Clilei Torah · 7 Yamim Noraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 e Avos and Oeroig eath effrey M. lbert 1 he...

2

Clilei Torah of Cleveland

Clilei Torah Volume 6 Yamim Noraim 5781

Young Israel of Greater Cleveland Beachwood Branch 2463 South Green Road Beachwood, Ohio 44122 Phone (216) 382-5740 E-Mail: [email protected] Hebrew Academy Branch 1860 South Taylor Road Cleveland Heights, OH 44118 Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein, Rabbi Rabbi Aharon Dovid Lebovics, Associate Rabbi (Hebrew Academy) Jeffrey Belkin, President

Production Team Sarah Rudolph, Editor Rabbi Moshe Berger, Scholar-in-Residence Kenny Fixler, KF Graphics, Cover Esther Frayda Safrin, EF Graphic Innovations, Cover Design Scott Wolfson, Eveready Printing

3

Yamim Noraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6

Table of Contents

Rabbi’s Message..……………..……………………………………………………………….…4

Editor’s Note.……………………………………………………………………………………….5

Sponsors .……………………………………………………………………………………………..6

Articles The Avos and Overcoming Death Jeffrey M. Albert ………………………..……………………………………………………..………7

The Surprising Importance of the Ketoret Offering Rabbi Yehuda Appel ………………………..………………………………………………………21

The First Five Verses of Kerias Shema: Counter-Intuitive Readings Rabbi Moshe Berger .………………………..……………………………………………………..26

For Hashem’s Sake Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein ..……………………………………………………………….………31

Melancholy, Music, & Monarchs: “Ruach” in the Story of Shaul & David Alan and Sarah Goldman ……………………………………………………………………….…32

Refrigerators on Shabbos Moshe Gottlieb …………..……………………………….……………………………………..…..36

Is Teshuva a Mitzvah? Michael Kurin ………….…………………………………..……………………………..………… 42

Kiddush Levanah: Lessons from the Moon Moshe Prero ……….………………………………………………………………………………..…51

We are His, and He is Ours Sarah Rudolph …….………………………………………………………………………………..…56

What in the World Was Zimri Thinking? Shmuel Stern …………………….………………………………………………….………………...61

From Our Youth The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil Calev Kahn ……….………………………………………………………………………………….....68

What is a Name? Avigayil Rudolph ………………………………………………………………………………………70

4


A Message from the Rabbi

Often, we think of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in terms of the past, because we are being judged for our past deeds. However, it is important to remember that our Yom Hadin is not on the last day of the year, but on the first day. Teshuva involves both looking at the past, to recognize and regret our sins, and looking ahead to the future, as we resolve to do better.

The past months have been challenging in many ways, but our shul has come together to remain strong as a community united by Torah and avodas Hashem. Even when we couldn’t unite physically, we were able to maintain a schedule of learning together, and we are proud to present this Torah Journal to our members and friends as a reminder of how Torah learning can be shared even when we are apart.

With these words of Torah in hand, we look ahead to the coming year and daven that we will be able to join together fully very soon.

Thank you to all the writers for their efforts, as well as to Rabbi Moshe Berger and Sarah Rudolph for bringing their words to all of us. A special thank you as well to our generous sponsors, who made it possible to produce this beautiful Torah Journal.

As we look ahead to our future and make new resolutions, I urge all our members to consider contributing a short thought for the upcoming monthly issues of Clilei HaChodesh as well as next year’s Torah Journal.

May we go from chayil to chayil, from strength to strength, together, for many years to come.

Shanah tovah.

Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein

5


Editor’s Note

One should take leave of another only in the context of a matter of halakha, so that in that context, he will remember him. (Berachos 31a)

Several months ago, we all took leave of one another somewhat suddenly, perhaps without the chance to part with words of Torah. Yet, throughout the months of intense distance between us, we have managed nonetheless to maintain meaningful connections in line with the Gemara’s wisdom, remembering each other through Torah learning online, on the phone, outside – and through our Clilei publications. This year more than any other, when we need it most, Clilei Torah of Cleveland represents the power of Torah to unite a community. Our writers have provided us with the best possible contexts in which to think of each other and connect. Rabbi Meir Shapiro eloquently expressed this potential for Torah learning to serve as a unifying force when he presented the idea for Daf Yomi in 1923:

A Jew travels…15 days from Eretz Yisrael to America, and each day he learns the daf. When he arrives in America, he enters a beis medrash … and finds Jews learning the very same daf that he studied on that day, and he gladly joins them. Another Jew leaves the States and travels to Brazil or Japan, and he first goes to the beis medrash, where he finds everyone learning the same daf that he himself learned that day. Could there be greater unity of hearts than this? (Translation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daf_Yomi)

Wherever we are – whether we are able to attend shul or not, whether in Cleveland, in Eretz Yisrael, in Brazil, or in Japan – the thoughts shared here represent one more way that Torah transcends physical distance and binds us together wherever we are. Thank you to the writers for their tremendous efforts amid a pandemic; to the sponsors for their crucial support; and to all the members of YIGC for sharing in Torah no matter what. Please contact Rabbi Berger or me to contribute to upcoming editions of Clilei HaChodesh and/or to next year’s volume of Clilei Torah. Shana tova!

Sarah C. Rudolph

6


Sponsors

Jeff and Jane Belkin

Dr. Mark and Mrs. Miriam Berkowitz

In memory of Mark's Father, Avraham ben Yecheskel Aryeh Leib

Ezzie Goldish and Atara Engel

Alan and Lisa Schabes

Ronnie & Alizza Shulman

In honor of our parents

Warren & Marlene Sobol

Kol Hakavod to Rabbi Berger and the writers

Meir and Deborah Pollack

In memory of Meir’s mother, Mrs. Phyllis Pollack

Ira and Barbara Taub

Mike and Sandi Kaplan

Shaya & Tamara Lempel

In memory of Tamara's father, Yisrael Ben Zundel z"l

7


The Avos and Overcoming Death Jeffrey M. Albert1

The Gemorah (Tractate Nedarim 64b) lists four situations in which a person is considered as if dead. Among these are: childlessness, blindness, and poverty. (The fourth, which we will not consider here, as it is no longer manifested in our day, is tzaraas). These three afflictions have a connection to the Avos, as each of the three Avos was, at least temporarily, subjected to one of them. Namely, Avraham suffered from childlessness, Yitzhak became blind, and Yaakov experienced poverty. The above Gemorah may be tied to a statement in Pirkei Avos (4:28) that says three things remove us from this world: kin’ah (jealousy), ta’avah (physical desire), and kavod (desire for honor, or one might say arrogance). We will suggest that these three ‘sins’ represent root causes of the three ailments Chazal analogize to death, and that they can be linked respectively to the three Avos (of course, at their lofty level). 2 The Torah shows us how each of the Avos corrected his particular (subtle) negative midah, and thereby overcame the corresponding malady representative of death. As can be inferred by its context, the ‘death’ referred to in the Gemorah is a spiritual death. Thus, it is this – spiritual death – over which the Avos were victorious.

1 Jeffrey M. Albert, Ph.D. is a professor of Biostatistics at Case Western Reserve University. Originally from Los Angeles, Jeff also resided in Ann Arbor, Michigan (for graduate school) and Rockville, Maryland (where he worked at the National Institutes of Health) before moving to Cleveland. He lives in University Heights with his wife, Tamar Leah, and granddaughter, Rebecca. Thanks go to Rabbi Moshe Berger and Sarah Rudolph for their helpful suggestions and encouragement; however, the author takes responsibility for any inaccuracies in this paper. A portion of this analysis was previously printed in Clilei HaChodesh, Iyar 5780. 2 Although there are different approaches to dealing with apparent flaws in our Avos and other heroes of the Torah, one tradition, represented by numerous commentators from the Gemorah to the present day, seeks to acknowledge and learn from their limitations. As expressed by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, “The Torah never hides from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men. Just by that it gives the stamp of veracity to what it relates… Were they without passion, without internal struggle, their virtues would seem to us the outcome of some higher nature… no model that we could hope to emulate. It may never be our task to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past… They do not require our apologies, nor do such attempts become them…” Recognizing the flaws and challenges of the Avos can lead us to even greater appreciation of their greatness.

8


Avraham Difficulty with conceiving is a common theme in the Chumash and, in fact, throughout the Tanach. While it is particularly rife among the Imahos, the Avos (specifically, Avraham and Yitzhak) also had this problem. Chazal explain (Yevamos 64a) that Hashem afflicted his most beloved tzaddikim in this manner in order to induce them to pray. We can also see the connection between childlessness and prayer in the Chumash; for example, when Yitzhak davened (prayed) due to this problem (Bereishis 25:21). While Yitzhak had a temporary bout of barrenness, it was Avraham Avinu who had the most notable association with childlessness. It was a problem that he repeatedly took up with Hashem. “What can you give me, being that I go childless?” (ibid. 15:2). “Then Abram said, ‘See, to me you have given no offspring; and see, my steward inherits me’” (15:3). Rashi suggests one answer, from the Gemorah, as to why Avraham in particular was so long afflicted by this problem. When Hashem commanded Avraham to leave his birthplace for Eretz Canaan (“Lech lecha”), He promised that there “I will make of you a great nation” (Ber. 12:2), indicating that “here, you do not merit (having) children” (Rosh Hashanah 16b). This suggests that Avraham needed to correct himself in some manner, whether simply by moving to Eretz Canaan or by dealing with some deeper issue. As an answer to this last point, a source of Avraham’s childlessness may have been a subtle character flaw that he needed to overcome, involving a slight lack of emunah (faith). This lack is seen in his reply to Hashem’s promise that his descendants would inherit the land: “My Lord, Hashem/Elokim: Whereby shall I know that I am to inherit it?” (Bereishis 15:8). Later, Avraham even expressed skepticism at Hashem’s promise that he and Sarah would have a son: “And Avraham threw himself upon his face and laughed; and he thought, ‘Shall a child be born to a hundred-year-old man?’” (ibid. 17:17). The sage Shmuel (Nedarim 32A) identified Avraham’s lapse in emunah (“because he greatly examined the characteristics of [Hashem]”) as a cause of his descendants’ need to descend to Egypt and suffer there for 210 years as slaves. A lack of emunah suggests a degree of arrogance. Avraham was not willing to accept things on faith, but had to know them for himself. This trait has a positive side, as it was vital for

9


Avraham’s ‘discovery’ of Hashem in the first place: he refused to believe the conventional wisdom, and sought knowledge for himself about Hashem. According to its etymology, “arrogance” implies “claim for oneself,”3 a trait that was needed in Avraham’s environment and that helped him resist societal pressures and forge his own path towards avodas Hashem. However, though Avraham eventually uprooted it (once he discovered Hashem, he understood the appropriateness of faith in Him), a smidgen of that ga’avah (arrogance) remained in his relationship with Hashem.

It should be noted that Avraham, in fact, showed a remarkable level of emunah, even early in his story in the Chumash. A clear example is Avraham’s unquestioning willingness to follow Hashem’s directive and leave his home for an unknown destination (lech lecha). Also, even in the same episode (the ‘covenant of the parts’) in which Avraham questions Hashem, as noted above, the Chumash testifies to Avraham’s emunah:

And He took him outside and said, “Gaze, now, toward the Heavens, and count the stars…” And He said to him, “So shall your offspring be!” And he trusted in Hashem, and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. (Ber. 15:5-6)

It is clear from such counterexamples that Avraham’s deficiency in emunah was very subtle and limited. Rashi, for one, brought out a distinction implied by the previous pesukim: “(Avraham) did not request of Him a sign about (the promise that he would have offspring), but about (the promise of) taking possession of the land, (Avraham) requested of Him a sign.”

The turning point for Avraham, with regard to totally overcoming his ga’avah/lack of emunah and ending his childlessness,4 was his circumcision, commanded by Hashem: “You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and that shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you” (Bereishis 17:11). This commandment was preceded by Hashem’s more general directive:

3 Online Etymology Dictionary https://www.etymonline.com. 4 Avraham’s childlessness apparently ended after he took Hagar as a wife and she gave birth to Yishmael. However, as Yishmael did not turn out to be a worthy heir (at least with regard to inheritance of the land), Avraham was, in a sense, still childless after having Yishmael.

10


Hashem appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Kel Shakkai; walk before Me and be perfect. I will set my covenant between Me and you, and I will increase you most exceedingly.” (ibid. 17:1-2)

The connection between these pesukim suggests that circumcision (bris milah) was a necessary step to bring Avraham to a perfection of his character, and thereby to make him fruitful.

In fact, we see that following his circumcision, Avraham is a new man with regard to his humility and emunah. For example, in his conversation with Hashem regarding the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, “Abraham responded and said, ‘Behold, now, I have begun to speak to my Lord, although I am but dust and ash’” (Ber. 18:27). Later, Avraham passed his greatest test of emunah when he was willing to sacrifice his son, Yitzhak, at Hashem’s request. Avraham’s burgeoning emunah is also revealed by his chesed (kindness) and hospitality. The connection between emunah and chesed is that those who understand that all they have is from Hashem will wholeheartedly give to others. In the opening scene of Parshas Vayeira, Avraham jumped at an opportunity to provide hospitality to guests even though he was then recovering from his circumcision. It was following this incident that Avraham was informed – by these very guests, who Rashi tells us were actually angels – that he and Sarah would have a son. Indeed, he was blessed with a son, Yitzhak, at the pre-destined time. From these events it may be inferred that chesed is a segulah (antidote, or divine cure) for childlessness. Yitzhak The ailment most notably associated with Yitzhak Avinu is blindness; “Issac had become old and his eyes dimmed from seeing” (Bereishis 27:1). Rashi lists several midrashic explanations for Yitzhak’s blindness:

1) Angels’ tears fell into his eyes at the time of the Akeida (binding);

2) So that Yitzhak would give the bracha (blessing) to Yaakov rather than Esav;

3) It was caused by the incense that Esav’s wives burnt for avoda zara (idolatry).

11


While the first reason does not indicate any fault of Yitzhak, the last two are suggestive of an interpersonal ‘blindness.’ Yitzhak did not see Esav’s true nature, and therefore had to be tricked (which was facilitated by Hashem making him blind). One might ask why the incense of Esau’s wives only blinded Yitzhak (and not Rivka or Esav himself). This suggests a sort of vulnerability or propensity to be blinded. Yitzhak perhaps cast a ‘blind eye’ to the misdeeds of Esav as well as those of Esav’s wives.

At the same time, Yitzhak may in fact have been more sensitive to the misdeeds of Esav’s wives than even Rivka. The pasuk notes that Esav’s wives were “a source of spiritual rebellion (moras ruach) to Yitzhak and Rivka” (Bereishis 26:34), mentioning Yitzhak first. According to a Midrash,5 moras ruach implies that “(Esav’s wives) caused the holy spirit which had previously rested on Yitzhak as well as on Rivka to lift itself off … and to depart from them.” In his commentary on this pasuk, in which he quotes the above Midrash, Rabbeinu Bahya notes that as Rivka’s father (Lavan) was an idolatrous priest, she may have been less adversely affected by the idolatrous practices of her daughters-in-law. However, although Yitzhak may have been more sensitive (including being blinded by the incense), we see that Rivka is more willing to take action and speak up: “Rivka said to Yitzhak, ‘I am disgusted with my life on account of the daughters of Heth’” (Ber. 27:46). The Chumash does not explicitly link Yitzhak’s literal (physical) blindness to any character trait. However, it does hint at a link between a certain trait and his figurative blindness to Esav’s bad character. From the pasuk, “Issac loved Esau for game was in his mouth” (ibid. 25:28), one might reasonably infer that Yitzhak’s ‘blindness’ – his positive inclination toward Esav – resulted from Yitzhak’s ta’avah for meat. The Chumash elsewhere reveals a similar cause of figurative blindness: “Do not accept a bribe, for the bribe will blind those who see and corrupt words that are just” (Shemos 23:8; see also Devarim 16:19). In a sense, Yitzhak, due to his ta’avah for meat, was taking ‘bribes’ from Esav, and this led to his ‘blindness’ – as described by the pesukim in Shemos and Devarim. We thus see a connection between ta’avah and blindness. This further allows us to draw a moral lesson: one who is captive to a ta’avah may be seduced by the offer of a bribe.

