Clilei Torah Volume 6 Yamim Noraim 5781
Young Israel of Greater Cleveland
Beachwood Branch 2463 South Green Road Beachwood, Ohio 44122 Phone (216) 382-5740 E-Mail: [email protected]
Hebrew Academy Branch 1860 South Taylor Road Cleveland Heights, OH 44118
Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein, Rabbi Rabbi Aharon Dovid Lebovics, Associate Rabbi (Hebrew Academy) Jeffrey Belkin, President
Production Team Sarah Rudolph, Editor Rabbi Moshe Berger, Scholar-in-Residence Kenny Fixler, KF Graphics, Cover Esther Frayda Safrin, EF Graphic Innovations, Cover Design Scott Wolfson, Eveready Printing
Clilei Torah of Cleveland 2 Table of Contents
Rabbi’s Message..……………..……………………………………………………………….…4 Editor’s Note.……………………………………………………………………………………….5 Sponsors .……………………………………………………………………………………………..6 Articles The Avos and Overcoming Death Jeffrey M. Albert ………………………..……………………………………………………..………7 The Surprising Importance of the Ketoret Offering Rabbi Yehuda Appel ………………………..………………………………………………………21 The First Five Verses of Kerias Shema: Counter-Intuitive Readings Rabbi Moshe Berger .………………………..……………………………………………………..26 For Hashem’s Sake Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein ..……………………………………………………………….………31 Melancholy, Music, & Monarchs: “Ruach” in the Story of Shaul & David Alan and Sarah Goldman ……………………………………………………………………….…32 Refrigerators on Shabbos Moshe Gottlieb …………..……………………………….……………………………………..…..36 Is Teshuva a Mitzvah? Michael Kurin ………….…………………………………..……………………………..………… 42 Kiddush Levanah: Lessons from the Moon Moshe Prero ……….………………………………………………………………………………..…51 We are His, and He is Ours Sarah Rudolph …….………………………………………………………………………………..…56 What in the World Was Zimri Thinking? Shmuel Stern …………………….………………………………………………….………………...61 From Our Youth The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil Calev Kahn ……….………………………………………………………………………………….....68 What is a Name? Avigayil Rudolph ………………………………………………………………………………………70
Yamim Noraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 3 essa e ro t e Rabbi
e e o o om u e m o e e u e e e e u e o ou ee . o e e m o o emem e ou Yom Hadin o o e l o e e u o e . Teshuva ol e o loo e o e o e e e ou loo e o e u u e e e ol e o o e e . e mo e ee lle m u ou ul ome o e e o em o ommu u e o avodas Hashem. e e e oul ’ u e ll e e e le o m e ule o le o e e e e ou o e e o ou l o ou mem e e em e o o o le e e e e e e e . e e o o o e loo e o e om e e e ll e le o o o e e ull e oo . ou o ll e e o e e o ell o o e e e u ol o e o o ll o u . e l ou ell o ou e e ou o o o m e o le o o u e e u ul o ou l. e loo e o ou u u e m e e e olu o u e ll ou mem e o o e o u o ou o e u om mo l ue o Clilei HaChodesh ell e e ’ o ou l. e o om chayil o chayil om e o e o e e o m e o ome. Shanah tovah.
Rabbi Na ta i r stei
Clilei Torah of Cleveland 4 Editor’s Note One should take leave of another only in the context of a matter of halakha, so that in that context, he will remember him. ’ – Clilei Clilei Torah of Cleveland … daf beis medrash … daf beis medrash daf (Translation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daf_Yomi) – – Clilei HaChodesh ’ Clilei Torah Shana tova r do Yamim Noraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 5 o sors
Jeff and Jane Belkin
Dr. Mark and Mrs. Miriam Berkowitz memo o e m ben e e el e e
Ezzie Goldish and Atara Engel
Alan and Lisa Schabes
Ronnie & Alizza Shulman o o o ou e
Warren & Marlene Sobol Kol Hakavod o e e e e
Meir and Deborah Pollack In memory of Meir’s mother, Mrs. Phyllis Pollack
Ira and Barbara Taub
Mike and Sandi Kaplan
Shaya & Tamara Lempel memo o m e el e u el z"l
Clilei Torah of Cleveland 6 e Avos d er o i e t effrey M. l ert he emorah ractate e arim lists fo r sit ations in hich a erson is consi ere as if ea . mon these are chil lessness, lin ness, an o erty. he fo rth, hich e ill not consi er here, as it is no lon er manifeste in o r ay, is tzaraas . hese three afflictions ha e a connection to the Avos, as each of the three Avos as, at least tem orarily, s ecte to one of them. amely, raham s ffere from chil lessness, it hak ecame lin , an aako e erience o erty. he a o e emorah may e tie to a statement in Pirkei os that says three thin s remo e s from this orl kin’ah ealo sy , ta’avah hysical esire , an kavod esire for honor, or one mi ht say arro ance . e ill suggest that these three ‘sins’ represent root causes of the three ailments ha al analo i e to eath, an that they can e linke res ecti ely to the three Avos of co rse, at their lofty le el . he orah sho s s ho each of the Avos correcte his artic lar s tle ne ati e midah, an there y o ercame the corres on in mala y re resentati e of eath. s can e inferre y its conte t, the ‘death’ referred to in the emorah is a s irit al eath. h s, it is this – s irit al eath – o er hich the Avos ere ictorio s.
effrey M. l ert, Ph. . is a rofessor of iostatistics at ase estern eser e ni ersity. ri inally from os n eles, eff also resi e in nn r or, Michi an for ra ate school an ock ille, Marylan here he orke at the ational Instit tes of ealth efore mo in to le elan . e li es in ni ersity ei hts ith his ife, amar eah, an ran a hter, e ecca. hanks o to a i Moshe er er an arah ol h for their hel f l s estions an enco ra ement ho e er, the a thor takes res onsi ility for any inacc racies in this a er. ortion of this analysis as re io sly rinte in Clilei HaChodesh, Iyar . ltho h there are ifferent a roaches to ealin ith a arent fla s in o r Avos an other heroes of the orah, one tra ition, re resente y n mero s commentators from the emorah to the resent ay, seeks to ackno le e an learn from their limitations. As expressed by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, “The Torah never hides from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men. Just by that it gives the stamp of veracity to what it relates… Were they without passion, without internal struggle, their virtues would seem to us the outcome of some higher nature… no model that we could hope to emulate. It may never be our task to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past… They do not require our apologies, nor do such attempts become them…” eco ni in the fla s an challen es of the Avos can lea s to e en reater a reciation of their reatness. Yamim Noraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 7 r ifficulty ith concei ing is a common theme in the humash and, in fact, throughout the anach. hile it is particularly rife among the mahos, the vos specifically, A raham and it ha also had this problem. ha al explain e amos 6 a that Hashem afflicted his most belo ed t addi im in this manner in order to induce them to pray. e can also see the connection bet een childlessness and prayer in the humash for example, hen it ha da ened prayed due to this problem ereishis 25 21 . hile it ha had a temporary bout of barrenness, it as A raham A inu ho had the most notable association ith childlessness. t as a problem that he repeatedly too up ith Hashem. “ hat can you give me, being that go childless?” (ibid. 15 2 . “Then Abram said, ‘See, to me you have given no offspring and see, my steward inherits me’” (15 . Rashi suggests one ans er, from the emorah, as to hy A raham in particular as so long afflicted by this problem. hen Hashem commanded A raham to lea e his birthplace for ret anaan (“ ech lecha”), He promised that there “ will ma e of you a great nation” er. 12 2 , indicating that “here, you do not merit having children” Rosh Hashanah 16b . his suggests that A raham needed to correct himself in some manner, hether simply by mo ing to ret anaan or by dealing ith some deeper issue. As an ans er to this last point, a source of Avraham’s childlessness may ha e been a subtle character fla that he needed to o ercome, in ol ing a slight lac of emunah faith . his lac is seen in his reply to Hashem’s promise that his descendants ould inherit the land “ y ord, ashem lo im hereby shall now that am to inherit it?” ereishis 15 8 . ater, Avraham even expressed skepticism at Hashem’s promise that he and Sarah ould ha e a son “ nd vraham threw himself upon his face and laughed and he thought, ‘ hall a child be born to a hundred year old man ’” (ibid. 17 17 . he sage Shmuel edarim 2A identified Avraham’s lapse in emunah (“because he greatly e amined the characteristics of ashem ”) as a cause of his descendants’ need to descend to gypt and suffer there for 210 years as sla es. A lac of emunah suggests a degree of arrogance. A raham as not illing to accept things on faith, but had to no them for himself. his trait has a positi e side, as it as ital for
lilei Torah of leveland 8 Avraham’s ‘discovery’ of Hashem in the first place: he re sed to e ieve the conventiona isdom and so ht kno ed e or himse a o t Hashem. According to its etymology, “arro ance” implies “claim for onese ” a trait that was needed in Avraham’s environment and that he ped him resist societa press res and or e his o n path to ards a odas ashem. Ho ever tho h Avraham event a prooted it (once he discovered Hashem he nderstood the appropriateness o aith in Him) a smid en o that ga’avah (arro ance) remained in his re ationship ith Hashem. t sho d e noted that Avraham in act sho ed a remarka e eve o em nah even ear in his stor in the h mash. A c ear examp e is Avraham’s unquestioning willingness to follow Hashem’s directive and eave his home or an nkno n destination ( e h e ha). A so even in the same episode (the ‘covenant o the parts’) in hich Avraham estions Hashem as noted a ove the h mash testifies to Avraham’s em nah And e too him o tside and said, “ a e, no , to ard the ea ens, and o nt the stars…” And e said to him, “So sha o r o s rin be ” And he tr sted in ashem, and e re oned it to him as ri hteo sness. ( er. ) t is c ear rom s ch co nterexamp es that Avraham’s de icienc in em nah as ver s t e and imited. ashi or one ro ht o t a distinction imp ied the previo s es im “(Avraham) did not request o im a si n abo t the romise that he o d ha e o s rin , b t abo t the romise o ta in ossession o the and, A raham re ested o im a si n.” he t rnin point or Avraham ith re ard to tota overcomin his ga’avah ack o em nah and endin his chi d essness as his circumcision, commanded by Hashem: “ o sha ir m ise the esh o o r ores in, and that sha be the si n o the o enant bet een e and o ” ( ereishis ). his commandment as preceded Hashem’s more general directive
n ine t mo o ictionar https .et mon ine.com. Avraham’s childlessness apparent ended a ter he took Ha ar as a i e and she ave irth to ishmae . Ho ever as ishmae did not t rn o t to e a orth heir (at east ith re ard to inheritance o the and) Avraham as in a sense sti chi d ess a ter havin ishmae . amim oraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 9 ashem a eared to A ram and said to him “ am e ha ai a e ore e and e er e t i set m ovenant et een e and ou and i in rease ou most e eeding ” ibid. : he connection between these esu im suggests that circumcision ris mi ah was a necessar step to bring vraham to a perfection of his character, and thereb to make him fruitful. n fact, we see that following his circumcision, vraham is a new man with regard to his humilit and emunah. or example, in his conversation with Hashem regarding the fate of odom and omorrah, “A raham res onded and said ‘ eho d no have egun to s ea to m ord a though am ut dust and ash’” er. : . ater, vraham passed his greatest test of emunah when he was willing to sacrifice his son, Yitzhak, at Hashem’s request. vraham’s burgeoning emunah is also revealed b his hesed kindness and hospitalit . he connection between emunah and hesed is that those who understand that all the have is from Hashem will wholeheartedl give to others. n the opening scene of arshas a eira, vraham umped at an opportunit to provide hospitalit to guests even though he was then recovering from his circumcision. t was following this incident that vraham was informed – b these ver guests, who ashi tells us were actuall angels – that he and arah would have a son. ndeed, he was blessed with a son, Yitzhak, at the pre destined time. rom these events it ma be inferred that hesed is a segu ah antidote, or divine cure for childlessness. it he ailment most notabl associated with Yitzhak vinu is blindness “ ssa had e ome o d and his e es dimmed rom seeing” ereishis : . ashi lists several midrashic explanations for Yitzhak’s blindness: ngels’ tears fell into his e es at the time of the A eida binding o that Yitzhak would give the ra ha blessing to Yaakov rather than sav t was caused b the incense that sav’s wives burnt for avoda ara idolatr .
i ei orah o eve and 10 hile the first reason does not indicate an fault of Yitzhak, the last two are suggestive of an interpersonal ‘blindness.’ Yitzhak did not see Esav’s true nature, and therefore had to be tricked which was facilitated b Hashem making him blind). One might ask why the incense of Esau’s wives onl blinded Yitzhak and not ivka or sav himself . his suggests a sort of vulnerabilit or propensit to be blinded. Yitzhak perhaps cast a ‘blind eye’ to the misdeeds of Esav as well as those of Esav’s wives. t the same time, Yitzhak ma in fact have been more sensitive to the misdeeds of Esav’s wives than even Rivka. The notes that Esav’s wives were “ ” (Bereishis 26:34), mentioning Yitzhak first. ccording to a idrash, implies that “(Esav’s wives) caused the holy spirit … .” n his commentar on this , in which he quotes the above idrash, abbeinu ah a notes that as ivka’s father avan was an idolatrous priest, she ma have been less adversel affected b the idolatrous practices of her daughters in law. However, although Yitzhak ma have been more sensitive including being blinded b the incense , we see that ivka is more willing to take action and speak up: “ ‘ ’” (Ber. : . he humash does not explicitl link Yitzhak’s ph sical blindness to an character trait. However, it does hint at a link between a certain trait and his blindness to Esav’s bad character. rom the , “ ” (ibid. : , one might reasonabl infer that Yitzhak’s ‘blindness’ – his positive inclination toward sav – resulted from Yitzhak’s ta’avah for meat. he humash elsewhere reveals a similar cause of figurative blindness: “ ” (Shemos 23:8 see also evarim : . n a sense, Yitzhak, due to his ta’avah for meat, was taking ‘bribes’ from Esav, and this led to his ‘blindness’ – as described b the in hemos and evarim. e thus see a connection between ta’ and blindness. his further allows us to draw a moral lesson: one who is captive to a ta’avah ma be seduced b the offer of a bribe.
