Eikev 5770-2010

"The Great, Mighty and Awesome G-d"

In this week's parasha, parashat Eikev, we learn of G-d's unconditional love for His people. Notwithstanding Israel's grievous sins, G-d's love remains steadfast. The demands that He makes upon the people of Israel are only for their good, and despite their straying, G-d continues to shower His beneficence upon His beloved people, Israel. In one of the most memorable passages of the Torah, Moses asks rhetorically (Deuteronomy 10:12-13), "And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you? Only to fear the L-rd your G-d, to go in His ways, to love Him, and to serve the L-rd your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul; to observe the commandments of the L-rd and His decrees, which I command you today, for your benefit."

Following this powerful pronouncement, Moses describes the greatness of G-d. In Deuteronomy 10:17, Moses says: "Kee Hashem Eh'loh'kay'chem, Hoo Eh'loh'kay ha'Eh'lo'kim, va'Ah'doh'nay ha'Ah'doh'nim, ha'Kayl ha'gah'dohl, ha'gee'bohr, v'ha'no'rah, ah'sher lo yee'sah fah'nim, v'lo yee'kach shoh'chahd," For the L-rd your G-d, He is the G-d of the powers, and the L-rd of L-rds, the great, mighty and awesome G-d, Who does not show favor, and Who does not accept bribes.

Unlike mortal rulers, G-d does not favor the prominent or the rich. Instead, with great compassion, He metes out judgment for the orphan and the widow. In fact, the greater a person's status and potential to do good, the more demanding is G-d of that person.

If parts of the aforementioned biblical citations sound somewhat familiar, it is because this well-known description of G-d constitutes the opening paragraph of the Amidah, the central prayer of Jewish life, that is recited every single day, "Ha'Kayl ha'gah'dohl, ha'gee'bohr, v'ha'no'rah," G-d the great, mighty, and awesome G-d.

In Talmud Yoma 69b, we find the following question:

Why were the "Anshei K'nesset Hagdolah," Men of the Great Assembly called by that grand name? [They answer], because they restored the crown of Divine attributes to its ancient completeness. For Moses had come and said (Deuteronomy 10:17), "G-d, the great, mighty and awesome G-d." Then Jeremiah came and said (Jeremiah 32:17), "Aliens are destroying His temple. Where are, then, His awesome deeds? Hence, he omitted the attribute of "awesome." Daniel came and said (Daniel 9:4): "Aliens are enslaving His sons. Where are His mighty deeds? Hence, he omitted the word, "mighty." But they [the Men of the Great Assembly] came and said, on the contrary, therein lie His mighty deeds, that He suppresses His wrath, that He extends long suffering to the wicked. Therein lie His awesome powers: For, but for the fear of Him, how could one single nation [Israel] persist among the many nations?

But [the Sages ask], how could the early rabbis [Jeremiah and Daniel] abolish something established by Moses? Rabbi Eleazar said: Since they knew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, insists on truth, they would not ascribe false things to Him.

In his brilliant monograph entitled "Prayer," Dr. Eliezer Berkovits (1908-1992, modern Orthodox theologian and educator) explains that there is no room for flattery in prayer. "Anything but strictest honesty of thought and sentiment is inconceivable before G-d... In the eyes of Jewish tradition, the dropping of a phrase of invocation that was used by Moses was an act of impiety toward the Master of all prophets, of which particularly, such outstanding personalities as Jeremiah and Daniel should not be counted. Yet, it was found justified, because one dare not stand before G-d with insincerity in one's heart. One must come to G-d in truth. We must mean what we say. How else can one approach G-d, Who knows the innermost recesses of the human heart?"

According to Professor Berkovits, the Talmudic discussion regarding changing or maintaining the original wording of Moses' description of G-d: "Ha'Kayl ha'gah'dohl, ha'gee'bohr, v'ha'noh'rah," the great, mighty, and awesome G-d, underscores the efficacy of obligatory prayer. It is often assumed that spontaneous prayer, praying out of intense feeling or due to personal crisis, is the most poignant and exalted form of prayer. But one who turns toward G-d only in times of distress is often selfish and lacking sincerity. Where were you when your world was perfect? Did you thank G-d, did you acknowledge G-d, when everyone was healthy and in good spirits?

It was precisely for this reason that the Men of the Great Assembly were given their special honorific title. Certainly these sages appreciated the pain and travail of Jeremiah and Daniel, who felt that they could not bring themselves to say what they considered falsehood when they saw the terrible human suffering and the Temple in ruins before them. Nevertheless, the Men of the Great Assembly said, "No." We realize that G-d's goodness is with us even through the suffering, pain and hurt. To the contrary, they said, so great is the mightiness of G-d, that He controls His anger and is long-suffering even with the wicked. This, in fact, is G-d's awesomeness, for were it not for the fear of G-d, how could a single nation [Israel] survive among all the heathens? Therefore, they restored Moses' original phraseology to the Amidah.

It is, in truth, only when we see the full picture of G-d, that mortals are able to appreciate His greatness. Focusing on individual tragedies makes it impossible to see the overall and overwhelming goodness of the human condition, which is all due to Divine beneficence.

How fortunate are we, O Israel, that we are judged by a great, mighty, and awesome G-d--our Father in heaven!

May you be blessed.

Please note: This year, the joyous festival of Tu B'Av, the fifteenth of Av, is celebrated on Sunday night and Monday, July 25thth and 26th, 2010. Happy Tu B'Av (for more information, please click here)

Devarim 5770-2010

"On That Day the Lord Shall Be One and His Name One" --

The book of Deuteronomy, known in Hebrew as Devarim, opens with the people now standing at the border of Canaan. Having led the people of Israel through the wilderness for 40 years, Moses offers the first of a series of farewell messages. He recounts the many years of wandering, and warns the people against the temptations that await them in Canaan.

In chapter 2 of Deuteronomy, after dwelling on the people's abortive attempt to enter Canaan, Moses recalls the victories that were won in the final years of their wanderings. Noting that rebellion had brought shame and punishment upon the people, Moses underscores that their obedience was crowned by blessing and triumph.

Upon reviewing the travels and the encounters, Moses reiterates G-d's instructions to the people as they approached the borders of the children of Esau who dwell in Seir. Deuteronomy 2:5: "Ahl tit'gah'roo vahm, kee loh eh'tayn lah'chem may'ahr'tsahm, ahd mid'rahch kahf rah'gel, kee y'roo'shah l'Eisav, na'tah'tee eht har Seir," Do not contend with them [the children of Esau] for I will not give you their land, not so much as the sole of the foot to tread on, for I have given Mount Seir to Esau for possession.

Moses notes that even though the Israelites were not permitted to do battle with the children of Esau, they were permitted to purchase bread and water from them. The people, however, moved on in their travels without passing through the land of the children of Esau.

Moses then recalls the people's encounter with the Moabites on the border of Moab, how they crossed through the Brook of Zered, and faced down the Ammonites and the Amorites.

In Deuteronomy 2:19, Moses reminds the people of G-d's warning before their encounter with the Ammonites: "V'kah'rav'tah mool b'nei Ammon, ahl t'tzoo'raym, v'ahl tit'gahr bahm, kee loh eh'tayn may'eretz b'nei Ammon l'chah y'roo'shah, kee liv'nei Lot n'tah'tee'hah ye'roo'shah," And when you come close to the children of Ammon, harass them not, nor contend with them, for I will not give you the land of the children of Ammon for possession because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.

Although Moses' review of what happened to the Jewish people as they approached the land of Canaan seems to be pretty straightforward, this narrative is far more than a simple history lesson.

In Deuteronomy 2:5 and 2:19, we see that the people of Israel are specifically instructed not to touch the people of Edom (Esau) and Ammon, or to possess their lands, for those lands were given as inalienable possessions to their inhabitants. Perhaps the reason for allowing these nations to hold onto their lands was due to the special relationship between the people of Israel and the nations of Edom (the descendants of Esau) and Ammon (the offspring of Lot). Since they are related to the Jewish people, Israel is forbidden to make war with them, or to harass them. Even in later times when David fought against the descendants of Esau and they became subservient (Samuel II 8:14), we see that David did not dispossess them from their land. In fact, they later became independent again (Kings II 8:20).]

The rabbis note an interesting exception with regard to the Moabites. After all, they too were descended from Lot and were related to the people of Israel, yet, Israel was permitted to conquer their land. The commentators ascribe this to the fact that Moab hired Bilaam to curse the Jewish people in an attempt to defeat them. Consequently, there is no prohibition to make war with Moab or to incite them. This explains why a portion of the land of Moab that was previously overrun by Sichon in his battle, was possessed by Israel. However, even the Moabites were rewarded for their part in sparing Abraham's life when Lot did not reveal that Sarah was really Abraham's wife and not his sister (Genesis 12:10-13:1)

The two verses that were previously cited regarding the prohibition of possessing the lands of Edom and Ammon are by no means a simple recounting of history. In fact, they confirm a fundamental principle that many take for granted. The fact that G-d plays an especially Providential role in the history of Israel is confirmed by the story of the Exodus, and by the wanderings in the wilderness. But does G-d also play a key role in the lives of other nations? Clearly, He does. It is the permanent allotment of the lands of Edom and Ammon to their native inhabitants that confirms the concept that G-d holds sway over all the nations, cares for them all and judges them. He is the one single G-d. He is G-d alone, and there is no power besides Him. Other gods are false, and their adoration futile.

The book of Deuteronomy, often regarded as simply a rehash of Jewish history, is in fact a primary source for the concept of a "universal" G-d. It is here that monotheism is proclaimed in its full glory. Two little seemingly "throw-away" verses in Deuteronomy, 2:5 and 2:19, powerfully proclaim a singular all-embracing G-d of the world, Who cares for Israel as well as all the nations of the world.

May you be blessed.

Please remember: Rosh Chodesh, the beginning of new month of Av, began on Sunday night, July 11 and continues through Monday, July 12. It marks the beginning of the "Nine Days," a period of intense mourning leading up to Tisha B'Av. This Shabbat is called "Shabbat Chazzon"--the Sabbath on which we read the prophetic vision of Isaiah (Chapter 1) and its foreboding message of impending destruction.

Va'etchanan 5770-2010

"Moses Blames the People for His Fate" --

As this week's parasha, parashat Va'etchanan, opens, Moses pleads with G-d to allow him to enter the land of Israel. In fact, the word "va'etchanan" literally means, “I [Moses] pleaded” with G-d.

