appropriate as an introduction to this paragraph than, say, \"Isaac was forty years old and still unmarried?\" Besides, as long as Isaac had not found a suitable wife, how could Abraham's blessings be described as \"complete?\" 3) Why does Abraham send his servant? Isaac, at forty, surely was mature enough to select his own bride. Besides, why did Abraham make his servant Eliezer swear that he would not bring back Isaac to the land Abraham had emigrated from? Surely Abraham himself could have put a stop to this if the question had arisen! If Abraham feared sudden death, why did he not let Isaac swear this oath? Why did he give authority to a slave which overrode that of a well turned-out son? 4) Why does Eliezer immediately envisage a negative turn of events, i.e. \"maybe the girl will not want to follow me here?\" Why does he not let events take their course and look for new instructions in the event complications arise? 5) How could Abraham nonchalantly agree to let Isaac take a Canaanite wife should the prospective bride insist on remaining in her native land? Altogether, the repetition of \"do not bring my son back there\" seems redundant, since this eventuality had already been covered by the oath. Why did Eliezer never mention this condition of Isaac not being allowed to return to his father's native land when he was in the house of Bethuel? 6) If Eliezer thought that Abraham qualified for Divine assistance and this is the reason he prayed for the success of his mission, why did he phrase it as hakreh, cause a coincidence? 7) If one accepts the premise that Eliezer did not consult soothsayers or employ nichush, magic techniques (Chullin 95), what is the meaning of the Talmudic statement \"any nichush which is not like the nichush of Eliezer or Jonathan is not nichush? 8) The type of test the girls carrying water had to submit to, seems strange. Most girls would oblige in order to have a chance to have a chat with a stranger; also, Rivkah did not offer to water the camels until Eliezer had finished drinking. All of this showed that Eliezer did not rely on nichush, since he was still not sure who the girl was. 9) Why did Rivkah, in explaining who she was, describe the relationship between her father to his mother? Even if there had been a second Bethuel in that town, the word \"son of Nachor\" should have sufficed to establish her father's identity! Why \"whom Milkah had born for Nachor?\" 10) Why did Eliezer recount Abraham's life story, when surely all these things were quite well known in Aram Naharayim? Why mention that a groom had been born on the day that groom was to be betrothed? One hardly gets betrothed to someone not born as yet! 11) Why did Eliezer misrepresent the conditions of his mission, saying that he had been asked to seek out Abraham's family etc, when in fact Abraham had never made this a condition at all. Also in other details of what had occurred at the well, Eliezer changed the facts around. Why does not the Torah state right away that Eliezer put the jewelry on Rivkah, just as it is related in the lengthy report of the whole conversation, a conversation so long that our sages say that the Torah gives preference to the casual conversation of an Eliezer over some of the Torah insights of Abraham's children's children (Bereshit Rabbah 60)? 12) Why did Bethuel say, \"We cannot say good or bad, since the matter originated with G-d?\" Since when has heavenly intervention prevented repentance or robbed anyone of his free choice? 13) When the Torah reports Isaac as seeing the camels approaching on which Eliezer and Rivkah were riding, why is not a single word mentioned about Isaac's reaction? No word of welcome to either Eliezer or Rivkah? ",
"(1+2) In fact, Abraham's old age began when Isaac was about to be born. Since he never expected to live to see Isaac grow up to manhood, Abraham made the servant take an oath concerning whom Isaac could marry once the time arrived for him to be married. The blessing he received from G-d had been the birth of Isaac at such an old age. When Eliezer related this mission, he therefore referred to events which lay forty years in the past, when Isaac had only just been born, and he, Eliezer had become responsible for arranging a suitable match. This is why he had been sworn by his master. He wanted to convince Bethuel that it had been Abraham's intention already at that time to seek out his family for a suitable match for Isaac. Therefore, on the day he arrived at the well, he was still under the obligation to seek out Bethuel's family for a suitable bride for Isaac. This is why he had prayed to the G-d of Abraham for assistance in the matter. (3) Abraham had requested an oath from Eliezer for two reasons. His concern had been twofold as always when the two aspects of zivvugim, pairing of individuals for the purpose of marriage, are concerned: 1) concern to remove harmful influences that abound; 2) allying oneself with beneficial influences. The only foreseeable flaw was the possible reluctance of the beneficial influence (Rivkah) to leave her native land in order to join Isaac in Canaan. (4) Psychology suggests that if the woman who was prepared to marry Isaac would be made to feel that her husband-to-be would not mind where he made his residence, she in turn would not make an issue of the matter either, and would be prepared to move to her husband's present home. If, however, the bride-to-be would be aware that her future husband would make a big issue of this question, she too might insist that they live in her native land. Eliezer wanted guidance immediately in order to know how to handle such a situation. Abraham therefore released him from the oath to the extent of not making this condition part of the opening gambit of the negotiations. He did not release him from the oath not to take Isaac out of the land of Canaan in actual fact. This is the reason for the apparent repetition. The essential part of the oath was \"only do not bring my son back there!\" Diplomacy however, would permit the servant not to state that this too was part of the oath he had sworn to his master. Therefore, when the servant related the discussion with Abraham about the possible hesitancy of a prospective bride to move to Canaan, he reported Abraham's reply that he was confident G-d would make the mission prosper. Some forty years later, when the time was ripe, Abraham renewed the oath he had made Eliezer swear and sent him on the mission. Eliezer knew that finding a suitable wife for Isaac would not be accomplished without Divine guidance, not without insuring that the girl's character traits revealed two basic good characteristics—namely, to know what to do and when to do it, and secondly, to do whatever needed doing without delay. (6+7) Since it is part of human nature to look for reasons not to exert oneself, even if such exertion is minor and such considerations color our view of what we consider our duties, Eliezer decided to test a prospective bride in this manner. He had positioned himself at a place (fountain) where he could have drunk his fill without the slightest assistance, a fact any girl would have to be aware of. He could have borrowed her jug and drunk from it without bothering her to bend down and practically spoonfeed him. He acted somewhat arrogantly to find out if she would use this arrogance of his as an excuse not to comply with his request She could have given him the benefit of the doubt of course, figuring that he suffered from some concealed kind of ailment which prevented him from bowing down and helping himself. Her prompt compliance with his request plus her offer to look after the needs of his camels-- a request that had not even been voiced yet-- all this would demonstrate to Eliezer that here indeed was a girl that was fit to step into the shoes of Sarah etc. The words \"and through her I shall know\" are to indicate that he prayed that all the other qualities necessary for a suitable wife for Isaac would also be present in such a girl. Of course, it is implied that Eliezer's servants were not present during this encounter, or that they acted as if they did not belong to his entourage during all this time. Since Eliezer had his camels parked some distance away, he had to run to get them, so that by the time Rivkah came up from the well she could fulfil also the remainder of Eliezer's prayer-test, by offering to draw water for them also. All of this transpired so rapidly that Eliezer had not had time to complete his prayer before Rivkah already approached again. This accounts for the haste with which Eliezer had to act. \"Hag-me-ini\" means \"bring water to my lips.\" We have explained the reason for this previously. (8) Rivkah's immediate reaction was \"Drink, my lord!\" On the way down to draw the water, she must have reflected that anyone who could not help himself could not help his animals either. That is when she decided to volunteer the latter chore, emphasizing that she was prepared to do the whole job, i.e. \"until they have finished to drink.\" In this fashion she offered and did even more than Eliezer had prayed for (\"I will also give water for your camels\"). When he related this series of events at Bethuel's table, he changed it slightly, so that it would appear that the answer to his prayer had corresponded exactly to his request. He did this so that the local people who believed in the effectiveness of charms, soothsayers etc., would not challenge the fact that there had been minor deviations; they could use this as a pretext to deny Divine intervention, pointing out these little inconsistencies. A very similar test is related in Kings I Chapter 17, when Elijah tested the widow of Tzorfat. Since Elijah was in doubt whether the lady whom he saw gather firewood was the lady he had been commanded to be provided by, he tested her in a similar fashion. First, he requested water to be served in his own container, since as a priest he could not be sure that her containers were ritually pure. When the woman was about to do this for him, he asked her right away to give him some bread (second test). He knew that if she were to give it to him with her own hands, she would have to be ritually pure, since he had previously demonstrated his concern for ritual purity. Thus the first test was completed, i.e. to find out if the woman knew what the situation demanded. She then told him that the little she had in the way of flour was only enough for her and her son to eat and then die from hunger. In this, she referred to the halachic rule in Baba Metzia 62 as to who enjoys priority of the chance to survive when the available supplies allow only one of several people in need of it to survive (the Talmud records a disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi ben Betura in the order of priorities). When Elijah saw her attitude, he realized that surely this must have been the woman whom G-d had had in mind; by agreeing with her but insisting that he would get the first share of the little there was, he proceeded to work the miracle of assuring her of an unending supply of flour and oil as long as the drought that he himself had decreed would last. It would appear however, that the woman ate first, and when her son subsequently died, she realized that her sin had been that she had not given Elijah to eat first. In Chapter 17 verse 24, she seems to acknowledge her former error. Meanwhile, Eliezer, who had seen part of his prayer answered, wondered if success could be achieved; i.e. if G-d would fulfil the other conditions which had to be met, such as Rivkah's antecedents, which were after all central to the whole zivvug, match. Meanwhile he took out the jewelry to which Rivkah had become entitled either as a bride or simply in acknowledgment of her selfless kindness towards Eliezer. Since the Torah at this point avoids reporting that Eliezer put the bracelets on her hands, we may accept Eliezer's own subsequent version that he did so only after finding out who she was. (9) Her response to Eliezer's question, \"Whose daughter are you?” in which she emphasized that Milkah had born her father to Nachor, precluded the possibility of any similarly called son she might have born to a former husband. Possibly, these words were not hers at all, but were added by the Torah to inform us of the relationship in question. Thereupon, Eliezer bowed to G-d, having realized that he had indeed met a suitable girl, and that the only remaining problem was securing her and her family's consent. When Eliezer entered Rivkah's home and saw the position of the family, he voiced full praise to G-d and blessed Him who had guided him to that place. Still, he had to wait for their approval. This is why he gave thanks once again, in an increasingly devout manner. \"He bowed the face to G-d\" meaning he prostrated himself on the earth in thanksgiving to G-d. Previously it had only said, \"He bowed to G-d.\" (6+8) Our sages did not actually say that Eliezer asked in an appropriate manner. Since it would have been possible for an ancestrally totally unfit girl to have responded to Eliezer's request in an identical manner, such girl possessing yichus atzmah, sufficient personal virtue, they could not approve of Eliezer's kind of test. This in spite of the fact that according to the principle of \"the rod of wickedness will never come to rest upon the righteous\" (Psalms 125,3) and that therefore such a match would not have become a reality. Nevertheless, it would have left a bad taste in the mouth of someone like Eliezer, had he had to revise his first impression. What the Talmud in Chullin 95 says refers to people who rely exclusively on this method in determining their path in life, people who disregard prayer and basic principles. Since neither Eliezer nor Jonathan depended exclusively on nichush, divination, by means of predetermined signals, there was nothing heretical in the manner in which they acted (compare Samuel I 14,9-14). Laban explained, \"Since you are looking for lodging overnight, come without delay, since we have always room for important guests and have room for the camels.\" Eliezer refused to eat as he first wanted to accomplish his mission while everyone was still under the impression of what had occurred. He did not want to give them a chance to cool off and reconsider the facts in a different light. In the event, his strategy proved sound, since after eating and drinking and having accepted gifts, on the morrow they already started stalling for time, trying to delay Rivkah's departure. This in spite of the fact that only the previous evening they themselves had said, \"Here is Rivkah, take her and go.\" Eliezer had to remind them not to delay in view of G-d’s obvious pleasure at this union. With all that, they balked, making the final decision depend on Rivkah's own expressed wish. (11) Eliezer's whole gambit was to emphasize that Abraham had made the selection of a family member as a bride only a first choice. Should difficulties arise, he was free to look further afield. Therefore, Eliezer had to downplay Abraham's fear of Isaac associating with the Canaanites through marriage. This form of misleading Bethuel was permissible, since it was done in order to promote the will of G-d with minimal super natural intervention on G-d’s part. Only by repeating all these events, could the Torah demonstrate the wisdom and acumen of Eliezer trying to accomplish his master's purpose. The discrepancies in the story would otherwise never have been noted, and their purpose could not have been comprehended except through their repetition. This whole story contrasts with the many instances when the Torah contents itself with barely hinting at certain halachot, such as the husband's right to inherit his wife's estate (ve-yarash otah, Numbers 27,11) or the reference to silver as an acceptable means of legitimizing a betrothal (eyn kesseph, see Kiddushin 3). Then, only hints are needed in order to anchor the halachah in the written Torah, since we have learned all about this already in the oral Torah. Here, where there is no oral Torah to fall back on, the written Torah cannot restrict itself to a description of events in telegram style. Our story is a classic example of showing how G-d deals with the tzaddikim who deserve His guidance. (12) Laban and Bethuel answered, \"That matter came from G-d, and we cannot speak to you good or bad.\" We have explained in Parshat Bereshit (‘It is not good for man to be alone”) that the term good and evil in relation to man are only used when equal opportunities in either direction exist. Thus, Laban is right when he said, \"We cannot express refusal or willingness; the matter originated with G-d, Rivkah is present, proceed!\" This is why Eliezer had stated, “If you will do the kindness to my master, tell me.” He refers to chessed and emet as distinct from tov and ra. Whenever the opportunities which confront one are not equal, the use of the term emet, truth, for doing what is right is more appropriate than the word tov, doing good. Laban, being the cleverer of the two, does the talking rather than his father Bethuel. We will, after all, have occasion to hear much more about Laban's adroitness in capitalizing on any opportunity that life presents to him. We find heavenly influences usually referred to as po-aley emet, not as po-aley tov, since they are not the result of truly free choices. Laban and Bethuel being intelligent, they referred to what Eliezer would do instead of referring to what they could do. The attempt at delay which took place the following morning, expressed what they considered as Rivkah's reluctance to leave her family so suddenly. Bethuel's part is omitted here, since he would not attempt to renege on what he had promised the previous night. This is why departure from mother and brother is mentioned, whereas, as far as the father was concerned, the matter had already been finalized on the previous evening. The wording of the blessing they gave Rivkah reflects ruach hakodesh, holy spirit, as it parallels the blessing bestowed on Abraham after the akeydah, the binding of Isaac. Their prayer was that Rivkah should become the instrument through which that blessing would be fulfilled, not other wives of either Abraham or his sons. (13) Rivkah's conduct when she first set eyes on Isaac and asked Eliezer about him reflects her high moral standards as described in Solomon's poem about the woman of valor at the end of Proverbs. Isaac is described as strolling in the field towards evening, a time when vision is restricted; presumably, he was facing east where it was already darker. He could not make out more than camels, therefore no mention of any welcome is made. As soon as he heard Eliezer's report and observed the girl's conduct, he installed her in the tent of his mother Sarah, the finest tribute he could pay her. "
]
],
[
[
" Why did Jacob risk his life for the birthright? ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 63 asks, \"Why did Jacob risk his life for the birthright? Did we not learn in a Tosephta that private altars were permitted only until the time the tabernacle was erected in the desert, and only until then was sacrificial service performed by the firstborn? Later, only priests could perform that function. They answer that Jacob was so upset about the prospect that unworthy Esau should perform sacrificial rites that he risked his life to prevent this.” ",
"We read in Leviticus 19,18, \"Love your fellow man like yourself.\" This teaches that all love is measured against the yardstick of self love. Time is measured in terms of the revolution of the earth around its own axis. A complete revolution equals a day. All other measurements of time are fractions of a day. Similarly, love for one's fellow man is measured by how nearly it equals the love one feels for oneself. Perfect love, i.e. love which does not require an object or a person to requite it, is the love which existed between Jonathan and David. We have numerous examples proving that their love exceeded the love of self, and that they were prepared to lose their lives rather than to have the quality of their relationship questioned (Samuel I Chapter 18). Their kind of love, as explained in Chapter 21, cannot exist between more than two people at a time. Just as it is more difficult to deny assistance to members of one's family, and just as it is more difficult to hit one's father than to hit a stranger due to the bonds of love that exist between father and son, so injustice at the hands of members of one's family is harder to accept gracefully than injustice suffered at the hands of a complete stranger. The Torah, in dealing with the enticer (Deut. 13,7-13), adds the admonition not to have pity on him nor to help him cover up his sin, since it was in the nature of his crime that it be committed by a close family member. The Torah describes such family member as being \"like your own soul.\" It is difficult to betray such love by informing against the beloved to the authorities. When David executed the murderers of Ish Boshet with what appears to be excessive cruelty, he did so because the hideous nature of their crime was heightened by the fact that the murderers were members of the same tribe as their victim, and they thus violated the natural bonds that should have existed between them (Samuel II Chapter 4). When the prophet Nathan told David a parable to show him that his conduct with Bat Sheva had been improper, David reacted violently, emphasizing that the characters in Nathan's story denied natural bonds of love, thus making their crime much worse. The fact that the rich man had exploited his position to take advantage of the poor man, drew David's greatest ire (Samuel II Chapter 12). ",
"In view of all this, Jacob's conduct seems hard to understand. He who was to become the fountainhead of the Jewish nation, appears guilty of the vilest accusation. How could he take advantage of a tired and thirsty brother, haggle over a bowl of soup until Esau would sell him his birthright, instead of performing an act of brotherly love and feeding him? Later on, he repeats the performance prior to the blessing, using subterfuge, lies, and deceit to secure his father's blessing, a blessing which had been intended for Esau. Is this the \"uprightness\" that the Torah has in mind when it describes Jacob as \"an upright man?\" ",
"Moreover, if it had been his objective to secure for himself two thirds of his father's estate instead of the one third he was entitled to legally, could he not foresee that he would be forced to flee his home and to renounce any claims he might have been entitled to? Should he not have kept silent, have waited for his father to die, if he was really prepared to risk his life for the inheritance? If, on the other hand, he was concerned merely with obtaining blessings of a spiritual nature for himself and the future Jewish people, what need was there for the status of the birthright? Surely, Isaac had plenty of blessings at his disposal for both young and old, as we read in Exodus 20,20, \"Wherever I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come and bless you.\" ",
"We must also ask: Why did Isaac want to bestow a blessing? Abraham had not seen fit to bless Isaac. And, if he did want to bestow a blessing, why did he not prepare a blessing also for Jacob after he had eaten the delicacies, making the entire charade unnecessary? Did not Jacob himself bless all his sons when on his death-bed, each one according to his respective personality? ",
"We must therefore accept two premises: 1) Jacob did not really aim at the birthright. 2) Neither of the two brothers was concerned with inheriting Isaac's material wealth. Even the honor connected with the birthright was of no real concern to either Esau or Jacob. Both were deeply desirous of acquiring things of genuine value, goodness, things which can only be secured by means of heavenly blessing. In this respect we must view the birthright as profoundly related to the Divine blessings and Isaac's power to direct such blessings. Isaac was not reconciled to the fact that Jacob had obtained the blessing by deceit until Esau cried out, \"He took my birthright, and now he has taken my blessing\" (Genesis 27,36). Only then did Isaac say to Esau, \"I have made him an overlord over you.\" When Esau questioned his father saying, \"Have you only one blessing, Father?\" Isaac quite calmly allowed the blessing to remain with Jacob, and bestowed upon him in addition the blessing of Abraham to make him the principal heir of the Abrahamitic tradition (Genesis 28, 1-5). What had been in Isaac's mind originally, and what transpired to make him change his mind? The greatest difficulty in all this is the fact that heaven obviously went along with all the changes made by the human participants in these events. Evidence of this is the fact that G-d calls Israel \"My firstborn son\" (Exodus 4,22-23) when Moses first confronts Pharaoh. Since one cannot deny then that heaven stamped Jacob's performance with its seal of approval, we must find answers to the questions raised. The following parable may help explain. In one of the islands, there lived a nation whose king had traditionally always been chosen by the people for his qualities of leadership. Though the nation always chose a descendant of the former king, the people managed through this device to invariably secure a suitable ruler. This was because there was no automatic succession to the throne. It happened that one particular king was so outstanding, and his accomplishments on behalf of his nation so great, that the council of state voted that henceforth the firstborn son of that king and the firstborn son of the son after him should automatically succeed their respective fathers. This law was not made subject to periodic review and therefore became unchallengeable. In due course, one of the later kings had two sons, the elder being boorish, selfcentred, i.e. totally unfit to rule. His younger brother however, possessed all the qualities needed to make him a suitable ruler. The law makers' hands were tied, however, since they were bound by the act of gratitude to an earlier king which had been enshrined in law. After much debate, the elders decided that their only course of action lay in persuading the older of the two brothers to renounce his claim to the succession voluntarily. For that purpose, they prepared a great banquet of the type the older son enjoyed; they used the occasion to point out to the king's older son that the burdens of office would interfere greatly with his present lifestyle etc. In this fashion, they succeeded in getting the older son to renounce his claim to the throne. The application of this parable to our story is self evident. Compare five points of similarity between the parable and our story: 1) The original law to establish leadership position based on merit. 2) The change in the law, establishing precedence based on birth. 3) The incidence of some prospective rulers being obviously unfit. 4) Advice on how to neutralize the harmful effects of the law to base the succession on claims supported by birthright. 5) Return to the original manner of selecting a ruler. ",
"At the creation, we find no evidence that birthright was part of the rules guiding the affairs of man. Proof lies in the random order the names of Noach's sons are referred to on different occasions. This was changed when Abraham appeared on the stage of history. His descendants were to play a leading role due to their being descendants of Abraham. In effect G-d had said, \"Until now I have bestowed blessings, henceforth I grant Abraham the authority to bestow and direct blessings\" (Genesis 12,3). Abraham debated with himself if he were to bestow this power to bless on others. Since he was not certain that he might help weeds to sprout (promote the power of wicked people), if he took it upon himself to transfer this power to bless, he decided to leave well enough alone (Bereshit Rabbah 61). He waited for G-d to make His will known in the matter. G-d did bless his son Isaac (gave him the power to bestow blessings). Since Abraham had two first born sons, he would have had to bestow the blessing (power to bless) on both of them. He was afraid to err; on the other hand, the trait of \"chessed,\" kindness, for which he was famed would not allow him to deprive Ishmael of a share in favor of Isaac. This in spite of the fact that he knew that his descendants would be known primarily through Isaac. Therefore, considering himself as the manager of the Almighty's orchard, he decided to leave this decision to the owner of the orchard. After Abraham's death, the owner chose Isaac, and thus we come to point two in our parable. When twins were born to Isaac, the older of whom exhibited signs of unfitness, problem three in our parable, this had to be dealt with. Isaac, true to his characteristic of pachad, din, i.e. justice, which our sages have credited him with, did not dare deviate from the principle of transferring power in accordance with birthright. When Jacob says some time later that \"the One whom Isaac feared was on my side\" (Genesis 31,42), this grants us an insight into the matter. An examination of all the instances in which a direct relationship or communication between G-d and Isaac is described reveals that the term used for \"G-d\" is invariably elokim, i.e. the attribute of justice. The only exception is the instance when G-d tells Abraham that Isaac is not to be slaughtered after all. This latter instance which taught Abraham that rachamim, mercy is one of G-d’s attributes, is the only time when this factor emerges as playing a role in the relationship between G-d and Isaac. It is understandable then that Isaac of all people would not deviate from the pattern of nobility of birth decreed from above. Isaac's own position as Abraham's heir was due to this very system. Add to this that Isaac personally had not observed any misconduct in Esau, and it becomes clear why he chose Esau to bestow the blessing on. Jacob himself had been very careful never to tell his father of the sale of the birthright, since he had kept hoping that he would secure his father's blessing by virtue of his superior moral conduct, plus the influence of his mother. He did not want to benefit by exposing his brother's unworthiness. This trait of Jacob was very laudable. Leviticus 25,36 tells us, \"Your brother shall live alongside you.\" Our sages explain that this wording teaches that one's own life takes precedence over that of one's fellow man in a situation where only one of the two lives can be saved. If the object of one's quest for Divine help is personality growth rather than the acquisition of worldly goods, then competing for the attainment of that goal is permissible. Aristotle also states in his Ethics that self-love, when its objective is perfection of self, is virtuous. Our sages, when describing jealousy as a negative trait, do approve of jealousy when it involves envying scholars who know more (Baba Batra 25). The same idea is reflected in Bereshit Rabbah 71 in connection with Rachel's jealousy of her sister Leah (Genesis 30,1). She envied Leah her good deeds. This is why our sages can consider that kind of jealousy a positive quality. On the other hand, \"good\" character traits employed for a base purpose are viewed as a negative quality (compare Chapter 27 on Dinah). Our problem is to determine whether jealousy under the circumstances described is permitted even when the attainment of one's own purpose involves something detrimental to one's competitor. Consider the definition by our sages of the commandment \"Love your fellow man like yourself.\" The Talmud Shabbat 31 explains this to mean \" do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself.\" Aristotle defines it in a similar vein. In other words, we should want for our fellow man what we want for ourselves. We certainly do not need to want for our fellow man what he wants for himself. This is especially so, when our fellow man is wicked or a criminal. In Psalms 139,21, David expresses it in these words: \"Must I not hate those who hate You O Lord, and quarrel with those who rise up against You?\" Clearly the word \"fellow man\" referred to in the Torah means someone sharing the same objectives in life that we ourselves believe in. Since Jacob's motivations corresponded to the ones stipulated by our sages, the verse we quoted from Psalms may be applied to him. Having established this point, we return to item four in our parable. The problem is how to restore the position of leadership to those qualified for it. It does not suffice to deny G-d’s special blessings to the undeserving, rather action is needed to channel those blessings to those who deserve them. When Jacob blessed his grandsons prior to his death, he reversed his hands to ensure that Ephrayim would be the recipient of the greater blessing. Er, the firstborn son of Yehudah, is described as unfit, unworthy. Peretz and Zerach respectively, are not treated according to what the order of their birth would call for. Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, is not accorded the privileges his birthright calls for. David was not Yishai's firstborn, neither was Solomon the senior of the surviving sons of David when he was assured that he would be his father's successor. To prove that birthright as an automatic claim to the succession was not practiced at the time of the Exodus, see Numbers 3,3. G-d says, \"The day I smote all the firstborn of Egypt, I established an exclusive claim on all the firstborn of Israel.\" Obviously, if succession by birthright had been the norm at that time, there would have been no need for G-d to underline that only from that day on would G-d claim the firstborn of Israel as especially beholden to Him. We see then that the practice of succession by birthright had been discontinued at some time, only to be re-introduced at the time of the Exodus. Later, after the episode of the golden calf, when this method of succession had again been found unreliable, the privileges of that group were transferred to the tribe of Levi which had proved its worthiness. This then is the fifth rule that we learned from our parable. Now we understand what the Midrash quoted at the beginning of our chapter had in mind. Since Jacob may well have been aware that the privileges of the firstborn would be abolished once the tabernacle was to be erected, why did he risk his life merely in order to hasten that event? The question is even more justified when we consider that Jacob derived no practical advantage from all his machinations. There is no mention of Jacob ever having offered sacrifices in his capacity as firstborn, and if he had done so, the fact would no doubt have come to the attention of his father. His father could not then have been surprised when he heard from Esau some forty-eight years later, that the latter had traded away his birthright. The Midrash wishes us to know that if Jacob's actions had been motivated by materialistic considerations, this would have been most dishonorable; since he was guided by the desire to secure for himself a higher spiritual level, however, such purpose was laudable. Jacob was aware that the heter bamot, permission to erect altars for G-d wherever one wanted, in order to draw down G-d’s blessing, could lead to grievous abuse if the excercise of the priestly functions was left in the hands of the unworthy. Such abuse would lead to G-d’s blessings being channelled to those who were undeserving, something that could not be pleasing in the eyes of G-d. Therefore, he hastened to restore the source of blessing to those who were fit for it for as long as the condition \"wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come and grant My blessing,\" existed (Exodus 20,24). He realized that at a later stage a central site for the residence of the shechinah, Divine Presence, would be established, and that then the function of priesthood would be performed only in that central place (tabernacle or temple) and only by priests who had to meet exacting criteria of physical and moral fitness. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) The statement that Abraham begat Isaac seems uncalled for; the Torah had reported this previously in detail. 2) The review of Isaac and Rebecca's marriage and Rebecca's ancestry also seems repeated needlessly. 3) Since both Isaac and Rebecca prayed for children, why was only Isaac's prayer reported as evoking a favorable response? 4) How can we understand the statement that Isaac loved Esau because of the venison? Could Isaac really be bribed to love someone who was displeasing in the eyes of G-d? 5) Why did the Torah have to tell us that Jacob was holding on to the heel of Esau during their birth? 6) Since Esau appeared so nonchalant about selling his birthright, why did Jacob ask him to confirm it by an oath? 7) Why does the Torah bother to tell us \"Esau got up and moved etc.?\" We surely would not have assumed that he remained rooted to the spot indefinitely! 8) In reporting the famine in Canaan, the Torah states that this was not the same famine as had occurred during the days of Abraham. Since the event occurred more than one hundred years later, surely we could not have misunderstood. 9) Why did G-d tell Isaac twice to remain in Canaan? 10) Why does G-d reassure Isaac about the land being given to him and his descendants? 11) Why would Avimelech's \"peeping Tom\" escapade be due to the length of time Isaac stayed in his country? Surely, Isaac would not indulge in marital relations with his wife in full view of Avimelech? 12) When Isaac redug the wells his father had dug in that country, why did he name the wells with the same names? What is the special significance of the names eyssek and sitnah? 13) Why did Isaac say to Avimelech and Phichol his commander-in-chief when confronting them, \"You hate me?\" 14) Since the name \"Beer Sheva\" had already been explained when Abraham lived, why does Isaac employ the same name to commemorate a different event? ",
"(1) Since only Isaac and his descendants are called Abraham's seed par excellence, the Torah sees fit to restate Isaac's ancestry, stressing that it did not go back further than to Abraham. Anyone prior to Abraham could not claim a share in Isaac as his descendant. In Jewish law, we have the principle that upon conversion to Judaism, a proselyte's family ties are severed, he ceases to have legal family ties, and is considered like a totally new creature. Abraham having become the first Jew, his children's ancestry was rooted in him and in him only. (2) Isaac married at forty, having attained the mental maturity to found a family, as discussed in Chapter 22. Bethuel was called an Arami since he was deceitful, as implied by that word. For that reason, the two have to be mentioned separately. (3) Rebecca had no hope to have children until Isaac's prayer had been answered, otherwise we might have attributed her pregnancy to the blessing that had been given her by her brother Laban prior to her departure from home (Bereshit Rabbah 63). The meaning of the verse \"the Arami was about to cause my father's destruction\" (Deut.26,5) could be \"the latent traits of deceit and treachery inherited from Laban almost led to my destruction.\" Isaac's prayer was solely for the benefit of Rebecca, since he as an olah temimah, a flawless offering, and could not have served as such if he had been physically blemished. The word lenochach used to describe Isaac's stance during prayer, means that he concentrated on a single objective. A similar use of that word occurs in Proverbs 4,25-27. (4) Perhaps the reason that we are told that Isaac loved Esau who brought venison to him is to point out that Rebecca possessed enough independence of spirit to love Jacob, whose behavior warranted this, and in whose character she could see the promise of the prophecy that had been revealed to her prior to the birth of the twins that in time the older one would become subservient to the younger one (Genesis 25,23). (5) Jacob's holding on to the heel of Esau may symbolize that values which Esau would stamp his foot on would be the very ones Jacob would cherish. ",
"(6) Esau's concept of the birthright and its values may not have differed much from the way many Jews perceive the \"feast of Leviathan.\" Some are willing to sell their claim cheaply, whereas others treasure it and would spend their life savings to assure themselves of their share in it. Since Jacob realized that although he treasured the value of the birthright, Esau considered it of trifling importance, he felt morally justified in swapping it for a nominal amount. The apparent urgency to complete the transaction (sell it to me this day!) may have been prompted by the realization that the next time Esau would be exhausted he might well be at the point of death, and the opportunity for this transaction might have disappeared forever. Since Esau had made it clear that he had many close encounters with death (Genesis 25,32), Jacob made it plain that under such circumstances, when no documents were at hand to record transfer of ownership, the least he required was an oral declaration of a binding nature. The sale was to become effective \"as of now!\" The Torah gives evidence that Esau had an opportunity to reconsider this rash decision when he was fully restored to his senses, i.e. after having eaten. Therefore, we are told, \"He ate, he drank, he got up and he went about his business; he despised his birthright.\" ",
"(7) This proves to all that what might have been construed as a sale under duress, could not now be viewed in that light. After all, Esau had had plenty of time to give second thoughts to the importance of the transaction that had been completed. (8) Isaac was a wealthy man, and presumably there had been famines in the land of Canaan since the days of Abraham. None of those however, had approached in severity the one described in Abraham's days until now. When G-d instructs Isaac \"reside in the land,\" He refers to Canaan as Isaac's permanent place of residence. (9) The reason given is that this land constitutes his and his descendants' inheritance. (10) Regarding Isaac's grandchildren, however, they who would one day inherit the greater land of Israel as a fulfilment of G-d’s promise to their ancestor Abraham, they would be permitted to leave the land of Canaan, since G-d’s Providence would protect them even when away from the holy land. This is the difference in the wording \"this land\" and \"these lands\" (26,3). Isaac and Rebecca living together under one roof for any length of time, if not as husband and wife, was most unusual. Avimelech, therefore, became curious concerning their true relationship. Presumably, he made structural changes in the house opposite that of Isaac, to enable him to keep those two under observation. (11) When confronted by Avimelech, Isaac immediately admitted the facts and his fears concerning his own safety, should such facts become known. Now that Rebecca's real status had been revealed, the danger of her being raped and her husband being murdered became real, and Avimelech had to issue special decrees to discourage anyone from molesting either of the two. In this manner, Isaac's status was raised considerably. (12) In re-opening the old wells dug by his father, Isaac displayed great courage. He found additional deep water. The Philistines claimed the water as theirs, stating that they owned all the mineral rights in the country. 13) Isaac's claim was based on having made improvements in undeveloped lands. The wells were retained by Isaac's shepherds. The names eysek and sitnah reflect both the strife and the victory won by Isaac in these arguments. In all this, there is clear evidence of the Divine assistance received by Isaac. This led to recognition on the part of the Philistines that it was better to have Isaac as a friend than to have him as an adversary. At least, they thought it was important that Isaac guarantee his neutrality in any difficulties they might become involved in. At that point, Avimelech paid a visit to Isaac, explaining that he now realized that Isaac's wealth had not been acquired at the expense of the Philistines, as they had suspected until now, but that it was the result of the Providence of the G-d of Isaac. In view of this, and considering that they had imposed export restrictions on Isaac when he left Gerrar at their insistence, Isaac agreed. Possibly, the news of another well discovery was received while these talks were in progress. (14) Isaac called this new well Beer sheva as a reminder of the oath of friendship that had coincided with this discovery. This too became the name of the town for the very same reason. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old\"",
"Bereshit Rabbah 65 quotes Rabbi Chaninah son of Papa explaining the verse in Psalms 40,6, \"Great and diverse things have You done, O my Lord, Your wondrous works and thoughts for us.\" The wondrous thoughts and deeds have as their purpose only our welfare. Why was Isaac's eyesight dimmed? In order that Jacob could come and take the blessing. ",
" All material wealth available to man can endure only if its very possession rests on durable foundations. ",
"G-d says, \"Do not be afraid for I am with you\" (Isaiah 41,10). The implication is that without Me, you will not prevail since you have no enduring foundations. In Isaiah 31,3, we read, \"As soon as G-d withdraws His hand, the helper will fail, the recipient of help will collapse.\" Here the prophet describes that relying on human help is useless, since human power endures only as long as He does not withdraw His power. For that reason, our sages describe all material wealth as kinyanim medumim, as apparent possessions. On occasion, failure to own such possessions may be preferable to owning them. Our sages teach that whereas virtues fulfill their functions only when we acquire them, material goods may only fulfill their purpose when we spend them. If these material possessions then are useful only as a means to an end, they themselves cannot be of enduring value. Since material possessions evoke in man the desire to amass forever more of them, they cannot be true possessions, since they do not satisfy the owner, but act as a reminder of all the things the owner has not yet acquired. Proverbs 23, 1-4 warns us not to wear ourselves out in the pursuit of riches, but to excercise restraint when a guest at the lavish banquet tendered by the king, since whatever is offered is based on deceit. His advice, if translated into the jargon of Mussar teachers, is, “Do not let the goodies dangled before your eyes by the yetzer hara, evil urge, bedazzle you, since what is being dangled before your eyes is merely a mirage. Sanhedrin 107 describes a small organ, which if fed, becomes insatiable, but which if starved, i.e. kept to strict rations, will find its satisfaction. The organs are the eye and the heart; both have enormous appetites as attested in Numbers 16,39, \"Do not follow the dictates of your hearts or your eyes which are apt to lead you astray.\" The Talmud relates the lesson learned by Alexander the great, who tried to weigh a human eye handed to him from beyond the borders of Paradise; he found that all his silver and gold did not equal the weight of that eye (Tamid 32). When frustrated at this discovery, he was advised to sprinkle some dust on the eye. He was then able to determine the weight of the eye immediately. The lesson conveyed is that while alive, the eye is insatiable in its greed, and all the gold in the world does not suffice to still its appetite. As soon as it is dead however, all these appetites evaporate. ",
"Many more parables along these lines are scattered throughout the Talmud. ",
"Considering all the foregoing, it is amazing that Isaac should have made so many preparations prior to giving away material blessings, such as the ones introduced by the words \"may the Lord give you of the dew of the heavens etc.\" Also, how could Isaac give Esau a blessing so similar and on the same day? Surely this was bound to lead to competition between the brothers for the acquisition of similar goods? ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 66, apparently aware of this difficulty, attempts to view the material possessions mentioned in these blessings as merely paraphrasing spiritual blessings; for instance, \"dew of the heavens\" is understood to refer to the manna the Jews would eat in the desert. All this is really not necessary, as the material blessings should be viewed merely as auxiliary to the main blessing, which was spiritual in nature. The Torah states, \"He blessed him,\" meaning he bestowed a spiritual blessing. Only afterwards do we read \"He smelled the odor of his clothing...and may the Lord give you from the dew of heaven etc.\" When material wealth is in the hands of persons amply endowed with spiritual qualities, such material wealth may enhance the spiritual qualities, enabling the owner to employ his wealth in the service of G-d. When the material wealth is given to persons lacking in virtues however, this wealth tends to corrupt the owner even further. The fact that Isaac blessed Jacob twice before touching on material aspects (compare verses 23, 27) may indicate that our language is inadequate to express the exact nature of these spiritual blessings. Material goods are promised only afterwards. Chapter 133 in Psalms, referring as it does to \"dews of Mount Hermon descending on the mountains of Zion, outpourings of the Lord's blessing for eternal life,\" probably reflects the same approach we have suggested. ",
"To come back to the Midrash quoted at the beginning, when man's eyesight is perfect, he makes few errors in perception. Denial of physical health does not originate in heaven. On the contrary, heaven helps in the attainment of perfect health. Therefore, since failing health is usually the result of some moral failure, the deterioration in Isaac's eyesight seems doubly baffling. When someone looks into the king's bedchamber accidentally, observing the most intimate aspects of the king's private life, such a person may become a source of major embarassment to the king. If the person in question happens to be an average citizen, the king might have him executed to save himself future embarassment. If he is the king's son, however, the king may prefer to shutter the son's windows rather than to execute him. At the time of the akeydah, Isaac had become privy to some of G-d’s secrets while he was lying bound on the altar. Afraid that what Isaac had seen might become a source of future embarassment, and to help Isaac avoid making fatal mistakes in the use of his eyes, G-d decided to shutter his \"windows,\" as it were. When Moses complained about his speech defect, using it as an excuse to decline the role of leader of the Jewish people, G-d countered by saying, \"Who gave man a mouth?\" (Exodus 4,11). This means that imperfections in man's physical attributes do not occur through oversight on the part of G-d, but on the contrary; since they are the results of G-d’s actions, they serve a constructive purpose, even though that purpose may not yet have been recognized by the person suffering the handicap. ",
"Some difficulties in the text: 1) What kind of weak eyesight prevents a father from recognizing his son? Why would not Isaac's other senses such as hearing, touching etc compensate for his failing eyesight, and enable Isaac to recognize his sons? Why did Isaac issue instructions regarding the hunting of venison prior to his issuing the blessing? 2) Why did Rebecca change what Isaac had said? He had said, \"I want to bless you before I die,\" whereas Rebecca related to Jacob that Isaac had said, \"I will bless you before the Lord?\" (compare Genesis 27,2 and 27,6). 3) Did it not occur to Jacob that his voice would give him away? 4) What is the relevance of \"the odor of my son is like the odor of the field that the Lord has blessed?\" 5) When Isaac discovered his error, he refers only to Jacob's deceit, not a word about his own error. Why? Why did Esau employ three arguments to secure a blessing, and why did he say that the days of mourning for his father would come \"quickly?\" Why not just \"they will come?\" Rebecca's fear she might be bereft of both sons in a single day seems to be somewhat ill founded. If Esau were to kill Jacob, who would kill Esau? 6) Why did Rebecca not reveal her true motives for sending Jacob away even at this late stage? ",
"The author deals polemically with the Ralbag's answer before giving the following explanation. The blessings were not to be given to the wrong party, neither could they be split, divided between two parties. They required the one who bestowed them to know whom he was blessing. Those blessings that could comfortably be shared by both sons, had been bestowed previously. Isaac's terror at having made a mistake extended only to the blessing that required a specific recipient. ",
"(1) \"It happened when Isaac had become old, and his eyesight weakened from seeing,\" describes a process not only related to physical eyesight. Achievement of a person's maximal spiritual power is closely related to his physical state, and the proper functioning of all his senses. Of all senses, eyesight is so important that the Bible frequently equates the ability to know and comprehend with the ability to see (I saw them in my heart,” Kohelet 2; \"Man cannot see Me, \" Exodus 33; “I saw the Lord,\" Isaiah 6). In a lesser degree we find this applied to the sense of hearing, i.e. \"Hear O Israel\" (Deut 6). In a still lesser degree the sense of smell serves as a medium for comprehension and perceptions of the mind. \"From afar he can smell war.\" (Job 39,25) \"He lets him smell the fear of the Lord.\" (Isaiah 11) The foregoing leads our sages to state in Sanhedrin 93 that there is substance to smell (though it is not tangible). The sense of taste is ranked still lower among the list of our senses (see commentary on the tree of knowledge in Chapters Seven and Nine), but even it can confer on people perceptions of the true state of affairs. At the lowest rung of the ladder of our senses, re their usefulness as a means of perception, is the sense of touch. The knowledge conveyed by it, is the most unreliable of all our five senses. For that reason, we find that he who relies on it is considered a fool, \"You will be groping in the dark at noon as the blind gropes in the dark\" (Deut 28,29). Even Aristotle points out that reliance on one's senses cannot be considered sinful except reliance on one's sense of touch. When man's sense of sight functions at optimal efficiency, it hardly ever deceives him, even while his other senses do not function at their respective best. G-d presumably withdrew good eyesight from Isaac at this time to enable him to make the error necessary to prevent Esau from receiving this blessing. The story illustrates the length to which Isaac went to compensate for his failing eyesight by employing all his other senses. Jacob, on the other hand, made every effort to neutralize the powers of perception of these senses of Isaac. Despite Isaac's failing eyesight, he was not altogether blind to Esau's behavior and his unworthiness of the blessing that he as the elder brother should be the recipient of. Therefore, Isaac instructed Esau to perform a mitzvah as a result of which he would qualify for the blessings Isaac had in mind. The reason Isaac lists several activities related to hunting, is to make the performance of each activity the fulfilment of a separate mitzvah of \"honor your father.\" Even the hunted animal itself will be considered like a sacrifice, seeing it had been killed as an act of obedience to a father's command. The reason Isaac added, \"so that my soul can bless you,\" was to explain that only this would give him the right to bestow his blessing on Esau. (2) The addition of the words \"before I die,\" was to let Esau know that unlike Isaac himself who had received the blessing of Abraham by G-d after the death of his father, Esau would not receive it unless it was given to him by his father. For that reason, Isaac did not add the words \"before G-d\" when he offered the blessing. After all, Esau would receive the blessing only by reason of the power to bless which had been bestowed on his father Isaac, not because he had inherent merit entitling him to the blessing. That, too, is the reason he introduced the blessing with the words, \"May the Lord grant you.\" Isaac knew full well that, so far, he did not have heaven's approval for what he was about to do. When Jacob appeared on the scene, and Isaac smelled him, he could not understand that the odor seemed to be the one associated with people blessed by G-d. (4) The exclamation \"Behold the odor of my son\" must be understood as an expression of wonderment. This then prompted the \"May the Lord grant you\" as a prayer which Isaac hoped would lead to a confirmation of his assessment of the situation. Because he had felt uncomfortable about what he was going to do, he had not confided in either Rebecca or Jacob; he was not aware that he had been overheard. The mention of delicacies \"which I have loved\" is in fact a reference to his son Esau \"whom I have loved.\" The fact that Rebecca \"overheard\" as distinct from \"heard\" must be mentioned. Had Isaac thought that she had \"heard\" him, he would never have given Jacob the benefit of the doubt, since he would have concluded that Rebecca had conspired with Jacob in the duplicity. The Torah stating that \"Esau went into the field to hunt,\" is to alert the reader to Esau's total insensitivity to all the considerations which had motivated Isaac. Else, the Torah would have merely written \"he did so,\" to indicate that Esau had tuned in to his father's wavelength. When Rebecca told Jacob what she had overheard, she was at pains not to let Jacob know that the blessing would be contingent on the one who would bring the food, otherwise Jacob would have considered the whole charade as completely futile. When she added that Isaac had said \"I will bless before the Lord,\" she implied that the blessing was connected to the recipient's merit. Thus she encouraged Jacob to feel that his lifestyle up to that point gave him an advantage in his efforts to obtain the blessing. (3) Though aware that his voice was different from that of his brother, Jacob thought that he could imitate it sufficiently well to pass his father's inspection. However, he was far from certain that he could escape detection if the touch test would be applied. Isaac's sense of taste was neutralized by the food being prepared in the manner he was known to like. The goatskins neutralized his sense of touch. ",
"Isaac became suspicious on several counts. The speedy return of the one whom he thought to be Esau was puzzling. He detected a change in Esau's voice. Jacob's reply that G-d had assisted him made Isaac even more suspicious, since he was not used to Esau employing that mode of expression. Therefore, Isaac insisted on feeling Jacob, to reassure himself that his senses had not deceived him, and that his suspicions were in fact unfounded. When relying on his sense of touch, noting that the arms he touched were hairy like those of Esau, Isaac trusted the wrong one of his senses. When Isaac asked a third time, \"Are you indeed my son Esau?” Jacob, realizing what bothered his father, kept his reply brief, saying merely, \"It is I.\" In this way he did not give his father's sense of hearing additional leverage. Isaac proceeded to eat the food by means of which he hoped to secure additional evidence as to who stood before him, using his sense of taste. Rebecca who knew Isaac's preferences, had been able to prepare the food in a manner that would not arouse Isaac's suspicions. Isaac asked Jacob to come closer, so that he could employ his sense of smell better, a usually reliable guide. Having obtained evidence by three of his senses (taste, touch and smell) that the correct son stood before him, Isaac considered this sufficiently conclusive and proceeded with the blessing. \"He blessed\" summarizes the essence, i.e. the spiritual blessing. The words, \"May the Lord grant you etc.\" the material wealth promised, was designed primarily to protect the recipient against the dangers lurking around us at all times. Material wealth is a tool to help our personality development. Using the word \"G-d\" underlines that these gifts are to be employed only in the service of G-d, not as an end in themselves. When Solomon offered a prayer on the occasion of the dedication of the temple, in which he asked G-d that prayers offered in the temple be answered by G-d, he also qualified his remarks. Concerning prayers offered by Jews, he stipulated that such Jews be deserving; concerning prayers offered by gentiles, he made no such stipulation (Kings I Chapter 8). (5) Since Isaac was convinced that whoever stood before him was meant to receive the blessing, he added the words, \"Those that curse you shall be cursed and those that bless you shall be blessed.\" When Esau arrived, literally seconds after Isaac had concluded blessing Jacob, Isaac became frightened, realizing that the very timing might be evidence of Divine interference. Moreover, having just said \"Whosoever will curse you shall be cursed,\" he realized that he was in no position to retract without the danger of bringing a curse upon himself. By saying about Jacob \"he shall also remain blessed,\" Isaac may have had two reasons: 1) to confirm what he had just done unwittingly, after absorbing the lesson of the sequence of events; 2) to counteract the impression that his agitation had been directed against Jacob, in favor of Esau. As long as Esau thought that only material blessings were involved, he felt confident that he could obtain his share of those blessings also; only after observing the great agitation of his father, did it dawn on him that something more fundamental was at stake. Being Esau, however, he was unable to comprehend that the kind of blessing that Isaac had just given away could not be bestowed on more than one person. For this reason, Isaac said to Esau \"your brother came with deceit and took your blessing,\" referring to that part of the blessing which had not been spelled out in detail, but had merely been referred to by the Torah as \"he blessed him.\" Esau, realizing that his father sided with Jacob since he had not retracted the blessing, exclaimed, \"Did he not call him crooked?\" meaning that Isaac already at birth, when he named his brother Jacob, had foreseen that he would act deceitfully later on in life, and would thus live up to his name. In stating that this was already the second time that he, Esau, had been victimized by Jacob, Esau's outcry was directed at his father. He asked a third time, \"Have you not saved a blessing for me?\" He is aware that no living person divests himself of all his possessions. This is in order not to become a charge on public or private charity. (Baba Batra 146). Isaac is forced to explain the nature of the blessing he had given Jacob before he can bless Esau with material blessings. He therefore reviews the terms of the blessing, emphasizing that Jacob has been made the most important human being, the carrier of the destiny of mankind, compared to whom all other people are of secondary importance. The blessing is not one of physical dominion over the rest of mankind; rather it is similar to the blessing Noach received after the deluge. At that time man had been made primary, relative to the animal kingdom, and making the animals sense this had been expressed in the words \"and the fear of you shall be on all the beasts of the earth etc.\" (Genesis 9,2; see our commentary in chapter 15). When Esau still does not understand why he should go out empty-handed, seeing he had served his father far more delicacies than had his younger brother Jacob, Isaac responds to Esau's appeal by predicting that Esau's future would be financially secure. In fact, Esau does not receive a blessing. Isaac repeats that all the material blessings are based only on continued worthiness of the recipient. Esau's anger was not directed at the blessings themselves, concerning which his father had managed to assuage his feelings, but his anger was directed at the machinations by which those blessings had been obtained. He decided that though the act of murdering Jacob would precipitate his father's death, he would not let that bother him. Rebecca, hearing about Esau's plans, and aware now of the sale of the birthright being a second reason for Esau's anger at Jacob, realized that Esau's hatred would not abate. When she tells Jacob to flee because of \"what you did to him,\" she refers to the sale of the birthright. She is sure that the matter of the blessing might have unpleasant results for herself but not for Jacob, since she had volunteered previously to suffer any consequences. She had not, however, assumed the consequences arising out of the sale of the birthright, something she had not even been aware of for the last forty-eight years. Even if Jacob were to kill Esau in self-defense, Esau's family would try and avenge their father's death. Rebecca therefore uses the argument of fearing to lose both her children to make the need for Jacob to flee absolute and beyond arguing. (6) Telling Isaac to send Jacob away to get himself a wife, while not influencing Esau who would see Jacob's departure as flight, would provide the shaliach mitzvah element for his journey. As such, it would act as additional protection for Jacob when he was on a mission of fulfilling the commandment of his father to take a wife and found a family. Esau's reaction is proof that Rebecca's plan worked. \"Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him to Padan Aram to get himself a wife.\" Esau then proceeded to look for another wife, someone more pleasing to his parents. This shows that the matter of the blessing was no longer uppermost in his mind. The explicit instructions to go to Laban \"who was such and such\" all served to underline the purposeful, constructive nature of this journey. Laban, after all, was the uncle of Esau as well as of Jacob, and could hardly be expected to side with Jacob in the latter's dispute with his brother. When, many years later, Jacob says to Esau, \"I have remained a stranger with Laban throughout all these years,\" he may well have referred to the fact that Laban could never have been viewed as a haven from Esau's anger, as a place of refuge. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Bereshit Rabbah 68 relates a strange parable. Jacob is asleep, angels ascending and descending the ladder. He is compared to a baby sleeping in its crib. The crib is surrounded by flies. When the baby's nursemaid arrives the flies scatter. Similarly, the angels scatter as soon as G-d appears on top of the ladder. ",
"Just as there are times when our imagination has to discount or even ignore its own figments, such as when the latter cannot be reconciled with reality, so our mind and our logic sometimes have to ignore their own conclusions when confronted with the more absolute truths that G-d reveals to His chosen from time to time, and such as the entire Jewish people experienced at Mount Sinai. Were it not a demonstrable fact, we could never imagine that the antipodes do not fall off the face of the earth, since our imagination is limited to matters our senses have experienced. This is so in spite of the fact that we can combine in our imagination things that could never be combined in real life. We can draw a horse with wings, because we know what a horse is and we know what wings are. We cannot, however, imagine the power of gravity, it being something that cannot be demonstrated in our world in a manner recognizable by our senses. ",
"Similarly, the criteria employed even by the most understanding minds may prove faulty when coming face to face with the superior logic of the Almighty. The prophets Samuel and Nathan are good examples of great minds being deceived. Samuel would have chosen Eliav as Saul's successor, since he belonged to the right family and possessed the physical attributes that distinguished Saul, whose physical attributes had been a factor in his selection as king. Samuel had to be reminded that whereas he looked only at the exterior, it was reserved for G-d to look into the heart of a person. At that particular time, physical attributes no longer mattered in the choice (Samuel I Chapters 10 and 16). Our so called logic is capable of rendering a distorted view of reality just as the eye that beholds an object partially submerged in water observes distortions in the shape of such object, though in reality such distortions have not occurred. The prophet Nathan's first reaction to David when the latter expressed the wish to build a temple, was affirmative. He had to be told by G-d that David was not the one who would be permitted to do this, but that his son Solomon would be chosen for that task. Here too, Nathan's mind without G-d’s revelation to him was inadequate to its task. In fact, G-d describes the very idea that it could have been David who would build the temple as quite inconceivable, seeing he had been a man of bloodshed (Chronicles I Chapter 22). Since the words that David was a man of bloodshed are put in his own mouth, i.e. are not reported as the reason given to Nathan by G-d, we can infer that Nathan's entire thought process was considered as faulty. David's request was perfectly reasonable; it was the prophet's reaction based on reasoning of a purely human nature that was faulty (compare version in Samuel II Chapter 7). In Kings I Chapter 22, we find another example of a prophet being misled by his own mind. ",
"It is clear then that the conclusions arrived at by a human mind need confirmation of its findings by G-d before they can be considered reliable. Our sages tell us that when Yitro advised his son-in-law Moses about the kind of judiciary system Moses was to introduce, he told him to consult with G-d in order to obtain confirmation. \"If the Lord will so command you, you will be able to endure\" (Exodus 18,23). If the unreliability of our mind is a fact concerning matters that the mind has been specifically equipped to deal with, how much more is this true when the mind is confronted by heavenly visions, to understand which it even lacks basic yardsticks? Moses asked G-d to provide him with such yardsticks, but was told that the human intellect must subordinate itself to heavenly instructions to the point where we apply the words of Isaiah 55,8, \"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways.\" Quite frequently this may result in objective truth being the very reverse of what we think it is. Sometimes, the very willingness to subordinate one's mind makes that mind receptive to matters undreamed of. Jacob is an example of such an attitude. After his dream, he was able to exclaim, \"Indeed the Lord is in this place, although such a thought had been furthest from my mind\" (Genesis 28,16 approx). This newfound insight had been contradicted by Jacob's thought processes on several accounts. A) The assumption that G-d is subject to physical dimensions as we humans use the term had been quite alien to Jacob. He was amazed to learn that G-d has a permanent residence on earth. B) The idea that G-d moves from place to place accompanying people, would never have occurred to him, had this fact not been revealed to him. C) The thought that G-d’s movements, as it were, could be brought about by outside influences, i.e. were not completely self-induced, had likewise been beyond Jacob's wildest imagination. In theology, the points just mentioned were thought completely impossible; Jacob would not have dared think of the Creator in those terms. G-d did not mean to demolish the theories Jacob had believed in; He wanted merely to broaden Jacob's spiritual horizons. The concept of hashgachah peratit, personal Providence by G-d, was the idea conveyed to Jacob in his dream. Philosophy, though it succeeds in arriving at many valid conclusions about G-d, about His uniqueness, His existence etc., nevertheless misses a great deal, as discussed in Chapter seven and forty-eight. Isaiah Chapter 66 verse 1 summarizes the lesson Jacob was taught in his dream in the following words, \"Thus says the Lord; the heavens are My throne and the earth is My footstool.\" On the one hand, the infinite dimensions of G-d are described in a manner that precludes us from imagining G-d as bound by space, since anyone who can consider the whole earth as His footstool can hardly be contained by man-made structures such as the temple. On the other hand, if such a Being exceeds the whole earth in size, how can such a Being move from place to place since it already occupies more than all the space available? Also, how could such a Being be in need of anything, seeing it has proclaimed, \"Mine is the universe and all that is therein\" (Psalms 50,12)? Therefore, G-d asks, \"What kind of house can you possibly build for Me?\" G-d asks rhetorically, \"Why did I command building a temple to dwell therein? Surely not for My need, but for your sake!\" Man's logic would not have dared presume all this, had it not been revealed to him. When a king moves his residence away from the capital to one of the country's rural centers, he does so for the benefit of his subjects in that region who will reap economic and cultural advantages by harboring royalty in their midst. However, it is important that his subjects realize what is being done for them, and that they be made aware of their former inferior status. This is the reason G-d says, \"I will look towards the poor and low-spirited who relate to My word with a feeling of awe,\" (Isaiah 66,3) \"the ones who are aware of their limitations and wish to uplift themselves, deserve My special attention.\" Only when we realize the limitations of our powers of perception, grieve over it, and long to expand our spiritual horizons, will G-d grant us greater insights. How does all this relate to Jacob's dream? Over a period of time, Jacob had acquired concepts of the grandeur of G-d, His uniqueness, His power, His being the prime mover of history, to the extent that an unassisted human intellect is able to perceive all this. At the end of Parshat Toldot, we have already read that Jacob went to Padan Aram. We hear now that he first went to Beer Sheva, to inform us, as our sages relate, that he spent fourteen years studying, preparing himself to the extent that such preparation is possible without Divine inspiration. ",
"Then he came to a place where the world was simply boarded up (Bereshit Rabbah 68). Our sages explain that this simply means that further cognitive progress came to an abrupt end. Therefore, again following a Midrash, Jacob prayed to be granted further insights. He then experienced a contraction of the earth-- according to a Midrash in Chullin— i.e. he was now granted a new perspective. These three Midrashim then describe the phenomena Jacob experienced when he lay down. He had been forced to lie down because \"the sun had set,\" i.e. the source of his natural enlightenment had exhausted itself. \"He took from the stones of the place\" (Genesis 28,11), i.e. he used all the bricks that made up his philosophy so far to use them as a foundation for further enlightenment. When our sages describe the stones as fighting amongst themselves to become Jacob's cushion, they allude to the various pillars of his philosophy, each of which wanted to serve as the stepping stone to higher insights. The stones discussed are representative of three disciplines; theology (the metaphysical), science (the physical), and mathematics, the theoretical abstract aspect of physics. When after awaking, Jacob combined the stones, anointing them as a single unit, he demonstrated thereby that all these disciplines represented an integral unit without which new insights would not have been possible. As he lay there, he began to dream; in his dream the ladder was firmly rooted to the ground but extended all the way to heaven. Jacob realized that the three worlds, i.e. disciplines he had studied, were capable of such close inter-relation that in fact they could be joined. He observed that malachey elokim, i.e. human beings who had attained perfection in matters of the spirit by means of their studies and efforts, could climb the ladder. They would reach the threshold of heaven, i.e. the gateway to understanding. Their ascent could be described as like the progress from known phenomena=effects, towards the unknown, i.e. the cause of all known effects. This cause is represented by G-d standing on top of the ladder. Conversely, once the ultimate cause had been perceived as purely abstract and spiritual, this insight descends downwards to become more and more part of our physical world. The path man travels in acquiring understanding then is as follows: 1) Observed physical phenomena for which we seek causes. 2) Arrival at the ultimate cause of all human comprehension. 3) Re-evaluation of what had been observed previously in light of the newly gained insights. The \"angels\" descending the ladder, then, are the minds of the enlightened, returning to earth to add the new found dimension, and to incorporate it in their philosophy. Our sages conveyed this concept by pointing out that the numerical value of the words sulam, ladder, and the word sinai are identical. ",
"Moses also first climbed the mountain, then descended, paralleling Jacob's dream. The revelations each received were similar, if not in degree, at least in their respective nature. Our sages teach that until the revelation at Mount Sinai, the sphere of the tachtonim, the lower mortal beings were kept separate from the elyonim, the upper immortal beings. ",
"That concept was taught to Jacob in the dream via the vision of the ladder. Another way of expressing the lesson is this: Only after mastery of the lessons of ma-aseh bereshit, the workings of the physical universe, can one hope to gain insights into ma-asseh merkavah, the workings of celestial relationships. ",
"The fact that Jacob's dream represented only the beginning of Divine revelations at its lowest level, is attested to by the following: 1) After G-d’s promise to Jacob in the dream, Jacob's statements and vow prefaced by the words \"if G-d will be with me,\" shows that, to Jacob, the message had not been so clear. 2) Jacob is portrayed as being like the servant who serves his master for the sake of the reward. He promises to give tithes if things go well, hardly the stature prophets are made of. 3) Jacob constantly seems fearful during the coming years. 4) Even when Jacob prays to G-d immediately prior to his encounter with Esau, he does not even once refer to the promise made to him by G-d in this dream. 5) Jacob's unaccountable delay in fulfilling his vow, even after G-d said to him, \"I am the G-d to whom you have vowed at Bet El, go and keep your vow.\" Jacob, not yet having returned home safely, seems in no hurry to fulfil this vow. In view of all this, and in view of the statements of our sages that the gift of prophecy is bestowed only on persons who are possessed of certain qualifications, one of which is personal wealth, we must reject the view of those commentators who see in this dream revelations going beyond anything experienced by either Abraham or Isaac. It is significant that Jacob is described as dreaming, and that even after awakening from his \"sleep,” the ladder is not called \"a vision.\" Other people who had visions during their sleep, are usually described as waking from a \"dream,\" not from \"sleep.\" Compare Pharaoh in Genesis 41,8 or Solomon in Kings I 3,15. Based on Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim Part two, Chapter forty-five, we are entitled to assume that in our case we do not deal with a prophetic vision. On the other hand, Jacob's own statement that \"G-d is in this place,\" seems to indicate that Jacob at least considered the possibility that what he had dreamed was a vision. Perhaps Jacob's doubt about the significance of what he had dreamed stemmed from the fact that he had been inadequately prepared to become the recipient of prophetic insights. Abraham, who had gone to sacrifice Isaac, an irreversible act should he have misunderstood what he believed to be Divine instructions, was obviously certain that the source of that command was not a figment of his imagination. We can understand the conditional nature of Jacob's vow then as stemming from this very uncertainty about whether in fact he had been granted prophetic insight. The monument that he erects is built on the premise that he may have been granted a vision. He vows that if all the conditions in that message will be fulfilled, he will view this as confirmation that he had indeed been the recipient of a communication from heaven. Only after the events in Shechem (Genesis Chapter 34), when G-d tells him to go up to Bet El, does Jacob become convinced that the dream of the ladder had indeed been a revelation. In retrospect then, that dream looms larger than ever. During all the years when he had difficulties with Laban and Esau, he had been far from certain that he had been granted a revelation at that time already. When finally, in Chapter thirty-five, Jacob refers to G-d as elokim, instead of as hereafter eyl shaddai, this indicates that he had now come to the resolution of his former doubts about the matter. ",
"The flies mentioned in the parable quoted at the outset, may be viewed as the spontaneous outgrowth of a churning mind; such a mind, while unassisted by Divine inspiration of revealed teachings such as Torah, is, however, like a dead-end street, its products like the products of a cadaver. Only when guidance is provided from above, can the outgrowth of our mind's activities assume valid and enduring dimensions. The Yalkut Shimoni in Isaiah 2 describes the different ways Abraham, Isaac and Jacob understood the mikdash, temple concept. Abraham referred to the temple as \"mountain,\" Isaac referred to it as \"field,\" whereas Jacob referred to it as \"house.\" These three terms reflect the respective perceptions each one of the avot had of the way G-d works on earth. Abraham, having worked out by his power of reasoning that there must be One G-d, considered this G-d as manifesting His Presence from time to time; these episodes he referred to as \"mountain,\" i.e. highlights. Visible evidence of the presence of the shechinah occurs only at rare intervals. Isaac, having experienced hashgachah peratit, Personal Providence, on more frequent occasions than his father, sees this shechinah presence like a \"field,\" something more commonplace. Jacob, who witnessed G-d’s Presence almost daily during the long years he spent at the house of Laban, calls it \"house,\" i.e. he considers its presence on earth as something permanent. Therefore, he chooses the name Bet El. According to the Midrash, this is the reason the prophet Isaiah in Chapter 2,3 refers to the eventual temple as \"the house of the G-d of Jacob,\"since until the revelation granted Jacob, the true dimension of the hashgachah peratit concept had not even been appreciated by the other ancestors. "
],
[
"Part Two",
" Jacob's service for Rachel etc. teaches the lesson that the effort made to secure an objective indicates the value of the objective in the eyes of the person who makes such an effort. ",
"\"And Jacob served seven years for Rachel\"",
"In Proverbs 6, King Solomon teaches that by observing the behavior of the ant, which though not subject to external pressure makes provisions for the oncoming winter by laying in a food supply during the summer, we can learn the value of diligence. It is a sad commentary on the behavior of man, the most intelligent creature, that he must be reminded to learn such lessons from the lowly ant. It is even more saddening to observe man spend most of his life amassing values which will not accompany him beyond the grave, and neglecting to lay in a store of provisions that will stand him in good stead once he leaves this material world. In the chapter just mentioned, Solomon condemns laziness. The fact that most people fail to make provisions in time for the amassing of eternal values, reflects their mistaken concepts about which things in our life deserve priority and exertion on our part. ",
"Midrash Rabbah Deuteronomy 25, describes seven kinds of indolence, laziness. The worst of the seven categories described is called that \"of Moses.\" The meaning is that nothing is worse than failure to study the Torah, seeing that it is written concerning Torah, \"for she is close to your heart and mouth to do\" (Deut 30,14). If the Torah were in heaven or otherwise difficult of access, excuses for not studying it might be acceptable. But the very accessibility of Torah is such that it is practically being spoonfed to us and yet we are too lazy to swallow it. ",
"It is true, as stated in Berachot 5, that the three gifts G-d gave to Israel are acquired only through trials and afflictions. They are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and Olam Haba, the world to come. It is in the nature of lofty ideals that they cannot be attained without exceptional effort. Only three vessels in the tabernacle were constructed of hammered gold and silver respectively. They are the candelabra, the trumpets, and the cherubs on the lid of the holy ark. They symbolize Torah, Eretz Yisrael and Olam Haba respectively. The fact that these three vessels were made of hammered materials, indicates that the three objectives which they represent are not easily attained. ",
"When contemplating the tremendous expenditure of energy and the suffering of untold hardship that Jacob underwent during the twenty years he stayed at Laban (see his own testimony in Genesis 31,38-42), we must ask what prompted him to spend that much effort on the acquisition of what appear to be merely material goods. In view of the many complimentary comments about Jacob throughout the Bible, it is clear that Jacob's motivation lay in his endeavor to found the house of Israel with its twelve tribes (compare Bereshit Rabbah on \"Laban had two daughters\"). ",
"This leads to another interpretation of the parable quoted at the beginning of our chapter. The flies surrounding the baby's crib represent the motives that could have been imputed to Jacob by onlookers who judged his activities superficially. Such onlookers see the malachey elokim olim veyordim, the actions of Jacob alternately being motivated by lofty (olim) or material (yordim) reasons, until the midwife arrives, i.e. until G-d suddenly assumes His position on top of the ladder. There is suddenly no more room for speculation as to the motives that fuelled Jacob's lifestyle. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) How can seven years of service appear \"like a few days,\" when experience teaches that waiting for a loved one makes seven days appear like seven years, or at least like a long period of time? The psychology underlying our question is confirmed by our sages' commentary on Exodus 2,23. 2) Why does Jacob use coarse sounding language when asking for his wife at the end of the seven-year period? How could Leah have spent an entire night with Jacob without the latter realizing who he was with? Since Laban's answer seems wholly unsatisfactory, why does Jacob accept it? 3) When Rachel called Bilha's son \"Dan,\" meaning G-d has judged me, did she mean she had been found guilty or did she mean that G-d had exonerated her in that judgment? 4) Why did Leah use her maidservants after she stopped having children? Why did she call \"Issachar\" by a name which indicated that he was G-d’s reward for what she had done? What had she done to deserve a reward? 5) Why the play on words when Joseph is named? What shame was there that had to be removed? 6) Why did Jacob want to go home afer Joseph had been born? Why did he not wait till Benjamin would be born? 7) After Laban said to Jacob, \"Determine your wages for me!\" Jacob responded by asking, \"When can I do something for my own household?\" Surely after Laban had offered to negotiate a deal, this question had become redundant? 8) Why did Jacob impose such conditions upon himself that a single speckled sheep found amongst his flock would stamp him as a thief? 9) Jacob's tactics in firing the sheep's imagination prior to their mounting the females seem strange. Surely Laban must have been aware of such practices, and for Jacob to describe these maneuvers as Divinely inspired borders on the ridiculous. 10) Why does the Torah call the mere failure to convey one's intention geneyvat daat as a kind of deceit? 11) Why did G-d forbid Laban to speak to Jacob either harshly or in a friendly manner? Surely, He could have protected Jacob against anything Laban had to say. Besides, why did Laban ignore G-d’s warning about not speaking to Jacob harshly? 12) Why did Laban boast about his power to harm Jacob when he had been warned by G-d that he had no such power and had even revealed to Jacob that he had received such a warning? 13) When Jacob justified his conduct he seems to go into more detail than necessary. Why? ",
"(1) Jacob served the full seven years meticulously, as if he had contracted for a period of a few days' service, a contract which is easy to fulfill meticulously. Because Jacob felt that seven years’ service for a girl like Rachel was a real bargain, he was able to serve out the whole period, fulfilling every little detail of the contract. (2) Jacob had requested a home of his own prior to his getting married, so that he would be able to come home to his wife instead of to a bachelor's quarters. After the wedding, having fulfilled the act of consummation, he presumably separated from his bride in accordance with the laws of ritual purity. When he observed Rachel next morning in her father's house, acting like an unmarried girl, and he found Leah and Zilpah in his own house, he realized that he had been tricked. He had been misled, partly because the younger servant maid, i.e. Rachel's, had been assigned by Laban to Leah instead of to Rachel. Laban's answer clarified that he had never agreed that Rachel should be married first, all he had agreed to had been to give Rachel to Jacob rather than to a stranger. It had never occurred to Laban that the younger Rachel should get married before her older sister. Now, if Jacob were agreeable, after a week's wait, he could also marry Rachel-- on credit as it were-- in return for another seven years of service to be performed henceforth. All this had been ordained by G-d, so that Jacob would in fact marry these four women and the promise to expand in four directions would be fulfilled. The barrenness of the matriarchs had been pre-ordained in order to demonstrate G-d’s love for their eventual children, none of whom would ever have seen the light of day except for G-d’s personal intervention, enabling their respective mothers to conceive and give birth to them. Jacob committed two errors that contributed to the delay in Rachel becoming pregnant. When Sarah and Rebecca had found themselves barren, they had either offered their servants to their husbands in the hope of vicarious motherhood, or they had prayed, in the case of Rebecca. Rachel, having reacted to her misfortune by becoming angry, compounded her own problem. When G-d saw that Leah was hated by her husband, He steppd in to enhance Leah in Jacob's eyes by having her bear him sons. Thus Rachel's pregnancy had to be delayed, pending Leah gaining the consideration from her husband that was her due. Rachel's jealousy of her sister was a further impediment, since instead of being jealous, she should have prayed for children. We do not observe Hannah being jealous of Peninah; rather we observe her praying to G-d for a male child (Samuel I 1,9). After Jacob had made it plain to Rachel that instead of her angry outburst directed at him, she should have addressed herself to the source of her misfortune, i.e.to G-d, Rachel began to copy Sarah who had given Hagar to Abraham. (3) Rachel acknowledged the heavenly judgment. As soon as she realized that acting like Sarah produced results, she also admitted that she had been judged fairly. (4) When Leah, who had attributed all her fortunes and misfortunes to G-d, realized that despite her robust health she appeared to have become sterile, she saw in this some kind of punishment by G-d, and proceeded to give her maidservant Zilpah to her husband. The name \"Gad,\" as \"Bagad\" (betrayed), indicates she had become aware she had committed a betrayal of her sister when she had gone along with Laban's trick of palming her off on Jacob instead of Rachel. The name Asher reflects that she was happy that Zilpah had born children from Jacob, that she was not jealous of that fact. When, she resumed bearing children herself after a while, she viewed this as proof that her atonement had been completed and expressed this by naming the child Issachar. The Torah describes Rachel's physiological problems by describing her as having a narrow womb. Medical science teaches that women with narrow wombs experience difficulties in giving birth. Rachel was aware of her problems; when Joseph was born she experienced no special discomfort due to G-d having expanded her womb on that occasion. No such special intervention by G-d occurred when she gave birth to Benjamin. (5) Once Joseph had been born, Rachel felt justified concerning her previous marital relations with her husband up to that time. As long as she had considered herself as unable to give birth to a live child and herself survive the birth, she had entertained doubts about the morality of having sexual relations with her husband, since the sole justification for that was the attempt to have children. Her \"shame\" had been removed therefore. Referring to future marital relations with her husband, she exclaimed \"may G-d give me another son\" (Maimonides, More Nevuchim, Section three Chapter 49). (6) Bereshit Rabbah 63 quotes an ancient tradition according to which the descendants of Esau will be defeated only by the offspring of Rachel. Now that Rachel had offspring, Jacob felt that the ground had been prepared for the eventual defeat of Esau. He therefore felt encouraged to go home and face Esau. Laban was interested in giving Jacob a fixed amount of wages. In this manner, should Jacob be found in possession of total wealth exceeding his wages less his expenses, his honesty could justifiably become suspect. (7) Jacob emphasized from the beginning that it had been his intention to take his wife and children back to Canaan with him. He had foreseen that six years later Laban might accuse him of stealing his daughters and grandchildren. Jacob said to Laban in effect, \"You are aware that during the years I have served you, you have become far wealthier than you could have anticipated. This was due to the help of my G-d, who has enriched you for my sake. The time has now come to make myself a little richer.\" Laban wants Jacob to stay, in order to prove to himself if his new riches were due to the G-d of Jacob, or if this was part of his own mazzal. Jacob responds that such a request is phony, since Laban knew full well what his newfound wealth was due to. Secondly, Jacob, knowing that blessings do not descend on numbered items, rejects the idea of fixed wages. He also does not want Laban to be in a position to suspect him of amassing wealth in a fraudulent manner, as outlined. (8) The statement that Laban is to remove all speckled sheep etc. from the flock at this point, is to give him a chance to point to his own unassailable honesty. If he started out without even a single sheep of the skin-pattern discussed, Laban would never be able to claim that Jacob's new wealth was due to a nucleus Laban had provided. Jacob especially did not want an assist from Laban, since the latter did not even acknowledge that his own wealth was due to assistance from Jacob's G-d. (9) Jacob never used the peeled sticks to fire the sheep's imagination except to start a new flock. Since G-d’s blessings are applicable only to items which already exist (as we know from the impoverished widow whose minute supply of oil was dramatically increased by Elisha, Kings II Chapter 4), there had not been any reason for Jacob to apply that strategy either for Laban's flocks or for his own flock, once such a flock existed. Jacob himself explains to his wives that his success was in exactly the reverse ratio to Laban's attempts to cheat him (compare the Jewish population increase in Egypt resulting from the Egyptians' efforts to curtail Jewish population growth, Exodus 1,12). Although Jacob had used the rods due to his own initiative, he gave credit to G-d for His assistance without which all his efforts would have come to nought. The dream in which he saw the sheep (Genesis 31,11-13) confirmed his feeling that he had enjoyed heavenly assistance. Rachel had stolen her father's terafim already well prior to Jacob's departure as can be seen from the sequence in the story. This she did in order to prevent Laban from having an inkling of Jacob's intention to depart. (10) Jacob taught his family to ride. All these preparations qualified for the description geneyvat da-at, deception. G-d’s stricture to Laban not to speak to Jacob even \"good\" refers to the kind of \"good\" Laban would employ, i.e. something that sounded good but was designed to harm Jacob. (11) In other words, Laban was warned not to harm Jacob either directly or indirectly. Laban, in typical fashion, attempts to tell Jacob that he had acted foolishly by giving Laban an excuse to harm him. He quotes G-d’s message to him, meaning that he had only been forbidden to talk, not to act against Jacob. (12) Therefore, he stresses his ability to harm Jacob. Jacob answered that all the subterfuge employed had only one purpose, namely to prevent Laban from stealing back his daughters. Concerning the terafim, since Jacob had been unaware that Rachel had taken them, he agreed that whoever had taken them ought to die. Had Jacob been aware of the true motive for this theft, he would not have condemned the thief to die for this deed. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"(13) The main reason that Jacob goes into details when defending his conduct is to contrast it with Laban's behavior; he says in effect, that whereas he might have been remiss in good manners when he departed from Laban's town, his lack of manners compared favorably with the behavior Laban had just displayed. Laban had invaded both his own and his family's privacy by physically searching all their respective quarters, all of this despite the fact that in twenty years of devoted service, Jacob had not once given the slightest reason for being accused of dishonesty. He lists the many temptations that existed to make use of Laban's property to enhance his personal comfort, be it to warm himself by night or to cool himself by day etc. He had never been guilty of neglect which resulted in any loss to Laban. In view of all this, he felt outraged at the mere suspicion that he would have stolen something held dear by Laban. Jacob does agree to a reconciliation to be confirmed by the building of a monument and stone heaps. ",
"We observe at the end of the Parshah that as soon as Jacob was no longer within the immediate vicinity of the idol worshipping Laban, he is once more surrounded by angels. "
]
],
[
[
" ON THE NEED TO EXHAUST ALL MEANS OF SELF-HELP BEFORE LEAVING THINGS TO DIVINE INTERVENTION. ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 76 (summary) relates that we find two outstanding people, each of whom had received specific assurances from G-d, display fear of the outcome of encounters concerning which G-d had promised His guidance. The two are Moses, when he confronted Og, and Jacob, when he confronted Esau. Moses had to be reminded by G-d concerning Og \"do not be afraid of him;\" Jacob, though promised G-d’s help against Esau, still displays fear immediately before the encounter is to take place. This teaches us that G-d’s promises to individuals are not to be considered as ironclad guarantees, as valid under all circumstances. ",
"Human achievement may me due to G-d’s personal intervention on our behalf known as hashgachah pertatit; it can also be due to favorable horoscopic constellations or environmental factors, commonly called hashgachah klallit; finally, it can be due to personal endurance, intelligence, energy, and skill. It is reasonable to assume that none of the factors listed account exclusively for the success or failure of our endeavors. Allowing that the Almighty's omnipotence allows Him to determine the outcome of all our endeavors, human intelligence and willpower would be utterly meaningless were they not to play a significant part in determining the success or failure of our endeavors. This statement is not, of course, intended to minimize the value of G-d’s contribution to the result of such endeavors. Although theologians claim that the Almighty can mislead the wise and impair their judgment to the point that they will act contrary to their original intentions, the same theologians do not deny that man possesses freedom of choice, without which the whole concept of reward or punishment for compliance or non compliance with G-d’s wishes would be meaningless. There are numerous instances when the Torah legislates an action designed to protect the life or property of a third party. Consider the example of the law to erect a protective fence around one's roof. The reason stated is that unless such a fence is erected, a fatal fall from such a roof would be considered as an act of bloodshed committed by the owner of the house in question. Obviously, mentioning the latter possibility assumes that there is a free choice of whether to comply with the legislation or not. If there were no choice, how could there be negative results for the owner or the victim if the owner had failed to erect the fence? But not every one walking around an unfenced roof will fall off it with fatal consequences. The ultimate result of the fate of such an individual then is the result of more than one of the factors we have listed (Deut. 22,8). Consider also that the Talmud when discussing the digging of a hole that an animal might fall into, does not hold the digger responsible if a human being had come to harm by reason of that hole. The reason is that human beings are expected to have their wits about them, are meant to use the intelligence they have been granted. We see clearly that human behavior is at least one of the criterion determining his ultimate fate. The nature of the legislation to erect a fence, then, is more of the \"good advice\" variety that the Talmud often refers to when citing Rabbinic strictures. On the other hand, we know from experience that even the most diligent endeavors of man to attain certain objectives, are often doomed to failure. The attempt by Joseph's brothers to thwart realization of his dreams by selling him to a caravan of Midianites travelling to Egypt, is just one such example. The Talmud (Niddah 60) elaborates on our theme, explaining that even if one follows all the advice concerning the acquisition of wisdom meticulously, the desired result may not be achieved unless such efforts are accompanied by an appeal to the One who grants wisdom, and by G-d’s positive response to such an appeal. Nevertheless, history is full of examples of brilliant men who were successful without turning to G-d for help; also, what point would there be in the selection of brilliant advisors to heads of states, if their advice would not have positive results? In Proverbs 22,29, Solomon tells us, \"Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand in front of kings! (10,4) he will become poor who deals with a sick hand, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.\" We must conclude then that success of human efforts is assured if the individual in question is also favored by astrological influences, mazzal and if due to his own merit he receives Divine guidance at the personal level. Philosophers agree that one must not base one's lifestyle on hope for success due to fortuitous circumstances. Lucky breaks cannot be depended on. The interplay of the four causes for success in worldly matters may be understood in the following manner. A person born under favorable conditions who also lives the life of the righteous, qualifies for hashgachah peratit and will therefore require relatively little personal exertion to achieve his objectives. \"Man's steps are guided by the Lord, when the latter approves of his path\" (Psalms 37,23). Conversely, should such a person lead the wrong kind of life, even the favorable conditions he was born under, will not altogether protect him, as G-d’s hand will prove more powerful than his natural good fortune and will thwart him despite his best efforts. See the example of Achitofel (Samuel II Chapter 7). To quote Isaiah 44,25, \"He turns wise men backwards and makes their knowledge foolish.\" The same holds true, of course, if one's natural mazzal is only average or worse. If, however, one is endowed with average skills and intelligence, and one's actions are the outgrowth of one's own free will, such a person does not qualify for Divine intervention in his affairs. His successes in wordly matters are due in overwhelming measure to his own efforts or lack thereof. Any slackening of his efforts is apt to put his success in jeopardy. If such a person had been born under unfavorable conditions, his chances to succeed would be minimal indeed. If a person born under negative environmental, hereditary, and horoscopic influences lives a life of piety, then his efforts combined with the merit he has accumulated will qualify him for Divine intervention on his behalf, and enable him to neutralize the negative factors under which he had been born. Abraham overcame the negative mazzal of sterility (Psalm 33,18). \"The eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him and wait patiently for His kindness to save them from death and to keep them alive during times of famine.\" In all these instances, personal effort and perseverance contribute the major part to eventual success. In fact, any negligence or laziness is rated as sinful when circumstances seem to have called for exertion of self (Deuteronomy 16,10, promising success in return for kind and generous behaviour towards the poor, does so on the assumption that one's efforts will be crowned with success). The Torah does not promise windfalls. Since the majority of people are of average or below average endowments, the need for them to exert themselves on their own behalf is beyond question, since their merit or natural mazzal cannot be depended upon. The advice given by the Torah is addressed precisely to this large group of people, who by following it can hope to battle adverse conditions successfully. Man's lack of success is called nefilah when it occurs independent of G-d’s intervention; it is called happalah when due to G-d’s active intervention in the affairs of that individual. Psalm 37,24 tells us, \"Even though a man may fall, he shall not be cast down, for the Lord upholds his hand.\" When someone walks on a roof protected by a railing, this railing will prove a protection if the Lord had not intended for that person to fall off that roof. However, if the Lord had intended for that person to fall off that roof, the best railing in the world cannot save him. Sometimes, two people born under identical circumstances can have a widely different range of success due to their different merits (The Talmud Moed Katan 28 discusses this problem in connection with Rav Chisdah and Rabbah). Many fine distinctions apply in ascertaining the relative success of individuals in apparently similar circumstances. Suffice it to say that it behooves a person to view himself at all times as average in deeds (merits) and as below average in natural endowments. This will give him the incentive to acquire merits and to strive to overcome handicaps. In all matters of \"worldly affairs,\" we have to make the first move, and the Lord has to assist us to assure us of success in carrying out our designs. Our prayers must be directed towards obtaining His help to overcome our respective handicaps. Should one fail to succeed in spite of having complied with all the above, the cause may be heavenly judgment acting as punishment. It could be trials to test our faith in Him. It could also be an affliction designed to enhance the ultimate achievement of our aims in our own eyes when it does finally occur. If one gives up prematurely in the face of obstacles, and does not strive mightily to overcome such impediments, the chances are that one is the architect of one's own misfortune and that such failure had not been decreed by G-d at all. Suppose we had been given the choice between immediate execution or life imprisonment, without time off for good behavior, we would certainly refuse to acquiesce in either alternative. We would make strenuous efforts to escape either of these two calamities. We would leave no stone unturned as long as the efforts to improve our own situation would not be at the expense of some innocent third party. Similarly, our own efforts to escape misfortune must be pursued up to the point where continued insistence would constitute rebellion against G-d. If pestilence rages in a city, one does not stay around, but one isolates oneself (Baba Kama 60). One employs every known medication to ward off infection. Should all efforts have failed and one appears doomed, one must declare one's faith in the justice of the Lord, reconcile oneself to His superior wisdom, and prepare to meet one's judgment. Although Ramban disagrees with the approach we have outlined in the case of the need to call a doctor, he would not disagree with the approach outlined in other areas of life (Ramban holds that whereas a doctor may treat the sick, the sick must not ask to be treated, as this would indicate lack of faith in G-d as the ultimate Healer). When G-d sent Samuel to anoint David, who had a price on his head, Samuel had to expose himself to danger, in order to perform this mission. G-d did not expect Samuel to rely on miracles, but told him to use subterfuge in the shape of a calf, so that if intercepted, he could claim to be on the way to Bethlehem to offer the calf as a sacrifice. G-d instructs, \"During the meal, you will proceed according to My instructions\" (Samuel I 15,1 -6). King Assa's reliance on a doctor is criticized only because it had not been preceded by prayer, not because the patient had no right to consult doctors (Chronicles II 16,12). One of the best examples of the extent to which one has to go to ensure one's survival, is found in Samuel I 21,14, when David, while at the court of Achish, deliberately acts like a demented halfwit to mollify those of Achish's advisors who did not trust his loyalty. When David recalls that episode in Psalm 34, he credits G-d with helping him, though when reading the account of this event it seems wholly due to David's own initiative. His problem had been that he had to choose between actively fighting against his own people to prove his loyalty to the Philistines and to qualify for refuge from Saul in Cat, or to forfeit his life by refusing to join an attack against his own people. In this unusual situation, a course of inaction coupled with an appeal to G-d seemed the only way out. The classic example for proper conduct is found in the account of the encounter between Jacob and Esau. Since Jacob's delegation to Esau had been prompted by fear, and some of our sages even castigate Jacob for having \"taken hold of the dog's ear\" (Bereshit Rabbah 75), we must ask why G-d did not take Jacob aside and say to him \"do not be afraid, I will be your shield,\" as He had done for Abraham after the latter had returned from defeating Kedorleomer and liberating Lot (Genesis Chapter 15). Similarly, G-d had told Isaac not to go to Egypt, to rely on Him. Even Jacob himself, before setting out on his last journey to Egypt, had been personally reassured by G-d. No doubt, the impending encounter with Esau called for more reassurance than any of the other examples mentioned. So why was this reassurance not forthcoming? ",
"Some difficulties in the text of our Parshah: 1) Why did Jacob salute Esau with such excessive humility? Why the repeated obsequious references to \"to find favor in your eyes?\" 2) Why is the Torah silent about the manner in which Jacob's messengers carried out their mission? Why do the sages disagree as to the identity of those messengers? 3) What was the point of dividing the camps when Jacob's own family was part of the first camp? 4) If Jacob believed that the promises made to him by G-d on previous occasions were valid now, why did he fear the encounter? 5) When Jacob listed G-d’s promises, why did he not mention the promise in the dream with the ladder? 6) Why did Jacob instruct each of the gift-bearers to Esau separately? 7) Why did the angel that wrestled with Jacob insist on being released? 8) If the sun \"shone for him,\" why would Jacob's limp be mentioned at this juncture? 9) What is the difference between \"I have everything\" (Jacob), and \"I have a great deal\" (Esau)? What is Esau's offer to accompany Jacob, and Jacob's polite refusal, all about? ",
"Since Jacob's return to Eretz Yisrael was initiated at the request of G-d, and G-d had not yet given any hint of His assistance in the forthcoming confrontation with Esau, we can understand why some commentators look for something in Jacob's conduct which caused G-d’s displeasure. These conflicting views are even reflected in the Midrash Rabbah. According to the opinion that the messengers sent by Jacob were angels, one cannot fault Jacob's conduct, else angels would not have been placed at his disposal. ",
"According to Rabbi Yehudah, who states that the messengers were of the flesh and blood variety, Jacob may have displeaesd G-d in some manner. The fact that no help was forthcoming from G-d until the night following the return of the messengers supports our view that until Jacob had exhausetd all means at his disposal to ensure that the encounter would be successful, Providence would not manifest itself. Only after the successful struggle with the \"man,\" concluding Jacob's preparations for the fateful encounter, would G-d offer His reassurance. From this we learn the importance of doing all one can to ensure one's success. (1) Jacob instructed the servants in a manner that would show that he was treating Esau with the courtesy due an older brother. (6) Calling all the giftbearers together would have revealed inner fear both to them and to members of his family. He told Esau that he had stayed with Laban all these years, in order to show Esau that he had not felt the need to run away from Laban. He indicated that he could understand Esau's reluctance to welcome a brother who had hired himself out for wages; since by now, however, he had acquired a fortune, Esau need not be ashamed of his poor brother. (2) The fact that the messengers returned without actually having met Esau proves they must have been angels; who else would have arrogated to himself the right to return \"mission unaccomplished?\" Moreover, who else would have offered gratuitous advice to Jacob? They did so in order to give Jacob time enough to arrange the gifts and to send them ahead. When Joseph encountered the \"man\" while he is searching for his brothers, he is also given gratuitous advice. In that case also, we assume it was an angel who proffered that advice (Genesis 37,16-18). ",
"So far then Jacob's efforts provided him with useful information about how to approach Esau when he would meet him. Jacob's fear did not concern his own death at the hands of Esau, but he was concerned about the possible death of members of his family, concerning whom no promise from G-d had been received. The wording of the promise at Bet El in the dream of the ladder, had been directed only at Jacob alone. (3) Jacob divided the camp so that he could not be faulted for having neglected a chance to ensure partial survival. No doubt, the camp mentioned last, was positioned in such a way that Esau would encounter it first. Should Esau want to vent his rage by destroying Jacob's camp, and his anger could be assuaged by such a pogrom, Jacob's stratagem would have worked since that camp contained no one especially dear to him. If there had been only one camp and that had been attacked, all might have been lost. Jacob's prayer at that point acknowledged both the assistance received thus far and the promises made; it made the point however that all G-d’s promises made to Abraham and Isaac would come to nought if he and his family were not saved at this time. Jacob indicated that he did not think that he personally had any merit to entitle him to ask for favors for himself, seeing that when he had first set out on his quest he had only had a walking staff to call his own, and he had received so many favors from G-d that he was a wealthy man by now. He appealed for help, since, though assured of victory, in a battle involving so many, even victory might involve heavy casualties. G-d had not yet promised that no harm would come to any of them. Jacob was certainly entitled to feel alarmed at that point in his life. At the conclusion of his prayer, he looked for a sign that his prayer had received a favorable hearing. This is why he chose to spend the night at the site where he had offered his prayer. Since Jacob's efforts to save himself had not yet included a financial sacrifice, G-d withheld reassurance until he had done his share in that respect. It was the absence of a response from G-d then that galvanized Jacob into rising early on the following morning to arrange for the gifts to be sent to Esau. There are times when preoccupation with worldly matters-- which are after all only our second most important concerns-- exceeds what is reasonable and is apt to be misinterpreted. Jacob's encounter with the spiritual counterpart of Esau is an example of this. Since Jacob had risen during the night in order to carry insignificant belongings across the river Yabbok, this had been misinterpreted by Esau's guardian angel as evidence that Jacob was excessively concerned with worldly goods. This provided said angel with the opportunity to challenge Jaob's moral superiority over Esau (Chullin 91). Jacob recovered quickly enough from this momentary lapse, and the angel had to acknowledge Jacob's claim to morally high standards, by revealing to him that he would henceforth be known as \"Israel.\" Nonetheless, the momentary weakness displayed and referred to by the Torah euphemistically as \"dislocation of the hip joint,\" is frequently found among Jacob's descendants, and gives Esau/Amalek opportunities to attack the Jewish people's claim to moral leadership. Already Isaac had warned against this weakness in his blessing to Esau, when he told the latter, that he, Esau, would be able to shake off the yoke of his younger brother whenever the latter would fail to live up to his standards (Genesis 27,41). (7) The angel's request to let him go, is simply another way of saying to Jacob, \"Why do you waste your time detaining me, when you should be busy preparing gifts for Esau.\" ",
"Jacob's request to know the angel's name means that he wants to know who has the power to inflict this damage on his hip joint. The angel tells him that it is not the name that matters, since the ability to inflict damage was not rooted in the personality (name) of the angel, but rather it is an angel's mission that is of importance. Just as to many people the names of individual kings such as Saul or Hezzekiah or even David become blurred, and all they remember is that all these were Kings of Israel, so the individuality of an angel pales into insignificance when compared to his respective function. It had been Jacob's name (the crooked one) which had misled the angel into thinking that he was possessed of a fatal character flaw, and this is why he rectified his error by admitting that Jacob was indeed an Israel, a fighter for spiritual values. In consonance with the Rabbis' maxim that a hint to the wise is sufficient, the angel did not elaborate on the theme. Now that Jacob had done everything humanly possible on his own and his family's behalf, the first signs of Divine assistance become evident, commencing with the sun \"shining for him,\" i.e. healing the physical affliction to the point where he could at least limp. (8) Apparently, up to that point he had been unable to move at all, and the dislocation of his hip joint had left him rooted to the spot of the nocturnal encounter. Since Esau's spiritual counterpart had not been able to find any other weakness in Jacob, the Jewish people, ever mindful of this weakness and convinced that this part of the body was more prone to sinfulness than any other part, abstained from eating that part of an animal, and even extended the prohibition to include use of the sinew for any purpose other than eating. Isaiah 48,4 uses the hyperbole of the sinew to describe sinful obstinacy per se. So does the prophet Micha in Chapter 4 verse 6. When Jacob experienced Divine assistance, he felt so reassured that he proceeded to face Esau without bothering to actually divide the camps. He was certain that now everyone could face Esau. ",
"It is interesting that the temple in later years was to be erected in the territory of Benjamin, the only one of the brothers who had not bowed down to Esau. (he had not been born yet) The defeats inflicted in times to come on the descendants of Esau were likewise administered by descendants of Benjamin, i.e. Saul, and Mordechai. Even Haman's wife realised that if Mordechai was descended from the tribe that had defeated Amalek once, there was little hope of Haman being able to overcome him. Esau, believing that anyone trying to atone for a capital offense would at least offer all his worldly goods, thought that in coming face to face with the gifts, he had actually seen all of Jacob's wealth. (9) Therefore, he said, \"I have lots, keep what is yours.\" In this manner he wanted to show that he was in a generous mood. Jacob then had to correct Esau's mistaken impression by announcing that what Esau had just seen was merely a gift as is befitting when one meets a superior person. Jacob himself, however, had retained so much of his own wealth that he was able to say, \"I have all that a person could wish for.\" Esau's offer to travel with Jacob, demonstrates his error in believing that the time had already come when no more basic differences in their respective outlooks on life existed between them. Jacob is at pains to explain that the Jewish attitude to material values is such that the slightest overemphasis leads to negative spiritual results. In alluding to this, he says that if one pushes the sheep too much even for a single day, the flock will die (Genesis 33,13). In conclusion, it is clear that Divine help had been forthcoming only after every effort had been made to exhaust natural means. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And Jacob came in peace\"",
"The Mishnah in Avot Chapter three states that anyone whose theoretical knowledge is greater than the action he takes based on such knowledge is comparable to a tree whose foliage is abundant but whose roots are few. When a wind blows, it will uproot such a tree and turn it upside down as we know from Jeremiah 17,6, \"He shall be like a lonely tree in the wasteland, and shall not see when good comes.” On the other hand, he whose practical deeds are greater than his theoretical knowledge is comparable to a tree of little foliage but many roots which cannot be uprooted by all the winds in the world, as is described in the verse of Jeremiah quoted. ",
"Our sages agree that people and trees have much in common, are similar in structure and appearance. Just as the tree, though one integral unit, consists of separate parts, separate in their respective functions, so does man consist of separate parts. The roots and trunk of a tree are distinct from its branches, the former being rooted in the earth, the latter extending horizontally into the airspace surrounding it. Then there are the fruits to be taken from the tree to be consumed. So too, man has a trunk and root on earth, i.e. his material resources, vital juices, which enable him to exist in life on earth. Also, akin to the branches of a tree, man possesses wisdom enabling him to extend his life laterally and comprehend many disciplines, both secular and spiritual. Finally, the fruit of all these cognitive powers is recognition of G-d as one's Creator, and true belief in Him and in one's purpose in life. It is understood that if the trunk is healthy and wholesome, the chances of the branches developing properly and producing excellent fruit are good. True, there are exceptions when healthy trunks produce few branches and fruit. When the trunk is not sound however, abundance of branches and fruit will most certainly not be forthcoming. Similarly, a physically and ethically healthy human being may likely, though by no means certainly, achieve its purpose of cognition of G-d and true faith. We observe this phenomenon among many gentiles who have not had the benefit of revelation. When vital elements are lacking in the trunk however, i.e. the physical part of the human being, no true wisdom or true belief is likely to develop. By missing vital elements, we refer to the absence of good character traits, and the absence of vital senses. Just as a ladder cannot fulfil its function unless it is firmly planted on solid ground, and its rungs are sound, so progress toward the spiritual perfection of man depends on the availability of the basic ingredients. Absence of the necessary ingredients in the trunk can be traced to three causes. 1) Unethical conduct and poor character traits which prevent acquisition of wisdom, without which cognition of G-d will not follow. 2) Laziness and unwillingness to overcome natural handicaps and evil tendencies. 3) Lack of sensitivity to certain phenomena, resulting in a warping of the mentality (discussed in Chapter 8). Just as the successful growth of a tree and its development is noticeable first and foremost in the trunk which feeds the other parts, so man will be influenced primarily by his character traits rather than by his other accomplishments. It is natural that one will be influenced more by one's actions than by one's mind. He will not therefore discover true wisdom without being of good character, and if by chance he does find wisdom in spite of lack of good character, he will not be able to hold on to it. Just as a trunk which is weak or corrupt cannot for long feed the branches and the fruit, so an unhealthy character cannot for long support wisdom and spirituality. This is the gist of the message of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah quoted from Avot. It is also the reason why many mussar books have been written to pave the way for those who are desirous of acquiring wisdom and cognition of G-d, to learn to excel first in truly ethical conduct. Aristotle's book of ethics is a fine example, designed to help man achieve harmony with the will of his Creator. Granted that all these admonitions are recorded throughout the Torah and the books of the prophets in a scattered fashion, one needs to thank the authors of these books for their systematic approach and the sound reasoning displayed in their treatment of this subject. This is especially true of the four major traits to be developed. ",
"The most important trait to be developed is patience. This is the ability to endure adversity easily, not without sensitivity, but heroically. One does not display one's pain or sorrow in a manner which reveals that one feels a burden that is difficult to bear. On the other hand, one does not conceal it to the point where fools would be justified in concluding that one is totally insensitive to such pains or burdens. The truth of all this is demonstrated by David, when the first son of Bat Sheva was deathly ill (Samuel II Chapter 12). Until the death of the child, David left nothing undone to plead for its life. However, as soon as the child had died and the Lord's decision had become evident, David did not mourn publicly, but demonstrated how to accept G-d’s decision gracefully, without outward sign of discontent. The reaction of Jacob's sons to the rape of their sister seems to point to a lack of this trait on their part. On the face of it, they failed to accept what had befallen Dinah as G-d’s decision, requiring graceful acceptance on their part. ",
"The second of the four traits (described in Chapter 6) is to hate openly, not to bury one's hatred within one's heart. Hiding one's hatred reveals fear, whereas candor reveals more regard for truth than for public opinion. Therefore, attacking one's enemies by means of an ambush, i.e. by using deceit, is despicable. By hating openly, one displays contempt for the enemy. This was also demonstrated by Nachash of the Beney Ammon (Samuel I Chapter 11) who proclaimed his hatred for the people of Yavesh Gilead openly, showing his contempt for them. By using this tactic, the men of Yavesh Gilead were given time to arrange for their survival and to rush three hundred and thirty thousand people to their aid under Saul's leadership. Practicing this trait, then, can often be counterproductive, as it enables the intended victim to obtain aid before he becomes victimized. ",
"Jacob's sons fell into this trap by acting deviously. They tricked the people of Shechem into thinking that they were friendly, while planning all the time how to kill them with impunity. They should have considered if their anger was not justifiable enough to proclaim their feelings publicly, as men of character would have done. If they felt that giving public vent to their feelings was not warranted, they should not have taken revenge either. ",
"Trait number three of the four traits described in Ethics Chapter one, is the unseemliness of pursuing the acquisition of material wealth with undue fervor. Basically, this usually reflects a reluctance to give to others, an urge to be always at the receiving end (egotism is a very negative trait). Depending on the degree and the extent of the urge to acquire what belongs to others, Aristo calls the perpetrator either egotistical or wicked. Our Torah, similarly, deals frequently with the wrongful acquisition of property. The common denominator of such a character weakness is listed last in the ten commandments because it is the root of all evil. The Torah describes Abraham as the model par excellence of the person who gives rather than receives. The tribes of Reuben Gad and half of Menashe on the other hand, are typical of those who want to receive more in return for giving less, when they demanded territory on the East Bank of the Jordan and appeared unwilling to share the burden of military conquest of the land of Canaan (Bamidbar Rabbah 22). Solomon describes the consequences of such greed in Proverbs 20,21, \"Property secured by theft will neither be blessed at the beginning nor at the end.\" The looting of the property of Shechem by Jacob's sons, certainly seems quite uncharacteristic of their heritage, and contrasts strongly with the Jews of Persia under the leadership of Mordechai who made a point of not touching a cent of the property of the antisemites against whom they had defended themselves (Esther Chapter 9). ",
"The fourth trait listed by Aristo (Chapter 11) defines the true man of valor as someone who is not reckless, but weighs the dangers he exposes himself to in relation to the chance of success in battle. Being human, fear in varying degree is not alien to him. When facing certain death, he is aware of the advantages of life; when the cause is worthy however, he chooses death as being preferable to an unworthy life. Our sages, in Sanhedrin 74, have formulated three evils as the ones that are not fit to live with, and for the avoidance of which death is preferable to life (immoral sexual relationships, idol worship, and shedding inncocent blood). This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 83. The value of not endangering one's life frivoulously, is demonstrated in Samuel II Chapter 23, when David refused to drink water which three heroes had secured for him at the risk of their lives. They could easily have been killed by Philistines at Bethlehem. David compared the water they brought him to their own lifeblood. Since our lives are a sacred trust given to us by G-d for safekeeping, we are not at liberty to endanger it needlessly. Until the owner (G-d) claims His property back, we have to preserve it faithfully. Elijah was wrong in offering his life back to G-d. (Kings I19) Why did he flee from Jezebel who would gladly have taken his life, had he not known that it was his duty to preserve it? When the wife of Job (Job 2,10) exhorted him to curse G-d and thus deliver himself up to death either at the hands of G-d or through a human tribunal, she did so thinking he would be better off dead than alive. Job, however, answered her that anyone willing to accept the pleasant aspects of life must likewise be prepared to accept the unpleasant parts if and when they do occur. Flavius Josephus's own account of how he surrendered to the Romans rather than commit suicide, is a valid argument in favor of our position. How much did Jacob's sons err when they destroyed a city situated in the midst of a densely populated area, an action that was bound to be followed by retaliatory measures by the whole district, and which could ultimately have resulted only in their collective deaths? Jacob remonstrated with them, \"You have troubled me to make me odious\" (Genesis 34,30). Had it not been for \"the fear of the Lord\" which overcame the inhabitants of the neighbouring towns, the inevitable consequences would have ensued. ",
"We see, therefore, that the sons of Jacob displayed a total disregard for all these four character traits in their dealings with Shechem and his city. Aristo's lessons of self discipline are valid then for all those who have not had the benefit of the revelation at Mount Sinai, who have not heard the words G-d taught us in the Torah. Such people, if they want to attain wisdom and knowledge of G-d, must travel the path indicated by Aristo in his book of ethics. We Jews, however, are somewhat different trees inasmuch as instead of being rooted in the earth, we are rooted in heaven. Our roots, instead of going deeper into the ground, strive upwards. We learn the word of G-d as soon as we start learning how to walk: \"The righteous lives by his faith\" (Chabakuk 2,3). Our vital juices are our faith, and our body is the fruit nurtured by these Divinely inspired thoughts. This requires, on occasion, the very opposite of what Aristotele would call \"ethical conduct.\" Abraham's unquestioning willingness to sacrifice Isaac, Jacob's subterfuge in securing the blessing intended for Esau, or his purchase of the birthright for a pittance, exploiting his brother's hunger, are all examples of this. In fact, practicing the finest human traits such as king Saul's pity for Agog, lost him the kingship (Samuel I Chapter 15). When the prophet (Kings I 20,35) says to his companion, \"Strike me,\" and his companion refused, the companion was slain for his refusal to raise his hand against the man of G-d. The standards of ethical conduct for Jews are set from on high for the Torah oriented personality, and do not always correspond to the maxims espoused by mere human intellect, however well motivated. Generally speaking, there is no greater sin than disrespect for one's parents. King Chiskiyahu, who displayed that apparent disrespect when he dragged the remains of his father on a stretcher, may have referred to this publicly misunderstood action when he prayed for his survival on his deathbed, and referred to the upright ways of the Lord, invoking his own conduct as deserving recognition. Having obeyed G-d’s law, despite thereby creating a very unfavorable impression of himself amongst the people and thus having exposed himself to condemnation by his peers, he may have prayed for his survival as a sign from G-d that that conduct had been Divinely approved (Kings II 20,1-3). There are numerous examples of the truism (Proverbs 21,30) \"No wisdom can prevail against the Lord.\" As long as the roots of our faith keep increasing and deepening, we will be nourished by the lifegiving waters of Torah, and need not be afraid of hostile phenomena around us, but we will be able to weather all onslaughts, as illustrated by the parable of the trees in the Mishnah we have quoted. Wisdom which is not based on the revealed will of G-d is apt to mislead its owner, and in times of stress may not protect him against the ravages of external forces. Since Jacob's sons’ roots were not in the earth, but were drawing their nourishment from heaven, they were able to defy all the normal rules of human conduct listed by Aristotele and yet succeed in their plan and its execution. Since the day Abraham had been commanded circumcision, his descendants had been set apart from those uncircumcised. They had, of course, been aware of all the trouble Abraham had gone to to avoid Isaac marrying a Canaanite girl, and the commandment of Isaac and Rebecca to Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. They had also observed that as a result of following these instructions, their father had established a family, all of whom were true to their heritage. Rape of their only sister then was a public desecration of G-d’s name, in the face of which ordinary rules of human conduct did not apply any longer. The brothers' deliberate flouting of all the four major rules of conduct was designed to impress the G-dly principles on which their lives were built, on the surrounding country. On all four occasions when the Torah describes the reaction of Jacob's sons to the rape, be it when they heard about it, when they negotiate with Chamor, when they slew the people in the city, or even when they reject their father's rebuke, each time they refer to the immoral act that had been perpetrated upon them, meaning their sister, and themselves by extension. The fact that the tum-ah defilement is mentioned only in connection with the brothers' reaction underscores that the Torah upholds their conduct (naturally, mention of the event and Jacob having heard about it prior to the brothers is a necessary part of the narrative). ",
"Some problems in the text of the story: 1) Why was the city near which all this occurred not mentioned by name? Shechem is certainly not more than a reference to the city that belonged to Shechem, just like Ir David, or Ir Sichon? 2) Why is Dinah referred to as a daughter of Leah and Jacob? Was there then another Dinah? Why the repetition of Shechem's love and desire for Dinah? 3) The report about Chamor going to see Jacob, although no discussion takes place prior to the return of the brothers, seems out of order. The return of the brothers, and their anguish prior to the arrival of Chamor in their home would have seemed a more appropriate sequence of the reportage. Mentioning that sexual intercourse with the unmarried daughter of Jacob is inadmissible hardly needs emphasis, so why the line \"and such a thing must not be done\" (34,7)? 4) Why does Chamor start immediately talking about marriage, instead of first trying to assuage the brothers' feelings? Shechem also discusses only the future instead of expressing regret about what had happened. 5) The conditions imposed regarding circumcision of all the people of Chamor and Shechem seem loaded with unnecessary verbiage. 6) Why did Shimon and Levi pick the third day after circumcision to attack the city? Would the townspeople not be still weaker immediately after circumcision? 7) Why would the brothers loot the town if the object was merely to punish them for participation in an immoral act? The more we hear about the moral justification of their act, the less we can understand the monetary gain as an apparent objective. 8) Why did Jacob delay fulfilling the vow he had made at Looz, i.e. Bet El, after the dream with the ladder? 9) What were the alien deities that Jacob told his household members to get rid off? Why is the death of Deborah mentioned? 10) The last two words in 35,12 seem superfluous. What is the meaning of \"G-d rose from the spot He had spoken with him\" (35,13)? 11) Why did the midwife say to Rachel, \"Do not be afraid,\" when it was obvious she was about to die? 12) The words \"It happened while Jacob lived in that country\" in 35,21 seem superfluous. We already know that he had pitched his tent in Migdal Eder. 13) Why is Reuben's indiscretion mentioned in the same verse as \"Jacob had twelve sons?\" ",
"(1) There is no firm evidence that the city of Shechem mentioned in the books of the prophets is identical with the town near which Dinah was raped. There are pointers that suggest that this was not the same city. If the brothers were tending sheep at Shechem while their homes were at Chevron, Shechem must be presumed to have been less than a day's walk away. It is unreasonable to assume that Jacob sent Joseph all by himself on a journey of several days, as would have been the case if Shechem mentioned there were identical with the Nablus of today. In particular, seeing that so much bloodshed had taken place there, it would have been irresponsible to send a seventeen-year old into such hostile country all by himself. Even the brothers themselves were hardly likely to provoke the local population by grazing their flocks in their vicinity. We must assume therefore that Ir Shechem means the city of Shechem in the same sense as Ir David means \"the capital of David's kingdom.\" The author explains how to dispose of apparently contradictory comments by the Talmud in Sanhedrin 102. (2) The reference to Dinah being a daughter of Leah is undoubtedly complimentary. The Torah, by referring to her ancestry, emphasizes that she had nothing but the best of intentions, that her excursion did not indicate a departure from traditional Jewish conduct. The repetition of the three expressions \"He took her, he lay with her, he forced her\" indicate that she remained uncooperative during all three phases of what is being described; she did not weaken in her resistance in any way. The reason three actions are mentioned is because Jacob's family suffered three indignities: A) The shame suffered by the whole family; B) The damage done to the girl's innocence and the loss of her virginity; C) The physical pain caused Dinah when she had to submit to violence. The punishment for the first of these indignities prescribed by the Torah is boshet, compensation in financial terms. The second indignity which reduced Dinah's value as a prospective bride in the compensation for the victim. It is noteworthy that Dinah did not lose her appeal for Shechem on account of any of the indignities he had heaped upon her. \"He cleaved to the daughter of Jacob\" (34,3). The family of Jacob had not become sullied in his eyes; he loved her just as before (not like Amnon who lost all his desire for Tamar once he had raped her). Shechem tried to talk softly to Dinah's heart to help her recover from her pain. (3) The order in which the Torah describes the arrival of the sons, after Chamor had already arrived at Jacob's house, is to exonerate Jacob from any implication in his sons' subsequent actions, since there had not been an opportunity for them to consult. That is why Jacob on his deathbed refers to \"in their secret counsel let my soul not be involved\" (Genesis 49,6). It is to underscore that he had not been a party to their plan. Obviously, the sons could not have heard about the event while being in the field. Therefore, we must understand the sequence of events thus: (34,7) \"When the sons came home and heard what a shameful act had been perpetrated against Israel, namely that a daughter of Jacob had been slept with, something that could not be tolerated.\" (4) Chamor uses the future course of events in order to compensate for an injustice that could no longer be undone. He emphasizes that he does not only want to legitimize his relations with Dinah, but goes far beyond this, and this constitutes a great honor for Jacob. The king offers the freedom of the country to Jacob's family. The sons' reason for deceiving Chamor has already been discussed in the first part of this chapter. (5) When the brothers use the term tame, defiled, when referring to the rape and subsequently suggesting a compromise, they are already using deceit, since they conveyed the impression to Chamor and Shechem that they had calmed down already and that their suggestions therefore could be taken at face value, could be believed. An exact examination of the text reveals that in fact the brothers did not breach any contract, nor did they retract from their original position. This is the reason Onkelos translates the word mirmah, slyness, deceit, simply as chochmah, cleverness, wisdom. They said, \"We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man with a foreskin because it is a shame for us to forgive such an act.\" Chamor understood them to mean that the words \"we cannot\" refer only to the foreskin, not to the shame they had suffered. Similarly, Chamor understood their statement \"if you will become like us,\" as referring only to the rite of circumcision, whereas the brothers used it in a wider sense meaning that they would have to embrace all aspects of the brothers' lifestyle and religion. Thereby they served notice that they were not going to forgive anything. We note that nowhere did the brothers promise that Dinah would become Shechem's wife. They only spoke in general terms, \"our daughters,\" \"your daughters,\" etc., and threatened to leave the neighborhood with their sister if their demands were not complied with. When Chamor reported in his city on these discussions, he represented the rape episode as having been resolved, and emphasized the future advantages to be gained by intermarrying with Jacob's family. The unexpected acceptance by the townspeople of the terms offered may have convinced the sons of Jacob that heaven had indicated its approval for their plan of revenge. (6) Possibly the \"third day\" referred to was the third day of the week, i.e. Tuesday, but in reality the first day after the circumcision. This day is under the constellation of Mars, and signals bloodshed. (7) The brothers had to prevent the wives and children from raising an alarm in the neighboring towns after they had killed the males. Therefore, the females and children had to be taken captive. Since abandoning the herds made no sense, and since their undertaking had evidently enjoyed the help of heaven, they felt entitled to acquire the livestock etc. The repeated outcry \"May our sister be treated like a harlot?\" underscores that to revenge such a misdeed, considerations of personal safety that are normally valid criteria, and which were part of the objections raised by Jacob, were not valid now. (8) Until now Jacob had not been certain that his dream about the ladder had been of a prophetic nature; he only became sure now that G-d spoke to him and identified Himself as having been the One to whom Jacob had made the vow at that time. (9) He was intent to remove any trace of idols that had been part of the loot his sons had taken from the city of Shechem and Chamor, and to remove any impurity acquired through contact with such idols. To this end, he instructed all his people to change their garments. Of course, the exhortation included the order to desist from any idolatrous practices that might have been picked up by his sons due to their contact with the idol worshippers. (12) The death of Deborah, a fine woman, may have been the final chapter in the sons' repentance of the whole Dinah episode, since we have a tradition that the death of righteous people provides atonement for the survivors. Inasmuch as all of Jacob's sons could qualify for the heritage promised to their forefathers, G-d repeats \"to your descendants I will give the land,\" meaning to all of them, not like Esau or Ishmael who did not qualify though they too had been descendants of Isaac and Abraham respectively. (10) Contrary to the normal custom of a pupil departing from his master, in this case G-d departed from Jacob, the latter still remaining in his place. This suggests that Jacob's task had not yet been completed, prompting him to erect the monument and fulfil payment of his vow. It was here that the betrothal of Israel and G-d took place, later to be consummated by chuppah, a wedding ceremony at Mount Sinai. Details of this whole process will be discussed in Chapter forty-eight. (11) At the beginning of Rachel's labor, the midwife encouraged her saying, \"Do not worry, this too will be a son for you.\" This gave rise to Rachel naming the child before she had even seen it. (13) It seems that Jacob had not been home at the time Reuben had rearranged the furnishings in Bilhah's bedroom. Reuben would not have dared to do this otherwise. The statement that the sons of Jacob were twelve may indicate that at that juncture Reuben lost his status as the firstborn, no longer counting as two (since the firstborn normally receives a double portion of the father's estate). More likely however, the Torah may stress that Reuben remained a full member of the Jewish people. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"JACOB SETTLED DOWN.\" ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 85 quotes Rabbi Shmuel son of Rabbi Nachman interpreting Jeremiah 29, 11, \"For I know that My thoughts about you have been thoughts of peace, says the Lord.\" While the brothers were busy selling Joseph, Jacob and Joseph each were preoccupied with their respective anguish; whereas Yehudah was busy taking a wife, the Almighty was busy creating the light of the savior; these are the \"Thoughts of peace, not of evil, to provide for you a future and hope.\" ",
"Just as man, despite his freedom to move within the confines of the earth, cannot move outside of it, so he cannot interfere with the laws of nature G-d has established, despite the free will that has been granted to him. Man's limitations are evident in three areas. Let us illustrate this. There are many necessary activities without which man would perish, i.e. provision of food, shelter, and clothing, all of which man pursues by choice, though his failure to pursue them would result in irreparable harm to himself. Secondly, there are activities which are undertaken under the influence of varying degrees of pressure, such as business trips to foreign countries, which though freely decided upon, have not really been initiated by the traveller's own free will. Thirdly, there are activities which man wishes to initiate but is prevented from executing due to the limitations placed upon him by the will of the Creator. Were man to aspire to travel to heaven, for instance, this is clearly impossible due to the nature of man and the universe, respectively. The limitation placed on man is consistent with the words of David in Psalms 33,10-11, \"G-d destroys the counsel of nations, whereas the counsel of the Almighty prevails forever.\" This teaches that the limitations placed on human freedom aim at ensuring that G-d’s universe should not be tampered with unduly by any of His creatures. Superficial consideration of these limitations might lead one to conclude that freedom of choice does not exist in reality. If one assumes that the whole is nothing more than the sum total of its parts, it follows that if the whole is to remain inviolate, so must the parts remain inviolate. We have discussed this in Chapter twenty-two and twenty-six, and have demonstrated that G-d’s will does not impose itself on human will. A prisoner who has the run of his prison, is free and responsible for his actions, though he cannot escape from the walls of the prison. The Torah illustrates the limits of such freedom by many stories, the Joseph story being a classic example in which all participants play their parts, executing their own designs, without G-d’s overall design becoming thwarted. On the other hand, the freedom of choice of none of the participants is interfered with in any way. This is the basis for the whole system of reward and punishment. Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha in Tanchuma Vayeshev explains the verse, \"Go and see G-d’s accomplishment. He is terrifying in His acts above the sons of man\" (Psalms 66,4) to mean that man has a habit of blaming his mistakes on G-d. A husband who wants to divorce his wife, for instance, asks her to pour him a cup of wine. She complies, whereupon he gives her a bill of divorce claiming that the wine had been lukewarm. The wife queries, \"How did you know beforehand that I was going to give you lukewarm wine?\" Similarly, we say to G-d, \"You have predetermined our death, since it says in Your Torah, which had been written prior to the creation of man \"this is the law of the Torah; when man dies in a tent etc\" (Numbers 19,2). This clearly means that death is part of the scheme of things. The truth is, of course, the reverse. Although, in the final analysis G-d’s plan will prevail, no one has been forced to play a particular part on the stage of history. Is it conceivable that because of an extra strand of dyed wool in Joseph's garment a whole people should have become condemned to exile in Egypt? G-d wanted to carry out the prophecy made to Abraham at the covenant between the pieces. The chain of events in which the jealousy of Joseph's brothers played a prominent part ultimately proves to have become the instrument for carrying out G-d’s design. However, G-d could have found many other means to achieve the same end. Therefore, the brothers cannot claim exoneration by saying that what they had done, helped G-d to achieve His aim. The Bible is full of similar such lessons. The Joseph story with all its details would be completely superfluous were it not for the fact that it foreshadowed Jewish experiences in general. ",
"Joseph is selected here as the stereotype of a Jew. Jacob's typical issue is described as \"these are the generations of Jacob, Joseph...\" (Genesis 37,2). Many other verses throughout the Bible express the same theme. Tanchuma at the end of Parshat Vayigash writes that whatever befell Joseph sooner or later befell Zion etc. Just as Joseph was tending the sheep near his brothers at the beginning of his historic career, so the Jewish people were close to the land of Edom their cousins at the beginning of its historic career when they received the Torah. By its acceptance of G-d’s law, Israel, so to speak, brought \"evil\" reports about other nations who had failed to accept the Torah when it was offered to them. When G-d says in Jeremiah 2,2, \"I remember your love and kindness in your youth when you followed Me into the desert etc,\" this corresponds to Joseph being loved by his father more than his brothers. G-d gave Israel the Torah, accorded it special status, just as Jacob chose Joseph, gave him the colored coat and assigned him priestly duties (as Rachel's eldest). When the cousins (gentile nations) perceived this, they hated Israel just as the brothers had hated Joseph. Our sages point out that the reason the mountain on which the Torah was given was called Sinai, was because the word is reminiscent of hatred, i.e. events on that mountain accounted for the hatred of the Jewish people and Judaism by the gentile nations. Joseph's dreaming of the homage paid him reflects the homage paid the Jewish people during the early generations of their conquest of the land of Canaan, when most nations acknowledged Jewish achievements from afar in their respective countries. A time came when the nations became resentful of Israel's pre-eminence, and just as in Joseph's dream they challenged, \"Do you want to rule over us or reign amongst us?\" Joseph had dreamed of the more influential celestial bodies, since he foresaw Ishmael's and Esau's opposition, one of whom uses the lunar calendar whereas the other uses the solar system as basis for its calendar plus all the other eleven constellations excluding the constellation of Israel which does not revolve around the other constellations. The future will reveal that all these rival nations and destinies will submit to Joseph (Israel), resulting in shame and derision for sun and moon respectively, as we read in Isaiah 24,23, \"And the moon will be ashamed, while the sun will feel disgrace.\" ",
"When that time comes, Israel will excel on three fronts: true faith, willing acceptance of Torah laws, understanding same, as well as success in the political arena. ",
"",
"",
"The author explains how future events are hinted at in the encounter between Yehudah and Tamar, especially events involving the tribe of Yehudah, the house of David etc. ",
"He also explains how the Messiah as leader will outshine all previous leaders such as Abraham, Moses, and even the angels. ",
"The study of, and retention in memory of, Torah in that future will be far superior to what it is at present, since it is a well known fact that whatever is experienced personally, without the help of intermediaries, leaves a lasting impact, is impressed on one's memory indelibly. When the Jewish people begged Moses at Mount Sinai to act as the intermediary between them and the voice of G-d, they found out that what is learned from the lips of the intermediary is subject to being forgotten. ",
" The reader is referred to the original for study of this part of the chapter in which the author deals with many Midrashim on the subject. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Some problems in the text of our story: 1) Since the brothers were all superior people who would neither ruin their father's old age nor heap guilt upon themselves, why did they treat Joseph as they did? This is especially puzzling since we know from Gittin 52, that dreams as a way of foretelling future events may be discounted, disregarded even? 2) Since the brothers appear to have feared that Joseph would rule over them, why did they reverse their intention and allowed Joseph to live? Surely this kept the chance of his dreams coming true alive? 3) Why did the brothers have to resort to subterfuge to get rid of Joseph? Why did they not simply kill him and bury him? Why did they so readily consent to changes in plan, such as Reuben's suggestion to throw him into the pit, and Yehudah's suggestion to sell him to the caravan of Midianites? From their entire behavior, it seems they wanted to avoid bloodshed and were only afraid of what Joseph could do to them if he remained alive and free at the same time. 4) Why did the Torah not report explicitly how the brothers were punished for their treatment of Joseph? In fact, it appears that they had heavenly assistance in carrying out their plan (Bereshit Rabbah 84). They appear to have been beneficiaries of their misdeed, getting the V.I.P. treatment in Egypt during the famine in later years, ensuring their own and their families' survival and well being. We seem to find here a classic case of the chote veniskar, the sinner who is rewarded for his sin. All these arguments lead one to believe that their actions might have been involuntary, pre-ordained and therefore not culpable, if we had not already explained previously that this was not the case. 5) If Joseph's reports to his father about his brothers' wrongdoing had been factual, he should have received a reward for alerting his father to actions which their father would not have been able to correct unless someone had told him about them. Why was he punished for this? If, on the other hand, his reports were not factual, the Torah should have written, \"He made up evil reports,\" not \"He brought home evil reports\" (37,2)! 6) Hatred by the brothers is mentioned three times. We hear the word \"jealousy\" only in connection with the second dream, when there is no mention of the word \"hatred.\" Why is this? Why are the words \"to rule\" and \"to reign\" used separately? What is the difference between them? 7) What prompted Jacob to send out Joseph to check on the welfare of the brothers on this of all days? Why did Joseph get lost? Why did the man whom he encountered tell Joseph about his brothers' plans to relocate? 8) Why did the brothers select a wild beast as their alibi instead of claiming that robbers had killed Joseph and that they had buried his remains? Why did Jacob not send a search party to find Joesph's bones to bury what was left? 9) What had been in Reuben's mind when he said \"Do not shed blood?\" His plan too would have resulted in Joseph's blood being spilled. Why did he say in his brothers' presence, \"What will happen to me since the lad is gone!\" Surely, this statement revealed to the brothers that he had intended to rescue Joseph? What is Rashi trying to say when he writes, \"The holy spirit spoke here?\" Even Yehudah's advice allowed for the chance of Joseph surviving and ultimately revenging himself. Why the confusing statements about the Midianites and the Ishmaelites? 10) Why did Jacob refuse to be comforted (see Moed Katan 27, that one must not grieve for the dead excessively)? The statement should have read, \"Jacob was unable to accept comfort.\" 11) Why is the sequence of the story interrupted by the affairs of Yehudah and Tamar? Why does the Torah have to tell us the name of Yehudah's first father-in -law? What do the names of his three sons denote, and why are we interested in reading about Yehudah's whereabouts at the time Sheylah was born? 12) Since Yehudah's two older sons seem to have died for sins that gentiles are not culpable for, namely the deliberate wasting of semen, how could they have been guilty of the death penalty not even having been aware that there was a prohibition? What did Onan mean by saying that the issue would not be his? 13) Why did Yehudah delay marrying off Sheylah seeing that the reason he gave, \"Maybe he will die too,” would apply for the remainder of his entire life? 14) How did Tamar know that Yehudah would want relations with her even if he did encounter her at a place where harlots customarily stationed themselves? Having encountered him, why did she set such a high price on her favors that she endangered her whole plan? Why did she become pregnant with twins? Why does the Torah give such a detailed report about the strange behavior of the infants during their birth? 15) What do our sages in Sotah 7 mean when they heap praise on Yehudah for his honesty in saying, \"She is more righteous than I\" i.e. that he publicly confessed without considering that by doing so he degraded himself in public? Either a harlot had been permitted for a man to lie with before the Torah had been given, or he could have married her as a partner in a levirate marriage. In either case, what was the great admission he made? How did he expose himself to public disgrace by admitting to conduct which was perfectly legal? If on the other hand, Tamar was legally as out of bounds to him at that time as she would be after the Torah legislation had been revealed to the Jewish people, he had committed a shameful act by living knowingly with a harlot, or he had engaged unknowingly in a forbidden incestuous relationship with his daughter-in-law, and a continuation of such relations was certainly out of the question? Besides, who had appointed Yehudah both judge and jury in the case of his daughter-in-law, that he had the right to execute her? Since when does a judge preside over a case in which he has a personal interest? 16) It is strange that Potiphar's wife should make a public issue of her involvement with Joseph, a revelation which would reflect discredit upon her regardless of the appearance of her having been wronged. She could have waited for Joseph to weaken at a later date. Why did Joseph leave his clothing behind when he ran out of the house? ",
"Bereshit Rabbah's comment in Section 84, that as soon as the righteous wish to enjoy this world, Satan interferes, claiming it should be enough for them to know that they enjoy eternity in the world to come, will be explained in Chapter 30. The plain meaning of vayeshev Yaakov is that Jacob settled down. Since the Torah had previously reported the settling down of Esau in the mountains of Seir, the Torah now proceeds to describe Jacob as settling in Canaan, the home of his fathers, the land for which he had longed and toiled for so long to return to. The word \"these\" in this case means \"such\" or \"thus,\" describing the character and condition of Jacob's descendants, and the developments which resulted from these conditions. Compare Genesis 27,46, \"From the daughters of Chet such as these,\" or Numbers 26,53, \"To these the land shall be divided,\" meaning to \"people such as these.\" (5) Since Joseph was young and delicate, he had not yet assumed the task of tending sheep with his brothers as a regular duty, but rather did so as a pastime whenever the brothers grazed their flocks near his home. At such times, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah would watch over his well being. Since he was close to them, he would carry tales of their doings to his father. The surrounding population, observing handsome people like the sons of Jacob, were jealous and accused the brothers of all kinds of misdeeds in order to discourage their respective wives from getting involved with them. The brothers would discuss such matters among themselves, and Joseph, instead of trying to suppress the fact that he had overheard these conversations, repeated them at home. In this way, he created the impression that the subject matters of the conversations he had overheard should be taken at face value, and reflected on the lifestyle of his brothers. ",
"The author wonders why Rashi accepts as facts matters that even the Midrash only voices as a suspicion. (1) \"Israel loved Joseph because he was a ben zekunim, son of his old age. When the brothers saw this they hated him.\" Here we find that the real reason for their hatred was not related to his tale bearing, something they recognized as being due simply to his immaturity. They believed that Jacob's love for Joseph precluded Jacob from loving them. The letter mem in the words mikol banav, is to be understood like the letter mem in the words ma-asser mikol meaning \"a tenth of all.\" Here too the meaning would bem \"The brothers saw that of all his sons, Jacob loved Joseph.\" They all felt relegated to the status of sons of concubines vis a vis Joseph. Being aware of the status of Ishmael in Abraham's household and Jacob's own status in Isaac's household when compared to Esau, his father's favorite, the brothers concluded that they themselves were to be excluded, and that the colored coat was evidence that Joseph had been selected to be the carrier of the tradition. Had they been right, they could have attempted to obtain a blessing by deceit, just like their father Jacob had done. In that case, they would have concealed their feelings towards Joseph. In fact, however, their hatred was confined, at least initially, to their inability to talk to Joseph peaceably. (6) When Joseph started having dreams and revealed the nature of his thinking by prattling on about them, the hatred intensified and brotherly love receded still further, until finally no more is said about hatred, but we hear only about jealousy. Thus a plan was formed to take action against the object of their jealousy. We find something similar in the relationship between Saul and David. Saul's jealousy was stirred into action by the growing success of David (Samuel I 18,14-16). The dream in which Joseph saw his brothers' sheaves of grain bowing down to his own sheaf reflected the fact that when later on the brothers encounter Joseph on their first trip to Egypt, they paid homage to him since they were in need of obtaining grain from him. At that time, they did not bow down to Joseph per se, since they were unaware of Joseph's identity at that time. In the second dream, reference is made to the time when they would pay homage to him as a ruler over them. Perhaps they ridiculed him when they said, \"Do you want to be king over us?\" meaning that such a thing could never be until their descendants had increased sufficiently to warrant establishing a nation and a monarchy. Or, they asked, \"Do you wish to rule amongst us?\" As Onkelos suggests, they accused Joseph's dreams as reflecting his fantasies during his waking hours. Once the brothers had convinced themselves that they were permitted to dispose of Joseph, or were even duty-bound to do so, they planned to do it far away from home so as to have a free hand and not be inhibited by the proximity of their father. Nablus is approximately a day's journey from Hebron, and they knew that Joseph would visit from time to time. Midrash Rabbah's suggestion is that from the word et, it is clear that the brothers' primary concern was to \"tend to themselves.\" A new element into the frequent visits by Joseph of his brothers is introduced. Previously, due to the brothers grazing their sheep in the vicinity of Hebron, Joseph would visit by day and be back home by evening. This was no longer the case. No doubt, Joseph had not planned to stay away longer than necessary and to report back to his father. Since G-d did not want lo postpone His plan, He assisted Joseph when Joseph left the beaten trail not having found his brothers in Nablus and went to look for them. Joseph imagined that the man whom he encountered who seemed to know who he was, would certainly know where his far more famous brothers were. This is why he said merely, \"I seek my brothers,\" without bothering to identify the brothers further. Sometimes G-d uses the very efforts man makes to thwart His plans as instruments to advance His plans. This is what Joseph had in mind when he said at a much later stage, \"G-d intended for the good what you had intended for evil.\" The apparently superfluous words of the angel, \"They have moved from here,\" give rise to the comment of our sages that they had severed brotherly relations with Joseph, and that their very departure from Shechem (Nablus) was proof of this. What the man meant to tell Joseph was that the brothers' departure itself was far more relevant than the place they had moved to. (2) The brothers' attitude towards Joseph was unanimous, though they disagreed on the method of implementation. Each of them considered how to rid themselves of the evil forces that they felt Joseph represented. In Jeremiah 18,18, we find a similar dilemma facing those who wanted to silence the prophet. Their course of action was \"let us go and bad-mouth him, then we will no longer have to listen to his rebukes.” They too wanted to avoid laying a hand on him directly. (3) The brothers had intended that disposing of Joseph should not bring any further consequences. Had they given the impression that robbers had attacked him, surely the robbers would have taken the colored coat, but would have left the body. This would have set off a hunt after the robbers. The idea of putting him in a pit and preserving the coat would explain that no remains were found, and would prevent a search being instituted. In this way they would escape retribution by their father. They hoped to escape retribution by G-d by saying, \"Let us see what will happen to his dreams!\" What they meant was that if his dreams had indeed been Divine messages, they were anyways powerless to prevent their realization. If Joseph's dreams would be realized, at least they would know that they were meant to be realized. In that event, G-d Himself would prevent them from actually becoming guilty of bloodshed. If, on the other hand, G-d would not save Joseph, the brothers would feel at ease for having opposed their father whose love of Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to them that Joseph had deserved his fate. (7) Jacob may have chosen that day since he had heard the brothers had decided to graze their flocks so much further from home. (9) Reuben may have hoped to dissuade Joseph from his mode of behavior and to save him in that manner, although in order to get his way with his brothers, he had to use more devious language to conceal his plan. Reuben explained to his brothers that they must make allowance for the possibility of a natural means of Joseph surviving, if they wanted to escape responsibility for having murdered him. Relying on G-d performing a miracle to save Joseph is not enough to claim that not only the brothers' will but also G-d’s will had been done, should Joseph die as a result of their actions. Rashi's comment that verse twenty-two had been said by the holy spirit, means that the second part of the verse is a report to us, the readers, not of the conversation that took place between Reuben and his brothers, but that the Torah added this line as evidence that Reuben was not lying when he said to the brothers in 42,22, \"I told you not to sin against the lad!\" The caravan looked like a typical Ishmaelite caravan from the distance, but on closer inspection turned out to be a group of Midianites. Since the former usually carried merchandise down to Egypt, Yehudah suggested they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Later they recognised the Midianites, a special branch of the tribe of Ishmaelites. Since Yehudah had not been aware of everything Reuben had in mind, namely to bring Joseph back to their father, he advised in keeping with the expressed intention of Reuben, that they refrain from laying a hand on Joseph themselves, and that they merely sell him. Since Joseph was their flesh and blood, they did not want to become guilty of murder, did not even want indirect guilt on their conscience. (8) In order to forestall any search or further inquiries, they then treated Joseph's colored coat in such a way that the impression would be created that he had fallen victim to a ferocious beast. Jacob's mourning was indicative of his despair to ever see Joseph again. The contrast between Jacob's behavior and that of David, when the latter lost his first son by Bat Sheva, is explained in Midrash Tanchuma Parshat Vayigash (compare Samuel II 11,12). (10) Jacob mourned himself, having a tradition that should a son of his die during his lifetime, he, Jacob, would end up in purgatory. This accounts for his reference, \"For I will go down to my son to she-ol,\" the latter word meaning gehinnom, i.e purgatory. This subject and the need for all of his twelve sons to play their part in the founding of the Jewish nation is discussed in Chapter 31. Jacob hoped that this would be the last and only mourning he would have to observe before his death. In this way, his refusal to be comforted was not a complaint against what fate had decreed against him. Since Jacob was aware that his son must have died because of a sin he had committed, and that this in turn reflected on the manner in which he had raised him, acceptance without further mourning would indicate that he, Jacob, had not been sufficiently chastened by what he had suffered, and that just as in the case of makkat mardut, lashes imposed by Rabbinic tribunal for a person's obstinacy in not submitting to the Rabbis' decision, a further series of lashes is administered until the victim changes his attitude. Jacob was afraid then that if he did not mourn sufficiently he might be in line for further chastisement. This is similar to what Job says (Job 9,27-28), \"Should I say I will forget my complaint and comfort myself, I am afraid of all my sorrows, I know that You will not acquit me.\" Anyone acting differently would be like someone whose I.O.U. had been paid off, but had not been destroyed by the creditor. The brothers' intention had been fulfilled as soon as Joseph was sold to Egypt, a country from which slaves could not escape. Thus the brothers were no longer worried about Joseph's dreams becoming realized. Even when they came to Egypt during the famine, they never thought of him in that connection. G-d had to put in motion all these events in order for Israel eventually to become fit to become G-d’s chosen nation once they would leave Egypt. If the brothers were not punished, it is not because they were not free to do otherwise, but because they acted freely, convinced that their conduct was justified. (4) Midrash Tanchuma, which pictures G-d as having been involved in the brothers' plan, wishes to direct our attention to the fact that the ultimate benefit which accrued to the brothers from their action, is proof that it enjoyed Divine sanction, and that if the brothers had not done what they did, G-d would have been forced to seek other means to set in motion a chain of events leading to similar results. After the lesson we have learned from the first story about events showing a dovetailing of G-d’s plans with the freely executed actions of man, the second is even more impressive. (11) It demonstrates that G-d wanted the founder of Jewish royalty to be born from a union of Yehudah and Tamar. The latter was a fit mother for royalty both because of her conduct and because she was a descendant of Shem, the king of Salem (Bereshit Rabbah 85). Yehudah, being unable to watch the grief of his father, had moved away and befriended Chirom. This association led to the selection of Bat Shua as his wife, Yehudah's motivation apparently being a combination of financial and esthetic considerations. Since Bat Shua was from a distinguished family, her ancestry is mentioned in spite of her own name not being revealed. (12) Had Yehudah paid more attention to the personality of his wife, his sons would presumably have turned out better. When he got around to selecting a wife for his oldest son Er, he chose better than for himself. This, however, failed to inspire his son, and that is the reason the latter avoided procreation with Tamar. Since the duty to procreate is universal, and since there is no need to spell out the penalty as a warning, Er died for his sin of omission. In this way, what appears to have been G-d’s plan, namely to produce the source of Jewish monarchy through the union of Yehudah and Tamar, seems to have suffered a setback. Onan also refused to have children with Tamar, being aware that any offspring from her would not really be considered as his own. G-d’s plan thus appeared to have suffered a further setback. The participants' free choice was the cause of these delays in carrying out G-d’s plan. If Onan felt that children with Tamar would not be counted as his children, seeing they would be from a levirate union, having relations with his sister-in-law for purposes other than procreation would be incestuous and thus punishable by death. (13) Now Yehudah's plan for a union between his remaining son and Tamar was postponed due to Sheylah's tender age. He wanted to wait for Sheylah to attain both physical and spiritual maturity so that when he would eventually marry Tamar, he would perform his marital duties properly. As far as Yehudah was concerned there was no specific time-limit for the postponement of the marriage between Sheylah and Tamar. Tamar did not feel that she needed to accept such delay silently. The names Er and Onan are suggestive of their respective deaths, arirut meaning barrenness, whereas aninut conveys the pain and anguish caused one's progenitors through one's untimely death. The name Sheylah suggests the disappointment in store already at his birth in a disappointing, illboding place (38,5). Meanwhile Tamar was waiting, widowed, for Sheylah to attain manhood and for her to become his wife. (14) She had not been aware that Yehudah had had a different timetable in mind for her marriage to Sheylah than had applied when she had been married to Onan. In removing her widow's garments, Tamar had planned to remind Yehudah of his promise in the event he had forgotten same. Covering herself with a veil, adorning herself, and placing herself at a site where she hoped to encounter her father-in-law on the way to Timnah, she hoped to find favor in his eyes so that she would be given to Sheylah. Her plan was sound, and she had no reason to think that Yehudah would suspect her of being a harlot, seeing that both her garments and her veil indicated her chastity. It had not occurred to her that Yehudah would suggest a sexual relationship without even inquiring after her name, i.e. who she was. Since according to the laws existing at that time, a union with one's father-in-law was permissible, Tamar preferred the certainty of the union offered now to the uncertainty of a union with Sheylah in the future. She asked Yehudah for a proper token of his esteem so as to have future evidence of the validity of the union now taking place between them. Since it was customary to pay off harlots after they had performed their part of the bargain, Tamar's insistence on a pledge before the union, marked her as different. Her insistence on receiving personalized items as a pledge, made it obvious that she was only concerned with the performance of the levirate act of marriage to produce offspring from this distinguished man. Yehudah's endeavors to retrieve his ring and staff to avoid being involved in a scandal and his desisting eventually to avoid drawing too much attention to himself petered out since he had made a sincere attempt to pay the promised young goat. The statement by the townspeople nearby that there had not been a harlot in their neighborhood proves that it had been Yehudah who had jumped to the wrong conclusion about the veil Tamar had covered her face with. Since Tamar's status was one of shomeret yibbum, waiting for consummation of the levirate marriage, her pregnancy led to her death sentence in accordance with the laws of infidelity governing that region. (15) Possibly, both Yehudah and Sheylah had been informed, since they were the only ones with whom Tamar would have been permitted to have sexual relations, and whose admission to such relations would have saved her from being burned. Yehudah's statement \"Take her out and let her be burned,\" means \"We did not have relations with her, therefore we cannot save her from her penalty.” Tamar did not send her pledge to Yehudah via the judge so as not to embarass him in case he wanted to own up and declare his being responsible for her pregnancy. Yehudah's statement \"She is more righteous than I,\" reflects that what he had done to her had been quite legal, since she had been fit to become his wife, that Tamar also had acted with the proper intention so that not only the act had happened to be legally in order. This is the reason then that his admission was so praiseworthy. The praiseworthy conduct of Tamar was commented upon many hundreds of years later, when Boaz had become the father of Ruth's child, the latter having invoked the same kind of right Tamar had once invoked (Ruth 4,12). Both are portrayed as having been motivated by the purest and most noble intentions. The fact that both of these women played a major role in the founding of the davidic dynasty can only reflect Divine intervention. Our sages, in their deep insight, comment when interpreting the words \"She is more righteous than I\" that this comment was made by heaven to show that the turn of events was not haphazard, but the outcome of heavenly planning. Yehudah did not continue to live with Tamar, seeing that he would thereby commit an injustice against his son Sheylah whom he had denied Tamar only to take her for himself. The twins Tamar gave birth to reflect heavenly planning at work also, since through a single act of union Tamar produced seed for both her deceased husbands. If, whenever the Torah mentions Yehudah's offspring, the two sons who had died prematurely are mentioned, we may infer that there is a reason for this. True, Aaron's two sons Nadav and Avihu are also mentioned on frequent occasions after they had died, but in their case the reason is to explain why Aaron's younger son became High Priest after him. Their names being mentioned is not as strange, therefore, as the repeated references to Er and Onan. To have these two long deceased sons mentioned in the census taken in Numbers 26,19 may therefore be explained by their having lived on in the persons of Peretz and Zerach respectively. Perhaps the struggle described about each of the babies wanting to be the first to be born suggests that each one wanted to replace Er and Onan vicariously, both of whom had had to wait a long time to be re-incarnated in this fashion. We have explained earlier that ever since Jacob's time, natural birthright was something that has been fought over. The midwife who thought that she was earmarking the firstborn when she tied the string on his hand, stood corrected when the firstborn turned out to be the younger one after all. ",
"",
"In discussing the care G-d took to make Joseph successful in Potiphar's household, Bereshit Rabbah 86 quotes the parable of a wine trader who had twelve animals all loaded with wine, one of which had entered a store. Since he did not have any assistants, the trader entered the store, leaving the other eleven beasts unattended. When asked how he could leave eleven animals and their loads unsupervised, he replied that the eleven in the public domain were unlikely to become contaminated, whereas the one animal which had entered private quarters was in greater danger of becoming contaminated. This is the reason G-d displayed more supervision of the life of Joseph. His surroundings were more likely to influence him negatively. The fact that Potiphar employed Joseph inside the house brought Joseph's talents to his attention more quickly, and impressed upon his master that he had secured himself a servant whose success reflected Divine guidance. Joseph's good looks endangered his chastity, since his master's wife desired an immoral involvement and Joseph must have been flattered by her attentions. In resisting her advances, Joseph made several points. Firstly, he argued that committing such a sin, unless one benefitted from it, would be inexcusable. There are three areas in which compliance with Mrs Potiphar's suggestion could be advantageous to Joseph: 1) He might advance his career. 2) He might be elevated in status within the household. 3) He would indulge his sexual appetites. In refusing to comply, Joseph pointed out that none of these three benefits would apply to him (38,8-10) since 1) his master had not withheld anything from him and had entrusted everything in the house to him, his career could hardly be advanced any further. 2) There was no one more honored than he in that household. 3) His master had not denied him any outlet for his sexual needs, his legitimate physical desires. For these reasons, compliance with the immoral suggestion of Mrs. Potiphar would be a sin against G-d which could not even be excused on the basis of someone not being able to cope with his carnal urges. In fact, there was no greater wrong a person could commit. How could he allow himself to become so guilty in the eyes of the Lord? Joseph's answers, based on philosophy, theology, did not end the matter. Since the power of love is strong, the day came when the fact that the two were alone together in the house gave Mrs. Potiphar a chance to press her advances on Joseph. (16) This left Joseph no choice but to leave his clothing in her hands, instead of himself. Leaving the house in his underwear, in full view of other members of the household, created a stir. Since Mrs. Potiphar did not trust Joseph's discretion, feared him telling his part of the story first, she tried to forestall him by twisting the truth to suit her purpose, using Joseph's garments as incriminating evidence. She claimed Joseph had left his garments to flee faster, since he had reason to believe that her cries would bring people to the house to assist Mrs. Potiphar fight off her alleged rapist. Though this episode again resulted in Joseph's fall from grace, even his stay in jail could not prevent him from realizing his ultimate destiny of becoming royalty. His sincerity, his dedication to any task entrusted to him, quickly advanced him even within the jail, until two ex-ministers consulted him about their dreams. This again afforded G-d an opportunity to advance Joseph by natural means, and to put him in a position to execute His Master Plan. We have tried to show how the freedom exercised by all the players in our drama nevertheless contributed to the realization of the Master Plan G-d has for historic developments. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"THE INTERPRETATIONS ARE THE LORD'S.\" ",
"",
"In order to make use of one's eyesight, light is indispensable. Even possession of perfect eyesight is useless, since one is unable to translate one's potential into the actual, unless the objects to be seen are bathed in light. None of our other senses requires external phenomena to enable them to function. One can smell in the dark, touch in the dark, etc. Because the sense of vision requires light in order to function, light is also called \"wisdom,\" seeing that wisdom is also an external agent assisting all our senses to improve the quality of their respective perceptions. G-d the great \"Seer\" is different inasmuch as He does not require light to enable Him to see and perceive all that exists. Whereas photography cannot function when outside light penetrates the viewer, the Almighty, the seat of light who is surrounded by light, is not handicapped by that fact. Daniel 2,22 says, \"He knows what is in darkness, though surrounded by light.\" Isaiah 60,1-2 says, \"Though the earth will be surrounded and covered by darkness, the Lord will light you up. His glory will be visisble to you.\" This \"glory\" will not be visible to other nations. The fact that the account of the story of Creation commences with the creation of light, illustrates the point that in order to build successfully, one must be able to see what one is doing. Though night is no darker than daylight for the Almighty, the point was to describe the inescapable need for daylight for man to be able to live on earth successfully. For this reason, we read at the end of the story of creation, \"G-d saw all that He had made and it was very good\" (Genesis 1,31). Until He had viewed it, it could not have been described as \"very good.\" Solomon also describes the relationship of light to darkness as like the relationship of wisdom to foolishness, explaining that the fool, though he sees, walks in darkness, whereas the wise, even though blind, carries the source of light in his head (Kohelet 2,13-14). Since Torah more than anything else has been designed to provide wisdom, the verse \"for each mitzvah is like a candle, but Torah is light itself\" (Proverbs 6,23) is self-explanatory. When Moses says to Yitro \"You will become our eyes\" (Numbers 10,31), he had this kind of vision in mind, i.e. one which provides spiritual light, wisdom. The fact that the members of the Jewish Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin are called \"the eyes of the community\" (Horiot 5) is to be understood in the same vein. Basing ourselves on this comparison between eyesight and wisdom, the Torah's statement that Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream was \"good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants\" is clear. It means that people who had up to now walked in darkness, suddenly were greatly enlightened (Genesis 41,37). In the final analysis, providing spiritual enlightenment to those walking in spiritual darkness is what the interpretation of dreams is all about. The ability to relate apparently unconnected phenomena to one another, is what foretelling of the future amounts to. When Joseph had said to Pharaoh's ministers who were in jail with him, \"Ks not the interpretation of dreams G-d’s business?\" (Genesis 40,8), or when he said to Pharaoh, \"May the Lord put Pharaoh's mind at ease\" (41,17), this underscores that only someone possessed of qualities especially conferred upon him by G-d could succeed in interpreting dreams. Our sages in Berachot 25 appear to contradict this theory when they state that \"All dreams follow the mouth.\" At first glance this seems to mean that the interpreter of a dream determines its meaning and significance although logic dictates otherwise. When the Torah says that Joseph explained each man's dream according to its dreamer, surely this means that each dream allowed for only one explanation. How then can our sages allow latitude to the interpreter to impose his own meaning? Strangely enough the Talmud reports two identical dreams that permitted widely divergent interpretations. Still stranger is the statement of Rabbi Neriyah (Berachot 56) that the twenty-four interpreters in Jerusalem offered twenty-four different interpretations for the same dream, all of which turned out to be true. ",
"Because of all the foregoing, we believe that the approach to dreams is dealt with by Elihu in Job Chapter 33: \"G-d speaks to man during a dream, a nocturnal vision; when deep sleep overcomes man, when he rests on his couch. Then the Lord does open the ear of man and impresses him with His teachings.\" Elihu refers to three different levels of enlightenment conveyed by means of dreams: 1) The prophetic vision, chizayon laylah, the type of dream granted to many of our prophets. Normally, the purpose of these visions was to prepare the prophet or his people for coming events. 2) A second level of communication, commonly referred to as ruach hakodesh, holy spirit. This is inferior to the nocturnal vision described previously. During this kind of communication, the dreamer usually loses most of his normal faculties. This sort of communication is described in greater detail by Daniel (10,8-10). We also find Abraham being the recipient of such a communication during the early stages of his career, at the brit beyn habtarim, covenant between the pieces (Genesis Chapter 15). The above-mentioned two levels of communication from G-d were reserved for the Jewish people exclusively after the erection of the tabernacle in the desert (see details in Chapter 82). 3) A third and lowest level of communication from G-d, is one that is common to all men who dream of many things while they are asleep. Some of these dreams are of no significance whatsoever, simply reflect thoughts that are carried over from one's waking hours; others are thoughts suppressed during waking hours, which can no longer be controlled while one is asleep. Some parts of these dreams may have substance, however, and may have deeper meaning. In some cases, an insignificant part of the dream contains something meaningful. In others, the proportion of the meaningful part may be very substantial. Job 33,15, then, is to be understood like this: A) in a dream of nocturnal vision; B) when deep sleep overcomes man; C) while sleeping on the couch. When our sages state that dreams equal 1/60 of prophecy (Berachot 57), they mean that the element of truth in a dream may be as insignificant as the amount of issur, forbidden ingredient, that can be assimilated in a large mass of permissible material. Since every person has a chance to receive revelations of such minute proportions, Elihu says, \"Then He reveals to the ear of men.\" The fact that all kinds of subject matter may be contained in the dream, creating a picture of confusion prompts the dreamer to consult an interpreter to sort it out for him. It is this that Elihu means when he adds, \"And He seals their instruction, that He may draw man away from his purpose.\" The art of the interpreter is to separate the message from the trivia contained in all dreams. It is this that Pharaoh referred to when he said to Joseph, \"You hear a dream (with a view) to interpret\" (41,15), i.e. you possess the insight to weigh what is pertinent and what is not. Since several elements in a dream may contain revelations pertinent to the future, an interpreter may isolate only one of these elements, overlooking the other. This is most likely what the Talmud means when it tells us of twenty-four different interpretations of the same dream, which each proved true, but incomplete. ",
"The Zohar on Parshat Vayeshev relates a conversation between three Rabbis, from which it becomes clear that if an unexplained dream compares to an unread letter, that it is not the reading itself that makes it come true, but that, having read it, one becomes alerted to the fact that it has come true. This then is the meaning of \"all dreams follow the mouth,\" not that the latitude granted the interpreters determines the cause of events. When Joseph said, \"Do the interpretations not belong to the Lord?\", he meant that even if G-d has endowed someone like himself with the insight to elicit a message from this dream, there may well be additional interpretations which would become clear only in later generations or even in subsequent eras. If this were not so, Joseph would have used the word \"interpretation\" in the singular. Since Joseph's own dreams foreshadowed events in the near future as well as events in the more distant future, any interpretation would not have to be exclusive of other meanings. One of the prerequisites of success when interpreting dreams is the knowledge the interpreter has about the dreamer himself. Not all dreamers will interpret identical dreams identically (compare Yuma 87). Rabbi Chanina dreamt that Rav had been hung on a palm tree. He took this to mean (knowing Rav's stature) that Rav would be appointed head of the academy. Had he dreamt the same thing about a robber, no doubt he would have interpreted such a dream completely differently. ",
"",
"",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Why did Joseph ignore the first part of the butler's dream when he interpreted it? Why did he ignore the first part of the baker's dream? 2) Why did Pharaoh's experienced interpreters fail to come up with the appropriate interpretation? The meaning of the dream appears so closely connected to the subject matter of the dream, that not much heavenly interference seems to have been called for? 3) Why did Pharaoh wake in between these dreams, and why did he say to Joseph that no one could tell him, when in fact he seemed to have been offered a variety of interpretations? 4) The words of the chief butler \"each one according to his dream we dreamt,\" and later, when in the presence of Pharaoh, he repeats \"each one according to his dream he interpreted,\" call for an explanation. There seems to be superfluous verbiage. 5) Why did Joseph introduce his interpretation by saying that Pharaoh's dream is one? Later on he repeats the same statement again. Why? 6) How could Joseph, while still a prisoner, have presumed to offer Pharaoh gratuitous advice? 7) Why was Joseph elevated to a position which, at best, he should have been elevated to after his interpretation had been proven accurate? It seems Pharaoh gave Joseph carte blanche! 8) Why did Joseph not inform his father of his new position and where he lived? 9) Why does the Torah bother to tell us exactly when Menashe and Ephrayim were born? 10) Why did Pharaoh tell the people at the beginning of the famine to do exactly what Joseph would tell them? 11) How is it possible that the land turned desolate so suddenly that all the private hoards of grain which had been accumulated during the seven good years had been depleted so fast? 12) Why did Jacob say that he had \"seen\" that there was grain in Egypt, when at best he had heard about it? ",
"And it came to pass at the end of two full years etc.",
"(2) Whereas both Joseph, the butler and the baker were central figures in their respective dreams, Pharaoh had dreamt about things which seemed of no particular concern to him. This was sufficiently strange to trouble his mind. The other unusual feature was his waking and then having a second dream in which the same numbers played a central role. He felt that there was some symbolism in this. Pharaoh's magicians failed to understand the subject matter of the dream, because they concentrated only on the numbers. The subject matter was not really part of their art. (4) In the case of the butler and the baker, each had dreamt the other's interpretation; since the subject matter was closely related, Joseph could easily have mistaken it for being the same. Nonetheless, he was astute enough to recognize the differences in the two dreams. Joseph concentrated on interpreting the differences between the dreams instead of concentrating on their common denominator. (1) When the chief butler referred to Joseph in a derogatory manner, he did so in order that Pharaoh might not think that he had a personal interest in promoting Joseph's fortunes. This prompted Pharaoh to say to Joseph, \"I heard that you can interpret a dream when you hear it according to all its ramifications, even though it may appear to contain only a single message.\" Joseph replied, \"On the contrary, the task of the interpreter is beyond human intelligence alone, and requires Divine inspiration.\" (3) Pharaoh's waking in between was designed to confuse his magicians. Joseph exploited this fact to explain it as one of the reasons Pharaoh's advisers had failed him. The other reason was that the dream was prophetic in nature; G-d revealed His intentions. This is something quite outside the art of professional dream interpreters. At the same time, by portraying himself as privy to G-d’s intentions, Joseph improved his own image both in the eyes of Pharaoh and those of his servants. Joseph explained, A) There really has been only one dream. B) The subject matter was something that G-d was about to do on a universal scale; the dream did not relate to the fortunes of the person who had dreamt it. Although, normally, such matters are revealed by prophets, in this instance Pharaoh had been found worthy to be the vehicle of prophecy. In this way, Joseph flattered Pharaoh (Daniel, when interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream flatters N. similarly). (5) Although one might consider the seven fat cows as representing seven years and the seven good ears of corn as representing an additional seven years, and similarly one might consider the seven lean cows as seven years and the seven ears of corn whose kernels had been blown out as another seven years, Joseph repeats that this is not so. He had to emphasize that the magicians had erred on that score. Joseph then proceeded to explain that the interpretation of the dream was of secondary significance compared to the measures which had to be taken to neutralize the effects of the dream were it allowed to become history. (6) By suggesting in detail how to safeguard both the land and the people, Joseph promoted himself both in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants. Pharaoh was impressed by the advice on how to forestall an economic and human tragedy of vast dimensions. (7) Before giving the advice, Joseph had to stress, i.e. repeat the dreadful consequences that would ensue if the famine were to occur without proper precautions having been made as to how to deal with it. The reason that Joseph suggested that the matter be handled by Pharaoh personally, was to stress the importance of the steps to be taken. Pharaoh enlisted the support of his advisors by asking, \"Can we find such a person?\" After having obtained their consent, he turned to Joseph and appointed him. (8) The reason Joseph's age is mentioned at this point is to absolve him from blame for not having informed his father about his whereabouts while he was in an inferior position from which he had no chance to escape, even if ransom money were offered. Even now, his status would be contingent on his prophecies proving true. Should the seven good years not occur, or should the famine fail to materialize, he would be discredited and be in disgrace again. (10) When the famine struck, first in the surrounding countries, Egypt had plenty of bread and exported. The population protested the export, asking Pharaoh to prohibit grain exports. Pharaoh sent them to Joseph saying that the latter was in charge and had full power of attorney. Joseph stalled deliberately, in order to become the sole distributor of government stocks, once the private hoards had been exhausted. The famine in Egypt increased due to the price gouging by the individual hoarders. (11) As a result of this, the famine became country-wide, later on even world-wide. Once prices had risen dramatically, Joseph started releasing government stocks at what had by then become market prices. He could therefore not be accused of overcharging; thus he accumulated untold wealth for Pharaoh. After one had heard in Canaan that there was more bread in Egypt, the rumour began to circulate that Pharaoh had begun selling. (12) Some of this government grain had already reached Canaan; this is where Jacob had seen it. He then told his sons not to buy from middlemen at inflated prices, but to go to Egypt and buy at the source. Possibly, his sons needed to be encouraged, since they did not want to demean themselves and undertake such a lengthy journey in order to buy necessities, wealthy and dignified as they considered themselves to be. Also, they were anxious to avoid ostentation. This is why they are described as \"arriving with the other travellers.\" They made a point of mingling with the common people. Joseph at first had some doubts if these men were really his brothers, seeing that their conduct was quite unlike what he remembered. Only after having spoken to them severely did he become convinced that they were his brothers. This is why we read first \"he recognized them\" and later \"he recognized his brothers.\" The number of brothers travelling is stated to stress that all those who had been involved in selling him and stripping him of his colored coat were now facing the consequences of their actions. We observe that through Pharaoh's dream, G-d saved most of mankind from famine, enabling Joseph's family to survive and become reunited etc. without in the least interfering with the freely made decisions of any of the parties involved. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And Joseph was the governor... And Joseph’s brethren came\" etc.",
"Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Vayigash quotes Rabbi Yonathan as saying, \"The angels said to come and behold how the ox and the lion argue with one another. Wisdom proves stronger for the wise than ten rulers in the city\" (Kohelet 7,19). \"Wisdom strengthens the wise\" refers to Joseph, since the Torah writes, \"After the Lord has let you know all this, there is no one as wise and full of insight as you\" (Genesis 41,39). ",
"The ten rulers referred to are the ten brothers of Joseph, since it is written, \"Ten of the brothers went down.\" They could have laid Egypt waste with their strength, but Joseph vanquished them with his wisdom. Since man is forced to sojourn on this earth although he has been provided with a soul by G-d, it is fitting that his fate be similar to the fate of other strangers in this world. Due to the soul's celestial antecedents, plus the fact that man was created in G-d’s image, his place should not really be down here on earth, but his natural habitat should be near the Almighty Himself. This is what David says in Psalms 119,19, \"Do not hide Your commandments from me, because I am a stranger on this earth.\" It is natural for man to keep his intimate secrets from those whom he considers of inferior status. David pleads with G-d in Psalm 55,14 not to keep His secrets from him, because he is aware that his place of abode is so inferior. Also in Psalms 39,13, he pleads that though he may have become estranged from G-d through some of his deeds, G-d should not turn away from his supplication, since at least his ancestry is so superior. The reason that ordinary man, i.e. the one who does not constantly advance towards moral and spiritual perfection, is called am ha-aretz, people of the earth, is precisely because he has made the \"lower\" world his permanent home instead of treating it like the foyer to a far superior world (Avot 4,21). This world is reserved for those who preserve the Divine image in which they were created. Because our world is merely a foyer to the ultimate palace reserved for us, it is only natural that during our stay on this earth we must submit to the indignities usually reserved for aliens everywhere. The two major areas in which aliens are disadvantaged while far from home are A) They cannot claim the respect due them as they would in their native society, and B) they have to perform work unbefitting the dignity of their real status in order to earn their livelihood. Jeremiah already compares G-d as not insisting on the respect due Him, since He is in exile when His people are in exile (Jeremiah 14,8). \"Why should You be a stranger on earth, like a guest requiring lodging, when Your name is proclaimed with us?\" The meaning there is \"Since You are not a stranger, and since You have existed from time immemorial, if You do not help us as our Savior, You will be considered like a man without recourse, like a disabled hero.\" This too is the line Moses took when he argued that people will comment on the demise of the Jewish people as evidence of the inability of G-d to overcome the Canaanites (Numbers 14,13-17). When our sages advise a person who is unable to master his passions to go to a place where he is unknown (Chagigah 16), they want to prevent the sin to be committed to fall into the category of chilul hashem, desecration of the holy name of G-d, something that it is impossible to atone for in this life. When a stranger is observed committing a sin, this does not influence the society of the place in which the sin is committed, since nobody pays the stranger any heed anyways. If the same sin were committed in one's hometown, others may use it as an excuse to do likewise, and the chilul hashem is beyond recall. The second major indignity suffered by strangers is their inability to converse in the language of that country, thereby making themselves laughingstocks and misfits in the new society they find themselves in. Even if in order to earn some money one subjects oneself to such indignities by becoming a stranger in a foreign land, since one has no guarantee that one will return home with a sizable fortune, what guarantee is there that even if the money has been earned, it will endure (see example of Rabbi Eleazar ben Charsum in Yuma 35)? Forsaking preoccupation with the acquisition of permanent wealth, namely Torah knowledge, cannot be justified. Our purpose in this world is to prepare ourselves for the world to come. It follows that those who demean themselves by unnecessary preoccupation with the acquisition of material wealth, demean the \"palace\" in favor of the \"foyer.\" When the Midrash comments on the words Vayeshev Yaakov, that if a person of the caliber of Jacob wanted to live serenely on this earth, Satan interfered, the meaning is quite plain. A tzaddik who demonstrates too much interest in material wealth and pleasure in this world imperils his standing as a tzaddik and invites yissurim, painful tribulations, to remind him of the error of his ways. This is what the Midrash meant when it says one cannot demand the \"goodies\" of both worlds. \"Peace\" is real only in the other world, as indicated by the promise to Abraham, \"And you will join your fathers in peace\" (Genesis 15,15). The yissurim, afflictions, make its recipient realize that his presence on this earth is comparable to that of a persecuted stranger. Jacob's experiences are a perfect example of this analysis. The disappearance of Joseph, the rape of Dinah, the famine, the apparent loss of Shimon, the threatened loss of Benjamin, all combined to bring home that truth. Unless Jacob was a stranger on this earth whose rightful abode was in the celestial regions, how could we account for all the indignities he had to suffer? The second disadvantage we have mentioned as being suffered by aliens in a country not their own, the language problem, is also relevant when we view man's temporary stay on earth. As a rule, speech is used to articulate man's physical needs, i.e. food and drink etc., or to put it more crudely, to communicate those of his needs that he shares with the animal kingdom to others. Whenever mere language does not suffice to assure him of his needs, he resorts to violence, i.e. a call to arms: (Proverbs 18,6) \"The lips of the fools engage in quarrels, his mouth calls for turbulence.\" Their very language becomes an instrument of violence. Jeremiah 18,18 illustrates this point further: \"Let us smite him by means of language!\" Wisdom, however, is superior to violence and to instruments of war and strife (Kohelet 9,16). When speech is employed to express the spiritual yearnings of man, it does not become an instrument of war or a means of animalistic gratification. When Solomon says, \"Do not answer the fool according to his foolishness; answer the fool in accordance with his folly!\" this means, \"Do not use the power of speech to answer the fool on his own level, but use the power of speech so that even a fool can recognize his folly (Proverbs 26,5). The ox is the animal that uses its brute strength to work hard uncomplainingly. Joseph had to suffer many indignities in the early part of his life, such as the brothers' jealousy, the Midianite slave merchants, Potiphar's wife's accusations etc. Nevertheless, he proved his moral superiority in his encounter with his master's wife. This moral superiority which he demonstrated when it clearly hurt his chances of a continued career (when he refused the advances of his master's wife), was richly rewarded by G-d, who alone was aware of the pure motives which had governed Joseph's behavior throughout. Joseph's ability to control his carnal urges made him a paragon of virtue. The Talmud Shabbat 63 says that whoever fulfills one single mitzvah completely, wholeheartedly, will not receive evil tidings. He will not need to worry about receiving bad news, but can enjoy undisturbed confidence that G-d’s personal Providence will remain at his side. Joseph's strength, i.e. the ox's strength, lay in the certainty that his cause was righteous, not in his ability to pull heavy loads. The lion, on the other hand, represents mere physical prowess. The brothers, in being described as \"rulers\" are conceived as having made themselves at home here on earth, not being content with remaining aliens, the purpose of man's sojourn on this globe. For this reason, then, Joseph representing the inner strength of a man of spiritual values, was able to overcome the combined strength of his brothers who had threatened to destroy Egypt failing release of their brother Benjamin. ",
"Problems in the text: 1) Since the Torah states that Joseph recognized his brothers though they did not recognize him, what point was there in deliberately acting like a stranger? Why is the fact that he did not recognize them repeated? 2) Why did Joseph remember his dreams as soon as he saw his brothers? Would it not have been better to state that as soon as he saw his brothers, \"He remembered what they had done to him?\" 3) Why did Joseph accuse the brothers of spying? How was that accusation countered by the brothers explaining that they were all the sons of one father? Why did they repeat this statement, and how did their answer cause Joseph to say that this only confirmed his suspicions? 4) Why did Yehudah say, \"My lord asked if we had a father etc,\" when in fact the Torah does not report that Joseph had asked this at all? 5) The two accusations A) you are spies and B) you came to look for the weakness of the country, seem not to have been responded to by the brothers. How could Joseph ignore the ongoing anguish suffered by his father and not reveal to him that he was alive? 6) It seems strange that during the three days that all the brothers were imprisoned, no mention is made of any mutual recriminations; neither did they ascribe their misfortune to the manner in which they had treated Joseph at the time the latter had pleaded with them from inside the pit while they were imprisoned. Only after their release and Joseph's statement that he was a G-d-fearing man, do the brothers admit that they deserved punishment for their insensitive conduct towards Joseph. Besides, how could Reuben accuse his brothers of not listening to his pleas not to spill Joseph's blood but rather to throw him into the pit, when in fact they had listened to him? 7) The conversation between the brothers in the presence of an interpreter seems foolish. It would only make sense if there were no one present who understood Hebrew. Why did they reveal their secrets while being overheard? The use of the word \"sack and fodderbag\" seems confusing (42,27). Why did not all the brothers examine their sacks as soon as one of them had discovered that he still had his money? Why is the expression \"sacks\" not used when the brothers came back to Egypt later? We do not find the word used when they examined their loads! 8) Why did Jacob refuse to accept Reuben's proposal, seeing he knew quite well that sooner or later the brothers would be forced to undertake a second journey to Egypt? What new dimension did Yehudah's proposal contribute which moved his father to approve of their journey? Why did Jacob describe the return of the money as only a possible error on the part of the Egyptians? 9) Why are we told all the details about what was served at the luncheon, and why all the details about the seating arrangements? If the Midrash is accurate, then the Torah should have stated \"Joseph seated them according to their age, instead of \"They sat down according to their age.\" The latter would hardly be cause for amazement by the brothers, it would be perfectly normal for them to sit down in that order. 10) The last time, Joseph had ordered that the brothers be given \"grain.\" This time he ordered that they be given \"food.\" Why the change? Why was the money this time placed at the opening of their fodderbags, whereas the last time it was put \"in the sack?\" 11) What is the meaning of \"Also this time I accept your argument?\" 12) Why did Yehudah volunteer all the brothers to become servants of Joseph? Surely, when one is in danger one must not voluntarily give up any advantages one still possesses, in this case one's very freedom! 13) Why did Yehudah make his speech when Joseph had already displayed extreme consideration by insisting that only the guilty party be punished, and that there would not be any guilt by association? What more could he reasonably have expected to accomplish? 14) The review of events as described by Yehudah lacks foundation in fact. Joseph had never asked about their father till the brothers had volunteered they had an aged father. How could Yehudah summon up the courage to misrepresent the facts as he does in 44,19? 15) Why do most commentators regard the words \"he will die,\" as applying to Jacob, when the subject at the beginning in verse 44,22 refers to \"the lad dying?\" 16) What precisely is the meaning of \"to control oneself,\" when words such as \"to suffer,\" \"to keep a grip on oneself,\" seem more appropriate to describe Joseph's feeling of discomfiture when he heard Yehudah describe Jacob? 17) Why was Joseph's first question after he had revealed himself to the brothers, \"Is my father still alive?\" After all, he had heard from the mouth of Yehudah repeatedly that their father was still alive. Why did Joseph first say \"You have sold me here,\" and then reverse himself saying, \"Not you have sent me here, but G-d etc.?\" 18) Why did Joseph instruct his brothers to hurry home and not to engage in arguments? Why did he specifically instruct that his power and glory in Egypt should be mentioned only at the end of the brothers' report about their reunion? 19) What is the meaning of the words \"My mouth is speaking to you, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin witness all this?\" 20) Pharaoh seems to repeat the order to allow Joseph's family to immigrate in 45,17 and again in 45,19-20, as well as that they were to be given V.I.P. status. Why? 21) Why did Benjamin receive bigger gifts and 300 shekel, a gift the brothers did not receive? ",
"We read in chapter 42,6 that Joseph, though ruler, made it his personal business to allocate grain to the individual buyers. This in spite of the fact that he had many officials who could have attended to such tasks. The reason must be that he supervised the sales personally in order to be on hand when his brothers would show up as buyers sooner or later. When the brothers did arrive, and, naturally bowed down, the first of Joseph's dreams had been fulfilled. (1) His recognition of his brothers was only partial, since they had changed substantially during the twenty years since he had last seen them. The word vayitnakker means \"he still remained strange to them,\" not that he deliberately misrepresented himself still further. The inquiry about their origin was designed to establish positively that these men were indeed his brothers. As soon as the brothers said that they came from Canaan, that clinched the matter for Joseph. From that moment on he had to be careful not to give himself away; therefore, the Torah repeats that now he recognized them fully. The brothers on their part did not have an inkling of Joseph's true identity, however. (2) Once Joseph saw his first dream fulfilled, he became curious to know if the second dream also was capable of being fulfilled. To this end, he devised stratagems that would lead to revelations about which members of his father's generation etc. were alive. Without such knowledge, he judged that the second dream could not possibly become realized. He could not imagine how else eleven stars and a sun could bow down to him. (3) The brothers' reply to Joseph's accusations was two-pronged. We are neither spies, nor, if we ever had been spies are we engaged in plying our trade now. Since the last accusation seemed to expose them to more immediate danger, they responded first to that accusation. They stated unequivocally that they had come to buy grain, witness their beasts and their haversacks etc. They also stated that they had never been spies; on the contrary, they were all the sons of one man. In fact, they said, they could afford to place all their cards on the table. Their answer was disarming in the sense that the brothers felt the secrecy necessary to function successfully as spies could never be maintained in a large family such as theirs. Besides, they argued, a respectable family such as they would have no need to resort to the spying business, anyways. (4) Joseph continued to pry and said that although their natural occupation may not have been spying, on that particular occasion they had come as spies, their gear being only camouflage to hide their real intentions. In this manner, Joseph managed to flush out the information about their father which was what he had been after all along. (5) The classic part of the brothers' answer was that if spies do not operate on behalf of a large group of people, they are a useless commodity. Since the brothers had no such large number of people to fall back on, seeing they were all the sons of one man, and since their residence in the land of Canaan was of recent origin and they were not even landowners, Joseph's accusation was so ludicrous that it was not even worth pursuing. They referred to their father as \"one man in the land of Canaan,\" not \"one man from the land of Canaan.\" Since all the accusations levelled against the brothers had failed to elicit the response Joseph had waited for, namely that his father was still alive, he resorted to their imprisonment and the demand to bring Benjamin to Egypt. He wanted to examine their attitude towards Benjamin, and to judge from their reaction to his demand if their father was still alive. He planned the phony theft of the goblet already at this stage, since he had to find out if the brothers still resented a son of Rachel as a rival for the affection of their father. Even when Benjamin eventually did come down, the question about Jacob being alive had not been settled in his mind, and he had no other recourse but to inquire directly if Jacob was still alive and well. On the surface, Joseph made it appear that questioning a young and inexperienced youth such as Benjamin would be a test of the brothers' truthfulness. If Benjamin in his youthful innocence and naivite would confirm his brothers' statements, that would show Joseph that he was not dealing with spies. When Benjamin finally did get to Egypt, Joseph pretended to be amazed at his age and sophistication, and asked, \"Is this your little brother of whom you have spoken?\" He meant, \"How can I assume that he is more innocent than you are?\" I need to test him just as thoroughly. Joseph knew that his father, if still alive, would suffer some anguish, unavoidably, but he did not think that all the brothers would necessarily return with Benjamin. He had considered it more likely that some of the brothers would stay behind with Jacob during that time. The fact that all the brothers did in fact return to Egypt, may have been prompted by their desire to prove their innocence concerning the money that had been found in their sacks after they had left Egypt. (9) The reason Joseph repeated his question about whether their father was still alive after he had revealed himself, was because of the moving description by Yehudah that Benjamin's failure to return would cause Jacob's death. ",
"",
"(6) Reuben complained to the brothers that his intention had been to prevent them from committing any wrong altogether, not merely to prevent his brothers from killing Joseph outright. They had not treated him in accordance with his intention then, only in accordance with what he had dared to say at that time. (7) The conversation during which the brothers accused each other concerning their erstwhile treatment of Joseph did not take place in Joseph's presence. After having used the services of an interpreter, Joseph presumably left the room. The interpreter may have stayed behind on his own to offer some words of comfort to the brothers. While he was engaged in conversation with some of the brothers, others paying him no heed, they may have berated each other, unaware that the interpreter was straining to overhear the gist of their conversation also. The return of their money had never been intended to frighten them, but to encourage them into thinking that they had found sympathy in Joseph's eyes. Jacob chose to interpret it differently, along the lines of Proverbs 28,14, \"Hail to the man who is constantly afraid.\" The words \"sacks\" and \"bags\" respectively, may be understood as follows. The large sacks were intended to hold grain, the smaller bags, fitted with pockets, were meant to carry various necessities for the journey, such as ropes etc., as well as their money supply. The bags were normally carried inside the larger sacks for added protection. Joseph may have instructed his servant to have the money placed inside their sacks, whereas the servant in charge of Joseph's household placed it in the bags containing the balance of their money and loading equipment, under part of the grain supply. Apparently, one bag was placed near the top of the sack so that when it was time to feed the animals, it would be found. This would keep the other brothers guessing if it had been an oversight or whether all of them had been framed. No doubt, they each looked inside their sacks, but not finding the money near the top, they did not want to waste any more time by unloading their entire grain supply. When they arrived back home, Jacob at first saw no particular danger, since the brothers had refrained from telling him about Joseph's threat that they would die if they did not bring Benjamin with them. Only after it had become clear that each one of them had had his money replaced in his sack, and that there could be no doubt that they had been carefully framed, did Jacob start to worry. His outburst \"You have bereaved me\" is perfectly natural then. When Joseph had their bags filled again, during their second trip, sacks are not mentioned at all. The emphasis is on their receiving so much in the way of food supplies, that even the bags normally used as containers for their own food, were put in service, and were presumably carried outside their sacks. When it eventually came to searching for the goblet, we only read that they quickly lowered their bags, opened them, an action that did not consume much time since the bags were not inside their sacks, as usual. When the brothers loaded their donkeys the first time (42,26), we read that \"they lifted their (respective) grain purchases on their donkeys,\" implying that they helped each other adjust their respective heavy loads. The second time, after the search which resulted in the goblet being found in Benjamin's bag, it only says (44,13) \"each one loaded his donkey,\" implying that the load could easily have been handled by each brother without assistance. The conclusion that \"travelbags\" are smaller than \"sacks\" is inescapable. (8) Reuben's offer to guarantee Benjamin's life with that of his own two sons, needs to be understood as follows. \"I am prepared to accept Heavenly judgment concerning the life or death of my own two sons, if I fail to bring Benjamin back to you.\" Jacob understood this to mean that Reuben obviously did not consider the journey very dangerous. He refused the guarantee, pointing out that his own fears were based on the fact that he had already lost one son, and that since the Egyptian ruler had not made Benjamin's appearance a matter of life and death, it was not justifiable to expose Benjamin to such danger. However, once their food supply had run low, and Yehudah had to reveal the extent of Joseph's threat, which did make Benjamin's appearance a matter of life and death for all of them, Jacob could not risk all their lives in order to save the life of Benjamin from danger. He therefore reluctantly agreed to let Benjamin accompany the brothers. (2) At that point Yehudah had misrepresented the inquiries Joseph had made about their families in order to counter Jacob's question \"Why did you do such an evil thing to me to tell the man about your family status etc?\" Basically, Yehudah used the argument, \"If you are faced with a certainty on one hand and a possibility on the other hand, you have to give prior consideration to the certainty.\" \"Our collective death is a certainty if we stay here, whereas if we go down to Egypt, there is a chance that we will all return safely.\" The same argument is used by the king (Kings II 7,13) when it is a question of risking the last remaining five horses to investigate the condition of the army of Aram. (8) Yehudah's guarantee is different from Reuben's in that he himself offers to be the guarantor, not merely his sons. Having reconciled himself to the inevitable, Jacob resorts to prayer and gifts, just as he did at the time he faced Esau over twenty years previously. The comment that the money which had been returned in the brothers' sacks might have been the result of an error, is to be understood as follows: \"Surely they must have noticed the error in the meantime, and are already waiting for you to bring back the money.\" Therefore, Jacob commanded the brothers to take a double supply of money to enable them to pay both for the last purchase for which they still owed, as well as for the grain to be purchased on this trip. Jacob's parting remark, \"If I am to be bereaved, I shall be bereaved,\" is in line with our commentary on the words \"for I will go down to my son mourning to the grave.\" This meant that by refusing to be consoled over his loss, Jacob wanted to make sure he would not expose himself to further grievous losses as punishment for his sins. Here, too, Jacob says that since he has been bereaved once, and still feels crushed by that bereavement, he is confident that he would not have to face another bereavement, such as harm befalling any one of the brothers. The correct translation of the verse then is: \"as for me, since I have already been bereaved once, I shall remain thus bereaved\" (not another). When the brothers arrived in Egypt, and Joseph noted that they had indeed brought Benjamin with them, he immediately hatched the plan of the trumped up charge that the goblet had been stolen. However, he had to engineer both the opportunity for the theft, as well as to find out if his father was still alive. The latter piece of information had not yet emerged from anything that the brothers had said. (9) A luncheon invitation at which the goblet would be used and would be shown as possessing magic qualities, would provide the motive for its theft. For that purpose, the brothers are led to Joseph's residence. Not being aware of that purpose, the brothers misinterpreted this turn of events, assuming they had been led there to be enslaved together with their animals, for the theft of the money. In order not to wait for an awkward interrogation, the brothers explain to the chamberlain in charge of Joseph's house what has happened. They changed the true sequence of events somewhat, claiming that all of them had found their money already during their return journey. In this manner they hoped to forestall the question why the brother who had found his money had not returned forthwith to return it. Since it would have been an unnecessary hardship on their families to have all returned once more, they had waited until their next trip to return this money. When Shimon was led out to them, and they had been reassured that Joseph's treasury had indeed received their original purchase money, so that the money they had found in their sacks must have been a treasure given to them by G-d, they felt more at ease and prepared the gifts they had brought along for Joseph, having heard that they would be his guests for lunch. When Joseph met them, he inquired about their father, having made sure that he used the brothers' own statement as the cue for this kindly interest. For that reason, he said, \"Is your old father, of whom you have spoken still alive?\" The brothers, distinguishing between \"old\" and \"father,\" inform him that whereas their grandfather had passed on, their father was still alive and well (Pessachim 4). The reason Joseph did not share a table with his attendants was that the Egyptians who do not eat certain foods would feel outraged seeing Joseph eat such foods. The ruler, moreover, never shared a table with his subordinates, so that three separate tables were necessary, since the brothers also ate a diet abhorrent to the Egyptians. The brothers, according to their habit, seated themselves according to their ages. The servants of Joseph, eating with them wondered why these travellers should be so honored as to be entertained by their ruler. (10) When their bags were filled with grain, including those bags not normally filled with grain, their money was returned to them, presumably to compensate them for the distress of having been accused as spies. However, hiding the goblet in Benjamin's bag was accomplished without anyone becoming aware of it, and the ensuing drama was meant to test the brothers' feelings toward Benjamin as a son of Rachel. The emphasis in the words \"my goblet, the silver goblet,\" stresses that although the goblet is only made of silver, not gold, like most of Joseph's other utensils, it possessed additional qualities which had prompted Joseph to pursue the brothers and conduct a search, despite the fact that as a trinket the goblet was inexpensive. (11) The brothers' argument that they had already proved their honesty by having returned the money they had found in their sacks after their first trip, was accepted conditionally. However, if perchance one of them should be found to have the goblet in his possession, the trustworthiness of that individual would have been destroyed. An accused person can conduct his defense based on any or all of three premises. He can compile a list of all his meritorious deeds which are unknown to the judge and which have a bearing on the matter he is accused of. Secondly, the accused can use logic to convince the judge to deal with him in an understanding manner; thirdly, he can deny having committed the offense he is being accused of, claiming he had become the victim of violence or a frame up. (12+13) Yehudah made reference to all three arguments. Concerning the excellence of Benjamin's character, he said \"What can we say to my lord?\" He meant that since Joseph knew the true facts, and was aware of the trumped up nature of the charges, any defense would be futile. Concerning argument number two \"What could we state?\", this means, \"We have no merits to offer in our defense;\" concerning argument number three, Yehudah said, \"What can we say to justify ourselves,\" seeing the stolen object has been found in our possession. Since the brothers had first said that if one of them would be found with the goblet, he would have to die, Yehudah now said, \"The judge has found your servants guilty,\" servants in the plural, i.e. take us all as servants, since it would be on account of our comment that the one would be guilty of death. At least comfort us by accepting us all as your slaves. Alternately, the word elokim is a reference to G-d having punished us now for sins we have committed independently of this affair with the goblet. Yehudah hinted that they had once sold their brother as a slave; now they wanted to atone for this by becoming slaves as well as their youngest brother who had become enmeshed in that whole affair because of the wrongdoing of his older brothers. This in spite of the fact that the goblet had been found in his bag, Joseph's reply was that though the thief was indeed guilty of being put to death, it was his privilege to reduce the penalty, seeing that no one else had been hurt by the accused's crime. He would certainly not punish those who had not committed a crime. ",
