Daf Ditty Yoma 3: Kivyachol a THEOLOGICAL PARADOX: DIVINE POWER and HUMAN INITIATIVE

Daf Ditty Yoma 3: Kivyachol A THEOLOGICAL PARADOX: DIVINE POWER AND HUMAN INITIATIVE

Peh, zayin, reish, kuf, shin, beit, an acronym for: Lottery [payis], as a new lottery is performed on that day to determine which priests will sacrifice the offerings that day, and the order established on Sukkot does not continue; the blessing of time [zeman]: Who has given us life, sustained us, and brought us to this time, is recited just as it is recited at the start of each Festival;

Festival [regel], as it is considered a Festival in and of itself and there is no mitzva to reside in the sukka (see Tosafot); offering [korban], as the number of offerings sacrificed on the Eighth Day is not a continuation of the number offered on Sukkot but is part of a new calculation; song [shira], as the Psalms recited by the Levites as the offerings were sacrificed on the Eighth Day are not a continuation of those recited on Sukkot; blessing [berakha], as the addition to the third blessing of Grace after Meals and in the Amida prayer (see Tosafot) is phrased differently than the addition recited on Sukkot.

RASHI

The Gemara challenges further: And say that the priest should be sequestered before the festival of Shavuot, which is a Festival preceded by weekdays, as there too it is a matter of sequestering of seven days for one day. Rabbi Abba said: There is a distinction between the inauguration and Shavuot, as one derives an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, Yom Kippur, from an instance where the obligatory offering is one bull and one ram, the inauguration, to the exclusion of Shavuot, when they are two rams that are offered.

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who said that the obligatory offering on Yom Kippur is one ram; however, according to the one who said that they are two rams that are sacrificed on Yom Kippur, what is there to say? According to that opinion, Yom Kippur is not comparable to the inauguration.

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One ram is the one that is mentioned here; as it is written:

Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young 3 ג תאֹזְבּ אֹבָי ,ןֹרֲהַא לֶא - :שֶׁדֹקַּה רַפְבּ רַפְבּ .bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering ןֶבּ - רָקָבּ ,תאָטַּחְל יַאְו לִ .הָלֹעְל לִ יַאְו ,תאָטַּחְל רָקָבּ Lev 16:3

“With this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary, with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering” and it is the same one that is mentioned in the book of Numbers:

And on the tenth day of this seventh month ye shall have 7 ז בוּ ﬠֶ רוֹשָׂ חַ ל דֹ שֶׁ שַּׁ ה בְ ﬠיִ יִ זַּ ה ,הֶ קִ מ רְ אָ - a holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls; ye shall ֹק שֶׁד הֶיְהִי םֶכָל , ﬠְ ו נִּ ,םֶתיִ תֶא - ;םֶכיֵתֹשְׁפַנ ;םֶכיֵתֹשְׁפַנ ;do no manner of work לָכּ - ,הָכאָלְמ אֹל .וּשֲׂﬠַת אֹל ,הָכאָלְמ

4 but ye shall present a burnt-offering unto the LORD for a 8 ח םֶתְּבַרְקִהְו הָלֹע הָוהיַל ַחיֵר ,ַחֹחיִנ רַפּ רַפּ ,ַחֹחיִנ sweet savour: one young bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs ןֶבּ - רָקָבּ דָחֶא יַא לִ ;דָחֶא םיִשָׂבְכּ יֵנְבּ - נָשׁ הָ הָ נָשׁ ;of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish ,הָﬠְבִשׁ םִמיִמְתּ וּיְהִי .םֶכָל וּיְהִי םִמיִמְתּ ,הָﬠְבִשׁ Num 29:7-8

“And on the tenth day of the seventh month you will have a sacred gathering when you afflict your souls; you will not do any labor, and you will offer a burnt offering to the Lord for a sweet aroma: One young bull, one ram…”

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: They are two rams offered on Yom Kippur, one mentioned here in the book of Leviticus and one mentioned in the book of Numbers.

The Gemara rejects this solution: Even if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, and two rams are brought on Yom Kippur, a distinction remains between Yom Kippur and Shavuot.

There, about Yom Kippur, one ram, mentioned in the book of Leviticus, is for the obligation of the day, the atonement of Yom Kippur; and one ram, mentioned in the book of Numbers, is for the additional offerings.

This is to the exclusion of the halakha regarding Shavuot, where both rams are obligations of the day. Therefore, there is no basis for deriving the halakha regarding Shavuot from the inauguration.

The Gemara asks: And say that the requirement derived is to sequester the priest prior to Rosh HaShana, as there, too, it is sequestering of seven days for one day. The days before Rosh HaShana are weekdays, and as in the inauguration, a bull and a ram are sacrificed. Rabbi Abbahu said that this too is rejected: One derives a bull and a ram that the High Priest brings from his own property on Yom Kippur from a bull and a ram that Aaron brought from his own property at the inauguration.

5 This is to the exclusion of Shavuot and Rosh HaShana when the bull and the ram sacrificed are from community property and not owned by the priest. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that every time the Torah utilizes the phrase: Take you, it means from your own property,

and similarly, when the Torah states: Make you, it means from your own property. However, according to the one who said that when the Torah states both phrases it means from communal property, what is there to say to distinguish between Yom Kippur and the other days?

As it was taught in a baraita that when the Torah states: Take you, it means from your own property, and when it states: Make you, it means from your own property; however, when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. This is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says that both when the Torah states: Take you, and when the Torah states: And they will bring to you, it means from community property. And for what purpose, then, does the verse state: Take you, which seems to mean from your own property? It should be understood, as it were, that God said to Moses: I desire that it come from your property more than I desire it from theirs. Therefore, the taking was attributed to Moses even though it was from community property.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one verse says:

:At that time the LORD said unto me 1 א תֵﬠָבּ אוִהַה רַמָא הָוהְי ,יַלֵא לָסְפּ - ְל יֵנְשׁ - חוּל תֹ תֹ חוּל Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the' נָבֲא םיִ רָכּ נֹשׁאִ ,םיִ הֵלֲﬠַו ,יַלֵא ;הָרָהָה ָתיִשָׂﬠְו ,ְלּ ןוֹרֲא ןוֹרֲא ,ְלּ ָתיִשָׂﬠְו ;הָרָהָה ;first and come up unto Me into the mount .ץֵﬠ and make thee an ark of wood. Deut 10:1

“And make you an ark of wood” indicating that it should be from your own property; and one verse says on the same subject:

And they shall make an ark of acacia-wood: two cubits and 10 י וּשָׂﬠְו ,ןוֹרֲא יֵצֲﬠ :םיִטִּשׁ םִיַתָמַּא םִיַתָמַּא a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the יִצֵחָו ,וֹכְּרָא הָמַּאְו יִצֵחָו ,וֹבְּחָר הָמַּאְו הָמַּאְו ,וֹבְּחָר יִצֵחָו הָמַּאְו ,וֹכְּרָא יִצֵחָו .breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof ,יִצֵחָו .וֹתָמֹק ,יִצֵחָו Ex 25:10

7 “And they shall make an ark of acacia wood” meaning from the Jewish people.

