← All works

Akeidat Yitzchak

Sefaria · Jewish Thought > Rishonim · 1,212 sections

1. _.37.1.3

   Shemot Rabbah 15 describes a king who, upon betrothal to the girl he plans to marry, guarantees her a few gifts in writing. By the time he actually marries her however, he showers her with gifts far in excess of anything he had promised. Our relationship to the Almighty (in this present world) is compared to that of the betrothed; however, once the messianic age will dawn and we will be truly wed to G-d, He will hand over everything to us. In Hoseah 2,21-22, Israel appears merely as betrothed to the Lord, whereas in Isaiah 54,5, the Lord is referred to as "for your Maker is your husband." Upon the departure from Egypt (Exodus 12,1), Israel merely received the moon, whereas in Daniel 12,3, with reference to the messianic age, it says, "And they that are wise will shine like the brightness of the sky, and they that turn the many to righteousness, will be as the stars forever and ever."

2. _.37.1.4

   Since human life is precious, harmful substances must be shunned, and even merely potentially dangerous agents must be avoided. This is best illustrated in the laws governing the Nazirite, the self-appointed ascetic who must not only abstain from wine, but also from grapes, vineyards, and anything even remotely connected with the fruit of the vine. If this is so in the case of a Nazirite, who had imposed strictures upon himself that the Torah had not even demanded of him, how much more must this concept apply to products expressly forbidden by the Torah? The more serious the nature of the prohibition, the more stringent the cordon sanitaire around such a prohibition to insure that the actual prohibition would not be violated. Since the Torah takes a very grave view of immorality, our sages even discouraged idle conversation with one's own wife. Concerning bloodshed, another cardinal sin, our sages compare the infliction of a public insult as equivalent to the sin of bloodshed, and thereby hope to forestall even more serious expressions of one's hatred toward one's fellow man. The same principle applies to the most serious of all transgressions, the sin of worshipping idols. All other sins, especially if committed while one is under the influence of one's basic urges, can be atoned for by repentance relatively easily. After David had confessed his guilt, the prophet Nathan while remonstrating with David, whose apparent crimes included bloodshed and immorality, was able to say to David, "G-d has removed your sin from you, you will not die" (Samuel II 12,13). This is possible when the sinner had all along retained his faith in G-d. This is also what the prophet foretells concerning a future when man's knowledge of G-d will no longer be beset by doubts, "And he that stumbles on that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be like a divine being, as the angel of the Lord before them" (Zecharyah 12,8). In those days sin will not be due to lack of faith, but will be due only to the weakness of the flesh. Therefore, it can be expiated for at once, and the sinner, after his repentance, can be described as "an angel of the Lord." Nowadays, however, if someone knowingly commits idolatry, how could such a person obtain forgiveness? He would be subject to severance from his people, a penalty corresponding to the nature of his sin. Who could save him? Therefore the Torah includes laws which in themselves represent deterrents to the sin of idol-worship. The most common form of idol-worship is the adulation of heavenly objects such as the sun, the moon, and the stars. These bodies have lured people away from monotheism since time immemorial, and the Torah therefore does not tire of exhorting us "that you may not raise your eyes heavenward and be led astray to worship" (Deut. 4,19). There are many similar quotations, too many to list. All the prophets strove to wean the Jewish people away from these tendencies, and to prove to them that all these heavenly objects are merely tools which G-d uses in His wisdom to guide the progress of the universe. Jeremiah spends a whole chapter discussing this, employing even the chaldaic language to make sure that he would reach the whole nation, including those not fluent in Hebrew (Jeremiah 10).

3. _.37.1.6

   Considering all the efforts made in the Bible to combat tendencies toward idol-worship, the fact that the first commandment given to the Jewish nation should be the sanctification of the moon, seems puzzling. The ceremonies connected with observing this commandment raise the specter of this being akin to idolworship. There are special sacrifices in the temple, benedictions must be recited only when the moon is visible, hallel must be recited; all these observances must seem strange to the uninitiated. Rashi's statement in Genesis 1,1 that the Torah could really have commenced at this point, were it not for the fact that G-d wanted the nations to know that the Jewish people have a valid claim on the land of Israel, is even more puzzling when viewed in light of the above. Even stranger is the observation of Ben Azzai (Chullin 60) that the Almighty decreed a male goat to be offered on the new moon, to atone for the fact that he had diminished the size of the moon. Anyone who dares to withhold from a people items long considered as life sustaining such as bread, milk etc., must be prepared to face the wrath of the people. It requires skill and wisdom to teach that people that the very things which they had for long considered to be life sustaining were in fact most detrimental to their continued wellbeing. In Jeremiah Chapter 44, we find that the people upraid the prophet for warning them against idolworship, that they claim that their recent troubles had been due to their having forsaken their former idols. In such circumstances, one needs to enlighten a few intelligent leaders of the people about the true nature of things, and hope that these leaders in turn will be able to persuade the masses, once they themselves have been convinced of the error of their previous thinking. Idolatry can be divided into three kinds: 1) Belief that the object worshipped is itself a deity; in that event worship of that deity is the real thing. 2) One considers the object in question as close enough to the real deity to exercise some influence on said deity's decision-making process; in that event one worships the object as a sort of intermediary. One hopes that the object worshipped will intercede on one's behalf with the inaccessible deity. In such instances, worship is not a form of adulation, but rather a form of labor, service. 3) One worships the object in question only for the specific visible function it performs; one considers the continued performance of that function by said object as vital to the welfare of the worshipper. In this latter case, worship is merely a form of thanksgiving. All of the above, has been fully explained by Maimonides. When we consider the kiddush hachodesh legislation, the sanctification of the new moon, and the commandment concerning the observance of a leap year, i.e. an extra month at certain intervals, we observe that the mitzvah addresses itself 1) to the moon itself; 2) its motion, its movements; 3) the unique ritual involved. The moon itself, after reflecting progressively more light until full moon, reflects progressively less light until at the end of its cycle it does not reflect any light at all. It proves by its behavior that it is not a primary source of light at all. Astronomy has proved that unless the face of the moon is turned towards the sun, it cannot reflect any light. This teaches the Jewish people that the moon cannot possibly be a deity, since it has nothing of its own to contribute. Deities, by definition, are givers, not recipients. During a lunar eclipse, when neither face of the moon reflects anything, its impotence as a possible deity is demonstrated even more forcibly. What is valid for the moon, is equally true of other heavenly bodies, even the sun, since the sun's light too is eclipsed from time to time. As the prophet exclaims, "Do not be scared for they cannot cause any harm" (Jeremiah 10,5). At the time of the new moon, both moon and sun appear close to one another in the West around sunset time; it seems clear to the beholder that both follow a path imposed upon them, that they are not free to move in the direction of their choice. Which free individual moves forever in a single direction? In the third aspect of the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh, we are no longer concerned with the moon or its orbit, but rather with the use we can make of it for the needs of our calendar. Since our holy days are determined in large measure by the calendar, the Almighty uses the moon to demonstrate His sovereignty over it. Jewish law provides leeway to use the moon in such a way that it accomodates itself to the needs of the Jewish people, instead of the other way around. The outstanding example of this phenomenon is found in Rosh Hashanah 20, where we are told, "When it is like this, sanctify!" This means that only when the moon is visible can the ceremony be performed. Since the moon is a minimum of eighteen hours into its new cycle before it becomes visible, we do not actually welcome the arrival of the new moon on time. Should the astronomic time for the new moon be less than eight hours before sunset, the ceremony is delayed for fully twenty-four hours. In such an event, the festival of the new moon would actually not be declared until forty-two hours after its advent. All this shows clearly that to think that any star or heavenly body has dominion over the Jewish people, is completely erroneous. On the contrary, if we follow Saadiah Gaon, that visual observation of the new moon has never been a factor determining when Rosh Chodesh would be declared, the mitzvah would demonstrate that we can exert influence on the calendar. The Torah grants the Jewish Supreme Court the right to proclaim the dates of the Jewish holy days, although calendar dates have been spelled out in the Torah. This means that the Jewish Supreme Court has the authority to manipulate the calendar to suit its purpose. "The seasons of the Lord which you will proclaim they will be My seasons" (Leviticus 23,4). The Almighty said in effect, "Even if you err, or even if you deliberately change the correct date by manipulation of the festival of the new moon, My holy days are yours to determine." The elders who are charged with the intricacies of the new moon observance, and who cannot fail to realize that this commandment is the very antithesis of idolworship, will in turn persuade the people of this profound truth. The reason that we add songs and praises to the Lord in our liturgy on that day, is to reflect the awareness that He alone is Master of the Universe, and all that exists therein. Rashi's comment that the Torah could have commenced with this chapter now becomes clearer. Had we not read about the creation and the whole book of Genesis, and only used the commandment regarding the new moon as our introduction to G-d as the sole ruler of the universe and the prime Cause and Creator, that would have been quite sufficient. The unchanging nature of the orbits of all the planets testify to their very impotence as potential deities. The male goat offered as a sin offering is to atone for any lingering subconscious doubts that may have been entertained about the true nature of the heavenly bodies. Isaiah 5,12 castigates those people who, while enjoying all that life has to offer to the senses, fail to give thought to the handiwork of the Lord. Anyone who does not conduct himself properly, is somehow influenced by the thought that the Lord does not observe his conduct. This is a form of heresy which requires the powers of atonement inherent in the offering of the male goat.

4. _.37.1.7

   The Talmud Chullin 60 quotes the following conversation between the moon and G-d, in the name of Ben Azzai. This conversation is to help us understand the verse (Genesis 1,16), "The Lord made great luminaries; the large luminary to govern by day, and the small luminary to govern by night, and the stars." The moon said to G-d, "Is it possible for two kings to wear one crown?" The Lord said to the moon: "go ahead and govern both by day and by night." So the moon said "Who needs a lantern at noon?" G-d said, "Israel will count its days and years according to your movements." Even the days will be counted by reference to the moon as is written, "They will serve as signs, as fixed times, for days and years" (Genesis 1,14). He further said to him (the moon) that righteous people will be called like the moon (small) to wit Jacob and David (see Amos 7,5 and Samuel I 17,15). The moon, however, was still not placated. Thereupon G-d instructed that a sin offering be offered on His behalf to atone for G-d having reduced the size of the moon. It was Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who interprets the verse "one he-goat as a sin offering for G-d" (Numbers 28,15) to mean that the he-goat is to be offered on behalf of G-d, to serve as atonement for having commanded the moon to reduce its size. Ben Azzai's parable has the moon question its own function. This describes the age old dilemma of whether what we observe in nature is accidental or whether it is the result of intelligent planning. If it is the result of intelligent planning, G-d’s major functionaries wish to be taken into His confidence as to their precise purpose and place in His scheme of things. "Can two kings wear the same crown?" means, "Is there duplication in this universe, seeing that all is the result of mere chance?" The reason that the moon serves as the example in this imaginary dialogue is that it is the only celestial body which apparently does not originate its own light. The question if this could be accidental is quite appropriate. The "smallness" of the moon would point to its accidental place in the scheme of things. G-d’s initial reply "Reduce your size" means "You may be sure that you are part of an intelligent overall design. Upon hearing this, the moon wants to know, "If that is so, why is my status such and such, compared to Your other planets? Why am I the only one that does not have its own light to give? Why, by not being a source of light, am I the apparent victim of chance?" G-d’s answer "Go and shine by day and by night," is, of course, facetious, but it points out that the moon's particular contribution to the universe lies in its shining by night only, and with reflected light only. The moon understood that by day its contribution to the light in this world would pale into such insignificance, that no one would even be aware of its existence. But it found no solace, not having comprehended why it had been chosen for that particular role. So G-d said that the apparent deficiency in not radiating its own light, would be compensated for by the needs of the Jewish people for the moon, to aid Israel's calendar requirements. The moon argued, however, that since days are normally counted in terms of the sun's movements, why cannot the sun reduce its size? To this G-d replied that since the righteous will be called "small," the moon's reduction in size was very crucial. It was part of G-d’s plan that a visible link exist between cause and effect, i.e. between benefactor and recipient. Since the sun was the primary source of light, and the moon was only a secondary source, it would not be fitting for the primary source to be smaller than the secondary source. The moral Ben Azzai wishes to teach is, of course, that the truly righteous always understate their own importance in the presence of anything or anyone deserving respect. However, no matter how much one tries to explain to people that they should be modest and humble, they will always wonder if they would get their fair share of things by practicing humility, they need the he-goat offering to atone for such doubts about G-d’s justice. Since it had been G-d’s intention to show the Jewish people favored treatment, whereas the Jewish people suspected Him of putting them at a disadvantage, that sin offering then is due to G-d’s intention as expressed by His desire to diminish the size of the moon. If our method of interpretation is correct, this should be reflected in the liturgy of the Mussaph service of Rosh Chodesh. We do indeed find such evidence: 1) "The new moons You have given to Your people as season for atonement for all their generations, when they brought free will offerings." 2) "He-goats as sin offerings to atone on their behalf,-a salvation of their soul from its enemy..." The "soul's enemy" refers to the evil urge which has prompted our doubts about the fairness of G-d’s justice. Continuing and referring to the future, we say, "A new altar will You set up in Zion, at which time the he-goat offerings will be offered in a state of grace." There will then be no need to offer the he-goats as sin offerings, since there will be no evil urge, i.e. a philosophical enticement to act contrary to the will of the Creator.

5. _.37.1.8

   Rashi, who had said that the Torah could have started with this chapter, may have had another point in mind. The book of Genesis was written in large measure to teach us that what happened to the forefathers, foreshadowed events that would occur in the lives of their descendants. What Rashi may have meant is that the functions of the moon and the function of the Jewish people are such that a similar lesson could have been learned by comparing the two. This may also be the meaning of the statement in the Talmud (Chullin 60) that the facial features of Jacob are engraved on the surface of the moon. When viewing the progress of the moon in this light, and comparing it to the history of the Jewish people, it could serve as a boost for our faith in the fulfilment of all the prophecies concerning the ultimate destiny of our people.

6. _.37.1.9

   At this point, the author discusses 12 symbolisms in connection with the moon's behavior, linking these to the twelve tribes of the Jewish people. The list is omitted in the interest of brevity. A different way of looking at the aggadah in Chullin 60 is this: Israel (moon) complained against Esau (sun) that it is impossible for both to wear the crown of spiritual success. The difference in their essence makes that impossible. G-d’s suggestion to the moon then was that the moon give up some of its claim to glory in this world, so as to merit the crown of success in the world to come. G-d’s message was that Jews could not expect to be both spiritually and materially successful in the present world as well as in the world to come. When the moon wanted to know why this was impossible, G-d said in effect, "Go ahead and try." Although a few Jews succeeded, it became clear that whatever measure of success they did attain, was viewed by the world as essentially belonging to the realm of the material world. They were not credited with being different from other gentiles. So G-d told the moon that in that case it must find its satisfaction in the recognition it would obtain in the eyes of the Almighty. Although it is true that the sun too, plays a part in calendar calculation, since the righteous achieve their status by claiming smallness, it behooves the moon to act likewise. Success in this world, though sometimes forthcoming, cannot be guaranteed; but to try for it with any chance of success, one must be prepared to be humble and unassuming. Proof that the Almighty Himself was not totally happy with the need to advise this path, is provided by the fact that He requested the he-goat offering as an act of atonement for having made this demand on the Jewish people. If we consider all the sufferings undergone by the Jewish people despite the fact that they were persuaded by G-d to reduce their claim to the enticements this world has to offer, imagine what greater suffering would have been in store for us had we not voluntarily agreed to this contraction in size. To sum up then, our Parshah has a threefold purpose: 1) To debunk theories about the moon that are idolatrous. 2) To rebut the argument about the accidental nature of the universe. 3) To strengthen Jewish faith in the ultimate fulfilment of our hopes.

7. _.38.1.2

   "it shall be the first of the months" etc. "Happy the nation whose" etc.

8. _.38.1.3

   Shemot Rabbah 15 quotes Psalm 33,12, "Hail the nation whose G-d is the Lord." Since G-d chose the universe, He established new moons and years. When G-d chose Jacob and his sons, He established the new moon of redemption on which Israel would be redeemed in the future. This is based on what we read in Michah 7,15, "As in the days when you sallied forth out of Egypt, so I will show wondrous deeds then." During that month, Isaac was born, during that month he was bound on the altar, during that month Jacob received the blessings, and during that month G-d hinted to Israel that it would be the beginning of the redemption, since it is written, "It is the first for you of the months of the year" (Exodus 12). This can be compared to a king who took his son out of prison and said, "Make this day a festive day every year from now on, since my son came out of darkness into light, and out of slavery into freedom."

9. _.38.1.4

   Just as the precision and predictability of events based on laws of nature testify to the true existence of its Master, so on occasion does the suspension of laws of nature proclaim the Majesty of the Almighty. Philosophers have conceded the existence of G-d and enthroned Him, when they agreed that He is the ultimate Cause of all that exists, and that if one were to imagine that He did not exist, nothing else could exist either. However, if the universe were to disappear, it would not have any bearing on Him at all. These philosophers erred when they tied His existence to the existence of the universe. By so doing, they compared the relationship between G-d and His world to the relationship of intelligence to that which has to be comprehended. They should have compared it to being more like the sun is to light. Should light disappear, fire would not therefore cease to exist. The philosophers' way of explaining G-d’s relationship to the universe makes Him no more than a partner in the universe. This in turn leads to the error of denying G-d’s eternal nature. He has indeed preceded all, was absolute ruler before He decided in His infinite wisdom to create all, for the sake of the universe and those in it, not for His sake (Proverbs 16,4, "G-d created everything for a purpose, for their respective sakes"). Should you ask how the remainder of this verse can be understood, i.e. "also the wicked for an evil day," i.e. surely evil was not created for its own sake or benefit?! The answer is that on the "evil day" the lesson we derive from the existence of the wicked becomes clear, namely when we observe him get his just deserts. In His wisdom, G-d has divided the universe into three layers. The upper layer consists of disembodied intelligent beings, active intellects close to the throne of G-d. The lower layer is our world, in which the most advanced living creature is the talking human species, which has been endowed with potentially pure intelligence, and who with the help of G-d and His Torah, can obtain actual intelligence almost to the point of partnership with the beings in the uppermost of the three layers. The middle layer is the world of planets with its four basic material elements. It has been placed between the other layers since it governs the lowest layer, being in turn guided by the abstract intellects in the uppermost layer. Therefore, it functions in two ways: 1) the normal manner governed by the rule of the intellects in the upper layer, i.e. natural law; 2) however, there is also a second way, activated by the members of the third layer, when they have achieved the kind of perfection that it is possible to achieve through Torah, which has then made them equal to and partners with the beings in the top layer of the universe. In such instances, on rare occasions, the rule of the beings in the "top layer" can be superseded, and "natural law" becomes "super natural law," known as "miracle". This is due to the profound changes that tzaddikim themselves undergo in ascending to the level of righteousness and piety that makes prophets out of them. They are granted powers similar to, or even greater than, those of the intellects in the upper layer of the universe.

10. _.38.1.5

    Shemot Rabbah Section 8 asks why G-d is described as the melech hakavod, the king of glory. The Midrash answers that this is so because He accords honor and prestige to His subjects. Normally, a king's horse or mantle is not used or worn by his subjects; however, G-d let Elijah ride on His horse (Nachum 1, Kings II, 2,1), Moses used the staff of G-d (Exodus 17,9), and Solomon sat on the throne of G-d (Chronices I 29,23). There is a commentary which understands this as an absence of jealousy on the part of G-d. Since all the aforementioned paraphernalia of G-d’s power are His, first and foremost, and even when they are employed by human beings are never mentioned except as things which belong to G-d, it proves that He does not mind that the symbols of His sovereignty are used by some of His subjects. All of this is explained quite properly by Midrash Tanchuma, who uses the simile of G-d saying to Moses, "I am not like a human being who forbids his subjects the use of royal prerogatives, but I even share My very Name with you." Moses is called "elohim." G-d referred to Jeremiah as "chassid." The Jewish people are referred to as "kedoshim,” all of which are Divine attributes, names. This last Midrash does not refer to the same thing as the Midrash Rabbah we quoted, else it should also have used the term "an ordinary person has no right to use etc," instead of "one does not use." When a king delegates authority to a minister or general, he usually does so in order that his own glory be enhanced. If the king hands his seal of office to a minister, it is in order for the minister to rule in the name of the king, on behalf of the king. Not so in the case of G-d. When G-d delegates His authority, He does not do so for His own sake, but for the sake of the prophet and his people. When Elijah was in possession of the key to rain, he used it independently, as he saw fit, on behalf of his people. When Elisha had the key of life at his disposal, and revived the dead, he did so in his own right. Moses smote the sea, and was in fact criticized by G-d for praying instead of using the power delegated to him (Exodus 14,26). Solomon who had asked G-d to delegate this power to him, acted in his own right. His wisdom was considered as having been a gift from the Divine, but he employed it for the benefit of his people. In this way all of these people became partners of G-d, a status far above that of ministers or generals of human monarchs who always remain strictly servants or employees.

11. _.38.1.6

    There are occasions when the delegation of power by G-d to man does not signify partnership or the right to act independently. Isaiah 10,5 describes such an instance when he says, "Ashur is the rod of My anger, and the staff in the hand of My wrath." When G-d employs the might of Ashur to vanquish the ten tribes and lead them into captivity, He is not acting as melech hakavod, as the king who imparts His glory to mere mortals, but rather He employs Imperial Ashur as one would employ one's staff to do one's bidding. When Ashur boasts of its might, and imagines that it has acted on its own, the prophet sarcastically asks "Can the axe boast of the stonecutter? Whoever heard of such a thing? Since when does the saw brag about the person using it?" To enable us to know which kind of authority is wielded, remember the following: The former kind is usually wielded by a prophet, so that miracles can be recognized when they do occur, and the prophet prepares us for their occurrence, to strengthen our belief in the true nature of hashgacha peratit, Divine Providence. When events occur that we describe as being part of the natural order of things, this shows that G-d employs midat hadin, the attribute of justice. When they occur in what we call "supernatural order," the midat harachamim, i.e. the attribute of mercy is at work. Both methods point to the fact that history is supervised. Predictability of events points towards supervised management, whereas the occasional unpredictable abnormal occurrences confirm that the manager has retained freedom of action, which in turn enhances His stature.