5 Tanchuma Toldot 8

12


We see hints that Yitzhak overcame his ta’avah, and that his eyes were eventually opened. The ‘cure’ came with the help of his wife, Rivka, when he received an oversized portion of meat from Yaakov disguised as Esav. Rivka told Yaakov to bring two young goats for Yitzhak’s meal. Why did he need two? Rashi explains this apparent excess by suggesting that one of the goats was for the Pesach offering, but a straightforward reading seems to be that Rivka is asking for two goats to feed Yitzhak. Perhaps this was an ingenious part of her plan. She might have wanted to make sure that not only would Yitzhak have no appetite for Esav’s offering, but that the excessive food would ‘oversaturate’ Yitzhak and free him from his attachment to Esav. Through this oversaturation with meat, Yitzhak would be awakened to the folly of his ta’avah, and consequently, the inappropriateness of his preference for Esav. This scenario is echoed in Parshas Beha’aloscha, during Bnei Yisrael’s sojourn in the desert, when Hashem addressed a group of complainers who expressed a craving for meat: “Not for one day shall you eat, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days. Until an entire month of days, until it comes out of your nose, and becomes nauseating to you…” (Bamidbar 11:19-20). This overload of meat was an apparent punishment, and perhaps also the antidote, for the complainers’ ta’avah for meat. Rivka’s plan (as we interpret it) seems to have worked, and allowed Yitzhak to ‘see’ everything, from the unsuitableness of Esav himself to the wickedness of Esav’s wives. This realization, following his oversaturation with food from Yaakov and Esav’s delivery of yet more food, came in a dramatic flash:

“And Issac trembled a great trembling, and said, ‘Who – where – is he, the one who caught game, and brought it to me, and I ate of all when you had not yet come, and I blessed him? He shall also be blessed!’” (Bereishis 27:33; translation from The Torah: with Rashi’s Commentary)

To explain the seemingly superfluous “all” in Yitzhak’s exclamation Rashi comments that Yitzhak was saying, “Of all flavors that I wished to taste, I tasted in it.” Rashi’s explanation supports the suggestion of a ta’avah (Yitzhak’s desire to taste all the flavors). However, an alternative (or additional) implication of Yitzhak’s “all” might be an expression of oversaturation.

13


Further, Yitzhak at this point made a conscious decision in favor of Yaakov. Rashi interprets Yitzhak’s pronouncement of “he shall also be blessed” as implying, “So that you should not say, ‘Had Yaakov not deceived his father, he would not have taken the blessings.’ This is why [Yitzhak] consented (to what Yaakov had done) and blessed him knowingly.” Thus, Yitzhak did not respond as would one who was the victim of a fraud. Rather, he came (albeit with the help of the ploy) to realize that Yaakov was more worthy of the bracha than Esav.

Of course, there are a number of alternative explanations of Yitzhak’s revelation. Some stem from the pasuk, “See, the fragrance of my son is like the fragrance of a field which Hashem had blessed” (27:27). On this pasuk, Rashi comments that Hashem gave Yaakov a good smell, and the Zohar says that “the Garden of Eden came in with Jacob.” Thus, when Yitzhak realized his first visitor was Yaakov, he may have immediately understood the smell that accompanied him to be a sign that Yaakov was the worthy heir.

However, the above explanation does not seem to completely explain Yitzhak’s “great trembling,” regarding which Rashi notes the midrashic interpretation that “he [Yitzhak] saw that Gehinnom was open beneath him” (Tanchuma 11, Bereishis Rabbah 67:2). Yitzhak’s vision of Gehinnom suggests a sense of having committed a sin, rather than realizing he’d been a blameless victim (though the consequences of the resultant mistake might be dire). Also, given that Yitzhak refers in the same pasuk to having eaten “of all (the game),” it seems reasonable to suggest that the sin that led to his vision of Gehinnom was in letting his ta’avah for meat lead him to be deceived by Esav. Thus, we might characterize the process leading to Yitzhak’s eye-opening as one of re-framing: meat, the object of his ta’avah, was now seen as not worthy of his mental energy. This decision not to take further ‘bribes’ then allowed Yitzhak to ‘see’ Esav’s true nature. There are further indications that Yitzhak was ‘cured’ of his ta’avah, or attachment with physicality. Part of his first bracha (unintentionally given to Yaakov) refers to the “fatness of the land”:

“And may G-d give you of the dew of the heavens and of the fatness of the earth, and abundant grain and wine.” (Bereishis 27:28)

14


In his subsequent bracha to Esav, after realizing his mistake, Yitzhak again refers to the “fatness of the land” but with a different tone:

“Behold, of the fatness of the earth shall be your dwelling…” (27:39)

When addressing the real Esav, after Yitzhak’s epiphany, the expression has a negative connotation. “Dwelling in the fatness of the land” implies being absorbed and encapsulated by it, in the way one with a ta’avah would be by the object of his desire. It is as if Yitzhak were telling Esav, “It is your destiny to be absorbed by physicality, just as you played a role in my being overly preoccupied with sensory pleasure.”

Also, in Yitzhak’s second (post-revelation) bracha to Yaakov, he says: “And may Kel Shakkai bless you, make you fruitful and make you numerous, and may you be a congregation of peoples.” (28:3)

This particular name of Hashem, Kel Shakkai, indicates the G-d of sufficiency, of ‘enough.’ Rashi explains that Yitzhak is saying, “He whose blessings are sufficient for those who are blessed by His mouth, may He bless you.” We can expand this, according to our interpretation: “May He bless you to know what is sufficient, so you will not succumb to over-indulgence or greedy longing for more and more.”

Thus, Yitzhak was relieved of his ta’avah, and cured of his blindness in the sense that his eyes were opened to the nature of Esav. There are several clear indications of the latter. First, Rashi says (as noted above) that Yitzhak “SAW that Gehinnom was open beneath him.” Later, Yitzhak tells Yaakov, “Do not take a wife from the Canaanite women” (28:1), indicating that he now had clarity about the inappropriateness of Esav’s Canaanite wives. Admittedly, this came after Rivka complained to Yitzhak about Esav’s wives, “I am disgusted with my life on account of the daughters of Heth” (27:46). However, it is revealing that it was at this point, following the incident of the ‘stealing’ of the bracha, that Rivka was willing to express this to Yitzhak and that Yitzhak did accept the merit of her complaint. Yitzhak’s eye-opening is further confirmed in a later pasuk: “Then Esav perceived that the daughters of Canaan were evil in the eyes of Isaac, his father” (28:8). This suggests that prior to this point Yitzhak did not view Esav’s wives as inappropriate, or at least did not convey such a view to Esav.

15


From Yitzhak’s struggles, we learn that the remedy for a ta’avah is to reframe – to understand the emptiness of the ta’avah and its potential to lead one away from truth and from avodas Hashem. This ‘reframing’ for Yitzhak appears to have occurred suddenly, as represented by his “great trembling.” Upon realizing that he had gone astray in his thinking and was not acting in accordance with Hashem’s will, Yitzhak quickly corrected himself.

Yaakov Finally, we turn to Yaakov Avinu, who is associated with the affliction of poverty. In fact, Yaakov also experienced blindness toward the end of life: “Now Israel’s eyes were heavy with age; he could not see” (Bereishis 48:10). Thus, Yaakov shared the affliction of his father (Yitzhak), just as Yitzhak shared the affliction of childlessness with his father (Avraham). However, though Yaakov’s blindness plays a role in the narrative of the Chumash, blindness is less of a defining characteristic for Yaakov than it is for Yitzhak.

Yaakov’s experience of poverty occurred when he fled Eretz Canaan. Clearly, he was in a rush to leave (as his brother Esav was intent on killing him for taking his bracha), so it would be understandable that he would not leave with much. However, a Midrash (Devarim Rabbah 2:20) explains that Esav’s son Eliphaz robbed Yaakov, taking everything, as he left Eretz Canaan. Actually, Esav had commanded Eliphaz to kill Yaakov, but Yaakov convinced him to take all his possessions instead. Yaakov explained (in accordance with the insight in Nedarim noted above) that doing so would render Yaakov ‘as good as dead’ so that Eliphaz could rationalize that he obeyed his father’s command. Lavan himself, upon Yaakov’s arrival, expressed disappointment at Yaakov’s empty-handedness. “Nevertheless, you are my bone and my flesh” (Ber. 29:14). Rashi explains that this wording implies, “Now I have no (reason) to bring you into the house, since you have nothing in your hand. Nevertheless, because of family relationship, I will care for you…” It may be that Yaakov suffered poverty because he had himself ‘stolen’ (the bracha).6 Yaakov’s willingness to deceive his father, and in a sense

6 There is a view that dishonesty was in no way part of Yaakov’s makeup but that he had to go against his nature in committing acts such as the ‘theft’ of the bracha (see commentary by Rabbi Gefen below in note 8). As a counterargument, it can first be noted that the implication of ‘trickery’ is in Yaakov’s very name (as Esav points out

16


to steal, may be traced to his jealousy of Esav. Though not stated explicitly in the Chumash, jealousy in Yaakov’s case would be understandable. Esav, after all, had the love of his father, which Yaakov did not (or perhaps felt he did not) have. That Yaakov wanted what Esav had is first evidenced by Yaakov’s seeking of the right of the firstborn. Yaakov acquired this in what may be viewed (as Esav later expressed, 27:36) as an exploitative manner, by trading a bowl of soup for it at a moment when Esau was famished. He later sought (albeit at his mother’s insistence) the bracha that Yitzhak intended for Esav. Yaakov even ‘became’ Esav in the process, donning Esav’s garments and using goat skins to mimic Esav’s hairiness. The connection between deception and poverty is noted in Mishlei (10:4): “The deceitful scale makes a pauper, but the hand of the diligent brings prosperity.” Similarly, another pasuk (ibid. 19:15) states: “Laziness casts one into slumber, and the deceptive soul will go hungry.” It is also notable that both of these couplets associate honesty and hard work with freedom from poverty. Indeed, Yaakov’s path to prosperity involved a commitment to honesty and hard work, conjoining the two virtues as in Mishlei. Yaakov’s initial effort to correct any tendency towards dishonesty took place at the beginning of his travels, after his arrival at Mount Moriah (as identified by Rashi) and his famous dream of a ladder to Heaven. At that point, Yaakov essentially made a vow not to ‘steal’ from Hashem: “then, this stone which I have set as a pillar shall become a house of G-d, and whatever You will give me, I shall repeatedly tithe it to You.” (Bereishis 28:22). Ma’aser (tithing), like making brachos (blessings), allows us to receive from Hashem in a manner that acknowledges the Source of what we have and avoids what may otherwise be considered ‘stealing.’ Once Yaakov arrived at Charan to live with Lavan, he embarked on a life of honest hard work, as he states:

“These twenty years I have been with you, your ewes and she-goats did not miscarry, nor did I eat the rams of your flock. That which was mangled I never brought you – I

(27:36)). Also, the fact that Yaakov was commanded by his mother to steal the bracha does not entirely excuse this action, as one is not allowed to do an aveirah even if commanded to do so by one’s parent. Furthermore, his objection to his mother was that he might be caught (27:12), not that the deception was wrong.

17


myself would bear the loss, from me would you exact it, whether it was stolen by day or stolen by night. This is how I was: By day scorching heat consumed me, and frost by night; my sleep drifted from my eyes.” (Ber. 31:38-40)

Through hard work and honesty, practiced for some twenty years, Yaakov overcame his poverty and left Lavan with great material wealth. Throughout, Yaakov recognized G-d as the bestower of his wealth and as his protector, as indicated in a number of pesukim.7 Toward the end of his stay with Lavan, Yaakov did employ some ‘shtick’ that helped him in acquiring wealth, placing peeled rods in the watering holes to affect births among his designated sheep and goats (ibid. 30:37-42). However, he understood that these machinations were ‘kosher,’ as one is allowed by halacha to trick a cheater; that is, to use guile in order to recover losses that are owed to him.8 Yaakov thus developed his trait of honesty – in fact, he became known as the paragon of truthfulness (as alluded to in Micah 7:2, "Grant truth to Jacob…”), demonstrating the epitome of honest behavior as well as limitations of (naïve) honesty. The afflictions and other events in Yaakov’s life – some of which may be seen as middah kineged middah, measure for measure – may have helped call Yaakov’s attention to flaws in his character and thus enabled him to address them. An obvious manifestation of middah kineged middah was Yaakov’s falling victim to Lavan’s deceit, beginning when Lavan substituted Leah for Rachel as Yaakov’s bride. This echoed Yaakov’s impersonation of Esav when he deceived Yitzhak. The theme of sibling jealousy was also echoed later in Yaakov’s life. The Torah states (Bereishis 30:1) that Rachel was jealous of Leah, and some pesukim (for example 30:15) imply that Leah was jealous of Rachel as well. Leah was apparently jealous of Rachel due to Yaakov’s greater love for Rachel; we may characterize this as “emotional jealousy.” Rachel’s jealousy of Leah’s success at bearing children is traditionally interpreted as being of a ‘spiritual’ nature because Rachel wanted a part in the building of a nation (the Jewish people) dedicated to serving Hashem, or

7 See, for example, Bereishis 31:7, 31:9, 31:42. 8 This formulation is derived from Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen, who explains, “These cases [of appropriate dishonesty, discussed in the Gemorah] teach us that we must emulate Jacob in our application of the trait of Emet - that is to realize that there are times when it may be necessary to act in a fashion that seems to contradict honesty.” (https://www.aish.com/tp/i/gl/283688281.html)

18


as Rashi writes, because Rachel was jealous of the higher level of righteousness that she deduced had earned Leah her children. Spiritual jealousy, as expressed in the preceding examples, is considered by our sages as ‘kosher jealousy’ and not a negative trait. Similarly, Leah’s “emotional jealousy” can be understood as stemming from Leah’s desire for a stronger connection to a holy man (Yaakov).9 However, at the level of our Avos and Imahos, it is an assumption of this essay that these expressions of jealousy still carried a tinge of negativity that needed to be uprooted.

Yaakov’s jealousy of Esav involved both emotional and spiritual jealousy, paralleling the two forms later exhibited by Rachel and Leah. Yaakov’s jealousy of Esav’s firstborn status can be seen as an instance of spiritual jealousy, later paralleled by Rachel’s jealousy of Leah: Yaakov wanted the opportunity to serve Hashem that Esav’s firstborn status provided. The other component of Yaakov’s jealousy maps onto Leah’s emotional jealousy due to feeling unloved: Yaakov was jealous of his father’s love for Esav, and Leah was jealous of Yaakov’s love for Rachel. When a person sees a negative trait displayed in others, that trait is brought to his attention as something he might also need to work on. Thus, witnessing both types of jealousy among his wives may have helped ‘cure’ Yaakov of the same two subtle flaws.10

Eventually, it became apparent that Yaakov had shed any jealousy of Esav. Yaakov’s words upon his later meeting with Esav were, “Please accept my gift which was brought to you, inasmuch as G-d has been gracious to me, and inasmuch as I have everything” (Bereishis 33:11). He understood that G-d had provided him with everything he needed, and wanted nothing from Esav and nothing to do with him. Yaakov’s

9 The two forms of ‘jealousy’ experienced by Leah and Rachel may also be distinguished by highlighting a difference between “jealousy” and “envy,” with the former referring to a feeling that someone has ‘taken away’ someone else’s affection or love (as experienced by Leah) and the latter referring to a desire for something belonging to someone else (as in the case of Rachel). Interestingly, the terms ‘jealousy‘ and ‘envy’ do not seem to be distinguished in the Chumash (just as they are popularly used synonymously). The term kin’ah (in all its forms) refers both to jealousy (for example “…I am Hashem, your G-d - a jealous (kana) G-d,” Shemos 20:5) and envy (“…so Rachel became envious (vatkanei) of her sister,” Bereishis 30:1). The statement from Pirkei Avos referred to earlier also uses the term kin’ah, the particular meaning of which is not indicated, though it may be presumed to include ‘envy.’ 10 Perhaps this also helps explain Yaakov’s need to marry both Rachel and Leah.