At this point, Moses recalls G-d's rejection, as recorded in Deuteronomy 3:26, saying: “Vah’yit’ah’bayehr Hashem bee l’mah’ahn’chem, v’loh shah’mah ay’lai,” But G-d became angry with me because of you, and He did not listen to me. So angry is G-d with Moses that He insists that Moses stop speaking to Him further about this matter. Instead, G-d instructs Moses to go to the top of the mountain and look with his eyes westward, northward, southward and eastward, because he will not cross the Jordan.

This is not the first time that Moses holds the Jewish people accountable for his fate. In the opening chapter of Deuteronomy, Moses recalls the sin of the scouts, as well as G-d’s decree that none of the men of that generation would enter the land of Canaan. Moses says (Deuteronomy 1:37): “Gahm bee hit’ah’nahf Hashem big’lal’chem lay’mor: Gahm ah’tah loh tah’voh shahm,” G-d became angry with me as well, because of you, saying: You too shall not come there [to the land of Canaan].

The fact that Moses blames Israel for causing him to be ineligible to enter the land of Canaan is rather strange. After all, when G-d told Moses to bring forth water from the rock at May M’reeva, we are told, in Numbers 20:1-13, that G-d punished Moses for hitting the rock rather than speaking to it. In Numbers 20:12, G-d specifically says to Moses and Aaron: “Yah’ahn loh heh’eh’mahn’tehm bee, l’hahk’dee’shay’nee l’ay’nay B’nei Yisrael, lah’chayn, loh tah’vee’ooh eht hah’kah’hal hah’zeh ehl ha’ah’retz ah’sher nah’tah’tee lah’hem,” Because you did not believe Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore, you will not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them. Furthermore, Moses’ inability to enter Canaan because of his sin at May M’reeva is reiterated toward the end of the Torah (Deuteronomy 32:51), immediately prior to Moses’ passing. These references clearly contradict placing the blame for Moses’ fate on the people of Israel.

The Malbim (Rabbi Meir Yehudah Leibish Malbim, 1809-1879, leading Torah scholar in Germany, Romania and Russia) explains that when G-d proclaimed to the generation of the scouts that they could not enter the land of Israel, He decreed at that time that Moses, as well, would not enter the land. Since the people were no longer worthy of having Moses bring them into the land, Moses himself could not enter.

In a fascinating parenthetical note, the Malbim states that had Moses entered the land, he would have immediately built an everlasting Temple, the Canaanite nations would have all surrendered, and the Messianic period would have been ushered in.

All this, of course was dependent upon the behavior of the people of Israel, their loyalty to G-d, and their acting as a kingdom of priests and a holy people. But after they sinned with the scouts, their fate was sealed, and Moses could no longer bring them to the Promised Land. Instead, there would be a period of enslavement and exile, followed by the eventual destruction of the Temple.

That is why Moses says to the people that G-d was angry at him because of them, and could not enter the land. Nevertheless, explains the Malbim, the decree forbidding Moses to enter the land was not irreversible. The punishment could have been rescinded had it not been for Moses’ own sin of hitting the rock. Had Moses sanctified the name of G-d publicly by speaking to the rock, the faith of the people of Israel would have been restored, resulting in Moses being granted permission to bring the people into the land.

My good friend, Hilly Gross, suggests a rather intriguing alternate explanation. He asks, Why is Moses laying such a heavy “guilt trip” on the people of Israel, blaming them for his fate? After all, Moses had never lost an argument with the Al-mighty, and on several previous occasions had successfully persuaded the Al-mighty to forgive the people. Mr. Gross suggests that Moses blamed the people in the hope that they would now pray for him and ask that the decree against Moses be rescinded. After all, the power of public prayer is far greater than individual prayer. If Moses’ personal prayers could not persuade G-d, perhaps the people’s collective prayers could convince Him to annul the decree against Moses, enabling him to enter the land of Israel.

Unfortunately, at this point in his relationship with the people, Moses, the talented leader, Shepherd of Israel, was unable to persuade them to pray for him. Perhaps the people were too caught up with their own concerns to care about Moses. Perhaps, they felt that now that most of the older generation had already perished in the wilderness, Moses had utterly failed them.

Perhaps the real reason why Moses does not enter the land of Israel was because he had lost the people’s support, and could no longer rally them to his side. A new leader was necessary for a new generation of Jews, who would regain the people’s confidence, lead them to the Promised Land and vanquish their enemies.

Moses, the Egyptian prince, whose charisma was always able to win over his followers, and whose powerful personality was able to bring even the mighty Pharaoh to his knees, no longer possessed that special spirit. He was now ready to pass the scepter of leadership on to the next generation, to Joshua.

May you be blessed.

Please note: The observance of the fast of Tisha B’Av, marking the destruction of the Jerusalem Temples, starts on Monday night, July 19th and continues through Tuesday night, July 20th, 2010. Have a meaningful fast.

Pinchas 5770-2010

"The Colorful Biography of Pinchas" --

Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald

At the end of last week's parasha, we learned that a prominent couple performed a lewd act in public in order to directly challenge Moses' authority. Pinchas, the son of Elazar, arose suddenly from among the congregation and, in his zealotry, plunged his spear through the couple, stopping the plague that had struck the people of Israel.

As this week's parasha, parashat Pinchas, opens, G-d praises Pinchas for turning back His wrath from upon the children of Israel by zealously avenging G-d, so that He did not consume the children of Israel in His vengeance.

The parasha now reveals the names of the wanton couple. Zimri, the son of Salu, was a leader of the house of the tribe of Simeon, and the slain Midianite woman was Cozbi, whose father Zur was one of the leaders of Midian. In Numbers 25:12, G-d declares: "La'chayn eh'mor, hin'neh'nee no'tayn lo et b'ree'tee shalom," Therefore, says G-d to Moses, let it be said that I give Pinchas My covenant of peace, and that he and his offspring after him will be part of the eternal covenant of priesthood, because he exacted vengeance for his G-d, and atoned for the children of Israel.

Pinchas, a descendent of one of the most prominent families in Israel, was the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron, the High Priest. His grandmother was one of the daughters of Putiel (Exodus 6:25), a descendent of Jethro who had married into the family of Joseph. Apparently, Pinchas was an only child, and father of a son named Avishua (Chronicles 1, 6:35).

Although, Pinchas is widely known for his zealous action, during his lifetime he amassed an impressive record of achievement. Psalm 136:30, sings the praises of Pinchas for standing up and "praying" to stop the plague that had struck Israel. When Israel was instructed to avenge the Midianites for their treachery (Numbers 31:6), Moses chose Pinchas to head the forces that defeated the Midianites. In Joshua 22, we are told that Pinchas was sent along with 10 tribal leaders to reason with the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Menashe, after these tribes built a large altar for themselves on the east side of the Jordan. Through his diplomatic negotiations with the prodigal tribes, Pinchas elicited an apology from them, acknowledging that they had no intention of offering sacrifices on the illegal altar, but rather hoped that the altar would serve as an affirmation of their commitment to the tribes of Israel and the unity of the nation. The book of Judges (20:28) also records that it was Pinchas who, in his function as priest, consulted with the Urim and Tumim in the treacherous incident of the concubine of Gibeah.

The Midrash and the Talmud tell us that Pinchas was subject to great ridicule throughout much of his life due to his mother's foreign origins. The Talmud, in Sotah 43a, suggests that the reason that Pinchas led the battle against the Midianites was in order to avenge the sale to Egypt of his great-grandfather, Joseph, by the Midianites.

Despite the fact that Pinchas killed the defiant couple without authority, he is nevertheless regarded as a national hero. Jewish tradition considers his act honorable because it stopped the Jewish men from engaging in wholesale lewdness. The Talmud, in Sanhedrin 82a, graphically describes the dramatic confrontation with Moses: Zimri grabbed Cozbi by her hair, stood her in front of Moses and began to scream: "Son of Amram! Is this woman forbidden to me or permitted? If you say she is forbidden, who gave you the permission to marry the daughter of Jethro?"

When Moses did not answer, all the people began to cry. At that moment, Pinchas remembered the law that it is permissible to take the life of someone who performs such a lewd act and acted accordingly.

The Talmud, in Sanhedrin 82b, states that six miracles occurred for Pinchas, enabling him to punish the two sinners. Pinchas then argued with the Al-mighty regarding the justice of punishing so many: "Shall 24,000 [People of Israel] perish because of these [Zimri and Cozbi]?" he cried out. The ministering angels sought to repulse him. G-d, however, insisted that they let him be, referring to Pinchas as "a zealot, a descendant of a zealot, a turner-away of wrath, and the son of a turner-away of wrath." This, apparently, was an illusion to Levi, the first ancestor of his tribe who was zealous for his sister Dina's honor, and to Aaron, Pinchas' grandfather, who turned away G-d's wrath on the occasion of Korach's revolt.

The Talmud, in Sotah 22b, tells us that Pinchas' act eventually became a byword among the people of Israel, especially for the hypocrites who "perform deeds like Zimri, and seek a reward like Pinchas!"

According to Maimonides'(Rambam, the great Jewish philosopher, codifier and physician, 1135-1204) introduction to his Mishnah Torah, it was Pinchas who received the oral tradition from Moses and transmitted it to Eli, the High Priest. The Midrash Rabbah, Numbers 16a, identifies the two spies who were sent to Jericho as Caleb and Pinchas. The fact that Scripture in Joshua 2:4 states, "and she [Rahab] hid him" (singular) was because Pinchas was transformed into an angel who was not seen, and there was no need to hide him.

Furthermore, there are even those who suggest that after his death, Pinchas eventually returned to the world of the living in the form of Elijah the Prophet. Others explain that because Elijah was a disciple of Pinchas in zealotry, he is therefore considered like him.

A further parallel between Pinchas and Elijah is that they both defended G-d's dignity. Pinchas did so when confronting the lewd offenders. Elijah did so when confronting the evil king and queen, Ahab and Jezebel, who forbade the circumcision of Jewish children.

The Midrash Bereishith Rabbah 60:3 states that Pinchas lost his power of prophecy, because he failed to release Jephtah from his vow. Both Jephtah and Pinchas felt that it was beneath their dignity to be the first to approach the other to resolve the issue. As a result of their hubris, an innocent woman [Jephtah's daughter] was to suffer unnecessarily.

The Arizal (Isaac Luria,1534-1572, considered the father of contemporary Kabbalah) taught that Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron who died for bringing an improper fire, had entered the body of Pinchas when he killed Zimri. The parallel being that all three acted without conferring with their elders. However, in contrast to the two sons of Aaron, Pinchas was not punished because he did the correct thing.