anchuma oldot 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 11 e see hints that Yitzhak overcame his ta’avah, and that his eyes were eventually opened. The ‘cure’ came with the help of his wife, Rivka, when he received an oversized portion of meat from Yaakov disguised as Esav. Rivka told Yaakov to bring two young goats for Yitzhak’s meal. hy did he need two Rashi e plains this apparent e cess by suggesting that one of the goats was for the esach offering, but a straightforward reading seems to be that Rivka is asking for two goats to feed Yitzhak. erhaps this was an ingenious part of her plan. She might have wanted to make sure that not only would Yitzhak have no appetite for Esav’s offering, but that the excessive food would ‘oversaturate’ Yitzhak and free him from his attachment to Esav. Through this oversaturation with meat, Yitzhak would be awakened to the folly of his ta’avah, and conse uently, the inappropriateness of his preference for Esav. This scenario is echoed in arshas Beha’aloscha, during Bnei Yisrael’s so ourn in the desert, when Hashem addressed a group of complainers who e pressed a craving for meat: “ ot or o e day shall you eat or two days or ive days or te days or twe ty days til a e tire o th o days u til it co es out o your ose a d eco es auseati to you…” (Bamidbar 11:19 20). This overload of meat was an apparent punishment, and perhaps also the antidote, for the complainers’ ta’avah for meat. Rivka’s plan (as we interpret it) seems to have worked, and allowed Yitzhak to ‘see’ everything, from the unsuitableness of Esav himself to the wickedness of Esav’s wives. This realization, following his oversaturation with food from Yaakov and Esav’s delivery of yet more food, came in a dramatic flash: “ d ssac tre led a reat tre li , and said, ‘Who – where – is he the o e who cau ht a e a d rou ht it to e a d ate o all whe you had ot yet co e a d lessed hi e shall also e lessed!’” (Bereishis 27:33 translation from The Torah: with Rashi’s Commentary) To explain the seemingly superfluous “all” in Yitzhak’s exclamation Rashi comments that Yitzhak was saying, “ all lavors that wished to taste tasted i it.” Rashi’s explanation supports the suggestion of a ta’avah (Yitzhak’s desire to taste all the flavors). However, an alternative (or additional) implication of Yitzhak’s “all” might be an e pression of oversaturation.
lilei orah o levela d 12 urther, Yitzhak at this point made a conscious decision in favor of Yaakov. Rashi interprets Yitzhak’s pronouncement of “he shall also be blessed” as implying, “ o that yo sho ld not say, ‘ ad aa ov not deceived his ather, he wo ld not have ta en the lessin s ’ This is why it ha consented to what aa ov had done and lessed him nowin ly.” Thus, Yitzhak did not respond as would one who was the victim of a fraud. Rather, he came (albeit with the help of the ploy) to realize that Yaakov was more worthy of the racha than Esav. f course, there are a number of alternative explanations of Yitzhak’s revelation. ome stem from the as , “ ee, the ra rance o my son is li e the ra rance o a ield which ashem had lessed” (27:27). n this as , Rashi comments that Hashem gave Yaakov a good smell, and the ohar says that “the arden o den came in with aco .” Thus, when Yitzhak realized his first visitor was Yaakov, he may have immediately understood the smell that accompanied him to be a sign that Yaakov was the worthy heir. However, the above explanation does not seem to completely explain Yitzhak’s “great trembling,” regarding which Rashi notes the midrashic interpretation that “he it ha saw that ehinnom was o en eneath him” (Tanchuma 11, Bereishis Rabbah 7:2). Yitzhak’s vision of ehinnom suggests a sense of having committed a sin, rather than realizing he’d been a blameless victim (though the conse uences of the resultant mistake might be dire). lso, given that Yitzhak refers in the same as to having eaten “of all (the game),” it seems reasonable to suggest that the sin that led to his vision of ehinnom was in letting his ta’avah for meat lead him to be deceived by Esav. Thus, we might characterize the process leading to Yitzhak’s eye opening as one of re framing: meat, the ob ect of his ta’avah, was now seen as not worthy of his mental energy. This decision not to take further ‘bribes’ then allowed Yitzhak to ‘see’ Esav’s true nature. There are further indications that Yitzhak was ‘cured’ of his ta’avah, or attachment with physicality. art of his first racha (unintentionally given to Yaakov) refers to the “fatness of the land”: “ nd may d ive yo o the dew o the heavens and o the atness o the earth, and a ndant rain and wine.” (Bereishis 27:2 )
amim oraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 13 n his subse uent a ha to Esav, after realizing his mistake, Yitzhak again refers to the “fatness of the land” but with a different tone: “ h th at th a th ha …” (27: ) hen addressing the real Esav, after Yitzhak’s epiphany, the e pression has a negative connotation. “Dwelling in the fatness of the land” implies being absorbed and encapsulated by it, in the way one with a ta’avah would be by the ob ect of his desire. t is as if Yitzhak were telling Esav, “ t is your destiny to be absorbed by physicality, ust as you played a role in my being overly preoccupied with sensory pleasure.” lso, in Yitzhak’s second (post revelation) a ha to Yaakov, he says: “ a ha a a t a a a a a at .” (28: ) This particular name of ashem, ha a , indicates the d of sufficiency, of ‘enough.’ Rashi e plains that Yitzhak is saying, “ h a t th h a th a .” e can e pand this, according to our interpretation: “ ay e bless you to know what is sufficient, so you will not succumb to over indulgence or greedy longing for more and more.” Thus, Yitzhak was relieved of his ta’avah, and cured of his blindness in the sense that his eyes were opened to the nature of Esav. There are several clear indications of the latter. irst, ashi says (as noted above) that Yitzhak “ that ehinnom was open beneath him.” ater, Yitzhak tells Yaakov, “ t ta a th a aa t ” (28:1), indicating that he now had clarity about the inappropriateness of Esav’s anaanite wives. dmittedly, this came after ivka complained to Yitzhak about Esav’s wives, “ a t th a t th a ht th” (27:46). However, it is revealing that it was at this point, following the incident of the ‘stealing’ of the a ha, that ivka was willing to e press this to Yitzhak and that Yitzhak did accept the merit of her complaint. Yitzhak’s eye opening is further confirmed in a later a : “ h av v that th a ht a aa v th aa h ath ” (28:8). This suggests that prior to this point Yitzhak did not view Esav’s wives as inappropriate, or at least did not convey such a view to Esav.
ah v a 14 rom Yitzhak’s struggles, we learn that the remedy for a ta’avah is to reframe – to understand the emptiness of the ta’avah and its potential to lead one away from truth and from av a a h . his ‘reframing’ for Yitzhak appears to have occurred suddenly, as represented by his “great trembling.” pon realizing that he had gone astray in his thinking and was not acting in accordance with Hashem’s will, Yitzhak quickly corrected himself. o inally, we turn to Yaakov vinu, who is associated with the affliction of poverty. n fact, Yaakov also e perienced blindness toward the end of life: “Now Israel’s eyes were heavy with age; he could not see” (Bereishis 48: ). hus, Yaakov shared the affliction of his father (Yitzhak), ust as Yitzhak shared the affliction of childlessness with his father ( vraham). However, though Yaakov’s blindness plays a role in the narrative of the humash, blindness is less of a defining characteristic for Yaakov than it is for Yitzhak. Yaakov’s experience of poverty occurred when he fled Eretz Canaan. learly, he was in a rush to leave (as his brother Esav was intent on killing him for taking his a ha), so it would be understandable that he would not leave with much. However, a idrash (Devarim Rabbah 2:2 ) e plains that Esav’s son Eliphaz robbed Yaakov, taking everything, as he left Eretz anaan. ctually, Esav had commanded Eliphaz to kill Yaakov, but Yaakov convinced him to take all his possessions instead. Yaakov e plained (in accordance with the insight in edarim noted above) that doing so would render Yaakov ‘as good as dead’ so that Eliphaz could rationalize that he obeyed his father’s command. Lavan himself, upon Yaakov’s arrival, expressed disappointment at Yaakov’s empty handedness. “ v th a a h” ( er. 2 : 4). Rashi e plains that this wording implies, “ hav a t t th h hav th ha v th a a at h a …” t may be that Yaakov suffered poverty because he had himself ‘stolen’ (the a ha).6 Yaakov’s willingness to deceive his father, and in a sense
6 There is a view that dishonesty was in no way part of Yaakov’s makeup but that he had to go against his nature in committing acts such as the ‘theft’ of the a ha (see commentary by Rabbi efen below in note 8). s a counterargument, it can first be noted that the implication of ‘trickery’ is in Yaakov’s very name (as Esav points out a a 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 15 to steal, may be traced to his ealousy of Esav. Though not stated explicitly in the Chumash, ealousy in Yaakov’s case would be understandable. Esav, after all, had the love of his father, which Yaakov did not (or perhaps felt he did not have. That Yaakov wanted what Esav had is first evidenced by Yaakov’s seeking of the right of the firstborn. Yaakov acquired this in what may be viewed (as Esav later expressed, 27: 6 as an exploitative manner, by trading a bowl of soup for it at a moment when Esau was famished. He later sought (albeit at his mother’s insistence the racha that Yitzhak intended for Esav. Yaakov even ‘became’ Esav in the process, donning Esav’s garments and using goat skins to mimic Esav’s hairiness. The connection between deception and poverty is noted in ishlei (10:4): “ he deceit ul scale a es a au er ut the hand o the diligent rings ros erity.” imilarly, another asu (ibid. 1 :15 states: “ a iness casts one into slu er and the dece tive soul will go hungry.” t is also notable that both of these couplets associate honesty and hard work with freedom from poverty. ndeed, Yaakov’s path to prosperity involved a commitment to honesty and hard work, con oining the two virtues as in ishlei. Yaakov’s initial effort to correct any tendency towards dishonesty took place at the beginning of his travels, after his arrival at ount oriah (as identified by ashi and his famous dream of a ladder to Heaven. t that point, Yaakov essentially made a vow not to ‘steal’ from Hashem: “then this stone which I have set as a illar shall eco e a house o d and whatever ou will give e I shall re eatedly tithe it to ou.” (Bereishis 28:22 . Ma’aser (tithing , like making rachos (blessings , allows us to receive from Hashem in a manner that acknowledges the ource of what we have and avoids what may otherwise be considered ‘stealing.’ nce Yaakov arrived at Charan to live with Lavan, he embarked on a life of honest hard work, as he states: “ hese twenty years I have een with you your ewes and she goats did not iscarry nor did I eat the ra s o your loc hat which was angled I never rought you – I
(27: 6 . lso, the fact that Yaakov was commanded by his mother to steal the racha does not entirely excuse this action, as one is not allowed to do an aveirah even if commanded to do so by one’s parent. Furthermore, his objection to his mother was that he might be caught (27:12 , not that the deception was wrong. lilei orah o leveland 16 se ear e ss r e e a e er as s e a r s e s s as a s r ea s e e a r s s ee r e r e es.” (Ber. 1: 40) hrough hard wor and honesty, practiced for some twenty years, aa ov overcame his poverty and left avan with great material wealth. hroughout, aa ov recogni ed d as the bestower of his wealth and as his protector, as indicated in a number of es . oward the end of his stay with avan, aa ov did employ some ‘shtic ’ that helped him in ac uiring wealth, placing peeled rods in the watering holes to affect births among his designated sheep and goats (ibid. 0: 4 ). However, he understood that these machinations were ‘ osher,’ as one is allowed by halacha to tric a cheater that is, to use guile in order to recover losses that are owed to him. aa ov thus developed his trait of honesty – in fact, he became nown as the paragon of truthfulness (as alluded to in icah : , Grant truth to Jacob…”), demonstrating the epitome of honest behavior as well as limitations of (na ve) honesty. he afflictions and other events in aa ov’s life – some of which may be seen as a e e a , measure for measure – may have helped call aa ov’s attention to flaws in his character and thus enabled him to address them. n obvious manifestation of a e e a was aa ov’s falling victim to Lavan’s deceit, beginning when avan substituted eah for achel as aa ov’s bride. This echoed aa ov’s impersonation of Esav when he deceived it ha . he theme of sibling jealousy was also echoed later in aa ov’s life. he orah states ( ereishis 0:1) that achel was jealous of eah, and some es (for e ample 0:1 ) imply that eah was jealous of achel as well. eah was apparently jealous of achel due to aa ov’s greater love for achel we may characteri e this as “emotional jealousy.” Rachel’s jealousy of Leah’s success at bearing children is traditionally interpreted as being of a ‘spiritual’ nature because achel wanted a part in the building of a nation (the ewish people) dedicated to serving Hashem, or
ee, for e ample, ereishis 1: , 1: , 1:4 . his formulation is derived from abbi ehonasan efen, who explains, “These cases of appropriate dishonesty, discussed in the emorah teach us that we must emulate acob in our application of the trait of e that is to reali e that there are times when it may be necessary to act in a fashion that seems to contradict honesty.” (https: www.aish.com tp i gl 1.html) a ra 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 17 as Rashi writes, because Rachel was jealous of the higher level of righteousness that she deduced had earned Leah her children. piritual jealousy, as expressed in the preceding examples, is considered by our sages as ‘kosher jealousy’ and not a negative trait. Similarly, Leah’s “emotional jealousy” can be understood as stemming from Leah’s desire for a stronger connection to a holy man ( aa ov). owever, at the level of our o and aho , it is an assumption of this essay that these expressions of jealousy still carried a tinge of negativity that needed to be uprooted. aa ov’s jealousy of Esav involved both emotional and spiritual jealousy, paralleling the two forms later exhibited by Rachel and Leah. aa ov’s jealousy of sav’s firstborn status can be seen as an instance of spiritual jealousy, later paralleled by Rachel’s jealousy of Leah aa ov wanted the opportunity to serve Hashem that Esav’s firstborn status provided. The other component of aa ov’s jealousy maps onto Leah’s emotional jealousy due to feeling unloved aa ov was jealous of his father’s love for sav, and Leah was jealous of aa ov’s love for Rachel. hen a person sees a negative trait displayed in others, that trait is brought to his attention as something he might also need to wor on. Thus, witnessing both types of jealousy among his wives may have helped ‘cure’ aa ov of the same two subtle flaws.10 ventually, it became apparent that aa ov had shed any jealousy of sav. aa ov’s words upon his later meeting with Esav were, “ a acc t t h ch a brou ht to ou na uch a G ha b n rac ou to an na uch a ha r th n ” (Bereishis 33:11). e understood that d had provided him with everything he needed, and wanted nothing from sav and nothing to do with him. Yaakov’s
The two forms of ‘jealousy’ experienced by Leah and Rachel may also be distinguished by highlighting a difference between “jealousy” and “envy,” with the former referring to a feeling that someone has ‘taken away’ someone else’s affection or love (as experienced by Leah) and the latter referring to a desire for something belonging to someone else (as in the case of Rachel). Interestingly, the terms ‘jealousy‘ and ‘envy’ do not seem to be distinguished in the humash (just as they are popularly used synonymously). The term kin’ah (in all its forms) refers both to jealousy (for example “… a a h our G a a ou ana G ,” Shemos 20:5) and envy (“… o ach b ca n ou at an o h r t r,” Bereishis 0 1). The statement from ir ei vos referred to earlier also uses the term kin’ah, the particular meaning of which is not indicated, though it may be presumed to include ‘envy.’ 10 Perhaps this also helps explain Yaakov’s need to marry both Rachel and Leah. orah o an 18 recognition that all is from Hashem may have been the key in overcoming any jealous he may have felt. The elimination of jealousy in Yaakov meant that this source of inclination towards dishonesty was nullified. Yaakov’s hard work provided a correction to his earlier missteps in this area and helped him to escape poverty. In the end, Yaakov built on the accomplishments of his father, Yit hak, and his grandfather, vraham, to achieve a level considered to be the pinnacle of the accomplishments of the three . His level was such that ha al considered Yaakov to have literally triumphed over death as Rabbi Yochanan states, “Yaakov vinu did not die” (Taanis 5b).11 Later commentators (e.g., the Maharal) interpret Rabbi Yochanan’s statement as referring to spiritual death (in accordance with the approach of this essay).12 It is thus spiritual death over which Yaakov – and it may be inferred, the other triumphed. o sio or convenient reference, our proposed framework, with regard to the a lessons of this essay, is summari ed in the following table: Avos o r e ro e i est tio re vraham Ga’avah hildlessness iving self abrogation (arrogance) lack (circumcision humility) of nah Yit hak Ta’avah (desire) Blindness Reframing (triggered taking bribes by over saturation) Yaakov Kin’ah Poverty Honest hard work (jealousy envy) recognition that all is dishonesty theft from Hashem
This table lays out the three causal chains that we have formulated. irst, arrogance leads to a lack of nah, which leads to childlessness
11 Rabbi Yochanan noted that, in contrast to Yit hak and vraham, the humash does not refer directly to Yaakov’s death – that is, though the ki apparently indicate that Yaakov died and there’s even a lengthy description of his funeral procession and burial, it does not use the word “ ai .” 12 ccording to Rabbi Yaakov Harlap: “What (Rabbi Yochanan’s statement) means, in aharal s view, is that the uality of spirituality and of detachment from materialism symboli ed by acob has never disappeared, but will continue to be found in his descendants to all eternity. (https: www.biu.ac.il H Parasha eng vayechi harlap.html) a i ai 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 19 the cure involves h (giving) and humility. econd, desire leads to the taking of bribes, which leads to blindness the cure is reframing, adjusting one’s mindset with regard to the object of the desire. Third, ealousy leads to dishonesty, which leads to poverty the cure is honesty and hard work, and more fundamentally, the acknowledgement that everything is from ashem. f course, these associations are generali ations and may not necessarily apply in individual cases. person with one of the three negative i may never suffer the corresponding conse uence, and one who is so afflicted may not have the corresponding negative i ah. nly ashem can determine whether and which affliction is necessary to induce a person to do h vah or instance, a modest financial loss (rather than a decline into actual poverty) may suffice to alert a person to do h vah for some dishonest act. s indicated at the outset, in applying negative i to the v one must keep in mind their lofty level and the subtle nature of any flaws. lso, it is to the praise of the v that they dealt with these issues, taking great pains to uproot their sins or negative character traits, thus laying the solid groundwork upon which the ewish nation was built. n summary, the v – vraham, Yit hak, and Yaakov – faced and overcame the three negative i of ga’avah, ta’avah, and in’ah and their conse uences (childlessness, blindness, and poverty) that ha a associate with death. t should be noted, as hinted in several places in this essay, that their achievements involved crucial assistance from the ah : arah, Rivka, Rachel, and eah. n so doing, the v and ah built the foundation for the ewish nation, providing tools at both the individual and national level for meeting our ongoing challenges. he efforts of our v and ah in opposition to death, as it were, played a key part in establishing the eternality of the ewish people.
