Kedushat Levi
קדושת לוי
Kedushat Levi translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk
http://www.urimpublications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=UP&Product_Code=KedushatLevi
Kedushat Levi
Letters of Approbation
Genesis
Bereshit
The first thing G’d embarked on when creating the material universe was to create heaven and earth.”
It is an axiom, general principle, that G’d created the entire universe, and having done so, never withdraws from the universe for even a single moment, [unlike sculptors or painters who, once they have completed a sculpture or painting, move on to something else, having “finished” with their previous “creation.” Ed.] This axiom is true both of what He created in the heavens and what He created in the material, three-dimensional part of the universe. We pay tribute to this in our daily prayers when we say יוצר אור ובורא חושך, “He creates and fashions (present tense) light, and He creates darkness.” When speaking of any accomplishments of G’d’s creatures however, we speak of them in the past tense, i.e.יצר כסא, “he shaped a chair,” or עשה מזרון, “he made a mattress.” G’d’s creative activity is never completed, as the Torah testified in Genesis 2,3 אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which the Lord has created in order to complete it.” This means that G’d is part of every creature He ever created, and once man realizes that he is nothing without G’d Who has created him and Who provides him with all the strength and creative stimuli that he possesses, he will be able to relate to Hashem as an ongoing creative Force in His universe. This is reflected every morning when we get up [after having used the washroom] and we refer to G’d with the words אשר יצר את האדם בחכמה, “Who has fashioned man with חכמה,” the word חכמה meaning the opposite of אין, “nothing.” It is appropriate therefore that in that prayer we refer to the creation of man in the past tense, as opposed to the line we quoted earlier, seeing that we refer to something or somebody who already exists, i.e. יש. This explains why the Ari z’al , Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, said that when we refer to G’d as ה' מלך, usually translated as “Hashem is King,” the reference is to the אין, “nothing,” i.e. G’d at any given moment gives us life, -by not withdrawing it from us.- The implied meaning of the expression is that man is “nothing” unless he continues to exist as part of G’d’s creative activity. The so-called אין, “nothing,” in terms of metaphysical beings, rules supreme in the regions beyond those that are part of the physical universe, the one that we conveniently refer to as “nature.” This so-called אין, is not really a “nothing,” in terms of the universe, its “nothingness” is such only vis a vis the physical part of the universe; in the celestial regions this “אין” rules supreme. [as opposed to the חכמה in our part of the universe. Ed. Although יש and אין are popularly perceived as absolute opposites, not having anything in common, this perception is built on a fallacy; the linkage between יש and אין are the mitzvot, Torah commandments, performed by the Jewish people. The commandments are performed in the section of the universe known as יש, as a result of which close contact is maintained between the aforementioned two domains of the universe. Ezekiel 1:14 refers to the “mitzvot” in their capacity as providing the link between the terrestrial and the celestial part of the universe with the words והחיות רצוא ושוב, “and the chayot ran to and fro”. According to the Zohar II 288, the mitzvot and the Torah respectively, are viewed as related to one another like the “hidden” is related to the “revealed,” both being part of the same whole. Torah and mitzvot provide the link between these two domains, so that each domain is not completely divorced from the other. This concept is contained in the letters of the word מצוה when we divide it up into מצ and וה. The letters מצ when we read the alphabet backwards, starting with the letter ת are equivalent to the letters יה, symbolising the totally abstract Divinity, whereas the letters וה symbolize the hidden parts of the universe, יש. The first half of the word מצוה being read with the two letters used in reverse order of the aleph bet, alludes to the “hidden” part of the universe, the domain exclusive to Divine, abstract forces. Let us explain something about what precisely is “hidden” and what is “revealed,” when it comes to the מצוה, “Torah commandment.” When we perform a מצוה, we cause G’d to become pleased with having created man, the choicest of His creatures. When we comply with requests made to us by a fellow human being, we can immediately gauge whether he is pleased by our actions or not, either by his face indicating this, or by words of approval, something that is not the case when we comply with G’d’s requests from us. Since He is invisible, and does not speak to us as He did to Moses, “mouth to mouth”, we have no way of knowing if our efforts to please Him have been successful. When we try to perform deeds that are for our (immediate) personal benefit, we are able to determine if our efforts have succeeded. This then is the “hidden” element present whenever we perform any of G’d’s commandments, מצות. This is what the Torah had in mind when it wrote (Deuteronomy 29,28) הנסתרות לה' אלוקינו, “the hidden aspects of mitzvah performance are reserved for the Lord our G’d;” on the other hand, והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם, “the benefits which the performance of the Torah confers upon us will be revealed forever.” This is also the meaning of the words בראשית ברא אלוקים, (addressed to us) “at the beginning of G’d’s creative activity G’d created the יש, a physical domain of the universe.” Through His creating יש, i.e. ראשית, a beginning, the creation of heaven and earth came into being, for prior to that there was only the אין, the abstract universe. This is the meaning of Targum Yerushalmi who renders this verse as 'בראשית בחוכמא ברא ה', “at the beginning G’d created by means of using intelligence found in the domain of the abstract regions.” חכמה, as we pointed out earlier, is a quality inherent in the terrestrial domain.
This was portrayed in the passage at the beginning of Tikkuney Hazohar (based on Zohar chadash 59, column 3) where the prophet Elijah appeared to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and his son Eleazar in the cave where they were in hiding from the Romans and Elijah planted a carob tree and provided a well of spring water from which the two men ate and drank during the 12 years they spent in hiding. Elijah would visit them twice daily and teach them, enabling them to escape prosecution by the Romans. Among the lessons Elijah taught them was the fact that in order to make use of G’d’s input into the physical parts of the universe, G’d had to “clothe Himself,” i.e. conceal His essence, by restricting the holiness He radiated, or this would have been too overwhelming for the recipients thereof. Ari zal, sums this up as: “all parts of the universe require that G’d’s essence reduces its natural radiations, as all creatures in varying degrees are unable to withstand the brilliance of the emanations from G’d’s essence unless they had first been screened to some extent.” According to the Ari zal, any part of any universe, by definition contains a degree of substance, as opposed to G’d, Who is entirely abstract, spiritual. According to this view even the purest and holiest thought entertained by a living creature contains an element of physicality, since only G’d can be pure spirit.
It follows that before G’d could undertake the creation of a physical universe He had to surround His essence with “garments” shielding His creatures from this overwhelming spiritual radiance emanating from Him. In order to achieve this, G’d “clothed” Himself in garments radiating light. If I understand this correctly, the closer G’d came to the eventual physical world, the more subdued was the brilliance exuded from His “garments,” which He changed from stage to stage so as to enable the creatures in each world to tolerate it without coming to harm through being blinded.
All of these “worlds” (regions inhabited by spiritual beings of varying degrees of holiness) are extremely bright, Isaiah 58,11 referring to them as והשביע בצחצחות נפשך “He will satiate your soul with brightness.”
Let us take a look at how Rashi, the most eminent of all Torah commentators, explained the first verse of the Torah. Quoting Rabbi Yitzchok, Rashi writes: “on the face of it the (written) Torah need not have commenced until the chapter commencing with the laws of the Passover. (Exodus 12)” In light of what we have just explained, the fact that the Torah commences as it does is eminently plausible. What did Rashi have in mind then? The background of Rashi, seizing on the explanation of Rabbi Yitzchok as his point of departure of his entire commentary on the Torah, is none other than to remind us of how much the beginning of the Torah has in common with what is written in chapter 12 in Exodus. Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (quoted in Yalkut Shimoni Yirmiyahu item 263) understands the shape of the letter ב seeing that it is open at one end, as a challenge to heretics to produce the fourth of the four winds, the north wind, if they are able, and thus close the letter, making it סתום, hidden, i.e. concealing what is inside it. Our sages (Rabbeinu Bachya Exodus 20,2) view the entire Exodus as a replay of the creation of the universe, the difference being that on that occasion there were human beings who could testify to the power of the Creator, having witnessed all the miracles G’d had performed as a prelude to the redemption. Initially, Rabbi Yitzchok thought that the message about how G’d relates to His universe and the human beings He created, could have been conveyed just as well by commencing with chapter 12 in Exodus. However, since G’d is interested in conveying additional aspects of His function in the universe, He chose to commence with the words: בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ. Anyone reflecting further on this will certainly understand.
Another word that at first glance appears as unnecessary, is the word את, which becomes clearer when we understand it as equivalent to the word אתה, as in בא, meaning “it came, or He came,” as in Deut.33,2 ה' מסיני בא וזרח משעיר למו הופיע מהר פארן ואתה מרבבות קודש, “the Lord came from Sinai, He shone upon them from Seir, He appeared from Paran having come from Ribeboth Kodesh.” The word alludes to the fact that the original light of which the Torah said ויהי אור instead of ויהי כן, “and so it was,” -the Torah’s standard phrase for nature having complied with any of G’d’s directives,- had been in existence prior to heaven and earth being created, but while prior to that it had existed only in a disembodied celestial world, it had extended its function to light up the newly created physical universe. This light that had previously only served the אין סוף, the Creator, directly, now served His creatures also. It did so to the extent that G’d’s creatures could benefit by it and not be blinded by it. When we understand that word in this manner, we can also understand why, at the end of the Torah’s report of the creation (Genesis 2,3) אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had created to do;” the Torah writes the otherwise superfluous word לעשות. The Torah thereby also indicates that G’d renews the creative process on a daily basis, both in its spiritual as well as in its profane aspects. On the preceding six “days,” G’d had created worlds that served as the prologue to the physical world.
Midrash Rabbah 8,5 relates that at the time when G’d was about to create the physical universe containing man, Truth objected, saying that man would be a corrupt being; as a punishment, i.e. means of educating Truth, G’d condemned Truth to descend to earth and “live” there.
In order to comprehend the meaning of the Midrash we need to remember that lying, the opposite of truth- is a sin which is in a category by itself, as people known to be liars will find it difficult if not impossible to be accepted in society even in this imperfect world where most people indulge in one sin or another. If someone desecrates the Sabbath, this will not be held against him by most of his peers who feel that it is a matter between him and G’d. If someone deliberately hurts others bodily, or even commits murder, the courts will punish him accordingly. In other words, there is a built in incentive on this earth for people not to commit murder, etc., as they know they will pay a heavy price when found out. Lying, because it is difficult for the courts to deal with, is dealt with by consensus of one’s peers who will shun the company of known liars. Sending “truth” to earth was G’d’s way of providing incentives for potential liars to be truthful, as otherwise they would be ostracised by their peers.
[In other words, rather than seeing in the Midrash above a “punishment” for truth having opposed the Creator, our author sees in it an acknowledgment by G’d that “Truth” in opposing the creation of the human species had a valid point, and He appointed “Truth” to be active on earth in order to minimize the potential danger to the whole species if too many people were to make lies their way of life. Ed.] The message of the Midrash is that without “Truth” the human species would not survive for long.
Turning now to the second verse in the Torah, והארץ היתה תוהו ובוהו, “the state of the earth had been utter chaos;” the author proceeds from our tradition that the entire universe in all its parts was created only for the benefit of the Jewish people, i.e. the physical universe that sustains living creatures, was created only for the benefit of the Jewish people thereon, in order for them to have a chance to become what the Creator hoped they would develop into.
Once we reflect on this concept we will realize what a tremendous responsibility each one of us has in becoming a willing servant of the Lord, helping Him realize His fondest hopes for mankind. Even the angels were created only in order to facilitate G’d’s fondest hopes for the holy Jewish nation to be realized. Failure of any Jew to live up to the precepts of the Torah puts the entire universe at risk. Our verse takes us back to the time when the physical universe as we know it had existed in G’d’s mind only as a project. Whatever follows in the report of creation reflects only the stages by which G’d went about in carrying out this gigantic and mind-boggling project. Without the existence of the “higher” world, it would have been impossible to proceed with the creation of the “lower,” physical universe. The words תוהו ובהו are meant to make us reflect on this.
[The following is a short synopsis of a long paragraph, one that deals also with the apparent paradox of the statement in psalms 2,11 עבדו את ה' ביראה וגילו ברעדה, “serve the Lord in awe; rejoice greatly while trembling.” Ed.]
While the description of the state of the universe before man, i.e. Jews, had been charged with the task of being a nation of priests and a holy nation, is meant to make us aware of our duty to live as servants of our Creator and to ensure that His handiwork will prove to be worthwhile, we face a dilemma, portrayed in the following parable.
A great and powerful king once invited one of his loyal servants to accompany him to his treasure chamber where he displayed a store of jewels and other valuable artifacts. The servant was overjoyed at the king having taken him into his confidence by showing him all his valuable treasures. He became proud to be a servant to such a powerful king. Upon reflecting on this however, he suddenly was overcome with trembling when thinking about what a great wrong it would be to disregard even a minor paragraph in the law books the king had issued to his subjects to live by. The psalmist’s words reflect a similar dilemma. How can one at one and the same time be in awe and full of joy? The Talmud B’rachot 30, tries to answer this apparent contradiction by understanding the latter half of the verse as: “when in a place where merriment is the rule, do not forget that it behooves you to be trembling, seeing that you are always in the presence of the Lord.” Abbaye, who, when in an extraordinarily happy frame of mind, was reminded of this by a colleague, responded that as long he was wearing the phylacteries on his head, this served him as a reminder not to forget this injunction.
Our author, instead of using the phylacteries, which are not always worn, as a symbol of our duty never to forget our purpose on earth, uses the words of our verse describing the utter chaos that prevailed prior to G’d having embarked on His gigantic project of creating a universe inhabited by man equipped with a free will, as such a reminder.
Our author sees in the word והארץ in our verse a veiled hint at the various temptations that human beings are constantly exposed to by living in a physical world, temptations that are apt to interfere with his desire to serve G’d as a loyal servant.
Going back to Rashi’s first commentary on the first word in the Torah, where he quoted Rabbi Yitzchok saying that the reason that the Torah does not commence with the first verse in Exodus chapter12, is that the Torah wanted to allude from the beginning by teaching the concept כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו לתת להם נחלת גויים, “He revealed to His people His powerful works by giving them the heritage of (other) nations.” (Psalms 111,6) This is important to know in the event that the nations will dispute the Jewish people’s claim to the Land of Israel as being their heritage. As the Creator and hence, owner, of the entire universe, G’d has the right to allocate parts of it to whoever He chooses.
Expressed differently, since in the words of the introduction to the Zohar, page 5, (based on Proverbs 8,30 (Torah speaking) “then I was with Him (G’d) as an artisan,” i.e. G’d used the Torah and its letters as the tool with which to create the universe; it follows that every part of the universe is imbued with some letter of the Torah.
Just as man is charged to perform the Torah’s commandments with the various limbs of his body, (248), so earth is also charged with the task of performing “commandments” appropriate to its composition. The expressions פי הארץ, ”the earth’s mouth,” or עין הארץ, “the earth’s eye,” are more than just figures of speech. Each of our limbs exudes the living essence of the letter of the Torah that corresponds to a specific commandment that limb is supposed to perform. Joshua was able to conquer seven lands (of the Canaanites) because he understood what it was that enabled each specific land to remain “alive.” Similarly, every city in those countries had been charged since creation with performing certain duties vis a vis its Creator. Joshua’s knowledge of these duties enabled him to “conquer” these towns and countries with a minimum of Jewish blood being shed in the process.
According to the introduction of the Zohar page 5, there is no part of the physical universe that does not in some way reflect the meaning of one of the letters in the Torah. If any of these cities were to confront the invading Jewish armies by calling them “robbers,” Joshua was able to remind them that the previous residents in these towns had only leased the land, but had never owned it, as it is G’d’s property. What could be more natural than that the Jewish people, who by definition serve their Creator by observing the commandments of the Torah, should now make their home on this part of the earth. This is what the psalmist meant when he quoted G’d as having revealed to His people the inherent strength of all His works, כח מעשיו הגיד לעמו. Wish that G’d were to grant each one of us the wisdom and the purity of heart to be conversant with the specific commandment that is incumbent upon each limb in our body to perform.
G’d called the light: ‘day;’" Bereshit Rabbah 3,8 comments that this phrase refers to the deeds of the righteous, whereas the line ולחושך קרא לילה, is understood as referring to the deeds of the wicked. In order to make it plain that the Creator preferred the deeds of the righteous, the Torah added the adjective כי טוב, “that it was good,” when defining the word אור in verse 4.
The average reader of this Midrash surely is puzzled by the fact that there was any doubt as to whose deeds the Creator would prefer so that the Torah had to indicate that G’d preferred the deeds of the righteous! Rabbeinu Yonah, in his commentary on the last Mishnah in B’rachot chapter 9, explains that the Mishnah, when referring to the need to serve the Lord with both parts of our hearts, the urge to do good as well as the urge to do evil, speaks of people who do serve the Lord. The Midrash quoted, was careful to refer to the deeds of the wicked as opposed to the wicked themselves, also does so. We may therefore understand the Midrash as also referring to good deeds, the origin of which, however, differs. The difference between the two “urges” is that the urge to do evil is by definition the result of anger and hatred, whereas the deeds that are prompted by the urge to do good, are by definition prompted by feelings of goodwill and love. No wonder that G’d prefers the positive deeds that are also the result of constructive attitudes, to the good deeds that are the result of the urge to do evil, even when both deeds may be identical. This idea has been portrayed by Proverbs 3,17 where Solomon has described the ways of Torah as being דרכיה דרכי נועם, “her ways are ways of pleasantness;” in other words, it is not only what you do that counts but how you go about doing it.”
"Heaven and earth and all their components were complete; for on that day G’d had ceased from all His work that He had created to be continued; (or, to complete it).”
[The last words in the paragraph are especially enigmatic, as the beginning of the paragraph creates the impression that the Torah reports about the conclusion of the work of creation. Ed.]
Rabbi Levi Yitzchok understands the words השמים והארץ as referring to the sum total of the tangible universe, reminding us that our sacred texts teach us that prior to the creation of the universe there was only what is known in kabbalistic parlance as אין סוף, G’d as an “infinite,” a concept that is beyond our capacity to understand. The story of creation conveys how through the creation of the universe as we know it, this “infinite” became transformed into something finite both in space and in time.
Man, the Creator’s most advanced creature, is able to be active not only in the physical but even in more spiritually refined parts of the universe. Nonetheless, he gradually grows further and further apart from his origin, the “infinite,” pure spirituality that is G’d. The expression שבת, used in our paragraph, describes that G’d Himself used the Sabbath to “retrace” His steps back to the origin of creation.
It is the function of the Sabbath to help man to similarly emulate G’d by using the Sabbath to retrace the physical material concerns that preoccupied him during the preceding six days, and to return to the spiritual origin of his soul and be inspired to the extent that he sees in the actions he performed during the weekdays something that has been suffused with the loftiest spiritual values.
[In this respect the Sabbath is a day that completes a cycle and prevents us from losing contact with our origins. Ed.]
"These are the developments of heaven and earth once they had been created;” the author understands the word תולדות to mean “objective, purpose;” when the Torah continues with the words; ביום עשות ה' אלוקים ארץ ושמים, “from the day the Lord G’d had completed earth and heaven,” the message is that from now on the Torah is concerned primarily with what happens on earth, as opposed to when what happens on earth, had been the secondary concern up until the human species had been created. The practical significance of this statement is that whereas prior to this point earth had been the “recipient” of celestial input, from this point on it is the task of earth and what occurs on its surface to “kick back” beneficial vibrations to the celestial regions, i.e. the result of man fulfilling his duty on earth. The author bases himself on psalms 148,13 הודו על ארץ ושמים, which he translates as “His majesty is above earth and heaven,” earth being mentioned first. This implies that the heavens receive useful input from earth.
The author offers another way of understanding the verse אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם וגו', and the verse following,וכל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ וכל עשב השדה טרם יצמח ואדם אין בו וגגגו', “when no shrub of the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted, etc.;” he draws our attention to Genesis 38,27:ויהי בעת לדתה ויתן יד ותקח המילדת ותקשור על ידו שני ויהי כמשיב ידו וגו' ואחר כך יצא אחיו ותאמר מה פרצת עליך פרץ וגו', “when the time came for her to give birth, there were twins; while she was in labor one of them put out his hand and the midwife tied a crimson thread on that hand to signify “this one came out first;” but just then he drew back his hand and out came his brother; the midwife said: ‘what a breach you have made for yourself” This one was called פרץ, “breach,” whereas his brother was named זרח, “brightness.”
Nachmanides, in his commentary on the Torah, writes concerning this occurrence, quoting Rabbi Nechunya ben hakaneh, that the name פרץ is a euphemism for the moon, whereas the name זרח is a euphemism for the sun.
[Rabbi Nechunyah ben hakaneh was a scholar of the second generation of the authors of the Mishnah and the famous kabbalistic text known as sefer habahir, has been attributed to him. Ed.]
Our author (as distinct from Nachmanides) understands the description of the Torah of this unusual birth as illustrating how the various universes at any given moment receive positive input from the Creator, and that when a human being wishes to secure additional שפע, Divine beneficial outpouring, or input, for the world in which he lives, he must attach himself to the domain we described as אין, i.e. the disembodied spiritual domains of the universe, i.e. to the domains in which G’d did not have to surround Himself with screens in order to avoid blinding His creatures with His brightness. When he has done so, G’d, in turn will respond by showering more of His goodness upon His creatures in the various domains of the universe. In the verse under discussion, the Torah describes a period when this interaction between man and G’d had not yet taken place, i.e. nothing had grown forth as yet from earth that would have such a positive influence triggering further beneficial input originating from the heavenly spheres. This state of the universe, prior to such interaction is what our verse speaks about when writing טרם יצמח, “had not yet sprouted,” and similar expressions. The words יצמח and המטיר, “sprouting and raining”, respectively, are similes for the reciprocal positive input from the heavens to the earth and from the earth in the direction of the celestial regions. The period under discussion in our verse precedes the time when the Creator garbed Himself in shells that reduced the brightness of His emanations, so that His creatures instead of being burnt up, could “warm” themselves, spiritually.
The opportunities, i.e. precise moments in time, when G’d responds to man attempting to cleave to Him with his soul, are fleeting moments during which people doing this must perform a מצוה, such as giving charity or studying Torah, as a result of which G’d will provide additional שפע, divine bounty from above to below. If that moment has passed and not been taken advantage of, G’d withdraws to the region of סוד, “hidden” domains where He is only partially within reach of the creatures who wish to establish intimate contact with Him. The words: ואדם אין לעבוד, may be understood allegorically as: “there being as yet no human being who would yearn for a close relationship with His Creator.”
The verses describing the births of Peretz and Zerach are meant to illustrate how such attempted reaching for that which was not completed represented a lost opportunity, so that the second of the twins wound up being the firstborn [in the physiological and halachic sense, similar to Esau. Ed.]
We have a statement in Chagigah 15, according to which there is a heavenly voice calling out once on each day emanating from Mount Sinai calling on sinners to do penitence, excluding only Elisha ben Avuya. The Talmud there illustrates that there exists an opportunity for each one of us to cement our relations with our Creator. All that is needed is to demonstrate one’s sincerity through performance of one of the mitzvot that are basic to Judaism, such as giving charity or Torah study. The reference to שיח, a word having several meanings, may be to warn us that we are not to waste our time on earth in idle conversation, if we aspire to establish a firm bond with our Creator. There is no need to add that if one employs the gift of speech to indulge in defamation of others, etc., that this instead of strengthening the bond with our Creator, drives a wedge between Him and us.
Such abuse of the power of speech is forbidden even when we find ourselves in the part of the universe that has either not yet emerged from the primeval state of חושך, darkness, or is on the verge of descending back into that sorry condition. Our author refers to the mental state of a person yearning for the closeness with the Creator that he describes as a state of התעוררות היראה, “an awakening to a feeling of awe of the Creator.” He has explained this phenomenon in connection with a statement in B’rachot 64 according to which the very existence of Torah scholars contributes to harmony, peace in the lower universe. [As I have not found where the author’s explanation on that statement in the Talmud has appeared in print, I will try and explain how I understand his thoughts. Ed.]
As long as one has not attained the level of being a Torah scholar, the yearning for close affinity to G’d is like a flash of lightning, something that disappears as quickly as it had materialized. While in such a state, it cannot be recaptured at will. This is the meaning of the verse. Once one has attained the level of being a Torah scholar, similar yearnings for close affinity to one’s Creator will not disappear, but will be a constant companion to the Torah scholar. This was what Ezekiel 1,14 had in mind when he compared the fleeting appearance of the חיות הקודש, the highest category of angels running to and fro, as fast as the momentary appearance of a bolt of lightning. Whereas originally, man had to initiate this yearning for דבקות, close affinity to G’d, having experienced it once and continuing to recapture it by striving to make spiritual progress, G’d will reciprocate by helping him to make this a more permanent relationship. In his allegorical commentary on the birth of Peretz and Zerach, Nachmanides views the words ויתן יד, as reflecting G’d’s helping hand. He views the entire paragraph there as a conversation between G’d and man regarding this concept. Although Nachmanides uses the conversation recorded as that between the moon and the sun and G’d, in connection with who should have senior status (Chulin 60), our author views is as between G’d and His subjects in that paragraph.
Another approach to the paragraph commencing with אלה תולדות השמים והארץ: Originally, man as G’d’s final act of creation, and therefore the most sophisticated creature in the universe, was perceived as superior to the angels even by the angels themselves. However, this was before man had sinned. Ever since, the angels are viewed as superior to man. When the psalmist in psalms 148,13 speaks of הודו על ארץ ושמים, “His splendour covers earth and heaven,” in that order, he draws attention to the condition of man on this earth as it will be when man has attained his true stature prior to the ultimate redemption. Up until then, due to his sin and consequently residing in an imperfect part of the universe after having been expelled from Gan Eden, he had not yet attained the stature envisaged for him by his Creator. Hence the psalmist, quite realistically, describes G’d’s glory as it is on earth before describing it as it is in the heavens. It is only after the redemption, when the prophet describes the state of man with the words: כי מלאה הארץ דעה את ה' , “when the earth will be full of knowledge of the Lord,” (Isaiah 11,9) that the vision of the psalmist will be realized. The word תולדות in the verse under discussion means the same as תכלית, objective, purpose. The purpose of the creation of the lower parts of the universe was that on the day when the messiah comes, earth, where G’d wishes to make His permanent home, will rank higher in the hierarchy of the universes than the celestial regions. Once Israel will attain that rank they will have reached the level known as “ayin,” אין, a level higher than that of the angels in the heavenly hierarchy. [The author had explained earlier that the level of אין, is a state that existed before G’d began with creating anything that contained an element of “substance,” three-dimensional matter. Ed.]
"And a mist would rise up from the earth;” following the allegorical approach, the author reminds the reader that G’d had created the Universe(s) in order to provide Himself with satisfaction, and we find this concept alluded to in His name י-ה-ו-ה, the satisfaction being called: אהיה, which according to our author refers to the satisfaction the Creator hopes to derive from the positive contributions to spirituality that will emanate from man on earth. [condensed by me. Ed]
"A river comes out of Eden to irrigate the garden;” compare on Avot 2,1 הוי זהיר במצוה קלה כבחמורה, “be as meticulous concerning the performance of commandments deemed as inconsequential, as you are with the performance of commandments deemed of great significance, since you do not know the amount of reward in store for any of the commandments.” Our sages explained that the author of this saying referred to the amount of satisfaction that the performance of each commandment gives to the Creator. We mortals have no way of gauging what ranks high in the esteem of the lawgiver. The only thing that we know definitely about this is that as a result of the satisfaction that G’d derived from our mitzvah performance He will give us opportunities to perform more commandments. When a father hears words of wisdom from his son, he encourages him to come up with more wise comments. Similarly, when G’d derived pleasure and satisfaction from the deeds of one of His “children,” He encourages that “child” to continue to come up with intelligent questions and answers.<br>Eden, this describes the pleasure derived by G’d from His children’s words of Torah and performance of His commandments, whereas the word גן, “garden,” is a reference to the various levels at which Torah can be studied, i.e. just as a garden contains many flowers, each of which having a distinct appearance and pleasing aroma. The words of Torah His children speak by means of which they provide spiritual irrigation in all the four directions of the earth, are alluded to by: “the river splitting into four heads,” in our verse.
Performance of the commandments is perceived as “irrigating” the brain (cranium) that consists of 4 cavities, one of them being a cavity divided into two parts. This “stream” channels this inspiration directly from G’d, and branches out into 4 “rivers,” each channeling inspiration to the four lobes of the brain that fill these cavities. Each branch feeds the appropriate lobe, according to its function. The word עדן describes the region from which תענוג, pleasurable experiences emanate. The word גן in this allegory includes the various disciplines comprising Torah study, commonly known as peshat, plain meaning of the text, drush, allegorical meaning, homily, remez, allusion, hint, and sod, mystical aspects. Keeping this in mind, we can understand why the mishnah quoted began with a warning, i.e. הוי זהיר, “be careful to discern,” seeing that the same mishnah told us that we do not know how the various commandments rate in terms of the reward for those who perform them. Since we do not know, how are we to distinguish between what is weighty, and what is relatively less weighty in the eyes of G’d? Most likely the answer is that the commandments described as קלה are the ones that we can find opportunities to perform, such as studying Torah, whereas the ones described as חמורה, are those that a person may have few opportunities to perform in a lifetime, or no opportunity at all.
[Since mitzvah performance is incumbent both on the individual and the entire nation, we each share in the performance of those who do have an opportunity to perform those, such as the levirate marriage, to name just one. Ed.]
The author of the mishnah warns not to use the fact that some mitzvot can be fulfilled all the time as an excuse to postpone fulfilling same, as we do not know how even these mitzvot rate in terms of the reward in store for us.
Another approach to the allegory of: “river, garden, and ‘Eden.’” It is well known that every Jew is obligated to acquire and maintain good character traits and to make them second nature. By doing so he provides G’d with satisfaction. When serving his Creator by personifying these positive virtues, he enables the Creator to ”boast” of His creatures, [as for instance we find when G’d “boasted” to Satan about the piety of Job. (Job 1,8) Ed.] These “virtues” are described in Avot 2,1 as ”in the eyes of his peers.” The author of the mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah hanassi, uses the expression תפארת לעושיה, to describe that man’s Creator can use this as “boasting” or justifying His having created the human species. When reading these words superficially we must wonder why G’d is interested i.e. in “need” of our actions, seeing He has myriads of angels ready to do His bidding. However, the very fact that His people, the Jewish people, who have been assigned the “lower” portion of the universe as their habitat with all the disadvantages that are prevalent in that region, distinguish themselves by their loyal service to Him nonetheless, is something extraordinary, that cannot be compared with angels. This is what Rabbi Yehudah hanassi had in mind when he described loyal service to G’d by His free-willed creature, man, as being תפארת לו מן האדם, “something glorious for Him performed by man.” G’d certainly has reason to “boast” about such devotion when telling Satan that in spite of his activities as seducer and spoiler, there are people who have not been deterred in their loyalty to Their Creator. Genesis 2,10-14 describes this whole process of man being encouraged by G’d to develop the appropriate virtues and how having acquired them his Creator derives great satisfaction from that. The simile used by the Torah of describing man’s watering G’d’s “garden” read: “worlds,” as something that He takes pride in, is therefore a well chosen euphemism.
He (serpent) said to the woman; ‘although G’d has said you must not eat from any of the trees, etc;’ lest you die.” ….The serpent said: “you will surely not die, etc.”'.
Furthermore, it is clear from what follows that Adam and his wife did not die on the day they ate from the tree of knowledge. In fact Adam lived for close to 1000 years! (Genesis 5,5). Our sages have already had difficulty in reconciling these two verses.
In order to understand the whole episode, we must first of all understand what wiles the serpent used in order to seduce the woman. How could the serpent, a mere creature, persuade a human being to defy the law of its Creator? We must understand the serpent’s argument as follows: the serpent made it clear that it was aware that everything in this universe was created by G’d through a directive issued by word of mouth as when He said: “let there be light.” The continued existence of the universe is dependent every second since it began, and continues to depend on this original light created by G’d through His first directive. It follows that the tree of knowledge which also came into being by Divine command could not possibly be a source of harm and even death, seeing it too had been created subsequent to the original life-giving force in the universe, the light created on the first day. The serpent therefore argued that it follows that when G’d issued instructions not to eat from the trees in the garden, the reason for this command could not have been that it was a source of death for anyone eating from its fruit. Since this was so, why should man listen to a latter command, instead of to His initial command, as a result of which they had become living human beings!
This, however, was part of the perverted logic employed by the serpent. The truth of the matter is that the “root” of the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden goes back to a period preceding creation of the physical universe and the “falling off” of 288 “sparks” from the Shechinah into the world of the קליפות, regions polluted by impurity, i.e. our physical universe.
[The subject is dealt with in a book called עץ חיים by Rabbi Chayim Vittal, foremost disciple of the Ari’zal, in which most of the oral teachings of the Ari’zal have been recorded for posterity. It is understood, based on psalms 104,34-35 אנכי אשמח בה' יתמו חטאים מן הארץ, “as a result of my rejoicing in G’d, evil will cease from the earth,” that it is the function of the righteous in our parts of the universe to “repair” the damage the “Shechinah” sustained due to man’s first sin and to restore it to its uncorrupted wholeness. Creation of a physical universe, by definition, required a צמצום, voluntary contraction, of the Creator whose universe had previously been filled completely with the holiness of the Shechinah. Since the universe had been “full,” prior to this creation of the physical universe, G’d had to “empty” some of its “space” in order to make room for the new creation. Ed.] The 288 “sparks” that separated from the Shechinah, are the kabbalists’ way of illustrating this. [Possibly the numerical value of 288 being רוח וחיים, “spirit and life,” accounts for this number 288. Ed.] The tree of knowledge personified these 288 sparks of the Shechinah after they had merged with secular matter, i.e. a mixture of טוב ורע, “good and evil,” in the lower part of the universe. G’d had to forbid man to eat from this “tree,” in order for the way to remain open for man to “repair” the damage that the “Shechinah” had sustained. If man were to eat from it, this would result in an impediment to his ability to restore the Shechinah to its former wholeness. As it were, these “sparks,” descended ever deeper into the physical universe as a result of Adam’s eating from it, and, instead of him restoring the original spiritual light to its former brilliance, he caused the earth to become a spiritually darker domain. The spiritual decline of the earthly environment may be what is described in the Torah as the “death” that would occur, the process only beginning on the day Adam ate, but not resulting in his literal death until many years later. [Needless to say, that man’s task of finding a way to reunite these sparks with the Shechinah from which it had been separated has not been abandoned; however it was made far more difficult as a result of Adam’s sin Ed.]
Our author quotes Sanhedrin 99 on B’rachot 34 where the Talmud describes the “place” on which repentant sinners stand in the scheme of things as superior to the “place” assigned to the righteous who never knew the taste of sin. If man has sinned, and in spite of this, found his way back to G’d, this is a greater moral ethical achievement than never to have been exposed to the allure of sin in the first place, so that one’s steadfastness in the path of temptation had never been tested.
In the words of our author, the brilliance of the “sparks” which had not yet been sufficiently reduced in intensity for man, even an Adam, G’d’s personal handiwork, to be exposed to without being harmed by it, [absorbing it internally, Ed.] was the reason why G’d warned him on pain of death not to eat from it.
The author illustrates all this by means of a parable. A son had become estranged to his father, thereby losing the path he had walked and getting lost in all kinds of dead end alleys which he found difficult to get out of. When, in spite of these detours, he eventually found his way back to his father’s home, the joy of his having returned pleased the father immeasurably more than the satisfaction an obedient son who had never left the parental home in the first place could have afforded him.
When considering the relationship between the tree of knowledge and its roots in the celestial spheres, the words of warning issued by G’d, i.e. “on the day when you will eat from it you will die,” will become clearer. The tree of knowledge will remain alluring to its beholders as long as what they see reflects the thinly veiled brilliance of its celestial origin. Only after man violated G’d’s commandment did it cease to be such and assume more earthly proportions so that being exposed to it any further will spell eventual death as man had contaminated it. [“Death” may be perceived as the ultimate contraction of Divine glory on earth, G’d having veiled His spiritually illuminating light with so many veils that none of them reach man, and therefore cannot “revive” his spiritual resources. Ed.]
The good deeds performed by the righteous reverse this entire process and, ultimately, when brought to its successful conclusion, will enable a different world from the one we are familiar with to be revealed even on earth.
In the dialogue just described by the Torah, the first difficulty is the meaning of the word אף with which the serpent commences. Normally, we understand this word to mean: “although, in spite of,” or something to that effect. Why would the serpent begin the conversation by using this as an introductory word? Furthermore, why did the serpent “quote” G’d as having said פן תמותון, “lest you will die,” when in fact G’d had said [concerning a single tree Ed.] כי ביום אכלך ממנו תמות “for on the day you eat from it you will die.”(Genesis 2,17) G’d had made an absolute statement “you will die,” whereas the serpent changed the statement to a warning rather than a threat, i.e. “lest you may die,” describing death as a possible rather than as a definite result of eating from the tree.'
Prior to the sin, both Adam and Chavah did not appreciate the concepts of ascent and descent of “sparks” of the Shechinah, so that when they heard G’d mention the word “death,” they had understood it as a merely temporary condition, such as unconsciousness. They had not understood it as referring to the “death” of worlds, and that is why the serpent’s argument made sense to them, as they felt that the Creator would be contradicting all that He had created if He were to allow it to disintegrate so easily by a relatively insignificant action such as eating from the fruit of the tree.
When our sages in Chagigah 14 relate that four people “descended” into the pardess, (acronym for “peshat, drush, remez, sod) the four disciplines used to explore the depths of the Torah, and that only Rabbi Akiva, returned unscathed, they meant to warn us not to embark on such excursions as they might result in our death. Adam and Chavah entertained doubts about the exact meaning of the result of disobeying G’d’s prohibition and its consequences for anyone disregarding this command. These doubts made them potential victims of the serpent, who phrased the ”threat” in such a manner that Chavah thought there was logic to the serpent’s words, especially when by repeating: לא מות תמותון, the serpent claimed that no manner of “death” would result from her eating from the fruit of the tree. The serpent implied that creatures who are ranking as high in G’d’s hierarchy as Chavah and her husband, did not have any reason to fear “death.” The serpent implied that the unscreened “light” emanating from the Shechinah was not beyond their ability to digest without harm, on the contrary, they would gain additional wisdom, and become able to tolerate even more intense rays of Divine “light.”
"And Noach found favour in the Lord’s eyes.” If a person finds favour in the eyes of the Lord, then he becomes a נח, i.e. the word being derived from מנוחה, rest, G’d being at rest concerning such a person. When we speak of G’d being מגן אברהם, “the shield of Avraham,” this reflects a reaction by G’d to Avraham who personifies the virtue of חסד, loving kindness, so that G’d protects, מגן, such a person. Similarly if we speak of מגן דוד, “shield of David;” seeing that David personifies the attribute of מלכות, “Royalty” in Jewish history, G’d will act as the shield of David or his descendants, as the title “king” cannot be applied to a person who does not have a people to rule over. G’d must therefore be a shield for the King’s people, if He approves of the King.
This idea is reflected in the Midrash on Genesis 2,2 ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי, “on the seventh day G’d concluded His work.“ He did so because the Sabbath symbolizes Royalty as is evident from the writings of the Ari’zal.
[According to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 18, the fact that G’d is not described as either “creating” the seventh day, or “performing any work” on the seventh day, and we do not find the phrase: ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום שביעי, “it was evening, it was morning, the seventh day,” in connection with this day, this is significant. G’d used the seventh day to survey earth and especially the crown of creation, man, whom He had made on the sixth day. He entertained great hopes for man, and indirectly for Himself, when man would choose to serve Him. He used the Sabbath as a King reviews his army, man being equivalent to G’d’s “army” on earth, He being the Commander-in-Chief. Ed.]
A completely different approach to the phrase ונח מצא חן בעיני ה': when the tzaddik, righteous person, finds something that appeals to him, he endeavours to use it or part of it, to enhance his service of the Creator. When he sees a person enthusiastically preparing to commit a sin, he reflects that he should be equally if not even more enthusiastic in his service of the Lord, i.e. he uses even negative phenomena to sublimate them and use them positively, constructively. The Torah in Genesis 6,2-reported on the elite of mankind, בני אלו-הים selecting בנות האדם, morally inferior women, as their mates, showing thereby that they considered these women as possessing חן, “charm, grace,” possessing desirable qualities. The Torah testifies that Noach resisted such attractions, though he had found them. He willed himself to be attracted to G’d instead, exhorting His qualities, instead of the shallow qualities exuded by the בנות האדם.
Noach
Genesis 6,9. “these are the generations of Noach;" there are two types of righteous people, both of whom serve the Lord. The first category does so with enthusiasm and profound devotion, but does so as an individual only, not endeavouring to draw other people, admitted sinners, nearer to their Creator.
There is a second category of tzaddik, righteous person, who not only serves the Lord himself, but who also is instrumental in leading sinners back to their Creator. Avraham was a prime example of the latter type of tzaddik. He was busy converting pagans to monotheism.
According to Ari’zal, Noach was even punished for not rebuking the pagans in his time; his punishment consisted of his soul being reincarnated in the body of Moses in order to accomplish then what it had failed to accomplish on its first round inside a human body. Moses made up for the sin of omission of Noach by constantly rebuking the Israelites for their shortcomings. When our sages in Kidddushin 40 discussed the difference between a צדיק, “a righteous individual,” and a צדיק טוב, “a good righteous individual,” they said that the former is righteous vis a vis G’d, whereas the latter is “righteous both vis a vis G’d, and vis a vis his fellow man.” Being “good” to one’s peers involves more than being helpful and charitable; it includes admonishing one’s neighbour when one observes him violating G’d’s commandments. According to Sanhedrin 99, teaching one’s neighbour’s son Torah is one of the most important ways in which to demonstrate one’s concern for him, so much so that a student who has been taught Torah by someone other than his biological father is deemed as having been sired by that teacher. In introducing Avraham to us, the Torah underlines (Genesis 12:5) that when heading for the land of Israel from Charan, Avraham and Sarah took with them את הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “the souls they had acquired while in Charan”. (the converts to monotheism)
When the Torah refers to Avraham, it never wrote the line: אלה תולדות אברהם, as opposed to Genesis 6,9-10 where amongst the תולדות of Noach we are told about his three sons; there is no mention or allusion to any converts that Noach had attracted to monotheism other than his own flesh and blood. The word אלה, “these,” is almost always used as a limitation, i.e. “these and none other.” In Noach’s case, he had failed to “acquire souls.”
When we reflect on this we will understand why the Torah wrote ונח מצא חן בעיני ה', instead of ונח היה לו חן בעיני ה'. The latter formulation would mean that when Noach faced G’d he brought with him much to commend him, i.e. his converts, whereas the formulation the Torah uses implies that G’d had to go looking for Noach; indeed he was a valuable find, a צדיק תמים, a perfectly righteous man, but not one that could not be overlooked such as Avraham’s “Chassidim.”
When the Torah testifies that את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach walked with G’d,” this sounds as proof of Noach’s aloofness vis a vis his fellow man [at least during the 120 years prior to the deluge when he was busy building his ark. Ed.] He was in step with G’d, but out of step with his peers. This is why the Torah repeats once more (verse 10) that he sired three sons, although the Torah had informed us of this already at the end of the last chapter (Genesis 5:32).
Noach, though aware of the many sexual perversions practiced by the people around him, and being steadfast in not copying their behaviour, is attested to by the Torah describing him as תמים היה בדורותיו, “he was perfect in his time.” Nonetheless, his loyalty to the Creator certainly did not endear him to his peers, hence “he walked with G’d”, as there was no one else “with whom to walk.” Sadly, only G’d appreciated his self-restraint, his righteousness.
Having said all this, we are faced with the question why according to Rashi, (Genesis 7,7) Noach was of a category described by our sages as קטני אמונה, “lacking in adequate faith.” How could a man be described as perfectly righteous, צדיק תמים, and at the same time display a lack of faith in the Lord? Another question we must ask is why Noach, if he did not feel that rebuking his peers would help, did not at least pray for his fellow human beings prior to the deluge?
We must refer once more to the distinction between the two categories of righteous people. One category has earned the title “tzaddik” because he serves only the one and only true G’d, the Creator, and believes that this Creator is all powerful and guides the universe in accordance with His wishes.
Noach, though aware of the many sexual perversions practiced by the people around him, and being steadfast in not copying their behaviour, is attested to by the Torah describing him as תמים היה בדורותיו, “he was perfect in his time.” Nonetheless, his loyalty to the Creator certainly did not endear him to his peers, hence “he walked with G’d”, as there was no one else “with whom to walk.” Sadly, only G’d appreciated his self-restraint, his righteousness.
Having said all this, we are faced with the question why according to Rashi, (Genesis 7,7) Noach was of a category described by our sages as קטני אמונה, “lacking in adequate faith.” How could a man be described as perfectly righteous, צדיק תמים, and at the same time display a lack of faith in the Lord? Another question we must ask is why Noach, if he did not feel that rebuking his peers would help, did not at least pray for his fellow human beings prior to the deluge?
We must refer once more to the distinction between the two categories of righteous people. One category has earned the title “tzaddik” because he serves only the one and only true G’d, the Creator, and believes that this Creator is all powerful and guides the universe in accordance with His wishes.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni in Moed Katan 16 commenting on Samuel II 23,1 where the prophet introduces King David’s last utterances, (actually a “hymn,”) with the words: נאום דוד בן ישי ונאום הגבר הוקם על, ”words of David son of Yishai, and of the strong man who has been elevated and anointed by G’d, etc.” He continues there in verse 3: אמר אלוקי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל מושל באדם צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים, “Israel’s G’d said concerning me: ‘be ruler over mankind, be ruler over awe of G’d.’” According to Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni, the somewhat enigmatic verse must be understood as follows: David, who had raised high the banner of repentance (when he said to the prophet Natan in response to his rebuke that he had been guilty of without ifs or buts in the matter of Bat Sheva) “G’d rules man, whereas the righteous rules G’d.” What is meant by “the righteous rules G’d?” Initially G’d decrees what man’s fate will be; however, the intercession of a tzaddik’s prayer” may result in G’d’s decree being cancelled.” The Talmud suggests that when a tzaddik is not only concerned with his own salvation but endeavours to bring sinners closer to G’d, his prayer can influence G’d to the extent that He will cancel a decree of death already promulgated in heaven against certain individuals or groups of people. Noach, alas, did not engage in active attempts to influence people by rebuking them.
[No doubt, whenever Noach was asked during the 120 years that he built the ark why he did so, he told his peers that G’d had instructed him to do this in order to escape the deluge that would occur. Ed.]
One of the reasons that he did not pray for his fellow man may have been that he felt inadequate to be able to cancel a decree that G’d had told him He had issued. He may have been motivated by considerations we encounter in connection with Neuchadnezzar (Sanhedrin 92). We are told there that when throwing Chananyah, Michael and Azaryah into a fiery furnace from which all three were saved, G’d also commanded Ezekiel to revive the dead bones of the Jews that had been killed by Nevuchadnezzar when he destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple. One of the newly revived was instructed to touch Nevuchadnezzar on his forehead and to identify himself as one of the many thousands who had been resurrected. Nevuchadnezzar was so impressed that he began to compose songs of praise extolling the Almighty. Thereupon an angel shut Nevuchadnezzar’s mouth to prevent him from continuing. Had the angel not done so, all the hymns composed by King David would have lost in value when compared to the songs composed by Nevuchadnezzar.
The word used by the Talmud to describe what would have occurred is לגנות, “to denigrate, or defame.” When reminding ourselves of the tzaddik’s ability, under certain conditions to reverse a decree that originated from the Attribute of Justice, and to cause it to become a beneficial decree, we can understand why Nevuchadnezzar had begun to sing the Lord’s praises; [after all he had deliberately destroyed G’d’s Temple on earth. Ed.] When he noticed that Ezekiel’s prayers had resulted in an army of people being resurrected, he became afraid that another prayer by the same person, or persons like him, would result in his life’s work, the destruction of the Temple, being reversed also. In order to pre-empt any prayer by any tzaddik being able to achieve this, he tried to pre-empt anyone from offering such a prayer and being granted his request, by extolling G’d’s greatness in even more glowing terms than David had done in the Book of Psalms.
Noach, far from being a boastful individual, proclaiming himself as a major deity, was the very opposite, a humble person, to whom it would not have occurred that a prayer of his would influence G’d to reverse a decree which He had certainly not arrived at without first having agonized over it. [He even told Noach that He would delay execution of this decree for up to 120 years, this is why He told Noach when he was 480 years old to start building the ark. Ed.] It was because he did not consider himself as especially righteous, that he reasoned that just as he would be saved, so there must be numerous other people of similar stature who would also be saved. When G’d noticed this, He told Noach (Genesis 6,13) that He would have to proceed with His intention to destroy the human race as there was no one who had tried to intercede on their behalf. Nonetheless, He made plain to Noach, that although he had not interceded on behalf of his fellow humans, He would maintain the existing covenant between G’d and mankind through Noach and his family. (Genesis 6,18).
An alternate approach to the verse commencing with אלה תולדות נח. The word תולדות is a euphemism for the pleasure/satisfaction afforded G’d by the righteous person who observes His commandments. The Torah informs us that the true pleasure the tzaddik enjoys from performing G’d’s commandments is the certainty that he has contributed to His Creator deriving satisfaction from his deeds.
Still another facet of the line:אלה תולדות נח, נח איש צדיק, תמים היה בדורותיו, may be appreciated by the reader after we have “digested” Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 7,7 ויבא נח..... אל התבה מפני מי המבול, “Noach (and family) entered the ark on account of the waters of the deluge.” Rashi uses this verse to state that Noach was deficient in his faith in G’d. [Rashi based himself on Bereshit Rabbah 32,6 who explains the extraneous words: “on account of the waters of the deluge,” as telling us that Noach did not enter the ark until the rising waters of the flood made this unavoidable.”] This exegesis appears to fly in the face of an explicit verse in Genesis 6,22 according to which Noach carried out every single one of G’d’s instructions without exception. How could the author of the Midrash accuse Noach of being lacking in faith? If someone spent 120 years building an ark, anticipating a deluge, because G’d had told him to do so, how can this be interpreted as “lack of faith?”We must bear in mind that all the holy “sparks” are possessed of an urge to serve their Creator, just as do the different categories of angels all of whom vie to fulfill the wishes of their Creator while being in awe of Him. The tzaddik, being a mortal human being and burdened with an evil urge within him, may not always serve his master with a similar degree of single-mindedness. He may be sidetracked by thinking of money, or the allure of secular attractions, including good-tasting fruit, etc. One of the causes distracting the tzaddik from serving his Creator with the same degree of single-mindedness as the angels is that in order to bring the sinners closer to G’d, he must first befriend them. The sinners are sinners because the have within them some of the 288 sparks that “fell off” the Shechinah, as we explained on page 21.
[A רשע, sinner, who too has been created in the image of G’d, contains within him some of these sparks, though they have become tainted through their close association with the sinner. Ed.]
In the process of “outreaching,” as it is commonly known in our time, the exposure of the highest ranking type of tzaddik to the lure of secularism is such that he may momentarily forget his true calling, feeling drawn to these “perks” of olam hazeh, as advertised by Satan in eye-catching colors. A tzaddik engaged in such activities may be viewed as being engaged in a מלחמת מצוה, “a holy war,” on behalf of his Creator.
This idea is alluded to in the wording in Chagigah 3:1. The Mishnah there discussing different degrees of holiness, i.e. that קדשים, sacred parts of sacrificial animals, have a higher degree of holiness than t’rumah, the portion of the farmer’s harvest that has to be given to the priest. An example given by the Mishnah illustrating this is that whereas two vessels which require ritual purification through immersion in a ritual bath may be cleansed even when one of them is inside the other, this ruling is not valid when the vessels in question belong to a higher level of holiness known as קדשים, vessels used in handling the remains of sacrificial animals, for instance. Apparently, the author of this Mishnah relates the rules pertaining to cleansing vessels that have become ritually impure to their respective origins. In other words: the holier one’s origin, the more stringent the rules for recapturing one’s purity once it had been lost. The wording of the Mishnah, i.e.חומר בקודש מבתרומה , can be understood allegorically as: “the reason why higher ranking holiness is subject to more stringent steps of purification than lower ranking holy vessels, is because the higher ranking ones had been inside the lower ranking ones.” The word תרומה chosen by the Mishnah, has a double meaning, i.e. it is something in need of being elevated further. Applied to the צדיק in our parable, it means that the tzaddik engaged in “outreach,” must be much more on guard against being drawn into the sphere of the sinner than the kind of tzaddik who does not venture to mix with the sinners even in order to bring them closer to G’d. A tzaddik faced with this dilemma will do well to remind himself that the allures of this world are transient, and cannot be compared to the delights in store when the soul rejoins its place in heaven after having successfully discharged its duties while within a mortal body.
When our sages in Avot 6,10 stated that everything that G’d created, He created only for the sake of His glory, this is another way of saying that He desires to have satisfaction from the conduct of His creatures.
This is also the meaning of psalms 119,98 מאויבי תחכמני מצותך כי לעולם היא לי, “Your commandments made me wiser than my enemies; they always stand by me.” The letter מ in the word מאויבי must be understood in the sense of “more than.” When read thus, the word is a reference to the evil urge, which is not only David’s enemy, but the enemy of every human being, implanting within us the powerful desires to taste the gratifications advertised. However, the psalmist, upon reflecting that what is eternal must be far more worthwhile than that which is merely transient, redoubles his resolve to serve only the Creator, rejecting the deceptive allure of physical delights.
Applied to the allegory in the Mishnah in Chagigah that we quoted, an addiction to the delights of this transient world, when compared to an addiction to serving the eternal Creator is like placing a tainted vessel inside one that is not tainted, hoping to purify it by immersing only the outer vessel in a ritual bath. Keeping the waters of the ritual bath “at arm’s length,” is simply not good enough to cleanse oneself from the pollutants absorbed through contact with the defilements of the earthly environment. The inner vessel had lost some of the brightness with which it had been endowed as a result of G’d’s original light having shone upon it before it became contaminated through contact with the sinner.
Going back to the line: את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach walked with G’d;” the emphasis in this line is on the attribute for G’d used, i.e. אלוקים, the attribute of Justice. It was beyond Noach’s kind of tzidkut, righteousness, to turn the attribute of Justice into an attribute of Mercy through his lifestyle. In this respect he was different from Avraham and Yitzchok, concerning both of whom the Torah writes that they “walked before G’d,” not merely “with G’d.” (Compare Genesis 17,1 and 48,15) In those verses the Torah wished to alert us to the patriarchs’ ability to persuade G’d to substitute the attribute of Mercy for the attribute of Justice, on occasion.
The words: לפני האלוקים, would have to be translated as “formerly the attribute of Justice.”
Genesis 6,14. “you are to construct compartments in the ark.” The word קנים is the plural mode of the word קן, “nest,” as in “bird’s nest.” In other words, the ark was to serve as a residence for all the creatures within it. The word תיבה does not only mean “ark,” but also means: “word.” G’d tells Noach that all his activities, would be confined to the inside of the ark, including speech which would be taking place inside it, including prayer.
An alternate meaning to this line when understood in conjunction with the first word of the next verse, i.e. וזה: Noach is told to construct the ark in a way that it be fit for the Shechinah, presence of the Lord. He may have told Noach that by using the right words, he could construct the ark by merely uttering the correct formula. Using the correct words would also ensure that G’d would “feel at home” inside and around the ark. The dual meaning of the word תיבה, would bring home to Noach that he was in effect using words to ensure the survival of man and the earth, i.e. G’d’s handiwork.
Genesis 6,15 “You are to construct it according to this blueprint.” (The author continues with an approach bordering on the mystical, involving the difference between the words זה and כה when they appear in the Torah. He elaborates on this theme also in Parshat Vaeyrah, on Exodus 7,16)
There are tzaddikim who allow themselves to be guided by letters, i.e. the two letters in the word זה in our instance. Other tzaddikim such as Moses, are far more articulate, and the word זה is merely a prelude for them of the words that follow. Sifri, on Mattot, 2, explains this with the following words: although both Moses and other prophets introduced their prophecies or prophetic announcement with the word כה, i.e. כה אמר ה', “thus said the Lord,” Moses is the only prophet whose pronouncements were sometimes introduced with the word זה, i.e. זה הדבר אשר צוה ה', “this is the word that the Lord has commanded.” (Numbers 30,2). Moses’ advantage over other prophets, sometimes described as that he received a clearer vision than the other prophets, also consisted in his formulating the prophecy instead of merely repeating what he had seen or heard. In the words of our author, he was מנהיג את הדיבור “formulating the wording.” When G’d said to Noach: זה אשר תעשה אותה, “this is how you shall construct it (the ark),” Noach was granted the same level of clear vision as was granted to Moses when we understand the word תיבה as word, דיבור [his reincarnate 800 years later. Ed.]
Geneis 6:15 “the length of the ark is to be 300 cubits, its width 50 cubits and its height 30 cubits.”[The author continues with the allegorical approach to the data provided by the Torah, presumably because it is clear that the Torah, when providing us with these measurements, intended to convey more than merely the bare facts. Ed.]
Whenever a human being makes use of the ability to communicate his thoughts by articulating them, he must first and foremost remember the exalted position of his Creator, the One, Who had endowed him with the power of speech. Having done so, he will likely relate to the Creator with the appropriate amount of awe and love. Subsequent to this, he may appreciate the conveniences G’d’s puts at the disposal of His creatures in this physical universe. The measurements of the ark listed here contain allusions to the three ethical imperatives just mentioned. The measurement given for the height of the ark alludes to G’d’s exalted position G’d occupies in His universe. The width is an allusion to the love and reverence for the Creator due Him; in terrestrial terms this is expressed by the direction north-south; finally, the availability of the various conveniences for man that G’d has provided is alluded to by the description of the length of the ark, i.e. the direction east-west.
Genesis 6,15. “and you are to place the entrance to the ark on its side.” When a righteous person uses the power of speech, he is expected to adapt a manner appropriate to the feelings in his heart at that time, i.e. whether it is an outpouring of his love for the Creator, or of his awe for Him, etc. This is why the Torah refers specifically to the position of “entrance” of the ark; [something that most of us reading the report after 3700 years could hardly be expected to be very interested in. We must therefore endeavour to find a mussar, ethical instruction, alluded to in every detail of the ark that the Torah provides. Ed.]
Genesis 6,21. “and you are to take for yourself some of everything that serves as food, etc;” here the Torah alludes to the reason why until the deluge man was forbidden to eat animals, (according to Nachmanides). Noach saved the animals from extinction during the deluge; he therefore- as representative of the human race- became the “owner” of the animal kingdom, and as such entitled to use some of the animals, after due preparation without causing pain to the animals, as food for himself. When Avraham, in Genesis 23,13 urged Efron to accept the money he had readied for the purchase of the cave of Machpelah wherein he planned to bury Sarah, the word קח is used as denoting the acquisition of something. Avraham had learned this expression and its meaning from our verse where it is used in this sense for the first time. Noach made an additional acquisition when taking the animal into the ark with him. [He had previously been permitted to use the animals as beasts of burden, etc. Ed.]
An alternative explanation of G’d’s directive to take along provisions. [The following is based on the Torah choosing the word מאכל instead of the customary word אוכל, for food. Ed.] (Compare Genesis 41,35; 41,48; 42,7 et al) By using the causative mode, מאכל as in מאכיל, the Torah suggests that G’d made it Noach’s task to feed others, primarily the animals, of course. When understanding the word מאכל in this way, a commentary by Bereshit Rabbah 19,12 becomes clearer. Rabbi Abahu there draws our attention to Adam when challenged by G’d (Genesis 3,12) if he came by the knowledge that he was nude because he had eaten from the tree that G’d had forbidden him to eat, having said: האשה אשר נתת עמדי הוא נתנה לי מן העץ ואכל, “the woman that You have given me to be my mate, she gave me from the tree vaochel”. Adam used the future tense when describing his having eaten instead of saying אכלתי, “I ate.” The author of the midrash sees in this Adam’s implied promise to repair whatever damage he had done by eating the forbidden fruit, by in future pronouncing a blessing before partaking of anything that G’d put at man’s disposal in this universe. He hoped to undo any harm his eating from the tree of knowledge had done. When Adam’s eating from the tree is looked at in this light, he had indeed “fed” the human beings that were born after him, by bequeathing them a world that they could call their own. This was confirmed by G’d at the moment when He told Noach קח לך מכל מאכל אשר יאכל, “Take for yourself of all the food that is fit to be eaten.” Noach’s taking with him all the animals into the ark set the stage for man’s being permitted to eat the meat of animals after they had died and become fit as food. This is also the allusion contained in Yoel 2,26 ואכלתם אכול, “and you will eat your fill (and praise the name of the Lord).” The repetition of the word אכול is the veiled reference to Adam’s having been responsible for all this in a constructive sense. [This editor views this midrash as especially inspiring, as it suggests that Adam himself “invented” the principle of the punishment having to fit the crime. Ed.]
Once Avraham was born, G’d did not again punish a nation collectively unless the nation in question had deliberately harmed the Jewish nation. Sins committed by the members of other nations against G’d are stored up in His memory to be requited at the time when the birth pangs of the messiah have begun. Prior to Avraham’s birth, G’d’s attribute of Justice punished the generation of Noach and the generation of the Tower collectively for sins committed against Him.
Genesis 7,1 “For I have seen you being righteous before Me in this generation;” these words must be understood according to the Zohar I, 67. The author of the Zohar contrasts Moses’ reaction to G’d’s threat to annihilate the Jewish people and to substitute him for the Jewish people (Exodus 32,10) with Noach’s silence. Moses, had immediately responded to this threat by saying: “erase me from Your Book, rather than make me the founder of a new Jewish people. Moses was willing to give up his life if he could thereby save his people”. When G’d (7,4) used the same expression ומחיתי את כל היקום, “I will erase all breathing living creatures,” He elicited no response from Noach, just as He had not elicited a response from him in 6,13, or in 6,17. Moses, by offering his own life on behalf of his people during the episode of the golden calf, atoned for Noach’s insensitivity at this time. Moses is viewed by the Zohar as possessing a soul composed of all the souls destroyed in the deluge. This is why our prophets refer to the deluge as מי נח, “the waters of Noach,” since Noach had not intervened on behalf of his contemporaries. (Isaiah 54,9). The prophet appears to imply that Noach had been remiss by associating the deluge with Noach (himself) instead of with the sinners.
It is known that Moses was considered a tzaddik, righteous person. When our sages state that all the prophets’ prophecies began with the word כה, whereas Moses’ prophecy on occasion commenced with the word זה, “this,” they meant to compare Moses to Noach of whom G’d had said אותך ראיתי צדיק לפני בדור הזה, “I have seen you that you are a tzaddik before Me in this generation”. G’d implied that Noach would be restored posthumously to this stature when Moses, a reincarnation of his soul, would make up for his omission at this time. The words בדור הזה, are understood as a hint that in Moses’ time another tzaddik would compensate for the sin of omission in Noach’s generation.
Genesis 8,21. “He smelled the pleasing odour, etc;” The Baal Haturim mentions that the expression וירח את ריח הניחוח, “he smelled a pleasing odour,” occurs only here and when Yitzchok smelled what he thought were Esau’s garments in Genesis 27,27. On the face of it, the comparison appears strange. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 37), throws light on this by suggesting that instead of reading the word בגדיו in Genesis 27,27 we should read it as בוגדיו, “its traitors, deviationists,” and the message is that in the future, even such people will please G’d by their actions. In Esau’s case, the deferential manner in which he addressed his father entitled him to be described in such complimentary terms. Noach’s deference before G’d, (when he could have asked G’d embarrassing questions about finding the earth in ruins) elicited this positive response by G’d. G’d Himself testified to this at the end of this verse (acknowledging the fact that man, having been born with an evil urge, was predisposed to do evil), hence, if he nonetheless decides to follow the path of goodness, thereby defeating the evil urge within him, this is a major moral achievement.
The author, quoting his father (if I understand correctly) traces the source of this pleasing odour, הניחוח, to pleasurable experiences by man on earth, (as opposed to spiritual experiences). If man can sublimate these pleasurable experiences to reinforce him in his service of the Lord, then G’d can truly “boast” of him as we read in Isaiah 49,3 ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, “Israel, I can glory in you.” The author continues by quoting Rabbi Dov Baer of Mezeritch, as tracing the word אתפאר, to the word תפר, describing the first garments Adam and Chavah made themselves from fig leaves to cover their nudity. (Genesis 3,7) “A pleasant smell” originating from appropriate clothing, is therefore the most ancient method of ingratiating oneself with G’d after one has fallen out of favour. Pleasant smells as a source of pleasure are familiar to us all, and describing G’d’s reactions to man’s good deeds in such terms is not at all far-fetched. “Clothes” has long been a simile for the deeds of people wearing them, whether good or evil; it is therefore appropriate that when the Torah describes these clothes in complimentary terms, i.e. as pleasing, the reference is to the good deeds performed by the people so described.
Genesis 8,21. “and I will not again smite all living creatures in the manner that I have done.” The Zohar II 35 zeroes in on the words כאשר עשיתי, by reporting on a conversation between G’d and the Torah together with which together He had created the universe) when He said: נעשה אדם, “let Us make Man, etc.” The Torah is reported to have warned G’d that man was liable to be sinful thereby causing G’d to become angry so that unless he were to restrain Himself man could never survive G’d’s anger. G’d responded that this was why He employed the Torah as His assistant, so that people would see that any reference to G’d as the merciful, patient G’d, etc., would not be an empty compliment. In other words, the principal attribute of G’d at work on earth is G’d’s attribute of Mercy. The words of the Zohar are echoed by Bereshit Rabbah 12, where the Midrash states that G’d employed the attribute of Mercy as His partner when creating Man. The Midrash quotes the words כאשר עשיתי, as the source for its statement. The author of that Midrash understands G’d as saying that just as He had employed the attribute of Mercy when creating the universe, (man) so He will henceforth continue to employ this attribute in large measure. As a result, He will not again bring a deluge of the dimensions experienced in the time of Noach.
Lech Lecha
Genesis 6,9. “The Lord said to Avram: ‘go for yourself,’ etc.” Many commentators ask why Avram endangered Sarai by taking her with him to Egypt, seeing that G’d had not given any instruction for either him or his wife to go to Egypt? The answer may be in the words: אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land that I will show you.” By being vague about Avram’s destination, and not naming the country, G’d may have hinted that Avram should move to any country which circumstances would indicate as a suitable destination for him. Hence, when he came to Eretz Yisrael and shortly thereafter a famine struck that land, he reasoned that it was time for him to move further south, to Egypt where there was no famine. This is the meaning of 12,10 ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם מצרימה כי כבד הרעב בארץ, “It was that when a famine broke out in the land, Avram descended to Egypt as the famine in the land was severe.” He took the outbreak of the famine as a sign from G’d not to remain in the land of Canaan, but to move on. He was convinced that he acted in accordance with G’d’s wishes.
An alternate approach to the words: אל הארץ אשר אראך, “to the land that I will show you.” It is a general rule in life that when in doubt about a course of action that one should pursue, one must rely on one’s G’d given power of reason. G’d indicated to Avraham by giving him these vaguely worded instructions that he was free to follow what his reason dictated to him.
Yet another possible meaning of these instructions: It is a general rule that when a person flees from persecution in one location that he turns to a place where he feels that he will be more secure, even if it means that he will have to keep on moving instead of establishing a permanent home. Since Avram had fled from Nimrod as we know from Bereshit Rabbah 38,13, G’d’s instructions to Avram to proceed to a land that He would show him, was meant to reassure him that he would no longer have to live the life of a fugitive as had been the case as long as he was in Mesopotamia, a land under Nimrod’s rule.
Concerning G’d’s adding that Avram was to move away from his birthplace etc., מארצך, ממולדך, G’d made clear that contrary to the norm that when someone moves to a new place he generally has some roots there already and he will be accompanied by “the sparks” (see my discussion of this term on page 21), in this instance G’d told Avram that this move would be of a different dimension. He was to leave behind all that tied him to his previous abode. While he would now proceed in the direction of his true spiritual roots, what had gone before had no connection with his true roots. It had now become his destiny to restore the “sparks” that accompanied him to their true homes. We find an interesting verse in Samuel I 7,17, where the author writes ותשובתו הרמתה כי שם ביתו, “and Samuel returned to Ramah, for that was where his home was.” The words “for that was where his home was,” are redundant as the reader is familiar with this fact. The prophet added these words to inform the reader that the prophet Samuel could be “at home,” wherever he decided to spend the night. His “roots” were so inextricably linked to his people that he was at home in any place in the land of Israel. The same was true, of course, of Moses and Aaron.
Genesis 12,2. “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you and make your reputation great.” The Talmud (Pessachim 117) comments on this verse that “making Avraham great,” meant that when referring to G’d the Creator, people would describe G’d as “the G’d of Avraham.” The word ואברכך is a promise that the Israelites when praying will refer to G’d as “the G’d of Yitzchok,” whereas the words: ואגדלה שמך, “I will make your name great,” refer to the Israelites referring to G’d as the “G’d of Yaakov” in their prayers. I might have thought that when concluding the benediction they would also mention the names of all the patriarchs; in order to signal that this is not so, the Torah continues with והיה ברכה, “be a blessing!” (sing) i.e. that the signature of the benediction contains only the name of Avraham, i.e. מגן אברהם, “(Gd) the shield of Avraham.”
There are three attributes that G’d employs in His continuous relations with the creatures in His universe; they are אהבה, “love,” גבורה, “power,” and תפארת, “harmony, splendour.” When G’d relates to His creatures with the attribute of אהבה, “love,” all parts of the universe are filled with all manner of “good” (welcome) phenomena. When He has recourse to the attribute of גבורה, “power,” the result is that the creatures affected will feel the opposite of comfortable. When G’d employs the attribute of תפארת in relation to His creatures, the world will also feel an abundance of goodness, as it is G’d’s purpose and desire to be able to glorify in His choicest creation, man. When G’d is able to do this, He inundates the universe with love. We must not misunderstand the attribute of גבורה by regarding it as something negative. While the attribute of גבורה, when active, may appear to the people affected by it as something negative, unwelcome in the extreme, it is designed to enable G’d to again relate to all His creatures with love, once that attribute has accomplished its purpose.
This is what we are told in Job 8,7 (by Bildad) והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאד, “though your beginning may be small (painful), in the end you will grow very great.” The overriding function of the attribute of גבורה is to carry out retribution in the world so that G’d will afterwards be able to pour out all His goodness on His creatures. Historically, the person who had realized this better than anyone else, was Nachum, nick-named, איש גם זו, who whenever something happened to him that was unpleasant, painful, etc., immediately reacted by saying: גם זו לטובה, “this too will eventually be revealed as having been a positive, constructive event.” (Taanit 21).).
It is generally known that Avraham symbolizes the attribute of love, whereas Yitzchok symbolizes the attribute of power, and Yaakov symbolizes a merging of these two attributes, resulting in what we call תפארת, harmony. When the Talmud in Pessachim 117 first thought that it would be appropriate to sign the first benediction of the amidah prayer by referring to G’d as the G’d of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov, it concluded that the reason the sages who formulated this prayer did not do so, was because they wanted to stress that ultimately, what G’d is all about is the attribute of love, the attribute personified best in the personality of Avraham. [The Maharshah on that section of the Talmud points out that the letters in the word והיה are the same as the letters in the tetragram, i.e. the name of G’d symbolizing the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] The other two attributes’ function is auxiliary, i.e. to help G’d be able to fully display His attribute of love.
The three attributes of G’d are also represented by the 12 tribes, as well as in the phylactery worn on the head which features a three armed letter ש on one side and a four armed ש on the opposite side of the housing. The three armed ש symbolizes the twelve tribes, seeing that the head of each of these “arms,” comprises four components, making a total of 12, each tribe being “rooted” in one of these “roots. [For a comprehensive treatment of the symbolisms in the letter ש, the reader is referred to Rabbi Michael Munk’s “wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet,” pages 207-213. Ed.] These 12 שרשים, roots, are also known as 12 dazzlingly white lights known as אין and יש respectively. There is another שורש, root, above the twelve mentioned which is known as אפס, “void.” Concerning this latter root we are told in the Sefer yetzirah (ancient kabbalistic text attributed to Avraham) בלום פיך מלדבר ולבך מלהרר, “restrain your mouth from speaking and your heart from even contemplating.” (The subject is the ten emanations by means of which G’d created the physical universe in stages.)
Let us try and explain the subject by means of a parable. A tree has numerous branches; each of these “branches” is perceived as being “rooted” in the tree’s trunk. The trunk itself possesses one root that includes all the other roots of its branches. The word אחד “one,” alludes to this as the letters ח+ד=12, whereas the letter א =1. The Zohar II,162, commenting on B’rachot 17, that when saying the word אחד in the kriyat sch’ma, one must not draw out the letter א as it refers to this “void,” refers to the line from the Sefer Yetzira that even spending time on trying to understand the true meaning of G’d’s uniqueness is forbidden [as it may lead one astray. Ed.]
Genesis 12,2. “and be a blessing!” The letter י-ה in the word והיה is an allusion to G’d, whereas he letters ה-ו are an allusion to the Jewish people. As long as Avraham had not existed, there had not been a human being who tried to “awaken” G’d’s largesse to be dispensed in the lower regions of the universe. G’d’s largesse, when it was dispensed for the good of mankind, owed this exclusively to the Creator’s goodwill. As soon as Avraham became active on earth, there were deeds on earth that “awakened” G’d to dispense His largesse as a result of acts performed by His creatures. In other words, prior to Avraham, G’d’s name could be spelled in the order of י-ה-ו-ה, whereas this order had now been reversed and His name could be spelled as ו-ה-י-ה. This is what the author of Bereshit Rabbah 39,11 had in mind when he said that the meaning of the word והיה is equivalent to the meaning of the word שמחה, joy, i.e. there had not been any joy on earth prior to the appearance of Avraham on earth. The reversal of the sequence of the letters ו-ה hints at this largesse having its origin in the lower, rather than the celestial regions. [I have not found a reference to שמחה joy, in our versions of this Midrash. Ed.]
Genesis 12,3. “I shall bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I shall curse.” At first glance it seems strange that the Torah changed the order of subject and object when speaking of anyone who would curse Avraham. Why would people who bless Avraham be given a blessing before they had actually done so? We find here an example of the principle that G’d considers good intentions as part of the carrying out of such intentions, i.e. the party carrying out a noble intention, is retroactively rewarded not only for the deed but also for the thoughts that led up to the deed. When planning something wicked, G’d does not take this into consideration even after the wicked act has been carried out. (Kidushin 40.)
Genesis 12,8. “he built an altar for the Lord Who had appeared to him there.” Why did the Torah have to add the word אליו, “to him,” at the end of this verse? Would we not have understood this without being told?
I believe that on this occasion G’d promised material blessings, and this is why Avraham felt obliged to build an altar in acknowledgment of this. The word “altar” serves also as a symbol for man’s expressing his desire to come closer to his Creator by means of a material offering. He does so by reciprocating in the only way a human being can reciprocate for receiving a gift from G’d. Accordingly, the word אליו describes an element of reciprocity that occurred here in the relations between man and G’d, his remaining not only at the receiving end of G’d’s largesse. In order to give expression to this aspect of the man-G’d relationship he had to build an altar. Man’s gift to G’d must be brought in a fitting manner, the altar serving as the vessel in which this gift is presented.
Genesis 12,8. “Bet-El to the west and AI to the east;” it is understood by the Kabbalists that the tzaddik must always remain attached to the ayin, אין, i.e. to a negation of that which is primarily physical, יש or known as “reality,” in our parlance. He is able to ignore such “realities” due to his awe for the Creator; the word: והעי, is a variation of עי השדה, “ruins in the field;” (Micah 1,6). When the tzaddik is attached to this אין, he is able to draw down to our physical universe goodwill and blessings from the celestial domain of the universe. Our verse illustrates the concept of how a man of the caliber of Avraham is able to be a source of good for the entire human race.
[The author’s approach to our verse is again based (in my opinion) on the implied question of why the Torah would bother to inform us about such apparently irrelevant details about locations, details which we read in public year after year for over 3700 years. Compare author’s commentary on the measurements of Noah’s ark. Ed.] The moral/ethical message of the verse is that in order to enjoy the benefits available in this terrestrial part of the universe, one must first make certain that one maintains close links with the celestial parts of the universe, which is the source of these benefits. What was considered a ruin, עי, before the tzaddik had established close ties with the celestial domain, turns into בית אל, a “house of G’d on earth,” after he has done so. The Torah confirms this a few verses later after Avraham returns from Egypt, when he is described as very rich in livestock, silver and gold. (Genesis 13,2)
Genesis 12,9. “Avram journeyed ‘southward’ in stages.” In order to understand the significance of this verse we must remember that the meaning of the word נגב, becomes clear from Joshua 15,19, where Calev is reported as giving his daughter Achsah to whom he had given some land in the southern district of Yehudah, an additional source of irrigation in response to her plea; the negev was known already then as a semi arid region. The expression: מנוגב, taken from the word נגב, means “dried out, lacking in moisture.” In fact, נגב is identical with דרום, an allusion to G’d’s attribute of חסד, loving kindness. When the word נגבה is used in our verse instead of the word דרומה, which in common parlance means the same thing, the reason is that the Torah wished to draw the reader’s attention to the blessing inherent in the word נגב. Water, though generally perceived as a blessing, a necessity, also has a down side, as we are all aware of. When the word נגב is used for “south,” this implies that water flowing there is an unmitigated blessing. The moisture mixed with the natural characteristic of נגב results in a perfect blend of two elements. The Torah reports here that Avraham understood how to blend service of the Lord with being of service to the people among whom he lived. He knew how to “get out of his skin,” and to spread the generous nature of which he was possessed far and wide. In doing so, he served his Creator with his entire personality. [Some of these words are my own. Ed.]
An alternative approach to the meaning of this verse, not substantially different from the previous one. There are two different methods in which man can serve his Creator. The first method is based on man’s awe and reverence for his Creator. The second method is based on man’s love for his Creator. The basic difference between these two approaches is that he who serves the Lord because of his awe and reverence for Him, reflects the fact that he is rooted in the יש, the material reality of the terrestrial part of the universe, someone who is conscious of the limitations of the transience of life, and the finite nature of everything physical; it is natural that he is overcome with awe for the source of this finite universe, the Creator.
The second method of serving the Creator, i.e. the motivation being love for the Lord, does so because he feels himself as totally unworthy, possessing no so-called self-respect, but is part of the אין, metaphysical aspects of the universe. We must remember that among the people serving G’d out of love for Him, some may be motivated by the awareness that serving the Lord earns a reward, so that this may consciously or subconsciously affect the purity of his service of the Lord. Anyone who serves the Lord in this fashion belongs to the category of people serving Him out of the יש dimension of the universe. Only he who serves the Lord exclusively by trying to provide the Lord with a sense of satisfaction, pleasure from His creatures, belongs to the category of people serving Him from the dimension of אין a domain totally devoid of anything remotely physical. When the Torah wrote of Avram that ויסע אברם הלוך ונסוע הנגבה, it testifies to the spiritual accomplishment of Avram who had ascended to the level of serving G’d from love, i.e. by totally negating himself as an individual. The term הנגבה is used to describe something dried out, i.e. no longer possessed of physical urges, not even serving the Lord for the promise of a reward.
Another angle from which our verse may be viewed zeroes in on the repetition of the words denoting traveling, journeying, i.e. הלוך ונסוע. Why did the Torah have to write two verbs to describe this journey? The basis of this exegesis is the Zohar III 263, according to which Avraham served G’d out of feelings of love, and that the meaning of the word הנגבה is exchangeable with דרומה, an allusion to חסד, love (as in זכרתי לך חסד נעוריך, “I gratefully remember the love of your youth as a bride” Jeremiah 2,1)
It is known that the Zohar (5 separate occasions) has repeatedly stated that what occurs in our terrestrial world evokes its counterpart in the celestial regions. If this is so, it is clear that by serving the Lord out of love, Avraham evoked a reciprocal sentiment on the part of G’d, Who poured out His love for the creatures on earth. Accordingly, our verse describes the journey described as progressive, i.e. the repetition of הלוך ונסוע, emphasizes how Avraham moved closer and closer in the direction of the ideal חסד, i.e. הנגבה. The first of these two words, הלוך, logically, describes the direction in which Avraham’s spiritual journey took him, whereas the second word ונסוע describes the reciprocal journey made toward him by the Lord.
This point is made even more clearly in Genesis 13,14 where we read: וה' אמר אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו שא נא עיניך וראה מן המקום אשר אתה שם צפונה ונגבה וקדמה וימה, "and the Lord had said to Avram after Lot had separated from him ‘raise your eyes and look northward, southward, eastward and westward;’” this was a promise first and foremost that he would see in his lifetime three of the patriarchs of the Jewish people, i.e. himself, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. The first three directions mentioned here symbolize the attributes חסד , גבורה, and תפארת, referring to Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov in that order.
When telling Avraham that he would see את כל הארץ, “the whole of the land” (future Eretz Yisrael), this refers to David, whose attribute is מלכות, Royalty, David representing this symbol on earth, the Jewish people. David is directly linked to the patriarch Avraham, was shown “the whole land,” so that he would be aware that the glory of the Kingdom of David would be directly traceable to him. This is the reason why north and south, east and west are listed here in this order. According to Ari za’l, ימה, “west,” refers to the emanation יסוד, the emanation directly above the emanation מלכות, the one symbolized by the kingdom of David.
[Malchut, as the “lowest” of the emanations, is the one closest to the physical universe. Rabbi Elie Munk (Ascent to Harmony) has described the emanation Malchut as “History” (of man), thus seeing it as the bridge between the actual physical universe and the celestial domains, since when something becomes “history,” it has either receded or ascended (depending on whether the persons making history made constructive or destructive contributions) to a domain beyond the physical but robbing it of the “substance” common to phenomena in the earthly domain of the universe. Ed.]
According to the Zohar, tzaddik and tzedek, the righteous person and the performance of righteous deeds, are indivisible, i.e. the emanations מלכות and יסוד always go hand in hand. We find this concept first alluded to in the Torah when Malki Tzedek, King of Shalem, (Jerusalem) in Genesis 14,18 congratulates Avram on his victory, blesses him in the name of the Lord, and presents him with bread and wine. The word לחם, commonly understood as “bread,” is used to describe חכמה, “wisdom,” whereas the word יין, commonly understood as “wine” means בינה, “insight,” in this context. Malki Tzedek presented these items as symbols of the two highest emanations man can usually attain, both of which Avraham employed in his service of the Lord.
[As on previous occasions, the author sees in such apparently irrelevant details as a King bringing bread and wine from hundreds of kilometers from Jerusalem. According to Genesis 14,15, Avraham had pursued the armies of Kedorleomer all the way to Damascus) an allusion to something far more profound. Ed.]
The Zohar I,199 traces the fact that a tzaddik serves the Lord with חכמה and בינה to Job 28,28 יראת ה' היא חכמה וסור מרע בינה, “Reverence for the Lord is wisdom, to shun evil is understanding, insight.” The two blessings that Malki Tzedek, who was viewed as G’d’s High Priest in those days, most likely Shem, Noach’s oldest son, bestowed on Avram, represent the two emanations that Avram had been able to use in his service of the Lord, and are reflected in Targum Yonathan’s translation of the Torah, in the first verses of the Torah in which they appear. [In our verses, instead of commending Avraham to G’d, as we would translate the words ברוך אברם ל.., Yonathan ben Uzziel translates: ברוך אברם מ..., “Avram has been blessed by the supreme G’d, etc.” Ed.] Targum Yerushalmi translates already the first words of the Torah, i.e. בראשית ברא אלוקים את השמים ואת הארץ, as “in the beginning G’d used the emanation of חכמה to create heaven and earth.”
Genesis 13,16. “so that if one can count the dust of the earth then your offspring too can be counted.” G’d’s comments were triggered by Avram having seen in his astrology charts that he was not going to have offspring. G’d taught him that “science” such as astrology is valid only in terms of the terrestrial part of the universe. Astrologers therefore are able to decipher only matters accessible to ordinary people’s powers of perception. The Jewish people’s fate could not be predicted on the basis of such limited powers of perception. This is why Jews are not allowed to attempt to count the stars as we know from Yuma 22, where the Talmud states כל המונה את ישראל עובר בלאו, “anyone making a headcount of Israelites transgresses a negative commandment.” The Talmud quotes Hoseah 2,1 in support of this. The result of such a count would be misleading, as the yardsticks that apply to other nations do not apply to the Jewish people. Avram who had not yet been aware of this, had therefore misread what appeared to be written in the stars concerning his future. The Talmud Shabbat 156 cites our verse in support of this. [The verses cited there are Genesis 15,4 and 5. Ed.] Basically, seeing that our prayers and/or repentance have the power to alter G’d’s decrees, how could constellations in the sky that are predictable in advance have any bearing on our fate?
Genesis 14,14. “when Avram heard that his brother (nephew) had been taken captive, etc.” When the Torah continues and speaks about Avram taking with him 318 men in his pursuit of Kedorleomer and his armies as far north as the tribal territory of Dan (in the future), the number 318 is not accidental, but represents the numerical value of the word שיח, another word for דבור, suggesting that Avram defeated these armies by means of uttering the holy name of G’d. [The reader is referred to when Moses killed the Egyptian in Exodus 2,13, an act referred to in Exodus 2,14 as having been accomplished by a word, i.e. אומר. Ed.] The word דבור also means הנהגה, leadership; the word שיח=318 also occurs in the sense of השפלה, humiliation, i.e. Avram humiliated these boastful kings. The word occurs in Proverbs 23,27 in that sense, i.e. שוחה עמוקה זונה, “a harlot is a deep pit.” [The author is at pains to understand the number of men Avram took with him as also having profound symbolical meaning. Ed.]
Genesis 14,18. “and Malki Tzedek King of Shalem produced bread and wine, seeing that he was a priest loyal to the Supreme G’d.”
We have previously referred to two different types of people worshipping G’d, one worshipping Him out of a sense of negating himself as a person, making no demands on life, whereas the other expresses his worship of G’d through performance of positive and negative commandments, as well as by being of assistance to his fellow-man. The former is dedicated truly to the metaphysical world, the totally spiritual Being Who created the universe, the one we described as אין, presiding over אין prior to commencing creation, whereas the other serves the Lord under the heading יש, thereby raising the phenomena in the physical world from a mundane to a more spiritual level when he performs the positive and negative commandments of his Creator. G’d gave the Jewish people these commandments to perform as part of living in a domain called “יש.” Since the person serving G’d under the heading of אין does not perform specific commandments applicable in the יש part of the universe, he cannot draw down from the metaphysical world any of G’d’s largesse, held in reserve by G’d for the human race.
It is an error to think that by performing מצות מעשיות commandments involving our bodies in what appear to be mundane activities, we have closed the door to being part of the meta-physical world, the אין. This element of the אין part of the universes is the נחת רוח, a pleasurable sensation, satisfaction that man’s good deeds cause the Creator to experience.
Indeed, he who draws down upon himself physical gratifications in this world by means of his מצוה performance, attaches himself both to the אין and to theיש aspects of the universes; he does the former through having desired to provide his Creator with this sense of satisfaction, with the feeling that He has demonstrated to the creatures in the celestial regions that He had been correct in His fondest hopes when He undertook to create a free-willed human being; such a person also attached himself to the יש part of the universe as the commandments of the Torah were given in order to make him an inseparable part of this יש part of the universe. This is the reason why, on occasion, we find that some people by dint of performing G’d’s commandments find their livelihood on this earth.
Our sages in Yuma 28 express this thought when they said that Avraham kept all the commandments of the Torah down to the minutest detail such as ערובי תבשילין, a rabbinic ordinance enabling us to cook and bake on the festival in preparation for the Sabbath on the next day, something ordinarily forbidden as it appears as if one used a holy day to prepare for the mundane day following, by having made appropriate preparation for the observance of this very festival on the eve of the festival in question by having prepared basic meals for it. To the question how one could “fulfill” commandments of the Torah at a time when the Torah had not been revealed yet, the answer is that when man endeavours through intense mental concentration to divine what is pleasing to his Creator, he can tune in to the appropriate “wavelength.” Avraham was the first individual who succeeded in doing this. Avraham had succeed in placing all his 248 limbs at G’d’s disposal, so that he was inspired with divining the will of his Creator.
[Once the Torah had been given this feat could not be repeated, just as the akeydah, Avraham’s offering his son as a sacrifice to G’d in response to G’d’s request, could not ever be repeated. Ed.]
According to tradition each of our limbs has a function to perform for the 248 positive commandments of the Torah. In fact, unless these limbs were used to perform G’d’s commandments, they have no claim to life on this earth (or at least in the Land of Israel). In a descending order, the head fulfils the commandment of wearing tefillin. As long as Avram did not live in the Holy Land, he had not had an opportunity to fulfill any of these מצות, “as yet unrevealed commandments,” as there would be many commandments that could not be fulfilled even after the Torah had been given, since they are not inextricably tied to the soil of Land of Israel. He was therefore “missing” a considerable number of limbs in his body, limbs that could not perform their real tasks until he had settled in the Holy Land.
Avraham was aware of this; this is why he had served the Lord by the first method that we described earlier, i.e. by selfless devotion to G’d, negating any claim to the comforts life on this earth affords the creature living it, serving Him exclusively from the אין aspect of the universe. This helps explain why he allowed himself to be thrown into a fiery furnace by Nimrod in order to demonstrate his utter devotion to the Creator. Once he moved to the Holy Land, there was no more need for him to demonstrate his loyalty to G’d by such negation of his entire body.
If the reader were to ask that Yitzchok’s being offered as a potential sacrifice to G’d occurred in the Holy Land, something that does not appear to conform to the principle just described, the answer is quite simple. Yitzchok’s being offered as a sacrifice was the fulfillment of an express command by G’d, whereas G’d had never told Avram to put his life on the line in his theological confrontation with Nimrod. [In fact some commentators, especially Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in his Akeydat Yitzchok, are extremely critical of Avraham for having done what he did without express permission from G’d. Ed.]
Since Avraham’s service to the Lord was based on his attachment to the אין, the purely metaphysical domains of the universe, it is clear that he could not draw down some of G’d’s largesse to the earth, the domain of the יש, the primarily physical, material domain of the universe.
Once he had moved to Eretz Yisrael, where he served G’d by performing mitzvot with his limbs, the situation changed, and this is what made Rashi comment that the words: לך לך מארצך, mean that he was to undertake this journey for his gratification and personal benefit, להנאתך ולטובתך. [If that were not the meaning, we would ask how being told to uproot himself could be for his personal benefit. He had seemed to be quite at ease and content in Charan. Ed.] Incidentally, this answers the query raised by Rash’ba why Yaakov married two sisters while they were both alive, something that is forbidden according to the Torah, and the patriarchs are presumed to have observed Torah laws in their time. Since service of the Lord while outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael did not consist of the body’s limbs fulfilling the commandments, and it was therefore impossible to perform these commandments, there was nothing wrong with marrying two sisters. This also explains why one of these sisters had to die once Yaakov had crossed back into Eretz Yisrael. He would not have violated the commandment even in Eretz Yisrael when he married Leah, so that it was Rachel who would live “in sin” with him in the Holy Land unless she had been immediately divorced. Close scrutiny of what the Rash’ba wrote shows that he gave due consideration to this.
Someone who serves the Lord under the auspices of the אין parts of the universe, is granted a clear vision of G’d, whereas serving the Lord under the auspices of the יש, results in such a person being given an aspaklaria, meurpelet, a vision screened by a veil. Association with the יש, i.e. aspects of the material part of the universe, results in all of one’s sensations being affected by phenomena found only in this domain of the universe.
When the Torah writes at the beginning of chapter 15 that היה דבר ה' אל אברם במחזה לאמור, “the word of Hashem came to Avram in a ‘vision,’ proceeding to say, etc.;“ we understand this as a manifestation of G’d’s word to Avram by a vision screened by a veil while he was engaged in serving G’d by the performance of mitzvot with various parts of his body.
At that point G’d told Avram not to be afraid, אל תירא אברם, as he would continue to act as his shield, אנכי מגן לך. G’d reassured Avram that the fact that he was now serving Him by performing מצות, i.e. under the auspices of the יש instead of the auspices of the אין, that this was not a lowering of the standards that he was used to, but that on the contrary, he was in line for a great reward, שכרך הרבה מאד.
As long as the Torah had not yet been given, fulfilling the “commandments” while in Eretz Yisrael was quite different from nowadays when the Torah has been given, and fulfilling the parts of it that are capable of being fulfilled in the Diaspora, is deserving of recognition. When Avram served G’d outside the land of Israel, concentrating on the aspect known as מסירת נפש, wholehearted physical and mental devotion to the Lord, he thereby “repaired” the reputation of G’d amongst mankind, which had sustained considerable damage due to the sins of mankind which had apparently been ignored by the Creator, thus giving the impression that He either did not care or was unable to deal with.
Tanchuma 8 on Parshat Chukat, relates in the name of Rabbi Yossi bar Chaninah, that at the time when Moses ascended to the celestial regions He found G’d preoccupied with the details of the rules pertaining to the red heifer. He overheard G’d saying that the correct ruling concerning the age of the red heifer when it is to be burnt is according to “my son Rabbi Eliezer,” i.e. when it is one year old. Anyone reading this Midrash must surely ask how G’d had been able to say something like that, seeing that Rabbi Eliezer was born more than 1000 years after Moses died. We have a tradition that man is not programmed, can make his own decisions, so that it is impossible to foretell who will say what tomorrow, never mind 1000 years hence?
In answering this justified question, we must consider that the domain we called אין, the totally spiritual domains of the universe, included within it all the aspects of wisdom as something potential. While this potential had not yet assumed definitive proportions until someone possessed of both body and soul was able to formulate it, its very existence in “embryonic” form, so to speak, makes it possible for a human being when the time comes to draw upon this “wisdom” and make use of it in the material world of the יש. The example of the “red heifer” discussed in the Tanchuma is merely an illustration of the principle that nothing “new” or “original” is produced in the realm of the physical world, the world known as the יש in kabbalistic parlance, or “olam hazeh”, in what we are used to refer to when speaking of what goes on the planet we live on. The acquisition of such חכמה, wisdom, as is necessary to arrive at the conclusion that the red heifer must be two years old when it is to be burnt, is largely a matter of the will of the individual grappling with this halachic problem. The “freedom of choice,” as we call it, means that we are free to decide if we want to make the effort to acquire such wisdom or not. It is not withheld from anyone who truly labours to acquire it by willing it with all his being. While he was in the celestial regions, Moses heard that there would in due course be a scholar by the name of Rabbi Eliezer who would have attained that particular piece of wisdom enabling him to correctly rule on the problem that was under discussion in the heavenly spheres at that time. Ed.]
G’d has two options when dealing with man’s aspirations. He can either decide to grant man’s request in accordance with that person’s expressed wish, or He can decide to be guided by what the overall situation in His universe requires for its good at the time, [as frequently, if not most of the time, the desires of an individual do not correspond to, or coincide with what is in the best interests of the world as seen by its Creator.
The “decision” to grant man whatever he requests from G’d, or not, is known as the דעת המכריע, “The consummate wisdom of the supreme decision Maker.” The alternate method of arriving at the decision to grant the requests of individuals, i.e. to consider the overall interests of all those affected by such decisions as paramount, is known as דעת המתפשט, “the consummate wisdom of the One Who takes into consideration the interests of all parties affected”.
Avraham was under the impression that even though it had been decided by G’d to grant him children, he could still continue to worship G’d from the premise of the אין, considerations involving only the metaphysical parts of the universe. This is why he said that his servant Eliezer would be his heir, i.e. that he personally could remain completely detached from earthly concerns. G’d therefore corrected him, telling him that such a detachment would not be possible, as he would have biological issue, [implying that he could not opt out of the duty to raise a son in a material universe. Ed.] This is the meaning of the line (15,4) והנה דבר ה' אליו לאמור לא יירשך זה כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך הוא יירשך, “and here the word of G’d came to him, saying: ‘this one will not inherit you, but someone emerging from your entrails will inherit you.’” The introductory words in this verse inform Avram that the decision concerning this has already been made in heaven, though its implementation is not yet due. According to Bereshit Rabbah 43,7 there is a disagreement between Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman and the other sages, concerning the meaning of the verse ומלכי צדק מלך שלם הוציא לחם ויין והוא כהן לא-ל עליון; according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman, Malki Tzedek revealed to Avram the deeper meaning of the office of High Priest. It was the method of serving the Lord by using the method of מסירת נפש, the total negation of the self in exchange for attachment to the אין, totally metaphysical aspects of the universe.
According to the other sages, he revealed to Avram the more mystical aspects of the Torah, i.e. how to serve the Lord by means of performing the commandments designed to be performed by different parts of our body.
Genesis 14,19-20 “Blessed be Avram to the Supreme G’d,….and blessed the Supreme G’d Who has delivered your oppressors into your hand.”
It is a rule that when G’d deals with a person on the basis of מדה כנגד מדה, “measure for measure,” reward or punishment will be in a reciprocal relationship to one another. However, when G’d does not apply this method in dealing with an individual, and He does man a favour-that he has not earned,- he is the recipient of a gift from G’d. Since Avram was a person whose very personality exuded loving kindness, it is clear that G’d reciprocated in equal measure. In this instance, -the victory of a few men under Avram’s command over mighty armies, was something he considered as way in excess of his input thus far. In other words, G’d had given Avram a gift that he had not deserved.The Ari’zal writes that when we recite three times daily the words מלך עוזר ומושיע ומגן, “King, Helper, Saviour and Shield,” our sages used this formulation to describe such an undeserved gift from G’d. We also find that Onkelos translates the word חנם in Genesis 29,15 and in Exodus 21,2 as מגן. By using this formulation, Malki Tzedek gave Avram a hint that he had received an undeserved gift from G’d. This hint was reinforced by Malki Tzedek referring to G’d as the “Supreme G’d owner of heaven and earth.” What man possesses he does not have to acquire. When he needs something that he does not own, he has to acquire it. Avram did not need to acquire the virtue of loving kindness, as apparently, he personified this virtue since birth; However, the characteristic of גבורה, the kind of bravery and heroism needed to wage war successfully, was not a quality he possessed from birth, so that he had to acquire it. Malki Tzedek blesses G’d for having provided Avram with this quality at a time when he was really in need of it. Seeing that G’d “owns” heaven and earth, He is able to bestow this quality on people whenever it suits Him.
Another approach to Malki Tzedek’s blessing. There are problems [i.e. obstacles erected by Satan’s involvement in our region of the universe, Ed,] in this “lower” part of the universe that most people are able to deal with on their own if they really put their mind to it. There are other problems that man, without direct help from G’d, cannot deal with irrespective of how well intentioned and capable he is. In such instances, when warranted, G’d has to “kill,” i.e. neutralize the obstacles facing deserving individuals. When Avram, representing “loving Kindness,” killed the four kings who had defeated the Kings of Sodom and his allies, he did so by garbing himself in a halo of heroism, appearing to be a powerful warrior, since he was engaged in battling pagan forces, active deniers of the concept of monotheism. By engaging in such a battle, he acted against all his natural instincts, on behalf of a higher ideal.
Malki Tzedek praised G’d, the Supreme G’d, Who had enabled Avram to prevail over his oppressor against what must have seemed like impossible odds. Although G’d owns the whole universe, on this occasion He had allowed or enabled Avram to assume powers that normally are reserved for the Supreme G’d, exclusively. It was clear to Malki Tzedek that Avram on his own could never have achieved such a stunning victory unless G’d had actively intervened on his behalf.
As soon as Avram had completed his victory, after having temporarily set aside his natural tendency of relating to all phenomena in the universe only with loving kindness, he was given G’d’s promise that he would sire a son, who in due course would personify this virtue of גבורה that Avraham had been able to acquire when he thought that the situation demanded it. Until Avram had demonstrated this ability to garb himself in גבורה, the conditions had not been ripe for him to sire a son such as Yitzchok. Up until now, had Avram sired a Yitzchok, his son’s major characteristic would have been the opposite of that of his father. This, in due course, would have resulted in an estrangement between father and son. Now that Avram had learned to appreciate the value and necessitude of this personality trait, the conditions had been created for father and son to coexist harmoniously.
Yet another interpretation of Malki Tzedek’s blessing of Avram: We must try and understand the sequence of “blessed be Avram to the Supreme G’d, the owner of heaven and earth, and blessed this Supreme G’d Who acted as shield against your oppressors delivering them into your hand.” When Malki Tzedek refers to G’d as owning heaven and earth, we paraphrase this three times a day in our prayers by referring to G’d as קונה הכל, “He Who owns everything.”
[If I understand the author correctly, Rabbi Levi Yitzchok proceeds at this stage at quite some length and quoting many verses from Scripture, to explain why Malki Tzedek’s definition of G’d as (separately) owning heaven and earth may be misunderstood and has not been adopted by the sages in our daily prayers who opted instead for “owning everything.”
Malki Tzedek’s definition contributed to man believing that there were forces on earth, which though subordinate to G’d, the “Supreme G’d”, nonetheless deserved a measure of man’s fearful or grateful recognition, as the case may be. If G’d tolerated this prior to Avram’s becoming a factor on earth, He did so out of the goodness of His heart, realizing that these visible phenomena, as opposed to His invisibility, contributed to man’s errors in his perception of Who is Who in the universal hierarchy. Ed.]
Genesis 15,1. “After these events the word of G’d came to Avram in a vision- and said to him: ‘do not be afraid,’ etc. and he built an altar there to the G’d Who had appeared to him.
[At this point the author claims to quote a commentary of Nachmanides on the words “he built an alter there,” where Nachmanides questions why Avram built an altar on this occasion, and not on a previous occasion. I have been unable to find such a commentary by Nachmanides. The nearest thing to it is a super-commentary by Sifssey Chachamim on Rashi Genesis 12,8 where he raises such a question. I will nevertheless present the author’s commentary, in which he deals with this problem supposedly raised by Nachmanides. Ed.]
In answering the question of why, until this time, Avram had not built an altar, we must first explain the concepts of “altar” and “sacrificial offering.” When a person experiences something painful, be it physical or mental, he is not free to focus on the actual pain, but must focus on the causes of his having to endure such pain, and why on account of this pain his ability to serve his Creator had become impaired. When he reacts to his pain in this manner he causes G’d satisfaction, נחת רוח. Keeping this in mind we can understand the Talmud Yerushalmi, B’rachot, 2,4 stating that the messiah was “born” on the 9th day of Av, the day that the Temple was destroyed. This was because the Jewish people felt such pain over the loss of the Temple, and their inability to serve G’d there by offering their sacrifices. As long as the Temple had been standing, G’d was able to derive satisfaction, נחת רוח, from the offerings presented on the altar in the Temple. We know this from Leviticus 1,13 אשה ריח ניחוח לה', ”an offering by fire of pleasing odour to the Lord.” This offering represented the opposite of צער, painful feelings. As long as the Temple was standing, the people of Israel dwelled in relative calm and safety. The principal cause of Israel’s state of disquiet, pain, unrest, etc., is the fact that we are not able to perform the sacrificial sacrifices by means of which we could give “pleasure” to the Creator. As a corollary to our inability, while in exile, to present these offerings, G’d in turn is not encouraged to release the bounty of goodness He has in store for His faithful servants on earth. We have pointed out previously that with the advent of Avram, this reciprocal relationship between man and G’d had become of great benefit to man. (Compare page 51 on this interaction).
Ideally, our joy in this world as well as our pain, must always focus on our relationship with our Creator and how we can improve it; we must never consider our personal feelings as being of the essence. “Joy” in the eyes of the Torah, has not been granted in order for us to behave as do gentiles when they set off “fireworks” to give expression to their feeling happy about something.
It is worthwhile to remember that the Hebrew word for “sacrifice” is קרבן, from the root קרב, to come close, or closer. When offering a “sacrifice,” to the Creator, we are sublimating something mundane, usually something representing some of the most treasured living creatures, animals which serve as our livelihood, to the Creator Who had endowed the terrestrial part of the universe with such creatures for the benefit of the highest ranking living beings on earth, the ones who have been created in the image of their Creator.
According to what we have said the query posed by Nachmanides is easily answered. At the beginning of the portion where G’d had told Avram to leave Charan for his own good, He had not promised him anything specific, such as children, or that he and his children would inherit the land of Canaan, for instance, even though G’d assured him of a great future in general terms, i.e. “I will make you great and your name great.” He had basically assured him only that he would not be losing anything by undertaking this journey. By now, however, G’d had added specific promises in addition. These promises concerned matters that are of importance to people who feel rooted in the terrestrial life on earth. In recognition of these promises Avram built an altar, i.e. he reciprocated the good that G’d had done for him with an act that would bring him closer to G’d. He did so to show G’d that he did not view His promises as intended for himself as such, but as a means of enabling him to continue to intensify the manner in which he had been serving G’d.
[I feel constrained to add at this point that according to all our traditional sources the revelation discussed in chapter 15 of Genesis occurred 5 years before Avram was commanded to leave Charan to a destination G’d did not immediately reveal. This interpretation is based on the fact that otherwise the verse in Exodus 12,40 that the Israelites had dwelled in Egypt for 430 years is impossible to reconcile, as traditionally, the 400 years of which G’d spoke in chapter 15,13 began with the birth of Yitzchok. Ed.]
Avram rejoiced that as a result of G’d’s promise his children too would be able to serve their Creator in due course. We had pointed out that the significance of offering G’d animal sacrifices on an altar was to demonstrate one’s desire to tighten one’s bond with the Creator. The word אליו, to him in 15,7 is not really necessary, as there had been no interruption between this verse and the one preceding it, so that it was necessary to insert this word to prevent any misunderstanding about whom G’d was addressing. The word אליו appears to hint that in this instance G’d addressed Avram primarily in his capacity as a member of the world of the יש, the part of the universe in which it is possible to sublimate the secular to a level of holiness, to elevate it to the level of metaphysical dimensions. Our author concludes by repeating the words of the verse that is not part of our chapter at all, i.e. ויבן שם אברהם מזבח לה' הנראה אליו.
Let us examine the meaning of the word: מחזה, “vision.” When the prophets either saw or heard the words G’d wished them to communicate to the people, they would become completely detached from normal “reality;” this was due to the overwhelming impact of hearing the word of the Creator. Once they had cut themselves off from earthly concerns entirely, they would be able to hear the instructions issued by the Creator. When the prophet in turn would deliver these messages to the people, they would again be in a state of suspended animation, their ordinary faculties, including their minds, ceasing to function. Having delivered the message that G’d had instructed them to deliver, their normal faculties would again become operative. The procedure we just described applied to all prophets throughout the ages with the exception of Moses, who did not need to go into a trance, abandoning his ordinary faculties, in order to hear the word of G’d. G’d’s communications to Moses took place while Moses’ faculties were fully operative, so that G’d spoke to him as “man speaks to man.” Moreover, G’d’s communications to other prophets were “dressed up” as a parable of some kind, or they were shown an image of some kind illustrating G’d’s message. G’d never needed to communicate with Moses by having recourse to parables or visions in order to enable him to understand what He was saying to him. Seeing that G’d’s communications to all the prophets including Avram were not perceived in the manner our intellect receives input from our brain, G’d showed them images, or illustrated what He wanted them to understand by means of a parable when He addressed them. It follows that what the Torah describes Avram as having experienced was not perceived in the manner that ordinary perceptions are perceived by man. [According to the author, the brain acts as an interpreter of G’d’s words before the prophet receives the message; when communicating with Moses, G’d did not need to employ an interpreter for Moses to understand His message. Ed.] When the sages describe other prophets as having to negate normal channels of communication in order to absorb what G’d wanted them to hear and communicate to their peers, this is what they meant.
At any rate, when reading our portion, it is clear that the Torah speaks to us no less in parable form than G’d did to Avram when He communicated with him. If a man of the intellectual level of Avram, someone who had been able to work out what would be written in the Torah in the future, had to be addressed by G’d by means of a parable, how much more so do we ordinary mortals need to have the report of such a prophecy “toned down” for us in parable format. The entire paragraph commencing with קחה לי עגלה משולשת וגו', “take for me a three year old heifer, etc.,” must be understood allegorically, as Avram was not on the level of Moses so that G’d would have communicated with him verbatim.
This is also what the Talmud (Yevamot 49) had in mind when we are told there that all the prophets received their communications from G’d through a “screened” vision, with the exception of Moses who enjoyed such communications without any screen having been interposed between G’d and him.
There is another level of prophetic insights which is somewhat between the level of ordinary prophets and the prophetic level enjoyed by Moses; this level is manifest when the source of the prophecy addresses the intellect of the recipient, but in doing so has voluntarily restricted the intensity of the message so that it does not overwhelm the recipient. It is this level that Avram enjoyed when the word of G’d came to him in what the Torah described as מחזה, a “vision.”
An alternative way of interpreting the line: היה דבר ה' אל אברם במחזה לאמור, “G’d’s word came to Avram in a vision as follows;” there are two types of verbal communication, דבר used by a master when he wishes to address his servants. Some masters use a direct visual method of speaking to their servants; others address their servants while being shielded behind a dividing curtain. As a rule, the intimate friends or highly placed servants of the master enjoy direct communication, whereas the lower echelon of servants does not get to see the face of the master while being addressed by him. The reason for this discrimination is that the Master is an intelligent being and his method of expressing himself is not understood well by servants that lack education.
While Avram had attained a degree of intimacy with his Creator that qualified him for being addressed by the Master (Creator) in the manner prophets are normally addressed, he had attained this status due to having served his Master from feelings of love for Him. At the same time, he had not bonded with his Creator through the use of additional virtues. Now that he had defeated the 4 kings and their armies, using the characteristic of גבורה, valour and courage in the process, and had thereby avenged the manner in which these kings and their followers had insulted G’d’s majesty, he had qualified for a level of communication that, while not on the level of Moses, was still superior to the manner in which G’d addresses most prophets. This is why the Torah introduced this paragraph with the words: אחר הדברים האלה, “after the preceding events.”
Still another method of understanding our paragraph, and especially the manner in which it is introduced: Service of the Lord may be predicated on one of two considerations. 1) The person concerned, using his power of reasoning, has come to the conclusion that the universe did not create itself but was created by a Superior intellect, an intellect that is many times superior to the human intellect. It seems clear to such a person that such a Creator deserves to be worshipped. 2) Another reason why some people worship G’d as the Creator and Master is that G’d has endowed them with a special divine inspiration, commonly known as סייעתא דשמיא, an assist originating in the celestial regions. The former type of person has formulated in his mind’s eye some notion of the essence of such a Creator; the latter type of person, while loyal, has not formed any notion of what this Creator may be like. The former type of individual, having arrived at certain conclusions, is able to communicate them to other people and possibly convince them to share his views so that these people too become servants of the Lord. The second category of individual lacks this ability to convince others to be like him, as he cannot explain to them rationally why he is convinced that he is on the right path. Avram had by now attained a level of intelligence, במחזה, that enabled him to get a fairly clear vision of what G’d, the Creator of a universe, is like. Having attained insights, -not unlike a father who hands down to his son his insights- he could now be informed that he would also be blessed with physical offspring, parallel to the intellectual achievements that he had to his credit due to his own efforts.
Genesis 15,1. “do not fear, Avram, I will be your shield.” G’d reassures Avram that He is aware that when he took revenge on the four kings and their armies this was an act of self-defense, as they had planned to harm him. G’d had protected him so that they could not carry out their evil designs. He had killed these kings and their soldiers. G’d had done so because He loved Avram and He would continue to act as his shield, but not from feelings of revenge against them, but because of His love for him, so that Avram would not have any of his merits and the reward due him deducted from his credit balance in heaven, on account of G’d having come to assistance.
Genesis 15,2. “Avram said: ‘My Lord, what will You give me., seeing that I walk on earth without a biological heir?’”
15,7. G’d responded immediately, by saying:והנה דבר ה' אליו לאמור וגו', it is difficult to understand the word לאמור, “saying, or to say,” since to whom was Avram supposed to tell what follows next?
We may better understand this formulation by looking at Numbers 14,13-20 where Moses asks G’d how by wiping out the Jewish people at that time, His name would be exalted amongst the gentiles; on the contrary the gentiles would interpret this as a sign of G’d’s inability to keep His promise to His people. Upon listening to Moses’ argument at that time, G’d relented and forgave the people in accordance with Moses’ argument. On the last words, Rashi comments: “on account of Moses having said due to G’d’s inability, etc.” It is difficult to see in what way Rashi added anything to what Moses had said, as reported by the Torah.
Upon reflection, Moses’ comment to G’d about what the Egyptians would say if G’d were to wipe out the Jewish nation is difficult. Did Moses really think that omniscient G’d needed him to tell Him about this? It appears from the fact that Moses bothered to mention this to G’d that the words of a tzaddik do have an influence on G’d’s decisions. This is confirmed in Job 22,28, ותגזר אומר ויקם לך, “you will decree and it will be fulfilled;” In the verses quoted from Numbers 14 we find that G’d immediately responded to Moses’ argument by changing the decree. Had G’d wanted to prevent the Egyptians to make the kind of comments Moses had assumed they would make if Israel would be destroyed, He could have brought this about. The fact that He did not, and preferred to cancel His own decree, bears witness to the effectiveness of Moses’ prayer. Moses’ prayer prompted G’d to say: סלחתי, “I have forgiven, etc.” It is this that Rashi had in mind when he commented on our verse above by saying. “on account of Moses having said, etc.”; Rashi meant if Avram not mentioned the fact that he had no biological heir to G’d, G’d would not have changed a heavenly decree that had been in existence since before he had been born. In order for the decree that Avram would not sire any children to be rescinded or altered, he himself had to mention his grief about such a decree in a prayer. Only then could G’d respond to this prayer. G’d had to use provocative statements in order to get the obedient and unquestioningly loyal Avram to be provoked into making a comment that appeared to question G’d’s promise that he would have children to be converted. The word לאמור in verse 1 is the Torah’s hint that G’d engaged Avram in the conversation following in order for him in the course of this conversation to reveal to Him that he experienced mental anguish at not having children of his own. Once Avram had revealed this in an unmistakable manner, G’d was able to take into consideration the prayer of a tzaddik and to change the decree Avram had read in the stars. Accordingly, Avram had to be induced to say that Eliezer would be his heir.
Genesis 15,8. “how can I be certain that I will inherit it?" (the land of Canaan) When looking at these words superficially, we must wonder how someone of Avram’s caliber could express doubt in G’d’s promise being fulfilled. The very idea that Avram requested some kind of visible token or miracle to confirm the fact that G’d would keep His promise is revolting! Since when is G’d required to confirm His prophecy by performing a miracle?
Furthermore, if this was the meaning of Avram’s question, he should have asked: “how do I know that You will give the land to me!” After all, this was what G’d’s promise to him had sounded like. To the average reader of the Torah, G’d’s words meant that the reason G’d had saved Avram from Nimrod’s furnace was in order to give him the land of Canaan. Besides, how does G’d’s answer that Avram would die at a ripe old age long before the 400 years He had spoken of would have ended, answer Avram’s question? How is the promise that after 400 years of being strangers in a foreign land, and slaves to wit, and that the fourth generation would leave bondage with great riches, relevant to Avram’s question?
If, according to the plain meaning of the text, G’d’s answer included a punishment for Avram’s having questioned that G’d would keep His promise the prediction that his offspring would have to endure a period of enslavement in a foreign land, before leaving their with great riches, how does the line commencing with ידוע תדע וגו', contain even the remotest hint of this? We do not find anywhere an allusion that Avram’s question of במה אדע כי אירשנה, “by means of what sign will I know that I will inherit it,” was in any way inappropriate, much less punishable! On the contrary, the assurance that Avram himself would not share either the exile of the slavery but would die contentedly of old age, sounds like the opposite of any punishment! The fact that G’d implies that he will join his father in the hereafter suggests that even Terach, Avram’s father, has a share in that hereafter.
Rashi, who was so astounded at that verse, concluded that in his old age, Terach had become a monotheist, a repentant sinner.
At any rate, the suggestion that one of the patriarchs, who are presented to us as the carriers of the legs of merkavah, the Divine chariot, would be equated with Terach is too mind-boggling to be considered seriously.
Everything that has been handed down to us about Avram suggests that he was unwavering in his faith in G’d from his very youth, and certainly did not have any theological relapses. Nachmanides stated with absolute certainty, basing himself on Genesis 25,8 that Avram had always considered anything that happened to him as being G’d’s desire and meant for his own good. Nachmanides understood this as being the meaning of the words: זקן ושבע ימים, “of old age, satisfied and satisfied in years.” Contrary to most people, who are described in Kohelet Rabbah, 5,9 as leaving behind many unfulfilled aspirations when they die, Avraham died fully fulfilled. In Baba Batra 117, as well as in Sanhedrin 91 the meaning of the word מורשה is discussed, there being different opinions of how the distribution of the ancestral plots in the Land of Israel was determined by lottery; if the lottery only applied to the tribal allocations, or to families. The discussion also concerns whether only Jews who partook in the Exodus or their offspring were allocated land, or whether the allocation included Jews who had lived before that period, including Avram, Yitzchok, etc. Avram’s question of במה אדע כי אירשנה, meant: “how will I know that I personally will be included in the distribution of the land at that time? He knew that he would not inherit a plot of land in Israel as part of his father Terach’s merit, as he had been the first convert to Judaism, something that was confirmed in Sukkah 49. Since he did not endure slavery in Egypt as did the generation of the Exodus, he was not sure that he would qualify at the time of the distribution.
Avram’s question had been triggered by G’d saying to him:, לתת לך את הארץ הזאת לרשתה, “to give to you this land in order to inherit it.” (15,7) Avram wanted to know if he would live long enough to take part in the distribution of the land in Joshua’s time, or how he was to understand the words: לתת לך, “to give to you.” The Talmud in Sukkah 49 quotes psalms 47,10 where we encounter the expression עם אלוקי אברהם, “the nation that worships the G’d of Avraham”; a sage raised question whether G’d perhaps is not also the G’d of the people of Yitzchok and the G’d of the people of Yaakov.” The answer given is that Avraham was the first convert from which the Jewish people developed, so that he enjoys a special status. As a reward, G’d gave the land of Israel especially to him. Avraham wanted to know if, since the land of Israel becomes a מורשה, his share would be due to his father bequeathing it to him. The term ירש, “to inherit,” always implies that one inherits from a father. If Avram’s question had been במה אדע כי תתן לי, “how will I know that You give it to me,” it would have been inappropriate, of course. G’d had spoken about “giving;” Avram asked only about the hereditary aspect, אירשנה.
We will deal with the expression במה אדע, somewhat later in this paragraph. When G’d introduced His reply to Avram’s question with the words: ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך, “you must truly realize that your descendants will be strangers, etc.,” this can best be understood when referring to a commentary by the Zohar I 87 on the verse: (Genesis 2,4)אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם . The letter ה in smaller script in the middle of this word alerts the reader not to read the word as a single word, but as באברהם ברא, i.e. G’d created the universe on account of, or with the eventual assistance of Avraham.” Had G’d not foreseen that someone like Avram will be born, He would not have considered it worth His while to create the human race. The fact that Avraham, on his own, without prompting, would proclaim the name of the Creator, made it worth G’d’s while to put up with all the sins man would commit. Avraham would be the one to acquaint his peers with the concept that G’d is One, is unique, is in charge of the universe and yet had granted the creatures he made in His image freedom of choice to choose their own path in life. The fact that this Avraham would sire a Yitzchok, and Yitzchok in turn would sire a Yaakov who raised 12 sons who would form the nucleus of the Jewish nation, a nation of priests, made it all worthwhile for G’d. When the Jewish people collectively accepted G’d’s Torah, without critically examining what was written therein first, this was a crowning moment not only for the Jewish people, but it enabled G’d to converse with a mortal human being, Moses, as if he were on His own level, i.e. פנים אל פנים, face to face.
When G’d introduced His reply to Avram’s question with the words: ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך, “you must truly realize that your descendants will be strangers, etc.,” this can best be understood when referring to a commentary by the Zohar I 87 on the verse: (Genesis 2,4)אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם . The letter ה in smaller script in the middle of this word alerts the reader not to read the word as a single word, but as באברהם ברא, i.e. G’d created the universe on account of, or with the eventual assistance of Avraham.” Had G’d not foreseen that someone like Avram will be born, He would not have considered it worth His while to create the human race. The fact that Avraham, on his own, without prompting, would proclaim the name of the Creator, made it worth G’d’s while to put up with all the sins man would commit. Avraham would be the one to acquaint his peers with the concept that G’d is One, is unique, is in charge of the universe and yet had granted the creatures he made in His image freedom of choice to choose their own path in life. The fact that this Avraham would sire a Yitzchok, and Yitzchok in turn would sire a Yaakov who raised 12 sons who would form the nucleus of the Jewish nation, a nation of priests, made it all worthwhile for G’d. When the Jewish people collectively accepted G’d’s Torah, without critically examining what was written therein first, this was a crowning moment not only for the Jewish people, but it enabled G’d to converse with a mortal human being, Moses, as if he were on His own level, i.e. פנים אל פנים, face to face.
Moses reminded the people in Deut. 5,4 how 40 years earlier, when most of them had not yet been alive, G’d had addressed the whole nation on the פנים אל פנים “face to face level,” [until the people asked Moses to be their interpreter instead. Ed.] At that time all creatures on earth were in awe of their Creator. When the people had consecrated the Tabernacle in the desert as a “home” for Hashem in the lower parts of the universe, G’d took delight in the world He had created, as we know from Taanit 26 where the Talmud understands Song of Songs 3,11 ביום חתונתו וביום שמחת לבו, “on His wedding day, the day when His heart rejoices,” as referring to G’d’s feelings on the day of the revelation at Mount Sinai, and the day when the Tabernacle was consecrated, respectively. This is the kind of נחת רוח, “pleasure, satisfaction,” that man in the lower part of the universe can contribute to G’d in the loftier spheres, in heaven. On both of these occasions the joy was reciprocal, G’d showing that He can associate with earthlings and take pleasure from this. The Israelites’ enthusiastic response after the splitting of the sea and their miraculous and escape from Pharaoh’s pursuing armies, was another occasion when the reciprocal nature of the relationship between G’d and His “chosen” people was demonstrated publicly. Nowadays, almost 4000 years later, we recall these events and praise the Lord every week when we pronounce the blessings over wine. Not a day goes by without our giving thanks to the Lord for the Exodus from Egypt.
At the time when Avram lived, the world, i.e. the planet earth and man on it, was still in a state of semi-collapse, its continued existence far from assured, until Yitzchok and Yaakov continued the work that Avram had started when he kept proclaiming the power and goodness of the Creator. This assurance of the earth’s continued existence was only confirmed with the creation of the Jewish people, and this people’s leaving Egypt as G’d’s people, after having slaughtered the Passover, and proven that they considered the Creator as their highest authority.
The Tur, commenting on why we mention the Exodus of Egypt in the weekly Kiddush, as opposed to the Kiddush on the festivals whose link to the Exodus is self-evident, explains that the Sabbath harbours within it the כח המוליד, the power that enables creatures to regenerate themselves by producing offspring. This “power” is conditional on the observance of the Sabbath (in some form). Terach, Avram’s father, while able to produce physical offspring, was unable to produce offspring equipped with the kind of soul that would be active in spreading the message that G’d is the one and only Creator. [I have not been able to find where the Tur writes this, although he writes about man as well as most other living creatures becoming endowed with the ability to procreate bodies in his Torah commentary. (Genesis 2,3)
Avram’s deeds, the ten tests G’d subjected him to, all of which he passed with flying colours, became the foundation stone of the Jewish people. Had it not been for this, the Jewish people would not have been witnesses to the ten plagues with which Gd smote the Egyptians, nor would they have qualified for G’d personally addressing them when He gave the Ten Commandments. This assured Avraham his place as the founding father in the hierarchy of the Jewish people, and therefore as a participant in the Exodus from Egypt. In His answer to the question of במה אדע כי אירשנה, “How will I know that I will inherit it,” G’d assures him that he will be no less entitled to a share in the Holy Land than the people who physically marched out of Egypt in Moses’ time.’’
G’d entertaining the thought that there would develop a Jewish nation, and that this nation would proclaim Him as their G’d, etc., would result in generating the necessary response in the form of a deed in producing the required souls, נשמות. This “thought” is expressed in the first two letters of Avram’s name אב. When G’d had that thought about a Jewish nation, He referred to Avraham as אב, not to Terach. A son’s claim to life in the world after death is based on the spiritual merits possessed by his father. Something similar occurs when the mother entertains the appropriate thoughts at the time of marital union with her husband. Such thoughts influence the baby to be born from that union, either positively or negatively. By telling Avram details about how his descendants would develop into a people, G’d also implied that contrary to what Avram might have hoped, his father [at that time still very much alive. Ed.] would not be part of that chain. [When we speak of Terach, Avram’s father in the Haggadah shel Pessach every Seder night, the author has drawn a dividing line between Terach and Avraham. Ed.]
The belief that the thoughts that cross the minds of parents engaged in marital intercourse influence the spiritual focus of a child conceived as the result of their union, is universally accepted in the writings of our sages, and especially so in Nachmanides’ essay האמונה והבטחון, chapter 15, page 395 in כתבי רמב'ן, published by Mossad Harav Kook. [The authorship of this volume has not been determined with accuracy even nowadays. Rabbi Chayim David Chavell, whose edition I am using, devotes 11 pages to his introduction when he explains that there is some genetic spiritual input by both the father and the mother into the soul of the child they produce.
If I understand the message in these words, it is that this input is transmitted only at the time when the parents conceive the child, and it outweighs what the parents try to teach the youngster after he or she has been born. It follows that if the parents are interested in transmitting their own and their ancestors’ good characteristics to their own children, they must not only live according to these principles, but even conduct themselves according to these principles in the privacy of their bedrooms. Perhaps this sheds some light on the lament of many parents who have one or more children who do not follow in their footsteps and who fail to understand this. Ed.]
Pessachim 50 urging us to be careful to perpetuate the good practices of our forefathers meticulously, the Talmud quotes Proverbs 1,8 שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך, “my son, hear the moral instruction of your father, and do not forsake the teachings of your mother.” It is clear from the Torah’s description of Terach before he had sired children (assuming he became a monotheist later) that the thoughts we have described did not occur to him when he and his wife conceived Avram. In fact, if Terach had been a believer in the one and only G’d, much of the credit Avraham accumulated would have been due to his father.
Avraham was the first human being, who, by absorbing some of the “sparks” of the Shechinah which we discussed on pages 21-22 was able to transmit such spiritual values by means of his semen. He himself had absorbed only the kind of material input from his father and mother as is capable of being defined through DNA in our days. In the parlance of our sages this input of physical matter by the mother is known as אודם, primarily cells which produce blood, whereas the input by her male partner consists primarily of לובן, albumen.
Terach and his wife contributed only elements of the material terrestrial part of the universe to the fetus of Avraham, whereas G’d, anxious to see an eventual Jewish people emerge from that embryo, contributed characteristics that stemmed from the spiritual spheres of the universe. This is the meaning of Avram’s question “how do I know that I will inherit?” The word דעת or ידע always describes a close attachment to the subject or object it describes. Avram wanted to know which spiritual characteristic links him to his existence in the terrestrial world, a link described in Proverbs 1,8 as אבי in the verse שמע בני מוסר אביך, in which Solomon cautions his listeners to carefully perpetuate the moral lessons absorbed from אביך, your father, i.e. your roots. His question was prompted by his realization that he could certainly not be expected to perpetuate the moral lessons that he had been taught in the house of his father Terach. If he were to do this, how could he possibly bequeath to his offspring the qualities needed to become G’d’s people? He knew instinctively that this could happen only if he had in his genes spiritual input from a higher world. The characteristic that represented this spiritual input is know as אב, part of the name אברהם. The word ירושה, inheritance, is always used in connection with inheritance from one’s father; hence seeing that the word אב, father, was part of his name this was the link that enabled him to become the first patriarch of the Jewish people. Avram understood that the origin of the Jewish people, a concept in G’d’s mind and the contribution He had made as the third partner in any human being to Avram’s genes, were of the same kind, so that the Jewish people could truly be described as having its terrestrial root in Avraham, as he would be called shortly before Yitzchok was born.
When G’d told him that he should realize that his offspring would begin their collective life as “strangers,” i.e. as a new nation in the families of nations, it was this strain that he shared his spiritual origin with. He would henceforth have to concentrate on his role as the spiritual root of that nation as and when it would become such. G’d reminded him already in verse 7 that this was the purpose for which He had saved him from the fiery furnace in Ur Kasdim continuing this theme in verse 18 when He entered into a sacred covenant with Avram. He had given him a preview that the development of this nation of which he would become the founding father, would undergo a difficult “adolescence” and that these difficulties once endured and overcome with His help would qualify them for their historic mission as trailblazers of monotheism. Although Terach is credited with having sired Avram, (Genesis 11,26) this was merely a biological phenomenon; he was in no way an ancestor of Avram in the sense that Avram as the son would continue a tradition sacred to his father.To the question of how we are to understand Genesis 15,15 ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום תקבר בשיבה טובה, “as for you, you will join your “fathers’ in peace and will be buried in a ripe old age,” the word אבותיך does not refer to Terach; but is an assurance that Avram would die without sharing the servitude his descendants would experience.
The Zohar I 78 commenting on Genesis 12,5 ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, writes that Terach became a penitent, but that this does not mean that Avraham would be reunited with his father in the life after death, but since our sages had difficulty in how to understand the words: ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום, they understood this as Terach sanctifying the name of Avraham’s G’d while still alive. The name of “G’d” in that verse therefore is אב, the spiritual genes that we described above as having been injected by G’d into the ovum that eventually developed into Avram.
[We may understand this as Terach establishing a horizontal spiritual bond with his son through his penitence instead of the vertical bond created when a father passes on his spiritual values to his son. Ed.]
If you find it difficult to accept the argument that Terach is not to be regarded as Avram’s “father” in verse 15, consider the following statement in Yevamot 22. גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי, “a convert after conversion is comparable to that of a newly born baby.” He has no residue of the spiritual input normally transmitted by the respective genes of his father and mother. The only spiritual force active within him is that of the soul which has been given to him by his Creator. He is no longer called after his father, when called up to the Torah, the name of his father, the gentile, is not even alluded to. The reason is that he no longer contains the spiritual input his father had transmitted to him at birth. The separation of such a convert from his biological father is so absolute, that according to Biblical Jewish law the convert is free to marry his biological mother, or sister, (assuming either of them has converted). [If the Rabbis forbade this, it is because it raises suspicions that the conversion had ulterior motives. Ed.]. Avram/Avraham both because he was a convert, and because his name was changed by G’d before he sired Yitzchok, was no longer connected to Terach at all. When the Torah writes in Genesis 25,19 ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק, “and these are the generations of Yitzchok; son of Avraham; Avraham had sired Yitzchok,” the Torah makes a point of describing Yitzchok as descendant of Avraham, whereas it never described Avraham as a descendant of Terach. The term “father,” is mentioned in the Torah only in connection with the characteristic אב which G’d had supplied to Avram, and which helped him to sanctify G’d’s Holy name to large groups of people as we explained previously.
An alternate approach to the line: במה אדע כי אירשנה. There is no question that Avram did not request a sign from G’d as proof that his as yet unborn descendants would inherit the land of Canaan.
The idea that his claim to the land of Canaan could be remotely due to his having Terach as a father never even occurred to him. If we needed proof of that, we need only recall the Talmud B’rachot 16, according to which the Jewish people have only three patriarchs and 4 matriarchs. The title “patriarch” implies that one is the “root” of the son whom one has sired by means of transmitting seed from the brain, the seat of one’s intelligence, which transmits it to the semen. It follows that the thoughts that preoccupy the father at the time when he engages in marital relations are transmitted through his semen to the ovum upon merging with it. If the father-to-be thinks holy thoughts at the appropriate time, some of these will be transferred to his seed, etc. There can be little doubt that Avraham was not the product of a father who entertained such godly thoughts when he helped conceive him. How could he therefore be considered a patriarch of the Jewish people? Terach was wholly consumed by thoughts and desires centered around the physical part of his existence on earth. If his offspring was of a diametrically opposite orientation this could not have been attributed to his biological father at all. It must have been due to G’d’s desire that with the development of the fetus resulting in Avram, G’d intended to lay the foundation of a Jewish nation. We can think of it in terms of G’d providing some additional spiritual light to His universe at the time of Avram’s birth. He was destined to become a new type of “tree of life,” albeit outside the boundaries of Gan Eden. According to Ari’zal, Terach and his wife became the “go-between” before this light could be made available in the terrestrial domain of the universe in order to assuage the feelings of Satan, who would otherwise have accused G’d of having favoured the creatures in the “lower” part of the universe. The fact that Terach, i.e. what he represented as a merchant of idols, sired Avraham according to the norms prevailing in our part of the “lower” universe, deprived Satan of the opportunity of accusing G’d of such favoritism of the human race versus other loftier regions and their inhabitants. [I have not seen the words of the Ari’zal, but I trust that I have understood them correctly. Ed.] The essential thing to remember is that the actual birth of Avram was a result through intervention by Divinely inspired intelligence.
Terach does not feature at all in the אב part of Avram’s name; no part of his intellect provided the characteristic in Avram’s personality that enabled him to develop as he did.
[It is important to remember, especially for people who have little background in kabbalah, that the idea of G’d predetermining a person’s lifestyle and his abilities has been spelled out in the Bible when G’d told Jeremiah that He had destined him to be the prophet during the period when the Temple was in danger of being destroyed. G’d was nearing the end of His patience with the Jewish state of that period even before he had been conceived. (Jeremiah 1,4) Ed.] In spite of all the reasons for disqualifying Terach from being given any credit as the indirect founder of the Jewish people, the fact that Avram had spent 9 months inside the womb of his mother after she had been impregnated with his semen, Avram was required to undergo 10 “tests,” in order to cleanse himself ritually from the spiritual contamination he experienced in his mother’s womb.
Rashi [not found there, Ed.] writes about this aspect of the ten trials Avraham had to undergo in his commentary on Exodus 6,8 נתתי אותה לכם מורשה אני ה', “I have given it to you as an inheritance, I am the Lord.” [The contradiction in this verse is obvious; since when is an inheritance “given?” it is transmitted from father to son upon the father’s death! Ed.]
Regardless, of where that Rashi may be, both in our chapter as well as in Exodus 6,8 G’d speaks about the gift of the land of Canaan becoming an inheritance. If Terach had been involved in the matter, why would G’d have to “give” the land to Avram first? In his commentary on Choshen Mishpat, on the section dealing with the laws of inheritance, the author of Meirat Eynayim states that the expression ירושה, inheritance, in legal parlance, applies only to property inherited from one’s biological father. From the wording in Exodus 6,8 as well as from the wording in Genesis 15,18 it is clear that G’d considers Himself as Avram’s “father” in the matter of bestowing on him the “gift” of the land. His offspring, or the part of his offspring to whom he deeds it, will henceforth “inherit.” It. When Avram heard this, he was unclear if he had understood correctly, as he had never heard of an inheritance originating as a gift. Hence he asked במה אדע כי אירשנה, by what legal process can I be sure that it will be mine as something to bequeath?” In other words, “who is my father from whom I can inherit this land?” Avram’s question reflects his awareness that “his father” in this instance could not possibly be Terach. In response to Avram’s concerns, G’d answered him: “You shall be aware that your descendants in their formative stages will experience both being strangers and even slaves until at the end of the 400 years, I will judge the people who have subjugated them and treated them cruelly, so that they will leave that land with vast possessions.” G’d’s message to Avram is that the Exodus of this people from the land of their oppression will be due to their being his direct descendants. His very birth paved the way for the Jewish people to come into existence and to in due course accept the very Torah that Avram had already been observing without having been commanded to do so.
In light of this, your very birth through Divine input of some holy spirit, seeing that I am your “father,” enables Me to speak to you of “inheriting” the land that I am promising to your descendants.” G’d implied that Avram had been quite correct in surmising that Terach had nothing to do with the events occurring in Avram’s future. The author refers to his exegesis of a statement in Baba Batra 117 where the Talmud states that the so-called “inheritance” of the Israelites being given the land of Canaan, is quite different from ordinary inheritances. Normally, the living inherit the dead. In the case of the Israelites receiving ancestral land in the Land of Canaan, the dead inherited the living. The “normal” process of inheritance is based on the son being a branch of the father, [the father being the trunk. Ed.] The trunk (father) provides the elements that enable the branch to achieve its perfection (producing fruit). This parable does not fit the Jewish people and its development. In the history of the Jewish people, the “dead” are the generation of the Israelites that experienced the Exodus as adults, who although not physically living to experience the conquest of the land, “inherited” it, since, but for their existence the next generation could not have taken possession of this land.
Rashi explains that G’d took the Jewish people out of Egypt in order for them to inherit it by arriving there. Their arrival in the land constitutes their achieving their objective, שלימות, much as the branches of the tree producing fruit achieve their objective. In Leviticus 25,38 we read: הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים לתת לכם את ארץ כנען להיות לכם לאלוקים, “I have taken you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan to become your G’d.” According to our author, Rashi explains the words לתת לכם, as “in order for you to achieve your שלימות, maturity there by performing My commandments.” According to Baba Batra 158 the very air of the Holy Land confers wisdom on its people. The reason why even walking in the Holy Land [by Israelites, of course, Ed.] adds to one’s wisdom is illustrated by an example of Rabbi Zeyrah who left Babylon in order to settle in the Holy Land again, changed his mind on a Halachic point involving the laws of inheritance, accepting the view of a local scholar, whereas a sage who moved from the land of Israel, adopted the former view of Rabbi Zeyrah when he came to Babylon.
Since the generation who left Egypt as adults did not get to the land of Israel, only their sons, it follows that the parents did not achieve their שלימות, “maturity” until their sons had made the Land of Israel their ancestral heritage. This is the meaning of “the dead inherited the living.”
This statement in the Talmud about the dead inheriting the living, also explains another statement in the Talmud Sanhedrin 104, according to which a son [while alive Ed.] can confer spiritual merits on his [deceased] father, whereas his deceased father cannot confer merits on his surviving son. The Talmud bases this on the example of the second generation of the Israelites bestowing merits on their fathers after they carried out the task set by G’d for this people of settling in the Holy land and observing the Torah there. Avraham after his death, or Yitzchok, after his death, could not confer merits on their respective sons that these had not acquired during their respective lifetimes.
Let us now proceed to explain the first verse in our portion, לך לך מארצך...אל הארץ אשר אראך, a verse which presented many commentators with difficulties. The major difficulty bothering these commentators is that we do not find anywhere that G’d showed Avram the land of which He had spoken. Another difficulty they raise is at the end of the previous portion when we read about Terach taking his family, including Avram and his wife (Genesis 11,31) planning to settle in the land of Canaan, but remaining in Charan without concluding his intention. Terach may have had reasons of his own why he did not continue his journey, but why did Avram and his wife not continue, as planned?
The author relates an answer to this query that he had heard from his father of sainted memory and Rabbi Dov Baer of Mezeritch, based on a Zohar I 85 which discusses the mystery of the unity of G’d which comprised masculine and feminine attributes. When or how did these “split?” [The souls that descend into this world are perceived as the “fruit” i.e. results of the deeds of the Creator, Ed.] In our domain of the universe we do not encounter such a fusion of both attributes. [If I understand correctly Rabbi Dov Baer drew a parallel to the Talmud Zevachim 51 where the problem of how blood of a burnt offering that was slaughtered on the northern part of the altar, and transferred to bowls there, could be poured down the south east corner, without violating the rule that it must be poured down the יסוד, base of the altar, (Exodus 29,12, et al) when the south east corner of the altar did not have such a base, [and the priests always had to walk in a certain direction always turning right, not backtracking. Ed.]
The gist of the Rabbi’s commentary is that there are two ways in which to serve the Lord. One is based on awe of the Creator, יראה, the other on love for Him, אהבה. [The matter has been touched on already in connection with Genesis 14,15, page 56. Ed.]
In order to serve G’d out of feelings of true awe one must first have mastered Torah and its various disciplines and have toiled greatly through study and concentration, performance of the commandments, and good deeds; only then will one be qualified to be granted the ability to serve the Lord by embracing the attribute of awe, involving, as we explained previously, a total negation of the self in doing so.
On the other hand, it is impossible to truly love one’s Creator except through one’s (good) deeds. Love, i.e. selfless love, is based on recognizing this attribute in G’d, Who has nothing to gain by performing loving deeds for man who is unable to reciprocate, as He is not in need of anything His creatures can offer Him. If someone employs his G’d given intellect to search and find the goodness of G’d, he will be rewarded by receiving further enlightenment from G’d.
We read in the Zohar that Avram realized that in the Holy Land one could perform service of G’d properly; so that he “wrapped,” i.e. committed himself wholly and enthusiastically to G’d. As a result, whereas Terach had moved to Charan after Avram had been saved from Nimrod’s furnace, only in order to save himself from his former customers who accused him of having sold them useless idols, he stayed there. Avram immediately experienced a call from G’d, Who wished to help him fulfill his wish to go to the Holy Land. By telling him that only he was to do so, G’d showed him that if one honestly and sincerely wishes to serve His Creator, the Creator, in turn will extend a helping hand. Since at that time Avram’s awe was the principal element that prompted him, seeing that he had experienced such a miraculous escape from Nimrod’s furnace, he remained on this level of serving G’d from יראה, a feeling of reverence and awe, for the time being.
When G’d spoke about “showing” him the land to which he should proceed, He meant that unless he would be given further guidance by Hashem, he would not ascend higher rungs on the ladder that would bring him closer to his Creator. G’d mentioned three separate stages involved in his reaching his self-imposed objective. He had to shed certain concepts that had previously attached him to the community surrounding him. They are: ארצך, מולדך, בית אביך, “your native land, your birthplace within that land, your family, i.e. the house of your father.” The three places mentioned represent נפש, רוח, נשמה, 1) “physical life-force, known as the body’s essence; 2) the “spirit”, seat of one’s urges and physical aspirations; 3) the spiritual essence, the soul.
Up until the time when Avram left Charan he had served G’d by engaging the three attributes we just mentioned. Now that his quest to be near to his Creator would be reinforced by his being on holy soil, he would qualify for more comprehensive revelations from G’d, enabling him to proceed from serving G’d out of feelings of awe to serving Him out of feelings of love.
We have already explained why G’d promised Avram that He would make his name great, that he would be a source of blessing to all with whom he would come into contact and that his name would be “great.” (pages 41-44) We ask ourselves, that if Avram had followed G’d’s instructions to set out into a new and unknown land without having first been given these assurances by G’d if he would not have earned a great deal more merit than he did after being “armed” with these promises?
In fact, the reverse is the case. When the Torah tells us that Avram set out in accordance with the instructions he had received from G’d (Genesis 12,4) the reason the Torah adds the words: “as G’d had commanded him,” is to inform us that the only reason Avram emigrated from Charan was because G’d had told him to. It did not occur to Avram that the promises G’d had made to him would be fulfilled by his obeying G’d. [Compare Or Hachayim on this verse, or my translation of his commentary on page 123 Ed.] Accordingly, if Avraham had not known that he would receive a reward for undertaking this journey and all that it entailed, it would not even have rated as one of his “ten trials,” so that his reward would have been much less. Being able to serve the Lord after having received promises from Him, without these promises affecting the quality of his service, was a far greater ethical achievement than serving the Lord altruistically, but not knowing that such service carries the promise of a reward. G’d’s challenging Avram to do just this was the essence of the trial.
Genesis 15,14., “and also the nation whom they will serve I shall judge;” many commentators were stymied by the connective letter ו at the beginning of the word וגם. What does this letter connect to? [Compare Or Hachayim my translation pages 141-143. Ed.]
It seems to me that Avram viewed the fate of his ancestors during this period as being subjected to 400 years of the rule of the attribute of Justice, as is evident from his reaction to this prediction with a dark sense of foreboding. (see 15,12) G’d assures him that He would not single out Avram’s descendants for the rule of the attribute of Justice, but that the nation that enslaved his descendants would experience retribution also, and in the end the Jewish people would recognize this period with its deprivations as having ultimately been of benefit for them.
Genesis 15,17., “and behold a smoking furnace and flaming torch that had passed between these pieces;” in this instance the Shechinah, G’d’s presence, passed between the pieces of the sacrifices, prior to G’d making a covenant with Avraham;
[this was similar to heavenly fire descending on the communal offerings offered by the Israelite in the Tabernacle. Ed.] The reason it is described as עבר, briefly passing, is so that we would not confuse this phenomenon with the Shechinah that rested permanently on the Tabernacle during the Israelites’ wanderings in the desert.
Genesis 16,8 or Genesis 16,11., “The angel of G’d said to her (Hagar) etc.” It is somewhat surprising that whereas Manoach upon realizing that he had seen an angel was afraid that he would die forthwith, (Judges 14,22) Hagar did not react with fear at all. The reason may be that the angel which appeared to Hagar had appeared as an angel in the garb people expected angels to appear in. The angel that had appeared to Manoach and his wife had assumed human form, though he had looked awe-inspiring, so that Manoach and his wife had assumed that he was merely a prophet. When upon his departure to the celestial regions in the smoke rising from Manoach’s offering, it turned out that they had seen a heavenly being, Manoach reacted with fright, and his wife had to calm him by showing that his fear was quite unreasonable. (Verse 20-23 there).
Genesis 16,12,” “his hand raised against all, and everyone’s hand raised against him;” (normal translation)
Our author, basing himself on Zohar II 32, understands the word כל in this verse as ברית, covenant. This has been expounded upon in שערי אורה, [a book authored by Rabbi Joseph ben Avraham G’iktiliyah, a disciple of the famed Rabbi Avraham Abulafia. Ed.] The word ידו refers to the power and authority enjoyed by Ishmael. To the question why Ishmael had been endowed by G’d with such greatness, the answer is that this was the reward for his agreeing to have himself circumcised at an age when this is extremely painful. There is, however, a minor difference between the type of circumcision performed on Ishmaelites and that performed on Jews, i.e. an extra thin membrane around the glans being removed in a halachic circumcision. This is hinted at in the word יד. The last word כל, hints that the other nation with whom G’d has a covenant based on circumcision, Israel, will eventually overcome Ishmael.
Genesis 17,4., “I, here My covenant is with you; you will become (founder) of a multitude of nations.” The principal task of the tzaddik’s service of the Lord is to ascend spiritually to higher levels, so that the entire human race residing in the “lower” part of the universe is elevated. The Zohar expressed this by writing: “we need to be able to make an appearance, facing the King.” It is clear that there is a danger that when the tzaddik, (Avraham) in order to fulfill the mission of founding numerous nations, has to descend to the moral/ethical level of these people in order to subsequently elevate them, he faces the danger of becoming submerged among them instead. Avraham was keenly aware of that. Here G’d assures him that He will protect him against these dangers as His covenant will accompany Avraham all the way when he undertakes “outreach.”
Genesis 17,13., “to be circumcised, etc.:” [what follows is not documented although the author quotes Bereshit Rabbah, 49. It is not found there, nor in Bereshit Rabbah 47, where it ought to be, if at all. The author himself appears to have had his doubts, and this is why he attributes the so-called “quote” די לעבד להיות כרבו, “it is appropriate for a servant to emulate his master,” to a statement in the Levush. The authenticity of the statement has been questioned as it implies that just as G’d is “circumcised,” so His favourite creatures must be. I will content myself with paraphrasing the thoughts of the author. We know that in order to create a physical world, G’d had to “reduce” the impact of His emanations, or to be מצמצם, “to understate the extent of His brilliance.” In order for G’d to conclude a covenant with Avraham in his capacity as the founder of the Jewish people, G’d’s “junior” partner on earth, he and the people under his authority had to perform a symbolic act on their body, i.e. the removal of their foreskin. By doing this they emulated an attribute used by their Creator. This explanation may answer the question that if G’d created everything in His universe in a perfect state, (compare Genesis 1,31) why would it be necessary at this stage for Avraham to remove a G’d given part of his body? Ed.]
Genesis 17,22., “G’d ascended from above Avraham.” In order to understand the significance of what is written here we must go back to Bereshit Rabbah 42 where Avraham is described as consulting with his friends Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, on his having been commanded to circumcise himself. Two of his friends advised against it, whereas Mamre reminded him that the G’d Who had saved his life several times, would most certainly not demand something of him that was not in his interest. Mamre was rewarded for this by G’d. The point our author sees in our verse is that Avraham was given an opportunity to refuse carrying out this commandment, so that if he withstood the temptation to do so he could receive an even greater reward for having resisted the urgings of the evil urge, dressed up as “pious advice.” G’d’s “ascending from ’above’ Avraham,” means that G’d distanced Himself from Avraham for a while in order to give the evil urge, Satan in the guise of two of his friends, an opportunity to tempt him not to obey this commandment.
Vayera
Genesis 18,1. “Hashem appeared to him (Avraham) in the groves of Mamre.” Since we have been told that G’d had departed from Avraham in 17,23, we would have expected the verse here to mention the subject Avraham by name. Why does the Torah only write לו, “to him?”
G’d, i.e. aspects of the אין סוף, G’ds Essence, dispensed different amounts of שפע, “original light,” eventually converted in the lower domains of the universe into matter of varying degrees of physical densities. Every such שפע, represents a distillation, צמצום, “shrinkage, of this original light. [If I understood the concept correctly, Ed.] This process is reflected already in the different names we have for G’d, the letters in these names reflecting varying degrees of G’d’s having restricted His manifestations to His creatures in order to make it compatible with what His creature can tolerate.
This principle applies not only to creatures in the lower part of the universe, i.e. our planet, but also to the different categories of “angels,” disembodied servants of the Lord in the celestial spheres, according to the spiritual level attained by the creature, angel, or human being, as the case may be.
When such a human being has been given a “name” by its Creator, this “name” reflects the degree to which this person is able to absorb G’d’s “light,” without being harmed by it. When a human being serves his Creator out of awe, יראה, by totally negating the limitations imposed on a soul while it is constricted by the body it inhabits, it may be considered as having “disrobed,” shed the restrictions his body imposed upon the free, upward, heavenward motion of his soul. When we express this concept in terms of the meaning of the letters in our G’d-given names, this means that we have divested ourselves of our “names.”
Avraham, at the time of his life that the Torah speaks about here, had not yet freed himself from the limits imposed upon him (by dint of the letters in his name) prior to his having been circumcised. This state of flux, a temporary situation, in which Avraham found himself at the beginning of this portion, is reflected in the Torah referring to him only by a pronoun, instead of by his full name.
Genesis 18,2. “when he looked out, here three men were standing practically on top of him.” The Zohar I, 98, identifies these three “men” as “Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov.” Clearly, we must try and understand what the Zohar meant by this, since the same “Avraham” is reported in the very same verse as running to meet these three “men”.
We have explained earlier that normally Avraham served the Lord from feelings of love, whereas in submitting to the circumcision, he had switched to serving G’d from feelings of יראה, awe, i.e. by totally negating the interests of his earthbound personality. By destroying his foreskin, a symbol of limitations and hindrance to spiritual development, known generally as קליפה, “husk,” in kabbalistic parlance, (compare writings of Ari z’al) he had attained a new and higher level of spirituality. He had now mastered both the ability to serve the Lord on two levels, אהבה (attribute of חסד) and יראה, attribute of גבורה). The latter attribute is the one that his son Yitzchok would symbolize for us in the future.
It is part of our tradition that whenever the attributes of אהבה and יראה, i.e. אש, and מים, “fire and water,” in terms of our terrestrial part of the universe, are present simultaneously, due to the fact that these two attributes are opposites of one another, we require the presence of a third attribute one that harmonizes between these two opposite attributes. This third attribute is known as תפארת, harmony; the third of our patriarchs, Yaakov, is perceived by our sages as having characterized the attribute “harmony.” It follows that at the time of Avraham’s circumcision this third attribute had been present also, i.e. it had a part to play in the performance of that commandment. When the Torah speaks of what Avraham “saw,” it referred to Avraham’s having become aware at that moment that these three attributes, all of which can be part of מצוה performance, had had a part in his having circumcised himself at the command of G’d. The word: נצבים, describes the “presence” of all these three attributes during Avraham’s recovery from the physical effects of the circumcision.
Genesis 18,2. “when he saw, he ran towards them;” Avraham had still been suffering from the pains of his circumcision. A sick or ailing person is usually the recipient of the loving concern of the attribute of Mercy; Avraham, instead of indulging himself was overcome with the attribute of גבורה, overpowering courageous energy, so that he was able to run to meet these men. He was suddenly possessed of the characteristic (the author has “soul,”) that would distinguish his not yet conceived son, Yitzchok. We explained in the previous paragraph that this resulted in his also being endowed with the attribute תפארת, harmony, so that he combined all the three characteristics that distinguished the three patriarchs.
Another aspect of the line: וירא וירץ לקראתם. A tzaddik is able to judge the character of a person by merely looking at that person’s face. When encountering a wholesome person, he is suddenly filled with light, whereas when he does not feel his features suddenly exuding brightness, this is a warning to him that he is looking at an evil person. In this instance, the Torah prefaces Avraham’s running to meet these men with the words: וישא עיניו וירא, “he raised his eyes and saw;” this meant that he felt himself reacting positively to the appearance of these men as soon as he set eyes upon them.
Genesis 18,3. “do not just pass by your servant.” Avraham was overcome with a sense of prophecy as soon as he saw these men. We have a tradition (Rashi, Baba Metzia 114) according to which the prophet Elijah was a priest; and that when Pinchas avenged the insult to G’d (Numbers 25,1-9, 11-15) perpetrated by Zimri and the people at Shittim, his soul linked up with those of Nadav and Avihu (who had been priests) and the letters in the word נא in our verse allude to the first letters in the names נדב, אביהו, so that he became henceforth identified with the prophet Elijah, who similarly was jealous on behalf of G’d. The words: תעבור מעל עבדך, “pass by your servant,” are an allusion to Elijah’s traditional role of briefly attending every circumcision of a Jewish baby, as a symbol of the importance of that covenant between the Jewish people and G’d.
Genesis 18,5. “for this is why your journey has brought you to the house of your servant.” On the face of it, this is a very unusual manner of extending an invitation to passing strangers to partake of a meal with the host. The commentators explained that angels are recipients of the largesse provided by G’d for the Jewish people who have performed G’d’s commandments. In other words, it was G’d Himself, Who let the sun out and thus Avraham, personally, was not able to perform his duties as an attentive host due to his not yet having recovered from the effects of the circumcision and from the weather. Under normal circumstances, these men would have been denied his hospitality. He therefore explains that due to his having fulfilled the commandment of circumcision, they would in fact be partaking of a meal provided by G’d Himself. They had been sent to him so that he could take credit for hosting them.
We have to elaborate somewhat on the tradition that Avraham had been observing, voluntarily, all of the commandments that would later on be found in the Torah. The only exception he had made was the commandment of circumcision. In light of the fact that this commandment was the cornerstone of G’d’s covenant with the Jewish people, why would Avraham purposely have neglected to perform this commandment until being told to observe it?
Midrash Tanchuma Tazria 5 relates that Turnus Rufus the wicked, engaged in an argument with Rabbi Akiva, concerning whose works are more impressive, G’d’s or Man’s? Rabbi Akiva, sensing a trap, promptly replied that man’s works are more impressive. Turnus Rufus, feeling outwitted, thereupon asked Rabbi Akiva since when “man” was able to create heaven and earth. Surely this was proof that G’d’s works are more impressive! Rabbi Akiva retorted that the subject under dispute did not concern the celestial regions, a domain to which man did not have access, but it dealt with works performed in the terrestrial regions. Thereupon Turnus Rufus questioned why the Jews circumcise themselves. Rabbi Akiva said: “I knew right away that you would raise this question, as in your mind this looks as if we criticize G’d as having made an imperfect creature when He made man, and we are ‘repairing’ G’d’s ‘oversight.’” He added that this was precisely why he had said immediately that man’s works are more significant. Rabbi Akiva then proceeded to show Turnusrufus a freshly baked roll, and some wheat kernels. He pointed to the wheat kernel as an example of G’d’s (nature’s) work, whereas the roll he described as an example of man’s works. He challenged Turnus Rufus to tell him which of the two he preferred. Thereupon, feeling outwitted, Turnus Rufus asked that if G’d did indeed prefer man without a foreskin, why did He equip him with a foreskin in the first place? Thereupon Rabbi Akiva asked, that according to Turnus Rufus argument, why is a baby born with an umbilical cord, which was to be cut off for the baby to start living outside the mother’s womb? If man was born with a foreskin, this was in order to enable his father, or himself, to circumcise himself and thus fulfill a commandment by His Creator.
From Rabbi Akiva’s answer to Turnus Rufus we learn why Avraham had waited for the commandment to circumcise himself, seeing that this is a commandment that can be fulfilled only once in a lifetime, the foreskin not growing back. It is a greater credit for man to perform G’d’s commandments when having been told to do so, than to merely do so because one assumes that this is what the Creator would want him to do. [Compare Baba Kamma 38 Ed.]
Genesis 18,5. “let me take a piece of bread so that you can refresh yourselves,……he presented it to them and they ate.” The true meaning of this verse has been best explained by the Or Hachayim, according to whom even the highest ranking angel, Michael is on occasion referred to as “High Priest,” whereas on other occasions he is known by another name. [Not in my edition of the אור החיים. Ed.] The point of this is to alert us to the fact that the standing, or even existence, of the angels in the celestial spheres, is affected by the mitzvah performance of the Israelites in the terrestrial part of the universe. When Israel is meticulous in the performance of G’d’s Torah, then the most senior of the angels in the celestial spheres assumes the title: “High Priest.” When Avraham spoke about a פת לחם, instead of merely פת, bread, he alludes to both the written and the oral Torah. The word פת refers to the written Torah, whereas the word לחם refers to the oral Torah. The word לחם in psalms 78,25 i.e. לחם אבירים, is an allusion to the Torah. According to the Talmud Menachot 34, the word פת amongst the Africans means “two.” [The latter half of the word: טוטפת. Ed.] The word is used as an allusion to Torah also in Proverbs 9,5, לכו לחמו בלחמי, “come and partake of My bread.” [Compare Alshich, pages 171-172, my translation of Proverbs. Ed.] When Avraham is now described as serving the angels, we may see in this the reward both for Avraham‘s having performed the circumcision on himself, as well as reward for the angels, their being hosted by a person of Avraham’s standing. [Perhaps the mitzvah of hospitality shown the angels by Lot in the following chapter was a factor in his being saved, whereas his wife was not. Ed.] When Avraham, in verse 8, is described as standing next to the angels while the latter were seated while eating, the “tree” mentioned in that verse may be a reference to the tree described as “tree of life” in Proverbs 3,18, i.e. an allusion to the Torah.
This brings me to Bereshit Rabbah 49,4 where we are told that it was Avraham’s custom after having served his guests a meal to ask them to give thanks to the Creator of the universe. Why did Avraham not ask them to pronounce a benediction before they commenced eating, as is customary among Jews, and even among many gentiles? The reason may be that before eating these people were pagans, and how could they pronounce a blessing that implied that they had accepted the yoke of serving the one and only Creator? Having eaten, they had performed a commandment through conferring upon their host Avraham the merit of fulfilling the duty to be hospitable; having done so, they themselves had been given a merit by dint of having contributed to Avraham’s merits, so that now when they pronounced a blessing thanking the Lord Who provides food for all of His creatures, they were not mouthing empty phrases. This is why the Midrash continues by relating that if Avraham’s guests would refuse to recite a blessing to the Lord, he would demand that they return to him what they had eaten, etc, etc. The embarrassment caused the guest when he realized that he had partaken of what had not been intended for him, would usually cause the guest to reconsider. Avraham had explained to the guest that unless they provided him with the merit of having performed the commandment of being hospitable, they would in fact have robbed him of something that was his.
While on the subject of the meal Avraham prepared for these heavenly guests, we need to understand why he served them meat instead of fish. The motivation may have been to afford his guests to perform many commandments in short order; in the terrestrial regions, nowadays, before being able to consume a meat meal many more commandments must be fulfilled than before preparing a fish meal. This is in contrast with the world to come, where, according to our tradition, G’d will present the righteous with a meal consisting of the Leviathan. There are many more commandments associated with the preparation of a meaty meal than with the preparation of a “fish meal,” i.e. Leviathan. (Baba Metzia 86) According to the Talmud, Avraham slaughtered three calves in order to be able to offer each of his guests a tongue and mustard (as seasoning), considered the choicest meat of the animal.
The Talmud Eyruvin 53 relates that when Rabbi Yossi bar Avion wished to say something that only people familiar with him would understand, he would say: ”עשו לי שור במשפט בטור מסכן;“ he deliberately used some Hebrew words, שור, במשפט, which have a different meaning in Aramaic. Similarly, the word חרדל used by our sages for the seasoning Avraham provided for his guests is really a translation of the words הר דל, “a low hill.” In short, the Rabbi making excuses for the errors committed by the Jewish people, referred to the evil urge as an almost insurmountable obstacle, a tall mountain, whereas the urge to do good given to every human being, appeared like a low hill, so that it is not surprising that many Jews many times found it difficult to climb over the tall mountain in order to avoid sinning. When the sages spoke of the “seasoning” Avraham served his guests, this is merely a euphemism for saying that he tried to provide his guests with merits by the type of food served that would make it relatively easy to overcome the temptations offered by the evil urge. When the angels would reflect on this, they in turn, in the future, would tone down their accusations against sinful Jews, having realized through their visit on earth how difficult it is to fight these temptations.
We need to explain the absence of the expression: ויעש להם משתה, “he made a festive meal for them.” We find such an expression even when Lot served the angels a meager meal (Genesis 19,3) consisting primarily of unleavened bread of indeterminate age. We also find it when Esther prepared a sumptuous meal for her husband King Ahasverus (Esther 4,4, as well as 7,8) to which she had invited the wicked Haman, also. In that instance, it is clear that quantities of wine were served, hence the word משתה, which suggests liquid refreshments.
We have a rule that when a righteous person shares a meal with a wicked person, the wicked person’s spiritual status will become enhanced thereby. This is the moral justification for the joy at such a meal. During such a meal the tzaddik is able to elevate the sparks of the Shechinah which had descended into the terrestrial domains as a result of man succumbing to the seduction of the serpent. [Compare what we wrote on page 21-22.Ed.] The word משתה is basically a variant of the word שמחה, joy, so that when Lot offered the angels a meal which the Torah described as משתה, it was not a reference to the number of courses served, but to the atmosphere that prevailed during that meal. In that instance it was Lot’s moral status that became elevated due to the company of celestial beings at his table. As a result of the angels having eaten at his table, (and their having rescued him from Sodom) the soul of the messiah, that had lain dormant within Lot, was awakened somewhat so that he could become the father of a child whose descendant, Ruth, eventually became the ancestor of David, who in turn is the ancestor of the messiah. The joy generated at the meal Esther served the King and Haman, resulted in the salvation of the Jewish people at her time, due to her having elevated some of the sparks of the Shechinah that had lain dormant within her husband. Since Avraham was on a far higher moral/ethical level than either Lot or Ahasversus, there was no need for a משתה to bring the participants’ spiritual qualities to the fore. Hence there is no mention of this word, although Avraham had spared not effort to make it a tasty repast.
Genesis 18,8. “He remained standing next to them while they ate.” We have a rule that the host should not visibly display physical satisfaction greater than that enjoyed by his guests. The reason for this rule is to avoid causing the guest to become jealous of the host. A tzaddik is also known as a מהלך, “a person constantly on an upward spiritual move,” [compare Zecharyah 3,7. Ed.] Angels, by comparison, are considered עומד, “standing still,” not ascending in a spiritual sense (as they do not have an evil urge to overcome). Avraham was anxious that his guests, the angels, should not become jealous of him; this is why he made a point of standing still.
Genesis 18,13. “the Lord said to Avraham: ‘why did Sarah laugh and say…that I am too old?” Our sages in Yevamot 65 point out that in this case G’d, i.e. His angels, deliberately misquoted what Sarah had said, by quoting her as describing herself too old to bear a child, whereas actually, she had described her husband as being too old. The Talmud uses this example to teach that a “white lie” is justified when it serves the purpose of preserving harmonious relations between husband and wife.
It is difficult to understand this example as Avraham himself had described himself as being too old to sire a child, when he said: הלבן מאה שנה יולד, “is a 100 year old man going to have child born for him?” (Genesis 17,17) Why would it bother him if his wife would merely confirm what he himself had already said? We may have to understand what Sarah said as being slightly different from what is commonly perceived. Sarah’s reaction to the angel’s prophecy [at a time when she was not even aware that he was an angel. Ed.] had referred to the miracle she had just experienced, i.e. אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, “after I have stopped having the periods of women, I have suddenly been rejuvenated!” Her comment about her husband’s old age simply meant that as long as she had not observed a similar process of rejuvenation in her husband, how would her own rejuvenation alone contribute to the fulfillment of the prophecy? She may also have meant to imply that if G’d had wanted her to bear a child, why had He waited until after she had become too old for this to happen unless He performed a miracle?
The subject has been discussed in Yevamot 64 where one answer is that G’d is so anxious for the tzaddikim to pray to Him, that He will wait and delay His timetable, in order to be able to give credit to the tzaddikim who have turned to Him in supplication.
Sarah being an extremely humble person, never considered herself as being on the level of a tzadeket, a righteous woman, so that it never occurred to her that almighty G’d would feel in need of her prayers of supplication. On the other hand, she was not entitled to think that her outstandingly righteous husband had not seen fit to pray for children, so that when she referred to him as “old,” she meant that in spite of his prayers he had not been granted children, and that by now it was too late for this. If her real words had been reported to Avraham, this would have caused him anguish, so that the Torah, (G’d, i.e. His angel) decided to substitute the word אני for אדוני. A person’s humility must not be carried to the extent that he is humble on someone else’s account. This is the reverse of ‘humility,’ and borders on arrogance.
Genesis 18,17. “and the Lord had said: ‘shall I conceal from Avraham….seeing that I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right in order that the Lord may bring about for Avraham what He has promised him;”
Why does the Torah write twice: למען, “in order that, etc,” in this verse? There are numerous additional details in this verse which I do not wish to dwell on at this time due to their requiring lengthy answers.
Basically, the root of the problem G’d is addressing here is that the verse addresses the righteousness of Avraham seeing that all of Avraham’s devoted service to G’d originated in his love for G’d and his outstanding intellect. Due to his outstanding intellect, he realized that whatever he had done was very little compared to the vast amount of loving attention and miracles G’d had already showered upon him at various times in his life. As a result, Avraham did not for a moment consider that he had reciprocated sufficiently for what G’d had done for him. When pondering this dilemma, Avraham realized that the only way in which he could improve the quality of his service of the Lord was by being instrumental in getting others to follow his example. As long as he was not able to accomplish this to the extent he hoped for, he decided to view his service to G’d as being performed also on behalf of the entire Jewish people. He knew that it is within the power of someone given the title אב, “father,” or better, “patriarch,” to act as the High Priest of others in his service of the Lord. Having realized this, he not only intensified the performance of the Torah’s commandments that his intellect had convinced him would be part of the text of the Torah when it would be revealed, but he even understood what kind of safeguards the sages would surround Torah laws with in order to insure that Biblical laws would not be violated by the Israelites in the future.
When the sages tell us that Avraham even observed the halachah of ערוב תבשילין, (Yuma 28) precautionary preparation of food for the Sabbath following immediately after a festival, they merely wanted to illustrate that these laws were based on application of intelligence, and the sages’ ability to divine the reasons behind the basic legislation. How else would Avraham have been inspired to think of this? The sages chose this example to illustrate Avraham’s performance of the commandments, as when we nowadays, perform this commandment, we include in our benediction a statement that includes all of the people in our town as being included in our having performed this commandment. This Rabbinic ordinance has remained an illustration of how easy it is to include others in the performance of G’d’s commandments by having them in mind and acting as a branch of the tree planted by the first Jew, Avraham.
Having explained this, we can now understand a statement by the sages [Tanna D'vei Eliyahu 25] according to which every Jew is to critically examine his mitzvah performance by asking himself; “when will I attain the level of serving G’d demonstrated by the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov?” On the face of it, this seems to be an impossibility, as some of the commandments performed by the patriarchs are so unique that they can never be emulated in the true sense of the word! [Avraham’s offering his son Yitzchok on an altar, for instance. Ed.]
Our sages did not mean for this statement to be understood literally. They meant that our mitzvah performance, instead of being based primarily on our having seen our mentors performing the commandments, or in some cases, performing the commandments almost as a reflex movement, should be based on the kind of thoughts that prompted the patriarchs to perform these acts. Once we try and relive what must have gone through Avraham’s mind before he performed these commandments, we will have attained the proper frame of mind to perform the same acts, and it will be accounted as if we had done no less than the patriarchs did. [Some of these words are mine. Ed.]
Having said this, we can now better understand why G’d before carrying out judgment on the wicked people of Sodom and district, felt that He had to take Avraham into His confidence, i.e.
Genesis 18,17 “How can I conceal from Avraham….seeing that I have known him intimately and want to encourage him to command Torah observance to his offspring, etc., etc.” This introductory verse is G’d’s way of demonstrating His love for Avraham to the whole world. He is not so much concerned with Avraham “ordering” his descendants to keep these commandments, as no one knows better than G’d that such “commandments” by a grandfather or great-grandfather, are usually observed in the breach, seeing that even HIS direct commandments are more often ignored than observed. The word יצווה in this verse is akin to צוותא, חברותא, friendly association, i.e. performance of G’d’s commandments collectively in a spiritually oriented community, each member of such a community drawing inspiration and additional strength form the other.