"\"Then Judah came near unto him\"",
"Despite Yehudah's having said previously that there was nothing he could say to alter the fact of Benjamin's guilt, he now attempted a different tack, prompted by the vision of his father's anguish. He appealed to Joseph to open his ears, i.e. to become accessible to what he was about to tell him. He implied that there is no shame attached to a ruler changing his mind, hinting that Joseph was not unlike Pharaoh, the latter also not always keeping his promises, i.e. changing his mind (Bereshit Rabbah 93). No doubt, when that happened there were compelling circumstances. That is why Joseph also could change his mind without any stigma being attached to him on that account. Yehudah's basic approach was that even when a certain crime carries a certain penalty, administering such a penalty in equal measure to every criminal regardless of any other consideration, could not contribute to the dissemination of true justice. When a weak young man has to submit to the penalty of 39 strokes of the whip, he may well die instead of merely suffering the indignity that the penalty is meant to subject him to. In such cases the attempt to administer justice results in murder. Therefore, Torah law (Makkot 22) provides safeguards to determine when the lashes have to be stopped to prevent such an eventuality. Also, should administering the penalty prescribed, result in a loss to society that outweighs the good which the offender's punishment would do for society, such punishment may well be deferred. Possibly, the reason David did not punish Yoav for the murder of Avner was for precisely this reason. Maybe this is why G-d did not punish David in connection with Bat Sheva, though Saul was dealt with harshly for his sin of not killing Agog. This may also have been the reason for the people's displeasure when Saul wanted to kill Jonathan. Since Jonathan was slated to become Saul's successor, the people felt that punishing him would in effect be punishing them (Samuel I Chapter 14). Also the plea of the woman from Tekoah for allowing Absalom to return to Jerusalem may have been prompted by similar considerations (Samuel II Chapter 14). A third reason for tempering punishment though deserved, is that the penalty in question is only one example of a variety of penalties applicable. Murder, whether intentional or unintentional is punishable by death or exile respectively, and the Torah repeatedly stresses that converting the penalty to a fine or any other type of punishment is strictly forbidden (Numbers Chapter 35 and elsewhere). From this it follows that crimes other than murder, lend themselves to a variety of punishments, the particular penalty to be determined by the judge. (14+15) Yehudah describes that Benjamin's penalty deserved to be altered for all the reasons listed. We have already raised the question how Yehudah could have had the audacity to claim that Joseph had asked about their father, when in fact he had not. Also, Yehudah's claim that he had told Joseph that Benjamin's separation from his father would lead to his death, can nowhere be found. Obviously therefore, Yehudah reconstructed their previous encounter as having resulted in the equivalent of all these questions, though they may never have been articulated in so many words. The accusation of their being spies, irreputable people, had forced the brothers to reveal that they were people of good repute, all of one family, sons of one father, thereby implying that they did not share the same mother. They had revealed that their remaining brother was the sole survivor of his mother's children, and therefore by implication, that his father leaned on him especially. Since their father had twelve sons, he was presumably an old man by this time. Although Joseph was aware of all this, he had insisted on Benjamin coming to see him. Yehudah continued that all the brothers had been imprisoned because they had refused to send one of them to bring Benjamin down to Egypt, and that they had only consented in the end, because Joseph had made it an issue of life and death by implication. When Joseph had said that he wanted to set eyes on Benjamin, the brothers had assumed that his intention was completely above board, whereas now it turned out that he wanted this spoiled young man as a slave, a task that Benjamin's previous lifestyle had not prepared him for, and which might result in his death. ",
"Secondly, Joseph was to consider the effect Benjamin's disappearance would have on his aged father, who would never survive that. Surely Joseph had no quarrel with their father that he should wish to punish him also. ",
"Thirdly, the nature of the crime was such that Joseph had latitude to vary the penalty; therefore, Yehudah asked to be allowed to serve his brother's sentence, since he was anyways much better suited to perform the tasks a slave would be expected to perform. At any rate, he could not return to face his father in view of the fact that he had guaranteed their brother's safe return. The entire journey to Egypt had only been due to Yehudah's insistence. Moreover, if he were to return to Canaan minus Benjamin, he would be forced to witness the death of his father from anguish. (16) Joseph's emotions had overcome him on two previous occasions. Once when he had heard the brothers confess their guilt about their conduct versus himself, the other time when he had first set eyes on Benjamin. On one occasion he had left the room to cry; the other time he could restrain himself only with difficulty. This time his emotions were so strong that instead of leaving the room himself, he ordered everyone out of the room, so that his servants would not see him cry. Since they had left him in order not to witness their ruler cry, it happened that they also missed the dramatic moment of Joseph revealing himself to his brothers. The Torah, by again using the term mitapek, holding himself back, wants to contrast the increasing emotional stress Joseph underwent at each successive encounter with the brothers. That he asked about his father, having just heard from Yehudah, only emphasizes the fact that Yehudah's description had been so heart-rending, that Joseph had needed confirmation that his father had still been alive at the time the brothers had left the land of Canaan. Concerning the conflicting statements about the brothers having sold Joseph to Egypt, the meaning is, of course, that whereas G-d’s actions are invariably good, He used the brothers' action to turn it to constructive use on behalf of the Egyptian nation. Therefore, the brothers ought not to grieve that their purpose, namely to prevent Joseph's dreams from coming true, had not been accomplished. G-d had accomplished a far greater purpose, using an action initiated by the brothers. Even their own welfare had been enhanced. Since G-d had sent Joseph to Egypt, they would be spared the ravages of the famine still in store for Egypt and the surrounding countries. Now that they had seen the work of G-d, they would realize that the dreams involving Joseph's being a ruler, referred to his being a ruler over the Egyptians, not as they had thought as him becoming a ruler over them. They had therefore proven to have been tools in the hands of G-d who had engineered his being brought to Egypt, using the brothers' suspicions to serve His overall design. When the brothers asked Joseph's forgiveness at a later stage after their father had died, when they were afraid of Joseph intiating reprisals, they said, \"Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the G-d of your father,\" reminding Joseph that whatever they had done to him, had been done in the service of G-d, by Joseph's own admission. Joseph's reply to that argument will be discussed in Chapter thirty-three. (20) Joseph had to explain that he could keep his father and family in style only if they came to Egypt, where he was in a position to exercise power and influence, and that therefore, no disgrace was attached to their father's migrating to Egypt. (19) When proving his identity, Joseph had to use the kind of proof that would also convince his brother Benjamin, who had neither known of the fact that the brothers had sold him, nor had been aware of the details of what had happened at the time of the sale. The latter facts could have been common knowledge only among the ten brothers and Joseph. Use of the Hebrew language by Joseph all of a sudden would be one point, the other would be the modesty with which he gave the entire credit for his meteoric rise to power to G-d. (21) His mode of behavior towards Benjamin, the crying, the larger gifts etc. all helped to convince the brothers that this was no charade, but that it was indeed their long lost brother who stood before them. The opening phrase of the Midrash quoting Solomon about the superiority of using wit against naked force, is thus explained. (20) The satisfaction felt in Pharaoh's palace and the Egyptian establishment about the turn of events was very considerable. First of all, Joseph was very popular, and for that reason his family would be made welcome as an act of esteem towards him. Secondly, any negative feelings that might have been rampant about the rise of a lowly alien slave to the position of economic Czar, could now be parried, when it could be shown that Joseph had been born into a most prestigious family in Canaan. Pharaoh himself had to authorize the despatch of wagons, since those were not allowed to leave the country without his special permission. He emphasized that they should bring their families, not to worry about leaving behind belongings, since Pharaoh could easily recompense them for anything they might have to leave behind. Chapter 45,21 then tells us that the sons of Israel complied with Pharaoh's generous offer. Joseph wanted his brothers to put on clothing befitting their new station in life, just as he himself had changed his mode of dress when he came out of the dungeon to interpret Pharaoh's dream. The larger gifts for Benjamin represented his special needs, since presumably Benjamin did not return to Canaan and needed changes of clothing for a prolonged stay in Egypt. He also needed extra funds, whereas the ten brothers took food supplies home to Canaan. (18) The description of his power and glory in Egypt was appended to help convince Jacob that once in Egypt, he could look forward to a dignified lifestyle, did not have to view himself as an immigrant without rights. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"JOSEPH IS STILL ALIVE, AND EVEN RULER.\" ",
"Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 105 quotes Rabbi Yehudah as saying that Jacob should have been brought down to Egypt in chains, but that the Almighty resorted to a variety of stratagems to ensure that Jacob would descend to Egypt of his own free will. This is the meaning of the verse (Psalms 105,17), \"Joseph was sold as a slave...He called forth famine all over the earth...Jacob came to Egypt.\" Rabbi Pinchas said, \"Compare this to a cow which the owners wanted to drag to the slaughter house, and which refused to be dragged. What did the owners do? They took its calf first; after that, the mother cow followed willingly. This is what G-d did in order to get Jacob down to Egypt, as we read in Hoseah 11,4, \"I drag them by the ropes of man, I pull them with strong ropes of love.\" ",
"The following is based on the theories prevalent in the author's time, namely that there are seven planets which revolve around the earth, the earth being the center of the universe. Similarly, it was thought that there were only four basic elements. Since these concepts are outdated, only a very brief summary of the author's comments is given here. There are two ways of controlling the universe. One is the natural way, by means of laws of nature as we all know them. The other is by means of Personal Providence by the Creator. Each of the seven planets has a specific function, and influences certain aspects of both human and nature's behavior. Each of the planets is supervised by an agent of G-d, an abstract spiritual being, i.e. an angel. The rank of the angel corresponds to the importance of the respective planet in the scheme of the cosmos. When David says in Psalms 108,5, \"For Your kindness is great unto the Heavens, and Your truth unto the skies,\" he refers to the advantages of having one's fate governed by Divine Providence rather than by the alternate and far more common method of natural law. Nature, of course, is subject to the Almighty's overall plan, and to that end each of the seven planets is presided over by an angel assigned the task of making that particular planet function in the manner planned by G-d. The providential guidance of man's destiny is in the first instance confined to the Jewish people, the descendants of Abraham. In order to qualify for continued guidance by Divine Providence, we were given the Torah, which personifies the revealed will of the Creator, which alone enables us to live our lives in harmony with His will and expectations. Ultimately, through the leadership of Israel, it is hoped that the fate of all of mankind will be governed by Divine Providence rather than by the somewhat indiscrimante method employed by a combination of celestial constellations. The seven days of creation are presided over respectively by the seven planets of the system, and the twelve horoscopes correspond to the twelve hours the day and night respectively are divided into, each planet being assigned certain hours. The combination of these factors accounts for the divergence in individual fates when such fate is not presided over by the guiding hand of Divine Providence. When subject merely to natural law, all men are equal in the degree of exposure to the influence exerted by each planet. Nature does not distinguish between the good and the wicked, although by dint of composition, some people may succumb to forces unleashed by certain planets more easily than others. If, say, the planet Mars is concerned with warfare, and during the period of its reign, at predetermined intervals, peoples' lives are in danger, then the apparent immunity of one person to conditions which prove fatal to others is due to that person having a different constitution, not to the amount of moral or ethical merit possessed by the afflicted vis a vis the apparently immune. The second method of governing the world is through personal guidance of man's fate by the Creator Himself. When He uses His Providence, everything is possible, nothing needs to be despaired of. The latter method is invoked for the benefit of the righteous people. The universe was conceived of (see Britannica page 644 under the heading of astronomy) with an axis protruding from the earth's center, supporting the shell like heavens, around which the fixed stars are set. Earth is central to that system, revolves around its own axis, is flat, and of the seven planets the sun describes the middle (4th) orbit, in line with its creation on the fourth day of creation (the middle one of the seven days of creation). The moon, by reason of its closeness and therefore fastest orbit around the earth, is the brightest, notwithstanding the fact that it gives only reflected light. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Assuming that Jacob's prophetic vision had departed from him after Joseph had been kidnapped and that it had not been restored till Joseph's whereabouts had become known, how do we understand 45,26, \"They told him saying Joseph is still alive, and he is even ruler in the whole land of Egypt; his heart fainted because he did not believe them?\" If it was because he did not believe the news, why do we read immediately afterwards \"Jacob's spirits revived?\" How can disbelief of good news translate into happiness? 2) The meaning of the line, \"It is plenty that my son is still alive, I will go and see him before I die,\" is hard to understand. It appears that the word od, still, is the cause for the word rav. This sounds as if Jacob was surprised that Joseph had survived for so long. Why would Jacob feel that way? 3) Why did Jacob fall around Joseph's neck at the reunion? Why did he add the words \"This time I can die?\" Why does the Torah repeat (46,30), \"He still wept around his neck?\" 4) The words (46,36) \"So that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians\" requires clarification. Is the fact that the Egyptians feel abomination for shepherds a reason to assign the most fertile part of the country to the Jews? 5) What did Jacob mean when he had told Pharaoh that his days of sojourn on earth were few and poorly (47,9)? Why did he not simply say \"my life?\" 6) Why did the Egyptians say to Joseph in the second year of the famine, \"We will not hide from you that both our money and our livestock are gone?\" Who had suspected them of hiding either their money or their livestock (47,18)? 7) Why is the comment \"There was no bread in the whole land\" (47,13) interposed in the middle of the description of the famine, rather than at the beginning or the end of the story? 8) Why did Joseph underline (47,23) \"Here I have bought you today as well as your lands for Pharaoh?\" This seems to add to their feeling of despondency and embarass them even more. Furthermore, how could they have reached such a desperate stage so soon that they needed handouts already at the beginning of the second year? If, on the other hand, the Rambam is correct, and the sale to serfdom occurred only in the seventh year of the famine, how did Jacob's blessing help Pharaoh at all? 9) Why is the whole internal legislation Joseph introduced reported in the written Torah? The redistribution of the Egyptian population seems a more appropriate subject for Egyptian historians! ",
"(1) When the brothers arrived back in Canaan in their splendid looking new outfits, their father was overjoyed to see that they had returned safely. However, when they mentioned Joseph's name, they reopened old wounds that had never healed completely, and Jacob's joy quickly turned into disbelief. He had, after all, trained himself to cope with bad news, but was psychologically unprepared for good news. Having listened to the brothers' detailed report, however, and having inspected the gifts Joseph had sent as proof of his being alive and in an exalted position, he returned to his original frame of mind and said, \"It is enough. I do believe now that my son Joseph is still alive.\" (2) No doubt the brothers had held forth at length about the splendor in which Joseph lived and the honor he enjoyed. Jacob exclaimed simply, \"It is enough that my son Joseph is alive, I will go and see him; never mind all this business about his glory. Even if he were merely alive, not powerful, I would go to see him before my death.\" Israel began the journey towards Egypt, but stopped at Beer Sheva to offer thanksgiving and to seek guidance, because he was troubled on two accounts. 1) Would this descent result in the family becoming assimilated in Egypt? 2) Would he forfeit the right to burial in the cave of Machpelah? He hoped to receive Divine guidance to both questions when he prayed at the place that both his father and grandfather had prayed at, and had had confrontations with temporal rulers. G-d did indeed appear to him, reassuring him on both counts. The promise that he would become a nation in Egypt, meant that his descendants would retain their specific characteristics, as testified to later in Deuteronomy. When the Sifri explains the verse, \"And became a great nation there\" (Deut 26,5), this meant that they were most distinguishable from the Egyptians, had not assimilated. Concerning the burial, he is reassured by G-d who promises that Jacob will indeed survive the journey and see Joseph who would be present at his eventual death and burial, and that G-d at that time would bring him out of Egypt again so that he could rest in peace with his ancestors. Jacob is given an assurance that his future fate would be governed by Divine Providence, not by any other method; therefore, he had no cause to worry. ",
"",
"From here on in, Jacob travelled with peace of mind. As befitting the honor of a ruling monarch, he sent the outstanding one of his sons as an ambassador to Joseph in the meantime. (3) As soon as they met, they fell on each other's neck and wept. This was to show that Jacob had indeed recognized Joseph, his royal attire notwithstanding. Having fully savored this remarkable reunion, Jacob indicated that he was now prepared to die. On the other hand, he may simply have repeated what he had told Joseph's brothers on hearing the wonderful news of the impending reunion. (4) If we do not follow Rashi who explains that the Egyptians despised shepherds, but follow the view that to-evah, abomination, is a term for a deity (compare Exodus 8,22, \"How can we slaughter an Egyptian deity before their very eyes and not be stoned to death by them?\" as well as other examples for the meaning of this word), then guardians of their deities would be considered as following a most respectable vocation indeed. Such people would easily qualify for residence in the best part of the country, land suitable for the sheep to be tended. Joseph wanted the king to make that decision; therefore, he instructed the brothers to answer in such a manner that it would lead to such a decision. He did not wish to use his own authority to settle them in Goshen so as not to be accused of nepotism. (5) The unusual inquiry by Pharaoh after Jacob's age, may have been prompted by Jacob looking extremely aged, something which could have been caused by his having lived in different countries under varying and extreme climatic conditions. He thus appeared much older than his ancestors who had lived to a much older age than that which he had attained thus far. (6+7) The report of the total bankruptcy of the Egyptian population and their offer to sell their bodies, in the middle of the story, was to underline how G-d’s Providence was at work. A whole population could be sold into slavery, lose their land, all that at the mere suggestion of a foreign born ruler. All that, and not a single voice was raised in protest. More likely however, the course of events was different. With the descent of caravans from the surrounding nations, all anxious to buy grain in Egypt, the price of food had risen dramatically. The Egyptians themselves spent all their money during that period buying up food and fodder, driving up prices to astronomical levels, hoping to make a killing from the foreigners. After less than two years, those foreigners had run out of money and stopped sending caravans. The Egyptians who had sold all that they had stashed away at exorbitant prices, now turned to Pharaoh for food. The latter referred them to Joseph. Joseph was now in an unassailable position to treat the prices charged by the population to outsiders as market prices. At those prices, Pharaoh's treasury, through Joseph, soon collected all the Egyptians' money in return for food rations. (8) Thus, in short order, both the Egyptians' hoard and their money had become depleted. Joseph's offer to accept their cattle in payment seemed very generous, since it relieved them of the need to buy fodder also. The cattle now became a liability to the state. When there was no more cattle to be traded, the next step, naturally, was to offer their own labor services to Pharaoh. The end of the year referred to in 47,18 is the end of the third year, it being the first of the remaining five years during which they had to buy food from state granaries administered by Joseph. The Egyptians' statement that they would not hide their cattle from Joseph, was meant as an acknowledgement of Joseph's sympathetic attitude towards them until then. They added that though they could have expected to be fed by him without payment, in view of Joseph's past generosity, they were even prepared to become slaves in order to earn their keep. Joseph had been astute enough to have this suggestion originate with the population, and not to impose such legislation from above, arousing resentment. After that it is likely that G-d allowed Jacob's blessing to take hold and the Nile once more overflowed its banks. (9) The whole episode is reported to remind us that from the moment the Jews became a nation, they were used to see the caste of priests provided for at the national expense, and that the population had to pay twenty percent of their produce to the state, without even owning the land they farmed. In the future, when the Torah would ask Jewish farmers to contribute ten percent of their harvest for the maintenance of the religious elite, there could be no grounds to grumble. As distinct from Egypt, the Priests and Levites of Israel were not even landowners, whereas in Egypt the Priests though landowners were looked after by other farmers who had to toil also for them. The Almighty, in His wisdom, arranged for this historic precedent to prepare the ground for the acceptance of Torah by the Jewish people in the future. In addition, we have the promise of the prophet Maleachi 3,10 that compliance with the regulations about tithing legislated by the Torah will actually enrich them further. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"The Talmud in Taanit 5 relates the following conversation between Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak. Both were at a meal, when the former asked the latter to say a word of Torah. Rabbi Yitzchak replied that Rabbi Yochanan had said that one must not talk during the meal, lest some food enter the windpipe instead of the gullet. At the conclusion of the meal, Rabbi Yitzchak said, \"Rabbi Yochanan has said that our father Jacob did not die.\" Rabbi Nachman countered, \"In that case, why was he eulogized and embalmed?\" Rabbi Yitzchak replied that Rabbi Yochanan had been explaining a verse from scripture (Jeremiah 30,10), \"And you My servant Jacob, do not fear, do not be scared Israel, for I will redeem you from afar and your seed from the land of their captivity.\" In this verse, Jacob's descendants are lumped together with Jacob himself, proving that Jacob, too, is subject to the same salvation. ",
"Research has shown that man's soul grows stronger while feeding on the same foods as the body. The soul eventually assumes an almost independent identity if it remains true to its task. Eventually, it gains the kind of independence from the body which enables it to survive the body as an abstract spiritual entity. We have discussed all this in connection with the verse \"He blew into him a spirit of life.\" In spite of all this, the fact that the soul absorbs the same kind of nourishment as the body has led some people to deny the very possibility of immortality. Since we can observe that the decay of the body is unstoppable, begins in fact almost on the day the baby is born, belief in the independent existence of the soul becomes difficult to accept. The process of gradual death can be understood in this way. If you have a glass of wine that is not quite full, and you add a little water to it in order to fill the glass to the rim, the water added becomes wine. However, in the process, the wine loses a little of its potency. If this process is repeated each time some wine has been sipped from the glass, eventually, the wine will have lost all its potency, and we will wind up with a large quantity of water. Life is a somewhat similar process. The life force gradually spends itself in assimilating the very food that is body building, until finally, having no more reserves, the body dies. Tragically, many have made the error of assuming that the soul dies with the body. If true, this would reduce the stature of man to something inferior to any other creature, since despite man's additional faculties, he alone of all creatures would be the one who labors in vain. Kohelet 6,7, \"All man's toil is for the sake of the mouth, yet he cannot satisfy his soul,\" (appetite) would describe this futility. Based on such misconceptions, man turned to the acquisition of gold etc., objects that are enduring by comparison to himself; he made himself the slave of money, worshipping it as his master. Since we have demonstrated in Chapter twenty-four, that the pursuit of these illusory and transient values is utterly foolish, it follows that the immortality of the thinking part of man is a fact, or man's very creation would not make sense. When Rabbi Yochanan said that Jacob did not die, he merely used Jacob as an example of a maxim that applies to anyone whose immortality has not been forfeited. The reason Jacob served as an example for this lesson, is that he was the third in the line of our ancestors and, as explained in Tanchuma Parshat Mikeytz, \"Confidence in one's harvest is not attained when plowing, nor when sowing, but only when the sheaves are ready to be taken into the barn\" (Compare also Chapter twenty-five). For this reason, Jeremiah 2,3 describes Israel as G-d’s first \"harvest.\" ",
"The Midrash, discussing the danger of talking during the intake of food, may now be understood. The windpipe leads to the part of the body that supplies the air, so that the seat of the brain can function; in other words, it ensures the continuity of the mind as such. The gullet is the duct leading to the stomach, i.e. the seat ensuring survival of the body. In the first instance, we are told by a hint that idle conversation during the meal may help confuse the distinction between body and soul respectively. If one loses sight of the relative position of mind and body, one could easily err about the significance of food altogether, and assume that it serves both parts of man equally, and that there is no basic difference between the quality of life of body and that of the soul. Since apparently the hint was not fully understood, Rabbi Yitzchak elaborated on the same theme after the meal in a different manner. The message was that even the part of Jacob that normally needed regular food to sustain it, did not die. When challenged, he quoted scripture to prove that the \"Do not be afraid\" was addressed not only to the exalted spiritual part of \"Israel,\" but even to the more mundane human being known as \"Jacob.\" The great lesson was that not only the spiritual part of the soul originally supplied by G-d is immortal, but that the contributions made by the brain, mind, in short, the human personality, also will not die. ",
"When a person sits down to a se-udat mitzvah, a meal serving a religious purpose, he consumes a meal that does more than merely nourish his body. The more tangible the food, the more it serves to strengthen the body; the more refined, almost intangible, the more it nourishes the soul. When the Torah tells us that the Almighty derives satisfaction from our sacrifices, and this satisfaction is described as reyach nichau-ach ishe lashem, the sweet smelling fragrance of the fire offerings for the Lord, the idea is not that the smell of the fat and blood constitute spiritual nourishment for G-d, but rather that man submitted to the will of G-d. He was anxious to fulfil His wishes. The sacrifice serves as a prop to evoke that feeling of good will that keeps the Shechinah in our world. Similarly, participation in a meal with a Talmid Chacham, a Torah scholar, is equated with participating in a meal with the Shechinah, since the Torah scholar represents the immortality of the mind and spirit of man and their independent and enduring nature. Conversely, a meal at which several people partake without their exchanging words of Torah to lend it some spiritual significance, is rejected by the Shechinah and considered a table full of vomit (Avot 3,4). The above demonstrated that man does not live merely by bread, but that compliance with the revealed will of G-d contributes to man's physical as well as his spititual well being. The gist of the comment \"one does not talk during the meal\" then would be, \"Do not be fooled by the fact that the soul appears to feed on physical food, thereby proving that it is as mortal as the body it inhabits.\" We know that even \"Jacob\" did not die, and that there is more to consumption of a meal than merely the absorption of calories. ",
"At this point, the author gives a complete commentary on Psalm 49, supporting the view he has just expressed. ",
"",
"There are some more difficulties in the aggadah quoted at the outset of this chapter: ",
"1) Since all righteous people are considered chayim, alive, after they have \"died,\" what is so special about Jacob not having died? 2) Why, is Jacob not called by his rightful title in that aggadah, i.e. Israel? If what is meant is an immortality of his personality, at least he might have been referred to by both his names as is the case in Jeremiah 30,10 (compare our quote above)! 3) Why does the questioner refer to eulogies as proving Jacob's death? Does not the Torah say explicitly, \"The brothers saw that their father had died?\" Besides, he himself had said \"I am about to die?\" 4) The answer \"I am using scripture as proof\" seems rather weak when we have explicit statements of scripture to the contrary! ",
"The distinction between such terms as nefesh, ruach, and neshamah respectively is found already in Zohar on Parshat Acharey. We have discussed it in detail in Chapter six, where we described nefesh as equivalent to a primeval life force, an outgrowth of the body, yet abstract in nature. What is meant is man's ability to think, feel, perceive in a cognitive manner. Ruach, on the other hand is the spiritual force supplied by G-d. Neshamah is the synthesis created by nefesh and ruach together, through a righteous mode of life. Nefesh has then attached itself ever more firmly to ruach. It thus loses its erstwhile subservience to its physical master, its body. When Abigail said to David (Samuel I 25,29), \"May the life force of my master be bound in the bundle of immortal life with the Lord your G-d,\" she did not use the term neshamah, but she said nefesh. This bears out our interpretation of the word nefesh and its loftiest destiny. In Jacob we find for the first time someone among the patriarchs who had achieved all three stages. He achieved the attachment of nefesh to ruach that results in neshamah. He became a spiritual personality that had absorbed and completely sublimated the purely physical nefesh. This is why we find Jacob called by three different names on three different occasions: 1) Jacob 2) Israel 3) Eyl (compare Genesis 33,20). The latter term is the name for his neshamah. This is a spiritual state achieved only by a select few in our national history. Rabbi Yochanan said wisely, \"Our father Jacob did not die, since he had been able to convert even that which had an exclusively physical base into a spiritual force. The derivation from the verse \"Do not fear My servant Jacob, do not be afraid Israel,\" then uses the first two names of Jacob to tell us that just as his descendants are alive, so is he himself alive. This, of course, is something that can be achieved by the masses, and they can thus assure themselves of immortality. This is the normal way with tzaddikim. Their prime life force is welded to their ruach so that it survives the demise of the body it once inhabited. Frequently such a synthethis is not achieved and demonstrated until the body does indeed decay. Rare indeed is the person of whom it can be said during his lifetime on earth that he has already achieved this degree of saintliness. When G-d gave Jacob the appellation Eyl on his return to the holy land, this was one of these few occasions. Because the listener had understood the gist of Rabbi Yochanan's remarks, he asked, \"If so, what was the purpose of the eulogy and the elaborate embalming which seem to demonstrate that Jacob's death was no different from any other death?\" On the contrary, instead of eulogizing him they should have composed hymns of thanksgiving! Concerning this problem, Aristotle already has stated that anything repeated often enough by enough people assumes a dimension of truth that is impossible to uproot. This is why King Saul was so upset about the praises sung about David, \"Saul slew thousands, but David tens of thousands\" (Samuel I 18,7). Therefore, Rabbi Yitzchak stated that he could prove from scripture something which for psychological reasons could not be demonstrated by human behavior. This verse is more authoritative concerning what happened to Jacob than the report about how his survivors treated his body after it had ceased to function. The manifestation of death observed by Joseph's brothers is not surprising, since the death of the bodies of even the most saintly people is a phenomenon that is inescapable, due to four basic causes. When the Talmud in Sukkah 29 describes four causes for the eclipse of the sun, it may refer not to the sun in our solar system, but may describe four reasons that cause the death of the bodies of those people whose spiritual light illuminates our lives just as the sun illuminates and gives warmth to the earth. The Talmud describes people as suns on several occasions, such as in Yuma 38, when the verse \"And the sun shines and the sun sets,\" in Kohelet 1,5, is applied to the birth of potential Jewish leaders preceding the death of the existing Jewish leaders of the last generation. So, for instance, the prophet Samuel's light began to shine before the light of the High Priest Eli was eclipsed. Death itself is hinted as being due to the following four causes: 1) Failure to adequately eulogize leading Torah scholars. This is considered equivalent to removing vital juices from the body. This cause of death is the most serious one, since one does not relate the effect to the cause, not noticing the absence of the vital juices until it is too late. 2) The practice of sodomy. This shows that a person whose function in life is to be active, to initiate, is instead content to remain merely passive. When man becomes merely an object rather than a subject, the functions of his body have been usurped; therefore, death of such a person will not be long delayed. 3) Failure of the digestive system, something beyond man's control once he has ingested the food. The fact that this food is not converted into life sustaining energy, additions to the bloodstream etc., causes death. 4) The natural tendency of the soul to return to its father in Heaven, and to escape imprisonment in a body. This is expressed symbolically as being like a betrothed girl who is raped in broad daylight, and whose cries for help have gone unanswered. The body is helpless to resist the soul's efforts to return to Heaven. The prophet Elijah, who did not die a natural death, and the significance of stories in the Talmud about Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi, are discussed in Chapter 105. ",
"Some problems in the text of this Parshah: 1) Why are the seventeen years of Jacob's life mentioned separately, seeing they are part of the one hundred and forty-seven years, and we had been told that he was one hundred and thirty years old when he arrived in Egypt? 2) Why does Jacob mention his wish not to be buried in Egypt separately, seeing he later repeats \"Carry me out of Egypt?\" Why was the whole matter of burial of such great importance to him? 3) What exactly is the significance of the shechem echad blessing that Jacob bestowed on Joseph as an additional blessing? 4) Why did Jacob, who had prophetic vision, speak of future issue of Joseph, when in fact there was not going to be any such future issue? Does this not seem like a cruel hoax? 5) Why did Jacob bother to explain at this time why he had buried Rachel where he did? 6) When the Torah reports that \"Jacob saw the sons of Joseph,\" but that his eyes \"were heavy with old age and he could not see well,\" the order seems reversed; Jacob's difficulty should have been reported first. It would then have provided the rationale for the question, \"Who are these?\" Why did Jacob feel compelled again to act contrary to the rules of natural birthright? Granted, there had been reason to deprive Reuben of the privilege of birthright, but what had Menashe done to forfeit his claim? 7) The whole line about Jacob crossing his hands does not seem right. Why did he not make the boys change their positions? 8) The repeated references about \"the G-d who looks after me etc.,\" seems extraneous. 9) Why was Joseph so concerned about which one of his sons received the blessing due to a firstborn? 10) Jacob's answer, \"I know my son, I know, he too will become a great nation,\" is strange. Why did he not simply say \"I know he is the firstborn?\" What is the meaning of the words, \"Which I have conquered with my bow and sword? When was Jacob ever reported as having used either bow or sword? ",
"(1) The seventeen years in Egypt were also part of the years under the special Providence of G-d; although Joseph did provide for his father, he did so as an instrument of G-d’s Providence, as he had said himself, \"Not you have sent me here, but G-d.\" The line, \"Who has been my shepherd until this day,\" refers to G-d’s Providence during those last seventeen years. The word hazeh, this, equals seventeen in numerical value. (2) \"Do not bury me in Egypt!\" Since we have pointed out earlier that during one's lifetime an ever increasing bond is forged between body and soul, and that this bond is not completely dissolved at death, but takes twelve months until it is completely severed, Jacob did not want the remains of his soul to be connected with Egypt for any part of this period. Compare Shabbat 152, \"The soul ascends and descends during the twelve months after the body ceases to function.\" The importance of the place of burial and how it facilitates the ascent of the acquired spiritual qualities of man, has been discussed in Chapter twenty-two. Jacob did not even want to be interred in Egypt temporarily, being afraid that re-interment would be postponed indefinitely; therefore, he said, \"As soon as I die, I want to lie with my fathers; carry me out of Egypt and bury me in my father's grave.\" By replying, \"I will do as you say,\" Joseph implied that his father's wish was more compelling than any oath. Jacob insisted on an oath however, to enable Joseph to tell Pharaoh that he had sworn an oath, should the latter make any difficulties. The fact that Joseph had to tell Pharaoh, \"My father has made me swear an oath\" shows that Jacob's fears were well founded. When Jacob recalled the vision he had had at Looz, he tells Joseph that he had learned two things on that occasion. Firstly, that there is a connection between the blessing and residence in the land of Israel. Secondly, that at least part of that blessing applied to him personally, not only to his future issue (vayevarech oti, He blessed me). Therefore, the promise of possession of the land applied only to the future. For this reason, Jacob starts once more \"He said to me\" as a separate communication from G-d (48,34). Jacob realized that the meaning of the second part of the blessing was that just as his children would remain \"alive,\" so would he remain \"alive,\" which is part of the meaning of our sages' statement that \"Jacob did not die.\" (4) On that occasion, at Bet El, we find that G-d blessed Jacob by saying, \"Nation and community of nations will stem from you\" (35,9-13). Apparently, this referred to children as yet unborn. Since only Benjamin had not been born yet at that time, Jacob was entitled to apply the second part of that blessing to himself having been promised more children. Joseph's two sons therefore could rightfully be considered as belonging to Jacob. Although they had been born in Egypt, the promise to Jacob had been made while he was in the land of Israel. Future events which dictated that the tribe of Levi would be separated into a separate unit with special functions, thus depriving the encampment of the children of Israel of one of their twelve armies, necessitated that Levi be replaced. Since Jacob allocated a double portion to the firstborn in the inheritance, he thus appointed Menashe and Ephrayim to represent the share of Joseph. Jacob did not discuss future children of Joseph then, but the words \"And your offspring,\" refer to his grandchildren and his great grandchildren. We find the latter being counted as heads of tribal families in Numbers Chapter twenty-six. This shows that Menashe and Ephrayim, though belonging to a later generation, are given the same status as Reuben and Shimon. There cannot, therefore, be a question of non-fulfilment of a promise of future children for Joseph. (5) The fact that Rachel died almost immediately after Jacob had received that blessing, made it clear to him that this blessing could not have referred to his having any more children. The line, \"When I came from Padan Aram, Rachel died etc.,\" is introduced as justification for appointing Menashe and Ephrayim as sons in the forthcoming distribution of the land of Israel. (6) Jacob saw a number of people around his bedside, not recognizing them. The Torah reports that they were Joseph's sons, but Jacob had not realized this until told by Joseph \"these are my sons,” the ones born to him in Egypt, prior to Jacob's arrival. He had now brought them so that they could receive the blessing discussed previously. Jacob asked that they come closer so that perhaps he could recognize them despite his failing eyesight. The kissing and embracing substituted for his inability to see, just as in the case of his father Isaac, when Jacob had received the blessing (Genesis Chapter 27). Jacob expressed his satisfaction at having been granted not only reunion with his son Joseph, but at having seen his children also. When Joseph saw his father like this, in a happy frame of mind, he removed the children from his father's knees to position them so that they could receive the blessing in order of their seniority. (7) After Joseph had already heard his father give Ephrayim precedence when he compared his position to that of Reuben, although Ephrayim was the younger, Joseph, thinking his father had erred, placed Ephrayim on his right side. When, despite the way Joseph had positioned the children, Jacob crossed his hands, it became clear that Jacob could not have erred previously when he mentioned Ephrayim ahead of Menashe. The words of the Torah \"And he was the younger,\" in describing Ephrayim, are not to be understood as \"although he was the younger,\" but rather as \"because he was the younger.\" It is clear that G-d did not intend for Jacob's left hand to come to rest on the head of Ephrayim. Jacob was presumably inspired by the order in which G-d had blessed him at Looz \"be fruitful and multiply; the \"be fruiful\" came first. Since the name \"Ephrayim\" is derived from the same root as the word \"fruitful,\" Jacob took this as his cue. The fact that the right hand represents the more important activities and achievements is well known and already documented in Proverbs 3,16, \"Long life from its right, wealth and honor from its left.\" The word sikel seems the same as we find in connection with Achitofel (Samuel II 15,31), \"Please make foolish the advice of Achitofel.\" It does not seem to matter whether the word is spelled with the letter sin or samech. The Torah tells us that the fact that he crossed his hands indicated that Jacob himself had not known who the firstborn was. He blessed Joseph.\" Being blessed in the name of G-d is a three-stage process: 1) The wish for successful spiritual development. 2) The wish for the material blessings which enable one to devote oneself to one's spiritual progress. 3) Protection against negative influences that stand in the way of one's achieving one's spiritual objectives. (8) Concerning the first portion of the blessing, Jacob said, \"The G-d before whom my fathers have walked.\" Concerning the second portion of the blessing, he said, \"The G-d who has been my shepherd.\" Concerning the third portion of the blessing, he said, \"The angel who has acted as my redeemer etc.\" The line, \"May my name be proclaimed through them in the name of my fathers,\" is confirmation that Ephrayim and Menashe are going to be treated like the other tribes. (9+10) \"My name will attach to them.\" Joseph's objections were not based on begrudging Ephrayim the blessing; rather, he believed his father had erred in placing his right hand on Ephrayim, and that if so, the blessings might not be fulfilled since they had been given based on a mistaken premise. He felt that just as his father had remained unaware of what the brothers had done to him, so he might be unaware now as to which of the sons standing in front of him was the firstborn. Jacob's answer, stressing twice, \"I know, my son, I know,\" reassures Joseph on both counts, tells him that his father is well aware of what the brothers had done to him. He also tells him that he is aware that Menashe would become a tribe on account of his being the firstborn, however the younger one would achieve even greater status, though not at the expense of the older one. (3) Apparently, Joseph was mollified, and when Jacob said, \"With you Israel will bless,\" this indicates that Joseph joined in that blessing. Jacob's saying to Joseph, \"I will give you one Shechem additional to your brothers,\" refers to the city that had been conquered by Shimon and Levi. When the Almighty gives territory to Israel, no one can claim it as his own, since they have not conquered it. Shechem, however, had not been given, but had been conquered. It, therefore, became the property of the conqueror and his to dispose of as he saw fit, seeing it was not part of the land promised to the children of Israel as a whole, as a gift from G-d. When David mourned Saul, he mourned the fact that it had become necessary to fight against Israel's enemies militarily, i.e. \"to teach the sons of Yehudah the use of the bow\" (Samuel II 1,18). This need had first manifested itself when Israel had been attacked by Amalek, and Moses had to tell Joshua to go and select fighting men. When at the end of that episode, the victory is described as, \"He weakened Amalek by the sword;\" the reference is to all conquests based on merely military superiority. Human conquest, by definition, is \"weak,\" as compared to territory that is acquired by the direct intervention of Providence on our behalf. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"JACOB CALLED IN HIS SONS.\" ",
"The Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Vayechi states that Jacob was prevented from disclosing part of the future to his sons, because when he called them in he failed to call on G-d’s Presence at the same time. A trusted servant who had the complete run of the king's household once determined to give his sons the status of free men and to tell them where the documents confirming this status could be obtained. The king, divining the servant's intention, positioned himself above the servant. Thereupon, the servant, fearful of being caught in an act of disloyalty, began to exhort his sons to promise continued loyal service to the king. Similarly, Jacob called in his sons to tell them about the time their exile would come to an end. Immediately, G-d appeared, wanting to know, \"Why have you invited them without inviting Me?\" This is the meaning of Isaiah 43,22, \"And Me you have not called, Jacob!\" As soon as Jacob realized this, he began to tell his sons that they should declare that they would serve the Lord just as their fathers had done, i.e. \"the Lord before whom my fathers have walked\" (48,15). The sons responded saying, \"We know what is in your heart. As you are true to only one Master, so we too will serve only one Master\" (shema yisrael). When Jacob heard this, he responded by saying, \"Blessed be the name of His glorious Majesty, forever.\" ",
"Since G-d has seen fit to grant reward in return for performance of His commandments, it is axiomatic that such reward is shared by every party who performs such commandments. Since man is both physical and spiritual, the reward will be shared by both his physical part and his spiritual part, i.e. his personality. The same is true, of course, when punishment for non observance of G-d’s commandments is called for. Faith in G-d’s ability to excercise Personal Providence, fear of the Lord, the will to serve Him, etc., are not the result of the mind's own initiative, but are responses formulated by the intellect in answer to G-d’s imperatives. When Solomon tells us in Kohelet, 12,13, \"In the final analysis when all is said and done, fear the Lord and observe His commandments, because these imperatives comprise the whole human being,\" he expresses that very sentiment. The highest development of the mind is not the acquisition of the most comprehensive knowledge and profound wisdom man is capable of, but compliance with G-d’s commandments which are expressions of His will. ",
"The truth that faith constitutes an objective to be attained by our mental faculties is expressed in Exodus 19,9, \"And also in you they will believe forever.\" The commandments which we perform because of our faith in G-d, His superior wisdom, rather than because our intellect has persuaded us of their usefulness and value, are the ones which entitle us to be called human beings. The true human being submits to the imperatives of His Creator. We are superior to the animals by doing not only what is functional, sensible. Were we to do only those things, even though on a more sophisticated level, we would not be superior to animals. It is precisely they that are programmed with instincts to do what is good for them in the context of their lives. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said, \"For this is the whole human being,\" i.e. the whole advantage of a human being over the animals is his ability to demonstrate such faith in the Creator that one keeps the type of commandments which one's reason neither dictates nor is able to justify. The reward for the physical part of us performing mitzvot is spelled out in Deut. 6,24, \"To perform these commandments...to keep us alive and well on this day.\" Similarly, reference is made to the reward for the souls which participated in the performance of these mitzvot when the same verse speaks about, \"It will be good for us for all times.\" Clearly, this refers to a reward in another world. The nature of the reward in that world is not spelled out, since our comprehension of that world is limited to a very general knowledge of its existence. As long as man is in a physical shell, he cannot really understand the true nature of such a world. ",
"Man's life is lived on two planes. He lives privately within the circle of his family, and he lives as a member of society, and must interact with such society in greater or lesser measure. The good he does must be divided then between the good he does within the family circle, and the good he does by contributing to the well being of the community he lives in. He will receive rewards for both his good deeds within the family circle and for the good deeds performed as part of society. To the extent that the good performed as part of society benefits everyone in that society equally, the reward can be collective. Since every member of that society benefitted equally by the input of good, so the reward is the kind that lets everyone benefit equally. Output is commensurate with input. The promise of the Jewish people living together in security, enjoying economic prosperity etc., is a reward for such good deeds performed by dint of being part of a certain society. It is a reward for the physical part of man, but it is allocated on a collective basis. Reward for the spiritual part of the input of everyone involved, is based on the degree of dedication that each person's contribution represents. It is in the nature of things that every individual brings a different degree of kavanah, intent, dedication to the performance of his mitzvoth. That is why our sages say that in the world to come everyone will occupy a level of his own. Since there are many commandments which can be fulfilled only collectively, the building of the temple for instance, the reward for such mitzvot, spiritual though it may be, will be collective. The time for receiving a reward for such mitzvot performed collectively, but not because such mitzvot benefit society (called by our sages yishuv ha-olam), is in the post-messianic era, but on this earth when ideal conditions for physical life will exist. In all cases however, the reward for the degree of the spiritual input by each individual into each mitzvah, regardless if it is of the kind that can only be fulfilled collectively or if it is fulfilled individually, is in olam haba. ",
"In the opening Midrash, the point made is that Jacob wanted to tell his children that at the end of the exile, redemption will come regardless of the quantity or quality of mitzvah input. This was to serve as consolation for all the hardship in store for the Jewish people. G-d’s objection, expressed by the words, \"You have not invited Me,\" is based on the fact that such revelations will result in decreased motivation of the Jewish people to serve G-d in the interval, the time prior to redemption, seeing that redemption is a foregone conclusion anyways. When Jacob realized the nature of G-d’s objection, he hastened to make his sons take the oath of loyalty, so that there could no longer be a question of the willingness or obligation of his descendants to remain loyal to G-d in the time preceding the redemption. ",
"Some problems in the text: 1) Why does Jacob seem to commence with the blessing twice, once with the words \"Gather so I may tell you what will befall you in the end of days\" (Genesis 49,1) and again in the next verse \"Assemble and hear sons of Jacob, listen to Israel your father?\" 2) When Jacob exclaims regarding Shimon and Levi, \"I will divide them in Jacob and disperse them in Israel,\" we do observe that the tribe of Levi was dispersed forthwith. We do not however, read anywhere about the dispersal of Shimon. Why is this? 3) The blessing of Yehudah becoming the hereditary carrier of the monarchy, seems limited to the arrival of \"Shilo.\" Why? 4) Why are the names of the sons of Zilpah positioned between those of the sons of Bilhah in these blessings? 5) Issachar's blessing in verse 14 and 15 seems contradictory. \"He saw that repose was good, so he inclined his shoulder to carry heavy burdens.\" Surely this sounds illogical! 6) The blessing for Dan seems puzzling; \"Like a serpent...biting the horse's heel\" on the one hand, and on the other \"in Your salvation, O G-d, I trust?\" 7) Who are the owners of arrows \"who hated Joseph?\" In what way were the blessings Joseph received more generous than the ones received by his father? 8) Why are so many details recited about the cave of Machpelah? 9) In Chapter 50,1, we hear about assipha and geviyah. The normal word for death, i.e. meetah is missing. Why? 10) Why does the Torah have to tell us that when the brothers went to Canaan to bury their father, they left their livestock in Egypt? Whoever has heard of livestock being part of a funeral procession? 11) Why do we need to be told that the Canaanites appreciated that Jacob's passing was a cause of national mourning in Egypt? 12) The word loo normally means \"who would give that.\" When the brothers voice concern that, now that their father is dead, Joseph might display hostility towards them, the choice of this word in verse 15 seems quite misplaced. 13) Why do the brothers beg for forgiveness twice? 14) When Joseph says to them in an attempt to calm their fears, \"Am I in place of G-d?\" this suggests that only his fear of G-d prevented him from taking his revenge. This surely was not the best way to reassure his brothers? 15) Why do we need to know that Joseph's grandchildren, resp. great-grandchildren were born on his knees? ",
"(1) When calling in his sons concerning the events in the distant future, Jacob had in mind what happens to the souls after death. The second call concerned happenings during Messianic times, on this earth. Concerning Reuben, the statement yeter se-eyt refers to additional responsibilities which Reuben should have shouldered being a firstborn, instead of assuming an additional portion of negative virtues. Since the nature of his error was such that it could not be undone, like water which, if it has once hit the ground, cannot be retrieved, Reuben's sin of entering his father's bedroom constituted an irreversible desecration. This deprived him of the birthright, which was transferred to Joseph. Possibly, the hastiness and lack of mature judgment criticized here in Reuben's character may account for the equally hasty decision of the tribe of Reuben later in claiming their part of the ancestral inheritance in the territory formerly belonging to Sichon. It was the tribe of Reuben who was the first to experience exile and dispersion in later years. (2) Shimon and Levi are bracketed together because of the similarity of their actions. Their error was the opposite of that of Reuben. Reuben had acted hastily, without mature judgment. Shimon and Levi's action against Shechem was reprehensible precisely because it was preceded by careful planning. Aristo in Ethics 7, Section 9, already discusses the relative merit of impetuosity versus the person who is in perfect control of his actions who, though carrying out carefully planned deeds, has given no thought to the possibility that he may be wrong. At Shechem, Shimon and Levi sinned because they had planned. When it came to the violence done to Joseph, they could not even claim that their action had been thoroughly thought out. Concerning the first action, Jacob condemns an anger of the aph variety, something that would not evaporate until they had taken collective revenge. In the case of their treatment of Joseph, their action was the result of ratzon, free will, impetuous behavior. When both of these characteristics are found side by side, they spell too much danger for society. Jacob did not want to be associated with this. Therefore, the two have to be separated to reduce their potential for causing harm. Although anger is a negative virtue, it can on occasion be most helpful, since it awakens people to their duty who would otherwise have remained inactive, on the sidelines. Having Levi scattered throughout Israel would ensure that when the occasion would demand it, there would be people that would galvanize the rest of the population into taking action. When Isaiah (63,5) says, \"My arm brought me salvation, and my fury upheld me,\" he refers to exactly such instances of the usefulness of fury. Similarly, the Talmud in Ketuvot 103 reports how Rabbi Yehudah taught his son Rabbi Gamliel how to conduct himself in the office of the President. He told him, \"Conduct your office among the exalted and strike fear into the students.\" (3) Yehudah is the first of the sons whose heroic deeds did not manifest themselves in turning against his own flesh and blood when angered; rather, \"Your hand was against the neck of your enemy.\" Therefore, it is fitting that his brothers pay homage to him. \"A young lion;\" subsequently he is described as a fully grown lion (both in verse 9). This suggests that Yehudah's personality development proceeded according to accepted norms. He develops from strength to strength, unlike other crowned heads, many of whom experience their greatest moment of glory at the moment they are crowned and ascend the throne. Miteref beni aleeta, you overcame, surmounted the confused thinking of my other sons. Even though you were young in years, you showed mature judgment at the moment it was called for (\"What profit is there in killing our brother\" 37,26). Jacob proceeds to assure Yehudah that royalty will be hereditary in his descendants throughout the ages. However, just as the lion may crouch ready to pounce, but lacks the power, so the royal descendants of Yehudah will similarly be found lacking in strength on occasion. Such weakness will reflect Yehudah's lack of religious observance during such periods. The Talmud (in Sanhedrin 5) tells us that the term \"king\" is not used here for Yehudah to convey the idea that in the long years of exile when there will be no Jewish king, leadership functions will still devolve upon the descendants of Yehudah; \"The sceptre will not depart,\" \"the lawgiver,\" refer to such men as the Exilarch, i.e. the leader of the Jews in the Babylonian exile who were members of the tribe of Yehudah, often in a direct line from David. Once the era of Shilo commences, the condition of Yehudah being merely kore-a, crouching, will be over, and the whole world will pay homage to him. The reference then is to Yehudah's restricted leadership role in the interval, not the cessation of such status. The reason that Zevulun in this blessing is mentioned ahead of Issachar is that since the former provides the funding for the latter's sacred vocation, that of devoting himself to Torah, the former is the prime mover, and deserves to be recognized first. Issachar who is like a beast of burden weighed down under its load, represents the qualities without which Torah study devoid of ulterior motives cannot be undertaken successfully. A donkey accepts ever greater burdens without protest, is undemanding in manner, and modest in upkeep. (4) The reason that both sons of Zilpah are mentioned in between the sons of Bilhah, is to prove that Zilpah really was supposed to have become pregnant before Bilhah. Only Laban's trickery had prevented this at the time he tricked Jacob into marrying the wrong girl. (5) Issachar realized the kind of menuchah, rest, that is \"good.\" The reference is to the serenity attainable only through the diligent study of Torah, which ensures that one will reap the ultimate \"good\" at the end of one's endeavours. (6) After having mentioned the sons of Leah in the order of their birth, Jacob addresses himself to the oldest son of the maids. Samson, descendant of Dan would achieve the position of leader amongst his people, and become the first one to begin and shake off the yoke of the Philistines. Samson's activities were not accompanied by the glory and pomp of a royal Court, but like a snake, a loner, were simply acts of revenge perpetrated as acts of terror from ambush. This is just like the action of a snake which always seems unconcerned about its own fate. Samson died at the site of his greatest triumph, just as a snake presumably gets killed when the horse and rider it has bitten fatally kills the snake near the site of their own death. Since a victory in which the pursuer dies himself is hardly a true victory, the victor not surviving to enjoy the fruits of his deed, Jacob adds the words, \"In Your help I trust,\" expressing the hope that the defender of his people will be spared by Divine intervention. \"Gad will form units of troops,\" even though Gad will be the first of the tribes to be led into captivity (Kings II 10,33), he will eventually re-emerge at the time of redemption. Asher is blessed by being promised material blessings that are rarely found side by side, namely both grain and fruit. Perhaps during the reign of Solomon, he was called upon to supply the royal palace. \"He will supply the delicacies for the king.\" The comparison of Naftali to \"a hind let loose,\" i.e. fleet-footedness, may hint at the climatic conditions in his territory giving rise to earlier harvests than elsewhere in Israel. Possibly, Naftali had silver-tongued men, bearers of good tidings who would lead Israel in thanksgiving to the Lord. (7) Because Joseph was like a beautiful fruit, flourishing by a fountain, attracting admiration from all sides, he also attracted jealousy and envy. As a result, he was quarrelled with and persecuted. He himself, however, kept his ammunition in check instead of fighting back. Thus, he proved himself stronger than his adversaries. His hands were strengthened by the same G-d who had proven His might when aiding Jacob. Therefore, he possessed the merit to become the provider (ro-eh) for his family, his clan. \"May you receive your reward from the G-d of your father, may it be stored with the G-d Shadday, and may you receive the bountiful blessings from the heavens above and the depths that lie below, which are typified by the blessings of the breasts and the womb. The blessings of your father (Jacob) are greater than those of my parents (Isaac) in that I may select one of my sons for a special blessing, though all of them deserve blessings.” Each one of the sons of Jacob had a morally justifiable claim to givaut olam, high positions in the world; Joseph, however, had proven outstanding. Therefore, \"on his skull more than on that of his brothers,\" the special blessing. Since the tribe of Levi had not yet been given its special designation replacing the firstborn, and the number of tribes was not to exceed twelve, the blessings for Menashe and Ephrayim are here incorporated in the blessings pronounced on their father Joseph. At the time when Moses blessed the nation, singling out Levi for its share of recognition, Ephrayim and Menashe are once again not mentioned separately, to avoid exceeding the number twelve. Moses therefore only alludes to them by stating that bechor shoro, the firstborn, his ox, are the tens of thousands of Ephrayim and the thousands of Menashe. The importance of Benjamin is alluded to by the fact that he rates the opening of a new paragraph (the paragraph could easily have ended at verse twenty-nine). Just as the word \"Yehudah\" is usually found at the beginning of a \"page,\" so both of the brothers in whose territory the holy temple was to stand later, share the distinctive treatment in the manner in which their blessings are recorded in the Torah. Since the Priests and Levites will constantly be found in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to expect the members of those tribes to pursue the wisdom obtainable by keeping company with the priests, like wolves that rob in the morning and share the booty at night. Benjaminites will share in the knowledge obtained through close association with the tribe of Levi, and will teach others. Since in this manner they will both learn and teach, they are privy to the essence of all blessings. After all, success in any endeavor is based on study and dissemination of knowledge. The verse \"the tribes of Israel are twelve,\" means that \"although Joseph was divided into two tribes, the total still does not exceed twelve tribes, rather Levi is to be regarded as in a class by himself.\" This is what is meant by the words (verse 28), \"Which their father said to them\" (perhaps for this reason the scattering of Levi's cities was of quite a different nature than the dispersal of Shimon who had contiguous tribal territory, though it was an enclave within Yehudah). Since seventeen years had elapsed since Jacob and his family had left Canaan, Jacob was concerned lest any claim against the burial place of Abraham should have been registered during the family's absence from the country. Therefore, Jacob repeated all the details of his justified claim to the lands in question. Should any claim originate with the Canaanites, the fact that Ephron had sold to Abraham was essential; should the descendants of Ishmael claim the cave as theirs, the fact that Isaac had been buried there would prove that they had no valid claim thereto. To forestall any claim of Esau to be buried there, the fact that Leah had already been buried there, would attest to its ownership by the family of Jacob. Should the argument be used that the sale by an individual such as Ephron was invalid, since he was merely an individual and it was not in the national interest to sell off land to outsiders, the fact that the beney chet, a national group had approved the sale to Abraham, would invalidate any such claim in the future. (4) We have explained when Abraham died, that geviyah is the failure of one's faculties to function (clinical death), whereas meetah is the destruction and decay of the body's whole structure. Assiphah refers to the return of the soul to its hidden origin. Meetah is not mentioned in connection with Jacob. The reason our Rabbis may not have quoted this passage when they made the statement that \"Jacob did not die,\" is so as not to allow the misconception that the elaborate measures taken to embalm Jacob's body were what is meant by the absence of the term meetah. The impression could easily have been formed that preventing decay of the body is equivalent to preventing meetah, i.e. death. Joseph appears to have had his own royal embalmers, and instead of the standard thirty-day procedure, Jacob was given the royal treatment, i.e. seventy days. This made the removal of the intestines and brain unnecessary (possibly). It appears that during the mourning Joseph observed for his father for seventy days, he did not permit himself to communicate with anyone at the royal court, and spoke to Pharaoh only through intermediaries (50,4). (5) It seems that as soon as Jacob had passed on, his sons were ready to return to the land of Canaan with their families and livestock, but were prevented by the Egyptians who were already planning to eventually enslave Jacob's entire offspring (Midrash Rabbah Tzav). We are told therefore, that the reason the Parshah dealing with Jacob's \"death\" is closed, i.e. is not separated from the preceding Parshah by a paragraph or line, is to indicate that true independence was lost as soon as Jacob closed his eyes for the last time. The Jews already felt that their freedom of movement had become subject to restrictions, and that is why even a Joseph on his deathbed had to invoke the time when G-d would lead the Jews out of Egypt as the time when his own remains should be transferred to the holy land (50,24). (6) The words va-ya-al immo in 50,9 may refer to the Shechinah leaving Egypt, having accompanied Jacob on his journey to Egypt seventeen years earlier (compare \"I will go up with you,\" 46,4). The Canaanites saw a bad omen in all of this; they emphasized to their deities that this was an Egyptian affair, no business of theirs, and that any harmful fallout should befall Egypt. From then on, the brothers carried Jacob on their shoulders, just as their father had instructed. (7) The brothers had convinced themselves by and by that Joseph's rise to greatness was due entirely to their own action against him, and that because of that he owed them good treatment (as compensation). Their reasoning ran thus: \"If only Joseph would hate us and pay us back for the kind of harm (may it happen so to all Jewish children) we have done him.\" They hoped to receive good in return for evil as a matter of right, not as a gesture of generosity. (8) When speaking in the name of Jacob then, they referred to their treatment of Joseph as evil (50,17), but they referred to themselves as \"servants of the G-d of your father,\" who had acted presumably in consonance with G-d’s will, hence such eminently successful outcome of their actions. (9) Joseph realized that all this convoluted reasoning was the result of his brothers' fear, and he wept at their fear and discomfort. However, Joseph, answering his brothers along the line of their own argument, said, \"I am not in place of G-d, so you need no forgiveness from me since your intention was indeed wicked. However, it was G-d who arranged for the outcome to be good not just for me alone but for everyone concerned. Despite your moral guilt however, do not worry, I will look after your needs.” (10) Joseph's raising Ephrayim's grandchildren on his knees is reported to show that Jacob's blessing concerning such grandchildren had been fulfilled. Since Joseph died at a younger age than his brothers, his reassuring remarks on his deathbed concerning the Providence of the Lord are of prime importance. Since his embalming was different from the method employed for his father, his physical death is mentioned. Since his remains were going to be interred in Egypt immediately, the treatment described would be quite adequate. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Now these are the names\"",
"Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Nasso as well as on Parshat Pekudey quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Nachman as saying that at the time G-d created the universe, He wished to have a place of abode on earth, just as He has a place of abode in Heaven. He created man, commanded him \"from every tree in the garden you may eat, but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you must not eat\" (Genesis 2,16). Man violated this commandment. G-d said, \"I wanted an abode on earth, but man did not even observe the one commandment I gave him.\" Thereupon, G-d removed His presence to the lowest of the Heavens. When the generation of Enosh began to worship idols (see chapter 4,26), \"then man began to call by the name of G-d,\" He withdrew to the third heaven, having moved to the second Heaven when Cain slew his brother. During the generation of the deluge, G-d moved to the fourth Heaven, and when the tower of Babel was built, He moved to the fifth Heaven. G-d continued withdrawing further and further from earth till at the destruction of Sodom, He had already moved to the sixth Heaven. When Amrafel and his companions waged war in the world, subjugating nations, G-d withdrew to the seventh and last heaven. According to Psalm 94,16, this was the time G-d exclaimed, \"Who will arise on My behalf against the doers of evil, who will stand up for Me against the perpetrators of sin?\" What did G-d do? He \"folded\" all the preceding generations together and let Abraham arise, whose deeds prompted G-d to descend from the seventh Heaven back to the sixth. When Isaac offered himself as a sacrifice on the altar, G-d descended from the sixth Heaven to the fifth. When Jacob arose, He descended from the fifth to the fourth level, and when Levi arose He descended to the third level. The lifestyles of Amram and Kehot were such that G-d descended to the second and first level successively. With the advent of Moses, G-d was able to return to earth since we read, \"The Lord descended on Mount Sinai\" (Exodus 19,18). In Song of Songs, this thought is expressed in the words, \"I have come to the garden of My bride\" (Song of Songs 5,1). ",
"Our intelligence dictates, and our observations support the theory that G-d \"supports\" and \"carries\" the universe. Isaiah 46,4 puts it in these words: \"I will suffer it for I have made it, I will carry it, and I will suffer (tolerate) and I will provide escape.\" It is evident that these statements do not refer to G-d supporting the universe physically, seeing that He is not a physical Being, is purely spiritual. The term \"carry\" when applied to G-d, can be understood in either of two ways. Since G-d is the Cause of the universe, He carries it, morally speaking. He decides the extent to which He wants to back up the creatures He has created. This is not unlike saying that the rider \"carries\" his carriage. Although, physically speaking, the carriage transports, i.e. carries the rider, since it is the rider who gives it direction, it is he in the last analysis who \"carries\" it, because he controls it. When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan, and the priests \"carried\" the holy ark, the latter are described as being transported by the ark, i.e. \"carried\" by the holy ark (Joshua Chapter 4). This is another instance of the physical carrier not being the one in charge. It was the spirit which resided in the ark that was the mainstay of its physical bearers. The second aspect of \"carry\" is that \"to carry something,\" is the same as \"to tolerate something.\" We read of Abraham and Lot (Genesis 13,6) that \"the land could not carry them anymore to live together.\" This means that the land could not support their joint tenure. \"Tolerance\" of something implies a reciprocal relationship. It means that one puts up with other people's behavior in some form or other. G-d, being the Supreme Being, has a reciprocal relationship with everybody and everything, i.e. He puts up with everybody and everything in some form or other. Again, this is not something physical, but the term \"suffer\" is used in a moral, spiritual sense. ",
"The kind of tolerance G-d displays depends on who He needs to relate to. In the first instance there are the spiritual, completely disembodied beings inhabiting the \"upper\" world, who are closest to Him. Since these beings by their very nature are close to perfection, tolerating them does not require a major effort on G-d’s part. Also the bodies in outer space whose regular and constant orbit represent service of G-d on a non-stop basis, do not require a great deal of tolerance on the part of G-d. These heavenly bodies, which provide the four basic raw materials for our physical universe, in a sense support this earth. At the time of the garden of Eden being at man's disposal, G-d had a home in the material universe because His spirit was present within man. This was the connection between the worlds above the rakiyah, firmament, and the world \"below.\" Both harbored the Divine spirit. The commandment, \"Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil,\" meant \"do not become engrossed in the material world except to the extent of doing good. Engrossing yourself in evil will make you part of this finite world, make you mortal.\" Since we have defined mavet, death, as being equal to ra, evil, and chayim, life, as being equal to tov, good, it is quite clear that contact with ra is contact with death (Deut. 30,15, compare our Chapter 7). Breaking this commandment, then, had to result in the Shechinah, G-d’s Presence withdrawing. Shechinah cannot associate with death; since there did not remain any immortal human beings on earth, there was no alternative but to withdraw to a level further removed from earth. At this point, the author describes successive withdrawals of G-d from different planets in outer space as being connected with the individual functions of these planets in our world. Abraham made up for the commandment that Adam had transgressed, by taking upon himself to command his offspring to observe the commandments of the Lord. G-d acknowledged this when He said, \"As a result of Abraham having listened to My voice etc.\" (Genesis 26,5). Isaac repaired the damage done by Cain who had committed murder, when he voluntarily submitted to the command of His Creator, in contrast to Cain who had acted as if there were no judge or judgment in the world. His deed was acknowledged when the angel instructed Abraham, \"Do not lay a hand on the lad, do not touch him\" (Genesis 22,12). Jacob, who had been able to prevail on all his children to remain loyal to G-d and to proclaim His Unity when they said, \"Hear O Israel, the Lord our G-d is One,\" enabled G-d to return His Presence still closer to earth. Jacob had thus repaired the damage done by Enosh who had been the first to introduce the concept of G-d not being One. When Levi appeared, risking his life to avenge the shame of the rape of his sister Dinah, he repaired the damage done by the generation of the deluge, who had practiced immorality, incest etc. Kehot was the leader of the Jewish people when the latter were forced to commence performing slave labor for the Egyptians. The Jews who had been singled out for this cruel treatment, because they had failed to assimilate to the Egyptians, maintained a profile of being different by keeping their Hebrew names, language, and religion in spite of persecution suffered. This fact enabled G-d to move still closer to earth, as the damage done by the collective insubordination of the generation that built the tower of Babel had now been repaired. Amram in turn repaired the damage done by the people of Sodom, who through lack of concern for their fellow man, had driven the Shechinah still further away. Amram demonstrated his concern for the future of his nation when he responded to the admonition of his daughter not to stop having children, even at the risk of a baby boy being drowned by the Egyptians. When Moses finally made his appearance, and instead of persecuting the just, stood up against terror, injustice, and \"might is right,\" he repaired what Nimrad/Amrafel had destroyed when he made war against the weak who had not provoked him. G-d was thus able to feel at home again on earth since the counterweight to everything the serpent had helped ruin had appeared on earth, and had made its impact. The Talmud Yevamot 112 says that when Israel stood at Mount Sinai, their \"filth\" departed from them. What is meant is that they reverted to the state of innocence that existed when Adam had just been created. The book of Exodus deserves to be called the book of redemption, since it tells of the redemption of the Jewish people from a cruel and barbaric fate at the hands of a cruel and barbaric nation. Apart from the physical redemption from slavery, the promise of being given the land of Israel with all its abundant natural wealth, would enable the Jewish people to live a life of ease and to be tested if they would indeed prove obedient to G-d, so that He could allow His Presence to dwell amongst them. Moses’ss accomplishment in restoring G-d’s Presence to earth, made him the intermediary between G-d and His people. To be a good intermediary requires that the intermediary himself feels in harmony with the objectives and methods of the one who has made him intermediary. Such rapport can exist either naturally, or in spite of one's natural inclinations. When Moses was shown a kind of wood that sweetens the waters at Marah (Ex. 15,25), our sages are in two minds about the nature of this wood. Some say that it was sweet wood, and that the resultant sweetening of the waters was a natural process. Others maintain that the wood itself was bitter, in which case the transformation of the waters was miraculous (Mechilta Beshalach). We find that G-d employs both kinds of agents as leaders of the Jewish people at different times. Gideon, who abandoned his preoccupation with salvaging his harvest, and who challenged the angel about G-ds apparent abandonment of His people, demonstrated selflessness and lack of concern with his private business to such an extent that the angel could say to him \"go forth with this strength of yours and save the Jewish people.\" (Judges 6,14) He succeeded because he possessed the major ingredient needed for leadership. The reverse may be the case when the emissary of G-d is motivated by a feeling of obedience to G-d, but lacks the characteristics that put him in harmony with the purpose of his Sender. When attacking Amalek, Saul allowed considerations of economic gain to persuade him not to kill the best of the herds; he also displayed pity just when G-d had forbidden pity. This led to tragic results for his dynasty (Samuel I Chapter 15). His downfall can be traced not to lack of basic obedience, but to internal conflict between his own aims and methods, and G-ds aims and methods. Therefore, G-d looked for another man, David, who would be in tune with His objectives heart and soul, and who is held up as a model human being whose inner strivings coincide with G-d’s. When Jerobam is chastised by Achyah (Kings I 14,8-9), the point emphasized is that he failed to be with G-d \"like My servant David, who observed My commandments, who followed Me with his whole heart to do only what is right in My eyes.\" This same David describes his own world outlook in Psalms 139,20 in the following words, \"Those who hate You O G-d, I hate, and those who rebel against You, I quarrel with.\" When the Messiah is described, three characteristics are described as essential (Psalms 72,12-14). \"For he will deliver the defenseless man who cries, and the poor who has no helper; he will care for those who have been brought low.\" \"He will redeem their souls from malice and violence, and their blood will be precious to him.\" Our Parshah tells us that Moses possessed the qualities enumerated in Psalms and that therefore he was the ideal intermediary and saviour for Israel. When Moses, on his first outing to his brethren, saw an Egyptian torture a Jew, he could not stand this and he slew the Egytian. This corresponds to the line, \"He will deliver the defenseless man who cries out.\" On the second day, when he observed injustice being perpetrated among his Jewish brethren, he stood up for the victim, the defenseless, as he did when he helped the daughters of Yitro at the well. In each case he risked his life or safety. Despite his disappointing experiences, he continued to involve himself in other peoples' problems. It is clear then that with the advent of Moses, G-d had found the person who was likely to lead the Jewish people successfully. ",
"Problems in the text: 1) Why have the names of the tribes been repeated, since they have been listed in greater detail at the time of their descent to Egypt? This is especially puzzling, since people who have long been dead are mentioned, whereas the more recent leaders of the nation could have been named. Why is Joseph's death mentioned directly next to the Jewish population explosion at that time? The proper order would seem to be a) Joseph died; b) a new king arose; c) the Jews multiplied; d) the king told his subjects that the Jewish population explosion represented a security risk for the Egyptian nation. ",
"2) If, as described, the Jewish population explosion had already taken place, why did Pharaoh talk about \"forestalling\" it? Why did the Egyptians fear the Jews only in case of war? If it was their sheer numbers that bothered them, this fear should have preyed on their minds also during peacetime. ",
"3) What great intelligence is demonstrated by the appointment of taskmasters who applied ruthless force? Surely this is not an example of \"outsmarting the Jews?\" 4) Since the astrologers had agreed to the legislation banning the survival of Jewish male babies, why was Pharaoh's daughter permitted to raise the Jewish infant? 5) Why is the statement about the midwives not doing as Pharaoh had commanded repeated? Why did Pharaoh repeat the question why they had permitted the Jewish baby boys to survive? What sense did the midwives' answer make? If the Jewish women gave birth so quickly, why would any midwives be assigned to them at all? 6) The decree to kill all male babies seems so absurd that even Onkelos felt compelled to add the word \"Jewish\" in his commentary. Why was special emphasis given to the statement that the Jewish girls should survive? Why not just let nature take its course? 7) Why is \"man from the house of Levi\" not named (2,1)? Why does the Torah not mention where this man went? 8) \"She saw him that he was good\" seems banal. Which mother is not prejudiced in favor of her baby? (2,2) 9) Why were the attendants of Pharaoh's daughter mentioned? 10) Since Moses had killed the Egyptian in the presence of his intended victim, how could he have been surprised on the morrow that the story had leaked out? What is the point in Moses looking hither and thither if there were witnesses, when in fact a witness was standing right next to him (2,12)? On the other hand, if we assume that Moses killed the Egyptian only after the witness had left the scene, how did the rasha get to hear about it? 11) The expression used by the rasha i.e. \"Will you say to kill me?\" is strange. Do words kill? 12) Why did the shepherds of Midian maltreat the daughters of Yitro? 13) Why did Moses not call his firstborn son Eliezer, since G-d had helped him and such help had preceded his settling in Midian? 14) The reference to the king's death as occurring \"during many days\" (2,23) seems imprecise; death occurs at a certain moment, not during \"many days!\" Why would the Jewish people mourn the death of such a man? Why the repeated use of the word avodah, service, in that sentence? ",
"Before answering any of the questions raised, it is important to realize that the exile in Egypt did not come about accidentally, nor did it come about because of the misdeeds of some great men during that era. Rather, it was the result of a profound plan of G-d to set in motion the realization of His promise to Abraham. It was Abraham's seed that was destined to enjoy the great privilege of practicing the laws and teachings of the Almighty, something that had not been entrusted to any other nation. It would have been impossible to get the Jewish people to accept the yoke of Heaven, had they not first been subjected to the cruelest rule of man. Only this experience would make them see the yoke of Heaven as a relatively easy burden to bear, and they could be induced to shoulder it voluntarily, enthusiastically. Just as we find in Chronicles II 12,5-9 that the prophet Shemayahoo induced King Rechavam to humble himself before G-d so that he would not have to meet a much harsher fate at the hands of Shishak, King of Egypt, so the exile in Egypt was excellent preparation for Sinai. This is also what G-d had told Moses explicitly when the latter had questioned the Jewish people's claim to redemption (at least at that stage). Compare Exodus 3,11-12. Since the bondage was to serve as preparation for worshipping G-d at Mount Sinai, no other justification for redemption was needed. For this reason, the prophet Jeremiah is able to speak about the loving kindness the Jewish people performed for G-d when they were willing to follow Him into the desert etc. (Jeremiah 2). The reference is to G-d’s statutes as explained in Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Vayeshev. The idea that on account of the extra pound of wool woven into Joseph's coat, Jewish history should have made such a detour for close to four hundred years, is too shallow for the Midrash. All this suffering which had been imposed upon millions of people for such a long period, needed a better explanation. The explanation was that the exile served as the pretext to bring about the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham, without interfering with the free choice of the people, or any other party concerned. When explaining Psalms 10,5, Rabbi Yoshua ben Korcha said that the verse \"See how even the terrifying acts of G-d are planned with intelligence,\" (Psalms 66,5) refers to the verse mentioned before. Our freedom of choice is not interfered with, and still G-d manages to set in motion chains of events that culminate in His purpose being fulfilled. Since the immediate cause of the Jewish exile was the population explosion, the Torah sketches in the history of events. ",
"\"Now these are the names of the sons of Israel\"",
"(1) All the Jews in Egypt at that time were descended from only twelve ancestors; at the time they arrived in Egypt they numbered seventy. Now that Joseph and his brothers had died, they started multiplying at such a rate that they posed a physical problem for the Egyptians due to their prowess. (2) To prevent the Jews from also outnumbering the Egyptians, called for the combined wisdom and talents of the whole nation. They hoped to compensate for their numerical inferiority, or at least for their physical inferiority at that stage, by superior intelligence. The original intent of the Egyptians may have been to enslave the Jews permanently and sell them on the slave markets to foreign countries. It seems that Egypt was exporting horses in this manner (at least female horses). (3) They were afraid that if war broke out, the additional burden of keeping a hostile population under control inside the country would prove to be too much for them. To fight invaders at the same time might be more than they could handle. As a result, the Jews might take advantage of that situation to escape their owners by emigrating. They might even join the enemy by acting as a fifth column inside the country and revolt. Therefore, they planned to assign demeaning work to the Jews, and to aquire them as physical slaves only gradually. The cities to be built by Jewish labor were well fortified border towns positioned at opposite ends of the country to ward off invaders. However, the Jews, loyal by nature, far from feeling humiliated, reinforced their efforts to procreate and provide manpower against possible enemies of Egypt. The Egyptians now felt so frustrated that the Jews appeared a thorn in their sides wherever they turned, i.e. vayakutzu (1,12). They proceeded to re-evaluate their policy and employed the Jews both for building and for work in the fields. They made sure that all work performed was under constantly tense conditions. After that they decided to reduce the male Jewish population by \"accidentally\" killing boys, but at the same time making sure that a good supply of female slaves would be raised from them. They did not fear that female slaves would revolt or join potential enemies. (5) They were again frustrated in their efforts when the midwives turned out to be G-d-fearing, shunning participation in child murder. These midwives, though G-d-fearing, did not want to contravene the king's order either, a perfectly legitimate desire, as demonstrated by the prophet Samuel when the latter questioned G-d’s orders which endangered his life (Samuel I 16,2). The midwives ignored the part of the orders dealing with murder, but concentrated on giving post natal care, something that did not contradict the instructions they hade received. The Torah therefore first describes what the midwives did not do, and subsequently tells us what they did do. The king, unaware of the technical innocence of the midwives, accused them of helping the babies to be born alive. The widwives in their defence made the point that the Jewish women usually had already given birth by the time a midwife arrived on the scene, and that therefore they had not had a chance to carry out the king's instructions. As a result, the only thing left for them to do once they had arrived at the home of a Jewish mother without arousing suspicion, was to administer post-natal care. Of course, this was something the king did not want. \"G-d was good to the midwives,\" i.e. Pharaoh accepted their defense, and the people kept on increasing, again thwarting the plans of the Egyptians. Even normal baby mortality or deformity did not occur, in order that it could not be blamed on the activities of the midwives. \"He made houses for them,\" may well refer to Pharaoh. (1,21.) He made sure the midwives would live in places whence their coming and going could be observed, so that if a newborn baby boy was found by those trailing the midwives, it could be drowned. In other words, instead of unobtrusive killing at birth, things had now reached a stage where open murder was the Egyptians' only recourse. (6) The anonymity implied in the formation of the decree \"every son,\" was to create the fiction that not only Jewish babies were to be drowned but all baby boys. This would keep the Jews from thinking that the law was discriminatory. By this stratagem, Jews would not be encouraged to practice continence and thereby deprive the Egyptians of a supply of female slaves. (7) It is normal for any man who wants to get married to choose a partner who is socially his equal or his inferior. In this case, a distant descendant of Levi married a direct descendant of Levi, i.e. the husband's social position would be inferior to that of his wife. The unusual nature of this match deserved mentioning. Since Amram had not attained the position of leadership until his children had reached the status of being prophets, he is not yet mentioned by name. This view is supported by the fact that when his wife was engaged by the daughter of Pharaoh to nurse the baby Moses, she is also treated as an anonymous lady, her status not yet having become public knowledge amongst the Egyptians. (8) The fact that the Torah states that Yocheved described Moses as \"good,\" proves that he was born prematurely. Other Jewish mothers giving birth to babies after full pregnancies would consider such babies as \"doomed\" rather than as \"good.\" It is the very fact that Moses seemed perfectly normal and healthy, in spite of being premature, that gave rise to the plan to hide him, something that could be done with relative safety until the end of the ninth month of Yocheved's pregnancy. During those three months, Yocheved dressed as if she were still pregnant, thus allaying any suspicions. After that, either because of suspicious neighbors or the increasingly loud voice of the baby, such stratagems could no longer be applied successfully. Yocheved hid Moses in exactly the place where Egyptian child murderers would normally cast out the babies they had murdered. Perhaps Yocheved felt that if a special fate was in store for her baby, this exposure might trigger the events leading to such a special fate. This is the reason Moses’ss sister stood nearby waiting to see what would happen. The Midrash suggests that placing the potential savior of Israel in the Nile, would mislead Egyptian astrologers into concluding that the dreaded danger to Egypt had already passed, and that therefore the decree concerning indiscriminate child murder could be revoked (Midrash Rabbah). (9) The fact that the princess's attendants walked elsewhere along the river, explains why the princess herself who was accompanied only by a single attendant sworn to loyalty, did not need to fear that her act of mercy would be reported. It was this fact that enabled Moses’ss sister to approach and suggest that the princess might wish to employ a Jewish nurse to tend the baby. Because of the decree, and the probable search if she would be seen bringing home a baby, the princess agreed to have the baby raised amongst his own people, initially. (4) When the child was eventually brought to Pharaoh's palace, the decree against baby boys had already been lifted. Moreover, we see the marvellous ways of the Lord, who arranges for the arch enemy of the Jewish people to raise their savior in his very own palace. (10) The Egyptian whom Moses slew was one who used to strike his Jewish victim habitually, and Moses had awaited an opportunity to find him when no other witnesses were present. That is why he looked in all directions. The fact that unbeknown to him someone did see his deed, was what caused his surprise on the following day. Moses’s deed was one of the qualifications that fitted him for a role of leadership amongst his people. The second such qualification was his urge to see that social justice should prevail. This is why he involved himself in the quarrel between Jews on the morrow of his having slain the Egyptian thug. (11) Permission to kill a pursuer in self defense is contingent upon such pursuer not having killed his intended victim as yet. Once an act of murder had already been committed, the regular procedure involving a trial of the murderer has to be followed. The rasha, wicked person, believed that Moses’s use of the words \"Why are you going to kill your fellowman?\" was designed to give Moses the pretext to kill him as a rodeph, pursuer. He therefore said, \"Are you saying this in order to establish a right to kill me?\" (2,14). The reason for Moses’s fear was either that he had been unaware that the killing of the Egyptian had been witnessed, or that his real identity of being a Jew rather than an Egyptian prince had become known. Either way the \"so the matter has indeed become known,\" does not need aggadic interpretation. (12) The daughters of Yitro may have been in the habit of watering their flocks before the arrival of the male shepherds for reasons of modesty, so as not to have to spend long hours in the company of the male shepherds. The latter misinterpreted the motivation of those girls, thinking they wanted to demonstrate their superior social position as daughters of the presiding priest and claim special privileges. Therefore, on that particular day, the male shepherds decided not to acknowledge such privileged status of Yitro's daughters. They did this by using water drawn by the girls to water their own flocks, rather than the flock of Yitro. Moses assisted the girls on that day, and explained to the male shepherds the true motivation of the girls, thus restoring a harmonious relationship. This was evidence of a third qualification of Moses as a leader. He stepped into the breach when he observed injustice being perpetrated on the weak and downtrodden. (13) The first son was not called \"Eliezer,\" signifying that G-d had saved him from his pursuers, since at the time his pursuers were still very much alive and had not abandoned their efforts to apprehend Moses. On the contrary, Moses wanted to indicate that the fact that he lived in a country other than his birthplace was quite involuntary. The letters in the name \"Gershom\" when re-arranged spell megurash, expelled. Before Moses’s return to Egypt, when G-d had told him that all those who had wanted to kill him had died (4,19), he called his second son, born around that time, Eliezer, to acknowledge gratefully that events had taken such a favorable turn. ",
"(14) The passage about \"these many days,\" refers back to the extended period starting with the death of \"the good old Pharaoh.\" Ever since, Jews had sighed, i.e. complained about their suffering, but had not called out to G-d for salvation. Once they did appeal for salvation, i.e. vayitzaku, their prayer found an echo in G-d’s ears, especially so since it was min ha-avodah, because of the enslavement. They had ample justification for appealing to G-d to save them from such persecution. We find similar flashbacks in Genesis 39,1 (also Genesis 28,10, when the Torah reverts back to events previously discussed). The meaning of the word avodah the second time in our verse is \"worshipping,\" not bondage. Once the relationship with G-d becomes one involving worship, then \"G-d knew, G-d saw etc.\", G-d will respond to entreaties. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"MOSES WAS TENDING THE FLOCK\" ",
"Midrash Rabbah Shemot 2, interprets Proverbs 30,5, \"Every utterance of G-d is refined and pure,\" to mean that G-d does not grant man elevated status until such man has been examined in trivial matters and has passed such examination. So it was, for instance, with David, who let his sheep graze in the desert so as not to benefit from robbery, i.e grass owned by some individual. His brother Eliav had said to him, \"Why did you abandon the few sheep in the desert?\" (Samuel I 17,28). G-d said to David, \"Since you have been faithful concerning the sheep, come and be in charge of My sheep\" (Psalms 68). We also find that Moses led the sheep behind the desert to remove himself from suspicion of stealing. Subsequently, G-d took Moses to tend His people. See Psalms 77, \"You have guided Your people like sheep at the hands of Moses and Aaron.\" ",
"Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim Chapter 32, Section 4, points out that the attitude of people to the institution of prophecy is similar to their attitude to creation ex nihilo. Those who cannot accept the latter, cannot accept the former either. They cannot accept that G-d is free to grant the status of prophet to whom He wants. The believers in creation ex nihilo, however, face no such difficulty and can accept that the gift of prophecy is bestowed by G-d on whom He chooses whenever He chooses. According to the Greek philosophers, if the necessary moral and other qualifications are present, prophecy status follows automatically. According to Jewish belief, G-d’s freedom to grant prophecy to a person who possesses the proper qualifications remains unimpaired. It is a little difficult to understand Maimonides who says that the failure of a person with the right qualifications to be elevated to the status of a prophet is a rare occurrence. Let us accept the premise then that prophecy is something most exquisite, unique, and belongs to the wonderful endowments that are beyond natural law. It is granted by G-d as a reward for the highest degree of closeness to G-d, which the person selected as a prophet had attempted to establish. This is the reason why original Adam already needed to observe commandments, by means of which he could attain that relationship with his Creator both qualitatively and quantitatively. We find this in increased measure with Noach, and in still greater measure with Abraham, of whom G-d said \"for I know him, so that he will command his sons and his household to observe the ways of the Lord and to practice righteousness and justice\" (Genesis 18,19). G-d related to Abraham via the institution of prophecy not because of his superior mental faculties, but because \"Abraham listened to My voice\" (Genesis 26,5). This is why we find the same characteristic amongst Israel and not other nations. As we say in Psalms 147, \"He has not done so for any other nation.\" However, the prophet and his stature is interdependent with the people amongst whom he lives. The people influence his own stature either positively or negatively. The Talmud Sukkah 25 tells that all the students of Hillel deserved the same degree of Divine inspiration as had been granted Moses, but since their peers did not deserve it, it was withheld from them. The presence of a prophet in a given society is itself a gift for that generation. G-d explained to Jeremiah, when the latter was despondent because his prayer for rain had not been answered, that if he could lead his people to prayer before the Lord, he himself could prevail also. Under the existing conditions however, even the intercession of a Moses or Samuel would be quite ineffective, (compare chapter 15 in Jeremiah) As a concession to Jeremiah, G-d lowered the ante, saying that if Jeremiah could at least separate the relatively good people from the thoroughly rotten and corrupt ones, he would have some degree of success. “you will be My mouthpiece.\" (Jeremiah 15,19) All this means that the people amongst whom Jeremiah laboured, had an impact on his ability to be close to G-d. At the same time, G-d exhorts Jeremiah not to slacken in his efforts and to persevere in his mission. The point made is that as long as Jeremiah is seen to be involved with the people, there is a chance that they will turn to him; should he allow himself to become remote however, there would be no chance whatsoever. For these reasons, prophets throughout the ages have not been of equal stature, each having operated in a different environment from that of his colleagues. Each respective environment left its imprint on the respective prophet's personality. Many of the qualities and attributes that a person lacks, can be compensated for by devotion and dedication, which in turn leads to the gift of prophecy from G-d. This is proven conclusively by the experience of the Jewish people when they stood at the foot of Mount Sinai and said the famous words \"we shall do and we shall listen.\" (Exodus 24,7) The Talmud in Nedarim 38, says that prophecy does not reside within a person who is not strong, wise, wealthy, etc., which suggests that G-d confers the gift of prophecy only on those who demonstrate their eagerness to translate theory into practice, either by way of their minds or their physical endowments. \"Wisdom\" helps to create wholesomeness of form in matters requiring study and contemplation of religious truths. In the words of Kohelet 7,12, \"wisdom makes its owners come truly alive.\" Without this \"wisdom,\" everyone is like a corpse, and it is not the corpse who can sing the praises of the Lord, (compare Pslams 115) Once man has achieved this relative level of perfection, he can go on ascending by degrees and will become endowed with prophetic powers as a reward for and result of his own efforts. Daniel chapter 8 from verse 15 onwards, describes this process. \"When I, Daniel had seen the vision and I sought understanding, then, behold there stood before me the likeness of a man.\" He explains that because of his intense desire to gain greater insights, the vision was granted to him. The word \"man\" implying an intermediary, refers to the angel Gabriel whom Daniel mentions first of all. The Talmud Berachot 25, explains that G-d grants wisdom to those who are intelligent already. This is illustrated by a parable in Kohelet Rabbah I, about the wealthy merchant who would display his wares only before the well to do, not before those who would not squander their money. Similarly, G-d does not bestow the gift of prophecy on shallow minded individuals on whom such a gift would be wasted. Therefore, we find in Exodus 31,6, \"and in the heart of every wise-hearted person have I given wisdom.\" Divinely inspired wisdom would be paired with natural intelligence to help in constructing the materials needed for building the tabernacle in the desert. The Mechilta tells that anyone who lacked sight on one eye could not experience giluy shechinah, the revelation at Mount Sinai. This is what Daniel meant (chapter 10,7) when he said: \"I, Daniel alone saw the vision; the people who were with me did not see the vision, but a great fear overcame them and they fled into hiding.\" Although Ralbag describes all this as being part of the vision, no one else having in fact been present with Daniel at the time, he does not cite any proof in support of his thesis. We will therefore assume that the verse is to be understood literally, i.e. as an actual occurrence. Daniel describes the progress of how prophets receive direct communication from G-d. First, it is received by the brain alone; it does not spread to the other faculties. On the contrary, it confuses them so that Daniel says \"I had no strength left,\" standing on hands and knees. Later he stood on his feet but trembled; still later he stood on his feet but was dumbfounded. Finally, he was told chazak vechazak, grow stronger and stronger! (verse 19) At that point Daniel was able to reply and invite verbal communication. All this proves that proper prophetic insight and communication from G-d, requires physical strength and health. The relationship between body and mind is described like the relationship between the brain and the men who were with Daniel at that time. The latter symbolise the physical attributes. Wealth also belongs to the matters that help prepare perfection in one's external needs. Food, drink, clothing are all prerequisites for study and contemplation in an atmosphere of serenity. In Deuteronomy chapter 29, Moses stresses that during all the forty years Israel had been in the desert, G-d had not only provided food and water, but ensured that the people had adequate clothing, shoes etc. This proves that the provision of one's physical needs is a prerequisite for the successful pursuit of spiritual attainments. These three points were appreciated by the king of Babylon when he ordered to have Jewish children of aristocratic parentage brought to his Court, children who had no physical blemish, were intelligent and able to absorb the most intensive training in the Chaldean language. The king ordered these children to be given daily rations of food. He mentioned two specific physical attributes that were required in order that these children would qualify for that program, but stressed three additional mental attributes. The words va-yeman hamelech, the king provided, sound very similar to the word man, the food the Israelites ate in the desert. (Daniel 1, 3-6) In this connection it is interesting to note the instructions given to king Saul by the prophet Samuel immediately after he had anointed Saul. We read in Samuel I 10,2-6, \"when you depart from me this day, you will meet two men at the grave of Rachel, in the territory of Benjamin, at a place called Tzeltach. They will say to you... the she asses you have come to search for, have been found. Your father has stopped worrying about the matter of the she asses and worries instead about you, saying \"what can I do about my son?\" Go from there quickly, you will come to Elon Tabor where three men seeking the Lord at Bet El will meet you. One of them carries three young goats, one of them carries three loaves of bread, and one of them carries a hose filled with wine. They will greet you and give you two loaves of bread which you should accept from them. After that, you will come to the hill of G-d where the Philistine representatives are stationed. When you arrive at the town, a band of prophets will encounter you from the altar. They are carrying musical instruments and prophesy. The spirit of the Lord will come over you also, and you will join them in prophesying. You will be turned into a different person.\" The reference to the she asses symbolises material wealth. (Jacob had said \"I have acquired oxen and donkeys,\" Genesis 32,6) The second symbol, physical well being, is represented by the two loaves of bread Saul was to accept and consume. This was in order to give him physical strength. The third sign, that of the musical instruments, is symbolic of the medium that would enable him to receive Divine inspiration. We see this point confirmed in Kings II 3,15, when the music put the prophet Elisha in the mood to receive Divine communication. These three otot, signs, enable a person who is so equipped to become capable of receiving Divine inspiration. A causal relationship definitely exists here. Once one has received such Divine inspiration, definitely exists here. Once one has received such Divine inspiration, one becomes a person of different stature. The prophet Samuel had told Saul something of great importance when he said to him \"do for yourself whatever you think yourself capable of, for the Lord is with you.\" (verse 7) The message is that Saul should not be satisfied with what he had achieved up to that point, but see it as a link in a chain to still greater achievements he should strive for. Jeremiah expresses a similar thought (Jeremiah 9,23) when he calls out \"let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, nor the wealthy of his riches etc., but if he must boast, let him boast about the degree of closeness to Me he has attained.\" The lesson is that we are never to consider the possession of any attribute as an end in itself, but only as an aid towards realising our task in life. Another interpretation of that verse in Jeremiah could be that G-d says \"I, the Lord, find the performance of deeds of loving kindness, justice etc. appealing, as distinct fom the splendid isolation in which philosophers like to wrap themselves, ignoring the supposedly \"lower\" masses.\" When Elijah departed this world and Elisha was consecrated as his successor, the former describes three journeys he had to undertake. A great deal can be learned from that. (Kings II chapter 2) It is worthwhile noting that the destinations of the three journeys are progressively further away from the center of the land of Israel. Since the Shechinah resides in Israel, one would have expected these journeys to focus progressively on sites nearer the heart of Israel, the holy Temple etc. It appears that Elijah was desirous of matching the stature of Moses. Therefore, G-d sent him to the area where Moses had been buried. His first journey to Bet El was to signal that he should not use his physical attributes to traverse the length and breadth of the country and to enjoy such a trip physically, but he should go to Bet El and benefit from the wisdom of Torah and Avodah. Just as the physical exuberance and strength of children tends to be sapped in school when they apply all their energies to their studies, so the concentration on spiritual values would sap the physique of Elijah. He hinted to Elisha that his mission was merely to walk to Bet El, to the presence of the Shechinah, and to remain on the threshold of the house of G-d. He asked Elisha to consider seriously if he was able to subjugate his whole body so that it would be employed only in pursuit of spiritual values. Elisha's reply, of course was \"by your life, I will not abandon your path.\" Afterwards Elijah said to Elisha that G-d had ordered him to go to Jericho. We know from the book of Joshua that all the captured loot from the captured city of Jericho had been declared \"holy to the Lord,\" the metal going to the temple treasury, the balance being burned. (Joshua chapter 6) This was a hint to Elisha that all material wealth is useful and permitted only when it is put in the service of the Lord, if such a person wants to attain the perfect character that leads to the gift of prophecy. Here too, Elisha responded that he would remain at Elijah's side, and he accompanied him to Jericho. After that, Elijah said to Elisha that G-d had sent him to the river Jordan, which must be symbolic of the intense longing for wisdom. Our sages paraphrase the thought by saying \"eyn mayim ela Torah\", the only water that really quenches thirst is true Torah knowledge. Solomon expresses it in Proverbs by saying \"drink water from your true fountain,\" i.e. your Creator. (Proverbs 5,15) Elijah impresses upon Elisha the importance of clinging to wisdom with the utmost tenacity, never to be satisfied with what had already been achieved. Elisha was tested to see if indeed he could walk on the waters of the river, thereby displaying an achievement surpassing that of Elijah's other disciples. Elijah gave of his spirit to him and not to the others, some of whom had not even reached the level of going to Bet El. Whereas Bileam is a prime example of the misuse of natural endowments and wealth, Moses is an example of someone who was endowed with all the attributes mentioned, employing them all exclusively in the service of G-d and his great mission. For this reason, he merited to rise to the highest level of prophecy possible. G-d explained this when Miriam and Aaron discussed Moses in a disparaging manner. (Numbers chapter 17, see details on this in chapter 76). It is this subject matter that our sages had in mind when they quote Rabbi Samuel son of Nachman in Vayikra Rabbah 1, as saying that the eighteen commandments involving erection of the tabernacle corresponded to (a) the eighteen vertebrae in our spine, (b) the eighteen benedictions in our central prayer the amidah, (c) the eighteen remembrances in the keriyat shema and the eighteen remembrances in Psalm 29. We need to understand why the number eighteen is so central to this statement. It will be demonstrated that all eighteen relate to the physical and material attributes needed to achieve the goal of perfection. None are to be used except in the service of G-d given directives. The attributes of physical beauty, strength, health and dignity of bearing, are symbolised by the eighteen spinal cords which are the backbone of all that is important physically, without which even upright posture is impossible for man. The eighteen commandments involving the erection of the tabernacle mean that we must serve the Lord by employing all our physical endowments when constructing the tabernacle, the prefabricated equivalent of the Temple. Concerning the use of one's health in an approved manner, this is expressed by prayer, seeing that all these matters are the subjects of the requests we make in our central prayer the amidah. As the Mishnah in Avot expresses it, \"we temporarily abandon eternal life in favour of the prerequisites of life on this planet.\" This statement was made concerning those who indulge in unduly long prayers, stressing their requests for material blessings. Concerning attributes of mind and spirit, all of which are subsumed under the heading \"wisdom,\" our sages say that these are symbolised by the eighteen remembrances contained in the Keriyat Shema. It is obvious that all paragraphs deal with aspects of faith in one way or another, as well as knowledge of, love and reverence for G-d. The ultimate perfection, the goal of which is understanding of G-d to the maximum extent that it is given to humans to achieve, is found symbolised in the eighteen remembrances contained in Psalm 29. This Psalm beautifully describes both maasseh merkavah and ma-asseh bereshit, i.e. esoterics and the story of Creation. As we discussed in the previous chapter, perfect praise can be bestowed only by one who is himself perfect to the extent that such perfection is attainable by his species. Anyone who conducts himself perfectly in these four areas, (the 4-times 18) and leads a saintly life, qualifies for being called upon by G-d, is called EL, an elevated being. After having completed the tabernacle, G-d called Moses EL, i.e. \"vayikra el Moshe (Leviticus 1,1). This was in reward for having performed \"ka-asher tzivah hashem et Moshe,” exactly as G-d had commanded Moses. After Moses had built the palace for the King, as it were, he was invited to come into the palace. From all the foregoing we have potent proof that prophecy resides only within those who possess the qualifications discussed, and who use those qualifications properly. If a Moses who had been endowed with outstanding natural attributes, required all these preparations to achieve his highest stature, how much more so must others not so generously endowed at birth labour before they can qualify! The Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalm 19, goes to some length to explain how Moses, while he was in Heaven \"for forty days and forty nights,\" could distinguish between day and night. The point, of course, is to make us aware that even a man who had risen to the level of Moses, could never become completely oblivious to conditions of life as they are on earth. The Torah needed to tell us only that Moses remained on or above Mount Sinai for forty days, and we would have concluded that the nights were included. The emphasis on the word \"nights\" then suggests that he remained aware of the difference even when in a world where such differences do not exist. (Jonah's having remained inside the whale for three days and nights is a different situation). ",
"One of the basic characteristics of a prophet's personality is \"humility.\" The Talmud in Avodah Zara 20, enumerates a list of personality traits, the highest of which \"humility\" is the one which leads one to \"holy spirit,\" ruach hakodesh. The need for a prophet to possess first and foremost the normal attributes of man, can be understood simply. If someone were not familiar with natural laws, he would not realise that the heat of fire burns most materials. He would thus not be impressed if he saw Chananya and companions not being burned to a crisp in the fiery heat of Nebuchadnezzar's furnace. Such a phenomenon (miracle) would thus not lead such onlooker to acknowledge that a power greater than nature was at work here. Similarly, anyone unfamiliar with the laws of gravity would not be astounded when he observed the hail G-d brought upon the Egyptians being halted and suspended in mid air. The need to recognise cause and effect relationships extends equally into the merit/reward, or sin/punishment relationship one observes. This is why Moses was given several \"signs\" at the beginning of his mission. They were to impress both Pharaoh and Israel. Ordinary wisdom is the first step leading to recognition of the gevurot hashem; the mighty deeds of the Creator. Ordinary people tend to recognise the extent of a miracle when they observe something affecting a multitude of people such as the splitting of the sea, the Nile turning into blood etc. They are less impressed when they see a staff turning into a snake, a hand becoming leprous on command etc. Wise people, i.e. the elders, will recognise that it is not the size or the length of time of a supernatural occurrence that reflects the power of its perpetrator, but rather to what extent natural law is being defied. For that reason many nissim nisstarim, hidden miracles, testify to G-ds power in equal measure, but it requires a degree of insight to comprehend this. G-d told Moses to demonstrate two miracles (the staff turning into a serpent and the arm turning leprous). In the event that the Israelites would fail to be suitably impressed, He held in reserve the third miracle, that of converting water into blood. (Exodus 4, 1-9) G-d taught this lesson to Saul when Jonathan said to his adjutant that \"the Lord will help whether it involves the few or the many.\" (Samuel I 14,6) Numbers do not impede the ability of G-d to grant success to an enterprise. From this we deduce that whenever a small group defeats a large group,- other factors being equal, -this is a manifestation of a ness nisstar, a hidden miracle, since natural law dictates that the many conquer the few. Experts in natural law make projections based on known factors. When these projections are not borne out, it reflects interference by hashgachah peratit, G-ds personal intervention in history. This in turn must alert a person to the reward and punishment factors that may underly the fact that G-d allowed natural law to be upset. In the words of Isaiah 46,10, \"G-d has known the results ever since the beginnings, just as He has been aware since early on what will not materialise.\" Whatever happens or does not happen reflects the knowledge and active or passive planning of the Lord. ",
"When the Midrash we quoted at the outset talked about prophets first having been tested in trivial matters, the trivial matters are the conduct of those people within the framework of natural law. The word imrah is to be understood as in \"et hashem he-emarta hayom,\"(Deut 26,18) you have let G-d be the one whose authority you have accepted. In colloquial terms \"let Him have His say.\" Once this part of the man/G-d relationship has been established, a still closer G-d/man relationship can develop. Two great men were examined for their respective leadership qualities as shepherds, and when found trustworthy in their dealings with sheep, were elevated to greatness, became leaders of men. Proper care of sheep requires two dimensions of knowledge and concern. 1) Proper supervision, provision of the needs of the animals under one's care, individual attention to the needs of the strong and weak respectively; 2) knowledge of their ability to procreate and how to create the optimum conditions for such. We know about the latter point from Jacob. He, the expert, learned that the greatest amount of planning does not guarantee success unless the hand of G-d is on one's side. See his dream, Genesis chapter 31. Moses’s first encounter with the Divine follows closely on the heels of his pre-occupation with the needs of his father-in-law's sheep. (Exodus 3,1) This teaches that Moses had already graduated spiritually from being a leader of sheep, to becoming a leader of forms of life endowed with the power of speech, before he arrived at the mountain of G-d. The vision occurred prior to communication from G-d. Again, at a later stage of his development, we read first \"and Moses went up to G-d,\" (Exodus 19,3) and later \"G-d called to him.\" (Leviticus 1,1) ",
"Although we have said that in order to prepare for supernatural knowledge, sound knowledge of natural law is a prerequisite, we find on occasion that this very familiarity with natural law acts as a hindrance to recognising when supernatural events are being invoked in history. Abraham and Sarah both laughed at the prediction of the angel that Sarah would give birth to a son at the age of ninety. They had to be reminded that \"hayippaleh me-hashem davar\" is anything too wonderful for G-d to accomplish? (Genesis 18,14) Similarly, even the prophet Jeremiah had to be reminded of this very fact when he doubted that the purchase of the field from his uncle was decreed by G-d, seeing that at first glance this ran counter to all that seemed logical. (Jeremiah 32,27). Also, when Moses observed the obstinacy of Pharaoh and the additional burdens imposed upon the Jewish people, (being at the beginning of his career) he turned to G-d asking \"why did You cause things to become worse?\" Moses had assumed that even when Hashgachah Peratit is at work there has to be logic, i.e. natural law has to be operative side by side. G-d corrected him saying \"now you will see,” meaning once the supernatural is at work the very opposite of what natural law dictates may occur. ",
"Some problems in the text of our story. 1) Why does the Torah make it appear that Moses arrived at Mount Chorev merely by coincidence? How did this mountain come to be called \"the Mountain of G-d?\" 2) Why does the verse read \"why will the bush not burn,\" when we had already been told that the bush was already burning? (3,2-3) 3) Why was Moses told to take off both shoes, whereas Joshua at a similar occurrence was told to remove only one shoe? 4) Why all the repetitions in verse 7? 5) Why would Moses describe himself with the words \"who am I,” as if insignificant, when in fact he had been a leading figure, not subject to the demeaning experience of bondage, had been educated as a prince, came of superior parentage etc? Why would he take a chance on delaying the redemption of the people by making G-d wait till He would find someone even more suitable? 6) The sign that G-d told Moses as proof that the redemption of the Jewish people would indeed take place and be justified, should have occurred prior to Moses consenting to assume his function as leader! Especially when the sign was to identify the leader, not the One who appointed him! 7) Why did Moses assume and anticipate the reaction of the Jewish people, if he were to appear and claim to be the redeemer? He had said to G-d they would ask him \"what is His name\"? G-d had not yet even asked him to say one word to the Israelites! Compare verses 7-13. Had Moses waited until he had received G-ds instructions, no question would have been necessary at all! 8) Why does the sequence of the two instructions \"when you will say to the children of Israel,” and \"go and assemble the people,\" appear in the reverse order of the events? 9) Why did Moses employ subterfuge, asking for a leave of absence for three days? How could such lack of forthrightness reflect glory on the name of the Lord? Again, the instruction to borrow valuables from the Egyptians at the time the Israelites left Egypt, seems dishonest, since there obviously was no intention to return these valuables? 10) Why did G-d tell Moses in advance that Pharaoh would refuse the request made of him? 11) How could Moses have the effrontery to say to G-d \"they will not believe me nor listen to me,\" when G-d had already said \"they will obey you?!\" (verse 18) 12) Since Moses had already tacitly agreed to accept the mission by saying \"here when I come to the children of Israel etc., how could he say afterwards \"I am not a man of words etc.?\" 13) How did G-ds reply to Moses \"Who gave man a mouth?\", help answer Moses’ss question implying that he had obviously not been equipped for such a mission? Why do our sages read into G-ds reply an expression of anger, when in fact the words appear most civil and conciliatory? 14) Why did the angel want to kill Moses? Do we not have a rule that anyone on a mission of a mitzvah will not be harmed either on the way to his destination or on his return? The mitzvah of circumcision did not apply during the journeys of the Israelites for forty years, so why kill Moses for being remiss in the same way? 15) What exactly did Tzipporah mean by her statement? Why is the line \"when you go back to Egypt\" (4,21) inserted at that point in the story? It seems totally out of place there! 16) Why did Pharaoh say to Moses \"I do not know G-d that I should listen to Him and send off the Israelites?\" He had already denied G-ds existence! Why did Moses harp on a vision from that very G-d to legitimize his request, when Pharaoh had already denied that such a G-d exists? ‘ 17) What is the meaning of such terms as shotrim, nogssim, shotrey beney yisrael? 18) Why did Moses complain? G\"d after all, had told him in advance that Pharaoh would refuse to release the Israelites! 19) Why did G-d say that His name hashem had not yet been made known, when in fact He had identified Himself in this fashion already to Abraham at the first covenant in Genesis 15,1-6? 20) What was the logic in Moses’s argument that if his own people would not respond to him, surely neither would Pharaoh? His own people were under a great strain, forced labour etc.; they had an excuse not to listen to Moses. What excuse did Pharaoh have? 21) Why did the Torah list the ancestry of only the first three tribes in chapter 6,14-27? ",
"(1) Leading one's sheep in the best manner possible, utilising all that knowledge of natural law, brings one to the threshold of engaging higher norms, the supernatural. Mount Chorev is described by the Torah as the next step a person achieves, after all preparatory steps for such an encounter had been completed. Encountering such a mountain appears to be the gateway to attaining higher knowledge. The encounter was certainly not accidental. The vision of the burning bush alerted Moses to the fact that there are phenomena which cannot be explained rationally. To gain an insight into the significance of such phenomena, he stepped closer to examine the spectacle. He wanted to know if the fact that the bush was not being consumed was due to its fire being only apparent fire, or whether it was real fire and there was something strange about the composition of the bush itself. (2) Moses then became dubious whether his first assessment about this being a burning bush had been correct, and he wanted to know why such a bush would not be consumed by the fire. The term \"burning\" in the present tense, reflected only his original impression. He wanted to know what it is that looks like fire and yet does not \"burn\" i.e. disintegrate, become consumed. (3) When G-d saw Moses approach, He called to him as elokim, i.e. the midat hadin, attribute of justice, telling him that this was not the moment to step closer. First he had to remove his shoes. As long as natural law operates, the shoe has to be fitted to the size of the foot. Once on holy ground, Moses was taught that effect no longer represents the result of cause as it does in natural law. The removal of both shoes was necessary, one representing the ability to defeat enemies by supernatural means, the other to provide sustenance for the Jewish people by supernatural means. Joshua, whose people did not receive their sustenance by supernatural means, had to remove only one shoe, to signify that his enemies would be defeated by supernatural means. Another aspect of the lesson learned was that although Heavenly fire is more powerful than natural fire, as evident from Elijah at Mount Carmel, Gideon and the fire that consumed the sacrifices on the altar, the burning bush which represented such Heavenly fire was not destructive in nature as is the case with natural fire. Even if we accept the whole vision as a lesson teaching Moses that the acceptance of G-ds mission would not harm him, the lesson that once one is exposed to G-ds personal Providence no protective clothing is needed, is sufficient. Those who are close to G-d qualify for the promise \"for He has commanded His angels to guard you, to carry you on hands so that your feet will not be hurt.\" (Psalms 9,11) The holiness of the site demonstrated that contact with holiness did not by itself cause harm to man. For this reason, we have a tradition that Jews used to walk barefoot on the Day of Atonement, just like angels. Before such a lesson has been learned, we find both Jacob and Moses afraid when they first realise that they are on holy ground. (Genesis 28,16;-17,Exodus 3,6) Once Moses had convinced himself of the illusory nature of at least some of the so called natural processes, he proceeded to investigate more closely, i.e. sar lirot. By repeating the call \"Moses, Moses,\" he was reminded that there was a limit to what a human being can achieve in this direction, that he had to remain human after all, i.e. \"Moses.\" (4) However, significantly, at this stage it is no longer elokim addressing Moses but hashem. In effect, G-d is saying that until now, though He had, of course, been aware of the sorry state of the Jewish nation, this had been so only in His capacity as elokim. His knowledge had not called for any action on His part. Now that Moses had gained deeper insights, these insights would also benefit Moses’s people. However, at this stage G-d did not refer to eventual entry into the land of Israel being part of Moses’s immediate mission. He seemed to separate Israel's eventual objective from Moses’s ultimate destiny. (5) Since Moses had had to flee for his life from Egypt, he could not see how his appointment would be of benefit to his people. This is not unlike the time the prophet Samuel could not see the point in anointing David, when he was afraid that Saul would kill him. (Samuel I ,chapter 17) ",
"Besides, he asks \"what good is my taking the Israelites out of Egypt when You are not telling me that I will bring them to the holy land?\" G-d answered him in the order of his queries. A) \"I shall be with you,\" do not worry about your life being in danger. B) \"This is a sign for you\", those who want to kill you are already dead. Concerning the purpose of redemption, the Jewish people will accept the Torah at this Mountain. Concerning their fitness for redemption, this has been discussed in the introduction to the book of Exodus. (6) When Moses seemed to have obtained confirmation of his fears that his mission did not include aliyah, entry into the holy land, he raised numerous objections suggesting that the ultimate redeemer, the one who would complete the task should take over this task immediately. All these objections were couched in diplomatic language, in order to sway G-d. However, Hashem, on His part persevered in trying to persuade Moses to accept the mission offered. Since G-d had identified Himself only in respect to Abraham, Isaac and jacob, not with the name hashem, Moses found reason to question in which way he should identify G-d to the people. So G-d said to him \"you may identify Me as \"Ehyeh,” the Eternal. This type of identification was to be reserved for the elders, who would understand the double meaning involved. (I exist, though I am not part of existence as commonly perceived) Moses admitted that this would suffice to identify the \"sender,\" but felt that the \"messenger\" needed further identification to achieve credibility. He was told not to go beyond the identification offered. G-d refused to incorporate aliyah la-aretz, immigration to the holy land in the definition of \"Sender.\" This was not to be revealed to the people at this stage, though it was part of G-ds plan. G-d said to Moses that He did not refuse to let him use the identification Of \"G-d of Abraham etc.,\" but that He was right in that there should remain a mystique beyond that connected with His name. He instructed Moses to describe that mystique in the words \"this is My name forever, and this is My memorial for all generations.\" (7) At this point, G-d turned to the nature of the mission. Since it is possible that the elders are aware that G-d exists and that redemption will occur, they would need to be convinced that Moses was the man who would be the instrument, that he was not a charlatan. They would need convincing that the encounter Moses claimed to have had with G-d, had indeed taken place. Therefore, Moses argued they will not believe me, but they will believe You, but they will argue that You did not appear to me. The elders do know that the gift of prophecy exists for those who are deserving, but how do they know that I am deserving? For this reason G-d gave Moses the miracles to establish his credibility with the elders of Israel. G-d then turns to Moses telling him that his request from Pharaoh should be only that the Israelites would leave Egypt. Although the whole redemption syndrome traditionally embraces also return to the land of Israel, Moses’s mission was restricted to the first part of that process, the departure from Egypt. In this way too, the obstinacy of Pharaoh would be demonstrated more dearly, since he refused even such a relatively minor request. The refusal to make any concession to Moses, in fact to enact new and harsher decrees, would serve as the legitimisation for subjecting Pharaoh to the plagues. (9) G-d implied that if Moses would ask Pharaoh, revealing the extent of his plans, Pharaoh would certainly not grant permission. Since even by using subterfuge, Pharaoh did not make the concession of allowing the people a brief holiday of three days duration, the penalty of the plagues would be more than justified. Had the Jewish people left Egypt for only a few days, as originally requested, borrowing valuable trinkets without arousing suspicions of the owners would hardly have been possible. Under the circumstances, however, the Egyptians would be happy to see the Israelites depart and would compensate them for the real estate they left behind by a few trinkets. This would not appear to them as a bad trade at all. The expression venitzaltem, commonly translated as \"you will empty,\" can also mean \"you will have ample excuse.\" In the event that anyone considers your taking these items as \"stealing,\" let them remember what you left behind in Egypt. Alternatively, these trinkets can be considered as a goodwill offering on the part of the Egyptians, seeing that this is the spirit in which these items will be offered to you. (10) G-d tells Moses all this already at this stage, though the time for executing all these plans was still some time away; however, once knowing what had been planned, would give the Jewish people a chance to observe where the Egyptians kept their valuables. Since Moses still argued that the Jewish people would not believe him, G-d provided him with three miracles to help him identify himself. Miracles can come in three different forms: A) Something which seems impossible according to the laws of physics, such as turning iron into wool. B) Something that could conceivably be converted, given enough time, happening instead instantaneously; a piece of rotten wood will eventually disintegrate into dust; the dust may eventually serve as a breeding place for a serpent. Telescoping this process into something instantaneous, would be a miracle. C) The simultaneous existence side by side of two elements that are incompatible, such as ice and fire. The least impressive of these three kinds of miracles is number two. Turning wood into a serpent is remarkable only because of the instantaneous nature of the conversion. Should this kind of miracle not suffice to convince the elders, miracle number three, the more impressive one, would be produced. The existence side by side of normal tissue with tzo-ra-at, a form of leprosy, is against all known laws of physics and chemistry. Lastly, the completely unbelievable transformation of water into blood, would be convincing in the event the first two miracles failed to convince the onlookers. G-d was quite right then in emphasizing the progressive nature of these miracles. The Israelites would be impressed by the cumulative effect of what they were watching. Possibly, Moses had to prove three points to his people. A) G-d had chosen him as the instrument of their deliverance. This was proved by turning dead matter, wood, into living matter, a serpent. Who else but a prophet had such power? B) He had to prove that the people would be liberated; this was proved by healing that which was beyond known medical cures, i.e. the itzora-at. C) He had to prove that G-d would punish the Egyptians for their treatment of the Jewish people. This was demonstrated by smiting their source of life, their water supply. In this manner all three parts of the message Moses was to deliver to the people in the name of G-d became credible. (11) After it had become obvious to Moses that his mission would be lengthy, that it would encounter many obstacles, he said to G-d that his inadequacies in speech dated back to his birth already, but he had not mentioned same as long as he did not think that such an impediment would become relevant to discharging his mission successfully. Now that G-d Himself had revealed that Moses’s mission would be time consuming, extend over weeks or even months, he thought it was appropriate to mention this shortcoming of his. It could complicate the success of his mission further. (13) G-d answered Moses that if he had thought that his impediment was due to some other power, he should have appealed to that power. If, on the other hand, he was aware that his handicap emanated from G-d, it should be obvious that if G-d did not think the handicap was relevant to his being appointed, it should not really concern him either. Should Moses’s mission fail, on account of that defect, the blame would surely not be placed on Moses, but on G-d. Therefore, G-d would assist Moses in whatever he would say by providing a spokesman for him. In this way, everyone would be aware that all Moses’s utterances stemmed from G-d, since he himself did not possess the natural ability or fluency to present the case of the Jewish people. For this very reason, G-d did not remove Moses’s handicap. (12) Moses said \"send the one who will be that intermediary.\" He had understood G-ds words \"I shall be with your mouth,\" that not G-d Himself would assist him, but an intermediary. Since Moses himself was a shaliach, intermediary, he suggested that the other intermediary might as well carry out the whole assignment. Moses considered himself as only incidental to that other prophet, who he thought would also complete the part of the mission that called for the Jewish people to return to the land of their ancestors. (13) G-d became angry at hearing this, and He told Moses that the other prophet in question was Aaron, whose function would be to serve as Moses’s mouthpiece. Moses was reprimanded about feeling that the presence of another prophet would detract from his own glory. He was told that that very other prophet, his older brother, was already on the way to meet Moses, and would rejoice at the fact that Moses had been chosen as the redeemer. The unselfish nature of Aaron is stressed. ",
"Midrash Shemot Rabbah 7, quoting Job 33,29, teaches that man is offered three opportunities to do teshuvah, penitence. Should he fail to take advantage of any of the three opportunities, he will cause himself to be punished for the first opportunity he had missed. This is demonstrated by Moses, who raised objections to his mission three times. After Moses had failed to accept G-ds proposal without reservation three times, G-d spoke to him strictly, and he had to share the revelation with Aaron, i.e. \"G-d spoke to Moses and Aaron.\" (6,13) It seems that Moses had intended to conceal the nature of his mission from his father -in-law Yitro, saying only \"I want to go to my brethren.\" When Yitro said \"go in peace,\" thus giving his consent only for Moses himself, (not his family) Moses was forced to ask permission to take his family with him. (14) Moses took his wife,- a mistake. This is why the angel tried to kill him. The son should have been circumcised at home and on time, and he should have left both his wife and his son at home. Taking them along indicated that he put his love for his family ahead of his sense of urgency for the mission. This may be the opinion expressed in Nedarim 32, \"that because he busied himself first at the inn,\" a euphemism for having marital relations. The doubts concerning the respective priority of circumcision and the resultant delay in his mission, or the urgency of the mission and the resultant delay in circumcision, arose only because of misplaced priorities in the first place. If it was alright to send his family back at the mere suggestion of Aaron, surely he had no business to have taken them along in the first place. (15) Tzipporah realised that Moses had failed in this respect, and proceeded with the help of hints from the angel to remedy her husband's error. (Rashi) When she saw her husband's life being endangered, she said- concerning her son- that his birth had been surrounded by blood and misfortune; when the angel desisted from attacking Moses, she called that blood the \"blood of the covenant,\" a bridegroom whose “bloodiness” had turned into \"blood of circumcision.\" This was in recognition of what had first seemed to be disaster, \"you are a bridegroom of blood for me,\" turning into a source of joy. This shows that Tzipporah related the entire incident to her son from the beginning. The son had been born after G-d had told Moses that all the people who sought his death had already died. This is the reason Moses called him Eliezer, meaning that G-d had saved him from the sword of Pharaoh. From that moment on, Moses had complete confidence that no hostile force (Satan) would interfere with him, and that his mission would be successful. When Moses and Aaron came to the elders of the nation, they displayed the miracles in support of the claim of their mission. The elders believed; subsequently, the people believed also. After that, Pharaoh displayed obstinacy at the first interview, so that Moses would be able to display G-ds might against him. (16) Pharaoh's argument was that even assuming such a G-d as Moses had claimed had appeared to him, existed, such a G-d would certainly not have the right to demand that an entire nation would be given a holiday. Moses explained that this G-d was an ancestral G-d whose revealed instructions to His tribe dated back to the times of Abraham, and to serve whom Israel had a longstanding obligation. Failure to do so would result in their being punished by this G-d with pestilence, which in turn would prove more harmful for Pharaoh's economy than a mere three days' leave of absence. Moses and Aaron used an intelligent approach, which however, fell on deaf ears. Pharaoh was afraid that if he gave in to a relatively minor request, he would soon be faced with much more far reaching demands. Besides, he did not believe that the denial of Moses’s and Aaron's request would indeed result in the Jews having to suffer punishment at the hands of their G-d. He told Moses and Aaron to go about their business, fearing that when the people saw Moses and Aaron idle, they would themselves feel like idling. He told Moses and Aaron that since they did not have to perform any tasks for the Egyptians, they should at least attend to their personal affairs. The verse about the \"for the people of the land are numerous and you want to make them idle from their work\" (5,5), was not addressed to Moses and Aaron within their hearing. It is quoted merely to tell us what transpired in Pharaoh's mind, that he was motivated by the millions of working hours lost to the Egyptian economy if he permitted this vacation. Had there been a relatively small number of Jewish slaves, as had been the case earlier, he could have entertained the thought of such a work stoppage for a few days, but not now when such large numbers were involved. Besides, he reasoned, if it had been necessary to outwit the Jews when relatively small numbers of them posed a potential threat to us, how much greater is such a threat now when they have become so much more numerous. For all these reasons, Pharaoh decided to increase the workload. Since asking for production of a greater number of bricks was patently unrealistic in view of the already heavy quota, he decided to make the conditions for producing these bricks tougher. The means employed was to deny some of the raw materials, i.e. the straw, an essential part of the mudbricks. (17) By instructing the nogssim and shotrim not to supply the straw, but to let the people go to the fields and gather their own, he made it appear as if he was giving some relief, not having at first said anything about the daily brick quota to be delivered. He soon made it plain, however, that this gathering of straw could not be done at the expense of the number of bricks to be formed each day. The nogssim and shotrim were obliged to give the people the bad news that the work quota had not been reduced. (95,11-12) From the question of the nogssim to the shotrim why the latter had not delivered the agreed upon quantities yesterday or the previous day, it appears that the nogssim and the shotrim had to overlook the shortage during the first couple of days. This was in order to make it appear that they were not inhuman and wicked as had been assumed. When they suddenly demanded extra work to make up for the previous shortage, the shotrim began to comprehend the extent of the wickedness of the nogssim. (verse 19) The Jewish labourers could not imagine that such instructions had been issued from the palace, and they turned to Pharaoh for relief. They were bitterly disappointed to hear that these orders had indeed come from the highest authority in the land. Complaining to Pharaoh about the physical violence they had had to endure at the hands of the nogssim, they were told that this was due to their laziness. When they encountered Moses and Aaron, knowing that the latter meant well, they said that maybe G-d now would punish the Egyptians seeing that He had allowed \"your mission\" to backfire. They hoped that the shame that Moses and Aaron had brought upon themselves by their futile efforts, would galvanise G-d into action on their behalf. (Answers to questions 18-21 are part of Va-eyrah) "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"G-D SAID TO MOSES, I WILL TOUGHEN THE HEART OF PHARAOH.\" ",
"Rabbi Pinchas son of Chana explained the verse \"He who announces the outcome at the outset, and beforehand things that have not yet occurred, says: \"My counsel will prevail and I will carry out all My desires\" (Isaiah 46,10). Anyone reading this verse might think that there are competing powers in Heaven; why else \"all My desires I will carry out?\" The meaning, however, is that G-d tries to find justification for all His creatures. He does not wish to find the wicked guilty, as we read, \"You are not a G-d who takes pleasure in lawlessness.\" When G-d foretold Moses that Pharaoh would demand a miracle, He did not say \"if Pharaoh will request a miracle,\" but \"when Pharaoh will request a miracle.\" This is taken to mean that Pharaoh was within his rights to request such a miracle. If righteous people such as King Hezzekiah or Gideon requested signs from G-d, a lesser individual such as Pharaoh surely cannot be faulted for demanding that Moses prove both himself and his Sender, i.e. the One in whose name he claimed to speak (Tanchuma Parshat Nasso). ",
"Every nation or society has a set of weights and measures which are the yardsticks for fair trade and commerce. If anyone tries to pervert the system, the original weights and measures can quickly be used as a means of comparison, and help re-establish the true measures etc. ",
"The objective yardsticks of ethics and morality are the laws given by G-d. When David prayed \"Grant, O Lord, to Solomon Your justice, to the king Your righteousness,\" it is as if David had prayed for Solomon to be granted that objective yardstick of justice which is reserved for the Lord Himself. Proof that this prayer was granted is found in Chronicles I 29,23, \"Solomon sat on the throne of G-d as king, replacing his father David.” The first example of Solomon having been granted this Divine yardstick of justice, is the story of the two mothers who accused each other of having switched babies (Kings I Chapter 3). If human yardsticks were to be applied, the mother in possession of the surviving baby should have been awarded custody, since the other mother had no proof to offer. Solomon's initial decision to cut the living baby in half, and divide it between the two claimants, runs counter to Talmudic law, i.e. the example of two people each holding on to part of a garment, since in this case possession had not been shared. Obviously then, Solomon only used this to demonstrate that the ultimate decision was inspired by a superior logic, i.e. G-d’s. The idea of dividing the baby was so abhorrent to Rabbi Yehudah bar lla-i, that he says only a minor could have come up with a decision like that (Solomon at the time had not yet reached his thirteenth birthday). Rabbi Yehudah applied the verse in Kohelet 10,16, \"Woe to the country that is ruled by a child.\" The same people who were aghast at a decision that would have resulted in the death of the surviving baby, hailed Solomon's eventual decision. This reflects the verse in Kohelet 10,17, \"Hail to the country whose ruler is truly free.\" The Midrash stating that the words \"she is his mother\" were spoken by a Heavenly voice teaches that Solomon's decision was indeed the correct one. Solomon's initial verdict did not even correspond to the Talmudic principle of gud o agud (Baba Batra 13), which stipulates that in cases where physical division of disputed property would result in irreparable loss to either litigant, division of the disputed property is to be arranged in kind. It is clear that suspension of the Divine system of justice would result in perversion of justice, since our yardsticks of comparison would vanish. When only a small section of mankind indulges in false morality, the result, while damaging, might help to restore true morality elsewhere. To the Jew, Abraham's query \"Shall the judge of the whole earth not do justice?\" (Genesis 18,25) is not a question of \"if,\" but a question of “how.” The fact that G-d’s morality is objectively true morality is axiomatic; our concern is only with attempting to comprehend some of its aspects. The premise is \"the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice\" (Deuteronomy 32,4). Similar statements can be found throughout the Bible. If we become too perturbed when enquiring into apparently unjust occurrences and one forgets this premise, then the danger of heresy is very real, and one can no longer claim to be a searcher for truth, but becomes a doubter of truth. This is the lesson the prophet Chabakuk (2,4) teaches, \"The righteous lives by his faith.\" We proclaim the truth of G-d both by day and by night immediately following the shema yisrael, \"hear O Israel,\" prayer. ",
"Yet one may strive to understand why the generation of Jews in Egypt was subjected to such a cruel fate at the hands of the Egyptians and Pharaoh. Especially, are we entitled to do so, since scripture does not offer a list of specific wrongdoings of the people? The author rejects many solutions offered by his predecessors as being inadequate. Most of those explanations would violate the principle of our freedom of choice in one form or another. The author insists that statements such as \"he went down to Egypt,\" ((Deut. 26,5) or \"and Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt,\" (Joshua 24,4) have to be understood at face value, and confirm that the move to Egypt was entirely voluntary, not preordained in any way. It is interesting that throughout the events leading up to the arrival of Jacob in Egypt, G-d ascribes all happenings to Himself, except this last one (compare Joshua 24,3): \"I took your father, I multiplied his seed, I gave him Isaac. I gave Jacob to Isaac,” but \"Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt.\"The statement G-d made to Jacob while the latter was on his way to Egypt (Genesis 46,3), \"Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt,\" is to be understood as permission, as an assurance of G-d’s continued support. Just as the spies Moses had sent out to check out the land of Canaan were not prevented from setting out on their mission (Numbers Chapter 13), so Jacob was not prevented from going down to Egypt. According to all this, the statement on the occasion of the covenant between the pieces (Genesis 15,13), \"Know that your seed will be a stranger in a land that is not theirs etc.,\" was simply a piece of information to Abraham, not an evil decree. The Torah, by not stating that this occurrence would be due to Divine intervention, as could have been implied by such statements as \"I will make them strangers\" or \"I will bring them down to Egypt,\" draws our attention to the fact that this was merely an announcement of an event in the future, but was not a decree. The most difficult example in the series dealing with the apparent suspension of free will is the repeated statement by G-d, \"I will harden the heart of Pharaoh\" or \"I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh,\" as found in the chapters dealing with the ten plagues (Exodus Chapters 4-10). On the other hand, we find that repentance by even the worst sinners is readily accepted, such as the repentance of Achav and Menashe, son of Chiskiyahu (compare Kings I 16 and Kings I 21, Kings II 21, Chronicles II 33,13). The Bible describes those two as being wicked par excellence; yet in the case of Pharaoh it seems that whenever he began to repent, obstacles were placed in his way to prevent him from repenting effectively. The author argues against Maimonides's view (Hilchot Teshuvah 6) that wickedness is cumulative, so that at some point the sinner forfeits his right to free will. The author feels that the repeated missions to Pharaoh by Moses would have been wasted, had they not been intended to produce a change of heart in Pharaoh. Also, since G-d had already told Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3, 19) that Pharaoh would not release the Israelites of his own accord, this had been prior to any mention having been made that \"I will harden his heart.\" ",
"Shemot Rabbah 7 states that G-d revealed the course of events to Moses so that the latter would not be dumbfounded by the apparently counterproductive results of his mission to Pharaoh. Even so, Moses was appalled, asking G-d: \"Why have You caused things to get worse since I have come to Pharaoh?\" This is what Solomon meant in Kohelet 7,7, \"Oppression causes the wise to become foolish.\" Even a Moses can become confused in his faith when confronted by excessive oppression and apparent injustice. At any rate, G-d ascribes Pharaoh's obstinacy to Pharaoh himself, not to Divine interference. Maimonides's reason for Sichon King of the Emorites having been denied the exercise of free will when he denied the Israelites passage through his country seems inadequate. Why was his sin worse than that of the kings of Edom and Moab who did not have their freedom of choice interfered with according to Maimonides (compare Deuteronomy 2,30)? Most difficult however, is the thought frequently expressed in scriptures that the gates of repentance are never closed (Jeremiah 3, Psalms 25, to quote but a few). ",
"The Ramban's approach that, having refused to repent during the first five plagues, Pharaoh was no longer entitled to repentance, is also not considered satisfactory, even though it is based on Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Shemot Rabbah 17. The proof for that view, namely the changes in grammar describing Pharaoh's obstinacy during the first five plagues as being self-induced, and that during subsequent plagues as being induced by G-d, (distinctions such as vayechezak versus vayachazek- 7,15, 9,12) would force us to believe that Moses was told in advance that at some stage Pharaoh would no longer be a free agent, that because he only mouthed thoughts of repentance without meaning them, G-d would force him to act in accordance with his true feelings. This is also what Rashi meant in his commentary on Exodus 7,3. The problem with this approach is that if G-d knows that the sinner does not plan to repent, why interfere with his decisions? His actions would automatically expose him to further punitive action by G-d. Surely it would be viewed as a greater success for G-d if His creatures are forced by circumstances to comply with His wishes! If this is indeed what happened after the tenth plague, what reason do we have to assume that Pharaoh's last pronouncement was any more sincere than his earlier ones? In fact, G-d would have delayed the deliverance of the Israelites by having interfered with Pharaoh's free will! For this and other reasons, the author prefers an approach supported by many Midrashim which state clearly that there had been no interference with Pharaoh's free will. Any person guilty of a variety of crimes, deserves a number of penalties to square the account. Even a single act can be a multiple offense, punishable by several penalties, such as the consumption of a hornet (Makkot 16). Pharaoh, having committed a variety of crimes against the Jewish people, had to endure a string of chastisements. Intervals between administering these various punishments were needed, so that he did not escape the impact by being unconscious at the time some of the punishments were inflicted. When each stage of the punishment is not as severe as it could be, namely resulting in probable death, the victim is far less likely to really repent. The major incentive for repentance is fear and terror. When this incentive is absent, the psychological climate for remorse has not been created. When the Torah in Deut 13,12 says, \"All of Israel shall listen and be afraid, and will not continue to do such in your midst,\" the objective is twofold: a) destruction of evil by destroying the perpetrator; b) to frighten the population out of imitating the wrongdoer. Were the wrongdoer to be welcomed as a repentant sinner, all the onlookers would lose all their restraint and proceed to sin and expect to escape the consequences. This is the reason Moses’ss and Aaron's repentance did not help when they had publicly desecrated G-d’s name by striking the rock instead of talking to it (Numbers 20,12). Our sages (Yuma 86) tell us that when a sin includes chilul hashem, public desecration of the holy name of G-d, all the conventional ways of repentance do not help without the addition of the sinner's death. Only in this manner can atonement become complete. In Pharaoh's case, a period of respite between the plagues was mandatory, as otherwise he would not have received all the chastisements due him. The crimes of maltreating a people whose founder had been the savior of Egypt and whose only crime against Egypt had been their high birthrate, is unforgivable. The progressively harsher measures enacted against this people called for strong punitive action by G-d. The \"great judgments\" of which G-d speaks to Moses at the burning bush are these acts of multiple retribution. The Egyptians had been aware that the Jewish people were loyal to their G-d. Their whole behavior then was a rebellion against G-d, and as such it was not likely to lead to repentance. Since it was G-d’s stated purpose to convince the Egyptians that He was (1) a deity, (2) a power controlling the earth, and (3) a deity the like of which did not exist on the whole earth, the torture visited upon Egypt had to be staggered in such a way as to allow the Egyptians to recover from blow after blow and to absorb their lesson in the end. All the references made in the Torah to G-d hardening the heart of Pharaoh etc. have to be understood as the recovery Pharaoh was allowed to make between the plagues, so he could be made to feel the full impact of the next instalment. The Talmud in Makkot 10 produces proof from all parts of the Bible that the path in life a person wishes to take he is allowed to travel, i.e. freedom of choice is absolute. An example is the prophet Bileam who was first told by G-d not to accompany the messengers of Balak, but who, once it had become clear that he had made up his mind to go with them, was permitted to proceed (Numbers 22,12-20). The reference of Avshalom preferring the advice of Chushai, (Samuel II 17,14) is another such example. The classic example would be the deliberate turnabout by the Jewish people in the desert when facing Baal Tzefon (Exodus 14,1-3). All these examples illustrate that G-d does indeed provide opportunities for sinners to err, to draw false conclusions which will enmesh them in further difficulties. At the sea of reeds also the Egyptians chose to interpret that a twelve hour wind that had dried out the bed of the sea was a natural phenomenon and that the bottom of the sea was as safe for them as it had proved to be for the Israelites. It was in this indirect manner that G-d encouraged the Egyptians to fall into the trap He had set for them. ",
"The observation about G-d having hardened the spirit of Sichon King of the Emorites, which was referred to earlier, is to be understood in a similar vein. Sichon, who had observed that Israel seemed to have avoided battling the Moabites or the Edomites and had detoured around their respective countries, concluded that Israel's motive had been fear. Thus he felt encouraged to assume a militant posture. This resulted in his defeat and the conquest of his lands by the Israelites. But there had been no interference with his freedom of choice. ",
"",
"To return to the quotation of the Midrash, at the outset of our chapter: One cannot escape the feeling that the words \"My counsel will prevail,\" suggest that there are at least other counsels than the one of which G-d says that it will prevail. The true meaning seems to be that it was G-d’s original plan to create man equipped with freedom of choice. The reason for this was that only in this manner would man attain the ultimate moral stature that he wished him to attain. What G-d is saying therefore, is that ultimately His plan will prevail, since it had not been His primary objective to foil the plans of the wicked, but to help man to achieve righteousness. \"G-d was pleased because of His righteousness\" (Isaiah 42,21). The idea then that G-d Himself would impede man in attaining his moral perfection by interfering with his opportunity to do the right thing would be intolerable. Rabbi Yehudah wants to make it clear that the request for a sign from G-d is not evidence of obstinacy or lack of freedom of choice, but is a method employed even by prophets and worthy people to assure themselves that they are doing the right thing. That is why Moses and Aaron were told at the outset that Pharaoh would ask for such signs before negotiations could enter the substantive stage. Isaiah 7,11-12 teaches that, on occasion, failure to ask for such a sign can even be accounted as sinful. The concept is that when such requests for signs from G-d are made at the beginning, G-d provides such signs; when repeated requests are made, however, that violates the commandment \"Do not test the Lord your G-d.\" (Deut 6,16). Pharaoh should have listened the first time around, when Aaron's staff swallowed the staffs of all the magicians. Turning scoffer instead of repenting, he had only himself to blame if he misread future signs at one stage or another in his reflections. The very fact that each plague contained an element that a recalcitrant spirit could seize upon in order to draw faulty conclusions, is the midah keneged midah, punishment which fits the crime, principle in action. It is this aspect of G-d’s justice that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish has in mind when he said that as a result of Pharaoh's obstinacy, G-d gave him additional opportunities to be still more obstinate, so that it appeared as if G-d Himself had hardened Pharaoh's heart. ",
"Some difficulties in the text of our story: 1) Chapter 7,3-4 seems to contain superfluous verbiage. If Pharaoh would not listen, he would obviously not release the Israelites. 2) Having produced the miracle of the reptile swallowing the staffs, why did G-d send other miracles that the magicians could duplicate? 3) An examination of the three groups of plagues suggests that each successive group was less miraculous than the previous one. The reverse would have been expected! 4) Pharaoh's reactions seem puzzling from a psychological point of view. Sometimes he reacts to the impact of a plague; other times he reacts to the impact of the relief from the plague. Why? 5) Why did G-d say on the occasion of the plague of hail, \"This time I will send all My plagues against you\" (9,13)? After all, hail is only one plague! If G-d wanted to kill the Egyptian's livestock, why suggest that they make them take shelter? 6) When Pharaoh asked Moses, \"Who are those who want to go?\" why did Moses not simply say, \"The whole nation\" instead of the cumbersome, \"With our youngsters and with our old folk we will go\"? 7) In Chapter 7,25-26, Moses states, \"You too will give us offerings that we will present to the Lord our G-d, and also our cattle will go with us.\" The order seems inverted. Surely taking their cattle is the more important of the two statements! 8) What gave Pharaoh the courage to finally threaten Moses (10,28) when he had never done so previously? ",
"(1) The reason the Torah lists the ages of Moses and Aaron at the time they began their mission in Egypt, is to show that at that time they had ceased to be merely important persons in their own right, but had become instruments of G-d’s will. When Aaron's staff swallowed those of the magicians, Pharaoh, in his obstinacy, chose to interpret this as merely a difference in the calibre of Moses’ss and Aaron's magic as compared to the magic of his own magicians. He refused to see in this the legitimization of Moses and Aaron as messengers of another deity. Thus, G-d demonstrated to Moses and Aaron the rigidity of Pharaoh's state of mind. (2) Subsequent plagues were designed to make him more responsive. The plague of blood had the avowed purpose of demonstrating \"so that you know that I am G-d,\" the first principle Pharaoh had denied when Moses introduced himself as a messenger of G-d. At that time, Pharaoh's reaction had been \"Who is G-d?\" (5,2). This query was to be answered by the conversion of water into blood. The plague established then that Moses was indeed a messenger of someone who could command nature in this fashion. The first few plagues were designed to demonstrate to the magicians that Moses’ss source of power was the same as theirs, namely G-d. In addition, the fact that Moses was able to call off a plague, not just to bring it on, should have convinced them of his superior powers. The Egyptians' desire to keep the Jews enslaved, was, however, stronger than their newly gained insight into the powers of the G-d of the Israelites. They were aided in this rejectionist approach by having found ways to circumvent the effect of the plague by digging for new sources of water in the ground. During the second plague, though the magicians copied it, the inconvenience was such that they asked for the plague to be called off. This was Pharaoh's first concession. Pharaoh acknowledges the existence of G-d, since he asked Moses to pray to Him. He implied that if Moses could call off the plague, something his own magicians had been unable to do, then he, Pharaoh, would acknowledge the fact that the plague did originate with G-d. He would then let the Jewish people go. Since Moses realized that Pharaoh was trying to test G-d, he allowed himself to boast and let Pharaoh set the timetable. This was in order that there could be no doubt as to who had made the frogs die. When Moses accepted Pharaoh's timetable, he added the words \"so that you will know that there is no G-d like our G-d.\" Moses emphasized that the frogs would remain only in the river, to make it plain that nature would resume its normal course, that frogs would not be removed except as a plague. Pharaoh reneged, perhaps since the magicians had not yet admitted their own inability to duplicate Moses’ss feat until the third plague. Because of Pharaoh's having reneged, the third plague arrived without prior warning. If Pharaoh would respond to this plague by acknowledging the existence of G-d as well as His uniqueness, then this phase of plagues could be considered as concluded. (3) Even though Pharaoh had acknowledged G-d’s uniqueness at the end of the third plague, he had not yet acknowledged that a special relationship existed between Israel and G-d, and that Moses therefore had the right to demand the freedom of the Israelites. The fact that Moses was commanded to give Pharaoh warning of the fourth plague, meeting Pharaoh at the river, shows that G-d wanted him to know that he was aware of Pharaoh's intention to avoid just such a meeting. The plague would show that G-d could act arbitrarily on earth and at the same time distinguish between the part of the earth inhabited by the Israelites (8,18). The fifth and sixth plagues demonstrate the same point in varying degrees. Even the livestock of the Israelites would enjoy special protection by their G-d. Even microbes, bacteria, in the case of the sixth plague, would not harm Jews. Precisely because this was the purpose of these plagues, no new and unknown phenomena could be used to demonstrate the power of G-d. The fact that these plagues had been predicted to occur within a certain time frame, demonstrated that G-d was their author. Pharaoh's reaction, suggesting that the Jews serve their G-d within the country, is his response to Moses’ss statement that G-d is master in the whole land. Moses’ss reply to Pharaoh's unspoken question, \"Why do you have to leave the country to do your worshipping?\" is that the attitude of the Egyptians poses a threat to the Israelites' safety, especially when the Egyptians would become aware of the nature of the sacrificial service intended. From an objective point of view, service to G-d in Egypt would be possible. Moses, careful not to refer to an eventual return to Egypt, phrases his demand very vaguely, stating only that they would get their instructions from G-d. Pharaoh agrees, adding that they should pray for him also. Moses agrees to call off the plague, warning Pharaoh not to default on his promise again, and he agrees to pray for Pharaoh immediately, not at a distance of three days' march (8,21-26). (4) Pharaoh remains unrepentant also after this awesome display of G-d’s power as demonstrated by the strange immunity of the Jewish people to the invasion of the wild beasts. As a result, this group of plagues has to run its full course to teach Pharaoh a further lesson. The immediate reason for Pharaoh's astounding reversal may be due to his rationalizing the absence of the wild beasts' invasion of the land of Goshen being due to the particular area rather than the people living in it. After all, Moses had stressed that the miracle would occur \"in the land of Goshen\" (8,18). To cure him of this misconception, the plague of pestilence would not be restricted to certain areas, but cattle belonging to Egyptians that were grazing in Goshen would be struck, whereas cattle owned by Jews grazing in Egypt proper would remain unharmed. This would debunk Pharaoh's theory that makom gorem mazzal, that a certain location can be lucky or unlucky. Pharaoh still had doubts, ascribing good luck to the owners of these cattle rather than to a deliberate act of Divine intervention. Therefore, the third in the series of these plagues found the magicians unable to protect even themselves against the impact, much less to offer relief to anyone else struck by it. Pharaoh still does not admit that G-d’s power is more than local, and the third series of plagues will disabuse him of that fallacy: \"So that you will know that there is no one like Me on the whole earth\" (9,14). It was necessary to include amongst these plagues both qualitative and quantitative phenomena that would place them outside previous human experience. Thus G-d would demonstrate that He could alter the laws of nature. These phenomena had to be predicted both as to when and as to how they would occur, in order to provide absolute credibility of both messenger and Author. (5) When the Torah states prior to the plague of hail (9,14), \"This time I will send all My plagues,\" the message is to acquaint Pharaoh with the fact that G-d’s power extends way beyond the boundaries of Egypt. Since the prime object of the plague was to demonstrate power, an opportunity to escape the immediate consequences could be allowed. The result of this plague was that Pharaoh, for the first time, acknowledged his guilt and G-d’s righteousness (9,27). When Pharaoh, in 9,21, states that \"there is no need for further thunder from G-d,\" he meant that there was no need for G-d to teach him any further lessons, that he had become adequately convinced. That was the reason he asked Moses to pray for him, and why he offered to dismiss the Jewish people. Moses was audacious enough to point out that in his personal opinion further lessons would prove necessary (9,30). By including Pharaoh's servants in his comments, Moses in his wisdom had hoped to galvanize Pharaoh's servants into some action, since their own destruction would result should Pharaoh continue in his obstinate attitude. This explains the servants' remonstrations during the eighth plague (10,7). Pharaoh's latest reversal may have been induced by the hope that the unheard-of phenomena pointed at an imminent worldwide cataclysmic event, after which his fortunes would change for the better (his interpretation of the horoscope). ",
"Parashat Bo",
"(3) In Chapter 10,1-2, G-d explains to Moses that the very order in which the plagues occurred accounts for Pharaoh's continued obstinacy. This was not outside interference in Pharaoh and his servants' decision making process. Moses was commanded (10,3) to threaten the onset of yet another plague, explaining that this time there would not be a display of power originating in Heaven, but rather there would be a demonstration that G-d operates at will within nature. Since Pharaoh, in his desperate search for causes other than G-d’s deliberate actions, had fooled himself into believing in the imminent arrival of the millenium, he would be forced to concede his error. The unique nature of this occurrence then was stressed by Moses (10,14; 10,6). This kind of locust never had been seen, nor would it ever be seen again. During the plague of hail, mention had been made that it was new; no word had been said, however, about it not occurring ever again. This had lead to Pharaoh's error. This time, care is taken to predict the uniqueness of the event so that Pharaoh could not again pretend that it augured a new order in nature, such as after the deluge. Since the Exodus of the Jewish people was to follow shortly, it did not matter that the locust also invaded Goshen, since the Israelites would not be there by harvest time anyways. After announcing the plague as punishment for Pharaoh's continued rebelliousness, Moses leaves the presence of Pharaoh to give him and his servants time to reflect. After some discussion at Pharaoh's Court, Moses is brought back, and the release of the Israelites to worship their G-d is authorized. (8) The snag occurs this time when Pharaoh finds out that not only male adults would go (10,9). Moses is accused of bad faith, Pharaoh claiming that it had now become apparent that the whole negotiations from the start had had as their purpose the permanent departure of the Jewish people from Egypt (\"For this is what you are seeking,\" 10,11). The newfound repentance evaporates quickly, and for the first time Pharaoh treats Moses with disrespect, believing himself to have been wronged. As a result, Moses brings on the locust. Since this plague arrived without preamble, Pharaoh immediately summons Moses and Aaron. This time he does not only admit wrongdoing, but apologizes to Moses for his behavior. Again he asks Moses to pray to remove \"this death\" from Egypt. Moses responds without waiting for the customary promise that his people would be released. The wind is reversed, the locusts disappear utterly, giving Pharaoh a chance to view the whole event as due to the operation of winds rather than ascribing the phenomenon to its true author, the prime mover of all winds. Darkness follows immediately, showing that the very atmosphere is the victim of G-d’s anger, and creating a physical barrier to the movement of the Egyptians for a period of three days (10,23). Pharaoh calls Moses, and for the first time volunteers to release all the people, barring only their livestock. Pharaoh has come a long way, seeing that he makes this offer without the threat of yet another plague overhanging him so far. Thus the aim of the third group of plagues, \"so that you know there is no one like Me on the whole earth,\" has been achieved. Since the plague of darkness had ended without supplication by Pharaoh to Moses and by Moses to G-d, his new humility is indeed remarkable. (7) He cannot yet understand why the Israelites wish to take their livestock, even though Moses had mentioned on occasion that they would slaughter for G-d. Pharaoh felt that he had responded completely to G-d’s demands, and that the demand to take the livestock along must have come at Moses’ss own initiative. When David lists the ninth plague as the one in which Pharaoh did not rebel (Psalms 105,27-8), and lists it ahead of all the other plagues, it may well be that he wants to emphasize this very point. The reason for the omission of the plagues of pestilence and skin sores in the same Psalm may well be similar. In both instances, neither refusal nor obstinacy are mentioned in the Torah; therefore they did not fit the categories of rebellion cited in that psalm. ",
"",
"The lack of confirmation by the Torah that shortly after leaving Egypt the Israelites slaughtered sacrifices wholesale makes Pharaoh's incredulity at the statement that all the livestock would be demanded by the Jewish G-d appear more plausible. The Torah also does not report that Pharaoh did indeed supply animals of his own to be slaughtered on his behalf as predicted by Moses (10,25). To prove that Moses’ss demand that not a hoof would remain in Egypt was indeed a Divinely authorized demand and not merely a ploy by Moses to bait Pharaoh, a further plague had to be announced. On the one hand, feeling sure that Moses had overstepped the bounds of what was reasonable, Pharaoh threatened to kill him should he dare to appear before him again. He refers twice to previous statements by Moses such as \"as you said\" (12,31; 12,23). The first may refer to what he had perceived to be G-d’s instructions, the second to what he believed to have been Moses’ss own intiative. Moses announces the time and extent of the next plague to justify himself and announces that instead of his coming to Pharaoh's Court, the order will be reversed, and Pharaoh's ministers will come to the Jews pleading for them to leave. The final plague combined the three elements that have characterized the previous three groups, and this is the reason verse 13,15 refers to the obstinacy of Pharaoh causing him to suffer this plague. The creation of new criteria, i.e. the selection of only the first borns as victims, is suggestive of the \"I am G-d\" demonstrated during the first three plagues. The distinction between the houses having the blood of the Passover sacrifice on their doorposts, and those that did not, corresponds to the second group of plagues, when G-d left Jewish residential areas or Jewish property unharmed. The uniqueness of the event, never to be repeated is representative of the lesson contained in the third group of plagues. "
]
],
[
[
" LESSONS IN FAITH TO BE LEARNED FROM THE PRACTICE OF SANCTIFYING THE NEW MOON. ",
"\"This month shall be unto you the beginning of months\"",
"Shemot Rabbah 15 describes a king who, upon betrothal to the girl he plans to marry, guarantees her a few gifts in writing. By the time he actually marries her however, he showers her with gifts far in excess of anything he had promised. Our relationship to the Almighty (in this present world) is compared to that of the betrothed; however, once the messianic age will dawn and we will be truly wed to G-d, He will hand over everything to us. In Hoseah 2,21-22, Israel appears merely as betrothed to the Lord, whereas in Isaiah 54,5, the Lord is referred to as \"for your Maker is your husband.\" Upon the departure from Egypt (Exodus 12,1), Israel merely received the moon, whereas in Daniel 12,3, with reference to the messianic age, it says, \"And they that are wise will shine like the brightness of the sky, and they that turn the many to righteousness, will be as the stars forever and ever.\" ",
"Since human life is precious, harmful substances must be shunned, and even merely potentially dangerous agents must be avoided. This is best illustrated in the laws governing the Nazirite, the self-appointed ascetic who must not only abstain from wine, but also from grapes, vineyards, and anything even remotely connected with the fruit of the vine. If this is so in the case of a Nazirite, who had imposed strictures upon himself that the Torah had not even demanded of him, how much more must this concept apply to products expressly forbidden by the Torah? The more serious the nature of the prohibition, the more stringent the cordon sanitaire around such a prohibition to insure that the actual prohibition would not be violated. Since the Torah takes a very grave view of immorality, our sages even discouraged idle conversation with one's own wife. Concerning bloodshed, another cardinal sin, our sages compare the infliction of a public insult as equivalent to the sin of bloodshed, and thereby hope to forestall even more serious expressions of one's hatred toward one's fellow man. The same principle applies to the most serious of all transgressions, the sin of worshipping idols. All other sins, especially if committed while one is under the influence of one's basic urges, can be atoned for by repentance relatively easily. After David had confessed his guilt, the prophet Nathan while remonstrating with David, whose apparent crimes included bloodshed and immorality, was able to say to David, \"G-d has removed your sin from you, you will not die\" (Samuel II 12,13). This is possible when the sinner had all along retained his faith in G-d. This is also what the prophet foretells concerning a future when man's knowledge of G-d will no longer be beset by doubts, \"And he that stumbles on that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be like a divine being, as the angel of the Lord before them\" (Zecharyah 12,8). In those days sin will not be due to lack of faith, but will be due only to the weakness of the flesh. Therefore, it can be expiated for at once, and the sinner, after his repentance, can be described as \"an angel of the Lord.\" Nowadays, however, if someone knowingly commits idolatry, how could such a person obtain forgiveness? He would be subject to severance from his people, a penalty corresponding to the nature of his sin. Who could save him? Therefore the Torah includes laws which in themselves represent deterrents to the sin of idol-worship. The most common form of idol-worship is the adulation of heavenly objects such as the sun, the moon, and the stars. These bodies have lured people away from monotheism since time immemorial, and the Torah therefore does not tire of exhorting us \"that you may not raise your eyes heavenward and be led astray to worship\" (Deut. 4,19). There are many similar quotations, too many to list. All the prophets strove to wean the Jewish people away from these tendencies, and to prove to them that all these heavenly objects are merely tools which G-d uses in His wisdom to guide the progress of the universe. Jeremiah spends a whole chapter discussing this, employing even the chaldaic language to make sure that he would reach the whole nation, including those not fluent in Hebrew (Jeremiah 10). ",
"",
"Considering all the efforts made in the Bible to combat tendencies toward idol-worship, the fact that the first commandment given to the Jewish nation should be the sanctification of the moon, seems puzzling. The ceremonies connected with observing this commandment raise the specter of this being akin to idolworship. There are special sacrifices in the temple, benedictions must be recited only when the moon is visible, hallel must be recited; all these observances must seem strange to the uninitiated. Rashi's statement in Genesis 1,1 that the Torah could really have commenced at this point, were it not for the fact that G-d wanted the nations to know that the Jewish people have a valid claim on the land of Israel, is even more puzzling when viewed in light of the above. Even stranger is the observation of Ben Azzai (Chullin 60) that the Almighty decreed a male goat to be offered on the new moon, to atone for the fact that he had diminished the size of the moon. Anyone who dares to withhold from a people items long considered as life sustaining such as bread, milk etc., must be prepared to face the wrath of the people. It requires skill and wisdom to teach that people that the very things which they had for long considered to be life sustaining were in fact most detrimental to their continued wellbeing. In Jeremiah Chapter 44, we find that the people upraid the prophet for warning them against idolworship, that they claim that their recent troubles had been due to their having forsaken their former idols. In such circumstances, one needs to enlighten a few intelligent leaders of the people about the true nature of things, and hope that these leaders in turn will be able to persuade the masses, once they themselves have been convinced of the error of their previous thinking. Idolatry can be divided into three kinds: 1) Belief that the object worshipped is itself a deity; in that event worship of that deity is the real thing. 2) One considers the object in question as close enough to the real deity to exercise some influence on said deity's decision-making process; in that event one worships the object as a sort of intermediary. One hopes that the object worshipped will intercede on one's behalf with the inaccessible deity. In such instances, worship is not a form of adulation, but rather a form of labor, service. 3) One worships the object in question only for the specific visible function it performs; one considers the continued performance of that function by said object as vital to the welfare of the worshipper. In this latter case, worship is merely a form of thanksgiving. All of the above, has been fully explained by Maimonides. When we consider the kiddush hachodesh legislation, the sanctification of the new moon, and the commandment concerning the observance of a leap year, i.e. an extra month at certain intervals, we observe that the mitzvah addresses itself 1) to the moon itself; 2) its motion, its movements; 3) the unique ritual involved. The moon itself, after reflecting progressively more light until full moon, reflects progressively less light until at the end of its cycle it does not reflect any light at all. It proves by its behavior that it is not a primary source of light at all. Astronomy has proved that unless the face of the moon is turned towards the sun, it cannot reflect any light. This teaches the Jewish people that the moon cannot possibly be a deity, since it has nothing of its own to contribute. Deities, by definition, are givers, not recipients. During a lunar eclipse, when neither face of the moon reflects anything, its impotence as a possible deity is demonstrated even more forcibly. What is valid for the moon, is equally true of other heavenly bodies, even the sun, since the sun's light too is eclipsed from time to time. As the prophet exclaims, \"Do not be scared for they cannot cause any harm\" (Jeremiah 10,5). At the time of the new moon, both moon and sun appear close to one another in the West around sunset time; it seems clear to the beholder that both follow a path imposed upon them, that they are not free to move in the direction of their choice. Which free individual moves forever in a single direction? In the third aspect of the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh, we are no longer concerned with the moon or its orbit, but rather with the use we can make of it for the needs of our calendar. Since our holy days are determined in large measure by the calendar, the Almighty uses the moon to demonstrate His sovereignty over it. Jewish law provides leeway to use the moon in such a way that it accomodates itself to the needs of the Jewish people, instead of the other way around. The outstanding example of this phenomenon is found in Rosh Hashanah 20, where we are told, \"When it is like this, sanctify!\" This means that only when the moon is visible can the ceremony be performed. Since the moon is a minimum of eighteen hours into its new cycle before it becomes visible, we do not actually welcome the arrival of the new moon on time. Should the astronomic time for the new moon be less than eight hours before sunset, the ceremony is delayed for fully twenty-four hours. In such an event, the festival of the new moon would actually not be declared until forty-two hours after its advent. All this shows clearly that to think that any star or heavenly body has dominion over the Jewish people, is completely erroneous. On the contrary, if we follow Saadiah Gaon, that visual observation of the new moon has never been a factor determining when Rosh Chodesh would be declared, the mitzvah would demonstrate that we can exert influence on the calendar. The Torah grants the Jewish Supreme Court the right to proclaim the dates of the Jewish holy days, although calendar dates have been spelled out in the Torah. This means that the Jewish Supreme Court has the authority to manipulate the calendar to suit its purpose. \"The seasons of the Lord which you will proclaim they will be My seasons\" (Leviticus 23,4). The Almighty said in effect, \"Even if you err, or even if you deliberately change the correct date by manipulation of the festival of the new moon, My holy days are yours to determine.\" The elders who are charged with the intricacies of the new moon observance, and who cannot fail to realize that this commandment is the very antithesis of idolworship, will in turn persuade the people of this profound truth. The reason that we add songs and praises to the Lord in our liturgy on that day, is to reflect the awareness that He alone is Master of the Universe, and all that exists therein. Rashi's comment that the Torah could have commenced with this chapter now becomes clearer. Had we not read about the creation and the whole book of Genesis, and only used the commandment regarding the new moon as our introduction to G-d as the sole ruler of the universe and the prime Cause and Creator, that would have been quite sufficient. The unchanging nature of the orbits of all the planets testify to their very impotence as potential deities. The male goat offered as a sin offering is to atone for any lingering subconscious doubts that may have been entertained about the true nature of the heavenly bodies. Isaiah 5,12 castigates those people who, while enjoying all that life has to offer to the senses, fail to give thought to the handiwork of the Lord. Anyone who does not conduct himself properly, is somehow influenced by the thought that the Lord does not observe his conduct. This is a form of heresy which requires the powers of atonement inherent in the offering of the male goat. ",
"The Talmud Chullin 60 quotes the following conversation between the moon and G-d, in the name of Ben Azzai. This conversation is to help us understand the verse (Genesis 1,16), \"The Lord made great luminaries; the large luminary to govern by day, and the small luminary to govern by night, and the stars.\" The moon said to G-d, \"Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?\" The Lord said to the moon: \"go ahead and govern both by day and by night.\" So the moon said \"Who needs a lantern at noon?\" G-d said, \"Israel will count its days and years according to your movements.\" Even the days will be counted by reference to the moon as is written, \"They will serve as signs, as fixed times, for days and years\" (Genesis 1,14). He further said to him (the moon) that righteous people will be called like the moon (small) to wit Jacob and David (see Amos 7,5 and Samuel I 17,15). The moon, however, was still not placated. Thereupon G-d instructed that a sin offering be offered on His behalf to atone for G-d having reduced the size of the moon. It was Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who interprets the verse \"one he-goat as a sin offering for G-d\" (Numbers 28,15) to mean that the he-goat is to be offered on behalf of G-d, to serve as atonement for having commanded the moon to reduce its size. Ben Azzai's parable has the moon question its own function. This describes the age old dilemma of whether what we observe in nature is accidental or whether it is the result of intelligent planning. If it is the result of intelligent planning, G-d’s major functionaries wish to be taken into His confidence as to their precise purpose and place in His scheme of things. \"Can two kings wear the same crown?\" means, \"Is there duplication in this universe, seeing that all is the result of mere chance?\" The reason that the moon serves as the example in this imaginary dialogue is that it is the only celestial body which apparently does not originate its own light. The question if this could be accidental is quite appropriate. The \"smallness\" of the moon would point to its accidental place in the scheme of things. G-d’s initial reply \"Reduce your size\" means \"You may be sure that you are part of an intelligent overall design. Upon hearing this, the moon wants to know, \"If that is so, why is my status such and such, compared to Your other planets? Why am I the only one that does not have its own light to give? Why, by not being a source of light, am I the apparent victim of chance?\" G-d’s answer \"Go and shine by day and by night,\" is, of course, facetious, but it points out that the moon's particular contribution to the universe lies in its shining by night only, and with reflected light only. The moon understood that by day its contribution to the light in this world would pale into such insignificance, that no one would even be aware of its existence. But it found no solace, not having comprehended why it had been chosen for that particular role. So G-d said that the apparent deficiency in not radiating its own light, would be compensated for by the needs of the Jewish people for the moon, to aid Israel's calendar requirements. The moon argued, however, that since days are normally counted in terms of the sun's movements, why cannot the sun reduce its size? To this G-d replied that since the righteous will be called \"small,\" the moon's reduction in size was very crucial. It was part of G-d’s plan that a visible link exist between cause and effect, i.e. between benefactor and recipient. Since the sun was the primary source of light, and the moon was only a secondary source, it would not be fitting for the primary source to be smaller than the secondary source. The moral Ben Azzai wishes to teach is, of course, that the truly righteous always understate their own importance in the presence of anything or anyone deserving respect. However, no matter how much one tries to explain to people that they should be modest and humble, they will always wonder if they would get their fair share of things by practicing humility, they need the he-goat offering to atone for such doubts about G-d’s justice. Since it had been G-d’s intention to show the Jewish people favored treatment, whereas the Jewish people suspected Him of putting them at a disadvantage, that sin offering then is due to G-d’s intention as expressed by His desire to diminish the size of the moon. If our method of interpretation is correct, this should be reflected in the liturgy of the Mussaph service of Rosh Chodesh. We do indeed find such evidence: 1) \"The new moons You have given to Your people as season for atonement for all their generations, when they brought free will offerings.\" 2) \"He-goats as sin offerings to atone on their behalf,-a salvation of their soul from its enemy...\" The \"soul's enemy\" refers to the evil urge which has prompted our doubts about the fairness of G-d’s justice. Continuing and referring to the future, we say, \"A new altar will You set up in Zion, at which time the he-goat offerings will be offered in a state of grace.\" There will then be no need to offer the he-goats as sin offerings, since there will be no evil urge, i.e. a philosophical enticement to act contrary to the will of the Creator. ",
"Rashi, who had said that the Torah could have started with this chapter, may have had another point in mind. The book of Genesis was written in large measure to teach us that what happened to the forefathers, foreshadowed events that would occur in the lives of their descendants. What Rashi may have meant is that the functions of the moon and the function of the Jewish people are such that a similar lesson could have been learned by comparing the two. This may also be the meaning of the statement in the Talmud (Chullin 60) that the facial features of Jacob are engraved on the surface of the moon. When viewing the progress of the moon in this light, and comparing it to the history of the Jewish people, it could serve as a boost for our faith in the fulfilment of all the prophecies concerning the ultimate destiny of our people. ",
"At this point, the author discusses 12 symbolisms in connection with the moon's behavior, linking these to the twelve tribes of the Jewish people. The list is omitted in the interest of brevity. A different way of looking at the aggadah in Chullin 60 is this: Israel (moon) complained against Esau (sun) that it is impossible for both to wear the crown of spiritual success. The difference in their essence makes that impossible. G-d’s suggestion to the moon then was that the moon give up some of its claim to glory in this world, so as to merit the crown of success in the world to come. G-d’s message was that Jews could not expect to be both spiritually and materially successful in the present world as well as in the world to come. When the moon wanted to know why this was impossible, G-d said in effect, \"Go ahead and try.\" Although a few Jews succeeded, it became clear that whatever measure of success they did attain, was viewed by the world as essentially belonging to the realm of the material world. They were not credited with being different from other gentiles. So G-d told the moon that in that case it must find its satisfaction in the recognition it would obtain in the eyes of the Almighty. Although it is true that the sun too, plays a part in calendar calculation, since the righteous achieve their status by claiming smallness, it behooves the moon to act likewise. Success in this world, though sometimes forthcoming, cannot be guaranteed; but to try for it with any chance of success, one must be prepared to be humble and unassuming. Proof that the Almighty Himself was not totally happy with the need to advise this path, is provided by the fact that He requested the he-goat offering as an act of atonement for having made this demand on the Jewish people. If we consider all the sufferings undergone by the Jewish people despite the fact that they were persuaded by G-d to reduce their claim to the enticements this world has to offer, imagine what greater suffering would have been in store for us had we not voluntarily agreed to this contraction in size. To sum up then, our Parshah has a threefold purpose: 1) To debunk theories about the moon that are idolatrous. 2) To rebut the argument about the accidental nature of the universe. 3) To strengthen Jewish faith in the ultimate fulfilment of our hopes. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"it shall be the first of the months\" etc. \"Happy the nation whose\" etc.",
"Shemot Rabbah 15 quotes Psalm 33,12, \"Hail the nation whose G-d is the Lord.\" Since G-d chose the universe, He established new moons and years. When G-d chose Jacob and his sons, He established the new moon of redemption on which Israel would be redeemed in the future. This is based on what we read in Michah 7,15, \"As in the days when you sallied forth out of Egypt, so I will show wondrous deeds then.\" During that month, Isaac was born, during that month he was bound on the altar, during that month Jacob received the blessings, and during that month G-d hinted to Israel that it would be the beginning of the redemption, since it is written, \"It is the first for you of the months of the year\" (Exodus 12). This can be compared to a king who took his son out of prison and said, \"Make this day a festive day every year from now on, since my son came out of darkness into light, and out of slavery into freedom.\" ",
"Just as the precision and predictability of events based on laws of nature testify to the true existence of its Master, so on occasion does the suspension of laws of nature proclaim the Majesty of the Almighty. Philosophers have conceded the existence of G-d and enthroned Him, when they agreed that He is the ultimate Cause of all that exists, and that if one were to imagine that He did not exist, nothing else could exist either. However, if the universe were to disappear, it would not have any bearing on Him at all. These philosophers erred when they tied His existence to the existence of the universe. By so doing, they compared the relationship between G-d and His world to the relationship of intelligence to that which has to be comprehended. They should have compared it to being more like the sun is to light. Should light disappear, fire would not therefore cease to exist. The philosophers' way of explaining G-d’s relationship to the universe makes Him no more than a partner in the universe. This in turn leads to the error of denying G-d’s eternal nature. He has indeed preceded all, was absolute ruler before He decided in His infinite wisdom to create all, for the sake of the universe and those in it, not for His sake (Proverbs 16,4, \"G-d created everything for a purpose, for their respective sakes\"). Should you ask how the remainder of this verse can be understood, i.e. \"also the wicked for an evil day,\" i.e. surely evil was not created for its own sake or benefit?! The answer is that on the \"evil day\" the lesson we derive from the existence of the wicked becomes clear, namely when we observe him get his just deserts. In His wisdom, G-d has divided the universe into three layers. The upper layer consists of disembodied intelligent beings, active intellects close to the throne of G-d. The lower layer is our world, in which the most advanced living creature is the talking human species, which has been endowed with potentially pure intelligence, and who with the help of G-d and His Torah, can obtain actual intelligence almost to the point of partnership with the beings in the uppermost of the three layers. The middle layer is the world of planets with its four basic material elements. It has been placed between the other layers since it governs the lowest layer, being in turn guided by the abstract intellects in the uppermost layer. Therefore, it functions in two ways: 1) the normal manner governed by the rule of the intellects in the upper layer, i.e. natural law; 2) however, there is also a second way, activated by the members of the third layer, when they have achieved the kind of perfection that it is possible to achieve through Torah, which has then made them equal to and partners with the beings in the top layer of the universe. In such instances, on rare occasions, the rule of the beings in the \"top layer\" can be superseded, and \"natural law\" becomes \"super natural law,\" known as \"miracle\". This is due to the profound changes that tzaddikim themselves undergo in ascending to the level of righteousness and piety that makes prophets out of them. They are granted powers similar to, or even greater than, those of the intellects in the upper layer of the universe. ",
"Shemot Rabbah Section 8 asks why G-d is described as the melech hakavod, the king of glory. The Midrash answers that this is so because He accords honor and prestige to His subjects. Normally, a king's horse or mantle is not used or worn by his subjects; however, G-d let Elijah ride on His horse (Nachum 1, Kings II, 2,1), Moses used the staff of G-d (Exodus 17,9), and Solomon sat on the throne of G-d (Chronices I 29,23). There is a commentary which understands this as an absence of jealousy on the part of G-d. Since all the aforementioned paraphernalia of G-d’s power are His, first and foremost, and even when they are employed by human beings are never mentioned except as things which belong to G-d, it proves that He does not mind that the symbols of His sovereignty are used by some of His subjects. All of this is explained quite properly by Midrash Tanchuma, who uses the simile of G-d saying to Moses, \"I am not like a human being who forbids his subjects the use of royal prerogatives, but I even share My very Name with you.\" Moses is called \"elohim.\" G-d referred to Jeremiah as \"chassid.\" The Jewish people are referred to as \"kedoshim,” all of which are Divine attributes, names. This last Midrash does not refer to the same thing as the Midrash Rabbah we quoted, else it should also have used the term \"an ordinary person has no right to use etc,\" instead of \"one does not use.\" When a king delegates authority to a minister or general, he usually does so in order that his own glory be enhanced. If the king hands his seal of office to a minister, it is in order for the minister to rule in the name of the king, on behalf of the king. Not so in the case of G-d. When G-d delegates His authority, He does not do so for His own sake, but for the sake of the prophet and his people. When Elijah was in possession of the key to rain, he used it independently, as he saw fit, on behalf of his people. When Elisha had the key of life at his disposal, and revived the dead, he did so in his own right. Moses smote the sea, and was in fact criticized by G-d for praying instead of using the power delegated to him (Exodus 14,26). Solomon who had asked G-d to delegate this power to him, acted in his own right. His wisdom was considered as having been a gift from the Divine, but he employed it for the benefit of his people. In this way all of these people became partners of G-d, a status far above that of ministers or generals of human monarchs who always remain strictly servants or employees. ",
"There are occasions when the delegation of power by G-d to man does not signify partnership or the right to act independently. Isaiah 10,5 describes such an instance when he says, \"Ashur is the rod of My anger, and the staff in the hand of My wrath.\" When G-d employs the might of Ashur to vanquish the ten tribes and lead them into captivity, He is not acting as melech hakavod, as the king who imparts His glory to mere mortals, but rather He employs Imperial Ashur as one would employ one's staff to do one's bidding. When Ashur boasts of its might, and imagines that it has acted on its own, the prophet sarcastically asks \"Can the axe boast of the stonecutter? Whoever heard of such a thing? Since when does the saw brag about the person using it?\" To enable us to know which kind of authority is wielded, remember the following: The former kind is usually wielded by a prophet, so that miracles can be recognized when they do occur, and the prophet prepares us for their occurrence, to strengthen our belief in the true nature of hashgacha peratit, Divine Providence. When events occur that we describe as being part of the natural order of things, this shows that G-d employs midat hadin, the attribute of justice. When they occur in what we call \"supernatural order,\" the midat harachamim, i.e. the attribute of mercy is at work. Both methods point to the fact that history is supervised. Predictability of events points towards supervised management, whereas the occasional unpredictable abnormal occurrences confirm that the manager has retained freedom of action, which in turn enhances His stature. ",
"Yalkut Shimoni on Joshua 22 item 247 relates that when Joshua told the sun, \"Stand still,\" the sun replied, \"You are telling me to stand still?!\" Joshua said, \"Yes!\" The sun said, \"If I stand still, who will sing the praises of G-d during that time?\" Joshua replied, \"You be still and I will sing the praises of G-d, as is written in the book of Joshua \"Az,” \"Then Joshua would say etc.,\" and we know that wherever the expression “az” is used it is followed by a song of praise (Joshua 10,12). Similarly, “az yashir Moshe,” then Moses would sing a song of praise (Exodus 15,1). The Yalkut exemplifies what we have explained before. The sun testifies to the presence of its Master, i.e. G-d, by its very orderly and predictable orbit. Its failure to perform on time, might give rise to the notion that coincidences govern the universe. Joshua replied that there is another way to testify to the existence of an absolute and free Master, and that this was what he proposed to do by means of working a supernatural, temporary miracle, arresting the sun's motion. A slightly different version of the same conversation between the sun and Joshua has the sun saying, \"How can a small one say to a big one ‘Be silent, stand still?!’\" The sun meant that having been created already on the fourth day of creation, how could it accept orders from a mere mortal who had only been created on the sixth day of creation?! It did not need to accept orders from its juniors. Joshua's reply was, \"Does a young freeman never tell an older slave to keep still? You are the slave, having been created to serve the freeman Abraham. You have bowed to Joseph, (‘The sun, moon, and stars were bowing down to me,’ Genesis 37,9). This makes you merely a bondsman.” The end of that version is similar to that in the Yalkut. ",
"In order to lend more emphasis to the wonderful concept of hashgachah peratit, this month was chosen as the beginning of \"holy convocations\" for all times. All holy convocations are rooted in the Exodus from Egypt. They have therefore been granted exclusively to the Jewish people. Rabbi Akiva expresses this fittingly when he says (Shabbat 87), \"This day has been given ten crowns to symbolize the ten directives by means of which this universe came into existence. The last of the eight days during which the tabernacle was consecrated was Sunday the first day in the month of Nissan. On that day, Aaron commenced to perform the daily service in the tabernacle.\" ",
"The ten crowns in the Talmudic passage referred to have hardly been chosen at random. Since the erection of the tabernacle and all that pertained to it represented a microcosm of the larger world, the macrocosm, these crowns may symbolize the ten directives we have listed in Chapter three. They were the directives used by G-d in creating the universe. They were: 1) Essence. They are then followed by nine directives moderating the Essence: 2) Quantity. 3) Quality. 4) Directional. 5) Time frame. 6) Relative condition when compared to a state of perfection. 7) Relation to other phenomena. 8) Effect on other phenomena.9) Impressionability by other phenomena. 10) Its rationale, its attributes. The ten crowns would be these: 1) It was the first day of creation. 2) It was the first day the princes began to present their offerings. 3) It was the first day that the priesthood operated. 4) The first day of public sacrificial service. 5) The first day Heavenly fire descended to consume the offerings. 6) First time priests were permitted to eat of the meat of the sacrifices. 7) The first day the shechinah took up residence on earth. 8) The first time Israel received a collective blessing. 9) The first time altars outside the tabernacle were forbidden as a site of sacrificial offerings. 10) It was the first day of the months the years are counted by. Crown one may be viewed as symbolizing directive 6, describing the relative condition of phenomena compared to their perfect states. Crown two, the princes' offerings, may parallel directive 3, i.e. quality. Crown three, priesthood, may parallel directive 7, relative relationships. Crown four, sacrificial service, may parallel directive 8 , impact on other phenomena. Crown five, the descent of Heavenly fire, may parallel directive 1, the Essence. Crown six, eating of sacrificial meat, may parallel directive 10, describing ownership relations, G-d relinquishing some of what is His. Crown seven, the presence of the shechinah on earth, may parallel directive 4, i.e. the \"directional.\" Crown eight, Israel receiving a collective blessing, is parallel to directive 9, describing impressionability by outside phenomena. Crown nine, prohibition of private altars, parallels directive 2, dealing with quantitative relationships. Crown ten, the first of Nissan being the beginning of the months of the calendar, is parallel to directive 5, governing the time frame that the universe operates in. All the foregoing teaches that these ten directives were sufficient to ensure that the world is run according to natural law. What had happened at the time the human species was created repeated itself at the consecration of the tabernacle for the Jewish people, exclusively. At that time, guidelines were given how a Torah personality was to develop and what its function was to be in this world. This is the reason the sages decreed that a special paragraph of this story was to be read on a special day in public, i.e. parshat hachodesh. It signifies major differences between Jew and gentile (Megillah 29). It is surprising that the Torah did not set aside and proclaim publicly the universe's birthday (Rosh Hashanah), but camouflaged it by calling it \"the first of the seventh month shall be a day of rest, remembrance of the blowing of the ram's horn\" (shofar). The reason must be that the Torah wants to emphasize the miraculous guidance at times, as evidenced in the chapter about the month of Nissan. This in preference to stressing natural cosmic forces, at work most of the time. As G-d said in our parshah, \"In order to tell My Name.\" It is well known that the Egyptians worshipped the ram, the sign of the ram being the month of Nissan. They invoked this sign in order to dominate others, Jews in particular. The sign of the ram, which according to natural law should have been the Egyptians' patron, protector, would now be turned into acting as their adversary. \"This month, (moon, sign of the zodiac) is for you.\" It now becomes the friend of the Jewish people. Other Egyptian practices are discussed in Chapter 54. Using or abusing the lamb was forbidden in Egypt on pain of death. Now the tables would be turned. Jews openly committed blasphemy on Egyptian deities, enslaved them, i.e. imprisoned their Passover lamb for four days in public, tied such lambs to their bedposts, and no Egyptian seemed able to do a thing about such desecration of what they held sacred. This lamb was slaughtered in full daylight, its blood smeared on the door posts of the homes of the Israelites. So that every Egyptian should be aware of this lese majeste, it cannot be submerged in a kettle or pot by being boiled, but must be broiled on a spit over an open fire. It cannot first be cut up, so that it might more easily be kept out of sight, but must be broiled while whole. When the leftovers were burned and denied to dogs, the latter did not even make a sound. The astrologers or magicians no doubt had realized on the tenth of the month already that their whole world had undergone an upheaval, even though actual consumption by the Jews of the lambs was not to occur until the full moon of the night from the fourteenth to the fifteenth of the month. The fact that only perfect specimens of the male rams were used, further emphasized the impotence of the Egyptian's deities to do anything to save themselves from the clutches of the Israelites. All this is an explanation of the sequence of events in Chapter twelve. This is followed by the prediction of the slaying of the Egyptians' firstborns. The slaying of the firstborn was timed to coincide with the hour at which the power of their deity was supposed to be at its zenith (midnight of the middle of the month). This demonstrated that the G-d of the Israelites can perform at all times, even at the hour most advantageous to any would-be challengers. The judgments were carried out at night to demonstrate that G-d did not need any agents such as the sun whose function it is to rule nature by day. The line \"anee ve-lo malach,” does not mean \"only I and no agent,\" but rather \"I am personally involved,\" and am not leaving all this to My usual agents. G-d supervised the slaying of the firstborn together with all His regular agents. Possibly, when our sages interpreted \"I and not a messenger, I and not a Seraph, I and not an angel, I and no one else\" (Hagaddah shel Pessach), they had in mind that death normally occurs when one of the four basic elements (wind, water, fire, dust {earth}) is denied a living creature. The Torah underlines that the firstborn of Egypt were not denied any of these four elements, and yet they died. This points toward the direct involvement of G-d, i.e. the use of supernatural means to carry out His will. Lo Saraph means heat was not denied. Lo Malach means wind, air was not denied. Lo Shaliach means that water was not denied (G-d sends water on the face of His universe. Job 2 is proof that the word shaliach is used to describe water). Lo Acher, earth, dust was not denied (compare the meaning of acher in Leviticus 14,42). This blood will be a sign for you,\" on your houses i.e. it will not serve as a sign for G-d. This is not like in the case of the spies Joshua had sent out, and who instructed Rahab to identify her house for the army of the Israelites by fastening a red thread outside the wall of her house (Joshua 2). It is certainly not G-d who needs to learn how to distinguish between Jew and gentile. The blood on the doorposts was to be the outward sign of the Jew's inner attitude, the blood that signalled he had identified with the covenant that existed between him and the G-d of Abraham. The selection of the believing Jew as the one fit to be redeemed resulted in the commandment to make and guard matzot. The requirement to remove leavening from the dough (Berachot 17) is symbolic of removing the ingredient that undermines and corrupts our character development and beliefs. The three fold karet, i.e. extinction penalty, that is spelled out in connection with non obeservance of this legislation (once on pessach sheyni) is a) to warn us about alien philosophies (thoughts); b) expressing such thoughts orally; c) translating such thoughts and words into deeds. We begin the \"search\" for chametz before the holiday approaches, in order to become imbued with the holy spirit; this then becomes a statute that is to be observed throughout the generations. ",
"The Midrash quoted at the beginning has this idea in mind. Once G-d chose the world, He determined the dates of new moons, and new years. The new years were indicative of the natural law that was to govern the universe, i.e. the system based on the month of Tishrey. Once G-d saw that the universe could not function successfully on this basis of midat hadin, attribute of justice, He chose Jacob and his descendants, i.e. tzaddikim. Because of the latter's good deeds, G-d was prepared to flood the world with midat hachessed, harachamim, mercy, Personal Intervention. He set aside the beginning of the month of Nissan for commencement of this method of guiding history towards His objectives. \"The work of the Lord is great, and consists of the day the Jews took the lamb\" (yom hashem hagadol- Compare Tossaphot Shabbat 87). The word hagadol, the great, is used on another day when ideologies of idol-worshippers are upset. This is on the Day of Atonement when the scapegoat is thrown down the abyss to demonstrate how we feel about people who sacrifice to such creatures, and how such an action by us helps our own kapparah, atonement, forgiveness (Yalkut Shimoni Yael, item 2). The word hagadol, the great, may also be a reference to G-d Himself, rather than an adjective describing the importance of that day and date in the calendar. The grammatical construction then would be yom hashem hagadol, the day of the Lord who is great. We find in Jeremiah 10,6, \"Great are You O Lord, and great is Your name. This points out the difference between the Lord G-d from mortal kings. The latter are praised, exalted, only to reveal weaknesses after all. Not so with G-d, who lives up to all His advance billing. On the contrary, it is impossible for mere mortals to express all the praise due Him (compare Chronicles I 29,11 \"Yours, O G-d is the greatness, the Power etc.\")! G-d’s characteristics are unlike those of human kings. As long as the latter enjoy physical power, they are hardly concerned with real justice, rely on might rather than right. Not so with G-d. He always has power at His disposal, but He employs justice nonetheless (Psalms 99,4). ",
