Akeidat Yitzchak

Sefaria · Jewish Thought > Rishonim · 1,212 sections

_.45.1.19
The commandment not to murder, addresses itself primarily to those who wish to blame the horoscope for their shortcomings. Relative to the commandments between man and man, it is as basic as the anochi in the commandments for relations between man and G-d. He who murders denies man's right to exist. This can only be, if simultaneously the murderer denies G-d Himself.
_.45.1.20
Just as the taking of a life is prohibited, the creation of life under forbidden conditions is outlawed.
_.45.1.21
This prohibition is second in importance only to the wrongful taking of a life. Adultery, a common method of creating such life, is therefore prohibited on pain of death of both partners in that crime.
_.45.1.22
The sun, generally considered to be the progenitor of life in our universe, is not to be conceived as creating life, since it could do so only by ignoring such discriminatory considerations. Even mere physical life must not be initiated by forbidden means, this is why crossbreeding is prohibited elsewhere.
_.45.1.23
The eighth's commandment dealing with the unlawful acquisition of property belonging to others, is next in line. The injunction not to steal is strengthened by the realisation that there is a watchful eye that sees the thief, even if the owner of the stolen goods does not. This commandment also parallels that of swearing a false oath. He who swears, acts differently in public than he does in private. So does the thief.
_.45.1.25
The ninth commandment addresses itself to the spoken word. Just as the fourth commandment concerns itself with testimony concerning the truth of the Creator and His works, so the ninth commandment concerns itself with testimony concerning events witnessed between man and man.
_.45.1.27
The tenth commandment addresses itself to the weakness in man that makes him believe that the attainment of worldly goods provides real and lasting satisfaction. This is merely an illusion, and the planning of how to attain possessions belonging to another, will lead to transgressions of all the other commandments. Despite the fact that the crime in this case does not consist in performance of an act, or even the utterance of words, merely the exercise of one's mind, the ultimate results would be devastating. We could say that he who fails to observe the fifth commandment, that of honouring his parents, will ultimately be likely to reject any kind of restriction on his personal conduct. Disregarding one's fellow man's right to his possessions, is as much a slap in the face of G-d, as failing to honour one's parents, is in the last analysis a slap at the face of G-d.
_.45.1.28
"The entire Jewish nation saw the sounds." This shows that on the one hand the Jewish people had shed enough of the physical part to be able to gain a whole new perspective on sound. On the other hand, they were still frightened of the other physical phenomena such as the lightning and the smoke. "The people saw and trembled." The latter is what caused them to ask Moses to be their intermediary. Moses who said "do not be afraid,” meant to tell them "do not be afraid to listen to G-d directly." G-d’s purpose is to give you experience now, so that this will remain an undying memory of this supernatural experience. It will remind you that man can survive hearing the voice of the Living G-d. Moreover, the awe you experience as of now, will insulate you against any future desire to sin against Him. Only if you did that, would you really die. The fact that "and these are the laws" are described as presented to the people by Moses, indicates that all the ten commandments had been heard by the people directly from the shechinah. "The people stood at a distance while Moses approached the thick cloud," refers to receiving the remainder of the Torah. Again in Parshat Va-etchanan it states "these words G-d spoke to your whole assembly at the Mount," indicating that the entire ten commandments are what is referred to. The whole sequence in Va-etchanan dearly indicates that Moses became the intermediary only for the remainder of the Torah. To reconcile statements by our sages which appear to say that Israel heard only the first two commandments directly, can be done in the following manner. "You have seen that I spoke directly," therefore all the things prohibited in the first two commandments are clearly comprehensible, do not build fancy altars, gold or silver images etc, I do not relate to you through an intermediary." The emphasis on "you shall construct an altar made from earth etc.," shows that simple materials are to be used to form the basis of worship. G-d wishes to tell us that even when ostentation in architecture is employed, this should not lead to the fatal error of viewing the costly materials as intermediaries between Israel and its G-d.
_.46.1.2
Parashat Mishpatim
_.46.1.3
The strength of the king loves justice." (Psalms 99) Midrash Tanchuma on this Parshah writes "Moses said to Israel: "here G-d has given you His Torah. If you do not accept the social legislation, He will take it away from you. Why? Because He has given you the Torah only on condition that you carry out the social legislation contained therein, as it says "the strength of the king loves justice." If you carry out the laws that apply between man and man, He will restore your Courts of Law and your temple, as it is written "I will restore your judges as of old." Afterwards it says "Zion will be redeemed through justice and its returnees through righteousness." (Isaiah 1)
_.46.1.4
If it is true that the status of the craftsman rises and falls with the quality and value of the materials upon which he exercises his craft, then dinim, social laws, would occupy a very low place in the scale of values. Our sages tell us that he who deals in spices is to be hailed, not so he who tans hides. This clearly reflects the view that an occupation can demean the person who practices it. (Kiddushin 82) Religious philosophy is held in high esteem because it concerns itself with the most noble subject. Next in line would be astronomy, inasmuch as it concerns itself with the mysteries that have a profound influence on nature and the universe. The dispensation of justice amongst people seems a far less worthy occupation, concerning itself with neither the abstract and therefore close to the Divine, nor with the everlasting and therefore related to the Divine by reason of the enduring nature of the subject.