The fact that the words ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט, are phrased in the past tense, i.e. “so that the generations following Avraham drew on his shining example in the past when performing righteousness and justice,” are G’d’s way of saying that when Jews in the future will act as Jews, a large part of the credit goes to their founding father Avraham. Avraham’s having had all of his descendants in mind when he performed G’d’s commandments, enabled them in later generations to emulate their ancestor. Seeing one’s father perform charitable deeds, i.e. showing that one considers oneself as merely an administrator of the wealth granted by Hashem, makes it easier for the son to follow in such footsteps.
Turning to the second half of this verse in which G’d apparently links fulfillment of His promises to Avraham to the latter’s implanting his convictions in their hearts, i.e. למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו, “in order that he will command (by testament) his sons and household after him, etc.,” how precisely are we to understand this?
When a person sincerely believes that G’d derives satisfaction from being given a reason for disbursing some of His largesse on the Jewish people, any blessing requested by an Israelite in his prayers is itself a source of pleasure for G’d, seeing that it reflects the Israelite observing the Torah and its commandments. The words: למען הביא ה' על אברהם, “in order that G’d can bring upon Avraham, etc.;” mean that the recipient of these blessings will perceive that Avraham is being rewarded when his offspring receives the blessings, both material and spiritual, from G’d. When this occurs, the Israelite who had prayed to G’d and had kept the commandments, will not be perceived as having done this so that he receives a reward for it.
Yet another approach to the above verse. In this verse the Torah speaks of the performance of righteousness preceding the performance of justice, i.e. לעשות צדקה ומשפט, whereas elsewhere we find the reverse order of עושה משפט וצדקה. [Actually, in connection with G’d we do not find that order anywhere, we only find the sequence of עושה חסד, משפט וצדקה,“performing deeds of loving kindness, justice and righteousness,” in that order. David, on the other hand is described as :ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה, “David used to mete out justice and righteousness.” Ed.] It is a rule that G’d always dispenses His largesse to the Jewish people, this being His only pleasure. The fact that the Jewish people are the recipients of His goodness gives Him satisfaction. Our sages in Pessachim 112 phrased it thus: “the mother cow is more desirous of suckling her calf than the calf is anxious to drink her milk.” [I am omitting the balance of this paragraph, as I have not understood it. Ed.]
We know that Yitzchok personified the characteristic/virtue of גבורה, steadfast bravery in face of overwhelming odds. We also know that G’d in His love for the Jewish people, arranged for the “cure” before the onset of the disease. (Megillah 13) (Compare Rashi who describes the period of the Jews’ exile and bondage as having commenced with the birth of Yitzchok. Exodus 12,40) The Torah’s describing the birth of Moav and Ammon, even before the birth of Yitzchok, is another example of the redemption being prepared by G’d even before the onset of exile, seeing that the messiah will be a descendant of Moav, Ruth in David’s maternal ancestry.
We know that Yitzchok personified the characteristic/virtue of גבורה, steadfast bravery in face of overwhelming odds. We also know that G’d in His love for the Jewish people, arranged for the “cure” before the onset of the disease. (Megillah 13) (Compare Rashi who describes the period of the Jews’ exile and bondage as having commenced with the birth of Yitzchok. Exodus 12,40) The Torah’s describing the birth of Moav and Ammon, even before the birth of Yitzchok, is another example of the redemption being prepared by G’d even before the onset of exile, seeing that the messiah will be a descendant of Moav, Ruth in David’s maternal ancestry.
Genesis 21,1. “Hashem took note of Sarah as He had promised, and He did for Sarah as He had said.” Bereshit Rabbah 53,4 understands this verse as reflecting the truth of what the psalmist said in psalms 119,89 לעולם ה', דברך נצב בשמים, “The Lord exists forever; Your word stands firm in heaven.” The author of the Midrash queries, rhetorically, if David meant that G’d’s word does not stand firm on earth? He explains that what the psalmist had in mind was that the promise G’d made to Avraham He had made in heaven, i.e. when the angel announced that Yitzchok’s birth would occur at a time prearranged in heaven. (In Genesis 15,5, long before the angel announced Yitzchok’s impending birth, G’d had take Avram outside his tent and had make him look at the heaven telling him that he would father children and that the would be as numerous as the stars in the heaven.) For our sages in B’rachot 7 the verse is understood to make the point that even when G’d makes a conditional promise, He will keep it. The Talmud there uses as its proof Deuteronomy 9,14 where G’d had suggested that He would trade the Jewish people who had made the golden calf for a new Jewish people founded by Moses.
Our author proceeds to tackle the problem from another angle. In order to get to the root of the matter we must remember that the word פקד and the word זכר, both loosely translated as “to remember,” are not interchangeable. The Zohar explains that the word פקד is used in connection with the feminine parts of the emanations, whereas the word זכר belongs to the masculine side of these emanations. It follows that the word פקידה, implies that the party remembered had previously “received” something [as the feminine is always perceived in terms of being a receptacle. Ed.] The “root,” i.e. origin of all promises received is G’d. When G’d gives a promise to Israel we rely on this promise absolutely. We have no doubt that He will shower His largesse upon us at the appropriate time. It is also clear that when G’d promises to do something for us, that this “something” is still securely under His control. At the same time, we need to remember that due to G’d being eternal, i.e. timeless, He does not think in terms of “past” and “future.” Concepts such as “past” and “future” are relevant only to the potential recipients of the promises made by G’d. For the recipients of the promise, it remains in the realm of the potential rather than actual. For them, the time when such a promise will be fulfilled is something concealed, i.e. it exists only in the “future.” The period that elapses between the promise being made and its fulfillment is what we call אמונה, “faith.” Since a tzaddik never doubts that the promise will be fulfilled, the period during which he expects fulfillment bonds him to his Creator on an ongoing basis. G’d considers this period as one in which the tzaddik displays his faith.
When David in psalm 119,89 says: he means that G’d’s word, promising to do good things for Israel, refers to the period during which the “promise” is in limbo in heaven awaiting being converted into reality. [The word עולם, derived from נעלם does not only mean “forever,” but primarily “hidden,” seeing the distant future is hidden from us. Ed.] When used as “forever,” by David, it means that our faith in G’d fulfilling His promise is unlimited, our patience inexhaustible. When David, in verse 90 adds the words כוננת ארץ ותעמוד, “You have established the earth and it stands,” he refers to G’d having created the appropriate vessel designed to reveal this principle in the person of Avraham.
When we find the Torah using the expressions פקד and זכר respectively to describe different nuances of remembering, we find the expressions דבור and אמר, as similar nuances of “speaking,” or “saying.” The word אמירה, אמר is used when the statement made by one’s mouth was made discreetly, not publicly, whereas the word דבור,דבר is used when the spoken word was said in public. Rashi already refers to the fact that the expression אמר when used in the verse above refers to Sarah’s being pregnant, something private not seen by everybody, whereas the word דבר applies to Sarah having given birth, something very public. By that time Sarah had become the instrument used by G’d to show to one and all that He fulfills His promise.
A different approach to understanding the verse וה' פקד את שרה כאשר אמר, ויעש ה' לשרה כאשר דבר, “G’d remembered Sarah as He had said, and He did for her as he had stated.” Why is it necessary for the Torah to state twice that G’d kept His promise? Who had doubted it? The Talmud Taanit 20 states that when G’d goes out of His way to perform a miracle for an individual, this is used to deduct from the merits that individual had accumulated up to that point. If G’d had performed a miracle for Sarah and made her become pregnant and bear a son, this would have been held against her accumulated merits. In order to avoid this, G’d announced to Sarah and Avraham beforehand that they would have a son, etc., so that when the time came for Sarah to give birth, this was first and foremost not a miracle, but G’d was simply fulfilling a duty, a promise He had made previously. This is why the story of Yitzchok’s birth is prefaced by the verse above in which the Torah reminds us of the promises G’d had made concerning that subject. The line commencing with ויעש ה', “G’d carried out, etc.” is a reminder that what follows is merely the fulfillment of something that had been promised much earlier.
Once we appreciate this we can also understand why in parshat Lech lecha prior to Avram being commanded to circumcise himself, G’d promised him that he would father a son from Sarah. (Genesis 17,15-16) This meant that the reward for all the commandments Avraham would perform subsequently would not be offset against accumulated merits in respect of miracles G’d would perform for him. These “miracles” would be viewed as fulfillment of what G’d “owed” him, i.e. promises made but not yet fulfilled.
Genesis 21,6. “G’d has made laughter for me.” Sarah realized that if G’d had granted her children in her old age instead of during her child-bearing years, He had multiplied the joy she experienced by this birth. Had she given birth in her younger years the pregnancy and subsequent birth would have been periods of discomfort and pain for her. Now, that she had not become pregnant until she was close to 90 years old, every day of that pregnancy had been filled with joyful expectation, and even the birth itself was not felt by her as an excruciatingly painful experience. Instead of thanking G’d in His capacity as Hashem, as we might have expected, she thanked Him in His capacity as אלוקים, the attribute of Justice, realizing that during all the years she had felt deprived of the joys of motherhood, the attribute of Justice seemingly being applied to her, had enabled her to exult in joy at this time.
This feeling of Sarah is reflected in psalms 118,21:אודך כי עניתני ותהי לי לישועה, “I wish to thank You, for You have afflicted me/answered me. For through my affliction my salvation has come.” The same thought is repeated in a different nuance, when David continues (verse 22) אבן מאסו הבונים היתה לראש פנה, “the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” David adds, that it has become clear to him that all of this had been planned by G’d in advance, i.e. (verse 23) מאת ה' היתה זאת היא נפלאת בעינינו, “this is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” David too, is aware that it is far more rewarding to experience these blessings from G’d in one’s mature years than in one’s early youth. When a youth experiences all these blessings, he does not even recognize them as blessing bestowed by G’d, but credits them to chance or other circumstances. Having experienced G’d’s salvation at a relatively late stage in one’s life makes one doubly grateful to Hashem, i.e. זה היום עשה ה' נגילה ונשמחה בו, “this is the day that the Lord has made, let us exult and rejoice on it.”
When examining the manner in which G’d shares out His largesse, we must distinguish between two categories of recipients. One category enjoys the material benefits provided by Hashem for what they are worth, i.e. they consider the material part as the essential part, not considering them as a means to an end. The second category of recipients are the sages and the pious people who perceive these “gifts” as proof of the caring supervision exercised by G’d over all of His creatures, and they see in it an encouragement to never forget that there is a benevolent King Who rules over us. This is what David referred to when he said in the above-quoted hymn:זה היום עשה ה' נגילה ונשמחה בו, “this is the day that the Lord has made let us rejoice and be happy in Him.” They see in the word בו at the end of this verse a reference to G’d, not to the day.
When Moses, in Deuteronomy 32,2 describes G’d as וזרח משעיר למו הופיע מהר פארן, “the Lord shone upon them from Seir, He appeared from Mount Paran,” every intelligent person must ask that Esau and Yaakov had been separated already prior to their respective births, and that the two represented two totally opposite perceptions of what life and the world is all about, one deciding in favour of worldly goods, whereas Yaakov decided in favour of spiritual values, so what point was there in G’d offering the Torah to the descendants of Esau? At the same time, since when do we the descendants of Yaakov, expect to have a share in G’d’s largesse on this earth? Does the Talmud Kidushin: 39 not teach us not to expect a reward for serving the Lord while we walk on this earth?
The answer to this question is this: Every Israelite is obligated by being part of the covenant between Israel and G’d, to serve the Lord enthusiastically and meticulously with all his soul at all times. Just as G’d supervises his well being every minute of every hour, so, in turn he is obliged to serve the Lord. When G’d on occasion supplies a Jew with material benefits, these are not to be understood as part of the reward for his mitzvah performance. It may be understood as an encouragement to the person concerned, to serve the Lord with even greater devotion and intensity. When Moses speaks of מימינו אש דת למו, “from His right side the fire had turned into law,” he meant that if G’d decided to give the Jewish people, or some of the Jewish people, part of the material comforts that had originally been allocated to Seir, i.e. Esau, He referred to G’d’s “right side”, the side exuding love. G’d intended that by doing so even the ordinary Jew who is not steeped in Torah learning will respond to G’d’s Torah with more enthusiasm when he feels that G’d had singled him out for loving care.
This is one of the reasons why Avraham called his son Yitzchok, the name reflecting the joy he felt at being granted this son by Sarah. If Yitzchok developed into a personality symbolizing יראה, awe, this was because he was rooted in שמחה, joy, and joy‘s root in turn is fire. [If I understand the author correctly, the joy described as “fire” is the enthusiasm, almost ecstasy, with which such a person serves his G’d. Ed]. The characteristic יראה is not one that is manifest in the person who possesses it all the time, as it is in the nature of being a response to certain stimuli, in this instance the external “cause” is G’d Himself. This characteristic becomes manifest in response to external stimulants. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 7,12 ויתרון דעת חכמה תחיה בעליה, ”and the advantage of knowledge is that it adds an additional dimension to the life of him who possesses it..”
It is significant that the letters in the word מחשבה, “thought,” are the same as in the word בשמחה,”with joy.”מחשבה is an attribute that is both primary and constant. If a person reduces himself to the אין, negating all interest in the physical part of the world, having done this he is able to attach himself to the source of all “Life.” When this has occurred, a new “LIFE” is bestowed on him, a life in a different world, one in which he is elevated to be close to Eternal G’d. This concept is portrayed in the Torah in Leviticus 27,10 where the subject is the person who donates to הקדש, G’d’s representative on earth, his “net worth,” as defined according to his age. Having done so, the Torah there describes him as והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קודש, “then both he and his substitute will be holy.” Concerning this procedure the sages in the Jerusalem Talmud B’rachot 2,4 said: the messiah was born on the 9th day of Av, he being the exchange for the Jewish world which had been destroyed on that day (when the Temple was burned). We find an allusion to this negating the physical world and being “reincarnated,” when Avraham before proceeding to offer his son Yitzchok as a total burnt offering, tells the servants attending them, that “we will go, and prostrate ourselves and return to you.” (Genesis 22,5)
Rabbi Yitzchok in Bereshit Rabbah 56,2 comments on this as follows: “the only reason that Avraham was able to keep his promise to the lads that he would return from Mount Moriah (alive), is that he prostrated himself there before the Lord, [something beyond what the Lord had asked of him when He commanded him to offer his son Yitzchok as a burnt offering.” Ed.] This is why hundreds of years later his descendants were redeemed from Egypt, as G’d explained to Moses in Exodus 3,12 and as the Israelites did in Exodus 4,31. This השתחויה, “prostration before the Lord,” symbolized that the person doing so abandoned any claim that he might have had to the material benefits that life on earth offers. This is also what enables G’d to “sweeten” i.e. remove the sting, of any judgments man is subjected to by the attribute of Justice. Avraham’s example of reducing himself to אין or אפס, “nothing,” paved the way for his descendants to emulate him and to be redeemed from the yoke of the Egyptians who had effectively reduced them to a similar state of having to negate the attractions this world offered to others.
The Torah itself was only given to the Jewish people because they voluntarily repeated this השתחויה, prostrating themselves before the Lord, as we know from Exodus 24,1 where all the elite of the Jewish people are reported as having prostrated themselves some distance away from Mount Sinai. [That chapter, though written after the revelation, describes events that occurred before the revelation, Ed.] The elite negating their claims on the material benefits this world has to offer, made it possible for coming so close to G’d during the revelation that He addressed them as if He were speaking to an equal. In psalms 99,9 when Moses (the author of this psalm) says: רוממו ה' אלוקינו והשתחוו להר קדשו, “Exalt the Lord our G’d and prostrate yourselves at the Mountain of His holiness;” similar verses are found in Isaiah 27,13, and Samuel I 1,19 where the wording is almost identical. Rabbi Yitzchok concludes by saying that the resurrection when it will occur, does so only in recognition of these voluntary prostrations of the Jewish people on various occasions when they demonstrated their absolute submission to G’d and His will. If we needed proof of this we find in in Isaiah 27,13 where we read והיה ביום ההוא יתקע בשופר גדול ובאו האובדים בארץ אשור והנדכים בארץ מצרים והשתחוו לה' בהר הקודש בירושלים, “it will be on that Day, when a great ram’s horn will be sounded, and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria, and the expelled who are in the land of Egypt, shall come and prostrate themselves on the holy Mountain in Jerusalem.”
Genesis 21,8. “Avraham made a great feast on the day Yitzchok was weaned.” The דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות comments on this verse that the words ביום הגמל may be broken up into several parts, i.e. ביום ה ג מל alluding to the fact that the letter ה had been added to Avram’s name on the day of his circumcision. The letters ה and ג also allude to the eighth day on which a newborn is to be circumcised.
21,8. “Avraham made a great feast on the day Yitzchok was weaned.” The דעת זקנים מבעלי התוספות comments on this verse that the words ביום הגמל may be broken up into several parts, i.e. ביום ה ג מל alluding to the fact that the letter ה had been added to Avram’s name on the day of his circumcision. The letters ה and ג also allude to the eighth day on which a newborn is to be circumcised.
Genesis 21,25. “Avraham rebuked Avimelech on account of the well, etc.” Avimelech rejected the accusation, claiming he had not known about what his servants had done.
Normally, we have a rule that when a tzaddik engages in rebuking someone, he points out that the trespass committed by the wicked concerned was a sin against G’d and His Torah.
In this instance, Avraham accused Avimelech of having committed a wrong when it had been his servants who had stolen the water from Avraham. He reminded Avimelech that G’d created the world, and that He gave us laws by which to conduct ourselves, and that robbery was definitely forbidden. The person violating G’d’s law receives a warning in the form of the tzaddik rebuking him. The letters in the words uttered by the tzaddik when he rebukes the sinner light up in the face of the guilty party, thus affording him an opportunity to immediately do penance.
One of the names of G’d is: מי, as we know when Pharaoh challenged Moses by saying: מי ה'? This is what Avimelech meant when he said to Avraham לא ידעתי מי עשה את הדבר הזה, “I do not know of this מי who has done this;” i.e. “I have never heard of a Creator who has created the universe, hence I do not know of a prohibition to steal or rob.” Another one of G’d’s names is the word זה, as we know from Exodus 15,2 זה א-לי ואנוהו, “זה is my G’d and I will glorify Him.” We also find the word as a reference to one of G’d’s names when Isaiah 25,9 said זה ה' קוינו לו, “we have been hoping for the Lord זה.” Avimelech tells Avraham that he had heard of all this theology only from the mouth of Avraham, he had never previously been informed of this. He adds that even now he has not heard or “seen” the letters that make up the alphabet of the Torah from Avraham’s mouth, i.e. גם אתה לא הגדת לי. The word הגדת, derived from גד, is similar to גד גדוד יגודנה in Genesis 49,19, where it refers to “good fortune,” similar to what Gad’s mother proclaimed בגד, viewing herself as having good fortune seeing that she had born 6 of the twelve tribes. (Genesis 30,11) The word is a simile for good fortune in the sense of מזל טוב. Avimelech had not yet seen the letters that would trigger his doing teshuvah for the wrong he had been guilty of. The word אתה is an allusion to the letters from א to ת in the Hebrew alphabet, the letters of the Holy Tongue.
When Avimelech adds: וגם אנכי לא שמעתי בלתי היום, “and I also have not heard about all this until this day,” he uses the word אנכי, the first word of the Ten Commandments with which G’d revealed Himself at Mount Sinai, as meaning that on this day G’d’s sovereignty was revealed to him, and he could now perceive these letters of the Holy Tongue. On that day Avimelech had learned from Avraham about three aspects of G’d, i.e. מי, זה, אנכי.
Going back once more to Genesis 15,8 when Avraham himself had asked a question not i.e. revealing that He had not quite understood G’d, as a result of which he was granted better understanding, just as Avimelech here had concluded with understanding and acknowledging the dimension of G’d as אנכי, the Talmud B’rachot 7 states that when Avraham posed the question of במה אדע, he had become the first person ever to address G’d as א-דני, “My Lord;” He had implied by this that G’d in His capacity of א-דני was able to annul decrees. Noach had not been aware that G’d could do this, and this is why he had not bothered to appeal to G’d to annul the decree to annihilate mankind. His predecessor Sheth, third son of Adam, himself a tzaddik had also not known about this and therefore he had remained silent when a third of the inhabited area of the globe had been flooded in his day. The power of addressing this dimension of G’d was given to Avraham as a reward for having recognized G’d as possessing this dimension. It was Avraham’s genius to recognize this quality of G’d although he addressed Him as “My Lord.”
Genesis 22,1. “It was after these events that G’d subjected Avraham to a trial, saying to him: ‘Avraham!’” We must try and understand why at this point G’d addressed Avraham by calling out: ”Avraham,” once, whereas in verse 11 of this chapter the angel addressing Avraham calls out to him: “Avraham, Avraham!” Another nuance that deserves our attention is why, on the first occasion (verse 12) G’d compliments Avraham on not having tried to withhold his beloved son from Him, ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך ממני, whereas in verse 16 when the compliment is repeated, the word ממני, “from Me,” is absent.
This may be understood when we consider that according to Rashi on verse 11 repetition of the name indicates that the party addressed by G’d is especially beloved by G’d. We find in Samuel I 3,10 that when G’d called on Samuel, He always repeated his name when addressing him. In the case of Avraham, his very name reflects the fact that he was beloved by G’d. Here when G’d called upon him seeing that He wanted him to perform a commandment, He deliberately refrained for indicating how fond he was of him, as this call had not been designed to make him go through with slaughtering Yitzchok. However in verse16, when we became aware that Avraham was not to slaughter his son, this had become the מצוה. By commanding Avraham not to harm Yitzchok in any way, He displayed His true love for him. He did so by repeating his name when He called him.
As to the word ממני in verse 12, this was the angel speaking (although in the name of the Lord) Bereshit Rabbah 56,5 understands the angel as hinting to Avraham that seeing the angels in heaven have shed tears when they heard that Avraham had been asked to sacrifice his son Yitzchok, G’d cancelled the decree. The angel wanted Avraham to know that he had had a share in Yitzchok’s surviving the akeydah. In verse 16, when G’d is speaking to Avraham without intermediary, there was no reason to add the word: ממני, “from Me.”
Genesis 22,7. Concerning Yitzchok’s question of “here is the fire and the kindling, but where is the lamb for the burnt-offering?,” it seems that Yitzchok’s question implied that seeing the principal purpose of his father’s trial was to see if he was prepared to slaughter his son, what need was there for fire and kindling, seeing that after he had been slaughtered surely it did not matter to G’d if his remains would be burned up! Yitzchok wanted his father to know that the kindling and the fire had nothing to do with him, as the intended victim. He wanted to know if there was going to be another offering, i.e. a lamb, as usual. If so, where did his father expect to find it at short notice? When we understand Yitzchok’s question as suggested, we can understand why he did not ask a question concerning the knife to be used in the slaughter. Avraham’s reply, saying that G’d would select who should be the “lamb,” meant that as far his relationship to G’d was concerned, his own son was as valuable to him as if he would burn up an actual lamb for G’d in order to demonstrate his love for Him.
Genesis 22,12. “He (the angel) said to him: ‘do not touch the lad, and do not harm him in any way;’….for now I know …and you have not withheld your only son from Me.” We need to examine why in this verse the word ממני has been added, as well as why this word is omitted when G’d speaks about the oath He has sworn to Himself in verse 16. Before answering these questions, let us look at Shabbat 63 where the Talmud states that כל העושה מצוה כמאמרה אין מבשרין לו דבר רע, “when someone performs one of G’d’s commandments in accordance with its halachot, one (heaven) does not sadden him by informing him of bad news. The Talmud bases this on Kohelet 8,5 שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, “he who will obey the commandments will know no evil.” The word כמאמרה in the Talmud poses a problem. The Talmud means that both study of Torah and performance of the commandments must be based on one’s desire to carry out G’d’s wishes. If one studies Torah to pass an exam, this is not accounted true Torah study. If one blows the shofar on New Year’s day in the synagogue, however expertly, but in order to earn the fee one has been promised, the promise that such people will be spared bad news is not applicable.
Furthermore, even having performed the mitzvah according to the halachah and exclusively in order to fulfill G’d’s wish, one must not congratulate oneself for having carried out one’s Creator’s wishes and have pleased him. If one thinks along these lines, one’s performance of the commandment will not please the Lord.
It is related in Chagigah 15 that it happened once that Rabbi Yoshua ben Chananyah (one of the leading scholars in his time) was standing on one of the steps leading up to the Temple Mount, [the Temple had already been destroyed, but the Mount had not yet been levelled by the Romans, Ed.] when he saw ben Zoma in front of him, and the latter did not rise in acknowledgment of the presence of his teacher. Rabbi Yoshua asked ben Zoma what subject he was so deeply immersed in that he had not noticed the presence of his teacher. The latter replied: “I was contemplating the significance of the difference between the “upper waters,” and the “lower waters,” (Genesis 1,7) and he had discovered that the distance between them was only three fingers’ breadth.” He claimed that the proof was founding Genesis 1,2 where the spirit of the Lord is described as hovering above the surface of the waters.” He considered the word מרחפת, used by the Torah there as describing the act of “hovering” as a reference to a pigeon hovering above its young without touching them. Upon hearing this, Rabbi Yoshua commented to his other students: “ben Zoma is still on the outside.” He meant that ben Zoma had not yet become privy to hidden aspects of the Torah. [The reader will note that ben Zoma, in spite of sayings of his being quoted in the tractate Avot, is never referred to as “Rabbi.” Ed.]
We learn from this passage that even if a person performs the commandments in a manner which affords G’d satisfaction as the worshipper had reduced himself to negating earthly concerns, this does not automatically mean that he has attained the level of awe of the Creator that would overcome him when he enters the palace of a King. He may have attained the awe that a visitor to the King’s palace experienced when entering the vestibule of the palace, but not the awe that overcomes people who enter the inner sanctum of the palace. The closer the visitor approaches the presence of the king, the more profoundly will he be impressed with the aura of glory and power surrounding his majesty. Recognition of this obligates him to prostrate himself, this act being an expression of his being aware how totally inadequate anything that he had done to honour his king really was.
When we examine the meaning of the word מצוה, commonly translated as “commandment,” this is quite inadequate, as the deeper meaning of the word is derived from צוותא, a word describing companionship. In other words, the performance of a מצוה is meant to establish a degree of companionship between man and his G’d. When the Talmud Shabbat 63 had stated that anyone who performs a commandment, כמאמרה, “in the true sense of its meaning,” will be spared disagreeable news, it is this “companionship” with G’d achieved by the performance of the commandment that the Talmud refers to.
There are commandments, the performance of which does not afford the person performing it the slightest physical satisfaction. To mention just a few examples: putting on phylacteries, attaching the fringes, tzitzit, to a four-cornered garment; on the other hand, there are commandments the performance of which entails pleasurable sensations, such as consuming three meals on the Sabbath, or Kiddush, reciting the benediction over wine and drinking same. The awareness of the expense involved in order to perform these commandments represents a major aspect in an ordinary individual’s מצוה performance, it contributes to the feeling that he has done something “for G’d.” As long as such considerations are part of one’s מצוה performance, one has not attained the level of מצוה performance described in the Talmud as כמאמרה, “in the full sense of its meaning.” When we keep this in mind we can understand the nuances in verses 12 and verse 16 in which G’d compliments Avraham. When G’d commands: אל תשלח ידך אל הנער...כי עתה ידעתי...ולא חשכת את בנך ממני, He compliments Avraham for not having had any selfish thoughts when offering Yitzchok as an offering, it had been done totally לשם שמים, for the sake of heaven, i.e. Avraham had not withheld anything personal from G’d, by feeling he had done something for G’d. This had been performance of a מצוה כמאמרה in the parlance of the Talmud Shabbat 63.
Now, that this part of the עקדה, was over, and G’d saw that even after Avraham had been spared the need to go through with what he had thought, he did not react with relief but continued to endeavour to perform the commandment in a different way, he had shown G’d that he had been motivated not only by love for G’d, but by totally unselfish awe of Him; there was therefore no need for the Torah to repeat the word ממני, “from Me.”
Genesis 22,12. “for now I know that you are G’d fearing, seeing you have not withheld your only son from Me.” It appears, based on this verse, that there are two types of fear of the Lord. One type is based on a person’s understanding the meaning of the commandment that he performs, i.e. it makes sense to him. The second type of fear of the Lord is shown when he fulfills commandments whose purpose he had not been able to understand. When someone performs commandments without knowing their meaning, his level of fearing G’d is on a higher rung than the person who does so because he believes that he understands the reason why G’d has demanded fulfillment of that commandment, and he “agrees” with G’d. When the latter person observes a commandment, it is not clear that he does so out of love for G’d, as he may be doing so because he feels he is doing himself a favour, as the commandment is logical, and clearly in the interest of mankind as a whole.
Before the angel said to Avraham: “do not touch and harm the lad,” people had thought that surely the reason why Avraham set out to do this was because he thought he understood G’d’s reason for issuing such a commandment.
After he was now commanded not to proceed, it would be clear to everybody that Avraham had not understood the reason for G’d’s command, as if he had been correct in what he thought, G’d could not have cancelled the command. What had been a valid consideration could not suddenly have become an invalid consideration! Therefore it had emerged retroactively that when Avraham had begun to carry out the commandment to offer Yitzchok as a burnt offering, he had been motivated only by his love for G’d, and how could he possibly refuse the command given by a G’d Whom he loved!? By cancelling His command G’d had demonstrated that there had never been a rationale for such a command. The trial of Avraham had consisted in his performing even a totally irrational command.
The only reason for issuing such a command was the desire of G’d to prove that Avraham would not be deterred by the absence of a valid reason for Yitzchok having to die on the altar. All of this is implied in the angel saying: “now I have seen, etc.;” it does not mean that G’d had not known up to now. It means that this was the only way in which G’d had been able to demonstrate to the world what He had known about Avraham’s potential to perform such an act for no other reason than that He loved Gd.
Our author understands the word ידעתי as being in the hiphil, causative mode, i.e. as if the Torah had written הודעתי, “I have made known;” the normal hiphil mode of the root ידע. Avraham’s “love” for G’d was demonstrated by his performing an act that reflected “fear of the Lord” on the highest level. This “fear” is the fear of disappointing the loved one by not responding to his will as he had hoped you would. If there had been any need to prove that G’d abhors human sacrifice, He demonstrated this not by never having commanded it, but by having commanded it and cancelled the command before it could be executed.
Chayei Sara
Genesis 23,1. “The years of Sarah’s life were one hundred years, etc.;” I believe, G’d willing, that I have understood the reason why Sarah is the only woman in the Bible of whose age at the time of her death we have been told. The Talmud Nedarim 64, in referring to Rachel’s outburst (Genesis 30,1) that unless her husband Yaakov would give her children she considered herself as “dead,” is quoted by Rashi on that verse saying that seeing that a woman’s primary task in life is to mother children, any woman who has not given birth to a live child is considered as dead. We also know from Shabbat 156, that when G’d took Avraham outside (Genesis 15,5) that He showed him that according to the constellation of the stars, Sarai was not slated to give birth to children. This מזל, astrological prognosis of her life, could be changed only due to merits she would acquire during the years to come. She did indeed acquire such merits, as our sages conclude from a comment they made in Shir Hashirim Rabbah, 2,32 where the phenomenon of all the matriarchs originally being barren is discussed. Among a variety of answers offered there, one is that G’d was desirous of listening to their praying to Him to be granted children, just as He is desirous of listening to the prayers of the righteous, generally. In other words, Sarah, (after a name change) both due to her merits and her supplications, was “lifted” out of the limitations predicted for her by a zodiac sign she had been born under, so that she could conceive. When the Torah refers to her “life” as being 127 years long, this means nothing less than that she had spent all these years accumulating merits for the good deeds she performed. Expressed somewhat differently, the Torah states that it was Sarah, who with her good deeds gave “life” to her years.
An additional lesson to be derived from this unique verse in the Torah, is that seeing that during all her years she cleaved to the Holy name of Hashem, י-ה-ו-ה, this fact is hinted at when the Torah summarizes her life her by commencing with a word containing these letters of G’d’s name. She was conscious at all times that her life depended on that attribute of G’d and not, G’d forbid, on the side of the emanations known popularly as the sitra achara, “the left side.”
Genesis 24,1. “and Avraham had become old, while G’d had blessed him in everything.” According to the Talmud Baba Metzia 87 the concept of ”old age,” was unknown to mankind until Avraham’s being described here in such terms. [According to the Talmud, the statement refers to external features of elderly people stamping them as having lived for many years. This was why up until then anyone looking at Avraham or Yitzchok could not be sure whether he was looking at the father or the son. Ed.]
[If I understand the Talmud correctly, what is meant is that when the Torah had described Adam as having begotten a son in his own image (Genesis 5,3) as opposed to his first two sons, the resemblance between fathers and sons continued unabated until the time when Avraham was described as having aged. Ed.]
The point the Talmud makes is that beneficial largesse provided from the celestial regions for the lower regions of the universe manifests itself in one of two ways. It may be measured in terms familiar to us in this part of the universe, or it may be described in terms of concepts applicable in the celestial regions, seeing that these two domains each have their own set of rules. When this beneficial largesse originates directly in the celestial spheres close to the Creator, it had not become subject to limitations applicable in the parts of the world we live in. [As an example, we may distinguish between nourishment provided by G’d through the earth giving its yield, when such nourishment is subject to limitations that apply on our planet, whereas when G’d fed the Jewish people with manna, such limitations did not apply, as the manna originated directly in one of the seven layers of heaven. Ed.] This latter method of benefiting from G’d’s largesse is reserved exclusively for the Jewish people. The Jewish people have become privy to this (on occasion) due to their having clung to their Creator with such devotion.
The other nations sharing this planet with us, receive whatever largesse G’d provides for them only through “nature,” which “processes” such gifts from G’d before it reaches its recipients. This is what is meant when the Torah wrote in Genesis 25,12-15 ואלה תולדות ישמעאל שנים עשר נשיאים לאומתם, “and this is the line of Ishmael, son of Avraham……12 chieftains, etc.” The word: לאומתם is derived from אמה, “mother;” when a mother measures her son she uses measuring devices used in our parts of the universe. The Torah (Genesis 25,13, and again in verse 16) adds: בשמותם לתולדותם and בחצריהם ובטירותם, “by their names, in the order of their births, and by their villages and their encampments;” these words describe the parameters within which they were privy to G’d’s benevolent largesse. The contrast with which the Torah describes a similar description of the development of the Jewish people can be seen in the words למשפחותם לבית אבותם, “according to their family, their respective father’s house”. The word אבותם in this instance is derived from אבה, as in לא אבה יבמי, “he did not want to perform levirate marriage with me.” (Deuteronomy 25.7) The word אבה is a synonym for רצון, “will, desire.” The widow describes that her brother-in-law does not wish to fulfill the will of heaven in maintaining his deceased brother’s name alive.
Let us illustrate by an example more familiar to all of us. A potter intends to create a vase of a certain shape and colour. Before setting out to shape the clay he has a definite image of the finished product in his mind’s eye. This image is known as מחשבה, or אב הפעולה, “the father of the finished product.” The רצון, the will to create a vase, is called אב, father, as it precedes even the sculptor’s vision of the final shape and colour of the product is about to embark on creating. The eventual product is known as בני בנים, euphemism for “grandchildren.” [In relation to the רצון the initial will to create something. Ed.]
Israel’s drawing down G’d’s largesse to itself is somewhat similar. The process begins with this celestial largesse entering the domain of the physical universe, גבולין. [A domain defined by borders both dimensionally and directionally. Ed.] The various shapes and forms this largesse assumes once it has entered our part of the universe is known as בני בנים, “grandchildren.” The original רצון, G’d’s intention to provide this largesse, is called זקן, “an old man.”
When Solomon in Proverbs 17,6 speaks about עטרת זקנים בני בנים, loosely translated as “grandchildren are the crown of their elders,” the meaning of this line on a deeper level, is: “the largesse that has been received by Israelites as a result of G’d’s benevolence, is rooted in the will of G’d,” i.e. from this רצון to the world known as בני בנים.
This is what the Midrash had in mind when it interpreted the opening words of our chapter ואברהם זקן בא בימים, to mean that prior to the existence of Avraham there had not been a concept on earth known as זקנה, “old age,” i.e. G’d’s largesse flowing directly, without detour through nature, to any human being. The reason was simple. No human being had accumulated the kind of merits that enabled G’d to direct this flow of largesse by bypassing normal channels. Avraham’s merits had opened new channels of communication between G’d and man.
At this point the author refers to a method of writing the 72-lettered “name” of Hashem in 9 columns of 8 three lettered words, using Exodus 14,19,20 and 21, respectively, (each verse having 72 letters) and consecutively, and the middle verse in by reading it from left to right, so that you get the diagram shown.
In that diagram you will note that in the top row the “name” spelled סיט appears in the column preceding the one commencing with a name consisting of עלמ.
[I am attaching the diagram so that you, the reader can better visualize what the author is speaking about. Ed.]
The word סיט occurs on several occasions in the Mishnah, throughout the section known as taharot as a vessel used in measuring. (Maimonides on Keylim 13,4, Orlah, 3,2 for instance) This “name” of G’d serves as symbol of Avraham’s ability to channel G’d’s largesse from the celestial domains to our regions. The next column in our diagram is headed by the letters עלמ, [alluding to our עולם, world] and symbolizes for our purposes, the manner of distribution of this largesse once it has entered the sphere of the material world. We refer to this in our daily amidah prayer when we recite the words: וזוכר חסדי אבות ומביא גואל לבני בניהם. “He (G’d) remembers the deeds of loving kindness of the patriarchs and brings the redeemer to their children’s children.” On the face of it, it is difficult to understand the words חסדי אבות, “the pious deeds performed by the patriarchs.” All the author of this paragraph had to mention was וזוכר אבות, that “G’d remembers the patriarchs.” Furthermore, why would the author of this paragraph refer to the redemption as being brought to the “children’s children” of the patriarchs? It would have sufficed to refer to their בניהם, “children.” When speaking of fathers, it is customary to relate to their children rather than to their grandchildren. However, when understanding the entire paragraph and what it teaches in light of what we have explained, both the word “חסדי” and the words “לבני בניהם” make perfect sense, as the author draws our attention to the manner in which G’d’s largesse is transmitted to the Jewish people and who we have to thank for this. The חסד of which the author speaks is an allusion to the “source” of the largesse, i.e. G’d Himself, (not nature) whereas the בני בניהם, is an allusion to the meritorious deeds of the patriarchs which paved the way for the Jewish people to receive G’d’s largesse directly, without detours.
When the paragraph above is introduced with the words: ואברהם זקן בא בימים וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, this is an allusion to Avraham, the first of the patriarchs having been able to open the sluices of G’d’s treasure chamber to enable the flow of its goodness to bypass regular channels and flow directly to His people. When G’d’s largesse flows to us in this manner, it is not limited in measure at all, as it would be if it had to reach us via nature.
This is the meaning of bereshit rabbah 59,5 where the author writes: Avraham would bless everybody. (Compare Genesis 12,3) To the question whence Avraham was able to do so, i.e. who had blessed him first? The answer is that G’d personally, had done so in His capacity of רצון as explained on page 118.
Another way of understanding the statement in the Talmud Baba Metzia 87, that until the advent of Avraham there had been no such concept as זקנה, “old age,” may be that it referred to the colour of the hair of aged people turning white. [The reader is reminded of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah in the Haggadah shel pessach being prematurely white-haired Ed.]
Just as man’s body wears clothing that gives a hint to the type of person he is, so his mind and soul also wear “clothing” that hint at his age, the hair that covers his head, for instance. Just as man does not experience pain when someone cuts off his clothing, so he does not experience pain when his hair is cut.
We have previously explained that the Creator, “shrunk His Self,” when entering the domain of the material world in order to be able to share out His loving kindness to His creatures, as otherwise His impact on that world would have been so overwhelming as to destroy it immediately. Similarly, He “dressed Himself” by surrounding His accessibility to His creatures through commandments or the performance of good deeds that He required them to perform in order to enable them to come close to His essence. This is how He made His manifestation on earth possible. The Talmud, when referring to זקנה as a phenomenon that did not exist prior to Avraham, means that Avraham’s performing G’d’s commandments (not yet given as directives) paved the way for G’d to be able to heap His largesse on Avraham’s descendants. The visible evidence of this was the white hair Avraham now sprouted.
“And Avraham had aged, advanced in years;" the Talmud Baba batra 16 understands the word בכל as meaning that Avraham had a “daughter” by the name of בכל. Commenting further on this, the Talmud in Chagigah 15 states that a heavenly voice i.e. בת קול [instead of בת כל Ed.] was heard at Mount Sinai calling the Israelites to penance with the exception of Acher, (Elisha ben Avuya) turned apostate.
[The text in my edition of the Talmud does not mention the location where this heavenly voice was heard, and it would not make sense that it was Mount Sinai, as the occasion appears to have been at least 50 years after destruction of the second Temple. Ed.]
We need to examine the nature of this “voice” somewhat more closely. Since, according to the Talmud, this בת קול appears to have been a visual manifestation rather than something heard with one’s ears, the statement is enigmatic. Apparently, the Talmud refers to a message that a person hears or is supposed to hear daily as if it were as real as a vision. The true call to do teshuvah had originated at Sinai when the people had heard G’d address them directly during the first and second Commandment, until they were so overwhelmed that they feared to die and begged Moses to be their interpreter of G’d’s words. Mount Sinai had been referred to as Mount Chorev in Exodus 3,1 when Moses had his first vision of G’d at the burning bush. On that occasion he had “heard” the voice of G’d. The term בת קול has become the name for a derivative of that first communication to His people through Moses their leader and prophet ever since. At the revelation at Mount Sinai several months later, it had become so real that the people were described as “seeing” the voice rather than as merely “hearing it. (Exodus 20,15) We have explained that the term בן or בת describes the receiving of G’d’s largesse, when it has originated from G’d directly through the merits of the patriarch Avraham. Just as G’d had to “reduce Himself” in terms of His pure spirituality, man has to reduce his “physicality,” i.e. his dependence on physical comforts provided by our world somewhat, in order to qualify for receiving these communications from G’d. Each human being desirous of coming closer to G’d by this means has to do so in accordance with the spiritual level he is capable of. The word בת in the language of the Mishnah, is the preface used when describing the measure of certain liquids or dry matter that a container can hold. Its use in that sense originates in Ezekiel 45,10. [It may be correct to understand the term בת קול which is usually associated with post Biblical times, when there was no more direct communication with G’d through prophets or even through the urim vetumim on the High Priest’s breast plate, as a prophetic communication from G’d, but at arm’s length. Ed.]
Another interpretation of the line וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, is based on the fact that there are two types of tzaddikim. One type concentrates all his efforts in life on being of service to the community, whereas another type of tzaddik concentrates on perfecting his personal character traits. Avraham was of the former category, all his efforts being directed outward, for the benefit of his peers. This is alluded to in the words וה' ברך את אברהם, i.e. G’d was with Avraham on account of his concern “for all.” The word את in the line is to be understood as עם, “with.” G’d supported him in all his endeavours. It is this point that our sages alluded to when they said that Avraham had a בת, i.e. he had a large measuring device that was big enough to share out from it to all he came in contact with.
Genesis 24,7. “do not bring my son back there under any circumstances.!” We find that G’d confirmed Avraham’s attittude concerning Yitzchok not leaving the soil of The Holy Land, when He said to Yitzchok (Genesis 26,2) אל תרד מצרימה, שכון בארץ..גור בארץ הזאת, “do not go down to Egypt; reside in the Land…even if you have to be a transient in this land!”
We have a standing rule according to which it is permissible to be afraid of something or someone bigger than oneself, whereas it is forbidden to be afraid of someone smaller than oneself. In other words, whereas it is permissible to be afraid of G’d, it is not permissible to be afraid of anyone other than G’d. This is why all manner of idol worship is prohibited.
The attribute of love enables one to love those who are “smaller” than we are, notably the members of our household who depend on us. When we keep this rule in mind we will be able to understand a story in the Talmud Kiddushin 57 where it is related that Shimon ben Ammasuni undertook to explain the meaning of each word את in the Torah, proving that the word invariably includes something that the Torah had not spelled out specifically. However, when he came to the line (Deuteronomy 6,13) את ה' אלוקיך תירא, “you are to revere the Lord your G’d,” he was stymied, not knowing what the word את in that line could possibly add, as it is forbidden to revere anyone other than the Lord. His students asked him if he thought that all the explanations that he had found for the other times that the word את occurs should be disregarded? He replied that “just as the Torah promises a reward for explaining its intricacies, so it rewards those who refrain from offering explanations that are not appropriate.” In the meantime, Rabbi Akiva who had heard of Shimon ben Ammasuni’s dilemma, said that even this את added an additional meaning to the verse in which it appeared, suggesting that the Torah scholars deserve to be revered also. Rabbi Akiva was able to offer this explanation since Torah scholars are “greater” than the ordinary people consulting them, so that they fit the principle that it is allowed to revere, be in awe of, people that are greater than oneself. This is a basic difference between the attribute of reverence, יראה, and the attribute of אהבה, love. While it is in order to say: “I am afraid of you,” to someone more powerful than oneself, a king for instance, it is not in order to say to such a king: “I love you.” It is, however, permissible to say to such a king: “I love to be in your house,” “I love to serve you,” etc.
The above distinction explains why Shimon ben Amassuni had not found a problem with the word את in Deuteronomy 6,5 where the Torah writes: ואהבת את ה' אלוקיך, “you shall love the Lord your G’d.” He understood this verse as not applying to G’d’s essence, but to attributes of G’d, attributes worth emulating because they make Him lovable. This is also why Rabbi Akiva was able to resolve his difficulty when he suggested that reverence for Torah scholars, who are an extension of G’d from Whom they received their knowledge and stature, therefore qualify for a portion of reverence that is due to their Master. Seeing that the Torah scholar is a servant of G’d, he too is entitled to some of his Master’s reflected glory.
Avraham’s major attribute was אהבה, his love for people. This attribute included even in their concerns with matters that did not involve their relations to the Creator. This being so, G’d did not object to his descending to Egypt, leaving the soil of the Holy Land. His son Yitzchok’s primary attribute was יראה, reverence for the Essence of G’d; i.e. he concentrated all his faculties on how to serve G’d. This being so, it would have interfered with his basic character were he to leave the sacred soil of the land of Israel for even a short period.
Genesis 24,13-15. “Here I am standing at the well…and the daughters of the residents of the town are coming out… and through her I will know that You have performed a loving kindness for my master.” “and behold Rivkah who had been born for Bethuel son of Milkah, was coming out, etc.”
When looking at the precision with which the Torah describes every detail surrounding this encounter, we must ask ourselves what need there was for Eliezer to refer to the other daughters of Aram Naharayim at all? What part did they play in the story? Furthermore, why did the Torah write the word ילדה with a dot in the letter ל, suggesting that the birth of Rivkah was connected to a cause other than Bethuel merely impregnating his wife with his semen? The vowel kubutz under the letter י, instead of the vowel kametz, also adds to the impression that there were external factors involved in Rivkah’s birth. [The reader will note that when Rivkah identified herself to Eliezer in verse 24, she only used the word ילדה in an active mode with the vowel kametz, when she referred to her grandmother Milkah having born her father for Nachor. Ed.]
According to the approach that we have followed in explaining these verses in terms of G’d’s largesse and how it is transmitted to our part of the universe to the righteous, none of these nuances are difficult. We have explained that Avraham’s spiritual level in this world was one that enabled him to elevate mankind by stages to higher spiritual levels, i.e. bringing them closer to their Creator. He did this by opening channels of G’d’s largesse to flow directly, without detours, to the society within which he was active. Eliezer, Avraham’s servant was well aware that the local population of Aram Naharayim consisted of wicked people. In order to examine whether the young lady who was to become Yitzchok’s wife belonged to the wicked part of this population, he had to devise a special scheme. If he were to find among the virgins that came forth from the town to draw water one who distinguished herself by the characteristic of loving kindness, i.e. the same characteristic that distinguished his master Avraham, he felt certain that such a girl must have had her roots in Avraham’s family. She must have been blessed with such an attribute through the activities of Avraham on this earth. When he described himself as “standing at the well,” he positioned himself in such a manner that he had a chance to test the girls concerning their characteristics such as offering help beyond the absolute minimum to an unknown stranger such as himself. Such a girl, by definition, was destined to continue to be active practicing the virtues for which Avraham his master was famous.
The words: והנה רבקה יוצאת אשר ילדה לבתואל, are to alert us that from the generous attitude displayed by Rivkah it became manifest that a contributing factor to her birth had been the benevolent influence Avraham had exerted on the people of his time, and especially on members of his family. A girl who would voluntarily exert herself on behalf of a stranger’s camels would demonstrate the attribute of חסד, loving concern for others, that characterized Avraham and his deceased wife, Sarah.
והנה רבקה יוצאת אשר ילדה לבתואל, “and behold, here Rivkah who had been born for Betuel was coming forth.” She had been born for Betuel, due to beneficial, though indirect, input by Avraham. Betuel was not the originator of Rivkah, but merely a vessel used by G’d as an intermediary. [There is no other verse in the Bible where the expression אשר ילדה, “who she bore,” is not connected to the mother who bore that child. Ed.] The Torah alludes to Avraham’s role in that “birth” by using the vowel kubutz, which implies “external influence.” The reason why Eliezer immediately gave Rivkah jewelry even before enquiring who she was, shows that he realized that her attribute of חסד had revealed that she had much in common with his master Avraham, and that there must be a biological link between her and Avraham. This is also what Rashi had in mind when he wrote: (verse 23) “after he had given her the bracelets, because he was certain of his master Avraham’s merits.”
Genesis 24,14. “and through her I shall know that You have done a kindness with my master.” These words of Eliezer have been explained in the Zohar where the author states that in the time of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai even small children possessed some special wisdom that enabled them to know what other adults do not know. [The children being innocent. Ed.] They were endowed with this superior wisdom as part of the spiritual rays radiating from the saintly personality of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is quoted as an example of the influence exerted on his environment by every righteous person, each one in varying degrees according to his spiritual stature. They are to be perceived as a microcosm of Hashem, Who as the macrocosm, disseminates spiritual influence throughout His universe through His very existence.
There is no question but that Avraham’s major attribute was חסד and that he had a profound influence on his immediate environment, not only recognized but paid tribute to, by the people of Kiryat Arba, when they described him as a “prince of G’d” in their midst. (Genesis 23,6) Avraham personified on earth, what the Creator personifies in the entire universe, i.e. the dispensing of largesse.
The expression ילדה is not appropriate for males, as they only הוליד, beget, plant seed, but do not bring it to gestation. The proper meaning of the word “yuldah” as it appears here suggests an immaculate birth, a birth that had not been preceded by insemination. Seeing that this is a difficult process for us to grasp, the idea that Avraham’s good deeds “spilled over” even to people such as Betuel, is meant to set our mind at rest over the fact that Rivkah, with a father such as Betuel, and a brother such as Lavan, could have been such a righteous matriarch as she clearly was.
During the meal, Eliezer recounts what had occurred at the well, and anyone who has read the Torah’s report of what transpired is aware that Eliezer rewrote some of this “history,” i.e. the sequence of events. Rashi points this out (in his commentary on Genesis 24,47) implying that during the meal, in the presence of Betuel, Eliezer could not bring himself to imply that this man had been endowed with part of Avraham’s soul. [Perhaps the fact that if even a Betuel could exclaim that this match had been made in heaven (Genesis 24,50) is the best support for our author’s theory that some of Avraham’s spirit had spilled over even into the soul of a Betuel. Ed.]
Another commentary on the words of Eliezer: ובה אדע כי עשית חסד עם אדוני. We have a rule that when a person performs a mitzvah that reflects his attribute of חסד, love for his fellow, he “awakens” parallel “waves” of חסד in the celestial regions. As a result, the whole world will benefit from the חסד that his mitzvah awakened. Since all of the mitzvoth performed by Avraham reflected this attribute of חסד of his, they inspired other people to perform similar acts of loving kindness. Rivkah had been enabled, in spite of her extreme youth, to feel the urge to also perform deeds of human kindness. Eliezer prayed to G’d to let him meet someone who would reflect this wonderful attribute of his master Avraham. He acknowledged to G’d that if he were to meet such a girl, her actions would show him that she had been inspired by his master Avraham.
Genesis 24,17. “the servant ran towards her, etc;” answering the unspoken question of what prompted Eliezer to run toward a girl he had not even met, Rashi says that he had observed that the water at the bottom of the well from which she drew water, appeared to rise toward her.
Nachmanides adds that Rashi deduced this fact from verse 13 in which the women drawing water are described as לשאוב מים, “to draw water.” When it was Rivkah’s turn, the Torah merely describes her as “descending and filling her jug,” the word “to draw,” is not used in connection with her until she proceeds to draw water for the camels in verse 20.
Why did the waters not rise toward her when she drew water for Eliezer’s camels, a tedious labour? The sages in Pessachim 114 [discussing the need to dip both matzah and maror in charosset. Ed] claim that in order to secure this kind of assistance from heavenly sources, the act of חסד, loving kindness, must be performed intentionally as a good deed, i.e. the intent of the good deed must be to thereby carry out the wishes of the Creator. The first time when Rivkah filled the jug to satisfy her own needs, i.e. this was not an act intended to please the Lord, specifically. The water rose to assist her as she was a righteous person. The second time, when what she did was an act of kindness to others, an act that demonstrated that she wished not only to please the camels but also her Creator, G’d withheld His assistance in order for her to receive the whole reward for the effort expended in doing this kind deed.
Genesis 24,28. “when I was already on the way, Hashem guided me to the house of my master’s brothers.” It is noteworthy that the word בדרך, “on the way,” is written with the vowel patach, instead of the semi vowel sheva that we would have expected. The former refers to a “definitive path, way, one that was commonly known.” Surely no highway led from Kiryat Arba to Aram Naharayim! We must assume therefore that what Eliezer meant to convey by choosing this word בדרך, is not the route that led from Kiryat Arba to Aram Naharayim, but the feeling that he progressed with unnatural speed to his goal, or as the sages in Bereshit rabbah 60,6 say that Eliezer covered a two week journey in a single day, so that he realized that this miracle was proof that his mission would succeed. It was clear to him therefore that the house that he was taken to must be the house of Avraham’s family.
Genesis 24,33. “I will not eat until after I have said what I have come here to say.” Eliezer betrothed Rivkah in his capacity as Yitzchok’s representative. It is a rule that on the day of his wedding, the groom is not allowed to eat until after he has wed the bride. [Nowadays both groom and bride fast until after the ceremony. Ed.]
Another way of understanding Eliezer’s refusal to eat before he had acquainted his host with his mission, is that the very meal would be converted into a סעודת מצוה, a festive meal of religious significance, once he had betrothed Rivkah. [I find this difficult, as Eliezer is described as eating and drinking in verse 54 before Rivkah had been asked if she accepted the proposal and was willing to go to Kiryat Arba. Ed.]
Another aspect of Eliezer’s refusal to commence eating before explaining the purpose of his journey to Aram Naharayim: Eliezer was aware of the wicked nature of his hosts, and considered it likely that they had put poison in his food in order to not only murder him, but to rob him of the generous dowry his ten camels had been carrying. In the event, he was proven correct, as we no longer hear a word about Rivkah’s father Betuel when Rivkah departs on the following day, since apparently he had eaten of the poisoned food. Eliezer’s speech is considered by our sages as so important, that they do not only consider his words as equal to divrey Torah, words of Torah, but add that the Torah deliberately devoted more space to what appear to be mundane matters discussed by Avraham’s servant, than it devotes to words of Torah spoken by the patriarchs themselves. He was spared death by poisoning due to his timely words, which afforded an angel the opportunity to switch his plate with that of his host Betuel, who died from the effects of poisoning during the following night. (Bereshit Rabbah, 60,12) According to that Midrash, Rivkah’s mother and brother wanted to use the mourning period for Betuel to delay Rivkah’s departure.
When considering the events described in that midrash, a number of other difficulties have also been resolved. Eliezer mentioned a number of points that had not come up when Avraham had charged him with his mission. Why, in relating the events that had transpired at the well, did Eliezer repeat all this prior to asking for Rivkah’s hand in marriage, and even granting that this was worth saying at the time, why is it of interest to us 4000 years later? These questions are what prompted our sages to conclude that mundane matters discussed by Eliezer were of more interest to the Torah than some of the words of Torah wisdom dwelled upon by Avraham’s scholarly descendants.
The key to such statements must be sought in the verse 24,1) where the Torah wrote: וה' ברך את אברהם בכל, “G’d had blessed Avraham in everything.” Our sages had commented on the word בכל, saying it referred to a daughter named בכל about whom the Torah had not reported previously. We will try and offer two explanations to this somewhat enigmatic statement by our sages.
It is known in kabbalistic circles that a righteous person, a צדיק, is also referred to as בן, “son.” When the Jewish people conduct themselves in the manner desired by G’d, the Torah quotes G’d as referring to them as בנים, “sons, children.” (Deuteronomy 14,1) What distinguishes a righteous person from normal people is that he does not suffer from an insatiable appetite for the comforts and allures that this world has to offer, but is content with what he has been granted by his Creator. This is another way of describing him as possessing כל, everything. He does not feel that he lacks anything. This is especially true of the type of righteous people who spend their days asking G’d to dispense His largesse to others whom they perceive to be in need. Their concern for others instead of their asking G’d for more for themselves, stamps them as having been blessed בכל, “with everything.” Moreover, it is to be assumed that people who concern themselves with the needs of their peers all the time, are clearly content that G’d has already given them all that they require for themselves.
It is appropriate for every good Jew to emulate Avraham’s example in this respect, and this is why the same expression, i.e. מכל in the case of Yitzchok (Genesis 27,33), and כל in the case of Yaakov, (Genesis 33,11) has been used by the Torah to document that if Avraham was the “father” of this attitude, his children, i.e. descendants, have emulated him, so that the term בת as we explained several times, is a reference to the container from which the largesse of G’d is dispensed. What the sages meant when they said that G’d had blessed Avraham with a בת, is that his descendants had cultivated this virtue of his, of being concerned first and foremost with the needs of others. In psalms 21,3 David expresses his gratitude to G’d Who has granted him all of his aspirations. He too had emulated this virtue that his people’s founding father had been able to implant in his offspring.
2) A second approach to understanding why the sages saw in the word בכל in our verse a reference to Avraham’s possessing a “daughter,” is based on our knowledge that Avraham related to his Creator by serving him primarily with his attribute of חסד, loving kindness, a virtue that he had learned from his Creator. He did not use this attribute in order to accumulate merits on his own behalf, but in order to accumulate merits for the entire Jewish people of whom he would become the founding father. He laboured hard in order to implant this attribute in his descendants.
This is also the meaning of the Midrash (Baba batra 16,) according to which Avraham wore a necklace featuring a jewel around his neck that miraculously healed sick people when they looked at it. According to this Midrash, after Avraham died, G’d suspended this jewel in the solar orbit. Rabbi Shimon, the author of that Midrash, used it as a parable explaining how beneficial it was for a sick person to come within the field of vision of Avraham. This was so important a feature of Avraham’s personality that G’d could not allow it to die with him, and He equipped the sun with therapeutic qualities.
When reflecting on all this we must not lose sight of the fact that Eliezer at that time had been in the service of Avraham for more than an average person’s lifetime, and had certainly learned to admire his master’s outstanding virtues. If Avraham entrusted this servant with choosing a wife for his son, the sole heir of his spiritual wealth, and insisted that such a wife be a member of his family, i.e. Terach’s family, with whose polytheism he was thoroughly familiar, he was aware of the challenge posed by the mission he had undertaken, and that is why he prayed to G’d הקרה נא ..ועשה חסד עם אדוני אברהם.
Genesis (24,12) We need to examine why Betuel and family at first agreed to Rivkah’s becoming Yitzchok’s bride, (verse 50) but apparently changed their minds subsequently. (Verse 55). We must remember that both Lavan and Betuel, even when appearing to agree, had evil intentions. (see Rashi, according to whom they planned to assassinate Eliezer) Their principal motivation was to prevent Yitzchok from having children that would grow to maturity and survive. (Gittin 64) The Talmud there discusses the subject of a betrothal by means of an emissary, in the absence of a face to face meeting between bride and groom. According to the halachah, as long as the emissary is still on the way, i.e. has not returned from his mission, the sender (Yitzchok) is not allowed to marry any other woman. The reason for this is that he might, unwittingly marry someone forbidden to him for reasons of incest. (In the event that his emissary had already carried out his mission) For this reason, Rivkah’s family first expressed their willingness, so that Yitzchok was “married,” and then by killing him hoped to prevent him from returning to his sender and announcing that he had completed his mission.
Genesis 24,49. “so that I can turn either to the right or to the left.” According to Rashi, by referring to “the right,” Eliezer hinted at Yishmael’s family, whereas when speaking of “left,” Eliezer referred to the daughters of Lot, (also part of Avraham’s family.
[The author goes to some length to explain why Lot was referred to as “left;” according to Rashi, explaining that Royalty is considered “left,” i.e. G’d, Who delegates some of His absolute power to kings of flesh and blood had thereby “shrunk” His powers. Seeing that Ruth, David’s great grandmother would be descended from Lot through Moav, Eliezer is supposed to have foreseen all this. I confess that I find it difficult to believe that Eliezer possessed such prophetic insights. Ed.]
Genesis 24,63. “Yitzchok took a walk to meditate in the open field;” It is a rule that people who practice submissiveness, (in the sense of humility) are liable to become depressed, due to the constant awareness that they cannot act freely in accordance with their desires, as they constantly defer to the wishes of others. When a person reserves his submissiveness vis a vis his Creator, by serving Him exclusively, he thereby attaches himself to the source of Joy. It follows that instead of becoming morose and depressed, he will walk through life in a spirit of happiness and joy. Our verse alludes to this psychological phenomenon, the word לשוח, being an alternate for שמחה, joy. Yitzchok’s taking a stroll was intended to fill his heart with joy. In the field he would be able to communicate with his Creator, i.e. with Holiness. Becoming associated with Holiness would engender feelings of joy within him.
Another aspect of why the Torah tells us that Yitzchok chose to stroll in the field, is provided by the additional detail of the time of day when this occurred, i.e. shortly before sunset, i.e. לפנות ערב. Our sages (Pessachim 119) give some examples of how G’d’s viewing matters differs from the way His creatures, human beings, view the same matters. Example: When one of G’d’s creatures suffers a defeat, he reacts by being saddened and becoming depressed. G’d, on the other hand, is overjoyed when one of His creatures prevails in a discussion with Him. When G’d had originally suggested that Moses become a substitute for the Jewish people whom He intended to destroy after the episode with the golden calf, and Moses pointed out to him that this would not be a good idea, as the chances of a new Jewish people with only one founding father, himself, being better than the previous Jewish people who had three founding fathers were very slim, G’d was overjoyed to accept Moses’ argument as superior to His own. (Compare psalms 4,1 where David alludes to this) The Midrash (Tanchuma Ki Tavo 1) takes this thought even further by generalizing that ”G’d issues decrees and the righteous on earth cancel these decrees.”
When G’d was guiding His universe before having created man, He did so all by Himself. He did not need to take into consideration how His creatures would view His actions, i.e. His will reigned supreme. Once He had created free willed human beings, He had to seriously consider how the righteous among them would view His actions. Our sages allude to this when they said: (Bereshit Rabbah 19,7 עקר שכינה בתחתונים, (loosely translated) “G’d’s presence is occupied primarily with His creatures in the ‘lower’ part of the universe,” [i.e. He has to justify Himself to the righteous people on earth. Ed.]
This principle of G’d’s involvement in man’s pursuits not merely being restricted to viewing it from the celestial regions, is documented in Exodus 19,20 וירד ה' על הר סיני, “Hashem descended on Mount Sinai., etc.” What was the reason that G’d saw fit to leave the lofty spheres of heaven? He prepared to act in accordance with what the צדיקים, the righteous expected from Him. Being able to set the minds of His righteous at rest is the greatest satisfaction that G’d, their Creator, can experience.
In our portion, this is alluded to when the Torah describes Yitzchok as meditating in “the field,” or, [in the words of our sages ] “Avraham viewed G’d as ‘a mountain;’ Yitzchok viewed Him as a ‘field,’ whereas Yaakov viewed Him as a ‘house;’ this is why he promised to build a “house for Him.” The tzaddikim learned to become progressively more familiar with G’d. [The anecdotes about our author that are appended to his commentary on the Torah, reflect the fact that the author was no exception to this rule. Ed.] Being able to feel close to G’d, i.e. on the field, enabled Yitzchok, whose very name symbolized joy, laughter, to become more intimate with his Creator. The word שדה is also known as חקל, “(as in חקלאות the pursuit of agriculture.) [The author describes the righteous as being described as שדה חקל, but I have not been able to find the source for this.
[There follows a paragraph that I have not been able to follow completely, so that I am not able to translate into English without possibly misrepresenting the author’s meaning. Ed.]
An alternate approach to the verse: “Yitzchok went for a stroll in the field close to evening, when he raised his eyes and beheld camels approaching” The Talmud (B’rachot 26), when commenting on this line says that Avraham, (compare Genesis 19,26) composed the daily morning prayer, the word ויעמוד “he stood,” meaning that he stood engaged in prayer, whereas Yitzchok composed the daily afternoon prayer, מנחה. According to the Talmud, the word שיחה when used in the Torah always refers to prayer, תפלה. [It does not occur again in the Torah, although it does occur in psalms 102,1.Ed.] Yaakov, the third of the patriarchs, introduced the evening prayer, מעריב. This is based on Genesis 28,11 ויפגע במקום וילן שם כי בא השמש, “he met G’d there as the sun was about to set and spent the night there.” [The word המקום, meaning G’d, is not unusual. Ed.] We need to examine why a prayer is called מנחה, “gift.” The morning prayer being called שחרית, is easy to understand as the word שחר means morning, when the sun begins to shine. Calling the evening prayer מעריב is also easy to understand as it is offered in the evening, ערב. But naming the afternoon prayer מנחה appears somewhat difficult. Tossaphot Yom Tov, already recognized this anomaly and answers it by referring to the period when it is recited as מנוחת השמש, “when the sun rests.”
I propose a different explanation. I believe the root of the word מנחה is simply “gift,” not “rest.” This prayer is presented at a time, when man does not think that he has to either thank the Lord for having awoken well from his sleep, or after having completed the day’s chores without problems and entrusting our soul to G’d once more when we lie down, confident that He will restore it to us in the morning. Neither of these considerations motivates us to devote time to prayer in the middle of our daily activities. If we take time out to pray during the day nonetheless, G’d may consider this as a gift from us to Him.
Alternately, the reason this prayer is called מנחה, is because we express our unworthiness for all the goodness G’d bestows upon us whether as חסד, an act of loving kindness as understood by Avraham, or as רחמים as understood by Yaakov. Since G’d does not only shower us with His goodness in the morning and in the evening, but even during every moment of every day, we owe it to Him to consider this as a great gift from Him, and therefore we acknowledge this at a time of day when we are otherwise preoccupied.
The reference to גמלים באים “camels approaching,” is not to be understood literally, according to our author, but as a simile meaning the same as גומל in our daily עמידה prayer, where it means that G’d responds to kindness with more kindness.
Another way of understanding the line: וירא והנה גמלים באים, is that the righteous who serve the Lord truly experience a feeling of transcendental satisfaction from doing so even while still in this imperfect world which our bodies inhabit. Rivkah experienced an echo of this, and this is what is meant when the Torah reports her reaction to seeing her future husband Yitzchok for the first time; ותפול מעל הגמל, normally translated as “she fell from the camel,” has to be understood as similar to Genesis 25,19 where the word the words על פני כל אחיו נפל has to be understood as “he (Ishmael) landed;” parallel to this we read here that Rivkah landed above the “camel,” i.e. in loftier spiritual regions. She perceived for the first time the “taste” of serving the Creator based on super-terrestrial dimensions.
Genesis 24,67. “Yitzchok brought Rivkah into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he wed her and she became his wife and he loved her.” We need to examine what the Torah meant by Yitzchok loving Rivkah that is so extraordinary that it has to be spelled out here.
A husband can love his wife on two different levels. He may love her, i.e. be physically attracted to her as she enables him to satisfy his biological urges. If this is his “love,” it is not love at all, but is merely love of his self. There are husbands who do not love their wives because they are instruments of fulfilling their physical desires, but because their wives enable them to perform their Creator’s will better and more profoundly. This is the true meaning of “someone loving his wife.” The Torah testifies that Yitzchok’s love for Rivkah was of the latter category.
Genesis 25,13. “And these are the names of Yishmael’s children according to their names and their further developments.” According to Rashi the line is to be understood as the Torah recording the names in the chronological order in which they were born. The reason why Rashi emphasizes this is because there are numerous occasions when the Torah does not list the name of the children in this order, for instance: Genesis 9,18 when the Torah lists the names of Noach’s sons as שם, חם, ויפת, naming שם first, although Yaphet was the firstborn. Similarly, in Genesis 25,9 where Avraham’s burial is described, Yitzchok is mentioned ahead of his older brother Yishmael as he was the more righteous of the two.
Genesis 25,17. Concerning Rashi’s comment based on Rabbi Chiya that the reason that the lifetime of Yishmael was listed in the Torah is to show that Yaakov spent 14 years hiding in the academy founded by Shem and subsequently headed by his great-grandson Ever; surely it is strange that this piece of information was of such significance that the Torah had to write about it, albeit as an allusion! Why did the Torah not simply write that Yaakov hid there instead of adding a paragraph of seven verses detailing Yishmael’s descendants?!
The intention of the Torah was to illustrate the influence of a tzaddik in elevating people in his immediate proximity to a spiritually higher level. It also demonstrates that when a tzaddik loses this ability to elevate his environment spiritually he has to go into hiding instead, as through his failure he arouses G’d’s wrath at the wicked and his remaining in their environment would expose him to the judgment G’d has in store for them. Isaiah 26,20 makes this point when he writes: חבי כמעט רגע וגו', “hide for a brief moment and lock the doors behind you!” (Compare the Zohar’s I 182, comment on this verse) This was also the reason why Elijah hid during the years of famine that he had decreed (Kings I 17,2) so that the ravens had to bring him food. At that time it was beyond Elijah’s powers to spiritually elevate the people of his generation. Eventually, as described in the same Book, Elijah was commanded by G’d to come out of hiding, as by that time the ground had been prepared for his message to resonate among some of the people. His success is recorded in King’s I 18,39, although, alas it was short-lived. It is a fact that for a while at least, Yaakov’s encounter with Esau resulted in a spiritual elevation of his brother Esau, who even wanted to share the world with him. The reason why Yaakov succeeded partially with Esau though failing with Yishmael, was that Esau was his twin brother, as opposed to Yishmael who was only his uncle. [Esau voluntarily vacated the land of Israel (Canaan) in order not to compete with his brother. (Genesis 36,6-8) Ed.] When the Torah lists the years Yishmael lived, it was to inform us that he lived that many years only on account of his nephew Yaakov’s merit. If Yaakov had been able to bring about a spiritual reawakening of his uncle, he would not have had to hide.
Toldot
Genesis 25,19 “And these are the generations of Yitzchok, the son of Avraham; Avraham begot Yitzchok.” (We have been told in Genesis 21,12 כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, “for your seed (descendants) will be known through Yitzchok.” G’d told Avraham already before Yitzchok was born that although he had another son, Yishmael, his descendants would always be associated with Yitzchok. It was understood that this promise was contingent on Yitzchok becoming a righteous person, a tzaddik, future generations would not trace themselves back to their ancestor Avraham but each generation would only trace itself back to their immediate forbears, i.e. their fathers. In other words, the new element provided by our verse above is that even Yitzchok’s offspring would trace themselves back to their founding patriarch Avraham. We learn from here also that it is up to the “son” to demonstrate by his deeds that he was not only descended from his father but could claim previous generations as his “roots.” When we consider this, the word תולדה is no longer an adjective, an attribute of a person which he came by naturally, without any input of his own, but it is a tribute to the person so described, meaning that he is a worthy descendant of his illustrious forbears.
Another way of looking at our verse is that of the Ari’zal, who sees in the words כי ביצחק in Genesis 21,12 a reference to the “feminine” side of Yitzchok in the diagram of the 10 emanations, i.e. the earthly element, seeing that the angel had said to Avraham (Genesis 18,10) והנה בן לשרה אשתך, “and here your wife Sarah will have a son.” [The angel emphasized Sarah as predominant in Yitzchok’s birth, not his father Avraham. Ed.] However, subsequently he would receive a soul contributed by Avraham, Avraham representing the masculine element of the chart of the emanations. This point is made by the Torah here repeating what otherwise would be assumed, that Avraham begot Yitzchok. The Ari’zal’s comment also coincides with the meaning of Bereshit Rabbah 58,5 in which the Midrash, referring to Genesis 23,3 where Avraham is reported as “arriving” in order to bury Sarah, asks: “where did Avraham arrive from? Where had he been previously?” One of the answers given by the Midrash is that Avraham came from Mount Moriah. The Midrash adds that Sarah died as a result of the anguish she experienced when told that Yitzchok had been slaughtered. She had found this incompatible with G’d’s promise to Avraham that ברך אברכך והרבה ארבה את זרעך, “I will continuously bless you and greatly multiply your descendants” which G’d had said to Avraham in Genesis 22,17.
At this point the author attributes to this Midrash a third answer to the question whence Avraham came to arrange Sarah’s funeral. I have not found this in any of my editions, although this is the answer that would tie in with our verse above. The Midrash supposedly views as Avraham “coming” i.e. contributing the soul to Yitzchok as alluded to in the words (Genesis 21,12) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע.
The author suggest as a more likely explanation of the words אלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, אברהם הוליד את יצחק, that the Torah testifies to Yitzchok’s distinctive characteristic being יראה, awe and reverence of Gd, i.e. that as a founding father of the Jewish nation, Yitzchok’s characteristic contributed the awe of the majesty of G’d that is common to most Jews. This attribute enables the average Jew to keep his distance from everything evil or wicked, i.e. סור מרע. This attribute is an offshoot of the attribute of tzimtzum, voluntary limitations, that G’d imposed upon Himself prior to creating the physical universe. Having realized that this was one of G’d’s attributes, Yitzchok emulated this. There is another way of achieving similar results, i.e. Avraham’s way of negating the allures of this world almost completely and thereby coming ever closer to G’d resulting in love for Him, as we have described repeatedly. The opening line of our Parshah therefore mentions that both father and son, each in their own way, practiced virtues that guaranteed that he would come closer to G’d all the time.
Still another angle from which to approach the opening line in our Parshah would concentrate on the word הוליד, begot, instead of ילד “gave birth,” in the sense of doing more than merely contribute semen. [Compare Genesis 4,18; (three times) 10,23; 10,24. et al.). Ed.] According to this the Torah used the expression אברהם הוליד to indicate that Avraham’s influence to Yitzchok’s being born extended to the next generation, i.e. he had a share in Yitzchok’s ability to sire children, also. Moreover, Yaakov, as we have stated elsewhere, served G’d under the heading of the emanation תפארת, “harmony,” a combination of the two attributes of חסד and גבורה\יראה. Our verse, by commencing with the connective letter ו, “and,” suggests that due to Yaakov having been begotten by both Avraham and Yitzchok, he was able to unify the two major characteristics of his father and grandfather within his personality so that he could serve his Creator by using both these attributes to the best advantage, i.e. blending them into תפארת, harmony. This influence that Avraham was able to exert on the development of his grandson Yaakov, is described by the Torah’s use of the causative mode of the hiphil, by writing הוליד instead of ילד.
Genesis 25,21. “Yitzchok implored Hashem on behalf of his wife;” it is known that the relationship between the masculine and the feminine parts in a marriage is based on the masculine part initiating and the feminine part responding. This relationship is demonstrated clearly as one of total contrast when both partners in the marriage are completely sterile, in the sense that neither is able to contribute his or her part to conception. When the roles of the male and the female appear to be reversed, i.e. the female appearing to initiate and the male appearing to respond, the usual relationship is totally askew. The latter situation was the case here, and this is expressed by the Torah writing the word לנוכח אשתו, an expression indicating היפוך, a totally reversed situation. This is the reason why the Torah writes of G’d: ויעתר לו, “G’d was entreated on his account.” The word עתר indicates a “reversal,” as we know from Sukkah 14, where the Talmud applies it to a shovel or pitchfork, which is used to turn over the grain.
Another way of interpreting the line ויעתר יצחק וגו', sees it as Yitzchok imploring G’d to grant his wife children on account of her merits, i.e. לנוכח אשתו. He did not think that he himself had accumulated sufficient merits to pray to G’d to consider his own merits. This also appears to be the way Rashi understands the somewhat unusual wording used in our verse when he sees in the word לו “to him,” proof that G’d hearkened only to Yitzchok’s prayer and not לה, not to Rivkah’s prayer. Were this not so, the word לו would have been unnecessary, according to Rashi. The reason given by Rashi is that the prayer of a tzaddik who is himself the son of a tzaddik reaches G’d’s throne more quickly than the prayer of a tzaddik (such as Rivkah) who does not have any parental merit to support her prayers. From the wording of Rashi it seems that, as we said, Yitzchok’s prayer was based on Rivkah possessing the merits necessary for G’d to grant requests in her prayer. If G’d had done what Yitzchok asked because of his reasoning, it would leave the impression that Yitzchok’s own merits were insufficient. In order to prevent the reader from arriving at such an erroneous conclusion, the Torah adds the word לו, i.e. that G’d did indeed respond to Yitzchok’s plea, based on his own merit.. The reason that Yitzchok’s plea took precedence was not that he possessed more merits than his wife, but that he was fortunate in having had a father Avraham who himself was a tzaddik. [This editor wonders why, during the 20 years Yitzchok had been married to Rivkah, his father Avraham never prayed to G’d to grant that couple children. Ed.]
Genesis 25,22. she said: “if so (that the children already quarrel within my womb) ,what is the purpose of my existence?” We can understand this complaint of Rivkah on the basis of a comment by the Ari’zal that righteous women are spared the pain and discomfort of pregnancy. Rivkah, while experiencing even more than the normal amount of pain and discomfort during her pregnancy, had concluded that this was proof that G’d had not considered her righteous. Moreover, it is a tenet of our faith that if someone is not a “good” person, such a person will not serve as a receptacle for anything holy or potentially holy. Our sages have based this insight on Leviticus 11,15 את כל עורב למינו, “and every subspecies of raven each according to its species” (is forbidden to eat). [The word כל in that verse means that even close association with something ritually unclean, i.e. a raven, is an obstacle to such a person hosting holy spirit, etc. Ed.] According to Bereshit Rabbah 63,6 whenever Rivkah passed a Torah academy Yaakov would make an effort to leave her womb, whereas when she passed a pagan temple Esau would try to leave her womb. Thereupon she went to ask G’d about this strange phenomenon. The Midrash states further that the word זה in our verse refers to the fact that originally, -if not for her complaint- Rivkah was slated to become the mother of all the twelve tribes; seeing that she appeared to find fault with G’d’s arrangement, she was told that she would become the mother of only two sons, one of whom would be Esau. One of the sages in the Midrash takes issue with the literal meaning of Yaakov and Esau respectively having shown awareness of when their mother passed a Torah academy or a pagan temple, and states that, of course, this is merely a simile, and that Rivkah consulted with the heads of the academy founded by Shem and subsequently headed by his great grandson Ever. According to another opinion offered, Rivkah knew that the source of holiness is the One known as אנכי, and when she exclaimed למה זה אנכי, she expressed her confusion how she could be the receptacle of a son who clearly strived for holiness if she was not worthy. On the other hand, if she were worthy, why did she experience such a difficult pregnancy? G’d put her mind at rest, telling her that her difficulties did not mean that she was not worthy, but that the other son who would be unworthy was the one that caused her present problems.
Let us proceed to explain some aspects about Yitzchok’s and Rivkah’s marital union and its implications. We must take note that the marital unions of the patriarchs and their details have been described in the Torah, with the exception of the union of Avram and Sarai at the time. Seeing that at the time Avram married Sarai he was not yet a founding father of the Jewish nation, the Torah did not see fit to give us any details about that union and how it came about. We have explained previously that names reflect the soul’s origin, so that when both Avram’s and Sarai’s names were changed they also experienced a change in their souls. The union of Avram and Sarai had not produced any offspring, and until both their names were changed by Divine decree they could not become patriarchs and matriarchs, respectively. This leaves us with the question why the names of Yitzchok and Rivkah were not changed so that they would not have become parents of an Esau? Avraham’s name was changed in order that his attribute of חסד could take root in the world and enable him to be active spreading this virtue. By doing this he incidentally illuminated the world with some of the Divine light that had been withheld since Adam’s sin. We have explained previously that this Divine light, brightness, cannot be allowed to keep on getting stronger without endangering the existence of the human race while man had not kept pace with the spiritual growth needed to tolerate these infusions of Divine light. It was Yitzchok’s task to preserve the limitation of this accomplishment of his father Avraham without endangering his achievements by recklessly leading where his contemporaries could not follow and keep in step. This is why his name, as opposed to that of his father or his son Yaakov, was never changed. Just as G’d had to impose limitations on Himself before becoming active in a material world, so Avram before becoming active as a patriarch, had to impose limitations on himself. The name אברם, “a towering personality in lofty regions,” was appropriate as long as he had not been charged with spreading monotheism through his loving concern for his fellow throughout the regions in which he would sojourn. Once this became his primary task, the name change from אברם to אברהם, i.e. “father of many (terrestrial) nations,” and mirrored his becoming more effective in our terrestrial regions. He himself could not produce personal issue until he had begun the task assigned to him on earth. Yaakov, who as we explained, represented a fusion of the attributes of his father and his grandfather, had his name changed to Israel, when he had matured to the point of representing this meld of loving kindness on the one hand, and awe of G’d on the other.
[No other patriarch is quoted as having been “afraid” as many times as Yaakov, in spite of his having received more assurances from G’d than either his father or grandfather. Ed.]
Whereas Avraham, after having had his name changed, is never again referred to as Avram, and according to halachah it is inadmissible for us nowadays to refer to him by his original name, Yaakov received an “additional” name, his original name not having been uprooted and the prophets throughout the generations repeatedly referring to him by that name. The fact that he was able to sire all the 12 tribes before having had the name Yisrael added to his name, is proof that his name change was of a different kind from that of Avram’s becoming Avraham. Yaakov’s combining the attributes of חסד and גבורה, did not need to be renamed for the sake of achieving צמצום, voluntary restriction of some of his natural initiatives. When the angel informed him that henceforth the name Israel would be added to his original name (Genesis 32,28) this was in recognition of Yaakov’s ability to function on both “wavelengths, i.e. he could keep in check his tendency to practice חסד as well as his tendency to be in awe of G’d, גבורה, דין as the occasion demanded. We can best understand this when picturing a father who, when displaying his love for a young child, has to keep in check that this intellect tells him that he is wasting valuable time “playing,” during which he could perform other tasks whose usefulness would be apparent to all. By knowing when to use the instrument of tzimtzum, he pleases the Creator so much that the prophet Isaiah 49,3 quotes G’d as saying of Israel: ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, “Israel through you I am glorified.” [I have occasionally paraphrased the author’s words in the preceding paragraph. Ed.]
Genesis 25,26. “while his hand was holding on to Esau’s heel.” I assume that the reader is aware that Satan, [also known as the angel of death, Esau himself describing himself as headed for death, Ed.] is considered as the protective guardian of Esau. Yaakov was bent on vanquishing this force, (also known as the poison resulting in death) so that this force would not overwhelm us, his descendants. It is noteworthy that the numerical value of the word עקב (172) is twice the numerical value of the attribute of Justice, אלוהים (86). Symbolically speaking, Yaakov used this numerical superiority of the letters in his name to challenge the supremacy of Justice when not tempered by Mercy.
Genesis 25,28. “Yitzchok loved Esau for he had a taste for game;” (normal translation). Our author, following a kabbalistic approach demonstrated ever since his approach to Genesis 3,1 (page 22) where he referred to certain sparks that fell off the Shechinah and landed somewhere in our world, has considered it the task and intense desire of the tzaddik to snare (hunt and capture) some of these 88 sparks of the Divine and make them his own in order to restore them to their origin. Accordingly, Yitzchok views Esau as in pursuit of this valuable “game,” hoping that his son Esau, the hunter, could help him in his quest. Although he was aware that Esau’s “hunting” was concerned with physical bounty, he hoped to sublimate his skills to pursuing something more spiritual by teaching him Torah, thus elevating him spiritually. After all, according to our tradition, the souls of famous converts to Judaism such as Shemayah and Avtalyon as well as the great scholar Rabbi Meir, are all reported to be descendants of Esau’s soul. There are more such “sparks” to be found on this planet until the messiah will come. (Sanhedrin 96)
Genesis 26,3. (some editions of the Kedushat Levi do not contain this paragraph) sojourn in this land…..for to you and to your descendants I will give this land .as a result of Avraham having hearkened to My voice, etc.” This verse sounds at first glance as if Yitzchok on his own account did not have the merits required for him to stake a claim to this land in his own right.
It is known (in Kabbalistic circles) that Avraham constantly endeavoured to restore the “sparks” that had escaped from the Shechinah in the celestial regions, and that seeing that these were to be found among the gentiles, this necessitated that he visit countries other than the land of Canaan. Once he had gathered them up, Yitzchok could begin to spiritually elevate them. It would no longer be necessary for Yitzchok to leave the Holy Land in order to search for any remaining “sparks,” that had escaped the “Shechinah” and become tainted by contact with the material world and its allures. This is what is alluded to when the Torah speaks of תולדות יצחק, “Yitzchok’s accomplishments,” instead of תולדות אברהם, “Avraham’s accomplishments,” as Avraham did not have the merits of his father to assist him in his task on earth. As a result of this lack of זכות אבות, he had to sojourn in other countries on occasion.
Genesis 26,28. “we have taken due note of the fact that the Lord has been with you, etc.;” based on what we explained (18,2) in connection with וירא וירץ לקראתם, (page 88) that when a person looks at a righteous person, his own powers of perception are enhanced by the mere fact that he is within the orbit of the tzaddik, our sages (Rosh Hashanah 16) have stated that people must make a point of visiting their Rabbi or other scholars on the festivals. They will benefit spiritually merely by looking at their Rabbi. Avraham at the time had realized that the three strangers who had appeared in front of him suddenly were superior beings as his own powers of perception had been sharpened by their arrival and his facing them. It was this realization that his perceptive powers had been enhanced, that prompted him at the time not only to walk toward these visitors but to run in order to make them welcome.
The repetition by the Torah of the words ראו ראינו is to draw our attention to both Avimelech and his entourage having experienced these enhanced powers of perception. They had become aware that their powers of “seeing” had not only been improved quantitatively but also qualitatively, i.e. they had experienced the awe of feeling in the presence of a spiritually superior being. They realized now that the Presence of the Divine Shechinah rested above the head of Yitzchok.
Genesis 26,29. “if you were to do with us something evil, considering that we have not harmed you, etc.;” we assume that the reader is familiar with the commentary of Baal haturim according to which Avimelech had indeed planned to harm Yitzchok, but that G’d converted this to Yitzchok’s benefit, something G’d does all the time when evil persons try to harm tzaddikim. According to Baal haturim, the words “as we have not harmed you,” are to be understood as an admission by Avimelech that he had indeed intended to harm Yitzchok, but that he had been prevented from doing so by Yitzchok’s G’d. Avimelech now pleaded with Yitzchok to respond to their deeds and not to their evil intentions. He implied that if Yitzchok were planning to do him and his country harm, this too would backfire.
Another way of looking at the line: אם תעשה עמנו רעה כאשר לא נגענוך וגו', adding the words: אתע עתה ברוך ה', “you are now in the position of being blessed by the Lord,” it appears that Avimelech now demanded that just as he had done favours for Yitzchok, it was now Yitzchok’s turn to reciprocate these favours. At first glance it sounds incomprehensible that Yitzchok has to return favours to Avimelech when the latter, by his own admission, had only not harmed Yitzchok because he was afraid of retribution from Yitzchok’s G’d. He had learned the lesson that everyone had to learn who had ever tried to harm any of our patriarchs.
The righteous had never wanted that these people be destroyed; if this had been the result of their planning harm against the patriarchs, this was something G’d had decided in His own wisdom, without prompting by the intended victims. The tzaddikim are concerned with G’d rewarding those who show them fairness in their dealings with them. The tzaddikim have the welfare of mankind at heart. Avimelech was arrogant or dishonest enough to try and make Yitzchok believe that he had been a free agent when doing favours for Yitzchok, and that he had not been under pressure by G’d to do so. Avimelech argued that whatever his original intention, the fact remained that Yitzckok now enjoyed G’d’s blessings, and that they had been the instruments G’d had used to bestow these blessings upon him. A person who has been described as “blessed by the Lord,” must never become the cause of other human beings coming to harm through anything he does. It therefore is his duty to repay favours that he had experienced while sojourning in the land of the Philistines.
Genesis 26,30. In response to this request, ויעש להם משתה, “Yitzchok prepared a feast for Avimelech and his entourage;” ויאכלו וישתו וילכו מאתו בשלום, “they ate and drank, and they went away from him in peace.”
It would appear that these various anecdotes from the lives of our forefathers, the patriarchs, have been recorded in the Torah, so that during periods of exile and persecution, their descendants would recall that their forebears too had been subjected to difficult periods and that their lives had been in danger on account of their being ‘Hebrews’ on numerous occasions. We should remember that although the early Israelites were frequently in a politically weak position, this did not prevent powerful kings from soliciting their goodwill.
Genesis 27,22. “He came close, and Yitzchok kissed him, etc.;” ….he said: “the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of a field that has been blessed by the Lord.” The first letters in the line: אשר ברכו ה', are the same as in the word אבי, “my Father,” i.e. Yitzchok felt that the son in front of him represented his father in heaven.
Genesis 27,28. “and may the Lord give you of the dew of heaven and an abundance of grain, etc.” This line is best understood in accordance with the Talmud [source not found Ed.]. Parnassah, usually translated as livelihood, “economic well being,” is understood as a pleasurable experience, תענוג, i.e. the service performed by the Jewish people for G’d results in a satisfying experience for the Lord. The reason that the Lord desires for Israel to serve Him and the resulting satisfaction is known as דלת, a word derived from דלה ועניה, poverty, inadequacy. Just as a poor man constantly feels in need, so G’d constantly feels the desire to be served by His creatures. By doing so, they provide Him with what in our parlance is “a livelihood.” [I have paraphrased this. Ed.]
Let us proceed to explain the nature of the blessing Yitzchok bestowed on Yaakov. We must remember that he thought that he was blessing Esau. The wording of the blessing reflects evaluations in the celestial spheres. In order to understand this better, compare the Talmud in Pessachim 118 where psalms 118,1 הודו לה' כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו, “Praise the Lord for He is good, for His loving kindness lasts forever;” this is understood by Rav Chisda as the goodness of G’d being displayed in the manner in which He applies punishment for the same sin by exacting retribution from the sinner only relative to his economic ability, i.e. He may punish a wealthy man by depriving him of his ox, whereas he may deprive a poor man only of a lamb, though both committed the same sin. The principle we must constantly keep in front of our eyes is spelled out in B’rachot 60: “whatever G’d initiates is for the benefit of His creatures.” Being only human, we cannot always recognize that what befalls us is actually for our own good. Even when it is quite obviously a setback to our aspirations, we must remember that when these setbacks are retributions for sins committed, designed to preserve our claim to an afterlife intact, the retribution itself is tailored to our individual circumstances ensuring that we will not collapse under their burden.
The same rule applies in reverse. Sometimes we experience what we consider a stroke of good luck, and we may even thank the Lord for this “stroke of good luck.” This does not mean that this very “stroke of good luck,” does not constitute a challenge even more difficult to deal with than a “stroke of bad luck.” Eventually, we may trace reverses we experience in life to the very stroke of “good luck,” such as winning a lottery. Had we not won that lottery, dissent within the family, envy and jealousy might never have reared their head within our family. The overriding element that a true believer in Hashem must never lose sight of is that G’d did not give Satan unlimited powers, and that whatever difficulties he puts in our path must be geared to our ability to overcome it, if only we exert ourselves to the fullest extent.
We know that Yitzchok’s predominant characteristic was the aspect of G’d called מידת הדין, attribute of Justice. Esau, on the other hand, personified the perennial accuser, Satan, whereas Yaakov personified virtues of the Jewish people. When preparing to bless his son Esau, (as he thought he was doing) Yitzchok had to tailor his blessing to the power of retribution, Satan. (Compare Baba batra 16). When G’d gives the attribute of Justice the green light to punish human beings, this means that he allows Satan free reign for a time. By withdrawing, hiding His benevolence from the people being punished, He is actually doing them a favour. When Yitzchok proceeded to bless Esau, he had intended to empower the forces that mete out retribution on earth; having been unaware that the son facing him was Yaakov, who instead of empowering retribution was concerned only with what was manifestly good for Israel. This was an example of everything that G’d does being for the ultimate good. Yaakov too had not realized the true motivation of Yitzchok in wanting to bestow a blessing on Esau at that time not having been aware of the type of blessing Yitzchok intended to bestow on him. [All three (not counting Rivkah) parties involved in the blessing were unaware of pertinent facts before undertaking a potentially fateful step. Ed.]
Genesis 27,30 “it was that as soon as Yitzchok had concluded blessing Yaakov, etc.;” we need to understand why Yitzchok had not wanted to bestow a blessing on Yaakov, originally. Nachmanides writes: (not found in Torah commentary) that Yitzchok preferred Yaakov to remain unaware of the blessings bestowed upon him. [Perhaps he felt that way seeing that his own father, Avraham, also had not bestowed a blessing upon him, and left it for G’d to do so after he had died. Compare. Genesis 28,4 where Yitzchok makes it plain to Yaakov that he had not received this blessing from his own father. Ed.] This seems difficult to understand. Perhaps we may understand it better in conjunction with what the Talmud B’rachot 45 states that the person translating the public Torah reading must not raise his voice to be louder than the voice of the person reading the Torah from the original scroll. The reader represents G’d, Who has given us the Torah, whereas the translator only represents the reader. The Talmud cites Exodus 19,19 as the source for this ruling. Anyone reading that verse will be astounded, as it sounds as if G‘d, responding to Moses spoke louder than Moses, when repeating what Moses had told Him. (Compare Tossaphot on that folio) However, the point is, as we learned in B’rachot 12, that any benediction that does not contain a reference to G’d as King, is not considered a benediction in the full meaning of the word. Similarly, any benediction which follows immediately after another benediction also does not rank as a (separate) benediction in the full sense of the word so that it does not need to include another reference to G’d as “King”.
It appears that Avraham had a “claim” on the word א-ל as a name of G’d, as G’d uses this name when bestowing acts of loving kindness on His creatures. Yitzchok, on the other hand, had a similar claim on the word אלוקים for G’d, as this name represents Justice or judgment. This is why his son Yaakov in Genesis 31,42 speaks of פחד יצחק “He Who Yitzchok was in awe of and Who assisted me,” when describing Yitzchoks’ G’d.” Yaakov, had a “claim” on the tetragram, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה, the name of G’d representing primarily the attribute of Mercy. In order for the attribute of Justice to be “sweetened” somewhat, it needs to be applied in conjunction with the other two attributes we mentioned.
The Ari z’al said that the word אתה when used in the beginning of each benediction is an allusion to the attribute א-ל, so that when one commences the benediction with the words ברוך אתה י-ה-ו-ה, the word ברוך signifying continuation, or conduit, meaning that G’d continuously dispensing loving kindness by means of both His names אתה א-ל י-ה-ו-ה. Through His continuing to do so, G’d automatically “sweetens,” i.e. softens the impact of the attribute of Justice, the one referred to as אלוקינו in every benediction we pronounce. It follows that when one benediction follows on the heels of another benediction, there having been no prayer or psalm interrupting the two, that there is no need to acknowledge G’d once more as being King, as the full impact of the attribute of Justice has already been softened so that we do not need to appeal to G’d as a benevolent ruler, i.e. King, to soften the attribute of Justice once more.
When he examine the Biblical text quoted by the Talmud in B’rachot 12 in order to prove that the translator must speak in lower decibels than the reader more closely, (which at first glance appears to prove the opposite of what is postulated), we have to remember that Moses was considered as the patriarch of all future prophets and Torah scholars. In spite of this, we all know that Moses’ prophetic pronouncements were far easier to understand than those of all the prophets following him. The reason that this was so was that the Shechinah spoke directly out of Moses’ throat (Chavot Daat, 232) whereas the prophets subsequent to him were only relating what they had seen in a vision, so that they had to “describe“ that vision in order to make it intelligible to their listeners. Keeping these facts in mind, the exegesis of the Talmud is absolutely correct, as G’d Himself plays the role of the “Translator.” It remains for us to explain what Nachmanides meant when he wrote that Yitzchok wanted Yaako’s blessing to remain שלא מדעת, unknown to him, something that he was not aware of.
The Ari z’al wrote the following commentary on Kohelet 8,9 עת אשר שלט האדם באדם לרע לו, “there is a time when man rules over another man intending to harm him.” When G’d wishes to place a holy soul on earth He first needs to prepare a ritually unclean spot on earth for him. Were He not to do this, the attribute of Justice, Satan, could succeed in preventing Him from carrying out His design. However, once the attribute of Justice has taken note that this “holy” soul is surrounded by ritual uncleanness, the attribute of Justice, i.e. Satan, does not worry about the holy soul’s chances of being successful in such surroundings. Hence it will not lavish much attention on that soul. Being thus unmolested by Satan for a while, the holy soul can develop roots and prosper, enabling it to pursue its appointed task. This is why Avraham was born to the idol merchant Terach. Once Satan was aware of this, he did not worry about how Avraham would develop until Avraham had already established a powerful presence on earth himself, one that could challenge Satan. This is also why David’s roots were in Lot and his daughter; Satan never suspected that Lot would sire a daughter whose descendant would become the convert from whom David, and eventually the messiah could emerge. Yitzchok’s not wanting to bless Yaakov publicly, was intended to protect him from an assault by Satan. This is also why Avraham was meant to pursue the four Kings and their armies in order to save Lot, so that he could fulfill his destiny in becoming a forbear of David. According to the Ari z’al some people attain tremendous power early on in their career only, imagining that they control the whole of mankind. Sooner or later, their empire falls apart and ends in ruin. Yitzchok held back with blessing Yaakov until after he had blessed Esau in order for the latter to enjoy his blessing, only to decline through his abuse of the powers he enjoyed; at that time Yaakov, his descendants, the Jewish people, would rise to fame never to decline and disappear from the stage of history. Yaakov, in time, would destroy all the forces on earth that personify ritual contamination, טומאה. At that time all of G’d’s blessings not pronounced by Yitzchok would be fulfilled.
Genesis 27,33. “he shall also remain blessed.” We need to examine what exactly prompted Yitzchok to say this, seeing that he did give Yaakov another blessing in 28,1-4. Yaakov received the first blessing when he brought his father the meal, and the second one when he set out to flee from his brother Esau, (though his father thought he was sending him only to marry one of Lavan’s daughters.) On the surface, the first blessing was the major blessing, whereas the precise meaning of the second blessing was not even spelled out. If the second blessing was the “minor” blessing, it must have been meant to apply to Yaakov while he was alive on this earth, concerning himself with success in his undertakings on earth. The effect of his first blessing was meant to be reserved for use in the world to come, or at least on earth, but after the arrival of the messiah.
In his comments on Zecharyah 14,9 ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד, “on that day G’d will be One and His name will be One,” the Ari z’al comments that the meaning is not that G’d’s name will undergo changes, but that the meaning of G’d’s name(s) will be clear to all of mankind. G’d’s name י-ה will no longer be an allusion to exile, nor will His name ו-ה be abused by atheists using it for their own purposes. When the time comes when G’d will deal with the “left” side of the emanations judgmentally, neutralizing its influence forever, the two parts of G’d’s name will be on a par with one another as if there were no ה and no ו but two letters י. When Yitzchok told Esau, concerning Yaakov’s future, גם ברוך יהיה, “he will also remain blessed in the future”, he referred to that future.
Genesis 27,38. “do you really have only one blessing that you can dispense, my father?;While there is a rule that life as well as blessings originate from one holy source, this rule brings in its wake the possibility that the “left” side of the emanations can also be the seat of life, as when G’d created the universe He arranged that the forces of evil and those of good be at par with one another least on the surface. [Otherwise freedom of choice granted to man would be meaningless. Ed.] Both the Ari z’al and others preceding him, including Rashi, stated that holiness is also known as אחת, “a state of unity.” Rashi points out that when the descendants of Yaakov set out on their journey to Egypt and their names had been listed individually, the Torah (Genesis 46,27) concluded the list with כל הנפש, “the sum total of the soul,” (singular) when referring to this family. On the other hand, when the Torah reports Esau and his family leaving the Holy Land in order to settle in the region of Seir, (Genesis 36,6) Esau’s descendants are referred to as נפשות, “souls” (pl.). Such nuances in the Torah reveal to us that not all souls originate in the same region of the diagram portraying the emanations.Genesis 27,38. “do you really have only one blessing that you can dispense, my father?”;While there is a rule that life as well as blessings originate from one holy source, this rule brings in its wake the possibility that the “left” side of the emanations can also be the seat of life, as when G’d created the universe He arranged that the forces of evil and those of good be at par with one another least on the surface. [Otherwise freedom of choice granted to man would be meaningless. Ed.] Both the Ari z’al and others preceding him, including Rashi, stated that holiness is also known as אחת, “a state of unity.” Rashi points out that when the descendants of Yaakov set out on their journey to Egypt and their names had been listed individually, the Torah (Genesis 46,27) concluded the list with כל הנפש, “the sum total of the soul,” (singular) when referring to this family. On the other hand, when the Torah reports Esau and his family leaving the Holy Land in order to settle in the region of Seir, (Genesis 36,6) Esau’s descendants are referred to as נפשות, “souls” (pl.). Such nuances in the Torah reveal to us that not all souls originate in the same region of the diagram portraying the emanations.
When Esau, at this point questions his father if he has only ברכה אתת, he asks whether his father cannot dispense a blessing for people whose origin is not in the holy section of the emanations, the section known as אחת. He feels, that surely seeing that he is his father’s son, his father must also be able to have reserved a blessing for him! By asking this question he contradicted the words of his father who had told him that the blessing he had already bestowed on Yaakov that made him senior to his older brother, i.e. הוה גביר לאחיך, made this impossible. If he were to give Esau a similar blessing he would in effect deprive Yaakov of the blessing he had just given him. When Yitzchok heard what Esau demanded of him, seeing that he had told him that in his blessing he had made Yaakov the senior of the two, he realized the full extent of Esau’s wickedness, and that is why he added, now, without reservation, גם ברוך יהיה, “he shall also remain blessed!” Up until that moment Yitzchok had not realized that Esau was a product of the סטרא אחרא, the “left side” of the scheme of emanations. Having found that out, he now gave Esau a blessing that was in keeping with the “blessings” perceived as such by souls that originate in that realm, i.e. על חרבך תחיה, “seeing that you are loyal to the principle that might is right,” the principle espoused by people whose souls originate in the left side of the emanations, people who believe in the survival of the fittest, Yitzchok could only bless his son Esau by wishing him “success” (death) when he would be involved in such lethal encounters. He meant it in the sense that “until you pay the price with your physical life you will not be able to secure for yourself any life in the hereafter”. When such people lose their lives when engaged in what they perceive as a “holy” war, they may redeem themselves and secure life in the hereafter. [This editor has often wondered it the concept of our sages of a Mashiach ben Yoseph, a messiah who will die in battle before the advent of the Mashiach ben David, the ultimate redeemer, may not originate among the gentiles and earn his right to his hereafter in the manner just described. Ed.]
Genesis 27,40. Let us turn now to the next part of Yitzchok’s “blessing” to Easu, the words והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עולו מעל צוארך, “but when you humble yourself you will be able to remove the his yoke from around your neck.”
According to Or Hachayim on our verse the word והיה in the above verse is to be interpreted as a form of joy, שמחה. Contrary to the accepted translation of this line, Rashi understands the word תריד, as “when you will suffer pain.” According to Proverbs 11,10 באבוד רשעים רנה “when the wicked perish there is jubilation.” Isaiah 1,3 speaks about the ox recognizing his owner. The fact is that when the ox wears a yoke he does not recognize (in the sense of welcoming) his master voluntarily, but only because he is forced to wear a yoke. When the yoke is removed he will honour his master by still respecting and welcoming him. Something parallel occurs in history about the Israel/Esau relationship. As long as the Temple in Jerusalem was standing, the gentile nations paid reluctant respect to the Jewish people. Nowadays, when there is no longer a Temple in Jerusalem, the yoke which had restrained the Gentiles has been lifted from them, although their obligation, as a free willed creature created in the image of G’d to respect G’d’s people has not been lessened. G’d, after all, created this universe only for the sake of His people, the Jewish people. According to Isaiah 40,17 כל האומות כעין נגדו מאפס ותוהו נחשבו לו, “All nations are as naught in His sight; He accounts them as less than nothing.” This is in essence what Yitzchok told Esau when he said ופרקתו עולו מעל צווארך, “even when you will divest yourself of the yoke of Yaakov, in times when the Jewish people are in exile, as Rashi explains, you will only remove this yoke from your neck, i.e. temporarily during the time Israel is in exile, but inherently, your duty toward G’d, whose representative on earth the Jewish people are, will continue, just as an ox knows his master regardless if he is restrained by a physical yoke or not.” Upon hearing this, Esau raised his voice and wept, feeling frustrated that his father would not give him a blessing that would neutralize the one he had given to Yaakov. He had fully understood all the implications of the few words Yitzchok had said to him.
Vayetzei
Genesis 28,10. “Yaakov left Beer Sheva, etc.;” [I presume the connection to Chanukah the author makes here is based on his having composed this commentary for a Shabbat Chanukah sermon. Ed.]
The reason why the miracle of Chanukah, actually the miracle of the cruse of oil, is popularly known as the “miracle of Chanukah,” is due to the word חנוכה, being a derivative of חנוך, “consecration.” We find in Exodus 29,33 in connection with the consecration of the priestly garments, that before the priests were allowed to perform their sacred service they had to be provided with suitable vessels to be used, i.e. priestly garments. Wearing these priestly garments was so important that if they performed their duties improperly dressed (even missing one of these garments) this was a cardinal sin. (Maimonides 10,4 hilchot kley hamikdash) The container in which certain offerings were presented, were as integral a part of the ritual as the ritual itself. The garments are the “container” in which the priestly body performs his sacred task. It or they, are viewed like a חנוך, educational tool, consecration, that must precede the actual ritual in order for the priest to be truly a priest.
[Possibly, the emphasis on this in connection with the priests especially, is due to the fact that the priest was born to his status, and it would have been most unseemly for him not to undergo preparations before fulfilling his sacred tasks. Rabbis might not need this, as they were not born to the Rabbinate but had to study and pass exams before being granted their titles, ordination. Ed.]
Children are trained to perform the commandments before becoming legally of age, i.e. בר מצוה or בת מצוה, as the case may be, before being ushered into adulthood and all that this entails.
Our patriarch Yaakov had contemplated the awesome fact of the Unity of G’d from the day he was able to think, and he realized that the foundation of all parts of the universe was the Jewish people, i.e. if there were to be no Jewish people, G’d’s work of creating the universe would have been in vain.
Zohar I,24 (and elsewhere) states that ישראל עלה במחשבה בראשית, “the eventual existence of the Jewish people was the first thought that G’d entertained when contemplating the creation of this universe.” Numerous scriptural verses are quoted in support of this statement, one of which that concerns us especially being that Israel was also known as אבן as in “foundation stone,” seeing that the entire universe emerged from that origin. The Jewish people therefore are not only the “root” of mankind, but also in no lesser degree the founders of the celestial regions. While still in the stage of being only a thought in G’d’s mind, they were called אבן, “rock” in the singular mode, as at that point the true unity of the Jewish people and what they represent could be found.
Our ancestor Yaakov attempted with all the intellectual and emotional powers at his disposal to unravel the secrets of these concepts in order to convert Israel’s potential into an actual. As per Genesis 49,24 he wanted משם רועה אבן ישראל, “to lay the foundation stone of Israel,” as the shepherd of a nation consisting of 12 tribes that parallel the 12 bisections of the 6 sides of the cube when the universe is portrayed as a cube, dividing it into 12 triangles (compare Sefer Yetzirah, “Book of creation”) by bisecting each side from corner to corner. Each of the tribes of the Jewish people represents one of these “triangles.” In order for the celestial merkavah, Divine chariot, to be complete it must be comprised of 600000 components, the number of Jewish male adults that were redeemed from bondage in Egypt. According to our sages, the Presence of the Shechinah will not manifest itself as resting above the Jewish people when they number less than these 600000. According to our author, when the Torah in Genesis 28,11 describes how Yaakov took “stones” in order to prepare to spend the night, and he put his head on of the stones to serve as his “pillow,” the Torah merely illustrates the kind of thoughts that preoccupied Yaakov at that time, and how during his “dream” of the ladder he experienced Divine insights that had never been revealed to him.
Nonetheless, in view of the sages having said that no verse in the Torah must be explained in a way that departs completely from the written text and its plain meaning, we must pay attention to this also. [I believe that in accordance with the above Yaakov/Yisrael’s role as רועה אבן ישראל, “shepherd of the nucleus of the people” of Israel began here. Ed.]
According to the plain text there is no question that Yaakov placed his head on real stones, as he had no softer pillow at hand. Nonetheless while lying with these rocks as his pillow, he thought of matters far beyond his immediate and pressing terrestrial concerns. Perhaps this very fact qualified him for experiencing the first of his many Divine visions, although this time he was not certain for 34 years that it had indeed been a divine vision. According to our sages, during this night Yaakov’s mind foresaw the ruins of two Temples and the great anger that the Jewish people, his descendants, would provoke in G’d’s mind on numerous occasions.
The words: וילך חרנה, according to this method of interpretation allude to the future when G’d would become angry with His people. The words: ויצא יעקב, would contrast this with his leaving the domain from which G’d dispenses all His goodness for His creatures, especially the Jewish people. All this caused him great anguish and when the Torah describes his ויפגע במקום וילן שם כי בא השמש, “that he met hamakom and had to spend the night there as the sun had set,” this is a simile for Yaakov foreseeing how the fortunes of the Jewish people would turn from having enjoyed G’d’s bounty to not only becoming persecuted but also causing G’d to share the pain that He had been forced to inflict upon His people. The darkness alluded to in this verse describes that his vision became so clouded worrying about how G’d must suffer when His favorite people stray so far from the path of Torah that they must undergo harsh punishments in order to bring them back to the right path.
When the Torah describes Yaakov as ויקח מאבני המקום, “he took from the stones of hamakom,” this describes Yaakov’s sharing G’d’s pain and wishing to be able to compensate G’d for this in same way. (Alluded to by the word ויפגע). The words מאבני המקום וישם מראשותיו, “from the stones of hamakom and he placed them under his head,” suggest how Yaakov tried to share G’d’s “pain” at what both He and His people would have to endure in exile. His whole thinking was preoccupied with how he could somehow if not forestall these happenings at least ensure that his descendants would survive these experiences. This is the key to his dream of the ladder that follows. It portrays that Yaakov had found a means to deal with the physical implications of exile and persecutions because of Whom He saw on the top of the ladder. This helped him console himself that all of these harsh experiences would be confined to Israel’s existence in the “lower” regions of the universe. The words: וראשו מגיע השמימה, “the ladder’s top reached into heaven,” reminds Yaakov that exile also touches the celestial spheres, so much so that its impact affects those regions negatively. Its most direct impact on the celestial regions is that it interferes with the dispensation of G’d’s largesse to mankind, and the forces of nature upon which man depends.
The line: והנה מלאכי אלוקים עולים ויורדים בו, “and behold G’d’s angels were ascending and descending on that ladder,” is the message that even exile has its positive aspects, as it enables numerous “sparks” that had previously “fallen” from the tree that we perceive as the Shechinah, to find their way back to their holy origin. At the same time, regretfully, the descent of the Jewish people into exile brings with it a parallel descent of some other “sparks” from the Shechinah into the ritually contaminated part of the universe. In our verse these “sparks” are referred to as מלאכי אלוקים, “Angels of the Divine.” Presiding over all these happenings is G’d, והנה ה' נצב עליו, “and behold the Lord is standing above it;” this line also reassures Yaakov that wherever he may find himself he will not be alone, as G’d Himself accompanies him even in exile. Moses confirms this in psalms 91,15 when he says (quoting G’d) “I will be with him in distress.” Seeing that the Lord is with us, our real “pain” or sorrow is really G’d’s pain and sorrow.
As soon as G’d saw that Yaakov’s concern was with His pain and sorrow, and how all this would impact on the foundation of the Jewish people and its development, He reassured him that he was the same G’d Who had looked after Avraham and Yitzchok, his respective grandfather and father. He assured him that this same piece of earth on which he was lying at this time, i.e. that he is so worried about, He, the Lord will give to him and to his descendants and that his descendants will spread out to all the corners of the earth. He continues to reassure Yaakov that during all the vicissitudes of history that his descendants would endure, He would always keep a benevolent eye on them. They will, in due course, return from exile to a brighter future.
Genesis 28,16. “Yaakov awakened from his dream, etc;” the word משנתו, here is a reference to the mental state of depression under which Yaakov had laboured when contemplating the exile his descendants would experience in the future. When he says: אכן יש ה' במקום הזה ואנכי לא ידעתי, “indeed the Lord is even in this place and I did not know it,” is an acknowledgment that he had unnecessarily despaired of the future of his people thinking that G’d would forsake them in exile. Having realized now that he had been wrong, filled him with such gratitude that he determined to build a Temple on the site where this insight had been revealed to him. The words: בית אלוקים, as something already in place, allegorically speaking, refers to his realization that once there is a Jewish people G’d will never again withdraw from the lower regions of the universe as He had done previously when man’s conduct had become too offensive.[I believe the principal lesson Yaakov learned in this dream (as portrayed by the author) was that even when Moses speaks clearly in the Torah about G’d “hiding His face,” (Deut. 31,18) this does not refer to His withdrawing from our part of the world; it only means that we will be under the impression that He has done so as we see no evidence of His Presence overtly or covertly. Ed.] If this is the lesson of exile, exile itself becomes a truly positive experience.
At this stage Yaakov reverts to his original intention of taking the “stones” or “stone” i.e. the foundation stone of the Jewish people and converts it from a potential tool into an actual by consecrating it with oil. [The Jewish people no less than the Temple are perceived as “Temples,” the former as a living entity, the latter as an inert structure always on a sacred site. Ed.] [The significance of oil for consecration, and the miracle of Chanukah being the miracle of the cruse of holy oil as having been foreshadowed in Yaakov’s dream signaling the end of desecration of the Holy Temple, has thus been established. Although some of the words are mine, I trust that I have conveyed our author’s meaning. Ed.]
This is the first time in the Torah that “oil” is portrayed as possessing spiritually elevating potential. Normally, we are familiar with this only from when the priests who were anointed with oil, or when a King, first in a dynasty, was consecrated with it. Yaakov understood the mystical properties contained in such oil (holy oil) and used it here for the first time as such.
[One wonders at the fact that although Yaakov appears to have been stripped of all valuables prior to this night, he still had some such oil on his person; this makes the connection the author establishes between Chanukah and Yaakov’s dream of the ladder a great deal more plausible. Ed.]
Reshit Chochma, shaar ahavah section 5,39, שמן, oil, i.e. the resin found in trees, is a euphemism for wisdom originating in the celestial regions. By means of this wisdom G’d used a combination of this wisdom and sanctity to produce a unique product, the foundation stone of the Jewish people preparing from this an entire building containing many “rooms” one of which was reserved for G’d to manifest Himself therein to His people exclusively. When speaking of “His people,” we refer to the spiritualized concept of the Jewish people, described by our sages as כנסת ישראל, “the collective soul of the Jewish people.” This is what the Torah had in mind when it reports Yaakov as saying: ויקרא את שם המקום ההוא ביתאל, “he called the name of this site Betel;” the Torah adds that ואולם לוז שם העיר לראשונה, “originally the name of the town had been Looz.” (Verse 20) By mentioning this detail, the Torah wishes to inform the reader that even before Yaakov spent a night at this location all the basic ingredients for the site to be elevated to one of sanctity had already existed as a potential. This was so because the concept of a Jewish nation, as mentioned previously, was not new, in fact it had been in G’ds mind before He even began to create the universe. This concept did not only include the formation of a Jewish nation, but envisaged its history right to the point when the Messiah would redeem this people from its last exile. According to tradition (Bereshit Rabbah 69, discussed at length) the human body contains a bone known as לוז, which is indestructible, the angel of death having no power over it, and conversely, it is also the bone from which all other parts of the human body develop. [Not necessarily a “bone” as we understand it, but possibly what we call a stem cell in our time. Ed.] The “stem cell” לוז, is for man what the expression היולי is meant to convey when we speak of the origin of the universe, the primordial raw material. Yaakov’s contribution was to make out of a potential Jewish nation one that had materialized.
Another way of looking at the verse commencing with ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע is by looking at the numerical value of the letters in Yaakov’s name which total 182, or seven times the corresponding value of G’d’s four-lettered name the tetragram, 26 times 7. The numerical value of the letters in the name of his father יצחק by comparison totals 8 times (208) the numerical value of the tetragram, suggesting that Yaakov was at a disadvantage compared to his father who had never had to leave the Holy Land.
Rashi’s commentary on the opening line of our portion begins with the statement that when a tzaddik leaves his hometown this leaves a void behind that is felt by the people remaining behind. The implication appears to be that while the tzaddik had been in his hometown his peers had not realized how blessed they had been by his presence. He quotes Ruth 1,7 where Naomi and Ruth’s leaving the fields of Moav are described in a similar manner, i.e. their departure leaving behind a void. Rashi claims that otherwise the Torah need only have written וילך יעקב חרנה, “Yaakov set out on his way to Charan.” There are numerous instances where the departure of certain individuals from the Holy Land is described as וירד, “he descended,” seeing that the land of Israel is considered as being on a higher level than all the countries surrounding it. This statement does not refer to the physical altitude of the land of Israel, but to the spiritual level of the people inhabiting that land. By not writing וירד יעקב, “Yaakov descended,” the Torah wishes the reader to know that he did not leave behind his spiritual assets in the land of Canaan but that he took all his spiritual equipment with him. Rashi himself refers to this when he writes on the words והנה אנכי עמך, “and behold I am with you,” (28,15) that Mount Moriah was uprooted at that time and accompanied Yaakov on his way to Charan. [Not found in our editions of Rashi on that verse. Ed.] The sanctity of the Holy Land accompanied Yaakov on his journey into exile. Nonetheless he was greatly troubled by having to leave the Holy Land. If we needed confirmation for Yaakov’s feelings about this, we find it in Genesis 46,3 where at Beer Sheva Yaakov has second thoughts about going to Egypt in order to see his son Joseph once more, and G’d has to reassure him by telling him not only that he should not be ill at ease about this undertaking, but that as a result of his going to Egypt the Jewish people would develop into a numerous nation there. Rashi there comments that Yaakov’s primary fear was the very fact of his having to leave the Holy Land (his second exile). He was assured by G’d that the Shechinah would accompany him there.
An additional comment on the line: ויקח מאבני המקום וישם מראשותיו וישכב במקום ההוא, “he took from the stones available at that site and used them as his pillow and lay down there.”
According to the Sefer Yetzirah the word המקום in this verse is a reference to the name of G’d, [as we are familiar with from the haggadah shel pessach, ברוך המקום. Ed.] The reason that this word serves as a euphemism for G’d’s name is to remind us that He is מקומו של העולם, “the One to Whom all of ‘Space’ belongs, seeing He has created it.” In keeping with this approach we must translate the words: וישם מראשותיו, as related to ראשית, “beginning of time,” i.e. the Jewish people featured first in G’d’s thinking, and the word וישכב, may be broken up into יש כ'ב, the material world i.e. יש, is based on the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. [The letter ו at the beginning, is of course, only a grammatical tool for turning the future tense into an immediate past tense. Ed.]
Still another way of looking at this verse is based on a statement in the Talmud Chagigah 14. We are told there about four sages who decided to investigate the mystical aspects of the Torah, commonly known as the pardes, (acronym for the four approaches to valid interpretations, פשט, דרוש, רמז, סוד) Of these 4 scholars only one returned unharmed either physically or mentally, i.e. Rabbi Akiva. After his experience Rabbi Akiva warned anyone who would emulate him that when he would come to אבני שיש טהור, “stones made of pure marble,” he should not be misled into considering this מים, מים, (mistaking the phenomenon for completely transparent and therefore pure water). Rabbi Akiva quoted a verse from psalms 101,7 דובר שקרים לא יכון נגד עיני, “he who speaks deceitfully shall not stand before My eyes.”
In order to gain an understanding of what Rabbi Akiva alluded to here, we must first of all remember a rule that governs all legitimate exegesis of the Torah. The rule is that the 288 sparks which descended into the material world from the primordial world of Tohu, i.e. a world in which the Shechinah was the only manifestation of a creative spirit, and attached themselves to one or the other outstanding human being, have one thing in common. The persons so endowed must believe without doubt or reservation that all parts of the universe wherever, are the product of the One and only Creator Who has infused them with “life” (according to their respective functions). Their continued existence is totally dependent on this Creator, and this Creator dispenses of His largesse not only to those who believe in Him but also to those who hate Israel. (and, by extension, hate Him) The difference between the former (the tzaddikim) and the latter consists primarily in the ability of the tzaddikim to “pull down” additional largesse from the celestial reservoir thanks to their standing in that hierarchy. In doing so, they divert some of this largesse away from the infidels, the wicked.
The tzaddikim, thanks to their service of the Creator with all their hearts, enable G’d to “clothe Himself” in an attribute reflecting a certain degree of “pride,” i.e. satisfaction that free willed creatures whom He has created have turned to Him, although they had options that appeared to them as an easier way of coping with life on earth. [Some of these words are mine, Ed.] Once G’d has clothed Himself in that attribute, He looks at the wicked with disdain, withholding His largesse from them. In due course, this process results in the wicked on earth suffering a total defeat and this is what Moses referred to in Exodus 15,1 when he described G’d as אשירה לה' כי גאה גאה סוס ורוכבו רמה בים, “let me raise my voice in song to Hashem, Who has taken ‘pride’ in triumphing, hurling both horse and its rider into the sea.” The downfall of the gentiles occurs simply because G’d no longer supervises their fates.
It follows that it can be said of the tzaddikim that by means of their good deeds they are directly responsible for how, to whom, and in what quantities G’d’s largesse is dispensed. The vessels, i.e. instruments, used by the tzaddikim, are the musical instruments with which the Levites accompany the sacrificial offerings presented by the priests. The Levites would raise or lower their voices on occasion when singing, in accordance with the norms used by musicians. Raising their voices meant that they wished G’d’s largesse to be withheld from the wicked, whereas lowering their voices was an invitation to G’d to dispense His largesse to all His creatures in the lower regions, including the wicked, such largesse being the result of G’d’s mercy and love for His creatures.
It is a rule, and that is why it is referred to in our sages’ parlance as כלל, something inclusive, all-embracing, that while G’d’s largesse is in transit to earth, having commenced in the celestial regions, this largesse does not have a specific colour, i.e. is not addressed to anyone specifically. It is only when this largesse reaches the creatures on earth that it is directed to specific addresses.
When we speak of largesse in general terms, we view this as comprising all the letters in the alphabet, whereas when we speak about specifics, we view this as the respective letters in the alphabet. Different deserving people have different needs, so that if someone is in need of being well received by the prospective employer to whom he applies for a position, he needs to be endowed with חן, projecting an outgoing pleasant personality. It is the task of G’d’s largesse in this case to be converted into the letters that spell חן, charm, grace. If another tzaddik is in need of immediate parnassah, livelihood, for himself and his family, the means to purchase food, then G’d’s largesse needs to be translated into the letters of the alphabet appropriate for this. This process of the largesse being translated into immediately usable form is known as רוחב, “width;” as it alludes to the ability of G’d’s largesse to adapt to the individual needs of different people. The word רוחב is especially appropriate in this connection, as width may be extended in either direction, i.e. the tzaddikim are free to direct relatively more of G’d’s largesse in the direction of the righteous or the wicked, as they may see fit.
The Talmud Yuma 77, relates that there was a fountain of water emanating from the Holy of Holies inside the Temple, (or beneath its floor) which at its source was as thin as the point of a needle, but dramatically increased in width as it progressed. It describes this dramatic increase in width in its stages so that by the time the water of this fountain left the holy precincts of the Temple compound it had swollen to be like the spout of a small jar. The Talmud illustrates how the largesse emanating from G’d increases dramatically as it reaches regions where it is really needed. Eventually this fountain becomes a river or stream providing from its life giving waters to even the most distant parts of the worlds, our planet. Our author elaborates somewhat on the intermediate stages described in the Talmud in detail; I believe the point has been made, so I’ll skip this.
Our author proceeds to analyze each word in the Talmud’s parable. He states further that in his sleep, the tzaddik triggers the dispensation of G’d’s largesse, as during his sleep, when his soul is in the celestial regions, he conveys thoughts in those regions that he had been entertaining in his waking hours. His Creator is especially receptive to his wishes while his soul is close to Him during his sleep. According to the Sefer Yetzirah, chapter 4, the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are also known as אבנים, “stones,” the author describing them as being used to build the physical universe and engraving themselves on respective parts of it. In light of the description in the Sefer Yetzirah, it is easy for us to understand that when Yaakov lay down after having taken from “the stones of G’d,” i.e. the letters G’d had used in creating His universe, that he prepared during his sleep to beseech G’d to dispense of His largesse to His creatures on earth.
Our author proceeds to analyze each word in the Talmud’s parable. He states further that in his sleep, the tzaddik triggers the dispensation of G’d’s largesse, as during his sleep, when his soul is in the celestial regions, he conveys thoughts in those regions that he had been entertaining in his waking hours. His Creator is especially receptive to his wishes while his soul is close to Him during his sleep. According to the Sefer Yetzirah, chapter 4, the letters of the Hebrew alphabet are also known as אבנים, “stones,” the author describing them as being used to build the physical universe and engraving themselves on respective parts of it. In light of the description in the Sefer Yetzirah, it is easy for us to understand that when Yaakov lay down after having taken from “the stones of G’d,” i.e. the letters G’d had used in creating His universe, that he prepared during his sleep to beseech G’d to dispense of His largesse to His creatures on earth.
Pursuing the approach that the letters in the alphabet are building blocks, and we are aware that writing letters reflects what one has thought, what goes on in one’s mind, the author proceeds to understand the words: וישם מראשותיו, “he placed them as pillows beneath his head,“ as “he placed them above his head.” When he lay down he could concentrate his thoughts heavenwards. The fact that he would be asleep and not distracted by what went on around him, enabled him to connect better with celestial concerns.
When we keep this in mind we may be better able to understand a strange statement in Shabbat 118 according to which if the entire Jewish people were to observe just two consecutive Sabbath days properly the messiah would arrive immediately. The Talmud quotes Isaiah 56,4-7 in support of this; we read thereכה אמר ה' לסריסים אשר ישמרו את שבתותי.....והביאותים אל הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפלתי, “thus says the Lord, as for the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,………I will bring them to My sacred Mountain and let them rejoice in My House of Prayer, etc.” Why did the Talmud choose to interpret Isaiah’s words as applying to the observance of two Sabbaths? Why would not the collective observance by all the Israelites of a single Sabbath suffice to bring on the redemption?
We have a rule that there is a spiritual awakening that occurs in the “lower” regions of the universe, just as there is a parallel spiritual awakening originating in the celestial regions. Translated loosely, the difference between these two “awakenings” is their origin. Spiritual awakenings can be the result of good deeds performed by man here on earth, or they can be the result of inspiration from above.
[I have heard that the difference between a psalm commencing with the words לדוד מזמור, and one commencing with מזמור לדוד, is that in the former the holy spirit had already entered David before he commenced composing, whereas in the latter type he commenced composing, as a result of which he was granted holy spirit. Ed.]
Whereas it is easy to understand the merit accruing to us if we by our own efforts decided to observe the Sabbath in deed and thought, the question is why we deserve credit when our Sabbath observance was inspired by G’d and not by our own efforts? We must remember that when G’d favours us with the inspiration to observe the Sabbath, (or some other commandment) He does so because of something good we must have done or our forefathers must have done. We have pointed out repeatedly that G’d “takes pride” in His creatures having performed the commandments. He does so when they did so without having to be prompted. This is proof that they did so enthusiastically. As a result of such enthusiasm by the person or persons or congregations when they perform G’d’s commandments, G’d is encouraged to provide stimulus for further mitzvah performance. [This is what the sages in Avot 4,2 call שכר מצוה מצוה, “the reward for performance of a commandment is the encouragement provided with the help of heaven to perform additional commandments.” Ed.] G’d’s largesse need not necessarily manifest itself in material benefits but it can take the form of human beings becoming endowed with greater intellectual capacity as a result of which they will desire to observe more commandments and with greater enthusiasm.
When the Talmud spoke about the observance of two Sabbaths being a requisite for the redemption following immediately on the heels of these two Sabbaths, the Talmud referred to the second such Sabbath being the result of G’d having inspired the people so that they can intensify the Sabbath observance and do so with greater enthusiasm than when they observed the first of these Sabbaths. When we attain the level of awareness so that we please the Creator by the way in which we observe His commandments, we truly deserve to be redeemed.
Another way of understanding the verse:ויקח מאבני המקום וישם מראשותיו. As mentioned previously, the letters in the Hebrew alphabet are called “stones,” in the Sefer Yetzirah. A tzaddik takes hold of these letters, which each possess a holy quality of its own, seeing that המקום alludes to G’d Who is the Creator of every מקום. When men converse, speaking Torah or related subjects, they formulate letters with their mouths, each of which may be viewed as a “stone” with which to build a more perfect universe. The words: וישם מראשותיו, then mean that Yaakov’s words were addressed to the ראשית [מראשותיו=emanating from the One Who created the beginning. Ed.] Yaakov appealed to G’d to listen to His own letters, i.e. the words that can be formed by combining these letters in the appropriate manner to form such prayers. According to a number of Kabbalistic texts, Zohar, and Eitz chayim, et al, the prayers uttered by means of these 22 letters are engraved on G’d’s throne as acrostics. The word ויש-כב at the end of verse 11 symbolizes that the prayers of Yaakov acquired substance, i.e. יש, and were henceforth engraved on G’d’s throne.
Genesis 29,12. “and he had a dream in which a ladder was featured, etc.;” when a young man begins his career (serving the Lord) he is very enthusiastic and believes that by means of his service he can spiritually elevate not only his immediate surroundings on earth, but even those in the celestial regions. This enthusiasm helps him to intensify his efforts at serving his Creator. When he feels that his serving the Lord has become a mainstay of his existence, he makes G’d the focus of all his thinking, and G’d in turn derives great satisfaction from him. Eventually, if he continues, he eventually qualifies to become one of the “carriers of the merkavah”, G’d’s chariot.
The word ויחלום, from the same root as ותחלימני והחייני (Isaiah 38,16) “You have restored me to health and revived me,” means to feel strengthened. In King Chiskiyah’s prayer recorded in the Book of Isaiah, it means that the King emerged from his sickness strengthened in his capacity as a servant of the Lord. He had needed strength as he had been on the point of dying. Yaakov, at this point in his life is also in need of חיזוק, strengthening, so that the word ויחלום, means that he became aware of being strengthened seeing he was at the beginning of his career as a servant of the Lord, eventually as a patriarch of the Jewish nation.
Genesis 28:13 “and in his dream there was a ladder standing toward the earth;” the vision represented human beings who, though standing on earth, focus on the heavens, i.e. וראשו מגיע השמימה. Man’s understanding of the celestial regions and what they stand for is based on his service of the Lord.
Genesis 28:12 והנה מלאכי אלוקים עולים ויורדים בו, “and here angels of G’d were ascending and descending on it.” The vision reflects the fact that man’s actions propel the movement of these “angels,” either heavenwards or earthwards. If man, G’d forbid, instead of serving His Creator, does the opposite, he is also having a negative impact on these angels in the celestial spheres, causing them to descend spiritually. This concept has been spelled out in Pessikta Rabbati 21,8 where we are told that ever since the destruction of the Temple, G’d reduced the number of angels constituting His entourage. However, once Yaakov had become firmly established as a servant of G’d, he was granted an additional vision, i.e. והנה ה' נצב עליו, “and here the Lord Himself was standing above the ladder.” This vision refers to the merkavah of G’d, His chariot.
Another meaning of והנה ה' נצב עליו, followed by G’d speaking to Yaakov, and introducing Himself as אני ה' אלוקי אברהם אביך ואלוקי יצחק, “I am the G’d of your father Avraham and the G’d of Yitzchok.” Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher in his Baal haturim already asks why the word אביך, “your father,” does not appear next to the word Yitzchok, seeing that even Yaakov’s grandfather Avraham has been referred to by G’d as “your father.”
I believe that the key is that when Avraham descended to Egypt, leaving the Holy Land, he enjoyed the help of G’d immediately as his destiny was, as we pointed out, to proselytize all over the inhabited part of the earth. Yitzchok who had been expressly forbidden to leave the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, had not been charged with such a task. When Avraham’s grandson, Yaakov, now walks in the footsteps of his grandfather, leaving the Holy Land, and in the process acquainting the people he will encounter with what a true tzaddik looks like, it is appropriate that the title: אביך, “your father,” be accorded to Avraham in this context.
Another approach to the line: והנה ה' נצב עליו ויאמר וגו', “and here the Lord was standing above it, saying, etc.” It is well known by now that our patriarch Avraham’s relationship with G’d was based on the attribute of love, i.e. Avraham loved G’d. Yitzchok related to G’d primarily from a feeling of awe for His greatness. Each of them intended to aggrandize G’d’s image among His creatures through his service of the Lord. Yaakov attempted to achieve the same result by utilizing the attribute תפארת, harmony, as we have pointed out. This is why our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 76,1 point out that Yaakov was the choicest of the patriarchs as he understood how to meld the two attributes of G’d into a fruitful combination. Yaakov learned from the manner in which G’d referred to his grandfather and father respectively that it was his task to combine the attributes for which his father and grandfather had become famous, and to weave them into a fabric that enabled them both to be applied simultaneously.
Genesis 28,19. “he now added to the name of this place the name Bet El”. We need to remember that all creatures G’d has created have been identified by means of one or more of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Some of these “letters” are incomplete without certain further “sub-titles” written in the form of dots, lines, etc. Some of these appear above the actual letter, others below it. These nuances reflect the fact that some creatures, though all mobile, move in certain ways, whereas others move in different ways. Yet other letters have a dot in the middle, neither above nor below. These “dots or lines” alert us to the how, i.e. by which motive the creature’s movements were prompted. When a creature’s motion is prompted by considerations resident in the celestial spheres, the “dot” accompanying the letters is found above the letter. When it originates from earthly considerations, the dot is found under the letter. When it is found in the middle of the letter, it reflects the fact that both lofty and less lofty considerations prompted the motion of the individual described by the respective letter. Seeing that Yaakov’s movements were prompted by lofty considerations, the word ויחלום has the dot on top of the letter ו. These lofty thoughts enabled him to sire a son combining so many fine attributes as did Joseph. The combinations of letters, i.e. attributes, are also reflected in the spelling of the word ביתאל as a single word, instead of, as we find it elsewhere בית אל.
Yaakov wished to express the thought that in the house of G’d to be built on that site in the future, the combination of the basic attributes required for successful service of the Lord by His creatures on earth be present at all times.
Genesis 28,20. “If G’d will be with me, etc.;” Nachmanides’ comment that seeing G’d had already promised Yaakov in verse 15 that He would be with him, why did Yaakov question this with the word: אם, “if?” is well known. The answer given by Nachmanides is that Yaakov was afraid that G’d’s promise would be invalid if he became guilty of a sin before it could be carried out. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 that promises made to tzaddikim concerning happenings in this life are never absolute.) [If they were they would tie G’d’s hands if the tzaddik were to become a rasha. Ed.]
The answers given by the Midrash or quoted as such by the commentators, appear to contradict the specific promise for events in this life made to Yaakov in verse 15. I quote: (translation) “Remember, I am with you; I will protect you wherever you go and will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” Surely, after such a promise, how could Yaakov have had any doubt that what G’d had promised would occur in this lifetime on earth? Part of this promise implies that G’d the good, Who only does good, will assist the recipient of this promise to conduct himself in a manner that will ensure that G’d will feel obliged to honour His promise.
However, we must remember two points. 1) The Torah had reported G’d’s promise as being part of a dream,” i.e. ויחלום. The Torah did not preface the dream as a vision, i.e. וירא אליו ה'; Yaakov was not at all sure that what appears here as a solid promise was not a figment of his imagination. 2) We have discussed once before the fact that G’d wishes us to pray to Him for our needs, (that is why Rivkah did not become pregnant till after 20 years of marriage when both her husband and she prayed for this). Seeing that Yaakov is not on record as having actively asked G’d to assist him in what was a pretty desperate situation, G’d, by spelling out this promise, wished to provoke Yaakov into finally praying to Him for His help. (Compare also Bereshit Rabbah 45, Sarah being angry at Avraham for not having including her in his prayer when he said to G’d, (complainingly) “here I walk on this earth childless.” (Genesis 15,2) G’d dispenses largesse without waiting to be asked, to those of His creatures whom He has not equipped with a mouth to articulate their requests. Man, who has been so equipped is expected to use his powers to address his Creator in prayer.
According to B’rachot 17 the reason why our matriarchs were originally barren is summed up in Isaiah 46,12 שמעו אלי אבירי לב הרחוקים מצדקה! “Listen to Me, you who have lost heart, who are far from righteousness.” According to one interpretation of the above verse in the Talmud, some people are granted their livelihood because they use their intelligence to ask G’d for it. Others believe in their own strength, זרוע, their ability to work for a living, and secure it through this means. The people who are devoid of intelligence will be provided for by G’d, as they are too dim witted or physically unable look out for themselves. This is the meaning of שומר פתאים ה', “the Lord looks after the fools.” (psalms 116,6) Examples of such people are children having to eat at their father’s table. When the father of such children sees that they have become capable of fending for themselves, he no longer supports them. The same holds true of our Father in heaven, when He sees that we could fend for ourselves but prefer to have Him provide for us. The righteous are supposed to support themselves by using their arms, (to do work) not violence. Those who possess intelligence and do not use it to appeal to their Creator are not supported by G’d’s charity, צדקה.
This is what G’d meant when He told Yaakov in his dream: כי לא אעזבך עד אשר עשיתי את אשר דברתי לך, “for I will not abandon you until I have done what I have said (I would do) for you.” What G’d meant was that as soon as Yaakov would return to the land of Israel, he would have to fend for himself, using the intelligence etc., that G’d had endowed him with. He implied that at that time he would have to accompany his activities with the appropriate prayers asking G’d to let his efforts be crowned with success. If he were to neglect to do so, he would not become the founding father of the twelve tribes making up the Jewish people. Seeing that you had not reached spiritual maturity until that time, I intervened overtly on your behalf during the preceding years.
When we look at Yaakov’s situation from this angle, it is neither fear nor lack of faith when Yaakov says אם יהיה אלוקים עמדי וגו', “if G’d will be with me etc.” It is a declaration by Yaakov that as soon as he will safely return to his homeland he is prepared to do everything humanly possible, including prayer, of course, to ensure his success in the task that G’d has set him. He indicates by promising to tithe his income he will continue to view his success as an act of charity by G’d. Although he will do what is in his power, he will view success as G’d manifesting His love for him. Tzaddikim, even when earning their livelihood by their own efforts, will continue to view their success as not due to their own intelligence or hard work, but as a gift from G’d. The matriarchs, whose success is not measured in terms of their earning power, but in terms of the fruit of their wombs, therefore were meant to turn to G’d in prayer in order for what other women considered as their natural right, i.e. to produce children, to be granted to them also.
Perhaps this is how we must understand Bereshit Rabbah 76,2 on Genesis 45,28 according to which any assurance given by G’d to tzaddikim does not refer to events that would occur in this life. On Deuteronomy 3,23 Rashi comments that although the righteous, if they wanted to, could ascribe any success that they enjoyed in this life as due to merits they had accumulated, they prefer not to do so. When they ask G’d for something, they make a point as describing G’d’s granting their request as a מתנת חנם, a “free gift.” These explanations were needed, as seeing that we have a tradition that G’d does not even go back on a conditional promise, how could the Midrash say that no promises of G’d apply in this world. The meaning of the words: כי לא אעזבך עד וגו', therefore must mean that there comes a time in Yaakov’s life when he is expected to no longer have to rely on G’d’s promises.
Genesis 28,21. “then Hashem (the attribute of Mercy) will be my G’d,;” (may deal with me on the basis of the attribute of Justice). Many commentators already have dealt with this phrase and the difficulties it presents when one reads it superficially. Firstly, why would Yaakov feel the need to make a vow when G’d had already promised him all that he is asking. We trust we are correct in answering that Yaakov here asked for a detail that G’d had not included in the promise He had made to him. We have mentioned already that at the beginning of a “career” as a servant of G’d, everyone needs an assist from G’d. Yaakov therefore asked for this initial assistance, so that eventually he would be able to stand on his own two feet not only economically but also spiritually. When he spoke about G’d being with him, he meant “immediately,” not only at some time in the future. He also wished for G’d’s continued assistance even after he would have returned safely to his homeland and the house of his father. G’d’s initial promise had been limited to the time when Yaakov would return to Eretz Yisrael.
Genesis 29,2. “he saw that there was a well in the field and that three flocks of sheep were lying around it;” …והאבן גדולה על פי הבאר, “and the rock covering the mouth of the well was very great.”
(The text is quoted until the end of verse 10 after Yaakov single-handedly moved the rock to make the water accessible.)
It appears best to explain this whole sequence allegorically. It is a given that G’d on His part is desirous to make available to His creatures an uninterrupted flow of His largesse, especially to His people of Israel. However, from time to time He appears to face interference from the “left” side of the diagram representing the emanations. The only time when G’d does not encounter such interference is when the Jewish people are awakened by feelings of joy, and this joy succeeds in repulsing such interference. This is the image that opened up before Yaakov’s eyes when he is described as וירא והנה באר , “he saw the fountain of G’d’s largesse primed to water the field.” The word שדה, commonly translated as “field,” is also a simile for חקל תפוחים קדישין a concept described in Zohar 1, 152 describing 3 layers of differing degrees of holiness in the celestial spheres that are all perceived as surrounding the באר, the well from which G’d’s largesse flows towards its recipients. On the three pilgrimage festivals, Passover, the festivals of “weeks,” Shavuot, and the festival of huts, these “spigots” of the “well” are especially primed to open as the Jewish people on those festivals are filled with a joy inspired by observing all the commandments associated with these festivals, and the fact that they are on sacred ground in Jerusalem. The three flocks of sheep mentioned in our verse are similes for these festivals. The “great rock” preventing access to the water from the well described is a simile for the powers of Satan, the left side of the emanations, trying to block access to G’d’s largesse for His people. This “rock” is alluded to in the Talmud Kidushin 30, where the Talmud suggests as a remedy against this phenomenon that persons feeling the evil urge as a form of a heavy stone, should proceed to the Torah academy and immerse themselves in Torah study so that this “stone” will melt. The “stone” is perceived in practice as the obstacle for G’d providing His largesse. When the three herds and their shepherds are joined by כל העדרים, “all the other herds,” i.e. all the Jewish people, their combined spiritual power will enable their leader to remove these obstacles to G’d’s largesse as the joy of serving the Lord is powerful enough to accomplish this.
An alternate approach to the paragraph commencing with: וירא והנה באר בשדה, “he looked, and here there was a well in the field, etc.;” The Talmud Pessachim 88 draws attention to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov each using a different simile when trying to condense their concept of G’d. Avraham saw G’d in terms of a הר, “mountain,” i.e. something far above our level towering above man. Yitzchok perceived him as שדה, a field, covering huge expanses of earth, but sharing earth with man. Yaakov perceived Him as בית, i.e. an intimate term, viewing G’d as if He were at home with human beings. A major difference between Yaakov’s concept of G’d and that of his forefathers, is that the former did not view G’d as being “at home” permanently on earth, whereas Yaakov did perceive Him as constantly accompanying man, much as a house is the symbol of a permanent presence. [The scriptural verses this is based on are: Genesis 22,14 בהר ה' יראה, “on the Mountain of Hashem, He may be seen.” Genesis 24,63 ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה, “Yitzchok went out into the field to meditate.” In Genesis 28,19 the Torah quotes Yaakov as naming the site ביתאל, “house of the Lord”. Yaakov felt that the time had come when G’d could have a permanent home on earth. However, this had been a vision brought about by his dream/prophetic insight. After awakening he realized that down on earth, where greed, envy and jealousy were still prevalent, to wit the huge rock making the water of the well inaccessible accept when all the interested parties were assembled simultaneously, that the time was not yet ripe for G’d to feel at home in such an environment. By removing the rock, Yaakov wanted to demonstrate to the shepherds that a better future could be in store for mankind. I have reworded the thought expressed by the author somewhat, and have omitted the comparison to the portion of קן צפור in Deut. 22,6. Ed.]
Genesis 29,5., “He said: ‘do you know Lavan son of Nachor, etc.?’” If we wish to read an allegorical meaning into Yaakov’s question to the shepherds: “where are you from, my brothers,” and their reply: “we are from Charan,” we must refer to the Zohar I 147, as well as the last Rashi on Parshat Noach where Rashi refers to an inverted letter נ at the end of the word חרן, [something that at the time of Minchas Shay, (Rabbi Yedidyah Shlomoh Rafael Minortzi of Mantua) was apparently still found in the Torah scrolls, Ed.] [The common denominator of both commentaries appears to be that the word חרן is an allusion to the attribute of Justice, suggesting that in that place such concepts as רחמים, mercy, something beyond strict justice was unheard of. Ed.]
Rashi there quotes an opinion according to which G’d related to mankind primarily with the attribute of Justice until the time of Avraham and his benevolent activities on earth. Yaakov enquired from the shepherds (who had demonstrated strict Justice by not trusting anyone not to take more than his fair share of water from the well unless he had been watched over by his colleagues) if they had not heard that there are also other yardsticks by which mankind could be judged, i.e. the attribute of Mercy. The reply of the shepherds appeared to have been in the negative when they emphasized that their home was חרן. Yaakov persisted in asking how it could be possible to live like that. The word (name) לבן, is perceived as the opposite of חרן, so that Yaakov’s question השלום לו, “is he well?” had a double entendre, referring also to his spiritual well being. According to this the shepherds replied: שלום לו, “he is physically and spiritually well.” The shepherds used the reference to his daughter Rachel as proof or rather as the cause that he was spiritually at peace, i.e. that his daughter Rachel was a major factor in this. They may have hinted without being aware of this, at Rachel’s future role near the throne of G’d as an advocate on behalf of her people in exile. (According to the Sefer Chassidim, Rachel’s spirit intervenes with G’d whenever the Jewish people face special problems. She possessed this power thanks to her good deeds while alive on earth).
Genesis 29,10. “it was when Yaakov saw Rachel, etc.;” [the following has to be understood against the background of Yaakov, until that moment, not having felt capable of removing the stone from the top of the well. Ed.]
This verse is an allusion to the joy experienced by bride and groom, which is also compared to the joy of the Jewish people making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the festivals, as we know from Ezekiel 11,19 where the prophet describes the reaction of the returning exiles being the feeling that a heavy stone has been lifted from their hearts. The “stone” there describes the weight of the left side of the emanations, the seat of the forces of Satan, the crushing weight of which prevented the Jewish people from experiencing prophetic insights while in exile. Our author cites psalms 90,12 ונביא לבב חכמה, “so that we may obtain a wise heart,” as a heart capable of receiving prophetic insights. Yaakov’s being able to remove the rock from the well once he set eyes on Rachel, means that obstacles to serving the Lord were removed by his vision of Rachel.
Genesis 29,11. “Yaakov gave Rachel a kiss, etc;” [note that the Torah does not refer to Rachel’s physical appearance until verse 17 after Yaakov had already worked for him for over a month. Ed.]
Genesis 29,17. “and Rachel was shapely and beautiful.” At first glance it is surprising that the Torah appears to link Yaakov’s falling in love with Rachel in verse 18, ויאהב יעקב את רחל, “Yaakov loved Rachel,” to the description of her physical assets in verse 17. Is it possible that Yaakov, the most highly admired of our patriarchs, was attracted by Rachel’s physical features, and that this is why the Torah reports matters in this sequence? Our sages called our attention to Yaakov’s message to his brother Esau in Genesis 32,4 where he told him עם לבן גרתי, ”I have remained a stranger while with Lavan, etc.” The numerical value of the letters in the word גרתי, equals 613, the number of commandments in the Torah. Yaakov reminded his brother that during the entire period that he spent in Charan he had observed the Torah, and therefore had little to fear. A man who could make such a statement certainly did not marry Rachel because he was smitten by lust to possess her shapely body. Anyone who observes the 613 commandments is well aware of the statement by Solomon in Proverbs 31,30 that שקר החן והבך היופי, that external attributes such as physical beauty or even a graceful walk, etc., are deceptive and offer no clue to the owner’s character.
We must look further for the reason why the Torah made a point of mentioning Rachel’s physical attributes. I have heard from my revered teacher the Maggid of Mezeritch Dov Baer, of sainted memory, that we must understand this as follows. We know that the principal attribute used by Yaakov in serving the Lord is the attribute known as תפארת, harmony, located in the center of diagrams of the 10 emanations, ספירות. Any physical matter on earth, containing a “spark” from this emanation, is spiritually elevated by the presence of this spark, regardless of how secular it is by nature. Through this spark of the attribute of תפארת, its host is brought closer to its roots in the celestial regions, and engages in some degree of service to the Lord.
We must look further for the reason why the Torah made a point of mentioning Rachel’s physical attributes. I have heard from my revered teacher the Maggid of Mezeritch Dov Baer, of sainted memory, that we must understand this as follows. We know that the principal attribute used by Yaakov in serving the Lord is the attribute known as תפארת, harmony, located in the center of diagrams of the 10 emanations, ספירות. Any physical matter on earth, containing a “spark” from this emanation, is spiritually elevated by the presence of this spark, regardless of how secular it is by nature. Through this spark of the attribute of תפארת, its host is brought closer to its roots in the celestial regions, and engages in some degree of service to the Lord.
When the Torah (Genesis 39,13) reports that Joseph וינס ויצא החוצה, “fled and went “outside,” to escape the efforts of Potiphar’s wife to seduce him, he did so because he realized that that woman had used her mode of dress to lure him into a sinful relationship (Yuma 35). She had employed whatever holy spark she possessed in a reverse manner, instead of a means to come closer to her Creator. When Joseph escaped from her presence he took with him this “holy spark” thereby serving his Creator and paving the way for this “spark” that had escaped from the Shechinah to find its way back to its roots.
It is known that Joseph, though, of course also serving the Lord, did not do so by using principally the attribute of harmony as his father was in the habit of doing. However, at this critical juncture, in his fateful seclusion with the wife of his master Potiphar, he resorted to the attribute of תפארת as the means to avoid sinning.
It is also known that every tzaddik who serves the Lord, regardless of which of the attributes in the diagram of the emanations he uses as his primary model, will be granted a vision of the tzaddik who had made that attribute his primary role model in serving the Lord. When the Talmud Sotah 36 relates that at the critical moment before the seduction, Joseph had a vision of his father, it is a vision of the emanation of תפארת that the Talmud refers to as having been seen by Joseph.
Genesis 29,30. “he also had marital relations with Rachel, and he loved her, even more than he loved Leah.” It has been understood that the principal reason that Yaakov stayed at Lavan’s house had been on account of Rachel. It was for Rachel, after all, that he had agreed to serve Lavan for seven years, originally. Leah would never have become Yaakov’s wife had it not been for his abiding desire to marry Rachel. He had loved Rachel for herself all the time, whereas his love for Leah was a byproduct of his love for Rachel who had been instrumental in his having the זכות, good fortune, to also have a pious woman such as Leah for his wife. This explains why the Torah speaks here of Yaakov “also loving Rachel.” It could obviously not mean that Rachel ranked second in Yaakov’s love, but means that Yaakov had an additional reason for loving Rachel, this being that through her he had merited to become Leah’s husband also.
An alternate interpretation of this somewhat obscurely worded verse above. When concentrating on the section ויאהב גם את רחל מלאה, “he also loved Rachel better than Leah;” we must examine the meaning of the word: גם in this verse. We are used to find this word when comparisons are being made to something that preceded it; here, however, there is no question that Yaakov’s love for Rachel had preceded his love for Leah as we know already from Genesis 29,18.
The wording of our verse throws light on Rashi’s explanation on Genesis 30,22 “G’d remembered Rachel;” according to Rashi, G’d remembered not only that Rachel had given her sister Leah the secret code that was designed to alert Yaakov in the event Lavan were to trick him, but also that Rachel was most unhappy at the prospect that once her sister had become the wife of Yaakov it would now be her lot to become the wife of Esau, a terrible prospect, especially as she feared that Yaakov would divorce her seeing that she had not born any children for him. Looking at this commentary, it appears that according to Rashi, G’d had two separate reasons for “remembering” Rachel at that time. Actually, this is not so; how can one imagine that Yaakov would divorce Rachel because she had no children, when he himself had already been blessed with numerous children both from Leah and from the servant maids?
According to Bereshit Rabbah 70,16 the reason why the Torah in 29,17 reveals that Leah had “weak” eyes, is to alert us to her having wept excessively at the prospect of her having to become the wife of a wicked person, her cousin Esau. At least, this is what she had heard about her father’s plans for her, something that was common gossip in Charan. At the time when Rachel had handed Leah the secret code between Yaakov and her, it was not clear yet that Yaakov would also marry Rachel so that she need not have worried. It was therefore an even greater act of self sacrifice on the part of Rachel to have revealed the secret code to her sister at the time, as not only would she most likely lose the chance to become Yaakov’s wife, but would wind up with a husband who was a wicked person. Rashi meant that G’d now remembered not only that Rachel had acted altruistically at the time when she revealed the code to her sister, but she had in addition had reason to believe that she had thereby condemned herself to becoming the wife of Esau. When Yaakov, after also marrying Rachel, instead of harbouring anger at her for revealing their secret, became aware of her true motives, he also loved her for her piety. In other words, his original love for Rachel is considered by the Torah as a given; Yaakov in the meantime had found out to what length of self-sacrifice Rachel had gone in order to save her sister Leah embarrassment. He therefore loved her doubly. If we translate the word מלאה, “on account of Leah,” instead of as “more than Leah,” the verse does not present any problems at all.
This also helps us understand a verse in psalms 31,20 מה רב טובך אשר צפנת ליראיך פעלת לחוסים בך נגד בני אדם, “how abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You; You have done so publicly in full view of men, for those who have taken refuge in You.” Rachel was a perfect example of how one fulfills the exhortation of our sages in Avot 1,3 not to belong to the category of people who observe the Lord’s commandments only for the sake of the reward G’d has promised. She trusted G’d fully, else she would have certainly used the argument that she did not want to become Esau’s wife as justification not to reveal the secret code between Yaakov and her to her sister. Her action even endangered her afterlife, which due to being a dutiful wife of Esau would have daily put her claim to an afterlife at risk.
The exhortation of the above quoted Mishnah not to perform the commandments for the sake of the reward promised is very difficult to honour as we know and are constantly aware that G’d keeps His promises to us, and it is almost superhuman not to be influenced by such promises. When David worded his psalm 31,20 as he did, adding the words נגד בני אדם, he meant that at the time when we perform the commandments we must not think of the reward in store for us. G’d does not mind that once we have performed the commandment we think about the reward. He knows how difficult it is not to think of it while performing it; this is why David says of G’d צפנת, “You hid,” such thoughts from those who truly revere You at the time when they performed the commandments.
We need to address the reason why the twelve sons of Yaakov are sometimes referred to as שבטים, “tribes,” and on other occasions as מטות, in our classical literature, as well as why both Yehudah and Joseph are referred to as “king” in our sources, and why our matriarchs named their children as representing symbols of our physical world rather than as symbols of the celestial spheres, when it is clear that they themselves were far from viewing our existence on this terrestrial part of the world as our real “life,” the very names the matriarchs gave their children reflect that their entire orientation was focused on spiritual values accompanied by prophetic insights. [If any of you have my translation of the commentary Tzror Hamor by Rabbi Avraham Saba, you will be able to read up on all this in his commentary on Vayetze. Ed.]
By naming their children, the matriarchs provide us with a model lesson on how to serve the Lord. Our matriarchs taught us how G’d, the Creator of the universe, in spite of the thousands of concerns that keep Him occupied around the clock, never neglects the problems of an individual creature of His on earth. Leah testifies that this Creator took time out to notice that she was relatively hated by her husband as a result of which He granted her children, in spite of her being barren by nature. (Genesis 29,32) The phrase: ויפתח רחמה in that verse makes it clear that she was barren, why else would G’d have had to “open her womb,” seeing that pregnancy is one of the most natural results of marital intercourse?
Another lesson we learn from the matriarchs is that the word, i.e. request, by a tzaddik, makes an impression in the celestial spheres and that he or she can draw down additional largesse from the Creator to these “lower” regions of the universe. We have explained that this is the reason that the אותיות, letters in the Hebrew alphabet, [when used as the Holy Tongue, Ed.] are called אבנים, “stones,” in the sense of “building blocks,” as the words formulated by the tzaddik in prayer enhance and improve the structure known as the תחתונים, “the lower regions” of the universe. These prayers, as we have demonstrated at the beginning of the last portion, are the real תולדות, enduring achievements by the righteous on earth. [Compare pages 139 and 140 on how a true תולדה is a son in his father’s image, i.e. Yitzchok being a continuation of the spiritual values represented by his father. Ed.]
The names given by their mothers to the founding tribes of the Jewish people retained their significance throughout our history, and this is why both Yaakov and Moses at the respective end of their lives confirmed this in their blessings.
When Leah explained why she called her firstborn son Reuven, she said: ראה ה' בעניי, “for the Lord has seen my affliction,” adding a prayer כי עתה יאהבני אישי, “for from now on my husband will love me.” This was an appeal for G’d’s largesse to be drawn down to her for her benefit. When the letters, words of a tzaddik are translated into “building blocks,” אבנים, they become transformed into אבנים, which translated into Aramaic is equivalent to אבהן, “fathers, founding fathers,” as in רועה אבן ישראל, (Genesis 49,24) When these letters ascend heavenwards, -mature- they become not only corner stones, but, as is customary with sons, eventually they themselves become “fathers,” אבהן. [The concept of letters being “stones” dates back to the Sefer Yetzirah chapter 6. Ed.] In Hebrew, the Holy Tongue, the word אבנים is a combination of אב, “father,” and בנים, “sons.” The progression in Leah’s insights is demonstrated when at the birth of her fourth son, יהודה, she no longer prays for her husband’s love, but is full of gratitude, הפעם אודה את ה', “this time I thank the Lord, etc.” (Genesis 29,35). [The author continues to demonstrate that Rachel also was on the same wavelength as her older sister when naming her children. I have omitted the details. Ed.]
Genesis 29,31. “When G’d saw that Leah was hated, He opened her womb.” There is a somewhat enigmatic comment on this verse in Aggadat Bereshit 48 according to which some of Leah’s descendants would be enemies of G’d, and that this is why she is called here שנואה, in reference to the wicked deeds of some of her offspring. (The angels protested Leah’s having children as they foresaw that on account of Zimri from the tribe of Shimon 24000 Israelites would lose their lives and not enter the land of Israel) Our verse would explain that just as Yishmael at the time (Genesis 21,17) was not allowed to die from thirst as at the time he was free from sin, so Leah, who had prayed not to become the wife of the wicked Esau, could not be denied children now on account of something over which she could have no control. She had demonstrated that she hated wickedness so what more could she have done? [I have rephrased this a little, as the whole idea of when G’d interferes with natural developments in order to forestall wicked deeds and when not is exceedingly complex. Ed.] Our verse makes clear that other considerations notwithstanding, Leah’s prayer to bear children was answered positively.
Genesis 30,14. “Reuven went and found mandrakes in the field, etc.;” ותאמר אלי תבא כי שכר שכרתיך בדודאי בני, “Leah said to her husband come to me for I have hired you in exchange for my son’s mandrakes.” After reporting this strange sounding incident, the Torah continues with: וישמע אלוקים אל לאה, “G’d listened to Leah’s prayer” (and gave her another son) as a result of which Leah exclaimed: נתן אלוקים שכרי אשר נתתי שפחתי לאישי ותקרא שמו יששכר, “G’d has given me a reward for having given my maid-servant to my husband; she called her son Issachar.”
It is somewhat puzzling why Leah called this son of hers Issachar, if she saw it as a reward not for having slept with Yaakov as a reward for allowing Reuven to give Rachel the mandrakes, but for having given her maid-servant to Yaakov (previously).
When we look at Rashi’s comment on this verse, (17) he attributes G’d’s listening to Leah’s prayer as reward for her having demonstrated by giving her maid-servant to Yaakov that she wanted him to father more founding fathers of the Jewish people, even if she was not going to be the mother of them. She had proven thereby that when she “hired” Yaakov in exchange for the mandrakes, she had not been motivated by the desire to satisfy her libido.
Our author wonders how we can be sure of this as even assuming that Leah, who at any rate had to share her husband with other women, something that no doubt caused her much heartache, would have been fully justified in wanting more of her husband’s company than she appeared to enjoy. Our author answers that while it is true that ordinary women whose husbands also have another wife do suffer such heartache and jealousy, so that the name for such a wife who has to share her husband is always called צרה, “rival wife,” if Leah had entertained the type of motivation common to other “rival wives,” she most certainly would not have seen in her bearing Issachar a “reward” from G’d, but as fulfillment of her personal desire. This is why Rashi draws our attention to this psychological insight which many a reader might have overlooked otherwise.
We now can also understand the Mishnah in Makkot, 23, where Rabbi Chananyah ben Akashyah attributes the many commandments G’d gave us, the Torah and the commandments, to His desire to provide us with many merits due to the frequent opportunities we have to perform His commandments. We need to analyse what the Rabbi meant when he appears to have distinguished between תורה and מצות? Generally we use the terms interchangeably!
Apparently, we must differentiate between Torah and commandments. The latter may be understood on two levels. There are commandments performance of which does not interfere with a person’s natural physical urges. It does not interfere with a person’s natural urges whether he wears a prayer shawl, טלית, or whether he observes the commandment to put on phylacteries every morning, or whether he does neither. Performing these commandments are acts strictly between him and His Creator, there being no interference due to other demands on the wearer by his body.
There are commandments such as eating a number of meals on the Sabbath, having conjugal relations with his wife on Friday nights, concerning the performance of which the demands of one’s body may present obstacles. Whereas when a Jew wears a prayer shawl or puts on phylacteries, it is clear that he does so only because the Torah has commanded it, eating good meals on the Sabbath or enjoying conjugal relations, while a commandment, would most likely have been carried out also if there had not been such a commandment; so who is to say that performing these commandments are proof of one’s piety, or one’s desire to please one’s Creator?
It would have required almost superhuman discipline to observe these latter commandments exclusively because G’d had legislated them. Rabbi Chanayah ben Akashyah reminds us that G’d legislated many commandments that while we perform them also correspond to our physical desires. By according the performance of actions that originate in our bodily desires the title מצוה, G’d has multiplied the opportunities when we can accumulate spiritual credits, זכויות. G’d helps us sublimate our physical desires to the level of making religiously important acts out of them, provided that we do remember to have this in mind also when we carry out these activities.
Not only the body derives satisfaction, joy, from the performance of the last mentioned commandments, but also the soul, so that on account of the soul deriving satisfaction, the personality of the person involved in these activities emerges as being more refined. This will be reflected in the quality of the visions granted to the souls of such people when they will move to the celestial regions after shedding their bodies.
Not only the body derives satisfaction, joy, from the performance of the last mentioned commandments, but also the soul, so that on account of the soul deriving satisfaction, the personality of the person involved in these activities emerges as being more refined. This will be reflected in the quality of the visions granted to the souls of such people when they will move to the celestial regions after shedding their bodies.
Genesis 31,13. “I am the G’d of Betel to Whom you have vowed, etc.” The spelling of the word ביתאל both here and in 35,1 suggests that a house may serve more than one function. It may serve a person to dwell in, just as clothing serves the body as a “house” to surround him with a feeling of security and familiarity. When you see the clothes a person wears, this serves as a preparation to making the acquaintance of the personality behind these clothes. When you see the house a person lives in, you get an initial impression of what kind of a person lives in such a house.
When a person prepares to “meet” his Creator, in prayer, etc., he also has to prepare himself for what to expect, by performing certain commandments that serve his soul, much as his clothing serves his body. One of the most appropriate “introductions” prior to addressing G’d is to do so in a house designated for this purpose, i.e. a synagogue. The type of “preparations” used, depend on the importance of the “interview” one expects to have with one’s Creator. Issues involving life and death, obviously deserve a more careful preparation.
In psalms 84,2 and 84,3 respectively, the authors (sons of Korach) describe their yearning for entering either the dwellings of G’d on earth, or at least to be allowed to enter the courtyards of these dwellings. They speak of both their body (flesh) and their “heart,” (spirit) yearning for this. They hope that admission to these sites will enable them to shout for joy to the living G’d. Their yearnings reflect the fact that they are in exile, and they pray that they not be treated worse than birds that always can return to their nest. They are aware that in order to really come close to G’d, they must first make the appropriate preparations, i.e. build a Temple with the courtyards surrounding it. The psalmist clearly suggests, at the end of verse 3, that only after these preparations have been made can his heart and body rejoice having come closer to His Creator. He can then approach G’d being certain that he, on his part, has made the appropriate preparations.
Our author sees in the word נכספה at the beginning of verse 3 an additional spiritual plus of the psalmist, as he made plain that he had made the necessary preparations that would entitle him to have the desired “interview” with Hashem, but he emphasizes, that contrary to performing such a commandment as putting on phylacteries, an act that does not involve pleasurable sensations of his body, what he did when building a courtyard and temple for G’d involved him emotionally on the highest level. He was literally yearning for the spiritual experience no less than the body on occasion yearns for satiating physical urges.
On folio 40 in Kidushin 40, where the Talmud deals with the relative moral/ethical value of appropriate intentions when compared to performance, but not necessarily with appropriate intentions, we are told that if someone planned sincerely to perform a certain commandment but was prevented from carrying out his intention by forces beyond his control, he is credited with having performed the commandment. In emphasizing the value of a constructive attitude, the Talmud adds that planning to commit a transgression, and carrying it out, brings in its wake a penalty only for the execution, not for the planning that preceded carrying out the foul deed. [The planning of idolatry is the only exception to this rule. ibid. Ed.]
This is also the meaning of Deuteronomy 6,6: והיו הדברים האלה אשר אני מצוך היום על לבבך, “these matters that I command you this day shall be on your heart.” Even commandments that are not capable of being fulfilled in exile should remain part of our constant consciousness through discussion between father and son, pupil and teacher, so that we are not deprived of receiving a reward for them as if we had actually performed them. The desire to be able to perform the respective commandments in reality is the principal criterion used by G’d to judge our mitzvah performance. Even King David in Chronicles I 22,14 already referred to this when he said (concerning his desire to build a Temple) והנה בעניי הכינותי לבית ה' זהב ככרים מאה אלף כסף וגו', “and here through denying myself, I have set aside for the house of the Lord one hundred thousands talents of gold, and one million talents of silver, etc;” what David meant was that the commandment of charity cannot only be fulfilled by the actual handing out of sums of money, but can also be carried out by preparing such monies to be ready when the need arises. David adds that even while he was not able to hand out sums that were needed because he was temporarily short of even bare essentials for himself, i.e. בעניי, his sincere desire to be of help would be accounted for him as if he had actually carried out his desire, as we know from psalms 119,106 נשבעתי ואקימה לשמור משפטי צדקך, “I have sworn to keep Your just rules.” [As soon as the opportunity will arise. Ed.] Yaakov had similar thoughts when he vowed that if G’d would be with him and grant him even minimal comforts he would turn what is now merely a stone into a building designed to serve G’d. G’d reminds him (31,13) of this vow by describing Himself as אנכי הא-ל ביתאל, saying that His presence will not only be with him in his heart, but that he can now carry out his desire to convert the stone he had anointed into a house of G’d.
An alternate approach to אנכי הא-ל ביתאל; when we say in our daily shmoneh esreh, three times daily:הא-ל הגדול הגבור והנורא א-ל עליון, we refer to how G’d manifests Himself to us in our present state when we are in exile. At the same time we look forward with profound longing to the kind of manifestations of G’d’s greatness which the prophet has described as עין לא ראתה אלוקים זולתך, “which thus far no human eye has beheld, only G’d Himself;” (B’rachot 34 based on Isaiah 64,3) Using the parlance of our sages, these as yet unrevealed manifestations of G’d’s loving kindness will serve as garments that the pious will wear in the future after our souls have left our bodies. In our verse above, G’d assures Yaakov that there are dimensions to His attribute of loving kindness that have not yet been revealed to man. The parts revealed to man thus far in this world are merely to serve as an introduction to additional dimensions reserved for being revealed to our souls in the afterlife. [G’d chose the first opportunity after He had assisted Yaakov to acquire material wealth in spite of his uncle’s constant efforts to thwart him, to acquaint Yaakov with this insight. Ed.] This is the reason why the sages added the attribute א-ל עליון, “the G’d in the highest regions,” to our daily prayer, to remind us that there is such an as yet unexplored dimension to G’d’s attributes.