"Some problems in the text of our chapter: 1) The three paragraphs mentioned up to now all contain elements which have to be transmitted to one's children and to subsequent generations. In the paragraph commencing with \"Pull yourselves a lamb,\" the command continues with \"It will be when your children will say to you.\" In the paragraph commencing with \"Sanctify for Me every firstborn,\" the Torah continues \"You shall tell your children.\" In the paragraph commencing with the words \"It will be when G-d brings you to the land… ,” the continuation is \"When your son will ask you...\" It is strange that in the middle paragraph commencing with the words \"This is the statute of the Passover,\" which deals with the least comprehensible aspect of this legislation, no reference of the need to explain the significance and meaning of this mitzvah even in response to queries is made. Why is this so? 2) Why are the questioners in the first paragraph \"Pull yourselves a lamb,\" described in the plural, i.e. \"your children?\" 3) Why did Moses not tell the Israelites prior to the Exodus about the laws of leavening, matzah, sacrifices to be observed on the Passover? All these laws had already been communicated to him by G-d in the early part of Chapter 12? 4) Why do the Rabbis describe the query \"What is the meaning of this service to you?\" as specifically the query posed by the wicked son? Did not the \"wise\" son also ask \"Which the Lord our G-d commanded to you\" (Deut. 6,20)? Does not the fact that in that context the \"wise\" son refers to \"our G-d\" signify only that the questioner sees in G-d the Creator, not necessarily the legislator who has the right to legislate to those who had not been part of that historic event? 5) Why does the author of the haggadah switch around the answers that the Torah gave, instead of following the pattern set by the Torah? 6) The Torah really has the children only pose two questions. Moreover, the question of the \"wise\" son in Deuteronomy is directed at the entire legislation contained in the Torah, not just the part dealing with Passover. Why then does the author of the haggadah include it in the Seder service altogether? ",
"(1) We have already explained that in order to understand any matter completely, one needs to know the answer to four basic questions, namely : material, form, purpose and the architect, i.e. creator of the matter which we try to understand. However, depending on the intelligence of the questioner, he may have to be satisfied with answers that do not reveal the full information about every one of the four parts of the question. As a matter of fact, there are occasions when explaining the full extent of the answer to a query is futile, due to the limited intelligence of the questioner. If a simple minded person were to ask \"why is this a dwelling?\" and you were to reply \"because it consists of bricks and lumber,\" the chances are that such a questioner would be satisfied with this answer. If the questioner were a little less simple minded however, he might object that he had seen combinations of bricks and lumber which certainly did not constitute a dwelling. Yet, when you tell this person that the combination of bricks and lumber was designed by an architect, he would likely be satisfied seeing that he now understands what and who is responsible for the structure in question. However, a more inquisitive mind would not be satisfied unless he also understood the need for this particular structure, i.e. the motivation of the architect who designed it. Finally, the most probing mind of all would not be satisfied until it was clear how this particular design enables the structure to fulfil the purpose for which it was designed. Similarly, the Torah addresses its answers to these four levels of intelligence. The wise son has all aspects of the legislation explained to him; the emphasis is on the format of the structure. The wicked son is reminded of the overall purpose of the legislation. The simple son, the tam, hears about the architect and the materials, whereas the real simpleton hears only about the materials used. (Passover lamb, matzah and bitter herbs) The slaying of the firstborn and the way in which this occurred, concludes the list of miracles that were designed to establish the truth of G-ds existence, mastery, and freedom of action. As such, it is a suitable point for introducing laws of Passover which recall this very truth about G-d. (3) G-ds instructions to Moses are divided into verse 1-11, and again into verses 13 to the end of the commandment, (verse 20) (2) G-ds instructions to the people, are divided into the four categories of intelligence that are found amongst the people. First and foremost comes the part which was to make sure of the belief in the very existence of G-d, i.e. the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood thereof on the door-posts. Also, there is the plague of the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn which would answer the scoffers and doubters of whom there were many. The evidence of the multitude of the doubters is the phrasing of the question of the wicked son in the plural, i.e. \"when your children will say to you.\" This does not refer to a genuine enquiry at all, nor to thirst for enlightenment, but expresses scoffing and doubting. We find similar language employed for the same purpose in Joshua 22,24. (4) When the members of the tribe of Gad answered Joshua, they were worried about future attitudes of the Jews of the West Bank towards those residing on the East Bank of the Jordan. The question then was merely rhetorical, expresses conviction already deeply held. This is why our sages have seen fit to put this \"question\" in the mouth of the wicked son, meaning \"what good does all this service do for you?\" The wicked son asks for the purpose of the legislation. The author of the haggadah then is not content with telling him of G-ds Providence, His Personal Intervention on behalf of the Jewish people, but adds that such Personal Intervention, hashgachah peratit is reserved for those individuals who have accumulated some merit. Since people of the type of the wicked son have not accumulated such merits, they would have been excluded from such Personal Intervention on their behalf by G-d, anyways; therefore they do not have to worry about Passover observances, not about the removal of chametz etc. After the Torah said (12,29) \"they went and they carried out,\" we are told about the actual happening of the slaying of the firstborn that had been predicted. Then we have the section about the Passover statute legislation, which must have included all the pertinent details, although mention is made only of the heading of the subject matter, i.e. \"Passover.\" This is proof that both eydot, chukkim and mishpatim, the three categories mentioned in the question of the wise son, were included in that legislation. An example of the former, i.e. the chukkim is the command that no bone of that lamb must be broken. An example of the mishpatim, social aspect of the legislation would be \"if a stranger (convert) lives amongst you and he too wants to observe the Passover etc.\" Lastly, the eydot, testimonial aspect of the legislation would be the demand \"the entire congregation of the Jewish nation shall perform it,\" part of the legislation. (5) It is fitting therefore that in the haggadah we pose the question of the \"wise son,\" which though it addresses itself to the entire range of Torah legislation, is being directed at the Passover legislation, since no similar query is mentioned in our chapter. That this question is indeed the one posed by the most intelligent type of our children, is evident from the probing nature of the query which addresses itself to what at first glance appear as as illogical aspects of the legislation. After all, most nations would commemorate events such as the Jewish people had experienced, without the need for Divine instruction. The answer points out that at least part of our \"testimony\" (read \"history\") was due to G-ds loving kindness, Personal Intervention on our behalf. He took us out by means of miracles, thus establishing an eternal claim on our obedience. Therefore, our historic observances cannot be compared to other nations' observances of their respective historical highlights. The Psalmist in Psalms 116,16, expresses it thus: \"Please, O Lord, if I am Your servant, it is because You have loosened my bonds.\" On the other hand, the purpose of the seemingly illogical chukkim is to test our obedience and fear of the Lord, but also \"to be good for us at all times,\" as stated in Deuteronomy \"it will be considered righteousness for us to observe and carry out the entire mitzvah, legislation.\" (Deut. 6,25) This sentence refers to the mishpatim, mentioned earlier, and teaches that beyond the fact that our social behaviour is good for the other person, it is ultimately good for the person who acts in a socially positive manner. Our sages express this by stating that the poor man does more for the rich man than the rich man does for the poor man, when the former is the recipient of the donation by the rich man. (6) The author of the haggadah suggests that the Passover legislation be used as a miniature Torah, to demonstrate to the wise son the validity of the answer given by the Torah in parshat va-etchanan. ",
"There follows the portion \"sanctify for me every firstborn,\" the third portion dealing with the Passover legislation. It stipulates \"remember the day you came out of Egypt, in the month of spring; when you come to the land of Israel this will become an annual celebration, seven days of eating matzot, prohibition of chametz etc.\" The Torah addresses itself to the simplest intellect among the Jewish people, who is satisfied to know \"my life was saved,\" with the proviso that I perform this service annually. You teach such a person simply that exceptional historic events deserve to be commemorated in exceptional ways. Such commemoration consists of the use of materials such as the Passover lamb, matzah, and bitter herbs. This is a ceremony that even such an intellect can understand. The Torah advises, in effect, do not complicate the issue, stick to the material facts. Then comes the fourth passage, addressed to the sincere questioner. That this is so is proven by the fact that this questioner does get to the land of Israel, since the Torah states \"it will be after the Lord will bring you to the land...which He has promised to your forefathers..\" (13,5) You teach such a son that redemption of the firstborn is the result of the Egyptian firstborn having been slain by G-d, whereas the Jewish firstborn had been saved. This demonstrates the fruits of belief in G-d. On the other hand, it teaches the eventual result of maintaining an obstinate posture vis a vis G-d, such as was maintained by the Egyptians. The tam, is to be viewed as the opposite number of the rasha, wicked son, not as the opposite number of the chacham the wise son. When the tam is told that the Jewish people were redeemed in a miraculous fashion, he is reassured in his belief, since he learned who it is that looks after the Jewish people. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Parashat BeShalakh",
"Shemot Rabbah Exodus 23, comments on the verse \"This is my Lord, I will glorify Him,\" (15,2) that this shows that the people who descended into the sea were of high moral stature. Moses had extreme difficulty in obtaining a visual image of the Lord, as we see from the verse \"please show me Your glory!\", (Exodus 33,18) to which G-d replied \"you cannot see My face,\" and finally showed him a reflection, since it is written \"when My glory passes and I remove My palm, you will see My rear.\" ",
"The animals supporting the throne of G-d in the vision of the prophet Yecheskel (1,3) have no idea of G-d’s appearance, nonetheless they praise Him at the appropriate times by saying \"blessed be His glorious kingdom from wherever His place.\" However, the Israelites descending into the sea of reeds could proclaim \"THIS is my Lord, I will glorify Him.\" Each one of them was able to point his finger at an image of G-d. In the future there will be a time when you will be able to say this twice, as we are told in Isaiah 25,9, \"on that day he will say HERE is the Lord our G-d in whom we hoped that He would save us; THIS is the Lord we have placed our hope in, let us rejoice and be happy with His salvation.\" Man's position in the universe is between the sphere of the heavenly bodies and the lower creatures and inanimate matter on earth. Since he is composed of elements of either, these elements separate from one another when man dies. \"Dust returns to the earth, and the spirit to the Lord.\" (Kohelet 12,7) Also, in nature there are gradations of animations such as corals, sponges etc. which are neither fully animate nor completely inanimate. Since we perceive that in all spheres of creation there are such gradations, the same is true also in the spiritual spheres. Everything is relative and measured against higher or lower levels of spirituality. The concept of tov, good, used in the Torah, such as when Moses demands from the people that they perform certain commandments, is always a relative \"good\" (\"in order that you will be well of,\" for instance.) (Deut, 12,25) The \"good\" referred to is what it is possible for a human being to achieve within a certain framework. When Moses describes the task of a Jew as \"what is it that the Lord your G-d asks of you, except to fear Him etc. (Deut, 10,12), he is telling us that we have been given the means to achieve a higher degree of spiritual perfection than other human beings, if we observe the laws of the Torah. It does not mean that this will make angels out of us, and remove us totally from any vestige of the animalistic within us. The mitzvot that are required of us, help us achieve our relative perfection. The same mitzvot are not required of the heavenly creatures, (angels) as they would not help them achieve their own relative perfection. \"To be good for you,\"- i.e. it is good for us, does not mean the same thing would be good for anybody else, (non humans.)- \"to be good for us for all time.\" There are two kinds of \"good\" that apply to us. Acquisition of the \"good\" is divided into two categories, (a) activities, which while enhancing the self, the personality, have no impact on our environment, (b) activities which leave an imprint on our environment. Refinement of our intellectual faculties for instance, leaves the objects of our perceptions completely unchanged. If Job (Job 28,13) asks sarcastically about the value of true wisdom, which seems to him so ineffectual, the truth is, that what appears invisible is in reality the pure intellect. When Solomon states \"that the advantage man enjoys over the animal is nil,\" he means to say that this very \"nil,\" invisible intellect, is what separates man from the beasts. (Kohelet 3,19) Job, (28,12) asking \"which is the site of understanding?\" suggests that insight cannot be limited to spatial considerations, i.e. makom. \"The deep said it is not to be found within me, and the ocean said it is not within me.\" This means that wisdom is not found in the physical part of the universe. Another distinction of the pure intellect, unencumbered by the physical, is the enduring nature of achievements of the pure spirit. Results of intellectual enquiry etc., are not subject to subsequent mutations through synthesis with something physical. The other accomplishments involving outside objects etc. are subject to whatever it is that happens to such material objects. Since material objects are subject to decay, accomplishments tied to matters material are similarly subject to decay and eventual disintegration. Actions by the Almighty fall into the aforementioned two categories. He is both an intellect, reigns supreme and is majestically separate; but there is also the “yad hachazakah” which while part of His intellect is what He employs when He wills happenings in this universe. By means of the latter, the yesh, is created from the ayin, the visible is created from the invisible, immaterial. The three worlds, the totally physical, the physical/spiritual, and the totally spiritual, abstract, are all part of this second part of intellect. Even the totally inanimate physical world that appears at first glance as everlasting, (planetary system, rocks etc.) is conceived already by our Torah and prophets as having a finite existence. (Isaiah 51,6) \"Lift unto the heavens your eyes, and behold the earth; the heavens will melt like salt, the earth will rot like clothing. Similarly, its inhabitants will die were it not for My salvation that will last forever, as well as My righteousness which will not diminish.\" This and other examples teach us that all that is enduring is so only inasmuch as it uses the spiritual force it has been endowed with. Material things, even those of the most enduring kind, once devoid of spiritual stimulants- will ultimately disintegrate of their own accord. Our own concept of an enduring existence is based on hashgachah peratit, on G-d’s Personal attention to the creature or object in question. We do not hold that species as such are self perpetuating, independent of the specific will of the Creator. Despite the fact that we have described the purely intellectual as being superior to the physical, man's advance towards his relative perfection must proceed via the active, not merely the contemplative, since the latter is apt to lead to erroneous conclusions. This is why the Torah demands deeds, which through the system of reward and punishment, assure us of our nitzchiyut, perpetuity, or lack of it, G-d forbid. Aristotele is a prime example of the pure intellect arriving at faulty conclusions. Solomon says (Kohelet 7,16) \"do not become too clever or you will be left desolate.\" The danger is that one may become a blasphemer, inadvertently. Our composition is such that we achieve our goal only through fulfilling the mitzvot. The prophet jeremiah sums it up when he says \"let not the wise man boast of his wisdom...but let him who must boast, praise himself for knowing Me, for I do love kindness etc.\" (Jeremiah 9,23) G-d suggests that man imitate His attributes. ",
"After having paid homage to the fact that G-d is aware of the four types of activities man can perform, i.e. both the involuntary and the most meticulously planned, David describes the omnipotence of G-d by stipulating that any attempt to escape G-d’s investigative powers is doomed, even escape into the grave. (Psalms 139,8) The composers of our liturgy have expressed these thoughts in the paragraph of the New Year's prayer commencing with the words \"You know the secrets of the universe.\" David is grateful to have had all this demonstrated to him.\" I wish to thank You for the marvellous way in which I have been made\" etc. (Psalms 139,14) Revelation is much more than all intellectual speculation. David goes on to describe man's composition in verses 15 and 16. Concerning the acquisition of knowledge about G-d, David is content with the historical record as reported in the books of the Torah and Joshua. \"Everything has been written down in Your book.\" The human eye cannot perceive the Essence of G-d. We can only judge His actions, inasmuch as they relate to those outside of Him. ",
"Greek philosophers suggest that objects created for the purpose of enabling the artist to perform his art, make the artist the centre of importance, since all is aimed at the glorification of the latter. It would therefore demean the Creator, were He to place a mere creature on such a high pedestal. The author claims that this argument collapses when the object of the Creator remains that of directing attention to Himself via the artist performing his skill. Creating a violin whose purpose it is to enable the artist to perform his music,- while enhancing the reputation of the artist- adds glory to the master of the universe for whose greater glorification all music is intended. ",
"Psalms 92,2, \"it is good to pay homage to G-d and to sing praises to Your name, most High.\" This is the conclusion reached by David after having overcome doubts in this matter. Cognition of G-d’s works is our primary task. Glorifying His works in song and music is the natural corollary of such cognition. The song the Jewish people sang after their deliverance from the army of Pharaoh by G-d’s miraculous personal intervention, is a prime example of this. ",
"Problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) If G-d diverted the route of the children of Israel due to the fear of a military encounter with the Philistines, what good was accomplished, since they had to fight Amalek instead? 2) Why was there a need for Israel to travel both by day and by night? (according to the meaning of \"the column of fire to light for them to travel by day and by night.\" 13,21) 3) Why was Israel asked to make a one hundred and eighty degree turnabout and attract pursuit by the Egyptians, when at the end of three days (their avowee* objective when they departed Egypt) their continued absence would have brought about this pursuit anyways? The Egyptians certainly could have been expected to recover their wealth if not the slaves themselves? 4) Why did Israel suddenly display fear of the pursuing Egyptians, when they had been told in advance that the whole maneuver was to inspire such pursuit? The misgivings the Israelites had expressed while still in Egypt, had never concerned eventual pursuit by the Egyptians, rather it had been concerned with the discomfort and dangers of the journey itself. So why do they say to Moses \"this is what we have been saying to you all along?\" 5) Why did Moses say \"stand firm and behold the salvation of the Lord!\", without spelling out the nature of the salvation? The latter would have inspired more confidence if accompanied by a detailed prediction. Besides, the promise \"You will never again see the Egyptians as you do today,\" meaning \"attacking you,\" is historically not true. Compare Kings I chapter 11, or Jeremiah chapter 43. Why was their part to keep silent, instead of praising the Lord, while G-d did all the fighting? 6) Why did G-d say to Moses \"why do you cry out to Me?\" To whom should Moses have cried out for help if not to G-d? 7) Since the instrument of salvation was the wind that split the sea, Moses’s staff should have addressed itself to the wind, not to the water! (i.e. \"stretch out your hand over the sea.\") 8) Why is the movement of the angel behind the Israelites' lines referred to as \"he went\" and not \"he came?\" What is the meaning of \"cloud and darkness lit up the sky?\" (verse 20) 9) Since the Egyptians, due to confusion, moved into the heart of the sea, why is this movement described as \"nassim\" \"fleeing?\" 10) What is the difference in meaning between eytano and tivoh \"returning to its natural state,\" instead of \"returning to its original state?\" ",
"\"Now when Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them\" etc.",
"(1) The remnants of the antedeluvian giants were found only in the land of the Philistines. Goliath, in the cities of Gat and Ashdod, and the legendary Og in what is today Jordan. Had the Israelites continued on the path that the expulsion by the Egyptians had indicated, they would have sustained losses in the encounter with such kings. They would not have had the faith building experience of crossing the sea on dry land etc. Their lack of self confidence would have been understandable, and the prediction of the Egyptian astrologers that the Jews were marching towards their doom would have been fulfilled. For this reason, G-d made them detour in order that these miracles could be experienced and for the surrounding nations to be duly impressed and frightened by the G-d of the Hebrews. We know from the testimony of Rachav of Jericho forty years later, that there was fear in the hearts of the Canaanites ever since the crossing by the Jews of the sea of reeds and the drowning of the flower of the Egyptian army in those same waters. Even the forty year trek through the desert by the Jewish people, had not diminished that impression. When the Emorite Sichon made war subsequently, G-d had to infuse his heart with obstinacy as well as the hearts of the other kings of Canaan who defended their country against invasion by the Israelites. These had not been natural reactions, but Divinely inspired defensive wars, to enable the Israelites to carry out the conquest of the land, and to enable G-d to fulfil His promise to Abraham and to them. ",
"(2+3) The haste and march around the clock which characterised the Israelites' departure, was meant to convey the impression that these people had no intention of returning to Egypt. Coupled with their subsequent turnabout, the Egyptians could believe that they had lost their bearings, and combined with the other considerations they would convince themselves that pursuit would be likely to be successful. Ever since the last of the ten plagues, Pharaoh appeared to have given up on the Israelites as slaves; he had not, however, given up on the silver and other valuables the Israelites had taken with them. Nevertheless, he needed a stimulus to give him the courage to mount the pursuit. G-d provided this stimulus by allowing Pharaoh's spies to misinterpret the moves and motivations of the Israelites' strange march. This is proved by the fact that only the cavalry was involved in the pursuit. When they saw the confusion, they decided to broaden their objective, reasoning that their having dismissed Israel from slavery had been foolish and unnecessary. They had convinced themselves that the Israelites had abused their situation to flee permanently, against the wish of even their own G-d, who had therefore caused them to lose their way in the desert. The Egyptians' newly found courage had been inspired by G-d. (4) When the Israelites- who had hoped to see G-d interfere with the Egyptian cavalry- did not perceive such overt action by G-d, they became concerned to the point of crying out. ",
"(5) Their understanding of \"I shall deal severely with Pharaoh,\" had been quite different from the way G-d had meant it. G-d had been waiting for Israel to appeal to HIM, as Shemot Rabbah 21, explains the words \"let Me hear your voice.\" (Song of Songs 2,14) Israel had to be reminded continuously that they were in need of G-d’s personal intervention. One of Israel's constant worries was that maybe G-d had meant for them to be free in Rameses, and that Moses had taken it upon himself to lead them out of Egypt, and that their various difficulties were all due to Moses having exercised his own volition. The Israelites' fear of dying without burial in the desert overcame them. If they would die in Egypt, they would be buried at least, if only to remove the stench of their rotting bodies. Moses now denied them even such elementary human dignity, they claimed. Slavery in Egypt would have been a price worth paying, if it meant avoiding death without burial in the desert. Moses replied that G-d’s rescue would be total. Once you will witness it, Moses said, tacharishu you will keep silent, will criticise no longer. ",
"G-d’s response to Moses, whose promise to Israel included a plea to G-d, now reveals the nature of the deliverance to take place. (6) The instructions to Moses had been -\"you who had already been appointed as \"elohim” Pharaoh, should have acted on your own initiative, by instructing Israel to proceed, instead of crying out to Me.\" You should have used your staff to bring about the means for such a crossing of the sea. ",
"(7) At the time of creation, the Lord had said that the waters should collect together in one place. He had stipulated at that time that should the need arise, this state of affinity could be suspended. It was a reminder of this agreement that caused the separation of the waters of the sea at that moment. (Shemot Rabbah 21) ",
"(8) The angel, in the form of a pillar of cloud, which had remained stationary while the Israelites had been encamped facing the sea, was to resume its motion when Israel started to enter the sea bed. Since this occurred at the beginning of the night, the pillar of fire would have to precede them to light the way. To prevent the Egyptians from being guided in their pursuit of Israel by the light of the pillar of fire, the pillar of cloud was to take up its position at the rear of the Israelites, thus separating them from the pursuing Egyptians. It was therefore not a new angel of G-d that we are talking about, but a re-arrangement of the angel that had been with them all the time. Moses’s raising his hand instead of his staff,-something the Egyptians had seen him do often-, would prevent the Egyptians being clued in to the fact that another miracle was about to occur. ",
"(9) The wind was another device designed to fool the Egyptians. The Egyptians would ascribe the drying out of the sea bed to the power of the wind rather than to the Providence of G-d activated by Moses’s hand. Once the Egyptians had proceeded past the point of no return, G-d unleashed the heat of the column of fire upon the Egyptians. Since the pillar of cloud was still in front of them, they did not know the source of this unbearable heat. This led to their recognition that it was the G-d of the Israelites who fought against them; therefore they began to flee. Since this coincided with Moses’s raising his hands for the waters to return, the latter moved toward the fleeing Egyptians so that their flight could be described as a rush towards the waters. (10) When G-d had created the waters, He had not restricted its movements. Only in Genesis 1,9, did He command the waters to gather in one place. Now this command had been temporarily revoked, in order to drown the Egyptians. Therefore the use of the expression \"to its original state, i.e. to the state the waters had been in at the time of creation. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Then sang Moses\"",
"Shemot Rabbah 23, explains the verse in Song of Songs 4,11, \"your lips are dripping liquid honey,\" as referring to Moses reciting the song after Israel had crossed the sea of reeds. Moses had said before the Lord \"with the very thing that I have sinned, I came to sing Your praises.\" This is like a king whose subjects had revolted against him. The king said to his commander-in-chief that he wanted to punish the rebellious people. The commander-in-chief said that he did not think the king would come out victorious in such an engagement. The king kept silent, but went out single handedly and prevailed against the rebellious people. When his commander-in-chief heard about this, he fashioned a crown and brought it to the king. In answer to the king's question what this crown was for, the commander-in-chief said that it was to atone for his sin. Similarly, Moses,who at the beginning of his mission had come to G-d complaining that since his appointment things had gotten worse for the Jewish nation, (\"ever since I have come to speak to Pharaoh in Your name, he has dealt worse with the people,\"(Exodus 5,23) now came and praised the Lord commencing with the word az i.e. ever since. This demonstrates that righteous people can turn an instrument of iniquity into an instrument of atonement. This too is the meaning of \"your lips O bride, drip with liquid honey.\" ",
"There is a great deal of difference between a sin committed under the influence of the evil urge, and a sin committed as a result of calculated deliberation, the result of rationalisation. The sinner of the first category will easily feel shame and remorse, leading to complete repentance. The Talmud Berachot 12, says that whoever commits a sin and feels ashamed of it, will have all his sins forgiven. Proof of this is cited from Ezekiel 16,63, \"that you may remember and feel shame, and have no more excuse because of your humiliation, when I have forgiven all you have done.\" The reason is, that the sins committed under the influence of the evil urge do not generally remove the sinner from society. This is why the Talmud Sanhedrin 104, includes king Achaz as belonging to the group of righteous kings. The king, who had subjected his own son to Moloch rites, an extreme abomination, who sold temple treasures in order to bribe the king of Ashur, and who even made a replica of an altar he had seen in an idolatrous temple in Damascus, nevertheless qualified for the description \"righteous!\"! This was due to the fact that the Talmud interprets Isaiah 7,3, as evidence that king Achaz displayed shame in the presence of the prophet. The idea seems to be that the shame displayed proved that his sins had been due to impulses, not to deliberate attempts to flout G-d’s laws. When the Talmud Sukkah 52, states that anyone who is greater than his fellow man also has greater urges than his fellow man, this may well mean that he who deliberates before committing a sin, may well find that eventually the impulses urging him to sin will overpower him. This is also the meaning of the Talmudic statement (Yuma 29) that \"the deliberations leading to sin are worse than the sin itself.\" This is nothing else than saying \"when the sin has become the result of careful deliberation, such sin is especially weighty.\" The whole matter is well illustrated in the dialogue between Rav Ashi and king Menashe reported in Sanhedrin 102. The former had announced to his students that on the morrow he would lecture on the three kings who had forfeited their share in the hereafter, including his colleague king Menashe. During the night, king Menashe appeared to Rav Ashi in a dream, demanding to know why Rav Ashi had had the arrogance to describe himself as his colleague. He asked Rav Ashi from which end of a loaf of bread one has to cut first when reciting the benediction of hamotzi. Rav Ashi did not know. Thereupon king Menashe said to Rav Ashi \"if you do not know the answer to such a simple question, how can you describe yourself as my \"colleague?\" Rav Ashi asked to be given the answer. King Menashe explained that the part of the loaf that gets brown first during baking, is the part one must cut. Thereupon Rav Ashi wanted to know how it was possible that a man who had been such a talmid chacham, great scholar, could have been so deeply involved in idol worship and all the atrocities described in the book of kings. The king replied that if Rav Ashi had lived during that period he would have served those same idols with much greater fervour even. Menashe who approached things from an intellectual level, knew that it is logical to cut the bread at the point where it first started to become bread, i.e. in accordance with natural processes. Menashe's idol worship was based on reason, logic and his knowledge of the operation of natural law. Such sinfulness is almost impossible to reverse unless one is granted an act of clear hashgachah peratit, personal Providence by G-d. In the latter's case, the afflictions he suffered while imprisoned by the king of Ashur, proved to be such a catalyst and made him into a baal teshuvah, repentant sinner. Rav Ashi who applied Torah reasoning only, would have been even more vulnerable to the arguments of the philosophers of that time, had he been exposed to them. Therefore, in the estimation of Menashe, he would have embraced idol worship with even greater fervour. Menashe is used as an example of the errors that the pursuit of philosophy and natural sciences, when a primary occupation, can lead to. Menashe and his group had persuaded themselves that G-d had abandoned the earth, hence they went their own way, did not feel beholden to anyone. As a result of their conduct, their philosophy became a self fulfilling prophecy, since G-d was forced to withdraw in view of their blasphemous behaviour. The wickedness of Israel at that time exceeded anything that had ever occurred before. G-d’s withdrawal however, was secondary, i.e. effect not cause. Once Menashe had been captured, humiliated, etc., he began to view his personal fate consistently not as accidental, but as a sign from heaven that he was being punished. This paved the way for his teshuvah. G-d hearkened to his prayer, and he was restored to his throne in Jerusalem. (Chronicles II 33.) Menashe's teshuvah could hardly have occurred had he not known where bread begins to bake, i.e. that natural processes all have an ultimate Cause, i.e. the Creator. The study of cause and effect, i.e. natural science, had finally led him to the realisation that there had to be an ultimate Cause. Belief in miracles is only sensible once there is the conviction that He who occasionally employs the supernatural, is in fact Master of the natural, its guiding force. Menashe's deliverance proved to him the superiority of personal experience of \"the hand of G-d\" to all theories about religion that had preceded it. Even a Moses had erred similarly, as long as he had assumed that logic and reason would dictate success in his dealings with Pharaoh. Rachav and her people were impressed with the supernatural, (splitting the sea, crossing of the Jordan, Joshua 2,10-11) The miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha threngthened the belief in G-d as the prime force in our lives. The argument between Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair who was on a mission of raising funds to secure the release of Jewish prisoners, and a river which refused to stop running in order to afford him a chance to cross it, is an interesting example of our point. (Chullin 7) Rabbi Pinchas commanded the river to part, to let him cross in order to perform a mitzvah. The river replied that since it was performing the will of its Creator twenty four hours a day every day, it could not depart from the norms that had been set for it. It added, that since it was certain that it carried out G-d’s will, whereas the success of Rabbi Pinchas' mission was in some doubt, it saw no reason to comply with Rabbi Pinchas' order. Rabbi Pinchas threatened that the river bed would dry up forever unless it responded positively. The river complied. In fact, Rabbi Pinchas even insisted that the river also part for the sake of a fellow traveller who was transporting matzah for use on the Passover. Rav Yoseph commented that Rabbi Pinchas' powers and greatness equalled that of Moses plus six hundred thousand Jews. The argument underlying all this, merits our attention. Rabbi Pinchas was engaged in an endeavour similar to the one Moses had been engaged in at the time of the Exodus. Both were engaged in liberating Jews that had been enslaved by human masters. They were to be freed so that they could serve the Lord. The river's argument was that by following its normal, natural behaviour it was carrying out its destiny, the one decreed by its Creator. Gravity and a tendency towards cohesion of water molecules are part of those natural laws, and must not be tampered with. Man's will, the river argued, is fickle, not anchored in natural law. Sometimes man decides to comply with the Creator's designs and purposes, other times he does not. Such fickle and irregular service of the Lord cannot be granted priority over the constant performance of the Lord's will by rivers such as the one in question. Not true, said Rabbi Pinchas. You and nature as a whole exist only for the sake of enabling man to fulfil his destiny. (Bidmuto u-vetzalmo, in His image was man created, in order to emulate Him) If you fail to facilitate this, you have lost your reason for existence altogether, said Rabbi Pinchas to the river. You would therefore cease to flow altogether. As Bereshit Rabbah 19, puts it \"whatever was created before its counterpart, is inferior to its counterpart.\" (see our chapter 15) It follows that what Rabbi Pinchas said to the river in essence, was, \"unless you now perform the specific task allotted to you by me, your existence for the general tasks is pointless.\" We must understand the Midrash in Shabbat 88, that at the time of creation G-d made an agreement with nature that its continued existence was contingent on the acceptance of the Torah by Israel, in the same spirit. This is also the meaning of the discussion between Joshua and the sun which our Rabbis quoted in the Yalkut Joshua 23. (see chapter 37) Proof of the fact that this principle is correct, is found in the fact that the ordinary Jew carying flour for Matzah on the Passover was deemed worthy of the same miracle as the saintly Rabbi Pinchas. ",
"Moses’s error had also been that he had believed in the supremacy of natural law as dictated by the intellect. He had to be taught that this was not so. In the word az, referring to the past, he wished to atone for his erstwhile error. The end of the Midrash quoted at the outset, namely that the righteous can achieve atonement with the very thing that constituted their error, expresses the same thought as what had prompted Moses to commence the shirah, song with the word az. This song is divided into five sections, each representing a distinct concept. 1) The need to give thanks to the Lord. 2) Acknowledging the mastery G-d displays over His creation.(verses 3-6) 3) The reputation G-d acquired due to His personal intervention in the fate of individuals as well as nations, plus the fact that despite His involvement in minutiae, His stature does not suffer from a decline in image, (verse 7-13) 4) Proof that everything that happened was intentional, not accidental, (verses 14-16) 5) The declaration that G-d’s power is eternal and will extend into all future eras, i.e. \"the Lord will rule forever more.\" ",
"Problems in the text of the story. 1) Both Moses and Miriam commence with \"He tumbled horse and rider into the sea.\" Since this subject is elaborated on later, what was the need for this caption? 2) Why did Moses use the name of G-d at the beginning, but relied on kinnuyim, attributes of G-d in the rest of the song? 3) Why are statements about events which had not yet taken place couched in the past tense? (Examples: \"You have guided them in Your strength to Your holy dwelling;\" or \" nations have heard\") 4) Why is the name used for G-d \"aleph dalet nun yud\" when the Temple is referred to? 5) Why did G-d subject these people to a lack of basic means for survival such as lack of water, almost immediately after the crossing of the sea? 6) Why are the details of the laws given at Marah not spelled out? 7) In chapter fifteen, verse 26, G-d makes very detailed demands on the Jewish people. The reward for complying, namely that they would not be afflicted with the plagues that G-d had visited upon the Egyptian, seems quite paltry by comparison. Besides, what is the point of G-d telling us at that stage \"I the Lord, am your Healer?\" ",
"(1) In order for a song of praise to be proper, it needs to mention both the ones who have performed glorious deeds as well as the nature of those deeds. Also, the people who acknowledge the glorious deeds need to be identified in such a song. Then did Moses and the children of Israel sing,\" identifies the latter. \"This song,\" identifies the song of thanks itself. \"To the Lord who is high exalted,\" identifies the subject of the song. \"Horse and rider He flung into the sea,\" identifies the event that is being acknowledged. (2) The use of the name koh in the next verse to describe G-d is meant to portray a single attribute of G-d only, namely the manifestation of G-d when He rescues those that are in mortal danger. The name koh is like some others, only a fraction of the concepts represented by the four lettered name of G-d. If we find these two names coupled with one another in Psalms on several occasions (118,5-6; 115,15-18), the idea is that the recognition of G-d in all His manifestations is the purpose of being allowed to see Him as koh, as Saviour in times of distress. \"G-d is a man of war,\"- when hashem reveals Himself as the man of war par excellence, this does not in any way diminish His stature as yud kay vav kay, as the Eternal and everything else that that name implies. ",
"Experts at war, choose terrain that they are familiar with, and weapons that are suited to the terrain on which the battle is being waged. Moreover, they choose the battlefield, do not allow the enemy such choice unless they are fighting merely defensively. The Egyptians, it is pointed out, had done exactly the reverse. They moved cavalry into the sea, instead of ships. Moses quotes these illogical activities as proof that G-d had already deprived them of their usual martial intelligence. The shirah shows in detail that whatever happened to the Egyptians was the opposite of what they had planned. Fleetfooted chariots became hindrances in their flight. That these facts penetrated the consciousness of Israel is underlined by the change in language from indirect speech with the words \"Your right hand Lord is glorious in power.\" ",
"The fact that what had occurred was an example of G-d’s Personal Providence is introduced with the letter vav in the line \"and with the greatness of Your excellency, You overthrow them.\" Of course, G-d could have destroyed the Egyptians immediately after they had set out in pursuit of the Jewish people, since \"as soon as You send forth Your anger it would consume them like straw.\" (same verse) But You chose otherwise. The same ruach, wind that allowed the Israelites to cross the sea, became the doom of the Egyptians. Ruach is used in the dual sense of \"wind\" or \"the ability to breathe, as in smell\" from afar. Bar Kochba's claim to be the Messiah was disproved by his inability in this respect, (compare Isaiah 11 and Sanhedrin 93) If one lacks one basic ingredient necessary for success, ultimate failure is inevitable. The Egyptians who should have interpreted the Jews' hasty descent into the seabed as an attempt at suicide to forestall defeat or capture, chose to ignore the basic rules of successful warfare. Therefore, their own eventual drowning became inevitable because it was of their own making. The sequence of events then was as follows: (3) (verse 7) 1) The waters were piled high, 2) stood like a wall, 3) appeared as rigid or frozen. All normal considerations would have alerted the Egyptians to the dangers inherent in pursuing Israel under such conditions. However, 4) the enemy said \"I will pursue, overtake, and I will divide the spoils, my lust will be satisfied, I will draw my sword, my hand will destroy them.\" They acted irrationally due to the overriding consideration of greed. This was followed by the Egyptians falling victim to their own miscalculations. Since these miscalculations had been known only to G-d, they had to be recorded at the proper point in the sequence of events. Therefore, \"You blew with Your wind, and the sea covered them.\" This is followed by \"who is like You among the mighty O Lord?\" ",
"After the \"how\" has been described, we come to the international effects of what has occurred. The verse commencing with the words \"YOU have led us in Your love,\" introduces what G-d’s ultimate purpose had been in all this, namely to lead Israel- if possible-to uncontested takeover of the land of Canaan. The psychological effects of the miracle, \"fear has taken hold of the inhabitants of Palestine etc.,\" are described. ",
"This too however, is only the ultimate physical objective. The ultimate spiritual objective, which lies still in the future, is the eventual establishment at the hands of G-d Himself, of the Temple that is to endure for all times. At that point,\"the Lord will reign forever more,” will have become reality. (4) Possibly, as we have learned from the Kabbalah, the name aleph dalet nun yud refers to the sanctuary which will be identical with His name. As Moses had once requested in Exodus 34,9, \" may A-D-N-Y walk in our midst.\" The ultimate image we have of mikdash, Divine Sanctuary, is that of \"MY name is in its midst,\" meaning a time when G-d’s name will be central to the Jewish people's very existence, daily. Since it is the custom of composers to briefly summarise the essence of the event that they have described in their poems, the words \"for the horse of Pharaoh came\" (verse 19) describe the main events of kriyat yam suf, the splitting of the sea, in order to impress this once more on the minds of the readers. (5) It is obvious that it was difficult to get the Israelites to move towards the desert now. They had expected to live according to the norms of Egyptian civilization. When G-d makes them thirst for water, it was to make them look forward to Marah, the place where they could quench their thirst. (6) The fact that the bitter waters were turned into sweet waters, was to demonstrate that that which G-d supplies can become palatable very quickly, though it may be quite different from what they had been accustomed to. The wood Moses threw into the water was symbolic of the Torah's ability to change the unpalatable into something sweet and palatable. (Eytz chayim hee, she is the tree of life) The Egyptians' problem had been that they suffered from a stubborn heart. (Here I have allowed the heart of Pharaoh to remain stubborn\" Exodus 4,21) In order to make it easy for the Jewish people to observe His ordinances, G-d now says to them \"if you listen to My commandments (even if you do not understand them), you will do what is right. Subsequently, ve-ha-zanta, you will hearken (7) with understanding and also observe the chukkim the statutes for which I have not revealed a rationale, and which you do not yet appreciate. As a result of this, i.e. faith in G-d, you will be spared all the afflictions with which I have afflicted the Egyptians, since I am your Healer.\" ",
"The \"affliction\" of the Egyptians G-d refers to, is their very \"hard heartedness.\" Allegorically speaking, the lesson of \"He taught him about a tree,\" i.e. the piece of wood that Moses threw into the water, was the same lesson as that of the tree of life in gan eden. When one is aware of one's ultimate goal, eternal life, one can swallow some bitter pills in this world, serene in the knowledge that they pave the way to ultimate eternal life and sweetness. Just as a bitter medicine often restores a body to health, so bitter pills can pave the way to spiritual health. Just as one has to submit to the doctor's instructions, since he is the expert, so one has to submit to the Creator, who is the ultimate life giver. My medicine, says G-d, is guaranteed to help, whereas human physicians cannot even guarantee that the bitter pills they prescribe will produce the hoped for result. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"I will make bread rain down for you from heaven.\" ",
"Shemot Rabbah 25, interprets Isaiah 33,16, \"He dwells in high places,\" as referring to the statement in the Torah (Deuteronomy 8,7) \"for the Lord your G-d brings you to a good land, a land of rivers, fountains and deep waters springing forth in valley and mountain\" to a table set in THE garden as in Psalms 116, \"I will walk in front of the Lord in the land of the living.\" The Lord is pictured as sitting at the head of the table above the ancestors; all the righteous sit around at His feet, as it says \"and they are sitting at Your feet receiving Your words.\" (Deuteronomy 33,3) G-d will present before them all manner of fruit from the garden of Eden, and feed them from the tree of life. After that, they will all bless their host, and ask G-d to assign the honour of reciting grace. G-d bestows this honour on the archangel Michael; the latter, in turn bestows it on the archangel Gabriel. Gabriel accords the honour to the ancestors, who in turn accord it to David. They say that the king they have chosen for themselves shall pronounce the blessing for the King of Kings. They present the chalice to him, and David, holding the chalice proclaims \"I am lifting the cup of salvation and I will proclaim the name of the Lord.\" ",
"Since the nourishment provided for the various species of the universe is commensurate with their respective needs, it is axiomatic that the most advanced species are provided with the most advanced form of nourishment available. Normally, the type of food provided for a species is on a level that is one degree lower in the order of life than the species to be fed by it. Since we have stipulated elsewhere that the order of creation proceeded from the simple towards the more sophisticated, it follows that the lowest form of life derives its food supply from primordial matter. This would be immediately below it in the order of creation. After all, the lowest form of existence is primordial matter. Next would be the four basic elements, all of which rank equal in the scheme of created matter. Therefore, air, fire, earth and water act respectively as nourishment for plant life, the latter being of a more sophisticated nature than the basic elements. If plants need rain or water to sustain them, this is in accordance with such natural order as we have described. On the other hand, development, growth of the inert form is possible only through the infusion of an amalgamation with any or all of the basic materials contained in primordial matter. When a creature of a certain level in the world of matter receives its nourishment, or part of it, from a category more than one rung lower than itself, this is a curse. When we are told that the serpent in addition to feeding on plants, also feeds on earth, a lower form of created matter, this is a curse. (Genesis 3,14). Also man,-as long as he had been restricted to a vegetarion diet- (Genesis 1,29) was not yet at the elevated level where his food supply was only one category lower in the scheme of things than he himself. Possibly, the verse (Genesis 1,28) \"and have dominion over the fish in the sea, over the fowl in the air and over every living thing that creeps on the earth,\" was in fact permission to also feed on an animal diet. The fact that such an animal diet was withheld till after the deluge, could have been the result of the original sin. The gradual decline of animals into becoming carnivorous beasts, is merely a form of corruption paralleling the corruption of man during the period preceding the deluge. This is why Isaiah predicts in chapter eleven, that all these carnivorous beasts will undergo a change of nature in the post messianic era. Since the Jewish people have attained the stature of am segulah, \"precious nation,\" their nourishment does not only include the category immediately below them in the world of matter, but even part of their own category. G-d describes this in Deut.7,16, when the Torah says \"you will consume all the nations the Lord your G-d gives you, your eyes shall have no pity on them.\" This refers to our having been granted permission to ensure our continued existence and well being at the expense of gentile nations worshipping idols and practicing other perversions. When we find that the Talmud Pessachim 49, states that the ignorant is not permitted the consumption of meat, this may mean that any person who has not qualified to be a member of the human race \"in good standing,\" is not allowed to use the immediately lower category of life to serve as the material that satiates his appetites. To make indiscriminate use of creatures only a single category less sophisticated than ourselves, we must first prove that we ourselves live up to our own destiny, are intelligent creatures, chay ha-medabber.. Both Bileam (Numbers 24,8), Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14,9) describe Israel as \"consuming\" its enemies. There are humans whose way of life places them sufficiently below us that they may serve as our life sustainers. Food, after all, is an aspect of life sustaining matter. On the other hand, food too far below our rank would drag us down to its level; therefore, insects etc. are forbidden. Since cannibalism is prohibited as despicable, the references above refer to our right to dispose of these nations as we see fit. A human being may fit into one of three categories. 1) He may be so ignorant that he has difficulty putting thoughts into words. 2) He may be capable of putting his thoughts into words, but his thoughts are so banal and mundane, that he only achieves basic purposes such as union with a mate, (\"he shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh\") 3) He may belong to the select group who use the power of speech to express lofty thoughts, whose ideas are capable of standing on their own without physical sustenance. Of this group it is said \"if he will live, he will die, but if he will die, he will live.\" (Yalkut Shimoi Bereshit 14) Dilution of the spiritual with the physical is apt to impair the spiritual to the point of death, whereas refinement of the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical, will result in life eternal. People of that category require two kinds of nourishment, one for the physical part of their beings, the other for the spiritual part. Our rabbis refer to this as \"two tables.\" The physical part can be nourished successfully by a vegetarian diet, meat being forbidden to it, since it derives from the same level of creature. In such a type of person, the spiritual part is not considered integral to the total personality. Their intellect, being of the world of the spirits, does not require physical sustenance just as none of the spirits require this. This is the reason such individuals as Chanina survived on as little as a kav (6 eggs' volume) of carobs from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. (Taanit 24) This indeed may have been G-d’s wish when He created original man in whom the spirit, intellect reigned supreme before the fall. The food par excellence for people of such stature would be bread, (compare Proverbs 17,1, \"better dry bread than meat obtained in an environment of strife\") Concerning the \"second table,\" the substance required by the spiritual part of such men is the product of his good deeds. In the words of Isaiah 3,10, \"hail the just man for he is well off; he shall eat the fruit of his works.\" The meaning is allegorical, just as in Psalms 128,2, \"you who eat the fruit of your labours,\" namely the good deeds you have performed sustain you into the hereafter, into kingdom come. When the Lord provided Manna for the Jewish people in the desert, it had been hoped that everyone would qualify as belonging to the highest category of person outlined above. If that had been so, the physical part of the Manna would have sustained the reduced needs of their bodies. Since the quality of that food was such that it could be completely assimilated by their bodies, none of it having to be excreted, only a small' quantity would have been needed. The spiritual part of their personalities would have been sustained by the many lessons to be learned from the composition, the quantity, the manner of delivery, by the time at which the Manna was to be gathered etc. The fact that G-d did provide meat in answer to the request of the Jewish people, but in a manner much less gracious than the way in which the Manna was provided, leads one to believe that the supply of the quail was a one time occurrence. It was merely meant to demonstrate that it was indeed G-d who had taken the people of Israel out of Egypt, not Moses and Aaron, as the Israelites had been complaining. The very fact that the people are once more reported as having demanded meat, (Numbers 11,4) proves that meat had not been part of their diet all along. Further proof that meat was a exceptional provision, lies in the fact that it came unaccompanied by such ordinances as the manner in which it had to be slaughtered, specific quantities for each person, how long it could be preserved etc., all details that had been spelled out about the Manna. When the Torah talks about \"bread,\" and uses Manna as proof that \"man does not live by bread alone, but by all that issues from the mouth of the Lord,\" (Deut.8,3) bread is a synomym for nourishment, and the lesson is that nourishment of a physical kind is solely for our physical parts, (elevated man category three) Observance of the instructions (motza pee hashem ) accompanying such food are the nourishment for our spiritual part. It will be shown that this too was the nature of the food supplied to Adam in the garden of Eden. ",
"Some difficulties in the text of our story. 1) Since this Manna, described as \"bread from heaven,\" or \"heavenly grain\" (Psalms 78,24) can obviously not be from the world of pure spirits, the world of the abstract, why is it called \"heavenly?\" 2) Why did the Torah impose a restriction on the amount a person was to collect, as well as the need tc use a measure? Why not allow each person to collect as much as he wanted, just as in the case of the quail? 3) The report \"they said to each other it is MAN, for they did not know what it was,\" seems somehow contradictory. Also, the wording should have been \"they asked one another\" instead of \"they said to one another.\" 4) Why did G-d insist that they leave no leftovers for the following day? Since those that did try to preserve some watched it rot and decay and thus absorbed the lesson, why was Moses angry at them? Similarly, those who had gone to collect on the Sabbath and found that no Manna had fallen, surely had learned their lesson from that very fact? 5) Since the Torah reports that each person went to collect in accordance with the instructions, why does the Torah report that when they measured it after coming back to their tents, it corresponded to the quantities stipulated? 6) How could the people have found double quantities after coming home on Friday, without having noticed this at the time they collected it? (since the elders reported this fact to Moses full of surprise, this must have been so) 7) Why did the uncollected Manna melt at say 10 A.M.? Does this not appear very wasteful? Would it not have been better to let everyone collect a little more in order to dispose of the excess constructively? Why would the leftovers that were kept indoors not melt, but rather become worm eaten? 8) Why was there no Manna on the Sabbath? After all, it could have been collected with ease and eaten raw, so no violation of the Sabbath would be involved? Why does the Torah repeat that there would be no Manna on the Sabbath? 9) Why were those who had gone out to collect on the Sabbath treated as if they had deliberately flouted the entire Torah? (verse 28) If the rabbis say that the mitzvah of the Sabbath is equivalent to the sum total of all other mitzvot, we are entitled to have that statement explained to us! 10) Why was one single omer enough to be preserved for all times as a memento of the food the Isralites ate for forty years? 11) Why does the Torah repeat the passage about the Israelites eating Manna for forty years? (verse 35) Our sages say that the Manna stopped falling after Moses died. However, it remained in storage for thirty days after that, until the Israelites crossed the Jordan. What was the need for that miracle? 12) Our sages, who claim that Amalek's attack on Israel was prompted by Israel's complaints to G-d, did not explain what was so improper about a nation complaining to their leaders about their being thirsty? Why did G-d let things reach such a critical pitch as is described in our verse? Why did He not provide sooner? ",
"No doubt the portion dealing with Manna is of fundamental significance, since it relates to man's ultimate destiny and salvation. The impediments to achieving final goals are twofold, and stem from people having either too much or too little. Of the two impediments, having too much is undoubtedly the greater impediment on our path towards salvation. A surfeit of worldly goods acts as a greater hindrance to our achieving our spiritual goals than a shortage of such material possessions. We know of many poor people who became great Torah scholars, whereas only a few Jews managed to combine both material wealth and great spiritual leadership in one person. Among those blessed with wealth, some have used it to provide comforts for their families, others, such as the tribe of Zevulun, to enable others to pursue a life of Torah study not interrupted by the need to earn a livelihood. However, the vast majority were snared by material wealth to feed their own greed. As a result, all the good their wealth might have accomplished was wasted. Of the latter people, David says (Psalms 78,33) \"they have ended their days in vanity, their years in confusion.\" Deuteronomy 8,11 -14, warns of the dangers of wealth which can lead one astray. (1) Because G-d was aware of the dangers inherent in wealth, He provided Israel with bread from heaven on a day to day basis. This was to teach them the lesson that He was the great Provider, and that food serves specific objectives, that its accumulation is not an end in itself. Only in this way can one expect to be fed at \"the two tables.\" (2) When G-d provides the Manna, the temptation not to serve G-d because one is busy earning one's livelihood ceases. On the other hand, by not receiving excess food or material wealth, the temptation to wheel and deal, amass fortunes etc are robbed of their very basis, and the impediment to serving G-d due to preoccupation with one's worldly possessions is removed from such an individual. This is the meaning of the words \"in order to test you if you will go in the way of My teachings or not.\" (Exodus 16,4) (8) By providing a double portion for the Sabbath already on Friday, the sanctity of the seventh day is emphasized, for without preparing for that day ahead of time, no prepared meals would be possible on the Sabbath. The lesson is also taught that accumulation of worldly goods is justified when these goods serve a holy purpose, (more about this in chapter 55) (3) When the Jewish people noted a layer of fine particles, they believed it was the Manna which people knew of. That is why the verse cites \"they said to one another it is \"Manna,\" because they had not realised what it really was.\" They had been wrong! Moses pointed this error out to them, explaining that this was not a medication, but food. Moses said \"this is the bread G-d has given to you to eat,\" i.e. it is not what you thought it was. Since, however, they had already named it, the name stuck to it. Since it was difficult to get the Israelites to change the name of that food, we find repeated occasions when Moses refers to it by name, with the added comment \"which neither you nor your forefathers knew,\" or, \"who feeds you Manna, which neither you nor your forefathers knew. (Deut. 8,3; 8,16) All this is to let us know that although the Israelites named the food \"Manna,\" it is not identical with the Manna generally known. (4) The essence of the heavenly gift which was absorbed by the body one hundred per cent was, that it was to serve exclusively as food, not as an object of trade or barter. That is why Moses said \"gather from it each according to the amount he needs to consume, namely one omer per head.\" When the Israelites did so, each one estimating the amount he required, he found upon returning to the camp that what he had collected was exactly one omer for each head in his family. The wonderful lesson was that it had been demonstrated that rich and poor require exactly the same amount of sustenance. (5) He who thought that he had collected \"a lot,\" hamarbeh, as well as he who thought he had collected a little, ha-mamit, realised at the end of his respective life that each of them had had exactly enough. The rich person cannot take his wealth with him, and the poor has not been deprived since he has had enough until the day he died. (7) They were not allowed more than one day's supply to comply with the principle of baruch hashem yom yom, may the Lord be blessed daily, to teach us to have faith that G-d will be here to provide for us tomorrow also. The fact that some people starved themselves in order to leave some for the morrow, was not a form of asceticism, but was proof they were miserly. Just as there are many men who because they deny themselves luxuries being miserly with themselves, succeed only in providing generously for the second husbands of the widows they leave behind, so the Israelites were to be taught that self denial for the wrong reason is self defeating. The fact that the Manna melted as the sun became hot, was to dissuade greedy people who might come back to collect the left over quantities. The very crystal like nature of the Manna when freshly collected, gave rise to the belief that it would be easy to keep and preserve. This is the reason all these points are described in detail. (8) (6) Moses had obviously not told the people beforehand that a double ration would be found on Fridays. Moses then told them that if they prepared it for the Sabbath right away, not on the next day, it would keep. \"He who labours on the eve of the Sabbath, will eat on the Sabbath,\" i.e. he who labours in this world will reap a double reward in the world to come. The verse (Exodus 16,26) \"on the seventh day is the Sabbath there will not be any on it,\" teaches that any good deeds accumulated in this life is food stored up for consumption in the hereafter. \"Today to prepare it, and not tomorrow to prepare it.\" (Avodah Zarah 3) (9) Just as there were people who tried to keep what they had already collected for later, so there were some who went out on the Sabbath to collect. They did not want to miss any, in case there would be some. G-d’s anger at these people stemmed from the fact that the lesson of the double ration they had already received on Friday had been lost on them. They were not concerned with their well being in the hereafter, but lived only for the material blessings available in this world. Moses upraided these people saying \"here G-d made you a gift of the Sabbath.\" Their refusal to see the centrality of the Sabbath legislation to the whole fabric of Judaism, was indeed a most serious offence. The visible Providence of G-d in connection with the Manna demonstrated that the Sabbath legislation is indeed fundamental, its observance a keystone in Judaism. ",
"When Shemot Rabbah 25, suggests that in answer to the question of why we observe the Sabbath, we should point out the fact that no Manna fell on the Sabbath, it means that we have seen proof that He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. The falling of the Manna was associated with three miracles, (a) it did not fall on the Sabbath, to teach the sanctity of the Sabbath; (b) the fact that the daily ration collected was exactly adequate for each individual, there was no shortfall. This teaches that one should not chase after material goods and seek to accumulate them; (c) the double portion that fell on Fridays, teaching that the Sabbath was the day of rest, and that only those people would eat it who had prepared for it on Sabbath eve. The lazy people would starve. Compare Isaiah 65,13, \"behold, My servants will eat, but you will starve!\" (See Shabbat 153) (10) Since \"seeing is believing,\" keeping a day's supply of Manna bottled up for future generations would reinforce the belief of future generations of Jews that Manna had indeed been also been spiritual nourishment, and as such had benefitted even the later generations. (11) The repetition of \"they ate Manna for forty years etc.,\" is to emphasize that both their physical and their spiritual needs were met by consuming Manna during all these years. Alas, when the Manna stopped, and there was no longer visible evidence of G-d’s Providence, Israel began to depart from the level of Torah observance it had practiced up to that point. The Midrash quoted at the outset reflects the lesson of the Manna. Before explaining this in detail, we must understand some of the details in the parable. Why had G-d placed the table in the garden of Eden and not in the desert? Where were the angels Michael and Gabriel, if G-d sat the head and the righteous at His feet? Why did they divide the fruit of the garden and the fruit of the tree of life into separate courses? How does one accord honour to G-d if one portrays Him as asking others to recite grace? This is especially curious in view of the fact that that honour was declined by most of those who had been invited to say grace? Since the angels did not participate in the meal, how could they possibly have been asked to recite grace? What prompted David to bless G-d more than the other participants at that meal? Since G-d’s activities both within nature and when supernatural, are all designed to afford man a greater understanding of who He is, what He is, the extent of His power etc., eating at His table is symbolic of being allowed to share some of these insights. This is the reason the Midrash quotes the verses in Isaiah 33,16-22, in which G-d is featured as the Provider of parnassah, livelihood. When these verses describe how G-d established Israel in the choice land of Israel and Jerusalem, this refers to the Manna. Just as the Manna was food par excellence, so the land of Israel was soil and climate par excellence, providing the best in crops and agricultural products. Its advantages were similar to the advantages of Manna over ordinary food. Proverbs 30,7-9, expresses our attitude to earthly belongings. \"Do not make me too poor or too rich.\" This is the reason that parnassah became known as shulchan aruch (see haggadah sheI Pessach) The term means that all necessities are at hand. The \"fruit\" represents the food for the body of elevated man, referred to earlier in this chapter. The bodies of such people are to be treated as separate from their spirit, and therefore rate vegetable matter as their proper nourishment. The fruit from the tree of life represents food offered to the mind and spirit. Since the latter is also the nourishment that sustains angels, it was quite in order for them to recite grace for what they had received from their Host. Honouring G-d by allowing Him to choose the order of who should recite grace, is a way of saying that G-d’s involvement in all that goes on in our world is not merely indirect, He being the ultimate Source, but that it is immediate. He remains in charge, overlords all that goes on in our world. Since the angels Michael and Gabriel had not been listed as guests participating at that meal, their mention may symbolise two different stages of human development. Michael is symbolic of the primordial intellect, something that represents merely man's potential. Gabriel, on the other hand, symbolises the mind and spirit that have matured, achieved their potential. According to Chagigah 16, these are the two angels that accompany man at all times, never leave him. G-d first asked Michael to recite grace, since he first and foremost is in need of the nourishment offered, and has to acknowledge what he has received from the Lord. Next comes the angel Gabriel, who has to give thanks for the spiritual sustenance received. It is this which enables the most refined part of man to achieve its perfection. Next in line are the ancestors who, though they owe many of their moral and ethical achievements to their own efforts, could not have done so without the nourishment (guidance) provided by Him. The ancestors in turn ask David to give thanks, since he is the king chosen by them; it is fitting that the human representative of Royalty, acknowledge the Royalty of the entire universe by this manner of thanksgiving. David was especially representative, since G-d had assisted him in an unparalleled manner. Therefore, it is he who says \"I will pronounce the benedictions.\" It is worthwhile to recall another aggadah in Pessachim 119. In that instance, at the feast G-d prepares for the righteous in the future, \"on the day He performs kindness with the offspring of Isaac,\" G-d offers the honour of reciting grace first to Abraham, who declines, citing inadequacies having sired Ishmael. Then Isaac declines, because he had sired Esau. Jacob also declines feeling inadequate having married two sisters during their lifetimes, something later on prohibited by Torah law. Moses declines not having been worthy to enter the holy land, whereas Joshua declines for not having been worthy to have a son. David, however, accepts the honour with alacrity. Actually, David had better reason to decline seeing he had transgressed Torah laws in effect during his lifetime. The answer, however is as stated. No one had received a cup so full of salvations, i.e. no one else had experienced so many acts of G-d’s Personal Providence as had David. It was fitting therefore that he, more than anyone else should lift the chalice in thanksgiving to the Lord. David's entire lifestyle of praising the Lord in song, reflects his constant awareness of all G-d’s kindness he had experienced. Having appreciated the foregoing, we can understand the inner connection between the Midrash with the Manna in the desert. (12) When Israel reached the oasis Refidim, which contained all the necessities of life except water, they thought that this was proof that Moses had acted on his own all along. They believed that Moses had finally miscalculated, having forced Israel to march through the desert. They challenged Moses to produce water. They argued that if G-d was indeed the force behind every one of Moses’s instructions, surely they were entitled to a miracle. Moses, realising that it was not really water they had requested, but that they had made the availability of water an issue to discredit his leadership, upraided them for \"trying the Lord.\" If you have a quarrel with me, he said, do not bring the Lord into it. Moses was not angry at the request for water, but at the pretext this request served for. Only after the pangs of thirst grew stronger, and the people were actually afraid of perishing from thirst, did Moses call upon G-d to ask for help. This was both because the people were thirsty, and because he felt threatened personally. When the people accused Moses of taking them out of Egypt into a deathtrap, they did not refer to G-d, against whose leadership they would not have complained. Moses presented the people's case against himself as apparently justified. If succor would not be forthcoming, he argued, the people would be entitled to stone him, as is the fate of a false prophet. So as to remove such doubts from the people's mind, he was commanded to take the elders with him when he would perform the great miracle of producing water from the rock by means of the very staff that had up to now served to produce plagues, afflictions and death on the Egyptians. The episode of Massa and Merivah taught the lesson that G-d continued to guide the everyday lives of the Jewish nation. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Amalek came and fought with Israel at Refidim.\" ",
"Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Acharey Mot writes: G-d said to Israel, \"in the past you have been helped by means of human beings; in Egypt by Moses and Aaron; in the days of Sisera by Barak and Deborah; against the Midianites by Shamgar etc. throughout the period of the judges. Because G-d employed a human being as His instrument in all of these salvations, the salvation did not last, and you became enslaved again and again. In the future however, I MYSELF will be your salvation, and you will never again be subjugated.\" This is the meaning of Isaiah 45,17, \"Israel will be saved by the Lord, an eternal salvation.\" ",
"Man's deeds can serve as ends in themselves, or be a means towards an end. The former are different from the latter in three ways. A) Their essence. B) The degree and dedication involved in executing the deeds in question. C) The name given to the deeds in question. If someone engages in an adulterous relationship for the sake of financial gain, he is not a true adulterer. When such a relationship is pursued because of the physical and mental gratification it affords the parties indulging in them, this is true adultery. The ben sorer umoreh, stubborn and rebellious gluttonous son described in Deuteronomy 21,18-21, though a thief by halachic definition, since he has stolen a small amount of meat and wine from his father, is punished as a glutton, not as a thief. His thievery had merely been a means to achieve his objective that of gratifying his appetites. When Rabbi Meir says in Avot 6, that \"he who preoccupies himself with Torah for its own sake, will merit many things, he means that even his incidental activities will be considered \"preoccupation with Torah,\" since those incidental activities serve to further the achievement of the ultimate goal i.e. Torah, (compare chapter 72) Another aspect of this matter is that anyone who employs certain means only as a method to attain a certain objective, will not be too fussy about the quality or legitimacy of the means employed. If someone is concerned with keeping the rain out of his house, his prime concern will be to use boards that are waterproof. The colour, dimensions, thickness and general appearance of such boards will not concern him greatly. It is similar with the fulfilment of a mitzvah. If fulfilment of the mitzvah is merely meant to escape punishment at the hands of G-d, the person performing such a mitzvah will not be concerned with performing it in the most beautiful manner possible. Sukkah 51, describes the participants of the mitzvahoi simchat beyt ha-sho- eyvah, the joyful occasion of drawing water for the sacrifices on the altar, as \"anshey ma-asseh,” men of true deeds. Berachot 8, teaches that \"he who enjoys the fruit of his own labour is greater than the one who fears heaven.\" The Talmud supports this statement with verses from scripture. The point is that he who labours to serve G-d out of a feeling of love, as demonstrated by the labour of his hands, is superior to the person who serves Him out of fear of punishment. A third distinction between deeds that serve as an end in themselves and those that are not, is the fact that unsavoury, offensive means towards achieving such objectives are employed only when absolutely unavoidable. Example: if sexual gratification can be obtained only by means of paying for the services of a prostitute, stealing the funds in order to pay the prostitute ceases as soon as gratification is obtained, or as soon as the person concerned has found legal means to pay the price for his gratification. Alternately, if performance of mitzvot is due to fear of impending punishment, say a wife who is terminally ill, and the giving of charity is seen as a way of saving her life,- then either her death or her recovery will lead to cessation of such charitable activity by her husband. In this vein Hoseah describes the reaction of the sinful Jewish people. (Hoseah 13,13-15) They believe that because the danger of giving birth has passed, all is well and the danger of death has been banished forever. Israel as a nation had achieved a closeness to G-d which involved performance of His commandments as due to one's innermost desires. This is what G-d said in Deuteronomy 5,26, \"would that they should always be of a mind to revere Me and observe My commandments for all times!\" Satan's argument against Job was that he claimed that Job's piety was based on self interest. Since his prestigious lifestyle had been provided by G-d, what could have been more natural than that Job should abide by G-d’s rules? Only when man's most cherished possessions are about to be taken from him, can he prove his love for G-d, and his obediences are sincere, not means to an end. This is why G-d said to Abraham after the binding of Isaac \"now I know that you are indeed G-d fearing,\" (in the sense that \"your reverence for Me is sincere.\") There are then three aspects to what is called \"fear\" of G-d. A) Fear of the consequences if he transgresses G-d’s will. B) Reverence expressed by the performance of positive commandments which are not subject to punishments if not performed. C) Performing all of these commandments on a regular basis, not only when on a temporary emotional \"high.\" When we look at the behaviour of Amalek as described in Parshat Ki Teytze, Deut 25, it is clear that Amalek was dedicated, fanatical in what he undertook. He attacked the Jewish people lishmah, for its own sake, not because of any ulterior designs. It was wickedness of the utmost dedication. Normally, nations go to war in order to gain territory, prisoners, loot, or for their generals to make a name for themselves and for the country to gain glory. None of these motivations applied to Amalek when it attacked Israel. \"He chanced on you on the way,\" i.e. he had no chance to rob you of territory since you yourself were wandering nomads. He did not attack frontally, only the stragglers that had trailed behind the main body (25,18) There was no glory to be gained from that! It was an act of cowardice, since Israel was tired as the Torah testifies. \"He did not fear the Lord.\" The only motivation was to attack something precious to G-d. People who behave in this fashion are never candidates for rehabilitation, teshuvah Therefore, the Torah stipulates that when the time and the circumstances will be right, the people of Amalek must be totally eliminated, otherwise the kingdom of G-d on this earth will never come to pass. The words \"and he did not fear the Lord,\" may apply equally well to the conduct of Israel on the occasion of massah u-merivah, when Israel had accused Moses of leading them out of Egypt in order to let them perish by thirst in the desert. This would explain why it was that G-d permitted the attack and the very sequence of these events. Since Israel had asked the frivolous question \"is then the Lord in our midst?\" they had to be shown what their fate would be if the Lord were not in their midst. Amalek's conduct was even worse than that of Ammon and Moab who are banned forever from joining the Jewish nation because they had failed to extend a helping hand to Israel when that had been called for. If Mordechai and Esther in their time refused to loot the belongings of their enemies though they had express permission to do so, as has been pointed out no less than three times in the book of Esther, it was to show that their only interest was to fulfil belatedly the commandment to wipe out Amalek, something which their ancestor King Saul had been instructed to do. King Saul's error in not completely destroying Amalek, produced tragic consequences not only for himself and his family, but for Jews throughout the ages. Saul's error -which deserves to be discussed at length,- stemmed from an attitude that performs the word of G-d only to the extent that it appears to one's limited human wisdom to be beneficial. This error is quite similar to the one discussed at the outset. When Samuel said to Saul on that occasion \"obedience is better than good sacrificial offerings,\" he only explained that the sacrifice per se is neither of benefit to G-d nor to man. It is only a means by which man can demonstrate his obedience to G-d. rayach nichau-ach, the \"sweet smell,\" satisfaction that G-d derives from such an offering, is because it expresses the preparedness of the person who offers it to execute G-d’s will. The prophet asked the pointed question \"does the Lord need total offerings or meal offerings?\" The letter mem in the word mi-zevach needs to be understood not as a comparative, but as \"from.\" What does G-d get from it? Therefore, Samuel meant tov, i.e. the good to be derived from the sacrifice is the shamo-a, the obedience expressed by having listened to G-d’s instructions. The same construction is to be placed on the other half of that verse, le-hakshiv mi-chelev eylim, the careful attention that is expressed by offering the fat of rams, (compare Samuel I chapter 15 for the whole episode) Since Samuel criticised Saul on two counts, he added the third dimension discussed at the beginning of this chapter. 1) Saul had picked from G-d’s commandment to totally destroy Amalek, only the parts that suited him. He did not act as he did because he hated the nation that G-d hated, but because he was interested in the loot. 2) He had arrogated to himself the right to decide how to act, as if he had been the prophet, claiming he had carried out G-d’s wishes. 3) He had \"failed\" to carry out orders, not as he claimed. G-d retaliated by despising him, taking away his kingdom and terminating what would have been his dynasty. In the end, Saul acknowledged his error. The manner in which he acknowledged his error showed that he believed that not carrying out G-d’s word or not carrying out the prophet's precise instructions, were not the same thing at all. When Saul claimed first that he had indeed fulfilled G-d’s command, Samuel calls this the chatat kessem, which is in fact mered, rebellion. What is except kessem the illusion that one can manipulate the deity, impose one's own desire on G-d, in fact rebellion. When Saul finally realised his error, Samuel already tells him that he will be replaced. In fact, David, who selflessly risked his life on G-d’s behalf against Goliath, is superior to Saul in exactly the three areas that we have outlined. ",
"David's encounter with Goliath stemmed from the purest of motives, i.e. to silence the blasphemer. When we read David's comment in Samuel I 17,26, \"what shall be done for the man who shall slay this Philistine?\", the word ye-asseh needs to be understood as \"what needs to be done for the man who...? \" David expresses incredulity that it should be necessary to promise a reward for the person willing to engage Goliath in combat. As David says in Psalms 139,2, \"O Lord I hate those who hate You.\" David was not satisfied to have ousted Goliath according to the terms of combat set by Goliath. (17,9) It seems that having felled Goliath would have sufficed. But David insisted on killing Goliath, even though he did not even have a sword on him. He used Goliath's own sword to kill him with. In a similar manner, David did not wait to be commanded when he wanted to build a temple for G-d, but he volunteered to do so and prepared everything he could for that undertaking. In the end, though the temple was actually built by his son Solomon, it bore David's name also. Psalm 30 is introduced as a hymn on the occasion of dedicating David’s Temple. Even in Kings I, 12, when the ten tribes secede from the dynasty of David, they refer to the Temple as \"Your house David.\" All this despite the fact that none of the building had been commenced in David's lifetime. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 23, relates that when the angels remonstrated with G-d for removing the kingship from Saul and anointing David, G-d explained it to them in the following manner. When Saul, who was about to consult the Urim Vetumim if he should pursue the Philistines, observed the eagerness of the people, he aborted his original intention. (14,20) David, on the other hand, (Samuel II 5,23 ) consulted the Urim Vetumim when set upon by the Philistines. When he was told not to counterattack until he would hear steps in the tops of the trees, he waited. David consulted again, although he had already been given a general O.K. from G-d previously, and had been assured of success, (verse 19) He had already achieved a measure of success, as we read in verse 20. According to the Midrash, the Philistines, unbeknown to David, were in an excellent tactical position, and had David not heeded G-d’s command to wait until the tops of the trees revealed movement, his men would have become victims of the Philistines. It was David's obedience to G-d’s detailed instructions that saved his victory, whereas giving in to popular request for immediate attack would have resulted in disaster. Saul excelled in personal good traits, may be even more than David, but the test of a king lies in his preparedness to submit to Divine guidance and not to rely on human perceptions. This principle applies when Divine guidance is available through consultation of the Urim Vetumim located within the folds of the breastplate of the High Priest. Pity, normally a noble emotion, is misplaced when applied to Agag the king of Amalek. The meaning of a statement by Rabbi Hunna in Yoma 22, \"how extremely careful must a person be who has G-d on his side,\" is applicable here. As Rabbi Hunna continues, \"Saul erred once with fateful consequences, whereas David erred twice and no fateful consequences ensued.\" Saul, whose failing consisted in not accepting G-d’s discipline, was told by G-d through Samuel \"I regret having made him king.\" Yet David, who had erred both in respect of Uriah and the national census, was not deprived of his kingdom. His failing was of a personal nature, it was not a failing in the essential leadership qualities that a king must possess. When Moses blessed the tribe of Yehudah (Deut.33,7) saying \"this for Yehudah, the Lord will hearken to the voice of Yehudah,\" he refers to Yehudah's role as king. Providence will be with him, because he is the people's leader who relies on G-d’s guidance. Of him it is said \"that he not depart from the Lord's way, right or left.\" (Deut 17,11) \"By the Lord's command he will go to war or return home.\" (Numbers 27,17) The king himself determines by his own actions if Providence will be with or against his people. The sin of following one's own reasoning or instincts is a king's cardinal error, not even given to repentance, since it represents a fundamental belief. Saul, though as innocent personally as a one year old baby (Yuma 22) when he ascended the throne, erred in his capacity as king. (Samuel I 13,1) If Rabbi Nachman was troubled and had nightmares for having dared suggest a negative interpretation of this verse,why then was Saul's rule not the beginning of a dynasty? The answer clearly is because he was personally so infallible. From this the Talmud derives the maxim that in order for authority never to become dictatorial, the monarch or whoever is responsible for the affairs of his community, should possess some publicly known demerit. Otherwise, he might become overbearing. As long a he can be reminded of his own shortcomings, his conduct will be more restrained, and he will be more amenable to the common people's problems. In support of our theory we draw attention to the way Samuel describes the relative merits of Saul and David on two separate occasions. When Saul consulted Samuel via the witch of Endor, Samuel says to him \"G-d took the kingdom from you and gave it to your companion David.\" (Samuel I 28,18) At the time of the debacle with Agag however, the same Samuel had said \"G-d has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and given it to your companion who is better than you.\" (Samuel I 15,28) This indicates that David may have been better than Saul in his capacity as king, but that Saul was second to none as a person. Also, David having committed the error of counting the people, repented of his own accord without any ifs and buts. Saul, however, even when he did repent having been urged to do so by Samuel, did so only with reservations. He tried to blame others for his own shortcomings, claiming that he had had to compromise with the wishes of his people. When Samuel states (Samuel I 15,29) that G-d in fact had not reneged, he explains that the expression nacham, changing plans is only applicable when conditions have not changed, but the one in charge changes his stance. When the prevailing conditions had changed however, any adjustments G-d makes to His plans are not in the nature of reneging, (compare chapter 11 re Noach) The subject in verse thirty \"for he is not a changeable man\" is David, not G-d. It is David who is being described as remaining constant by virtue of his character, and therefore a superior choice as king over Israel. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why did Moses not wait for G-d’s command before selecting men to fight Amalek? Would G-d not intervene personally, as He had done when He split the sea and drowned the Egyptian army? 2) Why did Moses not lead the people into battle himself, as he did later against Og, king of Bashan? 3) Why were anashim, i.e. righteous men needed for this fighting force, whereas in the campaign against Og no such stipulation was made? 4) Why did Moses position himself on a hill with the staff of G-d in his hand? Do we not have the principle that one implores G-d from a position of ma-amakim, depths rather than from a position of elevation? 5) What is the \"heaviness\" of Moses’s hands all about? Why did Amalek prevail in battle when Moses lowered his hands since he had exhausted himself and suffered pain as a result of raising his hands in prayer? 6) Why does the Torah repeat that \"Moses’s hands remained true till sunset?\" We had been told this already? 7) The instructions to record these events \"in the ears of Joshua,\" sounds very peculiar! 8) What is the meaning of \"Israel weakened Amalek by the sword?\" From the story this seems self evident! 9) In this Parshah, it seems as if G-d reserves the right for Himself to fight against Amalek, whereas in Parshat Ki Teytze He makes this an exclusive task of Israel. Why? Here we read about machoh emcheh, I will utterly blot out, whereas in Ki Teytze it merely says timcheh, blot out! 10) Why did G-d give precedence to the commandment of wiping out Amalek over the commandment to build a temple, or to the appointment of a king? (All these three commandments apply once the land of Canaan had been captured. (Sanhedrin 20, see chapter 50) ",
"(1+2) Since immediately prior to the attack by Amalek, the Israelites had displayed a lack of faith in G-d who had personally fought on their behalf against the Egyptians, and since they had grumbled to the point where they had been ready to stone Moses, (\"they are almost ready to stone me\" Exodus 17,4) they had fallen into disgrace and were in real danger. This danger was all the greater since they had no military might of their own, and G-d had turned His face away from them. Amalek's arrival on the scene is thus a fitting reminder of what was liable to happen whenever Israel behaves as it did at Massah and Merivah.",
"The Midrash quoted by Rashi on the verse is well known. (3) When the Torah admonishes in Ki Teytze \"remember what Amalek did to you,\" that warning is a reminder of the conditions under which an Amalek feels encouraged to pounce upon Israel. Israel's own conduct is a provocation . When Joshua is told to choose anashim, i.e. tzaddikim, this is to serve as evidence that there are people amongst Israel who by dint of their lifestyle can face an Amalek without fear, secure in the knowledge that they can count on G-d’s support. Moses assured Joshua that on the morrow he would add the power of prayer to that of the courage of the tzaddikim (5) The visible evidence of Moses’s hands raised in prayer was a psychological prop to the warriors engaged in battle. When Moses’s hands were resting, due to fatigue, this prop was absent inducing fear amongst the Israelites, thus giving Amalek the advantage. Moses’s own physical strength was affected by the knowledge of the weakness of Israel's moral case, as demonstrated by their most recent behaviour. (4+6) Therefore Moses was in need of a physical prop to convey the illusion of superhuman strength and endurance. Viewing Moses’s posture, the Israelites realised that only Moses’s prayer ensured their ascendancy at that particular moment in history. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 29, compares this happening to the incident with the copper snake, which had the power to heal when the Israelites looked at it. (Numbers 21,6-10) That look also symbolised one's faith in G-d and did not mean that the snake had any power at all. (7+8) For the reasons cited, Israel could not achieve more at that time than to weaken Amalek, not destroy it. This campaign could not be compared to the conquest of the Canaanite nations, since here the warriors had to rely on their own strength, though G-d assisted indirectly in order not to ignore Moses’s prayer. On the one hand G-d wanted to prove to Israel that they had been wrong in questioning His Presence; on the other hand, G-d wanted Israel to know that He was still angry at them. For that reason He commanded Moses to \"write this in a book and tell Joshua.\" Only the latter was deemed worthy at that juncture to be told that the ongoing fight against Amalek was indeed G-d’s fight, and that He would not forsake Israel when the latter would come under attack by Amalek. (9) The revelation that Hashem Himself would in future destroy Amalek, warranted that Moses would build an altar which he named \"G-d is My banner.\" This served as proof that G-d had approved the manner in which Moses had acted on his own when Amalek attacked. The very thing that G-d approved of was Moses’s taking the initiative. G-d was aware that if Israel would be left to its own devices, they would not complete the destruction of Amalek, just as they did not complete the destruction of the seven Canaanite nations despite G-d’s warning that leaving any of them alive or in the country, would prove a destabilising influence to Israel's society. (Numbers 33,55) It was Moses who proclaimed \"for as long as there is a hand raised against the throne of G-d, He will be at war with Amalek.\" (Exodus 17,16) It was Moses’s conviction that the importance of wiping out Amalek warranted that G-d personally would continue to take an active part in such endeavours until they would be crowned with total success. This is the reason we read in Samuel I 15,30, after Saul's failure that \"Israel's eternity will not be denied.\" The ultimate success does not depend on any particular leader of Israel who may or may not carry out G-d’s wishes wholeheartedly. (10) Although G-d commands Israel to wage this war of extermination against Amalek, He Himself will complete whatever has not been accomplished by Israel. This is also the meaning of Bileam's statement \"Amalek is the first of the nations, therefore its end must be utter destruction.\" (Numbers 24,20.) When referring to \"nations,\" Bileam means the first nation to rebel against G-d as a nation. Another reason may be that Amalek committed two wrongs 1) They disregarded the agreement made between their respective ancestors Jacob and Esau. 2) They attacked G-d’s chosen people at a particularly sensitive moment. In the words of the Midrash, Amalek put his hands on a scaldingly hot bathtub, meaning right after a clear demonstration of G-d’s power on behalf of Israel. Therefore, both G-d and Israel would share in the task of punishing Amalek. In Parshat Ki Teytze we read about Israel's part, whereas in Parshat Beshalach we read about G-d’s part. These two portions are complementary to one another. This brings us back to our opening Midrash. Once the Messiah will come, Israel will no longer display the usual human inadequacies, i.e. fulfilling G-d’s will only in part. At that time we will be granted G-d’s direct guidance, and will not have to be led by men, who, though G-d’s instruments, are chosen for their relative merit only. In those latter days the salvation will endure eternally, because intermediaries no longer need to be employed by G-d. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Moses sat to judge the people.\" ",
"Midrash Rabbah, Shoftim, quotes Proverbs 21,3, \"to do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to G-d than the offering of animal sacrifices.\" It does not say there \"equally desirable,\" but \"more desirable.\" To illustrate the point: Sacrifices atone only for wrongs committed inadvertently; righteousness and justice atone both for unintentional and intentional wrongdoing. ",
"Man lives on three planes. 1) He relates exclusively to himself. 2) He relates to his immediate family. 3) He relates to society as a whole. Whereas at first glance one may think that as far as man's relations with himself are concerned, there could be no question of his being unjust or immoral, this is in fact not so. True, the Talmud acknowledges that he who inflicts injury upon himself is not held accountable for a misdemeanour. However, this pertains only to outward manifestations of man's conduct. If man develops his intellectual capacities without developing his moral capacities at the same time, he will develop a split personality, able to commit injustice and immorality against himself. ",
"2) Concerning man's relations with his family, the case could be made that inasmuch as man's wife is viewed as part of his body, and since his children are just as much his property as his slaves, that he does not really need to restrict his impulses in his conduct toward them, and would therefore be incapable of committing an injustice against them. Nonetheless, such relationships are tempered by considerations of moral obligations over and beyond mere legal definitions. Our appeal to G-d on New Year's day to treat us either as children of a father or as slaves of a master, bears this out. ",
"3) It is on the third plane, man's relationship with society at large, that man's duty to act morally is most evident. Concerning all his business dealings, man needs to observe justice and fairness, as well as to ensure that no fellow human being suffers physical harm on his account. When David dispatched a servant to Naval, (Samuel I 25,6) bidding him \"may you be at peace, may your household be at peace, may all that is yours be at peace,\" he may well have referred to the three areas in which man has to assure himself of his moral well being. \"Peace is only attained when one has satisfied the moral demands made upon one.\" When Michah identifies the Lord's demands on mankind, (Michah 6,5) he refers to the very same thing when he proclaims \"what does the Lord demand of you except to do justice, loving kindness and to walk humbly with your G-d.\" Justice refers to one's conduct vis a vis society at large, loving kindness to one's conduct vis a vis one's family who may not have a legal claim on one. Finally, humility is an area in which one is least restricted, namely one's conduct vis a vis oneself. When Moses describes G-d’s attributes, (Deut. 32,4) he refers to the same thing. \"All His ways are justice,\" refers to G-d’s conduct in His very own domain. \"A G-d of faithfulness,\" refers to His relationship with His creatures. \"He is righteous and upright,\" refers to His relationship with the universe at large. Psalms 145,17, \"G-d is just in all His ways, fair in all His deeds,\" explains that there are two kinds of justice. Tzedek is the justice that applies to most men in similar circumstances. Chessed is the allowance made for special circumstances when the law, which is after all designed to cover only most situations, fails to allow for special circumstances. The right to grant pardon is based on the recognition that strict application of the law does not always mean that true justice is being meted out. G-d, of course, is the ultimate judge who can make allowances for all exceptions, since He is the only one aware of all circumstances. Tzaddik, just means the norm are His guidelines. Chassid, He adjusts for individual need. Here are some examples of the inadequacies of normal assumptions which Jewish law is based on. \"Debtors do not repay loans before the due date.\" (Baba Batra 5) The underlying assumption of this statement may not always be correct. \"Claimants have to furnish proof of their claim.\" G-d has instructed Jewish judges in Deut. 17,10, that if doubts arise as to the adequacy of existing provisions in law, the Supreme Court may give a decision based on their deliberations, and such decision is binding, even (as the Sifrey puts it) if \"they say that left is right or right is left.\" The idea is: even if the decision of the Supreme Court appears in direct conflict with normative Jewish practice. Of course, all this is applicable only when the Supreme Court's decision is based on accepted Jewish guidelines. Anyone who disputes the authority of such a Jewish Supreme Court, i.e. Sanhedrin, is liable to the death penalty. The Talmud Shabbat 10, states \"whosoever judges truly, is a partner to G-d.\" This is also the reason that Torah frequently refers to judges by the term \"elohim.\" This is also what the serpent had in mind when it said to Eve \"you will be like elohim, knowing good and evil.\" (Genesis 3,5) The Midrash explains the meaning as \"like creators of worlds.\" He who invariably feels himself bound to the general rules, even though he may be meticulous in applying them, is destroying worlds rather than building them. The Talmud Baba Metzia 38, claims that it was this kind of bureaucratic zeal that caused the destruction of Jerusalem. ",
"",
"Rabbi Shimon is quoted in Bereshit Rabbah 8, as describing the following dialogue having occurred in heaven prior to the creation of man. The representative of chessed, morality, favoured the creation of man, since it was foreseen that man would act morally most of the time. Emet, truth, however, opposed man's creation, claiming that man's tendencey to lie made his creation pointless. Similarly, tzedek, righteousness favoured man's creation, pointing to the righteous deeds man would perform, whereas \"justice\" opposed man's creation citing the perversions of justice he would become guilty of. G-d resolved the dilemma by consigning \"truth\" to earth. The angels then remonstrated with G-d, saying \"why do You denigrate and besmirch Your own treasures!\" Let \"truth\" come back up here!\" Rabbi Hunna added to this dialogue the comment that while the angels were still arguing with G-d, G-d had already created Adam. What the rabbis were trying to convey is that the inner personality of man is based on the development of morality and intellect. The latter guides his feelings of being moral towards perceptions which are true. The outward manifestations of this, generally motivated by functional considerations, are viewed as righteousness and peace. Since both the innate moral qualities of man and his sense of righteousness are deeply rooted, there was support for the creation of man among celestial beings. The opponents who could point to the many aberrations man would become guilty of, both in \"intellectual truth\" and quarrelsome behaviour, felt that these aberrations nullified the plan a priori. G-d, by despatching \"truth\" earthwards, prepared the way through Torah, (Torat Emet, the Torah of truth) so as to minimise the power of the ego (yetzer hara, evil impulse) . Thus He decided to proceed with the creation of man. The opponents were still not satisfied, calling for the Torah to be withdrawn from earth. They felt that man who sins while in possession of the teachings of \"truth,\" i.e. Torah, would be an even greater blot on G-d’s handiwork than if he sinned without having had the benefit of Divine teaching. When the rule of law is based on decree, it is called tzedek. When it is based on concensus between people, it is called shalom, peace, harmony. In view of the fact that man's intellectual achievements are what he calls emet, truth, and in view of the fact that the conclusions arrived at by man's unassisted intellect are often faulty, at best subjective \"truths,\" G-d dispatched the Torah to earth, to lessen the danger that man's \"truth\" would result in a complete distortion of morality. Therefore, by banishing \"truth\" to earth, He made sure that Divine teachings would predominate in man, allowing for ideal man to become a distinct possibility. In order to make Torah not appear so far removed from earthly considerations, He garbed it in a language easily understood by man. \"The Torah employs the mode of expression usually favoured by man himself.\" (Nedarim 3) A homiletical example of this is the passage where the Torah states that G-d instructed Moses concerning a certain type of wood. Moses threw that wood into the water and the water immediately became sweet. Immediately afterwards the Torah says \"there He made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there He tested them.\" (Exodus 15,25) The \"wood\" refers to the tree of life; the Torah, the laws, reconciled conflicting views. Speculative reason,-philosophy- in its effort to portray G-d as perfect, perceives Him as lacking many attributes which if He possessed them would involve Him personally in all manner of events. In order to forestall such heresies, \"truth\" argued against man's creation. G-d, well aware of that danger, allowed Torah to be written in a manner that portrayed Him as possessing anthropomorphic qualities, in order to emphasize that everything that man sees, smells, feels, hears etc. G-d Himself also smells, hears feels etc. However, G-d does so in an infallible manner, His senses never deceive Him. This is why the sages say the Torah employs a syntax which is used by humans. This does not mean, of course, that G-d is corporeal. It is only designed to counter the prevalent and misleading philosophic conceptions about G-d’s aloofness. These ideas have been discussed in connection with akeydah in chapter 4, the ten commandments (directives) in chapter 5, and at the report of the completion of the tabernacle in chapter 48. The continuing argument of the angels against man's creation was the warning \"they will besmirch Your treasures,\" meaning that the remedy of \"Torah uses human language\" will lead to other blasphemies based on what is written in the Torah being understood literally. Therefore, the angels asked for Emet-Torah to be recalled from earth and returned to the celestial regions. Since the arguments appeared balanced, G-d decided in favour of the lenient view and created man. G-d gave man the benefit of the doubt, so to speak. ",
"Our Torah represents legislation at its best and most perfect, incorporating the three pillars \"truth justice and peace\" on which the universe is founded. Since the ten commandments and their revelation are to demonstrate that Moses and his Torah are true, it is fitting that peace and justice, the other two pillars be also represented in our Parshah. When the Mishnah in Avot speaks about shalom, peace, it refers to the quality of chessed, kindness, unselfishness, a quality demonstrated by man in his home life, in the way he treats his immediate environment. Therefore, the Torah describes Moses’s conduct towards his father-in-law, his wife and his children, as well as his father-in-law's conduct vis a vis his daughters. The din, justice part of the three pillars commences with the words \"it was on the morrow.\" (Exodus 18,13) This describes Moses as administering justice to the Jewish people. The fact that Yitro's advice to Moses was particularly timely, will be demonstrated in the course of this story. In fact it was so appropriate that the entire Parshah bears his name. This justice is what transcends his sacrifices to G-d, though they are also mentioned in this section of the Torah. ",
"Some difficulties in the text of the story. 1) Since both Yitro's name and vocation have been clearly stated in Parshat Shemot, why does the Torah here repeat more than just his name? 2) Since it is stated \"all that G-d had done for Moses and His people..that He had taken them out,\" why single out the latter event? Is it not included in the words \"all that He had done for them?\" 3) Since Moses’s divorce from Tzipporah had not been mentioned previously, why is it mentioned now when it seems unseemly both from her and from Moses’s point of view? Why are the reasons Moses named his sons as he did repeated here once more? Why the peculiar \"the name of one is Eliezer?\" 4) Why did Yitro emphasize his status as Moses’s father-in-law? Why does the Torah mention that Moses went outside to welcome Yitro? 5) The report of Moses and Yitro enquiring after each other's welfare seems so commonplace that it hardly deserves special mention! 6) Why does the Torah state that Moses told Yitro all that had happened, surely this is what Yitro had come to hear about? 7) Did Yitro arrive before the revelation at Mount Sinai or after? It does not seem clear from the text. 8) How can one understand the Mechilta which says that Moses sat down to judge the people the day after Yom Kippur, and also the day after Yitro's arrival? How could both dates coincide? 9) How could Yitro presume to criticise Moses for excessive zeal in being of service to the people by saying \"what you are doing is not good?\" Was not Moses the best judge of what would cause him fatigue? 10) How could Yitro say \"I'll advise you to do such and such,and the Lord will be with you?\" Why does he tell Moses to be only an intermediary for the people when Moses had been doing all these things already without having had the benefit of Yitro's advice? 11) Did not the advice of Yitro to select assistants appear so fundamental, that Moses and the elders must surely have thought of that themselves? Wasn't Moses endowed with sufficient common sense by G-d? 12) Why does the Torah relate that Moses sent off Yitro, when it is quite clear that Yitro did not leave at this time? ",
"",
"Since it is the duty of the father or husband to provide basic needs for his wife and children, a wife and children who have been abandoned do not normally make the first move in an effort at reconciliation. If, as in this case, the wife has care of her husband's children and is under the protection of a highly placed father, she has even less reason to seek out her errant husband. Lost objects do not as a rule chase after their owner. Tzipporah, it seems, had ample reason to feel the aggrieved party. Even if the wife is consumed by love for her husband and initiates the conciliatory moves, her father does not need \"to lose face\" by running after his son-in-law. (1) Yitro overcame all those feelings because he recognised the great and altruistic nature of Moses’s preoccupation with his people. Therefore, he decided not to stand on ceremony. Possibly, G-d had helped along in framing his state of mind so Moses’s family as well as Yitro would have a chance to participate in the revelation at Mount Sinai. Alternately, surely Moses would not have sent for them in time for the revelation at Mount Sinai. Our verse then reiterates the position of Yitro to tell us that in spite of his eminence, he made the first move in reuniting Moses and Tzipporah. (2) Since, after the Exodus, the reason for Moses to have temporarily abandoned his family at Aaron's behest had disappeared, the Torah mentions this fact to give an additional reason why reunion at this time was particularly opportune. Although this would have provided additional reason for Moses to make the first move, Yitro did not wait for this. (3) The reason it says \"and the name of the one is Eliezer,\" is because normally Moses’s firstborn should have been called by that name, as a sign of gratitude for G-d having saved Moses from Pharaoh. Since at the time of Gershon's birth however, Moses was still in danger- a warrant being out for him,- he could not name Eliezer until G-d had told him that all his enemies had died already. Athough both Yitro and Tzipporah had waived any injured pride they might have felt, they were not certain of their welcome. Therefore, in the first instance, Tzipporah and her sons came to \"the desert in which Israel was encamped,\" and only Yitro approached Moses (6) right away to find out how Moses felt about them. The enquiries after each other's welfare could only take place later. Once having ascertained that both he and Tzipporah were welcome, an official reception was arranged. According to our sages, the initial meeting was either by letter or intermediary. (2) The report about what G-d had done for Israel, is added to show that Yitro rejoiced in the new found freedom of the Jewish people. Also, of course, he recognised the \"tit for tat\" kind of G-d’s justice that had been at work in visiting retribution on Egypt. This added to the awe Yitro felt when he contemplated the might of the G-d of Israel. (7+8) It is extremely unlikely that Yitro's observations made \"on the day after\" refers to the day after the Day Of Atonement. More likely the reference is to the day after Yitro had arrived. All this was before matan Torah, the revelation at Mount Sinai, a time when Torah laws had not yet been promulgated. (11) Therefore, Moses’s personal judgment was essential in arriving at decisions, and the long line up is understandable. It would have been impossible for Moses to find a multitude of judges whose objectivity etc. could be assumed, and who had not received guidelines other than to consult their consciences. To win acceptance, Moses needed to explain the reasons for his decisions. Had Torah legislation existed already, it would have been so much simpler. All Moses would have had to do would have been to quote the Torah commandment in question. (9) When Yitro observed all this, he told Moses that his scrupulous efforts to win over both litigants to accept his judgment would prove counter productive, would tire him out and create impatience among all those who had to wait in line all this time. They would all become short tempered, the opposite of the objective of settling disputes. (10) Yitro's suggestion was that Moses should ask G-d for guidelines \"and the Lord will be with you,\" so that he would only have to act as a mouthpiece and supervisor over what the other judges who would be taught the guidelines would judge. Yitro expressed his conviction that his advice was so sound that \"and the Lord will command you,\" surely G-d would issue an order in line with what he had suggested. When Moses listened to his father-in-law, he in fact accepted the suggestion to ask G-d for the requisite legislation. Since Yitro's advice could not be carried out till after matan Torah when the (12) legislation would have been received and the people could have been trained, (all while encamped around the mountain, i.e. 11 months) Yitro remained with the Jewish people until all his suggestions had been implemented. The report in Parshat Behalotcha as well as the one in Parshat Devarim are then all in keeping with this interpretation. Although, of course, Torah existed long before Yitro had been born, according to our principle that a meritorious act is rewarded by benefits accruing to others through the merit of the person carrying out that meritorious deed, Yitro became the catalyst for Torah to be revealed at this juncture. We can now well understand that a whole Parshah has been named after him.",
"",
"G-d has entrusted the administration of justice on earth to human judges. If these judges fail to judge fairly, they in turn are subjected to G-d’s judgment as we see from Psalm 82. Faulty judgments are due to any of four causes, all of which Yitro addresses himself to when offering advice to Moses. A judge may have a bad character, love violence; his judgments therefore are apt to be corrupt. Psalm 82 refers to this by asking \"how long will you pronounce corrupt judgment?\" 2) A judge may be G-d fearing, willing to judge truthfully, but when it comes to minor matters involving small sums etc., he may not apply himself diligently. This situation is covered in the above quoted Psalm by the words \"judge the poor and the orphan,\" people who are usually litigants in a small claims Court. A judge must deal as carefully with a penny as with a million. 3) Even though the judge is G-d fearing, and may consider small sums as carefully as large ones, he may be swayed by considerations involving personal gain or honour. He may fear a particular litigant involved in a law suit before him. Concerning such a situation, the Psalmist says \"rescue the defenseless and save them from the lawless.\" 4) A judge may simply err in his application of logic, or due to ignorance of the point of law in question. Concerning this, the Psalmist says \"they do not know or understand, they walk in darkness.\" Yitro incorporates warnings against the four shortcomings listed, in his advice. Concerning the judges' character, he recommends selection of \"G-d fearing individuals.\" Concerning the judges' inclination to downgrade the attention given to litigation involving minor sums, he calls for \"men who hate unjust gain.\" Concerning the judges' professional knowledge, Yitro wants all difficult or major matters referred to Moses himself. When Moses carries out Yitro's suggestions, he acts in accordance with these principles in Deut. 1,15-16, when he instructs A) Do not recognise faces, i.e. show favoritism. B) Listen to the big just as to the small. C) Do not be scared of anyone. D) Anything which is too difficult, submit to me. The intention behind Yitro's suggestion, which results in the appointment of the enormous number of 78600 judges-, was to bring in its wake the minimization of crime since litigation would be instant. Ultimately, there will be a need for only a single judge, the Lord Himself. For that reason, the Midrash quoted at the outset describes in varying nuances that sacrifices are in fact an inferior method of achieving atonement, since conduct based on justice and righteousness achieves results under any set of circumstances, whereas the circumstances that make sacrifices effective are strictly limited. "
]
],
[
[],
[
"Part One",
"",
"\"In the third month of the Exodus, Israel arrived at Sinai.\" ",
"On the verse \"anything the Lord wants, He does, in the heavens and on earth,\" (Psalms 135,6) Shemot Rabbah 12, comments as follows. This statement is to be understood by means of a parable. A king decreed that his Roman subjects were not to travel to Syria, whereas his Syrian subjects were not to travel to Rome. There came a time when the king wished to marry a lady from Syria. He therefore cancelled the decree, and said \"henceforth Romans may travel to Syria and Syrians may travel to Rome. I myself will be the first to set the example.\" Similarly, when G-d created the universe at first, He decreed that \"the heavens belong to the Lord, the earth to mankind.\" When He became ready to give Israel the Torah, He said that henceforth the inhabitants of the lower regions may ascend towards heaven, and heavenly beings will be permitted to move towards earth. G-d Himself would be the first to descend. Thus we find it written \"the Lord descended on Mount Sinai.\" (Exodus 19,20) To Moses G-d said \"come up to G-d, you, Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel.\" This is the meaning of \"whatever G-d likes to do, He does, both in heaven and on earth.\" ",
"Since \"Divine serenity\" and the \"ultimate good\" are concepts far removed from average man, it requires the use of exceptional means by G-d to prepare man for such a state, to enable him to achieve it. King Solomon, in Kohelet, has described man as contemplating the physical needs he has in common with the animal kingdom, and arriving at the conclusion that his own status in the universe is so similar to that of the animals that any distinction is negligible. (Kohelet 3,19) The gift of speech to express his thoughts nothwithstanding, both die in the end, and nothing seems to remain to show that they have ever lived. Man's ability to believe in the survival of the soul is negated by the evidence of his eyes. Scientific examinations reveal that everything remains true to its nature, and that though it may be recycled, it does not thereby move to a higher plane of existence. To believe therefore, that man can continue a life of pure spirit after his body dies, is difficult, since all we have to judge by is the fact that man is subject to the laws of physics, and will forever remain bound by them. When David prays (Psalm 119,25) \"my soul that is attached to earth, keep it alive as You have said,\" he indicates that such occurrence can only come about through Divine intervention, is not rooted in the nature of things. The G-d who said \"let Us make man in Our image,\" must involve Himself in making the personality survive physical death. This occurs by means of the Torah, G-d’s revealed word, without which average man cannot hope to attain the level of moral perfection insuring his soul's immortality. Only exceptional human beings, such as Moses for instance, were able to divine G-d’s will as expressed in Torah legislation, and reach a level of almost pure spirit even before G-d’s Torah had been revealed. Such outstanding individuals can supply the flame that lights the wick which is the dormant soul. Through being fed pure fuel (Torah), the whole lamp (body and soul) is enabled to function. Whereas the lamp (body) is very fragile, the wick( soul) is by its nature indestructible as long as it is fed the proper fuel. The meaning of \"we will do and we will hear,\" which Israel exclaimed is not as is commonly understood, a preparedness to execute G-d’s will prior to having heard it, because in that case the sensible thing would have been to say \"let us hear it so that we can do it.\" Rather, \"we shall hear,\" refers to the readiness to execute what G-d had introduced with the words \"if you will listen to My voice and observe My covenant.\" When the Talmud Shabbat 88, states that \"a heavenly voice\" exclaimed \"who has revealed My secrets to human beings?,\" It refers to the manner in which angels express themselves, as we see from Psalms 103,20, \"bless the Lord! His angels, strong heroes, performers of His word in order to listen to His voice.\" The angels act first, then they absorb shemiyah, hearing. The reference clearly then is not to what the ear hears (since angels have no ears to hear with, but to what the \"heart\" perceives. \"Shemiyah,\"is the beneficial result derived from the original assiyah, performance. The ultimate experience of the revelation at Mount Sinai was that the Torah says \"this day we have seen that G-d can address man and still he survives.\" At that moment Israel achieved a quality of life that enabled it to absorb direct communication from G-d, ignoring the limitations of mortality. It made Israel quite distinct from all other \"living\" creatures, with whom they had had so much in common previously. From here on in, the limitations common to all other living species no longer applied to Israel. This is the \"Adam\" of whom it had been said \"let Us make Man in Our image,\" whose privilege it is that \"he shall govern the fish of the sea etc., to have dominion over all other living creatures.\" The power of speech, which is normally thought to elevate man above other creatures, is the Divine Word, the ability to be addressed directly by G-d. As the Talmud in Baba Metzia 114, expresses it \"you are Adam, but idol worshippers cannot qualify for the appellation \"Adam.\" ",
"Midrash Rabbah Numbers 16, states \"at the moment of \"we shall do and we shall hear,\" G-d had put Israel out of bounds to the angel of death in order to give meaning to the word \"cheyrut\", freedom. Only due to the sin of the spies was this decree revoked as we read in Proverbs 1,25, \"you have ruined all My plans,\" or \"I said you are G-d like, however you will have to die like humans. (Psalms 82,6-7) This proves that the \"nishma\"part of the na-asseh venishma gave Israel a quality of life not possessed previously. The manner in which the spies ruined G-d’s plan is discussed in chapter 67. ",
"When we look at the introductory Midrash, we find apparent contradictions. Whereas G-d first says \"the heavens are Mine, and the earth He has given to man,\" this contradicts the Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Nasso which says that at the time G-d created the universe, He wanted an abode among the lower creatures just as He had an abode among the beings in the celestial regions. Concerning the Midrash saying of G-d \"I will be the first to descend,\" this is the reverse of the order described in our Parshah which states \"Moses ascended to G-d,\" and only afterwards does it say \"G-d descended on Mount Sinai.\" Sukkah 5, tells us in the name of Rabbi Vossi that the shechinah, Divine Presence never approached to within less than ten handsbreadths of earth, whereas neither Moses nor Elijah ever got closer to heaven than ten tefachim, ten handsbreadths. ",
"From all the foregoing it seems that the original decree that the two domains cannot meet, cannot be shared, remains in force. A closer look reveals however, that there is no contradiction between the various statements quoted. When G-d created the universe and said \"let Us make man in Our image,\" He intended to share the whole world with man. Tragically, Adam's sin made the latter mortal and severed the partnership with G-d. Subsequently, G-d progressively retreated to the seventh and most remote region of the heavens due to continued sinful behaviour of man. Concerning the generations living during that period, we apply the quotation \"the heavens are G-d’s exclusively.* The parable explaining that Syrians and Romans could not visit one another due to a Royal decree confirms this. Had there not been a decree not to travel to each other's domains, such communication would have been possible. Only the generation of Moses re-established a close relationship with G-d that went beyond a few outstanding individuals, so that at the time of the revelation, Adam's original state of grace had been regained by the entire Jewish people. The fact that Moses ascended as an individual is not at issue. Concerning the nation as a whole, G-d had to be the first to approach mankind. He descended on Mount Sinai. Only afterwards would the people, i.e. the elders be invited to come up to the mountain. Since the decree not to visit one another's country had now been abolished, travel was possible, i.e. each individual according to the spiritual niveau he had attained. ",
"Following the thought expressed in Midrash Rabbah Nasso 12, the day the tabernacle was erected, a momentous event, the like of which had not occurred since the days of creation, the presence of the shechinah on earth was re-established in \"the tent of meeting.\" Once before, in the garden of Eden, we read about \"the voice of the Lord walking in the garden following the wind of the day.\" (Genesis 3,8). The word vayehee, it was (Numbers 7,1) always means that some new element has been introduced into the story being related,- according to the opinion of Rav. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says that the term implies that something that had already been in existence once and had been severed from its function, has now been restored to its original function. Solomon does not say (in Song of Songs) \"I came to the garden,\" but \"I came to my garden,\" implying that this garden had already previously belonged to the one who enters it now. (compare Midrash Rabbah there dealing with the sacrifice of Nachshon.) Concerning the statement that human beings never come closer than to within forty inches of heaven, nor that G-d comes closer than to within forty inches of earth, this saying describes the limitations imposed upon human beings, even the most perfect of us. If one accepts the kabbalistic principle of the ten spheres, it stands to reason that G-d presides over the tenth sphere. On the other hand, if, for instance, the holy ark stood forty inches high, then the lid on which the cherubs were mounted and the shechinah rested, was higher than forty inches from the ground. The ten spheres are levels. Some prophets penetrate some of these levels depending on the calibre of the respective prophet and the nature of the vision granted to him. Elihu, in chapter thirty three of Job, refers to the fact that varying degrees of levels are revealed to the righteous, depending on the level of their righteousness. Moses himself, having reached the highest level a human prophet ever did, sort of \"held on\" to the throne,\" but did not cross the line beyond the tenth level. "
],
[
"Part Two",
"",
"The Talmud (Shabbat 88) says that at the time Israel proclaimed \"we shall do and we shall hear,\" six hundred thousand angels came and placed two crowns on the head of each Israelite, one for \"we shall do\" and one for \"we shall hear.\" When the people sinned at the episode of the golden calf, one million two hundred thousand angels descended and removed these crowns from the heads of the people. Compare Exodus 33,6, \"they were stripped of their jewelry from Mount Chorev.\" Rabbi Yochanan says \"all of these crowns were acquired by Moses, since it says immediately afterwards \"and Moses would take the tent.\" Rabbi Shimon said that in the future G-d will restore them to Israel, since we read in Isaiah 51,11, \"the ones redeemed by the Lord will return and come to Zion wearing gladness and eternal joy on their heads.\" ",
"Since we have discussed the ability of man to associate closely with the Divine in the first half of this chapter, it remains to be proved that such ability can be translated into reality without undue difficulty. Were this not so, man might become discouraged in his search to achieve this objective. Even if it were relatively easy to achieve, since such status can easily be lost again, it would not mean a great deal to humanity. The fact that only a few people have indeed achieved such intimacy with G-d, would also tend to reduce its value in the eyes of man. When one considers that a nation such as Israel had resided for so long among the morally corrupt Egyptians, it becomes clear that it would require extraordinary skill to wean such a people from the habits acquired during their long sojourn in that contaminated environment. ",
"In order to achieve maximum impact by His revelation at Mount Sinai, G-d resorted to extraordinary phenomena both before, during and after matan Torah, the presentation of the Torah to the people. This becomes evident when one studies the story of the Jewish people's arrival in the desert of Sinai. First we are told that they arrived in Sinai on the first day of the third month. Next, though we know that their last stop had been Refidim, the fact that they set out from Refidim and arrived in Sinai is repeated. Next it says that Moses ascended to G-d and called to Him from the Mountain. The order really should have been \"G-d called to Moses and the latter ascended.\" From the manner of the text, it appears as if Moses was on a higher level than the one calling to him. Next we have the emphasis on the order of addressing Israel, \"thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel.\" Furthermore, \"these are the words you shall speak to the children of Israel.\" This suggests that Moses had no latitude in the words he could use. However, it is worth noting that anyone who has a major request of his fellow man would do well to pay attention to the following prerequisites in order to assure himself of an optimal chance of success. He must watch (a) timing, (b) place, (c) method of presentation of the request, (d) the ability of the party petitioned to grant the petition, (e) explain the advantages accruing to the petitioned party if he grants the petition. He must also bear in mind the position in society of the party petitioned. Queen Esther is a prime example of how all these points need to be heeded when she petitioned king Ahasverus. She chose the timing very carefully, saying \"tomorrow I shall do what the king says.\" She chose the place, inviting him to lunch at her palace, so as to be undisturbed. She chose the method, i.e. wine, in order to put the king into a good frame of mind, and at the same time to make Haman relaxed and careless. She adhered to the order of priorities by begging for her own life first. Concerning the king's ability to deliver, and the advantage to him by granting her request, she said \"we have been sold, and the king stands to lose heavily financially.\" In our situation, G-d demonstrates the same care in His request from Israel. The time chosen, the third month after the Exodus, allowed Israel to have recovered from the slavery experienced.They had been given ample opportunity to observe the way in which G-d had looked after their needs thus far. The mountain, frequently referred to as \"the mountain of G-d\", was meant to impress itself on those who beheld it. (by far the highest mountain in that part of the world). When one contrasts unpleasant memories with pleasant experiences, the latter seem much more impressive than when contrasted with everyday events. Since the events in Refidim had been exceptionally upsetting, mentioning the contrast of their departure from there with the arrival at Sinai, left an especially favourable impression. The site was well chosen, therefore. As far as how G-d’s request was related to the Jewish people, this was accomplished through the good offices of Moses who was the most suitable instrument, being someone who had reached the highest level of humanity without the benefit of Torah legislation. Concerning the exact formulation of the request, the word \"thus\" indicates that Moses indeed was not given any leeway in the precise wording he had to employ. The content of the message concentrated on reminding the addressee of prior events which have a bearing on his attitude. In this case, these would be G-d’s actions against Egypt, which form the background for His present request. There follows the purpose of the request, namely that Israel become a holy nation, a nation of priests, precious to the Lord etc. That such a carefully planned scenario elicited a favourable response from Israel is hardly surprising then. Although Moses relayed G-d’s request only to the elders, fearing that the nation as a whole might not be so responsive, the nation's response shows how effective G-d’s planning of this event had been. The wonderfully effective things G-d was going to do during the actual revelation is introduced by His saying to Moses \"here I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people will hear Me talk to you and will also believe in your leadership forever more\". The objective of becoming a \"holy nation\" by means of the mitzvot is described in Deuteronomy 30,11, as a very easily attainable goal. \"For this commandment is not so wonderfuL.it is easily achievable..up to your mouth and your heart to implement\". Our sages tell us that the Torah is so structured that even \"the empty ones among you are as full of mitzvot as pomegranates are full of pips\". This is so, because the mitzvot apply to our body's activities and do not require intellectual brilliance in order to be performed. ",
"Devarim Rabbah in Parshat Ki Teytze is explicit about how the commandments accompany man wherever he is, since they apply to food, dress, habitation, commerce, etc., in short to every conceivable matter man may at any time be engaged in. "
],
[
"",
"In considering that the purpose of observing Torah is to acquire the aforementioned level of partnership with the Divine, the question arises whether this is an exclusive objective, or whether one may have other more mundane benefits in mind which accrue to one in the process of fulfilling G-d’s commandments. If the former, the chances are that most people would not be able to take the long term view in order to live a life devoted to the performance of the mitzvot. The argument that mundane side benefits through the observance of mitzvot are not permissible, could be sustained by the following two considerations. 1) The more highly placed a worker or servant, the more lofty are the tasks that he is entrusted to perform. Man, as the most sophisticated creature on earth, would naturally only be concerned with the loftiest endeavours and objectives. 2) If we were to postulate that carrying out G-d’s will would have as its purpose merely human objectives, this would contradict the maxim that the objective is primary. If the prophet Isaiah 44,6, proclaims in the name of G-d \"I am first and I am last,\" this clearly implies that the only considerations in all our endeavours must be centred around G-d and His purpose. Antignos, who has said in Avot,1 \"do not be like the servant who serves the master for the sake of the reward,\" surely had this thought in mind. Also the saying of Ben Azzai \"the reward for performing one mitzvah is another mitzvah, may be understood in a similar vein. In other words, performance of the commandments is an end in itself, not a means to an end. The Sifrey in Parshat Eykev says \"a man might say to himself I'll perform the commandments in order to gain riches, or to acquire the title of Rabbi, or even in order to acquire a share in the hereafter; therefore the Torah says (Deut. 11,13) \"in order to love the Lord your G-d.\" Your purpose in obeying should be to demonstrate your love for G-d. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 19, quotes Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi as interpreting Psalms 112,1, \"hail to the man who fears the Lord and is very desirous of His commandments,” as referring to people who perform the commandments for their own sake, not for the reward associated with them. Maimonides, at the end of his sefer hamitzvot pursues this line of reasoning also. However, one can also argue the reverse, again using two lines of reasoning. 1) It is natural for all creatures to be concerned first and foremost with their own physical needs. Although it is a fact that each type of creature serves as a means to sustain a higher category of life, i.e. plants to sustain animals, animals to sustain man etc., we nonetheless observe that they all concentrate on their own needs, their service to a higher category of life being merely incidental. 2) It is a psychological fact that man loses interest, in the pursuit of any task that does not promise tangible rewards within a time frame he considers reasonable. Even an Onan, (Genesis 38,10) was not punished for failing to have issue with Tamar, but only for taking active steps to prevent the fulfilment of the objective of the levirate marriage to provide issue for his deceased brother. Antignos' statement is revised to read \"do not make service to the Lord conditional on the receipt of a reward,\" not as in the version of \"make it conditional on being independent of a reward.\" Also the Talmud in Pessachim 8, states that if someone says he will give charity in order that his children will live, or in order that he himself may enjoy life in the hereafter, he is considered a perfect tzaddik. This seems to contradict the Sifrey in Parshat Eykev that he who studies the Torah in order to be called rabbi is wrong, since the Torah demands love of G-d as one's motivation. Clearly these examples indicate that having in mind personal objectives while performing mitzvot, is permissible. In fact, the Torah promises the attainment of personal objectives such as \"so that you will be well off, will live long.\" (Deut. 22,7) There are many similar statements in the Torah. G-d Himself is quoted as wishing that the Jewish people should revere Him as they did at the time when they received the Torah, in order that He could treat them and their children well. (Deut 10,13) If G-d Himself wishes that our serving Him will result in benefits to us in this world, how can we say that all our mitzvah performance must be aimed exclusively at our being elevated to the status of becoming His partner, and that other material considerations would negate the moral value of the mitzvah performance? We must therefore believe that as a result of performing mitzvot sufficient benefit will accrue to us to make their performance worthwhile. This is the meaning of the saying in Makkot 23, \"because the Lord wished to let us amass many advantages, He provided us with an abundance of mitzvot and good deeds to perform,\" as is written in Isaiah 42,21, \"the Lord was pleased because of His righteousness to render the Torah increasingly great and glorious.\" Since both the aforementioned approaches have equally much to recommend them and are in accord with many sayings of our sages, we have to endeavour to reconcile the apparent contradictions. If we consider the word \"prass\" as referring to the remuneration received for services rendered, then the saying of Antignos becomes clear. Since all our deeds cannot provide G-d with anything that He does not already have, Antignos says \" make sure your relationship with G-d is not based on the mistaken belief that there is reciprocity. Rather, remember that whatever you receive as reward for service of the Lord is in fact chessed, a kindness, since your service does not do anything for Him. However, it is a fact that your service will confer upon yourself both physical and spiritual benefits. \"By observing them, the consequences, the benefits are numerous. (Psalms 19,12 ) This lesson had been misunderstood by Tzadok and Bayssus who believed that their teacher denied the theory of reward and punishment, and who, in postulating their concept of doing good merely for the sake of doing good, became heretics, strange as it may seem. The doctrine of reward as an act of grace, not as a condition for performing the mitzvot, is the true expression of Jewish attitudes then. Any other attitude smacks of an effort to manipulate G-d, of bartering with Him to do your will rather than the reverse, i.e. your doing His will. The Bible as well as our sages have carefully refrained from the use of the term \"prass,\" and have used the term sachar instead. The latter in all its connotations simply means the reverse of hefsed, loss. If Antignos concludes by saying \"in order that the fear of heaven be upon you,\" he warns his students not to relate to other deities which are not even able to confer any benefits upon them, be they prass or sachar. The language employed by the sayings that prohibits performing mitzvot for the sake of, is usually kedey, in order to. The distinction shows already that only when the purpose is reward is such servivce unacceptable. If, however, the service is not conditional, then the reward element is perfectly acceptable as a by- product. Once we accept that what matters is the purity of motivation of the performance, it is easy to argue that the deed itself is irrelevant as long as the intention to perform it existed. This could be the point raised by the rasha, the wicked son's question in the Haggadah. But the truth is that both deed and motivation are essential. Whenever observances are demanded, the Torah urges that it must be motivated by love for G-d, and if so, success in the form of visible reward will be the result of such service of G-d. When the Sifrey described a service that has reward as its objective as inadmissible, the reference is only to the objective of obtaining the reward in this life. If the desire is to ensure one's life in the world to come, such an objective is praiseworthy. Also the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 31, which interpreted the words \"for His commandments and not for the reward of His commandments,\" refers only to these worldly rewards as being taboo. This was also Antignos' meaning concerning the words \"today to carry out (the commandments) and not today to receive their rewards. The considerations mentioned, also help us understand the statement in Kiddushin 31, that he who performs a mitzvah because he has been commanded to do this by G-d, has done something greater than he who has performed the same deed voluntarily. One cannot achieve the ultimate tachlit, objective of the commandment unless one performs it as such. Only in this way does one become a shutaph, partner of the Almighty, a goal we have described as the ultimate purpose of mitzvah performance. This is another aspect of the saying that \"the reward of the mitzvah is the mitzvah, that the achievement of the mitzvah is predicated on the very fact that it is a commandment. ",
"Some difficulties in the text of the Parshah. ",
"1) The task of the Jewish people to be a nation especially precious, a kingdom of priests, is described in two separate verses. Why are these two tasks not linked in a single sentence? What precisely is the meaning of the word segullah? 2) First Moses is told to speak \"to the house of Jacob and to the children of Israel.\" (verse 3) Later, (verse 6) the Torah merely says \"these are the words you are to speak to the children of Israel.\" There is no more mention of \"the house of Jacob.\" Why? 3) Whereas we are told in verse seven that Moses conveyed G-d’s words to the elders,, we hear in verse eight that the entire nation responded. Altogether, throughout the passage the elders are mentioned only twice, otherwise the reference is always to \"the people.\" What is the significance of this? 4) We have two statement in consecutive verses reading \"Moses brought back the people's words to G-d/ and \"Moses told G-d the people's words.\" Why the repetition? 5) In verse twelve we would have expected \"fence off the mountain,\" instead of \"fence in the people!\" Why did the Torah not put the mountain out of bounds? 6) The signal \"when the yovel is long drawn out they may climb the mountain,\" is unusual. We would have expected a word signalling the end or cessation of the blowing of the Shofar. As it stands, ascent seems permissible even prior to cessation of the blowing of the Shofar. 7) The command \"be prepared for three days\" is a contradiction of \"sanctify yourselves today and tomorrow.\" We are, of course, aware of the interpretation that Moses added a day from his own volition. Nevertheless the problem remains. 8) Since we learned from the encounter of the prophet Elijah at the same mountain, that G-d is not to be found in noise or other excesses of nature, but rather in \"a quiet voice,\" why did the giving of the Torah occur under such noisy conditions etc.? Why did there have to be thunder, lightning, the mountain quaking ? 9) Why does the Torah report two separate tremblings, one by the mountain and one by the people? 10) Why is the sound volume of the shofar blowing mentioned in connection with Moses talking? The two matters seem unrelated to each other! 11) When G-d told Moses to go down and warn the people not to become victims of their own curiosity to behold G-d, and Moses replied \"the people cannot ascend because You have warned them,\" who is Moses to play adviser to G-d? Why did G-d seem to reconsider when He apparently corrects Himself saying to Moses \"go down and ascend together with Aaron, but the people must not breach etc.?\" ",
"(1) G-d, being aware of the fact that the recipient of benefits hates to be reminded of that fact, especially if it is the benefactor reminding him, glosses over all the acts of salvation performed by Him, and summarises only the fact that He has elevated them to their present high status by using the shortest possible route, i.e. \"on eagles' wings.\" Although acceptance of the Torah on the basis of past performance by G-d is almost a mandatory act by Israel, G-d promises that such acceptance will make Israel a nation of especially precious value, and a kingdom of priests. In comparison with the Sabbath legislation at Marah, when G-d employed a lot of words, spelling out what Israel was to do, and only a few words listing the benefits that would accrue therefrom, (15,26) in this instance G-d uses reverse psychology (18,5-6) emphasizing the benefits and stating the duties only in an abbreviated form. The promises include the offer to free Israel from all dependence on human beings. Ever since Terach who had been subservient to Nimrod, Israel's forbears had always been dependent in some manner on other rulers. As a result of accepting the kingdom of heaven, this was to be changed, and it is this that is implied in the word segullah. When a king assigns a city to his subjects to dwell in and work in, and after a while oil or mineral deposits are discovered there, the king will claim such treasures as belonging to him, since only the visible assets of such a city had been assigned to its population. If G-d permits the idol worshipping rulers to administer part of His earth, that territory does not include any gems that would be found there. When G-d discovered Abraham and removed him from the grasp of Nimrod, He did so by exercising His claim to the jewels found in Nimrod's kingdom. (2) In order to further refine the rough stone that He had found in Ur, he subjected Abraham to ten stages of refinement (yissurim ), until the gem had become absolutely pure and flawless. The process of refinement continued from Abraham through Isaac, down to the generation that stood at Mount Sinai. If that generation would show its readiness to embrace Torah, it would prove that as of that moment in time the process of progressive refinement had been brought to a successful conclusion. The segullah aspect applies to the entire nation, \"the house of Jacob.\" The \"kingdom of priests\" applies to the select individuals whose moral achievements surpass those of the nation as a whole. Therefore, two separate phrases are used to describe the new status of the Jewish people. It says once more \"these are the words,\" meaning the words addressed only to the elders, the leaders. The proof of this interpretation is the fact that throughout the chapter, the people are normally referred to as am, nation, no fewer than eighteen times. The reason that the women were told first is, as the Midrash explains. When Adam was created, G-d had told him not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but He did not address woman directly. The result proved to be a tragedy. In order to avoid a repetition of such a tragedy, this time, G-d, or rather Moses, addressed the women first. They are called \"the house of Jacob.\" Expressed differently, prishut, seclusion, is an exalted level in which man is almost completely intellectual, super-corporeal. The command to be such failed because the body had not been prepared for it. The body is represented by the female of the species. Since the order went out to the male only, the female thus not having been prepared, the attempt to sublimate bodily functions in the garden of Eden had failed. In this instance, G-d wanted to make sure that such sublimation would not fail again. (3) \"He placed before them these words.\" Moses put the words before the elders without further elaborationg on them. The people who were present had no other way of responding but to say \"all that G-d has said, we will do.\" As the Talmud in Shabbat 88, explains \"standing beneath the mountain\" meant that the momentous experience about to take place made any other kind of response suicidal in their eyes. G-d had prepared the people psychologically in such a way that the response was totally expected. If Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov describes the whole event as constituting a sound legal process of coercion i.e that it can be protested as such, he refers to the fact that the na-asseh, we will do, did not constitute an educated response arrived at after careful weighing of the evidence, but was spontaneous, due to the tremendous external pressure exerted. Therefore he claims it could not be considered binding. If we find the \"we will do\" prior to the exclamation \"we will do and we will hear,\" it refers to the acceptance of the principle that action rather than contemplation is true soul food. It does not refer to the acceptance of specific tasks that were to be performed. This had also been the purpose for which Adam had been placed in the garden of Eden, of which it says in the Torah \"to work it and to preserve it,\" to maintain its state of spiritual well being. The story of the creation refers to G-d having blown a soul into Adam's nostrils, and it was this G-d given soul that he was to preserve in its purity. The giving of the Torah was to have a similar effect on the Jewish nation as a whole. (4) Since the people realised that the select few who had already relegated physical needs to being a merely incidental concern, had been raised to an even higher spiritual level, the people stressed that as far as they were concerned it was only the ma-asseh action, not the iyun, speculative reasoning, that they would perform. This the people also confirmed after the giving of the ten commandments when they said unanimously \"all that G-d has said we will do.\" Not so the third time. After Moses had read \"the book of the covenant,\" the word nishma, we will hear, appears, since the ma-asseh action, is the preparation for the nishma, the understanding, as we have pointed out earlier. The people now realised that the intellectual capacity of a person is enhanced once he has carried out G-d’s commandments as deeds. This was one of the greatest accomplishments of matan Torah, the giving of the Torah, which they only understood then. In chapter forty seven we will have occasion to present yet another reason for the fact that sometimes Israel said \"we will do,\" and sometimes they said \"we will do and hear.\" The reason Moses once told G-d the words of the people, i.e. \"he brought back the people's words\" and then \"he told\" again is, because the first time Moses had not recognised the full significance of what the people had in mind. Consequently, Moses had only related their formal response. After G-d told Moses that He would descend and that the revelation would also include the strengthening of the people's belief in Moses’s Divine mission, he realised that the people in saying \"we will do,\" had had much more in mind than he had believed at first. By this statement, G-d had indicated how fundamental the concept of the prophet is to the whole Torah, and that he who does not believe in the mission of the prophets, does not really believe in G-d either. Belief in the personal G-d presupposes a channel of communication between man and G-d, and that channel is the prophet. The strength of the channel may vary from generation to generation, and even from place to place, but the channel's existence is axiomatic to Judaism. In our instance, in order to receive the transmission loud and clear, one first had to sanctify oneself, i.e. become ritually pure. Therefore the days of preparation for the giving of the Torah. (5) The meaning of \"you shall fence off the people,\" refers to the effect of Torah, which, if observed, will restrain people's urge to commit excesses. (6) We have a principle (Beytzah 5) that anything prohibited by a Court of Law of a specific number of judges, requires at least an equal number of judges in another Court in order to cancel the previous prohibition. If not for that rule, the verse (19, 13) should have read \"when the shofar sound ceases;\" as it is, the expression \"when the shofar sound is long drawn out,\" signals that the Court of Law is empowered to pursue such errant people or animals even while the shofar sound has not yet signalled the end of matan Torah, the giving of the law. (7) The apparent contradiction concerning the number of days of preparation for the revelation is resolved by the consideration of whether the day the order was issued is included in the number of days listed. When one talks of three days, it is included; when G-d says \"for on the third day,\" this means the third, counting from the first of the series, not the third from the day Moses received the command. (8) The overwhelming natural phenomena at the revelation stem from two considerations. A) The feeling of inadequacy that gripped the people. These feelings are described by what they experienced in verse sixteen, the thunder etc. (9+10) B) The awesome nature of the experience itself. This is described, by showing us the reaction on the part of the mountain. The sounds of the shofar and subsequently the sound of G-d’s voice when conversing with Moses, were to acquaint the people with the sound of G-d’s voice, so that when He spoke the ten commandments, the people would already recognise that this was indeed the voice of G-d that they were hearing. (10) This enabled them to say later \"whatever G-d has said we will do.\" They referred to what they had heard with their own ears, though most of it had been addressed to Moses only. Moses was not really aware that the people in large measure had suddenly acquired the status of prophets in their spiritual capacity. As such, they might think that a closer approach was warranted. G-d said to Moses no rav, great person shall perish. (19,22) (11) Moses talked about am, plain people, which shows that he had misunderstood what G-d had meant by rav. Moses is asked to go lower down so that during the time G-d addressed him he is visible to the people and the elders, and no one could accuse him at a later stage of having faked G-d’s voice while out of sight of the people and the elders. The Midrash suggests the following parable. A king who wanted to do something that his closest adviser should not know about, sent the adviser on an errand in order to gain time. The adviser, quite innocently, told the king that the errand he had been sent on had already been carried out, that the mission was unnecessary. So the king invented another errand, and during the time it took for that errand to be carried out by his adviser, the king carried out whatever it was he had meant to do in the first place. Similarly, G-d had wanted Moses further down the mountain during matan Torah. He accomplished this by sending Moses on an errand which would require him being in the place G-d wanted, at the time G-d wanted. "
]
],
[
[
"THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. ",
"\"And God spoke all these words\" etc. \"I am the LORD thy God\" etc.",
"The Talmud in Kiddushin 31, reports that the great Rabbi Ulla expounded at the entrance of the house of the President concerning the words in Psalm 138,4, \"all the kings of the world acknowledge You, since they have heard the words from Your mouth.\" It does not say \"word.\" When G-d commenced the commandments with the statement \"I am the Lord your G-d\" etc., the nations of the world said \"He is concerned only with His own glory.\" Once they heard the commandment \"honour your father and mother so that you will live long etc,\" they reconsidered and accepted the validity of the first utterance. Rabba, son of Rabbi Yitzchak says that this also explains the verse in Psalms 119,160, \"the beginning of Your word is truth.\" He asks \"are not the end of Your words truth also?\" The explanation is that just as the end of Your words are truth, so are the beginning of Your words truth also. ",
"It is a well known fact that whenever someone makes extraordinary efforts to accomplish something, that something is of exceptional importance to the person making such a supreme effort on its account. If the Shunamite woman whose house the prophet Elisha used to frequent, built a private apartment for his use, then it is not surprising that the prophet tried to figure out the real reason she had gone to such trouble. When he failed to find the obvious answer such as acting as her attorney at the king's Court, he asked his assistant Gechazi. The latter noted that the woman was childless and had an aging husband. (Kings II chapter 4) After the sin of the golden calf, Moses used the argument that in order to justify all that G-d had done to release Israel from bondage in Egypt, His objective must have been extremely important, else why go to such trouble? To abandon such an objective and to annihilate Israel, would make all of G-d’s efforts look foolish, and this would diminish rather than enhance G-d’s image in the eyes of mankind. G-d relented and accepted that argument. The same argument may lead to our undeserved redemption in the future (Ezekiel chapter 36) to justify G-d’s \"name,\" i.e. to justify the historic existence of the Jewish people throughout the many centuries of exile. At Mount Sinai then, all G-d’s preparations prior to the revelation, all the thunder and lightning accompanying the revelation must have had as its objective something completely beyond anything man had ever experienced. Seeing that the ten commandments do not contain any new philosophic insights, and in fact, most of these commandments could easily have been legislated by human legislators of average intelligence interested in a well functioning society, one wonders wherein lay the great purpose that produced such extraordinary effort. One might have expected answers to the mysteries of the universe, but they do not contain anything of the sort. Even the first two commandments stipulating the uniqueness of G-d etc., are matters easily arrived at by the human intellect as demonstrated by Maimonides chapter thirty three second section of his \"Moreh.\" This in spite of the fact that these two commandments were heard by all the people directly from the mouth of G-d. Similarly, the fact that the tablets were G-d’s own handiwork as well as the inscriptions on them, all suggest that the purpose of the revelation must have been an all encompassing one. If it was not its purpose to teach new philosophical insights, what was its purpose? It was first and foremost to disabuse people of false philosophies, many of which were circulating freely. Although the vast majority of mankind may acknowledge the existence of G-d as the Creator, they deny His ability or willingness to guide the fate of man or the history of the universe. It was that kind of the denial of G-d’s role that the plagues in Egypt had targeted. It was also what the revelation at Mount Sinai was to impress upon Israel. The purpose was simply to demonstrate the presence and involvement in the personal fate of each and every Jew by G-d. This was demonstrated for all future generations to remember. It was not hearsay, historic fable or legend, but a living experience shared by the entire nation. Henceforth that truth could no longer be denied by speculative reason. The constant nagging doubt \"is the Lord in our midst?\" was stilled once and for all. A major reason for the reluctance of many Israelites to leave Egypt had been their doubt if the G-d of Israel in all His majesty would concern Himself with such trivial matters as the safety of a people on its march through the desert. Therefore they had preferred the authority of the Egyptian state and civilisation, whose acknowledged task it was to look after its subjects. If, in fact, G-d had indulged Moses at Mount Sinai in answering all the philosophical arguments, the result would have had meaning, at best, for that generation, whereas future generations would have each had to have its own revelation. Therefore G-d addressed Himself exclusively to the fears that lurked in people's minds, and demonstrated that G-d’s Providence did indeed extend to each one of them in whatever circumstances they might find themselves. He stressed the love He had demonstrated for them by releasing them from bondage to the cruel and arrogant Egyptian kingdom. He stressed that He wanted them to retain their freedom from any other deity by not worshipping such deity nor building altars or idols for them etc. Lastly, He demanded the honour due Him by not bandying about His name in idle oaths, and positively observing the Sabbath as a day of rest, emulating Him, since He had rested on the Sabbath. After that, He turned His attention to domestic problems between man and fellow man. When the Midrash discusses anthropomorphical problems such as G-d’s \"right\" and G-d’s \"left,\" the writing on the tablets with G-d’s \"finger\" etc. it is dear that all these descriptions are allegorical. Let us take a closer look at the ten commandments themselves. ",
"\"And God spoke all these words, saying\"",
"Although in the affairs of man, numbers are used mostly for the purpose of keeping records, and the numbers themselves do not have independent significance, such is not the case in the Torah. Whenever numbers appear, they have an independent significance, imparted to them by their Creator. Of all the basic numbers that exist, the number ten is by far the most important. It represents the ten directives employed in creating the universe. It describes the ten steps used to reduce the infinite immanent to the material and finite which we call our lives and earth. The two tablets are divided into two groups. Group one is concerned with the spiritual and intellectual capacity of man, whereas group two is concerned with the physical, material aspect of man. ",
"Man's intellectual research proceeds from the effect to the cause, something that the Torah describes as \"aliyah” ascent in Jacob's dream of the ladder. Once Jacob arrives at the ultimate cause, and obtains Divine insights, he retraces his steps to view all phenomena from a new and different vantage point. When G-d is described as carrying Israel on wings of eagles, this same kind of aliyah, ascent is meant. Once having attained that state ,the yeridah, the understanding on the basis of new insights begins. Anochi, I, represents the first of such newly gained insights. An example of this new insight is that although the world appears dominated by the sun and moon, these cannot be its ultimate cause. How else could one account for the fact that such an ultimate cause would disappear from view every night? ",
"\"Anochi\" itself is not yet part of the decalogue. It represents the demand to accept G-d’s kingdom. As the Midrash describes it, a king whose subjects are willing to accept his laws, must first convince his subjects to accept his sovereignty. The anochi statement then is that of G-d’s sovereignty over Israel. Only the \"do not make or do not have any other deities etc,\" is the beginning of the legislative part of the revelation. (Compare Maimonides in sefer hamitzvot) ",
"\"You shall not have any other deities\" then states that Israel is quite right regarding what cannot be a deity. Consequently, such non deities must not be idolised nor reproduced in a form that suggests idlolisation, or worse yet, actual worshipping of such a reproduction. This is the meaning of our sages telling us that charut on the tablets is actually cheyrut, i.e. we are free of such childish misconceptions about the nature of who controls the universe and is therefore able to inspire fear and terror. This includes the concept of being free from the threat of death, since sin, i.e. the angel of death himself is subject to the ultimate cause, the living Creator. It also includes the idolatry of the power of money and wealth, the most prevalent form of idol worship in civilised society. The denial of such idolatry is expressed in the final commandment. He who observes the commandment of \"you must not covet,” reveals that he is free from that kind of idol worship. This is also the meaning of \"do not make with Me any deities of silver and gold.\" G-d stipulates \"I do not share power with money or material wealth.\" G-d describes Himself as our \"husband,\" warning us not to look elsewhere for sustenance since He assumes exclusive responsibility for this. Also, as a wife, Israel must not commit adultery by consorting with any other deity in whatever manner, nor must Israel rebel against its \"husband.\" ",
"",
"At the time the ten commandments were given, the cherubs mounted on the holy ark were not included in the prohibition of reproductions of things in heaven or on earth, since up to the moment of their construction they were original, nothing like it had ever existed. Once they had been constructed however, the very fact of their existence made them subject to the prohibitions included in \"do not make images.\" The reason G-d describes Himself as a \"jealous HUSBAND,\" is to emphasize the husband/wife relationship. This explains the extreme patience G-d has demonstrated towards other nations serving idols. Only because Israel is related to Him by marital vows, does the \"husband\" display jealousy if He is cheated. The punishment that may extend to the fourth generation for those that hate G-d, i.e. who commit acts of idol worship of one form or another, is only the result of mercy. Were G-d to eliminate the aspect of mercy present in that kind of punishment, the second generation already would never have seen the light of day, since the generation guilty of idol worship would have been wiped out. The sin of the golden calf is a prime example. Had G-d wiped out the Jewish people at that time, the chances offered subsequent generations would have been lost then and there. On the other hand, reward for good conduct will be a factor as much as two thousand generations hence. ",
"The earth's movement around its axis is perceived as involuntary, especially since its rapid and constant repetition is obvious to all. The earth's orbit around the sun however, is perceived as voluntary because it takes so much longer. The same applies to the planets in our galaxy. This apparent contradiction led man to believe in the independent powers of the planets, obviously a fallacy. ",
"Someone who swears a needless or false oath in the name of G-d, is equally guilty of contradictory behaviour. On the one hand, using the name of G-d indicates that one believes that G-d controls the universe, on the other hand, using the lie indicates that one does not believe in His omnipotence and awareness of one's actions. This is why the third commandment follows the second commandment, to emphasize the intellectual parallel between the two actions. The word lo tissa, do not elevate, is singularly appropriate, since one does elevate the name of G-d, but at the same time the total act becomes vain and meaningless. The result therefore, is actually blasphemy. This sort of behaviour was a major failing in Jewish society at the time of the prophet Jeremiah, (compare Jeremiah chapter 5) ",
"The common error that the planet Saturn controls the movements of the other planets, plus the fact that the Sabbath commences under its aegis, is countered by the Sabbath observance of the Jewish people, which shows that especially on the day which seems under the aegis of Saturn we abstain from any meaningful activity. We work only on the days Saturn is relatively unimportant. ",
"",
"The fifth commandment, that of honouring father and mother, forms the link between the spiritual and the material concerns expressed on the tablets. Inasmuch as G-d is a partner in man, having provided the most valuable ingredient, the soul, the spiritual element is present. On the other hand, honouring father and mother is so basic, if merely for the sake of the inheritance expected by the children, that it needs hardly to be commanded. ",
"The commandment then emphasizes that the reward promised is not a natural sequence, but an act of Divine kindness, one that in light of the natural tendency to honour parents if only from a sense of gratitude, is hardly warranted. The mitzvah element of the commandment addresses itself first and foremost to the poor, who invest in looking after their father and mother rather than ensure they do not lose their inheritance. ",
"The sixth commandment deals with murder, the result of quarrels and strife. Anyone born under the horoscope of Mars is thought to be a potentially violent person. To sublimate such tendencies, the Talmud recommends professions such as Mohel, butcher which serve as legitimate outlets for someone who feels he has to see blood. ",
"The commandment not to murder, addresses itself primarily to those who wish to blame the horoscope for their shortcomings. Relative to the commandments between man and man, it is as basic as the anochi in the commandments for relations between man and G-d. He who murders denies man's right to exist. This can only be, if simultaneously the murderer denies G-d Himself. ",
"Just as the taking of a life is prohibited, the creation of life under forbidden conditions is outlawed. ",
"This prohibition is second in importance only to the wrongful taking of a life. Adultery, a common method of creating such life, is therefore prohibited on pain of death of both partners in that crime. ",
"The sun, generally considered to be the progenitor of life in our universe, is not to be conceived as creating life, since it could do so only by ignoring such discriminatory considerations. Even mere physical life must not be initiated by forbidden means, this is why crossbreeding is prohibited elsewhere. ",
"The eighth's commandment dealing with the unlawful acquisition of property belonging to others, is next in line. The injunction not to steal is strengthened by the realisation that there is a watchful eye that sees the thief, even if the owner of the stolen goods does not. This commandment also parallels that of swearing a false oath. He who swears, acts differently in public than he does in private. So does the thief. ",
"",
"The ninth commandment addresses itself to the spoken word. Just as the fourth commandment concerns itself with testimony concerning the truth of the Creator and His works, so the ninth commandment concerns itself with testimony concerning events witnessed between man and man. ",
"",
"The tenth commandment addresses itself to the weakness in man that makes him believe that the attainment of worldly goods provides real and lasting satisfaction. This is merely an illusion, and the planning of how to attain possessions belonging to another, will lead to transgressions of all the other commandments. Despite the fact that the crime in this case does not consist in performance of an act, or even the utterance of words, merely the exercise of one's mind, the ultimate results would be devastating. We could say that he who fails to observe the fifth commandment, that of honouring his parents, will ultimately be likely to reject any kind of restriction on his personal conduct. Disregarding one's fellow man's right to his possessions, is as much a slap in the face of G-d, as failing to honour one's parents, is in the last analysis a slap at the face of G-d. ",
"\"The entire Jewish nation saw the sounds.\" This shows that on the one hand the Jewish people had shed enough of the physical part to be able to gain a whole new perspective on sound. On the other hand, they were still frightened of the other physical phenomena such as the lightning and the smoke. \"The people saw and trembled.\" The latter is what caused them to ask Moses to be their intermediary. Moses who said \"do not be afraid,” meant to tell them \"do not be afraid to listen to G-d directly.\" G-d’s purpose is to give you experience now, so that this will remain an undying memory of this supernatural experience. It will remind you that man can survive hearing the voice of the Living G-d. Moreover, the awe you experience as of now, will insulate you against any future desire to sin against Him. Only if you did that, would you really die. The fact that \"and these are the laws\" are described as presented to the people by Moses, indicates that all the ten commandments had been heard by the people directly from the shechinah. \"The people stood at a distance while Moses approached the thick cloud,\" refers to receiving the remainder of the Torah. Again in Parshat Va-etchanan it states \"these words G-d spoke to your whole assembly at the Mount,\" indicating that the entire ten commandments are what is referred to. The whole sequence in Va-etchanan dearly indicates that Moses became the intermediary only for the remainder of the Torah. To reconcile statements by our sages which appear to say that Israel heard only the first two commandments directly, can be done in the following manner. \"You have seen that I spoke directly,\" therefore all the things prohibited in the first two commandments are clearly comprehensible, do not build fancy altars, gold or silver images etc, I do not relate to you through an intermediary.\" The emphasis on \"you shall construct an altar made from earth etc.,\" shows that simple materials are to be used to form the basis of worship. G-d wishes to tell us that even when ostentation in architecture is employed, this should not lead to the fatal error of viewing the costly materials as intermediaries between Israel and its G-d. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Parashat Mishpatim",
"The strength of the king loves justice.\" (Psalms 99) Midrash Tanchuma on this Parshah writes \"Moses said to Israel: \"here G-d has given you His Torah. If you do not accept the social legislation, He will take it away from you. Why? Because He has given you the Torah only on condition that you carry out the social legislation contained therein, as it says \"the strength of the king loves justice.\" If you carry out the laws that apply between man and man, He will restore your Courts of Law and your temple, as it is written \"I will restore your judges as of old.\" Afterwards it says \"Zion will be redeemed through justice and its returnees through righteousness.\" (Isaiah 1) ",
"If it is true that the status of the craftsman rises and falls with the quality and value of the materials upon which he exercises his craft, then dinim, social laws, would occupy a very low place in the scale of values. Our sages tell us that he who deals in spices is to be hailed, not so he who tans hides. This clearly reflects the view that an occupation can demean the person who practices it. (Kiddushin 82) Religious philosophy is held in high esteem because it concerns itself with the most noble subject. Next in line would be astronomy, inasmuch as it concerns itself with the mysteries that have a profound influence on nature and the universe. The dispensation of justice amongst people seems a far less worthy occupation, concerning itself with neither the abstract and therefore close to the Divine, nor with the everlasting and therefore related to the Divine by reason of the enduring nature of the subject. ",
"",
"Since man survives only as a species, not as an individual, he is in an inferior category to the aforementioned. Nevertheless, performing just deeds, or dispensing justice has the advantage over the other speculative activities, since 1) it enables civilisation to function, removes violence and prevents warfare by the strong against the weak. This brings in its wake the harmony that is the task of the Messiah to establish, as outlined in the book of Isaiah, (chapter 11) It even leads to peaceful relations in the animal kingdom. 2) It also leads to the perfection of man's character traits. We see therefore, that although the Torah contains elements of all the higher disciplines mentioned before, if man is to achieve his purpose to qualify as a partner to G-d in administering the earth, then he must establish just laws on earth based on the revealed wisdom of the Torah. ",
"If the task of the Messiah is to teach people to lay aside their swords etc., then it is clear that when natural law rules, harmony will be restored to the world. Torah embodies this natural law, and this is the reason Abraham could divine it without having it revealed to him. Matan Torah, the gift of the Torah, was only the revelation of a law which had existed since before man had been created; in fact, it had been the blueprint with the help of which G-d created the universe. On occasion, clever people, such as the daughters of Tzelofchod, sensed this, though even Moses was not clear about it. (Numbers 27). Jacob, according to Pessachim 119, felt unqualified to preside over the saying of grace because he had married two sisters, alive at the same time, though at the time this had not yet been prohibited. He faulted himself for not having divined the will of G-d at that time. All of this is true in spite of the fact that the social legislation of the Torah contains apparently arbitrary ordinances. An example is the replacement value of thirty shekalim for a gentile slave regardless of his age, health etc. Similar apparent discrepancies we find in the sums allowed a father whose daughter has been raped etc. The law addresses itself to normal situations, since indirect damages are not assessed against the culprit. Any exceptional cases come under the heading of damages caused indirectly. Where wilful damage is discussed, such as in the case of the slaughtering of stolen animals, and penalties of four or five times the value of the animal in question, the Talmud goes to some length to demonstrate the natural law involved in such Torah legislation. (Baba Kama 68) The thrust of the legislation is to enable those who study it to develop the character traits that make the provision for non observance merely academic, since students of the Torah would not dream of allowing themselves to be guilty of transgressing these laws. Our sages taught that the universe is based on and can survive only by means of \"justice, truth and harmony.\" (Avot 1) This means that a) a system of justice must be legislated and administered. b) Since this legislation parallels natural law, it is based on truth. c) Since such a system of law must be willingly embraced by the people to whom it is addressed, it promotes peace and harmony. In order to be absolute truth, Torah law must reconcile the true interests of the individual with the true interests of the society he lives in. To that end, legal decisions are left to Courts of Torah experts, scholars, not lay jurors. However, just as being an expert in anatomy does not yet make a person a doctor,-unless one has complete understanding of the interaction of all parts of the anatomy,- so knowledge of Torah precepts without comprehension of how to apply them when conflicting interests are involved, does not qualify a Torah scholar to act as judge. The Talmud Sanhedrin 7, is on record that in the event untutored judges are part of the Court, the former must be assisted by experts. Jewish social legislation, when practiced by Jews, has a greater influence on refining the character of the people practicing it, than the laws of any other religion. Benefits that accrue through such observence are twofold. 1) Social, i.e. application of such laws as the appointment of kings, will ensure the smooth functioning of society. 2) Benefits to the individual both during and after life. The eykev rav, great reward that David describes in Psalm 19, 13, as a reward for observing these laws, applies beyond the pale. This is also the answer of the Torah to the question of the wise son regarding the purpose of Torah legislation in Deut.6,20. \"It shall be righteousness unto us\" (verse 25) This is the reason the Torah says of this legislation \"place it in front of them,\" i.e. not in front of the gentiles. Even if the latter were to adopt our legislation as their own, he who chooses non Jewish judges to settle his problems does not only not perform a commandment thereby, but commits a transgression. Just as the slaughtering of a ritually pure animal by a non Jewish slaughterer renders such an animal unfit for consumption by Jews, neveylah, although the act had been identical to that performed by a Jew, G-d is on record as saying \"He did not do so for any gentile; and Jewish legislation, they do not know them.\" (Psalms 147,20 ",
"Even though gentiles are commanded to observe the seven Noachide laws, one of which is the establishment of a system of social legislation, they are at best to be treated as amateurs when it comes to their fitness to administer Jewish law, even if they are familiar with it. In view of all this, we can understand the verse in Proverbs 21,3, \"he who has carried out righteousness and justice is dearer to G-d than a sacrificial offering.\" A wealthy man once had to go on a journey, and did not want to leave behind his assets for fear that something could happen to them during his absence. He converted all his assets into diamonds, which he carried with him on his journey. When accosted by robbers who wanted to know the value of the diamonds, he disclaimed knowledge of their true value, saying they were merely glass baubles, worth pennies. The robbers decided not to kill the man for the sake of these worthless baubles. Later, when the same traveller displayed his merchandise at a fair in the city, the traveller, of course, demanded the real worth of these diamonds from any prospective purchaser. When the robbers found out, they said to the traveller \"why did you tell us that they were practically worthless?\" The traveller explained that when he had found himself on the threshold of death, his diamonds did indeed not represent any value to him. Now, however, when he was in different circumstances, these same diamonds had once more become very valuable to him. Thus it is with the reward for the mitzvot performed in this world. Their reward value is very shortlived. But in the world to come, the real worth of the reward will become evident. The ordinary Jew may find himself in circumstances when he feels justified to describe his jewels as mere baubles. David, on the other hand, could state that he had never treated \"the judgments\" as worth less than their true value. He said that even at times when it seemed pointless and unrewarding, and he found himself in great distress, \"I carried out the justice and righteousness.\" Therefore, G-d tells us not to look upon the judgments as something trifling, not deserving our best efforts. ",
"Our future is assured if we carry out the commandments called mishpatim. When our sages say that Jerusalem was destroyed only because they practiced \"true justice,\" the meaning is that they applied the justice principle without making allowance for circumstances. Such allowances are incorporated in the mishpatim, as we know from Talmud Baba Metzia 30. ",
"Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah commence with the laws about servants, seeing that at the time the legislation was given to the Jewish people there were no servants? 2) What is so special about a servant leaving the employ of his master as a single man if he had been single at the time he had entered such employment? Why would a law for such contingency have to be legislated? 3) Why does the Torah say that a Jewish servant must not be sold to a gentile \"nation?\" It should have said that he must not be sold to a \"gentile person!\" Also, why does it say \"if he did not do these three things for the servant?\" It should have said \"if he did not do one of these three things!\" Why is the law about kidnapping placed between the laws about \"hitting\" parents and the law about \"cursing parents?\" 4) If a gentile slave is considered personal property, why does his death get avenged if he died as a result of maltreatment by his master? If, on the other hand, he is not considered personal property, why, if death occurs a day or two later than the beating he has absorbed, does the owner not face a penalty? 5) Since the Torah repeatedly calls for \"eye for an eye,\" \"injury for injury\" etc., and the meaning is monetary compensation, why does the Talmud Baba Kamma 23, say, that the amount awarded varies with the social standing of the parties involved? 6) If the owner of a goring ox can escape the death penalty by payment of monetary compensation, why mention that he deserves the death sentence? The same argument can be raised concerning the death sentence in the case of a slave \"life for a life,\" where the compensation is fixed at merely thirty shekalim! 7) Why does the Torah legislate compensation of four or five times the value when the thief has slaughtered or sold the animal he stole? 8) The requirement of a \"trustee who acts out of friendship\" to swear an oath that he had not failed in his duties, is worded in a peculiar manner. The preceding verse had described the objects as having been either stolen or lost. If so, it is clear that the keeper had not tampered with them! 9) In the case of the borrower, the Torah stipulates a) that the borrower is free from guilt if the animal was exercised with the owner's knowledge. The Torah goes on to say b) that the borrower is liable, if the owner is either not present or unaware of the use the animal has been put to. Surely, \"(b)\" is the only alternative to \"(a)\"! So why does the Torah spell it out once more? 10) What are the reasons for the respective penalties for the practice of witchcraft, lying with a beast, seduction and sacrificing to other deities? 11) If the line \"if you lend money\" is in the words of our sages one of the instances when the word im does not mean \"if\" but \"when,\" why does the Torah not employ an expression that does not allow for any misunderstanding, instead of using words that have multiple meanings? 12) What is the meaning of the line \"observe all the things which I have told you?\" (23, 13) When and where did He tell the Jewish people? ",
"We have shown in chapter 43 that the term \"righteousness\" is applied to man's relationship vis a vis three parties, i.e. vis a vis himself, vis a vis his family and household, and vis avis his relationship to society at large. ",
"(1) Since the servant's situation comprises lessons applying to all three types of \"righteousness,\" it is the first of the many mitzvot discussed in our Parshah. As a free agent, the servant is able to sell his body's services without reference to a second party. In this way he acts within the framework of his relationship vis a vis himself. The relationship of the servant with his family has to be regulated. His position in society has to be regulated. So we see that in this legislation all aspects of tzedek, righteousness are touched upon. (2) Since the servant is a Jew, the Torah demands that at the end of his service he must be given one of the three kinds of freedom. He can be freed either after six years, or with the advent of the jubilee year, (if this occurs within the six years) or if he has the funds to compensate his master for services expected but not rendered. Another reason why the servant would leave the employ of his master would be the death of his master. His services are not inherited by the master's heirs. He must not be worked too hard. Since he is not the physical property of the employer, he must be given good food. At the time he is released from service, he must be given a financial stake to enable him to establish himself. All this is done from an aspect of tzedek, righteousness. On the other hand, being mated with a female slave girl of non Jewish origin, and not being able to claim either the girl or the children she bore him at the time of his release, already paves the way for such a servant to lose his independence, since he will likely contract to remain with his employer for longer than the initial six years he had contracted. Therefore, he will have his ear pierced to remind him that he has chosen to lose his freedom. The passage clearly indicated the Torah's displeasure with people who try to escape their responsibilities in life by throwing the burden of their livelihood onto an employer, and to escape the financial obligations involved in establishing a home and hearth. Since the servant did not want this responsibility, if he leaves after six years,- he leaves as he came in, without capital. If he had wanted to save a dowry when he received the lump sum payment for his six years service in advance, he does receive a stake, but his wife and children will never be his; they stay with the employer having been the employer's physical property. In order to be able to hang on to his wife and children under such circumstances, the servant has to undergo the procedure of having his ear pierced and become a permanent servant for all practical purposes. This is hardly compatible with what he had had in mind at the outset, i.e. a carefree life on easy street without worries. A person who places more trust in the apparent security provided by a human employer than in G-d’s Providence, needs to be taught this lesson. (1) Similarly, all three aspects of tzedek, righteousness are present in the situation of the girl whose father sells her services. To the extent that her employer ought to marry her when she reaches puberty, that is the second aspect of tzedek. To the extent that the employer fails to marry her or divorces her, her position in society henceforth represents the third aspect of tzedek, and forms the subject of appropriate legislation in our Parshah. (3) The reason that the Torah says the servant must not be sold to \"another nation,\" is to emphasize that a sale to any other person, is considered like a sale to another nation. The compensations are mentioned since wealthy people normally marry wives from well to do families, and therefore the poor servant girl may not long remain the wife of her one time employer, or she may have to compete with another wife from a wealthier background. Her social standing therefore needs bolstering. She must not be disadvantaged because she brought nothing into the marriage. If her employer fails to wed her for himself or for one of his sons, she deserves her freedom immediately, and does not owe any money for the shortened period of service she rendered her employer. ",
"At this point, the Torah proceeds to detail a list of laws dealing with human relationships in commerce etc., the first group containing relationships entered into willingly and openly which for some reason have gone sour. Afterwards the Torah deals with borrowings, exchanges etc. The second group deals with relationships not entered into through mutual consent. Theft, robbery, destruction of property,etc., including murder. These again can be subdivided into different groups, some involving violence, others merely subterfuge. Offences such as violence perpetrated on a fellow human being resulting in death, are listed first. If the death did not occur through premeditation, the penalty is exile. Similarly, violence resulting in death, deserves the death penalty. Anyone who smites a person causing death shall be executed, regardless of the circumstances. (21, 12) There are differences, however, in the way the penalty is administered, i.e. through a blood relation of the deceased victim, through heavenly tribunal, or through human Courts. The Talmud tells us that even though Jewish Courts may no longer have jurisdiction to apply the death penalty, death as a prerequisite for eventual atonement of the crime has not been abolished. G-d has His own ways of enforcing that the guilty does not go scot free. The classic example is found in Makkot 10. There are even different degrees of premeditation. When such premeditation is minimal,- according to the plain meaning of the passage,- the altar does protect the perpetrator from the ultimate penalty. When, however, there has clearly been cold blooded premeditation, then even the sanctuary itself is no refuge for the murderer. The Talmud in Makkot 12, explains the error made by Yoav concerning the function of the altar as a place of refuge. (4) Kidnapping is less serious than murder, since the victim may be freed at some future date. Cursing parents leaves even less in the way of visible damage, but the audacity is equal to or even greater than killing a human being that is not related to one. Next in line are the physical injuries not intended,- such as hurting unborn babies,- when the death penalty would at best have been incurred through a contingent liability. Therefore the fines imposed are monetary. Survivors of assaults are categorised according to the length of time the victims have survived. In any event, unless proper warning had been given to the perpetrator, the offender cannot be held liable by a human Court. Next comes violence perpetrated on one's own property, (slaves). People who treat other human beings like chattel, are themselves not fit members of society at all. If the Talmud (Shabbat 105) teaches that someone who smashes his own belongings in a fit of anger deserves to be ostracised, excommunicated,- surely he who does so to his slave deserves to be excommunicated even more. David's answer to the parable the prophet Nathan told him is instructive. In that parable we encounter both greed and lack of compassion. (Samuel II, chapter 12) Therefore, the rich man deserves the death penalty. In cases where the death of the victim is delayed by a day or more, the assault is no longer categorised as cruel, but as punitive in nature, i.e. the owner had wanted to teach the recalcitrant slave a lesson, and that is why he had beaten him. Just as we do not penalise someone who smashes his own belongings thinking thereby to accomplish something, so also with the slave, who is treated like property in this respect. After all, one does not direct one's cruelty at objects. Teachers who flog pupils with fatal results, are not accountable for murder, neither are doctors whose patients die through malpractice, since they had not planned to kill. (5) The slave is viewed both as an object and as a human being in Jewish law. (6) In the case of injury resulting during a fight, compensation is called for. In the event of an unborn baby being killed, the law is similar to the case of someone who had intended to kill A, and had killed B, instead, by mistake. He pays compensation to the heirs, and is himself not subject to an administered death penalty. (The laws about warning a prospective offender make this impossible anyways) The rule of not accepting kopher, conscience money in lieu of the death penalty is suspended in such a case. When our sages decided that the meaning of \"an eye for an eye\" is that this legislation has to be expressed in terms of financial compensation, they did so in order that the principle of \"as he has done to him, so shall be done to him” can also be carried out at the same time. Removing the eye of a blind man who destroyed the eye of a seeing man, would hardly be justice. A priest who, as a result of losing one eye would no longer be able to perform service in the temple, is certainly more affected by the loss of such an eye than his counterpart who is a member of any other tribe. Minor variations, such as the difference in the quality of one's eyesight, social standing of either the injured or the offending party etc. are numerous, and all suggest that only by applying monetary compensation can the objective \"as he has done so shall be done to him,\" be achieved in reasonable measure. (Leviticus 24, 19) ",
"",
"(7) After dealing with involuntary damages caused by man to man, the Torah proceeds to deal with damages caused to man's property. When man owned animal kills man, kopher, conscience money is acceptable even though negligence bordering on homicidal negligence may be involved. The fact that the compensation for the death of a slave is fixed at thirty shekalim regardless of the age and health of the slave, is explained by the fact that the average slave's labour value is thirty shekalim. Exceptions are treated as if they were due to indirect causes, and as such not punishable in the Jewish civil code. Distinctions are drawn between man and beasts that can take care of themselves in varying degrees. Man has the duty to look out for himself; on the other hand, objects are prone to be damaged caused by the normal behaviour of whoever causes the damage, as well as by abnormal behaviour of such agents. Compensation rates are based on those considerations. A thief who pays double the value of the stolen goods- if discovered before he has given himself up-, does so because having decided to diminish the assets of his victim, his own assets are diminished in turn. In this way, he serves as an example for the principle \"as he has done, so shall be done to him.\" Damages caused by one's animals etc. are not so assessed, since no intent to diminish the victim's assets existed. (8) When the stolen goods have been slaughtered or otherwise disposed of, we view this as additional theft having been perpetrated in order to cover the tracks of the original theft. Achan ben Karmi, in the book of Joshua, is a prime example of how one minor infraction, stealing the loot, leads to a string of misdeeds each one helping to disguise the original sin. (Joshua chapter 7) This is why the four, respectively five times valuation of the item stolen originally is levied on such a thief. All the foregoing applies to crimes committed bemachteret, under veil of secrecy. When the crime is committed in the open, in full view of society or any of its members, i.e. \"when the sun shone on him,\" simple restitution is acceptable. Since no special effort had been made for the crime to succeed or to be concealed, no special effort is needed to square the account. Damage caused by one's animal eating from one's neighbour's field, shows lack of consideration for such neighbour's property, therefore the replacement has to be made from the offending owner's prime soil. The valuation of \"prime\" is based on the best that the victim owns. Damage caused by fire is treated similarly. The common denominator of \"principal categories of property damage,\" is that all of them are the result of involuntary actions on the part of the owner/perpetrator. (9) Next, the Torah deals with objects or beasts entrusted for safekeeping, or borrowed for use. When the keeper acted out of neighbourliness, accepting no compensation, he needs to swear that he has not been negligent, and is free from any responsibility for untoward happenings. If he had misused, i.e. used the object or had plotted to arrange for its disappearance, he is treated like a thief. When the object to be kept is livestock, which, since it requires feeding even a good neighbour would only undertake if he is compensated, the degree of responsibility assumed is commensurably greater. It includes liability for theft or disappearance, but excludes robbery with violence and other accidents beyond one's control. When the animal is put at one's disposal as an act of friendship by one's neighbour, the borrower assumes all risks, barring death from natural causes while performing tasks approved by the lender. Responsibility increases in proportion to the degree of use permitted. (10) The owner, having forgiven, i.e. renounced payment for lending the animal, may be presumed to have also forgiven accidental death for which the borrower is completely blameless. (11) The seducer, though he acts with the consent of the seduced, has yet caused greater damage, since he has not only violated the girl's body, but has also corrupted her morals. He has to pay the father of the girl in question considerably more as dowry than the rapist who pays a fixed amount, which may represent only the physical damage he has caused. The decision whether to enter into marriage is up to the girl's father in this case. ",
"Since there is a conceptual affinity between witchcraft and harlotry, the laws about witches follow at this point. The injunction to stamp out witches is more than a one time effort. You have to bring them to trial and condemn them to death. If a conviction cannot be obtained, you cannot reopen the trial, but the injunction of ridding the country of witches remains in effect. All idolatry is intimately intertwined with the practice of withcraft, an attempt to manipulate certain forces of nature considered the ultimate arbiter of man's fate. Canaan was especially prone to this. (Leviticus chapter 18) Therefore the need to eradicate all traces of such practices. Similarly, pederasty and other sexual perversions are to be eradicated, and its perpetrators are to be put to death. Only the former is mentioned in our Parshah. Apparently, such practices also formed part of witchcraft. The reason that \"he who scarifices to deities\" follows, is to emphasize the quasi religious nature that some of the sexual perversions practiced by the Canaanites had assumed. Any deities which had been worshipped in this fashion are especially abominable in the eyes of G-d. Only He who is pure and whose servants are pure, deserves to be worshipped. The desire of G-d is not that man indulge himself in all kinds of perverted physical gratifications, but rather that he get his satisfaction out of helping people less fortunate than himself, such as widows and orphans. He should help restore their lives to a level equal to that of their more fortunate peers. Our own experience in Egypt- if nothing else- should provide us with sufficient motivation. (12) Just as G-d had listened to our outcry then, He will listen to the outcry of the stranger, the orphan and the widow, should they feel compelled to appeal to Him on account of our callousness. This concept is extended in that we are to help people in need with loans etc., without becoming oppressive creditors. Concerning the giving of money outright, \"let your heart not be hard when you give, even repeatedly\". You are expected to support your fellow Jew who has fallen on hard times. Give adequately, not niggardly, so that the recipients' need for further hand outs can be eliminated. If the needy used to be a person of means, we need to help such a person to maintain his former standard of living. \"Do not curse a judge!\" Judges who function in lieu of G-d, must not be cursed. Similarly, the leader of the nation, or other notables who occupy positions of legitimate authority. G-d has seen fit to share His power and glory with them, ergo you have to accept this. In the last analysis you are supposed to become anshey kodesh, men of holy purpose, and this is the only way to attain such a status. This will express itself even more in how discriminating you are in what you eat, even of the categories of animals permitted to you as food. (no treyfah) There follow instructions to judges to preserve the unassailability of their office by not doing anything that makes them appear prejudiced. No false testimony, no preferences for rich or poor litigants, no collaboration with known criminals or sinners. (even if the purpose is to arrive at the truth). You must not assume that the majority can never be wrong. When you know that the majority is wrong, then the fact that they are in the majority does not absolve you from your duty to speak out. Neither are you to follow the senior judge's opinion automatically, just because he is senior and presumably wiser. (13) After this detour, the main topic is resumed with the injunction not to bend the law, not to be guilty of untruthful decisions due to careless examinations of the facts and arguments. Should you reason that G-d would anyways not allow a perversion of justice to occur, and that therefore any judicial murder would have been due to the victim having been guilty of another crime for which he had not been tried, and which society had not been aware of, such reasoning does not exonerate the judge from blood guilt if he was not thorough enough. Do not accept a bribe, even in order to pronounce fair judgment. Do not oppress a stranger even in matters in which applying pressure to naturally born Jews is permitted. You know the psyche of a stranger; it is different from one who feels at home and secure in his country. A stranger (convert) is liable to interpret all pressure as someone taking advantage of his inferior status. Once we are on the subject of excercising pity,we switch to the laws of shmittah the year the fields are to lie fallow, of one's duty to relinquish one's claim over one's property every seventh year, in order to share the proceeds with the poor. Also the Sabbath legislation has at least partially the function of providing a respite for one's staff and beasts of burden. Since other deities have never done anything for those who believed in them, their names should not even be mentioned by Jews as deities. The fact that only G-d is to be worshipped, is connected with the three annual pilgrimages to the temple. Since there are times when man is most aware of G-d’s bounty, that is the time to demonstrate one's appreciation, and acknowledge Him publicly. There are also times when the farmer is temporarily relieved of his more demanding chores, and the journey to Jerusalem presents no economic hardship at such times. The kid which kicks the mother that feeds it, deserves to be boiled in the mother's milk as punishment, (figuratively speaking). Similarly, all who display ingratitude, deserve similar treatment. To remind us of the importance of gratitude, the Torah places this prohibition at this juncture. Its position in Parshat Ki Tissa is after the sin of the golden calf. The Yalkut Parshat Re-ay, item 892, explains this in a similar vein. Apart from our sages' comment on the reason why this prohibition is repeated three times at different places in the Torah, a major reason may be that to do so, i.e. boil the kid in the milk of its mother, would display a certain sense of insensitivity on our part. Even the right to use animals for our own purposes should not be taken for granted to such an extent; it would reveal that we possess a cruel streak. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Here I am sending an angel ahead of you.\" ",
"At the end of the first chapter in Kiddushin (40), the Talmud relates a discussion that took place in the house of Natasse. The problem debated was if study or performance of the mitzvot was of greater value. Rabbi Tarfon said \"performance is great.\" Rabbi Akivah said \"study is great.\" The sages said \"study is great because it leads to performance.\" Rabbi Yossi the Galilean said in the Sifri:\"study is great since it preceded the mitzvah of Challah by forty years, the commandment to give tithes by fifty four years, the mitzvah of Shmittah by sixty one years and the mitzvah of the Jubilee year by one hundred and three years. As the punishment for neglect of Torah study is greater than the punishment for the failure to perform certain commandments, so the reward for study is greater than the reward for performance as it is written \"you will study them to observe them and carry them out.\"(Deut 5,1) ",
"It is axiomatic in philosophy that simple things are expected to perform only simple tasks, whereas sophisticated phenomena or creatures are expected to perform a variety of tasks commensurate with their respective sophistication. If fire were to embody only heat, it would be expected to do no more than to provide heat. Since it also comprises dryness, it also functions as a drying agent. This kind of reasoning is at the core of the statement by our sages that each of the plagues in Egypt consisted of four, respectively five plagues, since each plague was a sophisticated phenomenon, embodying a variety of capabilities. In line with this reasoning, one can understand the dictum of Rabbi Yochanan (Taanit 9) \"rain may come because of the merit of one individual; sustenance, however, because of the merit of the multitude.\" Since the way in which people make their livelihood varies both qualitatively and quantitatively, sustenance can only be entrusted to a group of people as infinitely varied as the modes of their livelihoods. Since man himself consists of both physical and spiritual components, he will have to function both on the physical and on the spiritual level. The physical functions need to be experienced, felt, by his senses. The spiritual functions do not need to be experienced or felt at the physical level. When the Jewish people responded to the imminent revelation of G-d and His Torah, they said “na-aseh,\" we will perform, referring to the activities of their bodies. Then they said \"nishma,\" we will hear, learn, referring to the tasks reserved for the intellect and spirit. ",
"Although the achievements by the intellect leave no physical imprint, they are nevertheless superior in value, since they are the product of the most superior part of man, his mind. Since the intellect is the driving force, the deeds performed as a result, are on a similarly high level. The cause of these deeds can fairly be described as of prime importance, since without it nothing would have taken place. ",
"On the other hand, one could argue the reverse. As long as all performance is merely potential and has not yet been brought to fruition, it is still in the realm of imagination only, and therefore not worth a great deal at all. The concept of \"the reward of a good deed is another good deed,\" (Avot 4,2) suggests that if an effect of a good cause exists, it in turn becomes a cause for another good effect. The Aggadah in Shabbat 119, about the two angels that accompany man on the Sabbath eve on his way home from the synagogue, and who respond to the evidence of the Sabbath preparations which either have or have not been made, by saying \"Amen, may it be likewise next week,\" represent the same viewpoint. Once one sets out on a certain path, one builds a certain amount of momentum. Whether this momentum is positive or negative is irrelevant; the momentum has been built. There are no bad angels, but there is a yetzer hara, an urge to do evil, and it is this that the Talmud refers to when it uses the expression \"bad angel.\" Deeds become causes. The amount of self discipline needed to accomplish certain moral objectives, diminishes in relation to the frequency of the occasions on which this self discipline needs to be exercised. If a sick person finds it an extreme effort to swallow food, after a while the strength that food has given him makes the effort to swallow further amounts of food seem progressively less strenuous. We can understand why our ancestors expressed themselves in three different ways regarding their acceptance of Torah. 1) (Exodus 19,8) \"All that G-d has said, we will perform.\" 2) (Exodus 24,3) \"All that G-d has said we will perform and hear.\" 3) (Deut.5,24) \"All that the Lord our G-d will say to you (Moses) we will hear and perform.\" The first time the word na-asseh, we will perform, refers to the successful end product. They undertook to achieve the task that had been set out for them. The second time, they referred to the process which would lead to the successful achievement of what they had promised in the first verse, namely acquiring the good habits of doing the right thing through repetition, i.e. following instructions. The people had realised that achievements of Torah's purpose does not get accomplished by a single act or gesture. The sequence of study/performance is based on the manner in which angels, i.e. the Lord's messengers address themselves to a task. (compare Talmud Shabbat 88 and our commentary in chapter 44) When the people said \"we will hear and perform,\" they referred to the manner in which the perfect assiyah performance would be assured, namely through study of the objective. As the Torat Kohanim explains (Leviticus Acharey 9) ushmartem va-assitem you will study and comply. In this instance the word \"shamar,\" means study. Proper performance is possible only after study. From the foregoing we see that refinement of one's personality is achieved even when the deeds are deficient in quality, even though the objective is performance of a perfect deed. We have the paradox that both action and study seem superior. The solution is that evaluation of the merit of something may either be based on objective, absolute criteria, or on subjective, relative criteria. From an objective point of view, study is superior to performance since it involves man's finest part his brain, the potentially divine within him. Also, study precedes action chronologically. Man's creation itself had to be preceded by the concepts calling for his creation. Subjectively, however, performance is superior, since without it, theory, study etc. can never be put into practice. (Theory, i.e. the result of study cannot be proven correct without having been put to the practical test.) The training of wild beasts, domesticating them to become beasts of burden, proves the impact of study and habit. ",
"Rabbi Akiva perceives study as priority number one. Rabbi Tarfon views performance as priority number one, seeing that Torah demands deeds, and provides penalties for misdeeds, sins of ommission. Of course, Rabbi Tarfon sees action as the result of study, not uninformed action. We can compare the situation to that of teacher and student. The former is important not only objectively, seeing he is the fountain of the student's knowledge, but also subjectively, since the student's importance is not independent of his relationship with the teacher. The Jewish people recognised that proper study requires that one dissociates from bodily concerns. This is why they said to Moses that he should approach G-d, and that he in turn would communicate the instructions to them. The use of the feminine gender for \"you\" when addressing Moses in that verse, (Deut. 5,24) indicates that they were well aware that what they would hear from Moses the intermediary would be weaker, i.e. would not equal in communicating perceptive powers, that which would be heard from G-d directly by those tuned in properly. ",
"",
"Some problems in the text. 1) Why did G-d choose this juncture to inform the Jewish people He would send an angel ahead of them? They had not even readied themselves to depart from Mount Sinai yet! Why did Moses not object to the suggestion that an angel should precede them as he had protested later after the golden calf episode, when G-d had also promised to send an angel to lead them? (Exodus 33,2) 2) The words \"because My angel walks before you and brings you,\" seem to imply the reason for his mission. How is this so? 3) Why are the words \"do not worship other deities, and do not serve them,\" placed in the middle of the report about how immigration into the holy land would proceed? (Exodus 23,24-5) 4) Why does the Torah announce at this point that Moses and Aaron should go up to G-d? The revelation had after all taken place already! (24,2) 5) Why has the whole routine about \"we shall do and we shall hear\" been repeated ? 6) The description of the vision of the atzilim, the nobles, seems altogether strange. 7) Why would G-d speak about punishing these \"nobles?\" 8) What are the dates referred to in 24, 16, and described as the sixth and seventh day? ",
"(1) Since the giving of the ten commandments, all communications had pertained only to what the Israelites were to do vis a vis G-d, or what they were not to do. They were not to build idols, altars, worship partners of G-d, offer sacrifices to deities etc. Now the subject matter changes and becomes the welfare of Israel and its interests. Moreover, Israel has asked that G-d not communicate with them directly but through an intermediary. G-d therefore announces now that He will indeed guide them through an intermediary as requested, i.e. through an angel. This angel would lead them to the holy land. It had been similar before the arrival at the foot of Mount Sinai, when the Torah had testified repeatedly that an angel was travelling either ahead or behind the camp, as the case might be. (Exodus chapter 14, 13, Isaiah 63) This angel is sometimes referred to as \"face\" i.e. G-d’s \"face.\" (compare Exodus 33, 16 \"if Your face does not go with me\") (2) They are warned that this angel insists on their obedience, and they ought not to underestimate his powers and rebel against him, else he might be exchanged for another. This other angel would be unable to forgive or even postpone their punishment for misconduct. The present angel can postpone punishment \"because My name is within him.\" However, he does not have the authority to forgive sins. \"Lo yissa pish-achem,” he will not forgive. We read about this definition in the thirteen midot, attributes of G-d as nosse avon vafesha. However, \"venakeh lo yenakeh,” he cannot wipe out sin and leave you free from guilt. Since G-d had said \"at any place that allows My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you,\" we understand the word she-mee, My name, as representing a positive power. The Jewish people are exhorted \"make sure that you will listen to his voice,\" (instructions) do not think that the presence of the angel represents the absence of My Presence, rather the reverse is the case. He will help you attain all your objectives. This is not the \"panim el panim\" level, the face to face relationship. The reason that G-d has to underline all this, so to speak, is that if by chance the settlement in the land of Canaan will prove time consuming, this is not due to the angel's impotence, but on the contrary, to insure that a sudden and immediate takeover will not have negative ecological consequences for you, since you are far fewer in number than the present inhabitants of the country, (verse 27-33) (3) Should you sin and associate yourselves in any form with the former inhabitants, this would become a trap for you. After this address to Israel, the next paragraph is addressed to Moses and the elders. (4) This is a flashback to Parshat Vitro prior to the giving of the Torah, when Moses had been warned not to allow the priests etc. to breach the fenced off area around the mountain. Here it details who could approach, and how far those people could proceed, something that had been omitted in chapter nineteen. It is related that Moses conveyed these details to the people together with the legislation that had already been revealed to him. The people's response was that \"whatever G-d has said, we will do.\" At that point, Moses put down in writing what had transpired up to that point. If the people had not accepted, he would not have had any reason to record all these events and their acceptance by Israel. The sacrifices were probably offered by the youngsters, the firstborns, young enough to have been blameless in all respects as explained by Maimonides. Our sages already discussed how Moses could know exactly what was half the blood, (verse 6) Various answers are proposed, the important thing being that the division of the blood indicated that is was \"blood of the covenant,\" and as such some had to be assigned to both parties. (5) Half of the blood was sprinkled on the people to symbolise this concept. Before that, Moses took the book of the covenant and read therefrom. The people then proclaimed \"we will do and we will hear.\" The difference between the \"we will do\" and the \"we will do and hear\" has been explained in chapter 44. ",
"The matter involving the \"nobles\" deserves to be explained in a constructive fashion, as some of our sages have done. (6) The people included in the list of those who \"ascended,\" namely Moses, Aaron, Nadav, Avihu and the elders, had attained a level of insight into the workings of the Divine mind and His entourage which had not been attained by others. They could perceive that all the galaxies are merely tools of the Almighty. Their \"vision,\" i.e. insight, is described as va-yeche-zu, a lower level of insight than va-yir-oo. The former viewed elokey yisrael, the nobles merely elokim, a far more general, less specific kind of understanding. The livnat ha-sappir, the sapphire brick, represents a figment of purity closer to the unity of G-d than even the highest galgalim, planets, galaxies. It is an insight similar to the one described by Ezekiel 1, even sappir. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter thirty one. (7) \"G-d did not stretch out His hand\" (24,11) means that G-d did not extend the gift of prophecy to the other numerous high ranking persons among the people. The description of “they ate and drank,\" refers back to the consumption of the peace offerings mentioned earlier in the passage. (4) After that came the call to Moses alone to ascend the mountain and meet with G-d. Joshua kept watch at the site from which Moses had ascended outside the encampment. Therefore, when Moses descended, the Torah says \"Joshua heard the sound of the people acting wildly.\" (Exodus 32, 17) (8) Moses had instructed the elders to judge during his absence, and to refer difficult decisions to Aaron and Chur. The Mountain had been enveloped in cloud for six days to allow Moses preparation for his meeting with G-d. Our sages say that such preparation of six days is mandatory for someone who meets with the Shechinah. Not that there were specific impediments on Moses’s side that had to be overcome. No charadah, trembling is mentioned, such as was the case with the people. As soon as G-d called to Moses on the seventh day, the Presence of G-d manifested itself as a consuming fire. The forty days include the six days Moses had prepared himself to be addressed by G-d. ",
"The fact that Moses went without food or drink for forty days, though at first glance beyond comprehension, becomes easier to understand in light of the following. Those who indulge in physical pleasures, even for long periods at a time, always seem to feel that the length of their enjoyment was too brief. Inversely, he who is granted spiritual fare of the kind that Moses was privileged to receive, feels that the time thus occupied has been far too brief. Therefore, the thought of food and drink was hardly likely to intrude upon Moses’ss thoughts while he was so privileged. David proclaims (Psalms 119,71) \"I am well off that I was afflicted so that I could study Your statutes.\" In other words, not only did the affliction not hurt him, but it actually helped him to learn G-d’s statutes. Something similar happened to Moses while on the Mountain. Afflictions per se become meaningless when in the presence of something far greater. When angels are described as eating, as in the case of the guests that came to Abraham, they do not in fact eat, but only appear to do so. When Moses is within the confines of the Shechinah, he does eat, but appears not to eat, since the significance of eating and drinking recedes so far into the background of his consciousness as not to count. Various Midrashim which endeavour to detail the kind of food Moses consumed, all make the same point in varying degrees. It is that Moses rejected food and drink so as not to lose the spiritual nourishment during the time and concentration that he would have had to devote while consuming physical food. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"They will take a gift for Me.\" ",
"",
"Since the Torah has gone to some considerable length to underline that the Jewish people never saw an image at the revelation, meaning that G-d is completely abstract, the idea of building a tabernacle for such an abstract entity, seems completely baffling. The Rabbis moreover have made a point of referring to G-d as makom, place, on occasion. They wanted to drive home the point that G-d is not bound by space \"place,\" but that He is the Maker of everything spatial, everything connected with \"space\" or \"place.\" When we recite in the kedushah, emulating the angels in Ezekiel 3, 12, \"blessed the majesty of G-d mi-mekomo,\" this may be understood as \"because He is the foundation, basis of all.\" The word does not mean \"from His place\" as we commonly translate it in other contexts. It follows that the sanctuary we build here on earth is purely symbolic, though governed by the strictest halachot, rules of conduct. If the concept of the sanctuary is one that embodies ideas expressed symbolically, then details of the construction and everything else connected with it are also full of symbolism. The author treats the subject in detail. We summarise only some of the highlights. ",