How can this contradiction be resolved?

Here, the verse is referring to a time when the Jewish people perform the will of God and they are credited with building the Ark of the Covenant.

There, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people do not perform the will of God, and construction of the Ark is attributed to Moses alone.

According to that opinion, there is no difference between the offerings of Yom Kippur and other offerings.

Tosafos

תופסות ה"ד ר"זפ ב"שק ר"זפ ה"ד תופסות

Tosfos explains how Shemini Atzeres is called an independent festival regarding Regel and Berachah.

י"שריפ לגר ומצעל יאש ן י יבשו ן הכוסב ןברק ומצעל יאש ונ רדסב ירפ גחה הכרב נפב י ומצע ירמאד ןנ יב םו מש י נ י ח ג גח ינימ תרצעה ה ז ה רע

Rashi's opinion: Rashi explains that Shemini Atzeres is called an independent Regel because we do not sit in the Sukah. We say that it has an independent Korban, because it is unlike the order of bulls offered during Sukos. It is an independent Berachah, for on it we say "ba'Yom Shemini Chag ha'Atzeres ha'Zeh."

אתפסותבו עמשמ יכרבמש ן תא ךלמה רמאנש יב םו ימשה נ י חלש תא םעה ו וכרבי תא ךלמה אתשהו אל וה י יאה הכרב הכרב יאה י וה אל אתשהו ךלמה תא וכרבי ו םעה תא חלש י נ ימשה םו יב רמאנש ךלמה תא ן יכרבמש עמשמ אתפסותבו יכ איהה אינתד קרפב בלול הברעו הכוס( ףד זמ ). םשכ 'זש ימי גחה ינועט ן ןברק ריש הכרב ו הניל ךכ ינימש ועט ן ןוט נמ כהי ל"בשק יקסמו נ ן יאמ הכרב תכרב זמה ו ן הלפתו ןוזהתר כב א ןניסו "ש

The Tosefta connotes that "Berachah" refers to blessing the king - "ba'Yom Shemini Shalach Es ha'Am va'Yvarchu Es ha'Melech." If so (also here, Berachah is blessing the king) our Sugya is unlike Sukah 47a, which says "just like the seven days of Sukos require Korban, Shir, Berachah and Linah, also Shemini Atzeres requires these." The Gemara concludes that Berachah is [mentioning the festival in] Birkas ha'Mazon and Tefilah!

יאו ן שוחל ךכב ד הממ ךשפנ יאמל יעבד שרפמל םתה הכרב יה י נ ו ןמז כ"ע אל וה י יכ יאה אכהד אהד הכרב אכהד אל אל אכהד הכרב אהד אכהד יאה יכ י וה אל כ"ע ןמז ו נ י יה הכרב םתה שרפמל יעבד יאמל ךשפנ הממ וה י ןמז ןמזד בישח היל אכה יפנאב הישפנ ינבאההלבש ןז ןז יו

This is not difficult. However, you will explain Berachah, according to the Gemara's Hava Amina there that Berachah is Zman (Shehecheyanu), you must say that it is unlike here, for here we count Berachah and Zman separately! (Therefore, it is not difficult if also in the conclusion Berachah is unlike here.)

ת"רו שרפמ הכרב נפב י ומצע תכרב זמה ו ן הלפתו יכ אוהה םתהד לגרו נפב י ומצע שרפמ נעל י ן הניל ןועטש הניל ליל ליל הניל ןועטש הניל ן יאצומ י ט"ו ורחאה ן לכו ז ' ימי גחה נועט י ן יל הנ ירמגד נ ן חספמ ביתכד היב םירבד[ ]זט נפו תי קבב ר

R. Tam's opinion: R. Tam explains that Berachah refers to ("ba'Yom Shemini Chag ha'Atzeres ha'Zeh" in) Birkas ha'Mazon and Tefilah, like in Sukah. Regel refers to Linah, that one must lodge the night after the last Yom Tov [in Yerushalayim, just like] the seven days of Sukos require Linah. We learn from Pesach, about which it says "u'Fanisa ba'Boker v'Halachta l'Ohalecha";

תכלהו ךילהאל יא רשפא ל רמו תכלהו ךילהאל אלא מ"הוחב יבד ט"ו יח בי יארב תי נפ םי הרזעב םי נפ תי יארב בי יח ט"ו יבד מ"הוחב אלא ךילהאל תכלהו רמו

V'Halachta l'Ohalecha must refer to Chol ha'Mo'ed [and not leaving on the morning of Yom Tov], for one must enter the Azarah on Yom Tov.

אלו ישקית יל הנ לכ ז ' ימ אכיא ימ ' ז לכ הנ יל ישקית אלו

There is no [Chiyuv of] Linah for all seven days!

שיד רמול ימד אלש איבה ותגיגח יב םו ןושאר איבהו דחאב ראשמ םימיה ךירצ ולל ן הלילב ירחאלש ויחל לל ןולךר יי אמדא יה וא וי תיחאב ל ידרו י

9 (Indeed, it applies all seven days.) If one did not bring Chagigah on the first day, and brought it on one of the other six days, he must lodge [in Yerushalayim] the following night.

ת"או קופית היל ועטד ן יל הנ םושמ ימלש החמש והד ו לכ 'ח לכ ו והד החמש ימלש םושמ הנ יל ן ועטד היל קופית ת"או

(Why do we need a Hekesh to obligate Linah during Sukos?) In any case Linah is required in order to fulfill Shlamei Simchah (eating Kodshim every day), which applies all eight days!

נתד ן םש( ףד ):במ ללהה החמשהו 'ח נמ י ן תוברל תופוע תוחנמ םיצעו ל"ת נפו תי לכ יפ נ תו התאש ופ הנ אל והי אלא אלא והי אל הנ ופ התאש תו נ יפ לכ תי נפו ל"ת םיצעו תוחנמ תופוע תוברל ן י נמ 'ח החמשהו ללהה ):במ ףד םש( ן נתד רקבמ ו א י ךליאו רב

Summary

Rav Avraham Adler writes:1

“Pazar kashav” The Gemora offers the Hebrew words “pazar kashav” as an acronym to symbolize the six differences between Shemini Atzeres and Sukkos.