Genesis 31,18. “he guided all his livestock and all his portable possessions , the ones he had acquired while in Padan Aram, and in order to go back to his father Yitzchok”. The last few words about Yaakov returning to his father appear superfluous; the moral/ethical lesson that the Torah teaches by describing Yaakov’s motivation in returning to the land of Israel as being to become reunited with his father, is that although G’d had promised Yaakov that he would become a founder of a great nation, would expand in all directions of the globe, none of these promises weighed on his decision to return forthwith to the land of Israel. His concern was the opportunity to once more be able to fulfill the commandment of honouring his father (his mother having died during his absence).
Genesis 31,19. “Rachel stole her father’s household idols.” [In the following paragraph our author departs so radically from the plain meaning of the text, without even following up the matter of Lavan’s searching for his idols, that I have decided to omit it. Ed.]
Genesis 31,27. “Why did you flee in secrecy and mislead me and not tell me? I would have sent you off with festive music, with timbrel and lyre.” [The author’s approach is dictated by his unwillingness to believe that Yaakov deliberately mislead Lavan, instead of merely allowing him to draw erroneous conclusions. Ed.]
It is a fact that although on the surface the relations between Yaakov and Lavan were civil, Yaakov appearing to be at peace with him, the fact is that Yaakov concealed his activities as much as possible, engaging in conversation only vis a vis G’d. Lavan was under the impression that words spoken to his face by Yaakov were addressed to him, whereas in reality they were addressed to G’d. Lavan was under the impression therefore that Yaakov’s attitude toward him had not undergone a change in spite of his cheating him constantly. The basic facts of life are that the wicked hates the just even while aware that he is the beneficiary of the just residing in his house. Lavan having been told by G’d that Yaakov was just and that he must not therefore dare harm him, asks Yaakov that if this was so he should have been up front about what he thought, and he, Lavan would have given him a farewell that reflected his esteem of him.
Being wicked himself, Lavan cannot get out of his skin, revealing that he preferred to do without the “good” Yaakov’s G’d had bestowed upon him to being in debt to Yaakov’s G’d. Lavan tries to twist Yaakov’s uprightness to his advantage by challenging him when he said he was afraid of Lavan stealing his wives and children, since if he, Yaakov, was so certain of his honesty, how could he doubt that G’d would protect him against Lavan’s tricks? Yaakov replies that the very fact that he was afraid of Lavan had convinced him that his uprightness was not absolute, otherwise he would not have felt these pangs of fear.
Genesis 31,42. “but G’d saw my plight and the toil of my hands, etc.;” Yaakov told Lavan that G’d had supervised the fate of His creatures, including his own, and His existence was proven by His appearance to Lavan in his dream warning him, just as His ownership and supervision of the universe is proven daily by His preventing water and fire, nature’s most deadly enemies, to annihilate each other. The continued existence of the “lower” universe, embodying so many elements that oppose each other, is explained only by the Creator’s exercising His control over them. Yaakov’s use of the word אמש, generally translated as “last evening,” is not accidental, as the letters in that word are the first letters of the word אש, מים, שמים, “fire, water, heaven,” i.e. if the first two would not be restrained by celestial forces, G’d, this universe would implode immediately....
Genesis 31,48. “whereas Yaakov named it Galed.” This verse contains an allusion to the thirty third day of the counting of the Omer, [significant to us only since the time of Rabbi Akiva, Ed.] The subject is elaborated on in Pessikta rabbati, chapter 21. The letters in the word גל, numerical value 33, symbolizes the first 33 days after the Exodus during which G’d is supposed to have appeared to the Jewish people as if a young man, a mighty warrior, whereas at the giving of the Torah He is supposed to have appeared to them in the guise of an aged scholar. The parable is meant to describe a young child whose father takes him by the hand when he brings him to school and his father trains him to like school by presenting school as an image of something he knows the child longs for. As the child learns more Torah his spiritual horizon expands so that when in his early youth the image of a young man had the greatest appeal for him, gradually he aspires to become like a revered elderly scholar. [The Midrash endeavours to explain the expression פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם, “G’d spoke to you once with one face and once with another face.” (Deut. 5,4.) Ed.]
The 33rd day of counting the Omer represents the point at which the Jewish people after having experienced G’d performing a string of supernatural miracles began to experience a longing for the Holy Torah, after receipt of which they could serve the Lord with all their hearts having gained more insight into His thinking after they would study His Torah. As of then their service would be whole-hearted. By naming the pile of stones גל עד, “the thirty third would serve as witness,” Yaakov alluded to an event in the future, just as he did many more times, especially when he blessed his children before his death. The word עד also is derived from עדי, עדיים, as in Ezekiel 16,7 where it signifies puberty, adolescence, or as in Exodus 33,4 עדיו, “its jewelry,” where the phylacteries are described as the Jewish people’s jewelry, and having sinned grievously against the Torah they were not allowed to display that jewelry which symbolized Torah. In other words, until the 33rd day after the Exodus the people were still primarily under the influence of the events accompanying the redemption, whereas from that time on, [probably including the partial Torah legislation at Marah, Ed.] they were under the impending revelation of G’d’s Torah at Mount Sinai. This stage is hinted at in the letters עד of the word גלעד.
Vayishlach
Genesis 32,4. “I have remained a stranger at Lavan’s” (all the time); my late father of blessed memory, commented on Rashi’s interpretation of Yaakov having chosen the word גרתי, that he referred to the numerical value of the letters in this word being 613, a symbol of the 613 commandments of the Torah that Yaakov observed even while in Padan Aram. He supposedly emphasized to Esau that in spite of his having acquired considerable wealth, none of it had been at the expense of Esau, as his father’s blessing which was: “may the Lord give you from the dew of heaven and the fat parts of the earth” (Genesis 27,28) had not been fulfilled. Should Esau counter that the reason Yitzchok’s blessing had not been fulfilled was that he, Yaakov, had not observed the commandments, this was not so. Esau knew that his father’s blessings were conditional on a certain mode of conduct by Yaakov, and that is why he had told him (Genesis 27,40) והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עול מעל צוארך, (according to Rashi) “if the Israelites will fail to observe the commandment, you will be able to shake off his yoke from your neck.” Yaakov hints to his brother that in spite of having observed the commandments he does not own any land, so that his father’s blessings could not have been fulfilled. Yaakov reassures Esau that he has no reason to revenge himself for Yaakov having obtained this blessing.
Genesis 32,11. “please save me from my brother, i.e. from Esau;” Esau represents the negative side of the emanations, Satan, the angel of death, the evil urge within us. Yaakov prays that his brother should not turn out to be a Satan in disguise, just as the evil urge sometimes portrays something sinful as if it were a good deed, a מצוה, so as to enable us to salvage our conscience when following his advice.
Genesis 32,12. “seeing that You have said to me that ‘I will keep doing good for you.’” The meaning of the repetition היטב איטיב is that the “goodness” that G’d will perform for Yaakov is of the kind that everyone around him can recognize as such. There are acts of loving kindness performed by G’d for individuals who recognize them as such, as for instance, when G’d answered a prayer of theirs; on the other hand, prayers in which the petitioner asked for something that no one else was aware of as being an object of that person’s longing, even when fulfilled, will not be seen by outsiders as benevolent acts of G’d. Something that appears to be a curse when viewed by one person, is viewed as a blessing by another person. Yaakov reminds G’d that He had promised him the kind of help that would be recognized by one and all as a special blessing.
Another way of understanding the line ואתה אמרת היטב איטיב עמך, is that even when G’d shares out His largesse to both the Jewish people and the gentiles, there is always a difference. When this “largesse” is bestowed on the Jewish people the intent is invariably for their benefit. When it is dispensed to the gentiles, the gentiles may see in it something positive, whereas in the long run it is something that works to the detriment of the recipients.
Let us explain this apparent paradox by referring to Deuteronomy 7,10, where Moses speaks of G’d “paying” the sinner to his “face.” Moses touches on the subject known to us under the heading of צדיק ורע לו, רשע וטוב לו, “why does it appear often that the person we perceive as a just person suffers a great deal in this world, whereas the patently wicked person appears to enjoy every day of his life on earth.” Moses describes the reward in store for the wicked, for they too have performed some good deeds for which G’d owes them a reward,- as “payment,” משלם. He has to do it while the wicked person is alive as he has no afterlife to look forward to. The righteous who has an eternity of life on a different plane to look forward to, need not lose some of this by being ‘paid” by G’d for his good deeds while here on earth. Yaakov, when referring to היטב איטיב, refers to G’d bestowing such “good” on him for the sake of the good itself, not as “payment” for good deeds performed. Gentiles, i.e. pagans, have no claim to that kind of “good.”
Genesis 32,17. “when my brother Esau will meet you and ask you to whom these herds belong, etc;” it is a rule that when a person approaches G’d with a request, that the evil urge within him tries to convince him that he is entitled to make whatever request from G’d that he has in mind, and that certain privileges on this earth are part of this entitlement as part of his serving the Lord. The evil urge, in its wisdom, acts as if it had been defeated by not immediately protesting that individual’s request by pointing out to G’d that person’s shortcomings. At a later stage, when such a person has already established a more intimate relationship vis a vis his Creator so that he realizes that his service of the Lord is not meant to secure him rewards on earth, but is meant to provide a sense of satisfaction for his Creator that one of His creatures fulfils his purpose in life, he has reached the stage where the evil urge, also known as Esau, encounters such a G’d-serving person head on. The “angels” of Yaakov, are a euphemism for this person’s thoughts. At that point, attempting to interfere with progress of such a personality towards spiritual perfection, Esau, i.e. the evil urge, asks these “angels” who are the creations of the person’s performance of G’d’s commandments, where they are headed, i.e. אנה תלך. The person is advised (the point of the Torah relating this encounter) to blunt such questions by saying that they have been created by “your servant Yaakov;” he is told to assuage the evil urge by saying that his good deeds are a “gift” to him (the evil urge), seeing that the evil urge is also one of G’d’s creatures and as such entitled to some recognition.
Genesis 32,25. “when he realized that he could not overcome him he injured his hip joint.” The subjects alluded to here are the three parts of the universe, 1) the world of the disembodied spirits, angels, collectively known as שרפים 2) the inert “stars,” planets and galaxies in outer space, and 3) the living creatures in our own “lower” part of the universe. In our part of the universe, i.e. in man, the head represents the domain of the angels in the “upper” part of the universe, the part of man that enables him to recognize his Creator.
The heart (within man) symbolizes the region we call outer space, home to galaxies in the domain known as עולם הגלגלים, the world of the orbiting planets and galaxies. According to the Sefer Yetzirah, heart, soul, enable man to recognise the recurring seasons, and what makes up a year by observing them in motion and realizing that a Creator must have directed their orbits. Finally, the thighs of man ירכים, represent the “lower universe,” a domain in which G’d must be served by means of His creatures having faith in their Creator. ירכים, thighs, are viewed as tools by means of which man is able to recognize the presence and power of a Creator. ירכים is another word for רגלים, which does not only mean “legs,” but is related to הרגל, habit, the danger that man serves G’d only from rote, lip service. When Yaakov is described as “the sun was shining for him”, ויזרח לו השמש, this is a hint that from that point on Yaakov worshipped G’d also by means of his intellect. His faith henceforth was more or less secure against arguments by the evil urge that could have confused him in his faith. The word י-עקב, was an allusion to his serving G’d as an עקב, an appendix, similar to the heel; once he had the name ישראל added to his name, he had acquired the letters ראש, (head) as part of his name, signifying the far loftier spiritual plateau that formed the basis of his faith.
Genesis 32,26. “He said: ‘’let me go for dawn is breaking’”. A look at Rashi on this line reveals that he considers this a request by the spiritual alter-ego of Esau to take his turn in the heavenly choir praising the Lord in the world of the שרפים, disembodied creatures, every morning. The Midrash, (Bereshit Rabbah 78,2 and Chulin 91) commented that this “angel’s” turn to recite these praises of the Lord had not previously occurred so that he was most disturbed not to miss this opportunity of doing so. We need to understand why this angel’s turn to recite these praises of the Lord had come just then.
It seems that the spiritual representatives in heaven of all the nations sing the praises of the Lord. The timing of their doing so, usually coincides with whenever one of the nations on earth whom they represent in the celestial spheres, had performed an act of kindness for the Jewish people. This enables their respective representative at the heavenly court to act as a powerful advocate on behalf of their charges down on earth. Esau at that time had done a kindness for Yaakov, which enabled his celestial representative to stake his claim to take his turn in the lineup waiting to sing these praises in the heavenly choir. As this had been the first time Esau had done something kind for Yaakov, his spiritual representative had never yet had an opportunity to be part of that choir.
Genesis 32,28. “He said: ‘your name will no longer be Yaakov, but Israel, for you have contended both with celestial forces and with human forces and you have prevailed.’” There are people who constantly remain attached to G’d even while they are engaged in conversation with human beings. There are other people, who while engaged in a conscious effort to serve the Lord, concentrate on this to the exclusion of everything else; these people while engaged in mundane activities, such as business conversations with their peers, cannot at the same time remain conscious of their duties towards their Creator. The first type of person deserves the title: “Israel;” as the letters ישר, “upright,” as well as the letters ראש, “head,” are part of that title. The second category of person, (observant Jew) is called יעקב, i.e. י-עקב, meaning that his attachment to G’d is עקב, “secondary,” just as a heel is a secondary and not a primary organ. Esau’s celestial representative acknowledged that Yaakov was a person for the first category, since in his dealings with man he never lost sight of his primary duties to his G’d.
Genesis 32,30. “Yaakov named the site of this encounter ‘Peniel’, for I have seen the Divine face to face and I have remained alive.” There are people who serve the Lord in order that He in turn will shower them with all His goodness. There are other persons, on a higher level than the first category, who serve the Lord because of their awareness that G’d, by reason of His greatness, deserves to be served, and that it is a privilege to be allowed to serve Him. They do not even think in terms of what they may stand to gain by doing so. As a result of their wholehearted devotion to G’d, G’d in turn “faces” them in acknowledgment of their selfless service, i.e. He relates to them פנים אל פנים. Surviving such an experience is something extraordinary, and that is why Yaakov, realising this, exclaims: ותנצל נפשי, “my life was saved.”
The Torah writes in 33,20: ויקרא לו א-ל אלוקי ישראל, “He (G’d) called him ‘a G’d Who is the G’d of Yisrael.’” (Compare Megillah 18) How do we know that G’d bestowed such a “title” on Yaakov? Does it not almost sound blasphemous? [Rabbeinu Bachya, see my translation page 519 already deals with this problem. Ed.]
In order to explain this puzzling verse, we must state categorically that the word א-ל is most certainly not meant to convey that the bearer of that title should be regarded as someone to be worshipped. We need to answer why the Torah chose this occasion for bestowing such a strange sounding title on Yaakov/Yisrael, and if so why only on this occasion? The word אל generally refers to someone powerful and aggressive.
We have mentioned on several occasions that the tzaddik is powerful enough to bring about cancellation of decrees issued by G’d. (Compare also Moed Katan 16 on the subject where G’d Himself is quoted as saying: מי מושל בי? צדיק “Who has the power to rule over me? the righteous.”) This “ruling” over G’d, is restricted to the ability of the righteous to cancel evil decrees directed at the people of Israel by G’d. Accordingly, our verse answers the question: “who is it who called Yaakov “el,” i.e. someone righteous enough to be able to overturn harmful decrees against the Jewish people?” Answer; אלוקי ישראל, “the G’d of Israel.”
Another way of understanding this line is: “who was it that called Yaakov “El”, i.e. someone equipped with the power to overturn Divine decrees,?” Answer: None other than the G’d of Israel Himself. The emphasis is on the limitation of the tzaddik’s power to nullify Divine decrees. If such a decree emanated directly from Hashem, a tzaddik may be able to overturn it. If the decree in question originated in the mind of a tzaddik or even an accredited prophet without the person having been commanded by G’d to relate this decree to the people, another tzaddik is not empowered to cancel it. [When Elijah decreed famine for the population of the land of Israel, seeing that G’d had not authorized him to do this, no other prophet could have cancelled this decree. (Kings I 17,1) Ed.]
Genesis 34,1. “Dinah, Leah’s daughter left her house unaccompanied;” Bereshit Rabbah 79,1comments on this: “like mother like daughter;” this is a reference to the forwardness of Leah when she informed her husband Yaakov that it was her turn to host him, on account of the mandrakes of her son Reuven, etc. (Genesis 30,16). According to Rashi quoting B’rachot 60, the fetus from which Dinah was born was originally meant to produce a male child. Leah’s prayer was intended to prevent her sister from being put to shame, as if the fetus in Leah’s womb would be born as a male, Rachel would wind up with fewer sons than even Yaakov’s hand maids. As a result of her prayer Dinah, i.e. a female, was born בת לאה, these words, that on the face of it do not tell us anything we did not know, allude to this hidden aspect of Leah’s pregnancy on this occasion. It was her prayer that resulted in Dinah being born as a female. When the Torah continues with: וירא אותה שכם וגו', ”Shechem ,son of Chamor saw her, etc;” this is an allusion to the fact that if Leah had not prayed for this child to be a daughter, the whole incident of the rape would have been prevented as Shechem would not have had an opportunity to set eyes on a daughter of Yaakov.
Genesis 35,13. “G’d rose from over him from the site at which He had spoken with him.” Rashi comments that he does not know what the words “from the site He had spoken with him” are to teach us. [We would have known that G’d rose from that site without these words. Ed.]
It would appear that we can gain an insight from the words of Bereshit Rabbah 47,6 on Genesis 17,22 when a similar term is used for G’d returning to the celestial spheres after speaking with Avraham. The Midrash there understands the word ויעל , as a hint that the patriarchs were the carriers, support of the Divine chariot, Avraham having been the first one. If so, our verse would indicate that Yaakov had by now also qualified to be another such support of G’d’s chariot. Our sages stated that in order to function as such “supports,” the patriarchs had to be on holy soil, in the Land of Israel. When G’d had told Yaakov to return to the land of his fathers, He had implied that once he did so, he too would qualify as one of the supports of the מרכבה, “the Divine chariot.” (Compare Rashi on 31,3)
Vayeshev
Gensis 37,1. “Yaakov settled in the land where his father sojourned, in the Land of Canaan.”
In his volume called האמונה והבטחון, “Faith and Confidence”, Nachmanides postulates the following principle. Although G’d had made numerous promises to our patriarch Yaakov, Yaakov continued to fear that due to any sins he might commit or have committed, these promises might not be honoured. One of these “sins” might have been that he did not serve the Lord in the manner required. Such sins of omission are very easily committed as the duty to serve the Lord is applicable 24 hours a day seven days a week.
[Nachmaindes explains that everyone who has confidence, בוטח, has faith, מאמין, else what would he be confident of, whereas not everyone who has faith also possesses confidence. Ed.].
The human condition described by our sages as שמא יגרום החטא, “maybe one’s sin results in one’s confidence being misplaced, disappointed,” is what Nachmanides has in mind when he says that not every believer also possesses confidence.
Proper service of the Lord also presupposes that the person who serves Him does so with a feeling of joy, joy that he is able to perform this service. Such “joy” must not be dependent on his joyful experiences on earth; our whole personality including our bodies, must participate in this joy; [as opposed to the angels who serve the Lord without mental reservations at all times as they are disembodied beings, Ed.]
When we remember this, Yaakov’s frequent “fears,” something unusual when compared to Avraham and Yitzchok, is easily understandable, and does not reflect lack of אמונה, “faith.” Whenever the Jewish people experience “bad times,” every Jew must immediately ask himself how he had been remiss in his service of the Lord. Yaakov excelled in this constant critical review of his service of the Lord, and instead of such statements in the Torah as ויירא יעקב, “Yaakov was afraid,” reflecting a lack of faith, they reflect Yaakov’s constant concern if his service of the Lord had been adequate.
Another approach to the verse above, which appears to be a prelude to Yaakov experiencing painful experiences apparently linked to his settlement on holy soil.
We have a rule, (Avot 6,10) that all of G’d’s creations were designed only for His honour, from which it follows that all of man’s activities must be aimed at pleasing his Father in heaven. In order to illustrate what the author of the statement in the Mishnah had in mind when he said that whatever G’d created was designed to enhance His honour, consider that even when we sit down to perform a necessary activity such as eating in order to keep our bodies healthy, we must at the same time have in mind that by remaining healthy we can better serve our Creator. [If we do this consciously, every meal we eat is a סעודת מצוה, a meal that has been sublimated from being merely a mundane activity to performance of a sacred duty. Ed.] Such hallowing of what appear on the surface to be secular activities, also enables us to help the “sparks” of the “Shechinah” which had been condemned to enter our domain, to return to their origin having proved to their Creator that they had put their sojourn on earth to good use. (Compare our comments in square brackets on page 21). These “sparks” from the Shechinah, though in “exile,” on earth, had preserved the lower universe’s inhabitants’ ability to eventually find their way back to the innocence, the ideal state in which man had been created, before he had committed a capital sin. The “sparks” that had separated from the Shechinah at the time had become an almost integral part of the physical universe, having some presence in everything that serves man to continue to live on earth, so that all organic matter that serves man as food also contains parts of these “sparks.” When man sublimates this “food” by consuming it with the intention of enhancing his service of the Lord, he has “opened” a path for such a “spark,” or part of it, to return to the celestial regions from which it originated.
The deeper meaning of the halachah requiring us to wash our hands and to recite a benediction over this, i.e. something we do not do when we wash our hands in order to cleanse them from dirt, is also connected to the hopefully sublime nature of the food that we are about to consume. The prophet Isaiah 63,9 refers to this נטילת ידים, “washing one’s hands,” as a religious rite,” with the words: וינטלם וינשאם כל ימי עולם, “He washed them and exalted them, for ever.” According to the kabbalistic interpretation of that verse, the words יד הגדולה in that verse in Isaiah refers to “three types of hands,” when G’d uses His יד הגדולה, when performing redemption, the letter ג in the word הגדולה, alludes to three different levels of elevating, sublimating something that was mundane, secular. The benediction which ends with the words המוציא לחם מן הארץ, is accordingly understood as the raising of something that was merely earthly, bread, to a progressively higher status through the thoughts that will course through our hearts and minds while we eat the bread, i.e. the meal. The deeper meaning of the benediction is that although it is apparently pronounced over the most basic material component of the physical earth, bread, the staff of life, it contains within it, through being sublimated, the potential to enable one of the exiled sparks from heaven to begin its journey homeward, to its roots in the celestial spheres.
In support of the arguments just quoted, our author sees further proof in Song of Songs 8,1 where Solomon says: מי יתנך כאח לי, יונק שדי אמי, אמצאך בשוק אשקך, ”if only, when I find You in the street you were like a brother to me, someone who had nursed at my mother’s breast; so that I could kiss you in the street” (a public place, without feeling ashamed). In this verse Solomon alludes to two types of “love,” i.e.אהבה מגולה , “love openly displayed,” and אהבה מסותרת, “loves that is concealed.” The love between a man and his wife is considered as “hidden love,” as it is expressed within the privacy of their home. The love between brother and sister, on the other hand, is described as a love that is openly displayed; so much so, that on occasion brothers and sisters are observed kissing in public and no embarrassment attaches to this display of their fondness for one another in spite of that love being displayed openly.
Solomon portrays the כנסת ישראל, the collective soul of the Jewish people, expressing the wish to be able to display its fondness for G’d and G’d’s fondness for the Jewish people openly, publicly; [although, ideally, the relationship of G’d and the Jewish people is portrayed (allegorically) as like that between groom and bride, a brother-sister type relationship also has its advantages as it may be displayed openly before the gentiles. Ed.] This is an allegory of G’d’s proximity being found in the form of the previously mentioned “sparks” of the Shechinah, in the most unlikely places, “on the street,” as opposed to “inside the synagogue or Yeshivah.” This loving relationship is completely devoid of any physical attraction or desires between the parties concerned. Love such as this, has been described as אהבה עזה כמות, a love as powerful as death, in Song of Songs 8,6. It is recognizable when the person concerned is able to accept painful afflictions as willingly and even joyfully, as he would welcome manifestations of G’d’s grace discernible as such to any ordinary human being. Our sages in B’rachot 54 explain the word מאדך in the first paragraph of the keriyat sh’ma as referring to this kind of love, where the Torah asks us “to love the Lord your G’d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your capacity.” (Deut.6,5) The word מאד there is understood as an alternative for the word מדה, i.e. we are to accept with love every attribute of G’d with which He sees fit to relate to us. For a person who is truly convinced that everything that the Creator does is intended for our benefit, even if this is not immediately apparent, it is possible to say, without being hypocritical, גם זו לטובה, “this (unwelcome blow of fate), is also meant for the best.”
When a person has attained this level of spiritual maturity, what had been intended by G’d as a reminder that he must perfect himself further, will be converted into an act of Mercy rather than an act of Justice and reproof. When looked at allegorically, this is the message of Deut. 8,15 that “G’d makes water come out of a rock in the desert that is as hard as granite.” The word מים is usually a symbol of “life-giving” material, whereas the word צור, symbolizes something rock-hard, unyielding. The manner in which a person is able to accept what must at first glance appear as a harsh decree by G’d determines the extent to which it is converted into a benevolent decree, something that will be recognized as such retroactively by the person concerned. Yaakov was able to accept what appeared as harsh in such a spirit, thereby displaying what Solomon described in Song of Songs as אהבה עזה, a powerful love for G’d. This is why he was now able to settle in the land in which both his forefathers had always remained “strangers,” though they sojourned there many years, Yitzchok during all of his life. Our author understands the word מגור in the verse above as derived from ויגר, “he was afraid,” i.e. as opposed to his father who was never at ease.
Genesis 38,28. “while she was in labor, one of them put out his hand, etc.;” “when he subsequently withdrew his hand, etc.,” “afterwards his brother emerged (completely); he called him Peretz, and he called his brother Zerach.” The name זרח, reflects what we are told in Niddah 30 that as long as an embryo is still within the womb of its mother, a light keeps shining above its head. This light enables the embryo to see from one end of the earth to the other. The Talmud uses this parable to describe that as long as the embryo is as innocent of sin as was Adam before he sinned when he could see all parts of the globe, the embryo is in a similarly sublime condition. When it enters our world upon leaving its mother’s womb, an angel slaps his face so that the infant promptly forgets all it had known thus far, and experiences a new awakening which includes its ability to dedicate itself exclusively to the service of its Creator. It is G’d’s will that man’s spiritual maturity will be attained not as a gift sent from heaven, but after he has undergone trials, so that the accomplishment, when it is attained, is the result of his own efforts though aided by G’d once man has initiated it.
This is what the Zohar 1,77 alludes to as אתערותא דלעילה, quoting Isaiah 62,6 and psalms 83,2 “do not keep silent,” or “you who make mention of Hashem take no rest,” so that there will always be an awakening from below, as a result of which an awakening from above is aroused. At the same time, so that man does not think that everything in our “lower” world is by definition, irreparably evil, and that all the pleasurable experiences on earth are not only transient, but contribute to our becoming victims of the evil urge, G’d maintains a “window of opportunity,” that is open to a higher world by means of which it is possible to sublimate experiences on earth, hallow them and thus make them instruments of our service of the Lord and our coming ever closer to Him. In other words, man has not been placed on earth in order to negate earth, but in order to be G’d’s tool that elevates the material universe to serve the aggrandizement of His name universally. In kabbalistic parlance, the tool G’d holds out to us humans is called “white light,” as opposed to the physical light that we make use of everyday that is perceived by contrast as “black light.” [I have rephrased some of our author’s words in order to make them easier to follow. Ed.]
The author proceeds to explain the description of the twins Peretz and Zerach in terms of the concepts we have just explained. The word פרץ, breaking forth, bursting out of one’s mould, describes that on doing this the infant suddenly sees brilliant light, זרח. A “dark” womb has suddenly been opened with a vista to overpowering light. In light of that experience the newly born is likely to opt for a denial of all that reminds him of his previous dark, opaque existence. When the infant extends his hand into this brilliant world, G’d extended to this newly born (not quite) a glimpse of overpowering light as encouragement, before the soul had a chance to taste all that is wrong and evil on earth. On the other hand, immediately thereafter, in order not to hand man his salvation on a platter so that he cannot claim a share in having personally achieved spiritual maturity, this “hand” was withdrawn and replaced by the “twin” brother, symbolizing that life on earth is a “two edged sword.” The author informs us that the Jewish people, though one people, are on occasion referred to as אחים, brothers, as in psalms 122,9 למען אחי ורעי, “for the sake of my brothers and companions,” so that his allegorical exegesis of why the Torah describes the birth of these twins in such detail appears amply justified.
Genesis 39,8. “he refused, saying to his master’s wife, etc.” the tone sign shalshelet over the word וימאן signifies that Joseph raised his voice in protest and amazement at the suggestion of his master’s wife that he commit adultery with her. He expressed his disgust at such an immoral demand on her part.
The name of the tone-sign שלשלת, is based on the number three, an allusion to a chain, as pointed out in Zohar II,10. Joseph had to be strengthened by the three patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchok, and his father Yaakov, to enable him to withstand the seduction by Potiphar’s wife.
Another explanation of the tone sign shalshelet over the word וימאן is based on its shape, which resembles the letter ל, according to Zohar I 168. where it discusses how David, who originally was meant to die at birth, was kept alive when the patriarchs heard about this, each one “donating” part of their lives to make up the seventy years that David lived. According to the Zohar, Joseph donated 37 years of his life (he died at 110 whereas his father had lived to be 147 years) so that he had contributed the lion’s share of David’s life. The letter ל is an allusion to David as our sages say when stating in kallah rabbati 8 that the attribute of מלכות, Royalty, can be acquired by 30 different virtues. The word שלשה is also an allusion to David, and by Joseph raising his voice when rejecting the demand by Potiphar’s wife that he sleep with her, he managed to invoke the combined merits of the three patriarchs who helped him to remain steadfast in his refusal.
In Samuel II 23,8 the author lists 30 “heroes” that surrounded David, there is an interesting comment by Rashi on verse 18 about Avishai, described as the ראש השלישי, being the leader of a group of “three.” Rashi says that this group of three was free from sin. This sounds plausible as the attributes possessed by David, as listed in Samuel I 16,18 are גבור חיל, נבון, ואיש תאר, “a capable, stalwart fellow, sensible, and of handsome appearance.” These three attributes distinguished Joseph from his early youth. When Joseph had a vision of David who possessed attributes similar to his own, this prompted him to donate 37 years of his life so that David would be able to accomplish his purpose in life. He most certainly did not want to commit a sin that would make him forfeit the chance of being compared with the illustrious David.
A different aspect of the tone-sign shalshelet is that it symbolizes how firmly attached (by a chain) Joseph was to G’d, so that He helped him withstand the temptation to give in to the urgings of Mrs Potiphar.
Still on the subject of the tone sign shalshelet over the word וימאן, according to G’d’s plan, Joseph was meant to interpret the dreams of the Royal cupbearer and the chief of the Royal bakers. The dream of the latter involved three baskets, whereas the dream of the former involved three grape bearing branches on a vine. According to the Talmud in Chulin 92, the dreams of these servants of Pharaoh are alluded to in the tone-sign that directs our attention to the number 3, as are the three names by which Joseph is called at various times in the Bible, i.e. יוסף, יהוסף and צפנת פענח which Onkelos translates as גברא דמטמרן “a man who could reveal that which was hidden.” The שלשלת would refer to three dreams that Joseph had to interpret after this event.
There is another approach to this word found in the explanation by Nachmanides, (last section) on פרשת בשלח, on Exodus 17,9 according to which whatever Moses and Joshua had done in their time would be re-enacted by the prophet Elijah and the messiah, descended from Joseph in due course. According to our tradition the messiah from the house of David will reveal himself only after the death of the messiah from the house of Joseph., so that the process of redemption will begin with the appearance of the prophet Elijah, followed by the messiah from the house of Joseph, and will be completed with the redemption under the messiah from the house of David. This trilogy is alluded to by the shalshelet above the word וימאן. When Joseph reminded himself of this sequence, he was reinforced in his determination not to give in to the allure of Potiphar’s wife. This is also why the Torah reports in Genesis 50,23 וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים, “Joseph was privileged to see a third generation of Ephrayim.” The final letter ם at the end of this verse is mysterious. [We would have expected the letter י instead, indicating the ordinal number “third.” Ed.] This letter is an allusion to Isaiah 9,6 where the word לםרבה המשרה, is written with the final letter ם at the beginning of the word. According to our tradition (Sanhedrin 94) the final letter ם there is an allusion to the final letter ם in the word אפרים, a hint that the messiah from the house of Joseph will be a descendant of Ephrayim. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 14,2. Zohar II 100, also elaborates on the subject of the messiah from the house of David following the messiah from the house of Joseph when discussing aspects of the levirate marriage.)
Another of aspect of the significance of the tone sign shalshelet above the word וימאן, can be understood from Rashi’s comment on Leviticus 19,2 where the Torah commands us to strive and be holy. He writes that wherever the subject of illicit sexual relations in the Torah is mentioned, the subject of holiness is found nearby. Rashi quotes three examples, (Leviticus 21,7;21,15, and 21,6). The Jewish people (when at their best) have been “crowned” with two levels of holiness, something that is spelled out in a liturgical poem recited on the first day of Rosh Hashanah immediately before we recite the “kedushah,” where the author says that two of these levels of holiness have been granted to the Jewish people, i.e. מידו נתן שתי קדושות, whereas He, G’d is garbed in an additional level of holiness, i.e. ויקדש באחת משלוש קדושות.
Yet another meaning of the shalshelet draws our attention to a mystical aspect of hitkashrut, the bond between disciple and master. The numerical value of the letters in the name יוסף when deducting the respective “zeros” as the 0 in 60, is the same as in the name of G’d אהיה. This is the name of G’d, which according to שערי אורה, is the key to linking all of G’d’s names together. The numerical value of the name יוסף, i.e. 156 is also the same as the numerical value of the word ציון, and in Hoseah 14,6 the prophet says of G’d: אהיה כטל לישראל. “I (G’d) will be as beneficial for Israel as dew.” In psalms 133,3 G’d also speaks of being like the dew that falls on Mount Hermon which descends on Mount Zion as a blessing. We also find that the abbreviated form of G’d’s name as a substitute כוזו used on the back of the מזוזה equal in numerical value the word טל =39. (Compare Zohar II 261 on this, where the author states that G’d’s name אהיה.includes all of G’d’s names and כנוים, “G’d’s pronouns.”) The shalshelet over the word וימאן, is meant to alert us to all this.
Another allusion conveyed by the shalshelet over our word reminds us of Proverbs 5,5 where Solomon says of the sexually immoral woman, the זונה, that “her feet go down to death, her steps support ‘she-ol,’ hell.” Joseph reminded himself of that dictum and was aware of the need to keep his distance from this kind of “death,” and to cleave to G’d instead. G’d’s name is always linked to life, i.e. eternal life in the celestial regions, as King Chiskiyah (after recovering from his sickness) pointed out in his prayer in Isaiah 38,11אמרתי לא אראה י-ה, י-ה בארץ החיים “I said to myself that I would not see G’d, the G’d Who is in the land of the Living.” According to Sotah 36 the reason why the letter ה was added to Joseph’s name (psalms 81,6; so that it contained 3 of the letters of the tetragram) was that he sanctified the Lord’s name in the privacy of his master’s house. [Yehudah, who sanctified the Lord’s name in public (Nachshon at the sea of Reeds) had two letters added to his name, i.e. his name contained the entire tetragram. Ed.] The shalshelet over the word וימאן alerts us to when Joseph earned eternal life.
Genesis 39,17. “your servant has done to me unspeakable things.” According to Rashi the conversation described in the Torah here occurred while Potiphar and his wife were having marital relations. At first glance, this appears somewhat difficult to understand as in Genesis 41,45 when the Torah reports that Pharaoh gave Joseph as a wife the daughter of Potiphar, Rashi points out that Potiphar was impotent, as a penalty for having desired to use Joseph for homosexual practices, and that Ossnas was not his biological daughter. We must therefore assume that the attempted seduction of Joseph occurred earlier. If so, why did he become impotent only at a later stage?
Actually, the Almighty Who performs wonderful deeds completely unassisted, arranges events in such a way that the wicked will commit fatal errors, as we know from Job 12,23 משגיא לגויים ויאבדם, “He leads (wicked) nations astray and causes their destruction.” If G’d had made Potiphar impotent earlier, he could not have believed his wife when she described that Joseph had engaged in similar activities to the ones practiced by her husband during marital intercourse. In addition to this, the Torah testified that Potiphar was aware of and admired Joseph’s absolute loyalty and sincerity, as we know from 39,3 and 4. The Torah sometimes shows us how G’d, on occasion, lets a wicked person enjoy a degree of success even when they are in the process harming the righteous, so that the righteous has a chance to become stronger in his faith in G’d. When this happens the wicked interprets it as proof that G’d approves of what he has been doing, whereas in fact G’d is only preparing the downfall of the wicked. Ultimately, in retrospect, G’d will be seen as having misled the wicked, as per Job 12,23.
Genesis 39,20. “Joseph’s master took him and placed him in the jail reserved for high ranking prisoners (prior to their judgment).” ויהי שם בבית הסהר. “He remained there for a considerable period.” On the face of it, this last sentence appears superfluous. At first glance, it appears as if when G’d unaccountably sends afflictions on people the “victim” if truly G’d-fearing, is not supposed to react by “physical countermeasures,” but is supposed to continue to have faith in G’d; as a result he will experience that in due course this “harmful” decree will prove to have been beneficial. This is an example of what we have been taught in Taanit 21 that what appear to be painful reverses should be met with the acknowledgment of גם זו לטובה, “this too has been meant for our ultimate benefit.”
The line describing Joseph as spending a considerable time in prison, although he was innocent of the charges against him, is to hint to us that through his remaining there he eventually interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh’s cupbearer and chief baker, only to come to Pharaoh’s attention and start a magnificent career. Inaction, not publicizing his plight, leaving his fate in the hands of G’d, was the instrument that was most effective.
Genesis 40,10. “and there were three branches on the vine.” According to one (Rabbi Eleazar hamodai) of numerous allegorical explanations in Chulin 92, the vine is symbolic of Jerusalem; whereas the three branches are symbolic of the Temple, the King, and the High Priest, respectively. The words: והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה הבשילו אשכלתיה ענבים, usually translated as: “it had barely blossomed when out of it came its blossoms and its clusters ripened into grapes,” is understood allegorically by the Talmud. The reference is to the young priests who will mature and offer libations in the Temple. In order to explain this somewhat far fetched allegory, although the one preferred by the Talmud, our author quotes Yuma 29 where the rhetorical question of why Queen Esther has been compared to an אילה, a gazelle, hind, the Talmud defining the gazelle in psalms 22,1 as אילת השחר, Queen Esther as being like a gazelle in the morning, i.e. at the end of the night, sees in Esther and her experiences the last chapter belonging to the period of history described in the Bible. No overt miracles in Jewish history have been reported in the Bible subsequent to her period.
What did the Talmud have in mind when suggesting that after Mordechai and Esther, [in whose time these ”miracles,” were already not overt, Ed.] no more miracles occurred?
We must distinguish between two kinds of wars. Usually, when we speak of “war,” we refer to an armed confrontation between warring nations.
The second type of “war,” is one that originated in G’d subjecting the Jewish people to attacks by external enemies, in order to strengthen their faith in Him when He would save them from a fate which they were powerless to escape by any other means. Psalms 91,2 refers to the psalmist acknowledging such miraculous escapes of the Jewish people. It is remarkable that the psalmist, in referring to his trust in the Lord, does so in the future tense, i.e. אלוקי אבטח בו, “my G’d in Whom I will put my trust,” instead of, as we would have expected, “in Whom I have put my trust.” The psalmist acknowledges that he now understands the purpose of the “war” that had befallen his people as having been a test, teaching the Jewish people to put their trust only in the Lord. The same theme is found in psalms 118,10 כל גויים סבבוני בשם ה' כי אמילם, “all nations have surrounded me; by the name of the Lord I will surely cut them down.” The psalmist does not predict what he is about to do, but refers to what G’d had in mind by allowing His people to face such impossible odds, i.e. to strengthen their faith when they will be saved by Him. The psalmist makes it even plainer In verse 21 of the same psalm, when the words אודך כי עניתני ותהי לי לישועה, must be understood as: “I will express my thanks to You for having afflicted me so that You could demonstrate how You will be my salvation.”
When G’d “rescues” the Jewish people, this occurs in either of two ways. The most easily recognizable way are overt miracles in which His mastery over nature is demonstrated by His breaking all the “rules” that scientists have taught us are inviolate. The best known examples of this are the 10 plagues G’d visited upon the Egyptians, crowned by the splitting of the sea of reeds in which the Egyptian army drowned to a man, while the Israelites crossed the bottom of that sea safely. Although in the song of thanks by the Jewish people after the drowning of the Egyptians the text is full of G’d being lauded for His performing “wonders,” (Exodus 15,11) what are “wonders” performed by G’d in our eyes, are, of course, nothing extraordinary when viewed from His vantage point, seeing that He had made the rules, He is certainly able to suspend them when it suits Him. The Jewish people praised Him not so much for what He had done, but for having found the Jewish people worthy to be saved by such spectacular means, involving the undoing of what G’d had done during the six days of creation.
When the psalmist, in psalms 111,4 says of G’d: זכר עשה לנפלאותיו, “He has made a memory for His wonders,” the question arises why ”wonders” need to be commemorated by a special זכר? We would have thought that their very having occurred is their memorial! The psalmist answers this unspoken question in the latter half of the same verse when he says: חנון ורחום ה', “Hashem is gracious and compassionate.” At the sea of reeds G’d demonstrated that in spite of His being compassionate He deliberately suppressed this attribute by drowning the Egyptians in order to “save” the Israelites. This “canceling” of one of His major attributes on account of the interests of the Jewish people is what are referred to both by the psalmist, and by Moses in the shirat hayam, the song of thanksgiving, as נפלאותיו or פלא, “wonderful, amazing.”
The second type of ישועה, “rescue” is when G’d garbs Himself in the “clothing” worn by nature, i.e. makes use of natural law without disturbing its normal function. A well known example of such an event is the “miracle” of Purim, which according to all that we know about it did not contain any elements that could be described as interference with the natural course of events.
Achashverosh married Esther, and due to his jealousy of Haman who he thought had tried to rape his wife Esther, he hanged Haman. A similar “miracle” resulted in the festival of Chanukah, the king or chief general of the Seleucids lusting after Yehudit and trying to rape her, resulting instead in his being killed by her, and his army becoming demoralized. In both the examples mentioned, many thousands of gentiles, antisemites, were killed in due course.
The subject becomes easier to understand by means of a parable. A King built a palace for his son; originally, he had meant for his son to live in that house. After a while, some wicked people expelled the son from this house. It would be appropriate for the house that had served as the protector of its inhabitants to not only protest this action but to take counter measures. However the house, i.e. the stones, are immobile, as pointed put by Chabakuk 2,11. Seeing that the stones of the house are immobile, they are powerless. The world was created for the sake of the Jewish people, i.e. the world is our “house,” as G’d has told Pharaoh that the Jewish people are His firstborn son when viewed in terms of the parable. (Exodus 4,22) When the gentile nations dispossess us or kill us, the “world” ought by rights to rise up in our defense. As this is not possible, the owner of the world, G’d, will do this instead. This is why the numerical value of the word טבע, nature loosely translated as “world,” is the same as the numerical value of the word אלה-ים, G’d, i.e. 86. When “nature” smites the gentile nations, it is the same as G’d smiting them. The world is the sum total of the Creator’s creative activity. G’d may be perceived as its father. The expression מעשה בראשית, a simile for the 6 days of G’d’s creative activity, contains the word ראשית, “beginning,” i.e. that the final product of G’d’s creative activity had been planned from the very beginning, i.e. as a home for the Jewish people, who are the whole purpose of G’d’s beginning the creation of the universe. At the conclusion of this process, אחרית, the Creator garbed Himself in what we are fond of calling טבע, “nature,” and all that this term entails. When Moses said in Deuteronomy 32,18 צור ילדך תשי, “you (his people) neglected the Rock that begot you,” his words expressed similar sentiments.
Before someone opens his mouth to say something, a person considers if the words he is about to utter are the ones appropriate for expressing his wish. If he wishes to make a request, he thinks about how best to phrase such a request in order that it may be granted. By changing his mode of speech, he becomes a totally new person. When G’d issued directives to create the universe, He created the whole world with these oral directives. (Compare psalms 33,6 בדבר ה' שמים נעשו, “the heavens came into existence by a single word of the Lord”.) When it comes to “saving” this world from impending destruction, using the טבע, “nature,” as His instrument, He deals with something that is established, and therefore employs a different means than the one He had employed when bringing something into existence. According to our author the word טבע is closely related to the word חנוכה, completing a training program, consecration, i.e. establishing a kind of order, norms, imprinting a form on something, as in מטבע, coin. G’d no longer needs to resort to something brand new, i.e. miracles.
When Esther is described as אילה, a strong animal, (feminine of איל, ram) i.e. fully mature, our sages referred to the period of overt miracles in Jewish history having come to an end in her time, so that the salvation of the Jewish people in which she was instrumental did not require G’d’s intervention by upsetting the rules of nature through a miracle.
[If G’d were forever to have to resort to miracles to achieve His purpose in the universe, this would reflect a basic flaw in that universe. When at the end of the Purim story the Jews are described as voluntarily accepting what they had accepted at Sinai under tremendous pressure, this too is a compliment to G’d, whose children had matured. Ed.]
The sages (at the beginning of 40,10) are quoted as seeing in one of the branches which the cup bearer saw in his dream, the young priests, the ones who would perform the sacrificial service in the Temple in due course. If we revert to the allegorical approach that the author has adopted, the פרחי כהונה that the Talmud spoke about are the sacrifices offered in the Temple, which are symbolic of how miracles become converted into norms, טבע, seeing that most communal offerings are closely tied to certain days, weeks, months, or years, and these in turn symbolise how what had come into existence as an overt miracle at the creation, had been transformed into what we call natural phenomena, i.e. manifestations in nature that are not only predictable but can be calculated thousands of years in advance.
[The author tries again to bring the subject of Chanukah into this portion, as the portion is always read around that time of year, draws on the Talmud Shabbat 21 where the subject is Chanukah. Ed.] The Talmud there stipulates that the best time for lighting the Chanukah candles is the period immediately following sunset until it has become so dark that no more pedestrians are about. (There was no street lighting in those days) Our author sees in this a symbol of the gradual switchover from G’d performing overt miracles to working through letting טבע perform most of His intervention in the affairs of man. The expression for complete darkness, used by the Talmud is עד שכלתה רגל מן השוק, usually translated as “until the pedestrians have ceased walking in the public domain.” Seeing that the word רגל does not only mean “foot, but is also directly related to רגילות, something habitual, he understands the Talmud as hinting at this “getting used to seeing no more brilliant miracles,” as the period following “sunset.” The expression used by the Talmud for sunset is שקיעת החמה, the word חמה, “sun,” referring to something overt, highly visible.
Miketz
Concerning the question of Nachmanides that it is surprising that Joseph’s prediction of seven years of famine was not fulfilled, and that therefore his reputation as an interpreter of dreams must have suffered, it appears that Joseph had covered this eventuality by saying: (41,28) אשר האלוקים עושה הראה לפרעה, “what G’d is about to do He had shown Pharaoh.” This left it open to G’d to forego the unpleasant part of Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream. G’d’s decrees, (negative ones) are definitive unless a tzaddik intervenes and asks Him to cancel or to “soften” them. On the other hand, the tzaddik has no power to cancel or “soften” a decree by G’d which is manifestly beneficial for the people concerned. When we read in 47,7 that Joseph introduced his aged father Yaakov to Pharaoh, the Torah describes this with the words: ויעמידהו לפני פרעה, “he made him stand (not bow) before Pharaoh.” This was a hint that his father had the power to affect G’d’s negative decrees which his son had predicted. In other words, although G’d had taken him, and through him, Pharaoh, into His confidence, Yaakov, Joseph’s father took precedence over both Joseph and Pharaoh in his intimacy which G’d.
Genesis 42,6. “and Joseph was the effective ruler of the land; he was the one in charge of grain sales to the whole nation.” The expression עם הארץ in this verse is meant to contrast with עם ה', “the Lord’s people.” The latter, whenever used in the Bible, refers to the pious people, the righteous people. The former are the ones whose entire orientation in life revolves around earthly concerns, an attitude that ought to be drastically changed, broken down. This is why Joseph is described as possessing the attribute, i.e. משביר, that is capable of bringing about a re-orientation in the average Egyptian’s order of priorities. If the provision of שבר, “life-sustaining rations” is understood in this sense, then one can understand that the Egyptians thanks to Joseph’s selfless concern with the welfare of the whole nation could produce a religious reorientation of the whole population.
[It is difficult for people living in a democracy where the so called ruler is not given more than a maximum of 8 years of continuous rule, that Joseph who did not once have to worry about being re-elected in a rule spanning 80 uninterrupted years, could concentrate all his talents on the task of improving the population’s well being. Ed.]
Alternatively, the line commencing with describing Joseph as the sole authority concerning vital grain sales, is the Torah’s way of emphasizing that Joseph was the exception to other tzaddikim, having been granted the best of two worlds, i.e. a position of supreme honour and influence in this life, as well as a commensurate position in his afterlife, considering the abundance of merits he had accumulated while on earth.
Genesis 42,5-6. “Joseph’s brothers arrived (in Egypt) and bowed down, and prostrated themselves to him.” (The ruler in charge of grain sales) וירא יוסף את אחיו ויכירם ויתנכר אליהם, “When Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized them and he acted as if he was a stranger to them.” We need to understand what the Torah intended to teach us by writing that Joseph acted as a stranger to them, when this would have become apparent as soon as we read about their dialogue.
I believe the line is introduced by the Torah to teach us that the Torah considers Joseph’s conduct at this time as justified. Joseph’s dream had shown him that his brothers would at one stage prostrate themselves before him. (Genesis 37,7) His brothers had opposed the idea that he would become king, ruling over them. It is the way of the world that if someone has been vanquished in a battle or duel, that if he knows who the victor is, he will aim to take revenge sooner or later. If the vanquished person does not know who has defeated him, his embarrassment and desire for revenge will be far less, as other people presumably are also unaware of his having been the loser in a conflict. In our story, Joseph had become the victor; now that his dream had been fulfilled and his brothers had prostrated themselves before him this was all that concerned him, as he no longer felt that his brothers’ accusations that he was an egomaniac, were true. Had the brothers been able to, they would have made every effort to prevent Joseph’s dream from becoming fulfilled. They would have harboured ill will against him as soon as they had realized that his dream had come true, just as they had imagined him as hoping that it would. Therefore, Joseph contented himself with the knowledge that his dream had indeed been fulfilled, making sure that this would not have been at the expense of his brothers becoming upset about this and probably hostile towards him. He therefore acted in a manner that would convince the brothers that the person before whom they had prostrated themselves had not been their long lost brother. Seeing that the person before whom the brothers prostrated themselves was a duly appointed king, -not even one who had come to the throne by revolution- they did not mind having to prostrate themselves before a king such as he, especially as he volunteered- against payment of course- to save them from total economic ruin. Joseph on his part did all that he could to not let the brothers feel that he had bested them. When the Torah describes the sequence of this encounter with the words: “they prostrated themselves and he recognized them, etc.,” this is to hint that it now dawned on Joseph that just as he had recognized them, they might recognize him; in order to avoid their becoming embarrassed he then devised a scheme to disguise himself in every way possible so that they did not recognize him. The Torah reports this to show that his disguise worked.
It is also possible to see in the sequence of these verses an explanation why during all these years (22) Joseph had never sent a message to his father showing that he was alive and even prosperous. He knew that his dreams would become true prophetic visions and that that as a result of this his brothers would become deeply saddened and frustrated. Once his father would have been informed of his being alive and well, this would become known to the brothers even if their father did not tell them outright. Yaakov’s whole bearing would change from that of a father grieving for a lost son, and the brothers would notice this.
Genesis 42,12. “he said to them: ‘no but you have come to reveal the weak (exposed) parts of the land.’” [In order to understand what follows, the reader must first refer to the concept of the “fallen sparks of the Shechinah” discussed on page 21. Ed.] Joseph, i.e. the ruler of Egypt, aware that if the brothers had intended to elevate him spiritually, they themselves would look very bad by comparison to him seeing that they had been guilty of selling their own brother into slavery, added the adjective ערוה, “the shameful aspects of the land of Egypt,” instead of merely saying: “you have come to spy out the land.” This would make even his spiritual elevation more problematic. [The words ערוה and ערלה are closely related, as before the circumcision which enables the body to attain a degree of holiness, the male Jewish body is defined as ערלה, “totally foreskin,” always seen as a something despicable. Ed.] According to our author, the brothers told the “King of Egypt,” that if he thought that they were able to bring about his spiritual elevation at this stage he was sadly mistaken, as it required the presence of all twelve brothers, as their youngest brother was still in the land of Canaan. They added that even if the youngest brother were to be here, seeing that one of their number had been missing for a long time they would not possess that power until he too were here. [What might have prompted the brothers to think in these terms may have been that they had heard of how this ruler of Egypt had miraculously risen to power, having no former claim to fame. They saw in this an act of G’d, possibly preparatory to this ruler’s achieving further greatness if assisted by the sons of Yaakov. Ed.] This approach sounds more plausible when we consider a statement of our sages that during the 22 years that Yaakov and Joseph were separated, Yaakov never experienced the presence of holy spirit. (Aggadat B’reshit 69) As long as such holy spirit did not rest on one of their number, their power as intermediaries to the celestial domain was blocked. They indicated that as soon as it would be G’d’s will to remedy this temporary “spiritual blackout,” they could be of assistance to what they perceived to be the ruler’s desire. [I have “fleshed out”, what the author barely hints at. Ed.]
Genesis 42,18. “on the third day Joseph said to them: ‘do this and live, seeing that I am G’d fearing. If you are truthful, one of your brothers will be kept captive, etc.” The position of the words: את האלוקים אני ירא in this verse is puzzling. We would have expected it at the beginning of the verse. Furthermore, the words: ויעשו כן, “the brothers did so,” is strange, as it gives the impression that the brothers immediately brought Binyamin to Egypt, something that is impossible. The brothers not only first had to return to their father’s house in Canaan, but, as the Torah testified they procrastinated until they ran short of food before their father agreed to let Binyamin travel with them. (Genesis 43,13) Perhaps the lesson Joseph wanted to teach the brothers was that if one determines to do G’d’s will, this will be accounted as if one had already done so, when the circumstances make immediate execution of the task at hand impossible. Joseph told the brothers that their lives would be secure once they had made up their minds to carry out his demand. The Torah confirms this by describing the brothers as if they had immediately brought Binyamin to Egypt. Joseph was at pains to demonstrate to the brothers that his insistence that Binyamin come to Egypt was not based on distrust or ill will toward them. When they found themselves in jail they realized this and did not blame Joseph for this but themselves, when they said: “but we are guilty, etc.”(Gen. 42,21). They accepted his statement that he was a G’d fearing individual, whereas they had brought their troubles upon themselves.
Homilies for Chanukah
Vayigash
Genesis 44,18. “Yehudah came forward and said: ‘please my lord allow your servant to say something for your ears only, and do not become angry at your servant, for you are similar to Pharaoh himself.” When reading this introduction of Yehudah’s plea we are reminded of a statement in the Talmud Moed katan 16, when quoting Samuel II 23,3. [The following is misquoted in the Hebrew versions of several editions, and no Biblical source is given. Ed.]
David is speaking in his final address; אמר אלוקי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל מושל באדם צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים. “Israel’s G’d said: ‘concerning Me, Israel’s Rock: “be ruler over mankind; be righteous, be a ruler practicing the fear of the Lord.” The Talmud understands the unspoken rhetorical question of G’d as to who “rules” Him, by answering that the righteous does so when he is able to squash decrees issued by G’d. [As the author has mentioned several times already. Ed.]
This also appears to be the meaning of the verse (psalms 48,5) כי הנה המלכים נועדו, “see the kings joined forces,” (strove against one another) quoted by the Zohar I, 206. The “kings” in our verse are understood as being Joseph and Yehudah respectively; Joseph is called there קדוש ברוך, whereas Yehudah is called כנסת ישראל, “the collective soul of the Jewish people.” In our verse the Torah describes the confrontation on a spiritual level of the collective soul of the Jewish people and the individual ruler represented by Joseph. The collective soul of the Jewish people, Yehudah, confronts G’d represented by Joseph. This collective soul of the Jewish people seeks to overturn an evil decree issued by G’d by prayer (concerning the detention of Binyamin in Egypt as a slave). When the tzaddikim, i.e. people normally content to live by the stringent standards of the attribute of Justice, resort to an appeal to the attribute of Mercy, they do so when they plead on behalf of others. Hence Yehudah prefaces his words with the word בי, an appeal not to justice but to do something beyond justice. These tzaddikim are at pains not to create the impression that they have lowered their standards concerning their own conduct. The category of tzaddikim to whom such power of squashing G’d’s decrees is attributed are the ones who relate to G’d from the vantage point of אין, “naught” [explained by the author as a negation of “self,” one’s own dignity, opposite Hashem.] This total negation of self is rewarded by G’d when they intercede on behalf of others in an effort to squash or soften a negative decree.
The sages, (introduction to the Zohar 10,) when commenting on Jeremiah 10,7 כי בכל חכמי הגוים ובכל מלכותם מאין כמוך, “for amongst all the wise men of the gentile nations and amongst all their kings there is none comparable to You,” the implication is that “but amongst the Israelites” there is someone comparable to You. When the prophet Elijah as well as the prophet Elisha revived the dead, this was considered as proof that the חכמי ישראל, the wise men of Israel, can perform acts that only G’d can perform. When the just succeed in squashing decrees of G’d that were meant to kill the victims, they too compare to G’d by that same criterion, i.e. they revive those that were “dead,” were it not for the prayers of the righteous. G’d is perceived of granting life or denying life just as He provides rainfall, without which we would not survive for long; the righteous’ prayers for rain when granted achieve exactly the same result.
According to the writings of the Ari’z’al the “attribute” אין is described in the Hebrew alphabet in the Holy Scriptures as the letter כ, whereas the “attribute” יראה, “awe and reverence” is represented by the letter י. The word כי in the verse from Jeremiah quoted in the previous paragraph therefore alludes to this quality of אין, total negation of self, that characterizes some of our tzaddikim in their relationship to G’d, and in their service of Him, when they completely deny their ego, or “self.” This very denial of self, obliteration of one’s ego, is capable of resulting in a commensurate degree of התגלות ה', “revelation” of aspects of G’d’s essence. When Yehudah described Joseph as כ-פרעה, where the כ symbolizes this negation of self found in the most exalted ruler, (who does no longer need to impress his peers with his “superiority,”) who can therefore reveal a different virtue, the revelation of an attribute superior to that of Justice, the attribute of Mercy.
Another approach to the first sentence in Yehudah’s plea for the release of Binyamin: Why did Yehudah add the plea that Joseph not become angry at his trying to spare his brother from becoming a slave in Egypt? The very mention of Joseph’s becoming angry at him seems most undiplomatic, as hearing this Joseph would presume that Yehudah would make an unacceptable request. Moreover, in his entire speech Yehudah did not once say anything that could be interpreted as capable of arousing Joseph’s anger. He only appeals to Joseph’s compassion throughout his lengthy speech. Rashi also already noticed this, and this is why he may have interpreted the whole speech of Yehudah as a single long accusation. Nonetheless, I prefer to explain the speech according to the peshat, the plain meaning of the text as well as the words כי כמוך כפרעה, words that have presented great difficulties to many other commentators.
I believe that Yehudah was concerned throughout to awaken any feelings of mercy that Joseph, i.e. the ruler who claimed to have been convinced that Binyamin was not only a thief but had stolen something of great value to him, possessed. [If Yehudah had considered Binyamin guilty of the accusation, something that the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 92,8) does believe, as it quotes the brothers saying that just as Binyamin’s mother stole the idols of her father, her son had now done something similar, seeing that Joseph had used his silver goblet in a manner similar to Lavan’s using his teraphim, at the time, his entire speech would have been a farce. Ed.] He had to give the impression that he thought Binyamin was indeed guilty, but that his punishment would cause other innocent parties great grief, all of which would be Joseph’s fault. He did not believe Joseph guilty of planting the goblet in Binyamin’s sack. He was convinced that, as our sages are fond of saying, דברים היוצאים מן הלב נכנסים ללב, “words spoken sincerely, clearly emanating from the heart and not merely from the lips, find their way to the heart of the person or persons to whom they are addressed. [not found in the Talmud, but something similar is found in B’rachot 6. Ed.]
I believe that Yehudah was concerned throughout to awaken any feelings of mercy that Joseph, i.e. the ruler who claimed to have been convinced that Binyamin was not only a thief but had stolen something of great value to him, possessed. [If Yehudah had considered Binyamin guilty of the accusation, something that the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 92,8) does believe, as it quotes the brothers saying that just as Binyamin’s mother stole the idols of her father, her son had now done something similar, seeing that Joseph had used his silver goblet in a manner similar to Lavan’s using his teraphim, at the time, his entire speech would have been a farce. Ed.] He had to give the impression that he thought Binyamin was indeed guilty, but that his punishment would cause other innocent parties great grief, all of which would be Joseph’s fault. He did not believe Joseph guilty of planting the goblet in Binyamin’s sack. He was convinced that, as our sages are fond of saying, דברים היוצאים מן הלב נכנסים ללב, “words spoken sincerely, clearly emanating from the heart and not merely from the lips, find their way to the heart of the person or persons to whom they are addressed. [not found in the Talmud, but something similar is found in B’rachot 6. Ed.]
Genesis 45,12. “and behold, your own eyes can see as well as the eyes of my brother Binyamin, that it is my mouth that is speaking to you.” My sainted teacher the tzaddik Rabbi Dov Baer, said that just as light and darkness exist in the universe [i.e. opposites live side by side, Ed.] so there is light and darkness within each human intellect.
I believe that what he had in mind was that when words are heard emanating from the mouth of a tzaddik the intellect to whom they are addressed undergoes a refinement, and the eyes of the person concerned light up. This is what Joseph referred to when he said to his brothers: “here your eyes see that my mouth is speaking to you.”
Genesis45,22. “he gave to each of them a change of clothes; to Binyamin he gave three hundred silver pieces and five changes of clothes.” Our sags in Megillah 16 ask: “is it really possible that Joseph erred in the same way as had his father when he showed Joseph preferential treatment? Was Joseph not aware that by what the Torah describes him as doing for Binyamin, he would arouse the brothers’ jealousy?” They answer that the Torah alluded to the five Royal garments that Mordechai, a descendant of Binyamin would be dressed in as we read in Esther 8,15.
Our author, clearly not too enthused with the Talmud’s answer, suggests a different way of understanding the Talmud’s answer. Our sages, understood that Joseph foresaw and hinted to Binyamin that Mordechai, a distant descendant of his brother Binyamin, would play a great part in the miracle of Purim. He intimated that he and Binyamin shared a similar experience, seeing that they were both the sons of the same mother, Rachel. He had attained high rank as a result of someone’s dream (Pharaoh’s) and Mordechai also rose to eminence as a result of a dream, as our sages in the Targum on the Book of Esther (chapter10) have told us. According to the Targum, on the night when the king could not fall asleep (again), he had been dreaming that Haman wanted to assassinate him. This is why he became angry at Haman and commanded him to dress Mordechai in the Royal robes, and paraded him throughout the capital on the king’s horse. Joseph had been paraded similarly. (41,43) Just as Joseph remained under the rule of Pharaoh at the time, so Mordechai would remain under the rule of Achashverosh. (Compare Rashi on 41,40)
This is another example of the approach of our sages to the details the Torah has revealed about the lives of our sainted forefathers, i.e. that they always were at pains to perform deeds that foreshadowed future, critical, events in the lives of their descendants. (Our author lists more examples of this theme when relating to Shimon and Levi’s killing the inhabitants of Shechem as being a forerunner of the Hasmoneans in the Chanukkah story). [I will omit the balance of the paragraph as, seeing this portion is also read sometimes on Chanukkah, the author felt compelled to introduce this subject here, although those events occurred in post-biblical times. It is somewhat forced, as it requires us to see in Levi rather than Shimon, the principal activist, otherwise the connection with the Hasmoneans who were priests is too tenuous. Ed.]
Genesis 45,24. “do not quarrel on the way.” Rashi does not follow the traditional translation, but says that Joseph told the brothers not to engage in halachic discussions, and the subsequent differences of opinions resulting while you are on the journey. If Rashi is correct, we must try and understand why the brothers’ father, Yaakov, did not give the brothers similar instructions governing their conduct during their journey to Egypt?
Besides, how could Joseph arrogate to himself the right to give such instructions, when we have it on the authority of Kidushin 30 that a person should strive to divide the activities he performs (equally) into the three parts of his life, devoting one third to the study of the written part of the Torah, another to the study of the oral part of the Torah, (Mishnah) and the third part to the discussions on the oral part of the Torah in the Talmud. One difficulty of that statement is that we do not know how long we are going to live, so how can we make the correct division? The Talmud therefore corrects itself, saying that what is meant is the way we divide each day of our lives. It follows that each one of us is duty bound to study some halachah on a daily basis. So how could Joseph forbid this to his brothers?
The statement in the Talmud can be seen as plausible if we first consider two premises upon which it is built. 1) Yaakov had a tradition that he need not fear ever being consigned to gehinom provided that none of his children died during his lifetime. (Rashi 37,35 based on a Tanchuma Vayigash 9. 2). A statement by our sages that the combined lifetimes of the patriarchs would be 500 years, corresponding to כימי השמים על הארץ, (Deut.11,21). [According to a number of commentators this verse describes the “distance” between earth and the celestial regions through the intervening רקיע, outer space, being equivalent to 502 “years.” The combined lifetimes of the patriarchs, were 502 years, though more than half of these overlapped, and we do not know the criteria applied here, i.e. “light years,” i.e. the time it takes light to traverse this distance, or whatever other criteria are referred to. Ed.]
If a human being were to know how long he was going to live on this earth, he would be able to apportion one third of his life to the respective study of Torah, Mishnah, and Gemara. Based on the above calculation, when Yaakov saw that Joseph had disappeared, he concluded that he must be dead, so that one of the premises, i.e. that he would not have to worry about spending time in gehinom had already lost its comforting meaning. From that moment on he became afraid that the second premise we have mentioned could also be compromised, as he had no idea how long he would live. He was therefore unable to instruct his sons to leave out the study of halachah, i.e. gemara, for a single day. Joseph, who was aware that his father had no reason to worry, as all his sons were alive and well, was able to issue such a command without endangering the spiritual future of his father. The brothers would have lots of time to make up for the halachot they had not studied while on the journey to bring good news to their father.
Genesis 45,26. “when he saw the carriages that Joseph had sent, etc.” Joseph had hinted to Yaakov that he should not be concerned about his family going into exile, as what was occurring now was a forerunner of the eventual redemption from exile. Temporary hardship, such as their having to leave the Holy Land now, would result in much greater good in the end. Both the word עגלה, carriage, which is a chair or couch on circular wheels, i.e. עיגול, circle, and the word סיבה, the cause of Yaakov been transported to Egypt on wheels into “exile” is related to this revolving nature of fate, סבב, spinning, revolving. Joseph wished to indicate to his father that temporary residence of his family in Egypt would result subsequently in his descendants inheriting the whole land of Israel.
Genesis 45,28. “my son Joseph is still alive.” These words, though apparently unnecessary, reflected Yaakov’s joy that his son after these 22 years of being alone in Egypt had remained true to his tradition and the teachings of his father. In spite of his having been exposed during all these years to every perversion known to mankind, he had remained a tzaddik. The word עוד, in this verse emphasizes that the “cultural” influence exuded by Egyptian society, though powerful, was relatively secondary, peripheral, an “also ran,” seeing that Joseph had absorbed the largesse that originated from G’d in heaven, a predominant, and more powerful influence.
Genesis 46,1. “he offered meat-offerings in honour of the G’d of his father Yitzchok.” The Midrashim offer many different explanations of this verse.
The reader’s attention is directed at the commentary of Nachmanides (very lengthy). He concludes that Yaakov, personally, (if it had been up to him) did not really want to descend to Egypt. It was only because he realized that it had been decreed for him to be exiled in Egypt, (compare Shabbat 89) according to which Yaakov should actually have descended to Egypt in iron chains. Under the circumstances, Yaakov realized that he was very fortunate to travel to Egypt in style, instead. When he addressed G’d as the G’d of Yitzchok, he implied that his father Yitzchok had not been forced to leave the Holy Land, even though there had been a famine there in his lifetime also, G’d had commanded him to remain there. (Genesis 26,2) He may have hoped to change G’d’s decree so as to enable him to remain in the Holy Land.
Another way of interpreting the peculiarity of the verse citing specifically “the G’d of Yitzchok his father,” addresses the statement of the Talmud on the same folio, when it quotes a verse in Isaiah 63,16 כי אתה אבינו כי אברהם לא ידענו וישראל לא יכירנו אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך, “for You are our Father, for though Avraham did not know us and Israel has not recognized us, You O Lord, are our Father.” The Talmud explains the background to this perplexing verse. It states that in the future, when G’d would say to Avraham: “your children have sinned against Me,” Avraham’s response was “let them atone by having to die for the sanctification of Your name.” The Talmud quotes Yaakov at that time as adopting a similar attitude. Only Yitzchok is quoted as challenging G’d, describing the Jews as the children of Avraham and Yaakov and himself, without at the same time describing them also as His children. When Yaakov presented his offerings at Beer Sheva in honour of the G’d of Yitzchok, he meant to remind G’d of this concern of his father Yitzchok for his children even if at the time they were sinful.
Genesis 46,4. “I will descend to Egyt with you, and I will also ascend with you.” In order to understand this verse properly, we must remember the pedagogic rule that when a teacher is confronted with a student of limited intellect, he must endeavour to rein in his superior intellect and descend to the level of the student. When faced with a student who has a brilliant mind, the teacher need not impose any restrictions on himself when teaching such a student. As long as Yaakov resided in the Holy Land, his intellect was very strong; he was afraid that now that he would “descend” to Egypt, he would experience a reduction in intellectual capacity so that G’d would “restrain” Himself when communicating with him, so that he would not be able to serve Him in the manner he was used to. G’d reassured him here that he need not have any such concerns, as the Shechinah would remain at his side as long as he would be in Egypt.
G’d promises Yaakov that upon his return to the Holy Land, he will have attained great spiritual stature. This is the meaning of the words: גם עלה. When the Shechinah which had accompanied him “down” to Egypt, would return to the Holy Land, [which had not contained any Jews during the interval, so that these had not been deprived of its Presence, Ed.], Yaakov would participate in this elevation, עליה.
Looking at our verse from a different perspective, we need to remember that pious Jews serving G’d, experience a constant ascent, elevation in their spiritual level. Still, they do not, in their lifetime, begin to properly understand the workings of G’d’s mind, much less His greatness. When the Torah (Numbers 12,3) tells us that והאיש משה עניו מאד וגו', “the man Moses was extremely humble, etc.,” such a compliment could only be paid to someone who had attained almost superhuman stature. It does not take a great effort for the ordinary individual surrounded by people of far greater accomplishments, to remain humble. When one has attained the stature of a Moses with whom G’d carried on conversations as if he were His equal, the challenge to remain humble is incomparably greater. The meaning of ואנכי אעלך גם, is a reminder to Yaakov, that regardless of where he finds himself, the task of climbing the ladder of spiritual ascent ever higher will remain with him for as long as he lives. Just as G’d is known as the אין סוף, inexhaustibly profound, beyond our comprehension, so the task of serving Him is never one that one may “retire” from, thinking that one has done one’s duty.
Yet another approach sees in the words אנכי אעלך גם עלה, an allusion that just as G’d gives man the opportunity to constantly ascend to higher spiritual levels, as opposed to both the animals and the angels, so even the satisfaction one may feel in one’s achievement should never become a predominant feeling, but one must continuously strive to ascend ever higher. G’d teaches Yaakov this lesson as one to pass on to his children, and for them to pass on to the Jewish people. Seeing that they are known as “G’d’s people,” it is their task to emulate G’d’s ways, i.e. to strive for ever higher levels of holiness.
Another way of understanding the line: אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ואנכי אעלך גם עלה will be appreciated when we first examine the meaning of Numbers 11,21 שש מאות אלף רגלי אשר אנכי בקרבו, “I am an integral part (בקרבו) of 600,000 foot soldiers, etc.” According to the Talmud Makkot. 24, this peculiar expression for Moses needs to be understood as follows: The first two of the Ten Commandments were addressed by G’d directly to the whole people, whereas the remaining 8 Commandments spoken by G’d at the revelation at Mount Sinai, were spoken to the people by Moses after he had been chosen by them to act as their interpreter. [The word תורה has a numerical value of 611, i.e. the number of Commandments Moses taught the people, the remaining two G’d having taught them directly. Ed.] Seeing that the people heard the first two commandments directly from G’d’s mouth, these are more deeply engraved upon their hearts than the others. Moses is overwhelmed that a people, i.e. comprising 600,000 foot soldiers who had been privileged to hear the Lord speak to them could face such a fate. While G’d had told Moses that He would meet their demand and give them meat, He had also predicted that many of the people in their greed for meat would die as a result of eating too much of it for too long. (Compare Rashi on Numbers 11,22) Moses was aghast to hear from G’d’s lips that a people who had attained such a level of spiritual excellence would be killed instead of being given an appropriate reward.)
If we understand the word אנכי as an oblique allusion to the Redemption and subsequent giving to the people of the Torah, and we apply this to our verse here, G’d would be explaining to Yaakov that although the present stage of his life, and his descendants appears to herald negative experiences ahead in Egypt, this would prove to be only a temporary situation leading up to the redemption and G’d revealing Himself personally to the entire people with the words אנכי ...אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים” I am the Lord your G’d Who has brought you out of Egypt, etc.”
Genesis 46,29. (normal translation) “Joseph harnessed his chariot and ascended towards Israel his father;”
[The reason why the author presents an allegorical commentary first, as if it were the obvious meaning, is presumably, that if the Torah had merely wanted to tell us that Joseph traveled in the direction of his father to welcome him, these details would have been irrelevant. The same reason applies elsewhere where he chooses the allegorical or mystical approach as his first choice. Ed.] The word ויאסור, refers to Joseph “harnessing” his body in anticipation of meeting his saintly father; the word מרכבתו is an allusion to the four basic components (raw materials in terms of the creation) of which the physical universe is composed. Joseph considers the forthcoming encounter with his father as almost like making a pilgrimage to the Holy Temple. This is reflected in the Torah’s choice of his name Yisrael at this point, although his father is entering “exile.” His father had the name Yisrael added to his name as recognition that he had elevated his body through service of the Lord to come closer to his Creator. The first three letters in that name, i.e. ישר, “upright,” straightforward, are also reflected in the location where Israel would reside from now on, in גשנה, a word reflecting הגשה, bringing something close, in order to unite it with something or somebody else. In this case it reflects rapprochement to G’d in heaven. The letter ה at the end of the word גשן, meaning five, alludes to the One and only G’d Who holds the other 4 parts of the universe together, without Whom it would implode. Here on earth this world is held together by the tzaddik, in our case by the righteous Joseph.
A different way to understand the phrase:
ויאסור יוסף את מרכבתו ויעל לקראת אביו. Why did the Torah bother to add the word ויאסור, i.e. that Joseph harnessed his chariot? It would have sufficed to report: ויעל יוסף לקראת אביו, “Joseph went up towards his father to welcome him.”
I believe that the Torah teaches us appropriate behaviour by writing this verse in the way it did. Every human being is expected to keep his eyes open by using his intelligence so that he will not be perceived as acting like a dumb animal, G’d forbid. He is to consider each of his actions as if he weighed something very precious. If he does so, his peers will give him credit for relating with equal concern to fulfilling his obligations toward his Creator directly. The wording of our verse proves that Joseph was one of those individuals who do not commit hasty actions nor engage in sloppy, careless work. Joseph would doubtless derive great pleasure from being reunited with his father. When that time came, he would reflect on how much greater would be his pleasure if he were to be allowed to see the face of G’d. The word ויעל, he ascended, already reflects this spiritual aspect of Joseph’s journey to welcome his father.
Actually, the kind of gradually distancing oneself from material concerns inherent in being a human being on this earth so that one is literally “ascending” ויעל, [much like the angels depicted in Yaakov’s dream of the ladder, Ed.] will occur only if in addition to performing the commandments, intense prayer and the physical effort involved in all this, one has reached the point of utter exhaustion. If and when this occurs, one becomes part of the domain of אצילות, a domain mentioned in the Torah in connection with the elders and Nadav and Avihu at the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. (Exodus 24,11) Joseph’s father Yisrael had glimpsed this domain, and without a doubt his son Joseph the tzaddik, had also been granted a glimpse of it. As a result, both of them were able to see in the physical carriage, מרכבה, an allusion to the Divine מרכבה supporting the throne of the Almighty. Joseph’s seeing his father after all these years triggered this spiritual ascent. I have added a few words of my own to make this concept clearer. Ed.]
Genesis 47,19. “and provide us with seed so that we may live and not die.” See Rashi’s commentary on this verse who explains that since the arrival of Yaakov in Egypt and his blessing, the people had begun to sow seed again although the famine had been predicted to last for seven years. Compare also the answer to the question of Nachmanides how Yaakov was able to annul an interpretation given by his son of Pharaoh’s dream according to which the famine would last for seven years. After all, Joseph had spoken in the name of G’d when he had told Pharaoh: את האלוקים עושה הגיד לפרעה, “G’d has revealed to Pharaoh that which He is about to do.” (Genesis 41,28) Joseph had implied that no tzaddik could interfere with this decree of G’d, although the Talmud in Moed Katan 16 told us of the ability of the tzaddik through his prayer to bring about a cancellation of harmful decrees. We must answer that what Joseph had told Pharaoh at that time concerned the existing circumstances, when there was no tzaddik in Egypt whose prayer could influence G’d to rescind part or all of His decree. With the arrival of Joseph’s father in Egypt, circumstances had changed, as there now was a tzaddik of sufficient caliber to bring about a cessation of this decree. This is why Joseph could hand out seed and this was not a waste.
At the time when Joseph advised Pharaoh to appoint wise and insightful men to collect parts of the harvest of the good years and store it for use during the seven years of famine, thus implying that the hardship of these years could be counteracted by human endeavor, (Genesis 41,33-36) all the commentators question who had appointed Joseph to volunteer advice to Pharaoh?
However, we must examine Pharaoh’s dream and the manner in which he related it to Joseph in greater detail. The Torah’s objective report of the dream describes him as dreaming that he stood “above” the river. (41,1). This was an arrogant Pharaoh, who, according to our sages, considered himself as a deity, owner and creator of the Nile river, economic mainstay of the whole land of Egypt. In 41,17 this Pharaoh had humbled himself by telling Joseph that in his dream he had been standing on the banks of the river. Joseph, who knew what Pharaoh had really seen in his dream, realized that this king had undergone a change of heart since the time he had had the dream. Joseph had not offered an interpretation of the dream as related by Pharaoh, but as dreamt by Pharaoh. He had therefore left himself an opening, allowing for a change in G’d’s decree on the basis of Pharaoh no longer being as arrogant as he had been at the time when he had dreamt the dream. When Joseph spoke about an איש חכם ונבון, “wise and full of insight,” this was hyperbole for a tzaddik. He meant that when the need arises such a man would intervene on behalf of Egypt at G’d’s court and plead for G’d to rescind the decree of such a disastrous famine.
He explained to Pharaoh that G’d is not interested in bringing disasters on His creatures, but in order to prevent such disasters there had to be at least one tzaddik who would pray to Him for deliverance of the people among whom he resided. This was the reason that Joseph brought his father to Pharaoh so that Yaakov could bless him. Yaakov assured Pharaoh that in spite of Joseph having predicted seven consecutive years of famine, this decree would be changed so that in the following year seed planted would grow as the Nile would again overflow its banks as was customary in normal years. The reason that Joseph himself, also a tzaddik had not personally prayed for a cancellation or softening of G’d’s decree, was that he was in the employ of the Egyptians, and as such he was not independent but bound by Egyptian laws. His father Yaakov, was a free agent. Moreover, when Yaakov arrived in Egypt he had brought with him a whole clan of monotheistic people, all of whom were obedient to G’d’s laws so that Yaakov, when praying, could point with pride to the number of G’d fearing people he had raised, all of whom would be directly affected by return to normal life in Egypt after cessation of the famine.
Genesis 47,23. “here is seed for you to sow the land; and you shall give one fifth (of the harvest) to Pharaoh whereas the other four fifths are for you to feed your families.” A glance at Rashi’s commentary on verse 45,6 that there would be five more years of no ploughing and no harvesting, poses a problem. As soon as Yaakov had arrived the people had noticed an improvement in the condition of the soil, so that they began using some of the seed they had, and sowed it instead of using it for food as instructed. (45,5) The Egyptians prepared themselves to eat the seed that they had been keeping in reserve until better times would make planting more propitious. Since they had violated Joseph’s instructions, he had decreed that any harvest from such seed would wither and be useless; this is why the Egyptians accused Joseph of decreeing to let them die. This also explains why Joseph did not need to appoint overseers to ensure that the Egyptians who gathered in an unauthorized harvest had delivered one fifth of it to Pharaoh for storage. In the third year Joseph did not decree such a curse on any crop grown, stipulating that their efforts would be successful only if they would deliver one fifth of their crops to Pharaoh. Anyone shortchanging Pharaoh would stand to lose his entire harvest.. This enables us to understand Rashi. Joseph’s prediction of seven consecutive years of famine was based on the people trying to grow food without Joseph’s blessing. (verse 19) Even after Yaakov’s arrival, the decree of another five years of famine would be cancelled only if Joseph withdrew his decree against planting.
Another way of understanding the words ונתתם חמשית לפרעה, “if you give one fifth to Pharaoh,” is based on the well known interpretation of psalms 145,19 by my sainted teacher Rabbi Dov Baer. On the words: רצון יראיו יעשה, “He fulfills the wishes of those who fear Him,” my teacher explained that the subject here is first and foremost G’d. He does things for the tzaddikim that they appreciate, (רצון) so that they in turn are encouraged to request further favours from Him. When G’d feels that the time is appropriate for Him to shower His people with His largesse, He first gives some indication to those who fear Him that He is well disposed to His people at that time. This will trigger the appropriate prayers requesting G’d’s largesse. Bearing this in mind, we are dealing here with two separate aspects, בחינות, of how G’d deals with His creatures. 1) An initiative by G’d; 2) a response by G’d to an initiative by His people. This is hinted at by the Talmud in Yevamot 34 where it is stated that a woman does not become pregnant from the first time she has marital relations with her husband as the Hebrew word ביאה for such relations is derived from התחברות, a mutual joining together. The Jewish people, by definition are similar to the wife, i.e. they are at the receiving end, do not initiate. In their relations to G’d, the Jewish people is similarly always perceived as female, i.e. as a כלה, bride, or similarly in the parlance of our prophets, a “wife”. G’d’s שפע, “largesse,” is similarly perceived as female, seeing that it is a gift, something received. When G’d is desirous of canceling an unwelcome decree, He must be placed in the position of responding to an appropriate request originating from the victims. He cannot do more than allude to this by a hint, else He will be perceived as initiating rather than responding. As an example of G’d “hinting” that He wished a tzaddik to intervene on behalf of the Jewish people by prayer, the author quotes Exodus 32,10 when immediately after informing Moses that the people had made a golden calf and had worshipped it, G’d says to Moses: ועתה הניחה לי ויחר אפי בהם ואכלם ואעשה אותך לגוי גדול “and now, Leave Me be, so that I can get angry and destroy them and make you into a great nation.” According to Rashi this whole line was a broad hint to Moses to intervene on behalf of the people by praying for their survival. We find this same interpretation of that verse (earlier) in Midrash Tanchuma as well as in Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel.
The two בחינות of the G’d-Israel, or Israel-G’d relationship we have mentioned on page 239, are known respectively as the יראה or אהבה relationship. Each of these relationships consists of two elements. We have explained earlier that the largesse when it comes also comes in two different ways, depending on whether the recipients are the gentiles or the Jewish people. When it is granted to the gentiles it is immediately recognizable as such, whereas when it is bestowed on the Jewish people it is not always recognisable as such immediately. When Joseph speaks of ארבע הידות [instead of ידות without the letter ה alluding to G’d. Ed.] he alludes to these four different manifestations of G’d’s largesse. The word לאכלכם in the same verse (page 239,23) is an alternate for the word לטובה, i.e. beneficially.
A different exegesis of the line: ונתתם חמשית לפרעה וארבע הידות יהיו לכם לזרע השדה ולאכלכם ולאשר בבתיכם, “you are to give one fifth to Pharaoh and the other four fifths are for seed in the field and to eat, for you and the members of your households,” is based on the Talmud in B’rachot Mishnah in chapter 8. The school of Shammai and Hillel argue about the correct version of the benediction in the havdalah the prayer recited at the end of the Sabbath. On folio 52 the school of Shammai acknowledges G’d as having created the light by referring to the word ברא, “He created the light of the fire, (in the past tense”), whereas the school of Hillel uses the present tense, i.e. בורא, claiming that this also includes the past. It is noteworthy that the same two schools do not quarrel regarding the formula of the benediction when it comes to blessing the Lord for the fruit of the vine, or the fruit of the trees. They are all agreed that the present tense, i.e. בורא, is appropriate in those benedictions.
One may argue that when speaking of such benedictions as בורא מיני מזונות or בורא פרי הגפן, and similar benedictions pertaining to natural products that keep regenerating themselves, that even the school of Shammai would agree that a formulation stressing the present tense is acceptable to them, whereas in the havdalah benediction we speak of a onetime creation of light and fire, something that did not “die” and had to be “resurrected” like trees or other plants after every winter. The school of Shammai may have based themselves on a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 11,2 and the Talmud in Pessachim 54, according to which “fire” as we know it first resulted when G’d gave man the intelligence to produce fire, something that remained constant ever since. According to the Talmud there, although the concept of fire and how to make it existed during the 6 days of creation, it was not put to use until after the first Sabbath, when Adam knocked two stones together and the resulting sparks became a source of fire for him. This was termed a בריה an act of “creation” performed by man. A reminder of this act is aptly refereed to as ברא in the past tense, as “light,” and aspect of fire, had been created already on the first day of creation. What was new was that the ability to “produce” fire had been given to man, to a creature. Man’s intelligence had commenced at the time the first human being was created and has continued without interruption ever since. Concerning the phenomena produced by nature, the school of Shammai agrees with the formula בורא in the present tense as this process cannot be equated with the one that resulted in man producing fire.
One may argue that when speaking of such benedictions as בורא מיני מזונות or בורא פרי הגפן, and similar benedictions pertaining to natural products that keep regenerating themselves, that even the school of Shammai would agree that a formulation stressing the present tense is acceptable to them, whereas in the havdalah benediction we speak of a onetime creation of light and fire, something that did not “die” and had to be “resurrected” like trees or other plants after every winter. The school of Shammai may have based themselves on a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 11,2 and the Talmud in Pessachim 54, according to which “fire” as we know it first resulted when G’d gave man the intelligence to produce fire, something that remained constant ever since. According to the Talmud there, although the concept of fire and how to make it existed during the 6 days of creation, it was not put to use until after the first Sabbath, when Adam knocked two stones together and the resulting sparks became a source of fire for him. This was termed a בריה an act of “creation” performed by man. A reminder of this act is aptly refereed to as ברא in the past tense, as “light,” and aspect of fire, had been created already on the first day of creation. What was new was that the ability to “produce” fire had been given to man, to a creature. Man’s intelligence had commenced at the time the first human being was created and has continued without interruption ever since. Concerning the phenomena produced by nature, the school of Shammai agrees with the formula בורא in the present tense as this process cannot be equated with the one that resulted in man producing fire.
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, (231,1) states that a human being when eating or drinking or performing other “human necessities,” must keep in mind that he performs all these acts in order to enable him to better serve the Lord, his Creator. By doing so he performs the commandment (Proverbs 3,6) of בכל דרכיך דעהו, “know Him in the process of performing all your activities.” Man is not to concentrate on the physical satisfaction he experiences as a result of performing these activities. The statement in the Shulchan Aruch may be seen as similar to that of our sages according to which G’d created four categories of creatures, in ascending order. The lowest ranking is the דומם, mute and inert, followed by the vegetation, creatures only mobile in a vertical direction but still mute; this is followed by all living and vertically and horizontally mobile animals, capable of some form of communication with one another by means of sound. At the top of this pyramid is the human being. When the human being consumes lower ranking living creatures as his nourishment, every one of the lower creatures experiences a “spiritual” promotion by becoming an integral part of the highest form of living creature, man. When man eats such creatures or even fruit, he “elevates “ them to a higher level, a form of “creative” activity, appropriately referred to in the use of the present tense for the word ברא, i.e. בורא, as we explained about Adam making fire for the first time. The benediction is an act of gratitude for the pleasure experienced in the process. When a person eats he automatically converts lower ranking “creatures” to his level as through not only ingesting them with his mouth, but converting them to his bloodstream, blood being described by the Torah as the essential of man’s life-force, נפש. (Deut. 12,23). The conversion of man’s food intake to become one with the highest category of creature, man, certainly justifies our referring to the creative process commenced by G’d when these creatures were first created to their being alluded to in our benedictions as being part of an ongoing creative process.
There remains only fire as something that though man had been endowed with taking part in the creation by means of his intellect, has not been ingested by man and thus not become an integral part of him, so that the word בורא, instead of ברא would not be an appropriate description of what Adam did when he struck two pieces of rock together. On the other hand, the fact that we perform a commandment every week by lighting the havdalah candle, fire which is another one of the creatures that is subordinate to man, becomes “spiritually” elevated by the use man makes of it. It therefore is perceived as if it were a new creation. This, at least is the view of the school of Hillel, who therefore feel that this idea be reflected in the formulation of the benediction we recite when performing this mitzvah.
Going back to the Talmud Pessachim 54, which we quoted at the beginning of this subject of the creation of the “light/fire, which is the subject of the benediction recited at the end of the Sabbath, in the first chapter of the Talmud B’rachot, folio 10 the question is raised why King David in psalms 103-104 uses the expression ברכי נפשי no fewer than five times. The answer given is that David refers both to G’d and to man’s soul. David sees a comparison between G’d and our soul, G’d filling the whole universe and the soul permeating the entire human body. G’d sees all without being seen, and the soul similarly sees without being seen by a human eye. G’d provides nourishment for all His creatures, and the soul provides spiritual nourishment for the whole body. G’d is ritually pure, and the soul remains ritually pure. G’d’s domain is in the innermost holy place, and the soul’s abode is also in the innermost part of the body. David appeals to G’d Who possesses these five attributes to bless his soul that also possesses five comparable attributes. At the same time we have a saying in the Zohar III 73 that just as the Torah is supernatural and contains revealed and hidden aspects, so it contains both hidden and revealed names of the Lord. The four hidden aspects of G’d are that G’d sees while Himself invisible, He provides nourishment, (though unseen); G’d resides in the innermost part of the celestial regions is another one of His hidden aspects. His is pure and incapable of becoming impure; one of His hidden features is His ability to feed the universe without His requiring nourishment Himself. However, the fact that He fills the entire universe is the visible aspect of G’d. When Joseph spoke about the four parts out of five that would belong to the Egyptian farmer to use for himself and his family, this was an allusion to the four hidden aspects of G’d, whereas the fifth part that would be given to Pharaoh was an allusion to the visible part of G’d. It is possible that on occasion this fifth aspect of G’d becomes revealed as the letter ה=5 is the last letter in the tetragram, the holiest of G’d’s names. It is accepted in kabbalistic circles that the last letter in the tetragram alludes to G’d when He manifests Himself.
Genesis 47,27 “Israel (not Yaakov), settled in the land of Goshen,” [here the name Israel, for the first time, refers to the Jewish people, in its infancy, Ed.] “They acquired holdings in it and became fruitful and multiplied greatly.” It is an accepted principle that when a tzaddik (for whatever reason) is forced to reside among pagans, some of the cultural values of the people surrounding him confuse him, and when it comes to the stage that he entertains love for the forbidden or awe of the idols worshipped by the people surrounding him, some “tzaddikim” become totally corrupted, whereas others succeed in utilizing alien philosophies and turn them to good use through sublimating them in their service of the One and Only true G’d. The reason that the latter type of tzaddik is able to do this, is that he says to himself that if cultural values that are evidently vain and ultimately useless, have attracted so much love and esteem by their supporters, how much more love and esteem must he, the tzaddik, bring to the service of the true and everlasting G’d! When the Torah writes in our paragraph that the Israelites “adopted” i.e. were taken captive, ויאחזו, by the prevailing cultural values of the Egyptians, the meaning is that they were able to sublimate these values and yet remain Yisrael at the same time.
Vayechi
Genesis 48,20. “He blessed them on that day, saying: may G’d make you like Ephrayim and Menashe; he positioned Ephrayim (the younger) in front of Menashe.”
Before commenting on this verse, let us first explain a puzzling passage in the Talmud Megillah, 15. The Talmud invites the reader to note that G’d’s way of doing (relating to) things is radically different from the way human beings do (relate to) things. A human being is in the habit of putting the pot on the stove before pouring water into it, whereas G’d first pours water into it before putting it on the stove to boil. The Talmud “illustrates” this by quoting Jeremiah 10,13 לקול תתו המון מים בשמים, “when He makes His voice heard there is rumbling of water in the heavens.” We have explained this in connection with Exodus 15,26 כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך כי אני ה' רופאך, “all the diseases that I brought upon Egypt I will not bring upon you, for I am the Lord your Healer.” We derive the rule that G’d arranges for the recovery before He brings on the plague from the above verse, where G’d describes Himself as our Healer prior to our having been smitten with any disease. When G’d brings on troubles to “good” Jews, the reason is only in order to make the victim aware of Who it is Who orchestrates his being saved from the consequences of disease or other troubles. Our author understands the word מחלה as an activity, not a state of being passively sick, as is the customary translation [The first letter מ is indicative of the person or cause who brings on the disease. Ed.] In other words, G’d is saying that the חולי, disease, that He brought upon the Egyptians, He will not bring upon the Israelites as even if the Israelites were to be struck by disease, the purpose would be a constructive one, namely to teach them Who will save them. In order for man, especially the Jewish man, to become a vessel fit to benefit fully from G’d’s kindness, largesse, etc., this vessel first has to undergo preparatory stages. Just as if one wants to convert a small vessel into a big vessel one first has to break up the small vessel, so G’d, in order to achieve the proper influence on the human being He desires to elevate, i.e. to make a “bigger” human being out of him, has to afflict him first with חולי, a disease, or its equivalent. In the above quoted parable with the pot and the water to be boiled in it, the disease is called “the pot,“ and the “water” represents the deeds of loving kindness bestowed on the individual or community by G’d. In other words, G’d first supplies the materials that will refine the human beings, and only then will He bestow the gifts testifying to His loving kindness, when the recipient will not let those gifts go to waste. The result will be a more mature and insightful personality.
The foregoing introduction will help the reader understand that the Torah writing that Yaakov placed Ephrayim, although the younger brother, in front of his older brother Menashe, was not another example of Yaakov showing preference for one of his grandchildren at the expense of the other grandchild, as he had done once when he showed preference for his son Joseph with almost tragic and irreversible consequences. There was no need for the Torah to repeat this aspect, as it had already told us that Yaakov had been adamant in placing his right hand on Ephrayim, the younger of the brothers in verses 13-15. The Torah uses the “names” of the two sons of Joseph to illustrate the point made in the parable in the Talmud in Megillah 15.
When Menashe was born, (Genesis 41,51) the Torah quotes Joseph as referring to the trials and tribulations he had undergone before becoming ruler in Egypt, i.e. כי נשני אלוקים, ”G’d has made me ‘pay my dues’”, a reference to the troubles he had endured, whereas when naming his second son, Joseph speaks only about the manifestly positive experiences that had followed his painful experiences, i.e. כי הפרני אלוקים, “for G’d has made me fruitful, etc.” When the Torah describes Yaakov as positioning Ephrayim ahead of Menashe, this reflects that both he and Joseph were aware by now that any trials and tribulations were meant to help bring about the ultimate good that is perceived as such. In other words, “G’d sends the cure before He inflicts the disease,” He does not have to search for it after the disease is already ravaging the patient. The experiences of both Yaakov and Joseph foreshadow the experiences of the Jewish people.
Genesis 49,2. “gather around sons of Yaakov, and listen to Yisrael your father.” In order to understand why Yaakov appears to repeat himself, we must first turn to the Zohar III 196. With reference to Isaiah 50,10 מי בכם ירא ה' שומע בקול עבדו אשר הלך בחשכים ואין נגה לו יבטח בשם הה' וישען באלוקיו?, “Who amongst you that obeys the voice of His servant that walks in darkness and has no light? Let him trust in the name of Hashem and rely upon Elokim.” What is the meaning of the words: “that obeys the voice of His servant” in this verse? It has been explained that this is the tzaddik who offers prayers every day. He is therefore so familiar in those regions that if he fails to come to the synagogue for a single day, enquiries are made in heaven concerning why he has not appeared. Still, this does not explain the meaning of the words: “that obeys the voice of His servant?” Whose voice is that? If you were to say that “His servant” refers to a prophet or some other person, what is the relation between some other person and the prayer? G’d is perceived as listening, i.e. responding positively, to those who are truly His servants. When the Israelites are in a state of grace, זכאין, when they all gather together they can hear heavenly voices proclaiming that these are the sons of precious Yaakov and that therefore they deserve a hearing. When Yaakov appears to be repeating himself, this is not quite so; in effect he is encouraging his sons to not only be the sons of Yaakov, but to listen to him in his capacity of Yisrael, i.e. to rise to a higher spiritual level than that they had been on up until this moment. If they would be able to do this, they would indeed hear from his lips prophetic words concerning their future, words that would reveal to them some secrets about the prelude to the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people.
Genesis 49,4. “unstable as water, you will not enjoy the additional portion due to the firstborn;” How could Yaakov deliberately ignore the commandment not to deprive even the son of a wife who was hated of the rights accruing to him as a firstborn? (Deut. 21,17) Nachmanides writes concerning this problem that Yaakov penalized Reuven in accordance with the nature of his sin.
Personally, I believe that Yaakov saw in his prophetic vision of the future what the Torah calls גוי וקהל גויים, “a nation and a community of nations,” (Genesis 35,11) a promise made to him by G’d at a time when he personally had concluded siring children, that another two tribes would become part of the Jewish people, so that in order for the number of tribes not to exceed the number 12, “something had to give.” He had not been aware that these two “tribes” would not be sons, but grandsons of his. The only way he was able to explain G’d’s promise of two more tribes was by assuming that an existing one would prove unworthy.
Genesis 49,8. “You, o Yehudah, your brothers shall praise;” The word אתה at the beginning of this verse poses a problem. Our author directs the reader to look at Kings I 18,36-37 where the prophet Elijah repeatedly prefaces part of his prayer by addressing G’d in direct speech, i.e. with the word אתה, “You.” The whole idea of a creature addressing the King of the universe with the word אתה “YOU,” as we do in our daily prayers, i.e. ברוך אתה ה' וגו', is hard to understand for us who would not dare to address a mortal king in such familiar, almost insulting language.
Another way of understanding the word אתה, at the beginning of this blessing, is the fact that when a person approaches the King of the universe in prayer, (עמידה) before doing so he must overcome the trepidation felt by any creature at the very thought of facing his Creator. He must summon the unshakable faith that this Creator does not relate to him as someone irrelevant, deserving to be despised, as otherwise how can he hope that his prayer will be effective? This is especially so, as he himself immediately begins to extol the attributes of G’d, referring to Him as הגדול, הגבור, הנורא, וגו', “the great One, the Mighty One, the awesome One, etc;”- although all this praise is due to G’d and is expressed for Him by His people, the words uttered by His people are precious in His eyes, even the simplest and least educated of His people is granted this “familiarity” with his G’d of addressing Him as if He were his most intimate friend, by using the form of address one uses when speaking to one’s closest friends. It is appropriate that each one of us be aware before beginning to recite our prayers in what a privileged position G’d has placed us by being willing to listen to our prayers. A person must not be misled into thinking that if he is so dear to his G’d, why does he have to pray to Him at all? We should reflect on the millions of angels that G’d has at His beck and call. According to our sages each angel is equivalent to one third of the world, and yet they are like a single kernel of mustard before a single angel called אופן, a group of angels which in turn is very inferior to the Chayot, (a superior group of angels) all of whom do not even know where G’d has His locale, i.e. איה מקום כבודו).
If only we would pay attention to what our lips recite daily! [in the yotzer or prayer before the kriyat sh’ma, when we recite how beloved these angels are of G’d. Ed.] Nonetheless, these angels are portrayed as being in a constant state of awe before the Lord, whereas we human beings adopt an almost irreverent attitude vis a vis the Creator although we are sinful, whereas our counter parts in heaven have not committed any sins for which to reproach themselves. We should be in a state of trembling at the mere thought of Him to Whom we direct our prayers. Even if we have done so during our prayers, we would be well advised to reflect on the enormity that we expect G’d in Heaven to listen to our prayers and to concern Himself with our individual problems. How can we arrogate to ourselves the right to engage in meaningless conversations, passing the time of day in chit chat, as if life did not present us with daunting challenges, the greatest of these being how to effectively serve our Creator! If we keep reflecting on all these points it becomes more realistic to hope that G’d will indeed accept not only our expressions of admiration and gratitude but also our requests, with favour.
Thoughts such as the above are expressed in a liturgical poem recited on Yom Kippur beginning with the words אשר אומץ תהלתך,“ continuing in the second verse responsively with ורצית שבח. The thrust of the author’s poem is that although the greatness of G’d’s reputation is proclaimed ceaselessly by His angels, He nonetheless desires the praise offered by His creatures on earth. There is a similar poem also in the Mussaph service of Yom Kippur. The composers of these stanzas pay tribute to the great love G’d has for us, His people.
Another example of this feeling of G’d for us is found in psalms 122,8 למען אחי ורעי אדברה נא שלום בך, “for the sake of My brothers and friends I pray for your well being;” in this hymn the holy spirit speaking as G’d’s voice refers to the Jewish people as G’d’s “brothers.” When such a relationship between G’d and His people has been documented, it is not surprising that we address Him in the otherwise overly familiar personal pronoun אתה.
Turning our attention now to the words: יודוך אחיך, “your brothers will praise you,” in Yaakov’s blessing of Yehudah, what precisely did his brothers have to praise him for? We may use this line to explain a statement in the Talmud B’rachot 12 where we are told that a person reciting the amidah prayer is to bend his knee when reciting the word ברוך whereas he is to stand upright again by the time he reaches the name of G’d in the same benediction, seeing that he has performed two distinctly different forms of service of G’d by doing so. By standing upright when pronouncing the name of the Lord, he has implicitly acknowledged that it is G’d Who enables the ones who were doubled over to stand straight again, זוקף כפופים. By bending the knee when pronouncing the words ברוך אתה, the same worshipper alluded to the greatness of the Creator, His superior wisdom, etc., etc.
According to our author, the symbolism represented by serving the Lord while bending one’s knee or while standing “at attention,” reflects different reasons of why a servant (who has not been compelled by external pressure) serves his master. The servant may see in his master a superior being from whom he daily learns more and more by merely remaining in his proximity, not receiving formal instructions. A servant motivated by such considerations will, of course, “stand at attention,” זוקף, to demonstrate his high regard for the moral and intellectual superiority of his master. Such a servant will be in a constant state of exhilaration that he has been fortunate to have found such a master, and he will consider himself lucky to be the beneficiary of having his master as a model to emulate.
The second motivation for serving a master voluntarily, for an indefinite period of time, is a feeling of relative impotence, dependence on the master’s generosity and largesse; when serving one’s master because of these considerations, the servant bending his knee, indicates to his master that he is loyal and true. Every Torah-observant Jew combines in his service of the Lord both the considerations that we have outlined, hence it is not surprising that we combine both a posture of subservience and one of reflecting our admiration of the master, i.e. “standing at attention,” when reciting our major prayer three times daily. [I have used some of my own words in this section of the author’s commentary. Ed.]
Going back to the author’s words, he sees in bending one’s knee a symbol of emanations from the higher to the lower regions, whereas he considers assuming an upright position as a symbol of the heavenly input the knee-bending worshipper has received, which now enables him to face the world around him encouraged by the fact that G’d has responded positively to his attempt to serve Him. This response from G’d confirms and strengthens the worshipper and enables him to serve the Lord with even greater enthusiasm than he had done previously. The השלכות, effects, of this kind of serving the Lord, range far and wide, like the ripples made on the surface of a lake when you throw a stone into it keep expanding ever further in all directions.
There is still another method of serving the Lord, a spiritual level higher than the ones we discussed up to now. The two types of service of the Lord discussed, contained elements of the worshipper or servant respectively, expecting or at least hoping, to derive physical or spiritual benefit or both from his efforts. The latter type of serving the Lord, by contrast, is concerned exclusively with the “servant” aiming to please the Creator; he is completely oblivious to the possibility that as a result of his service he might personally derive some benefit, be it in the physical or the spiritual sphere. The basic difference between the former kind of “service” and the type mentioned last, is that the former aim at drawing G’d’s largesse, be it physical or spiritual in nature down into the worshipper’s region of the universe, bringing G’d into our domain. The latter type of worshipper aims exclusively at elevating himself, so that he will come closer to the celestial regions of the world.
It is quite likely that the statement from the Talmud B’rachot about when to bend the knee and how soon to adopt an upright position was meant to teach us the difference between these two types of aims a worshipper should have in mind. Granted that being in our physical domain on earth, it is natural that we wish to draw down to our sphere some of the spiritual values apparently reserved only for residents in the celestial regions. Once we have done this, however, it is up to us to try and become ever closer to the beings that inhabit these celestial regions; by adopting an upright posture we are as it were pointing ourselves heavenward.
According to our author this is what Yaakov hints at when he tells Yehudah: ידך בעורף אויביך ישתחוו לך בני אביך, “your hand is at the neck of your enemies, so that the sons of your father will gladly bow down before you.” The word “אביך,” in this line refers, of course, to “your Father in heaven.” Yehudah is to show the way in how to serve the Lord by aiming solely at elevating oneself to ever higher spiritual levels.
Genesis 49,9., “Yehudah is like a lion’s whelp; you have grown from merely capturing prey, my son.” Rashi’s commentary on this verse draws attention to the fact that in the first half Yehudah is described as גור אריה, “an immature lion”, (as in Samuel II,5,2 describing David, while King Sha-ul was still alive, whereas later on when he was on the throne he is described as אריה, a fully mature lion).
We have explained repeatedly, that the principal purpose of the Jewish people having been sent into exile is to “save” some of the “sparks” that had descended from the “Shechinah” so that they could return to their celestial habitat. [Compare reference to this concept on pages 21-22. Ed.] As soon as this purpose of the exile will have been accomplished, and, as a result, evil will have been expunged from our regions, seeing that had it not been for Adam’s sin, it would never have been possible to feel “at home” on earth, the final redemption will follow in its wake.
An alternate explanation of the line commencing with: גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית. We base this on a statement of our sages in Midot 4,7 where the Mishnah says: “just as a lion is broad in front and narrow in its rear, so the main structure of the Holy Temple, the one known as היכל, Sanctuary, was broad at its entrance, whereas the two Sanctuaries, including the קדשי קדשים at the rear of the structure, was narrow.” The symbolism derived from this appearance of the Temple is that when G’d appears to shower the gentile nations with all kinds of material blessings, the reason is that He wishes to reward them for whatever good they have done while on earth before they die, so that He does not have to recompense them in the Hereafter. The very opposite is the case in G’d’s relations with the Jewish people. G’d wishes to store up as much of the reward due to his faithful Jews for the Hereafter as is compatible with their lives on earth remaining tolerable. When Yaakov says to Yehudah that he had arisen, i.e. done repentance from his misguided treatment of his brother Joseph whom he had treated as if he were the loot captured in a hunt, this assured him of ample reward in the hereafter. We have confirmation of that concept when the Talmud in B’rachot 34 states that the ethical platform occupied by repentant sinners is far higher than the platform occupied by people who have never sinned, and who therefore never had to repent.
Another approach to understanding Yaakov’s parable when blessing his son Yehudah: Proceeding from the premise of the Talmud Pessachim 87 that the purpose of the Israelites being exiled was to “save” the valuable gentiles from their impending fate, (no afterlife) through his descendants converting them to Judaism, Yaakov, in this unusually phrased blessing, alluded to the fact that his descendants’ exile to Egypt was intended to “rescue” the “sparks” that had descended [been exiled to earth, would be more appropriate] from the Shechinah, [a concept the author has discussed repeatedly. Ed.]. The redemption of the people under the leadership of Moses would be the catalyst bringing all this about.
[If Rabbi Eleazar, the author of this statement in the Talmud, is correct, why did G’d blame Moses for converting the mixed multitude, by saying to him: שחת עמך, “your people have become corrupt?” Ed.]?
Solomon’s period, when the Temple was built, was perceived as a period when all the “sparks” had returned to their rightful place in heaven and that is the reason why no more converts were accepted in his time. (Yevamot 24) [The statement there in the Talmud that in the days of the Messiah converts are not accepted, does not refer to the Messiah only, but means that when the fortunes of the Jewish people are on the rise, converts are not accepted as their motivations are suspect, i.e. they wish to share the good fortune in store for the Jews. Ed.] The words גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית, would refer to the period of the expansion of the Jewish Kingdom under David and subsequently Solomon, when no converts would be accepted either. If one did not accept converts then, it is clear that when the final redemption comes one will not accept converts either. The word “Yehudah” in Yaakov’s blessing is therefore a reference to the entire Jewish people in their ascendancy.
Genesis 49,12. “his eyes are darker red than wine; his teeth are whiter than milk.” [These words clearly are hyperbole, as Yaakov on his deathbed would not indulge in poetry for poetry’s sake. Ed.]
It is an accepted principle that when a human being (Torah observant Jew) is desirous of obtaining the material blessings of this world, he is immediately overcome by the realization that in return for receiving such blessings he must intensify his attachment, דבקות, to his Creator Who has provided these blessings for him. Yaakov attempts to put the mind of such people at ease, basing himself on the statement in the Talmud Pessachim 112, that even though the calf is very anxious to drink from the milk of its mother, the mother cow is even more anxious to supply the calf with its milk. In this parable the “calf” is the Israelite, and the “mother cow” is the provider of the milk, i.e. G’d. Yaakov describes the overwhelming desire of G’d to bestow His largesse on His people. The satisfaction G’d derives from being able to do this for His “children,” exceeds even the joy of His children when receiving all these blessings.
Genesis 49,14-15. “Issachar is a strong-boned donkey;” Yaakov sees in the name יששכר which contains the word שכר, “reward,” an allusion to the relationship between the body’s exertion in fulfilling the commandments on the one hand, and the spiritual reward resulting from this, on the other. The body pulls in one direction, earthward, whereas the reward compensates by pulling in the opposite direction, i.e. heaven-oriented.
Another explanation of this blessing and the hyperbole employed by Yaakov looks at the entire blessing as a single message; יששכר חמר גרם רבץ בין המשפתים וירא מנוחה כי טוב ואת הארץ כי נעמה ויט שכמו לסבול ויהי למס עובד, ”Yissachar is a bony donkey crouching between sheepfolds, He saw that repose is good and that his land is pleasant, so he bent his shoulders to bear and became a toiling servant.
When a person contemplates what is involved in serving Hashem, he is in a kind of mental turmoil as long as he has not formulated his thoughts into words. Once he has formulated his thoughts into words, he finds some “rest,” his mental turmoil subsides. The word יששכר in our verse alludes to the mental turmoil prior to the thoughts becoming organized into words, whereas the words רבץ בין המפתים, refer to the rest attained once these thoughts have been formulated to be contained within recognizable boundaries, words being the boundaries within which one’s thoughts are now contained, i.e. משפתים,”sheep-fold.” This latter word is similar to שפתים, “lips,” alluding to the spoken word so that what follows is a mind that is at rest, i.e. וירא מנוחה כי טוב, “he saw that ‘rest’ is a good feeling.”
Another explanation of the simile חמור גרם; the principal reward that accrues to a person is due to the fact that since he had trained himself to give in to the physical demands made upon by his body [seeing that his evil urge was born with him, whereas the good urge only became part of him when he was thirteen years old, Ed.] from his earliest youth. He therefore had to overcome tremendous resistance by the evil urge once he started to resist these urges, and instead concentrated on serving G’d. This is hinted at in the very letters of the name יששכר, which may be read as יש שכר, “there is a reward (in store).” The word חמור is clearly reminding us of חומר i.e. חומריות, “preoccupation with purely physical concerns.” If man had not been exposed to the demands made upon him by physical greed and lust, how could he expect a reward for having overcome and abandoned those desires?
Genesis 49,19. “Gad shall be raided by raiders, but he shall raid at their heels.” We can best understand this blessing by referring to the Talmud shabbat 151 where we are told that when human beings demonstrate that they are merciful to G’d’s creatures, G’d in turn will have mercy on them.” Man’s actions trigger responses in heaven; in this instance, positive responses. What possible example of Gad’s having preformed acts of mercy do we know of? We have learned on folio 104 of the tractate Shabbat that the very sequence of the letters ג and ד which make up Gad’s name are an acronym meaning גומל דלים, “relating with loving kindness to the poor.” When a person deals charitably with the poor and he expects that G’d will in turn reward him for this by causing him to forget about the impending reward at the time the charitable deed is performed, so that this person has attained an even higher spiritual level thereby. Yaakov alludes to this when saying words which at first glance sound as if he is repeating himself, whereas actually he hints that certain actions inspired by one consideration may prove to be even more profitable (spiritually) when carried out altogether altruistically. The word עקב in our verse may be understood as in Deut. 7,12 והיה עקב תשמעון, “it will be as a result (automatic) of your hearkening to G’ds laws, etc.” In that verse G’d promises that He will honour the terms of His covenant with the Jewish people. The word גוד may be related to Daniel 4,11 (Aramaic) גודו אילנא, “cut down the tree,” i.e. when the Jewish people perform deeds of loving kindness their enemies will be cut down by G’d. According to Targum Onkelos on Deut.7,12 who renders עקב תשמעון as חלף תקבלון, “what you will receive in exchange,” this is what is meant in our verse as יגוד, “as reward for forgetting about any reward”.
Another approach to גד גדוד וגו': just as we are advised in Baba Batra 10 to give charity before commencing our prayers so that the effect of this good deed will help to open the gates of heaven to our prayers, i.e. to destroy the קליפות, kabbalistic term for “obstacles,” that are between us and our Father in heaven, so the quality of our prayers will improve and eliminate the basic division between us mortal beings and G’d’s immortality. The wordגד would symbolise the dispensing of charity, the words גדוד יגודנו, the effect this has in breaking down the barriers between man and G’d, and the words יגוד עקב, would describe this barrier being broken enabling the worshipper to attach himself more firmly to the אין סוף, the eternal aspect of G’d.
Yet another interpretation of our verse proceeds from the premise that the donor benefits more from his generous deed than the recipient of the charity dispensed by him. (Based on Vayikra Rabbah 34,8) When reflecting on man’s condition vis a vis G’d, man, especially when presenting his requests to G’d in his prayers, is like the beggar asking the rich man for a handout. David described this in psalms 102,1 when he says: תפלה לעני כי-יעטוף ולפני ה' ישפוך שיחו, “a prayer of the lowly man when he is faint and pours out his plea before the Lord”. The psalmist’s message is that when man thinks of himself as important, this triggers Satan into presenting the heavenly tribunal with a list of his shortcomings, failings, etc. Not only that, his arrogance will prevent his prayers from being able to tear down the barriers between him and G’d, seeing G’d hates nothing more than arrogance. When he humbles himself however, considering himself as if he were a beggar, he will be able to ascend all the rungs of the spiritual ladder so that he can scale whatever wall separated him from His Father in heaven. In the words of Yaakov, when גד acts as a donor, גד גדוד יגודנו, he can conquer like a regiment, גדוד, any obstacles that would prevent his prayers from reaching G’d’s throne. He can reach the ultimate rung of that ladder, the one known as עקב.
Genesis 49,20. “Asher’s bread shall be rich, and he shall yield royal delicacies.” [Our author sees in these banal sounding words of Yaakov an allusion to something on a far loftier level; Ed.] Looking forward to a state of the nation on a far higher spiritual level, Yaakov uses a simile familiar to earth-bound people in order to allude to loftier concepts. The greatest satisfaction, pleasure, a human being whose primary occupation is to serve his Creator can experience, is that his Creator is pleased by his efforts. Yaakov foresees that the tribe of Asher, collectively, will succeed in attaining such an objective. He expresses it by foreseeing Asher as “serving delicacies to the King of Kings.”
A different explanation of Asher’s blessing; the highest achievement a G’d-serving person can look forward to is to be granted the privilege to contemplate G’d’s greatness visually, i.e. with his mind’s eye. [This editor is reminded of Exodus 24,11 where the spiritual nobility of the Jewish people are described as ויחזו את האלוקים, ‘they experienced as intense a revelation of G’d as if they had seen Him with their eyes.’” (my translation) Ed.] It is our experience in life that however powerful and overwhelming an experience we are privy to, this will gradually pale into relative insignificance when we experience that same phenomenon again and again. [The example I quoted illustrates this; according to our sages, seeing that Nadav and Avihu, based on the Torah’s description in Exodus 24, continued their “business as usual” daily routine in spite of having been privileged to witness such revelations. Ed.]
A third approach to Asher‘s blessing: The author quotes his sainted teacher, Rabbi Dov Baer from Mezeritsch, as explaining to him Isaiah 61,10 שוש אשיש בה תגל נפשי באלוקי', normally translated as “I greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being exults in my G’d,” as meaning that the prophet proclaims that he rejoices over having been privileged to experience visions of Hashem, and to have been chosen to serve Him in a way that only few people have been privileged to do.
Our author proceeds to apply this thought to Yaakov’s saying about Asher that מאשר שמנה לחמו, “Asher will be a terrestrial example of well being that will serve as inspiration for the well being expected to be experienced by people serving the Lord.” People will appreciate that the very fact that they are allowed to serve the Lord is reason to be filled with joy and ecstasy.
Still another angle from which to view Yaakov’s blessing for Asher. The author, quoting the opening lines of Song of Songs, שיר השירים אשר לשלמה ישקני מנשיקות פיהו כי טובים דודיך מיין “The Song of Songs by Solomon; oh give me the kisses of your mouth, for your love is more delightful than wine.” Solomon juxtaposes two different types of service of G’d. There are people who serve the Lord from an innate feeling of love for G’d, Who, in His love for us has agreed to use us as His servants, (in spite of our many shortcomings). These people are overwhelmed by the fact that Hashem even rewards us generously for our service, far beyond anything we have a right to expect. (Compare B’rachot 34). While at first glance this type of service of the Lord is of the highest level, neither resulting from fear of punishment for transgressions, nor seeking reward, there is a level of serving G’d which is an even higher plane than the level based on love of Hashem.
This is a level of serving G’d in which the servant is totally unaware, and therefore unappreciative of, any reward. This service of Hashem flows from sheer gratitude that Hashem has chosen us to be His special people, period. Yaakov alludes to this kind of service of the Lord when he formulated the blessing for his son Asher.
Genesis 49,21. “Naftali is a hind let loose, which yields word of praise.”
It is an accepted rule that When G’d displays that He has faith in one of His creatures, that creature responds by composing poetry extolling Him, thanking Him. It is also well known that the word רגלים also means אמונה, “faith,” as we know from the writings of the Ari’zal. When Yaakov describes Naftali as comparable to a hind let loose, i.e. let loose to use its legs to roam afar, this is also a sign of its confidence, faith. Confidence is invariably the result of profound faith in G’d. The results of this confidence/faith are the hymns of faith extolling G’d’s many attributes composed by such people. It is this that inspired the author of Targum Yonathan to inform us that the tribe of Naftali produced many poets who extolled Hashem in their poems and hymns.
Genesis 49,22. “Joseph is a fruitful bough…….on the brow of the elect of his brothers.” The blessing of Joseph reflects that he is not exactly like any of the other tribes since his sons Menashe and Ephrayim were both counted as separate tribes. Joseph himself was described not as much as a son of Yaakov but as the father of Menashe and Ephrayim. This is why Yaakov adds as part of defining him the words נזיר אחיו, “the elect of his brothers.” His sons were included in the roster of the tribes in his place.
Genesis 49:22 “maidens stepped atop the wall.” This is a veiled allusion to the tradition that Joseph was immune to the “evil eye,” the reason being that he himself never was guilty of using the evil eye against anyone. [I am not certain that I conveyed the words of the author correctly in this instance. Ed.]
Genesis 49,27. “Binyamin is a wolf that tears his booty; in the morning he consumes his portion whereas by evening he will share out the loot.” We observe that as a rule persons who focus only on how to serve Hashem better will derive their principal pleasure/satisfaction from the very fact that they had succeeded in pleasing their Creator. If their concentration while serving G’d was not so single-minded that they could eliminate any other concerns, then they most likely think of G’d sharing out His bounty among all their peers in all directions of the globe. A single-minded focus on serving the Lord is called בוקר, “morning,” whereas a not so single-minded focus is described as ערב, “evening.” [The word ערב implies a mixture of light and darkness, so that it fits a person who divides his focus among different objectives. Ed.] The author sees in the word עד in our verse a reference to עדי, jewelry, as in Jeremiah 14,10, or בעדי עדיים, Ezekiel 16,7 where it traditionally applies to a woman’s budding breasts as her most appealing feature. At any rate the word applies to items causing pleasure in the onlooker. Undivided focus on serving the Lord i.e. בוקר, affords the worshipper greater pleasure than divided focus, ערב.
In the portion of וזאת הברכה, where Moses bestows his final blessing on the people before his death, the blessing for Shimon is included in his blessing for Yehudah, seeing that Yaakov had not seen fit to bless him on account of his part in the sale of Joseph as mentioned in parshat Vayechi by Yaakov.
The reason that Shimon and Levi were singled out for not receiving their share of the blessings was their share in the sale of Joseph. Actually they became involved in that unfortunate occurrence because Joseph had singled them out to tell them (boastfully) of his dreams, especially his aspirations to become king.
Shimon and Levi had not opposed the idea of the tribes needing a king, but had preferred that the king should be Yehudah, i.e. a descendant of his. History proved them quite correct as the dynasty of David became the Royal dynasty, whereas kings from the tribe of Joseph ruled only in Egypt, over Egyptians primarily, and even King Sha’ul, though descended from Rachel, was not a descendant of Joseph. [The kingdom under Jerobam, a descendant of Joseph from Ephrayim, over the ten tribes does not count, as he had split the nation. Ed.]
Considering this, Moses included the blessing of Shimon as a sub-heading under the general heading of Yehudah’s blessing. By doing so he enabled the descendants of Shimon not to feel embarrassed, as their purpose in selling Joseph had been to ensure that Yehudah would be able to assume the role G’d had intended for him, i.e. (his) and Levi’s actions had been well intentioned. Moses did bless the tribe of Levi independently, specifically, -although Yaakov had not blessed that tribe- on account of the characteristic described in Moses’ blessing of his not “recognizing his father or his mother or even his brothers.” (Deut. 33,9) This somewhat enigmatic statement referred to the tribe of Levi having demonstrated a superior loyalty to G’d during the episode of the golden calf, when, if even the closest family member would have been found guilty of worshipping that idol they would not have hesitated executing him. (Exodus 32,28 as interpreted in Sotah 8) We are told there that a person is accorded treatment commensurate with the treatment he meted out to others. This means that the tribe of Levi had to be given recognition for their loyalty to G’d by being blessed by Moses outright and not only indirectly as was his brother Shimon. [After all, had it not been for Moses’ having converted the mixed multitude without first obtaining G’d’s consent, the whole debacle of the golden calf might have been avoided. Ed.]
At this point our author continues with Moses’ blessing of the tribes in Deut. 33, explaining the introductory word וזאת used by Moses in Deut. 33,7.
[I do not understand why the publishers of these volumes have not seen fit to append what follows in its appropriate place, i.e. the commentary on וזאת הברכה. Perhaps the reason is that after the presentation of the author’s commentary on Parshat Nitzavim, no systematic commentary on the final 3 portions of the Torah follows; for reasons I am not familiar with; the publisher may therefore have decided to append these Deut. 33,7 וזאת, “and this, etc.” Ed.]
In order to understand why Moses commences with the word וזאת, when commencing with Yehudah’s blessing, instead of simply commencing with: וליהודה, as he did when commencing the blessing of Levi or Joseph or Zevulun, etc., the author refers us to a verse in psalms 45,10 נצבה שגל לימינך בכתם אופיר, “the consort stands at your right hand, decked in gold of Ophir.”
This verse, or section of it, is discussed at length in Rosh Hashanah 4. The Talmud says that - [after discussing the meaning of the word שגל, or משגל, usually an uncouth term used by common people when speaking of sexual intercourse, Ed.]- the psalmist does indeed refer to a description of carnality committed with an animal, (female). When the sages of the Talmud react to this by asking how these words of the psalmist could then be interpreted as a welcome message, the answer given is that the prophet is telling the Jewish people that as a reward for their intense love of Torah, a love which if expressed in physical terms would be as intense as that experienced when gentiles climax in the sexual act, they would merit a similar proximity to G’d and would be treasured by Him as a husband who treasures his wife.
It is still difficult to understand why the Talmud chose precisely intensive Torah study as warranting this kind of reward, when there are many other cravings human beings experience that are as dear to them as indulging in the sexual act?
The answer is that by loving Torah, i.e. serving the One and only Creator, the observant Jew has demonstrated that rather than to be become addicted to some other less dominating influence, he has been intelligent enough to choose to become “addicted” to the King of Kings, instead of settling for second or third best. All other “ideals,” “deities,” “powers,” are transient, bound to disappear sooner or later, whereas G’d is both the origin, the purpose, and the meaningful content of all existence. Moreover, assuming one has craved for some other thing that people develop a craving for, and one has achieved an outstanding record of achievement in one’s chosen field, in the end one has achieved mastery in only one isolated field of human endeavor. Becoming a Talmid Chacham by applying oneself with the same devotion and singularity of purpose to Torah, results in one’s having mastered every discipline, for of Torah it is said that הפוך בה והפוך בה כי כולה בה, “keep turning over its pages again and again for everything you search for is contained in it.” (Avot end chapter 5) Seeing that this is so, true Torah study, when it is the result of a craving for getting closer to G’d, is the high road to succeeding in subduing all one’s cravings, as they are all inspired by the evil urge.
Although the path to G’d we have just described is a good path, it does not constitute the essence of true service of the Creator. The reason is that the person pursuing this path is still, in a manner of speaking, serving “himself,” i.e. with an ulterior motive, however noble that motive may be.
The truest service of the Lord is when one is concerned not with deriving pleasure- even spiritual pleasure from having done one’s duty- but when one’s sole purpose is to provide pleasure or its equivalent in celestial terms, to the Creator. The Creator is to derive satisfaction from His creature’s free willed actions, or in the words of Solomon in Proverbs 23,15:בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני, “My son, if your heart is wise, My heart too will be gladdened;” or in the words of the psalmist 104,31 ישמח ה' במעשיו , “may the Lord rejoice in His creatures’ deeds.” As a result of the Creator being pleased with the person serving Him in such a fashion, He, in turn will “play” with him much as a father plays with his children. This is the meaning of the verses quoted from Proverbs and psalms.
Indulging the various cravings available here on earth results in the person doing so receiving satisfaction, i.e. being turned into a recipient. At the same time man is aware that all such pleasures received on earth are transient in nature and will evaporate into nothingness, eventually.
The same is not the case when one indulges in marital intercourse with a view to producing offspring, posterity, that will replace the party doing so on earth after he has died. The male impregnating the female with his semen has become a “donor” at the very moment when he experiences fulfillment of his own sexual craving. The recipient is the woman in whom his seed has been implanted. To a certain extent, the husband experiences what G’d experiences when He is being worshipped on the highest level, as he has the satisfaction of providing his mate with pleasure.
This is what the Talmud had in mind when it compared the sexual act to the manner in which G’d craves the service of His creature, man, through Torah study. The Talmud wanted to stress the point that man, though merely a creature, is able to become a “donor,” when serving G’d. [This is a revolutionary concept, as we usually view ourselves as recipients of His largesse, especially so, as the relationship between us and our Creator is normally described as that of חתן andכלה , the creature being the כלה, the female of the “team,” i.e. at the receiving end. Ed.]
The Talmud describes how it is possible for Jews to sublimate something that when done by the gentiles is merely something physical, though also the male pagan is a donor when he provides his wife with physical satisfaction; however, since the metaphysical element is completely lacking in what the pagans do, even their most well intentioned efforts to please their partners are ultimately doomed to become extinguished, [as our sages have stated so eloquently when they referred to the letters י and ה respectively in the definition of איש and אישה as being what separates a true Jewish individual, as opposed to males and females of the gentiles in whom carnal desire ends up as being destructive fire, אש. Ed.]
This is also how the Talmud in Shabbat 140B in which Rav Chisda is reported as teaching his daughters ways of chastity is to be understood. He told his daughters to practice chastity even in their dealings with their husbands, such as not eating bread in front of their husbands, as they might be perceived as being too ravenous. This would revolt their husbands. Similarly, they were to be careful not to eat vegetables at night (evening) as this leaves an unpleasant odour coming from their mouths. Neither were they to eat dates or drink beer in the evening as this would lead to diarrhea. Also, when someone knocks on the door of their houses, asking to be allowed to enter, they should not ask מי הוא, “who is it?”, in the masculine mode but מי היא, “who is it,?” in the feminine mode.
As a further illustration of the value of the virtue of chastity, Rav Chisda held up one hand displaying a pearl, while in the other fist he held up a clod of earth until his daughters could no longer conceal their curiosity as to what their father had concealed in the second hand (fist).
When, to the dismay of his daughters, he displayed the clod of earth, he told them that their impatience to know what he had concealed in his fist was proof that people are drawn to worthless objects because they are concealed, whereas they look with disdain at precious objects, as these objects no longer arouse their curiosity. [What his daughters would conceal from their husbands for a while would intrigue their husbands, whereas what their husbands were familiar with about them would pale into insignificance.
You, the reader, have no doubt noticed that Rav Chisda’s last example about “chastity” quoted in the Talmud is totally different from the previous ones, and this is what prompted our author to resort to an allegorical interpretation, as the Talmud was not meant to provide us with “tidbits” about the personal lives of our Torah scholars.
Before presenting our author’s intriguing explanation, let me point out that the מאירי in his בית הבחירה on that folio in the Talmud offers a very good explanation without resorting to allegories. As his commentary had not been discovered until long after our author had died, he could not have been aware of it. Ed.]
A woman is equipped with two distinct sources of providing life/nourishment. 1) The visible source, her breasts from which the infant receives its life support and which fulfils all its needs. The invisible source is her womb. Her breasts are used to dispense loving kindness, whereas her womb is the location where she receives loving kindness.
If we substitute G’d as the speaker in the quotation from the Talmud of Rav Chisda to his daughters, and we see in the pearl Rav Chisda held in his hand, a simile for the manifest deeds of loving kindness performed by G’d for His creatures, this is an allusion to the first, and easy path for man to learn to serve his Creator. The impatience with which Rav Chisda’s daughters waited for their father to open his fist, represents man’s impatience for G’d to provide him with a “reason” to worship and serve Him by not merely being on the receiving end, but by being able to become “donors,” providing their Creator with satisfaction and pleasure. By providing Him with such pleasure, man also provides G’d’s celestial entourage with a measure of satisfaction.
This idea has also been expressed by Hoseah 2,18 when he says concerning a time in the future: והיה ביום ההוא נאום ה' תקראי אישי ולא תקראי לי עוד בעלי, “when that day will arrive you will call Me ‘my husband,’ and you will no longer call me: ‘my Master.’” When one perceives of one’s husband as בעל, “master,” instead of as אישי, “my male counterpart,” my complement, then it is obvious that one does not perceive of oneself as a Donor, but only as a recipient. The vision of Hoseah in the verse quoted looks forward to the time when not only a few individuals are able to serve G’d in the manner described as the “second path,” i.e. unabashedly aware that they too are “donors” when serving the Lord, not only “recipients.” When we keep this point in mind we can understand the verse in Hoseah as not only referring to the relationship between husband and wife, but to the relationship between Creator and creature. The prophet implies that the “largesse” man receives from G’d is tailored to his ability to appreciate it, and to use it as a stepping-stone to improve his relationship with his Creator. [The exception, presumably, is when G’d is “forced” to recompense the wicked for the good they have done on earth, as they have no afterlife to look forward to where they can make use of their “reward.” Ed.]
No two people are identical in their ability to “cope” successfully, i.e. in a manner that builds their character, with the same amount of G’d’s “largesse.” Just as a doctor does not prescribe the same dose of medicine for all of his patients, so G’d does not dispense the same amount of largesse to two people. Each one receives what G’d alone knows to be ideal for his condition.
Nonetheless sometimes G’d dispenses His largesse to some people not based strictly on their deserts or ability to “digest” it constructively, but according to His independent wisdom, and the privilege He enjoys as being the creature’s “owner.” In other words, sometimes a person receives an “advance” on what he will be entitled to in the future, although he has not yet completed the preparatory steps for “deserving” what he is about to receive. This type of “advance payment” by G’d is dispensed only when the individual concerned is still on the level of serving the Lord according to what we have called “path one.” This level is known in kabbalistic parlance as עלמא דנוקבא, “the world in which the feminine element dominates,” i.e. a world dependent on external help, largesse from the Creator. Some people receive what the author calls “largesse” commensurate with the strength of a “wolf,” whereas others receive largesse according to the ability of a “lion” to make constructive use of it.
Once the recipient of G’d’s largesse has “qualified” to serve the Lord according to what we called “path two,” he is not in need of further assistance. The level these people have attained is known in kabbalistic parlance as עלמא דדכורא, “the masculine domain of the world”. [Once these people have come to understand that it is possible to be a “donor” vis a vis the Creator, they would not even appreciate it if G’d would “assist” them in their quest, as they would see in such “assistance” proof of their own inadequacy. Donors, by definition, are self-propelled. The last 6 lines are not the author’s but mine. The author proceeds along a somewhat different path, as you will see forthwith. Ed.]
This world of the masculine domain has been blessed by G’d with something known as כללות, a term that allows for the recipient of G’d’s largesse not to be restricted to his spiritual status. [The term כללות is not really appropriate as we no longer speak about domains in the terrestrial part of the universe. Ed.] It is a domain exclusively presided over by the אין סוף G’d in His capacity as the Eternal, unbounded by any limitations.. Seeing that this is so, anyone having secured access to this domain becomes privy to the רצון, the will of the אין סוף, a will that is not hindered from being executed by opposing forces, and he is able to achieve things in the spiritual domain that he was not able to achieve while bound by the limits of lower domains.
[The author now speaks, or rather alludes, to a domain of אותיות and two tiers of domains known as אמונה which I am not familiar with. Ed.] Suffice it for the reader to remember that just as the physical universe of which the Torah speaks at the beginning of בראשית, consists of three layers, i.e. בריאה-יצירה עשיה, so the spiritual disembodied universe known as עולם האצילות, also consists of various layers, tiers.
The author now reverts back to Yaakov’s blessing of Yehudah in Genesis 49,10 where Yaakov said: לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחוקק מבין רגליו, commonly translated as: “the scepter shall not depart from Yehudah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet.” According to our author, if I understood him correctly, a King’s primary concern is the political freedom of the people under his rule and to ensure that they have adequate food supplies. Midrash Tehillim 80,2 alludes to this when it states that the provision of an adequate livelihood is more important than the provision of political freedom, גאולה, as the former is provided by G’d personally, whereas the latter has been entrusted to one of His angels. The author of the Midrash bases himself on Genesis 48,16 where Yaakov commands the “angel” who ensures political freedom, i.e. המלאך הגואל, whereas concerning the provision of adequate food supplies, i.e. livelihood, this is something that G’d personally is involved in, based on David in psalms 145,16 speaking of G’d opening His hand to all living creatures (to supply their needs). In Exodus 23,20 the Torah also writes of the angel that G’d will send ahead of the Jewish people,הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך לשמרך בדרך וגו' , whereas when it came to supplying the manna, the Israelites’ food, no mention is made of an angel being involved. This is also how we must understand Song of Songs 8,10, “then I was in his eyes as someone who has found an abundance of peace.”אז הייתי בעיניו כמוצאת שלום רב. According to the Talmud Pessachim, 87 the composer, Solomon, compares the “bride,” simile for the people of Israel, as feeling secure in the house of her husband, i.e. G’d. In this verse Solomon also distinguishes between the “bride,” and her “breasts” as two different parts of herself, an allusion to the Jewish people either serving the Lord as “recipients,” or as having attained a level where they are entitled to also feel as “donors” vis a vis G’d as we have explained . The bride’s father in law’s house is a simile for the עלמא דנוקבא, whereas when mention is made by the composer of בית אביה, “her father’s house,” this is an allusion to the עלמא דדכורא, “the predominantly masculine domain in the celestial spheres.” When the “human donor” has succeeded to provide his Heavenly Father with joy through the manner in which he serves Him, then, in the words of Rav Chisda, his daughters would provide enduring joy to their husbands.
Having appreciated this concept, we can also understand the verse in which גאולה, “political freedom”, as we termed it earlier, when discussing the comparison made between the relative worth of political freedom and an adequate livelihood in the two verses quoted in Midrash Tehillim, 80,2. This Midrash is based on Bereshit Rabbah 20,9 where two verses are cited, i.e. suggesting that גאולה “redemption” has to occur on two levels. Man has to be redeemed from the repercussions of Adam’s original sin, and we have to be redeemed collectively from the exile in which we have waited for the redeemer for 2000 years.
In the book ראשית חכמה, by the famous Rabbi Eliyahu Vidash, the point is made that due to man’s original sin he had acquired (sustained) a blemish on his soul as an integral part of his being. Just as physical man consists of 248 limbs and 365 tendons, muscular tissue, a total of 613 parts corresponding to the 613 commandments in the written Torah, so there is a parallel division between 248 plus 365 parts in the spiritual part of man, his soul. The “damage” inflicted on our souls is known as חלל. In other words, any sin committed by one of these 613 parts of his body results in commensurate damage, or חלל in his soul. In order to cleanse the soul of these “holes,” it has to spend a period of time in gehinom, purgatory, until this damage has been repaired. This is man’s fate if he has not repented for his sins prior to his death, of course.
When Moses, in Deut. 32,18 says צור ילדך תשי ותשכח אלמחוללך, where the name for G’d as both צור and א-ל is repeated, this is also an allusion to the two types of גאולה, redemption, we need in order to recapture the pure state in which original man had been created. When describing the impending redemption after the people have done teshuvah Moses says:, ושב ה' אלוקיך את שבותך ורחמך ושב וקבצך מכל העמים אשר הפיצך ה' אלוקיך שמה, “and the Lord your G’d will return with your captives and have mercy upon you; and He will return and gather you in from among all the nations that he had scattered you to.” (30,3) The word: ושב, appears to have been repeated twice for no good reason. Actually, this verse alludes to two separate “returns” from “exile,” the physical as well as spiritual exile suffered by the souls. We find that just as when it came to פרנסה, two verses describe that G’d looks after this directly, i.e. for the nourishment of the body as well as that for the soul, so when it comes to “redemption”, a prerequisite for our being able to serve the Lord with maximum devotion, both the body and the damaged soul will be redeemed separately. Alternately, the two verses allude to the concept that G’d is both dispenser of largesse and recipient of the joy and selflessness that some of His creatures display by serve Him.”
Genesis 50,19. “Joseph said to them: ‘do not fear for I am in place of G’d.’” According to Onkelos the meaning of this line is: “since G’d when He performs an act that appears to us as evil, although He knows that it will turn out for our benefit, I, if I were to be instead of G’d, I would have to perform a similar act against you. Since it is not within man’s power to foresee how his actions will turn out in the end, I am obviously not entitled to do something that begins by being harmful.”
Looking at the plain meaning of the text it is difficult to understand Onkelos.
Perhaps we have to fall back on the principle that every human being, as part of his character, (virtues) must endeavour to maintain close relations with his Creator. This involves a degree of awe and reverence for the Creator to be present in his mind at all times. It also presumes that he is imbued with a degree of love for his Creator, as he contemplates the greatness of G’d. He is obligated to do this if for no other reason than G’d has performed so many more deeds of loving kindness for the Jewish people than He has performed for any other nation. The same is true for other attributes of G’d that have been of benefit to us on numerous occasions. The sum total of such a relationship between us, the creature, and the Creator, makes this an עולם האמת, a world in which truth is predominant. Once we appreciate this we can understand the Talmud in Megillah 18 in which the rhetorical question is posed of how we know that G’d had referred to Yaakov by the title א-ל, a name used for referring to Him on many occasions?
The foregoing will also help us understand what the Talmud meant when it described G’d as having built and destroyed worlds on a regular basis before He commenced with the construction of the universe described in Bereshit. The Talmud in Baba Batra 75 tells us that just as G’d has been building worlds, so the righteous, in a future, refined world, will also “build worlds;” not only that but they will be given titles used by G’d to describe Himself. The ministering angels when meeting up with these righteous will address them as “your holiness.” Although such statements first strike us as bordering on blasphemy, when we consider that these “righteous people” have already acquired many of G’d’s own attributes, it is not difficult to understand the Talmudic references to the future better state of the world at all.
If man has not attained the level of perfection described in the last few lines, then instead of being accorded titles that he can share with G’d, he remains below that spiritual level; this is why Joseph asks his brothers if they have such a low opinion of him that he is תחת אלוקים, “beneath the level of minimal perfection” described in the Talmud, so that he would be capable of dealing on a basis of revenge with them.
If man has not attained the level of perfection described in the last few lines, then instead of being accorded titles that he can share with G’d, he remains below that spiritual level; this is why Joseph asks his brothers if they have such a low opinion of him that he is תחת אלוקים, “beneath the level of minimal perfection” described in the Talmud, so that he would be capable of dealing on a basis of revenge with them.
Exodus
Shemot
Exodus 1,1. “And these are the names of the tribes of Israel; Reuven, etc.”; the reason why the names of the holy tribes are enumerated once more is because their qualifications as being part of the twelve holy tribes is already alluded to in their names, as we shall see. Reuven was called by that name as his mother had proclaimed at his birth (Genesis 29,32) “G’d has seen my distress; now my husband will love me.” When Leah bore Shimon (verse 13 ibid), she gave thanks to G’d to listening to her prayer. When Levi was born (verse 34) she expressed her conviction to G’d that from then on her husband would devote more of his time to her. Both Shimon’s name from the word שמע “to hear,” and Levi’s name from the word ללוות, “to keep company with,” reflect the connection to G’d that Leah saw in these sons as accompanying them already from birth. When the reader will once more peruse the relevant chapter in Parshat Vayetze he will see that all the names bore testimony to the mothers seeing in these sons being born a gift of G’d, so that it was no more than natural that the sons when growing up would excel in their service to G’d, i.e. they would qualify for the title: קדוש, “holy.”
It would be quite inconceivable that the matriarchs would have named their children in commemorating a physical craving of theirs as having been fulfilled. The fact that the Torah refers to these tribes, i.e. שבטים, not by their secular name, but calls them מטות, a word reminding us of someone, i.e. G’d leaning out of a window to see what goes on beneath him. According to our author it is used to describe physical cravings which have been sublimated to become spiritual cravings.
A different approach to the line: ואלה שמות בני ישראל. We have mentioned earlier that the matriarchs who named their sons did so by referring to their personal experiences. The letters ראו in Reuven’s name, meaning: “see!”, for instance having been barren, she realized now that G’d had “seen” her misery and she felt grateful.
When Leah bore Shimon, she called him thus as she realized that G’d had heard her prayer and had responded. This pattern is repeated with the birth of the other tribes to their respective mothers.
If the שבטים are also called מטות, the reason is to discredit the wicked people who, even if believing in a Supreme G’d, consider this G’d as so lofty in His heaven that He does not concern Himself with what the creatures on earth do or fail to do, and, that seeing that this is so they are free to do as they please and do not need to fear having to give an account of their actions The שבטים are therefore also called “the twelve extremities of the diagonal pattern” of the globe. The creation of a physical universe involved on the one hand that the totally disembodied Creator contracted Himself, condensed Himself into something kabbalists call קו ישר, whereas the arrangement that ensures that in spite of G’d having thus “reduced Himself,” His ultimate goal for the universe will not be jeopardized, is called קו האלכסון, a line traveling from the higher regions to the lower regions of the physical universe. When Israel serves the Lord, performs His wishes, this may be viewed as the קו האלכסון traveling from the “bottom upward” instead. The 12 tribes, seeing that it is their destiny to promote worship of the Creator, are therefore also known as the 12 extremities of this קו האלכסון.
Exodus 1,6. “and Joseph had meanwhile been in Egypt already.” We need to examine why the Torah had to repeat the word במצרים, “in Egypt,” when it would have sufficed to simply write ויוסף היה שם, “while Joseph had already been there.” Perhaps the Torah wanted to stress that during all the years that Joseph had been in Egypt without the moral support of his family he had not changed his name (although Pharaoh had given him an Egyptian title, i.e. צפנת פענח). He himself used to refer to himself by his Jewish name. Even Pharaoh realized this when during the early days of the famine he had instructed the people to turn to Joseph for help, i.e. לכו אל יוסף אשר יאמר לכם תעשו, “what Joseph will tell you, you are to do.” (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 20 slightly differently wording.)
Exodus 1,21. “It was because the midwives had demonstrated fear of the Lord, that He built houses for them.” In these houses the midwives lived and could practice their G’d fearing ways undisturbed. In the event that someone would think that the midwives continued their dangerous way of saving Jewish boy babies on account of the heavenly reward they expected for this, the Torah twice mentioned that they were G’d-fearing, so that there was no element of serving G’d for the sake of the eventual reward.
Exodus 2,1. “a man from the house of Levi went and married Levi’s daughter.” The deeper meaning of this verse is that from now on souls belonging to the family of Levi would be placed in children sired by Amram, who up to now had only sired Aaron, whose soul was from a family destined to produce priests. [I trust that I understood the meaning of our author correctly. Ed.] When Yocheved, at the time Moses was born said that she saw that the child “was good,” (Exodus 2,2) Moses‘ name (though given by Pharaoh’s daughter, כי מן המים משיתהו, “for I have drawn him from the water,” also alludes to this concept. The author refers to having elaborated on this in his commentary on psalms 132,9. [He does not say in what context he commented on that. Ed.]
Exodus 2,4. “his sister positioned herself at a distance, in order to find out what would be done with him.” This verse helps us understand Jeremiah 31,2 “the Lord appeared to me from a distance, etc.;”
There is a general rule that when the people in the physical universe are fully preoccupied with their secular concerns, they will not be able to elevate themselves to true service of the Lord. This idea is hinted at when the Bible uses the term מרחוק. [The term does not describe distance in terms of kilometers. Ed.] Rapprochement to the Creator progresses at the same speed as distancing oneself from purely secular concerns. The Torah chose to describe Miriam as אחתו, “his sister,” as it wished to allude to the word מאחה, meaning “attached,” i.e. מדובק. Miriam was anxious to see if the attribute of אין, the eternal element of G’d, would continue to influence the baby’s fate. On some occasions this attribute אין is also known as מה, the word used in our verse.
Exodus 2:10, “She named him Moses, for I have pulled him from the water.” There is a rule that when we have a combination of light, water and fire, the creature whose soul (essence) consists of fire can elevate itself to the level of water, whereas the creature whose essence is water can elevate itself to the level of light. Seeing that Moses was essentially connected to water, having been “pulled from the water,” he can elevate itself to the level of light. This principle is alluded to in Exodus 34,29 ולא ידע משה כי קרן עור פניו, “Moses was unaware that the skin of his face radiated light.”
[This “rule,” I have found explained in an article on Parshat Miketz where Pharaoh is described as standing above the water, and the expressions יאור, נהר,אור are explained also by Onkelos as basically parts of one basic concept. When on different levels of spiritual significance, they are called by correspondingly different names. The interested reader will find a very enlightening article about this written in 2004 in Google under the heading פרשת מקץ. The question I had asked Google, was: אור, אש, ומים. Ed.]
Exodus 2,25. “G’d looked upon the Children of Israel and took notice of them.” G’d foresaw that there would be Children of Israel who would accept the Torah in due course, although at this stage they were still worshipping idols, also. The word וידע always describes an intimate relationship to another person, so that when it is used here for G’d and His relationship to the Children of Israel, after previously the Torah only spoke of וישמע אלוקים, וישמע אלוקים, וירא אלוקים, the verb וידע introduces a more intimate relationship. G’d was now able to relate to the virtues of the Jewish people, whereas previously He had paid attention only to their shortcomings.
Another way of understanding the verse of וירא אלוקים את בני ישראל וידע אלוקים, helps us explain a verse in Chabakuk 3,2 ה' פעלך קרב שנים חייהו בקרב שנם תודיע ברוגז רחם תזכור, “Oh Lord I have learned of Your renown; I am awed O Lord by Your deeds. Renew them in these years. O make them known in these years! Though angry, may You remember compassion.” The verse may be best understood by means of a parable. A poor man requests that a wealthy man grant his request as he knows that it is within the rich man’s power to grant same, and that once the rich man seriously considers the sorry state the poor man is in he will not be able to deny his cry for assistance. The Jewish people when in pain and in need, turn to G’d, as they are well aware that He has the power to help them. Because they are aware of this, it is their duty to keep this factor in mind and to turn to G’d in prayer. Moreover, the very word תפלה, “usually translated as “prayer,” is a word which expresses התחברות, a close association, joining together. We know this from Genesis 3,8 when Rachel called her second son by proxy (Bilhah) נפתלי, indicating that she felt that G’d had come closer to her, and that she was comparable to her sister now. Following the Jewish people’s first recorded prayer to G’d during over 80 years of enslavement, G’d immediately responded by coming closer to His chosen people and going about appointing their redeemer, Moses. The word וידע אלוקים was chosen therefore to remind us of this term used by the Torah when Adam for the first time had marital relations with Chavah, or as the Torah says elsewhere, “man and wife are to become one flesh.” (Genesis 3,24) [The author quotes Genesis 4,25, but my quote, I think is even more appropriate. Ed.] The words בקרב שנים in the verse from Chabakuk above, mean that “pain” is something that exists only in our world, a world that is limited in space and time. In regions that are not influenced by time, i.e. celestial regions, there is no such thing as pain, suffering, etc.; G’d now being in a relationship of וידע, i.e. establishing close contact with His people, their pain and suffering will come to an end as a result of their coming closer to these regions of the universe.
Exodus 3,1. “he came to the mountain of G’d, to Chorev.” חכמה, “wisdom,” is also known as חרבה, a point made by the Raa’vad in his introduction to the Sefer Yetzirah describing G’d’s essence. David, in psalms 111,10 defines the basic ingredient of wisdom as reverence for G’d. This is the deeper meaning of Moses having being afraid to “look” at G’d, as reported in verse 6 of our chapter.
Exodus 3,2. “An angel of Hashem appeared to him within the flame of fire, etc.;” whereupon Moses said to himself: “I will turn away to investigate why this bush is not consumed by the fire;” when G’d noticed that Moses had, after all, turned to investigate the phenomenon, He called out to him, warning him not to approach closer while wearing his sandals as the location was holy soil.
There is a strange story in Pessachim 57 according to which one of the Kings of the Hasmoneans and his queen had an argument during their meal as to whether meat from a lamb is tastier than meat from a fully grown sheep. When they could not agree, they asked the High Priest to settle the argument, as he had experience from eating the sacrificial meat of both many times. The High Priest upon being consulted, waved with his hand pointing heavenwards: saying: “if the meat of a lamb would be tastier surely the Torah would have commanded that the daily communal offering should consist of a lamb?”
The Talmud relating this incident must not be taken at face value, of course, but the argument described concerned the question if the fate of the Jews is influenced by astrological considerations, or if the Jewish people are quite independent of the configurations of the stars. When the High Priest pointed heavenward, he implied that the “Mazzal” of the Jewish people is אין, the word describing the essence of G’d. This also explained the statement in the Talmud Shabbat 156 that אין מזל לישראל, commonly translated as “the Jewish people’s fate is not determined or influenced by constellation of the zodiac.” The true meaning of the statement is that the celestial force determining the fate of the Jewish people is none other than אין, “the essence of G’d Himself.” Moreover, the word מזל is closely related to יזל as in יזל מים מדליו, ”water flows out of its buckets,” (numbers 24,7). This verse alludes to what the queen in above parable had in mind when she said that a lamb tastes better, i.e. she was referring to people who depend on nature, water, etc., for their sustenance, a largesse from G’d which originates in a celestial domain known as האותיות עולם.
[Heaven, not unlike the physical universe, consists of several layers, one of which is known as עולם האותיות, another, ”lower” layer is better known as עולם האצילות, to which the Torah referred when the highest echelon of the Jewish people accompanied Moses immediately prior to his ascending Mount Sinai to receive the Tablets (Exodus 24,9-11) where these people are called for short אצילי בני ישראל .Ed]
When G’d warned Moses not to approach the “domain” הלום this refers to the domain of מלכות, “Royalty,” a domain which Moses wished to attain. It was not granted to him, i.e. he functioned as Royalty only during the generation of the Israelites who had participated in the Exodus, but did not found a dynasty. The function of a king is to dispatch “spiritual sparks” for them to attach themselves to the Creator, and this is what is meant when the Torah describes the function of a king to wage war. When he succeeds in doing this he is perceived as having been victorious in “war”. Within the parameter of his task, a king sometimes of necessity has to elevate some people’s status, whereas at the same time he will demote others. The king, in order to be successful, has to surround himself with advisers, i.e. he must be part of the people. The function of a prophet is the reverse, he must isolate himself.
We have already explained on a previous occasion that when the righteous engages in dispatching “spiritual sparks” ניצוצות, heavenward, he may himself “dress up” in these holy thoughts in order that his “holy clothes” carry him with the sparks on their “wings.”
The Talmud refers to such a concept when it states in Avodah Zarah 4 that “King David did not commit the sin with Bat Sheva except in order to teach the people the power of repentance of an individual.” According to the Talmud the same reasoning applies to the Jewish people having committed the sin of the golden calf, in order to teach the people the power of collective repentance.
Moses had not been able to set such an example for the people as his whole orientation was toward heaven all the time, so that he could not become guilty of what appeared like a sin, [resulting from human weakness, cravings. Ed.] He hinted at his preoccupation with the celestial rather than the terrestrial, when he said: אסורה נא ואראה, “let me turn away from heavenly concerns and look at earthly concerns and parameters.” He wished to examine the “celestial” element manifested by this bush that refused to be consumed by fire.
Actually, the words אסורה נא, “allow me to turn aside,” confirm what we mentioned earlier, that Moses was totally “celestially” oriented. In order to get him to pay attention to events on earth he had to be forced to be diverted from his usual preoccupation. The burning bush of dry thorns and thistles that refused to collapse and turn into ash was the vehicle G’d used to accomplish this. This is why the Torah emphasizes: כי סר לראות, “he had to force his entire orientation to concentrate on matters terrestrial,” abandoning his normal method of thinking in the process. The material of which the burning bush was constructed certainly did not symbolize something “worthwhile;” on the contrary it reminded him of the negative side of the emanations, commonly known as the סטרא אחרא, “the other,” (inferior) side.”
He now had to concentrate on how to deal successfully with matters that required sublimation, i.e. how to help elevate the mundane, secular, to spiritually higher regions. G’d had to caution him not to approach such an undertaking without proper preparation, hence He warned him that the site of the burning bush was “holy,” not as he might have thought, worthless. Warning Moses to remove his נעלים, “shoes,” had a dual meaning. The word נעלים is derived from נעל, “locking up,” as in “locking a door.” Moses’ shoes had been an instrument that “locked him away” from direct contact with the mundane, the earth underneath his feet. He had to divest himself of this barrier to become an effective leader of people very much connected to earth and what goes on in our part of the universe. Contrary to what he might have thought, the angel informed him, holiness can be found also on earth, the site of the burning bush being one such example. This was a hint that “sparks” from the Shechinah can be found in our domain of the universe.
Exodus 3,7. Hashem said: “I have surely seen the sorry state of My people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their outcry on account of their oppressors.”
Exodus 3,9.“and now, here the outcry of the Children of Israel has come to Me;”
It is important for anyone petitioning G’d for help to realize that he must not do so from predominantly egotistical motives, but he must make up his own mind and then convey this to G’d, that the principal reason he is asking for G’d’s help is so that he can become a better servant of the Lord. When he does so, He will be far more likely to find G’d responsive to his needs, or what he thinks are his needs.
G’d therefore had to perform 2 separate acts of loving kindness for His people. First of all, He had to improve their lot drastically on a mundane level, by redeeming them physically. Secondly, he had to treat them as if their appeal to Him had been based on their desire to serve Him better. This is hinted at when in verse 7 G’d is reported as saying: ראה ראיתי את עני עמי, i.e. “I have taken note of the fact that My people wish to be truly My people, something that will entitle them to be called ‘My people’.” Secondly (verse 9), הנה צעקת בני ישראל באה אלי, “the outcry of the Children of Israel has come to me, (arrived at My throne), I am aware that it is their desire to be My people by their wishing to serve Me better.” The verse ends by making the physical suffering endured by the people now appear as a secondary consideration in G’d’s response to them. G’d, so to speak, makes excuses for the people’s low spiritual level as being due to the constant physical pressures they are exposed to in their status as slaves of the lowest human level.
Exodus 3,10 “come, therefore I will send you to Pharaoh, etc.;” In order to understand the ensuing developments, i.e. interminably long negotiations between Moses and Pharaoh about the release of the Israelites, the author suggests that we look at psalms 117,1 הללו את ה' כל גוים שבחוהו כל האומים כי גבר עלינו חסדו ואמת ה' לעולם הללויה, “praise the Lord all you nations, extol Him, all you peoples; for He is great and steadfast toward us; the faithfulness of the Lord endures forever.” The Talmud Pessachim 118 appears to understand David’s words as meaning that if the gentiles acknowledge the miracles G’d has performed for them, then they surely must acknowledge and praise the Lord even more for the miracles He has performed for the Jewish people, i.e. וגבר עלינו חסדו, “for great is His steadfast love toward us;” at first glance this line is difficult, as we would have expected David to refer to the miracles G’d has performed for us, the Jewish people. According to the Talmud, David meant that the nations are requested to acknowledge the miracles performed by G’d for His people. From this it follows that they must all the more acknowledge the miracles G’d has performed for them.
After all, we have proof of this in Deuteronomy 4,34. When Moses there extols the mind-boggling nature of the miracles performed by G’d for us, he compares these miracles to others that G’d, on occasion, has performed even for the gentiles. These mind-boggling miracles performed on behalf of His people have usually been predicted by a prophet announcing time and location of each miracle. They usually took the form of penalizing the enemies or oppressors of the Jewish people at the same time.
It is quite out of the question that in psalms 117 or elsewhere, David intended for the gentiles to salute and praise the Lord for miracles He had performed for them.
We will try therefore, with G’d’s help to explain what the Talmud had in mind when speaking of miracles G’d performed for the gentiles. In order to do this plausibly, let us remember a statement from the Haggadah shel Pessach, where the author refers to: והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים אני ולא מלאך, אני ה' הוא ולא אחר; ”I will smitten every firstborn in the land of Egypt, ‘I and not an angel, I the Lord, it is I and no one else.’” [The author presents a slightly condensed quote, which does not detract from the point under discussion. Ed.]. Why was the killing of the firstborn carried out by Hashem personally, whereas for all the other plagues He employed “angels,” i.e. terrestrial phenomena, though all were G’d’s messengers, agents?
We must explain however, that harmful phenomena never originate with G’d. Only beneficial phenomena originate with G’d. When our eyes will be opened to see the great troubles that befall the wicked, we will realize that the wicked themselves have been the architects of their problems, or even destruction. If they would be intelligent enough to realize that all of these phenomena are warnings, they would, instead of cursing the day they had been born, turn to G’d in love, grateful to have been given such opportunities to improve their ways. These “disciplinary measures” by G’d are designed to lead to His name becoming sanctified and aggrandized throughout the universe, especially the part of it where His name had not been known previously. Not only will His existence be revealed to them by such disciplinary actions, but the fact that He is involved in the personal fates of all His creatures will also be demonstrated by His intervention in the affairs of man by means of miracles. [The plagues that the Egyptians were afflicted with had far-reaching consequences, so that 40 years later Rachav, the innkeeper in Jericho told Joshua’s spies that all her friends and acquaintances were still in awe of how G’d had split the sea to allow the Israelites to pass through, while at the same time drowning the pursuing Egyptians in it. (Joshua 2,10) Ed.]
An intelligent Jew or gentile, using his brain without prejudice, will, instead of being frustrated by misfortune, use same as a jumping off board to establish closer ties with his G’d, Who had been kind enough to alert him to His existence in heaven by inflicting harsh penalties on him instead of summarily condemning him to eternal perdition without warning. The Jewish people did not realize all this until after the plagues that G’d visited upon the Egyptians, they had not only been spared, but had seen how G’d had elevated them to become His עם סגולה, especially precious people.
Some leading personalities in our history used this concept to wish for the day when they could demonstrate that they had learned this lesson. The Talmud in B’rachot 61 relates a conversation between Rabbi Akiva (aged 120 at the time) in which the students are quoted as asking their mentor, who at that time was undergoing torture at the hands of the Romans for having publicly violated the decree not to teach Torah, “how long are you going to praise the Lord under such conditions?” He answered them that far from being disheartened, he had been waiting for a lifetime to be able to fulfill the commandment to love G’d בכל נפשך, “with your entire life force,” i.e. at the price of a painful death. How could he possibly allow himself to succumb now when finally this opportunity had presented itself for him? Rabbi Akiva’s final lesson to his disciples was to teach them to make use of adversity, even the most painful adversity, to rise to spiritual levels that would have remained in the realm of a potential only, had they not been able to fulfill this commandment publicly.
[It is doubtful, in my opinion, that we are obligated to wish ourselves such opportunities as Rabbi Akiva had deliberately invited by public disobedience of Roman decrees, as the sages tell us that when David wished to become one of the patriarchs, G’d warned him that in order to do so one had to successfully cope with difficult temptations. Since David had insisted, he was tempted by the matter of Bat Sheva, and, having been unable to resist the temptation, he did not wind up as one of the patriarchs mentioned in our daily amidah prayer at the very outset. (Sanhedrin 107) Ed.]
To sum up, the principal purpose of our existence on earth is to mobilize all our faculties to serve the Lord in the best way we know how. Fondness of the Lord cannot be better demonstrated than to walk through fire or water when necessary, and to see in this an opportunity to prove to Hashem that we love Him and are convinced that what He has decreed for us is for our ultimate benefit, even if we cannot realize this at the time when we are suffering the afflictions concerned.
Expressed slightly differently, we must train ourselves to view trials and tribulations not as “afflictions, attempts to make our lives uncomfortable or even unbearable,” but as medicines designed to cure our ills, especially the ones (like high blood pressure) that we were totally unaware of. Just as none of us would refuse to swallow a bitter tasting medicine prescribed by his favourite physician, so we must not refuse to accept with good cheer the medicine prescribed for us by the “Healer” of the universe, its architect. [The reader may have guessed that I paraphrased some of the author’s words. Ed.]
As to the plagues in Egypt, the Jewish people experienced this lesson by watching how G’d dealt with the Egyptians; we learned vicariously, instead of our having to learn this on our own bodies.
[As the author proceeds to describe the ideal Jew as eagerly looking forward to more yissurim, afflictions, and this editor recalls numerous prayers that include specifically the plea not to elevate us by means of painful yissurim, I will omit part of this chapter, as it is not addressed to the average reader like myself. Ed.]
The author, coming back to his original question of why the killing of the firstborn had to be orchestrated by G’d Himself, points to our opening statement that nothing bad ever originates with G’d Himself. If G’d therefore, personally carried out the killing of the firstborn, this too could not have been something bad, something negative, else He would have had to entrust it to one or more of His angels.
When G’d concludes with what appears as if a repetition, that it is He and no one else who has done this, He means that by orchestrating this “plague” Himself He achieved that His name became great and well known all over the inhabited parts of the globe. If the death of the Egyptians served the purpose of sanctifying the holy name of the Lord, they themselves had served a holy purpose, though unwittingly.
This is why, initially, the Talmud questioned what David said in his psalm 117,1 saying that that surely what David meant were miracles G’d has performed for the Jewish people and not any miracles performed for the gentile people. However, David did not mean miracles performed for the gentile nations, but “by means of the gentile nations,” i.e. the firstborn in Egypt who all died at the very same moment, regardless of where in the land they found themselves at the time, became the vehicle by means of which G’d’s reputation became so greatly enhanced. The death of these firstborn was also the catalyst that prompted the –up to now- stubborn Pharaoh not only to release the Jewish people but to actually expel them.
As an additional proof that his interpretation of the father of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yossi, quoted on psalms 117,1 was correct, our author stresses that the Talmud uses the word בעדייהו when justifying David’s demand to “praise the Lord all you nations.” Had the Talmud used the word עמהייו the meaning would indeed have been “for them.” Seeing that the Talmud refrained from using that word, substituting בעדייהו which means “with them,” there is no way to misunderstand the explanation of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yossi’s father on that verse in psalms: 117,1-2. The simple explanation of this verse in psalms is that in response to the unarticulated question of what it is for which the nations should praise the Lord, the answer is: “for the fact that G’d’s loving kindness triumphed as we the Jewish people are able to state from our historical experience.” When detailing the praise that is due to G’d, we refer to His enduring faithfulness demonstrated time and again in His relations with us. These loving deeds of G’d were how He repaid the Egyptian oppressors of His people for their totally unprovoked subjugation of His people.
In His answer, G’d explains to Moses, that actually, He would be with Moses all along his mission, i.e. כי אהיה עמך, “for I, personally, will be with you;” the reason G’d says, that He can do so, is that ultimately, what appears like something bad for Egypt will result in the Egyptians<
According to Ari’ z’al the verse commencing with לכה ואשלחך אל פרעה, “go and I’ll send you to Pharaoh,” means that this mission would contain both parts that were good for Israel, and others that were not, i.e. good for the Egyptians. It was good for Israel and bad for the Egyptians. On the face of it this appears to contradict the rule that nothing bad originates with G’d Himself. In order to show that this is indeed so, G’d said to Moses: “as far as Egypt is concerned, I will use you as My messenger to Pharaoh.” This also explains why Moses countered: “who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?” He meant that if G’d Himself did not want to become the origin of harm to Pharaoh, why he, Moses, had to perform such a distasteful task? Moses’ reply, phrased as a question, is to be understood as if an ordinary person when charged with a task that clearly spells disaster for someone, indicates that he does not wish to accept such a mission. Moses Implies that if we human beings are to model ourselves in accordance with the virtues demonstrated by the Creator, why would this not be true in this situation also?
Having become a tool in Moses’ hands to aggrandize G’d’s universally great name, so that through their being smitten if they did not respond to the call to release the Israelites, they will serve the greater good, i.e. G’d becoming feared and revered all over the world when Pharaoh and Egypt’s “punishment” for mistreating G’d’s people will become known. Proof of G’d Himself being with Moses all along, will be demonstrated when, after the Exodus, the Jewish people will be given the Torah that G’d will reveal Himself to them, and Moses will have a private “interview” on the top of Mount Sinai or in the celestial spheres. The ten plagues are to be understood as only a prelude to the ultimate good resulting from this, i.e. the spiritual elevation of the Jewish people in which also the Egyptians will play a significant, though passive part. The words: תעבדון את האלוקים על ההר הזה “you will serve G’d on this mountain,” are the key of Moses’ mission, a constructive mission, not a destructive one. [I have paraphrased the author’s words slightly. Ed.]
The exegesis just outlined by our author, is based also on psalms 94,10 היוסר גוים הלא יוכיח, “shall He Who disciplines nations not punish?” The psalmist asks, rhetorically, “is it not in order for you to ask when watching G’d disciplining and punishing nations, that seeing He does so, surely, evil, harm for man does emanate from Him? When the psalmist continues in verse 12 of that psalm that a person who is being disciplined by G’d should view himself as fortunate, he refers to what happened to the Egyptians when they became an instrument of spreading G’d’s glory and the knowledge of His power.
The author refers to numerous occasions when he had said that if something is to occur after some time it is described in the Torah as אהי'ה, whereas when it is something that is about to occur immediately it is described as הויה, a word commencing with the letter ה. When G’d does not tell Moses that He “is,” but that He “will be,” using the prefix א, He hints to him that the ultimate purpose of his mission will not become apparent to him until after some time has elapsed. The way Moses would recognize when that point in time had been reached is the אות, “the sign” i.e. the communal service of the Lord by the entire people at Mount Sinai. At that time, all of mankind will become aware that there is only a single Creator, and that He is the sole ruler of the entire universe.