"When G-d said to Moses (25, 9) \"in accordance with all I have shown you,\" Moses had some difficulty in comprehending. G-d therefore said to him that the tabernacle should reflect the structural peculiarities of the universe itself. This means that the sanctuary on earth is to be a microcosm of the universe at large. Expressed differently, we are to do on earth that which corresponds to what He did when He revealed Himself to the prophets, draped in \"garments\" such as perceived in the visions of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jacob and others. It is this that the Psalmist refers to when he says (Psalm 93 or 104) \"G-d has begun His reign, He has robed Himself in Majesty.\" When the time had arrived for G-d to reveal part of His glory to His entire people, He commanded the tabernacle to be constructed as the means to reveal that part of Himself. The answer given to Moses can be understood thus. In theory, any thinking Jew can build a tabernacle, even though he may lack the proper materials to carry out the actual construction. This then is the allegorical meaning of \"from any person who is of generous disposition\" (25,2) Isaiah 66, 1, discussing \"the house\" G-d allows to be built for Him, suggests that the person deserving of the presence of the shechinah should possess three character traits. They are \"ani, - necheh ru-ach, -chared el de-varee, “he should be of contrite heart, humbling himself before Me, he should be of a spirit that reveres Me and he should tremble at My word.\" ",
"Meanings of some of the detailed instructions. 1) Since the tabernacle was built mostly from voluntary contributions, this parallels the act of kindness and generosity that the universe was created with by G-d. olam chessed yibaneh, the world is built by kindness. (Psalms 89,3) There were no preconditions which had necessitated that the universe come into existence. 2) Just as the tabernacle contained thirteen materials, so the universe consists of nine planets and four basic elements. (Actually fifteen materials are mentioned, but wool coloured three different ways may be considered the same material.) 3) Just as Moses put a stop to the amount of donations being offered, saying dai! enough, so G-d had exclaimed at the time He completed the sixth day of creation, \"dai.\" Ever since His name has become shaddai the One who had said dai. The first item to have been constructed was the holy ark, repository of the tablets and the Torah. According to our Midrashic literature, the Torah had been created prior to the construction of the universe. Next came the lid of the ark, and the cherubs mounted on that lid. These represented the angels, the spiritual beings who are close to G-d, and by means of whom inspiration is conferred upon man. Scriptural proof for this function of the angels can be found in the very last verse of the Bible, Chronicles II 36, 23, in which Coresh reports about having been inspired to build a temple for the Almighty. That the destruction of the holy temple was due to the refusal to heed the angels, is documented in verse fifteen and sixteen of that same chapter. Third, we have the fact that the material used for construction of the cherubs was pure gold. This teaches that the angels are not composed of a variety of materials like human beings. The wings of the cherubs represent an attribute man desires, but has not been granted. See Psalms 55,7 \"I said, O that I had wings like the dove! Then I would fly and have rest.\" The construction of the cherubs does not contradict the commandment not to make images, since in fact they are not physical. Therefore one does not violate the commandment not to reproduce a likeness when one fashions the cherubs. The reason that there are two cherubs, not one, notwithstanding the fact that they were made out of the same material, is to prevent someone making the error that there is more than one uniqueness in this world, namely G-d Himself. This is the reason that at the time of the pilgrimages, the curtain was opened to reveal to the multitude the holy ark and the cherubs mounted on its lid. (Yuma 54 ) The cherubs were seen embracing each other like man and wife. The people would comment that their love before G-d was like the love between man and his wife. The author quotes other sources illustrating that without the love relationship which exists between man and wife, i.e. families, the Divine Presence on earth cannot be expected to manifest itself. The upward lift of the cherub's wings points towards the source of all life, G-d. Nonetheless, the cherubs' stance in covering the holy ark, is indicative of their function to be the intermediary between G-d Himself the Essence, and earth. ",
"The menorah, candelabra and altar of incense in the sanctuary symbolise the planetary orbits. The showbreads are presented on the Sabbath, to remind us of the fact that as soon as G-d had stopped creating, He turned His attention to the problem of providing parnassah, a livelihood, for all His creatures. The various tools, appurtenances of the table are reminders that we must not sit with our hands folded waiting to be provided for, but must do our share. We omit much of the commentary at this point, since it revolves around the premise of a universe with seven major planets, an outdated concept. The author also illustrates how different parts of the tabernacle legislation tie in with the seven day creation cycle. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"The construction of the menorah, candelabra. ",
"Midrash Shemot Rabbah 38, comments \"when G-d instructed Moses regarding the construction of the menorah, Moses questioned \"can Israel do this?\" G-d replied \"any ordinary individual in Israel is able to do this, since the Torah instructed \"from each one whatever his heart is willing to donate\" (Exodus 25,2). ",
"The instructions concerning the details of the appearance of the menorah which are given before its construction, then again while its construction was in progress, and finally- at least partially- in Parshat Beha-alotcha when the lighting of the menorah is commanded, pose the problem \"why all this emphasis on the details?\" Since none of the legislation in the Torah contains superfluous detail, it must be that the details are very important if they concern nothing more than a vessel that serves as the vehicle of a mitzvah, not the mitzvah itself. Why do we need to be told at that point that the construction of the menorah conformed to its blueprint? Who was it that carried out its construction? The craftsman who made it is referred to only by the words \"he made it.\" The subject is nowhere mentioned by name, however. Why does Aaron need to be praised for not making any changes? Were the problems of cleaning the menorah so extraordinary that changes in its construction seemed to have been called for? Even stranger is the Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat Beha-alotcha, according to which Aaron was told that lighting the menorah was a commandment which would never become redundant, whereas offerings on the altar would cease with the destruction of the holy temple. Did not everything cease at that time, including the lighting of the menorah? Maimonides' answer that the Midrash refers to the lighting of the Chanukah lights seems far fetched. Aaron's mind would hardly have been put at rest by being told that a minor Rabbinic ordinance in the future would compensate him for not participating in the offerings that had been brought by the princes in which his entire tribe had not been represented. This is especially so, since even during the seven days of the inaugural service in the holy tabernacle, when Moses himself performed the sacrificial rites, Aaron's mind had already been troubled. This in spite of the fact that he would perform many more such sacrificial rites in the future. We therefore have to look further in order to understand that particular Midrash. There is a basic difference between the way man looks at things and in the way G-d looks at things. Man begins with the phenomena that he sees and hears, and proceeds by means of those phenomena to comprehend or assume the existence of other less familiar phenomena. Such unfamiliar phenomena may exist only in the abstract, never to be perceived visually or aurally. G-d, on the other hand, proceeds in the opposite fashion. Sof ma=asseh bamachashavah techillah, the final product had been envisaged at the very outset. This is the way He operates. Every manifestation of any phenomenon represents merely a step planned and necessary to lead to the ultimate total structure. Having planned the final product, He comprehends the significance of every step, every constituent part, even if it is apparently unrelated to the whole. He is aware that such a phenomenon is indispensable, an integral part of the whole to be revealed later. On his way to the inner sanctuary, man, observing the sacrificial rites of the burning of animals which symbolise removal of sin etc., begins to comprehend that the inner sanctuary must be approached only in a state of purity, after washing himself from the copper basin placed in front of the sanctuary. Inside the sanctuary are found the holy vessels of which the menorah represents the concept of enlightenment, wisdom, which though one, seeing the menorah has been hammered out of single chunk of gold, nevertheless contains seven arms, branches. These seven arms suggest seven different disciplines of wisdom and knowledge. Indeed, the wisdom that Solomon (Proverbs 9, 1) refers to, is the Torah itself. We find this also in chapter six of Proverbs, where we read \"a mitzvah is a light, whereas Torah is the source of enlightenment.\" The menorah of the spiritual forces in our world is represented by Torah. It guarantees meshivat nefesh, (Psalms 19,8-11), the return to eternal life by the soul. The six arms are mentioned alternatively left and right, representing the physical forces, (left) and the spiritual forces (right). The words \"testimony, mitzvot and judgments,\" refer to the three arms on the left, whereas the words \"mandates, reverence and more desirable than fine gold,\" refer to the three arms on the right of the stem of the menorah. Simple man does not dream of, or aspire to greatness- even in this physical world. \"The testimony of G-d is faithful,\" teaches that this does not hold true in Judaism. An inferior position in this physical world, does not constitute a barrier to reaching one's perfection, Divinely inspired goals. Machkimat peti,” it makes even the fool become wise.\" Torah promotes that kind of inspiration. The princes which govern this physical world are the willpower and freedom of choice which enable man to aspire to lofty heights in spite of lowly physical surroundings. Since man may have suffered corruption due to other material forces that interact with him, pikkudim, mandates are needed to counteract the inroads made by the aforementioned forces. The purpose of these pikkudim, is to make the positive character traits the norm rather than the exception. mitzvah, are those commandments which ennoble our lives on earth by constituting a symbolic link with our destiny, our relationship with G-d. Examples are tefillin, (phylacteries), tzitzit (fringes), mezuzah, lulav and others. \"Enlightening the eyes,\" refers to the thoughtful performance of the commandments. Yir-ah, refers to the reverence which we demonstrate when we perform commandments which we are unable to rationalise. We demonstrate our obedience to G-d whose superior wisdom we acknowledge by performing these mitzvot. Omedet la- ad, endures forever, means that part of the Torah remains an eternal moral and intellectual challenge. Mishpatim, judgments, refers to the penalties in store for those who choose not to observe the legislation of G-d as revealed in the Torah. This reference is made especially to past generations whose failure in this respect resulted in their being punished in a manner that fitted their crimes. Tzadku, were just. The justness of the punishment suffered by those generations is apparent to the student of history, i.e. the history described in the Torah. Hanechemadim, that are more precious than fine gold, refers to the statutes whose purpose it is to assure us a reward in the world to come, a reward far greater than any material possessions in this world. The symbolism contained in the merit, the right to kindle the menorah which represents man's attempt to perfect himself, becomes clear then. Keeping to the exact order in carrying out this task is laudable since so much depends on its outcome. Just as the name menorah for the whole candelabra suggests enlightenment, its parts, i.e. stem, arms, chalices, and flowers suggest their respective functions. The stem is used to acquire wisdom; the chalice to be the receptacle of such wisdom; the flower suggests additional wisdom sprouting forth once the fundamentals have been observed properly. The height of eighteen tefachim, handsbreadths, represents the height of a man of average height. The number eighteen is symbolic of the word chay, alive, i.e. its numerical value. Man's intellect is divided into two categories, each of which is subdivided into three parts. There is practical as well as speculative reason. The practical reason deals in the first instance with man's personal concerns, in the second instance with the concerns of his household, and in the third instance with matters affecting the society in which he lives. Similarly, speculative reason. In the first instance, man identifies his own feelings and senses. In the second instance, he learns to determine the validity of all these sensations, whether the information they convey to him is true. (i.e. can one trust one's senses?) In the third instance, man acquires the ability to understand the interrelationship between all these phenomena. This third stage is generally known as beenah, insight. The three arms on the right side of the menorah represent the three kinds of speculative reason, whereas the three arms on the left side of the menorah represent the three levels of practical reason. The \"knobs\" on the stems are to be seen as \"way stations.\" Since attainment of insights is achieved only gradually, step by step, these knobs represent the steps in man's intellectual progress. ",
"The Midrash explains that G-d does not need the light of the candelabra, but He wanted us to provide that light in the tabernacle so that He in turn could provide a great light for us in the world of the future. G-d also wishes to demonstrate to mankind at large that those who kindle lights for Him, deserve to have Him light the way for them. In order to enjoy the benefits of the natural guidance of G-d, one needs to be constantly aware of G-d’s guiding hand in history as well as His share in shaping the fate of individuals. The leaders of the people especially, need visible reminders of that. Therefore, leaders, i.e. Levites were encamped around the tabernacle. The priests would be reminded of G-d’s presence and intervention in the fate of man whenever they would look at the eternal flame on the altar. The holy ark was carried physically by the group of Levites of the highest moral fibre. By the awareness of the proximity of G-d, they in turn invoked the hashgachah peratit, Divine involvement at the personal level. This kept all the dangers inherent in an inhospitable climate such as the desert, away from the Israelites. (see our commentary in chapter 34) ",
"This too is the meaning of Moses’s question quoted in the introduction to this chapter i.e. \"can Israel do this?\" The question was \"how can man construct a dwelling that is to contain G-d?\" The question is very similar to the statement by Solomon when dedicating the temple he had built. \"heaven and the firmaments are not large enough to contain You.\" G-d’s reply however, explained to Moses that when viewed from the vantage point we mentioned earlier, any Israelite can both benefit and achieve the purpose for which the tabernacle and its furnishings were intended. ",
"The Torah as an acquisition is quite different from other acquisitions. (Exodus Rabbah 33) Generally, he who sells personal property is depressed over the need to have had to do so. Not so the seller of Torah. He rejoices. Normally, once a purchase has been made, the owner is concerned about safeguarding it. Not so with Torah. Torah safeguards its keepers, those who own it. Normally, the idea that by purchasing an artist's product, one establishes a claim on the artist, is inconceivable. When acquiring Torah however, one does establish a claim on its Creator. \"And they shall take a contribution for Me,\" (as if you were acquiring Me as a gift). (Exodus 25,2) In giving the Torah to Israel, G-d has handed over His most precious and versatile possession. He has given Torah scholars the key to guiding the world, to turn on and off benefits as one would use a key to lock or unlock a vault. All this G-d did joyfully, not regretfully. The relationship between G-d and Israel may be viewed in the following manner. A king had an only beloved daughter. When he married her off, he said to her husband: \"I cannot give her up completely, since she is my daughter. I cannot ask you not to take her home, since she is your wife. My one request is that wherever you two go, have a spare room for me nearby, so that I can be near you.\" Similarly, G-d said to Israel: \"Now build Me a house so that I can be near both of you (including the Torah) at all times.\" The concept, of course, is that since the mitzvot of the Torah concern themselves not with the abstract but with the physical, Torah belongs in the physical world. At the same time, however, since it had been the outgrowth of the world of pure spirit, it cannot be severed from that world either, and represents the link between the two worlds. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"You shall construct the tabernacle!\" ",
"Shemot Rabbah 34, states that the Lord said to Israel \"you are the sheep and I am the shepherd\" as is written in Ezekiel 34,31, \"now you My sheep, sheep of My pasture, you are Adam.\" And I am the shepherd as is written (Psalms 80,2) \"hearken O shepherd of Israel. Make for Me a shed so that I can tend you.\" Similarly, G-d is described as a watchman, Israel being His vineyard. Or, G-d is described in scripture as being the father, Israel being His children. It is an honour for a father to be surrounded by his sons, and it is an honour for the sons to be able to be near their father. Compare Proverbs 17,6, \"grandchildren are the crown of their elders, the glory of children are their parents.\" Therefore: \"Make Me an abode so that I can dwell amongst you\" i.e. \"they shall make a sanctuary for Me, and I will reside amongst them.\" ",
"The pains taken when constructing a shelter reflect the purpose that shelter is to serve. If the shelter is to be no more than a temporary hut shielding shepherds against the heat of the sun, its materials and the care expended on its construction will be minimal. If, however, it is to serve as an all year residence, the utmost care will be taken to construct it of durable materials and to ensure precise workmanship. Similarly, bodily attributes such as hair, smoothness of skin, clarity of voice, none of which perform vital functions, often deteriorate at a rapid pace. Vital physical attributes such as the heart, digestive system, etc., will be observed to have been constructed of a far more durable nature. Nations whose continued existence in history G-d considered vital, have been given the Torah and commandments, whereas those nations whose future was considered marginal, were only given seven commandments, as if to indicate that their historic lease on life was relatively brief, when compared with that of Israel. Compare Isaiah 40, 15, \"here the nations are like a drop fallen from the bucket.\" On the other hand, concerning Israel, G-d said \"Place these My words on your hearts.. so that your days on earth will endure a long time. (Deut. 11,18-21) In view of the above, it becomes difficult to understand why the Torah has expended so much ink and parchment in detailing everything about the tabernacle, since it was not to be a permanent structure. Since the tabernacle was to serve only as a temporary abode while Israel was on the way to the holy land and until a permanent temple would be built, all these detailed instructions are hard to comprehend. Had it not been for the sin of the spies, Israel would have entered the holy land at once, and construction of the permanent temple would have begun at once. When one compares the brief reference in Chronicles concerning the blueprint for the permanent temple, the contrast becomes even more startling. One would have expected a wealth of detail either in the book of Kings or in Chronicles, if these events had been described according to normal usage, (compare Chronicles I chapter 28) ",
"Furthermore, since construction of the temple was one of the three commandments to be implemented when Israel entered the holy land, (Jerusalem) (Sanhedrin 20), why was the order not given at once to David, just as Saul had been asked to wipe out Amalek, another of those three commandments? Not only was David not commanded to build the temple, he was actually forbidden to do so. (Samuel II chapter 7) ",
"If David was denied because he had shed the blood of pagans, why would his son who worshipped idols, be granted that privilege, though scripture compares him unfavourably with his father? (Kings I chapter 11) Moreover, we do not find anywhere that Solomon was told by G-d to proceed with the structure David had been told to abandon. ",
"When we examine the promise of the prophet Nathan to David concerning the future of his son Solomon, we find that G-d had almost precluded Himself from severing His covenant with Solomon even if the latter should be steeped in sin. (Samuel II 7, 12-17) We read there something that sounds like Solomon had been given carte blanche by G-d, come what may. Similarly, we see Eytan Haezrachi describe the absolute assurances G-d gave to David and his descendants. (Psalms 89,21-38) How does all this square with the statement \"G-d is not mortal man that He deceives?\" (Numbers 23, 19) Reading verses 39,53, in Psalms 89, certainly poses a difficult problem concerning the absolute nature of assurances from G-d. We also find Solomon being warned repeatedly that his kingdom would not endure if he failed to live up to G-d’s expectations of him. (Kings I chapter 9) Even though the tabernacle, i.e. temporary collapsible structure did endure long, -due to the sin of the spies-, G-d expressed His plan for residence on earth by giving all the instructions for such a residence. In G-d’s own good time, an enduring structure will be built, such as is envisaged in the concluding chapters of the book of Ezekiel. That however, will be when the Jewish people will have become so refined in character through having been persecuted in exile, that success can be ensured and the Divine Presence would not again be forced to withdraw. The entire book of Ezekiel can be viewed as concentrating on this subject, seeing that it commences with a vision of ma-asseh merkavah, i.e. G-d’s residence in the heavens, and concludes with visions of G-d’s residence on earth. The intervening chapters only provide the rationale why a permanent residence for G-d on earth had not been possible, due to the errant ways of G-d’s chosen people. Only after \"and I shall sprinkle on you cleansing waters...and give you a new heart,\" (chapter 36) have the conditions been met that must precede the establishment of a permanent home for G-d on this earth. Interestingly, when Ezekiel mentions the date of his first vision, he begins with the exile of the Divine Presence,- when Jewish exile began-, only to mention the date of the day of Atonement, when forgiveness is granted as the last day in all his recorded visions. If G-d did not command building of a temple when Israel entered the holy land, it was because Israel did not remove all the vestiges of idol worship and idol worshippers from that land. They left in place many people and many objects that would cause them to sin at a later date. Even though David, of his own accord, proposed to establish such a temple, G-d asked \"how could you do so unless I had commanded you?\" As to the promise that his son would be chosen to do so, the son referred to, is not Solomon, but the Messiah. G-d emphasized that He never requested from Moses a permanent residence, neither does He request it at that time. (Samuel II 7,7) However, \"your son\" meaning the Messiah, \"he will build it.\" David prepared blueprints etc., but he did not realise that it was not Solomon who had been meant by the words of the prophet Nathan, but that the descendant who would build the permanent house would do so many years after David's departure from this earth. Chronicles I chapter 17, confirms this interpretation. Verse 14 reads \"I will make him stand in My house and My kingdom forever,\" a phrase that can certainly not be applied to Solomon. This is all in line with the prophecy in Isaiah chapter eleven, describing the nature of the Messiah. This is the person referred to already in David's time (Samuel II 7, 14) \"I will be his father\" etc. The kind of sins committed in those distant days will indeed be subject to forgiveness because the people will respond positively to teachings and rebukes. As the prophet Zecharyah (12,8) says \"anyone that stumbles in those days will be equal to David; the house of David will be G-d like, like an angel before the Lord.\" G-d will not abandon them as He has not abandoned David himself.\" Nathan's prophecy to David referred in large measure to this distant future. Whether Nathan himself was fully aware of this, does not matter. When David refers to G-d’s promise for the distant future in gratitude, (Samuel II 7, 19) we notice that he was not unaware of the meaning of Nathan's message. David also understood that the very nature of man made it necessary for this process of refinement to extend over millenia. Chronicles I 17, 17, states \"You have seen me and chosen me like the row (group) of men of the elite, Lord G-d.\" As the Talmud (Baba Metzia 114) says \"man, i.e Israel will qualify for the term ADAM after going through long periods of trials and afflictions etc. before realising that the object of our hopes is the glory of G-d manifested by what He builds, not the glory of man manifested by what man has erected. ",
"We find that Solomon tells Chirom that he has the task to build the temple of which G-d had told his father David that his son would build it. (Kings I 5, 19.) The Zohar points out that when G-d mentions the selection of a city for His temple and the appointment of a king, the fact that David was chosen king does not indicate that the time had arrived to build the temple. Since it was David's dearest wish however, and after him that of Solomon, G-d did not prevent Solomon from building the temple. The latter, however, had persuaded himself that he had been carrying out G-d’s desire. G-d Himself warns Solomon in Kings I chapter six, that the continued existence of the temple would depend on a number of conditions. Not so with the beyt olamim, the eventual temple, as we have demonstrated previously. The warning is repeated during the dedication ceremony. ",
"",
"The Midrash quoted at the outset of this chapter, listing a variety of comparisons for the Israel/G-d relationship, refers to the various temples. The first example, the shepherd and his dwelling, refers to the tabernacle in the desert. G-d’s function in the desert was to provide all the needs of the people directly. (Manna-water-meat) Solomon's temple,-since it did not endure-, was referred to as a hut, the need of the guardian to keep manning his observation post. Israel was referred to as the vineyard during that epoch. (Compare Isaiah chapter five or Song of Songs chapters one and eight) In the first chapter of Isaiah we find that after the destruction of Solomon's temple, Israel is described as having been abandoned like a hut in a vineyard. These various prophecies envisage the rebuilding of something permanent. None of the prophecies concerning rebuilding can be matched to historic events that have already occurred. A temple that lacked the holy ark, to mention but one of the many items missing in the second temple, and one that had been built at the direction of, or at least with the consent of a gentile government to which Israel owed allegiance, cannot possibly be something that manifests G-d’s reign on earth. Chaggai and Ezekiel clearly refer to the temple of the future. If it is an honour for the father to be surrounded by his children as the Midrash says, the small number of Jews that returned to Israel during the reign of Cyrus etc., surely cannot confer much honour on the father. This latter condition will only come about as we read in Psalms 126, \"when the Lord returns to Zion we shall be as dreamers,\" during an era of which we can truly say \"then our mouth will be full of laughter and our tongue will be filled with jubilation.\" That the expanded temple in the days of Herod- a slave of the Hasmoneans-, his hands bloodstained by much Jewish blood, could not be the temple envisaged by our prophets, goes without saying. One must therefore view the entire relationship between Israel and G-d as that between groom and betrothed. The proper husband/wife relationship is to be consummated when the permanent temple will be built. An alternate view of the opening Midrash would be that it refers to parts of the tabernacle. The inner sanctuary would be referred to as the house, the sanctuary proper, heychal, as the hut, and the courtyard as the enclosure, the pen. In the latter event, \"enclosure,\" G-d has a claim on us because He provides food and shelter. In the case of \"hut, He can demand more, since He has also given us the Torah. In the case of \"house,\" since He is prepared to act as our father, providing All, He can expect that we prepare His abode accordingly. The author clearly refers the first approach. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"These are the garments\" ",
"The Talmud Erchin 67 states that the reason the portion dealing with the priestly garments is written next to the portion dealing with the sacrifices, is to inform us that just as the function of the sacrifices is to obtain atonement, so the function of the priestly garments also is to achieve a degree of atonement for the people. The breastplate atones for errors in application of justice between man and man; the ephod for errors in worship of other deities. The robe, me-il atones for slander, the tunic for bloodshed, the belt for rationalisation of intended licentious behaviour. The pants atone for incestuous conduct, and the headband atones for individual obstinacy vis a vis G-d. ",
"Man's activities are divided into three categories. 1) Natural, involuntary activities, not subject to teaching, training and memory. Examples are our heartbeat, digestion etc. All these activities are carried on whether man is awake or asleep, none require an act of memory to activate them. When David exclaims \"I have forgotten to eat\" (Psalms 102,5) this is, of course, merely an exaggeration, expressing the thought that the body no longer functions properly. 2) Activities which result from education, instructions and may be either in agreement with or in opposition to man's natural urges and tendencies. These activities are subject to memory. As we say in Avot chapter 4, there are four categories of students, \"some learn easily but forget just as easily.\" 3) Activities based on man's character traits. Kindness, excitability, generosity etc. are examples of such activities. These latter activities are subject to memory in the early stages of their development, but eventually become ingrained, i.e. like second nature. Once such activities have been fully developed, they are no longer subject to prompting, but occur from force of habit. \"If I forget you Jerusalem may I forget my right hand,\" is an example of such an activity. (Psalms 137,5) Properly attuned, we cannot forget Jerusalem any more than we can forget our right hand. Isaiah 49, 16, has G-d saying \"I have inscribed you on My right hand,your walls are always present in My thoughts\". Or, (Psalms 77, 10) \"Has G-d forgotten to show pity?\" Reversal of acquired habits and traits can therefore only be due to one of the following three reasons A) impotence. B) Amnesia C) Change of mind and will. Since categories A and B can obviously not be applied to G-d, David raises the question whether G-d’s change of mind will persist forever. (Psalms 77,9) ",
"From all the above we conclude that memory applies in the true sense only to those of our actions that are the result of teaching and instruction. If so, it is hard to understand that the Torah commands memory in connection with all the aforementioned three categories. If the mitzvah applies to things which are natural and automatic to us, the commandment to remember it, seems superfluous. If, on the other hand, it concerns matters opposed to our nature, if one remembers to perform such mitzvah all well and good; if one fails to perform it, what sin is there since memory itself is one of the things that is activated automatically and is not subject to willpower? How can we be culpable for lack of, or inadequacy of such brainpower? Just as no shame attaches to a person who loses his eyesight or his hearing, why should someone who loses his memory be considered as morally deficient? This is why our sages interpret Tamar saying to Yehudah \"hakker na le-mee hachotemet\" as meaning \"give recognition to your Creator, make a confession etc.\" (Bereshit Rabbah 85,Genesis 38,25) If memory were subject to one's will, the meaning of the verse would simply be \"examine the ring to see if it is yours!\" ",
"This problem is solved when the Torah instructs remembrances together with things which we had to learn. The Talmud (Berachot 20) says \"everything which is subject to observance,becomes subject to remembrance.\" This means that every act such as Sabbath observance, triggers memory cells which reminds the one performing the commandment of the purpose of the Sabbath legislation and the process of creation by G-d. \"Observe the month of spring, for during it you came out of Egypt\" (Exodus 13,4) This means that the Passover observances will trigger memories related to the Exodus. Or, regarding the observance of Purim \"these days will be remembered through their observance.\" (Esther 9,28) Remembering Amalek is especially underlined, since no specific act triggers the memory. This is why the commandment ends with the words \"do not forget!\" In the absence of a mitzvah act, the danger of forgetting is much greater. Reading the portion of the attack of Amalek substitutes for an act. In all the foregoing situations, the Torah provides the antidote to forgetting. In view of these memory aids provided, not remembering a commandment which mentions remembrance becomes culpable. People who fail to make notations of important events in their calendar can be faulted for not remembering them. This is why the chief of Pharaoh's cupbearers, of whom the Torah says that \"he did not remember Joseph but forgot him,\" refers to this a a sin. (Genesis 41,9) One of the sins of the cupbearer referred to, was not remembering Joseph's request to be mentioned to Pharaoh as deserving release from prison. When David says in Psalms 119,45, \"I swore I will keep Your words,\" he did so to remind himself of commandments he might otherwise have overlooked. The Talmud Baba Metzia 5, states that though a man's honesty may be suspect, his oath is believed. David swore to himself that if he were to be remiss, he would bear the additional burden of a false oath, a severe enough sin to jog his memory not to forget to observe the mitzvot in question. When Solomon says in Proverbs 10,5, \"he who accumulates in summer is a wise person,\" he would apply this same kind of reasoning to him who reinforces his memory by vowing not to forget to keep the mitzvah. He who feels bothered by the fact that a certain mitzvah is incumbent upon him, has already reason to rejoice over taking the oath, just as a person taking a laxative realises joyfully that the medicine is about to help as soon as his stomach starts convulsing. ",
"The upshot of all this (David's outpourings in Psalm 119) is that mitzvah performance must become as automatic to us as life itself. Therefore, the Mishnah in Avot 3, 10, says that \"whosoever forgets part of his studies has sinned gravely,\" since the Torah has provided memory joggers. The word \"Talmud\" in that Mishnah refers to knowledge of the commandments and their performance. Unless a person has tried and failed to remember, he is guilty of a sin. If he did the latter, he is subject to the saving grace of pen yassuru mi -levavcha, lest they depart from your heart, as long as he did not contribute to forgetting them. (Deut. 4,9) G-d lays tefillin, phylacteries, or created the rainbow, so that His memory should be jogged by visible symbols. If, in the words of the Midrash, it is good enough for Him to jog His memory, it is certainly incumbent upon us to do so. The concept of \"G-d’s Torah is perfect,\" (Psalms 119,8) implies that the law of G-d is beyond blemish at any time in history; nothing in it can therefore be devoid of purpose at any time. This is so even if the application of a particular commandment is restricted to certain individuals such as priests. Even the occurrence of a million to one shot such as a ben sorer umoreh, an obstinate gluttonous teenager whose parents take him to Court to be executed, or a commandment which by definition could only be performed once in history in the desert, has significance far beyond that unique opportunity to perform it. David assures us in the first of the Psalms that he who truly desires Torah and studies same, is like a tree securely planted next to a never failing water supply. Such a tree will not wilt etc. If this is true of the person who studies Torah, how much more must Torah itself be meaningful in all its details. This is the reason that the mitzvot of the tabernacle and priestly garments which are of limited duration, emphasize again and again \"it is an eternal statute in front of Me forever,\" or the use of the word tzav. The Talmud in Kiddushin 29, states that any commandment associated with the word tzav is a commandment that applies forever. Examination of those laws reveals that there are many instances where this rule simply does not stand up in the light of history. We must understand the Talmud to mean that though the details of the commandments in question helped us fulfil them at times when they proved physically capable of fulfilment, we derive the major benefit from these commandments through the lessons we learn from the concepts that these mitzvot represent. It is these concepts that remain valid forever. This is the meaning of Deuteronomy 29,8, \"observe the words of the covenant, carry them out so that you will gain insights from all that you do.\" Similarly Deut.4,6, \"it is your wisdom and your insight.\" Unfortunately, as the Rambam already observes in his \"Moreh,\" most people never concern themselves with such matters and want to get close to the king without ever having seen the king's palace, as it were. Granted that performance of the mitzvah, since it is G-d’s command, is praiseworthy. Nevertheless it is far from the ultimate that we are capable of achieving. Whatever the tabernacle teaches is as relevant today as ever, just as basic concepts do not lose their relevance because they cannot always be applied instantly. If the Torah commands that we help an enemy load his beast, thereby teaching important moral lessons, these lessons do not lose their relevance because we have no enemies or because we never encountered an enemy in circumstances where this commandment could be performed. David says in Psalms 51, 19, \"the (real) sacrifice to G-d is a broken spirit.\" It is the spirit in which G-d is approached that matters. The Talmud Menachot 106, explains the verse in Leviticus 7,37, \"this is the teaching of the Torah concerning the total offering, the gift offering and the peace offering,\" as meaning that he who labours studying the laws of these offerings, does not actually have to bring them in order to achieve the personality development that these offerings are meant to help us achieve. The idea is that just as performance plays its part in awakening the mind to what, why and how one is doing, so the study of the laws pertaining to these observances accomplishes the same thing. We should not therefore bemoan earlier times when through the performance of mitzvot such as yovel, the Jubilee year, we could come closer to G-d. Let us look now at the \"memory\" element surrounding the commandments of the priestly vestments. Concerning the ephod, apron it states \"Aaron should wear the names of the children of Israel before G-d on his shoulders as remembrance.\" Concerning the choshen, the breastplate, we find a similar quote. A similar purpose is common to all the priestly garments. Clothing as such is symbolic of acquired traits. Already in the wording of the commandments there is a reference to the concepts of midot, character traits, which we discussed at the beginning of this chapter. (Leviticus 6,3) mido bad; or in Judges 3, 16, \"under his madim;” or in Psalms 133,2, \"descending according to midotav.\" So we observe the term midah being used for garments, illustrating the essential nature of garments, at least when worn by priests. The first impression that one receives when meeting another person is that of the clothes he wears. It suggests his occupation, certain of his behavioral traits etc. Even our prophets in praising the Lord, use the simile \" You are garbed in Splendour.\" (Psalms 104, 1) Or, \"resplendent in His garments\" (Isaiah 63, 1) Secondly, people wear different sets of clothing for the Sabbath and weekdays. Even in ancient times, Esau had \"his precious clothes\" (Genesis 27, 15) or (Ruth 3,3) Ruth who put special garments for a special occasion. By wearing different clothing on the Sabbath, every Jew signals that he assumes different character traits on the Sabbath. In Hilchot Derech Eretz, the halachah stipulates that ordinary clothing be worn for the performance of mundane tasks, whereas festive clothing should be worn when performing mitzvot between man and His Maker. This is the meaning of Isaiah chapter 58. Compare also chapter 63. Thirdly, just as man is never completely nude, so he is never completely devoid of mitzvot. Therefore, all of Israel, priests and ordinary Israelites alike, have the duty to be garbed in special garments. This is why a whole nation is referred to as a kingdom of priests, to imbue all garments with a reminder of the symbolic significance of garments as such. Therefore, the Torah says in connection with the tzitzit, fringes, \"when you see it, you will remember the commandments\" (Numbers 15,39). \"A garment adorned with tzitzit will remind you of all the commandments of G-d to carry them out, ibid.\" Whenever white garments are mentioned by our sages, it refers to the moral condition of the wearer of such garments. For instance, we have the parable of the king who invites his servants to partake of a meal in his palace without specifying the date and hour the meal is to take place. The intelligent servants remained within the vicinity of the king’s palace, saying that it would be foolish to roam around elsewhere since they had no urgent business elsewhere. The foolish ones carried on business as usual, citing as their reason that they would not receive any food for which they had not worked. Suddenly, the king issued a summons for his servants to attend the party. The intelligent ones entered the palace suitably attired, whereas the foolish servants arrived dirty and dishevelled. The king was well pleased with the first group, of course, but was very angry at the second group. Therefore, he seated the first group and left the second group to remain standing and watch the others partake of the feast. This is how Rabbi Meir's son-in-law explained the following verse in Isaiah 65, 13, \"My sons will eat, and you will starve; My sons will drink, but you will remain thirsty.\" Another version explains the meaning of Kohelet 9,8, \"at all times your garments should be white, and oil should be on your head,\" as referring to tzitzit and tefillin respectively. The Aggadah in Baba Batra 74, concerning the meal of the righteous in the future, featuring salted meat of the female leviathan and well aged wine, may also be understood allegorically as referring to the garments worn by the tzaddikim in their lifetime, namely Torah and Mitzvot. More about this Aggadah in chapter 60. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Parshah commence with the word \"ve-attah,\" \"and you,\" instead of simply with the word tzav, command!? 2) Why did the Torah not wait with commanding Aaron to light the menorah until the tabernacle had been built? 3) This whole passage is repeated in Parshat Emor with the exception of the word attah. Why? The Rabbis tell us that the making of these garments and wearing them is the prerequisite to kindling the menorah. Just as the High Priest in Zecharyah 3,4, who had faced the menorah in soiled garments, had to be dressed in clean garments before he could perform his functions,- a reference to the removal of sin,- so the Torah teaches this lesson in our Parshah. We observe in Zecharyah that the High Priest Voshua could not even notice the flame of the golden candelabra until after his garments had been changed. \"I have removed your iniquities from you.\" Obviously, the candelabra had been there before, but Yoshua had to be awakened to its presence. All this teaches that proper study should be preceded by suitable character traits, (the other meaning of the word middah) (1+2) The commandment therefore means \"You, who in the future will be instructing the Jewish people to provide the proper fuel, which in turn will be arranged by Aaron and his sons nightly, will need to bring Aaron close to you, appoint him and his sons as priests. It would not be fitting for them to appear michutz laporochet, facing the curtain in the sanctuary in everyday clothing. Therefore, you will make for your brother holy garments, beautiful and impressive, as outlined in the Parshah. Even though the exterior appearance of these garments reflected pomp and ceremony, the inner garments were symbolic of purity and holiness, seeing that they were made of pure white linen. The artisans were to use their G-d given skill and wisdom in their construction, and all those who saw these garments would recognise the message they were meant to convey. The Midrash which compared the sacrifices to the priestly garments needs explaining. Sacrifices were primarily for atonement, whereas the function of the garments is described in the Torah as \"le-chavod u-letif-eret,\" “for splendour and for beauty.\" (28,40) How then are the two comparable? However, just as the preoccupation with the sacrifices achieves a certain restraint, minimises the chance of such a person committing sins, so study of the deeper significance of these garments helps to remove one's own soiled garments, i.e. one's character imperfections. It spurs the student to garb himself in clean clothing, in innocence. There cannot be any greater atonement than this. Even though the garments reflect acquisition of character traits, as opposed to say the table or candelabra, which represent acquisition of knowledge and understanding, among these garments are also found the breastplate, shoulder plates and the golden headband which are distinct from the remainder of the garments in that the holy name of G-d was engraved upon them. Our sages say that the breastplate is to atone for social injustices committed. Social injustices can occur in four different ways, as mentioned by Moses, Deut. chapter four. The Torah addresses primarily the judges. 1) Do not show favoritism to litigants. 2) Do not give preference to matters involving large sums of money, if the matter involving a smaller amount has come to your attention first. 3) Do not display fear of either litigant. 4) Do not appear to know all the answers, but refer to experts any matter you are not certain about. Concerning point number one, the names of the tribes on the breastplate were arranged in chronological order of their birth, to conform with the commandment \"rise in the presence of a senior person.\" (Leviticus 19,32) We do accord honour to natural birthright. Concerning the matter of not dealing first with litigation of matters involving large sums at the expense of keeping a litigant suing for a smaller sum waiting, the four rows of gems on the breastplate were not arranged in the order of their respective values. Neither were distinctions made in the respective sizes of the twelve gems. All this teaches that all of them are equally important in the eyes of the law. Concerning the fear of certain litigants that a judge might have, the name of G-d was engraved to remind us that \"justice is the Lord's.\" (Deut. 1, 17) Finally, concerning item four, the most common pitfall for all judges, the desire to appear all knowing, the urim vetumim the name of G-d on a parchment embedded in a pocket in the breastplate, was to remind the judge that there is always a last recourse, i.e. revelation of Divine wisdom, which is available if human wisdom has failed to arrive at a valid decision. For the above mentioned reasons, the function of the breastplate to atone for errors in administering social justice, is clear. Our sages have stated that the Ephod, apron, and shoulder plate, atone for idol worship. They quote Hoseah 3,4, \"when there will be no Ephod and Teraphim\" (idols). We need a source of inspiration. We observe from Judges 18, 17, that Michah had such an Ephod and Teraphim and was therefore elected as the guru of the Danites. The Torah commands that this Ephod be worn on the back of the High Priest, on the lower part of his body. However, it was to be anchored in the two shoulder pieces linked to the breastplate by chains. This was to convey the thought that not all human resources are concentrated in the seat of the reproductive organs, but rather are drawn directly from the seat of the urim ve-tumim, the seat of Divine inspiration. Such inspiration was granted only to Israel by way of prophecy. When viewed in this light, all tendencies to worship idols would be countered effectively. Because the gift of the breastplate and what it stands for represents a special kindness on G-d’s part, David says in Psalms 147, 19, \"He issues His words to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel. He has not done so for any other nation.\" Aaron constantly carried the names of the children of Israel to remind G-d of us. The Ephod is symbolic of our gift to G-d by means of which we express that we are aware that we are different from all other nations. The two gems on the shoulder pieces of the Ephod are \"as a remembrance to the children of Israel,” a reminder to us of His relationship with us. Breastplate and Ephod relate to one another in a manner similar to that described by Moses in Deut. 26,17-18 \"You have avouched G-d this day.. and G-d has avouched you this day.\" This is followed by the statement of our being a nation of special treasure to the Lord. Because of the aforesaid, it is fitting that the Ephod had to be made first, in accordance with the principle (Psalms 85, 12 ) \"truth sprouts forth from earth,\" i.e. we first have to do our part. After that \"righteousness will come down from the heavens.\" (ibid.) The me-il, robe, was to atone for slander, wicked use of the tongue. Several quotations throughout the Bible indicate that this robe was a type of garment worn only by superior people, people who were known to be such. Samuel I 28, 14, shows that Saul who had previously met the prophet Samuel was convinced it was he as soon as he saw a person wearing such a robe. Similarly, Job, when insisting on his own righteousness, refers to it as worn \"like a robe.\" (Job 29, 14) So we have G-d commanding that Aaron wear a garment reflecting his piety and purity. The bells on the lower hem of this robe had to announce his entering the sanctuary. Aaron's movements were to be like a sounding to the people to commence holy communion. \"Let the sound produced by a holy man, wearing pure golden bells awaken you to the imperative to seek out holiness yourself,\" is the message of that garment. The golden bells were set among red and blue wool and linen pomegarantes, muffling most of the sound of the bells. This teaches three lessons. 1) Man should not publicly proclaim his piety and holiness. Whatever part of his saintliness becomes public, he should consider as trifling. This is why the bells were attached to the bottom of the robe. So whatever is said about a person should be like a pomegranate, which is so much more wholesome and precious on the inside than its shell would indicate. 3) The only things which become public, are heard, should be good things, kodesh. For this reason, the sages say \"may something involving sound, come and atone for matters which involved publicity. The tunic, kutonet, is to atone for bloodshed. On the one hand the Torah tells us of Joseph's brothers dipping his tunic in blood. (Genesis 37,31) Violent wicked people have a habit of wearing short tuniccs, so that the leggings would not impede them if they want to make a fast getaway. The tunic described in the Torah here is a long garment, extending down to the heel. Its wearer could not take big steps. It was the kind of garment worn by virgins. When Tamar was raped by Amnon, (Samuel I 13) we find that her tunic was torn after she had been raped. People who normally stay at home, like Joseph, wore such long tunics. Jacob had such a garment made for Joseph, a garment which impedes movement, especially if it is made- as the Torah instructs here- chequered, worked in a manner which adds to its weight, thus further impeding movement. Obviously then, its wearer not only has no designs to shed blood, but rather such a garment would inspire fear of potential murderers in its wearers. This is why the sages use the above mentioned verse (Genesis 37,31) as indicating that wearers are liable to become victims of bloodshed. The mitznefet, mitre, atones for boastfulness, pride. The High Priest did not wear a fancy high hat, but a tightly fitting cap, allowing room for the tefillin and headband, tzitz. This is in contrast with the fools nowadays who wear high hats as attention getters. We can learn modesty from the High Priest, the holiest of men, and act accordingly. ",
"The avnet, belt, was to atone for haughtiness, since it was worn with the Ephod across the heart. This suggests that even unexpressed haughtiness needs to be curbed, suppressed. The pants, michnassayim, atone for immorality. If pants had not been general attire, their symbolic value is clear. If pants had already been generally worn at that time, the priests' pants which extended all the way, down to the heel drew attention to the message they were to convey. Their function of affording perishut, distancing oneself from sin, makes them valuable to promote atonement. The tzitz, headband, atones for scornful defiance. When looking at the holy name of G-d engraved on this headband, one should lower one's eyes, become aware of the fact that man is not fit to behold the Lord. Our Rabbis teach that anyone quarrelling with his teacher is as if he were quarrelling with G-d, since the former represents G-d. Similarly, Aaron represented the shechinah here on earth. ",
"These are the eight garments which the most perfect human being wore. He did not wear them just for ornamental, visual effect, but to help him achieve the moral perfection of which they were to remind both him and others. From that point of view it is obvious that their physical absence in our time, does not make these garments less important, since we can absorb the lessons that they represented. Moreover, these lessons can be absorbed by every Jew, since we are a nation of priests. Isaiah 61, 10, exclaims \" My soul will rejoice with G-d, for He has clothed me in garments of salvation draped over me a robe of righteousness, like a bridegroom adorned with splendour.\" The Talmud Sotah 44, exhorts man to perfect himself as much as possible before he proceeds to take a wife and build a home. A proper wife helps man achieve the moral standard represented by the eight priestly garments. The union of Adam and Eve in gan eden before the fall, unfortunately had not resulted in man being morally elevated through his wife. Ever since then, the slow and gradual ascent from the fall was punctuated by the acquisition of simple garments, till at the end of time Isaiah envisions the \"garments of splendour\" as the ultimate, symbolising our emancipation from the sin of the tree of knowledge. When Rabbi Meir's Torah scroll is reputed as having spelled the words “kotnot or” the garments which G-d had provided for Adam and Eve, with the letter “aleph\" in the word or instead of the traditional “ayin\" if the word was to mean leather, skin, he wanted to indicate the ultimate purpose of these garments. These garments, according to Rabbi Meir, serve a dual purpose. They are a physical covering. They are also to serve however, as an ongoing reminder to regain the or the light that we lost when we sinned in the garden of Eden. The garments then are are a spiritual endowment provided by G-d to help us along that road. Now we understand why the priestly garments were worn only after the tabernacle had been consecrated. The sons of Aaron had first brought some sacrifices to attain the moral stature that enabled them to wear these garments. The symbolic meaning of these offerings during the consecration ceremonies may be understood in the following way. The par, bull, represents the body that is to be dedicated to G-d. The two male rams represent the two spiritual forces in man, the theoretical, speculative, and the practical. A person who puts all three powers at the disposal of the Divine, may wear the precious priestly garments, each according to his status. Only a minute part of the bull's blood was used for sprinkling on the altar, i.e. sacrificial service. The remainder was burned, since only insignificant parts of our body can rise to such noble heights. Of the rams, the one which was offered in incense and had all its blood sprinkled on the altar, represents the theoretical speculative, spiritual power in man, seeing it is all holy. The second ram however, representing holiness in action, was only used partially in the sacrificial rites. Corresponding to the famous \"we shall hear and we shall do,\" (Deut. 5,24) the ear and upper leg became part of the sacrificial service. The balance of the ram was consumed by the owners, since by means of holy deeds inspired by holy thoughts, the body becomes sanctified to the extent that this is possible. All of the foregoing teaches all of us the order in which we are to proceed to achieve the highest level in the service of G-d. "
]
],
[
[
"How tabernacle/sacrifices/levy of shekalim correspond to \"life/science/livelihood.\" On the purpose of the half shekel levy. ",
"\"Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul\" etc.",
"Midrash Tanchuma on our Parshah writes that Moses had conceptual difficulties with three of G-d’s instructions. When G-d instructed that the half shekel was to be a kopher nefesh a soul's ransom, Moses queried \"how can anyone ransom his soul by means of a financial donation?\" G-d replied that He did not mean for the Jews to donate according to HIS yardsticks and ability, but according to their own yardsticks and ability. When G-d instructed that the Jews build a sanctuary for HIM, Moses queried how G-d who cannot be contained by the whole universe, could possibly be contained by such a miniscule structure as the tabernacle? Again G-d replied that contrary to what Moses thought, the Jewish people were asked to do only things which were in keeping with their own ability, i.e. twenty beams in the South, twenty in the North, etc. When G-d commanded the offering of daily sacrifices, described by G-d as \"My bread,\" Moses wondered how there could possibly be sufficient livestock to satisfy G-d’s needs. G-d answered that the dimensions of sacrifice were commensurate with Israel's ability, not G-d’s capacity. Hence one sheep in the morning, one in the evening. This is the meaning of Job 37,23, \"Though we cannot obtain a true understanding of the dimensions of G-d, He has proven through justice and righteousness that He does not oppress.\" ",
"Unless there is gratitude for favours received, what would keep the world going? G-d created the universe as an act of kindness, and even though it is not within our capacity to return this kindness even minimally, especially since G-d is not in need of anything, ingratitude on our part would negate the act of generosity by G-d. \"heavenly beings accord Him honour, gratitude.\" (Psalms 29,2) Human beings are similarly asked to do so, each according to their status and stature in the universe. The letters at the beginning of the verse in the nishmat Sabbath morning prayer which spell Yitzchak and Rivkah respectively, suggest that just as that pair of human beings was perfectly matched, so our praise of G-d has to match the nature of the gifts He has bestowed upon us. This rule applies even for beings not possessed of life as we know it. \"All the trees of the forest will break out in jubilation\" (Psalms 96, 12.) The world is arranged in such a way that all higher forms of creatures contribute to, and endow the lower forms of life, with some of their superior attributes and capabilities. The exchange of ideas, possessions, etc. is of course, most evident in the economic life of man. Since economic self sufficiency does not exist within any single individual, the species would face annihilation were it not for such mutual bestowing of benefits upon one another, albeit for mundane purposes. Therefore, ingratitude is the basest of all bad character traits. The Talmud in Taanit 8, states \"rain descends on account of those who keep faith; it is withheld because of those who act wilfully and brazenly.\" All the favours received from G-d, fall under one of three headings. 1) Life; 2) wisdom, knowledge; 3) livelihood, sustenance, (compare chapter forty two in Isaiah, chapter two in Proverbs and chapter 145 in the book of Psalms) Our prayers reflect our gratitude for these three kinds of loving kindness shown us by G-d. A) \"Elokai neshamah...\" thanks to G-d for waking up alive each morning. B) \"Asher natan lasechvee beenah,” who has endowed even the rooster with wisdom.\" C) \"Malbish arumim, zokef kefufim,\" who provides clothing for the naked, helps those bent over to resume erect posture etc. This is the reason that we recite Psalm 100, a hymn of thanksgiving. Since it is obviously impossible for man to express his gratitude adequately, G-d commands us to give three times a half a shekel. In this way, we express symbolically that we owe gratitude for the three aspects of kindness received from G-d on an ongoing basis. This is what is meant by the expression kofer nefesh. We thank G-d for the gift of meaningful life, for the knowledge and reason granted, enabling us to lay the foundation of the tabernacle which represents the seat of Torah wisdom. Finally, we thank G-d for the legislation of sacrifices, by means of which we express our acknowledgment that He is the source of our food and sustenance. ",
"Questions regarding the \"half shekel\" legislation. 1) We are warned that if counted physically, i.e. by means of a headcount, instead of by means of the coin, there would be a plague. Why should Israel have been subject to such a plague? Why should the numbering of the Israelites be dangerous for us when it does not seem to be a source of danger to any of the other nations? On the contrary, since the counting would be the fulfilment of a mitzvah, that very fact should act as protection! Even the count of the nation at the request of David, (Samuel II 24,4) did not produce a plague, since David had been offered three choices of punishment. That particular situation may have represented the three things a king is warned not to indulge in. They are (a) not to marry too many wives, (b) not to acquire too many horses; (c) not to accumulate too much money. All three prohibitions represent the temptation of self aggrandisement, i.e. \"see how much I have!\" The choice of punishment offered David would therefore be in line with these three prohibitions (let the punishment fit the crime) (a) hunger, famine. This means there is not enough money to buy food. (b) war; this entails a reduction in the number of horses one owns, in the size of one's army. (c) pestilence; this means that the wives would lose their raison d'etre if the children they bear in pain, will die as a result of the pestilence. 2) Even granted that the evil eye exercises some control over numbers, and that therefore the commandment not to count heads is a protective measure for Israel, why was not everyone ordered to contribute a whole item instead of a half shekel? Why the repeated emphasis on the nature of the shekel being merely a \"half?\" The Midrash suggests that the sin of the golden calf took place at midday, the day's halfway mark, and that therefore atonement should correspond to that fact, and that this is symbolised by the half coin. If this is so, why does the whole story precede the report of the golden calf? 3) What was the sin which needed to be atoned for, if the purpose was merely to protect against the consequences of a headcount? 4) Granted the efficay of this method in warding off the evil eye, why did this procedure have to take place annually, even when there was no apparent reason for counting the people in preparation for war or any other purpose? 5) Why the enumeration of the spices and oil for anointing also in \"half\" measures? 6) Why were Betzalel and Oholiav appointed by name? 7) Why is the portion of Sabbath observance adjacent to the portion dealing with the construction of the tabernacle? ",
"",
"(1) Unity and diversity are found in descending order in the story of creation. (a) G-d is absolute Unity, hence numbers do not apply to Him. (b) angels, though of uniform composition, of a single element, nevertheless possess an awareness of their purpose as well as an awareness of their Creator.(c) creatures aware of their existence consisting of a variety of elements. Our world is composed of a mixture of four basic elements. We are composites on the one hand, but Divinely inspired on the other hand. Our purpose is to subordinate the body to achieve unity with the spirit. Any emphasis on numbers would contradict this lofty objective. (3+4) Therefore, our ultimate destiny is jeopardised whenever we stress the numerical aspect of our being. It is the second half of us, the material side, which requires atonement for having been debased. What better way than to re-dedicate oneself annually to the concept that it is this half which needs to be elevated. Thus, when we are being reviewed by the Enumerator, it is rosh beney yisrael, the spiritual part of us, the Divinely inspired, which will be found to be our essence in such a review. (2) The silver used for the sockets of the tabernacle did not come out of the voluntary contributions, but from the half shekel money, representing our obligation to use our G-d given brainpower (the tenth of our endowments) on the tenth of the ten cubits of the beams. (5) The anointing of the High Priest also demonstrates that the two halves must be viewed at least as equal to one another. If we perfect the body to match our spirit, then we qualify for the holy oil. \"This will be oil for a holy anointment for ME throughout your generations.\" G-d says \"this is really MINE, and it may be used on an angel, a messenger, i.e. the High Priest, not on an ordinary man. Were you to make other oil like it, its singular significance would be lost. Perhaps the division of blood being sprinkled on the altar after the giving of the Torah reflects a similar approach. Doubtless, when it came to the half shekel, this concept is clear. This is the reason that the public sacrificial lambs are purchased from these funds, since they have as their objective man's atonement. G-d says \"it shall be for the children of Israel as a remembrance before the Lord to atone for your souls.\" This is the answer to Moses’s query, namely that we are asked to do only in accordance with our ability. Therefore, all three, tabernacle, sacrifices and half shekel are for our benefit, not for His benefit or need. (6) The appointment of Betzalel and Oholiav by name underlines hashgachah pratit. A nation of bricklayers should certainly find amongst themselves many people capable of constructing the tabernacle. So the appointment of two people named by G-d, proves that G-d supervises all of us individually. (7) The reason for emphasising the Sabbath legislation is simple. Since the construction of the tabernacle is an affirmation of our acknowledgment of the act of creation by G-d, so is the Sabbath observance an acknowledgment of the act of creation by G-d. Therefore, desecration of the one through proceeding with the other, would demonstrate our being unaware of the testimonial nature of both commandments. "
]
],
[
[
"Motivation of idol worshippers, and lessons learned from the episode of the golden calf. ",
"\"And when the people saw that Moses delayed\" etc.",
"The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 4, states in the name of Rabbi Joshua son of Levi, \"Jews made the golden calf in order to give hope to repentant sinners, as per Deut. 5,26, \"O that their heart would remain like this within them, to revere Me and observe My commandments forever.\" This too is the meaning of the saying of Rabbi Yochanan, who said that neither Israel nor David were really capable of such a deed, since it says \"O that their heart... etc.\" David was not capable of that deed (Bat Sheva) because it says in Psalms 109,22, \"my heart is dead within me.\" If this is so, why did they commit these respective sins? In order that if an individual were to sin in the future, one could point out to him David, who had repented successfully. In the event the community would become guilty of a sin, one could point to the episode of the golden calf and the successful repentance of the entire Jewish people. One would say to such a community \"repent you likewise!\" ",
"Although there are occasions when the Torah exempts certain individuals from certain observances because of regard for the dignity of such individuals, such exemptions have to meet certain criteria. Based on Deut. 22,4, \"you may hide yourself from them, \"the Talmud Berachot 19, derives the ruling that old people or notables may ignore the commandment to catch stray animals and return them to their owners, so that their dignity should not suffer in the process. Nevertheless, demeaning oneself is in order when (a) the gain to be achieved thereby outweighs the loss of dignity involved, or (b) when the result desired is certain to be realised. To illustrate the principles: When a revered old man is seen carrying a beam on his shoulder in order to erect a fence, the loss of dignity would outweigh the benefits to be secured by carrying out the task personally. When however, said beam was meant to shore up the wall of a house in danger of collapse, the loss of dignity would certainly be minor compared to the benefit of saving the house from collapsing. Prompt personal attention then outweighs all other considerations. This is the meaning of Proverbs 1,29, \"better he that is lightly esteemed and is his own servant, than he that stands on his dignity and is short of bread.\" When the above mentioned criteria to forego one's dignity do not apply, such as when the Jewish people traded their dignity and worshipped at the golden calf, one can only ask with Jeremiah (2, 11) \"how can a nation trade a G-d for something which is not even a deity?\" How then are we to explain this act of the Jewish people? ",
"If we follow Rashi who says that the Almighty gave Satan control of the Jewish people at that time, then the punishment of the people as a whole, as well as the slaying of three thousand who had actually danced around the golden calf, seems unwarranted. If that were the meaning of the aggadah quoted at the outset, they should have been rewarded rather than punished. Besides, how can the power of repentance be demonstrated by the commission of an act that was not even sinful? If, on the other hand, the sin had been an outgrowth of an act of free will, who gave the Jews the right to make examples of themselves in order to demonstrate the power of repentance? Even assuming that the gates of repentance would remain open in such an event, did they not risk the possibility of eternal damnation versus the certainty of retaining their sanctity by remaining loyal to G-d throughout? Even if eventual forgiveness were to be certain, is it not better to remain untainted by sin? Could not the lesson of repentance and subsequent forgiveness be learned by means of some sin that had not been self-induced? Moreover, is it not a fact that a sin committed by someone who had formerly occupied a high moral platform and had thereby established a degree of intimacy with the lawgiver, will be dealt with far more harshly than if the sin had been committed by someone of average stature? If proof were needed for the last hypothesis, compare the punishment meted out to Adam in Paradise who had enjoyed an intimate relationship with G-d, and that of Jerobam ben Nevot who had erected the golden calves on the way to Jerusalem in order to prevent the people from making their pilgrimages to the holy temple, and had meant for these golden calves to act as substitutes. In the latter case, G-d’s retaliation was hundreds of year in coming, whereas Adam had been expelled from gan eden etc. immediately! Rabbi Yochanan's statement on the other hand, poses the problem that if the people did commit the sin, they had obviously been capable of such acts. How could a people who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai only forty days earlier, commit such an act of foolishness? Was this the famous dor dey-ah, the generation of insight? Man's relationship to the universe may be based on three different approaches. A) He realises that all that he observes in nature is subordinate to a higher source, and therefore he worships the source; B) He is so impressed with his own accomplishments that he feels worthy of adulation, such as Sancheriv and Nebuchadnezzar for instance. In that case he worships himself; C) He is so aware of his own frailty, in which case he worships anything that he imagines could be of help to him. The type described last, is so full of inferiority complexes that he feels that even animals are superior to man. He believes that the latter can intercede with G-d on man's behalf. He constructs images of animals, using materials that endure. Since these materials outlive their creator, he feels that these images symbolise a degree of permanence he himself lacks. The reason that animals rank higher in that concept is, that since their needs are fewer and less sophisticated, they are easier to fulfill. This is the reason the Egyptians worshipped sheep, i.e. they wished themselves a livelihood as easily attainable as that of sheep. In a pasture land such as Egypt, such symbolism had additional meaning. The Jewish people sensed that Moses was no longer among them, and they searched for a symbol of Divine protection that would outrank that of their one time masters and enemies, the Egyptians. As a result they had the king of the animals (the ox, according to Chagigah 17) constructed of the most precious material, (gold) by the most holy of men, (Aaron) hoping to ensure thereby greater help from the powers above than that which the Egyptians were able to call on. They might have chosen the lion instead of the ox, except it was horoscopically opposed to the lamb, the symbol of the Jewish people. Since our temple has twice been destroyed under the zodiac sign of the lion, ( month of Av) such reasoning can be understood if not condoned. The ox, on the other hand, was opposite the zodiac sign of the scorpion, one of the animals to which Pharaoh had been compared. In this manner, they believed that the ox symbolised the strength of the G-d of Moses. ",
"",
"Errors such as these, prompted Isaiah in chapter forty four, to present a detailed denouement of all the inadequacies inherent in the materials the idols are constructed of. ",
"In order to comprehend what happened when Moses failed to return at the time expected, we must remember what the Torah tells us about the basic nature of man. We are told in Genesis 8,21, \"for the impulse of man's heart is evil from its infancy.\" Even after man has absorbed the Divine teachings intellectually, his basic nature has not changed thereby. It is not in man's nature to become permanently free from sin so that we would have to view sin as a departure from his nature, and he would therefore forfeit his claim to a future in the hereafter. Sainthood is not demanded of man. What is demanded however, is that any relapse into sin be repaired through true repentance, in order for him to regain his stature as it was prior to his sin. This is the meaning of Exodus 34,6, \"The Eternal, the Eternal is a merciful and gracious G-d.\" This means that G-d is saying \"I am the Lord after you have sinned, just as I have been the Lord before you had sinned.\" The implication is that the likelihood of sin is about equal to the likelihood of saintly purity. Or, in the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 130,3) \"if You would keep remembering sins, O Lord, who could possibly stand up before You?\" (Rosh Hashanah 17) The purpose of forgiveness after repentance is described as \"so that You may be revered\" (Psalms 130,4) It is the person who does not repent who truly merits punishment. If our sages viewed the institution of repentance as chronologically preceding the creation of man, this underlines the concept that sin is an integral part of the world we live in. (Pessachim 54) The episode of the golden calf then provided Israel with a chance to do what G-d had said, (Deut. 5,26) \"would that their heart would revere Me.\" Had it been possible to create the nature of man so that he could be totally good, Israel could not have made the golden calf, for no other nation even approached the ideal of humanity as closely as Israel did at that time. Even G-d had expressed the wish that they should be able to maintain that level of piety in order to reap the fruits of such conduct. Israel's action in making the golden calf was proof that it was unrealistic to expect such high levels of piety and belief in G-d to be maintained at all times. Rabbi Yochanan told us then that Israel was certainly not at a low enough level at that time to have indulged in that sin, nor was David so enslaved to sensuality that the affair with Bat Sheva would be expected of him; rather, in spite of their respective high levels of morality, the nature of man made such sins possible. This teaches us the lesson of repentance as a corollary. David represents a lesson for the individual sinner, whereas Israel provides the example that even collective guilt can be forgiven. The Midrash then only supplied the answer to the question of why a golden calf had to be the idol chosen. The basic answer about why the sin took place at all, lies in the fact that it is in the nature of man to regress spiritually from time to time. Isaiah 43,26, tells us that the discussion of our sins rather than an attempt at whitewash, will bring righteousness in its wake. The Talmud Megillah 25, discusses a series of events with which the Torah deals, and which may be read in public both in Hebrew and in the vernacular. This may be done, though in the process some of our most famous heroes such as Abraham, Yehudah etc. may appear discredited in the ears of the listener. The decisive consideration in all these instances where superficial perusal may reflect discredit on a deserving person is, whether the moral lesson to be learned from the story outweighs the side effect it may produce. The story of the golden calf, discussed in the Torah on two occasions in considerable detail, teaches so much about the ways of G-d, that the fact that it makes Aaron appear as an accomplice is a calculated risk the Torah had to take. Normally, our sages prohibit readings in the vernacular, when they believe that the uneducated masses would form negative impressions about people in the story who are really free from blame. In our situation, the first half of the golden calf episode is permitted to be read also in the vernacular, because the lessons about the power of repentance and forgiveness are derived from that story. However chapter 32,21, is not to be read in the vernacular, since it deals with Aaron's specific involvement, and would give the uneducated listener the impression that Aaron's error was far greater than it actually was. Conversely, this would lead the masses to conclude that the people's involvement in that sin was far less serious than had been the case. ",
"Some problems in the text. 1) Exodus 32, 11, tells of Moses being late in returning from Mount Sinai. The time frame involved, according to our tradition, was a mere six hours. Yet we are told that Aaron was besieged by the people, that these people brought him their personal jewelry, having failed to persuade their wives to part with their jewelry. The crucible for melting down the gold seemed to be at hand, Aaron produced a golden calf. How could such a revolutionary change occur so suddenly within such a short space of time? Were there no people prepared to credit Moses with being a day late? 2) If the people were indeed convinced that Moses would not return, why did they not offer the now vacant leadership position to their beloved Aaron? Why did they demand \"a G-d who will walk in front of us?\" 3) Why did Aaron choose a golden calf as the symbol to be constructed? No materials or specific animal had been requested, after all? 4) Why did not G-d tell Moses that Aaron had made that calf? 5) Why did G-d say \"leave Me alone, so that I can get angry\"? The words \"leave Me alone so that I can destroy them\" would seem to have been more appropriate! 6) Moses’s question \"why are You angry?\" seems difficult to understand Could there have been anything that would have given G-d greater reason to be angry? 7) Why did Moses not get angry till he reached the camp? Had he not believed what G-d had told him? 8) Why did Moses burn the calf? Who burns metal objects? 9) The dialogue between Moses and Aaron is very strange. Aaron seems to deny responsibility, whereas Moses seems to have suggested to him an excuse by asking \"what have the people done to you?\" It seems as if the people were punished whereas Aaron went scot free? 10) When Moses confessed the guilt of the Jewish people, he avoided mentioning the fact that it was a calf that had been worshipped. Does not a proper confession require the spelling out of all the details of one's misdemeanour? 11) Since we had already read about the people having removed their jewelry, (verse 4) why did G-d instruct Moses to have the people remove their jewelry? (verse 5) ",
"\"And when the people saw that Moses delayed\"\"",
"",
"",
"Ever since the estrangement of man from his Creator after his expulsion from Eden until the advent of Abraham, philosophers seem to have denied the involvement of the Creator in the individual fate of man. Some based their reasoning on their belief in the eternity of matter and the immutability of natural laws; others believed that the Creator had simply withdrawn from His handiwork as soon as he had completed it. Some of these beliefs which were deeply ingrained in the people's consciousness, were slow to die even amongst the Jewish people. All the miracles which had occurred and had been witnessed by the Jewish people had not been enough to eradicate all the traces of their former attitudes. ",
"There were then two groups of people in the desert. Each group looked for confirmation of their respective beliefs in the events that had occurred during and after the Exodus. Group A were the believers, who saw corroboration of their beliefs in the events they had witnessed. Group B were the diehards of the old school, who had at best learned to adopt an ambivalent attitude to all the miracles they had witnessed. This group was still inclined to ascribe all those events to witchcraft. They remained ever ready to expose even genuine miracles as works of deception perpetrated by the master magician Moses. ",
"It is in this context that we must understand the repeated references Moses made to the Jewish people at the burning bush, when he said to G-d that the Jewish people would not believe in him or his mission. Moses expected the same reaction from his own people that he had expected from Pharaoh. This is why he said \"when they ask me for Your name, what shall I say?\" (Exodus 3, 13) The miracle had been needed to demonstrate the existence of such a G-d. Whenever things went well, the people believed in G-d, Moses and his mission. Whenever difficulties arose, they saw in this proof that there was no free G-d, no Personal Providence, only superior showmanship by Moses, presently revealed as inadequate. Proof of all this lies in the fact that whenever they refer to the Exodus from Egypt, they ascribe it to Moses the man, not to G-d. (compare Exodus 14, 12; 16,3; Numbers 16, 12) Their admiration of Moses was based on Moses being an outstanding man rather than Moses as an instrument of G-d. (1) As soon as Moses was out of sight, not having announced when he would return, (possibly he had not known when he would return) the people wanted to see if they themselves could do what Moses had been doing all the time. Therefore, they had lots of time at their disposal to urge Aaron. The fortieth day was in fact only the last of many days that Aaron had been under pressure. (2) These people believed that the configuration of the ox might hold the secret of Moses’s power. Therefore they traded their own horoscope (that of the lamb) for that of the ox. This is the meaning of Psalms 106,20 \"they themselves chose this trade, exchange.\" It was not Aaron's doing. No doubt, during those forty days the pressure on Aaron had been increasing steadily, the murder of Chur being part of that pressure. Had the Torah reported all this in detail, the impression that Aaron co-operated reluctantly would have been created, and the golden calf would have been viewed as the triumph of the belief in witchcraft over those who believed in G-d and His leadership. Now, that the text seems to suggest Aaron's enthusiastic co-operation, the whole episode can be seen as the creation of a symbol representing the ultimate that human art was capable of. (3+4) In this way, once the impotence of that symbol would become evident to one and all, the illusion that man could fashion a deity would be debunked once and for all. This was Aaron's reasoning when he decided to co-operate. He had no way of knowing that as soon as the calf would emerge, some Jewish lowbrows would commence dancing around it and proclaiming it as their new deity. When that happened, Aaron quickly built an altar for G-d, and tried to allow reason to prevail by postponing the celebration until the morrow, and by dedicating the altar to the Lord. He hoped all the time, of course, that in the interval remaining, G-d would tell Moses to return to the people in order to forestall tragic consequences. Even so, only three thousand people were enthusiastic enough to actually worship this idol before it had demonstrated powers equal or superior to those demonstrated by Moses. (This is why the rest of the nation was not punished by death) We see from all this, that far from precipitating or even participating in the sin, Aaron had used his best efforts to teach the people a lesson of faith in the Lord. This is why, at a later stage, G-d was able to say to Moses \"You shall cause your brother Aaron to come close to Me, to be My priest\" (Exodus 28, 1) (5) G-d indicated to Moses that if the latter were to pray, He would not then become angry, since the action of a fool acting out of foolishness does not warrant his master's anger. Nonetheless, even fools must repent and confess their errors. Psalms 25,8, and Hoseah 14,2 are some of the sources in scripture for the need to expiate. Sieverity of a sin is measured by three criteria. 1) The manner in which the Torah describes a sin, is a good indication of the view the Torah holds concerning such sin. Expressions such as \"abomination, immorality\" are used for acts which are especially serious. 2) Any kind of misdemeanour when committed by a person of high rank, becomes more serious, since the sinner's stature should have precluded such conduct on his part. 3) When the disobedience is directed against a supreme lawgiver, it is more serious than disobedience against a man made law. (10) Moses, admits in his confession, that \"this nation\" had come closer to G-d than any of its predecessors, and should therefore have known better. When he refers to \"this great sin,\" he confesses that due to the people's elevated stature their sin had assumed an added degree of severity. He confesses the heinous nature of the sin when viewed objectively, when he refers to \"the golden deity\" that this nation had made. While confessing all this, Moses manages to inject powerful arguments about the extenuating circumstances surrounding this crime. Shemot Rabbah 28, clothes Moses’s arguments in the following words: (6) Moses to G-d \"Your children have made an assistant for You, and You are angry? Did You not Yourself make the sun shine, and the latter bestows some of its light on the moon? (making it an assistant) Did You not make rain, which in turn promotes the growth of plants etc?\" To this G-d replied: \"You too are in error, since the golden calf is not capable of doing anything.\" To this, Moses replied: \"in that case why do You get angry over a mere nothing?\" Philosophically speaking, Moses presents the golden calf as incapable of offering competition to G-d, and therefore not deserving His concern. Concerning the second criterion for measuring the severity of a sin which we have mentioned, Moses refers to \"this people.\" He refers to their having come out of Egypt. He implies that it is unreasonable to expect high standards of faith from a nation that had just left a country in which it had absorbed a totally wrong way of looking at the world for several hundred years. The Midrash describes it in this way. A father put his son in charge of a perfumery situated in a red light district. Naturally, both the location of the store and the type of customers he dealt with, combined with the son's personal character weakness to corrupt him. When the father finds out and is enraged and threatens to kill his son, the father's friend has to intervene. This friend berates the father, saying: \"you have lost him because you have failed to teach him a trade that would bring him into contact with the upper classes of society. Not only that, but you have made him reside amongst harlots. How can you be surprised at the outcome?\" Finally, since it was G-d’s declared purpose to use the Jewish people to aggrandize His name, and to make Egypt aware of this, (Exodus 9, 16) what would the Egyptians say when they hear that You have wiped out this nation?\" We read in Joshua 7, 10 that G-d told Joshua that Israel's defeat at Ai was due to the nation having sinned, having transgressed the injunction not to appropriate any of the loot of Jericho etc. Actually, only one man, Achan ben Karmi, had committed those acts. (7) When G-d told Moses that the Jewish people had made themselves a cast calf, worshipped it etc, Moses may have thought that this could have been the act of a single individual, and that G-d had referred to the collective responsibility every Jew bears for the actions of another Jew. It had not occurred to Moses that the nation as a whole had been involved in this act. ",
"The Midrash teaches that this is the source for the lesson never to condemn anyone until one had seen with one's own eyes. Even when the information originates with the Almighty Himself, this is not enough to condemn without personally investigating the facts. (8) Moses presumably burned the platform that must have been erected for the golden calf, not the calf itself. Chapter 32,20, may be understood in this vein: When Moses had observed the goings on in the camp, had smashed the tablets etc., he took the calf they had made, burned the trappings and ground the golden calf into dust, scattering the dust on the surface of the water, making the people drink from it. This would be in line with Deut. 9,21, \"and the sin you had constructed together with the calf, I took and burned it, and I ground it into thin dust.\" Note that the Torah in our chapter had not stated \"he took the calf and burned it,\" but rather \"he took the calf they had made and burned in fire.\" (9) When asking Aaron \"what did the people do to you that you have brought such a great sin upon them?\" (Exodus 32,21) What Moses meant was: \"what terrible pressures have you been subjected to, that you could even have had a part in this affair?\" Aaron's reply was simply \"you know the people's conduct when they are evil.\" The reason Aaron's part in this whole affair is so brief, is not a cover up, on the contrary, since his intention to steer them away from sin had misfired, he could not be given any credit for his intervention. Moses saw that the people's behaviour was totally unrestrained. This was due in part to Aaron's intervention however well meaning it might have been. As a result, non Jews and even some Jews might argue that if even Moses’s own brother had had a share in the sin, how could one blame the people at large for such a sin! It is in this context that we must understand Moses’s apparent accusation against Aaron. So, Moses positioned himself at the gate, and called for volunteers to deal with those who had danced around the calf. If Aaron's own tribe volunteered and killed three thousand of their fellow Jews and no one protested, this could only have been because they knew that Aaron's intentions had been pure, and that his involvement in the unhappy outcome had been due to circumstances he had not foreseen. ",
"Shemot Rabbah 42, answers the question from where Moses took the authority to kill Jews found worshipping the calf, by referring us to G-d’s own example on the occasion of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Tower of Bable respectively. In either case, G-d had proceeded to mete out punishment after He had investigated the facts. Similarly, Moses, G-d’s trusted servant, was expected to carry out this task as G-d’s messenger. When the Levites had completed their task, Moses addressed the nation exhorting them to remain loyal to G-d, and thus turn away His wrath. He pointed to the example of their fellow Jews the Levites, who had demonstrated such loyalty by disregarding family ties when the law required that their closest relatives be executed. He explained that all that is needed to qualify for G-d’s blessing, is loyalty. (Exodus 32,29) On the morrow, after the three thousand had died, Moses said to the people that they too had sinned gravely by having demanded proof of G-d’s existence and power. Also, they should have prevented the three thousand from dancing around the calf. Therefore, it was now necessary for Moses to ascend the mountain and plead for forgiveness. Moses uses both understatement and exaggeration in his plea, in order to present a credible defense. By describing the sin as the construction of a golden deity, he exaggerated its importance. By pointing out that it had been removed, and that the guilty had been punished, and that none of those witnessing the punishment had protested the death of the guilty, he prayed that surely the time had come to forgive the remainder of the nation for this episode. G-d’s reply \"whosoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe out from My book,\" is not a direct response to Moses’s request. Moses had spoken about the book \"You have written,\" meaning the Torah, whereas G-d referred to the book of life, a book which G-d retains for His own exclusive use. The people were to be punished by acts of G-d only, since no human witnesses were at hand to testify to their culpable participation in the construction of the golden calf. However, G-d reserved the right to exact such punishment whenever an occasion would arise in the future to punish them for other misdeeds. For the present therefore, G-d says to Moses \"lead this people to the place I have said to you.\" We read in verse 35, \"G-d smote the people because they had made the calf that Aaron had made.\" The repetition of the words \"they had made...Aaron had made,\" indicates that the intentions of the people and the intentions of Aaron had been quite different from one another. Aaron's part in it had been merely incidental, the real culprit having been the people. Nonetheless, Aaron reproaches himself after two of his sons have died, saying \"all these things have happened to me,\" when in fact we had not read of anything else happening to him. 11) Since the progress of the Jewish people from now on was to be under the guidance of an angel, (Exodus 33, 1-3) the people thought that the Divine Presence would no longer be among them. They mourned this news by failing to wear their jewelry. Since they had not actually removed their jewelry from themselves, there was reason for Moses to command them to \"remove\" it. Apparently, some of the people had put on their jewelry. Why did some people wear their jewelry, whereas others did not? If we follow the tradition that the \"jewelry\" were the phylacteries of the head, the latter could be viewed as a protective device while worn. When in mourning, wearing such phylacteries is forbidden. The Jews who did not wear their phylacteries considered themselves in mourning, having heard G-d’s decree. Others considered themselves in the category of \"outcasts,\" and as such Jewish halachah requires the continued wearing of phylacteries. The difference between the two groups stemmed from which part of G-d’s stricture they considered as paramount. (33,5) If they considered the reference to them as \"a stiffnecked people\" as paramount, they would be in mourning. If they considered the words \"I will not go up with you\" as paramount, they would view themselves as outcasts. When G-d used the words \"children of Israel,\" a term of endearment at one and the same time, this was proof to those who continued to wear their phylacteries that it was the danger to their souls that was the greater source of worry. G-d having rescinded His descision to abandon the Jewish people, they were told not to grieve more than their brethren who had mourned their physical fate and had therefore divested themselves of their phylacteries. The commandment to the last group to remove their phylactries also, is a commandment to downgrade the state of their despair to a level in which they only mourned the physical consequences arising out of the episode of the golden calf. When Moses realised that the people were in a state of banishment, he had to remove his tent from their midst, or he would have forfeited further communication from the shechinah, since the latter would not communicate with him as long as he was amidst the banished. ",
"G-d’s instruction to Moses to return to the camp, (obliquely referred to by mentioning that his most trusted disciple Joshua had not departed from the tent) teaches us about the reciprocal relationship between Moses and (lehavdil) G-d. It was the former's task to assuage the latter when He was angry; on the other hand G-d would reciprocate when Moses was angry. "
]
],
[
[
"This chapter deals with the names G-d is known by,--His attributes. ",
"\"And Moses said unto the LORD: See, Thou sayest unto me\" etc.",
"Shemot Rabbah 45, writes: This is a parable. A cave at the beach of the sea, is filled by the sea at high tide. Once filled, the water exchanged between what is inside the cave and what is in the sea outside, is reciprocal. This is how we must understand the verses \"G-d spoke to Moses,..Moses spoke to G-d; or \"G-d said to Moses..Moses said to G-d.\" ",
"Some early philosophers in denying G-d’s attributes, insist that G-d knows only Himself, that this is the extent of His awareness. They take this position in order to preserve the uniqueness and unity of G-d, but forget that by doing so, far from according Him greatness, they denigrate Him, since His knowledge would be inferior to the lowliest of His creatures, who perceive things all around them. \"Does not even the ox know his owner?\" is the cry of Isaiah in chapter one. This proves that knowledge, awareness is considered a positive attribute. Its absence then is undoubtedly a shortcoming. How can one attribute shortcomings to the most perfect Being? Others ascribe to G-d only awareness of things immutable, never changing, as well as general principles. They deny that G-d has knowledge of personal experiences that change from day to day. Concerning such foolishness, David says (Psalms 94,8) \"consider, you who are devoid of sense among the people! Fools!, when will you smarten up? Do you not realise that He who implants the ear should be able to hear, that He who shapes the eye is able to see?\" We, who believe in the truth of the Torah that Moses has handed down to us, believe, of course, that He is omniscient. We can therefore attribute to G-d all faculties such as patience, kindness etc., without in the least diminishing our image of Him as unique, as \"ONE.\" The four lettered name of G-d testifies to His Oneness; all other names indicate attributes that became noticeable as this universe was created. This is why it says in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3, \"until He created the universe, He and His name existed alone.\" Details of this concept have been explained in chapter twenty one. Therefore, one must be careful. Remember the words of Isaiah 40,25, \"To whom can you compare Me, to whom can I be compared, says the Holy One?\" This has G-d saying \"How can My specific uniqueness serve as basis for comparison to things which are not unique! The word \"tedamyuni\"refers to the quality of My existence, whereas the word \"ve-eshveh\" refers to the quantity of My existence. Since I do not conform to either, how can you compare Me to anything or anyone? Whenever our sages employ attributes used in our language, they do not thereby mean to compare G-d to something or someone whom we know, but they use such attributes to prevent misunderstandings. When G-d is described as \"first,\" the meaning is not that He is first relative to somebody who is \"second\" or \"third,\" but it is a statement that says NO ONE preceded Him. When we talk about His existence, we are not trying to define this in our terms, but we merely state that He is not missing or absent. This is the meaning of the verse in Exodus 33,23, \"when I remove My hand, you will see My rear, but My face will not be visible.\" \"Face\" is an expression signifying something that is visible. \"Rear\" is an expression signifying the negative, the opposite of face. In gaining knowledge about ME, you will know what I AM NOT. As long as man is part of an earthly shell, i.e. alive, all knowledge about the essence of G-d is restricted to such negative definitions. Our perception increases through a process of elimination. By means of a continuous process of elimination, one can establish a semblance of the nature of what one wants to define. ",
"This is what the Midrash about the cave had in mind. The cave had been empty to start with, until the sea filled it with water. After that, the onlooker gets the impression that the cave helps fill the sea with water; what the onlooker does not know is that this water is only returning to the sea which had supplied it originally. Human beings start out devoid of all knowledge, until G-d supplies them with brainpower. Ever since, it appears as if their brainpower contributes to the source of their brainpower. First \"I filled him with the spirit of the Lord.\" (Exodus 31,3) This is parallel to the Midrash, i.e. G-d filled the cave. After that, man used the same terms when describing G-d, when describing the \"sea,\" making it appear as if those terms could be applied with equal meaning to G-d Himself. Whatever attributes G-d equips man with, must of necessity be possessed by Him. So Moses in our Parshah uses a powerful argument. \"We know You cannot be understood by man in Your essence. But You Yourself have made an exception to this rule when You said to me \"I have known you by name,\" i.e. I gave you access to know My essence.\" (The word \"name\" refers to G-d Himself, not to the name of Moses) \"You have also added, \"you have found favour in My eyes.\" If You were able to make an exception to Your rule at that time, why not enable me to gain the insight I desire about Your mode of operation?\" Let me become a partner to You the Creator, as is implied by the constant exchange of water from the cave to the sea and vice versa! ",
"Shemot Rabbah 80, asks \"whence did Moses get the \"rays of glory\" that illuminated his face and emitted rays? The Rabbis answer that he got them from the \"cave,\" since it states \"when you are in the hollow of the rock, when My glory passes by, I will place you there.\" (Exodus 33,22-23) Rabbi Berechiyah said that the tablets were six tefachim long and wide. G-d supported two, (tefachim=handsbreadths) Moses supported two, whereas the other two were in the center. This is the origin of the \"rays of glory.\" Rabbi Yehudah bar Nachmayni says \"G-d wrote with a pen, and a little of the ink that was left over touched Moses’s face, and that is where \"the rays of glory\" came from and this is why the Torah says \"he did not know that his face emitted rays of light.\" (34,35) ",
"The first explananation obviously refers to our parable of the cave and the sea. Moses became filled with the sea of wisdom. Combined with Moses’s own accomplishments, he emerges as a partner of the Lord. The second explanation reveals another aspect of the man/G-d partnership. It deals with the nature of the second set of tablets. Their composition consisted of three components, (a) the natural element, granite. (b) they acquired a finished appearance by means of work, polishing. (c) the Divine element, i.e. the inscription, as the Torah states \"and the writing was the writing by the Lord.\" Each of the above items can be further subdivided into two, making the tablets have six facets. This is what the sages hinted at when they described the tablets as having the dimension of six tefachim. The word tefach is used in Isaiah 48, 13, as describing G-d’s workmanship. So we have the following: 1- A, a piece of granite, primeval matter. B, this primeval matter was condensed into a certain density. 2- A, the finished appearance, preceded by the tools needed to treat that raw material. B, correct size and shape. 3- A, writing material. B, the message, text. Moses, exclusively, provided the shaping of the tablets and the tools for the work. G-d, exclusively, contributed the writing material and the text. There remained therefore two tefachim that allowed for partnership. Those two tefachim became subject to combined influences. When Moses perceived the nature of the partnership with G-d, implied by the fact that both tablets had equal dimensions, he became happy, his face radiated his happiness that such is the nature of the partnership with the Creator. This is the meaning of the verse \"and Moses went up to G-d,\" (Exodus 19,3) or the parallel statement in Psalms 68,19, \"you went up to the heights.\" The author continues with an attack on Maimonides who restricts philosophic disagreements with Aristotele to the area of creation ex nihilo. Finally, the third view expressed in the Midrash, that of Rabbi Yehudah who ascribes the rays that emanated from Moses’s forehead as due to ink spilled inadvertently when G-d wrote on the tablets. This means that the leftover of the great mass of sea i.e. \"ink\" that entered the cave and receded, was to teach that once watered by G-d, irrigated so to speak, such inspiration does not evaporate but is reflected in the appearance of the recipient. All three Rabbis then comment on the interrelationship between man and G-d, and how same is illustrated by the rays of Divinity illuminating the face of Moses on his return from his summit meeting with G-d on Mount Sinai. The author questions the view of Maimonides that would have Moses pose two separate questions, and which if answered positively would have made a kind of deity out of Moses. He prefers to treat what appears as Moses’s two questions ( 33, 13 and 33, 18) as parts of a single question, meaning \"let me know Your ways so that I will know more about You.\" ",
"Some problems in the text our Parshah. 1) When Moses asks G-d \"You have not let me know whom You are sending with me,\" G-d had said \"Behold I send my angel before you,\" and explained details about that angel's function. Did Moses think that sinners should be rewarded? Besides, why the constant repetition of the word \"YOU\" in Moses’s questions? When one addresses someone in whose presence one stands, one does not need to employ this pronoun all the time! 2) Moses’s question \"please let me know\" in verse 13, seems unrelated to G-d’s answer \"My Presence will go.\" (verse 14) Why did Moses continue \"If YOU personally will not go,... etc,\" when G-d had already said \"My Presence will go?\" 3) Why did Moses continue after all this with \"please show me Your glory?\" (verse 18) 4) First, G-d had said \"I will let all My goodness pass before you;\" afterwards He said \"you cannot see My face.\" Had Moses wanted to see what is not subject to being seen? 5) Why does G-d have to hide Moses in the cleft of the rock? Who was liable to attack him? 6) Why did Moses have to chisel out the tablets himself, not like the first time; why was no one allowed to accompany him to the mountain? 7) Concerning the thirteen attributes of G-d, if we count till the word nakkeh, it is against the plain meaning of the words; from the tone signs it seems as if this list should end with the words \"venakkeh lo yenakkeh,\" similar to Jeremiah 46,28, \"venakkeh lo anakkeh.\" If so, then lo yenakkeh is really attribute number fourteen, and upokeyd avot is number fifteen. If these expressions do not constitute G-d’s attributes, why mention them in that connection at all? Why would they be mentioned in Numbers 14, 18, in connection with the spies? 8) Why does Moses suddenly switch to using the word adon when referring to G-d? 9) What are the nifla-ot, miracles, that G-d refers to as something He would perform with Moses? (34, 10) 10) Why are all the commandments mentioned in the paragraph beginning with verse 11, repeated here? They have all been mentioned on previous occasions. 11) Why did Moses’s face shine when he brought the second set of tablets, whereas nothing of the kind is mentioned when he had received the first set? 12) It seems Moses wore the veil only when he was alone, not when he talked to G-d or when he talked to the people. Since they were afraid to approach him, why did he not wear the veil when he talked to them? ",
" Some general rules about the workings of hashgachah. ",
"A) Even though laws of nature have been appointed to govern the fates of the seventy nations of the world, this does not imply that G-d has totally relinquished control. Evidence is G-d’s direct interference at the time of the deluge, the tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom etc. In each of these events the Torah uses the term \"seeing,\" an attribute of G-d which invariably precedes G-d’s effort to bring about a correction in His universe. ",
"B) Concerning Israel, G-d does not wait until major problems require His personal intervention, but He displays constant concern and supervision. \"May the Lord lift His countenance to you,\" or \"I will turn towards you.\" We are informed of situations when G-d deliberately failed to intervene on our behalf. \"I will turn My face away from them.\" ",
"C) There is a special hashgachah for Tzaddikim to whom G-d relates as if they were part of His own Self. Whenever G-d’s personal intervention is mentioned, this suggests that it was occasioned through the merit of our forefathers. Redemption is due to the good deeds of our ancestors. For instance, when G-d talks about redeeming Israel from Egypt, keeping His promise to Abraham the tzaddik, He says \"I shall pass through Egypt,\" which our sages interpret to mean that G-d personally, will do this, not by means of an angel, and emissary. (Exodus 12, 12) Or, \"I shall make it rain bread from heaven.\" (due to the merit of Moses) There are numerous other examples of this. To sum up, hashgachah exists everywhere, but its specific manifestation varies according to the merit of the individual or people concerned. A similar thought is expressed in Psalm 33. a) \"G-d frustrates the counsel of nations.\" b) \"Hail to the nation which counts the Lord as its G-d.\" c) \"Express jubilation to G-d, O righteous people.\" In the first instance hashgachah manifests itself negatively, preventing harm from befalling G-d’s people, preserving G-d’s master plan from being interfered with. Even when G-d exercises His personal hashgachah over the nations of the world, the objective is the preservation of His people.\" To save the life of His servants from death.\" (Psalms 33, 1) The four kings of Sodom that were saved, were saved for the sake of Lot, even though they themselves had long been guilty of death. Pharaoh was saved for the sake of Sarah. Clearly, whenever we have evidence of G-d’s personal interference in history, it is for the sake of the Jewish people or in order to save individual deserving Jews. ",
"(1) Moses argues, that after confession of the sin and an advocate such as himself of whom G-d had said \"I have known you by name,\" no further lack of grace should exist. Nevertheless, You have said \"I will send an angel before you,\" i.e. not like the angel mentioned in Parshat Mishpatim. When talking about the function of this angel, no mention was made by You, that he would be like the angel that accompanied us up to now. Of the previous angel, the Torah had said \"and the Lord was walking ahead of them by day and by night in a pillar of cloud...and during the night in a column of fire.\" (Exodus 13,21) (2) Now however, Moses argues \"You state for I will not go up in your midst.\" (33,3) All this points to the fact that You are still angry, and that You are entrusting the supervision of my people to someone who is equivalent to those who supervise the fate of all other nations. Therefore, Moses asks \"let me know Your ways, so that I will know You and be able to find favour in Your eyes, and this will demonstrate that this people is really YOUR people.\" G-d responds \"My face, i.e. My personal hashgachah will lead you.\" Moses continues that G-d should not think that he was unaware that without \"YOUR Presence we cannot even progress one step on the way,\" but I wanted You to assure me that by teaching me Your ways we qualify for the superior type of hashgachah reserved for the tzaddikim. How else would I know that not only I, personally, but also Your people have found favour in Your eyes? This could only be by means of veniflinu ani ve-amcha that both I and Your people will be granted miraculous distinctions! (3) G-d responded by saying that He would perform miracles in the presence of both Moses and His people, the like of which had never been performed. (34, 10) This would prove that all the Jewish people are under the protection of the third and most exclusive type of hashgachah peratit the most personalised supervision by G-d. This is also the meaning of \"I will be gracious to whomever I choose to be gracious to;\" (33, 19) it will be an act of grace, not entitlement or automatic response by Me. Since G-d had explained His response to the needs of the people already twice, Moses asks for a personal favour, an act of grace for himself, when he says \"please show ME Your glory.\" He wanted to be shown this at once, not to have to wait until some future national crisis would trigger the need for that kind of revelation of G-d’s Majesty. The word na, is frequently used as prefacing a request for immediate fulfilment. Examples are Numbers 12, 13, \"heal her now!,\" or Exodus 11,2, \"speak now!\" (4) G-d responds by saying \"I will let all My goodness pass before you.\" You will then understand the relationship of all the things that exist, and how they are all traced back to Me, the original Cause of all existence and all happenings. I will proclaim the four lettered name before you\" i.e. I will use the four lettered name of which I once said to you \"this is My name and this is My memorial.\" (Exodus 3, 15) \"I will reveal the significance of this name so that you will know that whosoever knows it and calls upon it, I will respond to such a person by performing miracles in this (otherwise) orderly world. In this manner I will demonstrate that I will bestow grace on those I decide to grant grace to.\" When G-d says \"you cannot see My face,\" this is not to be construed as a denial of Moses’s request, but as a teaching and an instruction. The ultimate wisdom of the sage is to know what element of theology needs to remain beyond his understanding. This is the difference between a chacham, a wise man and someone who is still wiser than a chacham. The latter can add to his knowledge of \"causes\" without getting to know the essence. This is why G-d tells Moses that the highest level of his perception is to know that one cannot see \"MY FACE,\" i.e. understand \"My\" attributes in a manner that would form a composite picture of \"My\" essence. As long as a human being is alive, i.e. ha-adam vechay, such perceptions are not possible. The nature of your life, Moses is told is the combination of matter and spirit. This precludes the comprehension of the essence of the pure spirit. Once you are no longer part of an earthly shell, part of a primitive form of life, you would be able to realise some of My positive attributes. Berachot 17, phrases it \"In the world of the future, the righteous will sit with their crowns on their heads, and enjoy the outpourings of the Divine Presence.\" Put another way: as long as man has a normal intellect, cognition of My essence is beyond him, as we find in Numbers 21, 9, \"when he would look at the copper snake he would live.\" When looking at the copper snake, some people were under the illusion that they had seen G-d. A blind man who has never seen light, sometimes imagines himself as competetnt to define light because he is not satisfied with his state of blindness and longs to advance beyond that stage. This may be what the prophet Isaiah 6,5, refers to when he said \"woe unto me: I thought I was a person of unclean lips, dwelling amongst a people that are impure, for I have seen the Lord of hosts with my eyes.\" What is described here is a reference to this vision of the Divine entourage, merkavah which the prophet had experienced, in which he saw the throne of G-d. As Maimonides comments, the power of the prophet is that he can make relevant comparisons between the form and the Creator, between exterior form and inner content. (5) \"He said, here there is a place near Me, stand there on the rock etc.\" Afterwards G-d said \"you cannot see.\" G-d now explains how these matters relate to one another. \"I can elevate you to a place from which you can look down on earth, then when My majesty passes, you will stand in this highest place that it is possible for man to achieve, and I will cover you with My hand.\" This will act as a lid to protect you from that part of Me that is not given to mortal man to understand. But afterwards, \"I will remove My hand, and you will see My rear, \"meaning the negative aspects of Me. This is the most any human can do. (33,22-23) In chapter 60 of his \"Moreh,\" Maimonides explains this in the famous parable with the ship. The nikrat hatzur, is understood as the summit of the rock. Moses’s vantage point will be above the earth, so to speak. Since things created by G-d directly have no lasting existence, i.e. are by (6) their very nature created only for the brief moment they are needed, such as the manna in the desert, and since the second set of tablets needed to endure, they had to be constructed by human hands. As long as G-d contributed only the writing, the continued existence of these tablets was assured. The reason no one was to accompany Moses to the mountain was, that since the first time the objective had been to let the people hear \"so that the people will hear when I speak with you,\" Aaron and the elders were to accompany Moses part of the way. The fact that Moses would be addressed directly by G-d had been demonstrated already, there was therefore no need for Aaron or elders to accompany Moses again. Animals also were not allowed on the mountain, to underline the sanctity of the site. After this, the Torah says \"Moses rose early and ascended the mountain,\" conclusive proof of Rashi's opinion that conversation between G-d and people up to that time had taken place within his tent. Now Moses took with him the tablets which had as yet not been inscribed. G-d descended on the mountain, that is to the place previously defined as \"there is this place with Me.\" Moses stood on the rock. \"He proclaimed in the name of G-d,\" i.e. G-d now proceeded to instruct him in the thirteen attributes.\" G-d passed in front of him.\" This is the fulfilment of \"I will let all My goodness pass before you.\" Normally, Moses would have experienced a transient revelation to be immediately forgotten, dreamlike; however, because G-d had added the words \"I will remove My hand,\" He granted Moses a much longer lasting impression of the revelation that was to follow. Had G-d only stated \"I will cover you with My hand,\" this would not have been the case. The whole revelation would be an indirect (negative) revelation, not a direct (positive) one, as would have been the case had there been a vision of G-d’s \"face.\" At any rate, the comment \"I will grant grace to whomsoever I shall decide to grant grace to,\" is the reference to the instruction in the thirteen attributes as outlined in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17. Rabbi Yonathan comments there that if it had not been for that verse, I would not have been permitted to explain it in that vein. G-d instructed Moses how to pray, wore a tallit and showed Moses that whenever Israel sinned, he should likewise drape himself in such a prayer shawl and G-d would be willing to forgive Israel. Rabbi Yehudah says that G-d made a contract with Moses that he would not return empty handed from any entreaty incorporating mention of G-d’s thirteen attributes. This is the meaning of \"Here I conclude a covenant in the presence of the people.\" (34, 10) ",
"The author now proceeds to explain the thirteen attributes in the traditional way, including their use by G-d with the earlier generations, i.e. ever since Abraham until the time of the exile in Egypt, since Egypt up to that point, and their use in the future. The first use of the four lettered name expresses the essence of G-d as the Creator, the only existence prior to and subsequent to the existence of the universe. From this, the Rabbis in Berachot 60, deduce that this name is the source of mercy since He is the father of all creatures, and we ask Him to \"have mercy such as a father has on his children.\" Psalms 103, 13, mentions that G-d \"exercises mercy on all those who revere Him.\" It was this attribute of G-d that Abraham proclaimed in his time to his contemporaries. Whenever we read in the Torah \"He proclaimed in the name of the Lord,\" (using the four lettered name) this is the message that Abraham conveyed to his listeners. It was this attribute that G-d used in His dealings with Abraham, except on the occasion of the akeydah, when He commanded him to offer up his son. On that occasion, G-d employed the attribute of elokim. The second time the four lettered name is used in the thirteen attributes, it reflects the ongoing supervision of history as well as individual fates that G-d employs. Also, the fact that He relates to His creatures either with pleasure or displeasure, according to their deeds. This is why we find on occasion a combination of the four lettered name with the name elokim .(Deut. 3,24) By using the four lettered name, He excercises mercy on the sinner when the latter repents. Since no man is totally free from sin, our sages in Rosh Hashanah 17, express this in the words \"I, the four lettered attribute, am the same before the sin as I am after man sinned and repented.\" In the words of David, \"G-d has mercy on those who revere Him, since He knows our urges, our inner psyche.\" (Psalms 103, 13) The message then is that although man has sinned, G-d does not necessarily change His attitude to such a person. This is also the meaning of Samuel II 12, 13 \"G-d has removed your sin from you.\" G-d employed this attribute with Isaac when the latter was lying bound on the altar. In the blessing that Isaac bestowed on Jacob, he used both attributes, to teach his sons that G-d employs both attributes in His dealings with man. The third attribute \"keyl,” is an attribute denoting strength, such as when we read about eyle ha-aretz, (Kings II 24, 15); it also represents a form of the attribute of mercy, as we read \"the Lord your G-d is an eyl of mercy.\" The same meaning is used in Psalms 22,2, \"my eyl my eyl, why have You forsaken me?\" This term is employed when G-d needs to employ the attribute of mercy in order to suppress the attribute of justice that seems to be called for. It would be used either to assist those who have not sinned, or those who have sinned and repented. This was the attribute G-d used with Jacob on a regular basis. G-d also used it when He blessed Jacob. (Genesis 31, 13) \"I am the eyl of Beyt El, or (Genesis 33,20) \"He called Him the keyl, Lord of Israel.\" The fourth attribute, that of rachum, merciful, is used when a person or group of people have expressed incomplete repentance. This attribute was employed in Egypt, when the Jews had not completely repented their former way of life. When David describes G-d as having extended this kind of mercy to the Jewish people who had erred so frequently, this was also before they had repented fully. (Psalms 106,46) When G-d responded to the first outcry of the Jewish people in Egypt, and the Torah states \"G-d knew,\" that refers to the loving kindness implied in mercy. (Targum Exodus 2,25) We find that meaning of \"He knew\" also, in Ruth 2, 1, and other places. The fifth attribute, chanun, gracious, is used by G-d on people who have nothing to commend them. Our sages say that G-d showed Moses three treasures. Moses asked \"why do You need three treasures?\" G-d replied \"one is for those who study Torah and perform the commandments. The second is for those who perform deeds of loving kindness. The third is for those who perform neither the one nor the other, to whom however, I wish to give an undeserved gift.\" This is the meaning of \"I shall be gracious to whomsoever I shall be gracious to.\" (Midrash Rabbah Song of Songs 45) The Midrash in Parshat Va-etchanan says that \"righteous people, though they may possess all kinds of merits, ask G-d for free gifts.\" This attribute was employed by G-d when the Jews were promised great wealth upon leaving Egypt. G-d had said \"I will give the grace of these people in the eyes of Egypt.\" (Exodus 3, 21) Again, in chapter 12, 36, we read \"and G-d had given the grace of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they lent to them.\" In the Haggadah of Passover, in the paragraph known as dayeynu, we thank G-d for all the favours He had performed for us, seeing that they were totally undeserved. The sixth attribute is erech apayim, long delayed anger, and refers to G-d’s relationship with unrepentant sinners suffering from heavy burdens of sins. If G-d were to treat them according to the principle of justice, their punishment would result in their utter destruction. G-d therefore exacts the punishment only a little at a time, even when He does employ a measure of the attribute of justice. He hopes that in this way, such sinners may eventually repent the sins they have committed. The reason the word apayim appears in the plural, is that it may refer both to tzaddikim and wicked people. (Baba Kama 50) Both have errors to account for. Or, it may refer to both reward and punishment, the former sometimes being parcelled out sparingly, so that it may be saved up for the world to come. This attribute was employed in dealing with Pharaoh as well as with Israel, whenever either acted rebelliously in Egypt, at the sea, or in the desert. An expression of G-d using this attribute can be found in His exclamation \"how long will this nation refuse to obey My commandments!\" ((Exodus 16, 28) The seventh attribute is rav chessed, favouring kind deeds, allowing them to be weighty. This concerns the treatment of people whose merits and demerits are in balance, and who require a tipping of the scales in their favour. This can be accomplished by weighing down the merits which would raise the demerit side, or vice versa. (Rosh Hashanah 17) The logic is discussed in Midrash shocher tov on Psalms 62. Rabbi Nehoray is quoted as saying that since wickedness is sterile by definition, does not produce growth by itself, whereas goodness is dynamic, productive by definition, the latter when in balance with the former, will eventually outweigh the former. The eighth attribute, emet, truth ,refers to the truthfulness and reliability of fulfilling promises made. We read in Chabakuk 2,3, \"if He tarries, wait for HIM, He will surely come, He will not be late.\" The Talmud Berachot 7, states that a promise of something good, even if given conditionally has never been withdrawn, as we know from Moses. One must realise, however, that this is based on the assumption that the recipient of such a promise has not meanwhile forfeited it through a change in his own behaviour. Proof can be found in Jeremiah 19. See also the discussion on this in chapter thirteen of this volume. G-d employed this attribute at the time the Torah was given to Israel, making good promises He had given to the ancestors and Moses. The ninth attribute is \"He preserves His kindness to thousands of generations.\" Just as the children of the wealthy, if not enterprising themselves, would starve or die were it not for their parental inheritance, so man, if devoid of the accumulated merits of his forefathers, would not have any spiritual capital to draw on, and would quickly forfeit his claim to continued existence. David expresses this thought in Psalms 17, 14 \"they will have lots of children and leave their abundance to their offspring.\" This attribute needed to be employed during the episode of the golden calf, when the attribute of \"slow to anger\" did not suffice, and Moses proceeded to invoke the merits of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Immediately he had done so, we read \"G-d reconsidered.\" This is beautifully illustrated in Shemot Rabbah 44. \"Moses asked G-d for permission to speak, which permission was granted. He said that if the Jewish people had violated the first half of YOUR commandment, will YOU violate the second half also?\" Moses referred to the \"you must not have any other deities,\" which had been violated by the Jewish people. He asked G-d \"will You now violate Your commandment of \"doing kindness for thousands of generations\" (in the same commandment)? The tenth, eleventh and twelfth attributes \"nosseh avon, va- fesha, ve-chata-ah,\" i.e. commuting various types of sins to levels that deserve less severe punishment, is usually understood as follows. avon is the sin committed deliberately, pesha is the sin that is committed to show one's rebellion against G-d’s legislation, whereas chata-ah is a sin committed unintentionally. During the episode of the golden calf, all three kinds of sin were committed. At any rate, G-d did not employ these attributes to forgive, merely to delay the punishment due for those sins, i.e. nosse, \"carries.\" The punishment was meted out at another place at another time. It is important therefore to recite these sins in the proper order at the time one confesses them, i.e. vidduy. Accordingly, the plain meaning is that G-d tolerates not only deliberate sins, but even sins representing rebellion against Him. Naturally, He tolerates unintentional sin. The Midrash says that if repentance is forthcoming, the first two categories will be considered as if they had been like the third category, i.e. inadvertent. In other words, He raises them to the level of mere chet. This is the translation of Yonatan ben Uzziel in Chabakuk on the word al shigegotay, for my unintentional sins. However, in the Shulchan Aruch (Tur Or Hachayim 621), the ruling is that the confession is to be recited in the reverse order, commencing with the chet, the most minor category of sin, and to proceed progressively to the most major, the most serious. Each group of sin requires an additional attribute to save the sinner from the total consequences of each misdemeanour. Moses employed these attributes after the sin of the spies, when he said \"as You have elevated the sins of the people ever since they came out of Egypt until now.\" (Numbers 14, 19) (7) The thirteenth attribute, venakkeh lo yenakkeh, He will consider innocent and yet not consider innocent. In our prayers, we separate the expression by a comma. There are serious doubts if that is the correct interpretation, however. We feel that there should not be a comma, that the whole expression is a single attribute, which is used in conjunction with any of the attributes ten, eleven or twelve. It means that G-d tolerates certain sins from time to time, without granting total forgiveness, since true pardon cannot take place without simultaneous repentance. Baba Kama 50, states that he who claims that G-d overlooks things, (ignores a sin completely) will cause his own life to be ignored. Psalms 25,8,states that \"G-d is good and straightforward,\" meaning that He teaches the ways of repentance to sinners even after they have sinned. The explanation of how one can reconcile the apparent contradiction in \"He visits the sins of the parents on the children,\" with the fact that G-d then not only punishes the perpetrators of the sins but also succeeding generations, lies in the delayed nature of the punishment. G-d waits until the fourth generation for actions that would give Him a reason to diminish the original punishment due the one who had perpetrated the sin. Therefore, this attribute is also one of mercy. This is why Moses mentions it at the time of the crisis with the spies. He asks: \"are You going to kill this whole nation simultaneously, at once?\" He continues \"and now, let the power of G-d be great,\" (Numbers 14, 17) invoking this attribute revealed to him at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, we find G-d responding \"I have forgiven according to your words.\" This means that by the time the land of Israel will have been entered, the punishment will have been exacted. The children suffered part of the punishment, having to wander in the desert for forty years. As the Torah states \"and they will have to bear your harlotry.\" (Numbers 14,33) This means that the children will have to suffer the infidelity of the parents' generation. Concerning the question if the attribute of \"visiting the sins on the children\" is a \"good\" attribute or a \"negative\" attribute, there is a dispute between Nachmanides and Ibn Ezra. The author tends to agree with the view of the Tosephta in Sotah chapter 4, seeing that it is being contrasted with the attribute of extending the reward for up to two thousand generations. If one considers this a \"good\" attribute, then it is number thirteen, and the nakkeh ve-lo yenakkeh prior to it, must be understood merely as an adjective applicable to attributes ten, eleven and twelve, respectively. This cocludes the thirteen attributes which reveal the manner in which G-d relates to man in His dealings with him. At the time of this revelation, the \"who elevates sins to a lesser level\" had to be invoked to insure survival of the people after the golden calf. (8) Why then did Moses suddenly switch to the name of Adon, when he said to G-d \"if I have found favour in Your eyes my Master, (adonay ) please walk in our midst\" This is a name for G-d not mentioned in this whole Parshah! The sages of the Kabbalah teach us that this is the name which is the gateway to G-d, as we read in the shirat hayam the Jewish people offered as thanksgiving after having crossed the sea and seeing that the Egyptians had been drowned. \"The temple of my Master, (adonay ) Your hands have firmly established.\" (Exodus 15, 17) The portal to the presence of G-d, the shechinah on earth, is via this appellation of G-d. This is why we preface the central prayer, the amidah with the words \"my Master, please open my lips!\" All supplicants enter via this name, this description of G-d. Sometimes the euphemism kol, all, is employed to describe G-d. This is to indicate that all is to be found within Him, that nothing is lacking. When Moses was told about the angel that would guide Israel towards the holy land in Parshat Mishpatim, the Torah says of that angel \"for My name is within him,\" and the reference is to that name adon, the name by which he is nearest to us, easiest to be reached by the worshipper. So, when Moses prayed concerning his own personal plea to be allowed to enter the holy land in Parshat Va-etchanan, he also uses that name. \"My Master, O Lord, You have begun to show Your servant ...\" (Deut. 3,24.) Daniel in chapter nine, also uses that name on several occasions. It would appear that by using that appellation, forgiveness can be obtained, as proven from the quote in Daniel and also Psalms 86,3, and 15. After this new found knowledge, Moses asks G-d for His personal Providence, using the proper channels that had been revealed to him. He underlines the fact that the Jewish people are \"a stiffnecked people,\" saying that because of this nosse avon, elevating their sin to a less serious level is not enough, that they require a complete pardon. An indication that Moses refers to this pardon is found in the request \"forgive our sins, (of rebellion) our intentional sins, and let us take possession of Your inheritance.\" (34,9) The emphasis on this inheritance implies total and unconditional survival while in possession of the original promise of the land of Canaan. It was at this point that Moses had realised that the original angel was G-d Himself, in His function as elokim, attribute of justice. He realised that when G-d had said in Mishpatim 23,21, \"be careful of this angel, listen to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not elevate your sins to a lesser degree of seriousness for My name is within him,\" that G-d had meant to tell him to be careful not to upset this method of Personal guidance by G-d, the attribute of not only elevating sin but the capacity to grant forgiveness. For this reason, during the episode of the sin of the spies, Moses said \"let the power of the four lettered name be great,\" meaning \"restore that kind of hashgachah to us!\" If Moses says at the same time \"and elevate the sin of this nation as You have done thus far,\" when he appears to refer only to G-d’s \"weaker\" attribute, he has in mind only the older generation of the Jewish people. For the younger generation he pleads for total forgiveness. G-d responds therefore by saying \"I have forgiven, in accordance with your own words (request).\" Moses’s further request, namely that G-d go with them, was because he wanted visible evidence that G-d had indeed forgiven them. This would be demonstrated by \"Your walking with us.\" (33, 16) We find something similar when Abraham prayed for Sodom. When G-d responds that if fifty righteous people are found, He would save the town, the term \"I will elevate\" is used to describe suspension of judgment. G-d Himself appears as the four lettered name. He had not said \"I will not do anything, but ve-nassati. When Abraham presses further, in the case of the forty five people, he omits reference to \"will You not at least elevate,\" but simply asks \"are You going to destroy?\" At that point, G-d reassures Abraham without qualification \"I will not do it.\" It is significant that Abraham had switched to the use of the adnut term for addressing G-d. In other words, Abraham wanted forgiveness not mere suspension of the penalty. G-d responded positively. When finally, at the end of the conversation, G-d departs from Abraham, the Torah describes the departure as the departure of the four lettered name, i.e. the attribute of mercy departing. This means that under the prevailing condition, the weaker attribute of mercy could no longer fulfil any function. Exodus Rabbah 32, quotes G-d as having said when He announced the appointment of the angel in Parshat Mishpatim \"He who looked after the fathers, is now looking after the children.\" Similarly, Abraham had reassured Eliezer on his mission to Padan Aarm, that the G-d who had looked after him would also look out for Eliezer. (Genesis 24, 7) Further examples are quoted to show that all the authors of the various Midrashim are agreed in their understanding of the function of the angel mentioned in Parshat Mishpatim. (9) The \"covenant\" mentioned in 34, 10 was, that an appeal to the thirteen attributes of G-d now revealed to Moses would not remain unanswered. \"I will perform miracles,\" as you Moses have asked. The Talmud Berachot 7, states that this implies that other nations will not have prophets to assist them. There are also many hints in this verse that future miracles that would be performed by men such as Joshua, who could arrest the orbits of the sun and the moon, would have the origin of their power in this authority granted Moses as a result of his prayer. See details in chapter thirteen. (10) Just as the name anee, I is used sometimes as a euphemism, kinnuy for \"G-d,\" so G-d reassures Moses here that the same personal supervision that the Jewish people enjoyed prior to the sin of the golden calf, (the angel of Mishpatim) will be active in accomplishing the expulsion of the seven tribes residing in the land of Canaan. To make sure that this point is understood, we have a review here of the same duties that had already been spelled out in Parshat Mishpatim when we first encounter the angel. This is also why the paragraph ends with the injunction \"do not make a cast image, a deity,\" as if to say \"what is done is done, the episode has come to an end.\" The additional legislation of the peter rechem, the laws about the first born, relates to the new situation created after the firstborn had failed in their normal duties at the sin of the golden calf. The redemption of such firstborn is now required in lieu of their appearance in front of G-d performing their duties. (Zevachim 115) (11) We are told by this legislation that although the situation had returned to normal, they were not exactly as they had been, when after the sacrificial rites had been performed, the atzilim could have visions of G-d, or at least His entourage. Now they no longer possessed the power to behold even the rays of light emanating from the face of Moses. Numbers Rabbah 11, illustrates this point. \"Behold the power of sin! As long as Israel had not sinned, the shechinah, though described as being \"like a consuming fire,\" did not bother or frighten the people. As soon as they had committed the sin of the golden calf however, they were frightened even of Moses’s appearance. The \"rays of glory\" are the wisdom. This is true in even greater measure of a person who has communicated with G-d in a \"face to face\" manner. Solomon says already in Kohelet 8, 1, \"a person's wisdom lights up his face.\" The Talmud Baba Batra 75, describes the face of Moses as resembling the face of the sun. ",
"As mentioned in the introduction in the statement of Rabbi Berechyah, Moses took these rays of glory to show that he had become G-d’s partner, as indicated by the dimensions of the tablets. (12) Possibly, when he had come down with the first set of tablets, the people were even more terrified of him. However, circumstances at that time made any comment about that fact irrelevant. Supporting evidence for such a thought can be found in Moses’s own words when he describes the first descent. (Deut.9, 15) \"I turned around and descended from the mountain, the mountain being burning fire, and the two tablets of the covenant in my two hands.\" This means that the rays of glory at that time were like \"consuming fire.\" When Moses saw the sin, the fire went out as the letters on the tables \"flew away,\" and he smashed the tablets. Do not think that the purpose of the veil was to enable the Jewish people to approach him, since in that event, Moses should have worn the veil when speaking with them, removing it when he finished speaking. We see that he did exactly the reverse. The matter of the veil seems to have worked as follows. When G-d would address Moses, he removed the veil to increase his receptiveness to the Divine message. When Moses spoke to the people, he removed the veil to impress the people even more with the fact that his message was Divine. Only on the infrequent occasions when Moses neither communicated with the people nor G-d with him, did he actually wear the veil. A careful analysis of the verses describing all this, will confirm this interpretation. The veil, in other words, indicated when Moses was preoccupied with the mundane tasks of life. "
]
],
[
[
"",
" Parashat VaYakhel",
"\"Observe My Sabbath days and revere My sanctuary!\" (Leviticus 19,30) ",
"\"These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall work be done\" etc.",
"Exodus Rabbah 50, writes \"G-d said to Israel: you have made for Me a tabernacle of goats' curtains, so I will protect you in the future, as it says in Isaiah 4,5, \"and the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion and upon the assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and a shining flame of fire by night, for on all the glory shall be a Divine cover. Indeed, over all the glory shall hang a canopy which will serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection from drenching rain.\" The Midrash continues in this vein, promising the Jewish people rewards corresponding to the holy ark, the menorah etc. ",
"Since man has not been created to sit idle, with his hands folded in his lap, it is fitting that his activities should be commensurate with the lofty status he occupies in this universe. The philosopher Aristotele illustrates this premise by two examples. In the first example he describes the relationship of superior beings to their inferiors. In the second example he describes the relationship of the whole to its constituent parts. If an artisan ruins his reputation by failing to live up to what is expected of a man of his calling, how much more does man forfeit his claim to superior status in this universe if he fails to employ the talents with which he has been endowed? Every part of the human body is designed and exists for the performance of some distinct function. Failure or inability to perform this function, robs that part of the claim to be what it is commonly called. A blind man's eye can hardly be termed \"eye,\" since the ability to see, to have vision, is part of the definition \"eye.\" Once devoid of its function, such parts retain their names only in the sense that they have been supplied to their respective owners. When \"eye, ear, legs\" are described in Psalm 115 as being parts of the idols, the Psalmist goes on to say \"may those that would use them be just as these parts are themselves.\" This means that since the individual parts of the idols, i.e. eyes, mouth, legs etc. cannot perform the functions they were meant to perform, neither will the idol perform its function to be a deity, a protective power for those who worship it. \"KOL asher boteach bahem,\" the whole in which one places one's faith. The whole relies on its parts to each fulfil its function; only then can the whole be conceived of, as living up to its title. If individual parts of the idol lack power and do not demonstrate such power, the idol as a whole is powerless, a sham. When man's individual parts fail to perform the various functions assigned to them, the term \"man\" can no longer be applied to its owners except in the sense of the lowest common denominator. This is why David says \"KOL asher boteach\" with the vowel cholam on the letter kaf rather than with the vowel kamatz under the letter kaf. When Solomon in Proverbs 21,25, states \"the greed or lust of the lazy person will cause his death, since his hands refuse to do what he is supposed to do,\" he refers to the same idea. Man's inclination to inactivity leads him to be labelled \"dead,\" as we find in Berachot 18, \"the wicked are called dead during their lifetime (already).\" Because they refuse to carry out their tasks, they have reached death prematurely; death after all, is merely a state of ultimate inactivity. Another way of explaining the same verse is that the desires of the lazy people are weak, express a wish to achieve their goals effortlessly. Therefore, when the time for action arrives, they fail to heed \"the requirements of the hour, his hands refuse to do their share.\" This in turn leads to their death. It is beyond question then that a special task has been reserved for man. In general terms this task is described at the end of the story of creation. \"He placed him in a garden in Eden, to work it and to preserve it.\" (Genesis 2, 15.) This verse is a reversal of a previous statement (2,5) \"there was no human being to work the soil.\" Our sages comment on Deut. 15, 18, \"He will bless you in all that you do.\" This verse is necessary so that we should not think we might sit and be idle. (Ketuvot 59) \"Idleness leads to boredom.\" It causes spiritual emptiness and degeneration. The Torah illustrated that if even a small part of you, such as your hand, needs to perform its function, the idea that man as a whole could remain idle is obviously wrong. Solomon used many examples to decry and deplore idleness, laziness etc. From the above premise it is clear that all activity which does not lead to attainment of the goals and purpose of the person who performs it, is a useless activity. Such an activity would not be considered better than no activity. (Moreh Nevuchim section three chapter 25) However, the effort and diligence expended in pursuit of all categories of activities whose apparent goals are measured in quantity, weight or size, no doubt fall under the heading of \"useless activity.\" The reason this is so is, that they are never ending, boundless. Those who pursue them never find rest, as someone who moves in a certain direction ought to find when he arrives at his destination. If this is so, the intensity with which these objectives are pursued do not make man any less idle or despondent. It follows that man's true activities must be the achievements that can be measured in terms of quality, not those that are measurable in terms of quantity. Real acquisitions would be knowledge, moral qualities etc. These acquisitions would be truly praiseworthy. Pursuit of such aims elevates man from a state of want and inadequacy to one of ever ascending status, until all his desires reach the stage of fulfilment. (menuchah, creative rest) All worthwhile objectives have strict limits towards which the aspirant strives. It is this which the wise Solomon defines as the perfect state of man. He proceeds from the premise that the soul is active in accordance with its superior moral status. The key to man's achieving his perfection lies then in the activity not motivated by lust, greed and phantasies, but by his moral imperatives. This is evident from the Torah's description of man's task in the garden Eden, which was the result of G-d blowing a living soul into him. (Genesis 2,7) It was at the point that we are told that Adam was endowed with a soul, that the Torah tells us what is his task. The poel, driving force, was to be the neshamah, soul. This is also what we must learn from the opening portion of our Parshah. \"These are the words that the Lord said to them. Six days work shall be performed etc.\" (Exodus 35,2-3) When viewing the entire panorama of human activities which G-d commanded each one of us, one understands that just as G-d imposed activities upon Himself from which He desisted once He had achieved His objective, (compare \"for during six days He created the universe, and on the seventh day He desisted and had a respite.\"-Exodus 31, 17) so all who model themselves after Him, will seek out activities that possess the distinction that toil and effort expended on them leads to margo-ah, serenity of their soul and personality, does not leave them feeling exhausted, unfulfilled, empty. When David says \"when you eat of the labour of your hands, you will be happy and well off,\" (Psalms 128,2) our sages in Berachot 8, state that the word \"happy\" refers to this world, whereas the words \"well off\" refer to the world to come. It is clear that such activities are difficult for man to achieve, as explained in Moreh chapter 34, section 1. We would like to add another factor to those mentioned by Maimonides, one that is equal in importance to all those enumerated there. Most people view the acquisition of apparent wealth as the major accomplishment in their lives. This attitude leads to these people being under great strain, it preoccupies them so much that they have little time and energy left for the performance of good deeds. (Aristotele ethics chapter 17, statement 7) The \"good fortune\" of amassing such wealth, prevents true wealth, real happiness. Perhaps then material wealth is not really a \"good fortune,\" if it leads someone astray who started out being a tzaddik before he became wealthy. \"Watch yourself.. lest you eat, become sated,...and your heart becomes boastful..and you forget the Lord your G-d.\" (Deut 8, 11-15) See our commentary in connection with the manna in chapter 41. ",
"",
"",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why is the word \"My Sabbath days\" in the plural? Since the reference is to a single day, namely the seventh day of the week, the reference cannot be to G-d. Also, since the verse continues in the singular i.e. \"it is a sign,\" we are evidently speaking about that Sabbath only, not other holy convocations that do not qualify for the description ot, sign! 2) Why does the Torah repeat here once more what has been discussed in the previous Parshah, i.e. \"observe the Sabbath...he who desecrates it shall be executed?\" We find the same repetition in connection with the paragraph of \"va-yechullu.\" 3) How can the words \"whosoever desecrates it will be executed,\" (i.e. by a human tribunal) be followed by \"whosoever performs work on that day, his soul will be cut off from his people,\" (suggesting death by heavenly tribunal Exodus 31, 14-15.) How does one statement lead to the other? 4) Since the objective of the Sabbath legislation is rest, inactivity, why is it always linked with the order \"six days you shall work?\" The reason cannot be to \"permit\" work on the six days, since there had never been reason to believe that it was forbidden. Although our sages in Mechiltah 20, commented that it means that even thinking about work is forbidden on the Sabbath, the statement is repeated too frequently not to have additional meaning. 5) If, as explained traditionally, the words \"remember the Sabbath\" and \"observe the Sabbath\" were uttered at Mount Sinai simultaneously, why did the Torah not record both expressions each time the text of the ten commandments is recorded in the Torah? ",
"(1) The first principle to be appreciated in order to hold a true belief in the creation of the universe ex nihilo, a belief upon which all the other dogmas of faith are based, is the belief in the ability of the Creator to exercise His will upon all creatures in all spheres of the universe, and His ability to create new facts in heaven and on earth for the benefit of His followers, or to the detriment of His enemies. (as explained in connection with the story of the creation and the deluge) We are exhorted to observe the Sabbath by refraining from activity since in this way we testify to the fact that creation commenced from an absolute void. (4) One could ask that since chidush, a new creation is essentially an activity, should it not best be remembered by our observing the six days of creation (the work week) as a memorial to that fact, since that is when the activity took place? When we examine the concept of rest more closely, we realise that what best testifies to the concept of creation ex nihilo, is that from which He has already rested ever since; only that kind of creative activity is not ongoing. This excludes evolutionary changes that start from somewhere rather than from nowhere, and are going on forever. Therefore the Torah writes on the occasion of the very first Sabbath, \"for on that day He desisted from all His work which He had created to be carried out in an ongoing fashion i.e. la-assot.” (Genesis 2,3) This is to counter the idea prevalent among some Jews that the story of creation is compatible with the view of kadmut ha-olam, the primacy of matter. This is dealt with in chapter 4. (2) In order to reinforce our appreciation of the special Providence that guides the fortunes of our people through all the miracles G-d has performed, He arranged a second New Year for calculating months and festivals, and handed us the key to this as explained in chapter thirty seven. This is what our sages had in maind when they instituted kiddush, the sanctification of the Sabbath. First we recite: \"a memorial to the work of creation,\" then we follow by reciting \"the first of the holy convocations, a memorial to the Exodus from Egypt.\" The reason that these two remembrances could not be combined in one single phrase is that the Sabbath reminds us of chidush ha-olam, creation ex nihilo which is the foundation that all moadim, festivals have to be based on. These moadim testify to the complete freedom with which G-d conducts history. Had He not created ex nihilo, the moadim could not testify to that fact. The essence of the Sabbath legislation then is to implant in our hearts the belief in chidush ha-olam, from which flows the belief in G-d’s unimpaired Omnipotence. The festivals remind us that G-d’s potential power was in fact translated into practice. Both of these facts are remembered by abstaining from work on the Sabbath, as we will demonstrate in detail. Abstention from work by any person usually consists of two parts. A) The quiet and respite experienced by the person who is prohibited to work. B) The non performance of the labour which would normally have been performed. If one looks only at the first part, it seems that as long as the work that one abstains from could be performed automatically, mechanically, or without causing fatigue to the person performing it, there would be no objection to such work being performed on the Sabbath. On the other hand, if we look only at the second aspect, the fact that the work does not get performed, i.e. consideration of the labourer's fatigue or otherwise, does not concern us. Work prohibition on the Sabbath demonstrates that G-d is concerned with both aspects. On the one hand the Torah writes (Exodus 20,9) \"six days you shall labour and do all your work;\" on the other hand the Torah writes \"the seventh day is a day of rest to the Lord your G-d, you must not do any work etc....because G-d did...and He rested on the seventh day.\" The repetition of \"you must not do any work,\" clearly shows that the \"rest,\" or \"physical fatigue\" factor is not the only criterion in the Sabbath observance. The major objective to be achieved by the respite resulting from work abstention, is the chance to reflect on the meaning of the day, and on the revelation in which G-d demonstrated His freedom. Since the word zechirah, remembrance can be applied to matters involving action, whereas the word shemirah suggests matters involving inaction, he Torah uses zechirah when it emphasises respite, i.e. remember to rest!. When the Torah wishes to emphasize abstention from work per se, it uses the word shemirah, \"be careful not to do any work!\"(see Talmud Berachot 20) The Torah's wording then corresponds to the two objectives of the Sabbath legislation. In the first instance, the Torah writes zachor, reminding us of the need to rest, since it will enable us to appreciate that He blessed the day by instituting rest as a corollary to creation ex nihilo. On the second set of tablets, when the major objective is abstention from work, cessation thereof, the term shamor is appropriate. So is the reminder that we were not able to cease work while enslaved in Egypt. For this reason the Torah adds in that instance \"in order that your servant rests just like you,\" a comment not found on the first set of tablets recorded in Parshat Yitro. In response to the freedom G-d had displayed in practicing hashgachah peratit, personal guidance of the Jews' fates in Egypt, we are told \"Therefore the Lord your G-d commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.\" This is going a step beyond the injunction in Yitro which merely said \"therefore G-d blessed the Sabbath and sanctified it.\" Since the major significance lies in the menuchah-nefishah-shavat aspect, the men of the great assembly when referring to the Sabbath in our prayers, always call it \"this day of rest,\" not just \"Sabbath,\" since that latter word combines rest and non-activity in equal measure. By this little addition of \"this day of rest,\" we know that this is the major factor. Therefore, on the first tablets it says \"He rested\" on the seventh day, to counter the non believers in creation ex nihilo. Similarly, Onkelos translates Leviticus 25,5, \"it shall be a year of Shabbaton for the land,\" as \"a year of idleness, abstention from work.\" But the words “shabbat shabbaton lashem,” he translates as \"a day of restfulness\" (ibid verse 4) Since we have established rest and relaxation as being associated with the word zachor, and the abstention from work with the word shamor, and it is clear that abstention from work will lead to rest and relaxation, our sages said that these two terms were uttered simultaneously. (Psalms 62, 12) \"One thing the Lord has spoken, I have heard the dual meaning.\" This refers to the total of textual variants between the first and the second sets of tablets. This also answers the question raised by Maimonides that belief in creation ex nihilo depends on the ability to perform changes, and the ability to perform changes in nature depends in turn on the ability to create ex nihilo. To illustrate: Reuben gave Shimon a dollar to fulfil the mitzvah of tzedakah. He also wanted to express his compassion with Shimon in this way. If we remove one of the two reasons, the mitzvah was fulfilled although some element of it had been lacking. In the first set of tablets there is a causal relationship between the reason for the mitzvah and the mitzvah itself. Without the zechirah remembrance, the mitzvah becomes meaningless; in the second set of tablets (ten commandments) the reason merely becomes subordinate, i.e. \"therefore G-d commanded you to do.\" The mitzvah will be fulfilled, la-assot by its very performance, regardless of the reason associated with it. ",
"The other important aspect of this mitzvah is, that by observing it we are enabled to familiarise ourselves with the entire Torah, commentaries etc. ",
"By appointing a day a week when we forsake preoccupation with all matters that are of a transient nature, we have the opportunity to listen to the Torah's instruction, each person according to the level of the faculties he has been endowed with, of course. Spiritual contentment is attained through such Torah study. The Talmud Yerushalmi Shabbat 16, halachah 3, goes so far as to say that the Sabbath was given to Israel primarily to enable us to study. This is an aspect of the neshama yeteyrah, additional soul, which the Talmud Beytzah 16, says we possess on that day, due to the preparations we make to welcome the arrival of the Sabbath. This refers to preparations made by both lecturers and listeners. This is also one of the reasons we find the Sabbath described as \"equivalent to all the other commandments combined.\" Scriptural proof is available from all three parts of the Bible. All of this is due to the intensive preparation involved in getting ready to observe the mitzvah of Shabbat. We could find additional proof in our very Parshah where we have the juxtaposition \" these are the words which the Lord commanded to be kept,\" followed by \"six days work shall be done and the seventh day shall be a holy Sabbath for you unto G-d.\" It seems as if the rest of Torah legislation is equated with Sabbath observance. The Rabbis who composed the grace after meals, have expressed the same juxtaposition in the insert we recite on the Sabbath. \"Be pleased, O Lord our G-d, fortify us by Your commandments,\"-- \"and by the commandment pertaining to the seventh day.\" Because of the importance of this day, we find many more types of prohibitions associated with this commandment than with any other commandment. We also have the penalty of \"stoning\" for wilful transgression after due warning. We learn from the frequent repetition of the Sabbath laws in the Torah that even mental preoccupation with weekday matters is taboo, see Isaiah 58, 13. A true Sabbath observer is someone who does not engage in idle chatter on that day. (Shabbat 150) One's conversation should not be like that on weekdays. Some people do not speak anything but Hebrew on the Sabbath. The definition of melachah work, is usually an activity planned in advance. (machashavah) It is only this kind of work that is subject to the severe penalties of the Torah. All manner of activity which tends to sow hatred, disharmony etc. is likewise forbidden under the euphemism \"do not light fire in any of your dwellings,\" (35,3) which appears adjacent to the main legislation. Anyone who fails to utilise the opportunity the Sabbath offers him to study Torah, is in fact contributing to his own death. It is this that Rabbi Ami had in mind when he went on record (Yerushalmi Moed Katan 2, halachah 3) \"If I had found someone who would agree with me, I would have permitted work on the intermediate days of the festival..\" Since the work prohibition on those days has as its purpose to free people to eat, drink and study Torah, and the people ignored the part about studying Torah, better they should at least work than belittle the sanctity of these days by not studying Torah. ",
"The experts of the Kabbalah have revealed to us another fine spiritual aspect of this day, inasmuch as it possesses the distinction to help also those who seek out wisdom and Torah. This great day alluded to the seventh of the ten sefirot, emanations, which is called Sabbath, and which is like a hallway leading to the illustrious palace which is called Shabbat hagadol, the meaning of which will be discussed later. All of this is included in the commandment \"six days you shall work,\" i.e. expend your energy performing mitzvot in this world of \"vanity,\" so that on the seventh and holy day you will be able to enjoy contemplative rest. We can now answer the question of why the Torah speaks about \"My Sabbaths.\" (plural) Since, as we have demonstrated, there are in reality three dimensions to the Sabbath idea, the Torah is at pains to include them all when listing the commandment. After stating the idea, each dimension is explained individually. Concerning the first dimension, it says \"for it is a sign between Me and you for generations, so that you know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.\" Abstention from work is the visible sign for all future generations to know that He has hallowed us through this commandment, and that this distinction will make us take part in the hidden world reserved in the future. This is the key, the gateway to that ultimate Sabbath. (3) Concerning the second dimension of the Sabbath, the Torah states \"Observe the Sabbath for it is holy for you, anyone desecrating it will be put to death, since anyone doing work on it, his soul will be cut off from his people.\" He who osseh bo, will use Torah and mitzvot to enrich himself, uses the idea of the Sabbath for transient personal gain, studies for ulterior motives, mot yumat, deserves death in both worlds, will never experience the ultimate Sabbath. On the other hand, \"kol ha-osseh melachah beyom hashabbat,” he who performs physical labour (of the forbidden categories) will be put to death by human tribunal. Hillel said in in Avot 1, according to Rashi, that \"anyone using,\" i.e. abusing the \"crown,” i.e. holy scriptures, religion, loses his claim to eternity. \"Anyone eating\" (mundane satisfaction) from words of Torah, is really taking away from his life. (Rashi on Avot 4,7) Concerning the third dimension, it says \"veshamroo..,the eternal covenant.\" When the first two dimensions of the Sabbath have been fulfilled, we will be party to the third dimension, the treasure reserved for us by G-d, concerning which the prophet Isaiah 64,3, said \"no eye has beheld such treasure, it is reserved for the Lord alone to grant to him who waits for Him. We find all three dimensions of the Sabbath alluded to in our Sabbath prayers. 1) \"You have not given this day of the Sabbath to the nations of the world.\" 2) \"You have not given an inheritance to idol worshippers.\" 3) \"Also on His day of rest, an uncircumcised person must not rest.\" Line one, corresponds to the idea of ot, sign, it is sufficient to set us apart from them. Line two tells us that the granting of the Sabbath legislation applies only to believers; non believers do not benefit from the gift of the Sabbath. Our sayes (Eycha Rabbati 2) tell us that if a gentile claims that he possesses Torah, do not believe him, if he claims to possess wisdom however, you may believe him. The gentiles have no share in the Torah of Israel. Line 3 tells us that as long as he is uncircumcised and impure, the most well intentioned gentile cannot be included in the community of Israel. Only conversion can make him part of the Jewish nation. The prayer continues \"for to Your people of Israel You have given it, to the seed of Jacob whom You have chosen.\" The Talmud Shabbat 119, relates that the emperor asked Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah \"why does the Sabbath food exude such a pleasant fragrance?\" The Rabbi answered that we have a special seasoning called shevet which we put into it. Thereupon the emperor requested to be given some of this seasoning. The Rabbi told him that that seasoning was effective only when used by people who observe the Sabbath. The emperor had realised that the seasoning of our lives provided by the Sabbath, permeates the world, so that Jews could inherit it; he wanted to know by what means and what merit Jews achieve their ultimate triumph. The Rabbi told him that it was due to compliance with the two dimensions of the Sabbath legislation discussed previously. When the emperor said \"let me participate anyways,\" he had to be told that without accepting the burden of all the commandments first, all of which depend on these two dimensions of the Sabbath, this could not be. Let us return now to the opening statement in this chapter, that all the tasks G-d has allotted to man specifically are included in the commandment \"six days work shall be performed, and the seventh day shall be holy for you, a Sabbath to G-d.\" (35,2) G-d has given this day three names (dimensions) which between them remove the obstacle to Sabbath observance represented by the six malachey chabbalah, angels of destruction. The Sabbath therefore is the source of all blessings and sanctities; the sanctity of all the other holy days is derived from the Sabbath. A sign of this is the fact that all holy days are called holy convocations because they take this name from the Sabbath, and are hallowed by its sanctity. However, the Sabbath itself, seeing that it does not need to draw on outside inspiration to achieve its own sanctity, is nowhere referred to as a holy convocation except in Parshat Emor,where it is like a guest in the paragraph dealing with all the festivals, heading the list. At any rate, the Sabbath is the source of sanctity and blessing from which blessing and sanctity flow to all those who prepare themselves to welcome it. Under the aegis of the seventh sefirah, Israel received the Torah under oath. It is all one great mystical experience for them. This in turn confers upon its adherents the atzilut, spiritual nobility, that is the reward for observing this commandment. The reason that the Sabbath is considered equal to all the other commandments then is the sefirah Shabbat, the mystical domain from which all commandments have been issued to Israel. It is this which Isaiah has in mind in chapter 58, 13. This is also what Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai meant when he interpreted the Midrash which has G-d’s consoling the Sabbath that Israel would be its mate. (Bereshit Rabbah 11) For this reason, the Sabbath legislation took chronological precedence over all the other mitzvot having been taught to the people already at Marah, prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. (Sanhedrin 56) We welcome the shechinah every Sabbath, calling it a bride, since it is a tangible expression of G-d love for us. (Shabbat 119) This also explains the strange statement in Shabbat 118, that if someone had committed adultery such as Enosh, as long as he observed the Sabbath meticulously, he would be forgiven. The scriptural proof for this statement is brought from Isaiah 56,2, \"hail ENOSH (person?) who does this..who observes the Sabbath, not to desecrate it.\" Anyone who observes the Sabbath in all the aforementioned aspects, must already have been truly repentant. We apply the principle then that the position occupied by repentant sinners cannot even be matched by the perfectly righteous. (Berachot 34) Such a person is referred to as enosh, just as the original Enosh of whom the Torah states that he \"proclaimed the name of G-d.\" (Genesis 4,26) The common denominator then between how the two aspects of Sabbath observance affect us is, that this noble, holy day paves the way for study and understanding of, and eventual observance of all the mitzvot. ",
"The third principle we learn from the Sabbath is that this holy day contains a veiled reference to the everlasting world, otherwise known as kullo shabbat. (see end of tractate Tamid) It is this aspect which is meant when we talk about the \"great Sabbath,\" i.e. the true greatness of the Sabbath. If we have stated in the first principle that the six days of creation are reminders of things that are transient and subject to motion, whereas the Sabbath reminds us of rest, conclusion of work, so it is also a veiled hint of man's life as such. He moves and strives towards those activities that lead him towards his true purpose. The Sabbath then is a symbol of man's true destiny and purpose. The Talmud Berachot 56, says that the Sabbath is 1/60th of the world to come, and they comment that though the Sabbath itself is something visible in public, the reward for observing it is not visible in public. (Shabbat 10) We see there are two names for the Sabbath, the visible one and the invisible one. The invisible Sabbath will be granted to those who observe the visible Sabbath. Compare this to the lady who has been entrusted with the key to his treasure chamber, by the king. Obviouly, he means for her to be in command of the treasures hidden in that room. The Talmud Shabbat 118, states that if Israel were to observe two Sabbaths, they would immediately be redeemed. The meaning is that if Israel were to observe both aspects of the Sabbath as we have outlined them, redemption would follow in its wake. We would immediately merit the \"great Sabbath,\" redemption of the soul and its salvation. It is clear that such tremendous results cannot be achieved without the expenditure of great amounts of energy. Therefore, the Rabbis tell us, (Avodah Zarah 3) that he who has toiled on the Sabbath eve will eat on the Sabbath, whereas he who did not toil on the Sabbath eve \"what will he eat?\" Therefore, as we have said earlier, true happiness is found in the efforts expended by man commensurate with his standing in nature, not idleness. How remarkably is this concept reflected in the fact that the \"do's\" in the Torah correspond to the 248 limbs in our body, and the \"dont's\" to the 365 days of the year. (Makkot 27) Each limb exhorts us daily to avoid preoccupation with the vain things in life, the pursuit of which results in our failing to acquire the true acquisitions which have enduring value. (this has been discussed in Psalms 119) ",
"",
"The first name (principle) of the Sabbath, helps remove two obstacles to Sabbath observance, namely the profound nature of the inadequate perceptual powers of the people who are to observe the Sabbath. By allowing us to stop work on the Sabbath, G-d has enabled us to grasp spiritual truths no gentile has an inkling of. By removing our work load, He has given us the time to study Torah and thus add an extra dimension to our soul. In this way, we can correct our faults, shortcomings, and advance towards perfection, something no other people can accomplish. The second name (principle) of the Sabbath removes two further obstacles to Sabbath observance, namely the natural tendencey to opt for a life of ease and indulgence, and the obstacle to the arduous task of performing mitzvot and acquire Torah knowledge. The Sabbath provides an incentive to learn. The moral and ethical truths learned on that day provide a bulwark against our baser instincts and traits. The third name (principle) helps to deal with the remaining two obstacles, namely the need to attend to the task of earning a livelihood, ensure our material well being, as well as the need to ensure our physical well being, health. Once one has absorbed the lesson of the third Sabbath principle, namely the lack of substance of everything material, one is well on the way to achieving mastery of the mind over the body. All the examples of apparently superhuman limitation in food intakes such as Rabbi Chaninah ben Dotha subsisting on a \"kav of carobs,\" or Moses going without food and drink for forty days, are then understood quite easily. ",
"Exodus Rabbah 25, raised the question why the Torah uses the word re-oo, see, instead of de-oo, know! in the verse \"see I have given you the Sabbath.\" (Exodus 16,29) The answer is simple. Should the nations of the world ask us why we keep the Sabbath, we can simply point out that on the Sabbath the manna did not fall. This was visible evidence of Sabbath observance from on high, ergo Sabbath observance of the Jewish people down on earth. At the same time this proves that the legislation, or gift rather, was given only to us since no one else was given the manna. For the rest of mankind the operative line in the Bible is yom valaylah lo yishbatu, neither by day nor by night will they cease, rest. In fact a gentile who chooses to observe the Sabbath is guilty of the death penalty. (Sanhedrin 68) This prohibition and penalty for the gentile is similar to the prohibition and penalty for the Jew who is not a priest and who undertakes to assume the functions of priesthood, offers sacrifices on the altar. He too will die, since he arrogated to himself privileges he had not been granted. (Numbers 18,7) The exclusive nature of the gift of the Sabbath is documented in the verse \"between Me and you it is an eternal sign.\" (Exodus 31, 17.) Clearly, the day was granted only to the Jewish people. We relate to G-d like a bride to a bridegroom. Therefore, the first Sabbath observed by the Jewish people at Marah, when the manna fell (or rather, did not fall) was like a betrothal; the Sabbath on the occasion of the revelation at Mount Sinai represented the wedding canopy. The visible sign, chibbur of this union is the Sabbath, much like the wedding band received, worn and treasured by the bride. The Friday night prayer, i.e. the benediction attah kidashta You have sanctified, reflects these thoughts. The Friday night prayer is like kidushin, betrothal, the Sabbath morning prayer yismach Moshe represents the wedding ceremony. The Minchah prayer atta echad stresses the union that has been achieved between Israel and its G-d. Our Parshah starts with the words \"These are the words which the Lord has commanded to do them; six days work shall be performed, the seventh day shall be holy for you, a Shabbaton of solemn rest to the Lord; anyone performing work on that day shall be put to death. You must not light any fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day.\" Rabbi Yehudah in Shabbat 97, interprets the words eyleh hadvarim, these are the words, as hinting at the thirty nine categories of work prohibited on the Sabbath which were communicated to Moses orally at Mount Sinai, (see Rashi's comment on how this is arrived at) The fact that the words \"these are the words\" refer to the subsequent Sabbath legislation is proved by the grammar. It does not say shishah yamim (six days), but sheyshet yamim. (on the six days previously mentioned, a possessive form.) Had the subject matter been new, the Torah would have had to use the word shishah. Even the singling out of the one commandment \"do not light any fire,\" which is discussed in Shabbat 70, still permits our previously expressed concept that the tabernacle and its resultant legislation is seen as a microcosm of the world at large. (1) The fact that the entire Sabbath legislation concludes with the words \"observe My Sabbath days!\" points at the three way division which we find in the sanctuary, and its ascending scales of sanctity. A) the outer courtyard; B) the sanctuary; C) the holy of holies, site of the holy ark. We find the parallel relationship between the three aspects of the Sabbath in the use of the plural \"observe My Sabbath days and revere My holy place!\" (Leviticus 19,30) G-d’s instructions in Parshat Terumah, chapter twenty five, begin with an overall description of the total tabernacle, to afford the artisans an overview of what the parts are to be used for. We find the same order again when G-d instructs in chapter thirty one. Subsequently, the details are listed, beginning with the furnishings, ending with the tabernacle itself. In the case of the actual construction, however, the tabernacle is constructed first, the furnishings later. ",
"The reason may be closely linked to what is referred to in our opening Midrash. Since both the Sabbath and the tabernacle are microcosms of the total Jewish world philosophy, the fact that the tabernacle was constructed first, is cited by the Midrash also. It is a reminder that our philosophy is based on what the Psalmist has described \"He stretches the heavens like a carpet,\" (Psalms 104,2) meaning G-d created the universe out of nothing and only subsequently supplied the matter in it. This is something which needed to be acknowledged by kol chacham lev, every wise hearted man who was employed in the construction of the tabernacle. Preoccupation with the donations for and building of the tabernacle, were strong antibodies against the natural difficulties encountered by man in rising to his full potential. Therefore, the Midrash lists the furnishings as well, since the construction of each was a way of overcoming natural obstacles to becoming a servant of the Lord in the full sense of the word. If the Midrash quotes the verse from Isaiah \"and the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be sevenfold the strength of what it was during the seven days of creation,\" (Isaiah 30,26) this is a hint that in the future we will merit enlightnement from G-d directly, our spiritual capacities will have been expanded so that no intermediaries will be needed any longer. The holy ark in the tabernacle is the symbol then of the third dimension of the Sabbath, discussed earlier in this chapter. "
]
],
[
[
" How to synthesize events due to Providence with the natural cause of events. ",
"Parashat VeEle Pekudei",
"Exodus Rabbah 52, explains Proverbs chapter 31, as follows. \"She is garbed in might and beauty, smiling towards the latter day.\" This refers to Moses, of whom it is written that he emitted rays from his forehead. \"He smiled toward the latter day,\" refers to Moses, who said to Israel \"let us erect the tabernacle\" and found that it would not stand. This in spite of the fact that the elders participated in the effort, as it says \"every man of wise heart did participate.\" They could not erect it until they brought it to Moses since it says \"they brought the tabernacle to Moses.\" They said to him \"Rabbi, we have the beams, the bolts, the carpets and the clasps.\" As soon as Moses saw this, the shechinah came to rest on him and he erected the structure. This is what is referred to by Solomon in Proverbs 31, \"many daughters have done valiantly, but you have excelled them all.\" Do not say that Moses erected it, for the tabernacle was erected with the help of a miracle and stood up all by itself. It is written \"on the first of the first month of the second year, the tabernacle was erected.\" In other words, it was erected by itself.\" ",
"Since we have established that events in this world can be due to natural law or G-d’s direct intervention, and that the latter is reserved for the Jewish people, it is proper to show how construction of the tabernacle fits into the second category. When events are the result of natural law, the fate of the righteous and the fate of the sinner are alike, since natural law does not distinguish between good and evil, rich and poor etc. This is not so when events are due to Divine intervention. Then the guilty gets his just deserts and the innocent, i.e. the righteous reaps the reward due him. It is crucial therefore, to have chosen the right way of life. He who chooses the lifestyle of a sinner, is in effect choosing death. This fact is spelled out in the Torah on several occasions, such as Deut.30, 16, et al. We have discussed G-d’s Personal Providence in chapters 15 and 31. Since we have explained in chapter 48, that the tabernacle was a microcosm of the universe, we will explain how Israel is taught a lesson by G-d exercising His Personal Providence in connection with the tabernacle and its parts, about His macrocosm. When one speaks about how the world is being run, this \"running\" can be subdivided into three aspects. 1) Availability of food and shelter. Both are available in equal measure for the righteous as well as for the sinner, as stated in Deut. 4, 19, \"sun, moon and stars have been allocated to all nations.\" 2) The availability of free choice within the framework of natural law. (compare chapter 3) This is necessary in order not to make good conduct something that is merely functional. If bad conduct were to be followed automatically and immediately by punishment, good behaviour could not qualify for reward since it would be due merely to fear and other functional considerations. 3) Sometimes, matters that had been preordained in accordance with natural law, are synchronised to occur at a time when they demonstrate G-d’s pleasure or displeasure with the conduct of man. If Nebuchdnezzar's star rose at the time of Yehoyakim so that he became the world's ruler, Israel, by reason of its wicked conduct was not excluded (saved) by special Divine intervention. Normally, when prophets make predictions they have in mind those preordained events. They announce their knowledge of these events and the time they would occur. Should the people repent, the preordained event will be cancelled, i.e. Divine intervention in Israel's fate will become manifest. False prophets base their predictions on their knowledge of natural law, not being privy to these preordained happenings that are timed to coincide with certain actions, resp. inactions of the Jewish people. Thus they deny Divine Personal intervention. Chapter twenty seven in Jeremiah is a case in point. Personal Providence does not apply to Nebuchadnezzar, but it would apply to Israel if they would follow the urgings of the prophet. Proof that the chapter discusses events due to natural law, is the prophecy concerning Nebuchadnezzar's son and grandson who had as yet not proven themselves, and whose dominion, if preordained, had nothing to do with Divine intervention. In such circumstances, intervention by hashgachah peratit, Personal Divine Providence, cannot be expected. Also, by means of natural law, the seventy years of Babylonian exile were to have the psychological effect of bringing about repentance by those who had to live in Babylonia as strangers. King Cyrus responded to their seventy year exile when he granted permission to re-establish the Jewish state, (province within the Persian empire) When king Solomon states in Kohelet 8,5, \"he who obeys the commandments will know no evil, and a wise mind will know time and justice, for everything has its time and justice for man's evil overwhelms him..l have taken this to heart,\" this passage does not mean that all fates are determined exclusively by natural law. It merely means that there is such a thing as natural law, but that G-d works according to His timetable. Those who believe that there is only natural law err. Therefore, all attempts to calculate the coming of the Messiah in advance are doomed to failure. When G-d has said in Isaiah 63,4, \"the day of vengeance is in My heart,\" He means that He will not reveal the timing, but it remains in His heart. Sanhedrin 97, curses those who calculate the timing of the Messiah's arrival beforehand. Such calculations actually delay his arrival. If someone had calculated that the Messiah would not arrive until the year seven thousand, using astronomic and astrological data, we would resign ourselves to a lengthy exile and slacken our efforts to hasten his arrival through the performance of good deeds. We must believe that a) \"My redemption is close at hand,\" (Isaiah 56, 1) and that when least thought about, it may arrive. (Sanhedrin 94) Experience has taught us that G-d may hasten the end, (Haggadah of Passover) when He shortened our exile in Egypt.\" I the Lord, at its time, I will hasten it\" (Isaiah 60,22). G-d reserves the right to accelerate His timetable, if warranted. At this point we learn that \"natural law\" can be supplanted by hashgachah perartit. When Jeremiah expresses the hope that the prediction of the false prophet Chananyah ben Azzur who had predicted the return of the captured holy vessels within two years, would come true, (Jeremiah 28, 6) he did so because the principle of hashgachah peratit can override the dictates of natural law. G-d’s prerogative to employ this method has certainly not been abrogated. When Jeremiah expressed doubt however, that this would happen, and predicted the false prophet's imminent death, he merely indicated that the conditions to bring about G-d’s personal intervention on behalf of the Jewish people did not exist at that time. The people simply did not merit it. The acid test of whether a prophet speaks the truth is when he predicts something \"good\" and it does not come true exactly as promised. Prediction of disaster merely serves to arouse feelings of fear and, hopefully, remorse. The reverse is achieved when the false prophet predicts something \"good,\" lulling his listeners into a false sense of security, an impediment to arousing feelings of remorse and repentance. This is what was the case in Jeremiah chapters 27 and 28. In Jeremiah 27, 18, Jeremiah exhorts those prophets that if they were indeed prophets of the Lord, they would pray to G-d not to lose the remaining holy vessels of the temple, and for their king not to be taken into captivity. At least, if they did that, they would attempt to ward off a decree already in the process of being executed. The reason the \"good\" prophecy has to come true is that hashgachah peratit supersedes natural law, and a good prophecy is always based on hashgachah peratit being employed. The reverse is not true, since prophesies of doom are based on G-d’s intervention having been forfeited. Hence there is a chance of doom. When no doom occurs, it proves that Divine intervention did take place on our behalf and superseded the natural law which would have proved fatal to us had it been allowed to run its course. (more on this in chapter 96) When two prophets prophesy simultaneously about the same people however, the true prophet threatening doom in order to arouse feelings of repentance, and the false prophet assuring the same people that regardless of their conduct the good will come true since their merit suffices, then only by the \"good\" coming true can we have proof positive of who was the true prophet and who was not. ",
"Divine intervention when applied to the Jewish people is the norm rather than the exception. Divine intervention, when applied to gentiles is restricted to a small segment of the people and occurs at rare intervals. Examples are: the deluge, Sodom, Nineveh, Avimelech and Pharaoh being punished on account of Abraham, Egypt's ten plagues and the kings of Canaan in their war against Joshua. We read in Psalms 33, 14, \"G-d looks down from the heavens and relates to all the inhabitants of earth from His residence...the eye of the Lord is directed towards those who fear Him.\" Clearly, the application of Divine intervention when dealing with the gentiles has as its objective the protection of His people. When Isaiah 44,28, quotes G-d as saying \"who says about Cyrus \"He is My shepherd,\" it refers to Cyrus' dream in which he had seen himself as rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple in G-d’s honour. This is an instance of Divine intervention in the life of a gentile for the sake of the Jewish people. Since the tabernacle became the seat from which Divine intervention would emanate, we understand the Midrash which states that until the building of the tabernacle, prophecy was found amongst the nations of the world, only to be removed from them once the tabernacle had been erected. When Bileam prophesied, it was only for the benefit of Israel. The problem with the Midrash is that we do not really find gentile prophets either prior to or subsequent to the erection of the tabernacle. The few instances of visions in a dream that Pharaoh and Avimelech or Laban had experienced, are not to be equated with prophecy. (Maimonides Moreh section three, chapter 2) On the other hand, were we to assume that such prophets did exist, it seems unfair to remove such powers from them merely because of the erection of the tabernacle. Regarding Moses’s prayer (Exodus 33, 16) to withhold the shechinah from non Jews, and G-d’s acquiescence, this too seems a case of an improper request by a student, and a response by his teacher that hardly seems appropriate. One must consider however that the very paucity of Divine intervention until that time, had made it difficult for people to recognise G-d and His power, since people had only seen natural law at work. They believed these laws to be inexorable. For that reason, G-d had to allow prophets among the nations, so that people would become aware of an alternative to natural law, namely G-d’s Personal intervention in the affairs of man. Prophecy at that time, meant that astrology and such would be used by wise men to forecast the future. Once the string of miracles that had preceded the building of the tabernacle and continued afterwards became the norm, the relative wisdom of the astrologers, soothsayers etc. faded into insignificance. This is why Bileam said \"Jacob has neither charms nor enchantments.\" (Numbers 23,33.) What he meant was that those who had the powers of charms and enchantments could not bring them to bear upon this nation, since that people was not subject to the rule of natural law as evidenced in horoscopes and the like. This is the removal of prophecy from the nations of the world that Moses had prayed for. In other words, Moses prayed that such enchantments become irrelevant to Israel's fate. He did not ask that real prophetic powers which the nations never possessed be removed from them. Moses wanted veniflinu, let us be distinguished; G-d responded \"I shall do wonderful things.\" Israel, on the other hand, would be guided only by hashgachah peratit, and astrologers, enchanters etc. should not exist among them. This realisation came to the gentiles in stages. First, the Egyptians acknowledged \"a finger of G-d.\" Vitro came to acknowledge \"for I know that G-d is greater than any other deity.\" Rahav, who had harboured the spies that Joshua had sent to Jericho, expressed herself in similar fashion. ",
"Exodus Rabbah 81, says, \"had the nations realised the value of the tabernacle, they would have built castles surrounding it.\" Until that time, the nations heard the voice of G-d, and whenever something occurred that was inexplicable in terms of natural law, they were frightened. Once hashgachah peratit became a fact in the life of Israel, supernatural events no longer automatically caused panic among the nations of the world. Nebuchadnezzar's experience with the three men who were saved from the furnace, and Daniel who was saved from the lions, are examples of this. (Daniel chapter 3) However, as stated, among the gentiles such occurrences are rare and serve exceptional circumstances, whereas among the Jewish people such events became frequent, almost commonplace as long as the Jewish people were loyal to G-d and the Torah. Some Israelites, of course, treat such awareness as being of secondary significance in their daily lives, though they are aware of G-d and His power. Such people do not rate Divine intervention if and when it would be the only thing that can save them. People like that are like village dwellers who know that a king rules in the capital, but who are not even aware of the king's name, status, etc. Such people are no better than the best of the gentiles, except that they are saved from destruction because of the people around them who do not deserve to be destroyed. Another category are those who, while calling on the G-d of Jacob and wishing to know His whereabouts, are still not close to Him and His temple, like city dwellers who while aware of the palace and who it is that resides in it, content themselves to have dealings only with the king's lowest ranking servants. This group does not deserve Divine intervention on its behalf, and would be saved only by a ness nistar, a hidden miracle, which occurs daily and is not credited as proof that the hand of G-d is at work. The third category are those who are fully devoted to the king, who register joyfully to offer him their services. Such people are as if at home in the king's palace, the king knows them and the work they perform for him. It is this kind of person who on occasion rates Divine intervention to protect him, and on whose behalf the king does not hesitate to change the laws temporarily. Such a person, in turn, becomes the instrument by means of which G-d’s omnipotence and awareness of what occurs in each person's life is demonstrated. It is the prayer of Moses in Psalm 90, that Israel's deeds be such that they can merit Divine intervention at all times, (last verse) After that, Moses details various aspects of hashgachah peratit in Psalm 91. First, he refers to those who complain about the hidden nature of Divine manifestations and tells such people not to worry. G-d would protect them even if the person himself will be unaware how this is done. \"For He will save you.\" If you attain a greater degree of closeness, you will even qualify for protection against commonplace dangers \"because His angels he will command for you.\" This is still not the level of nissim geluyim, visible miracles, since such things as stepping on vipers underfoot do not make the headlines when we speak about hashgachah peratit going out of its way. The help experienced by the likes of Daniel, when the scoffers who attributed his survival to the fact that the lions had not been hungry, were thrown into the same pit and consumed by the lions, demonstrated that kind of hashgachah peratit. Darius' letter proclaiming the power of the Almighty and other such examples, testify to the power of G-d. The reason that such miracles occur, is to enhance G-d’s reputation among the gentiles. Moses states in Psalms 91, 14, \"for he has clung to Me, therefore I will deliver him, I will elevate him because he knew My name.\" In Psalm 98,9, we find Moses acknowledging that G-d judges the world in fairness. This in itself is unnatural, since natural law would favour the physically strong over their weaker adversaries. Only the special blessing \"and the fear of you and the dread of you will be on all the living creatures of the earth,\" (Genesis 9, 2) enables physically inferior man to extend his dominion over the more powerful animal kingdom. This blessing, however, is restricted to deserving man. In that Psalm then, homage is paid to the miracle that notwithstanding inferior status, justice prevails over brute force. This is viewed as a manifestation of hashgachah peratit. Israel is as powerful relative to other nations, as animals are to man. The condition in either case is the preservation of the tzelem elokim the Divine image, in accordance with the respective demands made upon either \"man\" or \"Israel.\" The prophecy concerning \"the latter days\" in Isaiah chapter eleven, in which powerful animals are described as no longer molesting the weaker species, is the vision of a world when natural law will have ceased to prevail. Since the degree of personal intervention is in direct proportion to the degree of saintliness of the persons concerned, as we have demonstrated, extraordinary examples of such intervention may occur from time to time, testifying to the deserving nature of the person for whose sake they occur. Once we have seen that quality and not quantity governs the value G-d places on human beings, the fact that we are told that G-d selected the Jewish people \"not because of your numerical strength\" begins to assume some significance. \"For you are numerically smallest\" (Deut.7,7) means from you I expect what can be expected only from the select few, due to their elevated moral standards G-d’s army is not distinguished by the number of its divisions, but by the excellence of its soldiers. The Exodus from Egypt became possible not due to collective endeavour, but because of the merit of a few select individuals, especially the ones already in their graves, who had been the recipients of G-d’s oath due to their merit. (Abraham) ",
"Leviticus Rabbah 1, illustrates the point made previously, beautifully. Under natural law, a load that appears heavy to one person, appears relatively light when shouldered by two people. Similarly, something difficult for six hundred thousand people to suffer, should be impossible for a single person to endure. So we find the whole people telling G-d that they could not continue to listen to G-d’s voice. Yet Moses, alone, was able to listen to G-d’s voice without difficulty. (Deut. 5,24) This fact illustrates the principle of quality versus quantity. When the Talmud (Shabbat 94) describes the qualities required to attain the level of moral and intellectual greatness of a prophet, we can see that such people were extremely rare even amongst the Jewish people. The people of Deut. 5, realising their lack of moral preparedness knew that under the prevailing conditions they could not both survive physically and be recipients of G-d’s direct communication all at the same time. ",
"Our opening Midrash reflects the same theme. Although all of Israel had contributed in providing the various sections of the tabernacle and its furnishings, when it came to assembling it, the people could not manage, whereas Moses unassisted did manage. The people's contribution then consisted only in preparing the material, providing the basis for the tabernacle's ultimate form, to be erected when it would be ready for use. We find a parallel at the time of the creation of the universe. During six days of creative activity, G-d created all the individual parts and sections of the universe. On the seventh day though, the Torah says \"heaven and earth had been completed,\" this referred only to its constituent parts, not to the whole. Subsequently, \"G-d completed on that day,\" something which follows the statement of \"and the heavens and the earth had been completed.\" Similarly, we find in connection with the completion of the work of the tabernacle \"all the work on the tabernacle had been completed,\" whereas afterwards we read \"Moses erected it.\" Most of this has been explained in chapter four. Midrash Tanchuma points out many parallel expressions employed by the Torah both during creation and during construction of the tabernacle. The common denominator is that the former is a macrocosm whereas the latter is a microcosm designed to mirror the universe. If Moses had been unaware that his face emitted rays, and the fact that he alone could erect the tabernacle is remarkable, it reflects the idea that or with the letter ayin and with the letter aleph can be used interchangeably. The Divine, inner light illuminating the soul of Moses, was visible in the form of his skin giving off a glow, sending out rays. ",
"When our sages warn that we should not assume that Moses had erected the tabernacle by his own strength and ability, they imply that it required all the five ingredients that can contribute to the successful execution of a project. ",
"They are: 1) Favourable external conditions, commonly called mazzal) Expertise by those engaged in the project. 3) Command of the theory underlying the project. 4) Divine assistance in overcoming human inadequacy. 5) Outstanding moral and intellectual stature, which freely translated means \"Divine inspiration.\" Since Moses possessed all these qualities, even if he was deemed to have erected the tabernacle, \"the tabernacle was erected by itself,\" i.e. no human effort by itself would have sufficed, not even that of Moses. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Rabbi Berechya in the name of Rabbi Ezra, explains the first verse in the book of Leviticus in Vayikrah Rabbah 7 by means of a parable. \"Someone amongst you who wishes to offer a sacrifice etc.\" A king had two pastry cooks. The first one prepared a pastry for him which the king ate and enjoyed. The second one prepared a pastry for him also, and the king also ate that pastry and enjoyed it. It was impossible to tell which pastry the king had enjoyed more until the king asked the second pastry cook to prepare another pastry for him like the first one he had prepared for the king. We observe that Noach had offered a sacrifice to G'd which G'd had enjoyed. (Genesis 8,20-21 \"He savoured the sweet odour\") Israel too was asked to offer sacrifices on its holy days. (Numbers 28,4, \"you shall observe to do, each day at its appointed time\") Only when Moses commanded the Jewish people (Leviticus 6,2) \"this is the instruction concerning the total offering\"), did we find out that G'd preferred our offerings, as stated by the prophet Maleachi. (Maleachi 3,4, \"and the gift offering of Yehudah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to G'd as in the days of old, in former times\") \"The days of old,\" refers to the time of Moses, and the \"former times,\" refers to the years of Solomon. An alternative interpretation is that \"the days of old,\" refers to Noach's offering, as Isaiah says in Isaiah 54,4, \"this is like the waters of Noach for Me.\" The \"former times\" would then refer to the time of Abel, when idolatry was as yet unknown. ",
"Whenever the matter of animal sacrifices is discussed, there are some difficult questions that cannot be ignored. 1) Is it not unavoidable that sacrifices will be viewed as attempts to bribe G'd to forego the anger caused Him by the sinner who offers the sacrifice? 2) Does it not seem that the donor tries to placate G'd just as he would attempt to placate a mere mortal ruler, thereby insulting G'd, reducing His stature? 3) If, on the other hand, the offering is in the nature of a pennance, payment for trespass from which G'd receives no more benefit than from say the imposition of corporal punishment on the sinner, what good is it? 4) Is the purpose of the sacrifices perhaps merely to provide the priests with a livelihood, or simply the destruction of the animals that are being offered up? It is clearly erroneous to view the offerings as an attempt to restore the perfection or wholeness of G'd by means of a sacrifice that would complement something incomplete in Him. In Psalms 50, 11-13, \"I will not accept bullocks from you, since all the animal kingdom is Mine; if I were hungry, would I have to call you? After all, the whole universe belongs to Me.\" Isaiah 43,24, states this even more succinctly. \"You have not bought for Me fragrant reeds with money..nor have you tired yourself out on My behalf. You have not brought Me the lambs of your total offerings, not honoured Me with your meat offerings;..you have not bought Me with your money! I, I forgive you for MY sake!\" Clearly, what the prophet stresses is that none of the things Israel did to placate G'd or bribe Him, has had the slightest impact on the well being of G'd Himself. G'd forgives for His own sake. He emphasizes that there is no other consideration, repeats His name when He proclaims that He dispenses forgiveness, in order to stress that there is no personal benefit involved. There is no aspect of G'd that can be enhanced by the gift of man. If there were a price tag on forgiveness, it would have to be set in motion through mutual action. Since however, there is no exchange of values for the forgiveness, it occurs only through \"My righteousness.\" \"I will not remember your sins,\" so as not to shame you. However, \"remind Me of them,\" you tell of them, so that you can become righteous. (Isaiah 43,26) It is evident that the prophet endeavours to squash the foolish notion of \"our contribution\" in the matter of sacrifices. It is noteworthy that the term avodah, service, is not used in the Torah concerning offerings that are brought on the altar in order to obtain forgiveness. When Moses did use that term when talking to Pharaoh, (Exodus 10,26) \"we do not know what we will serve the Lord,\" he simply used terminology familiar to Pharaoh. It is the manner of pagans to employ the term avodah for their religious observances. (Deut. 13,7) \"Let us go and serve other deities.\" We find a similar warning (Deut 12,30) \"lest you inquire into their deities, saying,\" how do these nations serve their deities?\" The Torah in that instance, continues \"do not do thus, for the Lord your G'd etc.,\" meaning that worship of the G'd of Israel is not of that order. Positive proof that worship of our G'd is of a totally different calibre, is the fact that \"they burn their own children in fire to their deities,\" something the G'd of Israel has described as an abomination. True worship of G'd consists of obeying His commandments, neither adding nor subtracting therefrom. (Deut. 13, 1.) When referring to that kind of worship, the Torah does not shrink from employing the term avodah as in Deut. 10, 12, or Exodus 23,25, and other places. In all matters of piety of the heart, performance of good deeds, the benefit that accrues to the practitioner is stressed. (Deut. 10, 13) \"for your own good.\" \"Serving\" is for our benefit, not G'ds. It is significant that the rasha, wicked person quoted in Parshat Bo, describes the Passover ceremonial as an avodah, service, stressing \"what is in it for you?\" It is precisely this attitude to sacrificial service that needs to be debunked. Similarly, the second possible rationale suggested for the requirement of sacrifice, namely atonement, cannot be true. It is obvious that the object used for atonement would have to be in some value relationship to the subject against whom the sin had been committed. Since it is imposible to relate to the Creator in this fashion, the idea of sacrifice sufficing as an act of compensation is quite erroneous. This is what the High Priest Eli (Samuel 1,2,23-24) tells his sons when he remonstrates with them. He had heard that they had acted improperly. \"When man sins against man, the judge can mediate and determine fair compensation; but when man sins against G'd, who can determine the amount of compensation due to G'd?\" How will one know that one had atoned adequately? Similarly, Michah 6,7, calls out: \"Does the Lord want thousands of rams, tens of thousands rivers of oil?\" The meaning is \"could even the greatest amount of sacrificial animals compensate for the iniquity committed?\" Obviously then, the idea of compensation is not the rationale for sacrificial rites. Regarding the third possibility mentioned, that the priests should be provided with a livelihood, the many offerings which are completely burned up, demonstrate that this could not have been the thought behind this legislation. Moreover, the idea that priests should be happy to consume the proceeds of man's sins, that their livelihood would improve in direct ratio to the number of sins committed by their brethren, could hardly be pleasing in the eyes of G'd. The fourth possibility mentioned, the wanton destruction of part of the animal kingdom is also difficult to accept as a possible motivation behind this legislation. ",
"In addition, the fact that the Torah provides animal sacrifice as a means of atonement primarily for unintentionally committed misdemeanours, is difficult to understand for two reasons. The majority of people sin due to a lack of self control, but knowingly. It would seem logical therefore to legislate an atonement procedure for that majority. Secondly, the shogeg, unintentional sinner, did not really sin, and therefore, should the one who lacks the proper remorse bring the sacrifice, instead of the one who will at least feel properly guilty and can be presumed to be remorseful? ",
"It is fair to assume therefore, that the animal sacrifice is required from the unintentional sinner because of what this does for him, not because of what it does for G'd. If the sacrifice does not reflect the respective value of the sinner and the one sinned against, it demonstrates the extent of G'ds kindness. He does not slam the door in the face of the repentant and the remorseful. The whole legislation demonstrates that G'd has waived some of His claims on man, when it comes to the way He deals with His chosen people. This principle has been dealt with in chapter forty eight. ",
"The Yalkut Shimoni on Ezekiel item 358, relates the following: \"They asked 'wisdom' what is a suitable punishment for the sinner? 'Wisdom' replied \"evil will pursue the sinners.\" (Proverbs 13,21) When they asked 'prophecy' the same question, 'prophecy' replied \"the person who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18,4) When the asked ‘Torah', the answer was “he will bring an offering and obtain forgiveness.\" When they asked G'd, G'd said “let him repent and confess and he will obtain atonement,” as we know from Hoseah 14,2, \"take with you words and return to the Lord” This is also the meaning of the verse in Psalms 25,8, “good and upright is the Lord, therefore He instructs the sinners in the path of life.” It is apparent that the sages wished to explain the four approaches possible to the problem of sin. Human 'wisdom' perceives it as related to the inadequacy of the sinner on the one hand, and the overpowering stature of the One sinned against on the other. Since the sinner is so lacking in worth, once he has sinned, he is perceived as automatically and irreversibly pursued by the evil that his sin has evoked. Rehabilitation is not conceived possible, because of the unbridgeable chasm between puny man and the great Lawgiver and Creator. Therefore, the decree in Samuel I- 2,31-33, envisioning the irreversible punishment that the house of Eli would become victim of. The next point of view, espoused by 'prophecy', incorporates an understanding of the human personality based on revelation, and appreciates that each individual is to be judged on his own merits without setting in motion a chain reaction of punishments involving untold future generations. Thus 'prophecy' sees the death of the sinner himself as the fitting punishment for his inadequacies. Similarly, Solomon says (Kohelet 3,8) \"there is one that is alone, without a second one, he has neither son nor brother.\" It is to this statement that 'prophecy' referred, when it said that the sinner alone would die, neither his son or brother will have to bear the burden of the sin of the sinner. Compare Ezekiel 18,4. The father/son relationship between G'd and His people is stronger than the father/son relationship between biological fathers and their sons, because G'd is our common Father. \"You are sons to the Lord your G'd.\" (Deut 14,1) G'd can restrict punishment to each individual nefesh, personality, not as human wisdom would assume, that all punishment would ipso facto involve also subsequent generations of the sinner. (Chapter 99 will deal in greater detail with the obligations of the subsequent generations to embrace Sinaitic laws.) This then is the answer of 'prophecy', inasmuch as it represents the highest spiritual and intellectual level man is able to attain on his own. However, considering that the study of Torah broadens man's horizon, the additional insight gained by study of Torah produces the answer \"let him bring a sacrifice and atone,\" to our original question. All the Rishonim agree that this recipe for obtaining forgiveness will alert man to the nature and severity of the sin, since when he sees what happens to the animal, he will say to himself \"here but for the grace of G'd, go I. \"He will thus acquire a deeper reverence for G'd and His commandments. We observe how Cain, when G'd told him \"the voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me,\" and the punishment decreed, (Genesis 4,11-13) became aware of the vastness of sin, until he himself admitted \"my sin is too great to bear.\" Due to the severe nature of the punishment, the true nature of the sin is sometimes revealed to the sinner. Just as the drunkard who enters a bar and gets drunk, does not realise what is wrong with him until he is asked to pay for what he has consumed, so the sinner. Solomon, in Proverbs 23,31, puts it this way: \"when he sets his eyes on the cup,\" i.e. when he drinks only what he can afford, instead of falling victim to the allure of the wine's colour,\" only then can he walk upright.\" The reason that the animal sacrifice does not normally atone for intentional sins, is twofold. 1) Not to advertise that people who enjoy good reputations are capable of forgetting their duties to such an extent that they sin deliberately. 2) When a superior being, one that possesses the gift of speech, sins, it can hardly expect that an inarticulate animal or worse, some lifeless object, could serve as compensation, atonement for his sin. Only the sinner himself can properly be sacrificed on the altar through repentance, fasting, confession, suffering and the performance of good deeds, as expressed by Isaiah 58. In that chapter, Isaiah describes the nature of a meaningful fast day. Michah,6,7, offers scathing criticism of those who are content to offer up their firstborn in atonement for their sins, when nothing less than their own lives would really be capable of atoning for them. Only the sinner's complete transformation can achieve atonement. Our sages also said concerning the house of Eli, that not sacrifices but only Torah and good deeds could bring about their rehabilitation. (Rosh Hashanah 18) When the fourth example of the Yalkut quoted earlier has G'd saying \"let the sinner repent,\" that refers to the sinner who has sinned knowingly. Since G'd, in His goodness desires the rehabilitation of the sinner, He shows them the way. The precise nature of teshuvah, repentance is discussed further in chapter 100. The type of sacrifice involving atonement is not too difficult to understand then, whereas a second category including peace offerings, vows, gifts etc. is much more difficult to understand. In fact, they are so difficult to comprehend, that Maimonides in chapter 32 third part of his Moreh, writes that the purpose of these sacrifices is sublimation. We are to dedicate them to G'd rather than to a lesser deity, as had been commonplace among the pagans. According to Maimonides, none of these sacrifices has intrinsic value. Maimonides' attitude on these matters has been severely criticised by many scholars including Nachmanides, as is well known. All the arguments offered by those scholars were not new to Maimonides, of course. Nonetheless we find his commentary inadequate. The same applies to the arguments of Yehudah Halevi in the Kuzari. (I have omitted the author's detailed rebuttal of Maimonides' arguments as well as his rebuttal of Yehudah Halevi's arguments. Ed.) We prefer to think that animal sacrifices, even when not for the purpose of atonement, help man to perfect himself through appreciation of the the why, where, how and what he is instructed to offer. In other words, there is a symbolism in the legislation pertaining to each category of sacrifice. Also the nation as a whole is strengthened by the offerings of the communally paid for sacrifices prescribed in the Torah. Just as the nefesh chayah, \"soul\" of man is distinct from his \"physical life force,\" so is the food required for the former distinct from the food required by the latter. The former derives its sustenance from matters spiritual, as shown by Moses who went without food or drink for forty days at a time while on Mount Sinai on three separate occasions. Every se-udat mitzvah, a meal occasioned by a mitzvah celebration, contains elements designed to fortify our \"soul,\" feeding the spiritual part of us from the sanctified portions of such a meal. The partaking of food primarily designed for our bodily needs, also strengthens the spiritual part of us if the circumstances and intent causing such food to be consumed are related to the performance of G'ds will. If we eat-for instance- in order to be better able to serve G'd, then our \"soul\" automatically derives sustenance from such eating. (see Proverbs 23,1-3. Compare also chapter thirty two.) The presence of G'd is assured not because we feed the shechinah, but because through our proper intent and care when offering sacrifices (i.e. feeding our national \"soul\") we become fit for the shechinah to continue to reside near us. This is the rey-ach nicho-ach lashem, the sweet smelling odour to G'd, that results whenever \"My will\" is done. (see Sifrey on Parshat Pinchas.) Since the Torah does not state the reasons explicitly, the first of the princes (Numbers 7) was especially complimented on having perceived some of the functions of the sacrifices on his own. (compare Midrash Rabbah Numbers 17 \"Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said etc.\") ",
"In section 12, the Midrash states that Moses was afraid at the time that the holy spirit would depart from him and be transferred to the princes. G'd said to Moses \"take it from them,\" i.e. accept it from them (Numbers 7,5) G'd said to Moses: \"If I had told them to bring it, I would have told you to tell them. But, since the idea originated with them, I am telling you to accept these offerings, since the princes divined My will.\" Our rabbis wish to teach us from all this that it behooves us to try and emulate the princes. This is also what prompts Rashi in the name of Rabbi Moshe Hadarshan to explain the significance of each part of these offerings. ",
"Since the construction of the tabernacle is viewed by our sages as a microcosm incorporating all the creative endeavours employed in creation, the offerings of the princes fittingly represent and testify to the Creator and His hashgachah, supervision of our personal fates, ever since the days of creation. The collective total of these offerings,- and this was possible only if all the princes offered identical offerings-, represented the twelve horoscopes, six opposite the other six. (6 covered wagons and 6 covered wagons, chapter seven verse 3) The silver bowl in its globular shape represented the earth, the whitish colour of silver suggesting the moon. The twelve oxen, which with the wagons would transport the tabernacle, would ensure the continuity of the Divine Presence here on earth, just as the signs of the zodiac are the instruments of ongoing existence of our universe. The fact that although the sacrifice of Nachshon ben Aminadav was the first one of the princes, his is the only one described as \"and this was his offering,\" indicates how closely connected all the twelve offerings were, though each prince brought his own offering independent of any outside instructions. The mizrak kessef, silver bowl, although not much more than half the weight of the silver dish ka-arat kessef, represents man, the relatively puny creature, who was \"thrown into the universe\" once he had been equipped with his soul, according to the idiom of our sages. (Sanhedrin 38) The word kessef in this connection means the \"constant striving\" needed by man to achieve his goal here on earth. (as in Genesis 31.30 et al.) The seventy shekel of its weight symbolises man's average lifespan. This number also equals the numerical value of the letter ay in, which is the organ man does most of his striving and desiring with. It is worth the least of the silver and gold vessels offered, reminding us of the relatively inconsequential value of all earthly possessions coveted by our eyes. \"Both full of fine flour etc,\" both the earth whose purpose is to be filled with the glory of the Creator, and man of whom it is written \"I will fill him with Divine spirit,\" are the solet, fine flour referred to in this offering. (Exodus 35,31, \"I will fill him with the spirit of the Lord\") \"Each spoon ten shekel worth of gold, filled with incense,\" refers to the nachat ruach, Divine spirit come to rest, bestowed upon this earth, namely the soul descended through the ten layers of purely spiritual worlds. (the ten sefirot, as described in the Midrash on Shir Hashirim) \"One young bullock.\" The number 1 symbolises the unique force within the body of man called intellect, which is the most respected of human attributes, just as the bull is the most honoured of all the animals that are suitable as sacrifices on the altar. Ben bakar from the root \"to criticise,\" discern, capable of discernment. It is the task of man to distinguish between good and bad, truth and faslehood. Ayil echad, recalls the forces set in motion through action, through deeds, eyl means constructively powerful. Kevess echad, represents simply the life force, just as at life's beginning man is concerned only with the acquisition of survival techniques such as food and drink. Afterwards he concerns himself with more sophisticated tasks. Then the se-ir izzim, the he-goat begins to play a role. The yetzer hara symbolized by the he-goat, the force responsible for sin in man, even though an integral part of man himself, usually appears as a separate entity. U-lezevach hashlamim, bakar shenayim, for the peace offering two oxen, though bakar represents intellect, a unique phenomenon, the practical manifestation of intellect is observed both in theoretical and practical reason. Therefore, we need bakar shenayim, two of them. The five eylim and five atudim represent the five respective attributes of theoretical and practical reason, by means of which perception takes place. The latter five, the \"senses\" are quasi automatic functions that continue uninterruptedly unless disturbed by outside forces. Since all the above symbolise what is necessary in order to achieve man's ultimate purpose and perfection, the sacrifice is named that of Nachshon, whose entire purpose in life had been to achieve kirvat hashem, proximity to G'd who had created him and helped imbue him with striving. ",
"After these observations, we are entitled to view the sacrifices of the forefathers and kings of Israel in a similar light. All the sacrifices mentioned in the Torah,-other than those connected with atonement- express the desire of the donor to achieve a closeness with G'd. Creatures who have attained the level of articulate beings, are entitled to offer these animal sacrifices to G'd, and to perfect themselves by a variety of sacrificial rites so that their minds will be cleansed and their souls will be purified from slag. This is what our sages mean (Tossaphot Menachot 130 commencing with the word 'Michael') that the angel Michael, minister of the Interior at the celestial Court, presents the souls of the Just before the Almighty on the celestial altar. The consecration offering, which Aaron and his sons were commanded to bring, to enable them from then on to perform \"holy service,\" combined the ingredients needed for atonement, namely the he-goat as well as the ram for the total offering. This was to express the priest's desire to achieve closeness with G'd. Add to that the commandment to the whole nation to bring offerings since \"today the glory of G'd will appear,\" (Leviticus 9,4) and it is clear that when both considerations are present during the presentation of the sacrifices, the presence of the shechinah can be attained. Sometimes, due to faulty kavanot, thoughts or objectives, such a presence does not result. Only fools rush in without proper preparation. (Kohelet 4,17) Manoach, (Judges 13,15) invited the angel as if he were a human being to a meal on the one hand, and suggested that the nature of that meal be an offering. This combination of valid and invalid intent voids the value of the offering. The angel was quick to respond \"if it is a meal, I cannot eat it, since angels do not eat in that sense of the word; if however, it is an offering, it should be addressed to G'd and to no one else.\" (compare Exodus 22,19, \"he who sacrifices to elohim, another deity, even an agent of G'd, will be destroyed; only to the Lord exclusively.\") It is interesting that in Parshat Ha-azinu, when quoting the sayings of our enemies. (Deut. 32,37-39) G'd responds to the erroneous impression of the gentiles that offerings are accepted by intermediaries, i.e. \"elohim,” by saying \"I, I am He.\" This means that there is no other elohim, agent with Me. The offerings must be addressed to \"My holy name only.\" ",
"The Midrash Ne-elam in Parshat Bereshit, tells of a man who proclaimed that a son to be born should be \"holy\" to elokim. Thereupon Rabbi Chiya excommunicated him. When asked what wrong a man had done who sanctified his son to G'd, (similar to Hannah, mother of the prophet Samuel), his reply was that he had used the term a-d-o-na-y. Hannah's vow (Samuel I 1,11) is quoted there as the correct formula to use. The ignorance of Manoach, who was at that moment unaware that the messenger had been an angel of G'd, makes his behaviour appear even further removed from the traditional Jewish attitude to korban, sacrifice. He appears to have laboured under the delusion that Nebuchadnezzar laboured under. (Daniel 2,46.) The latter had prostrated himself in front of Daniel, and ordered a variety of of sacrifices to be offered to Daniel, treating him as the deputy of G'd. The angel's instructions to Manoach resulted in Manoach going about the sacrifice in the correct manner, as a result of which he became aware of the true identity of the messenger. Thus the proper attitude in offering sacrifices is seen to result in greater insights and greater proximity to the shechinah. A similar result occurred with Gideon. (Judges chapter 6) He too had been unaware of the true nature of who had addressed him. First, Gideon had thought that he had been talking to a prophet, i.e. a human being. When he sought reassurance that he was in fact being addressed by a Divine being, and asked for an opportunity to offer a sacrifice, the angel agreed to wait for his return, and then instructed him how to proceed with the offering. His realisation that he had been able to communicate with a Divine being, came as a result of his having offered a sacrifice in the correct manner, with the proper intent. If the accent in discussing korbanot, sacrifices, is on the free will type of offering, the reason is that though also the sin offering is acceptable, and contributes to our coming closer to G'd, it is preferable not to have to sin, than to have to atone for the sin through repentance and sacrifice. Even the objective of closeness to G'd, can be attained preferably without having to resort to sacrifice. The prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah chapter 7) does not tire of stressing that G'd had never demanded sacrifices from the forefathers, nor even at the time of the Exodus. Rather, what G'd had demanded was obedience. There are numerous statements in the Bible along those lines. The important thing is that once used, the institution of sacrifice must not be abused, since this would be conterproductive, would thwart its objectives. The reason that non domesticated animals are not suitable for sacrifices, may be that all wildlife is ownerless, i.e. belongs directly to G'd, as opposed to domesticated animals to which man has established a claim of ownership. Presenting wildlife as an offering would not be giving to G'd of oneself, of one's own. However, G'd says (Psalm 50,9) that if it were a question of \"My needs,\" \"I would not even accept a domestic animal from your house, since I own all of them too. The reason that I accept korban is merely that I wish to acknowledge your wish to express gratitude or let you pay your vows to Me.\" (see verse 14 there) The first kind of offering, Todah, connected with the word viduy, confession, is usually motivated by some occurrence as described in verse 15, \"a day of trouble\"; \"your vows,\" usually is preventative. You make vows in order to ward off untoward occurrences. Verses fourteen and fifteen are closely interrelated then. ",