_.46.1.6
Since man survives only as a species, not as an individual, he is in an inferior category to the aforementioned. Nevertheless, performing just deeds, or dispensing justice has the advantage over the other speculative activities, since 1) it enables civilisation to function, removes violence and prevents warfare by the strong against the weak. This brings in its wake the harmony that is the task of the Messiah to establish, as outlined in the book of Isaiah, (chapter 11) It even leads to peaceful relations in the animal kingdom. 2) It also leads to the perfection of man's character traits. We see therefore, that although the Torah contains elements of all the higher disciplines mentioned before, if man is to achieve his purpose to qualify as a partner to G-d in administering the earth, then he must establish just laws on earth based on the revealed wisdom of the Torah.
_.46.1.7
If the task of the Messiah is to teach people to lay aside their swords etc., then it is clear that when natural law rules, harmony will be restored to the world. Torah embodies this natural law, and this is the reason Abraham could divine it without having it revealed to him. Matan Torah, the gift of the Torah, was only the revelation of a law which had existed since before man had been created; in fact, it had been the blueprint with the help of which G-d created the universe. On occasion, clever people, such as the daughters of Tzelofchod, sensed this, though even Moses was not clear about it. (Numbers 27). Jacob, according to Pessachim 119, felt unqualified to preside over the saying of grace because he had married two sisters, alive at the same time, though at the time this had not yet been prohibited. He faulted himself for not having divined the will of G-d at that time. All of this is true in spite of the fact that the social legislation of the Torah contains apparently arbitrary ordinances. An example is the replacement value of thirty shekalim for a gentile slave regardless of his age, health etc. Similar apparent discrepancies we find in the sums allowed a father whose daughter has been raped etc. The law addresses itself to normal situations, since indirect damages are not assessed against the culprit. Any exceptional cases come under the heading of damages caused indirectly. Where wilful damage is discussed, such as in the case of the slaughtering of stolen animals, and penalties of four or five times the value of the animal in question, the Talmud goes to some length to demonstrate the natural law involved in such Torah legislation. (Baba Kama 68) The thrust of the legislation is to enable those who study it to develop the character traits that make the provision for non observance merely academic, since students of the Torah would not dream of allowing themselves to be guilty of transgressing these laws. Our sages taught that the universe is based on and can survive only by means of "justice, truth and harmony." (Avot 1) This means that a) a system of justice must be legislated and administered. b) Since this legislation parallels natural law, it is based on truth. c) Since such a system of law must be willingly embraced by the people to whom it is addressed, it promotes peace and harmony. In order to be absolute truth, Torah law must reconcile the true interests of the individual with the true interests of the society he lives in. To that end, legal decisions are left to Courts of Torah experts, scholars, not lay jurors. However, just as being an expert in anatomy does not yet make a person a doctor,-unless one has complete understanding of the interaction of all parts of the anatomy,- so knowledge of Torah precepts without comprehension of how to apply them when conflicting interests are involved, does not qualify a Torah scholar to act as judge. The Talmud Sanhedrin 7, is on record that in the event untutored judges are part of the Court, the former must be assisted by experts. Jewish social legislation, when practiced by Jews, has a greater influence on refining the character of the people practicing it, than the laws of any other religion. Benefits that accrue through such observence are twofold. 1) Social, i.e. application of such laws as the appointment of kings, will ensure the smooth functioning of society. 2) Benefits to the individual both during and after life. The eykev rav, great reward that David describes in Psalm 19, 13, as a reward for observing these laws, applies beyond the pale. This is also the answer of the Torah to the question of the wise son regarding the purpose of Torah legislation in Deut.6,20. "It shall be righteousness unto us" (verse 25) This is the reason the Torah says of this legislation "place it in front of them," i.e. not in front of the gentiles. Even if the latter were to adopt our legislation as their own, he who chooses non Jewish judges to settle his problems does not only not perform a commandment thereby, but commits a transgression. Just as the slaughtering of a ritually pure animal by a non Jewish slaughterer renders such an animal unfit for consumption by Jews, neveylah, although the act had been identical to that performed by a Jew, G-d is on record as saying "He did not do so for any gentile; and Jewish legislation, they do not know them." (Psalms 147,20
_.46.1.8
Even though gentiles are commanded to observe the seven Noachide laws, one of which is the establishment of a system of social legislation, they are at best to be treated as amateurs when it comes to their fitness to administer Jewish law, even if they are familiar with it. In view of all this, we can understand the verse in Proverbs 21,3, "he who has carried out righteousness and justice is dearer to G-d than a sacrificial offering." A wealthy man once had to go on a journey, and did not want to leave behind his assets for fear that something could happen to them during his absence. He converted all his assets into diamonds, which he carried with him on his journey. When accosted by robbers who wanted to know the value of the diamonds, he disclaimed knowledge of their true value, saying they were merely glass baubles, worth pennies. The robbers decided not to kill the man for the sake of these worthless baubles. Later, when the same traveller displayed his merchandise at a fair in the city, the traveller, of course, demanded the real worth of these diamonds from any prospective purchaser. When the robbers found out, they said to the traveller "why did you tell us that they were practically worthless?" The traveller explained that when he had found himself on the threshold of death, his diamonds did indeed not represent any value to him. Now, however, when he was in different circumstances, these same diamonds had once more become very valuable to him. Thus it is with the reward for the mitzvot performed in this world. Their reward value is very shortlived. But in the world to come, the real worth of the reward will become evident. The ordinary Jew may find himself in circumstances when he feels justified to describe his jewels as mere baubles. David, on the other hand, could state that he had never treated "the judgments" as worth less than their true value. He said that even at times when it seemed pointless and unrewarding, and he found himself in great distress, "I carried out the justice and righteousness." Therefore, G-d tells us not to look upon the judgments as something trifling, not deserving our best efforts.