This is a good opportunity to explain the question of Eliezer, Avraham’s foremost servant, and the answer he received from Avraham. Prior to the battle against the mightiest kings of the Orient and Occident undertaken in order to rescue Avraham’s nephew Lot from captivity, the sages quote Eliezer as having been asked how he killed the soldiers of all these kings. He told the questioners that Avraham told him to take clods of earth and to throw them in their direction. If he would do this, the earth clods would turn into arrows. [While the story in Bereshit rabbah 43,3 is similar, the common feature is that earth would turn into either swords or arrows. Ed.]
The question we must ask is why this miracle had to be performed by means of clods of earth. Why could some other vehicle in nature not have served G’d for the same purpose? We hope to explain this by referring to how David conquered the nations against whom he went to war.
Let us remember that when David found himself in need of vanquishing his enemies, he himself was attached closely to the attribute known as אין, [the eyn sof, essence of G’d. Ed.] He was conscious of the fact that all parts of his life, including his body, i.e. the ability of the living to move at will, were a part of Divinity. [Compare Tikkuney Hazohar Tikkun 1) This means that there is no single spot in the universe that is not permeated by some aspect of Divinity. In fact, if one were to find any part of the universe devoid of a spark of Divinity, such a part would be totally devoid of “Life.” be it human, animal vegetable or even the kind of life with which inert bodies such as the planets are equipped. Ed.] The author refers to his commentary on Deuteronomy 32,39 on the words כי אני אני הוא, “that I, I am He,” where G’d makes the point that neither man nor any of the various categories of angels, such as שרפים, חיות, אופנים are able to say of themselves that אני הוא, “it is I,” when speaking to one another.
The word אני, when used by a person, suggests that he is a person of substance, [in the sense of a physical presence, an independent personality, Ed.] In other words, by using that word when referring to himself, the speaker invites the person whom he addresses to regard him as someone of substance, of importance.
When we consider such a statement and reflect upon it, we realize that such a person wishes to convey to those opposite him that his very existence, חיות, his being alive, is something that he is in control of. What greater lie could he possibly convey than this false impression, seeing that not only does he not control other people’s lives, but he is not even in control of the next minute of his own life! Seeing that his own life is in the hands of his Creator, how could he arrogate to himself the right to speak of himself in terms of being an אני? We now understand why Moses quoted G’d in Deuteronomy 32,39 as saying ראו עתה כי אני אני הוא ואין אלוקים עמדי, “See then that I, I am He; there is no god beside Me.” What G’d is saying there is nothing other than that no-one but He is entitled to refer to himself as אני “I.” If a human being were (mistakenly) to describe himself as אני, he would in fact credit a “nothing” with such a grandiose title.
When we described this word as alluding to the Divine attribute of אין, the absolute disembodied essence of G’d, we also refer indirectly to the essentially disembodied nature of our real self, i.e. our immortal soul. The soul is immortal precisely because it can function without our bodies. This very fact is testimony to the fact that it is part of the Creator Himself, as He is the only Existence in the universe that functions without a body.
When we now consider the statement of our sages in Avot 6,12 [last Mishnah, Ed.] that everything the Creator created He created only for the sake of His greater glory, it is easy to understand that when one or more of His creatures no longer contribute to the purpose for which he or they have been given “life,” they have forfeited their claim to existence and deserve to die. Considering this basic truth, when David had to secure victory over his various enemies, he first had to “garb” himself with this attribute אין i.e. [אני, spelled in a manner that avoided that he really compared himself to his Creator. Ed.] When he would be confronted by uncircumcised pagans, he therefore felt entitled to put an end to their lives.
When Avraham confronted the four kings, symbolizing the anti-god from all four corners of the globe, who had taken Lot, who also shared that attribute, captive, he acted on behalf of G’d [although he had not consulted Him. Ed.]
When Avraham confronted the four kings, symbolizing the anti-god from all four corners of the globe, who had taken Lot, who also shared that attribute, captive, he acted on behalf of G’d [although he had not consulted Him. Ed.]
[This editor is troubled by the fact that at that time Avraham himself had not been circumcised, had not even been told that circumcision was an essential part of becoming Jewish. I am also troubled by the fact that Lot’s eventual escape from Sodom is not credited to his merit, but to G’d’s “pity” (Genesis 19,16. Ed.]
It is well known that the attribute אין also occurs in connection with Moses, at the time when he and Aaron were the victims of the Israelites’ complaints for their suffering from thirst. (Exodus 16,7) They replied with the words: ונחמו מה, “and what do we amount to?” [The reader will notice that Moses and Aaron spelled the word אנחנו without the letter א signifying the pronoun “I.” We also find David referring to himself in such derogatory fashion when he said: ואנכי תולעה “and all that I amount to is worms.” (Psalms 22,7) Avraham referred to himself as dust and ashes when he said: אנכי עפר ואפר. (Genesis 18,27) This is what the sages in the Midrash had in mind when they spoke about Avraham killing the mightiest armies in the world at that time by means of “earth, or dust.” By allying oneself with the Divine attribute of אין, Avraham was able to turn these pagans back into the raw-material they had been made of, i.e.עפר, as when G’d had said to Adam after his sin in Genesis 3,19, עפר אתה ואל עפר אתה תשוב, “you are dust and to dust you will have to return.” Seeing that Avraham was aware of his entire “life” being dependent on the אין סוף, “never ending (nor beginning) Creator,” so that the essential part of what he perceived as his “life” was bound up with this source of eternal life, he could function as the messenger that would terminate useless lives, lives that had not and would not contribute to the glory of the Creator on earth.Ed.]
Having said this, we can now understand psalms 145,13: מלכותך מלכות כל עולמים, “Your Kingdom is an eternal kingdom.” Why did the psalmist have to repeat the word: מלכות in this verse?
With the help of G’d I hope to be able to explain why, if G’d expects us to attain the level of the attribute of אין, did He create the evil urge which serves as an almost impenetrable curtain preventing us from attaining our destiny. Especially in view of the fact that all manner of “life” is dependent directly on the Creator at every moment and in every place on earth, why did G’d throw up obstacles to our proceeding smoothly along the right path? The obstacle called “evil urge” is almost bound to cause us to leave this life prematurely, without our having fulfilled our task! Moreover, how can we reconcile the existence and constant activity of the evil urge with the statement at the end of tractate Avot that everything that G’d has created, He created only for the sake of His greater glory? Does not the wording of that Mishnah, i.e. כל מה שברא הקדוש ברוך הוא לא ברא אלא לכבודו, ”everything that the Holy One blessed be He has created, He did not create except in order to increase His glory,” suggest that there is also another purpose?
[What bothers our author in the text of the Mishnah is the word אלא, “except,” which suggests that after eliminating other alternatives the one presented here is the only correct choice. In fact the sages of the Talmud debated for two and a half years if it would have been easier (נוח לו) for man never to have been created at all; after that long debate they took a vote and the consensus was that indeed it would have been “easier” for man never to have seen the light of the world, but seeing that G’d in His wisdom had decreed otherwise, it is, of course, our duty to accept the challenges with which He has presented us after we have been born. (Compare Eyruvin 13) Ed.]
It is noteworthy that Maimonides in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” when commenting on the words (in our daily morning prayer) יוצר אור ובורא חושך, “He Who fashions light and creates darkness,” asks why the sages composing this paragraph chose different words for describing the light and its coming into existence, and darkness and its coming into existence? The answer is that seeing that light was a necessary component of our universe, G’d had to proceed beyond the stage of merely creating it, whereas darkness which is not needed for our daily activities, did not have to be developed beyond the stage of merely bringing it into existence, i.e. בורא. G’d only had to allow darkness to remain in its state, not adding any brightness. The resulting absence of light, night, was therefore not of G’d’s origin. [If darkness is perceived as something negative, it cannot therefore be attributed to Him. Ed.]
Keeping the above definition in mind, it is easy to understand that the evil urge within man is also known as בור, as it is a variant of “darkness,” lacking brightness.
The true glory of a King becomes manifest when it results from the subject having had a choice if to serve the King or not. When the subject has been coerced into service by the King, the King cannot point to his subject’s performing the duties imposed upon him as an accomplishment, a proof of the subject holding his King in high esteem. G’d’s objective in creating a free willed creature in His universe therefore included the creation of the evil urge, without which the “glory” of which the Mishnah in Avot 6,12 spoke would be totally meaningless, as man’s servitude then would not result from his having recognized the greatness of his Creator. The greater the potential power of the evil urge, the greater is the glory of G’d when, in spite of the power of the evil urge, His free-willed creature overcame the obstacles placed in his path to come truly close to his Creator. This then is the hidden meaning of the word אלא in the Mishnah quoted, which at first glance sounded as if a contradiction of the principle expressed in that Mishnah. The creation of the evil urge may therefore be regarded as a “void”, deliberately left by G’d in the universe, in order to His having a chance that all His creatures could serve him out of their own free will.
From all the above we learn that the term מלוכה, “Royalty,” or “dominion,” in order for it to truly possess meaning, implies that opposition to such “Royalty,” is allowed for. It follows that despots who do not tolerate opposition to their rule cannot be considered as “kings.” This explains why G’d allows the seventy nations to develop in their various ways without overtly interfering in their affairs of state. Were they to remain constantly aware of their dependence every second on G’d’s tolerant attitude or they would perish, His “standing,” enhanced through those of His creatures who serve Him without fear of immediate punishment for failing to do so, would not result in His being glorified. If they were indeed conscious of their dependence on Him, their service even when performed most meticulously, would not add to G’d’s greater glory. If they serve G’d, even partially, although feeling almost omnipotent themselves, arrogant, then this does add to G’d’s greater glory.
When Isaiah 2,3 describes a scenario when the gentile nations offer to accompany the Jewish people on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem to worship the One and only G’d, describing this as באור ה', this contributes to G’d’s greater glory. The full text of that verse, after the prophet’s introduction of what will occur “in the days to come,” translated reads: “Come, let us go up to the Mount of the Lord to the House of the G’d of Jacob, etc.” The same thought is repeated slightly differently in verse 5 of the same chapter. Seeing that the nations will be doing this without having been compelled to do so, G’d’s almost everlasting patience will have been rewarded at that time, a period which the prophet had described as an era when war as a means of settling ego trips, or even legitimate disagreements will have become an anachronism.
Followers of the Ari z’al are familiar with his writing on the words וימלוך....וימת, “he reigned…..he died;” he saw in this formula used in the Bible a summary of a period during which certain kings ruled, concerning which the author of that chapter in the Bible wishes to convey that once a king begins to display arrogance, i.e. he perceives himself as a ruler, he is already as if dead.
The act of elevating oneself is tantamount to the act of killing oneself. When David characterizes G’d’s “Kingdom” with the words: מלכותך מלכות כל עולמים, “Your Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom,” (psalms 145,5) repeating the word מלכות, he speaks of different eras. The era of which Isaiah had spoken when he described the nations of the world eagerly joining the Jewish people in accepting the rule of Heaven, is when that Kingdom will become eternal and irrevocable. David hints that this came about precisely because G’d allowed for opposition to His rule until mankind matured.
Another way of explaining the expression מלכותך מלכות כל עולמים, is to imagine a comma after the word מלכותך, i.e. when the concept of “Kingdom” is applied to Your Kingdom, it is radically different from the so-called “Kingdoms” man is familiar with, in that it is not temporary, the kings being replaced by death or revolution, etc; Yours is an eternal Kingdom and therefore a real מלכות.
Going back to Moses’ question of:מי אנכי כי אלך אל פרעה וכי אוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים?, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should take the Children of Israel out of Egypt?” We can explain the meaning of Moses’ question by referring to the verse in Job 25,2 עושה שלום במרומיו, “He makes peace in His heights.” According to our tradition, the angel Michael is in charge of water, whereas the angel Gavriel is in charge of fire. Seeing that these two elements are constantly at war with one another, G’d has to make peace between them. (Based on the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 23, where the manner in which G’d positioned moon and sun so that they would not face each other’s weak spots, and Shir Hashirim rabbah 3 where G’d is described as arranging that the stars, representing the element of “fire” are positioned in such a way that they never face the “upper waters” in the firmament, רקיע השמים.) As a result of this arrangement the angel in charge of the pious is unable to perform deeds of valour, as no angel is allowed to perform several tasks. Only G’d personally, is able to reconcile opposing forces. This is the meaning of the line that (“only”) G’d Himself can impose peace and harmony in the celestial regions. Moses therefore questioned how it was possible for him to perform the acts of valour necessary in order to secure the release of the Children of Israel. He implied that this was something only G’d Himself, not a messenger of His, could accomplish. G’d responded that he was right, but that He Himself, would be with him all the way.
Exodus 3,12. “and this will serve you as a sign (proof) that I have sent you on this mission, etc.” We find in Song of Songs 1,3: לריח שמניך טובים תורק שמך על כן עלמות אהבוך, ”for fragrance your oils are good; your name is ointment poured forth; therefore do young maidens love you.” Seeing that all of Song of Songs can only be understood properly by resorting to the allegories employed by its author to convey his message, we hope to explain this verse with the help of G’d by referring to Moses’ question how he should answer the Israelites when they would ask him about the name of the G’d in whose name he would claim to have been sent to them. We first need to explain how to understand G’d’s answer to Moses, i.e. אהיה אשר אהיה (שלחני אליכם), “the G’d Who says concerning Himself) I shall be who I shall be” (has sent me to you).
The righteous person serving the Creator needs to be conscious at all times, and especially every time he experiences the feeling that he has accomplished something, that there are further challenges to be met and that he cannot rest on his laurels. He must never consider any spiritual accomplishment of his as having attained his target to become perfect. He must remain aware of his relative inadequacy as long as he has not attained the next rung on the ladder to attaining spiritual perfection. This thought is reflected in the words of Eliyahu as quoted in the Pardess Rimonim of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, that one must be aware of one’s lack of knowledge of G’d, no other detail is important other than that He is the Supreme G’d. The desire to continuously ascend spiritually in order to be able to cleave to the Creator is the principal characteristic of the true servant of G’d.
The author quotes some remarks on this subject that he personally heard from the well known Tzaddik Yechiel Michel. This Tzaddik interpreted psalms 27,4 אחת שאלתי מאת ה' אותה אבקש שבתי בבית ה' כל ימי חיי לחזות בנועם ה' , “one thing I ask of the Lord, only that do I seek; to live in the house of the Lord and to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord, (constantly) etc.” In this psalm David does not aspire to something static, a goal achieved in order to derive the satisfaction of having scaled these spiritual heights. By emphasizing אותה אבקש in the future mode, instead of אותה אני מבקש in the present mode, the petitioner (David) expresses his awareness that there will always be further spiritual heights that beckon to him to be scaled. He expresses confidence that G’d will assist him further in pursuing this path.
This is also what he alludes to in psalm 118,19 when he exclaims: פתחו לי שערי צדק אבוא בם אודה י-ה, “open the gates of the attribute of loving kindness for me, so that when entering there I can thank G’d.” David always views himself as facing more closed doors, and he begs to be admitted to gaze upon what is behind these doors. The very fact that he faces closed doors is the most potent reminder to him that he has not yet attained the end of his quest of being as near to the Lord as it is possible for mortal human beings to be. This is why in the verse immediately following he says: זה השער לה' צדיקים יבואו בו, “this is the gateway to the Lord, the righteous are permitted to enter it.” His words are not addressed to G’d, but are a message to his fellow Jews that he who remains aware that there are always further gates on the way to the Lord, gates that will open when they steadfastly pursue their goal, they will find that these gates will open themselves to their quest. By speaking of צדיקים in both verses, he defines who such “righteous” are, i.e. the ones who do not rest on their spiritual laurels, but remain aware of their continuing relative inadequacies. [The words שערי צדק in verse 18 must therefore be translated as “the gates for the righteous” when using this interpretation. Ed.]
Keeping this interpretation in mind, we can better understand what G’d meant when He told Moses to introduce himself to his people –after a 60 year absence- as coming at the behest of the G’d who is defined by the constant future, i.e. אהיה אשר אהיה. G’d tries to explain to Moses here by a hint, what He will explain to him in chapter 6 verse 1, when He tells him that עתה תראה “you will see ‘now’” i.e. only the immediate developments, implying that Moses will not live to see the fulfillment of the אהיה part, the future developments which will retroactively justify the past that he had been unable to understand. [I have paraphrased some of the author’s words. Ed.]
In light of the foregoing it is appropriate to explain the words in Song of Songs 1,3 (page 297) in accordance with the words of the Baal Shem Tov of sainted memory. He first explains psalms 48,15 הוא ינהגנו על מות, “He will lead us beyond mortality,” by using a parable. A father teaches a very young son how to walk two or three steps at a time. When the little boy has walked a few steps toward his father, his father distances himself from him a little farther in order to encourage his son to “walk the extra mile.” The father repeats this maneuver every time his son is about to catch up with him. G’d encourages us to “catch up with Him” in a similar fashion, by appearing to be more and more out of our reach. The message we (the tzaddikim) are to receive from this maneuver is that we have not yet attained perfection. This is what David meant when he said הוא ינהגנו על מות, “in order for G’d to lead us into immortality.” He has to encourage us to “catch up with Him,” step by step.
[You the reader, may have noticed that the word: עלמות contains the same letters in the same sequence as the two words על מות in psalms 48,15. Ed.]
To get back to Song of Songs 1,3 לריח שמניך טובים, “for your oils are good as fragrance;” the Hebrew word שמן, oil, is used allegorically to describe a person’s good deeds. When Solomon in Kohelet 9,8 warns that ושמן על ראשך אל יחסר, “may your head never lack oil (ointment),” he does not refer to perfumed oils, but to the fragrance emanating from a person who has many good deeds to his credit. Under what circumstances are such fragrances compared to שמן תורק שמך, “Your name being poured forth like oil?,” when the tzaddik has the feeling again and again after having scaled a rung on the ladder of spiritual ascent, that he is empty and needs to replenish spiritual energies possession of which would bring him closer to perfection. When this is what the tzaddik worries about constantly, his head gives forth the fragrance of the oils mentioned by Solomon in Song of Songs.
Exodus 3:14 let us spend a minute on the principal Name of the Creator which is the name הויה, better known to us as י-ה-ו-ה (same letters rearranged). One of the remarkable features about this “Name” is that when you multiply any one of its letters by itself, you will find that that letter remains constant. You will always find that the last letter in the resulting sum (when written in Hebrew letters) remains the same, something you do not find when you do this with any letter in the א-ב that is not part of the letters used in the Holy Name of G’d. If you were to multiply a word ending with the letter ב or any other letter, by itself, the last letter in the sum resulting would not be the same as the original letter (number). When you multiply the letter ב by itself the result is a different letter, i.e. .ד. When you multiply the letter ג by itself, i.e. 3 times 3, the result is the letter ט. When you multiply the letter (number) ד by itself the result being 16, the Hebrew equivalent is יו. The only letters that remains constant when you perform the same exercise are the letters in the Holy Name of G’d, which when multiplied by themselves result by ending with the identical letter. When you multiply 5 by 5 the result (25) is כה If you were to continue this experiment by now multiplying כה by itself, i.e. 25 times 25, the result is 625, or תרכה. If you were to do something similar with the letter (number) 6 (ו) you would get is 36, i.e. לו in the Hebrew equivalent. [The reader may continue to prove the accuracy of this using his calculator. Ed.].
We can now explain precisely what it was that G’d revealed by telling Moses to employ His “name” אהיה. G’d simply alerted Moses to the fact that by demonstrating to the Jewish people the experiment that we just outlined, that this was proof that Hashem does not change, He is not a chameleon that adjusts its colours to what circumstances appear to demand, but expects “time” to adjust to His objectives in due course. We need to understand also why G’d repeated His name, i.e. twice “אהיה” in the message Moses was to take to the people.
[The reader may have noticed that the letter י in G’d’s name presents a difficulty in the scenario the author has presented as we have to rely on the Arabic system of only 10 digits, the digit “0” being one we do not know when using Hebrew letters as numbers. We must remember that that letter when used in that system is a two digit number. We must also remember that in the abbreviated form of G’d’s name available to us in exile, only the letters ה and י appear. The letter ה alludes to G’d as the Creator of earth, whereas the letter י alludes to G’d in His capacity of the Creator of the heavenly spheres. Both of these letters have no “partner” i.e. 8+2, 7+3, 6+4, 9+1. This fact by itself points at the uniqueness of G’d, Who needs no partner. Ed.]
We know that when the Creator sends some unpleasant phenomena to discipline His people, these phenomena must not be viewed as an end in themselves, but that the objective of such phenomena is that they will eventually be seen to have been for the ultimate benefit of the “victims.” When we look at nature we will understand this very easily. A fruit-bearing tree does not grow a fruit before it protects it by a skin, rind, or whatever protective device, but it grows this protective shell before the fruit within it begins its development. Calling G’d by the name אהיה, is itself a reminder to whoever pronounces it, that G’d will continue for an indefinite length of time, as opposed to the subject who utters this name. In periods when G’d is about to send unpleasant phenomena that will make life more difficult for His people, it is appropriate that they will remember this by referring to Him as eternal, in order to reassure themselves that He has not forgotten them, nor has He lost His power, but that in due course their fortunes will improve.
On the other hand, when G’d is about to set in motion phenomena that are manifestly welcomed by all members of His people, He will be called by His שם הויה. In G’d’s relations with the nations of the world He first showers them with all manner of welcome blessings; these blessings, however, are not of unlimited duration but are very finite, so that when the time for retribution for their sins has arrived, He will appear to them as אהיה, indicating that their new situation will not be subject to reversal. While they enjoyed His blessings, they could refer to Him as שם הויה, signifying the temporary nature of these blessings. Seeing that at this stage, the period of His people’s distress was about to come to an end, He made plain by emphasizing the word אהיה twice, that the reversal of their fate through redemption would not be temporary but was intended to be an enduring freedom.
A different approach to the verses commencing with אהיה אשר אהיה. What follows is based on the common perception that the name of G’d (tetragram) known as הויה, refers to His activity in the present, whereas the name אהיה suggests G’d’s being active in the future, as we know from Sotah 14 where the Talmud quotes Deuteronomy 3,25 in which Moses pleads to be allowed to cross the Jordan before his death. The Talmud there examines what prompted Moses to be so anxious to cross the Jordan, and concludes that Moses was concerned to perform commandments of the Torah that are only capable of fulfillment when on the soil of the Holy Land.
From this we learn that the Jewish people while in Egypt had acquired only the potential merit of performing these commandments, a merit which could not be fully acquired until after their arrival in the Holy Land. G’d explains this to Moses when He tells him in verse 12 that once He will let Moses take the people out of Egypt, this is preparatory to their serving the Lord i.e. בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדו את האלוקים. He thus links the people’s serving G’d to Moses’ taking them out of Egypt and (presumably) bringing them to the Holy Land where they will be able to claim the credit for fulfilling the Torah. Actually, it had been G’d’s desire to bring the people to the Holy Land in order that they could “cash” His I.O.U. there by performing the commandments. Seeing that the capacity of the Jewish people to understand such lofty ideals was limited by their present sorry condition, G’d first stressed the physical qualities of the land of Israel, comparing it favourably with the land of Egypt which has been described in Genesis as “like a garden planted by G’d.” (Genesis 13,11) By describing the land of Israel as a land flowing with milk and honey, a land in which rain falls regularly, without farmers having to bring water for irrigation to their fields, G’d had to arouse the people’s desire to leave a land which was as excellent for its owners as Egypt.
[We know that even after the Egyptians had been drowned in the sea the Israelites wanted to return there and take over that land, rather than to march through the desert to a land they did not know. (Compare Exodus 15,22, ויסע משה את ישראל “Moses forced Israel to journey forward.”)] Once the Israelites would reach their destination they would appreciate that life in the land of Israel involved much more than their bodies being “elevated;” their spiritual horizons would be broadened due to their performing the commandments applicable only in that land. This is the reason why in verse 13 in our chapter G’d stresses the fact that the patriarchs had lived in that land, i.e. the fact that they lived in that land had enabled them to become the founding fathers of this holy nation. This is why in connection with the patriarchs we find the name of G’d, i.e. הויה, present tense, whereas in respect to their descendants, at this stage G’d has to speak of His name as something primarily still in the future, אהיה.
Still another approach to the same verse. During the first exile (Egypt), the Israelites saw evidence of G’d’s overwhelming power to save them. In light of our (collective) experience at that time, we are well equipped to retain that faith during any future exiles that have been decreed for us. We have learned that prayer is something that G’d truly desires from His people, so that the Egyptian exile served as a preparation for all future exiles, should they become necessary. Every “preparation”, seeing that it is forward looking, is in the nature of אהיה, i.e. “I will be.” However, when redemption is bound up with the performance of miracles, we realize how impotent we really are, so that only through the gift to us of G’d’s Torah can our self-confidence in our own worth be restored somewhat. This is G’d’s message in repeating with אשר אהיה, after having already said אהיה once.
Exodus 5,22. “Moses said to G’d: ‘what is the purpose of Your having brought harm to this people, etc;?”, ויאמר ה' אל משה עתה תראה כי ביד חזקה וגו' , “G’d said to Moses: ‘now you will see that with a strong hand, etc.’”
We do not only need to understand what Moses meant by adopting what sounds like accusatory attitude vis a vis G’d, but that far from this being the case, he alluded to a very important aspect of Judaism with his wanting to know G’d’s purpose in the details of how He guides the fortunes of the Jewish people. [After the sin of the golden calf, Moses again persists in his desire to be taken into G’d’s confidence. [Compare Exodus Exodus 33,13-16 Ed.]
In our daily prayers in the amidah we pray for Hashem to redeem us, justifying our request by the conviction that it is within His power to do so by saying: כי גואל חזק אתה, “for You are a powerful redeemer.” Why did the sages who formulated this prayer find it necessary to add the adjective חזק, “powerful,” after the word גואל, “Redeemer?” The very idea of G’d “requiring” to resort to התחזקות, “strengthening Himself,” is strange, seeing that we perceive of Him as the personification of “Strength.”
Let us first explain another verse in Exodus 13,2: וידבר ה' אל משה קדש לי כל בכור פטר כל רחם וגו', Hashem said to Moses: ‘sanctify unto me every first born male produced by the womb of a Jewish mother, etc.’” In an apparent response to this commandment, the Torah quotes Moses as saying (verse 3) ויאמר משה אל העם זכור את היום הזה אשר יצאתם ממצרים...כי בחוזק יד הוציא ה' אתכם מזה, “Moses said to the people to remember this day when you left Egypt, for Hashem took you out from here using the “strength of His hand.” Moses appears to have departed materially from what G’d had told him to tell the people in His name. Instead of telling the people to sanctify their male firstborns, both of man and beast (in most instances) he tells them to remember the day that they left Egypt!
In explaining this verse we must, of course, assume that Moses told the people what G’d had asked him to tell them. The Torah took it for granted that the reader will understand this. The Torah, however, saw fit to also record some explanatory remarks that Moses made when conveying the law of the sanctity of the firstborn to them. Let us now refer to another verse in our portion (Exodus 3,13) ויאמר משה אל האלוקים הנה אנכי בא וגו', “Moses said to G’d, here when I come to the Children of Israel, etc., (who shall I say has sent me?)” to which G’d replied אהיה אשר אהיה, adding further: ה' אלוקי אבותיכם שלחני אליכם. Surely this would be confusing for the Israelites who were aware that the G’d Who had communicated with the patriarchs was known as הויה and not as אהיה. It appears that the best way to resolve this "confusion" is by reminding the reader that there are two types of redemption. One type of redemption was accompanied by the Israelites receiving the Torah and the good deeds commanded therein, as a result of which the people had become entitled to be redeemed. At that time miracles, i.e. extra terrestrial means, גבורות, were needed to bring about their redemption. When Moses came to Egypt to orchestrate the redemption, the Israelites were very far from such a spiritual level, so that G’d had to resort to other means, known as גבורות, חוזק יד, זרועה נטויה, “heroic deeds, heavy hand, outstretched arm,” in order to accomplish His objective. G’d did not consider the merits that the Jewish people lacked at that time, but He gave them an “advance” on the merits they would acquire as a result of accepting the Torah at Mount Sinai 49 days after the Exodus.
When Moses had enquired what merits the Jews possessed at the time so that they could be entitled to redemption, G’d explained to Moses that they would acquire these merits in the near future, hence He described Himself as the G’d known as: אהיה, i.e. looking toward the future. At this time only G’d can foretell the future, i.e. that this people will accept the Torah at Mount Sinai, the spot that Moses was standing on, and they would accept it enthusiastically. G’d assured Moses that what seemed now like a far off future, would shortly be transformed into a present. There had been a time in the past however, when He had been very much the G’d of the present, i.e. during the lives of the patriarchs. It was because of their past, i.e. their roots, that He was able now to extend credit to them so that He could redeem them before they had really deserved it. The word חזק, although popularly translated as “strong,” is defined as the ability to control powerful urges and not to allow oneself to become overwhelmed by them. In the parlance of the Mishnah in Avot 4,1 איזהו גבור הכובש את יצרו, “who is a true hero? He who controls his biological urges.” When we describe G’d in our prayers as a גואל חזק as a powerful Redeemer, we refer to His suppressing His urges, overcoming His natural reactions by doing something that according to the “Book,” should not be done at that time. Doing something that was supposed to be done does not require ”heroism,” so that anything that involved miracles, supernatural input, must by definition be an expression of “heroism” i.e. חוזק יד. The concept of בעל כרחו, against one’s will, i.e. under “duress,” when applied to G’d is called בעל כרחו. Whenever G’d has redeemed us in the past, He had done so against His will (attribute of Justice) and He has had to invoke the attribute of Mercy after the attribute of Justice had opposed His plan of action. When we described Him as redeeming us למען שמו, “for the sake of His name,” this means that only because of His invoking the attribute of Mercy was G’d able to redeem the Jewish people.
When we appreciate the foregoing, we can better understand what Moses said to the people in Exodus 13,3 "to remember this day, etc,.” It is interesting that the Talmud is in two minds whether the day Moses wanted the people to remember was a day in Nissan or in Tishrey. Moses left open if the redemption in the future would be under the auspices of the attribute of Mercy or under the auspices of the attribute of Justice. If the former, it would have to occur in the month of Nissan, as had the original redemption when it occurred under the auspices of the attribute of Mercy. If it would occur in Tishrey, this would be proof that the people had sufficient merit to be redeemed even in the month in which G’d sits on His throne as King and judges us all. The Talmud in Rosh Hashanah posits that if the redemption does not occur until the last day in G’d’s “timetable,” it will occur under the auspices of the attribute of Mercy in Nissan. If the redemption will occur sooner, i.e. as a result of the people having accumulated the necessary merits, it will occur in Tishrey under the auspices of the attribute of Justice.
When G’d said to Moses in Exodus 13,2 קדש לי כל בכור, “sanctify for me every firstborn, etc.;” He reminded him that as far as the attribute of Justice was concerned every Jewish firstborn required to be sanctified seeing he had just been spared by the attribute of Justice when it killed the Egyptian firstborns. The Jewish firstborns had been redeemed together with the whole people by an act of Mercy. But the firstborns had a special reason to be grateful; therefore they had to be sanctified to G’d. This is why before relating the content of this legislation concerning the holiness of the firstborn, Moses added a preamble reminding them of the date on which this had occurred. The reminder was an oblique reference that their lives had been spared although they had not been worthy of this at the time. He did not want the Jewish firstborn to interpret the fact that they had survived as proof that they had been more deserving than the rest of the people.
Now we can also understand the verse (5,22) in which Moses asked G’d what had been His purpose in allowing the Jewish people to become subjected to more abuse by the Egyptians since he had appeared on the scene so that he could not understand why G’d had sent him to orchestrate their release.
Moses had lived in an atmosphere so different from that of his people, being attached to G’d, whereas his people were mired in the deepest mud of an apparently hopeless purely physical existence, that while he was consumed with fear and awe of G’d, they were forever consumed with fear and awe of Pharaoh. Moses was forever consumed with the knowledge of the greatness of the Creator, observing how all the phenomena in the universe meticulously obeyed the will of their Creator, that he could not understand how the people would fail to believe the words of the Creator to him that He would redeem them from their misery. The gulf between Moses’ and the people’s relations to G’d is best demonstrated in Exodus 19,21 when G’d told Moses to go down from the Mountain and to warn the people once more not to approach too closely to the edge of the Mountain. He had done so already once, and could not imagine that anyone would require a second warning that their lives would be in danger if they disobeyed. He told G’d (verse 23) that the people could not disobey Him seeing that they had been warned already. Similarly, he could not imagine that having told the people in His name that He would forthwith take them out of Egypt that they would not believe the message. Having been challenged by the people with the words: “may G’d judge who of us is more righteous, we who do not believe the tidings or you who insists that in spite of an initial reverse G’d is true and will keep His word,” (Exodus 5,21) he turned to G’d in frustration at the lack of faith by the Jewish people. [not because he did not believe G’d’s promise. Ed.] Moses could simply not understand that there is a human being who could doubt the word of G’d.
When Moses asked G’d a question which sounded as if he himself had developed doubts about the success of his mission, the real thrust of his words was: “why did You, G’d give the people such a strong evil urge that that they do not believe Your promise?” The Talmud, B’rachot 32, using somewhat different words, uses a similar approach in interpreting Moses’ question. In the above cited question, Moses also added that he, personally, could not stand having to watch his people’s misery for another minute, so that he failed to see why G’d had sent him at a time when the people were clearly not ready to be redeemed seeing that they lacked the necessary merit.
...In psalms 92,6 Moses expressed this very clearly (with hindsight) when he said: מה גדלו מעשיך ה' מאד עמקו מחשבותיך איש בער לא ידע וכסיל לא יבין את זאת, ”how great are Your works O Lord, how very subtle Your designs! A brutish man cannot know, a fool cannot understand this.” In this psalm Moses acknowledges that G’d operates on a totally different wavelength from man so that man does not understand that only by doing what He does can He bring about that His designs be fulfilled without His having interfered with man’s freedom of choice.[some of these words are mine. Ed.](Isaiah 55,8 had phrased this differently when he quoted G’d as saying: כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם, “for My thoughts are not like your thoughts.” G’d answered both of Moses’ questions, the second one by hinting that when it would come to the wars preceding capture of the land of Canaan, he would no longer be the people’s leader, as the people by that time would need someone who was closer to their level of understanding than was Moses. In the meantime, Moses would witness how by performing miracles, G’d would orchestrate the redemption of the people by means of the attribute of Mercy, as we have explained, although they were not ready for this through their own merits.
Vaera
Genesis 6,3. Hashem.” We need to understand where and when G’d “appeared” to the patriarchs in His capacity as the G’d of Shaddai. We do not find the word וירא, “Shaddai appeared,” in connection with G’d’s addressing any of the patriarchs. Moreover, why did G’d speak of ידיעה, a form of intimate knowledge, in connection with His communicating with Moses and the Israelites at this time?
We have learned in Sifri, Mattot, 2 that all the prophetic revelations that subsequent prophets experienced were due to the residue of Moses’ prophetic experiences who had preceded them in this. In other words, no prophet was granted a type of vision that had not already been granted to Moses before him. Elaborating on that subject, we read in Yevamot 49, that all the subsequent prophets were only granted blurred visions whereas Moses had been granted clear visions.
It is not possible to absorb “clear” visions of the Creator unless the Creator had first garbed Himself in garments that diffuse the powerful light that emanates from Him. [Prophets of lesser stature than Moses would become too blinded by being exposed to G’d before he had thus screened Himself. Ed.] G’d “garbs” Himself in accordance to whom He dispenses His blessings, the most minimal of these “screens” within which He garbs Himself is known in the language of our sages as מאירה, literally, “illuminating” but in the sense of hiding the minimum possible. It is this “minimal” screen that hid G’d’s essence from Moses when He communicated with him. All the other prophets received their visions as derivatives of the visions which Moses had received. Although Moses himself “dispersed” some of his prophetic powers, [notably when the 70 elders were chosen to assist him, and he “dispersed” some of his holy spirit to them. (Numbers 11,17) Ed.]
Seeing that all the other prophets received their prophetic insights through an intermediary, i.e. Moses, it could not be as powerful as that of Moses who had received it directly from G’d, [but it had not been detached from its source, G’d, but was dependent on Moses’ continued close attachment to its source. Ed.] Prior to Moses no one had as close a relationship, described also as G’d speaking to Moses “mouth to mouth,” i.e. directly, not by means of “visions,” i.e. images seen or nocturnally or at best when the recipient was awake. There had remained a gap between how Avraham had related to G’d and how Moses had related to Him, a gap which G’d here describes as a lower level of communication from Him.
Another aspect of the words: וארא אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב, “I used to appear to Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov, etc.” We find among the writings of the Ari z’al that he does not understand Exodus 34,7 נוצר חסד לאלפים “He extends loving kindness to thousands,” in the generally accepted meaning, but that he understands the word אלפים as attributes of G’d beginning with the letter aleph. These attributes, though all being variations of the attribute Justice, are “sweetened” by G’d through an addition of a dose of חסד, loving kindness.
In order to understand the Ari z’al we refer first to a statement in Sh’mot Rabbah 47,11 according to which Moses acquired the ability to make the skin of his forehead shine, give forth light, (Exodus 34,29) because a drop of ink was left over from his quill when he had completed recording the portion of the Torah in writing. [Difficult to understand as Moses did not write the Torah on Mount Sinai. Ed.]
The author of the Or hachayim;Midrash had in mind when writing that Moses merited this reward from left over ink.
In order to illustrate the difference between a “humble” person spelled with the letter י, and a “humble” person spelled without the letter י, we need to make a few introductory remarks. On the Torah’s imperative for the Jewish people to strive to be “holy,”: (Leviticus 19,2) to be “holy,” i.e. קדושים תהיו כי קדוש אני ה', “be holy for I the Lord am holy,” we could have misunderstood this line to mean that we must strive to be as holy as G’d. Midrash Rabbah Vayikra Rabbah 24,9 therefore writes that the words: כי קדוש אני, “for I am holy,” in that verse are a reminder that only G’d is truly holy. G’d’s holiness transcends anyone else’s holiness. Anyone who endeavours to sincerely sanctify himself discovers that in spite of all the progress he makes in this direction that he is still far removed from his objective, i.e. total holiness. If a person is under the illusion that he is already a worthy servant of the Lord, this is proof that he is still far from having reached his goal, that in fact he has not even begun the journey leading to holiness. Anyone who has begun this journey is painfully aware of how far he still has to travel on that road. This is what the Midrash had in mind when the author wrote, explaining the words: כי קדוש אני ה' אלוקיכם, “for I the Lord your G’d am holy, קדושתי למעלה מקדושתכם, “My holiness is superior to your holiness.” [The author’s version of this Midrash apparently had the word מסתלקת, “is receding,” instead of the word: למעלה “is superior”. Ed.]
Alternatively, this concept, instead of being expressed negatively, may be expressed positively, as we find in Eychah rabbah 11,3 where the author writes that whenever the Jewish people sanctify themselves they thereby strengthen the celestial entourage of the Lord, i.e. they add holiness to His holiness. The Midrash quotes psalms 60,14 in support of this where the psalmist writes באלוקים נעשה חיל, “we will strengthen G’d by acting valiantly.” (Compare likutim on that statement in the Midrash)
This leaves us with the task of explaining the word: כמוני, “just like Me,” attributed to the author of the Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 24,9. In order to understand the subject under discussion, we must remember the terms קץ הימים and קץ הימין The latter refers to a positive phenomenon, i.e. a domain of holiness, whereas the former refers to the negative domain, also known as the sitra achara of the diagram of the 10 emanations, עשר ספירות, the ten stages by which pure spirit was transformed into a physical universe. [If I understand the author correctly, the popular expression קץ הימים, “end of time” or end of our physical universe as we know it, will mean different things for different people. The wicked will die and face a void, no afterlife, whereas the just will experience that their souls will continue a “timeless” existence in the celestial, purely spiritual spheres.Ed.]
Our task while on earth remains serving the Lord with deeds, charity, etc., as well as through prayer and the study of the Torah. While we do this, G’d rises higher and higher above the reach of any of the אותיות, the letters of the Torah which form a link between the physical and the spiritual domains of the universe. In the region known in Kabbalah as the עולם האותיות, the world of the letters, the letter י is perceived as the one closest to the world of pure spirituality, but even the topmost tip of that letter does not penetrate that domain as we know from the Zohar. (Compare Sullam on Yaakov’s dream there) The “distance” between the highest point of the ten emanations and the domain that is purely spiritual may be described as the distance between white and black. Entrance to that domain cannot be achieved except through our good deeds, our prayers and our study of Torah. Only by means of employing all these variants of service of the Lord can our souls hope to enter that lofty domain.
If someone leaves this physical part of the universe and does not have any of the merits acquired through Torah study, prayer, or good deeds, he will not be admitted to the domains higher than the world of the “letters.” Such a person concludes his earthly existence under the aegis of קץ הימים, the end of time, as decreed for this physical world since G’d had created that part of the universe.
Optimal service of the Lord involves that the “servant” divests himself of all external influences that may distract him, i.e. from all earthly concerns. It is this that the Torah has in mind when calling upon us with the invitation/directive קדושים תהיו “try and become holy.” It is an invitation to shed our personal concerns and to concentrate exclusively on what may best be described as “G’d’s concerns.” When the Midrash adds the word: כמוני “such as I,” it does not suggest that we become like G’d, but that we emulate His non concern with considerations that are essential for successful life on earth.
An additional meaning of the call to be or become קדושים is the need to free one’s consciousness from earthly concerns to the extent that even the tip of the letter י should no longer shackle our consciousness to our earthly concerns. Our preoccupation should consist exclusively of prayer, good deeds, and study of Torah.
This brings us to the difference between the two spellings of the word: ענו and עניו though they both mean “humble.” According to the ארי ז'ל, the letter י, i.e. the first letter in the tetragram, G’d’s four-lettered name, symbolizes the ability to “see” something in it true dimensions. Accordingly, when the word ענו, the “humble One,” i.e. G’d, is spelled without the letter י which alludes to the most humble being, G’d, a mortal human being on that level cannot attain his craving to become G’d-like in terms of holiness.
[I recommend to the reader to acquire a book called “wisdom in the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet” by Rabbi Michael L. Munk, published by Art Scroll, which should be part of the library of any Torah observant Jew. Ed.]
Seeing that when ענו is spelled without the letter י it represents a low level of spiritual accomplishment, Moses wrote it in this way so as not to be accused of having concurred with the compliment to his person that spelling it with the letter י would have entailed.
This also brings us to the Divine attribute (Exodus 34,7) of נוצר חסד לאלפים, commonly understood to mean “extending kindness to thousands of generations.” This attribute is perceived as part of the celestial regions above the world of the אותיות, the domain of the physical universe. In that domain there reign exclusively the “virtues” טוב and חסד, “goodness and kindness,” and there is no room in that domain for the attribute of דין, “Justice.” The attribute of Justice is present only in the parts of the physical universe beginning with the topmost tip of the letter י, and from there “downwards.” As soon as we speak about a domain in which Justice plays a role, there is a need to “sweeten” the application of that attribute by “delegating” to that domain some aspects of the attributes that rule exclusively in the spiritual regions above the topmost of the world of the אותיות, the domain of the “letters.” By allowing attributes such as טוב and חסד to infiltrate these lower regions of the universe, the Creator demonstrates His preference for these attributes, or, in the words of Michah 7,18, כי חפץ חסד הוא, “for He is fond of loving kindness.”
The word הוא, “He,” at the end of that verse, is not really necessary for understanding the words of prophet; it is inserted as an allusion to the regions beyond the realm of the אותיות, a region normally concealed from us mortals. The “silent” letter א in the word הוא is our hint from the Creator Who dwells in those regions not accessible to mortal human beings. The word הוא forms the boundary between the lower and the upper regions of these two parts of the universe.
[Before continuing, it is important for the reader to remember that of all the sensory perceptions at our disposal, the eyes, i.e. “seeing,” are considered by the Torah as the most reliable, and therefore testimony given at court must always be based on what has been witnessed by one’s eyes. Ed.]
We need to appreciate also that there are two ways of examining what one has seen, i.e. ראיה. One is merely a category of visually perceiving the outline and colour of the object “seen,” whereas the other includes the person seeing being able to understand the deeper meaning of what his eyes have “seen.,” examining its essence, something known as ידיעה, “knowing”, understanding. This latter category of visual perception is known as בחינת אותיות, examining the “letters,” i.e. the structure of what the image consists of. When Adam had marital relations with his wife Chavah for the first time, (Genesis 4,25), the Torah describes the experience with the words: וידע אדם את אשתו, “Adam gained intimate knowledge of the essence of his wife.” Whereas “seeing” implies that one perceives from the “outside,” ידיעה, understanding the essence of something, implies a much more intimate connection to the matter which is the subject of one’s knowledge. This kind of intimate knowledge is possible only in domains that are completely spiritual, disembodied, i.e. beyond the world of the אותיות, “letters.” True “knowledge” (in the sense of identifying with the essence of the subject or object), presupposes negating any personal, ego-oriented relation to it. This also accounts for prophets appearing to act as if they had taken leave of their senses while they were receiving messages from the transcendental domains. As a result of these transcendental messages these prophets could feel greatly distressed when receiving messages concerning the gentile nations, as these messages originated in a domain that knows only “goodness,” (as we explained) so that the prophet would assume that what would be “good” for the gentiles in the long run would also be good for them in the immediate future, and therefore harmful for the people of Israel. This is one of the limitations every prophet labours under, as G’d explained to Moses in Exodus 33,20, כי לא יראני האדם וחי, i.e. that as long as the prophet’s soul is still within his mortal body, he cannot “see” i.e. completely understand what G’d is doing.
The difference between these two levels of “seeing,” is also the difference between כלל ופרט, “a general principle and its application to a specific situation.” [The 13 methods of exegesis of the Torah composed by Rabbi Yishmael, by means of which texts in the written Torah can be understood as halachically accepted. Ed.]
Our author explains this as the difference between “category 10 and not 11,” (Mishnah 4) a term used in the Sefer Yetzirah, the oldest kabbalistic text.
When G’d tells Moses in Exodus 6,3 “I appeared to Avraham,” He means that the patriarchs were not privy to the “second” level of ראיה “seeing=understanding,” only to the level of revelations originating in a domain in which Justice, דין is at home. This level is defined by G’d as ב-אל שדי, the power known as the “G’d Shaddai.” This name of G’d is widely known in many parts of the physical universe, and is an allusion to the G’d, Who, at the end of the sixth day of creation said: די, “enough,” before He sanctified the seventh day, the Sabbath. G’d added explicitly, that He had not revealed His name “Hashem” to the patriarchs, i.e. ושמי ה' לא נודעתי להם. The precise meaning of the word נודעתי is “I became revealed on the level of man gaining intimate knowledge of Me,” the dimension of Me that is manifest only in the regions “above” the world of אותיות, “letters.” In that region, as we have explained already there is no דין, attribute of Justice,” but only חסד the attribute of love, kindness. G’d implies that it was impossible for Him to reveal this aspect of Himself to the patriarchs as long as He had not proven its existence through His having redeemed the Israelites from their miserable fate.
This is also the reason why G’d did not say to Moses: לא הודעתי להם, “I have not made known to them,” (active mode), but He said לא נודעתי להם I have not become known to them, (passive mode). חסד, loving kindness, must be experienced by the recipient passively; doling it out when the recipient is not aware of it, i.e. something whose seed will take time to blossom and eventually ripen, cannot be defined at the outset in terms of its ultimate manifestation. This dimension if and when it manifests itself, does not require intervention by G’d in the affairs of men through miracles, but is a natural development, easily recognized by those who are privileged to experience it. [Some of the words in this paragraph are mine. Ed.]
Exodus 6,7. “I will acquire you to be My people,….and you will know that I am Hashem.” (The Merciful One) The new revelation to Moses here is that whereas other nations cannot grasp the concept of Hashem with their brains at all, the Jewish people have been granted this dimension of perception of Hashem. The tool which enables us to have such insight is the Torah and the commandments contained in it which G’d has given to us as a gift. This “gift” is spelled out in verse 8. As a result of making proper use of these gifts we, the Jewish people, have a better understanding of the Shechinah, and what this term implies.
Exodus 6,8.“I will bring you to the land that I have sworn, etc.;” this line can best be explained by means of a parable. If it is someone’s nature to be a “do-gooder,” and to do so indiscriminately even for people who detest him and obstruct him, such a person will certainly be expected to dispense his generosity to those who are his friends and supporters. On the other hand, if that “do-gooder” is known to restrict his generosity to people who are his friends and have not harmed him in any way, he will not be expected to support those who actively obstruct him at every opportunity.
Our sages (on Numbers 6,23 where the priests are commanded to bless the people), used this parable when commenting on the word להם, “to them,” i.e. that the priests are not to include the gentiles in their blessings. [Having already said that they should bless the Children of Israel, the extra words אמור להם would otherwise appear to have been superfluous. Ed.] When G’d tells Moses in our verse here: אל הארץ אשר נשאתי את ידי לתת להם לאברהם וגו', “to the land that I have sworn to give to Avraham, etc.;” He had to explain that although up to now this land had enjoyed G’d’s generosity as the people on it had found it a good land to dwell in, from now on, this land would be “good” only for the Jewish people. The term: “Jewish people,” presupposes that these Jews keep the commandments they will undertake to observe at Mount Sinai, less than a year later.
A different way of understanding G’d’s oath to give the land of the Canaanites to His people, the Jewish people: The author again turns to a parable to illustrate his point. We must analyze the expression נשאתי את ידי, “I raised My hand (in an oath).” A prince was engaged in a war against the enemies of his father, the King’s kingdom. When the prince was victorious there was great joy in the King’s palace. As a result of the great joy, the King, who was normally not overly generous, now displayed great generosity to everyone who turned to him with a request. Suddenly, while all these festivities were in progress, an enemy of the king’s son shows up with a request to his father, the king. The king is now faced with a dilemma. If the king ignores the root cause of the joy and the festivities he may G’d forbid also fulfill a request of his son’s arch enemy; on the other hand, if the king keeps the source of all the festivities in mind, i.e. his son’s victory in a life and death struggle, i.e. that his son had just vanquished this arch enemy of his, he will most certainly not pay any heed to the request made by his son’s enemy.It is written in Song of Songs 6,3 אני לדודי ודודי לי, “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine;” in other words: “my beloved yearns for me.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 1,4 one of the 6 things that G’d contemplated before beginning to create the universe was the concept of a Jewish people and all that this entails. When the Jewish people perform His wishes He takes great delight in this. The joy G’d experiences when the Jewish people live up to His expectations results in His feeling justified in having created the universe, i.e. all the various universes. He therefore dispenses some of His largesse to all other parts of the universe also. In order to dispense some of His largesse to the gentile nations He limits the outpourings of His largesse to the Jewish people. When the sinful creatures in the universe take note of G’d’s being so generous, they line up, so that they too will become beneficiaries of G’d’s “good mood.” At such a time G’d reminds Himself that originally He had only created the universe on account of wishing to see His “dream” of a Jewish nation performing all its tasks being realized. As soon as He reminds Himself of this, He will turn off the “taps” i.e. the attribute of largesse that had been allowed to flow to the gentile nations also, and will concentrate all of His largesse on the Jewish people.
The “attribute” dispensing this “largesse” is known as יד, “hand;” the reason for this is that in our terrestrial world largesse is “handed” out. This explains why G’d used the expression ידי, “My hand,” when referring to His oath to “hand over” the land of Canaan to Avraham’s descendants.
This is also the meaning of G’d’s saying in Deuteronomy 32,40 כי אשא אל שמים ידי ואמרתי חי אנכי לעולם, ”for lo I raise My hand to the heavens and say: ‘as I live forever,’ etc.;” G’d’s original concept of a Jewish people populating earth, before the universe was even created, is referred to in this verse as חי אנכי לעולם, an attribute of חירות “unlimited freedom.,” and the purpose of raising His hand to the heavens is in order to activate the attribute of largesse, שפע which is dispensed by means of the attribute יד in this case ידי, “My hand.” We must remember that the attribute from which G’d’s largesse emanates is neither the one called חי nor the one called חירות, as “life” [in the sense of what is needed to support life, Ed.] תלויה לה מנגד is hanging constantly in balance, so that when deserving G’d’s largesse for such people will insure that they remain alive, whereas if lacking basic merits, none of G’d’s largesse will reach them so that they will die.
This idea is expressed when G’d says והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ, “I will bring you to the land, etc.” When G’d adds לתת לכם מורשה, He hints that when the Jewish people are deserving His largesse will be limited to this people. This is also the mystical element in the blessings given by the priests who raise their hands while pronouncing these blessings. They draw attention to the attribute from which the largesse emanates, i.e. the attribute of יד. The priests do not pronounce blessings applicable universally, but they commence with asking G’d to grant the blessings about to be pronounced exclusively to the Jewish people, i.e. יברכך, “may He bless you.”
Exodus 6,13., “He commanded them to the Children of Israel and to Pharaoh the King of Egypt, etc.” The reason why Moses’ and Aaron’s mission here is portrayed as a “dual” mission, i.e. to the Children of Israel and to Pharaoh the King of Egypt, is that there are two types of צדיקים righteous people each of whom try to guide the people by remonstrating with them to follow in the ways of the Lord. The first type of צדיק relies primarily on his eloquence in delivering inspiring words to the people. He does not need to give reasons for the need to keep the laws of the Torah. In this tzaddik’s opinion, telling the people which is the right path to pursue in serving G’d is sufficient to achieve the desired result. The second category of tzaddik is not so confident of his eloquence, and endeavors to demonstrate why the way of the Torah is the only way to serve the Lord. In our verse above we find both of these types of tzaddikim addressed by G’d, when the Torah commands the eloquent messenger of G’d Aaron, to deliver his rousing speeches, and Moses, the messenger suffering from a speech defect, to do what he knew how to do best, to prove to the people why it was in their interest to listen to G’d’s commandments as conveyed by him. Both Aaron and Moses were intent on convincing the people that the all-powerful and totally self sufficient G’d nonetheless enjoys the prayers of the Jewish people and responds to their service positively. They were to explain that it was these prayers that opened the gates of G’d’s treasure chambers that contained the material blessing needed for successful life in the lower regions of the universe.
Exodus 6,25. “the same Aaron and Moses to whom G’d had said: ‘take out the Children of Israel from Egypt.’” In verse 27 the Torah repeats the same once more, listing Moses’ name ahead of that of Aaron. Rashi, basing himself on the Mechilta, comments that the Torah makes a point of alternating the order in which it refers to Moses and Aaron, in order to demonstrate that in G’d’s eyes they were both of equal stature.
Since G’d addresses Moses alone, as we know from verse 29, וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור, “Hashem spoke to Moses, to say, etc;” we would have deduced that Moses was of greater stature than his older brother Aaron. In order for us not to arrive at the conclusion that Moses was considered superior, the Torah mentioned the name of Aaron first in verse 27. In other words, the message of the Torah to us is this: although G’d reserved His words for Moses’ ears alone, this does not mean that in G’d’s eyes Moses was superior to Aaron.
When we will be reading about the many audiences Moses had with Pharaoh, we will note that invariably it was Aaron who conveyed G’d’s words to Pharaoh. This was because Moses had complained to G’d of his speech defect that in his opinion rendered him unfit to speak to Pharaoh in public. [In 7,15 when G’d sends Moses to speak Pharaoh privately, warning him of the plague of blood, it was not an insult for Pharaoh to be addressed by a messenger who had a speech defect. Ed.] In order to make the point clear that Aaron was to be Moses’ mouthpiece, the Torah writes in 4,16 that Aaron would be the person delivering G’d’s messages to Pharaoh, but that he would do so in his capacity as Moses’ “prophet.” Seeing that the Torah used the expression אהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך, “your brother Aaron will serve as your prophet,” there was still room for thinking that Aaron was superior to Moses; in order to make quite clear that this was not the case, the Torah had to write הם המדברים אל פרעה “they were the ones who spoke to Pharaoh, etc.” (verse 27)
Another approach to the last paragraph. it is the duty of every Jew to serve his Creator at all times from feelings of awe and fear and to look at fellow Jews with a benevolent attitude, interpreting actions that appear inappropriate in a favourable light, and not to harm any fellow Jew; the first step in serving G’d is always based on fear, awe. Man’s awe when serving G’d results in a mixture of awe and satisfaction, pleasure. Moses had attained this level of possessing wisdom while at the same time remaining in awe of the Creator, as we know from psalms 111,10 ראשית חכמה יראת ה', “all wisdom has its beginning in a feeling of awe and respect of G’d,” and is therefore symbolic of יראה, while Aaron’s name contains the letters נהר א, i.e. the letter אלף of the word יראה, and the letters spelling “water” in the sense of a blissful stream, providing irrigation, the first such water that we find in Genesis 2,10 i.e. ונהר יוצא מעדן, “and a river originated from Eden, and irrigated, etc.” Awe and fear lead to satisfaction תענוג. Seeing that the term יראה, awe, cannot be an attribute of the Creator, and תענוג, the feeling of pleasurable satisfaction preceded the dispensation by G’d of His largesse to Israel, (the process being comparable to what our sages meant when they said that “the cow is more intent of nursing the calf than the calf is consciously looking for its mother’s milk,”) when it comes to the results of Moses and Aaron intervening in the process of preparing Pharaoh to release the Israelites, Moses is mentioned first when the Torah writes: הם המדברים אל פרעה מלך מצרים להוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים, “they were the ones speaking to Pharaoh to permit the Children of Israel to leave Egypt.”[By mentioning Aaron last, the Torah associated him with the execution directly; he was mentioned immediately before the word להוציא, “to release,” i.e. the type of largesse about to be dispensed by G’d to the Jewish people. Ed.].
I have heard in the name of my revered teacher Rabbi Dov Baer from Mezerich that he explained Proverbs 10,1 בן חכם משמח אב, “a wise son brings joy to his father,” as Solomon paraphrasing the relationship between Jews loyal to Torah and their Father in heaven. When a Jew serves his Father in heaven he causes Him satisfaction and joy. Similarly, when someone makes complimentary remarks about fellow Jews, G’d also derives pleasure from such compliments. We are not to serve G’d for selfish reasons at all, such as the reward we have been promised for doing this. We must strive to provide G’d with satisfaction from our service to Him. This is so although there are a few benedictions in the 19 benedictions of the amidah, the central prayer, in which we ask for something for ourselves, such as intelligence to serve G’d properly, the ability to repent our sins, and a cure for our diseases. Seeing that G’d derives pleasure from our prayers, even these benedictions in which we turn to Him for help, also give Him pleasure. G’d derives pleasure from the very fact that we, His people, enjoy our existence on earth. This is what the sages had in mind when they responded to the question (Bereshit Rabbah 3,4) ,מהיכן נבראת האורה “from where did the light in which G’d garbed Himself originate?” The word for “light” in that Midrash is אורה as opposed to אור, the light G’d had created on the first day (Genesis 1,3) [There the word for “light” was in the masculine mode, whereas in the Midrash it is in the feminine mode, reminding us that it was something passive, received. Ed.] The answer given by Rabbi Shmuel ben Nachman in that Midrash is that it originates from the site on which the Holy Temple was built. The Talmud, pursuing this subject also asked whence the light originated from.
[I have not been able to authenticate what follows, supposedly in the Talmud. Ed.]
The Talmud wonders whence the light in which G’d drapes Himself originates. Seeing that the word אורה used for “light,” is in the feminine mode it must have been created at some time, having been the recipient of input from another source. Seeing that man needs to serve the Lord for the sake of providing Him with pleasurable satisfaction, תענוג, as opposed to our receiving blessings and material benefits in the earthly part of the universe, the question is logical. The answer given in the Talmud to the question posed is that G’d derives pleasure from man’s service which enables Him to dispense His largesse to man. He even enjoys prayer when it is offered as a means to secure this largesse. The reason He does so is because the very fact that He has reason to dispense this largesse is a source of satisfaction for Him.
Exodus 7,3-4. “but I will harden the heart of Pharaoh, etc.” “Pharaoh will not listen to you.” The Or Hachayim, in his commentary on this line questions why G’d had to repeat this statement in verse 4 when He had already said in verse 3 that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart? In order to answer this problem satisfactorily it is important to examine the plague of frogs. Before decreeing this plague Moses had said to Pharaoh that if he were to refuse to let the Israelites go, G’d would smite his entire country with a plague of frogs which would invade even the most private parts of his bedroom, including the houses of all his servants. (Exodus 26-28) After the plague did strike and Pharaoh asked Moses to bring it to an end, Moses tells him that he will do so at a time of Pharaoh’s choosing, so that he would learn that there is no G’d like the G’d of the Israelites. (8,5) Later on when the wild beasts have been let loose in urban areas, Moses adds that Pharaoh should now learn that G’d’s domain is also the dry land of the earth. (8,18) The reason why two different domains of G’d’s power are mentioned on those two occasions is that two different types of miracles were involved. One basic miracle applying to all the plagues was to demonstrate G’d’s power in His universe; the other miracle was that G’d could, if He wished, dominate man’s willpower so that he would foolishly self destruct in spite of the evidence before his eyes how his obstinacy would lead to his and his people’s ruin.
Exodus 7,9. “if Pharaoh will say to you: ‘identify yourselves by means of a miracle, say to Aaron to take his staff etc.;’” at first glance the word לכם used by Pharaoh here was superfluous as Moses and Aaron did not need to identify themselves to each other. He should simply have said: ‘prove your mission by performing a miracle!’”
The Ari z’al writes that it is a rule that every human being is convinced that his words will make a favourable impression on his Creator, and as a result further G’d’s dispensing of benefits to His people. Because of this belief in the power of speech, every person has to be extremely careful not to abuse this power of speech by talking nonsense, or worse. Pharaoh invited, or challenged Moses and Aaron to say things which would serve as proof that due to their words their G’d of whose existence Pharaoh was well aware, would perform acts that would impress him. When Moses therefore instructed Aaron to take his staff, throw it to the ground and it would turn into a snake, he complied with exactly what Pharaoh had demanded of them. The miracle was the result of Moses’ speaking to Aaron.
Exodus 7,16. “and behold so far you have not listened.” The words: “so far,” appear strange, and sound as if G’d had already performed a number of miracles, whereas in fact He had only brought on one plague, i.e. the waters of the Nile turning into blood. We may be able to understand this turn of phrase when considering a statement by our sages when they compared Moses’ prophecies as characterized by the word זה and that of the other prophets by the word: כה. (Sifri Mattot, 2) On the face of it this statement appears strange as Moses frequently introduced his prophecies with the words: כה אמר ה'.
This apparent contradiction has been dealt with by the Rivash, (Rabbi Yitzchok bar Rabbi Sheshet) in his commentary on Exodus 19, 9 בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עמך וגם בך יאמינו לעולם “in order that the people can hear when I speak with you (Moses( and they will also have complete faith in you forever.” The Rivash writes that there is a difference between what a person sees with his own eyes and between what he knows through use of his intelligence to be the truth. In spite of what his brain tells him is the truth, he still tends to trust his eyes more than he trusts his intellect. This principle also became manifest during the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt, and again during the revelation at Mount Sinai when they received the Torah. In spite of the people having witnessed any number of miracles during the period immediately preceding the Exodus so that their faith in G’d should have become absolute, there was a further need to strengthen their belief at Mount Sinai. In spite of all the miracles that Moses had been instrumental in performing ever since he returned from Midian to Egypt, G’d still found it necessary to make the people hear Him speak to Moses directly, before they would believe in him absolutely. The famous proverb: “seeing is believing,” applied to the Jewish people also.
When someone is convinced of the truth of something on account of miracles he has seen performed by G’d he is referred to as having witnessed on the basis of כה, “thus.” He had not actually seen the truth with his eyes, but had experienced an indirect proof. The word כה implies that the essence is similar to what one had been shown. The word זה, on the other hand, suggests that one had seen the actual essence of something, therefore knowing it to be a truth. In retrospect he will always refer to “this matter which I have seen.” At Mount Sinai Moses had attained the level of spirituality that enabled G’d to speak to him פנים אל פנים, usually translated as “face to face,” i.e. visually, so that the term זה, “this,” for the type of prophecy Moses engaged in became appropriate. When Moses prophesied under the “heading” of כה this had always been before the revelation at Mount Sinai. [The only exception is in Exodus 32,27 when he charged the Levites with the task of executing Israelites who had worshipped the golden calf. This was not a prophetic pronouncement. Ed.]
If Pharaoh had not artificially strengthened his willpower to resist his impulses thus delaying the Exodus by bringing upon himself the Ten Plagues, we would have stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah much sooner so that all the instances in which the Torah had reported Moses as introducing his prophecies with the words: כה אמר ה' would not have been necessary.
In His great mercy, extended to all His creatures, G’d warned Pharaoh to release the Children of Israel immediately in order that He would not have to subject him to the plagues; had He not done this the Jewish people would have stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah much sooner. This is what Moses referred to when he said to Pharaoh: “so far you have not listened to G’d’s warnings.” As a result of his obstinacy he became the victim of prophecies introduced with the word כה.
Exodus 7,23. “Pharaoh turned and went to his palace and did not pay attention even to this.” Our sages, analyzing the word: לזאת, “to this,” cite Leviticus 16,3 where the Torah introduces the Temple service of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, with the words: בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקודש, “equipped with this Aaron is to enter the Sanctuary, etc;” as an allusion to the collective soul of the Jewish people. We must always remember that the universe was created only for the sake, or on account of, the Jewish people (and their destiny on earth). In other words, the word זאת refers to the principal component of something. We find this repeated when Moses blesses the Jewish people for the last time before dying, in Deuteronomy 33,1 when the Torah writes: וזאת הברכה אשר ברך משה וגו', ”and this is the blessing which Moses invoked, etc.” When Moses, on the occasion of the first plague visited upon the Egyptians uses the word זאת, he does so to bring home to Pharaoh the idea that the Jewish people are the principal reason that the universe exists as it does. It was this that Pharaoh refused to believe and that is why he chose to ignore the plague.
Exodus 8,5.Moses said to Pharaoh: ‘you may brag concerning me, ‘for when shall I pray on your behalf, etc;?” ויאמר למחר, ויאמר כדבריך למען תדע כי אין כה' אלוקינו “He said: ‘for tomorrow!” He replied: ‘just as you have said, so that you will know that there is no-one comparable to the Lord our G’d.’” It is worth noting that after the fourth plague, (the third not having been announced beforehand) in announcing the forthcoming plague, (Exodus 8,18) G’d uses the expression: והפלאתי when announcing beforehand that the wild beasts will not invade the land of Goshen, the home of most of the Children of Israel. At that point, Moses adds to his warning: “in order that you will know that there is no-one comparable to Me on the whole Earth.” A similar statement appears before the onset of the plague of hail, (9,14) and prior to Moses leaving the boundaries of the land of Egypt in order to pray to G’d to bring the plague of hail to a conclusion. (Exodus 9,29) Moses adds that his objective is to demonstrate to Pharaoh that the globe is G’d’s property, למען תדע כי לה' הארץ. We need to examine why G’d chose to use different reasons for the onset or removal of the various plagues we quoted.
With G’d’s help we hope to clarify the reasons behind these various nuances that appear so significant that the Torah bothers to list them individually.
The Zohar, in commenting on the verse: אני ראשון ואני אחרון ומבלעדי אין אלוקים, “I am the first and I am the last and apart from Me there is no Divine power,”(Isaiah 44,6) sees in that verse a synopsis of the functions of certain vowels (all three are dots but placed on top, in the middle, or beneath the consonants) If the dot is on top of the letter, as in the חולם, it refers to the ability of the Tzaddikim to cause decrees by the attribute of Justice to be converted to decrees dominated by the attribute of Mercy, the reason being that the concept of the Jewish nation had preceded the concept of creating a physical universe in G’d’s mind. The same dot appearing in the middle of the letter, known as שורוק, alludes to G’d’s intervention in the affairs of man in a covert manner, as He did during the period of Mordechai and Esther. Finally, the dot appearing beneath the letter, known as חיריק, alludes to the period of the wars preceding the arrival of the messiah when G’d will become manifest by His literally “turning the world upside down”, pouring out the wicked, who at that time will finally recognize His might in all its glory. The author derives all of this from the concise comments of the Zohar on the verse we quoted from Isaiah 44,6.
In other words, the three positions of the dot as a vowel are alluded to in G’d’s saying that He is first, last and that there is no deity bar Him. At the time of the coming of the messiah, the “fallen sparks from the Shechinah” which our author has spoken of repeatedly, will be restored o their original lofty status. When Moses, quoting G’d, refers to different levels of recognizing G’d’s power represented by different plagues, a similar point is being made. Pharaoh is to become aware of G’d’s presence filling the entire universe on the ground, in the water and in the air. It was important to teach him that the plagues were not manifestations of different deities but they all were different facets of the same G’d, i.e. the Creator of the universe. He wanted Pharaoh to know that our G’d performs miracles for us in the different spheres of the universe. By not smiting Goshen with an invasion of wild beasts, G’d proved that where and when He wanted he could maintain normal patterns of nature. In other words, although in the rest of the country the beasts’ natural instincts of avoiding human presence and exposing themselves to being hunted down continued unchanged, He could perform a miracle on behalf of His people. This was an example of the “miracle” being garbed in the guise of being a natural occurrence, just as G’d had not performed a single supernatural act when delivering his people from the decree of Haman in the Purim story. The same is true of the pestilence, a plague that struck all the beasts while miraculously leaving the Jewish people untouched. Here too, the miracle performed for the Jewish people was that G’d allowed nature to run its course without interfering with the lifestyle of the beasts owned by the Jews. After the plague of hail when Pharaoh had only acknowledged that he had sinned and that Moses and his G’d were righteous, G’d demonstrated that He is not prejudiced racially against any nation, but that as soon as that nation and its leader acknowledges Him, He will answer their prayer for relief from their plagues. The point that He had made at that time was that since the earth is His, He can treat it as such and dispense His blessings for the gentiles also. He hoped to persuade Pharaoh that the upsets that He had caused to the Egyptian population had only been for the sake of allowing Pharaoh to release His people. Had G’d wanted to, He could have bodily removed the Jewish people from Pharaoh’s grasp by transporting them to Mount Sinai on a flying carpe, but He was concerned with having Pharaoh and his servants acknowledge their impotence in the matter and have them discharge the people by their own volition.
Bo
Exodus 10,1. “G’d said to Moses: ‘come to Pharaoh for I have hardened his heart, etc.;’” It is appropriate to examine why in this case G’d tells Moses to בא אל פרעה, “come to Pharaoh,” whereas elsewhere He told him; לך אל פרעה, ”go to Pharaoh.” Another change in nuance which has caught our attention is that in conjunction with the plague of locusts G’d describes Himself as “I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh.” In order to account for these expressions, we need to remember that there are two classes of miracles. One reason for G’d having to perform miracles is in order to punish those who have been persecuting His people, and to persuade them to refrain from doing that. The second class of miracles is intended to bring about a complete change of heart among those who persecute us, and to encourage them to deal kindly with us instead.
When we examine the Purim story we are struck by the fact that whereas Haman was punished, Achashverosh was not punished, but that G’d caused his heart to undergo a revolutionary change and he became friendly to the Jews. According to Sh’mot Rabbah 9,12, we find an allusion to this in the Torah where we are told that each of the plagues [except the killing of the firstborn, of course, Ed.] lasted for a month of 31 days including one week after the warning which gave the people a chance to repent. The plague of the killing of the firstborn occurred in the middle of the month of Nissan, so that the plague of hail occurred in the first half of the month of Sh’vat, a month before Purim. This is alluded to in the words כי אני הכבדתי את לבו, i.e. that “Achashverosh’s heart had become captive to Me.” According to the Talmud Sotah 11, based on the previous Mishnah, G’d repays sinners in a manner that corresponds to their sins, whereas He rewards people who have done something good in a measure that even exceeds merits earned for the good they have done. If Achasheverosh had been dealing kindly with the Jewish people, then G’d, as an act of compensation would also cause his ministers and servants to display a positive attitude towards the Jews. Since Jews are in the habit of studying the commandments and rules pertaining to the proper observance of the Passover festival for 30 days prior to the festival itself, (Pessachim 6) G’d will compensate them for this generously. If G’d could turn a stubborn King’s heart, He could do so more easily with the hearts of his servants and ministers.
When we consider the words of the Midrash both in Sh’mot Rabba and in the Talmud in Sotah quoted above, we will understand how it is that G’d commanded Moses to “come” to the wicked Pharaoh, i.e. not confrontationally, but as giving him a chance to turn over a new leaf and to redeem himself. If he were to ask how it was possible for a self-confessed sinner like himself to redeem himself, he was to quote to him G’d’s words: כי אני הכבדתי את לב פרעה, “for I, Myself, have made the first move in bringing Pharaoh’s heart closer to Me.”
Another matter that was included in the use of the expression בא instead the word לך on this occasion, is hinted at by the fact that the letters in the word בא which are arranged in the reverse order to the alphabet, a method usually used when the attribute of Justice is about to be invoked. This message has been reinforced when G’d adds the words למען שתי אותותי אלה בקרבו, “in order for me to orchestrate these My miracles within its midst.”
It is also possible that the reference in this verse not only to the heart of Pharaoh but also to the hearts of his servants and ministers as a prologue to G’d displaying His great miracles, is intended to show the reader that Pharaoh’s hardness of heart was what enabled G’d to complete the 10 plagues familiar to us by the acronym דצ'ך עד'ש באח'ב. This is the approach taken by Tanna de bey Eliyahu where it is demonstrated how each of these ten plagues represented a “tit for tat” retribution for specific sins committed by the Egyptians against the Jewish people. [I did not find this paragraph in the Tanna de bey Eliyahu, but the Maha’ral from Prague discusses this at length, as can be found in his commentary on the Haggadah shel Pessach. Ed.]
Going back to our first interpretation of the word בא, G’d may have used the word in order to answer the Egyptians who might have felt that seeing that they were being punished by decrees initiated by Moses rather than G’d, they would use this as an excuse to claim not having been aware that these plagues had been initiated by G’d Himself. G’d documents here that once Pharaoh had rejected the existence of the attribute Hashem, insisting that the only “Jewish” G’d he had heard of was the elokim quoted by Joseph to a former Pharaoh, he had committed a basic sin, so that he had no complaints about any phase of retribution G’d subjected him to after that. When G’d “hardened” Pharaoh’s heart this was part of that retribution, the reason being to enable G’d to complete His timetable for the progress of the redemption of His people.
Once we take this into consideration we can understand a question raised by a member of our congregation regarding a statement in the Talmud Ketuvot 111.
On that folio we find a surprising statement by Rav Yehudah, that G’d had demanded three oaths from the exiled Jews one of which was that they would not return to the land of Israel by force of arms, (not having waited for the arrival of the Messiah) and that anyone doing so violated a positive commandment in his opinion.
Although the countries hosting Jewish exiles are complying with G’d’s will Who has not sent them a redeemer, nonetheless G’d also demanded an oath from the rulers of these host countries not to make the lives of the exiled Jews intolerable. The Talmud uses the expression בהן, “against them,” i.e. against the Jews under their control. According to the questioner this word is superfluous. When you consider what I have written above you will realize that the word בהן in the Talmud is not superfluous at all. The meaning of the word is reflexive, i.e. the gentile rulers of the host countries in which the Jews live are not to make the Jews’ lives difficult for their own benefit, but only to the extent that they fulfill G’d’s will that they remain in exile. As long as the gentile rulers adhere to that oath they will not be punished by G’d for preventing the Jews from returning to their ancestral land.
We have explained this in a parable of the servant of a king who inflicts painful physical punishment on the king’s son out of love for his King. Such a servant of the king experiences pain himself when disciplining the king’s son. The pain he feels himself acts as a restraint against his becoming too cruel when administering the punishment to the king’s son, (who had obviously deserved punishment for his misconduct). בהן The meaning of the word in the Talmud there is the same as when we speak of להם, “for them,” or “for themselves,” when using the word conversationally. We find this word (בהן) used in the sense that we suggested in the Tikkuney Hazohar where the letters in the word בראשית have been rearranged to read: ירא בשת, implying that the gentiles are to maintain a degree of shame when facing Jews, and must not be overeager to become G’d’s helpers in deepening their suffering in exile. Our author, referring the reader to Nachmanides’ commentary on Genesis 13,14 sees in G’d’s promise to Avraham that He will punish the people who have enslaved and tortured his descendant, in due course, a hint that once they overstep the boundary of G’d’s decree by performing persecution of the Jews enthusiastically, they will not only be punished for their excesses but also for keeping the Jews prisoners in their land at all. The experience of the Israelites in Egypt reflected the excesses that reflected that when maltreating the Israelites the last thing that they had in mind was to fulfill G’d’s decree revealed to Avraham in chapter 15 of Genesis.
This is also how we must understand Exodus 3,7 where G’d tells Moses: “I have marked well the plight of My people in Egypt and have heeded their outcry because of their taskmasters, yes, I am mindful of their sufferings.”
At first glance this verse is difficult to comprehend, why did G’d insert the line about “I have heard their complaints about their taskmasters;” this line appears to add little to the Israelites’ basic problem. G’d’s Mercy was activated on account of the basic plight of His people in Egypt, not because of their taskmasters. Moreover, the word ידעתי, “I am aware (now)” is a word that is usually used when something that had up until then been concealed, hidden, had suddenly become revealed, known. When something had been known to all but had been ignored, the word ראיה “seeing,” is the appropriate way of introduce a new attitude to conditions which had been ignored for so long.
Nonetheless, according to what we have said, the fact that G’d “listened” to the outcry of the Israelites is hard to understand seeing that their condition corresponded to something that G’d had already decreed in Genesis 15 when He told Avraham about his future. In order to answer this question, G’d added the words: מפני נוגשיו, “on account of its taskmasters.” Slavery for the Israelites had indeed been decreed, but the inhuman treatment that they experienced at the hands of their taskmasters had not been part of that decree; this enabled G’d to intervene in the Israelites’ fate at that time without going back on His decree. The excesses committed by the Egyptians were not part of their fulfilling a decree that G’d had formulated hundreds of years earlier. G’d was now able to bring upon the Egyptians the ten plagues and to thereby demonstrate to the whole civilised world of that time His power, as attested to by Rahav to the spies sent out 40 years later by Joshua (Joshua 2,9-11) The Egyptians’ behaviour had provided G’d with an opportunity to display His miracles. He could now take pleasure in redeeming His people from slavery to freedom.
Exodus10,2 “and in order that you may tell in the hearing of your son and your grandson, etc.” “how I have made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I have displayed My signs among them., in order that you may know that I am Hashem.” We need to analyse not only the peculiar phraseology in this paragraph but also why G’d addresses the words: וידעתם כי אני ה', “you will know that I am Hashem to the Israelites instead of to the Egyptians, by writing: “:וידעו כי אני ה' “so that they will know that I am Hashem.”
It appears that the gentile nations do not have access to G’d through His regular activities, i.e. nature, but only though supernatural events, miracles within the framework of known natural events which have been upset. The plagues that occurred in Egypt were of that category. Matters that are altogether beyond nature are not accessible to the gentile nations. This explains why the Talmud in Sanhedrin 58 states that when a gentile observes the Sabbath Day as does a Jew, i.e. the day on which G’d rested, and is to be emulated as such, he not only does not earn credits for this, but is guilty of the death penalty as he breached the command to earn his livelihood by the sweat of his brow, (without break). G’d’s message to the Jewish people, in the verses above, is a hint at the different nature of the gentile nations, even at the time when the Sabbath as basic legislation for the Jewish people had not yet been legally formulated. [The reader is reminded of the Midrashim that credit Moses with having secured the Sabbath as a day of rest from labour by Pharaoh, not for religious reasons, but to enable the Jews to perform better work for the Egyptians by recharging their physical batteries on that day.” Ed.]
Exodus 10,21. “stretch out your hand in the direction of the sky and there will be darkness in the land of Egypt; Moses did so, and there was palpable darkness in Egypt, whereas in all the dwellings of the Israelites there was light.” Rashi already concentrates on the meaning of the words וימש חושך, “the darkness was tangible,” we also need to examine why the Torah emphasized that all the dwellings of the Israelites continued to enjoy normal daylight. Why did the Torah not merely write that the Israelites were not struck by darkness?
The phraseology used by the Torah may become clear when we read Sh’mot Rabbah 14,2 where the Midrash examines whence this darkness originated. Rabbi Yehudah there claims that the “darkness” originated in the celestial regions, quoting psalms 18,12 as proof that such a phenomenon exists. The psalmist says there (referring to G’d) ישת חשך סתרו סביבותיו, “He makes darkness be His screen.” We need to understand why the darkness decreed in Egypt had to be of the kind mentioned in psalms. This “darkness” is an allusion to a hidden kind of light. We must now understand the concept underlying this “concealed light.” The Talmud in Shabbat 34 deals with an incident when a great Talmudic scholar killed an outstanding student for having violated a basic rule of not revealing discussions that had occurred within the walls of academy. The method of killing that student is described as “he set his eye upon him and he turned into a heap of bones.”
What precisely does the Talmud mean when it refers to נתן עיניו בו, “He set his eyes on him?” Moreover, in light of Proverbs 17,26 גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב, “also it is not good to punish the righteous,” [meaning that when a judge takes an especially harsh line with a person reputed to be a tzaddik, as he should have served as a model for the community, this, in Solomon’s view is not an appropriate approach. Ed.], how could the teacher of the student in Shabbat 34 have been so harsh
In order to understand all this we must remember that the brightness surrounding the Creator was so overpowering that in order to create a universe in which the creatures could live without dying from exposure to so much light, He had to impose limitations not only on Himself, but also on the brightness surrounding Him. This “light” had to be adjusted in accordance with the ability of the creatures in the universe to tolerate it without coming to harm thereby. Various regions of the universe therefore were provided with light of differing degrees of intensity, tolerable for beasts, inert objects, etc., so that even in the regions populated by angels the light that was the norm there was not of the intensity of the light that had surrounded the Almighty prior to His creating the universe. Different categories of angels lived in different celestial regions, each of which was illuminated in a manner that corresponded to their ability to tolerate that light’s intensity. These angels have not been allowed to glimpse “higher” regions in the celestial spheres than those inhabited by them, so as not to blind them through exposure to overpowering brightness. Similarly, they were not allowed to look into regions that were less brightly illuminated. These details of what goes on in the celestial regions have been referred to in Isaiah’s vision (Isaiah 6,2) where the prophet describes the angels as using two of their six wings to cover their faces with the words: בשתים יכסה פניו ובשתים יכסה רגליו יעופף “and with two he would cover his feet, and with two he would fly.” [Covering his feet, presumably is an allusion to not looking into lower regions beneath his habitat. Ed.] Israelites, as distinct from the angels, due to having been given the Torah and the commandments it contains, are able to use these very commandments as protective “clothing” so that they can be at home in different regions, exposed to different intensities of light.
On the other hand, the wicked people on this earth, i.e. the overwhelming majority of the gentile nations, if and when they become exposed to an intensity of light that they are not accustomed to, will be blinded by it and will die. The Talmud alludes to this when saying that someone “set his eyes on him,” [in that case the teacher, Ed.] as a result of which the person concerned died from overexposure to light of an intensity for which he had not been prepared.
When the Torah, in describing the impact of the plague of darkness on the Egyptians, speaks of וימש חשך the word ימש was used in the sense of ”a removal,” withdrawal, of the protective screen we humans enjoy against overpowering brilliant light. [The word ימש will be familiar to the reader in that sense from Exodus 33,11 where Joshua’s not departing from Moses’ tent is described as יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האוהל, as well as from Joshua 1,8 where Joshua is commanded never to be without a Torah scroll with the words: לא ימיש ספר התורה הזאת מפיך והגית בו יומם ולילה, “this Book of the Torah must not be removed from your lips, but you shall recite from it daily, etc.” Ed.] We can now understand why the Talmud describes the result of the protective screen consisting of his Torah knowledge, etc. being withdrawn from the student mentioned in the Talmud, being that this student turned into a heap of bones, his body having been burned in a flash from the excessive brightness to which he had become exposed. In light of what we have just explained it is also easy to understand why the Torah chose to describe the situation of the Israelites during the period of this plague as being one that enjoyed light in their dwellings. They continued being protected by the screen against excessive light that people who deserve the appellation בני ישראל, “Children of Israel,” are entitled to by their birthright, by being descended from the patriarchs.
These considerations also help us understand a statement in נדרים 8, לעתיד לבא יוציא הקב'ה את חמה מנרתיקה צדיקים מתרפאים בה ורשעים נדונין בה, “in the future (messianic or post messianic times) G’d will take the sun out of is usual orbit, as a result of which the righteous (who are sick) will be healed, whereas the wicked will be judged by this (burned to death)." The word נרתיק in the Talmud there is an allusion to the protective screening against excess light/heat that G’d had provided when He created the universe.
Exodus 11,4. “Moses said: ‘thus has the Lord said, etc.;’” we have to understand why the expression כה was used here to introduce Moses’ prophecy when we had learned that whereas all the other prophets introduced their prophecies with this word, Moses prophesied by using the vision he referred to as זה, “this,” i.e. as a clear vision.
We gain the impression from this preamble to the prophecy of the plague of the death of the firstborn that Moses had not been granted to see this vision as clearly as he had seen other visions, and that he had attained the level of seeing visions described as זה, only at the revelation at Mount Sinai. In Exodus 19,1 we read ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני, “on this day (first of Sivan) they arrived in the desert of Sinai.”
The words of that verse help us understand the formulation of the question in Deuteronomy 6,20, attributed in the Haggadah shel Pessach to the “smart” son, מה העדות והחוקים והמשפטים, “what are the testimonies, the statutes and the social laws, etc.?” The Torah there should have written: על מה, i.e.” why were these laws given,” not “what are these laws”, seeing that the questioner had demonstrated that he was familiar with these laws already!
Looking at this verse purely from the p’shat,, the “smart” son appears to enquire for the reasons underlying these various types of commandments in the Torah. He does not address the commandments themselves. Seeing that this is so, he should have asked: על מה, “why or what for”, did G’d command these different observances? Not only do we find the formulation of the questions difficult to understand, but, at least in the Haggadah shel Pessach, [as opposed to the answer given in the written Torah, Ed.] how does the answer of אין מפטירין אחר הפסח אפיקומן, “one must not eat a dessert after having consumed the meat of the Passover offering,” answer the question?
The proper answer to the smart son’s question is that G’d took us out of Egypt using all kinds of supernatural miracles in doing so, and that this redemption was not a temporary redemption subject to being reversed, but that it made of the Jewish people a free people, a people never again to become enslaved collectively. Not only did the Egyptians “let us go,” but they tried to “expel” us out of fear that more of their number would die if we stayed on their soil a minute longer. The answer that the author of the Haggadah shel Pessach suggests that the father give to this “smart” son seems to leave out the principal reasons for the legislation by concentrating on something of secondary or even still lesser significance.
In order to understand this we must once more fall back on a concept that we have dealt with repeatedly, i.e. the two different categories of serving G’d. One reason for serving the Lord is that when we experience miracles we realize that there is a Power beyond the laws of nature with which we are all more or less familiar. This power demonstrates through performance of miracles that it is not only independent of the laws of nature, but is able to make the laws of nature do its bidding. It becomes clear to us that instead of “serving” certain phenomena which clearly exert a great deal of influence on our daily lives, we will do much better to serve the Master under whose direction these phenomena, i.e. sun, moon, fire, water etc., perform their duties.
The second category of serving Hashem is based on our recognizing the Creator directly, without our having to arrive at His existence by such detours as reflecting on the limitations of the laws of nature. We recognize that He is the source of everything that exists and can be perceived by any or all of our senses. To someone who is aware that this Creator, because He created the physical universe, is obviously Himself not part of the physical domain, and therefore able to change the order of things at will, it does not seem strange when he sees that the Creator has decided to make changes in the order of things. This type of individual did not acquire the insights he possesses about the Creator because He saw Him perform miracles, but he arrives at this logically, realizing that the Creator is absolutely free from external pressures and having created this universe has voluntarily given up some of His freedom of action in order for His subjects to possess a feeling of self-worth, human dignity.
Going back to the question of the “smart” son. He wishes to know why G’d had to perform all these miracles seeing that even someone like himself is fully convinced of G’d’s stature and supremacy, and so have been his forefathers. In response to this question, the author of the Haggadah shel pessach advises the father of the questioning son to tell him the halachah concerning the need for the eating of the Passover lamb to be the last item on the menu on that evening. The father is to emphasize that the halachah wishes to impress upon us that when recognition of G’d and His power and His relationship to the Jewish people is the result of having experienced G’d’s miracles, such recognition of G’d will endure forever, whereas when it is merely the result of reason, there is no guarantee that at one time or another someone will not be able to “prove” that the belief in G’d, even when attained after sanctifying themselves, is liable to be shaken by arguments to the contrary.
The sages in the Talmud Pessachim 119 phrased it thus: “It is imperative that at the end of the seder we retain the “taste” of the matzah in our mouths when going to bed. [This halachah, of course applies only when we do not have a Passover lamb due to being in exile. Ed.] All these steps of the Passover ritual are necessary in order that we retain these impressions firmly engraved on our consciousness. These impressions are valid for every Jew, whereas the recognition of G’d and all He stands for without the ritual, prompted by one’s mind only, is something reserved for very few elitist Jews only. The importance of remembering G’d’s miracles is also at the root of the commandment that the King must have a Sefer Torah with him at all times, from which he can refresh his memory of all the miracles G’d has performed. This also answers the question why the Torah did not have the “smart” son preface his question with the words: על מה, “what for,” but has him ask מה, ”what,” i.e. what is the intrinsic value of this ritual year after year?
By reliving what our forefathers had experienced at the time of the Exodus, and what had brought them to a level of seeing the greatness of the Creator and His relationship to us by the miracles He performed for us, we hope to prevent these lofty feelings from fading into oblivion. Rabban Gamliel had therefore said that even people who serve G’d on a “higher” level, must perform the three basic mitzvoth on the Seder night by both mouth (words) and deed (eating).
The aforementioned considerations also solve the problem raised in Brachot 9 where the Talmud questions why G’d used the formulation of: דבר נא באזני העם, “please speak in the hearing of the people, etc.” (Exodus 11,2) In that verse G’d appeals to Moses to have the people “borrow” valuables from their Egyptian neighbours, ostensibly to help them worship their G’d in the desert in a festive manner. The Talmud understands the word נא there as a plea, G’d explaining to Moses that it was important that the Israelites leave their land of slavery with riches, as He had promised this to Avraham 430 years earlier, since He did not want Avraham to say to Him that He only fulfilled part of His promise to him. We must ask, that surely G’d is expected to keep all His promises regardless of whether Avraham would complain or not!
Before answering this question we need to preface the answer by referring to the halachah that מעשה נסים אסורים בהנאה, that the direct proceeds of miracles must not be used for mundane personal comfort or profit.” (Taanit 24). [If I understand Rashi there correctly, this is not a direct prohibition, but a call to us to refrain as much as possible to take advantage of proceeds from miracles for mundane purposes. Ed.]
Let us first examine why it was essential for the Israelites to leave Egypt with “loot,” and again after the Egyptians drowned in the sea, to strip them of their belongings? Are not the proceeds of miracles forbidden for mundane use?
The fact is that the prohibition to make mundane use of the proceeds of miracles applies only to people who do not recognize the Creator as G’d unless He identified Himself to them through performing miracles. Seeing that such people put G’d to the trouble to perform these miracles, they are not entitled to use the proceeds for their own comfort or welfare. Sadly, the spiritual immaturity of the Israelites at the time of the ten plagues, or a week later when they were despairing on account of the Egyptian army pursuing them, was such that they did not take the Creator’s status for granted without being constantly reminded of it by His miracles performed on their behalf. It was therefore forbidden for them to make mundane use of the proceeds of these miracles.
We can now understand why G’d had to plead with Moses to ask the people for the “loan” of their precious garments and silver and golden trinkets, as he could not understand why they had to burden themselves with such loot that they could not make use of. G’d therefore had to explain to Moses that in order to fulfill His promise to Avraham, He had to give these instructions, regardless of whether these riches were useful to the recipients. Avraham’s relationship to G’d was most certainly not built on his expecting miracles to convince him that G’d was still looking after him; therefore there was no reason why he should not take advantage of material blessings that had come his way through G’d’s intervention in the laws of nature. If, therefore, the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt largely because of a promise made by G’d to Avraham, everything connected with the Exodus was result of Avraham’s close relationship with G’d, and his descendants were entitled to make mundane use of the loot they took out of Egypt with them. The miracles G’d performed in Egypt, although performed for the Israelites, were orchestrated by G’d only because the people of Israel were direct descendants of the three patriarchs. This also answers the question of the “smart” son מה העדות, “what are the “Testimonies,” the miracles by means of which G’d “legitimizes” Himself. This is how Maimonides defines the word עדות, as “miracles,” as they testify to the presence and power of the invisible G’d [I have not been able to find this in Maimonides, but the Seforno on Deut. 6,20, mentions this aspect of the word. Ed.]
An alternative exegesis on the use of the expression by Moses of the formula: כה אמר ה' כחצי הלילה אני יוצא בתוך מצרים, “thus has said Hashem: ‘at around midnight I shall go forth within Egypt, etc.’” We know that all the prophets with the exception of Moses introduced their prophecies with the introductory word: כה, “thus,” whereas Moses introduced his prophetic announcements with the word: זה, “this.” (Compare Sifri Mattot 2) In this verse too the question arises why Moses did not use the formula involving זה, but used only the formula used by other prophets, i.e. כה?
We will try and explain this by referring to Exodus 6,6: “therefore say to the Children of Israel: ‘I am Hashem, I and I will take you out of Egypt from under the סבלות of Egypt and I will save you from labouring for them; I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments and I will take you to be My people and I will be your G’d.” You will note that the Torah describes the redemption in stages, commencing with the promise to take the people out from the yoke of the Egyptians, מתחת סבלות, “from the yoke, etc.”; and culminating in וגאלתי אתכם בזרע נטויה “orchestrating the redemption with an outstretched arm.” At that point we would have expected the Torah to have written: אני ה' אלוקיכם אשר גאלתי אתכם בזרוע נטויה וגו', “I am the Lord your G’d Who has redeemed you (past tense) with an outstretched arm, etc.;” we also need to understanding precisely what is meant by the word: סבלות.
We must keep in mind that for the Jewish people the Torah and its commandments constitute something from which they derive pleasure and a joy of living; for the gentiles, on the other hand, pleasure and joy of living revolves around the consumption of despicable foods, such as pigs, shellfish, etc. When a gentile or a Jew who had become an apostate converts or does teshuvah, he realizes that he had previously taken a delight in things which are abominations in the eyes of the Lord.
Keeping such considerations in mind, we can understand the comment in the Talmud Beytzah 16 that with the onset of the Sabbath the Jew enjoys the presence within him of an additional “soul.” This additional soul is taken away again at the end of the Sabbath. The Talmud bases itself on the word וינפש in Exodus 31,17, where G’d’s state of mind on the first Sabbath after the six days of creation has been described as וינפש, “He was endowed with a soul.” Since G’d most likely had a “soul” during the six days of creation also, this word must refer to an additional soul. [Rashi (in his commentary there on the Talmud as opposed to his commentary on the Torah) understands the word as the regret experienced at the departure of the additional “soul.” Ed.] It is peculiar that according to the text in the Talmud, the sense of loss felt by the soul on the Sabbath was due to its owner observing rest on the Sabbath, whereas in fact this sense of loss surely was due to the loss of the additional soul at the end of the Sabbath? We must therefore resolve this puzzle by falling back on the Talmud in Shabbat 118 where we are told that if only the Israelites were to observe two consecutive Sabbaths in all its details the messiah would come immediately. In another place we are told if only all Israelites had observed the first Sabbath [in the desert at Marah (Exodus 17,20)] they would have been redeemed at once. In order to reconcile these two statements we must remember that the meaning of the word שבת is not only “to rest,” but it also means “to return, i.e. to repent.” The three root letters תשב when read in this order spell the word “teshuva.” This is a clear allusion that the Sabbath is meant to facilitate repentance. This repentance involves recognition that the objectives pursued during the six working days were in the main the pursuit of transient values as opposed to the enduring values that the Sabbath is to help us pursue by our abstaining from the “rat race” that we are part of during the week. When the Israelite becomes aware of this during the course of the Sabbath, he naturally bemoans the departure of the additional spiritual dimension that he had enjoyed during the Sabbath, the dimension the Talmud calls נשמה יתרה, an additional soul. The Israelite bemoans the fact that he does not enjoy this additional spiritual dimension during the six days he must face at the end of making הבדלה, the ritual signifying the departure of the Sabbath. In light of this, we understand that the Israelites require two Sabbath “days” in order to secure the arrival of the Messiah. The first Sabbath will serve as the day when they will do teshvuvah, after which they will understand the significance of this day for their spiritual well being. The “second” Sabbath will teach them to enjoy the additional spiritual dimension that concentrating on the study of the Torah brings with it. (On the same day).
When the Jewish people left Egypt in great haste, בחפזון, as stated by the Torah, (Deuteronomy 16,3) they were not in the frame of mind to appreciate such lofty concepts, seeing that according to all our sources they had descended to the 49th level of impurity, and if they had descended one more rung they would have been beyond redemption. They had been in a state where they greatly enjoyed the taste of the forbidden, the abominable in G’d’s eyes. Hence G’d said to them: “I am the One Who takes you out from this moral morass,” i.e. the סבלות מצרים. G’d promised that henceforth they would no longer find these abominations enjoyable but would shun them like death. Instead they would learn to enjoy spiritually uplifting experiences such as the study of G’d’s Torah and observance of its commandments. They would find satisfaction in prayer and the fact that G’d listens to their prayers, and responds positively to their good deeds. It is clear therefore that at that junction in their lives Moses had to address them by using the formula כה אמר ה', as they had not yet qualified for the benefits of prophecy from the lofty platform represented by זה, a communication from G’d directly without screen. Once they had ascended to far higher spiritual levels they would indeed be addressed by prophecies that had come to Moses under the heading of זה.
Exodus 12,2. “This month is for you the beginning of the months;” in order to understand the word “for you, i.e. yours,“ it will be well to recall Exodus 31,14 where we read: ושמרתם את השבת כי קדש היא לכם, “you shall observe the Sabbath as it is holy for you.”
We have a rule that G’d complies with the wishes of the righteous, the ones who revere Him. Just as the Israelites desire that G’d will deal with the inhabitants of the various parts of His universe with kindness and mercy, so we, His creatures, are desirous of causing Him joy and satisfaction in all parts of His universe. This is the meaning of the line quoted above, the words קודש היא לכם, “the Holy One is active for your benefit.” [I presume the basis for this exegesis is that the Sabbath, something inactive by definition, and even more inactive seeing that it represents repose, rest, can hardly “do” something for us. In other words, “the sanctity of the Sabbath is due to what G’d does for you.” Ed.]
The same type of exegesis is applicable in our verse above when we consider the wording ראשון הוא לכם. The Talmud Beytzah 17 says that in the benediction dealing with the sanctity of the respective day, i.e. when the new Moon occurs on the Sabbath, both the Sabbath, Israel, and the New Moon must be mentioned. Mention of the Sabbath in this connection sounds strange, as the Sabbath is a fixed part of the calendar and the sages of the High Court have no authority to postpone or advance it.
On the other hand, all matters pertaining to the day on which the New Moon is declared are left to be decided by the Jewish High Court. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 8 states that all the celestial beings, especially those who have part in the judgments dealt with on that day, anxiously await the decision of the Jewish High Court as to which day will be the first day of the new year. The decision of the High Court concerning this is even decisive in the case of the hymen of a three year old girl that had been broken being declared as intact, If through the decision of the High Court a day or a month had been added to the year just about to conclude, so that the piercing of her hymen had occurred before her third birthday. (Compare Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim chapter 6 halachah 8). It is clear from there that the calendar dates are subject to rulings by Israel, i.e. its highest judicial forum. All this is traced back to the verse we have cited, where the Torah describes the time of the first day of the month to be לכם, “to be determined by you.”
The Torah hints that just as G’d is ראשון, first in the universe, so His people, the Israelites have been granted the distinction to be first in another important sphere, the decision of when the new moon is to be declared and sanctified. In this respect, even G’d defers to the decision of the Jewish High Court, waiting with pronouncing judgment on the whole of mankind until the date of that day has been officially confirmed by the Court. By saying: החודש הזה לכם, “this month belongs to you,” G’d gave a present to the Jewish people that bound Him to them forever. Determining when a month commences made the Jewish people sovereign not only for that day but for all the days and months of the year, i.e. לחדשי השנה, “the months of the whole year.”
Another dimension of the verse commencing with the words: החודש הזה לכם. It is an accepted practice in monarchies that when a king wishes to test if his subjects are really loyal to him in spirit as well as in deed, or if they are really willing to serve under his son when he dies, he devises various methods to do so. Similarly, when G’d wishes to examine the loyalty of His creatures, He has set aside the first day of Tishrey to examine the hearts of His subjects on that day. He judges all of mankind based on the outcome of His examination. He does something similar at the beginning of the month of Nissan, when He wishes to determine how His creatures relate to His “son,” i.e. the respective monarchs administering the universe (supposedly) in His name. This is why G’d smote Pharaoh in the month of Nissan, as he had proved to be unfit to govern as His representative. When the Torah writes: החודש הזה לכם, this is the Torah’s way of saying that these examinations of the world’s rulers (crowned heads, etc.) take place because at that time G’d deals with kings or rulers who abuse His people. At that time of year G’d may resort to miracles in order to make known His displeasure with the rulers of the earth.
We wish to explain a statement by the sages in the Talmud Megillah 29. The Talmud there, commenting on Numbers 28,14 זאת עולת חודש בחדשו, “this is the burnt offering of the new Moon on the day of its renewal,” writes: חדש והבא קרבן מתרומה חדשה, ”begin a new cycle of public offerings by using the money contributed by the people for the public offerings for the year that commences on the first day of Nissan.” The Talmud in Shekalim 3,2 has elaborated on this procedure by describing three different boxes for collection of contributions from which offerings are to be bought. The boxes were numbered א, ב, ג. The reason was to enable the clerks to check in which order (according to calendar dates) these donations had been deposited. We also have a disagreement between the Tannaim Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yoshuah in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 10 (scholars during the period when the Mishnah was formulated) whether the world as we know it was created in Tishrey or in Nissan.
We have accepted the principle that G’d’s largesse is dispensed to His creatures not so much because of what they deserve but because the very fact that He created the universe is proof of His positive relationship to His creatures, so that His providing them with necessities and comforts is not tied to their having to earn this. [As distinct from creatures who have forfeited such entitlement, from whom such largesse may be withheld. Ed.]
There is also a “super-largesse” that is channeled by G’d to His people which is due to that people’s spiritual awakening and ascending higher rungs on that ladder. Concerning this “largesse” my revered and sainted father of blessed memory used to say that this “largesse” is known as ציץ, the masculine version of the word ציצית, i.e. in full flower, which usually is found in the feminine mode, referring to the blossom that has not yet flowered. Just as we are familiar with direct light as well as with reflected light, (by a mirror, for instance) so G’d’s largesse may be either direct or a reflection of merits accumulated by His creatures. The letters in the name of the month תשרי [the alphabet read backwards. Ed.] are an allusion of such largesse which reflects the good deeds of the Jewish people. Seeing that during the month of Tishrey most Jews perform more commandments and good deeds than during any other moth of the year, it is appropriate that this will result in a “kickback” from G’d in the shape of additional largesse. (Compare Rosh Hashanah 11 on this point.) In contrast to this month, the month of Nissan, a month that occurs in the spring, אביב, the letters אב in that word proceeding in the normal sequence of the aleph bet, are an allusion that it is too soon for additional largesse in the form of “kickbacks” as in the case of the month of Tishrey.
A third nuance gleaned from the words: החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, ראשון הוא לכם; it is generally agreed that at the time of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, G’d employed His attribute of גבורה, “might,” against the Egyptians while at the same time employing His attribute of חסד, “loving kindness, “ toward the Israelites. This is based on כל בכוריהם הרגת ובכורך גאלת, “While You killed all their firstborn You redeemed Your firstborn.” (quote from the prayer עזרת אבותינו, recited every morning after the kriyat sh’ma. (The phenomenon described here is known to Kabbalists asגבורה שבחסד , “might as a byproduct of kindness.”) The catalyst that triggered G’d to display His might was the loving kindness He felt impelled to show His people. We find that G’d employed two opposing attributes at one and the same time. To the question which of the two attributes G’d gives preference to, the answer is surely: “to the loving kindness,” as we have it on the authority of Micah 7,18 כי חפץ חסד הוא, “for He desires loving kindness.” The expression חפץ חסד הוא, implies that even when G’d is compelled to display the attribute of Justice, another aspect of the term גבורה, He does so only because otherwise His attribute of loving kindness, חסד could not prevail under the existing conditions. By applying the attribute of Justice to the enemies of His people, He can show His people that He deals with them by means of the attribute of loving kindness, חסד. When the Torah speaks in our verse of ראשון הוא לכם, “it is first for you,” G’d informs the Jewish people that as far as they are concerned the “new” element in G’d’s relationship with different parts of mankind is that seeing that they are from now on His people, He will deal with them first and foremost on the basis of the attribute of loving kindness. [The patriarchs did not require this “concession;” in fact Yaakov had volunteered after the dream with the ladder to be henceforth dealt with on the basis of the attribute of justice, and this is why he said “והיה ה' לי לאלוקים, “and Hashem will henceforth be my elokim, Judge." )Genesis 28,21)]
G’d applying the attribute of חסד to the Jewish people in the first instance is reflected in the first verse of the Decalogue, where he introduces Himself with the words: אנכי השם אלוקיך, He is the attribute of Justice only subsequent to being the attribute of Mercy, kindness.
Yet another way of looking at the line: החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים; According to Rashi, Moses found it difficult to know when exactly the precise moment occurs when the moon’s orbit renews itself. G’d therefore showed it to him. We need to examine what exactly was the nature of Moses’ difficulty, i.e. why did it matter to him to know the precise moment when this renewal took place. Moses was interested that the renewal of the moon to its original size and all that this implies should occur during his lifetime. In other words, he wanted the redemption that was about to occur to be the final redemption, not a redemption that would be followed by other exiles. Alas, G’d showed him that this time had not come yet. [This may have been the reason why the word chodesh is spelled without the letterו throughout the Bible except in Esther 3,7 where possibly, it was meant to deceive Haman, Ed.]
Exodus 12,9. “head, legs, and entrails.”We have a rule according to which the various parts of the human body symbolize attributes of G’d in heaven. The legs symbolize the attribute of אמונה, “faithfulness,” a virtue that comprises two “branches.” It describes man’s absolute faith that G’d preceded anything else in the universe, and that it is He Who brought all the various universes into existence.
The second basic act of faith required of every Jew is that he realizes that he is a member of the people whom G’d has chosen as specifically His. Every Israelite must be aware that due to this special status of ours, G’d is desirous to carry out our wishes as expressed in our prayers to Him. These two aspects of the holy covenant between G’d and the Jewish people are symbolized in our bodies by our two legs, the limbs that we stand on.
The torso, גוף, central part of our body, symbolizes תפארת, that each one of us must strive to conduct our lives in a manner that reflects glory on the Creator of the human race. The prophet Isaiah 49,3 referred to this when he said, quoting G’d: ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, “Israel, in you I can glory.”
The two hands symbolize our dual relationship to G’d based on אהבה ויראה, “love and reverence.” The right hand symbolizes love, whereas the left hand (arm), symbolizes the reverence aspect of this relationship.
The two hands symbolize our dual relationship to G’d based on אהבה ויראה, “love and reverence.” The right hand symbolizes love, whereas the left hand (arm), symbolizes the reverence aspect of this relationship.
While the Israelites were in Egypt they had not attained more than the first virtue (attribute) i.e. אמונה, “faith,” as the Torah testifies in Exodus 4,31ויאמן העם, “The people possessed faith.”
We have already explained that the feet (legs) symbolize faith and that is why at the Exodus, (12,37) the Torah describes the Jewish people leaving Egypt by referring to them as כשש מאות אלף רגלי, “approximately 600,000 pairs of feet.” The other virtues that the Israelites did not yet possess at the time of the Exodus, they would acquire at the “foot” of Mount Sinai, seven weeks later, at the time when G’d gave them the Torah. This progress of the Israelites’ spiritual development is hinted at in the details with which the Torah describes the Passover offering. The sequence of the words: ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו, suggests that at that time the virtues other than faith, כרעיו, were still as hidden as are the entrails. When we keep this in mind, we can understand a statement in the Talmud Menachot 65, where the verse וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת, ”you shall count for yourselves starting from the day after the Sabbath,” is understood to refer to the day after the first day of the Passover festival. This contradicts the interpretation of the Sadducees who understood the word השבת in that verse as referring literally to the first Sabbath day during that festival.
Let us also examine the question posed by Rabbi Moshe Alshich, why rainfall did occur on the Sabbath, whereas the manna did not descend on the Sabbath? One of the basic differences between rain and manna is that in connection with rainfall man did not have to involve his brainpower, whereas manna had to measured according to the number of persons in each household. The very amount of manna that descended for each person is described as one “omer” per “head,” regardless of the age or size of the body attached to that head. According to our tradition that the manna would acquire the taste of whatever the person consuming it desired, this too required involvement of the recipient’s thought processes. The absence of manna on the Sabbath therefore relieved each Israelite from the need of concerning himself with mundane matters such as the ones described. No such considerations are necessary in connection with rainfall, so that man was not diverted from spiritually oriented activities regardless of whether rain descended or not. This answers the Alshich’s question.
[It is not clear to me whence the Alshich concludes that rain descended on the Israelites’ camp in the desert. What did they need it for? Ed.]
Let us revert to the first question, why, in spite of the differences between the festival days and the Sabbath, on occasion the Torah nonetheless refers to a festival also as a Sabbath? (Leviticus 23,15) On the original Passover G’d performed so many miracles for the Jewish people, even though they had not qualified for this by their performing the commandments pertaining to festivals, that by referring to Passover also as (merely) מקרא קודש the Torah makes it clear that the term שבת in connection with Passover refers merely to G’d’s initiatives on that day, not to Israel’s.
Alternatively, we may interpret the word שבת in the line וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת, as a description used for the first Day of Passover by the holy Jewish people only, seeing that at the time we were dependent for every aspect of the redemption on the supernatural miracles by G’d on our behalf, exclusively. It is a reminder of the dearth of merits the Jewish people had accumulated at that time. When the Torah in Leviticus 23,15 speaks about וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת, ”you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the first day of the Passover festival, etc.,” this is addressed only to you the Jewish people. G’d, on the other hand, seeing that He had provided so much input into our redemption calls it מקרא קודש, “day designated for spiritual; pursuits,. i.e. a yom tov.
Exodus 12,27. “you will say (answer) ‘it is a Passover offering for the Lord, etc.’” We need to examine why when the Torah has called this festival חג המצות, “the festival of unleavened breads,” we, the people, are in the habit of calling it first and foremost חג הפסח, a name that does not occur in the Torah at all.
In Song of Songs 6,3 we read: אני לדודי ודודי לי, “I alone am my Beloved’s and my Beloved is mine.” In this verse Solomon describes the relationship between the Jewish people and its G’d and vice versa in the most flattering terms. This is demonstrated by the Jewish people in practice every time they put on phylacteries in which the praises of the Almighty are spelled out on parchment. In the Talmud B’rachot 6, we are told that G’d Himself also puts on phylacteries and that the verses contained in His phylacteries contain the praises of His people, the Jewish people. When we keep this in mind we can understand a statement recorded in Tanna de bey Eliyahu that it is a positive commandment to recite the praises of the Jewish people. In other words, G’d enjoys hearing the praises and virtues of His people being mentioned and appreciated.
The Talmud Menachot 36 advises that while wearing the phylacteries one should touch them intermittently. This is in line with the prohibition to turn one’s attention to other matters while wearing the phylacteries. [This explains why nowadays we do not wear the phylacteries except during prayer as it is too easy to violate the commandments surrounding the manner in which we are to conduct ourselves if we were to wear them all day long. Ed.] When the Talmud forbids turning one’s attention away from the phylacteries on one’s head or one’s arm, this is not to be understood literally, but it means that while wearing phylacteries one must either concentrate on the praises of the Lord or the praises of Israel. The praises of the Lord are spelled out in the Torah sections inscribed on parchment inside our phylacteries. The author quotes Rashi on 12,39 where the Torah reports that the unleavened breads of the Israelites actually were baked by the sun while the dough was slung over the women’s shoulders. The people’s faith in the Lord at that time was demonstrated by their not insisting that they wait in Egypt while their dough would bake into bread so that they would have something to eat while on the way. The term חג המצות, originated at that time. This is one example of how G’d publicises the virtues of the Jewish people. On the other hand, by calling this festival חג הפסח, we, in turn, tell the praises of the Lord Who, at that time, had deliberately passed over the houses of the Jewish people when He killed all the firstborn in Egypt. This mutually complimentary relationship between G’d and His favourite people is what Solomon referred to in Song of Songs 6,3.
Another [rather revolutionary facet Ed.] method of understanding the above verse is that the word פסח may be understood phonetically, i.e. פה סח, “when the mouth speaks,” i.e. explains the nature of the Passover to your children in the future, then the הוא, the hidden aspects of G’d, [impersonal “he,” instead of “thou,” Ed.]<small? will="" become="" לה',="" revealed="" to="" you="" as="" a="" reward,="" as="" <i="">Hashem.
Still another approach to our verse i.e. the apparent emphasis on the word: ואמרתם, “you will say, etc.;” the Torah foresees periods in our history when on account of the people being in exile and the temple in ruins, it will not be possible to fulfill the commandment of offering the Passover sacrifice as prescribed.
During such periods, ואמרתם, you are to substitute with words what you cannot perform in deed. Hence we recite all the particulars of both the sacrifice and the other commandments pertaining to that night to the extent possible with our mouths. While doing so we do it לה', concentrating exclusively on what Hashem had done for us at that time.
Exodus 12,42. “that night will remain a night of remembrance for Hashem, etc.” Although it is a rule that G’d watches over Israel benevolently constantly, and that He had equipped the Israelites with positive as well as with negative commandments so that non deserving (worlds) nations would not share the benefit from His acts of kindness for the Israelites by default, at this point in history when the Torah had not yet been given to the people of Israel, G’d had to perform His acts of kindness directly, -not through emissaries, angels, to make certain that they would benefit only the people for whom they were intended. These considerations have been hinted at in the words of our verse that G’d’s acts on behalf of Israel during the night of the Exodus were of an extraordinary nature. This idea has also been alluded to in the Midrash which states: “I have kept in mind for all these years the commandment performed by the ‘old man,’ Avraham, who was the first person taking action to prevent the negative forces in the world from benefiting from G’d’s largesse. Prior to Avraham’s appearing on the scene, G’d personally had to see to it that the totally undeserving souls did not benefit from His benevolence through a spillover from the deserving. (Yalkut Shimoni Vayikra 18?)
Another way of looking at our verse puts the emphasis on the words: שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדורותם, ”to serve as memorable reminiscences for all of the Children of Israel throughout their generations.” If these latter words are indeed intended as the principal message in this verse, we need to understand why the verse first speaks about this night being one of special “commemorations” for Hashem. It appears that here too the Torah hints at the fact that the Israelites on that night were not yet deserving redemption as they had not yet acquired the necessary merits to qualify for this. (Yalkut Reuveni B’shalach) According to that Midrash, the celestial representative of the Egyptians at that time argued at the heavenly tribunal against the redemption of the people of Israel, claiming that seeing that both the Egyptians and the Israelites had practiced idolatry why would G’d treat the Israelites with special favour?
In spite of all these objections, Hashem, in His great Mercy, saved and redeemed our people while smiting their oppressors with ten plagues in Egypt, and a week later when the Egyptians had staged a pursuit of the people, with 50 plagues, prior to drowning them in the sea. By doing so He fulfilled a promise made to their founding father Avraham 430 years earlier as recorded in Genesis chapter 15. The author of the haggadah shel pessach headlined this in a paragraph commencing with the words: ברוך שומר הבטחתו לישראל, “blessed be He Who kept his promise to Israel.” The reason that the author of the haggadah does not headline this paragraph as “He Who kept His promise to Avraham,” but treats it as a promise to Israel, is because this promise included the assurance that G’d would not allow blessings intended for His people, to “spill over” to the undeserving nations of the world. [including Avraham’s seven other sons. Ed.]
In spite of the Israelites in Egypt at the time having been guilty of idolatry, just as the Egyptians, they did possess three (four) virtues by means of which they were far superior to the other nations. These merits have been listed in Bamidbar Rabbah 20,22. 1) They had not changed their Hebrew names for hundreds of years; 2) they did not change their Hebrew language for Egyptian. 3) For a whole year none of them revealed that Moses had told them to “borrow” valuables from the Egyptians; 4) they never violated the traditional laws about sexual chastity. All Jewish girls were virgins when under the wedding canopy. This is the deeper meaning of the words: ליל שמורים, i.e. that on the night of the Exodus G’d remembered the merits of the Israelites on account of which He could redeem them legally at this time. Basically, the Israelites had honoured the traditions they had from their forefathers, except for practicing idolatry. The line: ליל שמורים הוא לה', “it is a night of special protection by G’d,” means that G’d had to intervene personally to orchestrate the Exodus as the merits of the Israelites were insufficient to bring this about by any other means were insufficient.
Exodus 13,1. “Hashem said to Moses, saying; sanctify for me every firstborn, etc.”
In order to better understand the subject introduced here by the Torah it is well to go back to Exodus 4,22 where G’d for the first time refers to the Jewish people as: בני בכורי ישראל, “My firstborn son, Israel.” [G’d had referred to the Jewish people as “My people,” already in Exodus 3,7, but He had not referred to this people being G’d’s “firstborn.” Ed.]
The following parable may help us understand the difference between the two descriptions of the Jewish people. There are people who devote time to the study of Torah and after a certain number of hours of daily study they turn their attention to business in order to earn a living to support their families. This group of people may be divided into 2 separate categories. A member of category one, due to lack of understanding, considers his preoccupation with trade and commerce his principal occupation and purpose, whereas a member of the second category is well aware that preoccupation with the study of Torah, performing its commandments, and performing deeds of loving kindness for his peers, is his principal duty in life, but seeing that he does not want to depend on miracles for supporting his family, he sets aside time to secure his livelihood with G’d’s support, of course, during the time required for this.
The relationship between the gentile nations and the Jewish nation is parallel to the above, in that the gentiles by and large also devote some of their time to duties prescribed by their respective religions. However, except for a minute fraction, who devote their lives to their deities as priests of some type, they consider the demands made upon them by “life” on earth as paramount. Seeing that the entire universe including the gentiles were created in order to somehow serve as an appendix to the Jewish people, this people must not copy the gentiles by seeing in the mundane tasks to be performed daily the essence of their existence. Israel’s destiny is to serve as a holy nation, and anyone wishing to sanctify itself with a mirror like replica of G’d’s holiness, will in the process draw down from the celestial domain not only G’d’s attribute of Mercy, but also His largesse in helping to make the mundane tasks such people have to perform becoming crowned with success. By being accorded the title: בני בכורי, “My firstborn son,” G’d brings home to us that we are the principal reason that G’d undertook the creation of the universe. The author suggests that the meaning of the word רחם in פטר כל רחם, usually translated as “each first opening of the womb,” should be understood as a reference to the task of the Jewish people to ensure that the source of Mercy, רחמים, be opened through the Jewish people’s prayers so that all of mankind will be provided with its needs, be it directly or indirectly through G’d’s largesse. He quotes Proverbs 17,14 פוטר מים ראשית, as an allusion to this idea by Solomon. [possibly linked to Reshit Chochmah, Teshuvah 7,14. Ed.]
An additional meaning based on the verse quoted above, linked to Moses telling the people (verse 3) as an introduction to this legislation זכור את היום הזה וגו', “Keep on remembering this day, etc.;”.
The Ari’zal writes that the reason why Moses introduced relaying the legislation about the sanctity of the firstborn with the words: זכור את היום הזה, followed by the line: והעברת כל פטר רחם, “you are to set apart for the Lord every first issue from the womb, etc,” only 9 verses later, is that when G’d told him about this legislation He appeared to include only the natural born Israelites in the sanctity of the firstborn, בבני ישראל, in verse 2, not the mixed multitude of new converts that Moses had accepted. The mixed multitude had not yet attained a level of spirituality that would allow their firstborn to be included in the additional degree of sanctity accorded to them when compared to the ordinary Israelite who was not a firstborn. Moses was afraid that the existing situation would result in jealousy of the mixed multitude as they would feel as second class Jews. In order to bridge this gap, Moses instructed the Israelites with an additional commandment to be observed when they would enter the Holy Land, a commandment that would apply to every Jew crossing the Jordan whether a natural born Jew or a convert This additional commandment concerned the observance of the Exodus for seven days on the anniversary of the dates on which it took place, and the eating of matzot and the offering of the Passover lamb on the eve of the first day Matzot would be eaten for seven days; this commandment was to apply to all Jews be they be natural born Jews or converts. It was a compliment to the mixed multitude as this group of people had not been “redeemed” from Egypt since they had not been slaves there, having placed themselves voluntarily under the protective “umbrella” of the Jewish G’d, the Creator of the universe. As a result of their embracing these commandments, the mixed multitude would cross the threshold of being ushered into the Jewish people as full partners as soon as they would cross into the Holy Land. (verse 11)
The author adds, that he feels that the reason that Moses did not immediately convey the commandment of the sanctification of the firstborn and first inserted the commandment of the Passover lamb and the eating of matzot on the anniversaries as something that would continue for all future generations, was that the period of the Exodus, the 10 plagues, the removal of one nation from amidst another nation with whom the first nation had felt inextricably interwoven, had all been part of what our sages describe as ‘re-enactment” of the 6 days of the creation of the universe, a חדוש העולם, creation of a new world. It resembled the creation of the יש מאין, the tangible emerging from the totally intangible. We acknowledge this concept of G’d renewing the universe constantly in our daily prayers before the recital of the קריאת שמע, when we say המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית, that “the Creator renews the whole universe on a daily basis, constantly, innumerable times.” When Job asks rhetorically in Job 28,12 והחכמה מאין תמצא, “from where did wisdom originate?,” he clearly cannot mean that the word אין means the same as the Greek: “nihil,” i.e. “nothing,” but refers to domains beyond those accessible to creatures rooted in the יש, the domain of the tangible, physical world. Our author explained already on the first two pages of Genesis that unless man first negates his ego completely, he does not have access to the source of wisdom in the domain called אין, or “eyn,” “negation,” for want of a better word. Although G’d, as pointed out in our daily prayers, renews the creation every single day, on the occasion of the first of Nissan, He does so especially for the Jewish people, and at the same time even the “year” for the count of the number of years that a Jewish king rules, is considered as renewing its cycle on that day. We know this from the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah, 1,1 Although the names of the months in the Jewish calendar are generally understood to reflect the names in the Persian calendar, our author sees in the word ניסן, the month in which the Exodus occurred, an allusion to the נסים, earth shaking miracles that occurred in that month at that time. The reason why the Seder evening must conclude with the eating or the Passover lamb, or its substitute the “afikoman,” is so that the taste lingers in our mouth, and we can draw inspiration from it during the many months to come. [The reader is referred to pages 1-4 where the author explained the allegorical meaning in the letters of such words as אין, מצוה וגו'. Based on this he feels that the linkage of months and years in our verse, i.e. לחדשי השנה is entirely justified. Ed.]
Exodus 13,4. “this day you are leaving (Egypt) in the month that ushers in the spring.” It appears that the Creator, blessed be His name, chose only the Jewish people. Therefore no one has the right to speak badly of the Jewish people, but to interpret any actions of this people even if they seem at first glance to be sinful, in a manner that casts a favourable light on them. We have learned this from Esther 10,3 where Mordechai is complimented of speaking always favourably of his brethren, i.e. דורש טוב לעמו. The numerical value of the letters in that short phrase amount to the same as the numerical value in the words רב חסד, “an abundance of love.” In other words, G’d has expended much loving kindness on His people Israel.
We have a halachah that when washing one’s hands preparatory to performing some commandment, that one is to raise one’s hands in the process of doing so. (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 162,1) The reason is that the word נטילה implies lifting. We have explained elsewhere that the human body is viewed as being composed of three parts, 1) The head and the limbs attached to it.; 2) the hands and the torso they are attached to;.3) the legs. The “limbs” (organs) belonging to the head i.e. the eyes, the ears, have been created primarily in order to focus on the words of Torah and moral instruction, whereas the mouth has been created primarily in order to speak words of Torah wisdom and to speak well of the Jewish people.
The hands are an allusion to “love,” i.e. raising one’s hands expresses love for one’s Creator, whereas the legs and feet allude to faith, as the saying goes that שקר אין לו רגלים, “lies have no feet, (no basis to stand on). Therefore, when a human beings sits down in order to eat, he is supposed to raise, elevate the “sparks” of spirituality within him so that consuming food becomes something more than a merely mundane activity intended to provide physical satisfaction for the person eating his food. This is why Rabbi Karo in his commentary on the Tur (בית יוסף), writes (inter alia) that the act of raising one’s hand prior to eating is an expression of love for the G’d Who has provided us with food and has blessed it.
We find a disagreement between two sages of the Mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, in Rosh Hashanah 11 about the time of year when the messiah will come. One Rabbi claims that he will come in Nissan, whereas the other Rabbi claims that he will come in Tishrey. The letters in the word .תשר-י are arranged in the reverse order of the aleph bet, and we have a tradition that the aleph bet when read backwards is an allusion to the attribute of Justice, whereas the aleph bet when read in the regular order alludes to love and kindness, and the month of Nissan seeing that it ushers in a renewal of the bounty of nature that appeared to have died during the winter months, also alludes to this. The dispute in the Talmud about when the Messiah will come, is based on the tradition that he will either come when the Jewish people have accumulated sufficient merits to warrant his coming, i.e. כולו זכאי, or if they are so guilty that G’d has to punish the guilty and only the few deserving will survive to experience the final redemption. The letters אב in the word אביב, spring, hint at the loving kindness orchestrated by G’d each spring. According to the view that the messiah will come during the month of Tishrey, a month symbolizing judgment, the message is that the Jews may be redeemed even during this most awe-inspiring month, provided they are all G’d serving. If, G’d forbid, they fail to use the opportunities offered by the Day of Atonement during this month to return to their Creator with heart and soul, they will not experience the redemption. According to the view of Rabbi Joshua, who claims that the messiah will come during the month of Nissan, seeing that this month is an allusion to Mercy, his message is that even if the people do not qualify for redemption, G’d in His vast mercy and kindness will redeem them in the month of spring, the month heralding revival even in nature. May his words find an echo in G’d’s heart, soon in our days, Amen.
Exodus 13,10. “You are to observe this statute at its appointed time, year after year.” On the three pilgrimage festivals, Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot this illumination is firmly engraved for the remainder of the year. The essence of Passover is in the minute difference between חמץ and מצה consisting of the time it takes to walk one mile (18 minutes) during which an unleavened dough if unattended will turned into a leavened dough. The essence of Shavuot consists of it being the anniversary of the Jewish people’s finest moment, the moment when they enthusiastically accepted the gift of the Torah. The essence of Sukkot consists of it being the source of all the blessings that ensure our economic existence and well being during the year then unfolding. The words: מימים ימימה refer to the three festivals mentioned radiating their spiritual influence for the entire year. Provided that we believe in G’d’s miracles, the influence of these few days devoted to primarily spiritually oriented activities will act as a benevolent umbrella over all our activities during the year.
Beshalach
Exodus 14,19. “The angel of G’d who had been traveling in front of the camp of the Israelites moved to their back and took up position behind them.”
It is a known fact that the angels are spiritually superior to Israel due to their inherent holiness. However, whenever G’d displays His love for His people, the Israelites become transported to a spiritually higher stature than the angels. At the time when G’d split the sea of reeds, the Israelites ascended to a higher level of holiness than even the highest ranking angels. This is the deeper meaning of the line that whereas at the beginning of the Israelites’ journey the angel traveled “ahead of them,” by the time they had reached the shores of the sea of reeds the angel of G’d took up his position behind them.
Exodus 14,21. “Moses inclined his hand above the sea, etc;” there is a statement in Sh’mot Rabbah 21,6 according to which Moses commanded the sea in the name of G’d to divide itself so as to let the Israelites march through; the sea demurred, saying to him: “son of Amram, I am greater than you, etc.,’”
Naturally, the Midrash is an allegory, but we must understand what the author of the Midrash is trying to convey to us. G’d has assigned nature its tasks in broad outlines, and one of the rules by which the sea is governed is to perform its task loyally. In the course of the thousands of years that nature performs its task, which is mostly to act as an agent of G’d’s largesse for the benefit of mankind, nature tends to forget that what it does is no more than to carry out the will of the Creator, and it begins to think of itself as an independent, sovereign force. When the Creator becomes aware of this, He decides to remind nature that He is the “boss,” and that had it not been for Him, nature would be completely impotent. If at the time when Moses addressed the sea in the name of G’d, the sea would have responded immediately, it would not have had to humble itself beyond a minimum and have to be turned into dry land, as it did after having insisted that seeing it had been created on the third day of creation whereas man was only created on the sixth day, man had no authority to issue orders to it even in the name of the Creator.
[This commentary is presumably inspired by G’d having told Moses already in verse 16 to perform this miracle, whereas only in verse 22 does it begin to occur, and G’d Himself is involved, in addition to Moses‘ “hand.” Ed.]
According to the midrash, (Sh’mot Rabbah 23,14) the opening line in Moses’ שירת הים, Song of thanksgiving after the crossing of the sea, (Exodus 15,1) which contains the words: כי גאה גאה, “For He is highly exalted,” was inspired by the haughty response the sea had used to deny Moses’ initial command to divide its waters to permit the Israelites to cross. This is also alluded to in Exodus 14,21 ויולך ה' את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה וגו', “Hashem made the sea travel all night long driven by a strong easterly wind, etc;” this was the punishment for the sea that had boasted to Moses that it considered itself as greater than he. The expression עזה instead of חזק which would be the customary word used for a “strong” wind, suggests that the sea was being repaid measure for measure for its arrogance. Due to G’d making use of this strong easterly wind, the sea was forced not only to split, but to turn its bed into dry land. G’d wished to prove to the sea how quickly it could be turned into its very opposite. The “greater” something in this material world of ours, the easier and the more utterly can it be destroyed with one fell swoop.
A word or two about the name of G’d containing 72 letters. We know that when G’d created the universe He related to it by “showering” it with His largesse. Another word for this “largesse” of G’d is אור ישר, “direct light,” as opposed to אור חוזר, “reflected light.” When the creatures (both the living and the inert) boast of serving their Creator, this is called אור חוזר. The term implies that the creatures, as an expression of gratitude to their Creator “pay back” with adulation for their Creator. They turn to their roots, origin, hence the expression חוזר, “return, reflect.” When the Torah writes three successive verses each containing 72 letters, the first verse commencing with the word ויסע, the second with the word ויבא, and the third with the word ויט, (Exodus 14,19-21) when these are written letter for letter above each other, the topmost verse from right to left, and the middle verse from left to right, the result will be 72 three lettered names of G’d. [The subject is dealt with in the prayer Book of the Ari’zal in connection with the קריאת שמע.] Accordingly, the first verse is to be understood as an activity initiated by G’d, or אור ישר. The second verse commencing with the word ויבא, represents the response of the recipient of the אור ישר, the אור חוזר, the response by the creature. This is why this verse is to be understood as having been written from left to right, i.e. using the alphabet backwards, or the sages phrase it, as תשרק. The third verse, read in the customary mode from right to left, represents אור ישר, again. In other words, when the creature has responded to G’d’s “direct light” positively, it qualifies for G’d’s performing supernatural miracles for such a creature or creatures. In this case, when the sea had responded appropriately, it was allowed to revert to its former, normal, state.
Having understood this concept, we will also understand why the manna was not allowed to descend to earth on the Sabbath, whereas G’d did not interrupt the growth of crops that originated from the earth during the Sabbath. Our author refers us to the commentary of Rabbi Moshe Alshich commenting on Exodus 20,11 כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ, “for during six days G’d made the heaven and the earth, etc,” that this refers to the אור הישר used by G’d. The seventh day that followed is to be viewed as the response by the creatures to having received such abundant blessings during the preceding six days. In other words, the day is used to show G’d our positive response to His generosity, the response being called the אור החוזר the “reflected light.” The words ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי (Genesis 2,1) are understood by the Midrash as the creatures emulating G’d on the Sabbath in rejoicing and abstaining from “creative” activities, thus “sending back to their Creator the message (reflected light)” that they appreciate the “direct light” they had been the beneficiaries of during the preceding six days.
We must also consider that the manna having originated in the heavenly spheres, was originally not something tangible, although upon entering the atmosphere, it had to become garbed in a manner compatible with other earthly phenomena. Having it descend on the Sabbath would have negated the concept of the creation which commences with something intangible and converts it into something tangible, but retaining elements of: “direct light.” Earth grown crops never originated in celestial domains in the first place, so that there was no reason to interrupt their growth. On the contrary, according to the Kabbalists, eating and drinking by human beings is not an end itself, but the food is meant to help us to devote more time and effort to spiritual pursuits, i.e. to come closer to the completely disembodied essence of the Creator. On the Sabbath when we are free from the burden of having to secure our livelihood, we return the largesse of G’d experienced during the six preceding days, by commencing a journey in the opposite direction coming closer to the regions from which the manna originated. To summarize: the Sabbath itself is symbolic of the אור החוזר, “reflected light.”
Exodus 14,27. “towards morning the sea reverted to its permanent state.” Having seen how pleased its Creator had been with its having been split , something that had resulted in the Israelites breaking out in song of thanksgiving and admiration for Hashem, the sea had not wanted to turn into water again, believing that by remaining dry land the Israelites would regularly offer such songs of praises to their Creator. [The author views the word איתנו as a variant of the word תנאי, condition. Ed.]
The sea conditioned its resuming its natural state on only Moses being allowed to command it in the future. When we consider this exegesis, the question raised by the author of the Orach Chayim what was so special about the sea being split seeing that the Jordan has been split also, but not at the command of Moses but of Joshua, and according to the Talmud Chulin. 7, the river Ginnai split at the command of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, is easily answered. Since the Jordan and the river Ginnai had already noticed how pleased G’d had been when the sea divided itself, they did not deserve special credit for their conduct. The sea of reeds, however, had been the first body of water that had negated its normal status in order to please the Lord, did deserve laudatory mention. When the sea split it had not yet been aware that its action would be so pleasing to its Creator.
Sh’mot Rabbah 19,6 comments on Isaiah 52,12 כי בחפזון יצאת ממצרים, “for you left Egypt in haste,” i.e. during the night, contrasts this with the promise of the prophet that the redemption in the future will not be in haste or at night, like thieves feeling during the night. On the face of it, this Midrash appears to directly contradict the statement of the Torah that the Israelites did not depart during the night but בעצם היום הזה: “in the middle of this day, i.e. in full daylight.” (Exodus 12,17) The Midrash, however was not concerned with the physical darkness or daylight, but with the mental state of the Jewish people, who, at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, were as if in spiritual darkness. (Compare to the scenario painted by the prophet Isaiah of how spiritually enlightened the Jewish people in the future would be when the redemption would come).
We also read in the Yalkut Reuveni on this portion, [who subscribes to the optimistic view that the redemption in the future will be due to our having accumulated the necessary merits. Ed.] that there will not be an opportunity for the protective angel of the people oppressing us to accuse us of worshipping idols, as did the protective angel of the Egyptians at the time of that Exodus. This is why the above quoted verse from Isaiah concludes with the words: ומאסיפכם אלוקי ישראל, “and the Lord your G’d, will gather you in.”
Exodus 14,30. “On that day Hashem delivered Israel from the hands of the Egyptians;” The author feels that the words: “on that day,” require further analysis. Seeing that, -as he has told us repeatedly,- the various universes have been created only for the sake of the Jewish people, as Rashi already commented on the opening words of the Torah, בראשית ברא, it follows that when, G’d forbid, hard times hit the Jewish people, the “days” themselves must come to the assistance of the Jewish people and point out good deeds of this people to G’d, as, if we were G’d forbid to disappear, so would these “days,” i.e. all of the world’s history would disappear with the Jewish people. The expression ביום ההוא, “on that day” in our verse, therefore refers to the “day” on which the collective soul of the universe praised the Jewish people to forestall its defeat at the hands of the Egyptians.
Another interpretation of the words: ביום ההוא. We know that the word: הוא, “he or it,” as a form of indirect speech, is the opposite of זה or זאת, “this.” The former referred to something or somebody not present, concealed, whereas the latter refers to something or somebody in plain view, present. When referring to miracles, we distinguish between overt and covert miracles, i.e. covert miracles such as the events in the Purim story which did not involve G’d’s interfering with what we know as “natural processes.” The salvation of the Israelites from the dangers of annihilation described in the Torah, required direct interference by the Almighty of a supernatural manner. The Torah calls this interference as יום ההוא, “resorting to hidden elements in the universe, parts of the universe not normally accessible to us.” The Zohar, in commenting on Numbers 18,23 ועבד הלוי הוא, a most unusual construction where the word הוא appears superfluous, writes that the word הוא, refers to the hidden domain of the universe, the celestial regions, and that it is the Levite’s function to repair any imbalance caused in those regions through improper actions by Jews on earth. The word יום, always refers to light, as we know from the story of creation. The expression: ביום ההוא, therefore refers to the day on which hitherto hidden light was used by G’d to deliver the Jewish people from mortal danger.
Or, briefly, the Torah states that of the various days on which G’d has revealed Himself more than on others by showering the Jewish people with his largesse, that day as part of the Exodus was the day on which He did so more than on any other day.
“Israel saw the Egyptians’ corpses dead on the beaches of the sea.” The need for the Torah to write this verse has been explained by our sages in Sanhedrin 67 as follows. “The reason why sorcerers, magicians, are called מכשפים in Hebrew, is that they ‘weaken’ G’d’s entourage in the celestial regions” [their very existence and apparent power seems to contradict the absolute power of G’d. Ed.] It is a known fact that there are two methods of defeating one’s fellow man. Either one accuses him outright of being evil and thus ruins his reputation, or one praises him to high heaven, thus making others jealous of him and causing the opponents of the righteous total frustration thereby. This is the meaning of our sages when they said that “the sorcerers weaken the entourage of the Almighty.” The so-called פמליא של מעלה, are the “opposite.”
[If I were asked to explain this very briefly, I would say that the very existence of forces that are clearly part of a supernatural realm. i.e. the forces that enable a false prophet to perform miracles, appears to contradict the concept of אין עוד מלבדו, “there is no real force other than G’d Himself.” G’d obviously had His reasons for creating such forces, but to the uninitiated human being such forces pose a serious challenge to his faith in the uniqueness of G’d. In other words, this “divine” entourage undermines rather than strengthens our belief in the exclusivity of G’d. Rabbi Mordechai Elon has an excellent article on this entitled ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים, on Parshat Yitro and Mishpatim. Ed.]
The author of Or Hachayim questions a Midrash according to which the sea at first refused to wash up these bodies on the shores of the sea, until being given a hint by the Creator Himself to accept these bodies.
I believe that with G’d’s help I have been enabled to understand the reason for the sea’s initial reluctance to “vomit” these bodies on the shore. Death itself was introduced to earth only through Adam having eaten from the tree of knowledge in defiance of G’d’s warning not to do so on pain of his becoming mortal. Seeing that the oceans had no part in that sin, they naturally resented being associated with death, as dead bodies reflect negatively on the one assisting in their concealment, as we know from the earth being cursed for having hidden Hevel’s body. (Genesis 4,11)
The ocean not having been part of Adam’s sin at all, resulted in it experiencing a sense of revulsion at the sight of dead bodies. The definition of דבר מת, is: “something that had been alive but has ceased to be so.” The wicked do not feel revulsion when coming into contact with dead bodies, as they themselves are considered as “dead” even while walking around on earth. (Compare B’rachot 18) The visible unnatural and painful death of the wicked affords their souls a certain spiritual elevation, as the manner in which their bodies had died confirmed the surviving G’d fearing people in their belief that G’d is alive and reigns in this universe.
This is why we explained the verse (31) וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה, “Israel saw the great hand, etc,” which at first glance is hard to understand, as the Israelites were busy running away from the Egyptians and an impenetrable wall of fire was behind them. Also the Ari’zal’s commentary that the words היד הגדולה, “the great hand,” are an allusion to G’d’s attribute of chessed, “loving kindness,” appear difficult to understand. However, when you consider our exegesis that the Israelites’ faith was reinforced when they realized that even in death G’d had given these Egyptians an opportunity to be מקדש את השם, to aggrandize His name through their dead bodies inspiring faith in G’d, this can all be understood without difficulty. It was the very fact that G’d had smitten their long time oppressors that opened the Israelites’ mental eyes to G’d’s greatness. As a result they not only believed more strongly in G’d but also in His prophet Moses, absolutely. They realized that G’d had used the Egyptians as an instrument to inspire belief in Him. Having appreciated this, we can also answer the question of the Or Hachayim mentioned earlier. The reason that the oceans had been able to tolerate these dead Egyptian bodies in their midst was that they had now become symbols of G’d’s greatness, not of His failure in educating man. These Egyptians had finally “come alive” through the manner in which they had died, as they now inspired others to believe in the One and only Creator and His Power. Moses alluded to all this when he sang about מרכבות פרעה וחילו רמה בים ומבחר שלישיו טבעו בים וגו', “Pharaoh’s chariots and his army He has flung into the sea; and the choicest of his officers are drowned in the sea of reeds.”
Exodus 15,6. “Your right hand, O G’d, glorious in power; Your right hand shatters the enemy.” Moses is aware of the fact that G’d’s “right hand” symbolizes חסד, loving kindness, and he expresses his awareness that in shattering the enemy, Egypt in this instance, He did not resort to גבורה, the attribute of Justice. As proof of this he describes the manner in which the choicest of Pharaoh’s captains went deep down, something that is the reverse of what normally occurs in drowning, as the sea, as we pointed out, basically rejects dead bodies. It follows that by their very death these captains of Pharaoh’s chariots actually “lived,” i.e. made a worthwhile contribution to their having existed on earth previous to this. Their contribution, of course, was a passive one, recognition of G’d’s greatness not having been their conscious intent when dying a painful “death.” The Israelites realized what had happened, and that is why the Torah describes them as וירא ישראל את היד הגדול אשר עשה ה' במצרים וגו', “Israel saw the great hand which G’d had brought to bear on the Egyptians, etc.” The word: במצרים, usually understood as “in Egypt,” is somewhat difficult, seeing that G’d’s crowning achievement was the destruction of the entire Egyptian military might at the sea of reeds. Accordingly, we would have expected the Torah to have written: היד הגדולה בקריעת ים סוף, “the great hand G’d had demonstrated by the splitting of the sea.”
Furthermore, the expression היד הגדולה, instead of היד החזקה, “the strong, powerful hand,” is what we would have expected, seeing that G’d had told Moses already in Exodus 3,19 that Pharaoh would not release the Israelites until He would intervene with יד חזקה, “a strong hand.” In light of our exegesis there is no problem with these verses. G’d performed a great act of loving kindness for the Egyptians who had been allowed to serve as G’d’s instrument to induce faith in the Lord by both the Israelites, and many gentiles who heard about what had transpired at the sea of reeds. [Compare Rahav in Joshua 2,9. Ed.] This is what happened at the sea. On the other hand, in Egypt, G’d had used יד חזקה, “a strong hand,” i.e. the attribute of Justice in order to discipline the Egyptians. The true sanctification of G’d’s name occurred at the sea of reeds, where His “great” name was sanctified, hence the reference to היד הגדולה, instead of היד החזקה.
When someone has attained an advanced level in his spiritual development, he has no need to watch miracles as proof of G’d’s power in order to strengthen his faith in Him as we have explained on previous occasions. Anyone who possesses an average amount of intelligence is aware of the existence of a Creator who has created this universe. Only people of less than average intelligence require miracles to bring home to them that there is a Creator, who, seeing that the universe is His, is able to wreak havoc with laws of nature, i.e. laws which He Himself had established.
We need to understand the reason why the song of thanksgiving, sung (composed) by Moses on this occasion is called שירה in the feminine mode, whereas a similar song that will be composed after the final redemption by the Messiah is always referred to in the masculine mode, i.e. שיר. According to Sh’mot Rabbah 23,11 the reason is that the song of thanksgiving in the future will have been evoked exclusively from feelings of joy by those who have been redeemed, whereas any thanksgiving song prior to that will have come about at least in part by G’d having had to invoke miracles in order for some of the people to learn to fully acknowledge Him.
“The people feared the Lord; they had faith in the Lord as well as in Moses His servant.”,Seeing that the common people at this point had achieved such stature that an ordinary maid was able to experience visions superior even to those described by the prophet Ezekiel, (Mechilta B’shalach 2) they could believe that any human being had the potential of ascending the spiritual ladder no less than Moses himself.
Exodus 15,1.“then Moses and the Children of Israel sang this song and they said: saying;” first we must understand that the essence of joy is what a person feels in his heart; seeing that this is so, what need is there to express these feelings in speech and song or poetry at the time of his joy?
The reason is that joy in one’s heart, unless formulated in word and song is bound to subside and cease altogether in short order. By giving verbal expression to one’s joy and composing a song and writing poetry one prolongs and intensifies this feeling of joy. The Israelites were aware of this psychological axiom, and this is why they yearned to give proper expression to their joy. They yearned to share their joy with the Creator, Who had been the architect enabling them to harbour such joyous feelings in their breasts. This is the reason why the Torah adds the words: ויאמרו לאמור “they said, saying;” the word לאמור presumably refers to extraneous words, not included in the actual song that follows; if this were not so, who was there that they could have spoken to about this other than their peers who had all experienced the same salvation?
Another reason for the need of the word לאמור to appear in the verse under discussion: We have a tradition that every word in the Torah preceded the historical events described in the Torah, so much so that they were recorded even before the universe had been created. We must therefore fall back on the statement of the Kabbalists that, essentially, the written Torah is nothing but a record of the various names of the Creator. The letters in His names have been written in a manner that conceals, so that it required “dressing up” before being released into our “lower” universe, as otherwise we would have been completely stymied in our efforts to unravel the Torah’s meaning. Only a very few people have been privileged to understand the words of the Torah as they are presented to us on a level that transcends their superficial meaning, the peshat. [However, being G’d’s words, also the peshat is not to be belittled, of course. Ed.] When the Torah adds the apparently unnecessary word לאמור, whenever the Torah writes: וידבר ה' אל משה לאמור, “Hashem spoke to Moses, leymor”, this is like giving the reader notice that G’d told Moses to rephrase His words in a manner that the common people should be able to understand. At the same time this word לאמור, served notice that the elite of the people were encouraged to look for more than the plain meaning of the text. The same applies when Moses commenced the song of thanksgiving for the salvation of the Israelites from the last and most dangerous threat of the Egyptians. We are to examine this text in order to discover hidden meanings
Yet another meaning of the word לאמור before Moses commenced with the text of the song; we have explained elsewhere that the pinnacle of human pleasure consists in our ability to serve our Creator in a manner that compares favorably with the service of the Lord performed on an ongoing basis by the various categories of angels in the celestial spheres. In this instance, Moses and the people emphasize their great pleasure in being able to please the Lord by formulating their feelings of gratitude in words of admiration and adulation, i.e. לאמור.
Another allegorical approach sees in the word אז an allusion to the number seven=ז. Up until this time the number seven had been a symbol of excellence, superiority, as for instance the seventh day being the holiest day, the seventh layer of the heavens being the most holy, etc;. In one’s ascent to a true unity with the One and only Creator, one has to ascend just beyond the seven levels beneath this. Moses hinted that the joy experienced at this moment brought him and the Jewish people with him to this point of the א, i.e. this level beyond the seven levels that both the people and he had already scaled in their pursuit of that union. Their joy at this moment was therefore truly transcendental in essence.
At this point the author introduces an interpretation of psalms 121,5 by the Baal Shem Tov of blessed memory, which he feels is relevant to our verse. The psalmist there says: ה' צלך על יד ימינך, “the Lord is your shadow (protection) at your right hand.” According to the Baal Shem Tov, the meaning of these words is that the manner in which G’d protects and guides man’s fate is similar to the shadow that accompanies man at all times. It follows that when the Jewish people recited the song after their salvation from the Egyptian armies, G’d, “their shadow” did likewise. The word ישיר in the opening verse of the song is in a causative mode, hiphil, so that the appropriate translation of the words: אז ישיר משה, would be: “at that time Moses would cause Him to sing.” Through Israel’s singing a song, G’d too would be prompted to join in. When viewed in this way the word: לאמור, makes perfect sense in the traditional manner in which it is understood elsewhere.
Having recorded these details prepared the ground for G’d Himself to join in the shirah, the song that Moses is about to intone after the people are credited with having absolute faith in him. The word: לאמור in 15,1 is an allusion to G’d joining in this song.
Another interpretation of the song introduced by the Torah with the word: אז, “then;” we have a general rule that the word אז, does not necessarily refer only to the past, but also includes references to the future. This is alluded to by the use of the future mode of the verb ישיר “will sing,” instead of the past tense, שר, “he sang,” that we would have expected to be written here. This principle has already been mentioned in Sanhedrin 91. The Talmud derives from the future mode of the words אז ישיר, proof from the written Torah that there will be a resurrection of the bodies of the souls deserving this.
Based on the exegesis of psalms 68,28 שם בנימין צעיר רדם שרי יהודה רגמתם, “there is little Binyamin who rules them,” (the word רדם being read as if it had been written רד ים, “descended into the sea,”) it appears that the tribes of Binyamin and Yehudah, the latter represented by its leader Nachschon ben Aminadav, were possessed of enough faith to wade into the sea neck deep before it split for them. The miracle therefore was the result of the extraordinary faith displayed by these tribal leaders. (Mechilta Beshalach 14,22 and Talmud Sotah 36/37) One may see in the words אז ישיר an allusion to these leaders of Yehudah and Binyamin (either or, according to a divergence of opinion in the Talmud) had possessed the faith that the sea would split for them before the event, and that is why Yehudah was awarded the hereditary position of king. (The Davidic dynasty) In other words: the words אז ישיר refer to what occurred prior to the splitting of the sea, whereas the words: אשירה לה', refer to what occurred after the successful crossing.
Another explanation of the words אז ישיר comes to mind when we look at Rashi’s commentary who justifies the future tense, by saying that the word אז and the word ישיר should not be read together without a slight pause. The meaning is that אז, “then, when Moses had seen the great miracle,” ישיר משה “Moses decided to compose a suitable poem (song) to pay tribute to this event.”
We have a psychological rule that when a person has seen the greatness of the Creator he will first react with awe and trembling and cannot really enjoy the fact that the phenomenon that he has just witnessed also spells a great salvation for him. Only a little while later will such a person understand that what he had witnessed a short while ago was a display of G’d’s largesse orchestrated on his behalf. At that point he begins to enjoy the spectacle he had witnessed and it then occurs to him to express his gratitude in a form appropriate to the overwhelming nature of the miracle he had been allowed to witness. This is basically what Rashi, wished to convey to us in the first few words of his commentary on 15,1.
Alternatively, we can try and view the words: אז ישיר משה as reflecting on the fact that in the Creator’s domain there are no measurements (horizontal or vertical) nor are there measurements in “time” such as “before” or “after.” This is natural as He knows no “boundaries.” On the other hand, attributes such as love exist in His domain, and in G’d’s domain when the “flame” of love has been lit, He “extends” it like ripples on the surface of a body of water. The original thought “preceding” any other was one of love for His as yet non existent creatures. This was followed by the “desire” to create a universe, (not a material one as yet). Once the disembodied universe had come into existence G’d could display His being G’d to all the creatures which populate this spiritual domain we call “heaven,” for want of a better word. This was followed by G’d “imagining” the physical universe and all its components. G’d had a complete vision of how the completed physical universe would look to the creatures that inhabited it before He translated His vision into what we call “reality,” again for want of a better word. Whereas the disembodied part of the universe is known to our sages as עולם הבריאה, the physical universe is generally known as עולם היצירה “the universe of shapes and forms,” seeing that it contains physical rather than metaphysical components though these physical components have not yet been finalized, i.e. become part of the עולם העשיה, “the completed universe.” At this point, not unlike an artist or architect, G’d had a complete and detailed picture of the eventual universe in His mind, however, instead of committing His vision to paper or a drawing board, it remained hidden within Him. At that point G’d had still left open for further consideration such details as the colour scheme in which certain regions of the universe would find their ultimate expression. Having allowed Himself to leave open such “minor” details, meant that G’d had reserved the right to “re-arrange” even the “lives” of basic components of the earth such as fire and water, if and when the need should arise for this. Doing this involved “taking away” the respective “basic component’s “life,” temporarily. At the end of the period that the sea had split in order to allow the Israelites to cross comfortably, G’d “resurrected” the sea.
Moses’ song was inspired by the immensity of the miracle that he and the people had witnessed at the time. They had witnessed the “death” and “resurrection” of the universe, albeit in miniature. If the letter ז is symbolic of the עולם העשיה, the universe after its completion on the seventh day, the letter א is symbolic of the very beginning of creation, so that Moses alluded to the process of a reversal in the creative process as having occurred as part of the miracle they had witnessed at that time. It is not accidental that in the Torah scroll instead of writing the שירה, “song” in the normal fashion, the lines are broken, interrupted so as to convey the manner in which bricks are laid, not one exactly above the other, but in a pattern that enables the wall to survive sudden impacts. This is true even of stone walls that are not joined by cement.
At this point the author allegorically describes חיות, the essence of “life” as the word of G’d which was the cement that holds together the different parts of the universe, all of which came into existence by His ten oral directives enumerated in the first chapter of Genesis. The empty spaces between the letters (words) are an allusion to the part of the world where this miracle occurred having retreated toward its origin before the definite contours of that universe had been finalized.
The line: ימינך ה' נאדרי בכח, is also a step back into the early part of creation when G’d had looked upon all His work with a smiling face, a time when He had been “dressed” exclusively in garments exuding love. By the time the extermination of the Jewish people had become a real threat, He had been forced to don garments reflecting His attribute of גבורה, the power needed to execute judgments on the wicked. In the line just quoted Moses referred to both these aspects of the Creator at the time when He performed these miracles, i.e. ימין, referring to His attribute of love, and כח the symbol of the power needed to crush His opposition.
The author sees in the letters of the tetragam, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה a historical allusion to the first two letters alluding to what preceded the עולם הבריאה and that world; the letter ו being an allusion to the עולם היצירה with the last letter ה alluding to the final stage of creation, the עולם העשיה. Now, when the process of creation had been “rolled up,” backwards to its origin during the period of the “splitting” of the sea of reeds, [i.e. separating H2O into its constituent parts, Ed.] it is as if history had been rolled back to the hours of the slaughtering of the Passover, the first day of the festival of Passover, so that after this miracle had been successfully concluded, Passover had another day added, the seventh day, a day on which in the future all manner of mundane labour is also prohibited. [I have altered the words of the author a little at the end. The important thing is that the reader understands why in the parlance of our sages, the festival of Passover, the first in the year commencing with the month of Nissan, was first, as it represents a חידוש העולם, a renewal of the process of creation. Ed.]
We read the following in Sh’mot Rabbah 23,1 concerning psalms 93,2 where the psalmist describes G’d’s throne as having been firmly established since “אז,” that Rabbi Berechyah, citing Rabbi Avahu says as follows:” what the psalmist has in mind is that You (the Lord) have never sat securely on Your throne, and Your Name has not become a byword amongst mankind until after Your children, the Jewish people, aggrandized Your Name in song and poetry, i.e. with the song commencing with אז ישיר. The sages in the Midrash explain that a king, until he has won impressive victories in battle, may be a king in name only. Once he has won impressive victories he is no longer referred to only as “king,” but as “Emperor.” The Israelites conveyed this idea in the shirah, by recalling that prior to the experience at the sea of reeds, G’d was perceived like a king who is standing upright, measuring the contours of the earth [compare Chabakuk 3,6). Now that He had won impressive victories, He is perceived as sitting on His throne, [resting on His laurels. Ed.] The song that the Israelites sang after the Egyptians had been drowned may be viewed as an accolade to the newly revealed aspect of G’d the Creator.
What precisely was the new aspect of G’d that the people had experienced so that the Torah described it as:וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה....ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, “Israel saw the great hand of the Lord, etc,….and they had faith in the Lord and in His servant Moses?” After all, they had already witnessed the splitting of the sea, the marching through the sea’s bed as if marching on dry land, the sea’s reversing direction and drowning their enemies.” What new dimension was revealed to them as a result of which they decided to break out in song?
Surely, the word אז, “then,” as well as the word: ישיר in the future mode must contain the answer to our question! Nowhere else in the Torah has the word אז been coupled with an event in the future! [not quite correct, compare Leviticus 26,34 where the Torah predicts, אז תרצה, then the land will rest” after the many shmittah years which have been disregarded, neglected by the Jewish people. Compare also Deut.4,41 אז יבדיל, Ed.]
We assume that the reader is familiar with how the sages explained psalms 114,2 היתה יהודה לקדשו ישראל ממשלותיו, “Yehudah became His holy one, Israel His dominion.” I mentioned earlier that the leader of the tribe of Yehudah, Nachshon ben Aminadav, earned this merit when he fearlessly entered the sea of reeds up to his neck before it split. At that time he appealed for help from G’d saying that the level of the water was about to cause him to drown therein.
Yehudah’s entering the sea may have been prompted by one of two considerations. 1) Seeing G’d had commanded Moses to order the Israelites to proceed forward, he felt that it was his duty to risk his life in order to fulfill G’d’s commandment. He knew that it was his duty to proceed even if it were to cost him his life. 2) His act was simply a demonstration of his faith in G’d; he jumped into the sea convinced that G’d would save him. He had absolutely no doubt that he would survive. He realized that it would take a miracle to save him, but he was convinced that G’d would perform such a miracle. He was also convinced that in response to this miracle that G’d was about to perform, the people would break out in a song of thanksgiving immediately after the event.
This latter facet of Yehudah’s action is in line with what Rashi, basing himself on the Mechilta, writes on 15,20: ותקח מרים אחות אהרן את התף בידה ותצאנה וגו', “Miriam, Aaron’s sister took the drum in her hand and led the women in song.” He writes that the righteous women in Miriam’s time were all convinced that G’d would perform miracles for them in their life time, and this is the reason why they burdened themselves with taking drums out of Egypt. They had already planned to use these drums when singing songs of thanksgiving to the Lord. On Samuel II 22,4 מהלל אקרא ה' ומאויבי אושע, Rashi explains that David too announced that he would praise the name of the Lord as soon as G’d would deliver him from his enemies. He understood that verse as David’s absolute faith that G’d would deliver him from his enemies. He was so certain that he already composed the song of thanksgiving before he had been delivered.
What occurred to the Israelites at the sea of reeds was similar to David’s experience related in Samuel II 22,4. The Israelites, and Nachshon ben Aminadav as a leader of the tribe of Yehudah, especially, were so convinced that G’d would split the sea for them and lead them across in complete safety, that they already prepared the song of thanksgiving in preparation to thanking Him for their salvation. This absolute confidence is reflected in the word ישיר in the future mode, at the beginning of Moses’ song, poem. Nachshon’s jumping into the sea reflected the faith of the collective Jewish soul. This is also reflected in Rashi’s commentary on Exodus 14,15 where G’d appears to chide Moses for crying out to Him for help when He said to Him: מה תצעק אלי? דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו, “why are you crying out to Me? Tell the Children of Israel to keep moving!”
According to Rashi on the last words, G’d told Moses that the merit of their forefathers coupled with their own faith would suffice for the sea to split and to allow them passage. G’d told Moses that He was aware of the people’s basic faith that He would split the sea for them. This awareness of G’d stemmed from His knowing that they had already formulated in their minds the words of the song of thanksgiving that they would sing after completing their safe crossing of the sea. This is also what Rashi means when he says on psalms 114,2 היתה יהודה לקדשו ישראל ממשלותיו, “Yehudah became His holy one, Israel His dominion.” The psalmist refers to Nachshon’s act of faith in jumping into the sea. Because the Israelites’ faith was so strong they were able to formulate the words of the song even before the miracle of their deliverance had occurred.
It is well known that it is G’d’s intention to confer blessings and benefits on His creatures; however, there are times when the benefits remain in the realm of the celestial regions, never reaching its addressees, whereas on other occasions these benefits are executed so that they become visible and felt by its recipients. The Baal Shem tov of blessed memory dwelled on this when he explained the verse ה' צלך על יד ימינך, “the Lord is your shadow, always on your right.” (psalms 121,5) He explained that just as the shadow reflects its owner’s movements, so G’d’s dealings with His creatures reflect these creatures’ deeds. If man emulates G’d’s attribute of Mercy in dealing with his fellow man, G’d can be depended upon to deal similarly with that creature also. The Talmud Shabbat 151 phrases it thus: כל המרחם עם הבריות מרחמין עליו, “anyone who has shown mercy to the creatures will experience that when called for G’d will deal mercifully with him.” If man practices the advice of the sages to be משמח בחלקו, “to accept always with good cheer what fate has in store for him,” he will find that G’d will respond to his virtues in kind. This is what the Midrash says on the verse in psalms 121,5. It follows that when man possesses the faith that G’d will help him through some major problem that faces him, he can rest assured that G’d will indeed do so [if G’d feels that this is for this person’s benefit. We do not always know what is good for us. Ed.] If a person forever worries about where his parnassah, livelihood, will come from, he is liable to experience that “G’d, acting like a shadow, shares in his worries, rather than provides the solution.”
[The author continues with exegesis of the verse in psalms 121,5 at length. As this is very repetitious and germane primarily to someone writing a commentary on psalms, I have decided to omit this. Ed.]
Exodus 15:1 “let me raise my voice in song to the Lord, Who is most triumphant, He has flung horse and rider into the sea.” According to Onkelos, the words גאה גאה mean that Hashem is more exalted than any exalted creature anywhere. The very concept of exaltation is His. Moses attempts to rationalize why The Creator, Who is so far above any of His creatures that in a confrontation between Him and His adversaries the onlookers would think that the combatants are so unevenly matched that the Creator would not have to resort to deeds that impress, as He could blow away His opponent with the mere breath of his mouth. When we read the “song,” it sounds like an accolade for the victor who had exerted himself in order to overcome a powerful opponent, something that is simply not so. Having heard the prophet Isaiah 40,17 proclaim a basic truth, that כל הגוים כאין נגדו, “all the nations of the world (combined) are as nothing when arraigned against Him,” why does Moses portray G’d’s victory of the Egyptians as such a heroic deed? The rhetorical question just posed has already been voiced by the liturgist in one of his poems on the eighth day of Passover. The answer given there is that G’d appeared to exert Himself, taking with Him myriads of angels in order to show the Israelites how much He loved them. Had He blown the Egyptians away with the mere breath of His mouth, the Israelites would not have been impressed. While the Israelites would not have been impressed, the gentiles, instead of being profoundly impressed with the power of our G’d, would have denied that the disappearance without a trace of the armed might of Egypt had been due to the interference in history by an Eternal Creator altogether. Moses expresses his thanks to Hashem for having gone to so much trouble to accomplish what He could have accomplished in the fraction of a second without ”grandstanding.” Grandstanding when it is intended for the benefit of the spectator, as opposed to when it is meant to show off the party setting it in motion, is a valuable tool in the hands of the Creator, and not to be denigrated as it should be when displayed by one of G’d’s creatures.
Exodus 16:1 “He flung horse and its rider high into the sea.” We need to understand why Moses described the “tossing” of the Egyptian cavalry into the sea by using a word referring to an upward motion of G’d’s arm, instead of simply writing הפיל בים, “He dropped them into the sea.” Besides, seeing that in verse 4 Moses describes Hashem as מרכבות פרעה וחילו ירה בים, “G’d threw (same word as “he shot,”) the chariots of Pharaoh and his army into the sea,” why did Moses choose the word רמה in verse 1? Since the only kind of shooting in those days was the shooting of arrows, it was mandatory that the trajectory first involve the rising of the arrow before it could descend and hit its target, so that there was no reason for Moses not to have used the customary word for “shooting.”
Our sages in the Mishnah Sanhedrin 6,4 describe the platform or the “house,” בית הסקילה, from which the penalty of stoning to death was carried out as being two stories (the height of two average sized persons) high. From that platform the criminal or sinner convicted to death by stoning would be pushed down. The “stoning” would commence after the fall if it had not been fatal. The wording in the Torah is: סקול יסקל או ירה יירה, “he will surely be stoned or shot,” (Exodus 19,13). The word ירה alone therefore might have been misleading.
Another expression which poses a difficulty in our verse is: ומבחר שלישיו טבעו בים, “and the choicest of his officers drowned in the sea.” It would have sufficed to state that “his officers drowned;” that would have included both the junior and the senior officers.
The answer to these questions may be gleaned from the words of the Midrash (Yalkut Reuveni, B’shalach) where the protective angel, שר, of the Egyptians is quoted as having complained that seeing that both the Israelites and the Egyptians had been idol worshippers, why would the Egyptians be singled out for such harsh punishment.
We further need to understand why G’d resorted to the stratagem of encouraging the Egyptians to pursue the Israelites through commanding the Israelites to turn back at Baal Tzefon (Exodus 14,2), after they had already left Egypt and both politically and economically, the Super Power Egypt had suffered a lethal blow. Had G’d not found an excuse that misled the Egyptians to believe that their deity had frightened the Israelites, the entire pursuit of the Israelites and the resultant drowning of the Egyptian army would never have taken place. We must therefore conclude that G’d paid heed to the complaint of the protective angel of the Egyptians, and had to show him that his protégées were totally wicked, having reneged on their not only having released the Israelites but having expelled them. (Exodus 12,33 and 39). The words רמה בים, may be understood as a reference to the illusion that the Egyptians harboured that they might succeed due to favourable astrological constellations at the sea where they had failed on land. Secondly, the word מבחר, instead of being a reference to the choicest of the Egyptian officers, is an allusion to the freedom of choice, בחירה, that G’d gave the Egyptians at that time, i.e. they had brought their death upon themselves by having made the wrong choice in pursuing the Israelites, even after witnessing that the G’d of the Israelites had split the sea for them. After having seen this, even the protective angel of the Egyptians no longer had any complaint against G’d.
Exodus 15,2. “The Lord is my strength and might; He has become my deliverance.” Moses describes the process as being that the Children of Israel by dint of their prayers “awakened” the attribute of Mercy including all the largesse that G’d is willing and capable of putting at His creatures’ disposal. We must never lose sight of the fact that even when we carry out G’d’s will and desires, we would never be able to do even this unless we enjoyed a measure of Divine assistance. This is what the Talmud in Kiddushin 30 taught us when it states that without the ongoing assistance by G’d we could never stand up successfully against the evil urge. If this is so, it follows that even our good deeds are the product of Divine assistance, so how can our good deeds and prayers “awaken” the attribute of Mercy?
My revered and saintly teacher Rabbi Dov Baer, has provided us with one of his “pearls” of Torah insights by means of a parable. Let us say that a father is trying to teach his son a difficult lesson. He keeps trying but the son remains unresponsive, does not understand what is expected of him. What does the father do? He provides his son with some clue to the solution of the problem he had posed. Seeing that his father is actively helping him, the son is encouraged and redoubles his efforts to find the missing parts of the puzzle with which this father had confronted him. G’d, our Father in heaven, deals similarly with us. Realising that unless He helps us we might, G’d forbid, become the victims of the evil urge, He furnishes us with clues.
An alternate way of explaining this verse is that Moses acknowledges that the first step in attaining a level of אהבת ה', a relationship with G’d based on our love for Him, is the acquisition of an appropriate amount of יראת ה', awe and reverence for G’d. The word עזי represent this יראה, awe, reverence, it concludes with the personal pronoun “ee”, chirik, “mine,” alluding to our input in this relationship, whereas the word זמרת in the genitive mode to the word Hashem alludes to G’d’s contribution to that relationship.
Exodus 15,3.“The Lord is a man of war, nonetheless His name is Hashem, i.e. the Merciful One.” The author refers to a commentary of his on psalms 90,1 תפלה למשה איש האלוקים, “a prayer by Moses, the man of G’d.” He repeats a theme he has dwelled on repeatedly, that it is the primary effort of the righteous during all of their lives to make their contribution to G’d dispensing the maximum amount of His largesse for His creature. The prayers of the righteous are not concerned with asking for their personal well being, but with asking for the well being of the community within which they live. We perceive of G’d as “garbing” Himself in the mantle woven by the prayers of the righteous. This explains why Moses referred to G’d as איש, “man.” A righteous person in our time is comparable to Moses in his time. The Talmud in Shabbat 101 confirms this by saying that every righteous person in our time may be called “Moses,” hence the commencement of psalm 90 with the words תפלה למשה, do not refer only to the original Moses. The message of the psalm is that the prayers of the righteous in our generation are as effective in their effect on G’d as the prayers of Moses in his time. G’d garbing Himself with the prayers of the righteous is something that is the case only when the result (G’d’s largesse) is to become manifest immediately as beneficial. When G’d responds negatively to our prayers He is never referred to as איש. Hence the meaning of Bileam’s blessing in Numbers 23,19 לא איש א-ל ויכזב, “G’s is not like man who deceives,” teaches that the negative virtue of deceiving is called כזב. We never find the term איש applied to G’d when He is active in His attribute of Justice, decreeing punishment on His people. This remains true even if in answer to the prayers of the righteous He decrees judgment on our adversaries. In such instances He may be referred to as גבור, Warrior, or some other name depicting His attribute of Justice. [This is the difference between G’d as איש מלחמה and elsewhere as גבור מלחמה, (Isaiah 3,2; psalms 24,8) To make the distinction clear, Moses, repeats ה' שמו, His name, predominantly is Hashem, the Merciful One].