12. _.38.1.7

    Yalkut Shimoni on Joshua 22 item 247 relates that when Joshua told the sun, "Stand still," the sun replied, "You are telling me to stand still?!" Joshua said, "Yes!" The sun said, "If I stand still, who will sing the praises of G-d during that time?" Joshua replied, "You be still and I will sing the praises of G-d, as is written in the book of Joshua "Az,” "Then Joshua would say etc.," and we know that wherever the expression “az” is used it is followed by a song of praise (Joshua 10,12). Similarly, “az yashir Moshe,” then Moses would sing a song of praise (Exodus 15,1). The Yalkut exemplifies what we have explained before. The sun testifies to the presence of its Master, i.e. G-d, by its very orderly and predictable orbit. Its failure to perform on time, might give rise to the notion that coincidences govern the universe. Joshua replied that there is another way to testify to the existence of an absolute and free Master, and that this was what he proposed to do by means of working a supernatural, temporary miracle, arresting the sun's motion. A slightly different version of the same conversation between the sun and Joshua has the sun saying, "How can a small one say to a big one ‘Be silent, stand still?!’" The sun meant that having been created already on the fourth day of creation, how could it accept orders from a mere mortal who had only been created on the sixth day of creation?! It did not need to accept orders from its juniors. Joshua's reply was, "Does a young freeman never tell an older slave to keep still? You are the slave, having been created to serve the freeman Abraham. You have bowed to Joseph, (‘The sun, moon, and stars were bowing down to me,’ Genesis 37,9). This makes you merely a bondsman.” The end of that version is similar to that in the Yalkut.

13. _.38.1.8

    In order to lend more emphasis to the wonderful concept of hashgachah peratit, this month was chosen as the beginning of "holy convocations" for all times. All holy convocations are rooted in the Exodus from Egypt. They have therefore been granted exclusively to the Jewish people. Rabbi Akiva expresses this fittingly when he says (Shabbat 87), "This day has been given ten crowns to symbolize the ten directives by means of which this universe came into existence. The last of the eight days during which the tabernacle was consecrated was Sunday the first day in the month of Nissan. On that day, Aaron commenced to perform the daily service in the tabernacle."

14. _.38.1.9

    The ten crowns in the Talmudic passage referred to have hardly been chosen at random. Since the erection of the tabernacle and all that pertained to it represented a microcosm of the larger world, the macrocosm, these crowns may symbolize the ten directives we have listed in Chapter three. They were the directives used by G-d in creating the universe. They were: 1) Essence. They are then followed by nine directives moderating the Essence: 2) Quantity. 3) Quality. 4) Directional. 5) Time frame. 6) Relative condition when compared to a state of perfection. 7) Relation to other phenomena. 8) Effect on other phenomena.9) Impressionability by other phenomena. 10) Its rationale, its attributes. The ten crowns would be these: 1) It was the first day of creation. 2) It was the first day the princes began to present their offerings. 3) It was the first day that the priesthood operated. 4) The first day of public sacrificial service. 5) The first day Heavenly fire descended to consume the offerings. 6) First time priests were permitted to eat of the meat of the sacrifices. 7) The first day the shechinah took up residence on earth. 8) The first time Israel received a collective blessing. 9) The first time altars outside the tabernacle were forbidden as a site of sacrificial offerings. 10) It was the first day of the months the years are counted by. Crown one may be viewed as symbolizing directive 6, describing the relative condition of phenomena compared to their perfect states. Crown two, the princes' offerings, may parallel directive 3, i.e. quality. Crown three, priesthood, may parallel directive 7, relative relationships. Crown four, sacrificial service, may parallel directive 8 , impact on other phenomena. Crown five, the descent of Heavenly fire, may parallel directive 1, the Essence. Crown six, eating of sacrificial meat, may parallel directive 10, describing ownership relations, G-d relinquishing some of what is His. Crown seven, the presence of the shechinah on earth, may parallel directive 4, i.e. the "directional." Crown eight, Israel receiving a collective blessing, is parallel to directive 9, describing impressionability by outside phenomena. Crown nine, prohibition of private altars, parallels directive 2, dealing with quantitative relationships. Crown ten, the first of Nissan being the beginning of the months of the calendar, is parallel to directive 5, governing the time frame that the universe operates in. All the foregoing teaches that these ten directives were sufficient to ensure that the world is run according to natural law. What had happened at the time the human species was created repeated itself at the consecration of the tabernacle for the Jewish people, exclusively. At that time, guidelines were given how a Torah personality was to develop and what its function was to be in this world. This is the reason the sages decreed that a special paragraph of this story was to be read on a special day in public, i.e. parshat hachodesh. It signifies major differences between Jew and gentile (Megillah 29). It is surprising that the Torah did not set aside and proclaim publicly the universe's birthday (Rosh Hashanah), but camouflaged it by calling it "the first of the seventh month shall be a day of rest, remembrance of the blowing of the ram's horn" (shofar). The reason must be that the Torah wants to emphasize the miraculous guidance at times, as evidenced in the chapter about the month of Nissan. This in preference to stressing natural cosmic forces, at work most of the time. As G-d said in our parshah, "In order to tell My Name." It is well known that the Egyptians worshipped the ram, the sign of the ram being the month of Nissan. They invoked this sign in order to dominate others, Jews in particular. The sign of the ram, which according to natural law should have been the Egyptians' patron, protector, would now be turned into acting as their adversary. "This month, (moon, sign of the zodiac) is for you." It now becomes the friend of the Jewish people. Other Egyptian practices are discussed in Chapter 54. Using or abusing the lamb was forbidden in Egypt on pain of death. Now the tables would be turned. Jews openly committed blasphemy on Egyptian deities, enslaved them, i.e. imprisoned their Passover lamb for four days in public, tied such lambs to their bedposts, and no Egyptian seemed able to do a thing about such desecration of what they held sacred. This lamb was slaughtered in full daylight, its blood smeared on the door posts of the homes of the Israelites. So that every Egyptian should be aware of this lese majeste, it cannot be submerged in a kettle or pot by being boiled, but must be broiled on a spit over an open fire. It cannot first be cut up, so that it might more easily be kept out of sight, but must be broiled while whole. When the leftovers were burned and denied to dogs, the latter did not even make a sound. The astrologers or magicians no doubt had realized on the tenth of the month already that their whole world had undergone an upheaval, even though actual consumption by the Jews of the lambs was not to occur until the full moon of the night from the fourteenth to the fifteenth of the month. The fact that only perfect specimens of the male rams were used, further emphasized the impotence of the Egyptian's deities to do anything to save themselves from the clutches of the Israelites. All this is an explanation of the sequence of events in Chapter twelve. This is followed by the prediction of the slaying of the Egyptians' firstborns. The slaying of the firstborn was timed to coincide with the hour at which the power of their deity was supposed to be at its zenith (midnight of the middle of the month). This demonstrated that the G-d of the Israelites can perform at all times, even at the hour most advantageous to any would-be challengers. The judgments were carried out at night to demonstrate that G-d did not need any agents such as the sun whose function it is to rule nature by day. The line "anee ve-lo malach,” does not mean "only I and no agent," but rather "I am personally involved," and am not leaving all this to My usual agents. G-d supervised the slaying of the firstborn together with all His regular agents. Possibly, when our sages interpreted "I and not a messenger, I and not a Seraph, I and not an angel, I and no one else" (Hagaddah shel Pessach), they had in mind that death normally occurs when one of the four basic elements (wind, water, fire, dust {earth}) is denied a living creature. The Torah underlines that the firstborn of Egypt were not denied any of these four elements, and yet they died. This points toward the direct involvement of G-d, i.e. the use of supernatural means to carry out His will. Lo Saraph means heat was not denied. Lo Malach means wind, air was not denied. Lo Shaliach means that water was not denied (G-d sends water on the face of His universe. Job 2 is proof that the word shaliach is used to describe water). Lo Acher, earth, dust was not denied (compare the meaning of acher in Leviticus 14,42). This blood will be a sign for you," on your houses i.e. it will not serve as a sign for G-d. This is not like in the case of the spies Joshua had sent out, and who instructed Rahab to identify her house for the army of the Israelites by fastening a red thread outside the wall of her house (Joshua 2). It is certainly not G-d who needs to learn how to distinguish between Jew and gentile. The blood on the doorposts was to be the outward sign of the Jew's inner attitude, the blood that signalled he had identified with the covenant that existed between him and the G-d of Abraham. The selection of the believing Jew as the one fit to be redeemed resulted in the commandment to make and guard matzot. The requirement to remove leavening from the dough (Berachot 17) is symbolic of removing the ingredient that undermines and corrupts our character development and beliefs. The three fold karet, i.e. extinction penalty, that is spelled out in connection with non obeservance of this legislation (once on pessach sheyni) is a) to warn us about alien philosophies (thoughts); b) expressing such thoughts orally; c) translating such thoughts and words into deeds. We begin the "search" for chametz before the holiday approaches, in order to become imbued with the holy spirit; this then becomes a statute that is to be observed throughout the generations.

15. _.38.1.10

    The Midrash quoted at the beginning has this idea in mind. Once G-d chose the world, He determined the dates of new moons, and new years. The new years were indicative of the natural law that was to govern the universe, i.e. the system based on the month of Tishrey. Once G-d saw that the universe could not function successfully on this basis of midat hadin, attribute of justice, He chose Jacob and his descendants, i.e. tzaddikim. Because of the latter's good deeds, G-d was prepared to flood the world with midat hachessed, harachamim, mercy, Personal Intervention. He set aside the beginning of the month of Nissan for commencement of this method of guiding history towards His objectives. "The work of the Lord is great, and consists of the day the Jews took the lamb" (yom hashem hagadol- Compare Tossaphot Shabbat 87). The word hagadol, the great, is used on another day when ideologies of idol-worshippers are upset. This is on the Day of Atonement when the scapegoat is thrown down the abyss to demonstrate how we feel about people who sacrifice to such creatures, and how such an action by us helps our own kapparah, atonement, forgiveness (Yalkut Shimoni Yael, item 2). The word hagadol, the great, may also be a reference to G-d Himself, rather than an adjective describing the importance of that day and date in the calendar. The grammatical construction then would be yom hashem hagadol, the day of the Lord who is great. We find in Jeremiah 10,6, "Great are You O Lord, and great is Your name. This points out the difference between the Lord G-d from mortal kings. The latter are praised, exalted, only to reveal weaknesses after all. Not so with G-d, who lives up to all His advance billing. On the contrary, it is impossible for mere mortals to express all the praise due Him (compare Chronicles I 29,11 "Yours, O G-d is the greatness, the Power etc.")! G-d’s characteristics are unlike those of human kings. As long as the latter enjoy physical power, they are hardly concerned with real justice, rely on might rather than right. Not so with G-d. He always has power at His disposal, but He employs justice nonetheless (Psalms 99,4).

16. _.38.1.11

    Some problems in the text of our chapter: 1) The three paragraphs mentioned up to now all contain elements which have to be transmitted to one's children and to subsequent generations. In the paragraph commencing with "Pull yourselves a lamb," the command continues with "It will be when your children will say to you." In the paragraph commencing with "Sanctify for Me every firstborn," the Torah continues "You shall tell your children." In the paragraph commencing with the words "It will be when G-d brings you to the land… ,” the continuation is "When your son will ask you..." It is strange that in the middle paragraph commencing with the words "This is the statute of the Passover," which deals with the least comprehensible aspect of this legislation, no reference of the need to explain the significance and meaning of this mitzvah even in response to queries is made. Why is this so? 2) Why are the questioners in the first paragraph "Pull yourselves a lamb," described in the plural, i.e. "your children?" 3) Why did Moses not tell the Israelites prior to the Exodus about the laws of leavening, matzah, sacrifices to be observed on the Passover? All these laws had already been communicated to him by G-d in the early part of Chapter 12? 4) Why do the Rabbis describe the query "What is the meaning of this service to you?" as specifically the query posed by the wicked son? Did not the "wise" son also ask "Which the Lord our G-d commanded to you" (Deut. 6,20)? Does not the fact that in that context the "wise" son refers to "our G-d" signify only that the questioner sees in G-d the Creator, not necessarily the legislator who has the right to legislate to those who had not been part of that historic event? 5) Why does the author of the haggadah switch around the answers that the Torah gave, instead of following the pattern set by the Torah? 6) The Torah really has the children only pose two questions. Moreover, the question of the "wise" son in Deuteronomy is directed at the entire legislation contained in the Torah, not just the part dealing with Passover. Why then does the author of the haggadah include it in the Seder service altogether?

17. _.38.1.12

    (1) We have already explained that in order to understand any matter completely, one needs to know the answer to four basic questions, namely : material, form, purpose and the architect, i.e. creator of the matter which we try to understand. However, depending on the intelligence of the questioner, he may have to be satisfied with answers that do not reveal the full information about every one of the four parts of the question. As a matter of fact, there are occasions when explaining the full extent of the answer to a query is futile, due to the limited intelligence of the questioner. If a simple minded person were to ask "why is this a dwelling?" and you were to reply "because it consists of bricks and lumber," the chances are that such a questioner would be satisfied with this answer. If the questioner were a little less simple minded however, he might object that he had seen combinations of bricks and lumber which certainly did not constitute a dwelling. Yet, when you tell this person that the combination of bricks and lumber was designed by an architect, he would likely be satisfied seeing that he now understands what and who is responsible for the structure in question. However, a more inquisitive mind would not be satisfied unless he also understood the need for this particular structure, i.e. the motivation of the architect who designed it. Finally, the most probing mind of all would not be satisfied until it was clear how this particular design enables the structure to fulfil the purpose for which it was designed. Similarly, the Torah addresses its answers to these four levels of intelligence. The wise son has all aspects of the legislation explained to him; the emphasis is on the format of the structure. The wicked son is reminded of the overall purpose of the legislation. The simple son, the tam, hears about the architect and the materials, whereas the real simpleton hears only about the materials used. (Passover lamb, matzah and bitter herbs) The slaying of the firstborn and the way in which this occurred, concludes the list of miracles that were designed to establish the truth of G-ds existence, mastery, and freedom of action. As such, it is a suitable point for introducing laws of Passover which recall this very truth about G-d. (3) G-ds instructions to Moses are divided into verse 1-11, and again into verses 13 to the end of the commandment, (verse 20) (2) G-ds instructions to the people, are divided into the four categories of intelligence that are found amongst the people. First and foremost comes the part which was to make sure of the belief in the very existence of G-d, i.e. the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood thereof on the door-posts. Also, there is the plague of the slaying of the Egyptian firstborn which would answer the scoffers and doubters of whom there were many. The evidence of the multitude of the doubters is the phrasing of the question of the wicked son in the plural, i.e. "when your children will say to you." This does not refer to a genuine enquiry at all, nor to thirst for enlightenment, but expresses scoffing and doubting. We find similar language employed for the same purpose in Joshua 22,24. (4) When the members of the tribe of Gad answered Joshua, they were worried about future attitudes of the Jews of the West Bank towards those residing on the East Bank of the Jordan. The question then was merely rhetorical, expresses conviction already deeply held. This is why our sages have seen fit to put this "question" in the mouth of the wicked son, meaning "what good does all this service do for you?" The wicked son asks for the purpose of the legislation. The author of the haggadah then is not content with telling him of G-ds Providence, His Personal Intervention on behalf of the Jewish people, but adds that such Personal Intervention, hashgachah peratit is reserved for those individuals who have accumulated some merit. Since people of the type of the wicked son have not accumulated such merits, they would have been excluded from such Personal Intervention on their behalf by G-d, anyways; therefore they do not have to worry about Passover observances, not about the removal of chametz etc. After the Torah said (12,29) "they went and they carried out," we are told about the actual happening of the slaying of the firstborn that had been predicted. Then we have the section about the Passover statute legislation, which must have included all the pertinent details, although mention is made only of the heading of the subject matter, i.e. "Passover." This is proof that both eydot, chukkim and mishpatim, the three categories mentioned in the question of the wise son, were included in that legislation. An example of the former, i.e. the chukkim is the command that no bone of that lamb must be broken. An example of the mishpatim, social aspect of the legislation would be "if a stranger (convert) lives amongst you and he too wants to observe the Passover etc." Lastly, the eydot, testimonial aspect of the legislation would be the demand "the entire congregation of the Jewish nation shall perform it," part of the legislation. (5) It is fitting therefore that in the haggadah we pose the question of the "wise son," which though it addresses itself to the entire range of Torah legislation, is being directed at the Passover legislation, since no similar query is mentioned in our chapter. That this question is indeed the one posed by the most intelligent type of our children, is evident from the probing nature of the query which addresses itself to what at first glance appear as as illogical aspects of the legislation. After all, most nations would commemorate events such as the Jewish people had experienced, without the need for Divine instruction. The answer points out that at least part of our "testimony" (read "history") was due to G-ds loving kindness, Personal Intervention on our behalf. He took us out by means of miracles, thus establishing an eternal claim on our obedience. Therefore, our historic observances cannot be compared to other nations' observances of their respective historical highlights. The Psalmist in Psalms 116,16, expresses it thus: "Please, O Lord, if I am Your servant, it is because You have loosened my bonds." On the other hand, the purpose of the seemingly illogical chukkim is to test our obedience and fear of the Lord, but also "to be good for us at all times," as stated in Deuteronomy "it will be considered righteousness for us to observe and carry out the entire mitzvah, legislation." (Deut. 6,25) This sentence refers to the mishpatim, mentioned earlier, and teaches that beyond the fact that our social behaviour is good for the other person, it is ultimately good for the person who acts in a socially positive manner. Our sages express this by stating that the poor man does more for the rich man than the rich man does for the poor man, when the former is the recipient of the donation by the rich man. (6) The author of the haggadah suggests that the Passover legislation be used as a miniature Torah, to demonstrate to the wise son the validity of the answer given by the Torah in parshat va-etchanan.

18. _.38.1.13

    There follows the portion "sanctify for me every firstborn," the third portion dealing with the Passover legislation. It stipulates "remember the day you came out of Egypt, in the month of spring; when you come to the land of Israel this will become an annual celebration, seven days of eating matzot, prohibition of chametz etc." The Torah addresses itself to the simplest intellect among the Jewish people, who is satisfied to know "my life was saved," with the proviso that I perform this service annually. You teach such a person simply that exceptional historic events deserve to be commemorated in exceptional ways. Such commemoration consists of the use of materials such as the Passover lamb, matzah, and bitter herbs. This is a ceremony that even such an intellect can understand. The Torah advises, in effect, do not complicate the issue, stick to the material facts. Then comes the fourth passage, addressed to the sincere questioner. That this is so is proven by the fact that this questioner does get to the land of Israel, since the Torah states "it will be after the Lord will bring you to the land...which He has promised to your forefathers.." (13,5) You teach such a son that redemption of the firstborn is the result of the Egyptian firstborn having been slain by G-d, whereas the Jewish firstborn had been saved. This demonstrates the fruits of belief in G-d. On the other hand, it teaches the eventual result of maintaining an obstinate posture vis a vis G-d, such as was maintained by the Egyptians. The tam, is to be viewed as the opposite number of the rasha, wicked son, not as the opposite number of the chacham the wise son. When the tam is told that the Jewish people were redeemed in a miraculous fashion, he is reassured in his belief, since he learned who it is that looks after the Jewish people.

19. _.39.1.2

    Parashat BeShalakh

20. _.39.1.3

    Shemot Rabbah Exodus 23, comments on the verse "This is my Lord, I will glorify Him," (15,2) that this shows that the people who descended into the sea were of high moral stature. Moses had extreme difficulty in obtaining a visual image of the Lord, as we see from the verse "please show me Your glory!", (Exodus 33,18) to which G-d replied "you cannot see My face," and finally showed him a reflection, since it is written "when My glory passes and I remove My palm, you will see My rear."