_.46.1.9
Our future is assured if we carry out the commandments called mishpatim. When our sages say that Jerusalem was destroyed only because they practiced "true justice," the meaning is that they applied the justice principle without making allowance for circumstances. Such allowances are incorporated in the mishpatim, as we know from Talmud Baba Metzia 30.
_.46.1.10
Some problems in the text of the Parshah. 1) Why does the Torah commence with the laws about servants, seeing that at the time the legislation was given to the Jewish people there were no servants? 2) What is so special about a servant leaving the employ of his master as a single man if he had been single at the time he had entered such employment? Why would a law for such contingency have to be legislated? 3) Why does the Torah say that a Jewish servant must not be sold to a gentile "nation?" It should have said that he must not be sold to a "gentile person!" Also, why does it say "if he did not do these three things for the servant?" It should have said "if he did not do one of these three things!" Why is the law about kidnapping placed between the laws about "hitting" parents and the law about "cursing parents?" 4) If a gentile slave is considered personal property, why does his death get avenged if he died as a result of maltreatment by his master? If, on the other hand, he is not considered personal property, why, if death occurs a day or two later than the beating he has absorbed, does the owner not face a penalty? 5) Since the Torah repeatedly calls for "eye for an eye," "injury for injury" etc., and the meaning is monetary compensation, why does the Talmud Baba Kamma 23, say, that the amount awarded varies with the social standing of the parties involved? 6) If the owner of a goring ox can escape the death penalty by payment of monetary compensation, why mention that he deserves the death sentence? The same argument can be raised concerning the death sentence in the case of a slave "life for a life," where the compensation is fixed at merely thirty shekalim! 7) Why does the Torah legislate compensation of four or five times the value when the thief has slaughtered or sold the animal he stole? 8) The requirement of a "trustee who acts out of friendship" to swear an oath that he had not failed in his duties, is worded in a peculiar manner. The preceding verse had described the objects as having been either stolen or lost. If so, it is clear that the keeper had not tampered with them! 9) In the case of the borrower, the Torah stipulates a) that the borrower is free from guilt if the animal was exercised with the owner's knowledge. The Torah goes on to say b) that the borrower is liable, if the owner is either not present or unaware of the use the animal has been put to. Surely, "(b)" is the only alternative to "(a)"! So why does the Torah spell it out once more? 10) What are the reasons for the respective penalties for the practice of witchcraft, lying with a beast, seduction and sacrificing to other deities? 11) If the line "if you lend money" is in the words of our sages one of the instances when the word im does not mean "if" but "when," why does the Torah not employ an expression that does not allow for any misunderstanding, instead of using words that have multiple meanings? 12) What is the meaning of the line "observe all the things which I have told you?" (23, 13) When and where did He tell the Jewish people?
_.46.1.11
We have shown in chapter 43 that the term "righteousness" is applied to man's relationship vis a vis three parties, i.e. vis a vis himself, vis a vis his family and household, and vis avis his relationship to society at large.
_.46.1.12
(1) Since the servant's situation comprises lessons applying to all three types of "righteousness," it is the first of the many mitzvot discussed in our Parshah. As a free agent, the servant is able to sell his body's services without reference to a second party. In this way he acts within the framework of his relationship vis a vis himself. The relationship of the servant with his family has to be regulated. His position in society has to be regulated. So we see that in this legislation all aspects of tzedek, righteousness are touched upon. (2) Since the servant is a Jew, the Torah demands that at the end of his service he must be given one of the three kinds of freedom. He can be freed either after six years, or with the advent of the jubilee year, (if this occurs within the six years) or if he has the funds to compensate his master for services expected but not rendered. Another reason why the servant would leave the employ of his master would be the death of his master. His services are not inherited by the master's heirs. He must not be worked too hard. Since he is not the physical property of the employer, he must be given good food. At the time he is released from service, he must be given a financial stake to enable him to establish himself. All this is done from an aspect of tzedek, righteousness. On the other hand, being mated with a female slave girl of non Jewish origin, and not being able to claim either the girl or the children she bore him at the time of his release, already paves the way for such a servant to lose his independence, since he will likely contract to remain with his employer for longer than the initial six years he had contracted. Therefore, he will have his ear pierced to remind him that he has chosen to lose his freedom. The passage clearly indicated the Torah's displeasure with people who try to escape their responsibilities in life by throwing the burden of their livelihood onto an employer, and to escape the financial obligations involved in establishing a home and hearth. Since the servant did not want this responsibility, if he leaves after six years,- he leaves as he came in, without capital. If he had wanted to save a dowry when he received the lump sum payment for his six years service in advance, he does receive a stake, but his wife and children will never be his; they stay with the employer having been the employer's physical property. In order to be able to hang on to his wife and children under such circumstances, the servant has to undergo the procedure of having his ear pierced and become a permanent servant for all practical purposes. This is hardly compatible with what he had had in mind at the outset, i.e. a carefree life on easy street without worries. A person who places more trust in the apparent security provided by a human employer than in G-d’s Providence, needs to be taught this lesson. (1) Similarly, all three aspects of tzedek, righteousness are present in the situation of the girl whose father sells her services. To the extent that her employer ought to marry her when she reaches puberty, that is the second aspect of tzedek. To the extent that the employer fails to marry her or divorces her, her position in society henceforth represents the third aspect of tzedek, and forms the subject of appropriate legislation in our Parshah. (3) The reason that the Torah says the servant must not be sold to "another nation," is to emphasize that a sale to any other person, is considered like a sale to another nation. The compensations are mentioned since wealthy people normally marry wives from well to do families, and therefore the poor servant girl may not long remain the wife of her one time employer, or she may have to compete with another wife from a wealthier background. Her social standing therefore needs bolstering. She must not be disadvantaged because she brought nothing into the marriage. If her employer fails to wed her for himself or for one of his sons, she deserves her freedom immediately, and does not owe any money for the shortened period of service she rendered her employer.