P stands for payis, which means lottery, since the Kohanim made a new lottery to decide who would be able to offer korbanos. Z stands for zman, since a new beracha of shehechiyanu is recited, and so on.

R’ David Feldman of Liptzig explained that the words “Pazar kashav” also have an important meaning, which is very relevant to the Yom Tov of Shemini Atzeres. The Gemora tells us that as punishment for withholding tzedaka from the poor, Hashem withholds the rains from us (see Taanis 8).

On Shemini Atzeres we begin to daven for rain. “Pazar” means to distribute. “Kashav” means to heed. When we distribute charity t othe poor, Hashem heeds our prayers for rain.

Shemini Atzeres is only a festival of its own regarding six laws.

Rav Ashi answers (as to why the Kohen Gadol was not sequestered for the services of Shemini Atzeres): Can it be that that the primary portion of the festival (the first seven days of Sukkos) does not require sequestration, and its subordinate will require sequestration!?

The Gemora notes that Shemini Atzeres is only considered an independent festival regarding the following six laws:

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Yoma_3.pdf

10 Payis, lottery, because during the seven days of Sukkos, there was a rotation of the mishmaros as to which mishmar would be the ones to offer the bulls of that day’s Mussaf offering. On Shemini Atzeres, however, the mishmar who would be able to offer the bull sacrifices that day was determined through a lottery.

The second law is regarding zman, time, which refers to the shehechiyanu blessing that is recited on a new festival.

The third law is regarding regel, festival, in that Shemini Atzeres is not referred to as Sukkos; rather, it is called by its own name, Shemini Atzeres, and there is no biblical commandment to dwell in a Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres.

The fourth law is korban, sacrifice, as on the seven days of Sukkos, there were many bulls offered, along with two rams and fourteen sheep, whereas on Shemini Atzeres they only offered one bull, one ram and seven sheep.

A fifth law was regarding shir, song, as on the seven days of Sukkos, the Leviim sang songs that pertain to giving the poor their entitlements, whereas on Shemini Atzeres there was a different song that was sung.

The sixth law is regarding brachah, blessing, as on Shemini Atzeres the people would bless the king and this would be a commemoration of the dedication of the Bais HaMikdash when the Jewish People blessed Shlomo HaMelech on the eighth day.

Regarding compensation, however, the Gemora proves from a Mishna that if one did not offer his Korban Chagigah on the first day of Sukkos, he can offer it throughout the whole festival of Sukkos, even on Shemini Atzeres.

We derive a service that consists of one bull and one ram from a service that consists of one bull and one ram. The Gemora wonders why we cannot say that the verse that states as he did on this day, so HaShem commanded to do to atone for you refers to Shavuos, because this would be a case of sequestration of seven days for a one-day service.

Rabbi Abba answers that we derive a service that consists of one bull and one ram i.e. the Yom Kippur service, from a service that consists of one bull and one ram i.e. the miluim. This would exclude Shavuos, when the Shtei HaLechem were brought, and this was accompanied by one bull and two rams, congregation of the Children of Israel he shall take two he-goats for a chatas. Why, then, does it have to state below and Aharon shall bring near the bull chatas that is “for himself?”

If we already know from the earlier verses that the bull chatas was for Aharon, why does the verse stress that it was for himself? We learn from this that the words for himself means from his own funds.

SHEMINI ATZERES – INDEPENDENT FESTIVAL OR NOT?

11 The Beis Yosef (Y"D 120:20) cites a Yerushalmi in Nedarim: Rabbi Yochanan says: One who makes an oath against drinking wine on the "Chag," is prohibited from drinking wine on Sukkos, including Shemini Atzeres.

The Beis Yosef writes that even though Shemini Atzeres is a festival by itself; that is only in respect to the six laws delineated in the Gemora, however in regard to the manner in which people speak, it is included in the festival of Sukkos, and the laws of vows are based on the way people speak.

The Meiri comments: Shemini Atzeresis only included in his vow if he just said "Chag," however if he explicitly said "Chag HaSukkos," Shemini Atzeres will not be included in his vow. Proof is brought from here to one who mistakenly said "Chag HaSukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shemini Atzeres"; he has not fulfilled his obligation and must recite Shemoneh Esrei again.

The Turei Even (Megillah 5a) disagrees and he states that one who mistakenly said "Chag HaSukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shemini Atzeres" would not be required to repeat Shemoneh Esrei. His proof is from our Gemora which states that Shemini Atzeres is considered part of the compensation period for the korbanos of the first day of Sukkos.

Furthermore, one who vows to bring a korban has three festivals to bring it before he will have transgressed the prohibition against delaying. If the third festival is Sukkos, he will not violate this prohibition until after Shemini Atzeres. The Nishmas Adam rules that even though Shemini Atzeres is an independent festival, it is nevertheless related to Sukkos by the fact that one still eats in the sukkah and therefore one who mistakenly said "Chag HaSukkos" in Shemoneh Esrei instead of "Shemini Atzeres" would not be required to repeat Shemoneh Esrei.

There is a dispute whether the Yom Kippur service consists of one ram or two rams. Rebbe maintains that the community only offered one ram on Yom Kippur. The ram mentioned in the Book of Vayikra is the same ram that is mentioned in the Book of Bamidbar.

Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon, however, maintains that there are two different rams, one mentioned in the Book of Vayikra and one mentioned in the Book of Bamidbar. Nonetheless, even according to Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon, we derive the sequestration of Yom Kippur from the miluim and not from Shavuos because on Yom Kippur, there are two different types of rams. One ram comes as an obligation of the day and the other ram comes for the Mussaf offerings, whereas on Shavuos, both rams are offered as an obligation of the day.

The services of Shavuos and Rosh HaShanah consist of only communal offerings.

The Gemora then wonders why the verse cannot refer to Rosh HaShanah which would also be a sequestration of seven days for a one-day service, and the Mussaf of Rosh HaShanah also consists of one bull and one ram.

Rabbi Avahu answers that we derive the Kohen Gadol’s bull and ram i.e. the Yom Kippur service, from the Kohen Gadol’s bull and ram i.e. the miluim service, whereas the services of both Shavuos

12 and Rosh HaShanah consist solely of communal offerings. [The Kohen Gadol would bring a bull and a ram on Yom Kippur and Aharon brought a bull and a ram by the miluim from his own funds.]