"Of these two kinds of offerings, the freewill offering is more pleasing, as alluded to in the Midrash quoted at the opening of this chapter. Noach thanked G'd for having saved him. This is like when we recite the benediction hagomel, after having been bypassed by some danger. We are told that Noach had found favour in the eyes of G'd, but G'd had not found favour. Ezekiel 14,14, tells us that even if the generation that he describes would have a Noach amongst them, none would be saved. (Bereshit Rabbah 31) Noach's offering insured though that a repetition of the deluge would never recur, since he had found the key to atonement for all future generations by offering this thanksgiving offering. It was the people of Israel however, who were commanded to offer the daily offerings, (Numbers chapter 28 ) the objective being le-hakriv lee \"to achieve closeness with Me,” something that goes beyond the mere attainment of atonement. It is this closeness that the prophet in our opening Midrash envisions. The proliferation of sacrifices in the days of Solomon was pleasing to G'd, since those sacrifices represented the desire to achieve close communion with G'd. The reason that the \"days of Noach\" are mentioned in the same breath, is to show that also that type of offering is acceptable. The reason that these daily communal offerings of the Jewish people are primarily referred to as olah, is that they are me-ulleh, the highest, most advanced form of offering that exists. If the prophet also mentions ki-yemey olam, a reference to the dawn of history, he may refer to the pleasing aspects of the sacrifice brought by Hevel, who was certainly not inspired by the need for atonement, sin not having been part of man's general lifestyle in those days. If G'd, on the other hand, rejected the offering of Kayin, this proves that the latter's motivation had been of a lower order. The priests, as the recipients of part of the offerimgs, are the intermediaries, conduits between man and his Creator. The killing of the animal in the sanctuary or at least on consecrated ground, is a natural pre-condition for achieving closeness with G'd. The various paragraphs seem to follow one another in a natural order. The Torah starts with the olah, representing what man, at his noblest, altruistic intention wishes to offer, i.e. himself. The Torah emphasises \"from you an offering,\" not \"an offering from you.\" This alludes to the underlying intention. Though the actual sacrifice consists of sheep or cattle, it will be considered as if you had offered yourself. There follow the various regulations connected with the olah offering. We are told which animals are suitable, plus the fact that a \"gift offering\" must accompany such an olah. This latter is to be of the finest grade of flour etc This too has nothing to do with sin. Next comes the \"peace offering,\" the motivation for which is also unrelated to sin. Only after the list of the most pleasing kinds of offerings has been exhausted, does the Torah list the various sin offerings, whose purpose is the expiation of wrongdoing, though they expiate in the main for unintentional wrongdoing. Here the order commences with a sin committed by the High Priest, followed by the sacrifice appropriate for the error committed by the entire nation. This is to show that the same par, bull, that fulfils the function of expiating for the representative of the nation, also performs that function for ordinary citizens. This is followed by the he-goat which serves as sin offering from the Prince, the temporal authority, followed by the same he- goat serving a sin offering for sins by ordinary individuals. Next we have the regulations about the asham, a sin offering covering a different type of sin. The common denominator of all these sacrifices is the need for semichah, the placing of the sinner's hands and weight on the respective animal prior to its being slaughtered. In this way, the \"greatness,\" i.e. the attributes of man are transferred to the animal. We find that once Moses had placed his hands on Joshua, (Deut. 34,9) the people listened to Joshua, authority had been transferred. Just as power, authority, can be transferred by this means, one's weaknesses and inadequacies can be transferred in a like manner. Aaron is commanded to place his hands on the scapegoat, and immediately afterwards the Torah tells us that the second he-goat carried all the guilts of the Jewish people. (Leviticus chapter 16) Obviously, this was not part of the act of sacrifice, since the he-goat, scapegoat, was not offered on the altar, but consigned to death in wild unfriendly country. The semichah declaration indicates that the donor fulfils the details of the instructions connected with the sacrificial rite, is free from blemish in this respect. We find that those who had overheard the blasphemer, (Leviticus 24,13-14) had to place their hands on him prior to his execution, thus transferring any guilt from them to him. They are stating symbolically \"your blood is on your own head, not on ours.\" Since the sacrifice is to atone for unintentional sins, the donor must recite \"I did not knowingly commit the sin for which this animal is to expiate.\" After the Torah has dealt with the purpose of each individual sacrifice, it turns its attention to what parts of the animal can serve as compensation for the priest who is charged with performing the sacrificial service. ",
"Again, the Torah starts with the olah, the sacrifice most acceptable to the Lord Of this sacrifice, only the skin and hair of the animal is designated for use by the priest. This is in return for his labour in connection with the service involved. (Levitcus 7,8) Details of the other sacrifices follow in their respective order. It is worth noting that the expression \"as sweet smelling odour,” is reserved for the olah type of sacrifices. The other sacrifices are described as ve-chipper, they will atone. Beyond that they are not really desirable from G'ds point of view. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"This is the Torah of the total offering.\" ",
"The Talmud, Berachot 16, quotes Rabbi Eleazar as interpreting the verse \"so that I will bless You through my life; in Your name shall I lift up my hands\" (Psalms 63,5) as meaning that the words \"I will bless You,\" refer to recital of the keriyat shema, whereas the words \"I will lift up my hands in Your name\" refer to the daily prayers. Concerning anyone who does so regularly, the next verse continues \"then my soul shall be satisfied as with fat and marrow;\" not only that, but such persons will inherit two worlds, the present one and the world to come, since the verse concludes \"my mouth will praise Your mighty acts with joyous lips.\" ",
"Reason is distinct from will in that it strives to imbue any action with purpose and make it failsafe. Aristotele, in chapter six of his book of ethics states that reason does not initiate any action that is not of benefit to its subject. Man's activities can be divided into four categories, a) Foolish actions; B) actions designed to gratify some urge, but devoid of moral purpose. C) Futile actions, actions that are not capable of achieving their purpose. D) Actions motivated by the desire to achieve meaningful constructive results. Maimonides in Moreh Nevuchim, expresses this somewhat differently. There are meaningless actions, (hevel, vain) and meaningful actions. The latter fall into two categories, depending on whether they are motivated by constructive or destructive considerations. The former originate with our reason, the latter with our will and its shortcomings. The actions originating with our reason employ will-power merely for execution of a purpose initiated by our intellect. Freedom of choice, or moral choice, was granted man so that he can use it in combination with his reason. On the other hand, man is to avoid actions that are initiated by will without benefit of reason. Whenever we fail to apply these criteria in planning our actions, we have reason to join the prophet Isaiah when he exclaims \"I have toiled in vain, and wasted my strength; yet my judgment is with the Lord, my deeds with G'd.\" (Isaiah 49,4) The prophet describes his efforts as failures because he has not seen them crowned with success. He knows however, that sooner or later, G'd will cause his efforts to be crowned with success. All G'ds actions are based on reason; this is the meaning of Deut. 32,4, \"the Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice.\" Historians may argue that even G'ds plans went awry when He commanded animal sacrifices as a means to sublimate existing idolatrous practices. History shows that in time, G'd needed the prophets to rebuke the people for the erroneous concepts they entertained about the meaning of the sacrifices. Eventually, the very sanctuary, the site of the sacrifices, had to be destroyed. According to Maimonides then, G'ds plans had misfired. Also, according to our own view that the sacrificial rites were designed to achieve a closeness with G'd, such a goal has evidently not been achieved. The answer to the problem lies in the fact that G'ds plans are long range and comprehensive on the one hand, and tactical, of limited duration on the other hand. The thought that G'ds long term objectives would fail to be realised is intolerable; on the other hand, short term objectives need not be realised. Even a short term objective need not be considered as having failed, when the lesson it was supposed to have taught is absorbed by a change of our lifestyle. If, say, sacrifices were meant to bring man closer to G'd through his having offered himself vicariously through the animal, then a lifestyle which includes three daily prayer sessions certainly can be said to be evidence that man has come closer to G'd, views Him as the source of all he strives for. Even while the temple had still been standing, sacrifice had been accompanied by prayer. Representatives of all the tribes were always present in Jerusalem to do this. Our sages in Chagigah 21, go so far as to say that had it not been for the ma-amadot, these Israelites who prayed when the sacrifices were being offered, heaven and earth would long since have ceased to exist. The prophet Hoseah exhorts us to employ \"words\" to achieve what the bulls had been meant to atone for. (Hoseah 14,3) We see therefore, that prayer is a very effective method of getting closer to G'd. Chapter two in Jeremiah makes it clear that the iniquities he talks of include those committed knowingly, purposely. All of these are covered by Hoseah's appeal \"take words with you and do pennance.\" If prayer, coupled with proper remorse, of course, can atone for such sins, something which sacrifices never could, then prayer is a more powerful tool to achieve closeness with G'd. Prayer never ceased to be effective, whereas sacrifices, in order to achieve their purpose had to meet many pre-conditions. Not the least of these pre-conditions was the existence of a sanctuary at a site approved by G'd. In Psalms 51,17-20, David describes the mental state of man necessary in order that he may achieve what cannot be achieved in any other way today, due to the absence of sacrifices. When David says of G'd \"for You do not wish a sacrifice,\" this is to be understood like \"when you happen to encounter a bird's nest etc.\" (Deut 22,6), or \"when you build a new house,\" (Deut 22,8) These situations are not bound to occur. The Torah addresses itself to circumstances that may or may not occur. David too means that if an occasion arises when sacrifice seems called for, but cannot be offered due to the absence of a temple, then G'd will not insist on a sacrifice if the sinner is humble and of contrite heart. Nonetheless, we pray urgently for His return to Zion and the restoration of sacrificial service. ",
"Because prayer is service of the heart, we have connected the chapter on prayer with the chapter on the olah, total offering. As an olah is an offering that \"rises\" towards G'd in its entirety, since the whole of the animal is being offered on the altar, so is prayer an offering of the heart which rises toward Heaven in its entirety. When our sages describe prayer without concentrating on its meaning, as being comparable to a body without soul, they mean that the warmth of feeling generated by genuine prayer, parallels the ongoing fire on the altar that burns the olah. In Vayikra Rabbah 7, Rabbi Pinchas notes that the Torah does not describe the fire on the altar as being \"on\" the altar. The Torah does not require that the \"fire on the altar burn on it,\" rather it does say “aysh hamizbeach tukad bo,\" the fire on the altar shall burn within it, meaning that the entire altar should be permeated by it. (Leviticus 6,2) So our hearts are to be permeated by the outpouring of our prayers. The Talmud Berachot 32, tells us that we have to arrange the praise of the Lord before proceeding with voicing our requests from Him. Since the requests concern mostly our temporal needs, our sages (Shabbat 10) describe the supplicant as someone who temporarily abandons his concern with the values of the world to come, in favour of the mundane needs of this world he lives in at the time. If this is so, the opinion held by many, (including Maimonides chapter one hilchot tefillah ) which claims that prayer has been legislated by the Torah, is hard to understand. If the purpose of prayer would be exhausted by our asking for our needs, why should it matter to G'd whether we ask for them or not? We should be entitled to forego the opportunity to ask G'd for His kindness, assistance, etc. However, just as we have described the institution of sacrifice as designed to arouse certain emotions within us which will bring us closer to G'd, so prayer, by means of the trust we express when we ask Him for our needs, will bring us closer to Him. The conviction that He cares, that His Providence watches over us, all this helps to strengthen the existing ties between us and the Creator. The thanks we express for what He has done for us and for others, all help to cement our relationship with hashem. The early Chassidim, men of piety and devoutness, are described by the Talmud Berachot 32, as having prepared for prayer an hour ahead of time, and as having spent another hour winding down from the spiritual high achieved during prayer, before returning to the mundane tasks in their lives. Actually, they did exactly what our sages have since built into the formal liturgy that we follow nowadays. The hymns of praise, keriyat shema, are our introduction and preparation for prayer, i.e. the part during which we voice our requests. On the other hand, we are told that he who fails to enunciate the keriyat shema audibly, has failed in his purpose, since the praise of G'd and our assuming the yoke of Heaven are to be made known to our fellow men. On the other hand, he who raises his voice during the supplication part of the prayer service, is described as lacking in faith, as a prophet of the ido Baal. (Berachot 24) Channah already demonstrated that requests need not be aired audibly. If the High Priest Eli considered her as a drunken woman, this was not because she did not raise her voice in prayer, but because she had chosen a time of day he did not consider suitable for offering up prayer. (compare Samuel I chapter 1) He watched her closely to find out what she had to say to him, since most other women milling around the entrance of the tabernacle always spoke to him. Understanding Eli's error, she told him that her remarks were addressed to Him who does not need audible expression of her words in order to be able to hear and understand them. Since Channah came to the tabernacle after having dined, it was natural for Eli to have misconstrued her purpose, and to have judged same by outward appearances. In fact, one must not raise one's voice, so as not to create the impression that one considers G'd hard of hearing. When Ishmael was close to death, (Genesis 21,17) G'd considered his state of being \"as he was then,\" not the loudness of his prayers. The mental anguish that he was suffering at that moment was the decisive element that led to his rescue. On the other hand, all those paragraphs in the liturgy that teach us knowledge and comprehension have to be recited aloud. \"Hear O Israel!\"- these words we have to hear with our own ears; they are directed both at ourselves and at our fellow Jews. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Prayer requires a sense of remorse at the very outset, else it would be presumptious to expect a response to it. When Solomon dedicated the temple, he stipulated that those who would come to pray there due to a variety of communal problems, would first have to repent, before they could expect G'd to respond to their entreaties. (Kings I 8,33). It is clear that the cause of any trouble Israel would find itself in, would be their sins. Therefore, before their troubles could be removed, the cause would have to be eliminated. This involves confession, repentance and a resolution not to sin again. Contrary to popular belief that raising one's voice in fasting and prayer is designed to make Him listen, we are to pray and fast so that we will listen to Him. (see our commentary on Isaiah chapter 58 in chapter 63 Akeydah) Since the commandment of prayer embraces all aspects of our relationship with G'd, it is easily the most comprehensive of mitzvot. Sometimes, G'd may cause calamitous events to threaten our existence so as to prompt us to engage in prayer and thus fulfil that mitzvah .This will cause such prayer to be spontaneous, not merely a formula that is being recited day in day out. On such occasions entreaties are permitted even on the Sabbath, when supplication is normally prohibited. (Taanit 19) Normally, it is our very silence that makes our Sabbath observance praiseworthy. (silence= abstaining from formulating requests.) ",
"Shemot Rabbah 21 on Beshalach, states that human beings cannot judge their fellow men until they have listened to the arguments of either litigant. Not so the Almighty. Of Him it is said (Isaiah 65,24) \"before they will call out, I shall respond; while they are still talking, I will already listen.\" This is also what G'd had said to Moses at the sea of reeds: \"Why are you crying out to Me?\" The purpose of prayer is not to inform G'd of our problems, but to prepare our hearts, to improve our ways before Him. Not sack and ashes cause our prayers to be heard, but repentance and good’ deeds. As the prophet Yoel proclaimed (Yoel 2,13) \"tear out your hearts, not your clothes, and return to the Lord.\" Anyone who is not conscious of this requirement is as if he appeared before G'd offering counterfeit money. As David says in Psalms 145,18, \"the Lord is close to all who call upon Him in truth.\" The substance of our daily prayers the amidah, the eighteen benedictions, is patterned after the Priestly blessings. There are three opening paragraphs, three closing paragraphs, and the \"requests\" in the middle. The priests, immediately after performing the service in the temple, recited the blessing. The temple service itself consisted of three elements, based on three kinds of service demanded from us and spelled out in the first paragraph of the keriyat shema. \"Love the Lord your G'd with all your heart,\" i.e. service with our mental faculties, the heart being the seat of understanding. (Proverbs 14,33) \"Wisdom resides in an understanding heart,\" or Exodus 31,6 \" I have given an additional understanding in the heart of every wise person.\" The requirement to serve the Lord \"with all your soul,\" refers to service with one's body. The Talmud Berachot 54, says that this may on occasion require our very life. The requirement to serve G'd \"with all your might,\" refers to placing all our earthly possessions in the service of the Lord. When someone, be it an individual or a community, performs this service sincerely, he must convince himself first that the deity to whom he dedicates all his efforts is deserving of such service, and that no one else deserves such allegiance. Reflecting on this leads to proper concentration of one's heart. Again, without expenditure of funds for the upkeep of the temple and its furnishings, proper service is not feasible. Lastly, both the Levites and the Israelites, in addition to the Priests, perform physical tasks. In this manner, the community as a whole is represented in fulfilling the requirement stipulated in the first paragraph of the keriyat shema. Once all sectors of the nation have become involved in the \"Service,\" those who have performed same should qualify for the triple blessing contained in the Priestly blessing described in Numbers 6, 24-27. The first blessing \"may the Lord bless you and keep you,” refers to protection against errors of the mind and the heart. \"May He bless you,” means \"may He grant you additional insights.” The second blessing refers to material blessings; the third blessing discusses the result of total physical subservience to G'd, which results in the type of closeness to G'd that is the goal of all our strivings. This appears last, as it represents the attainment of our hishtalmut, our perfection. Whenever man offers prayer, he automatically engages in service with his possessions, since he takes time out from being gainfully occupied. He employs his body, by standing, bowing, prostrating himself etc. Lastly, he employs his mind by concentrating on the proper meaning of his devotion. For this reason our sages consider prayer as comparable to service in the holy Temple. He who prays properly, deserves to be rewarded with the promise contained in the last of the Priestly blessings, i.e. shalom, serenity, a feeling of closeness to the Creator. ",
"The eighteen benedictions parallel the Priests' blessings also formally, in that they commence with the word \"bless\" and end with the word \"peace.\" Since the generosity of G'd is frequently apparent by His granting a double measure of blessings, the three blessings can actually be viewed as six. Our sages accordingly may have divided the eighteen benedictions into three groups of six. In the first group of three, we express our belief in the ability of G'd to answer our requests. Inasmuch as these three benedictions are service with the mind, as we have explained, they are followed by three requests all of which are for the benefit of the mind. \"You grant man knowledge,\" is a request for spiritual assistance to our intellect. \"Make us return to Your Torah,\" is a request to help us overcome our sinful urges. The third request \"forgive us our Lord for we have sinned,\" requests assistance to our \"ego\" problems which are the root cause of committing sins. All three requests, at any rate, are concerned with the improvement of the state of our mind, and therefore correspond to the \"may He bless you and keep you\" section of the Priestly blessings. The next six benedictions, while dealing with physical needs, are divided into absolute needs, namely freedom of the body, health and food supply, followed by three requests which if not fulfilled will not jeopardise our survival, but will impede our progress towards our goal in life. Without national redemption, restoration of inspired leadership, and visible punishment of our detractors, our progress towards the golden age can hardly be expected. The benedictions asking that the righteous will be seen to receive their reward, is the other side of the coin of the more recently added nineteenth benediction concerning \"the slanderers.\" When we reach the last six benedictions, we find all of the \"may He lift His countenance to you and grant you peace\" variety, that we have in the Priestly blessing. The reestablishment of the Kingdom of Heaven, the coming of the Messiah, response to our supplications are the first phase of the eventual granting of the \"peace\" for which we strive in all its ramifications. Rabbi Shimon, who warns in Avot 2,13, not to make prayer something that is performed by rote, i.e. keva, but rather to make all our prayers entreaties, wants us to utilise the recital of keriyat shema prior to the amidah to attain the mental state necessary to express our prayers meaningfully. In the absence of such mental state, the best we may receive is matnat chinam, an undeserved gift, but not the proper response to our prayers. ",
"The Talmud in Shabbat 12, cites an interesting detail about the manner in which Rabbi Eleazar prayed for other people. Sometimes he would say in Hebrew \"may the Lord grant you peace,\" and other times he would say the same thing, but in Aramaic. The Talmud queries this practice quoting a saying that prayers should not be said in Aramaic since the angels do not understand Aramaic, and would therefore ignore such prayers. The answer given in the Talmud is that it is no problem, since in the case of a sick person, the shechinah is present at the patient's bedside. Scriptural proof for this is cited. When the Talmud Sotah 33, quotes Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rav saying that a person should not pray in Aramaic, whereas we have the Mishnah saying that prayers may be recited in any language, the apparent contradiction is solved by making a distinction between a prayer offered in private and those offered publicly. The former, seeing they require an intermediary to reach their address, should not be said in Aramaic, the latter, since they do not require an intermediary, can be recited in any language. It is most unlikely that the Talmud means to tell us that of all the languages in the world, the angels understand all except Aramaic. From Daniel 5,25, and the discussion in the Talmud of the hand that wrote the message on the wall of Belshazzar's palace, it is clear that it was an angel who did the writing. (Sanhedrin 52) How then can we understand the saying that angels do not understand Aramaic? What Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rav meant, was that we should not employ everyday language when praying. Such language is used thoughtlessly; it is used so mechanically that requests formulated in such terms are not accompanied by a meylitz yosher an advocate that advances our cause. The term \"the angels of G'ds service,\" ( malachey hasharet) is merely a euphemism for \"wings,\" giving our prayers \"wings\" so to speak. If we formulate our prayers in lashon hakodesh, the holy tongue, the concentration required will already be helpful in our attaining the proper spiritual level needed to accomplish what we set out to achieve when offering prayer. However, in the presence of a sick person whose bed is presided over by G'd Himself, no such preparation is necessary. G'ds kindness is prepared to forego the usual requirements. Similarly, when a congregation prays, the collective concentration enables us to achieve through assembly what may be achieved otherwise only through purposeful individual concentration. The Talmud reports on the same page that the High Priest enjoyed communication from the archangel Gabriel in Aramaic. If the angels did not \"understand\" Aramaic, such a statement would not make sense. If, however, as stated, the term Aramaic is used as describing everyday language, then the fact that when man wants something he should not employ such everyday terminology, but resort to the holy tongue, makes sense. The introduction of piyutim, liturgical poetry in our prayers served to enhance the concentration with which we would express these prayers. One of the more puzzling statements concerning kavanah, or lack thereof, is found in Yerushalmi Berachot 2,4. Rabbi Chiyah reports that he contemplated the relative rank of the \"Resh Galuta,\" the highest ranking temporal representative of the Jewish community in Babylonia while engaged in prayer. The sage Samuel recalls having counted chicks during prayer. Rabbi Bun counted the bricks on the wall. Surely, if these statements are to be taken at face value, even if they describe accidental happenings, their being included in the Talmud would be counterproductive rather than constructive!? I believe these stories to be deliberate exaggerations. They are designed to illustrate thought associations in our mind. When one is deeply engrossed in something, it is extremely difficult to banish it from one's mind completely. The Rabbis' major occupation was Torah. Therefore, their major preoccupation was with matters connected with Torah. They found it difficult to exclude Torah thoughts from their minds even during prayer. Nevertheless, they wanted to conform to the halachic requirements to keep the times for prayer and the times for study completely separate. (Shabbat 6) It happened to Rabbi Chiyah once, that during prayer he compared the relative merit of the Exilarch and someone called Alkafta, just as one mentally compares the relative merits of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Similarly, when the scholar Samuel recited the prayer attah chonen, which deals with three mental faculties, he found himself counting chicks since the mental faculties granted man enable him to raise himself from the ground, though like chicks, he must quickly return to earth. Rabbi Bunim, while contemplating the meaning of koneh hakol, \"He who owns everything,\" thought of the innumerable layers of matter on which the universe is built, and the thought of a row of bricks intruded on his thinking. These thought associations are a natural product of the ideas generated by the wording in the prayers. These Rabbis were so unhappy about their lapse of concentration, that they castigated themselves for what were very minor digressions. ",
"When Solomon had his second vision, (Kings I, chapter 9) G'd refers to his prayers, not to the multitude of his offerings. This clearly indicates that the decisive element that prompted G'd to accept the prayers and grant the requests, was the mental attitude the prayers represented. Prayer complements the sacrificial service. It helps achieve closeness with G'd, which is the objective of sacrifice in the first place. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"For He shall consecrate you seven days.\" ",
"The Talmud Eyruvin 40, quotes two interpretations on the verse \"give a portion to seven and also to eight.\" (Kohelet 11,2) Rabbi Eleazar says \"seven\" refers to the seven days of creation, whereas \"eight\" refers to the eight days before circumcision. Rabbi Joshua says that the seven days are the seven days of Passover, the eight days are the eight days of Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret, whereas the words \"and also\" in the verse, refer to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. ",
"Before creation, the term \"Time\" was meaningless, since it can only assume meaning in relation to events prior and after creation. As long as there was only G'd, there had been no need to create \"Time.\" Once the process of creation had begun, we find \"evening\" and \"morning.\" These are pivotal points against which events can be measured, can be timed. The concepts of \"before\" and \"after\" came into existence once there had been a bereshit, a \"beginning.\" The term zeman, season, refers to time as a general framework for events, the term eyt, \"time\" as a specific time frame for clearly defined happenings. The term \"under the heavens,\" is applied to all that occurs in our cosmos, which is by definition a mobile one, in constant motion. The same does not hold true for the supernatural. In that abstract world, there is no motion, therefore neither progress nor regression. When the Mishnah in Avot 4,22, states that \"one hour of repentance in our world is worth more than the whole of the future world,\" the meaning is twofold. A) Even a short time frame is extremely precious. B) When such time is spent constructively, it can double and triple its value, since it represents the entrance fee to a world of permanence. For this reason, Rabbi Meir advises people to minimise their earthly activities, and to maximise their Torah study, since \"Time\" was granted for the purpose of busying oneself with Torah study. \"You shall be preoccupied with it by day and by night.\" (Joshua 1,8.) Should one ask how it is possible to attain worldly goods, seeing that they require much toil and time to amass, the answer is \"be of humble spirit before all men.\" (Avot ibid.) Should one spurn Torah in favour of the acquisition of transient values, one's own end will be as finite as that of the commodities to acquire which one spent so much time and effort. The reverse is true if one concentrates on the acquisition of Torah values. To counteract any possible feeling of despair arising from the monumental nature of the task, Rabbi Tarfon adds: \"it is not up to you to complete the task, yet you are not free to desist from it.\" Should someone not feel adequately rewarded for the effort, Rabbi Tarfon adds \"your employer is faithful to pay you the reward for your work, but know that the reward of the righteous will come in the hereafter.\" This is based on the verse \"which I command to you this day, to perform them.\" (Deut. 7,11) The Talmud Avodah Zarah 3, interprets the meaning as \"to perform them today but not to receive the reward today.\" Since man is apt to lose sight of the swift passage of time, and the brevity of his stay on earth, the Torah commands us to count seven year cycles and fifty year cycles to remind us how quickly the time allotted to us passes, and to alert us to use such time wisely. \"Man worries about the loss of his money, but fails to worry about the loss of his time. His money does not really help him, whereas his time is lost irretrievably.\" (Sefer Hachayim, 10,1) When the Torah legislates the counting of the cycles, (even of forty nine days ) it says \"you shall count for yourself,\" meaning for your own benefit. The seven year cycles are symbolic of different stages of the average man's life cycle. ",
"The meaning of our opening aggadah is as follows. If you refrain from contact with your wife during the seven days of the menstrual cycle, tum-ah, you will merit the blessing of the eighth day, i.e. circumcision, which symbolises ascendancy over the spirit of impurity, attainment of purity. Since \"seven days\" represent the \"creation cycle,\" the number seven always reminds man both of his duties and of his limitations on this planet. ",
"",
"The seven days of consecration which Aaron and his sons spent in isolation, away from their respective families, prior to assuming their priestly functions, were to prepare them spiritually for their task. While they had to remain on the threshold, they were neither to enter the sanctuary nor to leave the holy courtyard. This clearly demonstrated that these seven days were preparatory to their sacred task, but that until the eighth day their preparations would not be complete. Symbolically, these seven days represented the entire life cycle. Just as life on this earth is viewed as an antechamber to the world to come, (Rabbi Yaakov Avot 4,21) so Aaron and sons were to view themselves as dedicating themselves for their lives' destiny. Wherever and whenever we encounter the number seven, it is to remind us that perfection is capable of being achieved at the end of a cycle of seven. Even when we observe a period of mourning, we do so for a seven day period. We have learned this from G'd Himself, who had observed seven days of mourning for mankind when He brought the deluge upon the earth. (Genesis 7,4. see commentary of Rabbi Zeyra in Moed Katan 3,5) He who fails to observe the seven days of preparation, is as if he were already mourning his own demise during the seven days that should have prepared him to attain his goal, his purpose. ",
"The lesson in all this, according to Rabbi Eleazar is that there is no \"instant Judaism.\" Judaism cannot be absorbed instantaneously, though observance of mitzvot may commence suddenly. We develop into good Jews only step by step. Rabbi Joshua understands the number seven as referring to those holy days that are of seven day duration, and the eight as the holy day of a single day's duration. Just as the seven days of Passover were preceded by lengthy preparations, so the single day holy day atzeret commemorating the giving of the Torah, was preceded by preparations. Nothing was achieved instantly, without due preparation. ",
"Since the Torah seems specific about the sin that caused the death of Nadav and Avihu, two of Aaron's sons, it seems pertinent to ask why our sages ask so many questions about the true cause of their deaths. Rabbi Manni in Midrash Tanchuma cites four reasons, all of which are sins that carry the death penalty. A) They were drunk when they entered the sanctuary. B) They had failed to wash their hands and feet prior to entering. C) They did not wear all the priestly garments, i.e. the outer coat. D) They had not married, had not fulfilled the commandment to procreate. These reasons are very difficult to understand. In the first place, the injunction not to enter the sanctuary while under the influence of alcoholic drink, had not yet been issued. Washing of one's hands and feet prior to entering, is not even hinted at anywhere. The outer coat was a garment worn only by the High Priest, not by ordinary priests. The fact that they were both unmarried had been well known. If this indeed represented a disqualification to offering incense, why had Nadav and Avihu been designated to offer same in spite of such obvious disqualification? ",
"The four statements are therefore not to be understood as \"sins,\" but rather as faults which made their sin possible. Outstanding individuals such as these two sons of Aaron, could not fall prey to a cardinal sin such as bringing \"strange fire\" into the sanctuary, unless there had previously been something wrong in their attitudes. Drunkenness disturbs the mind. Only when in a confused state of mind, could they have committed such a serious error. Not having washed their hands and feet is symbolic of not preparing one's body to perform a sacred task. Garments, especially outer garments, are meant as a shield against the temptation of the yetzer hara. Failing to wear such garments shows that one at least underestimates the power of temptation, while at the same time overestimating one's own character strength The purpose of all Torah study is execution of its teachings. Another way of expressing this, is \"the producing of fruit.\" Having children is bearing fruit. Being able to bear fruit is a privilege. He who has something worthwhile to bequeath to posterity, leaves children behind who, perpetuate their parents, contribute to civilisation. He who studies Torah for ulterior motives, such as to achieve honour, a title etc has nothing to bequeath. These two sons of Aaron not having children, is not to be conceived as a cause for their being unfit. Rather, it is the result of their having been unfit. To sum up, one could accuse these two sons of three deficiencies. (1) intellectual; (2) emotional; (3) moral. It is also possible to view the fact that these sons did not marry as proof of a certain amount of arrogance. They did not marry because they did not consider anyone as good enough to become their respective wives. Again, the wearing of garments can be understood as representing acquired character traits. Not wearing outer garments would mean that they lacked certain character traits which are essential in a priest, without which he is not fit to represent the people before G'd. "
]
],
[
[
"\"These are the living things which you may eat\" ",
"The verse in Song of songs 2,4, \"He brought me into the house of wine and held the banner of love over me,\" is interpreted by Rabbi Meir to mean that Israel had said: \"my evil urge is as strong within me as wine, which is so powerful that it overwhelms man and confuses him.\" Rabbi Yehudah objected to this interpretation, saying that one does not interpret Song of Songs in a manner which is uncomplimentary to Israel. The meaning is: Israel replied to the question \"who has brought me to the house of wine? that \"G'd brought me to the great wine cellar, i.e. Mount Sinai, and there He gave me the flags of Torah, mitzvot, good deeds etc., and I accepted them with love.\" (Midrash Chazit) ",
"In defining the relative merit of \"good,” it can be said that the greatest \"good\" is that which confers the greatest number of benefits on the greatest number of people, without at the same time restricting the rights of the individual. Sunlight and warmth which embraces all people in equal measure, is a greater \"good\" than candlelight for instance. The latter provides light for only a limited number of people, the candle is not available for everyone, but has to be paid for by someone. Compared to the bounty of government, whose wealth and ability is very limited when measured against the wealth of the Almighty, only G'd has the ability to provide for everyone from an inexhaustible reservoir. \"The Lord is good to All” (Psalms 145,9) This point is made by king Saul in Samuel I 22,7-8. He says that even if David had the best of intentions, he could not possibly grant everyone what they desire. Also, since the universe is constructed in a manner which makes each of its constituent parts indispensable to the proper functioning of the whole, the whole cannot merely be a multiplicity of components which each perform the identical function, and therefore are all of the same rank. To view the fact that some creatures appear more distinguished than others as proof of injustice, or to view the fact that parts of the body seem more precious than others, as proof of discrimination, is foolish. To arrive at the conclusion that these distinctions are the result of accident or lack of ability on the part of the Creator, is equally erroneous. \"And His mercy extends to all His creatures,\" (Psalms 145,9) Each part in creation is equipped to perform its allotted task in the grand scheme of the Creator. In spite of all the foregoing, G'd has bestowed special loving care on His people Israel. The yovel year legislation etc prevents permanent loss of a family's inheritance, i.e. landed wealth. Jews must not be given menial tasks to perform. He who sells himself, is punishable; the Torah takes a dim view of such action. In short, Torah legislation is aimed at preserving the lofty status of the Jewish nation at the time when that nation accepted Torah as its national constitution. Vayikra Rabbah 13, mentions that the food and drink legislation also aims at the purification of man, just as Torah legislation as such, aims at purifying and refining man by limiting his indiscrimate indulgence in pleasurable activities meant only to gratify his body. Yalkut Shimoni Bereshit 31, points out that \"he who wants to live, will die; he who is prepared to die, will live.\" Whatever man denies himself in this world, will ensure his life in the eternal world. The more he indulges himself in this life, however, the more likely is he to forfeit his share of eternal life. The aggadah in Baba Batra 74, portraying G'd as castrating the male leviathan, and killing the female, salting away its flesh for consumption by the righteous in the world to come, may express a similar idea. The separate creation of the males and females may symbolise the defusion of the physical and the spiritual. If the most powerful union of body and spirit in this universe, (Leviathan) would be allowed to roam completely unfettered, they could destroy the entire civilisation, G'd forbid. If human intelligence were to be used exclusively to advance his materialistic aspirations, the results could be disastrous. Alternately, if the body would be used exclusively to advance the interests of the spirit, this would also be contrary to G'ds plan for His universe. Therefore, G'd insured the survival of both as separate entities. As such, both are able to make their respective contributions to G'ds overall design for the world, without being able to completely upset such design. Pursuing the same subject matter, Pessachim 119, relates a strange story. In the world of the future, G'd will prepare a meal for the righteous. After having eaten and drunk, the cup is offered to Abraham to lead the other guests in reciting grace. Abraham declines the honour, saying that since he had sired Ishmael, he did not think he deserved this honour. Using similar reasoning, also Isaac declines, seeing he had fathered Esau. Jacob too declines, citing the fact that he had married two sisters while they were both alive. (something that would be forbidden once the Torah had been revealed) Moses declines the honour, saying that he had not been found fit to enter the holy land. Joshua declines, saying that he had not been found worthy to have a son. When the cup was offered to David, he accepted. He proclaimed \"I shall raise the cup of salvation and call out in the name of the Lord.\" What we learn from here is that self control is valued so highly, that David was considered worthy to recite grace more than his illustrious ancestors including prophets. He alone of all those present, had possessed an active yetzer hara, sensual urges. Even though he might have sinned, compared to the many temptations he had been exposed to throughout his life, his sins were insignificant. All the others present must be viewed as tzaddikim gemurim, saintly by nature. (compare our commentary on chapter 41) Esther, who had been the only one among all the contestants for Ahasverus' favour, who had not availed herself of every means to enhance her physical charms, was rewarded by becoming queen. This was precisely because she did not make demands on life. External circumstances play an important part in shaping one's character. \"The air of the land of Israel, makes wise.\" (Baba Balra 158 ) Exposure to certain climates advances one's ability to absorb knowledge. Inhabitants of parts of the globe subject to extremes of heat or cold, reflect this in their general behaviour. Since the land of Israel was considered as possessing a superior climate, being called eretz hatzvee, the choicest of countries, its climate can bestow benefits on its inhabitants. Rabbi Tanchum in Vayikra Rabba 13, says that a doctor who had two patients only one of whom he diagnosed as capable of making a recovery, imposed a rigorous diet on the patient he thought had a chance to recover. He did not place any restrictions on the other patient. Similarly, Israel and the gentiles. Israel, which has its after life at stake, must ensure that its food habits are such that that this after life is not jeopardised. The gentiles, who have not qualified for such after life, do not need to impose any restrictions on their food intake, therefore. On no account is the legislation of forbidden foods to be seen in the context of contributing to or detracting from physical well being, bodily health. Chapter fourteen in Deuteronomy begins by listing the otherness of the Jewish people. \"You are children to the Lord your G'd; do not make incisions on your body when mourning the dead, neither make bald spots, because you are a holy nation...Do not eat anything which is an abomination.\" With this preamble, the Torah introduces the legislation about forbidden foods. If this legislation had hygiene, sanitary considerations, as its objective, it would reduce Torah to being a medical textbook, and a very abbreviated one at that. This thought is intolerable, if only for the fact that many of the health hazards in certain foods could be neutralized by the use of spices and other preservatives. Since we observe many nations who do eat foods that we consider abominations, enjoy good health, it is clear that the legislation is not aimed at our physical health, but rather at our mental health. Such foods as are listed as forbidden, might drive out the holy spirit that dwells within each Jew. David asks the Lord in Psalm 51,13, \"do not take away Your holy spirit from me!\" Since our sages suggest that the names of certain forbidden animals symbolise characteristics of different nations, and since many of these nations did not exist at the time the legislation was formulated, it is clear that they felt that consuming certain foods would eventually leave its mark on the character of such people. Examples are gamal for the Babylonians; arnevet for the Creeks; shafan for the Medes. The fact that these names seem repeated unaccountably in scripture, gave rise to these interpretations. Since G'd had said to Moses concerning achievements of our individual goals in life \"it lies within your mouth and within your heart to accomplish,\" (Deut 30,11-14) it is no more than reasonable to include our food intake in that advice, i.e. \"within your mouth.\" ",
"",
"",
"In our opening Midrash, Rabbi Meir takes the view that wine, -because it causes confusion of the mind-, is unwholesome. Rabbi Yehudah, on the other hand, holds that far from confusing the mind, wine confers blessings upon those who drink it; it improves the digestion, temperament etc. when consumed in moderation. The Bible is full of quotations attesting to the virtues of wine. As the wine cellar is open to all who wish to buy, so Sinai was open to all who wished to learn Torah, to help them control the urge to let the demands of the flesh dominate, a tendencey that has existed since the first sin in Eden. This is why the Talmud (Yevamot 103) claims that the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai divested themselves of the impurities ingested by man in Eden, due to the serpent. For this reason too, our sages in Sanhedrin 90, say that all of Israel has a share in the world to come. If the Talmud in Sanhedrin 90, had meant that every Jew, whether religious or secular has eternal life, that would be unfair discrimination against the gentiles, and would make the life of the pious Jew unrewarding. The sinner could then look forward to the same destiny. Also, the second statement in that Mishnah, which lists a number of exclusions to the general rule, would contradict the first statement. Therefore, the correct understanding of the statement is that the term \"Israelite\" is not applied to someone who is merely of Jewish parentage, but to someone who lives up to the expectations of Judaism. It refers to Jews who live in accordance with the lessons learned at Sinai. Such a person is assured of eternal life. Therefore we understand the word \"Israelite\" as a righteous person, and conversely, \"a righteous person\" is an \"Israelite.\" When the Mishnah goes on to adduce scriptural proof for its statement, the quotation \"and your people who are all righteous will inherit the earth for all future times,\" makes perfect sense. We read in Tzefaniah 3,13, \"the remnant of Israel will not commit iniquities.\" This seems to presuppose that it is possible to bear the name Israel, and yet commit all kinds of sins? When Tzefaniah talks about the \"remnant\" however, he refers to those who, though they share the Jewish tradition, are not necessarily aware of Torah. We see that Moses distinguishes between two sets of Jews. (Deut. 33,4) \"Moses commanded us Torah, a hereditary tradition to the community of Jacob.\" The elite of the people are familiar with Torah and its details; the multitude treasures tradition handed down as such, but without deeper knowledge of same. Acquiring new habits is difficult, unless a satisfactory rationale is provided. Continuing a long established tradition does not make intellectual demands on those who practice them. The men of the great assembly may have been called such, because due to the cessation of activities by the prophets, it fell to their lot to make certain innovations to insure the continuance of Judaism as we know it. They established their claim to fame by three things. (Mishnah Avot 1) They advised moderation in the application of justice, searched for a concensus. 2) They tried to put Torah on a broad base, by enrolling many students in the academies; and once having done these two things, 3) they were able to construct \"fences\" around Torah, and have those \"fences\" respected by the people at large. If the interpretation of the Mishnah would be the standard one, i.e. that of \"be circumspect before deciding legal matters,\" a later statement at the end of the chapter, that \"justice is one of the pillars of the world,\" should have appeared before the statement in the name of Shimon Hatzaddik. The latter had been a member of the men of the great assembly, and was also the author of the opening statement of the first Mishnah. Having understood the function of the men of the great assembly, we can now understand the statement of the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 35, which interprets the verse \"your friendship is dearer than wine\" (Song of Songs 1,1) to mean that the Midrashic interpretations of Torah are dearer to Israel than the original text, even. The general order in which forbidden foods are listed, is such that the intake of animals that the Torah considers as only mildly damaging, is listed first, whereas those foods that the Torah considers as severely harmful to the development of the ideal Jewish personality, are listed later. The very fact that animals which are poisonous, or any plants that are poisonous are omitted in the list, clearly shows that the Torah's concern in this legislation is not our physical health. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Parashat Ki Tazri'a",
"Leviticus Rabbah 19, has Rabbi Shimon son of Yitzchak explain the verse (Song of Songs 5,11) \"His sidelocks are black like a raven,\" as applying to the portions of the Torah, which although apparently dealing with ugly and distasteful matters, especially when read in public, such as the regulations pertaining to seminal flux, are nevertheless dear to the Almighty. As the prophet Maleachi 3,4, proclaims \"the offerings of Yehudah and Jerusalem are pleasing to G'd as in former times, as ever.\" Proof of this is to be found in the fact that we have two separate portions dealing with the seminal flux of the male, and the seminal flux of the female. Had these matters appeared distasteful in the eyes of G'd, He could have merged these two portions into one. (compare Leviticus chapter 15) ",
"If nature is full of obstacles to man's development towards physical and spiritual perfection, G'd has gone out of His way to provide Israel with safeguards against the pitfalls encountered in nature. At the beginning of human history, G'd testifies that the heart of man is evil from youth. (Genesis 8,21) Our Rabbis comment \"how wretched is the dough of which the baker says it is bad.\" (Bereshit Rabbah 34) Solomon describes the nature of evil as comparable to a woman who is a harlot. We have explained in the last chapter that none of this reflects on the Creator, His abilities, His knowledge etc., but that this condition is so because of the nature of the universe G'd has created. The reason that G'd revealed the fact that nature has inherent shortcomings, is to warn man not to take his existence for granted, but to be on guard against his yetzer hara, his evil urge. Refinement of man,- the objective of creation,- is only possible if man starts out unrefined. Once warned, he who fails to heed the warning becomes a wicked person. He will suffer death of the soul, which is worse than death of the body. Death of the body is after all a fate common to all living creatures regardless of their moral standing. Death of the soul, however, is the result of free choice. In Kohelet 7,26, Solomon views this yetzer hara (described as an evil woman spinning her snares) as worse than death. He evidently refers to the death of the soul, brought about through the machinations of this evil urge. The enticement is the fact that the evil urge always presents itself in the garb of a seductive, alluring partner. The successful activities of this yetzer hara are facilitated by five factors. 1) Since earth is a constituent part of man, it is natural that earthiness excercises a strong pull on man, so much so, that even people of the calibre of Moses, David and Solomon could not always resist this pull. 2) There is usually an imbalance between the various elements contained in the raw material man is made of. This imbalance frequently prompts man to follow the urgings of these urgings. 3) Lack of supervision and corrective measures during a man's youth, is apt to lead him astray and make him give way to desires inspired by these urgings that have gone unchecked. 4) External circumstances, i.e. depravity observed, being carried out successfully, apparently unpunished. 5) Acquiring the wrong set of moral and ethical values due to exposure to fraudulent philosophical teachings. The antidote to the above mentioned five impediments to proper conduct, may be seen in the five answers given by the students of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai to the latter, in response to his famous challenge in Avot chapter 2. These five students were, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus of the infallible memory; Rabbi Joshua ben Chanayah of whom it was said \"happy the mother who bore him;\" Rabbi Shimon ben Nataniel the truly G'd fearing person. Then there was Rabbi Yossi the priest, described as \"the pious one,\" and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach, described as the bubbling well. These five outstanding disciples of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, each gave their respective recipe of how to achieve one's spiritual goals in this life. The order in which their teacher Rabbi Yochanan lists the names of these students indicates the order of effectiveness of these various virtues in counteracting the activities of the yetzer hara. Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus not only possessed total recall, but he advocated ayin tovah, the benevolent eye, (obviously a virtue he practiced personally), a Divine quality. \"He\" bestows blessings on all His creatures, as we read in the Bible on numerous occasions. The opposite is \"the evil eye,\" which can cause damage even to the most saintly persons. When G'd gave Moses the second set of tablets containing the ten commandments, He commanded Moses to make sure no one would be around to give an \"evil eye,\" when the latter ascended the mountain. (Exodus 34,3) Such an instruction had not been issued the first time around. The essential damage caused by this evil eye is due to the character deficiency of the viewer who infects everything he sees with his own disease. Therefore, such people, especially when full of hatred, reinforce the damage that their look can cause. Rabbi Eliezer therefore concluded that the benevolent eye was the panacea for all that is wrong in the world, and suggested that a person pray to G'd to help him acquire this character trait of the ayin tovah, the positive attitude to all that he sees around him. Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah, though not of the same high standard as Rabbi Eliezer, who was a saintly person, almost superhuman, nevertheless was made of the kind of raw material that is the envy of all mothers. He was possessed of balanced attributes, positive powers, that enable one to achieve one's perfection. His slogan \"select,\" or \"be\" a good companion, friend, matches this characteristic. It ensures continuity and intensification of one's good traits. The third disciple, Rabbi Shimon ben Nataniel, though not naturally as well endowed as his colleagues, nevertheless had trained himself to become a G'd fearing individual, had acquired the tools to counter the yetzer hara successfully. His prescription for a successful path in life, matches his own experience, when he tells us that a person needs to consider the consequences of all his actions. Whenever one is in the grip of temptation by the yetzer hara, one should consider the ultimate and inevitable result of succumbing. His dictum is similar to the statement \"consider the wages of sin, compared to the loss incurred by committing a transgression.\" The opposite, of course, is he who borrows without making repayment, since borrowing from G'd is essentially no different than borrowing from man. Rabbi Yossi, who is termed a chassid, devout, pious individual, concentrated on his relations with his fellow man, always acting in a manner that transcended the requirements of justice. Therefore, his recipe for a successful life is to attach oneself to good neighbours, to fellow human beings that cherish such ideals, and thereby reinforce one's own beliefs and standards. Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach supplies a fifth venue designed to confront the yetzer hara successfully. Instead of passively absorbing foreign ideas, he is a \"bubbling well,\" he dynamically and actively espouses Torah viewpoints, nullifies evil influences. His specific recipe, namely to cultivate a good heart, leads to one's being sincere in one's conduct vis a vis G'd. Conversely, of course, an evil heart, insincerity, would spoil everything. In the opinion quoted in Avot at first, Rabbi Yochanan is reported as preferring a quality that comes with birth, i.e. the attribute of total recall possessed by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus. Later, according to Abba Shaul, he changed his mind and concluded that a \"good heart,\" i.e. an acquired trait, was the superior one. Man is made in such a way that his spirit can conquer his flesh. A combination of brain and good character is an unbeatable combination, and can overcome all difficulties. The five types of impurities discussed in our Parshah parallel to some extent the five impediments to human perfection discussed previously. 1) Menstrual flow, or flux, involuntary seminal discharge at regular intervals by the woman, is due to the nature of the raw material woman or man respectively are made of. 2) Various skin exzemas in their four categories. 3) Skin defects of the head, be they in normally hairy areas or normally bald areas. 4) Spots developing on one's clothing. 5) Spots developing in one's house. These impurities, tum-ot, appear in four gradations. A) Niddah and keree, a natural occurrence, not a disease, the result of the raw material man and woman respectively are made of. (Niddah, i.e. menstrual flow; keree, i.e. ejaculated male semen) B) Zav and Zavah, discharges by men and women respectively from the same source, but due to abnormalities in their respective systems, i.e. a disease. This is due to some imbalance in the physical composition of the body, usually temporarily. C) All kinds of Tzora-at, skin exzemas of the body, also due to errors of \"nature.\" D) Tzora-at of the clothing or house,- completely unnatural, in fact, defying anything and everything we know about nature. Parallel to this, man's food intake can be viewed as comprising four patterns. 1) Food intake for the purpose of maintaining vital bodily functions. 2) Excessive food intake, which may result in a natural imbalance of the body's forces, akin to Zav and Zavah. 3) Intake of unwholesome food; this may cause skin diseases. 4) Intake as food of things which are not fit for human consumption in any state. Intake of such unnatural vegetable matter or animal tissue, may cause greater disturbances, far beyond the mere body of the person who has absorbed them, infecting his environment, i.e. clothing and home. It is natural for man to want luxuries once he has satisfied his vital requirements. Having tasted a variety of the latter, he is apt to begin experimenting with new kinds of physical gratifications, often harmful to him. ",
"Torah legislation, in imposing restrictions, is designed to combat the manner in which the yetzer hara would otherwise gradually succeed to make our mind the tool of our body instead of the other way around. The Torah therefore provides five remedies against the five fronts on which the yetzer hara attacks us. 1) Divine Providence that assists even those who rarely need it, being almost perfect. (such as Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanus) 2) Parents and teachers for those on the level of a Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah. (happy the woman who bore him) 3) Torah's injunctions and system of reward and punishment. The way of Rabbi Shimori ben Nataniel. (the G'd fearing person) 4) Telling us of the successful lives of those possessed of loving concern for G'ds creatures. (The way of Rabbi Yossi the pious one) 5) Illuminating our minds by its teachings, as illustrated by Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach. (the bubbling well) Proof that niddah of women and keree of the male are similar in nature, part of the general human condition as such, is found in the fact that the changeover from a state of impurity to a state of purity (based on Torah law) is immediate; there is no waiting period after the condition has passed. Zivah, an abnormal flow of blood from the same source, on the other hand, requires a seven day waiting period, suggesting that a severe impurity requires time for its subject to free himself from it completely. It is interesting that the Torah writes the laws of circumcision on the eighth day adjacent to the purification laws of niddah. The male too is purified through circumcision on the eight day. This is the purification from the impurities absorbed by the human species when the first pair of human beings ate from the tree of knowledge at the serpent's behest. If Israel had been purified by the revelation at Mount Sinai, as our sages tell us, (Yevamot 103) this suggests that the purification process had started already previously, and was only completed by that event. From the point of view of what they have in common, zav flux of the male, and zavah flux of the female, should have been written in the Torah side by side. However, the Torah wanted to point out the power of milah, circumcision, as a purifying factor. Rabbi Yochanan points out that impurity is not the result of death, but that death is the result of impurity. He means that a diseased body ( tum-ah ) causes all that it touches to become diseased, and whether death results depends on the intensity of the emanations from that diseased body. In ancient times, among the gentiles, women who menstruated were shunned and kept in quarantine for fear that they might contaminate. Rachel warned her father not to approach her too closely since she had been menstruating at the time. (Genesis 31,35) The lesson we learn from this legislation is that man's mental state has physical effects. ",
"In Leviticus 12,2, we read \"A woman who is impregnated and gives birth to a male child etc.\" The male symbolises perfection, wholeness and spirituality, whereas the female symbolises imperfection. A woman who gives birth to a male, (to the spiritual) requires less purification than her counterpart who gives birth to the female (physical). During the first seven years, a child has no meaningful mental understanding of morality, therefore it is in a complete state of impurity. The following thirty three years are to be devoted to remedying this situation. At forty, when mature, atonement is made for previous immaturity. Those who give birth to the female, that which symbolises the physical, are impure till the onset of puberty (14 years) They need to devote the remainder of their lives (sixty six years) to remedying that state. They even have to atone for their imperfection at death, (80 years) since only then can they hope to achieve the innocence possessed when they entered the world. We have seen how the introduction of our Parshah, dealing with the need to purify oneself after certain abnormal body functions have occurred, is divided into two basic groups. 1) the avoidable; 2) the unavoidable. There are sub-categories under heading number one, introduced by the symbolism of the birth of a female child. The first sub-category is skin disease. It can be viewed as a derivative of giving birth to a female child. Such a disease is certainly an aberration of natural processes, an imbalace of body fluids resulting in four different possible blemishes. These reflect different degrees of such imbalances. Our sages tell us that tzora-at is due to four different kinds of sins, so that the four categories of skin disease listed represent each of those sins. Each respective discolouration reflects the abnormal quantity of one of the four basic elements man is made of. Arrogance is due to a disproportionate amount of air. The burn marks are due to a disproportionate amount of fire, heat. An example of arrogance is Na-aman the Syrian general (Kings II chapter 5) and his king ben Hadad, of whom many examples of haughty behaviour vis a vis king Achav are related. No doubt, \"like master like servant.\" Na-man's own cure came only after he had humbled himself. Had Na-aman immediately acceeded to the advice of the prophet Elisha, we would have remained in doubt about both the cause of his affliction and the reason why he had been cured. As it is, the prophet Jeremiah makes it plain that the affliction was due to haughtiness, and that the cure was due to humility. We have here a perfect example of midah keneged midah, the principle of the crime fitting the punishment in reverse, i.e. rehabilitation being demonstrated by removal of the affliction caused by the sin. At that point, the instrument effecting the cure became of secondary importance. (he could now have been cured by immersion in other waters also) Tzora-at is also due to the evil tongue. This is symbolised as due to an imbalance in the water component of the four elements in man's composition. Flowing water is associated with a certain amount of sound, noise. It is also influenced by the moon's position. Since the moon is a passive force, it is symbolic of woman rather than man. (sun) Therefore, we find Miriam being struck with tzora-at for something she said, and not Aaron, who had only listened in silence. (Numbers chapter 12) Tzora-at is also due to spreading lies about someone. We will discuss this in greater detail in the next chapter. Tzoara-at can also be due to excessive greed, desire, due to an imbalance in the earth, i.e dust component in man's composition, the fourth of the raw materials he is made of. Creed for matter without specific objective, is apt to become insatiable, brings in its wake a lack of satisfaction even with the things we do have. Gechazi, the servant of the prophet Elisha, was of that category. Since he coveted what Na-aman possessed, he not only received Na-aman's money but also his tzora-at, the latter's former affliction. Our sages say that he who steals from the public purse, community property, will be struck with tzora-at. Anger can also be an indirect cause of tzora-at. Cain was given an ot, sign. According to one opinion, this sign was a form of tzora-at. When our sages say in Vayikra Rabbah 17, that there are ten causes that can result in a person being afflicted with tzora-at, these are merely derivatives of the four main causes corresponding to the four materials man is made of, and which therefore are subject to an imbalance of their proper ratios. ",
"The manner in which the Torah describes the priest examining the victim of tzora-at, suggests strongly that during the first two weeks the victim is being given an opportunity to mend his ways, and to have this reflected in his further temporary suspension from society and eventual rehabilitation. When the tzora-at remains static, temporarily, the period for repentance is extended. If the tzora-at retreats, it is a sign that it had only been an external blemish to start with, subject to purification and sin/atonement offering. If,- however, the probation period does not produce any improvement, it becomes absolute, and apparently not subject to further examination at a later date, and possible reversal. This would prove that the sin that had caused this tzora-at had taken over the personality of the afflicted person beyond hope for rehabilitation. The possible rehabilitation of the person afflicted with tzora-at is parallel to the influence by teachers and parents cited as remedy number two against the inroads of the yetzer hara as suggested by Rabbi Joshua ben Chananyah. ",
"Next, and third, we come to the blemishes on a person's head. These are due to a lack of faith and other shortcomings in a person's philosophical approach to life. When a person is deficient in these matters, which are after all, functions of his brain, the same midah keneged midah, punishment fitting the crime, will occur. There are two kinds of such blemishes that occur on the head. 1) Blemishes on areas normally covered by hair. 2) Blemishes on areas not subject to hair growth. The first is symbolic of covering up one's sins, i.e. someone who was not a believer having acted piously, devoutly, voicing only traditionally held beliefs. The other is the one who has the audacity to publicly proclaim his lack of belief etc., such as king Uzziah, who insisted on taking over the functions of a priest, though he belonged to the tribe of Yehudah. (Chronicles II, chapter 26.) His effrontery was punished by a blemish on the visible part of his forehead. The first category is too commonplace to require examples to be cited, as these people cover up their shortcomings being afraid of the reaction of the conservative society they live amongst. The four men outside the gates of Shomron, who had lost credibility due to their own testimony, is a further such example. (Kings II chapter 7.) Here too, the midah keneged midah, principle is seen in action, through the type of tzora-at they had been afflicted with. The sequence of the whole story, following the public scorn of the prophet displayed by the captain, suggests strongly that the four men in question had concurred with that captain's attitude. They repented, having seen what happened to their captain, and seeing the camp of Aram abandoned. Their main reason for wanting to be re-admitted to the city, was to await G'ds help which the prophet inside the city had already promised. This approach to that story provides the rationale for the otherwise apparent irrelevance in the verse about that day being a \"day of good tidings.\" The third category of physical afflictions, nega-im, corresponds to the fifth venue, the one suggested by Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach, namely to let Torah illuminate our mind. ",
"The fourth category of afflictions, the spots and stains emerging on one's clothing, is due to a person's general poor character. The Bible often describes the wearing of or removing of garments, as symbolic of the acquisition of good habits or the removal of bad habits respectively. Both Maimonides and Aristotele say that to compensate for excessively bad habits, one must cultivate excessively good habits at least temporarily, so as to achieve a balanced personality, shevil hazahav, the golden path. If a tree has been bent too far in one direction, it must be pushed back beyond its original perpendicular position first, in order to straighten it out. Otherwise, it will never resume its original position. The waiting period that the Torah determines, decides whether only the blemish or the whole garment has to be destroyed or burned, respectively. If a recurrence of the nega, blemish, stain, does not occur, then the cure may be considered permanent. Washing the garment makes it fit for the owner to wear it again. This affliction symbolises what Rabbi Shimon ben Nataniel referred to when he said that the best path in life was to be a yerey chet, a G'd fearing person. ",
"The fifth and last category of blemishes is the one that afflicts one's house, one's dwelling. It is symbolic of bad habits acquired through association with evil people. The house is representative of one's wider social contacts, much more so than one's clothing. The priest's inspecting the house, suggests to the owner that he must keep away from his usual social environment, and rid himself of the negative character traits he has acquired through such associations. If the stains spread during the period of quarantine, this is a sign that the owner, has failed to take the lesson to heart, and the afflicted area must be replaced. If this still does not prevent re-appearance of the stains, the whole house must be destroyed, i.e. there is no hope to rehabilitate the owner. If, however, the stains have been contained after the whitewashing and removal of the diseased area, the house is declared fit, and the owner brings the prescribed atonement offerings. The very fact that the Talmud demands such stringent criteria, before the house afflicted with these kinds of stains becomes subject to total destruction, makes it practically impossible for these requirements to be fully met. This bears out the symbolic nature of this piece of legislation. (Sanhedrin 71.) The lesson it contains, is, of course, the one corresponding to the recipe for successful character improvement by Rabbi Yossi, the pious one, the Chassid, that one should endeavour to be and to have good neighbours. The Bible does not name a person as having been afflicted with bayit menuga, a house that had to be torn down due to stains. Nor for that matter, do we know of an instance of garments that had been afflicted with these nega-im We therefore do not equate these afflictions as being directly associated with the virtues or shortcomings of any of the students of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. There are contradictory opinions in the Talmud, whether in the course of history this legislation was ever implemented in practice. ",
"Our opening Midrash can therefore be understood thus. The portions that are dealing with these unpleasant blemishes are dear to G'd because of the fact that by heeding symptoms of imperfections in their respective characters, those afflicted can rehabilitate themselves. Others, noting what has happened are forewarned to reach their respective goals in life without becoming victims of the yetzer hara. The negative aspect of these portions is, of course, that inasmuch as these physical blemishes reflect defects of character and soul, man is revealed as morally inferior to the animals. But, since, as in the case of the verse quoted from Maleachi, the offerings brought by those afflicted with skin troubles when cured testifed to their moral rehabilitation, the whole subject matter is beloved by G'd. Leviticus 14,34, is not to be understood \"as a result of when you come to the land of Canaan,\" but rather ,-as the Midrash Rabbah Leviticus 15, relates- the Jews who saw the houses with the stains were afraid of the nature of such a country. They were reassured by G'd that these phenomena were outgrowths of the former inhabitants' character defects who had been possessed of excessive greed for material possessions. In the case of the Jews, these stains would pinpoint hidden treasures for the benefit of the new owners. The meaning is similar to the verse in Exodus 15,26 \"when you listen to My commandments, all the afflictions which I have visited upon Egypt, I will not afflict you with, I am the Lord your Healer.\" The proof that this is so, is in the separate treatment of Zav and Zavah. This draws our attention to the fact that each reflects different aberrations, and therefore requires individual methods of character rehabilitation. ",
"A male's state of seminal discharge is more serious than that of the female, since in the case of the female, a flux, though occurring at the wrong time of her menstrual cycle is a relatively minor departure from the norm. A male's flux reveals a more serious imbalance, and therefore requires more in the way of rehabilitation, such as immersion in mayim chayim, water from a well, not water stored in a pool. There is also a broader range of impurities which are communicated by a male afflicted with zav. All who contact him or what is his, become affected. The touch of an earthen vessel by a male zav communicates impurity to the entire earthen vessel, not merely to its external walls. Verse thirty one, at the conclusion of the whole legislation, clearly spells out that the objective is to stave off impurity which would endanger and jeopardise our national existence of holy soil. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"This is the Torah of the Metzora.\" ",
"Vayikra Rabbah 16, describes a certain itinerant herbs and spices merchant, who used to frequent the district of Tzippori, offering the elixir of life. All the people in the district streamed to that merchant anxious to buy his wares. Rabbi Yannai, who sat in his palace teaching the plain meaning of scripture, heard about this, and invited the merchant to visit him and to sell him some of this life giving herb. The merchant said to Rabbi Yannai \"you and the likes of you are not in need of my product.\" When Rabbai Yannai insisted, the merchant took out a book of Psalms and showed him the verse \"who is the man that desires life and loves days that he may see good? keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from deceitful speech\" (Psalms 34, 13-41) Rabbi Yannai said \"also Solomon proclaims the same message in Proverbs 21,23.\" He continued \"all my life I have read this verse and have wondered about its true meaning, until this spice merchant came and explained it to me.\"This too is why Moses exhorted the people when he said to the people of Israel \"this is the Torah of the person who is afflicted with a skin exzema,( tzora-at), he who slanders etc.\" ",
"Since man's superiority over the beasts lies in his power of speech, it is fitting that whatever comes out of his mouth should reflect his superiority. ",
"The Torah states that man became a human being after G'd had imbued him with nishmat chayim, which Onkelos renders as \"a talking spirit.\" Clearly, he refers to the internal spirit, the thought process leading to speech. Kohelet 1,16, \"I spoke with my heart,\" reflects the same idea. Speech is a mechanical process, merely reflecting and relaying the thought process that has preceded it. Adam had already possessed the power to reason. What G'd had added was the means to communicate his thoughts. Scripture provides ample proof for this interpretation. When G'd said to Moses \"who gave man a mouth, or who made him dumb, deaf, seeing or blind?\" (Exodus 4,11), it is clear that the power to express thoughts is part of the definition of being a human being. A deaf/mute is not obligated to keep the commandments of the Torah since he is not able to communicate his thoughts or have thoughts communicated to him. He is an incomplete human being. ",
"From the above it is dear that when man abuses this power of speech, he denies his superiority over the beasts and calls into question the value of his whole existence. It is like a king who presented his servant with a fancy garment, only to have the servant drape it over his donkey. The sages of Israel are complimented when the Talmud Sukkah 28, states that they never indulged in idle talk. Maimonides divides speech into five categories. 1) Obligatory speech, i.e. teaching Torah. 2) Speech which must be avoided; false testimony, slander etc. 3) Disgraceful speech; i.e. what we call idle talk. 4) Desirable speech, i.e. words of mussar, moral instruction, sermons etc. 5) Permissible speech, i.e. speech needed in the pursuit of earning one's livelihood. In view of the above, we can understand Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel who said that he found silence to be the essence of all wisdom, the best remedy for maintaining one's body's good health. (Avot 1,17) By moving in the company of sages, he learned that more even than the words of wisdom he learned, he learned to appreciate the importance of minimising talk. Silence is the seyag, the protective fence built around wisdom. It ensures that the latter remains untainted. Even a fool may be considered wise, as long as he keeps his mouth shut. We are taught in Pessachim 3, that one should employ few words when teaching one's students. The Mishnah in Avot tells us that \"not the exposition is of crucial importance, but the execution, the deed.\" An alternate meaning of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel's statement might be this: \"I have not found that sitting silently, without asking for clarification, contributes to the essence, namely the learning process. However, excessive talk is harmful.\" ",
"The Talmud in Nedarim 64, considers people who have been afflicted with tzora-at, the Biblical skin disease, as comparable to the dead. This is merely stating a \"tit for tat\" principle. If verbal barbs are likened to arrows and lethal rocks, then those guilty of throwing them deserve a punishment that makes them \"dead\" to society. If the word Torah occurs five times in the metzora legislation, it is a hint that those guilty of this sin have transgressed against all five books of the Torah, (compare Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in Vayikra Rabbah 16) We have instances of slander occurring in all five books of the Torah. In the book of Genesis, the serpent slanders G'd. Joseph slanders his brothers. ",
"In the book of Exodus, a Jew accuses Moses of wanting to kill him. Later on, G'd tells Moses that all those who had wanted to kill him had already died. ",
"The laws of slander are discussed in the book of Leviticus next to the verse \"do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow man.\" (Leviticus 19,16) ",
"In the book of Numbers, we find Miriam and Aaron slandering Moses. The spies slander the land of Israel. ",
"In Deuteronomy, the early chapters are full of Moses recalling the frequent occasions when the Jewish people had indulged in slanderous talk of one kind or another. Also we have there the legislation about the motzi shem ra, a husband accusing his bride of pre-marital unchastity. The Talmud Shabbat 56, tells us that if David had not listened to lashon hara, evil gossip, his kingdom would not have been divided. ",
"Rabbi Yannai in the opening Midrash quoted, simply wanted to tell us that the lesson taught by the spice merchant had already been taught by Solomon in Proverbs. ",
"The sacrifices that the metzora has to offer upon being cured, consist of birds. Their incessant chirping comes to an end only when they die. This procedure is symbolic of the person who needs to atone for having abused the gift of speech. The reason that two birds have to be offered is because speech is basically welcome only for two purposes: a) to study and teach Torah, b) to earn one's livelihood. Also the commandment to use an earthen vessel has symbolic meaning. The letters (chet-resh-shin) are the same as in the word for \"deaf/mute,\" i.e. \"silent.\" The need for spring water contrasts with the silent, the deaf. The bubbling of the water is the opposite, conceptually speaking, of the inert clay vessel. ",
"",
"The second bird, before being released, must be dipped in the blood of the bird that had been killed, to teach that the lesson how to employ speech has been learned. Unrestricted use of the power of speech is apt to kill, causes one to bloody oneself. The waiting period necessary after offering the sacrifice, before the victim may rejoin society, is to effect the moral and intellectual rehabilitation which follows physical rehabilitation. The latter was symbolised by the washing of the victim's clothing. The victim cannot appear before G'd at the entrance to the sanctuary until three more sacrifices, asham, chatat, and olah and the accompanying menachot have been offered. Sprinkling of the blood on the thumb and large toe, is symbolic of purifying the most mobile parts of the body. Hands symbolise action, feet symbolise motion. Both are usually involved in any sinful behaviour. The recipe presented by the spice merchant extends until the end of the quotation from Psalms 34, namely \"keep away from evil, do good, seek peace and pursue it actively!\" The latter advice is difficult to follow unless both hands and feet are involved. The reason that the Torah insists that blood be sprinkled on the right toe and right thumb, may be to remind us that until now the conduct of the metzora, had been foolish, like the people whom Solomon describes as having the seat of their intellect on their left side. (Kohelet 10,2) \"The seat of a wise man's intellect is on his right side.\" Pouring oil on the toes, fingers, earlobe and head of the metzora, is symbolic of the imperative of our sages as expressesd in Kohelet 9,8, \"at all times your clothing should be white, and oil should not be lacking on your head.\" A person's covering is symbolic of his good traits. After the atonement, donning clean garments and being anointed with oil on crucial parts of his body, demonstrates that from here on in, he is in possession of good character traits. The ear, i.e. the organ that receives the spoken word of the mouth that can cause tzora-at, must also undergo rehabilitation. The asham sacrifice removes the corrosive effect of the sin on the body; after that, when sin has been removed and atoned for,- as per chapter 14,18-19,- the olah sacrifice can bring the true purification, the positive finale of the atonement procedure. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Thus Aaron will enter the Sanctuary.\" ",
"Shimon the righteous said: \"The world is founded on three things, Torah, service of the Lord, and loving kindness.\" (Avot chapter 1) ",
"Although as a rule the parable is used to help the reader or listener understand a difficult subject by means of illustrating concepts familiar to him, there are occasions when the parable is used in reverse. An example of the former usage is the verse \"as a father chastises his son, so does the Lord chastise you.\" (Deut. 8,5.) On the other hand, the line \"you will be like G'd, knowing good and evil,\" (Genesis 3,5) is an example of the use of the parable in reverse. Although we have no concept of the essence of G'd, we do understand the concepts of \"good\" and \"evil;\" ergo it helps to define G'd by saying that this knowledge is one of His attributes. Or, as the Talmud Berachot 10, says \"just as G'd fills the universe, so does our soul fill our body.\" The subject \"G'd\" can be brought closer to our understanding, although the essence of G'd remains a mystery. Drawing conclusions from the known microcosm regarding the nature of G'd, the great unknown, is only possible with the aid of the Torah, G'ds revealed law. Since Greek philosophers have no such terms of reference they cannot draw any valid conclusions. The latter, observing three kinds of life in our world, i.e. plants, animals and humans, and noting that man comprehends all three kinds of life, concluded that man has three souls, one each to enable him to comprehend the various forms of life respectively. They did not realise that a single soul can govern all three aspects of life, (provision of food, motion and intelligent planning) Shimon the Just tells us that since man is heir to such a tripowered soul, one that governs vegetable, animal and human abilities, he must therefore assume a threefold moral obligation corresponding to his endowments. These obligations are the promotion of Torah, Avodah, i.e. service in matters relating to the man/G'd relationship and the performance of kind deeds, i.e. building social relationships with his fellow human beings. This is a suitable introduction to the whole tractate of Avot. When the Talmud says \"the kingdom of earth is similar to the kingdom of Heaven,\" (Berachot 58) the meaning may well be that just as we find in the \"upper\" world both purely spiritual beings as well as bodies, (galaxies) although the essence of that world is spiritual, abstract, so we find in our \"lower\" world creatures possessed of spiritual capabilities, although by definition these creatures belong to an essentially physical world. Human beings have been equipped with a soul to aid them in performing their physical functions properly, just as the galaxies have been equipped with bodies to enable them to perform their spiritual functions properly. At the same time, just as there are completely disembodied spirits in the \"upper\" world, so there are completely lifeless bodies in our \"lower\" world, such as stones etc. Just as the planets in the galaxies have bodies to help them perform the tasks assigned to them by the Creator, so the animal kingdom has a kind of \"soul\" to help it perform the task assigned to it by the Creator in the scheme of things in our world. It is however, impossible to classify the soul of man as having been designed to serve his body, else one would have to believe that man's soul perishes at the same time his body dies, seeing it has no longer a function to perform. In that latter event, man would hardly possess an advantage over the animals. Rather, man is to be viewed as the counterpart to the angels, who appear in human form on occasion, i.e. equipped with a body, in order to perform a task that requires them to become visible to man. We refer to such apparitions as have been granted to Hagar, Lot, Gideon, Manoach and others. In all those instances, the bodies were corollaries to the angels' spirits. By the same token, man, or especially Jews, have been given a body to assist their souls to perform their tasks. The task of the Jewish people is to perform a mission on behalf of G'd, and the task of the High Priest is to do the same in an even more intensive and specific manner. The High Priest wears the special garments when he performs service in the holy Temple. These garments are worn only once, and were not passed on even to his successor. They had to be removed immediately upon termination of the respective service performed in the Temple. Angels appeared in one kind of human garb only once, since each angel was entrusted with only one mission at a time. A number of Midrashim elaborate on this parallel between the \"upper\" world and our own world down here. (Vayikra Rabbah 21) Once we accept this comparison, the statement that the Jewish people are to be a kingdom of priests illustrates the functions we are to perform even better. The function of the Jewish people is to act as messenger/priest for mankind. We are given a special equipment to help us perform this task, i.e. Torah etc. If we abuse this equipment for personal advancement instead of employing it to perform our tasks, we are guilty of treason both vis a vis G'd and vis a vis mankind. Our punishment in such an eventuality will reflect the severity of the crime. ",
"Shimon the Just mentioned only the pillars that ensure the survival of our soul. Had he referred to the needs of the body, he would have had to include food and other necessities for physical survival. On the Day of Atonement, culmination of ten days of preparation, the emphasis of this role of the Jew is even greater than at other times during the year, and we worship G'd in the manner of angels, abstaining from food and drink, just as spiritual beings. In fact, we desist from most physical functions that are not essential to our actual survival. Having thus approached a state of complete innocence, we are allowed to recite aloud, that which we dare no more than whisper during the rest of the year, namely the verse \"blessed be the name of His glorious Majesty.\" Since this version is one that is plagiarised from the angels' liturgical repertoire, we would not dare do so without their consent. So far the Midrash. Since we note that the praise of G'd referred to is in indirect language, employing the pronoun \"HIS,\" and since David in Psalms 145, and 72, has already employed similar terminology quite openly, one is tempted to ask why we cannot use said formula unabashedly all year round. The answer may be that all pronouns, or attributes, are merely a negative way of defining something. Since G'd is not understood by man, the nearest we can come to understanding Him, is the way He Himself explained it to Moses, i.e. \"you will see My back.\" (Exodus 33,23) We arrive at a definition of G'd by a process of elimination. By comprehending what He is not, we form some idea of what He must be. The Talmud Berachot 31, states that Israel is more beloved than the angels, since the latter require three stages of elimination to arrive at G'ds name, whereas Israel needs only two such stages. The angels recite \"holy, holy, holy,\" followed by the name of G'd, whereas Israel merely recites \"Hear, O, Israel the Lord our G'd is One.\" The angels have to eliminate, i.e. separate themselves from three worlds, since they know both their own world, the one of abstract spiritual beings, as well as the two worlds which we know. Israel knows only two worlds, cannot distinguish what goes on in the world of the spirits. Therefore, it needs to separate itself only from the awareness of the two worlds containing matter before concentrating on praising the Lord. This gives the angels an advantage over the humans in that they can free themselves of even more encumbrance in order to come closer to the essence of G'd. When we commence the formula of the kedushah, the sanctification of G'd in our liturgy, we say \"let us praise Your name O Lord just as they do in Heaven.\"..followed by the triple proclamation \" holy, holy, holy,\" reflecting the havdalah, separation between the three worlds G'd has created, and the Creator Himself. Our own formula of praise is introduced by the words \"Hear O Israel.\" The word \"hear\" describes a human function; humans employ physical ears to receive communications, since they can distinguish only the two worlds of the plants and the living bodies. But we do not praise the kinnuy, attribute, only the holy name itself. The angels, though they have a clearer comprehension, praise only \"HIS\" glorious Majesty, (not the actual NAME) In this respect we are more beloved than they are. In the words of the teachers of our Mishnah \"chavivim yisrael, Israel is especially beloved. To sum up then: We address G'd directly in our formula of the keriyat shema, whereas the angels concern themselves only with some of G'ds attributes. Moreover, Israel recites the praises of G'd three times daily, whereas the angels do so only once a day. Many angels, individually get to do so only once in fifty years, (compare discussion in Chullin 91) We also have it on Talmudic authority that the angels are not permitted to recite their song of praise until after Israel has done so here on earth. Against this, we need to consider that the relatively infrequent occurrence of an event makes such an event more special, more distinguished. If it is true that the task of the angels is to promote G'ds work in the \"lower\" world, it makes sense that until Israel has praised the Lord, the angels are in no position to do so, having not yet completed their appointed task. In fact, it would be hypocritical for the angels to praise the Lord as long as Israel, G'ds standard bearer, has failed to do so. This is what the angel who wrestled with Jacob told him, when the Midrash quotes him as saying that he must now join in the Heavenly choir of praise to G'd. Only now, after he had found that Jacob did indeed possess integrity, had this angel accomplished his specific mission, and was able to re-join his colleagues. A second answer to our problem is that the verse \"Blessed be Majesty, His kingdom forever and ever\" is really talking about two separate aspects of Divine manifestations. The first half of the verse represents an acknowledgment of G'd as Creator and Supreme King, the second half talks about the manner in which He exercises His functions. Some people reach an understanding of the manner of G'ds guidance in the universe. Most people do not. Angels, however, when praising the Lord, automatically praise Him from both vantage points. Therefore, they use a formula which includes both aspects of the matter. On the Day of Atonement, when all of us reach a higher spiritual level than during the rest of the year, we can utter this formula with full voice, although the same thing would be presumptuous during the rest of the year. Pessachim 56, explains that since Moses had not used this formula of praising G'd, the sages were hesitant about arrogating such right to themselves. On the other hand, since Jacob was reputed to have used this formula according to the Midrash, they decided it should be used, but only sotto voce. The order of the service on the Day of Atonement, corresponds to the three principles laid down by Shimon the Just. ",
"Some problems in the text that need explaining. 1) Why does the Torah relate the service on the Day of Atonement to the two sons of Aaron that had died? (16,1) Why mention their death at this point? 2) Why does the High Priest bring one sin offering and one total offering, whereas for the people there are two sin offerings and one total offering? 3) What is the reason for the drawing of lots as to which he-goat will serve which purpose? 4) Why is the tabernacle when Aaron enters it to remove the spoon and pan for the incense in verse twenty three, described as \"the tent of appointment\" rather than as the \"tabernacle,\" or \"sanctuary,\" i.e. the usual designation? Why the requirement that he leave his garments there? 5) Why are not all the acts of the temple service of that day mentioned in this Parshah? If the answer is that the Torah at this point lists only the service performed in the white linen garments, why was there a need to constantly refer to the \"changing of the garments?\" 6) Why is the requirement of the \"affliction\" mentioned twice in this Parshah, and three more times in Parshat Emor? 7) How can the little extra time that one fasts before sunset on the day preceding the Day of Atonement be called \"an affliction,” seeing one has just concluded eating a festive meal? 8) Why does verse 27, in chapter 23, start with the word ach, \"however,\" a word which normally forms a bridge with the subject matter under discussion previously? The word is not usually employed to introduce new subject matter as in this instance. 9) Why is there a different penalty for transgressing the commandment of \"afflicting oneself,\" and the transgression of the work prohibition? The Torah seems to describe different nuances of death at the hands of G'd? 10) The use of the word ish, a person, a man, would seem to have been more appropriate to describe the subject carrying out the work than the word nefesh, \"soul,\" employed here! ",
"(1) The first message from G'd to Moses was to tell him, that although on occasion, death can be due to the concept of bi-krovay ekadesh, that death need not occur due to a mortal sin, there had been mortal sin in the case of the death of the sons of Aaron. The cause had been the sin as spelled out in the Torah at this point. The second communication by G'd to Moses, though related to him at a later stage, is coupled here with the former, in order to make the point that access to the holy of holies is restricted even to the High Priest, and that G'ds Presence does not appear in public, only wrapped in a cloud. (2) Even amongst the good people, the physical usually outweighs the spiritual. The High Priest who personifies the most favourable mix of the physical and the spiritual, is nonetheless mostly matter. His sin offering is described already in Leviticus 4,4, and consisted of a bull. Most of this bull was burned outside Jerusalem, only a small part being offered on the altar, (verse 12 there) The ram, symbolising man's spiritual part, which becomes olah, a total offering, i.e. fit for consumption by the altar in its entirety, is the other half of the High Priest's offering. Since the majority of the people are guilty of very fundamental errors, due to their yetzer hara, evil urge, the he-goat for the azzazel does not qualify for being offered on the altar itself. The fact that even the he-goat was presented in front of the tabernacle first, alive, is to show that even the kind of person represented by this he-goat will be granted forgiveness on the Day of Atonement. This is a tribute to the fact that a good part of their erroneous conduct had been due to the nature of the human condition, i.e. their being physical beings, something over which they had not had any control initially. The lots to be drawn symbolise the very fact that no choice existed prior to one's having being born into this world. (3) Use of the device of drawing lots to determine anything at all, appears to be an outright denial of G'ds Providence, since the result that emerges after the drawing of lots will be viewed as coincidence. The fact is however, that the cumulative effect of the lot falling again and again on the same person, lends it significance. If until the time of Shimon the Just, the lot \"for the Lord\" was always drawn by the he-goat placed on the right, that surely tells us something about the meaning of the word \"right.\" (the time frame under discussion is about fifteen hundred years!) Indeed, once that pattern had been broken, due to the fact that the Jewish people could not produce a High Priest who was a tzaddik, and whose merits would counterbalance the sins of the masses, the lot would have become meaningless even if it had fallen on the he-goat that had been placed on the right. When Pharaoh had dreamed the same dream twice, that fact told Joseph something about whether the dream had any significance, or whether it was merely a matter of coincidence. The very repetition enabled Joseph to draw some conclusions. This is even more so, when the repetition occurs more than once. This is the reason the sailors \"threw lots\" (plural) and not just one \"lot\" before they were satisfied that the storm that threatened to sink their ship was really on account of Jonah. (Jonah 1,7) Since the lot fell on Jonah each time they repeated the procedure, they were certain that they were not condemning an innocent person on the basis of a \"chance\" lot. There is an element of chance concerning which person turns into a sinner, since natural endowments have a great deal to do with the likelihood of someone being able to overcome such strikes against him as he has been born with. Hence, if the he-goat for the azzazel becomes the scapegoat by means of the lottery, we might all breathe a sigh of relief and say \"here but for the grace of G'd, go I.\" For that reason, the halachah, Jewish law, requires that the two he-goats must look so totally alike, that they are indistinguishable from one another. When the Tanna Ben Heh Heh says that reward is in accordance with the pain and effort incurred in securing an objective, (Avot 5,23), that he who has to overcome strong natural impediments rates a special reward, he does not mean that lack of this special effort totally forfeits one's chance of rehabilitation. The \"scapegoat,\" though unfit to be presented on the altar, does accomplish this rehabilitation even for persons who have not made a special effort to surmount handicaps they were born with. (4) The procedure of offering incense, required a special skill, and therefore the full concentration of the High Priest during its performance. The reason for this could have been the need to counter the natural tendency to get \"a glimpse\" of the shechinah, Divine Presence. After all, the Torah did say \"for in the cloud, I will become visible on the lid of the holy ark.\" (Leviticus 16,2) The Talmud tells of a High Priest, who was a member of the sect of the Sadducees, who when performing the rites of incense, put same on the pan prior to entering into the holy of holies, (contrary to hatachah ) and who boasted about having seen the shechinah. He died shortly after coming out of the sanctuary .The Pharisees saw in this a punishment for his disobedience. The Saducees felt that it was bad manners to enter the holy of holies without having everything ready, whereas the interpretation of the Pharisees of the verse \"for through having made the cloud, My Presence over the lid can become revealed\" was that they considered the exact composition of the correct quantities and ingredients of the incense as being vital. Placing of the incense on the pan, however, is to take place only \"in front of G'd,\" as per verse 13. The sprinkling of the blood inside the holy of holies was to atone for errors concerning the laws applying to the temple itself, whereas the placing of the hands on the he-goat was to atone for other sins. The fact that the he-goat was used, also demonstrated that it was not a deity, (as some nations believed) This is the reason there had to be a special injunction \"they shall no longer sacrifice to the he-goats.\" (Leviticus 17,7) There was no better date to proclaim the unity of G'd symbolically, and the futility of worshipping anyone or anything else, than the Day of Atonement. This symbolic statement helped to obtain forgiveness for other sins also. Whoever would observe that the scapegoat was thrown from the rock, would realise that it had not been an object of worship. Even Satan, the perennial accuser before the throne of G'd, would have to admit that the Jewish people were quite unequivocal in their service to the Lord. This is the meaning of a statement in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer that we should present a bribe to Satan on that day. The sacrifice of the original Passover lamb in Egypt, was a similar statement of unequivocal commitment to G'd Therefore, the \"great Sabbath,\" the Sabbath preceding the Passover holiday is conceptually related to the day of Atonement. For that reason Yom Kippur is also called Shabbaton The order of the confession, which according to the view of Rabbi Meir mentions the unintentionally committed sins first, and the intentionally committed ones last, was quoted in that order by Moses after the sin of the golden calf, when he remonstrated with G'd. Since Israel, at that time, had already done penitence, Moses made the point that due to the repentance, intentional sins had already been reduced to the status of unintentional sins. However, the normal process as found in the Bible on many occasions, is to first confess the intentional sins, including the ones that represent acts of rebellion against G'ds authority. ",
"",
"(5) The changing of the priestly garments must be mentioned so that we will know that certain actions are not considered as falling within the definition of avodah; service. For instance, reading from the Torah in public on that occasion by the High Priest, is not avodah in the strict sense of the word. The purpose of the fast and the discomfort to be experienced, is to make the need for such a day redundant, as we read in Isaiah 58,3-14, G'd wishes that He could replace all fast days with days of joy instead. (Zachariah 8,18-19) The fasting by itself is no accomplishment. Also, fasting is not in order to attain our requests from G'd, but to cleanse us of our sins which we committed because of the enjoyment that indulging in such sins has afforded us. Compensating with discomfort for comfort obtained illegally previously, does not constitute any entitlement on our part. The word tzom, derived from the root tzamtzem, limiting oneself, can have three meanings when applied to man. This \"restriction\" can apply to all three parts of man, his physical functions, his emotional functions, and his intellectual functions. (6) The fact that this innuy, discomfort, affliction, is mentioned three times then, is to ensure that we understand that the Day of Atonement fulfils its function optimally only when we appreciate all the dimensions of the fast, (see comment in Parshat Emor) The fact that our sages in Yoma 81, explain the repetitions as relating to multiple discomfort such as washing, not wearing leather shoes, etc. in no way conflicts with our explanation, as the Talmudic commentary is halachah mi-Sinai, i.e. not based on any conceptual understanding of the legislation. (9) The Torah connects the prohibition of work with the fasting, to illustrate that no other activity is to interfere with our concentration on the purpose of the fast and what it stands for. That is also the reason for the word nefesh. The whole personality must be involved in the fasting process, not merely the body. The penalty for not involving the entire personality in the innuy, discomfort, is karet, since it revealed misunderstanding of the purpose of the fast. This penalty embraces the whole personality in all its three aspects, as discussed. When the Torah speaks of the work prohibition however, unconnected with the innuy aspect (as in chapter 23,31), the penalty is not spelled out. The reason for repeating the work prohibition at all, may be in order to stress the difference between mechanical offences, and those that involve one's personality. When coupled with Yom Kippur, Day of Atonement, and the specific demands of Yom Kippur, such offence invalidates the spirit of the day completely, and constitutes a grave error. This is the only holyday which demands a complete work-prohibition like the Sabbath, including all food preparation. (7) The innuy, discomfort, commences on the ninth of the month in the evening, though the effects may not be noticeable till the morning of the tenth of the month. In order for that discomfort to be felt on the tenth, it has to be commenced by abstention already on part of the ninth. (8) The word ach, in chapter twenty three, is employed to establish the connection with the avodah, sacrificial service legislation outlined in chapter seventeen of our Parshah. ",
"",
"",
"",
"We have seen that the Torahpart of Shimon the Just's statement is contained in the section dealing with the \"lots,\" the goats and the \"fast\" part of the day. The \"avodah\" part of his statement is dealt with in the legislation concerning the various sacrifices. ",
"Lastly, the \"kind deeds\" parts of his statement is contained in the very fact that forgiveness and atonement are possible, and are granted by G'd. He who is aware of the inherent weakness of man, has generously made provision for man's rehabilitation. It is not a Jewish characteristic to indulge in wholesale killing, even if great wrongs have been committed. The Torah has to exhort us not to have mercy in such cases as the ir hanidachat, the city whose majority have indulged in idol worship, whose inhabitants have to be executed. The Torah therefore emphasizes that administering the death penalty has as its objective to turn aside G'ds wrath against those who tolerate wrongdoing. This is proof that were it not for this consideration, we might not administer a death penalty at all. Kings who desire the adulation of their subjects, certainly indulge in generosity when sinned against. Even Haman had to keep secret the identity of the people he wished to murder, and not use the word \"murder,\" but \"destroy,\" meaning \"neutralise,\" so as not to offend the sensibilities of the king. Another motivation for generosity is that forestalling the desire for revenge by his subjects, as well as fear to trigger hostile action by those to be killed. He who feels threatened, will try to act in self defense. Ahasverus, who had shown that he craved popularity by throwing lavish banquets, had no choice but to execute Bigtan and Teresh. He executed Haman when he had become aware of the latter's machinations. Heretofore he had put quite a different interpretation on what Haman had meant when the latter had asked permission le-abdam, to destroy them, (compare story in megillat Esther) Being generous and forgiving is therefore seen as a character trait that is conducive to self-preservation. It keeps civilisation going. The King of Kings certainly does not desire mass death of His subjects, but wishes to inspire teshuvah, repentance, through the retribution exacted from the few. G'd, who had first considered creating the universe by using the yardstick of justice, i.e. midat hadin, had reconsidered when He realised that the world would not be able to endure on that basis. This is because no man could be expected never to sin. (Bereshit Rabbah 12) This is why when the Torah relates the story of creation a second time in chapter 2,4, we find that G'd has acquired a new attribute in addition to elokim. He is now also called hashem, \"the merciful One.\" These two attributes of G'd are reflected in the two holy days Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, i.e. New year's day and Day of Atonement. The former reflects the din, justice aspect of G'ds rule, the other the rachamim, mercy aspect. On the former day everyone is judged according to his \"present\" state. Even the beynonim, the people whose merits are balanced by their errors, debits, are treated according to the yardstick of justice, since G'd waits until the Day of Atonement to see which way the scales will tip at that time. However, repentance is accepted from all on Yom Kippur, meaning that G'd relaxes the rule of strict justice. This is what is called lifnim mishurat hadin. The hint in scripture confirming that this is so, is found in Psalms 47,6, Elokim arose at the sound of truah, but Hashem at the sound of the shofar. Since the term truah is found in the Torah in connection with Rosh Hashanah, whereas only the term shofar is found in connection with Yom kippur, the hint is reasonably clear. If, as we said before, Samael, i.e Satan, has no control over man on Yom Kippur, as long as man exploits the day properly, it follows that he who ignores the opportunity presented by that day will fall irretrievable victim to Samael. This is the \"bribe\" that G'd gave to Satan. The attribute of mercy, when ignored, causes utter destruction of the soul for all those who have ignored it. A hint of all this is found in the numerical value of the word \"Satan.\" It adds up to 364, i.e. Satan has control on 364 days of the year, not on the 365th day, the Day of Atonement. (Yuma 19) The last sentence in the Yom Kippur service (16,34) is to remind us that the function of Yom Kippur is not affected by the existence or non existence of the holy Temple and the ability to offer the sacrifices. The need is for penitence brought on through innuy, discomfort. The day alone does not achieve atonement. ",
"Teshuvah cleanses the soul according to the degree of sin it rehabilitates. The soul is considered more precious than fine gold, and is therefore surrounded by five protective shields. The innermost of these shields even insulates the soul from contact with air. As we say in our daily prayers each morning, \"my Lord, the soul is pure, You have created it etc.\" It is vital for the soul to remain in mint condition, since, being only on loan to the body, it could be recalled at any moment, and returning it to its owner in mint condition is mandatory. Errors committed in the manner in which the soul is protected, fall into four categories. A) The soul is not used for sinful purposes, but care is not taken to employ it always constructively. This exposes the soul to an alien atmosphere, on occasion. Such minor dereliction of man's duty is atoned for by the Day of Atonement's annual occurrence. B) The owner, i.e. host of the soul, does not transgress negative commandments, but omits the performance of positive commandments that are incumbent upon him. Although sins of omission are less serious than sins of commission as a rule, since such omission can frequently be made up for at a later date, and nothing has to be undone, they constitute dereliction of duty nonetheless. In such cases the occurrence of the Day of Atonement coupled with repentance achieves forgiveness. C) Satan feels already so much at home in the person who transgresses sins of omission, that the ground has been paved for sins of commission to take place. Atonement now becomes more complicated and requires both the date of Yom Kippur, repentance, and yissurim, bodily afflictions at G'ds discretion. D) Depravity has advanced so far that only destruction of the body, the vessel hosting the soul, can lead to rehabilitation of the soul itself. For such persons, \"atonement\" is not mentioned in the Torah, since it can occur only posthumously. ",
"The reason that sins committed between different human beings are not subject to atonement of Yom Kippur is, that any sin in which man's body is the major party, can only be atoned for by that same body making the appropriate restitution. When reconciling oneself with one's fellow man, it is the senior person, the scholar, who must make the first move, just as Abraham had done with his nephew Lot. (Genesis chapter 13) ",
"In spite of the absence of sacrifices then, we have G'ds assurance \"this will be an eternal statute for you to atone for the children of Israel.\" (Leviticus 16,34) "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth\"",
"Rabbi Chaninah ben Dotha says that anyone whose fear of the Lord takes precedence over his wisdom, will enjoy enduring wisdom. Anyone, however, whose fear of the Lord does not take precedence over his wisdom, will find that his own wisdom will not endure. (Avot 3,11) ",
"When striving to achieve his potential, man must look beyond himself and attempt to act as if he had become a partner in what he is striving for. When king Saul listened to the people and allowed Agag to live, his error was that he was too aware of his own shortcomings and not sufficiently aware of the lofty position he occupied by reason of being king of Israel, G'ds holy nation, (compare Samuel I chapter 15) Concentrating on the Divine, which constitutes part of man's roots, is the antidote to dwelling on one's mortality. The latter is depressing, whereas the former is elevating. G'ds imperative \"be holy, for I am holy,\" means \"do not use the fact that you are in a mortal shell as an excuse not to strive for the ultimate you are capable of.\" This seems to conflict with the view expressed by Akavyah ben Mehallalel in Avot 3,1, who states \"look at three things and you will not become a sinner. Your origin, i.e. a smelly drop of semen; your destiny, i.e. a place of dust and worms; the celestial tribunal before which you will have to give an account of your life to the Almighty.\" Surely, a person who is imbued with that outlook is apt to become rather permissive with himself, telling himself that nothing much can be expected of him seeing he is of such lowly origin and headed for such a miserable destiny. This also seems to be what Job argued when he justified his despair saying: \"man, the product of woman, of short lifespan and excess of trouble, anger etc.\" (Job 14,1) Did not Samuel say to Rav Yehudah (Eyruvin 54 ) \"smart one, eat and drink while you can, since the world we will depart from is like a feast.\" Even though the parable may tell us to seek the permissible pleasures of life while we are still here to enjoy them, it is certainly a public pronouncement totally different from that of Akavyah ben Mehallalel. In fact, since man's sins are rooted in any or all of three types of motivations, \"jealousy, sensual desire, quest for honour and glory,\" the considerations Akavyah asks us to bear in mind, will act as brakes to any of the aforementioned causes of sin. How can a person be haughty, seek glory, when he considers his lowly origin?- How can a person be consumed with desire to gratify the urgings of his flesh, when he knows all too well that he will soon return to dust, and his own flesh will be food for the worms? How can one be greedy and jealous of someone else's possessions, when one knows full well that all these possessions will be left behind? How can one indulge the flesh when one knows one has to render an accounting of how one spent one's time down here? While Akavyah seems to make a good case, superficially, his arguments can be countered nonetheless. If one will turn into dust and worms, what judgment is there to be afraid of? If one's origin is low, so is everyone else's; how could this be a deterrent to sin then? Pride, i.e. being vainglorious, may reflect merely one's achievments, not one's origin! Why does Akavyah describe the fate of the corpse? It would have been simpler to say \"we are all headed for death!\" Is not the fact that one has to die a sufficient deterrent? In Kohelet 9,10, Solomon has already said \"whatever you are able to do, do it with all your might; for there is neither action nor reasoning nor knowledge nor wisdom in she-ol, [the place] that you are going to.\" Since your body is finite, all that is connected with it comes to an end when your body dies. Akavyah, however, reminds us that we should consider the elevated part of man, not desecrate it or debase it. To this end, the considerations he suggests to keep in mind are very helpful. It is only the body that is lowly, just as it is only the body that turns into dust and worms; the soul, the Divine part of our roots will live on and have to give an accounting of itself. All phenomena in nature share three criteria. A) They are all observed in their present stage of development, evolution. B) They have all undergone some metamorphosis before they reached their present stage. C) They all appear in a certain format. Remembering these three facts, Rabbi Akavyah says will help one avoid sin. 1) Considering that one's raw material is only matter. 2) Considering that all matter is in a constantly changing state, not enduring as such. 3) Considering that one's format is \"in the image of G'd.\" When considering all these factors combined, remembering the Divine part of our format helps to give us the proper perspective on life. Akavyah's warning then is not to let the yetzer hara mislead us into thinking that because our bodies are transient and our origin insignificant, we are not losing anything by enjoying the pleasures of life, but to remember that there is another part of us that transcends the body, and which we may place in jeopardy if we do not act properly. If the body is subject to metamorphosis, how much more so the soul. Death of the body as an end to existence is quite an illogical premise then. Death is merely a transition to another state, not a final disposition, extinction. It is this thought that is the rationale underlying all yirat chet, fear of sin, the knowledge that there is no escaping the consequences of one's actions. When the Mishnah in Ediyot 5,6-7, describes this same Akavyah as a person possessed both of great wisdom and fear of the Lord in the highest degree, it only shows that the author of the statement quoted in Avot, himself lived in accordance with his own philosophy. He is reported to have declined the highest office in order not to compromise what he believed to be the truth. He preferred to be called a fool, rather than appear wicked in the eyes of G'd by recanting publicly something which he believed privately. He who gives people cause to suspect him of wrongdoing, cannot be well liked in the eyes of the Lord. This is what Rabbi Chaninah ben Dotha had referred to in the opening quote from Tractate Avot. People of Akavyah's caliber require wisdom to help them distinguish true integrity. This is the reason that they are granted such wisdom. If, however, people want to employ their wisdom for ulterior personal motives, they are not really in need of such wisdom. Therefore, it will not endure, they will lose it. G'd does not endow people with the talent to deny their fear of G'd. In the words of the psalmist, Rabbi Chaninah's statement is \"the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord, ensuring good intelligence for those who practice its dictates.\" (Psalms 111,10.) Those who act in accordance with that wisdom will find that their intellect stands them in good stead. When that psalm continues \"his fame will endure forever,\" this is parallel to the statement in Avot \"those whose deeds are more numerous than their theoretical wisdom will enjoy enduring wisdom.\" Anyone whose fear of the Lord is his priority number one, will try and do more than his wisdom dictates. He will do both what his own wisdom dictates and what his mentors have taught him to do. Those people who invert the process are described by the Rabbis as being like builders who have provided doors, but lack the house to put them in. What good are doors when you do not have a house? ",
"Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) The section dealing with the location of the sacrifices, keeps referring to ish, a man. Why? 2) Similarly, when discussing the prohibition of blood, the transgressor is constantly referred to as nefesh, soul, personality. Also at the end of the paragraph about incestuous relationships the use of the word nefesh, describing those who transgress keeps cropping up. One would have expected the reverse. Errors concerning sacrifice after all are errors of the mind and spirit, whereas indulging in forbidden sexual relationships, is very much a matter of the body! 3) Since blood is essential for the altar, why is the description of the fact that \"the life of the flesh is in the blood,\" a sufficient rationale for forbidding us the consumption of blood? After all, we offer the meat of the olah offering on the altar, and this does not result in a general prohibition of meat consumption? 4) The repetition of the prohibition of blood in connection with venison, seems altogether superfluous. Why would we think that such blood is permitted for consumption? 5) How do we reconcile such statements as \"its life is in its blood\" versus \"its blood is in its life, soul,\" and \" blood is equivalent to life, soul?\" 6) Why does the blood of fowl and free roaming animals need to be covered? ",
"In order to prevent the chance of someone offering a sacrifice to other deities, the Torah demands that the locale for all sacrifices that are either voluntary or mandatory be the central house of worship, the holy Temple or tabernacle prior to the permanent Temple. Also, such sacrifice must be performed by the priest, who will sprinkle the blood and burn the fat on the altar provided for that purpose. This is an \"eternal statute for all your generations.\" (Leviticus 17,7) Even the slaughtering of the sacrificial animal outside the precincts of the Temple compound is an offence carrying the karet, penalty, (premature death at the hands of G'd) The burning of any of the remains of the animals in a place not designated for that purpose is eaually prohibited, (ibid verse 19) (1) So much for the spiritual aspect of the matter. (2) Then the Torah addresses itself to the physical aspects of the sacrifices, namely the eating of the blood of the animals that had been offered as sacrifices. Since blood represents the personality of the creature, its consumption would superimpose the animalistic personality on the person who consumes it. The result would be that that man who is always a blend of spiritual and material forces would become predominantly materialistic. His spiritual forces would lose the chance of gaining the ascendancy within him. The result would be the destruction of his personality, i.e. karet extinction. As long as Israel had been in the desert, all blood of animals to be eaten, had to be poured out on the altar as if to dedicate the animal's personality to G'd. Man must dedicate himself, -in this case his sacrifice, seeing it is his alter ego-, to the Lord. \"Love the Lord your G'd with all your soul, personality.\" Many heroes of the Bible describe their endeavours in those terms. When David prepares for battle against Goliath, he voluntarily risks his life for the sanctification of G'ds name. Jonathan tells his father about David that \"he has put his soul, his personality in his hand\" in order to kill the Philistine. (Samuel I, 19,4) Yiftach expressed himself in similar terms before going into battle against the Bney Ammon. (Judges 11,30) When a person takes risks like the ones described, for a cause other than the glorification of the name of G'd, such as for the sake of personal glory and honour, he is merely making himself guilty of suicidal conduct. David refused to drink the water that had been obtained for him by three brave soldiers at the risk of their lives. (Samuel 11,23,14-17) (3) Instead, David tried to obtain atonement for the men who had mistakenly risked their nefesh, soul, life for such mundane matters, by making a drink offering to G'd of these waters. David would have considered drinking this water as not much less sinful than drinking blood. Since nefesh belongs to G'd, a Jew must not consume it. Since nefesh resides in the blood, blood must not be eaten. (5) On the one hand, blood as the carrier of nefesh, is like a vessel containing vital fluid. If the container leaks, the fluid will be lost. On the other hand, it is the fluid which enables everything to feed upon it. The body is diffused with it, nourished and sustained by it. They are inextricably interwoven, and the description by the Torah once as if blood is the primary agent, and on the other occasion as if nefesh is the prime factor, is quite apt. (4) This function of blood is also the reason that blood of animals that are not suitable for sacrifice is prohibited. Absorption of the animalistic life essence of the animal by man's body, would result in man himself becoming more animalistic, predominantly so. When G'd said to Cain \"the voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me,\" (Genesis 4,10) He refers to the fact that the nefesh is in that blood. (6) In the case of the birds and free roaming animals, their blood being thinner, the contribution it makes to the essence of their being is somewhat smaller. Therefore, when the Torah states \"for the life of the flesh is in the blood,” this is a one sided description. In that instance, the Torah does not describe the blood as being simultaneously the vessel of the animal's personality. Nevertheless, such blood is also forbidden, seeing that the blood as an agent of the life sustaining soul, carries this sustenance to all parts of the body. Without it, the animal would die. ",
"(1) Man is apt to sin for either of two reasons. Either he is overcome by physical temptation, or he subscribes to a faulty philosophy. In the latter event, his sin will be performed with dedication, since the sinner has become convinced that what he is doing is actually the will of the deity he worships. Warnings against this kind of sin must therefore be expressed in much stronger language than warnings against sins which are merely the result of weakness of the flesh, often only temporary. When warning against sins of the flesh, the Torah uses the term nefesh. When warning against aberrations due to intellectual misconceptions, the Torah uses the term ish, describing man's intellectual essence. The chapter dealing with immorality, incest etc. is introduced by a warning not to follow the lifestyle of the Egyptians, nor to adopt the lifestyle of the Canaanites. The former were more sophisticated, known for their intellect. Their physical corruption was rooted in a corrupt philosophy. The Canaanites, however were renowned for their physical prowess; their philosophy was only an outgrowth of their physical perversions. To counteract the former, the Torah says \"observe My social laws, My philosophy, and keep My statutes.\" (in that order) Concerning the latter, the Torah says \"keep My statutes and observe My social laws.\" (in that order) The purpose of the legislation is contained in the latter half of verse five, \"that man shall perform them and live by them,\" meaning that we shall remain \"human\" only by observing Torah laws. The fact that the Torah stresses these practices as determining whether a person will retain the tzelem, the Divine image, which entitles him to the description Adam, human being in the true sense of the word, tells us that it is not the fundamental error of philosophy that requires the most urgent treatment. The errors stemming from physical urges require treatment on a priority basis. It is easier to disabuse the mind of ish of faulty reasoning, than to disabuse the nefesh, the physical essence of its urges. The repetition at the end of chapter eighteen, \"for I am the Lord your G'd,\" is to impress upon us that we must observe this legislation not only out of fear of punishment, but because we appreciate the wisdom of the Creator revealed in this legislation. It is only in the next Parshah that the Torah addresses itself to many of the philosophic aberrations that we must avoid also. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Midrash Tanchuma at the beginning of Parshat Kedoshim, states \"you shall be holy because I am holy.\" G'd said to Israel: \"before I created the universe, the angels used to praise Me, using your name. They said \"blessed be the Lord G'd of Israel from time immemorial until the end of time.\" When Adam had been created, the angels said before the Almighty: \"Lord of the universe, is this the one whose name we use when we praise You?\" G'd replied:\"no. This one is a thief, since it is recorded that he ate from the tree.\" (Genesis 3) When Noach appeared, the angels asked G'd again whether he was the one whose name they used when they praised G'd, and G'd replied that Noach was a drunkard, as it is stated in Genesis 9,21, \"he drank of the wine and became drunk.\" When Abraham arose, the angels said to G'd that surely this must be the one. G'd said that he was a gentile since he had sired Ishmael. When Isaac appeared, the angels again felt sure that he must be the one whose name they recited when praising G'd; again G'd told them \"this one loves the one who hates Me.\" (Genesis 25) When Jacob appeared, the angels said \"this is he.\" G'd said to them \"yes.\" It is written in Genesis 35,10, \"your name shall not be Jacob anymore, your name shall be Israel\" All the Jewish people will bear his name. At that hour, G'd sanctified Israel with His name, as it is written in Isaiah 49,3, \"Israel, through you I become glorified. The holy One said to Israel \"since you bore My holy name even before the universe had been created, attain holiness like Myself!\" This is the meaning of the verse \"be holy for I am holy.\" ",
"People partaking of the pleasures in this world can be divided into three categories. 1) One partakes of the forbidden pleasures. 2) One partakes of those pleasures that are not forbidden. 3) One partakes of only those pleasures which are at the same time vital for survival and promote good health of the body. The person who indulges in all physical and material pleasures regardless of G'ds ordinances, is so enslaved to his evil urge that Solomon says of him \"whatever it is in your power to do, do it; for there is no work, device nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave whither you go. (Kohelet 9,10) Of the second category of person, the one who indulges in everything that the Torah does not specifically forbid, regardless of his need for these pleasures, Solomon observes in Kohelet 9,7, \"go and eat your bread in joy.\" The third category is the type of person who does not indulge unless his vital needs are involved. He does not wish to partake of anything which might deprive another person who is in need of it of such pleasure. The fact that someone does not steal or rob, or otherwise break the law, does not make such a person holy, saintly. The Talmud in Yevamot 20, advises that if someone strives for holiness, he should abstain from the permitted pleasures. Most of our sages have not been portrayed as saintly, although doubtless all of them were righteous and pious. Only a handful qualified for the appellation \"saintly.\" Rabbi Yehudah hanassi, who never touched the flesh of the lower part of his body, is an example of a saintly person. (Shabbat 118) Even a Rabbi Yossi, who never indulged in small talk, does not seem to rate the description \"holy.\" (Sukkah 28,) Only those who apply to themselves the criteria we have listed for category number three above, can qualify for that distinctive appellation. ",
"Keeping the above in mind, one can understand the following discussion in the Talmud Taanit, 11. Samuel said that anyone who sits and observes a fast is called a sinner, since the Torah says \"he will atone for the sin his soul has committed.\" What sin did he commit? He denied himself the pleasure of drinking wine. Is it not a logical conclusion that if someone is called a sinner merely because he denied himself the pleasure of drinking wine, that he would certainly be called a sinner if he denied himself all other worldly pleasures?! Rabbi Eleazar said that such a person is called holy, since the Torah says \"holy he shall be,\" referring to the Nazirite in Numbers 6,5. However, the Torah does say \"from the sin he has committed against his soul?\" The answer given is that he had dirtied his soul. And what about Samuel, does it not say \"the Nazirite, the abstainer from wine will be holy?\" Answer: this does not mean that he is holy, but that he should strive to become holy. In this paragraph of the Talmud, Samuel discusses the third type of person, the one who denies himself unnecessary pleasures. Samuel points out that this kind of thing can be exaggerated when it includes legitimate pleasures that contribute to our vitality and well being. Avoiding unnecessary pleasures is avoiding contamination of one's soul. Denying oneself necessities, however, is sinful. Rabbi Eleazar, on the other hand, was discussing people of the second category. When those people abstain from permissible pleasures, they are on the way to achieve holiness. There is therefore, no conflict between the views of Samuel and Rabbi Eleazar. ",
"When Rabbi Yehudah hanassi was able to declare on his deathbed that none of his ten fingers had made frivolous use of the pleasures of the world, one must remember that he was an extremely wealthy man, and could have indulged himself very easily. Many of the great sages possessed many of the attributes that would have enabled them to enjoy many of the permissible pleasures. Their conduct therefore, becomes even more praiseworthy. There are two anecdotes described in the Talmud (Tamid 32), that illustrate the Jewish attitude to the mundane. We read of an encounter between Alexander the Great and Jewish scholars. When Alexander asked the Jewish sages for their definition of \"wise men,\" the sages replied that these are people who can foresee the result of their actions. To the enquiry who is a true hero, they responded by citing the person who can control his urges, his impulses. To the enquiry who is truly wealthy, they said that it is the person who counts his blessings. To the enquiry what one must do to ensure that one stays alive, they answered that \"one must kill oneself.\" To the question what one must do to incur death, they said that one only needs to indulge oneself. To the enquiry what one must do to ensure one' popularity, they answered that one must display disdain for authority wielded arbitrarily. Alexander replied that his way was superior to theirs, namely that one should be a benevolent ruler, concerned with the welfare of one's subjects. We find another authoritative statement in Avot 4,1, where Ben Zoma says that the truly wise is someone who is willing to learn from anybody; that the truly brave is someone who suppresses his passions; that the truly wealthy is he who enjoys what he owns, and that the truly honoured is the one who accords honour to human beings. These quotes from our sages provide clear guidelines for the attainment of a successful and wholesome lifestyle. In the same way as the Rabbis legislated and appointed supervisors in such areas as true weights and measures, to preclude the public being defrauded, and in the same way as they instituted similar measures in other areas of public life, they also gave us guidelines to help us attain progress in our spiritual life, helping to make Israel a nation and the land of Israel a country fit for the Divine Presence to feel at home in. ",
"It is worthwhile to examine Ben Zoma's statement in detail, especially the scriptural proof he cites for each of his dictums. Concerning the attainment of wisdom, Ben Zoma quotes Psalms 119,99, \"I have learned from all those who teach me.\" This sounds quite inappropriate. Surely, not everyone is qualified to teach merely because he wants to! Even if we understand the word melamdai in the sense of \"who are more learned than I,\" the word used should have been melumdai. The truth of the matter is, however, that true wisdom is reserved for the Almighty by definition. He alone possesses knowledge that embraces every subject matter. He alone understands the interrelation between all phenomena. Human wisdom is only a state of comparative ignorance, by comparison. The wisest human being is he who is somewhat less ignorant than his peers. Realising this, a wise man demonstrates that he is aware of his monumental ignorance by being prepared to increase his knowledge, drawing on any source of information that helps to reduce his ignorance. True scholars,-while not too proud to learn from anyone-, are able to integrate information secured from unlikely sources into the existing fabric of information they already command. In this way, any new piece of information enlarges and widens their existing knowledge, sometimes adding a completely new dimension. The same piece of information which is hardly meaningful when in the hands of an ignoramus, may be of immense value to the scholar. Of such men Solomon says \"the wise will hear and add additional instruction.\" (Proverbs 1,5) The meaning of our verse in Psalms 119,99, then is \"I have obtained more comprehensive knowledge through all those who have instructed me.\" ",
"When looking at the proof quoted for the statement that the true hero is he who controls his passions, Ben Zoma quotes \"better the long patience than a hero, and someone who is in control of his spirit, than the conqueror of a city.\" (Proverbs 16,32) We must approach this with a similar yardstick. Aristotele defines bravery in his book of ethics, as a person who is prepared to be a martyr and brave death for the sake of what he believes to be ethically good and noble. In fact, if we examine David's heroism, such as when he volunteered to do battle with Goliath, he fits the bill exactly. His motivation, as has been stated, was that someone who blasphemes the Lord G'd of Israel must not be allowed to get away with it. Pinchas, who killed Zimri, (Numbers 25,8) displayed similar emotions. Aristotele's definition appears quite appropriate then. Also Isaiah 63,5, seems to bear out this definition. Ben Zoma's quotation does not seem to prove much, stating only that conquests alone do not constitute bravery. Even a weak king can conquer cities, when he has armies at his command. What Ben Zoma wishes to tell us, however, is that to describe someone as brave merely because he conquers, is foolish. If a king cannot control his own passions, how can he expect to control his soldiers? Only after he has learned to be in charge of himself, can he be trusted to be in charge of others. Concerning David and Pinchas, it is true that had they not done what they did, they would not have been known for the heroes that they undoubtedly were. It is the normal reaction of a person who observes violence being perpetrated on an innocent human being, to rationalise that his own life is more precious than that of his fellow human being. Therefore, he refrains from a rescue operation that would put his own life at grave risk. This is especially so, when the prospect of success of the rescue operation is only marginal. In order to do what one has at first glance perceived as one's moral duty, one needs to conquer the voices that tell one not to risk one's life and become a dead hero. Both David and Pinchas became heroes when they had successfully conquered those voices. They conquered the urge that had prompted their peers to refrain from becoming involved. Engaging in dangerous action was not something impetuous then, but on the contrary, it resulted from deliberation, having one's passions under control. Had the undertaking been unsuccessful, the potential hero risked derision rather than admiration, even though he might have given his life for the cause. Relying on one's strength, as mentioned in Isaiah 63,5, is not the antithesis of our concept of bravery, provided such reliance is not the result of bravado, showmanship and quest for personal glory. The hero feels that his life is not worth living, if the only way he can live it is by permitting great evils to go unchecked, and thus allow the name of G'd to continue to be desecrated. Ben Zoma's definition of true heroism then includes two important elements: A) Preparedness for martyrdom in order to achieve an ideal, or wipe out an evil; B) an awareness that the risks involved are undertaken deliberately, not impulsively. The hero faces up to unpopularity or even scorn that his action may arouse. ",
"To turn now to the definition of wealth in Ben Zoma's statement. \"He who enjoys his portion.\" As proof, we are reminded of the verse \"you who eat from the toil of your hands are happy and well off.\" (Psalms 128,2) \"Happy\" refers to this life, \"well off\" to the hereafter. Those who pursue money endlessly, who are considered wealthy by the general public, are not wealthy at all, in fact. An important element in the definition of wealth is menuchah, a state of rest, serenity, contentment. Only when serenity and peace of mind have replaced the constant urge to amass more riches, can one be said to have become wealthy. This is quite independent of the quantity of possessions amassed, or their monetary value. A treasure is something that one has, not something that does not give one satisfaction. If it were true that in order to achieve man's perfect state, large amounts of material wealth were necessary, the complaint against the Creator for having sent us into this world without anything, would be quite justified. Since HE did not see fit to bring us into the world accompanied by large amounts of money or its equivalent, it appears that HE thought that as long as one has a healthy body, a sound mind, and is capable of absorbing instruction so that one can learn a useful trade or profession, this is adequate. The example of most of our Tannaim, teachers of the Mishnah, who worked for a living and still found the time to study Torah and perfect their personalities, is ample proof that in that manner one can assure oneself of a happy existence in this world, and amass meritorious deeds that ensure one success in the world to come. However, he who despises the work of his hands and keeps chasing financial fortunes, will lose his chance of success in the world to come in the process, since he will not make time for Torah study and the performance of meritorious deeds. ",
"Concerning Ben Zoma's definition of who is an honoured and respected person, Ben Zoma agrees with the prevailing philosophies, adding from his own wisdom. According to Aristotele, ethics section one chapter two, honour is not a true possession, but remains forever outside the person himself. If it were a true possession, it would have to be at one's disposal constantly and irrevocably. This is clearly not the case, since control of one's honour resides with one's peers, one's superiors or one's inferiors. It cannot therefore, be an attribute that is desirable for its own sake. Honour is desired in order to impress the beholder with the stature of the person being accorded that honour. Being beloved is superior to being accorded honour. Being accorded honour, merely gives the impression that one is beloved, substitutes the image for the substance. It is clearly desirable therefore, to be beloved, in order for the \"honour\" to become something of substance rather than remain a phantom. What better way to achieve that substance then but to accord honour to others, thereby gaining friendship and goodwill from those whom one honours. Since true virtues, at any rate, are desirable for the good the owner can accomplish through them, honour is not a virtue unless it is used to achieve that goal of doing good. Ben Zoma teaches that by honouring others, one's own honour becomes a vicarious virtue. We find the Almighty described as the \"King of glory\" in Psalms 24,9. This term is used because HE accords honour to His creatures, not because they honour Him. Rabbi Shimon points out in Numbers Rabbah 14, that it is to those who respect Him that G'd accords honour. Similarly, kings of flesh and blood accord honour to deserving subjects. Ahasverus wanted to know what honour to accord to Mordechai (Esther 6,6). This kind of honour is described by the Midrash as being like jewels that deserve to be set in a golden mounting. However, if someone were to mount a stone or piece of wood in a golden setting fit for jewels, he would surely cause himself to be ridiculed. Therefore, Solomon says in Proverbs 26,8, \"as a pebble in a heap of stones, so is he who accords honour to a fool.\" If someone takes note of a pebble amongst a heap of precious stones, he is acting foolishly. We learn therefore, that the degree of honour accorded a person must be commensurate with the person's worth. Only in this manner can the objective of according someone honour be realised. Indiscriminate honour heaped on all one's fellow men is counterproductive, and will merely alert the citizenry to the foolishness of its ruler. Thus the end of the quotation Ben Zoma cited, \"those who fail to honour Me, will become objects of derision.\" Such people demean themselves by withholding honour from Him who is deserving of it. They will end up being of no consequence themselves. All these examples show that the way to saintliness lies in observance of all these virtues. If, instead of equating a wise man with a person who feels superior to everyone around him, we equate him with personifying humility; if instead of equating bravery with the conquests of countries and nations, we equate it with self control; if instead of \"rich\" meaning that one is in control of vast amounts of material wealth , we equate it with \"serene and content,\" then such persons are well on the way to saintliness which is the objective of the third category of people discussed at the outset. Holiness is not achieved merely by abstaining from everything forbidden, only by the judicious rejection of even those pleasures which are inherently permissible but are not permitted when used simply to afford one an opportunity to indulge one's senses. When viewed in this manner, the string of negative commandments following the instruction to become holy, may at first glance be in conflict with the view we have advanced. Leviticus 19,3-4,5-10,11-20, all deal with prohibitons. It is remarkable that our sages said that the reason the chapter dealing with immorality, (Leviticus 18) is followed by the command to be holy, is because wherever we find immorality held in check, holiness is close by. On the surface, this appears to mean that whosoever does not indulge in immoral acts, is already holy. This is, of course, quite preposterous.",
"One need only remember that the absence of a harmful substance by no means implies the presence of a beneficial substance. If one does not feel hot, it does not follow that one feels cold. On the other hand, it is true that the more extreme the description of a virtue or failing respectively, the more extreme will be its opposite. It follows then that some \"opposites\" are much closer to one another than others. The opposite of a moderately sinful individual, would be a moderately pious one. The opposite of a thoroughly depraved individual, would be a person who is pious and saintly in the extreme. We understand then that just as sinful conduct occurs in varying degrees of extremes, so all attempts at pious conduct are found in corresponding degrees of intensity. When the Torah lists a string of depravities at the end of the last Parshah, it is natural that the call for holiness comes hard on its heels. The Torah lists a variety of commandments, which while representing abstinence from sinful conduct, are not yet the height of saintly conduct either. The more extreme the description of a negative trait in a human being, the more superior is its counterpart as a positive virtue. Achievement of holiness and purity then, are the opposites of all the negative traits listed. The categories of unsatisfactory conduct can be classified as follows: a) sinful conduct, i.e. violation of ritual laws; b) wicked conduct, i.e. anti social behaviour; c) immoral, immodest conduct, i.e. violation of the laws of incest, sodomy and bestiality. The opposite of the above categories would then be: a) piety; b) social responsibility; c) G'dliness. The middle category, i.e. socially acceptable human conduct, is not yet G'dliness. Not acting in the worst way of bestiality is still a long way from becoming saintly, holy. ",
"The Midrash quoted at the outset is trying to teach this point also. Since nothing had been created without prior planning, the names that the angels used to praise G'd, reflected the activities that had as yet not been carried out by G'd. Nevertheless, since they were going to be carried out, they constituted some of His attributes. The idea of angels praising G'd before creation of the universe, means then that the angels acknowledged what G'd was going to do. Just as in the case of the name \"Israel,\" they had not yet seen that nation or that person, it is easy to understand that when the first person (human being) appeared on the scene, they wondered if he corresponded to the name they had been using to praise the Lord with. G'd had to tell them that alas, that human being was not the one, since he had been found guilty of stealing. This was a grievous shortcoming, since it was a sin committed for the purpose of indulging oneself. Not only did he commit a sin, but there were no extenuating circumstances. Noach, on the other hand, although he had become drunk, did so only because he overindulged in something which was basically permitted. He had merely failed to abstain from the permissible, when partaking had not been necessary for his well being. Abraham, though he did not sin in either sense, was born of sinful parents, and could not attain ultimate holiness. Isaac, though born of fine parents, sired a son who succumbed to both kinds of sin. Only when Jacob appeared on the scene of history, did a human being exist that suffered from none of the failings of previous generations. He could, therefore, represent the finest that humanity could aspire to achieve on the moral plane. For this reason, he was called \"Israel,\" and his name was given to the Jewish people, since the latter were to represent nationally what Jacob represented individually. In formulating the sentence \"wherever you find a fence around immorality, you find holiness,\" our Rabbis taught therefore, that it is the removal of oneself from immorality that puts one on the path towards holiness. Our Parshah is indeed the beginning of that ascent towards holiness, and we read at the end \"when you have sanctified yourselves, you will become holy since I am holy.\" Progress is achieved in stages. It begins with refraining from the most bestial kind of behaviour, continues with the acquisition of a variety of virtues etc. ",
"When perusing our Parshah, we are confronted with a number of difficulties. 1) In order to convince someone to work on perfecting himself, one would expect the demands to be made on such a person to increase gradually, not to shock the student by listing all the demands that are made upon him all at once. That this is sound psychology, is attested to by the Torah itself, where we read (Deuteronomy 30, 11-14)) \"for this commandment which I command you this day is not too hard for you, neither is it far away; it is not in Heaven so that you could say \"who shall go up to the Heavens for us and bring it to us? For it is very close at hand, in your mouth and in your heart to perform.\" On the other hand, what can frighten someone off more than a command such as \"be holy for I am holy?\" 2) Why do the commandments in our Parshah that parallel the ten commandments appear in a different order? (\"Honour your parents,\" is listed as the first instead of the fifth commandment; \"keep the Sabbath,\" is listed as number two instead of as number four. \"Do not worship idols,\" is listed in third position instead of in second place) 3) After the Torah has completed the list, and concluded by saying \"sanctify yourselves,\" (20,7) why begin once more with such commandments as \"not to curse parents, not to commit adultery etc?\" 4) Why is the matter of attaining holiness mentioned three times? ",
"(1) There are two groups of people observing mitzvot. One group is so preoccupied with trying to understand the will of G'd, that even if the mitzvot had not been given, they would have divined most of them themselves, and proceeded to observe them. This is the group of people from whom potential leaders are drawn. They are,alas, few in number. The second group is the group that comprises the vast majority of people. These people observe the mitzvot because they are afraid that non observance will make them liable to punishments, to physical afflictions. They are not really concerned with any considerations beyond that. Among these two categories, some will attempt to understand the deeper meaning behind the mitzvot, whereas others content themselves with simply performing them, fearing retribution. Even among the latter group, some will be more afraid of retribution for non observance of certain commandments. They will be less concerned with the fear of retribution for transgressing some other injunctions in the Torah. It is in the nature of things that if one expects people to observe the commandments out of comprehension, the objectives should be stated first. The specifics of the observances should follow afterwards. For those who observe out of a sense of fear, the presentation of what is demanded of them should be stated first, the objectives of the legislation would be mentioned only at a later stage. Since the revelation at Mount Sinai was the site at which all of the people were assembled, the order of the prohibitions was directed first and foremost at this largest group of people, and in G'ds own words. This was to instil fear in them. Here, in Parshat Kedoshim however, when Moses is to address the beney yisrael, i.e. the elite of the people, the positive aspect of what is to be accomplished is stressed first, namely the objective of achieving holiness. Subsequently we progress to the relationship between father and mother, a subject which had been mentioned at Sinai only after conclusion of the obeisances that related to poor relationship vis a vis G'd. (2) When one uses logic, the respect due to parents leads one to respect the Creator and the Sabbath which testifies to the work of the Creator. This in turn leads one to deny the claims of any other deities. The testimony offered by not working on the Sabbath extends to total recognition of the Creator, and it brings in its wake reminders not to serve or fabricate images, not to have recourse to them in any shape or form. The prohibition not to make images, also extends to the minting of images on coins, which are treated by so many as objects of worship. Truly good Jews, of course, will not make gold their idol nor glory in their material wealth. When they offer a sacrifice, they will be sure to do so from pure motives. All of these things are the outcome of an approach to the service of G'd that does not stem from fear of punishment. (this accounts for the sequence 19, 1-6) When we are told by the Mishnah in Avot 2,4, \"make His will like your will, so that He will make your will like His will,\" the meaning is as follows. If you carry out His wishes with the fervour that you normally reserve for carrying out your own wishes, then He will help you divine what is really His will. The daily practice of performing His mitzvot with understanding, will eventually enable us to know instinctively what His will would be (in matters we have not yet been taught) The Mishnah in Avot goes on to say \"set aside your will in favour of His will, so that He may set aside the will of others on account of your will. In matters of wishes for mundane matters, such as your desire for women, property to be acquired illegally or immorally, curb your wishes, since such a desire is really an expression of your evil urge, and turn your wishes into permissible channels. In turn, He may influence those who possess the objects that you desire, but refuse to part with them, and you will find former obstacles to your attaining your desires removed. Biblical examples of vain attempts to achieve objects of one's desire by illegal means, are Adoniah's bid to succeed to his father David's throne. (Kings I 1,5-45). Another example is Absalom's rebellion. (Samuel II chapter 17) On the other hand, the fact that David suffered initial setbacks at the hands of Saul, but became king, shows that the prescription offered in Avot is valid. Batsheva, who had acted prematurely, almost came to fatal grief in her haste to meet her destiny. In Psalm 37, David expresses it in these words \"seek bliss for yourself with the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart.\" Since the Talmud in Zevachim 29, tells us that the offerings mentioned here are discussed in terms of the motivations that prompted them to be offered, this proves the thrust of the whole Parshah in the direction we have stated. In all these undertakings, once you have embarked on your career i.e. farming, you will be concerned with those who are less fortunate, sharing with them part of your harvest. (19,9-10) Once you have been trained to give away some of what is yours, you will certainly not be likely to steal from others, cheat, swear false oaths and thereby desecrate the name of G'd. (verses 11-13) On the contrary, because of your highly developed sensitivity towards the need of the poor, you may have become prejudiced in favour of the poor, and need to be reminded not to err in that direction either. (verse 15) Inactivity in the face of evil is not enough, (verse 16), even silent hatred of the evildoer (verse 17) is not enough. You have to speak out against evil, you must intervene actively to prevent violence. Unless you do these things, you will not achieve the objective of the Torah, i.e. to become a saintly person. The Torah's attitude to collective responsibility requires that we point out to delinquents that they must share the burdens of the community. If a heavy load can only be lifted by concerted effort, he who fails to help shoulder the burden, endangers the success of his colleagues, and may even become responsible for their losing what they had already achieved. Rebuking people is reserved for the intelligent and responsible, (verse 17) He who is a scoffer, will not respond to lectures etc; on the contrary, efforts in this direction can be counterproductive. Proverbs 9,8, is quite explicit on that subject. The Talmud in Ketuvot 105, tells us that the young scholars who seem to enjoy popularity,- more so than their elders,- have achieved this popularity because they fail to preach to their congregants on the proper modes of religious conduct. The true reason for not rebuking the scoffer is to avoid burdening him with the additional sin of hating the preacher. By the same token, however, pointing out errors of one's fellow man in a constructive manner adds to his appreciation of his peer or his teacher. Refraining from acts of revenge, (verse 18) are further steps in the direction leading to saintliness. It is a Divine attribute, as we read in Jeremiah 3, 12 \"I will not frown upon you, because I am pious, nor will I bear a grudge against you forever.\" The culmination of the chapter is the injunction \"Love your fellow man as yourself.\" (again verse 18) One needs to refrain from committing the type of acts against one's neighbour that one would consider hateful if they were perpetrated against one's own self. Since one's closest bonds are usually with one's brother, who is one's own flesh and blood, the Torah frequently uses the term \"brother\" as an example par excellence when it describes certain attitudes to be displayed. For instance: \"when your brother becomes poor, let your brother live with you.\" \"When your brother sells himself to you\" etc. etc. Brotherliness is the key to our conduct vis a vis a fellow Jew. It is only via this route that saintliness which is our goal can be approached. The exact meaning of the moral imperative \"love your brother,\" has been dealt with in chapter twenty three. Having completed injuctions of a a social nature, the Parshah turns to injunctions governing our conduct vis a vis G'd Himself. The introduction \"My statutes you shall observe,\" precedes laws designed to prevent unions that are not compatible from G'ds point of view. If one is to avoid mixing different seed, i.e. when planting a vineyard, and one must not work together animals of different physical capabilities since they are unmatched, it is obvious that the sexual pairing of freemen and slaves constitutes an even greater breach of such a rule. These people are not compatible, do not even share the need to observe the Torah laws in the same manner. This law applies even to slaves who are already in the process of becoming freemen, (verse 20). Perhaps the underlying reason for these regulations is a reminder that nature is not the result of accident, that all species have been carefully planned, and that we are not to upset the calculations and purpose of their Creator. Compare the commentary of the Sifri on the tzitzit legislation, (Menachot 43) that when we see tzitzit, we are to remind ourselves of the mitzvot adjoining. Shaatnes, is a form of blending wool and flax (linen) which is forbidden under the heading of pairing incompatibles. (see our commentary in chapter ninety) The realisation that blue reminds one of the Heavens, the Creator, leads one to understand that we must not interfere with the rules G'd has established in His universe. The shifcha necherefet, a bondsmaid already betrothed to a man, combines a dual status in her very person, since on the one hand she is forbidden as someone else's wife, whereas on the other hand, union with her is permitted since as a slave, she has not yet qualified for marriage with an Israelite. After this, the Torah discusses which plants are not available for our use until they have attained a certain age. Possibly, a certain degree of maturity is needed before one can make certain judgments. Attaining such maturity requires time. The laws of orlah may be a reminder to await such maturity, and the laws against various kinds of soothsayers etc. (verse 26) are corollaries for this line of thought. It is in the nature of the impetuosity of youth to want to know what the future holds in store, and to go to some length to have it revealed to them. They believe that preparedness to sacrifice themselves or part of themselves for a cause, may hasten the attainment of wisdom, knowledge of the future etc Therefore the Torah warns insistently against any practices related to such endeavours. (verses 28-29) Since it is a sign of immaturity to be overly concerned with one's hairdo, the Torah legislated concerning treatment of hair in order to help bring about maturity through the observance of the relevant mitzvot. Immaturity is not confined to those who are young in years, but is a state of mind. Therefore, even if one is old enough to grow a beard, this is no guarantee that one has attained a degree of maturity. The law not to profane one's daughter to a life of harlotry, is aimed primarily at discouraging a father from giving a daughter in marriage to a much older man, since as a result of subsequent incompatibility in physical vigour, there is a chance that the daughter (wife) will seek fulfilment of her urges in extramarital relationships, in harlotry. (Sanhedrin 76) The underlying idea of all legislation is to minimise opportunities and temptations to transgress the law. Placing the injunction to treat the temple property with respect, next to the injunction not to consult soothsayers, (verse 30-31) again displays deep psychological insight. Since it is understandable to want to know the future, this is allowed only via the urim vetumim, a device on the breastplate of the High Priest, which enables the latter to receive answers to requests from G'd. In his partial review of Torah legislation in Deuteronomy, Moses makes the point in chapter 18,13, \"be wholehearted with the Lord your G'd,\" i.e. not like the gentiles mentioned in the very next verse. For all the reasons listed above, namely efforts to counteract immaturity, the Torah demands respect for the aged and the learned, those who have achieved maturity of years or the mind, (verse 32) As the Talmud in Kiddushin 33, explains, once one shows respect for the Torah scholars, how much more respect must one show for the author of Torah? Since at the time the Talmud was edited, it was a widespread custom to rise in the presence of a Torah scroll, but to remain seated at the approach of Torah scholars, the Talmud Makkot 22, castigates this practice as foolish. The argument is that if one pays homage to the Torah, based on a logical conclusion, then certainly those who interpret Torah, without whom much of Torah would remain a mystery to most of us, deserve at least equal honour and recognition. Not only that, but the Torah specifically commands that we respect the scholar. There is therefore no contradiction between the two statements in the Talmud quoted. There follows a string of commandments dealing with fair weights and measures, both items that can be violated easily without anyone noticing. Even the person violating the injunction may not realise that he is not giving fair measure. The Torah reminds us that when G'd took us out of Egypt, He had to make a very fine distinction between who was a Jewish firstborn and who was an Egyptian firstborn. Without such a careful distinction, Jewish firstborns would have died. It is incumbent upon us to make such fine distinctions to ensure that our weights and measures are not fraudulent, even if such fraud is not evident to our fellow man. The passage ends with the comment that all the foregoing are both chukkim and mishpatim, statutes and social laws. This means that each of the ordinances combines elements of a social nature as well as elements that defy our reason, and therefore need to be obeyed merely because the law is Divine in origin. The point of forbidding the practice of such abominations as child sacrifice to the Moloch, is less the prohibition per se, than the demand that anyone who is guilty of such a practice must be apprehended and brought to justice. Failure to play G'ds policeman in such instances, will result in dire consequences for those who choose to turn a blind eye when they observe such conduct in others. (Chapter 20, 3-6) Attaining holiness requires not only one's own effort at perfecting oneself in one's character and observances of the mitzvot, but one's active participation in eradicating perversions by others. Attainment of holiness on a nation wide basis, is unthinkable any other way. (4) Whereas in chapter nineteen, most injunctions were followed by some rationale, be it only the repetition of the Torah's ideal for man, chapter twenty does not dignify its commandments with reasons, and only lists penalties provided for non observance. This shows clearly that the Torah considers these statutes as so fundamental that anyone not abiding by them is guilty of animalistic, not human behaviour. The nation who had lived in the land of Israel prior to our taking over, was spewed out by the land precisely because they had sunk so low, to a sub human level. Our own success in the land then would depend on our living up to a higher moral standard. It is the ability to make proper distinctions, havdalah, between the forbidden and the permissible, which alone can lead man to become holy, elevated, (closing verses of chapter twenty) ",
"The repeated references not to tolerate soothsayers, and the sudden switch to discussing impurity caused by the consumption of forbidden foods, requires further elaboration. Vayikra Rabbah 26, describes King Saul's search for the witch of Endor as a violation of his own efforts to eradicate witchcraft. His quest is compared to a ruler who enters a town, decrees the killing of all roosters the same evening, and then wishes to be awakened by a rooster next morning. Various statements in that Midrash all represent Saul as guilty of the very sin he had been so diligent in eradicating. Whereas it is possible to imagine that in an hour of distress, while of unbalanced mind, Saul could have been capable of such conduct, and while, if the Midrash is authoritative in its view that Saul transgressed the commandment of ov and yidoni we must accept such tradition, the lack of evidence for such tradition compels us to pursue a different approach. The thought that a human personality, especially the immortal remains, should be subject to recall at will by an oracle or soothsayer, is intolerable. Even more intolerable is the thought that the soul of a prophet of the calibre of Samuel would answer the summons of such an ov, even if such a summons had occurred within the first twelve months after such a soul had departed its body. Even stranger is the approach of some ge-onim, who describe all the doings of the witch of Endor as merely sleight of hand, fraud, makebelieve, suggesting that Samuel was being impersonated. Such an approach, if true, would denigrate holy scripture, and cast doubt on other reported occurrences of supernatural character. It would also elevate the witch to the status of a prophet who had correctly foretold the course of events that would befall Saul. The conclusion of Kimchi that G'd Himself resurrected Samuel for the express purpose of this encounter with Saul, is even stranger, seeing that the same G'd had previously refused to communicate with Saul at the latter's request, even in a dream. Why should G'd resort to this extraordinary effort to revive Samuel? For all these reasons, we follow a different approach to the subject. Some of the questions that need to be answsered. ",
"1) From what is known of the practice of an ov, it seems that the witch manipulates the bones of the dead, as a result of which a low voice communicates with the witch answering an enquiry directed at the dead. (Isaiah 29,4) Your voice will be as that of the ghost out of the ground, and your speech will chirp out of the dust.\" This sound then is considered as the dead having risen in response to the question. There is absolutely no basis for assuming that the questioner will see an image. There is certainly no question of spiritual beings responding by becoming visible as happened in the case of Saul at Endor. (Samuel I 28,12 ) ",
"2) It is reasonable to assume that the questioner of the ghost would be the witch, not her customer. In our story, however, it is Saul who does the asking and the listening. ",
"3) Why would the witch be so frightened when Samuel appeared? After all, Saul had asked her to make him appear! ",
"4) Why did G'd not answer Saul previously through the urim vetumim, a prophetic message, or in a dream? Even if Saul had not deserved reassurance from G'd, at least he could have received a negative message, as had other kings who had been told of their impending punishment! ",
"5) Why did not Samuel criticise Saul for having used witchcraft to summon him, as seems apparent from Chronicles I 10,13, \"also because he asked to consult by means of witchcraft?\" Samuel here only refers to Saul's sin regarding Amalek. ",
"6) There is an apparent contradiction in Samuel I 28,15, when compared with Chronicles I 10,14. We are told in Samuel, \"the Lord departed from me, and did not answer me either through the prophets or in my dreams.\" In Chronicles we are told \"he did not seek out G'd; therefore He killed him.\" (10,14) ",
"In addition to the problems listed, there are also a number of difficulties in the manner in which the whole episode is related. a) The account could have been abbreviated considerably by omitting the conversation between Saul and the witch, b) Why did Saul say to the witch \"enchant for me?\" Why not simply \"consult for me?\" The Torah seems to distinguish between three different terms, i.e. kessem, kessamim, me-onen and menachesh. c) Saul should have said immediately \"raise Samuel!\" Why did he say \"raise whomever I shall tell you?\" d) When Saul reassured the witch on oath that she would not be guilty of a crime doing what he asked her to do, he appears to have spoken carelessly. He could indeed have guaranteed her impunity, but how could he have guaranteed her innocence? Who knew better than he, since he had gotten rid of all the witches? e) According to the text, the witch did not do anything at all, since Samuel appeared immediately Saul requested his appearance by name. Moreover, Samuel's remonstrating with Saul, shows that he did not materialise in response to her machinations, f) The expression va-ekra-ehoo with the letter heh at the end, is extremely strange, and the vowel pattern in the word even more so g) Why is Saul scored in the account of the episode in Chronicles both for \"asking,\" and for \"seeking\" illumination via an ov? ",
"We propose to proceed along two premises in answering all the questions raised. First of all, it is clear from Torah, the books of Prophets and the holy scriptures, that whenever beings that are purely spiritual appear to someone in our world, such beings appear garbed in human clothes. Hagar, Manoach, Gideon, all had encounters with angels dressed in human garb, and on that very account had doubts as to the identity of the party that addressed them. Similarly, whenever our sages speak of malachim mamash, such as the angels that Jacob sent to divine if Esau had hostile intentions towards him, what are meant by that expression are spiritual beings appearing in human form. Since we are not equipped to behold pure spirits, it is necessary to provide these beings with a shell, so that they can become visible to our eyes. The appearance of the prophet Elijah, with whom innumerable encounters are described, is then also an encounter with a spirit in human garb. Samuel's appearance then is bound to be of the same kind, and he would have to appear in human form. (The story in Ketuvot 105, further supports our theory) All of this is part of G'ds kindness in arranging for communication with the spiritual world for those who deserve it in varying degrees. The appearance of Samuel, dressed in a cloak, such as he used to wear while still on earth, is no surprising phenomenon then. ",
"The second premise is, that granted that kessem, enchantment is as far from real prophecy as right is from left, it still shares a common denominator with prophecy in that it is an attempt to divine events in the future. It had served such men as Bileam as a stepping stone towards reading the future. (Numbers 22,7, and other examples) The Torah testifies that after Bileam had employed these devices a number of times, he eventually dispensed with them, being confident that he was already on the right wave length without having to employ these gadgets as \"tuning dials.\" At any rate, by means of nechashim and kessamim, he would be able to tune in to \"G'ds transmission\" This proves that these devices serve a useful function, are not entirely fraudulent. When we keep these two premises in mind, we will find that all the difficulties mentioned earlier are resolved quite easily. Accordingly, I feel that Saul's iniquity consisted in that though he knew that not having killed all the Amalekites, he had estranged himself from G'd, he had failed to humble himself and to do teshuvah, repentance. This is so especially, since he faced a hostile Philistine army of large dimensions. He should have prayed, fasted and repented until the gates of repentance would have been opened to him. No doubt, he would have succeeded. If even such hardened sinners as Achav (Kings 121) and Menashe king of Israel (Chronicles II,33,19) were given a reprieve and the latter was even restored to his throne, surely Saul's repentance would have been accepted. However, Saul, confident of his good standing, went to consult the urim vetumim. Failing to obtain a response, he expected word from a prophet. At least, he thought, he would receive a communication in a dream. He received neither, because he did not yet qualify for good news. His doom however, had not yet been decreed. Therefore, he did not receive any bad news either. It was still hoped in heaven that he would be penitent. In desperation then, and because he had run out of time, he resorted to the use of the kessem, in order to achieve contact with a prophetic message. Saul hoped that Samuel's spirit would have pity on his plight, and would communicate with him in a manner described in our first premise. When he said to his companions \"seek me out a woman who communicates with ghosts, I will go to her and I will enquire through her,\" he deliberately refrained from saying that she would enquire on his behalf, but stated that he himself would enquire. The text in Chronicles I 10,13, confirms that the \"asking of the ghost to enquire,\" refers to two different activities. The \"asking\" was for the purpose of facilitating the \"enquiry.\" This explains why initially the woman felt she had been asked to commit a crime, whereas Saul knew she was not going to have a chance to commit a sin. He was therefore able to reassure her. The prophet never spoke to her, nor did she ask him anything. Saul had not said \"ask the ghost on my behalf,\" but only \"enchant\" ' for me, which is merely a preliminary stage before actual necromancy. Since Saul knew that if he requested the appearance of the prophet Samuel, she would ridicule his request, he asked for \"Samuel,\" without title. The name Samuel must have been borne by other men, not only the prophet. By prefacing his request simply by saying \"make the person that I will tell you arise,\" he wanted to make her think that the person in question was of no particular significance. When he then asked for Samuel, it did not occur to the woman that he was referring to the prophet. The latter had been commonly referred to as \"the Seer,\" \"the Judge,\" or \"the Prophet.\" She had assumed that some other Samuel was meant. This was so especially, since the woman was not aware that it was king Saul who made the request. Due to the woman's psychological readiness to see an apparition, she saw Samuel before Saul did. We find that even Bileam's ass saw the angel before Bileam himself did. (Numbers 22,23) The woman's consternation was due both to the unexpected appearance of the prophet Samuel, and to her sudden realisation that it had been the king in disguise who had commanded her to establish this contact. Who else could have had the nerve to request the prophet Samuel's presence in such a fashion? She now felt that the whole encounter had simply been designed to trap her. When she replied to Saul's question as to what she had seen, and said \"G'd has arisen,\" she emphasized that what had occurred was not the usual type of necromancy. As stated previously, in necromancy the ghost does not arise, but only deep voices are heard from the earth. In order to eliminate any doubt, Saul questioned her about the appearance of the vision, and when she described Samuel's mode of attire, Saul knew that Samuel had indeed complied with his request. Under no circumstances is his appearance to be credited to the woman's activities. Saul explains that he had no other alternative anymore than to call on Samuel to guide him. Samuel's reply \"what good is asking me, when G'd has departed from you and become your adversary,\" means \"how can you expect good tidings under such circumstances?\" Samuel proceeds to explain to Saul once more why G'd had turned away from him, namely because of his failure to take G'ds revenge on Amalek. He did not accuse him concerning the sin of consulting ov, since he assured Saul immediately afterwards of immediate entry into the world to come, on a footing comparable to his own. (Berachot 12) It is inconceivable that someone who knowingly resorts to consulting ov would rank equal to the prophet Samuel in the hereafter. The language used in the Torah to castigate people who consult and turn to ov is too unmistakable to allow for such sins to be forgiven. (Leviticus 20,6) The criticism of Saul expressed in Chronicles I 10,13, refers to the method Saul had chosen to establish communication with Samuel, not to the act of consulting ghosts. The reference in verse fourteen about his failure to seek out G'd, is to be understood as similar to the sin of King Assa, (Chronicles II 16,12) who is scored for not seeking out G'd, but relying on his doctors to heal him. The sin did not consist in calling in medical aid in the form of doctors, as pointed out in chapter twenty six. Samuel is quite correct when he says that Saul's fate was sealed on that day because of his sin with Amalek, even if it is true that if Saul had repented, his repentance would have been accepted. When a sick person dies, not having partaken of medication prescribed for him, we do not ascribe his death to the failure to take the medication, but we consider his illness the cause of his death. Here too, failure to seek out G'd is not the cause of death, but this merely failed to reverse the decree for the prior sin committed. Our Parshah decrees death for those who harbour ov and yidoni amongst them. (Leviticus 20,27.) The wording clearly absolves Saul and the woman from culpability, since all they had been involved in was the attempt to procure a departed prophet in the manner used to procure information from the dead. The woman had reportedly been the mother of Avner and Amassa, who had been leading Torah scholars and thoroughly familiar with what was forbidden and what was not. Saul could reassure the woman since he was accompanied by the senior members of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin. (5) By means of its many injunctions, the Parshah points out that the way to holiness which leads from the many tum-ot, impurities and defilements one can become enmeshed in, is indeed lengthy; ergo the reminder in the beginning, in the middle, and again at the end, that our goal is holiness comparable to that of the Almighty. (2) Vayikra Rabbah 24, illuminates our Parshah by the following parable. A king who owned a wine cellar, appointed guards to protect same against theft. Some of these guards were notorious drunkards. Others were known to be total abstainers. When it came to paying these guards their wages, the king paid the drunkards twice as much as he paid the abstainers. To the latter's complaint that surely they had performed the same service as the drunkards and should therefore receive equal pay, the king pointed out that the drunkards had to fight twice as much temptation as had the abstainers when they were exposed to so much opportunity to drink. Therefore, when describing Heavenly beings, the expression kedushah holiness is used sparingly. Human beings, however, being comprised of both matter and spirit require a double dose of \"holiness.\" We are therefore like the drunkards in the parable, steeped in our primal desires, pursued by the intoxicating wine of our passions. Concerning denial of intoxicating wine, the Torah enjoins us to sanctify ourselves. The second step is the one that leads to \"you will become holy,\" i.e. to apply ourselves to guard the treasure, having practiced abstinence. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"In Vayikra Rabbah 26, the repeated admonition at the beginning of our Parshah, namely emor ve-amarta \"say, and you shall say,\" is explained by Rabbi Berechyah by means of a parable. A priest and an ordinary Israelite suffered from the disease of epilepsy. The doctor handed both of them a proven remedy. He instructed the Israelite to use that remedy, but gave no instructions concerning its use to the priest. The priest said to the doctor: \"Sir, did you not hand us both the same remedy? Why are you asking my friend to use it, whereas you did not give me any instructions?\" The doctor replied that since the Israelite had occasion to walk in the cemetry, he needed the remedy as protection. The priest however, who has no business in a cemetry, did not need to use the remedy. Similarly, angels who are not subject to the evil urge, do not need to have things repeated to them. (Daniel 4,14) But we lesser creatures, seeing that we are subject to the urgings of our evil instinct, will hopefully listen to G'ds instructions when same are addressed to us twice. This is the meaning of the first instruction in our Parshah \"say to the priests the sons of Aaron, say to them not to defile themselves through contact with the corpse of a fellow Jew.\" ",
"The meaning of the above seems to be that since the Jewish people as a whole are capable of rising high above the moral level of the gentile nations, surely the elite of that people, the Priests, will be able to rise to still loftier moral plateaus. ",
"All phenomena in our world share three characteristics. 1) They are composed of matter. 2) They appear in a certain shape or form. 3) They have had a previous existence of some kind. In other words, nature arranges constant metamorphosis of one phenomenon into another. In all these, matter is the common denominator. Form is what makes a specific phenomenon individualistic. The previous existence has a bearing on the present value of the phenomenon in our scale of things. An inferior existence does not suddenly convert into a very superior existence. Phenomena in the \"upper\" world, the world of space, being direct creations of G'd, nature not having been interposed in their creation, lack the third item that we have mentioned. They have not had a previous existence, are not the result of metamorphosis, but are enduring in the original form G'd has created them. Abstract, spiritual beings in the celestial regions, having no body altogether, therefore exist only as form. When our sages define \"heaven\" as consisting of eysh umayim, fire and water, we must be careful not to misunderstand that statement. They do not mean that \"heaven\" is a composition of two kinds of matter, but rather that just as lightning and rain are perceived as descending from \"above,\" they are perceived as descending from \"heaven.\" The term \"heaven\" does not however, suggest the presence of any matter.. (Bereshit Rabbah 4.) Since other elements are not observed as travelling to earth from outer space, we have the well known saying torah kilshon beney adam medaberet,” that Torah employs syntax with which we humans are familiar, in order to help us understand strange concepts. Since G'd is the ultimate cause of all Creation, He is devoid of any tzurah, form, and cannot be conceived of in these terms at all. When the prophet Isaiah 6,1, describes G'd in these words: \"I beheld the Lord sitting on the throne, high and exalted,\" it means that even the world of spirits merely serves as a stool for the Almighty Himself. When the angels proclaim \"holy, holy, holy\" in this threefold manner, they testify that He is beyond any of the three criteria that we have described as forming all or part of the universe. Since, as humans, we belong to the category that comprises two inferior ingredients, i.e. matter and our previous metamorphosis, (meaning we have already lost our identity at least once previously) G'd in His mercy has given us the Torah to help overcome the need for a further metamorphosis, or death of our personality. G'd said to the Jewish people: \"sanctify yourselves and you will become holy\" i.e. I will enable you to rise above two of the ingredients that constitute the limitation of all that has been created. This is another way of saying that we can become part of the world of pure spirits. G'd had to reserve for Himself one layer of kedushah by the very nature of things, since only He lacks any beginning at all. \"Sanctify yourselves, means by performing good deeds.\" \"And you will become holy,\" by the survival of your souls, personalities. ",
"One may describe the relationship of Israel to the family of nations, as akin to the relationship of the world of outer space to our world. The relationship of the priests to the rest of the Jewish people, on the other hand, may be described as akin to the relationship that exists between the world of pure spirits and the world of outer space. The tum-ah, impurity legislation reflects symbolically that a priest is to be removed from contact with whatever reminds one of the body's limitation, i.e. decay etc. ",
"Reflecting the high standard of Israel, the opening Midrash described the disease as epilepsy, a temporary affliction, of brief duration. The remedy quoted, the kami-a, amulet, is considered spiritual in nature, not something organic, (in Talmudic and Midrashic parlance) This suggests that the aberration had been brief, subject to prompt correction by proper spiritual orientation. Angels achieve their shleymut, perfection, by means of a single expression, i.e. experience. (Daniel 4,14), whereas man requires two expressions, i.e. experiences. The first was \"let Us make man in Our image,\" at the time man was being created. The second expression, a further stage leading to complete perfection was the revelation at Mount Sinai. Hopefully, the two experiences between them will achieve mankind's refinement, and convert our potential into the actual achievement of the finest our species is capable of. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"These are the times appointed for G'd.\" (holy days) ",
"Man's actions can be the result of three distinct causes. They can be the result of free choice made intellectually; they can be the result of man liking the activity he performs, or they can be the result of the immediate benefit he expects to derive fom his action. A further cause prompting man to act, is an inner urge, which does not bother to rationalise the purpose and sense of one's actions, as long as the action serves to gratify the urge that has prompted it. When a sailor, whose ship is about to founder, throws the cargo overboard in order to lighten the weight of the ship, and in order to avoid sinking the whole ship, he acts from a choice made intellectually, despite the fact that he resents either of the two options that had been open to him. This is similar to the halachic dilemma faced by people who need to violate a commandment in order to survive. Some such decisions must be based on the principle of yehareg ve-al ya-avor, rather be killed than become guilty of that violation; others will be based on the principle ya-avor ve-al yehareg, better to sin and survive than forego the chance of performing other mitzvot through having permitted himself to be killed. These options are discussed in Sanhedrin 76. If Isaac loved Esau because the latter would bring him venison, then an activity which would result in Isaac receiving such venison can be said to have originated in a feeling of love. Such an activity involves more of one's desire plus planning, than the one described previously. When a person is in the grip of lust or similar emotion however, he becomes so irrational that he will pay any price to satisfy his lust or greed. Chamor and Shechem are examples of people who made unreasonable concessions on behalf of their townspeople in order to satisfy the lust to possess Dinah, Jacob's daughter. (Genesis 34,11-19) In order to better comprehend the last example, picture a driver, a carriage and horses. Although the driver is in charge of the carriage, should the horses become unmanageable, the carriage will be drawn in the direction the horses want, and the driver will be powerless to prevent this, as long as carriage and horses are coupled together. In this parable, the horse represents the will, the lust, the urge; the carriage represents the person; the driver represents the choice made intellectually, the ability to discriminate, the gift man has been equipped with. The relationship of G'd to Zion is not based only on bechirah, choice between relative evils, but as the Psalmist 132, 13, terms it \"for G'd has chosen Zion because He wanted it as His residence.\" The choice of the Jewish people as the chosen people, was dictated by intellectual considerations, but it was re-inforced by the Divine equivalent of ta-avah, an almost overpowering urge. This is underlined in the verse that follows \"This is My rest forever, here I will dwell for I have desired it.\" In Deut. 10,15, Moses describes it as follows: \"G'd took a strong liking to your forefathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, more than all other nations, as of this day.\" This shows that the love sprang from a strong liking G'd had developed towards them, based on their conduct. However, the love for the descendants is due to His choosing them (bachar) in comparison with other nations who were on a lower level, morally. That this is so, is confirmed in Song of Songs, where we read that Israel is \"like a lily among thorns, so is My partner among the daughters.\" (Song of Songs 2,2) The terms chashak, love, choice, are used in descending order of preference. The first one is natural, unreasoning; the second one is deliberate, planned, but based on sound reason for the attraction. The third one is something forced upon one, in which one makes the best of a given situation. Of the many expressions of G'ds love for the Jewish people which are recorded in the Torah, some stem from relatively mild forms of love. None express a stronger bond of love than the setting aside of the mo-adim, the holydays that enable us to commune with G'd, and be in the presence of the shechinah, like children in the company of their father in joy and happiness. ",
"Our sages have characterised the three stages of our relationship with G'd, when they formulated the benediction describing the holiness of the day in our amidah, central prayer, commencing with the words attah bachartanu, You have chosen us. The expression \"You have chosen us,\" refers to the selection of the Jewish people as the relatively better choice. This is why veromam-tanu You have elevated us, You have raised us from all the other nations. Ahavta otanu, You have loved us, is the second stage, which gives rise to vekidashtanu, You have sanctified us with mitzvot. Just as a man who selects a bride and establishes an exclusive claim on her, these commandments are performed willingly, they are chores whose performance is rooted in feelings of love of the bride for her groom. Finally, veratzita banu. You really wanted us for our own sake, therefore, vekeyravtanu la-avodatecha, You have established a close relationship with us so that we can truly be of service to You. As a result of establishing this relationship, G'd performed three acts. He allowed us to be identified with His great name. This corresponds to the paragraph in that prayer \"and You have proclaimed Your great and holy name upon us.\" You have given us in love and goodwill the holydays for enjoyment.\" This corresponds to the part of the relationship characterised as veratzita banu ...When we conclude this benediction, we again recite in this order: \"for us You have chosen, us You have sanctified and holidays You have allowed us to inherit.\" The visible expression of G'ds extreme goodwill is expressed by His assigning these holydays, so that women and children who are unable to study the holy writ, can comprehend the meaning of Torah by means of the ceremonies based on historical events performed on the Sabbath and the other holydays, i.e. \"days of holy convocations.\" In this manner, women and children too can achieve a high level of bitachon, faith in G'ds individual Providence. Every child, after all, can answer questions as to why we observe certain holydays. "
],
[
"Cahpter One",
"",
"Concerning the authority vested in the Sanhedrin, Supreme Court to fix the dates of the new moon and the new year, Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 4, comments on Psalms 57,3, \"I will call unto G'd the most High, the One who confirms for me.\" ",
"G'd agrees with the decisions made by Israel, in contrast to earthly rulers. When an earthly ruler promulgates a law, his parliament cannot revoke it, but the king himself is at liberty to cancel his decree. Not so with G'd. He accomodates Himself to the laws enacted by the Sanhedrin. For instance, if the Sanhedrin decides to proclaim New Year's day on a certain day, G'd assembles His Court to arrange to sit in judgment of mankind on that day. \"G'd arose when there is blowing of the teruah,\"(shofar). (Psalms 47,6) The Torah says \"it will be a day of teruah for Me.\" (Numbers 29,1) It also says \"These are the appointed times for G'd, which you will proclaim.\" (Leviticus 23,2) This means that Israel is the final arbiter concerning the dates of these holydays. \"These,\" implies that \"I, G'd have no other holydays but these.\" The concept expressed in the above Midrash is extremely puzzling. Both solar and lunar orbits determine anniversaries, i.e. new years, new moons etc. as is well known from antiquity; it therefore seems quite irrelevant whether or not the Sanhedrin gives its sanction to the dates on which these anniversaries occur. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 25, interpreting the word otam, them as attem, you, as the basis for the authority of the Sanhedrin to make such halachic rulings, is even stranger. Moreover, the Talmud broadens the authority of the Sanhedrin to include both wilful and erroneous decisions to change the apparent calendar dates for either the holydays or new moons. Surely, G'd does not have to adjust His conduct to human error, and even less so to human caprice! Furthermore, what can be the meaning of G'd saying \"I have no holydays but these?\" Is time in Heaven measured then in a similar manner to the way we measure time on earth? ",
"We need to keep four premises in mind in order to gain a proper understanding of what is meant by the Midrash quoted above. Since G'd in His wisdom has seen fit to create man equipped with a free will, this free will and the way it expresses itself must be respected. It makes no difference whether these free will decisions are in keeping with G'ds will or not. Were it otherwise, this freedom of choice would not really have any meaning. We have explained this in greater detail in chapter three, in connection with the Mishnah in Avot which states that the universe was created in ten stages, though G'd could have created it in a single phase. For the reasons cited, G'ds guidance is twofold. On the one hand natural law determines our fate; on the other hand, our own avtivities are the architects of our fate, signalling differences in the lives experienced by good and evil persons respectively. ",
"2) There are rules for the broad manner in which hashgachah peratit is employed. \"If you will walk in My statutes...I will provide your rain in its proper season.\" See discussion in chapter twelve. Just as there are rules of natural law, i.e. seasons, years etc., so the times appointed for our holydays in the Torah have special significance for the dispensation of hashgachah peratit Divine Providence. When the Talmud Berachot 16, describes the world as being judged on four separate dates, Passover for the harvests, Pentecost for the harvest of the fruit trees, orchards; human beings on New Year's day, and Tabernacles for the forthcoming water supply, this implies that our conduct influences the respective judgment at the respective times. ",
"3) The third premise is that not all mankind qualifies for the special attention G'ds Providence may exercise over man's fate. The generations prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai had angered G'd, until the arrival of Abraham on the stage of history. G'd approved of him as well as of his descendants. This is why G'd told the Jewish people at Sinai that provided they would hearken to His commandments, He would relate to them in a special manner. (Exodus 19,5) \"If you will surely listen...you will be special to Me.\" To this, the Jewish people responded with the famous \"we will do and we will hear.\" From that moment on, G'ds preoccupation with the other nations came to an end, and He concentrated His efforts on the Jewish people. Not only is the Midrash full of statements to the effect that G'ds purpose even at the time of Creation had already been directed towards that nation, but, more significantly, the Torah in its very first act of legislation for the Jewish nation, changes the natural world order and designates the first day of Nissan as the New Year's day of the Jewish nation. Up to then, New Year's day had been the first day of Tishrey for all mankind. Now, at the start of the history of the Jewish people as an independent nation, as G'ds people, even the significance of such universally important dates had been changed. This was in order to facilitate understanding of the fact that the new dates were indeed subject to manipulation by the Jewish legislative body. We have elaborated on this in chapters thirty seven and thirty eight. ",
"4) The fourth premise is appreciation of the fact that even the most advanced and most knowledgeable people are apt to err occasionally in matters pertaining to astronomy. This is because astronomy is subject to such precise timing, that even Moses had difficulty knowing the exact moment when the lunar cycle would renew itself. (Talmud Menachot 29) G'd instructed him by showing him, using a finger, \"when it is in this position, exactly, sanctify!\" It is therefore perfectly reasonable that G'd would make allowance for human error in the calculation of the arrival of the new moon. After all, the Torah was not given to angels, but to humans who are apt to err. There are altogether three causes for not declaring the new moon, or new year respectively, at its astronomically correct time. 1) Human error, due to miscalculation. 2) Deliberate falsification of the facts by the witnesses who claimed to have seen the moon, (as related in Rosh Hashanh 22) 3) Deliberate change of date by the Sanhedrin, for overriding social considerations, or even for considerations involving the proper performance of other calendar related mitzvot. If, for instance, spring is late, harvests are delayed, adding a month to the old year in order to make Passover occur in springtime,- as expressly stated in the Torah, could be such a consideration. Or, if due to an unusually long rainy season, pilgrims would be prevented from coming to Jerusalem to celebrate the festival, an artificially delayed date for the beginning of Nissan would serve to resolve the problem. (Sanhedrin 11) ",
"We see from the above that the statement that our sages may wilfully change the dates refers only to instances when they do so in order to facilitate Torah observance. They do not have authority when their intention would be- G'd forbid- the frustration of mitzvah observance due to their calendar manipulations. The use of the word zadon, intentional, is clearly defined in the Torah (Mechilta Mishpatim 58), as referring to a father who kills his child while administering punitive corporal punishment. (Exodus 21,14) Since it had been the father's intention to do something within the law, the miscarriage of such intent is not construed as wilful murder. Similarly, Rabbi Joshua who thought that Rabbi Gamliel had erred in fixing the date for the first of Tishrey, was consoled by Rabbi Akiva when he realised that Rabbi Gamliel's decision served a grand purpose, regardless of its astronomical merit. (Rosh Hashanah 25) Our Rabbis go so far in empowering the Sanhedrin to change the date of the new moon, that even physical phenomena are affected. According to the Talmud, a virgin whose hymen has been penetrated, will grow it back if she had been under three years old when it happened. If she had been older, then she does not grow it back. The length of the three years, however, is made conditional on the determination of the calendar by the Sanhedrin, not on the solar cycle of three times 365 days. (Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1,2) The interplay of the two methods of running the world, is described by Solomon in Kohelet 3,11, in these words: \"He has made the universe to function beautifully, at its appointed time;\" this refers to the laws of nature governing events. However, the verse continues: \"He has also given an enigma in their hearts, so that man cannot comprehend what G'd had planned at the beginning to occur at the end.\" This refers to the authority vested in man, -at least chosen men-, to influence predetermined events by their actions and decisions. Between the natural laws and man's ability to influence events, much of the mystery of G'ds ways has been removed. This has been discussed in chapters three and twenty six. "
],
[
"Chapter Two",
"",
"\"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day\" etc.",
"Subscribing to the concept of a disembodied Creator, does not make one a believing Jew. Judaism's dogmas can only be those that are exclusive to Jews, not those shared with other religions. Since, if we were to use the thirteen articles of faith of Maimonides, we would have to exclude some (in order to comply with this definition) the first and foremost that remains is the belief in chidush ha-olam, the creation of the world ex nihilo by G'd. This is indeed the first item on the agenda in our Parshah, when we read about the Sabbath legislation. This mitzvah reflects our belief that G'd created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. "
],
[
"Chapter Three",
"",
"(Leviticus 23,5) \"In the first month, on the fourteenth of the month, is the Lord's Passover.\" ",
"The events leading to Passover demonstrated G'ds ability not only to create a universe, but to remain in complete control of it even after its completion. He was able to change the rules the universe operated by. The plagues demonstrated the ongoing power of G'd. In order to believe in this power of G'd, it is necessary to believe in the fact that G'd created the universe ex nihilo, and that it is this which is the source of His power over the universe. These two beliefs are so closely bound up with each other, that our sages tell us in Rosh Hashanah 25, that zachor ve-shamor bedibbur echad ne-emru, that the words \"remember and observe\" were said simultaneously. They refer to the dual significance of the Sabbath both as the Sabbath of creation and its other function, that of the Sabbath of the Exodus. This reminder is spelled out in the second set of tablets: \"Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your G'd took you out,.. therefore He commanded you to observe the Sabbath.\" (Deut. 5,15) The Torah clearly emphasized the hashgachah peratit aspect of G'ds rule, whereas the \"for in six days the Lord created the universe\" in the first set of tablets, emphasized the rule of natural law that G'd had established at that time. By observing the Sabbath, we testify to our belief in both aspects of G'ds guidance, contradictory though they may appear. "
],
[
"Chapter Four",
"",
"\"When ye are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap\" etc.",
"From the belief in G'ds power, we proceed to the belief in Torah prophecy as being of Divine origin. This was proved by the collective experience at Mount Sinai, on the occasion of which Israel exclaimed \"today we have seen that it is possible for G'd to speak with man, and for man to survive such an encounter alive.\"(Deut. 5,21) Before dealing with that experience in detail, in remembrance of which we observe Shavuot, Pentecost, we read about the mitzvah of Omer, the offering of the new barley harvest, and the counting from that day. This adds to our appreciation of what had transpired at Sinai. Teaching us the proper appreciation of Torah and what it stands for, involves three preliminary phases. Firstly, while Torah knowledge without physical and material well being is difficult to achieve by the average person, (see Mishnah \"im eyn kemach eyn Torah,\" where there is no flour there is no Torah Avot, 3,17) this material blessing is necessary, but at the same time its function must be clearly delineated. Before matan Torah, the giving of the Torah, we read about the Omer \"when you come to the land which I give you and you will reap its harvest, you shall bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the Priest.\" (Leviticus 23,10) Already Isaac had used this formula when he blessed Jacob i.e. \"and may the Lord give you.\" (Genesis 27,28) The conjunctive letter vav indicated the subordinate nature of material blessings to spiritual rewards. Though the latter had not been spelled out, the former is introduced merely as an addition to the spiritual reward which had not been specified. When Solomon says in Proverbs 3,16, concerning Torah and its rewards, \"long life is at its right, wealth and honour at its left,\" he emphasizes the greater reward which will be handed out by the right hand. The reward to be handed out by the left hand, being temporal in nature, is of course, inferior. Oredi chayim, long life, or better \"length of life,” refers to the life in the world to come, a world of infinity. Elsewhere, Kohelet, 10,2, contrasting the wise man and the fool, says \"the heart of the fool is on his left, the wise man's heart is on the right side.\" He who prefers the rewards that originate from the left side is foolish, because he does not have his priorities right. Our striving must be directed towards obtaining the rewards that originate from the right. The fool, in his folly uses wisdom as an instrument to gain transient values, whereas the wise strives for material wealth, transient though it is, to enable him to pursue gains of enduring, eternal value. Psalm 67, which is recited when we count the Omer, contains forty nine words, paralleling the symbolism inherent in the seven arms of the menorah, candelabra in the tabernacle. ",
"",
"",
"We must remain aware that all our possessions are only gifts, i.e. \"which I will give you,\" and that these gifts must be employed lirtzonchem, so that you will merit G'ds goodwill. ",
"",
"The second phase that winds us up towards proper appreciation of matan Torah, is the ceremony of the seven weeks of counting. When one desires something inordinately, one counts the days towards realisation of one's dreams. The closer that day approaches, the more intensely aware does one become of its impending realisation. Similarly, such count reflects the pain and anguish all the time the desired state has not yet been achieved. In the case of a woman suffering from flux, (Leviticus 15,28) even after the medical symptoms have disappeared, seven days must elapse before readmission to society from the state of isolation she has been in. If a seven day count is mandatory in order to enable her to rejoin ordinary society, the preparation for the revelation of G'd at Mount Sinai would obviously take longer, especially since the disease from which the Jewish nation recovered at the time of the Exodus, had left far deeper scars on the national body than the brief (sometimes lasting only three days) illness of the woman with the flux. The fact that this spiritual preparation could have been achieved in the brief space of seven weeks, is evidence of the help the Jewish people received from G'd. \"I carried you on the wings of eagles.\" (Exodus 19,4.) G'd Himself speeded up the process and telescoped the time normally required into a minute fraction thereof. Since the feeling of not yet being worthy of the revelation is one of pain, we do not recite the benediction she-hecheyanu, \"who has let us live to this day to fulfil etc.\" when performing the mitzvah of counting the Omer. A bride awaiting her wedding will hardly recite she-hecheyanu when informed that she is not yet spiritually pure enough to stand under the wedding canopy. ",
"The third phase of preparedness and progress towards the revelation at Sinai is revealed by the difference between the Omer offering which was offered immediately after Passover, and the shtey halechem, the two loaves of wheat bread offered on Shavuot, Pentecost. The former consisting of barley, is a food used for both man and beast, and ripens in early spring. (Exodus 9,31) Since at that time, Israel had not yet attained their specific maturity symbolised by wheat, a food exclusive for human consumption, the benediction she-hecheyanu is not yet in order until that status has been achieved. That benediction is recited over an accomplishment, something achieved, not over something towards which we strive, something yet to be realised. ",
"",
"There are numerous examples of Israel being compared to wheat. (Baba Batra 114, Midrash Tehillim Shocher tov 2) Offering two loaves made of wheat on Pentecost known as \"the two breads,\" is symbolical of Israel having matured to the point of receiving both Torahs, the written as well as the oral law. Each Torah performs a separate function. Therefore, two separate loaves are used in the offering. The Talmud Menachot 94, describes the kneading and baking of each of these loaves as being a separate operation, symbolising the different nature of the two parts of the Torah. The achievement of the necessary status indicated by offering of the \"two breads,\" led to the eventual offering of the \"show breads,\" a steady diet on the table in the tabernacle/temple, the preparation of which required tremendous skill. The Talmud relates about the unwillingness of a certain family who possessed this skill, to teach it to anyone else. (Yuma 38) When the Mishnah in Avot 5,5, mentions ten miracles that were manifest in Jerusalem during the time the temple was standing, three of them relate to the Omer, the showbreads and the two loaves that were offered on Pentecost. None of these offerings were ever disqualified for any reason. This may indicate special hashgachah merited by the fact that each of these offerings was symbolic of the people's efforts to elevate themselves spiritually. The fact that these offerings were subject to very stringent regulations, making some disqualification at one time or another likely, underlines the special Providence that alone prevented such disqualification. It is noteworthy that the mussaph offering on Shavuot, was not accompanied by a sin offering, something that does not occur on any other occasion. This is symbolic of the fact that the spiritual growth that had taken place since Passover was such that there was no need at a time when that growth was being recalled,- to add a sin offering. (Midrash Chazit Song of Songs 4) ",
"The fact that no mention is made of the Torah being received in connection with the Shavuot festival, indicates that a commandment which is ongoing, applies on all three hundred sixty five days a year, at all hours during day and night, unlike other commandments, cannot appear to be tied to one particular date only, such as is the case with Passover or Tabernacles, for instance. Since all of mankind accepts the concept of Divine justice, i.e. retribution, in what way are the Jewish people unique? How does embracing that concept constitute a specific Jewish article of faith? "
],
[
"Chapter Five",
"",
"\"In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall be\" etc.",
"(Sifrey on Numbers section 42) Why does the Torah say concerning offerings on New Year's day etc. (Numbers 10,10) \"they will be for you as a remembrance before the Lord your G'd, I am the Lord your G'd?\" Since the Torah had said earlier in Leviticus 23,24, \"on the first of the seventh month will be a Shabbaton for you, remembrance of shofar sounding, a holy convocation.\" On that occasion G'ds majesty is not mentioned. Therefore, it says in Numbers 23,21, \"the Lord his G'd is with him, and the shofar sounding of the King accompanies him.\" So here you have mention of G'ds majesty and the blowing of the shofar side by side. It also says \"it will serve for you as a remembrance;\" so you have mention of \"remembrances\" already. The end of the line \"I am the Lord your G'd,\" completes the picture, and we have \"majesty.\" If this is so, why did the sages arrange in the liturgy of our prayers that we first recite \"majesty,\" i.e. malchiyot, then \"remembrances,\" zichronot, and finally shofarot? It is logical that one first acknowledges G'ds majesty, malchut, only afterwards does one ask Him to be remembered by means of the ram's horn, signalling freedom. How do I know that the ram's horn signals freedom? Compare Isaiah 27,13, \"On that day a great horn will be blown and the outcasts (10 tribes) that were lost in the land of Ashur will come, as well as those who had been dispersed all over Egypt; they will worship the Lord on the holy mountain in Jerusalem.\" Still, from this I do not know who does the actual blowing of the shofar? Therefore, the prophet Zachariah 9,14, says \"the Lord G'd will blow the shofar.\" Still, I do not know whence the sound emanated (if the invisible G'd does the blowing) Therefore Isaiah 66,6, states \"the voice of the uproar comes from the city, emanates from the temple.\" ",
"Our intelligence dictates that human behaviour does not escape the attention of the Creator, that reward and punishment will occur sooner or later. If this were not so, there would be no advantage in being human rather than a beast, and one's self confidence and self respect would decline to nil. For this reason the concept of reward and punishment by supernatural forces has always been widely accepted amongst mankind. To remove the sense of futility man might feel, Solomon has these words of comfort at the end of Kohelet 11, 9-10. \"Rejoice young man in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of youth; walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes.\" The reference made here to \"ways of our heart,\" indicates that more than one objective is to be pursued. The first objective is attention to your physical needs in life; the second is the pursuit of eternal life, referred to as \"the life and goodness\" in Deut. 30,15. When these are being pursued, then in the words of Kohelet 11,9, \"remove vexation from your heart, put away evil from your flesh, know that concerning all these G'd would bring you to your judgment.\" This philosophy of Heavenly judgment is so widespread, that in all countries where human justice fails, people pin their hopes on obtaining justice from on high. Even the concept that earthly justice is predicated on Heavenly judgments, is more or less universally accepted, (in the author's time) The term \"truth\" is applied to human judgments that are in accord with Divine principles of justice. Divine justice is termed tzedek, righteousness. The psalmist who proclaims \"truth grows on earth, and righteousness looks down from the heavens,\" has this in mind. (Psalms 85,12) The difference in terminology is to indicate that what originates in Heaven does not require anyone's confirmation in order for it to be considered true and objective. The Jewish contribution to this awareness is threefold. 1) We were the first to tell the world of the one Creator, His power and His interest. (in human affairs) This information subsequently began to circulate amongst mankind. 2) The knowledge that the day of judgment was the first day in Tishrey, more so than any other day of the year, as well as the purpose of this judgment. This is the meaning of \"it is a day of sounding teruah for you.\" It is a statute for Israel, a social legislation of the G'd of Jacob.\" (Psalms 81,5) 3) We alone determine when this day occurs. In this manner, Israel controls the effective dates of all \"holy convocations,\" as explained earlier. ",
"Having established that this is the day of judgment and sounding of the shofar, three things should be explained. A) The nature of the judgment. B) The order of the blowing of the shofar during the recitals of the three central benedictions of the mussaph amidah, the central prayer, and the other shofar blowings on that day. C) The reason for this judgment. As explained in Aristotele's ethics, since man's relationship to his Creator is like that of son to father, or slave to master, in that he really has no claim on his master since he is his master's property, so man has no claim upon G'd, seeing he is merely His creature. Any benefit conferred upon man therefore is an act of kindness and not an act of justice. The rights the Torah has conferred upon a father vis a vis his daughter are indicative of the father/daughter legal position. Surely G'ds rights vis a vis us are no less! The rights of an owner vis a vis a slave are similarly comprehensive. It is only logical that a creator has complete freedom of action relative to the things he creates, and therefore any creature of his cannot possibly go to litigation with him, since the creature has no legal standing. The judgmental relationship that does exist is expressed in the liturgical poem hayom harat olam, \"this is the birthday of the universe...\" Either we qualify for mercy, or, if we are like slaves, we plead for chaninah, grace.\" At any rate, G'd has singled us out by revealing only to us that he sits in judgment. (Psalms 147,20) \"He has told His words to Jacob, His laws to Israel; He has not done so for any other nation.\" All the quotations in the Bible referring to this judgment, confirm that the Almighty deals with us as if we were equals and had claims upon Him. In Psalms 89,15, we read \"Righteousness and justice are the abode of Your throne, kindness and mercy precede Your Presence.\" All this is an acknowledgment that G'd has freely subjected Himself to such rules. There had been no legal reason for Him to do so. Our approach therefore, is to stress G'ds majesty rather than His overlordship, ownership etc. by means of the shofar, to remind Him of those of our meritorious deeds which He should not ignore. The psalmist saying \"hail the people who understand the meaning of teruah, the sound of the shofar; they can expect to walk in the light of Your favour\" is thus vindicated. (Psalms 89,16) The meaning of zichron teruah in Leviticus 23,24, is bringing ourselves to the fore by means of the teruah. Rabbi Nathan finds all these concepts in one single verse, (Numbers 10,10), since he views the shofar procedure from the point of view of the one who blows it. That person intends from the outset to remind G'd of the person who blows the shofar. In his view, the shofar takes precedence over the zichronot, since it is the shofar which \"gets the ball rolling,\" so to speak. Of course, unless there is an awareness and appreciation of \"majesty\" malchut, and remembrances zichronot, the shofar blowing itself would be meaningless. ",
"",
"",
"The reason the Talmud discusses the exact nature of the teruah sound at great length, (Rosh Hashanah 32) is to show the importance attached to the value of external stimuli to achieve a certain frame of mind. Just as we are told in Kings II 3,15, that a certain frame of mind is necessary to achieve prophetic visions, -Elisha had to listen to music to achieve that frame of mind,- and just as we find David playing music when transporting the holy ark, (Samuel II 6,5) the frame of mind we are supposed to be in on Rosh Hashanah requires the sounds of a different instrument, i.e. the shofar. Since the prophet Amos proclaims \"who does not tremble when the shofar is sounded?,\" we get the idea. (Amos 3,6) Blowing trumpets is not prescribed for this day. In fact, if someone manages to blow the shofar in such a manner that its sounds would be like real music, he has not fulfilled his duty. All this lends weight to the discussion in the Talmud about which is the right sound to be produced. Its is a wailing sound, kind of a sigh; the halachic decision is to arrange all the sounds in such an order as to insure that at some stage or other the correct sequence of tekiyah -teruah-tekiyah has been blown. ",
"Attah zocher, is the paragraph in the mussaph prayer dealing with the zichronot, remembrances. At the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, when G'd appeared and the people heard the sound of the shofar, they also attained the highest moral level they were capable of. G'd Himself said of that moment \"who would give that they could remain like this!\" (Deut 5,25) Since the shofar contributed to Israel achieving such a lofty spirituality, whenever a shofar is sounded by the Jewish people it will recall to G'd that beautiful moment in time. He will be appeased remembering the grandeur of that moment. The reason that a keren, bull's horn is unfit for blowing on Rosh Hashanah, is because the bull uses the horn in a bellicose manner. He gores with it, batters with it; not so the ram's horn, (compare Psalms 69, 31-32) See also our comments in chapter nine in connection with “the woman You have given to me.” As the sound of the shofar then is distinct in instilling fear, so the different notes blown on it also reflect different emotions. Already in Numbers chapter ten, the Torah tells us that the call to arms or assembly is sometimes the teruah sound and sometimes the tekiyah sound. It depends on the nature of the occasion. The plain unbroken tekiyah sound, is associated with “the day of your joy.” However, whenever Israel breaks camp, teruah is blown, since departure always involves an element of nostalgia. The need to move testifies to the fact that the place one moves from was somehow imperfect. If the teruah by itself, signals being troubled, being sad, and the tekiyah by itself signals joy, then a combination of these two notes i.e. shevarim signals a state of mind which is somewhere between the other two emotional states. ",