Obviously, we see that Pinchas was much more than simply a "zealot." He was a formidable leader of Israel who left a most impressive legacy of service to his people, who continue to benefit from his bold actions to this very day.

May you be blessed.

Please note: The Fast of Shiva Assar b'Tammuz (the 17th of Tammuz) will be observed this year on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, from dawn until nightfall. The fast commemorates the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem, leading to the city's and Temple's ultimate destruction. The fast also marks the beginning of the "Three Weeks" period of mourning, which concludes after the Fast of Tisha B'Av.Have a meaningful fast. Click here for more information.

Balak 5770-2010

"A Nation that Dwells Alone" --

In this week’s parasha, parashat Balak, Balak, the king of Moab, retains the services of the renowned gentile prophet, Bilaam, to curse the Jewish people. Due to G-d’s intervention, Bilaam is unable to curse Israel and, to Balak’s great chagrin, Bilaam instead blesses the Jewish people.

Even in his first prophecy, Bilaam acknowledges that he is powerless to curse Israel, declaring in Numbers 23:8: “Mah eh’kov, loh ka’boh Kayl; ooh’mah ehz’ohm, loh zah’ahm Hashem,” How can I curse, if G-d has not cursed? How can I be angry, if G-d is not angry? Bilaam then discloses that he is helpless against Israel. After all, from their very origins, due to their loyalty to their forebears, the people of Israel are as firmly established as the rocks and the hills. Bilaam then famously exclaims, Numbers 23:9: “Hen ahm l’vah’dahd yish’kohn, ooh’vah’goyim loh yit’chah’shav,” Behold, a nation that dwells alone, and is not reckoned among other nations.

There are those who interpret this verse to mean that the Jewish people are never counted among the traditional number of 70 nations. There are 70 nations and the nation of Israel. According to tradition, while each of the 70 nations has its own angelic guide, the Jewish people are under the exclusive dominion of G-d. Therefore, it is inconceivable that any curse can have impact upon them.

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible) maintains that the phrase, “Israel is not reckoned among the nations,” means that, in the final judgment, Israel will not be annihilated along with the other nations. The Netziv (R' Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, author of Ha’amek Davar, 1817-1893) explains that when the Jewish people do not assimilate with the nations among whom they dwell, they will dwell in peace and with honor. However, if they do mix with the nations, they will lose all respect and dignity.

The prophecy of Bilaam declaring that the Jewish people are a breed apart, has proven to be a very accurate portrayal of the Jewish people throughout its history, for better or for worse. It is as if the world is divided in two factions: the Jewish people and the non-Jewish people. One, a tiny group--the other, the overwhelming numbers of humankind.

Although the Jewish people are overwhelmed quantitatively, they hold their own qualitatively. Certainly, the People of Israel have had much experience in living physically apart, in ghettos, in the Pale of Settlement, excluded from feudal trade unions, and subject to constant anti-Semitism. On the other hand, the Jewish people have also lived spiritually apart, attempting to live as a holy people, offering their submission to G-d and His Torah. Having focused on education, they have successfully taught the world a new social order. They created schools and nurtured students to pursue knowledge as a sacred calling.

Although the doctrine of the chosenness of Israel has come under attack, especially in the last 200-300 years, looking at the agenda of the world, it is hard to argue that the Jewish people are not chosen, for one reason or another, for good or for bad. It seems as if the vast majority of the world’s agenda is focused on Israel. Every day, another crisis seems to arise.

Many Jews feel that the emphasis on Jewish exceptionalism is far too overstated, and wish to assimilate out of its specialness. Even the State of Israel wants to be treated simply as a normal member of the community of nations. But, Bilaam’s doctrine apparently prevails. Israel remains apart from all the countries of the world.

There are those who argue that the concept of a nation that dwells alone is a very dangerous and harmful model. They maintain that it is unwise to inculcate Jewish youth with this paradigm, which implies that Jews are meant always to suffer. On the other hand, the nation that dwells alone is truly special, and that specialness is a great blessing and privilege.

When the nations of the world start judging Israel (the people and the nation), by the standards they expect of all other nations, then we are in trouble. The Jewish people should expect to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. We are a nation apart. We are intended to be different. We must be a more moral nation, more committed to good than any other people. If we lose that special status, we lose the magic of being Jewish.

We dare not allow that to happen.

May you be blessed.

Korach 5770-2010

“And Behold the Staff of Aaron had Blossomed” --

The rebellion of Korach, about which we read in this coming week's parasha, parashat Korach, ends in great tragedy for Korach and his cohorts when the earth swallows them up. The 250 men who improperly offered incense also meet an untimely end when they are consumed by a heavenly fire.

Despite this intimidating display of Divine wrath, the very next day, the Children of Israel complain against Moses and Aaron, saying, Numbers 17:6: "Ah'tem hah'mee'tem et ahm Hashem," You have killed the people of G-d! A plague breaks out, killing 14,700 Israelites before Aaron runs into the midst of the plague with an incense filled fire-pan, forestalling further calamity.

At this point, G-d tells Moses that all tribal princes are to take their staffs, inscribe their names on the staff, inscribe the name of Aaron on the staff of Levi, and place the staffs inside the Tent of Meeting before the holy Ark. G-d tells Moses, Numbers 17:20: "V'hah'yah hah'eesh ah'sher ev'char bo–-mah'tay'hoo yif'rach," And it shall be that the man whom I shall choose, his staff shall blossom. This, says G-d, will stop the complaints of the Children of Israel against you and Aaron.

Moses places the twelve staffs in the Tabernacle. The very next day, when the staffs are removed, they discover that the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had blossomed, sprouting a bud with ripened almonds.

The Torah informs us that the staff of Aaron was returned to the Tabernacle for safekeeping, to serve as a sign to prevent future rebellion.

Yehudah Nachshoni (popular Israeli parasha commentator) in his reflections on the weekly Torah portions, notes that the commentators are troubled by the new sign that G-d employs to prove Aaron's leadership. What is the point of the staff that blossoms? After all, there have already been three very definitive proofs confirming the leadership of Moses and Aaron: 1) Korach and his cohorts were swallowed by the earth, 2) those who brought incense were consumed by a heavenly fire, 3) 14,700 men died in the plague. Who else was there left to convince by the blossoming of the staff? What will this sign prove that the previous signs have not? After all this, how can G-d say, Numbers 17:20: That [with the sign of the staffs] I will cause to subside from upon me the complaints of the children of Israel which they complained against you?

The Ohr HaChaim (commentary on the Pentateuch by the famed Kabbalist and Talmudic scholar R' Chaim Ibn Attar, 1696-1743) suggests that even after the death of Korach, the people doubted Aaron's right to the priesthood. Although the people agreed that Korach deserved to die because he rebelled against Moses, his death did not in any way confirm that Aaron was entitled to be the High Priest.

The Ramban, Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator), maintains that the issue was not the priesthood. In fact, the people had been convinced that Aaron was indeed entitled to be High Priest. They were, however, unconvinced that the Levites should serve as ministers in the Temple in place of the first-born. The blossoming staff of Aaron, representing the tribe of Levi, confirmed, once-and-for-all, that the Levites were to be the ministers, in place of the first-born.

Rabbi Ben-Zion Firer (of Nir Galim, Israel, renowned for his erudite homilies) suggests two lessons that are taught by the blossoming staff. Rabbi Firer maintains that open miracles such as a staff blossoming, in general, do not effectively address an issue such as jealousy. Those who are caught up in jealousy, like Korach and his followers, are so emotionally invested that no miracle and no logic can sway them from their position. The miracle of the staff could, however, address the issues of those who honestly complained about the role of Aaron. Since those who questioned Aaron's leadership did so sincerely, therefore, when the staff blossomed, their questions were addressed and they accepted Aaron's leadership.

Rabbi Firer further points out that the staff, in this instance, does not represent a scepter of authority over others, but serves rather as an example of service to others. The other miracles that the People of Israel witnessed were signs of power and punishment. In general, weak people are not convinced of the righteousness of the powerful because of the strength of the powerful. Indeed, it is often a cause for greater resentment and desire for vengeance. The staff of Aaron, on the other hand, represents pleasantness and conciliation, which effectively persuades those who disagree with Aaron's communal appointments to finally accept it.

It is important to note that, previously, in the time of Pharaoh (Exodus 7:12), the staff of Aaron had swallowed the staffs of his challengers. In this instance, however, Aaron does not wish to rule over the others. That is why the staff simply blossoms amidst the others, and gently convinces the others of its exceptionalness. It is a staff of peace, tranquility, and brotherhood. In this gentle way, the people are convinced of Aaron's suitability far more effectively than by power and punishment.

Rabbi Isaac Judah Trunk (d. 1939, Chief Rabbi of Kutno, Poland, author of Mikreh M'furash, a lively commentary on the Torah) points out that there are some candidates for leadership who, on the surface, seem to be appropriate and well qualified. But, as soon as they assume the reins of leadership, they rapidly lose their talents and their pleasantness. There are others, who, once they enter into the office of leadership, seem to blossom, and their talents, goodness and kindness grow. This is the symbolism that the blossoming staff is intended to convey. In order to lead the Al-mighty's flock, Aaron and the future leaders of Israel must always grow in stature, talent and kindness, striving to become more perfect and effective leaders.

May you be blessed.

Shavuot 5770-2010

"The Gift that Keeps on Giving" --

Because of the holiday, the theme of this Torah message concerns the festival of Shavuot, rather than the weekly Torah portion, parashat Naso. For an analysis of Naso, please see our previous messages by clicking here.

As we have noted in the past, the Torah does not formally acknowledge the date of the festival of Shavuot. In parashat Emor, Leviticus 23, where the Torah lists all the holidays, Shavuot is not designated as a separate holiday but rather identified as the culmination of the counting of the Omer, the 49 days that are counted from the 2nd day of Passover until the day before Shavuot.

Leviticus 23:17 and the verses that follow, record the ritual of the two loaves of pure flour that are brought as a gift to G-d on Shavuot and of the animal sacrifices that are offered on that day. Leviticus 23:21 tells us that this day is to be a holy convocation, on which no work is permitted. No mention, however, is made about the giving of the Torah or what the day is intended to commemorate.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888, the great Bible commentator and leader of German Jewry) suggests that the Torah calls the holiday “Shavuot,” which literally means weeks, because it is a culmination of counting seven weeks. Consequently, there is no reference to the giving of the Torah or the Ten Commandments.

We have suggested in our previous studies (Shavuot 5760-2000) that the reason that Shavuot is an “anonymous holiday” is because the giving of the Torah cannot be relegated to a single day. It is the holiday that keeps on giving. In effect, every single day of the year is a day for celebrating the giving of the Torah.