21. _.39.1.4

    The animals supporting the throne of G-d in the vision of the prophet Yecheskel (1,3) have no idea of G-d’s appearance, nonetheless they praise Him at the appropriate times by saying "blessed be His glorious kingdom from wherever His place." However, the Israelites descending into the sea of reeds could proclaim "THIS is my Lord, I will glorify Him." Each one of them was able to point his finger at an image of G-d. In the future there will be a time when you will be able to say this twice, as we are told in Isaiah 25,9, "on that day he will say HERE is the Lord our G-d in whom we hoped that He would save us; THIS is the Lord we have placed our hope in, let us rejoice and be happy with His salvation." Man's position in the universe is between the sphere of the heavenly bodies and the lower creatures and inanimate matter on earth. Since he is composed of elements of either, these elements separate from one another when man dies. "Dust returns to the earth, and the spirit to the Lord." (Kohelet 12,7) Also, in nature there are gradations of animations such as corals, sponges etc. which are neither fully animate nor completely inanimate. Since we perceive that in all spheres of creation there are such gradations, the same is true also in the spiritual spheres. Everything is relative and measured against higher or lower levels of spirituality. The concept of tov, good, used in the Torah, such as when Moses demands from the people that they perform certain commandments, is always a relative "good" ("in order that you will be well of," for instance.) (Deut, 12,25) The "good" referred to is what it is possible for a human being to achieve within a certain framework. When Moses describes the task of a Jew as "what is it that the Lord your G-d asks of you, except to fear Him etc. (Deut, 10,12), he is telling us that we have been given the means to achieve a higher degree of spiritual perfection than other human beings, if we observe the laws of the Torah. It does not mean that this will make angels out of us, and remove us totally from any vestige of the animalistic within us. The mitzvot that are required of us, help us achieve our relative perfection. The same mitzvot are not required of the heavenly creatures, (angels) as they would not help them achieve their own relative perfection. "To be good for you,"- i.e. it is good for us, does not mean the same thing would be good for anybody else, (non humans.)- "to be good for us for all time." There are two kinds of "good" that apply to us. Acquisition of the "good" is divided into two categories, (a) activities, which while enhancing the self, the personality, have no impact on our environment, (b) activities which leave an imprint on our environment. Refinement of our intellectual faculties for instance, leaves the objects of our perceptions completely unchanged. If Job (Job 28,13) asks sarcastically about the value of true wisdom, which seems to him so ineffectual, the truth is, that what appears invisible is in reality the pure intellect. When Solomon states "that the advantage man enjoys over the animal is nil," he means to say that this very "nil," invisible intellect, is what separates man from the beasts. (Kohelet 3,19) Job, (28,12) asking "which is the site of understanding?" suggests that insight cannot be limited to spatial considerations, i.e. makom. "The deep said it is not to be found within me, and the ocean said it is not within me." This means that wisdom is not found in the physical part of the universe. Another distinction of the pure intellect, unencumbered by the physical, is the enduring nature of achievements of the pure spirit. Results of intellectual enquiry etc., are not subject to subsequent mutations through synthesis with something physical. The other accomplishments involving outside objects etc. are subject to whatever it is that happens to such material objects. Since material objects are subject to decay, accomplishments tied to matters material are similarly subject to decay and eventual disintegration. Actions by the Almighty fall into the aforementioned two categories. He is both an intellect, reigns supreme and is majestically separate; but there is also the “yad hachazakah” which while part of His intellect is what He employs when He wills happenings in this universe. By means of the latter, the yesh, is created from the ayin, the visible is created from the invisible, immaterial. The three worlds, the totally physical, the physical/spiritual, and the totally spiritual, abstract, are all part of this second part of intellect. Even the totally inanimate physical world that appears at first glance as everlasting, (planetary system, rocks etc.) is conceived already by our Torah and prophets as having a finite existence. (Isaiah 51,6) "Lift unto the heavens your eyes, and behold the earth; the heavens will melt like salt, the earth will rot like clothing. Similarly, its inhabitants will die were it not for My salvation that will last forever, as well as My righteousness which will not diminish." This and other examples teach us that all that is enduring is so only inasmuch as it uses the spiritual force it has been endowed with. Material things, even those of the most enduring kind, once devoid of spiritual stimulants- will ultimately disintegrate of their own accord. Our own concept of an enduring existence is based on hashgachah peratit, on G-d’s Personal attention to the creature or object in question. We do not hold that species as such are self perpetuating, independent of the specific will of the Creator. Despite the fact that we have described the purely intellectual as being superior to the physical, man's advance towards his relative perfection must proceed via the active, not merely the contemplative, since the latter is apt to lead to erroneous conclusions. This is why the Torah demands deeds, which through the system of reward and punishment, assure us of our nitzchiyut, perpetuity, or lack of it, G-d forbid. Aristotele is a prime example of the pure intellect arriving at faulty conclusions. Solomon says (Kohelet 7,16) "do not become too clever or you will be left desolate." The danger is that one may become a blasphemer, inadvertently. Our composition is such that we achieve our goal only through fulfilling the mitzvot. The prophet jeremiah sums it up when he says "let not the wise man boast of his wisdom...but let him who must boast, praise himself for knowing Me, for I do love kindness etc." (Jeremiah 9,23) G-d suggests that man imitate His attributes.

22. _.39.1.5

    After having paid homage to the fact that G-d is aware of the four types of activities man can perform, i.e. both the involuntary and the most meticulously planned, David describes the omnipotence of G-d by stipulating that any attempt to escape G-d’s investigative powers is doomed, even escape into the grave. (Psalms 139,8) The composers of our liturgy have expressed these thoughts in the paragraph of the New Year's prayer commencing with the words "You know the secrets of the universe." David is grateful to have had all this demonstrated to him." I wish to thank You for the marvellous way in which I have been made" etc. (Psalms 139,14) Revelation is much more than all intellectual speculation. David goes on to describe man's composition in verses 15 and 16. Concerning the acquisition of knowledge about G-d, David is content with the historical record as reported in the books of the Torah and Joshua. "Everything has been written down in Your book." The human eye cannot perceive the Essence of G-d. We can only judge His actions, inasmuch as they relate to those outside of Him.

23. _.39.1.6

    Greek philosophers suggest that objects created for the purpose of enabling the artist to perform his art, make the artist the centre of importance, since all is aimed at the glorification of the latter. It would therefore demean the Creator, were He to place a mere creature on such a high pedestal. The author claims that this argument collapses when the object of the Creator remains that of directing attention to Himself via the artist performing his skill. Creating a violin whose purpose it is to enable the artist to perform his music,- while enhancing the reputation of the artist- adds glory to the master of the universe for whose greater glorification all music is intended.

24. _.39.1.7

    Psalms 92,2, "it is good to pay homage to G-d and to sing praises to Your name, most High." This is the conclusion reached by David after having overcome doubts in this matter. Cognition of G-d’s works is our primary task. Glorifying His works in song and music is the natural corollary of such cognition. The song the Jewish people sang after their deliverance from the army of Pharaoh by G-d’s miraculous personal intervention, is a prime example of this.

25. _.39.1.8

    Problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) If G-d diverted the route of the children of Israel due to the fear of a military encounter with the Philistines, what good was accomplished, since they had to fight Amalek instead? 2) Why was there a need for Israel to travel both by day and by night? (according to the meaning of "the column of fire to light for them to travel by day and by night." 13,21) 3) Why was Israel asked to make a one hundred and eighty degree turnabout and attract pursuit by the Egyptians, when at the end of three days (their avowee* objective when they departed Egypt) their continued absence would have brought about this pursuit anyways? The Egyptians certainly could have been expected to recover their wealth if not the slaves themselves? 4) Why did Israel suddenly display fear of the pursuing Egyptians, when they had been told in advance that the whole maneuver was to inspire such pursuit? The misgivings the Israelites had expressed while still in Egypt, had never concerned eventual pursuit by the Egyptians, rather it had been concerned with the discomfort and dangers of the journey itself. So why do they say to Moses "this is what we have been saying to you all along?" 5) Why did Moses say "stand firm and behold the salvation of the Lord!", without spelling out the nature of the salvation? The latter would have inspired more confidence if accompanied by a detailed prediction. Besides, the promise "You will never again see the Egyptians as you do today," meaning "attacking you," is historically not true. Compare Kings I chapter 11, or Jeremiah chapter 43. Why was their part to keep silent, instead of praising the Lord, while G-d did all the fighting? 6) Why did G-d say to Moses "why do you cry out to Me?" To whom should Moses have cried out for help if not to G-d? 7) Since the instrument of salvation was the wind that split the sea, Moses’s staff should have addressed itself to the wind, not to the water! (i.e. "stretch out your hand over the sea.") 8) Why is the movement of the angel behind the Israelites' lines referred to as "he went" and not "he came?" What is the meaning of "cloud and darkness lit up the sky?" (verse 20) 9) Since the Egyptians, due to confusion, moved into the heart of the sea, why is this movement described as "nassim" "fleeing?" 10) What is the difference in meaning between eytano and tivoh "returning to its natural state," instead of "returning to its original state?"

26. _.39.1.9

    "Now when Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them" etc.

27. _.39.1.10

    (1) The remnants of the antedeluvian giants were found only in the land of the Philistines. Goliath, in the cities of Gat and Ashdod, and the legendary Og in what is today Jordan. Had the Israelites continued on the path that the expulsion by the Egyptians had indicated, they would have sustained losses in the encounter with such kings. They would not have had the faith building experience of crossing the sea on dry land etc. Their lack of self confidence would have been understandable, and the prediction of the Egyptian astrologers that the Jews were marching towards their doom would have been fulfilled. For this reason, G-d made them detour in order that these miracles could be experienced and for the surrounding nations to be duly impressed and frightened by the G-d of the Hebrews. We know from the testimony of Rachav of Jericho forty years later, that there was fear in the hearts of the Canaanites ever since the crossing by the Jews of the sea of reeds and the drowning of the flower of the Egyptian army in those same waters. Even the forty year trek through the desert by the Jewish people, had not diminished that impression. When the Emorite Sichon made war subsequently, G-d had to infuse his heart with obstinacy as well as the hearts of the other kings of Canaan who defended their country against invasion by the Israelites. These had not been natural reactions, but Divinely inspired defensive wars, to enable the Israelites to carry out the conquest of the land, and to enable G-d to fulfil His promise to Abraham and to them.

28. _.39.1.11

    (2+3) The haste and march around the clock which characterised the Israelites' departure, was meant to convey the impression that these people had no intention of returning to Egypt. Coupled with their subsequent turnabout, the Egyptians could believe that they had lost their bearings, and combined with the other considerations they would convince themselves that pursuit would be likely to be successful. Ever since the last of the ten plagues, Pharaoh appeared to have given up on the Israelites as slaves; he had not, however, given up on the silver and other valuables the Israelites had taken with them. Nevertheless, he needed a stimulus to give him the courage to mount the pursuit. G-d provided this stimulus by allowing Pharaoh's spies to misinterpret the moves and motivations of the Israelites' strange march. This is proved by the fact that only the cavalry was involved in the pursuit. When they saw the confusion, they decided to broaden their objective, reasoning that their having dismissed Israel from slavery had been foolish and unnecessary. They had convinced themselves that the Israelites had abused their situation to flee permanently, against the wish of even their own G-d, who had therefore caused them to lose their way in the desert. The Egyptians' newly found courage had been inspired by G-d. (4) When the Israelites- who had hoped to see G-d interfere with the Egyptian cavalry- did not perceive such overt action by G-d, they became concerned to the point of crying out.

29. _.39.1.12

    (5) Their understanding of "I shall deal severely with Pharaoh," had been quite different from the way G-d had meant it. G-d had been waiting for Israel to appeal to HIM, as Shemot Rabbah 21, explains the words "let Me hear your voice." (Song of Songs 2,14) Israel had to be reminded continuously that they were in need of G-d’s personal intervention. One of Israel's constant worries was that maybe G-d had meant for them to be free in Rameses, and that Moses had taken it upon himself to lead them out of Egypt, and that their various difficulties were all due to Moses having exercised his own volition. The Israelites' fear of dying without burial in the desert overcame them. If they would die in Egypt, they would be buried at least, if only to remove the stench of their rotting bodies. Moses now denied them even such elementary human dignity, they claimed. Slavery in Egypt would have been a price worth paying, if it meant avoiding death without burial in the desert. Moses replied that G-d’s rescue would be total. Once you will witness it, Moses said, tacharishu you will keep silent, will criticise no longer.

30. _.39.1.13

    G-d’s response to Moses, whose promise to Israel included a plea to G-d, now reveals the nature of the deliverance to take place. (6) The instructions to Moses had been -"you who had already been appointed as "elohim” Pharaoh, should have acted on your own initiative, by instructing Israel to proceed, instead of crying out to Me." You should have used your staff to bring about the means for such a crossing of the sea.

31. _.39.1.14

    (7) At the time of creation, the Lord had said that the waters should collect together in one place. He had stipulated at that time that should the need arise, this state of affinity could be suspended. It was a reminder of this agreement that caused the separation of the waters of the sea at that moment. (Shemot Rabbah 21)

32. _.39.1.15

    (8) The angel, in the form of a pillar of cloud, which had remained stationary while the Israelites had been encamped facing the sea, was to resume its motion when Israel started to enter the sea bed. Since this occurred at the beginning of the night, the pillar of fire would have to precede them to light the way. To prevent the Egyptians from being guided in their pursuit of Israel by the light of the pillar of fire, the pillar of cloud was to take up its position at the rear of the Israelites, thus separating them from the pursuing Egyptians. It was therefore not a new angel of G-d that we are talking about, but a re-arrangement of the angel that had been with them all the time. Moses’s raising his hand instead of his staff,-something the Egyptians had seen him do often-, would prevent the Egyptians being clued in to the fact that another miracle was about to occur.

33. _.39.1.16

    (9) The wind was another device designed to fool the Egyptians. The Egyptians would ascribe the drying out of the sea bed to the power of the wind rather than to the Providence of G-d activated by Moses’s hand. Once the Egyptians had proceeded past the point of no return, G-d unleashed the heat of the column of fire upon the Egyptians. Since the pillar of cloud was still in front of them, they did not know the source of this unbearable heat. This led to their recognition that it was the G-d of the Israelites who fought against them; therefore they began to flee. Since this coincided with Moses’s raising his hands for the waters to return, the latter moved toward the fleeing Egyptians so that their flight could be described as a rush towards the waters. (10) When G-d had created the waters, He had not restricted its movements. Only in Genesis 1,9, did He command the waters to gather in one place. Now this command had been temporarily revoked, in order to drown the Egyptians. Therefore the use of the expression "to its original state, i.e. to the state the waters had been in at the time of creation.

34. _.40.1.2

    "Then sang Moses"

35. _.40.1.3

    Shemot Rabbah 23, explains the verse in Song of Songs 4,11, "your lips are dripping liquid honey," as referring to Moses reciting the song after Israel had crossed the sea of reeds. Moses had said before the Lord "with the very thing that I have sinned, I came to sing Your praises." This is like a king whose subjects had revolted against him. The king said to his commander-in-chief that he wanted to punish the rebellious people. The commander-in-chief said that he did not think the king would come out victorious in such an engagement. The king kept silent, but went out single handedly and prevailed against the rebellious people. When his commander-in-chief heard about this, he fashioned a crown and brought it to the king. In answer to the king's question what this crown was for, the commander-in-chief said that it was to atone for his sin. Similarly, Moses,who at the beginning of his mission had come to G-d complaining that since his appointment things had gotten worse for the Jewish nation, ("ever since I have come to speak to Pharaoh in Your name, he has dealt worse with the people,"(Exodus 5,23) now came and praised the Lord commencing with the word az i.e. ever since. This demonstrates that righteous people can turn an instrument of iniquity into an instrument of atonement. This too is the meaning of "your lips O bride, drip with liquid honey."

36. _.40.1.4

    There is a great deal of difference between a sin committed under the influence of the evil urge, and a sin committed as a result of calculated deliberation, the result of rationalisation. The sinner of the first category will easily feel shame and remorse, leading to complete repentance. The Talmud Berachot 12, says that whoever commits a sin and feels ashamed of it, will have all his sins forgiven. Proof of this is cited from Ezekiel 16,63, "that you may remember and feel shame, and have no more excuse because of your humiliation, when I have forgiven all you have done." The reason is, that the sins committed under the influence of the evil urge do not generally remove the sinner from society. This is why the Talmud Sanhedrin 104, includes king Achaz as belonging to the group of righteous kings. The king, who had subjected his own son to Moloch rites, an extreme abomination, who sold temple treasures in order to bribe the king of Ashur, and who even made a replica of an altar he had seen in an idolatrous temple in Damascus, nevertheless qualified for the description "righteous!"! This was due to the fact that the Talmud interprets Isaiah 7,3, as evidence that king Achaz displayed shame in the presence of the prophet. The idea seems to be that the shame displayed proved that his sins had been due to impulses, not to deliberate attempts to flout G-d’s laws. When the Talmud Sukkah 52, states that anyone who is greater than his fellow man also has greater urges than his fellow man, this may well mean that he who deliberates before committing a sin, may well find that eventually the impulses urging him to sin will overpower him. This is also the meaning of the Talmudic statement (Yuma 29) that "the deliberations leading to sin are worse than the sin itself." This is nothing else than saying "when the sin has become the result of careful deliberation, such sin is especially weighty." The whole matter is well illustrated in the dialogue between Rav Ashi and king Menashe reported in Sanhedrin 102. The former had announced to his students that on the morrow he would lecture on the three kings who had forfeited their share in the hereafter, including his colleague king Menashe. During the night, king Menashe appeared to Rav Ashi in a dream, demanding to know why Rav Ashi had had the arrogance to describe himself as his colleague. He asked Rav Ashi from which end of a loaf of bread one has to cut first when reciting the benediction of hamotzi. Rav Ashi did not know. Thereupon king Menashe said to Rav Ashi "if you do not know the answer to such a simple question, how can you describe yourself as my "colleague?" Rav Ashi asked to be given the answer. King Menashe explained that the part of the loaf that gets brown first during baking, is the part one must cut. Thereupon Rav Ashi wanted to know how it was possible that a man who had been such a talmid chacham, great scholar, could have been so deeply involved in idol worship and all the atrocities described in the book of kings. The king replied that if Rav Ashi had lived during that period he would have served those same idols with much greater fervour even. Menashe who approached things from an intellectual level, knew that it is logical to cut the bread at the point where it first started to become bread, i.e. in accordance with natural processes. Menashe's idol worship was based on reason, logic and his knowledge of the operation of natural law. Such sinfulness is almost impossible to reverse unless one is granted an act of clear hashgachah peratit, personal Providence by G-d. In the latter's case, the afflictions he suffered while imprisoned by the king of Ashur, proved to be such a catalyst and made him into a baal teshuvah, repentant sinner. Rav Ashi who applied Torah reasoning only, would have been even more vulnerable to the arguments of the philosophers of that time, had he been exposed to them. Therefore, in the estimation of Menashe, he would have embraced idol worship with even greater fervour. Menashe is used as an example of the errors that the pursuit of philosophy and natural sciences, when a primary occupation, can lead to. Menashe and his group had persuaded themselves that G-d had abandoned the earth, hence they went their own way, did not feel beholden to anyone. As a result of their conduct, their philosophy became a self fulfilling prophecy, since G-d was forced to withdraw in view of their blasphemous behaviour. The wickedness of Israel at that time exceeded anything that had ever occurred before. G-d’s withdrawal however, was secondary, i.e. effect not cause. Once Menashe had been captured, humiliated, etc., he began to view his personal fate consistently not as accidental, but as a sign from heaven that he was being punished. This paved the way for his teshuvah. G-d hearkened to his prayer, and he was restored to his throne in Jerusalem. (Chronicles II 33.) Menashe's teshuvah could hardly have occurred had he not known where bread begins to bake, i.e. that natural processes all have an ultimate Cause, i.e. the Creator. The study of cause and effect, i.e. natural science, had finally led him to the realisation that there had to be an ultimate Cause. Belief in miracles is only sensible once there is the conviction that He who occasionally employs the supernatural, is in fact Master of the natural, its guiding force. Menashe's deliverance proved to him the superiority of personal experience of "the hand of G-d" to all theories about religion that had preceded it. Even a Moses had erred similarly, as long as he had assumed that logic and reason would dictate success in his dealings with Pharaoh. Rachav and her people were impressed with the supernatural, (splitting the sea, crossing of the Jordan, Joshua 2,10-11) The miracles performed by Elijah and Elisha threngthened the belief in G-d as the prime force in our lives. The argument between Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair who was on a mission of raising funds to secure the release of Jewish prisoners, and a river which refused to stop running in order to afford him a chance to cross it, is an interesting example of our point. (Chullin 7) Rabbi Pinchas commanded the river to part, to let him cross in order to perform a mitzvah. The river replied that since it was performing the will of its Creator twenty four hours a day every day, it could not depart from the norms that had been set for it. It added, that since it was certain that it carried out G-d’s will, whereas the success of Rabbi Pinchas' mission was in some doubt, it saw no reason to comply with Rabbi Pinchas' order. Rabbi Pinchas threatened that the river bed would dry up forever unless it responded positively. The river complied. In fact, Rabbi Pinchas even insisted that the river also part for the sake of a fellow traveller who was transporting matzah for use on the Passover. Rav Yoseph commented that Rabbi Pinchas' powers and greatness equalled that of Moses plus six hundred thousand Jews. The argument underlying all this, merits our attention. Rabbi Pinchas was engaged in an endeavour similar to the one Moses had been engaged in at the time of the Exodus. Both were engaged in liberating Jews that had been enslaved by human masters. They were to be freed so that they could serve the Lord. The river's argument was that by following its normal, natural behaviour it was carrying out its destiny, the one decreed by its Creator. Gravity and a tendency towards cohesion of water molecules are part of those natural laws, and must not be tampered with. Man's will, the river argued, is fickle, not anchored in natural law. Sometimes man decides to comply with the Creator's designs and purposes, other times he does not. Such fickle and irregular service of the Lord cannot be granted priority over the constant performance of the Lord's will by rivers such as the one in question. Not true, said Rabbi Pinchas. You and nature as a whole exist only for the sake of enabling man to fulfil his destiny. (Bidmuto u-vetzalmo, in His image was man created, in order to emulate Him) If you fail to facilitate this, you have lost your reason for existence altogether, said Rabbi Pinchas to the river. You would therefore cease to flow altogether. As Bereshit Rabbah 19, puts it "whatever was created before its counterpart, is inferior to its counterpart." (see our chapter 15) It follows that what Rabbi Pinchas said to the river in essence, was, "unless you now perform the specific task allotted to you by me, your existence for the general tasks is pointless." We must understand the Midrash in Shabbat 88, that at the time of creation G-d made an agreement with nature that its continued existence was contingent on the acceptance of the Torah by Israel, in the same spirit. This is also the meaning of the discussion between Joshua and the sun which our Rabbis quoted in the Yalkut Joshua 23. (see chapter 37) Proof of the fact that this principle is correct, is found in the fact that the ordinary Jew carying flour for Matzah on the Passover was deemed worthy of the same miracle as the saintly Rabbi Pinchas.