There is a dispute regarding the Torah’s commandments of take for yourself. Rabbi Yoshiyah maintains that whenever we find in the Torah that HaShem commanded Moshe take for yourself, it means that Moshe should take from his own funds. Whenever HaShem told Moshe make for yourself, it means Moshe should make it from his own funds. However, when it is said they shall take for you, it means they shall take from communal funds.

Rabbi Yonasan, however, maintains that both take for yourself and they shall take for you means from communal funds. The reason HaShem told Moshe take for yourself is because He was so to speak telling Moshe regarding the Ketores that he should take the money from communal funds and HaShem would consider it as if Moshe had donated the funds, as this is what HaShem preferred. [So, according to R’Yonasan, where is the proof that the Kohen Gadol brings any sacrifices from his own funds?]

Regarding the miluim and Yom Kippur, everyone agrees that the Kohen took from his own funds. The Gemora answers: The dispute mentioned above is regarding the word taking and the word making. Examples of these are the verse take for yourself spices and make for yourself two silver trumpets. Regarding the miluim, however, it is said and to the Children of Israel you shall speak, saying, “take a hegoat for a chatas.” Why was it necessary to state in the previous verse take for yourself a young bull for a chatas? This teaches us that the words take for yourself means to take from Aharon’s own funds. Regarding Yom Kippur, it is said with this shall Aharon come into the holy, with a young bull for a chatas, etc. It is said further and from the

Mark Kerzner writes:2

Earlier it was said that just as the Levites spent seven days near the Tabernacle, separated from all, for the consecration, so too there will be a yearly event requiring separation for seven days, and that event is Yom Kippur.

But what is special about Yom Kippur? Why not say that this seven-day separation has to precede any sacrifice? And if you tell me that we don't know which Kohen will be doing the service, I will answer that maybe the whole group serving in the Temple on a specific week should require solitary confinement beforehand? - The Talmud answers that it is fair to compare consecration, which was done only on a specific day, the eighth day of the service, to Yom Kippur, which is also only once year, as opposed to sacrifices which are brought every day.

The Talmud then tries to connect the seven-day separation to other holidays, such as Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, and to Rosh HaShanah - and disproves such connections, giving a specific reason. For example, other holidays occur three times a year, but Yom Kippur - only

2 http://talmudilluminated.com/yoma/yoma3.html

13 once. Finally, Ravina finds a reason that works in every case: Yom Kippur is special because all its services were performed by the High Priest, and this can only be compared to the first consecration, which was completely done by the first High Priest - Aharon.

In a certain regard, Rosh HaShanah seems a poor example of a day which has seven days of preparation for a one-day occasion.3 After all, Rosh HaShanah occurs on Rosh Chodesh, the first day of Tishrei, and we never know whether the month of Elul will be a complete or deficient month. If we were to begin our preparation for Rosh HaShanah on the 23rd or 24th of Elul, we might have six or eight days of separation, and we are aiming to pattern this system after the event .the initiation days leading up to the opening of the Mishkan , םיאולימ which took place during the

,to indicate that we need to match the precedent case precisely הזה There, the Torah uses the word and not to have an approximate situation. How, then, can Rosh HaShanah be a viable suggestion to follow? In fact, the Yerushalmi at the beginning of our Gemara asks this question and based upon this note the Gemara rejects Rosh HaShanah from consideration.

notes that according to the conclusion of the Gemara (4a) we need two verses to רא י ג ב ו ר ו ת The show that the Torah wants us to have the Kohen be separated for seven days before Yom Kippur. we might have thought that we separate Aharon before ( רהא ן י ב ו א ב ז תא ) Based upon one verse alone Yom Kippur, but that this might have been only for the first Yom Kippur only.

to teach that this is true for all ( לע י םכ רפכל . . . השע רשאכ ) The Torah therefore teaches a second verse generations, as well. Here also, as the Gemara questions that this rule might apply to Pesach, Shavuos or Rosh HaShanah, it is only referring to the very first time these holidays occurred. .we would not apply the halachah of separation to future years , פכל ר Without the second verse of

Rabeinu Bachya (Parashas Bo), in the name of Rabeinu Chananel tells us that the Jews in the desert were surrounded by the clouds, and they determined the calendar based upon astronomical calculations, rather than by sight of witnesses.

As such, the first Rosh HaShanah, as well as all holidays in the desert, were determined and celebrated on their actual date with no uncertainty. Seven days of preparation would have been exactly that, a precise seven days, no more and no fewer.

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:4

3 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Yoma%20003.pdf 4 https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/yoma-3-to-work-or-study

14 "Abba Chanan said, in the name of Rav Elazar: One verse says, 'make for you an ark of acacia wood' and one verse says and 'they (not you) shall make an ark of acacia wood'. How is it [possible]? This verse refers to when the Jewish people are doing the will of G-d, and this verse to when they are not doing the will of G-d" (Yoma 3b). What the Gemara does not explain is which is which. Is the reward for doing the will of G-d that one does the work himself, or does it mean that we will merit that others will do the work on our behalf? As noted by the Maharsha, both views appear in our tradition. This debate reflects a most fundamental disagreement as to the nature of Divine-human encounters. Are we more blessed when we do something ourselves, or are the blessings increased when we are fortunate enough to have others do the work for us? A similar debate runs through several Talmudic discussions. One famous example is the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai regarding the interplay between work and Torah study (Brachot 35b). Rabbi Yishmael is of the view that the ideal life for a Jew is one that combines the two. We must, as we say twice a day in the Shema, "gather our grain". Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai disagrees, claiming the above verse is actually a curse applicable only "when we do not do the will of G-d", i.e., ideally, one should learn and let others do the work[1]. The Talmud simply notes that, "many did like Rabbi Yishmael and were successful, and many did like Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and were unsuccessful". While Jewish history, based on the Talmudic observation, has always favored the views of Rabbi Yishmael—leaving only the very few to rely on others—the view of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai has become (tragically, in my view) quite popular today. To cite another related example: The Talmud in Mashechet Sukkah (41a) discusses the prohibition of eating chadash, the new crop of grain, which may only be eaten after the offering of the korban ha’Omer, sometime on the morning of the second day of Pesach. We must not eat, ourselves, before acknowledging G-d's blessings. With the destruction of the Temple, and no need to wait for the korban ha’Omer, one should be able to eat chadash at daybreak of the 16th of Nissan. Yet, in a ruling that demonstrates the eternal optimism of the Jewish people, the Talmud rules that one may not do so, for "perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt, and one will say, 'but last year, I ate it in the morning,'" without realizing that last year, without a Temple, the law allowed one to eat earlier. Yet the kohanim always brought the korban ha’Omer early in the day. So even if people did not realize that this year, they would have to wait until the omer was brought, it would suffice to tell people to wait until noon—by which time the korban would definitely have been offered. The Talmud explains that the third Temple will be built at night, and with so much to do on that first day, the korban would likely not be brought until the end of the day. Thus, the need for a blanket day-long prohibition. Rashi notes that the Talmud (Shavuot 15b), basing itself on the verse "on the day the Mishkan was built", prohibits the building of the Temple at night;[2] so how can the Talmud claim the Third Temple may be built at night? Rashi and the Tosafists explain that such only applies to the Temple built by humans. However, the third Temple will miraculously descend from heaven overnight. And that can happen by day or night.