Exodus 15,8.“at the blast of Your nostrils the waters piled up;” Onkelos translated the words נערמו מים as: “the waters acted intelligently.” This may be understood with the help of Proverbs 8,12: אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה, “I, wisdom, live with prudence;” we have discussed that if a person wishes to gain an understanding of the superior nature of G’d, he must first of all divest himself of all the materialistic “garments” that are part of his daily outfits. This is the first step in approaching the degree of awe and reverence. Having reached that degree, he may consider himself as possessing some חכמה, wisdom. This is also the meaning of Job 28,28: הן יראת אד-ני היא חכמה וסור מרע בינה, ”See fear of the Lord is wisdom ; to shun evil is understanding.” The root of the word נערמו in the verse quoted at the beginning of this paragraph is ערום,” intelligent, smart, as in Genesis 3,1 where the serpent is described as the smartest of all the creatures of the field. The sea possessed awe and reverence for G’d, being eager to fulfill the will of the Creator; this is what Onkelos wished to convey when he translated the “sea” as being intelligent, smart. [Possibly, as opposed to the earth, which had buried the blood of Hevel, thereby hiding a monstrous sin by Kayin. Ed.]
It is also possible to understand the line: ורוח אפיך נערמו מים as reflecting a statement in the Talmud Tamid 32 where the rhetorical question of “who can be described as truly wise?” is answered by “whoever can see what has come into existence.” We must not lose sight of the general rule that G’d created the universe in order to take a delight in Israel, and in order to have Mercy on them when the situation called for this, as our sages have said (not found source) that man, respectively the righteous Israelite, was meant to call upon G’d’s mercy. The relationship between G’d and man, and man and G’d respectively, is reciprocal from the bottom up and from the top down. This was demonstrated to Yaakov in his dream of the ladder where the angels moved in both directions. It is a constant reminder to us when we look at the first letter of the aleph bet where there are two letters yud, one pointing upwards, the other downward. They are linked by a diagonal line to alert us to this relationship between heaven and earth being reciprocal. When the sages in the Talmud (Avot 2,9) teaches that איזהו חכם הרואה את הנולד, “who is wise? He who looks intelligently at all existing phenomena,” they mean that an intelligent appraisal of the entire universe leads us to the conclusion that the universe was only created with a view to the Jewish people and their tasks. When we do this, we fulfill G’d’s will. At the point in time under discussion in our verse, it had been demonstrated that it was G’d’s will for the sea to be split for the benefit of Moses and Israel. True wisdom is shown by G’d’s creatures when they draw these conclusions from miracles they perceive. The sea of reeds had demonstrated such wisdom by complying with G’d’s desires. It had “looked”, i.e. reflected at its own origins and had realized what its purpose was at a given moment. By not merely dissolving into oxygen and hydrogen, but arranging itself into a “wall,” so that the Israelites could walk alongside it, the sea had demonstrated its wisdom and obedience to its Creator. [The last paragraph contained wording of my own, but I am confident that by using these words I have explained the author’s meaning better. Ed.]
Exodus 15,11.“Who is comparable to You among the divinities O Lord?” G’d’s intention in splitting the sea had been to humble the idol worshippers and to reveal their idols as impotent. The Egyptians’ major deity had been the river Nile (since it was the source of their economic survival) According to our sages in Sh’mot Rabbah 21,6) at the time of the splitting of the sea of reeds all bodies of water, world wide, experienced a similar “splitting.” The Midrash derives this from the words ויבקעו המים: “the waters split, (plural mode) instead of ויבקע המים singular mode. (Compare 14,21) If all the waters that had been created during the six days of creation split, the waters of the river Nile were included. What better way was there to prove to the Egyptians (and other nations) that there is only one Creator of all the phenomena in the universe?
Another approach to the line: מי כמוך באלים ה'...נורא תהלות עושה פלא, “Who is like You o Lord, among the celestials, …awesome in splendour, working wonders!” It is an accepted criterion of our faith that when a person denies his ego the way is paved to his becoming wise. This concept is spelled out in Job 33,33: אם אין אתה, שמע לי החרש ואאלפך חכמה, “if you are (prepared to be) ‘nothing’, listen to Me, and be still, and I will teach you wisdom.” As the author has mentioned several times, חכמה, true wisdom, is the result of divesting oneself totally of one’s “ego;” as we know from another verse in Job 28,12 והחכמה מאין תמצא, “and wisdom you will find through negating “ego”, becoming “nought,” i.e. אין. A closer look at the word אלף which symbolizes the beginning of everything in our world, will show you that when read backwards it reads פלא, “something transcendental, miraculous.” Moses alludes to this when describing G’d as the source of פלא, “wonders.” What we have previously described as אין, is also a reference to בינה, insight, which, as the word indicates, is something internal, therefore invisible, hidden, another aspect of the root פלא or מופלא. Negation of self, of ego, results in one’s becoming privy to the hidden insights, פלא.
The author sees in Exodus 31,14, ושמרתם את השבת כי קודש היא לכם, “you shall “observe” the Sabbath for it is holy for you,” an allusion to our “viewing” the concept of the Sabbath as our looking at its holy origin. The word “seeing” is understood as the person who “sees” receiving an image, i.e. he is a recipient of revelations of one sort or another. A painter cannot paint a painting until he has first seen an image which he tries to reproduce on canvas, or paper, or any other suitable surface. In the case of “observing” the Sabbath, we are privy to receiving “images” from the אין, from a dimension of the universe, the celestial dimension, that is devoid of a body and its attendant limitations. A Sabbath properly “observed,” is a day in which we distance ourselves from most of our physical needs, [except, of course, fulfilling the commandments that are prescribed and make our bodies participants in this holy experience. Ed.].
Another approach to the words: נורא תהלות עושה פלא, is found in the Talmud Niddah 31, with a slightly different wording. The Talmud relates instances of where the person who experiences miraculous salvation at the hand of G’d was totally unaware of this. This is the case very often; in fact it is almost a necessity if we are to acquire faith in G’d in the proper manner. To quote an example from the folio quoted in the Talmud.
Two colleagues set out on a business trip which also involved a voyage by sea. The first of the two stepped on a thorn and was prevented from continuing his journey. He was very upset at what he considered a stroke of misfortune. Some time later he heard that his colleague, who had boarded the ship they were both supposed to travel on, had drowned when the ship he was on capsized in a storm, and all hands were lost. This is when he realized that what he had thought to have been a stroke of misfortune was in fact a miracle performed by G’d in order to save his life. Miracles do not necessarily consist of the laws of nature being suspended in a certain place at a certain time. True faith in the Lord is based on our appreciating that in the eyes of G’d, as opposed to in the eyes of the human onlooker, performing a miracle such as splitting the sea does not require more effort than causing a thorn at a certain place at a certain time to penetrate the skin of the foot of a person walking on a path. A truly wise person has come to realize that to the One Who had given instructions for oil to be a potent fuel, vinegar can just as easily serve as a potent fuel if the Creator so desires. (Compare Talmud, Taanit 25) Similarly, it requires no greater effort for G’d to cause the sea to be calm than to cause it to be stormy. If G’d nonetheless does perform “miracles” of the kind we have been reading about in the last few chapters of the Torah, this was only in order to give the beneficiaries an opportunity to express their gratitude to G’d, something they would not have been aware of in their daily lives, although it may happen repeatedly on a daily basis without the person for whom the miracle was performed noticing it.
The author views the sea’s alternating between being calm or stormy, as “miracles” which alternate constantly, and therefore do not strike us as miracles. When the sea split, however, this was a different miracle, and that is why people perceived it as such. It had the desired effect on both the Israelites and the nations of the universe. The former broke out in a song of gratitude, realizing that G’d had performed this miracle for their sake, while the nations were frightened and realized that there was One Power that towered above all the “powers” which they had been worshipping. The greatest “surprise” of the miracle was that G’d loves mortal man, Israel, so much that He performs such basic miracles upsetting basic elements of the globe, i.e. water. This gave rise to the psalmist in psalms 107,8 to proclaim: יודו לה' חסדו ונפלאותיו לבני אדם, “let them (man) praise the Lord for His loving kindness; His wondrous deeds for mankind.” The words לבני אדם, at the end of this verse indicate that the word יודו, at the beginning of the verse is addressed to celestial beings, for whom the splitting of the sea had been an eye-opener, as even they had been unaware of the depth of Hashem’s feelings of love for His people. As far as G’d Himself was concerned, this was no special effort at all, as we already pointed out.
Still another exegesis of the words: נורא תהלות עושה פלא, “awesome in splendour performing miracles.” Every activity, project, is propelled by a “cause,” and its successful conclusion is meant to provide the person performing it with some pleasure or satisfaction. The “cause,” though experienced in the material world, originates in the spiritual world, even though it underwent many changes on its path to its eventual destination. Its origin was the אלף, also known as אין, the “nought,” the domain totally devoid of such concepts as “ego.” Moses refers to this origin as being lofty, far removed from our means of perception, so that it is פלא, hidden from the eyes of mortal human beings.
Exodus 15,13. “in Your love You lead the people You redeemed; in Your strength You guide them to Your holy abode.” Moses refers to the fact that the redemption from Egypt was not linked to any particular commandments that had to be fulfilled. [I presume that the slaughtering and eating of the Passover lamb is understood as simply saving the firstborn Israelites from dying on that night. Ed.] Ezekiel 16,7 refers to the “nakedness” of the people at that time with the words ואת ערום ועריה , meaning that they did not enjoy the merit of having fulfilled any of G’d’s commandments. As a result, the redemption was purely an act of G’d’s loving kindness for His people. Hence Moses stresses this by saying: נחית בחסדך. This situation, however, was limited to the original redemption. It implies that during a future redemption the Jewish people will be armed with merits, i.e. נהלת בעזך אל נוה קדשך, a veiled reference to the ultimate redemption.
Exodus 15,16. “Your Terror and dread descend upon them; through the might of Your arm they are still as stone; till Your people cross over;” the holy tongue is composed of letters (consonants) and vowels. The “letters” without the vowels accompanying them are lifeless; the vowels give “life” to the consonants. All subjects that are directly relevant to the “higher” worlds are alluded to in the Torah by the combination of consonants and vowels. As a result, at times when radical changes occurred in the laws of nature, such as during the splitting of the sea (waters) the “connection” between these letters and the celestial domains was interrupted, i.e. נדמו כאבן, “they were silent as stone.” We know that אבן is also referred to as אות, letter, from the reference in the Sefer Yetzirah to שני אבנים. This is what is meant by Moses saying: בגדול זרועך, i.e. on account of Your great Arm, (performing miracles) the letters and vowels were completely silenced and paralysed. [The Sefer Yetzirah revolves around the basic significance of the letters as paths to wisdom, the letters forming a major part of these paths. Ed.]
Exodus 15,18. “the Lord will reign forever.”
In psalms 146,10 David rephrases this by saying: ימלוך ה' לעולם אלוקיך, “the Lord shall reign forever, your G’d.” Moses mentions the subject first, whereas David mentions the subject’s activity, i.e. “reigning,” first. In the Zohar I 148 we find the following commentary on psalms 132,9 כהניך ילבשו צדק וחסידיך ירננו, “Your priests are clothed in righteousness, whereas Your pious ones sing for joy.” The Zohar substitutes the word לוויך, “Your Levites,” for the word חסידיך, “Your pious ones.” He justifies this by claiming that the psalmist, David, considers himself the “entertainer” of the King (G’d). Seeing that he had become qualified to “invite the King,” i.e. selecting a site for the Temple, where G’d was to reside, he realized that it was not enough for the King to be “entertained,” i.e. hosted, by an ordinary Israelite, and thus elevated himself to the status of the Levite, as only the priests and the Levites were ministering to the King’s needs, i.e. performing service in the Temple.
However, there is still another dimension to this parable. It is that even though the good fortune was a daily routine for the rich person in our parable, he did not take his good fortune for granted or as proof of his being worthy of this, but he did not lose sight of the origin of his good fortune and remained aware that he had no claim to it. Perhaps, this is even more noteworthy than the songs presented to G’d by the poor person in our story. The rich person realized that rather than his enjoying his good fortune personally, i.e. his ego thanking the Lord, he understood that it was his task to ensure that G’d will enjoy his prayers of thanksgiving, and that he had afforded him an opportunity to provide Him with a feeling of נחת רוח, “pleasurable satisfaction” at having created the person who had the option of feeling smug about his good fortune instead.
When David changed the word that we would have expected to חסידיך from לוויך, he hinted that the priests and the Levites are like the poor man in the story, i.e. they had been born as such, had not had free volition, but their lifestyles had been dictated by heredity, their respective fathers having been priests or Levites. Not so with חסידיך, who, though not compelled by fate to spend their lives in serving the Lord, had chosen to do so from their own free will. David’s kind of serving the Lord is qualitatively higher than that of the priest and the Levite, or even than that of the man on whom good fortune has shone all his life. He had eliminated personal considerations from his service of the Lord, being concerned only with how G’d would feel when He saw that a creature of His had His feelings at heart.
When applying this to the position of the word ימלוך in our verse, and the same word in psalms 146,10. we realize that David had attained a higher level of service to G’d than had the Jewish people, even the ones who were not born to the priesthood and the tribe of Levi.
At the splitting of the sea the Jewish people had been at the beginning of a long spiritual journey, whereas by the time when King David prepared to erect a permanent Temple for G’d on earth, they had matured spiritually in the interval.
Another way of explaining the difference in syntax between Moses “enthroning” G’d forever and David doing so, based on the Talmud in Nedarim 10, runs as follows. The Talmud there discusses the prohibition of our formulating even a praise of the Lord by mentioning His name first. It is forbidden. For instance, when making a vow, one must not say: לה' חטאת “for the Lord a sin offering,” but must be careful to mention the words “sin offering” before adding the words: “for the Lord.” The reason for the prohibition is that if the donor were to die before completing his sentence, he would have been guilty of transgressing the third of the Ten Commandments, which warns us not to utter the name of the Lord in vain, as this is a sin that cannot be completely forgiven even if you do teshuvah. David was conscious of this halachah and that is why he prefaced his praise of the Lord with the word: ימלוך, “may He reign.
At the time when Moses intoned the song at the shores of the sea of reeds, the Israelites had become free from any ritual impurity that had contaminated them prior to that experience, so that, angel-like, they were not subject to the laws that restrict man. (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah 32,1). After the sin of the golden calf, when ritual contamination again affected the people, the prohibition to commence a sentence with mentioning the holy name of the Lord was re-introduced.
Still another approach to the difference between David’s formulation of enthroning G’d forever in psalms 146,10 and how Moses formulated the identical thought in our verse. It is incumbent upon each of us to constantly strive for cleaving to the Lord in feelings of awe and reverence. As long as the human intelligence is still on a relatively low level, the way to compensate for this is through the performance of commandments involving various parts of our bodies. When we have reached a higher level of attachment to G’d through the performance of these commandments, we gradually attain a deeper understanding of the whole concept of G’d as the Creator and King of the universe. David had not been present at the revelation of Mount Sinai when the Jewish people experienced this attachment to their Creator. This is why he had to content himself with first saying the word ימלוך, before continuing with mention of G’d’s name. By saying: "ימלוך", “may He reign,” he had accepted the yoke of heaven, similar to when the Israelites uttered their famous נעשה ונשמע, “we will carry out, now let’s hear the commandments,” at Mount Sinai. At the sea, when the Torah had not yet been revealed to the Jewish people, they had to mention G’d’s name first in order to attain the minimum level of attachment to G’d before qualifying for the revelation 6 weeks later.
In our daily prayers at the end of our reciting the song the Israelites had sung at the shores of the sea of reeds, we add the following line: כי לה' המלוכה ומושל בגויים ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה,, “Dominion shall be the Lord’s; and He rules over the nations. And they will go as messengers of salvation up on Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau and the dominion shall be G’d’s, etc.” There appears to be a repetition of the reference to G’d’s having dominion.
Actually, in order to understand this we need to remember that the position of King, מלך, reflects the will of the people who have (unanimously) chosen a particular personage to be their king. The position of מושל, ruler, by contrast, does not derive from the will of his subjects but from power possessed by the leader, possibly without the consent of his subjects, even against their approval. This is the clue to the meaning of our verse. We are told first that the dominion, מלוכה, dominion, belongs to G’d, irrespective of His creatures’ approval or dissent. Alas, at the time when the Torah was written, people were too ignorant to appreciate this. However by this time (when the prophet Zecharyah, 14 wrote this verse, (or better, the time that he refers to in that verse,) one nation, the Jewish nation had seen “the light,” and they had accepted Him as King wholeheartedly. This is the meaning of the words: כי לה' המלוכה. “G’d is ruler by grace of Israel’s having enthroned Him.” As to His relationship with the gentile nations, He is merely מושל, a ruler, not yet having secured the voluntary acceptance of His Kingship. In the future, however, when G’d will pronounce judgments from Mount Zion, the entire human race will acknowledge Him as their King. At that time they will “crown” Him.
As to the verse from Ovadiah 1,21ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה, “for liberators shall march up on Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau; and dominion shall be the Lord’s.” The subject hinted at by the prophet has been expanded upon in the Talmud Sukkah 52. The Talmud there draws an allegorical picture of G’d slaughtering the evil urge in the presence of both the righteous people and the wicked people. Both the righteous and the wicked are described as weeping when they witness the evil urge being slaughtered. The righteous perceive the evil urge as a tall mountain and they weep over their ability to have ascended such a high mountain. The wicked, on the other hand, weep, as the mountain appeared to them no thicker than a hair, and not high, so that they could not understand not having been able to scale it. From this description it appears clear that in the future when G’d will perform miracles for us while the gentile nations are fighting and oppressing us, the evil urge will certainly appear to them first as an insurmountable mountain, not as if it had appeared to them as no higher than the diameter of a thin hair, as , according to their argument, had it appeared as hair-thin they would have allowed us to proceed to our homeland in the land of Israel without making strenuous efforts to prevent this. However, seeing that in reality the evil urge was no taller than the proverbial hair, they deserve all the judgments that G’d will bring to bear on them, seeing that they had not even made an effort to overcome such a miniscule obstacle in order to serve G’d and carry out His will. This is the meaning of the verse beginning with: ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון, that at that future time the Israelites, i.e. מושיעים, will ascend Mount Zion in order to conquer the mountain still in possession of Esau, the “mountain” that appeared to the wicked as unassailable. The righteous will have no trouble overcoming the wicked as they will realize that their “fortress” is no more than a hairbreadth’s thickness.
Exodus 16,25. “eat it this day for this day is the Sabbath for G’d; this day you will not find any of it in the field.” With these words we can answer the question raised by Rabbi Moshe Alshich why the manna did not descend on the Sabbath, whereas G’d did not interfere with the continued growing and developing of crops that originate in the earth. The fact that the manna did not descend on the Sabbath is a reminder that whereas normal crops originate from indirect largesse of G’d, i.e. His largesse making a detour via the bowels of the earth and requiring the “help” of rainfall, and the many steps a farmer must invest before he finally has a loaf of bread to show for his toil. The Sabbath is a symbol of G’d’s direct largesse, the ready made “bread” having been sent to earth already on the eve of the Sabbath, so that the spiritual dimension of the Sabbath does not need to be diminished, desecrated. This concept has been alluded to in the Talmud Shabbat 118 where we are told: כל המענג את השבת נותנים לו משאלות לבו, “whoever will gladden the Sabbath will have his heart’s desires fulfilled.” The scholar making that statement supports it with a verse from psalms 37,4 והתענג על ה' ויתן לך משאלות לבך, “endeavour to provide pleasure for the Lord, and He will grant you the desires of your heart.” Apparently, according to the Talmud, the principal enjoyment G’d derives from the Sabbath is the very existence of that day as such. Rav Yehudah, the author of the above quoted statement, considers the principal pleasure to be derived from the Sabbath not the additional food and drink and its superior quality, but the appreciation that G’d created such a day, a day that enables us to reflect on the fact that the purpose of our existence is not exhausted by our being able to provide for our material needs, but to enable us to intensify our link to the celestial domain in which the Creator resides. When the sages composed the central prayer of the Sabbath service that commences with the words: תכנת שבת, “You have established the Sabbath, etc,” they arranged for the words to commence with the letters of the alphabet beginning with the last letter and concluding with the first letter. In other words, the message of the Sabbath is to take us back from a material world to the totally spiritual world that existed before G’d commenced with creating the light. We have dwelled on the idea that a human being who is spiritually successful will “bounce back” the light that G’d created and used to illuminate the physical universe. Our author, at that time, described this “bouncing back” of “light rays” to G’d by human beings as the highest accolade we are capable of, as it proves that His light inspired us spiritually. At that time our author explained that the light created on the first day of creation is perceived as אור ישר, “direct light,” whereas the “light” bounced back by us is perceived as אור חוזר, “reflected light.” The sages’ arrangement of the prayer תכנת שבת, reflects all this. Once we appreciate this we understand why it was natural for no manna to descend to earth on the Sabbath. The very descent of manna from heaven is an example of “direct light,” i.e. largesse descending from heaven to the material world directly, whereas the Sabbath is reserved for grateful man to “kick back” some of that light after he has “garbed” it with spiritual input of his own.
The reason why normal crops continue to grow without interruption on the Sabbath is because the whole universe has been created for the benefit of the Jewish people, and all the crops that grow are meant to serve the needs of the Jewish people, first and foremost. When the Jew eats and drinks, partaking of G’d’s largesse, he does not do so in order to indulge himself but in order to help him to better serve his Creator. The ripe crops therefore can be viewed as a microcosm of the concept of the Sabbath, i.e. they serve to refine the human being and to help him become the ideal man G’d had envisioned when He set out to create him. Ingestion of the food grown by the earth by Torah observant Israelites, not only enhances the spiritual development of the Israelite consuming it, but converts the food itself into part of the spiritually advancing Israelite himself. The very process of the crops growing even on the Sabbath are only a stage in this “kickback” by the Israelite, or ideal man, of the now spiritually enhanced light that originally came forth when G’d created אור ישר, “direct light.”
The phenomenon of the splitting of the sea may be understood in a similar manner. When the ocean was first created, this was parallel to the creation of light, i.e. an emanation of what had previously been something spiritual, i.e. something “travelling” downwards from a higher celestial domain. When the sea was split, it travelled in the opposite direction, emanation in reverse. Since it did so by fulfilling its Creator’s directive, it made a positive contribution, just as did a human being who ingests food in order to serve his Creator. This was a strictly temporary situation, so that when it returned לאיתנו, “to its original condition,” it resumed its normal function. This is the mystical dimension of the three verses of 72 letters each, which alternately have to be read in opposite directions to enable us to read the 72-lettered name of G’d. (14,19-21) The first verse is read from right to left, the second from left to right, and the third again from right to left. The three verses are written above one another.
This same allusion is contained in our verse above, i.e. אכלוהו היום—כי שבת היום—היום לא תמצאוהו בשדה. Man’s principal enjoyment is on the Sabbath. It is the Sabbath itself, not its corollaries, therefore it does not matter that you will not find the manna in the field today. [The reader is referred to pages 365-366 where the subject of these three verses has been discussed first. Ed.]
Exodus 16,28.G’d said to Moses: “‘how long will you refuse to observe My commandments and My teachings?”
Pertaining to this verse [which sounds as if G’d accuses Moses, personally, of not observing His commandments, Ed.] Rashi,; says (based on the Talmud in Baba Kamma 92) that sometimes when a farmer wishes to uproot a weed growing too close to a cabbage, he inadvertently uproots the cabbage at the same time. What the Talmud has in mind is that sometimes keeping company with the wicked will result in the innocent becoming afflicted with the fallout of the afflictions that the wicked will be struck with.
In order to understand how our sages dared to explain this verse by attributing to G’d that He would hold Moses responsible for keeping company with the wicked when Moses had been appointed as the leader of the Israelites against his will, and only after arguing about his being unsuitable for such a task for seven days, we may have to refer to another comment by Rashi on 16,22: ויבאו כל נשיאי העדה ויגידו למשה, “the princes of the entire congregation came to tell Moses.” [the fact that a double portion of manna had descended on the camp on the eve of the Sabbath. Ed.] On this verse Rashi writes that the fact that the princes had been taken by surprise is proof that Moses had not told anyone of G’d’s command that this would occur on the Sabbath eve. G’d had told Moses about this already in verse 5 of our chapter, but Moses had withheld this information, part of which was that the people should prepare their food for the Sabbath. Rashi says there that Moses was punished in our verse for withholding this information from the people, so that he is lumped together with them as guilty of not observing G’d’s commandments. In other words, Moses was punished for not warning the people in good time how to prepare for the Sabbath, seeing that there were numerous tasks that could not be performed on the Sabbath, including cooking, baking, etc.
It is clear then that Moses was punished for not telling the people immediately about the Sabbath at the end of the week. Nonetheless, we need to understand how this failure to tell the people about the Sabbath and there being no manna on that day was such a serious act of omission that it warranted such a punishment. Would the fact that the people had known about the absence of manna a few days earlier have made such a difference that all of them would have stayed in their tents without testing if indeed there was no manna on that day?
We have read in a book called sefer yereyim, the book for the truly reverent Jews, that every commandment requires preparation before it can be performed properly, i.e. at the best possible level. One needs to purify oneself in thought and deed before setting out to perform the commandment. The reason is that by preparing oneself for the performance of the commandment one demonstrates that one is happy to have the opportunity to perform this commandment. It shows G’d that one looks forward to the opportunity to perform the mitzvah. Having prepared oneself for performing the commandment ensures that one will do so meticulously. One’s heart and soul will be part of the act of performance.
Once we have appreciated this, we will also understand the opinion of Nachmanides who writes that it is a commandment to mention the Sabbath on each of the days preceding it. This is the reason why when we recite the daily psalm at the end of our daily morning prayers we commence with mentioning what day of the week it is by linking it to the Sabbath, i.e. “today is the first day of the Sabbath.” [We do not say: “this is the first day of the week,” for instance. Ed.] According to Nachmanides this is the reason that the Torah writes זכור את יום השבת לקדשו, “remember the day of the Sabbath to sanctify it,” instead of merely writing: “remember the Sabbath to sanctify it.” (Exodus 20,8). The message is that we are to remember the Sabbath every day of the week, the word זכור not being in the imperative mode but in the infinitive mode. By doing so we indicate how we look forward to keeping the Sabbath at the end of the week. Having looked forward to the Sabbath in such a fashion ensures that when the day arrives we will honour it with all our heart and will not, G’d forbid, commit any act which would desecrate its holiness. From all the above it follows that if Moses had announced the fact that the manna would not descend on the Sabbath as soon as He had been told about this by G’d, the people could have prepared themselves for this day until Friday and the desecration by some people of the Sabbath might well have been avoided. The sudden announcement shortly before the onset of the Sabbath took everyone by surprise and resulted in some people not treating the Sabbath with the respect due to it.
The word לשמור in our verse need not be understood as “to observe,” but may equally well be understood as “to await,” as it is understood in Genesis 37,11 where it describes Yaakov’s reaction to Joseph’s dream in which he saw sun and moon bowing down to him. It means that Yaakov awaited further developments before deciding if there was any substance to Joseph’s dream. This is also how Rashi understands the word לשמור in our verse, when he writes that Moses was punished by G’d not excluding him from the accusation leveled at the community at large. He was the indirect cause of the desecration of the Sabbath by the people, as he had failed to prepare the people for the advent of the Sabbath. They should have eagerly awaited that day, i.e. have looked forward to it with great expectations.
Exodus 17,6.“Here I stand opposite you on the rock at Mount Chorev. When you will strike the rock water will come forth from it and the people will drink.” The obvious question about this verse is: ‘how is it possible to describe G’d, the Creator, as “standing” when we always perceive of Him as being present all over the universe, i.e. מלא כל הארץ כבודו, “the whole earth is filled with His glory?” There is no spot on earth where G’d is not “present!” The wording in our verse creates the impression in the reader’s mind that at that time G’d was present only on the rock (Mount Chorev)!
In order to clarify this we must revert to the Talmud in B’rachot 6 where the root of the word עמד, is defined as meaning תפלה, “prayer.” The Talmud quotes as its source psalms 106,30 ויעמוד פינחס ויפלל, “Pinchas waited and prayed before stepping forth.” This quotation seems to reinforce the problem rather than to resolve it, seeing that in our principal daily prayer prayers, known as עמידה, “something performed while standing,” the focus seems to be on standing still. The Talmud clearly had in mind something other than the plain meaning of the words, the פשט.
It appears clear therefore that our sages were not speaking about the people at large when they made the statement quoted in the Talmud B’rachot 6 that the meaning of the word עמידה refers primarily to prayer. They had in mind only the elite of the people, the scholars and the pious. When speaking of such people the common meaning of עמידה, i.e. standing still, does not apply at all, as these people are spiritually constantly “on the move;” they keep moving from one spiritual level to the next higher one. It is what distinguishes them even from angels whom the prophet Zecharyah 2,7 described as העומדים האלה, “these spiritually stationary ones.” When a person is on the “lookout” for his Creator in order to serve Him in the manner appropriate to His stature, he must do so and constantly keep searching until by learning how to manipulate the letters in the holy tongue he will feel that he is coming closer to G’d’s essence. The very idea of “standing still,” resting on one’s laurels, so to speak, is not part of such people’s vocabulary. This is precisely why in the parlance of the prophets the righteous are defined as מהלכים, from the root הלך i.e. people who are constantly “on the move.” They are traversing different regions of the universe, proceeding from one “world” to another in search of their ultimate objective of דבקות, “cleaving” to G’d. When we recite what are known as the פסוקי דזמרה, sacred texts in which G’d is extolled in song and poetry, we are “travelling” through different layers of these various “worlds.” When these psalms are recited with profound concentration, they lead the person doing so to getting insights into more and more facets of G’d’s many characteristics.
In the parlance of our sages these different worlds of disembodied creatures are known collectively as the עולם האצילות, ‘the world of emanation.’ As the term indicates, this olam ha-atzilut is not yet the domain in which the King of kings resides, as “emanation” implies a certain degree of physicality in that “world,” however minute. When one gets to reciting the עמידה, the nineteen benedictions which make up the essence of our prayers, one is supposed to have prepared oneself for facing the highest domain in which no physical matters exist, the domain whence only the אורות של אין סוף, “the brilliant light of the essence of the Creator sends forth illumination to His universe.” This light from the eyn sof surrounds a human being from all directions so that he automatically pours out his heart in front of G’d, literally. This had not been the case previously, although he had already reached the level of olam haatzilut.
People who have not even attained that level are considered as still in the אצילות העשיה, the region of the emanations in the lower levels of the ten emanations, in the region of the completed physical universe, whereas people who have attained the next higher level are considered as in the atzilut hayetzirah, the world of emanations in the part of the physical domain that is still in the formative stages. The אצילות דבריאה, domain of the highest layers of emanations is immediately below that which is known as אצילות דאצילות, the region in which any emanation containing something approaching matter is at an absolute minimum. This is the absolutely highest level that it is possible for a mortal human being to achieve. There is no further progress from there, hence the elite of the Jewish people when having achieved that level through intensive prayer are considered as עומד “standing”. (still) If the principal daily prayer is called עמידה, suggesting “standstill,” this is to be understood as far more than keeping one’s feet close together parallel to one another while reciting these benedictions; the word symbolized the “highest “ rung in their spiritual ascent that the person involved in praying is capable of attaining, i.e. his ultimate goal.
We have explained repeatedly, that what man does in his domain in the physical universe is reflected in the celestial regions by parallel changes occurring there. If we achieve ascending to the highest rungs of that spiritual ladder which we just described, G’d on His part will respond by “moving” in our direction, welcoming us, so to speak. The result is that G’d is able to say to Moses: הנני עומד לפניך, “Here am I, standing directly in front of you.” In response to the worshipper’s exclusive concentration on the Creator and His grandeur, the Creator in turn concentrates exclusively on the worshipper as a sign of His love for that person.
The author continues to link this to the אבן השתיה, the stone that rested on the spot where the Holy Ark used to stand in the first Temple, underneath which one could connect directly to the “navel” of the globe. [This editor confesses that he has not been able to follow this sufficiently to be able to claim that he can explain it to the reader. The gist of it seems to be that this physical location represented a “key” on earth to unlocking the source of G’d’s largesse once it had reached our domain. According to the Talmud, this was the point from which the globe was formed. Ed.]
Exodus 17,9. “and G’d’s staff will be in my hand.” Moses meant that just as G’d is the “staff” of the universe, doing as He pleases with His universe, so the staff that the G’d had given him enables him to work wonders at will for benefit of his people.” Moses alluded to what the Talmud in Moed Katan 16 stated, quoting G’d: “who rules over Me? The righteous.” The reference is to the staff G’d had entrusted to Moses, the one by means of which he performed the miracles. G’d had entrusted Moses with this staff, allowing him to use it at his discretion.
Our sages in the Talmud Megillah 13 explain that the reason why Queen Esther was known as Esther (rather than as Hadassah, Esther 2,7) was that her beauty reminded people of the brilliance of the planet (star) Venus. [possibly the Talmud, which also explains her name as a reminder that she was a lady who could keep a secret, sees a dual meaning in her name, both brilliant light, and complete darkness, hiding things. Ed.] Some of G’d’s miracles involve changes in the laws of nature such as the splitting of the sea, turning the waters of the Nile into blood and redeeming the Jewish people from Egypt. Others are the result of a combination and timing of most unlikely circumstances.
Ahasverus’ taking a liking to Haman and trusting him blindly, and subsequently switching his trust to Esther who had never even revealed her nationality or religion to him, is just a minor example of this. Haman’s choosing to request permission from Ahasverus to hang Mordechai in the middle of the night, a night when the king could not sleep and he was reminded that Mordechai had saved his life from assassins, and that Esther at the time had brought this to his attention, and that Haman planned to kill his lifesaver, etc., are just a few of these propitious coincidences that resulted in Haman’s downfall and the salvation of the Jewish people at that time. The former kind of miracle is usually attributed to G’d in His capacity as the tetragram, י-ה-ו-ה, whereas the latter kind of miracle is attributed to G’d in His capacity as א-ד-נ-י. In the former case, G’d is “active, changing the rules of the game,” whereas in the case of the “hidden” miracle, the emphasis is on the recipient, מקבל. The difference can be compared to the difference between the sun and the moon, both of which give forth rays of light, the sun being a source of light, whereas the moon only reflects light that it had already received from the sun. Esther therefore is compared to the moon in the story of Purim.
When G’d performs supernatural miracles even the idolaters are humbled and recognize (temporarily) His mastery as we know from Exodus 18,1 where the Torah records that Yitro had heard about these great miracles and had concluded that Hashem is superior to any other force in the universe that claims the status of being a deity.
Amalek was the only nation among the wicked people denying G’d’s power, who challenged G’d by attacking His people, unprovoked, on ground (Compare Yalkut Shimoni, 938, and quoted by Rashi (Deuteronomy 25,18) that did not belong to any nation. According to Rashi, Amalek’s being the first to challenge the myth of G’d’s invincibility is compared to the first person jumping into boiling hot water of a bath tub, who, while being scalded nevertheless succeeds in cooling the water so that the next person following will hardly be scalded at all and subsequent people will feel comfortable in that tub.
[While both Rashi and Yalkut Shimoni quote this analogy, Rashi could not have taken it from Yalkut Shimoni, as the author of these Midrashim lived approximately 200 years later than Rashi. Ed.]
Seeing that Amalek initiated this rebellion against G’d, the Torah commands such far reaching punishment for that nation. If G’d now commanded the Israelites to wage war against Amalek, the reason was that seeing supernatural means of humbling idolaters had not sufficed, other, better understood means, i.e. warfare on earth, had to be reverted to. It was therefore appropriate that Joshua should conduct this battle as Moses had been instrumental in performing supernatural miracles, whereas Joshua would prove that G’d is able to deal with sinners without having to resort to supernatural means. Our sages alluded to this when they said in the Talmud Baba Batra 75 that if Moses’ face could be compared to the face of the sun, Joshua’s would be comparable to that of the moon.
Allusions found in the written Torah usually refer to the celestial regions or to matters supernatural, metaphysical, whereas allusions in the oral Torah usually refer to matters in the physical universe. The relationship between the written Torah and the oral Torah is that the written Torah is the source, i.e. like the sun, whereas the oral Torah is comparable to the moon, i.e. a recipient, reflecting the origin. Here, where nature was “repaired” by miracles similar to those experienced by Mordechai and Esther, i.e. “hidden miracles,” as described earlier, it was appropriate that we are told for the first time about parts of the written Torah to be committed to writing. [I believe the author draws a parallel between the antagonists of the Jewish people at that time, i.e. a descendant from Amalek, and the first defeat suffered by Amalek at the hands of Joshua, Ed.] The “allusions” referred to are the words זאת and זכרון in this short paragraph, and the written record of the Purim story in Esther as described in Esther 9,29-32. (Compare Talmud Megillah 7). The words זכרון בספר refer to the written record in the Torah, whereas the word זאת refers to the oral record in the halachah.
Exodus 17,16.“for as long as a hand is raised against the throne of G’d, Hashem will continue to wage war against Amalek.” We need to understand why the “war” against Amalek is so extraordinarily difficult and long drawn out for G’d, Who could create the universe with merely 10 verbal directives. This question is also posed by the author of the Zohar, when reflecting on the ongoing struggle, מדור ודור, “from generation to generation. (Zohar II 133)
It appears to me that without a doubt the Creator Who had created all the various universes could have disposed of Amalek with a single breath of His mouth. This is especially so, in light of what G’d had already demonstrated at the sea of reeds, when He drowned a far mightier army than was at the disposal of Amalek, in a single hour. The point we must consider is that G’d at all times- even when apparently acting destructively- does in fact act for the good of mankind. The Ari z’al stresses this already in his commentary on Exodus 3,10 when G’d first appointed Moses by saying to him: לכה ואשלחך אל פרעה והוצא את עמי בני ישראל ממצרים, “come, I will send you to Pharaoh and you shall free My people the Children of Israel from Egypt.” It is clear from this wording that G’d had hoped to accomplish the Exodus without having to impose judgments on Pharaoh and his people. It is simply not in the nature of G’d to inflict harm even on the gentile peoples of the world, if His purpose can be achieved by avoiding this.
If it becomes necessary to perform miracles which at the same time afflict the people who made these miracles necessary so that they suffer from them, it is because G’d sees ultimate good in these very afflictions that He decrees on the victims. The author refers to an article of his on the general subject of miracles where he dealt with this subject.
One of the “good results” from such miracles is the fact that some of the people who are the victims will choose of their own free will to convert to Judaism and to become servants of the only G’d. In the case of Amalek, in spite of this people having witnessed the miracles which had so profoundly impressed all the other nations, no such positive outcome as people converting to Judaism resulted. On the contrary, as Rashi had described, the Amalekites decided to put an end to such “repentance movements” among the idolaters by even risking suicide to show that G’d was not invincible and could be opposed. By doing so they threw down a gauntlet to the Creator by daring Him to destroy them immediately and thereby becoming known as a G’d Who was overly cruel to a nation that had not even harmed His people for hundreds of years as had the Egyptians, who had survived, except for their army. [Some of the words are my own, but they reflect the tenor of the words of the author. Ed.]
Amalek’s conduct had shown that regardless of how many more miracles G’d would perform, this would not result in at least some of these people realizing the error of their ways and converting to monotheism after repenting. G’d’s only recourse then was to make the judgment of Amalek look like His avenging Himself. The problem with this was that it would reflect negatively on G’d’s image as the Merciful One.
The Ari’zal also writes that when G’d does decide to apply His judgments to such sinners as a form of revenge, He does not do so in a manner that directly involves any of His attributes. He entrusts this tasks to messengers, so that in this instance the first stage was waging war on the battlefield. “War” is always perceived as an action initiated by human beings, not by G’d. This war was to be fought without G’d directly intervening in its outcome, or raining down a hail of stones as in the war for the capture of the land of the Canaanites. (Joshua 10,11) When G’d tells Moses in verse 14 כי מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק “for I will utterly destroy any remembrance of Amalek,” the word מחה has been repeated to tell us that memory of Amalek will not only be wiped out in the lower part of the universe, the area inhabited by man, but also in the celestial regions there will not remain any residue of that nation. This absolute destruction is not found with any other nation concerning which the prophets in the Bible predict disaster at one time or another. Among all the other nations Divine judgments had resulted in some positive developments, so that their continued existence in one form or another could be justified.
We have mentioned earlier that when G’d performs overt miracles His 4-lettered name י-ה-ו-ה is involved, whereas here the Torah makes a point of describing Amalek’s provocation as aimed at the throne of י-ה, i.e. not at the tetragram, as that name of G’d had not become involved with the fate of that nation. The word יד in that verse, as always when it appears in connection with G’d is an allusion to G’d’s loving kindness. The word כס describes the Divine chariot, or “throne.” While G’d is involved in the ongoing war against Amalek, מלחמה, His attribute of חסד remains totally uninvolved.
Yitro
Exodus 18,1. “Yitro, the priest of Midian, heard all that G’d had done for Moses and His people Israel, etc.” What Yitro had “heard” was that what G’d had done to Egypt had not been triggered by the Egyptians having transgressed G’d’s will, but for what they had done to Moses and the Israelites. Proof of this is found in the words uttered by the Egyptians on the point of death (Exodus 14,25) אנוסה מפני ישראל כי ה' נלחם להם במצרים, “I will have to flee on account of Israel for Hashem is battling on their behalf against Egypt.”
Exodus 18,11. “now I know that Hashem is greater than any deity, by reason of His making the punishment fit the crime.” We have to try and understand what precisely Yitro meant with these words. When war is fought and one party is victorious, the victory may become manifest in a number of ways. In one type of war the victorious side merely killed a great number of the troops of the opposing armies without there being any changes in the boundaries between the two kingdoms that fought one another. In the eyes of the world the victor has not become mightier by reason of his victory. Both Kings remain on their respective thrones. In a second scenario, the victor may capture the opposing king and his armies, and annex the lands of his former opponent. This type of victory is, of course, more imposing and enhances the stature of the victor considerably.
When G’d wished to save the Israelites from the yoke of the Egyptians, He chose to defeat them by means of water, as Rashi explained in Sh’mot, G’d could have used fire in order to dry out the water. Had He done so He would not have demonstrated His superiority over water, [only fire’s superiority over water] as it would not have demonstrated how the waters first obeyed the command to split and provide passage for the Israelites, and, subsequently, how they reverted to their normal condition and in the process drowned the Egyptians. Not only did G’d thereby impress all those who saw it or heard about it, but He also made the point that the Egyptians who had considered the waters, i.e. the river Nile, as a kind of deity, and their special god as it provided them with their economic well being, that water had now become their undoing, much more so than when the waters turned into blood for a week.
When Yitro correctly realized that Hashem is more powerful than any other force in nature that has been deified, the word מכל is of special significance, i.e. that it is appended to the word כל instead of Yitro saying: מן כל. Had he said: מן כל האלוקים, “more than any other deity,” we would have understood this quantitatively, i.e. other deities are able to lift weights of 500kg, whereas G’d is able to lift weights of a ton. By saying: מכל האלוקים, Yitro made clear that he referred to G’d’s qualitative superiority, His being in a class by Himself. Being able to turn what the Egyptians had believed to be the source of their blessings, water, into the source of their destruction, demonstrated to one and all the nature of Hashem’s power.
Exodus 18,12. “Aaron and all the elders of Israel joined in breaking bread with Yitro, etc.” At this point G’d’ rewarded Yitro for inviting Moses into his house (Exodus 2,2) and offering him a meal. He was doubly rewarded as he enjoyed eating a meal in the presence of G’d, לפני האלוקים, (verse 13)
Exodus 18,14. “why are you alone seated while all the people have to stand in attendance in your presence?” Moses explains to his father-in-law what his function is, i.e. to arbitrate quarrels and to teach G’d’s laws.
Yitro explains that he objects to the manner in which Moses carries out his duties, saying that it contributes to both his becoming tired and the people becoming frustrated. He points out that the present arrangement is counterproductive on both counts.
Our author may also have hinted at a metaphysical aspect of the spectacle he had witnessed. Man, whether Israelite of high caliber or of modest stature, must constantly; strive to advance spiritually, and come closer to the highest level he is capable of attaining considering the attributes that had been granted to him at birth. By referring to Moses “sitting” and the people “standing,” Yitro hints that the present arrangement interferes with the people concerned being able to progress spiritually through this tiresome arrangement. Moreover, if the tzaddik, righteous, spiritually superior person, conducts himself in a manner that shows that he considers himself superior, the people on a lower level will only confuse him as they resent such behaviour. When someone is an outstanding tzaddik towering far above his peers, he may succeed in elevating his peers to his level by speaking to them in the appropriate manner. Yitro was under the impression that Moses had initiated this system, thereby causing resentment. Moses explained that the opposite was the case; the people had come to him begging him to adjudicate their problems. By using words judicially, he, Moses was doing his best to elevate them spiritually. Upon hearing this, Yitro told Moses that in his opinion Moses was assuming a greater burden than he would be able to carry single-handedly.
Exodus 19,1. “In the third month after the Israelites having departed from the land of Egypt, (on the first of the month), on this day, they came to the desert of Sinai.” You may be familiar with the “nickname” given by his contemporaries to Rav Yoseph, who called him סיני, Sinai. (B’rachot 64) The reason why this Rabbi was given this title, was that he had a photographic memory concerning halachot, and could recall them at will at any time. A closer look at the word סיני reveals that it is a term used for expressing the entire range of the Torah in all its ramifications. According to our author we are all aware that קול, “sound,” is a composite of several components, i.e. fire, water and wind, (air). When speaking of דבור אלוקים, “G’d’s speech,” or utterance, this is something beyond man’s ability to define and analyze. The terms קול, דבור, “sound” and “speech” respectively, are indistinguishable when applied to G’d. The two commandments at Mount Sinai, אנכי and לא יהיה לך, which the entire Jewish people heard with their ears directly from G’d’s ‘mouth,’ actually combined within them the entire Torah, something that the mouth of a mortal person is certainly unable to express simultaneously. Our limited powers of perception do not even enable us to express two different subjects simultaneously, how much less so the entire Torah. Studying the written Torah handed down to us by Moses, shows us [according to the popular expression:שבעים פנים לתורה , “the written Torah comprises 70 facets.” Ed.] that something similar is true of the sayings of our sages in the Talmud, i.e. every saying has more than one meaning, the reason being that the root of all these sayings is based on the Torah.
We read in psalms 125,2: ירושלים הרים סביב לה וה' סביב לעמו, “Jerusalem is enfolded by hills, and the Lord enfolds it.” The word ירושלים there is a simile for the collective soul of the Jewish people, known also as כנסת ישראל. The words: וה' סביב לעמו, mean that seeing that everything in the universe revolves around the Jewish people, Hashem, naturally, is intimately involved in the fortunes of this people. The הרים, hills, mentioned in that verse refer to the three patriarchs, who personify the roots of holiness in the celestial regions. These patriarchs “surround” the collective soul of the Jewish people. It is therefore incumbent upon every individual Israelite to attach himself to this “root” of holiness. The function of this “root” is to illuminate the path of the “branch,” (the descendants) without any screen being interposed, or intervention by any spiritually negative, sinful forces. Man’s function in this world, vis a vis his fellow man, is to dispense loving kindness; however, the most important aspect of this “doing good,” is that it be based on the spiritual values of the “root,” the patriarchs who have shown us the way.
While it is clear that doing kind deeds is morally positive, the definition of what is a good deed is not up to man, but up to G’d and His Torah. Unfortunately many people, including leaders of the Jewish people, have failed in this regard, performing what they thought were “good” deeds, expressions of pity and mercy, but wasted on unworthy individuals. Our sages on Kohelet Rabbah 7,16 אל תהי צדיק הרבה, ואל תתחכם יותר, “do not be overly righteous, and do not try to be too smart,” have said in explaining this: כל הנעשה רחמן על האכזרים, ”showing mercy to the cruel people,” suggest that what Solomon had in mind was King Sha-ul who, when asked to wipe out Amalek including children and livestock, questioned G’d’s instructions (through the prophet Samuel) by asking what the children had done wrong and how the livestock had sinned. As a result of his misguided sense of when to practice mercy and when to be steadfast, he allowed the king of the Amalekites Agog to survive with historically terrible consequences for the Jewish people, whereas he killed a city of Jewish priests, Nov, merely on suspicion and the accusation by a single prejudiced general. He, personally, paid for it with not only his own life, but the lives of three of his sons. Leading the kind of life the Torah has taught us, requires among other virtues, that one does not allow one’s personal prejudices to influence one’s decisions. When one reaches such a level one is surrounded in all three dimensions by the protective emanations of the patriarchs, first and foremost among their virtues being the virtue of אמת, truth. Making truthfulness, also versus one’s own self, the focus of one’s virtues, enables a person to distance himself from nearly all evil influences.
When the Torah stresses the fact that the month when the Children of Israel entered the desert of Sinai was the “third” month after they had left Egypt, the number “three” symbolizes “truth”, as it does in the letter ש which has three “lines” symbolizing the emanations חסד, גבורה, and תפארת, harmony.
When a person has attained the domain, environment, of אמת, truth, and made it his permanent spiritual abode, he has truly left behind יצא, all aspects of evil, רע, as well as the seducers luring him into committing evil. The Israelites in the desert at this point had finally graduated from their slave-mentality, and all the temptations that are part of the daily lives of slaves. The Torah emphasizes this aspect by repeating: ביום הזה באו, on this day they “had arrived.” The Torah’s choosing to refer to this day as יום הזה, “this day”, rather than יום ההוא, “that day,” proves how completely clear the experiences about to be accumulated by the people were to them. Coming back to the word סיני also being a word describing someone’s perfect memory, (page 413), the arrival in the desert called [afterwards, I presume, Ed.] “Sinai,” was given this name as the Israelites’ memory absorbed all the lessons they were going to learn (revelation, Moses’ ascending the Mountain and returning with the Tablets, etc.) while around that area and around Mount Chorev which dominates that area. Everything experienced by the Israelites during their stay in that area for over eleven months, had to be internalized and to be imprinted on their memory. The vast majority of their experiences in that region were connected to the spoken word, words which had to be committed to memory.
Exodus 19,3. “meanwhile Moses had ascended to G’d, [lowest of the celestial domains, Ed,], and Hashem called out to him from the Mountain, saying: ‘thus you shall speak to the house of Yaakov and tell in detail to the Children of Israel.’”
We need to analyze a number of points in this verse (paragraph). 1) What precisely is the meaning of the word כה? Why could the Torah not simply write: ויקרא אליו ה' לאמור לבית יעקב, “Hashem called to him to say to the house of Yaakov, etc.?” 2) Why, in verse 4, does G’d refer only to the Exodus from Egypt as examples of what He had created? 3) What is the meaning of the line (verse 5) והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים, “you have become more precious to Me than any of the other nations,” after the condition: "if you will surely listen to My voice and observe My covenant?“ Are we to assume, G’d forbid, that if we had not been given the covenant and had accepted it enthusiastically, that we would not be superior to the other nations? Does G’d love us only on account of our being loyal to the covenant? Moreover, G’d should have said that if we observe the covenant we are also dearer to Him than all the angels, as when we –who are free to choose- observe the covenant, we are on a spiritually higher level than the angels, even?
It appears to me that the answer to all these questions can be found already in the Midrash. [I have not found this Midrash. Ed.] which describes Moses’ reception in the lowest of the seven layers of the celestial regions. When Moses arrived at that level he found himself surrounded by many thousands of different categories of angels, including the holy seraphim, all of whom were standing in awe and reverence [before the Lord, I assume, Ed,] so that he was overcome by a great fright and was trembling not knowing with whom he should commence to speak. He remained in this condition until G’d Himself spread some of the brilliance of His Presence over him.
We find numerous occasions when other prophets when addressed by G’d, stood in awe and trembling before G’d so much so that their normal senses became totally disoriented and dysfunctional.
On Leviticus 1,1 ויקרא אל משה אליו מאהל מועד, “G’d called to Moses from the Tent of Meeting,” Rashi comments that the words following: וידבר אליו, “He spoke to him,” might be understood as a repetition as at first G’d’s voice was not loud enough, therefore the Torah writes both in Numbers 7,89 and Deuteronomy 8,20, את הקול, “the ‘well known’ voice.” G’d’s voice was powerful but could not be heard outside the confines of the Tabernacle. The Bible repeatedly refers to the powerful voice of G’d being such that it felled cedars. (psalms 29) If a human being is fortunate enough to hear the voice of G’d proclaim the words: אנכי ה' אלוקיך אשר הוצאתיך וגו', “I am the Lord your G’d Who has taken you out, etc.;” each Shavuot, this is proof of how one must prepare oneself in order to hear the Lord’s voice. [Alas, none of us has been found meritorious enough to hear that voice. Ed.] We have a tradition that the tens of thousands of angels were overcome with trembling whenever they heard the voice of G’d. How much more so must we mortal human beings be overcome with such tremors if even the angels are described as being in such a state of terror? The three days of preparation described in the Torah as preceding G’d’s revealing Himself to the people at Mount Sinai are totally inadequate. Even if we were to prepare ourselves for a whole year this would not suffice for us to tolerate G’d’s voice without becoming seriously disoriented. Our verse indicates that although Moses had prepared himself for the encounter with G’d that he would face, and he had assumed that what G’d had to say to him was on a level that the people could not comprehend, G’d told him that this was not necessary, as what He had to say to him was intended for him to teach to the people.
This is the meaning of “Moses ascended to meet with G’d,” (verse 3) as if that was to be an exclusive “summit meeting.” G’d, however, preferred for Moses to remain on a level that enabled him to speak to the people as if they were his equal. This is why He immediately told him:כה ,תאמר אל בית יעקב וגו' “thus you shall speak to the house of Yaakov, etc.” When the Torah writes: ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר לאמור, “Hashem” called out to Moses from the Mountain,” this was a hint that instead of G’d expecting the people to try and elevate themselves to His level, He had decided to “lower Himself” to their level. When He specified “the house of Yaakov,” G’d hinted to Moses that the message Moses was to teach the people was one that even the women would not have any difficulty in understanding.
When G’d tells Moses in verse 9: הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור ישמע העם בדברי עםך, “here I will come to you enfolded in the thickness of the cloud so that the people will be able to hear Me speak with you,” the term עב הענן, is to be understood as עביות, something gross, i.e. the opposite of a lofty level. G’d tells Moses to what extent He will “descend” to the level of the people, in order for the people to be able to hear Him speak with Moses.
Now we will explain the deeper meaning of the verse: (19,4) אתם ראיתם אשר עשיתי למצרים וגו', “you have witnessed with your eyes what I have done to (for) Egypt, etc.”
We must not try and deny that sometimes our own eyes see things that make it very difficult even for the righteous to serve the Lord, things that causes many of us puzzlement, or worse.
We will try to use a parable in order to make this phenomenon easier to understand. A king has a very loyal servant who serves him with utter devotion. The king is desirous of providing this servant with a special pleasure. He presents this servant with a relatively minor task, before demanding of him a more difficult task. The effect is that the servant derives repeated satisfaction from having been able to carry out the task the king has set him. If G’d appears to “test” the righteous person again and again, His objective is to ensure that this person’s delight after having performed the last “test” will be so much greater than if his path had been smooth all the time. This is also a reason why from time to time, G’d appears to “withdraw” from the righteous, as a string of uninterrupted pleasures, i.e. feelings of accomplishments, diminishes the value of each little accomplishment.
This was also the point the Talmud Shabbat 88 was trying to make when it stated that every utterance of Hashem filled the whole world with a fragrant perfume. [The subject is the Ten Commandments given at Mount Sinai. Ed.] The Talmud there queries how this can be if G’d had already filled the whole world with such fragrant perfume at His very first utterance when He said: “I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Egypt, etc.?” What happened with G’d’s second utterance, where did the perfume have to go to? [According to Rabbi Moshe Alshich this means that G’d’s words spiritually purified the people and prepared their souls for what was to follow.] The Talmud answers that G’d took the wind out of His treasure chamber and made it blow, gradually disseminating the fragrance. Anyone reading this statement by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi must be somewhat puzzled, to say the least.
According to our interpretation that the word בושם “perfumed fragrance,” in the verse in Song of Songs quoted may be understood as תענוג, a pleasurable experience, the words in the Talmud appear really inspired. The Talmud’s question if the world was already filled with pleasure, what else could G’d add by making further utterances, makes excellent sense, as does the answer that these relatively minor pleasures were diluted when the wind blew so that G’d had an opportunity to gradually increase the pleasure of the righteous until at the end they enjoyed a truly satisfying תענוג, “pleasure.” The word רוח, used in the Talmud must be understood as נחת רוח, pleasure of the soul, the spirit. Seeing that the source of this spiritual pleasure had been G’d’s treasure chamber, it is an especially cherished kind of pleasurable experience.
When we mentioned that the righteous sometimes experiences difficulty in serving the Lord with a full heart, this did not mean that every righteous person undergoes such periods of puzzlement at G’d’s providence for him. The spiritual development of the righteous varies from individual to individual; some, in order to continue their development as something fresh every morning, need to regress temporarily in order to recapture the sensation of making spiritual progress, whereas others, according to their temperament, do not need to experience what seems like spiritual regression at all. Another factor influencing this development of the righteous is that he sees the wicked being punished for his wickedness. Such an experience can fill the righteous with a great sense of satisfaction, pleasure. He will be doubly happy that he has chosen to be a loyal servant of the Lord, instead. He will be inspired by such experiences to redouble his efforts at serving the Lord to the best of his ability.
Exodus 19,4. “I carried you on the wings of eagles.” The author refers to a Midrash that claims that the reason that the eagle is called נשר in Hebrew is that it sheds its wings every 10 years, dropping them to the earth. [The root נשר does refer to fruit falling from trees, of course, but I have not found anywhere that eagles shed their wings. No doubt our author was aware of this also, and that maybe why he preferred to understand this Midrash which I have been unable to locate, allegorically. Ed.]
A different approach to the verse commencing with: אתם ראיתם אשר עשיתי למצרים, “you have seen what I have done to (for) Egypt, etc.” At first glance the word אתם, “you,” appears superfluous as G’d, through Moses, was addressing the people directly. A look at Rashi on this verse will show us that he too tried to deal with the need for this word. He suggests that the word was meant to emphasize the directness of the Israelites’ experience in contrast with later generations who would only hear about this second hand. Although the revelation at Mount Sinai had not yet occurred, G’d had already brought the people close to Him, i.e. ואבא אתכם אלי, “I have brought you to Me.” (Compare Mechilta on this verse)
We may understand the word אתם better when comparing with Exodus 14,4 “I have reinforced Pharaoh’s heart so that he will pursue you, etc.” You will note that during the entire song of thanksgiving after the drowning of the Egyptians, in spite of frequent repetitions of the many aspects of this miracle, Moses did not for a single time refer to the fact that the Israelites had been saved, although he extols the annihilation of Egypt’s armed might. This was in spite of the fact that the major aspect of the miracle was the saving of the Israelites who had been between a “rock and a hard place,” completely helpless before that miracle.
The Talmud in Pessachim 118 is at pains to point out that the Israelites of that generation were very weak in their level of faith in G’d, so much so that they reasoned that just as they themselves had been able to climb out of the sea bed on one side, the Egyptians might have been able to do the same on the opposite side of the shore. Why would such a thought be justification to describe the Israelites as lacking in faith? Furthermore, what does the Talmud mean by the words: כשם שאנו עולים, “just as we climbed out, etc.?” How could they compare their situation to that of the Egyptians? Besides when had they posed a threat to the Egyptians? In order to understand this better we must remember that there are two different levels of faith. The first and highest level is called אמונה שלמה, “absolute unshakable faith.” It includes that one believes absolutely without reservation in the G’d of our forefathers, reveres Him and loves Him. The second level of “faith,” is not “self generated,” but is the result of experiencing mind-boggling events, such as the miracles the Israelites had experienced both in Egypt and in even greater measure at the sea of reeds. A look at what the Sifssey chachamim has to say on Rashi’s explanation of Yitro’s words in Exodus 18,11 עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה' מכל האלוקים, “now I know that Hashem is greater than any other deity.” Rashi had interpreted this line to mean that in the past Yitro had not left any religion untried until he had found it wanting. The Sifssey chachamim points out that Rashi had come to this conclusion from the apparent contradiction of the word עתה, ”now,” and the word ידעתי, “I was familiar with,” in the past tense. Yitro therefore meant that although in the past he had been familiar with every deity, by now he had convinced himself of Hashem’s absolute superiority.
However, the Egyptians, far from reacting positively to the performance of G’d’s miracles reacted negatively by becoming ever more obstinate. This is indicated clearly in Exodus 15,4 when Moses describes the choicest of the Egyptians’ captains being flung into the sea to drown. (15,4) The expression ובמבחר, “and from the choice(st)” instead of ומטוב “and from the best,” is a double entendre, and hints at the choice the Egyptians had made to rather drown than acknowledge the superiority of Hashem. Watching G’d perform miracles had left open the choice for them to do teshuvah even though G’d had performed one or two acts designed to give them confidence that they could defeat the Israelites and their G’d. The same miracles which had brought the Jewish people closer to G’d, had the opposite effect on the Egyptians, confirming them in the belief that their deity Baal Tzefon had proved superior to the Jewish G’d.
Exodus 19,6. “and you will be for Me a kingdom of priests.” This statement can best be understood in connection with a statement in the Talmud Moed Katan 16 where the rhetorical question of: “who rules over Me, (G’d) is answered with the word: צדיק, “the righteous, the Just.” The Talmud reveals that G’d’s people comprise people of the stature of Royalty, people who are able by their very stature to overturn evil decrees made by G’d in heaven and turn their effect into blessings. [The major function of the priests is to channel blessings to the Jewish people either by their words or by their sacrificial service on behalf of the people. Ed.]. The exact wording in the Talmud is: לי דבר צור ישראל וגו', “concerning Me the Rock of Israel said, etc.” The Talmud understands the wordלי : there as עלי, “over Me,” implying that someone has “power” to overrule Gd. The word עלי implies overturning, superseding Me.” Just as G’d’s function as Patron of the Jewish people is to overturn evil decrees by the gentiles in our favour, so the function of the righteous amongst us is to overturn G’d’s evil decrees aimed at the Jewish people. The power of the righteous does not extend however, to an ability to overturn G’d’s decrees that are favourable to us. In other words, the concept of ממלכת כהנים, “a Kingdom of priests,” emphasizes the limitation of that “kingdom.”
Another way of understanding the verse: ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים. We have a tradition according to which there are three “crowns” that can be worn by select people. (Avot 4,17) They are: 1) the crown of the Torah; 2) the crown of the priesthood. 3) the crown of kingship. The only one of these “crowns” that can be handed down through inheritance from father to son is the crown of the priesthood. In our verse the concept of holiness through inheritance is expanded to include the entire Jewish people as a whole. G’d assures Moses that as a result of our performing His commandments we have all acquired a hereditary claim to holiness. In Moses’ parting speech to his people, Deuteronomy 32,9, he expands on this theme by saying: כי חלק ה' עמו עקב חבל נחלתו, “for the Lord’s portion is His people, Yaakov His own inheritance.” Moses implies that G’d has chosen the Jewish people on account of the holiness transmitted to them by their patriarchs which had become part of their genes. This is the deeper meaning of the expression ממלכת כהנים.
Exodus 19,8“Moses brought back the people’s response to G’d.” A look at the Or Hachayim will show that the author did not understand this verse to mean that Moses brought G’d the people’s “answer,” as G’d was aware of this answer and did not need Moses to report this to Him. Moses “told” G’d of the people’s response in order to make them more beloved in His eyes. He emphasizes especially that the people had not said: נשמע ונעשה, “we will listen to G’d’s commandments and then perform them,” implying that they would listen conditionally, but that they had said: נעשה ונשמע, “of course we will carry out the commandments, only let us hear them, so that we will know what to do.”
Another aspect of this verse is that Moses in reflecting on the people’s response, realized that this response must have been forthcoming as the result of Divine inspiration as there are simply no normal people who would write such a “blank cheque”, not knowing the amount that would be filled in. This thought is also expressed in the Talmud Shabbat 88 where the Talmud reports that at the moment when the Jewish people said: נעשה ונשמע, a heavenly voice was heard asking: ‘who told these people the secret of this formula that is reserved for the angels?’ (compare psalms 103,20) where the psalmist quotes them saying “Bless the Lord, all His hosts, His servants who do His will; etc.” In that verse too the angels are described as doing G’d’s “word”, עושי דברו, before having heard G’d issue the command, לשמוע בקול דברו. The reason the angels did so was that they wanted to parallel, to equal what the Israelites had done. Moses realized upon reflecting on this that if the Israelites had responded with a similar reaction to the message Moses had brought them from the celestial regions, that they must have had a heavenly assist, i.e. have been inspired by G’d to do so. The verse describing Moses as “bringing the people’s response to G’d,” meant that he told G’d that he knew that the people had been inspired by Him to respond in the manner that they did. Expressed differently, Moses told G’d that he was aware that it had been G’d’s wish that they respond in the manner that they did.
Exodus 19,9.“and they will also have enduring faith in you.” Rashi understands the word: וגם, “and also,” as referring to the people having faith in the prophets in future generations.
I believe, that this conforms to what Nachmanides has written in his commentary on Parshat Mishpatim on Exodus 23,20, commencing with:הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך...ועשית כל אשר דבר אליך, “Here I shall send an angel ahead of you and you shall do all that I will tell you to do,” to tell us that “you must not listen and do what the angel (prophet) tells you unless it conforms to what I tell you,” i.e. you must not listen to prophets when they tell you to violate any of the commandments G’d has revealed in the Torah. The word בך “within you,” are the key to understanding this verse. [The difficulty appears to be also the word לעולם, which normally is understood to mean “forever,” but is a term that cannot be applied in that sense to mortal human beings. Ed.] The Torah hints that if and when future prophets will tell the people what to do and this conforms to what Moses during his lifetime had told them to do, then the people’s faith in such prophets will be not only justified but they are commanded to obey such prophets. Rashi hints at this with the word אחריך, “after you,” which in his commentary is not to be understood as a time frame, i.e. after Moses has died, but as a reference to prophets who would “take after you,” i.e. teach the same Torah without perverting any of it. The Israelites’ duty to have faith in prophets after Moses’ death, is contingent on the loyalty of these prophets to Moses’ Torah.
If we need to look for proof that this interpretation of the word אחריך, is linguistically correct, the Talmud B’rachot 61 refers us to Judges 13,11 וילך מנוח אחרי אשתו, normally translated as “Manoach walked behind his wife,” instead it translates it as “Manoach followed the advice of his wife.” Similarly, here, the Jewish people are to follow that advice of their outstanding leader Moses during all future generations, i.e. לעולם.
Incidentally, we find that in the Zohar the מצות are also referred to as עצות when the author speaks of עיתין דאורייתא, “the Torah’s suggestions.” [I have found עיטין in the Zohar 7 times, only as describing either good or bad advice, never as referring to the Torah. Ed.]
In Maimonides’ hilchot Temurah, near the end, the author the author refers to his having interpreted the word שלישים in Exodus 14,7, normally translated as “captains” to refer to advisors, experts, men who recognize the truth, מועצות. Prophets who do not hand down to their people their true tradition and urge them to abandon some of the laws of the Torah could certainly not qualify for the term “prophet.”
What we have written answers the question asked by many how a “prophet” who performs a miracle or more than one miracle to legitimize himself in the eyes of the people could have been allowed to do so by G’d? The answer is simple. The Torah commands us not to believe the “prophet” on the basis of any so-called miracles he performs unless he does not suggest that the people do anything that contradicts what is their collective tradition since the time of Moses.
The Torah repeats this theme in greater details in Deuteronomy 13,1-5.
The author proceeds now to explain the word לעולם according to a method of exegesis he calls: דרך חדוד אמת.
The Talmud Yevamot 90 states, and this is accepted as a halachically valid conclusion by Maimonides in his introduction to his monumental work Mishneh Torah in the section entitled yessodey hatorah, “fundamental principles of the Torah,” (chapter 9,2) that if a prophet commands violation of a negative Biblical commandment temporarily, when circumstance demand this, as for instance when the prophet Elijah offered sacrifices on Mount Carmel after repairing a defunct altar in violation of the commandment that the only place where this may be done is in the Temple in Jerusalem, the people are not only permitted to obey his command but are obligated to do so on pain of the death penalty. The same principle does not hold true when said prophet commands, even temporarily, to violate a positive commandment of the Torah. Positive commandments of the Torah are never to be abolished, not even temporarily. This is what G’d had in mind when He had Moses write in the Torah that the people would have faith in Moses as a prophet, לעולם, “forever,” (for want of a better word.).
Exodus 19,21. “Hashem said to Moses: ‘descend and warn the people lest they break through towards G’d, etc.’” Exodus 19,23: “Moses said to G’d: ‘the people cannot ascend the mountain, etc.” 19,24: G’d said to
[The reader will no doubt have noted when reflecting on this dialogue between G’d and Moses that for Moses to –so to speak- countermand G’d’s instruction to him- sounds mind-boggling. Ed.]
Rashi’s commentary on verse 24, based on the Mechilta, focuses on the word מזרזין, the urgency of repeating warnings in order for these warnings not to be ignored.
It appears to me that Moses had full faith in G’d’s words,-not as it would appear at first glance- and seeing that he did, he immediately carried out G’d’s instructions and descended. At the same time, Moses took it for granted that just as it would not occur to him to question G’d’s instructions, so it would not occur to any member of the Jewish people to do so either. G’d corrected him by explaining that not only must a warning be issued prior to a prohibition, but it must be repeated at the time when there is evidence that the prohibition is about to be ignored. Moses was too humble to believe that seeing that he had merited to converse with G’d on a “mouth to mouth” bases repeatedly, that this had been possible only because his level of faith in G’d was high above that of the average Israelite. Whereas the average Israelite did have great moments of religious inspiration from time to time, Moses was on that level on a 24/7 basis. Hence he was able to say to G’d: “seeing that You have warned us once we cannot possibly entertain the thought of ascending the mountain.” (verse 23) When Gd repeated the instructions to Moses to descend forthwith and to warn the people again this was a great compliment to Moses, not an expression of G’d’s displeasure for Moses not having carried out instructions.
Exodus 19,21.“lest some of the people will break through in their intense desire to see and many of the people will fall victim.”This was the negative commandment G’d had uttered in connection with the giving of the Torah. In his comments on Song of Songs 2,7 אם תעירו ואם תעוררו את האהבה עד שתחפץ, ”do not wake or arouse love until it please!,”
According to our author, Nachmanides comments that when man attains the level of loving the Creator, or being in awe of Him, he will feel the need to immediately express this by performing a commandment. [None of the sources at my disposal have this comment by Nachmanides, especially not in his commentary on Song of Songs, annotated by Rav Chavell and published by Mossad Harav Kook. Ed.]
As a result of this mitzvah performance by the person in the grip of religious enthusiasm either through love for G’d or through awe of Him and reverence for Him, G’d will practice צמצום, a form of condensation of G’d’s Omnipresence to allow for the creatures in the physical world to develop without experiencing constant tension between the good and the evil urge. The commandment performed by the person who had experienced an overwhelming religious impetus may then be seen as a vessel within which the awakening love for G’d reposes. The Talmud in Kidushin 39 states that anyone sitting idle, reposing, and not being guilty of committing a transgression of a law in the Torah is considered as if he had performed a positive commandment. What is meant is not idleness per se, but idleness in face of the evil urge trying to get him to commit a transgression. Seeing that during the days preceding the giving of the Torah the Israelites all restrained themselves by not trying to break down the fence, they acquired the merit of having performed a positive commandment. This is also the reason why one of the names of the Shavuot festival is עצרת, “festival of restraint.” The root of that word, i.e. עצור, means to stop, restrain oneself) (intransitively), There are two types of כבוד, honour, glory. One type is original, i.e. the honour bestowed on His worlds by the Creator, and the reflected glory, כבוד נאצל the reflected glory. The creatures, i.e. the universes who have had bestowed glory on them by the Creator had received this from the Creator in His capacity of limiting Himself, “downsizing” Himself in order to give more “freedom” to them.
כבוד, “honour or glory, exists on two levels. 1) It can be “original” i.e. emanating from the Creator directly, or it can be secondary, נאצל, in the parlance of the Kabbalists. Original “honour” is what the various “worlds” have received from the Creator Who has already downsized Himself in order to give more “freedom” to His creatures. This “downsizing” of G’d vis a vis His creatures occurs both in the celestial spheres as well as in the terrestrial regions. In the celestial spheres G’d did not “downsize” Himself as much relative to the חיות, the highest ranking group of angels, as He did vis a vis the שרפים, a lower raking group of angels. Similarly, on earth, G’d’s “downsizing” is more pronounced vis a vis the common people, and least pronounced vis a vis Moses. This is why we find the Torah (verse 24) allowing Moses to ascend the mountain, the elders and Aaron to accompany him all the way to the base of the mountain, whereas the people at large had to stop a greater distance away from the mountain. Any “honour” shown by His creatures to G’d during the weekdays is perceived as directed at the part of the Creator which has voluntarily “downsized” itself. Secondary “honour,” is the honour bestowed by G’d’s creatures on Him on the Sabbath days or on the festivals when it is aimed at the Creator in His more manifest glory prior to His having downsized Himself. Due to our preoccupations on weekdays with mundane tasks, unavoidably, we cannot bestow the kind of “honour” or “glory” on the Creator that we are able to on days when we are predominantly preoccupied with the needs of ours souls, with spiritual concerns. On the day when G’d gave us the Torah, we were able to give Him this “glory” more so than on any previous or subsequent day, as through the three days of preparation for that revelation we had been transported to a higher spiritual level. This is the meaning of the opening line in the section known as zichronot in the Mussaph prayer on Rosh Hashanah, אתה נגלית בענן כבודך, “You have been revealed in the cloud of Your glory, etc.” The term ענן, “cloud,” describes something that cannot be found, as one cannot locate something shrouded in darkness.
[At this point the author refers to a concept known Iss כ'ד קישוטי כלה, “24 bridal decorations.” (the “bride” alluding to Israel as G’d’s bride when it received the Torah) The subject has been written up by Rabbi Moshe Chayim Luzzato, Pdua, Italy, (1707-to Acco, 1747) author of the world famous mussar sefer מסילת ישרים, “the path of the Just,” and many other books. It appears that the well known book Tikkun leyl Shavuot, read on the night of Shavuot, by many people who spend the whole night studying in preparation for a re-enactment of the day the Torah was given, is patterned on this concept. Briefly, it is a text comprising the first three verses of any of the 24 books of the Bible, as well as the last three verses, also the first and last Mishnah of each tract of the Talmud. It also contains portions of the sefer yetzirah and the Zohar. The number “24” does not only refer to the 24 books of the Bible, but also to the Hebrew alphabet (22 letters) and two vowels that are spelled in different ways, and accordingly may be added as part of the alphabet. (if I understand correctly.) By devoting that whole night to Torah study we are bestowing glory on Hashem in the most appropriate and profound manner, a כבוד that is comparable in quality to the כבוד נברא, “the original” glory bestowed by G’d on His creatures. For more on the subject of these vowels and their deeper significance, see: http://ramhal.net/]
Our author draws our attention to Zecharyah 10,8 where he understands the words ¬אשרקה להם as a derivative of the vowel שורוק, meaning calling out loudly to someone, whereas the vowel kametz, would indicate the reverse, i.e. something withheld, hidden, locked in.? Be that as it may, on the festival of Shavuot, symbolizing the giving of the Torah the Jewish people are on an abnormally high spiritual level, and they demonstrate this by studying the entire holy texts in an abbreviated version.
Exodus 20,2 I am the Lord your G’d Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt from the house of slavery.”
On the expression מבית עבדים “from the house of slaves,” Rashi, quoting the Mechilta, says that it refers to Pharaoh’s palace where they were slaves. The basis for this exegesis appears to be that G’d did not give the Torah to the Jewish people until after the Exodus from Egypt because there is a difference between keeping the Torah out of fear (of punishment) and keeping the Torah out of love for G’d. People who keep the Torah out of a feeling of love for G’d are called: בן, “son,” as in בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel,” whereas people keeping the Torah out of fear are still considered עבדים, “slaves.” Had the Israelites received the Torah prior to their redemption from Egypt they would have accepted it out of fear, so that G’d could not have taken them out of Egypt legally, as they “belonged” to the Egyptians, having been their slaves. Having received the Torah after the Exodus, when they were free men, they certainly had not been under duress in accepting it, but had done so out of love for the G’d Who had redeemed them. G’d therefore is explaining in the verse above that the time had come now when He was able to give them the Torah in their capacity of their being His children.
Another angle of the words: אנכי ה' אלוקיך. Our sages in Shabbat 105 state: “the word אנכי in this verse is an acronym, i.e. composed of the respective first letters in the statement: אמירה נעימה כתיבה יהיבה, “a pleasant and benevolent utterance was enshrined in written form.”
We have a rule first postulated by David in psalms 16,8 that a person should at all times consider himself as facing the Lord, i.e. שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, “I am ever mindful of the Lord’s presence;” it is difficult, or even impossible to formulate this rule as an imperative, as it is impossible for mortal man to constantly live up to such a lofty ideal. The rule of which we spoke therefore means that when a person serves the Lord in order to provide the Lord with pleasure and satisfaction, the fact that he has done so awakens in him the feeling that G’d is all-present at all times.
The word אמירה we have quoted from the Talmud in Shabbat 105 is another word for the word דבור, speech, word, which by definition is not something that is ongoing without interruption, i.e. תמיד. On the other hand, once words have been written down they assume constancy as they are constantly available to be referred to. This is what the Talmud alluded to when saying: אמירה נעימה, “the words spoken by people worshipping Hashem are pleasant as they are intended to cause Him pleasure;” the word נעימה being an alternate for the word תענוג. The words ”כתיבה יהיבה” that form the second part of that saying, refer to the constancy of the impression left by these words being due to their arousing the feeling in the worshipper that G’d’ is all present at all times.
Another way of understanding the words: אנכי ה' אלוקיך, can be understood after a look at Rashi, who says that the fact that G’d appears in different facets is no reason to assume that each facet belongs to a different Being, (based on Pessikta rabbati 21; where we are told that whereas when G’d appeared to the Israelites as a Warrior battling the Egyptians, their perception of Him was as His being a young man at the height of His vigour, whereas at the revelation at Mount Sinai they perceived Him as an aged scholar). The reason is that Torah emerges from the mouth of the mature, as we know from Job 12,12, בישישים חכמה ואורך ימים, “wisdom is in the aged and understanding in the long lived.” Seeing that G’d was aware that the Israelites at the bottom of Mount Sinai viewed Him from a different perspective than how they had viewed Him at the time of the Exodus, He reassures them by saying that He is the same G’d Who had taken them out of Egypt.
However, when the father studies a subject requiring intelligence with his son, instead of the father adjusting to his son’s level, the father must try and raise his son’s level to that of his own. The easiest way to achieve this is for the father to adopt the mien of an aged experienced scholar, whose life experience qualifies him to be the mentor of a son many years his junior. This is what the author of Pessikta rabbati had in mind when describing G’d as a young vigorous warrior at the time of the Exodus, but appearing as an aged sage at the revelation at Mount Sinai.
The above quoted statement that G’d appeared to the Israelites as a young and virile warrior at the time of the Exodus, whereas He appeared as mature sage at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, can also be understood differently, in terms of the different degrees of צמצום “downsizing,” that G’d resorts to depending on which of His creatures He is dealing with.
At the sea of reeds, when G’d did not wrap Himself in protective “clothing” in order for the brilliance of His manifestation in the world not to become intolerable for His creatures, the result was the destruction of Pharaoh and his armies. This is usually the result when G’d works supernatural miracles.
At Mount Sinai, during the giving of the Torah, G’d draped Himself in “cloud” so as to ensure that the people present would not come to harm through this experience.
This interpretation is hinted at in Mechilta B’shalach 2, when the author writes that while at the sea of reeds a lowly maidservant was able to experience prophetic insights not granted to one of the greatest prophets, Ezekiel. Clearly, the implication is that Ezekiel and the elders of his generation were only granted prophetic insights of the kind described by our sages as seeing a manifestation of G’d through the prism of His worlds, not directly. At the sea of reeds, the Israelites, all of them were granted a glimpse of the glory of G’d while He was not wearing “protective” clothing, to shield His subjects from coming to harm. If G’d were to have appeared to the people in a similar manner at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, they would not have understood the words of the Torah. This is what the liturgist had in mind when he wrote: אתה נגלית בענן כבודך, “You were revealed in a cloud masking Your glory.” [The composer of this פיוט, liturgical poem, lived before Maimonides already as Maimonides knew it as an integral part of the Mussaph prayer on Rosh Hashanah. Ed.]
Another attempt at explaining the line commencing with אנכי ה' אלוקיך אשר הוצאתיך וגו'; when the Talmud compared G’d as in a state of youth at the time of the Exodus and as resembling an old man at the time o the giving of the Torah only seven weeks later, the expression “youth,” may have been used to remind the reader of when he himself was young, i.e. had not yet formulated for himself a mature philosophy of life, vacillating between different enticements life seemed to offer. At the time of the splitting of the sea, G’d employed two different and opposing approaches to man at the same time. He related to the Jewish people with מדת החסד, the attribute of loving kindness, whereas to the Egyptians he related with His attribute of Justice. The attribute called זקנה, “old age,” is another name for the attribute we know as the attribute of loving kindness, חסד. At the time when the Torah was being given to the Jewish people- according to the Talmud, Shabbat 88, the entire universe is reported to have been bathed in pleasant fragrances. G’d wishes us to know that even when He was forced by circumstances to resort to employing His attribute of Justice, as when He punished the Egyptians, this too was an aspect of the attribute of loving kindness as when G’d took the Jewish people out of Egypt.
Another exegesis of why G’d commenced the Ten Commandments with the declaration that He had taken the Jewish people out of Egypt, instead of first telling them that it was He Who had created the universe, a question Nachmanides has already raised. Perhaps the answer to this question is related to the overriding rule governing Judaism is that we must believe in two Torahs, the written and the oral Torah, the Torah that had been communicated to Moses orally The written Torah was transmitted to us by Moses, G’d’s trusted servant. It is referred to by our sages as a “letter engraved on the Tablets in black fire on white fire.” The oral Torah that had also been given to Moses is comprised of the “explanatory notes”
Any mature scholar who is able to “reveal” a new aspect of the Torah, one that had been forgotten by one and all for some reason, is entitled to feel that he has had a direct part in revealing the Torah to our people. (Compare Jerusalem TalmudPeyah 2,6) This is a tremendous power that G’d has granted to us, i.e. that the righteous people who will in different generations reveal these “new” aspects of the Torah will become an integral part of the Torah. The fact that G’d gave us (the representatives of Torah exegesis ) this power is evidence of how much He loves His people, according to the degree of love they have shown for His Torah. This is also the meaning of the Talmud in Moed Katan 16 where G’d is described as issuing various decrees, but the tzaddik in his generation “annulling” such decrees. There are two different categories of serving Hashem. One is based on the creature being aware of the supremacy of the Creator as alluded to by the Pessikta rabbati we quoted that at the time of the revelation on Mount Sinai, G’d appeared to the people as a venerable sage, whereas at the time of the Exodus He appeared to them in the guise of a youthful but powerful warrior. If one serves the Lord because of one’s recognition of His superiority in all things, then any largesse of G’d one experiences on earth is so meaningless to the servant of Hashem that it does not influence the worshipper at all; this attitude is described variously by our sages as serving and worshipping G’d with מוחין דגדלות, “a mature intellect.”
The second category of servants of the Lord are the ones motivated by awareness of G’d’s largesse for His creatures, by proof of G’d’s rescuing His servants from dangerous and intolerable situations. Examples of this kind of serving the Lord are the Children of Israel at the sea of reeds, or whenever they were in need of something that could be expected to be supplied only by supernatural means, by a miracle orchestrated by the Creator. People serving G’d from such motivations are described as serving Him due to מוחין דקטנות, “immature intellectual development.” The interesting fact that during the entire paragraph dealing with the giving of the Torah, the letter ט, an allusion to טובות G’d’s largesse, does not even occur once, serves as a reminder of the lofty intellectual and spiritual level of the people at that time, a level that enabled them to relate to their Creator without the slightest concern for their physical needs. Anyone serving the Lord based on מוחין דגדלות, “intellectual maturity,” also does not fear any phenomenon in the universe considered threatening by other inhabitants of our universe. Such people have so much confidence in their Creator that they can concentrate exclusively on trying to please Him without petitioning Him for anything. This is in total contrast to people serving the lord based on less lofty motivations; such people, as soon as they perceive any development in their habitat that appears threatening to them personally, or to their families, become filled with fear; as soon as they have given way to such feelings, the evil urge can target them with a chance of success seeing that they have not attained the spiritual level that would make them immune to the efforts of the evil urge to make them turn to more visible symbols of succor, although there are none such unless they had been pointed as such by the Creator. [If Esther and Mordechai turned to King Achashverosh for help, they had prayed that this man would prove to be G’d’s instrument of the Jewish people’s salvation. Ed.]
When David in psalms 118,11, part of the hallel hamitzri, repeats the words סבוני גם סבבוני בשם ה' “they beset me, they surround me; by the name of Hashem I will surely cut them down;” the word: גם, “also,” seems problematic. According to what we have just explained, David’s wording is quite easily understood. When David (verse 10) first spoke about all the nations surrounding him being his mortal enemies, he dismissed this threat more or less, as it was only an external threat; his own personality not having succumbed to fear. At that point he had been certain that G’d would take care of him as he had considered himself a loyal servant of the Lord. This is why he had added the words: בשם ה', “by the name of the Lord;” he had considered himself as having served the Lord with a mature intellect. Upon reflecting further, he had realized that he had not always served the Lord on such a lofty level, but from time to time had had a relapse to a lower intellectual level, that of מוחין דקטנות. On such occasions he had experienced “real” fear. This is what he had in mind when he repeated the words סבוני גם סבבוני, i.e. he had really filled encircled, not knowing how to escape the fate that appeared to threaten him. If, as we see from the lines following this, G’d had miraculously extricated him from all the dangers threatening him, he realised that he had every reason to be especially grateful for an escape that he may not have merited due to his own accumulated merits.
The considerations just described may have provided the background to a custom mentioned in Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 430 that the Sabbath preceding the Passover festival is called שבת הגדול, “the great Sabbath,” in commemoration of the great miracle that occurred during the four days between when the Israelites set aside the paschal lamb in preparation of slaughtering it on the 14th of the month, as per the Torah’s instructions in Exodus 12,6. They had been instructed to keep watch over each person’s lamb to be sure that it was not physically blemished, but even more so to demonstrate their faith in G’d that although slaughtering a lamb which was a deity for the Egyptians and therefore a provocation of their “masters,” they were not deterred by the physical danger they were exposing themselves to by doing this. Each Jewish household tied their respective lamb to their beds, daring the Egyptians to do something about this after they had told the Egyptians who enquired about the meaning of this that this lamb would be slaughtered at the command of the Jewish G’d on the evening of the 14th of the month. In the event the Egyptians gnashed their teeth but did not dare to take any countermeasures.
One may be tempted to ask what was such a great miracle about this, so much so that a day has been “named” in commemoration of it? How could this miracle be compared to G’d’s splitting the sea to enable the Jewish people to traverse it dry footed, whereas the Egyptians in pursuit of them were drowned one and all? The answer is that on these four days the Jewish people served the Lord from considerations that we have described as מוחין דגדלות, an intellectual maturity, i.e. totally fearless, not motivated by selfish considerations at all, not like at the sea of reeds when they were all afraid for their lives. If we needed proof of the “maturity” of the Jewish people at that time we need only look at Exodus 8,22 where Moses and Aaron in response to Pharaoh expressing willingness to let the Israelites sacrifice to their G’d inside Egypt, responded by saying: הן נזבח את תועבת מצרים לעיניהם ולא יסקלונו?, “Surely if we are to sacrifice a deity of the Egyptian people before their very eyes they will stone us to death?” Clearly, even Moses was convinced that at that stage the Jewish people would not be prepared to follow such instructions even if he -were to issue them, as they would fear for their lives. We have proof of how much the people had matured between chapter 8 when they had not yet experienced the Egyptians undergoing one plague after another. Clearly, from this verse it is evident that the Israelites at the time Moses had been appointed felt that they were under constant supervision by the Egyptians and they would not have dared to do what is described in Exodus 12.
It is not unreasonable to speculate that the reason why G’d commanded them to take the intended paschal lamb already on the 10th of the month and to do so publicly, was to enable them to acquire the merit of this lofty level of faith in G’d. This brings us to a better understanding of the meaning of Yitro’s words reported in Exodus 18,9-11 ויחד יתרו על כל הטובה אשר עשה ה' לישראל אשר הצילו מיד מצרים.ויאמר יתרו ברוך ה' אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים ומיד פרעה אשר הציל את העם מתחת יד מצרים. עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה' מכל האלוהים כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם., “Yitro rejoiced about all the good Hashem had done for Israel, that He had saved them from the power of Egypt. Yitro said: “blessed the Lord Who has saved you from Egypt and the hand of Pharaoh. Now I know that Hashem is the greatest of all deities, as He punished the Egyptians in a manner befitting their sins.”
Careful analysis of Yitro’s words will show that he spoke of two separate acts of “saving” the Jewish people. Yitro had heard not only about the physical salvation the Israelites had experienced but also about the manner in which the spirit of the Jewish people, a people downtrodden by many years of slavery, had been transformed in a short space of time to being the most steadfast people, afraid of no human force on earth.
This brings us to another nuance in the exegesis in Shabbat 105 according to which the word אנכי is an acronym for the words אנא נפשי כתבית יהבית, “I Myself have written it and handed it over.” We know that another meaning of the word נפש is רצון, will, desire, as in Genesis 23,8: אם יש את נפשכם, “if it is your desire, etc.” The word אנכי accordingly sums up G’d’s message that by committing the Torah to writing, He had expressed His will, and desire. By handing over this document to the Jewish people, He had authorized them to interpret it and to guide their lives by means of these interpretations.
Upon hearing this daring exegesis some people might consider that G’d had taken a great chance that His people would exploit this authority to pervert the Torah by “being victorious” over Him. The reverse is true, however. G’d is pleased when as a result of our delving more deeply into the hidden parts of the Torah we discover heretofore unknown aspects of it. We have it on the authority of Baba Metzia 59 where in a halachic discussion among the various sages one of them called upon G’d to demonstrate that his opinion was the correct one, and he wanted the wall to collapse to prove this and the wall really began to bend, that the opposing scholar quoted Deuteronomy 30,12 where the Torah is described as not being a possession of heaven, i.e. לא בשמים היא, to stop the wall from falling. A heavenly voice was heard by the people present exclaiming that נצחוני בני מצחוני, “My children have triumphed over Me, My children.” [Students of that episode in the Talmud will find that that there are also other interpretations of that episode. Ed.] Another quotation from the Talmud Pessachim 119 reads as follows: the opening words in psalms 4 למנצח בנגינות מזמור לדוד, translated literally, as “a psalm to the victor by David,” that the point David is making is that whereas in interpersonal relations the loser in a competition is downcast, not so when the contestants are man and G’d respectively. It is G’d’s nature to rejoice in His children having prevailed over Him.” As proof of this interpretation the Talmud there quotes: psalms 106,23 ויאמר להשמידם לולי משה בחירו עמד בפרץ לפניו להשיב חמתו מהשחית, “He had already said that he would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen, confronted Him in the breach to avert His destructive wrath.” This reflects another interpretation on Shabbat 105 where the introductory words of the Ten Commandments are described as אמירה נעימה כתיבה יהבה, (compare page 431) When a son wins a game of chess against his father for the first time, the father derives great satisfaction of having taught his son so well. Similarly, if during a discussion on the meaning of a certain verse in the Torah, the “son,” i.e. one of the Torah scholars, has shown outstanding skill and understanding of the Torah’s deeper meaning, the author, G’d, derives great satisfaction from this.
Coming back to why G’d did not introduce the Ten Commandments with reminding the listeners that He was the Creator and therefore had preceded every other phenomenon in the universe, but stressing that He had taken the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, G’d did so because he wanted to be on record concerning His love for His people. He was certain that by doing this He would reinforce the people’s enthusiasm to serve Him rather than any other so-called deities. By using a play on words [in the Hebrew language, Ed.] our author considers the whole episode between slavery-physical redemption, and now spiritual redemption of the Jewish people, as turning צרה into רצה, “suffering and distress into joy and happiness.” Henceforth the Jewish people are always referred to as G’d’s children [even when errant children, Ed.] This factor is an overriding consideration in our relationship to G’d. This also explains that G’d chooses to “live,” i.e. be at home among the Jewish people after they build a Sanctuary for Him here on earth. If, in spite of this, the Israelites were ever to turn to idolatry, this sin would be ever so much harder to atone for.
Yet another way of understanding the line אנכי ה' אלוקיך וגו', also based on Pessikta Rabbati, 21 portraying G’d at the sea of reeds as appearing to the people in the guise of a young warrior, whereas portraying Him as an aged venerable scholar seven weeks later, might have given rise to the thought that two different deities had appeared to the people on these two occasions. By emphasizing the word אנכי, rather than what He had done, G’d wants the people to know that He Who appears to them at Mount Sinai is none other that he Who had taken care of them at the sea of reeds.
This can be understood more easily by referring to the writings of the Ari z’al, who writes that on (the original) Passover the people related to G’d as immature intelligences, מוחין דקטנות, whereas at the revelation at Mount Sinai they already related to Him with מוחין דגדלות, mature intelligence. I will endeavour to explain to you, the reader, what precisely is the difference between these two kinds of intelligence.
There are two types of righteous, just people, both of whom popularly referred to as צדיקים. One type of צדיק serves the Lord because he wants to assure himself of his place in the world to come. This type of צדיק is referred to by Maimonides in his ספר המדע as not serving G’d for its own sake. The second type of צדיק is one who serves the Lord for its own sake, i.e. he has no ulterior motives in serving the Lord at all, as he knows that the very fact that he is free to serve the Lord is a wonderful experience and opportunity. His purpose is to give satisfaction to the Creator for having created the universe and the creatures therein, especially the ones to whom He gave a free will.
In the event that you were to think that serving the Lord in order to secure one’s place in the world to come is something worthless, you would be quite wrong. It is possible to serve the Lord for its own sake and at the same time consider that he invests in his future life beyond the death of his body.
Let us look at a parable demonstrating the situation. A father has a son, a minor; this son does not have much intelligence as yet. When his father presents him with a smart set of clothes, he will show off this suit to his father not because he wants to please his father, but because he is vainglorious, feeling more important now that he possesses fashionable clothing. The same father also has an older son, one who has acquired more intelligence; when this older son shows off his new suit to his father he has more than one purpose in doing so. Of course he is proud of possessing a new suit, but he also wants the father to enjoy that he is so happy with this new suit. He is well aware that his father derives pleasure from his son’s pleasure in the suit that he bought for him.
In our situation of how to serve the Lord, there is a great is similarity. A “smart” son is able to serve the Lord initially not for its own sake, i.e. לשמה, i.e. in order to secure for himself an honorable place in the hereafter. This will still be considered serving the Lord לשמה, as his desire to earn a place in the hereafter is motivated by his overriding desire to please his Creator. He is aware that his Father in heaven would not want to share the suffering of His children if they were condemned not to have a share in the world to come.
This is the deeper meaning of the famous line: מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה, “through having initially done something good accompanied by ulterior motives, eventually such a person will continue to do good for the sake of its being good.” In other words, G’d will endow people doing good even though their intelligence is limited by expanding their intellectual horizons to the point when they will do good for its own sake. [It may not be too daring to suggest that it is in G’d’s own interest to “assist” the person who starts out serving Him with an ulterior motive to overcome this initial immaturity so that he will eventually serve Him for the “right” reason. i.e. לשמה. Ed.]
The truth that service of the Lord by the Jewish people commenced on the lowest of levels is clearly stated in the Torah in Exodus 3,7 when G’d told Moses that He had heard the outcry of the Israelites to Him, and that He kept in mind that it was induced by their terrible state of suppression. The author of the haggadah shel Pessach reflects the same sentiment when he writes מתחלה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו במצרים, “at the beginning our forefathers were idol worshippers in Egypt, etc.” The author did not mean to say that the Israelites had become indistinguishable from idolaters who believed in the power of the man made deities to whom they offered food, etc; he meant that service of the Lord by the Jewish people did not begin with lofty spiritual ideals, such as a recognition of the all embracing power of G’d and His love for His creatures, but that they were motivated by dreams of relieving their plight, i.e. their worship was interwoven with self-serving interests. By the time the redemption took place, they had already progressed somewhat to the stage of what we called מוחין בקטנות, whereas in the interval between then and the revelation at Mount Sinai they could be described as מוחין בגדלות. When they proclaimed acceptance of the Torah with the words: נעשה ונשמע, “we will do, so let us hear the details,” this proclamation came from the throats of people who served the Lord without concern for personal advantage to be gained through this.
From all the foregoing it follows that the 49 days of counting the Omer, the days leading up to the revelation at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah were in the nature of לבוש, “clothing” designed to hide the essence of the personality underneath these garments. We may view them as the מוחין דקטנות, which hides the מוחין דגדלות, the immature intellect behind which is found the mature intellect. The process of our intellect maturing occurred during these 49 days so that the לבוש, the “clothing” or sheath, could be removed by the time the Israelites stood at the bottom of Mount Sinai.
The practice of not letting our children grow their hair indefinitely, and what is worse, making plaits of it to show it off, may have its origin in the awareness that hair is a cover hiding the essence. By emphasizing the cover at the expense of hiding the essence we provide the evil urge with a tool that makes it easier for him to pervert our orientation which was toward G’d the essence, and divert it to that which is שולי, secondary, making the secondary into the primary, or, in the words of our sages: making the טפל into the עיקר, the subordinate into the essence. Ultimately, such an attitude will end up diverting the Jewish people from pursuing the “gates” to holiness, and get stuck in the “gates” of טומאה, impurity.
Exodus 20,5. “Who, while remembering the guilt of the fathers to the children if the children continue to hate Him, while at the same time showering thousands of generations of those who have loved Him with His loving kindness.” The essence of these words is that on the one hand, by exacting retribution for sins G’d minimizes the impact of these sins, i.e. the residue of the guilt.
The word פקד, in the sense of diminishing, is familiar to us already from Samuel I 20,25 when on the occasion of the festive meal on the New Moon David’s chair was vacant, and the King remarked on this as something lacking. The opposite is the case when people are rewarded for meritorious deeds by G’d. Paying them a reward does not detract from the good deeds they had performed, so that they should consider themselves as having been “paid off,” but, on the contrary, is a stimulus to such people adding more meritorious deeds in the future. This idea is expressed by the words עשוה חסד, i.e. G’d does not only “repay” the just and the pious, but He adds a “bonus.,” known as חסד.
Exodus 20,8 “keep remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” In the review of the Ten Commandments by Moses in Deuteronomy 5,12 the Torah writes: שמור את יום השבת לקדשו, “observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy.”
[Moses there adds the apparently unnecessary words: כאשר צוך ה' אלוקיך, “just as the Lord your G’d has commanded you.” Apparently, aware of the slight variation in the text from our verse, Moses reassures the people that this is not a deviation. Ed.]
[Most students in elementary school are already familiar with the line in the hymn of לכה דודי that שמור וזכור בדבור אחד השמיענו א-ל המיוחד, “shamor and zachor the One and only G’d has let us hear as a single word.” Ed.] The source of the words in the hymn are found already in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 27. The deeper meaning of this somewhat enigmatic statement is that the commandments of the Torah may be divided into two parts; 1) the actual physical performance of the commandment; 2) awareness at the time of performance of the underlying intention of the Creator when He gave us this commandment.. The qualitative difference between these two aspects of the commandment is that only the performance is of the essence, the underlying intention of G’d when formulating the commandment is secondary.
There is, however an exception to this rule, and this exception is the commandment of keeping the Sabbath holy. In this instance the Torah clearly spelled out what our thoughts must be when observing the Sabbath properly, i.e. the fact that it is a testimonial of G’d having created the universe in the 6 days preceding the first Sabbath. When a Jew refrains from doing any of the activities which are forbidden on the Sabbath but he fails to reflect on the fact that the sanctity of this day is due to G’d having bidden us to remember that he created the universe in the 6 days preceding the original Sabbath, such a Jew has not observed the commandment of “keeping the Sabbath.” Seeing that the זכירה, “the remembering,” primarily by reciting the Kiddush is an integral part of the Sabbath is cited first shows that as opposed to the other positive commandments where the performance by the body is the primary element, this is not the case in respect of the commandment of the Sabbath. The very expression זכר למעשה בראשית, “in commemoration of the process of creation,” (on several occasions (in both the shacharit and mussaph prayers) is proof that our sages viewed this element of the Sabbath day as an essential part thereof, no less so than the abstention from the type of work that G’d “rested” from, i.e. וינפש, on the original Sabbath of creation. The Sabbath is the symbol of our faith that G’d preceded the universe and therefore is the only Being in the universe deserving to be worshipped as Deity.
The author of the central paragraph in the mussaph prayer on the Sabbath, which commences with the words: תכנת שבת ...צוית פירושיה עם סדורי נסכיה, refers to the fact that the Torah in the Sabbath legislation not only spelled out the commandment of how to observe this day with one’s body, by allowing the body to “rest” (constructively), but also spelled out how to observe it with our soul.
When referring to the creative acts that G’d abstained from on the seventh day of creation on account of which we are asked to sanctify the Sabbath, both in connection with the word: זכור in our portion, and again in Deuteronomy 5,12 in connection with the word: שמור, we must remember that the “light” which is described in the Torah as G’d’s first act of intervention in the condition of the “world” before G’d created order from chaos, was “direct” light, i.e. an emanation from the Creator, a light which expands in all directions of the universe, performing its function commensurate with the needs of the region or domain which it reaches. It then assumes a character germane to that region or domain. In other words, this אור ישר, will assume a different intensity in the regions inhabited by the highest ranking angels, the שרפים, from the intensity it assumes in the celestial regions inhabited by a lower ranking group of angels known as חיות. The same is true when this אור ישר, arrives in the regions of the terrestrial parts of the universe, the region known as עולם העשיה. At the same time arrival of this “light” also resulted, as an unavoidable consequence, in “reflected” light, a response by the creature who had received it from the Creator. [Compare pages 364/365 where this subject has been discussed previously. Ed.] Each region of the universe receives the amount and intensity of this אור הישר appropriate to its needs.
In kabbalistic parlance the nature of the אור החוזר, the “reflected light,” is perceived as the remnant of the original light which did not remain in the universe as the various universes were unable to ”digest” it so that they could not make use of it as it was too intense and would have destroyed these worlds. Upon the return of this “light” to the Creator, the אין סוף, it will be condensed, i.e. its power will be restrained, but in a manner that in the words of Michah 7,18 make it “digestible” only for the holy Jewish people-as described in connection with Exodus 14,21, see pages (364-366).-
Our sages in Rosh Hashanah 17 alluded to this idea when they explained the term לשארית נחלתו, “to the remnant of His inheritance,” (His own people) in Michah 7,18, as those Jews who transform themselves into truly G’d fearing personalities. Concerning these types of people my sainted teacher Dov Baer has said that the expression שארית נחלתו applies only to those צדיקים who spend almost all of their lives trying to elevate themselves to the level of sanctity of their Creator.
The root of the concept of sanctity, קדושה, holiness, sanctity, is found where the צמצום, the voluntary restriction G’d imposed upon His essence occurs, so that He would not be a destructive force in His own universe. [If we in our parlance, following Rashi, translate holiness as “something apart,” this is no contradiction, but a reflection of the difficulty of translating celestial terminology into language used in the terrestrial part of the universe, the part we humans inhabit. Ed.]
When the Jewish people sanctify themselves by means permitted to them, and in that process separate themselves from the pleasures of this terrestrial world, they do so because they are aware that the so-called pleasures of this terrestrial world are intrinsically worthless, so that they try to elevate themselves to a region outside the domain of the terrestrial, physical universe. These “regions” are beyond our ability to define and therefore we are unable to describe them adequately. Seeing that the nations of the world have none of them been found worthy of being שארית נחלתו “a residue of His inheritance,” it cannot be expected of them to show the least bit of understanding of this subject.
Suffice it to say that the subject matter we called אור חוזר is the unabsorbed part of the אור ישר, the “direct” light that had left the Essence of G’d and dispersed in different regions of His universes, any “excess,” making a “return journey” in preparation for further use by its Dispatcher, the Creator.
This inability of the nations of the world to comprehend the nature of the Sabbath is the reason that while they understand the concept of the Sabbath being a day that symbolizes that the Creator had refrained from overt creative activity, they selected for themselves on an arbitrary basis a different day of the week, one that had not been sanctified by the Creator for that purpose. When the Torah, both in our portion and in Deuteronomy, stresses the element of the sanctity of this “Day of rest,” for the Jewish people, it alludes to the unbroken connection between the Jewish people and the celestial regions, in spite of the fact that our bodies (and, temporarily our souls) inhabit the terrestrial part of the universe. [I have used some of my own wording in the foregoing, for reasons of simplicity. Ed.]
Exodus 20,9.“during six consecutive days you are to labour , (in the mundane sense of the word) and carry out all your activities, and the seventh day shall be a Sabbath for the Lord your G’d;” this verse may be understood best with the help of B’reshit Rabbah 2,2 on the words: ויברך ויקדש אותו (Genesis 2,3) who explains the word ויברך אותו, “He blessed it,” as referring to the double portion of manna that descended on the eve of the Sabbath, and the word ויקדש, “He sanctified it,” as referring to the absence of the manna on that day.
It is common knowledge that different people act differently when they have something to say. Some, in order to get what they have to say, “off their chest,” say whatever they have to say without pauses, others insert pauses where appropriate during which time they mentally phrase what they will say next. This is reflected in how we relate to the 6 workdays of the week and to the Sabbath. During the six working days we try to accomplish whatever it is that we wish to accomplish without allowing for pauses, which we consider a waste of time. Not so, on the Sabbath, a day on which our “work” if it may be described as such, is primarily performed by the mind, i.e. the formulating of thoughts. This is why the manna could not descend to the physical world, עולם העשיה on the Sabbath, seeing that the Sabbath, intrinsically, is not part of that “world.” It is devoted to maintain our unbroken connection to the אין סוף and with other segments of the celestial worlds. The inhabitants of these regions, by definition, cannot appear, i.e. reveal their true nature, in our domain, so that even when an angel “visits” the terrestrial regions, this is not to be understood as a התגלות, revealing its nature to us. These “semi-revelations can occur only on weekdays.” On the Sabbath the means of communication with the celestial domains is restricted to our brain, i.e. through the appropriate thoughts. The statement quoted above i.e. ברכו במן וקדשו במן “He blessed it through the manna and sanctified it through the manna,” therefore must be understood as: the blessing descending on the manna (which had fallen on the previous day). The מחשבה, thought, is the precursor of the דבור, the word, i.e. benediction recited over wine on the Sabbath gives meaning to the manna on that day. Without it the manna on that day would not be an expression of G’d’s blessing. The Sabbath being “a Sabbath for the Lord,“ therefore means that we His creatures give meaning to this day by sanctifying it. The manna, i.e. the concept of manna, having been blessed by the Jewish people observing the Sabbath by mouth and by deed, prepares the conditions during the six days of the week for the manna to descend on earth again as G’d’s expression of His largess for His people. Proper observance of te Sabbath conveys to us emotionally that the day is one on which we reconnect with our spiritual origin, the אין סוף, the eternal essence of the Creator.
Exodus 20,17. “for G’d has come only in order to test you.” Moses refers to the reason why G’d decided to address the first two Commandments to the people directly, not using him as His intermediary. He intended to deeply engrave on the people’s hearts and consciousness he fact that even the most humble of them had heard these words directly from the mouth of G’d so that should the occasion arise each one of them would find it easier to offer his life for the sanctification of G’d’s name. Having undergone the experience they had at Mount Sinai, would make it easier for them to stand up to future tests.
Exodus 20,19.“You have seen that I have spoken with you from the heavens. Do not make in addition to Me a deity of silver, etc.” G’d tells the people that just as He conducts the fortunes of the universe by glorifying in His people Israel exclusively, by having given His Torah only to them, after having introduced the Decalogue with the words: “I am the Lord, your G’d, etc.;” although the Torah could have found in the universe complementary partners more outstanding than the Israelites, He chose the Jewish people as the most appropriate partner for the Torah to demonstrate His love for this people. One of the reasons was that He had found in the Jewish people a nation yearning for guidance from heavenly sources rather than from mortal human sources. Seeing that this is so, G’d warns the people not to commit a fatal error by treating any other deity as if it were on a par with Him. It would be the greatest insult to Hashem to be compared by His people to any other phenomenon in the universe.
Mishpatim
Exodus 24,1. ,“you will prostrate yourselves from a distance.” When describing His creatures’ relationship to Him, or His relationship to them, the Creator may use two different terms, i.e. “distant,” רחוק, or “nearby,” קרוב. A “distant” relationship means that we believe in the Existence of the אור, original light emanating from the אין סוף, the essence of the Creator, as having preceded any other phenomenon in the universe, as a result of which no creature/phenomenon can possibly have a true understanding of His nature. Perceptions arrived at by our intelligence, by a מחשבה, “thought,” which is itself a “creature,” cannot possibly reflect a true understanding of the essence of Who has created them. This is also why no category of angel, however “close” it may be to the Creator can possibly have a true understanding of His essence. This inability to comprehend Him objectively, is also described as being רחוק, “distant” for want of a better word, i.e. this “distance” is not measured in terms of miles or kilometers, but in terms of means of perception. In other words, we must never try and measure our relationship to G’d in terms of physical distance.
On the other hand, the term קרוב, “nearby”, or “close,” when used in connection with the Creator, implies that we believe that He is omnipresent, fills the whole universe with His Presence, and that there is no place in all the universes that He has created in which His presence is not somehow felt at all times.
It is incumbent upon us true believers to firmly believe in these two concepts, i.e. G’d’s simultaneous “distance,” as well as His “nearness.” This is the meaning of Isaiah 17,19 שלום לרחוק ולקרוב אמר ה', “welcome to the distant and to the near, says the Lord.” The prophet, speaking in the name of G’d, welcomes those righteous who truly affirm both of these above--mentioned articles of our faith. Due to the belief of these צדיקים in these basic tenets, G’d in His turn supplies His universe with beneficial input to all parts of His universe.
Let us now look at the two categories of faith known as “love for G’d,” אהבה, and being in awe of Him, יראה. The virtue of being in awe (of G’d) is one that can be practiced only vis a vis; phenomena that are “above” us and which due to their superior position evoke fear in the beholder. This awe is therefore something closely related to the phenomenon we defined earlier as רחוק, “distant.” On the other hand, the phenomenon קרוב, nearness, is what inspires love. When the Torah, in the verse we quoted above wrote: והשתחוים , “you are to prostrate yourselves,” it refers to the awe which accompanies our relationship to something that is רחוק “distant.” The addition of the word מרחוק should therefore not be translated as “from a distance (measured physically),” but “due to your perceptual distance, difficulty, in comprehending the phenomenon known as ‘G’d.’” It is this which evokes the fear/awe relationship to G’d.
Alternatively, falling back on words of the Ari’zal, when interpreting the line beginning with the words: ואנחנו כורעים וגו' in the עלינו prayer: the word ומשתחוים in that sentence is understood as our drawing nearer to us all the beneficial outpourings of G’d’s largesse from the celestial regions through this form of worship. It is quite possible that in our verse above the purpose of G’d requesting this “prostration” of the elders and sages was to set in motion the outpourings of G’d’s beneficial largesse.
Exodus 24,3. “Moses came and told the people all the words of Hashem, and all the “social laws.”
According to the opinion of Rashi, the events recorded in this chapter occurred chronologically before the giving of the Torah on the 6th of Sivan. He adds that the משפטים, laws governing inter personal relations, must refer to the 7 Noachide laws that apply to all of mankind and to the laws governing the red heifer and part of the Sabbath legislation revealed to the people at Marah, as well as to the law to honour father and mother.
Nachmanides questions at least part of Rashi’s commentary, finding it most unlikely that at this time and place Moses told the people about the 7 Noachide laws. He also argues that the expression ויספר, “he told,” used in our verse is inappropriate for use with matters that were already known.
Personally, I do not see anything wrong with Rashi’s commentary. According to the understanding of the sages in the Talmud, the events described in this chapter preceded the revelation at Mount Sinai as explained in Or Hachayim, see page 751 in this editor’s translation of the Or Hachayim’s commentary, where the author quotes a Mechilta on this subject describing it as “undisputed.” As to the words in Rashi referring to what Moses told the people being the seven Noachide commandments, etc., this was not the subject he told them about, i.e. ויספר, “he told,” but refers to the altar which Moses had built on the 5th day of Sivan, the day prior to the revelation which the Torah mentions in verse 4 of our chapter. On that day Moses concluded a covenant with the people confirming as law the seven Noachide laws, etc., laws that had first been introduced during the people’s stopover at Marah, where G’d had demonstrated how “bitter” waters could be sweetened. Moses told the people that their having observed the laws given on that occasion was truly a major achievement on their part. He added that G’d had been greatly pleased by this. When the people heard about how pleased G’d had been, they were encouraged to spontaneously promise that any further laws G’d were to instruct them to observe they would honour without hesitation. In other words, they “invited” G’d to inform them of additional laws He had in mind to reveal to them for their own good. This was followed a little while later by the most famous declaration of the people when they proclaimed: נעשה ונשמע, “we will do, now let’s hear,” in that order. (verse 7)
Exodus 24,10. “and beneath His feet there was something resembling a brick made from sapphire.” There is an ironclad rule that every “spark”, limb, movement, in this physical universe as well as the activity of every angel, i.e. disembodied creature of G’d, needs to be an instrument used in the service of the Lord. Seeing that He is unique and solitary and eternal, anyone serving Him will experience satisfaction and pleasure of a kind that no creature could attain by its own efforts.
It is axiomatic that when speaking of the אין סוף, the essence of the Creator, concepts such as time, space and quantity, do not apply, seeing that these concepts define limitations, and the Creator, by definition, is “unlimited” i.e. does not suffer from the constraints imposed upon His creatures by time, space and quantity. These concepts become applicable only when the Creator, in order not to destroy His universe and the creatures in it, must impose restraints upon Himself, known as צמצום. These restraints that the Creator imposes upon Himself vary with the parts of the universe in which He desires to become manifest at different times. Concepts such as time, space, quantity, are useful in measuring the degree of such constraints G’d imposes upon Himself at different “times,” and in different “spaces.”
All living creatures are required to “gaze upon,” i.e. to relate to the אין from within the parts of the universe that is their habitat, to their roots, the cause from which all their חיות, life-force, draws its animation or vitality. In other words, speaking allegorically, man must keep in contact with its Creator, much like an unborn baby must remain in contact through its navel with its life-giving mother. By maintaining such contact, the life force of the creature keeps being renewed. This “process,” though assuming different forms, is common to all creatures whether mobile, inert, free-willed or “programmed” by its Creator. The means by which these various creatures maintain this contact with their origins are the אותיות, “identifying letters,” for want of a better word, which represent the individuality of the various kinds of creatures. In the celestial regions there are “outlets,” marked as appropriate for each type of creature to connect to. When each one “concentrates,” i.e. sees with its mind’s eye this outlet whence they “recharge” their “batteries,” they thus ensure their continued existence and function in the parts of the universe that has been allocated to them.
It is important for these creatures to establish a system whereby their contact with their origin remains unbroken, so that their continued existence is not endangered.
According to the Kabbalists, this method or system is known as קמץ, like the vowel in the Hebrew alphabet. This method is discussed in the Tikkuney Hazohar. According to what is explained there, the אין סוף, infinite essence of G’d, is also known as קמץ. This אין סוף, seeing that it has no colour, is considered in the category of “white,” as “white” forms the basis of all other colours. Any other colour may be perceived as having been superimposed on the original white.
“Orientation” at the source, is of course a two-way street, i.e. the creatures recharging their batteries do so in order to return “down” to “earth,” i.e. their respective habitats in the various parts of the universe, in order to put their newly charged “batteries” to good use there. When the Torah describes the elders in our verse above as “seeing” something resembling a brick made of sapphire under the feet of G’d’s throne, this is merely an illustration of the process we have just described, spiritual batteries having been recharged by these elders in preparation for the revelation to occur on the following day.
[The author continues at length to explain the report of Moses’ charging the firstborn, נערי בני ישראל, with offering sacrifices, while he sprinkled the blood on the altar, etc; all these activities are explained in terms of paralleling the “charging of spiritual batteries” that we explained above. I have decided not to continue with this part of his presentation as it extends all the way to the half shekel the male Israelites in chapter 30, were to give as ransom for their souls. Ed.]
Exodus 24,10. “they saw the G’d of Israel, and beneath His feet something resembling a brick made of sapphire pure as the heavens.” We are all familiar with the concept of אהבת הבורא, “love for the Creator,” after all we have been charged with loving Him in Deuteronomy 6,5 and we recite this verse three times daily. Nonetheless, any thinking person must ask himself how he could describe himself as “loving G’d,” seeing that He is so far above us human beings that a mutual love relationship as we comprehend it seems impossible, and anyone claiming to feel such feelings surely must be guilty of boasting, or something worse, blasphemy!
There is a third “dogma,” that anyone claiming to be a true believer in Judaism must embrace, and that is that the Creator is our Father, we are His children, and that in spite of the fact that G’d like any father is wiser, more experienced, more knowledgeable than his children, this does not preclude Him from enjoying his children, even engaging in the equivalent of “playing games with them.” The fact that the Creator is able to do this is what enables Him to become beloved by His creatures/children.
These three “dogmas,” or מידות, were prominently displayed in varying degrees by the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. Avraham excelled in love for his Creator, Yitzchok excelled in his awe of the Creator, and Yaakov excelled in תפארת ואמת, “harmony and truth.” Avraham’s level of faith was complemented and thus made complete by his grandson Yaakov, and this is the meaning of Isaiah 29,22 saying בית יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם, “the house of Yaakov who redeemed Avraham.” The right hand of a human being, the left hand and the torso, allude to these three virtues, religious “dogmas.”
There is another virtue, faith, אמונה, i.e. actually a twofold “faith” the belief in both the authenticity of the written as well as the oral Torah. What this “faith” involves is the absolute certainty that the Creator guides the universe, according to how He sees fit. This aspect is included in the term תורה שבכתב, “the written Torah.” At the same time we must believe that G’d carries out the wishes of the collective soul of the Jewish people. The first mentioned aspect of faith is primarily the faith demonstrated by Moses, whereas the latter aspect, belief in the authenticity of the oral Torah was what Aaron the High Priest, excelled in. In other words, basically what Yaakov excelled in and what Aaron excelled in were similar, the difference being that Yaakov’s “faith” included the belief that G’d is amused and delights in the Jewish people to the point that He “boasts“ about them. However, this is not yet sufficient for Him to fulfill their wish for Him to guide the world according to the wishes of the people of Israel, seeing that even if a father in our world of mortals, just because his son pleases him on occasion or even most of the time, does not re-orient his lifestyle on account of that. It requires the additional virtue of Aaron, i.e. Yaakov, in order for Israel to persuade Him to re-orient His manner of guiding the universe so that it coincides with the wishes of the collective soul of the Jewish people.
In the event, Yaakov became equivalent to his son Levi who was found worthy to also become the founder of the priesthood in Israel. It was Yaakov who fathered the children who were eventually adorned with the title “Children of Israel.” The reason why the priests wear 4 distinct garments when performing their functions in the Temple, is that they embody the four virtues we have described earlier as being essential for the truly believing Israelite. These 4 virtues, i.e. “dogmas” of Jewish belief, are also represented in the four letters of the holy name of the Lord, the tetragram. The four garments of the priest worn in our “lower” part of the universe, symbolize the letters in the tetragram, reminiscent of the “upper” world. This is one way in which G’d is represented among the Israelites in their world at all times.
[At this juncture the author quotes Nachmanides (I have not been able to find this in either Nachmanides’ commentary on this verse in the Torah, nor in the many chapters of האמונה והבטחון where I had expected to find this]. To summarize very succinctly: when a person is near ecstasy in his quest to come closer to Hashem, the essence, it is incumbent upon him to condense such feelings into substance by performing a commandment. The purpose of this is to give visible expression to his feelings through a כלי, a tangible instrument, in this instance the specific commandment chosen as the expression of his quest. If he succeeds in this quest he is considered an אבר חי, a “living limb,” [a term borrowed from an erect penis], whereas failing this he is considered an אבר מת, a penis unable to sustain an erection. In this connection, our author continues that in normal life, it is only permitted to have an erection if one is about to perform the commandment of trying to plant his seed in a ritually permitted partner at the appropriate time in order to beget a child.
He goes on to say that he has already explained how Moses was able to negate his physical impulses to such an extent that he could remain on Mount Sinai without food or drink for a period of 40 days and not suffer any harm from this. He credits Moses’ ability to do so to his possession of the virtue of awe of G’d. He had acquired this awe through his familiarity with the written Torah. Aaron, on the other hand, had complemented this virtue through his familiarity with the oral Torah.
Awe of the Creator, according to our author, is divided into two categories. There is a category known as יראה גדולה, “awe of the first order”, and a category known as יראה קטנה, “awe of a lower order.” A person who has attained the former level of awe is no longer in need of performing the commandments of the Torah, as these were a means to elevate him to this status, [even temporarily, my words. Ed.] People who have attained the lower level of awe, such as the nobles, elders and Nadav and Avihu in our chapter, are still described as eating and drinking, as if “business was as usual.” (verse 11).
[Since no mention is made of Aaron eating or drinking at this stage, and G’d does not mention “overlooking” Aaron’s behaviour at this time, I assume he is not included in the description of the אצילי בני ישראל, but was on a level higher than the nobles, but slightly below that of Moses. Ed.]
Nonetheless the elders and nobles, etc., had experienced visions, which according to our sages equaled those of Ezekiel and Amos (compare Nachmanides’ commentary on the spot). Our verses try to give us an inkling of the above, the word לבנת “whiteness of,” being an allusion to the closeness to the essence of the Creator in a state when colour had not yet been part of the emanations which commenced at the beginning of the creative process in Genesis. In other words, and in consonance with what the author had described when describing the creation of light, they were close to the essence of G’d, the אין סוף.
According to our author, the word ידו in verse 11 where G’d’s reaction to the conduct of the elders, etc., as a result of their being granted such lofty visions, is described by the words: ואל אצילי בני ישראל לא שלח ידו ויחזו את האלוקים ויאבלו וישתו, “but G’d did not stretch out a punitive hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel who had eaten and drunk while experiencing a vision of G’d,” as G’d did not consider their action as lack of respect for the visions they had been granted, but realized that it was due to their not having attained the necessary level of יראה גדולה, “awe of the first order,” as we described earlier. According to our author, at this juncture the qualitative superiority of the tribe of Levi and the priests that emerged from it began. This paralleled a development that had commenced when Yaakov acquired the additional name of Yisrael, when he surpassed certain spiritual boundaries that both his father and grandfather had not surpassed. Our author quotes Deuteronomy 33,9 where Levi is reported as not having seen his father, as an allusion to the tribe of Levi having attained a superior spiritual status not attained by his forbears or his siblings. The Levites, or some of them at certain times, were able to completely negate the limitations imposed upon mortal man who inhabits this physical part of the universe. As a result of this achievement, an entirely new Jewish nation came into existence, i.e. the 12 tribes that comprise this nation.
[The author continues with interesting speculations, which in my opinion, do not belong to an exegesis of this verse or portion. I have decided to omit them. Ed.]
Exodus 24,17. “and the appearance of G’d’s glory was like a consuming fire on the top of the Mountain.” When man serves the Lord through observing the commandments and studying His Torah, he provides the Lord with a great deal of satisfaction. If he wishes to know if his service was really pleasing to the Lord, the test is to look into his own heart. If he notices that his own heart is as if burning with fire in his enthusiasm and that whenever he performs acts of service to the Lord it thoroughly warms his heart and he himself experiences a profound satisfaction and joy at serving his Creator, this is proof that he receives a heavenly assist to continue on the path he has chosen. The meaning of the words ומראה כבד ה' therefore is not a description of what was visible on the mountain but rather that G’d’s sign of showing His servants that their service to Him was appreciated was that the person concerned experienced within himself a reflection of what the Jewish people experienced on the day prior to the revelation when they looked at the top of the mountain. When his own heart seems to him to be on “fire,” and he is close to ecstasy, this is proof that G’d takes pleasure in his efforts.
Terumah
Exodus 25,2. “and they shall take for Me a contribution, each person according to how his heart moves him. And these are the contributions you are to accept from them: gold, silver and copper.” As we explained earlier, every person serving the Lord, must do so also by something tangible in addition to the lofty thoughts that he entertains while doing so. The holy thoughts and intention of each man are considered as if man helps the Presence of the Lord to arise from the dust on earth [where it appears to have been buried. Ed.]., and the tangible acts are made to benefit to the man himself.
When keeping this in mind we can answer the enigma posed by the words כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו, “each person according to how his heart moves him.” These words form the link between the generous thought and the generous deed. By making a voluntary contribution, i.e. the size of the contribution is completely voluntary, it is not a tax as the half shekel in Exodus 30,13, the Presence of G’d on earth will become so much more manifest.
The words: וזאת התרומה, may be understood as if the Torah had written: וזאת ההתרוממות, “and this will constitute the “exaltation, elevation.” The examples of the materials that were to be denoted are symbolic of how lofty and generous thoughts are to be translated into “lofty” and generous deeds.
Another approach to the introductory verses of this portion: This is the first occasion after the revelation at Mount Sinai that G’d commands Moses to address the Jewish people by saying to him: דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel.”
The Talmud in Yuma 9, refers to the piety of Resh Lakish, who refrained from speaking in public to people whose conversation, in his opinion, would not contribute to elevating the Presence of the Shechinah, as we just described. According to the Talmud any person with whom Resh Lakish would speak publicly was on such high moral ground that it was permitted to loan him money without a written receipt. This was a tremendous compliment, as the halachah forbids such transactions without witness and receipts.
[The tenor of that folio section b, is whether we, the generations enduring exile, are inferior when compared to earlier generations in our connection to G’d since we no longer have any prophets, etc., or if as claimed by Resh Lakish, we are superior, seeing that we keep the laws of the Torah without needing to be reproved constantly by prophets. Ed.]
The example of Resh Lakish and with whom he would speaking in public, therefore serves to demonstrate that our mouth and what comes out of it, is an instrument of sanctifying the glory of G’d. Resh Lakish refrained from using his mouth for conversation unless thereby he could serve his Creator.
When after the revelation at Mount Sinai the Jewish people had abused the power of speech while dancing around the golden calf, thereby losing the holiness they had acquired while being addressed by G’d’s mouth directly, Moses was understandably afraid of speaking to such people in public. This is why he had awaited especial permission from G’d before doing so. This permission was given by G’d in our verse above. When G’d referred to the people as בני ישראל, “Children of Israel,” He made it clear to him that this people was still considered as the legitimate heirs of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov. G’d hinted that through Moses speaking to the people, they would be enabled to resume their erstwhile closeness to Hashem.
Exodus 26,14. “skins of Tachash, to be placed on top.” Sometimes people make remarks in a jocular fashion, although the deeper meaning of their remarks does reflect reverence for G’d. These skins of Tachash used as the outermost coverings of the “roof” of the Tabernacle, symbolized this חצוניות, vernacular, secular, which though not valuable by itself, was put to good use as a cover, protection for the sacred content beneath the surface. When people known to revere G’d properly, nonetheless indulge in jocular remarks from time to time, this is not to be understood as lack of reverence for G’d, but is meant to make the substance of their remarks which are designed to bring people closer to G’d, more readily acceptable, as their listeners respond to jokes immediately. In the paragraph under discussion the words שש משזר, symbolize the real content of the conversation of people who forego the need to “spice” up their words by making jokes first. The words יריעות עזים, “sheets or carpets of goat-hair,” refer to people’s discussing their personal needs.
Exodus 25,9.“in accordance with all the pattern I show you; the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings so you shall make it.” Rashi (Sanhedrin 16) comments on this verse that these instructions, i.e. that just as the building of the Temple was to be approved by Moses who represented all the judges of the High Court, the building of future Temples would also have to be approved and supervised by the judges of the High Court.
Tossaphot on that folio already raises questions concerning this interpretation; they point out that the measurements of the altar of the Tabernacle did not correspond to the measurements of the altar in Solomon’s Temple (Kings I chapters 6-7) Nachmanides also found difficulty with Rashi’s commentary in Sanhedrin.
When you consider our explanation above (at the end of Mishpatim) that the words: וכן תעשו ומראה כבוד ה', refer to how a person can be certain that his manner of serving the Lord pleases his Creator, then the words: וכן תעשו, do not refer to the measurements of the Tabernacle or the Temple at all. There was no need for the Torah to repeat its instructions on these points as all the details had already been spelled out. Moses had received visual instructions from G’d, instructions that could hardly be “confirmed” by a human Court which had not been “shown” the dimensions G’d had shown to Moses. The entire Tabernacle must be viewed as the tangible symbol of holy thoughts expressed by the righteous when they worship the Creator, which, as we explained, need a כלי, visible, tangible instrument, in the form of a commandment to be performed by the worshipper, in order to give concrete expression to the נדבת לבו, the generosity of the heart, of which Exodus 25,2 speaks. The completed Tabernacle is the expression of the collective service of the Jewish people, or the לבוש, the “garment” behind which the holy nature of the collective soul of Jewish people resides.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 89 already explains that no two prophets convey the same message from G’d to the people using the same wording. There is an element of individuality which permits each prophet to “dress up” the message in a style that he considers appropriate to his listeners. He also receives the vision from G’d in a manner that allows for his individuality, one that G’d is thoroughly familiar with, of course. It follows that Moses and his generation received G’d’s instructions concerning the Tabernacle in a manner that was appropriate for them, whereas Solomon and his generation received the instructions in a manner appropriate for the level of their respective generation. The tangible expression of the difference between the spiritual level of these two generations, one a people wandering in the desert, the other a people that had lived in a sovereign Jewish homeland for over 400 years already was reflected in the size and appurtenances of their respective “Temples.”
When Rashi explained the word לדורות, to describe the meaning of וכן תעשו, he meant that the same yardsticks that applied in the desert when the Tabernacle was being built were also to be applied in future generations when a Temple will again be built. The tangible version of the people’s service of G’d is to conform to the manner in which the subject would be communicated to the prophet or High Court that is the highest spiritual authority of the people at the time.
Nachmanides’ critique of Rashi that the altars in the two Temples were of completely different sizes is completely out of place, as Solomon constructed the altar in accordance with specific instructions given to him, emphasizing further that what was appropriate in the desert was not appropriate in his time. G’d’s appearing to Solomon when he had completed the Temple (Kings I 6,11-12) is proof that although the measurements of that Temple were quite different (though proportionate), he had not deviated from the instructions given by G’d to Moses in our portion.
Another way of answering the objections of either Tossaphot or Nachmanides is that the words: וכן תעשו, refer to the words: ככל אשר אני מראה, “like all that I have shown you, visually,” i.e. that Moses was not allowed to depart one iota from the pattern that he had been shown by G’d visually. Just as he was not to depart from G’d’s instructions at this time, future Jewish generations were not to depart from G’d’s specific instructions either.
Exodus 25,15. “the staves shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it” “you shall place within the ark the testimony (Tablets), etc.”
The reason why the Torah emphasized only in connection with the holy ark that the staves by means of which the ark will be carried must not be removed from it [although also the table was carried by means of such staves, and the boards of the Tabernacle itself were held in place by staves, Ed.] requires analysis.
The author says that in order to explain this he must give a lengthy introduction. He takes it for granted that man, i.e. a human being, is viewed as a microcosm of the universe
He also takes it for granted that the reader is aware that the 613 commandments are divided into 365 negative commandments and 248 positive commandments and symbolize the human body i.e. are expressions in tangible form of 613 different spiritual concepts, both 248 positive ones and 365 negative ones. Similarly, the various parts of the Tabernacle are also to be viewed as representing these 613 concepts that form part of the universe and are placed before our eyes as the universe in miniature. In other words, each component part of the Tabernacle represented one of the 613 commandments.
When analyzing these 613 commandments, the reader will find that not all of them are essential, in the sense that not all of them can be fulfilled by each Israelite, and some of them are in the nature of “rearguard actions,” i.e. when certain sins have been committed they are designed to repair the spiritual damage the universe, i.e. the collective soul of the Jewish people, has suffered and the performance of the commandment is designed to repair that damage. Other commandments are so important that we must never lose sight of them, and we are told to remember certain events on a 24/7 basis during all our waking hours. One of these is the commandment to remain aware that there is only one Creator and that it is He Who is the source of all the phenomena that we observe in the universe. The second such commandment is that He has no partners, senior or junior, and is the Only Deity. The third such commandment is that we are commanded to love Him, i.e. that it is our duty as an expression of our love for Him to perform acts that will please Him. The means we are to employ to please Him are observance of the laws of the Torah, turning to Him in prayer, performing charitable deeds for the needy, all of whom have also been created in G’d’s image. At the same time as loving G’d, we must also remain in awe of His presence, i.e. be on guard against transgressing any of the negative commandments in the Torah. Under no circumstances are we to commit acts that we know to contradict His expressed wishes. All the above-mentioned commandments are absolute and apply to each one of us at all times. Faith in the Lord includes that we remain constantly aware of these cardinal points of Judaism.
There are other positive commandments, i.e. wearing four-cornered garments with fringes, ציציות; putting on phylacteries, which are to be performed only during hours of daylight. The same applies to the offering of sacrifices, something that is not acceptable when performed at night. Nowadays, owing to our exile these commandments are incapable of being performed altogether.
The ארון, holy ark, represented the totality of all the commandments, [seeing that the written Torah was deposited within it in addition to the Tablets. Ed.]. In order to symbolize the concept that Torah is indispensable to the Jewish people at any time day or night, Sabbath or weekday, the staves which served as the supports for carrying the ark on the shoulders of the priests, (compare Joshua 3,15) therefore had to remain firmly attached to the rings that enabled them to perform their function.
There are still other words of G’d which are also hinted at in the text of the Ten Commandments, on the Tablets which were the principal item inside the holy ark. These too ought to be remembered at all times as if they were commandments that had been spelled out as such.
The table, which was also equipped with rings and staves as a means to carry it, symbolizes other commandments, and the Levites were charged with carrying it by using them (Numbers 7,9). The table too, had to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites who were descendants of Kehat, not transported on the wagons like the boards and roof coverings of the Tabernacle. The commandment to carry certain parts of the furnishings of the Tabernacle on the shoulders of the Levites charged with performing service in or around the Tabernacle shows how these furnishings symbolized the commandments, i.e. what is most sacred to the Jewish people. During the wanderings in the desert when the Tabernacle and its constituent parts were being moved regularly, carrying these parts on the shoulders was the way the need to observe the commandments at all times was being demonstrated. The Levites were agents, messengers, of the Jewish people and at the same time agents, i.e. messengers of G’d. The holy ark which symbolized the most important commandments, the ones that apply on a year round basis to every Israelite reminded its carriers of this fact when they considered the prohibition to detach the staves by taking them out of their rings.
Exodus 25,21. “and you are to deposit the Testimony inside the ark.” Rashi comments that he does not understand the repetition in this verse since the same instruction had been spelled out already in verse 16 where the Torah wrote: ונתת אל הארון את העדות, “you are to deposit (it) inside the ark the Testimony.” He attempts to answer this question by saying that the repetition indicates that the Testimony (Tablets, and Torah scroll) is to be deposited inside the ark even before the construction of the lid, the כפורת, details of which have been the subject of verses 17-20. Our author suggests that verse 21 simply explains why anyone removing the staves of the ark from its rings transgresses a negative commandment, i.e. that he would thereby interfere with the sacred contents of the holy ark. [The prohibition to remove the staves is an implied warning not to remove any of the contents of the ark, if I understand our author correctly. Ed.]
Exodus 8:4 “and this is how the lampstand (candlestick) was made, etc.” [I have not figured out, why our author suddenly quotes a verse from Numbers 8,4, instead of using a verse from our portion. Ed.]
We have a rule that there are three types of “love” in the universe, (objects of love). 1) The most common object of love are tangible phenomena. The Torah warns not to “love” certain tangible phenomena. 2) There are some tangible phenomena, which at first glance appear as permissible objects to be loved, but which on closer examination are only symbols of what is permitted to love, i.e. not the object itself but the concepts which the object represent. Therefore, the third type of love is our love for the essence behind the external symbols, the mitzvoth, in this instance, i.e. our love for Hashem.
When we love G’d in this manner, we succeed in helping the “sparks” to return to their original habitat as part of the Sh’chinah, (as explained in our translation on pages 21-23.)
It is not permissible for us to ever claim that there exist phenomena in our universe that are totally apart from their origin, from their holy roots. It is up to us to try and find behind phenomena that appear totally divorced from their holy roots, the point of contact through which such a thread, however slender, still exists. According to our author, the פנימיות, inner essence, of any phenomenon, is a reflection of this “love.” In order to serve the Lord properly, the worshipper must get hold of this “love” and use it as the vehicle with which he relates to his Creator. He considers that other מדות, attributes, virtues, must be used in a similar manner. He claims that there are a total of seven such מדות, virtues, and that the seven arms of the lampstand, or candlestick in the Tabernacle, symbolized these seven virtues. He considers Numbers 8,2 as the key phrase in the Torah referring to this concept, when the Torah writes: בהעלותך את הנרות אל מול פני המנורה יאירו שבעת הנרות, “when you elevate the lights of the lampstand they shall be focused on the center shaft so that all seven lamps will be providing light.” The “centre shaft” symbolizes the Sh’chinah, presence of G’d.
At that point the Torah continues with the words: וזה מעשה המנורה מקשה, “and this is the essential ingredient of this lampstand, it is hammered out of a single piece (of gold)”. This verse teaches that true Judaism when it is practiced with all the required virtues, will result in a completely unified, harmonious personality of the worshipper. It is our task in this multifaceted material universe, to reflect the unity of the Creator by emulating His virtues to the best of our knowledge and ability.
The Torah underlines this by adding: עד ירכה, “to its physical foundation;” this is an allusion to physically permitted love when it serves duly married couples to engage in marital intercourse for the purpose of “uniting” their input through bringing into this universe a child that combines the parents’ best qualities in a single body. [Some of these words are mine, but I trust they reflect the author’s meaning. Ed.]
When the Torah relates how G’d set about creating the first human being, (Genesis 1,26) נעשה אדם בצלמנו, “let Us make man in our image, etc.” the words בצלמנו כדמותנו, “in our image, similar to Our likeness,” are parallel to the description of the candlestick being out of one chunk of gold, עד ירכה עד פרחה, colloquially speaking “from head to toe,” i.e. all of it. Although the human being contains parts difficult to associate with sanctity and holiness, as their function is to turn excess food into excrement, for instance, in the final analysis even dung is connected and remains connected to its Creator in heaven. We are asked to relate with love to that aspect of the phenomenon even if its exterior disgusts us. The word פרחה in Numbers 8,4 whose numerical value is 288, clearly is a hidden reference to the 288 sparks of which we wrote on pages 21-23. The words מקשה היא are an allusion to the ultimate unity of the Sh’chinah, when all of these sparks have returned to its holy origin.
Exodus 25,40.“and take a good look and follow the patterns for them that have been shown to you.”
Rashi explains these words as referring to the fact that G’d, while Moses was on the Mountain, had to give him a visual lesson in how the menorah would look when completed, as Moses had had difficulty in constructing for himself a mental image of it.
Why did Rashi feel that he had to give this exegesis when he did not do so when the Torah described other parts of the Tabernacle to be constructed also accompanied by the instruction ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, “in accordance with all that I show you?”
Furthermore, the entire premise that Moses would have had difficulty making a mental picture of what the completed menorah would look like is difficult to understand.
In order to understand this, it seems that we must realize that when the various “creatures,” or phenomena, that constitute the various parts of G’d’s universe look at their Creator and the brilliance that is beyond their ability to endure, they are so filled with awe that they have completely excluded any other feeling, attribute, they are capable of under normal circumstances. It is only when the Creator draws around His essence the veils that enable His creatures to look at Him without being harmed, that they can once more consciously experience such feelings as שמחה, joy, and any of the other attributes.
This idea has been hinted at when the Talmud in Taanit 29 stated that משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה, normally translated as: “once the month of Adar has begun we experience an additional measure of joy in our lives.” The word אדר, is a short form of the word: אדרת, “cloak,” or mantle, a garment that envelops the wearer, a garment that the prophet Elijah is reported as having worn regularly. (Compare Kings I 19,19, Kings II 2,8, Kings I 19,13) The Talmud means that prior to the beginning of this month when the Jews tried to look at G’d, they were consumed by awe, as G’d had not draped sufficient protective “clothing” around His essence to enable those who worship Him to entertain feelings other than awe and fear.
One of the supports for such an interpretation is presumably the fact that all the miracles G’d performed for the Jewish people during that time, in the lifetime of Mordechai and Esther, were covert rather than overt miracles, i.e. G’d practiced הסתר פנים, a benevolent type of “hiding” His face, so that His creatures would not have to experience too much fear when turning to Him. The miracles performed at that time were in contrast to those performed when G’d split the sea at the time of the Exodus, using supernatural phenomena in doing so. In the Purim episode, not a single supernatural element was part of the chain of events that resulted in the salvation of the Jewish people. [It seems clear to this editor that the author chose this approach to his exegesis as this portion is read annually around the time of Purim. Ed.]
An additional reason may be that around this time, nature that had denuded itself and presented itself to us as awesome during the winter months, once again bedecks itself with foliage, arousing new hope and joy in the hearts of the people who have just experienced a harsh winter.
Quoting Genesis 49,11 where Yaakov blesses his son Yehudah, and zeroing in on the words: עירה ולשרקה, the author sees in the apparently extraneous letters ה at the end of the word עירה and שרקה, a mystical meaning based on the concept of צירוף אותיות, the ability to divine the deeper meaning of why certain letters have been combined, [an art that according to our sages enabled Betzalel, the master-builder of the Tabernacle to carry out his task, Ed]. The use of the two letters ה where they do not appear to be needed, is an allusion to the abundance of G’d’s largesse for His creatures in the universe, whereas the letters י and ו allude to looking at the overwhelming brilliance of light experienced when looking at the Creator. These four letters, of course, are the letters forming the tetragram of the holy name of G’d, י-ה-ו-ה. The system has been explained further by Shaar Hayichud vehaemunah in the writings of Tanya, (Rabbi Shneer Zalman of Ladii).
[Many of my readers are familiar with a mystical poem appearing before the recital of לכה דודי commencing with the line אנא בכח, where we find the respective first letters of each line printed separately at the end of that line. This is one of the best known examples of the system of צירוף אותיות having found its way into prayer books even of the Ashkenazi (Charedi) community which normally refrains from including passages that the average worshipper cannot understand. The reader may also be interested to know that this is the reason why in most Ashkenazi communities the entire portion of the Friday night service known as kabbalat Shabbat, and commencing either with the saying of לכו נרננה or the preparatory saying individually of the entire scroll of Song of Songs, was for hundreds of years resisted; even when and where accepted, the chazan recites it on the platform from which the Torah is read, to remind the congregation that this was not part of the original Friday night service, Ed.]
Getting back to the candlestick, the symbol of light in the universe and how it is to be utilized, the author explains that the reason why this “candlestick” had to be shown to Moses in the form of a menorah of fire suspended in the atmosphere, was that this mystical aspect of the menorah Moses could not have figured out for himself by merely following the instructions of constructing a physical menorah. This was the only furnishing of the Tabernacle which alluded to the possibility of a path to G’d in His essence without looking at the many protective mantles with which He shields Himself, i.e. His creatures, from coming to harm when they may be taken unaware by a manifestation of His glory. As indicated by the name of the month in which the festival of Purim occurs, on that occasion G’d was especially careful to ensure that none of the Jews would come to harm through His intervention against the evil decree of Haman being a manifestation through overt miracles.
The author now draws attention to another anomaly in the text describing how the Tabernacle was to be constructed. We have already heard that the Torah emphasized how everything was to conform strictly to the pattern G’d had outlined for Moses. He wonders therefore why in connection with the reference to the blueprint G’d had shown to Moses, we once or twice find the expression בתבניתם אשר אתה מראה בהר, “as in their patterns that has been shown to you on the Mountain,” (25,40) whereas when speaking of the boards forming the walls of the Tabernacle there is a change in wording, and we read in 26,30: כמשפטו אשר הראית בהר “according to its rules as shown to you on the Mountain.” He explains this as follows: The former formulation, i.e. בתבניתם, was parallel to the Ten commandments the people had heard while at the foot of the Mountain, whereas the word כמשפטו, refers to the appurtenances that were housed (in the main) within the walls of the Tabernacle. This also explains why Moses listed the individual parts of the Tabernacle in the Torah first, and only after these have been constructed was work on the actual structure, the boards, mentioned. Betzalel did not follow Moses’ example and proceeded with building the walls, קרשים, first, saying to Moses that it did not make sense to build furniture before one has a house to put it in. In order to understand why Moses has listed the appurtenances first, seeing that surely he was aware that furniture without a building within which to place it was not the way to proceed, we must remember that Moses was aware that the nation Israel had been “born” i.e. emerged only after possessing numerous negative virtues, and that thanks to the awe of the Lord they had experienced during these years, they had now become virtuous, in the positive sense.
Betzalel, however, as his name already indicates, had been born with positive virtues, and did not have to undergo the refinement process that the average Israelite had experienced. He could therefore proceed with the building of the structure first, the building that was to house the Sh’chinah, the proof that the people enjoyed G’d’s countenance being turned to them lovingly.
In connection with the altar (27,8) on which the animal offerings were offered, the “copper” altar located in the courtyard in front of the Tabernacle, we encounter the unusual instruction נבוב לוחות תעשה, usually translated as “make it hollow, of boards.” The reason the Torah gives for this instruction is again similar but not identical to the reason given for the making of the boards, or the making of the furnishings, the Torah writing: כאשר הראה אותך בהר כן יעשו “as He has shown you on the Mountain, so they shall construct it.” The Torah indicates the location of Moses when he received these instructions as being within the domain of the עולם הבריאה, the world of the first stage of creation, a stage before G’d had needed to shield His essence from creatures that could be hurt by that brilliance. This is also the reason why this altar has always been described as מזבח החיצון, usually translated as “the altar situated outside,” as opposed to the golden altar which was located within the Tabernacle itself. Our author sees in the expression מזבח החיצון, an allusion to an altar from which the עולם הבריאה, the world closest to the essence of the Creator, could be accessed by means of the fragrant aroma of the offerings burned up on it. It could access a world beyond one which could not be accessed by the lighting of the menorah, inside the Tabernacle.
The dividing curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies separated an area of 10 by ten cubits, “the Holy of Holies,” the sanctuary being 20 by 10 cubits. The length of the Tabernacle (inside) thus was a total of 30 cubits. The number 30 equals 3 times י. These three י symbolize 1) “looking” in the direction of G’d with faith, אמונה, 2) looking in the direction of G’d with one’s intellect, 3) looking at G’d after divesting himself of all elements that connect one to one’s physical existence, to one’s body. The difference between these three levels of holiness has been explained in the introduction of the Raa’vad, רבי אברהם בר דויד to the Sefer Yetzirah. The י third therefore is considered on the highest level, or קדשי קדשים Holies of Holies. The יריעות, “carpet like coverings,” of the Tabernacle serving as part of its roofing, that were made of blue wool, תכלת, symbolize the original light of the eyn sof, the light of G’d’s essence, undiluted, this is the reason that its length was 28 cubits; (instead of 30 as the other carpets covering the Tabernacle, which “incorporated” the “toned down” original light that was too bright for the human eye to behold without the beholder’s eyes sustaining irreparable injury. They represented the two topmost levels of the 10 sefirot, i.e. כתר וחכמה, “crown and wisdom”. This has been explained in the book Eitz Chayim by Rabbi Chayim Vittal, (who recorded most of the Ari z’als wisdom in writing). In that volume, the יריעות made from goats’ hair (26,7) represent the peel or husk surrounding a fruit. Once a human being has been equipped with such a protective peel or skin, he is potentially capable of absorbing the most profound insights emanating from the eyn sof; this is symbolized by these coverings made of goats’ hair being 2 cubits longer than the ones made of blue wool, תכלת. This is also why there were 11 of these “carpets” joined together, as explained in the Zohar.
The Torah describes the extra length of these “carpets” (the sixth) as being folded over, וכפלת, (verse 9) [The Zohar Pekudey, page 233 explains how adding something, such as protective sheathing around the essence of G’d so that the brilliance of His light does not harm the creatures exposed to it, or in the case of the Tabernacle and its roofing, which after all was G’d’s residence on earth, is actually not to be understood as an addition (qualitatively), but as a diminution. Although the carpets made of goat’s hair were 30 cubits long as opposed to the 28 cubits long blue woolen carpets, there were 11 of them instead of 10 as was the case with the blue woolen carpets guarding the interior of the sanctuary and the holy of holies. These carpets made of goats’ hair represented the חצוניות, i.e. ”exterior” part of the Tabernacle, exterior in terms of kabbalah always meaning something less than perfect. Our author, following this thought, sees a repetition of the same idea in the word וכפלת, “you are to fold it over,” i.e. reinforce it so as to make it stronger. [If something needed to be reinforced, it was evidently not adequately strong enough originally. Ed.]
Our author sees in these קליפות which are frequently viewed as something negative,- a challenge which, when mastered, results in the person who mastered it receiving a double portion of reward. He quotes Rabbi Akiva in Chagigah 15 on the subject, where that Rabbi explained that the very creation of evil was designed to give man additional reward for rejecting evil, something which at first glance had appeared to him as attractive. Seeing that potentially, room is reserved for each of us both in Gan Eden and in purgatory, depending on which we qualify for, Rabbi Akiva claimed that the tzaddik who overcame his evil inclination will gain two spots in Gan Eden, also claiming a spot originally reserved for someone turned sinner.
Exodus 26,4. “you are to make loops made from blue wool;” this verse can be understood when we consider the following statement in the Talmud Sotah 17. “תכלת, wool dyed blue, resembles the ocean, which in turn is a reflection of the colour of the sky, which in its turn is a reflection of the throne of G’d.”
Speaking allegorically, when a person begins with constructing a building, he commences with an outline of the appearance of the finished building in his mind. After that he draws up plans for the building, and only as a last step does he proceed with the actual construction. When the building is complete it is assigned its original purpose, i.e. given to the person or persons who will inhabit it. In other words, the project has undergone four distinct stages. 1) original mental image of the project; 2) clarification of the details, etc. 3) translating thought into deed. 4) carrying out the intention which originally prompted the project. When the original mental image of the project is seen reflected after its successful completion, the person inhabiting this building will experience a sense of satisfaction and joy.
Speaking allegorically, when a person begins with constructing a building, he commences with an outline of the appearance of the finished building in his mind. After that he draws up plans for the building, and only as a last step does he proceed with the actual construction. When the building is complete it is assigned its original purpose, i.e. given to the person or persons who will inhabit it. In other words, the project has undergone four distinct stages. 1) original mental image of the project; 2) clarification of the details, etc. 3) translating thought into deed. 4) carrying out the intention which originally prompted the project. When the original mental image of the project is seen reflected after its successful completion, the person inhabiting this building will experience a sense of satisfaction and joy.
The Creator experienced similar feelings from the moment He had imagined the universe He was about to create and the creatures which He planned would live in the completed universe. Seeing that, as we pointed out repeatedly, the entire project called “universe” had been planned only for the sake of the Jewish people, it is clear that the Jewish people as the end-product loomed large in His thinking. It follows that as soon as the Jewish people realized that they had been the focal point of all of G’d’s endeavours, they would be filled with immense joy. If G’d performed so many overt miracles for the Jewish people, this was in order to convince them of their pivotal role in this universe. The author refers to a commentary on the word מגילה in the benediction read before reading the scroll containing the Purim story, in which he understood the word מגילה not simply as “scroll,” but as a revelation, i.e. מגלה i.e. revealing events and their purpose. The letter י in the word מגילה he understands as an allusion to the heavenly involvement, though it was covert, in all that happened at that time. He follows up by interpreting the word תכלת usually translated as “wool dyed blue,” as being a derivative of the word תכלית i.e. תכלת with the letter י added; this conveys the same idea as the letter י in the word מגילה as we just explained. When the sages in Sotah 17 referred to four sages of tracing back the end-product תכלת+י, they taught us about the four stages involved in creating the world, the four stages also paralleling the four letters in the holy name of G’d in the tetragram as well as the name spelled א-ד-נ-י. The final letter ה in the tetragram alludes to the stage of the actual building, whereas the first letters יה alludes to G’d’s thought processes, and the letter ו refers to the stage when the plans are drawn up. The name א-ד-נ-י refers to the completed product fulfilling its function, תכלית.
Tetzaveh
Let us first deal with a question raised by most commentators, i.e. the reason why Moses’ name has not been mentioned in this portion. In Proverbs 10,1 we read בן חכם ישמח אב, “a wise son brings joy to his father.” What precisely is this “wisdom” Solomon speaks of in that verse? Furthermore, what is the nature of “wisdom” that Job speaks of in Job 28,28 where we read הן יראת א-דוני היא חכמה, “here the awe of G’d is wisdom!”
We must remember that the Creator created all the phenomena in all the parts of His universe, and that when His creatures look at the world and realize that they themselves are totally powerless, they look at their own “lives” and are overcome by a feeling of awe for this Creator.
They also realize that the Creator in His wisdom has created phenomena that are direct opposites of one another such as fire and water, night and day, wind (air) and earth. When reflecting on this they realize that even these opposites possess a common denominator, they emerged into existence as an expression of the will of the One and only Creator. It follows that they should perceive themselves as being part of one great whole.
The word הן as explained by Rashi on Genesis 3,22 refers to man in the lower universe being as unique as G’d is unique in the higher universe. In Greek the word for “one, uniformity,” is also “hina” (compare ערוך). Unity in our world is the result of the recognition that we all share the same root. The fear inspired by this realization inspires unity, or at least should inspire unity, the common goal of all of G’d’s creatures being to serve the Creator. The well known verse, (Job 25,2):עושה שלום במרומיו הוא יעשה שלום עלינו וגו', “He who makes peace in His lofty heights may He also make peace among us, etc.;” alludes to the peace in the higher worlds being the result of the creatures in that world having realized that they are all part of the same root, something that alas, we on earth have so far failed to realize, or at least we have failed to let our actions reflect that realization.
Our sages (Bamidbar rabbah 12,7) when commenting on this verse says that the archangel Michael is made of snow whereas the archangel Gavriel is made of fire. In spite of this neither angel causes any harm to his colleague or celestial counterpart.
This may also be viewed as the allusion of which the Talmud Taanit 11 speaks when discussing that during the days of the consecration of the Tabernacle when Moses performed the duties of the High Priest, what garments did he wear? After sending to Ginsak to make enquiries, Mar Ukva was told that Moses wore a white shirt while performing these duties, and that this shirt did not have a border at its lower edge. This comment implied that every tzaddik has his own individual style when serving his Creator. Each style is distinguished by a certain colour. Avraham wore a colour bordering on white, Yitzchok wore a colour bordering on green, whereas Yaakov wore a colour bordering on red. Both Moses and Aaron each wore colours that were unique to them. Similarly, every tzaddik wears a garment tailored to his specific measurements. When these tzaddikim look at the eyn sof, they divest themselves of all that marks them as distinct individuals. The Talmud saying that Moses wore white is an allusion to the eyn sof which is not distinguished by any specific colour, and therefore is perceived as “white,” i.e. as not claiming any specific distinction. All the scientists agree that “white” is not a colour, as it is able to accept any dye.
The question regarding what garments Moses wore during the days when he performed the functions of the High Priest although he was not a priest, and therefore was not allowed to wear priestly garments, was therefore being interpreted by the Talmud as quite a legitimate question. The answer given reflects the fact that Moses was spiritually so far above the priests even, that his wearing white, i.e. something that lacked any aspect of ego, of individuality, is a great compliment to Moses. It would not have been appropriate to have mentioned his name, which is after all a reference to his individuality at this time when he was able to face the eyn sof without first having to divest himself of individuality. When the Talmud states that the white shirt worn by Moses during these seven days when he preformed the functions of the priests did not even have a visibly stitched edge at the bottom, this is another allusion to the absence of any sign by means of which it could be identified as his garment, i.e. reference to his individuality.
There are tzaddikim who after reaching the level of complete self-negation and attachment to the eyn sof nonetheless revert to a degree of individuality. Moses was not this kind of a tzaddik. He maintained the level of self negation he had achieved, and that is what the Talmud in Baba Batra 25 has in mind when it advises: הרוצה להחכים ידרים, loosely translated as “he who wishes to acquire wisdom let him turn southward.” What is meant is that if someone has already progressed spiritually a great deal and he feels he wants to progress still further, in order to get a glimpse of the eyn sof, the closest it is possible for a creature to get to the essence of the Creator, he should strive further upward, the word דרום being understood as if it had been written ד'ר רו'ם "residing in lofty heights.”
When we consider this we can also better understand Nachmanides who, when commenting on the making of the priestly garments in Parshat Pekudey, (chapter 39) draws our attention to the fact that whereas in connection with the execution of the orders to make these garments, the Torah repeatedly states at the end of dealing with a particular garment, כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “in accordance of how G’d had instructed Moses.” In Parshat Vayakehel, where the construction of the Tabernacle itself is reported, we do not find a comparable confirmation of “as G’d had commanded Moses,” at the end of each section. This may be an allusion that as far as the Tabernacle was concerned Moses was able to arrive at the precise details of the Tabernacle without having to be instructed by G’d in the details.
The Zohar II 232 calls this uncanny ability of Moses as שכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו של משה, “the Sh’chinah was speaking from the throat of Moses.”
While the Tabernacle represented the Jewish people, Moses, as its leader could “be on the same wavelength” as G’d, concerning it. Seeing that Moses was not a priest, he could not be expected to be on the same “wavelength” as the priests, so that he required to be instructed in the details of how and from what materials the priestly garments were to be made.
Only after Moses had divested himself of all aspects of ego, individualism, was he able to know exactly how the priestly garments were to be made and from which materials. When the Creator spoke to him “mouth to mouth,” Moses was on that level of disembodied holiness.
[The remarkable aspect of the author’s explanation of why Moses’ name was not mentioned in this portion is that it was not a rebuke by G’d for his having given G’d an “ultimatum” that unless He would forgive the sin of the golden calf Moses would want his name to be erased from the Torah, as most other commentators say. For our author, the absence of Moses’ name is a compliment, not a rebuke. Ed.]
Exodus 27,20. “and you shall command the Children of Israel to take to you pure olive oil, etc.;” the expression ויקחו אליך instead of ויביאו אליך, “they shall bring to you,” or ויקחו לי “they shall take for Me,“ as at the beginning of Parshat T’rumah, is unusual, to say the least. The point is that the menorah together with all its details was part of a vision that Moses had been shown by G’d while he had been on the Mountain, just as he had been shown the other components of the Tabernacle there. Being shown all this by G’d had been an expression of G’d’s joy at the degree of awe and love for Him that Moses had achieved, a level of closeness to the Creator not achieved by any subsequent prophet. When Moses was instructed to tell the people to bring the pure oil for lighting the menorah “to you,” instead of “to Me,” [and he was instructed to write this down in the Torah, Ed.] this was to tell the reader to what exceptional spiritual heights Moses had risen. This is why the Torah testified after Moses’ death (Deuteronomy, 34,10) that no prophet who was as close to G’d as Moses ever arose after him in history.
An alternate way of understanding the introductory words: ואתה תצוה את בני ישראל, “and you are to command the Children of Israel, etc.” When G’d told Moses in Exodus 3,10: לכה ואשלחך אל פרעה, “go and I will send you to Pharaoh,” the Ari z’al finds it strange that G’d had to spell out to Moses that He appointed him as His messenger. Every child reading this paragraph would have understood this without being told that Moses was the messenger. However, we have a rule that anything negative never originates directly from G’d. G’d does not even directly associate His holy name with something destructive, negative. It is even difficult for G’d to directly bring harm on those of His creatures who worship idols. Therefore, when the Torah introduces a chapter that introduces the harm that will befall Pharaoh and his people, G’d wishes to employ a “messenger” to be the harbinger of such news. The word לכה therefore is not to be understood as derived from לך, meaning: “please go,” but as derived from the word לך, “for you.” In other words, the primary purpose of Pharaoh’s punishment if and when it will occur, is “for your benefit,” it is not the destruction that is part of the Exodus which is G’d’s primary purpose in what will follow. The secondary meaning is that the destruction when it does occur, will be attributed to Moses who had warned Pharaoh about it, i.e. לכה, it will be perceived by him as originating with Moses. Moreover being punished by one of G’d’s creatures, Moses, instead of by the Creator Himself, is demeaning for a great King such as Pharaoh.
The considerations that we discussed right now, help us explain a statement in the Talmud that in the distant future, the time of the Messiah, the entire Jewish nation will be worthy to perform the service in the Temple which at this time only the priests are worthy to perform. If G’d has difficulty in bringing harm on any of His creatures however much they may have deserved this, how much more so does He have reservations about initiating what may be perceived as harm for a great part of His people. When Moses is commanded to single out the priests for service in the Temple, the priestly garments, etc., this too He prefers to do through a messenger rather than to exclude the other 99% of the people from such a distinction Himself.
Exodus 27;20 “they shall take to you pure oil of beaten olives for lighting;”we know that the evil urge is trying to seduce human beings by causing them to give in to lust and the desire aroused by what they see that appeals to them. It is his foremost desire to prevent man from carrying out the commandments of his Creator. What is the remedy that can stop the evil urge in his tracks? The remedy is for man to use logic. He should say to himself that if fulfilling his desire to satisfy his lust and cravings with merely physical objects, objects that satisfy only momentarily, how much more worthwhile is it for him to satisfy his ability to come closer to his Creator and to experience enduring satisfaction from the result?
When a person applies this kind of reasoning and as a result eschews sin in favour of carrying out what he knows to be G’d’s will, even the evil he had had in mind originally becomes a כסא, “throne, supporting stool,” for the good he does. When G’d created evil [only in its most primitive stage, ברא, Ed.] in the first place, He did so in order to provide His creatures with this additional merit when he decides to carry out G’d’s will although he had been given another option. By creating evil, G’d had, so to speak, placed man at a distance from Him. When man has to cover this distance in order to approach G’d more closely, G’d derives far more satisfaction from man’s efforts to serve Him than He would if such “service” would be “natural.” Any תענוג, pleasurable experience, regardless if it is experienced in our spheres of the universe or in the celestial spheres, retains its flavour only when it is not a continuously, repetitive experience. When it is experienced at relatively infrequent intervals it is especially welcome as such. When G’d observes how man in the attempt to come closer to His essence, has to break through repeated obstacles, this is what pleases G’d.
It is the tzaddik’s challenge to sublimate all those thoughts that could so easily have led him astray instead of confirming him in his pursuit of קרבות ה', close affinity to Hashem.
It is altogether not surprising that in this quest, even the tzaddik from time to time is assaulted by what we would term “unworthy thoughts;” this happens in order to afford him an opportunity to refine and sublimate such thoughts when he stands in prayer before the Almighty. Another challenge facing the tzaddik is to try and elevate others, so that they too will come closer to their Creator. If he were to be concerned exclusively with purifying his own soul and personality, he would have left unused a channel that could provide G’d with pleasure, a serious deficiency [as we know from Avot 5,12 where people who give charity without endeavouring to involve others in the same mitzvah are not complimented for their charitable activities. Ed.] If and when the tzaddik engages in helping others to establish closer ties with their Creator, G’d’s pleasure of his service will keep increasing even though he has been serving G’d constantly, without interruption. When applied to the symbolism expressed by lighting the menorah and keeping it burning, the commandment of ואתה תצוה וגו', contains the challenge addressed to every true servant of the Lord to elevate both himself and his peers.
In kabbalistic parlance every thought formulated, reflects the letters it contains if it were committed to paper or parchment. Alien thoughts, i.e. unworthy thoughts, are considered as “broken letters.” The word כתית, crushed, symbolizes such thoughts, and the function of the servant of G’d, primarily the priest representing the collective soul of the Jewish people, is to elevate, i.e. להעלות, to sublimate such unworthy thoughts so that they all point in the direction of the נר תמיד, “the eternal flame,” expressing the desire for communion with the Creator. That expression reflects the satisfaction, pleasure derived by the Creator from efforts by His people who crave His closeness.
Exodus 28,2. “you are to make sacred garments for your brother Aaron , for dignity and adornment. Next you shall instruct all who are skilful and whom I have endowed with the gift of skill, to make Aaron’s vestments to sanctify him, etc.” Judging from the apparent repetition in these two verses, i.e. Moses was commanded to sanctify his brother Aaron, and then the craftsmen were commanded by Moses, that Aaron was to be attired in these vestments to be made in honour of G’d; apparently Aaron was to serve as a vestment for G’d, Who, when on earth, must garb Himself in a manner that prevents harm coming to the people among whom He “dwells.” We have a concept according to which the souls of the righteous serve as vessels harboring celestial attributes. This is the meaning of: ועשית בגדי קודש לאהרן אחיך, that Aaron’s soul was to serve as sacred vestments for celestial attributes. The words: לכבוד ולתפארת, refer to these celestial attributes of G’d. However, the people described as חכמי לב, “endowed with wisdom,” were employed to construct garments for Aaron’s body. This is why in this connection (verse 3) we have the word אהרן, whereas previously in verse 2 the Torah spoke of לאהרן, “for something that was part of Aaron,” referring to Aaron’s soul rather than to his body.
Another approach to help us understand the line ועשית בגדי קודש לאהרן אחיך לכבוד ולתפארת: We know that of the twelve months of the year 6 months belong to the season known as “winter”, whereas the other 6 months are known as “summer.” The twelve months correspond to the 12 lunar cycles each of which is identified by star patterns described as מזלות, “constellation of stars in the sky.” Each month another one of these constellations carries out its assigned tasks. The twelve constellations may be summed up as 6 holy attributes, part of the mystical אור ישר ואור חוזר, “direct light emanating from the source, and reflected light carrying the spiritual input by the creatures who had encountered it. The six holy attributes are: 1) man’s love for his Creator, and his desire to serve Him out of love so as to provide Him with pleasure from His creatures. 2) The awe in which man holds G’d; his dread of transgressing rules that outlaw certain activities and defy His wishes. 3) the glory of G’d that man must experience when he sees how G’d “boasts” of man’s good deeds, compare Isaiah 49,3: עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, “You are My servant Israel in whom I glory.” 4+5) the faith Israel displays. These are two virtues, even though they have a common heading. [The author had on a previous occasion distinguished between faith which is totally oblivious of any advantage one might personally gain from it, and faith which is tied to certainty that G’d will reward one tangibly. Ed.] 6) The attribute of negating self interest by linking oneself unreservedly to G’d and being completely content with whatever it is that He has in mind for him.
The 12 constellations are represented in the gemstones of the breastplate of the High Priest where they symbolize the 12 tribes of the Jewish people, the holy nation.
The month of Adar corresponds to the tribe of Joseph from whom 2 of the twelve tribes emerged. This is why when there is a need to insert an extra month in the calendar to compensate for the 11 days plus, that the lunar “year” is shorter than the solar year, this month appears in our calendar as both Adar I and Adar II. The appropriate zodiac sign for this month is therefore that of דגים, fish, which are a symbol of fertility as we know from Genesis 48,16 where Yaakov blessed Joseph by predicting that his sons’ offspring would be as numerous as that of fish. Another example of Joseph’s numerous offspring is alluded to in the words בן פרת יוסף “Joseph is a fruitful son.” Genesis 49,22. Just as fish are safe from the evil eye, seeing they are not visible on the earth’s surface, swimming beneath the surface of the oceans, so the Talmud in B’rachot 20 understands the words עלי עין, in the same verse as the protection afforded Joseph’s offspring from the potential damage from the evil eye of people envious of them.
When the letters of the word דג, “fish” are inverted, the result is גד, a word related to מזל in the sense of good fortune. (compare Talmud Shabbat 67) There the sages accuse people who wish themselves “that their mazzal, גד (protective star), not be tired either by day of by night,” as uttering idolatrous phrases. In the case of Joseph, whose two sons were called מנשה and אפרים respectively, the former is an allusion to historically negative phenomena, whereas the word אפרים is symbolic of historically favourable occurrences. Joseph already presaged this when naming his sons (Genesis 41,51-52) when he saw in the birth of his first son a reminder of his years of suffering, whereas he predicted a better future as being associated with the birth of his second son. The month of Adar similarly symbolizes hard times for the Jewish people during the first half, until after the 14th when the nation during the reign of Ahasverus had been saved from Haman’s wicked plots.