19


recognition that all is from Hashem may have been the key in overcoming any jealous he may have felt. The elimination of jealousy in Yaakov meant that this source of inclination towards dishonesty was nullified. Yaakov’s hard work provided a correction to his earlier missteps in this area and helped him to escape poverty. In the end, Yaakov built on the accomplishments of his father, Yitzhak, and his grandfather, Avraham, to achieve a level considered to be the pinnacle of the accomplishments of the three Avos. His level was such that Chazal considered Yaakov to have literally triumphed over death; as Rabbi Yochanan states, “Yaakov Avinu did not die” (Taanis 5b).11 Later commentators (e.g., the Maharal) interpret Rabbi Yochanan’s statement as referring to spiritual death (in accordance with the approach of this essay).12 It is thus spiritual death over which Yaakov – and it may be inferred, the other Avos - triumphed.

Conclusion For convenient reference, our proposed framework, with regard to the mussar lessons of this essay, is summarized in the following table:

Avos Source problem Manifestation Cure Avraham Ga’avah

(arrogance) /lack of emunah

Childlessness Giving/self-abrogation (circumcision/humility)

Yitzhak Ta’avah (desire) / taking bribes

Blindness Reframing (triggered by over-saturation)

Yaakov Kin’ah (jealousy/envy) / dishonesty/theft

Poverty Honest hard work/ recognition that all is from Hashem

This table lays out the three causal chains that we have formulated. First, arrogance leads to a lack of emunah, which leads to childlessness;

11 Rabbi Yochanan noted that, in contrast to Yitzhak and Avraham, the Chumash does not refer directly to Yaakov’s death – that is, though the pesukim apparently indicate that Yaakov died and there’s even a lengthy description of his funeral procession and burial, it does not use the word “mais.” 12 According to Rabbi Yaakov Harlap: “What (Rabbi Yochanan’s statement) means, in Maharal's view, is that the quality of spirituality and of detachment from materialism symbolized by Jacob has never disappeared, but will continue to be found in his descendants to all eternity." (https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/vayechi/harlap.html)

20


the cure involves chesed (giving) and humility. Second, desire leads to the taking of bribes, which leads to blindness; the cure is reframing, adjusting one’s mindset with regard to the object of the desire. Third, jealousy leads to dishonesty, which leads to poverty; the cure is honesty and hard work, and more fundamentally, the acknowledgement that everything is from Hashem.

Of course, these associations are generalizations and may not necessarily apply in individual cases. A person with one of the three negative midos may never suffer the corresponding consequence, and one who is so afflicted may not have the corresponding negative midah. Only Hashem can determine whether and which affliction is necessary to induce a person to do teshuvah. For instance, a modest financial loss (rather than a decline into actual poverty) may suffice to alert a person to do teshuvah for some dishonest act.

As indicated at the outset, in applying negative midos to the Avos one must keep in mind their lofty level and the subtle nature of any flaws. Also, it is to the praise of the Avos that they dealt with these issues, taking great pains to uproot their sins or negative character traits, thus laying the solid groundwork upon which the Jewish nation was built.

In summary, the Avos – Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov – faced and overcame the three negative midos of ga’avah, ta’avah, and kin’ah and their consequences (childlessness, blindness, and poverty) that Chazal associate with death. It should be noted, as hinted in several places in this essay, that their achievements involved crucial assistance from the Imahos: Sarah, Rivka, Rachel, and Leah. In so doing, the Avos and Imahos built the foundation for the Jewish nation, providing tools at both the individual and national level for meeting our ongoing challenges. The efforts of our Avos and Imahos in opposition to death, as it were, played a key part in establishing the eternality of the Jewish people.

21


The Surprising Importance of the Ketoret Offering Rabbi Yehuda Appel1

The Gemara in Yoma 26a records a tradition that one who burns the ketoret offering will become wealthy. Unfortunately, many today see the recital of the verses describing the ketoret (incense) offering as nothing more than a means to acquire wealth. Indeed, even in this respect, it is doubtful that we take recital of the incense offering as seriously as was customary in the past. The great eighteenth-century rabbinic authority, the Noda BeYehuda, writes that the sages felt it necessary to append the Ein K’Elokeinu prayer to the ketoret passage so that those reciting the latter text would remember that ultimately the All-Mighty, not the recital of the ketoret, bestows wealth.2 A second common motivator for recitation of the ketoret prayer – to combat a plague – seems, with the advent of modern medicine, to have been all but forgotten. In Numbers 17:11-13, Moses tells Aaron to spread the incense smoke to stop a plague devastating the Israelite encampment; based on this incident, such diverse sources as the Gemara, Midrash, Ramban, and Zohar all urge recitation of the ketoret verses as a key spiritual effort to make in a time of plague, and hundreds of communities throughout the centuries turned to this practice whenever an epidemic raged. It is a bit of a wonder, considering the present situation with COVID-19, that there has not been more recent attention given to this practice in the broader community.

Looking beyond the material and focusing on the realm of the spiritual, there is a most startling statement in the Zohar about the ketoret. The Zohar states that as great as our daily prayer devotions are, the recital of the incense offering passage is even greater. Noting that our prayers today function as a substitute for the sacrifices, and the ketoret was the most elevated and most beloved to G-d of the korbanot, it naturally follows that the passage of ketoret holds primacy over other prayers. Following this logic, the Zohar states that one should first recite the incense offering’s verses, before beginning one’s daily petitions.3

1 Rabbi Yehuda Appel is Co-Director, with Rabbi Chaim Feld, of Aish HaTorah of Cleveland. He studied at Aish HaTorah and ITRI Yeshiva, both in Jerusalem. 2 Orach Chaim 10. 3 Zohar Vayakel 466-478.

22


Now, even a cursory look at the Biblical text makes the incense offering’s importance clear. Perhaps more than any other activity, it is the burning of the ketoret that is associated in the Torah with matters of life and death. We see its significance when it is brought inappropriately by Nadav and Avihu, and later by Korach’s allies; in both cases, they suffer the ultimate punishment.4 Indeed, violation of its use is so great that not only is death the outcome, but the principle of mida kneged mida (“measure for measure,” or punishment befitting the crime) is manifest in the delivery of the mortal blow. Both Aaron’s sons and Korach’s allies, after having inappropriately burnt the ketoret, suffer the consequences by having the insides of their bodies burnt also. In fact, one does not need to burn the ketoret to violate the law; even the simple manufacture of the incense, without G-d’s command, incurs the karet penalty.5 But the ketoret can save, as well. Not only did the ketoret smoke spread by Aaron stop the plague in the Israelite encampment, but it also allowed the High Priest to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur.6 So the incense both vanquishes and saves. But why does the Zohar see the ketoret as the most beloved to G-d of all offerings? The placement of its altar uniquely within the Mishkan edifice, its centrality in the daily service, and its description as “an eternal service before G-d" (Shemos 30:8), all point the Zohar to its exceptionality. Drawing on how Aaron was able to use it to stop the plague in the Israelite encampment, the Zohar suggests that ketoret is the ultimate weapon against evil, known in Kabbalah as “the Other Side.” Noting that the altar of the incense offering is called a mizbeach yet there seemingly is no zevach, no slaughtered animal upon it, the Zohar opines that it is the yetzer hara that gets tied and bound and slaughtered via the action of the ketoret offering. That is why the ketoret offering appears at the beginning of the daily service, as it acts as a cleansing agent to wipe away impurity and sin.

4 There is much speculation as to what exactly was Nadav and Avihu’s sin. But the text itself clearly states the violation was bringing a foreign fire. In other words, the burning itself of the ketoret was inappropriate; an inappropriate fire was used, one that did not come from the incense altar. Moreover, there are no fewer than 9 references to fire or burning within the next 12 verses, as if to emphasize this point. 5 Exodus 31:56. 6 Lev. 17:1-2.

23


An extensive midrashic passage7 provides other reasons to explain why the ketoret is most precious to G-d. Noting that it is the rayach nicho’ach, the pleasant aroma arising from the offerings, that G-d finds to be the most appealing aspect of the sacrifices, the Midrash notes that the incense offering is exclusively a rayach nicho’ach: it lacks important elements associated with the other sacrifices, such as slaughter and the consecration of blood on the altar.8 Further, the Midrash goes on to explain that while the other offerings are brought to further the needs of Israel (atonement for sin, and festive offerings) the incense has no such function. Ketoret is brought solely for the sake of G-d, to provide Him with a rayach nicho’ach. In another insight, echoed by Rashi and Ramban,9 the Midrash notes that it was the ketoret that was the last of the offerings presented by Israel at the Mishkan’s inauguration, effectively “activating” the Tabernacle service. Only after the ketoret was offered did the All-Mighty’s presence become manifest in the encampment.

The Tanchuma also suggests that the reason each of the tribal Princes merited having their offerings mentioned individually at the inauguration, even though the offerings were identical, was that each began his contribution with the ketoret, an action particularly pleasing to G-d.

Finally, the root of the Hebrew word ketoret, k-t-r, means to tie, to connect – in contrast to the root letters of the word korban (sacrifice), k-r-v, which denote bringing one closer to the Divine. Sacrifices can bring one close to the All-Mighty, but ketoret completes the bond and ties one to HaShem.10

7 Tanchuma Tetzave 14, 15. 8 It should also be noted that the ketoret’s very essence is rayach nicho’ach. It does not merely elicit a rayach nicho’ach; it is a rayach nicho’ach. 9 Rashi Leviticus 9:23 and Ramban Exodus 30:1. 10 Perhaps it can be speculated that in a certain sense, the ketoret is more elevated and creates a closer tie with G-d than the other sacrifices because by breathing in its vapor, it becomes one with one’s life breath, as opposed to the less integrated consumption of meat. In a similar line of thinking, the Nefesh HaChayim writes that learning Torah is the greatest of activities because it creates the greatest fusion with G-d; as G-d’s “thoughts” become one with the student’s thoughts, G-d’s ideas are inside the student’s very brain and consciousness.

24


Beyond all that has already been noted, we should not forget that it was the ketoret that was brought by the Highest Priest, in the holiest place in the world, on the holiest day of the year. Given all this evidence as to its centrality, the question can be asked: What does the incense offering actually represent? For the most part, commentators see the ketoret in the same category as other offerings, though more elevated.

Ramban, however, suggests another perspective on the incense offering.11 He says the ketoret offering is certainly more than an offering in the classic sense. The incense offering defends “the Glory of G-d” – witness the deaths of Nadav and Avihu – and also has lifesaving properties, as we saw earlier. Furthermore, Ramban writes, the incense offering is associated with G-d‘s midat hadin, attribute of justice (though, as is his wont, Ramban does not detail exactly what this means). Ramban then focuses our attention on the ketoret’s association with G-d’s presence and its unique powers. In fact, Ramban asserts that it has far more powers (at least in the Biblical text itself) than either the clouds of glory that accompanied the Israelite encampment in the desert or the cloud that removed itself from above Sinai and came to rest on the Mishkan. While both of the latter indicate G-d’s presence, neither has the threatening elements of din designed to keep Israel in check. The ketoret cloud, on the other hand, might best be described here as pointing to the threatening aspect of God’s presence.12 Until this point, we have noted that the incense offering takes life, saves life, and defends G-d’s glory. But we should also note that its essence is entirely different from all the other sacrifices. Animals, grains, wine, and water all possess solidity, a state of physicality; the ketoret alone has an ethereal quality. It is there and yet it is not. It is present, but it hides and

11 Ramban on Exodus 30:1. 12 The aforementioned Tanchuma passage adds to this point, noting that on Yom Kippur, the whole nation stood in fear waiting to see the plume of the ketoret rising from the Mishkan. If it appeared, the nation knew it was forgiven; if it failed to appear, they knew the High Priest was dead.

25


is hidden. In a way, it mimics the All-Mighty, who is always present and at the same time hidden.13 Chazal noted further allusions to characteristics of the ketoret that mimic the Holy One. For instance, the Gemara speaks of the aroma of the ketoret at Shiloh as still being detectable over a 1000 years later. Moreover, the small quantity of ketoret burning in Jerusalem could be appreciated in Jericho 15 miles away. To a degree, then, it is as if the incense was not subject to the usual limitations of time and space.14 If I might be allowed a radical speculation, it seems to me that the ketoret represents the presence of the All-Mighty, with a design that goes beyond striking fear in those who experience it. The incense offering not only warns but, most importantly, instructs. If we were, heaven forbid, to try to describe G-d in a corporeal way, we might well choose to depict a cloud with great powers. That is to say, the ketoret affords us a representation that would be most “analogous” to the All-Mighty if He could, G-d forbid, be depicted in the physical realm. That is because it associates G-d with the hidden, the concealed. At the same time, however, the ketoret’s ethereal nature negates the notion of the All-Mighty as a physical being. It provides a relatable example of something that exists and can be experienced yet is not physical. The incense offering acts as a sentinel warning not just against violating the All-Mighty’s wishes, but also against mistaking the nature of His very essence. It allows no room to see the All-Mighty as being (or being represented by), for instance, a golden calf. Ultimately, it makes sense that the All-Mighty’s return to the Israelite encampment would be accompanied by safeguards to prevent a repetition of the golden calf trespass. Both through warning and example, the ketoret does just that.

The incense offering, we might further speculate, is the most precious to G-d because it serves the All-Mighty in the most precious of ways, by preventing His children from committing the greatest of sins. The ketoret is the most cherished of sacrifices because it ensures what is most cherished to G-d, namely, the continuity of His bond to His children.

13 Our Sages have noted that our world is called olam because the All-Mighty is hidden (ne’elam) in its midst. 14 Yoma 39b.

26


The First Five Verses of Kerias Shema: Counter-Intuitive Readings

Rabbi Moshe Berger1 In this essay, I shall present interpretations of the first five verses of Shema (Devarim 6:4-8). These interpretations are not as well known as I think they should be. They are all based upon classical Rabbinic sources or on the commentaries of Rashi and Rashbam, and they render the following results, which may surprise many readers:

1. The first verse is not about God; 2. The second verse is not about love; 3. The third verse does not refer to the words of the Shema; 4. The fourth verse is not about instruction; 5. The fifth verse is not exclusively about tefillin. Verse 1:

ד קוק׀ אח קוק אלקינו י ל י רא ע יש מ .ש

Instead of: Hear O Israel: Hashem is our God, Hashem is one – read: Hear O Israel: Hashem, who is presently worshipped only by us, will one day become the exclusive God, worshipped by all of humanity. This alternate reading follows Rashi’s interpretation:

תה ולא אלקי האומות, הוא ה' שהוא אלקינו ע –"ה' אלקינו ה' אחד" עתיד להיות ה' אחד, שנאמר )צפניה ג, ט( כי אז אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה לקרוא כולם בשם ה', ונאמר )זכריה יד, ט( ביום ההוא

יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד.The Lord is our God; the Lord is one: The Lord, who is now our God and not the God of the [other] nations - He will be [declared] in the future “the one God,” as it is said: “For then I will convert the peoples to a clear language that all of them [will] call in the name of the Lord” (Zephaniah 3:9), and it is [also] said: “On that day will the Lord be one and His name one” (Zechariah 14:9).

1 Rabbi Moshe Berger, PhD, is Scholar in Residence at Young Israel of Greater Cleveland. This article is adapted from his website, http://www.torahfountain.com.

27


According to Rashi, therefore, this first verse does not say anything about God! Rather, it is about people’s eventual recognition of God and submission to His will. As such, it expresses an optimistic universal vision of the future, namely, that Hashem, who at the present stage of history is our God only (because the other nations serve other gods) will one day become the exclusive God, to be worshipped by all human beings.

