Mar 6, 2015 | Torat Devorah
The Torah portion Ki Tissah deals with, among other things, the episode of the Golden Calf. In this episode, various contradictory viewpoints are expressed regarding what are appropriate characteristics of a leader, and also regarding the thorny question of the connection between a leader and the masses.
We already know from the beginning of the book of Exodus that Moses was not a man of words but rather heavy of mouth and tongue and had clumsy lips , while about Aaron it is said there that he says what there is to say . Because of this, G-d instituted Moses as the leader and Aaron as his spokesperson.. This almost begs the question: Why this complicated solution? After all, it would have been much simpler to make Aaron himself the leader, especially since he was the firstborn and Moses the younger brother.
Many answers have been given to this question. One of the most to-the-point answers is that G-d wished to prevent the possibility that the masses of Israel would view Moses as a god. Therefore G-d purposely chose a leader for whom an imperfection would be obvious at first glance, and about whom it would thus be clear that he could not possibly be a god. For Pharaoh was considered by the Egyptians to be a god, and Moses was going to overpower Pharaoh. What could be more natural than the conclusion that someone who is victor over a person who is considered to be a god, possessor of an boundless empire, is himself a god? Because of this problem, it was appropriate to have an imperfect leader, in order to demonstrate to the Israelites that it was not Moses who was victor over Pharaoh, but rather G-d. Moses himself is only flesh and blood, and, despite all his admirable qualities, only human, and even has a physical imperfection.
However, there is more to Moses being chosen as the leader over Aaron. The deep difference between the two of them is pointedly demonstrated in the episode of the Golden Calf. Here, it is made clear that Aaron, who fulfilled his role as long as he followed Moses’ orders, failed miserably when Moses was absent . The commentators who explain as follows are definitely correct: Aaron had no intention whatsoever toward worship of another god, rather, he wished to make a sort of seat for the true G-d. Further, Aaron did not rush to do even this. To the contrary, he first tried to buy time, hoping that the demanding masses would calm down. He suggested: Remove your wives’, sons’ and daughters’ gold earrings, and bring them to me in the hope that the people would not want to do this, or that it would take a long time and in the meantime Moses would return. But these things did not occur, and Aaron found himself swept along the tide of the events and the people’s demands. Even then he still attempted to find a compromise between the enthusiasm of the masses and what was appropriate. Thus, even after he made the Golden Calf and built an altar before it, he announced: Tomorrow is a holiday dedicated to G-d. He instituted a holiday from his own initiative, however, he thought that by doing so he could direct the people to the proper path. In order to remove all doubt from the masses, he announced that the holiday was for G-d. However, the people acted as they wished. But even when Aaron saw the immoral consequences of his efforts, he was not inspired to stand in the breach and rebuke the people. Perhaps in the depths of his heart he wanted to, but feared the masses, or perhaps he lost his head completely.
Professor Moshe David Her of Hebrew University explains: Moses is the exact opposite of Aaron. He recovers amazingly quickly from his astonishment at the report G-d gives him of the terrible news about the making of the Golden Calf. All of his hard work with the nation had just collapsed and crumbled in one moment, yet he reacts to G-d’s message ,begging G-d to retract this intention. Indeed, his prayers are answered. Upon descending from the mountain, Moses made a decision on his own, without even asking G-d’s permission, and broke the Tablets of the Law, which were of G-d’s making and written by G-d. Similarly, Moses performs his other actions of his own volition (burning and grinding the Calf; punishing the Israelites). Yet at the same time he informs G-d that if G-d does not forgive the sin of the Israelites, Erase me from the Book which You have written . At no point in the episode did Aaron attempt to suggest that he himself would pay most of the price for what occurred. On the contrary, we have seen that he tried with his mumbled excuses to place the blame on the nation. This is a model of a weak leader, who went along with the people from the start, and who was not willing to take responsibility upon himself after the fact. Indeed, Moses is his complete opposite. He is capable of making decisions that are difficult, bold, painful and unpopular not only with the people but perhaps even with G-d. By the same token, he is always willing to take complete responsibility upon himself, not only for what he did, but even for something he did not to and which took place in his absence and without even his knowledge; he is willing to at any time to sacrifice his own life for the people.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Feb 26, 2015 | Torat Devorah
The Torah tells us that the Altar upon which burnt offerings were brought was made of wood that was covered with a thin layer of copper. It is therefore referred to as “the copper Altar” and “the Altar of burnt offerings.” The Midrash states, “Moshe said before G’d, ‘Master of the Universe, You had commanded me to make an Altar from Acacia wood and cover it with copper. You also told me that there will be a continuous fire that burns upon it. Will the fire not melt away the copper and burn the wood that is beneath it?’ G’d responded to Moshe, ‘The fact that fire burns through copper and consumes wood is a phenomenon that exists within the physical realm. However, in the spiritual realm these laws do not apply. Gaze upon the angels. They are composed of a consuming fire. In addition, in the spiritual realm there are great amounts of ice, yet the fire of the angels does not melt it. Fire and ice coexist without interfering with one another.”