According to the Talmud Shabbat 104, where positioning of the letters and its symbolic significance is discussed, the symbolism of the letters of the Jewish calendar telling us something through the sequence in which they appear, our sages see in the sequence גד an abbreviation of the words גומל דלים, “G’d at work in reversing the fate of the poor, (Jews in exile)” The letter ד is understood to refer to the initial subjugation of the Jewish people, whereas the letter ג is understood as the subsequent turn for the better in the fortunes of this people. This is used as a reversal of the normal interpretation of such pairings of letters when the letter that is later in the alphabet appearing first, is considered as a bad omen. It was reserved for G’d to demonstrate that when He, as opposed to astrological factors, i.e. mazzal, is involved, He can reverse the predictions of the astrologers based on idolatry. Besides, we must never forget that even when G’d subjects us to harsh measures, the ultimate objective is to bring about our repentance and subsequent redemption. The Purim story is the best example of this, although it was unique in that not a hair of a single Jew was touched on that occasion, the disaster having been warded off by the people’s repentance in time.
Exouds 28,5. “whereas they will take (receive) the gold, the blue wool, the purple wool, the crimson yarns and the fine linen.” Compare Rashi according to whom the subject of the word: והם, are the חכמי לב, people endowed with skill, who received the materials required from the Israelites who had donated it. Keeping all this in mind, even the reversal of the letters דג to read גד does not need to indicate something negative as it does elsewhere, but is an allusion to the well known concept of G’d sending the cure before He activates the disease, or expressed differently: גומל דלים “He renders good to the poor.” (in that order).
We need to understand why the priestly vestments should have been constructed from public funds, seeing that although the priest would perform the service in the Tabernacle, presenting the offerings on behalf of the people, unless he “dressed himself” personally, indicating that he loved the people on behalf of whom he performed these services, he was not considered as having performed his duties. [According to the Zohar in Parshat Nasso, even nowadays when the priests have pronounced the blessing on the people, and the members of the congregation thank them for this, they do not thank the priests for the blessing, but for the love with which this blessing had been dispensed. This is why the benediction preceding the blessing mentions that it is to be performed with love, something that is unique in all such benedictions preceding fulfillment of a commandment. Ed.]
G’d has demonstrated His love for the Jewish people when He chose them from among all the other nations to be His “firstborn” son. (Exodus 4,22) Seeing that G’d loves us, He must hate those who hate us. When He chose the priests for special status among the Israelites He did not thereby remove them from the people at large, but was at pains that this elevation was only within the beloved Jewish people, i.e. מתוך בני ישראל, as is clear from Exodus 28,1 as well as regarding the Levites themselves in Numbers 3,12. It is because He loved us collectively, that He appointed the priests to act as means to achieve atonement for our sins.
Exodus 28,29. “and Aaron will carry the names of the tribes of the Israelites on his heart.”
We need to examine why in this instance the names of the tribes of Israel were so important, when elsewhere it was always the names of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov that were important to be remembered.
Although our sages point out that the letters of the names of the patriarchs were also represented on the breast plate, (compare Bamidbar rabbah 2,7 and Sh’mot rabbah 38,11) we do not find this spelled out in the text. The text only tells us that the letters of the names of the 12 tribes were engraved on the 12 jewels making up the breastplate.
We have explained that Aaron was chosen as priest from amongst the Children of Israel, (28,10). We must assume that the selection of one out of many refers to the selection of an individual, seeing that he was especially beloved, and this implies normally that by comparison the community at large was relatively despised; in order to counter such an assumption, the Torah commanded that the names of all the tribes be inscribed on the breast plate to show clearly that G’d loved all of them.
Exodus 29,9. “you shall ordain Aaron and his sons.” We know that in this lower world, better known as עולם הזה, “this world,” i.e. the world inhabited by mortal creatures, we cannot find absolute perfection, as every creature is tied to a greater or lesser degree to the need to satisfy physical requirements. It is also a fact that these “joys or satisfactions” our bodies derive from fulfilling their cravings never endure, and we always experience the lack of something. This is the basic difference between serving the Lord, and indulging one’s physical or erotic fantasies. David expressed this beautifully, when he said in psalms 34,11 ודורשי ה' לא יחסרו כל טוב, “but those who seek their satisfaction by seeking out G’d will not ever feel that something is missing.” The “good” they will experience will be felt to be absolute, enduring.
The elite of our people who have succeeded in glimpsing the אין סוף with their mental eye will be rewarded by this feeling of having attained something sublime, complete.
When the Torah instructs Moses to ordain Aaron, by using the expression: ומלאת, from the root מלא, “full, fill,” it conveys to Moses that Aaron will find total fulfillment in his role as High Priest. Also Aaron’s sons will feel this sense of fulfillment when carrying out their duties in the Tabernacle, an experience that cannot be compared to fulfilling one’s secular needs. When G’d tells Moses about this, it is because He wants him to know that he, Moses, will have a share in elevating both his brother and his nephews to such spiritual heights.
Our author feels that the reason why the eight days of consecration were called שמונת ימי מלואים, was to symbolize that Aaron and his sons used these days to get familiar with this new level of serving the Lord, something they would not do ad hoc, in their spare time, so to speak, but something that henceforth would afford them a degree of satisfaction that is not to be found when devoting oneself to earthly concerns, however noble in intent and deed. During these days they would experience the meaning of G’d’s presence being among them on earth.
Exodus 30,1. “you are to construct an altar for the burning of incense.” Nachmanides questions why mention of this altar has been left until this point, whereas all the other furnishings of the Tabernacle have been described in Parshat T’rumah., where we would have expected to find this paragraph also.
I believe that at this point, after G’d (through Moses) had appointed Aaron and sons as priests, there might be a challenge to this appointment, as indeed we find later in Parshat Korach. If, the command to build the golden altar for the burning of incense was commanded only after Aaron’s appointment, G’d hoped that it would become clear to the people that the appointment had not been at the instigation of Moses but was the result of instructions Moses had received from G’d.
Homily for Purim
Ki Tisa
Exodus 30,12. “when you take a census of the Children of Israel according to their numbers, each shall pay the Lord a ransom for his person when being counted.”
Seeing that G’d so loves the Jewish people that He feels personally oppressed by their troubles, He gives them an advice on how to save their lives/souls from the attacks of the evil urge.
It is a fact that the “life”, i.e. continued existence of all phenomena in the universe, however exalted they may appear, is due only to the brightness that emanated from the Creator Who had to restrain Himself by garbing Himself in various veils of appropriate thickness in order to prevent His brightness from fatally harming the creatures He exposed to it, and He has to provide them with nourishment to enable them to remain alive.
We have an explicit Biblical verse in Nechemyah 9,6 spelling this out; we read there: ואתה מחיה את כולם, “and You keep them all alive,” [by providing appropriate sustenance. Ed.] If this applies to the universe’s creatures generally, how much more so does it apply to G’d’s favorite nation, the Jewish people. (Compare psalms 135,4-“for the Lord has chosen Yaakov for Himself.” The Jewish people are a means through which G’d illuminates the universe, as we know from Isaiah 2,5: בית יעקב לכו ונלכה באור ה', “House of Yaakov, let us walk by the light of the Lord.”) From internalizing the meaning of these verses we come to the conclusion that when we pass through a period of distress and troubles, one that has been brought about by G’d’s having to discipline us, He Himself is also experiencing part of this pain. We have already mentioned elsewhere that the root of evil befalling the Jewish people is actually one manner in which G’d reveals that He is –“G’d.”
Our verse commencing with: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל וגו' לפקודיהם, reminds us of the meaning of the root, as we find it in Numbers 31,49 לא נפקד ממנו איש, ”not a single one of our number is missing.” [After the 12000 men who took part in the punitive campaign against Midian had returned. Ed.] G’d tells Moses that if he is interested in raising the status of the Jewish people from their depressed state, (after the sin of the golden calf), he is to see to it that each of the men between 20 and 60 pray to the Lord to redeem them from the attacks of the perennial antagonist, Satan who is always at work trying to seduce them into transgressing His commandments. [Contribution of a half shekel to the Temple treasury is merely a symbolic gesture of atoning for the guilt stemming from their involvement in that sin. Ed.]
Another approach to the legislation introduced in our portion with the words: “when you take the sum of the Children of Israel according to their number then they shall, give each man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord when you number them, that there be no plague among them. This they shall give: ‘every one that passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel of the shekel destined for the Sanctuary, etc.’”
We must try to understand the mystical significance of the שקל הקודש, “the shekel representing something holy,” and how it can help atone and protect against a plague; the second matter we need to understand is why only a half shekel was the instrument used for this purpose. Before explaining all this I must explain the mystical significance of the four special readings that are read at the end of the regular portions of the Torah reading each Sabbath prior to Passover, commencing with the section known as פרשת שקלים, which is taken from this week’s portion and generally read on the Sabbath preceding the commencement of the month of Adar. This is followed by a similar reading called פרשת זכור on the Sabbath before Purim, the end of what we read on Parshat כי תצא in the regular reading; on the following Sabbath or second Sabbath thereafter, a section beginning with the beginning of פרשת חוקת, known as פרשת פרה, dealing with the rites of purification when one has been ritually contaminated by contact with a dead body is read. Lastly, either the week before the month of Nissan commences, or on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, if it occurs on a Sabbath, most of chapter 12 in Exodus is read at the end of the regular reading. This section is known as פרשת החודש, and deals with the regulations governing the Passover sacrifice, etc.
We view these four mini-readings as representing the four letters in the holy name of G’d, the tetragram. The combination of the letters in the tetragram for this purpose is perceived as occurring in the order of ה-ו-ה-י. They symbolize the respective “countenances, פרצופים, of female, male, mother, father, נוקבא, דכר, אימא ,אבא. The reading about the “shekalim” parallels the final letter א in the word אבא, as the silver sockets, אדנים, were constructed from the silver coins contributed by the 600000 Israelites participating in the census. The word אדנים, when read in the construct mode, yields א-ד-נ-י, which alludes to the mystical aspect of the last letter ה in the tetragram. The reading known as זכור corresponds to the letter ו in the tetragram, a reference to the masculine element in the holy name of G’d. The reading about the פרה symbolizes the emanation בינה, itself reminiscent of the concept of אימא mother, mother of all mothers, hence it represents the first letter ה in the tetragram. Finally, the reading on פרשת החודש, represents the letter י in the tetragram corresponding to the emanation חכמה, the highest emanation accessible to the person striving for the highest rung of that ladder, the one called כתר, crown. The reason that חכמה is also called אבא in kabbalistic parlance, is because from this emanation “downwards,” towards the “lower world,” in which tangible matters appear as the “real matters,” this process develops. In other words, the emanation חכמה is the “father” of the part of the universe we live in. It was the instrument G’d used to build this whole world in which we mortals spend our lives accumulating merits so that we can share G’d’s eternity after the death of our bodies. This is also the reason why there is no intervening Sabbath during the weeks when the extra readings occur to separate the Sabbath on which פרשת פרה is read and the Sabbath on which פרשת החודש is read. [In other words “father “is not separated from “mother.” The two belong together, inseparably. Ed.]
The 4 cups we drink during the Seder night also symbolize the same concepts as the 4 extra readings on the Sabbaths leading up to Pessach, commencing with our getting ready for the month of Adar. This is the reason why, according to halachah, it is forbidden to drink another cup of wine in between, as these last two cups of wine are to symbolize the companionship that exists between father and mother. Traditionally, these cups of wine are referred to as יין המשומר, “wine that has been carefully protected, guarded,” against being touched by any potentially harmful contact with חיצוניות, secular influences.
Corresponding to these four פרצופים, facets, there is a fifth one known as אריך אנפין, literally: “long face,” as it contains a total of ten “facets,” and is viewed as the “bottom” of the highest of the emanations כתר, forming a bridge between it and the lower ranking emanations in the 10 “sefirot,” the world known as the עולם האצילות, regions containing progressively more or fewer tangible components, depending on whether they are looked at from the bottom or the top. This is known as the קוצו של יוד, “the tip of the letter י,” i.e. the minutest part of the smallest letter in the alphabet, signifying the ultimate root of anything tangible, or where the concept of אחד, the totally disembodied Creator begins emanating phenomena which will in stages produce the material, tangible parts of the universe.
According to the Zohar II 162, where the subject of ה' אחד ושמו אחד, is discussed, [the problem being how there can be more than one unique G’d, Ed.] the point is made that the letter א in the word אחד is to be understood as the point where absolute אפס, absence of anything tangible, crosses over to a world that progressively contains more tangible components. This is understood as the reason why the Talmud absolutely forbids us to draw out the letter א when we recite the word אחד when reciting the k’riyat sh’ma. Seeing that this letter represents a concept that is beyond our understanding, dwelling on it by drawing it out would be close to blasphemous. [My choice of word. Ed.] The position of that letter א in the kabbalistic scheme of things is described as מטי ולא מטי, perhaps best translated as “in a state of inanimate suspension, never at rest and never actually moving.”
The author compares this state of מטי ולא מטי to what is known in Talmudic parlance as שקלא וטריא, the discussion of, i.e. weighing of pros and cons of different facets of a halachic problem, before arriving at a conclusion. The word שקלא when referring to מחשבה, thought, idea, when dealing with lofty concepts, is also similar to the אריך אנפין, which we earlier described as a “long face,” seeing it contains within it almost all the ten emanations, is also used as a description of a medicine meaning the same as the Hebrew מעלה ארוכה, familiar to all the readers who pray according to the Sefardic tradition. The word טריא is supposed to be a term for healing, therapy, in Aramaic. We could appropriately translate the expression שקל הקודש, as the fountain of all wisdom, as all life as understood on earth; the latter has its origin at that point, developing in stages in the direction of a different more physically oriented type of מחשבה, thoughts focusing not so much on the Divine origin of the universe as on the day to day maintenance of the individual entertaining these thoughts.
Concerning these kinds of thoughts, Eliyahu, in Tikkuney Hazohar 1, describes the bursting forth of what became the physical part of the universe to the irrigating of a tree and its result which is similar to the soul infusing the body with “life.” What we derive from all this is that the kind of thoughts that revolve around spiritual matters are called by the Torah here as מחצית השקל, the “holy” part of the two entities each of which are called מחשבה, thought processes, as they are, after all, both intangible, and neither is an integral part of our bodies. The source of these lofty thoughts is the region we described earlier as מטי ולא מטי, as being in “inanimate suspension.” The function of these “thoughts” is to protect the people harbouring less lofty thoughts, down on earth, so that the process of creating life on earth will not be aborted by other influences.
This then is the meaning of the verse telling us זה יתנו כל העובר על הפקודים מחצית השקל בשקל בקודש ןלא יהיה בהם נגף, “this is what every one who will be counted shall give; a half shekel, i.e. half of the holy shekel so that no plague may come upon them due to their being numbered.”
The mystical aspect of the “shekel” consisting of twenty geyrah, is connected to the emanation כתר, the highest of the ten emanations, the letter כ in the word כתר being an allusion to the word עשרים, “twenty,” in our verse.
[At this point the author claims that the word גרה also means זיבה, flow, speculating that in our context it is an allusion to G’d’s largesse “flowing” to the people who have appreciated the lesson of the מחצית השקל הקודש. Since the author did not cite a text in which the word גרה appears in such a context, and I have not been able to find it either, I have decided to ignore this comment. Ed.]
Another approach to the verse: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקודיהם ונתנו איש כופר נפשו וגו', we have a rule that we learned from the Zohar on Exodus 19,3 ומשה עלה אל האלוקים ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר, “and Moses had ascended towards G’d, and Hashem called out to him from the Mountain, etc,” that ”all spiritual ascents of man must be oriented toward his declaring the Creator as his King.” This idea has also been alluded to in our verse when the Torah speaks about elevating the Children of Israel, i.e.כי תשא את בני ישראל. The root פקד occurs already in Esther 2,3 where we are told that the king appointed officials by writing: ויפקד המלך פקידים, “the king appointed officials etc.” The half shekel that the Israelites were to pay as ransom for their souls, were intended to insure that they would progress towards their task of appointing G’d as their King. This is the reason why the Torah added the word לה', i.e. “for Hashem.” after the word נפשו.
Another approach to understanding the opening verse of our portion is based on the fact that the root פקד frequently is used to describe something that is missing or lacking. Sometimes a person feels he is on the way to becoming a tzaddik, or has already become one.
Such exaggerated self-esteem is not proof of a spiritual accomplishment, but, on the contrary, indicates at least immaturity if not arrogance. Anyone thinking of himself in such terms has not even begun his career as a servant of the Lord. This is hinted at in the words: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, the Torah teaches that “when you want to elevate the spiritual level of the Children of Israel to a higher spiritual plateau”, then לפקודיהם, “you have to point out to them the areas in which their personalities are still below par, still miss a basic ingredient, humility.” One of the well known verses in which the root פקד describes the absence of someone, something important being missing, is in Samuel I 20,25 when David’s absence at the festive meal given by the King on New Moon, is described with the words ויפקד מקום דוד, “David’s seat had remained empty.” When considering the dual nature of the meaning of this root, we may translate this word in our verse as “their contribution consisted primarily in their awareness that they still lacked many good qualities and had to work on acquiring them.”
The word כופר in our verse, translated as “ransom,” also appears in different meanings, one that is familiar being in Genesis 6,14 where Noach receives G’d’s instructions in how to ensure that the ark he is building will be waterproof. The Torah writes: וכפרת אותו מבית ומחוץ בכופר; “smear it from the inside and the outside with כופר, i.e. the awareness that you need atonement.” An appropriate translation, based on our understanding of the word פקד as something lacking, would be that “when is man truly attached, ‘glued to’ G’d, when he is truly aware of his shortcomings.”
Yet another interpretation of the opening verse in our portion. We have a rule that when someone prays on behalf of a Jew or Israel, which is in trouble, it is important that he prefaces his prayer by pointing out Israel’s virtues first, i.e. that such a virtuous nation surely does not deserve the troubles that have come upon it. He must also point out that when any troubles befall a member of the Jewish people, the real target is G’d Himself seeing that He is our father. This is what the Talmud Chagigah 15 means when it quotes Rabbi Meir saying: “when a person is in difficulties, the Shechinah reacts to this by saying: “My head hurts, My arm hurts.” In other words, G’d feels personally hurt by whatever hurts a member of His favourite people. It is therefore reasonable to remind G’d of this before pleading for the individual Israelite on whose behalf one offers a prayer to Hashem. This is the allusion in the words כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל, “when you point out what ails the head of the Jewish people, etc.” The word פקודיהם, is used to describe shortcomings of the Jewish people, their needs, in the sense it is used in the verse we quoted from Samuel I 20,25. The words ונתנו איש כופר נפשו לה', refer to man reminding G’d how his soul is inextricably linked to G’d.
Exodus 30,13. “this is what all those to be numbered are to give: half a shekel of the coin known as the “holy shekel.”
By means of this verse the meaning of the line in the kedushah of mussaph on the Sabbaths and festivals (only in the “sefardi” editions of the siddur) which reads: הן גאלתי אתכם אחרית וראשית, “behold I have redeemed you in the latter period just as I have redeemed you in the earlier period,” may become intelligible. [In versions of the siddur with translations, even reputable ones such as that by Philip Birnbaum, the translator ignores the fact that the word גאלתי means “I have redeemed,” not “I will redeem,” so that the reader does not notice the problem with this line. Ed.]
According to Avot at the end of the sixth chapter, “everything that G’d has created, He created in His honour.” At the same time, we know from various sources that already before G’d set about to create the universe, He did so only with the Jewish people in mind. This means that G’d expected that this people would serve Him in the manner that is appropriate for the Creator of the universe to be served. We have pointed out that “serving” the Lord, means to please Him, to afford Him a reason for feeling satisfied with the results of His endeavours. There seems to be a contradiction between these two statements. Why would G’d have given life to creatures that He knew would not serve Him in the manner in which we defined that service?
Perhaps we can resolve this contradiction by means of a parable. A King built a number of great palaces for his children, although the king himself did not have any need for any of these palaces. It happened that when he had completed building all these palaces for his children, and wanted to take up residence in one of them, he had a falling out with all of them and as a result he hated them. When the king reflected on what had been his original plan, and he realized that he had undertaken projects for which he, personally, had not had any need at all, he must have also realized that he would never have allowed anyone who hated his children to reside in any of the palaces he had built for these children. Seeing that he hated his own children now, this meant that he could not take up residence in any of these palaces. If this same king were to ignore the original purpose of why he had built these palaces, there would be no reason for his feeling that people other than his children could not reside in them.
When we use this parable to illustrate the purpose of G’d’s creating the universe, and how the universe developed after having been created and having been left to its own devices, i.e. that it had only been created for the sake of the Jewish souls, if we assume that the Creator had not allowed Himself to disregard His original intention of the universe being only for the sake of the Jewish people, He certainly would not provide from His largesse for the other nations of the world. However, if due to His displeasure with the Jewish people He had allowed Himself to disregard His original intention, He would not have any reason not to dispense of His largesse also to the other nations of the world.
When G’d performed miracles for the Jewish people from time to time in order to safeguard their continued existence, these miracles had become necessary only because due to the Jewish people’s inadequacies, He had taken recourse to ignoring His original plan so as not to have to watch them perish as a result of their inadequacies. The miracles then reflect moments when G’d had allowed Himself to remember His original plan before He had created the universe. We hope and pray that when the redemption will come, hopefully soon in our days, it will reflect the fact that G’d is remembering His original reason for creating the universe.
This thought is reflected in the author of the prayer saying quoting G’d, גאלתי אתכם אחרית כראשית, “when I redeemed you it was as a result of My having remembered, אחרית, in the end, My original purpose in creating you in the first place, i.e. ראשית. At that time this clarification that the whole purpose of the creation of the universe had been for the sake of the Jewish people will become clear to all.
When, on Purim, we recite a benediction before reading the scroll of Esther which concludes with the words על מקרא מגילה, “concerning the reading of the scroll,” the letter י in the word מגילה, which normally means “revealed,” from the root גלה, alludes to this original thought of G’d at the time He considered the creation of the universe. [It is important to remember that the word מגלה, meaning scroll, occurs no fewer than 20 times in the Bible, but is never spelled with the letter י as here. Ed.] The redemption of the Jewish people from certain death, at the time of Haman, is an example of the approach we have just outlined, as expressed in the words: הן גאלתי אתכם אחרית כראשית.
What we have just explained will help us to understand the verse commencing with: זה יתנו כל העובר וגו'.
There are a number of anomalies in this portion which deserve our attention.
1) Why was the amount of “half” a shekel (either a coin or its equivalent weight in silver) chosen by the Torah, instead of either a whole shekel or a coin that was a generally accepted coin of full value. In other words, what is the significance of the word מחצית which the Torah clearly stresses?
2) Why were only males above the age of 20 obligated to take part in this census? If all the males that were legally of age and bound to perform the Torah’s commandments were meant, then every male above the age of 13 should have been counted?
3) What were the criteria which determined who had to give this half shekel? Did only the males who actually went out to war have to pay this ransom, i.e. כל היוצא למלחמה לצבא, [there is no such verse.]?
We will explain the verse by means of a parable. Assume that we are dealing with someone who conducts his business in a cavalier manner, not paying attention to the details without which success is most unlikely. This “business man,” does not follow a well thought out plan, and sometimes acts completely contrary to the accepted norms, such as rewarding even people who had consistently acted against his instructions. On the other hand, a person who acts after carefully weighing the likely result of his actions, will most certainly reward those who have been instrumental in helping him to succeed, whereas he will definitely not reward those who had displayed their hatred of him by constantly ignoring the owner’s instructions.
The Jewish people sometimes act like the undisciplined and disoriented business man, whereas on other occasions they display enormous good sense. When they act in the former fashion, they do not attract G’d’s largesse either for themselves or the various other parts of the universe. If at times like that the Creator nonetheless continues to dispense His largesse, this is only because He loves His creatures and has mercy on them. The by-product of this mercy by the Creator is the wellbeing of the totally undeserving people. His largesse is distributed indiscriminately, apparently without any discernible pattern. When sane and fair-minded people on earth who try to understand the workings of G’d’s השגחה, providence, observe this, they gain the impression that G’d is, G’d forbid, not clear in His mind, otherwise how could He allow such things to happen?
On the other hand, at times when the Jewish people accumulate merits and are deserving of G’d’s largesse, G’d directs His largesse exclusively to the Jewish people whereas withholding it from those who do not deserve it on account of their actions.
When the Jewish people wish to avenge themselves on their enemies, then in order to be successful in their endeavours they have to “awaken” the appropriate Divine “attribute” so that it will come to their assistance. When receiving this “call” from the Israelites, G’d will have to weigh in His mind if to respond positively by channeling His largesse only to the Jewish people and withholding it from the other nations. If He decides on the latter strategy, the enemies of the Jewish people will collapse as they no longer enjoy their divine life support.
This is hinted at when the Torah speaks of the מחצית השקל, i.e. only the over twenty year olds being charged with the task of “awakening” these considerations in G’d’s mind, i.e. “they have to go out to war” arousing G’d to decide in favour of His favourite nation, the Jewish people. If successful, the Israelites will be victorious in their battles. G’d’s having to weigh to which side to give the advantage is expressed by the two letters י in the letter צ (at the top) in the word מחצית.
Exodus 31,12. “Hashem said to Moses, to say: but you are to observe My Sabbath days for the Sabbath is a sign between Me and you, etc;” our sages in the Talmud Beytzah 16 learned from this verse that when one gives a gift to one’s fellow man one needs to inform him of this fact; they quote the fact that G’d gave the Jewish people the gift of the Sabbath, but made a point of informing them beforehand. In the parlance of our sages, G’d told the people that He had kept a valuable gift hidden in His treasure chamber, a gift called Sabbath. What did G’d mean by referring to the Sabbath as a valuable gift? He referred to the light and the holiness that emanates from the celestial regions and supplies people with something we loosely refer to as רוח הקודש, holy spirit, also known as ערבות, a name for pleasurable sensations as experienced in the celestial regions.
Actually, we are meant to be looking forward to the special gifts experienced on the Sabbath throughout the six working days, and therefore we should concern ourselves with the preparations for the Sabbath not only on the Sabbath but every day. The degree in which we experience the gift of holy spirit just described on the Sabbath reflects the efforts we have made during the week to welcome the Sabbath when it comes.
When we read in Exodus 16,5 –concerning the first Sabbath the Israelites experienced in the desert when the manna did not fall but they received an extra portion of the preceding day- והכינו את אשר יביאו, ”they are to prepare what they are going to bring home on that day,” this is an instruction to prepare oneself for the Sabbath on the weekday. Our sages have coined a famous phrase when they said מי שאינו טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת?, “if someone did not make the necessary effort on the Sabbath eve, how he is going to have something to eat on the Sabbath?”
In spite of the fact that we human beings made an effort to provide for our needs, the Sabbath is still considered a valuable gift. The reason is that all man’s efforts notwithstanding, he is not entitled to an automatic gift of holiness nor is he entitled to be the recipient of outpourings of G’d’s largesse. If G’d’s gift of the Sabbath is entirely gratuitous, why do we need to put in so much effort into preparing for the Sabbath? The reason is that G’d’s gift of the Sabbath is in danger of being wasted unless the recipient has provided a receptacle that ensures that it can be put to good use. [If someone receives a bouquet of flowers but does not have a vase to put these flowers in to fill it with water to preserve them, the gift is wasted. Ed.]
Observance of the Sabbath consists of two separate aspects, called by the Torah: זכור ושמור “to remember,” and “to keep,” in the two versions of the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 respectively) In kabbalistic parlance the זכור aspect refers to the masculine side of the table of emanations, whereas the שמור aspect belongs to the feminine side. [The “masculine” aspect refers to the spiritual aspect, whereas the “feminine” aspect refers to the materialistic aspect. Ed.] Some people observe the Sabbath primarily on account of the physical pleasures it affords, i.e. a rest from back-breaking labour in the field during the weekdays, consuming more and tastier food, spending “quality” time with one’s family, etc. Others view the Sabbath as a day that affords them an opportunity to provide their Creator with pleasure and satisfaction for having created him.
The most revealing comment about the value of honouring the Sabbath by sanctifying it through reciting Kiddush and not violating any of its negative commandments, is found in the Talmud (Shabbat 118) where the sages say that anyone doing this will have all his previous sins forgiven even if he had been the type of idolater that was current in the generation of Enosh (Adam’s grandson). The reason why observance of the Sabbath is such a powerful means of man rehabilitating himself in the eyes of the Lord through observing its laws, is that each transgression he commits, is an act of distancing himself from his holy origins, his roots, leaving a stain on his soul. Observing the laws of the Sabbath is an act of returning to one’s roots thereby removing stains on his soul. The additional spiritual light that G’d bestows on us on the Sabbath also acts as therapy for a soul that has been injured. This then is the מתנה טובה, “the valuable gift” G’d bestows upon us every Sabbath. If someone observes the Sabbath exclusively in order to take advantage of the “window” for immediate forgiveness for his sins this is “good,” but it is a far cry from observing the Sabbath optimally. Hence his observance is called “observing the feminine aspect of the Sabbath.”
Clearly, when someone observes the Sabbath for such considerations it is a good thing, but even if he observes the Sabbath for the sake of receiving spiritual rewards this is not yet the “optimal” manner in which to observe the Sabbath, it is still part of the aspect of the Sabbath we have called the “feminine” aspect. We have mentioned a number of times that serving G’d, i.e. including through Sabbath observance, that the highest level of such service must always revolve around his “giving” something to His Creator not around his “receiving” something from Him. This “giving” must not be confused with presenting sacrifices on the altar. It need not be a tangible gift; in fact it cannot be a tangible gift seeing that G’d has no use for tangible gifts, seeing everything in the universe is His by definition? Sabbath observance, just as any other form of service, including prayer, must be designed to please the Lord and give Him satisfaction in order to qualify as keeping the “masculine, זכור aspect of the Sabbath.” When David said in psalms 68,35 תנו עוז לאלוקים, “give might to G’d!,” he emphasized the need for man to give something to G’d that will confirm and reinforce His power as being actual not only potential through His creatures responding to Him and seeking His nearness. This may be done through performance of commandments physically.
When the Torah wrote above: אך את שבתותי תשמורו, you only have to observe My Sabbath days,” it addressed the Israelites on the lower spiritual levels, as the use of the word אך and רק in the Torah always refer to something at the lower end of the scale. Observance of the Torah in its aspect of שמירה will already lead to spiritual uplifts, as the Sabbath is a symbol, אות that I the Lord grant you holiness, i.e. כי אני ה' מקדשכם. The sanctity of the Sabbath separates you from potential harm and illuminates and sanctifies your souls as a result of which your sins will be forgiven. If one succeeds in observing the Sabbath on the level of זכור, the masculine side of the emanations, so much the better.
A different way of looking at our verse about the dual nature of observing the Sabbath. In the first instance the Torah addresses the entire nation of Israel. [I presume that the reason why the author has offered this interpretation is that it is addressed to the Jewish people in the plural mode, not like the kriyat sh’ma, and other laws in the singular mode. Ed.]
If for a variety of reasons the meticulous observance of the Sabbath by the whole nation proves to be impossible, the Torah assures us that the observance of the Sabbath by the righteous in each generation by means of which they cause G’d to experience pleasure and a feeling of satisfaction, this too is of great value. The Tzaddik, by the way, is also called שבת.
If the Torah writes: אך, “but, however,” when commanding us to keep the Sabbath, the word אך indicates that even if the people observe the Sabbath only as a commandment for which they expect to receive a reward, seeing that every natural born Jew is called Sabbath, they will be protected by this, and the tzaddikim among them who observe the Sabbath on a higher spiritual level, will become the cause that all the Jews will be protected seeing that the Sabbath is in a special category compared to most other commandments, having been called אות, a reference to the tzaddik who is called אות. He is called by that name as it is the actions of the tzaddikim among His people that bring to G’d’s attention the superiority of a nation who have produced such outstanding G’d-loving and G’d-fearing personalities. It is not surprising therefore that our sages view the tzaddik as the means through which G’d’s reputation and His holiness have become known throughout the world. If G’d protects the entire Jewish nation it is because the tzaddik symbolizes his whole people through his devotion to his Creator. In other words, he is the cause of the whole nation being protected by G’d.
Another way of explaining the wording of our verse is based on the realization that G’d in His love for the Jewish people gave them commandments by means of which they would establish their claim to eternal life after their bodies had died. (Makkot, 3 Mishnah 16) The Sabbath features especially largely in that context, as by observing it we experience a foretaste of the afterlife. On that day, as part of its observance, every Jew can experience the meaning of a truly spiritual experience and the satisfaction it brings to the person enjoying it.
However, seeing that we have a rule that reward for performance of the commandments of the Torah is not given in this world, i.e. during a person’s lifetime on earth, (compare Kidushin 39), and therefore his enjoyment of the spiritual pleasure on the Sabbath, G’d has arranged for this “foretaste” of what to expect in the afterlife, the principal reward being preserved for when the person’s soul returns to its celestial origins.
[The concept discussed here is part of one of the Sabbath songs sung at the Jew’s table on Friday nights, the last part of which commences with the words: מעין עולם הבא יום שבת מנוחה, “the Sabbath rest is a foretaste of the world to come.” Ed.] When a Jew experiences that as a result of observing the Sabbath he enjoys an additional dimension of spiritual and physical well being, he does not need to be an intellectual in order to fantasize about how much more of this he will experience in the world to come where he has been assured that the principal reward for Sabbath observance as well as mitzvah observance generally will be shared out. It is clear therefore why our sages understood the manner in which the Torah refers to the observance of the Sabbath in our paragraph as an announcement of a valuable gift that G’d was given to the Jewish people. The point the Torah made was that observance of the commandment of keeping the Sabbath results in additional advantages for the Jews doing so, over and above the reward that G’d had promised the people for observing the legislation spelled out in the Torah generally.
Not only that, were it not for the foretaste the Jew experiences of the world to come whenever he observes the Sabbath, he would have no such foretaste by observing any of the other commandments, so that observing the law to observe the Sabbath is an encouragement to observe all the other commandments with equal zeal. This may be at the core of the sages in Avot 4,2 having made a somewhat puzzling statement when they said: שכר מצוה מצוה, usually translated as: “the reward for fulfilling a commandment is the commandment itself.” A more appropriate translation, interpreting this saying as referring specifically to the commandment of observing the Sabbath, would be: “the reward for observing the commandment of observing the Sabbath is that one will also observe the other commandments.” The revelation of this aspect of the reward for Sabbath observance is something that was not revealed to the gentile nations. By not revealing it to them, G’d made certain that the gentiles would not want to socialize with Jews observing the Sabbath and benefit by such socializing.
At this point the author comments on part of the Sabbath morning prayers, between ברכו and קריאת שמע, which goes as follows: [the Ashkenazi versions is slightly, but insignificantly different, Ed.] אין ערוך לך ואין זולתך אפס בלתך ומי דומה לך אין ערוך לך ה' אלוקינו בעולם הזה ואין זולתך מלכנו בעולם הבא אפס בלתך גואלנו לימות המשיח ואין דומה לך מושיענו לתחיית המתים “There is none to be compared to You, and none beside You; there is nothing without You and who is like You? There is none to compare to You O G’d our G’d in this world, there is none beside You; O our King for life in the world to come, there is nothing without You O our Redeemer in the days of the messiah and none is like You our Saviour in the revival of the dead.”
The Talmud in Shabbat 63 interprets the words of Solomon, speaking of the Torah in Proverbs 3,16 by describing it as follows: ארך ימים בימינה בשמאלה עשר וכבוד, “lengthy days is her right hand; in her left hand riches and honour,“ anyone reading this forms the impression that Solomon assures people keeping the Torah of worldly rewards, and at least when the reward hoped for is material, i.e. worldly riches etc., it is considered as belonging to the left side of the emanations, i.e. is a negative. This would contradict our statement that even though one keeps the Sabbath for such reasons, it is a positive accomplishment, though of a lower order, i.e. is not the kind of service that the Creator would prefer from His creatures, and that optimally, G’d prefers for His creatures not to serve Him for physical material rewards. Some righteous people completely eschew any recognition of their service to G’d as long as they have attained a more profound understanding of the essence of G’d while on this earth. Some go so far as to renounce the claim to a “name” in the world to come so as not to appear as looking for personal recognition of their accomplishments. This is what the Talmud in B’rachot 64 and in Moed Katan 29 had in mind when it stated that the Torah scholars have no “rest”, מנוחה, either in this world or in the world to come, but they keep progressing spiritually from one level to another. [“Rest” in this context is clearly considered as a negative, instead of as a positive quality as in connection with the Sabbath rest. Ed.] According to the way our author understands the prayer quoted, the repeated insistence that in all sections of the universe there is no One that has a name bar the Creator, reflects his view that the perfect tzaddik feels that being singled out (by a name) would detract from his selfless service of the Lord. When the author refers to the world to come in that prayer, he means that he does not desire “to rest on his laurels,” even after he (his soul) has been admitted to the celestial regions. The author of that prayer continues by stating that even if one serves G’d with the objective of experiencing the arrival of the messiah and the additional insights we will all be granted concerning the nature of G’d at that time, this too is not the ultimate optimal kind of service of the Lord.
[I must confess that I have difficulty in understanding the above prayer as anything but having G’d as its subject, not the author himself or his yearnings for a דבקות ה' at the expense of any individuality of his personality. Surely, G’d does not wish to be worshipped anonymously, but wishes to point out to us lesser mortals how great men such as Avraham, Yitzchok, Yaakov, etc, whose names matter, can serve as models for us. Ed.]
Exodus 31,16. “the Children of Israel are to observe the Sabbath, etc.;” this verse helps us understand a statement by the Talmud in Shabbat< 118 according to which “if the Jewish people were only to observe two Sabbaths the Messiah would already have come.” When an Israelite observes the Sabbath properly, the spiritual uplift derived from that experience will leave its mark during the six weekdays following, so that in effect he has observed two Sabbaths, i.e. on the day that G’d had sanctified at the end of His creative activity, and the one to which His creatures, have given sanctity during the days following. Not only that; if one has served G’d during the six working days, “observing” the negative commandments of the Sabbath on the following Sabbath becomes very much easier. As a result, he will almost automatically observe every Sabbath in the future also and be looking forward to it.
When we keep these considerations in mind we will also have less difficulty in answering a question posed in the Jerusalem Talmud Taanit 1,1 that even the observance by the Jewish people of a single Sabbath is sufficient to usher in the messianic age. [The question raised by the reader of this statement is if the Jerusalem Talmud disagrees with the Babylonian Talmud in Shabbat 118 that we quoted previously. Ed.] What the Jerusalem Talmud means is simply that once the first Sabbath has been observed optimally, observing the next Sabbath is so easy that it represents no additional achievement in terms of overcoming Satan’s attempts to deflect us from our purpose. At any rate, essentially it is the collective observance by the Jewish people of a single Sabbath which will result in the messiah coming shortly thereafter. This is the meaning of the words: ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת לעשות את השבת, “the Children of Israel are to observe the Sabbath to ‘“make it into a Sabbath.’”
Exodus 33,23. “You will see My back, but My face is not visible (to any creature).” In addition to the fact that of course, G’d’s “back” is also invisible, as He is not corporeal, the author quotes two verses from Job and Proverbs respectively, which require further clarification. We read in Proverbs 15,20: בן חכם ישמח אב, ”a wise son causes joy to the father.” We also read in Job 28,14: והחכמה מאין תמצא “but where does wisdom come from?“ We know that the most important ingredient of wisdom is acquired by man when he looks (with his mental eye) at the concept of אין, i.e. the “nothingness” from which the (perceptible) phenomena of the universe came into existence, emanated. When man trains himself to cleave ever more to the roots of his life, i.e. to the Creator, this aspect is known as אצל הבורא, being next to the Creator, Who Himself is garbed in a “garment,” i.e. a protective shield that prevents the powerful rays of light emanating from Him from harming those exposed to this. The prophet Isaiah 23,18 alludes to this when he said: ולמכסה עתיק (יומין) “dressed in primeval (of prehistoric origin) garments” (compare Talmud Pessachim 119) This is also the meaning of the allusion in the Talmud Chagigah 7 that Israel provides G’d with His “parnassah,” livelihood, basing itself on the word לבוש being used in that context, so that חכמה, “wisdom” in many instances refers to the אור חוזר, the “reflected light,” emanating from Israel in response to G’d’s largesse, as it requires חכמה, “wisdom or ingenuity,” for the original light beamed at His creatures by G’d to be aimed back accurately at its source. This is also referred to by way of allusion in Job 33,32, ואאלפך חכמה “I shall teach you wisdom.” The letters א-ל-פ when reversed spell פלא, miracle, something supernatural, as in the word נפלאות, and hint at the fact that the ability to reattach oneself to the original source that has given one life is something beyond man’s innate ability, and cannot be achieved without direct Divine intervention. The process by which this is achieved is known as תנועה, normally translated as “motion,” meaning in this context that G’d sets in motion some part of the word תנועה.
[I confess that from this point on I have not understood the author’s allusions on this subject based on the meaning of the vowels underneath the consonants. Ed.]
Exodus 34,6. “Hashem passed before him and proclaimed:” A look at Rashi’s commentary on these words shows us that G’d wrapped Himself in a tallit, prayer shawl, just like the reader in the synagogue. [This is not taken from Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, but from the Talmud’s allegorical interpretation of this verse in Rosh Hashanah 17. Ed.]
Concerning the above, my late and revered teacher Rabbi Dov Baer said that the 13 attributes the Torah mentions here are the spiritual equivalent of the 13 principles of Rabbi Yishmael that are considered as legitimate tools of exegesis of the written Torah. For instance, the principle known as קל וחומר, using logical conclusions, is the counterpart of the attribute א-ל, whereas the principle known as גזרה שוה, replicas of the same word used for apparently divergent subjects, is the equivalent of the Divine attribute רחום.
When a wealthy person takes pity on a poor, destitute person, he automatically begins to understand the pain and near despair experienced by the poor so that he lowers himself mentally to that level. He experiences the pain endured by the poor and his feelings of being hemmed in from all sides. When this happens, the wealthy person, -parallel to G’d-, extends pity and mercy to the poor so that the poor and the rich have reached the same level. A similar process occurs when G’d looks with mercy on the Jewish people in distress. This is what Moses referred to when he said in psalms 91,15: עמו אנכי בצרה, “I am with him in distress;” this is what is meant by “equating” the Divine attribute of mercy to the exegetical tool known as גזרה שוה, “establishing common ground based on identical words used in texts speaking of different subjects.”
An alternative explanation of the line: ויעבור ה' על פניו ויקרא וגו', “Hashem passed before him and proclaimed, etc.;” also based on the statement in Rosh Hashanah 17 that G’d wrapped Himself in a prayer shawl similar to the one worn by the reader leading the congregation in prayer.
G’d is advising Moses that if, when praying for forgiveness, the Jewish people will emulate the example set for them by Hashem, He will forgive their sins and they will have atonement. We need to understand this statement of the Talmud on a less simplistic level, of course. The Talmud Avodah Zarah 3 provides the key to a more mature understanding of this statement in the Talmud. The Talmud there explains that G’d does not deal with the Jewish people in the manner that a despot deals with his subjects when they have been guilty of violating his decrees. The reason for this is that after all, the Jewish people were the principal reason why G’d created the universe in the first place as stated explicitly in Yalkut Shimoni 1,2 that the world was created on account of Israel which is called ראשית (Jeremiah 2,3). If G’d were to apply the yardstick to Israel that befits its lofty standing in the celestial regions, it would not have a chance to survive for a single hour as the burden imposed upon them of having to serve as a model for other creatures would have been too overwhelming.
[Compare when Moses said to Aaron that his sons died not because they were so undeserving to live, objectively, but on account of the principle of בקרובי אקדש , that G’d is especially strict with people who have become intimates of His, so that He would not be accused of favoritism. (Leviticus 10,3) Ed.]
G’d is aware that not withstanding the fact that since man’s source of life is rooted in the holy and Divine root of the Creator Himself, and he could therefore be expected to emulate his Creator and be almost equally pure and holy, the fact remains, as our sages have stated: אין צדיק ולא יחטא, “there has not yet been a righteous human being who has not committed a sin on at least one occasion.” While it is true that a king’s son is expected to lead a life that reflects his aristocratic background, nonetheless the king will not disown his son if now and again he stepped out of line. The Jewish people too, are called G’d’s Children, so G’d will not turn His back on them because they have sometimes sinned, inadvertently, in most cases. G’d promises Moses in our verse that He will adopt the less stringent yardsticks for judging man, a yardstick that is compatible with conditions on earth, an environment that is fraught with a multitude of temptations. When a rich man, comes face to face with a poor man, he is aware that only by the grace of G’d does he enjoy so much more material wealth than his less fortunate peer, and reflecting on this fact he will supply the poor man with what he needs to augment his livelihood.
The word ויעבור at the beginning of the list of 13 attributes of G’d that may be invoked when needed, hints at the fact that G’d, in that instance, will “pass,” i.e. cross over the line separating the attribute of Justice from the attribute of Mercy. Instead of G’d facing the repentant sinner without a לבוש, some garment, designed to tone down the enormity of having to face the Creator in His unadorned essence, פניו, “face,” He will display a more forgiving posture in recognition of the sinner having sought Him out to confess and to ask forgiveness, i.e. another chance to make a new beginning. We must remember however, that if we expect G’d to display the attribute of Mercy toward us, we must first show Him that we on pour part have departed from our standards of demanding strict compliance with the demands of justice by having demonstrated that we too can forego something that we felt we were entitled to. The line אני לדודי ודודי לי in Song of Songs 6,3 may also be understood in a similar sense, as “when I relate appropriately to my beloved, my beloved in turn will reciprocate.”
שלש עשרה מדות א-ל “13 Divine attributes;” let us come back to Rabbi Dov Baer’s comparison of G’d’s 13 attributes of Mercy in their various nuances and the 13 categories of valid Torah interpretations of Rabbi Yishmael, and the statement that the category of קל וחומר, logical deductions, such as inferences from a minor to a major, corresponds to the Divine attribute א-ל in our verse. This may become clearer when we recall a statement by our sages in the Talmud Baba kamma 25. The Talmud there deals with Moses’ prayer in Numbers 12,13 after his sister Miriam had been struck with tzoraat, (a punitive skin eczema). He said: א-ל נא רפא נא לה, usually translated as: “please O G’d heal her!” G’d’s answer includes the reminder that if one has behaved so badly that one’s own father has spat in one’s face, does one not deserve at least a week during which one will be ostracized from society? It follows that one deserves at least the same level of punishment when one is guilty of such behaviour against the Creator! G’d thereupon decrees seven days of exclusion of Miriam from the main body of the people. This is a classic example of the logic called קל וחומר, and it was used by G’d’s attribute א-ל to which Moses had appealed at that time.
We may expand on this theme by citing the Talmud Sanhedrin 91 where we are told that when a cure occurs as overt intervention by heaven this is comparable to the application of the exegetical tool called קל וחומר, “logic.” When someone doubted G’d’s ability to resurrect man, the doubter who admitted believing that G’d had created man, was told that if G’d had created man out of nothing, how much easier is it for Him to restore the dead to life seeing that they had already been alive once. This is another example of how the attribute of א-ל is linked to the exegetical tool called קל וחומר.
Seeing that we have stated repeatedly that it is impossible for a creature, including the most spiritually oriented one such as Moses, to truly understand the essence of the Creator, the question of how the authors of the prayers could make statements about G’d’s attributes, etc.; is obvious. The answer is equally obvious. The sages who composed the liturgy observed attributes possessed by man, i.e. G’d’s creature, and concluded that these attributes must reflect similar attributes possessed by the Creator, else where did they originate? In other words, the attributes of G’d are closely related to the use of the קל וחומר, the exegetical tool known as “logic.” It is “logical” therefore to speak of הא-ל הגדול, etc., “the great Divine power,” in our prayers, the introductory words of the עמידה, the central prayer on all three occasions that we pray communally each day. When continuing to list specific attributes of G’d, this is in the nature of describing how the Creator has practiced צמצום, “self-restraint,” for the sake of His creatures. Expressed allegorically, this “self restraint” of G’d may be compared to the hair on one’s body, a לבוש, “garment,” designed to tone down the overwhelming light emanating from G’d’s essence, something that man cannot endure, and the reason why the Israelites at Mount Sinai asked G’d to make Moses their intermediary. When acquainting Moses with 13 of His attributes in our portion, our sages have described the grand total of these attributes mentioned here as תקונא דיוקנא, “the beard and peyot, sideburns,” of the Creator.
Seeing that the list of these attributes extends [i.e. beyond the word א-ל], all the way until the words רב חסד, “abundant in the dispensation of loving kindness,” (to His people Israel) David alludes to this when he said in psalms 118,5 מן המצר קראתי י-ה ענני במרחב י-ה, “When I called upon G’d out of my distress, He answered me in the most expansive manner.”
Another approach to the thirteen nuances of the attributes of Love that G’d displays, listed here. According to the Ari z’al, the reason why this list commences (is headed by) with the name of the Lord, א-ל, and that these 13 “nuances” correspond to the thirteen exegetical tools of Torah interpretation listed by Rabbi Yishmael, and that the first such tool in Rabbi Yishmael’s list is the קל וחומר, “logic,” is the very fact that the essence of the Creator is beyond any creature’s ability to comprehend. In other words, it is beyond “logic.” (Compare Tikkuney Hazohar7 and 1) All that man can observe when trying to obtain a composite mental image of G’d, is that He possesses the attributes of “greatness,” “strength, heroism,” etc., etc.
My great and revered teacher phrased it thus when he explained the meaning of the Talmud in Sukkah 5 which discusses Exodus 25,18, the figures on the lid of the Holy Ark. The Torah commands: ועשית שנים כרובים זהב, “you are to fashion two cherubs made of gold.” The cryptic comment on this verse by the Talmud is that the word כרובים is the plural mode of the Aramaic כ-רביא, “like a young innocent child.” Rabbi Dov Baer, the author’s teacher, clearly did not understand the Talmud quite in that sense, but saw in the word רביא a reference to the relationship between teacher and pupil. The teacher’s knowledge and understanding is obviously far above that of the student, and in order for the student to understand what the teacher is saying, the teacher must address him in words that are familiar to the student, i.e. he must be מצמם את עצמו, impose restraints upon himself in order for his message to become effective. As a result of the teacher’s restraining himself there will be two intellectually equal people studying. This is the message of the שנים כרובים, the two cherubs mounted on top of the כפורת, the lid of the Holy Ark. The moral lesson of this is that instead of both the minds of teacher and pupil being portrayed as adults in the Torah, they are portrayed as “small children.” The comparison to the exegetical tool known as קל וחומר is even more striking when we consider that one of the limitations of this method of exegesis is that it must never be employed to establish a new halachic parameter. It must content itself with stating that the result of the comparison of the קל to the חומר is that the “heavy” is definitely at least equal to the “light,” but not necessarily superior. To illustrate: if as a result of insulting one’s father the child is banished from his presence for seven days, it is logical that insulting “G’d,” cannot be atoned for by a lesser penalty, as “G’d” is the “heavy” in this comparison. If we were to conclude that the penalty for insulting G’d must logically be greater, this would be beyond the boundaries of the קל וחומר as a legitimate exegetical tool. (Compare Talmud Baba kamma 24.)
The Talmud discusses also if there is ever an exception to this rule, and if so what are the criteria for when it may be breached? Answer: if by applying the rule that a קל וחומר must not result in halachic conclusions beyond the parameters from which we have set out, the entire קל וחומר could no longer be applied, then that rule is ignored. If G’d were to exercise so much self restraint that He would make Himself truly equal to us His creatures, how could He serve for us as a role model or authority?
The author limits the parable to the Jewish people, i.e. the concept that G’d would similarly “restrains Himself,” in order to descend to the level of the gentile nations is quite erroneous. The reason why the Jewish people are afforded this advantage is that they have accepted His rule in spite of the many difficulties that have to be faced by living in our part of the universe in order to fulfill His commandments. Since the gentile nations never accepted these challenges, they are hardly in a position to request G’d’s help in overcoming them.
[The author refers to the Tikunney Hazohar interpreting the tone signs on the letters in the Torah suggesting that the one known as zarka, and the one known as pazer, both striving upwards as an allusion to the heavenly orientation of the Jewish people that entitle them to G’d’s help. I have not found this section of the Tikkunim. Ed.]
An alternative explanation to the 13 attributes of G’s listed by the Torah in our portion. It is an accepted rule that the written Torah may be studied and understood better by using the 13 principles of Rabbi Yishmael that we recite in our prayers every morning. The 13 attributes of G’d that Moses lists in our portion may be understood as corresponding to this. The exegetical tool described as בנין אב in Rabbi Yishmael’s list (# 3 in that list) is none other than חן, “grace.” We, the Jewish people, enjoy grace in the eyes of the Lord. Let us clarify this by means of a parable. If a young child says something clever, the father is pleased to hear this and he enjoys this even if he is aware that the clever saying had not originated in the mind of the child itself, but reflects something that his mother had taught him. The father, in spite of his intellectual superiority to his child, “lowers” himself to the child’s level in order to enjoy his child’s achievement. The reason he does so is because there exists a bond between a father and child called חן, “grace or charm.” When G’d “restrains Himself,” as we pointed out repeatedly, one of the reasons is also that He relates to His Children of Israel like a father, and this bond of חן exists between them. The reason why the third of the 3 categories of valid exegetical tools in Rabbi Yishmael’s list is called בנין אב, “basic rule,” is that it parallels this “given” (rather than acquired) relationship between a Creator and His derivative, i.e. His child, in this case His brainchild.
Let us now look at Rabbi Yishmael’s fourth category of legitimate exegetical tools, the one known as כלל ופרט, generalities and specifics (or the reverse.) This principle corresponds to the Divine attributes of ארך and אפים, respectively. In order to understand this, we will again resort to a parable. A father, regardless of his son’s intelligence, loves him loyally as his flesh and blood. A similar relationship exists between G’d and His “children,” [seeing He is a partner in any human being, having supplied one third of its components by contributing the soul. Ed.] There is another aspect to this love of father for son; because he loves him he constantly tries to teach him so that he will become more intelligent and more mature mentally. This aspect of parental love is known as כלל ופרט וכלל.
Let us know explain the Divine attribute of ארך, i.e. that G’d loves us regardless of whether we are intelligent enough to realize that we ought to revere Him and to love Him, He does not withdraw His love from us. It follows that the attribute of ארך corresponds to the exegetical tool of Torah exegesis known as כלל ופרט, relating collective terms to specific terms.
The Divine attribute of אפים, is how G’d, out of His love for us, teaches us how to serve Him, so that the combined attributes ארך אפים, correspond to Rabbi Yishmael’s exegetical tool known as כלל ופרט וכלל, establishing harmony between collective terms and specifics, so that they do not contradict one another. This is why the Talmud in Baba kamma 54 describes the latter כלל , as adding an additional element.[I have not understood the Talmud there in that way. Ed.]
The Talmud in Shabbat 133 urges each one of us to “attach” ourselves to the virtues manifested by Hashem, by emulating them whenever possible, giving as an example: “just as He is merciful, you are to be merciful also.”
The problem with this “moral imperative” posited by the Talmud is that one of the attributes G’d has revealed to Moses in our portion is called א-ל, usually understood as a reference to G’d being omnipotent, תקיף; (compare Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 5) how are we to emulate such an attribute? We need to understand this slightly differently, i.e. that G’d has given the tzaddik the power to “compel” Him to carry out the tzaddik’s wishes. This is what the Talmud in Megillah 18 had in mind when it posed the rhetorical question of “how do we know that G’d called Yaakov by the attribute א-ל?” What possible “omnipotence” did Yaakov possess, seeing that all he could do was to abide by rules established in the Torah? Our sages in the Talmud in Ketuvot 111 alluded to this problem when they taught us that G’d made the Jewish people swear three oaths at the time of the destruction of the Temple. One of them was: “do not pressure Me to postpone the date of the coming of the messiah.” [Our author prefers an alternate version of that oath with the word ירחקו being replaced by the word ידחקו, i.e. pressuring G’d to advance the date of the coming of the messiah. Ed.] The root דחק is well known as referring to someone “hastening an event,” the best known example being the saying in B’rachot 64: כל הדוחק את השעה השעה דוחק אותו, “whosoever tries to advance the timetable for events destined to occur later, will find that it proves to have been counterproductive.”
Concerning the appropriate time for the coming of the messiah, the prophet Isaiah had predicted in Isaiah 51,4 כי תורה מאתי תצא , “for a teaching will come forth from Me, etc.” The prophet refers to a teaching which prior to that era could not have been understood at all by man, [as his spiritual horizons had not been sufficiently expanded. Ed.] This “Torah” will be called superior to all.
Besides, how is it possible to hasten the end of the exile, seeing that if all of Israel‘s virtues are the result of emulating G’d’s attributes, it follows that everything the Israelites do is pattered on the Torah, so how could they possibly be able to influence G’d’s timetable for the coming of the Messiah then? The answer is that by conferring on Yaakov the title א-ל, (Genesis 35,10, 33,20), He had conferred on him (and subsequent tzaddikim) some of His powers so that He had to warn them not to abuse these powers by making them take an oath. This complimentary title that G’d bestowed on Yaakov and other zaddikim after him was conditioned on his regarding the Torah and its laws inviolate. G’d had decided on His timetable for the coming of the messiah either at the same time as when He bestowed the title א-ל on Yaakov, or even earlier, so that his “powers” did not extend to overriding this. How could man then interfere with G’d’s decree? If man, i.e. the tzaddik could not interfere, why would the בנות ישראל, “chronologically later generations of Israelites,” have to swear an oath concerning something that was beyond their power to do anyways?
The apparent contradiction is resolved by an interesting commentary on Song of Songs 2,10, (a few verses after the verse in which G’d beseeches the “daughters of Jerusalem” to swear the abovementioned oath); we read there, concerning G’d: הנה זה עומד אחר כתלנו משגיח מן החלונות מציץ מחרקים, “here He is standing behind our walls looking down through the windows, peering through the blinds.” This verse describes G’d, Who, on the one hand is לעילא מן כל, “towering high above all,” as also on occasion retreating so far into the background that He only peers through the lattices. The verse alludes to the varying degrees of light that emanates from Him, tailored to what the situation requires. On occasion, if warranted, the tzaddik can override G’d’s plan; seeing that this is so, G’d had to protect His ultimate program for mankind by making the בנות ירושלים swear that they would not interfere with certain of His plans.
The word כלל in the list of exegetical tools of Rabbi Yishmael, corresponds to the Divine attribute of רחום, “the Merciful One,” which the author had previously described as corresponding to the exegetical tool of גזרה שוה, whereas the Divine attribute of חנון, “tireless,” corresponds to the exegetical tool known as בנין אב, the original verse in the Torah formulating a law, may be understood as follows.
The concept that G’d’s relates to man with Mercy may be compared to the exegetical tool of גזרה שוה which involves using textural parallels that are not supported by contextual similarities nonetheless being equated halachically, i.e. being used as a guideline. G’d’s “lowering Himself,” to the level of human beings is something parallel, i.e. He equates Himself to us although basically, how can a Creator compare Himself to His creature?
The Zohar 257 on Pinchas points out that attributes of G’d such as רחום חנון דיין, “The merciful One, the patient One, the Judge,” were totally meaningless before He created the universe, as who was there to judge, or to practice mercy on? It follows that these attributes reflect His relations with His creatures after these had been created. In other words, all of the attributes are figures of speech taking into considerations that G’d had first “restrained Himself,” manifested Himself in far less than all His glory, as His creatures could not have survived “looking” at Him in all His glory. Hence, an attribute such as ארך אפים, “being able to put up with man’s sins patiently”, resulted in His being “accorded” the attribute of רחום וחנון, merciful and extremely patient, i.e. not withdrawing His grace, חן from people although they had sinned against Him.
Actually, although the Zohar is correct in principle, the attributes רחום וחנון were appropriate attributes for G’d even before He created the universe, as unless He had been prepared to be מצמצם את עצמו, “tone down, understate” His essence, as we explained repeatedly, He would have risked destroying all the creatures He was about to create at the moment these creatures “set eyes” on their “father in heaven.” The attribute of ארך אפים, however, most certainly became necessary only after creation, seeing that as long as there were no free-willed creatures, i.e. man, there was no sin that G’d had to apply this attribute to.<br.the attributes="" רחום="" וחנון="" may="" be="" understood="" as="" applying="" before="" the="" creation,="" whereas="" the="" attribute="" ארך="" אפים="" is="" the="" name="" used="" after="" the="" creation,="" when="" due="" to="" man’s="" sins="" g’d="" adjusted="" the="" manner="" in="" which="" he="" dealt="" with="" man.<br="">There is a difference in the way G’d makes allowances for sins committed by a community, and those committed by an individual. What appears like G’d’s leniency will be seen far more often in His dealings with multitudes, whereas individuals will not find Him as accommodating.
[This does not mean that looked at objectively the individual sinner is worse off; as lenience may result in the ones who are the beneficiaries of leniency misinterpreting this, thus continuing in their wicked ways, whereas the individual, because of G’d’s strictness will improve his ways thus benefiting in the long run. Ed.]
The Talmud in B’rachot, 19 cites examples of tzaddikim who had committed sins but were not immediately punished, explaining that a tzaddik, when he does sin, can be expected to repent immediately, so that this act of “leniency” worked in his favour, whereas a similar act of leniency if applied to a habitual sinner would only result in that sinner becoming more deeply enmeshed in his sinful ways. This is hinted at by Rabbi Yishmael’s category of exegesis known as כלל ופרט וכלל, referring to the community, followed by referring to the individual and thereby ultimately bringing that individual around so that he is a member of the community in good standing again.
According to our author, the word כלל is a simile for the Creator, as He combines within Himself aspects of the entire universe, i.e. the “entirety, the whole.” The word פרט on the other hand, refers to the individual worlds, each of which is being treated as “individuals,” as G’d deals with each one of them on the basis of the conditions that prevailed when they were created. To summarize: the wicked as a group, once they have departed from the righteous community will not be likely to return to it, whereas the individual sinner who has sinned not by design but through carelessness, will use any delay in punishment as a reason to do penitence immediately. The second word כלל in the exegetical tool known as כלל ופרט וכלל alludes to the “additional” time G’d allowed the “righteous” sinner to rehabilitate himself, it being understood that a righteous person even when he did sin will repent as soon as he has become is ware of his error.
Concerning the exegetical tool in the list of Rabbi Yishmael known as פרט וכלל, a specific detail appearing in the Torah prior to a generalization, that the generalization must conform to points mentioned in that detailed example, this is a simile for the Divine attribute of ארך אפים, as the process of finding grace is combined of the grace Israel has found originally in the eyes of the Lord, and the virtues practiced by the Israelites in order to warrant maintaining their state of grace. This is also the reason why the attribute רחום and חנון require two separate verses in the Torah, whereas even a “complicated” exegetical tool such as כלל ופרט וכלל is derived from a single verse.
Exodus 34,21. “you shall observe the Sabbath rest regardless of whether it is the season of planting or harvesting.” It is a rule that G’d shares out His largesse to the various parts of His universes and it is also known that the origin of that largesse is in the spiritual region known as אין סוף, the Infinite. It was the prophet Elisha who said (Kings II 4,2) מה יש לכי בבית, “what (containers) do you have in the house?” This shows us that in order to take advantage of G’d’s largesse man has to furnish the receptacle. He does so by providing the various letters in the alphabet. Both the act of sowing and harvesting are perceived as a manner of creating, When the largesse is provided from the celestial regions directly, i.e. from the eyn sof, there is no need for the human being to supply a כלי, receptacle Seeing that it is forbidden to write on the Sabbath, i.e. to put together letters, on that day, no receptacle is required to receive G’d’s largesse. This is hinted at in Deuteronomy 15,15 when the Torah writes:וברכתיך בכל אשר תעשה , “I will bless you in all your undertakings. By writing that you are to rest (on the Sabbath) both in the season of planting and the during season of harvesting, the Torah explains that the Sabbath rest does not only not interfere with our receiving G’d’s largesse, but, on the contrary, it facilitates the process, i.e.בחריש ובקציר תשבות
Shekalim
Parah
Vayakhel
Exodus 35,1. “these are the things that the Lord commanded to be done. For six days work shall be performed, etc.” Our sages in Shabbat 70 see in the numerical value of the letters in the word: אלה i.e. 39, an allusion to the 39 categories of “work” prohibited to be performed by Israelites on the Sabbath. These categories of work are understood as especially mundane in nature, the Ari z’al pointing out that when the prophet Jeremiah (Lamentations 1,16) says: על אלה אני בוכיה, “on account of these things I weep,” he meant that violation of these prohibited activities of the Sabbath require the Jewish people to collectively rehabilitate themselves by a special activity, מלאכה, and this is why the positive instruction לעשות, “to perform,” [and not as “to desist from” Ed.] has been added.
Baal Haturim points out already that the numerical value of the letters in the word אלה is 36 and not 39. He explains that the word דברים, minimum plural for “words,” adds another 2, and that the prefix ה in that word adds another 1 making a total of 39. He adds that though the expression הדברים occurs in the Torah repeatedly and the commentators saw nothing noteworthy in that expression, so that we must wonder why it is considered out of place here, the reason is that in connection with the Tabernacle itself, [the basis for the forbidden work categories on the Sabbath, Ed.] the Torah uses the expression: זה הדבר in the singular mode, whereas here it uses the plural mode, אלה הדברים.
Elaborating on the words of the Baal Haturim, our author continues: although in connection with the Tabernacle the reference was to physical work performed in the construction of that building, on the Sabbath, although our “activities” are restricted primarily to the mind and the expressions of our thoughts by words, i.e. making Kiddush, praying, reading from the Torah, etc., nonetheless these “activities” are considered as even more significant than the actual deeds when building the Tabernacle. This “superiority” of the Sabbath to the performance of the commandment to build the Tabernacle is hinted at by the word דברים here being used in the plural mode, whereas in the parallel paragraph dealing with the construction of the Tabernacle it is in the singular mode. (Compare 35,4). When observing the Sabbath by studying Torah, etc., the contribution we make to תקון העולם, “repairing any damage” to the world we live in, is even greater than the contribution made by Betzalel when he built the Tabernacle using his hands to perform physical tasks.
Exodus 35,2. “but as far as the seventh day is concerned, it shall be holy for you;” it is to be understood as similar to what the sages said (Pessachim 68) concerning the festival days, which they view as חציו לה' וחציו לכם, “half for G-d and half for you.” On the Sabbath, even the לכם (“for you”) is for G-d. “...it shall be holy for you,” the for you is to be made holy.
Exodus 36,7. “for the stuff (materials contributed) they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, even too much.” [Clearly the meaning of the word מלאכה, used twice in this verse must have a different meaning each time. Ed.] The statement that the materials donated for construction of the Tabernacle first described as adequate, and, as an afterthought, as more than sufficient, poses a problem. Either it was adequate or it was overabundant.
The Or hachayim already deals with this problem, (compare this editor’s translation of that commentary on pages 906/7). Our author approaches the anomaly from a different angle.
One of the names of G’d is א-ל שדי, this name of G’d also appears to contain a contradiction within itself, seeing that the word א-ל refers to strength, power, as in Ezekiel 17,13 אילי הארץ, “the mighty ones of the land,” whereas the word שדי is a derivative of שדים (compare Genesis 49,25) a word used to describe the provision of sustenance for all living creatures. Seeing that the largesse emanating from G’d in His capacity as the Eyn Sof, will automatically keep increasing unless stopped, this term for G’d is used to describe Him as also the One Who called די, “enough,” to an ever expanding universe during the process of creation. A term comprising apparent contradictions is by itself not unique, therefore. [It might not be acceptable when applied to G’d’s creatures, but is certainly not strange when applied to the Creator, Who is the source of all phenomena in His universe. It nevertheless remains our duty to explore how the Torah could apply apparently contradictory terms to contributions made by man rather than by G’d. Ed.] The Talmud in Chagigah 12 sees in the word שדי, the attribute of G’d in His capacity of being able to call a halt to His initiatives, many of which had been assigned to His creatures such as to the oceans and the earth when they received instructions to produce living creatures in the waters and also vegetation on earth. (Compare Genesis 1,20 and 1,24 respectively) It was natural for these “agents” of G’d to use the powers entrusted to them freely, without restriction, so that G’d had to impose limits in order to prevent possible new “chaos” in the universe, one which He had set out to replace by order on the first day of creation. This is all part of the concept of צמצום, “restraint,” imposed by G’d both upon Himself and on those of His creatures not granted בחירה, free will, i.e. human beings. G’d had to impose these limits on His agents, as precisely because they were only agents, מלאכים, they had not been equipped with the ability to understand what G’d had intended in parts of the universe that were not within their parameters. When a creature is showered with too much largesse, it is not a blessing but is liable to prove destructive unless checked. (Compare Yevamot 47 where we are told that even the Israelites while living in their mortal shells on earth are not able to absorb all the goodness or punishment they deserve )
Construction of the Tabernacle in the desert was an act that paralleled the creation of heaven and earth and corresponded to all known aspects of the order in which G’d created the universe, (B’rachot 55). Seeing that this was so, Betzalel, the chief architect of the project was granted the wisdom to understand how the letters of the aleph bet were to be used in carrying out all the details of the task entrusted to him.
Nowadays, this ability of Betzalel at the time of his building the Tabernacle, has been granted to the righteous Torah scholars of varying degrees, who are able to reveal insights into the Torah that have not previously been revealed. By doing so, they become partners of G’d in His creation of the universe. Betzalel also imposed restrictions on himself in his use of the gift G’d gave him, so as not to preempt the Torah scholars throughout the ages and to thereby prevent them from revealing new insights. This is what is meant by the word והותר, “there was an overabundance,” i.e. there was enough holy spirit that had been provided to enable Betzalel and his assistants to build the Tabernacle, but instead of exhausting it at the time, Betzalel, in his modesty, was content to leave a surfeit of it to be used by Torah scholars, who in a way are also Torah “architects,” to delight their audiences with their insights in their respective generations.
Pekudei
Exodus 38,21. “These are the accounts of the Tabernacle of the Testimony that were rendered according to the commandment of Moses, etc.;” we have already written previously that the construction of the Tabernacle required holy spirit and the knowledge of how G’d used the aleph bet, i.e. the letters of the Torah and their respective combinations that G’d used when He created heaven and earth. (based on Yevamot 47). The subject has been elaborated on further in Bereshit Rabbah section 12,14 which quotes the school of Shammai saying that the idea to create the universe crystallized in G’d’s mind at night whereas the execution occurred by day, and that the letter ה written in smaller script in Genesis 2,4 in the word בהבראם is an allusion to the attribute א-ד-נ-י, one of G’d’s names, whereas afterwards in the same verse when the Torah writes ביום עשות ה' אלוקים ארץ ושמים, “on the day that <ihashem< i=""> made earth and heaven,” the apparent repetition is an allusion to the fact that G’d is unique and the exclusive Creator. [Our author must have had a different version of the Bereshit rabbah, as the second comment concerning the attribute א-ד-נ-י is not found in my updated version of that Midrash. Ed.]
The uniqueness of both Moses and Betzalel paralleled the description of unique attributes possessed by the Creator. Initially, the instructions given by Moses to Betzalel were similar to G’d’s formulating the thought of creating a universe, whereas the execution paralleled the words ביום עשות ה' אלוקים, G’d in His capacity as Hashem carrying out His plan to create the universe. The numerical value of the first letters of the opening words in our portion, אלה פקודי המשכן i.e. א'פ'ה' have a combined value of 86, equivalent to the letters in the name of G’d when it is spelled א-ל-ה-י-ם, i.e. His attribute of א-ד-נ-י, the word signifying the attribute of Justice. The respective last letters in the same sequence of words are ה'י'נ equaling 65, or the numerical value of the attribute א-ד-נ-י. When we examine the respective first and final letters in the second half of the introductory verse of our portion, i.e. משכן העדות, we find that the letters מ'ה correspond to the holy name of G’d consisting of 45 letters, whereas the final letters in these words, i.e. ת'נ or 450 i.e. ten times the value of the opening letters. This suggests that whereas Betzalel was indeed granted great insights, it was Moses, אשר פקד על פי משה who had the highest level of understanding how to manipulate all the letters in the names of G’d.
An alternate interpretation of the unusual line: אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות אשר פקד משה על פי ה' וגו'. According to a statement in Taanit 8 blessings do not take hold on matters that are subject to being weighed measured or counted. This poses a problem with respect to the Tabernacle, as its components were subject to being numbered, weighed and measured. In spite of this principle, blessings most certainly were manifest in the process of the construction of the Tabernacle, and its operation without known mishaps for hundreds of years. Scriptural proof for the fact that the Tabernacle was indeed blessed is furnished by Song of Songs 7,5 where we read: עיניך ברכות בחשבון ,”your eyes are like the pools in Cheshbon,” which, according to Rashi, is to be understood as “your wise men are preoccupied with the calendar and how to adjust it to allow for seasonal factors.” The root of the word עין, “eye,” is the evil use that can be made by one’s eyes, the prime example being the prophet Bileam who would ruin anything that he set his eye on. (Compare Zohar I 68) The reason that this is so is that an evil person tries constantly to disrupt other people’s connection to their divine roots which are the source of their being alive. The harm befalling items subject to measuring, weighing or counting, is the result of the evil person’s overpowering desire to acquire for his personal advantage anything that his eye desires. The above quoted verse from Song of Songs teaches that the leaders of the Jewish people, the “eyes” of the community, as well as their undertakings, were blessed, ברכות, even in matters involving counting, weighing and measuring, בחשבון. The reason why this is so, is that the average Jew, whenever he contemplates a new phenomenon that he sees with his eyes, automatically relates it to its source, the Creator. When a Jew encounters phenomena he was not aware of, his respect and awe for the Creator of such phenomena is enhanced beyond what it had been previously. The word ברכות in Song of Songs can have two meanings, one of which is “fountains,” sources of water, “life.” The message of our verse is that seeing that the materials for the Tabernacle were counted not once but repeatedly and still clearly the blessing continued to rest on it, it is proof that this was due to Moses having done the counting, i.e. having given the instructions. His constant close attachment to the Divine prevented any negative vibes normally associated with counting, measuring and weighing from harming the Tabernacle.
Still another interpretation of the opening verse of our portion. We have explained repeatedly that service of the Lord is a concept that manifests itself on two levels. One level is the result of our being aware of miracles performed by the Creator which demonstrate His ability to change what we previously considered as unalterable “laws of nature.” It follows logically that all His creatures are duty bound to serve Him to the best of their ability.
The second level of service of G’d stems from our having recognized the Creator’s preeminence by dint of His being the origin of all life, etc., so that as a result of this it is clear that we His creatures are obligated to serve Him as our master. The basic difference between these two levels of serving G’d is whether we would have done so also if He had not resorted to performing miracles in order to bring Himself and His power to our attention. [Another difference is that people during whose lifetime no miracles were experienced would feel the need to serve Him merely on the basis of being told that He used to perform miracles. Ed.]
If one’s service of G’d is based on our awareness of Him as the Creator, any miracles if and when performed, will be of secondary importance in our relations with Him, as we consider His ability to perform miracles as natural, seeing that He is the Creator of nature. They see in the performance of miracles only proof that the Creator supervises the fate of the Jewish people especially, and intervenes at times of His choosing to prevent great harm befalling His chosen people.
Prior to the giving of the Torah, the Jewish people’s service of the Lord was based on the miracles they had seen G’d perform in Egypt. After the giving of the Torah even the physical parts of the Jewish people underwent a process of refinement which enabled them to serve the Lord without constant prompting by G’d demonstrating His power by performing miracles. Ever since they recognized that even the miracles which they had witnessed in Egypt were not intended to show them G’d’s power as a G’d, but were manifestations of His love for His people.
Based on the considerations outlined, we will try and explain why we have been commanded to eat Matzah on Passover and to offer certain sacrifices in the Temple, and why on the festival of Shavuot we have been commanded to present two loaves of bread which had to consist of leavened dough, as well as a thanksgiving offering consisting partly of unleavened breads and partly of leavened breads.
Matzah alludes to creatures who serve the Lord due to the impact upon them of G’d’s miracles; even the plain meaning of the text in Exodus 12,15-17 alludes to this as it contains a commandment to eat matzah as a reminder to future generations of the speed, i.e. suddenness, with which the Egyptians reversed their attitude as the masters of the Jews, to driving them out with all possible speed as we know from Exodus 12,39 which tells us that the departure of the Jews from Egypt occurred in such haste that they did not even have time to allow the dough for next day’s bread to rise before baking. Consuming the meat of the Passover took place in similar haste, the people being dressed while eating it, ready to begin marching at any moment. (ibid, i.e. ויאפו את הבצק עגות מצות וגו', “they baked the dough into matzah cakes etc.,) The symbolic acts that we, the descendants of the generation of Israelites leaving Egypt at that time, perform on the anniversary of that event, all reflect the suddenness and haste in which the redemption literally overtook them. These acts mirror the impact that G’d’s miracles had on the Jews at that time. In contrast to this, when the same people arrived in the desert of Sinai, prior to receiving the Torah, seven weeks later, they had time to prepare themselves for that event for three days, i.e. the miracles that occurred in connection with that event did not take them by surprise. By that time they had come to realize that G’d’s performing miracles was something “natural,” not supernatural, seeing that the source of these “miracles” was the same Creator Who had performed the greatest miracles by creating the universe. When they reflected that out of all the phenomena in the universe that they were aware of it was only G’d Who could have created them by merely uttering the necessary words, they no longer needed “miracles” to persuade them that there was such a power, [even though it remained invisible. Ed.] To reflect their new found insights, the offerings presented on the festival of Shavuot did not require matzah as a symbol of the Israelites’ recognition that their redemption had been a miracle, in the sense of something supernatural performed by G’d.
The Talmud in B’rachot 54, when stating that 4 types of individuals need to offer thanksgiving offerings (containing also leavened breads) after they had been saved by means of a miraculous event, reflects the sages’ recognition that for the people concerned the miracle had been performed in order that they serve G’d first of all because He demonstrated His ability to transcend the laws of nature. Subsequently, the people who had learned this lesson would become accustomed to serving the Lord for the same reasons that the Jewish people served Him starting with their experiences at Mount Sinai. This is reflected in the part of the thanksgiving offering consisting of leavened breads. The very fact that this offering consists of these apparently contradictory ingredients, indicates that the person offering it is aware of his own spiritual/philosophical progress.
Looking at the history of the Jewish people during their march through the desert, the sin of the golden calf represented a spiritual regression to the level of needing miracles to keep them aware of the greatness of the Lord and the duty to serve Him. The Jewish people only recaptured even the first level of serving the Lord, i.e. through the help of miracles to remind them of Him and His power at the time when the Tabernacle was inaugurated, almost nine months after their having worshipped the golden calf. According to Nachmanides, this is the reason why the Tabernacle is referred to as משכן העדות, “Tabernacle of Testimony,” i.e. its consecration bore testimony to the fact that the people had regained their spiritual level as it had been at the time when they had been redeemed from slavery in Egypt.
The word פקודי in our verse needs to be understood in the sense of something being lacking, absent, as we know from Numbers 31,49 ולא נפקד ממנו איש, “not a single man from us is missing.” [after the punitive expedition against the Midianites) The word appears in a similar sense also repeatedly in the Book of Samuel. Ed.] The Torah hints that even with the completion of the Tabernacle, the former lofty spiritual level of the Jewish people as it had been at the end of the revelation at Mount Sinai had not been restored.
Yet another interpretation of the opening verse in our portion. We need to consider this verse in conjunction with Exodus 40,18 ויקם משה את המשכן וגו', “Moses, (personally) erected the Tabernacle, etc.;”
We have a rule expressed in the Zohar that the Tabernacle represented this lower world, as well as the world beyond earth as well as the Torah, in miniature. [Possibly a reference to Zohar Pekudey, 220 where the author of the Zohar uses the word אלה here and in Genesis 2,4 אלה תולדות השמים והארץ, as a basis for this comparison. Ed.]
Nachmanides quotes Genesis 18,19 כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו....ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט, where he explains the expression דרך ה' to mean the “attributes that G’d has revealed of Himself.” The Torah credits Avraham in that verse as emulating G’d’s attributes of שלום וחסד, “peace and loving kindness, etc.” These attributes are also reflected in the legislation we read in the Torah, as we find commandments that clearly reflect the need for us to be kind even to the undeserving, such as helping one’s enemy to load or unload his donkey, whereas some of the commandments clearly reflect the attribute of Justice, such as to ensure that people convicted of deliberate wrongdoing be punished in accordance with the law. Similarly, other attributes that reflect G’d’s attributes are represented in different parts of Torah legislation. The requirement to wear phylacteries is understood as reflecting the fact that G’d represents תפארת, “glory,” and that is why we recite a benediction when putting on phylacteries which describes G’d as having distinguished us with glory, i.e. עוטר ישראל בתפארה.
When Betzalel constructed the Tabernacle and all its components, i.e. the candlestick which represented the attribute of love, the table which reflected the attribute of awe, and the furnishings representing other Divine attributes, he constructed a miniature replica of the universe.
Our sages in B’rachot 55 alluded to this when they said: Betzalel knew how to combine the letters of the holy tongue that had been used by G’d when He created the universe. This enabled Betzalel to fashion the various furnishings of the Tabernacle so that they reflected the attributes which we mentioned. According to the Talmud there the name בצלאל is a combination of the two words: בצל א-ל, “in the Lord’s shadow,” i.e. his soul must have been present when G’d created the universe and have absorbed the secret of how G’d had done so. Betzalel did not know, however, to which particular commandment in the Torah each one of the vessels he fashioned corresponded. It was therefore left for Moses himself to reveal the relationship between each vessel and utensil used in the Tabernacle and how it related to a particular commandment in the Torah. This is hinted at in the verse in Exodus 40,18 which describes Moses as erecting the Tabernacle. According to tradition, Betzalel and his helpers had vainly attempted to do this, and they had to call on Moses to do this. (Tanchuma yashan, 8) “Erecting” the Tabernacle, does not refer to the mere physical act of arranging all the boards, etc, in their proper order, but it is a term used to describe Moses as ensuring that the Tabernacle would fulfill the functions for which it had been made, i.e. to mirror Torah philosophy. The reason that the Tabernacle had to be completely dismantled each time the Israelites broke camp and had to be re-erected anew when they encamped was that their trek through the desert was intended to elevate the “sparks” that had fallen off the Shechinah, a task that would be accomplished in stages each time it was erected again. [The concept of these “sparks” has been discussed on pages 21-22. Ed.]
We know through the Baal Shem Tov how the spiritual elevations, עליות, of these “sparks, נצוצות, work. When these sparks come face to face with something of a mundane or secular nature, or even more so when they encounter something actually evil or sinful, they grasp the opportunity to serve their Creator. [If I have understood the concept correctly, it is based on every phenomenon in the universe containing an element of sanctity, קדושה, though it may be almost completely hidden. [The “fallen” sparks that once were part of the Shechinah, due to their sacred origin, are able to locate that element of Divinity within the phenomenon in question. They are able to utilize any of the Divine attributes they encounter and respond to it in kind, be it love, awe, harmony or any of the attributes of G’d. Ed.] When they do this they elevate the respective phenomenon to a higher spiritual level, i.e. it is a kind of repentance for their erstwhile negligence without which they would not have “fallen off” the main body of the Shechinah in the first place.
When the Tabernacle was dismantled, it had lost its cohesion to the various attributes of G’d, something that had been established when it had last been erected. By having dismantled the Tabernacle, the Israelites had contributed to the spiritual rehabilitation of these “sparks,” as they had been presented with an opportunity to elevate these phenomena to a higher spiritual niveau while they were “in limbo,” so to speak. The Israelites therefore were directly instrumental in “salvaging” part of the Shechinah. Seeing that during the period that the Tabernacle had been dismantled the holy attributes of G’d had had an opportunity to be used negatively, i.e. the attribute of love had been used to love that which is evil, or the attribute of harmony had been used to organise a rebellion against G’d, [as had been the case during the building of the Tower after the deluge, Ed.] the Israelites in the desert, where most of these “sparks” had taken refuge on earth, had become instrumental in contributing to the restoration of the Shechinah to its full glory.
If, after having established the connection with the Divine attribute contained within a phenomenon one does not exploit this good fortune and make this attribute part of one’s personality, one will forfeit all the benefits that one’s discovery had presented. The reason for this is that good attributes that remain in a vacuum are worse than good attributes never discovered. Possessing אהבת השם “a love for G’d,” without following this up by performing the commandments in the Torah that reflect this attribute, results in one’s losing even the theoretical, or “platonic” love of G’d. As soon as the Jewish people became aware that they had become an instrument for restoring one of the “sparks” to the Shechinah, they would re-erect the Tabernacle and make a point of observing the commandments associated with that attribute meticulously. As only Moses was on a level that enabled him to understand all these connections between the terrestrial world and its celestial counterpart, it was his task to erect the Tabernacle (each time). He thereby connected the appropriate sections in the appropriate manner.
All this is alluded to in the words: אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות. The word עדות is a reference to the Torah and its commandments; the word פקד means that a connection was established, a union, much as when a husband joins his wife in the marital bed in order to jointly produce a child which is the visible symbol of their union. [We read in Genesis 21,1 that Hashem פקד את שרה , as a result of which she became pregnant. In other words, the union of Avraham and Sarah was finally completed when Sarah conceived Yitzchok. Ed.]
If, G’d forbid, attributes such as love and awe, etc., instead of being utilized in accordance with Torah principles are “wasted” on unworthy objects or ideas, the Torah, or its representative the Tabernacle, is perceived as not enjoying מנוחה a state of calm satisfaction; similarly, if these attributes are abused by being squandered on useless objects or alien concepts and their representatives, G’d is in a state of restlessness, His mind not being at ease.
There is still another aspect to this subject of the attributes of G’d and our duty to emulate them. When the attributes of G’d are constantly being emulated by His creatures, in this case by the Jewish people, this results in this “union” influencing the dispensation of G’d’s largesse due to the connection to our Divine source being a constant, never interrupted for even a brief period. Putting the various vessels of the Tabernacle to use on a daily basis, seeing that each represented part of a Divine attribute, the unbroken connection was assured. Only in the desert, or subsequently in Jerusalem, the site of the Temple, was it possible to ensure that unbroken contact with the Divine origin of these attributes, which served as a reminder to G’d that His people were serving Him by trying to emulate His attributes. The distinction possessed by the city of Jerusalem in this regard, was also accorded to Shiloh and other locations where the Tabernacle stood before Solomon built the Temple, though only on an ad hoc basis.
The difference between the status of Shiloh and Jerusalem was symbolised by the Tabernacle in Shiloh, which, though not being a collapsible structure as the one in the desert, did not have a permanent solid roof (although it functioned for more than 300 years). (Compare Zevachim 112) The Torah had alluded to this distinction when speaking of מנוחה and נחלה as separate concepts in Deuteronomy 12,9. The stage of נחלה, ancestrally owned territory, would not be reached until the erection of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. [The capital of Israel that had been captured only during the latter part of David’s reign, more than 450 years after Joshua crossed the Jordon with the people. Ed.] The author sees an allusion to this already in Exodus 25,15, where the Torah refers to the poles that were to be used to carry the Holy Ark were to remain permanently in the rings attached to the Ark for that purpose, and that they were not to be removed even temporarily under any circumstances. The reader will ask himself why the Torah added this restrictive clause as applicable only to the poles used to carry the Ark, and not to the poles used to carry the Table, for instance? Our author suggests as an answer to this question that we remember that he had described the very trek of the Israelites through the desert as a spiritual ascent, i.e. return of the “sparks” that had fallen from the Shechinah in disgrace on a previous occasion, and that it had been the act of dismantling the Tabernacle that had enabled these “sparks” to grasp an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. (compare pages 533-534). Clearly, the process of the fallen sparks could not continue indefinitely, for how long would G’d rebuke the same evildoers to return in penitence without finally giving up and subjecting them to their deserved punishment? On the other hand, it is perfectly plausible to hold up a reminder to sinners, that there is a method through which they could rehabilitate themselves.
The Holy Ark’s function is to serve as a reminder to man that at all times he must strive to repent and rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the Lord. The regulation that the poles that serve to carry the Holy Ark in the desert, [although once it had been positioned in the Temple, the Ark was never to be removed from there so that its poles became strictly symbolic in nature, Ed.] served as this reminder. The “sparks” themselves, are not only to be viewed as parts of the Shechinah which had somehow gone astray, but they symbolize parts of the human personality which had gone astray and were in need of rehabilitation. Man (and in the first instance the Jewish man) is supposed to be the “carrier” of the throne of G’d, in a sense similar to the poles of the Holy Ark on top of which were the cherubs between whose outstretched wings the Shechinah is presumed to reside while the Ark is within the Temple. [Some of these words are my own, but I am confident that they supplement the exegesis of our author. Ed.] It did not matter that the Ark, physically, once it had come to a place of מנוחה ונחלה as stated in Deuteronomy 12,9 would no longer be in motion. It is enough that we keep before our mind’s eye the picture of the Holy Ark to remind us of the need to constantly strive to rehabilitate any weakness in our personality that manifested itself through our not emulating one of G’d’s attributes by transgressing one of His commandments.
It is this thought that prompted our sages in Keritut 6 to state that whenever we pray we must always include the habitual sinners in our prayers, i.e. express the wish that they too turn to G’d for forgiveness of their sins by changing their lifestyles. This is our contribution to “repatriating” holy sparks that had gone astray.
Yet another aspect of the opening verse of our portion. [Our author, as is his custom, endeavours to explore the different meanings that the same word (root) has on different occasions. Ed.]
It is a fact that many people although going through the motions of performing the commandments of the Torah do not thereby achieve a spiritual level that provides a תענוג, spiritually pleasurable experience, for their Creator. In other words, although they have tried “to catch the train or plane,” and establish a close connection with their Creator they find that they have been left behind.
It is necessary for a Jew,-seeing he is the beneficiary of the Torah- to serve G’d in a manner that affords G’d the תענוג or נחת רוח, that we have discussed on numerous occasions. This is also alluded to in the opening verse of our portion where the word פקודי refers to the connection or union of the parts of the Tabernacle and by implication to the connection or union between the creature and its G’d, seeing that we explained that the Tabernacle was a miniature of the universe. If further proof were needed for this interpretation, we need only look at the word משכן itself to realize that is a slightly abbreviated form of the word שכינה, “Divine Presence.” The erection of the משכן in the “lower” part of the universe, i.e. on earth, became the key to this uninterrupted connection between the celestial and the terrestrial part of the universe. The word עדות or a derivative of it , i.e. עדי עדיים in Ezekiel 16,7 refers to the נחת רוח, “wellbeing of a spiritual dimension,” that G’d experiences when the Tabernacle fulfills its function on earth as planned.
Still another exegesis of the first verse of our portion, this time including the concluding words of that verse:עבודת הלוים ביד איתמר בן אהרן הכהן, “through the service of the Levites under the direction of Ittamar, a son of the High Priest Aaron.”
It is a generally accepted rule that G’d constantly channels loving kindness and mercy to His people Israel, and if nonetheless we find that from time to time the Jewish people appear to be victims of evil, this is only a prelude to their eventually being rehabilitated and elevated to a higher level than previously. G’d would never allow evil to happen unless this evil were capable of serving as a prelude to good. In other words: G’d does not channel evil in the direction of the Jewish people, period. In our verse this concept is also alluded to when both the Levites and priests are mentioned, the former as representing Justice and Judgment, [as when the Levites executed the idol worshipping Israelites during the episode of the golden calf, Ed.] The word כהן is an allusion to the attribute of חסד, loving kindness, an attribute personified by Aaron during all the years that He was High Priest, whereas the attribute of Justice was something that had to be called upon only on rare occasions. What this means is that the attribute of Justice is not even able to function unless the attribute of חסד “supervises” i.e. tempers it, so that it does not take center stage exclusively. The משכן itself may be viewed as an instrument designed to “sweeten” even the attribute of Justice when it momentarily overshadows the attribute of loving kindness. [all this refers , of course, only to how G’d deals with the Jewish people. Ed.] The line stating that a priest, i.e. Ittamar, son of Aaron, was in charge of what the Levites did in connection with the Tabernacle, is meant to alert the reader to these concepts.
Exodus 38,22. “and Betzalel, son of Uri, son of Chur, of the tribe of Yehudah, executed all that G’d had commanded Moses.” A look at Rashi will reveal that in fact it is remarkable that the Torah did not write: “which Moses commanded Betzalel”, but wrote “which G’d commanded Moses.” This suggests that Betzalel had divined even the sequence of things that Moses had not revealed to him either deliberately or because he had forgotten. For example: Moses had instructed Bezalel to construct the furnishings of the Tabernacle before he had given him details for constructing the structure that was to house these furnishings. (Compare Jerusalem Talmud Peyah 1,1 According to the version there when Moses instructed Betzalel to first construct the furnishings, Betzalel queried this wondering if Moses had heard it in that order on Mount Sinai.) Upon hearing this, Moses reminded himself that G’d had in fact told him to construct the structure housing the furnishings first. He complimented Betzalel, saying that apparently he had stood in G’d’s shade at the time G’d had spoken to Moses. As a result, Betzalel constructed the structure, i.e. the boards and “carpets” serving as the ceiling of the Tabernacle, before he proceeded to fashion the furnishings.
I believe that it is in order to elaborate on this somewhat. When a person gets out of bed in the morning he needs to wash forthwith, i.e. as a prelude to reiterating that he accepts the kingdom of heaven, i.e. the commandments of the Torah, anew. This includes his faith in G’d, Who is the Creator of all the phenomena that we can perceive with our senses. Subsequent to this it is incumbent on the person to turn to G’d in prayer, and after that to study some of the Torah. This is followed by the performance of various commandments in the order in which the opportunity to do so presents itself. All of this is designed to teach us the attributes of the Creator and help us to have absolute faith in Him and to enable us to emulate His attributes.
“Faith” in the Creator consists of two levels. It begins with what we call “little faith,” i.e. faith based on the most basic intellectual faculties every human being is endowed with, which dictates that the universe as we know it could not have come into existence on its on, but must have been created by a Supreme Intelligence, that Intelligence which for want of a better word we call “G’d.”
After having realized this and having accepted it, we proceed to a more profound level of אמונה, “faith,” a level which results from our intellectual faculties having been refined through the study of G’d’s Torah. The level of “faith” that results from studying Torah is known as השראת שכינה, Divine inspiration.
It is important to realize that the tribe of Levi who was singled out by G’d to perform special religious duties on behalf of the whole nation, was appointed twice. The male members of this tribe became distinctive at the time they had completed the first month of their lives. (Numbers 3,15) They were included in the census already at that tender age, whereas the other Israelites had to await their 20th birthday before they could be included in the census. (Numbers 1,3).
The concept of 12 tribes [excluding the Levites, Ed.] alluded to the commandments of the Creator handed down in the Torah, and that is why they had been given the collective name מטות, “staffs,” as the commandments by which Israelites guide themselves, and which are their main support during their lifetime on earth serve as their support, [in the sense of a walking cane.] They draw on this support to maintain and reinforce their faith in G’d. Performance of the commandments refines our intellect. The tribe of Levi is a special example of this as pointed out in Bamidbar Rabbah 1,12 where the author of the Midrash draws our attention to the fact that this tribe had to be counted in the proximity of the Tabernacle, as it had proven during the episode of the golden calf that it had absolute faith in G’d, and although a tiny minority (about 5%) of the nation, had risked their lives on behalf of G’d, by executing idol worshipping members of the nation. (Exodus 32,27-28).
We already explained that there are two levels of faith in G’d, and corresponding to that the Levites were counted on two levels. (at 30 days, and again when they reached the age of 30 years, (compare Numbers 4,23 et al) By that time their intellects had matured to the extent that they could be described as their faith in G’d reflecting the higher level. Their duties in and around the Tabernacle made it mandatory that they had spiritually matured enough to carry them out while thinking the appropriate religious thoughts.
Initially, G’d had commanded Moses to teach the Jewish people first about the Tabernacle, i.e. to instruct them in the ways to have faith in G’d on the basic level, i.e. to believe that He is the Creator of all phenomena perceived by the senses. The visible symbol of that faith was the structure called משכן. Only afterwards was Moses to teach them about the furnishings in the Tabernacle, the variety of attributes of the Creator, as symbolized in the Tabernacle by the various vessels and furnishings, or in the Torah by the various commandments. Moses, believing that the Jewish people as a whole had already attained the second and higher level of faith, considered it appropriate to acquaint them immediately with the details of the vessels to be used in the Tabernacle. Betzalel, having a more realistic view of the spiritual level of his peers, considered that they should first become familiar with more basic aspects of faith in the Lord as symbolized by the structure called משכן, Tabernacle.
Having said this we can also solve the problem raised by Nachmanides in connection with Exodus 19,4 where the Torah writes: אתם ראיתם אשר עשיתי למצרים....ואביא אתכם אלי, “you have seen what I have done to Egypt……. and I have brought you to Me.” Nachmanides questions the wording there as at that point the Jewish people had not yet experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai and had not yet been given the Torah. We may best understand this by remembering that while in Egypt the Jewish people (the generation experiencing the redemption, not the Israelites who had come to Egypt with Yaakov and their children) had not believed in the G’d of Avraham at all, -to wit their failure to circumcise their male children- so that the redemption was the starting point from which their faith in G’d as the Creator and as the G’d of Israel must be counted. True faith of the whole people did not commence until the first day of the month of Sivan, when for the first time, the Torah describes the Jewish people as united, i.e. ויחן ישראל , “Israel encamped,” (singular mode) as opposed to all previous encampments when the Torah always writes: ויחנו ישראל, Israel encamped, (plural mode). At that time they did not know yet how to serve the G’d Whom they all believed in as the Creator and as the G’d of their forefathers. This nuance is also evident in Onkelos’ rendering the end of Exodus 19,4 ואביא אתכם אלי, usually translated as “I have brought you to Me,” as: וקרבית יתכון לפולחני, “I have brought you near to perform service for Me.”
Another approach to the verse: ובצלאל בן אורי....עשה את כל אשר צוה ה' את משה, a look at Rashi who emphasizes the word כל in this verse as an allusion to Exodus 35,32 where Betzalel’s function is not only described as executive, i.e. someone meticulously carrying out instructions, but as לחשוב מחשבות, “contributing original ideas of his own.” This is explained even better when we look at psalms 119,59 חשבתי דרכי וגו', “I have considered my ways, etc.” On psalms 121,5 ה' צלך, “the Lord is your shadow,” a most difficult statement, the Midrash Shocher Tov explains that just as man’s actions are reflected by his shadow, so G’d also acts in a manner that reflects what man had done. For example; G’d says that “when you (the collective soul of the Jewish people) cry, I too join in your cries.” Therefore, as long as we (the collective soul of the Jewish people) do not forget Jerusalem (while we are in exile), we can be assured that G’d will not forget Jerusalem either. (psalms 137,5). Keeping this in mind we learn how important it is that we carefully consider every step we take in life, as if it is in the wrong direction, G’d may follow our footsteps to our detriment. This is not only a warning but also a compliment, so that we do not consider our actions as insignificant in this great universe, believing that what we do or do not do, does not matter to G’d anyways.
When these considerations are applied to Betzalel, whose very name meant that he had been in G’d’s shadow, he would certainly have to have in mind the appropriate thoughts when fashioning each one of the many vessels used in the Tabernacle. The word בצלאל can just as easily be translated as א-ל הוא הצל שלו, “G’d is his shadow.”
Man’s body, according to our sages, consists of 248 limbs, an allusion to the 248 positive commandments in the Torah, as well as of 365 tendons, corresponding to the 365 negative commandments in the Torah. This has been explained in Kohelet Rabbah (Kohelet 1,3) on the words: והארץ לעולם עומדת, “but the earth endures forever,” as an allusion to the structure of the celestial regions, i.e. just as man has 248 limbs and 365 tendons there are parallel phenomena in heaven. Both the inhabitants of heaven and those of earth share components that correspond to the positive and negative commandments found in the Torah, [and enumerated as such by our sages. Ed.] Seeing that the Tabernacle was designed as the home of the Shechinah on earth, it is natural that it contained components that are parallel, [otherwise how would G’d feel “at home,” in it? Ed.] This is what is meant when the Torah wrote that Betzalel constructed all the components in strict compliance with what G’d had commanded Moses. All the individual components of the Tabernacle conformed to the commandments of the Torah.
When understood along these lines, Rashi’s query how this was possible, seeing that at the time Moses was given these instructions most of the commandments in the Torah had not yet been revealed and communicated to the people; in fact they were only communicated to Moses when the latter was in the Tabernacle. (Compare Leviticus 1,1 ויקרא אל משה וידבר ה' אליו מאהל מועד לאמור, “He called (invited) to Moses, and spoke to him from the Tabernacle saying, etc.” (instructing him to communicate G’d’s commandments to the people.) Betzalel’s having stood in G’d’s shadow at the time when Moses had heard the instructions while on Mount Sinai, was aware of what G’d had told Moses at the time, so that he was able to query what he thought was a lapse of memory on the part of his great leader. The laws of the Torah were first communicated to Moses as a potential, whereas once the Tabernacle had been erected (also called Tent of Testimony), G’d repeated His instructions as an actual, i.e. as applicable as and when capable of being performed.
Exodus 38,23. “and at his side, Oholiov son of Achisamach of the tribe of Dan, carver and designer, etc.;” Our sages in Chagigah 14 comment on the words חרש וחושב by explaining that the word חרש, or חרשים refers to a wise student, who as soon as he opens his mouth causes his teachers to become even wiser when they hear his questions, whereas חרשים are people who when they open their mouths cause others to fall silent, acknowledging superior knowledge.
Perhaps the Talmud refers to two levels of serving G’d; the first uses his intellect, i.e. the common sense G’d has endowed him with to do so, whereas the second does so by contemplating the enormity of the אין סוף, the indescribable superiority of the Creator, something that our common sense cannot even try to comprehend. This distinction has been alluded to in Numbers 12,8 [where the subject is Miriam and Aaron having compared their statures as prophets to that of Moses, Ed.] When G’d explains to them that Moses’ stature of prophecy enables him to תמונת ה' יביט, “to conceptually visualize the Creator as if he saw a picture of Him,” He alluded to the Divine assistance Moses enjoyed when visualizing such difficult concepts. He would only have been able to do so if he had first abandoned and negated any attempt to comprehend G’d’s essence by applying ordinary human intellect. People on that level are described in the Torah as חרש, having made themselves deaf to “normal” ways of perceiving and comprehending phenomena they see. When a person, after having been granted such superhuman perceptions and insights, reverts to his day to day routine, a residue of his experiences while he was on a higher level remains, i.e. he is filled with שפע, divinely transmitted spiritual largesse. As a result he is able to perform the work performed by embroiderers both on blue woolen fabrics, תכלת, and on purple and crimson coloured woolen fabrics, ארגמן. [The finished product of Oholiov’s handiwork reflected that he had been divinely inspired. Ed.]
Exodus 39,3. “they hammered out sheets of gold and cut threads to be worked into the blue wool, etc.;” ….., “the work of a skilful craftsman.”
A major criterion of the categories of work prohibited to be performed on the Sabbath is called מלאכת מחשבת, “work requiring skill.” In order to obtain a more detailed definition of this, the Talmud refers us to all the kinds of work needing skill that were performed in the construction of the Tabernacle. (Compare Beytzah, 13) What the Talmud means is the kind of work performed by Betzalel in connection with the Tabernacle, all of which required for him to be inspired by G’d specifically so that he could carry it out. Seeing that the Tabernacle symbolized the creation of the universe, it is plausible that the type of work, [creative activity, for want of a better expression. Ed.] performed by G’d during those 6 days, (though He only uttered the directive by word of mouth) is what we are to abstain from on the day that G’d abstained from creative activity.
According to Bereshit Rabbah 12,15, G’d commenced creating the universe by employing only the attribute of Justice, but when He saw that the universe would not be able to be stable and could not endure, He co-opted the attribute of Mercy.
When G’d created the universe, He had also prepared all the materials that would be required to ensure that the “work” was carried out successfully, i.e. all the gold, silver and copper, etc; originally, He had planned to use only gold. Upon reflection, He decided that it would be better to use primarily silver. Betzalel similarly, used many different kinds of materials in order to create a Tabernacle that would be a fair replica of the universe G’d had created at the time. Just as G’d decided to co-opt the attribute of Mercy to the attribute of Justice when He was in the process of creating the universe, so Betzalel and his assistants proceeded after first working with chunks of gold to beat the gold into thin sheets, i.e. [as when covering the wooden boards with sheets of gold, (Exodus 26,29) not make them nor the shittim wood the exclusive material, and to make golden threads to interweave with blue wool, etc., so that the precious metal gold would not be the exclusive or even predominant raw material. The composition of different materials used in the making of the Tabernacle demonstrated that though gold may be the most precious material, unless the universe also contained less precious materials it just would not be a “universe.”
[This editor finds it difficult to accept that G’d, Who according to all of our sages, intended for man, and amongst man Israel, to be the crowning achievement of the creation, originally intended to only use the attribute of Justice. It is much easier to understand the fact that the term Hashem is not mentioned in the Torah until G’d had created a free-willed human being, one that could rebel against Him, made the involvement of the attribute of Mercy necessary, is much more plausible, especially when we accept the principle of סוף מעשה במחשבה תחלה, “the final product was the original vision of the Creator”, as we sing in לכה דודי every Friday night. Ed.].
Leviticus
Vayikra
Leviticus 1,1. “He called out to Moses;” the fact that the letter א in this verse is written in smaller script is explained by something we had discussed in Exodus 24,1 on the line: ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', “and to Moses He had said: ‘ascend towards Hashem.’” When a person performs one of G’d’s commandments this makes an impression in the celestial spheres and helps to awaken in him the desire to perform additional commandments so that he will constantly be occupied with doing G’d’s will. It had been Moses’ will to continuously perform G’d’s will and to thereby continue to ascend ever higher and come closer to Hashem as stated by the Zohar when explaining the line: ומשה עלה אל האלוקים, “and Moses had ascended towards G’d,” (Exodus 19,3). G’d’s invitation recorded in Exodus 24 to ascend (once again) was the result of his having done so in Exodus 19,3 when he had commenced to do so before an invitation had been issued to do so. The Zohar II,69 ascribes the invitation to Moses in our verse to ascend to Hashem as a reward for Moses’ initiative in Exodus 19,3. This is reflected here by the letter א being written in small script. It acknowledges the humility of Moses which exceeded anyone else’s humility, i.e. the “small” א.
We have a rule when offering a sacrifice to G’d that this offering is to reflect the largesse that G’d has seen fit to bestow upon us, without us in the lower regions of the universe having performed any good deeds to deserve this. This is the reason that the animal sacrifice must be dedicated and consecrated while still alive, as the ultimate gift G’d can bestow us is life itself. Life can only be bestowed by G’d Himself.
Libations, i.e. offerings consisting of oil or wine (with additives) are a form of “mini-offering,” but they represent an input by the residents in this lower part of the universe, man having had to seed and plant the earth before eventually producing the product from which oil and wine is made. These libations also reflect G’d’s largesse, i.e. the largesse bestowed upon us as a direct result of our constructive activities on earth. In other words, the Israelites were allowed (only after the affair of the spies) to present such libations in recognition of their good deeds.
While the Israelites were in the desert they were in the position of receiving G’d’s largesse without having made an input of their own as they could not seed or plant orchards or grow grain in the desert. In recognition of their inability to do so, G’d provided heavenly bread, i.e. the manna for them. In lieu of their offering libations to Him, G’d provided them with a travelling well which took care of their daily needs for fresh water.
All this has been alluded to in Numbers 15,2 when the Torah begins to describe how the people’s lives will change once they will come to the land of their inheritance, i.e.כי תבאו אל ארץ מושבתיכם וגו', “when you will come to the land in which you will reside permanently, etc.” The Torah there continues with listing the various kinds of offerings (first animal) and then libations, in that order. The reason why these sacrificial offerings are linked to the people being in possession of their permanent homes in the Holy Land is because the sacrifices are reflections, i.e. acts of acknowledgment and gratitude for G’d’s largesse by giving them an ancestral heritage. This also explains why the sages have decreed אין אומרים שירה אלא על היין, “when intoning songs of thanksgiving to G’d one must only do so while saying a blessing over wine (and drinking it) as an acknowledgment of the most precious product that the earth (lower part for the universe) has to offer us by the grace of G’d.” (Compare Rashi on Erchin 11)
Leviticus 5,17. “and if a person who has sinned by inadvertently committing one of the acts that ought not to be committed, and as a result has become guilty;” it is well known that the more a person is engaged in serving G’d the less he thinks of his own worth as an individual when compared to the Creator and His greatness. However, when a person performs a commandment of the Torah and at the same time reflects on the insignificance of the commandment in the overall scheme of things, he commits a wrong; this is the reason why this verse commences with the conjunctive letter ו which is hard to justify from the context of the paragraph. The meaning of the whole line is that as a result of such an attitude he becomes guilty, although the attitude was the direct product of his performing a Torah commandment. [The author clearly arrives at this exegesis as he was at a loss why the Torah had to tell us that a person who transgresses a negative commandment becomes guilty; who did not know this? Ed.]
Tzav
In Parshat Tzav, when the respective sacrifices known as עולה, burnt offering, where the entire animal is burned up on the altar, and חטאת, sin offering for inadvertent violation of many otherwise severely punishable sins are discussed, the Torah first legislates details of the sin offering. The reason for this apparently inverted order, is that although the עולה offering is considered as of a higher order, the sin offering symbolizes what we have elsewhere already described as the אור ישר direct light, original illumination stemming from the highest celestial regions, whereas the עולה symbolizesאור חוזר , reflected light, light containing a human response to the original light. The reason that the entire body of the animal used in the עולה offering is burned up, so that the ריח ניחוח, pleasant fragrance rises heavenwards, is because it proves that man has responded positively to the gift of the “original light.”
This is also the meaning of the line in Leviticus 9,17: ויקרב את העולה ויעשה כמשפט, “He presented the total offering and performed its ritual in accordance with the rules pertaining to it;” The author hints at a parallelism with the letters in the word תשרי in which the letters (excluding the last which symbolizes the name of G’d) appear in the reverse order of the alphabet. The first day of תשרי, New Year’s Day, is the day on which we creatures return to G’d in repentance, i.e. we send out אור חוזר ,“reflected light,” proof that we can respond to G’d’s great kindness in having illuminated our universe with direct light from His essence.
Shmini
Exodus 11,1. Hashem spoke to Moses and Aaron to say to them: speak to the Children of Israel; saying: “this is the category of living creature that you are allowed to eat, etc.;” we must first concentrate on the meaning of the words לאמר אלהם, a combination not found elsewhere in the Torah.
In order to get a better understanding of the legislation that follows it is worthwhile to look at Rashi on Exodus 2,27 where Moses’ sister Miriam asks the daughter of Pharaoh if she should call for her a Hebrew wet nurse to suckle the infant Moses. Rashi explains that Moses had refused to be nursed by any of the Egyptian wet nurses, the reason being that in light of his destiny of communicating closely with G’d in the future, it was not appropriate that his body should have absorbed life-sustaining milk from a ritually impure wet nurse.
Nachmanides adds that what the Torah forbade the Jewish people to eat are those creatures that are cruel and insensitive by nature, and if we were to absorb their meat some of it would leave such tendencies behind in our bodies. The Jewish people being a holy nation must preserve this status and display love and compassion rather than cruelty or insensitivity to the needs of other creatures. We have it on the authority of the prophet Joel (Joel 3,1) that there will come a time when all members of the Jewish people will become endowed with prophetic powers and in order for G’d to communicate with them directly their bodies must retain the capacity to at all times respond lovingly to the needs of others. It would be most inappropriate for the mouth that has been fed ritually unclean and therefore abhorrent creatures, to be addressed by the Divine Presence. An allusion to this future state of affairs is contained in the words לאמר אלהם, “to speak to them,” at this point before the Torah lists the living creatures that are repeatedly referred to as abhorrent, and therefore not fit as food for the Jewish nation, [although, after the deluge all of them had become permitted for the descendants of Noach. Ed.]
Exodus 9,3. “and to the Children of Israel say as follows: ‘take a he-goat for a sin offering;” this verse concludes with the words: “as well as an ox and a ram as a peace offering to slaughter in the presence of the Lord and a gift offering soaked in oil, for on this day the Lord has appeared to you” (collectively). This verse which sounds as if it was an afterthought, raises the question how this was possible as we have a rule (Pessachim 96) that any animal designated as a sacrificial animal must undergo at least 4 days of examination to determine if it is not blemished in any way. Why did G’d command to take these animals and present them as sacrifices on the same day they had been selected without their having to undergo the four day period during which they would be examined as to the state of their fitness? The fact that this occurred on the same day is evident from the fact that Aaron did not descend from the altar and bless the people until all the animals and the gift offering had been presented (verse 23).
It is also significant that the Torah describes Aaron as descending from the altar on which the sin offering, the total offering and the peace offering had been presented, whereas when reporting Moses and Aaron “leaving” before blessing the people, the Torah does not mention what they had been doing inside the Tabernacle before leaving it.
Before answering our question it is necessary to explain a Mishnah in Avot 2,1 in which the author of the tractate Rabbi Yehudah hanassi answers his rhetorical question: “what is the correct course in life that a person must walk?” (how must he organize his daily life), The Rabbi answered: כל שהיא תפארת לעושיה ותפארת לו מן האדם, “he should only do what reflects credit (distinction) upon himself who adopts it as well as confers credit upon himself in the eyes of other people.”
We know from psalms 135,4 that the Jewish people achieved great distinction when we read כי יעקב בחר לו קה ישראל לסגולתו, “for G’d chose Yaakov for Himself, Israel as His treasured possession.” We also know how highly esteemed are the righteous in His eyes who make it their primary concern to serve Him with a sincere heart, so that in the parlance of our sages they are considered as exercising a dominating influence on G’d Himself, as we know from Moed Katan 16 where the Talmud views the source of the righteous dominating influence on G’d as his very fear and awe of G’d. This position of the Jewish people, collectively, is perceived as a higher rank in the celestial regions than that accorded to the angels, and this is why the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 61,10) was able to say שוש אשיש בה', “I greatly rejoice in the Lord,” seeing that Solomon had said in Proverbs 10.1 בן חכם ישמח אב, “a wise son provides his father with joy,” and we, the Jewish people, have been called G’d’s children in Deuteronomy 14,1 where the Torah writes: בנים אתם לה' אלוקיכם, “you are the children of the Lord your G’d.” From this it follows that the righteous child (son) who serves His Father sincerely and meticulously provides G’d with true pleasure.
Let us describe our relationship to G’d in terms of a parable of a father who has a son and this son is so perfect that he does not lack for anything, seeing that his father is blessed with unlimited material wealth and the son provides his father with constant pleasure as he watches his development to manhood. In other words, the father is completely happy. G’d in His capacity of being our “father,” is in a similar position when we serve Him as He deserves to be served, seeing that our obedience and love are the only assets in the universe over which He did not exercise absolute control from the moment they came into existence. Similarly, there is no greater satisfaction for the son than to serve his father lovingly as he is aware that this is the only gift that his father could not have given himself. This is why the prophet Isaiah chose the expression שוש אשיש, “I will rejoice and cause joy”, (אשיש, in the causative mode) emphasizing the reciprocal relationship between us and our father in heaven. Isaiah describes the great joy the Jewish people feel for being privileged to provide this feeling of satisfaction that G’d has when one or more of His free-willed creatures relates to Him in this way. Thousands of angels that obediently carry out G’d’s orders cannot provide Him with a similar feeling of joy, as the angels have not been equipped with a freedom of will, and have to do His bidding regardless of feeling so inclined or not.
G’d Himself has stated in Genesis 8,21 that man is exposed to evil urges from the day he is born, כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, and that the evil urge lies in wait for him before he sets foot outside his home, לפתח חטאת רובץ, so that He certainly makes allowance for this when comparing man serving Him with the angels serving Him. He, as man’s Creator, is familiar with the obstacles man has to overcome in order to become not only a loyal servant of His, but one who is overjoyed to have been granted the privilege to demonstrate this. Man’s greatest achievement is to humble the evil urge [or better, the urge predisposed to lead man into becoming evil, as being G’d’s creature this urge cannot be evil per se. Ed.]
These considerations prompted the Talmud in Sanhedrin 99 to state במקום שבעלי תשובה עומדים צדיקים גמורים אין יכולים לעמוד, “perfectly righteous people, i.e. those who have never tasted sin, cannot take their place next to repentant sinners, as the latter have struggled much harder to rehabilitate themselves after having tasted the immediate benefits in this life of having sinned.” The repentant sinner provided G’d with much greater pleasure when he repented than the צדיק גמור, the unblemished righteous person who had never been exposed to temptation and had conquered it. The repentant sinner had proven that it is possible to break the hold that the evil urge had claimed over him after he had established this hold as a result of his victim having succumbed to temptation the first time.
This is the deeper meaning of the Mishnah in Avot 2,1 where Rabbi Yehudah hanassi described what is a successful course for man to follow in life as being to provide “glory,” תפארת for His maker. The second part of Rabbi Yehudah’s statement that man’s actions should also “confer glory on האדם, “the person having performed these deeds,” our author views as meaning that man should appreciate that his “glory” consists in being able to do what no angel can do, i.e. serve the Lord and provide Him with pleasure due to his having had to overcome obstacles in his desire to serve his Maker. This is the “glory” G’d had bestowed on man. If you were to say that Rabbi Yehudah ascribes this “glory” as emanating from “man,” i.e. מן האדם, what Rabbi Yehudah meant by the word מן, “from,” is “that it originates from,” i.e. man’s glory originates in the very fact that he is “man,” equipped with choices so that making the right choice results in joy in heaven as well as on earth.
Rabbi Moshe Alshich’s commentary on Exodus 25,8 in which G’d instructs the Jewish people through their leader Moses to build for Him a Tabernacle, (residence) on earth in their midst, was not intended to imply that this signaled G’d’s move from the celestial regions to earth, is well known. The purpose of the Tabernacle is to signal that the principal Presence of G’d was to be on earth, i.e. amongst the Jewish people, as is clear from the words: ושכנתי בתוכם, “I shall take up residence amongst them;” the operative word in that line is the word בתוכם, which ought to be translated as “within them,” within the hearts and minds of the Israelites, as opposed to G’d’s presence being confined to a Temple.
When commenting on Leviticus 1,11 ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה, “he is to slaughter it (the sheep or goat offered as a burnt offering) on the northern side of the altar,” our sages comment [seeing that it is quite unclear who is the subject of the word ושחט, Ed.] that it includes also a gentile who offers a burnt offering consisting of a sheep or goat. [I could not find the source of this statement. Ed.]
We need to explain what prompted our sages to make the comment we just quoted. It is generally accepted that the idea of animal sacrifice contains a large measure of symbolism, i.e. that the donor presents the animal in lieu of his own self, who if the sacrifice was in expiation of a sin committed by the donor, should have paid for this with his own life. The expression לכפר עליהם, “to atone on their behalf,” (or a similar formula) appears dozens of times in the Torah in conjunction with animal sacrifice. Our sages therefore saw fit to understand the subject in our verse of the word אותו as not being the animal, but the person presenting it as a sacrifice. They do not,- if I understand the author correctly,- consider this as an act of contrition by the donor of the burnt offering, [seeing that a burnt offering does not atone for transgressions of negative commandments, Ed.] but as an expression of the donor’s love for Hashem, his preparedness to prove that love with his own life.
There are four basic elements making up a healthy animal [of the categories fit for offerings on the altar], and the four elements each require a day’s observation before the prospective animal is approved. The four days therefore symbolize a progressive “spiritual” ascent in the fitness of such an animal to substitute for its owner. Only then is it slaughtered. Once the animal has passed the tests concerning its health, it is perceived as being as close to a human being as is possible, so that it is able to take the place of the human being on whose behalf its being offered.
The chapter that we are discussing described the state of the nation on the eight’s day of the consecration of the Tabernacle, (9,1) the first day of Nissan, a day on which the priests had already completed seven days of preparation. During the preceding seven days the need for an animal sacrifice to atone for the people or the priests did not exist, as both had been sufficiently refined spiritually during those days so that they were in a state of physical and mental purity. The only reason that these sacrifices were presented nonetheless, was to enable the people to rejoice in the presence of the Lord, so that as a result the Shechinah [which had not been manifest since the sin of the golden calf, Ed.] would once more manifest itself as being present among the nation. When the Torah therefore wrote in 9,3 that the people were to take (as a sacrifice) a he-goat, as a sin offering as well as a calf and a sheep as a burnt offering, there was nothing strange in this being done without the customary preparation for these animals for four days prior to their being slaughtered. In fact the words והקרב לפני ה', “and present as sacrifice in the presence of the Lord,” (verse 2) may be understood as specific permission to dispense on that occasion with the usual examinations and waiting period.
If we were to ask why it was possible to dispense with the customary examination, the Torah itself answers this question by writing: ,כי היום ה' נראה אליכם “for on this day the Lord has manifested Himself to you.” G’d promised Moses when He issued the command that He would appear to the people again on that day.
The word אליכם at the end of this verse means: “for your sakes,” בשבילכם, as opposed to בשביל קרבנכם, “on account of your offering”. The presence of the Shechinah was due to G’d’s loving you; this is why there had not been a need of four days preparation for the sacrificial animals prior to their being slaughtered.
The principal reason that only the High Priest was able to be the intermediary for the Jewish people in the process of atonement, was that he had to attain a higher degree of spiritual purity than the remainder of the Jewish people. This enabled the High Priest to achieve atonement on behalf of the Jewish people’s sins.
The principal ingredient of the presence of the Shechinah amongst each individual of the Jewish people was that the Ruler of the entire universe took time to assist each one in his efforts to become a better servant of the Lord. Each one experienced a spiritual uplift according to his prior level of spiritual attainment.
It follows that when a tzaddik is concerned exclusively with his own personal progress toward intimacy with G’d instead of attempting to influence the people around in becoming penitents, he has not really emulated G’d’s attributes, and the Shechinah will not rest on him as he does not share in the merit of having raised the level of spirituality of his peers.
This is what the Torah referred to when it described (Leviticus 10, 22) וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם, “that Aaron raised his hands towards the people and blessed them.” Aaron’s lifting his hands symbolized his elevating himself to a higher spiritual level, one that distinguished him from the people at large, so that after having performed the ritual of offering the sin offering on their behalf, he needed to “descend,” i.e.וירד , in order to continue his former preoccupation of helping the people to attain ever higher levels of spirituality. The need to “descend” spiritually, at first glance sounding like a contradiction in terms, is explained by what we stated earlier that when a tzaddik is preoccupied with elevating his own spiritual level by neglecting his concern for the spiritual progress of his peers, he actually deprives himself momentarily or longer of the presence of the Shechinah. In the case of the duties of the High Priest, such a self-elevation had been a prerequisite for his being able to achieve his purpose; however, this had been permissible only on days when he had to be the people intermediary for their atonement. Once Moses and Aaron left the Tent of Meeting (verse 23 and returned to the people, i.e. their involvement with aiding the people’s spiritual progress, the presence of the Shechinah descended upon them also, as the Torah testifies when writing at the end of this verse: וירא כבוד ה' אל כל העם, “the glory of the Lord appeared to the entire nation.”
Homily for Pesach
Shir HaShirim
Tazria
Leviticus 12,2. “when a woman brings forth seed and gives birth to a male infant,….on the eight’s day the flesh of his foreskin must be removed.”
Many scholars have asked what conceptual link there is of the circumcision having to be performed on the eight’s day after infant’s birth. [Naturally, the Torah’s command, dating back to the circumcision of Yitzchok was accepted without question. Ed.]
[The reader may not find the author’s answer to the question below as fitting the question after having read it. I therefore take the liberty of prefacing his treatment of the subject by reminding the reader that the commandment to be circumcised is addressed to the person himself, not to his father or some other authority. The author addresses the question of why the timing of the circumcision has been advanced so much by the Torah that the infant in question evidently is unable to perform the act himself. In other words, the question as to the timing when the circumcision has to be performed could equally well have been asked if the Torah had decreed the ninth day after the child’s birth, when according to halachah, the function of the penis as a male organ becomes relevant for the first time. Ed.]
We have learned in the Zohar II,13 that G’d created the various universes in order that He be perceived by His creatures as רחום וחנון, ”compassionate and graceful;” on occasion G’d’s compassion is “awakened” by acts performed by the Jewish people, as our sages said in Yevamot 64 where the question is asked from where we have proof in the holy Scriptures that G’d longs to hear the prayers of the righteous. Apart from quoting a verse in Isaiah, the proof is deduced from the fact that Sarah, Rivkah and Rachel were not granted children until they had turned to G’d in prayer.
What we learn from the above is that although G’d initiates compassion and grace, He prefers the human input, i.e. when human beings demonstrate their belief in Him through praying to Him for their needs.
This is the allusion contained in the opening verse of our portion אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, “when the woman (simile for human beings in their capacity as “recipients,”) wishes to arouse heavenly compassion, תזריע, (as simile for the source of all compassion), וילדה זכר, as a result she will give birth (successfully awaken) the masculine attribute of G’d, the source of all compassion, (compassion spelled with a capital C.) The overall message of our verse is that when G’d’s compassion is awakened through action by His creatures, it is strengthened immeasurably. This concept is reflected in the commandment to circumcise the new born infant already on the eight’s day of his life.
The whole idea is explained best when we consider the story of the blasphemer who wanted to know from Rabbi Akiva whether man’s creative actions are more impressive and pleasing than G’d’s actions. (Compare Tanchuma Tazria 5) Without repeating the entire debate related there in which the blasphemer argued that man could not create a universe, Rabbi Akiva who had first pointed out that the fact that we must cut the baby’s umbilical cord, proves that man’s actions are more important. Rabbi Akiva goes on to explain that man’s being born with a foreskin which subsequently is removed is not proof of G’d’s inadequacy, but, on the contrary, is proof that G’d desires for man to perform the “final” touch before a human being (male) is complete, i.e. perfect. G’d chose the earliest possible time in the infant’s life to do this, i.e. the eight’s day, as prior to this the operation endangers the life of the infant. By performing this commandment at the correct time, the father/mohel becomes the instrument that opens the gates to G’d’s compassion in the celestial regions.
An alternate explanation of the line: אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר, “when a woman orgasms before her partner, the resulting infant is a male.” (Compare Rashi based on B’rachot 60 and Niddah 25.)
This also helps to explain the disagreement between the sages if the universe was created in Nissan or in Tishrey, and that the final redemption will also occur in the month corresponding to the creation of the universe. (Compare Rosh Hashanah 10)
We subscribe to the rule that G’d, even without being aroused by man through his actions to extend compassion, will occasionally do so without prompting. On other occasions, He waits with manifesting His compassion until actions by His creatures, i.e. positive actions by the Jewish people, His people, encourage, i.e. “awaken” Him to do so. The “actions” we refer to are the dutiful and joyful performance of the commandments laid down in G’d’s Torah. When G’d’s compassion has been aroused through mitzvah performance, the result of G’d’s manifesting His compassion and providing His largesse will be far more impressive than if He had had to display it without having been “awakened.” The Torah occasionally refers to G’d as איש, “man,” albeit in the construct sense as an attribute, of course, not as part of His essence.
[Example: (Exodus 15,3) ה' איש מלחמה, “G’d is a man of war,” or when an angel appears to Joshua in the guise of a human being and is referred to as איש before identifying himself as an angel, (Joshua 5,13) and similar examples where the expression איש אלוקים, appears to minimize the difference between creature and Creator. Ed.]
Whenever the Torah uses the term איש as a simile for Divinity, the accompanying term אשה also is to be viewed as Divinity, i.e. the feminine receptive aspect of Divinity, or His creatures.
When the Talmud states that when אשה מזרעת תחלה, normally translated as “when the woman orgasms first,” the deeper meaning is when the woman initiates the conception of life, i.e. she has aroused G’d’s compassion, then the “birth” of the resulting זכר, male, did not have to contend with obstructions by negative forces in the universe, whereas when the part of the איש, the part that should have been the initiating part in this interchange has been reduced to that of merely being responsive, the product described is called נקבה, “a female,” i.e. reflecting the fact that it had not been initiated by man’s good deeds, but by G’d’s magnanimity in displaying His compassion without having specific reason to do so.
“Birth” of a נקבה, “female,” is a simile for obstacles of a spiritual nature having accompanied the preceding “pregnancy,” [and it is no wonder that the period of ritual impurity of the mother after she has giving birth to a female infant is so much longer than when she gave birth to a זכר, “male. Ed.]
According to our author the lengthy debate in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah about the month during which the final redemption will occur, does not reflect a dispute. [The introductory “argument” about the “month” in which G’d created the universe is used only as a parallel, seeing that “Time” had not been created at the point when G’d said: “let there be light.” Ed.]
According to our author there is not really any argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua about the “month” when the final redemption will occur. The month of Tishrey is a symbol in which the letters appears in the reverse order of the aleph bet, reflecting the concept of the אור חוזד, G’d’s original light returning after having absorbed human input, especially human input welcome to G’d, i.e. teshuvah repentance. The month of ניסן symbolizing as it does אביב, spring, the letters אב appearing in their normal order, symbolizes the original light emanating from G’d, something that contained no human input. If the Jewish people at the time of the final redemption deserve it, the redemption is viewed as occurring in Tishrey, whereas if they do not deserve it, it is viewed as occurring in Nissan, a period when the attribute of Justice has no foothold as the world was created by pure חסד by G’d, there not having being any need to co-opt the attribute of Justice at that time. Neither of the sages claimed to be a prophet who had foreseen what the moral condition of the Jewish people would be at the time of the redemption.
Still another dimension of the opening verse in our portion אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר; when we look at the Zohar Vayikra (Tazria) 42, we find the statement that from the moment a woman becomes pregnant she no longer can influence the sex of the infant to be born by her prayers. [as this has already been decided by a higher Power. Ed.]
We have a rule that man needs to serve his Creator at all times, and the thoughts that govern this service of the Lord must concentrate on this service not being rendered for the sake of reward by the Creator but in order to afford the Creator a feeling of pleasure and satisfaction for having created such a human being. When he does so, G’d is pleased and will dispense His largesse.
Another exegesis of our verse draws attention to the word וילדה, “she gives birth,” not having been preceded by the usual ותהר, “she conceived and became pregnant.”
Rabbi Yossi, in the above quoted paragraph of the Zohar, stated that G’d distinguishes between a drop of semen containing predominantly alkaline sperm and that which is more acidic, affecting the eventual sex of the infant born. G’d, as the third partner in every human being born, enters the picture after the woman has received seminal ejaculation by her male partner. He then decides the sex of the baby that will result.
Another exegesis of our verse draws attention to the word וילדה, “she gives birth,” not having been preceded by the usual ותהר, “she conceived and became pregnant.”
Rabbi Yossi, in the above quoted paragraph of the Zohar, stated that G’d distinguishes between a drop of semen containing predominantly alkaline sperm and that which is more acidic, affecting the eventual sex of the infant born. G’d, as the third partner in every [clearly a reference to the sacrificial offerings by the Jewish people. The word used in the Zohar is סעודה, “meal.” Ed.] He understood this statement as a hyperbole, similar to when Solomon says in Proverbs 10,1 בן חכם ישמח אב “a wise son causes the father joy.” He meant that the actions performed by the wise son result in his father deriving pleasure from this. Similarly, the Torah’s commandments performed by the Israelites provide their Father in heaven with similar satisfaction and joy. In other words, the word תענוג can also be translated as פרנסה, “livelihood,.” If that were so we must ask ourselves how it is that G’d Who has millions of angels at His command in the celestial spheres should have to look to the Israelites to provide Him with His parnassah?” In our daily prayers (kedushah) we quote the angels who in a celestial choir proclaim the holiness of G’d in awe and fear so that in the words of the psalmist: מה אנוש כי תזכרנו, of what significance is man that You should even make mention of him?” (psalms 8,5)
We have to resort to a parable in order to better understand the Zohar. Imagine that leaders of the gentile nations have undertaken a program to teach a specific bird the language spoken by humans. When somebody hears about this he is so amazed that he tells his colleagues about it, inviting them to personally examine the truth of this statement. The moral of this parable is quite obvious. The human species (gentiles) are invited to observe the effect of the Jewish people observing the commandments of the Torah and the effect of their performing kind deeds towards their fellow man, so that those observing the exceptional success of the Jewish nation will henceforth consider the angels as insignificant by comparison to the Jewish people.
Having said this we can also explain the Mishnah in Avot 2,1 where Rabbi postulated that the proper course for a man being to be successful is to perform deeds that reflect glory on those who perform it, inasmuch as he is a human being, i.e. מן האדם. If and when man in spite of having been provided with both a body and a soul, succeeds in sublimating his body to such a degree that it serves almost exclusively his wish to better serve the Lord and provide Him with pleasurable satisfaction, then he has attained a far higher spiritual rank than the angels in heaven. He has enabled G’d to “brag” about His decision to create man, and has stilled once and for all the opposition in heaven which had been voiced by some of the angels when His intention had become known.
This is all parallel to the explanation of psalms 118,23 מאת ה' היתה זאת היא נפלאת בעינו, “this has originated with Hashem, it is marvelous in our sight.,” by my revered teacher Rabbi Dov Baer of Meseritch. He zeroed in on the word זאת in this verse, understanding it as a reference to the female element [as opposed to the word זה in the verse immediately following, Ed.]; We explained earlier that the principal element in serving G’d is to provide Him with pleasurable satisfaction, i.e. making Him a recipient rather than an initiator, originator. Basically, the role of a recipient is that of woman who, when compared to man, is always viewed as a recipient. We have already explained repeatedly that this does not make woman “inferior,” as we described the אור חוזר, “the reflective light,” good deeds performed by man in response to G’d having blessed him with light that he had done nothing to deserve, as superior in moral ethical terms, to even the original light the , אור ישר.
Every human being, until he became a viable human being, had to undergo three stages in that development, insemination, embryonic existence in the mother’s womb, pregnancy, and birth. The stage we described as insemination is understood in the parlance of Kabbalists, as התעוררות, a form of awakening, arousal, which calls on man’s heart to serve his Master, the Creator. The stage known as pregnancy is reached when an individual is ready and willing to fulfill G’d’s commandments. Finally, birth, is the stage when man is actively engaged in performing the commandments of the Torah. This is what our sages in Rosh Hashanah 4 alluded to when they said, quoting psalms 45,10 נצבה שגל לימינך בכתם אופיר, “a consort stood at our right decked in gold from Ophir.” They understood the psalmist to say that as a reward for the Israelites deriving more pleasure from serving the Lord than the average person experiences when engaging in marital intercourse, שגל, they have been rewarded with gold from Ophir. [the source of the most precious gold. Ed.]
On the face of it, we must wonder what prompted the psalmist to make a comparison between a physical sensation, such as having sexual relations, with the spiritual experience of serving the Lord?
The performance of the sexual act is often an act of indulging one’s libido in sins of the most severe kind, so what bearing does this have on how we serve the Lord?
I believe that what the psalmist, a descendant of Korach, had in mind when he said this was that the sexual act consists of reciprocal parts played by the משפיע, the initiator, the male, the משפיע, and the recipient, the woman, the מקבל. This is the reason why the sages chose to emphasize the feeling of lust of the person indulging in initiating forbidden sexual intercourse, as it is contrasted by the psalmist with the exact opposite, the overwhelming desire by the Jewish man to please his Creator by performing His commandments with an enthusiasm similar to the sinner enjoying forbidden sex.
This is also what the Zohar we quoted had alluded to when he said that from the moment a woman has become pregnant she concentrates exclusively on looking forward to the day she gives birth to a male infant. The “woman” in the Zohar is a simile for the collective soul of the Jewish people, כנסת ישראל, and the term “pregnancy,” refers to the moment when the Jewish people made the decision to serve the Lord, whereas the “birth” in that line of the Zohar, refers to the time when the Jewish people collectively have made good on their resolution to serve the Lord. When the “woman” in the Zohar is viewed as looking forward anxiously to giving birth to a male child, the simile describes the hope of the collective soul of the Jewish people to perform its service of the Lord in such a manner that it is recognized as זכר, male, as then it will be the trigger for releasing G’d’s largesse in abundant measure throughout the universe
Metzora
Leviticus 14,34. “I will give (inflict) an eruptive plague upon the house that has become your ancestral possession.” The reader is referred to Rashi who sees in this verse good tidings for the owner of such a house. This is because the plague of tzoraat which requires the owner to tear down the whole house will reveal treasures buried underneath by the previous owner, amounting to far more in value than the whole house is worth.
We must remember the rule that the true joy man experiences is when he elevates the “fallen” sparks from the Shechinah bringing them to the level of serving their Creator. When he succeeds in doing that, the spirituality contained within these “sparks” elevates not only the spirituality that is part of him, but even has a sublimating, spiritually elevating effect on the parts of him that are secularly oriented, known as his חצוניות, so that he is enabled to discard that part of himself.
Once he has succeeded in getting rid of this essentially physical part, his house is liable to develop a נגע, i.e. the evil smelling residue of what remains of the physicality that has been transported to spiritually higher regions.
When the Torah in our verse speaks of the house’s exterior suddenly displaying signs of a plague, this is nothing other than the evil smelling residue left behind in their house after the Israelites had fulfilled G’d’s commandment (Deuteronomy 20,16) not to allow any of the Canaanite residents to survive. When Rashi speaks of this verse containing glad tidings for the Jewish people, he refers to their joyful discovery that the sparks themselves had left (for spiritually higher regions)?
Lviticus 15,18. “when a man has had sexual intercourse with a woman, both of them have to ritually cleanse themselves in a ritual bath, after which they remain ritually impure until evening.” Rashi states that the decree that the woman too remains ritually impure until nightfall is a Divine decree for which no explanation has been offered.
At first glance Rashi’s comments are hard to understand as they appear to defy logic, as the whole idea of ritual defilement being a result of man performing the first commandment in the Torah, to be fruitful and multiply, when he engages in marital relations with his wife should not result in ritual contamination of either party.
We must therefore conclude that it is not the act of engaging in marital relations which causes the ritual defilement. The problem is that the urge to engage in sexual relations is aroused by the evil urge, and this being so, even when the act is performed in order to fulfill the commandment to have children, it is impossible not to derive some physical pleasure from performing this act, and this part of performing the commandment is what accounts for the need to purify oneself subsequently and thus atone for impure thoughts entertained during performance of the commandment, i.e. the act of impregnating one’s partner with one’s sperm.
The matter is comparable to a powerful king who had two servants, both of whom were members of the highest nobility in the kingdom. The King charged both of these noblemen with carrying out a specific task on his behalf. Both of these noblemen carried out their part of the task in accord with their instructions, the only difference between the two being their motivation when carrying out this task. One of the noblemen carried out the task in order to provide the king, his master, with a sense of satisfaction and pleasure, whereas the second one was motivated purely by the fact that it was a task the performance of which was very much to his liking, his having wished that he could have performed it even without having been given the opportunity to so by the king’s command. When the first nobleman carried out the king’s command the effect of his performance was that he “enthroned” the king, i.e. testified to the King’s legitimacy and power, whereas the second nobleman, although he had performed the identical act, had thereby merely indulged his personal desires.
The same distinction applies to husbands who perform the act of marital intercourse with their respective wives, knowing that they thereby fulfill their Creator’s command. A husband who uses the opportunity of marital intercourse with his wife in order to satisfy his sexual urges, cannot lay claim to have done so as a way of “enthroning,” i.e. confirming that he recognizes G’d as his Master. This is what Rashi meant by his comment on the words: וטמאו עד הערב, “they will remain ritually impure until the evening.” When Rashi referred to the fact that seminal emission causes ritual impurity as a “royal decree,” he referred to people fulfilling a royal decree not because they meant thereby to “enthrone” the king.
From all this we learn how careful a person has to be when carrying out Torah commandments that he does so for the correct reasons, primarily to “enthrone” the Creator by his willing observance.
The Talmud (Chagigah 5) relates that Rabbi Iylah once overheard a youngster in school reading aloud a verse from Amos 4,13, where the prophets says: מגיד לו מה שיחו, “(G’d)can quote back to a person every word he uttered, (even words spoken during the intimacy in the conversation with his wife while in bed);”
Rabbi Moses Isserles in his glossary on the Orach Chayim chapter 1,1 explains the importance of the verse in psalms 16,8 where David says that “I am ever mindful of the Lord’s presence,” שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד וגו'. The simple meaning of this line is that we must never consider ourselves as being “alone,” unobserved wherever we are, as G’d is aware of all our deeds everywhere and of all our thoughts. This must be one of the first thoughts that cross our minds when awakening in the morning. When we keep this verse in mind this will go a long way toward ensuring that both our actions and our thoughts and plans remain within the channels which the Torah encourages us to navigate. Both Jeremiah 23,24 who said, quoting G’d: “if a man enters a hiding place, do I not see him?”, and the Mishnah in Avot 2,1 which concludes with Rabbi Yehudah (the editor) telling us: “know what is above you; a seeing eye and a hearing ear, and that all your deeds are being recorded in The Book, and you will not easily fall into the grip of sin;” have made the same point using slightly different syntax.
Nonetheless Rabbi Yehudah’s words need further analysis, since “how can we know what is above us,” i.e. beyond our powers of perception with our senses? Seeing that Hashem resides not only in the celestial regions which are beyond access to us but even in higher regions than the highest ranking angels, the seraphim, what did Rabbi Yehudah hanassi mean when he used the world דע!? Why did Rabbi Yehudah add the word ממך, “beyond you?”
Before answering this question we must first understand a verse in psalms 34,16 in which David describes עיני ה' אל צדיקים ואזניו אל שועתם, G’d’s “eyes” as trained on the righteous, whereas His “ears” as tuned in to their prayers. How does an ordinary Jew, one who has been brought up to believe that G’d is not corporeal, does not possess a body, etc.,” relate to David describing physical organs as performing acts for which physical organs are required? Is it not one of the basic 13 “dogmas” of Maimonides that (article 3) “the Creator blessed be his name is not a body and He is free from all the properties of matter and that he has not any form whatsoever?”
Actually, King David, in the verse quoted from psalms 34,16 intended to convey to us a very important point. The Midrash speaking about psalms 121,5 ה' צלך על יד ימינך, “the Lord is your shadow, on your right side,” points out that just as the shadow of a human being accompanies him wherever he goes whenever he goes there, so G’d accompanies man. David’s message therefore is that when man, in his capacity of being a servant of the Creator acts accordingly, G’d on His part will act as if He were the “shadow” of this tzaddik, as if He were copying what the tzaddik does in the lower regions of the universe, in His own region in the celestial spheres. When man “enthrones” G’d by his words and actions, when his soul nightly ascends to the celestial regions it will find that the angels have prepared a great welcome for him as they have heard about his accomplishments on behalf of the Creator in the lower regions of the universe. If we were to illustrate this relationship by means of a parable, consider this.
A young son has performed an intelligent act, (according to his age and mental capacity). When this comes to his father’s attention, the father will boast about his son’s accomplishment, i.e. he will take some or most of the credit for his son’s achievement. He will do so, although, when measured by the father’s level of intelligence the son’s achievement is really insignificant.
The important factor here is that although the son is only five years old in our parable, and as such possesses the intellect of a five-year old, the father is entitled to rejoice over the fact that his son has fulfilled all the expectations a father could have of a five-year old. The same applies to human beings who serve their Creator. They are not expected by the Creator to display the intellectual maturity of the Creator Himself. Perhaps this is what David had in mind when he said in psalms 111,10 ראשית חכמה יראת ה' שכל טוב לכל עושיהם, “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord, all who practice it gain sound understanding.” It makes perfect sense therefore that when G’d looks at the tzaddikim and He observes how these physical human beings perform the commandments in the Torah and how they live up to their potential, it gives Him an opportunity to demonstrate to the myriads of celestial servants of His, that in creating a human being and endowing this species with the ability to rebel against Him through the free will He granted them, He had not erred. When a human being does good with his eyes, i.e. he displays compassion for his less fortunate peers, G’d “engraves” this fact on His throne to serve Him as a constant reminder of this fact. The same is true when a Jew “listens” to the commandments of the Torah when he hears them read out, and as a result performs them. As a reminder, G’d engraves “ears” on His throne
When David, in psalms 34,16 spoke about the עיני ה', “the Lord’s eyes,” he did not mean that G’d possesses “eyes” and other organs in the sense that we understand this in our regions of the universe, but what he means is if, as our sages tell us that the features of the patriarch Yaakov were engraved on G’d’s “throne,” to the question of ”whence did images of such physical organs penetrate the heavenly spheres,” both David and our sages describe how G’d has an enduring reminder of the accomplishment of the righteous and the organs they have used to serve Him and perform His commandments had them “engraved“ on His throne as a constant reminder, especially at times when His people experience a spiritual slump. At such times, the “eye” engraved on G’d’s throne may be closed instead of open. When Rabbi Yehudah in Avot 2,1 warned us to look at מה למעלה ממך, he did not refer that we should look at G’d, but he meant that we should remember that the image of man engraved on G’d’s throne reflects the condition of man down on earth as the images on G’d’s throne are not static but their condition alternates according to the spiritual condition of His people on earth. This “eye” on G’d’s throne observes what we do on earth; the ears on that countenance of our patriarch Yaakov “hear” what and how we speak. Its condition reflects whether what it heard gave G’d pleasure or the reverse. Rabbi Yehudah reminds us that it is what we do down here that determines whether our image in the celestial regions remains a positive one.
We may also use Rabbi Yehudah’s simile regarding how our actions on earth are recorded and evaluated In the celestial spheres as a means to understand Hillel’s answer given to the heathen who was willing to convert to Judaism on condition that Hillel was able to teach him Judaism during the time he was able to stand on one foot. (Shabbat 31) Hillel summed up Judaism by telling the prospective convert that “what is hateful to you do not do to any of your fellow man.”
The Talmud Baba Kamma 92 phrases it as a negative virtue when it warns us not to throw a stone into a well from which we had first drunk water.
The “fortune” that the Creator has given to each one of us for free, is our body and its organs as well as the intellectual faculties which serve us well during our life on earth. Is it conceivable that we should be so lacking in gratitude as to refuse to carry out the minimal demands made upon us by our Creator?
If anyone of us does not fulfill G’d’s commandments is G’d not entitled to become very angry at such a person? All we have to do to realize how unjustifiable such a conduct is, is the fact that we ourselves consider anyone not showing gratitude to a fellow human being who had gratuitously endowed us with material wealth as below contempt. What Hillel told the heathen who wished to convert is nothing else than that in Judaism we consider an ingrate as having committed the cardinal sin. The word מעלה in Rabbi Yehudah’s statement can also be translated as “virtue,” i.e. consider in your relationship with G’d that you have demonstrated on earth that you know how to practice gratitude. Surely, the gratitude you owe your Creator cannot be less than what you owe your peers on earth? Rabbi Yehudah implies that virtues we practice daily in our dealings with fellow human beings, must certainly also be practiced in our dealings with G’d.
Achrei Mot
Exodus 16,1 “after the death of two of Aaron’s son when they came (too) near to the Presence of Hashem and died (as a result).”
There is a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua concerning the precise meaning of our verse. Rabbi Eliezer holds that these two sons of Aaron were guilty of giving halachic rulings in the presence of their teachers, i.e. pre-empting them. Rabbi Joshua holds that their sin consisted in entering sacred precincts in a state of drunkenness. (Compare Vayikra Rabbah 20,7 and 9 respectively) We need to understand how Rabbi Eliezer deduced that the sons of Aaron issued a halachic ruling without consulting their teachers from the words: בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו. If the reason they died was that they had not asked permission from Moses or Aaron to enter the sacred grounds, why did the Torah omit mentioning the most important reason for their death? Rabbi Joshua’s claim that they were drunk is also apparently unsupported by the text.
In order to better understand the opinion that these sons of Aaron were guilty of bypassing their teachers in not asking permission to enter the holy precincts of the Tabernacle, we must first understand why a sin described as failing to ask permission from their teachers should carry the death penalty at the hands of G’d. After all, they had not given an erroneous ruling, so that their sin would seem to have been only “bad manners.”
We must understand that when G’d created the world He also created boundaries between different domains both on earth and in the celestial regions. Any angel that enters a domain that is not his without express permission to do so, is immediately burned up. The chain of the domains in the universe begins (top) with the domain of the angels known as Seraphim, the domain containing G’d’s throne. The next lower domain is the domain of the angels known as chayot. The next lower level in the celestial domains is that known as ophanim. Starting with the next “lower” domain we enter the world of tzimtzum, described in the Kabbalistic texts as the 10 emanations, ספירות. If any angel enters a domain above the level he has been assigned, he simply disappears into nothingness.
There is a similar system of varying domains among the Jewish people. G’d had first condensed His brilliance so that Moses could bear it. Moses in turn had to condense it further for the protection of his brother Aaron when he spoke to him. This process continued with Aaron’s sons followed by the elders, followed again by the prophets, and thence eventually comprised all the Israelites. We know this on the authority of the Talmud in Eyruvin 54 in the paragraph commencing with the words: כיצד סדר משנה?, “what was the order in which the Torah was taught to the Israelite people originally?” The problem with Aaron’s sons was that they wanted to skip a rank to a higher level than that which had been assigned to them. They had not bothered to ask either Moses or Aaron who belonged to a higher domain permission to do so. They simply “presented themselves” before G’d without having obtained the credentials that would have made them welcome. As a result they were removed from earth. What happened to them could equally have happened to any other Israelite on a lower level who had presumed to “promote” himself without the blessing of his spiritual mentors. The principle known in the Talmud as המורה הלכה בפני רבו, “teaching halachic rulings in the presence of one’s teachers” i.e. trying to jumpstart closer relations to Hashem without their mentors’ approval is a severe enough sin to warrant the death penalty at the hands of G’d.
[When Pinchas, almost 40 years later did something, which on the face of it appeared as similar, this was not only not punishable but deserved reward as he was fully aware that he risked his life by doing so, but he did not do so from a feeling of superiority to his mentors but to save the lives of many thousands of Israelites who were already becoming victims of a plague that raged in the camp. (Numbers 25,6-8) Ed.]
After this tragic occurrence, the Torah, in order to make this point clear once and for all, legislates that even the High Priest Aaron, an intimate of G’d, allowed to pronounce the holy name of G’d, should know that even he could not arbitrarily choose when to invoke this intimacy and that he could enter the holy of Holies in the Tabernacle only when invited to do so, or when the ritual prescribed by the Torah for certain days in the calendar made this an annual event. (Compare 15,2)
Let us now explore what caused the scholars who claimed that these two sons of Aaron were drunk on the occasion mentioned in Leviticus 10,1-3, to arrive at that conclusion.. At first glance one shudders how these scholars could accuse these אצילי בני ישראל, “these noble souls” amongst the Israelites of having been guilty of such conduct when the Torah had not spelled it out! ? Had not the Torah in Leviticus 10,8-11 spelled out that entry into the Tabernacle in a state of inebriety is a capital sin? How could these sons of Aaron have ignored this?
I believe we can find the answer to this question by examining the text in Leviticus 10 more closely.
The words: זה הדבר אשר צוה ה' לעשות וירא אליכם כבוד ה', “this is the thing that you must do in order that the glory of Hashem will appear to you,” in that paragraph appear to be superfluous, or at least not connected to the subject under discussion. (Leviticus 9,6)
Rashi, in commenting on Leviticus 9,23 near the end of this paragraph where the Torah writes: ויצאו ויברכו את העם, “they came out (Moses and Aaron from the Tabernacle) and blessed the people,” writes that during the seven preceding days of the consecration rites for the Tabernacle the Shechinah had not manifested itself so that the people had complained why they had gone to such lengths to build the Tabernacle if after all this G’d had not seen fit to take up residence among them. Moses told them what they must do in order to merit that the Shechinah would manifest itself amongst them again as proof that the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven. He explained that seeing that his brother Aaron, who was the High Priest was more worthy than he, until Aaron had presented sacrifices in the Tabernacle, G’d’s glory would not become manifest. This is why in verse 24 we are told that Aaron performed his duties as a result of which the Shechinah manifested itself in that heavenly fire consumed the portions of the sacrifices on the altar. There does not appear to be an allusion to all this in the text of the Torah, so where did Rashi take his exegesis from?
When man serves his Creator he experiences a feeling of great pleasure as he is aware that he thereby provides pleasure for his Creator. This is the allegorical meaning of Proverbs 10,1 בן חכם ישמח אב, “that an intelligent son provides pleasure for his father.” This pleasure or joy is not limited to one domain in the universe but spreads throughout the universe. A call goes out in all parts of the universe to honour the person who, through his devoted service to his Creator, has provided so much pleasure in the whole universe. There is no greater pleasure than this.
However, seeing that we are aware of this, this reduces our service to the Lord to one that is tied to the expectation of reward. Maimonides in his hilchot teshuvah chapter 10 goes so far as calling such service of G’d as being שלא לשמה, “keeping Torah commandments for ulterior motives.” The principal purpose of pure service of the Lord is that it is performed in recognition of the greatness of the Creator Who provides all forms of life in this universe and Who has endowed us with souls that contain Divine qualities.
We may well ask why no mention is made in the Torah of any reward for performance of the Torah’s commandments that accrues to the doer in the world beyond death of the body. Reward in the עולם הבא, the world to come, while discussed at length by our sages, is not dealt with in the written Torah at all. [The conclusion of the author’s paragraph is missing.]
Leviticus 18,4. “you shall observe My social laws and My statutes you shall guard carefully;” the “statutes” are the commandments in the Torah concerning which the Torah did not reveal why the Creator has commanded that we observe them, neither do they commend themselves to our intellect. We must remember that the true test of a Jew’s belief in G’d is if and how he observes these statutes. If he keeps these statutes meticulously he thereby refines his character. If one chooses to perform only those commandments for which the Torah has either provided a rationale, or concerning which we think that we understand what G’d had in mind when He decreed them, one demonstrates thereby that he does not have any intellect at all, i.e. he will not even understand the true reason behind commandments that he has chosen to observe. This is the true meaning of the line: את חקותי תשמרו. The Torah promises that if we observe the statutes without knowing their reason our reward will be that we will truly understand the משפטים, the rules that appear first and foremost to address themselves to the relations between man and his fellow man. When the Torah wrote (18,5) אשר יעשה אתם האדם וחי בהם, “which man is to perform in order that he may live through them,” it alludes to this effect of performing those commandments that we cannot understand..
Levitcus 18,6. “none of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness; I am the Lord.”
I first wish to explain what King Solomon said in Proverbs 3,6 בכל דרכיך דעהו, “in all your ways you are to acknowledge Him.” Solomon means that all our activities should have as their ultimate aim to provide our Creator with satisfaction and pleasure. When man marries a woman this should not merely be a legal means of satisfying his sexual urges, but should be fulfillment of the first commandment in the Torah. When having marital relations with one’s wife, the object should not be to satisfy one’s libido. The words: איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו refer to his wife as being שאר בשרו. The words: לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, mean that when you engage in intimate relations with your wife you are not do so only for the purpose of satisfying your sexual urges. The reason why the verse concludes with the words: אני ה', is a reminder that even while engaging in the most physical act, one not only legally condoned by G’d but commanded by Him, you should never forget that you are doing so in order to fulfill one of His commandments.
Kedoshim
Levitcus 19,2. “Be holy, etc.!” Vayikra Rabbah 24,9, considering the words: כי קדוש אני, “for I am holy,” asks whether it is possible that the Torah demands that we, the Jewish people, are to be as holy as He is? The Midrash’s answer is that, on the contrary, the words כי קדוש אני, indicate that true sanctity is something reserved for the Creator alone. However holy we can become, His holiness will always be superior to ours.
Earlier commentators have already dealt with the meaning of this verse at length, i.e. the question of how serving the Lord can be performed by means of holiness, and they concluded that this refers to serving the Lord with one’s heart. As to precisely how this is to be done, we have learned in Taanit 2 that prayer is the best means of serving the Lord with one’s heart. The “prayer” meant by the Talmud there is not that we address our requests to the Lord, but that we express our awareness of His greatness and at the same time our inadequacy to express with words what we really feel about Him. By stating that compared to Him we are only dust and ashes, that we are sullied by our sins, and that we accept the yoke of serving Him as our Master, we can begin to gradually develop the level of holiness that it is possible for any of His creatures to attain.
When Solomon in Proverbs 1,5 speaks of ישמע חכם ויוסף לקח, a wise man will hear and (each time) increase his learning, he speaks of how continuous, and even more so, repetitive Torah study will increase our level of spirituality, holiness.
In this connection our author refers to the well known dispute about the proper procedure in lighting the Chanukah candles. (Shabbat 21) The school of Shammai held that we start with eight candles on the first night and progressively light one candle less each evening. The school of Hillel takes the opposite view, ruling that we light only one candle on the first night but increase this by an additional candle each night until on the last night we light eight candles. The school of Hillel explains that the reason why they want to increase the number of lights each night, is although the amount of miracle oil has steadily declined, the appreciation of the miracle increases with each night that we pronounce the blessing when lighting the candles as an act of gratitude for G’d’s miracle at the time. With increasing recognition of the miracle of Chanukah there comes an increased awareness of our relationship to the Creator, or expressed differently, מצוה גוררת מצוה, “the performance of one of G’d’s commandments brings in its wake the desire to fulfill more of His commandments.” Recognition of the greatness of G’d inevitably leads to an awareness of the puniness of man when compared to Him. It is this awareness of our own limitations that gradually brings us closer to understanding and emulating the virtue of the אין סוף, ultimate form of humility. The school of Hillel, disciples of Hillel who was world renowned for his personal modesty and humility, followed their mentor when they formulated the concept of מוסיף והולך, that a spark of holiness feeds upon itself and makes ripples like a pebble thrown on the surface of the water.
This idea is also reflected in the opening words of our portion קדושים תהיו, “commence the process to become holy, as it is continuous and feeds on itself.” An additional factor helping you to progress along this route is כי קדוש אני, “for I am holy,” i.e. when you contemplate My holiness this will inspire you to emulate My holiness to the extent that this is humanly possible. In fact, G’d says that His own holiness will increase proportionate to the amount of holiness to be found amongst His people on earth.
[This is not a surprising statement, as in matters of purity and impurity as well as in matters of holiness and secularity we do not apply objective yardsticks but subjective, relative ones. A good example is to be found in Leviticus 14,36 where despite the fact that according to reason the furnishings in the afflicted house would be ritually impure as the house is impure, the inhabitants are allowed to remove them before the arrival of the priest. Ed.]
One of the most welcome phenomena on earth that G’d looks upon with the greatest pleasure is the virtue of humility. This thought is reflected in Proverbs 22,4 עקב ענוה יראת ה', “the natural result of humility is fear of the Lord; the more people practice humility the greater the holiness of G’d.”
[The virtue of humility is not only great but is most difficult to acquire. First one must possess qualities that are the result of building one’s character; once one does possess these qualities which others boast about, one must go about one’s business as if unaware of possessing such qualities. If Moses had responded to the accusation of his sister Miriam (had he heard them), he would have done so at the expense of his humility. Ed.]
Another approach to the words קדושים תהיו and what it means, seeing it is an abstract virtue and cannot be demonstrated by deeds. In order to understand this we need to explain why this line is followed by איש אמו ואביו תיראו, the commandment to “fear” one’s mother and father. This too will be better understood after we appreciate the saying in Avot 3,1 where Akavya ben Mahallel exhorts us to keep the following three concepts in mind at all times, as they are a great help in preventing us from committing transgressions. He asks us to remember of our lowly origin, i.e. a putrid drop of sperm, where we are headed for, i.e. dust, and to whom we will have to render an accounting, i.e. the Highest Judge in the universe.
Reading the words of such a model of humility as Akavya ben Mahallel, probably the most humble person of his generation, telling us about his fear of facing the heavenly tribunal after his death, brings home to us what true humility is all about, as he does not even credit himself with possessing the lowest level of fear of the Lord, the level based on יראת העונש, fear of punishment. Another remarkable feature of his Mishnah is its somewhat cumbersome and lengthy wording. Why did Akavya not simply say: “know that you originate from a putrid drop of sperm, etc;?” This would have saved more than half the words he used.
We hope to justify Akavyah’s using the language the Mishnah recorded. Akavyah posits that a person in evaluating himself, taking stock of himself, is tempted to look at a list of his achievements first. If that person is a good person, Akavyah reminds him that seeing that he is “descended” from an evil smelling drop of semen he does not really have anything to boast about. If he is a morally weak or inferior person, he is reminded of his superior ancestors as his origin, something which should make him ashamed for not living up to his forefathers’ standards. Akavya was aware that there are two levels of “fear of the Lord.” The lower level is called “fear of punishment,” whereas the higher level is called יראת הרוממות “the awe of the overwhelming superiority of the Creator.” He therefore addresses both categories of individuals, assuming that each category finds it difficult on occasion to resist the evil urge so that he may commit a transgression. True יראת השם is only this latter category of “awe and reverence of the Lord.” This is the level of יראת שמים of the righteous, seeing that the צדיק always focuses on the concept of the אין סוף, “G’d as personification of infinity.” In Job 18,12 we have been taught that חכמה , “true wisdom,” is only found in the realm described as מאין, same letters as אין in אין סוף. The tzaddik always keeps reflecting on the fantastic concept of the infinity of the Creator and how He is in charge of millions of different categories of holy angels and a universe the extent of which boggles the imagination. He thinks of how all these angels are in constant awe of Him so that through his preoccupation with such thoughts he does not fall victim to the urge to taste the physical pleasures offered by the region into which we have been placed by our fate. These physical urges, after all, have become part of him only by genetic transmission from his father and mother, whereas his divine soul, G’d’s contribution to every human being as an integral part of Him, is supplied by Him Who, most certainly is not subject to such urges. It was Moses’ ability to concentrate on that “third” of his ancestry, i.e. the אין סוף, that resulted in his being described as איש האלוקים, a “godly man.” (Deuteronomy 33,1) He had attained this status by becoming what the Torah called: “the most humble man on earth.” (Numbers 12,3) It follows from the Torah’s definition of his personality that he had concentrated on the closest possible connection with what was concealed from him, (as well as from any living human being) i.e. G’d’s essence, so that he considered himself as אין, as if non-existent, immaterial.
Anyone who has the good fortune to have refined his personality to such an extent can hardly have considered himself as having originated from a putrid drop of sperm, in the words of Akavya, neither would he have considered himself as proceeding to a destination described by Akavya as עפר רמה ותולעה, “dust, decay and vermin.”
It is also known that the tzaddik is referred to as בן, “son” by G’d, and when a son comes to his father, even in order to be judged, he does not approach his father with fear as he is sure that his father will find him innocent of the accusations which resulted in his having to stand trial. Such self-confidence by a son is not automatic if the son had all his life been obeying his father only because he had feared being punished if any wrongdoing of his would be discovered. The fact that this type of son had not looked up to his father as someone deserving of the utmost respect regardless of his power to mete out punishment, had prevented a close bond being established between father and son. Hence the son’s real anxiety when appearing before his father as an accused. The son whose obedience was based on fear of punishment is far more closely tied to his physical father and mother, so that when reminded that his origin in this world goes back to a putrid drop of semen this is likely to remind him of his insignificance, and will restrain him from committing transgressions, most of which are due to his arrogance vis a vis his peers. He is not in a relationship of son to his Creator, but rather in the relationship of servant to master. When a servant is summoned to appear in court to answer some accusation, he is not supremely confident of his acquittal, -assuming that he is innocent,- but is greatly worried about the outcome of the trial. This is what Akavya had in mind when he addressed his saying, while not to sinners, but to two different categories of Jews both of whom observe the commandments but for different reasons. When he spoke of concerning yourself with “where you are headed,” he meant that when you worry to constantly become closer to your Creator as you serve Him because of your יראת הרוממות, he meant that this by itself would ensure that he would not lapse into sin. When addressing the person serving G’d from fear of punishment, however, he reminded that person that failure to consider that his destination might become only dust, decay and vermin, without the prospect of a hereafter, this might act as a deterrent to being lured into sin. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the reason why the verse איש אמו ואביו תיראו, which on the face of it appears to repeat the fifth commandment to “honour your father and mother,” with a minor variation, is inserted by the Torah at this point to warn us not to attach oneself to the merely physical parts of mother and father, but to seek closer association with the Divine Father, one’s spiritual origin. Of this part of man’s origin only can it be said: כי קדוש אני, “for I am holy.”
Leviticus 19,3. “every person is to revere his or her mother and father and you are to observe My Sabbath days.” It is a psychological rule that when someone is afraid of something or someone, a small portion of the fear is transmitted and radiated by his personality when he is in contact with others. Clearly, he is not able to reflect the full extent of his fear, especially when the subject is fear of the Lord, as the whole concept of G’d is a concept that cannot be adequately expressed in mere words.
As a practical example of what we mean, take the powerful phenomena in nature, all of which through being His creatures are clearly in a state of awe vis a vis their Creator, so much so that a small portion of this awe is transmitted to the person or persons looking at these powerful phenomena such as the sun, electrical storms, the vast firmament filled with stars, etc. At the same time, none of these phenomena are able to transmit the full extent of their awe for the Creator to the people who look at them.
[The way that various parts of the physical universe reflect a minute part of the fear of the Lord with which they relate to Him is that they appear to us as sources of outpourings of blessings or curses. It is possible to err and to feel that this reflected fear of the Lord emanated by them is the “real” thing, i.e. that these phenomena though mere creatures are Divine. This is a “chance” that the Creator has taken, relying on our common sense not to mistake the agent for the originator. This also was G’d’s answer to the questioner who accused G’d of misleading us by providing a sun which could be mistaken as a deity. I have felt it necessary to insert this paragraph. Ed.]
The abstract phenomenon reflecting fear of the Lord, i.e. reverence for the Lord in this universe, is called Shabbat, on account of it signifying the Creator projecting His supremacy by abstaining from His primary function of creative activity. We, His people, by abstaining from actual work on the Sabbath but still thinking about it, reflect that we have absorbed the concept which the Sabbath is meant to convey. When the Torah links fear of one’s parents to observance of the Sabbath, it alludes to the fact that just as our parents are not really our creators but are each only a “shadow” of the Creator, [אדם בצלם נברא, “man was created as a “shadow, image,” Avot 3,14.Ed.] so the Sabbath is a concept that transcends our ability to fully understand, as it is a Divine concept and we can only understand certain parts of it. By emulating to the best of our ability what He did on the Sabbath of creation, we are able to absorb some of the true meaning of the Sabbath concept.
Leviticus 19,32. “you shall rise before the aged and show deference to the old, you shall fear your G’d.” Seeing that we have pointed out that the principal element in what is called “fear of the Lord,” is the awe with which we should relate to His sublimity and awesomeness, רוממות, a title which stems from the fact that He is the Originator of all the phenomena that we can perceive with our senses as well as the ones we cannot perceive, He deserves our utmost respect. When a human being has attained that level of insight he is called בן אהוב למקום, “a beloved son of G’d.” When a mortal father has a son whom he loves beyond all else in life, that son will be most careful not to cause his father any grief whatsoever. Conversely, this son will go out of his way to cause his father only pleasure and satisfaction. Paraphrasing this example, our sages in the Zohar III,7 state that Israel provides parnassah, sustenance, for the Almighty. This sustenance consists of their studying Torah, serving Him with prayers and by performing charitable deeds for their peers, as well as keeping the other commandments of the Torah. If they were, G’d forbid, to fail to do all this, our sages in Chagigah 15 lament, “what would become of the Shechinah”?
The wording in the Talmud describing the Shechinah’s reaction to Israel’s failing to serve the Lord and to observe His commandments, is קלני מראשי, “I feel that my head is confused, wobbly.” In other words, our misconduct causes G’d the equivalent of physical pain and confusion.
A tzaddik will worry all his life that he should not cause his father in heaven any grief or pain. He constantly endeavours to only be the cause of his Father in heaven feeling well and satisfied with His creatures.
The condition known as יראת שמים, when applied to the tzaddik, is his fear of the attribute of Mercy, i.e. that G’d would have to apply that attribute when judging him in order that he would not come to harm. [When Yaakov awoke from his dream of the ladder he vowed that if he would return to his father’s home safely, he would tithe all his acquisitions henceforth, and that he was henceforth ready to be judged by the attribute of Justice instead of having to hope for the attribute of Mercy dealing with his shortcomings. (Compare Genesis 28,21). Ed.] Ordinary people generally are afraid of the attribute of Justice dealing with their transgressions.