This reading of the Shema Yisrael verse is implied in the Rosh Hashanah blessing of Malchuyos, the penultimate verse of which is the line from Zechariah cited by Rashi: …the Lord will become king over the entire earth, on that day Hashem will be one and His name will be one. The tenth and final verse is the actual Shema Yisrael verse, which is the only verse in Malchuyos which does not explicitly refer to God as king. It is relevant to the theme of Malchuyos only if we accept Rashi’s interpretation.

Does Rashi believe that this is the meaning upon which we are supposed to concentrate when we fulfill the twice-daily mitzvah of Kerias Shema? Does this universalistic concept constitute the essence of Kabbalas Ol Malchut Shamaim – the act of Accepting the Yoke of God’s Kingdom? I strongly suspect the answer to these questions is affirmative, at least according to Rashi and the inspired composers of Malchuyos.

The implication is significant: we must view the universalistic concern of Judaism as a central aspect of our theological commitment. As we noted above, this focus upon humanity-at-large is the theme of Malchuyos (and Kedushas Hashem as well) in the Rosh Hashanah Amidah. By the High Middle Ages, the practice became well established that, three times daily, every prayer service end with the second paragraph of Aleinu, which also serves as the introduction to Malchuyos and which, as we noted, culminates with universalistic aspiration of the aforementioned verse from Zechariah: On that day will the Lord be one and His Name one. Verse 2:

ך אד כל־מ ך וב ש כל־נ פ ך וב בב כל־ל קוק אלקיך ב ת י ת א ב ה א . ו

Instead of: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your might –

28


Read: You shall channel all your energies - your heart, your soul and your resources – to serving God with unswerving devotion. The second verse does not command “love” as an internal, purely emotional (and therefore invisible) feeling. Whether or not such emotional love is realistically able to be commanded has been a subject of debate throughout the centuries.

The Semitic linguistic cognates for ahavah do not stress emotions, but rather, are behaviorally focused, implying unswerving loyalty to one’s overlord. Chazal’s elaborations of this verse2 are also behavioral: They include the obligation to remain loyal to God and refrain from violating the three major prohibitions [idolatry, adultery, and murder) even when one’s life is threatened, and the obligation to act, as Abraham did, to make God beloved to the rest of humanity. Also note the behavioral focus in the Rabbinic halachic interpretation of another “love-command,” namely, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Vayikra 19:18). The Rabbis chose to “incarnate” this verse by having love point to actual behaviors, which they proceeded to legislate as Rabbinic obligations. These Rabbinic mitzvos include visiting the sick, comforting mourners, burying the dead, and sedating the condemned prisoner so that his execution would be as painless as possible.3 Verse 3:

ך בב ל־ל ום ע י ך ה ו צ י מ ר אנכ לה אש ים הא בר ד היו ה . וInstead of: These words, which I command you today, shall be upon your heart –

Read: The Ten Commandments [Statements], which I command you today, shall be [constantly] on your mind. After reviewing the Ten Commandments (literally, the Ten Statements – they contain more than ten mitzvos) in the previous section (Chapter 5: 6-18), in the very next verse (19) Moshe refers to them as hadevarim ha’eyleh – these statements. According to peshat (the text’s straightforward meaning), the phrase hadevarim ha’eyleh in our Shema verse is not a reference to the Shema itself, or to the entire paragraph

2 Sifrei Devarim #32; Berachos 61b. 3 Sanhedrin 45a and parallels, Mishneh Torah Ayvel chapter 14.

29


at hand, but rather, they refer to the Ten Commandments, which Moses had reiterated in the previous section. The Gemara in Berachot 12a describes the daily morning prayer service of those officiating in the Second Temple. Their liturgical reading consisted primarily of the Ten Commandments, followed by the Shema. The Gemara goes on to explain that the Ten Commandments, together with the Shema, originally had been part of the daily service everywhere, not only in the Temple service. The Rabbis removed the Ten Commandments from the liturgy, however, mipnei tar’omes haminim, because of the spread of heretical views that only these Statements are of Divine origin and the rest of the Torah is of human origin, written by Moses of his own accord. This verse, therefore, was originally understood by Chazal as requiring us to read and contemplate the Ten Statements - not the words of the Shema alone- every morning and evening, and throughout the day. Verse 4:

רך ד ך ב ת לכ ך וב ית ב ך ב ת שב ם ב ת ב ר דב יך ו בנ ם ל ת נ שנ ךו קומ ך וב ב שכ ב .וInstead of: You shall teach them diligently to your children, and you shall speak of them when you are at home, when you are travelling, upon going to bed and upon arising –

Read: You shall review them [i.e., these Ten Statements] repeatedly, in the presence of your children, and speak about them when you are at home, when you are travelling, upon going to bed and upon arising. The fourth verse is not the source which commands us to educate our children. According to the Gemara in Kiddushin (and elsewhere), that commandment is derived from a verse in the second paragraph of Shema: “…you shall teach them (ve’limad’tem osam) to your children…” (Devarim 11:19). The first paragraph, on the other hand, focuses solely upon the individual’s obligation to live a life of total devotion to Hashem. In the first paragraph, therefore, the indirect object of ve’shinantam is le’vanecha, meaning "towards" or "in the presence of": The full verse reads: “Review these Ten Statements constantly – at all times and all places – and speak of them, in the presence of your children.” In other

30


words: You must not only devote your life to the apprehension and fulfillment of My will, but you are also obligated to become a model of that devotion for the next generation. Your children must witness your passionate devotion to Torah study and observance. Only then will you be able to fulfill your teaching obligation (as in the second paragraph) with full credibility in your children’s eyes.

Verse 5: ש יךוק ינ ין ע ת ב טטפ ו ל הי ך ו ל־יד ות ע א ם ל ת . ר

Instead of: And you shall tie them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be head-tefillin between your eyes – Read: These words should be as if they were written on your hand, and like a gold chain between your eyes. This verse appears earlier in the Torah, in Shemos 13:9. Rashbam’s commentary to that verse states:

לפי עומק פשוטו: יהיה לך לזכרון תמיד, כאילו כתוב -"לאות על ידך" .על ידך. כעין שימני כחותם על לבך

.ורביד זהב שרגילין ליתן על המצח לנוי יט כעין תכש -"בין עיניך" “A sign upon your hand” - According to the profound plain meaning of Scripture: It will always be a reminder for you, as if it were written on your hand, like the verse from the Song of Songs, “Let me be a seal upon your heart.” “Upon your forehead” - Like an ornament or gold chain that is customarily put on the forehead for decoration.

Of course, Rashbam does not deny the fact that the mitzvah of tefillin is a Torah obligation. He is simply explicating the “profound plain meaning” (עומק פשוטו של מקרא) of the text. The Torah’s literal meaning need not always correlate with halacha, which is a function of the Oral Tradition (תורה שבעל פה).

31


For Hashem’s Sake Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein1

In the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei we add in a few extra phrases from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur. These phrases all relate to the theme of these special days, days of repentance and prayer that Hashem should accept our tefilos and grant us a good new year.

The first phrase we add is “זכרנו לחיים – Remember us for life.” As the phrase continues, we ask Hashem to inscribe us in the book of life ”.for Your sake – למענך “

What is the meaning of “for Your sake”? How can the extension of a person’s life be for the sake of Hashem?

I would like to share with you an insight from Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski. He suggested that we read the sentence a bit differently: “Inscribe us into the book of a life that is lived for your sake.” In other words, we pray not only for life, but for a quality of life that is meaningful and purposeful, one that will be lived for the greater glory of Hashem.

Some people find life boring, and seek thrills to alleviate its boredom. But life only becomes boring if it lacks constant goals. If we set goals in life that move us continually forward, guided by a sense of purpose in relation to Hashem, we will never be bored.

Of course, we wish to be inscribed in the book of life, but it should be a life that we wish to be in, one lived for Hashem’s sake and not simply for the sake of fleeting pleasures or thrills.

Our goal should be to enrich our lives by living according to Hashem’s will, bringing greater glory to Hashem’s Name, and therefore, greater meaning to our lives.

1 Rabbi Naphtali Burnstein is the rabbi of YIGC.

32


Melancholy, Music, and Monarchs: “Ruach” in the Story of Shaul and David1

Part 1: Shaul’s “Ruach Ra’ah” Alan Goldman

The relationship between Shaul and David is one of the most complex in Tanach. David was Shaul’s son-in-law, his confidant, his personal musician – and at the same time, in Shaul’s mind, his mortal enemy. And Shaul was King of Israel and the commander of the Jewish army in which David served, but also the man who forced him to live on the run for years. The beginning of their intertwined histories is related in Shmuel Aleph, perakim 16-18.2 Shmuel HaNavi, at Hashem’s command, anoints David secretly. David makes a name for himself by killing Goliat, the Plishti champion, and through further successful raids against the Plishtim. Shaul, experiencing a “ruach ra’ah” (literally, a ‘bad spirit’), is advised to find a musician who can play for him, and David is recommended and hired. David also marries Michal, Shaul’s daughter. Abarbanel explains that the “ruach ra’ah” which affected Shaul was a direct result of David’s having been anointed. With that gesture of Shmuel’s, David became in effect the new king, and therefore received a spirit from Hashem specific to that role: “This is a greatness of heart, and a spirit of wisdom…that is worthy [to rest] only on the Jewish king.”3 Since this spirit cannot rest on two people simultaneously, it departed from Shaul, who could sense the difference although he did not know specifically why it had occurred.

1 Alan Goldman is Gabbai at the YIGC Hashkama Minyan. He works in nonprofit fundraising. His Torah interests include parshanut, Sephardic traditions, and the development of minhagim. Sara Goldman, MD works as an attending psychiatrist at Richmond Medical Center. She is a longtime attendee of the YIGC Hashkama Minyan. When not at work or in shul, she enjoys music, crocheting, and time with her grandson. This article is written in memory of our dear friend Howard Denemark z”l. 2 The chronology of these chapters is confusing. R’ Elchanan Samet argues that the events described in Chapter 17 actually occurred before those in Chapter 16, resolving many of the issues. His audio shiur is at www.hatanakh.com/lessons/-משיחתו-של-דוד References to Rav Samet’s interpretations in this article .והופעתו-כמנגן-לפני-שאול-שמא-טזcome from this shiur. 3 Abarbanel on Shmuel 1, 16:14. Translation mine.

33


Abarbanel’s approach is based on the juxtaposition of two key pesukim: ל את מוא ח ש קרב אחיו, ו תצ -ו יק ח אתו ב ש שמן ו ימ ה' -ל ח רוח קרן ה

לך-אל ל, ו י מוא לה; ו יקם ש הוא ומע יום ה ה רוח הרמתה. דוד, מ סרה ה'ותו רוח עם שאול; ובעת ת רעה-מ א .ה'מ

Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers; and the spirit of the LORD gripped David from that day on. Samuel then set out for Ramah.4 Now the spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD began to terrify him. (16:13-14)

The use of the term “ruach” sends us back to Shaul’s own appointment as king. He is told by Shmuel at that time that he is about to meet a group of prophets, and then (10:6),

חה עליך רוח צל ר. ה'ו ח איש א ת ל כ פ נה בית עמם ו נ הת וThe spirit of the LORD will grip you, and you will speak in ecstasy along with them; you will become another man.

Similarly, in the following perek (11:6), Shaul hears of a threat to a Jewish city by the king of Ammon, and he reacts with Divinely-inspired anger:

ל ח רוח לקאל -ו תצ עו( אתשאול בשמעו -ים ע שמ לה -)כ ברים הא ד ה אד. פו מ ר א ו יח

When he heard these things, the spirit of God gripped Saul and his anger blazed up.

This spirit is an essential element of Shaul’s kingship. When it leaves him, he feels, in the words of R’ Samet, “a vacuum.” The Malbim writes: “When this [spiritual] abundance departs from him because of his sin…he feels this absence and he is astonished and afraid. Instead of the exalted spirit [he had before], he is inhabited by a dark spirit, full of sadness, worry, and terror.”5 Shaul’s emotional turmoil is a consequence of the change in his spiritual state. And it is David himself who is chosen to help soothe his pain. R’ Samet suggests that only David could fill this role, since he now has the very ruach that was taken from Shaul; through his music, he can restore some of it to the man he just replaced.

4 English translations of Tanach are from www.sefaria.org. 5 Shmuel 1 16:14. Translation mine.

34


Part 2: David’s “Ruach from Hashem” Sara Goldman

There is another way in which Shaul and David’s “ruach”s are intertwined, which is found in each king’s anointment story. Oddly, each time, we are told details about the character’s external appearance. Shaul is “an excellent young man; no one among the Israelites was handsomer than he; he was a head taller than any of the people” (9:2).6 David is also beautiful - “ruddy-cheeked, bright-eyed, and handsome” (16:12). Yet, in the very same perek, Shmuel is told by Hashem that “For not as man sees [does the LORD see]; man sees only what is visible, but the LORD sees into the heart” (16:7). Why, then, are we told the details of each man’s outer appearance? Perhaps the focus on their physical similarities is intended to highlight the differences in their inner characteristics. From the fact that Hashem gives each one different tools when he becomes king, it is clear that they have different needs. Regarding Shaul, we read that Hashem gives him “another heart” (11:9) and he is told by Shmuel that he will “become a different man” (10:6). This would indicate that, prior to his anointment, he was not adequate for his new role, and as such, needed to become an entirely different person. David, however, did not require such a total transformation: he is given “ruach from Hashem” (16:13) which, it appears, complements the qualities he already has.

As one example, the ruach David received served to enhance his existing musical abilities. The Baal Shem Tov notes that “Our sages taught (Pesachim 117) that whenever a psalm begins with ‘A song to David (mizmor leDavid),’ that indicates that he would first play music and only then would the Shechinah descend on him. The song would bring the holy spirit to David. And whenever a psalm begins ‘To David, a song (leDavid mizmor),’ first the Shechinah would descend upon him with the holy spirit, and afterwards he would recite poetry.”7 David is able to use his gift of music to connect with Hashem, to create the Tehillim that are our primary source of religiously-inspired poetry. Music is also woven into Shaul’s development as a person. When he is first chosen by Hashem, he is told by Shmuel that he “will encounter a

6 All references to Tanach in this section are to Shmuel 1. 7 Baal Shem Tov on Chumash, Noach #37.

35


band of prophets coming down from the shrine, preceded by lyres, timbrels, flutes, and harps, and they will be prophesizing. The spirit of the LORD will grip you, and you will prophesize along with them” (10:5-6). Initially, for Shaul, music is associated with prophecy, and his new spiritual status. When Shaul is afflicted by a ruach ra’ah, music initially helps.

However, music’s power is not sufficient to heal him: twice, while David is using his “ruach from Hashem” to soothe Shaul, the ruach ra’ah causes Shaul to try to kill him (18:11 and 19:10). Additionally, it is a song that brings David’s increasing fame to Shaul’s attention: “The women sang as they danced, and they chanted: Saul has slain his thousands; David, his tens of thousands!” (18:7). Hearing himself compared unfavorably to his rival in this song, Shaul begins to see confirmation of his inner fears.

A Concluding Thought

We suggest that the text’s continued emphasis on “ruach” in this story underscores the significance of divine guidance for a Jewish king. The Navi wants to remind his readers that a Melech Yisrael is not simply a ruler “to govern us like all other nations” – contrary to the people’s request, made to Shmuel, with those very words (8:5).

During Shaul’s reign, Jewish monarchy was in its earliest phase, and was not at all an established institution. Even while Shaul ruled, Shmuel informed the people “to take thought and realize what a wicked thing you did in the sight of the LORD when you asked for a king” (12:17). Shaul was present during this speech and must have felt uneasy hearing it. What kind of future might he expect in his role if it was not supposed to exist?

Although Hashem gives His approval to the continuation of kingship, He expects and demands that the ruler follow His will. When Shaul fails to do so, he loses the ruach that underpins his capacity to serve. As we’ve seen, that ruach is transferred to David, who during his long reign is viewed by the Tanach as fulfilling Hashem’s will, and being worthy of the spirit given to him.