"If the assumption about the emotions represented by the sequence of tekiyah-shevarim -teruah respectively is correct, then the custom of blowing tashrat during malchiot, tashach during zichronot, and tarat during shofarot, makes sense. This in addition to the consideration that it would impose needless diversion of the congregation from concentrating on the prayer itself, and that therefore a minimum of sounds are being blown during the actual amidah prayer. Malchiot, i.e. proclaiming G'ds Majesty, is welcomed by the completely righteous who can afford to react to these sounds with joy and equanimity, i.e. tekiyah. The completely wicked person, on the other hand, shrinks from such an encounter and is represented by the teruah sound of the shofar. The great majority of people who fall somewhere between those two categories, view the coming of a reward for their meritorious deeds with a certain feeling of gladness, while trembling at the thought of the impending retribution for the sins they have committed. We are, after all, enjoined by the Psalmist “serve the Lord with fear, but rejoice while trembling.” (Psalms 2,11) In order to emphasize the worthwhile nature of the mitzvot, tekiyah is blown both at the beginning and at the end of each sequence of blasts, and the tekiyah gedolah, the long final blast underlines the desire to recall those events that reflect our good deeds. The binding of Isaac on the altar was one such event. If we were to blow a teruah gedolah, this would represent the exact opposite feeling on our part, and is therefore completely out of place. The reason for blowing the shevarim, which is considered a median teruah sound, is twofold. Having to rely on citing the good deeds of our ancestors rather than our own, is not so complimentary to ourselves. There is also the fear that setting in motion the process of reminding G'd of the outstanding deeds of our ancestors, He might recall our own misdeeds instead. Shofarot, the last of the three central benedictions of the mussaph amidah, qualifies for blowing the teruah sound, since the objective of that benediction is to bring home to us the frightening aspect of the shofar. The teruah, after all reflects that type of the shofar blast during the amidah. It is significant to realise that G'd Himself uses the shofar as an instrument of proclaiming freedom, and that He blows it Himself, (see opening Sifrey) Therefore, when the proper person blows the shofar, he can turn it into an instrument that confuses Satan and confounds him. The question raised in the Sifrey, \"I still do not know who blows it,\" as well as the answer \"it is the Lord G'd who blows it,\" suggests that the person most qualified to blow the shofar is he who is close to G'd. Just as the High Priest- if not free from sin-, cannot serve successfully in representing the nation, so the baal tokey-a, the shofar blower who is not a G'd fearing individual cannot accomplish by his blowing the shofar what the congregation expects of him, i.e. to rebut our accusers, (see Zohar Leviticus on verse two chapter four) ",
"Concerning the traditional view that on Rosh Hashanah the righteous are inscribed for life, the wicked for death, and the ones whose conduct is in balance are given grace until Yom Kippur, (based on Yuma 16) the author rejects the usual answers to the vexing problem of \"the wicked seem to enjoy a good life, while many of the righteous frequently suffer greatly.\" The problem is highlighted by our judging from visual observations from the outside only. ",
"We assume that in front of G'd there are two books for each individual. One contains a list of his good deeds, merits; the other contains a list of his sins, debits. Since the individual in question has escaped human justice, his deeds will be judged by the celestial tribunal instead, and death of the person found guilty will atone for his sin, just as death by a human tribunal would have done, had such judgment been pronounced and executed. We derive this from Joshua 7,25, \"may the Lord sadden you this day\" The words \"this day,\" are to emphasize that physical death will atone for Achan, and he will not forfeit his life in the world to come. Our sages in Yuma 86, explain that death will atone for what repentance had only been able to \"arrest judgment of.\" King Saul's death is a prime example of this result of celestial judgment, since Samuel had promised him immediate olam haba, share in the world to come. (Samuel I 28,19) ",
"From the aforegoing we can stipulate three things: 1) On Rosh Hashanah, G'd considers only deeds already committed previously. 2) Only fitness to survive is judged on that day, just as would be the function of a human tribunal. This eliminates the thoroughly wicked people who, having already lost their share in the hereafter, could not regain it by submitting to the death penalty decreed on them in the physical world. 3) Since death decreed on man on Rosh Hashanah is due to the evil nature of his deeds, such death will not be due to natural causes when it occurs, since death is something that is part of everyone's fate anyways. Keeping this point in mind, we can approach the solution of the apparent paradox of tzaddik ve-ra lo, rasha ve-tov lo, the righteous and his misery and the wicked and his being well off. When G'd makes mankind parade before Him on Rosh Hashanah, the nations that have not stood at Mount Sinai are excluded. \"All the nations are like nothing vis a vis Him.\" (Isaiah 40,17) Of the Jews, all who have sinned but have merits offsetting the sins, or have repented their sins, and all those whose sins are not the kind that deserve death, are immediately inscribed for a year of life. This is what is meant by the expression tzaddikim gemurim; they are now considered righteous. Those whose mortal sins are not offset by merits or repentance, are inscribed for death. Naturally, these sentences are not carried out at once, so as not to arouse the feeling that the judgment is cruel. However, the Personal Divine Providence is withdrawn from these guilty people, and from that moment on every one of them is subject to the caprice of natural law. Should natural law not result in their death, G'd despatches a messenger to terminate the guilty peson's life, as we read in Samuel I 26,10, \"or the Lord will smite him, or his day will come and he will die, or by warfare.\" Since the judgment had been based on past conduct, one may assume that a change of conduct on the part of the person under sentence of death would change the sentence, possibly even cancel it. Just as the person who has been inscribed for life, would not be kept alive were he foolishly to attempt to commit suicide, so a person who has been inscribed for life did not buy an insurance policy permitting him to commit felonies, and remain free from death until the following Rosh Hashanah. By the same token, repentance is acceptable even from persons who are under sentence of death, irrespective of whether they are aware of such sentence or not. The exceptions to this rule are those sins that cannot be expiated for by repentance alone, as per Isaiah 22, 14, \"this sin will not be atoned for you until you die.\" We learn that remission for people under sentence of death is possible, from Achav king of Israel. (compare Kings 1 21, 29) Also king Chiskiyahu's sentence of death was revoked. (compare Isaiah 38, 5 and our comments in chapter 36.) It pays to read chapter eighteen in Ezekiel, where the process of guilt and punishment is discussed in detail, as well as the reversal of evil decrees. When we encounter an apparently thoroughly wicked person, who enjoys long and successful years, it is clear that he has not been judged on Rosh Hashanah. This is so, a) because he no longer qualifies for hashgachah peratit, b) presumably he has some merits to his credit which, since they cannot be compensated for in the hereafter, must be compensated for in this life, i.e. el panav yeshalem lo. \"G'd will pay him off to his face,\" (Deut. 7, 11) This is also what David means in Psalm 92, 8, “when the lawless spring up like grass, where all the abusers of might flourish, in order to be destroyed in the end. When an apparently righteous person dies prematurely, we assume that although he had been righteous last Rosh Hashanah, something that he has done since last Rosh Hashanah caused a change in his judgment. Examples are both Moses and Aaron, and Nadav and Avihu, who surely on the Rosh Hashanah prior to their respective deaths had been inscribed for life, but whose specific actions resulted in their deaths before the year was out. Other examples would be Gedalyah ben Achikam, who ignored warnings of danger (Jeremiah 40, 13), or Achitofel, who committed suicide, (Samuel II 17, 23), or people who chose to die on kiddush hashem sanctification of the Lord's name. These deaths come under the heading of \"everything is in the hands of Heaven except the common cold,\" i.e. they are the direct result of free volition of the party involved, not due to prejudgment on Rosh Hashanah of sins committed in the past. Similarly, old people do not die from the effects of a decree issued on account of their sins, on the contrary, they enjoy both \"tables,\" i.e. they have had a good life in this world and can look forward to their full share in the world to come. The principle that once G'd has decreed something good, positive, He does not revoke it, is not in conflict with the position we have taken, since a) nowhere is it stated that the inscription on Rosh Hashanah \"for life,\" covers the entire year. It merely means that since the person examined had not at that time deserved the death penalty for past errors, he is confirmed for continued life. There cannot therefore be a question of G'd having reversed Himself, should that individual have become guilty of a capital offence prior to the next day of judgment. b) The rule of G'd not reversing a decision favourable to an individual or individuals, is generally misunderstood. This will be dealt with in detail when we discuss false prophets in chapter ninety six. There we address the question \"how will we know that G'd has not spoken to him?\" Should one argue that this latitude on the part of G'd would make the day of judgment quite meaningless, since decisions taken on that day are subject to all kinds of reversals, the answer is simple. It is the kindness of G'd who endeavours to treat all His children like a clever doctor. He is not only concerned about restoring his patients to health, but also engages in the practice of preventive medicine. \"For I the Lord am your Healer\" (Exodus 15, 26.) A doctor may prescribe preventive treatment to forestall many minor disorders. Nevertheless, when a particularly violent strain of disease hits a person, special measures are called for. Most sins, committed daily, are not each in itself deserving the death penalty. However, if allowed to accumulate, they would combine to attract the death penalty. It is similar with the function of Rosh Hashanah. The day of judgment, in conjunction with repentance, disposes of myriads of minor sins. However, should a person have committed a major crime during the year, stern measures may be called for immediately. Anyways, the call of the shofar is to warn each of us to regain our spiritual health by taking the pertinent drugs, and cleansing our system to prevent future contamination. The spring, Passover time, is reserved for our physical renewal, whereas the autumn, i.e. Rosh Hashanah, is reserved for our spiritual renaissance. Spring being nature's renewal season, is suitable for physical renewal. Fall, on the other hand, is the period when due to harvesting, man considers himself most independent and he is at the height of his self reliance. It is at that time that he needs to be reminded that he is still in need of G'ds protection. Making the day of the shofar occur at this juncture, is most appropriate in counteracting man's frivolity at that time of year. \"Yeshurun waxed fat and kicked,\" Deut 32, 15, or \"lest you eat, be satisfied and your heart become haughty.\" Deut 8, 14. Encouraging man to repent before the day of judgment is ever so much more helpful than to wait for the judgment, and then attempt to reverse it. Therefore, the knowledge of when the day of judgment occurs, affords us a chance to prepare for that day. When David proclaims \"hail the nation that knows the teruah, they walk in the light of Your countenance,\" (Psalms 89, 16), he merely points out how fortunate we are to be able to put this knowledge to our advantage. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 16, discusses timing of celestial judgments. Rabbi Yossi emphasizes that daily judgment of man occurs also, whereas Rabbi Yochanan makes the point that repentance even tears up the evil decree. When the question is raised that even myriads of sacrifices, if they are offered after the Day of Atonement, can no longer change the evil decree, the answer given is that this is so only in the case of individuals. Collective repentance of a congregation is accepted at all times. Since we have the opinion of Rabbi Meir that prayer, i.e. repentance is effective even after G'd has passed sentence, then the original opinion offered by him, that man is judged on Rosh Hashanah, does not mean that Rosh Hashanah is the only day judgment can be pronounced on man. He therefore, does not disagree with Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Nathan who claim that the judgment process can occur any day, even at any hour. We rely on scriptural proof from the verse \"to carry out the judgment of His servant as a daily matter.\" (Kings 1, 8, 59) There remains to be explained the status of the beynonim, the people whose actions leave them hanging in the balance, and how they are being dealt with. Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is reserved for this category of people as the day when their status is examined and a decision is made whether to inscribe them (seal) in the book of life. The discussion in Rosh Hashanah 16, between Rabbi Avin and Rabbi Nachman, centers around the fine point whether having been inscribed (on Rosh Hashanah) they might need to be erased from the book of life (or the book of death as the case may be), or whether there is no need for that since people of that category had not been inscribed at all on Rosh Hashanah. A practical difference between these two viewpoints would occur only, if the person who was a beynonion Rosh Hashanah, still remains a beynoni by the time Yom Kippur has arrived. According to the view that he had never been inscribed for life on Rosh Hashanah, such a person would have nothing to look forward to, since he had not improved his status during the days of penitence. "
],
[
"Chapter Six",
"",
"A Midrash quoted in Menorat Hama-or states \"G'd roared aloud at the head of His army,\" (Yoel 2, 11) that this refers to Rosh Hashanah, that the words \"for His camp is very great\" refers to Israel, \"numberless are those who do His bidding for great is the day of the Lord and very frightening,\" refers to the Day of Atonement as stated by Rabbi Kruspadai \"three books are open before Him on the day of judgment.\" ",
"Although the holy days and their significance mentioned up to now are extremely useful in guiding man on the path of observing the ways of the Lord and His Torah, there are only few people who are so free from the evil urge that they never fall prey to its temptations and find themselves committing sins of omission as well as sins of commission. Therefore, even with the legislation that we have just read about, most people will not really be helped in their salvation. There remains the danger that man in his inadequacy will despair and abandon any efforts to be good, if there were not a chance for forgiveness and pardon for his transgressions. The result would be a string of sins, since these people reason that they cannot die more than once. Subsequent sins therefore, would go unpunished according to their view. This is why G'd, in His great kindness instituted general atonement and forgiveness on the day of judgment on the tenth day of the seventh month. The verse quoted from Yoel in the Midrash, is best explained by the following parable. A group of sailors travelling on a lengthy sea voyage, espied a beautiful piece of land, full of orchards, shady trees etc. They expressed the desire to drop anchor and to enjoy the fruit of the orchards on that island. The captain agreed, cautioning them that when the ship's whistle would blow, everyone would have to rejoin the ship which would sail forthwith without regard for stragglers. The latter would be sure to die on that island if left to their own devices. A few of the ship's passengers declined to visit the island, fearing they might not hear the whistle when it would signal that it was time to return to the ship. Most of the remainder of the crew and passengers landed on the island and returned to the ship at the sound of the whistle. Some returned even ahead of the ship's whistle being blown. Some ignored the whistle, and were left behind when the ship sailed on. Similarly, the journey of life may be filled with plans to visit places to indulge oneself, and the warning signals to return to the main purpose of the voyage ring loud and clear, unmistakably. Those who heed the signals may continue towards their original destination. Those who ignore the warnings do so at their peril. The institution of atonement then has as its purpose to create yirah, reverence, since when there is no atonement, even yirat shamayim, fear of Heaven, becomes pointless for the condemned. Thus when we read in Psalm 130, 4, \"for forgiveness rests with You in order that You may be revered,\" this is G'ds assurance to us that He will relate to us after repentance just as He related to us before sin. This is why the four lettered name of G'd is repeated at the beginning of G'ds list of thirteen attributes. (Rosh Hashanah 17) "
],
[
"Chapter Eight",
"",
"\"On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD\"",
"The Rabbis taught in Sukkah 20, that he who sleeps beneath the bed in a sukkah, has not fulfilled his duty of sleeping in the sukkah. Rabbi Yehudah says, that there was a custom for students to sleep underneath the beds of their respective teachers. Rabbi Shimon relates that the slave Tobi, the manservant of Rabbi Gamliel slept under the bed of his master in the sukkah. Rabbi Gamliel used this incident to demonstrate that his servant Tobi was so well versed in the halachah, religious law, that he slept under the bed since he was not obliged to sleep in the sukkah at all, seeing that he was a slave. A Baraita states that we learn two rules from the conversation of Rabbi Gamliel. 1) Slaves are not obligated to observe the mitzvah of sukkah 2) He who sleeps under the bed of the sukkah has not fulfilled the duty of dwelling in the sukkah. Why is this learned from this conversation? Why does the baraita not refer to the \"words of Rabbi Gamliel,\" instead of referring to \"the conversation?\" This is to teach us that even the casual conversation of scholars has to be examined carefully for their possible halachic content. \"Even its leaves will not wilt.\" (Psalms 1, 3) ",
"Since the principal purpose of the belief in reward and punishment of a spiritual nature after death of the body, is to prevent man from spending too much of his time and effort in the pursuit of things of merely transient value, we will examine how the mitzvah of sukkah is designed to further our appreciation of these truths. ",
"The Torah frowns on excessive pursuit of material goods. Therefore we read \"if you will listen to My commandments...you will gather in your harvest.\" This means you engage in necessary activities to assure yourself of your livelihood. Selling oneself to another person in order to gain financial security, and to escape one's responsibilities, is frowned on. The fact that even the most private possessions such as wife and children acquired during servitude, continue to belong to the master, demonstrates that the Torah's message to us is to rely on G'd and not on man. After all, it is He who has commanded the children of Israel \"for to Me are the children of Israel servants.\" He did not take us out of Egypt in order for us to become slaves again. The pursuit of worldly goods is a waste of time, since we leave the world as naked as we came into it. (Job 1, 21, \"I came naked out of my mother's womb, and naked will I return there.\") The whole paragraph dealing with the Jewish servant can be understood allegorically as reflecting man's experience in this world. He enters alone, leaves alone, leaves his acquisitions behind, and when he expresses the desire to attach himself to a human master, he is brought to elohim, to be forcefully reminded of his error. In the seventh decade of his life, his vitality ebbs, and as he approaches his death, i.e. the time he returns to the grave, he does so chinam, chofshi, without any encumbrance. This is either due to physical decline or because of lack of energy to go on living. The wheel has turned, as a wheel is always apt to do. What had once been thought to be a continuous upward curve, has peaked and become a downward movement. (compare Exodus 21, 2-6) Man will wind up as a servant \"forever\" to his \"Master\" in the world of infinity. The purpose of the Torah has always been to liberate mortal man from the inevitable and depressingly terminal state of merely physical existence here on earth. Accepting the yoke of Torah is an incomparably easier burden than living with the thought of the futility of all earthly existence. One of the ways to achieve freedom from the obsessive character of the greed to amass more and more material, i.e. useless wealth, is the Torah's emphasis that one should be satisfied with the necessities of life. All the Torah's promises of reward for performing G'ds commandments are of this nature. \"I will grant you rain at the appropriate time;\" \"you will gather in your grain harvest.\" \"You will eat, be sated and bless the Lord.\" Performance of G'ds commandments will enable us to feel \"satiated\" when we have eaten. The greatest lesson in this respect was the experience of man, the heavenly bread the Israelites ate in the desert. This taught reliance on G'd, the futility of amassing for the future as long as one is under the loving care of G'ds Personal Providence. ",
"",
"",
"The symbolism expressed in the various rites performed on the festival of Tabernacles, are all designed to remind us of the lessons outlined above. We leave the house, symbol of our security and wealth, and move to a temporary dwelling without a firm roof overhead. We entrust ourselves to G'ds immediate and direct protection. ",
"The flimsy roof makes it impossible for us to maintain the fiction that the quality of the roof shelters us from the elements. Generally speaking, the Sukkah contains only the most rudimentary furnishings, emphasizing the temporary nature of our sojourn therein. Thereby we underline that life in this world is only of a transient nature, the palace still awaiting us in the world to come. (Avot 4, 21) The halachic details surrounding the mitzvah of sukkah, seem to confirm the overall concept symbolised by the sukkah itself. ",
"1) The minimum dimensions of seven by seven handbreadths by a height of ten handbreadths, suggest that man should make do with the very minimum in earthly comforts. ",
"The requirement that the roofing material be directly under the sky, emphasizes that we need to rely directly on G'd, not on any intermediaries. The need to employ only materials that cannot become impure in their present state, i.e. nature's unimproved products, indicate that impurity is rooted in the imposition of man's will and tools on natural products. All the things which man finds it necessary to improve in nature, are apt to create a gulf between man and his G'd. ",
"The requirement that the covering should afford more shade than sunlight, also suggests that though our welfare in this world is based both on the sun, i.e. natural law and the \"shade\" i.e. G'ds Personal Providence, we express our confidence by placing ourselves primarily under His Providential guidance, instead of relying on our mazzal. For this reason, a covering which is too thick and does not allow sunshine to penetrate, is not permissible. This would demonstrate our reliance on miracles rather than participating with our own efforts to provide for our families. On the other hand, too much sunshine filtering through the covering material is also not permissible, as it would signify too much reliance and pursuit of material wealth, something described by Solomon as tachat hashemesh, under the \"auspices\" of the sun, whenever Solomon refers to earthly pursuits in the book of Kohelet. ",
"Halachah requires two complete walls and one wall of minimal dimensions. The total corresponds to the three kinds of human aspirations, endeavours. Man seeks the good, the expedient and the pleasant. Concerning the good, a relatively small effort is required to counteract the urges of our yetzer hara, temptation to do evil. Concerning the other two aspirations, a vigorous effort has to be made not to allow the yetzer hara to sway our judgment. The concept of the walls having to be strong enough to stand up to a wind of average velocity, is symbolic of the erection of spiritual defences against the onslaught of temptation. Since that which serves our pleasure or our convenience is important to us, so that our judgment relative to its permissibility is easily influenced, the fence against misjudgment must be high, allegorically speaking. Concerning the objective good however, we can be more evenhanded in our judgment, and a fence of smaller dimensions will suffice to reinforce our judgment. When Rabbi Gamliel explained that even his outstandingly brilliant slave was not using the sukkah according to halachic norm, by sleeping under the bed, he wanted to get two points across. 1) Since it is the nature of a slave not to be serving his G'd as his immediate Master, but rather to serve a human master who in turn is G'ds servant, the slave cannot be obligated to fulfil the mitzvah of sukkah which demonstrates the opposite approach to life. 2) It is not in order for a Jew to sleep under the bed in the sukkah. He would not then fulfil the commandment of living in the sukkah. Rabbi Gamliel illustrated this to our sages by telling them that his slave Tobi curled up under the bed, seeing the obligation of sukkah did not apply to him. The final sentence in the Torah concerning this commandment reveals that our ancestors were taught to make do with minimal facilities when they were taken out of Egypt. \"For I made you dwell in huts when I took you out of Egypt.\" For forty years G'd did not deny the Jewish people any of their needs. Yet, He provided only their needs, not luxuries. This is the way to educate the Jewish nation to appreciate what true service of the Lord entails. The seven days of the festival symbolise the seven decades of man's normal lifespan on earth. U-vayom hashmini, atzeret, on the eighth day there is a halt. The eight's day represents the hereafter, when one communes only with G'd, and therefore no special observances are needed. The hereafter cannot be symbolised by mitzvot ma-assiyot, deeds to express one's obedience to G'd. That day is symbolic of the menuchah, absolute rest achieved in that world. As the Rabbis say in Avot (chapter 4,22) \"better a single hour of serenity in the world to come, than the entire lifespan in this world.\" The progressive decline in the number of bulls offered on the seven days of the festival until on the eighth day only a single bull is offered, suggests that we have to train ourselves to progressively make do with fewer and fewer material comforts. Finally, on the eighth day, the single bull, single ram etc. points to our union with the ONLY ONENESS in the hereafter. The recital of the hallel (Psalms 113-118) during all the eight days of the festival which is called \"the season of our joy,\" indicates that when we approach successful completion of our purpose on earth and approach the world of the hereafter, we become progressively more joyful. This joy is based in part on the certainty that we are properly equipped for our role in the new and permanent abode. At the beginning of this journey, on Passover, our joy had been only partial. Therefore we recited the hallel only partially. Now that our joy is complete, we recite the whole song of jubilation. ",
"",
"The reason that the regular offerings as well as those offered on the new moon are not mentioned in this Parshah,- as opposed to Parshat Pinchas,- is the fact that here we concentrate only on the special days which through their work prohibition become holy convocations of a national character. During these days we try to make a whole nation concentrate on its function in life. The reason that the usage of the term chag and tachog are different on Passover and Sukkot respectively, is that the former, since it recalls slavery, hard labour, is best remembered by quiet contemplation, no forced activities, etc. The Sukkot festival however, follows the joy of having brought in the harvest, a time that is normally allocated to restful enjoyment, and a feeling of contentment, security. At such a time, and in order to remind us that the bounty came from Heaven and is not due only to our toil, we are bidden to leave the security of our homes and remind ourselves where it all came from. Having done this, the Torah is confident that the eighth day can be lachem (23,36) for us. (literally \"for you,\" meaning us) Not so Passover. On that occasion, the whole festival is described as \"for G'd all seven days.\" (23,26) This is much more pronounced in Parshat Re-ey, when the seventh day of Passover is described as being \"for G'd,\" the other days not having been so designated. The use of the word ach, only, when introducing the tabernacle festival celebration (23,39) is to emphasize that this celebration is oriented towards G'd, as distinct from the Passover celebration which was primarily oriented towards ourselves. Reminders of this aspect of the celebration are \"the four species.\" Each is an instrument of thanksgiving to G'd. Although the \"four species\" must be owned only on the first day of the festival, their use during all the seven days continues, as the statement \"and you shall rejoice\" is connected to their use. Each of the species represents a different kind of Jew, from the most accomplished both religiously and socially, to the most ignorant in either field. The unforgettable lesson lies in the fact that as long as they are part of the whole, even completely ignorant people have a role to play. By including him in the fabric of Jewish society, the environment the ignorant finds himself in, will sooner or later be an incentive for him to raise his sights both spiritually and socially. At the same time, when looking at the \"four species,\" we are also reminded of four types of existence in the universe. 1) The One and Only Incomparable Oneness, the Almighty. 2) Purely spiritual creatures, i.e. angels. 3) Bodies which are of an enduring nature, apparently lasting forever, i.e. the stars, the planets. 4) The world we are part of, containing a mixture of body and spirit, therefore subject to death and decay. The etrog, represents the highest form of existence seeing that it is perfect from all aspects. It is therefore held apart from the other three species, not bound up with it in a single bunch. We hold it in the left hand so that it is opposite our hearts, just as we lay the tefillin phylacteries, on our left arm. For this reason such care is taken to secure the most perfect specimen of that fruit which can be obtained. The lulav, palm frond, represents the angels, being the most honoured of the remaining three species. The world of the angels is considered a \"higher\" world. The lulav is taller than the other plants in that bunch, as a reminder of that fact. The hadass, myrtle branch, represents the stars, the planets, the nine leaves, (three times three stems with three leaves each) hint at the nine planets which make up our galaxy. The aravah, willow branch, by its very lack of attractive features, describes man and his inadequacies. Moreover, the leaves of the aravah resemble the shape of the human mouth, man being the most advanced creature in his particular world. The fact that the benediction over the mitzvah mentions the lulav rather than the etrog, is to remind us of our purpose to achieve the level of service to G'd that is performed by the angels. Since our sages tell us that the first day of Sukkot is referred to as rishon, the first, because it is the first day in the new year that our sins begin to be counted again, the significance of not performing the mitzvah with a stolen lulav is obvious. Simchah, joy, is our destiny when we perform the mitzvah properly, and earn merits. Spending money in order to perform the mitzvah, indicates that we appreciate that material wealth must be placed in the service of G'd, else it is a corrosive influence. ",
"In fact, the moral lesson of the observance of sukkot is such that the prophet (Zecharyah 14,16-end) describes it as the mitzvah which in messianic times will be mandatory for all nations to observe. Non observance by any nation at that future time would result in that nation being deprived of the means of its livelihood, of its physical existence. Thus, our concept that observance of this mitzvah signals our readiness to subordinate the amassing of material wealth to the accumulation of spiritual values, seems born out. In those days it will be the homage paid to G'd by the nations that have survived the onslaught on Jerusalem, that will display their spiritual maturity by observing the festival of Sukkot. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"they bring unto thee pure olive\" etc. \"And the son of an Israelitish woman\" etc.",
"Concerning the function of the menorah in the holy tabernacle, we are told in Vayikra Rabbah 31, that Bar Kapparah used to open his lecture on the subject with a reference to Psalm 18,29, \"you are to kindle My light.\" G'd said to man \"your light is in My hand, and My light is in your hands.\" \"The light of G'd is the soul of man.\" (Proverbs 20,27) What is the meaning of \"My light is in your hands?\" It means that you are to kindle the eternal flame. If you do that, says G'd, \"I will keep your light burning.\" ",
"Sunlight is a gift bestowed on everyone, yet, unless one is equipped to receive it through normal channels, one may not benefit from it. Anyone whose eyes are defective, may fail to benefit from the rays of the sun and remain blind. Torah, i.e. spiritual light, is provided for man, but it too requires channels that are primed to receive it, understand it and make use of it. Ner mitzvah, the commandment being a lamp, refers to the local illumination achieved through performance of an individual mitzvah, whereas Torah or, the Torah is Light itself, refers to the spiritual illumination provided by Torah in its entirety, since it has the ability to bathe the whole human personality in its spiritual light. Priming one's antenna, however is necessary, else the impact of all that spiritual light goes to waste. When we are told that the unborn infant is exposed to the total teachings of Torah, only to forget same the moment he is born, this means that while as yet unborn, man's potential is unimpeded by negative influences, and he can absorb all the spiritual light offered. Entry into our world however, poses a formidable screen, nullifying at least temporarily the lessons previously absorbed. Only application by man can restore the former ease for receiving Divinely inspired teachings. The infant is sworn to become a tzaddik and not a rasha. Whatever is acquired by man's intellect, is no more than the recollection of what he had learned while still in the womb of his mother. When one tells a wealthy man that he is rich, this does not prevent him from trying to amass still greater wealth. Similarly, when a person is told that he is a tzaddik, righteous person, he must continue to view himself as being almost a rasha, and keep up his efforts to become even more perfect spiritually. Our sages advise that one should strive for refinement of one's character traits with the same energy that one applies to the effort to acquire transient values. The soul has five characteristics that liken it to the Almighty. (Berachot 10) David praised G'd in respect of these five characteristics of the soul in Psalms 103 and 104. 1) G'd sees without being seen; similarly, the soul sees without being seen. 2) Just as G'd fills the universe, so the soul fills the body. 3) Just as G'd feeds the universe, so the soul feeds the body it inhabits. 4) Just as G'd is pure, so the soul is pure. 5) Just as G'd resides in the innermost chamber, so does the soul. May he who possesses the above five characteristics come and bless Him who possesses these five characteristics. We are commanded in Deut. 4,15, \"take good care of yourselves, for you have seen no manner of form on the day the Lord spoke with you at Chorev out of the fire.\" This means that we are to kindle His light, the invisible one, to perfect it, so that G'd in turn who holds our life in His hands (your light) will preserve it. Concerning the soul sustaining the body, compare Psalms 146,4, \"when his spirit departs, he returns to his soil.\" G'd is called the chay olamim, the \"eternally living,\" in the words of Maimonides, since He is to the world what the soul is to the body. The essential difference between Jewish philosophy and that of other religions is that we believe that the soul starts out by being pure, and needs to be kept that way by means of observing G'ds commandments. This is facilitated by reverence for G'd, belief in His existence, His power etc. Other religions believe that man is equipped with a tainted soul, (due to the sin of original man) and has to be cleansed and purified. The order of the ten commandments supports the view of Solomon in Kohelet 12,13, \"fear the Lord, and observe His commandments.\" First there has to be a fundamental reverence for the Lord, only afterwards can the observance of His commandments become meaningful. For that reason, the decalogue starts with the statements \"I am the Lord your G'd,\" and \"you must not have any other deities.\" ",
"Our philosophy is reflected in our daily morning prayer which commences with the words \"My G'd, the soul You have placed within me is pure. You have created it, You have formed it, You have breathed it into me.\" In Deut, 4,4-7, Moses describes the need to preserve a state of purity, when he refers to the nations describing Israel as \"this great nation clever and full of insights.\" All the above explains the last line in the book of Psalms \"the whole soul praises the Lord.\" When we read in Avot that man is beloved because he was created in G'ds image, this too refers to the pure soul that man has been endowed with. All of the foregoing was meant by Bar Kapparah when he described the soul as \"the Divine illumination.\" ",
"Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah discuss the oil for the menorah, candelabra, in this Parshah, and not in Tetzaveh where the fashioning of the menorah is commanded? 2) Why is the making of the showbreads discussed in this Parshah instead of in Tetzaveh where construction of the table is discussed? 3) What does the mekallel, blasphemer, have to do with the two previous subjects in the Parshah? If he is mentioned in this Parshah already, why is he not lumped together with the mekoshesh, the person who desecrated the Sabbath flagrantly by collecting firewood on the Sabbath? 4) Since the blasphemer was sentenced only for having cursed, why does the Torah introduce the report with the quarrel between two men? (24,1) 5) Since the death penalty had not yet been decreed for that offence, why was the man brought to be tried by Moses? 6) Why does the Torah in this instance require that all witnesses have to place their hands on the condemned man, in contrast with other offences for which the death penalty is applied? (Maimonides hilchot avodah zarah chapter 2) 7) Why is this legislation introduced with the words \"any person,\" when later on it says anyways \"anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord etc.?\" 8) What is the conceptual connection with the legislation following about \"anyone who strikes someone with fatal results?\" 9) Why is there an apparent contradiction between \"anyone who slays an animal must make financial restitution,\" and \"life for life?\" 10) Why is the legislation dealing with bodily injuries repeated, when it has already been dealt with at length in Parshat Mishpatim? 11) Why, after the sentence had been carried out, does the Torah have to write \"the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded?\" ",
"(1) After completing the legislation about the various offerings that have to be brought in the tabernacle at various times of the day or year, and a list of whose function it was to bring these sacrifices, the Torah concludes by giving details of a fundamental service, i.e. the preparation of the menorah mornings and evenings by the priest. In Parshat Tetzaveh the service of the menorah is mentioned only to account for the need of priestly garments. We are told there that one does not appear in the tabernacle without proper garments for the service. (2) Similarly, once the menorah service has been mentioned, the service of the shulchan, table, is mentioned also. This is in line with what our sages mention on frequent occasions, \"the menorah is in the South, the Table in the North,\" i.e. these two furnishings of the tabernacle perform functions which are mutually complementary, on opposite sides of the sanctuary. They are like opposite sides of a human being, one is unthinkable without the other. Or, as Solomon says in Proverbs 3,16, \"long life on its right, glory and riches on its left.\" (3) Since the book of Leviticus deals with the superior character of the Jewish people, the way we have to refrain from contact with impurities more than any other nation, culminating in the special laws about foods, physical purity, holy days etc., the story of the blasphemer explains what could be the background of a person who does not fit the mould of the Jew, as envisioned by the whole book of Leviticus. If a Jewish woman forms a liaison with a gentile, such results as the blasphemer are possible. The Torah wishes to teach the functional wisdom of being selective in the choice of one's life partner. In other words, if we preserve G'ds light, we need worry less about the results of our marriages. (4) The quarrel between the two men concerned their rights of inheritance based on their respective ancestry. We find Yiphtach being chased away by his half brothers for similar reasons. (Judges 11,1-3) It is reasonable to assume that the blasphemer, having lost his claim before the tribunal of Moses, was not content to curse his antagonist or the judge, but vented his rage against the system, i.e. against G'd the legislator. Thus we get an insight into the background of the sin. (5) Since cursing G'd is certainly worse than cursing one's parents, a sin which carries the death penalty, there was a prima facie case for the death penalty. Since however, mere logic is not sufficient reason to impose a death penalty, and such a penalty must be stated in the Torah explicitly, they had to bring the blasphemer before Moses to enquire what precisely his penalty should be. Possibly, since he was a proselyte, being the issue of an Egyptian father and a Jewish mother, there had been some question whether Jewish law applied to him in every respect. This is the reason it is emphasized later, that the penalty is identical for both stranger and natural born citizen. (6) The placing of the witnesses' hands on the victim, expresses their conviction that not the witnesses cause the death of the victim but his own sin has caused it. (Rashi) The major reason however, is that since the witnesses had perforce to repeat the exact words used by the blasphemer when they gave their testimony, something extremely distasteful to them but required by halachah, (Sanhedrin 56) they symbolically return that utterance to the head of the accused. In this way they can feel free of the sin of having themselves uttered the words of the blasphemer. (7) Since it is a cardinal sin in any religion or nation to curse its deity, ish ish, anyone, wherever, whenever, it follows that for a Jew to do so when it involves the only true deity, the perpetrator will be executed, etc. The emphasis \"the stranger and the natural born citizen alike,\" is to underline that someone should not think that this man had been so severely dealt with only because he was a stranger. (8) Our sages stipulate that murder is less serious than causing someone to commit a sin. (Sifrey Ki Teytze 31, section 872) In the former case, one only kills the body; in the latter one causes death to both body and soul. (9) The juxtaposition in our Parshah of killing a person, and killing an animal, emphasizes that causing death may involve more than killing the animalistic soul in man; one may terminate one's nefesh, soul. The Torah is thus talking about someone who causes the other person to sin, thus leading him to this dual death. Since it is inconceivable that the killer should wind up in olam haba, the world to come, whereas his victim should be condemned to eternal oblivion, the penalty for such cases is mot yumat, execution of the machti, the one who caused the death through having caused the victim to sin, as well as the simultaneous loss of olam haba of the machti, the one who caused the sin. However, when an act of murder is merely like that of killing an animal which has no olam haba to lose in any event, then the payment exacted is only nefesh tachat nefesh, animalistic life in return for animalistic life. In other words, only the body of the killer is executed, since his victim has not lost his share in the hereafter through the deed of the killer. The sequence of the verses is clear then. The blasphemer is a machti, since those who hear him and do not react are grossly guilty themselves, both in body and in soul. They have to remove that guilt by testifying and placing their hands on the sinner. Once we deal with the levels of punishment that fit the level of the crime, the remaining verses also fit into the picture. (10) In Mishpatim, the personal injury legislation deals only with material losses sustained, i.e. earning capacity, loss of dignity etc. Here we deal with loss of stature of a person due to injury inflicted. A priest, for instance, cannot perform service in the temple once his body has become blemished. Therefore, considerations such as pain due to burning and other personal injuries are not mentioned in this context. The payment for an animal includes not only the value of the meat, but must include replacing the animal with one of comparable work capacity. The words \"you shall have one law,\" refer to a comparison for restitution purposes between killing an animal and killing a human being. The equality before the law of both stranger and natural born citizen, extends both in regard of capital offences and in respect of offences involving financial or property damages. (11) The verse \"and the children of Israel did as the Lord had commanded them,\" refers to the acceptance by Israel of the newly enacted legislation from that time onwards. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"When ye come into the land which I give you\" etc.",
"Vayikra Rabbah 34, reports that they said about Hillel the elder, that whenever he took leave of his students, he would walk with them for a short distance. When the students used to enquire where he was going, he told them that he went to perform an act of loving kindness for a guest in his house. Upon the enquiry of the students if he then had guests in his house every day, Hillel said \"is not the soul a guest in the body? One day it is here and the next day it is gone.\" To this phenomenon, he applied the verse \"he who does his soul a favour, is a pious man.\" (Proverbs 11,17) ",
"Since material possessions are a handicap to one's efforts to determine true values, the Torah lays down guidelines how such material values are to be used. When followed, these guidelines ensure that such material possessions have beneficial impact on our lives, instead of vice versa. To the extent that material possessions free man from being totally preoccupied with his physical survival in this world, they afford him the opportunity to try and acquire spiritual values. To this extent, material wealth can almost be considered a necessity. Whereas osher (with the letter alef,) i.e. happiness by definition is a state of mind that is not necessary in order for man to achieve his purpose in life, osher with the letter ayin, i.e. material wealth, is. The Mishnah in Avot 3,21, says \"when there is no flour, there cannot be any Torah either.\" Torah and all it stands for cannot flourish unless there is a sound economic foundation. On the other hand, the same Mishnah says \"where there is no Torah, there cannot be any flour, i.e. economic well being.\" This means that unless material wealth is used correctly, as a means towards the spiritual elevation of man, such spiritual elevation will not be achieved. ",
"From the above, it follows that being given the land of Israel and all the material wealth that this entailed, was a prerequisite for Israel to attain its spiritual objectives both nationally and individually. Cleaving to one's piece of land as a basis for one's financial security therefore, became very important. Pious people's habit of jealously guarding what is rightfully theirs, is understandable for that very reason. Also, the Torah seems especially protective about the material wealth of religious leaders. The reason is to shield them against temptation to acquire wealth by dubious means. If halachah teaches that a High Priest or prophet must be of independent means, or even be given that financial independence, this reflects the idea just discussed. It seems strange that the prophet Jeremiah is asked to waste his money by redeeming the land of an impecunious uncle, when such land is doomed to fall into the hands of foreigners. (Jeremiah 32,5-15) Although Jeremiah is not specifically commanded to purchase that piece of land to forestall it falling into the hands of his uncle's creditors, the thrust of the story is clearly that it was expected of him. Jeremiah, by his action, teaches that he carefully abided by what he perceived to be the will of G'd, even if there was room to doubt the matter. Also, Jeremiah was prepared to spend any amount of money to fulfil G'ds will, since he was certain that G'd would not want him to waste his money. Having done what he perceived to be G'ds will, he asked for some illumination. This was because he wanted to be certain that what he had done did indeed correspond to G'ds wishes. G'd told him that he had indeed interpreted His will correctly, that the money was not wasted however, since the eventual return to Zion was just as certain as the destruction which was about to happen. (verses 37-44) ",
"The shemittah sabbatical agricultural year legislation, referred to in the Torah in several places, (Parshat Mishpatim, Behar, Re-ay) is therefore of extreme importance. Disregard of it brings in its wake a host of punishments including national exile. This is somewhat difficult to understand, since if the purpose of the legislation is agricultural, i.e. teaching us that working the soil in rotation restores the earth's fertility, non observance would produce poor crops and be a punishment in itself. On the other hand, it is difficult to fathom why G'd should be more jealous of the state of the earth, than of sins which appear far more serious. It seems therefore, that the shemittah legislation is to alert us to the important truth that ownership of the land is an asset to our development towards our national and individual spiritual goals only, when such ownership is used in the way the Torah wishes it to be used. Just as the week, i.e. six working days plus one Sabbath testify to the fact that there is one Creator, so do six years of work on the land plus one year of rest, shemittah, remind us that ownership rests with G'd, and that we have to fulfil His commandments. Once one accepts that creation had been ex nihilo, it follows that the Creator is entitled to be the lawgiver. The Torah spells out that the purpose of shemittah is \"for G'd,\" and that our function in taking advantage of the land is basically le-ochlah, to fulfil our physical needs, not as in the case of the gentile, our greed. Chamor, the king of Shechem refers to the purpose of land, when he describes it as \"being capable of accomodating all the requirements of the sons of Jacob.\" (Genesis 34,21). This is an attitude which is quite different from the Torah viewpoint. The requirement in that year to release all monetary debts, is a further clear indication that material wealth must never be allowed to become an end in itself. The seven times seven years yovel legislation is representative of an entire \"world,\" a complete cycle. \"He shall serve him le-olam, means until the completion of the cycle, until the yovel year. This is a reminder to man that just as he has to return to the earth at the end of his life, so the idea of a rejuvenation of the land, restoring it to original ownership, keeps alive the idea that we ourselves are not on this earth litzmitut, permanently. The commandments concerning treatment of \"slaves\" who had become such due to having lost their financial independence, is stated here to enlist our empathy. Once we have realised that our own hold on life is tenuous, that our possessions are transient, we can appreciate better that the \"slave\" deserves humane treatment from us. The same applies to the laws governing unfair financial dealings, overcharges etc. The fact that G'd is prepared to demonstrate that He supervises our welfare by providing excess yield by our fields in the year preceding the shemittah, is further encouragement to observe the commandment. Ignoring the shemittah, legislation then, expresses disregard of our entire philosophy. This is why the consequences are commensurate, not disproportionate to the sin committed. The Talmud Erchin 30, draws our attention to the fact that the consequences of disregarding even regulations that are only peripheral to the actual shemittah observance, can be most severe. If someone deals in produce that has been grown illegally during the shemittah year, he may wind up having to sell himself into slavery to keep body and soul together. Our long national exile is due to our having failed to observe the shemittah legislation. ",
"After all these lessons, the Torah repeats that instead of extending help only in return for interest charges, a relationship of mutual brotherhood or partnership is expected from Jew towards fellow Jew. (25,35-37) Love is an emotion that loses in intensity the more all embracing and comprehensive it becomes. If the common denominator between people is only the fact that they belong to the same species, that cannot be too strong a bond, although it is still a stronger bond than that between man and other parts of nature. When Ruth, the Moabite, was amazed at the kindness Boaz showed her, this was because she felt she had absolutely no claim on him, seeing the was an alien. (Ruth 2, 10) Love between people who know each other is stronger; love between relatives is still stronger. Self love is strongest and least complicated. Therefore, the Torah asks that one loves one's fellow Jew in the same manner as one loves oneself. In this instance, even the resident stranger is included in the yardstick the Torah asks us to apply to our love relationship with fellow Jews. We had stated elsewhere that the verse \"if you loan money to any of My people, the poor, you must not be to him like a creditor; neither shall you impose interest charges\" (Exodus 22,24), is to be understood as follows. If you do not do your duty and give to your fellow Jew, but you merely loan him, then at least you must not charge interest. Else, you would be treating him like a gentile. The reason that making a charge for lending tools, animals etc. is in order, whereas taking interest on money loaned is not, is quite simple. Money is given to be spent. It is usually required to repay debts or to supply urgent necessities of life. If an interest charge is imposed, the borrower will wind up owing even more than before. Instead of having helped him, one may cause the borrower to wind up in a worse position than before he had accepted the loan. The lender, on the other hand, expects his reward to come from G'd, not from the borrower. (Proverbs 19,17) \"He who is gracious to the poor, actually lends to G'd, who will recompense him.\" When the Torah warns \"you shall fear the Lord your G'd,\" it addresses itself to those who refuse to lend free of interest, and thereby exhibit their lack of faith in G'ds promise that He will recompense the lender for the advance that he made on G'ds behalf. ",
"",
"Hillel's discomfiture at having to attend to mundane matters such as earning his livelihood, was expressed by his accompanying his students whenever they departed from him. The guest he referred to as requiring his attention, was the body that craved food for survival, and that by its very definition was only transient, doomed to die, in spite of being provided for. Nevertheless, he considered such attention lavished on the body as a mitzvah, seeing that only in this way can man achieve his tachlit, purpose on earth. Reward is assured even for attention given to the body, when this is designed to assist performance of other mitzvoth. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"We read in Vayikra Rabbah 35, \"what is the meaning of the verse in Psalms 119,59, \"I concentrated on my path, but I returned my feet to Your statutes?\" David said facing G'd: \"though I had planned certain activities, saying that I would go to such and such a place, I found myself winding up going to synagogues and houses devoted to Torah study.\" Rabbi Hunna said in the name of Rabbi Chiyah: \"as soon as I consider the rewards for performing mitzvot and contrast them with the loss incurred when committing a transgression, I turn my feet towards Your statutes.\" Rabbi Menachem, son-in-law of Rabbi Eleazar, said: \"When I consider the rewards offered for observing the commandments of the Torah in this portion of the Torah, and I contrast them with the penalties threatened for non observance, I turn my feet toward Your statutes.\" Rabbi Chiyah in the name of Rabbi Yochanan said: \"I consider the list of blessings and the list of curses. The blessings range throughout the letters of the aleph bet, whereas the curses commence with the letter vav and continue to the letter heh. Not only do the curses appear in the reverse order, but the message is that if we but deserve it, the curses will also be converted into blessings. This is the meaning of the words \"if you will walk in My statutes.\" ",
"It is a sacred duty for a teacher who wants to succeed, to acquire two qualities. 1) He must be competent in the subject he teaches, possess pedagogical skills, and 2) he must sincerely like the pupil. Failing these preconditions, he is not likely to succeed in his task. The wisdom of someone who hates him, will not benefit a person much, nor will the love of a fool. The brilliant Achitofel who hated David is an example of point number one, whereas the love of Eve in persuading Adam to follow the advice of the serpent illustrates point number two. G'd is described as a loving father in many verses in the Bible. He is also described as teaching us. We have then in G'd the ideal teacher, since as father He has our best interests at heart, and since He is the source of all knowledge, He is the teacher, pedagogue par excellence. The question arises why He offers material rewards rather than spiritual rewards in our Parshah? Why does the Torah treat us like small children who are offered candy by their teacher to encourage them to study? David,- as per our opening Midrash,- realised that when he wanted to find a reliable teacher to guide him, to help him realise his potential, he had to turn to G'ds eydot, testimonies. When Moses had asked G'd for additional knowledge, he prayed \"teach me Your ways, so that I may be able to understand You.\" Since the greatest success one can achieve in study is to acquire knowledge to ensure one's soul's survival in a world of abstract spirits, the reward offered by the Torah for observance of its statutes should have been just that, not the transient material values listed in our Parshah. Mankind is divided into three categories. A) There are people who do not believe in any G'd, do not believe that their very existence is due to anything but chance. B) There are people who are very religious. They believe in a variety of deities, powers, but fail to recognise G'd as the Creator and primary Cause. C) Those who believe in the true Creator. The first group will not question why no mention is made of the soul or its survival. This is because as far as they are concerned, they cannot imagine any abstract intelligence at all, or because they feel that if there were such abstract intelligences, they would be subject to totally different rules of existence from those governing human life. The second group admits that there is a survival of the soul, but they do not consider observance of Torah laws the vehicle by means of which one attains such an objective. An example is Islam which considers after life the exclusive domain of members of that religion. The third group, Jews, are of course entitled to ask why Torah does not describe the survival of the soul as the reward for observance of its statutes. We need not answer group one, since they believe in the eternity of matter, and do not believe in the existence of a living Creator. On the contrary, had Torah promised survival of the soul, they would have ridiculed such a promise. Even the most advanced of that group consider that the advantage man enjoys over other creatures lies only in the fact that some of us possess superior intelligence enabling us to unravel some of the mysteries of nature. The Kuzari discusses all this. See also our commentary in chapter fifty three. (in the original Hebrew) To sum up, that group views everything from a strictly material point of view. People of such orientation could never be persuaded by the promise of anything that could not be verified in this life. The promise of the soul's survival would not motivate them to perform mitzvot then. Just imagine what would have been the impact on a man such as Naaman the Syrian general who was healed of tzora-at by the good offices of the prophet Elisha, i.e. by bathing himself in the river Jordan. Had he been promised eternal life in return for believing in the prophet and the G'd of Israel, this would not have impressed him. Being cured of his affliction however, instantly made a convert out of him. (compare Kings II chapter 5) The Parshah \"if you will walk in accordance with My laws,\" refers to conduct in consonance with natural law established by G'd. Freedom of choice has been given to man to enable him to live either in accordance with natural law, or to defy it. The result of exercising this freedom negatively, can be catastrophic, as described in Avot 5,11. No fewer than seven natural disasters will come upon the world in retribution for seven kinds of violations of G'ds natural order. (compare chapter 12) ",
"It is more difficult to explain the Torah's promise of material rewards to the second group of people, i.e. those who do believe in spiritual rewards as the result of adhering to their respective religions. According to them, how can the Torah remain silent about life after death? It is not surprising that adherents of those religions argue that since Judaism apparently cannot lead you to the world in which spiritual values predominate, it is only a preliminary stage for the messianic age. When that age arrives, Judaism would have to be redefined for those people who have reached the niveau Torah wishes them to achieve by means of mitzvot ma-assiyot, performance of the commandments. The justification of the whole attitude of Christianity towards Judaism is anchored in this apparent failure of Torah to promise survival of the soul as a reward for following the lifestyle prescribed by Torah. Since man's activities consist of either fulfilling the will of G'd, or the reverse, visible results of having fulfilled G'ds will are a necessary incentive. For this reason, our sages say that it is quite in order to fulfil Torah laws for the wrong reason, since chances are that eventually one will do so for the right reasons. (Pessachim 50) David says in Psalm 57, 11, \"Your mercy is great unto the Heavens,\" whereas in Psalm 108,5, he says \"Your mercy is great beyond the Heavens.\" The former statement refers to people whose horizon is limited to the physical world, whereas the latter refers to people who do not see their entire purpose in their physical existence. The Torah offers much broader hints concerning the forfeiture of such privileges as the soul's survival, when the kind of transgression involving the karet penalty is discussed. Being \"cut off\" from one's people, and similar terminology would be meaningless, were it to refer merely to physical death. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to decree a penalty that could not even be noticed. Onkelos feels that if the presence of the shechinah in our midst confers spiritual benefits upon us, once our soul is no longer encumbered by our body, such benefits would be greatly enhanced. ",
"Clearly, all the exhortations of the Torah to train oneself to become holy as G'd is holy, cannot have as their purpose anything other than to encourage conduct that will ensure a continued existence of our spiritual centre, i.e. our soul. ",
"The third group of people, namely believing Jews, who while steadfast in their belief, would still welcome specific statements in the Torah concerning afterlife, need to appreciate the following. Afterlife is much more than a promise held out in return for specific religious observances. Man's superiority over other creatures on this earth could hardly be demonstrated by anything other than the survival of his soul. Solomon grapples with the problem in the book of Kohelet, and concludes that this is the only thing which makes man stand out over the animals. \"Who perceives that the spirit of man is the one that ascends on high, while the spirit of the beast descends down into the earth?\" (Kohelet 3, 21) David and many others do not tire of expressing their longing for the blissful state of afterlife. Abigail refers to it, the Talmud is full of references to it. When one reads the promise of reward in our Parshah, one finds at the end, after the mundane rewards have been listed, \"I will place My Residence amongst you.\" For the believers this is enough. For the scoffers nothing would be enough, since they only believe what their own eyes have seen, anyways. ",
"",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why are the curses in Parshat Ki Tavo so much longer than the ones in Bechukotai, and why are the blessings shorter in our Parshah, when compared with Ki Tavo? 2) What is the relationship between feeling secure and the earth's yield? (verse 5) 3) Why the disproportionate description of five putting a hundred to flight, (ratio of 1-20) whereas one hundred put ten thousand to flight (ratio of 1-100)? 4) Why does the Torah commence the curses with the severe punishments? There seems a lack of order in the list of punishments! 5) The word az in verse 41, is hard to understand! 6) Who are the rishonim whose remembrance causes G'd to recall the covenant? (verse 45) 7) Verses 34 and 35 describing the land making up for neglected shemittah observance, seems awkwardly phrased! ",
"Man's achievements are basically in two separate spheres. 1) He can achieve moral perfection, something that the Torah expresses by saying \"you who are cleaving to the Lord your G'd are all alive this day\" (Deut. 4,4.) The second sphere in which man can achieve accomplishments is that of material and physical well being. This in turn, in order to be meaningful, comprises three parts. A) good health; B) possession of an adequate amount of the material needs to support a comfortable life. C) peaceful surroundings, absence of the threat of war. We find in Samuel I, 12,6, that David hinted at these three blessings when he sent greetings to Naval, saying to him \"may you be at peace, may your household be at peace, and may all that is yours be at peace.\" The reverse of these three accomplishments apply when punishments are under discussion. When David, in Samuel II 24, 12, is offered the choice of three categories of punishment for having subjected the nation to a census, something that the Torah had forbidden, he is offered the choice between a) famine, i.e. lack of life's necessities and comforts, b) War, absence of peace, c) Pestilence, i.e. absence of good health. We see from the above that there are four categories of reward. One is spiritual in nature, the other three are material in nature. ",
"Since Torah observance intensifies in three stages, so do the rewards for such observance. Stage one of observance, is the general movement in line with G'ds natural law, i.e. \"if you will walk in My ways.\" Stage two is to refrain from violating specific injunctions, i.e. \"you will guard My laws.\" The third category is the carrying out of specific commandments i.e. \"and you will perform them.\" In response to this conduct, the Torah promises (1) rainfall; something that is a natural prerequisite for all specific material blessings. Next the Torah promises bountiful harvests of the field, i.e. your toil will be rewarded, you will enjoy the necessities of life. (2) Next the Torah promises the harvest of the trees, i.e. luxuries rather than necessities. Then comes the promise of dwelling securely, enabling you to enjoy the blessings that have been bestowed on you. You will neither have to fear attack from predators nor from hostile neighbours. (3) When the Torah describes the heroism displayed in chasing off would be attackers, the point is made that such gevurah, bravery, is not handed out to each person in equal measure. Some people can put to flight twenty times their number, others even one hundred times their number. (4) When the Torah adds in verse 11, \"I will set My residence amongst you, and My soul will not abhor you,\" referring to spiritual reward, the last few words need clarification. When a renowned and handsome king marries a lady who seems plain, and comes from a nondescript background, the cultural gap between them may cause the king embarassment on occasion. When said king's wife acquires her husband's cultural refinements however, there will be no cause for the king ever to feel embarassed in her company. The ideal relationship between G'd and Israel is similar. The words \"My soul will not abhor you\" is an intensification of the prior blessing \"I will place My residence amongst you.\" It means \"I will never have occasion to be embarassed by keeping your company.\" Amos 7,7, may be understood in similar fashion. The whole Song of Songs, similarly extols the Jewish people's role as a partner fit for G'd to keep company with. In verse thirteen, G'd simply states that His right to demand all this from us, stems directly from the fact that He took us out of Egypt, broke our yoke and gave us human dignity. The new yoke G'd placed upon us enabled us to walk upright for the first time. As long as we shoulder this yoke, we are free from the wiles of the yetzer hara, the angel of death etc. The Torah continues that should we, however, fail to observe all that is expected of us, G'd will not punish us immediately, but only after seven fundamental sins have been committed. This is the list contained in verse 14 and 15. Once G'd does react, He will bring samples of the three basic punishments David was given a choice of, in order to alert people to what may be in store for them if they persist in their evil ways. The diseases quoted are not fatal, but leave one at the threshold of death. The planting of seeds, many of which will go to waste, does not yet result in complete starvation. Your enemies, while inflicting defeat on you, are not yet annihilating you. (verse 17) All this so far is in the nature of a warning of what my befall you if you persist in your corrupt ways. Should Israel ignore these warnings, the full force of these three punishments will be unleashed. The sevenfold retribution mentioned in verse eighteen, is to be understood as being seven times the scale of the sample punishment mentioned in verse sixteen. These various punishments do not occur simultaneously as do the blessings mentioned earlier in the Parshah, but in stages, one after another. For this reason we have the constant repetition \"if you still do not listen.\" In verses 21, 23„ 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33, a chain of events will be set in motion of which each is practically a corollary of the one preceding it. The basic tenor of the punishments is that laxity in observing Torah due to not taking the time required, will result in the pressures of time becoming so overwhelming that there really will be felt to be no time for religious observances. This because of the pressing need to do something for one's physical survival. If the four escalations of retributory measures produce no results, then even though there is such a thing as the merit of the ancestors, the need to make up for all the shemittah years that have not been observed in the land, outweighs even the former, and exile continues. (7) Although this merit of the ancestors is not powerful enough to rescind the decree of exile, it does help to prevent total annihilation of the Jewish people while they are in exile. The covenant with G'd will therefore not be broken completely. Finally, G'd says, the one covenant I will remember, is not to nullify My name by the destruction of My people, as Moses had argued after the sin of the golden calf. These are the rishonim, the early ones. We observe this idea reflected in the first benediction of our amidah, central prayer, where we state \"He remembers the kind deeds of the forefathers, and brings redemption to their children's children for the sake of His name, in love.\" When our sages formulated this benediction, they drew attention to the fact that though G'd does indeed remember the deeds of the forefathers, this may not be enough to guarantee the ultimate redemption. Failing all else, only the need to preserve His own image will guarantee that the redeemer will come. (5) Verse forty one, referring to some kind of humility az on the part of persecuted Jews, means that the humility is not sincere, only lip service due to the plight of the people. ",
"To come back to our opening Midrash. Rabbi Menachem is concerned with the arguments of those who ask to see the evidence of reward and punishment. He points to our Parshah as proof that there is such visible evidence. Rabbi Hunna addresses himself to those who deny a system of reward and punishment altogether, and points out that our Parshah implies that life would not make sense at all unless there was such a thing as reward and punishment. Rabbi Chiyah addresses himself to another aspect of the blessings and curses in our Parshah. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons unto the LORD, according to thy valuation\" etc.",
"Vayikra Rabbah 37,quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai as saying that the commandment not to renege or be tardy in fulfilling one's vows, applies equally to the rules of erchin, laws about valuations for temple treasury purposes. This is why Moses warns Israel \"if you neglect to make vows, you will not be considered as having sinned.\" (Deut. 23,23) ",
"Man attains his ideal state via a threefold process. 1) He must fulfil his duties towards himself. 2) He must fulfil his duties towards his fellow man. 3) He must fulfil his duties towards G'd. The prophet Michah, in chapter six, describes man's tasks as follows: \"What is it that the Lord asks of you, except a) to do justice, b) to practice loving kindness, and c) to walk humbly with the Lord your G'd.\" Duties towards oneself are easily understood, therefore the prophet refers to them by the word mishpat. When Manoach was told about the impending birth of Samson, he asked the angel \"what is the mishpat of the boy, and how is he to be treated? (Judges 13,11) He meant \"how can one ensure the boy's survival?\" Duties towards oneself are to ensure one's survival. Performance of duties towards one's fellow man consists of putting acquired good character traits to practical use. David asked his son Solomon (Chronicles I 28,9) \"and you my son Solomon, know the G'd of your father, serve Him with a perfect heart and a willing soul.\" Our sages display a negative attitude towards people who make vows. Prompt fulfilment of the vow is equated with offering a sacrifice on a private altar at times when private altars are forbidden. (Gittin 56) The reason is that though there clearly is a good intention, the venue is unwelcome. This is so when the subject of the vow is a devar mitzvah, something desirable in the eyes of G'd. When the subject matter of the vow is merely a devar reshut however, i.e. something merely permissible, the vow itself is viewed as reprehensible, since it presupposes that by accepting the gift, G'd indicates His need of it. What could be more laughable? Since vows are subject to annulment, the question why some famous vows have never been annulled is in order. Why was the vow of Yiphtach who offered the life of the first living thing that would come towards him when he would return from war victorious, and which resulted in his own daughter being that sacrifice, not annulled? Our sages blame the pride of both Yiphtach and the High Priest Pinchas. Supposedly, each waited for the other to make the first move. Both were punished for their pride. Pinchas no longer enjoyed the ear of G'd. (Chronicles I 9,20) Yiphtach's body was scattered all over the place, as parts of it were buried in different part of Gilead. (Judges 12,7) In the case of the aftermath of the pilegesh be-givah, Judges chapter twenty one, one must ask why the annulment procedure was not used to cancel the vow to kill all the men of Yavesh Gilead? Surely, this would have been even more important than to save the life of a single person, the daughter of Yiphtach at the time? Surely a lesson could have been learned from the former event? Also, why was the vow not to give daughters in marriage to the the remnant of the tribe of Benjamin not annulled? One of the main reasons for this national paralysis, could have been the absence of a central authority at that time. After all, the era has been characterised by the book of Judges as \"in those days, there was no king in Israel.\" (Judges 19,1) Again, at the end of the book of Judges (Judges 21,25) we read \"in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in.\" When an entire nation had vowed a vow, only an even greater authority can absolve from such a vow. Since many of the people had died since the vow had been made, it could not even have been annulled by an equal number of people. (Moed Katan 17) For that reason they had to resort to the subterfuge described there, i.e. letting the young men of Benjamin kidnap their brides to be. (see commentary by Kimchi) All of the above illustrates the severity of the laws concerning vows, once they have been made. Surely then it is preferable not to make vows in the first place. Man's tendency not to make payment promptly when he pledges a donation, is a sign that he overestimates his own value, and his effort to compensate for this when the time comes to make payment. The Torah, therefore, provides objective valuations, so that the person who promised a value to the temple treasury that equals his own value, would not shortchange the temple treasury. When the vow concerns a devar mitzvah, a duty that had to be fulfilled anyways, even if no vow had been made at all, the Torah warns \"do not be tardy to pay it, the Lord will surely demand it from you.\" (Deut 23,22) For that reason the Torah continues: \"if you fail to make vows, this will not be counted a sin against you.\" "
]
],
[
[
"\n\"Count every head!\" ",
"Midrash Rabbah Numbers 2, comments in connection with Psalm 20,6, \"we shall shout for joy and rally around our banner in the name of G'd,\" that at the time G'd revealed Himself to Israel at Mount Sinai to give them the Torah, twenty two thousand angels descended with Him. The Midrash quotes Psalms 68,13, as proof for its assertion. All of these angels were waving banners, flags, as it says (Song of Songs 5,11) \"surrounded by myriads of banners.\" As soon as Israel saw these flags, they became anxious to make flags for themselves, similar to those of the angels, as it is written in Song of Songs 2,4, \"He brought me to the house of wine, and waved the banner of love over me.\" G'd responded to this request by saying \"Indeed, I shall make flags for you as you desire.\" It says in Psalms 20,6, \"the Lord will fulfil all your requests.\" Immediately thereafter, G'd said to Moses: \"Make flags for them just as they want.\" This is the meaning of \"each according to his flag and his ensign.\" ",
"Purpose and function of the flags. 1) In order for even the most illustrious people to attain their objective in life, a mental image of their common purpose needs to remain constantly before their spiritual eye. 2) Ordinary people do not only need a mental image of their goals in order not to become distracted from them, but they require a visible symbol, illustration of such goals and purposes. The artist needs to concentrate on a model and to exclude peripheral vision so as to avoid the danger of distorting what he draws. The marksman needs to concentrate his entire field of vision exclusively on the target, if he does not want to miss. It is a fact that extremes are usually taboo in the philosophy of Judaism, and we have a string of scriptural quotations supporting the view that the golden mean is the way of life to be pursued. When concentrating on the image representing our purpose, the fact that peripheral vision is excluded, symbolises the exclusion of extremes either to the right or to the left. Whenever we polarise a particular activity, - if polarisation is for the sake of Heaven-, it becomes acceptable in G'ds eyes. Similarly, apparently negative forces, phenomena such as the angel of death, Satan, the yetzer hara, are necessary, because they fulfil a useful function and advance the cause of G'd. The Talmud Baba Batra 16, says that even Peninah's needling of her sister -in-law Chanah, was due to a constructive motivation, since it bestirred Chanah to pray for a child. (Samuel I chapter 1) Similarly, Satan, who subjected Job to all his afflictions served G'd in what he did, since otherwise Job would have appeared as more pious and devout than Abraham. (Job chapter 2) The result of employing such normally negative character traits is not a coarsening of one's personality, and does not turn us into slaves of these bad traits, but, on the contrary, it strengthens our mastery over the yetzer hara, evil impulses. This is the meaning of Baba Batra 16, saying that the angel of death kissed Chanah's feet. \"He,\" i.e. the yetzer hara ended up as her slave, not vice versa. The fact that the angel of death=Satan= yetzer hara are identical, is proved by a string of scriptural quotations from the book of Job. Various statements in our Mishnah have to be understood in a similar vein. \"Any quarrel which is for the sake of Heaven, will endure.\" (Avot 5,17) The meaning is that although the venue, i.e. quarrelling, is normally a forbidden venue, it does advance G'ds causes when it is employed for that purpose. (interpreting Torah) The Talmud Berachot 6, states \"he who fixes a makom, spot, for his prayer, will be assisted by the G'd of Abraham. Beyond the halachic meaning, that one should have a regular spot from which to offer up prayer, the meaning is that he who concentrates on the one and only source, (makom is also a name for G'd) from which ultimately all prayers will be answered, will enjoy the help of the G'd of Abraham. When Solomon dedicated the Temple, he went to great lengths to emphasize that all prayers must be directed to the central spot, the holy of holies, the Western Wall. As we read \"Here He stands behind our wall\" (Song of Songs 2,9). This epitomizes what our sages had in mind when they said \"anyone who fixes a spot for his prayer etc.\" The Kabbalists understand the aggadah that G'd has withheld the key of rain from His agents, as illustrating the idea that we must address ourselves to G'd directly for our needs. We must polarize our concentration on the source of our salvation to the exclusion of agents, assistants. Azzut, effrontery, can be a serious enough misdemeanour to result in the death penalty,- compare the Amalekite who bragged to David about having administered the coup de grace to a dying King Saul-. (Samuel II chapter 1) Halachically speaking, this act was not even culpable, since no one can be convicted of a capital crime on the basis of his own testimony. Besides, it was not even true. Nonetheless, David had the lad in question executed. The reason is that his brazenness in claiming to have killed the one whom G'd had anointed, was a conduct that deserved the death penalty. As David said to him, \"your own mouth has convicted you.\" On the other hand, we find Yehudah ben Teyman exhorting us \"be az like a leopard in fulfilling the mitzvot! (Avot, 5,23) This indicates that even normally despicable traits can on occasion be employed constructively. The whole of Psalm 20, underlines that when we concentrate on receiving aid from Jerusalem, Zion, the seat of the shechinah, we \"will rise and find ourselves encouraged.\" Similarly, David was granted confidence when he faced Goliath. (Samuel 1,17,36). To sum up: exclusive concentration on the source of our salvation is necessary for successful completion of one's purpose. The crux of the matter is that both our observances and our studies should be lishmah, for the sake of the subject matter, for its avowed purpose. Rabbi Meir says that many attributes are conferred on the person whose preoccupation with Torah is lishmah (Avot 6,1). Since true love is based on the two people having many likes and dislikes in common, family members are apt to love one another because they have so much in common both by heredity and by common environment. True friendship also is based on this community of interests. When we act lishmah, we qualify for this community of purpose with our Creator, we become His partner, so to speak. If we do not act in this way,- though wicked people also often have much in common-, the nature of their self interest dictates a diversity of approach, competition etc. Therefore, their purposes will not be achieved in the long run. Similarly, even a Torah scholar who is motivated by selfish considerations will ultimately not achieve his goal, and does not qualify for the complimentary attributes listed by Rabbi Meir. The Talmud Pessachim 49, states that the worst kind of individual is he who studies Torah, and forsakes its path. He demonstrates thereby that whenever his goals seem attainable by other means, he neglects and abandons Torah. He is called nazuf, excommunicated. The Talmud Horiot 10, tells us that a sin committed for a pure motivation is morally superior to a mitzvah observed for unworthy motivations. The encampment of the children of Israel reflected a) the limitation placed on them at Mount Sinai, i.e. they were not to be too close to the shechinah .Therefore, the camp of the Levites as well as the camp of the priests was interposed between them and the tabernacle, b) Since they faced the tabernacle from all four directions, it made the tabernacle the central points towards which all thoughts and hopes were directed. Torah was given to Israel free of charge, just as fire, water and desert are free of charge. (Midrash Rabbah Numbers 1) Furthermore, the comparison with fire is to indicate that the \"fire\" of physical passions had to be sublimated by \"fire\" of moral and spiritual values offered by Torah. When the Jewish people saw the mountain afire without burning itself into a heap of ashes, that lesson was learned. The fire had become one of purification. Excess water in the bloodstream is apt to cool anyone's enthusiasm. It causes people to seek their fortunes by crossing the oceans. At the same time, excess fluid produces lethargy, laziness lack of enterprise. The desire for financial success (desert, earth, i.e. matter) is implanted within us as an antidote to lethargy caused by thinned out blood (watery). Just as all these three items are part of our basic make up, so the Torah has been made available free, naturally, without the need for an extraordinary effort on our part to secure its wisdom. Lo bashamayim hee, She is not in Heaven, i.e. difficult of access. Or, in the words of Maimonides, the more basic and vital our need for a life preserving element, the more readily available did G'd make such elements. He granted them indiscriminately. The Midrash relates that when Israel saw the angels and their flags, and realised their significance, they developed a desire for a similar means of preserving their concentration on the source of their welfare, i.e. G'd. They realised that without such a symbol to look at, they would not be able to sustain the lofty moral niveau they occupied at the time of the revelation. Creatures of the spiritual world are distinguished by their constancy. The weakness of creatures in this physical world of ours is their constant changeability. The Israelites had wanted to preserve as much of this constancy as possible. They sought to do this by concentrating on symbols that represented their moral purpose in this world. This is why they wanted flags. By counting the people on fixed dates, i.e. maintaining a degree of constancy, the basic changeability of human beings would be stabilised to a degree. Rosh Hashana, i.e. New Year's day, would be the date fixed to concentrate on their moral niveau. By counting people of a certain age group, excluding those who had reached the age of sixty, the annual variations in the total number of people counted would be kept to a minimum. This accounts for the fact that on several occasions, as much as 38 years apart, the Torah reports practically the same total number for all the tribes combined, excluding the tribe of Levi. The counts on the occasion when the half shekel levy was raised, and the count of the people when the tabernacle had been erected, comes out identically the same for the above mentioned reason. ",
"Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) What need is there for the introduction \"take the sum of the entire congregation etc.\" (Numbers 1,2), if the objective is merely to count them and mention the flags of the encampment? 2) Why was the camp of Ephrayim, a son (grandson) of one of Jacob's major wives assigned the Western position to move third in order, whereas the camp of Dan in a Northern position moves last, an apparently superior position? 3) Why does the Torah describe the significance of the birthright as dating from the day G'd smote the firstborn in Egypt? Had such birthright not been significant already at the time Jacob bought it from Esau? 4) Why were some of the sacred vessels carried by the family of Kehat, wrapped in blue woollen covers, whereas others had to be wrapped in red covers? 5) Why are all the details about Israel's wanderings reported? It would have sufficed to state \"they camped at the behest of G'd, and they travelled at G'ds command!\" ",
"",
"(1) The counting had two basic objectives. 1) To demonstrate to each individual Jew that he had individual worth, not as Bileam had thought at first \"the nation covers the visible part of the earth,\" i.e. that Jews are important only collectively. The count proved that each Jew is significant individually. Of the gentiles it is said \"here the nations are as a drop in the bucket.\" (Isaiah 40,15) Of Israel it is said \"who has been able to count the dust of Jacob?,\" i.e. even its dust deserves to be counted. (Numbers 23,10) Similarly, stars, constellations, are all individually counted by G'd. \"Who counts the number of the stars and calls each one by name.\" (Psalms 147,3) So, although G'd had been aware of the total number of Israelites, the individual significance of each was demonstrated by treating each Jew like a star in the sky, and by assigning to him his position in the scheme of things. The concept had been familiar to them; but to see the physical realisation of it, brought the idea home more forcefully. Further, there is the element of the shekalim and atonement, as discussed in chapter 52. The second objective was to drive home the point that unlike the gentiles, the survival of the Jewish people would not be restricted to the survival of their species, but that each Jew would possess individual eternal existence, just as each individual star has a permanent existence. Of the stars it is said in Isaiah 40, 26, \"not one of them is missing.\" This provides the rationale why G'd counts each star and names it. It is to establish its permanent purpose in the universe. They are counted collectively, yet they possess individual differences in quality. Compare our remarks about the letter vav linking the enumeration of the offerings of the princes at the time the tabernacle was dedicated. (chapter 58) The need to establish who belonged to which family, (not necessary on the occasion of the first count) was to remove all doubt about the purity of anyone's ancestry. As the Talmud says in Yevamot 42, \"the shechinah cannot be present unless both the origin of the zera, seed, and the permissible family relationship is firmly established.\" The Talmud in Kiddushin 70, expresses the same thought somewhat differently. \"The tribes of G'd are testimony for Israel.\" (Psalms 122,4) The prince, the leader of the tribe, is to the tribe what the sign of the zodiac is to each star in its group. The Levites were not counted yet, since also the last time they had not been counted at the same time as the other tribes. On that occasion, when the levy of the half shekel represented an act of atonement for the sin of the golden calf, the Levites who had not participated in that sin, had not needed to atone for their part. The Levites would camp around the tabernacle. When the right kavanah, intent, and concentration existed, namely that the shechinah in the tabernacle was the model towards which one should strive to orient one's life, then no harm , no ketzeph would befall the viewers. (2) We believe that the front of the encampment faced East, the West being in the rear. North and South were left and right respectively. This would make the camp of Yehudah the most important, facing East. East is not to be understood as a point, but rather as a solid front. The whole camp is to be considered a square, each of whose sides represents one of the compass directions mentioned. In physics, the primary direction, length is viewed as \"senior\"; the second dimension \"width\" is viewed as junior.\" Yehudah and Ephrayim being in the East and West positions are both \"length\" positions, whereas North and South are understood to be \"junior,\" i.e. \"width\" positions. We then have no problem with the sons of the lesser wives occupying positions superior to those of the sons of the major wives of Jacob. The fact that when the trumpet blasts signalling the breaking up of camp is mentioned, only two directions are named, supports our theory that the two dimensional lines are meant when the order of the importance of the encampment around the flags is described. (Numbers 10, 6-7) The pictures on the flags correspond to the four facets seen by the prophet Ezekiel in his famous vision of the merkavah, Divine entourage. (Ezekiel chapter 1) (3) The fact that Jacob had already tried to reverse the principle of the sanctity of the \"firstborn\" is true, but the legitimacy of this was not really confirmed until the plague of \"killing the firstborn.\" The legislation stemming from this reversal was not enacted until after the episode of the golden calf, which represented a wholesale failure on the part of the Jewish firstborn. Basically, while the firstborn performed priestly functions, he was allowed a dual role, both the mundane and the spiritual function. Since the failure of that system, the Levites who have supplanted the firstborn, have primarily religious duties, and are relieved of the mundane task of having to work for a living. (4) Covering the holy ark in a cover made of blue wool, indicates its prime importance, since the path to G'd leads via the tablets and the Torah that rest inside the holy ark. techeylet, skyblue, symbolises the Heavens and the throne of G'ds glory. The other vessels were also covered, but represented a path to G'd that is somewhat less direct, more \"diluted.\" Therefore, there are different materials and colours for the covers of those vessels. The table also had a blue wool cover, but the blue was only on the outside, not as in the case of the cover for the ark, which was of blue wool both inside and out. The balance of the holy vessels had red covers, representing the malchut, majesty aspect of G'd. The menorah, candelabra had a cover that was blue wool on the inside, but tachash, hide, on the outside. The ark was covered more than the other vessels, since it had to be transported on the shoulders of the Kehatites. They were not, however, permitted to touch the ark itself. (5) The journeys of the Israelites described in Parshat Behalotcha in such agonising detail, teach that contrary to prevailing opinion, shared by Jews who had just left a country that based its philosophy on astrology and astronomy, the timetable of these journeys was determined only by G'd, not by astrological data. The Jewish people did not know from one day to the next if they were going to break camp. Calendar analysis, propitious times for journeys were all factors which were completely ignored when it came to decisions when and in which direction they would move. The Torah therefore emphasizes their obedience. \"By the mouth of G'd they would journey,\" they observed G'ds instructions meticulously. (6) Since motion in a certain direction is conceived of as approaching some goal, and since by the nature of things, G'd, being perfect, He does not need to move at all, Moses proclaimed at each departure and arrival that the purpose of the move was for G'ds enemies to take heed and for Israel to return to constructive rest. ",
"The many flags that the Jews displayed in the desert will be replaced in messianic times by a single flag symbolising \"One nation, One G'd.\" (compare Isaiah 11, 12-13) Ephrayim, though the \"senior,\" whose encampment in the desert was behind the tabernacle, and who harboured resentment of that fact, will no longer have cause for such resentment. A single flag will serve the entire nation alike. There will no longer be a need to have visible symbols to help concentrate on the presence of G'd, His hashgachah, etc. Rivalry between various parts of the nation, i.e. Yehudah and Ephrayim will cease at that time. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit\"",
"The Talmud Sotah 2, asks \"Why is the portion about the Nazirite written in the Torah adjoining that of the Sotah, the woman suspected of infidelity?\" Answer: \"To teach that if one sees a Sotah in her state of disgrace, one should abstain from drinking wine.\" ",
"Our sages tell us in Sotah 3, that man does not sin unless he has temporarily taken leave of his senses. They quote Numbers 12, 11, in support of this. Aaron says to Moses \"because of our foolishness we have sinned.\" If this is indeed so, our sages seem to agree with Socrates who believed that man's intellect is apt to arrive at true, valid conclusions. We must ask that if sin is the result of a functional disability of the mind, how can a person be held responsible for such sin? The dilemma can be resolved in the following manner. We need to understand that there are three categories of people. The first category is composed of people in whom the intellect is predominant, and governs practically all their activities so that sin is almost inconceivable. The second group comprises people who are so enslaved to their physical urges, that their intellect is for all practical purposes paralysed. The third group comprises the vast majority of people, who face an ongoing confrontation between their physical urges, yetzer hara, and their intellect, i.e. yetzer tov. All the people belonging to this latter group suffer from the fact that gratification of one's urges is immediate or almost immediate. On the other hand, the price to be paid for having gratified one's urges is usually some time in the future, and therefore not of immediate concern. The reward for acting in accordance with the dictates of the yetzer tov, i.e. the dictates of one's intellect, may be quite some time away. For that reason, such an eventual reward may not play a decisive role when a decision is made between conflicting choices available. The reason that G'd has arranged matters in such a way is due to the fact that otherwise bechirah, free choice would not be a really viable option. In order to demonstrate that it does not pay to give in to physical passion when it leads to the performance of immoral acts, we have the example of sotah. ",
"Since most physical passions beset young people whose blood is hot, the portion dealing with the Nazirite follows, to tell us how to combat excessive physical urges. Vows of abstinence can be a powerful tool against such excessive urges. The Talmud in Baba Metzia 5, states, that though a man may be suspected of dishonesty in matters concerning money, he can be believed in matters concerning an oath. This shows that a vow reinforces a weak person's determination to resist urges that bid him to act sinfully ",
"Problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why was the subject of me-ilah, trespass against temple treasury property, divided between this Parshah and Leviticus 5, 15-16? 2) The language employed by the Torah about the doubts concerning the wife's infidelity, is strange. After all, she is to drink the waters that contain either the seeds of her destruction, or prove beneficial when her status is in doubt, not when her status does not seem to be in doubt? Rashi's explanation certainly does not follow the plain meaning of the text, nor does it deal with apparently superfluous statements. 3) When discussing the Nazir, the statement in verse four \"from anything....he must not eat,\" covers all details. Why then list the details? Why is the sentence \"all the days of his vow\" repeated three times? ",
"(1) The main reason for repeating the me-ilah legislation and adding new details is to impress on us the urgency of mobilising all our forces and making every effort not to be defeated in the ongoing struggle against the yetzer hara. The offerings, the confession etc. are all weapons given to us by the Torah for that fight. (2) The apparent repetition of the situation in verse fourteen, and again in verses twenty nine and thirty, are not repetitions at all. If the jealousy of the husband is justified, it will lead to the sotah being punished. If, as in verse thirty, we deal with jealousy of the husband only, the procedure prescribed in the Torah must be applied in order to exonerate the wife. Either way, clarification of the truth is an end in itself. The sotah may have sinned for a variety of reasons. A) Sexual urge. B) To affront G'd, the lawgiver. C) Because she does not believe that there is a G'd, a lawgiver. In the first situation, her punishment is simple. She is divorced, and loses her ketuvah, financial settlement. In the second case, the words u-ma-alah bashem, she has trespassed against the Lord applies, i.e. she has sinned intentionally; she deserves a much greater penalty. If she had only intended to sin against her husband, she will be afraid to drink the waters, take the oath etc., but will rather confess. If, on the other hand, she had meant to offend G'd, then she becomes the victim of two ke-na-ot , jealousies, that of her husband and that of G'd. Her death then will surely be the result. In that event, her husband will be shown to have been innocent of sin. Since this nation is deemed worthy of having the Divine Presence in its midst, Divine assistance is invoked to eliminate those whose conduct make the continued presence of the shechinah in our midst impossible. ",
"\"Shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the LORD\"",
"(3) The Nazir legislation addresses itself to the often debilitating effect of wine or strong alcoholic drink. The repeated references to various grape products correspond to the various ways in which drunkenness affects man. Most instances in the Torah in which drinking is discussed, refer also to the undesirable after effects of drinking wine. (Genesis 9,21, 43,34, the story of Lot and his daughters) We have numerous other examples in the books of the prophets. 1) The first effect of drunkenness usually is a loosening of inhibitions. A person's behaviour becomes unrestrained, lawless. 2) A second effect is that when the lawmaker is drunk, he may legislate unfair laws while under the influence of strong drink. The misunderstanding of the teachings ascribed to Tzaddok and Bayssus are examples of heresy that may have been due to their having studied Torah while under the influence of wine. (Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 5) Judges must not sit in Court after having drunk wine. This is alluded to in the words mishrat anavim a liquid in which grapes had been soaking. The Talmud illustrated this by the example of a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine. The Torah criticises the elders who, while having a vision of G'd, ate and drank at the same time. (Exodus 24,11) They are described as like people who while having an audience with the king, bite into their bread. (Exodus Rabbah 15) The fourth and worst result of drunkenness is the loss of one's religious faith. The allusion in our text is the reference to \"either fresh or dried grapes.\" (6,3) This refers to the harbouring of as yet unripe thoughts. The former are the contemplating of sinful conduct, already at the surface of consciousness, awaiting only execution, whereas the \"dried grapes\" refer to those ideas that will need to incubate somewhat longer before being translated into deeds. Generally, these problems occur with advancing age, and the Torah lists them in corresponding order. Young people react negatively to any kind of restrictions imposed on them. Once they have become a little older, they realise the need for an ordered lifestyle, but they tend to draw their inspiration only from their own personal experiences. Still later in life, they get around to study other people's wisdom and experience, and they even study some of the proper sources, but not necessarily with a clear head. Finally, when facing death, and an accounting for the way they have lived their lives, they have to confront what is true faith and what is not. In order to distinguish between these different periods of their lives, the Torah each time commences with the words \"all the days,\" to indicate that successive portions of one's life account for changing attitudes. The Torah tells the Nazir that the discipline imposed on his lifestyle by not touching grape products, does not by itself guarantee progress towards his objective, but that he must not use a razor or shears to remove his hair. The lesson is that no individual is free to decide arbitrarily by himself what disciplines to impose upon himself. If the Nazir is to avoid ritual impurity during the currency of his vow of abstinence, this is to enable him to receive the full benefit of Torah study during that period. If his mind is to concentrate on matters spiritual, success can be guaranteed only when his body remains in a state of purity. Man's crowning achievement is the attainment of serenity based on his complete and unshakable faith in the goodness of his Creator, and his acceptance of whatever fate seems to have in store for him. Many great men, though guilty of individual acts of sinful behaviour, were saved from being entrapped by sin due to their all embracing faith in G'd and His Torah. A splendid example is Samson, whose dealings with Delilah, though sinful, did not turn him into a heretic or otherwise undisciplined person. Until Samson revealed that his strength lay in the hair of his head, at Delilah's fourth attempt, and that it represented spiritual powers and faith, he had been able to cope with all of Satan's (read Delilah's) efforts to drag him down. Once he desecrated the focus of his purity, he fell victim to the machinations inspired by Satan. (The Talmud suggests that the very name DELILAH means \"weakening,\" watering down his strength) Shimon the Just, who is reported to have eaten only one Nazirite offering in his long career as High Priest, tells of an incident which he describes as a legitimate reason for adoption of the Nazarite's vows. (Nedarim 9) From his description it is clear that the reason he did not eat from other such sacrifices is not that none were at hand, but that he considered any other person in his lifetime who had taken upon himself Nazirite vows as having been frivolous. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Thus you shall bless!\" ",
"Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Nasso 12, quotes Rabbi Yehudah ben Shimon as saying that when Moses entered the tabernacle upon its completion, he heard a beautiful voice. This voice (G'ds) said to Moses: \"in the past there has been some hostility between Me and My children, some friction between Me and My children. Now that the tabernacle has been established, there is love between My children and Me, there is peace between My children and Me.\" Rabbi Joshua said that the book of Psalms seems unnecessary, since all the blessings are contained in this short portion when it states \"G'd will raise His countenance towards you and grant you peace.\" ",
"It is commonly supposed that \"peace\" is the restoration of harmony between parties that have been at odds with one another. People who conceive of \"peace\" as being merely that, deprive the concept of much of its value. If \"peace\" does nothing more than restore a balance where there had previously been an imbalance, it can hardly be considered a blessing. Shame is not a virtue, since it presupposes that an unworthy act had been committed which the perpetrator is now ashamed of. Actually, peace is more like the silver thread that joins two people or two entities combining them into a unified whole. Why is one of the names of G'd shalom, peace? Because He ties together worlds, keeps them united and preserves their appearance and format. (Midrash Chazit chapter 1) When we read in Samuel II 11,7, \"David enquired after the \"peace\" of Yoav, the \"peace\" of the people, and the \"peace\" of the \"war,\" there is certainly no reference intended to the cessation of the war. This war was still very much in progress. David merely asked Uriah whether these people or affairs were all well and proceeding according to plan. The word \"peace\" in that context describes that there was a common bond between the people or the animals described. A city of people who do not quarrel with one another, who tolerate each other's idiosyncrasies, cannot be said to be at peace with each other as long as they do not share a common purpose or goal. Furthermore, when there is no bond joining people, there is a degree of separateness which may eventually lead to disintegration, decay etc. Isaiah 45,7, has this in mind when he contrasts \"fashions light, or creates darkness, makes peace or creates evil, I the Lord do all these.\" The relationship of ra, evil, to shalom, peace, is like the relationship between darkness and light. Peace, i.e harmony, is the fruitful interaction of the various energies of different bodies, elements. It was Aaron's special talent to have understood that it is the task of a leader to weave that thread, the fabric that binds people to one another, and thus help them to establish harmony by desiring for them what one desires for oneself. Moses, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the intellectual approach. He believed that without the benefit of Torah, whatever man does is of insufficient value to prolong our days on this earth. Without Torah, no degree of harmony can be achieved that would be capable of overcoming the dichotomy due to the fact that this physical universe has been made up of four distinctly different elements. The Talmud Shabbat 89, illustrates this line of thinking when it describes Moses' arrival on Mount Sinai before he had received the Torah. Moses is described as finding G'd \"tying crowns to the letters.\" G'd asks him: \"Moses, is there no \"peace\" in your city?\" (are you people not in the habit of extending greetings of \"peace be with you\" where you come from?) Moses replies: \"how can a slave contribute to the \"peace\"' of his Master?\" G'd replies: \"at any rate you should have assisted Me.\" Immediately, Moses said \"now let the strength of the Lord become great as You have said.\" The lesson contained in that Midrash is, that even without the benefit of Torah, man's effort to weave the thread of togetherness, i.e. civilisation, is sufficient to improve his lot down here on earth. This is shalom; peace. When Hillel advised people to emulate the virtue of Aaron, namely to strive for peace, he was quite correct, inasmuch as this is a most positive character trait. Similarly, when Hillel said \"do not separate yourself from the community,\" he was merely describing the other side of the coin. Tzibbur, community, after all, is what has been united by shalom, peace. The holiness of G'd depends on the community. Venikdashti betoch beney Yisrael, I will be sanctified within the community of Israel. When the community sins, one must abandon it. (Jeremiah 9,1) When only an individual sins, the community must see to it that the individual repents, or they must place him outside the tzibbur, into cherem quarantine. Since peace therefore is of vital importance to the existence of the community, it is clear that precisely at the time the tabernacle was put into service, G'd would pronounce the blessing of peace, as we have noted in our opening Midrash. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. ",
"1) Since all blessings emanate from G'd, what difference does it make that the priest transmits it? Does G'd need the priests' help? ",
"2) Why does G'd not first give the command to bless, and then the formula, instead of vice versa? ",
"3) What is the meaning of \"they will place My name on the children of Israel?\" ",
"(1,2,3) Just as man is not allowed to enjoy nature's blessings without first reciting an appropriate benediction acknowledging G'd as the source, so the priests remind people of that fact when they say \"may the Lord bless you.\" Constant reminders that G'd is the source of all blessings and well being are important. This too is the purpose of \"they will place My name on the children of Israel and I will bless them.\" The priests' function is to keep Israel aware of this cardinal fact. The function of the priest in relation to G'd, is parallel to the aggadah about Moses assisting G'd in His task of tying the crowns to the letters of the Torah, that we mentioned earlier. The first part of the priests' blessing is essentially material in nature. The additional word \"and may He preserve you,\" is the difference between human and Divine blessings. The former, however generous in nature, does not carry with it the guarantee that it will endure. G'ds blessings however, includes the blessing that it will endure. The second blessing revolves essentially around spiritual matters, the important feature being that the attitude of others towards you will be positive, generous, acknowledge your worth. The third section, \"Peace,\" is relatively the most important of the blessings, as documented by many of the sayings of our sages. They teach that even in death, shalom, peace, is an indispensable attribute. \"You will join your fathers in peace.\" (Genesis 15, 15) See also Jeremiah 34, 4, concerning the death of king Tzidkiyahu. We find a somewhat puzzling statement by Rabbi Eleazar Hakappor, who is quoted as saying \"peace is great because even if Israel worships idols, as long as they have harmony, Satan does not touch them.” He bases himself on the verse in Hoseah 4, 17, \"as long as the idol worshipping Ephrayim live in unity, leave them alone;\" but it continues in chapter 10, 2, \"when their heart is divided, now they will receive their punishment.\" How strange that those who destroy the fabric that binds them to their Creator by worshipping idols, should not also burst the fabric of harmony, peace? But the lesson is that the merit of maintaining harmony gives even sinners an extension before G'ds justice is executed. The three blessings then are 1) Provision of material needs including a healthy body. 2) Provision of the needs of the spirit and soul. 3) Assistance in establishing harmony between man and his Maker, which is true harmony. The tabernacle represents the totality of this world, a microcosm. The beriach hatichon, the central bolt joining all forty eight boards comprising the walls, are the thread shalom, i.e. \"peace\" that bonds everything together in harmony. When the Midrash says that when G'd created the world, He desired a dwelling down here, just as He has in the Heavens, the meaning is none other than that He wished to supervise and assist man's activities, just as He supervises all that goes on in Heaven. To that end, He endowed the world with blessings. Adam, unfortunately forfeited that relationship through his sin, and until the arrival of Abraham on the stage of history, the broken thread did not begin to mend. Finally, at the completion of the tabernacle, this thread had been fully restored. This is the reason the Torah records the blessings at this juncture. For this reason also, the Midrash talks about Moses hearing three voices. He called the first voice hadar, to paraprase material well being. He called the second voice naeh, to parapharase spiritual and mental well being. The third voice he called meshubach, \"choice,\" since it is the crowning achievement of all. Moses was anxious to have G'ds message spelled out. G'd obliged, saying \"I speak shalom, I harbour no ill feelings against My children.\" (Psalms 85,9.) Rabbi Joshua ben Levi says that there is no need at all to quote a verse from the book of Psalms, since the verse in the Torah is perfectly adequate. Since the Torah tells us about blessings, and continues with the line \"it was the day the tabernacle had been completed,\" the word va-yehee, it was, always refers to the reestablishment of a situation that had existed at one time, but had been interrupted. "
]
],
[
[
"\n \"And the people were as murmurers\" etc.",
"The Talmud in Menachot 53, states: \"may the good one come and receive that which is good, from the Good One, on behalf of the good ones.\" May the good one come, i.e. Moses, of whom it is written \"she saw him that he was good.\" (Exodus 2,2) \"And receive that which is good,\" i.e. the Torah of which it is written \"for it is a good instruction that I have given you\" (Proverbs 4,2) \"From the Good One\" i.e the Almighty, of whom it is said \"The Lord is good to all.\" (Psalms 145,9) \"On behalf of the good ones\"-i.e. Israel, concerning whom scripture states \"do good O Lord, to the good ones and to those whose heart is upright!\" (Psalms 125,4) ",
" The existence of ideal conditions is a prerequisite if a craftsman is to perform his art successfully. ",
"Similarly, in matters of the spirit, success can only be guaranteed when all three major conditions for success have been fulfilled In material matters the ingredients that ensure success are: a) availability of the finest raw materials, b) excellent tools, c) an outstanding craftsman. Even a Betzalel could only function at his best when he had at his disposal the finest materials, the best weaving and embroidery equipment. Isaiah 28, 24-29, further illustrates our point, showing that even simple labours such as ploughing and threshing, require more than brute force or muscle in order to be performed successfully. The critical ingredient is \"if he has absorbed the lesson taught him by His G'd.\" (verse 26) Sometimes even undertakings commenced at the behest of G'd, will appear to have counterproductive results, especially so when the approach adopted seems illogical. Still, even in such cases, success is the ultimate result. When it does materialize, the impact is longer lasting and far more dramatic. Moses' first interview at the Court of Pharaoh certainly seemed to contain all the ingredients of the failure of a mission, producing as it did, harsh counter measures by Paraoh. (Exodus 5,6-23) The appointment of David as future king of Israel and its Saviour, (Samuel I chapter 16 and onwards) seemed to lead to early failure. Samuel had to take the most unlikely tool when he commenced the mission, a young calf. The insignificant waters of the river Jordan were selected to cure the Syrian general Naaman of his skin disease. (Kings II 5, 1-18) On the other hand, we find the Jews who went to collect manna on the Sabbath, or who tried to preserve it from one day to the next, -perfectly reasonable sounding procedures-, fail, because they did not heed the lesson quoted from Isaiah earlier. We also find that Pharaoh's magicians failed to cope with the plagues which they considered themselves capable and trained to deal with. The meaning of our opening Midrash then is clear. \"May the right craftsman Moses, come and receive the right tools, Torah, from the only One who can supply these tools, G'd, on behalf of Israel.\" The description of Israel as \"the good ones,\" has a dual meaning. A) There will always be found some good people in Israel, people whose merit will suffice to insure the nation's survival, people such as the prophets whose very existence has made our people unparalleled among all the nations since Abraham. Psalms 87, 5-6, clearly reflects this sentiment. The psalmist extols virtuous individuals all of whom regard Zion as their spiritual birthplace. B) The Jewish people, though not always measuring up to their task individually, deserve the appellation \"the good ones, in comparison to other nations. When Solomon talks about \"the lily amongst the thorns,” in Song of Songs, 2,2, he refers to this goodness of Israel relative to other nations. Even though a lily is not a fruit bearing plant, the master of the parables could certainly have selected a different plant to compare Israel to, had he wanted to. The lily does not even provide shade for the weary traveller, but only delights by its fragrance and beautiful appearance. It is found amongst thorns, which do not please the eye or the sense of smell, and which actually cause pain to those who come in contact with them. Similarly, the Jewish people even when not at their best, stand out amongst the nations. For this reason the sages instituted the benediction \"You have chosen us,\" in our liturgy. We will discuss later in this chapter how the wholesale death of Israelites which emanated from the \"Good One\" at kivrot hata-avot, when Israel became the victim of uncontrolled greed, could have happened. ",
"Some problems tin the text of our Parshah. 1) When the Torah writes (Numbers 11, 1) \"The people were as if complaining, wicked in the eyes of the Lord,\" what was it that G'd had heard? Why is it not spelled out? When the Jewish people are described as \"crying again\" in verse four, when was the first time they had cried? 2) How could the people say \"who will feed me meat?,\" when they had enjoyed a regular diet of fowl, quail, since the second month they had been in the desert? How could Moses therefore appear to question G'ds ability to provide meat for the whole nation? 3) Why did Moses not relay the people's request to G'd as had been his custom? 4) If Moses simply wanted to reduce the burden of leadership from himself, why did the elders have to be assembled prior to the provision of meat? 5) The Torah seems extraordinarily long winded when describing how long the meat supply would last, i.e. \"not one day, not two days etc. etc..\" Why? 6) Moses' question \"are You going to provide meat for six hundred thousand foot soldiers that I find myself amongst,\" seems peculiar? 7) Why did G'd supply this meat? ",
"(1) The people were \"as if complaining,\" refers to a trumped up charge, one not voiced openly. They were ashamed to voice their real complaint, and instead they voiced some diversionary complaint. Their real complaint, of course, had reached the ears of G'd who is familiar with what goes on in people's hearts. For this reason, G'd says later \"you have wept in the earshot of G'd, who will feed us meat?\" G'd had heard and was angry. At the time Abraham had weighed the money to Ephron for the burial ground he was purchasing for Sarah, he had also \"heard\" Ephron's unspoken words, not only the flattering offer of a gift. Despite Moses' prayer, which had stopped the fire consuming the people at tav-eyrah, the people sinned again for an entirely unprovoked reason. The assafsuff, the fringe elements, did not lust after meat. They induced in themselves lust after meat, a most despicable trait. Aristotele in chapter 9 of his book of ethics deals with this trait. When a person sees someone else enjoying something that he himself neither feels the lack of, nor the need for, he desires to be possessed of the urge to enjoy the same thing. If one observes a thirsty person slake his thirst with ice cold water, then such a person wishes to become thirsty in order to be able to quench his thirst. This is the basest way of enslaving oneself to physical greed and passions. Such people cannot even claim in defence of their behaviour that an outsider tempted them as Eve had done in Genesis 3,13. When the rest of the people observed the lust of the assafsuf, they wept again as they had done previously. This time however, they articulated their lust for meat. What displeased G'd most, was, that they had chosen to be free from moral imperatives (Torah) over freedom from enslavement to their physical urges. In Egypt, while they had been enslaved physically, Torah legislation had not yet regulated their freedom to partake of all the physical gratifications that presented themselves. Their food intake, sex life etc. had not yet become subject to Torah law and guidance. The fact that they now disdained the very thing that would lift them to the level of being truly free persons, particularly angered G'd. Whenever the Torah reports Israel as displaying a preference for Egypt, i.e. \"we were better off in Egypt,\" the reference is to the exchange of physical freedom for the sacrifice of moral licentiousness. (see comment of Sifri on the word chinam, i.e. free from the yoke of the mitzvot,) The right to eat any fish without examining if such fish was equipped with fins and scales, was more important to them than to harbour the shechinah, Presence of G'd in their midst. After all, that shechinah, guided their destiny. (2+3) By their own admission,they had never eaten meat to their satisfaction; they only talk about sitting close to other people's fleshpots. But, even the memory of their erstwhile proximity to meat, was preferable to the availability of man, Heavenly food. At Refidim, when they did get quail, apparently it had not been to satisfy their bellies, since the fowl had not been described as performing that function. (as distinct from the \"bread\" which is described as lasovah, to satisfy. Exodus 16,8) Their complaint that they had nothing to look at but the man, underlined that they felt dependent daily on its re-appearance. The Torah says \"who feeds you manna in the desert to keep you afflicted, unsatisfied, to test you, so that in the end you will be well off.\" (Deut. 8,17) G'd did not want Israel to gorge themselves on food, not even on man. When our sages in Yuma 74, tell us that blind people are never satisfied after having eaten, the reason is that they did not see the food. This places Israel's complaint into focus. \"The only thing we can see is the manna.\" In other words, the only thing that they get their fill of is the manna. Abaye, in the same discussion in the Talmud, suggests that banquets should not be held at night, as one cannot enjoy one's food in the dark. Since the people had expressed themselves in a derogatory fashion about the manna, its appearance, its feel, etc.,the Torah proceeds to give us an objective report about its properties. In Proverbs 16,17, Solomon writes \"better a dish of vegetables that is served and eaten with love, than a fatted ox which is served and eaten with hatred.\" He illustrates the attitude of the people towards the most delectable of dishes, handpicked by G'd Himself. The Torah's description of the layer of dew upon which the manna descended nightly, proves that the people's state of mind was not due to an inherent shortcoming of the manna. ",
"Moses heard the people cry in family groups, it was bad in his eyes.\" Moses had only seen the outer manifestations of the people's complaints. He did not realise that the word \"families\" mentioned here, alluded to the deeper cause of the Israelites' dissatisfaction, namely the laws of purity forbidding various incestuous relationships. Moses therefore thought that it was the manna itself which was the cause of their dissatisfaction. The word ra, needs to be understood as tzorat ayin, envy, jealousy. The Torah commands that when the year of release approaches shemittah, overdue loans must be \"released,\" i.e. forgiven. Prior to that, loans should not be refused out of fear that the debtor would be tardy in repayment in order to take advantage of the \"release\" mechanism. (Deut. 15, 9-10) According to the Sifri, Moses, in this instance worried less about G'ds honour. He was concerned that the people's request should not be granted, since it was unjustified. This is the reverse of what had happened at the time of the golden calf, when it had been Moses trying to convince G'd that it was not worth getting angry about. (Exodus 32, 11) For that reason, Moses did not even relay the people's request to G'd. Moses saw himself as unfit to provide satisfactory leadership, therefore he asked for help from G'd in the form of a management team. Failing this, he asked to be relieved through death, so that he would not have to witness the failure of his efforts to date. Moses listed three possible causes that can commit a man to provide for others. 1) Begetting a human being. This makes the one who begets responsible for his offspring's continued life and well being. 2) The natural instinct to raise one's young, something observed even in the animal kingdom. 3) Freely assumed obligations such as marriage, purchase of slaves etc. Moses underlines that in the case of the Jewish people, he has no responsibility for them arising from any of the causes listed. (compare chapter 11, verse 12) Foreseeing his own ultimate death as being due to frustration, he asks to be released before that happens, in the event G'd does not agree to appoint assistants for him. Verse 15, i.e. horgeyni na harog, \"kill me dead,\" means \"if You kill me, You will be killing someone who is already dead. A further argument used by Moses was that a leader who has at his disposal the means to satisfy his people's request, does have some responsibility in the matter. Since he, Moses, was however, in no position to provide the meat asked for, he felt no obligation in the matter. (4) G'd was displeased by Moses' request, although He acceded to it. By not providing additional ruach, spiritual power, but merely redistributing it amongst Moses and the seventy elders, i.e. \"I will delegate from the spirit which is upon you\" (verse 17), He demonstrated that He did not feel that the task allotted to Moses had been beyond his capacity. (6) Moses seemed unconcerned about G'ds reputation in the matter, concentrating on his own role in providing the meat, not worrying about the damage to G'ds image in the eyes of the people as an inadequate provider. G'd wished to show that even henceforth with the seventy elders, the combined leadership of the people would not be able to draw on an enlarged reservoir of spiritual resources. ",
"(7)(3) The Midrash illustrates Moses' quest for relief by using the parable of an orchard whose owner had hired a general manager. During the term of the contract, said manager requests additional staff from the owner. The owner, while acceding to the request, refuses to pay the additional staff out of his own pocket, but deducts the wages for the additional staff from the salary of the general manager. The fact that G'd provided assistants indicates that basically, G'd was in agreement with Moses' request. Regarding the matter of the meat however, G'd seems to disagree with Moses, since He does provide it, even though Moses had not even relayed the people's demand. G'd considered it vital that the people not continue to view their situation as inferior to what their situation had been while they had still been in Egypt. For that reason, He provided such an enormous amount of meat. The fact that the people continued gorging themselves on the meat even while they had observed many dying as a result of their meat intake on the very first day already, seems to prove that they were thoroughly dissatisfied with their present situation, when compared to their former situation in Egypt. Had their real concern been the meat, their desire would have petered out as soon as they saw people die from eating meat. It was exactly these people who died for their unpardonable sin. The revulsion the people would ultimately feel for that meat, is punishment fitting the crime. (chapter 11, 20) They who had pretended that it was the meat they wanted, whereas in fact it was the moral strictures of Torah law that irked them, would see the object of their professed desire turn into something that revolted them. In this manner G'ds justice was displayed, since He did not have to devise a means to punish them, seeing their punishment was the natural result of being allowed to gratify their desires. The name kivrot hata-avah, given to that place does not refer to the original desire, but to the ultimate greed which raged until it had burned itself out, i.e. \"buried itself.\" Ta-avah, greed, lust, is self consuming. This is the lesson taught in this chapter. Even the rationalisation that those who did not die from the meat were apparently immune to it, teaches volumes about the grip the ta-avah, had on the people. \"Now you will see if indeed My word is dear to you or not.\" (11,23) The elders I have asked you to select, will indeed help you carry the burden. G'd implies that Moses had been somewhat hasty in rejecting the role of sole leadership of the people. Even at this time, when some of the worst traits of the Jewish people have been publicly displayed, it was easy to find seventy elders capable of providing leadership. Among them were such humble prophets as Eldod and Meydod who, though of the seventy two selected for potential leadership, drew blanks in the lottery that determined which seventy men were to fill these positions. Since they had been selected for potential leadership roles, their prophetic powers were not now curtailed. Joshua thought it strange that they could use their gift outside the holy tabernacle, just anywhere within the confines of the encampment. Moses, in his reply, expressed the wish that all of Israel would receive the gift of prophecy directly from Heaven, not like the seventy who had received their inspiration through him, since in the final analysis all of the people, being Moses' students had received their inspiration through him. From here we learn the source of the dictum in the Talmud that though most other things are the subject of envy and jealousy, a father or teacher is not jealous of his respective sons or pupils. (Sanhedrin 105) (5) Upon the seventy elders having been selected, G'd supplied the promised meat, the people not heeding the warning that it would be zarah, for them, i.e. loathsome. Otherwise, they would not have eaten from it in the manner described. Spending forty eight consecutive hours collecting fowl, (verse 32) shows us what a burning desire for meat there must have been. G'd demonstrated then that granting the people their own desire in abundance, led to tragic results, whereas nothing that G'd had provided for them, had ever proved harmful to them. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Moses was the most humble person.\" ",
"Midrash Rabbah Numbers 19, writes \"the man Moses was more humble than any other human being.\" (Numbers 12,2) Man's wisdom illuminates his face. (Kohelet 8,1) Rabbi Yudan said: \"the power of the prophet is great, for he can relate the grandeur of the Heavenly spheres to the form bound human being, as is written in Daniel 8,16, \"I heard the voice of \"Adam\" when at the river Ulay.\" Rabbi Yehudah son of Seymon said this is proved from the verse \"on the likeness of a Heavenly throne, a vision like \"Adam\" was upon it.\"(Ezekiel 1,26) ",
"Just as a prophet is in a class distinct from ordinary people, so Moses was in a class distinct from other prophets. ...",
"As discussed in chapter ten, man's cognitive powers are twofold. Perception is possible by means of one's intellect, or by means of one's senses. Perception by intellect is divided into two categories. A) Things or beings that cannot be other than they are. B) Things or beings which are subject to change. We will call the perception of the first type the ability to \"know,\" whereas we will call the perception of the second type, the ability to \"calculate.\" There is a constant relationship between him who endeavours to know, and between the object that is being defined. If the object of one's perception undergoes a fundamental change, the faculty enabling us to perceive such object also undergoes some transformation. We observe a parallel phenomenon concerning perception with our senses. The sense of sight, vision, is affected by the object being perceived. Yet that same sense of sight remains completely unaffected by objects that are perceived merely by the sense of touch, for instance. Should an object that had been perceived as incapable of undergoing change be found to have changed nonetheless, the powers of perception applied to it will no longer be speculative reason, but practical reason. To determine the common denominator between man and bird for instance, we employ \"wit,\" speculative reason. It tells us that both species are living entities, react to stimuli, breathe and move. To determine the difference between man and bird, we employ \"sagacity,\" practical reason. The latter tells us of the ability of the birds to fly, their having wings etc. On the other hand, it tells us that man has the power of speech, the ability to express thoughts coherently etc. At any rate, we employ two branches of what may also be described as \"soul power,\" when we engage in these perceptions. The reason \"sagacity\" is also known as \"practical reason\" is, that without it, almost no voluntary activity is possible. Being able to understand and analyse phenomena does not by itself lead to action. Therefore, the practical “reason” is an essential part of the cognitive process. Since speculative reason concerns itself with phenomena that are abstract, or at any rate immutable, everlasting, it too is constant. Practical reason, since it concerns itself with transient phenomena, is itself transient in nature. When departing this life and becoming a purely spiritual being, we will no longer possess this practical reason, since in the world of abstract beings there is nothing it could be applied to. This is in line with the statement in the Talmud that \"the departed is aware of his own pain, but not of the pain of others.\" (Rosh Hashanah 18) Since all bodies die, he is aware of his own demise, since apart from this fact, each person's fate varies, he is unaware of other facts which would require practical reason in order to be appreciated. The term \"life\" is a constant, even though each individual living creature is bound to die at some point or other. Since the prophet perceives beings that cannot be perceived by other human beings with his soul, it follows that his soul's faculties are somewhat different from other people's faculties in this respect. According to Aristotele, the relationship between pure speculative reason and pure practical reason is similar to the relationship between Divine intellect and human intellect respectively. When G'd, at the time of creation, said that man was to be made in His image, He meant man in his ideal state. Picture for yourself the spiritual state of the people of Israel at the time they received the ten commandments at Mount Sinai. Our opening Midrash discusses a similar state of affairs. Since all the forces active in the universe are represented in man in some form, and he is therefore sometimes referred to as a microcosm, he had dominion over all the other creatures on earth, just as G'd had dominion over all things and spirits in the entire universe. Therefore, prophets, on occasion use the term \"Adam\" when referring to G'd, to describe Him in His capacity as the Omnipotent. See Daniel, 8,16, \"I heard the voice of \"Adam,\" or Ezekiel 1,2, \"and on the likeness of the throne, a likeness such as \"Adam \" above.\" These terms are used only in order to facilitate understanding by human ears of all the anthropomorphical terms used for that purpose. Since it is permissible to employ the term \"Adam\" in this fashion, it is not surprising to find references to \"perfect man\" as \"Adam\" also. Chochmat adam ta-ir panav, \"the wisdom of perfect man lights up his face.\" (Kohelet 8,1) It is this that is meant by Rabbi Yudan, when he stated that the descriptive powers of the prophets are very great indeed, since they can employ the form to describe its original Creator. When one considers that Moses gave of his spirit to the newly appointed elders, then one can understand the relationship between them and Moses as parallel to the relationship between G'd and His most superior creatures, i.e. the angels. According to Rabbi Akiva in Avot 3, 14, man is beloved since he was created in The image. The meaning is that since this image had been bestowed on him at the very beginning of the creative process, i.e. nivra, he has the potential to emulate Divine powers. However, not one in ten million reaches this lofty goal. Rabbi Akiva continues to single out the Jewish nation, which due to the gift of Torah, can hope to achieve the human ideal more easily than any other nation. The Jewish people are called banim, children, to show that they possess more of the traits of the \"father,\" i.e. their Creator. Maimonides in the first section of his \"Moreh,\" chapter 45, is at pains to explain that Ezekiel's visions describe his own image of G'ds throne, which image, though Divinely inspired, is not to be confused with the objectively true state of affairs. The greatness of Ezekiel lies in his describing the function of this image as being equivalent to the function of G'd Himself. Moses, being extremely humble, had his stature attested to by G'd Himself, who explains to Aaron and Miriam that his status is incomparably higher than theirs. When our sages say of Moses, that his face was like the sun, they mean that though the sun is only one of the planets, its stature is such that it is always mentioned separately, never lumped together with the other planets. Similarly, the prophetic powers of Moses cannot be lumped together with that of other prophets, as it is far too superior. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why do Miriam and Aaron discuss Moses' wife precisely at this point of the wanderings of the Jewish people? Why did they reinforce their argument by saying \"did G'd not speak to us also?\" 2) Why did G'd list four separate instances in which Moses was superior, whereas concerning Miriam and Aaron only two such instances are listed? What is the difference between mar-eh and mar-ah? Why was Aaron not afflicted with skin disease, tzora-at? 3) Aaron's plea to his brother Moses seems puzzling. (Chapter 12,11) How can he say \"please lay not sin upon us, for we have done foolishly and we have sinned?\" It is obviously justified to consider Miriam and Aaron as having sinned? 4) Why do we need to be told that the people waited for Miriam to recover before continuing their journey? ",
"(1) We have to understand this whole story as a continuation of the previously reported incident, in which G'd had criticised Moses openly for having appeared to doubt His ability to supply the people with large quantities of meat. Under the circumstances, Miriam and Aaron also found reason to criticise Moses. They believed that Moses, having married a woman belonging to another nation, had now become ashamed of this, and that this was the reason he had separated from her. They were convinced that his status as a prophet had nothing to do with this separation, since they too were prophets, and this did not interfere with their family life. If Moses were to use the argument of his being a prophet, they considered that this would be showing off his piety. This was their second sin, in fact. G'd heard all this, and decided to reprimand them more severely than He would have done, had their criticism been more factual, and if they had not chosen a point in time when they believed Moses to be out of favour with G'd. First of all, by testifying to Moses' humility, the Torah squelches the thought that he could have been showing off his piety. Secondly, it states that the separation had nothing to do with Moses having developed a dislike for his wife. Matters which would be considered private by other couples who conduct their sex life in the confines of their bedrooms, would assume a quasi public character in the case of Moses, since he had to be available for communication from G'd on a seven day, twenty four hour basis. He could therefore not afford to be found tamey, ritually impure due to the emission of seminal fluid at any moment. Even the brief space of time it would require to immerse himself in a ritual bath, would mean that he would keep G'd waiting, on occasion. Because Miriam and Aaron did not appreciate the different level of Moses' prophetic powers and stature, they had arrived at an opposite conclusion regarding Moses' motivation. By addressing them suddenly, G'd wanted to demonstrate to Miriam and Aaron that whereas they had not been tuned in to this communication and had been totally unprepared for it, their brother was perfectly at ease, comfortable with this \"sudden\" communication. Miriam and Aaron were forced to remain outside the tabernacle, whereas Moses was inside it. Only through Moses being in the presence of the shechinah, did they receive any communication at all. (2) G'd then proceeded to outline the qualitative difference between Moses' prophetic powers, and those of Miriam and Aaron respectively. Im yihye nevi-achem, \"if he were a prophet according to your definition of the term,\" G'd would speak to him in a dream or through a reflection. (verses 6-8) Other prophets receive their communications in one of four ways. A) In a dream. B) Through a reflected image, while remaining awake but in a state of trembling. C) In a parable, through a riddle, by means of an angel. D) After having prepared themselves spiritually to a state necessary to receive a communication. In chapter seven of his sefer hamada, Maimonides has elaborated on the Talmudic statement in Yevamot 49, explaining that the prophecy of Moses was in the nature of a \"clear vision,\" whereas all other prophets received only \"clouded visions.\" Our Parshah explains some of the aspects of prophecy discussed by Maimonides, as well as others not dealt with in his sefer hamada. Mar-ah, is the mirror which is the means by which the prophet receives his message while awake or asleep. There are four basic deficiencies when one receives a communication by means of a mirror. They leave the recipient unable to comprehend the message in its entirety. 1) The viewer sees only what is immediately opposite him, anything behind a curtain, for instance, would not be seen, since only the curtain itself is reflected by the mirror. In this way, prophets receive an external view of things, without comprehending its substance. Abraham's belief that Isaac was to be sacrificed is an example of this. Although it appeared as if G'd had changed His mind, lack of comprehension of the true nature of G'ds command, only affected the viewer. Similarly, Samuel erred thinking G'd had wanted him to appoint Yishai's eldest son, until G'd told him not to be guided by the \"exterior.\" i.e. mar-eyhoo. Even at the beginning of his career, he had mistaken the call of Eli, the High Priest, his mentor, no less than three times. (Samuel I chapter 3) This kind of communication is described by Solomon in his Song of Songs as \"behold, He was standing behind our wall, observing through the windows, peering through the lattices.\" (chapter 2,9) Concerning all this, G'd says \"not so My servant Moses; he is at home in any part of My house.\" The second deficiciency when perceiving by means of a mirror, is that all communication is only visual; the viewer cannot hear anything that may be spoken by the figure appearing in the mirror. Consequently, understanding is liable to be fragmentary, the whole picture is not communicated. Gestures may be observed, but no sound is audible. Zacharyah 4, and Daniel 10, are examples of the inadequacy to the prophet of this kind of revelation, unless there is further assistance. Concerning this flaw which other prophets have to put up with when they receive G'ds communications, G'd says about Moses \"I speak to him mouth to mouth.\" His ears, not only his eyes are part of his prophetic visions. The third disadvantage in perceiving by means of a mirror, is that one does not behold the actual form or shape of the object shown, but only its two dimensional reproduction, i.e. reflection. This is like making the recipient of the vision guess at the real essence of something. It is as if asking him to piece together parts of a puzzle, chidot. Mar-eh, spelled with the vowel segal, means a true image, not the reflected one. Moses receives mar-eh, not mar-ah. The fourth disadvantage of viewing by means of a mirror is that whoever wants to view things in a mirror, must first assume a position opposite, directly in front of the mirror. Whatever is seen however, appears inverted. What is right in reality and parallel to the viewer, appears as on the left of the viewer. The viewer must employ his brain to compensate for the distortion inherent in viewing things in a mirror. Moses, on the other hand, sees temunat hashem, the true image, not something distorted in a mirror. After G'd had outlined to Miriam and Aaron how different Moses' level of prophetic perceptions was from theirs, He challenges them \"why have you not had enough reverence for him to talk about My servant etc.\" i.e. \"about ME?\" Here G'd makes the point that Moses is indeed the spiritual father of all prophets, and as such, a special reverence is required in our attitude towards him. When the Mishnah Avot 4, 15, says \"may the reverence for your teacher equal the reverence for Heaven,\" our Parshah is its source. The sin of Miriam and Aaron was twofold, since in making derogatory remarks about Moses, they had actually criticised G'd by implication. Moses was G'ds chosen instrument, after all. Secondly, Moses' character was so perfect, that they had no right to impute base motives to any of his actions. When G'd had finished explaining to Miriam and Aaron how they had erred, He withdrew, and Miriam was struck by the skin disease, since it had only been she who had actually done the talking. Aaron had been included in the accusation, since by remaining a silent listener, he had become an accessory to the travesty committed. Proof that Aaron had kept silent, is the fact that the Torah does not say \"Miriam and Aaron spoke,\" using the plural form, or the masculine form, which would have included Aaron. (3) The plea \"do not lay sin upon us,\" means \"since we have already admitted our guilt, do not reprimand us any further for this sin, but pray for us.\" In answer to Moses' prayer to heal Miriam of her affliction, G'd says \"since even Aaron had not suggested that she go completely free, only that she should not die, her punishment would be temporary banishment. Her sin being also against her father in Heaven, said father would ban her from His presence temporarily.\" (4) The fact that the people did not continue their journey during Miriam's quarantine, was not an unmixed blessing for her. Though it reflected the fact that they held Miriam in high esteem, it was also the surest way of publicising what had happened to her, since the delay in travelling would lead to questions concerning the reason for the delay. All of this would result in increased respect for Moses and his prophetic powers. The Parshah teaches the lesson that one must be exceedingly careful when criticising one's leaders. Solomon, in Proverbs 18,12-14, summarizes the lesson to be learned from this Parshah. Moses, who enjoyed tremendous prestige and honour was exemplified by his humility, whereas Miriam the greatest prophetess, had let her pride cause her to slander her brother. The principal error to be avoided when criticising one's leaders, is not to apply one's own low standards of conduct to those of one's leaders. "
]
],
[
[
"Did the spies despise the land of Israel, or did they merely reject G'ds leadership? ",
"Bamidbar Rabbah 16, describes the sending of the spies by a parable. Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi, compared Israel to a prince whose father had selected a beautiful wealthy bride from a first class family for him to marry. The prince said to the father \"let me have a look at her first.\" This placed the father in an embarrassing position. If he refused the request, his son might think that the bride was really ugly, and this was why his father did not want him to examine her before the wedding. Therefore, the father reluctantly agreed to the son's request, saying \"have a look if I really have deceived you.\" However, because you have displayed a lack of faith in me, I swear that you will not lead her under the wedding canopy, but I will give her to your son.\" So also in the case of the spies. In the end, G'd promised eretz yisrael to the next generation. ",
"",
"G'd has endowed man with an intellect, enabling him to measure and calculate his activities to avoid falling victim to pitfalls found in nature. Though nature may offer all the ingredients and raw materials necessary for life on this planet, it does not offer these raw materials ready for immediate use. Either the usable has not been separated from the unusable, i.e. ores containing a variety of metals that need to be refined, or there is an overabundance of certain materials which when used in the condition they are found in, may be very harmful, but which, if used in carefully measured quantities may be extremely beneficial. Man too, possesses a wealth of characteristics which, if allowed to express themselves in an unrestrained, unregulated manner, would bring about his destruction rather than his progress in this world. In short, man's advantage consists in his ability to discriminate in areas where nature has been quite indiscriminate. Since the guide to successful application of human intelligence is Torah, it has become the ladder by means of which man ascends toward Heaven on the one hand, and the Divine spirit descends earthward towards him. In the words of our sages, this ladder is called \"Sinai,\" its Hebrew numerical value being the same as the Hebrew word for ladder, i.e sulam. (compare chapter 25) Also the word for \"azure blue,\" techeylet, is spelled the same as tachlit, our ultimate purpose. He who performs the mitzvah of tzitzit, fringes, is equal to one who has achieved his tachlit, i.e. proximity to the Divine. The immediate mitzvah which represents this \"ladder,\" or \"intermediary\" concept is that of tzitzit, fringes. The word itself, as in meytzitz min hacharakim, means to view. (Song of Songs, 2,9) We are commanded to wear tzitzit in order to help us remember the rest of the Torah. The techeylet, azure blue wool thread, more than anything, helps to remind us of our task to be both physical and spiritual beings, not abstract intellects such as angels, nor merely earthbound creatures like the animals. Just as blue is a colour halfway between the all absorbing black, and the all reflecting white, so Torah is an intermediary between us and G'd;as our sages put it-, yam, the ocean, rakiyah, the sky, kisseh hakavod, the throne of His glory, represent the progression and act as the catalyst to bring about the fusing of the material and the spiritual world. Whereas Aristotele considers a behaviour pattern which is based on the golden rule as the highest achievement man is capable of, Judaism considers any form of perception based on purely human criteria as deceptive and leading to faulty conclusions. Rather, our golden rule is the application of our intellect, reinforced by the revealed law of G'd. The function of the tzitzit legislation is to remind us of this moral imperative. At the same time, tzitzit teaches us to refrain from extremism in the application of all human characteristics. In Proverbs 4,27, we are exhorted \"do not incline to the right or to the left; then your feet will avoid evil.\" When a person sees both black and white, then the presence of some blue can remind him of what blue represents relative to either black or white. If, however, a person wears a totally blue garment, looking at it will hardly remind him of either the ocean, the sky or the throne of G'd and what these represent. If Korach had claimed that totally blue garments should be exempt from tzitzit, he had failed to understand that no golden mean can be achieved without the presence of extreme right and extreme left. Striving for a golden mean does not mean desiring a world in which everything is equal, the same. The fact that there is to be only a single blue thread in our tzitzit, emphasizes the concept that there is only one proper way among the many choices man appears to have. For this reason, our sages in Menachot 43, state that whosoever observes the mitzvah of tzitzit is as if he had observed the entire Torah. Converesly, anyone who has failed to observe this mitzvah is as if he had failed to observe any of the other mitzvot. To teach the validity of this approach, the Torah itself proclaims \"looking at the azure blue thread will prevent you from pursuing the desires of your hearts and eyes that you are prone to pursue. Sifri equates heart with heresy, eyes with immorality, quoting scripture to support that view. Tzitzit then are a form of insurance against seduction by our evil instincts, commonly referred to as the yetzer hara. The main activity of said impulse is to disrupt any progress man has made on the ladder linking earth with the Divine. Since observance of all the commandments will make man come close to the Creator, the Torah says \"you will then become holy to the Lord.\" The word vee-heyitem should be translated as \"you will remain,\" meaning that our state of holiness will then become our natural state of being. The conclusion of the paragraph recalling our liberation from Egypt, is to remind us of where the absolute truth of G'ds overlordship had been demonstrated beyond all doubt. Just as we have to follow the golden rule in our physical lives, avoiding excesses in food, drink, sex etc., so also our mental state. Excesses have to be shunned. Extremes of sorrow or exultation are not proper. Anything that is overemphasized can only be such at the expense of having underemphasized its counterpart. All pursuits that are indulged in to excess, are outgrowths of the yetzer hara. .(see chapter 12 about the families of Noach) Our life is composed of three major areas of concern. 1) Things that appear useful to us. 2) Things that seem to ensure our comfort. 3) Pursuits of the mind, intellect. ",
"Anyone who interests himself too much in his comfort, can do so only at the expense of neglecting useful things and by not allocating enough time to the pursuit of the things his mind is capable of. On the other hand, he, who concentrates most of his energies on the pursuit of purely intellectual matters, will sacrifice some comfort and the attainment of useful things in the process. What is to be aimed at then, is the proper balance between the three disciplines. Anything that interferes with the pursuit of that objective is the fourth discipline, teshukah, adherence to the yetzer hara.. Our sages have described remedies against this teshukah for all the three disciplines. 1) If one is overly interested in one's bodily comfort, the regulatory device is the woman, i.e. one's wife. In other words, marriage is a regulator, safeguarding man against the excessive pursuit of physical comforts, gratifications. 2) The teshukah of rain is that it is restricted to falling on the earth. (in this way the danger of excess rain creating a deluge is regulated) 3) The teshukah of the Almighty (His wide ranging intellect) is that it is concentrated on Israel. This is a voluntary restriction that G'd imposes on Himself. 4) The teshukah of the yetzer hara is that it is restricted to Cain and the likes of him. This shows that even the yetzer hara is subject to self imposed limitations.(see the text of this in Bereshit Rabbah 20) Since all excesses in any of the aforementioned three areas are anathema to G'd, He gave the Jewish people a land, which, in the words of the Torah, supplies all our needs without leading to our indulging in excesses in any area. We read in Deut. 8,7, \"for the Lord your G'd brings you to a good land, a land of wheat and barley, rivers etc., where you will not eat bread in paucity; you will not lack anything therein, you will be satisfied and bless the Lord. Be careful that you do not forget the Lord, and over-indulge...\" In the paragraph quoted above, we can clearly see that the mitzvot are to act as built in regulators against excessive pursuits of material objectives. The Talmud Menachot 43, points out that the promise of the adequacy of that land to meet our needs, is followed by the line \"what is it that the Lord your G'd asks of you, except to observe all the commandments etc.\" The word mah- is to be read as mey-ah, i.e. one hundred. There is a hint in this that we are to recite one hundred benedictions daily. Israel's trek through the desert for forty years taught them that man and be-er, the manna and the well, were adequate sustenance, that over-indulgence in food and drink were not our purpose. ",
"We are told by the Midrash that G'd gave Israel three gifts, all of which were acquired through some deprivations. 1) Torah. 2) The land of Israel. 3) olam haba, eternal life in the hereafter.(Shemot Rabba 81) The scriptural proof for this quoted in the Midrash mentions deprivations yissurim in each case. These gifts are ours only if we practice a measure of self restraint. If, in the pursuit of Torah, someone becomes so one-sided that he neglects his debt to society, or fails to appreciate the world around him, he is guilty of Solomon's famous dictum \"do not be too righteous.\" (Kohelet 7,16) Even Torah knowledge can be retained only through continence and self restraint. The Talmud says that every new born baby forgets all the Torah it has learned in the mother's womb, due to an angel striking it at the moment of birth. (Nidah 30) The idea behind this is as follows. While within the mother's womb, the fetus receives exactly what it needs, no excess. Under such conditions it can absorb Torah without impediment. When transferred to our world, these conditions change, and the pursuit of the physical, material, interferes with the acquisition of the spiritual values. The gift of olam haba is received via yissurim because the whole object of mussar, the root of the word yissurim, is to pave the way for life. Olam haba is life in its ultimate definition, attainable, naturally only via such a route. If one may be allowed to oversimplify, morality is nothing but a form of self restraint. In Jeremiah chapter 35, Yehonadav ben Reychav is held up as a shining example of someone who instructed his family to practice the noble art of self restraint concerning a variety of physical pleasures and material acquisitions. In appreciation of that family's having heeded their patriarch's instructions, G'd assures that family that they will provide leading personalities for the Jewish people for all future generations. Arichut yamim, longevity, is defined by our sages as participation in the life which is kullo aruch, of an unending infinite duration. The chapters of the Torah legislation dealing with the shemittah, yovel, ma-asser priestly gifts etc., are aimed at teaching us to practice self restraint when exploiting the bounty the land has to offer. The owner who wants to sell his slave at a good price, will overfeed him prior to the sale, to create the illusion that the slave is in good health and physical strength in the eyes of the prospective purchaser. The negative effects of that slave having been force-fed, will show up only after the sale has been concluded. A father who does not wish to part with his sons, will raise them on the kind of diet that assures their continued well being, and that builds up a resistance against harmful foreign elements in their bodies. (Deut. Rabbah 3) The menorah, candelabra in the tabernacle, was made with beaten gold. The trumpets were made out of beaten silver. The two cherubs on the lid of the holy ark were made of beaten gold. We observe that the purity of these vessels was achieved only after they had been hammered. Only then did the respective raw materials assume its enduring format. The trumpets represent the gift of the land of Israel, since they were employed to herald the Jewish people's approach towards that country. The menorah represents the gift of Torah, spiritual illumination. The cherubs symbolise olam haba, the world in which the angels abound, a world of the spirit, ruach. ",
"",
"The statement of the spies \"we cannot go up, (Numbers 13, 31) embodies far more than physical fear of the people of Canaan. It expressed an unwillingness to elevate themselves spiritually. They were not willing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to merit the three gifts mentioned earlier. Their suggestion of the alternative, namely a return to Egypt, clearly shows that their orientation lay in the pursuit of physical and material pleasures, such as abounded in Egypt. Caleb's call \"aloh na-aleh,\" we can go up, stands out in contrast. This is why G'd Himself describes it as ruach acheret, a different spirit. (14, 24) It fell to Joshua, a descendent of Joseph who had displayed the strength of character resisting physical gratification offered by the wife of Potiphar, to emulate the noble example of his ancestor. ",
"Loss of the land of Israel to the Jewish people, is comparable to loss of the garden of Eden to mankind. Loss of Eden at the time was the introduction to the need of mortality. The Jewish people had conquered this mortality at Mount Sinai when they proclaimed the na-asseh venishma, the unqualified acceptance of G'ds law in its entirety. At that time, the domain of the angel of death was restricted, the Jewish people no longer being under his authority. The sin of the spies resulted in the angel of death regaining his authority over the Jewish people. (Bamidbar Rabbah 37) Life in the land of Israel is of a quality similar to what life in the garden of Eden had been. Midrash Eycha 1, states that whenever Israel is carrying out the Lord's will, it enhances His power. Whenever Israel fails to act in accordance with G'ds will, it causes His power to be diminished. The concept is based on the respective verses (Deut. 32,18) \"The rock that begat you, you have weakened,\" as well as Numbers 14,17, \"and now I pray let the power of G'd become great, as You have said for it to be proclaimed.\" The \"weakness\" of G'ds power referred to, does not stem from objective causes, but from a self imposed discipline that G'd has assumed. This fact, unknown to the gentiles, on occasion prevents G'd from displaying His power. When the Jewish people sin, and thereby forfeit G'ds promises or direct guidance, this may be perceived by the gentiles as a weakening of G'ds power. Similarly, when the Jewish people do perform the mitzvot, thereby qualifying for the reward promised them by G'd, the nations of the world who observe the good fortune of G'ds chosen people, will be impressed with His power correspondingly. When Moses prayed to G'd, pleading for the life of the nation, saying \"now let Your power be great,\" he referred to this concept. Why, he asks, allow the nations to think that Your power has waned when they look at the misfortunes befalling the chosen nation? They will think that the denial of the land of Canaan to the Jews is simply proof of G'ds inability. They will not think that temporary causes have delayed the execution of G'ds avowed purpose. (as would be implied if we understood the word yecholet as a verb) Rather, they will be convinced that the task had proved somewhat beyond G'ds power. (using the word yecholet as a noun) Since, as we have seen, G'd Himself submits to the rules of laws He has created, to the point of allowing His freedom of action to be curtailed through the behaviour of others, we can understand the penalty of denying the land of Israel to the generation that accepted the majority report of the spies. The right to dispossess the Canaanites was embodied in the Jewish people’s superior moral conduct. Now the Jewish people had demonstrated that in spite of the revelation at Mount Sinai, and in spite of all the loving care lavished on the Jewish people ever since the Exodus, they had not risen to the challenge posed by the task of conquering the holy land. Now G'd had no legal means to expel the resident nation in favour of the Jews. The Jewish people belatedly declaring a readiness to risk their physical lives in order to achieve the conquest, had become meaningless. Once G'd had decreed that they would die in the desert, the only thing that they had left to lose was time. Therefore, they could not do the kind of teshuvah repentance that would demonstrate that their basic attitude had changed. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in our opening Midrash summarizes the whole episode by showing the bride possessing three desirable qualities. Beauty represents visible attractiveness, an appeal to the senses, man's physical comfort. Wealth represents the useful. Nobility of ancestry represents the bride's superior moral qualities. Since all three qualities were combined in a single woman, union with a man becomes not only permissible but desirable, and an expression of G'ds purpose for man. Such a union would result in a life of discipline. A land blessed with similar attributes, would also enable the people on it to live a life of discipline. When the son insisted on looking over the bride, this was not because he did not trust his father who had,after all, always provided for him. It was because he did trust his father and because he knew him. The son looked for a way to avoid the moral commitment implied by this marriage. The father, though he realised his son's motives, was in a quandary all the same. Had he refused the son's request, he himself would have provided the fuel for the son's rebellion. The despatch of the spies needs to be seen in the same light. Regrettably, throughout the millenia, ever since the first Tishah be Av, we have still not learned to use the land of Israel and its bounty to help us discipline our lives and to assure ourselves of chayim shekullam aruchim, a life of infinite duration. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah not report that Moses had been put under pressure by the people prior to the despatch of the spies, as is the case in Deut. 1,22, when Moses relates the same events? 2) Why were the \"princes,\" not sent on this mission? Surely they represented the morally most steadfast? 3) If Moses saw fit to pray for Joshua, going so far as to change his name even, why did he not do the same for the other eleven spies? 4) Why did Moses give the spies potential ammunition for a negative report? He gave them such wide terms of reference that he actually invited problems! (verse 18-20) 5) Why did these spies cut off a cluster of grapes so heavy that it needed several (8) people to carry it? Surely that had not been what Moses had meant when he had instructed them to take from the fruit of the land? The report of the spies seems fair enough. Even the use of the word efess, employed elsewhere in scripture as meaning \"but,\" does not seem too unfair! 6) Why did the spies proclaim the planned undertaking as hopeless only after Caleb had described it as feasible? (13,30-31) 7) Joshua's repeated stress on the \"goodness of the land,\" something the spies had never disputed, seems pointless. 8) Why, in this instance, do we find punishment decreed after forgiveness? 9) Why did G'd respond to the fear the Jewish people expressed concerning their children's future, whereas He did not respond to the fear they expressed regarding their own future? 10) Why was the holy ark not allowed to accompany the people after they had expressesd their willingness to march against the Canaanites? ",
"\"Send thou men\"",
"Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Eykev, and Midrash Shocher Tov comment on Proverbs 5,6, and Job 28,16, respectively. We find in those verses references to the mysterious way in which Torah sometimes reports the sequence of events. In the words of the Midrash, the apparent lack of cohesion is deliberate, as otherwise \"every reader could heal the sick or revive the dead.\" We should ask therefore, why the sages endeavoured altogether to find meaning in the order in which events have been related? The truth is that our sages did not mean that there is absolutely no order in the sequences of the Torah's teachings; rather they teach that G'd arranged things in a manner that safeguarded certain secrets that He has reserved for Himself. (Isaiah 44,7) \"Who but I can declare it and set it in order for Me, since I appointed the ancient people.\" This verse forms the background to our Midrashim. The enquiry why a particular event is reported at a particular point in the sequence of events, is quite legitimate, regardless of the general rule eyn mukdam, that the Torah does not claim to report events in the chronological order in which they occurred. That rule means, that even when the Torah does report events in historical order, this does not mean that the Torah's purpose is exhausted by having conveyed to us a little bit of history. Dissemination of slanderous information may stem from a variety of motivations. 1) A person may slander someone else in order to make himself look good by comparison. 2) On the other hand, someone may spread negative information about a third party, having no ulterior motive at all. The latter type is the real ba-al lashon hara, spreader of evil gossip. The first type is simply a glory seeker, the slander being incidental to his purposes. When the Talmud Erchin 15, describes animals approaching the snake asking the reason it attacks humans, it compares the lion and the wolf with the snake. The two former either wish to still their hunger, or at least to devour the prey. The snake however, seems to poison just for the fun of it, deriving no visible benefit from its action. Korach was not a classic example of a slanderer, since he merely used slander to enhance his own stature, and to further his ambition to become a leader. For this reason, Korach is described in our classic sources as a dissident, a quarreler. The spies, however, are described as \"slanderers.\" Since Miriam's sin, though not as severe as that of the spies, was also in the nature of slander, the story of the spies follows that of the punishment of Miriam, to alert us to the fact that the spies had not absorbed the lesson contained in Miriam's punishment. (1) If the Torah skips the introduction about the circumstances that preceded the dispatch of the spies, in this instance, it is precisely to make sure that we would not confuse the issue, and would notice that the issue was the sin of lashon hara, slander. (2) The reason twelve men were sent, was to provide the maximum chance of success. People endowed with all the good qualities cited in the Parshah, would command enough moral fortitude to prevail over their human weaknesses, if anyone could. Their eventual report would be accepted without prejudice, since they represented a cross section of the people. Should the mission fail, it would not be due to inadequate planning. The princes mentioned in Parshat Nasso, having already assumed their respective functions, were not allowed to absent themselves from their posts for such an extended period. The Torah describes the twelve spies as each being a nassi, prince, in order to show that they were not inferior to the twelve princes whom we know already. The fact that Joshua is only ranked fifth amongst them, shows that all of them had been very eminent people at the time of their appointment for this task. That the Torah does indeed list them in the order of their qualities seems borne out by the fact that the order in which they are listed corresponds neither to the order of the \"flags\" of the encampment, nor to the order of birth of the various sons of Jacob whose tribes they represented. The Talmud Sotah 34, discusses the various names and comes to the conclusion that their various names contained hints of their eventual disloyalty to G.d. Since this is obviously an excercise in hindsight, the original selection must have been based on the positive qualities each one of the spies had displayed prior to his being chosen for such a fateful mission. The fact that Caleb and Joshua could not even persuade their own respective tribes to accept their minority report, shows that the spies had not been chosen for any popular following they might have enjoyed. (3) The verse dealing with the name Joshua must be understood as follows. \"These are the names of the men...except for Hoshaya of the tribe of Ephrayim, whom Moses later used to call Joshua.\" (which is the name by which he is known to us in most instances when we read about him.) Observing the goodness of the land, entailed four separate considerations. 1) Did the inhabitants appear robust and healthy? 2) Was the terrain easy to cultivate and was there an abundance of it? 3) Were there urban centres the inhabitants were happy in and proud of? 4) Did the soil yield abundantly, and was the produce of high quality? (4) Moses wanted the spies to pay attention to all these factors, so that they would look forward to this all soon being theirs. (compare verses 18-20) Concerning the type of cities,-whether open or fortified,- Moses wanted to point out that if these people still lived in fortified cities, this reflected a lack of self confidence on their part. This would give Israel a psychological advantage when setting out to attack them. The book of Joshua in chapter 6,1, reports that Jericho was completely sealed off from the inside and the outside. Immediately afterwards we are told that the inhabitants had already reached the point of despair. Although it was early in the season, and the orchards would therefore be under close scrutiny by their respective owners, Moses instructed \"fortify yourselves,\" i.e. get a hold of yourselves and take from the fruit to taste it. Moses' insistence stemmed from his conviction that the land was excellent. The fact that the nachal eshkol, valley of the grape cluster, was so named, was only in commemoration of the spies' visit. It proves that the grapes found there were not of exceptional quality. (verse 24) They were merely representative specimens of the quality the land produced. (5) The spies brought the fruit back in order to lend credibility to the report they were about to issue. When Moses saw the fruit, he was lulled into a false sense of security, overlooking the fact that they were not making their report to the commander-in-chief, but to the nation as a whole. The Torah indicates this by describing the spies as returning from latour, from touring the country, from emphasizing its good points. When one emphasizes weak points such journeys are described as rigul, spying. The opening remarks seemed to confirm Moses' optimism. (verse 27) As soon as they uttered the word efess however, they aborted their entire mission. The fruit became an instrument to describe the desirability of the land, and to contrast this with the physical prowess of its inhabitants. From having been reporters, they suddenly assumed the role of advisors. The careful description of who lived in the land, i.e. Amalek in the South, the presence of giants, three nations in the mountains, Canaanites by the sea and the river Jordan, all these remarks were designed to create the impression that conquest of such a country was not feasible. They did not yet dare to spell this out, however. When Caleb, knowing the tenor of their remarks, interrupted, he did so to give Moses a chance to be heard, and to create a climate in which his own report would at least get a hearing. For that reason he made it appear as if he too had something to complain against Moses' adventurous policy of attacking such physically superior residents of the land of Canaan. In fact, he hoped that by giving his own report, emphasizing his firm belief that Israel could conquer the land, he could squelch the despondency his colleagues had evoked with their innuendos about the hopeless nature of such an undertaking. He thought that the other spies would not dare come out openly against such a campaign in the very presence of Moses. At that point, however, the other spies started to use their arguments outright. They portrayed the presence of the giants (32-33) as proof of the futility of starting a war, citing the fact that these giants included men who had survived the deluge. To contrast this with their own feeling of inadequacy, they referred to their having felt like grasshoppers by comparison to those super-men. The fact that these giants had observed twelve strange men help themselves to grapes from their orchards without the owners having become galvanised into some form of counter action, they conveniently overlooked. On the contrary, they allowed it to be taken as proof that these men were not in the least bothered by such action. They considered any danger from Jewish spies as no greater than the threat posed to them by grasshoppers. They considered the country's fertility as only due to the superhuman efforts of these giants. By describing the land as one that devours its inhabitants, they hinted that ordinary people could not survive that climate. The reason there is no preamble to the despatch of the spies, is that the very mission, having as its objective the collection of factual observations, was perfectly permissible. What was wrong was that the people, upon return of the spies, allowed them to present their interpretation of what they had seen, and that they believed those interpretations. The people's belated concern (14,3) was only a cover for their, true motivation, that of despising the land G'd was offering to them. (14,31) The positioning of verse three, in which the people describe their own fate and that of their families, makes it appear that they preferred their families' deaths to their own dying by the swords. They do not describe the fate of their wives and children as the result of their own death in action. They express their preference to whatever fate would await them in Egypt. They go so far as to suggest the appointment of a leader for such a return. G'ds answer to all this is quite appropriate. He says, in effect: \"your children will enjoy that which you have despised.\" But you who have consigned yourselves to damnation either way, and who are already considering yourselves as corpses, you will drop dead in the desert. (7) Joshua and Caleb rent their clothing, confirming only that the land was indeed excellent. Since this had been all that they as spies had been asked to report on, they expressed the conviction that if He wished, the Lord would surely bring them to that land subject to His considering them fit for this. (6) When the people realised that the whole logic of their position had been challenged by Joshua and Caleb, they did not react with reason but with their basest instincts, trying to still the voice of conscience by attempting to murder the authors of a report they did not like. They were restrained only by the appearance of the Divine glory that scared them. Moses, who continued to remonstrate with them, could not sway them. (Deut. 1,29-33) At that point G'd despaired of their ever demonstrating true faith, and decided to let them all die at once, meaning to replace them with a new people, with Moses as its patriarch. Moses used the well worn argument that the impression such action would produce on outsiders like the Egyptians, would be counterproductive to His image. Our sages describe active forces in terms of the masculine gender, whereas they describe passive ones in terms of the feminine. It does not matter in this context whether the mashpia, the active force is actually of the male gender or vice versa, in the case of the mushpa the passive force being actually of the female gender. In that sense, G'd is always the mashpia, and everybody or everything relative to Him is always the mushpa. When Moses in 15, 11, says to G'd \"if this is what You are about to do to me,\" and he uses the feminine gender for the word \"You,\" the sages interpret this to mean \"You will undermine Your own strength.\" The idea is that he argues that G'd would henceforth appear as the mushpa instead of as the mashpia, G'ds traditional role. This is the reason Moses prayed \"now let the power of the Lord be great,\" to demonstrate that \"Your\" strength is indeed the source of all Power. When Israel, speaking to Moses at the time they received the ten commandments, said to Moses \"you speak to us,\" employing the feminine pronoun in referring to Moses the man, the human being, (Deut. 6,23) they convey the same idea. They are saying that although they will then be hearing the voice of G'd only from the mushpa instead of from the mashpia, at least they would survive. (8) The fact that the argument Moses used is of the utmost significance, is proven from the words of Ezekiel, in chapter thirty six. Concerning the advent of the redemption in the future, G'd is quoted as saying \"Not for your sake do I act, family of Israel, but for the sake of My holy name that you have desecrated etc.\" Moses, as distinct from the sin at the golden calf, invoked the attribute of adnut, Omnipotence of G'd when he appealed for forgiveness. He had realised that after all the many acts of rebellion by the Jewish people, the kind of forgiveness which is total, could not be expected as an immediate outcome of his prayer. He therefore refers to the fact that G'd had previously raised the level of the sin to a lesser category - compare verse 19- \"as You have raised this people until now, ever since they have come out of Egypt.\" G'd responds by saying \"I have forgiven, exactly in accordance with your words.\" (the limitations you yourself have set) This is \"for the people.\" However, the perpetrators will have to pay an immediate price and die by the plague. (verse 37) The entire nation who had witnessed G'ds miracles at the time of the Exodus in their adult years, would henceforth no longer qualify for similar miracles at the time they would conquer the land of Canaan. They have forfeited forever the right to such revelations of G'ds power on their behalf. This was a punishment on an individual level, though at first glance it might have looked collective, since none of them would enter the holy land. The individual nature of the punishment would manifest itself when each one of them would die on a different date. However, \"the wicked congregation,\" i.e. the ten spies, would all die at the same time at once, receive collective punishment. (9) The need for the next generation to wait forty years to enter the holy land, is directly related to the sin of the parent generation. As long as some of the former remain alive, as living testimony to the disloyalty of their covenant with G'd, the miraculous protection of G'd cannot be extended to their children when they would try to enter the holy land. The ratio of forty years for forty days is again an expression of G'ds consideration for His people. Since the spies had taken forty days before returning with a negative report, G'd allows a year for each day of delay, spreading the punishment over a period of forty years, instead of letting everybody die at once. In this manner, the whole nation would learn that G'd is merciful even when He administers punishment. He does not thin out the ranks of the people all at once, but gradually, so as not to allow their decreased numbers to become an invitation to attack by their enemies. If G'd could be merciful even in such circumstances, what tremendous display of G'ds goodness must the people have forfeited by their conduct? G'd hastens to confirm the decree by swearing an oath (verse 28). He is only too aware that the people will be overcome by a feeling of remorse and will try to sway Him from His declared intention. (10) Since repentance induced by fear, duress, does not wipe the slate clean, the people did not deserve the presence of the holy ark in their midst in the campaign they now planned. The very fact that they dared to go ahead without it, showed that they still had not appreciated who it was that alone would guarantee their success. If we are taught in the book of Joshua that the sin of one man, Achan ben Karmi, who had not yet been punished for his crime, could be the cause of the whole Jewish people suffering defeat at the hands of the small city of Ai, what would happen when a whole army of unrehabilitated sinners would face the might of the Canaanites? (compare chapter 7) "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Rava, in Nedarim 39, says that the verse \"sun and moon stood still in their habitation,\" (Chabakuk 3,11) teaches that the sun and moon stood in front of G'd and said: \"Lord, if You will judge Moses' case against Korach, we will assume our positions in our regular orbit; if not, we will not perform our tasks.\" G'd flung arrows at them, saying: \"You are concerned about the honour of a mere mortal, yet you have never protested in defence of My honour!\" This is why the verse continues \"they are proceeding according to the light of Your arrows.\" ",
"We observe in nature, that the more important and precious an item, the greater the precautions taken to insure its protection against damage or destruction. We observe the same phenomenon when examining certain parts of Torah legislation. An army assigns extra soldiers and guards to insure the safety of its commander-in-chief. When David had aged, his officers became concerned about his continued participation in battle, since protecting him would require extra efforts. They could not risk that he should be harmed. (Samuel I, chapter 21) Similarly, we find that nature has enclosed vital organs such as heart lung and liver in a protective cage within the body, to afford maximum protection for those organs. Proverbs 4, 23, tells us \"more than anything else, protect your heart, because it is the fountain of life.\" There are numerous other verses throughout the Bible, containing similar messages, referring also to the brain. Torah legislation that concerns itself with fundamental concepts is repeated over and over. It is safeguarded in such manner against violation. Even acts that could lead indirectly to violation of the fundamental concepts, are prohibited. To preserve the concept of \"I am the Lord your G'd\" intact, the legislation calling for Sabbath and holiday observances ensures that the concept of anochi is ever present in our thoughts and deeds. Penal legislation is especially harsh when it concerns any vital concept of our faith. ",
"Since the highest attribute man can achieve is the power of prophecy, and a nation aspiring to an intimate relationship with its G'd, needs prophets in its midst in order to achieve that intimacy, extraordinary measures are called for to preserve the spiritual standards of such a nation. At Sinai, every individual Jew had achieved a degree of prophetic stature, if ever so briefly. Israel is distinguished from other nations in three ways. 1) Its collective fate is subject to G'ds Personal guidance, hashgachah peratit. 2) They are aware that it is possible to achieve prophetic stature on a national basis, having experienced Divine revelation. 3) They are in possession of the holy Torah, something that transcends prophetic instruction, since it addresses itself to any facet of life, and its teachings are available to all those who study it. It is these three things G'd had in mind, when He said to Moses (Exodus 19,9) \"Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever.\" This verse embodies the three ways in which Israel was distinguished. Since Moses was so important to our faith that even G'd made an effort to ensure that the people would have enduring faith in the authenticity of everything Moses conveys to them in His name, any attempt to challenge His stature must be disproved beyond any doubt. Just as an architect's reputation cannot be based merely on the excellence of his designs on the drawing board, but can be confirmed only after execution of his plans has stood the test of time, so the reputation of Moses could be confirmed only after it had stood up to the challenges of would-be competitors. In order to make the point that Moses was indeed superior beyond any doubt, the challenge to his leadership had to emanate from the highest quarters. 2) The nature of the challenge had to be plausible, so that if refuted, Moses would emerge as even greater in stature than had been believed up to that point. 3) The insincerity of the challengers' motives had to be demonstrated by showing that their actions had been at variance with their avowed purpose. It is true that after reading the glowing terms in which Korach and his followers are described, the reader may conclude that possessing all the intellectual and material assets of a Korach may be a handicap in life rather than an asset. However, the Torah teaches that the piety displayed by some people may only mask a wicked interior, on occasion. Such a wicked interior comes to light when one carefully observes the actions of the \"pious person.\" It may be found that the mantle of piety is worn only in order to help one achieve some nefarious design. It is this the Talmud Nedarim 62, condemns, when it discusses a person who learns Torah in order to amass wealth, or earn a title. When we see such a person commit a sin, it is not the Torah scholar who commits the sin, but it is a sinful person whose personality has not changed in spite of the Torah knowledge he has absorbed. ",
"The Midrash on Psalms 55,16, describes Doag and Achitofel as examples of such apparent Torah scholars whose true colours did not come to light till later, though their hearts had always harboured their wickedness. When one observes the sudden death of such people,- David says,- it reveals that the evil essence had not lost its mastery over the characteristics acquired due to Torah study and absorption of its values. These people are punished by sudden death, since they did not use Torah to refine their characters, but abused Torah to advance their egotistical goals. Korach's argument was that since everybody was holy, no one should be a leader. On the contrary, if holiness is a way of emulating G'd in Heaven, everyone in Heaven is certainly not equal, there are certainly leaders there. Why then did Korach use such a patently specious argument? His argument makes no sense at all. If everybody had been granted a degree of prophetic vision at the time of the revelation, part of the reason had been to demonstrate Moses' superiority. It demonstrated how superior Moses' relationship with G'd had been. The people had even asked him to be their go between. Arguing in favour of a leaderless society was absurd then. Therefore, it is better to understand the line \"for the entire congregation is holy\" as a sarcastic reference to what is supposed to have taken place at Sinai. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 1,1, \"and has not sat amongst the scoffers,\" considers that statement as referring to the sarcastic comments Korach had made about the Jewish people. His comment then would read like this: \"Enough already! have you peddled the idea of prophecy to the extent where you have convinced everyone that he is holy? Does everyone think that just because he heard the opening lines of the Decalogue from G'ds own mouth that they are prophets already? If this is indeed the message you have peddled, then why are you arrogating to yourselves superior status? The arbitrary appointment of a High Priest then is completely unjustified!\" Korach's mockery is directed at three pillars of our faith then. 1) Rav lachem, enough already, questions the concept of prophecy altogether. 2) U-vetocham hashem, questions the Divine Presence, the concept of hashgachah peratit.) Madua titnassu? questions the authenticity of Torat Moshe, the specific commandments recorded in the Torah. Moses' reply, after he had been \"floored,\" i.e. vayipol al panav, he \"fell\" on his face, by this challenge, is perfectly appropriate. Concerning denial of G'ds special Providence, Moses said \"tomorrow morning you will see an example of that very Providence.\" boker ve-yauda hashem etc. (16,5) (2) Concerning the challenge to his own standing as a prophet, he says \"whomsoever He will choose, He will bring close to Himself.\" (3) Concerning mockery of the institution of prophecy, Moses said \"whosoever is holy, He will bring close.\" (referring to his older brother Aaron whose status as a prophet had preceded his own chronologically.) In his second statement, Moses addressed himself to the underlying motive of Korach's complaint in a more subtle manner. Ha-me-at mikem kee hivdil, are you not sufficiently aggrieved that the elevated position the Torah has granted you as Levites, prevents you from effective land ownership in the land of Canaan, that you want to assume the even heavier burden of the priesthood?\" Besides, since you challenge the validity of priestly functions per se, your specific complaint against Aaron surely must hide a personal motive? Why else bother with this detail? Therefore, Moses continued, \"I am convinced that you are in effect rebelling against G'd,\" i.e. ha-noadim al hashem, (16,11) not against us. Though you pretend to challenge our authority, you are challenging G'ds authority. The above is in keeping with what our sages taught in Avot, that any feud which is not designed to advance the cause of Heaven will not endure. However, when the objective of the argument is to further the cause of Heaven, both parties to the argument will endure. (Avot,5, 17) Since it is a fact that in either argument one side must be wrong, the statement of our sages is puzzling. Aristotele teaches that we use the terms \"true\" and \"false\" when referring to concepts of the mind. When we refer to physical phenomena or their absence, however, we use the terms \"good\" and \"bad\" respectively. Thus a statement that a triangle has three corners would be described as \"true,\" whereas the statement that a particular triangle has four corners would be described as \"false.\" The terms \"good\" or \"evil\" cannot be applied to such statements. We feel however, that when a concept lacks a basis in fact, it can be said to be bad. The three categories (a) true or false, (b) good or bad, and (c) extant or non-existent, are all closely intertwined. Mentioning Moses as a party to Korach's quarrel is inconceivable, since Korach had based his whole philosophy on the denial of G'ds authority, as we have explained. Since Shammai and Hillel based their respective disagreements on common ground, their respective opinions will endure, eyloo ve-eyloo divrey elokim chayim, the words of either party have been inspired by the Living G'd. Korach, whose argument was based on sheker, a lie, will, of course, not endure. The importance of the eyloo ve-eyloo concept just mentioned, is best demonstrated in Bamidbar Rabba 19, when G'd is portrayed studying the laws of the red heifer, and quotes a halachic interpretation by Rabbi Eliezer. The fact is that that opinion never became halachically accepted by the sages. Nonetheless, G'd Himself is shown as quoting it. This proves the dictum that any argument that is designed to further the cause of Heaven will endure, i.e. that even the opinion that had been rejected will merit being considered at all times. Korach's attack on the institution of prophecy proceeded as follows. He dressed the elders of the Supreme Court in garments dyed completely in techeylet azure blue, and asked Moses if these garments required tzitzit, \"fringes.\" To Moses' reply that they did indeed require these \"fringes,\" he scoffed, saying \"how can a single blue thread accomplish something that an entire garment fails to accomplish?\" What Korach was alluding to is this. Since man, nature's choicest creature, having been created in G'ds image, is equipped with the ability to know good from evil, to know what is beneficial and what is harmful, surely whatever any so-called prophetic insight could add to this knowledge would be so trivial as to be of no consequence. Moses' reply pointed out that logic, as characterised by Aristotele's concept of the golden mean, was not an infallible method to arrive at objective truths. Judaism is based on a Heavenly assist, which is symbolized by the single blue thread of tzitzit acting as the reminder that our inspiration derives from heaven. Korach's second question dealt with that of a house full of sacred texts. He wanted to know if such a house required a mezuzah, the traditional scroll containing part of the keriyat shma. Moses explained that in order for such a house to be considered sanctified, a mezuzah would still be needed. Only two passages out of a total of two hundred and seventy five passages had the power to sanctify the house. Korach challenged the authenticity of this statement, thereby challenging the principle of G'ds special Providence for the Jewish people, the second principle of Jewish faith. Korach and his sympathizers had known in advance the answer they would receive. They felt that when a group of highly placed men presented a challenge, such a challenge would be more formidable, and would be more likely to attract G'ds attention. This underlined the fact that they spurned the notion that G'd would concern himself with the wants or needs of any individual. Jewish philosophy does not hold that the whole is superior to its constituent parts, but rather that the whole is upheld by the merit of each constituent part. The story of Noach, for whose sake the earth was saved, is ample proof of the value of the individual part vis a vis the whole. Proverbs 10,25 puts it thus: \"and the righteous is the foundation of the universe.\" The two passages contained in the mezuzah make the point that when we listen to Divine instructions, we will benefit by the special Personal Providence, and particular attention will be paid to our needs, superseding the normal bounty provided by nature. (Deut. 11, 13-21) The land of Israel will receive such special attention on a year round basis. (verse 11) There are many other such promises. The third argument presented by Korach and company, was intended to inflame the people's sense of outrage against Moses and Aaron. The subject matter was the method used to purify the Levites. Numbers 8,7, states that removal of body hair is a prerequisite for such purification. When Moses, personally, had performed this rite on Korach, he being the senior ranking Levite, the people had no longer recognised Korach minus beard etc. When asked who had done this to him, Korach accused Moses of having abused him personally in this fashion, whereas at the same time Moses had adorned his brother Aaron in the finery of the High Priest's garments. By portraying Moses as high handed, Korach hoped to convince the people that Moses had acted of his own accord. The survival of Korach's sons who did not share in their father's rebellion, demonstrated better than anything that Divine Providence acted selectively by picking only the guilty for the meting out of punishment. By demonstrating that even the most plausible sounding argument had been discredited, since those who presented it had been killed by Divine and supernatural action, the \"father knows best\" quality of Torah legislation was vindicated. The third point that was to be made, was to show that whereas Korach had intended to downgrade Moses and Aaron in the eyes of the people, their action had boomeranged, producing the opposite result. The greater the stature of the challenger, the more enduring the esteem in which the intended victim is held, after he has succeeded in defeating the challenge. We see therefore, that the reason the Torah first listed all the fine attributes of Korach and his assembly was to alert us to the fact that once this challenge had been disposed of, the \"establishment\" as it were, had emerged greatly strengthened. The twenty four types of gifts that priests are entitled to, are legislated immediately after this affair, since the prestige of the priests was now at a high, and no one would object when the latter were also rewarded for the duties they performed on behalf of the entire nation. ",
"Coming back to the opening statement of our chapter, we now have a better understanding of the argument of the sun and the moon. We do not merely regard this as a parable, but just like our sages, we conceive of the celestial bodies as equipped with intelligence of their own, since they are described as inhabiting the sphere called zevul. They did not tell G'd that they would refuse to function, but that if ben Amram is not vindicated the institution of prophecy would be undermined, i.e. a fundamental pillar of Torah would be missing. If there will be no Torah, the raison d'etre of the entire universe will disappear, the world would revert to tohu, to the anarchy that had preceded the six days of creation. (see details about the Torah/universe relationship in chapter twelve) G'd flinging arrows at the sun and moon, expresses His rejection of their argument that the action of a few fools like Korach and his assembly would be allowed to bring about the undoing of G'ds entire handiwork. Since sun and moon must have been well aware of the fact that the world had not come to an end in spite of millions of people having worshipped them, (instead of G'd) why would they suddenly be concerned about the consequences of the actions of a Korach! It had not seemed to bother them that by having become objects of worship without their withdrawing their services, they themselves had in fact undermined the Honour and Glory of their Master! The reason the universe had been kept going then was for the sake of the true believers. There may have been an additional reason for this dialogue reported by Rava. The sun and moon were indignant about the challenge to the prophecy of Moses and Joshua respectively. The sun, possessing light of its own, was jealous of the honour of Moses, since the latter's kind of prophecy was similarly perceived as an emanation. (His face emitted rays of light) The moon, being merely the source of reflected light, was jealous on behalf of Joshua, who likewise seemed to reflect the inspirations he had received. G'd was angry since He perceived that both sun and moon had failed to understand that in challenging the authority of Moses, Korach had in fact challenged the authority of G'd Himself. Since G'd did comply with the request of the sun and the moon, why was He so angry? The answer may be that G'd did not use celestial bodies to orchestrate the punishment of Korach, but He used the earth. This showed the sun and moon that they had been guilty of a serious error. The insurrection of Korach would normally have elicited visible protests both from below and from above. Due, however, to the attitude displayed by the celestial bodies, the latter were not fit to become the instruments of Korach's punishment, seeing they were not free from guilt themselves. Although we are still plagued with Korach \"types,\" the reason no supernatural events occur to punish those types, is the one quoted by Rava, namely that G'd decreed for the sun and the moon to carry on business as usual. All the foregoing underlines how right our sages were when they taught in Avot 5,2, that G'ds patience is so great, that He waited for ten long generations before bringing on the deluge in retribution for man's corruption. ",
"Some difficulties in the text we have not yet dealt with. 1) Why did Moses announce the timing of the test, before he had even replied to the challenge? 2) If the group who had joined Korach were fit for the priesthood, how would the fact that some of them had already served as Levites, disqualify them from becoming priests? 3) Why did Moses feel it necessary to announce not only the time but also the site of the contest? Why is the argument that Moses had failed to bring the Jewish people to the holy land, repeated twice in the accusations levelled against his leadership? What did Datan and Aviram mean when they asked \"are you going to put out the eyes of these people?\" 4) When Moses asks G'd not to heed the arguments of the rebels, why does he add that he had not taken an ass or anything from anyone of them? How was that relevant to their accusation? 5) Why did Moses ask Korach and companions twice to appear before G'd armed with incense? Why did Korach agree to such a confrontation from which only one side would emerge alive? 6) When G'd told Moses and Aaron to stand aside from this \"congregation,\" why did G'd threaten the entire nation? What had they done? On the other hand, if the entire nation had become guilty by indicating approval of Korach's challenge, how could Moses say to G'd \" because of the sin of one man You will be angry at the whole congregation?\" 7) Moses' surprise that one man's sin could trigger national disaster, is hard to understand. We have many instances of collective responsibility (golden calf, Achan ben Karmi, Zimri etc.) (see discussion in chapter 24) 8) When pointing to the miracle about to happen, why does Moses describe this as proof that Korach had angered G'd? It would have been reasonable to expect Moses to have pointed out that such an occurrence proved that he was the authentic leader? 9) Why were the pans in which the rejected incense had been offered up used as a covering for the altar? This looks as if they had been hallowed by the very abuse they had been put to? ",
"Since it is well known that premeditation and planning of sinful conduct aggravates the nature of such a sin, (Yuma 29, \"contemplation of the sin is worse than the sin itself\") it is important to reveal the full extent of the qualities the people involved possessed. Men such as these were beyond acting impulsively, and could not be excused for having acted out of mere thoughtlessness. Korach was keenly aware that in order for his rebellion to succeed, he needed either massive support amongst the people, or the kind of collaborators who could compenstae for their lack of numbers by dint of their reputation amongst the people. This is why he included \"princes, men of established reputations,\" \"heads of the nation.\" With that kind of following, he did not fear to be accused of grandstanding, of selfseeking under the mantle of righteous indignation. For this very reason he excluded the firstborn, who might have been perceived as having an axe to grind, having lost their privileges to the tribe of Levi. Although Korach's main attack was directed against the priesthood, he could create the impression that he was prepared to forego his own privileges as a Levite by camouflaging his complaint as being directed against the whole tribe of Levi. This gave the impression that he was striving for everybody to be equal. He did not suggest that the people become leaderless because they were all holy, but argued that in every civilised society leadership positions are awarded based on personal merit. It would be inconceivable that in a holy nation, leaders would not be freely elected by their peers. (1) When Moses heard this heresy and impudence, he told them that at the first available opportunity, i.e. the following morning, G'd Himself would announce who it was who could claim to be close to Him. The very fact that G'd was amongst them,- Korach's own words,- would help settle the issue. Since Korach and companions claimed equal status for everyone, surely the attempt to offer incense could not endanger them, but would give them a chance to see whose incense would be accepted. (2) At that stage, Moses did not suggest that Aaron present incense also. Later, Moses turned to Korach's family, pleading that they use their intelligence and realise that they had already been accorded a superior status by G'd. If now, after challenging this arrangement they were not prepared to retract their demand to be accorded the priesthood also, they should realise that they were placing themselves in mortal danger by presenting incense alongside Aaron. After this warning, Moses added \"and Aaron, how is he involved?\" This means \"do not blame Aaron if you will die as a result of your experiment.\" (3) When Datan and Aviram who had been present at the start of the argument, saw that Moses had turned this into a confrontation with the Levites, they stalked away in haughty disdain. Moses thereupon had to ask them by messenger, since he wanted to include them in the warning he had issued. However, they chose to poke fun at Moses, sarcastically parrying Moses' words of ha-meat mikem, \"is it not enough for you?,\" with a line of their own, using the very same words. They revealed themselves as master demagogues. They managed to convey the impression that Moses had taken them out of a beautiful country, Egypt, against the people's will. Moses' leadership, they claimed, had caused the people's death in the desert. Whereas until now they had suffered in silence, they could not longer do so. Even supposing that Moses had taken them out of a bad country to lead them to a land flowing with milk and honey, he had failed. By what right then, did he want to blind the eyes of the people into accepting his leadership? (4) When Moses realised that the whole diatribe was directed only against what they considered his own dictatorial leadership, he responded. Since Datan and Aviram had claimed that Moses' leadership had \"interfered with bringing the people to the holy land,\" he had to point out that he had not in any way benefitted from his leadership role. Therefore, this could not have been his motive to act in the manner he was being accused of. Mention of the donkey is not part of Moses' prayer to G'd, but part of his defence against accusations levelled against him personally. At this point, Moses orders Datan and Aviram to offer their incense jointly with Aaron. Moses explains, that originally, he had not wanted to involve Aaron, so as to make Korach and his group feel that the incense of at least one of them would be accepted. Now, however, he wanted all two hundred and fifty plus Aaron to participate in the test. Otherwise, his action would be viewed as high handed, and the value of the victory would be diminished if Aaron had not participated. The test had to be under conditions of everyone having the same chance of victory. ",
"Korach may not have accepted this maneuver by Moses, since it diminished the chances of his incense being accepted. Since Moses is not reported as giving Aaron instructions to participate, and since the latter would hardly do so on his own, it is likely that Moses did not press the point. The text reports Moses and Aaron as being present, whereas Korach and Co. are reported as having carried incense. Since no memorial was made of the censer of Aaron, it seems he had not taken part. (5) The overwhelming desire to achieve victory made all those people so oblivious to the danger they were exposing themselves to. Korach's attempt to sway the people to switch to his side during the night, appears to have been thwarted by the appearance of the Divine Presence which silenced the people. (verse 19) The order to separate the whole nation from the \"wicked community,\" was understood by Moses and Aaron as referring only to themselves, ",
"(6) since no order had come to separate the whole nation. This is why they asked G'd why He would be angry at the whole nation on account of the sin of one man. In fact, G'ds instruction had meant \"stop arguing with these people and stand aside.\" G'd thereupon responded to the plea of Moses and Aaron, and ordered everyone to stand aside from Korach's group. This time only Moses was addressed by G'd. This indicates that their previous understanding that unless the whole people separated themselves they would all share in the doom, had been correct. (7) The principle of collective responsibility is based on the fact that every individual is part of a whole, and inseparable from it. When, however, a part takes steps to separate itself from the whole, then he can be dealt with on his merits. (not share the fate of the whole necessarily) The object of Moses' prayer was to reverse the process of collective responsibility. He said that Korach was the one who had separated himself from the whole by virtue of his challenge. He had therefore become ish echad, a single dissenter. Why should the whole nation be considered as his fellow traveller then? G'ds reply was that just as Korach had demonstrably opted out, so the people would have to demonstrate that they did not make common cause with Korach. The practice of Jewish Courts of law to banish unrepentant sinners, has as its purpose to show that the community does not feel at one with that individual, and thereby wards off collective punishment which might otherwise befall it as a result of the sinner's actions. When Datan and Aviram had left centre stage, Moses followed by the elders, and disregarding the insult that had been flung at him, followed them to warn them of what would befall them. However, far from heeding the fact that the people had already moved away from their immediate vicinity, Datan and Aviram continued with renewed sarcastic outbusrts. Moses had to announce the nature of the impending punishment, since both his stature as a prophet and the priesthood had come under attack. Aaron's priesthood would be proved when, as heretofore, only his incense would be accepted. Moses' prophetic stature would be vindicated when his prophecy concerning the amazing manner in which Korach and Co. would die, would come true. The fact that an entirely new method of death would occur, would prove hashgachah peratit. (8) The fact that Korach's punishment was not only just, but fitted the crime, was impressed upon the people. He had endeavoured to undermine the fundamentals of Judaism, \"to remove the floor,\" have the bottom drop out from beneath the spiritual underpinnings of his people. In retribution, \"the bottom\" fell out beneath them instead. When the Talmud in Baba Batra 74, tells that the spot where Korach went under reverted to primeval tohu, and that Koarch and Co. can be heard at the site proclaiming that both Moses and his Torah are true, the message is that we should appreciate the real target of his complaint. By having had to eat his words, this was demonstrated beyond doubt. (9) The memory of the end of the rebellion is kept alive by these censers, the final destiny of which is to partake in the very service that had been assailed by their former owners. Because Aaron had not been with the two hundred and fifty men when they offered their incense, it was their pans that would demonstrate that only priests could offer incense without penalty. The reason that those pans were used though they had belonged to the rebels, is that they had served to separate truth from falsehood. The same reason that had motivated David to keep the sword of the idol worshipping Goliath, applied here also. (Samuel I chapter 21) Achimelech had stored that sword in the temple, as a memento of the defeat of the blasphemer. When David bemoans the death of Saul, (Samuel II 1,27) he does not only bewail the loss of Saul the warrior, but also the loss of his weapons, the instruments of his victory. Although the weapons of an enemy, since they assisted the enemy could be presumed to be objects of disdain and hatred, the fact is that nothing is as beloved as the weapon once owned by a defeated enemy, which now reminds the victor of his triumph. Similarly, the flattened metal of the incense pans now assumed a greater degree of sanctity since their function had now proved the sanctity of Torah values as revealed by Moses. \"They were offered before the Lord and became sanctified.\" (17,3) This means that they had become holy through the death of the rebels. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Parasha of Red Heifer",
"Bamidbar Rabbah 19, teaches that all those who are engaged in preparing the red heifer for use, defile their clothing. However it is the function of the ashes of the red heifer to purify clothing that had been defiled. ",
"Logic has long stipulated that any prime cause producing certain effects, embodies the essence of the effect in itself. If honey cake is sweet, then the honey contributing to the sweetness of the cake must itself be sweet. ",
"Our sages have recognised the reverse of this when they stated that the logic which is valid when one applies the \"a fortiori\" kind of reasoning, (kal vachomer) cannot be used to prove anything over and beyond the \"a fortiori\" facts. For instance: if twelve eggs are one dozen, then fifteen eggs are certainly not less than a dozen. However, we cannot say that fifteen eggs must be a dozen plus. (The fact that no other ingredient of the cake is sweet, dictates that it is the honey that must be sweet) This means that the effect is related to the cause, though it need not be stronger than the cause itself. If the Torah enjoins us ve-hadarta peney zakeyn, to honour the scholar, the idea is that by doing so one accords honour to the Torah itself, which is the cause for that Torah scholar to receive honour. (Kidushin 33) For this reason, the Talmud Makkot 22, points to the folly of the people who rise in the presence of a Torah scroll, but remain seated when the scholars appear. The lesson is that since the benefits of Torah are derived through contact with the Torah scholar and not through contact with Torah itself, the scholar deserves more recognition, since it is he who enlightens us. In terms of nature then, the honour due to Torah is primary, whereas in terms of study, the honour due to the Torah scholar is primary. Proof may be found in the words of the Torah arba-im yakkenu, i.e. \"forty lashes one shall administer to him\", whereas the sages ruled that the true number must be no more than thirty nine. (Deut 25,3) ",
"From all this it seems clear, that if the red heifer contaminates all that it comes in contact with, surely the heifer itself must be the source of the contamination! The whole matter seems to defy our normal way of reasoning. Therefore, the use of the words \"this is the statute of the Torah\", at the beginning of this paragraph is to remind us that logic cannot be employed if we want to comprehend the meaning of this commandment. This is why our sages quote the wisest of men, Solomon, as admitting that comprehension of this mitzvah, or rather its mechanics, its halachic rulings, escapes him. People who try to philosophise about Torah, fall into two categories. Group one believes that everything written in the Torah needs to be understood at face value, literally. For instance, if the Torah refers to G'd \"smelling the sweet fragrance of a sacrifice,\" they perceive G'd literally employing His sense of smell. Or, if the Torah reports G'd as descending on Mount Sinai, they understand this to have been a physical descent. The second group is aware that statements in the Torah are subject to interpretation. Some members of this group will interpret on the basis that the Torah employs human idiom in order to facilitate our understanding of certain concepts. This group will not interpret in a manner that conflicts with known Torah principles. A sub group of category number two, arrogates to itself the right to make its interpretations primary and Torah principles only secondary. This is done by most Christian and a few Jewish philosophers. Making one's own intellect supreme in the matter of exegesis is heretical, of course. Solomon refers to all three groups in Proverbs 14, 14-16. (1) The fool will believe anything. (2) The crafty one will understand in line with his principles. (3) The haughty fool will come to grief through exaggerated self confidence. The manner in which the Torah portrays the laws of the red heifer is a clear hint not to try and unravel that which is conceptually beyond the human intellect. The contradictions have been built into this legislation to warn us off trying to comprehend it. ",
"We observe in nature that decomposition becomes more offensive in direct ratio to the esteem the decomposing object was held in while it was still functioning. When vegetables rot, the resulting compost is foul smelling and distasteful. When man or beast dies, the stench accompanying decomposition is overwhelming. Conversely, keeping one's distance from rotting objects is praiseworthy precisely in the degree of the rottenness involved. Keeping one's distance from wicked people or sinners makes one pure, good. Opposing bestiality however, makes one saintly, holy. We can apply this concept also to matters of the spirit, to moral matters. When a saintly person abandons his way of life, the disgust we feel with such a person far exceeds the disappointment one feels when an ordinary person sins. Again, a saintly person who has once abandoned his former saintly lifestyle, will be far more likely to adopt a diametrically opposite lifestyle than an ordinary person. Immoral acts committed by people who used to be pillars of morality, are far worse than destructive acts committed by wild animals, which will not act worse as they get older. When plants wilt, resulting in minor putrification as they turn back into earth, the Torah does not decree any law of impurity concerning them. Animals, which lose their body as well as their animalistic soul at death, decay and rot, and become quite putrid. The Torah decreed a relatively light degree of impurity concerning contact with cadavers. Man, who is possessed of the power of speech, proof of a higher soul and intellect, undergoes a far greater depreciation from his former lofty status when he dies. Therefore, the Torah decrees impurity not only upon contact, but even when merely in an enclosed space with the corpse. Seven days mourning is observed for one's family or highly placed individuals. One is tempted to view this as proof that the destruction of a human intellect results in negative emanations spiritually, similar to the foul smelling emanations from a decaying body. In the language of our sages, such emanations are called ruach tum-ah, the spirit of impurity. When one accepts the principle that only Jewish corpses convey such impurity even without contact, by merely sharing the same confined space, then this would demonstrate that the loss of a Jewish life is an even more serious occurrence than the loss of life per se. (Yevamot 61) We are told there that the line adam ki yamut ba-ohel, an Adam that dies in a tent, refers to a Jew. The meaning of the line then is: \"only someone called Adam, i.e. a Jew can confer impurity by merely being in the same tent with the living.\" (compare Ezekiel chapter thirty four as to who qualifies for the title \"Adam.\") In Yadayim 4,6, the Rabbis stipulate that the degree of impurity that attaches to something is in direct relation to its belovedness in the eyes of G'd. This principle was acknowledged even by the Saducees, heretics in many other aspects of Torah interpretation. It is quite true that the basic concept of tum-ah, impurity, escapes us. We can only surmise by studying the applications of the regulations concerning tum-ah. The one thing that is certain is, that this impurity is not rooted in the purely physical part of man or beast, but is connected to the life force which does not exist in botany, in \"plant life.\" Since, in the case of man, death causes the loss not only of the life force, but also that of the intellect, the degree of tum-ah that results, is more severe. Since a Jew is on a higher plane, his death causes still more tum-ah, seeing that even greater values have been lost through his death. In fact, tum-ah starts already during one's lifetime. Since the manner of one's lifestyle may hasten death, every unworthy act or thought may hasten the onset of such impurity. This is why our sages in Berachot 18, describe the wicked as \"dead\" already during their lifetime, since after death, tum-ah never departs from their souls, each one according to the amount he has accumulated. The righteous, on the other hand, the one whose conduct during his lifetime had been praiseworthy, retains an unsullied soul, and such soul does not become contaminated with tum-ah upon his death. The verse in Leviticus 11, 43, \"do not become contaminated by them, else you will be contaminated by them,\" means \"don't become tarnished by them during your lifetime, so that you will not find yourself tarnished by them when you die.\" On the other hand, the righteous are called \"the living ones\" even after their physical deaths. Since they have avoided the spirit of impurity, they have essentially remained alive. This is what is meant in the Midrash referred to earlier, that it is not death that causes impurity, nor is it the red heifer that imparts impurity. ",
"Our sages illustrate the function of the red heifer by means of a parable. The child of a slave woman had dirtied the king's palace. The king decrees that the mother has to atone for the child, since the accident occurred due to faulty upbringing of the child by its mother. This had lead to its misdemeanour. The sin of the golden calf is to be atoned for by the mother cow, the red heifer. She endeavours to rehabilitate her young. Whoever helps the mother cow in her labours, helps bring about the rehabilitation of the young. At the same time, whoever assists in the preparation of the ash of the red heifer, also helps to bear the guilt that the red heifer is trying to remove from earth. Once the source of evil has been dealt with, its emanations can dissipate. Concerning our opening premise that in order to be the cause of certain phenomena, the relevant ingredients must be present in the cause itself, the question that can be raised is that many blind parents sire children with perfect vision. However, we must distinguish between such causes as are really only channels, conduits for the achievement of certain results, and others that are ultimate causes. If one is only involved in converting raw materials, the qualities of the end product need not be present in the refiner of such raw materials. Since G'd has already created all raw materials, no one can be more than a refiner, a converter. We do not expect the anvil to possess the qualities of the needle, i.e. one of its end products. The reason this is so, is that the anvil does not impart a new quality to the needle. All of this is true when the creative activity is merely of a preparatory nature. When the creative activity however, involves the final phase of manufacture or craftsmanship, such as the final shape and finish of a porcelain vase, the artist surely possesses the qualities he wishes his masterpiece to reflect. Therefore, as we have said, a honeycake cannot be produced by a baker who does not himself embody some of the honey's sweetness. The Creator surely embodies all the qualities we observe in the sun, the moon, the planets etc. Were this not the case, how could He have fashioned them? On the other hand, natural phenomena, plants, animals etc. are merely the results of the functions of celestial bodies. Similarly, the parents' function when begetting children is like that of the sun in promoting the growth of plants. In the larger scheme of the cosmos, men and women are the tools that fashion human offspring, though they can hardly produce a specific personality. That, i.e. the specific mix of genes, is contributed by G'd. It was He, after all, who had said \"let Us make man in Our image.\" It is true to say that G'd is the original father. (Deut. 32,6) \"He is your father, He has acquired you, He has made you, He has established you firmly.\" ",
"Of course, it is not necessary that the Creator possess physically the characteristics of the creature He creates, just as the builder of a windmill need not be an expert miller. It suffices that he understands the process so that he can build an efficient windmill. Similarly, the verse \"shall the One who creates the sense of hearing not be able to hear?\" (Psalms 94,8) This does not mean that G'd has a physical ear, but that He understands the process of hearing. ",