15 The Rambam, not surprisingly, disagrees, and lists the mitzvah to build the Beit Hamikdash as the third and final mitzvah we must do when we enter the land of Israel. Such a view fits well with the Rambam's notion of explaining "miracles" as natural phenomena that occur with precision timing. While having a Temple falling from heaven must be quite a sight, it pales in comparison to the efforts of man in building the same[3].

[1] While Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai may in theory agree that work has great value, in practice the study of Torah must take precedence. [2] The Talmud gives no explanation for such a law. Night is associated with fear, uncertainty, exile, and the like. Daytime, on the other hand, represents hope, confidence, and optimism. Not only could one not build the Temple at night, but no sacrifices were to be brought at night. In fact, while we all know that the Jewish day starts at night, the Temple day began in the morning, at the crack of dawn. [3] Presumably, the Rambam, who codifies the prohibition of building a Temple at night, would use the second explanation of the Gemara: that the Temple will be finished just before sunset. While effectively, that is the same as night, of course, technically, it is not.

The Milu'im and Seven Day Sequestration of Kohen Gadol

Rav Nathaniel Helfgot writes:

INTRODUCTION

16 Careful comparison of the presentation of the command - the "tzivui," and its execution - the "bitzu'a," in various sections of the Torah often yields significant insight. Such comparisons are especially useful in the chapters describing the Mishkan, and were utilized by meforshim, both ancient and modern, in approaching these passages. This technique can be particularly helpful in our search for a proper understanding of the Milu'im, the consecration ritual, and its place in the scheme of the book of Shemot.

The Milu'im passage, with its elaborate seven-day ceremony, is presented in full detail in chapter 29 of Shemot as a command to Moshe and is carried out with the same measure of concern for details in chapter 8 of Vayikra, (Parashat Tzav), whereupon it is followed in chapter 9 by the events of the eighth day, the 'Yom Ha-shemini,' at the beginning of Parashat Shemini. In comparing the two texts, one notes many minor differences, such as small discrepancies in the sequence of events, e.g., when the Kohanim were anointed with oil, the precise order of the wearing of each vestment, etc. (See especially Malbim in his commentary to Vayikra chapter 8 who cites and attempts to explain many of these differences). I would like to deal, however, with just a few of the more significant discrepancies that may shed light on some fundamental issues in our narrative

To properly understand these points let us first outline the sacrifices of the Milu'im section as they are presented and described in Shemot and Vayikra. The following sacrifices were brought every day of the seven-day period of consecration according to Shemot and Vayikra respectively (It would be best to open a Tanakh and follow along):

Ex 29

1. "Par echad ben bakar"- a bull (verse 1); the animal is subsequently referred to as "par" without any other appellation (verses 3,10,11, 14), while the procedures of the classical korban chatat, the sin offering, are performed on it (shechita, semikha, zerikat ha-dam on the mizbe'ach ha-olah - the alter outside the Ohel Moed). In verse 14, a major deviation from the standard chatat takes place; the meat and fats and inner organs are burnt "mi-chutz la-machaneh" - outside the camp. This is anomalous as the meat and fats of the standard chatat are always burned within the Mishkan, on the altar outside the Ohel Moed. The only chata'ot that are burned outside the camp are ones in which the zerikat ha-dam takes place INSIDE the Ohel Moed, such as the par kohen

17 mashiach (Vayikra 4:12) - or the service on Yom Ha-kippurim (Vayikra 16:27). This leads the Midrash Halakha, cited by Rashi (verse 14), to note that this is the only "outside chatat" that is burned outside of the camp. In addition, it is only here, in verse 14, that the term chatat is used ("chatat hee") to describe the Korban and even here it is not referred to as 'par ha-chatat.'

2. A ram which is brought as an olah (verses 16-19).

3. A second ram which is brought as a shelamim (verses 19-23), later termed the "eil ha-milu'im.

4. A korban mincha, consisting of the elements of matzot, regular loaves, and rikikei matzot mixed with oil, etc.

In effect, then, the Milu'im consist of a representative sample of the classical korbanot that are part of the Torat Kohanim: olah, mincha, shelamim, and some type of chatat; it is a sort of smorgasbord of the korbanot that the Kohanim will deal with in the daily running of the Mishkan and Mikdash. (A question for further study is why no "asham" is brought in the context of the Milu'im. See points for further study at the end of the shiur.)

After this presentation, the Torah tells us that these korbanot, along with other parts of the consecration ceremony, are to be repeated for seven straight days (verse 35). This is then followed by verse 36 which states "And each day you shall prepare a bull offering (par ha-chatat) for expiation (al ha-kippurim); you shall purge the altar by performing purification, and the altar shall become most holy, and you shall anoint it to consecrate it. Seven days shall you perform purification for the altar to consecrate it."

There is a debate among the meforshim as to the nature of this par. Some explain that this par is identical with that mentioned in the beginning of the section and is simply being repeated here to emphasize its purificatory role as well as the Torah's insistence that it too be repeated for seven days. Others insist that this par chatat is a new sacrifice, to be brought in addition to the other korbanot, as would appear from peshuto shel mikra, the simple reading of the text. (This second position is indeed adopted by Abravanel in his comments to these verses. It is also interesting to note that the Temple Scroll found at Qumran explicitly describes the Milu'im as consisting of two separate parim! See further 11Qt 15-17 in Yigal Yadin, The Temple Scroll, Jerusalem, 1983 pp. 61-75).

18 Interestingly, the Torah then introduces the laws of the daily sacrifice, the tamid, (though the laws of all other sacrifices are left for Sefer Vayikra!) concluding this section with the very beautiful verses: "A regular burnt offering throughout the generations, at the entrance of the tent of meeting (petach Ohel Moed), for there I will meet you (e'eva'ed shama), and there I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified in my presence (ve-nikdash bekhvodi). I will sanctify the tent of meeting and the altar, and I will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve me as priests. I will then abide amongst the Jewish people (ve-shakhanti betokh Bnei Yisrael), and I will be their God" (verses 42-44). This is then followed by the section dealing with the building of the incense altar (itself problematic as it should have appeared in Parashat Teruma) and the command to offer ketoret upon it daily.