The Bible states in Exodus 19:1: “Ba’cho’desh ha’shlee’shee, l’tzayt B’nai Yisrael may’eretz Mitzrayim, bah’yom ha’zeh, bah’ooh midbar See’nai.” In the third month after the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt, on this day, they arrived at the wilderness of Sinai. Citing the old Midrash Tanchuma 7:13 and the Talmud, Berachot 63b, Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible) asserts that the Torah should not have written “on this day,” but “on that day” because the Torah is relating to an event that had already occurred. What then is meant by “on this day”? Rashi suggests that “on this day” is written so that the words of Torah should be regarded by every Jew as new, as if they were given today!

The Me’or Ay’na’yim (a major Chassidic commentary on the weekly Torah portions and the holidays by Rabbi Menachem Nachum of Chernobyl, 1730-1797) asks: How is it possible that the words of Torah should be new and fresh in one’s eyes? After all, the Torah was given so long ago. How could these words possibly be fresh as on the day they were given? He suggests that every Jew is expected to be as enthusiastic as the ancient Israelites were at the time of the Torah’s giving, and declare daily, Exodus 24:7: “Nah’ah’seh v’nish’mah,”–-We will do, and we will understand! This is the essence of the Torah! This is what is meant in Deuteronomy 4:4: “But you who cling to the L-rd your G-d–-you are all alive today.” Clinging to the Al-mighty daily through His Torah is the core of Jewish life.

The Me’or Ay’na’yim further states that the Arizal (Rabbi Isaac Luria, 1534-1572, of Safed, considered the father of contemporary Jewish mysticism) stated that every single Jewish holiday, whether Passover, Shavuot, or Sukkot, is, in effect, reenacted each year as part of the holiday ritual. On Passover, we, like the ancient Hebrews, re-experience the exodus from Egypt. On Sukkot we, like the Israelites of old, dwell in booths, and so it is with all holidays. But how do we reenact receiving the Torah on Shavuot? After all, it was already given. This, therefore, is what the rabbis mean when they say that the words of Torah should be new to the Jewish people as if it were given today. And this is what we must accept upon ourselves, not only on every Shavuot, but every single day.

It is interesting to note that there are two divergent records of Rashi’s statement. One version states that the words of Torah should be “cha’da’shim,” new, to you, as if they were given today. Another version asserts that they should be “chah’vee’vin,” beloved, upon you, as if they were given today. Although both versions sound quite similar, the differences are not insignificant. “New,” of course, implies an aura of excitement, of discovery. We have no idea what is in the gift box that we have received. It may be something that we greatly desire or something that we could easily live without. “Chah’vee’vin,” however, implies that we have already opened the package, or that we know that gifts that we receive from a particular trusted friend are always thoughtful and deeply appreciated.

Of course, there is an upside and a downside to both. On the one hand, the fact that it is “new” means that there is an element of freshness, newness and excitement. But, we may not like the gift. Similarly, even receiving a gift from a trusted source may not be sufficiently appreciated if the giver has already showered so many gifts upon us that we take them for granted.

The great Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (contemporary Israeli rabbi, b. 1937, known for his popular commentaries and translations of the Talmud and his prolific religious writings) once visited the Beginners Service that I conduct at Lincoln Square Synagogue, and addressed a few words to the participants. Rabbi Steinsaltz concluded his brief remarks with a most appropriate and meaningful blessing. The rabbi said to them, “I hope that you always remain “Beginners,” that you never become jaded, and that you always seek to explore more, and learn more, and find out more about our beautiful heritage.”

A similar message is implied by the name of the holiday Shavuot, when it is referred to as “Z’man Matan Torah’tay’nu,” the time of the giving of our Torah. The expression, “giving of our Torah” is not in the past tense, but rather the present. In fact, it is the continuous present tense. This unusual holiday appellation comes to teach that it is important to look upon the festival of Shavuot as if the clouds on Mount Sinai gather for us today and the Divine Presence is actually with us, dwelling alongside of us. We must perceive that at this very moment, the Al-mighty embraces us and speaks to us directly.

There are no people on earth who are more devoted to learning than the Jewish people. That is why Shavuot is one of the most exciting and meaningful times in a Jew’s life.

How fortunate are we, Israel, to have received the gift of Torah from the Al-mighty. Let us go and embrace it, as if we are receiving it for the very first time.

May you be blessed.

Please note: The festival of Shavuot is observed this year on Tuesday evening, May 18, and continues through Thursday night, May 20, 2010. “Chag Shavuot Samayach.” Have a happy and festive Shavuot.

Emor 5770-2010

"Striving For Perfection"

Much of parashat Emor speaks of holiness, faultlessness, striving for perfection and the proper observance of the holy days. In fact, the entire introductory portion of the parasha deals with the purity of the priesthood and the holiness of the sacrifices. Consequently, all gifts that are brought to G-d are expected to be faultless and specifically set apart for sacred purposes. Whether the gift is to be a religious gift or a gift of charity, the donor must seek to ensure its perfection.

Therefore, it is not at all surprising that we read in Leviticus 22:21, "V'eesh kee yahk'reev zeh'vahch sh'lah'meem la'Hashem," Anyone who brings a sacrifice of peace-offerings to G-d in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or for a free-will offering of the herd or of the flock, "Ta'meem yee'yeh l'rah'tzohn, kol moom lo yee'yeh bo," It must be perfect to be accepted, there shall be no blemish upon it.

The Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) points out that even those sacrifices that are of a lesser degree of holiness there must not be blemished.

The fact that sacrifices must be of the most select stock was taught cogently in Genesis 4:4, where the Torah relates that both Cain and Abel brought offerings to G-d. In acknowledgment of the bountiful crop, Cain brought "of the fruit of the ground," while Abel brought "the firstlings of his flock and their choicest." The Al-mighty accepted Abel and his offering, but not the offering of Cain. From this, our rabbis deduced that Cain's offering was of the inferior portions of the crop, while Abel chose only the finest of his flock. Hence, the well-known rabbinic aphorism (Berachot 5b), stating that it makes no difference whether one gives more or less, as long as it is done with full devotion of the heart.

Maimonides (the Rambam, the great Jewish philosopher, codifier and physician, 1135-1204), in his Yad Ha'chazaka, Mishne Torah, Issurei Mizbe'ah, (Laws of things that are Prohibited for the Altar) 7:11, writes as follows:

The same principle applies to everything done for the sake of G-d: It must be of the finest and best. If one builds a house of prayer it should be finer than his private dwelling. If he feeds the hungry, he should give them the best and sweetest of his table. If he clothes the naked, he should give him the finest of his garments.

In their book, Maimonides and His Heritage, the authors, Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Lenn Evan Goodman and James Allen Grady point to a fascinating contrast of the Jewish attitude regarding munificence, with those of Aristotle (384–322 BCE). They note that according to the ancient Greek philosophers one must seek out the best when it comes to public buildings, temples, and the like, but not when it comes to charity. Apparently, the ancients were of the opinion that the valuing of charitable acts by others is based on the erroneous assumption on the part of the "free-riders." The poor obviously believed that there will always be generous persons who will want to help them, who will have the means to do so, and the will to provide for their care. In fact, the ancient philosophers felt that such behavior is destructive of both the means of those who had the ability to give and their will to support them.

One disconcerting outcome of the attitudes fostered by the burgeoning "service economy" that has gained traction in the United States recently, is the notion that if one wants something done properly it is always advisable to call an expert. Many have forsaken all aspiration of becoming proficient in so many important areas of their lives. Instead, they rely more and more on others to do those tasks, since money has been relatively abundant and such efforts are often energy depleting. So while many Americans increasingly search for the path of least resistance and least effort, they have, at the same time, become much less skilled people.

It's not only that many of us no longer know how to iron, sew or polish silver properly, we have even lost such fundamental skills as cutting our own nails and our hair, and even cleaning our face and skin. All of these roles have been farmed out to professionals. Often, when confronted with basic medical and emotional issues, we feel compelled to run straight to the doctor, at the slightest sign of a sniffle.

This lesson was driven home to me recently as I witness the increasing takeover of the "shiva home" by professionals who deliver luxurious shiva seats, extra folding chairs for visitors, prayer books, even water coolers, which of course make the shiva experience much more pleasant and easier to manage. But, we must ask ourselves, at what cost? Does it mean that our Chevra Kadisha, burial society members composed of community volunteers, have been relieved of the "burden" of caring for the mourners? Isn't there great satisfaction, not to mention a great mitzvah, that one gets when caring for mourners? But now the professionals have moved in, obviating the need for the community to be there for those in mourning.

It seems as if the citizens of our country are rapidly becoming a nation of would-be deadbeats. They are losing the passion and the will to seek perfection, to be wholehearted, and ultimately to be compassionate. How often do we now rationalize by saying that professionals can do it better, so why not let them take care of things? Is it perhaps a smokescreen, because we have become too lazy or no longer care?

Striving for perfection should not become a lost art, not only in our relationship with G-d, but also in our relationships with other human beings. The Bible reminds us that we should do things wholeheartedly, so that it may find favor in G-d's eyes and in human eyes.

If we follow that advice, how can we go wrong?

May you be blessed.

Please note: The festival of Lag Ba'Omer (literally the 33 rd day of the counting of the Omer) will start Saturday night, May 1, and continue all day Sunday, May 2, 2010. The Omer period is the 49 days from the second night of Passover through the day before Shavuot. The 33 rd day is considered a festival because, on that day, the students of Rabbi Akiva ceased dying and because it marks the anniversary of the passing of Rabbi Simon bar Yochai.

Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 5770-2010

"Loving Thy Neighbor" --

In parashat Kedoshim, the second of this week’s double parashiot -- Acharei Mot-Kedoshim, we read the famous, indeed, revolutionary verse from Leviticus 19:18: “V’ah’havta l’ray’ah’cha kah’mocha, ah’nee Hashem,” You shall love your neighbor as yourself, I am the Lord.

This statement is universally regarded as one of the greatest pronouncements of human morality. In fact, Rabbi Akiva (Talmudic sage, 50-135 CE), is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 9:4, as saying that loving one’s neighbor as oneself is one of the greatest principles, if not the greatest, in the entire Torah.

It is fascinating to note that the earlier Talmudic sage, Hillel (110 BCE-10 CE), also regarded this verse as a fundamental principle. However, when he was asked by a potential proselyte to teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot, he chose to restructure the statement in the negative. In the Talmudic tractate Shabbat 31a, Hillel told the candidate for conversion, “What is hateful unto you, do not do to your neighbor--that is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary, go study.”