Rabbi Yosek Kalatsky comments: The Midrash tells us that at Sinai every Jew stood in a physical state of perfection. Whoever had been previously blind was able to see. If one were crippled, he was able to stand. Those who were deaf were able to hear. This is because the Divine Presence had come upon Sinai. Since G’d is the source of all life and everything that is perfect, anything that is within His proximity is infused with a life force and thus assumes a state of perfection. There is no deficiency within the life force that one receives directly from G’d. Thus, anything that is exposed to His Presence assumes a perfected state. However, after the sin of the Golden Calf the Divine Presence distanced Itself from the Jewish people. Those who had been previously handicapped reverted back to their imperfect state. Moshe had understood that the Mishkan was a semblance of Sinai but was not an exact replication of Sinai. Since the Jewish people themselves were no longer qualified to contain the Divine Presence, directly within their midst, it was only through the medium of the Mishkan that they were able to have a relationship with G’d. Moshe believed that the Mishkan no longer represented the spiritual realm. Thus, it was subject to physical phenomena. Ramban explains that every aspect of the Mishkan reflected and symbolized the setting of Sinai. Thus, the Mishkan was the equivalent of Sinai in accommodating G’d’s Presence. Moshe, therefore needed to be informed that despite the spiritual regression of the Jewish people, as a result of the sin of the Golden Calf, the Mishkan itself was an exact spiritual replication of the Sinai setting.
Chazal tell us that before Adam had sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge all trees were fruit bearing. It was only after the sin that non-fruit bearing trees came into being. After the sin of Adam, the world became tainted and thus G’d distanced Himself to a degree from the physicality of existence. Consequently, some trees no longer bore fruit because they were no longer attached to the source of life. Thus, they existed in a deficient state. At the end of time, when G’d will return and permeate all existence, all trees will once again produce fruit.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Feb 19, 2015 | Torat Devorah
The poles should be in the rings of the Ark. They should not be removed. (Shemot 25:15)
A ring was attached to each corner of the Ark. Poles were passed through these rings. These poles were used to carry the Aron – the Ark. The Torah commands us that the poles must remain in the rings at all times. Even when the Mishcan is erected and the Aron is at rest the poles are to remain attached. The poles were designed for the transport of the Ark. When the Aron was to be moved, the poles were needed. However, when the Ark was at rest, the poles did not have any apparent function. Why should they not be removed at such times?
Gershonides discusses this issue. He explains that the Ark represented the Torah. The Torah is perfect. Therefore, the Ark must always be perfect. With the removal of the poles, the Ark would no longer be complete. An incomplete Aron is unfit to represent the Torah. Gershonides’ explanation seems difficult to understand. In order for an object to be perfect, it must be complete. However, perfection also requires that the object have no extra, or meaningless, components. Imagine the perfect machine. Every part would serve a purpose; no needed component would be absent. No component would lack purpose.