_.46.1.13
At this point, the Torah proceeds to detail a list of laws dealing with human relationships in commerce etc., the first group containing relationships entered into willingly and openly which for some reason have gone sour. Afterwards the Torah deals with borrowings, exchanges etc. The second group deals with relationships not entered into through mutual consent. Theft, robbery, destruction of property,etc., including murder. These again can be subdivided into different groups, some involving violence, others merely subterfuge. Offences such as violence perpetrated on a fellow human being resulting in death, are listed first. If the death did not occur through premeditation, the penalty is exile. Similarly, violence resulting in death, deserves the death penalty. Anyone who smites a person causing death shall be executed, regardless of the circumstances. (21, 12) There are differences, however, in the way the penalty is administered, i.e. through a blood relation of the deceased victim, through heavenly tribunal, or through human Courts. The Talmud tells us that even though Jewish Courts may no longer have jurisdiction to apply the death penalty, death as a prerequisite for eventual atonement of the crime has not been abolished. G-d has His own ways of enforcing that the guilty does not go scot free. The classic example is found in Makkot 10. There are even different degrees of premeditation. When such premeditation is minimal,- according to the plain meaning of the passage,- the altar does protect the perpetrator from the ultimate penalty. When, however, there has clearly been cold blooded premeditation, then even the sanctuary itself is no refuge for the murderer. The Talmud in Makkot 12, explains the error made by Yoav concerning the function of the altar as a place of refuge. (4) Kidnapping is less serious than murder, since the victim may be freed at some future date. Cursing parents leaves even less in the way of visible damage, but the audacity is equal to or even greater than killing a human being that is not related to one. Next in line are the physical injuries not intended,- such as hurting unborn babies,- when the death penalty would at best have been incurred through a contingent liability. Therefore the fines imposed are monetary. Survivors of assaults are categorised according to the length of time the victims have survived. In any event, unless proper warning had been given to the perpetrator, the offender cannot be held liable by a human Court. Next comes violence perpetrated on one's own property, (slaves). People who treat other human beings like chattel, are themselves not fit members of society at all. If the Talmud (Shabbat 105) teaches that someone who smashes his own belongings in a fit of anger deserves to be ostracised, excommunicated,- surely he who does so to his slave deserves to be excommunicated even more. David's answer to the parable the prophet Nathan told him is instructive. In that parable we encounter both greed and lack of compassion. (Samuel II, chapter 12) Therefore, the rich man deserves the death penalty. In cases where the death of the victim is delayed by a day or more, the assault is no longer categorised as cruel, but as punitive in nature, i.e. the owner had wanted to teach the recalcitrant slave a lesson, and that is why he had beaten him. Just as we do not penalise someone who smashes his own belongings thinking thereby to accomplish something, so also with the slave, who is treated like property in this respect. After all, one does not direct one's cruelty at objects. Teachers who flog pupils with fatal results, are not accountable for murder, neither are doctors whose patients die through malpractice, since they had not planned to kill. (5) The slave is viewed both as an object and as a human being in Jewish law. (6) In the case of injury resulting during a fight, compensation is called for. In the event of an unborn baby being killed, the law is similar to the case of someone who had intended to kill A, and had killed B, instead, by mistake. He pays compensation to the heirs, and is himself not subject to an administered death penalty. (The laws about warning a prospective offender make this impossible anyways) The rule of not accepting kopher, conscience money in lieu of the death penalty is suspended in such a case. When our sages decided that the meaning of "an eye for an eye" is that this legislation has to be expressed in terms of financial compensation, they did so in order that the principle of "as he has done to him, so shall be done to him” can also be carried out at the same time. Removing the eye of a blind man who destroyed the eye of a seeing man, would hardly be justice. A priest who, as a result of losing one eye would no longer be able to perform service in the temple, is certainly more affected by the loss of such an eye than his counterpart who is a member of any other tribe. Minor variations, such as the difference in the quality of one's eyesight, social standing of either the injured or the offending party etc. are numerous, and all suggest that only by applying monetary compensation can the objective "as he has done so shall be done to him," be achieved in reasonable measure. (Leviticus 24, 19)
_.46.1.15
(7) After dealing with involuntary damages caused by man to man, the Torah proceeds to deal with damages caused to man's property. When man owned animal kills man, kopher, conscience money is acceptable even though negligence bordering on homicidal negligence may be involved. The fact that the compensation for the death of a slave is fixed at thirty shekalim regardless of the age and health of the slave, is explained by the fact that the average slave's labour value is thirty shekalim. Exceptions are treated as if they were due to indirect causes, and as such not punishable in the Jewish civil code. Distinctions are drawn between man and beasts that can take care of themselves in varying degrees. Man has the duty to look out for himself; on the other hand, objects are prone to be damaged caused by the normal behaviour of whoever causes the damage, as well as by abnormal behaviour of such agents. Compensation rates are based on those considerations. A thief who pays double the value of the stolen