37. _.40.1.5

    Moses’s error had also been that he had believed in the supremacy of natural law as dictated by the intellect. He had to be taught that this was not so. In the word az, referring to the past, he wished to atone for his erstwhile error. The end of the Midrash quoted at the outset, namely that the righteous can achieve atonement with the very thing that constituted their error, expresses the same thought as what had prompted Moses to commence the shirah, song with the word az. This song is divided into five sections, each representing a distinct concept. 1) The need to give thanks to the Lord. 2) Acknowledging the mastery G-d displays over His creation.(verses 3-6) 3) The reputation G-d acquired due to His personal intervention in the fate of individuals as well as nations, plus the fact that despite His involvement in minutiae, His stature does not suffer from a decline in image, (verse 7-13) 4) Proof that everything that happened was intentional, not accidental, (verses 14-16) 5) The declaration that G-d’s power is eternal and will extend into all future eras, i.e. "the Lord will rule forever more."

38. _.40.1.6

    Problems in the text of the story. 1) Both Moses and Miriam commence with "He tumbled horse and rider into the sea." Since this subject is elaborated on later, what was the need for this caption? 2) Why did Moses use the name of G-d at the beginning, but relied on kinnuyim, attributes of G-d in the rest of the song? 3) Why are statements about events which had not yet taken place couched in the past tense? (Examples: "You have guided them in Your strength to Your holy dwelling;" or " nations have heard") 4) Why is the name used for G-d "aleph dalet nun yud" when the Temple is referred to? 5) Why did G-d subject these people to a lack of basic means for survival such as lack of water, almost immediately after the crossing of the sea? 6) Why are the details of the laws given at Marah not spelled out? 7) In chapter fifteen, verse 26, G-d makes very detailed demands on the Jewish people. The reward for complying, namely that they would not be afflicted with the plagues that G-d had visited upon the Egyptian, seems quite paltry by comparison. Besides, what is the point of G-d telling us at that stage "I the Lord, am your Healer?"

39. _.40.1.7

    (1) In order for a song of praise to be proper, it needs to mention both the ones who have performed glorious deeds as well as the nature of those deeds. Also, the people who acknowledge the glorious deeds need to be identified in such a song. Then did Moses and the children of Israel sing," identifies the latter. "This song," identifies the song of thanks itself. "To the Lord who is high exalted," identifies the subject of the song. "Horse and rider He flung into the sea," identifies the event that is being acknowledged. (2) The use of the name koh in the next verse to describe G-d is meant to portray a single attribute of G-d only, namely the manifestation of G-d when He rescues those that are in mortal danger. The name koh is like some others, only a fraction of the concepts represented by the four lettered name of G-d. If we find these two names coupled with one another in Psalms on several occasions (118,5-6; 115,15-18), the idea is that the recognition of G-d in all His manifestations is the purpose of being allowed to see Him as koh, as Saviour in times of distress. "G-d is a man of war,"- when hashem reveals Himself as the man of war par excellence, this does not in any way diminish His stature as yud kay vav kay, as the Eternal and everything else that that name implies.

40. _.40.1.8

    Experts at war, choose terrain that they are familiar with, and weapons that are suited to the terrain on which the battle is being waged. Moreover, they choose the battlefield, do not allow the enemy such choice unless they are fighting merely defensively. The Egyptians, it is pointed out, had done exactly the reverse. They moved cavalry into the sea, instead of ships. Moses quotes these illogical activities as proof that G-d had already deprived them of their usual martial intelligence. The shirah shows in detail that whatever happened to the Egyptians was the opposite of what they had planned. Fleetfooted chariots became hindrances in their flight. That these facts penetrated the consciousness of Israel is underlined by the change in language from indirect speech with the words "Your right hand Lord is glorious in power."

41. _.40.1.9

    The fact that what had occurred was an example of G-d’s Personal Providence is introduced with the letter vav in the line "and with the greatness of Your excellency, You overthrow them." Of course, G-d could have destroyed the Egyptians immediately after they had set out in pursuit of the Jewish people, since "as soon as You send forth Your anger it would consume them like straw." (same verse) But You chose otherwise. The same ruach, wind that allowed the Israelites to cross the sea, became the doom of the Egyptians. Ruach is used in the dual sense of "wind" or "the ability to breathe, as in smell" from afar. Bar Kochba's claim to be the Messiah was disproved by his inability in this respect, (compare Isaiah 11 and Sanhedrin 93) If one lacks one basic ingredient necessary for success, ultimate failure is inevitable. The Egyptians who should have interpreted the Jews' hasty descent into the seabed as an attempt at suicide to forestall defeat or capture, chose to ignore the basic rules of successful warfare. Therefore, their own eventual drowning became inevitable because it was of their own making. The sequence of events then was as follows: (3) (verse 7) 1) The waters were piled high, 2) stood like a wall, 3) appeared as rigid or frozen. All normal considerations would have alerted the Egyptians to the dangers inherent in pursuing Israel under such conditions. However, 4) the enemy said "I will pursue, overtake, and I will divide the spoils, my lust will be satisfied, I will draw my sword, my hand will destroy them." They acted irrationally due to the overriding consideration of greed. This was followed by the Egyptians falling victim to their own miscalculations. Since these miscalculations had been known only to G-d, they had to be recorded at the proper point in the sequence of events. Therefore, "You blew with Your wind, and the sea covered them." This is followed by "who is like You among the mighty O Lord?"

42. _.40.1.10

    After the "how" has been described, we come to the international effects of what has occurred. The verse commencing with the words "YOU have led us in Your love," introduces what G-d’s ultimate purpose had been in all this, namely to lead Israel- if possible-to uncontested takeover of the land of Canaan. The psychological effects of the miracle, "fear has taken hold of the inhabitants of Palestine etc.," are described.

43. _.40.1.11

    This too however, is only the ultimate physical objective. The ultimate spiritual objective, which lies still in the future, is the eventual establishment at the hands of G-d Himself, of the Temple that is to endure for all times. At that point,"the Lord will reign forever more,” will have become reality. (4) Possibly, as we have learned from the Kabbalah, the name aleph dalet nun yud refers to the sanctuary which will be identical with His name. As Moses had once requested in Exodus 34,9, " may A-D-N-Y walk in our midst." The ultimate image we have of mikdash, Divine Sanctuary, is that of "MY name is in its midst," meaning a time when G-d’s name will be central to the Jewish people's very existence, daily. Since it is the custom of composers to briefly summarise the essence of the event that they have described in their poems, the words "for the horse of Pharaoh came" (verse 19) describe the main events of kriyat yam suf, the splitting of the sea, in order to impress this once more on the minds of the readers. (5) It is obvious that it was difficult to get the Israelites to move towards the desert now. They had expected to live according to the norms of Egyptian civilization. When G-d makes them thirst for water, it was to make them look forward to Marah, the place where they could quench their thirst. (6) The fact that the bitter waters were turned into sweet waters, was to demonstrate that that which G-d supplies can become palatable very quickly, though it may be quite different from what they had been accustomed to. The wood Moses threw into the water was symbolic of the Torah's ability to change the unpalatable into something sweet and palatable. (Eytz chayim hee, she is the tree of life) The Egyptians' problem had been that they suffered from a stubborn heart. (Here I have allowed the heart of Pharaoh to remain stubborn" Exodus 4,21) In order to make it easy for the Jewish people to observe His ordinances, G-d now says to them "if you listen to My commandments (even if you do not understand them), you will do what is right. Subsequently, ve-ha-zanta, you will hearken (7) with understanding and also observe the chukkim the statutes for which I have not revealed a rationale, and which you do not yet appreciate. As a result of this, i.e. faith in G-d, you will be spared all the afflictions with which I have afflicted the Egyptians, since I am your Healer."

44. _.40.1.12

    The "affliction" of the Egyptians G-d refers to, is their very "hard heartedness." Allegorically speaking, the lesson of "He taught him about a tree," i.e. the piece of wood that Moses threw into the water, was the same lesson as that of the tree of life in gan eden. When one is aware of one's ultimate goal, eternal life, one can swallow some bitter pills in this world, serene in the knowledge that they pave the way to ultimate eternal life and sweetness. Just as a bitter medicine often restores a body to health, so bitter pills can pave the way to spiritual health. Just as one has to submit to the doctor's instructions, since he is the expert, so one has to submit to the Creator, who is the ultimate life giver. My medicine, says G-d, is guaranteed to help, whereas human physicians cannot even guarantee that the bitter pills they prescribe will produce the hoped for result.

45. _.41.1.2

    "I will make bread rain down for you from heaven."

46. _.41.1.3

    Shemot Rabbah 25, interprets Isaiah 33,16, "He dwells in high places," as referring to the statement in the Torah (Deuteronomy 8,7) "for the Lord your G-d brings you to a good land, a land of rivers, fountains and deep waters springing forth in valley and mountain" to a table set in THE garden as in Psalms 116, "I will walk in front of the Lord in the land of the living." The Lord is pictured as sitting at the head of the table above the ancestors; all the righteous sit around at His feet, as it says "and they are sitting at Your feet receiving Your words." (Deuteronomy 33,3) G-d will present before them all manner of fruit from the garden of Eden, and feed them from the tree of life. After that, they will all bless their host, and ask G-d to assign the honour of reciting grace. G-d bestows this honour on the archangel Michael; the latter, in turn bestows it on the archangel Gabriel. Gabriel accords the honour to the ancestors, who in turn accord it to David. They say that the king they have chosen for themselves shall pronounce the blessing for the King of Kings. They present the chalice to him, and David, holding the chalice proclaims "I am lifting the cup of salvation and I will proclaim the name of the Lord."

47. _.41.1.4

    Since the nourishment provided for the various species of the universe is commensurate with their respective needs, it is axiomatic that the most advanced species are provided with the most advanced form of nourishment available. Normally, the type of food provided for a species is on a level that is one degree lower in the order of life than the species to be fed by it. Since we have stipulated elsewhere that the order of creation proceeded from the simple towards the more sophisticated, it follows that the lowest form of life derives its food supply from primordial matter. This would be immediately below it in the order of creation. After all, the lowest form of existence is primordial matter. Next would be the four basic elements, all of which rank equal in the scheme of created matter. Therefore, air, fire, earth and water act respectively as nourishment for plant life, the latter being of a more sophisticated nature than the basic elements. If plants need rain or water to sustain them, this is in accordance with such natural order as we have described. On the other hand, development, growth of the inert form is possible only through the infusion of an amalgamation with any or all of the basic materials contained in primordial matter. When a creature of a certain level in the world of matter receives its nourishment, or part of it, from a category more than one rung lower than itself, this is a curse. When we are told that the serpent in addition to feeding on plants, also feeds on earth, a lower form of created matter, this is a curse. (Genesis 3,14). Also man,-as long as he had been restricted to a vegetarion diet- (Genesis 1,29) was not yet at the elevated level where his food supply was only one category lower in the scheme of things than he himself. Possibly, the verse (Genesis 1,28) "and have dominion over the fish in the sea, over the fowl in the air and over every living thing that creeps on the earth," was in fact permission to also feed on an animal diet. The fact that such an animal diet was withheld till after the deluge, could have been the result of the original sin. The gradual decline of animals into becoming carnivorous beasts, is merely a form of corruption paralleling the corruption of man during the period preceding the deluge. This is why Isaiah predicts in chapter eleven, that all these carnivorous beasts will undergo a change of nature in the post messianic era. Since the Jewish people have attained the stature of am segulah, "precious nation," their nourishment does not only include the category immediately below them in the world of matter, but even part of their own category. G-d describes this in Deut.7,16, when the Torah says "you will consume all the nations the Lord your G-d gives you, your eyes shall have no pity on them." This refers to our having been granted permission to ensure our continued existence and well being at the expense of gentile nations worshipping idols and practicing other perversions. When we find that the Talmud Pessachim 49, states that the ignorant is not permitted the consumption of meat, this may mean that any person who has not qualified to be a member of the human race "in good standing," is not allowed to use the immediately lower category of life to serve as the material that satiates his appetites. To make indiscriminate use of creatures only a single category less sophisticated than ourselves, we must first prove that we ourselves live up to our own destiny, are intelligent creatures, chay ha-medabber.. Both Bileam (Numbers 24,8), Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14,9) describe Israel as "consuming" its enemies. There are humans whose way of life places them sufficiently below us that they may serve as our life sustainers. Food, after all, is an aspect of life sustaining matter. On the other hand, food too far below our rank would drag us down to its level; therefore, insects etc. are forbidden. Since cannibalism is prohibited as despicable, the references above refer to our right to dispose of these nations as we see fit. A human being may fit into one of three categories. 1) He may be so ignorant that he has difficulty putting thoughts into words. 2) He may be capable of putting his thoughts into words, but his thoughts are so banal and mundane, that he only achieves basic purposes such as union with a mate, ("he shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh") 3) He may belong to the select group who use the power of speech to express lofty thoughts, whose ideas are capable of standing on their own without physical sustenance. Of this group it is said "if he will live, he will die, but if he will die, he will live." (Yalkut Shimoi Bereshit 14) Dilution of the spiritual with the physical is apt to impair the spiritual to the point of death, whereas refinement of the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical, will result in life eternal. People of that category require two kinds of nourishment, one for the physical part of their beings, the other for the spiritual part. Our rabbis refer to this as "two tables." The physical part can be nourished successfully by a vegetarian diet, meat being forbidden to it, since it derives from the same level of creature. In such a type of person, the spiritual part is not considered integral to the total personality. Their intellect, being of the world of the spirits, does not require physical sustenance just as none of the spirits require this. This is the reason such individuals as Chanina survived on as little as a kav (6 eggs' volume) of carobs from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. (Taanit 24) This indeed may have been G-d’s wish when He created original man in whom the spirit, intellect reigned supreme before the fall. The food par excellence for people of such stature would be bread, (compare Proverbs 17,1, "better dry bread than meat obtained in an environment of strife") Concerning the "second table," the substance required by the spiritual part of such men is the product of his good deeds. In the words of Isaiah 3,10, "hail the just man for he is well off; he shall eat the fruit of his works." The meaning is allegorical, just as in Psalms 128,2, "you who eat the fruit of your labours," namely the good deeds you have performed sustain you into the hereafter, into kingdom come. When the Lord provided Manna for the Jewish people in the desert, it had been hoped that everyone would qualify as belonging to the highest category of person outlined above. If that had been so, the physical part of the Manna would have sustained the reduced needs of their bodies. Since the quality of that food was such that it could be completely assimilated by their bodies, none of it having to be excreted, only a small' quantity would have been needed. The spiritual part of their personalities would have been sustained by the many lessons to be learned from the composition, the quantity, the manner of delivery, by the time at which the Manna was to be gathered etc. The fact that G-d did provide meat in answer to the request of the Jewish people, but in a manner much less gracious than the way in which the Manna was provided, leads one to believe that the supply of the quail was a one time occurrence. It was merely meant to demonstrate that it was indeed G-d who had taken the people of Israel out of Egypt, not Moses and Aaron, as the Israelites had been complaining. The very fact that the people are once more reported as having demanded meat, (Numbers 11,4) proves that meat had not been part of their diet all along. Further proof that meat was a exceptional provision, lies in the fact that it came unaccompanied by such ordinances as the manner in which it had to be slaughtered, specific quantities for each person, how long it could be preserved etc., all details that had been spelled out about the Manna. When the Torah talks about "bread," and uses Manna as proof that "man does not live by bread alone, but by all that issues from the mouth of the Lord," (Deut.8,3) bread is a synomym for nourishment, and the lesson is that nourishment of a physical kind is solely for our physical parts, (elevated man category three) Observance of the instructions (motza pee hashem ) accompanying such food are the nourishment for our spiritual part. It will be shown that this too was the nature of the food supplied to Adam in the garden of Eden.

48. _.41.1.5

    Some difficulties in the text of our story. 1) Since this Manna, described as "bread from heaven," or "heavenly grain" (Psalms 78,24) can obviously not be from the world of pure spirits, the world of the abstract, why is it called "heavenly?" 2) Why did the Torah impose a restriction on the amount a person was to collect, as well as the need tc use a measure? Why not allow each person to collect as much as he wanted, just as in the case of the quail? 3) The report "they said to each other it is MAN, for they did not know what it was," seems somehow contradictory. Also, the wording should have been "they asked one another" instead of "they said to one another." 4) Why did G-d insist that they leave no leftovers for the following day? Since those that did try to preserve some watched it rot and decay and thus absorbed the lesson, why was Moses angry at them? Similarly, those who had gone to collect on the Sabbath and found that no Manna had fallen, surely had learned their lesson from that very fact? 5) Since the Torah reports that each person went to collect in accordance with the instructions, why does the Torah report that when they measured it after coming back to their tents, it corresponded to the quantities stipulated? 6) How could the people have found double quantities after coming home on Friday, without having noticed this at the time they collected it? (since the elders reported this fact to Moses full of surprise, this must have been so) 7) Why did the uncollected Manna melt at say 10 A.M.? Does this not appear very wasteful? Would it not have been better to let everyone collect a little more in order to dispose of the excess constructively? Why would the leftovers that were kept indoors not melt, but rather become worm eaten? 8) Why was there no Manna on the Sabbath? After all, it could have been collected with ease and eaten raw, so no violation of the Sabbath would be involved? Why does the Torah repeat that there would be no Manna on the Sabbath? 9) Why were those who had gone out to collect on the Sabbath treated as if they had deliberately flouted the entire Torah? (verse 28) If the rabbis say that the mitzvah of the Sabbath is equivalent to the sum total of all other mitzvot, we are entitled to have that statement explained to us! 10) Why was one single omer enough to be preserved for all times as a memento of the food the Isralites ate for forty years? 11) Why does the Torah repeat the passage about the Israelites eating Manna for forty years? (verse 35) Our sages say that the Manna stopped falling after Moses died. However, it remained in storage for thirty days after that, until the Israelites crossed the Jordan. What was the need for that miracle? 12) Our sages, who claim that Amalek's attack on Israel was prompted by Israel's complaints to G-d, did not explain what was so improper about a nation complaining to their leaders about their being thirsty? Why did G-d let things reach such a critical pitch as is described in our verse? Why did He not provide sooner?

49. _.41.1.6

    No doubt the portion dealing with Manna is of fundamental significance, since it relates to man's ultimate destiny and salvation. The impediments to achieving final goals are twofold, and stem from people having either too much or too little. Of the two impediments, having too much is undoubtedly the greater impediment on our path towards salvation. A surfeit of worldly goods acts as a greater hindrance to our achieving our spiritual goals than a shortage of such material possessions. We know of many poor people who became great Torah scholars, whereas only a few Jews managed to combine both material wealth and great spiritual leadership in one person. Among those blessed with wealth, some have used it to provide comforts for their families, others, such as the tribe of Zevulun, to enable others to pursue a life of Torah study not interrupted by the need to earn a livelihood. However, the vast majority were snared by material wealth to feed their own greed. As a result, all the good their wealth might have accomplished was wasted. Of the latter people, David says (Psalms 78,33) "they have ended their days in vanity, their years in confusion." Deuteronomy 8,11 -14, warns of the dangers of wealth which can lead one astray. (1) Because G-d was aware of the dangers inherent in wealth, He provided Israel with bread from heaven on a day to day basis. This was to teach them the lesson that He was the great Provider, and that food serves specific objectives, that its accumulation is not an end in itself. Only in this way can one expect to be fed at "the two tables." (2) When G-d provides the Manna, the temptation not to serve G-d because one is busy earning one's livelihood ceases. On the other hand, by not receiving excess food or material wealth, the temptation to wheel and deal, amass fortunes etc are robbed of their very basis, and the impediment to serving G-d due to preoccupation with one's worldly possessions is removed from such an individual. This is the meaning of the words "in order to test you if you will go in the way of My teachings or not." (Exodus 16,4) (8) By providing a double portion for the Sabbath already on Friday, the sanctity of the seventh day is emphasized, for without preparing for that day ahead of time, no prepared meals would be possible on the Sabbath. The lesson is also taught that accumulation of worldly goods is justified when these goods serve a holy purpose, (more about this in chapter 55) (3) When the Jewish people noted a layer of fine particles, they believed it was the Manna which people knew of. That is why the verse cites "they said to one another it is "Manna," because they had not realised what it really was." They had been wrong! Moses pointed this error out to them, explaining that this was not a medication, but food. Moses said "this is the bread G-d has given to you to eat," i.e. it is not what you thought it was. Since, however, they had already named it, the name stuck to it. Since it was difficult to get the Israelites to change the name of that food, we find repeated occasions when Moses refers to it by name, with the added comment "which neither you nor your forefathers knew," or, "who feeds you Manna, which neither you nor your forefathers knew. (Deut. 8,3; 8,16) All this is to let us know that although the Israelites named the food "Manna," it is not identical with the Manna generally known. (4) The essence of the heavenly gift which was absorbed by the body one hundred per cent was, that it was to serve exclusively as food, not as an object of trade or barter. That is why Moses said "gather from it each according to the amount he needs to consume, namely one omer per head." When the Israelites did so, each one estimating the amount he required, he found upon returning to the camp that what he had collected was exactly one omer for each head in his family. The wonderful lesson was that it had been demonstrated that rich and poor require exactly the same amount of sustenance. (5) He who thought that he had collected "a lot," hamarbeh, as well as he who thought he had collected a little, ha-mamit, realised at the end of his respective life that each of them had had exactly enough. The rich person cannot take his wealth with him, and the poor has not been deprived since he has had enough until the day he died. (7) They were not allowed more than one day's supply to comply with the principle of baruch hashem yom yom, may the Lord be blessed daily, to teach us to have faith that G-d will be here to provide for us tomorrow also. The fact that some people starved themselves in order to leave some for the morrow, was not a form of asceticism, but was proof they were miserly. Just as there are many men who because they deny themselves luxuries being miserly with themselves, succeed only in providing generously for the second husbands of the widows they leave behind, so the Israelites were to be taught that self denial for the wrong reason is self defeating. The fact that the Manna melted as the sun became hot, was to dissuade greedy people who might come back to collect the left over quantities. The very crystal like nature of the Manna when freshly collected, gave rise to the belief that it would be easy to keep and preserve. This is the reason all these points are described in detail. (8) (6) Moses had obviously not told the people beforehand that a double ration would be found on Fridays. Moses then told them that if they prepared it for the Sabbath right away, not on the next day, it would keep. "He who labours on the eve of the Sabbath, will eat on the Sabbath," i.e. he who labours in this world will reap a double reward in the world to come. The verse (Exodus 16,26) "on the seventh day is the Sabbath there will not be any on it," teaches that any good deeds accumulated in this life is food stored up for consumption in the hereafter. "Today to prepare it, and not tomorrow to prepare it." (Avodah Zarah 3) (9) Just as there were people who tried to keep what they had already collected for later, so there were some who went out on the Sabbath to collect. They did not want to miss any, in case there would be some. G-d’s anger at these people stemmed from the fact that the lesson of the double ration they had already received on Friday had been lost on them. They were not concerned with their well being in the hereafter, but lived only for the material blessings available in this world. Moses upraided these people saying "here G-d made you a gift of the Sabbath." Their refusal to see the centrality of the Sabbath legislation to the whole fabric of Judaism, was indeed a most serious offence. The visible Providence of G-d in connection with the Manna demonstrated that the Sabbath legislation is indeed fundamental, its observance a keystone in Judaism.