36


Refrigerators on Shabbos Moshe Gottlieb1

Many people are familiar with the issue of opening a refrigerator door on Shabbos when it will cause a light to turn on automatically, and therefore they make sure to set up their refrigerators so that won’t happen. However, even without the light, opening a refrigerator door can raise a number of issues with regard to Shabbos.

For instance, if opening the door causes the motor to run, the spark of electricity created may be considered like starting a fire.

Causing the motor to turn on also involves completing a circuit, raising a potential problem of boneh (building).

There may also be a concern of molid (creating something new, a Rabbinic prohibition). The Gemara states that "scenting" a garment or object with a fragrance is considered comparable to "recreating" the garment, changing it enough to be considered a new item, and is therefore a violation of molid. Similarly, passing an electric current through an appliance changes the otherwise useless object into a functioning appliance.

Out of concern for the above, some poskim have advised opening a refrigerator only while the motor is running. (Rav Moshe Feinstein, quoting Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, אגרות משה, אורח חיים חלק ב, ס"ח)

Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss (Minchas Yitzchak, חלק ב, י"ז & חלק ג, קל"ז) raises a possible reason for leniency when the motor is running by analyzing whether opening the door while the motor is running, thereby causing the motor to have to run longer, would be like adding fuel to a fire. He suggests it may not be the same thing, and instead compares it to a case of grabbing a water bottle that is falling toward a fire. Grabbing the water bottle out of the air prevents it from putting out the fire, but that is not the same as actively causing the fire to continue burning. So too here, one could argue that opening the refrigerator door does not make the motor turn on; rather, it removes the cold air (like grabbing the water bottle) that would have stopped the motor

1 Moshe Gottlieb, from Passaic, NJ, is the grandson of Rueven and Sheila Freund, and currently learns in Yeshiva Shaar Hatorah in Queens, New York. .to Shimon Khayyat and Ahron Zuckerberg, who helped a lot in writing this יישר כח

37


from running. However, there may still be a problem with closing the fridge, because closing the door would be similar to pouring water to put out a fire: it would cause the motor to go off sooner.

Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi, או"ח א, קנ"א) agrees with the Minchas Yitzchak that when the motor is running, opening the refrigerator is like catching a falling water bottle; unlike the Minchas Yitzchak, who does not want to rely on this rationale as a practical ruling, the Har Tzvi believes it is completely permissible.2

Another possible reason to be lenient regarding opening a refrigerator while the motor is running is that any melacha (constructive action prohibited on Shabbos) associated with electricity (whether it be burning, boneh, or molid) would seem to be in the category of גרמא (grama): an action that does not directly violate Torah law but causes something to happen afterwards which would violate Torah law if done directly. Simply letting in warm air is only a גרמא, as it indirectly causes a melacha to occur. An act of א גרמ is prohibited on a Rabbinic level but is not a Torah violation; this distinction may be important in finding room for leniency in certain cases.

Furthermore, there is also no problem of causing sparks by opening the refrigerator while the motor is running, since the electricity had sparked already, although the Minchas Yitzchak says not to rely on this to permit. He adds that those who are careful about mitzvos will set a timer to turn off at a certain time and take everything out then.

The Minchas Yitzchak ( דחלק ד, ס" ) also cites a view that opening a refrigerator before the motor has turned on is a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה (p’sik reisha d’lo nicha lai), an action that carries an inevitable but undesirable prohibited result: you don’t want the hot air to go in, because if the motor goes on you have to pay a higher electric bill. On the other hand, while you don’t want the air to go in, once it goes in you do want the motor to go on so your food doesn’t spoil; therefore, this logic may not be enough to rely on unless you are taking out the last of your food and removing any interest in keeping the refrigerator cold.

2 The Har Tzvi does not specify whether opening the refrigerator while the motor is not running would be forbidden.

38


Rav Ovadia Yosef ( (יביע אומר חלק א, או"ח כ"א) also says opening the refrigerator is a פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה because you don’t want the motor to turn on and pay the electricity bill for it. However, he notes that most authorities rule that פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is Rabbinically prohibited, so opening the refrigerator when the motor is running would still be Rabbinically prohibited. Rav Ovadia also quotes the Meiri’s view that רישא דלא ניחה ליה קפסי is entirely permissible in a scenario where you specifically don’t want the inevitable result to occur. Further, the Aruch holds that פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה is completely permissible even in a case of a Torah-level prohibition, and Rav Chaim Soloveitchik says the Rambam holds like the Aruch. Tosfot, however, argue and say it is forbidden.

The ראב"ד of Brisk is lenient about opening refrigerator doors when the motor is off: he holds it’s a פסיק רישא דלא איכפת ליה (d’lo ichpas lai), meaning a person is disinterested in the result caused by the prohibited action – which in his view has the same status as a case where a person actively does not want the result – and we follow the Aruch’s lenient position.

Some argue that the issue of א פסיק ריש is further mitigated if it is uncertain whether the refrigerator will turn on right away. In that case, the start of the motor may be in the lesser category of דבר שאינו an unintended action which may or ,(davar she’ayno miskavain) מתכוןmay not result. In that case, the only problem would be that it will (definitely) turn on after a while; in that respect, opening the fridge would be considered מאגר – a step removed from the prohibited act. An act of גרמא is at most a Rabbinic prohibition, and then it is even easier to be lenient regarding דלא ניחא ליה פסיק רישא .

Regarding the issue of causing the motor to go on after a delay, the Maharal says שאק ריפסי that happens after a while is only considered an “unintended action,” offering another reason to permit. However, many argue with this view.

Ruling on the fire aspect of causing the motor to go on may depend on a dispute about adding oil to a fire. According to Tosfot, one who pours oil onto a fire is held accountable for causing the fire to burn brighter; the Rosh, however, says the problem is causing it to burn longer. Opening a refrigerator door while the motor is running does not cause the “fire” (i.e. the electricity) to burn brighter, so at most it

39


would be a גרמא of causing the motor to run longer. According to the Rosh, it would appear that, on one hand, he would be chayav d’oraysa (on a Torah level). On the other hand, however, we could argue that, according to the Rosh, you are not adding more fuel; you are just preventing the motor from turning off right away, and so it would be at most some sort of Rabbinic prohibition.

According to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, the problem with electricity is in the sparks that occur at the start of the motor, so if the motor is currently running there is definitely no problem. If it is not currently running, then the sparks that come about are לא ניחא ליה and the ruling would then be subject to the dispute between the Aruch and Tosfot mentioned above.

Rav Ovadia goes on to say that opening the fridge door is technically permitted, but that it is best to do it while the motor is running, especially if the motor hasn’t turned on in a while and opening the fridge is more likely to cause the motor to immediately turn on. On the other hand, the rule of פסיק רישא might only apply when you're doing a direct action; since this is most likely a case of גרמא, unless it turns on right away, פסיק רישא might not even be a problem at all.

Rav Shlomo Zalman ( י"א-)מנחת שלמה חלק א', סימן י', אות ה' says there is no Torah prohibition. He analyzes various melachos some authorities apply to opening refrigerator doors, and explains why none is involved on a Torah level; however, there may still be a Rabbinic prohibition.

A) Makeh b’patish means "striking a hammer"; the prohibition of makeh b'patish applies to completing construction of an object on Shabbos (Tzitz Eliezer 6:6; Minchas Yitzchak 3:41) and is one of the 39 constructive acts forbidden on Shabbos. Some suggest that turning on the motor completes its construction as now it is a functioning item. However, Rav Auerbach argues that there is no makeh b’patish because it isn’t that the refrigerator is not working when the motor is off; rather, the motor by design was meant to go off at a certain temperature, to keep the food from freezing. Causing the motor to go on is therefore not the step that causes the fridge to work, but is part of the normal use of the refrigerator. Furthermore, even if one would argue that makeh b’patish is theoretically involved here, an act is not makeh b’patish if it is not a permanent fix. Closing the circuit isn't

40


considered a completion of construction every time it turns on, as it is meant to go off again soon.3

B) As we mentioned above, some authorities argue that opening a refrigerator door violates the prohibition of boneh (building) because it completes the circuits. However, if it will go off soon after, then it is not boneh. Furthermore, the prohibition of building applies only when you are making an item work for the first time; since the fridge is already running, there is no prohibition, as the electricity is already flowing in the fridge from when the fridge is originally plugged in.4

C) Regarding the prohibition of mav’ir (kindling a fire), which would seem to be violated by the sparks created at the time the motor is engaged, he explains it is a שאינה צריכה לגופהמלאכה (melacha she’ainah tz’richa l’gufah), an act of creative work that is not done for its own sake, because this is not the regular way people make fires or the way fire was kindled in the Mishkan. Further, the creation of the sparks is mekalkel (a destructive action, and therefore not considered a melacha) because the spark apparently ruins the area where it goes off. Also, it is a דבר שאינו מתכוון (inadvertent result): generally, when sparks are created on purpose, it’s not done by turning on the motor of a fridge.

Once we have all these Rabbinic considerations, now that it is a גרמא, it will be permissible to open the fridge even when the motor is not running. If the fridge would turn on right away when opened, it wouldn’t be a גרמא but a פסיק רישא; however, Rav Shlomo Zalman explains that since one can never know for sure when the motor is going to turn on, it will be at most a דבר שאינו מתכוין. One might argue this is a case of ספק פסיק רישא (possible פסיק רישא), similar to closing a box when there may or may not be flies in the box, which is forbidden because of the prohibition of trapping (according to the Rama and also the Be’ur Halacha); similarly, we know the motor might turn on right away when the refrigerator is opened, so it should also be a ספק פסיק

3 The same issue comes up in the case of hearing aids: When you speak to someone wearing hearing aids, electrical circuits are turned on, and when you stop speaking, they turn off by design. See Moshe Gottlieb, “Hearing Aids on Shabbos,” Clilei Torah vol. 6, 5780, p.17. 4 I’m not sure why that helps, as you are still causing the electricity to flow into the motor.

41


However, this may not be a problem because even if there is a .רישאpossible פסיק רישא, it is still a ספק פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה, a possible inevitable result that the person does not want to happen, and therefore would be only a Rabbinic prohibition. In that case, it is a ספקספק דרבנן a possible violation on a Rabbinic level, and so we say ,דרבנן when you have a Rabbinic prohibition that may or may not :לקולאhappen, the act is permitted. Furthermore, in most cases the motor will not turn on right away; therefore, based on the principle of rov (majority rules), it is certainly permissible.

Rav Shlomo Zalman adds that even if the motor does turn on immediately when the fridge is opened, we should consider two factors explained by technicians: a) It takes the sensor time to process the heat that comes in when you open the door, before it turns on the motor. If the motor turns on at the moment you open the door, it is a coincidence and not because the door was opened. b) There are multiple steps from the time you let the heat in; the heat trips the sensor, which makes the gas heat up, which creates the current, which turns on the motor. The turning on of the motor is so far removed from the act of opening the door that it must be at most a גרמא.

The Tzitz Eliezer )'חלק ח, ס' י"ב אות ד( cites many authorities who say you should only open the door when the motor is running. He also quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman’s view (as above) that it is permitted even when the motor is not running, because it’s a יק רישא דלא ניחא ליהס פ and so would be at most a Rabbinic prohibition, and furthermore, it may be only a גרמא of that Rabbinic prohibition even if the motor turns on right away when the door is opened. If the motor turns on later, it is not even a Rabbinic prohibition, as it is a גרמא on a Rabbnic prohibition and therefore permissible. And since there is a majority presumption (rov) that it won't turn on right away, then it’s certainly permitted.

Many authorities will tell you that the accepted practice in America is to be lenient and rely on the many factors that contribute towards allowing one to open the fridge on Shabbos even when the motor is not running.

** NOTHING WRITTEN HERE SHOULD BE RELIED UPON AS A PRACTICAL HALACHIC RULING. **

42


Is Teshuva a Mitzvah? Michael Kurin1

It is seasonal this time of year to think about teshuva, and many people take time during Elul and Tishrei for introspection and self-improvement. Teshuva is so central that it is difficult to imagine Elul and Tishrei without it. Yet, there is actually a debate about whether or not teshuva is even a mitzvah at all.

The Ramban, in his commentary on the Torah (Devarim 30:11), clearly states that teshuva is a mitzvah and is explicitly commanded to us several times in the Torah:

אבל "המצוה הזאת" על התשובה הנזכרת, כי "והשבות אל לבבך," "ושבת עד ה' אלקיך," מצוה שיצוה אותנו לעשות כן.

But "this commandment" refers to repentance. Because [the verses] "you will return in your hearts" (Deuteronomy 30:1) and "you will return to the Lord your God" (ibid. 2) [prove that] the commandment (to return) that He commanded us to do [is a commandment].

The author of Shaarei Teshuva seems to agree. In the very beginning of the book when he describes teshuva, he uses the language of ה אזהר (“caution”), terminology typically reserved for formal commandments. He also notes, as the Ramban did, that teshuva is demanded of us several times in the Torah.

On the other hand, the Rambam does not seem to consider teshuva a mitzvah. In his Sefer Hamitzvot (mitzvot aseh 73) he writes

ל -היא שצונו להתודות על העונות והחטאים שחטאנו לפני הא ולאמר אותם עם התשובה.

1Michael Kurin is a 3rd year gastroenterology fellow at University Hospitals. Prior to (and during) his medical training he studied in Yeshiva University for many years, and obtained his semikha from RIETS and an MA in medieval Jewish history from Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies. Michael, along with his wife Devorah, are proud parents of 3 children and live in University Heights. .

43


[The mitzvah is] that which He commanded us to confess to the sins and transgressions that we transgressed before God, and to say them with the [performance of] teshuva.

While teshuva is certainly recommended behavior, the precise action the Rambam counts as a mitzvah is וידוי, confession, which Rambam himself considers only one part of the teshuva process. This same concept is reiterated in the beginning of Hilchot Teshuva (1:1):

כל מצות שבתורה, בין עשה בין לא תעשה, אם עבר אדם על אחת מהן בין בזדון בין בשגגה, כשיעשה תשובה וישוב מחטאו,

ל ברוך הוא...ודוי זה מצות עשה.-חיב להתודות לפני הא

All mitzvot in the Torah, whether they are positive or negative [commandments], if a person violates one of them, whether on purpose or by accident, when he does teshuva and repents from his transgression, he must confess [his sins] before God, blessed is He… This confession is a positive commandment.

The Rambam seems to take for granted that a person will do teshuva, but it is not a mitzvah. Only the part of teshuva called וידוי is considered a true mitzvah.

Less well known is that the Sefer Hachinuch appears to agree with the Rambam on this issue. He counts the mitzvah of confessing one’s sins (mitzvah #364), and explains that we fulfill this by confessing to a sin at the time we have remorse over it, or during a “time of teshuva.”

How can we explain this debate? I would like to offer two approaches.

First Approach: Defining Teshuva

Perhaps the answer to this question is more questions: How does one know when they have “done” teshuva? What is the halachic definition of teshuva? Many of us take the concept of teshuva for granted, but the answer to even these most basic questions is not clear.

Therefore, perhaps we can understand the debate about whether teshuva is a mitzvah as follows: The Ramban’s view fits with our intuition that something so central to our religion, that according to Ramban is explicitly mandated in the Torah, must be a mitzvah. However, the Rambam believed that even the most important concept

44


can only be formalized as a mitzvah if we have clear guidelines and parameters about its fulfillment. Nearly all halachic mandates feature practical definitions that determine at what point a person has successfully fulfilled the command or violated the prohibition. When it comes to teshuva, there are no such clear definitions. Perhaps that is why the Rambam felt it could not be counted as a mitzvah. Confession, however, is a component of teshuva that has clear parameters (namely, it is fulfilled when one verbally confesses a sin), and it can therefore be formalized as a mitzvah.

However, this explanation of the Rambam’s view leaves us wondering how the Ramban would respond. For the Ramban and his camp, how can teshuva be a mitzvah when we do not know its parameters and lack clarity on its definition?