Apparently, Rabbi Akiva agreed with Hillel’s sentiment, which is based on the assumption that it is virtually impossible for anyone to love another person as much as one loves oneself, and certainly not more than one loves oneself. Furthermore, Rabbi Akiva in Baba Metziah 62a, determines, in the case of two people who are in the desert with a single flask of water, that if there is only enough water for a single person to survive, the owner of the flask may drink the water. He does not have to share the water with his traveling companion, because who is to say that the companion’s life is more valuable than his own.

Many regard this verse as the basic pillar upon which the entire Torah is based. It is from this verse of loving one’s neighbor that Jewish law derives the performance of good deeds, such as visiting the sick, arranging for the burial of the dead, comforting the bereaved, providing dowries for poor brides and protecting the possessions of others as if they were their own.

The Ibn Ezra (1098-c.1164, Spanish Bible commentator)learns from this verse that there should be no difference between what a person wishes for himself and the benefit that he wishes for his fellow human being. After all, every human being was created by G-d. Maimonidies (the Rambam, 1135-1204, the great Jewish philosopher, codifier and physician) posits that this is the reason that a person who assumes the responsibility of protecting the possessions of others is to think and feel as if he is guarding his own property.

The Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) and the Hizzekuni (Hezkiah ben Manoah, French exegete of the 13th century) suggest that the best way to observe this commandment is to put oneself in the next person’s position. When thinking of a friend who is ill, one must say, “If I were ill myself, what would be the greatest blessing I could seek from G-d?”, and then must pray for the ill person to receive that exact blessing.

The Ba’al HaTurim (c.1275-1340, Jacob ben Asher, Germany and Spain, famed halakhist and author of a comprehensive commentary on the Torah) suggests that this verse teaches that one must always be sensitive to the feelings of others. For example, he states that when one is intimate with one’s wife, one should not think of another woman. One of my teachers in high school advised his “hormone-challenged” teenage male students to treat their girlfriends as they would like others to treat their sisters. (Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I’m not sure that this advice would work very well today!)

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel of Kopitchinitz (1888-1967, prominent Hassidic rabbi in Europe and New York) concluded that loving one’s neighbor is not intended to apply to saintly and righteous people, since it is almost impossible not to love them. To the contrary, this verse bids all to especially love those people whom it is hard to love. The Alter of Slabodka (Nosson Zvi Finkel, 1849-1927, famed Rosh Yeshiva in Europe and Israel and one of the leaders of the Mussar movement) used to say that the commandment to love others as oneself implies that just as a person loves himself instinctively, without the need to justify that love, one should love others as well without looking for reasons, but simply because they are fellow human beings.

There is an age-old debate regarding the so-called “parochial” nature of the Hebrew bible’s statement of loving one’s neighbor as oneself. There are those who maintain that the words “V’ah’havtah l’ray’acha”, love your neighbor, limit a Jew’s love only to other Jews, as opposed to the Christian bible, which seems to expand this love to apply to all humanity.

Rabbi Dr. Joseph H. Hertz (1872-1946, late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire) takes strong exception to this Christian assertion. He points to the verse in Exodus 11:2, where the Jews in Egypt are instructed to ask their neighbors for jewels of gold and silver. Clearly the word “ray’ah” in that context cannot possibly mean a fellow Israelite, but must refer to Egyptians. Bernard J. Bamberger, in his commentary on the book of Leviticus, astutely points out that in ancient times few people had the opportunity to express their love to neighbors beyond those in their immediate vicinity. “Only in recent centuries, has the average person had the knowledge, or the opportunity and the obligation to apply the ‘Golden Rule’ on a global scale” (p. 893).

Rabbi Hertz argues further, that even those who do interpret “ray’ah” to refer exclusively to Jews, could not possibly deny the universal application for caring for all people that is found in Leviticus 19:34. The verse there teaches that the stranger who sojourns with you shall be unto you as a homeborn, and you shall love him as yourself. Rabbi Hertz argues that the word for stranger, “ger,” applies to all humanity, and that there is no question that every Jew is obligated to love all human beings.

The Rebbe of Sadigor (Sadagora), (Rabbi Abraham Jacob Friedman, son of the Hassidic Rebbe of Rizhin, 1819-1883), explains that the verse of loving one’s neighbor concludes with the words “Ah’nee Hashem”–-I am the L-rd, to teach that the way we treat our neighbors will be the way that we will ultimately be treated by the Al-mighty!

May you be blessed.

Yom Haatzmaut, Israel's Independence Day (which is preceded by Yom HaZikaron–-Israel’s Memorial Day, April 19th) is observed this year on the 6th of Iyar, Monday evening, April 19th, and all day Tuesday, April 20th. (In the diaspora, some observe it one day earlier).

Shemini 5770-2010

"The Show Must Go On" --

In this coming week's parasha, parashat Shemini, the first day of Nissan, the day about which Aaron had been dreaming, finally arrived. The Tabernacle, which had been completed on the 25th day of Kislev, was now ready to be erected. At the same time that the Tabernacle would be erected, Aaron and his four sons were to be invested as Kohanim, priests of Israel.

All the suffering that Aaron had endured in Egypt, the personal mortification that Aaron experienced when the people complained that Moses and Aaron were only making things more difficult for them with Pharaoh, the sin of the Golden Calf for which he was blamed–-all this was behind him, and now what was expected to be the most glorious day of Aaron's life was at hand.

Unfortunately, this most glorious day was to turn into the most tragic day of Aaron's life. Wittingly or unwittingly, his two eldest sons, Nadab and Abihu, bring fire pans with a "strange fire" before G-d. A great flame comes down from heaven, consumes them and they die. Moses tries to console his grief-stricken brother by saying that G-d is sanctified by those who are closest to Him, so it must be that G-d really wanted Nadab and Abihu in His presence. Aaron's reaction was total silence.

We then read in Leviticus 10:12, that Moses calls out to Aaron, and to Elazar and Itamar, Aaron's remaining sons, and instructs them: "K'choo et ha'Mincha ha'no'teret may'eeshay Hashem, v'ich'loo'hah matzot, aytzel ha'mizbay'ach, kee kodesh kodashim hee," Take the meal offering that is left from the fire offerings of G-d, and eat it unleavened near the altar; for it is the most holy.

Three he goats were to be offered by the priests as sin offerings on that day: 1)one as a gift of the Prince of the tribe of Judah, Nachshon the son of Aminadav, as part of the series of offerings that were brought by each of the twelve tribal princes 2) a second sin offering was to commemorate the inauguration of the Tabernacle 3) the third sin offering was to mark Rosh Chodesh, the new moon of Nissan.

In a baffling development, Aaron and his sons offer the first two sacrifices, those for the Prince of the tribe of Judah and for the inauguration of the Tabernacle. However, when Moses inquires about the sin offering for Rosh Chodesh he discovers that it had been completely burned without the priests partaking of it, as is usually done. Scripture tells us that Moses demands of Elazar and Itamar to know why they did not eat of the sin offering in a holy place. It is Aaron, however, who responds, telling Moses that they did bring the other two sin offerings and burnt offerings. However, after the tragedy struck, would G-d have approved of the priests eating the sin offering on this day? The Torah then tells us, (Leviticus 10:20) "Va'yishma Moshe, va'yeetav b'aynav", Moses heard Aaron's response and accepted it.

It's hard to believe that after witnessing his two sons die because they failed to follow the precise instructions of G-d, that Aaron had the temerity, together with his two sons, to once again defy G-d's instructions, and refuse to offer or to eat of the sin offering of Rosh Chodesh!

Several commentators attempt to explain Aaron's actions. Some suggest that Aaron concluded that the two sacrifices that had to be brought were the ones that were Horaat Sha'ah, one-time offerings that were to be sacrificed this time only and never again. Therefore the sin offerings of Nachson the Prince and the inauguration of the Tabernacle were offered. However, the sin offering of Rosh Chodesh, which comes every month, does not have to be done in this hour of mourning, since it would nevertheless be observed monthly in the future. Moses accepts Aaron's explanation.

Moses on the other hand, at least initially, felt that in the service of G-d, "The show must go on!" Leaders must put aside their personal considerations, even heartbreak and mourning, and ensure that the worship of G-d by the people continues properly and meaningfully.

The fact that Moses accepted Aaron's explanation indicates that there is truth to both sides of the argument. Aaron also understood that there are times that the show must go on, but only when there is no alternative, when there is no possibility for make-up offerings. However, it is entirely justified to cancel or postpone an action, even a public action, when there will surely be other opportunities for the "show to go on."

Moses however, felt compelled by the other side of the argument. He surely understood that there are times when the show can't go on, but those occasions should be far and few between. After all, much of life is made up of choices that are often beyond our personal control. Moses was, in effect, emphasizing the need for everyone to master the "art" of making difficult decisions, and to be able to forge ahead no matter the impediments and challenges. In fact, those difficult choices in life are frequently the ones that become the most meaningful when they are finally made and come to fruition.

Many choices in life are not easy, but ultimately prove to be rewarding. I have chosen the path of outreach, devoting my life to teach Jews who unfortunately never had a chance to learn, to try to expose our un-affiliated brothers and sisters to the beauty and joy of Judaism. It may sound glorious, but it is tough. Rejection is frequent.

It is not easy to conduct a weekly Beginners Service, repeating the same basic explanations again and again, trying to make them not sound repetitious. It is most challenging to make a Torah portion interesting for an audience of inchoate Jews, when the Torah speaks in the excruciating detail of the building of the Tabernacle and of animal sacrifices. But the reward is great.

It is challenging as well for well-meaning, practicing Jews to have non-observant guests over their homes on Shabbat once a month, to try to positively inspire them. Unfortunately, many practicing Jews want to quickly finish the meal and get to their Shabbat naps, but their guests continue to ask questions, and the hosts often do not know the answers. It's uncomfortable! And if we have guests at our home on a regular basis, what toll does it take on our children, who are often shunted to the sidelines?

Aaron said, there are limits, and we must stop. Moses said, there obviously are limits, but this is not the time for limits, we must forge ahead, and redeem every possible Jew.

My vote is with Moses. What is yours?

May you be blessed.

The seventh and eighth days of Passover begin on Sunday evening, April 4th, and continue through Monday and Tuesday, April 5th and 6th.

Chag Kasher V'samayach. Wishing all our friends a wonderful, joyous and meaningful Passover.

Yom Hashoah is observed this year on Saturday night, April 10th and all day Sunday, April 11, 2010.