The tzaddik’s philosophy is not limited to his personal relationship with G’d, but he hopes that his meticulously observing G’d’s commandments without his looking for reward, will encourage G’d to increase the flow of His largesse to the Jewish people and that as a result these will benefit in all spheres of life from that largesse. He is aware that nothing pleases the Lord as much as having an excuse to direct an ever increasing flow of this largesse to His people. The termsזקן as well as שיבה, are synonyms for the attribute of mercy as we know from Pessikta Rabbah 21 where G’d is perceived as having appeared to the Jewish people at the revelation in the guise of a bearded old man, one who is full of compassion. Keeping this in mind, we can understand the commandment to treat the aged and old with deference and respect as an exhortation to relate to G’d with such feelings. The words: והדרת פני זקן, may therefore be understood as a command not to cause the Shechinah to call out in pain קלני מראשי, “my head is in turmoil.” Instead, we should ensure that the verse speaking of הוד והדר לפניו עוז וחדוה במקדשו, that “glory and majesty are before Him and strength and splendour in His Temple.” (Compare psalms 96,6)
Emor
Leviticus 21,1. “speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron.” The subject here deals with four different (parts) universes named עולם האצילות, עולם הבריאה, עולם היצירה, עולם העשיה, respectively. In each of these “worlds” there is “life” and G’d forbid, it’s opposite. We in our world of עשיה, a domain representing the physical material world after it had been completed, experience both life and G’d forbid its opposite, death. Similarly, we can visualize “life” and “death” in the עולם היצירה, which for want of a better term we will call the world of speech, דבור, seeing that according to the Torah G’d had created it with verbal directives. When man abuses the power of speech, uttering vain things or lies, he is perceived of “killing” life in that domain. When man employs the power of speech constructively, he is considered as giving life to that domain. This condition is called חיים, “life,” and has been alluded to by Solomon in Proverbs 18,21 where he wrote: חיים ומות ביד לשון, “life and death are within the power of one’s tongue.” Abuse of the power of speech is the most important element to guard against when serving the Lord. The same rule applies to the world known as עולם הבריאה, “the world of creation,” i.e. a physically undeveloped world. This may be described best as the world of thought, a world in which the products of thought and mouth have not yet produced a finished product. When man is constantly preoccupied in his heart and mind how best to serve the Lord, he is considered alive, whereas if, G’d forbid he is preoccupied with the opposite he is considered as “dead.”
There is another world, on a higher plane than the three we have already defined, the world of יראה, awe, (referred to above as אצילות) this world is completely abstract when compared with the other three worlds. Even in that world, however, the concepts of “life” and “death” exist.
At any rate, the thing we have to concern ourselves with first and foremost is the use we make of the power of speech G’d has granted to us, the ability to communicate with our peers and to convey our most intimate thoughts. The influence of this gift cannot be overestimated, and that is why the Torah when speaking to the priests, begins with אמור אל הכהנים ואמרת להם לנפש לא יטמא, “speak to the priests and say to them that the priest must not defile himself on pain of death;” the meaning is that the priest, through misuse of the power of speech, must not commit a capital offence.
Another approach to the words אמור אל הכהנים, “speak to the priests.” Seeing that the subject of Moses’ address to the priests concerns the priests’ sanctifying themselves by abstaining from incurring ritual defilement, all the special laws addressed to them may make them feel superior, or even haughty. Moses is to warn them that the fact that a part of the Torah is exclusively addressed to them must not make them feel that they are better or holier than the remainder of their peers. Moses is to first acquaint them with the law that the priests must not defile themselves ritually even when not likely to be called upon to perform their duties in the Temple as part of the weekly roster. Such defilement would gravely damage their נפש, “their essence” as servants of the Lord.
G’d is known to hate arrogance, haughtiness, etc.; in the case of the priests’ being haughty, an additional consideration is that haughtiness when it is the result of someone having accomplished a difficult task, something that he had invested much effort and time in, is still unacceptable as we know from Jeremiah 9,22. If pride or haughtiness is looked upon as a negative attribute in such cases, how much less is it acceptable in people who have been promoted to an elevated status merely by having been born to a father who is a priest, without being able to claim superiority by reason of their personal excellence?
This is implied in the line: אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, “say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, etc.” There was no need to add the words: בני אהרן, “sons of Aaron;” we all know that the priests were descended from Aaron. The Torah added these words as a reminder that the priest’s status was not earned, but was gratuitous. The priest’s sanctity is hereditary. If Aaron had not been “holy,” none of his descendants could have claimed this distinction without earning it. They therefore do not have any reason to boast about their superior status, [on the contrary, they have an obligation not to disgrace their status by unbecoming conduct. [the writer is a priest) Ed.]
Leviticus 21,9. “If the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry she has disgraced her father and is to be put to death through burning.” We already know that when someone in our domain of the universe commits a sin that this leaves a corresponding “stain” or defect in the celestial domain. In practice this means that sins committed on earth strengthen the forces of the kelipot “peels” i.e. the forces that surround holiness and thereby make it less effective or ineffective, much as a peel prevents us from getting at the fruit within it. The best remedy available to repair this spiritual damage is by burning it in fire. “Burning” need not be a physical process but can be service of the Lord with so much enthusiasm that it bursts into “flames.” [The author does not depart from the judicial meaning of the verse, according to which the harlot who is a priest’s daughter will be sentenced to death by burning. He merely superimposes an allegorical exegesis of the verse. Ed.]
According to the author’s allegorical explanation the word בת, “daughter”, is to be understood as “the soul. The “harlotry” is not to be understood literally, but as the harboring of inappropriate thoughts, thoughts inspired by the evil urge.” The only way to purge the soul from such thoughts is an intensified dedication to serving the Lord. This may in due course turn this person around, eventually so much so that by his very התלהבות, literally “going up in flames,” or allegorically, “enthusiasm,” he can be transformed from being a sinner into a saintly personality. In the final analysis, his very sin then became the cause that made him into an individual whom G’d welcomes warmly.
Leviticus 22,16. “they would make themselves guilty by consuming their holy portions which they should be offering up to Hashem;” (the last three words are taken from the end of the previous verse.) [I am not certain that this is in the author’s manuscript, or an error by the printer or editor. Ed.]
Before proceeding, the reader should remember that in the previous verses non priests have been forbidden to consume certain sacred products such as the terumah from their grain harvest which is one of the gifts the Torah has designated for the priests and members of his household.
[Several editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this lengthy paragraph altogether. Ed.]
The word והשיאו in this verse is very difficult to understand. Rashi is hard pressed to give a satisfactory explanation.
We shall therefore attempt to give a satisfactory explanation of why G’d warned us not to consume terumah due to its being sacred. On the face of it, and in accordance with other similar situations, the very fact that it was sacred should have been the reason why it should have been permitted, especially, seeing that meat of the peace offerings, of a higher level of sanctity, is permitted for the non priest, owner of the animal that was offered to be eaten, he is not only commanded to eat it, but he is warned not to leave anything over after a specified period of time.
We will try to explain this by means of a parable. It is customary to bring to the palace of the King people who are intelligent and well mannered and project an image of being respected members of society. Such people are able, due to their genetic and educational background, to entertain the king and put him in a good mood if there is need for this. It is out of the question for the king’s advisors to entrust such tasks to someone lacking the qualities we have just described. While such unqualified people are tolerated by the king outside his palace, he would most certainly not welcome them in his palatial home. If his advisors would dare admitting uncouth people to his presence this would be considered as an unforgivable sin.
If the priests are admitted to the “King of Kings’” presence, the Temple, it is because they represent the elite of the King’s subjects. This is also why they were permitted to share the King’s “food,” i.e. part of the sacrificial meat offered at the king’s Table, the “altar.” None of the non-priests shared in these privileges, as they lacked the prerequisites necessary for keeping the King company. They were not allowed to eat of the kind of food served at the King’s table so that they should not embarrass the king by their lack of “table-manners.” If that were to happen, the resulting embarrassment to the “King” would be greater than that caused by these people’s absence from the King’s palace where their foolish acts did not disturb anyone.
This is the meaning of the line: ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל , “so that they will not desecrate the sacred contributions of the Children of Israel.” On this verse, (22,15) Rashi comments that the desecration referred to is that of feeding sacred portions to non priests. Verse 16 then takes up this theme and adds what would happen if that law were violated is: והשיאו אותם עון אשמה, “the people having fed these sacred contributions to non priests would burden the people eating same with a guilt which is liable to keep getting more serious.” This is the meaning of the unusual expression והשיאו, “it will grow higher and higher.”
The reason why consumption of sacred contributions – other than the ones specifically commanded to be eaten by the non priests as part of “their” offerings- are forbidden, is to protect these people against burdening themselves with a serious sin if by eating them they would inadvertently err in the place or time or state of ritual purity, all of which are prerequisites even for the priests who are commanded to eat those portions.
The priests, who being the elite of the people, were familiar with all the potential pitfalls that could cause desecration of these sacred portions, could be trusted not to commit any of these errors.
The subject of the holiness of the Tabernacle/Temple is fraught with so many potential transgressions that every person is exhorted to practice humility, i.e. not to flatter himself that he is on such a high spiritual level that he can “ascend” -in the allegorical meaning of the word- spiritual platforms for which he has not yet qualified. If an individual sincerely feels that he has excelled in the performance of some commandments, and that this is proof of his belonging to an elite of the Jewish people, he should instead of looking down on others, look up to those individuals whose entire life revolves around serving G’d to the exclusion of any “private” concerns. We have explained this in greater detail on Deuteronomy 4,39 וידעת היום כי ה' הוא האלוקים בשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת, “know therefore this day and keep in mind that the Lord is alone in heaven above and on earth below.” In earthly matters, although most people who have amassed, say a million dollars, keep looking forward to the day when they can double this, Jews are asked to make do with modest acquisitions and not to chase values they cannot take with them to the world beyond death of the body; concerning spiritual matters however, we are asked to constantly look upwards and to forever accumulate more merits, as these will stand us in good stead in regions where money would not help us at all.
Our sages, in interpreting the verse quoted, understand the words בשמים ממעל,“ in the heaven above,” as an allusion to the soul, whereas they understand the words ועל הארץ מתחת, “and on the earth below,” as an allusion to our bodies. Accordingly, the overall meaning of the verse is that the expression “in the heaven” refers to the requirement in heaven, i.e. the needs of the soul, i.e. how the soul can best serve the Creator, and the answer is to “look at those creatures,” i.e. the righteous, that are on a higher level than we are and try to emulate them; and in looking at earth, never to forget that there are poor people who are far worse off than we so that we will not make the amassing of more material wealth a priority in our short life on earth.
Leviticus 23,15. “you shall count for yourselves from the day following the festival, (Passover) etc.;” we need to understand first of all why the festival of Passover is referred to as Hashabbat in our verse. This has been explained by our sages, (Tanna de bey Eliyahu 14) where the author interprets the word בראשית as meaning בשביל ישראל, “for the sake of Israel.” Granted that this is true, it did however, not come to the attention of the world until G’d redeemed Israel from Egypt when His love for His people manifested itself. As a result, Passover became similar to the Sabbath. The Sabbath is unique as on the Sabbath G’d abstained from His creative activity, whereas, according to the Zohar, on Passover He abstained from entertaining thoughts. When G’d “rested” on the original Sabbath His work during the preceding six days was revealed for the first time. Similarly, His love for the Jewish people was revealed for the first time on the occasion of the redemption from Egypt, i.e. the day of the Exodus. On the first day of Passover it finally became clear why G’d had bothered to create the universe altogether. In other words, Passover may be looked upon as the logical conclusion of what had been set in motion the moment G’d had first thought of the people of Israel as a project for the future. This is also the meaning of a statement of the sages in Shabbat 118 that if the Israelites were to observe two Sabbath days, i.e. the terrestrial Sabbath as well as the celestial Sabbath, they would be redeemed immediately. The scholar to whom this statement is attributed quoted Isaiah 56,4 in support, where G’d promises redemption to the eunuchs who keep His Sabbaths, following up in verse 7 with: “and I will bring them to the Mountain of My holiness etc,. etc.” The “two” Sabbaths of which the Talmud speaks are not to be understood quantitatively, i.e. 2 separate Sabbath days, but refer to the שבת תחתון and the שבט עליון, observance of the Sabbath with our body, i.e. תחתון, and at the same time observing it with our hearts and minds, i.e. שבת עליון, the Sabbath in our upper regions, our heads. The more the Israelites engage in serving the Lord, the clearer it will become that G’d only created the universe on account of the Israelites. There is an allusion to this in the letters of the words מן פסח when we reverse the order of the aleph bet, i.e. that the letter א=ת, ב-ש, ג=ר etc. [Magen Avraham on the laws of the New Moon chapter 428, subsection 3 deals with this in greater detail, i.e. that certain festivals must occur on the weekdays corresponding to other festivals preceding them during the same year. Ed.] ...
According to the Shulchan Aruch there, these allusions refer to the days of the week on which different festivals, including Purim can occur.
We should examine why this is important and even applies to festivals that are post Biblical, such as Chanukah, or even Purim which is basically connected only to the Diaspora. The day of the week on which Pessach occurs governs the festivals to follow and Purim preceding.
Nachmanides at the end of Parshat Bo, explains that the reason why we speak in the daily amidah prayer about G’d performing miracles for us constantly at all times and in many locations, is that most of these miracles we never recognize as such. [If we get hit by a car at 70 miles an hour and survive, we know that a miracle has been performed for us. If that same driver instead of hitting us narrowly missed us, the chances are that it is an even greater miracle as we were not even hospitalized, but we were not aware of having been at risk even. Ed.]
Israel experienced what are called נסים גלויים, visible miracles, supernatural experiences, such as the splitting of the sea of reeds, the descent of heavenly food, the manna, etc. etc. However, it also experienced “miracles” dressed up as if they were natural occurrences such as the miracles a combination of which resulted in the Purim story. Not a single occurrence in the Book of Esther is by itself supernatural. The combination of events and their timing is what makes the salvation of the Jewish people at that time a great and unforgettable miracle. The fact that Achashverosh had his first wife killed, -although he regretted it subsequently, and then killed his best friend, Haman, on account of his second wife, Esther, is already astounding. The miracle of the Exodus, clearly supernatural after a night when all the firstborn Egyptians had died as predicted by Moses, enabled the historians in a later period to admit that the survival of the Jewish people not one of whom had been harmed, must also be considered as a miracle performed by G’d for His people, even though they were in exile. All the miracles described in the Torah as having occurred prior to that of the Exodus from Egypt , such as the defeat of the four mighty kings by Avraham and 318 men, which on the face of it looked as if they had been natural events, were in fact miracles performed by G’d that were recognized as such only after man had experienced the clearly supernatural events during the Exodus from Egypt of the Jewish people. The seven consecutive years of plenty in Egypt followed by the seven years of famine, were similarly recognized as having been orchestrated by G’d only in retrospect. Had it not been for the Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt, which was an indisputable miracle, the events chronicled in the Book of Esther would not have been recognized as having been set in motion by G’d some 1500 years later. The allusions to the days in the week on which certain holidays cannot commence which we quoted from the Shulchan Aruch, are to be understood as forward looking in respect of Pessach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but as looking backward in respect to Purim.
[Naturally, the rules described in the Shulchan Aruch there apply only since we have a fixed calendar and no longer determine the New Moon on the basis of testimony of the new moon having been sighted by living witnesses. Ed.]
Another approach to the meaning of the verse commencing with: וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת, “count for yourselves immediately following the Sabbath.” Israel is presumed to have requested to be granted the ability to serve the Lord with a pure heart, and while engaged in asking G’d to grant all their various requests they completely omitted any reference to their personal requirements, i.e. to mundane matters.
However, there are times when even the Israelites on the highest spiritual level find it necessary to appeal to G’d to grant them such mundane requests as their livelihood. Periods during which individuals or even groups of Israelites are on the highest spiritual level are referred to by the Torah as שבת, seeing that the perception of the Sabbath is that it is a condensed version of the world of the future, מעין עולם הבא. That world is not directly connected to the world we find ourselves in, called עולם הזה, “the here and now.” Our verse tells us under what circumstances it is possible to sublimate the conditions of the “here and now” to such a degree that preoccupation with our personal needs for survival is no longer considered as something mundane or secular. The answer lies in the words: ממחרת השבת, “after first having attained the level called שבת.” While we are on the spiritual plateau described as שבת, we would not even remember such irrelevant concerns as our livelihood. The Torah’s recipe of how to attain such a plateau is the “continuous counting, day after day, of our ascent towards that goal.” During the 49 days of the counting we are still on the level that prompts us to approach G’d with requests to make our lives on this earth comfortable. With the advent of the festival of Shavuot, we have attained a higher level, one that is earmarked by our offering a new gift offering,” מנחה חדשה, (Numbers 28,26). The reason the Torah calls it בשבועותיכם, “on your weeks,” is that this offering reflects our own spiritual progress achieved during the weeks of counting. Seeing that this is so, we are bidden to offer this to Hashem, Who will accept it in this spirit.
Still another approach to the expression ממחרת השבת concerns itself with the faulty interpretation of these words by the Tzedaukim, the large group of people paying attention only to the literal meaning of the written Torah which led them to insist that the count of the forty nine days must always begin on the first day of the week, immediately following the Sabbath. Our sages in Menachot 65 remind us that the word השבת in this instance refers to the first day of Passover and not to the seventh day of the week. Still, we need to understand why in this instance, and in this instance only, the Torah chose to refer to the first day of Passover, i.e. a festival, as השבת.
When a craftsman performs his work, and he comes to the conclusion of whatever project he was busy with, he is considered as “resting,” שבת, until he begins working on his next project. The same applies to the Creator. When He completed the universe He “rested,” (not in the sense of catching His breath) but in the sense of contemplating what had been completed and what awaited His attention in the future. The original period of “rest” is called שבת בראשית, “the rest period” following the beginning. After having created living creatures equipped with a brain, creatures that are meant to “serve” Him, recognizing His greatness, He “took time out.”
Although G’d continued to perform mind-boggling miracles such as the deluge, during the life of Noach, or the dispersal of mankind and the interference with their language during the period of the Tower, none of these miracles had the desired effect on mankind, and they did not recognize earth as G’d’s legitimate domain and therefore did not do teshuvah, penitence. Paganism flourished unabated in spite of outstanding individuals such as Noach and the patriarchs which should have inspired mankind to change their ways by their very occurrence. The period that commenced with the seventh day of creation, the שבת בראשית, came to an end with the redemption of a whole people, the Jewish people, after hundreds of years cruel suppression. A new chapter in man’s history commenced from that point on, and the period during which it progressed toward maturity took seven weeks, and that is why the Torah describes this period between Passover and Shavuot as ממחרת השבת, as “the follow up of the original Sabbath.” During this period the intelligence of an entire nation matured and began to view the purpose of their lives to be the service of their Creator. Nonetheless, G’d never went back on His original plan of creating man as a creature equipped with freedom of choice, the ability to deny and oppose the will of its Creator.
The words וספרתם לכם, “you shall count for yourselves,” need further analysis, [as in all instances when the Torah adds the apparently superfluous לכם.] In this instance the word לכם may be understood as G’d reiterating that although it is our task in life to serve Him, each one of us must decide to do so of his own free will. He is not to feel coerced, as if he felt that way he could never qualify for the reward that the Torah promises us for observing G’d’s commandments.
The first of the “seven” weeks we are to “count,” measuring our spiritual progress, are devoted to 1) digesting the fact that finally, after close to 2500 years of human existence, the human race had come to acknowledge its Creator and the fact that He had a favorite people, whose three patriarchs had somehow sustained them sufficiently so that they had accepted Moses as His prophet. As a result our people learned to relate to G’d with love. 2) The second of the seven weeks is devoted to embracing G’d with reverence and awe, recognizing in Him the greatness of the Originator of all existence. The third week is devoted to ensure that G’d will have reason to “boast” of His people and their spiritual accomplishments.
The fourth and fifth week of our counting is devoted to deepening our faith in the Creator, our ability to withstand anything that might make us doubt His being the only G’d in the universe. The sixth week is devoted to strengthen our ties to Him through the intensity with which we serve Him. Finally, the seventh week is devoted to declaring Him as our King, enthroning Him as the King of Kings of the entire universe.
In light of the fact that theses attributes are derivatives of the Essence of G’d Himself, during the days when we observe the commandment of counting the days and weeks, it is especially important that each one of us will set aside time for contemplating these holy thoughts and serve the Creator by doing so, as the sages have taught us that בדרך שאדם רוצה להלוך מוליכים אותו, “that people who wish to travel along the right path will enjoy heavenly assists in doing so.” (Makkot 10) Seeing that the redemption occurred on Passover, (15th Nissan) we know that each year at that time, G’d is singularly prepared to reveal Himself as He did on the occasion of the first Passover, [actually, according to tradition already on the night when Avraham defeated the four mightiest kings with his 318 men, compare Genesis 15,15 Ed.] The period between then and the festival of Shavuot is especially suited for anyone who wishes to experience spiritual progress to do so by means of observing this commandment of counting with especial devotion. The word לכם therefore is best translated as “for your personal benefit,” suggesting that this period more than any other should be exploited by the pious to elevate themselves spiritually.
The sages in Rosh Hashanah 12 alluded to this when they stated that “the Jewish people are in the habit of counting Biblical calendar dates as based on the view of Rabbi Eliezer when speaking of the deluge, (solar year), whereas they do so according to the view of Rabbi Joshua when counting the seasons the seasons of the year.” (lunar “year”). The Talmud adds that the astronomers of the gentile nations also count the deluge according to the opinion held by Rabbi Joshua. [The whole statement is extremely puzzling, our author contributing a novel interpretation by understanding it as relating to the mystical dimension of life on earth. Ed.]
Our author raises the question that seeing that the astronomers of the gentile nations adopt an opinion that is contrary to halachah, how can they be described as “sages of gentile nations?” We have a rule that anyone contradicting what is written in the Torah or recorded as wisdom by King Solomon is an absolute fool.
We need to explain above statement allegorically. We have already explained in connection with a statement in the Talmud Pessachim 118 that when Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yossi, (a sage of the fifth generation of the sages that belonged to the Mishnaic period) fell ill Rabbi Yehudah (hanassi?) sent to him asking him to tell them one or two Torah insights of his father that he had not previously revealed. He responded by offering an interpretation of a difficult passage in psalms 117,1 where the psalmist appears to invite the nations of the world to praise G’d, saying: הללו את ה' כל גויים שבחוהו כל האומים, “praise the Lord all you nations; extol Him all you peoples!” Seeing that the next verse describes the miracles G’d has performed on behalf of the Jewish people, what reason would the gentiles have to praise G’d for this? He answered that if the gentiles are required to praise the Lord for having been witnesses to miracles performed for the Israelites, how much more so must the Israelites be duty bound to praise Him on account of this! How much loving kindness have we experienced at the hands of G’d without having thanked Him adequately! Thereupon Rabbi asked for another pearl of wisdom that Rabbi Yossi had not yet revealed. He told them that at the time when the messiah would come, the gentiles would welcome him with gifts. It seems clear that the words שבחוהו, “praise Him,” in the psalm are not meant as acknowledgement of what G’d had done for the gentiles, but for what He had done for His people, the Israelites. It is the overriding duty of all of G’d’s creatures, including the beasts in the field to praise the Creator in accordance with the manner in which they are capable of doing this. This includes even the flora that appear tied to the place in which they grow, and which do not even enjoy the ability to move freely on G’d’s earth. How much more so must the more advanced forms of life on earth praise their Creator, seeing that they are able to enjoy so much more of the world they have been born into?
We may take a cue from the words of Rashi on Shabbat 50, “whatever G’d created, He created for the greater glory of His name.” When Jews are killed for the sanctification of the Lord’s name (having had the opportunity to save themselves by denying Judaism, as happened frequently during the crusades) they do so joyfully.
It is therefore not difficult to comprehend that the psalmist reminds the gentiles of their duty to praise the Lord as He has given them an opportunity to carry out His will. Miracles which G’d performed for the Israelites frequently were at the expense of the gentiles who had oppressed them. The psalmist warns these gentiles that they are obligated to praise the Lord for having been privileged to experience His greatness even while they perish in the process. The fact that they had been chosen to be G’d’s means of showing His might to the Israelites is something they have to acknowledge, not grudgingly, but joyfully. The fact that they deliberately try to blind themselves to such recognition, stamps them as utter fools. The perennial problem with fools is that they do not wish to be enlightened, believing that they are wise.
However, there will come a time, when G’d will open the eyes of the blind and all of them [those who have survived the cataclysmic events occurring first, Ed.] will turn into servants of the Lord.
At the time of the Exodus, when G’d performed miracles that enabled the Israelites to be redeemed, He revealed His power to the Egyptians at the same time, of course. However, the latter, almost until their last breath did not acknowledge that it was G’d Who was fighting them when the waves of the sea of reeds came crashing over them. (Exodus 14,25)
The Jews have not always been better, so that Isaiah 2,5 tells us that the time will come when –after the gentiles have already acknowledged all this in Isaiah 2,3 – they too will experienced the “light” of the Lord. In psalms 118 David foresees all this already hundreds of years before the prophet Isaiah.
Let us revert to the passage in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 12, and the strange statement referring to the astronomers of the gentiles as “sages.” Traditionally, the month of Tishrey symbolizes that G’d’s attribute of Justice, sits in judgment of His creatures on the first day of that month. The month of Nissan, however symbolizes the attribute of Mercy, loving kindness, as it is the month during which the Jewish people, who had a minimum of merits to their credit, were redeemed after hundreds of years of persecution. When looked at from the perspective of the gentiles, the month of Nissan symbolizes the attribute of Justice, as during that month G’d brought retribution on the leading nation of the gentiles, reducing a world power, Egypt, to becoming a “banana republic,” practically overnight. The effect of this was so overwhelming that Rahab from Jericho, who harbored Joshua’s spies, was still in awe of that event. (Joshua 2,9-11).
Rabbi Eliezer correctly realized that for the gentiles what we perceive as unmitigated disaster, actually is the catalyst that brings them to recognize G’d in the end, by seeing in the month of Tishrey also a harbinger of the attribute of Mercy, seeing it is the gentiles’ last opportunity to change their ways and survive as servants of G’d.
The Talmud introduces a reference to the period during which the deluge occurred, i.e. in Marcheshvan, although neither Rabbi Joshua nor Rabbi Eliezer had made reference to that event at all. When the “sages” of the gentile nations are described as taking their cue from the deluge as being in accord with Rabbi Joshua, even when referring to the deluge, what the Talmud means is that these “gentile sages” recognized that the disasters that had struck them was also an outpouring of G’d’s love, as this enabled the survivors to recognize G’d as a G’d of love after all. [According to the Talmud there the gentile sages recognized what Yitro recognized later also, (Exodus 18,11) i.e. that when G’d brings on retribution He makes the punishment fit the crime. Ed.]
Leviticus 23,32. “from evening till evening you shall observe this Sabbath of yours.” The term שבת, which primarily denotes abolition, annulment, (compare Lamentations 5,15 שבת משוש לבנו נהפך לאבל מחולנו, “the Sabbath that used to be the joy of our hearts has turned in to mourning instead of dancing”) The word תשבתו, so closely related to the word שבת means that just as on the Sabbath we abolish the concerns of the six work days preceding it, so through our repentance from one evening through to the next evening, we abolish the residue of our sins. All that is needed is our sincerity and our prayers.
Behar
Leviticus 25,2. “the land shall rest, a ‘Sabbath’ for the Lord.” In order to understand the meaning of the line “the land will rest for G’d,” we must refer to Exodus 31,13 ואתה דבר אל בני ישראל ....את שבתותי תשמורו “as for you, tell the Children of Israel to observe My Sabbath days, etc."
According to the writings of the Ari z’al, in the Tur, 242 on hilchot Shabbat we find the following: [not in my edition, Ed.] “while in Egypt, Moses argued with Pharaoh, suggesting that if he wanted to increase the productivity of the Jewish slaves he should allow them one day of rest each week, this day to be the Sabbath.” [It is not clear if Pharaoh accepted the suggestion. Ed.]
When the Torah commanded the Jewish people to rest on the Sabbath, Moses felt happy for having been the one who had already suggested this while he was in Egypt. He considered himself as having had a share in this legislation. [Probably this is meant when we say in our Sabbath prayers in the morning ישמח משה במתנת חלקו, “Moses may rejoice having received his share (of the Sabbath).”Ed.]
This is the reason why the Torah writes: אתה דבר...את שבתתתי תשמרו, “you tell the Children of Israel you are to observe My Sabbath days.” The Jewish people were to appreciate that the Sabbath rest, even though they may have enjoyed it in Egypt, was not to be a physical rest from the labours of the week, but was something decreed by G’d, to bring them closer to Him. Seeing that it had been Moses who was responsible for their relief on that day in Egypt, it had to be he who told them that the Sabbath now assumed an entirely different dimension.
A similar, non-terrestrial dimension also underlies the legislation of the sh’mittah year introduced in our chapter. The land does not have to rest for reasons of being “tired.” The land which had served man during the preceding six years, having been at man’s disposal, will take out a year and revert to being at G’d’s disposal, so to speak.
Bechukotai
Leviticus 26,3. “if you will walk in My statutes and observe My commandments and carry them out.” At first glance there appears to be unnecessary verbiage in this verse. We would have expected the Torah to write simply: אם תשמרו את מצותי ונתתי גשמיכם בעתו, “if you will observe My commandments I will provide your rainfall at the appropriate time.” However, the reason for the additional words may be understood when we recall that the Talmud in Kiddushin 40 states that G’d will account a good intention as if it were a good deed, i.e. that the good intention is already accounted as fulfillment of a commandment. In other words, the good intention is accounted as if it had already been translated into action, so that if through an accident beyond one’s control actual performance of the good intention was prevented, one is still given credit for it.Leviticus 26,3. “if you will walk in My statutes and observe My commandments and carry them out.” At first glance there appears to be unnecessary verbiage in this verse. We would have expected the Torah to write simply: אם תשמרו את מצותי ונתתי גשמיכם בעתו, “if you will observe My commandments I will provide your rainfall at the appropriate time.” However, the reason for the additional words may be understood when we recall that the Talmud in Kiddushin 40 states that G’d will account a good intention as if it were a good deed, i.e. that the good intention is already accounted as fulfillment of a commandment. In other words, the good intention is accounted as if it had already been translated into action, so that if through an accident beyond one’s control actual performance of the good intention was prevented, one is still given credit for it.
From this it follows that when one performs a good deed (commandment) truly without any ulterior motive this may result in such a person being transported to a higher spiritual level than the one he had been on prior to performance of that commandment. As a result of such a spiritual “promotion,” one will be granted the opportunity to fulfill still other commandments. The process will continue as a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is what the sages had in mind when they said that the reward of fulfilling a commandment is another commandment. (Avot 4,2) It is also the meaning of מצוה גוררת מצוה, “performance of one commandment drags an additional commandment in its wake.” (ibid.) Keeping this in mind we can also understand the meaning of the line in Niddah 73 quoted in the name of Tanna de bey Eliyahu that every person who makes it a rule to study at least one halachah daily, is assured that he will have a share in the world to come. The meaning is that that individual will progress daily ever closer to his ultimate objective of the world to come as he has not been deflected from his path. This is the meaning of the verse from Scripture quoted by the author of this saying, i.e. Chabakuk 3,6 הליכות עולם לו, “he will make steady progress towards another, eternal life.”
The words: אם בחקותי תלכו, mean that “if you cleave to My statutes,” you will be considered as “walking” on the right path, תלכו. The words: ואת מצותי תשמרו, refer to your planning, thinking of, performing My commandments, even if you have not succeeded for some reason to carry out your good intention, I will consider it as if you had done it, i.e. ועשיתם אותם. When understood in this manner, none of the words in our verse are superfluous or repetitious.
Leviticus 26,4. “then I will provide you with your rain at the appropriate time.” Seeing that we have referred to the reward for performance of the commandments as being reserved for the world to come, this verse poses the question that it appears to contradict the statement of our sages that there is no reward for mitzvah performance to be expected in this life on earth. (Kiddushin 39)
We may answer this apparent contradiction by reminding the reader of Avot 4,2 in which we are told that the reward for performing a mitzvah is the opportunity to perform additional mitzvoth. Receiving the rain we need on time results in our economic viability and our ability to perform additional commandments such as being charitable to the poor with our disposable income. All this comes under the heading of “performance of a commandment dragging in its wake the opportunity to perform additional commandments.” This does not contradict what the sages meant when they described the “real” reward for performing the commandments being saved for life beyond the death of our bodies.
Leviticus 26,16. “I will wreak misery upon you;” the root פקד usually refers to the lack of something, something being missing that should have been there. We find it in this sense when David’s seat near King Sha-ul was empty. (Samuel I 20,25) G’d says that He will remove certain plagues from us, seeing that the fact that we will sow and not reap but our enemies are reaping the fruit of our labours, this is sufficient punishment. According to the predictions of our sages (Shabbat 30) in the future the soil of the land of Israel will bring forth ready made buns and scones so that the Israeli farmer does not need to plough, sow, and harvest. At that time these labours will be performed for us by the gentiles. Our verses describe the very opposite occurring as G’d’s retribution for neglecting the Torah, so much so that even when we perform these labours ourselves, they will serve only others, as we will not benefit from our labours.
Numbers
Bamidbar
Numbers 1,2. “take a census of the whole community of the Children of Israel by their families according to their ancestral houses, etc;” Deuteronomy 1,18. “and on the first day of the second month they convoked the whole community who were registered by families and their ancestral houses;”
According to Rashi the word ויתילדו means that each male brought a document confirming his birth date and the name of his father.
Personally, I am inclined to accept the word ויתילדו at face value, a word derived from לידה, “birth,” and that the Torah emphasizes the difference between how gentiles identify themselves and how Israelites identify themselves. Gentiles identify themselves only according to their mothers, as one can never be certain who the father is, seeing that gentiles do not observe the rules of marital fidelity, and even when they do, they engage in extra marital relationships that produce children. The Torah’s emphasis on the Israelites being able to identify themselves according to their “families” as meaning according to their “father’s houses,” is one of the greatest compliments the Torah could pay the Jewish people. The very commandment to arrange a census being addressed to the “heads” of the Children of Israel, i.e. their male family heads, shows that after having constructed G’d’s residence on earth, the Tabernacle, they were now allowed to conduct the census based on paternity rather than on maternity.
Numbers 1,19. “In accordance with G’d’s instructions to Moses; he counted them in the desert of Sinai.”
We must take note that instead of the Torah first writing that Moses had carried out G’d’s command and had counted the people, and then adding that he had done so in accordance with G’d’s instructions, -which would have been the normal syntax,- the Torah first emphasized that Moses did exactly as instructed. Why did the Torah depart from its norm?
We must remember that when G’d gave the Torah to the Jewish people, the collective soul of the Jewish people was considered as the “body” of the Torah, seeing that the Jewish people comprised 600.000 souls equal to the number of letters in the Torah. Each Israelite may be viewed as representing one of the letters of the Torah. [This number, while based on the Zohar, does not correspond to the normal count which is only some 305.000. Ed.] According to the Zohar then, one may allegorically equate Torah and the Jewish people. We may therefore understand Moses’ having “counted” the Jewish people as another way of saying that he had taught the Jewish people the Torah. This has been alluded with the words כאשר צוה ה' את משה, meaning that Moses personally performed this count.
This also explains the Torah writing in Deuteronomy 2,49 “but do not count the members of the tribe of Levi amongst the Israelites;” when the Torah is equated with the Israelites it refers to the 12 tribes exclusive of the tribe of Levi. The Levites were counted על פי ה', by the command of Hashem (3,16).
Numbers 2,49 , “but do not count the tribe of Levi as an integral part of the Children of Israel.” The Torah consists of 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments which between them represent a variety of lights, whereas the Tabernacle represents spiritual lights condensed within it so that they do not harm human beings by blinding them. The Israelites are also each considered as a light seeing that each represents one of the letters in the Torah. We have a rule that whenever 613 physical lights are present they must be matched by an equal number of spiritual lights so that they can combine in the service of the Lord. These latter “lights” are called אברים הרוחניים, “the 248 spiritualized limbs and 365 spiritualized tendons.” When the Creator dispenses of His largesse, He does so via these spiritualized limbs and tendons.
Some human beings can become only passive recipients of spiritualized light, whereas others are able to “see” how the largesse from G’d progresses from the spiritual domain to the physical domain. These latter people are called prophets. The prophet Samuel I 9,9, describes this process when he wrote: לפנים בישראל כה אמר האיש בלכתו לדרוש אלוקים לכו ונלכה עד הרואה כי לנביא היום יקרא לפנים הרואה, “formerly, in Israel, when a man wanted to seek out the word of G’d, he would say: ‘come let us go to the Seer, for the prophet of today was formerly known as “Seer.’”
We also find an allusion to this in Numbers 8,4 where the Torah writes: וזה מעשה המנורה.....כמראה אשר הראה ה' את משה כן עשה את המנורה, “and this is how the menorah was made:…….according to the pattern that the Lord had shown Moses so he constructed the menorah.” When the Torah wrote in detail about the construction of the menorah in Exodus chapter 25 and chapter 37, no mention was made of G’d having shown Moses a pattern of this lampstand although the Torah provided extensive descriptions of this lampstand in both of these chapters. In both those chapters the menorah was treated as an integral part of the Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle dealt with abstract spiritual concepts. The menorah per se symbolizes a visual impact of the largesse transferred by G’d from His celestial treasure house to the terrestrial part of the universe. This largesse is in constant motion between the celestial and the terrestrial domains of the universe. The Torah bears witness to the fact that G’d showed this to Moses while he had been on Mount Sinai.
Moses was not to count the Levites together with the other Israelites, as the 12 tribes (Israelites) symbolize the abstract spiritual dimension of celestial light, whereas the Levites symbolize transfer of G’d’s largesse from the most high celestial regions to what we have described as the “abstract spiritual” dimension represented by the 12 tribes of Israel.
This is also why, when speaking of the process of purifying the Levites the Torah (Numbers 8,7) the Torah speaks of והעבירו תער על כל בשרם, “they have to shave off all the hair on their flesh with a razor,” the reason being that “hair” symbolizes clothing, and clothing is something that separates between one’s essence and contact with something from the outside. The Levites were to be as receptive to the emanations from the highest celestial regions as possible [as had been Adam and Eve before they had been provided with clothing, as a result of the barrier their sin had created between them and G’d. Ed.]
Nasso
Numbers 5,21. “may the Lord make you a curse and an imprecation among your people, as the Lord causes your thigh to sag, etc.;”
We need to pay close attention to the word יתן which normally means “he will give,” or “may he give,” being used here when introducing a curse. Moreover, the line יתן ה' אותך לאלה, “may Hashem make you a curse, etc.,” seems to contradict a fundamental principle in Judaism that nothing negative ever originates from Hashem, and here the priest appears to invoke precisely this!
We may have to look at the following in order to understand what is written here. When G’d exacts judgment from sinners this may take two forms. 1) By doing so, He at the same time sanctifies His holy name. 2) He is not concerned with sanctifying His holy name through the manner in which he executes this judgment. When G’d’s name becomes sanctified while He exacts retribution from the sinner, this is an act of Kindness on His part, as the victim of the judgment exacted simultaneously became the instrument through which G’d’s name was sanctified. The victim’s soul experiences a spiritual elevation as a result of having been instrumental in sanctifying G’d’s name.
We find an allusion to this in Exodus 14,31 where the Torah writes: וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה אשר עשה ה' במצרים, “Israel saw the great hand of the Lord that He brought to bear on Egypt, etc.;” the expression יד הגדולה, always is an allusion to G’d’s attribute of loving kindness. If you were to ask how we can possibly see G’d’s “kindness” when He is busy drowning the mighty armies of the Egyptians, the answer appears immediately afterwards where the Torah describes that as a result of witnessing G’d’s great hand the Israelites were in awe of G’d as never before, i.e. וייראו העם את ה' ויאמינו בה' ובמשה עבדו, so that “they feared the Lord and believed in Him as well as in His servant Moses.” Some of the “credit” for the Jewish people’s faith could be attributed to the Egyptians in their role as G’d’s victims, which resulted in His name being sanctified. G’d’s intervention in the affairs of the Sotah, and her jealous husband similarly is bound to result in the people observing the results having greater respect for G’d and His name.
Numbers 6,23. “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying speak to Aaron and his sons saying: thus you shall bless the Children of Israel saying to them.”
The Baal Shem Tov used the above verse repeatedly to tell his listeners that psalms 121,5 in which the psalmist describes the Lord as being our protective angel and likening Him to a shadow, i.e. ה' צלך על יד ימינך, “Hashem your shadow on your right side.” A shadow always follows precisely what the owner of the shadow is doing. Similarly, what G’d does reflects exactly what man had done before. Seeing that this is so, it is imperative that man donates to charity, displays compassion with the ones less fortunate than he by performing kind deeds for them, as G’d, seeing this will reciprocate in kind with people who do this. The attribute of G’d that we described as “shadow,” and which David called צל, is known as כה, usually translated as “thus.”
It is well known that the Creator, blessed be His name, is most concerned with doing “good” for His people Israel, as our sages said: “the mother cow is more concerned with giving milk to feed her calf than the calf is desirous of suckling at her teats.”
When man stands in prayer he must recite 18 benedictions, not because otherwise G’d would not grant him his requests, but we must do so in order for G’d to experience joy and satisfaction from us, His creatures.
We must always remember what the sages taught in Avot 2,8 that even if we think that we have studied a great amount of Torah we should not compliment ourselves for this, for all we did was what we have been created to do. Man’s deeds have one purpose and one purpose only, to provide satisfaction for the Creator who gave him life. When man prays (utters requests), he thereby turns himself into a “recipient.” When someone wishes to receive something he extends his hand heavenwards and the back of his hand earthward. When he prays intending to provide his Creator with satisfaction, instead of being a petitioner he turns himself into a “donor.”
The major symbol of the priestly blessings consists of their raising their hands with the backs of their hands facing their faces like someone about to dispense gifts, heavenwards, and the palms of their hands open, pointed earthwards, suggesting that they are about to dispense largesse.
The real interpretation of the verse: כה תברכו את בני ישראל, is: “thus you shall bless the Children of Israel in order that the Creator shall have pleasure from them and in order that thereby you will become dispenser of pleasure instead of remaining petitioners waiting for a Divine handout.” As a consequence of this, the Creator will feel encouraged to dispense all manner of blessings on Israel. This is the meaning of the attribute described here as כה, i.e. just as Israel does something for the pleasure of G’d, so He, in turn, will reciprocate by doing things for Israel, His people.
Another way of looking at the line: כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם.
Basically, the rule expressed here is that not only do the priests have to bless the Jewish people, but they have to do so loudly, so that the recipients of the blessing can hear them say these words (and no others). The Torah teaches that only this combination of words will make the proper impact on the listeners, the Children of Israel. They will make their faces light up so that they will feel that they have received a blessing. It is not enough to bless the Jewish people with one’s mind, but the words have to be enunciated.
We have to read the line כה תברכו, “thus you shall bless,” in conjunction with the closing words of the paragraph, ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם, “thus they (the priests) shall link My name with the people of Israel and I will bless them.” (in order for the priests’ blessing to be effective this has to be the precise procedure).
Numbers 6,25. “may the Lord shine His face upon you and grant you grace.”
When a person enjoys grace he certainly feels elevated, promoted. On the other hand, how is it possible for a mere creature, a human being to entertain feelings of pride or glory when facing his Creator?
Did not Daniel 4,32 already state that “all the inhabitants of the earth are of no account,” i.e. ודירי ארעא כלא חשיבין.
By contrast, our verse confirms that G’d Himself bestowed glory on His people Israel. He did so in order that they find grace in His eyes.
“the princes” (a term that appears again and again from Numbers 7,2-7,84) The leader of each tribe was accorded the title נשיא, “chieftain or prince.” The word is derived from the root נשא, “to carry, lift, elevate,” suggests that it was the task of these tribal leaders to elevate the people spiritually so that they would serve the Lord better.
This is also the meaning of Deuteornomy 7,2: “those who were in charge of the people who had been counted.” We have explained previously that the root פקד describes something that was missing, lacking, empty (Samuel I 20,27.) The righteous are perceived as standing fast, i.e. העומדים like an iron wall seeing to it that the common people not become guilty of sins of omission. If we were to ask what merit did the princes possess which resulted in their occupying such high office? The answer is that instead of complimenting themselves on their elevated status they were constantly concerned that they would not lack any of the attributes that are necessary for people occupying such high office.
For the Sefira
Homily for Shavuot
Beha'alotcha
Numbers 7,2. בהעלותך את הנרות, “when you are about to kindle the lights, etc.;” it happens on occasion that a tzaddik has fallen from his spiritual level. Seeing that G’d is the essence of loving kindness He wishes for the “sparks” from the Shechinah that have at different times fallen into our domain of the קליפות, “the peels,” i.e. ritually impure parts of the globe to facilitate their rehabilitation and return to their habitat. He uses the proximity of the “fallen” tzaddik, who is still firmly attached to his holy roots and therefore will make strenuous efforts at doing penance, to be the means by which this will be brought about.
Our verse is an allegorical description of such an event. The נרות, “lights,” referred to, are the fallen sparks which are facing the menorah, the source of their light before they had fallen off the Shechina, when the penitent sinner kindles the menorah he will also include the “penitent sparks” who use this opportunity to restore the Shechinah to its former glory when all of its seven lights were burning.
Numbers 8,19. “I have given the Levites, etc.;” this sounds strange as in the previous verse G’d had spoken of having “taken” the Levites, i.e. ואקחה את הלוים. According to Rashi on the verse commencing with ואתנה את הלוים, the words בני ישראל occur five times in this paragraph to show how fond G’d was of the Children of Israel. Rashi adds that he has copied this interpretation from Vayikrah Rabbah. When a person has a choice of selecting one item from amongst many similar ones, this is proof that he liked the one he chose more than the others. If G’d chose the Levites from all the tribes of Israel for special tasks, this is proof that He liked this tribe best of all. There was a suspicion that the fact that G’d chose the Levites would be interpreted as proof that G’d did not like the other tribes. This prompted the Torah to mention the other tribes five times, as proof that G’d loved all the tribes of Israel. If He nonetheless chose the Levites for special tasks it was only so that they could serve as an instrument to atone for the sin of the golden calf, a sin in which none of the Levites had participated.
We find something puzzling when perusing the sequence of the offerings used in the process of purifying the Levites. In verse 8 when the offerings are prepared, the burnt offering, עולה is mentioned ahead of the sin offering, חטאת, whereas when presentation of these two offerings is reported (verse 12) we find that the sin offering is mentioned first.
Our author quotes his father of sainted memory as having offered the following explanation for this. Normally, sinners have to offer their sin offering before they offer a burnt offering. The exception to this rule is the offering by people who have inadvertently been guilty of trespassing legislation involving idolatry. (Collective sin) Such people first offer a burnt offering. (Compare Zevachim 7). The Talmud explains the reason why normally a sin offering has to be offered before a gift offering can be accepted from a sinner who has not yet obtained forgiveness being that the sinner is not yet in a state of grace.. The author’s father [as did the Talmud, Ed.], questioned this as the burnt offering is supposed to atone for someone having neglected to perform a positive commandment. According to other scholars, apparently the ones related to by the author’s father, the burnt offering serves as atonement for sinful thoughts which did not result in the sin being carried out. Seeing that any action is preceded by a plan to perform such an act, it is logical that before offering a sin offering to expiate for one’s sin, one had to offer a burnt offering in order to obtain forgiveness for the intention to commit that sin.
When we apply such reasoning to the paragraph we are dealing with, i.e. the Levites’ appointment in lieu of the firstborn who had participated in the sin of the golden calf, we must remember that the natural born Israelites did not instigate the sin of the golden calf, but the mixed multitude of Egyptians and other nationals who had decided to join the Jewish people at the Exodus. They may be seen as similar to the “thought” preceding the deed. When dancing around the golden calf only the mixed multitude did so while entertaining idolatrous thoughts. The natural born Israelites were only concerned with finding a new leader as they too believed that seeing that Moses had not returned on the date promised, they feared that he had died on the mountain. They required forgiveness for that kind of faulty thinking, i.e. the burnt offering. The mixed multitude, however, required forgiveness for the idolatrous deeds, i.e. the sin offering which followed the erroneous thinking.
Leviticus 10,35. “It would be whenever the Holy Ark would begin its journey, etc.;” this paragraph is inserted between two letters נ each facing in the wrong direction. The reason for this that the letter נ symbolizes the attribute of יראה , “fear, awe.” People who are ashamed are afraid of facing one another. We have a principle according to which each one of us must be humble when facing the Lord with awe. We repeat this idea in our prayers every morning when we recite:לעולם יהא אדם ירא שמים בסתר וגו', “Man should ever be G’d-fearing in private, etc.;”(Tanna de bey Eliyahu Rabbah chapter 21) On the other hand, when a person endeavours to extract and elevate fallen sparks from the shechinah which are mired in the terrestrial regions, he has to publicly demonstrate his reverence for G’d in order to arouse a similar desire in these “fallen” sparks.
This idea is illustrated by our verse which commences with the words: ויהי בנסוע הארון, which describes the journey of the G’d fearing Israelites through the spiritual wilderness trying to locate such “fallen” sparks and be instrumental in bringing them back to their celestial habitat. When the two letters נ have been inverted so that they face each other, they symbolize that the Israelites are now displaying their awe of the Lord publicly in order to encourage any stray fallen sparks of the shechinah to begin their journey back to their original habitat.
Numbers 11,4. “who will feed us meat?” “we remember the fish diet etc.” When looking at this verse superficially, we wonder why the subject of the fish the Israelites claimed to have eaten in Egypt was relevant to their present craving for meat.
Let us revert to what we learned in the Talmud (Yuma 75) that when the people received the manna, it possessed the ability to assume the taste of any food the party consuming it fancied. However, this ability was limited to the taste of any food the party wishing to taste had personal experience of. If someone who had never tasted meat wanted his manna to taste like meat this did not work, as even if it would taste like meat how would the individual eating it recognize it as such?
None of the Israelites had ever tasted a kosher slaughtered animal after its blood had been removed and it had been salted, etc., as required by halachah. While it was presumably true that the Israelites had eaten some meat while in Egypt, that meat had since become forbidden food for them after their stay at Mount Sinai. When they therefore asked: מי יאכילנו בשר, “who fill feed us meat?”, the question was quite legitimate as they felt that the Torah legislation had made it impossible for them to taste meat when eating manna. They mentioned that they had been able to recapture the taste of the fish they had eaten in Egypt as these fish had all had fins and scales, and thus had remained permitted to be eaten after the Torah had been given. Our sages promised us that in the future, G’d Himself will invite the tzaddikim to a meal where both leviathan (fish) and the shor habor (meat), as well as wine saved for the occasion from gan eden will be served. What the sages wished to convey by their promise is that at that time the Jewish people will eat heavenly food, i.e. manna, and that at that time even the tastes that they had not experienced while on their journey in the desert will be enjoyed by them. At that time also the waters they drank in the desert due to the merit of Miriam, will assume the taste of any liquid they will fancy.
Numbers 11,7. “and the manna was like coriander seed;” when a person gives charity to a poor person he is turned into a משפיע, a dispenser of largesse. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 34,8 have taught that contrary to common belief, the recipient of the handout does more for the donor than the donor has done for him. If this is true, the poor man himself is also a dispenser of largesse, as he bestows spiritual merit whereas the wealthy man giving him a handout had only provided physical sustenance.
This parable while true, does not hold true when the dispenser of the manna is the Creator, Who by His very nature dispenses spiritual food at the same time as He hands out the manna. Doing tzedakah, performing charitable deeds, is equivalent to planting a seed in the ground which will provide others with sustenance in the future, something that we already learned from Avraham in Genesis 22,33 when he planted an orchard.
The expression כזרע גד is an allusion to the same concept; we also find this term זרע used by the Talmud Baba Kamma 17 when it quotes זרעו לכם לצדקה, “sow righteousness for yourselves!” (Hoseah 10,12)
Numbers 11,12. “did I conceive, etc.......’?, “did I bear them? ….. As a nurse carries an infant on the soil. ….From where am I going to produce meat?” The words על האדמה, “on the soil,” present a difficulty here. What do they add to Moses’ complaint? If they belonged at all, the Torah should have written: אל האדמה, as then the purpose of nursing such an infant until he could live as an adult in the Holy Land might have been easier to understand. Furthermore, the word אדמה does not relate to the request of the people for meat.
We must remember that it was always Moses’ function and desire to be a dispenser of largesse and loving kindness. It had never been Moses’ nature to restrict this largesse available to the Israelites. The fact that the manna was able to taste according to the imagination of the person consuming it is proof of that, especially when we consider that according to the Talmud in Taanit 9, the manna was granted to the Jewish people through the merit accumulated by Moses. If the Israelites demanded meat at this juncture this indicates that they felt somehow as already entitled to the צמצום המזון, )intense, concentrated, taste of food), something that is an exclusive to the land of Israel. This was something beyond Moses’ ability, and this is why he referred to על האדמה, “on the soil of the earth,” meaning the soil of the land of Israel.
Numbers 11,28. he said: “my lord Moses lock them up!” To this Moses responded by saying: (11,29), “I wish that the entire people of G’d would be filled with prophetic insights!”,
Whereas we know that the righteous are able to bring about a cancellation of Divine decrees that would negatively affect our people, this rule holds true only as long as the decrees in question have not been written down by the prophet who had announced them. Once the decree has been committed to writing, it is beyond the ability of the righteous to bring about its reversal.
If this is so, surely we must ask ourselves how it is possible to cancel the prophecies about the disasters that will befall us during the period described in the Talmud as the חבלי משיח, “the birth pangs of the messianic age?” If you would question why in light of this the prophets committed these decrees to writing in the first place, the answer is that unless they had been written down people would deny that such prophecies had existed and would claim that had they known of them they surely would have taken them to heart and would have done teshuvah, repentance. Not only that, but people would have claimed that the fact that these dire prophecies did not come true was not due to repentance, but that they were the words of false prophets in the first place.
Maimonides in the sefer Hamadda as well as in hilchot melachim (chapter 12,2) writes that what the prophets wrote does not describe the period immediately preceding the coming of the messiah; from this it follows that we cannot pray for cancellation of decrees of which we have no knowledge. When the messiah will come he will also explain to us writings of the prophets which we were unable to understand until then.
Even if it were true that the prophets’ writings did describe the period preceding the coming of the messiah, seeing that when the messiah comes all of the Jewish people will possess intimate knowledge of G’d, just as did the prophets of old, as we know from Joel 3,1ונבאו בניכם ובנותיכם זקניכם חלומות יחלמו בחוריכם חזיונות יראו, “your sons and daughters will prophesy, and your elders will dream dreams, and your youngsters will experience visions.” At that time, when all the Jewish people are on the level of prophets, no one will accuse the prophets of having prophesied falsely, so that there is no need to record their visions in writing. They will then realize that the righteous that lived shortly before the advent of the messiah had been able to cancel these decrees so that their non occurrence is no proof of their having been falsehoods.
When Joshua told Moses to lock up Eldod and Meydod for having prophesied his death and Joshua’s becoming his successor, this prophecy could no longer have been cancelled as it has been recorded in the Torah. [actually it was not spelled out. Ed.] Moses, by saying that he wished that all the Jews could prophesy already meant, that if that were the case the prophecy of Eldod and Meydod could become void then without their being called false prophets. The righteous of his time would then be able to override that decree although it had been recorded in writing. In other words, even when prophets have been told of certain decrees G’d has issued Himself, it is within the power of the righteous to bring about an annulment. This is the meaning of Devarim Rabbah 3,11 stating when explaining the meaning of Deuteronomy 9,1 when Moses commences to describe Israel as crossing the Jordan with the words: אתה עובר היום את הירדן וגו', “you are about to cross the river Jordan today, etc,” that Moses implied that he himself was not allowed to cross the Jordan, but that he hoped that the intercession of the righteous on his behalf might result in G’d revoking His decree concerning this. To his dismay, the people did not understand the hint Moses gave them in that verse. He had hoped that although he had told them that he was about to die (on the east bank of the Jordan) they would pray for a remission of G’d’s decree. Moses, according to that Midrash was clearly not afraid that if as a result of Israel’s prayers he would be allowed to cross the Jordan, that they would consider him a false prophet, seeing he had told them himself that he would not.
Numbers 12,1-9, “Miriam and Aaron spoke (critically) of Moses; etc.”, “when a prophet of Hashem arises amongst you, I make Myself known to him in a blurred vision, I speak to him in a dream;” I do not speak to Moses in riddles but in a vision as clear as a mirror.”
The wording is unclear, G’d could have been expected to say: אם יהיה נביאכם ה' בחידות אליו אתודע, i.e. that the difference between their degree of prophecy and that of Moses was that G’d makes Himself crystal clear when speaking to Moses.
In order to understand the wording of the Torah here it is pertinent to review a statement in the Mechilta on Parshat Bo, 1,1 where we have been taught that every time when the Torah commences a paragraph with the words: וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן “Hashem spoke to Moses and Aaron,” G’d addressed only Moses directly, whereas Moses immediately made Aaron privy to what G’d had told him. It is most likely that also when other prophets received prophetic insights they received those only after Moses had acted as G’d’s intermediary. In order to understand this we must substitute the words: “Moses’ Torah,” for “Moses,” as the prophets we referred to lived after Moses had died. This has all been alluded to in the Talmud Yevamot 49 where the Talmud describes Moses as having seen G’d’s instructions through a clearly transparent window pane, i.e. the source from which all prophets’ visions had emanated, whereas the other prophets received their visions through a blurred transparency. i.e. after having been filtered by Moses.
We find a similar allusion in our verse above, where G’d tells Miriam and Aaron that if indeed they are prophets this was only due to their visions having first been “filtered” through Moses.
Numbers 8,16. “for presented, presented are they to Me from the midst of the Children of Israel;” the repetition of the words נתונים, נתונים cry out for further analysis. Perhaps we best approach this by means of a parable. If one brings a gift to a minor official it is the intrinsic value of the gift that is appreciated or considered as insufficient, whereas when one brings a gift to a highly placed minister or prince, the intrinsic value of the gift is of little account as the prince is not in need of it. What matters to him is the time and effort the donor invested in selecting something that would please him. The highly placed official will accordingly respond with an open heart to the person who went to great length to please him, in recognition of the effort made by the donor.
When looking at the relationship between G’d and the Levites on one hand, and that of mankind or the rest of the Israelites, as well as all the angels in heaven, all of whom are equally duty bound to revere Him, He considers the fact that the Levites had dedicated themselves to Him in a completely selfless manner, knowingly risking their lives, as a much more valuable “gift,” than if they had presented many bulls as offerings on the altar.
This is also how we can understand the Mishnah in Avot 2,1 where we are told to consider a commandment, which on the surface appears as easy to fulfill, involving neither much expense nor physical effort, as equal to a commandment which appears as much harder to fulfill. The essence of the value of fulfilling the commandment lies in the heart of the person performing it, not the intrinsic material value of the commandment itself. The author of that Mishnah reminds us that the donor does not know by what yardstick the recipient (G’d) will judge his gift (mitzvah performance), therefore he should not lightly dismiss performing a commandment, which in his eyes, seems trivial.
In this context it is worth recalling another statement in the Talmud Shabbat 63, where we are told: כל העושה מצוה אחת כמאמרה אין מבשרין לו בשורה רעה, “whoever performs one commandment in complete accordance with all its meaning will not become the recipient of bad tidings.” The author of that statement quotes as his source Kohelet 8,5 שומר מצוה לא ידע רע, “he who obeys the commandment will know no evil.” The word כמאמרה in the Talmud’s statement, is the same as לשמה, “in order to fulfill its intrinsic purpose,” i.e. to please the Creator Who decreed it. The word מצוה clearly refers to the commandment’s purpose, i.e. to conform to the will of the Creator Who legislates for us to perform His will in this manner. [At this point the author quotes a verse purportedly from Proverbs which I have been unable to find even elsewhere. Ed.] His point is that seeing that the Creator is concerned with His creatures performing His commandments because He desires it, not because the creature considers it worthwhile and an intelligent thing to do, it does not matter whether performance of that commandment involves much effort and expense or no effort and little expense, as by doing it for the right reason he has met the standards set by the lawgiver. In other words, once the donor’s intention for bringing the gift has been established beyond doubt, as long as the gift itself is not something demeaning for the recipient, the monetary value of the gift has become totally irrelevant. It follows that performance of a relatively easy to perform commandment, may bring in its wake the same reward as performance of a commandment involving far more effort and expense, as long as the intention of the person performing the commandment had been to provide his Creator with pleasure. This is why the author of the Mishnah in Avot exhorts us to treat performance of a מצוה קלה, “a commandment which appears trivial in our eyes,” with the same seriousness which we would automatically accord a מצוה חמורה, a commandment which is “difficult to perform.”
It is important to remember that in evaluating which of the commandments G’d considers as מצוה קלה, and which He considers as מצוה חמורה, only the Creator is able to make that distinction. If the Levites had to undergo extensive rituals to become ritually pure enough to commence their duties, it was a reminder that henceforth all their special tasks would be evaluated only in terms of what G’d considered “difficult” or “easy” to perform. Once they had undergone these preparatory steps in their consecration, the Levites would take to heart the lesson spelled out in the Mishnah in Avot 2,1. The words נתונים נתונים לי, emphasise that G’d evaluates the thought behind each gift presented to Him.
Sh'lach
Numbers 13,2. “send out men for your own satisfaction.”
We have a rule that when an Israelite arrives at a place where he serves the Lord, all the ”sparks” (that had fallen to earth from the Shechinah on account of some misdemeanour) that are scattered around him, feel ashamed in the presence of such people.
[The expression ניצוצות, sparks, occurs both as something material, though not tangible, in the writings of Maimonides for instance, examples hilchot Shabbat 28/25 and hilchot tefillin 4,18, whereas in Yalkut Shimoni, i.e. midrashic exegesis, it occurs as more esoteric, though not as applicable to purely spiritual beings as in kabbalah. Up until this point, our author always used the term for spiritual concepts such as “fallen angels.” At this point I am not quite sure how to understand his reference to it. Ed.]
In the Talmud Shabbat 31 we read that G’d created the universe only in order that His creatures be in awe of Him. (opinion of Rabbi Yehudah) The scriptural “proof” for this opinion quoted is Kohelet 3,14 והאלוקים עשה שייראו מלפניו, “and G’d has acted so that [man] should stand in awe of Him.” Accordingly, it appears that the author understands the word ניצוצות here as negative forces that obstruct man in his quest to fulfill the Creator’s commandments. When these negative forces (commonly called Satan) observe how man goes out of his way to fulfill G’d’s commandments, they become ashamed, and while in that state man can easily overcome their feeble efforts to distract him from serving G’d. (and, according to our author elevate these negative forces to a higher spiritual level in the process of his worshipping Gd.) There is, however, a limitation to the statement expressed in the rule expressed at the beginning of our exegesis, and this is that the rule that the person wishing to worship G’d can overcome external obstacles is based on the premise that he himself has freed himself of subjective, sensually influenced considerations when setting out to perform one of G’d’s commandments.
The choice of the words שלח, at the beginning of our portion is reminiscent of Genesis 37:32 where Onkelos translates the word וישלחו, commonly translated as: “they sent,” as ושלחו, “they stripped” [Joseph of his striped coat, the personification of his earthly aspirations. Ed.]
Another approach to our verse: The words: שלח לך אנשים should be viewed in connection with Rashi’s commentary on Joshua 2,4 where we are told that the innkeeper who resided within the walls of Jericho welcomed Joshua’s spies and hid them. On the word: ותצפנו commonly translated as “she hid them,” (but literally meaning: “she hid him”) Rashi explains that the reason why the text uses the word in the singular mode was that Rahav, (the innkeeper) hid each spy separately so that if one were to be discovered the other one would still be able to save himself. Alternately, her reason –according to our sages- was that only Caleb needed hiding as Joshua was able to make himself invisible. When the sages speak about someone being able to make himself invisible, they mean that he could strip himself of his physical desires so that his body had become an אין סוף, as if non-existent. Or, expressed in terms of our explanation above, he could dispose of the potential obstacles, ניצוצות, to his serving G’d with all of his spiritual potential. Accordingly, we have to assume that Calev was not yet on that level.
It is a fact that the Canaanites whom the 12 spies of Moses encountered were on such a low spiritual level that they could not elevate themselves sufficiently to enter celestial regions even in the presence of 12 such outstandingly good men as Moses had chosen as the spies. As proof of this we need only look at Deuteronomy 20,16 where the Torah commands the Israelites about to conquer the Holy Land not to allow a single soul, נשמה, not merely נפש, to remain alive. Keeping all this in mind, i.e. the strength of these Canaanites, viewed as the spies’ potential obstacles in fulfilling their mission, they had to strip themselves completely of any residual earthly concerns if they were to have a chance to fulfill their mission successfully. The fact that Rahav, almost 40 years later had to “hide” Calev, is proof that he had not succeeded completely in divesting himself of earthly concerns when fulfilling G’d’s commandments. At any rate, we see that Rashi already alludes to the absolute single-mindedness necessary in order to serve our Creator optimally.
Another look at “send for yourself men to tour the land of Canaan which I am about to give to the Children of Israel.”
Most commentators already focused on the word לך, “for yourself,” in this verse, finding it difficult to understand
I believe that G’d’s principal purpose was that Moses should use the most G’d fearing individuals from each tribe to make up this delegation, men whose devotion and sincerity to the highest principles of Judaism was beyond doubt. The word לתור, usually translated as to “tour,” i.e. to examine visually, in this instance was not intended as an instruction for these men to examine the material benefits that the land of Canaan had to offer the Jewish people. By dispatching truly G’d fearing men to tour this land, G’d intended for this land to become attuned to the presence of G’d fearing human beings, [seeing that since the day Yaakov had left it there had not been anyone residing there who was a servant of the Creator. Ed.] It was hoped that after being visited by such individuals, the soil of the land of Canaan itself would experience a desire to become the home of the people who had sent such emissaries. The mere temporary presence of these “tourists,” would encourage the response from the celestial sources of G’d’s largesse to bestow it in generous measure on this land, much as it had done while the patriarchs had resided there.
We may therefore understand the word שלח in the sense of המשכה, extension, continuation, similar to Exodus where Pharaoh’s daughter whose arm was not long enough, dispatched her servant maid to bring her the basket that contained the infant Moses. One of the sages in Sotah 12 discussing that verse understands the word אמתה as referring to the princess’ arm and not to her maid servant.
We may extrapolate on this allegory somewhat further, following our approach when dealing with true service of the Lord, and understand Pharaoh’s daughter as “stripping herself” of material physical concerns when setting out to save the life of Jewish baby after seeing the basket had aroused maternal instincts in her. Similarly, in our portion, when Moses dispatched the twelve emissaries to examine the qualities of the land of Israel, he charged them with divesting themselves, שלח, of material concerns when setting out on a mission approved by the Lord Himself. (Numbers 13,1) The choice of the word ויתורו, instead of וירגלו, “and to spy out,” or ויחפרו, as in Deuteronomy 1,22 is an allusion to the word תורה, and points to the difference between what the people had demanded and what G’d had agreed to.
To repeat, G’d’s i.e. Moses’ purpose in agreeing to the people’s request to spy out the land of Canaan was to sublimate what was a material quest into becoming a spiritual quest and to thereby convert it into an act of worship. The word לך, “for you,” therefore simply means that Moses should select the kind of men for this mission that best guaranteed that G’d’s criteria for allowing it would be met. This is also the reason why G’d repeats to Moses: אשר אני נותן לבני ישראל, “that the land that I give to the Children of Israel” in order to perform His commandments when they are in that land, not for any other reason. The fact that this land is a gift from G’d for a purpose must never be absent from the minds of the men viewing the land for the first time. When Moses prayed that Joshua should remain steadfast against any attempt by his colleagues to abort the purpose of this mission by adding a letter ה as a reminder of G’d’s name to his name, this is what he had in mind. (Compare 13,16) He did not want him to become a מרגל, “spy.” The תורה element in this mission had to be preserved for it to be crowned with success.
Another aspect of the opening line of our portion: Rashi, commenting on the word לך explains it as short for לדעתך, “in accordance with your opinion,” as opposed to “in accordance with MY opinion.” G’d, while not opposing the mission, did not specifically approve it. This is hard to understand in light of the fact that the Torah describes the dispatch of the spies as having occurred על פי ה', “at the command of Hashem.” (13,3)
In the Talmud Shabbat 87, the point is made that there were three instances in which Moses added to G’d’s instructions without first obtaining G’d’s consent but that subsequently G’d thanked Moses for having added these items arbitrarily. One is that he divorced his wife, another that he smashed the first set of the Tablets, the third one quoted there being the third preparatory day before the revelation at Mount Sinai. [If Moses’ addition was approved by G’d, why is it not listed as another addition made by Moses and subsequently approved, which would account for the words: על פי ה' in verse 3? Ed.]
On folio 57 in Pessachim the Talmud relates a conversation between the king [Agrippas II ? Ed.] and his queen when the king and queen disagreed as to which animal provides tastier meat, the king preferring a young kid, whereas the queen preferred lamb. In order to settle their disagreement they agreed to abide by the opinion of the High Priest. The High Priest, in a quandary and forced to use diplomacy, waved his hand, and said that if a kid were better, surely it would be required as the animal to be used for the daily communal sacrifices. The king, angry at the High Priest for having waved his hand, a sign of disrespect for the king, ordered his right hand to be cut off. [The Talmud continues with this story. Ed.] Our author questions the relevance of this story in the Talmud to the fate of this High Priest, which is described in further detail there in the Talmud.
Our author also has a problem with the Talmud’s blanket statement that the generation of the adult Israelites that wandered through the desert after leaving Egypt have no share in the world to come. (Sanhedrin 110) [There too this statement is challenged and has to be qualified. Ed.] The statement appears firmly founded on Numbers 14,35 זאת אעשה לכל העדה הרעה הזאת הנועדים עלי, במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימותו, “Thus I will do to all that wicked community that banded together against Me; in this very desert they will expire, and there they will die “
We shall explain all this so that it will become clear. There are times in the year when the Creator awakens in man feelings that stir his desire to worship Him with a full heart. Such times have been described in the Torah as מועדים לשמחה חגים וזמנים לששון, “festivals for rejoicing and assemblies and festivals for rallying the seasons, etc.” (from the amidah prayer on every holiday.) On those predetermined days G’d and His angels are in a joyous frame of mind, and the joy that has communicated itself to His angels results in a spillover of joyful inspiration for His people who observe the rituals prescribed for these days. Having experienced this psychological lift, the Jew on these holydays finds it far easier to devote his attention both in prayer and in gratitude to his Creator.
Moses’ intention when telling the people to prepare themselves for the revelation at Mount Sinai for an extra day was that they should use their own spiritual resources to generate the right frame of mind to get the maximum spiritual benefit from G’d’s manifesting Himself on Mount Sinai. Every Jew experiences some degree of heavenly assist, as we have a tradition that a heavenly voice calls to man every day asking him to return to G’d through penitence. (Chagigah 15). If a person has accumulated sufficient merits he hears this heavenly voice. When a person has attained the level when he hears this voice but ignores it, he forfeits his claim to life in the hereafter. The Jewish people, collectively, were on an extremely high spiritual level while in the desert, seeing that they hosted the Tabernacle, G’d’s residence on earth, but they did not respond to this heavenly assist to become penitents.
When the Talmud in Sanhedrin 110 begins by stating that the people of the generation who had left Egypt have no share in the hereafter, the word אין, normally translated as “not”, means that these people considered themselves as totally insignificant, devoid of ego; since this was so, the very fact that they had acquired this level of humility qualified them for an afterlife. The word מדבר used there in the Talmud, usually translated as “desert,” is not used by the sages there in that sense, but is derived from medaber,” they were only speaking,” i.e. their worship of G’d expressed itself through their mouths, prayer, praise and thanksgiving, and the word יתמו in the quotation from Numbers 14,35 does not refer to their “expiring,” but is derived from תמים, “perfection,” the Torah testifying that these people had, as a result of their grievous sin rejecting the land of Israel as their future domicile, realized that they had sinned and had accepted their fate without protest.
They had tried to perfect their personalities by refining their speech so that no improper words should cross their lips. When the Torah adds in Numbers 14,35 שם ימותו, normally translated as “there they will die,” [which would be a repetition of what the Torah had already said, Ed.], the meaning is that they had achieved while on earth what the average person achieves only by reason of his soul leaving its body behind on earth. Moses had hoped that the men he had chosen to explore the goodness of the land of Canaan would approach their task in a spirit that would place them beyond material considerations that are commonplace on earth. G’d was aware of Moses’ lofty aspirations, but did not feel that He should deprive Moses of the opportunity to realize his high hopes for his people. When the Torah writes that the mission proceeded על פי ה', this does not literally mean “at the command of G’d,” but rather: “in the spirit of G’d.” It would be quite wrong for us to give G’d part of the blame for the failure of these men to live up to the trust Moses had placed in them.
The author proceeds to remind us that the sages have said that wherever the Torah associates the death of a person with the word שם, as in Numbers 14,35, this is an allusion that the person or persons concerned died by means of a heavenly kiss, i.e. a kiss from G’d. Rashi spells this out in connection with the death of Miriam, reported in Numbers 20,1, שםwhere the Torah, having already told us of the location where this took place, adds the word שם twice.
[Rashi adds that the reason the Torah did not make this clear beyond doubt by writing: על פי ה', “by the mouth of G’d,” as we find when Moses died in Deuteronomy, 34,5, is seeing that G’d is masculine, it would have given some blasphemer an opportunity to read a sexual nuance into that.” Ed.]
At any rate, we are entitled to understand the words ושם ימותו in Numbers 14,35 as promising each one of the Israelites who had left Egypt as adults but did not get to the Holy Land that they would be given a Divine “kiss” when their souls would leave their bodies.
Whereas it is true that Moses had not had clear proof that these men had already enjoyed a “heavenly” assist, as does every Jew on the festivals we have discussed, he felt that they were of the caliber that could generate this by their own efforts seeing that the mission for which they had been selected was of such significance.
When the Talmud in Shabbat 156 states that אין מזל לישראל, commonly translated as “the Jewish people’s fate is not subject to the influences of zodiac constellations,” the true meaning of the statement is that when a person considers himself as insignificant to the point of אין, as amounting to nothing, then he does not need to worry about negative zodiac constellations spelling trouble for him. According to our author the word מזל in that context does not really refer to zodiac constellations, but is derived from a root meaning השפעה, G’d’s largesse, as we read in Numbers 24,7 יזל מים מדליו, “water may flow bountifully from its buckets;” when a human being disregards the limitations imposed upon him by nature, then G’d can bestow upon him unlimited amounts of His largesse emanating in transcendental regions. On the other hand, as long as he is “firmly rooted” in nature, seeing in nature the bulk of his supply of sustenance, this limits G’d in His ability to make available to him the bulk of His largesse. The relationship between man’s receiving G’d’s largesse and his depending on natural sources for his needs, is in direct proportion to his reliance on the one or the other. If follows that when a person is an atheist, he will not become the beneficiary of any of G’d’s largesse. The reason is that such people consider themselves as in command of nature rather than as recipients of G’d’s generosity.
Seeing that we –the rgihteous- are not entitled to view ourselves as צדיקים, who may eschew the natural elements into which we have been born, we must not be arrogant enough to always wait for external divine stimuli such as we receive on our festivals, but must rather endeavour to generate such spiritual stimuli ourselves.
This brings us back to the discussion in the Talmud as to whether a kid tastes better than a lamb. The king who said that the kid tastes better understood the word גדיא, i.e. “kid,” as related to the word מזל, a word which, as we explained, alludes to G’d’s largesse. Such largesse is earned when the human being considers himself as “nothing,” i.e. denigrated his ego completely. This state of אין, “nothingness,” is the result of Divine influence as a reward for one’s ultimate humility.
The queen who had said that אימרא, sheep or lamb tastes better, used a word derived from אמר alluding to speech, alluded to worship of G’d in the commonly accepted way by mortal human beings. She credited these people with having generated their own spiritual elevation without having been “awakened” to do so by a heavenly assist. When both the king and the queen in the story agreed to let the High Priest become the arbiter of their disagreement, and the High Priest raised his hands and waved heavenwards, he meant to point to the source of heavenly inspiration, and pointed out that such inspiration occurs rarely and that therefore it is far better to rely on self-generated inspiration. The moral lesson is that we must not be content to wait for the advent of the festivals to be awakened into worshipping our Creator.
Numbers 13,3. “Moses dispatched them from the desert of Parana at the command of Hashem;” [note that the Torah writes about this both in verse 3 and again in verse 17, so that exegesis for this repetition is forced upon us. Ed.]
Moses and his generation, predominantly part of the generation of the desert, are viewed as comparable to the written Torah, whereas Joshua and the people entering the Holy Land with him, are viewed as comparable to the oral Torah. This is also what the Talmud in Baba batra 75 referred to when the sages said that the face of Moses was comparable to the sun whereas the face of Joshua was comparable to the moon. The oral Torah is viewed as being the vessel which received input from the written Torah, just as the moon receives its light which it then reflects from the sun.
When the Torah writes here that Moses dispatched the 12 men to “tour” the land of Canaan, this is an allusion to the generation of the Israelites that were supposed to make their home in the Holy Land, i.e. it was appropriate for these men to reflect the oral Torah. Actually, seeing that, as we explained repeatedly in connection with the ability of the righteous in each generation being able to change G’d’s decrees, the “oral Torah” is not quite the same in each generation, as the sages in each generation have the power to add or change protective decrees knows as סיג לתורה “a protective fence around Biblical decrees.” This is also the reason why the Israelites who are perceived as symbolic of the oral Torah count their months according to the lunar calendar, the moon being symbolic of the oral Torah. [I believe that the author wished to explain why the name of Moses had to be mentioned again in this verse, seeing that he had been addressed by G’d in the verse before and the subject had not changed. Ed.]
Numbers 13,16. “Moses renamed Hoshea son of Nun, Yehoshua.” Rashi comments on this verse that this means that Moses prayed that G’d should protect him against being swayed by the evil advice offered by the majority of the men who were part of this mission.
This commentary is strange, as whence did Moses know already that these men would turn out to be spies counseling that the land was beyond their ability to conquer? Surely, if Moses had been aware of the tragic outcome of this mission he would never have allowed it to go forth? This is also why Rashi says that at the time when this mission set out all the members partaking in it were beyond suspicion of wanting it to fail. If Rashi is correct, we must then ask what made Moses pray for Joshua’s being protected against the “spies’” evil influence?
It appears that the answer to the above questions is that G’d had told Moses to send out men to “tour” the land of Canaan, whereas in Deuteronomy 1,22 when the whole incident is recalled by Moses he describes the intiative for this to have been the people, who had, however, demanded that the mission be one of spying, i.e. ויחפרו את הארץ לנו את הארץ “who will spy out the land for us.” the Midrash Kohelet Rabbah 1,9 in relating to this request states that just as a human being has 248 bones and 365 tendons, so the earth is similarly made up of as many constituent parts. [The text there only speaks about man and the earth having certain organs in common. Ed.] It elaborates by saying that just as the Torah speaks of ערות הארץ, לב הארץ, טבור הארץ, עין הארץ, “the nakedness of the earth, the heart of the earth, the navel of the earth, an the eye of the earth, etc.; these are only a few examples of the earth possessing parts which serve it in a manner similar to the way that the bones and tendons serve the human being.
It follows that when the Israelites perform G’d’s commandments on this land, that the land itself will develop a fondness for this people. We are entitled therefore to view in the expression לתור את הארץ, Moses’ way of instructing these men to establish a personal relationship with this land based on Torah (תור) observance. By doing so the Jewish people would assume the role of dispensing spiritual largesse of their own to this land. The land, seeing that it had become a recipient of largesse from the Jewish people would also become indebted to them. This explains Moses’ command to the subterranean waters in the part of the land of Canaan already captured by the Jewish people to give forth its waters, i.e. Numbers 21,17 אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת עלי באר ענו-לה באר חפרוה שרים, “then Israel sang this song: ‘spring up O well-sing to it-, the well which the princes dug.’ The word חפרוה is derived from חפר “to dig,” and is completely analogous to the expression ויחפרו את הארץ in Deuteronomy 1,22 where we can then translate it “in order to dig for us in the land.” The wish expressed by the Israelites when singing this song was meant to convince the earth of the land of Canaan (in this instance the east bank of the Jordan) that complying with Israel’s request was for its own benefit.
Numbers 13,17. “ascend from here in the south and climb the mountain from which you will be able judge the nature of the land.”
The rule is that when engaging in the attempt to elevate “sparks”, i.e. spiritually fallen people, one must first attach oneself firmly to G’d’s attribute of חסד, loving kindness. The location of that attribute traditionally is the south, דרום, another word for נגב, south, means חסד, i.e. breaking the hold of the evil urge over one’s various תאוות, lust and cravings. We have already explained this elsewhere in connection with psalms 119,98 מאויבי תחכימני מצותיך כי לעולם היא, “Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, they always stand by me.” The “enemy” in this verse is the evil urge, Satan, a force that G’d employs to test man’s ability to resist temptation. Man’s basic error in relating to the satisfying of his cravings is that he imagines that by indulging his cravings he attains true satisfaction, well being without more cravings. He does not realize that the only craving that will result in such satisfaction is his desire to provide pleasure for his Creator. This is what the psalmist means when he describes the fulfillment of his craving for the service of the Lord as one that is enduring.
This idea is also alluded to when Moses said to the men “touring” the land of Canaan ועליתם את ההר, “you will ascend the Mountain,” the “mountain” being the evil urge.
We have a statement in Sukkah 52 in which the evil urge is referred to as הר, “mountain.” The Talmud there refers to the post-messianic era during which G’d is presented as “slaughtering” the evil urge in the presence of both the righteous and the wicked. The evil urge in that story appears to the righteous as a mountain, whereas to the wicked he appears as a thin hair. Both the righteous and the wicked weep when looking at the evil urge. The wicked weep as they cannot believe that they had been unable to overcome such a weak adversary, whereas the righteous weep as in retrospect they marvel at having conquered such a high mountain. According to the report in the Talmud, G’d agrees with the wicked having reason to berate themselves for failing to have conquered their cravings. The righteous’ amazement was due to their realizing that they had used the very efforts by Satan to indulge their material cravings as a tool to serve the Lord with the kind of overpowering desire that had enabled them to completely dehumanize, i.e. turning the ego, אני into an אין, a creature devoid of material desires, by concentrating on the source from which all the divine souls originate. There is an additional allusion to this subject when Moses added that the “tourists” are also to evaluate the cities in the land of Canaan i.e. ומה הערים? In the words of the Talmud in Pessachim 88, when discussing the difference between Moses and Avraham, the Talmud distinguishes between an early stage in serving the Lord, when to Avraham G’d appeared to have His residence on top of the mountain, i.e. (Isaiah 2,3) whereas to Yaakov He had already appeared as a “house-guest” (in the same verse). Moses had attained a level where he could completely divest himself of ego, as when he said of both himself and his brother Aaron: ונחנו מה, “what do we as personalities amount to?,” making sure that he omitted the letter א in the wordאנחנו , when referring to himself and Aaron. (Exodus 16,7-8). When the tzaddik is aware of all the three nuances in serving the Lord, he will succeed in elevating the “sparks” together with him and as a result subject Satan to a humbling experience.
Numbers 13,33 “we looked like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and so we looked in their eyes.” Rashi explains that they had heard the Canaanites say that their vineyards had been invaded by “ants.” On the face of it, this seems very difficult, seeing that according to our text they had referred to them as grasshoppers.
Apparently, we have to understand this as follows: when the Israelites perform the will of G’d this reflects favourably on their G’d and His kingdom. This is also what Calev referred to when the Torah quotes him (13,30) as ויהס כלב את העם עלה נעלה, usually translated as “Calev hushed the people, saying: “we will most certainly be able to ascend, etc.” He meant that if only they would acquire the necessary merits by remaining on the same “wavelength” as G’d they would overcome any apparent difficulties. Rashi had hinted that the “spies” had been guilty of throwing off the yoke of the Torah, and that is what he meant by his reference to “ants,” similar to what Solomon had to say about the ants in Proverbs 6,6 when he urged his people to learn a lesson from the ant which in spite of not even having a ruler who forces them to act diligently still do so due to their own intelligence. [grasshoppers are destructive, living for the immediate satisfaction of their desires without concern for the future, whereas the ants provide for the winter when the grasshoppers will not find anything fit to eat. Ed.]
An alternate explanation: According to Yalkut Shimoni on this paragraph, Talmay, one of the leading citizens of Chevron, asked Calev why they wanted to conquer this land seeing that G’d had given it to the Canaanites and it would be violating the commandment not to rob if they nonetheless conquered it, seeing that the Canaanites had not warred with them? Our sages already dealt with this problem, quoting the verse from Proverbs we quoted in the last paragraph. They understood that Solomon wanted to warn us not to collect matter belonging to others. Just as the ants collect only what is not private property or viewed as such, so the Israelites must take them as their model in this respect. Talmay’s argument is flawed of course, and seeing that the entire universe belongs to its Creator, the Creator can dispossess any tenant whenever He sees fit to do so. [G’d had already foretold Avraham in Genesis chapter 15 that the measure of the Canaanites’ sins would not be full so that He could feel justified in dispossessing them, until at least 4 generations after He had promised Avraham their land to his descendants. (Genesis 15,16). Ed.]
Numbers 14,17. “Hashem’s forbearance is long lasting;” when the Israelites committed the sin of the golden calf, this was a sin of direct disobedience of the second of the Ten Commandments, i.e. a sin that directly provoked G’d. In this instance, the sin of the spies was a provocation of Israel’s image, i.e. they did not believe that their fellow Jews had sufficient faith in G’d to overturn the numerical and physical superiority of their adversaries the Canaanites’, by the power of their prayers. This attribute called רחום, is G’d’s ability to attach Himself closely to the “lower” parts of His universe, just as a rich man who displays true empathy for the poor needs to share the poor man’s pain so that he can truly have mercy on him. The two Divine attributes of רחום וחנון are therefore practically inseparable, as the latter implies that the victim in need of this attribute has found grace in G’d’s eyes. Seeing that the spies underestimated the Jewish people’s faith in G’d, Moses omitted coupling the attribute the two attributes of רחום וחנון but appealed only to ארך אפים, G’d’s attribute of forbearance.
14,20. “Hashem said: ‘I have forgiven according to your word.’” In his commentary on this verse Rashi amends the word דברך, “your word” (singular), to דבריך “your words.” He does so, in order that we understand that Moses’ “word” which G’d referred to would be understood clearly as the “words” מבלתי יכולת ה', “that G’d had killed His people because he was not able to make good on His promise to dispossess the Canaanites in their favour,” and surely G’d would not wish to create such an impression. At first glance we do not see what Rashi’s commentary added to the understanding of this verse.
I believe that what Rashi had in mind was that the principal concern in Moses’ prayer at this time was to avoid that the Israelites’ sin would result in a public desecration of G’d’s name, i.e. the impression being created that G’d was not omnipotent. Moses specifically pointed to the reaction the destruction of the Jewish people would cause in Egypt, the Egyptians being able to point out that the Israelites had been far better off while they had been slaving for them before their Exodus. Surely this is a very weak argument seeing that G’d is able to mislead human beings in the conclusions they draw when observing certain events.
[There comes to mind an example cited by the Torah itself in Exodus 14,2 when G’d commanded the Israelites to encamp at פי החירות for the express purpose of making the Egyptians think that they had lost their way. Ed.] Seeing that G’d is free to do this, Moses’ argument appears to be very feeble.
We must however remember that the mere words uttered by G’d make an indelible impression. [The author quotes Job 22,28 “You will decree and it will be fulfilled” in support of this. Ed.] It would follow from the above that the mere mention of the possibility of an act by G’d that would result in His name being desecrated worldwide, would undermine a subsequent reversal when the decree is not carried out.
...Our sages, quoted in a Tossaphot Baba Batra 119, claim that the individual gathering firewood on the Sabbath and subsequently executed for having violated the Sabbath (Numbers 15,32-36) had committed his sin with a noble motive, i.e. to demonstrate the Torah’s warning of the penalty dealt out to the deliberate transgressor is not an empty threat. He did not want his peers to think that seeing that they would not enter the Holy Land anyways that the Torah laws no longer applied to them.
The whole episode of the Israelite gathering firewood is puzzling even without this especial motivation that he supposedly had for this. We have a general rule that when a major violation of the Sabbath is performed without the intention being that this act is the one intended, i.e. that it had been used for when building the Tabernacle (מלאכה שאינו צריכה לגופה), the act is not punishable by death. Seeing that this is so the execution of this individual appears highly questionable, as what he did was not the classic desecration of the Sabbath. We must therefore conclude that his execution was a signal to the other Israelites not to consider Torah laws as no longer binding for the adults who would not enter the Holy Land.
Numbers 14,21. “nevertheless, as I live and as the Lord’s Presence fills the whole world, etc.”
The opening words of the verse following the above, i.e. כי כל האנשים, “for all the men, etc.,” certainly seem to be inaccurate, besides what does this have to do with G’d’s glory filling the universe? It almost sounds as if the people who were going to die in the desert would thereby become the instrument of demonstrating G’d’s glory?
Numbers 14,21. “nevertheless, as I live and as the Lord’s Presence fills the whole world, etc.”
The opening words of the verse following the above, i.e. כי כל האנשים, “for all the men, etc.,” certainly seem to be inaccurate, besides what does this have to do with G’d’s glory filling the universe? It almost sounds as if the people who were going to die in the desert would thereby become the instrument of demonstrating G’d’s glory?
In order to understand verses 21-23, we need to preface our remarks with a well known fact about the subject of man’s free choice, i.e. having the choice of obeying the Creator or not. G’d has equipped each one of us with the power to overcome the temptation to do evil and to instead choose to do good and thereby to assure ourselves of life. We must always remember that were it not for the evil urge which constantly lies in wait to deceive us about our true interests, the fact that a human being serves the Creator would not arouse the slightest attention, as it is something that would be taken for granted. Also, as far as G’d is concerned, if man did not have an urge to do evil, how could G’d experience joy and satisfaction that he had not chosen to do so but serves Him instead?
A slave-owner does not derive special pleasure when the slave performs his duties satisfactorily, whereas the father whose son does his bidding without questioning it, causes his father joy precisely because he had the option to refuse to carry out his father’s bidding. We know from experience that many children have friends and companions who try to convince them to disobey their parents.
In spite of this, a clever son disregards the temptation to disobey his father’s wishes and instead goes out of his way to comply with his father’s wishes, as he realizes that by so doing he is adding joy to his father’s life as his father has reason to be proud of him. Something very similar occurs in our relations with our Creator, Who has told us specifically that He considers us, the Jewish people, as His children. (Deut. 14,1) His joy is reinforced as he realizes that by having given us free choice of how we arrange our lives His glory throughout the universe is enhanced.
This is the true meaning of what the Mishnah in Avot 6,11 tells us when the author states that everything the Lord has created has as its objective the enhancing of His glory. Maimonides in the Moreh Nevuchim when explaining the line in our prayers about G’d being יוצר אור ובורא חושך, “fashioning light, while having created the element of darkness,” explains the word ברא, as related to the word בור, as in Genesis 37,24 והבור רק אין בו מים, “the pit was empty and did not contain any water;” in other words, by withdrawing light there remains darkness. This “darkness” would be what is left from the original chaos, תהו ובוהו, of which the Torah speaks in the first verse of Genesis prior to G’d creating light.
In spite of this commentary by Maimonides, what the Mishnah meant refers only to the creatures. i.e. man, to whom G’d had given בחירה, the ability to make their own decisions as to whether they would live their lives in accordance with the wishes of the Creator or not. When man rises above the temptations offered in this world and chooses to serve his Creator this adds to G’d’s glory.
We know that by carrying out G’d’s will as expressed by the commandments He gave us in the Torah, we establish a “lifeline” to Him, and as the Talmud says in B’rachot 18, the righteous are considered as “great,” because they are called “alive” even after their bodies have already been interred. The same is not true for the wicked, who our sages describe as “dead” even while still walking around on earth. The wicked, by choosing a path which eventually results in their forfeiting their afterlife, have already identified themselves with “death,” even while onlookers do not yet realize this. [We hardly need any proof for his after reminding ourselves that Esau declined the benefits of birthright for precisely this consideration (Genesis 25,32). Ed.]
These considerations also help us understand why Moses when confronted with the rebellion of Korach, Datan and Aviram and their fellow travelers, prayed that the death, i.e. punishment of the guilty in that rebellion should not be death from natural causes, but through a creative act of G’d, so that it would be clear to everyone for what sin these people were being punished. (Numbers 16,29) It should be clear to the onlookers that the fact that these people descended beneath the earth while still breathing, that their souls would not have had time to return to heaven before being absorbed in the bowels of the earth.
We need to understand why only this type of death could bring home to the people the message that they lost their afterlife. On the face of it, what was so objectionable in Korach’s wanting to perform the same commandments as the ones only allowed for Aaron to perform? Did he not thereby ally himself with tzaddikim, i.e. with the forces of “life?”
According to our sages, Korach’s challenge to Moses had been based on the facetious question if a tallit, made entirely of blue wool would still require tzitzit, fringes, one of each strands was blue. Korach used Moses’ ruling that even such a garment required tzitzit as “proof” that he must have made up this halachah as it contradicted logic, and G’d would not demand something illogical from His people.
The fact is that Korach’s whole orientation in claiming entitlement to be equal to the priests was not based on his wishing to come closer to G’d by performing such tasks, but he wishes to drape himself in a tallit that did not belong to him. He thereby would be performing a “commandment” through first having committed a transgression, i.e. having stolen, misappropriated something belonging to someone else, since Aaron had been specifically appointed by G’d for this task. He would have had to countermand G’d’s orders before being able to perform this mitzvah, something that is forbidden, inadmissible. In other words, Korach wished to simultaneously anchor himself in life and in death. It was fitting therefore that he took the “life” as he had understood it, to his death with him, descending to the bowels of the earth while still alive. When the Torah not only writes: וירדו חיים שאולה, “they descended to the nether regions while still alive,” but adds: ותכס עליהם הארץ ויאבדו מתוך הקהל, “the earth completely covered them and they became permanently lost to the community,” this is the Torah’s way of informing us that these people do not enjoy an afterlife.
Numbers 15,41. “I am the Lord your G’d who has taken you out of Egypt in order to be your G’d; I am the Lord your G’d.” Why did the Torah have to repeat the words:אני ה' אלוקיכם? We have a rule that whatever man does or even only thinks, finds an echo in the celestial spheres and that therefore we must at all times remember this before we think certain thoughts or perform certain acts. By repeating the last three words in what has become the final paragraph of the k’riyat sh’ma, the prayer incorporating our accepting the yoke of the Torah, the Torah states that if we keep constantly aware that we are under constant Divine supervision, this is the greatest safeguard against our deviating from the right path.
Korach
Numbers 15,1. “Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, and Datan and Aviram took, etc;”
[At this point there appears to me to be a major error in our editions when the author claims that Nachmanides wrote that the spies had been aware that the Israelites would not enter the Holy Land. According to my understanding of Nachmanides on 15,1 he refers to the people having been aware of this decree, seeing that the spies were dead already. Ed.]
Nachmanides writes that seeing that the (spies) people knew that the members of their generation would not enter the Holy Land, the Israelites’ love of Moses had already been undermined so that the people would be more receptive to criticism of him. This is also the reason why this episode was written in the Torah immediately following the story of the spies. There had been several instances since the sin of the golden calf when many people had died without Moses having been able to prevent this, so that Korach felt that an attempt at insurrection could meet with broad support.
Basically speaking, the generation of the Israelites who had left Egypt as adults was of a spiritual level that enabled them to perform the commandments by merely using their power of speech, i.e. prayer alone. The next generation was of a lower spiritual level, requiring action in addition to prayer.
[Presumably the difference of the spiritual level of these two generations was due to the older generation having been addressed by G’d directly at the revelation on Mount Sinai. Ed.] The author cites as proof of this distinction the fact that Joshua when battling the 31 kings of the land of Canaan, had to perform some action with the javelin signaling to the ambush (Joshua 8,19) in order to secure victory. Moses, on the other hand, did not have to perform such actions, but accomplished his task by utterances emanating from his mouth alone. If you were to argue that Joshua conquered Jericho relying only on דבור, the power of speech, as pointed out in the Jerusalem Talmud Moed katan chapter 2 halachah 4, the reason for this was that Jericho was captured on the Sabbath, and the Ari’zal has pointed out already that the intellectual capacity of the Rabbi on a weekday is attained by his disciple on the Sabbath. Similarly, the relationship between Moses’ intellectual capacity and that of Joshua was like that of the teacher compared to the student. Moses had been able to accomplish everything he set out to do by relying exclusively on the power of the word. [Perhaps Moses’ failing to speak to the rock when commanded to and striking it instead, represented this desecration of G’d’s name in public that G’d accused both him and Aaron of. Ed.]
Both at Ai as well as during subsequent battles, Joshua had to employ other parts of his body in addition to the power of speech.
The Torah Moses presented to the Jewish people reflected the power of the word used by G’d when He created the universe; however, in common with other forms of energy emanating from G’d’s essence which had to be “screened” in order that their impact would not prove harmful instead of beneficial, even in our world of the עשיה, where matter appears as if it is “real,” this is so only because what we see with our three-dimensionally oriented eyes has already undergone such a process of being screened before we see it. According to our author this has been alluded to when the prophet Isaiah 44,6 quoted G’d saying: אני ראשון ואני אחרון, “I am no different at the end from the way I was at the beginning.” [The usual translation, is, of course: “I am first and I am last,” but I changed it to fit the author’s interpretation. Ed.]
G’d meant that if He employed “screens” to protect us from His outpouring of Divine energy at the beginning of creation, He did the same when He came to the final stage of His creative activity, i.e. earth and man. The form that these “screens” take in our material world is the attributes through which we try to understand the nature of the Creator, His מידות.
When Korach had realized that the generation of which he was a part would not be granted residence in the land of Canaan, he no longer accepted Moses’ Torah as something to be understood as having been “screened” by G’d before He entrusted it to us in the format that we are familiar with.
When G’d punished Korach by making the earth open its “mouth” to swallow him and his followers alive, He actually paid him back מידה כנגד מידה, “tit for tat,” seeing that Korach had refused to believe that the earth as we see it is not the “real thing;” he was taught at the last moment of his life how wrong he had been, and that the earth had hidden dimensions he had never dreamed of.
This has all been hinted at when the Torah listed as Korach’s antecedents, i.e. Yitzhar-alluding to brightness, light, Kehat- and Levi. The word יקהת alludes to “unity” as we know from Genesis 49,10 where Yaakov blessed Yehudah by saying that the other tribes would rally around him. The word לוי derived from ילוה, when his mother Leah, at his birth, expressed her hope that this son would be the cause of her husband spending more time with her; (Genesis 29,34) When looking at the three names together, they suggest that Korach only believed in the world of the power of speech, the world that we know as the three-dimensional world, and could not believe that behind what we see with our physical eyes there is hidden another dimension, one which makes it far easier to relate to the home of the Creator and the army of angels with whom He has surrounded Himself. [some of these words are mine. When someone insists on believing that the world we see is all there is in the universe, so that physical death is the end of all life, he has made the beginning of life equally irrelevant. Ed.]
The words of Isaiah 44,6 are therefore most important if we wish to understand G’d’s actions in creating different sections in His universe.
Another way of understanding the opening words of our portion. There are some tzaddikim who, in their effort to serve their Creator, are concerned solely with providing their Creator with a feeling of satisfaction and pleasure. It does not matter to such a tzaddik if others worship G’d with a similar purpose in mind or not. If someone, however, serves the Creator with a view to being rewarded for this at some future time, it matters to him that it was he, and not someone else who had provided G’d with this pleasure. When the opening words in our portion are ויקח קרח, “Korach took (credit),” this means that he was concerned with being the only one to receive credit for his actions. This is what Rashi had in mind when he commented on these words, saying: שלקח מקח רע לעצמו, “he made a bad bargain for himself;” his urge to be appointed as High Priest, i.e. serving the Lord for ulterior motives, though commendable on the surface, was the beginning of his undoing. [I have not been able to find where Rashi is supposed to have made the comment quoted by the author. Ed.]
In his comment on the words ודתן ואבירם, Rashi adds that whereas these members of the tribe of Reuven had been angry that their tribe had not been accorded the privileges due to the first born, i.e. their founding father Reuven, Korach was angry at not having been appointed as the leader of Kehatites, rather than Elitzafan ben Uzziel whom Moses had appointed at G’d’s instruction. (Compare Numbers 3,30). Rashi explains that Korach felt slighted, feeling that since he was the first born son of Yitzhar who was the second son of Amram, this position was rightfully his, seeing that Elitzafan son of Uzziel was the son of someone junior to his father.
Our author wonders that if Korach’s dissatisfaction had dated back to these appointments described by the Torah in the third chapter of Parshat Bamidbar, why had he not complained at that time?
Our author answers this by reminding us that at that time, before the episode with the spies, when it was assumed by the people that they would all enter the Holy Land and secure their ancestral heritage there, the position of tribal head or even that of head of one of the three sections of the Levites, would prove to have been a very temporary position, as entry into the land of Israel was expected to take place within less than a year. Now that they were condemned to spend 40 years wandering in the desert this position carried with it far more importance. Korach’s jealousy therefore had been aroused at this time.
Numbers 16,5. Come morning, the Lord will make known who is His and who is holy, whom He has granted access to Himself. Him whom He will choose He will bring close to Him."
We need to understand why, in the first half of the words Moses (G’d) speaks of “whom He had brought close to Himself” in the past tense, whereas immediately afterwards, “He will bring close to Himself” he changes to future tense. This verse contains an allusion to the proper manner in which to serve Hashem.
The subject is discussed in Rosh Hashanah, chapter 2, mishnah 7 where the mishnahreports that after the court had examined the witnesses who reported having seen the new moon and their testimony had been validated, the court proclaimed: מקודש, “the new month has been sanctified.” The people present then repeated the declaration of the court saying twice: מקודש מקודש. Why did the head of the court say the word מקודש only once, whereas the people were required to say it twice?
We have a general rule that when someone wishes to engage in service of the Lord, he has to distance himself first from any sins he had been guilty of, i.e. take his leave from a lifestyle that opposes G’d will, before he can be enrolled in the class of people actively serving the Lord, i.e. by performing His will. This will be a process that intensifies gradually. During every step of the way, the person who has left behind him a sinful lifestyle must be on his guard to serve the Lord by studying Torah, praying, and by sanctifying His name in various ways through his dealings with his fellow man, causing Him continuous pleasure when observing him. When keeping this in mind we can interpret the text of the Mishnah as follows: when the head of the court proclaimed the word מקודש, he thereby indicated that the separation from a negative lifestyle had been accomplished. When the people responded by saying the same word twice, they indicated that they were on the way to serving the Lord, reminding themselves at each stage how they were supposed to do this, i.e. that they needed both to keep distance from sin, and at the same time to maintain their awe of the Almighty, never to become too familiar with Him in the sense that they would permit themselves the kind of familiarities one does when in the company of mortal human beings. Moses refers to this when saying: ואת הקדוש, meaning that once one has attained this level of holiness one must remember with Whom one consorts. This person described as הקדוש in the verse above, is one who had already attained a certain level of sanctity, קדושה by his own efforts, and was no longer in need of being led by the hand all the time. (as Rashi explains in Parshat Noach on the words: את האלוקים התהלך נח, “Noach walked with G’d.”) (Genesis 6,9) When describing Avraham’s level of proximity to G’d the Torah (wrote Genesis 17,15) התהלך לפני, “strive to walk ahead of Me!”
When Moses (G’d) added ואת אשר יבחר בו, “and Whom He will select,” he indicated that the person concerned would require further support from the Almighty to lead him to his desired destination in his relations with G’d. The words יקריב אותו are the assurance by G’d that He would help that person along his chosen path to enable him to serve Him with a sincere heart.
The reason why Datan and Aviram added a complaint against Moses that Korach had not mentioned, when they said: “you also did not bring us to a land of milk and honey,” (Numbers 16,13) was that Korach was a member of the tribe of Levi that had not been condemned to die in the desert. Korach therefore could not have leveled this accusation at Moses. [According to a view expressed in Baba batra 121. Ed.]
Numbers 16,15. “I have not taken a single donkey of theirs nor I have I knowingly wronged anyone of them.” [The author considers the plain meaning of this verse as unnecessary, the mere suggestion that Moses had taken advantage of any Israelite being too obnoxious to warrant mention. Ed.]
The general rule is that that Moses constantly tried to spiritually uplift the people of Israel and to thereby bring them closer to him. He states here that this endeavour of his included every single one of the Israelites. He did not elevate a single Israelite at the expense of others whom he did not elevate. Similarly, when trying to be close to the people, he did not favour any Israelite at the expense of another Israelite about whom he supposedly cared less. According to our author, the word הרעותי in this verse is presumed to be derived from רעי, “my friend.”
Numbers 16,28. “none of it was of my own devising.” These words of Moses help us understand 17,8 where the survivors accuse Moses and Aaron as having engineered the death of “G’d’s people.” We have a rule that the tzaddik, by means of his prayers, can bring about events that had not previously been decreed by G’d to happen. On the other hand, perhaps more frequently, the tzaddik’s prayer is the catalyst that sets in motion the execution of a Divine decree whose time had not previously been ripe for execution. In this instance, the Israelites who had watched Korach and the other rebels descend to their death, suspected Moses of having been the instigators of the death of these people through their prayers. In our verse, Moses wants to make clear that what is going to happen is not something that he had either instigated or hoped for. G’d Himself, without any contribution by himself or Aaron, had both decreed and executed it.
Numbers 18,7. “I make your priesthood a service that is presented as a gift.”
When man serves the Lord this is not a gift to G’d, as he is obligated to do so from the moment he has been born. When man, in the process of serving the Lord, tries to elevate other creatures spiritually at the same time, this does constitute a gift he presents to the Lord.
When the Talmud in Shabbat 31 describes that the first question the soul is asked when appearing before the heavenly tribunal is: נשאת ונתת באמונה, commonly translated as “have you been fair and honest in your dealings with your fellow man,?” the real meaning is: ”when you engaged in business dealings with gentiles and you benefited financially by these dealings, did you use the opportunity of displaying fairness as an opportunity to bring the gentile closer to G’d the Creator?” If you did so you succeeded in rescuing these “sparks” that had strayed from their original path since they had been encased in a body. The word נשאת from the root נשא to raise, elevate,” in the line we quoted from the Talmud, refers to whether the Jew whose soul now appears for judgment in the celestial spheres being asked whether it had been instrumental in helping stray human beings to return to their sacred origins. When the Israelite, be he a priest or not, succeeds in bringing about conversion of pagans for the right reasons, he can claim to have presented his G’d with a gift, מתנה.
Numbers 18,19. “it is an eternal, salt-like, covenant before Hashem.”
This statement had become necessary after the revolt of Korach, who claimed that all Israelites are entitled to be priests by dint of all of them having stood at Mount Sinai. Korach had considered his status as a Levi, as a demotion. He had not understood that the priests symbolise the attribute of חסד loving kindness, whereas the Levites symbolize the attribute of דין, justice. If both the Levites and the priests had symbolized loving kindness, there would have been no room in the world for the attribute of justice. G’d’s universe can function only when both these attributes perform their respective functions.
Nachmanides, commenting on the significance of מלח, salt, writes that salt is a combination of the raw materials fire and water, i.e. justice and loving kindness. Between them these two “raw materials” are the foundation of our civilisation. This concept had to be brought to the attention not only of the Levites, but to the attention of all the Israelites, so that they would understand that both the role of the Levite and the role of the priest are indispensable to the Jewish nation, and are not to be regarded as part of a pyramid, the priests representing the pinnacle.
Chukat
Numbers 19,2. “This is the statute of the Torah which the Lord had commanded, saying;”
We subscribe to the rule that G’d did not reveal to us the innermost reasons for the individual commandments of the Torah. Nonetheless, by giving the Torah to us He also encouraged us to try and understand as much as we could, as the better we understand the meaning of the commandments the greater the love with which we perform them. By introducing this portion with the words: זאת חקת התורה, G’d hinted that we must remember that basically the entire Torah consists of a string of commandments and that all that has been revealed to us is what is needed to enable us to perform these commandments in the proper manner. One reason why the rationale for the commandments has not been revealed is to ensure that we observe them because G’d has so commanded us and not because we agree with G’d’s reasons.
This principle enables us to understand that the ashes of the red heifer have been chosen to be the vehicle whereby we can cleanse ourselves ritually after having become contaminated in one way or another through contact with a dead human body. We have to remember also, that, due to the origin of our souls being immediately below G’d’s throne in heaven, the soul is naturally anxious to carry out all of G’d’s desires. The body, being a product of the earth, opposes the urgings of the soul as a matter of principle. Whenever we succeed in defeating the opposition of our bodies to perform G’d’s commandments we accumulate merits for ourselves.
The reason why the body opposes performance of the Torah’s commandments is simply that it cannot fathom the reason for these commandments. Had the body known the reasons for the commandments it would certainly have cooperated with the soul every step of the way.
In view of the above, when a person dies and his soul has departed on its way to rejoin its Maker in the celestial regions, the body has been bereft of every spiritual stimulus and becomes ritually contaminated. This is also the reason why, according to our sages, the bodies of the righteous do not confer ritual impurity on people who contact them, as these bodies have become refined already while the souls inhabited them, so that they had become willing partners in performing the commandments of the Torah. An allusion to this is contained in the words: זאת חקת התורה, i.e. “on account of the Torah being a statute containing laws whose meaning has not been revealed, as a result of which most bodies refused to cooperate with their souls, these bodies are now ‘punished’ by becoming a source of ritual contamination for people that come in contact with them.
Another interpretation of the words זאת חקת התורה, is that the Torah has been transformed into becoming a receptacle, awaiting man’s input through his study and performance of its laws. [The Jewish people had by now (40th year) reached the level where Torah, far from being only a gift, had become something “alive” something which could assume many new meanings through the study by the people to whom it had been given. Ed.]
Yet another interpretation of the opening line of our portion, זאת חקת התורה. The words of David in psalm 113,9 מושיבי עקרת הבית, “He sets (establishes) the childless woman.”
While we live on this earth as mortal creatures, we believe that the reason we have been created is in order to perform the various tasks that make this earth a better place to live on. We are, of course, wrong in that assumption. What we had considered as the principal task of a Jew on earth, is no more than a subordinate task. Man’s principal task is to understand the unity of the Creator, and this is what David meant when he said מושיבי עקרת הבית, when the redeemer will come, soon in our days, he will reveal to all of us the importance of understanding the unity of the Creator, something alluded to in the words: זאת חקת התורה , “this statute called Torah,” (singular) represents the uniqueness and Oneness of Hashem. The Torah contains commandments which our common sense tells us as necessary for civilized society to be able to function. When performing these commandments we are in danger of forgetting that we are not to perform them because we consider them as useful for society. G’d added other commandments which defy our attempts at unraveling their usefulness in order to teach us that everything in the Torah has the identical purpose, namely that by performing them we testify to our belief in the One and Only Creator, our “father” in heaven.
Numbers 20,8. “you are to speak to the rock in full view of them, etc.”, “because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in full view of the Israelites.”
Rashi and Nachmanides disagree with one another concerning what was Moses’ sin. One says the sin was that he addressed the Israelites by calling them “obstinate, rebellious” people, i.e. שמעו נא המורים, whereas the other sage claims that Moses’ sin consisted in striking the rock instead of speaking to it.
I believe that Rashi and Nachmanides do not really disagree because the cause that Moses was angry enough to strike the rock was the rebelliousness of the people.
Rebuking people, especially the Jewish people, calling them to order, can be done by two different methods. Both methods are designed to make the people carry out the will of the Creator. One approach stresses the greatness of the Lord, and presents this as the reason why not obeying His commands is a non starter. It reminds the people that their very souls originate immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It reminds people of their duty to provide G’d with the pleasure of observing His people performing His will. When the people listen to this kind of rebuke their hearts will surely be moved in the right direction and they will realize that it is incumbent upon them to accept the yoke of heaven.
The other method of admonishing people stresses reminding people of the results of their failure to respond to the rebukes, the penalties in store for them. It is customary that when using this latter dimension of giving mussar, commonly known as the “fire and brimstone” approach, the preacher relies on the feelings of shame in every individual causing him to turn away from doing evil and do good instead.
The difference between these two methods is that the first method relies on reminding the subject of his high rank among the creatures G’d has created, a fact that makes it their duty not to go astray. This former method, through constantly pointing out Israel’s great virtues etc., will likely evoke in the listener a desire to conduct himself in a way that will justify the compliments paid to him by the person doing the rebuking. The person using the method of harping on the wrongs the people are guilty of all the time, cannot at the same time arouse the feeling that they are basically highly valued people in G’d’s eyes, and need only to correct a flaw that has been brought to their attention on this occasion. The person who rebukes the sinner on this occasion, by acknowledging that though accused of an error, whether committed through negligence or even knowingly, he is still considered as part of G’d’s people, i.e. part of the elite of the human species, will evoke reciprocal feelings in those whom he addresses. Moses, on this occasion, chose to use the method of belittling the people and to shame them. It was therefore in keeping with this approach that he struck the rock, symbolizing how an obstinate rock has to be treated.
[I believe that the author assumes that one of the rocks Moses faced was the one which had before Miriam’s death, reported earlier, always supplied the Israelites with water. If this were not so the symbolism is lost on me, as stones bringing forth water were unheard of. Ed.]
Since G’d a) had not instructed Moses to berate the people for demanding water, and b) would have preferred for him to choose the first method of rebuking, He had thereby missed an opportunity to demonstrate that even words sounding like compliments addressed to an erring Israelite when criticizing a sin, or even all of them at the right time, in the right circumstances, would have the desired effect on people of the spiritual greatness of Israel. This is all alluded to in G’d’s telling Moses about his failure to have grasped the opportunity to sanctify His Name before all the Israelites.
Numbers 21,17. “then Israel sang this song: ‘come up, well sing to it- the well which chieftains dug which the nobles of the people started, etc;’” We need to understand why the song that the people under the leadership of Moses sang after the drowning of the Egyptians in the sea, were words that we could easily understand, whereas this song is shrouded in mystical allusions none of which are easy to decipher.
The answer to this question may lie in the fact that at the sea of Reeds, Moses had seen revelations by G’d in what is known as אספקלריא המאירה, “a clear vision” (compare Yevamot 49) so that he could announce his prophecies without having to resort to allusions.
The song we read here was not composed by Moses, but the Torah wrote: “then Israel sung, etc.” In other words, the people had been divinely inspired, but being only people, not Moses, they had seen prophetic insights only through the prism of אספקלריא שאיננה מאירה, a vision which was distorted through reflections. Rashi on 21,20 already asks the question why the name of Moses is not mentioned in this paragraph. He answers that the reason is that on account of this well, or rather its having failed after Miriam’s death having caused him to be punished, it would not have been fitting to associate his name when singing the praises of this well.
Let us now proceed to explain the allusions contained in this poetic song extolling the well.
Sometimes G’d will perform a miracle for the Israelites in response to their cry to Him for help, and this is the manner in which He responds to their outcry. The splitting of the sea of Reeds at the time was an example of G’d’s responding by means of an impressive miracle. We have read in Exodus 14,10: ויצעקו בני ישראל וגו', “the Israelites cried out, etc,” The splitting of the sea was G’d’s response to that outcry.
On other occasions G’d performs a miracle for the people without their being in need, i.e. according to their perception. The people had not even been aware at that time that deadly danger was near them. When wondering why G’d had performed a miracle for them, they investigated what danger could have lurked near them without their having been aware of it. This was the case in the paragraph above where the people only belatedly became aware of the Canaanites that G’d had killed.
We are entitled to ask what prompted G’d to reveal these details in the Torah which Rashi describes as the Canaanites having been hidden in clefts of rock overhanging the Arnon river that were invisible to people passing underneath along its banks. In the kedushah formula according to the Sefardi nussach which begins with the word: כתר, we encounter the line הן גאלתי אתכם אחרית כראשית, “see I will redeem you in the future just as I have redeemed you in the past.” At first glance this does not seem much of a promise; we had surely hoped that the ultimate redemption will be something far superior to the partial redemptions we have experienced from time to time! In light of that why would the author of this line link the final redemption to previous redemptions? Who has ever heard of the major event being linked to the minor event?
Did not our sages (Tannah de bey Eliyahu 14) state that the meaning of the opening word of the Torah, בראשית is בשביל ראשית, “on account of the people of Israel who are called ראשית, the Lord created heaven and earth?” If all parts of the universe were created on account of the Jewish people, this surely means that there is a constant injection of additional essence of life into the earth itself, on account of the pre-eminence of the Jewish people? It would follow that the earth is therefore obligated to conform to the expressed will of the Jewish people, since its very existence hinges on the well being of the Jewish people. Keeping the universe in a condition that ensures its continued existence, i.e. תקון העולם is the earth’s self interest.
It is true that only after the final stage of the universe’s creation had been revealed, i.e. the earth and its inhabitants, had it become clear what had been in the mind of the Creator from the moment He had contemplated creating a universe. At that time all could see that the intervening stages of creation had all been leading up to the creation of the Jewish people as the crowning achievement. This is what the author of the line we quoted from the kedushah had in mind when he wrote: אתכם אחרית כראשית, “you in the end as at the beginning.” Only after the final redemption will G’d’s plan for the Jewish people become revealed as having been His plan from the earliest moment of the creative process.
As long as Jewish history on this earth has not yet come to its successful conclusion (history in the sense of development) G’d’s original intentions could not have become manifest to one and all. During the period leading up to this point in Jewish history miracles have to be performed at the request of the Jewish people. Once that period has passed successfully, miracles will be performed by nature on behalf of the Jewish people without their having to ask for them. The day (not literally) prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai, when the design of G’d that the Jewish people are the objective of His creation of the universe had become manifest, this had not yet been common knowledge. This is why we read in Exodus 14,10 when Pharaoh had caught up with the Israelites, that ויצעקו בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel cried out,” i.e. asked to be saved by means of a miracle. Now at the time of or after the giving of the Torah when G’d’s original plan that His people would be the Jewish people had become well known, there was no need for them to cry out even if the enemy had lain in ambush. At this time and subsequently, the earth, for reasons of self preservation, would not allow fatal harm to befall Israel as it would suffer the consequences itself. Calling on the source of water to arise, i.e. to become manifest, was therefore a command directed at the earth rather than to G’d.
The Israelites reminded the earth of its self-interest in providing the Jewish people with a source of water for their needs in the desert. This is what Rashi had in mind when he commented on the words ענו לה, (verse 14-15) that the mountain addressed was part of Eretz Yisrael. The song was in recognition of what the earth had done, (performed miracles) on behalf of the Jewish people without having been asked to do so.
When we keep the above in mind the verse (Numbers, 21,27) תבנה ותכונן עיר סיחן, “let it be built (Cheshbon) as the city of Sichon, and let it be firmly established, becomes clear.” The city in question is one that Sichon had captured from Moab. It had therefore become permitted for the Israelites to be taken as if it were part of the Emorite (Canaanite) nation, whereas the Torah had warned the Israelites not to infringe on Moabite territory. (Deut. 2,9). The Talmud in Gittin 38, states, that Sichon, by conquering part of the territories of Ammon and Moab, “cleansed” i.e. made permissible, the subsequent conquest of these lands by the Israelites. Incidentally, this statement also shows that Jewish law recognizes capture of lands of one nation by another to be considered as legal after the event. If reference is made by the Torah to this event which might have occurred hundreds of years prior to the war between Israel and Sichon, it is only in order to prove the legality of Israel taking over these cities and rebuilding them. The Torah emphasizes that the city was legally Sichon’s by describing it as עיר סיחון, “Sichon’s city.”
We will now proceed to explain the verse (21,18) באר חפרוה שרים, “a well that has been dug by chieftains.” According to the sages in B’rachot 34, when the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai took sick, his father asked Rabbi Chanina son of Dotha to pray for his recovery. Thereupon Rabbi Chanina ben Dotha placed his head between his knees, and after a short while Rabbi Yochanan’s son recovered. Thereupon Rabbi Yochanan said that if he had prayed in this fashion for a whole day it would have been quite ineffective. His wife, overhearing what her husband said, could not believe her ears, knowing that her husband was the leading scholar of his generation. Rabbi Yochanan explained to her that this did not mean that Rabbi Chanina was a person of greater stature than he was. What it meant was that when Rabbi Chanina prayed his attitude to the Almighty was that of a servant pleading with his master; whereas when he, Rabbi Yochanan prayed, he did so as a chieftain due to his position in the community, and his inability to humble himself sufficiently when asking G’d for a favour interfered with the acceptance of his prayer.
Let us know turn to the daily prayer of Tachanun which is recited while we bow our heads similar to Rabbi Chanina. We have learned from Moses in Numbers 16,4 that when Korach and his group rebelled against him, that Moses threw himself on the earth, face down, as soon as they had finished with their accusations. Clearly, before Moses answered his accusers when he told them in the next verse that they would receive G’d’s answer to their complaints on the following morning, he had prayed to G’d to show the rebels if their case was just. Still, it is strange that Moses had entertained doubts about this so that he had to plead with G’d while prostrating himself.
The Chinuch (Rabbi Aaron halevi) offers some explanation of Moses’ conduct in his commentary by saying that we know that nothing evil originates with G’d Himself. This is an ironclad rule although to us mortals down in our world it may sometimes appears as if the evil that befalls us has originated with G’d Himself. When viewed from a celestial perspective, this so-called “evil,” will eventually be seen to have been for the good of the party or parties who felt themselves struck by it. We must never forget that what appears as harmful to us is meant for our ultimate good. Rabbi Yochanan who had asked Rabbi Chaninah ben Dothan to plead for the life of his son did not do so himself, as he could not free himself of the conviction that if his son were to die it would ultimately prove to have been a blessing in disguise, something that was not manifest at the time. His prayer therefore would be sort of “iffy,” as he could not become sufficiently affected by the element of evil apparent to everyone around him by the fact that his son was suffering, perhaps never to recover. Rabbi Chaninah was able to concentrate in his prayer on the present factual situation which appeared to be an imminent disaster in the lives of his teacher and his teacher’s family. Therefore this aspect of his prayer would be undiluted by ulterior considerations, and it had a better chance of receiving a positive response.
The reason the sages decreed that we are to pray Tachanun by imitating to an extent the position of Rabbi Chaninah’s head between his knees when asking G’d for mercy, is that we should concentrate on the problem as it faces us at the time and not make excuses for G’d at the back of our minds if our prayer is not heard.
This is what the Talmud meant when it quoted Rabbi Yochanan as praying similar to a prominent minister appearing before his king. Such a minister feels that his position of eminence in the king’s kingdom entitles him to special consideration. This, he explained to his wife, would be counterproductive in his case.
Balak
Numbers 22,3. “Moab was greatly afraid of the people because they were so numerous; Moab greatly dreaded the Children of Israel.”
Judging by the fact that the Torah distinguishes the feelings of the Moabites vis a vis העם, the “people,” and subsequently vis a vis the בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel”, we are entitled to assume that the term העם refers to the fellow travelers, the mixed multitude that had attached themselves to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus. (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah 42,6)
According to the Zohar, the fear of the Moabites was due to their having noticed that wherever the Israelites encamped (40th year near the Jordan river) many gentiles would join them and convert to Judaism, so that the word העם, here does not refer to the mixed multitude that had joined the Israelites already at the Exodus. [I have not found this Zohar, Ed.] Balak or his people were afraid that if the Israelites were to encamp near them, many Moabites would convert to Judaism and join them. [The legislation that Moabites were not allowed to convert (Deuteronomy 23,4) had not yet been made public. Ed.] The next line describing the mental state of the Moabites as being one of dread of the Israelites, explains that whereas normally, Balak could not have cared less, here the fact that the Moabites were in such dread of the Israelites caused him to fear wholesale defection among his people to the Israelites as a real possibility. Balak was a great anti-Semite.
Numbers 22,4. “now this multitude will lick up all that is around us as does the ox licking up the grass of the field, etc.;”
Why did Balak draw a comparison between the encampment of the Israelites and the manner in which oxen denude the soil of its grass cover? Before explaining this it will help to explain Deuteronomy 11,15 where the Torah promises the Israelites that when they observe the Torah once they are on their own soil: ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ואכלת ושבעת, “I will provide the grass of the field for your beasts and you will eat and be satisfied.” After the first sin G’d had condemned Adam to eating the grass of the field. (Genesis 3,18) We need to remember that whatever man eats is surrounded by commandments of the Torah being fulfilled in the process. Long before the farmer can eat the bread from the corn he grew this corn was subject to a variety of regulations of the Torah that have to be fulfilled first, in order for the farmer not to have been remiss. The farmer had to fulfill commandments relating both to ploughing, such as not having a donkey and an ox pulling the same plough; when seeding the farmer must take care not to seed the same field with a mixture of seeds of different grains, etc., before the tithes and related gifts to the poor, etc., of the actual harvest become applicable. (compare Deut. 22,10 and 9) By performing these various commandments prior to enjoying the result of his labours, the Jewish farmer becomes G’d’s partner in spiritually elevating the “sparks” (of holiness) contained in some of these foods, i.e. rehabilitating parts of G’d’s creation, such as some angels which had been spiritually downgraded through failing to perform their duties.
When man is reduced to eating the grass of the field, i.e. vegetation which grows without human input, he is unable through his eating, i.e. his partaking of G’d’s largesse, to accomplish his own or his environment’s rehabilitation.
This was the negative effect of the curse pronounced by G’d as part of Adam’s punishment, i.e. road to rehabilitation, decreed in Genesis 3,18. [This more than offsets the apparently beneficial effect of picking his food from the ground effortlessly and eating it as is. Ed.]
When the Torah describes the Israelite as “eating and being satiated” in Deuteronomy 11,15, it does not refer to the Israelite eating grass, but to his eating the ox after it has been duly slaughtered, examined for blemishes, its blood having been removed, etc., etc., i.e. numerous commandments having been performed, so that by eating it eventually the party doing so participates in the process of rehabilitating “fallen” sparks. Through this round about manner of man eating grass, i.e. grass which had first been eaten by the ox, he is enabled to participate in the rehabilitation of holy beings that had been demoted from their lofty origins.
In his writings, the Ari’zal has stated that the four basic levels of phenomena in this lower universe in which we mortals live, i.e. the inert, the vegetarian, the animalistic and the articulate, i.e. the human beings, there exist four levels in the universe known in a descending order as atzilut, b’riyah, yetzirah, and assiyah. In other words, the level of the animalistic, or חי, corresponds to the level of בריאה, creatures in the early stage of existence known as בריאה a stage in which this “creature” is distinct from other “existences” on a similar level.
The soul of repentant sinners is in a better position to help rehabilitate converts (who used to be pagans) than is the soul of a person who has always been a true believer in monotheism. The wicked Balak of which our portion speaks, was afraid of Israel because the Israelites had demonstrated their ability to help rehabilitate fallen sinners, i.e. “sparks,” during their journey through the desert, and he hated holiness, as has been alluded to in the line ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל, “that Moab was disgusted by the Children of Israel,” i.e. their moral/ethical values. The mere thought of having to be in the presence of holiness, literally caused Balak to puke.
[The root occurs in connection with Rivkah’s telling Yitzchok of being disgusted with her life if Yaakov would marry a daughter of Canaanite descent as had his twin brother Esau. (Genesis 27,45) Ed.]
According to Ari z’al what bothered Balak most, was the fact that during their wanderings the converts had been most successful in rehabilitating these “fallen” sinners, “sparks” and that is why the Torah describes this עם, i.e. the converts of the Jewish people as being רב, a major component of the people who rehabilitated sinners. He feared them more than the natural born Israelites, i.e. ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד, “Moab feared the newly converted Israelites very much.” The reason was that רב הוא, they were such a powerful influence in rehabilitating pagans. The Moabites were not nearly as afraid of the בני ישראל, the natural born Israelites being able to attract as many converts.
In Balak’s eyes it was as despicable to be an Israelite as it had been in the eyes of the new King over Egypt and his nation in Exodus1,8-12.
Moreover, he was aware that if his people would come into contact with other recent Jewish converts, the influence of those converts who had themselves come closer to G’d through joining the Jewish people, would be powerful enough for them to elevate Moabite converts to the highest spiritual level of life on earth, i.e. the level of בריאה. Referring back to the 4 spiritual levels of existence in the physical part of the universe, spiritual ascent, when it occurs, proceeds to the next higher level, the level of בריאה being the one corresponding to חי, the level of animalistic creatures. This is hinted at by Balak when he compared the people to the animals eating grass, i.e. כלחוך השור את ירק השדה.
Another dimension of the line:עתה ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבותינו כלחך השור את ירק השדה; will become clearer when we look at Rashi on this verse.
Before doing this, however, we need to explain the meaning of a few verses in the previous portion חקת. We read in Numbers 21,27: על כן יאמרו המשלים באו חשבון תבנה ותכונן עיר סיחון, “therefore the bards would say ‘come to Cheshbon, it will be rebuilt and well founded as a city belonging to Sichon.’” The same bards continue with lamenting the fate of Moab from whom this city had been conquered by Sichon. (verses 28-30) Apart from the short summary of Moab’s history and Sichon’s might in these verses, what is especially remarkable is that the future tense used in relation to the city of Cheshbon, i.e. the future tense about a city that had already been rebuilt and reinforced, seems difficult to understand. Instead of the poet wishing for rebuilding of the city, he should have wished for its continuing to endure, i.e. תהיה עיר סיחון וגו'. Furthermore, the poet quoted speaks of the inhabitants of the city formerly having become refugees and prisoners, describing the males as “refugees” and the females as “prisoners.” Why this distinction?
We will clarify all this commencing with a statement in Gittin 38 according to which the members of people of Ammon and Moav respectively had been “ritually cleansed,” i.e. permitted to be conquered by the Jewish people through their having experienced becoming slaves of Sichon. Israel had been forbidden to annex Moab and Ammon as long as these lands had retained their independence. Any part of their lands which they had “lost” to predator nations had not been included in the Torah’s prohibition. That prohibition had been designed to prevent members of those two nations to be elevated to the status of converts to Judaism and membership in the Jewish people. The concept of not being allowed to join the Jewish people through conversion, signals to the rest of mankind that these two nations are considered as the ultimate source of destruction and desolation, as they are banned by Divine decree from rehabilitating themselves spiritually. If any of these people, through having been captured in war by another nation, had felt themselves degraded, this was not so in the long run, as they had then become qualified as potential members of the Jewish people. When the poet refers to the Moabites as captives and fugitives respectively, followed by the wish that Sichon’s city be rebuilt in the future, he refers to the new hope that the Moabite victims of Sichon’s conquest can now have, since they have become redeemable spiritually if they were to convert to Judaism. When something is legally incapable of being elevated to sanctity, it is called הרוס and חרוב, in Hebrew, whereas once this legal restriction has been removed it is called בנוי, built or rebuilt. Hence the poet congratulates the inhabitants of that city as becoming “rebuilt.” At the same time the poet mourns the fact that the remainder of the state of Moab that had not been captured by Sichon will remain forever condemned to being spiritually irredeemable. Another way of phrasing what we have just explained is that the redemption of the wicked is predicated on his first having experienced defeat, capture. The anonymous poets whom the Torah quoted in Numbers 21,29 appear to have had prophetic insight for those who could attune their ears to this.
The reason why the poets spoke of the refugees in the masculine mode, i.e. פלטים, is that the males benefited by their becoming refugees, as they had been forbidden to convert to Judaism, a barrier that had been removed from them by their becoming fugitives. As long as they represented a minority of the inhabitants of Sichon’s state they would be “legally” absorbed according to Jewish law as described in B’rachot 28, and henceforth be considered as Emorites.
The reason that nowadays former Moabites and Ammonites are accepted for conversion to Judaism is that we cannot determine who is and who is not a descendant of these people, and since they form a minority of whatever people they now belong to they have benefited by that status of being “absorbed” as a minority.
Concerning the female members of Moab described by the poets as prisoners, i.e. בשבית, this means that their captivity has no hidden redeeming feature, and is absolute. This is due to the females of the nations Ammon and Moab never having been included in that ban on conversion. The Talmud Yevamot 69, ruling on that subject, based it on the Torah having written (Deut. 23,4)לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה' , “neither a member of the people (masculine) Ammon or Moab must be part of the community of Hashem.” The use of the masculine adjective is used by the Talmud to teach that female Moabites were never included in that prohibition, hence Ruth, David’s grandmother, could convert. They therefore did not mind their intermediate status as captives of the Israelites as the fact that they had been captive was sufficient for them to be elevated to the level of the עולם הבריאה, even by natural born Israelites, as they did not require such a major spiritual ”elevation,” as did their male counterparts.
Having explained all this, the opening line of our portion, i.e. Balak’s fear of the Israelites, which had baffled many in light of G’d having forbidden the Israelites to harass the Moabites, much less attack them, becomes more understandable.
It is true that Nachmanides had addressed this problem and concluded that Balak’s fear was that the Moabites, on account of their love or their being related to the founder of the Jewish people, would voluntarily allow themselves to be conquered, as a result of which the prohibition to attack and conquer their territory would have become null and void, and the Israelites would conquer that land, just as they had done with the land owned by Sichon and Og, annex it. Nonetheless, this is not a very plausible explanation as there were no nations nearby other than the Canaanites, all of whom Israel had been commanded to wipe out completely, so that the Moabites would not gain by becoming their captives. [Since the author had introduced an even less likely scenario than the example I mentioned, examples that reflect Balak’s supposed fear of the Israelites through devious means trying to elevate the Moabites spiritually, level by level, I have omitted it. Ed.]
When commenting on Deut. 34,10, ולא קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה, “and there never arose another prophet of the stature of Moses in Israel,” our sages in Sifrey Vezot Habrachah, draw our attention to the significance of the word בישראל, “in Israel,” in that verse, and suggest that it means that within other nations there did arise at least one prophet of a stature equal or superior to that of Moses. The statement is mind-boggling, and they therefore add that any comparison of Moses and Bileam is limited to certain aspects of their respective prophetic knowledge and power.
Our author describes the prophecy of Moses as dealing with the holiness of matter, whereas the prophecy of Bileam was focused on the קליפות, the peels surrounding the essence of the fruit, i.e. matter which at best only “protects” the holy essence from being harmed. Most of the time when we speak of קליפות, we refer to matter that must be removed before we can lay bare the useful or holy essence within it. He quotes Sifrey on Mattot 2 as support for this thesis. It is stated there (in respect of the words זה הדבר) that Moses was able to employ the level of זה הדבר, “this is the word” (the word of G’d itself, (not a repetition of it), i.e. G’d speaks through my throat. This is a totally supernatural level of prophecy. A prophecy emanating from such supernatural regions is subject to being reversed (according to our author) something that is not possible when the utterance of the prophecy commenced in this material world of ours. Reversals of prophecies described as זה הדבר, can occur both when referring to “good” prophecies and “bad” prophecies. This is why Moses’ prophetic powers were used to promote holiness, sanctity, and could often “stand in the breach,” i.e. was able to reverse decrees that would have harmed or destroyed Israel otherwise.
Bileam, whose prophecies only dealt with matters devoid of sanctity, applied this technique also, but used it only to reverse “good” prophecies to “bad” prophecies The fact that Bileam did possess such powers is hinted at in the Torah when it quotes him as telling Balak (Numbers 23,1) בנה לי בזה שבעה מזבחות, “build for me as a symbol of the power of זה seven altars.” He repeats this with a slight variation when he tells Balak: והכן לי בזה שבעה מזבחות, “prepare for me, etc.” (Numbers 23,29). He again added the word בזה to indicate under what auspices he planned to change G’d’s mind about blessing Israel.
Rashi, commenting on 23,16 where G’d says to Bileam: שוב אל בלק וכה תדבד, “go back to Balak and speak to him using the method by which other prophets introduce their prophecies,” i.e. with the preamble כה, “thus,” explains that G’d had understood what Bileam had had in mind and He thwarted him from using the method called זה, which would have enabled him subsequently to reverse the blessings. In other words, G’d ensured that the words Bileam would utter could not be reversed.
Another approach among our sages to understanding the line in Deut. 34,10 that there never arose in Israel a prophet of the stature of Moses, implying that among the gentiles there did arise such a prophet, also shares the conviction that Bileam on no account could be compared to Moses on a moral basis.
The greatest difference between them, visible to all, was that Moses during all of his life employed his gift of prophecy beneficially at all times. He put his own life at risk on behalf of his people many times when trying to save them from G’d’s justifiable anger at them.
Bileam used his gift exactly in the opposite manner, as his accomplishments were achieved by invoking curses. What then did our sages mean when they implied that a prophet of similar or even superior stature did arise among the gentiles?
According to the Ari z’al they compared the vantage points from which both Moses and Bileam pronounced their respective prophecies. Both of them endeavoured to procure the fulfillment of their prophetic announcements from the same lofty source in heaven; alas Bileam used his power destructively, whereas Moses invariably used his power constructively.
Our sages in Yevamot 49 have stated that whereas all other prophets saw indistinct visions, Moses saw a clear vision. This can best be understood by a parable. When a king issues orders to his servants, the servants hearing it only hear the voice of the king when he issues his orders. However, it is clear that each order before being issued had been preceded by the king thinking about if first and formulating it afterwards. Any person who has been privy to the considerations which preceded the orders being issued, in other words, someone who is aware of the motivation resulting in these orders, has an advantage over someone who has only heard the actual order being issued. This was basically the difference between Moses’ level of prophecy and that of other prophets. Moses also understood the reason why G’d had seen fit to issue the various commandments when He did so. People who are unaware of the background to the orders they have been ordered to perform are compared by the Talmud to having experienced indistinct images. Another way of expressing this distinction is the sages saying that other prophets prophesied on a level introduced by כה, whereas Moses prophesied on a level introduced by זה.
It is easier to understand why the sages claimed that prophecies introduced by זה were subject to reversal, as if and when Moses found what the conditions were upon which the prophecy he had been asked to announce were based, he could find a way to try and justify their reversal. A prophet who did not know the reasons for a commandment issued by G’d had no way of attempting to change it as G’d had not taken them into His confidence.
When we wrote earlier that Bileam was the exact opposite of Moses and that he would therefore always use his foreknowledge to bring about a reversal of a Divine decree in order to harm the party concerning whom it had been ordered, he would therefore wish to curse Israel which had been blessed by G’d. He told Balak that after his erecting the seven altars, he, Bileam would proceed with prophecies on the level ofבזה , i.e. he would employ the power of the prophetic level of זה, to reverse the blessings that had been bestowed by G’d on Israel. G’d frustrated this undertaking by commanding him to speak by invoking only the powers inherent in prophecies commencing with the level of כה.
Another reason why Moses may have been able to prophesy using the level of זה as opposed to the other prophets who had to use the level described as כה, is that some people attain an understanding of the awesome greatness of the Creator when observing it as it looks after He had already “downsized,” נתצמצם His essence so as not to harm those who are exposed to it.
Another group of people gets a glimpse of G’d’s greatness when He is in a state preceding this “downsizing” of Himself during His descent to our “lower” world. People who are privy to this are on a spiritually extremely high level in that G’d did not have to be afraid that they would be blinded by “seeing” Him hidden only by such relatively transparent screens.
Expressing all this in the form of a parable, there are people who can look at the face of their king as it is in reality, whereas others cannot do so, and must rely on coloured photographs or the like. The latter type of people cannot claim to have seen the king’s face as they never actually saw the king in the flesh. The best they can do in describing the king is to preface such a description with the word: כה, ”like this, etc.” The people who have been privy to see the king in the flesh, however, may introduce their recollections with the word: זה, “This is what the king looks like.” When the Talmud quoted speaks of prophecies under the heading of זה or כה respectively, it refers to degrees of G’d’s surrounding Himself with “veils” or “screens” in order not to cause fatal damage to the creatures looking at Him. None of the prophets ever saw or could see G’d in His essence, and that is why none of them could refer to having had such an experience. The distinction between זה and כה, is not a distinction between seeing a photograph and seeing the party who posed for the photograph, but the difference is only between כזה “like this,” and ככה “similar to such.” The only exception to this was Moses who was able to view G’d in the brightest light that He can reveal Himself in without causing harm thereby. In other words, the “screens” which G’d surrounded Himself with when he allowed Moses to get near, were not part of any of the universes He had created. As a result, Moses’ prophecy was indeed on the level of זה and not כזה.
Numbers 22,22. “G’d’s anger flared up because Bileam was going.” Nachmanides already poses the question of why G’d was angry at Bileam since He had given him permission to go when He had said: אם לקרוא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם, “if the men have come to invite you, rise and go with them.” (Numbers 22,20)
The answer to this question has already been provided by Rashi (hundreds of years before Nachmanides posed it) when he commented on that verse: “if their invitation is intended for your personal benefit you may go.” Seeing that the purpose of the call for Bileam to curse the Jewish people was intended to benefit Balak and his people, G’d’s permission clearly did not include such a scenario, and He had reason to be furious. Nachmanides quotes Rashi in his commentary to show that he was aware of this answer.
Our author feels that Bileam’s going with Balak’s emissaries showed that he enjoyed being called upon to curse the Jewish people. This was in clear contradiction to his having been told that the Jewish people who were a blessed people could not be harmed by any curses. Seeing that this was so, he was now culpable not only for the curses he had intended to pronounce, but for the evil intention itself, something G’d usually does not punish a person for.
Numbers 22,32 “the angel of the Lord said to Bileam: ‘why did you strike your she-ass three times?’” We have to examine why it bothered the angel that Bileam struck his ass? As long as he had not been aware that the angel had blocked the path, why does an owner of a domestic animal not have the right to discipline it when it does not obey its master’s instructions?
We must assume that when G’d instructed the angel to act as hindrance to Bileam, He had told the angel under what conditions Bileam had been allowed to accompany Balak’s emissaries, i.e. that he was restricted to do and speak only words that G’d would put in his mouth. (verse 20) The angel’s task was to check if Bileam conformed with the conditions G’d had stipulated for his journey. When someone sets out on an errant in order to perform a command of G’d and he encounters unforeseen difficulties, he must examine the reason for this. If he cannot find a reasonable explanation for the obstacles, he should conclude that G’d may no longer wish for him to pursue that errant and return home. When the angel became aware that in spite of three such covert warnings Bileam had chosen to press on with his mission, he recognized that this was due to Bileam’s evil intentions, and he became angry, challenging him and telling him that he had actually already forfeited his life by his conduct. Bileam’s stature as a prophet, and his boast of being familiar with G’d’s ways, (Numbers 24,4) should certainly have alerted him that the ass’s strange behaviour was a warning from G’d for his own benefit, to desist from this enterprise. The angel therefore was completely justified in asking Bileam why he had struck his ass three times.
22,36. “Balak heard that Bileam had come; he went out to meet him all the way to the city of Moab which is situated at the border with the river Arnon at its farthest point.”
A look at Rashi explains why Balak chose to meet Bileam precisely at the location mentioned. The reason why this choice of location was specifically auspicious in Balak’s eyes will be understood in conjunction with Balak’s having praised Bileam when he reminded him that when Bileam blessed someone the party would prove to be blessed. (Numbers 22,6) Balak knew firsthand that Moab’s loss of a great part of its territory had been due to Bileam having cursed it prior to Sichon’s attack on that country. Balak wanted to remind Bileam that if it had not been for his cursing Moab, the border during his time would have been much further to the east. (Rashi, 22,6 based on Tanchuma) Balak wanted to show Bileam that he had faith in the latter’s ability to curse. This might encourage him to also curse Israel successfully. Bileam and Balak were of one mind concerning their viewing Israel as an imminent threat, but G’d confounded their plans tuning them into blessings instead.
Numbers 23,7. “come then and curse Yaakov for me, etc.;”
There is a rule that each nation must possess at least one virtue, [otherwise why would G’d allow its continued existence. Ed.]This virtue is the reason of its existence. Israel, on the other hand, possesses all virtues. This posed a problem for the wicked Bileam who had been charged with cursing such a virtuous nation. Bileam/Balak was searching for a virtue possessed by the Moabites which the Israelites could not match. Once he had isolated that virtue, this would be the key to his successfully putting a curse on the Jewish people. This is the reason why Balak, instead of using the word קלל, when asking Bileam to curse the Jewish people, used the word ארה instead, as the word ארה, from the root ארר, means to isolate in the sense of “to pin point, to single out.” The word ארר is closely related to the root ברר, “isolate,” usually the refuse, waste.
When our sages (Bartenurah on Peyah 8,1) speak of אורה בתאנים, the reference is to the selection of ripe figs for harvesting as figs do not ripen all at the same time.
Apparently, Balak wanted to pinpoint a virtue possessed by his people which was not shared by the Jewish people, and to base this moral superiority entitling Bileam to curse that nation on this virtue. This is why he referred to Yaakov, meaning: “in what manner am I like Yaakov who possessed so many virtues?” He went on saying: ולכה זועמה ישראל, “so that you can proceed and curse Israel.”
Numbers 23,9. “as I see them from the mountain tops, etc.;” according to Rashi,, Bileam, viewing Israel’s origin, understands that the creation of hills and mountains, etc., was all due to G’d wanting a people such as Israel. If He had not foreseen this in the future He would not have bothered with creating our part of the universe. This reminds us of Tanna de bey Eliyahu 14 where the opening line in the Torah reading בראשית ברא אלוקים, is understood to mean that on account of Israel, also known as ראשית, G’d began the creation of the universe. Had G’d foreseen only gentile nations in the future He would not have bothered creating hills and mountains.
Numbers 23,18. “arise Balak and listen!” This rather curious line may best be explained through a reference to B’reshit Rabbah 82,8 where the Midrash comments as follows on Isaiah 3,13: נצב לריב אלוקים ועומד לדין עמים, “the Lord stands up to plead a cause, He rises to judge peoples.” According to the Midrash there, the verse needs explaining, as we appear to have another verse (Joel 4,12) describing G’d as sitting. The solution offered is that when G’d “sits” in judgment of the Israelites He does so standing up, whereas when He judges the nations of the world He does so while remaining seated. The difference is in the amount of time devoted by G’d to that judgment. When forced to do things while standing up, one tends to try and finish one’s business so that one can sit down again. When doing one’s work while remaining comfortably seated, one is more likely to do things more slowly.
When our sages offered this solution to the apparent contradiction, they may have had in mind the verse according to which the tzaddik is able to reverse G’d’s evil decrees. The Talmud Ketuvot 111 views the word ישיבה, as a more comfortable position only if the seat has arm rests; otherwise standing upright while able to rest one’s arms is a preferable posture, (in the sense of “more comfortable.”) When G’d is portrayed as judging the nations of the world while seated, the meaning is that the throne He sits on has arm rests. When G’d judges the Israelites, although doing so while standing, He has no supports for His arms. This “shakiness” is what enables thetzaddikim to reverse evil decrees, as these decrees had never been firmly rooted. In other words, we learn that curses never have the kind of strength that blessings have. Bileam’s calling on Balak to arise, was meant to undermine any curse which would subsequently be issued against Israel. Israel’s righteous would be able to reverse such curses.
[I find all this somewhat irrelevant as the Jewish people never knew of what Bileam and Balak had planned until told about it by Moses. There were no Jewish witnesses to anything which transpired in this portion until where the Torah reports on what occurred subsequently in chapter 25. Ed.]
Numbers 23,19. “G’d is not man that He should lie, nor mortal that He should repent;” Our sages in Taanit 23, commenting on Job 22,28 ותגזור אומר ויקם לך ועל דרכיך נגה אור commonly translated as “You will decree and it will be fulfilled; and light will shine on Your affairs,” divide this verse into two halves, the first half referring to what man decrees on earth, and the second to what G’d fulfils in heaven. This is a way of explaining how it is that the tzaddik can “reverse G’d’s decree.” [The problem is that if so, how can Bileam say that the difference between man and G’d is that the latter does not “lie,” i.e. that His decrees cannot be upset by forces other than Him? The subject has to be studied in the Talmud where the sages debated the right of Choni ham’agel to pray insistently for rain, when apparently G’d had decree a drought. Ed.]
Our author tries to explain these apparent contradictions in a variety of ways. When Moses is referred to as איש האלוקים, in psalms 90,1 the reason is that he tried to be like G’d through invoking repeal of G’d’s harsh decrees against His people. We find something analogous in psalms 106,23 where the psalmist credits Moses with reversing G’d’s decree to annihilate the Jewish people. Our author views the use of the word אלוקים when applied to man as G’d “dressing up” in human garb and then complying with the requests made in the tzaddik’s prayerThis “dressing up” of G’d in human garb occurs only when the prayer of the righteous human being is for G’d’s help to the Israelites. Since wicked Bileam intended to enlist G’d’s support to curse the Israelites, he explains to Balak that לא איש א-ל, that G’d in such circumstances would not “dress up as a human being” in order to facilitate such prayers by Bileam. Subterfuge, i.e. ויכזב, does not qualify for G’d’s support.
This “dressing up” of G’d in human garb occurs only when the prayer of the righteous human being is for G’d’s help to the Israelites. Since wicked Bileam intended to enlist G’d’s support to curse the Israelites, he explains to Balak that לא איש א-ל, that G’d in such circumstances would not “dress up as a human being” in order to facilitate such prayers by Bileam. Subterfuge, i.e. ויכזב, does not qualify for G’d’s support.
This is also the meaning of the words: ה' איש מלחמה ה' שמו, “the Lord is a ‘man’ of war, his name is Hashem.” (Exodus15,3) Moses extols G’d’s “dressing up” in human garb when He destroys the mortal enemies of the Jewish people. He will perform what the tzaddik requests of Him when avenging the wrongs committed by the gentile nations against His chosen people. He will do so, since in the process His name will become sanctified and glorified.
While at first glance it may appear strange that G’d will assume the role of a “warrior” at the behest of one of His tzaddikim when this results in the destruction of His creatures, [something He is so loath to do this that His angels are not allowed to applaud it by singing a song, Ed.], the fact remains that the destruction of the wicked at the hands of G’d represents a major sanctification of G’d’s name, and this is why in the victory song of Moses in Exodus 15, He is described not as אלוקים, the attribute of Justice, but as Hashem, the attribute of Mercy, as the merits of this sanctification of His Name accrue to the “victims”, though not knowingly, seeing that at least their death has resulted in the sanctification of G’d’s Name. He thus performed an act of loving kindness for His enemies even while depriving their bodies of their lives.
Numbers 23,20. “here I have been instructed to bless, since He has blessed I cannot reverse it.” Bileam clearly explains to Balak his inability to alter G’d’s decrees, as he told him before when he said that the difference between man and G’d is that G’d does not lie. On the other hand, although G’d does not reverse Himself, the righteous are able by their prayers to bring about a reversal of decrees harmful for the Jewish people. [In other words, man can sometimes accomplish what G’d is prevented from doing by His own initiative. Ed.]
A different approach to our verse. The Talmud in B’rachot 33 taught that if someone in his prayer for mercy to Hashem includes a line in which he compares G’d’s mercy on the young and helpless birds in the nest, by praying that Hashem should extend His mercy to him likewise, such a person is to be silenced. One of the commentators on that line in the Talmud explains that the reason why the author of the Mishnah considers this such a travesty, is that the worshipper arrogates to himself the right to draw parallels between emotions experienced by us mortal human beings and immortal Hashem. We have to accept Divine legislation, such as the commandment to send off the mother bird, as decrees, without trying to examine G’d’s motivation.
There is a line similar to the one we quoted from B’rachot 33 in Megillah 25, and there Tossaphot question the reasoning offered in the Talmud B’rachot by citing a well known poetical liturgist, Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir, who wrote (in connection with the kedushah we recite on the second day of Passover) suggesting that the commandment not to slaughter the mother animal and its young (Leviticus 22,8) on the same day, by citing G’d’s attribute of Mercy as the reason. [Tossaphot’s point is that surely Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir was not ignorant of both these Mishnayot? Tossaphot do not offer a solution. Ed.]
Perhaps we may resolve this problem when recalling that in Shabbat 151 the Talmud states that anyone who displays mercy and compassion vis a vis any of G’d’s creatures will experience that Hashem in turn will display His Mercy concerning himself. The root for that statement is found in the Zohar Tossephet 308 where it is stated that when a human being displays compassion for other creatures he “incites” the attribute of mercy, as a result of which this attribute will relate with mercy toward him.
It is a well known fact that חסדי ה' לא כלו, “the deeds of loving kindness by Hashem are inexhaustible because His mercy is inexhaustible.” If we sometimes have the feeling that we have been shortchanged by the attribute of Mercy, the reason is never that G’d has run out of Mercy, but the reason is that we do not qualify for it at all times. Nonetheless G’d is able to bring about a radical change within our hearts so that we will have a pure heart and qualify to serve Him loyally and devotedly. When that occurs, we will qualify for additional displays of His mercy. This is why we regularly pray: לא תכלא רחמיך ממנו, “do not allow Your mercy to come to and end as far as we are concerned.”(Psalms 40,12)
When Bereshit Rabbah 14,11 quotes psalm 150,6 [the last verse in psalms, Ed.] the line כל הנשמה תהלל קה יהללו-קה, is understood to mean that “with every breath we draw we praise the Lord with our whole soul,” so that G’d has no difficulty in changing us into a new creature whenever the soul is restored to us. At that time He can supply us with a pure, non-polluted heart.
We have mentioned repeatedly that a tzaddik by means of his prayer can convert what was an evil decree into a beneficial decree, as we have been taught in Moed Katan 16. This is also the meaning of ויכון בחסד כסאך ותשב עליו באמת “when Your throne will be firmly established through loving kindness You will sit on it truly.” [I could not find such a verse. Ed.] When G’d sits so firmly on His throne the righteous will not overturn His decrees, [as there has been no need for harsh decrees. Ed.]
When G’d commanded us not to remove the mother bird away from her young in the nest, this is not due to considerations of mercy for the mother bird’s feelings, for if it were so the Torah did not have to issue such a commandment, for G’d Himself could have taken care either of the mother bird or its young without leaving their fate to our sense of compassion. G’d has many other ways and means of insuring these birds’ survival. Rather, the decree was issued to teach us mortals to have compassion on G’d’s creatures. When we keep this in mind Rabbi Eliezer Hakalir’s liturgical poem does not contradict the statement we quoted from the Talmud at all. [The reference in his poem to Leviticus 22,8 is so oblique that only outstanding scholars would have detected it. Ed.]
Seeing that every tzaddik, surely has assimilated the mussar contained in either Leviticus 22, 28 or Deuteronomy 22,6-7, so that when he blesses an Israelite he has surely done so with all the generosity his heart is capable of, he himself will also be blessed by heaven. This is the meaning of the line that he who displayed compassion for G’d’s creatures will be rewarded.
Bileam, even when engaged in blessing the Jewish people, was well aware that he was not doing so with a full heart, and that the words uttered by his lips were only words supplied to him by G’d, and did not come forth from his heart; thus he exclaimed that he was aware that the blessings he had bestowed would not accrue to him as a response from heaven.
When he said “I have taken blessing,” he meant that he had borrowed these words from G’d’s vocabulary, but ברך לא אשיבנה, “I am aware that I will not in turn be rewarded with blessing for myself.”
Numbers 23,21. “no harm is in sight for Yaakov no woe for Israel. The Lord their G’d is with them.” The true meaning of these words is hard to understand, [as the Israelites certainly had not been faultless throughout these 40 years. Ed.]
Bileam describes G’d’s attitude when Israel’s merits come to His attention and when, G’d forbid, their sins call for His attention. He says that Israel’s merits will immediately command G’d’s attention and He will respond to them without delay, whereas He does not wish to take a look at their sins immediately. The former is spelled out when Bileam adds: ה' אלוקיו עמו, Hashem, its G’d is with it.” The expression following, i.e. ותרועת מלך בו, “and their king’s acclaim is in their midst,” is a reference to the divisive nature of the teruah sound of the shofar. A king can be acclaimed by unbroken sounds of the shofar or by broken sounds. G’d reacts selectively to reports He receives about the conduct of His people.
The author proceeds to use the opportunity to explain the deeper meaning of the respective sounds תקיעה and תרועה which emanate from the ram’s horn, the shofar. The former sound is unbroken, symbolizing unity, continuity, whereas the latter signifies dissonance, friction, disharmony.
At the time when the Holy Temple stood and service was performed in it, this was an era distinguished by the תקיעה, the very letters in that word when examined meaning תקע י-ה meaning “G’d fastens, clasps, unites.” During periods of exile, however, this is symbolised by the broken sound תרועה; during the period when the Temple stood daily burnt offerings, known as תמידים were offered by the priests on behalf of the entire people (who had contributed on an equal basis to the cost of these animals) both mornings and evenings. All of this symbolised the inner adhesion of the various tribes to one another. The תרועה sound by its very nature calls attention to the fact that the Jews are dispersed among gentiles, lacking this inner cohesion. As a result of their sins and the subsequent exile, G’d delays looking at the sins of the Jewish people while they are in exile, as the conditions for them to observe the Torah in full measure do not exist and it is harder for them to accumulate collective merits. [Some of the words are mine, but the author whose fame rests on his being an advocate vis a vis G’d of his people in exile, is making the point I described. Ed.]. He sees in the sequence in which we blow the shofar a summary of our history which began in glory, i.e. תקיעה, was interrupted by decline, exile, i.e. תרועה, but will most certainly end again with the תקיעה to signal our redemption soon in our days.
In support of his theory, the author quotes the statement of our sages that G’d’s presence cannot rest on us permanently unless at least 600000 male adults are assembled. (Midrash Hagadol Vayishlach 32,3) The תקיעה symbolizes that thought. This explains that whenever the Jewish people made camp while in the desert, a תקיעה as blown as a reminder that the Shechinah, G’d’s presence, was at hand. On the other hand, breaking camp was signaled by the blowing of a תרועה, the broken sound, as breaking camp was a sign that the people had displeased G’d, and that this was why they had to pack up once more. According to the Ari z’al, the various journeys were inspired by the need to accumulate merits by picking up “fallen” sparks along the route and to become the instrument of restoring same to the celestial position before they had “fallen” out of grace. The fact that the Israelites offset their sins by these merits of picking up “fallen sparks,” was responsible for G’d not immediately turning His attention to the misdemeanours of the Israelites that had brought about their need to move on.
The sound of the תרועה, reminder that G’d had broken, interrupted His preoccupation with the Israelites’ sins, was also a reminder of the need to acquire merits by elevating themselves spiritually to offset the effect of their sins.
[Various commentators in dealing with the inverted way in which Moses reports the process of making camp and breaking camp in Numbers 33,1-33,2 refer to each move being testimony to the people having angered G’d. Ed.]
A different way of looking at the line: לא הביט און ביעקב ולא ראה עמל בישראל, ה' אלוקיו עמו. Bileam may be saying that Israel’s errors are being ignored by G’d, whereas its merits are ever present within His field of vision. The outstanding merit Israel has to its credit is described as ה' אלוקיו עמו, “they are always aware of their G’d being with them.” They constantly enthrone their G’d anew as their only King. As a result, their name is engraved in G’d’s throne and He is cognizant of their merits constantly.
Numbers 23,22. “the G’d Who has brought them out of Egypt.” Rashi draws our attention to the fact that Bileam had to retract a statement he had made when speaking to G’d in answer to His question who the men were that had come to visit him. (Numbers 22,9) At that time he had attributed Israel’s exodus from Egypt as being due to their own efforts, i.e. העם היוצא ממצרים. He has now been forced to admit publicly that it was G’d Who had brought the Jewish people out of Egypt.
We have a rule that “awakening, initiative,” can start either in the celestial regions or in the terrestrial regions. Every person can be the cause of G’d relating to him with the attribute of Mercy by simply improving the number of credits he accumulates through his good deeds. Based on this he may appeal to G’d to use His attribute of mercy in dealing with him. Invoking the merits of the patriarchs, however, in other words, mobilizing forces of mercy whose sources are in the “higher world,” is something only members of the Jewish people are able to do.
[Very doubtful, as King Chiskiyah, invoking his merits when asking G’d to let him live longer, was told by G’d that he was granted this extension only due to the merits of his ancestor David. Compare Kings II 20,1-5. Ed.]
This is what the wicked Bileam referred to when he said to G’d הנה העם יצא ממצרים, “here we have this nation that departed from Egypt, etc.” When crediting the Exodus to the Jewish people themselves, Bileam meant that this people by dint of their own merits aroused sufficient forces of the attribute of Mercy to bring about their redemption.
In order to show how wrong Bileam was, our sages in Avot chapter 5, list 10 “trials that the Jewish people had subjected G’d to, i.e. 10 collective sins, instead of ten collective merits which had resulted in their redemption. G’d indicated to Bileam that the attribute of Mercy which after being “awakened” by our patriarchs reminded G’d of His promise to them, that the Exodus was put in motion. It was the accumulated merits of the patriarchs which were the major factor in the redemption of the Jewish people from their cruel fate in Egypt. This is a factor that may come to the aid of the Jewish people, but never to the aid of the gentiles.
Numbers 23,24. “they are a nation that rises like a lion, leaps up like the king of beasts. It rests not till it has feasted on prey and drunk the blood of the slain.”
In the matter of how to serve the Lord optimally, it is an accepted rule that the first stage of becoming a true servant of the Lord involves that the person concerned expects a reward as a form of recognition for his effort. It is simply not to be expected that every person will begin his career as a servant of the Lord by eschewing every kind of reward. When the Mishnah in Avot 1,3 teaches not to serve the Lord on condition of receiving a reward, it does not address “beginners.” Proof that this is the accepted norm is found in Pessachim 50 where the Talmud teaches that if we perform G’d’s commandments, even while also having ulterior motives, in due course we will do so without having ulterior motives. [This is part of the promise that the reward of performing a commandment brings in its wake performance of another commandment, (Avot 4,1) i.e. the same commandment, but on a higher level. Ed.] When one has attained this level of serving the Lord, one will also become the vehicle through which the “fallen” sparks, i.e. spiritual beings or human beings who have “fallen” from their erstwhile high moral/ethical level may be restored to grace through contact with such servants of the Lord. This has been spelled out in the writings of the Ari z’al.
As long as one serves the Lord expecting to be rewarded for this, the human being doing so is considered as on the level of a female, as by definition all females, i.e. their functions, are viewed primarily as recipients, vessels to be filled. Once having attained the level of serving the Lord without any expectation of reward, one has joined the ranks of the males. Not only does such a person not depend on “receiving,” but he is able to become a dispenser of satisfaction and pleasure even to the Creator. This is the true meaning of a statement in the Zohar III,7 that the Jewish people provide G’d with His sustenance, פרנסה.
This is also what Bileam had in mind when he said: הן עם כלביא יקום, “this is a nation that arises like a lioness,” but develops to the stature of being כארי יתנשא, “it elevates itself to become comparable to a mature male lion.” [According to our author Rashi commenting on that verse interprets it as sequential, i.e. beginning to serve the Lord while expecting a reward, progressing to serve Him without such expectations. I have not been able to find this Rashi. Ed.]
לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף, “It will not lie down until having eaten prey.” If we follow the interpretation of Israel’s progressive elevation to higher spiritual accomplishments, this line would refer to its ability to elevate the fallen “sparks” after having attained a level of serving the Lord without expecting a reward. [The author has repeatedly demonstrated how even consuming, eating, the flesh of a properly slaughtered animal and the nutrients being absorbed by our bloodstream, elevates such an animal to a higher spiritual level. Ed.] When that happens, (killing the enemies of G’d) the very slain having become a vehicle for glorifying G’d’s name, become חיים, as if alive, their lives having served a sacred purpose in retrospect.
Numbers 24,3. “word of the man whose eye is true. (closed)” There are eyes that are “good,” i.e. the owner wishes to do good for Israel. When G’d created the universe He created positives, matched by negatives, i.e. He also gave some people “bad” eyes, i.e. jealous, envious use of one’s eyesight.
Although, generally speaking Bileam was certainly equipped with eyes that singled out everything negative, in this instance he was unable to put his jealous eyes to such use. On the other hand, he had also not been provided with עין טובה, eyesight of a benevolent, generous nature. Even though he had blessed Israel, these blessings had not originated from the depth of his heart, his personality. He therefore had to describe himself as of a blind eye. This is why he adds: נופל וגלוי עינים, “prostate but with eyes unveiled.” He admits that the visions he has been granted are due to his having “fallen.” His evil eye had become the reason that he had been forced to bless Israel. When our sages describe the symptoms of a person that possesses an evil eye, they mention that one of the differences between visions which Moses received and visions which Bileam received was that whereas Moses could remain standing upright while being addressed by G’d, Bileam had to prostrate himself in order to receive any communication from G’d.
Numbers 24,5. “how fair are your tents , O Yaakov, your dwellings O Israel.” This may best be understood in light of the sages urging us to set aside definitive hours each day for Torah study. (Avot 1:15). “Yaakov” is the name used for Israel when it is at “low” ebb spiritually, whereas “Israel,” is the name applied to the Jewish people when they are spiritually at their best. When Torah study is only an occasional activity of the Jewish people, they are on the level of “Yaakov.” [The word: אהל always denotes a temporary abode, as opposed to משכן which always describes permanent dwellings. When Torah study comprises a major part of their waking hours, i.e. it is a fixture, they are referred to as Israel. Ed.]
Numbers 24,8. “it will consume nations that are its oppressors.” The meaning of this verse is that G’d’s intervention on behalf of His people Israel who are being oppressed by the gentile nations, occurs in order to glorify His name. He helps the Israelites in a variety of ways. All the people who have at one time jeeringly asked the Israelites: “where is your G’d?, will be shown G’d’s power when they observe the Israelites consuming all the “goodies” G’d provides for His people. Seeing that G’d will do all this for the sake of His glory, none of these acts of generosity of G’d will be offset against merits that the Israelites had previously accumulated. In other words, the Israelites benefit indirectly from the hostile actions of the gentile nations, as they will be more than compensated for their suffering.
“and they will crush their (enemies’) bones.” Bileam uses the word עצמות as a double entendre, to indicate that the very personalities, their independence, עצמיות, will be crushed. This will be a punishment for the uncalled for cruelty with which the gentiles treated the Israelites. G’d treats people according to the yardsticks with which the sinners had treated their victims.
Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons why the Torah describes G’d as being so angry at Bileam for going with Balak’s second set of emissaries, when a superficial reading of the text would have led us to believe that G’d had approved of Bileam’s journey.
The real reason why G’d was so angry at Bileam was –as the text clearly says- כי הולך הוא, “he went of his own accord, “ i.e. he signaled that he welcomed the opportunity to harm the Jewish people who had never harmed him. Cruelty is not always expressed physically. In the case of Bileam he expressed it, or tried to express it, spiritually, metaphysically. Whereas G’d always tried to “awaken” love and sympathy for Israel, as well as hatred against its enemies, Bileam, on the other hand, tried to do the opposite. No wonder that G’d’s anger was inflamed by this. It follows that a single attribute, i.e. loving kindness, can be split into two branches, love for Israel and simultaneous hatred against its enemies.
The word וחציו, literally translated as: “and its arrows,” in this instance is indicative of strife, as Rashi has already explained on Genesis 49,23 where Yaakov refers to the brothers’ hatred of Joseph. He explains the word as referring to divisions, basing himself on Onkelos who links חץ, “arrow,” to מחצה, “half.” Israel is able to divide the single attribute of חסד, love, into two halves, i.e. love for G’d and hatred toward G’d’s’ enemies. Rashi’s major contribution is that he considers the subject of the word וחציו, to be Israel.
Numbers 24,17. “a star emerging from Yaakov has begun its journey, a scepter from Israel. It smashes the corner posts of Moab the foundation of all the descendents of Sheth.” The poetic language of Bileam becomes clearer when we look at psalms 22,29 כי לה' המלוכה ומושל בגויים, “for dominion belongs to Hashem and He rules the nations;” This will be demonstrated when ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון לשפוט את הר עשו והיתה לה' המלוכה, “when the liberators (exiles that have been freed) will march up Mount Zion to wreak judgment on Mount Esau and dominion shall be the Lord’s.”(Ovadiah 1,21)
We need to understand the difference between the words ממשלה and מלוכה, both of which refer to the exercise of authority, rule. The word מלוכה, when used in Scripture, refers to rule by a king whose subjects have submitted to it willingly, whereas the word ממשלה is used in Scripture when the subjects are unwilling, but unable to shake off the rule by the monarch or dictator. As a general rule, only the Jewish people are described as willingly submitting to G’d’s rule, whereas the gentile nations described in these verses as being in exile, submitted to G’d’s rule under protest, and rebelled against it whenever possible. G’d imposes His rule upon them in order to frustrate their evil designs against His people. In the eras described, both in psalms and Ovadiah, this situation will have changed and the gentile nations will willingly appoint G’d as their king also. (Compare Rashi on Deuteronomy 6,4,on שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד.( He quotes both Zecharyah 14,9 and Tzefaniah 2,9 in support of his statement.
We are aware that it is impossible for mortal man to have a true concept of the essence of G’d as we know from Tikkuney Hazohar chapter 11. When we recite daily in our prayers the line ברוך אתה ה', “blessed are You Hashem,” this is because through making judicious use of the letters, i.e. concentrating on the written text of our prayers, Jews can achieve comprehension of concepts that are incapable of comprehension to human beings if one would think about them only in the abstract. The letters, i.e. the sacred letters of the printed or written words: אתה וגו', illuminate for us the concept of G’d’s dominion over the Jewish people. As a result of this advantage we possess, tzaddikim are able to use the 22 letters in the aleph bet at will for the furtherance of loving kindness, mercy and life through our prayers which will then become engraved in the throne of Hashem.