Lev 8-9

1. The chapter begins with God telling Moshe to take Aharon and his sons and the vestments of kehuna and the oil, and the "par chatat" (the sin offering) and the other animals and basket of matzot (8:1-2). The par is termed a chatat from the very outset of the passage. The altar is anointed with oil to sanctify it (verse 10); Moshe brings the "par chatat" (verse 14); the term is then used repeatedly a number of times throughout the section; he then immediately engages in purifying the altar. No further mention is made of any other par or purification ceremony of the altar.

2. The "eil ha-olah" is brought (verses 18-21).

3. The second ram, the "eil ha-Milu'im" (shelamim) is brought (verses 22- 25).

4. The mincha is brought together with the shelamim as outlined in Vayikra (22-31).

5. Aharon and his sons are instructed not to leave the area of the entrance of the tent of meeting - petach Ohel Moed - for the entire seven-day consecration period, "day and night," in order to bring atonement upon themselves - LEKHAPER ALEIKHEM (verse 35).

6. On the eighth day Aharon is commanded to bring a calf (eigel ben bakar) as a sin offering, and a ram as an olah (9:2).

19 7. The Jewish people are requested to bring a goat (sa'ir) as a sin offering, and a calf (eigel) and a sheep for an olah, together with an ox and ram for shelamim and a mincha sacrifice, for "on this day God will appear to you" (verses 3-4) and God's glory (Kavod) will appear upon you" (verse 5).

8. The text then describes an elaborate atonement ceremony with the word 'kappara' repeated numerous times, and sets up the model, as Ramban and others point out, for what is later expanded into the yearly ritual of Yom Ha-kippurim for the Kohanim. (Note for instance: the par of the Kohen and the Korbanot of the people, the "sa'ir" of the people. Furthermore, the sacrifices are described as playing an atonement role for the Kohen himself and for the people - "vekhaper be'adkha u-va'ad ha-am" etc., all elements echoing the Yom Kippur language later on in Vayikra 16.)

9. The text then continues to describe the appearance of God's Kavod followed by the tragedy of the bringing of the ketoret by Nadav and Avihu and their deaths at the hand of God.

II.

Five striking distinctions emerge from carefully comparing these two texts:

A. While in Sefer Shemot the Par is never called "par ha-chatat," and only once in Shemot 29:14 is it even associated with the term "chatat," in Vayikra it is immediately and always termed as such. (This was already noticed by the Sifrei to Vayikra 8:14.)

B. Related to this point: while in Shemot the impression one gets is of two parim, one to consecrate the Kohen and one at the end to serve an expiatory role for the altar, in Vayikra the presentation speaks of only one par ha-chatat which serves both functions

C. In Shemot, no command is given to the Kohanim to remain at the Ohel Moed for seven days and seven nights in constant presence, as appears in Vayikra (8:33). (Note carefully the language the Torah uses to describe this new directive in contrast to all of the other parts of the consecration ceremony mentioned earlier in the chapter. Regarding these other elements, elements that are in effect fulfillments of the commands in Shemot, such as the wearing of the vestments, the sacrifice of the various korbanot etc., the Torah repeatedly writes that they were done "ka'asher tziva

20 Hashem et Moshe" ("as God commanded Moshe") (v. 9,13,17, 21, 29). In describing the command not to leave the front of the Ohel Moed the Torah shifts terminology with Moshe admonishing the kohanim to fulfill this command "Ki chein tzuveiti" ("for thus have I been commanded")(v. 35).

D. Neither the tamid nor ketoret sections are incorporated into the story in Vayikra as they are in Shemot.

E. Finally and possibly the key to our entire question: in Sefer Shemot, there is no mention whatsoever of the need for a Yom ha-Shemini with its elaborate Yom ha-Kippurim type ritual to bring about the process of divine revelation. In Vayikra, of course, this is a, if not the, central facet of the consecration story and is described in great detail.

III.

The solution to these clearly distinct presentations lies in the chronological context in which they appear; namely Sefer Shemot being pre-"cheit ha-eigel," the sin of the golden calf, and Parashot Tzav and Shemini being post-"cheit ha-eigel." Before the sin of the golden calf, the Milu'im ceremony is a consecration ritual in which the basic types of korbanot, including a chatat, are played out. In truth, however, there is no actual sin for which the par will atone; it is not really a par chatat in the true sense (and is thus not termed as such) but rather a korban that is treated with the status of a chatat, "CHATAT HEE." In Vayikra however, we are after the cataclysm of the cheit ha-eigel that almost destroyed the relationship between God and the Jewish people, as well as, due to Aharon's role in the sin of the golden calf, the position of Aharon and the Kohanim in the divine scheme (see Sifrei Shemini beginning of ch. 4).

In Shemini, the par has now been transformed into a "par ha-chatat," as it helps to bring atonement for Aharon and his family as they seek to reestablish contact with God (see also Rav Kasher zt"l's reading of the Sifrei cited above, in Torah Sheleima - Parashat Tetzaveh, pg. 200, note 19). The par of atonement, which in Tetzaveh only appears at the end of the section in relation to atoning for the altar - shiv'at yamim tekhaper al ha-mizbe'ach (v.37), (implying that there were two separate parim as we noted above) is transformed in Shemini into one par, a par ha-chatat, playing a dual role from the very outset of the ritual, bringing atonement for the altar (Shemini 8:15) as well as kappara for the kohanim. Indeed it is striking to note that in our passage here in Shemot the Torah tells us that the Kohanim should engage in this ritual for seven days ("lemalei et yadam," verse 35)

21 and concludes that the ritual of the par chatat for the alter shall be done seven days to atone for the altar - shiv'at yamim tekhaper al ha-mizbe'ach." In sharp contrast in Shemini the entire procedure of the Milu'im is presented as being for the atonement of the kohanim. It is thus they who must remain in front of the sanctuary - petach Ohel Moed - for seven days - LEKHAPER ALEIKHEM (verse 34), a term and concept wholly absent from the Shemot passage.