i i T ah v an 20 e r risi ort e o t e Ketoret eri abbi ehuda e The emara in oma a records a tradition that one who burns the t t offering wi become wea th . nfortunate , man toda see the recita of the erses describing the t t incense offering as nothing more than a means to ac uire wea th. ndeed, e en in this res ect, it is doubtfu that we ta e recita of the incense offering as serious as was customar in the ast. The great eighteenth centur rabbinic authorit , the a h a, writes that the sages fe t it necessar to a end the Ein K’Elokei ra er to the t t assage so that those reciting the atter te t wou d remember that u timate the ight , not the recita of the t t, bestows wea th. second common moti ator for recitation of the t t ra er – to combat a ague – seems, with the ad ent of modern medicine, to ha e been a but forgotten. n umbers , oses te s aron to s read the incense smo e to sto a ague de astating the srae ite encam ment based on this incident, such di erse sources as the emara, idrash, amban, and ohar a urge recitation of the t t erses as a e s iritua effort to ma e in a time of ague, and hundreds of communities throughout the centuries turned to this ractice whene er an e idemic raged. t is a bit of a wonder, considering the resent situation with , that there has not been more recent attention gi en to this ractice in the broader communit . oo ing be ond the materia and focusing on the rea m of the s iritua , there is a most start ing statement in the ohar about the t t. The ohar states that as great as our dai ra er de otions are, the recita of the incense offering assage is e en greater. oting that our ra ers toda function as a substitute for the sacrifices, and the t t was the most e e ated and most be o ed to d of the a t, it natura fo ows that the assage of t t ho ds rimac o er other ra ers. o owing this ogic, the ohar states that one shou d first recite the incense offering’s verses, before beginning one’s dai etitions.
abbi ehuda e is o irector, with abbi haim e d, of ish aTorah of e e and. e studied at ish aTorah and T eshi a, both in erusa em. rach haim . ohar a a e . a a 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 21 o even cursor loo e iblic l e m es e incense offering’s importance clear. Perhaps more than any other activity, it is e burning of e ke o e is ssoci e in e or i m ers of life n e e see i s signific nce en i is broug in ro ri el by Nadav and Avihu, and later by Korach’s allies; in both cases, they suffer e ul im e unis men n ee viol ion of i s use is so gre no onl is e e ou come bu e rinci le of i kne e i (“measure for measure,” or punishment befitting the crime) is manifest in the delivery of the mortal blow. Both Aaron’s sons and Korach’s allies f er ving in ro ri el burn e ke o e suffer e conse uences b ving e insi es of eir bo ies burn lso n f c one oes no nee o burn e ke o e o viol e e l even e sim le m nuf c ure of e incense i ou d’s comm n incurs e k e en l 5 u e ke o e c n s ve s ell o onl i e ke o e smo e s re b ron s o e l gue in e sr eli e enc m men bu i lso llo e e ig ries o en er e ol of olies on om i ur 6 o e incense bo v n uis es n s ves u oes e o r see e ke o e s e mos belove o of ll offerings e l cemen of i s l r uni uel i in e i k n edifice, its centrality in the daily service, and its description as “an e ern l service before emos 0 8 ll oin e o r o i s e ce ion li r ing on o ron s ble o use i o s o e l gue in e sr eli e enc m men e o r sugges s ke o e is the ultimate weapon against evil, known in Kabbalah as “the Other Side.” Noting that the altar of the incense offering is called a i e e ere seemingl is no e no sl ug ere nim l u on i e o r o ines i is e e e ge s ie n boun n sl ug ere vi e c ion of e ke o e offering is e ke o e offering e rs e beginning of e il service s i c s s cle nsing gen o i e im uri n sin
ere is muc s ecul ion s o e c l s v n Avihu’s sin. But the text i self cle rl s es e viol ion s bringing foreign fire n o er or s e burning i self of e ke o e s in ro ri e n in ro ri e fire s use one i no come from e incense l r oreover ere re no fe er n references o fire or burning i in e ne 12 verses s if o em si e is oin 5 o us 1 56 6 ev 17 1 2 lilei o o le el n 22 An extensive midrashic passage provides other reasons to explain why the ke o e is most precious to d. Noting that it is the nicho’ach, the pleasant aroma arising from the offerings, that d finds to be the most appealing aspect of the sacrifices, the idrash notes that the incense offering is exclusively a rayach nicho’ach it lacks important elements associated with the other sacrifices, such as slaughter and the consecration of blood on the altar. urther, the idrash goes on to explain that while the other offerings are brought to further the needs of srael (atonement for sin, and festive offerings) the incense has no such function. Ke o e is brought solely for the sake of d, to provide im with a ch nicho’ach. n another insight, echoed by ashi and amban, the idrash notes that it was the ke o e that was the last of the offerings presented by srael at the i k n’s inauguration, effectively “activating” the abernacle service. Only after the ke o e was offered did the All Mighty’s presence become manifest in the encampment. he anchuma also suggests that the reason each of the tribal Princes merited having their offerings mentioned individually at the inauguration, even though the offerings were identical, was that each began his contribution with the ke o e , an action particularly pleasing to d. inally, the root of the ebrew word ke o e , k , means to tie, to connect – in contrast to the root letters of the word ko n (sacrifice), k , which denote bringing one closer to the ivine. Sacrifices can bring one close to the All ighty, but ke o e completes the bond and ties one to aShem.
anchuma et ave , . t should also be noted that the ke o e ’s very essence is rayach nicho’ach. t does not merely eli i a rayach nicho’ach; it i a rayach nicho’ach. ashi eviticus and amban xodus . Perhaps it can be speculated that in a certain sense, the ke o e is more elevated and creates a closer tie with d than the other sacrifices because by breathing in its vapor, it becomes one with one’s life breath, as opposed to the less integrated consumption of meat. n a similar line of thinking, the e e i writes that learning orah is the greatest of activities because it creates the greatest fusion with d; as d’s “thoughts” become one with the student’s thoughts, G d’s ideas are inside the student’s very brain and consciousness. i o i 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 23 eyond all that has already been noted, we should not forget that it was the or that was brought by the ighest riest, in the holiest place in the world, on the holiest day of the year. Given all this evidence as to its centrality, the uestion can be as ed hat does the incense offering actually represent or the most part, commentators see the or in the same category as other offerings, though more elevated. amban, however, suggests another perspective on the incense offering.11 e says the or offering is certainly more than an offering in the classic sense. he incense offering defends “the Glory of G d” – witness the deaths of adav and vihu – and also has lifesaving properties, as we saw earlier. urthermore, amban writes, the incense offering is associated with G d‘s i a ha in, attribute of ustice though, as is his wont, amban does not detail e actly what this means . amban then focuses our attention on the or ’s association with G d’s presence and its unique powers. In fact, Ramban asserts that it has far more powers at least in the iblical te t itself than either the clouds of glory that accompanied the sraelite encampment in the desert or the cloud that removed itself from above inai and came to rest on the Mish an. hile both of the latter indicate G d’s presence, neither has the threatening elements of in designed to eep srael in chec . he or cloud, on the other hand, might best be described here as pointing to the threatening aspect of God’s presence.12 ntil this point, we have noted that the incense offering ta es life, saves life, and defends G d’s glory. But we should also note that its essence is entirely different from all the other sacrifices. nimals, grains, wine, and water all possess solidity, a state of physicality the or alone has an ethereal uality. t is there and yet it is not. t is present, but it hides and
11 amban on odus 0 1. 12 he aforementioned anchuma passage adds to this point, noting that on om ippur, the whole nation stood in fear waiting to see the plume of the or rising from the Mish an. f it appeared, the nation new it was forgiven if it failed to appear, they new the igh riest was dead. i i orah o an 24 is hidden. In a way, it mimics the ll ighty, who is always present and at the same time hidden. ha al noted further allusions to characteristics of the or that mimic the oly ne. or instance, the Gemara spea s of the aroma of the or at hiloh as still being detectable o er a years later. oreo er, the small quantity of or burning in erusalem could be appreciated in ericho miles away. o a degree, then, it is as if the incense was not sub ect to the usual limitations of time and space. If I might be allowed a radical speculation, it seems to me that the or represents the presence of the ll ighty, with a design that goes beyond stri ing fear in those who e perience it. he incense offering not only warns but, most importantly, instructs. If we were, hea en forbid, to try to describe G d in a corporeal way, we might well choose to depict a cloud with great powers. hat is to say, the or affords us a representation that would be most “analogous” to the All ighty if e could, G d forbid, be depicted in the physical realm. hat is because it associates G d with the hidden, the concealed. t the same time, howe er, the or ’s ethereal nature negates the notion of the ll ighty as a physical being. It pro ides a relatable e ample of something that e ists and can be e perienced yet is not physical. he incense offering acts as a sentinel warning not ust against iolating the ll Mighty’s wishes, but also against mistaking the nature of is ery essence. It allows no room to see the ll ighty as being or being represented by , for instance, a golden calf. ltimately, it ma es sense that the ll Mighty’s return to the Israelite encampment would be accompanied by safeguards to pre ent a repetition of the golden calf trespass. Both through warning and e ample, the or does ust that. he incense offering, we might further speculate, is the most precious to G d because it ser es the ll ighty in the most precious of ways, by pre enting is children from committing the greatest of sins. he or is the most cherished of sacrifices because it ensures what is most cherished to G d, namely, the continuity of is bond to is children.
ur ages ha e noted that our world is called o a because the ll ighty is hidden ne’elam in its midst. oma b. a i orai 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 25 e irst i e erses o Kerias Shema o ter t iti e e di s abbi Moshe erger1 n this essay, shall resent inter retations of the first fi e erses of hema e arim 6 8 hese inter retations are not as well known as think they should be hey are all based u on lassi al abbini sour es or on the ommentaries of ashi and ashbam, and they render the following results, whi h may sur rise many readers 1 he first erse is not about od 2 he se ond erse is not about lo e he third erse does not refer to the words of the hema he fourth erse is not about instru tion 5 he fifth erse is not e lusi ely about e ll n erse שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׁרָא ֵ֑ל יְׁקֹוָָ֥קאֱֹלקינּו יְׁקֹוָָ֥ק׀ אֶחָָֽ ד. nstead of ea ael a em a em ne – read ea ael a em e en l e nl ll ne a e me e e l e e all man his alternate reading follows Rashi’s inter retation "ה' אלקינו ה' אחד" – ה' שהוא אלקינו עתה ולא אלקי האומות, הוא עתיד להיות ה' אחד, שנאמר )צפניה ג, ט( כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם ה', ונאמר )זכריה יד, ט( ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד. e e ne e n an n e e e na n e ll e [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For en ll n e e e le a lea lan a e a all em ll call in the name of the Lord” (Zephaniah 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lo e ne and His name one” (Zechariah 14:9).