goods- if discovered before he has given himself up-, does so because having decided to diminish the assets of his victim, his own assets are diminished in turn. In this way, he serves as an example for the principle "as he has done, so shall be done to him." Damages caused by one's animals etc. are not so assessed, since no intent to diminish the victim's assets existed. (8) When the stolen goods have been slaughtered or otherwise disposed of, we view this as additional theft having been perpetrated in order to cover the tracks of the original theft. Achan ben Karmi, in the book of Joshua, is a prime example of how one minor infraction, stealing the loot, leads to a string of misdeeds each one helping to disguise the original sin. (Joshua chapter 7) This is why the four, respectively five times valuation of the item stolen originally is levied on such a thief. All the foregoing applies to crimes committed bemachteret, under veil of secrecy. When the crime is committed in the open, in full view of society or any of its members, i.e. "when the sun shone on him," simple restitution is acceptable. Since no special effort had been made for the crime to succeed or to be concealed, no special effort is needed to square the account. Damage caused by one's animal eating from one's neighbour's field, shows lack of consideration for such neighbour's property, therefore the replacement has to be made from the offending owner's prime soil. The valuation of "prime" is based on the best that the victim owns. Damage caused by fire is treated similarly. The common denominator of "principal categories of property damage," is that all of them are the result of involuntary actions on the part of the owner/perpetrator. (9) Next, the Torah deals with objects or beasts entrusted for safekeeping, or borrowed for use. When the keeper acted out of neighbourliness, accepting no compensation, he needs to swear that he has not been negligent, and is free from any responsibility for untoward happenings. If he had misused, i.e. used the object or had plotted to arrange for its disappearance, he is treated like a thief. When the object to be kept is livestock, which, since it requires feeding even a good neighbour would only undertake if he is compensated, the degree of responsibility assumed is commensurably greater. It includes liability for theft or disappearance, but excludes robbery with violence and other accidents beyond one's control. When the animal is put at one's disposal as an act of friendship by one's neighbour, the borrower assumes all risks, barring death from natural causes while performing tasks approved by the lender. Responsibility increases in proportion to the degree of use permitted. (10) The owner, having forgiven, i.e. renounced payment for lending the animal, may be presumed to have also forgiven accidental death for which the borrower is completely blameless. (11) The seducer, though he acts with the consent of the seduced, has yet caused greater damage, since he has not only violated the girl's body, but has also corrupted her morals. He has to pay the father of the girl in question considerably more as dowry than the rapist who pays a fixed amount, which may represent only the physical damage he has caused. The decision whether to enter into marriage is up to the girl's father in this case.
_.46.1.16
Since there is a conceptual affinity between witchcraft and harlotry, the laws about witches follow at this point. The injunction to stamp out witches is more than a one time effort. You have to bring them to trial and condemn them to death. If a conviction cannot be obtained, you cannot reopen the trial, but the injunction of ridding the country of witches remains in effect. All idolatry is intimately intertwined with the practice of withcraft, an attempt to manipulate certain forces of nature considered the ultimate arbiter of man's fate. Canaan was especially prone to this. (Leviticus chapter 18) Therefore the need to eradicate all traces of such practices. Similarly, pederasty and other sexual perversions are to be eradicated, and its perpetrators are to be put to death. Only the former is mentioned in our Parshah. Apparently, such practices also formed part of witchcraft. The reason that "he who scarifices to deities" follows, is to emphasize the quasi religious nature that some of the sexual perversions practiced by the Canaanites had assumed. Any deities which had been worshipped in this fashion are especially abominable in the eyes of G-d. Only He who is pure and whose servants are pure, deserves to be worshipped. The desire of G-d is not that man indulge himself in all kinds of perverted physical gratifications, but rather that he get his satisfaction out of helping people less fortunate than himself, such as widows and orphans. He should help restore their lives to a level equal to that of their more fortunate peers. Our own experience in Egypt- if nothing else- should provide us with sufficient motivation. (12) Just as G-d had listened to our outcry then, He will listen to the outcry of the stranger, the orphan and the widow, should they feel compelled to appeal to Him on account of our callousness. This concept is extended in that we are to help people in need with loans etc., without becoming oppressive creditors. Concerning the giving of money outright, "let your heart not be hard when you give, even repeatedly". You are expected to support your fellow Jew who has fallen on hard times. Give adequately, not niggardly, so that the recipients' need for further hand outs can be eliminated. If the needy used to be a person of means, we need to help such a person to maintain his former standard of living. "Do not curse a judge!" Judges who function in lieu of G-d, must not be cursed. Similarly, the leader of the nation, or other notables who occupy positions of legitimate authority. G-d has seen fit to share His power and glory with them, ergo you have to accept this. In the last analysis you are supposed to become anshey kodesh, men of holy purpose, and this is the only way to attain such a status. This will express itself even more in how discriminating you are in what you eat, even of the categories of animals permitted to you as food. (no treyfah) There follow instructions