Taking this a step further it would appear that had the sin of the Golden Calf not occurred, there would have been no ceremony of the eighth day, as the seven days alone would have been sufficient in their own right (See Ramban, Shemini 9:3). The manifestation of God's presence would have automatically begun with daily worship in the Mishkan, with the korbanot ha-tamid and the ketoret, as is indicated by the juxtaposition and language of the text in Shemot 29. Instead of the eighth day with its special ritual, there would have been an immediate commencement of the daily ritual, the daily sacrifice and daily incense. Once the altar was purified, that which was to be constant - "tamid" both in the morning and evening - was the bringing of certain regular sacrifices. It was these acts, the Torah very suggestively tells us, which were to be done constantly "petach Ohel Moed lifnei Hashem, asher e'eva'eid shama, veno'aditi shama livnei Yisrael, ve- ne'ekdash bekhvodi... ve-shakhanti betokh Bnei Yisrael"(verses 42-50).

22 Unfortunately, this was not to be, as Jewish history went awry and the Milu'im along with other elements in God's relationship to the Jewish people were transformed (see for example the extremely significant Ramban at the beginning of Parashat Behar). By Parashat Shemini, the Milu'im have been transmuted from a unit in which the consecration itself takes place, into one of preparation for an eighth day; it is no longer a seven-day unit followed organically by the regular patterns of religious existence, i.e., the tamid and ketoret. At this point, that alone will not suffice to heal the rupture between God and his servants. The Milu'im becomes a preparatory seven- day period paving the way for the climax of an eighth day. (It is significant to note that Chazal derive from this seven-day period followed by an eighth day, the exact model for the Mishna's ruling that seven days before Yom Kippur, the day of atonement for all eternity, the Kohen Gadol is set aside to practice the rituals of atonement! Yoma 3b). What in Tetzaveh is associated with the korbanot tamid and ketoret, namely their constantly being performed day and night - petach Ohel Moed - is now transformed into a mitzva for the kohanim themselves to sit constantly, day and night - petach Ohel Moed! (Shemini 8:35). And of course, now the need for the eighth day, for the ritual of atonement with its korbanot of "eigel," so suggestive of the sin of the Golden Calf, together with the other elements of the Yom Kippur ritual falls into place. God's revelation at this juncture of Jewish history will not occur with the implementation of the regular Milu'im and the flow into the regular pattern of Avodat ha-Korbanot (i.e. Tetzaveh). Things are not simply as they were, and the need to reestablish contact with God and delineate the new boundaries and contours of that relationship are necessary. Now it is only in the aftermath of the ritual of the eighth day, the mini Yom Kippurim of Aharon and his sons, that God's presence will be manifest. The natural process was interrupted, and repairing the damage, of literally restoring the loving relationship between the estranged couple, between Knesset Yisrael and the Ribbono shel Olam requires that much more work.

For further study:

We noted above that no "asham" sacrifice is brought as part of the Milu'im ceremony. It is interesting to note that the same holds true for a parallel consecration ceremony described in Bemidbar 7, the Chanukat ha-Mizbe'ach and the sacrifices brought by the nese'im, the princes of the various tribes. Each prince brings a package that includes a mincha, ketoret, a buland lamb for an olah, a goat for a chatat, and finally two bulls, five rams and five male lambs, all shelamim. In all of the dedication ceremonies of the

Mishkan and kohanim there are no Ashamot. One might explore the unique aspects of Asham as opposed to all other korbanot in the Torat haKohanim that might explain this glaring absence. Study carefully the portions of Vayikra 1-7 and note what common

23 denominator might bind all the other korbanot and their use in the service in the Mishkan, in the Avodat ha-Korbanot, that does not exist in regards to the asham.

Kivyachol

Rabbi Avrohom Sebrow writes:5

Many times, in the course of divrei Torah and conversation, the Hebrew word “Kivyachol” is used. I conducted an unscientific study and concluded that people generally understand the word to convey that the statement referenced is merely allegorical. When people ascribe human attributes to Hashem, they add in the word “Kivyachol.” However, those that learn the daf came across the word this week, and Rashi offers two precise explanations that differ from the simple definition of allegorical.

There is an argument (Yoma 3b) on our daf regarding how we are to understand the pesukim in the Torah when Moshe is told by Hashem “kach lecha.” Rebbe Yoshiya understands the directive to mean that Moshe Rabbeinu should use his own funds to purchase whatever items were mentioned in the pasuk. Therefore, when Moshe Rabbeinu was told to take the spices that are used for the ketores, he was to purchase them from his own funds. The Rashash explains that generally the spices are purchased from communal funds, but the ketores used during the inauguration of the Mishkan was paid for by Moshe Rabbeinu.

Rebbe Yonason disagrees and says that even the spices used for the ketores during the Mishkan’s inauguration had to be purchased with communal funds. The use of the phrase “kach lecha” was meant to convey a message. “K’vayachol, I want yours more than theirs.” Rashi’s first explanation of the word “Kivyachol” is that the word means “if it were possible.” Hashem told Moshe “If it were possible for the funds for the ketores to come from an individual, I would prefer that they

5 http://www.5tjt.com/kvyachol/

24 come from you instead of from Klal Yisrael.” However, it is not possible since the funds for the ketores have to come from communal sources. It is interesting to note that according to this understanding, the word “Kivyachol” was said by Hashem. According to Rashi’s first pshat, the word “Kivyachol” means if it were possible and may have many possible usages.

The second explanation mentioned in Rashi is that the Gemara is mentioning the word “Kivyachol” as an introduction to the quote that is about to be ascribed to Hashem. Hashem was conveying that He was upset at Klal Yisrael on account of their aveiros and therefore preferred Moshe Rabbeinu’s funds to theirs. The Gemara adds the word “Kivyachol” to convey the message that we are able to say this only because this is what the Torah says. On our own, we would never want to utter such a derogatory statement about Klal Yisrael, but we are able to say it, Kivyachol, because that is what is said in the Torah. Tosfos Rabbeinu Peretz says that the word “Kivyachol” is actually a synthesis of two terms. “K’v” and “yachol.” The numerical value of the Hebrew term “KV” is 22. On account of the Torah which is written with 22 letters, we are able, yachol, to say the statement. In a similar vein, Tosfos Shantz says that the word “k’vayachol” is an abbreviation of the words “kasuv baTorah yachol lomrah,” “since it is stated in the Torah we are able to say it.”

The Maharsha offers another explanation of the Gemara. He seems to follow Rashi’s first explanation. Hashem told Moshe k’vayachol that he prefers his funds to Klal Yisrael’s. The “fallacy” is that all funds really belong to Hashem anyway. Hashem was intimating that if anyone would merit to actually have ownership of their own funds it would be Moshe Rabbeinu. To connect this idea to the masechta we just completed, it is worth noting that the Rashba holds that when someone gives his machatzis hashekel during the times of the Beis HaMikdash he does not make a berachah. This is due to the fact that he isn’t actually giving anything. The funds belong to Hashem regardless.