1 abbi Moshe erger, h , is holar in esiden e at oung srael of reater le eland his arti le is ada ted from his website, htt //www torahfountain om l le a le elan 26 about God! Rather, it is about people’s eventu alchuyos …the Lord will become king over the entire earth, on that day Hashem will e one and His name will e one hema israel alchuyos alchuyos only if we accept Rashi’s mit ah erias hema a alas Ol alchut hamaim – the act of Accepting the Yoke of God’s alchuyos alchuyos edushas Hashem midah leinu alchuyos On that day will the Lord e one and His ame one. s וְׁאָָ֣הבְׁתָָּ֔אַ֖ת יְׁקֹוָָ֣ק אֱֹלקיָך בְׁ כָל־לְׁבָבְָׁךָ֥ ּובְׁ כָל־נפְׁשְׁ ָךַ֖ ּובְׁ כָל־מְׁ אֹדֶָֽ ָך . ou shall lo e the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mi ht – amim oraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 27 Read o h ll ch nnel ll o r energie o r he rt o r o l nd o r re o rce – to erving od with n werving devotion The second verse does not command “love” as an internal, purely emotional and therefore invisible feeling hether or not such emotional love is realistically able to be commanded has been a sub ect of debate throughout the centuries he emitic linguistic cognates for h v h do not stress emotions, but rather, are behaviorally focused, implying unswerving loyalty to one’s overlord. Chazal’s elaborations of this verse2 are also behavioral hey include the obligation to remain loyal to God and refrain from violating the three ma or prohibitions idolatry, adultery, and murder even when one’s life is threatened, and the obligation to act, as Abraham did, to make God beloved to the rest of humanity Also note the behavioral focus in the Rabbinic halachic interpretation of another “love command,” namely, “Love your neighbor as yourself” Vayikra 1 18). The Rabbis chose to “incarnate” this verse by having love point to actual behaviors, which they proceeded to legislate as Rabbinic obligations hese Rabbinic mit vo include visiting the sick, comforting mourners, burying the dead, and sedating the condemned prisoner so that his e ecution would be as painless as possible s וְׁהָיּוהדְׁ בָרִָ֣ ים הָאֵ֗ לֶה ראֲשֶֶׁ֨ אָ ינֹכִִ֧ מְׁ צ ּוְָׁךָ֛ ה יַֹ֖וםע ל־לְׁבָבֶָֽ ָך . nstead of he e word which comm nd o tod h ll be on o r he rt – Read he en omm ndment t tement which comm nd o tod h ll be con t ntl on o r mind After reviewing the en ommandments literally, the en tatements – they contain more than ten mit vo in the previous section hapter 5 6 18 , in the very ne t verse 1 oshe refers to them as h dev rim ha’eyleh – the e t tement According to e h t (the text’s straightforward meaning , the phrase hadevarim ha’eyleh in our hema verse is not a reference to the hema itself, or to the entire paragraph
2 ifrei evarim 2 erachos 61b anhedrin 5a and parallels, ishneh orah vel chapter 1 lilei or h o level nd 28 at hand, but rather, they refer to the Ten Commandments, which oses had reiterated in the previous section. The emara in erachot a describes the daily morning prayer service of those officiating in the econd Temple. Their liturgical reading consisted primarily of the Ten Commandments, followed by the hema. The emara goes on to explain that the Ten Commandments, together with the hema, originally had been part of the daily service everywhere, not only in the Temple service. The Rabbis removed the Ten Commandments from the liturgy, however, mipnei tar’omes hami im, because of the spread of heretical views that only these tatements are of ivine origin and the rest of the Torah is of human origin, written by oses of his own accord. This verse, therefore, was originally understood by Chazal as re uiring us to read and contemplate the Ten tatements not the words of the hema alone every morning and evening, and throughout the day. s וְׁשִננְׁתָָ֣םלְׁבָנֶָּ֔ יָך וְׁדִ ברְׁתַָ֖ בֵָ֑ם בְׁשִ בְׁתְׁ ָךָ֤ בְׁב יתֶֶָ֙ךֶ֙ ּובְׁ לֶכְׁתְׁ ָךָ֣ בדֶָּ֔רֶ ְך ּוָֽבְׁשָכְׁ ָךַ֖ ּו בְׁ ק ּו מֶ ָֽ ָך. nstead of hall ea h hem dili e ly y r hildre a d y hall ea hem he y are a h me he y are ravelli i ed a d ari i – Read hall revie hem i e he e e a eme re ea edly i he re e e y r hildre a d ea a hem he y are a h me he y are ravelli i ed a d ari i The fourth verse is not the source which commands us to educate our children. According to the emara in iddushin (and elsewhere), that commandment is derived from a verse in the second paragraph of Shema: “…you shall teach them (ve’limad’tem osam) to yo r children…” ( evarim ). The first paragraph, on the other hand, focuses solely upon the individual’s obligation to live a life of total devotion to ashem. n the first paragraph, therefore, the indirect ob ect of ve’shinantam is le’vanecha, meaning towards or in the presence of The full verse reads: “Review these Ten Statements constantly – at all times and all places – and speak of them, in the presence of your children.” In other amim raim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 29 words: ou must not only devote your life to the apprehension and fulfillment of y will, ut you are also o li ated to ecome a model of that devotion for the ne t eneration. our children must witness your passionate devotion to Torah study and o servance. nly then will you e a le to fulfill your teachin o li ation as in the second para raph with full credibility in your children’s eyes. s ּו קְׁ שרְׁתָָ֥םלְׁאַ֖ עֹות ל־יָדֶ ֵָ֑ך וְׁהָיָּ֥ו לְׁטֹטָפַֹ֖ ב ת ָ֥ין ע ינֶָֽיָך . Instead of: nd you shall tie them as a si n upon your hand and they shall e head te illin et een your eyes – Read: hese ords should e as i they ere ritten on your hand and li e a old chain et een your eyes This verse appears earlier in the Torah, in Shemos 13:9. Rashbam’s commentary to that verse states: "לאות על ידך" - לפי עומק פשוטו: יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד, כאילו כתוב על ידך. כעין שימני כחותם על לבך. "בין עיניך" - כעין תכשיט ורביד זהב שרגילין ליתן על המצח לנוי. “A sign upon your hand” ccordin to the pro ound plain meanin o cripture t ill al ays e a reminder or you as i it ere ritten on your hand li e the verse rom the Song of Songs, “Let me be a seal upon your heart.” “Upon your forehead” i e an ornament or old chain that is customarily put on the orehead or decoration f course, Rash am does not deny the fact that the mit vah of te illin is a Torah o li ation. e is simply e plicating the “profound plain of the text. The Torah’s literal meanin (עומק פשוטו של מקרא) ”meaning need not always correlate with halacha, which is a function of the ral . תורה שבעל פה Tradition
lilei orah o leveland 30 For Hashem’s Sake Rabbi aphtali urnstein1 n the tefillah of Shemoneh srei we add in a few extra phrases from Rosh ashanah through om ippur. These phrases all relate to the theme of these special days, days of repentance and prayer that ashem should accept our tefilos and grant us a good new year. Remember us for life.” As the – זכרנו לחיים“ The first phrase we add is phrase continues, we as ashem to inscribe us in the boo of life ”.for Your sake – למענך“ What is the meaning of “for our sake”? How can the extension of a person’s life be for the sa e of ashem would li e to share with you an insight from Rabbi r. braham Twers i. e suggested that we read the sentence a bit differently: “Inscribe us into the book of a life that is lived for your sake.” In other words, we pray not only for life, but for a uality of life that is meaningful and purposeful, one that will be lived for the greater glory of ashem. Some people find life boring, and see thrills to alleviate its boredom. ut life only becomes boring if it lac s constant goals. f we set goals in life that move us continually forward, guided by a sense of purpose in relation to ashem, we will never be bored. f course, we wish to be inscribed in the boo of life, but it should be a life that we wish to be in, one lived for Hashem’s sake and not simply for the sa e of fleeting pleasures or thrills. ur goal should be to enrich our lives by living according to Hashem’s will, bringing greater glory to Hashem’s Name, and therefore, greater meaning to our lives.
1 Rabbi aphtali urnstein is the rabbi of . amim oraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 31 e a ho s a o ar hs “Ruach” in the Story of Shaul a a 1
Part 1: Shaul’s “Ruach Ra’ah” Alan oldman The relationship between haul and avid is one of the most complex in Tanach. avid was Shaul’s son in law, his confidant, his personal musician – and at the same time, in Shaul’s mind, his mortal enemy. And haul was ing of Israel and the commander of the ewish army in which avid served, but also the man who forced him to live on the run for years. The beginning of their intertwined histories is related in hmuel Aleph, pera im 16 18.2 Shmuel HaNavi, at Hashem’s command, anoints David secretly. avid makes a name for himself by killing oliat, the lishti champion, and through further successful raids against the lishtim. Shaul, experiencing a “ruach ra’ah” (literally, a ‘bad spirit’), is advised to find a musician who can play for him, and avid is recommended and hired. David also marries Michal, Shaul’s daughter. Abarbanel explains that the “ruach ra’ah” which affected Shaul was a direct result of David’s having been anointed. With that gesture of Shmuel’s, David became in effect the new king, and therefore received a spirit from Hashem specific to that role: “This is a greatness of heart, and a spirit of wisdom…that is worthy [to rest] only on the Jewish king.” ince this spirit cannot rest on two people simultaneously, it departed from haul, who could sense the difference although he did not know specifically why it had occurred.
1 a o ma is abbai at the YI Hashkama inyan. He works in nonprofit fundraising. His Torah interests include parshanut, ephardic traditions, and the development of minhagim. Sara o ma works as an attending psychiatrist at Richmond edical enter. he is a longtime attendee of the YI Hashkama inyan. When not at work or in shul, she en oys music, crocheting, and time with her grandson. This article is written in memory of our dear friend Howard enemark z”l. 2 The chronology of these chapters is confusing. R’ Elchanan Samet argues that the events described in hapter 17 actually occurred before those in hapter 16, resolving משיחתו של דוד /many of the issues. His audio shiur is at www.hatanakh.com/lessons References to Rav Samet’s interpretations in this article .והופעתו כמנגן לפני שאול שמא טז come from this shiur. Abarbanel on hmuel 1, 16 1 . Translation mine. lilei orah of le eland 32 Abarbanel’s approach is based on the juxtaposition of two key u : ויִ ק ח מ שְׁ ּו אל אֶ ת-קֶרֶן ה ן שֶמֶ ו יִמְׁש ח אֹתֹו בְׁקֶרֶ ב אֶחָ יו, ו תִ צְׁ ל ח רּוח - ה ' אֶ ל-דָוִד, מ ה יֹום ההּוא וָמָעְׁ לָה; ו יָקָ םשְׁ מּוא ל, ו י לְֶך הָ רָ מָ תָ ה . וְׁרּוח ה' סָ רָ ה מעִ םשָ אּול; ּובִ עֲתתּו רּוח - רָ עָ ה מ את ה'. Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers and the spirit of the RD gripped David from that day on. Samuel then set out for Ramah. Now the spirit of the RD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the RD began to terrify him. ( : ) The use of the term “ruach” sends us back to Shaul’s own appointment as king. He is told by Shmuel at that time that he is about to meet a group of prophets, and then ( : ), וְׁצָלְׁחָה עָ לֶיָך רּוח ה' נוְׁהִתְׁ בִ יתָ עִמָ םוְׁנֶהְׁ פ כְׁתָ לְׁאִ יש א ח ר. The spirit of the RD will grip you, and you will speak in ecstasy along with them you will become another man. Similarly, in the following r ( : ), Shaul hears of a threat to a Jewish city by the king of mmon, and he reacts with Divinely inspired anger: ו תִ לצְׁ ח רּוח - ֱ א ל ֹקִים על-שָ אּול בשמעו )כְׁשָמְׁ עֹו( אֶ ת- ה דְׁ בָ רִ י ם הָ אלֶ ה ו יִח רא פֹו מְׁ אֹד. When he heard these things, the spirit of od gripped Saul and his anger bla ed up. This spirit is an essential element of Shaul’s kingship. When it leaves him, he feels, in the words of R’ Samet, “a vacuum.” The Malbim writes: “When this [spiritual] abundance departs from him because of his sin…he feels this absence and he is astonished and afraid. nstead of the exalted spirit [he had before], he is inhabited by a dark spirit, full of sadness, worry, and terror.” Shaul’s emotional turmoil is a consequence of the change in his spiritual state. nd it is David himself who is chosen to help soothe his pain. R’ Samet suggests that l David could fill this role, since he now has the very ruach that was taken from Shaul through his music, he can restore some of it to the man he ust replaced.
English translations of Tanach are from www.sefaria.org. Shmuel : . Translation mine. a ra 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 33 Part 2: David’s “Ruach from Hashem” Sara oldman There is another way in which Shaul and David’s “ruach”s are intertwined, which is found in each king’s anointment story. Oddly, each time, we are told details about the character’s external appearance. Shaul is “an excellent young man no one among the sraelites was handsomer than he; he was a head taller than any of the people” (9:2).6 avid is also beautiful “ruddy cheeked, bright eyed, and handsome” 16:12 . et, in the very same r , Shmuel is told by Hashem that “For not as man sees [does the R see] man sees only what is visible, but the LORD sees into the heart” (16:7). Why, then, are we told the details of each man’s outer appearance? erhaps the focus on their physical similarities is intended to highlight the differences in their inner characteristics. rom the fact that ashem gives each one different tools when he becomes king, it is clear that they have different needs. Regarding Shaul, we read that ashem gives him “another heart” (11:9) and he is told by Shmuel that he will “become a different man” (10:6). This would indicate that, prior to his anointment, he was not adequate for his new role, and as such, needed to become an entirely different person. avid, however, did not require such a total transformation: he is given “ruach from Hashem” (16:13) which, it appears, complements the qualities he already has. As one example, the ruach avid received served to enhance his existing musical abilities. The Baal Shem Tov notes that “Our sages taught esachim 117 that whenever a psalm begins with ‘A song to David z r l a ,’ that indicates that he would first play music and only then would the Shechinah descend on him. The song would bring the holy spirit to David. And whenever a psalm begins ‘To David, a song l a z r ,’ first the Shechinah would descend upon him with the holy spirit, and afterwards he would recite poetry.”7 avid is able to use his gift of music to connect with ashem, to create the Tehillim that are our primary source of religiously inspired poetry. Music is also woven into Shaul’s development as a person. When he is first chosen by Hashem, he is told by Shmuel that he “will encounter a
6 All references to Tanach in this section are to Shmuel 1. 7 aal Shem Tov on humash, oach 7. l l rah l la 34 band of prophets coming down from the shrine preceded by lyres, timbrels, flutes, and harps, and they will be prophesi ing. The spirit of the LORD will grip you, and you will prophesize along with them” (10:5 6). nitially, for Shaul, music is associated with prophecy, and his new spiritual status. When Shaul is afflicted by a ruach ra’ah, music initially helps. However, music’s power is not sufficient to heal him: twice, while David is using his “ruach from Hashem” to soothe Shaul, the ruach ra’ah causes Shaul to try to ill him (1 :11 and 19:10). Additionally, it is a song that brings David’s increasing fame to Shaul’s attention: “The women sang as they danced, and they chanted: Saul has slain his thousands; David, his tens of thousands!” (18:7). Hearing himself compared unfavorably to his rival in this song, Shaul begins to see confirmation of his inner fears.
o di ho ht We suggest that the text’s continued emphasis on “ruach” in this story underscores the significance of divine guidance for a ewish ing. The avi wants to remind his readers that a l ch ra l is not simply a ruler “to govern us like all other nations” – contrary to the people’s re uest, made to Shmuel, with those very words ( : ). During Shaul’s reign, Jewish monarchy was in its earliest phase, and was not at all an established institution. ven while Shaul ruled, Shmuel informed the people “to take thought and realize what a wicked thing you did in the sight of the LORD when you asked for a king” (12:17). Shaul was present during this speech and must have felt uneasy hearing it. What ind of future might he expect in his role if it was not supposed to exist? Although Hashem gives His approval to the continuation of ingship, He expects and demands that the ruler follow His will. When Shaul fails to do so, he loses the ruach that underpins his capacity to serve. As we’ve seen, that ruach is transferred to David, who during his long reign is viewed by the Tanach as fulfilling Hashem’s will, and being worthy of the spirit given to him.