to judges to preserve the unassailability of their office by not doing anything that makes them appear prejudiced. No false testimony, no preferences for rich or poor litigants, no collaboration with known criminals or sinners. (even if the purpose is to arrive at the truth). You must not assume that the majority can never be wrong. When you know that the majority is wrong, then the fact that they are in the majority does not absolve you from your duty to speak out. Neither are you to follow the senior judge's opinion automatically, just because he is senior and presumably wiser. (13) After this detour, the main topic is resumed with the injunction not to bend the law, not to be guilty of untruthful decisions due to careless examinations of the facts and arguments. Should you reason that G-d would anyways not allow a perversion of justice to occur, and that therefore any judicial murder would have been due to the victim having been guilty of another crime for which he had not been tried, and which society had not been aware of, such reasoning does not exonerate the judge from blood guilt if he was not thorough enough. Do not accept a bribe, even in order to pronounce fair judgment. Do not oppress a stranger even in matters in which applying pressure to naturally born Jews is permitted. You know the psyche of a stranger; it is different from one who feels at home and secure in his country. A stranger (convert) is liable to interpret all pressure as someone taking advantage of his inferior status. Once we are on the subject of excercising pity,we switch to the laws of shmittah the year the fields are to lie fallow, of one's duty to relinquish one's claim over one's property every seventh year, in order to share the proceeds with the poor. Also the Sabbath legislation has at least partially the function of providing a respite for one's staff and beasts of burden. Since other deities have never done anything for those who believed in them, their names should not even be mentioned by Jews as deities. The fact that only G-d is to be worshipped, is connected with the three annual pilgrimages to the temple. Since there are times when man is most aware of G-d’s bounty, that is the time to demonstrate one's appreciation, and acknowledge Him publicly. There are also times when the farmer is temporarily relieved of his more demanding chores, and the journey to Jerusalem presents no economic hardship at such times. The kid which kicks the mother that feeds it, deserves to be boiled in the mother's milk as punishment, (figuratively speaking). Similarly, all who display ingratitude, deserve similar treatment. To remind us of the importance of gratitude, the Torah places this prohibition at this juncture. Its position in Parshat Ki Tissa is after the sin of the golden calf. The Yalkut Parshat Re-ay, item 892, explains this in a similar vein. Apart from our sages' comment on the reason why this prohibition is repeated three times at different places in the Torah, a major reason may be that to do so, i.e. boil the kid in the milk of its mother, would display a certain sense of insensitivity on our part. Even the right to use animals for our own purposes should not be taken for granted to such an extent; it would reveal that we possess a cruel streak.
_.47.1.2
"Here I am sending an angel ahead of you."
_.47.1.3
At the end of the first chapter in Kiddushin (40), the Talmud relates a discussion that took place in the house of Natasse. The problem debated was if study or performance of the mitzvot was of greater value. Rabbi Tarfon said "performance is great." Rabbi Akivah said "study is great." The sages said "study is great because it leads to performance." Rabbi Yossi the Galilean said in the Sifri:"study is great since it preceded the mitzvah of Challah by forty years, the commandment to give tithes by fifty four years, the mitzvah of Shmittah by sixty one years and the mitzvah of the Jubilee year by one hundred and three years. As the punishment for neglect of Torah study is greater than the punishment for the failure to perform certain commandments, so the reward for study is greater than the reward for performance as it is written "you will study them to observe them and carry them out."(Deut 5,1)
_.47.1.4
It is axiomatic in philosophy that simple things are expected to perform only simple tasks, whereas sophisticated phenomena or creatures are expected to perform a variety of tasks commensurate with their respective sophistication. If fire were to embody only heat, it would be expected to do no more than to provide heat. Since it also comprises dryness, it also functions as a drying agent. This kind of reasoning is at the core of the statement by our sages that each of the plagues in Egypt consisted of four, respectively five plagues, since each plague was a sophisticated phenomenon, embodying a variety of capabilities. In line with this reasoning, one can understand the dictum of Rabbi Yochanan (Taanit 9) "rain may come because of the merit of one individual; sustenance, however, because of the merit of the multitude." Since the way in which people make their livelihood varies both qualitatively and quantitatively, sustenance can only be entrusted to a group of people as infinitely varied as the modes of their livelihoods. Since man himself consists of both physical and spiritual components, he will have to function both on the physical and on the spiritual level. The physical functions need to be experienced, felt, by his senses. The spiritual functions do not need to be experienced or felt at the physical level. When the Jewish people responded to the imminent revelation of G-d and His Torah, they said “na-aseh," we will perform, referring to the activities of their bodies. Then they said "nishma," we will hear, learn, referring to the tasks reserved for the intellect and spirit.
_.47.1.5
Although the achievements by the intellect leave no physical imprint, they are nevertheless superior in value, since they are the product of the most superior part of man, his mind. Since the intellect is the driving force, the deeds performed as a result, are on a similarly high level. The cause of these deeds can fairly be described as of prime importance, since without it nothing would have taken place.