The simplest way to answer this question is to suggest parameters that would clearly define, for Ramban, at what point teshuva has been accomplished. First, perhaps teshuva is achieved when a sinner decides to stop sinning. Ironically, the Sefer HaChinuch, despite being in the Rambam’s camp, does state (ibid.) that teshuva is fulfilled “when the sinner abandons his sin and removes it from his heart and from his mind, and decides in his heart that he will not do it anymore… And afterwards, he confesses about it; meaning, he says words of teshuva verbally. And he also has to say explicitly that he will not return to do the sin again.”

A more elaborate version of this approach can be extracted from the words of the Meshech Chochmah. In his commentary to Devarim 31:17, he also wonders how teshuva can be considered a mitzvah, though for different reasons than we have already suggested:

ונתבונן דשם תשובה כפי מה שמורה שמה איך נחשבת למצוה י א עוד, הלא בלא המצוה מצווה ועומד לבלשישוב מכסלו ולא יחט

לעבור על מצות השי"ת…

And we should consider, the word teshuva, according to what its name implies, how can it be thought of as a mitzvah that [one should] return from his stupidity and not transgress anymore? Isn’t it true that without the mitzvah [of teshuva] he is already commanded to avoid transgressing the mitzvot of God?

45


If teshuva is simply a decision to desist from sin, we are already forbidden from sinning regardless, so what does a mitzvah of teshuva add, in a practical sense, to what we are already commanded to do? Teshuva makes sense, the Meshech Chochmah implies, as a concept incorporated into every commandment and prohibition, but it adds nothing new as an independent mitzvah. This challenge leads him to entertain the possibility that perhaps teshuva really is not an independent mitzvah, which would put him in the Rambam’s camp. However, he ultimately decides that what makes teshuva novel and unique is that the appropriate way to do teshuva is by forcing one’s desires to the opposite extreme from what led him to sin.2 Without the independent mitzvah of teshuva, a person would have only known they need to stop sinning; the innovation of teshuva is that the recommended technique to truly stop sinning is to bring oneself to the opposite extreme.

What gives teshuva its legitimacy and uniqueness as a mitzvah for the Meshech Chochmah provides us with a working definition of teshuva to explain how it can be counted as a mitzvah. A person accomplishes teshuva when he fully shifts his thoughts and behaviors, from the direction that led him to sin to the complete opposite direction.

Any of these definitions can work to explain how the Ramban believed teshuva is a mitzvah. Whether by stopping the sin and deciding to never commit the sin again, or purposefully shifting his behavior to the opposite extreme of that which led him to sin, teshuva can be a mitzvah like all others with tangible guidelines that define when it has been fulfilled.

In this approach, then, the debate between the Ramban and the Rambam is about their respective understanding of teshuva. The Ramban believes it is a tangible mitzvah with defined parameters, while the Rambam believes it is not and therefore cannot be counted as a mitzvah.

Second Approach: There is no Debate

A second approach to this debate, and my preferred one, is that there may not be a debate at all. Several scholars suggest that the Rambam

2 The Meshech Chochmah bases this explanation on the Rambam’s approach to changing certain character traits.

46


really believed, like the Ramban, that teshuva is a mitzvah. They offer several arguments.

a. Minchat Chinuch

First, the Minchat Chinuch (364:1) argues that for the Rambam (and the Sefer Hachinuch), teshuva really is a mitzvah. However, it is in a special category of mitzvot that are descriptive but not mandatory. This type of mitzvah provides rules for how we must do a certain procedure, should we choose to do it, but the procedure is not mandatory. The Minchat Chinuch offers the example of divorce. There is no obligation to get divorced, but if one chooses to divorce, he has a mitzvah to complete the divorce process in the particular way described by the Torah. Here too, one is not obligated to do teshuva, but if a person wants to atone for his sins, the Torah requires that he do teshuva in a particular way. In the case of teshuva, the procedure includes וידוי. And just like a divorce would not go into effect without a properly written and signed gett, teshuva will not be accepted without וידוי.

This approach is compelling because it gives teshuva the mitzvah status we intuitively feel it should have. However, two difficulties come to mind. First, that we are not obligated to do teshuva seems counterintuitive and difficult to accept. Second, while we can accept that divorce is a tangible procedure that has a clear point of completion, with many rules guiding the procedure to ensure it is done appropriately and with proper intent, the Minchat Chinuch’s approach limits the teshuva process to וידוי. If one wishes to do teshuva, then he should do וידוי and that will complete the process. We would like to think that there is more to teshuva than just that. The Minchat Chinuch’s approach may fit with the language of the Rambam, but it significantly limits the depth of teshuva and this makes it difficult to accept.

b. Rav Soloveitchik

Rav Soloveitchik has a different understanding of the Rambam, stemming from the Rambam’s curious phrasing in the כותרת (explanatory subtitle) to the Laws of Teshuva. There, the Rambam seems to say that teshuva is not only a mitzvah but the primary mitzvah, and וידוי is secondary:

מצות עשה אחת והיא שישוב החוטא מחטאו לפני ה' ויתודה.

47


[This section has] one positive commandment and it is that the transgressor should return from his transgression before God and confess [to it].

In his work On Repentance, Rav Soloveitchik develops a thesis that the Rambam often uses the כותרת to express the קיום המצוה, or the essence of a mitzvah, while in the body of the text he outlines the פעולת המצוה, how the mitzvah is practically performed.

Rav Soloveitchik writes:

תשובה בעיני הרמב"ם היא מעין עבודה שבלב. זוהי מצוה שעיקרה אינו במעשים ובפעולות, אלא בתהליך הנמשך לעתים על פני שנות חיים, תהליך שתחלתו בחרטה...בהרגשה של

ארוכה, עד לתכלית שהיא -ל תהליך זה ארוכהבדידות...ודרכו שומכריע, התשובה עצמה. התשובה אינה קשורה במעשה אחד

אלא צומחת וגדלה...עד שמביאה את האדם למטמורפוזה, ואז לאחר שהשתנה ונעשה אדם אחר, מגיע מעשה

התשובה...הוידוי.

Teshuva, in the eyes of the Rambam, is similar to worship of the heart. That is, a mitzvah whose essence is not through actions and performances, but rather through a process that will continue from time to time over the course of a lifetime. A process whose beginning is remorse...with the feeling of loneliness… and the way of this process is very long until it reaches the purpose which is teshuva itself. Teshuva is not tied to one particular action, rather it blossoms and grows...until it brings a person to a metamorphosis, and then after he has changed and become a different person, the act of teshuva comes...confession.

There is a mitzvah whose essence is teshuva. However, teshuva transcends any tangible act that would have clear parameters. Rather, it is an inner experience, a lengthy process of transformation of the soul. It begins with remorse and contemplation, which leads to a feeling of emptiness and failure, which simmers in one’s soul until it eventually brings the soul to undergo a metamorphosis. The sinner becomes, in a sense, a new person. At that point, the process culminates with וידוי.

48


Of course teshuva is a mitzvah, but it lacks a finite act that defines its fulfillment because it is a process that occurs entirely within. Therefore, in order for it to be functional within our halachic system, it requires an act that represents its fulfillment, and this is ויויד .וידוי is not the mitzvah; rather, it is a culminating act that represents the true mitzvah, which is teshuva.3

The Rav compares teshuva to tefillah. The essence of tefillah is avodah shebalev, worship of God that occurs within oneself. This form of worship, in which we cry out to God, attempting to communicate and develop a relationship with Him, has no definable parameters either. The liturgy is used to allow for practical fulfillment of the mitzvah, but the liturgy is not the essence of the mitzvah. The essence of teshuva, too, transcends far beyond confessing one’s sins and desisting from them, but those components are necessary for teshuva to function as a mitzvah within our halachic system.

The Debate Rages on

As we have seen, there are fundamentally different ways to understand teshuva and each has merits and flaws. The more one sees teshuva as a mechanical process with a clear point of completion, the easier it is to define teshuva as a mitzvah. On the other hand, the more we view teshuva in that way, the easier it is to miss the true essence of teshuva.

These two diverging understandings of teshuva came to the fore in 18th-century Europe. In the early days of the mussar movement, a method of teshuva called teshuvat hamishkal (literally, repentance of the scale)

3 This notion of teshuva as an inner transformative process can be further explicated, and may even find expression in the Rambam’s laws of teshuva themselves. In the first two chapters of this section, the Rambam describes the practical process through which the mitzvah of teshuva is carried out. This includes feeling remorse, confessing to the sin, and desisting from it. However, as pointed out by Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman (in his 2019 teshuva drasha), the latter chapters of this section describe a wholly different process by which the sound of the shofar inspires introspection and contemplation, the ultimate spark of the teshuva process. These of course are not tangible, but are the Rambam’s way of describing the beginning moments that ignite the teshuva process. The Rambam likely placed this discussion in the Laws of Teshuva rather than in the Laws of Shofar because this is the essence of teshuva, not laws about how to fulfil the very tangible mitzvah of blowing the shofar. Rabbi Berman’s drasha is available at https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/934238/rabbi-dr-ari-berman/living-mindfully-and-meaningfully-the-teshuvah-of-rosh-hashanah-and-yom-kippur/.

49


became popularized. This method took the notion of teshuva as a tangible and clearly defined process to the extreme. Teshuvat Hamishkal was a mechanistic form of teshuva in which the goal was to “balance the scales” by accepting upon oneself a degree of suffering commensurate to the sin one transgressed. Typically, a Rabbi would formulaically prescribe a certain number of fast days, time spent studying or reciting psalms, or even physically uncomfortable acts such as rolling around in the snow undressed. Upon completion of the prescribed acts, the transgressor would be deemed to have “done” teshuva.

However, as one can imagine, this practice met its share of opposition. The merits, or lack thereof, of this type of teshuva were discussed in a famed responsum of the Nodah B’yehuda (1st edition, Orach Chayim 35). In the responsum, a yeshiva student who was apparently a Torah scholar had committed unthinkable improprieties for several years, and then decided to do teshuva. The student was apparently a believer in teshuvat hamishkal, and the Nodah B’yehuda was asked what to prescribe for this person’s teshuva. The Nodah B’yehuda4 is clear in his opposition to the practice of teshuvat hamishkal:

הנה הקשה לשאול ממני דבר קשה שאיני רגיל להשיב לשואל ממני שאלה בדבר שלא אוכל למצוא שורש בדברי הגמ' והפוסקים כי לא מצינו בכל התלמוד מספר התעניות ימים חרוצים

וקצובים לכל חטא ואשמה כפי חומר העון.

Here, [the one who wrote me this question] has asked a difficult question of me [regarding a] topic that I do not regularly respond to, a question about something about which I cannot find any source in the words of the Gemara or the halachic authorities, because we do not find in all the Talmud [reference to] a [prescribed] number of fast days compiled for every transgression and sin, according to the severity of the sin.

Here he explains his discomfort with the practice because it lacks precedent and a valid source. Later in the responsum, however, he also explains his opposition to the practice on more fundamental grounds:

שו"ת נודע ביהודה מהדורא קמא - אורח חיים סימן לה 4

50


ה אם היה התענית דבר המעכב בתשובה אלא שאומר אני כל זאבל באמת אין התענית רק דבר טפל לתשובה, ועיקר התשובה הוא עזיבת חטא וידוי דברים בלב נשבר חרטה בלב שלם התקרבות והתלהבות לאהוב את הבורא והיינו תשובה שישוב אל ה' וירחמהו, וישוב אל ה' היינו שידבק בו אבל שאר דברים תענית

ינם עיקרים. וסיגופים א

Rather, I say that all of this is [only important] if fasting was necessary for [the achievement of] teshuva, but in truth, fasting is nothing but an adjunct to teshuva, and the main [part of] teshuva is desisting from transgression, confessing in words from a broken heart, remorse with a full heart, coming closer to [God], and being enthusiastic about love of the Creator, and this is [the meaning of] teshuva, that [one should] return to God and [God will] have mercy on him, and to return to God means that he should stick to Him. But all other things, [including] fasting, and [practices of] ascetism, are not central [to teshuva].

The Nodah B’yehuda expresses an understanding of teshuva that rings similar to Rav Soloveitchik’s interpretation of the Rambam. All of these tangible acts of “teshuva” miss the point that the essence of teshuva is an internal process of self-transformation.5

For the most part, teshuvat hamishkal, at least in its original form, has fallen by the wayside. Today, most view teshuva as a process of inner transformation. But as we have seen, that teshuva occurs within and does not necessarily come with a definable or verifiable moment of completion does not need to take away from its stature as a mitzvah and a key theme of our experience of the days of judgement and awe. May we all merit atonement for our sins through the achievement of true teshuva.

5 He bolsters this opinion with another compelling argument. If it were truly possible to determine that a person has “done” teshuva by performing certain actions, this would mean the end of the entire Jewish legal system, because any transgressor could simply state they have “done” teshuva and their sin is atoned for, and the court would be unable to punish them. To the Nodah B’yehuda, the existence of the court system implies that teshuva cannot be so tangible.

51


Kiddush Levanah: Lessons from the Moon Moshe Y. Prero1

Kiddush Levanah, a blessing recited upon observing the new moon (i.e. the moon in the waxing phase), appears at first glance to be a strange religious observance. Imagine the thoughts of an outside observer who sees a group of Jews glancing at the moon while chanting from their prayer books. If this observer stays long enough, they will see that at the end of the prayers, the group will join together in a joyous dance.

In order to gain an understanding of this observance, we must ask the following questions: What is the observance of Kiddush Levanah all about? What is its source in the traditional texts, and what is the deeper meaning of this observance?

The Role of the Moon in the Jewish Calendar

The mitzvah of declaring a new month is derived from the following pasuk.

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you. (Exodus 12:1-2)

The word “zeh,” “this,” in the Torah often connotes something that one can point to with their finger.2 With this concept in mind, Rashi (Exodus 12:2) explains that Moshe Rabbeinu had difficulty understanding exactly what was considered to be a new moon for the purpose of declaring a new month. HaShem pointed to the moon, as one would point to something with their finger, in order to show Moshe exactly how the moon should look in order to declare the new month.

Rashi also offers another explanation, in line with the simple reading of the verse. The phrase “hachodesh hazeh” means “this month,” referring

1 Moshe Prero grew up in Chicago. He studied at Yeshivat Sha'alvim and Ner Israel Rabbinical College and received rabbinical ordination from Rabbi Gedaliah Dov Schwartz. Moshe, his wife Rachel, and their two children have been travelling the world as part of Moshe's medical training. He received his MD from Ben Gurion University in Beer Sheva, completed pediatric residency in Kansas City, and is finishing up fellowships in Pediatric Pulmonology and Sleep Medicine at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital. 2 See Rashi to Exodus 15:2 s.v. זה א-לי. We will return to this pasuk later.

52


to the month of Nissan. The meaning of the verse according this explanation is that the months of Jewish calendar will have a new way of being counted. Previously, months were counted from the new year, with Tishrei considered to be the first month, but from this point in history forward (from the time of the exodus from Egypt), the month of Nissan will be considered the first month in the calendar year.

According to Rashi’s second explanation, what is the significance of starting the Jewish calendar year with the month of Nissan?

Months Commemorate Redemption

Ramban (Exodus 12:1) explains that the months of the Jewish calendar commemorate the redemption of the Jewish people. Nissan is the 1st month because it is the month in which the redemption occurred and therefore serves as the reference point for the rest of the months. Nissan represents the exodus, the redemption from the bondage of Egypt. Every subsequent month should be viewed in the context of its temporal relation to the month in which we were redeemed from Egypt.

Interestingly, Ramban goes on to explain that the names of the months also commemorate redemption from an exile. The “Hebrew” names are actually Babylonian in origin, and were named such to commemorate our redemption from the Babylonian exile.

The source for Kiddush Levanah:

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Brachos) states, “ בחידושה הלבנה את הרואה One who see the moon in its renewal makes a – אומר ברוך מחדש חדשיםblessing...” Maimonides (Hilchos Brachos, Chapter 10, Halacha 16-17) mentions this blessing in the context of other blessings recited in response to seeing an exceptional visual experience, such as seeing a rainbow. The Shulchan Aruch (Siman 426) states that one should make the blessing on the moon when it is in its waxing phase, and the Rama qualifies this by stating that the blessing should be said at nighttime when one benefits from the light of the moon.