a ra 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 35 efri erators o ha os oshe ottlieb1 any people are familiar with the issue of opening a refrigerator door on Shabbos when it will cause a light to turn on automatically, and therefore they make sure to set up their refrigerators so that won’t happen. However, even without the light, opening a refrigerator door can raise a number of issues with regard to Shabbos. or instance, if opening the door causes the motor to run, the spark of electricity created may be considered like starting a fire. ausing the motor to turn on also involves completing a circuit, raising a potential problem of h (building). There may also be a concern of (creating something new, a Rabbinic prohibition). The emara states that scenting a garment or ob ect with a fragrance is considered comparable to recreating the garment, changing it enough to be considered a new item, and is therefore a violation of . Similarly, passing an electric current through an appliance changes the otherwise useless ob ect into a functioning appliance. Out of concern for the above, some have advised opening a refrigerator only while the motor is running. (Rav oshe einstein, (אגרות משה, אורח חיים חלק ב, ס"ח ,uoting Rav osef liyahu Henkin (חלק ב, י"ז & חלק ג, קל"ז ,Rabbi itzchak aakov Weiss ( cha cha raises a possible reason for leniency when the motor is running by analyzing whether opening the door while the motor is running, thereby causing the motor to have to run longer, would be like adding fuel to a fire. He suggests it may not be the same thing, and instead compares it to a case of grabbing a water bottle that is falling toward a fire. rabbing the water bottle out of the air prevents it from putting out the fire, but that is not the same as actively causing the fire to continue burning. So too here, one could argue that opening the refrigerator door does not make the motor turn on rather, it removes the cold air (like grabbing the water bottle) that would have stopped the motor
1 oshe ottlieb, from assaic, J, is the grandson of Rueven and Sheila reund, and currently learns in eshiva Shaar Hatorah in ueens, ew ork. .to Shimon hayyat and Ahron uckerberg, who helped a lot in writing this יישר כח rah a 36 from running owe er there may sti e a pro em with osing the fri ge e ause osing the oor u e simi ar to pouring water to put out a fire it wou ause the motor to go off sooner agrees with the cha או"ח א, קנ"א a i esa h rank ar cha that when the motor is running opening the refrigerator is ike at hing a fa ing water ott e un ike the cha cha who oes not want to re y on this rationa e as a pra ti a ru ing the ar e ie es it is omp ete y permissi e nother possi e reason to e enient regar ing opening a refrigerator whi e the motor is running is that any acha onstru ti e a tion prohi ite on ha os asso iate with e e tri ity whether it e גרמא urning h or wou seem to e in the ategory of ra a an a tion that oes not ire t y io ate orah aw ut auses something to happen afterwar s whi h u io ate orah aw if one as it in ire t y auses a גרמא ire t y imp y etting in warm air is on y a is prohi ite on a a ini e e ut is גרמ א acha to o ur n a t of not a orah io ation this istin tion may e important in fin ing room for enien y in ertain ases urthermore there is a so no pro em of ausing sparks y opening the refrigerator whi e the motor is running sin e the e e tri ity ha sparke a rea y a though the cha cha says not to re y on this to permit e a s that those who are arefu a out wi set a timer to turn off at a ertain time an take e erything out then a so ites a iew that opening a חלק ד, ס"ד he cha cha פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה refrigerator r the motor has turne on is a ’ r ha ’ cha a an a tion that arries an ine ita e ut u ra prohibited result: you don’t want the hot air to go in, e ause if the motor goes on you ha e to pay a higher e e tri i n the other hand, while you don’t want the air to go in, once it goes in you do want the motor to go on so your food doesn’t spoil; therefore, this ogi may not e enough to re y on un ess you are taking out the ast of your foo an remo ing any interest in keeping the refrigerator o
he ar oes not spe ify whether opening the refrigerator whi e the motor is running wou e for i en a ra 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 37 also says opening the יביע אומר חלק א, או"ח כ"א a adia osef because you don’t want the פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה refrigerator is a motor to turn on and pay the electricity bill for it owe er, he notes is abbinically פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה that most authorities rule that prohibited, so opening the refrigerator when the motor is running would still be abbinically prohibited a adia also uotes the is entirely permissible in a פ ס יק רישא דלא ניחה ליה eiri’s iew that scenario where you specifically don’t want the inevitable result to is פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה occur urther, the holds that completely permissible e en in a case of a orah le el prohibition, and a haim olo eitchi says the ambam holds li e the osfot, howe er, argue and say it is forbidden of ris is lenient about opening refrigerator doors when ראב"ד he , ’ פסיק רישא דלא איכפת ליה the motor is off: he holds it’s a meaning a person is disinterested in the result caused by the prohibited action – which in his iew has the same status as a case where a person acti ely does not want the result – and we follow the ’s lenient position. is further mitigated if it is פסיק ריש א ome argue that the issue of uncertain whether the refrigerator will turn on right away n that דבר שאינו case, the start of the motor may be in the lesser category of an unintended action which may or , ’ מתכון may not result n that case, the only problem would be that it will definitely turn on after a while; in that respect, opening the fridge a step remo ed from the prohibited act – ג רמא would be considered is at most a abbinic prohibition, and then it is e en גרמא n act of פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה easier to be lenient regarding egarding the issue of causing the motor to go on after a delay, the that happens after a while is only considered פ ס יק רישא aharal says an “unintended action,” offering another reason to permit owe er, many argue with this iew uling on the fire aspect of causing the motor to go on may depend on a dispute about adding oil to a fire ccording to osfot, one who pours oil onto a fire is held accountable for causing the fire to burn ; the osh, howe er, says the problem is causing it to burn pening a refrigerator door while the motor is running does not cause the “fire” (i.e. the electricity to burn brighter, so at most it 38 of causin the motor to run lon er. ccordin to the גרמא would be a osh it would appear that on one hand he would be chayav d’oraysa (on a orah level . n the other hand however we could ar ue that accordin to the osh you are not addin more fuel you are ust preventin the motor from turnin off ri ht away and so it would be at most some sort of abbinic prohibition. ccordin to av hlomo alman uerbach the problem with electricity is in the spar s that occur at the start of the motor so if the motor is currently runnin there is definitely no problem. f it is not and לא ניחא ליה currently runnin then the spar s that come about are the rulin would then be sub ect to the dispute between the and osfot mentioned above. av vadia oes on to say that openin the frid e door is technically permitted but that it is best to do it while the motor is runnin especially if the motor hasn’t turned on in a while and opening the frid e is more li ely to cause the motor to immediately turn on. n mi ht only apply when you re פסיק רישא the other hand the rule of unless it גרמא doin a direct action since this is most li ely a case of .mi ht not even be a problem at all פסיק רישא turns on ri ht away says there is no )מנחת שלמה חלק א', סימן י', אות ה'-י"א) av hlomo alman orah prohibition. e analy es various some authorities apply to openin refri erator doors and e plains why none is involved on a orah level however there may still be a abbinic prohibition. Makeh b’patish means stri in a hammer the prohibition of applies to completin construction of an ob ect on habbos ( : : and is one of the constructive acts forbidden on habbos. ome su est that turnin on the motor completes its construction as now it is a functionin item. owever av uerbach ar ues that there is no akeh b’patish because it isn’t that the refrigerator is not working when the motor is off rather the motor by desi n was meant to o off at a certain temperature to eep the food from free in . ausin the motor to o on is therefore not the step that causes the frid e to wor but is part of the normal use of the refri erator. urthermore even if one would ar ue that makeh b’patish is theoretically involved here an act is not akeh b’patish if it is not a permanent fi . losin the circuit isn t
2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 39 considered a completion of construction e ery time it turns on as it is meant to go off again soon s we mentioned abo e some authorities argue that opening a refrigerator door iolates the prohibition of bo eh building because it completes the circuits owe er if it will go off soon after then it is not bo eh urthermore the prohibition of building applies only when you are making an item work for the first time since the fridge is already running there is no prohibition as the electricity is already flowing in the fridge from when the fridge is originally plugged in egarding the prohibition of mav’ir kindling a fire which would seem to be iolated by the sparks created at the time the motor is me acha she’ai ah מלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה engaged he e plains it is a t ’richa ’ ah an act of creati e work that is not done for its own sake because this is not the regular way people make fires or the way fire was kindled in the Mishka urther the creation of the sparks is meka ke a destructi e action and therefore not considered a me acha because the spark apparently ruins the area where it goes inad ertent result generally when דבר שאינו מתכוון off lso it is a sparks are created on purpose, it’s not done by turning on the motor of a fridge גרמא nce we ha e all these abbinic considerations now that it is a it will be permissible to open the fridge e en when the motor is not running f the fridge would turn on right away when opened it howe er a hlomo alman פסיק רישא but a גרמא wouldn’t be a e plains that since one can ne er know for sure when the motor is ne might argue דבר שאינו מתכוין going to turn on it will be at most a similar to closing a פסיק רישא possible ספק פסיק רישא this is a case of bo when there may or may not be flies in the bo which is forbidden because of the prohibition of trapping according to the ama and also the e’ r a acha similarly we know the motor mi ht turn on right ספק פסיק away when the refrigerator is opened so it should also be a
he same issue comes up in the case of hearing aids hen you speak to someone wearing hearing aids electrical circuits are turned on and when you stop speaking they turn off by design. See Moshe Gottlieb, “Hearing Aids on Shabbos,” i ei orah ol 6 5780 p 17 I’m not sure why that helps as you are still causing the electricity to flow into the motor i ei orah o eve a d 40 Howe er, this may not be a problem because e en if there is a .רישא a possible ,ספק פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה it is still a ,פסיק רישא possible ine itable result that the person does want to happen, and ספק therefore would be only a abbinic prohibition. In that case, it is a ספק דרבנן a possible iolation on a abbinic le el, and so we say ,דרבנן when you ha e a abbinic prohibition that may or may not לקולא happen, the act is permitted. urthermore, in most cases the motor will not turn on right away therefore, based on the principle of ma ority rules , it is certainly permissible. a Shlomo alman adds that e en if the motor does turn on immediately when the fridge is opened, we should consider two factors e plained by technicians a It takes the sensor time to process the heat that comes in when you open the door, before it turns on the motor. If the motor turns on at the moment you open the door, it is a coincidence and not because the door was opened. b here are multiple steps from the time you let the heat in the heat trips the sensor, which makes the gas heat up, which creates the current, which turns on the motor. he turning on of the motor is so far remo ed .גרמא from the act of opening the door that it must be a cites many authorities who say )חלק ח, ס' י"ב אות ד'( he you should only open the door when the motor is running. He also uotes a Shlomo alman’s iew as abo e that it is permitted e en פ סיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה when the motor is not running, because it’s a and so would be at most a abbinic prohibition, and furthermore, it of that abbinic prohibition e en if the motor turns גרמא may be only a on right away when the door is opened. If the motor turns on later, it on a abbnic גרמא is not e en a abbinic prohibition, as it is a prohibition and therefore permissible. And since there is a ma ority presumption that it won't turn on right away, then it’s certainly permitted. Many authorities will tell you that the accepted practice in America is to be lenient and rely on the many factors that contribute towards allowing one to open the fridge on Shabbos e en when the motor is not running.
H H H D D P P H H
2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 41 s hu a a ah ichael urin1 t is seasonal this time o year to thin about , an many eo le ta e time uring lul an ishrei or intros ection an sel im ro ement is so central that it is i icult to imagine lul an ishrei without it et, there is actually a ebate about whether or not is e en a at all he amban, in his commentary on the orah e arim 0 11 , clearly states that is a an is e licitly comman e to us se eral times in the orah אבל "המצוה הזאת" על התשובה הנזכרת, כי "והשבות אל לבבך," "ושבת עד ה' אלקיך," מצוה שיצוה אותנו לעשות כן. ut this comman ment re ers to re entance ecause the erses you will return in your hearts euteronomy 0 1 an you will return to the or your o ibi 2 ro e that the comman ment to return that e comman e us to o is a comman ment he author o seems to agree n the ery beginning o אזהר ה the boo when he escribes , he uses the language o (“caution”), terminology typically reserved for formal commandments. e also notes, as the amban i , that teshu a is eman e o us se eral times in the orah n the other han , the ambam oes not seem to consi er a n his 7 he writes היא שצונו להתודות על העונות והחטאים שחטאנו לפני הא-ל ולאמר אותם עם התשובה.