_.47.1.6
On the other hand, one could argue the reverse. As long as all performance is merely potential and has not yet been brought to fruition, it is still in the realm of imagination only, and therefore not worth a great deal at all. The concept of "the reward of a good deed is another good deed," (Avot 4,2) suggests that if an effect of a good cause exists, it in turn becomes a cause for another good effect. The Aggadah in Shabbat 119, about the two angels that accompany man on the Sabbath eve on his way home from the synagogue, and who respond to the evidence of the Sabbath preparations which either have or have not been made, by saying "Amen, may it be likewise next week," represent the same viewpoint. Once one sets out on a certain path, one builds a certain amount of momentum. Whether this momentum is positive or negative is irrelevant; the momentum has been built. There are no bad angels, but there is a yetzer hara, an urge to do evil, and it is this that the Talmud refers to when it uses the expression "bad angel." Deeds become causes. The amount of self discipline needed to accomplish certain moral objectives, diminishes in relation to the frequency of the occasions on which this self discipline needs to be exercised. If a sick person finds it an extreme effort to swallow food, after a while the strength that food has given him makes the effort to swallow further amounts of food seem progressively less strenuous. We can understand why our ancestors expressed themselves in three different ways regarding their acceptance of Torah. 1) (Exodus 19,8) "All that G-d has said, we will perform." 2) (Exodus 24,3) "All that G-d has said we will perform and hear." 3) (Deut.5,24) "All that the Lord our G-d will say to you (Moses) we will hear and perform." The first time the word na-asseh, we will perform, refers to the successful end product. They undertook to achieve the task that had been set out for them. The second time, they referred to the process which would lead to the successful achievement of what they had promised in the first verse, namely acquiring the good habits of doing the right thing through repetition, i.e. following instructions. The people had realised that achievements of Torah's purpose does not get accomplished by a single act or gesture. The sequence of study/performance is based on the manner in which angels, i.e. the Lord's messengers address themselves to a task. (compare Talmud Shabbat 88 and our commentary in chapter 44) When the people said "we will hear and perform," they referred to the manner in which the perfect assiyah performance would be assured, namely through study of the objective. As the Torat Kohanim explains (Leviticus Acharey 9) ushmartem va-assitem you will study and comply. In this instance the word "shamar," means study. Proper performance is possible only after study. From the foregoing we see that refinement of one's personality is achieved even when the deeds are deficient in quality, even though the objective is performance of a perfect deed. We have the paradox that both action and study seem superior. The solution is that evaluation of the merit of something may either be based on objective, absolute criteria, or on subjective, relative criteria. From an objective point of view, study is superior to performance since it involves man's finest part his brain, the potentially divine within him. Also, study precedes action chronologically. Man's creation itself had to be preceded by the concepts calling for his creation. Subjectively, however, performance is superior, since without it, theory, study etc. can never be put into practice. (Theory, i.e. the result of study cannot be proven correct without having been put to the practical test.) The training of wild beasts, domesticating them to become beasts of burden, proves the impact of study and habit.
_.47.1.7
Rabbi Akiva perceives study as priority number one. Rabbi Tarfon views performance as priority number one, seeing that Torah demands deeds, and provides penalties for misdeeds, sins of ommission. Of course, Rabbi Tarfon sees action as the result of study, not uninformed action. We can compare the situation to that of teacher and student. The former is important not only objectively, seeing he is the fountain of the student's knowledge, but also subjectively, since the student's importance is not independent of his relationship with the teacher. The Jewish people recognised that proper study requires that one dissociates from bodily concerns. This is why they said to Moses that he should approach G-d, and that he in turn would communicate the instructions to them. The use of the feminine gender for "you" when addressing Moses in that verse, (Deut. 5,24) indicates that they were well aware that what they would hear from Moses the intermediary would be weaker, i.e. would not equal in communicating perceptive powers, that which would be heard from G-d directly by those tuned in properly.
_.47.1.9
Some problems in the text. 1) Why did G-d choose this juncture to inform the Jewish people He would send an angel ahead of them? They had not even readied themselves to depart from Mount Sinai yet! Why did Moses not object to the suggestion that an angel should precede them as he had protested later after the golden calf episode, when G-d had also promised to send an angel to lead them? (Exodus 33,2) 2) The words "because My angel walks before you and brings you," seem to imply the reason for his mission. How is this so? 3) Why are the words "do not worship other deities, and do not serve them," placed in the middle of the report about how immigration into the holy land would proceed? (Exodus 23,24-5) 4) Why does the Torah announce at this point that Moses and Aaron should go up to G-d? The revelation had after all taken place already! (24,2) 5) Why has the whole routine about "we shall do and we shall hear" been repeated ? 6) The description of the vision of the atzilim, the nobles, seems altogether strange. 7) Why would G-d speak about punishing these "nobles?" 8) What are the dates referred to in 24, 16, and described as the sixth and seventh day?