When the Ark was at rest the poles had no purpose. They were extra, or unneeded, components. It seems the Aron would have better represented the perfection of the Torah without this superfluous component! Rabbi Bernie Fox explains: Gershonides is providing us with an important insight into the nature of the Aron. The Ark was constructed in the wilderness and was transported as the nation traveled. Therefore, the Aron was constructed so that it could be carried. However, this design was not merely a practical necessity. The portability of the Ark was essential to its very definition. In other words, the Ark was defined as a “portable” item. The Aron could only be considered perfect when it expressed this definition. Even at rest the Ark was required to conform to this definition. It must remain completely portable. For this reason, the Aron of the permanent Bait HaMikdash remained unchanged in design. The poles were part of the design and could not be removed. Perhaps, this provides a message regarding the perfection of the Torah. This perfection, in part, lies in the portability of Torah. Torah is a way of life that applies to all times and places. Even when Bnai Yisrael are dispersed throughout the world, Torah is still to be the guide.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Feb 10, 2015 | Torat Devorah
Six days shall you accomplish your activities, and on the seventh day you shall desist… and your maidservant’s son and the sojourner may be refreshed.” (23:12)
Possibly one of the least understood areas of Shabbat observance is amira l’akum — hinting to a non-Jew to do something for a Jew that the Jew him or herself cannot do because of Shabbat. The basic premise of this prohibition is to preserve the other-worldly quality of Shabbat, for it would be all too easy to employ a non-Jew to continue one’s weekday activities without contravening a single Torah law. In other words, you could turn Shabbat into Saturday. For example, many people assume that if the circuit breaker trips and the lights go out at the Shabbat night meal one could hint to a non-Jew to turn them on again. This is not true. Except in certain specific cases, a Jew on Shabbat may not receive any direct benefit from the melacha (forbidden Shabbat action) of a non-Jew. There are many people who would never dream of allowing a cheeseburger to cross the portals of their dwelling (let alone the portals of their lips) but would cheerfully hint to the maid to turn the lights on Shabbat Ignoring this prohibition, however, can lead to dire consequences — and not just in the world-to-come.
Rabbi David Ribiat relates the following story: Around the year 1800, there was a large fire in the city of Maerkisch-Friedland. Much of the Jewish quarter was destroyed and many homes had to be rebuilt. Rabbi Akiva Eiger, the rabbi of the city, issued a proclamation advising those rebuilding their homes to stipulate in their contracts with the builders that no work should be done on Shabbat or Yom Tov. The community was united in its observance of Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s degree, with one exception. The president of the community, who was extremely wealthy, wanted his house rebuilt as quickly as possible, and instructed his workers to work non-stop through Shabbat and Yom Tov. The protestations of the community and even the Rabbi himself fell on deaf ears, and the work proceeded unabated. Shocked by this flagrant breach of Halacha, Rabbi Akiva Eiger was heard to say that he did not expect the house to last very long.
Not only was the president’s house the first to be completed; it was undoubtedly the finest of the new homes.
Not long afterwards, and without any previous warning, one of the beams of the president’s mansion suddenly crashed to the ground. A subsequent investigation revealed that the beam was riddled with timber decay. Not only this, but the wooden frame of the mansion was similarly affected and the entire structure had to be demolished. A check was made of all the other re-built buildings, but not one of them showed the slightest inclination to dry rot. The engineers were at a loss to explain why only this particular house, built at the same time and from the same timber supply, was affected. The Jews of Maerkisch-Friedland, however, were in no doubt about the answer to this puzzling enigma.
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Feb 5, 2015 | Torat Devorah
And G-d came down on Mount Sinai… and G-d called to Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up (19:20)
The Midrash Tanchuma relates the following: Once there was a king who decreed: “The people of Rome are forbidden to go down to Syria, and the people of Syria are forbidden to go up to Rome.” Likewise, when G-d created the world, He decreed and said: “The heavens are G-ds, and the earth is given to man” (Psalms 115:16). But when He wished to give the Torah to Israel, He rescinded His original decree, and declared: “The lower realms may ascend to the higher realms, and the higher realms may descend to the lower realms. And I,Myself, will begin” as it is written, “And G-d descended on Mount Sinai,” and then it says, “And to Moses He said: Go up to G-d.”
Our Sages tell us that the Patriarchs studied the Torah and fulfilled its precepts many centuries before the Torah was “officially” given at Sinai. Since no “new information” was revealed on the sixth of Sivan, what is the significance of the “giving of the Torah” on that occasion?