50. _.41.1.7

    When Shemot Rabbah 25, suggests that in answer to the question of why we observe the Sabbath, we should point out the fact that no Manna fell on the Sabbath, it means that we have seen proof that He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. The falling of the Manna was associated with three miracles, (a) it did not fall on the Sabbath, to teach the sanctity of the Sabbath; (b) the fact that the daily ration collected was exactly adequate for each individual, there was no shortfall. This teaches that one should not chase after material goods and seek to accumulate them; (c) the double portion that fell on Fridays, teaching that the Sabbath was the day of rest, and that only those people would eat it who had prepared for it on Sabbath eve. The lazy people would starve. Compare Isaiah 65,13, "behold, My servants will eat, but you will starve!" (See Shabbat 153) (10) Since "seeing is believing," keeping a day's supply of Manna bottled up for future generations would reinforce the belief of future generations of Jews that Manna had indeed been also been spiritual nourishment, and as such had benefitted even the later generations. (11) The repetition of "they ate Manna for forty years etc.," is to emphasize that both their physical and their spiritual needs were met by consuming Manna during all these years. Alas, when the Manna stopped, and there was no longer visible evidence of G-d’s Providence, Israel began to depart from the level of Torah observance it had practiced up to that point. The Midrash quoted at the outset reflects the lesson of the Manna. Before explaining this in detail, we must understand some of the details in the parable. Why had G-d placed the table in the garden of Eden and not in the desert? Where were the angels Michael and Gabriel, if G-d sat the head and the righteous at His feet? Why did they divide the fruit of the garden and the fruit of the tree of life into separate courses? How does one accord honour to G-d if one portrays Him as asking others to recite grace? This is especially curious in view of the fact that that honour was declined by most of those who had been invited to say grace? Since the angels did not participate in the meal, how could they possibly have been asked to recite grace? What prompted David to bless G-d more than the other participants at that meal? Since G-d’s activities both within nature and when supernatural, are all designed to afford man a greater understanding of who He is, what He is, the extent of His power etc., eating at His table is symbolic of being allowed to share some of these insights. This is the reason the Midrash quotes the verses in Isaiah 33,16-22, in which G-d is featured as the Provider of parnassah, livelihood. When these verses describe how G-d established Israel in the choice land of Israel and Jerusalem, this refers to the Manna. Just as the Manna was food par excellence, so the land of Israel was soil and climate par excellence, providing the best in crops and agricultural products. Its advantages were similar to the advantages of Manna over ordinary food. Proverbs 30,7-9, expresses our attitude to earthly belongings. "Do not make me too poor or too rich." This is the reason that parnassah became known as shulchan aruch (see haggadah sheI Pessach) The term means that all necessities are at hand. The "fruit" represents the food for the body of elevated man, referred to earlier in this chapter. The bodies of such people are to be treated as separate from their spirit, and therefore rate vegetable matter as their proper nourishment. The fruit from the tree of life represents food offered to the mind and spirit. Since the latter is also the nourishment that sustains angels, it was quite in order for them to recite grace for what they had received from their Host. Honouring G-d by allowing Him to choose the order of who should recite grace, is a way of saying that G-d’s involvement in all that goes on in our world is not merely indirect, He being the ultimate Source, but that it is immediate. He remains in charge, overlords all that goes on in our world. Since the angels Michael and Gabriel had not been listed as guests participating at that meal, their mention may symbolise two different stages of human development. Michael is symbolic of the primordial intellect, something that represents merely man's potential. Gabriel, on the other hand, symbolises the mind and spirit that have matured, achieved their potential. According to Chagigah 16, these are the two angels that accompany man at all times, never leave him. G-d first asked Michael to recite grace, since he first and foremost is in need of the nourishment offered, and has to acknowledge what he has received from the Lord. Next comes the angel Gabriel, who has to give thanks for the spiritual sustenance received. It is this which enables the most refined part of man to achieve its perfection. Next in line are the ancestors who, though they owe many of their moral and ethical achievements to their own efforts, could not have done so without the nourishment (guidance) provided by Him. The ancestors in turn ask David to give thanks, since he is the king chosen by them; it is fitting that the human representative of Royalty, acknowledge the Royalty of the entire universe by this manner of thanksgiving. David was especially representative, since G-d had assisted him in an unparalleled manner. Therefore, it is he who says "I will pronounce the benedictions." It is worthwhile to recall another aggadah in Pessachim 119. In that instance, at the feast G-d prepares for the righteous in the future, "on the day He performs kindness with the offspring of Isaac," G-d offers the honour of reciting grace first to Abraham, who declines, citing inadequacies having sired Ishmael. Then Isaac declines, because he had sired Esau. Jacob also declines feeling inadequate having married two sisters during their lifetimes, something later on prohibited by Torah law. Moses declines not having been worthy to enter the holy land, whereas Joshua declines for not having been worthy to have a son. David, however, accepts the honour with alacrity. Actually, David had better reason to decline seeing he had transgressed Torah laws in effect during his lifetime. The answer, however is as stated. No one had received a cup so full of salvations, i.e. no one else had experienced so many acts of G-d’s Personal Providence as had David. It was fitting therefore that he, more than anyone else should lift the chalice in thanksgiving to the Lord. David's entire lifestyle of praising the Lord in song, reflects his constant awareness of all G-d’s kindness he had experienced. Having appreciated the foregoing, we can understand the inner connection between the Midrash with the Manna in the desert. (12) When Israel reached the oasis Refidim, which contained all the necessities of life except water, they thought that this was proof that Moses had acted on his own all along. They believed that Moses had finally miscalculated, having forced Israel to march through the desert. They challenged Moses to produce water. They argued that if G-d was indeed the force behind every one of Moses’s instructions, surely they were entitled to a miracle. Moses, realising that it was not really water they had requested, but that they had made the availability of water an issue to discredit his leadership, upraided them for "trying the Lord." If you have a quarrel with me, he said, do not bring the Lord into it. Moses was not angry at the request for water, but at the pretext this request served for. Only after the pangs of thirst grew stronger, and the people were actually afraid of perishing from thirst, did Moses call upon G-d to ask for help. This was both because the people were thirsty, and because he felt threatened personally. When the people accused Moses of taking them out of Egypt into a deathtrap, they did not refer to G-d, against whose leadership they would not have complained. Moses presented the people's case against himself as apparently justified. If succor would not be forthcoming, he argued, the people would be entitled to stone him, as is the fate of a false prophet. So as to remove such doubts from the people's mind, he was commanded to take the elders with him when he would perform the great miracle of producing water from the rock by means of the very staff that had up to now served to produce plagues, afflictions and death on the Egyptians. The episode of Massa and Merivah taught the lesson that G-d continued to guide the everyday lives of the Jewish nation.

51. _.42.1.2

    "Amalek came and fought with Israel at Refidim."

52. _.42.1.3

    Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Acharey Mot writes: G-d said to Israel, "in the past you have been helped by means of human beings; in Egypt by Moses and Aaron; in the days of Sisera by Barak and Deborah; against the Midianites by Shamgar etc. throughout the period of the judges. Because G-d employed a human being as His instrument in all of these salvations, the salvation did not last, and you became enslaved again and again. In the future however, I MYSELF will be your salvation, and you will never again be subjugated." This is the meaning of Isaiah 45,17, "Israel will be saved by the Lord, an eternal salvation."

53. _.42.1.4

    Man's deeds can serve as ends in themselves, or be a means towards an end. The former are different from the latter in three ways. A) Their essence. B) The degree and dedication involved in executing the deeds in question. C) The name given to the deeds in question. If someone engages in an adulterous relationship for the sake of financial gain, he is not a true adulterer. When such a relationship is pursued because of the physical and mental gratification it affords the parties indulging in them, this is true adultery. The ben sorer umoreh, stubborn and rebellious gluttonous son described in Deuteronomy 21,18-21, though a thief by halachic definition, since he has stolen a small amount of meat and wine from his father, is punished as a glutton, not as a thief. His thievery had merely been a means to achieve his objective that of gratifying his appetites. When Rabbi Meir says in Avot 6, that "he who preoccupies himself with Torah for its own sake, will merit many things, he means that even his incidental activities will be considered "preoccupation with Torah," since those incidental activities serve to further the achievement of the ultimate goal i.e. Torah, (compare chapter 72) Another aspect of this matter is that anyone who employs certain means only as a method to attain a certain objective, will not be too fussy about the quality or legitimacy of the means employed. If someone is concerned with keeping the rain out of his house, his prime concern will be to use boards that are waterproof. The colour, dimensions, thickness and general appearance of such boards will not concern him greatly. It is similar with the fulfilment of a mitzvah. If fulfilment of the mitzvah is merely meant to escape punishment at the hands of G-d, the person performing such a mitzvah will not be concerned with performing it in the most beautiful manner possible. Sukkah 51, describes the participants of the mitzvahoi simchat beyt ha-sho- eyvah, the joyful occasion of drawing water for the sacrifices on the altar, as "anshey ma-asseh,” men of true deeds. Berachot 8, teaches that "he who enjoys the fruit of his own labour is greater than the one who fears heaven." The Talmud supports this statement with verses from scripture. The point is that he who labours to serve G-d out of a feeling of love, as demonstrated by the labour of his hands, is superior to the person who serves Him out of fear of punishment. A third distinction between deeds that serve as an end in themselves and those that are not, is the fact that unsavoury, offensive means towards achieving such objectives are employed only when absolutely unavoidable. Example: if sexual gratification can be obtained only by means of paying for the services of a prostitute, stealing the funds in order to pay the prostitute ceases as soon as gratification is obtained, or as soon as the person concerned has found legal means to pay the price for his gratification. Alternately, if performance of mitzvot is due to fear of impending punishment, say a wife who is terminally ill, and the giving of charity is seen as a way of saving her life,- then either her death or her recovery will lead to cessation of such charitable activity by her husband. In this vein Hoseah describes the reaction of the sinful Jewish people. (Hoseah 13,13-15) They believe that because the danger of giving birth has passed, all is well and the danger of death has been banished forever. Israel as a nation had achieved a closeness to G-d which involved performance of His commandments as due to one's innermost desires. This is what G-d said in Deuteronomy 5,26, "would that they should always be of a mind to revere Me and observe My commandments for all times!" Satan's argument against Job was that he claimed that Job's piety was based on self interest. Since his prestigious lifestyle had been provided by G-d, what could have been more natural than that Job should abide by G-d’s rules? Only when man's most cherished possessions are about to be taken from him, can he prove his love for G-d, and his obediences are sincere, not means to an end. This is why G-d said to Abraham after the binding of Isaac "now I know that you are indeed G-d fearing," (in the sense that "your reverence for Me is sincere.") There are then three aspects to what is called "fear" of G-d. A) Fear of the consequences if he transgresses G-d’s will. B) Reverence expressed by the performance of positive commandments which are not subject to punishments if not performed. C) Performing all of these commandments on a regular basis, not only when on a temporary emotional "high." When we look at the behaviour of Amalek as described in Parshat Ki Teytze, Deut 25, it is clear that Amalek was dedicated, fanatical in what he undertook. He attacked the Jewish people lishmah, for its own sake, not because of any ulterior designs. It was wickedness of the utmost dedication. Normally, nations go to war in order to gain territory, prisoners, loot, or for their generals to make a name for themselves and for the country to gain glory. None of these motivations applied to Amalek when it attacked Israel. "He chanced on you on the way," i.e. he had no chance to rob you of territory since you yourself were wandering nomads. He did not attack frontally, only the stragglers that had trailed behind the main body (25,18) There was no glory to be gained from that! It was an act of cowardice, since Israel was tired as the Torah testifies. "He did not fear the Lord." The only motivation was to attack something precious to G-d. People who behave in this fashion are never candidates for rehabilitation, teshuvah Therefore, the Torah stipulates that when the time and the circumstances will be right, the people of Amalek must be totally eliminated, otherwise the kingdom of G-d on this earth will never come to pass. The words "and he did not fear the Lord," may apply equally well to the conduct of Israel on the occasion of massah u-merivah, when Israel had accused Moses of leading them out of Egypt in order to let them perish by thirst in the desert. This would explain why it was that G-d permitted the attack and the very sequence of these events. Since Israel had asked the frivolous question "is then the Lord in our midst?" they had to be shown what their fate would be if the Lord were not in their midst. Amalek's conduct was even worse than that of Ammon and Moab who are banned forever from joining the Jewish nation because they had failed to extend a helping hand to Israel when that had been called for. If Mordechai and Esther in their time refused to loot the belongings of their enemies though they had express permission to do so, as has been pointed out no less than three times in the book of Esther, it was to show that their only interest was to fulfil belatedly the commandment to wipe out Amalek, something which their ancestor King Saul had been instructed to do. King Saul's error in not completely destroying Amalek, produced tragic consequences not only for himself and his family, but for Jews throughout the ages. Saul's error -which deserves to be discussed at length,- stemmed from an attitude that performs the word of G-d only to the extent that it appears to one's limited human wisdom to be beneficial. This error is quite similar to the one discussed at the outset. When Samuel said to Saul on that occasion "obedience is better than good sacrificial offerings," he only explained that the sacrifice per se is neither of benefit to G-d nor to man. It is only a means by which man can demonstrate his obedience to G-d. rayach nichau-ach, the "sweet smell," satisfaction that G-d derives from such an offering, is because it expresses the preparedness of the person who offers it to execute G-d’s will. The prophet asked the pointed question "does the Lord need total offerings or meal offerings?" The letter mem in the word mi-zevach needs to be understood not as a comparative, but as "from." What does G-d get from it? Therefore, Samuel meant tov, i.e. the good to be derived from the sacrifice is the shamo-a, the obedience expressed by having listened to G-d’s instructions. The same construction is to be placed on the other half of that verse, le-hakshiv mi-chelev eylim, the careful attention that is expressed by offering the fat of rams, (compare Samuel I chapter 15 for the whole episode) Since Samuel criticised Saul on two counts, he added the third dimension discussed at the beginning of this chapter. 1) Saul had picked from G-d’s commandment to totally destroy Amalek, only the parts that suited him. He did not act as he did because he hated the nation that G-d hated, but because he was interested in the loot. 2) He had arrogated to himself the right to decide how to act, as if he had been the prophet, claiming he had carried out G-d’s wishes. 3) He had "failed" to carry out orders, not as he claimed. G-d retaliated by despising him, taking away his kingdom and terminating what would have been his dynasty. In the end, Saul acknowledged his error. The manner in which he acknowledged his error showed that he believed that not carrying out G-d’s word or not carrying out the prophet's precise instructions, were not the same thing at all. When Saul claimed first that he had indeed fulfilled G-d’s command, Samuel calls this the chatat kessem, which is in fact mered, rebellion. What is except kessem the illusion that one can manipulate the deity, impose one's own desire on G-d, in fact rebellion. When Saul finally realised his error, Samuel already tells him that he will be replaced. In fact, David, who selflessly risked his life on G-d’s behalf against Goliath, is superior to Saul in exactly the three areas that we have outlined.

54. _.42.1.5

    David's encounter with Goliath stemmed from the purest of motives, i.e. to silence the blasphemer. When we read David's comment in Samuel I 17,26, "what shall be done for the man who shall slay this Philistine?", the word ye-asseh needs to be understood as "what needs to be done for the man who...? " David expresses incredulity that it should be necessary to promise a reward for the person willing to engage Goliath in combat. As David says in Psalms 139,2, "O Lord I hate those who hate You." David was not satisfied to have ousted Goliath according to the terms of combat set by Goliath. (17,9) It seems that having felled Goliath would have sufficed. But David insisted on killing Goliath, even though he did not even have a sword on him. He used Goliath's own sword to kill him with. In a similar manner, David did not wait to be commanded when he wanted to build a temple for G-d, but he volunteered to do so and prepared everything he could for that undertaking. In the end, though the temple was actually built by his son Solomon, it bore David's name also. Psalm 30 is introduced as a hymn on the occasion of dedicating David’s Temple. Even in Kings I, 12, when the ten tribes secede from the dynasty of David, they refer to the Temple as "Your house David." All this despite the fact that none of the building had been commenced in David's lifetime. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 23, relates that when the angels remonstrated with G-d for removing the kingship from Saul and anointing David, G-d explained it to them in the following manner. When Saul, who was about to consult the Urim Vetumim if he should pursue the Philistines, observed the eagerness of the people, he aborted his original intention. (14,20) David, on the other hand, (Samuel II 5,23 ) consulted the Urim Vetumim when set upon by the Philistines. When he was told not to counterattack until he would hear steps in the tops of the trees, he waited. David consulted again, although he had already been given a general O.K. from G-d previously, and had been assured of success, (verse 19) He had already achieved a measure of success, as we read in verse 20. According to the Midrash, the Philistines, unbeknown to David, were in an excellent tactical position, and had David not heeded G-d’s command to wait until the tops of the trees revealed movement, his men would have become victims of the Philistines. It was David's obedience to G-d’s detailed instructions that saved his victory, whereas giving in to popular request for immediate attack would have resulted in disaster. Saul excelled in personal good traits, may be even more than David, but the test of a king lies in his preparedness to submit to Divine guidance and not to rely on human perceptions. This principle applies when Divine guidance is available through consultation of the Urim Vetumim located within the folds of the breastplate of the High Priest. Pity, normally a noble emotion, is misplaced when applied to Agag the king of Amalek. The meaning of a statement by Rabbi Hunna in Yoma 22, "how extremely careful must a person be who has G-d on his side," is applicable here. As Rabbi Hunna continues, "Saul erred once with fateful consequences, whereas David erred twice and no fateful consequences ensued." Saul, whose failing consisted in not accepting G-d’s discipline, was told by G-d through Samuel "I regret having made him king." Yet David, who had erred both in respect of Uriah and the national census, was not deprived of his kingdom. His failing was of a personal nature, it was not a failing in the essential leadership qualities that a king must possess. When Moses blessed the tribe of Yehudah (Deut.33,7) saying "this for Yehudah, the Lord will hearken to the voice of Yehudah," he refers to Yehudah's role as king. Providence will be with him, because he is the people's leader who relies on G-d’s guidance. Of him it is said "that he not depart from the Lord's way, right or left." (Deut 17,11) "By the Lord's command he will go to war or return home." (Numbers 27,17) The king himself determines by his own actions if Providence will be with or against his people. The sin of following one's own reasoning or instincts is a king's cardinal error, not even given to repentance, since it represents a fundamental belief. Saul, though as innocent personally as a one year old baby (Yuma 22) when he ascended the throne, erred in his capacity as king. (Samuel I 13,1) If Rabbi Nachman was troubled and had nightmares for having dared suggest a negative interpretation of this verse,why then was Saul's rule not the beginning of a dynasty? The answer clearly is because he was personally so infallible. From this the Talmud derives the maxim that in order for authority never to become dictatorial, the monarch or whoever is responsible for the affairs of his community, should possess some publicly known demerit. Otherwise, he might become overbearing. As long a he can be reminded of his own shortcomings, his conduct will be more restrained, and he will be more amenable to the common people's problems. In support of our theory we draw attention to the way Samuel describes the relative merits of Saul and David on two separate occasions. When Saul consulted Samuel via the witch of Endor, Samuel says to him "G-d took the kingdom from you and gave it to your companion David." (Samuel I 28,18) At the time of the debacle with Agag however, the same Samuel had said "G-d has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and given it to your companion who is better than you." (Samuel I 15,28) This indicates that David may have been better than Saul in his capacity as king, but that Saul was second to none as a person. Also, David having committed the error of counting the people, repented of his own accord without any ifs and buts. Saul, however, even when he did repent having been urged to do so by Samuel, did so only with reservations. He tried to blame others for his own shortcomings, claiming that he had had to compromise with the wishes of his people. When Samuel states (Samuel I 15,29) that G-d in fact had not reneged, he explains that the expression nacham, changing plans is only applicable when conditions have not changed, but the one in charge changes his stance. When the prevailing conditions had changed however, any adjustments G-d makes to His plans are not in the nature of reneging, (compare chapter 11 re Noach) The subject in verse thirty "for he is not a changeable man" is David, not G-d. It is David who is being described as remaining constant by virtue of his character, and therefore a superior choice as king over Israel.