These sources indicate that the blessing on the moon, or what we refer to as “Kiddush Levanah,” is very similar to other blessings we make when we observe any exceptional visual phenomenon. There is, however, an aspect of Kiddush Levanah that is quite distinct from other

53


blessings in this category. In order to perform the mitzvah in the optimal fashion, one should not recite it when he is not in a happy mood.

Consequently, there are halachic ramifications regarding when one should or should not recite the blessing. For example, some are of the opinion that it should not be recited before Yom Kippur, due to the awe of Heavenly judgement permeating that period of time, or on Motzei Tisha b'Av or during aveilus (mourning), because those are times when one is not enveloped in happiness. One is required to be in a joyous mindset when saying the blessing over the renewed moon. Why is Kiddush Levanah a joyous occasion?

Experiencing G-D Through Nature:

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 42a) relates the following:

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: “This is my G-d and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The term “this” is employed in both verses.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing.

The Beur Halacha,3 citing the Pri Megadim, explains the statement of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: By paying attention to the moon and the other celestial bodies (planets, stars etc.) and noticing that they constantly carry out the natural task that they were given by their Creator, one perceives the greatness of The Almighty. When one observes the moon, one senses G-d’s might in such an intimate fashion

3 Orach Chaim 426:2 s.v. umevareich meuamad.

54


that it is as if he is greeting the Shechina (the Divine Presence). Naturally, it follows that out of reverence for the Divine Presence, we must stand while reciting this blessing.

Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik explains that Avraham Avinu brought nomads traveling through the desert closer to the understanding of G-d. Avraham would have them wash their feet “and sit under the tree” (Genesis 18:4). He would encourage them to wash off the dust of idol worship and cultivate their appreciation of the organic process of a tree, and what lies beyond the tree. Rabbi Soloveitchik states, “Man’s purpose in general and the Jew’s purpose in particular is to see the G-d of the universe through the leaves of the eshel (tree).” 4

This may be why Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina compared “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2) to “This is my G-d and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). “This is my G-d and I will glorify Him” is part of the song the Jewish people sang after crossing the sea and solidifying their freedom from the bondage of Egypt. Rashi there comments that “G-d revealed Himself to them and they pointed to Him — as it were — with their finger, exclaiming “This is my G-d5!” A maidservant beheld at the Red Sea what even the prophets never saw (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 15:2:2).

The mitzvah of Kiddush Levanah teaches us a profound lesson regarding how to approach the world and the natural sciences. As Jews, we realize the awesomeness, beauty, and G-dliness inherent in nature. When we perceive nature through the prism of Torah, we experience the Divine Presence in close proximity. Therefore, Abaye says we must stand while reciting this beracha – because through the experience of observing the renewal of the moon, we become acutely aware that we are in the presence of the Shechina.

Renewal of the Moon Reminds Us of Our Coming Final Redemption

The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 25a) relates a story that once Rebbi told Rabbi Chiyah to go to a certain place called Ain Tob to sanctify the new moon. Rebbi gave instructions that once this task had been accomplished, Rabbi Chiyah was to send back a code phrase confirming

4 Derashot HaRav pp 111-114, also cited in the Mesores HaRav Rosh Hashana Machzor pp416-417. 5 Based on Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:15.

55


that the task was complete. That code phrase was “David melech Yisrael chai v’kayam” (David, king of Israel, lives and endures). What does King David have to do with the new moon? Rashi there6 explains the connection by citing Psalms 89:37-38, where the lineage of King David is compared to the moon: “His offspring will be forever…like the moon, established forever...” Just as the moon remains in the sky, so too will the lineage of David continue.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his commentary to Psalms, explains the comparison further: The mission of humanity in general, and of the Jewish people in particular, is to accept G-d’s will and sovereignty. G-d chose King David and his descendants to be His co-workers in bringing about redemption. Even though we may falter at times, and temporarily stray from our path, the descendants of King David, and the Jewish people, do not forfeit their mission. Even if, like the moon, Israel’s fate seems to fluctuate, and it seems at times close to vanishing, nevertheless, like the moon, Israel will survive for all time.

Perhaps we may suggest that is the reason the blessing recited upon seeing the renewal of the moon is a happy experience, a blessing that optimally must be recited in a setting of joyful ambience. Every month, when we see the renewed moon, we say a blessing reaffirming that, despite our past failings, we remain steadfast in our commitment to our communal mission of accepting and proclaiming G-d’s sovereignty. We are also deeply comforted, as we stand close to the Divine Presence, that despite our past hardships, G-d remains true to His promise that He will bring the final redemption. May it come speedily in our days.

6 S.v. David melech Yisrael.

56


We are His, and He is Ours Sarah Rudolph1

One of the most beautiful parts of Yom Kippur davening is the rousing poem that precedes each communal Viduy (confession prayer) and lists a variety of terms to describe the relationship between God and the Jewish people: “We are Your X, and You are our Y.”

The poem is based, at least in part, on a passage in the Midrash Rabbah that elaborates on the words “my beloved is to me and I am to him” (Song of Songs 2:16). Traditional interpretations generally understand the love story in Song of Songs as symbolizing the relationship between God and the Jewish people; the speaker (“I”) in this verse represents the nation and the “beloved” alludes to God, and the implication is that the relationship moves in two directions, with each party being “to” or “for” the other in some way.

In what way is God “to me” and in what way am I “to Him”?

The midrash offers a number of answers, all based on verses and each casting the relationship in a slightly different light. “He is a God to me, and I am a nation to Him”; at the same time, “He is a Father to me, and I am a son to him.” “He is a shepherd to me… and I am sheep to Him.” And so on.

Each of these relationships deserves its own analysis, but the overall sense of the midrash is paradoxically two-fold: The primary verse at its root seems to represent a balanced relationship of equals – two individuals who love each other and are “to/for” each other – yet many, if not all, of the analogous relationships in the midrash (as well as in the Yom Kippur poem, which adds to the midrashic list) represent an

1 Sarah Rudolph is a Jewish educator and freelance writer and editor. Sarah's essays have been published in a variety of internet and print media, including Times of Israel, Kveller, Jewish Action, OU Life, Lehrhaus, TorahMusings, and more, and she serves as Editor-At-Large, Deracheha: womenandmitzvot.org. Sarah lives in University Heights with her husband, Yosef, and four children (one of whom is published in this very volume) but learns with students all over the world through TorahTutors.org (where she serves as Director) and WebYeshiva.org. Sarah is also founding Editor of Clilei Torah of Cleveland. This essay was also published at https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-nation-of-treasure/, with slight alterations.

57


imbalance. A father is not equal to his child; a shepherd is not equal to his sheep.

This imbalance is understandable, as clearly God and His people are not equals – which only serves to highlight the oddity of one line in the Yom Kippur poem that does seem to place the two parties on completely equal footing: “Anu ma’amirecha (מאמירך), v’Atah ma’amirenu ”.(מאמירנו)

“We are Your ma’amir, and You are our ma’amir.”

Notice how I avoided translating the key word.

What is a ma’amir, and how can it be that we and God are described with the exact same term in relation to each other?

As this line of the poem appears to be rooted in a pasuk in Devarim, we will turn there to explore its meaning.

At the end of Deuteronomy chapter 26, Moshe proclaims “This day, Hashem your God commands you to do these statutes and the laws… You he’emarta (האמרת) Hashem today to be a God to you and to follow in His ways and to observe His commandments… And Hashem he’emir ,you today, to be a nation of treasure to Him, as He said to you (האמיר)and to observe all His commandments…”

Many questions can and should be asked about this passage (including the foundational question of what it means to be God’s “nation of treasure”), but we will focus on the following:

1. What does the root .א.מ.ר mean in these verses? 2. What does the full verb construct he’emir (parallel in form to

the word ma’amir in the Yom Kippur poem) mean? 3. What is it that the nation did towards God and God did to the

nation, and how does this shed light on the multi-faceted relationship between us?

Any novice student of Hebrew would likely answer the first question with the word “say”; however, the root does not appear anywhere else in the Bible in this form, leading many commentators to other approaches.

Rashi, for instance, notes that there is no clear precedent in the Torah for he’emarta/he’emir, but suggests it might mean “separation,” with a

58


possible connection in Psalms 94:4, “yit’amru all evildoers.” His comment on the verse in Psalms sheds further light, defining yit’amru as yishtabchu – from a root meaning “praise.” It is not, therefore, simply difference but positive distinctiveness that is implied: In Psalms, the meaning would be a rhetorical “Shall all evildoers praise themselves?”; we might then read our text as saying “You’ve distinguished Hashem [from other gods] as your God… and Hashem has distinguished you [from other nations] as His people.”

In this aspect of the relationship between God and His people, each praises the other as being different, and commits to an exclusive relationship.

Others offer a different precedent that also implies praise or greatness, from the word amir (אמיר) as found in Isaiah 17:6. There, a future time of calamity is compared to a tree with just a few inferior fruits remaining at the top of the “amir” – the uppermost branches.

Commentaries who take this approach offer more insight (at least by implication) into the particular form he’emarta/he’emir as being the hifil, or causative, verb construction. For instance, Abarbanel explains, “You have elevated and exalted God in that you accepted Him as God… if you elevated and exalted Him, He too elevates and exalts you… in that He took you from among the nations as a nation of treasure.”

Other than the prooftexts (Psalms vs. Isaiah), is this second interpretation substantively different from Rashi’s? Both describe a relationship based on mutual designation of the other as unique and separate from anyone else; God is our one and only, and we are, in some sense, His. However, there does seem to be a deeper difference between the two interpretations: in the first, each party in the relationship declares the other to be unique; in the second, the declaration and commitment of each party makes the other party not just unique but greater than before. Each causes the other to become the amir, the highest of branches.

We might not be surprised that God could elevate a people, but the balanced nature of these words – he’emarta and he’emir, so that each becomes the ma’amir of the other – might give us pause as we consider what it means for a people to have such power to actively elevate God Himself.

59


Interestingly (as it brings us back around to .א.מ.ר as speech) and even more powerfully, Abarbanel also offers another approach, in which the same translation of amir as the highest branch implies speech: “The delicate, uppermost branch at the top of the tree is called “amir” because the branches have a voice and sound in their constant movements… Also, every tree is called “si’ach” for this reason, because it sach (converses) and speaks constantly.” Here, Abarbanel uses the precedent of amir in Isaiah 17:6 as a basis for interpreting the unusual form he’emarta/he’emir as indeed related to the familiar word .א.מ.ר, in a causative sense. He continues:

Behold, at Sinai, God did a wondrous kindness for Israel; namely, to speak with them from Heaven…. And Israel did for Him an extremely pleasing service, when they said there “we will do and we will listen.” Therefore, Moshe said here, “If Hashem said His utterances to you… it was caused by you, Israel, because you accepted Him as God and you said [you would] follow in His ways… You brought about, by what you said before Him, that He would cause you to hear His voice and His commandments, for because you said ‘everything Hashem says, we will do’ – He had to speak with you with His voice.” And that is [his meaning when] he said, “You he’emarta Hashem today” – meaning, you brought about the amirah…

By accepting God and His laws, Abarbanel says, the nation forced God to bestow upon them the tremendous privilege of hearing those laws directly from Him.

Abarbanel goes on to explain how Hashem he’emir His people:

And [while] you said an utterance so honorable and precious as “we will do and we will listen” – Hashem he’emircha; meaning, He did [something] for you so that you would say it. And this was in His message to you at the beginning, to say to you before [Sinai], “and you will be a treasure to Me” – and that He would give you a reason to observe His commandments…”

60


We take our free will very seriously; how are we to understand that God “caused you to say,” to declare a commitment to Him?2 For Abarbanel, it was by giving the people a reason, namely, explaining the results of such commitment; as the next verse elaborates (26:19), the incentive lay in the holiness and potential inherent in mitzvah observance. (“And to set you above all the nations… and that you will be a nation holy to Hashem…”) Mutual promises, then, almost force one another’s hand in a chicken-and-egg sort of interplay: God’s promises of the results of mitzvah observance brought the people to declare their loyalty to Him and His mitzvos; at the same time, their declaration led to His promises.

In this portrayal, therefore, the relationship between God and Israel is even more than balanced; it is symbiotic, each responding to the other in a cycle of deepening commitment. It no longer matters who declared first, as long as both sides keep declaring.

As Abarbanel and others also note, this passage in Deuteronomy 26 is one of those surprising contexts in which Moshe stresses the word “today” even though he seems to be relating a story that happened long ago. But of course, Rashi already, here and elsewhere, cites a midrashic explanation of that emphasis: Each day, including today, should be like that day; we strive to recommit, today and all days, with the same zeal that characterized that first declaration, “we will do and we will listen.”

Today and all days – including on The day, when we stand before God on Yom Kippur – we reiterate our commitment to observe His mitzvos, and call upon Him to likewise recommit to us.

We have the power to make ourselves His ma’amir, today and all days, and thereby to make Him ours.

2 The notion of forcing Israel to accept God and His commandments calls to mind the midrash in Shabbat 88a which describes God holding Mount Sinai over the people’s heads to compel them to accept the Torah. Abarbanel’s explanation of he’emir/he’emarta offers one possible explanation for the compulsion symbolized by the overturned mountain: the pros and cons associated with the choice to accept or reject the Torah were stacked so clearly in favor of acceptance that it was no real choice at all. Other commentaries on our passage suggest a different source of “compulsion”: the miracles witnessed by the Jewish people at that time, which made allegiance to the Almighty the compelling choice.

61


What in the World was Zimri Thinking? Shmuel Stern1

“We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions.”2 Nowhere is this thought more apparent than in the story of Pinchas and Zimri at the end of Parshas Balak. For Pinchas, commentators present a variety of halachic analyses to explain how he arrived at the decision to kill Zimri and Cozbi. For Zimri, however, it’s all about his brazen sin.

We know that Pinchas’ action in killing Zimri and Cozbi earned him approbation. Clearly, Zimri’s actions were wrong. What I want to focus on here is Zimri’s intent. Zimri - son of Salu, chieftain of a Simeonite ancestral house (Num 25:14). Zimri, who is said to be one and the same as the Nasi Shelumiel ben Zurishaddai (Num 1:6), literally “Peace/Perfection of Hashem.” What in the world was he thinking? Surely someone of Zimri’s stature must have had greater motivation than fulfilling his base desires, right?

A study of our classic sources offers some understanding of Zimri’s rationalization of his own behavior and what we can learn from that. Perhaps by looking into these sources, we may also better understand Pinchas and the meaning of his reward.

(A) The Text

We will begin with the narrative, to which I have added headings for later reference.

(i) The Sin (Num 25:1-3)

Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of the Moabites. They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and prostrated themselves to their gods. Israel became attached to Baal Peor, and the anger of the Lord flared against Israel.

1 Shmuel moved to Cleveland from Toronto, Ontario (Canada) last year with his wife, Shirah, and their four children. He recently completed his LLM in Family Law at Cleveland Marshall College of Law and intends to continue his 18-year family law practice here after taking the Ohio Bar Exam. The Sterns are thrilled to have joined the Cleveland Jewish community and the YIGC family in particular. 2 Covey, Stephen M.R., Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything (2006)

62


(ii) Hashem’s Command and Moshe’s Directive (25:4-5) The Lord said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and hang them before the Lord, facing the sun, and then the flaring anger of the Lord will be removed from Israel. Moses said to the judges of Israel, "Each of you shall kill the men who became attached to Baal Peor.”

(iii) Enter Zimri (25:6) Then an Israelite man came and brought the Midianite woman to his brethren, before the eyes of Moses and before the eyes of the entire congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

(iv) Enter Pinchas (25:7-9) Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen saw this, arose from the congregation, and took a spear in his hand. He went after the Israelite man into the chamber and drove [it through] both of them; the Israelite man, and the woman through her stomach, and the plague ceased from the children of Israel. Those that died in the plague numbered twenty-four thousand.