"The difference between a prophet and a wise man, concerning which the Talmud in Baba Batra 12, says that \"the wise man is superior to the prophet,\" is something like this. The prophet, by reason of being privy to the king, overhears many palace secrets. Unless this prophet is specifically informed concerning details, his knowledge will remain very sketchy. He will not know the causes for the events he has foreknowledge of. The wise man, on the other hand, has calculated by means of his intellect and his logic that certain events ought to occur at a certain place at a certain time. Since he cannot be certain however, that the king himself is aware of the causes why such event should take place, he has no idea if the king intends to act in accordance with information at the disposal of the wise man. All this is based on the view that the prophet need not necessarily be the outstandingly wise man of his generation. ",
"\"This is the statute of the law\"",
"Symbolically, the red heifer legislation can be understood in the following manner. The cow herself,- though reminiscent of the golden calf's mother, and thus indirectly responsible for her offspring,- is pure, much as the soul is pure at entry into the human body. The colour red represents the soul after having joined the body and becoming besieged by all the attractions of physical life here on earth. Sin is possible on three levels, parallel to the three life forces that are extant in man. Man possesses the life force of the plants, i.e. he responds to everything physical. He possesses the life force of animals, i.e. he is sensitive to all that goes on around him be it painful or pleasurable. Thirdly, he possesses intellect, being able to sin with it by preferring to pattern his life on heretical concepts. The requirement that the red heifer must not have worn a yoke in order for it to be capable of becoming an instrument of atonement, suggests that it represents the type of man who has rejected any and all limitations from a higher source concerning the manner in which he can conduct his life down here. The fact that only a minute amount of the blood of the red heifer is actually presented on the altar, indicates that the physical pleasures man is permitted to indulge in are minimal, so that he will be free to fulfil the will of the Lord. Removal of the red heifer from all three encampments of the Israelites, both from the most sacred as well as from the relatively least holy, indicates that man must remain free, or free himself from the demands made upon him by the three life forces that we have mentioned earlier. All the remainder of the red heifer is to be burned. The reason that burning of skin, flesh and blood is each mentioned separately, seems to symbolise the three life forces again. Each of these forces is more concealed from view than the next. Skin represents the exterior life force. Flesh is the middle life force; blood is the innermost life force. The use of both cedar wood, representing the tallest of the plants, and hyssop, representing the most lowly plant, is a reminder that we must observe the golden mean. By throwing the aforementioned into the fire, we are to demonstrate that we abandon the path of extremism. The priest washing his clothes, then his body, then re-entering the encampment, constitutes three stages of atonement. Washing one's body is symbolic of purifying the sense of touch. Washing one's clothing symbolises purification of the animalistic life force. Return to the encampment is symbolic of rehabilitating the mind, which through having been outside the encampment had been apart from the shechinah, G'ds Presence. At that point in the process, the rehabilitated are fit again to associate not only with the deputy leader Eleazar, but with the leaders themselves, i.e. Moses and Aaron. Had the whole procedure of the burning of the red heifer and the subsequent sprinkling of its ash contained in springwater, been performed on Moses and Aaron themselves, it might have subdued their anger at the Jewish people sufficiently to have prevented their having later on become guilty of hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. (Numbers 19,7-12) Perhaps this is the reason that this law is recorded at this point in the fortieth year of the wandering of the Israelites. The fact is that the law itself was promulgated already in the second year of their trek through the desert. The part of the purification legislation that requires eventide for completion of the process, may symbolise that the time of day when the body cools off is most suitable for reassertion of spiritual forces within us. Also, at such times, emotional responses are more likely to be tempered by one's intellect. Interestingly, the person who administers the sprinkling, required all three stages of the purification outlined. The person who burned the red heifer, however, needed only two stages. He did not have to leave the camp. Perhaps this is because his entire function had been to destroy the red heifer, the symbol of earthiness. The remains of the red heifer are handled only by ish tahor, someone already purified. The person handling the ashes needs only to wash his clothing, not even his body. Since the sins of man can stem from any of the three life forces, the ash of the red heifer was stored in three different places, as a reminder. (compare Mishnah Parah, chapter three) One part was kept within the precincts of the temple, one part on Mount Olives, and the third part was divided up amongst all the twenty four groupings of the priests, the mishmarot. The Torah describes three instances of a person becoming impure, hinting at the three parts of man that can incur impurity. The annual reading of this portion occurs chronologically after the celebration of the redemption of the Jewish people in the days of Mordechai, shortly before Passover, when we celebrate the redemption from Egypt, and before the month of Nissan which, according to tradition, will herald the coming of the Messiah. It is interesting that our sages,-when the four special readings in advance of the Passover holiday were arranged,- did not place the reading of parshat hachodesh, i.e. the reading of the portion announcing the coming of the month of Nissan, and the Passover legislation, before that of parshat parah. One would have expected them to do so, since, chronologically speaking, the tabernacle was put up on the first of Nissan, and the red heifer was burned only on the second day of that month. This may reflect their view that the concept of purity is so paramount in Jewish philosophy, that it can push historical, chronological considerations into the background. For that reason, though we lack the ash of the red heifer today, and are therefore unable to purify ourselves ritually from contact with a dead body, we still immerse ourselves in a ritual bath (especially prior to the holidays) in order to fulfil the rites of purification at least symbolically. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"They are the waters of strife. ",
"Rabbi Ami said in Talmud Shabbat, 55: \"There is no death without sin, and no suffering without guilt.\" When the angels questioned G'd why He had decreed death on Adam, G'd said that He had commanded Adam only one single commandment, and the latter had been unable to handle it. Upon the question why Moses and Aaron, each of whom had fulfilled many hundreds of commandments had been condemned to die, G'd replied that the righteous and the wicked share the same destiny. This is the meaning of the verse in Kohelet 9,2, \"the righteous and the wicked share the same fate.\" In a Baraita Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar elaborated, \"Moses and Aaron died because of their sin.\" ",
"Just as G'd is unable to make the diameter of a square equal the length of its sides at one and the same time, so He cannot make man \"in His image and his own form,\" and at the same time keep him free from sin entirely. The reason is that the definition of being human includes being fallible, being prone to err. Infallibility is reserved for celestial beings that are devoid of bodies. Their perfection derives from their not being physical. Man's perfection on the other hand, is merely potential, inasmuch as his body has been equipped with a spiritual soul. That potential will be achieved only after much practice and study. The very necessity to attend to the needs of his body, creates a time frame during which man cannot concentrate on his spiritual tasks. The Midrash tells us that when the angels first beheld Adam, they wanted to worship him, since they marvelled at the spiritual powers man had been equipped with. Thereupon, G'd showed them man asleep. Only then did the angels realise that owning a body and therefore having physical needs, made man at times much inferior to what they had believed at first. When Isaiah 2,22, exlaims \"leave man alone, for his soul is in his nostrils, in what way is he of any consequence?\" the idea is that man cannot possibly be considered a deity, since he is matter-bound. Midrash Tanchuma tells us that the emperor Hadrianus, after having conquered much of the then civilised part of the world, wanted to be deified in Rome. There were three philosophers who expressed opposition to this idea. The first one said that it is not proper to start a rebellion while in one's king's palace. If one wants to start a rebellion, believing in the merit of one's cause, one first leaves the palace, and raises the flag of revolt outside. What this philosopher meant was quite simple. Once one has demonstrated one's ability to survive outside the king's palace, -in this case the earth,-which is G'ds palace, one may have established an a priori claim to provide an alternative to G'd. As long, however, as one depends on the palace, i.e. the earth, one should leave well enough alone. The second philosopher said that it was too late to start a rebellion, since both heaven and earth had been created already. There was therefore no way in which a new deity could possibly claim to demonstrate originality. The third philosopher offered to accept Hadrianus' claim on condition that the latter prove his worthiness by helping him out. The philosopher had a treasure laden ship that had run aground three miles from shore. He asked Hadrianus to rescue the ship and its contents. Hadrianus said that he would send a legion of soldiers to do the job. The philosopher told him that no soldiers were needed. All that was needed was a little wind, blowing in the right direction. To this Hadrianus replied: \"where am I supposed to take the wind from?\" Upon hearing this, the philosopher said to him: \"if you cannot even control a little wind, how do you expect to control the whole universe?\" Hadrianus returned home, bitterly disappointed. His wife said to him: \"these philosophers have deceived you. You are a great king. If you will give me a security deposit, you will indeed become a deity.\" Said he: \"what kind of security deposit?\" Said she: \"the soul in your body.\" Said he: \"if my soul leaves me, I will be powerless.\" Said she: \"if you cannot even make dispositions regarding your own soul, how can you expect to be a deity? You are only an ordinary mortal.\" The wife, of course, had hit the nail on the head. Man's potential is only capable of fulfilment within a physical framework, i.e. he cannot dissociate himself from his body; otherwise he dies and is unable to achieve anything at all. Since this is so, the question may well be asked: \"what about his freedom of choice? If, by nature, man must sin, how can he be held responsible?\" We must distinguish between two causes of sin. If sin is due to causes that are inherent in man's very nature, he is not held responsible for such sin. If sin is the result of a lapse on the part of the sinner, then he is held responsible. When Moses is described as \"the most humble of all human beings,\" (Numbers 12,3) the emphasis is on the word \"human being.\" His perfection is not absolute. To the extent that it is humanly possible, Moses had mastered that virtue, but only to the extent that it is humanly possible. This is in line with the statement by Solomon in Kohelet 7,20. \"No human being is so righteous that he will do only good, and never sin.\" According to Maimonides, the sin Moses allowed himself to fall prey to, was anger when it was not justified. (introduction to Avot chapter 4) Maimonides endeavours to prove that the greater the stature of a person, the less is his tolerance for weakness in others who fail to achieve basic standards of behaviour. ",
"",
"",
"The answer G'd gave to the angels in our opening aggadah then is this. Since G'd had asked Adam to perform a simple task, one well within reach of his capabilities, and still he had failed, such failure could only have been due to lack of effort on his part, not to the fact that he was a mixture of body and soul. At that point in the conversation came the angels' question why Moses and Aaron also had to die, seeing they had in fact complied with all the mitzvot that they had been commanded. The angels' question presumed that Moses and Aaron had in fact sinned, but since such sin had been minor, they should have deserved forgiveness. It is also assumed that the angels' statement that Moses and Aaron had observed the whole Torah, meant that any sins that they might have committed had surely been wiped out by their having repented them. Otherwise, one could not speak about fulfilling \"all\" commandments. G'ds reply was, that it was true that they had not sinned in the sense of having been remiss, but that their very nature makes them mortal, since their composition makes one hundred per cent dedication to spiritual perfection impossible. To that extent, both sinners and saints wind up leaving their bodies behind when they die. Even those sages who hold that death can occur without prior sin, (Shabbat 55) do not refer to involuntary sin, since we have a verse in Kohelet telling us that such sinlessness simply does not exist. Also, the so called etyo shel nachash, the poisonous residue of man's seduction by the original serpent in Eden, which is credited with having caused the death of four otherwise totally blameless individuals, refers only to the absence of the kind of sin that warrants the death penalty. That school holds that Moses and Aaron had been guilty of death, having violated their duties as prophets. (\"because you have not demonstrated sufficient faith to cause My name to be sanctified.\" Numbers 20,12) ",
"",
"Some difficulties in the text of our Parshah. 1) What manner of people is this that wishes itself such a horrible death as that experienced by Korach and his followers? (20,3) 2) Why do these people harp on the fact that figs and pomegranates do not grow in the desert, while they are in the middle of accusing their leaders of causing their death from thirst? 3) Why did G'd insist on a verbal command to the rock in question? 4) Why do all the commentators have such problems in explaining the sin of Moses and Aaron, when chapter twenty verse twelve clearly spells it out for us? ",
"In the original edition of this work, the author devotes much space to refuting various interpretations by the classic commentators. ",
"",
"A comparison between the first time Israel had suffered from a lack of water, at a place called Massa U-merivah, and this latest occasion almost forty years later, shows that the people's complaint was directed at Moses and Aaron. They thought that the latter had acted on their own when they had led the nation out of Egypt, and had now failed them. To disabuse them of that idea, G'd provided water from the rock in full view of the whole nation. The name of the place commemorated the fact that they had addressed themselves to Moses and had entertained doubts about the presence of G'd in their midst. (Exodus chapter 17) Psychologically, the people had been unable to entertain the idea that the all knowing G'd, the essence of Goodness, would allow any difficulties to impede the progress of His people. Hence, they reasoned, the very difficulties they experienced were proof that the entire journey had been engineered by humans, not by G'd. This suspicion surfaced whenever any problem arose during the many years of the Israelites' wanderings. For this reason, Moses had been prompted to say to G'd that the people would kill him if they had any more provocation. They had considered him a false prophet. G'd instructed that the rock be struck in public, so that suspicion of Moses and Aaron would not ever occur again. (1+2) Now, forty years later, there was a repeat performance. All the people who had witnessed the striking of the rock at that time, had died. The young generation, however, had seen Miriam die, the wandering well disappear, and the ground had thus been prepared for the old suspicions to re-surface. This generation was saying that even a horrible death such as that of Korach, would have been preferable, since at least that would have occurred by an act of G'd. Their impending death by thirst at this point however, would merely be the fault of Moses, since he had bee unable to bring their forty year old adventure to a successful conclusion. Their complaint was reinforced by the fact that the place Moses had taken them away from had been infinitely superior to the place where they were about to perish. Not only did this place not produce figs and pomegranates, but it did not even provide the basics for survival, i.e. water. The performance was to take place in front of the entire nation. Since this problem had occurred a second time, and since the revelation the first time had not left behind a permanent impression, and there were still doubts about Moses' having acted only as G'ds agent, the new demonstration would have to include some element that went beyond the lesson taught at Massah U-merivah. It was necessary to show that Moses did not even touch the rock at all, to implant the conviction in the people's mind that G'd alone had provided the water, not in conjunction with Moses, nor Moses by his own devices. The rock therefore had to respond to a command by G'd transmitted by Moses by word of mouth only. G'ds purpose had been threefold. 1) To aggrandize His name by showing that even inert rocks respond to His spoken word, just as humans do. 2) Sanctification of His name by demonstrating that Moses was a true prophet. 3) To show that the rock responded immediately, without any mechanical aids having been interposed. This would prove that G'd could provide immediately and directly all the needs of His people, whenever He felt so inclined. It was hoped that a demonstration like that would once and for all still all doubts any of the people entertained about who had taken them out of Egypt, and that Moses had never acted on his own. These three purposes of the demonstration are hinted at in the text itself in verse twelve, when the Torah mentions: A) You have lacked a display of faith. B) You have failed to sanctify My name, and C) before the eyes of the people. (3) Had the people observed Moses and Aaron address the rock instead of responding to the people's request by chiding them, it would have been the most impressive demonstration of faith. G'ds instruction in verse eight had not included anything about speaking to the people. Moses had only been asked to assemble them. Moses' and Aaron's emotional state may have caused them to misunderstand G'ds precise instructions. They were under stress, after all. The fact remains that they departed from G'ds instructions before approaching the rock already. They compounded their error when they allowed the impression to be formed that it was they themselves that would produce the water. (Shall we produce water for you from this rock? verse ten) Finally, by hitting the rock, they nullified all that G'd had intended to be proved by the whole demonstration. When they hit the rock a second time, the result was that by comparison to the time Moses had struck the rock at Massa U-merivah, they actually diminished the impact of the miracle, since at that time the rock had gushed forth water as soon as Moses' staff had impacted. The onlookers had certainly heard about the miracle that had been performed on that occasion. As a result of all this, the people were even more prepared to credit the production of water to Moses rather than to G'd. It would reinforce their belief that it had been due to an inadequacy on the part of Moses that the solution to their problem had been so long in coming. Moses would be reduced in their eyes to the level of the water diviner, of whom there must have been quite a few in that arid region. His only advantage over other such water diviners would be that whereas other diviners had to try many times before achieving success, Moses had achieved success already at his second attempt. We find the people's mistaken concept of what they had witnessed expressed in the very song of praise they sang. (Chapter 21, 17-18) In that song they describe their source of water as being due to their leaders, \"a well dug by princes, delved by the nobles of the people, with their scepters and their staffs.\" They might even have attributed the production of the water to the proximity of the river Arnon, described in verse fourteen. We read there that they proceeded to the well of which G'd said to Moses to assemble the people so He could give them water. The distorted view that this spot had been a well, was only possible through Moses' and Aaron's error in not carrying out G'ds instructions precisely. The real facts were that water had been available already at Refidim, due to Miriam's merit. (Exodus 17, 1-3) With the death of Miriam, the source of that water dried up, causing the problems in the desert of Tzin. We observe therefore how Moses and Aaron thwarted G'ds entire purpose by their fateful error. ",
"(4) The penalty Moses and Aaron had to pay for their error, is reported in different language on three separate occasions in the Torah. When we consider that their error was threefold, we can easily understand why the penalty is mentioned in three parts, each mention being the penalty appropriate for one of the errors committed. 1) (Numbers 20,12) \"You will not bring this community to the land I have given them.\" 2) (Deuteronomy 32,51) \"Because you have trespassed against Me.\" 3) (Numbers 20,24) \"Because you have rebelled against My word.\" The first part of the penalty is concerned with the failure to fulfil the function of the prophet, the function of a leader. Therefore, leadership will be denied them when the people cross into the holy land. Moses refers to this at a later stage, when he explains that the fact that Joshua will become their leader is due to his having aroused G'ds anger. (Deut. 1,37) 2) They are denied entry into the holy land even as ordinary people, because of the sin of me-ilah, the downgrading of something sacred. They had diminished rather than enhanced G'ds stature. Therefore no upgrading for Moses and Aaron through setting foot on holy soil. 3) The decree that they would die before their appointed time. Sifri explains that such a penalty, karet, is always reserved for acts of rebellion against G'd. That is why G'd had stated \"because you have rebelled.\" The reason that this decree could not be reversed by prayer and by repentance was, that G'd could not demonstrate in any other way that His plan had been frustrated, had not been executed in midbar tzin. Consider the following: A king, interested in raising his public image, instructed his major domo to forthwith receive visitors with pomp and ceremony to show that visitor that he was highly thought of. The major domo failed to heed the instructions, treating visiting dignitaries with disdain. The only way the king could prove that his major domo had not acted on the king's instructions, was by beheading the major domo. Similarly, in the case of Moses and Aaron. This is why the Torah tells us that kedushah, sanctity, was restored in the final analysis by the untimely death of Moses and Aaron. (Numbers 20,13. \"He was sanctified by means of them.\") When our sages teach that whenever a sin involves an element of desecration of the holy name of G'd in public, there is no forgiveness, this is one of the instances they have in mind. In such cases, repentance does not wipe the slate clean. (Yuma 86) "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Moses sent messengers from Kadesh. ",
"Midrash Rabbah Numbers 19, explains the following two verses in Psalms. Psalm 37,3 reads \"trust in the Lord , do good, rest on earth and nourish faith.\" In chapter 34,15 the Psalmist says \"keep away from evil, do good, seek peace and pursue it.\" The Torah does not tell us to pursue mitzvot, rather ,when the opportunity arises in instances such as kan tzippor sending away the mother bird prior to taking her young, you perform the commandment that is at hand. However, when it is a question of making peace, the Torah wants us to seek out every opportunity, to pursue every avenue. Do not seek it only by sitting at home, but travel in pursuit of it. So did Israel. Though the Lord had said \"begin to inherit the land, find a pretext to provoke war against it,\" (Deut 2,24), nevertheless Israel sent out messengers to Sichon, requesting a peaceful passage. ",
"",
"The Torah demands on repeated occasions that we rid ourselves of negative virtues such as hatred, jealousy and the like. Not only are we commanded \"do not hate your brother in your heart,\" (Leviticus 19,17) but we are even commanded to physically assist our enemies in loading or unloading his donkey, should the occasion demand it. We are asked to lend or to give alms repeatedly to the same people even, and to avoid doing so out of a feeling of distaste for such beggars. All this is designed to refine our character. We must not bear tales, avenge unneighbourly behaviour, and similar commandments. The Torah states as the general purpose of the legislation \"so it will be good for you; so you will be well off; so it will be good for us.\" In other words, those who perform these mitzvot will refine their character by doing so. Not only will one merit external benefits from the performance of such social commandments, i.e. reward, but there will be an additional benefit for us, the improvement of our personality. Whenever the Torah considers a particular commandment of special importance, it repeats the demand to observe such a mitzvah. Sometimes the demand is repeated even more than twice. We are told \"do not pervert justice, listen to both sides when sitting in judgment, do not give preferential treatment to either rich or poor, pursue justice with fairness.\" The greater the negative impact if one should fail to observe certain commandments, the greater the emphasis the Torah places on its observance. In fact, inheritance of the land of Israel is made conditional on the observance of these social statutes. Study of Torah is one of the categories of mitzvot that are the foundation of personal and national well being. This is so, since it not only leads to the development of positive virtues, but also helps us avoid the many pitfalls man is exposed to. For that reason, the mitzvah of Torah study is not like kan tzippor, something to be observed if it happens our way, yet not something that needs to be sought out, but it is a duty incumbent upon each of us at all times, and applies practically within any environment we may find ourselves in. It is immaterial whether a person is highly placed or in very modest circumstances. Joshua (Joshua 1,8) is commanded to have access to a sefer Torah, Torah scroll at all times. Kings are to write it and study it. (Deut. 17,18) History shows that whenever a Jewish king treated Torah as a most precious possession and source of inspiration, so did his people. On the other hand, as soon as the king ignored the Torah, the people were not long in following suit. The result was usually disastrous and not too long in coming. The reason the king is elected as a model for how to treat Torah, is simply that the king's safety is symbolic of the security of the entire nation. When the aging David could not longer actively participate in battle without endangering his life unduly, his generals were most concerned to keep him in a safe place, pointing out that his personal safety was the key to the nation's success in battle, and to the maintenance of morale among the population. (Samuel II chapter 8) The Talmud in Erchin 17, states \"each generation according to its leaders.\" The meaning is that the fate of the generations is in large measure due to the actions of its leaders. ",
"Since the attainment of peace is as central to successful life as is the well being of the king to its nation, the Torah urges us to do everything in our power to help achieve this goal and blessing. For that reason, the advice of Rabbi Massis, (Avot 4) to be the first to offer \"peace,\" i.e. greeting to every person, represents the Torah outlook on life. It is not sufficient to grasp the opportunity for peace when it presents itself, but it must be actively sought out at all times. For that reason Hillel urged that one be a disciple of Aaron, the High Priest, who excelled in the pursuit of peace. Avot de Rabbi Natan 12, describes Aaron as going so far as to involve himself in family or other personal quarrels, unbidden, in order not to miss an opportunity to restore peace and harmony where it had been shattered. When he died, all sections of the nation cried, having been aware of his outstanding contribution to the unity of the people, and how his departure from amongst the living, might endanger the nation's well being. ",
"During wartime, not only does one concentrate on hating and killing the enemy, but the values that are paramount during times of peace, tend to become perverted. Cruelty and murder occur even amongst brothers in arms, members of the same side. Actions which are unavoidable in war, have a way of developing into independent virtues in wartime, corrupting all normal norms. David already experienced this while he led a band of men (see chapter 30 Samuel I) near Tziklag. Again, when David instructed Yoav his commander- in- chief concerning the positioning of Uriah in an exposed part of the battlefield, (Samuel II chapter 11) he experienced the tendency of warriors to see moral values as somewhat blurred. It says \"va-yitchazek David be-elokav,” i.e. David had to muster all his moral strength to prevent the degeneration by his comrades, whose trade had only recently been the killing and plundering around Tziklag. When David proclaimed (Psalms 120,7) \"I am peace, and I speak out about it; yet they are only interested in war,\" he refers to this problem. We find therefore, that Israel, when offering peace to Sichon king of Emori, acted according to the principle \"refrain from evil, seek peace,\" only to be rebuffed for its efforts. It is not enough to prepare for war and resolve that in the event a peace offer is forthcoming one will accept it; one has to make the first move in this direction. War is acceptable only because of the peace and justice that follow it. Midrash Rabbah Deut 5, reports that this was an instance in which Moses had acted on his own, and G'd agreed with him, seeing that G'd had only instructed him to make war. So we find that the precedent Moses set by his unilateral action was elevated to become halachic norm. Whenever a war outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael is contemplated, \"you will have to call out \"peace\" to her.\" (Deut. 20,10-11) Since the Torah couples this legislation with the prohibition of cutting down fruit bearing trees of a city under siege, it is easy to understand that the Torah places even greater emphasis on the need to spare human life. Sifri, item 123, even states that the seven nations residing in Canaan at the time the Jewish people were about to invade them, had a chance to save their lives either by converting to Judaism or by emigrating. The instructions to wipe them out, women and children included, applied only if they failed to avail themselves of the choices mentioned. ",
"The following matters deserve special attention in connection with the campaign against Sichon and Og. 1) Since it had been clear to G'd that Moses' offer to Edom would be rejected, why did He agree to Moses proceeding in such a manner, apparently causing Israel embarassment? 2) Why did Moses not also send a peace offer to Og? 3) Why did G'd tell Moses not to be afraid of Og? Would there not have been much more reason to tell him not to be afraid of Sichon, seeing that he was going to be the first one Moses would meet on the battlefield? ",
"The answer to question number one is the fact that Sichon would interpret Moses' offer as a sign of weakness, not as a desire to avoid blodshed. By allowing Moses leeway, G'd succeeded in having Sichon adopt a more arrogant posture. This is why he deserved to be punished. Having observed that Israel had preferred not to fight Edom or Moav, Sichon felt sure he could get away with his refusal. Og, on the other hand, was so sure of himself that he did not have to be provoked into assuming a hostile posture. For that reason, Moses needed to be reassured so that he would not worry about Og's self assurance or about his many prior military successes. ",
"Bereshit Rabbah 76, which tells about the two people who had been reassured by G'd, -Jacob and Moses,- refers to the fact that both of them seem to have harboured feelings of fear immediately prior to their respective encounters with Esau or Og. The truth is that neither one of them had really been afraid, they had only acted as if they had been afraid. One cannot order someone to become fearless. Fear is a natural attitude, not subject to legislation. However, when a person adopts a posture of fear, he can be instructed by G'd to abandon such a posture. So Jacob and Moses were told to adopt a posture of confidence also vis a vis their own people and to inspire them in this manner. The Talmud, of course, ascribes Og's confidence to the fact that he had been able to survive the deluge. He was believed to have been able to have done so due to his own merit already in the days of Abraham. Later on he had been instrumental in activating Abraham's pursuit of the kings who had taken Lot prisoner. The reason the Torah lists the measurements of Og's bedstead, is to explain why he had survived the deluge. It had not been due to any special merit but had been due to his size. He was one and a half times the height of the giant Goliath. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why did Moses tell Edom in his request for passage through its country, that Israel would not march through field or vineyard? Who has ever heard of an army deliberately setting out to travel through vineyards when they had just been given permission to traverse the country altogether? 2) Why is Aaron's death reported at this juncture and not his burial, which we read about only in Deut. chapter 10? 3) Why is the Torah so vague about the prisoners taken by the king of Arad? (21,1) 4) Why was this place chosen to report about the people's dissatisfaction with the Manna? Why the report about the snakes? ",
"\"And Moses sent messengers from Kadesh\" etc.",
"(1) We must make a distinction between G'ds reasons and Israel's motivations. Israel was very interested in avoiding a major detour around the land of Edom, an inconvenience, which as we have seen in this chapter, resulted in many complaints. Therefore, the Torah credits Moses with the despatch of messengers, (20,14) i.e. G'd did not prevent the people from trying diplomatic means to secure passage through the country. He knew of the futility of the excercise, and that is why all the reasons are listed that could have persuaded the Edomites to grant Israel's request. Edom, in common with many other countries, had two kinds of roads that traversed it. The one used by armies would be far away from the built up areas so as to ensure that whoever travelled that route would not cause damage or interfere with either agriculture or civilization. The other road, the derech messilah, the paved main highway, was the link between the built up areas. On that route would be found suppliers of water and food for travellers. Israel first offered to travel the first kind of road. When refused, Israel suggested using the other type of road, offering economic benefits to the host country by using and paying for the facilities available. In the latter event, they wanted to reassure Edom that they would not cause destruction or damage in their wake, something the Edomites had reason to be afraid of, considering the size of Israel's army. (2) Aaron's death may have been reported, since he was able to see his son Eleazar take over his position, a zechut, merit, that might well have been the reason Moses wished himself a death such as that of Aaron had been privileged to experience. (Sifri Parshat Ha-azinu) He was not buried where he died, since there was concern that Edom might desecrate his grave, were the grave to be situated close to Edom's borders. When we read in Deut. 10,6, \"there Aaron died and was buried,\" the word \"there\" does not necessarily describe an exact location, just the general area. (3) The absence of the tzaddik Aaron was felt, but not to the extent that lives were actually lost. After Israel had made the vow to destroy the Canaanite cities, the prisoners were freed as a result of renewed fighting. (4) The displeasure of the people was occasioned through the tedious detour around Edom, a march away from the direction of their eventual destination. The general dissatisfaction also led to the search for complaints against the manner of G'ds Providence. Their complaint was that all their provisions, both bread and water were due only to miraculous, supernatural means. They did not feel assured of the continuance of these supplies, and longed for a normal existence based on natural law. The appearance of the snakes reminded the people that an existence based on natural law would be precarious indeed, and that they therefore had no reason to quarrel with G'ds Providence. They realised this when they begged Moses to pray for renewed hashgachah peratit. (21,7) Actually, ever since the blessing Noach had received after he had offered the thanksgiving offering for having survived the deluge with his family intact, snakes ought to have been afraid of humans. (Genesis 9,2) An attack by snakes on humans, therefore, is an extraordinary phenomenon. However, the blessing bestowed on Noach, and through him on mankind, is conditional on mankind retaining its tzelem elokim, reflecting the Divine image accorded by its Creator. When man does not live up to the moral stature expected of him, the animals sense this and act accordingly. As long as Israel lived on a morally high plateau in the desert, the animals had kept their distance. However, as soon as they failed to maintain their standards, the predators also failed to keep their respectful distance. Animals who observe humans provided for by G'd, certainly are afraid to molest such humans. Reliance on help from above, just like during the first battle against Amalek, was demonstrated symbolically by the copper snake on a high pole. When our sages say that Moses actually threw the copper snake up into the air, and that it remained suspended there, that is precisely the point that they were making, namely that help comes only \"from up there.\" "
]
],
[
[
"On the nature of Bileam's prophetic powers. ",
"Midrash Rabbah Numbers, 20, states that the verse in Deut. 32,4 \"the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, tells us that G'd has granted equal opportunities to the gentiles. If Israel possessed outstanding kings, so did the nations of the world. King Solomon's grandeur had been matched by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. Yet, whereas Solomon used his position to build a temple for the Lord, composed prayers and hymns, Nebuchadnezzar cursed G'd, and declared war against Him. (Isaiah 14,14) David used the wealth granted him to fund the building of the temple. Haman used his wealth to obtain permission to wipe out the Jewish nation. Since the Jewish people had been given the prophet Moses, G'd had assigned Bileam to the nations of the world. The difference between the two lay in the fact that whereas Moses and other Jewish prophets warned their people against sin, Bileam seduced people into sinful behaviour, causing them to forfeit their share in the world to come. Jewish people exhibited compassion not only for their own people, but also for other nations. (Jeremiah 48,36, Ezekiel 27,2) Bileam, on the other hand, was bent on the destruction of an entire nation that had not committed an offence. This portion of the Torah is recorded to explain to the world why G'd removed His holy spirit from the nations of the world forthwith. ",
"",
"Maimonides, in his \"guide for the perplexed 32, section two, states, that though a man may have acquired both the moral and physical qualifications necessary to become a prophet, this does not mean that he will in fact become a prophet. Baruch ben Neriah, illustrious disciple of the prophet Jeremiah is a case in point. (Jeremiah 45,5) He was told that this did not reflect on him personally, but rather on the fact that his contemporaries had not been found worthy to have a prophet in their midst. Our sages tell us that Hillel had twenty students, each of whom possessed all the qualifications necessary to receive the gift of prophecy; however, the time was not propitious for the dissemination of that gift to their fellow men. (Baba Batra 13) The likelihood of a person who lacks the personal qualifications demanded of a prophet to attain that stature, is as great as that of frogs turning into prophets. Our sages (Berachot 7) explain that Moses prayed to G'd to make the gift of prophecy exclusive to the Jewish people. (Exodus 33,16) They infer that this was the meaning of Moses' request, from the answer given \"also the thing you have said, I will do.\" This proves that the request for the Jewish people to have the distinction of the gift of prophecy, had been granted. Even though this might appear as an unfair advantage for the Jewish people, at first glance, the fact is that G'd knew that none of the other nations was inherently able to produce the kind of personality which would qualify for the gift of prophecy. Just as even the most enlightened horse will never be a philosopher, so a gentile would never make a true prophet. What a gentile could achieve however, was the ability, aided by consultation of horoscopes coupled with close observation of the laws of nature, to foretell certain events, as has been discussed in chapter twenty six. Having said all this, it is difficult to understand the sages in our Midrash who claim that Bileam was a prophet, and that G'd had matched the gift granted the Jews by giving similar powers to Bileam. Also the well known interpretation of the verse \"there never arose in Israel another prophet such as Moses.\" (Deut. 34,10) We are told that the words \"in Israel,\" mean that among the gentiles there was another such prophet, namely Bileam. Avot 5, describes Bileam and his students as being possessed of the \"evil eye\", hardly the inspirational characteristic one expects of a prophet. The Talmud in Sanhedrin 105 states, that the verse in which Bileam describes himself as \"of the eye that is opened\" (Numbers 24,3) refers to the fact that he had only one eye with which to see. If so, how is it that a person of such visible deformity became a prophet? In chapter fifty six we explained that the term \"prophet\" when applied to gentiles normally applies to astrologers and the like, people who are considered by their countrymen as seers, though they are not prophets in the true sense of the word. Also, the seers referred to in Isaiah 47,13, had their power supply cut off when the tabernacle was erected, and G'd established a new order. When our sages employ the term \"prophet\" in reference to gentiles, it is just like when they use the term \"king\" for the lion or the ox, describing them as the leaders of their respective species. Proverbs 6,7 or 30,27 supports the view that animals have leaders just as humans have. The word \"prophet\" then is merely an umbrella term. Our sages have been careful never to use the term \"prophet\" for a gentile without pointing out that it is a gentile who is being discussed. The reason the Torah has devoted an entire portion to the doings of Bileam, is precisely in order to show us why the gentiles had no further prophets. If Bileam represented the finest among the gentiles, one can imagine what other gentile prophets might have been like. The human qualities that are such essential ingredients in the prophet's makeup, were so sadly missing. Whenever Moses and Aaron performed miracles, they were certain beforehand that their efforts would be crowned with success, since G'd had communicated the miracle to be performed. Especially close was Moses' relationship with G'd, as the Torah testifies (Deut. 34,11) \"G'ds intimacy with him was of a face to face nature.\" On the other hand, such prophets as Samuel or Elijah were almost always in need of a prayer before they could perform a miracle that they had set their minds to perform. Samuel in particular typifies that kind of prophet as we find in Mitzpah (Samuel I 7,5-13) as well as on numerous other occasions. If Psalm 99, describes Moses and Aaron as G'ds priests, and Samuel as someone who \"called upon His name, that describes the difference between them. The former was a priest around the clock, so to speak, whereas the latter needed to call on G'd from time to time to await the time and place acceptable to G'd. They did not know beforehand whether G'ds response to their calls would be positive. Samuel, as the leading prototype of that group of prophets, possessed a great amount of confidence. This is why the Psalmist says of him \"whenever he called.. G'd would answer.\" Other prophets such as Elijah or Isaiah were often not free of doubt if their prayers would be answered immediately. Moses, on the other hand, did not only not entertain any doubt, but had been instructed beforehand to perform each miracle. That is why he was able to point out to Korach and Datan and Aviram, when the latter accused him of being power hungry, that he had not ever acted from his own initiative. (Numbers 16,28). The few instances when Moses prayed for specific solutions to such problems as the bitter waters at Marah, when he was taught to use a certain variety of wood to sweeten the water, or when he prayed concerning the exact time the frogs were to be removed from Egypt, had no direct relationship to the miracles performed. For this reason, these instances were preceded by prayer. ",
"In fact, since according to our sages, Moses had been handed the keys to all G'ds treasure chambers, he is criticized when he resorts merely to prayer instead of action, deed. At the sea, when threatened by the Egyptians who were close on his heels, G'd says to him \"why are you crying out to Me, tell the Jewish people to get going!\" (Exodus 14,15) Not for nothing did G'd say to him \"see I have made you Lord over Pharaoh.\" (Exodus 7,1) Moses was like a deity who would employ Aaron as his prophet to impose his will upon Pharaoh. The contrast with Bileam is striking. The latter, by his own admission, had no idea when G'd would respond to his requests, and was certainly quite powerless to act on his own and display supernatural powers. Every utterance made by Bileam in his capacity as seer, needed approval by G'd. He did not even have latitude to depart from his prepared text. (Numbers 22,38) His utter lack of vision is best demonstrated when he said to his she-ass \"if I had a sword in my hand I would kill you now.\" (Numbers 22,29) The Midrash that stated that among the nations there did arise a prophet, did not mean to compare Bileam with Moses, but to point out the contrast between the two. Even when a prophet does arise among the gentiles, there is no comparison at all. In every vital matter, Moses was far superior to Bileam. (see Sifri on Deut. 34,10) In order to convey G'ds messages, Moses did not need to hear them spelled out, since he always found himself on the right wavelength. Bileam, on the other hand, had to stress that what he conveyed was the word of G'd. The meaning of the Sifri in Deut. 34,10, that Moses did not know who was going to talk to him, whereas Bileam knew, is, that Moses did not need to prepare himself for an encounter with G'd, whereas Bileam had to. Moses communicated with G'd from an upright position, Bileam only while he was prostrate. The fact that Bileam was uncircumcised was a further impediment to his receptiveness for Divine communication. Prior to circumcision, even an Abraham received the word of G'd only while falling down. Not until after the circumcision when G'd addressed him, (Genesis 18,1) do we find him remaining seated. The gentile is communicated with only at night, since he is compared to a mistress, someone whom one visits discreetly during the hours of darkness. Israel, however, is like a wife with whom one communicates openly during all hours of the day. When Bileam describes himself as \"one who hears the words of G'd, receives visions of the Almighty, (Numbers 24,4) one forms the impression that he was indeed on very familiar terms with the Almighty. However, this is misleading. Whereas the chef in the king's kitchen must be familiar with every ingredient in the king's meal, the maitre D' does not have to concern himself with every detail. When the Midrash, in apparent inexactitude, states that whereas Moses did not know \"what was talking, whereas Bileam knew \"what was talking,\" the reference is to the subject matter. Bileam who knew that a specific topic would be discussed with him without preamble, needed advance knowledge of that subject. Similarly, he knew when this subject would come up. This is why he could tell Balak's messengers to stay overnight till he would get instructions. Moses needed no advance knowledge of the subject matter, nor did he ever have to wait for an opportune moment. As soon as he entered the tabernacle, \"he would hear the voice of the Lord talk to him.\" (Numbers 7, 89.) The somewhat peculiarly worded Midrash (Sifri) mentioned, has yet another meaning. Since Bileam's mode of communication with G'd was not on the level of \"face to face,\" he could identify the source of what was speaking to him, since \"it\" assumed a certain form. Moses, on the other hand, while on the level of \"face to face\" communication had also been told by G'd \"you cannot see My face, you can only see My rear, i.e. in retrospect.\" (Exodus 33,20) At the actual moment of the communication, he never knew how close to the \"face to face\" level the emanation from which he heard the voice actually was. Bileam had a kind of visual contact machazeh. Not so Moses, to whom a completely disembodied voice would not present a conceptual problem. The thrust of the whole commentary on the verse \"there did not arise another prophet etc.\" is not to minimise the accomplishments of an Elijah in reviving the dead, nor to belittle Joshua arresting the sun and moon in their respective orbits. The commentary wishes to underline that no one other than Moses performed such miracles except by their own initiative. None were as privy to G'ds intentions as had been Moses. For that very reason, namely that he was on such intimate terms with G'd, it would have been practically impossible for Moses to have produced a miracle on his own initiative. If the whole portion is written to demonstrate the inadequacy of the most brilliant of gentile prophets, then we can understand Rabbi Yitzchak's statement that commencing with the functioning of the tabernacle, no more prophetic powers were granted to the gentiles. ",
"Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) Since the Torah had forbidden the Israelites to attack Moab, why were the Moabites so worried? Why does the Torah use different terms for Balak's and his people's fears respectively? (Balak \"saw-\"the people \"feared\" Numbers 22,2 ) 2) Why did Moab turn to the elders of Midian? What did these two have in common? 3) The grammar used by Balak's messengers is faulty; they switch tenses, and they switch from singular to plural (verse 6) Why? 4) Since Bileam had been careful to avoid opposing G'd outright, had been truthful in relaying to Balak's messengers what G'd had said, why did G'd become angry at his going with them? After all, He Himself had permitted it! (verse 20) Why did Balak's messengers suspect Bileam of being greedy and vainglorious? 5) Why all this harping on how much honour Balak could bestow on Bileam? 6) Why did the angel try three different means of impeding Bileam's progress? 7) What was the need for the miracle of letting the she-ass talk back to Bileam? 8) Why did Bileam say “I have sinned when he had been totally unaware of the angel's presence until alerted by his she-ass? He certainly had not had an inkling of the angel's function! 9) How had Bileam's situation changed after the angel's exhoration? How were the angel's instructions different from the ones Bileam had received in his dream? 10) What sense does Bileam's exclamation \"how can I curse when G'd has not cursed\" make? Surely this is exactly why he had been summoned! Why did G'd give Bileam four separate opportunities to pronounce prophecies instead of having him do all this at one single site? 11) Why did Bileam constantly refer to both \"Israel\" and \"Jacob?\" 12) Why does the Torah drop the uncomplimentary vayikor during Bileam's third prophecy, and substitute \"the spirit of the Lord remained with him?\" 13) Why is the substance of the message repeated in 23,19? 14) In chapter 14 verse 7, Bileam describes Israel's future kingdom as \"more exalted than that of Agog.\" Why is this so complimentary, after all Agog was not a famous king? 15) Seeing he has been dismissed in disgrace, why does Bileam bother to offer Balak gratuitous advice? (14,25) ",
"(1+2+3) Since Balak had been aware of how Israel had tricked the Canaanites into confrontation after having appeared to sidestep Edom and Moab, his people were divided in their view of the Israelites. Some were afraid that Israel's tactics were designed to destroy Moab eventually. Of them the Torah says \"vayagar, it was afraid. The other group was concerned about the encirclement that was taking place and that would eventually change the neighbouring countries. Balak \"saw\" the division amongst his subjects. Since Midian as one of Moab's neighbours would be the first country vitally affected by the Israelites' presence in that region, they were invited as allies. The message to Bileam telling him of the facts, especially the miracle that Israel had managed to escape from Egypt, made the request particularly urgent. Describing the apparent hopelessness of defeating Israel by warfare alone, Balak depicts the huge masses of people, suggesting by the use of the words \"I\" and \"we\" in the same sentence that possibly, through combined efforts of Bileam's curses and warriors led by Balak, Israel could be defeated. The reference to Bileam's ability to confer blessings, indicated that Balak was desirous of obtaining those blessings for his own people at the same time. Alternately, perhaps he committed a Freudian slip having reference to the blessings which Bileam would in fact bestow on the Jewish people, instead of curses. The reason that Balak's messengers took the magicians' instruments with them was to test the sincerity of Bileam. Our sages teach that the difference between the real prophet and the charlatan, the pretender lies in the former's ability to communicate the word of G'd at any time, whereas the pretender must wait for certain horoscopic constellations to appear in the correct correlation to each other. The ability of Bileam to respond immediately, would indicate that his response was genuine, was the word of G'd. As soon as Bileam asked the messengers to stay overnight till he could consult G'd, they realised that the undertaking did not meet with G'ds approval. This is why the elders of Midian, who were familiar with Bileam's mode of operation, did not even bother to wait. Only the Moabite elders stayed overnight, kessem, the magician's tool was the infallible instrument then, by means of which one could gauge G'ds real attitude as revealed by Bileam. That is why the elders needed the instrument, not Bileam. (4) Of all the improper enquiries that can be addressed to G'd, there is hardly one that could be more offensive than the request to commit an obviously criminal act and expect Divine blessing for such an act. If one were to ask a Rabbi's approval for commission of an act of adultery, surely this would be an insult to the Rabbi. If the questioner himself is known to be well versed in Jewish law, the insult would be even greater. Surely the first sin of Bileam consisted in asking G'd to curse a people so obviously His favourites. The very notion that G'd would undo all that He had done for that nation in order to enable Bileam to earn a fat fee from Balak is culpable. Therefore G'ds first reply was \"what kind of people have come to you?\" When Bileam uses Balak's terminology of describing the Jewish people, he adds insult to injury. Even though in the mouth of Balak, the descripition of the Jewish people is far from flattering, and Moab, owing its very existence to the patriarch of the Jewish people should have had every reason to refer to them with respect, Balak, who thought he had reason to fear them, looked at them from a distorted point of view. Bileam however, had no such excuse. In referring to G'ds chosen people in such derogatory terms, he made himself even more culpable than by his audacity in approaching G'd on the subject altogether. In keeping with his supposed stature, he should have categorically refused to involve his prophetic powers in such an undertaking. When the Talmud Shabbat 104, teaches that whoever wants to heap impurity upon himself is given an opportunity to do so, the question \"who are the people that have come to you?\" illustrates that dictum. Surely G'd had been aware who the people were, but Bileam deserved to enmesh himself more deeply in his sinful quest. The Jewish people to whom the term Adam applies, (chapter 3 essay 8) certainly deserves better of Bileam. Bileam seems at pains to deny the Jewish people's claim to four characteristics. 1) He refers to the Jewish people as nameless, describes them merely as \" the people who came out of Egypt\"; he makes it appear as if this people did not even qualify for a name of its own. 2) In referring to the Jewish people's departure from Egypt, Bileam seems intent to deny that G'd had played any role in that exodus. This is why he is made to emphasize later who it was that took Israel out of Egypt. \"The Lord who took them out of Egypt.\" (Numbers 23,22-3. 3) He refers to Israel as \"covering the earth,\" indicating that Israel lacks orderliness, and is comparable to a horde of wild beasts. Therefore, he is made to pay tribute to the civil and moral manner in which Israel has set up camp. (\"How beautiful are thy tents\" Numbers 24, 5) 4) In wishing to curse the Jewish nation, he denies them the basic distinction of having been made \"in the image of G'd,\" an attribute that applies to all human beings and is rooted in the dominion G'd has granted man over the animal kingdom. To atone for this insult, he is forced later to prophesy that this very nation will produce the Messiah who will exercise dominion over all of mankind. Haman had also begun to denigrate the Jewish people by referring to them as being nameless. (Esther 3,8) Bileam has to atone for this subsequently, by referring to Israel by both its names, i.e. Israel and Jacob. Notwithstanding any of the above, G'ds reply to Bileam in this instance was very civil. \"Do not go with them, do not curse this nation which is blessed.\" G'd is trying to tell Bileam that to accompany these people is improper, regardless of the purpose of the mission. In his wickedness, Bileam relates only part of G'ds reply, namely the part about not being allowed to go. The part about the futility of the undertaking he withheld. Understandably, this led the elders of Moab to believe that Bileam's refusal was motivated by considerations other than Divine opposition. (5+6) When, upon arrival of a more distinguished set of emissaries, they reproach him by saying \"do not hold back in coming to me,\" Bileam has the audacity to ask G'd about the same undertaking a second time. G'd in His anger, answers him in such a manner that he will be embarassed publicly when he does go with them. The ambiguous nature of G'ds reply was designed to encourage him to go, in order that he humiliate himself in front of the princes from whom he was seeking honour and glory. When G'd in His reply said \"if these men came to call you, go with them, only the word I speak to you you may do,\" (instead of \"you may say\") this gave Bileam leeway to think that he still possessed freedom of expression. When Bileam tried to use this apparent loophole in G'ds instructions, G'd became angry and sent His angel to intercept him. The three stoppages and beatings administered to Bileam's she-ass demonstrated clearly the nature of Bileam's sin and his subsequent chastisement. The first time the angel positions himself in such a manner that he could be bypassed without great exertion. Bileam should have refused the request by Balak's messengers. Instead, he chose to circumvent the will of G'd. The ass does likewise, arousing Bileam's anger. He strikes her, but not too severely. Balak too, when he hears Bileam bless Israel the first time instead of cursing it, admonishes Bileam when he says \"I have called you to curse my enemies and you have seen fit to bless them.\" The second time the angel positions himself in a narrow passage, leaving the she-ass no way to pass him without hurting the rider in the process. This arouses more anger in Bileam, he strikes her again, presumably harder than the first time. This corresponds to Bileam's second sin, when he encouraged the elders of Moab to think G'd might change His mind in favour of the planned mission. Balak gives Bileam a tongue lashing by saying \"if you cannot curse, at least do not bless.\" Bileam is forced to admit that he is quite powerless in the matter, and has to do what G'd says to him. The final confrontation between the angel and the she-ass is such that the latter cannot proceed against the angel without incurring death. Therefore, she lies down, the greatest protest imaginable against her master. Bileam reacts violently, striking her with a rod this time. In the ensuing dialogue between the she-ass and her master, Bileam is made to acknowledge that his longstanding and intimate knowledge of the she-ass's behaviour should have alerted him to the fact that only an unusual set of circumstances could have accounted for such a radical change in the behaviour of an animal whose primary function it was to serve as transportation for her master. Similarly, Bileam had reached the stage where he had to refuse Balak's request without even double checking with G'd whether it still pleased Him to bless Israel. When Balak became aware of this outright refusal of Bileam even to try to carry out the task he had been hired for, Balak sends him home in disgust. Bileam's humiliation is thus complete and corresponds to the manner in which he who had been privileged to enjoy visions other mortals had not been granted to see, had nevertheless rebelled against G'd. (6) The angel too had remonstrated with Bileam about his having struck the she-ass three times. Bileam who had accused the she-ass of having humiliated him, had himself been guilty of trying to manipulate G'd three times, and thus to humiliate Him. His punishment therefore fits his crime. When the angel finally becomes visible to Bileam, the latter admitting his sin, he volunteers to go home. Now, however, he has to carry on, in order to suffer public humiliation not only in the presence of the elders of Moab. Those elders, seeing that Bileam could not even control his she-ass, surely had developed their own opinion of the effectiveness of a man like this against the Jewish nation. The thrust of the she-ass's argument was that Bileam of all people should not have condemned her conduct without examination of the circumstances. He had known her long enough. Similarly, Bileam's longstanding familiarity with the ways of G'd, should have prevented him from accepting an assignment so obviously at variance with the friendship for Israel G'd had revealed in His relationship with that nation. If indeed, Bileam refers to himself as the shetum ha-ayin, the one who sees on one eye, he may well be referring to his lack of vision in a belated recognition of his own humble stature and lack of insight. His eyes were opened only after he had displayed blindness. This is the meaning of the words nofel u-gluy eynayim, \"after he had fallen, his eyes were opened.\" (Numbers 24,4) Bileam, in acknowledging that he had sinned because he had been unaware of the angel's presence, acknowledges that ignorance itself can be sinful. If someone strikes his parents because he is unaware of a statute fordidding such an act, he cannot plead innocence, since it was up to him to realise that such conduct is intolerable in the eyes of the law. Similarly, a man of the intellectual stature of Bileam could not plead ignorance as an excuse, and should have been alerted by the animal's strange behaviour. The reason the animal itself did not disclose the presence of the angel, has been discussed in chapter ten. In chapter twenty one we have discussed why Bileam had chosen to ride a she-ass. (8) Now that Bileam had received an inkling of what was likely to be in store for him,- private as well as public humiliation-, he tries to back out and offers to go home to save himself further disgrace. But at this point the angel orders him to proceed and to travel with the messengers until he will have played the part that G'd had assigned to him. (Perhaps the use of the word im, describes the relationship with the messengers, underlining that he is now captive for the purpose of this mission) (9) The phrasing of the instruction \"only what I tell you, you can say\" (Numbers 22,35) robs Bileam even of the freedom of speech which he had previously thought he still possessed, when G'd had restricted him only with the words \"it you must do.\" When he arrived in Moab, Bileam felt obligated to acquaint Balak with his impotence, and he downgrades the value of anything he may say beforehand, by explaining that he is acting under Heavenly compulsion. It appears that Balak had not wanted him to come to him, but rather to proceed towards Israel and curse that nation. Balak's request, (22,17) \"do not hold back walking elay, means \"on my behalf\" rather than \"towards me.\" Balak had meant to convey that he would compensate Bileam handsomely even if the latter never came to Moab, but would merely curse Israel from a suitable vantage point. Balak tries to forestall Bileam coming to the capital of Moab. Bileam stresses that even though he had \"arrived\" i.e. come, he did not \"go.\" He is trying to tell Balak that his appearance is due only to coercion from on high. Whereas previously Bileam had been willing to \"go\" without \"doing\" anything of substance, now he was not even in a position to \"say\" something of his own free will. (\"I am not even able to speak\" 22,38) Whereas G'd had only forbidden action, the angel even forbade speech. Thus the angel is not merely repeating G'ds previous instructions. In spite of all this, resourceful Bileam proceeds to emulate Israel's sacrificial rites, when he builds seven altars and offers only pure animals, hoping that if this does not advance his cause, at least it will not hinder it. When he expresses the hope that \"perhaps the Lord will meet with me,” (23,3) he admits that he can never be sure of establishing communication with G'd He is quite unlike Moses of whom the expression \"he called\" is always used. The one and only time G'd had in fact communicated with Bileam directly, is carefully described as vayikor, as a kind of \"happening.\" Even this happening never seems to have occurred again. Bileam now had to employ his prophetic insights to compensate for his derogatory references to Israel previously. Instead of allowing Israel to remain nameless, he now uses both the term \"Israel\" and \"Jacob\" to describe it. (10) He confesses that Balak had dragged him down from what once had been a position of lofty grandeur. (23,7) He accords Balak his full title \"king of Moab,\" not as previously. When Bileam says \"how can I curse when G'd has not cursed?\" he acknowledges that he had not had any business asking G'd about such a mission. Conversely, when David suffered curses at the hands of Shimi ben Geyrah, (Samuel II 16,8) the former could not believe that Shimi could have done so except if he had been so instructed by G'd. Once David became aware that he had been giving Shimi too much credit for having acted morally, he told his son Solomon how to deal with Shimi when the time would be ripe. Bileam now proceeds to extol Israel's virtues. \"I view as towering higher than rocks;\" (23,9) \"they are in a world apart from others, a nation that dwells in isolated splendour.\" ",
"Since the two letters heh and nun are the only ones that cannot be paired with another letter to produce the number 10 or 100 respectively, he uses the term hen to describe Israel's uniqueness. \"May my ultimate future be like theirs.\" In other words, \"I could not wish myself a nobler destiny than that of this people.\" Balak's reaction to all this is \"I called you here to curse my enemies, at least do not bless them.\" Balak tries another location, again emphasizing that only part of the people would be visible from there. The idea of concentrating on part of the people rather than viewing them in their total encampment, must have been intentional, else the fact need not have been reported twice. We had already read in 22,40, that Balak took Bileam to a place whence a section of the people could be viewed. ",
"If we reflect on the phenomenon that when sunlight is concentrated in one spot through the use of a convex lens, it intensifies to the point where enough heat is generated in a small area to start a fire, Balak's intention may become clear. He hoped that the power of Bileam's evil eye when applied to a concentrated area rather than when diffused over the entire mass of the people, would be that much more effective. When, later on, Bileam views the whole nation, and he no longer bothers with magic formulas, he is called \"the one of the seeing eye.\" 12) This is because the spirit of G'd had come to rest on him, and he no longer attempts to oppose the will of G'd. At that moment Bileam's undistorted eyesight both physically and spiritually becomes operative. The references in 23,19, to the steadfastness of G'd in honouring promises once made are not a repetition, but rather explain the nature of broken promises. 13) There are basically two reasons for not honouring promises. These can be subdivided into four sub categories. 1) A change of mind in the heart of the person who has made the promise. 2) A lack of sincerity already at the time the promise had been made, one had never intended to keep it. Bileam says \"the Lord is not like a man who deceives, i.e. G'd makes no phony promises. Concerning the other reason he says \"nor is He human to have regrets.\" G'd does not change His mind in midstream. The other reasons for not honouring promises have to do with the inability of the one who has made the promise to honour it. This may be due to a change in the circumstances of the \"donor\" by the time the promise had to be made good. Alternately, outside pressure may be applied to the \"donor\" to prevent him from making good on his promise. Concerning the inability to make good on a promise, Bileam says of G'd \"will He say something He cannot do?\" Concerning the last possibility, Bileam says \"would He say something that He could be prevented from making good on?\" Bileam goes on to say \"I have undertaken to bless, and I will not renege on the blessing.\" Concerning the other side of the coin, i.e. the recipient s fitness to receive the blessing, which could cause eventual non performance, Bileam says \"I have not seen any injustice among Jacob i.e. there is no reason to renege on a promise made to this people, their conduct does not give rise to this. Bileam now hastens to confess that Israel's departure from Egypt had in fact been G'ds doing, not as he had previously tried to misrepresent it, Israel's own accomplishment. \"The Lord took them out of Egypt,\" not as previously \"the people who came out of Egypt.\" This nation does not require artificial and unreliable means such as kessamim and nechashim, various kinds of enchantments to aid them in realising their destiny, but rather, it is serene in its confidence of G'ds achievements. 11) Bileam now has to confess his third error, that of describing the Jewish nation as a disorderly herd, comparable to animals on the march. He extols the civilisation and morality of the Jewish people, exclaiming \"how goodly are your tents, O Jacob!\" Their progress in the world will be growing constantly, just as \"little brooks turn into streams.\" Their dwelling places will be like gardens on river banks, but sufficiently elevated to be safe from flooding. 14) The reference to the kingdom of Israel being greater than that of the kingdom of Agag, refers to the kingdom of David. The idea is that the kingdom of David, representing as it does the concept of the Messiah, will commence immediately upon the death of the former. As soon as Saul had defeated the Amalekites, Samuel had been dispatched to anoint David as G'ds chosen king. Only after the formal defeat of the kingdom of Amalek, could the Messiah begin his career on earth. After all the wrangling between the forces of anti-G'd and Israel will have ended, Israel and its messianic king will emerge as mightier than the forces of the anti-G'd. The letters in the name David, when added to the letters in the name Agag, produce the holy number seven. If, say you have a gambling cube, you will observe that the numbers are arranged in such a fashion that opposite sides always total seven. For instance, the digit three will be opposite the digit four, the digit five opposite the digit two etc. If you were to arrange the cube with the letters in the names of David and Agag instead of using numbers, the same result would be achieved, seeing that the numerical values in the two names correspond to the digits 4-6-4, and 1-3-3. When suitably arranged, with the letters of David's name on top, the letters of the name of \"Agag\" will all be at the bottom. When Bileam extols the future feats of Israel in 24,8-9, he is in fact confessing that all the feats of grandeur he had once thought himself as capable of, will in fact be performed by Israel. In refusing to be ousted by Balak, he states \"I will walk back to my people.\" 15) However, he offers Balak a free piece of advice concerning what Israel would do to Moab in the not so immediate future. (Thus he reassures Moab regarding its own future for some time to come) Concerning his own well being, Bileam says that he will be quite comfortable among his own people; however, in view of what he foresees about the future of Moab, he tries to convince Balak that to wage war against Israel would be futile. He does not, -as Rashi suggests,- advise the seduction of Israel to commit immoral acts, but expresses continuous thoughts all of which are summarised by the idea that opposing Israel would be an exercise in futility. All this, is of course, the exact opposite of what Balak had invited him for, and therefore completes Bileams' utter humiliation. When, finally, he announces the advent of the Messiah, he completes his repentance concerning his fourth sin, namely having denied the Jewish people their status as human beings. By allowing that it is Israel who will produce the redeemer of mankind in the person of the Messiah, he admits that Israel is more qualified than anyone to lead mankind to its ultimate goals. Contrasting the eventual fates of the Amalekites and the Kenites, he emphasizes that those who choose true values will survive, whereas those who choose to continue living by the values of Edom will ultimately perish. If the Torah describes Balak as \"Balak went on his way this shows that he accepted Bileam's advice. If later, the punitive expedition is sent by Moses only against the Midianites, this supports the view that the Moabites had abstained from hostile action against Israel. Our commentary follows the tradition of our sages as recorded in Vayikra Rabbah 81, namely that Bileam's prophecies were aimed at benefitting Israel. This is also the meaning of the verse in Micah 6,5, \"O My people, remember what Balak the king of Moab devised, but what Bileam the son of Peor answered him.\" Forcing Israel's enemy to bless her instead of cursing her, was the ultimate honour that could have been bestowed upon this nation. Just as Esau at the time had had to acknowledge that Jacob was entitled to his father's blessing, this was he highest accolade that could have been received. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And Israel abode in Shittim\"",
"Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Pinchas, and Sanhedrin 82, state: Rabbi Eleazar said concerning the verse in Psalms 106,30, Pinchas stood, entreated, and the plague stopped.\" The term for \"pleading\" is not the usual vayitpallel, but rather vayefallel. This means that he did marvellous things with his owner, the Creator. At that moment the angels wanted to obstruct him, but G'd said to them: \"leave him alone, he is a descendant of zealots, a descendant of someone who had managed to assuage My anger.\" When the other tribes heaped abuse on Pinchas, saying that the grandson of an idol worshipper could hardly be the one to teach them proper Jewish conduct, the Torah lists his ancestry as son of Eleazar, son of Aaron. G'd told Moses to be the first one to offer greetings to Pinchas. This is the meaning of \"here I grant him My covenant, peace.\" ",
"The term echad, one, is applied to items that are whole, not to parts of any unit. Anything that is incomplete, either through being defective or being surplus, redundant, cannot qualify for the description \"one.\" G'd will be perceived as \"One\" in the messianic age, even though to our limited intellect He may appear as possessing many facets. \"He will be one, and His name will be one.\" (Zecharyah 14,9) The Jewish people are goy echad, one nation. We have a mission in life, in history, which requires all parts of the nation to be part thereof. \"It was evening, it was was night, one day.\" (Genesis 1,5) A day is not a night plus a day, but the total of the twenty four hour period is one day, one unit. When Joseph told Pharaoh that the repetition of his dream showed that the dream was one, he meant that each dream separately was meaningless, only when viewed together did it form a unit. Anyone who transgresses a single commandment of the Torah, destroys the unity of Torah, and is as if he had transgressed all the laws. The same applies to anyone tampering with Torah by either adding or subtracting a single law from it. (5 species for the lulav for instance) Man without woman is not really man at all, he cannot fulfil his purpose in life. When one person sins, he destroys the unity of the nation, makes the nation unable to achieve its destiny, its purpose in G'ds universe. Our sages view the relationship between Israel and G'd in such a manner that the unity of G'd is impaired when Israel does not enjoy His favour through acting in a manner contrary to His wishes. When Achan sinned by concealing treasure captured at Jericho, the whole nation was considered as having sinned. \"Israel sinned.\" (Joshua 7,11) As a result, the people lost the first battle of Ai. In the case of Korach, when Moses asked \"shall one man sin and You will be angry at the whole nation?\" Moses reasoned that since Korach's sin had been due to deliberate opting out from being part of the national purpose, such action should not come under the heading of collective responsibility. Moses was taught that he had erred. A few people, trying to collect manna on the Sabbath are considered as if the whole nation had refused G'ds commandments. \"How long are you refusing to observe My commandments?\" (Exodus 16, 28) ",
"",
"Here too only a few people were guilty in indulging in immoral acts, yet the Torah treats the matter as if there had been a wholesale collapse of morality. However, just as the act of a single individual at the right time and in the right place can redeem a whole nation, so can acts of individuals bring about national misfortune. When David fought Goliath, not for the sake of his own reputation, but to restore glory to the name of G'd, he becomes an \"ish chayil,\" a man of valour. The degree of messirat nefesh, dedication, determines whether the act of an individual can be the catalyst that cancels evil decrees and brings in its wake salvation to a whole nation. (compare Talmud Berachot 20, Taanit 24) Matters in our Parshah that need clarification. 1) The Torah keeps harping on the words \"the people.\" The people started to commit harlotry, the people ate, the people worshipped the Moabite deities. Israel joined itself to Baal Peor. Was all this nationwide? Or are \"the people\" perhaps only a few individuals? If the former, how could G'ds anger be assuaged by hanging just a few leaders? If the latter, why blame the whole nation? 2) Why did Pinchas \"see\" something no one else had seen? (25,7) Why did he act without instructions, and if what he did was proper, why had he not been instructed to do it? 3) Why does the Torah in verse thirteen say only that he was jealous on behalf of G'd? He was not only jealous, but he did something about it, he committed an irreversible deed? After all, G'd Himself testifies \"he took My revenge.\" (verse 11) 4) Why does the Torah say \"he atoned for Israel?\" All he had done was settle the score with one sinner, the others remained sinners. Since when does the execution of one sinner exonerate all the remaining sinners? The answer to all these questions lies in what we have discussed before. The relationship of the individual to the community is the key to the entire matter. When one individual can disturb the equilibrium of the whole community, then another individual can also restore such equilibrium. This is what is meant by the Midrash quoted at the beginning. It does not say \"he prayed,\" but \"he did something,\" a word from the same root but instead of being used in the reflexive, the verb here is used in an active conjugation, almost aggressively, you might say. What Pinchas did, went far beyond what he was obliged to do as a good Jew. The angels who tried to obstruct him, must be understood also. Surely it is not in the nature of angels to hinder people who are trying to do good? We must consider that Pinchas in trying to do what he did, endangered his own life. Supposing that Zimri had desisted from completing his act of copulation with Kosbi before Pinchas had killed him, then halachically, Pinchas could have been guilty of murder. Again, had Zimri chosen to defend himself and Pinchas would have been killed by him in self defence, it would have been considered a legitimate act of self defence, and Pinchas' death would halachically have been considered as self inflicted. Moreover, Pinchas had to consider retributive action by Zimri's relatives. In that case also, his death at the hands of Zimri's relatives would have been laid at his own doorstep and would not have been unlike a suicide. Because of all the reasons cited, the angels considered that they were doing Pinchas a good turn by trying to obstruct him. The angels therefore must be viewed as having acted in Pinchas' own interest. Moses being the beyt din, Court, personified, was not allowed to do what Pinchas could do spontaneously. Perhaps this is the reason that Elijah who had personally killed four hundred priests of the Baal on Mount Carmel, having chosen to act like his predecessor Pinchas rather than like Moses and Aaron, did not reap the reward given to Pinchas. He had to flee for his life, endure extreme discomfort until he asked G'd to let him die. Why did G'd not appear to him at once and instruct him to anoint Chazael, Yehu and Elisha, instead of doing so after Elijah had travelled an exhausting forty days through the desert to Mount Chorev? Why did he not receive G'ds revelation on sacred ground within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael? G'd made him come to the spot where Moses at the time of the sin of the golden calf had not acted like Elijah, because his position as law giver and law teacher was similar to the position of Elijah in the latter's generation. At least that was the position Elijah had attempted to assume among his people. Elijah's repeated statement to G'd \"I have been motivated by jealousy on Your behalf,\" when G'd had asked him what he was doing at Mount Chorev, only elicited the reply from G'd \"go up to the Mountain.\" There he would learn that the spirit of G'd was not to be found in a variety of excesses of nature, but rather in the kol demamah dakkah, the almost inaudibly soft voice that superseded all the terrifying spectacles of nature run amok. The lesson was that the practice of kanna-ut, jealousy, i.e. making it a way of life, did not represent the spirit of the Torah. Not the spirit that moves man, not the fire, the enthusiasm that burns within him, but the yishuv hada-at, the calm considered approach, will have lastingly beneficial effect. When Elijah, apparently, had failed to absorb the lesson by repeating the statement that all his sincere kanna-ut notwithstanding, he had wound up an outcast at Mount Sinai, persecuted, unappreciated, G'd tells him that his work henceforth would have to be carried on by others, such as Chazael, Yehu, and Elisha. (compare Kings I chapter 19) In spite of all the foregoing, our sages seem to blame Moses for a degree of neglect, when they state that the reason Moses' grave remains unknown is due to his conduct during this episode. (see Bamidbar Rabbah 20) The reason is that Moses had failed to instruct Pinchas and others to proceed against Zimri in a judicial manner, i.e. bringing him to trial. Moses was in the habit of acting on G'ds instructions. When an opportunity occurred when he should have acted without waiting for instructions, and he failed to act independently, then our sages consider this \"laziness,\" and teach us that G'd is so demanding of those close to Him that He punishes them even for so minor a sin of omission. (Baba Kama 50) Had Moses been legally required to initiate proceedings, his sin would indeed have been major, seeing that he had not done so. G'd told the angels, who for the purpose of the Midrash may even be synonymous with the chachamim, the sages-, \"let him be\"; he is descended from Levi who acted in pure spirit, in defiance of personal danger when he killed the people of Shechem on account of their implication in the rape of his sister Dinah. Furthermore, he is descended from Aaron, who by offering incense, without instruction, turned away My wrath. He has purity of motivation through heredity, and therefore is allowed to do what he has set out to do. G'ds assistance manifested itself in several ways. 1) Coitus, normally an act of short duration, continued until Pinchas had a chance to stab Zimri to death. 2) Neither Zimri nor Kosbi had a chance to cry out to alert those nearby. 3) Helping Pinchas's aim through the walls of the tent where the act was taking place. 4) Lengthening the blade so that it could penetrate both Zimri and Kosbi. (The Midrash lists eight other \"assists\") The point of these Midrashim is to show that Pinchas merely commenced the laudable deed, i.e. kinneh, was jealous. Heavenly assistance helped him complete the deed without his becoming defiled by contact with a corpse. (As a priest who has killed is halachically forbidden to perform the traditional duties of the priesthood) He himself needed only to express \"kinnah\" jealousy; the rest of the action could then be ascribed to Heaven. When Midrash Rabbah Numbers 21, tells us that this shalom, peace is especially precious, it is because it represents the true wholeness of the saintly personality. Such people preserve the \"Divine image\" with which they have been equipped in the perfect manner. (see our comments in chapter 15) Pinchas argued a point of law with G'd, (use of the word pelillim in the judicial sense). Vayefallel, he argued and prevailed. Pinchas' two outstanding accomplishments were 1) kanna-ut, totally dedicated personality. 2) His merit devolved on his people as a whole so that with his deed he was able to atone for their disgrace. Confirmation of this view is found in the nature of his reward. The \"peace\" that G'd granted him extends not only horizontally, i.e. to people of his own generation, but also vertically, lezaro acharov, to his future seed and generations. For this reason he was to take part in the punitive expedition against Midian. This is why his descendant the prophet Elijah will close the generation gap between fathers and sons and sons and fathers before the advent of the Messiah. (Maleachi chapter 3) In chapter two verses 4-7, the prophet describes the virtues and accomplishments of Pinchas/Eliyahu. The Talmud, Berachot 19, states clearly that whenever a question of chilul hashem, desecration of G'ds name is involved, one does not stand on ceremony, according honour or rank to one's leaders. When the prophet refers to Pinchas first as a Levite and subsequently as a kohen, a priest, the reference is to the upgrading of Pinchas' status subsequent to the affair with Zimri. At the end, the prophet refers to Pinchas as malach hashem tzeva-ot, an angel of the Lord of Hosts. This is a reference to Elijah's ascent to Heaven, there to await the proper time for his return to earth to complete his mission. This is the meaning of the prophet's statement \"here I will send you My angel.\" It is most interesting to note that the law of lo tossifu velo tigre-u, do not add or detract from the laws of the Torah, (Deut 4,2 is coupled with a reference to the events of Baal Peor, our Parshah. From the text it is clear that those who had been guilty only by association had survived. Pinchas succeeded in restoring the unity of the people and the unity between the people, its Torah and its G'd. The fact that we do not find the instruction to hang all the leaders of the people as having been carried out, shows the effect of Pinchas' deed. Maimonides points out that had the hangings indeed taken place, the Torah would have had to confirm this by such statements as \"they did so,\" or something along those lines. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"Harass the Midianites!\" ",
"The Talmud Ketuvot 67, relates that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was once riding on a donkey out of Jerusalem. His students were walking behind him. He observed a young girl collecting bits of barley from beneath the legs of the Arab beasts. As soon as the girl saw him, she covered her hair and stood before Rabbi Yochanan asking him for alms. Rabbi Yochanan asked her who she was, and she replied that she was the daughter of Nakdiman ben Gurion. (one of the three wealthiest men in Jerusalem at that time) Rabbi Yochanan cried out and said: \"blessed be Israel, who as long as they carry out the will of G'd are beyond the reach of any other nation, but who when they fail to do G'ds bidding, are subservient not only to a lowly nation, but even to the beasts of burden of such a lowly nation.\" ",
"",
"We observe in nature that the more sophisticated a creature, the more fragile is its physical composition. On the other hand, if something appears to be of very durable construction, its function and potential is simple and uncomplicated. Stones are durable, their impact on, and contribution to life is minimal. Humans are extremely fragile organisms, but their potential and actual impact on life on this earth is tremendous. Put another way: Beauty of form equals weakness of substance. Brute strength equals unattractive form or packaging. Job 6,12, refers to this when he says: \"Do I have the strength of stone, is my flesh made of copper?\" He means that if he were indeed constructed of those materials, he could endure his suffering. We observe simple insects such as ants, able to build for themselves elaborate homes, storage facilities etc. Powerful animals such as lions, on the other hand, are unable to make provisions for themselves. Their bodies seem exposed to all kinds of danger. Farmers, uneducated people, usually possess a physique that enables them to achieve survival in a struggle with the elements, whereas the scholar usually seems quite weak, unable to cope with the challenge of physical survival in this world. It is further interesting to note, that things which are physically strong and intellectually weak, do not disintegrate completely after they have ceased growing. A dead tree remains a chunk of wood for instance, but a dead animal or human being disintegrates completely. ",
"From the above it follows that the most advanced of nations, i.e. Israel, were it to perish G'd forbid, would disintegrate more than any other nation; less would be left of it than of any other more primitive society that ceases to occupy center stage in history. This is so because of the sophisticated nature of the body of the Jewish nation, which by implication implies fragility. When the prophet Ezekiel in chapter fifteen, describes the wood of the vines as utterly useless,- not even fit to be used in building,- he tries to tell us that unless it functions as the bearer of grapes, it is utterly without purpose. Similarly, the Jewish people. Unless the Jewish people fulfils its mission, it is utterly useless in the scheme of nature. The lumber of other trees, even if the tree itself is no longer bearing fruit, can serve builders; not so the wood of the grapevine. Gentiles, whose primary function is not the fruit of the intellect, mind or soul, may remain useful in some other capacity, not so Jews. They would only be good for firewood, serve by the very act of their own destruction. The whole purpose of the Jewish nation, allegorically speaking, is to produce the fruit of the vine. This fruit is available in three distinct qualities. 1) Unripe grapes. 2) grapes. 3) wine. Halachah reflects this view by assigning three different benedictions to the three stages of that fruit when one consumes it. For unripe grapes the benediction is borey pree ha-adamah, He who creates the fruit of the earth. Ripe grapes qualify for the benediction borey pree ha-etz, He who creates the fruit of the tree. Finally, wine qualifies for the benediction borey pree hagafen, He who creates the fruit of the vine. The type of benediction recited, corresponds to the degree of excellence of the product it is recited over. Man's function in the scheme of things is similar to the Jewish nation's function in the scheme of civilization, the scheme of nations. Our function embraces three stages of nature; the inert as represented by stone, the vegetative as represented by plants, and the animalistic, human, as represented by the fruits of various plants. G'd calls a human being \"Adam when he fulfils his purpose on all three levels. (compare chapter forty four section one based on Talmud Baba Metzia 114) Justification of one's existence stems from one's having fulfilled one's purpose, one's destiny. When one fails deliberately to fulfil one's purpose, one forfeits one's right to exist. When the vine does not yield fruit, the wood supporting its leaves etc. deserves to be burned. When man does not contribute to yishuv ha-olam, civilization, he loses the right to exist. When Israel fails to make its specific contribution to the betterment of mankind, it loses its raison d'etre. This is what Rabbi Yochanan expressed in the paragraph from the Talmud Ketuvot quoted at the outset of this chapter. In the chapter dealing with the red heifer, we explained that impurity and its relative intensity, exists in direct relationship to the belovedness of the creature in the eyes of G'd. The less beloved, the less capable of becoming impure, the more beloved, the more subject to becoming defiled. Similarly, the higher the expectations that have gone unfulfilled, the more the fragility of the vessel becomes evident, the more total its collapse if and when it occurs. Only its continued proper use keeps it in good condition. The same lesson is conveyed to the prophet Jeremiah in chapter thirteen, about the belt buried near the river Euphratus that had been in disuse for many years, only to disintegrate by the time Jeremiah was to use it again. A belt has four functions which can be viewed as paralleling the tasks of the Jewish people. Garments to man are like character traits, as explained in connection with the special garmens of the High Priest and the priest at large. The belt assures the proper functioning of such garments. Leaving the belt buried somewhere, nullifies the value of the garments it was supposed to complement. The point of the parable is, that even a human being, equipped as he is with all the potential G'd has given him, goes to waste, unless he harnesses his potential in the proper manner. Girding oneself with the ezaur, belt, is like hashem oz hitazor, G'd girded Himself with strength. Man in emulating G'd, does likewise. Possibly, this is why Elijah is portrayed as wearing the belt around his loins when we see him function publicly as a prophet. Basically, linen is a durable material, much more so than wool. It is interesting that while wearing the belt, the prophet is not to wash it, though it undoubtedly would become soiled with perspiration. In the parable then, usage does not contribute to disintegration; on the contrary, careful preservation during disuse causes disintegration. When the Messiah is described in Isaiah 11, the belt appears as the well known symbol. The Messiah will wear a belt of righteousness and loyalty. The generation of Jews who had left Egypt had proven inadequate to their lofty mission. They had demonstrated unwillingness to be mosser nefesh, display acts of supreme dedication for Eretz Yisrael. Only the next generation deserved to inherit the land. Quite possibly, the esteem for Eretz Yisrael expressed by the daughters of Tzelofchod is the key to our understanding why that generation was granted entry, and why the sequence of events related in the Torah is such as it is. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why was Israel commanded to wage a punitive war against Midian, when it had been the Moabites that had seduced them? Although the answer of our sages, that Midian had gotten involved in an argument that was not theirs, is well known, it seems inadequate. Midian does not appear to have actually done anything. In fact the Midianite elders had not even waited to see if Bileam would change his mind about going to Balak! 2) Why does the Torah use the present tense in reporting the reason for this campaign? (25,17) 3) Why does 31,1, seem to repeat what had already been said in 25,17? Why is Moses' untimely death linked to this campaign? Why was the census of the people reported in the Torah between the command to go to war and the report of this command having been executed? 4) Why did Moses not personally carry out this command by leading the warriors into battle? Our sages' reason that since he had once found shelter amongst the Midianites, he was not to act ungratefully, seems inadequate when there had been a specific command by G'd? 5) Why did Moses not give specific instructions as to who should be killed, instead of becoming angry later? Why do we hear about all kinds of tum-ah, impurity regulations in this campaign, whereas that subject had not come up in or after the campaigns against Sichon or Og? 6) Why the lengthy report about the loot, the division, the repetitive details about the arithmetic involved? 7) Since the Torah reports Eleazar's share of the levy in such great detail, why does the Torah not also report the amount of the levy from the people's share, giving precise numbers? ",
"Problems in the story of the daughters of Tzelofchod. ",
"1) Why did G'd not spell out the right of daughters to inherit in certain situations when Moses had been instructed to share out the land? 2) The daughters of Tzelofchod are hard to understand. If it had been the custom for daughters to inherit in certain circumstances, why did they raise the issue at all? If, on the other hand, daughters did not inherit under any circumstances, how did they dare to raise the issue ? If, as Maimonides points out, it all had to do with the cause of their father's death, why did Moses have to ask G'd about the halachah, the ruling on this matter? 3) How could the daughters of Tzelofchod have seen something that had escaped Moses, and how could Moses have been expected to know something that had not even been legislated? 4) Why did the daughters say that their father had \"died in the desert?\" Everybody had died in the desert! Besides, how was this fact relevant to the issue? 5) Why was Moses asked to ascend Mount Avarim although the time for him to die had not come yet? 6) Why does Moses refer to G'd as \"the Lord of the spirits?\" When Moses describes the tasks facing his successor, why does he twice stipulate that that successor must \"go out in front of the people and return in front of them?\" ",
"(1) We have explained in chapter eighty two that the Midianites actually felt more threatened by Israel than the Moabites, since they had not been assured of physical or economic immunity, seeing that G'd had forbidden Israel to harm Moab. G'd had not imposed such strictures concerning Midian (Deut 2, 18-19) This is why the Midianites tried to cause the downfall of Israel through their committing immoral, licentious sexual unions. When this had failed, they planned other actions just as the Ammonites had done. (Samuel I 10,6) who hired mercenaries to attack Israel. Secondly, since their princess Kosbi had been killed by Pinchas, they had reason to plan revenge. G'd revealed their plan to Moses; this is why the Torah writes \"they are about to oppress you, to beguile you with their wiles, just as they have beguiled you at Baal Peor.\" ",
"(2) Midrash Rabbah Numbers 21, explains that whoever treats the Midianites with mercy, will only wind up being abused by them, as happened to David, when the latter sent messengers to express his condolences at the death of their King Nachash. (ibid). (3) Apparently, G'd had not commanded an immediate campaign, rather at that point the injunction was not to befriend them or make peaceful overtures to them, al tatzor, means \"do not besiege.\" Here too, only encirclement was the order of the day. Meanwhile the Jewish people were to be counted following the plague that had killed twenty four thousand of them. After that came the problem of the daughters of Tzelofchod and all that was entailed in that. The moral niveau of the Jewish people had not yet recovered to the point where they could have looked forward to a successful defence in the event of a Midianite attack. For that reason, G'ds advice was that they should stage a surprise attack, which would likely result in victory based on normal military considerations not involving hashgachah peratit, Divine intervention. The reason the campaign is referred to well in advance of its actual execution, is to include it with the report about the campaigns against Sichon and Og, which had been fought successfully by men who were morally entitled to wage war. The people were to appreciate that the men chosen for this campaign had to be such as would qualify on a moral basis. The report about distribution of the land of Israel to the men over twenty, plus those who had come out of Egypt, is, as Rashi says, to show that the dead inherited the living. In this way, both the people to be counted at this time as well as the ones who had left Egypt, would jointly share in inheriting the land. (4) Since the count of the warriors was to include only those who were free from sin, and who therefore qualified for entry into the land, Moses considered himself excluded. This is why he did not lead Israel into battle, personally. He had thought that this was a battle in which Joshua had to assume command, until G'd later repeated to him- after the section about the sacrifices and vows, \"take revenge for Israel from the Midianites; after that you will die!\" The emphasis in that verse is on the fact that he would die only after that had been accomplished, not prior to it. Moses, who had construed the meaning of the word tzaror as an infinitive, not as a directive, delegated Pinchas, who, since he had commenced the mitzvah was to be allowed to complete it. (5) G'd may not have commanded the females to be killed in order to give Moses a chance to still have a major share in carrying out that mitzvah personally. Moses was quite right in chiding the troops who allowed the very people to survive that had caused the plague to happen, and who already had the death of twenty four thousand Israelites on their conscience. Moses had not given such a command before, since he had taken it for granted that this part of the Midianite population would be killed by his warriors. He is not reported as including Pinchas in this reprimand, out of respect for the latter. On the other hand, Pinchas had not wanted to issue such instructions which, if wrong, could not have been corrected at a later date. The reason we have specific instructions for the temey-ey meytim, those who had defiled themselves through contact with corpses, and who have to remain apart from the main body of the people is, that this time only twelve thousand people were involved. Previously, when the whole army had been involved fighting Sichon or Og, and everyone had become defiled through contact with the dead, a separation would not have accomplished anything. Therefore, the legislation about ritual purification of vessels formerly owned by gentiles is in place here. (6+7) The repeated emphasis on the amount of the loot was to remind the people of the extent of the victory, coupled with the fact that they had not suffered any casualties at all. By dividing the loot into 5o% for those who had stayed behind in the camp, and appropriating 1/5ooth from the combatants, the temple treasury would in fact receive one tenth of one percent from the total loot, and the numbers would automatically be equal to the number of thousands listed for all the animals captured etc. The half was recorded to let us know the amount of the 10 per cent that Eleazar was entitled to as a tithe. Altogether, detailing the quantities which twelve thousand men had captured from a nation led by five kings, would remind the people of the impressive nature of their victory. ",
"(daughters of Tzelofchod) (1+2) It is understandable that when after the census the Torah says \"to these the land shall be distributed,\" the daughters of Tzelofchod thought that only men were meant. After all, only men had been counted. Since they were clever, they employed whatever argument they could muster against what they were afraid would happen. One of the strongest arguments they marshalled was \"our father died in the desert,\" i.e. after the division for the yotzey mitz- rayim, the menfolk who had been part of the Exodus had already been determined. (4) Therefore, they reasoned, he had possessed a share in the land. When the decree of the spies occurred, condemning that generation to die in the desert, it had also been stated \"and your children concerning whom you have said they will become booty...to them I will give the land.\" The daughters of Tzelofchod reasoned that anyone included in the term \"your children\" was also included in the second half of the sentence which promised these children the inheritance of the promised land. Since Tzelofchod had not belonged to the fellow travellers of Korach, but died in a normal fashion, he did not need to lose his inheritance. Alternately, if they as daughters could not fulfil the function of the male heirs, then at least their mother should be permitted to be remarried and have children from a levirate union. Possibly, the final nun written in extra large script, indicates that Moses not being too familiar with the rules of inheritance, wanted to know from G'd if this case rated special legislation. (27,5, tells us of Moses submitting their law suit to G'd) (3) An important detail in the legislation that had not escaped the daughters of Tzelofchod, was the line \"to these the land will be shared out for inheritance in accordance with the number of names.\" (26,53) Later on, (26,54) we read \"to the names of the tribes of their fathers.\" In view of this, we find that the Torah was certainly not amended for the sake of these girls, but that they had been astute enough to recognise a nuance which Moses had not yet noticed. When Onkelos renders verse 46 \"and the daughter of Asher was Zerach,\" as \"the daughter of Asher's wife was Zerach,\" he may have done so in order to explain why Zerach did not inherit land in Eretz Yisrael. She was not a direct descendant of someone who had established a claim by being one of the adults leaving Egypt. The daughters of Tzelofchod had their case mentioned simply in the wider context of the laws of inheritance. Zerach, on the other hand, is mentioned by name merely because she had still been alive after all this time. ",
"(5) The instruction to ascend Mount Avarim was not meant to be carried out immediately, neither was Moses to die immediately. Rather, G'd announced His plan at this point to enable Moses to make arrangements for his succession and to make supplication to G'd concerning the decree. G'd wanted Moses' successor to have been chosen with his complete approval. (6) Moses appeals to G'd in His capacity as providing man with the spirit that makes him successful in managing his life. He prays for a leader who not only commands authority, but who also acts as a true shepherd of his flock. The first \"he will lead them out and bring them back,\" refers to his authority, the second similar statement to the shepherd like manner in which such authority is to be wielded. In addition, G'd tells Moses that the leader will subordinate himself to the religious authority of Eleazar in his capacity as the High Priest. Through him, he will consult with G'd on critical issues. We then read about communal offerings, to remind us of the ultimate purpose of Israel's residence in the holy land. If the conquest of the land was to be used for serving, at the table of G'd, then, and only then could the people be certain to be the recipients of G'ds unlimited bounty. "
]
],
[
[
" On the amount of effort that may be devoted to mundane matters. ",
"\"My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire.\" \"When a man voweth a vow unto the LORD\". \"Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle\".",
"Bamidbar Kabbah, 22, quotes Kohelet 10,2, \"a wise man's heart is on his right, the fool's on his left.\" Moses is an example of the first statement, the tribes Reuben Gad and half Menashe, are examples of the fools. The latter had made secondary values their prime concern when they placed more emphasis on the welfare of their property than on the value of their persons. They said to Moses (in this order) \"we want to build enclosures for our cattle here, as well as cities for our children.\" (32,16) Moses said to them: \"do not act in this fashion, do the important things first, i.e. build cities for your children; later, construct pens for your sheep and cattle.\" This is the meaning of \"the heart of the wise is on his right side.\" ",
"Since G'd in His wisdom saw fit to make man a mixture of matter and spirit, He had to make the earth and the Heavens to provide a home for the spirit. This is expressed in Isaiah 45,12, by the words \"I have made earth and Heaven and created man on it.\" The meaning is that earth and Heaven were needed for the sake of man. We have to conceive of rakiyah, the horizon as the dividing curtain between the purely spiritual \"upper\" regions, and the \"lower\" physical part of the universe. That this is so can be confirmed by the motion that we observe in the part of the universe inhabited by our bodies. For this reason Solomon in Kohelet, keeps referring to the state of things as \"under the sun.\" By this he wants us to understand that he speaks only about the physical part of the universe. Since spiritual beings are not subject to time, they are also not subject to motion, since motion is measured by time. Not only are spiritual beings not bound by time, but, on the contrary, time and its \"carrier\" are subservient to them. Celestial bodies, (sun and planets) are in a category in between. Inasmuch as their very function is motion, they are affected by it; they are, however, not dominated by time. Their motion commenced before a time frame had been established, but ever since such time frames exist, they exist side by side with time. On earth, things are different, as Solomon said: \"everything has its time and season under the sun.\" (Kohelet 3,1) Man is subject to the dictates of time. Israel the nation, assured as it has been by G'd of arichut yamim, a timeless, i.e. infinite future on holy soil however, can demonstrate by its history that there are aspects to its existence which set it above and beyond the limits imposed upon man by time. All this, providing Israel acts as Israel should. When Kohelet refers to eyt lechol chefetz, \"there is a time frame for every desire,\" the reference is to an intellectual achievement. The message is that since we are in a human shell, a body, the workings of the mind are somewhat impeded. If we did not have a body to contend with, our mind would comprehend immediately things which require time for us to be able to understand them now. The body acts as a brake for the intellect. ",
"Although we have stipulated that both Heaven and earth are essential in the scheme of creation, this does not mean that they are of equal value and importance. Just as a scaffold is essential in the construction of a house, but cannot be considered as of equal value and importance to the house, so the physical universe only facilitates man's ascent to the spiritual universe. Likewise, the task of the Jewish nation is to engage only in those activities of a mundane nature that further achievement of its ultimate destiny. Making worldly matter primary, and spiritual matters secondary, or making worldly matters into an end to themselves, will not lead to the achievement of Israel's purpose in taking possession of the holy land. Apportioning Eretz Yisrael by lottery assures a fair distribution of worldly goods. When one prepares food, the ingredients as well as the correct amount of each ingredient is essential to the production of a pleasing dish. Israel's society failed to preserve this social justice, therefore even the efforts of spiritually minded people could not but result in an abhorrent dish. This, more or less is the meaning of the hyperbole employed by Ezekiel 24, 1-15. ",
"Since Moses saw in the request of the two and a half tribes an over- emphasis on the secondary values in Jewish life, he remonstrated with them, and reprimanded them. This in turn prompted these tribes to reassure Moses that they would discharge all their obligations as part of the army of the whole nation. Similarly, when we are told in Joshua chapter twenty two, about the two and a half tribes having built an altar on the East Bank of the Jordan, Pinchas immediately levelled suspicions and accusations at them without having enquired into the reason for all this. Even when he has been assured that the altar did not represent an act of rebellion against G'd, or an act of separation from the main body of the Jewish people, Pinchas desists from launching a military campaign against them, but does not apologise to them for unwarranted suspicion. Why is this? Presumably he reasoned that if even Moses in his extreme modesty had felt entitled to accuse the two and a half tribes of unworthy motives, and had upraided them without having waited for explanations, there must have been a negative intent. So Pinchas in this instance was convinced that in the act of building the altar there had been a motivation unworthy of the typical Israelite. One of the main reasons for Moses' justified suspicions is, that in the lengthy conversations between Moses and the tribes, the latter do not once mention the name of G'd. So Moses reasoned that they had to be motivated by one of two reasons. 1) Fear to engage in battle, or 2) Lack of interest and respect for Eretz Yisrael. After Moses' accusations, it appears that the two and a half tribes had held an assembly before acceding to Moses' conditions. It states (32,16) \"they approached and said.\" It seems that they did so only after some deliberation. Even then they do not once refer to G'ds wishes, G'ds protection, G'ds relevance in the whole matter. From the opening line, \"do not bother to make us cross this river Jordan,\" it is clear that their original intention had been not to accompany the main body at all. They attributed their future to their own physical efforts and capabilities, even when referring to the successful invasion of Eretz Yisrael, not a word about G'ds assistance. ",
"",
"",
"For these reasons, Pinchas, a few years later, had prima facie reason to put a negative interpretation on the significance of the altar, and to commence appropriate action to restore the religious unity of the nation which appeared to have been jeopardised by the action of the two and a half tribes. Close examination of the paragraph reveals that the two and a half tribes agreed to only two of the three terms that were offered to them for retaining the territory east of the Jordan as their homeland. They agreed to go to war with the rest of the nation. Regarding the land of Gilead, they demanded that it become theirs by right, immediately, independent of future performance of their duties. Moses acceded when he gave Machir that piece of land. All this proves that their major concern was a land grab. This gave Moses the right to approach them with suspicion. Pinchas based himself on the same facts, when he suspected the altar was meant to pacify local deities. Since the two and a half tribes lived outside Israel proper, they may have felt less secure, not included in the protective umbrella of G'ds Providence. Although they argued that their altar had not been used for sacrifices, nor had been intended for sacrifices, this did not totally remove Pinchas' and the other tribes' doubts about what its purpose had been intended to be. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"These are the stages of the children of Israel\"",
"We read in Midrash Rabbah Deut. 4, that the Rabbis say \"there are people who benefit by listening, whereas others lose out by listening.\" Adam lost out by having listened to his wife, as the Torah says \"because you have listened to your wife...you will have to toil in the sweat of your brow,..the earth will be cursed on your account etc..\" (Genesis 3,17) On the other hand, Abraham listened to his wife, as is recorded in Genesis 16,6. \"Abraham listened to his wife Sarah.\" The Lord said: \"if he who listened to his wife benefitted, how much more will he benefit who listenes to Me.\" Proverbs 1,33, tells us \"he who listens to Me, will dwell securely, not concerned with fear of evil.\" ",
"The punishment for an evil deed is in proportion to the amount of wickedness it represents, just as the reward for a good deed is in accordance with the amount of virtue and dedication it represents. Performance of mitzvot is measured by the amount of u-shemartem va-assitem, \"observe them and carry them out,\" that preceded their performance. As Rashi points out, shemirah-mishneh-ve-limud, observance equals study. Only when the good deed is not carried out as the result of a reflex movement, but as a result of study, awareness etc. can it qualify for the term assiyah, action. Spiritual beings are known as ossim, doers, since all their activities are based on study, deliberation. Psalm 103,20, refers to the angels as \"the ones who carry out His word by listening to His word.\" There are many other quotes in this vein. In connection with the akeydah, this has been explained in greater detail. (see chapter 28) ",
"On the other hand, crimes and sins committed due to ignorance, lack of awareness of the significance of one's actions, bring only minimal retribution to its perpetrator, since the latter is relatively innocent. For this reason the Torah distinguishes between the deed of a shogeg, a person acting inadvertently, and a meyzid, someone acting with deliberation. Major sins must not only be listed in the written part of the Torah, but the penalties for them must be spelled out. Not so in the case of minor infractions. Historically speaking, the Jewish people cannot claim that their sinfulness was due to victimisation by the nations of the world, exposure to wicked environments etc., since the prophet makes the point \"I have planted you as a pure and true vine.\" (Jeremiah 2,21) Israel had Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as their ancestors, they had been equipped with all the environmental advantages it is possible to possess. If, in spite of all this, they have become corrupted, they cannot blame external forces. ",
"For that reason, and in order to avoid application by G'd of the harshest most painful detergents, Israel is exhorted by the prophet to do penitence. Failing this, removal of the stains on its character by outside forces will leave permanent scars on its body. If, however, Israel will take action herself to wash and cleanse its heart from evil, instead of waiting for the suffering imposed by outside pressures, it will be helped, will experience salvation. Jeremiah 2,21, then discusses repentance due to fear of retribution, whereas chapter four discusses repentance occasioned by love for G'd. ",
"Since the question of reward and punishment revolves around the consciousness and intent accompanying human actions, the Torah concludes the book of Numbers by detailing the guilt of the involuntary killer, the killer who has failed to excercise due care in a potentially lethal activity. Chapter thirty five details a graduated scenario of human beings being killed due to various degrees of intent. Man listens, i.e. responds in one of two ways. Either he responds to the voice of materialistic instincts to the extent that he becomes deaf to the voice of his teacher, in which case he acts like Adam, causing himself all the curses including mortality itself; or he listens to the voice of reason and intellect, like Abraham. The latter, in spite of his misgivings about what Sarah had demanded, was rewarded because he had conquered his yetzer hara, evil urge, when expelling Hagar and Ishmael. G'd had agreed with Sarah, saying to Abraham \"listen to all she tells you.\" Abraham's situation was the exact opposite of Adam's situation. Superficially, one could reason that both women had wanted to impose their wills on their husbands. Yet there is a subtle difference. Eve, having eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and having become aware of its impact, wanted to drag Adam down to her level also. Sarah, having shown previously that she did not want Abraham to die without an heir, by giving him Hagar as a wife, had already proved that she had Abraham's best interests at heart. Abraham had not taken Hagar except to have a child by her. ",
"The list of all the journeys the Jewish people made in the desert, is to illustrate all the goodness they received at the hands of G'd during all those long years. After listing a review of the last forty years, the Torah gives instructions for the future, i.e. to drive out the Canaanites, division of the land by lottery, the reason why former residents must not be tolerated in their midst, i.e. to insure their religious and national purity. Spiritual well being is even more important than the physical amenities the land had to offer. For that reason, G'd is apparently cruel, in insisting that all the survivors of the seven nations in Canaan be killed, i.e. an act of kindness towards Israel. They are warned that survivors would become \"pricks in their eyes\" (33,55) blinding them concerning their real interests if they would be tolerated. In the book of Judges 2,3, we find details about how toleration of the remnants of the Canaanites spelled trouble for Israel in its homeland for many hundreds of years. After that we read about the laws concerning murder in its varying degrees. In discussing the nuances of awareness by the murderer of the severity of his crime, one point needs special emphasis. Any killer, however innocent, must be aware that the victim would revenge himself, were he but able to do so. For this reason, the relative of the victim can be expected to take the place of the murdered person and execute this revenge. Even the avenger, however, is duty bound to consider the killer's motivation, degree of awareness etc. Therefore, the Torah establishes some objective criteria by describing the weapon that caused the death. If the instrument of death is one that would not normally be used to commit murder, then surely the killer's intent had not been murderous. If bad blood had existed between the victim and the killer, even a harmless looking instrument might have been rigged to become lethal. If, however, neither the instrument of death could be classified as a weapon, nor was there evidence that animosity had existed between the victim and the killer, then no criminal intent is presumed to have existed. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"THESE ARE the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel\"",
"Midrash Eychah Rabbati 1, relates in the name of Rabbi Levi: \"Three people used the term eychah, Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah.\" This could be understood by the following parable. A lady of substance had three intimate friends. One of the friends knew her when she was at the height of her beauty and wealth. The second friend knew her while she was committing all manner of excesses, over indulgence etc. The third friend knew her only when she had already fallen into disgrace. Thus, Moses saw Israel at peace, and at a high level spiritually. Yet he proclaimed \"How can I alone carry the burden of your quarrels etc.\" (Deut 1,12) Isaiah, who knew Israel at a time when she committed all kinds of excesses, proclaimed \"how has she become a harlot.\" (Isaiah 1,21) Jeremiah who knew Israel in disgrace proclaimed: \"How lonesome and isolated has she become!\" (Lamentations 1,1) ",
"Peace and harmony are trademarks of G'ds creation and handiwork. Nothing is functional or endures in this universe unless it represents the successful merging of a variety of elements. Death, destruction, and decomposition are the dissolution of this process of harmony, peace and collaboration which enabled any creature or object to perform its function previously. Even the most basic materials are combinations of earth, fire, air and water; according to our sages they are the fundamental raw materials of the physical universe. Isaiah describes the process of disintegration as ya-ef, tired, fatigued, when he describes G'd as \"He gives strength to the tired.\" (Isaiah 40,29) This means that matter as such is imbued by G'd with the potential to become active, form a variety of combinations. Fusing unlikely candidates for mergers such as matter and spirit, i.e. human beings, requires the presence of shalom, harmony, in an even greater degree than usual. If Isaiah (45,7) says of G'd \"I form light, create darkness, and make peace,\" this is an overriding attribute of G'd, since it is basic to all the things He has created. When Zecharyah in chapter fourteen, describes the distant future of mankind, the messianic era, he writes as follows: \"The Lord will be king over the whole earth, on that day He will be One and His name will be One.\" The prophet envisages a period when historical strivings will have achieved their desired objectives. At that time, even creatures that appear at odds with one another in the universe as we know it, will be seen to be at peace with one another and with their Creator. There will no longer be any apparent dichotomies. Kingdom, dominion and unity are essentially the same thing. For that reason, after having recited the opening verse of the keriyat shema, \"Hear O Israel the Lord our G'd the Lord is One,\" this is followed by the line \"blessed be His glorious Majesty.\" Only after there is unity can malchut, Majesty have any real meaning. G'd is portrayed as \"making\" peace, whereas in the same verse He is described as \"creating\" evil, ra, evil, is the equivalent of pirud, dissolution, separating things that ought to be joined. Concerning such activity, G'd only \"creates,\" i.e. provides the potential for it. He does not \"make\" evil. Having made shalom, harmony, He must be the originator of ra, as a corollary, but He does not bring its potential into actual existence. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"Normally, we encounter the word eychah as introducing a lament. The term as described in our opening Midrash as fitting Israel when it was at the height of its glory, on a spiritually lofty plane, is therefore somewhat puzzling. ",
"",
"\"THESE ARE the words which Moses spoke\"",
"At first glance, it appears that what we read in Deuteronomy is a collection of speeches by Moses, delivered at different times and places during the journeys of the Jewish people in the desert, only reported at this juncture. This is however, not so. All of the speeches delivered were delivered by Moses at the same place shortly before his death. Since Moses concentrates in this book mostly on words of admonition, recalling past mistakes, the book commences with two verses of introduction. These are to indicate the purpose of what is to follow by hinting at it via the names of the places mentioned. Only when mentioning the date and place where all these admonitions were spelled out by Moses, do we come to the text of the book of Deuteronomy itself. Since many of the 613 commandments had not yet been taught to the people, the book states that these were taught after the defeat of Sichon and Og. Following this, Moses launches into his speeches of warning and admonition to his people. He commences by saying that G'd had decreed at Mount Chorev that the people had spent enough time camping around it, and should start their journey onwards. This is the reference in our opening Midrash that Moses saw Israel in its heyday. While Israel camped around Mount Sinai, it experienced its finest hour, everybody was at his moral best, having witnessed the revelation, basking in the proximity of the Divine Presence, the shechinah. There they had received the Torah, i.e. instructions, had been given judges, had built the tabernacle and were thoroughly prepared to face what the future would hold for them. In verse eight, Moses proclaims \"see I have given the land before you,\" and now you are morally qualified to conquer it. Moses continued saying that they had become so numerous, and he prayed to G'd that they should continue to multiply so that a single human being as their leader would not suffice. For that reason he had decided to appoint assistants who would share in the role of leadership of the people. Since the people agreed to this proposal, a total of seventy eight thousand six hundred assistants of varying degrees of authority were appointed. All of those assistants received instructions from Moses as to how to carry out their tasks as judges. (verses 9-18) Up to that point, all efforts had been directed towards ensuring a state of shalom, harmony. This is why the Midrash uses the terminology \"Moses saw them beshalvatam, when they enjoyed peace and harmony. From verse nineteen on, we hear reports of Israel behaving improperly, corruptly. The problems started as soon as they moved away from Mount Chorev, the mountain of G'd. Although they had journeyed a distance of only eleven days from the Mount, they already developed reservations about carrying out G'ds command to commence taking over the land of Canaan. These reservations were verbalised by the request to send spies to investigate the land of Canaan. Israel displayed lamentable lack of faith in G'd. In Numbers 14,34, G'd tells the generation of the spies \"your children will have to carry the burden of your harlotry.\" Throughout the Bible, we find idol worship described as harlotry, Israel being viewed as G'ds wife who had gone astray. So, Moses, experiencing this stage of behaviour of the Jewish people, had also become witness to the dissolute conduct of the Jewish people that the prophet Isaiah talks about in his opening chapter. Verse thirty four introduces the third kind of eychah, the one Jeremiah had described in Lamentations, when he bewails the decimation of the Jewish nation. The decree by G'd that a whole generation had to die in the desert, is equivalent to the later churban, destruction that Moses had to experience already in his own time. When Israel, subsequent to this decree proceeded to attack the Cannanite despite having been warned by Moses not to do so, and they were beaten off and pursued some distance, Moses witnessed the disintegration of the forces of shalom, harmony that had been forged at Sinai. The nineteen years that Israel spent encamped at Kadesh, may have been years of weeping for the golden opportunity that had been missed by that generation. If Jeremiah says \"I am weeping, as I have wept,\" he may well refer to the weeping at the time of the spies. G'd had said at that time, that because they had wept about their fate without justification, there would come a time when they would have ample justification to weep for the fate that would then befall them. After the long years in Kadesh, when G'd gave the command to resume their travels, (2,3) this may well have signalled the end of the lengthy period of penitence. By that time, half the people were men of the new generation, and forward motion was again in order. Nevertheless, G'd makes sure that they first march around the territory of such nations as Ammon, Moab and Edom, against whom no war is to be waged. In G'ds wisdom, the very fact that no wars were fought against those nations, provided the cause for the successful conquest of Canaan, since it gave Sichon the pretext for adopting a hostile posture when Israel asked to traverse his country. "
]
],
[
[
"\"And I sent messengers\" etc.",
"Talmud Makkot 24, tells the following stories. Once Rabbis Gamliel, Joshua, Eleazar ben Azzaryah and Akiva were travelling together. While still a hundred kilometers from Antipatris, they heard the sound of the multitudes from that city. The first three Rabbis began to weep, whereas Rabbi Akiva began to laugh. When the three Rabbis asked Rabbi Akiva why he was laughing, he asked them the reason they had begun to cry. They said \"when the pagans who worship idols live in peace and affluence, and the holy temple of the Lord lies in ruins, should we not cry? Another time, the same four Rabbis were on their way to Jerusalem when they saw a fox darting out of the ruins on the Temple Mount. Again the other Rabbis began to weep, whereas Rabbi Akiva began to laugh. When the Rabbis asked Rabbi Akiva why he was laughing, he responded by asking them why they were crying. They said to him that it says in the Torah that any alien, (non priest) who enters the holy precincts of the temple will be executed, and now this site has become the home of foxes and we should not cry? Rabbi Akiva said to them that this was the very reason he laughed. It is written in Isaiah 8,2 \"I will have two reliable witnesses testify for you, Uriah the priest and Zachariah the son of Berechyah.\" How can these two people be paired as witnesses? The first one lived during the period of the first temple, whereas Zachariah lived during the period of the second temple. What is meant is that the prophecies of Zachariah are just as trustworthy as those of Uriah. Concerning Uriah it is written: \"on your account Zion will be ploughed over and Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble\" (Michah 3,12) In Zachariah 8,4, it is written \"Old people will yet dwell in the streets of Jerusalem.\" As long as I had not seen the prophecy in Michah fulfilled, I entertained some doubts about the prophecy in Zachariah concerning the rebuilding of Zion. Now that I have seen the first prophecy fulfilled, I am reassured about the validity of the second prophecy also. Upon hearing this, the other Rabbis exclaimed: \"Akiva you have comforted us, Akiva you have comforted us!\" ",
"Three approaches are possible in one's dealings with G'd. The same is true in one's dealings with any person upon whose services and goodwill one feels dependent. 1) If one has a justified claim on a person, one may simply demand that such claim be honoured. 2) If one has a dubious claim, one may resort to flattery, bribery etc, in order to have one's claim honoured. 3) One may engage in illegal means to get what one wants, using either violence, cheating, lying etc. Sometimes this method will prove successful. However, in the long run, anyone employing such illegal means to secure what he wants will pay for it, though he may have appeared successful in the short term. A striking example of this truth was Achav the king of Israel. This king had employed all the means enumerated to secure Navot's vineyard for himself. On the one hand, he could have laid claim to the latter's vineyard on the basis of Royal privilege, as stated in Samuel I 8,14. However, the Sanhedrin (Supreme Court) interpreted that verse as not representing a legal claim at all. Rather, it had been a warning to the people that a king might arrogate to himself the right to such privilege. At the very most, the king would have the right to confiscate private property if he had to pay off his soldiers from the proceeds of such confiscation. On no account, however, does the king have the right to take over such property for personal use. Achav adopted the approach of offering generous payment for said vineyard. When his proposition was turned down, the owner claiming that it was unbecoming for him to sell his inheritance, Achav suggested that Navot might consider making the vineyard a gift to his king, something that would certainly not reflect to his discredit. When this suggestion was turned down also, Achav became so frustrated that he sulked. His wife, Izzebel, interpreting the law about Royal privilege in a manner more favourable to the king, proceeded to have Navot framed, accused of insubordination to both G'd and the king, and to have him executed. In this manner, the king took over the property of the late Navot. Achav's sin began when he did not tell his wife the true reason that Navot had refused to part with the vineyard. The reason he had neglected to do so was that he thought once Izzebel would hear the real reason, she would consider the refusal final and the whole matter would have ended. In this way, Achav had actually encouraged his wife to find alternate ways to make her husband happy. Sulking, on account of a trivial matter such as the acquisition of an additional vineyard, was also part of his sin, since it was conduct unbefitting a person of the stature of a king of Israel. Had Izzebel had Navot executed merely for insubordination, the Bible might not have referred to the matter as murder for greed, but rather as a sinful abuse of the laws governing false testimony. At any rate, both the king and his queen were severely punished as prophesied by Elijah. (Kings I 21,29) Even though part of the punishment was long delayed due to Achav having acknowledged his guilt, in the end his crime did not pay. ",
"Our conduct vis a vis G'd is based on the very same principles. Some people expect G'd to do their bidding, relying on their merit and presenting their claim to G'd. Once these merits have been exhausted, they appear before G'd pleading their case through prayer. Concerning these two groups of people, the Psalmist says \"Moses and Aaron of His priests, and Samuel who called on His name,” meaning the former have deeds to their credit, the latter employed the venue of prayer. (Psalms 99,6) However, when the desired response to having employed the first two methods is not forthcoming, many of us resort to the third and unacceptable means of securing our demands. Kings, both of Yehudah and Israel, are prime examples of how the attempt to secure one's end by illegal means failed in the end after approximately five hundred years, during most of which G'd exercised almost inexhaustible patience. Despite our long exile, despite the fact that all the dire prophecies of the Torah and prophets have been fulfilled, Jeremiah holds out hope for the rejuvenation of his people and their eventual redemption. He stresses that the goodness of G'd will become evident especially to those who keep their faith in the coming of the saviour, providing such a person works actively for the coming of this redemption. \"The Lord is good to those who trust in Him, when they seek Him out.\" (Lamentations 3,25) In this vein Jeremiah paints a picture of hope and confidence even amid the ruins in which he laments our lost glory. Similarly, Isaiah, when predicting doom, reinforces our hope of ultimate redemption with rousing visions of a rejuvenated G'd fearing Jewish nation. (chapter 40) ",
"",
"In the Midrash in our opening paragraph, Rabbi Akiva does not really offer any novel explanation of his conduct when he was faced with the evidence of our national shame and degradation. He merely expresses in his attitude the hope and confidence our prophets tried to instill in us at the time when they themselves were surrounded by ruin and desolation. In the first story the Midrash deals with our hopes for physical restoration, whereas in the second story the emphasis is on the spiritual rejuvenation in store for our people. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does Moses repeat in detail his efforts to change G'ds decree denying him entry into the promised land? Why does the Parshah start with the conjunctive letter vav, \"and?\" 2) When addressing G'd, why does Moses list all His attributes, when it would seem only G'ds will was the obstacle that Moses faced? 3) Why does Moses stress the physical qualities of the mountain and the land, as if they had been the reason that he had pleaded to be allowed entry? 4) Why is Moses commanded to ascend the summit? What good will \"seeing\" the land do him? 5) Why does Moses discuss events in the distant future, i.e. \"when you will beget children,\" before dealing with the events of the past, the revelation at Mount Sinai? ",
"Apart from other motivations mentioned in connection with Moses' request to Sichon to allow passage through his land, the purpose of recording it here is to teach future generations that though the request was couched in imperious language, it was peaceful in content. Although G'ds instructions had been to make war, Moses offered Sichon peaceful means of avoiding war without impairing his sovereign existence. The major difference between the approach to Edom and that to Sichon was the use of the word \"please\" in the request to Edom. Reviewing the total defeat of Sichon and Og, is to underline that during the stewardship of Moses, and in accordance with G'ds promise to him, no remnant of these two nations was to be left. Israel inherited their land by right, there being no survivors who could lay claim to any part of those lands. ",
"(1) When Moses had asked G'd to allow him to cross the Jordan, he wanted to make sure that the conquest of the West Bank would proceed along the same lines, eliminating all survivors who could pose a threat to the Jewish people in the future. (2+3) In Numbers 33,55-56, G'd had warned that His assistance would be predicated on the degree of absolute war Israel would wage against those inhabitants. Had Israel remained under the leadership of Moses after they crossed the Jordan, all the problems that developed later would not have occurred. His request then was not for his own sake, but for the sake of the people. He begged for a continued display of G'ds greatness, His strong hand, His unparalleled Power as displayed in the wars against Sichon and Og. (4) Since the people were not worthy of that degree of success, Moses could not be allowed to cross the Jordan, since G'd could not have denied Moses such a degree of success. However, only the physical crossing was denied Moses, not the view of the country. In order to placate me, Moses tells the people, Hashem told me to ascend the mountain and see the expanse of the land of Israel. Concerning the conquests, however, G'd instructed him to command Joshua, making it plain that Moses had asked for the role of leading the conquest of the land. Moses is told that he should do his utmost to prepare Joshua for his task. G'd would then fulfil what He had promised Moses after the episode of the golden calf, when Moses had stood in the crook of the rock and G'd had assured him \"in view of the whole nation, I will perform miracles.\" In this, G'd had referred to the arrest of the sun and the moon in their respective orbits during the term of Joshua's leadership of the people, as well as other lesser miracles. The people's fear, that if G'd did not respond favourably to Moses' prayer, there would be no chance that He would respond to the likes of them, is put to rest by Moses. He points out that they have survived the anger of G'd on the occasion of the sin at Baal Peor, and that the merit of the multitude in any case is much stronger collectively than that of any individual, however great that individual. This was what had enabled them to survive at that time. Moses points out that their success and survival is not conditional on his physical presence in their midst, but rather lies in their observing the laws that Moses had been teaching them before his death. In the event they had failed to appreciate the connection between the life giving power of observing mitzvot, Moses points out that precisely those of whom it could be said \"you who have cleaved to the Lord your G'd\" are the ones who are alive and well today. (see commentary chapter 83) In contrast, when one person sins, he may have to pay for his transgression. This is why Moses' sin resulted in his having to die prior to entry into Eretz Yisrael. This was due partly to the fact that Moses' error had had repercussions on the people. \"G'd was angry at me because of your words.\" Even though they were the cause of his error, his personal merit did not suffice to reverse the decree of death against him. At this point, Moses returns to making laudatory comments. He points out that the observance of the commandments by the whole people prior to the sin of Baal Peor was the merit that had enabled the majority of them to escape the fatal consequences of the avodah zarah, that their idol worship would otherwise have had. Only the closeness between you and your G'd that you had established by means of observing mitzvot, enables you to survive to this day.\" Reminding the Jewish people of the revelation at Mount Sinai, he recalls that at that time they had not seen any visible signs of the deity. Theirs was a different religion; they were not in need of visible symbols of G'd. Visible symbols serve as intermediaries, reduce the closeness, the direct line between man and his Creator. Therefore, apart from the fact that none of them wield independent power, they constitute a downgrading of hashgachah peratit, and in the case of the Jewish people are a form of idol worship. Other nations who have not been the beneficiaries of hashgachah peratit, G'ds direct guidance, may employ these celestial spheres to approach the Creator, but not Israel. It is Israel's function to enjoy the direct guidance of G'd. Moses contrasts the value of the multitude's merit when he says anochi meyt, I am about to die, with ve-attem ovrim, \"yet you will cross the Jordan.\" This merit of the multitude is effective however, only against such sins as do not involve the breaching of G'ds covenant with the people. Since, in the case of the sin at Baal Peor, their idol worshipping had not been due to philosophical religious considerations, but had merely been the by product of the weakness of the flesh, the urge to commit immoral sexual acts with the daughters of Moab, that merit did protect most of them. For all these reasons, the uppermost requirement for survival of the nation is the maintenance of the closest possible relations with G'd. (5) The sequence commencing with the paragraph \"when you will beget children\" (4,25), describes the never ending loving concern of G'd for Israel as a whole. All the retributions listed in the paragraph serve only one purpose. Israel will be forced to throw itself on the mercy of their G'd for psychological reasons, will repent, hoping for forgiveness. The promise that in such an event forgiveness will be available, is to reassure Israel that they need never lose the special relationship established between them and their G'd during their stay in Egypt and the subsequent Exodus. All punishments will have as their aim what a father aims at when he punishes an errant child. The reassurance that lies in verses 31-40, answers the unspoken question of Israel that if G'd has seen fit to keep His people in exile close to two thousand years already, it is hard to believe that He will awaken one day and restore us to our former glory. Moses says that since G'd is an kel kanna eysh ochlah, a jealous G'd, consuming fire, one could have expected a swift and utter annihilation of the Jewish people once His patience had been exhausted. The reference to the Egyptian experience teaches that after two thousand years of human history G'd had established a special relationship with one people. That had been a first in the annals of mankind. The eventual redemption of the Jewish people, when it comes, will therefore be less astounding than their selection had been in the first place when it had taken place. ",
"(The reason for the length of the present exile has been discussed in chapter thirty three in connection with Jacob's blessings) \"attah hareyta la-daat,\" you have been allowed visual evidence. (4,35) Vis a vis those who scoff at our ironclad confidence in redemption, Moses reminds us that our collective experience of revelation is so much superior to those who ridicule our faith, that their reasoning should have no impact on our thinking at all. If our relationship with G'd is similar to the relationship of the bride to her betrothed, G'ds abiding anger can be understood better. In the betrothal ceremony, we refer to the fact that the betrothed is forbidden both to the groom and anyone else. An unusual benediction. However, since prior to the betrothal, the young lady was available to any potential suitor, betrothal results in her becoming universally unavailable; to her groom she is not yet available, to anyone else no more. Thus, since the gentile nations have never been betrothed to G'd, there was no reason for G'd to be jealous of their conduct; they could not have been disloyal, loyalty never having been demanded of them. In the case of the Jewish people, loyalty had been promised, indeed was a condition of the relationship. The lengthy exile then is a manifestation of G'ds jealousy. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And this is the law which Moses set\"",
"The Talmud Makkot 23, relates in the name of Rabbi Simlai: \"Moses was given 613 commandments at Sinai. 365 are \"don'ts,\" corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and 248 are \"do's,\" corresponding to the number of limbs in the body.\" Rabbi Hamnuna added that the reason the Torah writes \"Moses commanded us the Torah,\" is that the Hebrew word Torah has a numerical value of 611. 611 commandments were communicated to Israel by Moses. The first two of the ten commandments, Israel had heard directly from G'd at Mount Sinai. ",
"The above mentioned statement is somewhat surprising, seeing that according to popular tradition Israel had heard all ten of the ten commandments, (from the mouth of G'd) and that the Torah itself states \"these are the words G'd spoke to the whole assembly at the Mountain out of the fire.\" (Deut. 5,18) At that point no distinction is made between the first two and the remaining eight commandments. The Torah also says \"G'd spoke to you out of the fire, you heard the sound of words but did not see an image. He told you His covenant which He ordered you to perform; ten words which He wrote on stone tablets.\" (4,12) In view of this, how can our sages say that only the first two commandments were addressed to Israel directly? (Rambam's and Ramban's answer to these problems are dealt with in the original) What our sages want to tell us is that although all the ten commadments are of basic significance, so much so that all the other commandments are dependent on them, the first two commandments are of such overriding significance because they constitute acceptance by the Jewish people of the authority of Heaven. \"Anochi\" teaches us that G'd is a completely free agent who does not act under any complulsion and who can turn the suffering of the oppressed into freedom at will. \"Lo Yihyeh,” on the other hand, teaches that He has no partners but is unique and in complete charge, independent of any other forces in the universe. That the acceptance of the second principle was not easy, is demonstrated by the difficulty the prophet Elijah had in persuading even the believers that one could not \"sit on the fence\" regarding the relevance of the baalim. Only complete discreditation of the assembled priests of the Baal finally produced the unequivocal proclamation by the multitude present that \"the Lord is G'd,\" i.e. the only primary force. (Kings I chapter 18) When one reviews chapter twenty four in the book of Joshua, and reads about the excessive severity with which Joshua exhorts the people even after they had confirmed that they would certainly serve G'd, (verses 16-17) one understands the whole chapter better if one views its first half as dealing with the anochi aspect of service to G'd, whereas the second half deals with the lo yihyeh aspect of service of the Lord. Service of the Lord does not automatically lead to abandoning the esteem in which one has held other deities. The fact that the people undertook not to serve the deities of the Emorites, a cult which had so evidently failed to protect its adherents, was equivalent to acceptance of the anochi principle; it is not yet assurance however, that the lo yihyeh principle was also being embraced by the people. Therefore, Joshua continued to insist that their undertaking must include the acceptance of the lo yihyeh principle. The Torah scroll inscribed in stone bore the inscription of the people's undertaking as evidence of the renewal of the original covenant. The special significance of the first two of the ten commandments does not lie then in their being the only ones communicated to the people directly by the mouth of G'd, but in the fundamental nature of their content. Even though there are phrases in which the name of G'd is used in the third person, suggesting that someone else is speaking, (\"for the Lord will not exonerate\" etc., or \"the Lord has made the earth in six days,\" or \"he who uses His name in vain,\") this does not prove anything. We have similar constructions in Genesis 18,18, Exodus 3,12, et al. When Moses refers to Israel as having heard \"only a voice,\" this does not mean that they did not hear the words clearly, but rather that the usage is employed in contrast to \"image.\" Their eyes saw no image during the course of the revelation. From the above it appears that the mitzvot as a whole can be divided into three groups regarding their relative significance. 1) The first two of the ten commandments, heard directly from G'd, directed at the whole assembly. 2) The other eight of the ten commandments, heard by the whole people directly, but perceived by them as communicated by a disembodied voice, suggesting an intermediary, although they themselves heard the communication. 3) The remainder of the 613 commandments, which were communicated to the people only via Moses. Since the eight commandments could be included in the group communicated via an intermediary (Moses), our sages have included them in the count of Torah, i.e. 611. The first two commandments had to be considered as a group by itself. Rabbi Hamnuna, who appears to have questioned the count of Rabbi Simlai, based himself on the fact that the two commandments were perceived by a superior means of perception. This is why he calls Moses' commandments \"Torah\"= 611. Midrash Shir Hashirim 1, relates a dispute between Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and the other sages. The former states that Israel heard the first two commandments min hagevurah, directly from G'd, whereas the latter claim that only after having completed the ten commandments did G'd relate the other commandments via Moses. The background to this difference of opinion is the fact that the Torah reports the people's request \"you speak to us and we will listen\", (6,23) only after the ten commandments had been reported as all having been revealed. Rabbi Joshua bases himself on the principle that there is no chronological order of events in the Torah, and that therefore the positioning of the people's request as having occurred after the revelation had been complete, is meaningless. The opinion is based on \"He kissed me with some of the kisses of His mouth,\" i.e. since the verse does not refer to Israel as having been kissed with all of G'ds kisses, this is proof that they heard only part of the ten commandments directly from G'd. At any rate, the sages representing the majority view, state that the ten commandments were heard from G'd directly. According to their view, the letter mem in mi-neshikot piy-hoo, \"from\" the kisses of His mouth, would then refer to the other 603 commandments which Israel heard via Moses according to all opinions. (Song of Songs 1,2) What Rabbi Joshua really wants to tell us is that the first two commandments were heard, as we read in the opening statement of Rabbi Hamnuna according to our view, without there being any form of go between, neither physical nor through any sensory channel. The people's capacity to receive direct signals and to comprehend them was a miracle in effect during the pronouncement of the first two commandments. ",
"Some problems in the text of the chapter. 1) The conjunctive letter vav in chapter 4,44, seems to lack any connection with the previous paragraph. Why is that ? 2) Why does the Torah emphasize that the covenant was entered into with the present generation, not the one who had already died in the desert? If the reason is that the Torah wishes to emphasize that personal experiences provide a more solid bond, and result in a heightened degree of obligation when compared with benefits and obligations based only on tradition, that would give all future generations an excuse to reject the binding nature of the covenant! 3) If in chapter 5,5, G'd is said to have spoken \"face to face\" to the people, what is the meaning in the following words of \"I have stood between you and G'd?\" 4) Why recall that Israel had been afraid of the fire, had not climbed the mountain, when they had previously been warned not to approach the mountain? (Exodus 18,12) What is the meaning of \"to say\" at the end of verse 5? 5) Why is the word shamor used in discussing Sabbath observance instead of zachor as in the first version of the ten commandments? 6) When the people ask Moses to be their intermediary, why do they address him as att, the feminine pronoun? Why, at this point, do the people speak about \"we shall hear and we shall do,\" instead of the famous \"we shall do and we shall hear,\" that we are used to from the book of Exodus several times? 7) Why does G'd ask yira-ah, fear, awe, from the people? Why does He not ask for ahavah, love? The latter would surely be a superior form of worship! 8) Why, in chapter 6,2, is this very yir-ah, fear, awe, represented as being the result of observing mitzvot and not as its prerequisite, its motivation? 9) Mention of the land of Israel flowing with milk and honey does not seem sequential to the observance of the mitzvot? (last verse in the paragraph) ",
"(1) Moses' narration of the laws of the Torah that had commenced at the beginning of this book with the words \"he explained this Torah,\" had been interrupted by an explanation of why they had not yet come to the promised land so many years after the Exodus. \"For you have not yet come to a place of rest and inheritance.\" (Deut 12,9) The letter vav in 4,44 then is to connect not with what went immediately before, but with the interrupted narrative commenced with the words \"this is the Torah\" in chapter 1 verse 5. (2) The few verses following, merely define the location at which these speeches of Moses took place. Since Moses wanted to emphasize that the covenant at Sinai did not only apply to the generation that had experienced it, but was valid for all future generations, he could not say \"with your forefathers did He make the covenant,\" but rather \"not with your forefathers (who are dead already) but with us who are here today and are all alive and well.\" Just as a watermill has not been built to take advantage of the waters presently flowing in the river, but the capital investment is based on the assumption that the river will continue to flow, and its waters would justify the initial expense, so the revelation at Mount Sinai was based on the premise that an untold number of generations would benefit from it throughout the ages. For this reason, at a later stage, this point will be included when Jewish children learn the history of their people. \"On account of this, did G'd do all this when I came out of Egypt, and He took us out from there,\" (Exodus 13,8) and similar statements near the end of Deuteronomy chapter 6. The total Jewish community throughout the ages is included in all these experiences. (3) Moses emphasizes his role as an intermediary as distinct from the Sinai experience when G'd had talked directly to the whole nation. Only after completion of the ten commandments, in response to their fear of death, did they say \"you speak to us,\" and G'd had complied. \"G'd said to Moses: thus you shall say to the children of Israel.\" (5) In chapters forty five and fifty five, we have discussed both the significance of the order of the ten commandments and the changes of wording that occur in the two versions reported in the Torah. (4+6) The main reason Moses emphasizes the people's request for an intermediary, is to remind the nations that since it is unrealistic to expect a whole nation to maintain the lofty moral standard they had achieved at the time they stood beneath Mount Sinai. G'ds objective \"also in you they will believe forever,\" will be achieved. The need to have a prophet at all times who would serve as the reminder of the constant contact with G'd, was a major corolloary of the whole revelation episode. We have dealt with the significance of the pronoun att in chapter seventy seven. (7) The answer to the wording \"we will hear and we will do,\" is found in chapter forty seven. It is important that G'd had specifically confirmed that Israel's request to have G'ds words communicated to them via an intermediary, was proper. One could easily have assumed that they had been motivated by a lack of desire to accept G'ds directives and therefore had wanted to put some distance between themselves and G'd. Therefore, G'd goes on record as confirming \"who would give that their heart would always fear Me etc.\" This proves that their request came at a time when they were still at their moral/ethical peak. (8) Yirat ha-onesh, fear of punishment, must be viewed as a point of departure for all observances of a religious nature. However, it is not the goal of such observances. Initially, survival with minimal comforts is sought by the individual observing religious laws. The Torah assures us however, that the end result will be long life, well being etc., since from the original motivation we are likely to develop love for G'd and His Torah, as well as reverence for all it represents. (9) Whenever G'd mentions the gift of the land of Israel, He makes certain that we do not view it as something minimal, but as a gift of outstanding quality. Here too, we are told that the observance of the commandments results not only in minimal creature comforts but in a plethora of blessings that exceeds our wildest imagination. "
]
],
[
[
"\"Hear O Israel the Lord our G'd, the Lord is One\" ",
"The Talmud Berachot 15, states that if someone reads the keriyat shema in such a manner that he cannot hear himself saying the words, he has not fulfilled the commandment. ",
"Some human activities, though apparently not within our control, are nonetheless included in the commandments. Faith, memory and recognition, are examples of such mitzvot. Although it is clear that a feeling of faith, confidence is rooted in the psychological makeup of a person, -a strong personality may possess it, a weak one may lack it,- we are nonetheless commanded to possess such faith as if it were within our will power. Similarly, forgetting and remembering respectively, though apparently not subject to our control, are among the characteristics needed to observe certain commandments. ",
"Joseph's brothers say to their father: \"recognise whether this is the coat of your son or not.\" (Genesis 37,32) We are told to remember what Amalek did to us. (Deut. 25,17) We are told not to fear nations surrounding us. (Deut 7,18-21) Since we are human beings, not just animals, it is expected that we can refine certain characteristics, are not limited to instinctive reactions. If one can learn to compensate for the weakness of certain of one's senses, then surely one can find means to reinforce certain character traits. A blind man develops a more acute sense of hearing. A shortsighted person can improve his vision by the use of spectacles. A person suffering from certain character weaknesses must also find means to compensate for this. Using one's power of imagination, one can imagine situations that make one's phobias seem unjustified and ridiculous. The process of thought association with specific objects is known to be an excellent memory jogger. These aids must be applied when we are asked to observe certain commandments involving remembrances. Seeing the tzitzit reminds us of other mitzvot such as kilayim, forbidden mixtures. This has been discussed at greater length in chapter sixty five. Awareness of the importance of memory joggers may have led some prophets to find common denominators for certain mitzvot, and thus make it easy for us to have these short summaries constantly at our command. Isaiah manages to condense Torah into two slogans, \"observe justice and perform righteousness.\" (chapter 56) Chabakuk manages to sum it up in a single slogan, \"the righteous will live by his faith\" (2,4). No doubt the purpose of these apparent over simplifications is simply to provide a constant reminder, which when triggered will remind us of all the other mitzvot which are incumbent upon us to perform. When the Talmud (Ketuvot 30) tells us that all is in the hands of Heaven except the contracting of colds and heatstrokes, we know very well that both those phenomena are natural phenomena and as such not subject to our control. In fact, no remedy has yet been found for the common cold. Nevertheless, the sages are telling us that if one falls victim to those two ailments, this is due to negligence on the part of man, to wilful over-exposure etc, and cannot be blamed on outside forces. Just as one can control colds and heatstrokes, so, by employing memory properly, one can reinforce one's senses of trust and confidence in the help of G'd, no matter what the circumstances. This is what David said (Psalms 27,1) \"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?, The Lord is the source of my strength, of whom shall I be afraid?\" He means that if his attitude is based on remembering G'ds many past acts of kindness and assistance, why would he be afraid of anyone in the future? In the same vein, Moses tells the people: \"you are today about to cross the Jordan in order to dispossess people greater and more powerful than you etc.\" (9,1). This calls for faith and confidence based on the recollection of all the past triumphs achieved through Divine intervention. The foremost memory jogger is the keriyat shema, which for that reason has been included in our daily prayers three times. We will examine the passage in detail to gain a better understanding of its significance. The following questions suggest themselves: ",
"1) Why does this paragraph have to be recited two, respectively three times daily? How is it a better form of kabbalat malchut shamayim, acceptance of the authority of Heaven than say the recital of the first of the ten commandments? 2) Why do we insert the line \"blessed be His glorious majesty,\" after the first verse? 3) Since \"love\" by definition seems to imply a reciprocal relationship between equals, how is such a relationship possible between man and G'd? 4) Why the emphasis on having \"all these words\" present in one's mind at all times? 5) What is the relevance of the next paragraph in the Torah to the keriyat shema? 6) How is the Torah's answer to the question of the son wanting to know the meaning of the commandments relevant? (6,20-25) 7) Why did Moses need to tell us that G'd did not choose or like us for our numerical strength? Who had ever thought that He did? 8) When discussing retribution for those who hate G'd, (plural) the Torah says that G'd will pay him back, not them? 9) When G'd promises that \"you will be blessed more than all the nations,\" (7,14) the implication seems to be that the nations too will receive a measure of blessing from G'd, only a smaller measure; how can this be reconciled with the statement \"you will consume all the nations...do not be concerned about them!\" (7,16) ",
"(1) Although we have pointed out that the first two of the ten commandments are in a class by themselves since they express the existence of G'd and the exclusive nature of His G'dliness, the shema yisrael expresses the link between that Oneness and the malchut, the majesty which is a manifestation of that Oneness. Our prophets view the messianic message as one in which \"on that day G'd will be king over the whole earth, on that day He will be One and His name will be One.\" (Zachariah 14,9) (2) By this phrase the prophet expresses that Oneness is synonymous with Majesty. An ideal kingdom is one in which everything is based on a unified system emanating from a single source. This is the reason the sages inserted the line about G'ds Majesty in the recital of the keriyat shema. This is also the reason it is included in the Mussaph prayer on the New Year's day, when ten verses dealing with G'ds Majesty form the first of the three major benedictions of the amidah, central prayer. The paragraph commencing with the words \"and now Israel, hear the statutes, social laws etc,\" (4,1) is to be understood thus. Since you have heard directly from Me the first two commandments about My nature, remember this as something you keep on hearing forever three times daily. Anochi and lo yihyeh, are not to be viewed as alternatives to the recital of keriyat shema, rather recital of keriyat shema is the insurance that you will not forget what you have heard at Sinai, and will ensure that lesson will stand you in good stead throughout future generations. Moses used the shema in a different context. He explained that what it represented had been revealed to Israel. The line of baruch shem etc. however, being something that he had overheard the angels use in Heaven, could only be whispered, since it had not been revealed. However, on the Day of Atonement when we are like angels, free from sin, we too can and must recite this line in an audible manner. (3) Although, generally speaking, love relationships exist between equals or at least between people who have a great deal in common, there are two love relationships that need not be affected by the similarities between the parties concerned. One is the love that the recipient feels for the one who endows him, keeps him alive, does undeserved favours for him, etc. Thus children love parents since the latter are providers. The greater the benefits received, the greater the love by the recipient for the donor. Since G'd is the great Provider, absolute love by us for Him is quite natural, and the word ve-ahavta, you shall love (Him) is quite in place. The second reason that true love for G'd is possible, lies in His very uniqueness. When someone owns a variety of artifacts, each similar in nature, it is difficult to love one of those artifacts especially, since it is not distinctive enough to evoke that special feeling of love. When, however, the object in question is absolutely unique, the affection one feels for it can be termed love, without such love having to be requited. (compare Aristotele's ethics, book nine) ",
"The call to love G'd is addressed to levavcha, the seat of your mind and goodness, that which appreciates all the good G'd does for us; nafshecha, the seat of your passions and urges, which appreciates whenever it is indulged; finally, me-odcha, the aspect of you that desires what is functionally good, useful and expedient. In these three ways, man can express appreciation of what has been done for him. Since he is being appreciative, his love is really of a reciprocal nature. When our sages (Berachot 61) say that the call to love G'd \"with all your soul, includes preparedness for martyrdom, this appears to mean that even when it seems that G'd has decreed one's death, one should not reason that since G'd is the source of all goodness that such threat of death emanates from some other source, is the work of Satan. At such times, re-affirmation of the Oneness of G'd is required. This is the reason the sages praise Rabbi Akiva who died proclaiming the shema yisrael. (4) After the affirmation, the verse \"these words shall be ..on your heart at all times,\" stress the need to jog one's memory at all times by remaining aware of these facts. The first action that will help memory to remain alert, is the recording of the relevant passages on a scroll and affixing it in a visible place on all one's doorposts. The word veshinantam, meaning to study, teach repeatedly, is also related to the root of the word \"to sharpen.\" Constant repetition sharpens one's awareness. In addition it may refer to a method of study, to whet one's mind by presenting Jewish history in a challenging manner. \"To your children,\" places special emphasis on those mitzvot that concern themselves with the growth of children into adulthood. (laws of circumcision, first born privileges, marriage laws etc.) \"You shall talk about them,\" concerns all those mitzvot which involve dibbur, word of mouth, prayer, reading the Torah etc. \"When you sit in your house, refers to those commandments that involve relationships with fellow human beings, your family who dwell with you, as well as your neighbours. \"When you walk on your way,\" refers to mitzvot which normally present themselves for fulfilment when you are away from home, i.e. return of lost property, sending off the mother bird prior to pocketing the fledglings etc. \"When you lie down,\" refers to laws governing permitted sexual relations with your wife, restrictions due to her menstrual cycle, the observance of the laws of impurity, etc. \"When you rise up,\" refers to the hours of your business day when you are \"up and about,\" active. All the laws pertaining to fair dealings with your fellow men must be remembered during that part of the day. \"You shall bind them as a sign,\" are warnings to observe regulations about forbidden foods, reminders to limit our social contacts with gentiles. \"They shall be as frontlets between your eyes.\" These are warnings not to be misled by what our eyes behold, to be led astray. Eyes may be employed constructively, i.e. when seeing a naked person we are to see to it that he is adequately clothed so as to protect him against heat or cold. Our eyes should not be employed to ogle nudity etc. \"You will write them on the doorposts.\" This refers to all the commandments involving writing; i.e. marriage documents, divorce decrees, Torah scrolls, phylacteries etc. \"And on your gates.\" This is a reference to mitzvot involving judges, since justice used to be practiced in public, at the entrance of the city where the elders would gather. ",
"The statement of the Talmud quoted at the introduction to this chapter, should now be clear. Since a major function of reciting the keriyat shema is not what we address to G'd, but what we address to our own memory and faculties, unless we say it audibly, its purpose would remain largely unfulfilled. One would not discharge one's duty in such a fashion. On the one hand, it is not proper to raise one's voice, so as not to suggest that G'd is hard of hearing. (Berachot 24) On the other hand, one must arouse one's own senses sufficiently so that what the lips are saying accomplishes its purpose to remind one of the mitzvot. ",
"(5) Since keriyat shema stipulates that the relationship between Israel and its G'd is akin to the bond of love between a man and his wife, the obligations of each party are referred to in the following paragraph. ",
"A husband is obliged to provide his wife with three basics. They are food, clothing, and conjugal rights. We therefore read in that passage first about G'd fulfilling His \"duties,\" i.e. the duties of a husband. (6,10-11) At the same time, in keeping with the dictum that \"indolence leads to immorality\" (Ketuvot.5 9), the love relationship between husband and wife notwithstanding, the spouse's duties do not cease. \"You shall revere the Lord your G'd, fear Him and serve Him.\" The need to accord glory to the beloved is not diminished by the intimacy of their relationship. Familiarity must not be allowed to breed contempt. Since it is in the nature of a woman to test her husband's love from time to time, in order to receive psychological reassurance, the Torah tells us \"do not test the Lord your G'd.\" We must not conduct ourselves in such immature fashion. When the sages describe the passage commencing with the words \"when your son will ask you,\" (6,20) as the question of a clever son who wants to understand the rationale of Torah observances, they did so with good reason. We have explained this in detail, in chapter thirty eight. (6+7) After having concluded the instructions how to insure our loyalty to G'd after we have taken possession of the land of Israel, the last part of our Parshah deals with ensuring that also our children will remain loyal to the covenant. At first glance, the demand for isolation from gentile society may sound harsh. Therefore, the Torah explains 1) the need to remain a holy nation. 2) The reminder that if G'd had wanted us to be similar to other nations, He would have chosen a numerically much stronger nation for His pilot project. (8) When the Torah threatens prompt retaliation to the wicked person, the switch from the singular to the plural may mean that when the wicked become numerous, G'd may have to delay application of retributive acts in order to demonstrate His patience, as discussed in chapter three. However, as long as the number of the wicked is few, of no sociological consequence, immediate retribution is in order. This is necessary to prevent sinners from relying on the patience of G'd and the delay of retribution. The correct meaning of the whole verse (7,9) then is as follows: \"when there are many enemies, He will pay them back to their face, to result in the sinners' destruction. When there are only a few individual sinners however, He will not delay before paying him back.\" It is clear from Jeremiah chapter twelve and Psalms chapter seventy three as well as from Chabakuk chapter one, that the conduct of G'd towards a group of people is not necessarily subject to our evaluation and comprehension. (since we lack too many facts in the total equation.) Psalms ninety two, states so explicitly. (6) The fact that our duties in the marriage contract are spelled out, does not mean that we are entitled to a reward because we have lived up to our undertaking. If the Torah nonetheless begins the next paragraph with a list of promises based on our fulfilling our contractural duties, this is an act of kindness on the part of G'd, not something that we could claim as a right. Just as Abraham considered G'ds promise to grant him children and to give the land of Canaan to them as an act of kindness by G'd, (Genesis 15,6 and our discussion of this in chapter seventeen) so it remains for all time. The answer that the clever son receives may be divided into two parts. Up to the end of Parshat va-etchanan, he is told about the chukkim and eydot the laws that seem to lack rationale and the laws that demonstrate our testifying to the Torah's and G'ds historic truth. In Parshat eykev, he is told about the mishpatim, the social laws of the Torah. Since mishpatim are universally accepted phenomena and no special Torah is needed to assure a nation's establishing standards of social behaviour, the Torah explains the superiority of its legislation to the clever son. ",
"\"And it shall come to pass, because ye hearken to these ordinances\" etc.",
"Observance of Torah legislation brings in its wake a freedom from natural disasters such as sterility, disease, etc. and will establish the Jewish nation as number one in the world. Should any one doubt this effect of Israel observing Torah laws, the power of our collective memory is called upon to reinforce our belief in the effectiveness of Divine guidance. (verse 18) ",
"(9) There is a difference between people who are basically healthy, and people who have a basically weak constitution. The former respond to a minimal amount of therapy when struck with some disease, and are easily restored to full health. The latter who lack natural resistance, require greater dosages of medication, a longer period of recovery etc. Prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai the Jewish people belonged to the latter category of people. The Mount Sinai experience changed all that. Formerly, a great number of mitzvot would be required to heal them of even a minor ailment. Now, however, a relatively small amount of Torah observance suffices to overcome even major disorders in their physical well being. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"All the commandment which I command thee this day\" etc.",
"Midrash Rabbah Deut. 11, reports Moses as saying to the Israelites: \"when you cross the Jordan things will be different from now. Do not imagine that when you sin there will be a Moses to intercede for you with G'd as I have done in the desert all these years. When you committed the sin of the golden calf, and the Lord wanted to wipe you out, did I not pray for you and act as your advocate?\" ",
"As mentioned elsewhere, man having a spiritual side as well as a physical side, can be viewed as having two wives. One wife is beautiful, diligent, keeps house in an exemplary fashion, but, alas she has no children. The other wife, while lacking the many virtues of the first wife, bears numerous children for her husband, is of good character and intelligent. Because of the relative merits of the two wives, their husband strives constantly to maintain a degree of tolerance and peace between them. After all, they are both indispensable to him, each in her own way. He tries to please both of them, and take care of their respective needs. In fact it is incumbent upon him not to show preference to either one of them, just as in the case of the father who must not show preference for the son of the wife he loves better, if the one he loves less is the mother of his first born son. (Deut. chapter 21) When the Torah states (Deut. 30,15) \"I hereby offer you this day life and goodness, or death and evil,\" the reference is to two different lifestyles, as will be explained in chapter one hundred and one. We have also discussed this problem in chapter forty one, in connection with the manna, and in chapter seventy seven and sixty seven. The reason Moses touches on this problem at this juncture, when a totally new lifestyle for the people is imminent, is perfectly logical. A parable may illustrate the husband's dilemma. A man has two wives, one beautiful, the apple of his eye, the other plain looking but the mother of his children. One day the beautiful wife is abducted while her husband was away on business. Thereupon wife number two appeals to the king for assistance in locating and freeing the wife who has been abducted. The king is impressed with the plain looking wife who is so concerned about her better looking competition. Since he is of a kindly disposition, he not only promised to help locate the abducted wife, but assures the family of his financial support until the whole family would be reunited, the husband had returned and the captive wife freed. After a while, news of the whereabouts of the abducted wife is received, and the king sets out to free her and succeeds. He then calls in the husband, being aware that the latter had always displayed a preference for the wife who had been abducted. He warns the husband not to neglect or maltreat his other wife since it was she who had been instrumental in the family surviving and being reunited. The king threatens punitive action should the husband fail to treat the second wife fairly. ",
"When the Jews left Egypt, deprived of their physical comforts and the kind of freedom they had phantasized about after being freed from slavery, they are described as if their wife number one had been abducted. The Jewish soul, i.e. wife number two in our parable, appealed to G'd, and G'd provided sustenance during all the years in the desert. This proved that wife number one was still missing, since otherwise the Jewish people would not have had to rely On G'ds sustenance, i.e. supernatural help. They would have been able to manage like every other nation. At Marah, G'd had responded to the pleas of the Jewish people, introducing the daily ration of manna pending return of \"wife number one.\" ",
"Now that the land of Canaan, -i.e. wife number one,- is about to be restored to the Jewish people, normal economic factors will provide the people's sustenance, instead of the miraculous help from the king. Israel is warned not again to neglect its soul, the unseemly wife, while enjoying the companionship of wife number one, delighting in her physical endowments. Moses' warning about the need to observe all the mitzvot now that Israel is about to enter the holy land, is a reminder that the period of dependence on the king's largesse is drawing to a close. The king warns that neglect of the rules He had laid down would be viewed as a serious act of ingratitude for past favours. Such ingratitude could lead to Israel forfeiting the land itself. Should the nation ask how they could ensure their economic survival if they had to be constantly occupied with spiritual matters such as studying the Torah, they are reminded that they had learned during forty long years that the pursuit of material values is not the only way to ensure one' economic success in the world. \"Remember the way your Lord guided you,...He fed you the manna...your clothing did not rot...\" The whole purpose of allowing wife number one to be kidnapped, was to demonstrate that survival is possible without all these accoutrements. On the contrary, harm and failure will result from neglect of our spiritual equipment, rather than from our neglecting our business in favour of Torah study and mitzvah performance. We find this type of warning in Avot 6,2, \"woe to the creatures because of the insult they heap upon Torah.\" Neglect of Torah spells retribution according to the midah keneged midah, measure for measure principle. \"He who tries to divest himself of the yoke of Torah has the yoke of government and bureaucracy imposed upon him.\" (Avot 3,5.) If one encounters certain difficulties in life, one often does not have to search very far for the reasons. It is usually due to an imbalance in the way one has handled one's priorities. Torah study, mitzvah performance, have to be given equal time with the pursuit of one's economic goals. Nourishment of the soul is not provided by the same source as nourishment for the body. A healthy body is needed to enable the souls to function at full capacity. For that reason, all reasonable efforts have to be made to provide the body with proper sustenance. We know that Torah and mitzvot are the primary food for the soul from Solomon (Proverbs 6,23) \"for the mitzvah is like a candle, whereas the Torah is like light itself.\" In the Torah (Deut 8,3,) we are told \"man does not live by bread alone, but by everything which emanates from the mouth of G'd does man live.\" Onkelos renders Leviticus 18,8, as follows: \"You shall observe My statutes and My social laws so that man ensures eternal life for himself when he carries them out.\" The expression \"to live thereby,\" accordingly refers to sustenance for our spiritual half. All the commandments that become applicable upon entry into the holy land, give sustenance to the spiritual part of the Jew. The land is described as one in \"which you do not eat bread therein out of scarceness\" (Deut 8,9). It is a land that does not demand so much physical labour that its inhabitants cannot find enough time to devote themselves to their spiritual tasks. Verses 11-14 are the warning not to immerse ourselves too deeply in the effort to acquire material riches. This could lead to forgetting G'ds goodness and the purpose for which we travelled forty years through the desert. Whereas, notwithstanding G'ds generosity, our own contribution to econonmic stability is required, or at least permitted, we must never forget what it is that gives us the strength to perform economic miracles. Should we fail to remember, our fate will be the same as that of the nations whom we are replacing in Canaan. If any reminder were needed as to by whose grace conquest of the country was accomplished, reference is made to the relative physical and numerical strength of Israel vis a vis the nations it has conquered. Those nations had inspired such awe in any would be conquerors, that to credit our success merely to our own strength would be sheer lunacy. G'd is also anxious to disabuse us of the thought that it was our moral superiority that led to our successful conquest. He points out that it was the wickedness of the land's inhabitants that caused them to be dispossessed. Already at the time of Abraham, G'd had promised that fulfilment of G'ds promise to him had to await the inhabitants' cumulative level of sin reaching a stage that would give G'd legal justification to dispossess them. (Genesis chapter 15) Israel's own waywardness is recalled, to remind them further that it was not their righteousness that led to the conquest of the land of Canaan. Precisely because G'd had forgiven so many of their past misdemeanours in the desert, they had to be warned now that they could not count on G'd being indulgent with them in the future. Also, the argument which Moses had used successfully up to now, namely that demise of the Jewish people would be interpreted by the nations at large as the Jewish G'ds inability to make good on His promise to his people, would no longer be valid. Once Israel had conquered the land of Canaan, G'd would have demonstrated His ability to deliver on His promises. The difficulties in this Parshah stem from the apparent lack of logical sequence in which it is written. ",
"1) When Moses says he climbed the mountain to receive the tablets, (9,8-10) he repeats in verse 11, that G'd gave him two stone tablets. Why? 2) After reviewing the whole golden calf episode, including the time spent on the mountain to obtain forgiveness, Moses suddenly refers to \"your sin which you committed, I took and burned it in fire.\" (9,21) Why this chronologically misleading verse at this point? He had burned the golden calf immediately he had come down from the mountain! 3) Why does Moses inject the sin of the spies in the middle of the account of the golden calf? (9,23) This had been dealt with in chapter 1, 22-46! 4) Why does Moses wait till verse twenty five to relate the forty days of pleading he did for his people? 5) Why is the giving of the second set of tablets reported prior to the report about obtaining forgiveness? 6) Why does Moses refer to the move to Masserah and Aaron's death in the middle of this report, an event which occurred thirty nine years later? 7) Mentioning the special function of the tribe of Levi, and the fact that they would not participate in the sharing out of the land, seems quite out of place here? ",
"(1) In order to understand the sequence of Moses' address, one must bear in mind that the sin of the golden calf really made Israel liable to three distinct kinds of punishments, or at least to one penalty, if that meant the destruction of the nation that had been disloyal. If the sentence were to be commuted, at least some of the privileges enjoyed prior to that sin would be revoked, in addition to any penalties imposed. In our case, the fact that G'd did not decree loss of favoured nation status, heavy financial penalties, or deprivation of freedom of movement when He commuted the death sentence, is proof of the extraordinary degree of pardon granted. When viewed in this light, Moses' points will appear quite logical in their sequence. Moses who had first described Israel's greatest hour, and had complimented them, now had to contrast this with their sin. By mentioning that G'd did indeed give him the set of tablets at the end of forty days on the mountain, Moses proved that G'd had thereby given evidence that His original plan to provide visible evidence of His nearness to the Jewish people, had not been aborted. At that point G'd had to tell Moses to rush back to the people quickly in view of what was taking place within the camp. ",
"(2) After that, Moses refers to the severe nature of the sin as evidenced by the type of punishment decreed. The sin is described in six stages. A) At the end of forty days on the mountain, at the very moment when my stay on the mountain was being crowned with success by my receiving the tablets, the most grievous sin was committed. B) The people not only worshipped a golden calf, but they had fashioned it themselves; it had not even existed previously. C) The punishment decreed, collective destruction, indicates how seriously the sin was viewed. D) The facts, when I saw them, were every bit as terrible as what G'd had told me while I was still on the mountain. I smashed the tablets; they did not drop from my hands. E) The effort needed to obtain forgiveness, included forty days without food or drink. ",
"F) G'ds anger extended even to Aaron, who, though pure in motivation, had allowed himself to become the tool that brought that calf into existence. (3) Concerning Aaron, Moses uses the term le-hashmido, G'd wanted to wipe him out including his children. Moses then states \"your sin which you committed, the calf that I took,\" in order to state clearly that Aaron's death or the death of his two sons was not due to his having personally participated in the sin of the golden calf. Aaron's innocence had been clear to Moses already at the time he smashed the tablets; therefore it had to be mentioned at this juncture. If further proof were needed of the people's frequent disobedience, the attempt to enter Canaan despite G'ds warning not to do so after the return of the spies, is ample evidence. There can be no greater kind of disobedience than that. Disobedience does not require some tangible symbol, or some leader around whom the people would gather and whom they would hold responsible for failure to implement their wishes successfully. (4) Moses demonstrates the power of prayer, which began before his descent the first time. At that time he had succeeded in preventing hashmadah, the wholesale destruction of the people, (see Exodus 32,14, \"G'd comforted Himself regarding the evil He had said He would do to His people\") Moses wanted to show that he had prayed in three stagess, and that his prayers had been accepted progressively. He had addressed himself to three problems. 1) hash-madah 2) hash-chatah 3) i.e. \"do not turn to the obstinacy of this people and its sin.\" Item one is immediate death of the entire nation. Item two is the eventual demise of the whole nation. Item three would cover the long term effects in the disturbed relationship between Israel and its G'd. (5) The proof that all of Moses' prayers had been accepted, is found in the command \"carve out yourself, two stone tablets.\" Once the original tablets have been replaced, this is proof that the status of the Jewish people had not undergone a change. G'd suggested that an ark be made to house the tablets. Moses acted like a craftsman and constructed the ark first. (10, 1-6) (6) Aaron's death was delayed till the fortieth year in order to preserve the ananey hakavod, the clouds indicating G'ds presence and the pillar of fire at night, all of which were due to his merit. (7) G'd continued to accept service by the priests and Levites despite the fact that the people had served the golden calf. Since the Levites lost their share in the distribution of the land due to the fact that they had replaced the firstborn as the natural priests, they were entitled to some form of compensation for the services they were rendering for the nation from then on. Restoration of wife number one to the husband mentioned in our parable at the outset, is completed herewith. Therefore, Moses emphasizes at this point that wife number two is not to be treated with disrespect again, nor is she to be deprived of her legitimate rights. Basically, this is the conclusion of Moses' speech, commenced in Parshat Devarim "
]
],
[
[
"",
"And now, what does G'd ask of you?\" ",
"The Talmud Berachot 33, states in the name of Rabbi Chaninah, that everything is in the hands of Heaven except fear of Heaven. The scriptural proof cited is the verse \"for now, what does the Lord your G'd ask of you except to fear the Lord etc.\" (Deut 10,12) The Talmud asks: \"is fear of the Lord then such a minor matter?\" The answer given is that from Moses' vantage point it was indeed a minor matter, an insignificant request. It is like someone requesting from the king one of the king's instruments. As long as the king owns the instrument requested of him, the request appears minor since it can be fulfilled easily; if the king does not own such an instrument however, the request looms as very major indeed. ",
"It is well known that the meaning of the word yir-ah, is twofold. One meaning is the instinctive unreasoning fear of a physically stronger phenomenon, a fear common to both man and beast. Jacob, fearing defeat at the hands of Esau, prays to G'd for help, lest Esau smite both him an his family. (Genesis 32,10-13) Isaac, who is afraid to be murdered on account of his wife, indulges in a white lie. (Genesis 26,7) Another kind of fear is that which recognises superior moral or intellectual qualities in someone whom one confronts. In effect, this fear is reverence. When Miriam and Aaron discussed Moses' marital relationship, (Numbers 12,2) G'd takes them to task for having failed to display that degree of reverence that is due a prophet of Moses' calibre. The Mishnah in Avot 4,15, urges that reverence for one's teacher should be on a level similar to that accorded the Almighty Himself. Whereas the former kind of fear is common both to the sinner and the devout person, the latter, i.e. reverence is a form of fear that sinners do not know. Proverbs 10,24, states: \"the fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him, but the desire of the righteous will be granted.\" The thing that the wicked is afraid of will happen to him, the pious however, will not be denied, since his adversary can sense his moral superiority. G'd promises that the Canaanites will be awed by the Jewish people in this fashion when the latter are about to invade their land. \"The fear of you and the reverence for you, the Lord will implant on all the face of the earth.\" (Deut 11,25) The most interesting example we find of this phenomenon is the account of Saul, who tries to kill David. (Samuel I chapter 18) He tried to make David's death (intended) appear like an accident, and that is why David did not run for his life at once. Twice, during the playing of the harp, David had turned his head at the precise moment Saul had thrown his spear at him. Saul, who realised that David's escape was not accidental, had previously only feared David as a formidable warrior. Now, however, he also developed reverence for him, seeing G'd had so obviously protected him. (verses 12-15) Verse thirteen refers to the reverence, verse sixteen to the fear of an adversary of known superiority. Saul had experienced similar feelings when his efforts to trick David into being killed by the Philistines had failed. At that time he had let it be known that he would give David his daughter in marriage in return for a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins, (ibid, especially verse nine) Other examples of fear and terror are found in Psalms 33,8 and 9. Psalms 68,4, and Jeremiah 5,22. On the other hand, the reverence of the righteous is not based on terror. Compare Psalms 34,10 as well as Psalms 145 and 147. The yereyim are not full of terror, but await G'ds kindness with confidence. We must now examine what kind of fear is referred to in our Parshah in chapter 10,22. It is unlikely that Moses would refer to the fear common to man and beast, since one would then have to assume that G'ds main purpose is for man to relive experiences that would remind him of moments of fear and terror. His service of the Lord then would be based only on man's terrifying awareness of G'ds superior power, His ability to punish man. When under the influence of such terror, truthfulness can easily be turned into falsehoods told because one hopes to escape detection of one's sins. Such untruths would then not even be sinful. We find Abraham calling his wife his sister. Isaac does so likewise, each one having feared for his life at the time. (Genesis 12,10 and 20,6) Joseph's brothers told him of a supposed statement by their father Jacob. They too had been motivated by fear that Joseph would revenge himself now that their father had died. Aaron had agreed to make the golden calf after having seen Chur killed. (Sanhedrin 7) It is therefore quite unthinkable that this is the kind of \"fear\" that G'd asks of the Jewish people. In fact the whole concept of free will would be demolished if that were to be the basis of our relationship with G'd. The statement of Rabbi Abdima ben Chana (Shabbat 88) that G'd had threatened the Jewish people with annihilation should they fail to accept the Torah at Mount Sinai, is used as evidence that contracts entered into under duress are not binding. Also, it would not make sense if the Talmud in Berachot 33, had described the attainment of fear as a minor accomplishment for the likes of Moses. Surely, any person could possess that kind of fear without even half trying. One certainly would not have to be a Moses to live in terror of G'ds power. On the other hand, if what is meant in our Parshah is reverence inspired by awareness of G'ds many attributes, then such a demand would seem to be the ultimate demand that can be made of any human being. Certainly such a demand ought not to be described as a very modest request. Intellectual awareness of the need for such reverence vis a vis G'd and all He stands for, may indeed be relatively easy to attain, but a lifetime filled with constant awareness of this reverence seems more than can be reasonably expected from any individual. Even of Moses himself it is said: \"He turned his face away since he was afraid to look upon G'd.\" The Torah compliments Moses on this yir-ah, reverence. If a Moses deserves special mention for displaying such reverence, it cannot be come by easily by lesser mortals. (Exodus 2,6) ",
"(At this point the author explains why he finds RAN's treatment of this question unsatisfactory, and why the Ramban skirts the issue) ",
"",
"",
"It is important to appreciate that the term yir-ah is one that applies only to events which may or may not occur. One can worry about an impending earthquake, since one does not know if it will occur. Whenever there is certainty about a disaster that is about to happen, one may feel a sense of hurt, resignation, frustration etc. but not one of fear. Man is not afraid of the sunset or sunrise, natural death or old age, since all these are bound to happen. Since all natural phenomena are bound to happen as a result of natural law, anyone who is afraid of these phenomena is merely being foolish. Fear,- in the sense of worry,- is completely misplaced in such instances. Efforts to escape the impending disaster are quite natural and permissible, however. True, there are a limited number of natural disasters the causes of which are known but to a few. These few, knowing these disasters to be inevitable, will not experience fear of them. The multitude, being unaware of the inevitability of these impending events, will fear them. All Greek philosophers were fatalists, knowing for certain that certain events were bound to happen, and that it was therefore useless to be afraid of these events, though one might grieve over their impending occurrence. ",
"The story of Creation teaches that belief in fatalism is wrong. Since the Creator was free to create at that time, He will forever remain free to change His world and its laws whenever it pleases Him. (compare chapter 1 and chapter 15) Fear then is predicated on the assumption that what is dreaded need not necessarily happen, or need not necessarily fail to happen, since the ultimate decision is within the province of G'ds will and Power. We are therefore asked by the Torah not to relate to anything from a fatalistic point of view. We are asked to fear Him, just because He is able to either halt or precipitate the very events which we dread. Fear is the opposite of resignation then. If one were to assume that misconduct by man would inevitably result in retribution by G'd, then fear, which is the catalyst of repentance, would be replaced by resignation, and repentance would become almost impossible. (Chagigah 15, telling about the apostate Elisha ben Avuyah is a prime example of this approach). The latter had heard that the gates of repentance would be closed to him, and had therefore lost his incentive to do penitence, and to re-acquire the yir-ah expected of us. In his prayer, during the inauguration ceremonies of the temple, king Solomon used this very argument, lema-an yira-ucha, in order that they may fear You as long as they live on this earth.\" (Kings I 8.37-40) Concerning this \"fear,\"- which is identical with faith,- Rabbi Chaninah proclaims that whereas all is within the power of Heaven, imbuing someone with this faith is not within the power of Heaven, but is solely up to the believer himself. For this reason, Abraham was given credit for having believed in the promise that he would sire children. \"He believed G'd, and He considered it an act of righteousness on Abraham's part.\" (Genesis 15,6) This faith could not have been supplied by G'd, but had to be an act of willpower on the part of Abraham himself. He was the first philosopher who found his way to this yir-ah/emunah, as is recorded of him after the akeydah, the binding of Isaac. (Genesis 22,12) \"For now I know that you are G'd fearing.\" After all, this is the goal of all our striving, as Solomon proclaims at the end of his book Kohelet: \"In conlusison, after all is said and done, fear the Lord, observe His commandments because this is the sum total of being a human being \" There is a third variety of fear that is composed of an intelligent awareness of the fact that if one does not take adequate precautions against known dangers, disastrous consequences may result. This fear, while recognising the dangers of inaction or lack of preparedness, is nevertheless not due to a fatalistic outlook. It is therefore fear, not resignation. The intelligence involved stems from the recognition of a free G'd as the ultimate cause of events, events which He can control, but that man can influence directly. If a king threatens a subject with jail unless said subject carries out certain orders, such conduct is autocratic and deprives the subject of any meaningful choice. If, on the other hand, the king points out that strike action by the subject would result in his losing income, his family going hungry etc., this would not really be called putting the subject under duress. A person doing the right thing under such circumstances falls into the category of \"who is clever? he who can foresee the consequences.\" (Tamid 32) The fear experienced by such individuals is based on an intelligent appraisal of the options open to them in the long run. When Moses realised that his killing of the Egyptian had been witnessed, (Exodus 2,14) he became afraid, not resigned, and took action to escape the consequences. When our sages in Avot 3,21, say \"where there is no wisdom, there is no fear, and where there is no fear, there cannot be any wisdom,\" this is what they had in mind. He who is intellectually unaware of what the future may hold, cannot relate to it with fear. On the other hand, he who is insensitive to what the future may hold, is obviously devoid of wisdom. Fear of the type described, is fear of becoming the architect of one's own misfortune, seeing that the Torah tells us that we will be punished for our sins. Since no one is completely free from sin, no one should be completely free from this fear. Just as an invalid whose doctor prescribes abstention from certain foods to avoid harming his condition, will not consider himself under compulsion, so a Jew whose Torah forbids matters which would endanger his physical and spiritual survival cannot consider himself as observing Torah under duress. In this way we understand Moses' address to the people at the time of matan Torah, the giving of the Torah, (Exodus chapter twenty) when he said \"do not be afraid; in order to test you did the Lord come; and in order that the fear of Him shall be upon you so that you will not sin.\" (verse 17). Although, at first glance these lines seem self contradictory, the fact is that they are exhortations not to relate to G'd with the wrong kind of fear. The result of the revelation was that Israel realised that it was possible to witness the glory of G'd and yet to remain physically alive. We were elevated from the purely instinctive, animalistic dread. Our concepts were raised to a level that afforded us an inkling of His grandeur, not like the beasts around us. This kind of fear fills one with a degree of joy, as David expresses it in Psalm 2,11, \"serve the Lord in fear, rejoice even while trembling.\" With this thought one can also resolve the contradiction in Psalm 76,9 \"from the Heavens you have heard judgment, the earth was afraid and calm.\" How can calmness be a product of fear or vice versa? As long as the earth had not heard that Israel had accepted the Torah, she had been concerned about her own future. Once she heard that Israel had spoken the words \"We shall do and we shall listen,\" the earth became calm, knowing her own future was assured. In other words, joy is the product of the right kind of fear at the right place at the right time. Going back to our opening Midrash, we can appreciate now how the attainment for the kind of fear we have described was truly a minor accomplishment for Moses. The Torah has taught us this concept meanwhile in so many ways, that we can no longer claim that the attainment of such \"fear\" as Moses achieved without the help of the Torah, is really such an unattainable goal for the Jewish masses who enjoy the benefit of Torah and its teachings. ",
"The \"fear\" described in our Parshah is not only permissible, but leads to \"love.\" To illustrate the meaning of G'ds request, let us employ a parable. A person was asked to scale a skyscraper whose doors were all locked at the bottom, and which appeared impossible to enter. When the person reacted with resignation, throwing up his hands in despair, it was pointed out to him that the request had not been accompanied by a time limit, nor had it specified the means of entry to be used or the manner in which the skyscraper had to be climbed. By using an extension ladder, the task could be accomplished one section at a time, without undue hardship for the climber. This is exactly what the Torah means (Deut 30,12-13) \"She is not in Heaven, not too difficult for you to achieve, but close by, attainable.\" It can be accomplished gradually, step by step. If G'd had asked us for angel like, immediate and total achievement, it would indeed have been difficult; but as it is, we are not asked to perform any task that we are not equipped to handle. The ladder that the Torah provides for climbing the skyscraper has several rungs. The \"fear,\" without which no further ascent is possible. Even if one performs the mitzvot only because of fear of punishment, one is no worse than small children learning obedience. However, even this has ethical merit since it will lead to performance based on loftier motivations. Horiot 10, teaches \"doing the right thing for the wrong reason, will eventually lead to doing the right thing for the right reason.\" ",
"\"Behold the Heavens, and the Heavens of the Heavens, belong to the Lord, the earth and all there is therein.\" (10,14) This points out the difference between G'd and any other deities. Since the latter, not even laying claim to own the universe, cannot inspire \"fear\" as we have defined it, they are also unable to elevate man. G'd, by reason of His ownership of the universe, can claim obedience of all creatures. Should we ask that since He owns it all, what difference can one nation's claim to consideration by G'd make?, the answer given is \"He only took a liking to your ancestors, to love them and their seed after them.\" (10,15) Even though the Jewish people are far from perfect, \"like the lily amongst the thorns,\" G'd chose Israel because of its relative merit. By the time you have realised and appreciated the meaning of your national history, says Moses, you will have arrived at the stage of love for G'd. At that point performance of the mitzvot will no longer be an act of obedience, but an expression of your love for G'd the Lawgiver. Reviewing the whole chapter, one is forced to conclude that far from making impossible demands upon us, G'd is in fact granting us privileges. The etnachta, tone sign under the words \"from you\" in verse twelve, as well as under the word \"today\" in verse thirteen, supports our view that the lines between have to be read as if in parenthesis. The verse then reads \"and now Israel what is it that the Lord asks of you this day; in order that you will be well off?..except to...\" After all that, the passage describing the land of Israel as one that needs rainfall, as distinct from Egypt, is a reminder that even after attaining their reward and successful takeover of the land of Canaan, Divine help will continue to be needed. The land will only deliver its bounty to Israel when such Divine help is forthcoming. The second paragraph of the keriyat shema which follows, spells out the conditions for such Divine help, and the consequences should Israel fail to meet these conditions. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Behold, I set before you this day\" etc.",
"Midrash Rabbah Parshat Re-ay 3, quotes Rabbi Eleazar concerning the verse \"look I have placed before you this day blessing and curse.\" (Deut. 11,26) \"From the day G'd uttered these words at Sinai, good and evil no longer emanate from Him, but evil comes of its own accord to thoses who act wickedly, whereas good comes of its own accord to those who act righteously.\" Rabbi Chagai says \"not only did I offer you two paths, but I set you on the right path, something beyond the requirements of justice, since the Torah had only written \"choose life!\" ",
"It is well known that no act is carried out successfully unless the one carrying it out possesses a) the physical ability to carry out that act; b) has the will to carry it out; c) has the technical knowhow to execute what he plans to do. The ability to do good or evil is common to everyone from birth. (See Isaiah 7,15) \"He will eat butter and honey when he knowingly rejects evil and chooses good.\" The willpower to do good is only found in those to whom G'd has granted a measure of wisdom, and who possess fear of the Lord. Even if a person is able to do the right thing, and is possessed of an urge to do the right thing, he will still not make much pogress. The true choice of what action to take exists only if the one doing the choosing is fully aware of the impact of what he is about to do. Freedom of choice is useless if one does not possess the criteria to evaluate the choices that exist. Whenever the Torah mentions bechirah, choice, it gives advice as to what choice is to be made, so as to ensure that we are equipped to make the right choice. The emphasis the Torah employs in giving this advice is in proportion to the importance of the choice to be made. Crucial decisions rate extra advice on the subject, even repetition of that advice. In this way the consequences of making the wrong decision are pointed out by describing the penalties in store or the reward to be obtained by making the right decision. Intelligent persons, therefore, are careful to live according to the advice proffered, and to avoid at all cost any action in defiance of such advice. When danger is evident, the circumspect act like David at the Court of Avimelech, not like Gedalyah ben Achikom who had been warned that Ishmael ben Netanyah would assassinate him. This is especially so when one confronts hidden dangers, i.e. innocent looking exteriors behind which deadly poison is hidden. Sotah 22, has Yannai saying \"more than anything beware of the hypocrites, they are worse than the Pharisees or the Libertines.\" Solomon describes the futility of the plans of the sinners, plans which will backfire. (Proverbs 1,19) Similarly, the Torah advises against the path of the wicked. The passage in Proverbs cannot be part of the invitation of the violent people to join them, since, far from enumerating advantages, it warns of the pitfalls involved. (verse 12) The verse could be interpreted as an invitation to despoil the spoilers, since he who steals from the thief is not culpable. Solomon's advice then would be not to follow such a path, since one is not to trust anyone whose trademark is thievery and violence. Their promise of easy gain would soon be revealed as hollow, incapable of fulfilment, so that all the effort expended in pursuit of such endeavours will prove fruitless. ",
"However, we suggest a different interpretation. Solomon employs the most common teaching method. One teaches the unknown by relating it to the known. The way to do this is to explain that deeds, the culpability for which is not known, are equivalent to deeds the culpability for which is well known. The process of teaching proceeds step by step. It is not generally accepted that refusing to extend help to a fellow human being is equivalent to denying that one has received an object for safekeeping. It is not generally accepted that denying receipt of an object for safekeeping is equivalent to robbery or burglary. Again, it is not generally accepted that stealing is just as serious a crime as is murder. Our sages therefore frequently illustrate such points by employing what appears to be exaggerated language. (Sotah 4) \"A haughty person is equivalent to an idol worshipper\"; \"someone who shames his fellow man in public is like having shed the blood of his fellow man.\" (Baba Metzia 58) This too is the method chosen by Solomon in Proverbs chapter 1. \"when sinners invite you to participate in the well known sins of murder, violence, robbery etc., remember that all who are greedy for profit are really treading the same path as these proverbial crooks whose misdeeds are condemned by everyone. Beware of the unknown evil.\" This means that suggestions from known evil doers, even if apparently harmless, harbour evil;- \"do not be willing!\" Most dangerous of all is the pursuit of transient gains like money etc., the pursuit of which \"will take hold of the soul of its owner\", will wind up costing the pursuer his very life. The more these phenomena are part of our daily lives, the more insiduous their lure, the harder it is to avoid being snared by them. Therefore, the antidote has to be more powerful to be able to ward off the danger inherent in the lure of the chase after betza profit. The evil urge employs three basic arguments in order to entice its victim. 1) No harm will come from accepting its advice. 2) One is merely doing what is natural. 3) Following its advice means promoting one's best interests. The book of Proverbs is devoted to warn against these temptations. An example of a victim of these temptations is Eve, the first woman. \"Eve saw that the tree was good as food\" i.e. it could not be poisonous (no harm will come to one who eats it); \"that it was appealing to the eye\", i.e. she was attracted to it naturally, and thirdly \"and appeared desirable\", i.e. from a functional point of view. (Genesis 3,6) The Torah mentions the temptation by the snake only as a secondary factor. The snake's argument merely set in motion the three standard ploys of the yetzer hara, the evil urge. Eve convinced herself. The Torah does not describe her as being unable to withstand the blandishments of the serpent. In chapter five of Proverbs, Solomon continues to warn against these temptations often dressed up as the lure of an attractive woman whose lips drip honey, whose mouth is smoother than oil, who in the end however, proves as sharp as a double edged sword. Also in Kohelet chapter nine, the tempter is described as saying \"go eat your bread in joy, enjoy life with a woman you love.\" This is innocuous sounding advice which hides the danger since it is garbed in recommending only what is permitted. ",
"Since it is the Torah's purpose to warn against all these temptations, Torah being the antidote is known by three names corresponding to the three types of temptation. \"Chayim,\" life, \"Torah,\" teaching, \" mussar, 'discipline. Inasmuch as Torah is the antidote against all dangers, it is called \"life.\" \"For she is your life.\" (Deut. 32,47 et al) Inasmuch as Torah is the antidote to all deceptions and misrepresentations, it is called \"a teaching\", \"instruction\", something that teaches true values. Inasmuch as Torah is the antidote against bad habits and a tendency to indulge oneself, it is called \"a discipline.\" \"Know this day that just as a father disciplines his son, so your G'd disciplines you.\" (Deut. 8,5 et al) Solomon sums it up in Proverbs 6,23, \"for the commandment is a lamp, the law is light itself, and reproofs are the way of life.\" Only the pursuit of all three aspects of Torah will guarantee man the proper exercise of free choice granted him by his Maker. ",
"Our Parshah addresses itself to this very problem. The way to salvation is the straight and narrow, whereas the alternative is threefold. \"The blessing, that you listen to the commandments of the Lord your G'd.\" (11,26) However, the curse \"you do not listen, you depart from the path- to follow other deities whom you have not known.\" (11,28) At Sinai we were given three imperatives. \" anochi, I am the Lord; lo yihyeh, have no other deities; zachor et yom hashabbat lekadsho, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. It is these three commandments that remind us that there is a hashgachah peratit, personal Divine Providence that guides our lives here on earth. Ever since Eve had sinned, true freedom has been denied man since the yetzer hara, evil temptation has gained entry into man through her to all subsequent generations, leaving us with less than a fifty-fifty chance to totally defeat the temptation to do evil. But now, after Sinai, that chance had been restored. This is the meaning of Rabbi Eleazar who said that from now on we are the architects of our own evil if we choose the wrong path. Between the time of Eve and Sinai, men were fatalists to whom doing good made no sense, since they were convinced that history was decreed and the future unalterable. As long as the belief existed that all had been pre-ordained, all good and evil emanated from Heaven. Only when the Jewish people were disabused of the idea that all had been pre-ordained, did good and evil, reward and punishment truly become man's choice. The reversal in man's fatalistic outlook on life began with Abraham, of course. In our Parshah, G'd not only offers the choice, but almost makes sure that we make the right choice by telling us to choose life. (chapter 30) All of mankind may be viewed as guests at G'ds table. Because of the special relationship that exists between Israel and G'd, the former is offered a choice portion by having its attention directed towards it without depriving Israel of the ultimate decision of what to opt for. \"You shall choose!\" (Deut.30,19) The public declaration at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyvol immediately following the conquest of the land, point to the urgency of assimilating this lesson especially in the land of Israel, which, since it is under the unceasing surveillance of G'd will not long tolerate non observance of the mitzvot. This is in contrast to Egypt, where pursuit of a hedonistic way of life went unpunished for long periods of time. The first task is destruction of all vestiges of idol worship remaining. Therefore, (12,2) \"destroy utterly all the places that served as centres of idol worship.\" Next comes the need to establish a central place of worship, to minimise the opportunities for any deviationist movements within Judaism. At any rate the message is that it is not man who chooses where he wants to worship, but G'd determines where and when He can be successfully prayed to. After that, the Torah limits sacrificial service to the central site of worship, and states that only certain types of animals will be acceptable as potential sacrifices. In this way, many abominations practiced by the pagans were eliminated as a form of worship, foremost among them child sacrifice. Since a great part of the animal offerings were concentrated on the various holy days that involved pilgrimage to the temple by all males, the Torah stresses that on such joyous occasions the less fortunate must not be forgotten, and must be made to share in these expressions of joy. For that reason, the Levite, the stranger, (convert to Judaism), the widow and the orphan are especially mentioned. Since the true measure of acknowledging G'd lies in one's appreciation of G'ds tremendous generosity to man, man can reflect this pious feeling only by extending his own generosity towards the less fortunate in his society. In order to underscore the serious nature of the sin of idol worship, the Torah reminds us once more that the former inhabitants of Canaan were dispossessed and destroyed because they indulged in these abominable practices. Not only was their philosophy faulty, even their deeds were corrupt, involving sacrificing their own children. We are asked not even to investigate their actions or to enquire into the reasons underlying their philosophy. A second danger the Jewish people may be faced with in their new home, is the call of the false prophet to deviate from the path of tradition. Coming as it does from someone who may have acquired the reputation of being a prophet, such danger is very real indeed. The Torah warns that the surfacing of such people advocating practices inimical to normative Judaism is a test of our faith in G'd, our loyalty, and must be reacted to a such. The third danger, and by far the most difficult to combat, is seduction by one's intimate friends and relatives. (13,7) \"When your brother, son or daughter tries to seduce you, privately, saying let us worship other deities that you have not known.\" We are warned to ignore sentiments of protectiveness for the welfare of family in such cases, and to bring such people to justice. We must not corrupt our sense of pity by applying it to the undeserving. Only when we do not abuse feelings of mercy, pity etc. can we in turn expect the Almighty to employ His sense of pity, mercy etc. when we are in need of it. When G'd sees that we deal with cities in which idol worship has become rampant, according to Torah law, then His wrath that such things have been allowed to happen can be assuaged. Actually, display of sympathy for the corrupt few is equivalent to subjecting the majority to their evil machinations. Cruelty,- if such it be- must be reserved for use against unrepentant sinners. G'ds purpose in educating us, is to eliminate negative character traits and elevate us to a level of banim attem tashem elokeychem, you are true children of the Lord your G'd. We would almost cease to be beney adam, \"sons of man,\" and become \"sons of G'd\" instead. The fact that the Jewish people or G'd are referred to as children, daughter, mother and sister in their reciprocal relationship in various places in the Bible, indicates that the intimacy of such relationship undergoes changes. Psalms 45,11, speaks of \"hearken daughter and see!.\" Song of Songs 3,11, speaks of \"the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding.\" Song of Songs 4,12 speaks of \"My sister is like a fenced in garden.\" The relationship between Israel and its G'd is one that should become progressively more intimate. For these reasons, \"do not make incisions on yourselves,\" is to remind us that the loss of human relatives notwithstanding, the continued presence of G'd, who represents to us all the above listed human relationships, must help us put any personal grief over the loss of dear ones into its proper perspective, and not to \"cut ourselves up\" over such loss. When members of one's family die,- seeing that theirs was the same relationship with G'd as ours-, He has suffered a loss similar to ours, and it is not fitting therefore for us to disfigure ourselves as a sign of mourning. \"Do not make a bald spot on your forehead.\" (14, 1)This is the true meaning of the verse \"for you are a holy nation to the Lord your G'd.\" (14,2) See our commentary in Parshat Emor. The reason this legislation follows that of the ir hanidachat, the city of idol worshippers that has to be destroyed, is to remind us that inflicting wounds upon one's body in mourning, for people who died as a result of punishment for such sins as idol worship, is just as wrong as treating such people with less than the full force of the law. Finally, to reinforce the holy character of the Jewish people, and to insure their continued adherence to Torah standards, the legislation concerning forbidden foods is appended. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"You shall surely tithe\" ",
"The Talmud Makkot 27, relates: The Sanhedrin, Supreme Court, made three decrees which were approved by the celestial Court subsequently. 1) Public reading of megillat Esther on an annual basis. It says in Esther 9,27, \"the Jews confirmed and took upon themselves,\" meaning their observance was approved from on high, because they had accepted it down below. 2) The giving of tithes of such products as vegetables. This law was not written in the Torah which requires tithes to be given only from dagan, cereal products, grapes and oil. We read in Chronicles II 31,5, \"in accordance with the king's urgings, the Israelites brought large quantities of their grain, wine and oil tithes.\" In Maleachi 3,10, we read \"bring all the tithes to the treasure house, and it shall be food in My house.\" 3) The use of the Lord's name in greeting between people. (Ruth 2) \"Boaz would say to the harvesters \"may Gd be with you,\" and they would reply \"may the Lord bless you.\" We read in Judges 6,12 \"and the angel of G'd said to Gideon \"may the Lord be with you, man of valour.\" Why did the book of Judges have to report this greeting by the angel? In case we thought that Boaz had acted without Heavenly approval in using the name of the Lord, this shows that Heaven approved his conduct. ",
"While it is a truism that G'ds love for man preceded man's love for Him,- since without the ability to recognise certain truths man could never hope to become a servant of the Lord,- such demonstration of G'ds love for man did not prejudice man's freedom of choice. When we read in Genesis 18, 18, \"I have loved him...so that he will command his sons and his household after him to observe the way of the Lord to do righteousness and justice,\" G'd means that He has created man in a manner that would insure that man would instruct his offspring to observe traditional values. By the same token, however, man has also been equipped in a manner that enables him to reject the ways of G'd so that he can enjoy true freedom of choice. ",