55. _.42.1.6

    Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why did Moses not wait for G-d’s command before selecting men to fight Amalek? Would G-d not intervene personally, as He had done when He split the sea and drowned the Egyptian army? 2) Why did Moses not lead the people into battle himself, as he did later against Og, king of Bashan? 3) Why were anashim, i.e. righteous men needed for this fighting force, whereas in the campaign against Og no such stipulation was made? 4) Why did Moses position himself on a hill with the staff of G-d in his hand? Do we not have the principle that one implores G-d from a position of ma-amakim, depths rather than from a position of elevation? 5) What is the "heaviness" of Moses’s hands all about? Why did Amalek prevail in battle when Moses lowered his hands since he had exhausted himself and suffered pain as a result of raising his hands in prayer? 6) Why does the Torah repeat that "Moses’s hands remained true till sunset?" We had been told this already? 7) The instructions to record these events "in the ears of Joshua," sounds very peculiar! 8) What is the meaning of "Israel weakened Amalek by the sword?" From the story this seems self evident! 9) In this Parshah, it seems as if G-d reserves the right for Himself to fight against Amalek, whereas in Parshat Ki Teytze He makes this an exclusive task of Israel. Why? Here we read about machoh emcheh, I will utterly blot out, whereas in Ki Teytze it merely says timcheh, blot out! 10) Why did G-d give precedence to the commandment of wiping out Amalek over the commandment to build a temple, or to the appointment of a king? (All these three commandments apply once the land of Canaan had been captured. (Sanhedrin 20, see chapter 50)

56. _.42.1.7

    (1+2) Since immediately prior to the attack by Amalek, the Israelites had displayed a lack of faith in G-d who had personally fought on their behalf against the Egyptians, and since they had grumbled to the point where they had been ready to stone Moses, ("they are almost ready to stone me" Exodus 17,4) they had fallen into disgrace and were in real danger. This danger was all the greater since they had no military might of their own, and G-d had turned His face away from them. Amalek's arrival on the scene is thus a fitting reminder of what was liable to happen whenever Israel behaves as it did at Massah and Merivah.

57. _.42.1.8

    The Midrash quoted by Rashi on the verse is well known. (3) When the Torah admonishes in Ki Teytze "remember what Amalek did to you," that warning is a reminder of the conditions under which an Amalek feels encouraged to pounce upon Israel. Israel's own conduct is a provocation . When Joshua is told to choose anashim, i.e. tzaddikim, this is to serve as evidence that there are people amongst Israel who by dint of their lifestyle can face an Amalek without fear, secure in the knowledge that they can count on G-d’s support. Moses assured Joshua that on the morrow he would add the power of prayer to that of the courage of the tzaddikim (5) The visible evidence of Moses’s hands raised in prayer was a psychological prop to the warriors engaged in battle. When Moses’s hands were resting, due to fatigue, this prop was absent inducing fear amongst the Israelites, thus giving Amalek the advantage. Moses’s own physical strength was affected by the knowledge of the weakness of Israel's moral case, as demonstrated by their most recent behaviour. (4+6) Therefore Moses was in need of a physical prop to convey the illusion of superhuman strength and endurance. Viewing Moses’s posture, the Israelites realised that only Moses’s prayer ensured their ascendancy at that particular moment in history. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 29, compares this happening to the incident with the copper snake, which had the power to heal when the Israelites looked at it. (Numbers 21,6-10) That look also symbolised one's faith in G-d and did not mean that the snake had any power at all. (7+8) For the reasons cited, Israel could not achieve more at that time than to weaken Amalek, not destroy it. This campaign could not be compared to the conquest of the Canaanite nations, since here the warriors had to rely on their own strength, though G-d assisted indirectly in order not to ignore Moses’s prayer. On the one hand G-d wanted to prove to Israel that they had been wrong in questioning His Presence; on the other hand, G-d wanted Israel to know that He was still angry at them. For that reason He commanded Moses to "write this in a book and tell Joshua." Only the latter was deemed worthy at that juncture to be told that the ongoing fight against Amalek was indeed G-d’s fight, and that He would not forsake Israel when the latter would come under attack by Amalek. (9) The revelation that Hashem Himself would in future destroy Amalek, warranted that Moses would build an altar which he named "G-d is My banner." This served as proof that G-d had approved the manner in which Moses had acted on his own when Amalek attacked. The very thing that G-d approved of was Moses’s taking the initiative. G-d was aware that if Israel would be left to its own devices, they would not complete the destruction of Amalek, just as they did not complete the destruction of the seven Canaanite nations despite G-d’s warning that leaving any of them alive or in the country, would prove a destabilising influence to Israel's society. (Numbers 33,55) It was Moses who proclaimed "for as long as there is a hand raised against the throne of G-d, He will be at war with Amalek." (Exodus 17,16) It was Moses’s conviction that the importance of wiping out Amalek warranted that G-d personally would continue to take an active part in such endeavours until they would be crowned with total success. This is the reason we read in Samuel I 15,30, after Saul's failure that "Israel's eternity will not be denied." The ultimate success does not depend on any particular leader of Israel who may or may not carry out G-d’s wishes wholeheartedly. (10) Although G-d commands Israel to wage this war of extermination against Amalek, He Himself will complete whatever has not been accomplished by Israel. This is also the meaning of Bileam's statement "Amalek is the first of the nations, therefore its end must be utter destruction." (Numbers 24,20.) When referring to "nations," Bileam means the first nation to rebel against G-d as a nation. Another reason may be that Amalek committed two wrongs 1) They disregarded the agreement made between their respective ancestors Jacob and Esau. 2) They attacked G-d’s chosen people at a particularly sensitive moment. In the words of the Midrash, Amalek put his hands on a scaldingly hot bathtub, meaning right after a clear demonstration of G-d’s power on behalf of Israel. Therefore, both G-d and Israel would share in the task of punishing Amalek. In Parshat Ki Teytze we read about Israel's part, whereas in Parshat Beshalach we read about G-d’s part. These two portions are complementary to one another. This brings us back to our opening Midrash. Once the Messiah will come, Israel will no longer display the usual human inadequacies, i.e. fulfilling G-d’s will only in part. At that time we will be granted G-d’s direct guidance, and will not have to be led by men, who, though G-d’s instruments, are chosen for their relative merit only. In those latter days the salvation will endure eternally, because intermediaries no longer need to be employed by G-d.

58. _.43.1.2

    "Moses sat to judge the people."

59. _.43.1.3

    Midrash Rabbah, Shoftim, quotes Proverbs 21,3, "to do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to G-d than the offering of animal sacrifices." It does not say there "equally desirable," but "more desirable." To illustrate the point: Sacrifices atone only for wrongs committed inadvertently; righteousness and justice atone both for unintentional and intentional wrongdoing.

60. _.43.1.4

    Man lives on three planes. 1) He relates exclusively to himself. 2) He relates to his immediate family. 3) He relates to society as a whole. Whereas at first glance one may think that as far as man's relations with himself are concerned, there could be no question of his being unjust or immoral, this is in fact not so. True, the Talmud acknowledges that he who inflicts injury upon himself is not held accountable for a misdemeanour. However, this pertains only to outward manifestations of man's conduct. If man develops his intellectual capacities without developing his moral capacities at the same time, he will develop a split personality, able to commit injustice and immorality against himself.

61. _.43.1.5

    2) Concerning man's relations with his family, the case could be made that inasmuch as man's wife is viewed as part of his body, and since his children are just as much his property as his slaves, that he does not really need to restrict his impulses in his conduct toward them, and would therefore be incapable of committing an injustice against them. Nonetheless, such relationships are tempered by considerations of moral obligations over and beyond mere legal definitions. Our appeal to G-d on New Year's day to treat us either as children of a father or as slaves of a master, bears this out.

62. _.43.1.6

    3) It is on the third plane, man's relationship with society at large, that man's duty to act morally is most evident. Concerning all his business dealings, man needs to observe justice and fairness, as well as to ensure that no fellow human being suffers physical harm on his account. When David dispatched a servant to Naval, (Samuel I 25,6) bidding him "may you be at peace, may your household be at peace, may all that is yours be at peace," he may well have referred to the three areas in which man has to assure himself of his moral well being. "Peace is only attained when one has satisfied the moral demands made upon one." When Michah identifies the Lord's demands on mankind, (Michah 6,5) he refers to the very same thing when he proclaims "what does the Lord demand of you except to do justice, loving kindness and to walk humbly with your G-d." Justice refers to one's conduct vis a vis society at large, loving kindness to one's conduct vis a vis one's family who may not have a legal claim on one. Finally, humility is an area in which one is least restricted, namely one's conduct vis a vis oneself. When Moses describes G-d’s attributes, (Deut. 32,4) he refers to the same thing. "All His ways are justice," refers to G-d’s conduct in His very own domain. "A G-d of faithfulness," refers to His relationship with His creatures. "He is righteous and upright," refers to His relationship with the universe at large. Psalms 145,17, "G-d is just in all His ways, fair in all His deeds," explains that there are two kinds of justice. Tzedek is the justice that applies to most men in similar circumstances. Chessed is the allowance made for special circumstances when the law, which is after all designed to cover only most situations, fails to allow for special circumstances. The right to grant pardon is based on the recognition that strict application of the law does not always mean that true justice is being meted out. G-d, of course, is the ultimate judge who can make allowances for all exceptions, since He is the only one aware of all circumstances. Tzaddik, just means the norm are His guidelines. Chassid, He adjusts for individual need. Here are some examples of the inadequacies of normal assumptions which Jewish law is based on. "Debtors do not repay loans before the due date." (Baba Batra 5) The underlying assumption of this statement may not always be correct. "Claimants have to furnish proof of their claim." G-d has instructed Jewish judges in Deut. 17,10, that if doubts arise as to the adequacy of existing provisions in law, the Supreme Court may give a decision based on their deliberations, and such decision is binding, even (as the Sifrey puts it) if "they say that left is right or right is left." The idea is: even if the decision of the Supreme Court appears in direct conflict with normative Jewish practice. Of course, all this is applicable only when the Supreme Court's decision is based on accepted Jewish guidelines. Anyone who disputes the authority of such a Jewish Supreme Court, i.e. Sanhedrin, is liable to the death penalty. The Talmud Shabbat 10, states "whosoever judges truly, is a partner to G-d." This is also the reason that Torah frequently refers to judges by the term "elohim." This is also what the serpent had in mind when it said to Eve "you will be like elohim, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3,5) The Midrash explains the meaning as "like creators of worlds." He who invariably feels himself bound to the general rules, even though he may be meticulous in applying them, is destroying worlds rather than building them. The Talmud Baba Metzia 38, claims that it was this kind of bureaucratic zeal that caused the destruction of Jerusalem.

63. _.43.1.8

    Rabbi Shimon is quoted in Bereshit Rabbah 8, as describing the following dialogue having occurred in heaven prior to the creation of man. The representative of chessed, morality, favoured the creation of man, since it was foreseen that man would act morally most of the time. Emet, truth, however, opposed man's creation, claiming that man's tendencey to lie made his creation pointless. Similarly, tzedek, righteousness favoured man's creation, pointing to the righteous deeds man would perform, whereas "justice" opposed man's creation citing the perversions of justice he would become guilty of. G-d resolved the dilemma by consigning "truth" to earth. The angels then remonstrated with G-d, saying "why do You denigrate and besmirch Your own treasures!" Let "truth" come back up here!" Rabbi Hunna added to this dialogue the comment that while the angels were still arguing with G-d, G-d had already created Adam. What the rabbis were trying to convey is that the inner personality of man is based on the development of morality and intellect. The latter guides his feelings of being moral towards perceptions which are true. The outward manifestations of this, generally motivated by functional considerations, are viewed as righteousness and peace. Since both the innate moral qualities of man and his sense of righteousness are deeply rooted, there was support for the creation of man among celestial beings. The opponents who could point to the many aberrations man would become guilty of, both in "intellectual truth" and quarrelsome behaviour, felt that these aberrations nullified the plan a priori. G-d, by despatching "truth" earthwards, prepared the way through Torah, (Torat Emet, the Torah of truth) so as to minimise the power of the ego (yetzer hara, evil impulse) . Thus He decided to proceed with the creation of man. The opponents were still not satisfied, calling for the Torah to be withdrawn from earth. They felt that man who sins while in possession of the teachings of "truth," i.e. Torah, would be an even greater blot on G-d’s handiwork than if he sinned without having had the benefit of Divine teaching. When the rule of law is based on decree, it is called tzedek. When it is based on concensus between people, it is called shalom, peace, harmony. In view of the fact that man's intellectual achievements are what he calls emet, truth, and in view of the fact that the conclusions arrived at by man's unassisted intellect are often faulty, at best subjective "truths," G-d dispatched the Torah to earth, to lessen the danger that man's "truth" would result in a complete distortion of morality. Therefore, by banishing "truth" to earth, He made sure that Divine teachings would predominate in man, allowing for ideal man to become a distinct possibility. In order to make Torah not appear so far removed from earthly considerations, He garbed it in a language easily understood by man. "The Torah employs the mode of expression usually favoured by man himself." (Nedarim 3) A homiletical example of this is the passage where the Torah states that G-d instructed Moses concerning a certain type of wood. Moses threw that wood into the water and the water immediately became sweet. Immediately afterwards the Torah says "there He made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there He tested them." (Exodus 15,25) The "wood" refers to the tree of life; the Torah, the laws, reconciled conflicting views. Speculative reason,-philosophy- in its effort to portray G-d as perfect, perceives Him as lacking many attributes which if He possessed them would involve Him personally in all manner of events. In order to forestall such heresies, "truth" argued against man's creation. G-d, well aware of that danger, allowed Torah to be written in a manner that portrayed Him as possessing anthropomorphic qualities, in order to emphasize that everything that man sees, smells, feels, hears etc. G-d Himself also smells, hears feels etc. However, G-d does so in an infallible manner, His senses never deceive Him. This is why the sages say the Torah employs a syntax which is used by humans. This does not mean, of course, that G-d is corporeal. It is only designed to counter the prevalent and misleading philosophic conceptions about G-d’s aloofness. These ideas have been discussed in connection with akeydah in chapter 4, the ten commandments (directives) in chapter 5, and at the report of the completion of the tabernacle in chapter 48. The continuing argument of the angels against man's creation was the warning "they will besmirch Your treasures," meaning that the remedy of "Torah uses human language" will lead to other blasphemies based on what is written in the Torah being understood literally. Therefore, the angels asked for Emet-Torah to be recalled from earth and returned to the celestial regions. Since the arguments appeared balanced, G-d decided in favour of the lenient view and created man. G-d gave man the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.

64. _.43.1.9

    Our Torah represents legislation at its best and most perfect, incorporating the three pillars "truth justice and peace" on which the universe is founded. Since the ten commandments and their revelation are to demonstrate that Moses and his Torah are true, it is fitting that peace and justice, the other two pillars be also represented in our Parshah. When the Mishnah in Avot speaks about shalom, peace, it refers to the quality of chessed, kindness, unselfishness, a quality demonstrated by man in his home life, in the way he treats his immediate environment. Therefore, the Torah describes Moses’s conduct towards his father-in-law, his wife and his children, as well as his father-in-law's conduct vis a vis his daughters. The din, justice part of the three pillars commences with the words "it was on the morrow." (Exodus 18,13) This describes Moses as administering justice to the Jewish people. The fact that Yitro's advice to Moses was particularly timely, will be demonstrated in the course of this story. In fact it was so appropriate that the entire Parshah bears his name. This justice is what transcends his sacrifices to G-d, though they are also mentioned in this section of the Torah.

65. _.43.1.10

    Some difficulties in the text of the story. 1) Since both Yitro's name and vocation have been clearly stated in Parshat Shemot, why does the Torah here repeat more than just his name? 2) Since it is stated "all that G-d had done for Moses and His people..that He had taken them out," why single out the latter event? Is it not included in the words "all that He had done for them?" 3) Since Moses’s divorce from Tzipporah had not been mentioned previously, why is it mentioned now when it seems unseemly both from her and from Moses’s point of view? Why are the reasons Moses named his sons as he did repeated here once more? Why the peculiar "the name of one is Eliezer?" 4) Why did Yitro emphasize his status as Moses’s father-in-law? Why does the Torah mention that Moses went outside to welcome Yitro? 5) The report of Moses and Yitro enquiring after each other's welfare seems so commonplace that it hardly deserves special mention! 6) Why does the Torah state that Moses told Yitro all that had happened, surely this is what Yitro had come to hear about? 7) Did Yitro arrive before the revelation at Mount Sinai or after? It does not seem clear from the text. 8) How can one understand the Mechilta which says that Moses sat down to judge the people the day after Yom Kippur, and also the day after Yitro's arrival? How could both dates coincide? 9) How could Yitro presume to criticise Moses for excessive zeal in being of service to the people by saying "what you are doing is not good?" Was not Moses the best judge of what would cause him fatigue? 10) How could Yitro say "I'll advise you to do such and such,and the Lord will be with you?" Why does he tell Moses to be only an intermediary for the people when Moses had been doing all these things already without having had the benefit of Yitro's advice? 11) Did not the advice of Yitro to select assistants appear so fundamental, that Moses and the elders must surely have thought of that themselves? Wasn't Moses endowed with sufficient common sense by G-d? 12) Why does the Torah relate that Moses sent off Yitro, when it is quite clear that Yitro did not leave at this time?

66. _.43.1.12

    Since it is the duty of the father or husband to provide basic needs for his wife and children, a wife and children who have been abandoned do not normally make the first move in an effort at reconciliation. If, as in this case, the wife has care of her husband's children and is under the protection of a highly placed father, she has even less reason to seek out her errant husband. Lost objects do not as a rule chase after their owner. Tzipporah, it seems, had ample reason to feel the aggrieved party. Even if the wife is consumed by love for her husband and initiates the conciliatory moves, her father does not need "to lose face" by running after his son-in-law. (1) Yitro overcame all those feelings because he recognised the great and altruistic nature of Moses’s preoccupation with his people. Therefore, he decided not to stand on ceremony. Possibly, G-d had helped along in framing his state of mind so Moses’s family as well as Yitro would have a chance to participate in the revelation at Mount Sinai. Alternately, surely Moses would not have sent for them in time for the revelation at Mount Sinai. Our verse then reiterates the position of Yitro to tell us that in spite of his eminence, he made the first move in reuniting Moses and Tzipporah. (2) Since, after the Exodus, the reason for Moses to have temporarily abandoned his family at Aaron's behest had disappeared, the Torah mentions this fact to give an additional reason why reunion at this time was particularly opportune. Although this would have provided additional reason for Moses to make the first move, Yitro did not wait for this. (3) The reason it says "and the name of the one is Eliezer," is because normally Moses’s firstborn should have been called by that name, as a sign of gratitude for G-d having saved Moses from Pharaoh. Since at the time of Gershon's birth however, Moses was still in danger- a warrant being out for him,- he could not name Eliezer until G-d had told him that all his enemies had died already. Athough both Yitro and Tzipporah had waived any injured pride they might have felt, they were not certain of their welcome. Therefore, in the first instance, Tzipporah and her sons came to "the desert in which Israel was encamped," and only Yitro approached Moses (6) right away to find out how Moses felt about them. The enquiries after each other's welfare could only take place later. Once having ascertained that both he and Tzipporah were welcome, an official reception was arranged. According to our sages, the initial meeting was either by letter or intermediary. (2) The report about what G-d had done for Israel, is added to show that Yitro rejoiced in the new found freedom of the Jewish people. Also, of course, he recognised the "tit for tat" kind of G-d’s justice that had been at work in visiting retribution on Egypt. This added to the awe Yitro felt when he contemplated the might of the G-d of Israel. (7+8) It is extremely unlikely that Yitro's observations made "on the day after" refers to the day after the Day Of Atonement. More likely the reference is to the day after Yitro had arrived. All this was before matan Torah, the revelation at Mount Sinai, a time when Torah laws had not yet been promulgated. (11) Therefore, Moses’s personal judgment was essential in arriving at decisions, and the long line up is understandable. It would have been impossible for Moses to find a multitude of judges whose objectivity etc. could be assumed, and who had not received guidelines other than to consult their consciences. To win acceptance, Moses needed to explain the reasons for his decisions. Had Torah legislation existed already, it would have been so much simpler. All Moses would have had to do would have been to quote the Torah commandment in question. (9) When Yitro observed all this, he told Moses that his scrupulous efforts to win over both litigants to accept his judgment would prove counter productive, would tire him out and create impatience among all those who had to wait in line all this time. They would all become short tempered, the opposite of the objective of settling disputes. (10) Yitro's suggestion was that Moses should ask G-d for guidelines "and the Lord will be with you," so that he would only have to act as a mouthpiece and supervisor over what the other judges who would be taught the guidelines would judge. Yitro expressed his conviction that his advice was so sound that "and the Lord will command you," surely G-d would issue an order in line with what he had suggested. When Moses listened to his father-in-law, he in fact accepted the suggestion to ask G-d for the requisite legislation. Since Yitro's advice could not be carried out till after matan Torah when the (12) legislation would have been received and the people could have been trained, (all while encamped around the mountain, i.e. 11 months) Yitro remained with the Jewish people until all his suggestions had been implemented. The report in Parshat Behalotcha as well as the one in Parshat Devarim are then all in keeping with this interpretation. Although, of course, Torah existed long before Yitro had been born, according to our principle that a meritorious act is rewarded by benefits accruing to others through the merit of the person carrying out that meritorious deed, Yitro became the catalyst for Torah to be revealed at this juncture. We can now well understand that a whole Parshah has been named after him.