Tzav 5770-2010

"The Command" --

In this coming week’s parasha, parashat Tzav, the Al-mighty says to Moses (Leviticus 6:2): “Tzav et Aharon v’et bah’nahv lay’mor: Zoht toh’raht ha’olah,” Command Aaron and his sons saying, “This is the Law of the Olah, the burnt offering.”

In last week’s parasha, Vayikra, the Torah enumerates the general rules for all the offerings: the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. The second verse of parashat Tzav, however, is the first instance where the word “Tzav,” command, is used with respect to a sacrifice. The other offerings were introduced with the words (Leviticus 1:2): “v’ah’mar’tah” say or (Leviticus 4:2): “da’bayer,” speak. Apparently, when the rules of the offerings are addressed directly to the people who bring these offerings the Torah uses a softer language. Now, however, when the Torah speaks directly to Aaron and his sons to teach them additional laws that have bearing on the sacrificial service, the Torah uses the more forceful imperative, “command.”

Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible)explains that the word Tzav, command, implies that the Kohanim, the priests, must be urged to be especially diligent when performing the Olah service. Furthermore, it applies not only to contemporary times, but also to future generations. Rashi also cites Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the Midrash, who argues that the priests must show particular commitment in this instance because their involvement with the Olah offering may result in a considerable financial loss to them.

Many commentators wonder why the Midrash’s reference to monetary loss is specifically associated with the Olah offering. The Taz (Rabbi David HaLevi Segal, 1586–1667, prominent Polish halachic authority and commentator on the Shulchan Aruch) in his volume, Divrei David, amplifies the question, pointing out that Rabbi Shimon was also perplexed as to why the word Tzav is mentioned only with regard to the Olah, the burnt offering. Shouldn’t the priests be urged to be conscientious in performing all sacrifices, not only the Olah, not only for now, but for all generations?

The Taz points to the fact that the priests needed encouragement with the burnt offering, in particular, since the offering is consumed completely by fire. This is in distinction to all other sacrifices where priests receive some of the flesh and are permitted to eat parts of the other sacrifices. Consequently, there is some doubt whether the priests will be as punctilious when dealing with the burnt offering. After all, the priests receive no personal benefit from this particular sacrifice.

The Gur Aryeh (supercommentary on Rashi, authored by Rabbi Judah Lowe, 1526-1609, the Maharal of Prague) adds to this by saying that not only do the priests not receive any benefit from the burnt offering, they may in fact suffer significant losses since, being preoccupied with the Olah, they are not free to earn their regular livelihood. Furthermore, even though the hides of the Olah are given to the priests, the hides’ value does not equal the priests’ loss of income.

The Ramban (Nachmanides, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator) says that the monetary loss here is not that of the offering itself. He believes that it refers to the meal offering that priests are required to bring of their own resources to accompany each burnt offering.

Rabbi Yaakov Philber (Jerusalem scholar and educator, a leading disciple of Rav Kook), in his writings on the weekly parasha entitled Chemdat Yamim, further develops this theme. Citing the Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer, 1762-1839, Rabbi of Pressburg) and other commentators, Rabbi Philber points out that the priests need encouragement especially with the Olah sacrifice. Because they receive so little from the Olah sacrifice, they would probably encourage the people to bring other sacrifices such as sin or guilt offerings from which the priests’ share is much greater.

The Chatam Sofer even suggests that emphasis should be placed on the first verse that states that G-d spoke to Moshe “lay’mor,” saying, indicating that there is a special mitzvah incumbent upon the priests to teach the people about the “Torah” of the burnt offering. The Talmud in Menachot 110a, cites Rabbi Isaac who asks: Why does the verse in Leviticus 7:37 state, “This is the law [Torah] of the burnt offering”? To teach that anyone who studies the laws of the burnt offering is considered as if he had already brought the offering. The Talmudic sage Ravah adds that those who study Torah are relieved of the obligation of bringing any sacrifices.

It may very well be that priests would be reluctant to encourage the people to study the laws concerning these offerings, since they know that those who study them are no longer required to bring offerings, resulting in significant financial losses for the priests. For that reason, the priests must be encouraged to be honest in their instruction, even though they may suffer financially. Ironically, it may even be to the benefit of the priests that the people sin, since they stand to profit from the sacrifices that are brought by the sinners!

Rabbi Philber points out that the “loss” may not necessarily be only financial, since the Olah ritual includes the priests’ responsibility to clean the ashes and maintain the fire on the altar. The cleaning of the ashes and the lighting of the fire might be regarded by the priests as denigrating. The priests, therefore, need encouragement in order to be prepared to sacrifice their self-esteem or honor when they fulfill their duties.

There is another important and powerful lesson that can be learned from the command given to the priests with regard to the burnt offering. There is an ongoing debate regarding the ultimate purpose of Jewish life. There are those who argue that the ultimate goal of Jewish life is to achieve joy. They maintain that one who keeps the Jewish commandments and lives a life according to G-d’s instructions, will find great personal happiness and joy. In fact, they point to the Garden of Eden, the garden of pleasantness or pleasure, as the ultimate ideal of Judaism.

I would argue that Judaism stands for a value significantly higher than joy. The ultimate value of Judaism is more a sense of fulfillment than a sense of joy or happiness. When one shops for the elderly or the infirm, visits the sick, or buries the dead, it can hardly be said that one reaps much joy from the experience. Quite to the contrary. Oftentimes, the experience is not very pleasant at all. But, there is a profound sense of fulfillment that one experiences that brings pleasure to the person who has performed a kindness or good deed.

The Cohen who has to burn the entire burnt offering without taking a part for himself and his family, experiences no joy. There is little joy in cleaning up the ashes or in keeping the fire of the altar burning 24 hours a day, every single day of the year. There is no joy for the priest who teaches the people of Israel not to sin, when he knows that it will likely lead to fewer sin offerings and less income for himself and his family. But there is the sense of knowing that what he is doing is the right thing, which results in a profound sense of fulfillment.

That is perhaps why our rabbis (Kiddushin 31a) say: “Gadol ha’metzuveh v’oh’seh, yoh’ter me’me sheh’ay’no metzuveh v’oh’seh” Greater is the reward for one who is commanded to do something and does it, than for someone who does it voluntarily. No one likes to be commanded to do anything. There is always resistance to commands! But there is right and wrong. There is benefit and a detriment. But, since there is great resistance when one is told what to do, the reward is greater, because one’s natural instincts are defied. The Cohen has sublimated his normal reaction to a command–-the tendency to lash out and say “absolutely not.”

These lessons are not for priests alone, but for all people. By faithfully living by this dictum, not only is the burnt sacrifice elevated, but the priests and the people are elevated as well.

May you be blessed.

This Shabbat, the Shabbat that immediately precedes Passover, is also known as Shabbat Hagadol, the Great Shabbat. On this Shabbat, we read a special Haftarah from the prophet Malachi 3:4-24, in which we find the verse: "Behold I send to you Elijah the Prophet, before the great and awesome day of G-d." For more information on Shabbat Hagadol, see Tzav 5762-2002.

The first two days of the joyous festival of Passover will be observed this year on Monday night, March 29th and all day Tuesday and Wednesday, March 30th and 31st. The seventh and eighth days of Passover begin on Sunday night, April 4th, and continue through Monday and Tuesday, April 5th and 6th.

Chag Kasher v’Samayach. Wishing all our friends a wonderful, joyous and meaningful Passover.

Vayikra 5770-2010

"Do Leaders Corrupt, or are They Corrupted?" --

In this coming week's parasha, parashat Vayikra, we learn of the varied sacrifices and offerings that were brought in the Tabernacle, including burnt offerings, meal offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings and guilt offerings.

The first sin offering mentioned is brought by the High Priest who has been elevated to his office through the ceremony of anointment. As the spiritual leader of the people of Israel, the High Priest is responsible for the people's religious well-being. Before there were rabbis, the priests actually served as the clergy and teachers of Israel. It was their responsibility to study the Torah and to teach it to the people.

The sages of the Talmud, Horayot 7a, conclude that the High Priest's sin offering is brought only under special circumstances. A Cohen Gadol, a High Priest, brings this sin offering if he makes an error in interpreting the law because it is obscure, and unintentionally sins on account of that error.

In Leviticus 4:3, the Torah tells us, "Eem ha'Cohen ha'Ma'shee'ach yeh'cheh'ta l'ahsh'maht hah'ahm, v'hik'reev ahl chah'tah'toh ah'sher chah'tah, par ben bakar tah'meem la'Hashem l'chah'taht," If the anointed Cohen will sin, bringing guilt upon the people; for his sin that he committed, he shall offer a young bull, unblemished, to the L-rd, as a sin offering.

Rabbi Chaim Dov Rabinowitz (1909-2001, Lithuanian born Bible scholar), in his comprehensive commentary on Jewish Scripture known as Da'at Sofrim, provides a Talmudic overview of the High Priest's obligation. Rabbi Rabinowitz explains that when listing the sin offerings, Scripture cites the sin of the anointed priest first, because his sin is more severe than that of all others, since he is closer to G-d and is expected to be far more punctilious in his behavior than a common Jew.

When the verse says that the priest brings guilt upon the people, it underscores that the anointed priest is not a common citizen, and that his misdeeds impact on the spiritual ledger of the people. Citing the Talmudic reference, Rabbi Rabinowitz notes how tragic it is for the people to have a leader who errs and sins.

The fact that the verse states that the anointed priest brings an offering for the sin that he has committed, might lead one to conclude that the offering comes to cleanse the Cohen from his sins, so that he can return to the Tabernacle and resume his holy duties. An old retired priest, on the other hand, who no longer performs the holy duties should not have to bring the offering. The rabbis, nevertheless, deduce from Scripture that even a retired priest who no longer actively serves is still obligated to bring the offerings for his past trespasses, since he was sanctified at birth and that sanctity remains upon him for the duration of his life.

The Talmud also asserts that one might mistakenly conclude that the anointed priest only brings offerings if others sin due to his mistake and instruction. However, this is not the case. An anointed priest brings the offering only if he himself trespassed because of a mistaken interpretation of the law. In fact, if the anointed priest sins together with the community he would not bring his own individual offering, but would join in the common offering that is brought to atone for the community's trespass.

Among the biblical commentators, there is a rather heated debate about what causes a High Priest to trespass. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, 1040-1105, foremost commentator on the Bible) maintains that when a High Priest sins, he brings sin upon all the people, for the people are dependent upon him to atone for them and to pray on their behalf. It is the sinfulness of the High Priest that leads to the people's guilt, because their leader has not represented them effectively before G-d. Two other major classical commentators disagree with Rashi. The Ibn Ezra (1098-c.1164, Spanish Bible commentator) and the Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) assert that people of great stature, like a High Priest, do not easily succumb to sin. Consequently, they conclude, it must be the low spiritual level of the people that drags the priest down.