1 ichael urin is a r year gastroenterology ellow at ni ersity os itals rior to an uring his me ical training he stu ie in eshi a ni ersity or many years, an obtaine his rom an an in me ie al ewish history rom ernar e el ra uate chool o ewish tu ies ichael, along with his wi e e orah, are rou arents o chil ren an li e in ni ersity eights 42 e mit va is t at ic e commanded us to confess to t e sins and transgressions t at e transgressed efore od, and to say t em it t e performance of tes uva. ile is certainly recommended e avior, t e precise action confession, ic am am ,וידוי t e am am counts as a is imself considers only one part of t e process. is same concept is reiterated in t e eginning of ilc ot es uva ( ) כל מצות שבתורה, בין עשה בין לא תעשה, אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה, כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו, חיב להתודות לפני הא-ל ברוך הוא...ודוי זה מצות עשה. ll mit vot in t e ora , et er t ey are positive or negative commandments , if a person violates one of t em, et er on purpose or y accident, en e does tes uva and repents from is transgression, e must confess [his sins] before God, blessed is He… This confession is a positive commandment. e am am seems to ta e for granted t at a person ill do , is considered וידוי ut it is not a mit va . nly t e part of called a true . ess ell no n is t at t e appears to agree it t e Rambam on this issue. He counts the mitzvah of confessing one’s sins ( ), and e plains t at e fulfill t is y confessing to a sin at the time we have remorse over it, or during a “time of .” o can e e plain t is de ate ould li e to offer t o approac es. ach hu a er aps t e ans er to t is uestion is more uestions o does one no en t ey ave “done” at is t e alac ic definition of any of us ta e t e concept of for granted, ut t e ans er to even t ese most asic uestions is not clear. erefore, per aps e can understand t e de ate a out et er is a as follows: The Ramban’s view fits with our intuition t at somet ing so central to our religion, t at according to am an is e plicitly mandated in t e ora , must e a . o ever, t e am am elieved t at even t e most important concept 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 43 can onl be formalized as a if we have clear guidelines and arameters about its fulfillment. earl all halachic mandates feature ractical definitions that determine at what oint a erson has successfull fulfilled the command or violated the rohibition. hen it comes to , there are no such clear definitions. erha s that is wh the Rambam felt it could not be counted as a . onfession, however, is a com onent of that has clear arameters namel , it is fulfilled when one verball confesses a sin , and it can therefore be formalized as a . However, this explanation of the Rambam’s view leaves us wondering how the Ramban would res ond. or the Ramban and his cam , how can be a when we do not now its arameters and lac clarit on its definition The sim lest wa to answer this uestion is to suggest arameters that would clearl define, for Ramban, at what oint has been accom lished. irst, erha s is achieved when a sinner decides to sto sinning. ronicall , the , des ite being in the Rambam’s camp, does state (ibid.) that is fulfilled “when the sinner abandons his sin and removes it from his heart and from his mind, and decides in his heart that he will not do it an more… And afterwards, he confesses about it meaning, he sa s words of verball . nd he also has to sa e licitl that he will not return to do the sin again.” more elaborate version of this a roach can be e tracted from the words of the . n his commentar to evarim 1:17, he also wonders how can be considered a , though for different reasons than we have alread suggested: ונתבונן דשם תשובה כפי מה שמורה שמה איך נחשבת למצוה שישוב מכסלו ולא יחטא עוד, הלא בלא המצוה מצווה ועומד לבלי לעבור על מצות השי"ת… nd we should consider, the word , according to what its name im lies, how can it be thought of as a that [one should] return from his stu idit and not transgress anymore? Isn’t it true that without the [of ] he is alread commanded to avoid transgressing the of God
44 If is simply a decision to desist from sin, we are already forbidden from sinning regardless, so what does a of add, in a practical sense, to what we are already commanded to do? ma es sense, the implies, as a concept incorporated into every commandment and prohibition, but it adds nothing new as an independent . his challenge leads him to entertain the possibility that perhaps really is not an independent , which would put him in the Rambam’s camp. However, he ultimately decides that what ma es novel and uni ue is that the appropriate way to do is by forcing one’s desires to the opposite extreme from what led him to sin. ithout the independent of , a person would have only nown they need to stop sinning the innovation of is that the recommended techni ue to truly stop sinning is to bring oneself to the opposite extreme. hat gives its legitimacy and uni ueness as a for the provides us with a wor ing definition of to explain how it can be counted as a . A person accomplishes teshuva when he fully shifts his thoughts and behaviors, from the direction that led him to sin to the complete opposite direction. Any of these definitions can wor to explain how the Ramban believed is a . hether by stopping the sin and deciding to never commit the sin again, or purposefully shifting his behavior to the opposite extreme of that which led him to sin, can be a li e all others with tangible guidelines that define when it has been fulfilled. In this approach, then, the debate between the Ramban and the Rambam is about their respective understanding of . he Ramban believes it is a tangible with defined parameters, while the Rambam believes it is not and therefore cannot be counted as a . c ach h a A second approach to this debate, and my preferred one, is that there may not be a debate at all. everal scholars suggest that the Rambam
he bases this explanation on the Rambam’s approach to changing certain character traits. 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 45 really belie ed, li e the Ramban, that is a . hey offer se eral arguments. a. irst, the 6 1 argues that for the Rambam and the , really is a . owe er, it is in a special category of that are descripti e but not mandatory. his type of pro ides rules for how we must do a certain procedure, should we choose to do it, but the procedure is not mandatory. he offers the example of di orce. here is no obligation to get di orced, but if one chooses to di orce, he has a to complete the di orce process in the particular way described by the orah. ere too, one is not obligated to do , but if a person wants to atone for his sins, the orah re uires that he do in a particular way. n nd ust li e a di orce .וידוי the case of , the procedure includes would not go into effect without a properly written and signed , .וידוי will not be accepted without his approach is compelling because it gi es the status we intuiti ely feel it should ha e. owe er, two difficulties come to mind. irst, that we are not obligated to do seems counterintuiti e and difficult to accept. econd, while we can accept that di orce is a tangible procedure that has a clear point of completion, with many rules guiding the procedure to ensure it is done appropriately and with proper intent, the ’s approach f one wishes to do , then he .וידוי limits the process to and that will complete the process. e would li e to וידוי should do thin that there is more to than ust that. he ’s approach may fit with the language of the Rambam, but it significantly limits the depth of and this ma es it difficult to accept. b. Ra olo eitchi has a different understanding of the Rambam, כותרת stemming from the Rambam’s curious phrasing in the explanatory subtitle to the aws of eshu a. here, the Rambam seems to say that is not only a but the primary , is secondary וידוי and מצות עשה אחת והיא שישוב החוטא מחטאו לפני ה' ויתודה. 46 his section has one positi e comman ment an it is that the transgressor shoul return from his transgression before o an confess to it n his wor , Ra olo eitchi e elops a thesis that the or the essence ,קיום המצוה to e press the כותרת Rambam often uses the ,פעולת המצוה of a , while in the bo y of the te t he outlines the how the is practically performe Ra olo eitchi writes תשובה בעיני הרמב"ם היא מעין עבודה שבלב. זוהי מצוה שעיקרה אינו במעשים ובפעולות, אלא בתהליך הנמשך לעתים על פני שנות חיים, תהליך שתחלתו בחרטה...בהרגשה של בדידות...ודרכו של תהליך זה ארוכה-ארוכה, עד לתכלית שהיא התשובה עצמה. התשובה אינה קשורה במעשה אחד ומכריע, אלא צומחת וגדלה...עד שמביאה את האדם למטמורפוזה, ואז לאחר שהשתנה ונעשה אדם אחר, מגיע מעשה התשובה...הוידוי. , in the eyes of the Rambam, is similar to worship of the heart hat is, a whose essence is not through actions an performances, but rather through a process that will continue from time to time o er the course of a lifetime process whose beginning is remorse...with the feeling of loneliness… an the way of this process is ery long until it reaches the purpose which is itself is not tie to one particular action, rather it blossoms an grows until it brings a person to a metamorphosis, an then after he has change an become a ifferent person, the act of teshu a comes confession here is a whose essence is owe er, transcen s any tangible act that woul ha e clear parameters Rather, it is an inner e perience, a lengthy process of transformation of the soul t begins with remorse an contemplation, which lea s to a feeling of emptiness and failure, which simmers in one’s soul until it eventually brings the soul to un ergo a metamorphosis he sinner becomes, in a וידוי sense, a new person t that point, the process culminates with
2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 47 f course is a , but it lac s a finite act that defines its fulfillment because it is a process that occurs entirely within. herefore, in order for it to be functional within our halachic system, it re uires an is not the וידוי .וידוי act that represents its fulfillment, and this is rather, it is a culminating act that represents the true , which is . he av compares to . he essence of is , worship of od that occurs within oneself. his form of worship, in which we cry out to od, attempting to communicate and develop a relationship with im, has no definable parameters either. he liturgy is used to allow for practical fulfillment of the , but the liturgy is not the essence of the . he essence of , too, transcends far beyond confessing one’s sins and desisting from them, but those components are necessary for to function as a within our halachic system. h a Ra s we have seen, there are fundamentally different ways to understand and each has merits and flaws. he more one sees as a mechanical process with a clear point of completion, the easier it is to define as a . n the other hand, the more we view in that way, the easier it is to miss the true essence of . hese two diverging understandings of came to the fore in 18th century urope. n the early days of the movement, a method of called literally, repentance of the scale
his notion of as an inner transformative process can be further e plicated, and may even find expression in the Rambam’s laws of themselves. n the first two chapters of this section, the ambam describes the practical process through which the of is carried out. his includes feeling remorse, confessing to the sin, and desisting from it. owever, as pointed out by abbi r. ri erman in his 201 , the latter chapters of this section describe a wholly different process by which the sound of the shofar inspires introspection and contemplation, the ultimate spar of the process. These of course are not tangible, but are the Rambam’s way of describing the beginning moments that ignite the process. he ambam li ely placed this discussion in the aws of eshuva rather than in the aws of hofar because this is the essence of , not laws about how to fulfil the very tangible of blowing the shofar. abbi erman’s drasha is available at https //www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/ 2 8/rabbi dr ari berman/living mindfully and meaningfully the teshuvah of rosh hashanah and yom ippur/. 48 became populari ed. This method too the notion of as a tangible and clearly defined process to the extreme. was a mechanistic form of in which the goal was to “balance the scales” by accepting upon oneself a degree of suffering commensurate to the sin one transgressed. Typically, a Rabbi would formulaically prescribe a certain number of fast days, time spent studying or reciting psalms, or even physically uncomfortable acts such as rolling around in the snow undressed. pon completion of the prescribed acts, the transgressor would be deemed to have “done” . owever, as one can imagine, this practice met its share of opposition. The merits, or lac thereof, of this type of were discussed in a famed responsum of the Nodah B’yehuda st edition, . n the responsum, a yeshiva student who was apparently a Torah scholar had committed unthin able improprieties for several years, and then decided to do . The student was apparently a believer in , and the Nodah B’yehuda was as ed what to prescribe for this person’s . The Nodah B’yehuda is clear in his opposition to the practice of הנה הקשה לשאול ממני דבר קשה שאיני רגיל להשיב לשואל ממני שאלה בדבר שלא אוכל למצוא שורש בדברי הגמ' והפוסקים כי לא מצינו בכל התלמוד מספר התעניות ימים חרוצים וקצובים לכל חטא ואשמה כפי חומר העון. ere, the one who wrote me this uestion has as ed a difficult uestion of me regarding a topic that do not regularly respond to, a uestion about something about which cannot find any source in the words of the emara or the halachic authorities, because we do not find in all the Talmud reference to a prescribed number of fast days compiled for every transgression and sin, according to the severity of the sin. ere he explains his discomfort with the practice because it lac s precedent and a valid source. ater in the responsum, however, he also explains his opposition to the practice on more fundamental grounds
שו"ת נודע ביהודה מהדורא קמא - אורח חיים סימן לה 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 49 אלא שאומר אני כל זה אם היה התענית דבר המעכב בתשובה אבל באמת אין התענית רק דבר טפל לתשובה, ועיקר התשובה הוא עזיבת חטא וידוי דברים בלב נשבר חרטה בלב שלם התקרבות והתלהבות לאהוב את הבורא והיינו תשובה שישוב אל ה' וירחמהו, וישוב אל ה' היינו שידבק בו אבל שאר דברים תענית וסיגופים אינם עיקרים. ather, say that all of this is only important if fasting was necessary for the achievement of teshuva, but in truth, fasting is nothing but an ad unct to teshuva, and the main part of teshuva is desisting from transgression, confessing in words from a bro en heart, remorse with a full heart, coming closer to od , and being enthusiastic about love of the reator, and this is the meaning of teshuva, that one should return to od and od will have mercy on him, and to return to od means that he should stic to im ut all other things, including fasting, and practices of ascetism, are not central to teshuva he Nodah B’yehuda e presses an understanding of e hu a that rings similar to Rav Soloveitchik’s interpretation of the Rambam. ll of these tangible acts of “ e hu a” miss the point that the essence of e hu a is an internal process of self transformation 5 or the most part, e hu a ha h a , at least in its original form, has fallen by the wayside oday, most view e hu a as a process of inner transformation ut as we have seen, that e hu a occurs within and does not necessarily come with a definable or verifiable moment of completion does not need to ta e away from its stature as a ah and a ey theme of our e perience of the days of udgement and awe ay we all merit atonement for our sins through the achievement of true e hu a
5 e bolsters this opinion with another compelling argument f it were truly possible to determine that a person has “done” e hu a by performing certain actions, this would mean the end of the entire ewish legal system, because any transgressor could simply state they have “done” e hu a and their sin is atoned for, and the court would be unable to punish them o the Nodah B’yehuda, the e istence of the court system implies that e hu a cannot be so tangible e o ah o e e a d 50 u h a ah: esso s from the oo oshe . rero ddu h e a ah a blessing recited pon observing the ne moon i.e. the moon in the a ing phase appears at first glance to be a strange religio s observance. magine the tho ghts of an o tside observer ho sees a gro p of e s glancing at the moon hile chanting from their prayer books. f this observer stays long eno gh they ill see that at the end of the prayers the gro p ill oin together in a oyo s dance. n order to gain an nderstanding of this observance e m st ask the follo ing estions hat is the observance of ddu h e a ah all abo t hat is its so rce in the traditional te ts and hat is the deeper meaning of this observance he o e of the oo i the e ish a e dar he mit vah of declaring a ne month is derived from the follo ing a u . he a d o o e a d a o he a d o y h o h ha a o you he e o he o h ha e he o he o h o he yea o you od s The word “ eh ” “this,” in the Torah often connotes something that one can point to ith their finger. ith this concept in mind Rashi od s e plains that oshe Rabbein had diffic lty nderstanding e actly hat as considered to be a ne moon for the p rpose of declaring a ne month. aShem pointed to the moon as one o ld point to something ith their finger in order to sho oshe e actly ho the moon sho ld look in order to declare the ne month. Rashi also offers another e planation in line ith the simple reading of the verse. The phrase “ha hode h ha eh” means “this month,” referring
oshe rero gre p in hicago. e st died at eshivat Sha alvim and er srael Rabbinical ollege and received rabbinical ordination from Rabbi edaliah ov Sch art . oshe his ife Rachel and their t o children have been travelling the orld as part of oshe s medical training. e received his from en rion niversity in eer Sheva completed pediatric residency in ansas ity and is finishing p fello ships in ediatric lmonology and Sleep edicine at Rainbo abies and hildren s ospital. .e ill ret rn to this a u later .זה א-לי .See Rashi to od s s.v a No a 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 51 to the month of issan. The meaning of the verse according this e planation is that the months of ewish calendar will have a new wa of eing counted. reviousl , months were counted from the new ear, with Tishrei considered to e the first month, ut from this point in histor forward from the time of the e odus from g pt , the month of issan will e considered the first month in the calendar ear. According to Rashi’s second explanation, what is the significance of starting the ewish calendar ear with the month of issan o ths ommemorate edem tio am an odus 12 1 e plains that the months of the ewish calendar commemorate the redemption of the ewish people. issan is the 1st month ecause it is the month in which the redemption occurred and therefore serves as the reference point for the rest of the months. issan represents the e odus, the redemption from the ondage of g pt. ver su se uent month should e viewed in the conte t of its temporal relation to the month in which we were redeemed from g pt. nterestingl , am an goes on to e plain that the names of the months also commemorate redemption from an exile. The “Hebrew” names are actuall a lonian in origin, and were named such to commemorate our redemption from the a lonian e ile. he so r e for idd sh eva ah: הרואה א ת הלבנה בחידושה “ ,The Talmud Yerushalmi (Brachos) states ne who see the moon in its renewal ma es a – אומר ברוך מחדש חדשים blessing...” Maimonides ( ho B a ho , hapter 10, alacha 16 17 mentions this lessing in the conte t of other lessings recited in response to seeing an e ceptional visual e perience, such as seeing a rain ow. The hulchan ruch iman 26 states that one should ma e the lessing on the moon when it is in its wa ing phase, and the ama ualifies this stating that the lessing should e said at nighttime when one enefits from the light of the moon. These sources indicate that the lessing on the moon, or what we refer to as “ ddu h e a ah,” is very similar to other blessings we make when we o serve an e ceptional visual phenomenon. There is, however, an aspect of ddu h e a ah that is uite distinct from other
e o ah o e e a d 52 blessings in this category. n order to perform the ah in the optimal fashion, one should not recite it when he is not in a happy mood. onse uently, there are halachic ramifications regarding when one should or should not recite the blessing. or example, some are of the opinion that it should not be recited before Yom ippur, due to the awe of Heavenly udgement permeating that period of time, or on Mot ei Tisha b Av or during a e u (mourning), because those are times when one is not enveloped in happiness. ne is re uired to be in a oyous mindset when saying the blessing over the renewed moon. hy is ddu h e a ah a oyous occasion erie i D hro h at re: The Talmud ( anhedrin a) relates the following Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says ith regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the ace of the ivine resence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month “ his month shall be for you the beginning of months” ( xodus ), and it is written there, where the ewish people encountered the ivine resence at the splitting of the sea: “ his is my d and I will glorify Him” ( xodus ). The term “this” is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught f the ewish people merited to greet the ace of their ather in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them. Abaye said Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing. The Beu a a ha, citing the e ad , explains the statement of the school of Rabbi Yishmael By paying attention to the moon and the other celestial bodies (planets, stars etc.) and noticing that they constantly carry out the natural task that they were given by their reator, one perceives the greatness of The Almighty. hen one observes the moon, one senses d’s might in such an intimate fashion
a h ha s.v. u e a e h eua ad. a No a 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 53 that it is as if he is greeting the he h a the i ine resence aturally it follows that out of re erence for the i ine resence we must stand while reciting this blessing abbi osef o olo eitchi e plains that raham inu brought nomads tra eling through the desert closer to the understanding of d raham would have them wash their feet “and sit under the tree” enesis 18: He would encourage them to wash off the dust of idol worship and culti ate their appreciation of the organic process of a tree and what lies beyond the tree. Rabbi Soloveitchik states, “Man’s purpose in general and the Jew’s purpose in particular is to see the d of the uni erse through the lea es of the e he (tree).” This may be why abbi ḥa bar Ḥanina compared “ his month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2) to “ his is my d and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). “This is my G d and I will glorify Him” is part of the song the ewish people sang after crossing the sea and solidifying their freedom from the bondage of gypt ashi there comments that “G d re ealed Himself to them and they pointed to Him — as it were — with their finger, exclaiming “ his is my d5!” A maidser ant beheld at the ed ea what e en the prophets ne er saw e hilta d abbi ishmael 15:2:2 The ah of ddu h e a ah teaches us a profound lesson regarding how to approach the world and the natural sciences s ews we reali e the awesomeness beauty and dliness inherent in nature hen we percei e nature through the prism of Torah we e perience the i ine resence in close pro imity Therefore baye says we must stand while reciting this e a ha – because through the e perience of obser ing the renewal of the moon we become acutely aware that we are in the presence of the he h a e e a of the oo emi ds s of r omi i a edem tio The Talmud osh Hashanah 25a relates a story that once ebbi told abbi hiyah to go to a certain place called in Tob to sanctify the new moon ebbi ga e instructions that once this tas had been accomplished abbi hiyah was to send bac a code phrase confirming
e a ho a a pp 111 11 also cited in the e o e a a o h a ha a a h o pp 16 17 5 ased on h a h a ah :15 e o ah o e e a d 54 that the task was complete. That code phrase was “ a d e e h ae chai v’kayam” (David, king of Israel, lives and endures). hat does ing avid have to do with the new moon Rashi there explains the connection by citing salms : , where the lineage of ing avid is compared to the moon: “His offspring will be forever…like the moon, established forever...” Just as the moon remains in the sky, so too will the lineage of avid continue. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his commentary to salms, explains the comparison further: The mission of humanity in general, and of the Jewish people in particular, is to accept G d’s will and sovereignty. G d chose ing avid and his descendants to be His co workers in bringing about redemption. Even though we may falter at times, and temporarily stray from our path, the descendants of ing avid, and the Jewish people, do not forfeit their mission. Even if, like the moon, Israel’s fate seems to fluctuate, and it seems at times close to vanishing, nevertheless, like the moon, Israel will survive for all time. erhaps we may suggest that is the reason the blessing recited upon seeing the renewal of the moon is a happy experience, a blessing that optimally must be recited in a setting of oyful ambience. Every month, when we see the renewed moon, we say a blessing reaffirming that, despite our past failings, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our communal mission of accepting and proclaiming G d’s sovereignty. e are also deeply comforted, as we stand close to the ivine resence, that despite our past hardships, G d remains true to His promise that He will bring the final redemption. May it come speedily in our days.