"The references to man as beloved of G'd do not mean that the love of G'd was demonstrated before its recipient had demonstrated some personal accomplishment in the field of yir-at shamayim, fear of Heaven. All men are created with equal opportunity in this respect, though G'd provides blandishments to attract those who choose His way, whereas no incentives are provided for the potential sinner. The fact that we find ba-aley teshuvah, repentant sinners on the one hand and on the other hand one encounters people who have lived a devout life most of their years only to suddenly forsake that path, shows clearly that we are all free agents in this respect. The initial amount of Divine love each person is endowed with at birth, is augmented as man pursues the path of righteousness. emet me-eretz titzmach, truth grows from the earth. (Psalms 85,12) This means the recognition of truth is rooted in our world. \"Righteousness however, is subsequently looking down from above.\" Solomon's prayer at the beginning of his career, (Kings I 3,6) is the best illustration of our contention. Solomon said: \"You have done great kindness with Your servant David my father, when he walked before You in truth and righteousness and with upright heart; You preserved this kindness for him, and gave him a son who sits on his throne as of this day.\" Solomon talks of two acts of kindness by G'd. The first is the kindness extended to all men at birth, the second that which accrued due to David's personal conduct. In chapter sixteen we have explained in detail why in the case of Abraham, G'ds special love is reported before we know of Abraham's good deeds. The initial endowment of man by G'd at birth can be divided into three categories. 1) The physical aspect; the gift of life, a sound body. 2) Endowment with certain character tendencies that will help to smooth his path in life. 3) Endowment with certain intellectual powers. When we quoted the Talmud in Makkot at the outset, the three types of decrees the rabbis instituted may reflect these three categories. (1) The reading of the megillah annually, is an act of appreciation that our physical lives had been preserved at the time of Haman. When Jews found that this basic gift of G'd had become endangered, they did penitence, a gift G'd had granted mankind prior to man having been created. This act therefore awakens the bond that links man to G'd. By fasting, i.e. denying oneself the needs of the body, Jews atoned for having indulged their bodies at the feast of Ahasverus some years previously. (2) When the Rabbis expanded the tithes legislation, they imposed restraints on certain character traits, primarily greed. The giving of alms is proof that one is able to restrain one's natural greed. Once man makes a move in this direction, he can be sure that G'ds kindness will respond in equal or even far greater measure. Also, the dispensation of alms, tithes, on a regular basis, eventually results in such acts of kindness becoming part of our very nature. When one observes good deeds being performed, one cannot always be sure of the motive of the person performing such good deeds. It may be an outgrowth of a mature personality, or it may still be motivated by ulterior considerations. The only criterion that offers guidance in this respect is the donor's facial expression at the time he performs the deed of kindness. If he seems to genuinely enjoy performing the deed, we can be sure he has attained the personality level when this mitzvah has become a natural for him. Such a person is called nadiv, generous, the other kind is merely called noten, a donor. David expressed this thought very clearly in Chronicles I 29,17. After having acknowledged that all the silver and gold man has amassed is in truth G'ds, he continues \"and I am aware my Lord that you examine the heart, that you are desirous of uprightness; I have donated all these items from the uprightness of my heart; and now Your people present here, I have observed that they donate for You joyfully.\" G'd can tell motivation by examining the heart. David only has the venue of watching people's faces when they make their donations to tell how genuine their motivation may be. The verse commencing with the words asser te-asser, tithe repeatedly, (14,22) just like the words naton titten, give repeatedly, (14, 10) reminds us that only repeated action of that kind leads to generous gestures becoming second nature to us. Alternately, the repetition could mean that for every act of generosity we perform, a compensating act is performed in Heaven. ",
"(3) Offering greetings by using the name of G'd, indicates man's intellectual awareness that without the blessing of G'd and our proximity to Him, all our intellectual powers would be to no avail. Here too, once the recognition and practical expression of this truth has been demonstrated by man, Heaven in turn, responds and ensures that man will not lose that awareness, but will feel ever closer to G'd. The reply by Boaz's farmhands \"may the Lord bless you,\" then expressed their wish that Boaz who had displayed this awareness by his own initiative, would be granted further blessing by hashem as a result. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) How do we explain the statement in Taanit 9, that the meaning of asser te-asser is \"give tithes in order that you will be enriched?\" This statement seems completely at variance with our outlook, when the same Talmud in Nedarim 62, teaches \"man should not say that he is studying Torah in order to become rich,\" and the same no doubt applies to the performance of other mitzvot? 2) If the Torah says on the one hand \"so that there will not be a destitute amongst you\" (15,4), and in verse eleven of the same chapter the Torah says \"but the destitute will not cease in your land,\" how does one reconcile these two statements? 3) Verse seventeen states \"and he shall be your servant forever, and also to your servant maid you shall do likewise.\" This line needs elaboration. 4) What is meant in verse eighteen by the words \"for he has served you twofold during the six years?\" ",
"\"You shall surely tithe\"",
"(1) The Talmud in Taanit 9, relates that once, when Rabbi Yochanan met the young Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, he asked him what verse of scripture he had learned that day. The boy replied \"asser te-asser.” The boy then asked Rabbi Yochanan to explain the verse to him, and the latter explained asser bishvil she-titasher, give tithes in order that you may become rich. Thereupon the boy asked Rabbi Yochanan \"who has given permission to put G'd to the test\"? Rabbi Yochanan told him in the name of Rabbi Oshiyah that this instance is an exception. The prophet Maleachi declares in the name of G'd: \"bring all your tithes to the treasury of G'd, and if you try Me in this way, watch if I will not open for you all the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing of infinite dimension.\" (Maleachi 3,10) The boy said: \"if I had already studied this verse, I would not have needed Rabbi Oshiyah to explain this to me.\" ",
"Something which appears impossible when viewed within a narrow context, may nevertheless be found possible when viewed within a larger context. Although in Proverbs 24,11, Solomons states \"sometimes dispersal may result in additional accumulation,\" meaning that even in accordance with natural law, there can be results which seem quite the opposite of what the original action had called for, we need to approach the problem on a different plane. Although according to the ways of providence, i.e. hashgachah peratit, the trial method is forbidden, when one combines both principles known from natural law and principles of hashgachah peratit, the statement of our sages will be seen to be correct. Remembering that deeds performed on a regular basis, make such deeds second nature to the one who performs them regularly, i.e. they become natural and therefore evoke responses from G'd as a kind of encouragement, the receipt of ever increasing quantities of G'ds largesse will not be seen as something unusual. It is essential that the primary motivation for performing the good deed, i.e. tithing, had not been the reward expected. The result of generous behaviour then is the exact opposite of the miser described in Berachot 3, who became progressively more impoverished until he was described as kohen, i.e. the recipient of hand outs instead of remaining a donor. The Talmud based this interpretation on the verse in Numbers 5,10, \"a man's holy things will remain his.\" The child in our story had already recognised that in money matters, the apparent paradox is true., i.e miserliness results in loss of one's wealth. Generosity to the poor, on the other hand will result in increasing wealth. It is the acquisition of the good and moral characteristics that result in G'ds response, not the experiment to test G'ds keeping His promise. It also teaches that trying to hold on to one's money is no insurance against loss. The Midrash in Parshat Eykev describes Rabbi Pinchas as getting rid of the mice in a mice infested town by persuading the inhabitants to give their tithes. -lema-an tifmad le-yir-ah, in order that you may learn to fear. This mitzvah is designed to implant true yir-at shamayim, since the giving away of hard earned produce needs disciplining oneself, something that man can only achieve through steady habit. When the unexpected result is increased wealth instead of impoverishment, true faith in G'd will be acquired. The shemittah legislation (law to let your field lie fallow every seven years) follows, as well as the laws about not demanding repayment of overdue interest free loans which have been cancelled by the advent of the shemittah year. These are all additional demands made on the Jew to train him in the habit of foregoing what he might rightfully have considered his. Permission to charge gentiles interest on loans extended to them, and not to release overdue loans in the shemittah year, is a concession to our natural instincts. Only in this way can one prove one's restraint in money matters when dealing with a fellow Jew. There is, however, a proviso. Should you be afraid that the calls on your willingness to extend interest free loans will become too frequent, and will occur at times when the borrower can easily avail himself of the shemittah year cancelling his indebtednes to you, the Torah assures the potential lender \"there will hardly be a destitute person since the Lord will bless you collectively.\" No one will be that destitute that he has to default on loans extended to him. Therefore, you will not really face any losses due to this legislation. In effect, therefore, what sounds at first glance like a colossal demand on our generosity, will in fact prove to be quite minor and insignificant. Therefore, the Torah continues \"if you will listen,\" you will be in a position to extend loans to many nations, have spare capital that you can employ profitably. (2) \"There will not cease to be destitutes in the land\" This refers to gentiles, the ones to whom you can lend charging interest. . However, there will not be destitutes amongst you, meaning your own fellow Jews. \"You will rule over many nations, and they will not rule over you.\" (15,6) If you have to assert your authority over your own people instead of asserting it over other nations, that is a tragedy, not a blessing. U-vecha lo yimsholu. The meaning of these words is \"no overlordship of one Jew over another Jew.\" This is also the subject matter of the High Priest's prayer on the Day of Atonement when he enters the sanctuary. Details about the character building properties of the shemittah legislation, have been discussed in chapter sixty nine. All the examples the Torah lists in the event ki yihyeh becha evyon, if there is a destitute in your midst, are based on the assumption of ki yihyeh becha chet, if sin is rampant amongst you, if you are remiss in some way. Economic hardship amongst you is evidence of social wrongs being committed within your society, such as non observance of the shemittah legislation or the ma-asser legislation. Should you fail to respond to the request of the poor,- though he may not be in a position to demand something from you legally,- and should he complain to G'd about your attitude, about G'd having granted wealth to such tightfisted people, his plea will result in ve-hayah becha chet, sin will be found in you. You will then be to blame for the chilul hashem, desecration of the Lord's name by causing the poor to question G'ds justice! Therefore, the Torah urges you not only to give, but to give gladly! When the Torah says al yera levavcha betitcha lo, do not be displeased when you donate to him, this refers to those people to whom \"giving\" has not yet become a habit. After the third time, one establishes a habit, i.e. chazakah. The Talmud on this matter can be understood quite literally. The first donation, being an exceptional act, hardly counts in establishing a pattern of giving. The second donation may arouse feelings of displeasure. Only by the time one donates a third time, can the act be construed as truly positive, from a character building point of view. From that point on, the satisfaction felt when giving increases. See Chronicles I, 29, 9, \"the people rejoiced when they donated.\" Since these actions are character building, the Torah says \"for the sake of this thing the Lord will bless you in all your undertakings.\" (15,10) The word ma-assim, unless applied to specific actions, always means deeds that are character building, ki lo yechdal becha evyon, \"for there will never be an absence of destitutes.\" The presence of the destitute enables the wealthy to improve his character. We observe many people who feel superior when they see a poor man in tattered clothing; people feel superior when they encounter someone of unbalanced mind. This is wrong, of course, and one way of curing a person from such a distorted viewpoint is to enjoin him to help the destitute in such manner as to bring him up to his own socio economic level. (dey machsoro, verse 8) One's attitude should not be one of revulsion at having to help an inferior person, and by so doing wiping out the social gap between him and you. The destitute gentile in your country then will be the catalyst that ensures that you do not allow a fellow Jew to fall into economic distress. If a situation has arisen however, when a fellow Jew has been sold into service to you, your treatment of him must demonstrate that you do not view him as inferior to you in any way. (Kidushim 15) He does nof receive inferior food, perform menial tasks, have inferior bedding, or even drink poorer quality wine. You also provide him with capital so that he can establish himself independently once his years in your employ are over. Since all this sounds quite demanding, the Torah adds a rationale. \"Remember! you yourself used to be a slave in Egypt; the Lord your G'd freed you. Therefore, I can command you this matter this day!\" (verse 15) The recollection of the Jewish experience in Egypt serves two purposes. 1) G'd who became your Master is entitled to order you to do the things that are easy as well as the ones that seem hard on you. 2) Your experience enables you to feel empathy with slaves and to understand their despair. This will help you to do what is asked of you. (3) If you treat the servant in the manner the Torah prescribes, he may at the end of the term of service have grown to love you, and be anxious to remain your servant for the rest of his life. If this thought prompted you to treat him so, remember you have to treat a servant maid in the same manner, although in her case, continued service in your household under such conditions is not permitted. (4) Whichever way things turn out, the end of the term of service should not become a source of bad feeling for you. Since a day labourer hires himself out only for the daylight hours, the night being completely his own, the situation of the servant who must remain in service during six years makes him subservient to you at nightime also. Should his employer call on him to perform certain tasks at night, the servant is obliged to do so. In this way the servant really rendered the master double the service of a hired hand, mishneh sechar sachir, that an ordinary labourer would render for that amount of pay. The passage commencing with verse nineteen, warns against abuses of the firstborn that can occur easily through oversight. Either the priest works the animal before he slaughters it, or the owner has worked it before handing it over to the priest. Other aspects of this passage have been dealt with on the occasion the subject had first come up. Ve-hayita ach sameach, be only joyful. The word \"only\" reveals that joy must not replace \"fear,\" reverence, but that the two have to go hand in hand. The expression ach is always a limitation of some kind. The commandment of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is to accomplish three purposes. 1) To thank G'd for our liberation from Egypt. 2) Renewed experience of the miracles constantly occurring in Jerusalem, which strengthen one's faith. 3) Strengthening the feeling of brotherhood among the entire nation. Socialising on joyous occasions helps reinforce this bond. This occurs in even greater degree every seven years at hak-hel, when not only the males but the entire nation meets in Jerusalem for the festival of sukkot, Tabernacles. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"When you say \"I wish to appoint a king for myself.\" ",
"The Sifri on our Parshah comments: Whence do we know that a tribunal must be appointed that is competent to judge the whole nation?- because the Torah writes \"Judges shall you appoint for yourselves\" How do we know that police are to be appointed throughout the land,? because the Torah states \"policemen you shall appoint for yourselves in all your gates.\" How do we know that a Chief is to be appointed over them all;? because it says titten lecha, place over yourself. It also says in Chronicles II 19,11, \"Sevadjah son of Yishmael chieftain over Yehudah by the authority of the king, and the Levites will be policemen over you.\" ",
"Just as the conduct of a successful household is based on the moclel of the first natural habitat of man, namely his own body, so the conduct of a successful state is based on similar principles. G'd constructed man like a twin tower, with two pillars as his base. He made various chambers in the upper part of the structure. (torso) ",
"Solomon, in Proverbs, is a leading exponent of the significance of this structure. In chapter 30,21, he says \"For three things the earth does quake, four it cannot endure. A slave when he becomes king; a scoundrel sated with food; a loathsome woman who gets married and a handmaid that is heir to her mistress.\" He describes natural processes as being a model for mechanical, artificial processes employed in the running of a household. There are four basic forces that need to be present and employed properly to ensure that a household runs smoothly. The body requires food to ensure its proper function. To that end, 1) the food needs to be channelled to all parts of the body. 2) There has to be a storage area for this food to preserve it in prime condition until it is needed to perform its function. 3) There is need for the power to break down the food, digest it etc. 4) There is need for the power to distribute the usable part of the food and expel the unusable part from the body. One may conceive of these four mechanisms as ministers who preside over a household. As long as each minister performs his specific function, the household will run smoothly. Neglect of his duties by even one of the ministers, brings in its wake disease and eventual collapse. (see Kohelet 12,3) In the mechanically operated household, there have to be four forces corresponding to those present in the natural household, i.e. the body, in order to ensure its smooth operation. Amongst men, four categories of vocations correspond to the four categories in the household team described. There is the hunter, who ensures the availability of a food and clothing supply. There are storage experts who know how to preserve supplies in good condition until these supplies are needed. There is need for a cook, i.e. a person who knows how to prepare the food so that it is both edible and digestible; clothing has to be made fit to wear. Finally, there is need for someone to distribute food and clothing fairly to all members of the household, and to arrange for disposal of any excess or waste products. Solomon refers to the inadequacies of three of these \"ministers\" when he says \"the earth quakes.\" He refers to the failure of the fourth \"minister\" when he describes the earth as collapsing. Having established the principle, Solomon elaborates. Concerning the failure of the first \"minister,\" he says \"when the slave becomes the ruler.\" The slave's function is to go out and get supplies for the house to make these available to the household members. When he remains inside, instead of performing his duties, this act of insubordination is the first link in a chain leading to the breakdown of the whole meshek, economy. Jacob sent his sons to Egypt in order to forestall such a breakdown. The second \"minister,\" if absent or inefficient, is \"a miser who claims to be sated.\" When the one in charge of supplies is miserly in allocating same, he endangers the well being of all those entrusted to his care. When he who always claims not to have enough, claims to have ample, that is a reversal of his traditional function and signals danger. This was Jacob's complaint when it seemed to him that his sons were delaying the return trip to Egypt unduly, appearing to consider their supplies as ample. (Genesis 43,2) The third \"minister\" that must not be upset, is the wife of inferior status, the concubine. When a man has more than one wife, the task of grinding, cooking and baking is generally allocated to the less favoured of his wives, whereas his favoured wife is pampered, not having to perform menial tasks. When this arrangement is upset, and the concubine competes with her rival, both being idle, the kitchen will be neglected in the process. The whole household is then threatened with collapse. The fourth \"minister\" is the maid. When she, instead of performing her duties of disposing of waste products etc., assumes the function of her mistress and distributes supplies to each member of the household, the household will break down in short order, since there is no one to perform the menial tasks. Moreover, as soon as distribution of the supplies is entrusted to the hands of the unqualified, the deserving will wind up getting less than their fair share, whereas the undeserving will receive more than they can usefully absorb. This undermines everyone's well being, of course. ",
"All this is a parallel to the \"natural\" household, i.e. living creatures whose continued health depends on the correct sequence and manner of receiving their respective energy supplies, both in their proper quantity and quality. In our analogy of the four kinds of functions or \"servants\" that are active in the body/household/nation respectively, the underlying assumption has been that we owe allegiance to a central authority. In the case of the body, the central authority is the heart. Similarly, in the case of the nation the central authority to whom we owe allegiance would be the king. Unless there is such a central authority, a country will not prosper, just as a household without a head, or a body without a heart cannot function. The reason Solomon lists several such foursomes in Proverbs chapter thirty, is to repeat the analogy of body, household and nation. We can understand that Moses was anxious for G'd to appoint a single successor, displaying due regard for the welfare of the nation as a whole. At the same time, however, Solomon tells us \"a king must base the country on a rule of justice; a man receptive to gifts (bribes) would ruin it.\" (Proverbs 29,4) A king who accepts bribes is worse than no leadership at all, will bring about ruin at an accelerated pace. Leadership in the animal kingdom is so natural, that the Talmud states that the king of the domesticated animals is the ox, whereas amongst the free roaming beasts the lion is king, the leader amongst the birds being the eagle. Although the locusts and the ants seem to manage without leadership, a nation devoid of leadership is likely to become prey to all kinds of invaders, and even the defence against attackers is no one's concern except those directly under attack. There is then no collective defence. The book of Judges is full of examples of such a state of affairs and the tragic consequences thereof. \"In those days everyone did whatever seemed good in their eyes, there was no king in Israel.\" (Judges 21,25) Since we conceive of G'ds Personal Providence as supplemental to our own intelligent efforts, whenever our own efforts are lacking, we cannot expect Divine assistance to crown our own handiwork. The Torah therefore establishes rules about how central authority and law enforcement is to work. This culminates in the appointment of a king \"whom G'd will choose,\" (Deut 17,15) as distinct from other nations where the king reflects at best vox populi, and at worst dictatorship against the will of the people. The appointment of the right kind of king ensures that the nation is not merely the sum total of its individual households, but becomes one single vast household in the process. The distinctiveness of the Jewish nation lies in the fact that it possesses the kind of human leadership which will ensure the presence of Divine leadership at the same time. In view of the aforesaid, and even assuming that the words \" som tassim alecha melech,\" would constitute only permission to appoint a king and not be a commandment to do so, the behaviour of the prophet Samuel when Israel asked for a king needs much clarification. (see Samuel I chapter 8) If at first glance, the Jewish people appear disadvantaged by not having a king compared to the nations surrounding them, the eventual appointment of a king must do more than just give them equal status with the gentile nations. The institution of the monarchy must be elevated to a higher level than that prevailing in neighbouring countries. Failure of the Jewish people to understand this, led the prophet to articulate his frustration when the people demanded that he appoint a king for them. In that context, even G'ds attitude seems confusing. On the one hand, He helped Samuel to find the person chosen to become king, on the other hand, He told Samuel that it was His leadership the people had rejected, when they asked for a king, not Samuel's. What was it then that prompted Samuel to give in to the request of the people? (verse 11 onwards) ",
"We must look for the answer in the manner the people had demanded to have a king. Had the people requested a king at the time they had entered the land of Israel in order to help them conquer the land, and to compensate for lack of Divine assistance due to their sinfulness, that would not have aroused Samuel's anger. After all, our Parshah says \" when you come into the land and say \"I want to appoint a King.\" (Deut 17,14) When their declared purpose however, was rule by a king rather than by Samuel the prophet, this indicated that they rejected religious leadership in favour of secular rule. The operative clause in their request, and therefore the offensive one, was \"a king to judge us like all other nations\" (verse 5) ",
"This is why G'd drew Samuel's attention to this detail when He said \"listen to the voice of the words of the people. They reject Me, not you.\" For that reason precisely, Samuel spells out to the people (chapter 12,20 and onwards) that there could hardly be a greater insult that they could have handed to G'd than to express dissatisfaction with the deliverance by supernatural means and their preference for having to engage in conventional warfare like other nations. Only after the people had acknowledged their grave error, did Samuel reassure them. (at the end of that chapter) ",
"If our portion is written in the present tense, describing future requests by the Jewish people, it alludes to the events in Samuel's time. Even the very words \"like all the other nations,\" are a hint of things to come. This provides the clue to understanding why the people's request was granted. It had been foreseen and foretold so long ago. The fact that Israel's misconduct is repeatedly explained by the verse \"in those days there was no king in Israel,\" is ample evidence that the institution of a monarchy itself was deemed desirable. The people had to be disabused of the idea however, that their troubles were due to their not having a king to lead them rather than to the fact that they had been disobedient to G'd. Samuel spelled out to them that a king's success would be contingent on their being obedient to G'ds laws. He added that in the event of disobedience to G'd by either the king or the nation, they would not only have to suffer the yoke of foreign oppression but also the yoke of their own king. When Samuel used the example of rain falling during the summer season as proof that their attitude had not met with G'ds approval, he meant to teach them another lesson. Rain during the summer is not only not a blessing, it is an impediment for the farmer in Israel. True, it might provide temporary relief from intense heat, but its long term effect would be negative. Similarly, the temporary relief from foreign invaders that the appointment of a king would bring in its wake, would be outweighed by the many negative factors, such as interference with the gathering in of the harvest for instance- that establishment of a monarchy would bring in its wake. The Sifri quoted at the beginning of the chapter seems to feel that each city requires a central government, i.e. authority. The point of Rabbi Yehudah then would be that in addition to that, the nation as a whole requires a central authority, something in addition to the many local authorities. Legislators, judges and law enforcement officers, police, between them constitute what is known as ruach eytza u-gevurah, a spirit of counsel and might. Since judges are frequently referred to by the Torah as elohim, i.e. as performing functions similar to the judicial functions of G'd Himself, namely re-establishing harmony where same had been lacking, one can imagine the dire consequences if these functions were to be performed piecemeal by competing authorities. The syndrome of everyone doing his own thing, will be avoided once a central authority is appointed. The more comprehensive the areas in which the king displays his leadership, the closer his function becomes to that of the Almighty Himself. The eglah arufah passage at the end of the Parshah illustrates that matters which appear to be of purely local significance, such as the finding of the corpse of a murdered person on the wayside, are, in the last analysis a national issue. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah need to legislate a principle such as the monarchy, something which is in world wide use already? 2) What is the logical connection between such diverse commandments as \"do not plant for yourself a nature retreat for worship purpose,\" and \"do not offer a blemished animal as a sacrifice\"? (Deut. 16,22 and 17,1) 3) Why is the authority of the Sanhedrin (highest Court) such that in the words of the Sifri: \"if they declare left to be right and right to be left\" it must be accepted? Besides, what kind of an example is this? If no one knows which is right and which is left and the Sanhedrin has to be consulted on the issue, who would know that the Sanhedrin had been in error? 4) What is the meaning of the eglah arufah legislation? ",
"\"Judges and officers shalt thou make thee\" etc.",
"It is a fact that nature works on the basis of promoting the useful and avoiding that which is harmful. If even the inarticulate animal kingdom knows how to choose a lifestyle that ensures its survival, man, who is endowed with superior intelligence can be expected to do likewise in even greater measure. By the same token, an animal that acts contrary to its healthy instinct, causes but limited harm. If man, however, should act contrary to his best interests, the harm he may cause can be far more extensive. If we do observe the odd phenomenon such as the ant act intelligently despite the absence of central leadership, this unusual phenomenon serves to draw our attention to the fact that normally, leadership is essential for successful pursuit of a nation's purpose. (1) If leadership is essential to avoid localised damage, it is even more essential to avoid widespread damage and destruction such as can be perpetrated by man. In order to minimise the need for Divine intervention, the Torah orders the active pursuit of righteousness. (16,20) In order to accomplish this, every town must have its own Court and police force with varying degrees of authority and competence required for the adjudication of civil law and criminal law respectively. (verses 3-23) Justice must not be bent, bribery is prohibited. Since man has a greater tendencey to be ruled by his basic urges, legislation to prevent or minimise this is important. Even the best man is not immune against the lure of material gain or the lure of acquiring power. The Torah therefore warns against the abuse of power by those entrusted with it. Even rabbis must not sit in judgment when one of the litigants is a colleague of theirs, a fellow rabbi. Their esteem for fellow sages might impair their impartiality. (Shabbat 119) The Torah issues a triple warning concerning the dispensation of justice on an impartial basis. \"Do not wrest judgment, do not take bribes, do not respect persons.\" (verse 19) He who ignores these instructions is akin to someone who plants an asherah, a tree for the purpose of worship, (16,22) or he who \"builds a pillar\" for the purpose of sacrificing to another deity. (16,22) (2) He who employs laymen as judges instead of experts, is like someone who erects a pillar to worship. He who uses gentile legal methods is like someone planting an asherah for idol worship. He who displays prejudice and favouritism when adjudicating a case, is like someone who offers a blemished animal to G'd as a sacrifice. ",
"(3) Torah justice is distinguished by applying criteria that go beyond the mere power of human reason. The most heinous crime, idol worship, when committed by an individual, is dealt with by local authorities. When a community should be guilty of such a sin, it requires the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of seventy one elders to obtain a conviction. No amount of circumstantial evidence suffices to convict a defendant of a capital crime. Ki yipale, if there are circumstances when the local Court is not competent to arrive at a valid conclusion, then the case is referred to the Sanhedrin. This is so, since the Sanhedrin is the only one permitted to introduce innovative procedures al pee hatorah, as long as they are demonstrably based on Torah principles. If after such a decision which is issued by the Sanhedrin, an individual judge persists in countermanding such a decision or decree, he is dealt with as a zaken mamre, a rebellious elder. After the Torah has completed discussing the dispensation of justice relating to local problems, she now returns to discuss leadership and justice on a national level. Therefore we have here the paragraph about appointment of a king and the restrictions such a king is subject to. It is evident that the appointment of a king is not permitted until after the Canaanite tribes have been destroyed or driven out of the land, and there is a secure and permanent Jewish presence in the land. The reason, presumably, is to make sure that such a king will not be credited with the conquest of the land. Nor, for that matter, are the people themselves to take credit for the conquest. Since G'd had sworn to the ancestors of the Jewish nation to give this land to their descendants, this promise had to be kept. Once conquered however, normal political administration would be in order. In chapter fifty, we have discussed why the destruction of Amalek was mandatory, whereas neither appointment of a king nor building a temple were mandatory. Since observance of Torah law and study of Torah lead to a life without excesses in food or drink or sex, it is proper that the king as leader of Jewish society reflect such teachings in his personal life, and thus serve as a model and inspiration for his subjects. This is why the Torah legislates restrictions on the size of his army, his wealth, and demands that he both study the Torah and write a Torah scroll. He is to have same at his side at all times. (17,16-21) Since the king needs to obtain permission from the High Priest before he can engage in a war of conquest, the Torah continues with other legislation concerning priests. Priests are not included in those to whom the land is distributed, but they are entitled to a share of most sacrificial offerings brought to the temple by the people. This is to assure their livelihood. They have unrestricted right to participate in the temple service during the holy day period. ",
"Since the Torah had made a point of outlining that the people should conduct their own affairs in the previous chapter, the restrictions on methods that may be used must be outlined also. The king, though instructed to consult G'd via the breastplate of the High Priest, must not resort to consulting other media such as oracles, commonly employed by the previous rulers of the land of Canaan. In fact, such soothsayers must not be tolerated in Jewish society and must be put to death. G'd will provide prophets for His people who will grant them an insight into what the future holds when He deems such knowledge to be useful and necessary. Should there be someone who claims to be a prophet but is in reality an impostor, he must be executed. The entitlement to have prophets stems from the laudable sentiments expressed by the people on the occasion of the revelation at Mount Sinai. At that time they had wished to be addressed by Moses rather than by G'd Himself, an experience they had found too terrifying. Anyone demurring against a true prophet would be held responsible by G'd, since that kind of guidance had been introduced in answer to the people's own request. The entire Parshah then has discussed various aspects of leadership here on earth, and it is the Torah's goal to establish a system of leadership in our society that is patterned on the kind of justice and leadership that exists in the celestial regions. ",
"(4) Murder, and its resultant damage to the fabric of society, is due in the first instance to the murderer, and in the second instance to improper administration of law and order by the judiciary. Thirdly, it may be due to the laxity of the Sanhedrin in carrying out its duties. Accordingly, the Torah presents the case of the eglah arufah to illustrate the extent of the liability shared by people who are apparently quite unconnected with the murder that has taken place. Man does not live in a vacuum. A crime committed by a person in a room, is the responsibility of that person. Should it be impossible to identify the person who has committed that crime, the search for the criminal must include the house in which the room is located. Should search of the house fail to identify the culprit, the entire city becomes a natural area for further search. The case of ki yimatze challal basadeh, when a person is found slain in the field, is similar. The Torah describes the ever widening circles of search for the party responsible, and the need for all parties to exonerate themselves from having had any connection with the crime committed. The Sanhedrin, as the seat of the administration of justice, represents the entire nation. The Torah commands that the central authority get involved in the search for the guilty party, and gradually the search is narrowed to those closest to the murder that has been committed. It is the involvement of representatives of the highest Court that underscores the collective responsibility felt for a crime committed by a single individual, that assures the high moral standards displayed in Jewish society. Since the elders of the town nearest to the slain person are nearer to the site where the crime had been committed, their participation in the atonement ceremonies, i.e. the killing of the virgin heifer is more direct than the participation of the elders of the Sanhedrin. In order to prevent the suspicion that the elders might have condoned murder, they declare that their actions had been such that they could not have been a factor in this crime. \"Our hands have not spilled this blood.\" (21,8) By asking for mercy in their plea for forgiveness, the priests present indicate that the fact that murder has occurred is proof that the innocence of the elders is not that total, that G'ds forgiveness needs to be invoked. Only after the prayer of the priests, whose general function is to facilitate atonement for the Jewish people, can the guilt of the innocent blood that has been spilled be wiped out completely. The reason that amcha yisrael, Your people Israel, is mentioned in the prayer, underlines that everyone in some degree shares the responsibility for what has occurred. "
]
],
[
[
"How to tell a true prophet from an impostor. ",
"\"I will raise them up a prophet\" \"And if thou say in thy heart: ‘How shall we know\" etc.",
"Sifri on Parshat Shoftim discusses the following problem. \"If you say in your heart, in the future, how will we know the word G'd has not said?\" (Deut 18,21) Jeremiah had said that the vessels of the holy Temple will be brought to Babylon, indicating that the Temple would be destroyed; Chanayah son of Ezor said that they would soon be brought back. (Jeremiah chapter 27) Whom is one to believe? For this reason, the Torah states \"that which the prophet proclaims in the name of G'd and it does not come true, that is what the Lord has not said, the prophet sinned in proclaiming it, do not be afraid of it.\" ",
"All the commentaries on the above passage, which suggests an ironclad test of the veracity of the prophet's predictions, leave some questions unanswered In the first instance, how much time has to elapse before the truth of a prediction can be judged? Moreover, since the quote from Jeremiah chapter twenty seven, was well known, any false prophet would always be able to explain a non event by saying the people's changed behaviour caused the prophecy to go unfulfilled. ",
"",
"Our approach will be different from that of all the classic commentators. Central to the problem is the statement by Jeremiah that G'd reserves the right to reverse even such promises as would have a positive impact on the recipient of that promise. The parable of the piece of pottery destroyed by the potter, teaches that if a product does not measure up to the expectations of its creator, the latter reserves the right to destroy it and fashion another in its place. Man, likewise, is like clay in the hands of the Almighty, and despite the fondest hopes expressed for him, he may be found unworthy before he has reached maturity. Should a group of Jews think that in order for G'd to fulfil His promises to our forefathers, their continued existence and well being is indispensable to G'd, they are in error, and are warned by the prophet that their own personal existence is by no means assured. The fact that these forefathers, although themselves recipients of G'ds promise, were constantly afraid, is evidence that their understanding of these promises had always been that they were conditional, not absolute. While it is true that generally G'ds promises are not subject to change unless there is a change in the moral stature of the recipient, there is on record an instance when the decree to spare the righteous at the time when the Temple was destroyed, was revoked. This was despite the fact that the tzaddikim referred to had not changed. The midat hadin, attribute of justice, had drawn to G'ds attention that the failure of the righteous to protest the wicked conduct of the masses was inexcusable since they could not have known that their protests would be to no avail. (Shabbat 55). It is also true that G'd frequently gives a clearly conditional promise, which is what our sages describe as \"the attribute of goodness being in the ascendancy.\" Psalms 105,45, says of G'd, \"He gave them the lands of the nations; that which others had toiled for, Israel would inherit in order to observe His statutes etc.\" What it all boils down to is that whenever possible, the promise of G'd is not left unfulfilled. Certainly the yardstick by which prophets are measured is the accuracy of the fulfilment of their prophecies. Astrologers of old who had a record of 80-90% accuracy in their weather prognosis, did not claim to be prophets either of G'd or the Baal. It is not to test their stature that the Torah tells us how to test such men. Similarly, anyone who teaches the omission of even a single commandment of the Torah or the addition of a single mitzvah or even the change of the traditional interpretation of that mitzvah, needs no test to tell us that he is an impostor. When Yehu reminded the people of the fall of Achav, the decisive factor was that all the details which had formed part of the prediction had come true. (Kings II 10,17) Joshua was able to tell the people that the whole promise by G'd to Moses had been fulfilled. (Joshua chapter 23) He warns however, that disobedience of G'ds commandments would result in the Jewish nation becoming the target for all the punishments listed in the chapters dealing with such eventualities. In Samuel I 3,19-20, we are told that everything Samuel predicted had come true. In this way the people knew that he was a true prophet. In our liturgy, in the benedictions following the readings from the book of prophets every week following the Torah reading, we recite the fact that G'ds word as issued through the prophets never went unfulfilled. In all cases of the prophet being an observant Jew, exhorting the people only to observe Torah law, no test of his truthfulness is needed. On the other hand, if someone even of the stature of Elijah were to ask us suddenly to disobey a law of the Torah, there is no need for a test either, since the man would have stamped himself as an impostor. Such people need to be executed. ",
"What our Parshah deals with is something else. When two men, each claiming to be a prophet, both adhering to Torah law, neither of whom having established a reputation as a prophet, make conflicting predictions, then a test is needed to determine who is the true and who is the false prophet. In such an event, the fulfilment of the prophecy of one of them regardless of whether the prediction had been a promise or a threat of a calamity, serves as the yardstick that enables us to separate truth from falsehood. To make the occurrence of the \"good\" prophecy proof, and the non occurrence of the \"bad\" prophecy a yardstick for truth, would result in a chillul hashem, desecration of the Lord's name. The case of Elijah on Mount Carmel is a good illustration. Since the prophets competed in drawing fire down from Heaven, the successful one would become legitimised At that time it was imperative to discredit the priests and prophets of the Baal. (compare Kings I chapter 18) In our Parshah, the paragraph commencing with the words \"when you will say in your heart, how will we know?\", (18,21) must not be understood as introducing a new subject matter dealing with every kind of prophet, but only as referring to something that had already been discussed. First, we must be assured by G'd that we will have prophets in our midst. Then the Torah tells us the task of such prophets. Should someone fail to obey the prophet, by claiming to be a prophet also, such a person is to be executed. How could we know which of the competing prophets to execute as an impostor? Whenever the prophecy fails to be fulfilled down to the last detail. Since there are no other criteria to establish credibility, a miracle is not only in order, but becomes mandatory. The Torah instructs us not to be afraid to execute such an impostor as there is no distinction between intentional and unintentional commission of such a crime. It can only have been committed intentionally. (verse 20-22) \"The name of other deities should not be heard from your mouth.\" This makes the point that unless the prophecy was made in the name of the living G'd, waiting for the result of any test is quite unnecessary. The peculiar expression \"that is the word G'd has not spoken,\" needs to be identified, puts the onus on the liar to prove something. ",
"In the case of Jeremiah and Chananyah, the situation was that the former had warned that unless the people repented they would fall victim to Nebuchadnezzar; Chananyah, on the other hand, without denigrating the value of repentance, promised that the grandeur of Jerusalem would be restored. This put Jeremiah in an excellent position. Should his own prophecy not be fulfilled, he could argue that the people's repentance had borne fruit, and that G'ds decree to destroy Jerusalem had been cancelled. However, Chananyah,- in the event that he would be proved wrong,- could hardly argue that as a reward for the people's repentance G'd had brought on destruction. In this sense the competition between the two men was unique in history. (see chapter twenty eight) Chananyah died within two months, in order to give the people a chance to profit by his death and do penitence. In chapter 28,8-9, Jeremiah makes it clear that in the past the authentic nature of a prophet's message was proven when the good he had predicted had materialised. He thus had ample precedent for what he proclaimed now as the even habochen, the yardstick. ",
"This precedent is taken directly from the Torah. The Torah says \"I will make a prophet arise for them, just as you, and place My word in his mouth.\" (18,18) Just as Moses and most other prophets performed the function of frightening people into changing their evil ways, so Jeremiah had so far acted only the role of the traditional prophet. The Torah writes \"if a man does not listen to My word which he (the prophet) proclaims in My name, I will demand an accounting from him.\" From this it is clear that the traditional role of the prophet requires action by his audience, i.e. repentance. It is quite natural for people to resist calls to remodel themselves. It is equally natural for people to want to receive good tidings. A prophet who proclaims such good tidings and is otherwise undemanding, will, of course be well received by his listeners. When the Torah says \"the prophet who deliberately says things in My name which I have not commanded,\" presumably what is meant is the dissemination of pleasant news, the kind which does not require moral action by his listeners. Whenever two such prophecies stand in opposition to one another, the question \"how are we to know?\" becomes operative. The Torah's answer is precisely what Jeremiah used as the test of the truth when he set a time limit to the non realisation of the events Chananyah had predicted. The latter died before the elapse of the time limit predicted by him. This death is what the Torah had in mind when it said \"such a prophet will die.\" The Torah does not say \"he will be executed.\" Since Jeremiah was not in a position to bring Chananyah to trial as an impostor, he predicted that he would die at the hands of Heaven before the year was out. Thus he fulfilled what is said in our Parshah \"do not be afraid of such an individual.\" ",
"",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why is the mitzvah of establishing cities of refuge appended to our Parshah, or at least the report about these cities having been set aside? 2) Why does the Torah describe involuntary manslaughter as occurring \"in a forest?\" 3) Why is premeditated murder also discussed in this chapter? 4) How does the legislation of \"moving boundaries\" fit into this chapter? 5) What is the rationale for punishing a certain type of witness for the harm he had intended to cause the potential victim, whereas he is not punished for the harm he has actually caused? ",
"(1) On the two previous occasions when the Torah deals with the \"city of refuge\" legislation, the point had been to teach us that the law treats unintentional crime differently from intentional crime; now the message is that since all other pieces of legislation dealing with law giving and law enforcement have been revealed, the practical observance of the city of refuge legislation can no longer be delayed. From now on, everyone who trespasses, is considered an intentional sinner. (since the law is known) Therefore the machinery to protect the person who is clearly an unintentional sinner has to be put in operation. This is why on this occasion we read about such details as erecting signposts pointing to the nearest \"city of refuge.\" (Makkot 10) (2) The reason the Torah describes death as having occurred in a forest etc., is to teach that when it is evident through the circumstances where it occurred, that there could not have been criminal intent, then, even if there had been a feud between the two parties involved, the killer is believed, and he may take refuge in the city set aside for that purpose. Only, if in addition to the \"hatred\" between the two parties, there is evidence of an ambush, does the city of refuge not protect such a killer. In such an event, the killer is subject to retribution by human hands despite the absence of witnesses. The word im, in 19,8, refers back to the beginning of the subject matter in verse two. Once the West Bank would be conquered, the three cities Moses had designated on the East Bank would become operative. \"You will add three more such cities on the West Bank as soon as practicable.\" ",
"(4) Once we have established the principle that certain tribal areas such as the city of refuge, can be expropriated due to national considerations, it would be an easy step to expropriate other tribal lands, say for the use of the king, the army etc. The Torah therefore has to mention the law of hassagat gevul, unlawful shifting of boundaries, to prevent anyone from taking advantage of the fact that there is such a thing as placing the public interest ahead of the private interest. (3) Since the subject matter has been how to distinguish between wilful and unintentional murder, something difficult to determine without evidence, i.e. witnesses, the Torah now sums up what is considered adequate testimony, i.e. two eye witnesses. The law concerning false witnesses follows. (5) The words \"as they had planned,” as meaning prior to conviction and execution on the basis of such testimony, seems to concern itself with the reputation of the Court of Law. Undermining people's confidence in the infallibility and/or integrity of the Court when the harm cannot be undone, is counterproductive. This consideration goes so far as to deny slanderous witnesses the right to withdraw their testimony once the Court has ruled and given its verdict. (Sanhedrin 44) Even when the witnesses advance plausible reasons for their original evidence, and the accused had always protested his innocence, no redress is possible at that stage. Such instances prove, that in the last analysis we rely on G'd as the Supreme Judge. He would not let an innocent person become the victim of such perfidious testimony. Would we decide otherwise, the people would question the wisdom and competence of such a Court forthwith. If this is so when there is a chance to reopen the proceedings, then it is certainly so when the victim of such testimony has already been executed and could not be resurrected. We note that on occasion upholding the image of our judiciary is more important than the anguish of the family of the accused. The victim himself is presumed guilty of a crime carrying a similar penalty, though in this particular case he may have been convicted unjustly. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And seest horses, and chariots\", \"When thou drawest nigh unto a city\"",
"Sifri Parshat Ki Teytze comments: \"when you go out to war,\" the Torah discusses wars of aggression. \"And the Lord will give into your hand;\" if you will do things in the order prescribed, then eventually the Lord will give into your hand.\" ",
"Since man is composed of two parts, the physical and the spiritual, he needs to operate with two kinds of perceptions, one which enables him to recognise the material, the worldly, and the other which helps him recognise and relate to spiritual phenomena or spiritual aspects of other human beings. When we talk about \"knowing so and so,\" we define \"so and so\" in terms of height, width, colour etc. We perceive that he is human by a different cognitive process, a process reserved for recognising intangible abstract concepts. The former process is called hakkarah, recognition, the latter yediyah, knowledge. When the brothers brought Joseph's blood-drenched coat to their father Jacob, they said \"do you recognise if this is the coat of your son?\" This is a term applicable only to material things. When G'd talks about Abraham, prior to revealing to him the impending destruction of Sodom, He says \"for I know him, in order that he will command etc.\" This clearly describes cognition of Abraham's personality, something intangible. Since it is not easy to acquire the latter facility, our sages have frequently illustrated abstract concepts by employing parables. The phenomena described in such parables are a sort of crutch to help us translate these concepts into the abstract. The master par excellence of such parables is king Solomon, whose parables acquired international and enduring fame. He employed the double entendre for instance, when he advised the lazy man to learn from the ant which lays in a food supply in advance of the oncoming winter. (Proverbs 6) The hidden message is that man who has been given a brain should use and condition it, so that when the difficult time (winter) arrives, he will be prepared to cope with it, since he is aware of the purpose of difficult periods. The Torah also employs such parables on occasion. When Moses says in Deut 32,46, \"pay attention to all the matters which I testify against you this day...for it is not an empty matter... but it is your life,\" the reference is to the fact that words of admonition are not to be understood only at face value, but they address themselves also to our ability to comprehend spiritual concepts. (see our commentary about G'd talking to Adam in Eden, chapter seven) A similar double entendre is contained in the Torah's legislation about warfare. The Torah legislates about physical warfare, of course; but internal struggles in the soul are being described at the same time. By overcoming internal foes, the soldier readies himself to overcome external foes and to conquer foreign lands. (Internal struggles may also include the fight of the body to overcome a virus it has been invaded by, for instance) A person's face reflects inner struggles, just as warfare between nations is something visible that cannot be concealed. We see this from the comment of Yonadav to Amnon. (Samuel II 13,4.) In order to treat such internal struggles, a doctor needs to be thoroughly familiar with the chemistry of the body, and he needs to be able to compensate for any chemical imbalances in the system of the afflicted patient. The most difficult war however, is the struggle between conflicting emotions or characteristics that goes on within one's personality. When love and jealousy battle with one another, when greed and generosity find themselves in conflict within the same person, this is serious indeed. When Artaxerxes accuses Nechemyah of a face which expresses sadness and anger, pointing out that the latter was not physically unwell, he alludes to the inner struggle that leaves its mark on a person's facial expressions. (Nechemyah 2,3) (compare our commentary chapter sixty seven) In spite of visible symptoms of psychological illness, the doctor who undertakes to cure same requires even more expertise than the one who cures physical ills. Since G'd is the greatest of all doctors, David proclaims: \"favour me O Lord, for I am bowed down. Heal me O G'd, for my bones are afflicted; and above all my soul which is very afflicted. (Psalms 6,3-4, et al) Discussion of the verses in our Parshah will be divided into those dealing with physical warfare, and those dealing with inner conflicts. The three main objectives of a general in charge of a military campaign are summed up by Sancheriv. (Kings II chapter 18) They are: 1) words of the lips. 2) counsel. 3) bravery. In other words, a list of objectives, (words) strategic and tactical planning, (counsel) and heroism and bravery in the execution of such plans. Sancheriv accuses Chiskiyahu of breach of trust, and asks \"on whom do you rely that you have dared to rebel against me?\" This provided the excuse for his attack. He then ridicules any hope Chiskiyahu may be entertaining of making a successful defence, by describing Egypt and any other potential allies as useless. Thirdly, since Chiskiyahu's plans would be doomed to failure anyways, he asks who would display the heroism needed when they knew they were fighting for a lost cause! Whenever the Jewish people mobilise for warfare, the above mentioned three basic rules are observed and are described in our Parshah. ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. (1) After the Priest has assured the assembled army of victory, in what way would the presence of the categories of people who are being sent home lessen the confidence in victory of the others? Why would that Priest even make mention of such fears in his speech? (2) The whole warning seems unfair. The division between the different groups of draftees is peculiar. A) Everyone is needed at home. B) If such a person has faith in G'd why would the fact that he is in the process of building a home diminish such faith? (3) Why is the last paragraph,- the one dealing with \"whosoever is afraid,\"- said by the military police and not by the Priest? ",
"One might suppose at first, that just as in the case of Gideon, when only a few select men were left to go into battle, so the task of the Priests and the police would be to weed out all those that are afraid. In order not to cause embarassment to anyone in the first three categories, they were called out first. In this way, when men were seen returning from the mobilisation centres, they would be presumed to belong to either of the first three categories whose reasons for return were legitimate. Our sages, however, seem to have ruled out this approach by not mentioning it as a possible exegesis. (compare discussion in Talmud Sotah 43 and 44) Even though Rabbi Yossi suggests that the words \"afraid and of faint heart,\" (21,8) refer to fear of being punished for sins committed,- thus vindicating our suggestion,- it would still leave us with the question why in this instance the \"fearful ones\" are listed last instead of first, as had been the case when Gideon had mobilised his men. Also the question of why the switch between the Priest and the military police addressing the soldiers, would remain. We approach the problem in a different way. Because the Jewish people are the chosen people, they are exposed to Divine guidance in a variety of ways: 1) Those whose conduct is based entirely on loyalty to G'd and His Torah. These people are subject to G'd intervening on their behalf as a matter of routine. 2) Those who are normally loyal to G'd, but who are not of the calibre to merit G'ds intervention on their behalf until after they have done everything to help themselves. In other words, the average Jew. 3) The group of Jews whose past conduct cannot allow them to expect to rely on anything better than their natural mazzal. They have spurned Divine help by their way of life. Therefore, Heaven would neither help nor hinder them. (see detailed discussion in chapter twenty six) Since there would be representatives of all these types amongst the Jewish people reporting for mobilisation, the address of the Priest and the military police takes this fact into consideration. The first proclamation of the Priest is addressed to group number one. The Priest tells that group not to worry; G'd would fight for them. The third proclamation of \"who is the man that is afraid,\" obviously addresses itself to the third group, the ones who have only their physique and marital skills to rely on against any enemy. They are advised to go home as a reminder that they cannot count on Divine intervention on their behalf. The middle group, comprised of the \"house builders, newly weds (betrothed) and the planters of orchards,\" are those whose moral conduct coupled with their own efforts entitles them to put their trust in Divine help. Such people need to be especially careful in their affairs, so that misdemeanours do not provoke the celestial attorney general to prepare a dossier against them. Such a dossier, -as long as it has not been disposed of,-leads to the review of all of their subject's past down to the minutest detail. When G'd had praised Job and his way of life to Satan, the latter remarked that Job's piety was not altruistic. We all know how that story ended. The Talmud Berachot 55, reports that there are three things which provoke G'd into ordering an audit into our affairs. A) Too much prayer. B) Living in a house with a damaged wall. C) Asking that a fellow human being be punished. The common denominator in all these three items is that we ask for more than midah keneged midah, measure for measure. Before such requests can be granted, the credentials of the person making such a request must be beyond reproof. On the other hand, the Talmud Yerushalmi in Bikkurim tells us that there are three categories of people whose sins have been forgiven. A) Anyone who has been chosen for a position of great honour. B) A groom or bride on the wedding day. C) Someone who has recovered from a serious illness. Since all those three groups of people had achieved their ambition/desire, their merit had been recognised by the Heavenly judges. People who have not yet experienced such confirmation that they possessed such merit, need to exercise extreme caution before venturing into obviously dangerous situations. This is why we have these three categories of people who are asked to return home and await confirmation that the undertakings they are engaged in will be crowned with success. After all, they represent the three major undertakings of a person in his life. Once they have received such confirmation of their merit, they can join the battle with confidence. In the first instance, upon coming face to face with numerically superior forces, the point of the war had to be explained. At this point, we note the double entendre that we have mentioned earlier. There is no better time to confront our enemies within than when one readies oneself to deal with enemies without. The enemy within is the human body. Frequently the body's demands are excessive; sometimes the body even wants to enslave the spiritual part of man. Frequently the body is not content to remain the servant at the call of man's spiritual aspirations. Since the building of a new home, establishing a family and planting a vineyard are the primary challenges in our physical life, one needs to come to terms with the relative importance of each of those activities, and assign the material values in life their proper place in the scheme of things. Anyone who has not yet done that, cannot hope to face the day of battle. The \"day of battle\" is of course, the day of death, the time of the final judgment. He who has not even started on this task, and has therefore reason to fear Heavenly judgment, must certainly address himself to his tasks on earth before he can face the ultimate battle, the one against his own yetzer hara, evil inclination. The Priest in his address in verse three, warns of four distinct frames of minds, although they all appear lumped together. \"Let not your heart be faint,- fear not,- do not be alarmed,- do not be frightened.\" Each one of these four frames of mind, when present, can prevent repentance from becoming a turning point in one's life. These are the impediments for people who though they incline to return to their roots, do not have a firm determination to do so. 1) Man's fear of physical discomfort associated with acts that have an element of self torture by means of which he demonstrates his repentance. 2) The fear that repentance will not be accepted by His Maker; therefore such a person does not bother to undertake what he considers may be a futile effort. 3) Man may embark on his repentance in the wrong order. Instead of first abandoning his sinful way of life, he may merely concentrate on fasting and prayer; these steps, at that point are utterly useless. 4) A person who indulges in physical pleasures may decide that if as a result of his repentance he will forthwith have to forego these pleasures, it is not worth his while to repent and remodel himself. For the above mentioned reasons, the Torah exhorts man by listing all four possibilities. In view of this, the ten days of penitence our sages instituted in preparation for the annual battle on Yom Kippur, assume great significance. In addition, we prepare during the whole month of Ellul to give us a total of forty days preparation. The significance of the number forty in this context, goes back to the forty days Moses had spent on Mount Sinai both on the occasion he received the first set of tablets as well as on the occasion when he was to receive the second set. The forty days were employed in mending our spiritual fences. These had been severely damaged after the sin of the golden calf. The process of substituting one set of tablets for a new set of tablets was begun at Sinai. The concept introduced at that time is one of ongoing validity. Having defiled one set of \"tablets\" by our collective or individual misconduct, it is our task to substitute new \"tablets\" that will remain untarnished. The essential thing is that what is written on any subsequent edition be identical with what had been inscribed on the original version. Just as springtime is nature's time for renewal, so Rosh Hashanah is the season of man's renewal. Since after the summer when we have witnessed an abundance of the physical attributes of the universe, we experience a weakening of these physical phenomena, i.e. a weakening of the desires of the flesh, what better time could there be for our spiritual forces to reassert their preponderance in shaping our lives? ",
"In order to emphasize the Torah's desire for a peaceful resolution of all our problems, including even those with the Canaanites, the Torah's opening gambit is a diplomatic offensive offering a peaceful solution. (Deut. 20, 10-11) When G'd had commanded Moses to go to war against Sichon and Og, Moses, -unbidden-, had sent \"messengers of peace,\" asking permission to traverse their lands. When G'd had noted this, He agreed with Moses' procedure and decreed that henceforth no battle be joined without a prior attempt at a peaceful resolution of the arguments causing war. (Midrash Rabbah Parshat Shoftim) According to the Sifri, even the seven Canaanite tribes were offered their lives if they repented their ways and changed their lifestyles. The reference about not cutting down fruit trees during a siege, (20,19) includes a rhetorical question concerning the comparison drawn between man and tree. The letter heh, preceding the word adam, turns the phrase into a question. The meaning then is: \"Is then the tree a human being that it has to become part of warfare?\" Why should the tree be punished for giving us its bounty? The language employed by the Torah for describing what ma עy and what may not be a fruitbearing tree seems extraordinarily clumsy. Perhaps it wishes to teach us that even though our eyes tell us that the tree produces fruit, the determining factor in halachah, Jewish law, is whether that fruit is ma-achal, food fit for human consumption, or whether it constitutes merely animal fodder. If the latter, permission is granted to chop down such a tree. The Torah depicts warfare as a possible series of sieges, to emphasize that the eventual frontal attack with its resultant bloody battles and subsequent looting are viewed as character debilitating. Even if a long siege is necessary to attain one's objective, this is preferable to unlimited bloodshed and violence. Surrender due to starvation is better than obtaining a quick victory on the battlefield. ",
"When we look at the allegorical meaning of our passage, the city mentioned in this chapter described as under siege, represents the total body of man, all his physical attributes. It is the task of man's spiritual forces to harness and subdue his physical forces in order to further his spiritual advancement. When the physical forces surrender, having been called upon to do so, they will survive unimpaired in the service of man's spiritual self. Should they assert themselves however, by rejecting a subordinate role, they may need to be subdued by \"siege,\" i.e. asceticism, fasting etc. until they have learned their true function in life. Man requires his body in order to survive, just as the tree needs the soil for its growth and the ability to produce fruit. Any human being likely to yield fruit, i.e. good deeds, is not to be destroyed in this struggle between the material and the spiritual forces of man. Only someone whose uselessness in his present form has been established, must have his body destroyed in order to hasten the rehabilitation of all the other people within whom the power of the spirit has not yet triumphed in the long drawn out battle for supremacy of the spirit. ",
"\"When thou goest forth to battle\" etc.",
"When the passage describing Israel as marching into battle, adds \"and the Lord will deliver him (your enemy) into your hand,\" this is to leave no doubt that all heroism and bravery notwithstanding, it is not the might of the Jewish sword that ensures success in battle, but the help of the Lord. \"When you take prisoner\"; first you capture people. Then the Torah instructs who is to remain alive, who may not be allowed to live, who must remain a prisoner, disposition of the bodies etc. (21,10- 20,20,14-15) The remarkable brevity used here in contrast with all the details the Torah lavishes on how to legitimize a marriage between a Jewish soldier and a female prisoner he has taken a liking to, suggests that the Torah is more concerned with the internal conflict raging within man, and how the Torah endeavours to help man overcome his physical urges step by step. Although the Torah is basically opposed to a sexual union with persons of non Jewish origin, knowing the power of our urges, the Torah blunts our potential disobedience of its laws. The Torah does this by permitting a modified union with the captured prisoner. (Kiddushin 21, 68) The Talmud makes it plain that the entire episode is meant to show how to wean us from enslavement to our basic instincts. After an initial union,-permitted because of overpowering carnal desire,- (vechashakta) once the lust has been assuaged, this woman is allowed into the soldier's house just as after the initial union of husband and wife, the two live under the same roof, although the bride is temporarily forbidden to her husband. Prior to the wedding, the young couple had not been allowed to be alone together under one roof since the power of their sexual urge had not yet been sated. The regulation about the prisoner cutting hair and fingernails serves to reduce her attraction in the eyes of her consort. Her mode of dress is designed to deprive her of any sex appeal, since she must remove the garments in which she had made herself attractive when taken prisoner. During her enforced month of mourning for her parents, her attraction is liable to diminish even further in the eyes of her captor. At that point it may be assumed that should her captor still want to marry her, such desire would not be based on merely physical considerations, but on other qualities he has observed in her which he cherishes. At that point her status as a saleable commodity, i.e. a slave, ceases, and from then on any eventual separation between the two will not result in financial benefit to her captor. Since many a man can control his lust when financial loss is involved in satisfying it, the Torah here adds a further deterrent to an eventual permanent union between captor and captive. We have observed that the Torah has employed seven successive steps to help cool the soldier's yetzer hara. When the Torah promises that our enemies will be put to flight by us in seven different directions, this is an allusion to the seven ways in which our internal enemies will be subdued if we follow Torah precepts. (Deut. 28,7) To complete the hyperbole, the line \"when you go out to war against your enemy\" refers to the fact that your yetzer hara \"has gotten out of hand\"; in order to regain control of it you have to mount a campaign against it. When the Lord delivers the yetzer hara into your hands,-as an acknowledgement of your efforts to tame it,- it will appear exceptionally attractive to you. Gradually, you reduce it to the point when you wonder how such an unattractive creature could ever have been able to get out of hand, to come close to seducing you. The final reference to dismissing the captive (verse 14) if the captor no longer likes her, would refer, allegorically speaking, to denial of all physical pleasures and living a life of asceticism such as practiced by a few saintly people. We find a similar homiletical approach on our Parshah in Succah 52, where Rabbi Akiva describes the yetzer hara as having seven names, each representing a different aspect of the charms it exudes. An examination of the details of that aggadah will lead to the conclusion that the power of the yetzer hara seems to have diminished throughout history. There is biblical confirmation for the claim that the people who wound up in exile, were actually tzaddikim from a moral point of view. (see chapter twenty four in Jeremiah) If we look at the three paragraphs in our Parshah that deal with warfare, they can be seen to parallel the three approaches to successful warfare quoted at the beginning of our chapter, \"devar sefatayim-eytzah-gevurah. By employing the first two stratagems, the third, i.e. strength of character under conditions of stress becomes capable of achievement. When our sages teach in Avot 4,1, \"who is a hero? he who can control his baser instincts,\" we find victory over the yetzer hara identified with heroism on the battlefield. The Talmud Berachot 34, describes the moral stature of the baal teshuvah, the repentant sinner as superior to that of the saint. This refers only to the kind of repentant sinner who has demonstrated that when confronted with an equally attractive challenge by his yetzer, he has not succumbed a second time. (Yuma 86) A saint would not even be allowed to expose himself to such satanic lures. Yet, a baal teshuvah, in a sense, has to expose himself, in order to prove that his repentance has really taken hold. Only in this way can he prove his resistance to the \"germ.\" To put it into a different context, let us assume that a person falls ill and runs a temperature rising from one hundred to one hundred and four degrees. While the sickness is at that stage of intensifying, one hundred and two would be considered serious and alarming, whereas once the fever is on the way down, one hundred and two would be considered proof that the healing process had commenced. Similarly, the difference between the tzaddik gamur, the saint, and the baal teshuvah. The former never ran a fever. The latter, though still running a fever, is definitely on the mend. Some minor misdemeanours, which if performed by the \"saint\" would earn him the reputation of being wicked, would earn the baal teshuvah the reputation of being \"good,\" since they represent such a vast improvement over his former mode of behaviour. When the bamah, private altar was castigated as a serious sin during the reign of the kings (Solomon), later kings who had eradicated all public idol worship except private altars (on which offerings were made only to G'd) are lauded for their general performance. (compare Assa, Yehoshaphat; Kings II chapter 22-23) From the proof adduced by the Talmud Berachot 34, \"peace, peace to the far and to the near,\" (Isaiah 57,19) it appears that preference is given to the baal teshuvah. If the true meaning of \"who is a hero, he who subdues his urges,\" is that the inner struggle and victory over the yetzer hara is the true meaning of heroism, the \"saint\" could quite easily qualify for the title \"hero.\" He need not to have sinned and have regained his moral stature in order to qualify for that title. His very \"saintliness\" may be the result of having overcome his yetzer hara without having first succumbed to it, as did the baal teshuvah The Torah endeavours to teach this concept when it challenges us to assist our enemy when the latter is engaged in rescuing his donkey from collapse due an overload. (Exodus 23,5) This extends even to challenges involving us in expenditures to restore lost property to people who have demonstrated active dislike for us. The Kabbalah presents an interesting further little detail of this legislation. Supposing a person is faced with the opportunity of either helping a friend unload an animal, or assisting an enemy in loading, the latter has to be made his first priority. This brings home the point that the legislation represents a moral challenge, even more clearly. (Baba Metzia 32) It teaches that even when on a physical level the suffering of the friend's beast that awaits unloading is to be considered, the attempt to win over the enemy by offering him assistance is considered more urgent. This takes precedence even over what we commonly call \"our self respect.\" We should rather belong to the category of people who feel slighted than to the category that does the slighting. (compare chapters 63 and 65) ",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the father of a son who is entitled to a firstborn's share in his father's estate, have to be warned not to deny his son? 2) Since the definition of the ben sorer umoreh, involves stealing, why does the Torah not simply call him a thief? 3) What precisely is the meaning of \"a curse of G'd\" when applied to the corpse of a person who had been executed and hung by a Court of Law? (21,23) 4) We have learned that loading an enemy's beast takes precedence over unloading that of a friend. Why then does the Torah cite the example of unloading an enemy's beast? 5) Why is a married woman convicted of premarital immoral behaviour executed at the entrance of her father's house, whereas an unfaithful betrothed woman is executed at the entrance to the Court house? 6) When the Torah gives reasons why Moabites do not qualify as potential converts to Judaism, why does the Torah state (23,6) \"G'd did not want to listen to Bileam, and the Lord turned his curse into a blessing?\" 7) Why does the Torah prescribe punishment for a wife who has tried to rescue her husband from an attacker the best way she knows how? (25,1-12) 8) If the existence of Amalek is considered an affront and challenge to the throne of G'd, (Exodus 17,16) why does G'd not destroy Amalek instead of asking Israel to do so? Also, why does the commandment to eliminate Amalek become operative only at a time when Israel is safe from the latter, and Amalek apparently no longer constitutes a danger? ",
"(1) Since Jacob did not recognise Reuben, the firstborn son of Leah as the rightful heir to a double portion of his estate,- although he had explained the reasons,- the Torah warns that other fathers must not act in a similar fashion. Should the firstborn son be a sorer umoreh, he loses much more than merely his share in the father's estate. Death for such a person is decreed \"because of future developments.\" It is a preventive penalty, protecting both the son's relative innocence, and society against what would surely have led to greater calamities had such a teenager been allowed to grow up to maturity. (2) Since this is the general tenor in our attitude to the \"glutton,\" the Torah calls him by that name. After all, the objective of thievery is to enable the thief to gratify his physical urges, gluttony amongst them. (3) It is natural for people to feel pity when they come upon a corpse hanging from a tree, and they are apt to curse the perpetrator of such a deed. Since, in this instance, such a curse may inadvertently be aimed at G'd by whose decree the slain person has been hung, the corpse is to be lowered by nightfall, so that those who had been unaware of the judicial execution that preceded the hanging, will not violate the commandment not to curse G'd. (Exodus 22,27) Up to this point, our Parshah lists a series of mitzvot which could be summed up under the heading \"one sin brings another in its wake.\" Now the Torah switches direction, concentrating instead on such mitzvot of which the opposite principle, that of \"one good deeds leads to another,\" holds true. The first in such a series is the commandment of restoring lost property to the loser. The Torah clearly discusses two distinct and separate possibilities here. Either the finder knows the owner of the lost object or animal, and is aware that the owner lives some distance away, or he is unaware who is the owner of the animal he found. At any rate, he must then keep the animal in trust for the owner. (4) The Torah makes the point that when the enemy's animal suffers by not being attended to at once, you must assist. This is the normal situation. Our sages elaborated that at all events one must assist the enemy's animal first, even when the friend's animal suffers by being unloaded later. ",
"(5) The woman of ill repute is executed in front of her father's house, so that her father-in-law would not be shamed by her being executed in front of the Court House, i.e. the public square. Since her infidelity had started at home before she had been married, judgment is executed there. The betrothed girl who was unfaithful in the city, and who has no father-in-law to shame, is executed in front of the Court House, at the site of her crime, so to speak. ",
"We detect differences in the treatment of a rapist and a seducer, respectively. The former has only violated the body of the victim. The latter has also coerced or misled his victim's mind, thereby causing her a greater loss of image amongst her peers and opportunities to get married. Therefore, the seducer must marry her. (Exodus 22,16) If her father does not agree, the seducer must provide an adequate dowry in lieu of marriage. The rapist pays a fixed indemnity or must marry his victim. He is never able to divorce her. If the girl refuses to marry her rapist, this does not result in additional financial cost to the latter. ",
"(6) When the Torah refers to the Moabites not having offered water and bread to Israel when the latter came out of Egypt, this refers to the early days of the Israelites' sojourn in the desert. It does not refer to the fact that they had refused to let Israel traverse their land. A nation whose entire existence is due only to the generous heart of our forefather Abraham, and whose ancestor Lot had escaped the destruction of Sodom only due to Abraham's merit, could have been expected to have absorbed sufficient basic human characteristics through their past association (Lot's) with such an illustrious person. (Abraham) The Torah refers to the period that preceded the falling of the manna. Not only did the Moabites not come forward to offer to ease Israel's discomforts in the desert, -seeing that nation had just escaped over two centuries of enslavement,- but since waiting for Israel to perish from natural causes had proved futile, they even hired Bileam to make sure this people would not survive. Descendants of such a nation are unlikely to make good converts. This is why the Torah bans accepting them as converts. The fact that G'd turned the intended curses by Bileam into blessings is mentioned here, so that we can reflect that the curses Bileam had had in mind for us were very vile indeed. All we have to do is to imagine the opposite of the blessings which Bileam actually pronounced. The Moabites' sin does not rank as much smaller than that of the Amalekites, since denial of food and drink borders on killing with one's own hands. In contrast, we are urged to remember that we had once been offered refuge in Egypt, and that as a result we must never oppress the latter. Maintenance of peaceful relations with Edom however, is based on the family bond that still linked Israel and Edom. ",
"After having dealt with matters which are likely to face a person as soon as he grows up, the Torah continues with matters which do not usually occur until confidence in one's own manhood has been firmly established. We refer to conduct of wars outside one's own boundaries. Since special Divine protection is needed in view of the danger accompanying such an undertaking, the soldiers' conduct must be such as to warrant Divine protection. Therefore, even a person whose impurity is due only to involuntary nocturnal emission of semen, must leave the camp until he has purified himself. Such natural occurrences as bowel movements, must be covered up so as not to defile the camp. A military camp observing such high standards of purity, will surely be able to qualify for G'ds protective cover. It goes without saying that in other matters of licentiousness common amongst gentile soldiers, Jewish soldiers are expected to observe strict self discipline. Since the heavenly food provided by G'd during the forty years they were in the desert, was absorbed by the body totally, there had been no need for these last regulations for the Jewish encampments in the desert during those years. Since the capture of prisoners of war as well as slaves fleeing from their owners are frequently a corollary of warfare, the Torah legislates at this point that slaves who have escaped from gentile masters must not be returned to their former owners. This applies even to a gentile slave who is the property of a Jew residing outside the land of Israel. Since it was the practice of other nations to put prostitutes at the disposal of their soldiers, the Torah forbids such practice even in that context. The prohibition, of course, extends to all situations, since we already know that the moral standards among the Jewish soldiers was such that this injunction would be quite superfluous were it to apply only to them. The term \"prostitute\" applies even if the woman in question is the exclusive sex partner of one soldier, or civilian male. Since she does not enjoy the benefit of marriage, i.e. no formal responsibilities having been entered into by her male partner, their sexual union is no better than intercourse with a harlot. To underline the negative view taken of harlotry, the Torah emphasizes that the proceeds of such unions are not acceptable as sacrifices in the holy Temple. This is so even if the sacrifice represents fulfilment of a specific vow. Since the conditions of war frequently result in part of the population becoming temporarily or permanently impoverished, it is at such times that borrowing will most likely occur. The Torah therefore warns against charging interest to a fellow Jew. It is irrelevant if such interest payments are in cash or produce, or even labour. Interest of any kind must not be charged or paid on loans between Jews. Similarly, during war, people are apt to make vows to call Heaven's protection down on themselves at such dangerous times. The reason G'd insists on such vows being paid on time- although He surely is not in need of them,- is that even without the express vow, the soldier owes thanks to G'd for having safely survived whatever it was that had motivated him to make that particular vow. Therefore the Torah says \"if you cease (or fail) to make a vow,”- while you do not commit a sin,- the only situation when not making such a vow is not a sin, is when you were not too miserly to make such a vow. (23,23) The reason the Torah stipulates the apparently obvious demand to honour one's promises, (23,24) is to ensure that these promises are couched in such language as not to violate various laws about unnecessary oaths etc. Concerning the utterance of such oaths, the Torah uses both the term tishmor, i.e. avoid doing so, and ve-assita, carry out. Do not utter things that are forbidden, carry out undertakings you have vowed. In verse twenty six, which deals with the prohibition of helping oneself to some of the neighbour's ears of corn etc., the Torah must correct the impression that private property is not inviolate. Having made concessions to besieging armies regarding the destruction of trees, even certain fruitbearing trees belonging to civilians, the Torah stresses that even a labourer must not do more than still his immediate hunger from the produce of his employer. Dealing now with the previously discussed \"attractive female prisoner of war,\" the Torah tells us that should the marriage fail at one stage or another, the husband must divorce her in the same manner as he would any wife of Jewish origin. Since a bill of divorce cancels a previous marriage contract, the woman forthwith is forbidden to her former husband in the event that she remarries. The obvious intent of this legislation is to prevent a kind of legalised wife swapping by using the institution of marriage and divorce as a mere legal formality. The Torah describes such a practice as an abomination with potentially the gravest consequences to our tenure in the holy land. In reply to the question by a gentile, why the wife of an apostate Jew requires a bill of divorce, since we could simply consider her a widow seeing her husband has abandoned the religion under the auspices of which he had married her, the answer given was that a Jew cannot change his basic status. Once a Jew, always a Jew, regardless of one's efforts to abandon the religion of one's people. This answer proved unacceptable to the gentile, the more so since we accept gentiles as proselytes, and Jewish law considers such a proselyte like a new born child whose life commenced at the time of his conversion. Also, all contact with his former family is considered as having been severed, i.e. former relatives such as father, brother etc are not recognised in Jewish law. We suggest a different answer, one that may evoke a more responsive chord amongst the gentiles. Union of man and woman contains three elements. 1) The purely biological function, i.e. procreation. 2) A typically human manner of sexual union common to all civilisations, a relationship in which by mutual consent similar relationships with other potential partners are excluded. The patent advantage of this arrangement is in removing doubt about the paternity of children from such unions. 3) Entering into such a marriage under special conditions. In the case of the Jewish religion, ring, document (ketuvah) etc; in the case of Christian marriages, the priest joining the hands of the couple etc. The man who changes his religion does not sever the bonds of his marriage, since the union was based on their common humanity, not on their common Jewishness. The reason we demand a proper document of divorce is that the woman is still Jewish, and anyone wishing to marry her could not do so until she was free to marry under Jewish law. What follows are all situations that are more likely to occur during unsettled times such as during a war. Therefore, dealing with them at this point is appropriate. The prohibition of kidnapping and selling fellow Jews into slavery under pain of the death penalty is restated here, since the same practice if it involves gentile prisoners of war during wartime may be permissible. ",
"The Torah next turns its attention to matters one is likely to encounter when already somewhat older, and less active. Retirement and ensuing boredom may lead to gossipping, the penalty for which is tzora-at. (Erchin 15) The Torah itself offers Miriam and her punishment as an example, hence no further comment is needed. The injunction about a creditor returning such pawns to the debtor as are needed by the latter for minimal dignified existence, is couched in such language that whilst under the care of the debtor, the creditor is deemed to own it. In this way the creditor is given high moral rating for having given up what was legally his to seize. (24, 10-13) Therefore, we have the statement \"since the debtor will bless you, G'd will recognise it as an act of righteousness,\" i.e. something beyond the call of justice. (Kiddushin 8) A further instance of laws applying to the wealthy, is the injunction to pay wages on time. Delay may result in complaints to G'd against the employer in question. This is exactly the reverse of what happens when the wealthy lender shows consideration for his debtor. (as discussed a few verses previously) The following rules are also addressed to the wealthy, since they generally make up the class from which judges are drawn. The admonition not to transfer guilt from the father to the son or vice versa, or to accept testimony from one against the other, is addressed to such judges. Similarly, the injunctions not to disadvantage strangers, widows or orphans are addressed primarily to the judge, i.e. the economically affluent. Just as the commandment \"do not muzzle the ox while it is threshing,\" is an example of a negative commandment involving an action unconnected to any positive commandment, so the next paragraph deals also with a mitzvah of that category. We learn about the application of thirty nine lashes \"malkot,\" the standard penalty for this category of commandment. (7) Chapter 25,10, describes the men involved in the fight as \"brothers.\" This indicates that the quarrel was not that serious that one party tried to kill the other. When the wife interferes in such a situation in a manner that endangers the life of her husband's opponent, she has heightened the tension between them. Because of that, the Torah condemns the manner of her interference. Had her husband's life already been endangered, different evaluations would apply. The injunction to have fair weights and measures is also addressed to the judges who supervise. If they do not supervise properly that the merchants adhere to fair weights, then they themselves are included amongst those whom the Torah describes as committing avel, social injustice. (Baba Batra 89) (8) The duty to do away with Amalek is addressed to the Supreme Court which has to initiate such action. The reason for recording this commandment at this point, has been discussed in chapter 42. "
]
],
[
[
"",
" The covenant parasha",
"\"And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land\"",
"We find the following statement in Midrash Rabbah Parshat Eykev, concerning the covenant between G'd and Israel: Rabbi Shimon said \"what is this subject comparable to? To the king who married a lady of aristocratic descent.\" She brought two irises with her into the marriage. Therefore, the king also gave her two irises. When his wife later on lost those flowers, her husband took his flowers back from her also. After a while , when his wife had regained her standing, she restored the flowers and the husband also gave her back his flowers. You will note that Abraham bestowed two qualities on his children, i.e \"righteousness and justice.\" (Genesis 18,19) To match this, G'd had equipped Abraham's children with two qualities also, \"loving kindness and mercy,\" as it is written in Deut. 7,9, \"and He will preserve for you the covenant and the kindness. It is further written in Deut. 13,18 \"He will give you mercy and have mercy on you.\" When Israel lost its distinctive qualities, G'd withdrew His contribution as we read in Amos 6,12, \"you turned justice into gall and the fruit of the righteous into wormwood.\" So G'd says \"I have withdrawn My peace from this people, and the loving kindness and mercy.\" (Jeremiah 16,5) When the Jewish people cleanse themselves, as is written \"Zion is being redeemed through justice and its penitent sinners through righteousness,\" (Isaiah 1,27) G'd also restores kindness and mercy. We read in Isaiah 54,10, \"even if mountains were to disappear as well as the hills be shaken, My kindness will not depart from you and My covenant of peace will not be shaken, says the Lord who has mercy upon you.\" Since Israel contributed its share, G'd contributes His own share, and places it on the head of His chosen lady, as is written \"I betroth you unto Me through righteousness and justice, through loving kindness and mercy. (Hoseah 2,21) ",
"If liberty and freedom are the goals desired by all intelligent persons, then subservience to those who deserve homage, and the humility displayed towards those entitled to subservience are an even more desirable objective. ",
"This reasoning is based on Kohelet 10,17. \"hail to the country whose king is truly free,\" meaning that the king is obedient to the Torah's commandments, and humbles himself before G'd, as is explicitly required of him. (Deut. 17,18-19) \"When he sits on the throne, he must write for himself a copy of the Torah, which shall reside with him, and in which he shall read throughout his lifetime in order to revere the Lord His G'd, to keep all the commandments of this Torah and all its statutes to carry them out, so that his heart shall not become haughty above his brethren and so that he will not depart from the commandments of this Torah either to the right or to the left; in order that his reign should be long; both his and that of his sons.\" In other words, the Torah tells us that the king is truly free when he does not give in to the temptation to amass women, money and horses. His freedom is due to his attitude towards his Master (G'd) being similar to the attitude of his subjects towards him. We find throughout the Bible that ministers are referred to as \"servants of the king.\" The more dedicated to the service of the king, the more truly free is the minister in question. For this reason, alternate descriptions of such ministers are chorey Yehudah, \"the freemen of Yehudah.\" (compare Jeremiah 27,20) This is also the meaning of Psalms 116,16, \"G'd, when I am Your servant, I Your servant, the son of Your handmaid, then You have truly loosened my bonds.\" David says that his bonds have been loosened by his having become G'ds servant. The Jewish nation's stature as a princess amongst the nations of the world, flows directly from its subservience to its G'd. (Deut. 26, 17-18) \"You have acknowledged G'd this day...and the Lord in turn has acknowledged you.\" Our greatness is due to our having enthroned G'd as our Sovereign. There are four areas in which subservience to G'd has to express itself. 1) Since everyone has a tendency to want to be his own master, irrespective of the benevolence of any authority he may find himself under, the Torah states that \"you have expressed the wish that the Lord be with you.\" (26,17) 2) Man does not like to be thought of as a carbon copy of someone else, nor to imitate someone else, robot like. He feels that by doing that he deprives himself of all originality and that he will never be thought of as an independent individual. Man desires to receive credit for action stemming from his own initiative. The book of Kohelet is full of emphasis of the originality of its author's thinking. \"I thought,\" \"I did,\" I concluded\" etc. The desire to \"do one's own thing,\" is so natural that already the Torah refers to it. (Deut 29,18) \"For in the autonomy of my heart I will walk.\" When these tendencies are given up voluntarily by our following the ways of the Lord, (26,17) this is a further expression of the true freedom found in disciplining oneself by recognising the superior wisdom of the Lord. It is not our task to boast about our own way of life, but we are to pursue a way of life in accordance with G'ds instructions. When we read in Genesis 18,18, about Abraham commanding his descendants to perform acts of righteousness, this transforms what would otherwise have been a spontaneous act, an impulsive gesture, into a way of life that serves as a model for the Jew. Denying oneself pork should not stem from a distaste for the product, but should be rooted in G'ds injunction. (Torat Kohanim 9, Parshat Kedoshim) Similarly, in the confession we recite when we offer the tithes for the poor, (Deut 26,14) we emphasize \"I have hearkened to the voice of the Lord my G'd, and have done all You have commanded me.\" 3) It is natural for man not to accept suggestions, instructions etc., when these suggestions do not make sense to him. A classic example is that of Yoav, David's commander-in-chief, who was ordered to conduct a headcount of men eligible for army service. He reacted by demanding a reason for this order, (seeing it was contrary to Torah law) Yoav never carried out the full task, and was involved in what must be considered intentional inaccuracies, (compare different results given in Samuel II chapter 24 and Chronicles I chapter 21) Yoav also failed to count the tribes of Levi and Benjamin. Presumably, lack of adequate performance stemmed from lack of interest in a task that seemed senseless and even counterproductive in Yoav's eyes. When the Torah demands obedience also to statutes that defy our understanding, it says \"and to observe His statutes, commandments and social laws,\" to emphasize that it is the source of the instructions that matter, not their content. 4) Lastly, there are things which run counter to human instinct, and which if performed are seen as inviting hazards to one's health or one's property. A case in point, is the outrage expressed by Navot, when king Achav wants him to trade his ancestral vineyard. In all such situations, the Torah stresses \"and listen to His voice,\" meaning that even when the instructions are completely contrary to our instincts, our freedom expresses itself when we discipline ourselves to listen to G'ds wishes. In these four ways we crown G'd as king over ourselves. But, more than anything, in this way G'd crowns us as king over the remainder of the nations. \"To place you supreme over all the nations.\" (26,17) This latter promise goes beyond the one when Israel became the Lord's \"precious nation and holy people\" at Mount Sinai. The part of the verse saying \"to walk in His ways and to observe His statutes,\" is part of the covenant in return for which Israel was promised to be the highest ranking nation. This makes the Jewish people custodian of \"the way of the Lord,,\" something not entrusted to anyone else. In Psalms 147,19, G'd is described as \"He reveals His words to Jacob, His statutes and social laws to Israel,...He has not done so to any other nation.\" David described the nature of the mutual covenant there. ",
"When the Talmud Berachot describes G'd as also putting on phylacteries, the obvious question asked was what could possibly be written on the parchment in the phylaceries of G'd? The answer given is that that scroll of parchment contains the line \"and who is like Your people Israel, a unique people amongst the nations on earth!\" Clearly, the aggadah in the Talmud reflects this mutuality that we have described as Israel enthroning G'd, and G'd in turn enthroning Israel amongst the nations. ",
"",
"",
"Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah demand that even farmers who live a great distance from Jerusalem bring the bikkurim, first ripe fruit, all the way? Why all the attendant fanfare described in the Mishnah in tractate Bikkurim? 2) Why does the Torah speak about \"you will reply\" in the prayer to be recited when the bikkurim are offered? 3) Why do generations who had not actually \"entered\" the holy land but had been born there, describe themselves as \"I have come to the land You have promised etc.?\" (26,13) 4) Why is Laban's evil plan against an eventual Jewish future recited when nothing in the biblical narrative about Laban's conduct really supports that theory? 5) Why is this the only instance that one has to make a public declaration that one has fulfilled the commandment? ",
"\"And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land... thou shalt take of the first\"",
"(1+3) Since the one thing that distinguishes our people is our acknowledging G'd as the cause of all goodness, we are bidden to state again that our very presence in the holy land is due directly to G'ds doing. The more time that has elapsed since Israel has entered the holy land, the greater the danger that this fact may be forgotten. It therefore becomes progressively more important to remind ourselves of this. There is no better way than at the time when bikkurim; the first ripe produce of each category is being dedicated to G'd in Jerusalem. The more we take ownership of the land of Israel for granted, the greater the need for the ceremony attached to the bikkurim pilgrimage. ",
"It is part of civilised behaviour to giftwrap offerings. Already Joseph's brothers giftwrapped their father Jacob's gift at the time they had been invited to lunch with Joseph. (Genesis 43,25) \"They prepared the gift until Joseph would arrive at noon.\" Therefore, halachah, Jewish law requires that when a variety of species are brought as bikkurim, they must be suitably separated and presented species by species. The basket itself is also an integral part of the whole offering. \"And you shall proceed to the place\" (26,2) indicates, that personal attention is preferable to despatch of a delegate to perform this mitzvah. Since the delegate could not have recited the whole passage of the prayer, (due to the nature of its wording) it is clear that the proper way to perform this mitzvah is by doing it personally. The whole procedure then is a practical demonstration of the \"you have enthroned G'd\" syndrome, a realisation of the verse \"For I will proclaim the name of the Lord, render greatness to our Lord.\" (Deut.32,3) The processional described by the Tossephta, has great psychological significance then. When reading through the statement made on the occasion of presenting the first fruit, it becomes clear that possession of the land is not the result of military conquest, but that the land was a gift from G'd. The priest accepts the basket in the middle of the declaration, i.e. he interrupts the declaration, so as to show that our gratitude needs to be expressed both in general terms (possession of the land) and in specific terms (our personal share of the bounty G'd bestows on this land) (2) The \"you will answer\" is to be understood as the stage following deposition of the basket of fruit before the altar. At that time, the donor invites the people to acknowledge the gift of the land, after which he himself acknowledges the personally experienced bounty of the Lord. (4) The \"confession\" containing a reference to Laban, is to contrast our descent to Egypt with our Exodus. Had it not been for the fact that Jacob had married four daughters of Laban, and that he referred to himself as a blood relation of Laban \"the brother of my mother,\" the hatred and jealousy that existed between the brothers (Jacob's sons and Joseph) could not have been accounted for. As it was, it may have been somewhat hereditary, maternally, since all the brothers were grandsons of the envious and jealous Laban. Had it therefore not been for that blood relationship, Joseph would not have caused his family's eventual bondage in Egypt. He would never have come to Egypt in the first place. Whereas the brothers' descent into Egypt then was caused in no small measure by their own inadequacies, their descendants' exodus had nothing to do with their abilities. However \"the Lord took us out from there.\" It was all G'ds doing. (5) The admission that even the source of individual success flows from the altar, which far from consuming our wealth is its true source, is emphasized by the swinging over the altar of the bikkurim'm the various directions. The word arami, is the word rama-i reversed. Laban is called the arami, since a swindler \"reverses\" the truth. Just as one appreciates a precious stone more if it had been the gift of a high ranking person, its inherent value being enhanced by the recipient's knowledge that he is held in high esteem, so something similar occurs in the case of bikkurim. When the farmer's efforts are crowned with success, he feels as if he is a recipient of a gift from His Maker, the master of the universe. A gift which originates from on high, is doubly treasured. Harvests therefore are celebrated. Vesamachta bechol hatov, you shall rejoice with all the good. (26,11) The way this joy is expressed in practice includes the Levite, the stranger etc. whose status re ownership of the land precludes him from participating directly in this bounty. The generosity displayed at such a time by the Jewish landowner is described in our opening Midrash as the floral contribution made by the bride to the home she establishes with her groom. The groom will, of course, respond by further increasing and matching the gifts already contributed by his bride. ",
"The next paragraph deals with the declaration that all tithes have been duly set aside or paid to the various people entitled to them. This declaration is listed as part of the fulfilment of the injunction \"to walk in all His ways.\" Since harvest festivals have been part of the farming community's way of life since time immemorial, the Torah elevates the practice by making it part of its legislative program. ",
"Some problems in the remainder of the Parshah. ",
"1) Why does the commandment to erect memorial stones after crossing the Jordan seem to be repeated? ((27,2) 2) Why were only twelve commandments singled out for the ceremony of bestowing blessings resp. curses, at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyvol? 3) Why is the prohibition to commit sexual acts with a beast placed between two kinds of incestuous relationships involving humans? 4) If \"cursed be he who does not maintain the words of this Torah,\" is part of these twelve commandments, why are the other eleven listed altogether? 5) Why does the list of blessings not match the list of curses? ",
"Crossing the river Jordan, and thereby commencing the conquest of the land of Canaan was such an important event that it had to be marked by a ceremony leaving an enduring impression, one that all those who had participated in the event would long remember. It was especially important that those who would one day become the elders of the people should be reminded already at this point that the purpose of crossing the Jordan was to enter a land in which all the mitzvot of the Torah could and would be fulfilled. Inscribing of these stones reflected the awareness of that purpose. Just as the elders of each city participated in the bikkurim ceremony of the town's farmers, so the elders of the people together with Moses commanded the people re the setting up of these stones. \"In order that you come,\" (27,3) means \"do it immediately\" so as to speed up your arrival in the land G'd has promised you. Having said this, the Torah proceeds to give details how to treat those stones, building of an altar, what kinds of stones are to be used etc. Verse nine then tells the people that through this initial act they will acquire the strength to carry out all their subsequent tasks. ",
"(2) Concerning the twelve mitzvot singled out for emphasis at the Mount Gerizim assembly, the following is worth noting. Whenever something is accorded special attention or protection, this may be due to either of two causes. A) the subject matter is so vital that its loss is irretrievable; therefore every effort must be made to protect it against loss or damage. Examples are vital human organs such as the heart, lung, liver all of which are surrounded by a protective ribcage as additional protection. B) The subject matter is so fragile and exposed, devoid of defenses that is must be defended from the outside. Examples are the fingers or toes which need nails and gloves to protect them against the cold; the heel has a tough skin to protect it where it treads. Similarly, the Torah has emphasized the protection of the weak, i.e. the stranger, the widow, the orphan. The Torah warns no less than thirty six times against abusing these weaker members of society. The selection of the twelve commandments in question seems to be motivated by similar considerations. 1) The severity of the sin itself. 2) The ease with which one falls victim to the lure to commit this sin. In the latter instance, there may be three immediate causes for a person to commit such a sin. A) The victim is defenseless; B) the sin is so commonly practiced that one does not feel embarassed when committing it. C) lack of self restraint on the part of the sinner. Each of these \"groupings\" is represented by three \"curses.\" Category one comprises the making of idols, physical violence against one's parents, violating other people's property rights, in other words violating the principle of \"love your fellow man as you love yourself.\" Murder is not mentioned, since it is not a crime that the average person is ever guilty of. The second category, -the naturally weak,- are represented by A) misleading the blind; B) depriving widows and orphans of their just deserts; C) taking advantage of the widow of one's father, who may not protest the rape, since for financial reasons she may be dependent on the very step-son who forces his attentions on her. Category three are three examples of sexual licentiousness due to proximity, i.e. easy availability or easily obtained consent by the partner. One example is sleeping with one's sister, the second one is sleeping with one's mother-in-law. The third one is sleeping with one's livestock. (3) The reason the latter example is positioned between the other examples of incest, is to indicate that the Torah assumes a different motive for sleeping with one's mother-in-law than for sleeping with one's widowed step mother. The last category that of 1) hitting a fellow human being when there are no witnesses, 2) accepting bribes to murder the innocent, and 3) failing to see to it that Torah legislation is observed, can be viewed in the following manner. The first two sins appeared inconsequential to the sinner since he feels protected by the secrecy surrounding his deed. Our sages even regard the instance of \"hitting someone in a secret place\" as referring to lashon hara, evil tongue. (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 53) In such a case, the perpetrator certainly does not realise the impact of what he has done. (4) At any rate, the perpetrator hides behind a facade of piety, wishes to be known as a pillar of society. Concerning all such people, the Torah comes out and says \"cursed all those who do not maintain and support the words of this Torah.\" Whosoever occupies a position that enables him to strengthen Torah must do so personally, first and foremost. When we turn to the list of blessings promised for observing the commandments, we find three apparently superfluous comments by Moses, interspersed in the blessings cited. A) 28,2, \"all these blessings will reach you as a result of listening to Me.\" B) 28,9, \"G'd will establish you as a holy nation when you observe the mitzvot and walk in all His ways.\" C) 28,13, \"G'd will make you top not bottom, when you listen.\" In view of the fact that verse one had already included all that is repeated in the three quotations just listed, the repetition may reflect that at that point a certain collective moral progress had been successfully completed. It is possible to absorb Torah teachings, live accordingly, without acting out of any deep seated conviction of the truth and validity of these teachings. This stage is concluded by what is said in verse two \"having listened to the voice etc.\" Once one has adopted the Torah way of life, and the performance of good deeds has become habitual, such a lifestyle begins to influence the person living it, beneficially. This stage is concluded and rewarded by verse nine \"as a result of your observing etc.\" The final stage in the progression towards becoming the personality the Torah wishes to shape, is when the student's personality is the result of having assimilated all the teachings and following same to elevate him to a level of perception of his purpose in life that he had not previously even dreamed of. At that point, as per verse thirteen, \"G'd will make you head etc.\" When this development has been completed, Moses is able to say with confidence (verse 14) \"you will not depart from all the things that I command you.\" The message of the blessing stands out clearly. A Torah personality does not mature overnight. It develops gradually. The help extended by Heaven along the way is roughly proportionate to the distance towards the objective one has already travelled. The way is paved initially by an easing of one's financial problems. (Verse two, the blessings that will be conferred are material) The second stage will be attended by spiritual blessings, (i.e. verse nine \"a holy nation\") The third and last stage will be reached when G'd fulfils the promise in verse twelve, \"He will open all His store of goodness to you.\" When the nations of the world will witness the ongoing \"boom\" conditions in Israel, this will testify that the Jewish nation is \"a great and wise nation,\" (Deut. 4,6) something that Torah quotes the gentiles as saying. The gentiles are impressed by an ongoing economic miracle, ascribe it to Israel's sagacity. ",
"Should Israel choose to ignore the covenant, then, as in our opening Midrash when the mistress removes her dowry from the common treasury, the husband will be forced to take back his own contribution. The result will be tragedy. The remarkable thing in this admonition, as distinct from the one at the end of the book of Leviticus is, that Moses does not mention desolation of the land of Israel, respite of the land on account of the shemittah years not observed, the destruction of the Temple, or the removal of G'ds presence from the holy land. Also the repeated references to Jews, once exiled, as serving idols, are quite different from anything we have read in Leviticus. There is also the threat that Jews will only survive in small numbers. ",
"",
"When man descends from a high ethical plateau, the descent is the reverse of his previous ascent. Since we have shown that the high moral level had been achieved only in stages, gradually, it stands to reason that the descent if and when it occurs, would also be gradual. At the beginning one still performs the ritual of tradition, but only because it is tradition. Its hold on the personality of the person performing it has already been weakened. Later on, one gives up habits which have become devoid of inner meaning. Finally, one abandons even the theory the \"Jewish concept\" that had once had the power to prompt one to perform mitzvot not only in spirit but in deed. Verse fifteen already states that Israel will experience full retribution. Verse sixteen begins by listing the calamities that will befall the nation following departure from the path of mitzvot. There are three groups of calamities. The first group begins with: \"G'd will afflict you with cholera fever.\" (28,20) The second group begins with: \"the skies will be leaden.\" (28,23) The third group begins with: \"you will fall before your enemies.\" (28,25) After that there follows a long list of personal afflictions designed to frighten the reader. All this is to emphasize how many and varied are the catastrophies both on a national and on an individual level that the Jewish people had never been exposed to, due to G'ds Personal Providence. This Personal Providence had been extended in order to help them to observe Torah laws with minimal inconvenience and from sheltered conditions. The negative chain reaction works as follows. When mitzvot are neglected, Providence is withdrawn. This makes it harder to observe mitzvot, and increases the pressure of worldly affairs. This in turn leads to further neglect of Torah, resulting in people forgetting what they had once known. One will lose one's self esteem, become enslaved to others both spiritually and materially. All of this is due to the fact that one did not serve G'd joyfully, \"with joy and good heartedness\" (28,47). The \"measure for measure\" then is, instead of serving the Lord acknowledging Him as the source of our affluence, you will serve your enemies because you are completely destitute. Having undergone a number of indignities, (28,64) you will be scattered all over the earth. Since the return from Babylon had not really been a true redemption, real independence never having been achieved again, the tochacha, admonition only mentions interludes by again referring to \"if you do not observe to carry out.\" (28,58) If during the many years of your stay in your own country, and despite the suffering absorbed, you continue in your obstinacy, you will wind up suffering the kind of plagues the Egyptians suffered. (28,60) The references to our present diaspora are clear inasmuch as they include subservience to a people of a completely foreign tongue, residing far away from the land of Israel. When the Torah talks about the original exile, it mentions only that our king would be taken captive together with us, to a place unknown to us where we would be forced to worship idols of wood and stone. However, when referring to the second exile, the description includes attempts to assimilate to the various host nations, endeavours which will not yield margoah, a sense of calm, but will eventually result in a return to our original values. Also, one of the features of the long exile will be the fear for our lives which will be constantly present, at least in some Jews in exile. (28,66) All this is in contrast with the ten tribes, who were able to either return or submerge and thus escape further persecution. ",
"Since the land had basically been destroyed already after the fall of the first Temple, and G'ds presence had already departed in large measure, and whatever restoration had taken place had involved only a small fraction of the people, these factors are not listed again in this chapter. ",
"The fact that the entire lengthy chapter is read without interruption, i.e. no one is called up during the reading of it, indicates G'ds sorrow at what had to occur, and that He wants it completed without delay. Benedictions are not to be offered to Him at a time when the name of His firstborn people is being dragged through the mud. In this way, G'd manifests that as long as Israel is in exile, so is His holy Presence. The passage stating that Israel has not been given an understanding heart until that day, (29,3) seems to refer to G'd visiting retribution on all of Israel's enemies, in a manifestation that is clear to one and all. It is quite inconceivable that a generation referred to as \"the generation of insight,\" did not mature until the fortieth year of their wanderings. In summation, the whole Parshah is an expression of the G'd/ Israel relationship described in our opening Midrash, listing the respective contributions made by each partner to this relationship. "
]
],
[
[
"On the legality of committing unborn generations to a code of conduct adopted by their ancestors. (\"Not with you alone do I conclude this covenant etc.\" (Deut 29,13) ",
"\"Neither with you only do I make this covenant\"",
"Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Nizavim states: When the Jews at the time of Ezekiel wanted to divest themselves of the yoke of the Torah, they approached the prophet on the anniversary of the temple's destruction and asked him: \"Does a slave purchased by a priest have the right to eat terumah, tithes reserved for the priest?\" The prophet replied that such a slave may indeed eat terumah in the house of his master. They then asked if the slave may continue to eat such terumah even if he has left the domain of the priest, such as when the priest has sold him? Ezekiel answered that in that case the relationship has ceased and the slave may not eat terumah To which the people replied: \"We too have left the domain of G'd, our former Master, who has sold us.\" Ezekiel said to them: \"The thing that is on your mind, namely to become like the other gentile nations, will never come about. G'd has sworn an oath that even if He has to rule over you with force and fury, you belong to Him by reason of that oath.\" That is why He maintains you as a nation even to this day ,”...quoting the above verse from Parshat Nitzavim regarding the as yet unborn generations. Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmeni added: \"Why are the as yet unborn generations not described as not yet standing here this day, but rather as simply not present? Because, though their bodies are not yet part of the Jewish people entering the covenant, their souls are present already this day.\" ",
"It is logical that a person cannot impose on untold numbers of future generations, obligations that he himself had only assumed by a voluntary vow. Such a vow can obligate those descendants who agree to continue to honour it. Although, biologically speaking, the son is of the flesh and blood of the father, such bonds tend to grow weaker from generation to generation. When applying this comparison to the relationship between the personalities of parents and their children, not only are there dissimilarities already in the first generation, but within a few generations it will be impossible to trace such a personality likeness at all. Ezekiel makes it plain in chapter eighteen, that if parents eat unripe grapes, the children cannot be expected to suffer the consequences. Kohelet 4,8, is at pains to explain the uniqueness of each personality. If children cannot be held responsible for the sins of their progenitors, how could fathers impose their will on subsequent generations? Whenever our sages tell us that unborn generations were bound by the oath mentioned in our Parshah, they are careful to emphasize that the souls of those generations had in fact been present at the time the oath was pronounced, and they became committed due to their souls having been present. However, this concept requires clarification, since the obligation to perform mitzvot requires both body and soul. The Torah was given so that \"Adam\" should be able to live by it. \"Adam\" in this case is synonymous with \"Man.\" (Leviticus 18,5) The term \"Adam\" is only applicable to a being possessed of both body and soul. Since halachah, Jewish law, teaches that obligations cannot be imposed upon anyone unless he is present and expresses his consent, and that even the conversion of a minor to Judaism under the auspices of a proper Bet Din, Jewish Court, has to be reconfirmed upon that minor attaining the age of thirteen, (Ketuvot 18) how much more would the consent of someone be required that had not even been born at the time the obligation had been imposed upon him? The Talmud in Berachot 58, rules that when one finds oneself in the presence of six hundred thousand people, one needs to recite a benediction. The reason seems to be that when in the presence of such a large gathering, all possible permutations of both body and mind must be present, so that one has viewed all mankind, so to speak. If this is so, then the two occasions when the Jewish people accepted G'ds covenant made it impossible for a Jew of a subsequent generation to argue that his exact counterpart had not already accepted that very same covenant he was now being asked to live up to. The problem with this kind of reasoning need not be elaborated. Another difficulty surrounding our subject is verse thirty five in Jeremiah chapter thirty one. \"If these ordinances ( sun as a source of light by day, moon and stars as sources of light at night) depart from before Me, says the Lord, then the offspring of Israel shall also cease from being a nation before Me, forever.\" The reading of that chapter suggests that only a complete suspension of all the laws of nature could sever the bond that exists between Israel and its G'd. ",
"If we interpret the above to mean that Israel will be physically unable to break the covenant of its forefathers, the fact that throughout the ages large segments of our people have always defied the rules of the Torah, is mystifying. Also, if we cannot contravene the laws of the Torah physically, what about the concept of free will upon which the entire system of reward and punishment is built? Again, if G'd feels compelled to threaten retaliation for nonobservance of His laws, there evidently cannot be a question of physical inability to transgress these laws! Furthermore, if G'd had the power to make us live up to the covenant, threats of chastisement seem pointless. From all the above, we feel that it is clear that the matter of the oath needs to be understood somewhat differently from the manner most commentators have presented it. We must also subscribe to the notion that the eternal existence of the Jewish people as well as their special status amongst the nations is not tied to the observance or non observance of the covenant, but rather that it is anchored in the very nature of this people, which will not change even when defying the covenant. Although the impulse for self-destruction is abnormal, unnatural, G'd has seen fit to legislate against the commission of suicide, assuming that such legislation might dissuade a few people bent on self-destruction. The rare phenomenon of wilful self-destruction does not undermine the will of the vast majority to remain alive. Similarly, the estrangement of the nation from its G'd cannot be brought about by the desertion of a few, since the bond tying it to its G'd is far too deeply rooted in history. The following parable will illustrate the whole subject more clearly. A certain highly intelligent and courageous young man who successfully confronted his less highly principled peers, became the object of his peers' hatred. They did everything to make the young man's life unbearable until the young man sought refuge at the King's Court. There he was placed under Royal protection. The young man thereupon concentrated his abilities and energies on performing a series of duties for the king, until the latter decided to grant him a special status in recognition of his selfless devotion. The king entered into an agreement with the young man whereby his special status would also extend to his descendants, on the understanding that such descendants would keep faith with the king, and would continue to perform the duties assigned to them. The young man was overjoyed by this generous offer, and accepted with alacrity. For several generations the descendants of the young man prospered and kept their part of their ancestor's bargain. The fifth generation, having become extremely wealthy, decided that the services rendered to the king had become too onerous, and refused to carry out the terms of the agreement their forefather had entered into. Their complaint was directed at their forefather, whom they accused of having committed them to a life of servitude to the king. They therefore claimed the right of self determination, and the freedom to decide for themselves whom they would recognise as their Master. The king was quite agreeable, pointing out however, that since the family's obligations were being terminated, so was his own undertaking to grant this family special protection against its natural enemies, and to ensure its continued affluence. As soon as all the former enemies heard about the changed relationship of that family and the king, they resumed harassing the family with devastating results. No one in their right mind would accuse the king of having punished that family. Everyone understands that whatever evil befell that family from that time on had been their own doing, that they had only themselves to blame. Applied to the Jewish people, the comparison is quite simple. Jacob, choicest of our ancestors, had incurred the wrath of Esau, the jealousy of Laban, the enmity of the Canaanites around Shechem, and had led a life of frequent upheavals, daily skirmishes until he took refuge under the wings of the shechinah. (Genesis 35,8) \"The Lord who has answered me on the day of my distress.\" Because his way of life had found favour in the eyes of G'd, He assured Jacob of protection against his enemies, and this support continued throughout the generations, (see beginning of Parshat Vayetze) The promise was spelled out in detail at Mount Sinai, (Exodus 19,5) when the condition \"now you must hearken to My voice and observe My covenant etc\" was made a prerequisite for this continued protection and special status of the Jewish people. These conditions were further emphasized in Deuteronomy 26,15-19, when the reciprocal relationship between Israel and G'd is repeated in clear and unmistakable language. If subsequent generations would repudiate the deal made by their ancestors by worshipping idols and other acts of disloyalty to their erstwhile king, then the ill fate that would befall them could not be described as punishment by that king. On the contrary, they would be considered the architects of their own misfortune, especially, since G'd is on record as withdrawing the special status this people had enjoyed heretofore. The crucial aspect of the eternal nature of the covenant is, that just as mass suicide committed by a whole people simultaneously is unthinkable, so the alienation of the entire Jewish people from its Torah and its G'd simultaneously, is equally beyond the realm of possibility. When the Talmud in Shabbat 88, discusses the coercion used by G'd in order to get the Jewish people to accept the Torah at Sinai on pain of immediate burial under the Mountain, Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov raises the issue of the validity of acceptance under duress. This issue is raised concerning the people standing at the foot of the mountain. How much more would this question apply to later generations who had not even been present on that occasion! Those later generation who had not experienced liberation from bondage in Egypt, had far less reason to accept the Torah out of a sense of gratitude for their deliverance! The argument in the Talmud is turned aside by a reference to the Jewish people accepting Torah completely voluntarily at the time of their deliverance from the threat of extinction by Haman. That acceptance is deemed binding for all future generations. That so-called voluntary acceptance was induced by the realisation that if G'd were to forsake them, their very existence would come to an end, as had been demonstrated by their experience with Haman. The latter had almost succeeded in wiping out a nation that had considered itself both secure and emancipated. When the wording of the covenant in Parshat Nitzavim stresses that the covenant did not only apply to the generation of the Exodus, but to all subsequent generations, the reference to the generation of the Exodus teaches that even that generation did not have to accept Torah out of a sense of gratitude, but rather because Torah had become a natural habitat for the Jewish people, just as water is for fish or blood for the body. \"She is a tree of life to those who support her.\" (Proverbs 3,18) Just as G'd had promised never to bring another deluge, since conditions would not be allowed to recur which would call for such mass extinction, so conditions allowing a total rupture between Israel and its G'd would also not be allowed to recur. This is what the oath in our Parshah wishes to convey. Jeremiah 31,16, quoted earlier, describes a situation which is possible in theory, since all physical phenomena have measurable finite dimensions. Since the effort in actually taking those measurements is mind boggling, so is the idea of G'd despising the entire Jewish people. Isaiah 54, 9-10, may be understood in a similar vein. ",
"Denial of the covenant, or breaking the oath, can occur in different ways. If the entire Jewish people were to suffer a relapse and deny basic Jewish truths, rejecting G'd and His Torah in its entirety, this would be the event that we have described as impossible to occur in practice. Alternately, the entire nation might fail to observe the terms of the covenant, without however, rejecting it in principle or out of conviction. Again, similar distinctions can be made in the case of individual Jews failing to observe the covenant. Non observance may simply be due to the weakness of the flesh, not to any philosophical considerations. This latter kind of non observance has occurred throughout the ages. It has resulted in our national misfortunes, hence the classic warnings of the Tochachah, see Leviticus chapter twenty six. In that same chapter, G'd spells out the fact that in spite of all these dreadful prophecies coming true, He will not sever His covenant with the Jewish people. This is proof that there will be at all times at least some Jews who will return to the traditional observances and seek rapprochment with G'd. (Deut. 4,31) \"For He will not forget the covenant with your fathers that he had sworn to them.\" This is a proclamation that this is an unalterable historical fact. ",
"",
"\"Ye are standing this day all of you before the LORD your God\" etc. \"that thou shouldest enter into the covenant of the LORD\" etc. \"that He may establish thee this day unto Himself for a people, and that He may be unto thee a God\" etc.",
"The question posed by the Jews in the twentieth chapter of Ezekiel, was asked by believing Jews, since the parable they use begins with describing G'd as their Master, i.e. \"they came to enquire from the merciful G'd.\" They wanted to know whether in view of their Master having sold them, the basic relationship between G'd and the Jewish people had undergone a change. It was this possibility that Ezekiel denied so vehemently. He explained that G'ds intent was merely to exercise His rule over them through making them suffer privations. Re-establishment of the former \"loving care\" relationship could begin only after repentance of their abominable deeds. The references in that chapter to what had occurred in the desert after the Exodus, are only to stress that just as at that time the eternal character of the Israel/G'd relationship had not been severed, so there would once again come a time when Israel would learn the error of its ways and then an in-gathering of the exiles could take place. ",
"Individual heresy, discussed in our Parsha also, (29,17 et al) may be understood thus. Man is compared to the tree of the field (Deut. Just as a garden may contain many trees, some bearing fruit though poisonous, although all are drawing their nourishment from the same brook flowing nearby, so the waters of Torah too, being the source of our sustenance do not produce the same results in all people. Where there is a rotten core, even the purest form of nourishment can become contaminated. Our Parshah deals with individuals who may have a rotten core, in whom even the study of Torah sooner or later leads to undesirable results. This is why the Talmud in Chullin 133, tells us that students of bad character should not be given instruction, as it would be foolish to accord honour to a fool, or worse still, to further heresy. The fool is he who professes to believe that the strictures we read in the Torah apply only to believers, to people who had first affirmed the tenets of the Jewish religion. They think that those who have never accepted the Torah as a yardstick for their personal conduct, are exempt from G'ds retribution. It is to such individuals that the Torah addresses itself in our chapter. Contrary to what they think, such people will be singled out for special attention. They would not even be able to enjoy the blessings bestowed by G'd on His people due to the people's overwhelmingly loyal adherence to G'd and His Torah. In verse eighteen, the thought processes of the evil hearted people are described. \"In order that the well watered confer its benefit on the dry by mere proximity.\" The Torah describes the following scenario: Two fields thrive, due to the presence nearby of a natural water supply. A third field nearby requires artificial irrigation. The owner of the third field, relying on the proximity of his field to the other two which enjoy a natural source of water supply, neglects to irrigate his field by failing to install the necessary mechanism. The Torah, by describing the punishment of such a farmer as particularly harsh, i.e. \"He will wipe out his name,\" (29,19) stresses that this kind of penalty is reserved for individuals. In exploding the myth that since the community will prosper, the individual cannot suffer regardless of his conduct, the Torah merely applies to Israel the promise of G'd after the deluge. Likewise, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had taught this lesson about evil minded communities. The Torah completes the chapter by explaining that the function of the Jewish Court of Law is to act as G'ds representative for crimes committed publicly, but that transgressions which occur in private, and cannot be dealt with by the judiciary, will be taken care of by G'd personally. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee\" etc. \"and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice\".",
"The Talmud in Berachot 34, discusses the relative merit of the repentant sinner and the righteous. Rabbi Chiyah says that all the prophets prophesied their rosy visions of the future only for the repentant sinner. Concerning the righteous however, (the ones who had never sinned) \"no human eye has beheld the glorious future in store for them; only the Almighty Himself has envisioned that.\" This view differs from that of Rabbi Abahu, who said \"wherever a repentant sinner stands, even the perfectly righteous are not able to stand.\" Scriptural proof is cited from Isaiah 57,19 : \"Peace, Peace, unto the distant and unto the one close by.\" The \"distant\" is greeted first, only subsequently the \"near one.\" How does Rabbi Chiyah interpret this verse? He says that \"distant\" means someone who had remained distant from sin, whereas \"near one\" means the ones who are close to sin. ",
"When G'd created the universe, He created three levels of creatures. A) The totally abstract intelligent beings form the highest layer. B) All the bodies in outer space form the middle layer. C) The lowest layer of creatures, i.e. everything here on earth. All three layers of creations share certain basic phenomena. 1) They exist. 2) They endure. 3) They possess a degree of perfection. Naturally, the closer the creation is to its original Creator, the greater the measure of the aforementioned attributes such creations possess. We on earth on the other hand, having been fashioned out of dust, enjoy very little in the way of an enduring existence, our only claim to eternity being our continuity as a species. The degree of perfection that we do enjoy is also limited, due to the imperfect nature of the materials used in fashioning us. In spite of the best efforts of the finest craftsmen to improve, beautify and enhance whatever there is on this earth, their efforts only achieve an improvement in the external appearance vis a vis its natural state. Our basic position in the universe is not improved vis a vis the planets or the disembodied spirits. Any discussion of closeness to or distance from the Creator, can be meaningful only if one remains aware that our position in the universe will remain that of being the most remote from the Creator. Man, alone of all the creatures in the universe is found in two spheres. Physically, we undoubtedly belong to the third realm, whereas spiritually, we belong to the first realm. Man alone, thanks to being in possession of a free will, is able to anchor himself more and more firmly in the first realm, in direct ratio to his efforts to gain deeper insights. As a result, he will also improve his character, personality, and become closer to the inhabitants of the first realm. All this is possible in spite of the fact that man was last in the order of creation, and therefore furthest removed from the Essence of the Creator. \"He blew a soul into man.\" (Genesis 2,7) By this act, the Creator established as close a relationship with man as exists between the creatures of the first realm and Himself. In this manner man became equal to both the first and the third realm of creation, simultaneously. Man alone, of all that has been created, is therefore motivated to escape death and oblivion, to seek the source of eternal life and cling to it with all his might. At least that is the path taken by man when he lives according to the wishes of his Creator. We find the expression halach, he walked, used in connection with most outstanding people, since their lives represented constant progress, movement towards a goal, an objective. \"Enoch walked with the Lord.\" (Genesis 5,22) When one feels distant, one tries to come closer. Finally, when one has reached one's goal of closeness to G'd, we read \"for the Lord took him.\" (ibid) Noach was a similarly motivated person. \"Noach walked with G'd .\" (Genesis 6,9) Of the ancestors, collectively, the Torah testifies \"your forefathers walked in front of Me.\" (Genesis 48,15) Abraham is commanded by G'd: \"walk in front of Me and become perfect,\" (Genesis 17,1) after he had already practiced walking for many years. Clearly, all this \"walking\" had been inspired by original man's (Adam) failure to move forward. In fact, when Adam heard the voice of the Lord \"walking\" in the garden, he \"hid himself;\" he did not even try to keep in step with G'd. (Genesis 3,8) When the Torah reports Amram marrying Yochebed, this is described by the words \"a man from the house of Levi walked and married a daughter of Levi.\" (Exodus 2,1) The choice of the expression \"walked\" could symbolise that this act was a great movement forward in terms of the condition of the Jewish people at that time. Even Yitro appreciated the meaning of Torah when he said to Moses \"you will inform them of the way they should walk.\" (Exodus The Torah asks us innumerable times to follow the footsteps of G'd, or to \"walk\" in its ways. (Torah) The prophet Elijah perhaps illustrates this quest of constant movement towards G'd, best. We always encounter him as being on the move, until finally, G'd takes him unto Him. Unfortunately, not many people appreciate their mission, and act in a way that facilitates such movement towards G'd. Even some people who have set out on the right way, get sidetracked. This is the meaning of the verse \"the ways of the Lord are straight; the just walk along them, whereas the sinners will be tripped up by them.\" (Hoseah 14,10) There are obstacles on the path toward achieving closeness with G'd that only the righteous can overcome. (The author proves these points by more quotations) ",
"Since man's purpose therefore cannot be achieved without valiant effort on his part, and we observe more people regressing rather than progressing, the Lord, in His infinite wisdom created the vehicle of repentance. This will give those who have erred along the way a chance to return to the proper path. Each group of people,- in accordance with their respective characteristics,- is given a chance to do repentance accordingly. The best kind of baal teshuvah, penitent sinner, is the person or group of persons who is constantly worried about having committed a sin, and who therefore repents instantly, as soon as he becomes aware of an error committed. Such people seek to prove their having repented by exposing themselves to circumstances similar to the ones in which they had previously failed. In this fashion they can prove the viability of their repentance. Another type of baal teshuvah is the sinner who is aware of errors committed, but who lacks a sense of urgency and needs to be prodded into active repentance. Such people call on the Priests and the Levites for guidance in order to find the way back to Hashem. Then there is the third group of sinners, who do not consider repentance until the consequences of their sins have caught up with them, and they have discovered that the path they had chosen for themselves was useless. ",
"The Talmud in Kiddushin 39, says that if one sits still, does not commit a sin, this is equivalent to having performed a mitzvah, a commendable deed. What is meant is that if a person resists the lure of the aveyrah, the transgression, the struggle involved in resisting the temptation is the mitzvah. Isaiah 33,15, lists a number of accomplishments that consist of not doing certain things. Included are such things as refraining from accepting bribes, not oppressing the defenseless etc. Such people tower above their peers (verse 16) \"they live in lofty places.\" This proves that one can attain a degree of perfection by simply refraining from perpetrating sinful acts one used to perpetrate. It is true, that under normal circumstances, the baal teshuvah enjoys three advantages over the perfectly righteous person. 1) His actions are more convincing, stemming as they do from an inner struggle. They are performed with deeper consciousness of their significance. 2) He acts with a greater sense of urgency, does not postpone taking action, since he is aware of the obstacles that had to be overcome to make him ready to perform the good deed. 3) Even those good deeds he has not yet performed due to lack of opportunity, are considered as good as having been performed. We are told in Kiddushin 40, that G'd gives credit for the good intention of performing the good deed, not only for the good deed itself. This means that there are occasions when the good intention alone is equal in value to the mitzvah had it been performed. The amazement expressed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi about this, was resolved by a Heavenly voice telling him that a baal teshuvah may earn the title \"Rabbi\" even posthumously. Abraham who had prepared Isaac for slaughter was also rewarded as if he had in fact carried out the deed. This is the meaning of G'd saying \"now I know that you are G'd fearing; for you have not withheld your only son from Me.\" (Genesis 2,12) The Rabbis comment that Isaac's ashes had lain in front of G'd. (Berachot 62) It is the quality of the mitzvah which is so important when the baal teshuvah performs it. Vet there are basic distinctions in the motivation of penitence experienced by different baaley teshuvah. A sinner whose pentitence is based on fear of punishment, accomplishes through his penitence that his intentional sins are now considered as having been committed unintentionally, as having been merely errors, whereas a sinner who recognises the folly of his ways and desires true closeness to G'd, has all his erstwhile sins transformed into meritorious acts. (Resh Lakish, Yuma 86) When we read in Kiddushin 39, that a man sitting down not committing a sin is considered as having performed a mitzvah, this refers to the repentant sinner who previously would not have missed an opportunity to indulge in that transgression. \"Sitting\" must be considered as \"sitting down again although he had already risen in order to commit that sin. Conquering his temptation is what makes this sitting down equivalent to performing a mitzvah. After listing a number of non events such as not lending money for interest, not taking bribes, not slandering, Psalm 15,4, concludes by stating \"he who does these will never waver.\" We see that on occasion inaction can be the height of perfection. Philosophers who state that perfection attained at birth is superior to perfection attained after much effort spent on refinement, have a point; however, the Torah viewpoint is based on the concept of \"the reward is in direct ratio to the effort expended and pain experienced in order to perform that particular mitzvah \"G’d decides which effort deserves what degree of credit. This is what Rabi Abahu's statement is all about. He does not disagree with Rabbi Chiyah. The latter is concerned with one's distance from sin, whereas Rabbi Abahu is concerned with the effort expended in not succumbing. A parable may illustrate the point. ",
"",
"A king commissioned two artists to decorate the walls of his throne room, setting a time limit for completion of the task. The first artist, true to his reputation, set to work immediately and completed beautiful murals in good time. The second artist allowed most of the allotted time to elapse without even commencing the work on his side of the throne room. When he finally realised that time was running out on him, and that he could not hope to match his colleague, he decided to polish and silver the walls he had been commissioned to paint so that they would reflect the images portrayed on the walls that his colleague had decorated. He hung a curtain across the room, and when the king inspected the work of the first artist he was favourably impressed and profuse in his praise. When the second artist took the king to inspect his handiwork,- the curtain still dividing the two halves of the room,- the king became noticeably angry, failing to be impressed by polished blank walls. Thereupon the artist removed the curtain, and suddenly those two walls were filled with the perfect reflection of the murals of the first artist. The king rewarded the second artist even more handsomely, having been impressed by that artist's genius and the circumstances that occasioned it. This illustrates that although the work of the first artist was undoubtedly the superior accomplishment from the standpoint of originality, the latter had required the greater effort in order to achieve a similar image. The king realised that only careful groundwork had enabled the second artist to project a major mural on to his walls instantly. The reward paid him was in recognition of his inventiveness as well as his effort to compensate for his former laxity. ",
"In our Parshah, Moses presents a threefold picture of the moral platform of the Jewish people, parallel to what emerged at creation. Then we had three stages. 1) Adam as he had been in Eden before the sin. 2) Adam after the sin, when he hid from G'd, having absorbed sin into his system. 3) Adam's quest for forgiveness for 130 years after having heard the penalty that had been decreed. Our Parshah begins at that point. \"You are standing today upright in the presence of the Lord your G'd.” Just as Adam had stood upright in Paradise, so the Jewish people had their hour of being able to stand upright before the Lord. All man had to do at that time was to bridge the natural gap between him and G'd, since he did contain matter that came from that part of creation most remote from the pure Spirit. However, when under the guidance of \"your elders, your judges, your tribal heads,\" the attainment of closeness to G'd would seem assured. The message is that leadership can accomplish for the nation, what virtues accomplish for the individual in this context. In this context, the word \"head\" refers to the intellectual leadership; \"elders\" refers to leadership by those who no longer allow their yetzer hara, evil urge to dominate them. \"Police\" refers to the ability to retain one's composure even when under provocation. (The task of the police is to maintain discipline) Moses goes on to say \"every Jewish man\". He means that anyone who is guided by the four principles we have listed, qualifies for the title \"a Jewish man.\" There were also present all those that had not yet matured, i.e. \"your children, your wives, your strangers;\" the latter are on the threshold of attaining their perfection and are all \"marching\" along with the covenant of G'd. (Deut 29, 9-11) ",
"Even the as yet unborn will all succeed in their allotted task, if they will heed the same principles. (verse 14) In stage number two, Moses addresses himself to the few who instead of coming closer to G'd, remove themselves further and further from Him, until He exiles them and they taste the result of their estrangement. Having described the nation in its constituent parts and state of near perfection, Moses proceeds (verse 15) to express the fear that even at this stage the odd person might suffer a relapse and return to the corrupt Egyptian ways. Such individuals might comfort themselves by the thought that by reason of their belonging to the meritorious majority, their individual misdeeds would go unheeded. Moses therefore emphasizes that such individuals will not escape the wrath of G'd, and would be dealt with in accordance with the punishments listed in the previous section of the Torah. Moses describes that if the estrangement from G'd should become wholesale and lead to banishment of the people from their land, a teshuvah movement will commence amongst the exiles. Since this represents a return to G'd, G'd in turn will reciprocate with an ingathering of the exiles to the land of our inheritance, until, eventually, G'd will be doing even more for us than He has done for our forefathers. (30,1-10) Exile from the land of Israel, is the natural consequence of wilful estrangement from G'd and His Torah. The teshuvah discussed here is that of the nation as a whole, just as the estrangement though initially comprising only a few individuals, had gradually embraced the nation as a whole, with the resultant devastation described in our chapter. Once started on the road to rapprochement with G'd, the latter will also reverse the process of physical removal from the land. A man who is desperately sick and rejects all food intake due to a feeling of revulsion, will die unless he overcomes his distaste for food, and summons up enough willpower to eat at least a little. Once he has eaten a little, the newly supplied energy will make it easier for him to eat more and thus regain more of his former strength. In this way we can understand Isaiah chapter 55, who at first glance appears to contradict Moses. In Deut. 4,29, Moses seems to make successful establishment of the bond between Israel and G'd dependent on Israel making the first move. Isaiah 55,6, on the other hand, seems to say that there are moments when G'd is approachable regardless of human input. The fact is, that there is no contradiction here at all. Moses addresses himself to the beginning of the penitence process; at that time there has to be an input by the sinner. Isaiah speaks of the continuation of the penitence process, the second stage as it were. The first stage arrests the ongoing estrangement from G'd; the second stage concerns itself with the rapprochement to G'd. Our chapter thirty in Parshat Nitzavim deals with three stages of the penitence process and the respective responses by G'd. Each stage represents a higher and more comprehensive level of penitence, followed by a correspondingly greater response from G'd. Each level of teshuva, stems from loftier motivations. Isaiah 46,2, makes the point that when a beast is loaded down with idols, it must shake off its load in order to survive. If, on the other hand, a beast is loaded with fodder, shaking off its load will expose it to death by starvation. On the contrary, the taking on of additional supplies will enable the beast to complete its trek through the desert successfully. Jews in exile who want to shake off the yoke of the Torah will only advance the day of their total destruction. However, if they increase their burden in the knowledge that they carry the seeds of their survival, they will gradually become stronger and ultimately overcome their exile. The message of our Parshah is that teshuvah has to begin due to one's feeling afflicted. It will bring redemption in its wake. Since the mitzvah of teshuvah is so powerful in its ramifications, one could have assumed that one would have to ascend to Heaven to secure it. But Moses tells us, that it is not so difficult to attain, the matter is very close at hand, \"you can perform it with your mouth and with your heart.\" (30,11-14) "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"I have placed life and goodness before you this day.\" ",
"The Talmud Nedarim 39, reports that seven things were created prior to the universe itself. They are: Torah, Teshuvah, the gan Eden, Gehinnom, G'ds throne, the holy Temple and the name of the Messiah. Scriptural proof is provided. Concerning the Torah it is written \"The Lord made me at the beginning of His ways.\" (Proverbs 8,22) Concerning Teshuvah, it is written \"before mountains were born and the earth suffered birthpangs, You turn man to contrition and say \"return, ye children of man!\" (Psalms 90,3) Of the garden of Eden (Genesis 2,8) it is said: \"and the Lord planted a garden in Eden heretofore.\" Concerning Gehinnom it is written (Isaiah 30,33) \"For Tophet in the valley of Hinnom has been prepared of old. He made it very deep; the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord kindles it like a stream of brimstone.\" Of the throne of G'd it is said: (Psalms 93,2) \"Your throne is firmly established from time immemorial.\" Of the holy Temple it is written in Jeremiah 17,22: \"on high from the beginning, the place of Your sanctuary.\" Of the name of the Messiah it states (Psalms 72,17) \"His name continues since prior to the sun.\" ",
"Every intelligent human being realises that there are two ways of looking at life. Either one considers life as we live it to be the real thing, considering physical pleasures and joys as the purpose of it, or one looks beyond the obvious. If one believes that the few short years we have on this earth is what life is all about, then we are dead already while we are still \"alive.\" Alternately, if one realises that all true life is inspired by G'd, and one bases one's lifestyle on that premise, one acquires true life already during one's physical existence. The former view is held by the vast majority of people, who by adopting a lifestyle based on that view, anger the Creator. The latter view, resulting in a lifestyle that prepares for the \"beyond\", has been practiced by the few truly good people since time immemorial. Eternal life is acquired for one's soul in return for living correctly while possessed of a body. David expressed this view when he said \"Indeed, I possessed the faith that I would see the good land of life.\" (Psalms 27,13) Similarly, in chapter 34,13-15, \"he who goes on looking for \"good\" is the morally sound individual who aims at life's perpetuation.\" Those select people realised that attainment of the \"good\", is the ultimate aim in life, not that the so-called \"life\" is the zenith of what we call \"good.\" It is in this context that we understand Psalms 116,15, \"precious to G'd is the death of the righteous,\" since their departure from earth signals their entry into the portals of eternal life. ",
"The greatest tragedy is the death of the soul, which, but for the sins of its owner would have retained an eternal existence. When the Torah in this chapter talks about \"life and good\" and \"death and evil,\" the terms are not employed in the usual manner. In verse 15 \"life\" is contrasted with \"death\", blessings with curses. In the first half of our Parshah we talk about two kinds of life and about two kinds of death. We distinguish between \"life\" and \"good life\" on the one hand, and \"death\" and \"absolute death\" on the other hand. When observance of Torah commandments is counselled in Deut 6,24, i.e. \"so that it shall be good for us for all times, to keep us alive as of this day,\" the \"good\" that is meant is being part of a world that is all \"good\" i.e. without death; the part about \"to keep us alive as of this day,\" however, refers to our existence here on earth. The matter is similar to a person who is offered the choice of two precious stones. One of them is reputed to possess healing powers, but lacks in lustre. The second stone is all brilliance, but is not known to possess any intrinsic qualities. The fool will choose the second stone, being mindful only of what the eye beholds. The wise buyer however, will weigh quality against external eye appeal, and choose the stone with the reputed intrinsic value. Similarly, the Torah in our Parshah. Concerning death also, two choices are offered. 1) There is death due to physical pain, disability etc. 2) There is death that results from the soul having become corrupted. The latter death is absolute, and though at first glance it might appear that people are doing everything to avoid death, they ought to be mindful of our sages' interpretation of the verse (Numbers 19,14) \"this is the Torah, man dies in the tent.\" The Rabbis understand this line as follows; \"He who dies in the tent,\" refers to him who is willing to face physical death to assure himself of a continued existence. The Yalkut Genesis 14, phrases it thus, \"if he will live, he will die; if he will die, he will live.\" The Torah was not satisfied in telling its reader what his objective in life should be, but also explained how to reach that objective. Not only does the Torah explain the way towards that objective, but it also explains how to avoid losing one's way. Just as the science of medicine is divided into therapy on the one hand, and preventive medicine on the other, so does Torah address itself to both problems. Naturally, having once lost one's health, regaining it is a laborious process. On the other hand, preserving one's health and guarding it against the ravages of disease is relatively easier. Regaining one's moral health is also a laborious process. The Torah is quite precise in spelling out the consequences of treading the right path. (30,16) \"You will live and multiply,\" as opposed to the result of taking the wrong path, (30,17) \"You will surely perish.\" The emphasis on \"I am informing you this day,\" at the outset of this verse, introduces a concept that former generations for a variety of reasons did not heed. This concept is that there is something beyond physical death that has to be considered. The reference to life in Eretz Yisrael, which is described as yerushah, an inheritance, something enduring, is to stress that life assumes a totally different dimension from life in chutz la-aretz, outside the holy land. Isaiah describes it in chapter 60,21, (discussion of Israel restored to its land) \"Your nation are all righteous people; they will endure in the land forever.\" Moses calls Heaven and Earth as witness, (verse 19) They are reliable advisors to ensure that we tread the right path. Their existence being an enduring one, they will be around forever, to remind us by their presence of the covenant we have entered into. ",
"Aristoteles (ethics book 3 chapter 5) states that the object of willpower is the end. (purpose) The objects of choice are the means toward that end. Stated differently: if our end (objective) is good health, then the steps taken to attain good health are the objects of our choice, (bechirah) Isaiah 66,3-4, discusses \"they chose their ways\" and \"their soul wanted abominations.\" In verse four, G'd says \"what I did not want, they chose.\" We observe here that the Jews in question chose evil ends and employed evil ways to attain those ends. The expression bechirah, \"choice\" is used only concerning ways and means, not concerning ultimate goals. When the Torah in our Parshah (30,19) says \"choose life!\", it is the kind of life that is referred to. We are to choose the quality of life that will ensure for ourselves the true \"good,\" eternal life. If someone were to say \"choose life in order to live!\" such a statement would be meaningless. Clearly then, the Torah in our Parshah is concerned with the kind of life we are to choose. When Elisha (Kings II 4,7) tells the widow to \"live\" on the proceeds of the oil she will sell, he refers to a lifestyle. Similarly, when Solomon in Kohelet 9,9, advises \"enjoy life with the woman you love,\" a lifestyle, i.e. married life is meant. Leviticus 18,5, \"keep My statutes and My ordinances by the pursuit of which man will live,\" refers to sexual mores, a lifestyle to be observed. Concerning all the above, the Torah says in our Parshah \"Life and Death I have placed before you!\" Bechirah, freedom of choice is subject to advice, not so ratzon, one's will. This is why Bileam says \"come I will give you advice.\" (Numbers 24,14) The letter \"b\" in bechayim refers to the choice of a particular path towards the objective, not to the objective itself. At the same time, if the right choice of lifestyle is made in order to achieve eternal life, He in turn will not deprive you of all the things needed to sustain physical life in your land which you have come to inherit. (verse 16) The seven things created prior to the universe as we know it, are representative of what gives the universe its purpose. First and foremost \"the throne of G'd.\" The eventual recognition of the majestic glory of G'd was the first thought that preceded creation. Moses paraphrases this by saying \"I have placed life before you for your consideration.\" The second thought was Torah, referred to by Moses as \"to love the Lord your G'd and walk His ways.\" Third comes repentance, a major topic in our Parshah. Whosoever fails to take advantage of the opportunities the institution of teshuvah offers, will be smitten by a punishment that will ultimately result in his oblivion. Fourth is gan eden, Paradise, the promise of an enduring existence. \"You will live and multiply.\" Fifth is gehinnom, the alternative to gan eden. It too had to be planned prior to the creation of the universe. Moses refers to it as \"surely you will perish.\" Item number six is the name of the Messiah. This refers to the presence of mentors who would remind man of his duties. Moses refers to them by saying \"I have called as witness, Heaven and Earth\" The seventh and last item, the provision of material needs, is inherent in the existence of the \"Temple,\" ensuring as it does the presence of the shechinah, i.e. G'ds presence, and consequently the bounty of His goodness. We see that our Parshah enumerates the seven ingredients which between them were the prerequisites for the success of the work of creation. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"\"At the end of every seven years\"",
"The Talmud Chagigah 3, discusses a lecture given by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah on the subject of hakhel, the assembly held once in seven years on the Sukkot festival after the end of the shemittah year. The requirement of the Torah is that both men women and children attend. Since the children could not comprehend nor benefit from hearing the Torah read, why did they have to be present? Rabbi Eleazar explained that this requirement was included in order to reward the adults for bringing their children. ",
"Man faces four major difficulties in life. It is these that make it so hard for him to achieve closeness with his Maker. They are: A) The need to earn a livelihood. Man does not find his needs ready made, like the animals do. B) Due to natural law, man keeps aging, getting weaker and weaker as he gets older. Part of his time on earth is spent fighting disease and counteracting the ravages of time. C) The need to fight those forces that try to deny him those things he has already achieved. D) Competing philosophies that lure us into betraying our traditions. ",
"The author demonstrates that Psalm forty two, addresses itself to these problems. Verse four deals with problem number one. Verse eight deals with problem number two. Verse ten laments problem number three, and the first verse in chapter forty three deals with problem number four. ",
"We find a Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Beshalach section twenty, which states that expounding and interpreting Torah has been granted only to those who ate manna and those who live on tithes. It is clear that the meaning is that only people who do not have to worry about providing a livelihood for themselves and their families, can take out sufficient time to immerse themselves deeply in the study of Torah. Since the generation of Jews who came out of Egypt had no need to work for a living, they qualified for the task of Torah study in depth. In fact, that generation was immune from all the four impediments normal people face in their quest for G'd and His Torah. ",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"",
"The reason the mitzvah of hakhel, \"assemble!\", is to take place on the holiday of Sukkot following the shemittah year, is directly related to the above mentioned natural obstacles to Torah observance, and the achievement of self perfection. Since the new shemittah cycle has only Just begun, or at any rate soil preparation for all the crops which had completed the first third of their growth before Rosh Hashanah are still treated as shemittah produce, the need to attend to parnassah problems is practically non-existent at that time. Moreover, G'd had promised a harvest good for three years for the year prior to the shemittah year, (when the land lies fallow) This was to prove that observance of the shemittah does not impoverish. (Leviticus 25) Secondly, from the point of view of weather, Sukkot is the best time of year, there being neither extremes of heat or cold at that season to make travel unpleasant, nor are any physical ailments excarcerbated at that time due to weather conditions. Thirdly,at that season, there is little to fear from external enemies. The day of Atonement having just passed, everyone is in a state of innocence. Fourthly, reading the Torah to the people at that time is the best guarantee against people falling prey to an alien philosophy. ",
"Rabbi Eleazar also said that the children seeing and remembering the king himself reading the Torah, will help their reverence for G'd in the future. Although chapter 31,12, \"their sons who do not know, will hear and learn to fear the Lord your G'd,\" could have simply referred to as yet unborn generations, Rabbi Eleazar interprets the verse as referring to children that have been born but are not yet of school going age. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"G'd said to Moses \"you will soon die.” ",
"The Sifri on Parshat ha-azinu quotes the following parable. A king entrusted his son to a pedagogue, to sit and watch over him. The son said to himself: \"if my father thinks that the fact that he has handed me into the hands of a pedagogue will change anything, he is mistaken.\" I will see to it that the pedagogue will be well fed, and will have a comfortable place to sleep. Meanwhile, I shall do as I please.\" The father explained to the son that the only reason he had entrusted him to the pedagogue was to protect him from being led astray. Moses said to the Israelites: \"in case you have any intention of escaping from beneath the wings of Divine protection, or to escape to any place on earth, Heaven and Earth will be on record.\" Job says \"that the Heavens will reveal his sin, the Earth will rise against him.\" (Job 20,27) When Israel will argue at the celestial Court in the future \"I am not sure who went wrong, or who changed the relationship. Has G'd changed His relationship with Israel, or vice versa?\" At that point, \"the Heavens will tell about His righteousness.\" (Psalms 50,6) Israel corrupted its ways before G'd; G'd certainly did not change His commitment to Israel. This is what the prophet Maleachi said: \"I am the Lord, said the Lord, I have not changed.\" (Maleachi 3,6) ",
"Since the effort expended on creating anything that is known not to endure is wasteful, (compare chapter 58) and since we cannot ascribe activities to G'd that are wasteful or vain, we are faced with the problem why G'd extended Himself to take the Jewish people out of Egypt, lead them to the holy land, had them build a Temple by Solomon and achieve unheard of glory, only to let it all collapse four hundred years later. Philosophers offer two explanations. One is that G'ds prescience, foreknowledge, was inadequate, and that G'd involved Himself in all these efforts because He had not foreseen the end. The second explanation is that G'd lacked the power to forestall certain events. Since either of these explanations assumes a lack of perfection on G'ds part, they are inadmissible. Some Jewish philosophers including Gersonides, wish to describe G'ds foreknowledge of events as limited to the type of events which are not subject to decisions made by humans. They claim that G'd knows human decisions before they have been made, only when the latter correspond to the laws of nature as formulated at the time of creation. In other words, those human decisions that are only apparently free, such as the food intake necessary for survival, sleep necessary in order to function normally, wearing of protective clothing against the rigours of the weather, are things G'd knows all about in advance. Decisions of man which are truly free however, G'd does not know about until such a decision is actually made. In this way Gersonides explains why Moses wanted to refuse the appointment to lead the Jewish people out of Egypt, since he felt that the ultimate success could not be known beforehand. He thought that this had been the reason G'd had had to bring the deluge or to destroy Sodom. Following this line of reasoning, we could understand why G'd is described as vayinachem, He reconsidered. This kind of philosophy however, is opposed to our traditional concept of G'ds perfection. Maimonides teaches that G'd has full knowledge of the Past and the Future, being fully aware of any combination of events that will or might occur. Any other view would conceive of G'ds perfection being flawed somehow. If a deluge became necessary at a certain moment in human history, this was not due to inadequate foreknowledge by G'd, nor to inadequate planning by Him, but was inherent in the character of man himself. G'd had constructed man in a way that makes attainment of his ideal state an extremely difficult task. It is only through the passage of time and the lessons learned from history that man will ultimately achieve the ideal state that is his purpose. The Zohar Parshat Lech Lecha, 125, states that the reason the tzaddik, righteous person is compared to the date palm (Psalms 92,13) is, that once it is cut down it may take seventy years for another palm tree to replace it. Similarly, the righteous are not easily replaced. Also, since both a male and a female palm tree are needed in order for that tree to produce fruit, a tzaddik unless matched with a tzaddeket, i.e. a suitable wife is not really a tzaddik at all. Abraham and Sarah are classic examples of such a well matched pair, of course. What this means concerning our problem is that only in the fullness of time will man and woman reach the goal the Creator has set for them. Setbacks in their progress toward that goal are not due to any shortcomings by their Creator. If we conceive of mankind as a pool of raw material from which the best is to be selected and nurtured, then we get an idea of early mankind. The generations until Noach were predominantly earthy in their orientation, and only a very few were capable of that refinement of mind and spirit that enabled them to become the strain through which all mankind would ascend towards its goal. G'd had been aware of course, at the very outset of that situation. The word vayinachem means to rue something one knew beforehand would happen if the premise on which one had based one's thinking changes. It does not imply a change of thinking on the part of the subject, rather it reflects a change of circumstances on the part of the object of one's thinking. Since it was man that had changed, G'ds decision to prune mankind radically in order to refine the best strain was not a change of heart on G'ds part. Again, from Noach to Abraham no one was found from whom this strain could be refined still further. When Isaiah 51,2, proclaims \"look upon Abraham your progenitor, and upon Sarah who suffered your birthpangs,\" the prophet wants us to know that our origins do not go back any further than to that pair of human beings. Inasmuch as creation itself had served little purpose until the advent of Adam, the first human being, the early generations of man found their real justification of existence only in the fact that they somehow produced a Noach and an Abraham. Abraham is told by G'd \"I will make you a great nation,\" not \"I will appoint you, or I will place you etc.\" In order to become a Jewish nation further changes have to take place before they can qualify for that task. Even when the Jewish people are described as \"hail you Israel, a nation saved by the Lord,\" they are still not yet in their final mould and will have to undergo further refinements with the help of forty eight prophets, sufferings and tragedies. In the fullness of time the ultimate fully refined product will emerge which will represent the objective towards which G'd had striven all along. Israel as a nation, and mankind as a species, are being subjected to a program G'd Himself has set up, although the freedom of the individual is not being impaired thereby in the slightest. Midrash Rabbah Ruth section five on Ruth chapter 4,12, \"may the Lord repay your labour and may your wages be complete from the Lord your G'd under whose wings you have come to find protection,\" says in the name of Rabbi Bunim, that we know the earth has \"wings\", that the sun has \"wings\", that shachar, morning has \"wings\", that cherubs have \"wings\" and that seraphim, angels have \"wings\". See how great is the power of the righteous, since they do not rely on the \"wings\" of any of the above mentioned, but on the \"shade\" of the One who has said \"let there be a universe,\" as is written in Psalms 36,8, \"how precious is Your favour o Lord, human beings can find protection under Your wings.\" (The Midrash lists scriptural proof for the five \"wings\" described) Our sages have listed five domains to which men turn for help in securing their needs when they feel the Lord has turned away from them. The \"wings\" of the earth represent nature and our knowledge of natural law, described by our sages also as \"Prince of the earth.\" When king Assa consulted doctors instead of praying to G'd, he committed a grievous error. (Chronicles II 16,12) Already previously, when engaged in fighting Basha, king Assa had relied on a gentile ally rather than ask G'd for help. This is why he was punished. The \"wings\" of the sun, refers to the knowledge of astrology. Those who rely on such knowledge to plan their lives, are equally contemptuous of G'd. Solomon who describes people as \"under the sun,\" refers to the kind of people who put stock in their knowledge of astrology. The \"wings\" of the cherubs refers to those who feel they receive guidance from invisible spirits who control the orbits of the planets. The \"wings\" of the seraphim would refer to the disembodied power that controls all movement, in short to \"time\" as a determinant in the universe. The \"wings\" of the morning, (Psalms 139,9) would refer to the domain which our sages call \"the prince of the day.\" ",
"Israel/Yehudah's sin was in worshipping any of the aforementioned, all of which are quite powerless by themselves. Achav was a prime victim of these cults because his wife Izzebel had persuaded him. He taught these cults not only to his family, but to the nation. His son Achaziah practiced this folly in even greater degree than his father. This brought about the encounter which forced the prophet Elijah to destroy several groups of fifty soldiers each by calling down fire from Heaven to kill them. (Kings II,chapter 1) Since Achaziah sent three times a group of fifty soldiers instead of increasing the size of the troop contingent each time, there must have been a deeper significance in the number five or multiples thereof. ",
"Presumably, it represented the five illusory powers Achaziah recognised as deities. The first five of the ten commandments, dealing with the relationship between man and G'd, also warn against these five faulty philosophic concepts. Anochi, \"I,\" means \"I alone,\" not even the invisible intellectual concept of \"time\" has power to control our destiny. Lo Yihyeh, refers to the celestial forces moving the constellations and galaxies. Lo Tissa, do not use the name of G'd in vain, means that if one subscribes to the theory that everything is preordained, employing the name of G'd is equivalent to a denial of G'd, seeing that one does not view Him as a free agent. Zachor, abstaining from work on the Sabbath, proves that we do not believe that we are subject to the \"Prince of the day,\" who supposedly decides what will or will not succeed on that day. \"Honouring\" parents, as distinct from \"fearing\" them, as demanded elsewhere in the Torah, teaches that our natural origins do not determine the course of our lives, though they have a share in influencing it. Moses again and again emphasised that at the revelation at Mount Sinai the Jewish people saw fire but no form or image. The people begged G'd to stop the sound and the fire, and G'd concurred. They also asked that Moses the prophet be their intermediary, to communicate G'ds will and words to them. The acceptance of their request by G'd, and the subsequent promise to supply other prophets in lieu of Moses, made obedience to the prophet a cornerstone of Judaism henceforth. ",
"Non obedience, or worse still, sarcasm as displayed by the officers and men of Achaziah, certainly made them liable to the death penalty at the hands of Elijah. The instrument used to impose the death penalty was symbolic, a reminder of the origin of the prophet's authority. Deuteronomy 6,22, stresses the uniqueness of the people having survived hearing the voice of G'd \"out of the fire.\" Jewish history has shown that many of our people have become victims of the same false philosophies as Achaziah and the first two sets of fifty soldiers. Only the fate that had befallen that group had taught the third captain to recognise the futility of such philosophies, and that one must entrust oneself to the Almighty Himself, not to His agents. The essential thing is not to deny the very real function that these five forces represent, but to recognise that these functions are not the result of independent power, but are all controlled and supervised by the Eternal, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Good and intelligent people therefore entrust their affairs to the Creator Himself. ",
"The Talmud Pessachim 119, interprets the verse in Ezekiel 1,8, where we find the spelling of \"hands\" in the singular, i.e. \"His hand\", to mean that G'd is prepared to accept repentant sinners. The meaning of the line then, -in accordance with our explanation of \"wings\",- would be that those who had heretofore relied on \"wings\", will from now on rely on His \"hand.\" G'ds hand is spread out to snatch those people from the demands of the midat hadin, attribute of justice, after they have recognised the error of their ways. ",
"Since it had been clear to G'd that ultimate recognition of Him as the prime Mover would not occur until the more prominent forces in nature had demonstrated their inability to offer protection to the individual, G'd decided to create man in the full knowledge that along the long road to this ultimate recognition a great many would fall by the wayside. ",
"The opening parable in the Sifri that we quoted at the beginning of this chapter poses the problem we have been discussing. By granting man freedom of will, G'd, fatherlike, hands over the prince to the pedagogue. The pedagogue can be viewed as the \"wings\" i.e. the forces subservient to the Lord acting as His administrators in the universe. The son, i.e. Israel enjoying his freedom, felt, that by giving the administrator what he wanted, he could be completely undisturbed by him and free to pursue his own designs without interference. In the end, when found corrupt, Israel tried to blame G'd for its own corruption accusing Him of having turned it over to a pedagogue who appeared to possess independent powers. If the pedagogue did not have independent powers Israel argued, what had been the point of being entrusted to him? If as a result of being placed in the care of a pedagogue, G'ds attitude vis a vis Israel underwent a change, it was not Israel that was to blame! To forestall such reasoning on the part of Israel, Moses calls on Heaven and Earth as witnesses to the constancy of G'ds purpose, and both Psalms and the prophet Maleachi tell us that He has never changed. When Moses predicts the behaviour of the Jewish people after his death, he does so on the basis of his psychological insight of the character of his people, not on the basis of prophetic knowledge. Just as this psychological insight does not commit the people to act in a certain way, so G'ds psychological insight into the nature of the people in no way encroaches on their exercising their free will. The fact that even Moses, a mere human being, could foretell with such uncanny accuracy future behaviour of the Jewish people, is the most vivid testimony of G'd the master psychologist's foreknowledge of the actions of Israel, or anybody else's actions for that matter. ",
"\"Give ear, O heavens, let me speak\"",
"It is common practice to communicate important messages to people of stature, whereas matters of an inconsequential nature are communicated to people of lower rank. When Moses calls on Heaven and Earth to be his audience, he thereby testifies to the importance he attaches to the speech he is about to make. (David addressing Avner in Samuel I 26 is a case in point) ",
"",
"The term ha-azinah, give ear, is reserved for the physically more distant listeners, whereas the term shemi-ah, hearing, is reserved for listeners close at hand. For this reason Moses uses the former term when calling on the Heavens, and the latter when addressing the earth. When in contrast to Isaiah 1,2, Moses refers to the origin of the message being himself not G'd, he emphasises the importance of what he is about to say rather than who is saying it. Moreover, \"giving ear,\" refers to listening done with the mind, whereas \"hearing\" refers to listening done with one's senses, one's physical ears. Spiritual beings, being disembodied, cannot therefore \"hear\" in our sense of the word. This rule applies at least when both terms are used at the same time. Heaven and Earth respectively are also similes for the highly intelligent and the common minds, respectively. The former can absorb \"a heavy rainshower,\" the latter only \"dew,\" or a mild \"drizzle.\" (32,2) ",
"",
"Proclaiming the name of G'd (verse 3) is designed to make the people listen to Moses' speech, and to put on record G'ds absolute perfection. Verse four is very precise about that. Moses is anxious to preclude the thought that any future disasters befalling the Jewish people could be rooted in an imperfection on the part of G'd. The very idea that Israel could repay a G'd who had proven His perfection with evil for the good He has done for it, can only be due to the fact that it is Israel who is a foolish and unwise people.(verse 6) Moses extols G'ds unique role which far exceeds what any natural father would have done for his son. G'ds claim on the Jewish people is therefore that much stronger than the claim of a natural father on his son. Moses credits G'd with four distinct contributions to Israel's existence. \"Your father, --your owner,--who has made you,--and who preserves and maintains you.\" 1) He brought us into the world, just like a father begets us. 2) He continues to own what He has created, not like an artist or craftsman who sells his creations. 3) Unlike the natural father who is only one of the causes contributing to a son being born, seeing that there is also a mother, G'd is the sole Maker of the Jewish person or nation. 4) He maintains His comprehensive supervision over us during our entire lifetime, something a natural father could not do even if he wanted to. To establish the truth of the four points made, Moses says \"remember the six, respectively seven days of creation,\" and you will understand about the fact that G'd has fathered you. When you reflect on \"the years of generations past,\" you will agree that no one has a prior claim on you. \"Ask your father,\" and he will tell you that whereas a natural father when he sires a son did not plan to create a specific personality, G'd did have this in mind. \"Your elders, and they will tell you.\" They will inform you that there is no other force in the world that can assure your continued existence except He. (verse 7) ",
"Alternately, Moses could have referred to the four kinds of truths that go unchallenged and need no proof. 1) Sensual perceptions; we do not ask for proof that white is white or that black is black. 2) Self evident truths, such as that the whole is greater than each of its parts. 3) Historical truths, handed down by tradition. For instance, no one challenges the historical fact that Jews lived in Spain for many hundreds of years prior to being expelled. 4) Things believed and accepted by one or more nations, for instance the universal concept of immorality. \"Remember the days of old,\" see everyone counts a seven day week. This proves that G'd had created the world in seven days. Had the world already existed, \"understand the meaning of generation to generation\" then there would be no difference between open ended infinity or partial infinity. Something never ending would be no different since it had never started. Making the week a seven day unit would be pointless then. The whole idea of history, recording time etc. would be pointless in such a context. These facts were handed down by your fathers and your elders. ",
"In verse fifteen we read about five staggered cases of decay, corruption, which are introduced by the caption \"Yeshurun grew fat and kicked.\" The result was a) you became fat; b) you grew coarse; c) you grew gross; d) he forsook the Lord who had made you; e) he spurned the Rock of his support. The specific acts of rebellion are listed in verse 16-18. G'ds response which was equally staggered, is listed in verses 19-25. The penalties listed 1) sword, 2) hunger; 3) wild beasts; 4) pestilence, correspond to the four basic elements the earth is made of, i.e. fire/sword; water/famine; dust/wild beasts; air, ruach /pestilence. ",
"In describing the Jewish people as a nation lacking counsel, Moses underscores the obvious. Only utter fools forget that the achievements of a numerically so inferior nation who have risen to such elevated status, could only have been possible due to supernatural assistance. Survival of the Jewish nation after the commission of a cardinal sin such as that of the golden calf, was only due to G'd not wanting to create the impression of His impotence. Verse thirty two \"for the vine of Sodom is their vine,\" means that even when on the outside Jewish actions appear inspired by worthwhile motivations, \"their grapes are grapes of gall.\" When you taste the fruit, i.e. examine their true motives they will be found to be rotten. Only when the nations of the world will mock Israel in ever increasing volume, will G'd defend His reputation. This period will coincide with a time when Israel will have recognised that it has no one else to turn to but G'd. The entire \"song\" that we read here in Parshat ha-azinu, is further proof that the course of Jewish history was indeed foreseen by G'd, that it does not represent either impotence or lack of foresight by the Creator. Ramban points out correctly, that had all these predictions starting with Deut. 4,25 \"when you will beget children,\" been based merely on astrology, we would have believed in astrology, seeing that all these predictions have become true. How much more then must we believe in G'd who has recorded all these prophecies in the Torah so many years in advance of their happening. No doubt the as yet unfulfilled parts of the prophecies will come to pass in due course. When Moses refers to the fact that observance is not \"a vain thing\" (verse 47), he reiterates that nothing is preordained, and would therefore make the Torah meaningless, inconsequential in terms of history. The exercise of our will both individually and collectively, shapes our fate and determines the timing of events forecast in G'ds plan. \"Through this thing you will prolong your days.\" (verse 47) Regardless of the need of the human condition to be perfected through the undergoing of experiences that will help refine and mature it, observance of Torah at any given time, ensures for its adherents prolonged periods of well being on their own soil. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"The Sifri on Parshat vezot habrachah, says the conjunctive letter vav, \"and\" at the beginning of this verse is to be understood as an additional blessing to that which Jacob had bestowed on the tribes prior to his death. (Genesis chapter 49) Moses carried on from the very place that Jacob had left off. ",
"To the extent that man is able to amass both physical and material assets, he is able to share his wealth. A rich man can enrich others in accordance with the amount of personal wealth in excess of his needs. A man of renowned moral stature can transmit to others some of the qualities he has acquired. Whereas physical powers have a tendency to decline with advancing age, spiritual powers are enhanced by the onset of old age. As a result of this phenomenon, blessings and prayers for others are usually reserved till near life's end, since at that point the person bestowing them is at his spiritually most potent. Jacob imparted both blessings and insights to his children when on his deathbed. The prophet Elijah bequeathed his insights to his disciple Elisha when he was about to depart this earth. (Kings II chapter 2) In fact, he warned Elisha that unless the latter was able to watch him ascend, there was no guarantee that he, Elijah had bequeathed enough insights to ensure that Elisha's mission as his successor would be successful. Moses too, had not divested himself of sufficient earthly shells to communicate the maximum amount of blessings he was capable of to his people, until he had actively prepared for death. When Elijah had told Elisha that the latter's powers of observation held the key to the amount of prophetic spirit he would acquire, he was in effect telling him that in order for blessings to be fully effective, both the donor and the recipient have to be in a state of preparedness. This is somewhat like the waters of a fountain going to waste, unless they are absorbed by containers especially prepared to receive them. ",
"All the above mentioned points are manifest when Moses blesses the people. Since the Jewish people had received the Torah in the time elapsed since Jacob's death, they were now able to assimilate greater blessings than prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai. This is the meaning of the Sifri saying that Moses began where Jacob had left off. The Torah refers to Moses as \"a man of G'd,\" when Moses is close to his death. Even though nine other men of lower standing have also been described as \"man of G'd,\" the fact that Moses is called by that name \"before his death,\" indicates that he had attained a stature at that time that enabled him to bestow blessings with optimal effect. ",
"When Moses had ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, the angels at that time had protested to G'd saying \"this Torah that You created nine hundred and seventy four generations before You created the universe, You will hand over to a mere mortal? What are the attributes of humans that You would even consider such action?\" (Shabbat 88) G'd said to Moses \"answer them!\" Moses said to G'd: \"I am afraid to, lest they burn me with the searing heat of their mouths.\" Thereupon G'd told Moses to hold on to His throne, (compare Job 26,9) Moses said \"Lord, there is a provision in Your Torah to keep the Sabbath holy, not to perform any work on it. Does anyone perform work in Heaven? The decalogue begins with the words \"I am the Lord your G'd who took you out of Egypt.\" Have the angels been taken out of Egypt?.. In this vein Moses demonstrated that the place for Torah surely was on earth and not in the Heavens, if indeed Torah was to be effective. ",
"There are three elements in this aggadah that need elucidation. 1) Since angels are by definition incapable of such emotions as jealousy, why are they represented as being jealous? 2) Why, of all the examples that could have been used, are just the two of the Exodus from Egypt and work performance on the Sabbath used? 3) In the full text of that aggadah G'd is described by a variety of attributes, some opposite to others. Surely, this must have been very confusing for Moses? Since Torah contains lofty ideas, truths that are not easily understood by mortals engaged in satisfying their material pursuits, the angels thought that Torah could not be shared with such creatures. Moses pointed out that Torah addresses itself to conditions prevailing on earth. G'ds throne represents the intermediary between the totally abstract spirit on one side, and ordinary matter on the other. By holding on to the throne of G'd, Moses expressed the idea that Torah is the conduit between pure matter and pure spirit. Therefore it needs to be given to man, to enable the latter to rise to the level that represents his tachlit, objective, and perfection as a species. The spiritual part of man needs Torah to help it overcome the ascendancy of his body, its physical counterpart. ",
"The five examples of why Torah was needed on earth that Moses selected were: 1) \"I am the Lord.\"--The message is that there is a G'd, man's fate is not due to coincidence. His troubles are not due to anarchy in the universe. 2) \"Do not have any other deities!\" --The Creator is a single Being not sharing power, as Job said \"if we accept the good, must we not accept the unpleasant, seeing it all originates from the same Source?\" 3) To expound the continued manifestations of G'ds Providence, --do not think that the Lord has abandoned His universe. Oaths must be true, as they testify to the belief in His active guidance of history. 4) To implant in man the knowledge of spiritual well being that awaits him as the result of true Sabbath observance. 5) The perfection of man through observance of social laws, as G'd says elsewhere, \"choose life!\" The angels were persuaded by the power of Moses' arguments and exclaimed \"how great is Your name in the entire universe!\", thus acknowledging G'ds wisdom. ",
"The thrust of Moses' argument in each case was that only if the angels considered themselves fools would the above mentioned instructions of the Torah apply to them. From all the above it follows that just as Torah can only be of significance and meaning to creatures possessed of both good and evil inclinations, so human beings who are unable to achieve mastery over their desires because they are not free agents, are not subject to the laws of the Torah. Slaves, women and children are each subject only to limited sections of the Torah, since their self determination is restricted and they are not truly free in that sense. Those who are physically free, but have sold themselves to their senses, will not derive much benefit from Torah, since they opted to forego mastery of mind over body. Only Israel, trained through many years of deprivations, had achieved the level of freedom that enabled it to benefit from receiving the Torah. This is the argument embodied in the famous Midrash (Avodah Zarah 2) which depicts G'd as offering the Torah first to different nations, all of whom in turn rejected it for one reason or another. The common denominator behind the rejection in each case was that they did not wish to re-examine their basic lifestyles based on enslavement to one or another of their senses. (\"I have to steal\" or \"I have to murder\") All of this is justification for not giving the Torah to those nations, just as Torah was not given to the angels. The former are beyond reach of the Torah, the latter beyond need for Torah. There was therefore no favoritism involved when the Torah was given only to Israel. ",
"The paragraph commencing with the words \"the Lord came from Sinai,\" (33,2) exemplifies that already prior to that event, nations such as Ishmael and Edom had proved unwilling to accept the Torah. Israel's acceptance was unique among the nations, since no one else was ready to accept the authority of Heaven. This act of voluntary submission made Israel into the \"chosen people\" even though G'd had displayed fondness for other nations also. See 33,3, \"He has fondness for nations, but holiness is all concentrated within you.\" (Israel) Also the other way around. He is beloved by some people among the nations, converts to Judaism, but on a collective basis as distinct from an individual basis, holiness is found only in Israel. tukku leraglecha, you have submitted to G'd en masse. In turn, you were lifted up by \"Your commandments.\" This is a reference to martyrdom for their religion displayed by Jews when confronted by the chance to save their lives through conversion to Christianity etc. morasha kehillat Yaakov. ",
"This commandment to successive generations to observe and to believe, is a unique commandment found only in our nation. No one else has been born to a religion by reason of membership in \"the community of Jacob.\" (verse 4) The acceptance of the Torah by the entire nation made it irrevocable. \"He became King in Yeshurun.\" Having proclaimed G'd as King, He in turn offers His blessings both in material and spiritual ways. ",
"Moses' blessings are viewed as a continuation of Jacob's blessings. Jacob had concluded with the line \"and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them.\" (Genesis 49,28) So Moses says \"and this,\" at the beginning of his blessings, whereas we find this term used at the very end of Jacob's blessings. Since Reuben had been demoted at the time of Joseph's sale, and had been the subject of his father's criticism at the time Jacob died, Moses emphasizes that though numerically not strong, Reuben would produce outstanding men in spite of this. The blessing may also include the assurance that Reuben personally had not lost his share in the world to come as the result of the incident with Bilhah. By mentioning Yehudah next, the fact that Reuben had been mentioned first, shows that Moses had not wanted to deny Reuben his rightful place. Yehudah is mentioned next due to his rank. Since it will be he who will lead Israel in battle, provide the kings, Moses blesses Yehudah by imploring G'd to come to Yehudah's aid when the latter finds himself in difficulties. \"Though his hands fight on his behalf, be the helper from his adversaries.\" (33,7) Since the temporal and spiritual leadership of the nation are to go hand in hand, Levi is mentioned next in the list of tribes to be blessed. Although inquiries re the will of G'd are made via le-ish chassidecha, religious authority, by the use of tumecha ve-urecha, the ineffable name in the High Priest's breastplate, the secular leader is required to stand in the presence of the High Priest. (see chapter 35) Since Moses is himself a member of the tribe of Levi, he apologises for the sin at the \"waters of strife,\" explaining it as having been due to instructions once received at Massa to hit the rock. (33,8) Since the sin had not been intentional, Aaron is not excluded from the term of endearment \"your pious one.\" Both on the occasion of the golden calf episode when the Levites had risked their lives for G'ds law, and at Shittim when Pinchas had done so, the tribe had displayed fervent loyalty. The second function of the tribe is to teach the Torah to Israel, yoru mishpatecha, they will teach Your social laws. Thirdly, service in the temple will be performed by members of that tribe, yassimu ketorah be-apecha, they will put incense before You. The position of Priest and Levite being a hereditary one, it is apt to be viewed by some as an undeserved privilege, and will arouse antagonism towards that tribe. Therefore, Moses asks that the Levites' adversaries be crushed, (verse 11) Moses does not mention the tribe of Shimon, the latter still smarting from the affair of Baal Peor, and the wounds on its collective dignity inflicted by Pinchas. Also, it had just lost twelve thousand men. Moses therefore was content not to criticise the tribe of Shimon at this stage. Also, this made it unnecessary for him to bestow thirteen blessings. ",
"After having blessed the tribes that represented the priesthood and the monarchy, the tribe that is privileged to host the holy Temple in the future, is blessed next. The fact that Benjamin is G'ds beloved is testified to by that very fact, (verse 12) A major factor is that it was the only tribe wholly uninvolved in the struggle between Joseph and his brothers. Joseph who is the mainstay of the kingdom of the ten tribes, comes next. Since Ephrayim will be the leader of that kingdom, the abundance of blessings heaped on Joseph are partly to be viewed as applying to all the ten tribes, but they are identified with Joseph who had displayed moral fortitude in his encounter with the wife of Potiphar. The reference to Joseph as an ox, has been discussed in chapter thirty. Issachar and Zevulun are named next, being the remaining sons of Jacob's major wives Rachel and Leah. Also, they complete the camp of Yehudah. Zevulun is here mentioned ahead of Issachar though he was younger, in recognition of the fact that he assumed the burden of earning a livelihood for his brother Issachar so that the latter could devote himself to Torah study, (verse 18) The \"tents” referred to, are the seclusion of the yeshivah, the Torah academy. Zevulun's maritime activities will be amply rewarded so that he can afford to entertain \"nations.\" Gad's turn is next, since he too was considered a reward from G'd by his mother for having turned her handmaid over to Jacob as a wife. Also, he completes the camp of Reuben and the unnamed Shimon. The blessing marchiv Gad, who expands Gad, refers to the fact that it was this tribe that was the first to settle on the East Bank of the Jordan. It was also he who formed the vanguard when it came to fighting for possession of the West Bank. He considered the fact that Moses, Aaron and Miriam were all buried in his tribal territory, as a good omen for his choice of location, and an insurance of the tribe's future loyalty to G'd and Torah. Dan is head of the army group forming the rearguard. His being described as a hit and run expert, fits Samson the best known of his heroes. Naftali being senior to Asher, is mentioned next. Since the chronological order has not been observed in these blessings, Moses is anxious to conclude the blessings for the individual tribes with Asher, who is not only assured of an abundance of material wealth, but is assured that this will not cause jealousy among his brothers, i.e. \"he will remain popular with his brothers.\" (verse 24) In this way the blessings applicable to the nation as a whole in verse twenty five, are an extension of the bounty promised to Asher. Just as at the beginning of the blessings, the line \"may Reuben live and not die,\" refers to the wish that no sudden death should cut short his normal lifespan, so also at the end of the blessings Moses expresses the wish (verse 25) \"and as your young days so shall be your old age,\" meaning that eventual death should come about only as the result of the natural process of aging. \"Riding the heavens\" (verse 26), is a symbol of the speed with which G'd may come to Israel's aid when needed. The prophecies of Moses, unlike those of Bileam, are not intended for the distant future. Bileam had spoken about \"I can see it, but not now\" etc.; not so Moses who describes G'd as \"riding the clouds\" to Israel's assistance as something in the immediate future. In order to be meaningful, victory must comprise four elements. 1) The victor should emerge unharmed. 2) The enemy must have been harmed. 3) The enemy must be seen to have been hurt. 4) Such hurt must be real, not merely superficial. Moses deals with these four aspects of victory in verse twenty nine. 1) \"The shield of Your help.\" 2) \"The sword of Your excellence.\" 3) \"Your enemies will dwindle before you,\" and 4) \"You will tread upon their heights.\" You will be seen to be enjoying the fruits of victory. "
]
],
[
[
"",
"Moses ascended from the wilderness of Moab, the servant of G'd died there. ",
"On Deut 34,6, \"no one knew the place Moses was buried,\" the Sifri writes \"delegations sent to locate Moses' grave failed. When the delegation stood on high ground, they thought that they saw Moses' grave in the valley; when the delegation stood on low ground, they thought they saw Moses' grave on the mountain. When they split up, some standing on the mountain, others in the valley, those on the mountain thought that they saw it in the valley, whereas the group standing in the valley thought that they saw Moses' grave on the mountain. Therefore the Torah says that no one knew the site of Moses' grave.\" ",
"Since man's greatest misfortune is the inescapable need to die, and since certain superior individuals such as the prophet Elijah or Enoch are reported to have ascended to Heaven without undergoing physical death first, it seems strange that Moses the most perfect human being, should have died and been buried just like any ordinary mortal. True, he was buried by the Lord Himself, nevertheless, why should he not at least have been the equal of Elijah? (see Kings II 2, or Gnenesis 5,25) Since the Torah exhorts us repeatedly to observe certain commandments so that we should not die, dying must be viewed as a negative experience, possibly the ultimate negative experience. Moses' superiority to angels, is described by Sifri in Parshat vayelech in the following story. G'd said to the angel of death, \"go and bring Me the soul of Moses.\" The angel went, stood by the side of Moses and asked him for his soul. Moses replied: \"in a place where I am permitted to remain seated, you are not even allowed to remain standing; how could you have the temerity to demand my soul?\" The angel of death withdrew angrily and reported back to the Almighty. G'd simply repeated His instructions to the angel once more. The angel of death returned once more to the place he had found Moses the last time, only to find that Moses had moved on since then. Enquiries from the sea as to Moses' present whereabouts, elicited the reply that the sea had not seen him since he had split the sea of reeds at the time the Jewish people crossed it at the Exodus. When the mountains and valleys were asked if they had seen Moses, they replied that G'd must have hidden him in a place no one knew of, since it is written \"He buried him in the valley etc. (Deut 34,6) At any rate, from the description in the Sifri it is evident that the thought that Moses was merely another mortal was difficult for anyone to accept. Nonetheless, the Midrash deserves further analysis. ",
"The solution to our problem may be Kohelet 12,7, \"dust must return to earth, to its original state, whereas the spirit will return to G'd who had supplied it.\" The ultimate destiny of man then lies in the complete separation of spirit an matter. Life in the olam haba, the world beyond death, therefore, does not include any part of the body. ( see chapter eighty on the waters of strife) When Solomon concludes the statement quoted above with the words \"vanity of vanities says Kohelet, all is vanity,” he omits some of the \"vanities\" he had mentioned in the opening chapters.(see Kohelet 1, verse 2) The body's function during life on earth, is to assist the mind, the spirit. Since most people's minds are materialistically oriented, they experience a strong pull of their body on their spirits at the time of death. This results in part of their spirit, i.e. a residue of the soul being unable to realease itself from the body. This is why that part of the soul absorbs some of the impurity of the dead body. This is the meaning of the statement in Berachot 8, \"the soul of the wicked is as difficult to extract as wool from amongst thorns.\" The reference is to the spirit of impurity mentioned in Zecharyah 13,2. Seeing that most of mankind belongs to the category mentioned, the Torah decrees tum-ah, a state of impurity for the dead body. This impurity does not originate in matter, but in the corruption wreaked on the body by the spirit. The body, instead of having become the vehicle to advance the spirituality of the soul, had reversed the process. These bodies did not fulfil Solomon's dictum of returning to the dust in their original state. The concept of a twelve month period during which the soul keeps up some sort of intermittent contact with the body, reflects this idea. In a very few cases, peoples' lives follow the opposite pattern, inasmuch as their bodies become subservient to their spirituality. At death, the body then finds it difficult to separate from the soul, and to be left behind. In such cases, traces of the body, so to speak, try to escape towards Heaven together with the soul. Elijah's clothing, including his body would be burned off in the fiery elements he had to traverse in his ascent towards Heaven. A still better way of separating the body from the soul, is the clean break between body and soul at the precise moment of death, something accomplished by the very, very few. In those cases no impurity adheres to the physical remains at all, i.e. the dust is not impure and cannot become impure in its original state. When the Talmud says about Rabbeynu ha-kadosh that on the day he died priesthood became annulled, this is what the author of that statement Rabbi Chiyah had in mind. A person of the calibre of Rabbeynu hakadosh, who could say of himself that he had never enjoyed a physical satisfaction from his body, would not be forbidden contact with a priest when he died. The priest would be allowed to remain under the same roof with such a person's remains, seeing no impurity had attached itself to them. Herein lies the key to understanding the Sifri concerning the mission of the angel of death, and Moses' reaction to it. G'd had said to the angel \"bring Me the soul of Moses.\" When Moses heard the angel of death say \"give me your soul,\" he thought that the angel of death was trying to demonstrate his power, i.e. the power of ra, evil, over Moses. This is why he sent him away angrily. The body is composed of a mixture of four basic materials, i.e. fire, water, earth (dust) and wind (air). When the body develops a weakness, it is a sign that the four raw materials no longer work in harmony. The cause is due to an imbalance of the spiritual and material pressures within man. Death, i.e. separation of body and soul, must be preceded by the dissolution of the fusion of the four basic ingredients of the body. Moses, who knew that such a process had not yet commenced within him, knew that death due to this imbalance of forces did not apply to him yet. The angel of death had misunderstood his mission, which was simply to bring about the dissolution of the bond that held these four basic material ingredients together. Once this had been done, a clean break of body and soul would occur. When the Midrash describes the angel as approaching gehinnom, the mountains and the hosts of angels, to find out Moses' whereabouts, this describes the angel's search to see if any of the four basic materials had shown signs of weakening in Moses, and could form the basis for his being able to perform his usual task. He found that this had not occurred, and came back to G'd, mission unaccomplished. When G'd sent him out a second time, without changing the instructions, this showed that it had been the angel who had misunderstood, not that the instructions had not been precise enough. The fact that G'd Himself buried Moses, emphasises the separation of body and soul had been complete, instantaneous, that there had been no tum-ah at all. How else could G'd have involved Himself in Moses' burial, since He would then come into contact with impurity? This was an act of unprecedented love shown for any human being. Our sages see in the fact that the site of Moses' burial has never ben revealed, a retribution for Moses not having displayed sufficient fervor in the matter of Zimri cohabiting with the Midianite woman Kosbi. This had resulted in the need for Pinchas to take the law into his own hands. The message of the Midrash then is, that those who looked for Moses' burial place on the mountain, had ascribed super human qualities to him. They had to be reminded by seeing him buried in the valley, that even a Moses had human failings. Those, on the other hand, who had searched for his grave in the valley, only to see it on the mountain, had to be reminded that Moses did in fact tower high above other human beings. The fact that the site of the grave remains undisclosed, teaches that a true assessment of the complex personality of Moses is even beyond our sages. The term lakach hashem, G'd took, an expression we find when the wife of the prophet Ezekiel died, as well as when Enoch and Elijah left this earth, denotes that the earthly lives of these people were utterly fulfilled. When our sages say that Elijah did not die, the meaning is that he completed the earthly part of his life only. There remained other parts of his life to be fulfilled in a domain that does not know death. (Moed Katan 26) Our sages have made a general rule that \"the righteous are called alive when they have died.\" In the case of Elijah, this is carried a bit further. Elijah did not even appear to die, hence there was no need for us to be told that appearances notwithstanding, he was not dead. Elijah, having wished himself an experience similar to that of Moses, was commanded to ascend to Heaven in the vicinity of the site where Moses had been buried, (see chapter 35) ",
"\"And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto mount Nebo\" etc. \"And the LORD showed him all the land\" etc.",
"G'd showed Moses the whole land of Gilead etc. and said: \"This is the land...you have seen it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it.\" (Deut 34,4) If this was intended as a consolation, why did G'd arouse Moses' grief at not having realised what he had been allowed to view? Our sages, who were keenly aware of this, interpreted the first verse in the chapter, i.e. \"vaya-al, he ascended, as emphasizing that Moses, as distinct from other mortals, always ascended. Jewish history knows of many ascents and descents. The statement describing Moses as being shown the land, must be understood as a vision into time, into the future, not as a vision into space. ",
"\"You will not cross over into it,\" means it is impossible for one lifetime to span the untold generations that G'd showed the mind's eye of Moses. ",
"Verses 4-8 do not appear in the order in which one would have expected them. If we were to write this paragraph, we would write verses 5-7-6-8 in that order. The verse giving Moses' age at death immediately prior to the verse reporting Israel as mourning him, indicates that Moses died while in full possession of his youthful vigour. Therefore, the people concluded that Moses' departure from the scene was meant as a punishment for them, since they would henceforth be deprived of his leadership. We find a very similar description in Samuel II chapter thirty five, when the death of Avner is recorded. There too, the people felt that his death was a punishment for them. Our sages have expressed the idea on several occasions that Moses' departure was even a cause for \"grief\" in the celestial regions, since Moses could no longer be active on behalf of programs of Divine origin. The important factor for all who suffer a bereavement to keep in mind is, that the departed has joined the ranks of those enjoying eternal life. This is the reason we celebrate Simchat Torah on the day when Moses achieved that status. Completion of the Torah was the completion of Moses' lifework. (see chapter 82 re Moses' merit vis a vis other prophets) "
]
]
],
"Neilat Shearim": [
"",
"The Sifri in Deut 33,29, describes Israel as enquiring from Moses what future reward G'd had in store for them. Moses' reply was the verse \"hail to you Israel, who is like you a nation helped by the Lord?\" Since olam haba is not like anything that can be experienced in this world, and all the pleasures, satisfactions and even ecstasy in this world are as nothing compared to what will be experienced in the hereafter, Moses was not able to describe that world except in the most general terms.",
"",
"It is a well known fact that a period of motion is usually followed by a period of rest. The Sabbath at the end of six days of creative activity, during which something had been created out of nothing, was such a period of constructive rest, tachlit. The purpose of all creative activity had been to attain this goal, the Sabbath. Once completed, the universe could be shown to have been a successful creation only, if it were able to function on its own, without constant directives from its Creator. Moving into a new home, living in it, testifies that the building process has been completed successfuly, even though already during the various stages of erecting the structure there may have been many moments of satisfaction, pride, and sense of achievement for the builder.",
"Death represents the successful completion of life, since the latter is a state of inertia vis a vis the state of motion called life. Though we have a tendency of viewing death as the opposite of life, because it is a state of inertia, it is nevertheless what life had aimed at since birth. When Solomon describes the day of death as superior to the day one is born on, (Kohelet 7,1) this is to be understood within the framework of life and its accomplishments. When life is lived correctly, death is but the ultimate purpose of life. Eternity, infinity, are not part of the brief alliance between body and soul commonly known as a \"lifetime.\" Solomon's statement in the very same verse that \"better a good name than good oil,\" should be understood in a similar vein. A good name is an ultimate achievement. Material goods along the way are only fleeting satisfactions, transient successes. The period we spend on earth as \"Adam,\" partially adamah earth, is transient; it is only a preamble to our achieving our real tachlit purpose in the hereafter.",
"Since the Torah has been given to us to ennoble our lives on this earth, a superficial evaluation would lead us to believe that when studying Torah there must also be a definitive goal, one that is capable of being achieved even if it does take a long time and prolonged effort to achieve that objective. More profound thinking, however, will show us that precisely because it is divinely revealed, it does not conform to earthly considerations. An objective yardstick by which one can measure achievements cannot be applied to Torah study. This is what the Psalmist had in mind, when he proclaims in Psalms 119,96 \"for every purpose I have seen an end, (limit) but Your commandments are very wide ranging indeed.\" (endless) Attainment of final mastery of Torah is not given to any human being to achieve, nor do the six hundred and thirteen commandments encompass all that is expected of the Jew in order to refine him into the ideal personality. Most commandments have many sub categories, and even in the attempt to fulfil a single commandment such as \"love your neighbour as you do yourself,\" there are innumerable ways of observing that commandment. ",
"The variety of ways of pious conduct by individuals mentioned in the Talmud, demonstrates that it simply is not given to one person to fulfil all possible permutations in one lifetme. Performance and study of each of the sections brings its own reward in terms of happiness, enlightenment etc., but the impact of Torah in its totality is infinitely greater, and even different conceptually. The reward for fulfilment of each mitzvah may vary from \"gold\" to \"fine gold,\" but the reward for the totality of observance is eykev rav, is so great that it cannot be defined in terms which our imagination understands. Similarly, when the Mishnah in Peah 1,1, promises dividends in this world for certain types of good deeds performed, whereas the \"capital\" is reserved for the world to come, the concept is identical with that expressed by the Psalmist. A study of the expressions used by our ancestors when blessing their children, or Israel as a whole, reveals that the change in the wording used reflects the ongoing and ever increasing closeness that existed between the various recipients on the one hand, and G'd on the other, just as already Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had different conceptions of mikdash the holy sanctuary, Abraham calling it \"mountain,\" Isaac \"field\" and Jacob \"house,\" respectively, there has been dynamic progress towards an increasingly intimate relationship between Israel and G'd. The uniqueness of this relationship is seen when Moses says \"hail unto you Israel, who is like you?\" Here he had paraphrased the words he had used in the song of thanksgiving after crossing the sea of reeds, when he had sung \"who is like You O Lord, amongst the deities?\" The reason the Jewish people wanted the reward in olam haba spelled out is, that they felt unless there was such a thing, the advantage of man over other creatures in this universe would not only be illusory, but man would actually be worse off than the animals. This very thought is in Solomon's mind, when he asks \"what is man's gain in return for his toil?\" (Kohelet 1,2) He refers to the comparison with the \"inferior\" creatures. Torah study and observance, force these conclusions on man. (see chapter thirty three) Moses' reply was that description in detail of that reward would deprive it of part of its value. Whenever we specify something, we give finite limits to the matter thus defined. Therefore, in order to preserve the comprehensive value of the reward, it could only be described as \"indescribable.\""
]
},
"versions": [
[
"Akeydat Yitzchak by Eliyahu Munk",
"http://www.urimpublications.com"
]
],
"heTitle": "עקידת יצחק",
"categories": [
"Jewish Thought",
"Rishonim"
],
"schema": {
"heTitle": "עקידת יצחק",
"enTitle": "Akeidat Yitzchak",
"key": "Akeidat Yitzchak",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "מפתח",
"enTitle": "Index"
},
{
"heTitle": "הקדמת המחבר",
"enTitle": "Author's Introduction"
},
{
"heTitle": "מבוא שערים",
"enTitle": "Mavo Shearim"
},
{
"heTitle": "",
"enTitle": ""
},
{
"heTitle": "נעילת שערים",
"enTitle": "Neilat Shearim"
}
]
}
}