It seems as if the Ibn Ezra and the Sforno subscribe to the well- known contemporary belief that people get the type of leaders that they deserve. Sinful people attract sinful leaders, good people attract good leaders.

There is no question that we are presently experiencing a leadership "black hole." Hardly a day passes that we do not learn of another leader who is exposed for illicit or immoral acts. The leaders run the gamut: governmental leaders as well as members of the clergy. How tragic it is that in less than one decade, three governors--of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut--were forced to resign for sexual misdeeds, misuse of authority or bribery. The question is, is the crisis of leadership due to the personal shortcomings of the leaders themselves or is the crisis of leadership due to their constituents? It seems as if this ancient debate has still not been resolved.

As I was standing in a synagogue recently, a visitor presented me with a postcard-sized list of the 43 Kings of Judah and Israel. Four kings, Saul, Ishboshet, David and Solomon, ruled over a united Israel. There were an additional 20 Kings of Judah and 19 Kings of Israel who ruled over the divided kingdom. Upon researching the subject, I discovered that more than half of the 43 kings were wicked. But not just wicked, they were idolaters, murderers, adulterers, and child sacrificers. In fact, 9 of the kings were themselves murdered, often by the "king" who succeeded them.

In many ways, we today should be happy that our politicians and religious leaders, venal as they are, are not committing the heinous crimes, sins and trespasses of the ancient kings of Israel.

In direct contradiction to many ancient philosophies and to much of contemporary thought, Judaism believes that, by nature, human beings are essentially evil, and that it takes rigorous efforts to do good. Evil happens automatically, while good always requires a proactive effort.

So, have we become a nation of Sodomites? By some objective standards, perhaps. Because of the incredible advances in technology we have produced weapons with massive destructive capacity that are killing more people than in any time in history. Television and the internet have brought more decadence into the home than in any time in history. It should come then as little surprise that probably 80% of Western society's entertainment and amusement is based on violence and sex. There is more of that than perhaps at any other time in history.

Are we corrupting our leaders, or are our leaders corrupting us? It seems as if the author of Ecclesiastes 7:20 was absolutely correct when he wrote, "There is no truly righteous person in the land who has not done evil." A wicked environment reduces its citizens, dehumanizes them, perverting those who seek to be honest, and blinding those who wish to be just.

Perhaps we need to return to the beginning, to circle the wagons and fight back. In ancient times, the priest could bring a public sin offering so that he and the people could start afresh. Unfortunately, our impoverished generation no longer has sacrifices. What offering can we bring to let everyone know that we have gone astray and to ask for help in leading us back on the righteous path?

Woe to the generation that has lost its way. Woe to the generation that has no leaders. In the absence of leaders, we must step up to lead.

May you be blessed.

Vayakhel-Pekudei 5770-2010

"Heaven Helps Those Who Help Themselves" --

In the second of this week's double parashiot, parashat Pekudei, we read that after many days, weeks and months of labor (although no time is actually specified in the Torah) the work of the Mishkan, the Tabernacle, was completed.

In Exodus 39:32, we are told, "Va'tay'chel kohl ah'vo'daht mishkan ohel mo'ayd, va'yah'ah'soo Bnei Yisrael k'chol ah'sher tzee'vah Hashem et Moshe kayn ah'soo," All the work of the Tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, was completed, and the children of Israel had done everything that the L-rd commanded Moses, so did they do.

The rabbis find the syntax of this verse awkward. The Hebrew word "Va'tay'chel" implies that the work of the Tabernacle was finished on its own. But then the verse states, "Va'yah'ah'soo Bnei Yisrael," the children of Israel had done everything that G-d commanded Moses to do. It would be much more logical for the verse to first state that the children of Israel had done everything that G-d commanded them to do, and then conclude with the phrase that the work of the Tabernacle was complete.

Interestingly enough, we find a similar description with regard to Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. In I Kings 6:7, when describing the conclusion of the building of the great Temple, Scripture states, "V'habayit b'hee'bah'noh'toh eh'vehn sh'lay'mah ma'sah niv'nah," For the house, when it was in building, was built in stone made ready at the quarry. The verse goes on to say that there was neither hammer nor ax, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was being built. Just as with the Tabernacle, Scripture does not state that the Temple was being built, but that it was in the process of building, as if it were building itself.

From this textual nuance in parashat Pekudei the rabbis deduce the futility of one who says, "I'd like to perform this mitzvah, but it seems impossible in my eyes." With that attitude of despair, the rabbis say, that mitzvah will never be accomplished. However, one who starts performing a mitzvah, despite knowing how difficult it might be, will find that the mitzvah will become progressively easier because Heaven will help those who make the effort. And even though much, or most, of the mitzvah was actually done through the help of Heaven, Heaven itself considers as if that mitzvah was done by human effort alone. Therefore, explain the rabbis, our verse states that the work of the Tabernacle was completed, as if by itself, and the children of Israel did all that G-d commanded. Scripture, in essence, attributes the entire accomplishment to the people of Israel, and not to G-d.

The rabbis further explain that the biblical verse suggests that the people felt inadequate because of the highly skilled labor that was required for many of the Tabernacle furnishings. But because of their full-hearted commitment to complete the Tabernacle, G-d instilled in them the skills that were necessary to accomplish the task.

Among the important contemporary lessons that may be gleaned from this particular verse are: the need for faith in ourselves, the need for faith in G-d, and the need for faith that G-d really cares and will help us.

Very often, the greatest impediment to success is our lack of faith in ourselves. We find the "little stuff" simply overwhelming. I recall one memorable instance many years ago. I was instructing several students how to kosher their homes, and suddenly we came across some non-kosher chewing gum on one of the shelves. Immediately one young woman definitively declared (it was captured on video): "If I can't have my chewing gum, I will never be able to be kosher!" Her perceived love for that brand of non-kosher chewing gum made her feel that she could never live without it. Fortunately, that was not the case. She currently lives in Jerusalem with her family and is a very accomplished and observant person.

If the desire and commitment is there (which may also be due to the help of G-d), there is really nothing that can stand in the way of accomplishing whatever we wish to accomplish, as long as we have confidence in ourselves.

The rabbis also teach that aside from personal confidence, faith in G-d is often as important as skill. There are different ways for us to develop our self confidence. Obviously, those who dream of becoming great pianists or great swimmers need to practice their skills and retain expert instructors who help them master the skills and techniques that are necessary. What is also necessary is that we have the belief that we can do it. This is what our rabbis call "s'yah'tah dish'mahya," help from Heaven.

There is, however, another aspect to this issue, that we often fail to note. The L-rd makes things happen for those who have trust in Him.

I have often wondered why Anwar Sadat concluded a monumental peace treaty with Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin. After all, Menachem Begin was a hard-line Prime Minister. As a follower of Jabotinsky, he believed that not only was the West Bank of the Jordan part of Israel, but the East Bank as well. Nevertheless, peace came to Menachem Begin, and not to the more conciliatory Prime Ministers like Golda Meir or Levi Eshkol. I believe that this is directly attributable to the fact that Menachem Begin was the first Prime Minister in Israeli history, to ever use the phrase, "With the help of G-d we will achieve peace." Menachem Begin opened the door just a little to the Al-mighty, and let Him in. The rest is history!

We need not only have confidence in ourselves and confidence in G-d, we need to truly believe that G-d will help.

A beautiful story is told of two chasiddim who were on a business trip, and needed a place to stay for Shabbat. They finally found a kosher inn whose proprietor was a religious man. During the long Shabbat afternoon, the chasiddim begin to regale the innkeeper with stories about their wonder-working Rebbe. Upon hearing the fascinating stories, the innkeeper pleaded with them, that when they return home to their Rebbe, that they ask him for his blessing that he and his wife should have a child. Although the chassidim were a little nonplused, they agreed to do so.

That evening, after Shabbat, the innkeeper did a very strange thing. He outfitted a baby carriage with everything that a baby needed, and began to accost all the guests in the inn telling them to wish him a "Mazal Tov," because his wife was going to give birth to a child. "Did you hear the news?!" he shouted, "The two chassidim are going to ask for a blessing for my wife and myself, and she is going to give birth!"

When the two chassidim returned home and met their Rebbe, they related to him the request and the strange behavior of the innkeeper.

A year later, the two chassidim were on the same road, but were reluctant to enter the inn, perhaps the innkeeper's wife had not had a child. They listened by the door, and sure enough, they heard the cries of a newborn baby. Taking a chance, they entered, arriving at the circumcision ceremony of the innkeeper's firstborn son.

The innkeeper blessed the chassidim and showered them with gifts. But one of the two chassidim fell strangely silent, and all the way home refused to speak to the other chassid.

When they reached the outskirts of the village, the chassid broke into a run and ran into the court where the Rebbe lived, pounded on the door, pushed the assistant aside, and entered the Rebbe's chambers unannounced.

Startled, the Rebbe looked up, and saw the pained chassid standing before him.

The Rebbe said, "What's the matter, my son?" To which the chassid replied, "How could you be so cruel and uncaring? I am a loyal follower of yours. My father was a loyal follower of your father. Every year I come to you and beg that my wife and I be blessed with a child, and we have no child! This innkeeper never even met you, and he has a child! How could you be so cruel!?"

The Rebbe looked up, gazed piercingly into the chassid's eyes and said, "Did you ever push a baby carriage? Did you ever have the faith that my blessing would help?"

S'yah'tah dish'mahya, help from Heaven, comes to those who believe in themselves and in G-d, and are willing to make the special effort. The Tabernacle was finished by the people of Israel, even though they were unable to do it alone and needed G-d's help. They became G-d's partner. And, G-d became their partner.

May you be blessed.

This Shabbat, also known as Shabbat HaChodesh, is the last of the four special Shabbatot that surround the holiday of Purim. On this Shabbat a thematic Torah portion concerning the new month, Nissan, is read from Exodus 12:1-20.

Ki Tisah 5770-2010

"Moses Wrestles with G-d" --

In this week's parasha, parashat Ki Tisah, we read of the fateful episode of the Golden Calf. Moses goes up the mountain for forty days and forty nights to receive the Torah. When Moses doesn't return by the fortieth day, the people become impatient and demand of Aaron that he make a "god" for them, because they do not know what has became of Moses. Trying to delay them, Aaron requests that the people bring the gold rings and jewelry from their sons, wives and daughters. Uncharacteristically, the people bring their jewelry with great alacrity. Aaron takes the jewelry from their hands, binds it in a cloth and fashions it into a molten calf. The people worship and dance before the Golden Calf.