67. _.43.1.14

    G-d has entrusted the administration of justice on earth to human judges. If these judges fail to judge fairly, they in turn are subjected to G-d’s judgment as we see from Psalm 82. Faulty judgments are due to any of four causes, all of which Yitro addresses himself to when offering advice to Moses. A judge may have a bad character, love violence; his judgments therefore are apt to be corrupt. Psalm 82 refers to this by asking "how long will you pronounce corrupt judgment?" 2) A judge may be G-d fearing, willing to judge truthfully, but when it comes to minor matters involving small sums etc., he may not apply himself diligently. This situation is covered in the above quoted Psalm by the words "judge the poor and the orphan," people who are usually litigants in a small claims Court. A judge must deal as carefully with a penny as with a million. 3) Even though the judge is G-d fearing, and may consider small sums as carefully as large ones, he may be swayed by considerations involving personal gain or honour. He may fear a particular litigant involved in a law suit before him. Concerning such a situation, the Psalmist says "rescue the defenseless and save them from the lawless." 4) A judge may simply err in his application of logic, or due to ignorance of the point of law in question. Concerning this, the Psalmist says "they do not know or understand, they walk in darkness." Yitro incorporates warnings against the four shortcomings listed, in his advice. Concerning the judges' character, he recommends selection of "G-d fearing individuals." Concerning the judges' inclination to downgrade the attention given to litigation involving minor sums, he calls for "men who hate unjust gain." Concerning the judges' professional knowledge, Yitro wants all difficult or major matters referred to Moses himself. When Moses carries out Yitro's suggestions, he acts in accordance with these principles in Deut. 1,15-16, when he instructs A) Do not recognise faces, i.e. show favoritism. B) Listen to the big just as to the small. C) Do not be scared of anyone. D) Anything which is too difficult, submit to me. The intention behind Yitro's suggestion, which results in the appointment of the enormous number of 78600 judges-, was to bring in its wake the minimization of crime since litigation would be instant. Ultimately, there will be a need for only a single judge, the Lord Himself. For that reason, the Midrash quoted at the outset describes in varying nuances that sacrifices are in fact an inferior method of achieving atonement, since conduct based on justice and righteousness achieves results under any set of circumstances, whereas the circumstances that make sacrifices effective are strictly limited.

68. _.44.2.1

    Part One

69. _.44.2.3

    "In the third month of the Exodus, Israel arrived at Sinai."

70. _.44.2.4

    On the verse "anything the Lord wants, He does, in the heavens and on earth," (Psalms 135,6) Shemot Rabbah 12, comments as follows. This statement is to be understood by means of a parable. A king decreed that his Roman subjects were not to travel to Syria, whereas his Syrian subjects were not to travel to Rome. There came a time when the king wished to marry a lady from Syria. He therefore cancelled the decree, and said "henceforth Romans may travel to Syria and Syrians may travel to Rome. I myself will be the first to set the example." Similarly, when G-d created the universe at first, He decreed that "the heavens belong to the Lord, the earth to mankind." When He became ready to give Israel the Torah, He said that henceforth the inhabitants of the lower regions may ascend towards heaven, and heavenly beings will be permitted to move towards earth. G-d Himself would be the first to descend. Thus we find it written "the Lord descended on Mount Sinai." (Exodus 19,20) To Moses G-d said "come up to G-d, you, Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel." This is the meaning of "whatever G-d likes to do, He does, both in heaven and on earth."

71. _.44.2.5

    Since "Divine serenity" and the "ultimate good" are concepts far removed from average man, it requires the use of exceptional means by G-d to prepare man for such a state, to enable him to achieve it. King Solomon, in Kohelet, has described man as contemplating the physical needs he has in common with the animal kingdom, and arriving at the conclusion that his own status in the universe is so similar to that of the animals that any distinction is negligible. (Kohelet 3,19) The gift of speech to express his thoughts nothwithstanding, both die in the end, and nothing seems to remain to show that they have ever lived. Man's ability to believe in the survival of the soul is negated by the evidence of his eyes. Scientific examinations reveal that everything remains true to its nature, and that though it may be recycled, it does not thereby move to a higher plane of existence. To believe therefore, that man can continue a life of pure spirit after his body dies, is difficult, since all we have to judge by is the fact that man is subject to the laws of physics, and will forever remain bound by them. When David prays (Psalm 119,25) "my soul that is attached to earth, keep it alive as You have said," he indicates that such occurrence can only come about through Divine intervention, is not rooted in the nature of things. The G-d who said "let Us make man in Our image," must involve Himself in making the personality survive physical death. This occurs by means of the Torah, G-d’s revealed word, without which average man cannot hope to attain the level of moral perfection insuring his soul's immortality. Only exceptional human beings, such as Moses for instance, were able to divine G-d’s will as expressed in Torah legislation, and reach a level of almost pure spirit even before G-d’s Torah had been revealed. Such outstanding individuals can supply the flame that lights the wick which is the dormant soul. Through being fed pure fuel (Torah), the whole lamp (body and soul) is enabled to function. Whereas the lamp (body) is very fragile, the wick( soul) is by its nature indestructible as long as it is fed the proper fuel. The meaning of "we will do and we will hear," which Israel exclaimed is not as is commonly understood, a preparedness to execute G-d’s will prior to having heard it, because in that case the sensible thing would have been to say "let us hear it so that we can do it." Rather, "we shall hear," refers to the readiness to execute what G-d had introduced with the words "if you will listen to My voice and observe My covenant." When the Talmud Shabbat 88, states that "a heavenly voice" exclaimed "who has revealed My secrets to human beings?," It refers to the manner in which angels express themselves, as we see from Psalms 103,20, "bless the Lord! His angels, strong heroes, performers of His word in order to listen to His voice." The angels act first, then they absorb shemiyah, hearing. The reference clearly then is not to what the ear hears (since angels have no ears to hear with, but to what the "heart" perceives. "Shemiyah,"is the beneficial result derived from the original assiyah, performance. The ultimate experience of the revelation at Mount Sinai was that the Torah says "this day we have seen that G-d can address man and still he survives." At that moment Israel achieved a quality of life that enabled it to absorb direct communication from G-d, ignoring the limitations of mortality. It made Israel quite distinct from all other "living" creatures, with whom they had had so much in common previously. From here on in, the limitations common to all other living species no longer applied to Israel. This is the "Adam" of whom it had been said "let Us make Man in Our image," whose privilege it is that "he shall govern the fish of the sea etc., to have dominion over all other living creatures." The power of speech, which is normally thought to elevate man above other creatures, is the Divine Word, the ability to be addressed directly by G-d. As the Talmud in Baba Metzia 114, expresses it "you are Adam, but idol worshippers cannot qualify for the appellation "Adam."

72. _.44.2.6

    Midrash Rabbah Numbers 16, states "at the moment of "we shall do and we shall hear," G-d had put Israel out of bounds to the angel of death in order to give meaning to the word "cheyrut", freedom. Only due to the sin of the spies was this decree revoked as we read in Proverbs 1,25, "you have ruined all My plans," or "I said you are G-d like, however you will have to die like humans. (Psalms 82,6-7) This proves that the "nishma"part of the na-asseh venishma gave Israel a quality of life not possessed previously. The manner in which the spies ruined G-d’s plan is discussed in chapter 67.

73. _.44.2.7

    When we look at the introductory Midrash, we find apparent contradictions. Whereas G-d first says "the heavens are Mine, and the earth He has given to man," this contradicts the Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Nasso which says that at the time G-d created the universe, He wanted an abode among the lower creatures just as He had an abode among the beings in the celestial regions. Concerning the Midrash saying of G-d "I will be the first to descend," this is the reverse of the order described in our Parshah which states "Moses ascended to G-d," and only afterwards does it say "G-d descended on Mount Sinai." Sukkah 5, tells us in the name of Rabbi Vossi that the shechinah, Divine Presence never approached to within less than ten handsbreadths of earth, whereas neither Moses nor Elijah ever got closer to heaven than ten tefachim, ten handsbreadths.

74. _.44.2.8

    From all the foregoing it seems that the original decree that the two domains cannot meet, cannot be shared, remains in force. A closer look reveals however, that there is no contradiction between the various statements quoted. When G-d created the universe and said "let Us make man in Our image," He intended to share the whole world with man. Tragically, Adam's sin made the latter mortal and severed the partnership with G-d. Subsequently, G-d progressively retreated to the seventh and most remote region of the heavens due to continued sinful behaviour of man. Concerning the generations living during that period, we apply the quotation "the heavens are G-d’s exclusively.* The parable explaining that Syrians and Romans could not visit one another due to a Royal decree confirms this. Had there not been a decree not to travel to each other's domains, such communication would have been possible. Only the generation of Moses re-established a close relationship with G-d that went beyond a few outstanding individuals, so that at the time of the revelation, Adam's original state of grace had been regained by the entire Jewish people. The fact that Moses ascended as an individual is not at issue. Concerning the nation as a whole, G-d had to be the first to approach mankind. He descended on Mount Sinai. Only afterwards would the people, i.e. the elders be invited to come up to the mountain. Since the decree not to visit one another's country had now been abolished, travel was possible, i.e. each individual according to the spiritual niveau he had attained.

75. _.44.2.9

    Following the thought expressed in Midrash Rabbah Nasso 12, the day the tabernacle was erected, a momentous event, the like of which had not occurred since the days of creation, the presence of the shechinah on earth was re-established in "the tent of meeting." Once before, in the garden of Eden, we read about "the voice of the Lord walking in the garden following the wind of the day." (Genesis 3,8). The word vayehee, it was (Numbers 7,1) always means that some new element has been introduced into the story being related,- according to the opinion of Rav. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says that the term implies that something that had already been in existence once and had been severed from its function, has now been restored to its original function. Solomon does not say (in Song of Songs) "I came to the garden," but "I came to my garden," implying that this garden had already previously belonged to the one who enters it now. (compare Midrash Rabbah there dealing with the sacrifice of Nachshon.) Concerning the statement that human beings never come closer than to within forty inches of heaven, nor that G-d comes closer than to within forty inches of earth, this saying describes the limitations imposed upon human beings, even the most perfect of us. If one accepts the kabbalistic principle of the ten spheres, it stands to reason that G-d presides over the tenth sphere. On the other hand, if, for instance, the holy ark stood forty inches high, then the lid on which the cherubs were mounted and the shechinah rested, was higher than forty inches from the ground. The ten spheres are levels. Some prophets penetrate some of these levels depending on the calibre of the respective prophet and the nature of the vision granted to him. Elihu, in chapter thirty three of Job, refers to the fact that varying degrees of levels are revealed to the righteous, depending on the level of their righteousness. Moses himself, having reached the highest level a human prophet ever did, sort of "held on" to the throne," but did not cross the line beyond the tenth level.

76. _.44.3.1

    Part Two

77. _.44.3.3

    The Talmud (Shabbat 88) says that at the time Israel proclaimed "we shall do and we shall hear," six hundred thousand angels came and placed two crowns on the head of each Israelite, one for "we shall do" and one for "we shall hear." When the people sinned at the episode of the golden calf, one million two hundred thousand angels descended and removed these crowns from the heads of the people. Compare Exodus 33,6, "they were stripped of their jewelry from Mount Chorev." Rabbi Yochanan says "all of these crowns were acquired by Moses, since it says immediately afterwards "and Moses would take the tent." Rabbi Shimon said that in the future G-d will restore them to Israel, since we read in Isaiah 51,11, "the ones redeemed by the Lord will return and come to Zion wearing gladness and eternal joy on their heads."

78. _.44.3.4

    Since we have discussed the ability of man to associate closely with the Divine in the first half of this chapter, it remains to be proved that such ability can be translated into reality without undue difficulty. Were this not so, man might become discouraged in his search to achieve this objective. Even if it were relatively easy to achieve, since such status can easily be lost again, it would not mean a great deal to humanity. The fact that only a few people have indeed achieved such intimacy with G-d, would also tend to reduce its value in the eyes of man. When one considers that a nation such as Israel had resided for so long among the morally corrupt Egyptians, it becomes clear that it would require extraordinary skill to wean such a people from the habits acquired during their long sojourn in that contaminated environment.

79. _.44.3.5

    In order to achieve maximum impact by His revelation at Mount Sinai, G-d resorted to extraordinary phenomena both before, during and after matan Torah, the presentation of the Torah to the people. This becomes evident when one studies the story of the Jewish people's arrival in the desert of Sinai. First we are told that they arrived in Sinai on the first day of the third month. Next, though we know that their last stop had been Refidim, the fact that they set out from Refidim and arrived in Sinai is repeated. Next it says that Moses ascended to G-d and called to Him from the Mountain. The order really should have been "G-d called to Moses and the latter ascended." From the manner of the text, it appears as if Moses was on a higher level than the one calling to him. Next we have the emphasis on the order of addressing Israel, "thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel." Furthermore, "these are the words you shall speak to the children of Israel." This suggests that Moses had no latitude in the words he could use. However, it is worth noting that anyone who has a major request of his fellow man would do well to pay attention to the following prerequisites in order to assure himself of an optimal chance of success. He must watch (a) timing, (b) place, (c) method of presentation of the request, (d) the ability of the party petitioned to grant the petition, (e) explain the advantages accruing to the petitioned party if he grants the petition. He must also bear in mind the position in society of the party petitioned. Queen Esther is a prime example of how all these points need to be heeded when she petitioned king Ahasverus. She chose the timing very carefully, saying "tomorrow I shall do what the king says." She chose the place, inviting him to lunch at her palace, so as to be undisturbed. She chose the method, i.e. wine, in order to put the king into a good frame of mind, and at the same time to make Haman relaxed and careless. She adhered to the order of priorities by begging for her own life first. Concerning the king's ability to deliver, and the advantage to him by granting her request, she said "we have been sold, and the king stands to lose heavily financially." In our situation, G-d demonstrates the same care in His request from Israel. The time chosen, the third month after the Exodus, allowed Israel to have recovered from the slavery experienced.They had been given ample opportunity to observe the way in which G-d had looked after their needs thus far. The mountain, frequently referred to as "the mountain of G-d", was meant to impress itself on those who beheld it. (by far the highest mountain in that part of the world). When one contrasts unpleasant memories with pleasant experiences, the latter seem much more impressive than when contrasted with everyday events. Since the events in Refidim had been exceptionally upsetting, mentioning the contrast of their departure from there with the arrival at Sinai, left an especially favourable impression. The site was well chosen, therefore. As far as how G-d’s request was related to the Jewish people, this was accomplished through the good offices of Moses who was the most suitable instrument, being someone who had reached the highest level of humanity without the benefit of Torah legislation. Concerning the exact formulation of the request, the word "thus" indicates that Moses indeed was not given any leeway in the precise wording he had to employ. The content of the message concentrated on reminding the addressee of prior events which have a bearing on his attitude. In this case, these would be G-d’s actions against Egypt, which form the background for His present request. There follows the purpose of the request, namely that Israel become a holy nation, a nation of priests, precious to the Lord etc. That such a carefully planned scenario elicited a favourable response from Israel is hardly surprising then. Although Moses relayed G-d’s request only to the elders, fearing that the nation as a whole might not be so responsive, the nation's response shows how effective G-d’s planning of this event had been. The wonderfully effective things G-d was going to do during the actual revelation is introduced by His saying to Moses "here I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people will hear Me talk to you and will also believe in your leadership forever more". The objective of becoming a "holy nation" by means of the mitzvot is described in Deuteronomy 30,11, as a very easily attainable goal. "For this commandment is not so wonderfuL.it is easily achievable..up to your mouth and your heart to implement". Our sages tell us that the Torah is so structured that even "the empty ones among you are as full of mitzvot as pomegranates are full of pips". This is so, because the mitzvot apply to our body's activities and do not require intellectual brilliance in order to be performed.

80. _.44.3.6

    Devarim Rabbah in Parshat Ki Teytze is explicit about how the commandments accompany man wherever he is, since they apply to food, dress, habitation, commerce, etc., in short to every conceivable matter man may at any time be engaged in.

81. _.44.4.2

    In considering that the purpose of observing Torah is to acquire the aforementioned level of partnership with the Divine, the question arises whether this is an exclusive objective, or whether one may have other more mundane benefits in mind which accrue to one in the process of fulfilling G-d’s commandments. If the former, the chances are that most people would not be able to take the long term view in order to live a life devoted to the performance of the mitzvot. The argument that mundane side benefits through the observance of mitzvot are not permissible, could be sustained by the following two considerations. 1) The more highly placed a worker or servant, the more lofty are the tasks that he is entrusted to perform. Man, as the most sophisticated creature on earth, would naturally only be concerned with the loftiest endeavours and objectives. 2) If we were to postulate that carrying out G-d’s will would have as its purpose merely human objectives, this would contradict the maxim that the objective is primary. If the prophet Isaiah 44,6, proclaims in the name of G-d "I am first and I am last," this clearly implies that the only considerations in all our endeavours must be centred around G-d and His purpose. Antignos, who has said in Avot,1 "do not be like the servant who serves the master for the sake of the reward," surely had this thought in mind. Also the saying of Ben Azzai "the reward for performing one mitzvah is another mitzvah, may be understood in a similar vein. In other words, performance of the commandments is an end in itself, not a means to an end. The Sifrey in Parshat Eykev says "a man might say to himself I'll perform the commandments in order to gain riches, or to acquire the title of Rabbi, or even in order to acquire a share in the hereafter; therefore the Torah says (Deut. 11,13) "in order to love the Lord your G-d." Your purpose in obeying should be to demonstrate your love for G-d. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 19, quotes Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi as interpreting Psalms 112,1, "hail to the man who fears the Lord and is very desirous of His commandments,” as referring to people who perform the commandments for their own sake, not for the reward associated with them. Maimonides, at the end of his sefer hamitzvot pursues this line of reasoning also. However, one can also argue the reverse, again using two lines of reasoning. 1) It is natural for all creatures to be concerned first and foremost with their own physical needs. Although it is a fact that each type of creature serves as a means to sustain a higher category of life, i.e. plants to sustain animals, animals to sustain man etc., we nonetheless observe that they all concentrate on their own needs, their service to a higher category of life being merely incidental. 2) It is a psychological fact that man loses interest, in the pursuit of any task that does not promise tangible rewards within a time frame he considers reasonable. Even an Onan, (Genesis 38,10) was not punished for failing to have issue with Tamar, but only for taking active steps to prevent the fulfilment of the objective of the levirate marriage to provide issue for his deceased brother. Antignos' statement is revised to read "do not make service to the Lord conditional on the receipt of a reward," not as in the version of "make it conditional on being independent of a reward." Also the Talmud in Pessachim 8, states that if someone says he will give charity in order that his children will live, or in order that he himself may enjoy life in the hereafter, he is considered a perfect tzaddik. This seems to contradict the Sifrey in Parshat Eykev that he who studies the Torah in order to be called rabbi is wrong, since the Torah demands love of G-d as one's motivation. Clearly these examples indicate that having in mind personal objectives while performing mitzvot, is permissible. In fact, the Torah promises the attainment of personal objectives such as "so that you will be well off, will live long." (Deut. 22,7) There are many similar statements in the Torah. G-d Himself is quoted as wishing that the Jewish people should revere Him as they did at the time when they received the Torah, in order that He could treat them and their children well. (Deut 10,13) If G-d Himself wishes that our serving Him will result in benefits to us in this world, how can we say that all our mitzvah performance must be aimed exclusively at our being elevated to the status of becoming His partner, and that other material considerations would negate the moral value of the mitzvah performance? We must therefore believe that as a result of performing mitzvot sufficient benefit will accrue to us to make their performance worthwhile. This is the meaning of the saying in Makkot 23, "because the Lord wished to let us amass many advantages, He provided us with an abundance of mitzvot and good deeds to perform," as is written in Isaiah 42,21, "the Lord was pleased because of His righteousness to render the Torah increasingly great and glorious." Since both the aforementioned approaches have equally much to recommend them and are in accord with many sayings of our sages, we have to endeavour to reconcile the apparent contradictions. If we consider the word "prass" as referring to the remuneration received for services rendered, then the saying of Antignos becomes clear. Since all our deeds cannot provide G-d with anything that He does not already have, Antignos says " make sure your relationship with G-d is not based on the mistaken belief that there is reciprocity. Rather, remember that whatever you receive as reward for service of the Lord is in fact chessed, a kindness, since your service does not do anything for Him. However, it is a fact that your service will confer upon yourself both physical and spiritual benefits. "By observing them, the consequences, the benefits are numerous. (Psalms 19,12 ) This lesson had been misunderstood by Tzadok and Bayssus who believed that their teacher denied the theory of reward and punishment, and who, in postulating their concept of doing good merely for the sake of doing good, became heretics, strange as it may seem. The doctrine of reward as an act of grace, not as a condition for performing the mitzvot, is the true expression of Jewish attitudes then. Any other attitude smacks of an effort to manipulate G-d, of bartering with Him to do your will rather than the reverse, i.e. your doing His will. The Bible as well as our sages have carefully refrained from the use of the term "prass," and have used the term sachar instead. The latter in all its connotations simply means the reverse of hefsed, loss. If Antignos concludes by saying "in order that the fear of heaven be upon you," he warns his students not to relate to other deities which are not even able to confer any benefits upon them, be they prass or sachar. The language employed by the sayings that prohibits performing mitzvot for the sake of, is usually kedey, in order to. The distinction shows already that only when the purpose is reward is such servivce unacceptable. If, however, the service is not conditional, then the reward element is perfectly acceptable as a by- product. Once we accept that what matters is the purity of motivation of the performance, it is easy to argue that the deed itself is irrelevant as long as the intention to perform it existed. This could be the point raised by the rasha, the wicked son's question in the Haggadah. But the truth is that both deed and motivation are essential. Whenever observances are demanded, the Torah urges that it must be motivated by love for G-d, and if so, success in the form of visible reward will be the result of such service of G-d. When the Sifrey described a service that has reward as its objective as inadmissible, the reference is only to the objective of obtaining the reward in this life. If the desire is to ensure one's life in the world to come, such an objective is praiseworthy. Also the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 31, which interpreted the words "for His commandments and not for the reward of His commandments," refers only to these worldly rewards as being taboo. This was also Antignos' meaning concerning the words "today to carry out (the commandments) and not today to receive their rewards. The considerations mentioned, also help us understand the statement in Kiddushin 31, that he who performs a mitzvah because he has been commanded to do this by G-d, has done something greater than he who has performed the same deed voluntarily. One cannot achieve the ultimate tachlit, objective of the commandment unless one performs it as such. Only in this way does one become a shutaph, partner of the Almighty, a goal we have described as the ultimate purpose of mitzvah performance. This is another aspect of the saying that "the reward of the mitzvah is the mitzvah, that the achievement of the mitzvah is predicated on the very fact that it is a commandment.

82. _.44.4.3

    Some difficulties in the text of the Parshah.