The numerical value of the tetragram, i.e. י-ה-ו-ה is 26. When you add to this the 22 letters in the aleph bet, you will get the numerical value of the word כוכב, “star” in our verse. Homiletically speaking, Bileam refers to the emergence of a person in Israel who, by judicious use of the name of the Lord and the 22 letters He has used to create the universe, has tremendous influence on the decision making process in the celestial regions. His power will extend to smashing Moab and other enemies of Israel. When Bileam speaks of וקם שבט בישראל, the word שבט is to be understood as a simile for the rule by the Jewish people, whereas the word פאתי in the line ומחץ פאתי מואב, refers to צמצום, contraction as opposed to largesse, i.e. a major aspect of דין, application of the attribute of Justice, which severely impairs the freedom granted to human beings as long as they have not abused it (grossly) by rebelling against G’d. [Some of these words are mine. Ed.] The word מואב in our verse also alludes to the source of these disasters befalling Moab being G’d, i.e. Israel’s spiritual “Father,” מ-אב emanating from the father.
A recurring theme in the author’s definition of true service of the Lord is that when pertaining to service of the Lord, ecstasy is not only permitted but desirable, whereas ecstasy when applied to anything material, secular, is strictly forbidden. Furthermore, true service of the Lord is performed in a “hidden” manner, i.e. must not attract public attention, so as not be seen as arrogant behaviour. Whatever man does publicly, i.e. to draw attention to himself, is by definition חצוניות, externalism, not reflecting the sanctity of the soul. Bileam refers to the קרקר, extreme coldness, to be maintained when engaged in secular but necessary activities, so that any show of enthusiasm for the performance of such tasks will not be mistaken as religiously inspired.
A second interpretation of the expression: ומחץ פאתי מואב, one not substantially different from the first interpretation.
It is generally known that according to the Ari z’al, another appropriate כנוי, pronoun for השם יתברך, “The (holy) Name blessed He,” is the expression: אין סוף, “the Endless, Infinite One.” In order for Israel to receive emanations from Him, [be they material, or even spiritual in nature Ed.], that are beneficial for them, He voluntarily restricted Himself, i.e. hid some of these aspects that make Him Infinite. The degree to which G’d has to resort to this צמצום, “downgrading” of the absolute brightness that His essence represents, depends on the spiritual level of His people, or of the elite of His people. As Israel ascends to progressively higher rungs on the ladder of spirituality, G’d is able to remove the layers of “insulation” with which He has surrounded Himself to avoid harming people who wish to gaze at it, but are as yet unqualified to do so. When Bileam speaks of ומחץ פאתי מואב, he predicts that there will come a time in the future when G’d will be able to dispense with these מחיצות, “dividers” between Himself and His people. Bileam speaks of G‘d having to surround Himself with מחיצות in the past tense, whereas when the redeemer of The Jewish people will surface, there is no further need for Him to do this as they can tolerate gazing at Him in all His brightness.
At such times when the Jewish people have merits to their credit, they will view even the present world as something superior, a world in which ”ideas,” “positive thinking,” will outweigh the importance of performing menial tasks with one’s body. This reformed עולם הזה, has been described in the writings of the Ari z’al as מוחין עלאין, “superior intellects.”
According to publications by the outstanding medical doctors of our time, the brain is basically cool, (as opposed to the heart). This is what Bileam refers to when he speaks of all of mankind, describing them as cold, וקרקר כל בני שת. In other words, all derivatives of this present world are מגולים, revealed to all, the word שת refers to something that has been revealed. The Israelites will enjoy that even the present world will present itself to them as of a higher dimension. The reason that the word קרקר, “cold,” is repeated, is that the brain operates on two levels, respectively known as חכמה and בינה, “wisdom and insight.”
Numbers 24,18. “at that time Edom will become a conquest , and Seir will become the conquest of its enemies, whereas Israel will perform deeds of valour.” In order to understand the apparent repetition in our verse, it will help to refer to psalms 115,1 where David (addressing the holy spirit) says: לא לנו ה' לא לנו כי לשמך תן כבוד, “not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to Your name bring glory.”
According to Tanna de bey Eliyahu zutta chapter 19, Yaakov and Esau divided the world between themselves, Esau claiming the present material world, whereas Yaakov claimed the world beyond physical death.
The problem with this division is that we also ask G’d to provide for us in this life, as otherwise we would not be able to keep the commandments of the Torah which was given to be observed in this life. This does not detract from Yaakov not claiming any part of this world. In fact, seeing that the gentiles abuse us in this life and demean us, they could ascribe our fate on earth as due to our having foresworn the advantages of this life on earth. If we were not asking G’d for sustenance and G’d would accede to our request, the gentiles, seeing that they do not believe in our G’d and His concern for us, His people, would never be able to change their attitude. David therefore explains to the holy spirit that when we ask G’d for something that appears to contradict what Yaakov had foresworn, the reason is not that we wish to enjoy life on this earth per se, but we wish the gentiles to see that G’d is able to provide for us, and that therefore they should take note of this and change their attitude to the Creator, our G’d. We merely wish to be the vehicle through which the gentiles will come to recognize the glory of our G’d, Who should also be their G’d. By repeating the words לא לנו, the psalmist proceeds to explain how in spite of our asking G’d for sustenance and reprieves from persecution, we do not do so for our sakes, but for the sake of the glorification of His great name. We do not wish that the gentiles are in a position to jeeringly ask us: “where is your G’d about Whom you boast so much?”
Bileam, in the verse above, refers to the wheels of fortune for Israel and Esau respectively, having changed as an illustration; he repeats mentioning the fate of Esau, in order to show that the purpose of Israel’s success even in this world is designed to forestall the gentiles making fun of our G’d, claiming that He is powerless.
Pinchas
Numbers 25,11. Pinchas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest has turned back My wrath.”
Before elaborating on this verse we need to explain a verse in Lamentations 111,8: חטא חטא ירושלים על כן לנדה היתה, “Jerusalem has become guilty of a sin; this is why she has become a wanderer (homeless).”
We have a rule that if someone commits a transgression of G’d’s law due to his natural urges having proved too strong for him to resist them, he is not subject to the same penalty as someone who has committed the same transgression in order to anger G’d. Concerning this distinction between penalties for the same transgression the prophet Ezekiel 20,38 speaks when he says: וברותי מכם המורדים והפושעים בי מארץ מגוריהם....ואל אדמת ישראל לא יבוא וידעתם כי אני ה' “I will separate from you those who rebel and those who transgress against Me; but to the soil of Israel none shall come. Then shall you know that I am the Lord.” The prophet makes clear that sins committed deliberately in order to anger G’d are not subject to repentance, i.e. the penalty of exile, for example, will not be reversed not even for a single one of such sinners. Not so when the sin was committed merely due to the weakness of the flesh to resist temptation.
Jeremiah, in the above quoted verse from Lamentations, makes it plain that the sin of Jerusalemites which was punished by exile, i.e. נדה, was not due to the arrogance of defying G’d deliberately, but was only the result of weakness of the flesh; hence in due course repentance of the sinners or their descendants, will enable them to return to their ancestral homeland. The prophet chose the word נדה to describe the Jerusalemites’ punishment, as we all know that a woman who is temporarily out of bounds to her husband due to her menses, will in due course, after immersion in a mikveh, ritual cleansing bath, be reunited with her husband. The purification of such a woman is unique amongst cleansing from ritual pollutions, as in all other cases of ritual pollution, -for instance the contact with any of the eight שרצים, “teeming creatures (listed in Leviticus chapter11)- the source of the contamination is not rehabilitated by the ritual bath, only its victim.
In fact there exists blood of a menstruating woman or a woman that has just given birth which is not considered as contaminated at all.
It is axiomatic (in our faith) that when G’d dispenses of His largesse to us this is invariably for our benefit, though sometimes it is not immediately manifest.
[If I understand the author correctly, he means that both these categories of blood come forth from the same part of the woman’s body. When a woman gives birth this indicates that her ovulation resulted in something positive, a new life, this is proof that what turns into something polluted when not resulting in pregnancy, can become the opposite when resulting in pregnancy. Ed.]
The prophet hints at this when describing Israel’s state after the destruction of Jerusalem as that of a נדה, the message being that just as a woman having her menses may become pregnant during her next cycle, so this status of the Israelites is also capable of resulting in redemption in due course.
When we apply this concept to the deed of Pinchas who had spilled Jewish blood, (without legal action having preceded his act), enabled the Israelites to realize that the result of his act was the saving of an untold amount of more Jewish blood. What had at first glance appeared as an act of cruelty, turned out to be a vehicle for thousands of acts of loving kindness.
An alternative method of interpreting the verse quoted in the last paragraph. The Torah refers to the wrath of G’d having been at large among the Children of Israel by using the word בתוכם, usually translated as “in their midst.” Why did the Torah have to write this word? Is it not self-evident that this was the locale where G’d’s anger had become manifest? Furthermore, seeing that Pinchas had performed only one single deed, i.e. he acted zealously on behalf of Hashem, why would the Torah give him two rewards for this? He was granted the priesthood for himself and his descendants, and a covenant of peace!
We have a rule that when one sees someone committing a transgression against the Torah laws and one is incensed by this to the extent of being zealous on G’d’s behalf (like Pinchas), one may involuntarily provoke the attribute of Justice to be awakened against all such transgressors.
Pinchas’ second “deed” consisted in the fact that in spite of having acted upon his zealousness, he did not thereby provoke the attribute of Justice against other sinners, but, on the contrary, he stopped the very attribute of Justice from carrying out its appointed task. He achieved atonement on behalf of other sinners and became the epitome of a מליץ יושר, a counsel for defense of his fellow Jews. This has been described in Sanhedrin 44 where Pinchas is described as having flung the bodies of Zimri and Kosbi on the ground before G’d, exclaiming that “did 24000 Israelites have to die on account of these two (sinners)?” In light of this G’d rewarded Pinchas with two rewards for his deed. His act of zealousness instead of putting him outside the people had placed him squarely in the midst of the people,
as alluded to by the word בתוכם, “in their midst.” Pinchas had been instrumental in drawing down blessings from G’d for his people. His act had been one that deserved to have far reaching effects, so that his descents too qualified for the priesthood for all times. If the prophet Elijah had described himself as being descended from Rachel, what he meant was that in addition to being a descendant of Leah, seeing that she was the mother of Levi the founding father of the tribe to which all priests belonged, the soul of Rachel joined that of Pinchas seeing that it is written of Rachel (Genesis 30,1) that she was jealous, (zealous in a positive sense), of her sister, i.e. this zealousness was one of the major attributes of Rachel, such as when she stole her father’s idols to prevent him from worshipping them.
According to our author, in the kabbalistic scheme of the ten sefirot, Rachel represents the dimension of malchut, the dimension closest to the material world we live; this emanation is also associated (among other things) with vengeance.
More on the concept that Pinchas is identical with or equivalent to the prophet Elijah.
It is an axiom that man’s body as such is a long way from getting involved in service of the Creator. The body, by definition, is concerned with its own needs, and seeing that is it transient, mortal, cannot be expected to concentrate on the likes and dislikes of its Creator, were it not for the fact that it is inhabited by a soul of divine origin. Naturally, this soul, which feels as if in prison while it inhabits a mortal body, longs for a return to its origin. Seeing that the body does not share the soul’s lofty aspirations, it is condemned sooner or later to return to the dust from which it was formed, i.e. its destiny is the grave, interment in the earth.
This condition of the body, however, is not absolute. If the body too had been involved in service of the Lord willingly, it would not be mortal. Such a situation existed in Gan Eden before man committed the first sin.
Actually, (according to our author) Pinchas by his deed, had deliberately risked death, as the sages said in Sanhedrin 82, i.e. his body had not warned him that he was embarking on self destruction. As a reward, his body had become immortal, similar to the body of the prophet Elijah which departed from earth on a journey heavenwards (Kings II 2,1-11) According to a Midrash referred to by our author, Pinchas’s success in killing Zimri was due to his body having made itself invisible at the time.
[I must confess that the statement attributed by the editor of the version of the Kedushat Levi that I work from to Sanhedrin 82 is not to be found there. Maybe the author had a different source in mind when quoting: “our sages have said.” Ed.]
The author quotes another Midrash (that I have been unable to find) according to which the reason that G’d did not address Pinchas directly when giving him his reward but the Torah reports it in the impersonal third person, (25,12) is that his body at the time of the deed had been invisible. This is an additional allusion to the fact that Pinchas’ body, which had helped in this deed, deserved to be rewarded by immortality.
Concerning the statement in the Talmud that Pinchas was identical with the prophet Elijah, the question has been raised why the Talmud did not phrase it in the reverse order seeing that Pinchas lived hundreds of years prior to the prophet Elijah. The answer to this may be that the Talmud means that Pinchas’ soul departed from him at the moment he committed his deed so that the replacement soul that he was granted was that which would many hundreds of years later inhabit the body of the prophet Elijah. When Pinchas regained his normal frame of mind, he would again be known by the name that everyone was familiar with. At any rate, the name Elijah became part of his personality already before he received the reward for his deed.
Our author suggests slightly different answer by reminding us that major sins have a detrimental effect on our holy souls so that even already when planned they send the perpetrator’s divine soul into exile. This is alluded to broadly by the most unusual language in verses 14 and 15 of our chapter. Our author therefore suggests that Zimri’s deed had already sealed his fate of death by execution so that when Pinchas entered the picture he “killed” someone already legally dead. This also explains why the word “killing”, הרג is not mentioned in the Torah in connection with this episode even once, the Torah mentions only “stabbing,” (Numbers ) and having been struck, (Numbers 25,14) Seeing that Pinchas had not “killed” in the accepted sense of the word there was no reason to disqualify him for the priesthood.
Numbers 26,33. “and Tzlofchod, son of Chefer, did not have any sons, but only daughters.”
Serving the Lord truly entails doing so strongly, actively and with love, i.e. love and awe, so that as a result the Creator experiences satisfaction from His creatures. If one serves the Lord only because of fear of punishment it is equivalent to serving the Lord from a feeling of shame. This is reflected in the name צלפחד when broken up as צל פחד “a shadow of fear.” The name of his father, i.e. חפר is reminiscent of Isaiah 24,23 וחפרה לבנה ובושה החמה ,”and the moon shall be ashamed and the sun shall be abashed.” This is hinted at by the words כי אם בנות, “only female offspring.”
Numbers 27,5. “Moses submitted their judicial claim before the Lord (for judging).”
When a father prepares to allocate his inheritance to his son he derives pleasure from it. At this point, with G’d being our Father, and we being His sons, Moses wished to give our “Father” the pleasure and satisfaction to make a ruling concerning who is to inherit what. The משפט, “judgmental ruling” that he referred to was the law of inheritance.
[I believe our author found the reference to the word משפט as somewhat puzzling, as on similar occasions when Moses submitted a legal question to G’d the term had not been used. (Compare Leviticus, 24,12, or Numbers 9,8. Ed.]
Numbers 27,16. “let the Lord, source of the breath of all flesh , appoint someone over the community."
We abide by a rule that when we observe someone who does not carry out all of G’d commandments, that we search for a legitimate reason for such a person’s failure to have ignored G’d’s decrees. In other words, we give such a person the benefit of the doubt as long as this is reasonable. The best known excuses made for such people who do not observe G’d’s laws with the same degree of perfection as do the angels, is that they are so involved in having to secure their livelihood that this is the reason they are sometimes lax in observing G’d’s commandments.
Moses’ appeal to G’d in the verse quoted above is based on this argument that due to the need for human beings to toil in order to earn their livelihood, they are at a disadvantage when competing with the angels about who can serve G’d best. G’d being the G’d who has complete insight into each individual’s mind, רוח, “spirit, surely is aware of man’s difficulties. He is aware of the fact that G’d therefore looks for reasons to interpret Israel’s failures benevolently, treat them as existentialist problems of all creatures who live on earth.
Another way of interpreting the verse commencing with the words: יפקוד ה' אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, understands Moses as referring to G’d in His capacity of bestowing His largesse on all His creatures be they in the celestial regions, such as the seraphim (angels of the highest category) or the chayot, (angels of a slightly lower category) [the word רוחות referring to disembodied spirits. Ed.] These “spirits” in turn are viewed as transmitting of the largesse they have received from G’d directly, to inhabitants of the lower regions of the universe, primarily to Israelites. G’d Himself is perceived as having ensured that His largesse will be channeled to the Israelites via these angels. Moses requests that the transmission of G’d’s largesse be in the form that the Israelites can appreciate and make full use of. This is why he emphasizes G’d’s capacity of being G’d of all flesh, i.e. אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר. Seeing that this בשר, “flesh,” i.e. human beings is a composite of flesh and spirit, he appeals to G’d to tailor the channeling of His largesse with this consideration in mind. The new leader that is to be appointed for the Jewish people with his own departure from the scene should also be one who is fully appropriate for this congregation. He should be someone familiar with the peoples’ strengths as well as their weaknesses.
When we interpret the paragraph in this vein we can understand the word לאמור in the line: וידבר משה אל ה' לאמור in verse 15, as any reader is bound to wonder about the meaning of this word. Did Moss give G’d instructions to relay his words to someone and if so to whom? Our author therefore sees in the word לאמור in that line a request by Moses to provide suitable leaders for the Jewish people not only during the generation following him, but to all the generations throughout history.
A third alternative interpretation of Moses’ unusual definition of G’d in our verse.
It is assumed that man’s soul naturally craves to serve its Creator. The only impediments to the soul doing this to its heart’s content are the various cravings of different parts of the body it inhabits. This is difficult to understand seeing that both the body and the soul are G’d’s creatures. Therefore, just as G’d has equipped the soul with a desire to serve its Creator, the body too, even if not as anxious to do so as the soul, has been equipped by its Creator with the means to serve Him, else how could it be held responsible for not doing so? If, for some reason the body has not been equipped with as great an urge to serve its Maker, we have a justified argument against G’d Who, if he had provided the body with a stronger urge to serve Him, we would not go astray from time to time. Seeing that the body’s urge to serve G’d is relatively weak, it is incumbent upon Hashem to forgive our sins.
The נפש, life-force, which desires to serve the Lord is better known as רוח, “spirit,” as we know from Samuel II 23,2 רוח ה' דבר בי, “the Lord’s spirit speaks through me.” (David speaking) The body, on the other hand, is loosely referred to as בשר, “flesh.” When Moses in the verse quoted above, addressed G’d as : א-ל אלוקי הרוחות, “G’d, the G’d of the souls,” he adds that G’d should also be the G’d of the body in equal measure, enabling the body to serve Him with the same ardor as that of the soul.
Numbers 28,19. “you are to present a fire offering, an offering of elevation, etc.”
The Torah implies here that if our offering is a “fiery offering,” expressing the enthusiasm with which we serve the Lord, then, and only then, is it the instrument of our spiritual elevation, i.e. an עולה. He will then fulfill all our requests as He is aware that they do not stem from personal desires but are part of our deep seated desire to glorify Him and His name on earth.
Alternatively, the meaning of this verse could become clear by dividing the verse as follows: והקרבתם אשה, “if it is your intense desire to present an offering that represents your enthusiasm in serving the Lord, see to it that it is something that elevates spiritually, i.e. that ascends ever closer to Hashem, i.e. עולה לה'. You must not remain distant from G’d. There must not be any other “distractions,” physically or spiritually, that hamper your coming closer to your Creator. One such obstacle could be that you serve the Lord for the sake of the reward that He has promised.
[The reason for the author’s offering several explanations on a simple verse, appears to be that the combination of the words: אשה עולה or עולה אשה, occur only twice in the whole Torah. Ed.]
A third way of understanding our verse: The words והקרבתם אה define what an offering from us to G’d can achieve, i.e. to make us like a woman, אשה (with the vowel kametz
Matot
Numbers 30,3. “when a man utters a vow, etc.;”
In a book called Shaarey Orah, (a kabbalistic volume by Rabbi Joseph ben Avraham Giktalia, earliest printing 17th cent.) the word נדר is broken down into נון דר, the letter נ referring to Israel’s faith in G’d, Who in turn supervises our fate in all His Mercy at all times and wherever we are, not abandoning us for even a second. When this letter is found in the Torah written in an inverted form, as in Numbers 10,35 or in Job 38,1, it points to G’d’s supervision of the various parts of His universe. While the letter נ in that verse in Job is not inverted but rather is a final letter in the middle of a word, our sages in Nedarim 8 concluded that a vow applies even to the promise to perform a commandment when it is the result of the person making this vow having experienced proof of G’d’s supervising His universe. On such an occasion the person who has had this religious experience decides to abstain even from matters which-as far as the Torah is concerned- he is within his rights to enjoy.
[In order to understand this, it is necessary to remember that the vows discussed in the Torah and the Talmud involve use of the name of G’d, something severely punished when used in vain, as per the third of the 10 Commandments. Although the Talmud in Nedarim uses a verse from psalms as the justification, our author feels that the remarks by the author of the book שערי אורה reinforce what we have learned in the Talmud. Ed.]
“in order to impose a prohibition upon his person.”
From the wording of the Torah it seems clear that permission to utter vows or oaths is granted only if the person doing so did so in order to strengthen his ability to obey certain commandments that he was in danger of violating had he not reinforced his determination by means of a vow or oath. An example of such a vow is found in the Book of Ruth 3,13, where Boaz reinforces his undertaking to be Ruth’s redeemer if a closer relative refuses to marry her, by adding the words: חי ה', “by the Life of Hashem”. He did so in order to bolster his resistance to the evil urge that might advise him not to enter into such an (apparently) inappropriate marriage.
Numbers 30:3 “he must not profane his word.” “he must act in accordance with all that he said.”
When someone does not profane, dishonor his promises, he assists in perfecting the world we live in with every word he utters. Our verse alludes to this ability of the righteous to govern the universe when instead of שבטים, “tribes,” the Torah used the word מטות, which has a dual meaning, also meaning “להטות,” to incline, i.e. to alter an existing status, to effect change in the celestial court, converting decrees based on the attribute of Justice to decrees based on the attribute of Mercy.
The words לא יחל דברו ככל היוצא מפיו יעשה, may also be the basis of a halachic ruling concerning the care to be taken when uttering a vow, even when one fully intends to keep it. The Talmud Nedarim 10 illustrates this when discussing the line ימיו כצל עובר, “man’s days (lifetime) pass as speedily as a passing shadow.” According to the Talmud there, it is forbidden to use the formula לה' קרבן,"”, “for the Lord a sacrificial offering,” the reason being that one may die a sudden death before completing the word קרבן, in which case one would have concluded one’s life by uttering the name of the Lord in vain. The appropriate formula therefore is: קרבן לה', “a sacrificial offering for the Lord.” This is what the Midrash alludes to when commenting on the words איש כי ידור נדר לה', i.e. when formulating a vow the word לה' should be the last word in the formula. [The Midrash quoted was inspired by the words “one must carry out what one has promised” being superfluous, as the Torah already warned us not to profane our word (of honour), Ed.]
We find a discussion in Nedarim 9 where Rabbi Meir interprets the advice of Solomon in Kohelet 5,4 טוב שלא תדור משתדר ואינו משלם, as meaning: “it is better not to make a vow to donate something to the Temple or to charity, than to make such a vow and then fail to honour it.” Rabbi Yehudah, on the other hand, understands the saying differently, i.e. Solomon making a comparison between two less than ideal situations, but that Solomon would agree that the best way to insure that one pays a promise, is to reinforce it by a vow and to keep the vow. It is possible to understand Rabbi Meir as referring to the formulation of the vow, i.e. to make sure, as the Torah does, that the word לה' is at the end of the formulation to avoid possibly uttering the name of the Lord in vain, in case one died suddenly. According to the view of the Torah as expressed in our verse, it is best to avoid making promises which involve invoking the name of the Lord.
Numbers 31,3. “Moses spoke to the people, saying: “let men be picked from among you for a campaign, and let them fall upon Midian to wreak G’d’s vengeance on Midian.”
When someone goes out into battle fully trusting in the Lord to help him (believing his cause to be just) he will surely succeed, as he does not engage in battle for his own sake but is concerned exclusively with carrying out G’d’s will. Our verse therefore has to be understood as follows: “let the men to be picked for the army be those who will not engage in the battle for their own sake, i.e. with a view to the booty to be gained, but who do so only in order to be the vehicle for G’d’s vengeance on Midian.”...
ויהיו על מדין, a very unusual expression. It will help us to understand this wording when we remember that it is a rule that in our imperfect “lower” part of the universe, someone who is morally inferior to an adversary who is superior will not be able to successfully fight against the person on top of him. In the scenario described in the Torah here, the Israelites had recently sinned with the Moabite women, sleeping with them and, according to our tradition, even indulging in idolatrous behaviour prior to doing this. The Midianites were aware of this, and therefore felt that they would have the “upper” hand in such a confrontation. In order therefore to overcome the Midianites in a “punitive” expedition such as the Torah decrees, the Israelites had to quickly acquire great merits as a counterweight. This is hinted at by Moses when he says: ויהיו על מדין, “so that they can overcome Midian,” i.e. occupy moral high ground.
Numbers 31,7. “they took the field against Midian as G’d had commanded Moses”
It was quite possible that these soldiers or some of them would entertain egotistical notions, such as the amassing of a great deal of loot, as turned out to be the case. By stressing that the soldiers acted in accordance with what G’d had commanded Moses, the Torah testifies that any thought of booty and other advantages to be gained by this campaign did not surface until after the campaign had ended.
Masei
Numbers 33,2. “Moses made a written record of their departures and their journeys, and these are their journeys according to their departures.”
We need to understand why our verse first describes the journey of the Israelites chronologically, i.e. mentioning their departures before their journeys, whereas as soon as the report switches to the past tense, it lists the journeys before mentioning their departures, מוצאיהם?
The reader is presumed to know that every journey, i.e. every separate departure and encampment, occurred at the command of G’d, [as the Israelites did not have a map to travel by. Ed.] We have also pointed out previously that the purpose of this journey through inhospitable territory had been, amongst others, to identify “sparks” of “fallen” holiness along the way and by associating with it to assist these “sparks” to be elevated spiritually and be reunited with their sacred origins. This was also the reason why the Israelites remained stationary in one location sometimes for only a day and night, and on occasion as long as for 19 years (Kadesh) at a time. It all had to do with locating and disgorging from its collective mouth (compare Jeremiah 51,44) the spiritually foul material absorbed through having made contact with idolatrous concepts absorbed by these “fallen” sparks of original holy origin. These “fallen” sparks that had originally been part of the garment of the Shechinah, had absorbed varying degrees of pollution before found by the Israelites.
When Joshua sent out two spies to Jericho, (Joshua 2,2) the word describing their task was: לחפור את כל הארץ, “to spy out the whole country,” [in the words of the King of Jericho, as opposed of the word describing their task used by Joshua, Ed.].
We need to examine the word לחפור for a moment, [a word also used by the Jewish people when they demanded to send spies to the land of Canaan, (Deuteronomy 1,22).Ed.]
However, we must remember that by far the greatest part of the land of Israel was conquered successfully due to the observance of G’d’s commandments in the Torah by the Israelites and their performing deeds of loving kindness for their fellow Jews. These deeds were performed in the locations that required conquest. In other words, the vast majority of the Israelites were engaged in serving their Creator from the loftiest motives. They were equally concerned with being models in their relations to other Jews. By doing so, and being observed to do so by the gentiles surrounding them, they succeeded in enabling the “sparks,” (creatures who had “fallen” from their moral/ethical lofty heights) to become rehabilitated. As soon as the Israelites had performed these deeds, the soil of the Holy Land was bound to respond to such a people and allowed itself to be conquered by them. The land would cooperate willingly with the demand made upon it by the new conquerors. Anyone receiving “handouts” is in a state of “shame” vis a vis the donor. This is what is meant by the expression לחפור, i.e. to qualify as someone ashamed, just as the moon and sun (symbols worshipped by the pagans) are viewed by Isaiah 24,23 as ashamed at having been defeated by the Creator.
When viewing the 42 journeys required by the Israelites in their trek from Egypt to the Holy Land, we find among other way stations the expression: ויחנו בחרדה,ויחנו במתקה, ויחנו בהר ששפר, the names of these places reflecting that the Israelites had had reason to be afraid of unpleasant occurrences when they encamped there, or the reverse. [Reference to חרדה is the former, trembling, fear, and הר שפר, a mountain known for its beauty, reminiscent of the emanation תפארת and מתקה “sweetness,” i.e. the opposite of fear. Ed.] When the Israelites arrived at places that inspired fear they worshipped G’d as He wished to be worshipped, exalting His highest attributes, whereas when they encamped in locations promising material benefits, they worshipped Him by invoking other attributes. The names of the various locations reflect how in each location, according to the level of the “sparks” of fallen former angels, the Israelites reacted with the appropriate attribute in order to help these “fallen” creatures to rehabilitate themselves and regain their original holy status. When Moses once speaks of מוצאיהם למסעיהם and another time of מסעיהם למוצאיהם, he merely alludes to the fact that seeing that each move was at the command of Hashem, על פי ה' , that the task of assisting in the rehabilitation of the “fallen,” different approaches had to be used in accordance with the spiritual state they found these “fallen” one time angels in.
[This editor finds it remarkable that our author views the journeys of the Israelites, especially those after the debacle with the spies, when the Israelites themselves had to rehabilitate themselves spiritually through the younger generation, as inspiring other “fallen” creatures to do the same. The Torah alluding to this at the conclusion of its narrative is most appropriate. Ed.].
Deuteronomy
Devarim
Deuteronomy 1,1. “These are the words which Moses spoke to the entire people of Israel in the desert, facing the wilderness near Suph between Paran and between Tophel and Lavan.”
It seems reasonable to see in the word ערבה, wilderness, a reference to the first time the word ערב appears in the story of Creation (Genesis 1,5) where the meaning is “evening,” a transition from day to night. At the time of the creation the evening preceded the first morning, as before the creation of light the universe had been in darkness, as we read there in verse 2, and as the Talmud points out in the beginning of tractate B’rachot, when discussing the times for reciting the keriyat sh’ma. If we take our cue from that paragraph in the Torah, the early years of our lives would be described as ערב. Having this in mind, the Torah, i.e. Moses, alludes here to the need for every human being from his earliest youth to focus all of his activities on the aspect of G’d familiar to us by the name Shechinah, “G’d’s Presence.”
The deeper meaning behind the words: בין פארן, is that this is the site on earth from which the ability for living creatures on earth to become fruitful and to multiply is derived. As to the words: ובין תפל, we follow Rashi, who quotes Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai who claims that no one has ever been able to find these two locations. He therefore concluded that these names are similes, used by Moses to rebuke the Israelites who had spoken derisively of the manna (Numbers 1,7), which was white, לבן. The word תפל, [possibly as root of: תפלה “prayer”. Ed.], according to Rashi, is another word for “speech” (presumably Israel’s accepting the Torah with the words נעשה ונשמע, “we shall do and we shall listen (to instruction).” Moses’ address teaching the Israelites to make G’d their focus at all times, and to observe these covenants meticulously, covers the period between the covenant of circumcision made with Avraham and that of the Ten Commandments made with the assembled Jewish nation at Mount Sinai.
Deuteronomy 2,1. “it is eleven days (march) from Chorev to Kadesh Barnea.”
In order to understand the relevance of this line, it is helpful to understand a verse in Proverbs 27,9 where Solomon says that שמן וקטורת משמח לב, “oil (for anointing) and incense gladden the heart.”
When dealing with matters involving holiness, the basic number used is the number 10. Already in the most ancient Kabbalistic text, the sefer yetzirah, the number ten is mentioned repeatedly as a contrast to the number eleven. The ten emanations, ספירות, different levels of holiness, are “matched” by ten levels of spiritually negative levels, the difference between the two being that the גורמים, causes, of the ten levels of holiness and the resulting holiness are viewed as part of something integral, whereas a similar “integrity” of cause and effect is not presumed to exist when spiritually negative forces and their causes are concerned. When we read in the sefer yetzirah about “ten levels of emanations and not eleven,” the author wishes to make the point that the causes of the sefirot and the sefirot themselves are not viewed as separate entities. When Moses speaks of a “distance,” of eleven days [in a spiritual sense, as in: ‘49 levels of ritual pollution,’ Ed.], the word חורב, [as distinct from Sinai. Ed.], is to be understood as symbolizing the סטרא אחרא, the ten spiritually negative forces that are the counterweight of the ten spiritually positive forces. The Israelites (priests) used to offer twice daily an incense offering known as קטורת, consisting of 11 different categories of fragrances. When Moses elaborates by saying that the “11 days” he refers to were in the direction of Mount Seir, the region of the Kingdom of Edom, it becomes clear that he referred to something that took the Israelites away from the spiritually lofty atmosphere of Mount Sinai in the direction of the spiritually totally polluted domain of Esau/Seir. This is a fitting introduction to Moses rebuking the Israelites in this Book. In the parlance of our sages, the evil urge is often referred to as הר, mountain, i.e. representing an almost insurmountable obstacle. It is also called שעיר as we know from Sukkah 52. [None of the seven names mentioned in the Talmud there is שעיר, Ed.] The Talmud there does say that the evil urge appears like a tall mountain to the righteous, whereas it appears as insignificant as a thin hair to the wicked.
Deuteronomy 1,3. “Moses spoke to the Children of Israel in accordance with all that Hashem had commanded him concerning them.”
This verse will be better understood when we look at the Zohar III 149.where the Baraitha of Rabbi Yishmael at the beginning of Torat Kohanim, states כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל וגו', “anything that was included in a general statement, but was then singled out to teach something, was not singled out to teach only about itself., but to apply its teaching to the entire generality;” When applied to the Holy Torah, we have to distinguish between matters treated by the Torah as “more profound than immediately visible after a superficial reading of the text, i.e. פנימיוות וסוד, “something mystical, buried deep inside,” and between matters that every reader can understand at once, such as references to places, dates, such as when the Torah relates details of the lives of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov. When the Torah reports about their respective dealings with Lavan, or stories told about the matriarchs, Bileam and his ass, these are not to be understood only at face value, but they contain deeply hidden aspects, such as that we are to learn from the excerpts of Avraham’s life how do practice loving kindness with our fellow man. From the details revealed about Yaakov’s life, we are to learn about the righteousness of Yaakov; similarly there are many human attributes practiced by our matriarchs which we are to learn to emulate by immersing ourselves more deeply in the stories of the Torah than one does by reading a novel. Proper reading of these “stories” helps us understand that we are till this day benefiting by the merits accumulated by our forefathers, some of which, we, as their descendants, are being rewarded for. Rachel’s foregoing marriage to her betrothed, Yaakov, in order not to publicly shame her sister Leah, is one of the outstanding examples of selflessness from which we are to learn, according to our sages, when they comment on Jeremiah 31,14 קול ברמה נשמע נהי בכי תמרורים רחל מבכה על בניה מאנה להנחם על בניה כי איננו, “a voice is heard in Ramah- wailing, bitter weeping- Rachel weeping for her children she refuses to be comforted for her children who are gone.” In its introduction to megillat eychah, Lamentations, the author, quoting above verse from Jeremiah interprets it as G’d’s promise to bring redemption to Rachel’s descendants on account of her merits.
If the Torah took the trouble to relate fragments from the lives of the patriarchs and matriarchs to teach us to emulate their virtues, it wrote of Bileam’s conduct in order to teach us not to emulate the abuse Bileam had made of his freedom of choice. Anyone reading of how boastful Bileam had made a fool of himself and left Balak after having become totally discredited, will surely learn a lesson from this. Avot 5,9 points to the difference between the disciples of Avraham and the disciples of Bileam. Avraham’s virtues are worth emulating, whereas Bileam’s great intellectual gifts, due to their being abused by their owner, must be shunned. In other words, although we are able to derive much value from just reading the text superficially, what is hidden behind such superficial reading of the text is even more illuminating. Similarly, with the parts of the Torah that on the surface purport to teach G’d’s commandments; although we must, of course use the text in order to know which commandments to perform and when and where, the text contains many hidden nuances that are discovered only when we apply ourselves with the intention to discover them.
This is what the author of the Baraitha of Rabbi Yishmael that we quoted earlier meant when it stated that “any matter that was part of a general statement, etc,” the general statement is the Torah as a whole, whereas “the statements singled out,” are the specific details about critical moments in our patriarchs’ and matriarchs’ lives, as well as critical details in the lives of other personalities the Torah has singled out from the millions it could have chosen. The words in the Baraitha “but was then singled out from a general statement to teach something only about itself,” refer to specific attributes possessed by the persons mentioned, which are meant either to be emulated or to be shunned. The words: “was not singled out to teach only about itself,” teaches that the attribute emphasized in that example is not to be treated as an exception but is to be applied generally.
That Baraitha also hints by its wording that we must not only look for something beyond the bare text in the stories the Torah tells about outstanding personalities, but search for deeper meaning in the text teaching the commandments. There is a lesson to be learned not only regarding how to perform the commandments, but also regarding moral/ethical lessons to be derived from each commandment.
This latter idea is somewhat elaborated on in the Zohar. It is interesting to note that the fifth Book of the Torah is known also as משנה תורה, [loosely translated as “review of the Torah,” although it is much more than that, containing commandments that did not appear previously at all. Ed.] In this Book, the emphasis is not so much on the attributes of outstanding human beings, but on the attributes of the Creator, and His relationship to His chosen people under various circumstances.
Knowing the manner in which G’d relates to His people is the key to all the warnings issued by Moses to the people concerning their deviating from the right path and the consequences which this would bring in its wake sooner or later, whenever G’d’s patience in waiting for the people to repent would come to an end. Since the Book of Deuteronomy was addressed (at the time) to the generation of Israelites who had not been adults at the time of the Exodus, or who had not even been born yet at that time, they did not need to have everything spelled out for them by means of the stories in the Torah, i.e. parables, as according to Moses’ own testimony in Deut. 29,3 they had become a generation that could use their eyes and ears (not only physically). This was a generation that was not tainted by the ritual pollution it had taken out with them from Egypt.
This is how we must understand Bereshit Rabbah 12,3 that wherever the Torah commences a paragraph with the words: אלה וגו', “these,” etc., it signifies that conditions that had existed prior to this point had become completely irrelevant. In the line in Genesis 2,4 where we find the word אלה for the first time, this signals that anything that the Torah had written about the state of the universe before the creation of light, i.e. the state of תהו ובהו, utter chaos, had by now become totally irrelevant. When we apply this Midrash to the Book of Deuteronomy, it means that rules that had been relevant to the people who had left Egypt as adults no longer had any relevance. The present generation was on a spiritually so much higher level that Moses could speak to them without having to use parables. This is also what Rashi had in mind when in his commentary on the words: אחרי הכותו את סיחן וגו', “after He had smitten Sichon, etc.” (1,4) he says that Moses waited with his words of rebuke for the people until G’d had begun the fulfillment of His promise to give the land of the Canaanites to Israel by giving them vast territory on the east bank of the Jordan. That important victory had concluded the 40 years of wandering in the desert without meaningful progress. At that point Moses became able to speak to the people in the manner G’d had commanded him to do (end of verse 3).
Deuteronomy 1,5. “on the far side (east bank) of the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to explain this Torah;”
A look at Rashi, based on Tanchuma, shows us that Moses translated the Torah into 70 languages. Why did Moses find it necessary to choose this time and location to translate the Torah into all the known languages at the time? If this was indeed so, this helps us explain a verse in psalms 87,6 ה' יספור בכתוב עמים זה ילד שם סלה, “The Lord will inscribe in His register of all the peoples that have been born, selah.”
It is an accepted rule that on occasion the Torah writes some words in Aramaic, such as in Genesis 31,47 “יגר סהדותא,” “the stone of witness,” whereas Yaakov named the very same heap of stones גלעד in its Hebrew equivalent. Aramaic is not the only foreign (non Hebrew) language that is found in the Torah. An example that comes to mind is the word טוטפות used by the Torah to describe the area on the forehead where the phylacteries are to be placed. (Deuteronomy 6,8). The word may describe some jewelry worn on the head. There are still other occasions when the Torah uses words from the Greek or other languages. The Talmud Zevachim 37 deals with the subject.
The point is that the gentiles come across words in the Torah which are familiar to them from their own language. More than that; the language of a nation is an essential part of its “life,” i.e. its culture, its reason for being a separate nation. Seeing that G’d foresaw that at some time in the future the Jewish people would spend their lives in exile amongst people speaking an “alien” tongue, the fact that the odd word of such languages were familiar to them from the Torah would serve as an encouragement to them, reminding them that they were not in a totally alien world. It is this thought that the psalmist alluded to in psalms 87,6 when he referred to the Jewish people though in exile will never be counted as an integral part of the host nation, but as “Zionists,” see reference in the verse preceding psalms 87,6. (Compare Alshich)
According to our author, the smattering of foreign words in the Torah is designed to give Jews born in foreign lands due to their parents being in exile, confidence that they can live there as Jews, provided they live as a צדיקים, righteous persons, as the tzaddik is also referred to as זה, (Compare B’rachot 6) and this is what the psalmist alludes to when writing the word זה after the word עמים in the verse quoted earlier from psalms 87,6. The Talmud quotes as its example the word זה in the last verse of Kohelet, where the line כי זה כל האדם, for this is the “whole” human being, implies that only a person who is a ירא שמים, ”lives in awe of His Creator,” is truly a human being.
The reason that the Torah refers to Moses explaining the Torah in the land of Moab is that only in חוץ לארץ, outside the Land of Israel proper, is there any need for Torah also to be understood by resorting to a tongue other than the holy Tongue.
Deuteronomy 1,16. “I commanded you at that time:” hear out your fellow man so that you may judge fairly;” the words בעת ההיא, “at that time,” appear to be superfluous; the fact is that only while in the Diaspora do the judges have to listen to the arguments of the litigants. In the future, after the arrival of the messiah (Sanhedrin 93), the Judges will know who is right and who is wrong in a dispute without lengthy arguments by the litigants.
Megillat Eicha
Vaetchanan
Deuteronomy 3,23. “I pleaded with Hashem at that time, to say:” the word לאמור after we have been told that Moses pleaded with Hashem appears totally superfluous. Who else was this to be relayed to? In light of this, it appears that the correct interpretation of this verse is that prior to Moses’ praying to G’d on his own behalf he pleaded with Hashem to ensure that He was in a receptive mood for the prayer which would follow. This is also why the Torah added the words: בעת ההיא, “at that time,” to teach us that before that time Moses felt too ashamed to offer entreaty or prayer on his own behalf.
Another possible way of explaining the opening line of our Parshah is based on a statement in the Talmud B’rachot 9 according to which although we have a rule that there must not be an interruption of any kind between the conclusion of the b’rachah “concluding with the words גאל ישראל, and the Amidah which follows, the words א-דוני שפתי תפתח, “Lord, open my lips” (in prayer), do not constitute an interruption. The reason is that the sages declared the Amidah as a “long prayer,” i.e. the line beginning with “Lord open my lips,” are considered an integral part of the Amidah rather than merely an introduction. Although the members of the “Great Assembly” who composed the Amidah prayer had not included these words in their formula, subsequent religious authorities decided to add this line. Apparently during the era of the “great Assembly,” a period beginning with the coming of Ezra to Eretz Yisrael, there was no need for people to ask for Divine assistance before they could concentrate on saying their prayers. By the time of the Mishnah 200-250 years later approx., in line with the principle of ירידת הדורות, “the gradual but constant decline of the spiritual level of the Jewish people,” it had become necessary to ask for assistance from heaven to enable us to pray with the mental concentration without which our prayers are not a compliment for G’d, but G’d forbid, an insult.
From the above it follows that our prayers must be viewed as consisting of two separate components. One consists of the actual prayer, as composed by the members of the Great Assembly, and the second consists of a plea to enable us to pray in such a way that our prayers may find the desired response from G’d.
There can be no question that Moses did not require these “artificial” assists not only to formulate his prayers but to pray with the appropriate mental concentration. His prayers on behalf of his people had always found a receptive ear, but now when for the first time his prayer had not been accepted, it is clear that the reason must have been that the prayer itself was somehow defective, did not flow from his mouth as it had been on all other occasions. He therefore found it necessary to ask G’d to assist him in formulating his prayer appropriately. The word לאמור in the verse quoted above reflects this need of Moses to ask for assistance to his entreaty to be allowed to enter the Holy Land. The word לאמור on this occasion in connection with Moses’ prayer shows us that this was the only time in his career as the leader of the nation that he felt the need for assistance in this.
Moreover, as a rule, when the Torah reports Moses as speaking, it reports merely that G’d’s voice was speaking through his throat.
This also helps us answer the question of why Moses, during the revelation at Mount Sinai was angry at the people who had heard G’d speak to them directly when they requested that instead of having to listen to His voice they preferred to listen to it as relayed to them through Moses as His interpreter. At that time (Deuteronomy 5,24) the Israelites had addressed Moses as if he were a female by using the feminine pronoun את, for “and you,” instead of the masculine ואתה. Our sages, quoted by Rashi, commenting on this, observe that Moses felt that he personally had been weakened by the people, because they had failed to display the ability to serve the Lord from love, else they would not have had to be afraid of G’d’s voice causing them to die, as they claimed.
In light of what we said i.e. that generally G’d’s voice spoke out of the throat of Moses, we could have understood Moses’ reaction very well, as hearing Torah from the Rabbi’s student cannot be compared to hearing it from the Rabbi himself. But If G’d was indeed speaking through the throat of Moses, there should have been no difference to hearing it that way or hearing it without Moses as the intermediary. Why then would Moses have been displeased at their request, especially as G’d Himself told him (Deut. 5,26) that the people had done well in requesting a change of venue by asking that Moses be their intermediary? We must therefore fall back on a statement by our sages that there were three things that Moses had done without having consulted G’d.
(Compare Shabbat 87) In the event, G’d agreed with Moses, i.e. approved of his initiative after the event. One of the three things was that he added an additional day for the people to prepare themselves mentally, (spiritually) for the Revelation and the receiving of the Torah. The second was that he smashed the first set of the Tablets containing the Ten Commandments. He applied logic when doing this, reasoning that if a Jew who has not been circumcised is forbidden to partake of the Passover due to his status, and this is only one commandment, how much less do they deserve the entire Torah, having just been guilty of idolatry? This logic is flawed, as in the case of the Passover, the Torah forbids participation in a ritual which provides the participant with pleasure, i.e. the eating of the lamb, something not applicable to most other commandments of the Torah. We have a general rule that the commandments of the Torah have not been given to us for whatever physical pleasure performance of it would yield.
Tossaphot on that folio query how the sages could describe this decision of Moses as being made by himself when he had used the Torah as the yardstick by which he had arrived at this decision? They answer that since Moses’ logic in that instance was flawed, the decision must be viewed as his and not as inspired by his study of the Torah. The third example of Moses making a high-handed decision without consulting G’d is his separation from his wife, the subject for which Miriam criticized him in Numbers 12,1-2. On that occasion also, according to the Talmud, he used logic, a valid tool of interpreting the Torah, saying that if the people who heard G’d speak for only a few minutes had to separate from their wives for three days prior to that, he, to whom G’d spoke almost on a daily basis, [prior to the sin of the spies, Ed.] surely had to separate from his wife permanently.
Concerning that logic the Talmud points out that seeing that G’d had told Moses to send the Israelites home to their wives, whereas at the same time He commanded him to remain at the site of the revelation, surely in light of this Moses’ decision could not be construed as being arrived at on his own? Here too, the Talmud says that whereas Moses considered his logic as unassailable and therefore based on the Torah, in fact his logic can be challenged.
Moses was in a category by himself, having stated that during 40 days in the celestial regions (on top of Mt. Sinai) he had neither eaten bread nor had drunk water. (Deut. 9,9) His nourishment had consisted of the זיו השכינה, “enjoying the splendour of the Divine Presence.” Due to his extreme humility, Moses presumed that the entire Jewish nation was entitled to a similar experience, i.e. the ability to satisfy the body’s requirements through infusions of spirituality from a celestial source. This is what he built his logic (קל וחומר) on when drawing conclusions from the three day period of the abstaining from marital intercourse during the preparations for the Revelation at Mount Sinai, as well as from the laws concerning who may partake of the Passover. He reasoned that the Torah most certainly did not address nitwits, but a people on the highest spiritual level, else how could they be able to hear G’d speak to them directly on that occasion. He considered it as certain that at that time everything the people did was only for the loftiest motives, i.e. לשם שמים, why else would they keep their distance from their spouses? He erred by comparing the whole people to himself, so that the logic which formed the premise of his decision was flawed. In other words, his decisions were not based on correct interpretations of precedents in the Torah, so that the sages in the Talmud were correct in describing his three decisions as “homegrown.”
The prophet Isaiah 40,10-11 teaches us something about different levels of holiness. The prophet writes as follows: הנה א-דוני אלוקים בחזק יבוא וזרועו משלה לו, הנה שכרו אתו ופעולתו לפניו. כרועה עדרו ירעה בזרועו יקבץ טלאים ובחיקו ישא עלות ינהל.. ”Behold, the Lord G’d comes in might, and His arm wins triumph for Him; see, His reward is with Him, His recompense before Him. Like a shepherd He pastures His flock; He gathers the lambs in His arms, and carries them in His bosom, He drives the mother sheep.”
When we conduct ourselves in a holy spirit then all the largesse of the Lord that we experience contains holiness, so that in effect, even when eating our daily bread, we are participating at a meal served on a celestial table, the table of He Who owns the earth and all there is on it.
Even though, as we have learned (based on a Midrash on Genesis 33,13) Yaakov and Esau agreed to divide the universe between them, Esau becoming heir to the earth and all its material blessings, while Yaakov reserved for himself the world to come a world of disembodied creatures, this did not mean that G’d cannot provide largesse of a material kind for His people to be enjoyed while their souls inhabit their bodies. When the prophet says: “Behold the Lord comes in might,” he refers to G’d giving us the Jewish people something that according to the division of Esau and Yaakov we did not have a legal claim to. [Esau is not being deprived by anything that G’d gives to us the Jewish people, through His largesse. Ed.] The simile of the shepherd used by the prophet, is reminiscent of a statement in the Talmud Baba Metziah 5 according to which it is natural for a shepherd who tends sheep that are his own, to treat them with even more care than he does the sheep belonging to others. There is therefore no reason why G’d should not treat His people with especial concern.
Yet another way of interpreting the line ואתחנן אל ה' בעת ההיא לאמור, is based on the discussion of the Rabbis in Eyruvin 13 concerning whether it would have been more comfortable for the human race if it had not been born to live on this earth. The debate concluded with a vote by the majority of the participants that indeed it would have been more comfortable (נוח לו לאדם) not to have been born, but seeing that this was G’d’s will we must, of course, respect His decision. The debate sounds difficult to understand, seeing that G’d is presumed to primarily represent the attribute of Love, חסד, so how could the scholars even dare discuss if, seeing that He had seen fit to create man, this might not have been “good” for man?
[the author refers to the discussion having centered around the word טוב “good,” i.e. an objective term. A look at the text of the Talmud shows that the word טוב does not appear; instead the scholars referred to a relative term, the word נוח לו, “is it comfortable for man.” In light of this the author’s question is out of place. Ed.]
The author proceeds from the premise that the tzaddik does not wish to enter the lower universe, i.e. our world. He does so only in order to fulfill G’d’s will, i.e. the commandments of the Torah. Seeing that through being born into this part of the universe the tzaddik has been given the opportunity to fulfill the commandments that he could not have fulfilled in the celestial spheres with the angels, G’d did indeed practice the attribute of חסד when He decided to create the human race. When the Torah reports Moses as using the words ואתחנן בעת ההיא, it wishes to convey that Moses did not pray for an extension of his life nor for enjoying his stay on earth longer, but only to have the chance to fulfill commandments that could not be fulfilled except through his crossing the Jordan and serving G’d in the Holy Land.
Still another aspect of the opening line of our Parshah. When evaluating happenings on this earth we always proceed from the premise that all G’d does or allows to happen, is meant for the good, even though on occasion it takes a while to realize that what started as apparently a dreadful event, will ultimately be realized to have been the beginning of something good. [According to the formula of Rabbi Nachum ish gam zu.
When we ask G’d in psalms 85,8 הראנו ה' חסדך וישעך תתן לנו, “show us, O Lord, Your kindness grant us Your deliverance,” these words spring from our conviction that, of course, what G’d has in mind is for our own good. Our prayer is to be granted to live long enough to see this confirmed with our own eyes. The word לאמור which we had questioned at the outset, is to be understood as in Deuteronomy 26,17 and 18 האמרת and האמירך, where these words are expressions of love.
Moses prays to be granted to see with his own eyes this expression of G’d’s love.
Deuteronomy 24:3, You have begun to show Your servant, etc,” According to Rashi’s commentary on Exodus 32,10 where G’d tried to forestall Moses’ prayer on behalf of his people, this had been an indication that basically G’d is very interested in our prayers. In light of Rashi’s comment there, why did Moses refer to “Your greatness, etc.; at this point?” The answer is that that by having said on that occasion “Leave Me be,” G’d had indicated that He normally longed for the prayers of the righteous, prayers which are capable of reversing potentially harmful decrees into beneficial ones. When Moses referred here to G’d having displayed that very greatness, the occasion had been his own readiness to pray and to reverse His decree. It was therefore appropriate now that he now do the same on his own behalf.
Another angle from which to understand the line אתה החילות וגו'; we know that G’d created all the various parts of the universe. In spite of this, His supervision and guidance of the various parts of the universe are largely influenced by the Jewish people. Seeing that G’d wished to bestow His largesse on the Jewish people, and that this includes the people whom the Jewish people ask that He deal with on the basis of the attribute of Justice, Moses refers to this aspect of G’d’s greatness when he says: “Your greatness and Your strong hand.” In other words, “Your carrying out the wishes expressed in my prayer are proof of Your greatness, and Your power.”
“You Who are unparalleled in heaven or on earth for the great and powerful deeds that You have performed.”
In order to understand what Moses refers to here it must be assumed that the tzaddikim, the righteous, are referred to in this line as G’d’s handiwork, מעשיך. The definition of a tzaddik is someone who is constantly in control of his awe of the Creator. Moses continues to describe even people who can act like the tzaddikim as being something so outstanding that such people do not have their equals anywhere, i.e. אשר יעשה כמעשיך.
Deuteronomy 4,2. “and as far as you who have cleaved to the Lord your G’d is concerned, etc.;” when the Torah employs the name elo-him when referring to G’d, this means that it refers to Him as the ultimate root cause of every phenomenon and as the ultimate height of all that has been spiritually elevated. Our G’d combines within Himself all aspects of all that surrounds Him. All this is due to the existence of the Jewish people, so that indirectly the Jewish people have a hand in whatever occurs in the world.
This answers a question which has bothered members of ancient cultures when they look at the first line of the k’riyat sh’ma שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד, “hear O Israel the Lord our G’d the Lord is One.” They could not understand the need for the words: אלוקינו ה' “the Lord is our G’d,” when they had already been told that there is only One G’d. The simple answer to this question is that the words ה' אלוקינו, mean that this G’d of ours combines within Him all the subsidiary causes in the universe. None of these so-called “causes,” are independent and do not owe an accounting to Hashem. Seeing that this is not something that is visible and traceable by scientists, the Torah had to assert that it is so nonetheless. Due to the fact that Israel is the vehicle through which the entire human race will eventually realize the unique Oneness of G’d, Moses tells them that they have this distinction with the words: ואתם הדבקים בה' חיים כולכם היום, “and you who have cleaved to G’d are therefore alive this day.”
Another way of understanding the line: ואתם הדבקים בה' puts the emphasis on Moses’ choice of the word: היום, “this day.” The Talmud in Eyruvin 22 states that as a rule, when there does not seem to be any other reason for inserting this word, the meaning is “that whereas you perform the commandment today, your reward will be delayed until tomorrow,” i.e. some time in the future. While it is a fact that the “principal” reward will be paid in the hereafter, when a person performs a commandment such as studying the Torah, for instance, he receives an additional and almost tangible dimension of life as an immediate consequence of having performed the commandment, plus an additional dimension of wisdom. We know this from Job 28,28: הן יראת ה' היא חכמה, “behold reverence for G’d results immediately in wisdom.” This additional wisdom in turn provides an additional dimension of life to those who are endowed with it. This is the meaning of Moses’ telling the people that whereas their mitzvah performance due to their having cleaved to Him has secured for them a reward in the future, they could rest assured that there is also an immediate benefit for mitzvah performance, i.e. the additional dimension of one’s vitality; this latter aspect is described as היום אתם חיים, “a vitality that you experience already this very day.” The word אלוקיכם, “your G’d,” is an allusion to the fact that all initiatives are indirectly traceable to the existence of the Jewish people.
Deuteronomy 4,5. “See, I have taught you statutes and civil laws as the Lord my G’d commanded me, for you to do once you are in the midst of the land.”
This verse is best understood on the basis of what we have explained on Exodus 12,28: ויעשו בני ישראל כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “the Israelites did in accordance with what G’d had commanded Moses.” [At the time, we would have expected the Torah to write that the Israelites did as Moses had commanded them, as they had not heard G’d’s command to Moses. Ed.]
We abide by the rule that G’d told Moses the details of the commandments in order for him to relay these to the people, i.e. the meaning of the word: לאמור, “to say.” [We must always remember, however, not to equate the person who learns something through his own efforts to someone who learns it from his Rabbi. It is better to have learned it from one’s Rabbi. Ed.] (Ketuvot 111). The Israelites, upon hearing Moses’ instructions in the name of the Lord, did not generally understand the value of these commandments. It was only after they performed them personally that their meaning dawned upon them. At that time their perceptive powers were enhanced so that they could be described as having “heard” the commandments from Moses as clearly as Moses had heard it from G’d Himself. This is the deeper meaning of the verse in Exodus 2,28 which reports the Israelites carrying out the commandments. From that moment on, it was as if they had heard the commandments from G’d’s mouth. In the event that some reader might understand that the insights gained by the Israelites came from Moses performing them rather than by their performing them, the Torah in our verse adds the word לעשות, “to do,” i.e. they had not been performed yet.
Another approach to the line: ראה למדתי אתכם חוקים ומשפטים כאשר צוני ה' לעשות כן בקרב הארץ וגו'.
According to the Talmud Nedarim 38 where our verse is also discussed, G’d gave the Torah only to Moses, as only he combined all the attributes necessary within a single human being to qualify him to be the recipient of such a marvelous gift. Being of an exceptionally generous nature, he decided to share this gift with the people. This is why he took so much time to teach the Torah to the people. We have already mentioned repeatedly that the form in which the Torah was given to Moses is known as אספקלריא מאירה, “a clear and distinct light.” (Yevamot 49) When Moses uttered prophecies, these prophecies always reflected what he had seen as a clear unmistakable vision. When other prophets had visions, even though at that time their perceptive powers had been increased in order for them to understand these visions, when they passed them on to their listeners they were no longer on the same spiritually high plane as they had been at the time when they had received them. (Sifri Mattot 2)
Normally, even when a prophet relays visions and instructions he has received in an undiluted form, he can do this only through constantly focusing on the commandment concerned. When these commandments are capable of being fulfilled only in the Holy Land, he cannot focus on them sufficiently while outside the Holy Land. Moses hints to the people that he was an exception to this rule in that although forbidden to ever perform any of these commandments inside the Holy Land, he was able to communicate the laws with the same undiluted clarity as if he had been in the process of performing them inside the Holy Land. This is what he alluded to by the words לעשות כן בקרב הארץ, “the ones to be performed (only) within the Holy land.” He assures the people that the lessons and instructions they had received from him were completely “undiluted.”
Deuteronomy 4,39. “You will know this day and keep it in mind that the Lord alone is G’d in the heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.”
Most of you are familiar with the disagreement between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam concerning the order of the four parchments containing excerpts from the Torah in the phylacteries that are worn on the head. [Since Rabbeinu Tam was only 5 years old when his grandfather Rashi died, the former was not aware of a disagreement with his grandson. Ed.]
One of the “proofs” cited by Rabbeinu Tam that he was correct, is based on the wording in the Talmud Menachot 34 according to which the order is: קדש, והיה כי יבאך, on the right, and שמע, plus והיה אם שמוע on the left. [The Talmud there immediately quotes a baraitha saying the opposite. Ed.] The word: ”on the right,” is understood to mean “on the right side of the reader.” If the meaning had been “to the right side of the person wearing the phylacteries,” the order would have to be the reverse, as is Rashi’s opinion. Tossaphot there rules according to the former view, claiming that if the latter version were correct the wording of the first opinion quoted should have been: “קדש on the right and whatever follows (sequentially in the Torah) on the left,” or: the first three paragraphs should be arranged on the right with the paragraph commencing with the words: והיה אם שמוע on the left outside.
Why do the two opinions both require that two of the four paragraphs be paired, i.e. the two paragraphs from the Book of Deuteronomy appearing next to one another in the order in which they are written in the Torah? According to a number of codifiers the paragraph commencing with שמע ישראל, is perceived as our accepting the Uniqueness of the Creator, whereas the second paragraph represents our acceptance of the yoke of the commandments written in the Torah.
The author lists different views on this and tries to explain the divergence of opinions as being based on whether the author views us collectively as on the level of receiving unclear visions as opposed to clear visions, as we explained on 4,5.
[I have abbreviated as the author is lengthy, and it is not really his style to devote so much space to a discussion of the text as if the halachah were truly based on the text rather than our oral tradition. Ed.]
(Exodus 19,20) “The Lord descended on Mount Sinai;”
The statement by our sages in B’rachot 5 that the yardsticks we apply to actions of human beings must not be applied when the Torah appears to apply them also to actions by G’d, is well known. The example quoted by the Talmud, describes the average person selling some of his belongings as feeling saddened that circumstances forced him to do so, while the buyer is overjoyed to have come into possession of what had been offered for sale. Not so with G’d. When He “sells” something, both the buyer and the seller rejoice. When G’d “sold” His Torah to Israel, He was happy that He had found someone worthy of receiving that exclusive “merchandise.”
In Baba Metzia 59 there is an interesting statement in connection with an ingenious construction of a certain baking oven, the builders of which had found a way of protecting that oven against contracting ritual pollution. In spite of the fact that Rabbi Eliezer, the outstanding sage of the time, gave his blessing to this oven, the majority of the sages outvoted him and declared it as requiring the same procedures for purification that was required for ordinary ovens if the latter had become polluted. When Rabbi Eliezer invoked support for his opinion from celestial sources and a heavenly voice proclaimed him as being correct in his ruling, the other sages ignored that voice, saying that ever since the Torah had been given to man, i.e. Moses and the Jewish people, heaven no longer had a legal standing in how to interpret it. This is also a practical example of the ability of the righteous to override or reverse heavenly decrees. In the parlance of the sages: צדיק מושל ביראת אלוקים. There is a somewhat enigmatic statement in Moed Katan 16 which reads as follows, based on Samuel II 23,3 (David speaking) אמר אלוקי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל מושל באדם צדיק מושל יראת אלוקים. On the face of it, the translation would go something like this: “the G’d of Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel said concerning me; He who rules men justly, He who rules in awe of G’d.”
The Talmud, i.e. Rabbi Abahu after a short discussion, explained the verse as follows: “the Rock of Israel spoke to me, saying: “I rule man.” To the question of who “rules” G’d? David was given the answer: “the tzaddik.” G’d then elaborated by saying that the tzaddik’s “rule,” meant that whereas He, G’d, formulates decrees, the tzadddik by dint of his relationship to G’d, ביראת אלוקים, can reverse it.
Rabbi Abahu may have been inspired by our verse when the Torah describes G’d as “descending” onto Mount Sinai, i.e. as giving us the Torah, this may be understood as Israel, i.e. the elite of Israel, the righteous having scored a victory over “Him.” In commemoration of this the Talmud describes Moses as adding an additional day to the preparations for receiving the Torah (Compare Shabbat 87) Ordinarily, we would have presumed that when G’d decreed two days of preparation i.e. היום ומחר, “today and tomorrow,” (Exodus 19,10) how could Moses arrogate to himself the right to delay the giving of the Torah by an additional day? Does G’d’s subsequent statement that He would descend on the Mountain on the third day not signify that He had accepted Moses’ addition of an extra day of sanctification? (Exodus 19,11)
The answer is that Avraham had observed all the laws of the Torah even in his own lifetime, without the Torah having been revealed to him. (Compare Yuma 25) The Torah had been in existence, according to Pessachim 54 and other midrashim (2000 years) before G’d created the universe and its letters had served G’d as “building blocks” for the universe. If an Avraham could divine the contents of the Torah without having had it revealed to him, Moses felt that if even at this stage the Jewish people could only qualify for the giving of the Torah after segregating themselves from their wives, that in order for the Torah to become firmly ours, so that we could ignore the interference of a heavenly voice if our interpretation of the Torah would be challenged, an extra day of sanctification might ensure this. By being able to do this, we would demonstrate that the Torah is indeed not in heaven, as Moses told the people in Deuteronomy 30,12. When G’d said that He would descend on Mount Sinai only on the third day, He did not mean that He would delay giving the Torah [after all we observe Shavuot on the 6th day of Sivan Ed.] but that the Torah would become truly the property of the Jewish people only on that day. This is also what G’d had meant when He told the people to be prepared “for three days.” (Exodus 19,15)
It is possible, however, to interpret our verse by keeping in mind that Moses’ quality of prophetic visions was superior to that of other prophets. This expressed itself in the rule that whereas other prophets were duty bound to relate the messages they had received in accordance with the way in which they had understood it from G’d without adding, detracting, or changing one iota. People who had heard the message delivered by the prophets were not allowed to alter any part of it. Moses, on the other hand, seeing that G’d’s voice was uttered by his throat, (Zohar III 232) so that people hearing it actually heard G’d’s voice, were understood by the people according to the intellectual capacity of each individual. The word וירד, “He (G’d) descended”, should therefore be translated as “it descended,” i.e. when G’d’s voice was received by the people who “heard” it from Moses’ throat it underwent a “descent,” i.e. it was understood by each individual according to his perceptive powers.
When we understand our verse in this manner the question raised by Tossaphot in B’rachot 45 on the words: (Exodus 19,19) משה ידבר והאלוקים יעננו בקול, usually translated as “Moses would speak and G’d would respond audibly,” can be answered.
[The Talmud there had used this verse to ”prove” that the person who translated every word read by the Reader from the Torah in Hebrew must not raise his voice to a level louder than that of the reader. Assuming our translation of that verse was correct, Tossaphot argue that we should derive the very opposite from this, namely that the Reader should not raise his voice above the level of the translator! Tossaphot, based on Alfassi, attempt some forced explanation. Ed.]
Our author translates the verse simply as telling us that although it appeared to the listener that Moses was speaking, actually seeing that G’d’s voice was speaking through his throat, he was in the position of the translator, i.e. communicating what G’d had already initiated.
Deuteronomy 5,7. “You shall not have any other deities beside Me.” Regarding the expression: על פני, it is important to read Rashi’s comment on these words in Exodus 20,3. He understands these words literally, i.e. “as long as I (G’d) exist.” Rashi considers it necessary to explain his own words (based on the Mechilta) by saying that the Jewish people should not say that idolatry is forbidden only for the generation whom G’d addressed at that time. Anyone reading these words of Rashi surely must ask what could possibly have made Rashi think that we could misinterpret this commandment and pervert it in such a fashion? The answer is that when the Israelites heard this commandment from G’d’s own mouth at Mount Sinai, they were (temporarily) in a super terrestrial domain, something that could not be said of future generations, nor of the gentiles of the same generation. This is also why according to halachah, gentiles are not forbidden to also worship some kind of “junior partner” in addition to Hashem. [Catholics are not considered idolaters. Ed.] The Torah, according to Rashi based on the Mechilta, therefore warns future Jewish generations not to use the same excuse for worshipping “junior partners” of G’d based on this argument. The meaning of the words: על פני in the sense of “as long as I exist,” therefore is that this law is applicable for Jews eternally.
The positive part of the verse’s message is that seeing that G’d is eternal, deserving people have access to the Torah on the same plane as had the generation during which the Torah was first revealed at Mount Sinai. The most important step in this direction is to serve G’d exclusively as the only deity. The divine souls of all the Israelites, due to their status, are potentially able to attain the same spiritual plateau that the Israelites at the revelation at Mount Sinai had attained in their time. When Rashi said that the meaning of the words על פני is: “as long as I am alive,” he meant that G’d assures us in this verse that what could happen at Mount Sinai, i.e. that He could speak directly to man, basically can happen again provided that we are worthy and worship only Him with all our heart.
Deuteornomy 5,16. “honour your father and your mother as the Lord your G’d has commanded you, etc.” We need to understand why the words: כאשר צוך ה' אלוקיך, “as the Lord your G’d commanded you,” did not appear in the version of the Ten Commandments in the Book of Exodus. It appears that the version we have in Deuteronomy adds an additional dimension to this commandment. Had these words not appeared at least in the second version, we might have thought that even when the father commands his child something that the Torah had prohibited, the father’s command overrides the Torah’s command. The Talmud Yevamot 5 explains this very simply. Seeing that both father and mother had already been commanded to observe the Sabbath themselves, how could their forbidding the son to do so be relevant at all? In other words, the words “as the Lord G’d commanded you,” mean “with the exception of when father or mother ask you to violate one of My commandments.” These words would not have been appropriate in Exodus, since most of the Torah had not yet been given at the time when the first version of the Ten Commandments was revealed.
Deuteronomy 6,4. “Hear O Israel!” it is a rule based on tradition that when the Israelites pray and address G’d as הא-ל הגדול, “the great G’d,” G’d responds by wrapping Himself in greatness, whereas when we add the words: הגבור, “the mighty One,” G’d drapes Himself in garments signaling that He is mighty. When we continue in our prayers to refer to G’d as הנורא, “the awesome One,” G’d garbs Himself in a robe symbolizing that adjective or attribute. The phenomenon of G’d garbing Himself in various robes in response to our prayers is known as אם, an abbreviated form of the word אמה, “cubit,” a basic unit in measuring lengths. [If I understand correctly, this is used as a device to interpose between the root, the essence, and visual image of the essence it hides. Ed.] The “essence” behind is known as מטי ולא מטי, “both capable of being found and not capable of being found;” [in the sense of “at one and the same time attainable and yet not attainable”. Ed.] Even this expression never appears without an accompanying modifying adjective, attribute.
When we recite the first line of the kriyat sh’ma, i.e. the verse above, we refer to G’d in His essence prior to His having garbed Himself in “robes,” in order to make it easier for us to visualize Him, seeing that His Essence is beyond our ability to visualize. The moment we add the word: אלוקינו, i.e. “our G’d,” we have already added something that reflects how G’d has imposed restrictions on Himself and the absolute freedom represented by His Essence. It is important for us to remember at all times that we do not address our prayers to the “visualized” version of “Hashem,” but to His Essence.
[In order to understand the concept of אם המדידה the “mother of measuring,” the reader may recall that there is a rod exactly one meter long preserved in Paris as a terms of reference whenever a dispute would arise about the accuracy of a device claiming to be exactly one meter long. Ed.]
An alternate way of understanding the words: ה' אלוקינו, loosely translated as “the Lord our G’d,” is that it is a fact that the Jewish people possess the “power” to describe G’d as if He were somehow restricted to the attributes which we choose to assign to Him, as expressed by our sages when they formulated the liturgy. However, this “power” will be universally recognized only in a future era, and this is why Moses says: שמע ישראל וגו', which Rashi already understands as something addressed to the future when he says that the word: ישראל in our verse means that as of the time when these words were spoken, G’d was “G’d only amongst the Israelites,” whereas in the future He would be recognized as such universally. This is basically what Rashi meant when he spoke of the future, i.e. that the Israelites possess the potential to bring about universal recognition of G’d as the Creator and Owner of the universe, and all the consequences that this recognition entails.
Alternately, Moses refers to what our sages said when they spoke about a heavenly voice emanating from Mount Chorev which can be heard daily proclaiming that the Lord our G’d the Lord is One, imploring the Jewish people to return to G’d in penitence, and that the righteous are able to hear this voice.
Another way of understanding our verse is by contrasting its message with the norms applicable in our parts of the universe. When we converse with one another, we do not keep mentioning the respective names of our partners in the conversation. However, when one does not see the King, i.e. in the absence of the King, one constantly refers to him by his name or title. The same is true when we speak about the Creator; since He is not visibly present in our midst, we refer to Him respectfully, as if He were present. Some of us when conversing, feel that they are in the presence of G’d; others are not conscious of the fact G’d is ever present. If the last letter in the word שמע Is spelled in a bigger font, it is a reminder to every Jew to view himself at all times as if G’d were standing next to him and listening to what he had to say. If he is aware of G’d’s presence, then the word שמע does not require emphasis on the letter עין, “eye,” as we feel His presence. If we do not feel His presence, the letter serves as a reminder to establish eye contact rather than merely aural contact. [Some of these words are mine. Ed.]
We have been taught that cleaving to G’d is something that can be accomplished through fear of the Lord, in the words of Solomon in Proverbs 3,6 בכל דרכיך דעהו, “endeavour to become intimate with Him by means of all your activities,” In other words, if all our activities are based upon the teachings of the Torah and in compliance with it we will gain ever greater insights. Moses used the opportunity to teach us this great principle in a nutshell when he said: “Hear O Israel;” as a result of doing so, “the Lord our G’d will be One, i.e. His unity will be demonstrated to all.”
A somewhat different approach to the verse שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד, “Listen O Israel the Lord our G’d, the Lord is One,” concentrates on the differences in meaning between the different names of G’d used by Moses in a single verse. We know that the tetragram, i.e. the four-lettered name of G’d spelled י-ה-ו-ה, describes the Essence of G’d, “unity” in its simplest most uncomplicated form. While this is most certainly true, people who worship G’d do so on different levels, motivated by different considerations so that by implication even while worshipping the one and only Creator, they somehow “undermine” this concept of G’d’s Unity by the multifaceted approach to Hashem. Moses is aware of this, and he takes due note of this by first speaking of G’d as the tetragram, i.e. Hashem, while immediately almost “correcting”: himself by switching to the name אלוקים, i.e. אלוקינו, a specific attribute of G’d, one that alludes to the many facets of G’d in the eyes of His worshippers. Moses describes Him at this stage as “our G’d,” instead of as a universal G’d. This idea is also reflected in Rashi’s commentary, who states on several occasions that the reason that the very name אלוקים is always in the plural mode, reflects the fact that even people worshipping Him, exclusively, do not relate to Him from identical perspectives, thus creating the impression that He is not an absolute Unity. Moses therefore is at pains to teach us that we must not allow such considerations to undermine our perception of Him as total Unity, hence he concludes with the words ה' אחד, “Hashem is absolute Unity,” once more. Each one of us, regardless of whether we worship G’d out of fear of punishment, because we have learned to love Him, because we wish to establish a relationship known as דבקות, “cleaving to Him,” must never lose sight of the fact that He is the only true Unity that exists, and that anything less than this Unity, is somewhat removed from the Essence of the Creator Whom we worship as such.
5,21. “you (the Jewish people) said, here the Lord has shown us……..we have seen (realized) this day that when G’d speaks with man he is able to survive this experience., etc.”
Why should we die when the great fire consumes us, etc,.? The difficulty in these verses must strike any reader! Why should a people who had survived the experience of being addressed by G’d personally, suddenly become afraid of the thunder and lightning which accompanied the revelation?
I believe that a look at the Zohar on Parshat Pinchas, will help us understand this enigma. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair is quoted there as saying that when a member of the gentile nations says something spiritually significant his body does not automatically move as a result of his speaking. Not so when an Israelite speaks of the same subject. The fact is that an Israelite has a soul equipped with the sprit of life, רוח חיים, i.e. life of a spiritual dimension. [There is no such Zohar quoting Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair that this editor has been able to find. Ed.]
Following the concept outlined by our author, seeing that we have been equipped with a spiritually more sensitive soul than the gentiles, as soon as a Jew opens his mouth in order to utter matters related to sanctity, even his entire body reacts to this by moving, as it feels that contact has been established between it and its origin, i.e. the Creator, its ultimate root. On the other hand, if G’d were to address members of the gentile nations directly, their bodies would not respond at all, seeing that their souls lack the sensitivity to holiness that is second nature to the Jew. Seeing that Jews are so sensitive to being exposed to holiness, it is not surprising that they were afraid that this phenomenon was a prelude to their death, i.e. the separation of their souls from their bodies. This feeling expressed itself in the kind of ecstasy that burns within man threatening to engulf him totally and burn him.
Tossaphot on Avodah Zarah 3 write concerning a question raised there on the exegesis of Deuteronomy 7,11: where the Torah writes that the commandments which had just been revealed to the people were to be preformed היום, “this day,” i.e. from this day onwards. The Talmud explains that the emphasis on performing the commandments “this day,” is meant to inform us that although performance of the commandments is scheduled for life in this world, the reward will be paid in a different world, i.e. the after death of the body.
According to the Talmud in Pessachim 56 it was the custom of the people of Jericho, when reciting the daily keriyat sh’ma in which we encounter line: היום על לבבך “this day, on your heart;” contrary to the Israelites in other cities not to pause before the words: על לבבך. Although the sages are on record as having disapproved of some of the customs of the people of Jericho, this was not one of the customs of which they disapproved. Tossaphot, in light of what we have written earlier, states that the word היום emphasizes the “here and now,” and ask why the sages while disapproving did not demand that they change their custom as they did concerning other matters they had disapproved of.
The answer offered is that whereas in Deuteronomy the Torah does not speak about the reward of the performance of the commandments but about the manner of their fulfillment, the words היום is to be understood literally. However, the performance of the commandment is obligatory daily, i.e. every “day” is היום, as far as the subject of the verse is concerned. When reward for performance of good deeds is the subject, there is a difference between Jews and gentiles, as the latter do not automatically qualify for an afterlife, so that G’d has to pay the their reward in this life.
In order to follow this subject better we must refer to the Talmud in Baba Metzia 114 where the point is made that whereas the Jewish people have been distinguished with the title, “אדם,” we never find that the gentiles are referred to by that complimentary title. The Talmud derives from this that when the Torah wrote in Numbers 19,14 that אדם כי ימות באהל that when a Jew, i.e. אדם, dies while in an enclosed space, house or tent, then the laws of ritual impurity that apply to people present in that same airspace apply only if the dead person was a Jew. A similar lesson can be learned from our verse here (5,21) where the Torah did not write אדם but האדם to alert us to the fact that not only Jews but any human being is included in the reminder that G’d may directly address any human being. The gentile, due to the limitations of his soul which we discussed, may not survive the experience of being addressed by G’d directly, whereas אדם, without the prefix ה i.e. a Jew, has no reason to be afraid of this. The line commencing with למה נמות, usually translated as “why should we die?,” is not to be understood as a question, but as a statement, albeit a reflexive one, meaning: “we, being אדם and not merely האדם, have no reason to fear that we will die, the reason being that we have been imbued with this great fire of religious fervor, האש הגדולה, which effectively shields us against the dangers faced by the souls of the gentiles if addressed by G’d directly. In fact, the Israelites, i.e. Moses as their mouthpiece, re-affirms that there is no other people than the Jewish people who is so endowed spiritually that they have survived the revelation at Mount Sinai with both mind and body intact. Moses spells out clearly that the reason why his people survived that tremendous experience was that enthusiasm, this fiery ecstasy, with which they acted at the time, [an example of which was their giving Moses a blank cheque by saying about the Torah to be received: נעשה ונשמע, “we will observe it as soon as we have studied it.” Ed.] This enthusiasm was so exhausting that they fainted and looked almost as if they had died.
Deuteronomy 7,11 “you are to observe the commandment, the statutes and the laws regulating inter-personal relations that I have command you to carry out from this day on, as a result of your listening to them etc.;” there is a basic question concerning the conceptual connection between Parshat Vaetchanan and the portion following, i.e. Parshat Eykev Furthermore, what need is there for the word תשמעון, “you will hear or listen to,” in the first verse of Parshat Eykev. This word implies that an act that you performed under duress, i.e. you happened to hear something, i.e. a command.
In the writings of the Ari z’al we come across a statement that a human being must undergo a number of re-incarnations, i.e. his soul will return to earth and inhabit different bodies each time until he has rehabilitated himself for sins committed during a previous life cycle on earth. According to this concept, the verses at the end of Parshat Vaetchanan and the beginning of Parshat Eykev allude to these re-incarnations.
The words: היום לעשותם, are to be understood as good advice, i.e. if you will observe the commandments while on earth at this time, you will not have to be born again and experience life on earth a second time before fulfilling your purpose on earth. This is also the connection to the next Parshah which commences with the words: והיה עקב תשמעון, where the Torah states that if we would fail to do so, and do so only at the end of the third or fourth reincarnation, then the promises of the Torah which follow will be ours to enjoy only עקב at the tail end of such multiple experiences of life in a body on earth. When we keep this in mind it will also be easier to understand a statement in the Talmud Eyruvin 13 that it would have been more comfortable for man never to have been created, but since we have been created it is best that we adjust to this and discharge our duties on earth without delay and procrastination. The alternative would be that we have to experience life on this earth even more than once before we fulfill our destiny on earth. It is this aspect of the human existence, i.e. the possibly recurring lifecycles on earth which the same soul is required to experience to rehabilitate what it did not achieve inside the body it had inhabited on a previous life cycle which Moses hints at. The majority of the scholars in the Talmud found life on earth therefore as potentially burdensome.
In this connection we can now also understand the meaning of a somewhat enigmatic Midrash Rabbah on Deuteronomy 3 (Eykev) which reads as follows: “a halachic problem concerning whether an Israelite who owns a candlestick consisting of a number of separate parts may move it on the Sabbath?” We have learned in the Talmud Shabbat 47 that if someone puts together the different components of a candlestick on the Sabbath (inadvertently) he must bring a sin offering for having violated the commandment not to engage in acts of building on the Sabbath. The author of the Midrash before us concludes that the candlestick mentioned as consisting of several components may be moved on the Sabbath. This “ruling” is something all the scholars found extremely puzzling in light of the statement in Shabbat 47 which we have quoted. [The reason given for the prohibition was that if perchance one of the components had fallen off, the owner would put it back on and thus complete the process of “building” the candlestick. Ed.] Our question is simply why the author of the Midrash decided to insert this problem at the beginning of the Parshat Eykev? There does not appear to be a single conceptual link to the words והיה עקב תשמעון, “as a result of your listening;”
However, among the Kabbalists on the one hand, and the religious “scientists,” there is a well known disagreement as to the number of times a soul is given the opportunity to rehabilitate itself in another body for having failed to achieve its (G’d’s) objective during its first life on earth. Similarly, there is disagreement as to the type of body that soul will be assigned on subsequent rounds of life on earth.
[Some editions of the Kedushat Levi have omitted this whole paragraph as it deals with aspects of transmigration of the souls. I have decided not to leave it out entirely, as the author feels strongly that the linkage between the last verse in Va-etchanan and the first verse in Eykev is based on that concept. Moreover, amongst Kabbalists there is a tradition that anyone studying Kabbalah will never have to endure transmigration of his soul. Ed.]
The author sees in the Midrash dealing with the candlestick consisting of several parts an allusion to the human body, each of whose limbs has been charged with fulfilling one of the 248 positive commandments of the Torah. Similarly, each of the 365 tendons has been made responsible for not transgressing any of the 365 negative commandments. Avraham was able to fulfill all the commandments that were later revealed in the Torah due to his amazing intellect. (Compare Yuma 28) Anyone born since the Torah has been given who is obligated to keep the commandments, causes harm to parts of his body through failure to perform any commandment which he is capable of fulfilling. His body therefore becomes flawed and requires rehabilitation. The instrument G’d selected to help us to achieve this rehabilitation is giving our soul an additional round of life on earth during which we can make up for our failures in the previous round. According to our author, the word היום in the last verse of Vaetchanan, alludes to the individual who through meticulous mitzvah performance does not need to experience transmigration, whereas the word עקב in the first verse of the next portion alludes to the final round of life on earth experienced by someone who did need to experience transmigration to complete his task on this earth.
For Shabbat Nachamu
Eikev
Deuteronomy 7,12. “it will be that as a result of your listening, etc., that G’d will faithfully maintain for you the covenant and the attribute of love that He has sworn to your forefathers.”
It is an accepted principle that the “so-called” reward that G’d grants us for performing the commandments of the Torah is the least of all the pleasures that we will experience. The major pleasure is the satisfaction we derive from having been able to give the Creator a feeling of satisfaction that He created mankind, and that at least part of mankind, Israel, has seen fit to acknowledge this. This is what the Mishna in Avot 4,2 meant when the author states that the true reward for performing the commandments is the commandment itself. When we reflect on the significance of the performance of the commandment we will realize that having performed it was an unparalleled pleasure. Even the reward that G’d has “saved up” for us in the hereafter pales into insignificance when compared to the satisfaction of having been able to provide Hashem with pleasure.
This is what Moses had in mind when he described the mitzvah performance with the word עקב in our verse above. This word, meaning “heel,” when used elsewhere in Scripture, is used by Moses to describe the minute part of the pleasure that G’d’s “reward” provides for us when we compare it with the pleasure we provided for ourselves by having been the instrument to please the Creator.
An alternate way of understanding the word עקב in the verse above: It is a fact that some people who serve the Lord and who have come to understand the uniqueness of the Creator, came to this conclusion through their intelligence. Their intellectual conclusions are at the source of their being willing servants of the Lord.
A second group of people arrive at the compulsive feeling that they must serve the Creator because they have an overwhelming faith in His existence, never doubting for a moment that the universe must have been created by a Supreme Being. They do not need to be supported in their faith by scientific evidence of that. They simply draw conclusions from their own existence. They are aware that we possess a body and a head, arms, and feet (heel). They consider it as natural that service of the Lord is comprised of three parts, i.e. “head-torso-bottom.” They ascribe similar “parts” to the greater Whole called G’d, for lack of a better name. They realize that even in the service of the Lord there are bound to be aspects that are considered as central, i.e. a “head”, and others that are subordinate.
Serving the Lord due to having convinced oneself through one’s intelligence that there must be a Creator Who is the root cause of all existence, and Who, therefore, commands the obedience of all creatures is called serving G’d with one’s head, ראש, whereas serving Him because of one’s deep faith that He exists and guides the lives of is creatures is called עקב, “heel,” i.e. “tail end;” it is the final stage in serving the Lord. [The author now continues with the comparison he has made between the human body, i.e. a microcosm and G’d, i.e. a macrocosm. Ed.]
[Our intellect is not so perfect that we can comprehend all that transpires in the world at any given moment and use our understanding as the motivation for our service of the Lord. Ed.]
This latter experience at different times in our lives, is described by Moses in our opening verse as והיה עקב תשמעון, or what Rashi has described as the manner in which we relate to certain commandments that we appear to trample underfoot as we do not understand their importance.
From all this it becomes clear that the superior method of serving the Lord is to do so from a profound feeling of faith, as we could not possibly observe all the commandments by rationalizing them, seeing some commandments’ rationale is beyond our intellect to comprehend.
Our author sees in the very letters of the words והיה (עקב) two parts of the tetragram, i.e. the letters י-ה alluding to the aspect of serving G’d with one’s intellect seeing that our brain compelled us to conclude that He must exist, whereas the letters ו-ה symbolize the other side of the coin, the need for faith in our relationship with and service of the Creator. The fact that the letters וה precede the letters י-ה in the word והיה is considered as a hint that serving the Lord by calling on our faith in Him is the preferred method of serving Him. The word עקב as already mentioned is an allusion to faith.
[Perhaps the fact that the numerical value of the word עקב=172, is the same as that of the words א-ל נאמן the “G’d Who is faithful,” is an additional allusion to what our author has said. Ed.]
In light of the above we can now also understand the verse in Isaiah 40,4, where the prophet speaks of messianic times, והיה העקוב למישור, usually translated as “and what has been bent out of shape will be straightened out.” Nachmanides quotes this verse of Isaiah in his commentary on the verse of the Torah above. He understands the word as equivalent to סבה, the cause of future developments.
Onkelos understands the word עקב positively, i.e. compensation for merits acquired under difficult circumstances. In other words, if the Jewish people observe the Torah’s commandments even when in exile, when it is so much more difficult to observe these commandments, the eventual reward will be commensurate with the difficulties experienced in exile. The word עקוב is an apt description for the difficulties facing the Jewish people who want to remain or again become faithful to the Torah while in exile. When something is twisted around and around, making it next to impossible to get to what is within, this describes the obstacles faced by Jews in exile when they want to observe the Torah. Part of the reward for people observing the Torah while in exile, when they do so out of pure faith, not knowing if and when the redemption will come, will be that when the redemption does come, they will be able to perform the Torah without difficulty as the messiah will have taught them the reason behind all the commandments. Isaiah 40,4 therefore alludes to exactly the same phenomenon that Moses alluded to in our verse above.
Another approach to the line והיה עקב תשמעון את המשפטים האלה ושמרתם ועשיתם אותם, emphasizes the immediacy with which the people will respond to the commandments and the enthusiasm with which they will perform them. Moses reveals to the people that G’d does not only respond to the fact that the people keep the commandments, but He takes note of how the people relate to the commandments, whether they perform them grudgingly and they drag their feet before performing them, or if they seek out opportunities to fulfill these commandments and having found such opportunities, with how much enthusiasm they will go about performing them. G’d will reward the people for their enthusiastic attitude to the commandments. This is what Onkelos may have had in mind when he said: חלף תקבלון ושמרתם ועשיתם אותם, “you will receive the reward as an immediate exchange for performing the commandments.” Not only this; your attitude to My commandments will determine that you will find opportunities to fulfill these commandments.
It is also possible that Moses means that there will come a time when G’d will restore to the Jewish people the entire Torah, in accordance with a statement in Vayikra Rabba 13,3 where the Midrash says: תורה חדשה מאתי תצא, “a new Torah will emanate from Me.” [According to several commentators on that Midrash the word חדשה there refers to “new” interpretations based on temporary and exceptional circumstances, such as when the prophet Elijah had to repair a defunct altar on top of Mount Carmel. Such altars were prohibited ever since the Temple stood in Jerusalem (or even Shiloh) Ed.]
It is possible that the author of the Midrash suggests that whereas at Mount Sinai the people could only hear the first two of the Ten Commandments from G’d’s mouth directly, at the time Moses foresees they will be spiritually mature enough to hear the entire text of the Torah directly from G’d’s mouth.
Deuteronomy 7,17. “When you will say in your heart: ‘seeing that these nations are so much more numerous than I, how can I dispossess them? Do not be afraid.’” It is worth our while to look at Rashi who focuses on the word כי at the beginning of our paragraph. He insists that in this instance the word כי is to be understood as דלמא, “maybe, perhaps.”
Rashi has touched on an important psychological principle, namely that whenever we encounter some difficulty in carrying out G’d’s commandments, i.e. serving Him with all our heart, fear is the greatest enemy to serving G’d wholeheartedly. If we can resist fear, G’d will help us to overcome any of these supposed difficulties to serving Him. Questions such as “how can we overcome such a problem as being vastly outnumbered,” are legitimate questions. However, we must not allow such questions to cause us to become fearful of carrying out G’d’s will. Moses’ remedy in three short words is לא תירא מהם, “do not be afraid of them!” If you can master your fear you will certainly be able to drive them out, to dispossess them!”
Deuteronomy 8,1. “The entire commandment that I enjoin upon you this day is so that you will live (thrive) and multiply and be able to take possession of the land, etc.";
We have a rule that even if a person is unable to observe all of the commandments of the Torah, especially in exile, when we are all unable to fulfill the commandments which are applicable to people resident in the Holy Land, as long as such people yearn for the day when they will be able to observe these commandments, G’d will help them to be able to fulfill these commandments in the Holy Land in due course.
This is the message Moses conveys to the people at this juncture when speaking of כל המצוה, “the entire complex of commandments.” If you will yearn, starting now, to perform these commandments as soon as the opportunity will present itself, you will surely enjoy the merit of doing so in person.
The word תשמרון in this verse is to be understood in the same way as when Yaakov is reported when reacting to Joseph’s dream in which 11 stars and sun and moon bow down to him. At that point (Genesis 37,11) the Torah writes: ואביו שמר את הדבר, “his father looked forward expectantly to the matter.” [Contrary to Joseph’s brothers, who were outraged by Joseph’s dream of lording it over them, his father did not dismiss it out of hand, although he pointed out that Joseph’s deceased mother could certainly not bow down to him. Ed.]
Deuteronomy 9,21. “and (the object of) your sin that you fashioned, the golden calf, and in Taveyrah, and at Massah, and when Hashem sent you out from Kadesh Barnea, etc, .you have repeatedly been defiant toward the Lord. When I lay prostrate before the Lord, etc.; etc,”
It appears difficult to understand why Moses who had begun in verse 18 to describe his prostrating himself before the Lord after the sin of the golden calf, after reciting numerous other sins of the Jewish people, once more continues with recounting his pleas for his people while prostrate before G’d in verse 25.
I believe that in order to understand Moses better, we must revert to the text of the Torah in Exodus 32,7 where G’d tells Moses to descend from the Mountain because the people had made themselves a golden calf as a symbol of G’d. At that time G’d had told Moses not to intervene by pleading for the people in order that He could proceed with annihilating them. (Exodus 32,10) At that time Moses had ignored G’d’s “suggestion,” and had immediately begun pleading for the survival of the Jewish people, the Torah’s report commencing with the words: ויחל משה וגו', “Moses implored, etc.”
Nachmanides on this verse points out that seeing that Moses had pleaded immediately when G’d had told him to leave Him alone “at that moment,” i.e. ועתה הניחה לי, G’d responded by “forgiving” the people, i.e. (32,14). Seeing that G’d had “forgiven,” why did Moses spend 40 days on the Mountain after having destroyed the evidence of the sin in order to obtain G’d’s forgiveness, as he tells us in this paragraph when he refers to a second stay on Mount Sinai during which time he neither ate bread nor drank water for 40 consecutive days? (9,18) Moses attributes that stay to his fear that G’d was still angry at the people!
Nachmanides on this verse points out that seeing that Moses had pleaded immediately when G’d had told him to leave Him alone “at that moment,” i.e. ועתה הניחה לי, G’d responded by “forgiving” the people, i.e. (32,14). Seeing that G’d had “forgiven,” why did Moses spend 40 days on the Mountain after having destroyed the evidence of the sin in order to obtain G’d’s forgiveness, as he tells us in this paragraph when he refers to a second stay on Mount Sinai during which time he neither ate bread nor drank water for 40 consecutive days? (9,18) Moses attributes that stay to his fear that G’d was still angry at the people!
In order to understand the words of Nachmanides properly we must remember that up until the time of the sin of the golden calf, G’d had dealt with the Jewish people on the basis of the attribute of Mercy, i.e. even when they committed sins, He had kept in mind that this was the people who represented the emanation of תפארת, usually translated as “harmony,” but perhaps here more appropriately as “glory,” i.e. they were the people that enabled G’d to be glorified as they had accepted His rule voluntarily. The moment this people had become guilty of constructing a golden calf and deifying it, they had ceased to be G’d’s people and had become Moses’ people, as G’d said to Moses in Exodus 32,7 when G’d told Moses: שחת עמך אשר העלית מארץ מצרים, “your people whom you have brought up from Egypt has become corrupt.”
Moses was now (second stay of 40 days on Mount Sinai) concerned to reverse this demotion of the Jewish people from being G’d’s people and having become his people. He was anxious that G’d would once more deal with the Jewish people on the basis He had dealt with them prior to this colossal error on their part. He was afraid that even if G’d were to forgive the people the sin committed at Mount Sinai, this was no guarantee that at a future time they would not again commit a sin as a result of which their existence as a nation would be jeopardized. If at such a time the people, basically, were his people instead of G’d’s people, this could prove an insurmountable barrier to G’d’s forgiveness, [especially if it were to occur when they no longer had a leader such as Moses. Ed.] It was this second part of G’d’s forgiveness that it took Moses 40 days to secure.
While pardon for the sin itself occurred even before Moses descended from the Mountain the first time, i.e. וינחם ה' על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו, “G’d reconsidered the harm He had said He would do to His people,” (Exodus 32,14) Israel’s status as G’d’s people had not been reinstated. [Seeing that in verse 14 Israel is again referred to as “His people,” the presumption that the whole nation had been disowned by G’d when He accused Moses of the sinners being his people, is difficult to accept. Ed.]
Moses foresaw that the Israelites would become guilty of other sins in the future. Moses reminds the people that their obstinate defiance of G’d had started long before the sin of the golden calf, i.e. ממרים הייתם מיום דעתי אתכם, “you were defiant from the day I became acquainted with you.” If Moses would not succeed in restoring Israel’s former status of תפארת, being the people with whom G’d could “glorify Himself,” their entire future would be jeopardized. This is why on the day after Moses shattered the Tablets, burned the golden calf, and executed the active idol worshippers, and ritually cleansed the survivors by sprinkling them with water containing gold dust of the calf, he ascended the Mountain again, unbidden this time. (Exodus 32, 30-31) The mention of the various sins listed above in 9,22-24 are Moses’ way of explaining why he had to ascend Mount Sinai again immediately as if he would not obtain rehabilitation of the people’s status in the G’d’s eyes, any one of these sins that he knew they would commit in the future might have spelled their doom.
When Moses recalls to the people in 9,26 that he appealed to G’d with the words: אל תשחת עמך, ”do not annihilate Your people,” these were the words he had used the first time after G’d told him to descend as his people had become corrupted. He had immediately wanted to reject the notion that the Israelites had become his people instead of G’d’s people.
We can now understand the sequence in which Moses recalls past events while not sticking to the chronological order.
Deuteronomy 9,15. “I turned around and descended from the Mountain, etc.;……….. “I placed the tablets inside the ark which I had constructed as G’d had commanded me.” (Deteronomy 10,5)
Seeing that the entire Book of Deuteronomy consists of words of rebuke by Moses to the people or commandments he relays that G’d had told him to teach the people, why, all of a sudden, does Moses relate something that does not fit either of the other two criteria?
[The following, a concept that first occurs in the sefer yetzirah the oldest Kabbalistic text, is based on the need to define everything that G’d has created in terms known as עולם, שנה, נפש, loosely translated as “space, location,” “time, year,” “spiritual dimension.” Ed.]
The Torah prescribes that a number of occurrences must be “remembered” at regular intervals. This includes the Exodus from Egypt, an event notable for where it took place, i.e. Egypt. The Sabbath must be remembered (in the Kiddush) primarily as symbolizing the dimension of “Time.” The attack and eventual defeat of Amalek must be remembered primarily as symbolic of the struggle between opposing worlds of the Spirit. In order for the Book of Deuteronomy to represent all these three elements of G’d’s creation, the fact that the Essence of the written Torah, the Tablets with the Ten Commandments had to be hidden, instead of revealed, is symbolized by Moses having been commanded to “hide” this spiritual heritage in the Holy Ark. Had the Jewish people not been guilty of the sin of the golden calf, the Tablets with the Commandments would have remained on display. [I have taken the liberty to present this in an abbreviated version so as not to confuse the reader. Ed.]
Deuteronomy 10,12. “and now, Israel, what dos the Lord your G’d ask of you other than to revere and be in awe?”
It is a well known rule in Judaism that we must each endeavour to be modest, humble, in all our aspirations as well as in all our undertakings. In the event that someone were to misinterpret this rule as extending also to the manner in which we relate to serving the Lord, this would be a gross error; on the contrary we must constantly remember that our deeds in terms of serving the Lord are of the utmost importance to Him, and we must therefore try to excel in that realm of our activities. Seeing that our “service” provides Him with pleasure it is logical that we must strive to provide Him with as much “pleasure” as it is possible for us to do. If we were to extend the principle of modesty and humility to the way in which we serve the Lord, and present it as part of our modesty, this would in fact be akin to blasphemy.
Our sages have alluded to this subject in Sotah 5 where the Talmud says that among people excommunicated there are some that are haughty and others that are not. The Talmud had previously recommended that Torah scholars must possess a minimum of visible self respect known as sh’minit be’shminit, (smallest unit of measuring devices) as otherwise ordinary people, instead of revering them, would belittle them, and if that were to happen they would in fact belittle the Torah knowledge that such scholars represent. According to our author, the very fact that we must provide G’d with “pleasure” through our service implies that we ourselves will have some satisfaction of having been the vehicle to cause G’d such “pleasure.” If we were to be too modest, how could we feel privileged to have been this vehicle of G’d’s “pleasure?”
Our sages in Chagigah 7 are on record that the Israelites provide G’d with His sustenance. Receiving one’s sustenance certainly results in the recipient “enjoying” some pleasure from the experience. This is what Moses had in mind when he asked the rhetorical question: “what does the Lord your G’d ask of you? The virtue of יראת השם, “reverence for the Lord,” is none other than the virtue of humility. Our sages in Chulin 89 dwell on the relative humility and modesty of Avraham and Moses, quoting various verses on the subject. They conclude that when Moses said of himself and his brother Aaron: ונחנו מה, “and what do we amount to?” [omitting even the letter א from the word אנחנו for “we,” Ed.] that this is the level of humility that G’d expects of each of us. In other words, whereas concerning all other attributes, humility must accompany them in order for the owner to practice them optimally, when it comes to reverence for the Lord, such considerations are counterproductive; fear/reverence/awe of the Lord must be maximized so as to provide the Lord with a maximal amount of “pleasure.”
Another way of looking at this unusual utterance by Moses, in which, at least superficially, he appears to describe reverence for G’d as an attribute that is easily cultivated by man. We read in Deuteronomy 33,26 where Moses describes some of the phenomenal capacities of the Creator in the words: רוכב שמים בעזרך, “He rides the heavens in support of you (His people).” Although G’d’s abilities are unlimited, אין סוף, He has nonetheless imposed restrictions upon Himself out of His love for the Jewish people, so much so that when applying His many attributes in practice, He first compares the way in which His people, Israel, practice these same attributes down here on earth. When G’d observes the Jewish people excelling in the practice of loving kindness for their fellow Jews, He in turn, will also practice this attribute in a very generous measure. The same is true of other attributes such as displaying unforgiving hostility towards those who blaspheme and belittle G’d, or worse. He will deal with such people harshly, having taken His cue from the way His people behave toward them. This was implied when we mentioned earlier in connection with G’d being described both as Hashem and as elokim in the same verse, (Deut. 6,4) (compare page 732) that whereas the name Hashem is a “comprehensive” name including all of G’d’s manifold attributes, the name “elokim” is used when referring to a specific attribute of His being prominent at that time. When Moses, in our verse here, stresses the name of G’d as His attribute of אלוקיך, “your G’d,” this suggests that He applies His attributes according to the way His people practice this attribute on earth in their dealings with others.
Moses prefaces his remarks with the word: ועתה, “and now,” to hint that just as G’d in His capacity of Hashem has imposed upon Himself restrictions in as much as He treats you as if you deserved that He consults you before acting, i.e. שואל, much as a student who seeks clarification from his teacher, this very characteristic of not acting high-handedly but consulting higher authority first, is a characteristic that G’d expects of you to be practiced unreservedly, i.e. you will prove this in the manner in which you revere Him. This is also what Rashi (Leviticus 26,12) where the Torah writes of G’d saying: והתהלכתי בתוככם, “I will be walking amongst you,” had in mind, when he paraphrased Moses by saying: אטייל עמכם, “I shall go for a walk with you,” i.e. although you will feel so familiar with Me, you must not forget for one moment that in spite of this I must be related to with utmost reverence, יראה.
A third interpretation of our verse, is one that portrays Moses as making maximal demands on the Jewish people, instead of minimal ones, as a superficial reading of our verse would imply.
The axiom that the Creator is אין סוף, “a Being the extent of whose multifaceted attributes knows no limits,” [my translation, Ed.] includes the inability of His angels to fully comprehend Him also. This is already alluded to in the commentary of Vayikra rabbah Leviticus 24,9 where the author, in trying to explain the line:קדושים תהיו כי קדוש אני , commonly translated as “strive to be holy for I am holy,” states “you will never be able to be as holy as I am, as My holiness will progressively appear to you as just beyond reach, the closer you have come to Me.” Not only that, but as you attain greater insights, you will realise how far beyond I am. At the same time, the more you endeavour to become holy, the more of My holiness will become part of you.
Still on the subject of ועתה מה ה' שואל ממך, we know that it is an ironclad rule neither to add to the basic laws of the Torah nor to detract from them, (Deut. 4,2) such as adding extra tzitzit, or putting fewer than the required number of the fringes of a four-cornered garment, for instance. There is only one exception to this rule, and that is to keep increasing the qualitative and quantitative degree or amount of reverence and awe for our Creator.
In this connection I have heard a brilliant interpretation of the sainted Rabbi Yechiel Michel of blessed memory, concerning David’s saying in psalms 27,4 where he says: אחת שאלתי (תמיד) מאת ה' אותה אבקש , “there is one thing that I requested from Hashem, on an ongoing basis.” David constantly reiterated the same request, namely to attain more insights abut G’d and to become a truer and more prized servant of His. In our verse above, Moses expresses similar sentiments. He first alludes to G’d as the אין סוף when he mentions His name of Hashem; he hints that as such it would be impossible to get an inkling of G’d’s essence, as one cannot define something or someone whom one can obviously not understand. He therefore adds G’d’s other name, אלוקים, meaning that G’d’s essence is composed of many parts, attributes. Since it is possible for us to understand attributes, it is possible to emulate them once we have seen these attributes in action. Once we comprehend these individual attributes of G’d, it is not difficult to develop a sense of awe and reverence for Him.
Still on the subject of G’d “only” asking us to revere Him, etc; the Talmud in B’rachot 33 asks how Moses could possibly describe fear of and reverence for G’d, as something qualifying for the description as something “minimal,” i.e. כי אם? Surely a person who is in awe of Hashem has attained a lofty spiritual platform. The Talmud answers that from Moses’ personal vantage point, possessing reverence and awe for G’d was indeed something very minor, not requiring any great effort. The commentators, puzzled by this, ask that seeing Moses asked the Israelites at large to acquire such reverence and awe, Moses’ personal ease in having acquired it seems quite irrelevant?
It appears that an appropriate answer to this would be Exodus 1,21 where the Torah reports the reaction of the Jewish midwives to Pharaoh’s command to kill Jewish boy babies before they had actually been born. The Torah describes the midwives’ refusal to carry out Pharaoh’s command as being based on the fact that they were in fear and awe of the Jewish G’d not to commit murder. As a reward, G’d “built houses for these midwives.” Rashi explains that the “houses” referred to in that verse meant that their offspring would be Levites, Priests, or Royalty, i.e. the elite of the nation. In other words, Moses was born as a result of the reverence and awe for G’d displayed by his mother Yocheved when she put her life in danger by making sure that Jewish boy babies survived.
Moses was an extremely humble and modest man, according to the Torah’s testimony, more so than any other human being; from this it follows that he viewed the fact that he had survived birth at all as a reward for his mother’s awe of G’d which had prompted her to defy Pharaoh’s order to murder Jewish boy babies. He naturally, considered possession of such awe for G’d as something relatively easy to acquire, just as it had been a natural attribute of his mother. This is what the Talmud had in mind when it described this attribute as something relatively minor.
Deuteronomy 10,14. “Mark, the heavens to its furthest reaches are G’ds, etc.;” the vowel “o” (cholem) on top of the letter, symbolizes the essence of Hashem in both the names Hashem and elokim, whereas the semi vowel sh’va, under the letter symbolizes the tzimtzum, restrictions that G’d has imposed upon Himself in His relations with the inhabitants of our part of the universe. The vowel kametz on the other hand, symbolizes G’d’s largesse after He has imposed restrictions upon Himself. This is the allegorical meaning of the word חשק in the verse 15, a word normally translated as “being fond of,” in the sense of being desirous of. According to the author, Moses used this word there as an acronym, a sequence of the first letters of the vowels חולם, שוא, קמץ. The message Moses wished to convey to the Jewish people was that G’d imposed restrictions upon Himself in order to be able to dispense His largesse to them.
[I assume, that seeing that the word חשק is used in the sense of carnal desire, as in Genesis 34,8 where Chamor, father of Sh’chem explains the infatuation of his son for Yaakov’s daughter Dinah, our author preferred not to understand it in this sense. Ed.]
Moses implies that the patriarchs of the Jewish people had been the only recipients of this outpouring of G’d’s largesse.
Deuteronomy 11,21 “In order that your days and the days of your children will be numerous on the soil as long as there is a heaven above the earth.” We find a verse in Isaiah 55,10 where the prophet expresses a similar sentiment, paraphrasing Moses’ words here. Instead of speaking of heaven and earth, the prophet Isaiah uses the parable of snow and rain as phenomena that are enduring in our world, adding that as long as these phenomena will be beneficial on earth, so long will G’d’s word be effective on earth and benefit mankind as a whole.
[At this point, some editions of the Kedushat Levi contain an additional lengthy paragraph dealing with what Moses had in mind when he told the people that G’d’s demands on them were minimal, i.e. ועתה מה ה' אלוקיכם שואל ממכם in 10,12.
The gist of that paragraph is that the author, instead of as is customary distinguishing between two levels of יראת ה', “fear of the Lord,” viewing the lower level of that as fear of punishment for sins committed, whereas the loftier level being a recognition and feeling overwhelmed by the greatness of G’d, does not consider fear of punishment as even a “low” level of יראת ה'. As this editor has not attained the author’s level of comprehending such concepts sufficiently, I have not dared to try to translate his words into English. Ed.]
Re'eh
Deuteronomy 11,26. “See that I place before you this day blessing;” at first glance there seems no need for the word: היום, “this day,” as we know that G’d renews His blessings every day, just as He renews the act of creation of the universe by providing bright light to His universe as this is part of His goodness. People who serve Him are aware that they receive new insights daily and learn things they had not known on the previous day. We may therefore understand the word: היום, as “every day,” as our sages said: בכל יום יהיו בעיניך כחדשים, “G’d’s largesse shall be in your eyes as if something brand new each day.”
Alternatively, we should focus on the words: אשר תשמעו in the next verse. This formulation is unusual, as the Torah normally writes: אם תשמעון, “if you will hearken,” and not אשר תשמעו.
Many of you, my readers, are familiar with a statement in the Talmud Kidushin 39 according to which no reward for observing Torah commandments may be expected in this life. There is, however, one kind of “reward” that man receives already during his life on earth, i.e. שכר מצוה מצוה, “having performed the commandment results in the satisfaction gained from the knowledge that one has been able to perform the commandment in question.” (Avot 4,2). What greater “reward” can there be than the knowledge that one has provided the Creator with pleasure by one’s deed? It is this that Moses tells the people here, “see that I have provided you with a blessing (reward) already this day, i.e. in this life.” All you have to do to qualify for this blessing is to serve Him. When becoming more precise about what must be done to qualify for this “reward,” the Torah (Moses speaking) continues with אשר תשמעו, “that you hearken to G’d’s instructions.” In other words, the very act of “hearkening” qualifies you for the blessing that Moses speaks of, a blessing that is available in their daily lives on earth. Comparison with the קללה, curse, of which Moses speaks which will be the people’s fate if they fail to hearken to G’d’s voice by departing from the proper path (verse 28), will show us that the word: היום, “this day,” while alive on earth, is significantly missing. Moreover, the very idea that the people might depart from the proper path is mentioned only as a possibility, i.e. אם לא תשמעו, not as certainty, i.e. אשר.
Another way of explaining the word היום in our verse is that although the “blessings” and “curses” which will in due course, be pronounced inside the Holy Land at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyvol, (Deuteronomy 27,12-26) the “blessing of which Moses speaks here applies immediately, and the people do not have to wait until they have conquered part or all of the land of Canaan. Moses spells out the blessing with the words: אשר תשמעו, in order for us to understand that the very fact that we hearken to G’d’s instructions brings blessings in its wake. Merely listening to how to perform a commandment is by itself the performance of a commandment.
[The following lengthy paragraph has been omitted in several editions of the Kedushat Levi. I have included it as I am puzzled why some publishers should have taken it upon themselves to omit such an impressive proof of the author’s lofty moral concept of how a Jew can become the personality which reflects that he has thoroughly “digested” what the Torah considers him capable of. Ed.]
“Here I have placed before you this day blessing and curse.” It appears somewhat strange that two opposites such as blessing and curse should have been lumped together by Moses in a single verse, instead of being treated in separate paragraphs, as is the case when the Torah, on two separate occasions in Bechukotai and Ki Tavo, lists the results of obeying or disobeying G’d’s commandments.
In order to understand this let us first explain an important rule concerning the works performed by man, something designed to prevent us from becoming overbearing and taking undue credit when we do serve the Creator by performing the various commandments that He has given us for our benefit. If we were to do that, we would be only a few steps away from generating physical desires that may overwhelm us.
Not only must we not compliment ourselves for our service of the Lord as being a major accomplishment on our part, but on the contrary, we must consider such service as being minimal, and as a result of this we must become conscious of the immense spiritual gap between us and the Creator, so that we wind up with a broken heart when we consider our relative impotence when compared to Him. The more we serve Him, the more will we realize that we are still at the beginning of gaining an understanding of the immensity of a Being that has called into existence the entire universe and keeps in constant touch with all His creatures, being aware of what they do at any place and at any time. If we merely take time out to contemplate that ours is not the only planet that G’d has created but that are millions like it, how can we not feel our relative insignificance in the scheme of things that G’d has created?
We get a glimpse of the feelings generated by servants of Hashem in the celestial regions when we recite daily in our morning prayers that in spite of their knowing that they are beloved, pure and mighty, i.e. כלם אהובים כלם ברורים, כלם גבורים, nonetheless, in spite of their “standing at the heights of the universe,” ברום עולם, they relate to the Creator in awe and dread, i.e. באימה וביראה. If this applies to the leading angels, how much more does it apply to us mortal human beings. It appears from the version quoted in our prayers that these angels did not experience the feelings of their inadequacy until they were actively involved in performing acts of service for the Creator.
Immediately following these lines in the morning prayers, the highest category of angels, the seraphim, chayot and ofanim, are described as having intensified and reinforced their worship by proclaiming the holiness of G’d three times, i.e. קדושה. When we serve the Lord in the proper manner, our spiritual progress will assume the nature of a “chain reaction,” each act of service resulting in a better understanding of the Creator by His creature. Our author sees in the command to serve the Lord by blowing shofar on New Year’s day, (Psalms 81,4) an “invitation” to spiritually improve ourselves, the word שופר from the root שפר, personifying the concept of beautifying, i.e. improving oneself. The word תקיעה, based on the root תקע, meaning “firmly pitching (tent),” see Genesis 31,25 when used with the blowing of the ram’s horn, suggests that this service of the Lord be something firmly embedded in our personality, [not an occasional visit to the synagogue. Ed.] The fact that it is performed symbolically on New Year’s especially, points to the effect it has in renewing our commitment to Hashem. The very idea that we need periodically to “renew” this commitment, suggests that we are still at the “beginning” of our spiritual ascent. This is also reflected in the psalmist urging us (psalms 98,1) to “sing a new song for the Lord.” The נפלאות, wonders, which G’d worked that the psalmist describes in psalms 98, are that He deepens the perceptive powers of His servants, the ones who sing new songs in His praise.
It is worth recalling an explanation of the Baal Shem Tov on psalms 48,15 where David describes G’d’s leading us forever with the words: הוא ינהגנו על מות, “He will lead us beyond death.” The Baal Shem tov, uses a parable to explain that verse. A father, when teaching his son to walk, ensures that he does not start by running but by taking slow steps. In order to encourage his son to walk more and more assuredly, he gradually distances himself from the son, so that the latter needs to cover more distance before arriving in the embrace of his father. The fact that G’d, i.e. His essence, appears very distant to us encourages us to make greater efforts to solve this mystery by getting closer to Him through serving Him better. This in turn, creates the feeling within us that although we have not achieved our objective in unraveling all the mysteries surrounding G’d, we nonetheless no longer consider our efforts as inconsequential. Every day we feel as if we enter a new chapter in our service of the Lord.
The Talmud Ketuvot 110 states that anyone residing in the Holy Land is comparable to someone who has a G’d. The meaning of that statement is that everyone who physically lives in the land of Israel views himself as serving the Lord by his very presence in the Holy Land, a land of substance. On the other hand, anyone residing outside the Holy Land, seeing that he lives in a land lacking substance, views himself as if he did not have a G’d. This means that such a person has not even begun to serve the Lord, (even if he thinks he has). This is also the meaning of Isaiah 40,31 וקווי ה' יחליפו כח, “but those who trust in the Lord will renew their strength (constantly);” the prophet assures the servants of the Lord, that seeing that their service of the Lord leads them to new insights on a daily basis, they will never stand still, (spiritually speaking). This is why the prophet adds that they will not experience fatigue, i.e. לא ייעפו. The word עף, which primarily means “flying,” is used by the prophet here to indicate that the true servant of the Lord does not view himself as “flying high” spiritually, but the opposite, לא ייגעו, they view themselves as not yet having arrived at the first way station on the way to their destination. This is also the meaning of psalms 103,5 תתחדש כנשר נעוריכי, “your youth will be renewed like that of the eagles.”
It is also possible to understand Leviticus 4,27 in a similar sense where the Torah describes the commission of a sin in a peculiar way by writing: נפש כי תחטא....בעשותה אחת ממצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה, “when a person commits a sin through performing one of G’d’s commandments which should not be performed.” What is meant is that “someone sins by the manner in which he performs a commandment, i.e. giving himself credit for performance, an act of arrogance.” In other words: we must guard against being smug about our level of service to the Lord. It is described as: ואשם, he became guilty.We can also say that this is what our sages had in mind in Sukkah 30 where they derived the rejection of someone’s offering on the altar, the presentation of which was possible only through the prior commission of a sin, from a verse in Isaiah 61,8 the prophet saying that G’d hates a burnt offering which was offered as a result of the donor having first stolen the animal offered, i.e. כי אני ה' אוהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה, “for I, the Lord Who loves justice, hates robbery with a burnt offering.”
Our author understands the concept of מצוה הבאה בעברה, “performance of one of G’d’s commandments at the cost of committing a sin,” as the “sin” consisting of the smugness of the party concerned about the other commandments he has already performed. Such smugness, i.e. spiritual arrogance, is considered sinful. He considers the verse from Isaiah 61,8 that we quoted above as referring to this kind of sin. Any Jew who considers himself a יש, “a somebody,” as a result of his having performed commandments instead of his having acquired a more profound sense of humility, has failed to absorb basic lessons of Judaism. He forgets or forgot that even the strength, physical and moral, to perform these commandments was something granted to us by the Creator; it is not something “homegrown.”
Let us now proceed to interpret the line: ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם היום ברכה וקללה, “see! I have placed before you this day blessing and curse.” The word ראה in this context is not a directive to be alert to what follows, rather it refers to the literal meaning of the root ראה, “to see” with one’s eyes, to take advantage of bright light in order to distinguish between different phenomena. (Both abstract ones or physical ones) The Israelite is invited or commanded by Moses to distinguish between phenomena that appear side by side, in order to recognize which of them are beneficial for him and which represent a potential curse for him. Moses implies that the Israelite has the option to accept the “yoke of heaven,” i.e. the commandments of the Torah, something that will prove to be extremely beneficial for him, or to reject that yoke in favour of all kinds of indulgences in our material world, something that in the end will have proven to be a curse for him.
The reason that our sages portray accepting the commandments of the Torah as a “yoke” of heaven, is that the yoke is the instrument by means of which an ox is made to pull the plough, the tool that eventually provides man with his wherewithal, i.e. bread.
[The term “yoke of the heavenly kingdom” for the commandments of the Torah, is post-Biblical, and does not appear until Talmudic times.
The simile of a Jew who keeps the commandments as having accepted the “yoke” of heaven, portrays such a Jew as pulling a ploughshare, the reward for doing so is a long way off, until the harvest has been brought in and can be consumed. When we reflect upon this we will find that our sages were very astute in coining this phrase. Ed.]
At this juncture our author draws comparisons between the meaning of the word ברכה “blessing,” and בריכה, “cistern,” from which water is drawn by the bucket. He also compares the word ברכה to המשכה, “continuity,” by means of pulling something. This would be another way of explaining the simile עול מלכות שמים. The proximity of the word וקללה, “or a curse,” is perceived by our author as a warning not to allow the fact that we have accepted the yoke of heaven to go to our heads and give us notions of superiority, seeing that if we were to do this, what was meant to be a blessing could, G’d forbid, turn into a curse due to our arrogance.
[I have decided to omit the balance of this lengthy paragraph as, in my opinion it does not add anything to what the author has previously written about at length. Ed.].
Deuteronomy 12,5. “you are to seek out His residence and go there;” the letters in the word שמה are the same as in the name of משה, something that has been explained in the Tikkuney Hazohar as well as in Zohar III 273, in connection with psalms 33,14, ממכון שבתו השגיח, “from His dwelling place He supervises, etc.” There too, the first letter of each of these three words spells the name משה. It is pointed out there that already in Genesis 6,3 the word בשגם alludes to Moses, seeing that the letters ש and מ are directly part of his name, whereas the combined numerical value of the letters ב and ג add up to 5=ה. According to the Midrash Shir Hashirim rabbah, 1,64 Moses was equivalent to the entire Jewish people on the one hand, whereas every individual Israelite had to strive to become Moses’ equal. In other words, the word שקול “of equal weight,” is to be understood as “in both directions.” When applied to the verse in psalms 33,14 “G’d supervises the whole earth,” refers to the Israelites, and the words ובאת שמה, in our verse above assure Moses that he is the vehicle that enables the individual Israelite to be welcome in G’d’s residence, the Temple or Tabernacle. It was Moses who enabled the Israelites to attain that level of holiness.
Deuteronomy 14,22. “you shall tithe (twice) all the yield of your sowing, etc.”
The Talmud, Shabbat 119 in commenting on the repetition of the words עשר תעשר, says: “give your tithe so that in turn you will become wealthy, i.e. able to tithe more.”
In order to understand what appears at first glance as an arbitrary way of interpreting this verse, we must consider the following. When a person makes a charitable donation, either to an individual or a charitable organization, this deed comes to the attention of G’d in heaven. Let us illustrate by means of a parable. When a person has donated a gold coin to charity or some other measurable unit of his harvest, a tenth of this rises heavenwards, and when it arrives there it is inspected and its origin is identified. It is recognized that this donation was the result of the donor possessing tenfold the amount that he donated to charity. As a result of having been associated in heaven as belonging to the donor of the gold coin that reached heaven, the remaining 9 gold coins belonging to the donor on earth are now considered in heaven as being part of the fulfillment of this commandment. The reason is simply, that unless the donor had owned ten gold coins he could not have donated this coin to this particular charity. As a result, the donor will be enabled to donate ten gold coins as his tithe from the following year’s harvest (income). It follows that his entire harvest of the previous year had by then been converted into being only a “tithe,” i.e.10% of his harvest (income). This process is liable to repeat itself year by year, as long as the owner of the gold or field keeps up the mitzvah of tithing meticulously. The Torah by writing עשר תעשר, hints that people performing this commandment will experience that their wealth increases tenfold i.e. עשר תעשר is equivalent to saying: “ten times ten.”.
Shoftim
Deuteronomy 16,18. “Judges and law enforcers you shall appoint in your “gates” who will judge the people fairly.”
While it is true, as we all know that G’d sits in judgment of the people of Israel on New Year’s Day, at which time He exercises His love as well as His mercy, there is still a need for justice being meted out down here on earth by human, i.e. mortal judges. The judges meting out justice on earth must also reflect the attribute of Mercy employed in the celestial spheres. When judges here on earth emulate the approach to the accused displayed in the celestial spheres, i.e. to assume that even if guilty, there are some excuses to be found for the conduct of the accused, then we can hope that, by taking this into consideration, our own judgment on New Year’s day will also reflect this consideration shown to sinners who had fallen victim to the evil urge.
From the above, it is clear that it is within our power, down here on earth to ”open” the gates of loving kindness, the source of G’d’s blessings for mankind. This is the reason that the Torah linked the dispensation of fair justice to “all your gates.” The Torah tells us that we ourselves must initiate the process of justice by giving anyone who appears to commit a wrong the benefit of the doubt, i.e. as the Talmud in Megillah 12 words it: ”man is measured by the yardsticks he applies to others.”
Deuteronomy 16,22 “and do not set up for yourself a stone pillar (as a religious symbol).”
I believe that we should interpret this verse in accordance with a saying of the sages in Avot 4,21: התקן עצמך בפרוזדור כדי שתכנס לטרקלין, “prepare yourself in the vestibule so that you may [be able] to enter the banquet hall.” The author of this saying, Rabbi Yaakov, views life on earth as being lived in the vestibule to the celestial regions, and that those who merit it will be admitted to “the palace” upon leaving their bodies behind on earth. Whatever man eats and drinks in this life is merely in preparation for the life to come. He must see to it that when the time comes he will enter that domain in a healthy condition. The sum total of what we consume in food and drink while on earth is described by the Talmud in Pessachim 68 as “the half that is yours.”
[The Talmud there debates how the festival days should be divided by the people, one opinion stating that “half” is to be used for eating, drinking, and sleeping, whereas the other half is to be devoted to spiritual pursuits. The Talmud, of course, quotes verses from Scripture supporting such a view. Rabbi Eliezer is not happy with such an interpretation and insists that either the entire day of the festival be dedicated to spiritual pursuits, or to mundane pursuits, the difference being which festival is meant for devotion to only spiritual pursuits. Ed.]
Our author understands the word לך in our verse above to mean that any physical enjoyments we permit ourselves even on the festival days, when this is a commandment, must be viewed as something transient, as only a stepping stone to when we will be allowed entry into the “banquet hall,” i.e. the celestial spheres.
Deuteronomy 17,3 “or to the sun or the moon or to the celestial constellations that I never commanded you.”
Rashi explains this line as if the words “to worship them,” had been left out at the end of this verse, and the reader is expected to add them himself. The Talmud Megillah 9, appears to take the same approach when it tells us that the Septuagint, the 72 scholars forced by the Greeks/Egyptians under King Talmay to translate the entire Torah into Greek while each was incommunicado with anyone else. They all translated the verse in that way. [The reason they had been separated was for the Greeks to point to discrepancies in the translations, and to use these as a pretext to invalidate the Torah. Ed.]
At that time, each one of these scholars added some words of their own being guided by the Holy Spirit. In the case of our verse, they added the word: לעובדם, “to serve them."
In this instance, Rashi presumably bases himself on the meaning of the word השתחוה, not always meaning “to worship G’d.” In Kings I 18,7 we find that term applied to man, when Ovadiah made an obeisance to the prophet Elijah. Although Ovadiah himself was a prophet, he deferred to Elijah. We even find that G’d Himself on one occasion referred to Yaakov as א-ל, “a divine power.” He did so because Yaakov observed all the laws that later were to appear in the Torah. (Compare comment in Talmud Megillah 18) All the righteous people are entitled to this attribute, so that it is permissible to make an obeisance called השתחוויה to them. The same is not true of sun, moon, or the celestial constellations, seeing that they have not been charged with observing the Torah. The meaning of אשר לא צויתי, “that I have not commanded,” is that seeing that G’d did not command these powerful forces in nature to observe the Torah, they do not qualify for any obeisance to them to be made by man, i.e. Israelites, who have been commanded to keep the Torah. [The problem in our verse is that on the face of it, it seems that the words וישתחו and ויעבוד are used to create the impression that when the Torah did not repeat the specific prohibition to make an obeisance through השתחוויה, this form of obeisance might have been permitted. Ed.]
Deuteronomy 18,4. “and the first shearing of your flocks you shall give to him. (the priest).”
[Our author explains the meaning of the word: גז in terms of how different attributes of G’d are derived from the numbers 3 and 7. As the subject is one for advanced students of Kabbalah, I have decided to omit it Ed.].
Deuteronomy 18,13. “you shall be wholehearted with the Lord your G’d.” [It appears to this editor that our author was bothered by the position of this verse in the middle of the chapter instead of either at the end or at the beginning. Ed.] According to our author, Moses’ demand for wholeheartedness of the Jewish people, G’d’s children, in their faith in their G’d, is based on seeing that they are G’d’s “children,” and a father always tries to provide for his children, they naturally also look to G’d for their sustenance.; however, unless they do so in absolute faith in Hashem, the Torah does not promise that their hopes will be fulfilled. The only condition is to be and to remain עם ה' אלוקיך “with the Lord your G’d.
Deuteronomy 19,3. “You shall prepare the way for yourself by dividing your territory into three sections;”
We know that it is impossible for the human brain to understand the essence of G’d. Since G’d is ever concerned with facilitating the Israelites’ coming closer to Him, He had progressively imposed restrictions on Himself through the three principal attributes that distinguished the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov, i.e. the attribute חסד, loving kindness,” יראה “manifestation of reverence and awe, and Yaakov’s attribute of practicing mercy. Moses refers to this division of G’d’s attributes into three distinct parts which when used properly enable the Jewish people to get a firm hold on their homeland, so that it may be described as ארצך, “your land.” This will prove to be the route by means of which you will attain your objective, i.e. דבקות ה', “close attachment to Hashem.”
Ki Teitzei
Deuteornomy 22,6. “if you chance to come upon a bird’s nest, etc.;” it is well known that there are two types of התעוררות, “animated awakenings;” one is a spiritually positive one, an urge to elevate one’s spiritual potential; the other is a sometimes overwhelming urge to embrace everything physical.
It is forbidden to use one’s spiritual urges in a manner that results in one’s leaving one’s livelihood and matters connected with it merely to G’d, i.e. to rely on miracles. Instead, one must strive to earn one’s livelihood by the work of one’s hands, leaving it to G’d to make one’s efforts in this direction successful. If one pursues this path it is reasonable to expect that one will be blessed with Divine inspiration at critical times in one’s life. G’d is in the habit of adding additional wisdom to those who use their common sense.
Still, as long as the child is very young, it is the mother’s task to act as the child’s immediate provider, whether by supplying milk from her body or from another source. It is only when a human being has not been equipped with any intelligence at all, that G’d will provide for such a helpless human being who cannot take steps in that direction himself.
Turey Zahav (Rabbi David ben Rabbi Sh’muel Halevi) in its glossary on the Shulchan Aruch section 1,1 quoting Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, author of the original “Shulchan Aruch, (ארבעה טורים) writes that it is up to us (the ones provided with intelligence) to “awaken the morning and not to wait for the morning to awaken us.”
This thought is alluded to in our verse above when the Torah speaks of “morning,” i.e. the word צפור in Aramaic is צפרא, “brightness, morning.”
If we were to translate our verse allegorically, it would go something like this: “when you experience spiritual awakening, brightness, indicating that G’d has paved the way for you to acquire insights, insights which reveal to you something about a world beyond our physical world, you will perform good deeds and study Torah in order to qualify for eventual membership in the society inhabiting that world. The אפרוחים, fledglings, mentioned in our verse as lying helpless in the nest, symbolize man as a helpless infant, dependent on the mother for its nourishment. We are taught through the parable of the Torah that we must not rely on being spoon fed by our mothers one day longer than necessary, but must learn to fend for ourselves. The Torah promises a reward, למען ייטב לך, for this initiative we will display in securing our nourishment by our own efforts unless we are disabled through no fault of ours. G’d derives satisfaction from our efforts to work for our livelihood.
Our sages in the Zohar III 7 state that the Israelites provide G’d’s sustenance for Him. His “sustenance,” of course, is not of a physical kind, but consists of the enjoyment He experiences when His creatures use their “animated awakening” in the proper manner. The response by G’d to our spiritual input corresponds to the quality and quantity (frequency) with which we do so. This is why the Torah speaks both of למען ייטב לך “in order that you may fare well,” and והארכת ימים, “you will enjoy long life.”
These “rewards,” i.e. blessings, are promised only if you yourself initiated your “animated spiritual awakening,” התעוררות. When the Torah speaks of אריכות ימים, “long days,” in describing a long life, instead of speaking of years, or attaining old age in the line: שלח תשלח את האם, the meaning of the word שלח, is similar to when one divests oneself of one’s clothing and throws it away. The Torah advises us urgently to divest ourselves of secular and mundane concerns if we wish to experience this “animated spiritual awakening”, התעוורות, which emanates in the celestial regions, described here as האם, “the mother,” so that we will find a spot for our feet to rest on in order to serve the Lord.
Deuteronomy 22,8. “when you build a new house you are to surround its roof with a protective railing.” We observe a custom that whenever we experience a pleasurable event we make a point to express our gratitude to G’d not only in our hearts but also with appropriate words. Such words usually contain quotations from the Torah songs extolling the virtues and Power of G’d, and are accompanied by special prayers. The roof of the house of which the Torah speaks, symbolizes that our joy is focused heavenwards. The numerical value of the word גגך is 26, i.e. equivalent to the numerical value of G’d’s principal name י-ה-ו-ה. The Torah reminds us that the new roof that we have over our heads is by grace of Hashem.
Deuteronomy 23,4. “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the congregation of the Lord……because they did not meet you with food and water on your journey after you left Egypt.”
We know that G’d has described the Jewish people to Pharaoh as “My first born son”. (Exodus 4,22) What this really means is that the Jewish people are the conduit through which G’d channels His largesse to the world. Ammon and Moav denied the principle that the major objective of channeling largesse to mankind was for the glory of Israel, who would be perceived as the most important single link in that chain, indirectly benefiting all of mankind. By describing the Ammonites and the Moabites as not offering “bread and water” to the Jewish people, the Torah hints that they did not recognize the existence of the Jewish people as something beneficial for all of mankind.
Deuteronomy 24,13. “so that he can lie down to sleep while in possession of his garment;” [legally, there is no basis for this requirement. Ed.] The point the Torah wishes to make is that just as G’d has imposed restrictions on Himself in His relationship to His creatures, so the Israelite must learn when to forego something that he is legally entitled to, so as not himself to become an impediment to G’d’s flow of largesse to mankind. The word שכב consisting of the three-headed letter ש the first letter in the word שלמה, “garment”, which symbolizes this tzimtzum, voluntary restriction imposed upon oneself, plus the letters כב, allusion to the 22 letters in the aleph bet of the Holy Tongue, alludes to this lofty concept.
“as a result of your sensitivity to his needs he will bless you and this in turn will be accounted for you as an act of righteousness before the Lord your G’d.”
It is worthwhile to review Rashi’s comment on these words. Rashi simply writes that if the owner of this garment will not bless his creditor, G’d will still account the lender’s deed as an act of righteousness. I believe we should expand a little on Rashi to make his meaning clearer. Rashi presumes that the reason why the lender returned this garment even though the borrower had not yet repaid him is so that he would become the beneficiary of the borrower’s blessing. He implies that actually the lender should have returned the garment at this time because G’d had so instructed him in the Torah, full stop. If this had not been his motivation, we might have concluded that the lender is not rewarded for his act; hence, according to Rashi, the Torah adds that G’d will consider the lender’s act as an act of righteousness and therefore worthy of being rewarded, i.e. וצדקה תהיה לך לפני ה' אלוקיך.
Ki Tavo
Deuteronomy 26,17. “this day you have guaranteed that the Lord will forever be your G’d;” as a general rule the largesse dispensed by G’d for mankind is known as דבור, as we know from psalms 33,6: בדבר ה' שמים נעשו וברוח פיו כל צבאם, “by the word of G’d the heavens were made and by the breath of His mouth all their host.” Whenever the Jewish people are on a spiritually lofty plateau, it is as if they cause G’d to dispense His largesse for them, whereas if, G’d forbid, they have fallen from that level the Talmud (Gittin 56) likens them to Exodus 15,11 מי כמך באלם ה', which according to the Talmud should be read as מי כמך באלמים, “who is like You amongst the “dumb, i.e. silent ones, O Lord?”
[The Talmud arrives at this interpretation because the word אלים is written defectively, without the letter י which would indicate the plural mode, Ed.]
This is the allusion in our verse where the Torah speaks –in a complimentary fashion- of Israel as causing G’d to “speak,” i.e. dispense His largesse. Moses adds the word היום, “this day,” to indicate that as far as Israel’s status is concerned, each day is viewed as a separate unit, so that they can be credited with their spiritual accomplishments anew each day.
Deuteronomy 26,18. “and Hashem on His part has guaranteed you this day to be His treasured people, as He had said to you.” The next verse spells out the result of G’d having avouched the Jewish people, i.e. ולתתך עליון על כל הגוים אשר עשה לתהלה לשם ולתפארת, “and to make you high above all the other nations that He has made in praise, in name, and in glory;”
In trying to explain this verse we are stymied by the fact that the word: לשם does not precede the words: לתהלה ולתפארת.
This apparent anomaly is explained with the help of the statement in the Talmud Sanhedrin 99 that repentant sinners occupy a spiritual plateau that is higher than that of the natural born righteous people, who have never sinned. It is explained additionally by a statement in the Talmud Yuma 86 that the effect of repentance is so great that erstwhile sins may be converted retroactively into being accounted as meritorious deeds.
G’d’s servants may be divided into two distinct categories. One category has a mental image of G’d and what He stands for in front of him at all times, whereas the second category arouses itself from time to time in order to summon up such an image of G’d’s Majesty, which in turn impresses upon him the duty to serve Him as befits a king. This latter type of individual does not present the Creator with a list of personal requests, however. He is content to be able to serve his Master the King of Kings, in fact he regards it as a privilege. This latter type of individual requests only that he be able to continue to serve the Lord, and while so engaged he shuts out any thoughts pertaining to his daily routine, pursuit of a livelihood, etc. He places his entire person at the service of the Lord. It is this type of individual that the psalmist in psalms 102,1 speaks of when he commences with the words: תפלה לעני כי יעטוף, “a prayer of the lowly man when he is faint, etc.” When such a person, notwithstanding the fact that he has urgent duties to attend to, duties that do not allow him the luxury of putting them on hold, offers his entire being in the service of the Lord, this is something that causes G’d to experience a great deal of pleasurable satisfaction. He reacts by saying: “look at this human being, who, although guilty of numerous sins in the past, has pulled himself together in order to serve Me;” he deserves that even his prior sins be converted to merits,” as it was the recognition of the futility of his former sinful lifestyle that eventually caused him to become a penitent. Someone raised in a devout family, who had accepted his family’s devoutness as something that did not need to be questioned, could not have entertained the kind of thoughts that went through the mind of the repentant sinner before he decided to turn over an entirely new leaf.
When G’d looks down on the Jewish people and compares them to the gentile nations, and He sees how none of them serve Him, He naturally glorifies in the Jewish people, considering the rest of mankind a bunch of fools by comparison.
It is this thought that Moses expressed in our verse when he said: “and Hashem has guaranteed you this day that this nation be a precious nation for Him, etc.”.
If you were to ask that if G’d, Who is all knowing, obviously knew all this in advance, why did He bother to create the gentile nations altogether? The answer is that G’d created the other nations לשם ולתפארת ולתהלה, “for His name, glory and splendour,” so that He would be able to glory in Israel’s accomplishments by comparison. If there were no inferior people who had started out with the same attributes as the Israelites, Israel’s accomplishments would not be appreciated as outstanding. The word: תפארת, “splendour,” is an alternate adjective used in connection with the garments of the High Priest, (Exodus 28,2) a garment worn externally, meant to reflect the inner beauty of the wearer. When the prophet Micah 7,19 speaks of G’d יכבוש עונותינו ותשליך במצולות ים, “squeezing out our sins and throwing them into the depths of the ocean,” the image before the mental eye of the prophet was that of the person laundering dirty linen, and seeing that not only the dirt has disappeared but the result being something splendid, תפארת. Showing someone how a person thoroughly soiled by his sins, has become rehabilitated is surely reason for the owner of that “garment” to boast about the “reincarnation” that has occurred, especially when it was spontaneous. This is also the meaning of Rosh Hashanah 17 where the process of removing sins is described as occurring מעביר ראשון ראשון, usually translated as “removing the sins in the order in which they have been committed starting with the first.” Our author understands this to mean that G’d had used the first sin committed by the repentant sinners as something to decorate Himself with as His first garment. It is appropriate therefore that once the sinner turns penitent, that not the last, but the original sin he has committed should be “turned inside out,” by being converted into a merit.
[When a sinner persists in sinning, the “garments” in which G’d wraps Himself, far from becoming something splendid, become symbols of His progressive distancing His essence from such a sinner, of course. Ed.]
Another approach to the line: “and the Lord has guaranteed you this day that you will be for Him a holy nation as He has said.”
As a general rule, utterances by G’d are expressions of His love for the various parts of the Universe he has created. This holds true for the time at which these utterances are made. As these utterances spread out into various parts of the universe, this “loving kindness,” חסד, is apt to be screened due to the need for G’d to impose restrictions upon His largesse so that they will not ultimately prove counterproductive for man, who is not able to utilize G’d’s kindness in the appropriate manner. Therefore this “loving kindness” must be tailored in accordance with what will prove ultimately beneficial for the recipient towards whom it is directed. People who cleave constantly to their Creator do not require that G’d screen His “loving kindness.” These people Moses has described here as עם קדוש כאשר דבר, “a holy nation corresponding to how this term is understood by G’d.”
Deuteronomy 27,8. you will inscribe on these stones all these words of the Torah, very clearly.”
A look at Rashi’s comment on the expression will reveal that he understands this as a translation of the entire Torah into 70 languages.
[According to Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, foremost super commentary on Rashi, Rashi may have arrived at this interpretation when considering that the letters of the word היטב when converted into what is known as tzeyrufim, ”letter permutation,” ה, הי, היט, היטב, add up to a numerical value of 70. Ed.]
Still, we must try and understand what prompted Moses to command at this point that the Torah be made available in indelible writing (engraved on stone) in all the known languages of that time. We may find the answer in Rashi’s commentary on the very first verse in the Torah, where he said (based on Bereshit Rabbah 1,3) that the reason why the Torah commenced with the statement that G’d had created heaven and earth, was so that when an international Court of Law would declare the Israelites’ conquest and subsequent dispossession of the seven Canaanite nations illegal, we would respond that the Canaanites themselves had claimed territorial rights to an earth that belonged exclusively to G’d who had created it. Surely the owner had the right to re-allocate the earth to tenants of His choosing.
The whole idea behind G’d’s commandments to take stones from the Jordan river and (erect them near Mount Gerizim) to inscribe in them the Torah in all the known languages was that if the Israelites, at this time, prepared to take possession of the lands of the Canaanites they would do so with the owner’s permission, nay, at the Owner’s instructions. Moreover, this should remind the nations of the world that the reason they were now being dispossessed was because they had refused to accept this very Torah when they had been given the opportunity to accept it. Seeing that the Israelites were the only nation willing to accept the Torah, most of whose commandments can only be observed in the land which up to then had belonged to the Canaanites, the Canaanites were now forced to abandon it or die in the struggle to hang on to it.
Deuteronomy 27,9. “Moses and the priests, members of the tribe of Levi, addressed all the Israelites, saying: ‘on this day you have become a nation for the Lord your G’d.’” Rashi, [keenly aware that this statement after 40 years in the desert as G’d’s people, a people whom He had redeemed from slavery in Egypt, must sound puzzling to the reader, Ed.] understands the word היום, “this day,” as a reminder to the people that each and every day should be viewed by each one of us as a new opportunity to become a servant of the Lord, or to deepen that commitment. In fact, each breath we draw presents us with new opportunities to do so. It is as if the call from Sinai, several thousand years ago, still rings in our ears, and we are invited to respond to it. This is why Moses continues in verse 10 with the words: ושמעת בקול ה' אלוקיך ועשית את מצותיו ואת חקותיו אשר אנכי מצוך היום, “you shall hearken to the voice of the Lord your G’d, and perform His commandments and His statutes which I command you this day. [No new commandments had been issued on this day. Ed.] The thrust of the verse is that the commandments are to be as if you had heard them on this day for the first time. You should feel as if you had heard them at Mount Sinai.
Deuteronomy 28,1. “it will be if you will meticulously hearken to the voice of the Lord your G’d, etc;” [Our author zeroes in on the meaning of “the voice,” seeing that we do not all merit hearing G’d’s voice speaking to us. ” Ed.]
We can understand this verse better when we recall a statement of our sages in Chagigah 15 that a heavenly echo emanating from Mount Chorev (Sinai) is heard daily calling on the sinners to return to G’d in penitence.
In accordance with the Talmud there, every individual Jew, according to his spiritual level, is able to hear this voice in accordance with Megillah 3 where we are told that once when Daniel (Daniel 10,7) describes himself as meriting a heavenly vision, one that his companions were unable to see, [his companions being the prophets Zecharyah, Chagai and Maleachi, who were unable to share this vision with him. Ed.] Nonetheless, according to Daniel’s own testimony, these three prophets were overcome by a great fear all of a sudden at that very time. In examining this phenomenon, the Talmud asks that if those prophets were not shown the vision why were they overcome by such an unreasoning fright? They answer that although they personally did not see the vision their mazzal, (alter ego in the celestial spheres) saw it. The Talmud uses this example to prove that when some of us are sometimes overcome by sudden weakness bordering on unconsciousness, this may be an indication that our alter-egos have heard or seen a heavenly message. Our sages whom we quoted in Chagigah claim that every person does possess such an alter ego in the celestial spheres, one that is privy to hearing G’d’s voice, the exception being Acher, i.e. elisha ben avuyah famous for having become an apostate although at one time being a close friend of Rabbi Akiva. He himself told Rabbi Meir, who asked him to become a penitent, that his alter ego had heard in heaven that his penitence would not be accepted. What matters to us in all this is that penitence is something that must not be put off. We must act as if we had been invited to become penitents with the implication that our repentance will be welcomed by G’d, and therefore we must not “wait” for a second invitation. According to Devarim Rabbah 7,3 the קול, “voice,” which the Israelites must hearken to if they want to become recipients of all of G’d’s promises is this heavenly echo calling us to become penitents. The introductory word והיה in that verse, alludes to the joy which will result from listening of G’d’s instructions.
Deuteronomy 28,7. “they will march out against you by a single road but will flee in seven directions.”
[Our author sees in the number “one” and the number “seven” in this verse a reference to the difference between a holy nation such as Israel, when at its best, and the gentile nations. The “numbers” allude to attributes employed by people in pursuit of an objective. Only when one is “holy” is one able to make use of even apparently contradictory attributes such as fear and love at one and the same time. This is why only the Israelites can relate to G’d with love and awe at one at the same time. Gentile nations can relate to G’d at one time only with either love or fear. The same is true of other attributes which, only when employed by a spiritually high ranking Israel, can be invoked simultaneously. I have reworded the author’s commentary while retaining the message it contains, based on our verse. Presumably, the author felt that after the word נגפים לפניך, “they will be routed before you,” the Torah did not need to add these extra details unless it wished to teach an additional lesson. Ed.]
Deuteronomy 28,8. “the Lord will ordain blessings for you for your barns.”
Seeing that it is G’d’s custom to dispense largesse and blessings for His people Israel, the method G’d employs to do this varies according to circumstances. It may be גלוי, manifest, i.e. it becomes immediately clear to all the onlookers that an act of great benefit for the Jewish people has been performed by G’d. Often this takes the form of a miracle being performed. On the other hand, when G’d uses covert means to dispense His largesse for His people, it may often not appear to be such at the outset, although in the course of time it will prove to have been planned as such by G’d already much earlier than the effect being felt.
When Moses speaks about G’d ordaining (nature) to bestow its blessings on the Jewish people, he refers to blessings due to the Jewish people themselves having roused themselves spiritually, as a result of which their barns filled with produce at harvest time. Moses refers to something, whose benefit to the recipient does not become apparent (at the time when he ploughs and sows) but only after most of a year has passed at harvest time. When G’d asked Avraham to offer him his beloved son, Avraham was not immediately aware of the great benefits that would result from this. [At the time he may have considered the “test” by G’d as having been masterminded by the attribute of Justice rather than the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] It was only after the successful conclusion of that “test,” that he recognised in it the hand of Hashem rather than the hand of elokim. Compare Genesis 22,14.
Deuteronomy 28,12. “Hashem will open for you His bounteous store, the heavens.” Although we have a statement by our sages in B’rachot 33 that G’d’s only “possessions” in His treasure chambers are the four cubits of “halachah,” i.e. reverence for Him displayed by meticulous observance of the laws of the Torah, [a statement based on Deuteronomy 10,12, Ed.], we also have a rule that although man’s spiritual journey in this world commences with a dose of reverence and awe for Hashem, this is followed by a feeling of pleasure which proves to have been “hidden” within the folds of the garment called יראה, awe. The reason why this is so is that had service of the Lord commenced with feelings of pleasure, its ethical value would have been null and void, as “serving” the Lord would have been turned into an entirely pleasurable act, not something that is the result of choosing this option in the knowledge that the alternative appeared to offer more immediate rewards. This is the reason why the pleasurable aspects of practicing reverence and awe for the Lord need to be hidden during life on this earth. When man “tires himself out” during a lifetime of service to his Creator, then G’d will open His treasure chamber in the heavens so that he will enjoy pleasure. This has been alluded to in the words of Isaiah 33,6 where the prophet said: יראת ה' היא אוצרו,”reverence for the Lord –that was her treasure. (Zion’s)
The word אוצר, usually translated as “treasure, or granary,” applies to something stored out of sight, hidden. This “treasure” normally concealed inside the attribute of יראה, “fear, awe,” will be released openly, i.e. in due course G’d will “open” these treasures previously kept hidden as a result of the recipient having served the Lord loyally. Our verse therefore concludes with the simile of beneficial rainfall, i.e. G’d’s treasures being openly revealed to the Jewish people as well as the world at large as His gift to them. [During early Jewish history, when Yitzchok, in a year of famine, and although not a farmer by vocation, could plant and his harvest was 100 fold the harvest in normal years, this convinced the Philistines to remain on good terms with him. (Genesis 26,12-14, and 26-31) Ed.] This is also the reason why the Torah once decrees that we observe the Sabbath by writing: זכור את יום השבת לקדשו, “remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy, (Exodus 20,8) and another time שמור את יום השבת לקדשו, “observe the Sabbath Day to keep it holy;” (Deuteronomy 5,12). The first time reference is made to serving the Lord by your actively observing the Sabbath; the second time it refers to the time when you will be passive, i.e. receive the reward for having observed the Sabbath here on earth.
Deuteronomy 28,13. He will make you only the head and not the tail; you will always be at the top, never at the bottom.” At first glance there appears no need for the Torah to have written: ”and not the tail,” nor does there appear a need for the Torah to have written: “never at the bottom.”
However, on further consideration, we must consider that this universe is composed of three domains. 1) The domain of abstract thought. 2) The domain of speech (preparatory to translating thought into action) 3) The domain of action. All three domains exist only thanks to G’d, Who gave them “life.” The points of contact between these three domains are as follows. The beginning of the domain of “action” is very close to, i.e. touches, the end (bottom) of the domain of speech. The beginning of the domain of speech touches on the end of the domain of abstract thought. [The author, of course, views the domain of abstract speech as superior to that of the domain of speech, which, in turn, is superior to the domain of action, seeing that the domain of abstract thought is closest to the domain in which G’d formulated the plan to create the universe. Ed.] The “head” of the domain of thought “touches” the אין סוף, a “domain” beyond the universe, exclusively the Creator’s. It is this “domain” of which Moses speaks when he promises that the Jewish people, when at its best, will be לראש, “at the head, the top of the domain called: the domain of abstract thought.” The words: ולא לזנב, “and not at the tail,” refer to the lower end of the domain of abstract thought. When someone has attained the highest rank within the domain of speech, he is almost at the lowest level of the domain of abstract thought. The same is true of someone who has attained the highest rank in the domain of action being almost at the lowest level of the domain of speech. When someone has attained the highest rank in the domain of abstract thought there is no chance for him to become the “tail” of anything beyond that as there is nothing beyond. The Torah’s writing that Israel at its best will not be the “tail” is most appropriate therefore.
Nitzavim
Deuteronomy 29,9., “All of you are standing assembled this day in the presence of the Lord your G’d;” the paragraph commencing here with “in the presence etc.,” appears to contain unnecessary words. [Our author refers especially to the words: “in the presence of the Lord your G’d,” seeing that when Moses addressed the people in the name of the Lord during their stay in the desert they had always been “in the presence” of the Lord. Ed.] It helps us understand a statement in Rosh Hashanah 34, according to which the blowing of the shofar as well as the recital of certain benedictions in the prayer service are mandatory on New Year’s Day and on Yom Kippur, (Jubilee year) as opposed to other occasions, such as public fast days decreed by the Rabbis. This is based on G’d having requested that on these days we proclaim Him as 1) King, 2) as the One Who remembers all that has occurred in history, every individual’s thoughts, words and deeds, and 3) has promised that by doing so through blowing the shofar, this will beneficially effect how we are going to be judged on these days. [Most of you are aware that the Mussaph amidah on New’ Year’s day includes 10 verses from Scripture referring to these three elements, malchiyot, zichronot, shofarot, that distinguish this Day. Ed.]
As we have repeated on many occasions, G’d is interested in the dispensing of His largesse to mankind, and especially us, His people; the word פנים, usually translated as “face, or presence,” alludes to G’d being in a benevolent frame of mind vis a vis mankind or His people, whereas the word אחור, usually translated as “rear, or backward,” allude to times when G’d is angry at mankind or, G’d forbid, His people.
By addressing the whole nation as “standing” לפני (from פנים) before the Lord when He is in benevolent frame of mind, Moses hints that the reason that G’d is in such a frame of mind is because He is not only G’d, but “your G’d,” i.e. you have related to Him as your Patron. The author adds another nuance of the word פנים, tracing it to the root פנה, to turn, change direction. G’d is looking for a reason to aim His largesse in your direction.
[Seeing that in verse 17 the Torah uses the word פנה also negatively, i.e. as turning away from G’d, when it writes: אשר לבבו פונה היום מעם ה' אלוקינו, “whose heart turns away from being with the Lord our G’d,” and we do not find the word אחור in that context, it is difficult to accept the author’s definition of פנים ואחור. Ed.]
30,9. “and then the Lord your G’d will make you over-abundant in all the work of your hands, the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your domesticated animals for good; for the Lord will again rejoice over your success as He has done for your forefathers.”
In order to truly understand the unusual expression והותירך, “He will make you overabundant,” it will help to look at Avot 3,15: הכל צפוי והרשות נתנה ובטוב העולם נידון, “everything is foreseen yet freedom [of choice] is given and the world is judged according to the good;” one of the difficulties in that Mishnah is that the word נידון “is judged,” which refers to the word עולם, is in the masculine mode, although the word עולם which it defines is a feminine noun, so that we would have expected the author of the Mishnah to have said נידונה, in the feminine mode.
However, we can explain this masculine mode of the word נידון seeing that in our prayers on New Year’s day and Yom Kippur, the days on which G’d sits in judgment when He hopefully decides to provide us with an abundance of blessings and good things in the year just beginning. Our author quotes Tikkuney Hazohar 68 according to which on New Year’s Day all of mankind implores G’d for His largesse to be generous in the year just commencing. There are, however, two classes of human beings who ask for this, i.e. those who truly deserve it on the basis of past performance, and those who in the past did not deserve it, but on the basis of their promise to improve their ways in the year commencing, expect to receive this largesse of G’d “on credit,” as it were.
When the souls of the Jewish people “line up” to be judged on New Year’s Day, G’d derives a great deal of satisfaction from the ones immediately inscribed for a good year. G’d’s pleasure is described in a proverb cited in Pessachim 112 which says that the mother cow is more anxious to provide its new born calf with milk than the calf is to suckle it. The Zohar II 32 describes the following scenario, (Kings I 22,19) where Michayoh, the only true prophet in the Northern Kingdom advises King Achav against trying to recapture Ramat Gilad, as it would cost the king’s life. We read there: ראיתי את ה' יושב על כסאו וכל צבא השמים עומד מימינו ומשמאלו, “I have seen a vision of G’d sitting on His throne whereas all the heavenly hosts stood above Him.” [not around him. Ed.] The unusual phrase of the angels being above G’d, prompt the Zohar to understand this verse as the angels being about to “judge” G’d. This also makes more plausible something that we have read in a book reportedly given to Adam by the angel רזיא'ל in which G’d is referred to as מלך עלוב, “a king in a miserable, wretched frame of mind.” [more about this angel in מלאכי עליון by Rabbi Reuven Margolies. Ed.]
In that book this matter is illustrated by means of a parable. When a very wise man asks someone a question about something that is beyond his field of expertise, and he ignores the advice given by proceeding to follow his own intuition, and it turns out that he was wrong, this “wise man,” will no doubt feel deeply ashamed for not having followed the sage counsel he had received.
At the time when G’d was occupied with creating the universe and all that it contains, He had consulted with the angels about the advisability of creating the human species, i.e. a species who was granted free will in determining if to obey the Creator’s directives. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 8,5). At that time, G’d following His preponderant attribute of mercy, had decided to ignore the advice given to Him by the angels who had foreseen all of the imperfections of the human species and the “heartache” this would cause the Creator so that they had advised against this species being created. Now that unfortunately the advice of the angels had proven far sighted, the Creator felt עלוב. [King Achav, though a nationalist, and repeatedly willing to give up his own life in order to protect his people, had nonetheless committed a foul judicial murder by framing the owner of an ancestral vineyard as being guilty of a crime that Navot, the owner of that vineyard had not committed. His only “crime” had been his refusal to sell to the King. The verse cited from Kings I 22,19 is the prelude to G’d sitting in judgment of Achav for his crime. Ed.]
Incidentally, the parable from the sefer Rezie’l also accounts for an anomaly in psalms 81,5 כי חק לישראל הוא ומשפט לאלוקי יעקב, “for it is a statute (immutable) for Israel and a ruling (depending on circumstances) by the G’d of Yaakov” (compare Rosh Hashanah 8) in that verse. The psalmist could have been expected to write: כי משפט לאלוקי יעקב הוא וחק לישראל. The Talmud there explains the wording in that verse as meaning that the first day of Tishrey serves as a date on which all mankind is judged in heaven provided that Israel will be the first nation to be so judged. For the Israelites who are basically observing G’d’s laws and are therefore a holy nation, the meaning of the word חוק is that their livelihood for the following year is determined on that day as the sages taught in Beytzah 16 (Compare Proverbs 30, 8 הטריפני לחם חוקי, “feed me with the bread allotted to me.” Or: Leviticus 10,13 חוקך וחוק בניך היא מאשי ה', “it is your portion from the Lord’s fire-offerings and that of your children.”) [The verse just quoted, addressing the priests, begins with the words: ואכלתם אותה במקום קדוש, “you are to consume it in a sacred location.”] This leaves open the possibility that in our verse in psalms the word might mean “statute,” or something similar. How do we know that in psalms too it means the same as in the verses we quote from Leviticus and Proverbs, i.e. that it refers to parnassah, livelihood? The unusual sequence of חוק לישראל משפט לאלוקי יעקב provides us with the answer to this question.
The subject concerning which Israel is to be judged on New Year’s day is their livelihood. The psalmist rejoices in the fact that these decisions are not made by Israel’s detractors but are the exclusive domain of אלוקי יעקב. According to the Zohar, as soon as our enemies understand this, they cease to demonize us.
The appropriate translation of the verse in psalms 81,5 therefore is: “if our enemies, (be they celestial beings who opposed the creation of mankind altogether, or just our perennial opponents the forces of Amalek (in whatever guise they appear) want to sit in judgment of Israel, משפט לישראל, they are advised by the psalmist Assaph that our חוק, livelihood, is decided by the G’d of Yaakov, לאלוקי יעקב, no one else. As a result of this, our detractors are seized with חיל ורעדה יאחזון they (our adversaries) are seized with fright and trembling for (Deut. 29,19) G’d’s anger would be aroused against them etc.; this is also what Job spoke about in Job 15,15 when he stated that even His heavenly entourage did not find favour in His eyes.
This is also the gist of psalms 143 2 אל תבא במשפט את עבדך כי לא יצדק לפניך כל חי, “do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for before You no living creature can claim to be righteous.” The only creatures referred to in our Scriptures as כל חי, completely alive, are the angels, since the raw material they are made of, as opposed to man, do not contain components subject to death.
When the author of the Mishnah in Avot 3,15 said: ובטוב העולם נידון, “and the world is judged by the Good,” he meant that when G’d wishes to dispense of His goodness to the world He debates with Himself if, due to His desire to experience the pleasure accorded Him when His creatures serve Him with all their heart, He dispenses this goodness personally, not through an intermediary. This is the reason that the word נידון appears in the masculine mode as well as in the singular, on that occasion. When G’d’s blessings reach His creatures through the detour of His agents, whether those residing in the celestial regions or those on earth, something that is commonplace in His dealings with the gentile nations, He does not experience the satisfaction from doing this that He experiences when “enjoying” it, as described at the end of our verse.
The verse commencing with the word: והותירך, etc.; therefore describes a rehabilitation of the Jewish people after a period of relative estrangement between His favorite people and Himself.
Another way of interpreting the word: והותירך. The verse is a promise by G’d not to deduct anything from our share in the world to come because we had enjoyed some parts of our existence on earth while being beneficiaries of G’d’s largesse.
Haftarah of Nitzavim
For Rosh HaShanah
Vayeilech
Deuteronomy 31,1. “Moses went and spoke all these words to the whole people of Israel.”
This verse [seeing that the Torah does not tell us from where Moses walked to where, Ed.] may become easier to understand when we consider that our sages, when referring to the man leading the congregation in prayer sometimes refer to him as descending in front of the Ark, whereas on other occasions they describe him as עובר לפני התיבה, ”walking past” the front of the Ark.
When a tzaddik is engaged in prayer he needs to attach himself to the letters of his prayer, i.e. תיבות, [an alternate meaning of תיבה,] which in turn gives his prayer guidance and direction as a result of which his prayers focus better on their objective. There are some outstanding tzaddikim who are not in need of this guidance, but on the contrary, give deeper meaning to each of these letters and words. The latter type of tzaddik was Moses, who, in the celestial hierarchy represented the Matronita, as we know from the Zohar where Moses is described as the Matronita’s husband in the sense of “dominant companion of this Matronita who is portrayed as a combination of the emanation of malchut and Torah.”
At any rate, the expression יורד לפני התיבה, “descending beneath the Ark,” i.e. the word or letter, means receiving one’s spiritual inspiration from above, whereas people leading the congregation in prayer who are being described as עובר לפני התיבה, are presumed to be at least on the same spiritual level as the “ark,” so that they can inspire the Ark, i.e. words or letters, with some of their holiness. Moses was an individual belonging to this second group of tzaddikim, so much so, that after descending from Mount Sinai with the second set of the Tablets, his forehead exuded so much spiritual light that he had to “screen” it as it frightened the people who saw in him a supernatural phenomenon. We have explained repeatedly that the level of his prophecy was such that he saw clear visions whereas other prophets saw only unclear, murky visions. (Yevamot 49) This enabled him to relate the words G’d had spoken to him, verbatim, without having to paraphrase them.
Just as Yaakov lost his prophetic ability when he was about to reveal details of the eventual redemption to his children on his deathbed (Genesis 49,1-2) so Moses’ prophetic pre-eminence was taken away from him shortly before his death, as most of this was transferred to his successor Joshua. This is why his parting “song” האזינו, is full of allusions, many of which are difficult to decipher. Our verse above alludes to the process of the transition of Moses’ spiritual powers to Joshua.
Ha'Azinu
Deuteronomy 31,22-24 “Moses wrote down this ‘song’ in a book until its conclusion.”
Our sages in Pessachim> 87 state that the only reason that the Jewish people were exiled and scattered among the various nations [instead of being banished to a large but unpopulated island, Ed.] is in order for their presence to attract worthy people amongst the gentiles to have a chance to convert to Judaism. Only the Israelites are able to help these “sparks” of holy spirits among the gentiles which have “fallen” from their celestial home to rehabilitate themselves through becoming attached to the Jewish nation. [Our author has belaboured this concept on several occasions. Ed.] This is also why the words Moses addresses to his nation on this occasion have been entitled “שירה,” “song,” expressing one’s feelings of joy poetically. This is so in spite of the fact that the Israelites at the time are in exile on foreign soil, and may be presumed not to feel joyous at all. The positive aspects to exile, which are exclusive to exile, actually are a joyful experience, as, once the “lost souls,” i.e. “sparks“ of spirituality scattered among the gentile people have been repatriated, there is nothing to hinder G’d from annihilating the remainder of these people.
Michah 7,18: “Who is a G’d like You, forgiving iniquity, and remitting transgression; Who has not maintained His wrath forever against the remnant of His people for He loves graciousness He will take us back in love and will cover up our iniquities.”
Concerning the above statement of the prophet, there is a debate in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17 as to how the words יכבוש עונותינו, “He remits transgression,” are to be understood. According to one opinion the words are defining the words נושא עון, at the beginning of the verse, i.e. while “weighing” our sins on a scale, G’d depresses the side of the scales opposite it so that the sins appear lighter than in reality. This would explain G’d’s being viewed as מטה כלפי חסד, “tending in the direction of loving kindness.” The other opinion cited understands it simply as G’d “squashing” the sins together, as a result of which our positive deeds would take up more space than the sins so that the side of the scales on which the positive deeds are weighed will become correspondingly heavier.
This also enables us to answer a statement in Tanchuma on Parshat Emor, concerning Leviticus 23,40 ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר וגו', “acquire for yourselves on the first day (of the Sukkot festival) the fruit of the citrus tree, etc.” The description “on the first day,” seems curious, as the day in question is the fifteenth of the month. The Midrash explains that the word “first” refers to the first day after the day of Atonement, which was followed by four days when any new sins committed were not inscribed in G’d’s ledger. At first glance this statement seems puzzling; what is the linkage of that statement to the Day of Atonement mentioned in the Torah 14 verses previously? The subject has drawn the attention of earlier commentators who have tried to come up with a plausible explanation.
Actually, the answer is relatively simple. Our chapter basically deals with festivals, though the period between New Year’s day and the day of Atonement hardly fits the description of “festivals,” seeing that during these days we are preoccupied almost exclusively with repentance, i.e. our mood is somber and introspective. Until the conclusion of the day of Atonement we are full of fear rather than filled with joy, as befits the festival days. The Torah had set aside the last of these ten days as one on which each one of us is to practice self-denials as part of the process of repentance. (Leviticus 23,29) so much so that anyone not following these instructions is warned that he will lose his share in the hereafter for having failed to do so. Anyone exploiting these ten days for repentance, however, has only fulfilled the minimum requirement, i.e. he has repented out of a fear of punishment. When the Day of Atonement has passed and we are preoccupied with the various commandments that enable us to celebrate Sukkot joyously, our mood undergoes a drastic change and we are happy to have the opportunity to fulfill the many commandments connected with that festival. The effect of all this is that our repentance, which previously could be attributed merely to our fear of punishment, has now become repentance from a feeling of love for G’d and His Torah. The effect of this is so powerful that iniquities we were guilty of before the ten day period of repentance, have now become the catalyst of our mitzvah performance so that in retrospect these iniquities also have become something constructive, as without the need to repent them and to take steps to rehabilitate ourselves we would never have done so.
The principal name of this festival, i.e. סכות, “huts,” in the sense of protective cover, symbolizes that we are prepared instead of seeking the relative safety of solid structures to dwell in, to rely on the flimsy cloud cover, reminding us that G’d watches over us. Seeing that this is a demonstration of our faith in Him, and the effectiveness of our repentance, the first day of this festival is like a new leaf in our post Yom Kippur life, and even any errors we may have committed during the days that intervened since Yom Kippur have not been recorded in our ledger as a debit. The word ראשון in the verse above therefore may be applied to the entire Sukkot festival, as it ushers in a new period in our lives. As a result of our preparations for this festival, G’d renews dispensing of His largesse for us with renewed energy. This reminds us of the statement in Pesachim 112 that the mother cow is even more desirous of providing the calf with its milk than the young calf is anxious to drink it.
Applied to the situation described here in the Torah, granted that the Jewish people are anxious to be under the protective umbrella of the Creator, but He is even more anxious to extend this protection to us than we are in seeking it.
One of our liturgical poets paraphrases this concept by stipulating that although everybody is willing to serve the Lord with reverence and awe, how come reality does not reflect this? He blames what he calls the “leavening in the dough”, i.e. the evil urge within us. In other words, if only G’d were to remove the evil urge from this universe we would all serve the Creator in the manner we should, as, after all, He is the reigning King in His universe.
We have an interesting statement in the Talmud Sukkah 52 in which G’d is quoted as having four “regrets” concerning four of the phenomena which He had created, one of which is the evil urge. The sage making this statement bases himself on a verse in Michah 4,6 where we read: ביום נאום ה' אספה הצלעה והנדחה אקבץ ואשר הרעותי, “on that day I will assemble the lame and will gather the outcast and those I have treated harshly.”
When we appear before the Lord for judgment we use this verse in our defense, saying: “how can we be guilty of sins if You have not liberated us from the evil urge with which we have been born?” If only we had been free from the impediments put in our path by the evil urge, Your creature, we would have served You in the manner that befits You.
When the merciful G’d hears these complaints of His creatures, our verse from Michah 7,18 elaborates by saying that G’d’s attribute of Mercy is aroused so that He “lifts” the burden of our iniquities from us by providing us with a powerful counsel of defense, by removing the burden of our sins without offsetting this against our accumulated merits. G’d “makes up” for having saddled us with the evil urge by relating to us at judgment time primarily in the guise of the attributes mentioned by the prophet in the verses quoted at the beginning of this paragraph (top of page 785). The prophet Michah there concludes with describing our sins as being consigned to the depths of the ocean.
V'Zot HaBerachah
Likutim
Likutim on Avot
Haggadah MiSavi De'vey Atuni
Kedushot for Purim
Introduction
Kedusha Rishona
Kedusha Shniya
Kedusha Shlishit
Kedusha Revi'it
The Rules of Festivals
Chidushei Agadot
Chidushei Halachot
Kedushot for Chanukah
Kedusha Rishona
Kedusha Shniya
Kedusha Shlishit
Kedusha Revi'it
Kedusha Chamishit
The Rules of Miracles
Explanations of Aggadot