S.v. a d e e h ae a No a 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 55 e are His a d He is rs arah udolph1 ne of the most beautiful parts of om ippur davening is the rousing poem that precedes each communal i y (confession prayer and lists a variety of terms to describe the relationship between od and the ewish people: “We are Your X, and You are our Y.” The poem is based, at least in part, on a passage in the idrash abbah that elaborates on the words “my beloved is to me and I am to him” ( ong of ongs 2:16 . Traditional interpretations generally understand the love story in ong of ongs as symboli ing the relationship between God and the Jewish people; the speaker (“I”) in this verse represents the nation and the “beloved” alludes to God, and the implication is that the relationship moves in two directions, with each party being “to” or “for” the other in some way. In what way is God “to me” and in what way am I “to Him”? The midrash offers a number of answers, all based on verses and each casting the relationship in a slightly different light. “He is a God to me, and I am a nation to Him”; at the same time, “He is a Father to me, and I am a son to him.” “He is a shepherd to me… and I am sheep to Him.” nd so on. Each of these relationships deserves its own analysis, but the overall sense of the midrash is parado ically two fold: The primary verse at its root seems to represent a balanced relationship of e uals – two individuals who love each other and are “to/for” each other – yet many, if not all, of the analogous relationships in the midrash (as well as in the om ippur poem, which adds to the midrashic list represent an
1 arah udolph is a ewish educator and freelance writer and editor. arah s essays have been published in a variety of internet and print media, including Times of Israel, veller, ewish ction, ife, ehrhaus, Torah usings, and more, and she serves as Editor t arge, Deracheha: womenandmit vot.org. arah lives in niversity Heights with her husband, osef, and four children (one of whom is published in this very volume but learns with students all over the world through TorahTutors.org (where she serves as Director and eb eshiva.org. arah is also founding Editor of i i ah v a . This essay was also published at https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a nation of treasure/, with slight alterations. i i ah v a 56 imbalance. father is not e ual to his child; a shepherd is not e ual to his sheep. his imbalance is understandable, as clearly God and His people are not e uals – which only serves to highlight the oddity of one line in the Yom ippur poem that does seem to place the two parties on completely v’Atah ma’amirenu מאמירך) equal footing: “Anu ma’amirecha ”.(מאמירנו “We are Your ma’amir, and You are our ma’amir.” otice how I avoided translating the key word. What is a ma’amir, and how can it be that we and God are described with the e act same term in relation to each other? s this line of the poem appears to be rooted in a a k in evarim, we will turn there to e plore its meaning. At the end of Deuteronomy chapter 26, Moshe proclaims “This day, Hashem your God commands you to do these statutes and the laws… Hashem today to be a God to you and to follow (האמרת) You he’emarta in His ways and to observe His commandments… And Hashem he’emir ,you today, to be a nation of treasure to Him, as He said to you (האמיר) and to observe all His commandments…” any uestions can and should be asked about this passage (including the foundational question of what it means to be God’s “nation of treasure”), but we will focus on the following: ?mean in these verses א.מ.ר. What does the root . . What does the full verb construct he’emir (parallel in form to the word ma’amir in the Yom ippur poem) mean? . What is it that the nation did towards God and God did to the nation, and how does this shed light on the multi faceted relationship between us? ny novice student of Hebrew would likely answer the first uestion with the word “say”; however, the root does not appear anywhere else in the ible in this form, leading many commentators to other approaches. ashi, for instance, notes that there is no clear precedent in the orah for he’emarta/he’emir, but suggests it might mean “separation,” with a
amim aim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 57 possible connection in Psalms 94:4, “yit’amru all evildoers.” His comment on the verse in salms sheds further light, defining yit’amru as i hta chu – from a root meaning “praise.” It is not, therefore, simply difference but positive distinctiveness that is implied: n salms, the meaning would be a rhetorical “Shall all evildoers praise themselves?”; we might then read our text as saying “You’ve distinguished Hashem [from other gods] as your God… and Hashem has distinguished you [from other nations] as His people.” n this aspect of the relationship between God and His people, each praises the other as being different, and commits to an e clusive relationship. thers offer a different precedent that also implies praise or greatness, as found in saiah 17:6. There, a future time (אמיר from the word amir of calamity is compared to a tree with ust a few inferior fruits remaining at the top of the “amir” – the uppermost branches. ommentaries who ta e this approach offer more insight at least by implication) into the particular form he’emarta/he’emir as being the hi i , or causative, verb construction. or instance, Abarbanel e plains, “You have elevated and e alted God in that you accepted Him as God… if you elevated and exalted Him, He too elevates and exalts you… in that He too you from among the nations as a nation of treasure.” ther than the proofte ts salms vs. saiah), is this second interpretation substantively different from Rashi’s? Both describe a relationship based on mutual designation of the other as unique and separate from anyone else; God is our one and only, and we are, in some sense, His. However, there does seem to be a deeper difference between the two interpretations: in the first, each party in the relationship declares the other to be unique; in the second, the declaration and commitment of each party ma e the other party not ust unique but greater than before. ach causes the other to become the amir, the highest of branches. We might not be surprised that God could elevate a people, but the balanced nature of these words – he’emarta and he’emir, so that each becomes the ma’amir of the other – might give us pause as we consider what it means for a people to have such power to actively elevate God Himself.
i ei rah eve an 58 as speech and even א.מ.ר. Interestingly as it brings us bac around to more powerfully, barbanel also offers another approach, in which the same translation of amir as the highest branch implies speech: “The delicate, uppermost branch at the top of the tree is called “amir” because the branches have a voice and sound in their constant movements… Also, every tree is called “si’ach” for this reason, because it a h (converses) and speaks constantly.” Here, barbanel uses the precedent of amir in Isaiah : as a basis for interpreting the unusual ,א.מ.ר. form he’emarta/he’emir as indeed related to the familiar word in a causative sense. He continues: Behold, at Sinai, God did a wondrous indness for Israel; namely, to speak with them from Heaven…. And Israel did for Him an extremely pleasing service, when they said there “we will do and we will listen.” Therefore, Moshe said here, “If Hashem said His utterances to you… it a au e y y u rae because you accepted Him as God and you said [you would] follow in His ways… u brought about, by what you said before Him, that He would cause you to hear His voice and His commandments, for because you said ‘everything Hashem says, we will do’ – He ha t speak with you with His voice.” And that is [his meaning when] he said, “You he’emarta Hashem today” – meaning, you brought about the amirah… By accepting God and His laws, barbanel says, the nation forced God to bestow upon them the tremendous privilege of hearing those laws directly from Him. barbanel goes on to explain how Hashem he’emir His people: nd [while] you said an utterance so honorable and precious as “we will do and we will listen” – Hashem he’emircha; meaning, He did [something] for you so that you would say it. nd this was in His message to you at the beginning, to say to you before [Sinai], “and you will be a treasure to Me” – and that He would give you a reason to observe His commandments…”
amim raim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 59 e take our free will very seriously how are we to understand that od “caused you to say,” to declare a commitment to Him?2 or Abarbanel, it was by giving the people a reason, namely, e plaining the results of such commitment as the ne t verse elaborates (26:1 ), the incentive lay in the holiness and potential inherent in mit vah observance. (“And to set you above all the nations… and that you will be a nation holy to Hashem…”) Mutual promises, then, almost force one another’s hand in a chicken and egg sort of interplay: God’s promises of the results of mit vah observance brought the people to declare their loyalty to Him and His mit s at the same time, their declaration led to His promises. In this portrayal, therefore, the relationship between od and Israel is even more than balanced it is symbiotic, each responding to the other in a cycle of deepening commitment. It no longer matters who declared first, as long as both sides keep declaring. As Abarbanel and others also note, this passage in euteronomy 26 is one of those surprising conte ts in which Moshe stresses the word “today” even though he seems to be relating a story that happened long ago. ut of course, ashi already, here and elsewhere, cites a midrashic e planation of that emphasis: ach day, including today, should be i e that day we strive to recommit, today and all days, with the same eal that characterized that first declaration, “we will do and we will listen.” Today and all days – including on The day, when we stand before od on Yom ippur – we reiterate our commitment to observe His mit s, and call upon Him to likewise recommit to us. e have the power to make ourselves His ma’amir, today and all days, and thereby to make Him ours.
2 The notion of forcing Israel to accept od and His commandments calls to mind the midrash in Shabbat 88a which describes od holding Mount Sinai over the people’s heads to compel them to accept the Torah. Abarbanel’s explanation of he’emir/he’emarta offers one possible e planation for the compulsion symboli ed by the overturned mountain: the pros and cons associated with the choice to accept or re ect the Torah were stacked so clearly in favor of acceptance that it was no real choice at all. Other commentaries on our passage suggest a different source of “compulsion”: the miracles witnessed by the ewish people at that time, which made allegiance to the Almighty the compelling choice. i ei rah e e a 60 hat i the or d as imri hi i hmuel tern “We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions.” owhere is this thought more apparent than in the story of inchas and imri at the end of arshas ala . or inchas, commentators present a variety of halachic analyses to explain how he arrived at the decision to ill imri and ozbi. or imri, however, it’s all about his brazen sin. We know that Pinchas’ action in killing Zimri and Cozbi earned him approbation. Clearly, Zimri’s actions were wrong. What I want to focus on here is Zimri’s intent. Zimri son of alu, chieftain of a imeonite ancestral house ( um : ). imri, who is said to be one and the same as the a i helumiel ben urishaddai ( um : ), literally “Peace/Perfection of Hashem.” What in the world was he thinking? Surely someone of Zimri’s stature must have had greater motivation than fulfilling his base desires, right? A study of our classic sources offers some understanding of Zimri’s rationalization of his own behavior and what we can learn from that. erhaps by loo ing into these sources, we may also better understand inchas and the meaning of his reward. he e t e will begin with the narrative, to which have added headings for later reference. i he i m 2 : srael settled in hittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of the oabites. hey invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and prostrated themselves to their gods. srael became attached to aal eor, and the anger of the ord flared against srael.