G-d tells Moses to descend from the mountain because the people that he [Moses] brought out of Egypt have become corrupt. G-d tells Moses to stop badgering Him, allow Him to destroy the nation, and make from Moses a new and great nation.


With overtones of a PR consultant, Moses pleads before G-d and argues with Him. Why should Egypt say that G-d took the people out with evil intent, to kill them in the mountains and annihilate them from the face of the earth? Hold back Your anger, Moses implores, and reconsider the evil that You intend to do to the people. Remember, for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that You promised that their offspring would be like the stars of heaven. Scripture then tells us (Exodus 32:14): "Va'yee'nah'chem Hashem ahl ha'ra'ah ah'sher dee'ber la'ah'soht l'ah'mo." And G-d reconsidered regarding the evil that He had declared to do to His people.


The Malbim (1809-1879, leading Torah scholar in Germany, Romania and Russia) expounds in great detail on Moses' argument with G-d, adding much insight into the exchange between them. The Malbim suggests that when pleading before G-d, Moses realized that his previous prayer on behalf of the people had been effective, since G-d had said, Exodus 32:10, "Leave Me alone, stop badgering Me," indicating that he has merit before G-d and that G-d was listening. This hint of success gives Moses the courage to plead further with G-d to withhold His destructive anger.

Arguing cogently and with great precision, Moses points out the fact that G-d was incorrect when He said to Moses (Exodus 32:7), "Your people have become corrupt!" In fact, says Moses, the sinners were not the Israelites, but rather the mixed multitude. Why then should You, G-d, be angry at Your people who were, at best, mistaken or misled by the mixed multitude? And if You, G-d, are angry that they didn't speak out and protest against the mixed multitude, You must realize that it was only recently that You took them out of Egypt, a place steeped in idolatry. How then, can You, G-d, expect that, in only a few days, the people should be transformed entirely to the point where they are prepared to kill others who are worshiping idols that they were so accustomed to in Egypt?!

Continuing the argument, Moses says: You, G-d, took the people out of Egypt with Your great strength and outstretched arm and many miracles. The purpose of this was that the people of Israel would be Your people, and that Your name would be known throughout the nations, that they [the nations] should all know that You are G-d. You, G-d, can not undo all that now! Not only would it invalidate everything that You have already done, it would result in a great desecration of Your name. For, after all, the Egyptians would say, "Why did the Hebrew G-d take them out with the evil intention of destroying them?"

Moses, in effect, explains that the Egyptians believed that there were two main gods, an evil god and a good god. The Egyptians would now say that it was the evil god who took the people out of Egypt. However, He did not kill them in Egypt, because he wanted to finish them off in the mountains, never to be buried, to be forever wiped off the face of the earth. Exodus 32:12: "Shoov may'cha'rohn ah'peh'chah v'hee'nah'chaym ahl ha'ra'ah l'ah'meh'chah." Relent, says Moses, from Your flaring anger, and reconsider the evil against Your people.

Recalling the famous Midrash, Moses then argues that if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who could be compared to a table with three legs, could not sustain the people, how will I, Moses, a table with a single leg, be able to sustain them? The Malbim then proceeds to explain, that "Va'yee'nah'chaym," means that G-d reconsidered the evil that He was going to do to His nation, and would forgive the nation--but not the mixed multitude.

We see, especially with the added insights of the Malbim, how effectively Moses argues with G-d on behalf of the people. Unfortunately, Moses does not achieve total forgiveness, but rather a stay of execution, until the peoples' next rebellion!

May you be blessed.

This Shabbat is also known as Shabbat Parashat Parah. It is the third of four special Shabbatot that surround the holiday of Purim. On this Shabbat, a thematic Torah portion concerning the Red Heifer is read from Numbers 19:1-22.

Tetzaveh 5770-2010

"The Central Role of the Golden Altar and the Incense"

The order of the Torah's instructions regarding the furnishings of the Tabernacle and the vestments for the priests that are found in parashiot Terumah and Tetzaveh is rather perplexing.

In parashat Terumah, Moses receives the instructions of how to build all the furnishings for the Tabernacle with the exception of one item. Parashat Tetzaveh begins with the lighting of the Menorah and continues with an exceedingly precise description of the priestly garments–the four lay vestments and the four special vestments for the High Priest. This then is followed by the inauguration ritual in which the priests are consecrated into the service of the priesthood. Only after all this, in the final chapter of parashat Tetzaveh, chapter 30, do we find the instructions for building the Golden Altar.

Exodus 30:1 reads: "V'ah'see'tah miz'bay'ahch mik'tar k'toh'ret, ah'tzay shee'teem ta'ah'seh oh'toh," You shall make an altar on which to bring incense up in smoke, of acacia wood shall you make it. The Torah then describes the dimensions of the Golden Altar. Its length and width are one cubit, its height, two cubits. The acacia wood structure shall be covered with gold, and the top of the altar shall have four horns. There shall also be two rings on the sides of the altar to enable the altar to be transported from place to place on gold-covered staves.

The Torah instructs that the Golden Altar be placed inside the Tabernacle, in the less sanctified area known as "holy," together with the Menorah and the Table of Showbread. Every morning and afternoon the priests were to burn incense on the Golden Altar. Consequently, the Golden Altar was also known as Mizbach ha'Ketoret, the incense altar, and Mizbach ha'P'neemee, the inner altar.

The commentators wonder why the Torah separates the Golden Altar from all the other furnishings in the Tabernacle by describing it at the end of parashat Tetzaveh. The Ramban, Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270, Spanish Torah commentator) suggests that it was positioned alone because of the the ketoret, the incense that was brought on the Golden Altar, which represents judgement. After all, Nadav and Avihu, Aaron's sons, died before G-d when they brought ketoret utilizing a strange fire.

There are those who say that while the Tabernacle brought G-d's presence into the People of Israel, the altar and the incense were to serve as a means of sheltering the nation from any potential danger now that G-d was so close to them.

The Tzror Hamor (Torah Commentary by Rabbi Abraham Sabba, 1440-1510, Spain, Portugal and North Africa) suggests that, aside from the Ark itself, the Golden Altar was the most special vessel in the entire Tabernacle. This was because the altar achieves atonement for sinners, brings prosperity and happiness to the people and drives away anger from Israel. Therefore, as a sign of respect, it is the last furnishing mentioned. (The sages of the Midrash were wont to say, that the last is the most beloved, Bereishit Rabba 75:11).

The Siftei Cohen (Mystical commentary on the Pentateuch by R' Mordechai HaKohen of Safed, 16th century) suggests that the altar is recorded last as a sign of distinction because the foremost of all the offerings is the ketoret, the incense. It is brought early in the morning, before all other sacrifices and in the evening, after the others have been completed. Its value is considered to be equal to all the other offerings that are brought.

The Sforno (Obadiah ben Jacob, 1470-1550, Italian Bible commentator) maintains that all the other vessels of the Tabernacle were created in order to attract G-d's presence to the Tabernacle. The Golden Altar, however, is intended to provide honor and dignity for G-d once He arrives, so that He would accept with mercy the offerings of all His people, both morning and evening.

The Chidah (Rabbi Chaim David Joseph Azulai, 1724-1806, great religious scholar in Israel and Europe) in Nachal Kedumim, suggests that the reason that the Golden Altar is mentioned last is because its consecration takes place together with the ketoret, the incense, in the late afternoon. Since it is the last vessel to be consecrated, it is mentioned last.

The Ohr HaChaim (commentary on the Pentateuch by the famed Kabbalist and Talmudic scholar R'Chaim ben Attar, 1696-1743) maintains that all the original vessels of the Tabernacle were eventually transferred to the permanent Temple that Solomon built, with the exception of the Golden Altar. The new Golden Altar manufactured by Solomon, was made entirely of gold without the acacia wood.

The Vilna Gaon (R' Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, 1720-1797, considered the greatest Torah scholar in many centuries; acknowledged leader of non-Chassidic Jewry of Eastern Europe) suggests that all the other vessels of the Tabernacle received their meaning only when the Al-mighty's presence dwelt in the Tabernacle. The Golden Altar, however, had an innate holiness, even before the presence of G-d descended upon the Tabernacle.

The Pri Tzedek (Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen of Lublin, 1823-1900)states that the altar is special due to the golden crown around the periphery of the Golden Altar that recalls the crown of the priesthood. Another reason for its special status, is due to the power attributed to the Golden Altar and the incense to stop the Angel of Death (Deuteronomy 17:13).

Like other commentators, Eliyahu KiTov (1912-1976, one of Israel's most acclaimed religious writers) suggests that the altar is last because of the importance of the ketoret, the incense. Offering a novel reason, however, KiTov says that human beings enjoy both faculties of taste and smell. But, humans are never satisfied until they actually taste the food. In distinction, G-d is satisfied with smell alone.

Of the various ingredients that are found in the composition of the ketoret is one foul-smelling spice known as chelbanah. But, when mixed together with the other spices, the incense mix becomes sweet-smelling. It is the ketoret, together with the Golden Altar, that has the ability to achieve atonement for the sinners of Israel who come out of the purification ritual smelling like a rose. The altar and the incense are therefore critically important since they possess the ability to transform sinful Jews into forgiven Jews, foul-smelling Jews into pleasant-smelling Jews.

The Golden Altar is, in effect, the greatest gift that G-d has given His people. But, it does not come easily. First we need to build a Tabernacle and its furnishings, and to clothe the priests in their beautiful vestments. With this majestic welcome, G-d enters into our Tabernacle, and, hence, into our midst. Once the Al-mighty arrives, it is the sweet savor of the ketoret, the incense, that penetrates the hearts and souls of the Jewish people causing them to repent and achieve forgiveness.

May you be blessed.

Please note: Since Purim is observed this year on Saturday night, and Sunday, February 27-28, and the Fast of Esther cannot be observed on Shabbat, it will be observed on the previous Thursday, February 25, from dawn to nightfall.

This coming Shabbat is known as Shabbat Zachor. It is the second of four special Shabbatot that surround the holiday of Purim. On this Shabbat, a thematic Torah portion is read from Deuteronomy 25:17-19, about remembering Amalek. Most authorities consider it a positive commandment for both men and women to hear this particular Torah reading.

The festival of Purim marks the celebration of the great salvation of the Jews of the Persian empire from the hands of the evil Haman in the year 520-519 BCE. It is celebrated this year on Saturday night and Sunday, February 27-28, 2010. For more information Click Here.