(v) Pinchas’ Reward (25:10-13) The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the kohen has turned My anger away from the children of Israel by his zealously avenging Me among them, so that I did not destroy the children of Israel because of My zeal. Therefore, say, "I hereby give him My covenant of peace. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him [as] an eternal covenant of kehunah, because he was zealous for his God and atoned for the children of Israel."

(vi) The Sinners Revealed (25:14-15) The name of the Israelite man who was killed, who was slain with the Midianite woman, was Zimri the son of Salu, the chieftain of the Simeonite paternal house. And the name of the Midianite woman who was slain was Cozbi the daughter of Zur, a national leader of a paternal house in Midian.

(translation from Chabad.org)

63


(B) What was Zimri thinking?

A reading based on the p’shat would lead us to conclude that Zimri’s public actions were based on uncontrolled desire. However, most commentaries do not describe Zimri’s motivation as lustful at all. If Zimri had been simply caught up in the moment, his narrative would have been part of “The Sin,” before “Hashem’s Command and Moshe’s Directive.” This point is highlighted by the Gemara (Sanhedrin 82b), which fills in some missing details: After Moshe’s directive, the tribe of Shimon went to Zimri, their leader, and said to him: “They are judging cases of capital law and [will ultimately be] executing us, and you are sitting and silent?” As a result, “What did Zimri do? He arose and gathered twenty-four thousand people from the children of Israel, and went to Cozbi, daughter of Zur, princess of Midian…”

Zimri did not lose himself in licentiousness. He was a leader, reacting to his constituency. The question of “What was he thinking?” is more properly framed as “How did Zimri think his behavior would help his constituency?”

The following list provides possible motivations, grouped under three headings:

(1) He was attacking the messenger

The Gemara (ibid.) also records a dialogue between Zimri and Cozbi: In reaction to Zimri’s proposition to her, Cozbi says that, as the daughter of a king, she was commanded to submit only to the leader of Bnei Yisrael, Moshe. Zimri counters that not only is he the head of a tribe, but that he is greater than Moshe: Moshe is from Shevet Levi, Yaakov’s third child, while Zimri is a descendant of Shimon, “the second of the womb.” His argument apparently failed to impress, since, according to the midrashic narrative, Zimri had to resort to “pulling her by her hair” to bring her before Moshe.

That dialogue offers some perspective on the infamous rhetorical question Zimri then posed to Moshe. The Gemara continues that Zimri approached Moshe - Cozbi in tow - and asked, “Is this woman forbidden or permitted? And if you say that she is forbidden, as for the daughter of Yitro [also a Midianite] to whom you are married, who permitted her to you?”

64


The implication of this question is that should Moshe respond “permitted,” he is nogea b’davar (meaning he has a personal conflict of interest such that he can’t rule on the matter). If he responds “forbidden,” he is a hypocrite: do as I say, not as I do.

Now consider Zimri’s comments to Cozbi, vying to promote his leadership at Moshe’s expense, together with his question to Moshe, which sought to denigrate Moshe. Realize what is really going on: Zimri was advancing an argument that was the logical inverse of one raised not long before, by another agitator – Korach.

● Korach: “You take too much upon yourselves, for the entire congregation are all holy, and Hashem is in their midst. So why do you raise yourselves above the Lord's assembly?" (Num 16:3)

● Zimri: How can you raise yourself to judge everyone else, when you are as sinful as everyone else?3

Recall that Korach brought an assembly with him when confronting Moshe’s leadership. The Gemara states that Zimri also brought an assembly, “at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”. Like Korach, Zimri was making a very public statement.

This inverse parallel between Korach and Zimri takes on additional significance in light of the fact that Zimri was from Shevet Shimon and Korach from Shevet Levi. Before his death, Yaakov warned “Simeon and Levi are brethren; weapons of violence their kinship” (Gen 49:5). Rashi, quoting Midrash Tanchuma, tells us the word “violence” (chamas) can be translated as “usurping what is not theirs”; in the case of Shimon and Levi, they usurped Yitzchak’s bracha to Eisav that he shall “live by the sword” (Gen 27:40). Yaakov’s warning continues in the following pasuk (Gen 49:6): “Let my soul not enter their counsel; my honor, you shall not join their assembly,” which Rashi explicitly links to Zimri and Korach, respectively. Possibly, this idea of “usurping what is not theirs” can implicate Shimon and Levi’s descendants too, trying to usurp leadership from Moshe.

3 As related in the Gemara, Pinchas co-opted Zimri’s argument to Moshe. When Pinchas sought entry into Zimri’s tent, he said to the guards: “Where did we find that the tribe of Levi is greater than that of Shimon? If all the members of your tribe submit to the temptation of the women of Moab, I may do so as well.”

65


What then was Zimri’s goal? The sinners of Zimri’s tribe were in danger; he attempted to protect them by undermining Moshe’s authority to act on Hashem’s command to direct judgment on the sinners.

(2) He was changing the rules, by unilaterally paskening a kula

Based on the words “brought… to his brethren,” the Chasam Sofer4 postulates that Zimri rationalized that he could make a kula (leniency) by permitting the illicit conduct within controlled boundaries. By doing so, he would filter out the idolatry of Baal Peor. In this interpretation, he would have relied on Moshe’s own directive, “Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor,” as there is no mention of the other part of the sin.5 Further, when Hashem refers to Pinchas as “the son of Aaron the kohen” (see Pinchas’ Reward), the Gemara says the tribes had tried to challenge Pinchas’ motives, demeaning his idolatrous background as the “son of Puti.” The Chasam Sofer explains the Gemara by saying they claimed that Pinchas, who came from an idolatrous background on his mother’s side, couldn’t understand the possibility of attaching oneself to a non-Jewish woman without becoming attached to idolatry. This, then, was Zimri’s very argument: that it was indeed possible to have the relationship without the worship.

Note how Zimri brought Cozbi into the camp: “One of the Israelites” (ish Yisrael). In sight of Moshe. “At the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” implying that Zimri was publicly declaring his pure intent to all, including Hashem!

The Gemara in Sotah 22b records Yannai’s advice to his wife to “only fear those false people who do the deeds of Zimri and ask to be rewarded like Pinchas.” The Lubavitcher Rebbe notes that Zimri was a hypocrite: he cloaked himself in the role of a bold leader, but rather than being a leader taking a stand against his own tribe’s wrong actions, he avoided his duty by simply seeking to undermine Moshe through unilaterally permitting the impermissible.

4 See Y. Nachshoni, Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Bamidbar. 5 Even more technically, on a strict reading of the text, he was bringing in a Midianite, rather than the problematic Moabites.

66


(3) He justified illicit deeds on account of loftier goals

I can only relate, but not truly explain, the following Kabbalistic teaching: The Arizal sees the entire episode of Zimri and Pinchas as a replay of the episode of Shechem and Dina, to provide the possibility of tikkun - to repair the violation of Dinah, the death of the townspeople in Shechem, and Shechem’s own death.6 After the episode with Shechem, Dinah married Shimon (see Rashi Gen 46:10) and Zimri was not only their child but was a reincarnation of Shechem. Cozbi was a reincarnation of Dinah. As with Shechem, Zimri felt pulled toward Cozbi, and the tikkun would have been, this time, to channel the desire for the impermissible through marrying her after a proper conversion. However, Zimri failed this mission because he pursued Cozbi without a proper conversion.7

For our purposes, this teaching demonstrates that Zimri might have justified his (and his tribe’s) illicit behavior as being directed towards a loftier goal, an end that justifies the means. The Gemara in Nazir 23b refers to this type of action as an “aveira l’shma,” a sinful act done for a positive purpose. But there the Gemara contrasts Tamar’s “znut” with Zimri’s “znut”: the former led to King David, the latter to death. Whatever his outward justifications, Zimri did not actually act for the sake of heaven.

(C) Pinchas and His Reward

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 82a) relates that Moshe was silent after Zimri confronted him, as the halacha for Zimri’s conduct “eluded him.” One can imagine that Zimri felt rather emboldened at that moment. His plan had worked, preventing Moshe from carrying out Hashem’s command. Perhaps it was at this very moment that “the plague” (Num 25:9) began. That is, Hashem reclaimed the role of executing judgment, previously

6 The connection is in part based on connecting the number of people killed in the plague (24,000) with another Kabbalistic source of the number killed in the episode of Shechem, and the fact that Shechem and Zimri were each killed by a sword/spear. 7 Rav Chaim Vital continues with this theme, concluding that the tikkun was ultimately accomplished with the marriage of Rabbi Akiva (a reincarnation of Shechem/Zimri) and the wife of Turnus-Rufus (a reincarnation of Dinah/Cozbi), who eventually converted, as related in Nedarim 50b.

67


delegated to Moshe. It also provides another explanation for why the people were crying before the Tent of Assembly (i.e. Hashem).8

This may also provide insight into Pinchas’ reward. While outwardly Zimri made himself appear to act selflessly on behalf of his tribe, in reality he caused much direct harm to them, as the tribe of Shimon bore the brunt of the plague.9 In contrast, Pinchas outwardly acted with violence, but he was inwardly selfless – putting his own life at risk for Hashem10 – and stopped death. We can now understand why Pinchas received the ironically-named “covenant of peace,” and why the Torah refers to Pinchas’ lineage back to Aaron (peace) and Zimri’s to Shimon (violence).

Finally, perhaps the lesson from Zimri’s motive and Pinchas’ reward is to understand the effect of rationalizing our own negative behavior, whether – like Zimri – it be by attacking the messenger, qualifying, or arguing that the ends justify the means. Peace is not gained by avoiding responsibility, but rather by embracing it.

8 Today, we too can relate to davening by a tent in the face of a plague. 9 Many commentators (though not all, e.g. Ramban), see Shimon’s diminished numbers in the second census (Num 26:14) and Shimon’s absence from Moshe’s blessing (Deut 33) as proof that the tribe was primarily complicit in the sin of Shittim. 10 Or HaChaim on “among them” (Num 25:11). Also, the Gemara lists six miracles that occurred for Pinchas, one of which is that Zimri didn’t raise his voice to call his guards to defend against Pinchas; without this miracle, Pinchas would have been in grave danger.

68


~~From Our Youth~~

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil Calev Kahn1

When reading Parshat Bereishit and the story about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there are three questions that come up.

Question 1: Why would Hashem put a forbidden tree in the garden in the first place? It seems like Hashem is trying to tempt Adam and Chavah?

Question 2: What’s so tempting about the tree? Doesn’t it seem so easy to avoid it, since the garden was full of similar fruit-bearing trees?

Question 3: What’s the deal with this tree? Why does eating from it cause death? And why doesn’t Hashem want us to know the difference between good and evil?

Let’s start with the first question: Why did Hashem put a forbidden tree in the garden?

Pretend you are a parent and you gave your child a present. You want to see your child enjoy it of course, but more importantly, you want your child to understand that it came from you. Hashem was our parent in the garden, and He gave us the gift of all the trees in the garden. Hashem put His special tree smack dab in the middle of the garden. You can’t miss it. The tree is there so Man will know the gift of all the other trees came from Him.

To answer the second question: The temptation of the tree was the desire to be in control of the garden, rather than a guest in the garden. The temptation was to pretend to be Hashem, the Creator, and not to have to rely on Him.

And the last question; What’s the deal with this tree?

Rabbi Fohrman from alephbeta.org theorizes that breaking Hashem’s commandment by eating from the tree makes you feel like you are equal to Hashem and that you can judge good versus bad. The problem

1 Calev Kahn is a 7th grade student at Beachwood Middle School who enjoys playing with his siblings and his dog.

69


is that, unlike Hashem’s, your moral judgment is distorted by personal desire, so when your judgment and the morally correct judgement conflict, you may give in to your desire which will cause you to sin. The tree is not really the tree of knowledge of good and evil; it is the tree of falsehood and superficial appearances which man is now drawn to. This causes the death of man as he is no longer close to Hashem and is now as distant as all other objects which inevitably must undergo a cycle of decay and degeneration.

70


What is a Name? Avigayil Rudolph1

How do people choose what to name their child? Their baby that they haven’t gotten to know yet? How can they choose a fitting name?

Well, I don’t have a perfect answer, especially never having been a parent and therefore never having named someone, but I do know some different methods of choosing a name. One way to pick a name is to name after somebody inspirational to you. Another way is to choose one that speaks to you. For instance, maybe you like the sound of it, or maybe you like the meaning. Like any Hebrew word, names are built on roots that mean something. For example, Sarah means princess. You might name a baby Sarah because it was your grandmother’s name and she was very inspirational, or you might just like the meaning.

Let’s look at the Torah. (I hope you have one next to you.) Sarah, the wife of Avraham, originally had the name ‘Sarai,’ which means ‘my princess’ (‘my’ meaning Hashem’s), while Sarah means princess overall - that she shall be a princess for everyone (Rashi, Genesis 17:15).

Another example of how names in the Torah are meaningful is when Hashem adds a part of His Name to the name of a tzaddik. Just like the yud in Sarai symbolized her connection to Hashem, Moshe added a yud to Yehoshua’s name, changing it from Hoshea (Numbers 13:16), to add a connection to Hashem. Similarly, Shlomo was named Yedidya (“beloved of Hashem”) because Hashem loved him (II Samuel 12:24-25).

Indeed, names without Hashem’s Name incorporated can still have deep meanings; your name might define who you are, or who you strive to be. Is that relative that you’re named for, but never met, so inspirational that you want to be like them? Or does your name connect to a word that describes an attribute you’d like to claim as your own?

In order to not disappoint your parents, or yourself (the worst person to disappoint), you might want to live up to your name.

Let’s go back to the idea of root words. The Hebrew word for ‘root’ is כ.ל .ה or ,א.מ.ר which is used to mean root words, like ,שורש , but is also

1 Avigayil Rudolph is a freshman at Chaviva High School and loves to read and write. She has a passion for learning, especially about different cultures and their languages. Avigayil also loves kids; sometimes, even her three younger siblings.

71


is the word for tree roots. Tree roots anchor the tree to the ground, and root words anchor the word to its meaning. A root word gives the word a meaning, a purpose of existence.

Even the word Torah itself has a root word, י.ר.ה. (The yud is changed to a vav.) This root means to proclaim or instruct, but it could also mean “throw/cast/shoot.” This meaning is found, for example, in Az Yashir: “the chariots of Pharaoh and his army, God cast (ה ”into the sea (יר(Exodus 15:4).2

Could these two meanings be related? It seems improbable. One means something positive is gained, and the other implies the opposite: throwing away something you don’t want. But maybe they are both forms of guiding. Instructing someone is to guide them along whatever path they wish to take, and to throw or shoot – like shooting an arrow – does the same thing. Maybe this is why Tehillim 127:4 compares children to arrows. When you shoot an arrow, you set it on the path you wish it to take: you take aim and let go. Instructing children means setting them on a path – guiding them in learning about life – and then gradually letting go and letting nature take its course. An arrow might run into obstacles, like a stray branch, a bush, or wind to knock the arrow off course; similarly, obstacles will arise for children to deal with on their own. Hopefully, the instruction you give them at the beginning, like the aim an archer takes, will help them work past those obstacles and stay on a good path.

A name gives a person a root, a starting point, on the path to become who we want to be. The root of a word defines an item or idea, giving it its identity, and so does a name. But a name also offers a goal, a direction from that starting point, by giving a person something to live up to, like the target an archer aims for.

Always try to live up to your name. Hashem added His Name to Sarah’s, Yehoshua’s, and Shlomo’s because of their righteousness and potential. But also, make your name what you want it to be. Your parents can’t get your opinion on what you should be named, for obvious reasons, but you can make the name they gave you powerful. Add your own identity to it, just as Hashem added His to Hoshea and Shlomo.

2 https://jewishlink.news/features/31762-what-is-the-root-of-the-word-torah

72


Clilei Torah · 7 Yamim Noraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 e Avos and Oeroig eath effrey M. lbert 1 he...

Documents

Transcript of Clilei Torah · 7 Yamim Noraim 2020 / 5781 • Volume 6 e Avos and Oeroig eath effrey M. lbert 1 he...