83. _.44.4.4

    1) The task of the Jewish people to be a nation especially precious, a kingdom of priests, is described in two separate verses. Why are these two tasks not linked in a single sentence? What precisely is the meaning of the word segullah? 2) First Moses is told to speak "to the house of Jacob and to the children of Israel." (verse 3) Later, (verse 6) the Torah merely says "these are the words you are to speak to the children of Israel." There is no more mention of "the house of Jacob." Why? 3) Whereas we are told in verse seven that Moses conveyed G-d’s words to the elders,, we hear in verse eight that the entire nation responded. Altogether, throughout the passage the elders are mentioned only twice, otherwise the reference is always to "the people." What is the significance of this? 4) We have two statement in consecutive verses reading "Moses brought back the people's words to G-d/ and "Moses told G-d the people's words." Why the repetition? 5) In verse twelve we would have expected "fence off the mountain," instead of "fence in the people!" Why did the Torah not put the mountain out of bounds? 6) The signal "when the yovel is long drawn out they may climb the mountain," is unusual. We would have expected a word signalling the end or cessation of the blowing of the Shofar. As it stands, ascent seems permissible even prior to cessation of the blowing of the Shofar. 7) The command "be prepared for three days" is a contradiction of "sanctify yourselves today and tomorrow." We are, of course, aware of the interpretation that Moses added a day from his own volition. Nevertheless the problem remains. 8) Since we learned from the encounter of the prophet Elijah at the same mountain, that G-d is not to be found in noise or other excesses of nature, but rather in "a quiet voice," why did the giving of the Torah occur under such noisy conditions etc.? Why did there have to be thunder, lightning, the mountain quaking ? 9) Why does the Torah report two separate tremblings, one by the mountain and one by the people? 10) Why is the sound volume of the shofar blowing mentioned in connection with Moses talking? The two matters seem unrelated to each other! 11) When G-d told Moses to go down and warn the people not to become victims of their own curiosity to behold G-d, and Moses replied "the people cannot ascend because You have warned them," who is Moses to play adviser to G-d? Why did G-d seem to reconsider when He apparently corrects Himself saying to Moses "go down and ascend together with Aaron, but the people must not breach etc.?"

84. _.44.4.5

    (1) G-d, being aware of the fact that the recipient of benefits hates to be reminded of that fact, especially if it is the benefactor reminding him, glosses over all the acts of salvation performed by Him, and summarises only the fact that He has elevated them to their present high status by using the shortest possible route, i.e. "on eagles' wings." Although acceptance of the Torah on the basis of past performance by G-d is almost a mandatory act by Israel, G-d promises that such acceptance will make Israel a nation of especially precious value, and a kingdom of priests. In comparison with the Sabbath legislation at Marah, when G-d employed a lot of words, spelling out what Israel was to do, and only a few words listing the benefits that would accrue therefrom, (15,26) in this instance G-d uses reverse psychology (18,5-6) emphasizing the benefits and stating the duties only in an abbreviated form. The promises include the offer to free Israel from all dependence on human beings. Ever since Terach who had been subservient to Nimrod, Israel's forbears had always been dependent in some manner on other rulers. As a result of accepting the kingdom of heaven, this was to be changed, and it is this that is implied in the word segullah. When a king assigns a city to his subjects to dwell in and work in, and after a while oil or mineral deposits are discovered there, the king will claim such treasures as belonging to him, since only the visible assets of such a city had been assigned to its population. If G-d permits the idol worshipping rulers to administer part of His earth, that territory does not include any gems that would be found there. When G-d discovered Abraham and removed him from the grasp of Nimrod, He did so by exercising His claim to the jewels found in Nimrod's kingdom. (2) In order to further refine the rough stone that He had found in Ur, he subjected Abraham to ten stages of refinement (yissurim ), until the gem had become absolutely pure and flawless. The process of refinement continued from Abraham through Isaac, down to the generation that stood at Mount Sinai. If that generation would show its readiness to embrace Torah, it would prove that as of that moment in time the process of progressive refinement had been brought to a successful conclusion. The segullah aspect applies to the entire nation, "the house of Jacob." The "kingdom of priests" applies to the select individuals whose moral achievements surpass those of the nation as a whole. Therefore, two separate phrases are used to describe the new status of the Jewish people. It says once more "these are the words," meaning the words addressed only to the elders, the leaders. The proof of this interpretation is the fact that throughout the chapter, the people are normally referred to as am, nation, no fewer than eighteen times. The reason that the women were told first is, as the Midrash explains. When Adam was created, G-d had told him not to eat from the tree of knowledge, but He did not address woman directly. The result proved to be a tragedy. In order to avoid a repetition of such a tragedy, this time, G-d, or rather Moses, addressed the women first. They are called "the house of Jacob." Expressed differently, prishut, seclusion, is an exalted level in which man is almost completely intellectual, super-corporeal. The command to be such failed because the body had not been prepared for it. The body is represented by the female of the species. Since the order went out to the male only, the female thus not having been prepared, the attempt to sublimate bodily functions in the garden of Eden had failed. In this instance, G-d wanted to make sure that such sublimation would not fail again. (3) "He placed before them these words." Moses put the words before the elders without further elaborationg on them. The people who were present had no other way of responding but to say "all that G-d has said, we will do." As the Talmud in Shabbat 88, explains "standing beneath the mountain" meant that the momentous experience about to take place made any other kind of response suicidal in their eyes. G-d had prepared the people psychologically in such a way that the response was totally expected. If Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov describes the whole event as constituting a sound legal process of coercion i.e that it can be protested as such, he refers to the fact that the na-asseh, we will do, did not constitute an educated response arrived at after careful weighing of the evidence, but was spontaneous, due to the tremendous external pressure exerted. Therefore he claims it could not be considered binding. If we find the "we will do" prior to the exclamation "we will do and we will hear," it refers to the acceptance of the principle that action rather than contemplation is true soul food. It does not refer to the acceptance of specific tasks that were to be performed. This had also been the purpose for which Adam had been placed in the garden of Eden, of which it says in the Torah "to work it and to preserve it," to maintain its state of spiritual well being. The story of the creation refers to G-d having blown a soul into Adam's nostrils, and it was this G-d given soul that he was to preserve in its purity. The giving of the Torah was to have a similar effect on the Jewish nation as a whole. (4) Since the people realised that the select few who had already relegated physical needs to being a merely incidental concern, had been raised to an even higher spiritual level, the people stressed that as far as they were concerned it was only the ma-asseh action, not the iyun, speculative reasoning, that they would perform. This the people also confirmed after the giving of the ten commandments when they said unanimously "all that G-d has said we will do." Not so the third time. After Moses had read "the book of the covenant," the word nishma, we will hear, appears, since the ma-asseh action, is the preparation for the nishma, the understanding, as we have pointed out earlier. The people now realised that the intellectual capacity of a person is enhanced once he has carried out G-d’s commandments as deeds. This was one of the greatest accomplishments of matan Torah, the giving of the Torah, which they only understood then. In chapter forty seven we will have occasion to present yet another reason for the fact that sometimes Israel said "we will do," and sometimes they said "we will do and hear." The reason Moses once told G-d the words of the people, i.e. "he brought back the people's words" and then "he told" again is, because the first time Moses had not recognised the full significance of what the people had in mind. Consequently, Moses had only related their formal response. After G-d told Moses that He would descend and that the revelation would also include the strengthening of the people's belief in Moses’s Divine mission, he realised that the people in saying "we will do," had had much more in mind than he had believed at first. By this statement, G-d had indicated how fundamental the concept of the prophet is to the whole Torah, and that he who does not believe in the mission of the prophets, does not really believe in G-d either. Belief in the personal G-d presupposes a channel of communication between man and G-d, and that channel is the prophet. The strength of the channel may vary from generation to generation, and even from place to place, but the channel's existence is axiomatic to Judaism. In our instance, in order to receive the transmission loud and clear, one first had to sanctify oneself, i.e. become ritually pure. Therefore the days of preparation for the giving of the Torah. (5) The meaning of "you shall fence off the people," refers to the effect of Torah, which, if observed, will restrain people's urge to commit excesses. (6) We have a principle (Beytzah 5) that anything prohibited by a Court of Law of a specific number of judges, requires at least an equal number of judges in another Court in order to cancel the previous prohibition. If not for that rule, the verse (19, 13) should have read "when the shofar sound ceases;" as it is, the expression "when the shofar sound is long drawn out," signals that the Court of Law is empowered to pursue such errant people or animals even while the shofar sound has not yet signalled the end of matan Torah, the giving of the law. (7) The apparent contradiction concerning the number of days of preparation for the revelation is resolved by the consideration of whether the day the order was issued is included in the number of days listed. When one talks of three days, it is included; when G-d says "for on the third day," this means the third, counting from the first of the series, not the third from the day Moses received the command. (8) The overwhelming natural phenomena at the revelation stem from two considerations. A) The feeling of inadequacy that gripped the people. These feelings are described by what they experienced in verse sixteen, the thunder etc. (9+10) B) The awesome nature of the experience itself. This is described, by showing us the reaction on the part of the mountain. The sounds of the shofar and subsequently the sound of G-d’s voice when conversing with Moses, were to acquaint the people with the sound of G-d’s voice, so that when He spoke the ten commandments, the people would already recognise that this was indeed the voice of G-d that they were hearing. (10) This enabled them to say later "whatever G-d has said we will do." They referred to what they had heard with their own ears, though most of it had been addressed to Moses only. Moses was not really aware that the people in large measure had suddenly acquired the status of prophets in their spiritual capacity. As such, they might think that a closer approach was warranted. G-d said to Moses no rav, great person shall perish. (19,22) (11) Moses talked about am, plain people, which shows that he had misunderstood what G-d had meant by rav. Moses is asked to go lower down so that during the time G-d addressed him he is visible to the people and the elders, and no one could accuse him at a later stage of having faked G-d’s voice while out of sight of the people and the elders. The Midrash suggests the following parable. A king who wanted to do something that his closest adviser should not know about, sent the adviser on an errand in order to gain time. The adviser, quite innocently, told the king that the errand he had been sent on had already been carried out, that the mission was unnecessary. So the king invented another errand, and during the time it took for that errand to be carried out by his adviser, the king carried out whatever it was he had meant to do in the first place. Similarly, G-d had wanted Moses further down the mountain during matan Torah. He accomplished this by sending Moses on an errand which would require him being in the place G-d wanted, at the time G-d wanted.

85. _.45.1.1

    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

86. _.45.1.2

    "And God spoke all these words" etc. "I am the LORD thy God" etc.

87. _.45.1.3

    The Talmud in Kiddushin 31, reports that the great Rabbi Ulla expounded at the entrance of the house of the President concerning the words in Psalm 138,4, "all the kings of the world acknowledge You, since they have heard the words from Your mouth." It does not say "word." When G-d commenced the commandments with the statement "I am the Lord your G-d" etc., the nations of the world said "He is concerned only with His own glory." Once they heard the commandment "honour your father and mother so that you will live long etc," they reconsidered and accepted the validity of the first utterance. Rabba, son of Rabbi Yitzchak says that this also explains the verse in Psalms 119,160, "the beginning of Your word is truth." He asks "are not the end of Your words truth also?" The explanation is that just as the end of Your words are truth, so are the beginning of Your words truth also.

88. _.45.1.4

    It is a well known fact that whenever someone makes extraordinary efforts to accomplish something, that something is of exceptional importance to the person making such a supreme effort on its account. If the Shunamite woman whose house the prophet Elisha used to frequent, built a private apartment for his use, then it is not surprising that the prophet tried to figure out the real reason she had gone to such trouble. When he failed to find the obvious answer such as acting as her attorney at the king's Court, he asked his assistant Gechazi. The latter noted that the woman was childless and had an aging husband. (Kings II chapter 4) After the sin of the golden calf, Moses used the argument that in order to justify all that G-d had done to release Israel from bondage in Egypt, His objective must have been extremely important, else why go to such trouble? To abandon such an objective and to annihilate Israel, would make all of G-d’s efforts look foolish, and this would diminish rather than enhance G-d’s image in the eyes of mankind. G-d relented and accepted that argument. The same argument may lead to our undeserved redemption in the future (Ezekiel chapter 36) to justify G-d’s "name," i.e. to justify the historic existence of the Jewish people throughout the many centuries of exile. At Mount Sinai then, all G-d’s preparations prior to the revelation, all the thunder and lightning accompanying the revelation must have had as its objective something completely beyond anything man had ever experienced. Seeing that the ten commandments do not contain any new philosophic insights, and in fact, most of these commandments could easily have been legislated by human legislators of average intelligence interested in a well functioning society, one wonders wherein lay the great purpose that produced such extraordinary effort. One might have expected answers to the mysteries of the universe, but they do not contain anything of the sort. Even the first two commandments stipulating the uniqueness of G-d etc., are matters easily arrived at by the human intellect as demonstrated by Maimonides chapter thirty three second section of his "Moreh." This in spite of the fact that these two commandments were heard by all the people directly from the mouth of G-d. Similarly, the fact that the tablets were G-d’s own handiwork as well as the inscriptions on them, all suggest that the purpose of the revelation must have been an all encompassing one. If it was not its purpose to teach new philosophical insights, what was its purpose? It was first and foremost to disabuse people of false philosophies, many of which were circulating freely. Although the vast majority of mankind may acknowledge the existence of G-d as the Creator, they deny His ability or willingness to guide the fate of man or the history of the universe. It was that kind of the denial of G-d’s role that the plagues in Egypt had targeted. It was also what the revelation at Mount Sinai was to impress upon Israel. The purpose was simply to demonstrate the presence and involvement in the personal fate of each and every Jew by G-d. This was demonstrated for all future generations to remember. It was not hearsay, historic fable or legend, but a living experience shared by the entire nation. Henceforth that truth could no longer be denied by speculative reason. The constant nagging doubt "is the Lord in our midst?" was stilled once and for all. A major reason for the reluctance of many Israelites to leave Egypt had been their doubt if the G-d of Israel in all His majesty would concern Himself with such trivial matters as the safety of a people on its march through the desert. Therefore they had preferred the authority of the Egyptian state and civilisation, whose acknowledged task it was to look after its subjects. If, in fact, G-d had indulged Moses at Mount Sinai in answering all the philosophical arguments, the result would have had meaning, at best, for that generation, whereas future generations would have each had to have its own revelation. Therefore G-d addressed Himself exclusively to the fears that lurked in people's minds, and demonstrated that G-d’s Providence did indeed extend to each one of them in whatever circumstances they might find themselves. He stressed the love He had demonstrated for them by releasing them from bondage to the cruel and arrogant Egyptian kingdom. He stressed that He wanted them to retain their freedom from any other deity by not worshipping such deity nor building altars or idols for them etc. Lastly, He demanded the honour due Him by not bandying about His name in idle oaths, and positively observing the Sabbath as a day of rest, emulating Him, since He had rested on the Sabbath. After that, He turned His attention to domestic problems between man and fellow man. When the Midrash discusses anthropomorphical problems such as G-d’s "right" and G-d’s "left," the writing on the tablets with G-d’s "finger" etc. it is dear that all these descriptions are allegorical. Let us take a closer look at the ten commandments themselves.

89. _.45.1.5

    "And God spoke all these words, saying"

90. _.45.1.6

    Although in the affairs of man, numbers are used mostly for the purpose of keeping records, and the numbers themselves do not have independent significance, such is not the case in the Torah. Whenever numbers appear, they have an independent significance, imparted to them by their Creator. Of all the basic numbers that exist, the number ten is by far the most important. It represents the ten directives employed in creating the universe. It describes the ten steps used to reduce the infinite immanent to the material and finite which we call our lives and earth. The two tablets are divided into two groups. Group one is concerned with the spiritual and intellectual capacity of man, whereas group two is concerned with the physical, material aspect of man.

91. _.45.1.7

    Man's intellectual research proceeds from the effect to the cause, something that the Torah describes as "aliyah” ascent in Jacob's dream of the ladder. Once Jacob arrives at the ultimate cause, and obtains Divine insights, he retraces his steps to view all phenomena from a new and different vantage point. When G-d is described as carrying Israel on wings of eagles, this same kind of aliyah, ascent is meant. Once having attained that state ,the yeridah, the understanding on the basis of new insights begins. Anochi, I, represents the first of such newly gained insights. An example of this new insight is that although the world appears dominated by the sun and moon, these cannot be its ultimate cause. How else could one account for the fact that such an ultimate cause would disappear from view every night?

92. _.45.1.8

    "Anochi" itself is not yet part of the decalogue. It represents the demand to accept G-d’s kingdom. As the Midrash describes it, a king whose subjects are willing to accept his laws, must first convince his subjects to accept his sovereignty. The anochi statement then is that of G-d’s sovereignty over Israel. Only the "do not make or do not have any other deities etc," is the beginning of the legislative part of the revelation. (Compare Maimonides in sefer hamitzvot)

93. _.45.1.9

    "You shall not have any other deities" then states that Israel is quite right regarding what cannot be a deity. Consequently, such non deities must not be idolised nor reproduced in a form that suggests idlolisation, or worse yet, actual worshipping of such a reproduction. This is the meaning of our sages telling us that charut on the tablets is actually cheyrut, i.e. we are free of such childish misconceptions about the nature of who controls the universe and is therefore able to inspire fear and terror. This includes the concept of being free from the threat of death, since sin, i.e. the angel of death himself is subject to the ultimate cause, the living Creator. It also includes the idolatry of the power of money and wealth, the most prevalent form of idol worship in civilised society. The denial of such idolatry is expressed in the final commandment. He who observes the commandment of "you must not covet,” reveals that he is free from that kind of idol worship. This is also the meaning of "do not make with Me any deities of silver and gold." G-d stipulates "I do not share power with money or material wealth." G-d describes Himself as our "husband," warning us not to look elsewhere for sustenance since He assumes exclusive responsibility for this. Also, as a wife, Israel must not commit adultery by consorting with any other deity in whatever manner, nor must Israel rebel against its "husband."

94. _.45.1.11

    At the time the ten commandments were given, the cherubs mounted on the holy ark were not included in the prohibition of reproductions of things in heaven or on earth, since up to the moment of their construction they were original, nothing like it had ever existed. Once they had been constructed however, the very fact of their existence made them subject to the prohibitions included in "do not make images." The reason G-d describes Himself as a "jealous HUSBAND," is to emphasize the husband/wife relationship. This explains the extreme patience G-d has demonstrated towards other nations serving idols. Only because Israel is related to Him by marital vows, does the "husband" display jealousy if He is cheated. The punishment that may extend to the fourth generation for those that hate G-d, i.e. who commit acts of idol worship of one form or another, is only the result of mercy. Were G-d to eliminate the aspect of mercy present in that kind of punishment, the second generation already would never have seen the light of day, since the generation guilty of idol worship would have been wiped out. The sin of the golden calf is a prime example. Had G-d wiped out the Jewish people at that time, the chances offered subsequent generations would have been lost then and there. On the other hand, reward for good conduct will be a factor as much as two thousand generations hence.

95. _.45.1.12

    The earth's movement around its axis is perceived as involuntary, especially since its rapid and constant repetition is obvious to all. The earth's orbit around the sun however, is perceived as voluntary because it takes so much longer. The same applies to the planets in our galaxy. This apparent contradiction led man to believe in the independent powers of the planets, obviously a fallacy.

96. _.45.1.13

    Someone who swears a needless or false oath in the name of G-d, is equally guilty of contradictory behaviour. On the one hand, using the name of G-d indicates that one believes that G-d controls the universe, on the other hand, using the lie indicates that one does not believe in His omnipotence and awareness of one's actions. This is why the third commandment follows the second commandment, to emphasize the intellectual parallel between the two actions. The word lo tissa, do not elevate, is singularly appropriate, since one does elevate the name of G-d, but at the same time the total act becomes vain and meaningless. The result therefore, is actually blasphemy. This sort of behaviour was a major failing in Jewish society at the time of the prophet Jeremiah, (compare Jeremiah chapter 5)

97. _.45.1.14

    The common error that the planet Saturn controls the movements of the other planets, plus the fact that the Sabbath commences under its aegis, is countered by the Sabbath observance of the Jewish people, which shows that especially on the day which seems under the aegis of Saturn we abstain from any meaningful activity. We work only on the days Saturn is relatively unimportant.

98. _.45.1.16

    The fifth commandment, that of honouring father and mother, forms the link between the spiritual and the material concerns expressed on the tablets. Inasmuch as G-d is a partner in man, having provided the most valuable ingredient, the soul, the spiritual element is present. On the other hand, honouring father and mother is so basic, if merely for the sake of the inheritance expected by the children, that it needs hardly to be commanded.

99. _.45.1.17

    The commandment then emphasizes that the reward promised is not a natural sequence, but an act of Divine kindness, one that in light of the natural tendency to honour parents if only from a sense of gratitude, is hardly warranted. The mitzvah element of the commandment addresses itself first and foremost to the poor, who invest in looking after their father and mother rather than ensure they do not lose their inheritance.

100. _.45.1.18

     [The sixth commandment deals with murder. When they got to the constellation of Mars, which is below Jupiter, they saw and noted the strange actions that this constellation inspires among people, to have them quarrel and fight wars, to kill and destroy. Since it moves [people] to run to do evil and spill blood, the astrologers have already decided to call it the killer. So someone born under its power is already considered a bloody and crooked person. It is as they said (Shabbat 156a), “That one, who is [born] under Mars. will be a man who spills blood.” So the fortunate ones saw this and understood that the portion of Jacob is not like this. And it is as they said, “[Let him be] either a slaughterer, a bloodletter, or a mohel.” As the intelligent soul will control all of its tendencies and steer them towards righteousness, such that this tendency will not succeed. That is why the sixth commandment came.

← Previous · Next → — showing 501–600 of 1,212

Akeydat Yitzchak by Eliyahu Munk. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://www.urimpublications.com Licence: CC-BY. Source.