The daf yomi just finished masechta Shekalim (Yerushalmi) and proceeded to Yoma. Although in the Vilna Shas, Rosh Hashanah precedes Yoma, Rabbi David Feder said that in the Slavuta Shas,

25 Yoma comes after Shekalim. The founder of the daf yomi, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Chochmei Lublin, HaRav Meir Shapiro, zt’l, was a cousin of the Slavuta/Zhitomir printing press owners. Therefore he followed their order. Further, the mishnayos also have Rosh Hashanah later, and this accords with the Rambam and Rav Sherira Gaon, who explain that Rosh Hashanah is not before Yoma.

KIVYACHOL as a term for Radical Anthropomorphism6

Martin Jaffe writes:7

The basic pericope used by many scholars to elucidate this term is Sifre Deut 346:

6file:///Users/jungar/Library/Mobile%20Documents/com~apple~Pages/Documents/KIVYACHOL+as+a+term+for+Radical+Ant hropomorphism.pdf 7 https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/book/sifre-devarim/chapter/pisqa-346/

The radical implication of a divine human partnership is furthered by the fictional narrative of the mashal.

The parable evokes two ships side by side connected by anchors and irons upon which a palace can be built because of their connection and support. If the ships are disconnected the entire edifice collapses.

The implication moves the homily beyond a mere return of the divine to the heavens and a withdrawal from human interaction, it raises the stakes by suggesting the entire palace where the interaction took place collapses making each “ship” an equal partner in maintaining the iron bond.

28 This allows for the radical theological notion that the divine is dependent upon the human enterprise.

If Israel fails to perform the will of the divine then He is unable to build His palace in heavens, and he is bound (chained?) to the earth. The midrash stretches this further with three other referents before ending with the need for untiy as a condition for the King’s crowning.

29 A THEOLOGICAL PARADOX: DIVINE POWER AND HUMAN INITIATIVE

Michael Marmur writes:8

In 1952 Emil Fackenheim addressed the paradox inherent in the notion that “God is infinite and yet directly related to each finite person.” The rabbis use metaphors, he writes, “to describe a relation which cannot be termed in any terms other than symbolic.” Our midrash is quoted to show that the rabbis “in their stress on human responsibility … even make the omnipotent God dependent on impotent man.”9 In 1968 this midrash is one of a number which demonstrate in his view that “the contradictions between divine transcendence and divine involvement and between divine Power and human freedom are not resolved but only expressed.”10

As will be discussed below in the tenth section, Fackenheim maintained a conscious interest in this teaching throughout his life. In his late work What Is Judaism? he adduces this text among others as an example of “the ultimate principle of Judaism: the intimacy of the divine infinity.”11 He stresses the use of the midrashic term kivyachol, “as it were.” Without it the paradox of God’s intimacy and infinity would be ruptured and become a contradiction. Taken without the theological reservation “as it were,” “a God needing witnesses in order to be God would possess intimacy but lack infinity.”12

The paradox at the heart of the midrash and the verse on which it is based also occupied Abraham Joshua Heschel. In a presentation on the teaching of Jewish theology he described Rabbi Simeon’s teaching as “one of the most powerful statements found in Rabbinic literature. It is paradoxical to be sure, in that it indicates … the necessity of co-operation. In this world God is not God unless we are His witnesses.”13 In his Man Is Not Alone, as he advanced the notion that God is in need of man, he quoted our Rabbinic teaching as an expression of “[t]he extreme boldness of this paradox.”14

8 Modern Judaism - A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience, Volume 32, Issue 2, May 2012,

30 Heschel wrestled with the question of Divine power for his entire adult life. Already in the early 1930s he had developed the notion of Divine pathos and was prepared to risk a pristine theological concept of absolute omnipotence and impassability in order to promote the notion of a God who feels human suffering and is in search of human response.

We also find the midrash in an essay of Martin Buber’s dating back to the second decade of the twentieth century. His subject is the realization of God through human decision and human action, which comes to expression in the world in three stages, three underlying strata. The first and earliest of these is imitatio dei. Our midrash is cited as a motto of the second stratum, in which human agency serves to thicken and intensify the presence of the Divine on earth. Buber’s words are worthy of extensive quotation:

The more man realizes God in the world, the greater His reality. This seemingly paradoxical formulation of the idea is instantly grasped when the words “‘Ye are my witnesses’, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 43:10) are complemented by the interpretation given them by Rabbi Simeon bar Yochai, “if you are My witnesses, I am the Lord, and if you are not My witnesses, I am not the Lord”. God is man’s goal; therefore, the force of all human decision flows into the sea of divine power.15

Buber points to the development of this idea in the Kabbalah. At the third level, “the concept of God’s realization through man is expanded by the notion that man’s deed affects God’s destiny on earth.”16 The words of bar Yochai provide the lynchpin of a profound process from imitation to amplification and thence to influence upon God.

Modern Jewish theologians have framed this paradox in different ways. Fackenheim speaks, as we have seen, of Divine infinity and intimacy, while Heschel prefers to speak of God’s ineffability, claiming that “the idea of absolute omnipotence is somewhat missing in classical Jewish theology.”17 Buber describes the attempt to imitate “the invisible, incomprehensible, unformed, not-to-be-formed” God as “the central paradox of Judaism.”18 For Buber, Fackenheim, Heschel and others God is reliant, as it were, on humanity. The Rabbinic teaching constitutes a supreme expression of a sublime paradox.

NOTES

9. Emil L. Fackenheim, Quest for Past and Future (Bloomington, 1968), pp. 38–39.

31 10. Emil L. Fackenheim, God's Presence in History (New York, 1970), p. 23. See Michael L. Morgan, “Introduction,” in The

Jewish Thought of Emil Fackenheim: A Reader, (ed.) Michael L. Morgan (Detroit, 1987), p. 201.

11. Emil L. Fackenheim, What Is Judaism? (New York, 1987), pp. 282–283.

12. Ibid., p. 286.

13. These remarks were made in a 1968 talk to Solomon Shechter Day School principals. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Moral

Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity, edited by Susannah Heschel (New York, 1996), p. 163.

14. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Man Is Not Alone (New York, 1951), pp. 243–244.

15. Martin Buber, On Judaism (New York, 1967) pp. 84–85.

16. Ibid.

17. Heschel, Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity, p. 160.

18. Martin Buber, “Imitatio Dei” [1926], in Israel and the World (New York, 1948), p. 71.