hmuel moved to leveland from oronto, Ontario ( anada) last year with his wife, hirah, and their four children. He recently completed his in amily aw at leveland arshall ollege of aw and intends to continue his year family law practice here after ta ing the Ohio ar xam. he terns are thrilled to have oined the leveland ewish community and the G family in particular. ovey, tephen . ., peed of rust: he One hing that hanges verything ( ) amim raim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 61 (ii) Hashem’s Command and Moshe’s Directive (25: 5) he ord said to oses, ake all the leaders of the people and hang them before the ord, facing the sun, and then the flaring anger of the ord will be removed from Israel. oses said to the judges of Israel, ach of you shall kill the men who became attached to aal Peor.” (iii) nter imri (25: ) hen an Israelite man came and brought the idianite woman to his brethren, before the eyes of oses and before the eyes of the entire congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the ent of eeting. (iv) nter Pinchas (25: ) Phinehas the son of leazar the son of Aaron the he saw this, arose from the congregation, and took a spear in his hand. He went after the Israelite man into the chamber and drove it through both of them the Israelite man, and the woman through her stomach, and the plague ceased from the children of Israel. hose that died in the plague numbered twenty four thousand. (v) Pinchas’ Reward (25:10 1 ) he ord spoke to oses, saying Phinehas the son of leazar the son of Aaron the he has turned y anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging e among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of y zeal. herefore, say, I hereby give him y covenant of peace. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him as an eternal covenant of kehunah, because he was zealous for his od and atoned for the children of Israel. (vi) he inners Revea ed (25:1 15) he name of the Israelite man who was killed, who was slain with the idianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu, the chieftain of the Simeonite paternal house. And the name of the idianite woman who was slain was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, a national leader of a paternal house in idian. translation from Chabad.org i ei rah e e a 62 ( ) hat was imri thin in p’shat would lead us to conclude that Zimri’s . Zimri’s motivation as lustful at all. If Zimri been part of “The Sin,” e re “Hashem’s Command and Moshe’s Directive.” This point is highlighted by the Gemara (Sanhedrin 82b), n some missing details: After Moshe’s directive, mon went to Zimri, their leader, and said to him: “They are judging sitting and silent?” As a result, “What did Zimri d went to Cozbi, daughter of Zur, princess of Midian…” . his constituency. The question of “What was he thinking?” is more properly framed as “How did Zimri think h constituency?”
a a ac h . reaction to Zimri’s proposi . reater he et Levi, Yaakov’s t child, while Zimri is a descendant of Shimon, “the second of the womb.” rt to “pulling her by her hair” to . . and asked, “Is this woman forb to you?”
amim raim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 63 The implication of this question is that should Moshe respond “permitted,” he is nogea b’davar (meaning he has a personal conflict of interest such that he can’t rule on the matter). If he responds “forbidden,” he is a hypocrite: do as I say, not as I do. Now consider Zimri’s comments to Cozbi, vying to promote his leadership at Moshe’s expense, together with his question to Moshe, which sought to denigrate Moshe. ealize what is really going on: Zimri was advancing an argument that was the logical s of one raised not long before, by another agitator – orach. ● Korach: “You take too much upon yourselves, th t at a a h a ash s th st So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord s assembly? ( um 16: ) ● Zimri: How can you raise yourself to judge everyone else, h a as s as s ? ecall that orach brought an assembly with him when confronting Moshe’s leadership. The Gemara states that Zimri also brought an assembly, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”. Like Korach, Zimri was making a very public statement. This inverse parallel between orach and Zimri takes on additional significance in light of the fact that Zimri was from h t Shimon and orach from h t Levi. Before his death, Yaakov warned “Simeon and Levi are brethren; weapons of violence their kinship” (Gen 49:5). Rashi, quoting Midrash Tanchuma, tells us the word “violence” ( ha as) can be translated as “usurping what is not theirs”; in the case of Shimon and Levi, they usurped Yitzchak’s a ha to Eisav that he shall “live by the sword” (Gen 27:40). Yaakov’s warning continues in the following pas (Gen 49:6): “Let my soul not enter their counsel my honor, you shall not join their assembly,” which ashi e plicitly links to Zimri and orach, respectively. Possibly, this idea of “usurping what is not theirs” can implicate Shimon and Levi’s descendants too, trying to usurp leadership from Moshe.
As related in the Gemara, inchas co opted Zimri’s argument to Moshe. When Pinchas sought entry into Zimri’s tent, he said to the guards: “Where did we find that the tribe of Levi is greater than that of Shimon? If all the members of your tribe submit to the temptation of the women of Moab, I may do so as well.” ah a 64 What then was Zimri’s goal? The sinners of Zimri’s tribe were in danger; he attempted to protect them by undermining Moshe’s authority to act on Hashem’s command to direct judgment on the sinners.
a cha h u u a a a a u a Based on the words “brought… to his brethren,” the Chasam Sofer4 postulates that Zimri rationalized that he could make a a (leniency) by permitting the illicit conduct within controlled boundaries. By doing so, he would filter out the idolatry of Baal Peor. In this interpretation, he would have relied on Moshe’s own directive, “Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor,” as there is no mention of the other part of the sin.5 urther, when ashem refers to Pinchas as “the son of aron the o en” (see Pinchas’ Reward), the Gemara says the tribes had tried to challenge Pinchas’ motives, demeaning his idolatrous background as the “son of Puti.” The Chasam Sofer explains the Gemara by saying they claimed that Pinchas, who came from an idolatrous background on his mother’s side, couldn’t understand the possibility of attaching oneself to a non ewish woman without becoming attached to idolatry. This, then, was Zimri’s very argument: that it was indeed possible to have the relationship without the worship. Note how Zimri brought Cozbi into the camp: “One of the Israelites” ( rae ). In sight of Moshe. “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” implying that Zimri was publicly declaring his pure intent to all, including ashem The Gemara in Sotah 22b records Yannai’s advice to his wife to “only fear those false people who do the deeds of Zimri and ask to be rewarded like Pinchas.” The Lubavitcher Rebbe notes that Zimri was a hypocrite: he cloaked himself in the role of a bold leader, but rather than being a leader taking a stand against his own tribe’s wrong actions, he avoided his duty by simply seeking to undermine Moshe through unilaterally permitting the impermissible.
4 See Y. Nachshoni, d e n e ee ar a a dbar. 5 Even more technically, on a strict reading of the text, he was bringing in a Midianite, rather than the problematic Moabites. a ora 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 65 u c acc u a I can only relate, but not truly e plain, the following abbalistic teaching: The Ari al sees the entire episode of Zimri and Pinchas as a replay of the episode of Shechem and ina, to provide the possibility of n to repair the violation of inah, the death of the townspeople in Shechem, and Shechem’s own death.6 After the episode with Shechem, inah married Shimon (see Rashi en 6:10) and Zimri was not only their child but was a reincarnation of Shechem. Co bi was a reincarnation of inah. As with Shechem, Zimri felt pulled toward Co bi, and the n would have been, this time, to channel the desire for the impermissible through marrying her after a proper conversion. However, Zimri failed this mission because he pursued Co bi without a proper conversion.7 or our purposes, this teaching demonstrates that Zimri might have justified his (and his tribe’s) illicit behavior as being directed towards a loftier goal, an end that justifies the means. The emara in a ir 2 b refers to this type of action as an “aveira l’shma,” a sinful act done for a positive purpose. But there the Gemara contrasts Tamar’s “ nut” with Zimri’s “ nut”: the former led to King David, the latter to death. Whatever his outward justifications, Zimri did not actually act for the sake of heaven.
(C) Pinchas and His Reward The emara (Sanhedrin 82a) relates that Moshe was silent after Zimri confronted him, as the halacha for Zimri’s conduct “eluded him.” One can imagine that Zimri felt rather emboldened at that moment. His plan had worked, preventing Moshe from carrying out Hashem’s command. Perhaps it was at this very moment that “the plague” (Num 25:9) began. That is, Hashem reclaimed the role of e ecuting judgment, previously
6 The connection is in part based on connecting the number of people killed in the plague (2 ,000) with another abbalistic source of the number killed in the episode of Shechem, and the fact that Shechem and Zimri were each killed by a sword/spear. 7 Rav Chaim Vital continues with this theme, concluding that the n was ultimately accomplished with the marriage of Rabbi Akiva (a reincarnation of Shechem/Zimri) and the wife of Turnus Rufus (a reincarnation of inah/Co bi), who eventually converted, as related in edarim 50b. e ora o eve and 66 delegated to Moshe. t also provides another e planation for why the people were crying before the Tent of ssembly (i.e. Hashem). This may also provide insight into Pinchas’ reward. While outwardly Zimri made himself appear to act selflessly on behalf of his tribe, in reality he caused much direct harm to them, as the tribe of Shimon bore the brunt of the plague.9 n contrast, inchas outwardly acted with violence, but he was inwardly selfless – putting his own life at ris for Hashem – and stopped death. e can now understand why inchas received the ironically named “covenant of peace,” and why the Torah refers to inchas’ lineage back to Aaron (peace) and Zimri’s to Shimon (violence). Finally, perhaps the lesson from Zimri’s motive and Pinchas’ reward is to understand the effect of rationali ing our own negative behavior, whether – li e Zimri – it be by attac ing the messenger, ualifying, or arguing that the ends justify the means. eace is not gained by avoiding responsibility, but rather by embracing it.
Today, we too can relate to davening by a tent in the face of a plague. 9 Many commentators (though not all, e.g. Ramban), see Shimon’s diminished numbers in the second census (Num 26:14) and Shimon’s absence from Moshe’s blessing (Deut ) as proof that the tribe was primarily complicit in the sin of Shittim. Or HaChaim on “among them” (Num 25:11). Also, the Gemara lists six miracles that occurred for Pinchas, one of which is that Zimri didn’t raise his voice to call his guards to defend against inchas without this miracle, inchas would have been in grave danger. a ora 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 67 ~~From Our Youth~~
he ree o now ed e o ood and vi Calev ahn1 When reading Parshat ereishit and the story about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there are three uestions that come up. uestion 1: Why would Hashem put a forbidden tree in the garden in the first place t seems like Hashem is trying to tempt Adam and Chavah uestion 2: What’s so tempting about the tree? Doesn’t it seem so easy to avoid it, since the garden was full of similar fruit bearing trees Question 3: What’s the deal with this tree Why does eating from it cause death? And why doesn’t Hashem want us to know the difference between good and evil Let’s start with the first question: Why did Hashem put a forbidden tree in the garden Pretend you are a parent and you gave your child a present. ou want to see your child en oy it of course, but more importantly, you want your child to understand that it came from you. Hashem was our parent in the garden, and He gave us the gift of all the trees in the garden. Hashem put His special tree smack dab in the middle of the garden. ou can’t miss it. The tree is there so Man will know the gift of all the other trees came from Him. To answer the second uestion: The temptation of the tree was the desire to be in control of the garden, rather than a guest in the garden. The temptation was to pretend to be Hashem, the Creator, and not to have to rely on Him. And the last question; What’s the deal with this tree? Rabbi Fohrman from alephbeta.org theorizes that breaking Hashem’s commandment by eating from the tree makes you feel like you are e ual to Hashem and that you can udge good versus bad. The problem
1 Calev ahn is a 7th grade student at eachwood Middle School who en oys playing with his siblings and his dog. e ora o eve and 68 is that, unlike Hashem’s, your moral judgment is distorted by personal desire so when your udgment and the morally correct udgement conflict you may gi e in to your desire which will cause you to sin. The tree is not really the tree of knowledge of good and e il; it is the tree of falsehood and superficial appearances which man is now drawn to. This causes the death of man as he is no longer close to Hashem and is now as distant as all other ob ects which ine itably must undergo a cycle of decay and degeneration.
a ora 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 69 hat is a ame igayil udolph1 Ho do people hoose hat to name their hild heir baby that they haven’t gotten to know yet? How an they hoose a itting name Well, I don’t have a perfect answer, especially never having been a parent and there ore ne er ha ing named someone, but do kno some di erent methods o hoosing a name ne ay to pi k a name is to name a ter somebody inspirational to you nother ay is to hoose one that speaks to you or instan e, maybe you like the sound o it, or maybe you like the meaning ike any Hebre ord, names are built on roots that mean something or e ample, arah means prin ess ou might name a baby arah be ause it as your grandmother’s name and she as ery inspirational, or you might just like the meaning Let’s look at the Torah. hope you ha e one ne t to you arah, the i e o raham, originally had the name ‘Sarai,’ which means ‘my prin ess’ (‘my’ meaning Hashem’s , hile arah means prin ess o erall that she shall be a prin ess or e eryone ashi, enesis 17 15 nother e ample o ho names in the orah are meaning ul is hen Hashem adds a part o His ame to the name o a add ust like the d in arai symboli ed her onne tion to Hashem, oshe added a d to Yehoshua’s name, changing it from Hoshea (Numbers 13:16), to add a onne tion to Hashem imilarly, hlomo as named edidya (“beloved of Hashem”) be ause Hashem lo ed him amuel 12 2 25 Indeed, names without Hashem’s Name incorporated can still ha e deep meanings your name might de ine ho you are, or ho you stri e to be. Is that relative that you’re named for, but ne er met, so inspirational that you ant to be like them r does your name onne t to a ord that des ribes an attribute you’d like to claim as your own? n order to not disappoint your parents, or yoursel the orst person to disappoint , you might ant to li e up to your name Let’s go ba k to the idea o root words. The Hebrew word for ‘root’ is but is also ,ה. ל.כ or ,א.מ.ר hi h is used to mean root ords, like , ש ו ר ש
1 igayil udolph is a reshman at ha i a High hool and lo es to read and rite he has a passion or learning, espe ially about di erent ultures and their languages igayil also lo es kids sometimes, e en her three younger siblings e ora o eve and 70 is the word for tree roots. Tree roots anchor the tree to the ground, and root words anchor the word to its meaning. root word gives the word a meaning, a purpose of e istence. The d is changed to) .י.ר.ה ,ven the word Torah itself has a root word a vav.) This root means to proclaim or instruct, but it could also mean “throw/cast/shoot.” This meaning is found, for example, in a r: ”into the sea ( רָיָ ָ֣ ה) the chariots of haraoh and his army, od cast“ ( odus 1 : ). ould these two meanings be related? It seems improbable. ne means something positive is gained, and the other implies the opposite: throwing away something you don’t want. ut maybe they are both forms of guiding. Instructing someone is to guide them along whatever path they wish to take, and to throw or shoot – like shooting an arrow – does the same thing. aybe this is why Tehillim 1 : compares children to arrows. When you shoot an arrow, you set it on the path you wish it to take: you take aim and let go. Instructing children means setting them on a path – guiding them in learning about life – and then gradually letting go and letting nature take its course. n arrow might run into obstacles, like a stray branch, a bush, or wind to knock the arrow off course similarly, obstacles will arise for children to deal with on their own. Hopefully, the instruction you give them at the beginning, like the aim an archer takes, will help them work past those obstacles and stay on a good path. name gives a person a root, a starting point, on the path to become who we want to be. The root of a word defines an item or idea, giving it its identity, and so does a name. ut a name also offers a goal, a direction from that starting point, by giving a person something to live up to, like the target an archer aims for. lways try to live up to your name. Hashem added His Name to Sarah’s, Yehoshua’s, and Shlomo’s because of their righteousness and potential. ut also, make your name what you want it to be. Your parents can’t get your opinion on what you should be named, for obvious reasons, but you can make the name they gave you powerful. dd your own identity to it, ust as Hashem added His to Hoshea and Shlomo.
https: ewishlink.news features 31 6 what is the root of the word torah a ora 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 71
e ora o eve and 72
e ora o eve and
e ora o eve and