The answer lies in the above-quoted Midrash: at Sinai G-d abolished the decree which had consigned the physical and the spiritual to two separate domains. Thus, at Sinai was introduced a new phenomenon–the cheftza shel kedushah or “holy object.” After Sinai, when physical man takes a physical coin, earned by his physical toil and talents, and gives it to charity; or when he forms a piece of leather to a specified shape and dimensions and binds them to his head and arm as tefillin—the object with which he has performed his “mitzvah” is transformed. A finite, physical thing becomes “holy,” as its very substance and form become the actualization of a divine desire and command.
The Lubavitcher Rebber comments: “The mitzvot could be, and were, performed before the revelation at Sinai, and had the power to achieve great things within the spiritual realm (by elevating the soul of the one who performed them and effecting “unions” (yichudim) and “revelations” (giluyim) in the supernal worlds) and within the physical realm (by refining the object with which it was performed, within the limits of its natural potential). But because the mitzvot had not yet beencommanded by G-d, they lacked the power to bridge the great divide between matter and spirit. Only as a command of G-d, creator and delineator of both the spiritual and the physical, could the mitzvah supersede the natural definitions of these two realms. Only after Sinai could the mitzvah actualize the spiritual and sanctify the material.”
One of the ten commandment we read about is: “Honor your father and your mother” (20:12) And in Leviticus 19:3 it says, “Every man, his mother and father should fear.” What is the significance of the change in order? Talmud, Kiddushin 31a explains: “For it is revealed and known to G-d that a person adores his mother more than his father, and that he fears his father more than his mother. G-d therefore set the honor of one’s father first, and the fear of one’s mother first, to emphasize that one must honor and fear them both equally.”
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
Jan 29, 2015 | Torat Devorah
“G-d did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, because it was near” (13:17)
When G-d took the Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt, He did not take them the quickest and easiest and most direct route from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael: northeast along the coast of the Mediterranean through what is today Gaza. Rather, He took them a long, difficult, and tortuous path across a sea and through a major desert. Why? As the saying goes, easy come, easy go. When the Jewish People left Egypt they had not entirely freed themselves from the clutches of the negative drive, the yetzer hara. If G-d had brought them the easy way, they would have been in danger of being lured back to the constricting but comfortable life of slavery in the fleshpots of Egypt. G-d, as it were, burned their bridges. He made it virtually impossible to return to Egypt. Which was just as well. For, as we see, when the going got tough in the wilderness, the Jewish People were more than willing to return to Egypt. Had that been an easy option, the history of the Jewish people might have been very different.
Rabbi E.E Dessler comments: “Ostensibly, then, when faced with trying to escape the clutches of our negative drive, we must burn our bridges. If we want to separate from bad company, we must be prepared to leave and move to a different neighborhood. If we have a serious weight problem, we must put a lock on the fridge and entrust the key to our spouse (unless hes/shes trying to lose weight as well). However, in Parshat Vaera (8:23), the Torah itself presents a contradiction to this logic. When Moshe tells Pharaoh that the Jewish People are leaving, he talks of “only a three-day journey.” Moshe knew full well that once they were out, they weren’t coming back, so why did he tell Pharaoh it was for only three days? Part of Moshe’s intention was to appease the latent negative drive still lingering in the hearts of the Jewish People. Leaving for three days is a far less daunting prospect than leaving forever. The Jewish People thus felt they had a get-out clause, if they needed it, and were prepared to go along with Moshe. For three days at least. But was this bridge-burning? The Exodus was effected then both though a bribe to the negative drive, the lure of a three-day round-trip ticket on the one hand, and on the other, an iron-fisted scorched earth policy of no return. When we wish to leave our own personal Egypts, our personal prisons that the negative drive constructs for us, which is the correct course to follow? The answer is we need both. For someone who smokes 40 cigarettes a day, the idea of going cold turkey is pretty horrendous. But tell him that if after two weeks and he’s not happy he can go back to smoking like a chimney, you’ll see a different picture. Seduction and bribery are our opening guns against the negative drive. Afterwards we have to follow up by burning our bridges. It was the lure of a round-trip ticket that got the Jewish People as far as the edge of the water, but it was only Nachson ben Amiadav who jumped headlong into the sea and showed that there was no turning back that made the waters divide.”
Prepared by Devorah Abenhaim