_.47.1.10
(1) Since the giving of the ten commandments, all communications had pertained only to what the Israelites were to do vis a vis G-d, or what they were not to do. They were not to build idols, altars, worship partners of G-d, offer sacrifices to deities etc. Now the subject matter changes and becomes the welfare of Israel and its interests. Moreover, Israel has asked that G-d not communicate with them directly but through an intermediary. G-d therefore announces now that He will indeed guide them through an intermediary as requested, i.e. through an angel. This angel would lead them to the holy land. It had been similar before the arrival at the foot of Mount Sinai, when the Torah had testified repeatedly that an angel was travelling either ahead or behind the camp, as the case might be. (Exodus chapter 14, 13, Isaiah 63) This angel is sometimes referred to as "face" i.e. G-d’s "face." (compare Exodus 33, 16 "if Your face does not go with me") (2) They are warned that this angel insists on their obedience, and they ought not to underestimate his powers and rebel against him, else he might be exchanged for another. This other angel would be unable to forgive or even postpone their punishment for misconduct. The present angel can postpone punishment "because My name is within him." However, he does not have the authority to forgive sins. "Lo yissa pish-achem,” he will not forgive. We read about this definition in the thirteen midot, attributes of G-d as nosse avon vafesha. However, "venakeh lo yenakeh,” he cannot wipe out sin and leave you free from guilt. Since G-d had said "at any place that allows My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you," we understand the word she-mee, My name, as representing a positive power. The Jewish people are exhorted "make sure that you will listen to his voice," (instructions) do not think that the presence of the angel represents the absence of My Presence, rather the reverse is the case. He will help you attain all your objectives. This is not the "panim el panim" level, the face to face relationship. The reason that G-d has to underline all this, so to speak, is that if by chance the settlement in the land of Canaan will prove time consuming, this is not due to the angel's impotence, but on the contrary, to insure that a sudden and immediate takeover will not have negative ecological consequences for you, since you are far fewer in number than the present inhabitants of the country, (verse 27-33) (3) Should you sin and associate yourselves in any form with the former inhabitants, this would become a trap for you. After this address to Israel, the next paragraph is addressed to Moses and the elders. (4) This is a flashback to Parshat Vitro prior to the giving of the Torah, when Moses had been warned not to allow the priests etc. to breach the fenced off area around the mountain. Here it details who could approach, and how far those people could proceed, something that had been omitted in chapter nineteen. It is related that Moses conveyed these details to the people together with the legislation that had already been revealed to him. The people's response was that "whatever G-d has said, we will do." At that point, Moses put down in writing what had transpired up to that point. If the people had not accepted, he would not have had any reason to record all these events and their acceptance by Israel. The sacrifices were probably offered by the youngsters, the firstborns, young enough to have been blameless in all respects as explained by Maimonides. Our sages already discussed how Moses could know exactly what was half the blood, (verse 6) Various answers are proposed, the important thing being that the division of the blood indicated that is was "blood of the covenant," and as such some had to be assigned to both parties. (5) Half of the blood was sprinkled on the people to symbolise this concept. Before that, Moses took the book of the covenant and read therefrom. The people then proclaimed "we will do and we will hear." The difference between the "we will do" and the "we will do and hear" has been explained in chapter 44.
_.47.1.11
The matter involving the "nobles" deserves to be explained in a constructive fashion, as some of our sages have done. (6) The people included in the list of those who "ascended," namely Moses, Aaron, Nadav, Avihu and the elders, had attained a level of insight into the workings of the Divine mind and His entourage which had not been attained by others. They could perceive that all the galaxies are merely tools of the Almighty. Their "vision," i.e. insight, is described as va-yeche-zu, a lower level of insight than va-yir-oo. The former viewed elokey yisrael, the nobles merely elokim, a far more general, less specific kind of understanding. The livnat ha-sappir, the sapphire brick, represents a figment of purity closer to the unity of G-d than even the highest galgalim, planets, galaxies. It is an insight similar to the one described by Ezekiel 1, even sappir. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter thirty one. (7) "G-d did not stretch out His hand" (24,11) means that G-d did not extend the gift of prophecy to the other numerous high ranking persons among the people. The description of “they ate and drank," refers back to the consumption of the peace offerings mentioned earlier in the passage. (4) After that came the call to Moses alone to ascend the mountain and meet with G-d. Joshua kept watch at the site from which Moses had ascended outside the encampment. Therefore, when Moses descended, the Torah says "Joshua heard the sound of the people acting wildly." (Exodus 32, 17) (8) Moses had instructed the elders to judge during his absence, and to refer difficult decisions to Aaron and Chur. The Mountain had been enveloped in cloud for six days to allow Moses preparation for his meeting with G-d. Our sages say that such preparation of six days is mandatory for someone who meets with the Shechinah. Not that there were specific impediments on Moses’s side that had to be overcome. No charadah, trembling is mentioned, such as was the case with the people. As soon as G-d called to Moses on the seventh day, the Presence of G-d manifested itself as a consuming fire. The forty days include the six days Moses had prepared himself to be addressed by G-d.
_.47.1.12
The fact that Moses went without food or drink for forty days, though at first glance beyond comprehension, becomes easier to understand in light of the following. Those who indulge in physical pleasures, even for long periods at a time, always seem to feel that the length of their enjoyment was too brief. Inversely, he who is granted spiritual fare of the kind that Moses was privileged to receive, feels that the time thus occupied has been far too brief. Therefore, the thought of food and drink was hardly likely to intrude upon Moses’ss thoughts while he was so privileged. David proclaims (Psalms 119,71) "I am well off that I was afflicted so that I could study Your statutes." In other words, not only did the affliction not hurt him, but it actually helped him to learn G-d’s statutes. Something similar happened to Moses while on the Mountain. Afflictions per se become meaningless when in the presence of something far greater. When angels are described as eating, as in the case of the guests that came to Abraham, they do not in fact eat, but only appear to do so. When Moses is within the confines of the Shechinah, he does eat, but appears not to eat, since the significance of eating and drinking recedes so far into the background of his consciousness as not to count. Various Midrashim which endeavour to detail the kind of food Moses consumed, all make the same point in varying degrees. It is that Moses rejected food and drink so as not to lose the spiritual nourishment during the time and concentration that he would have had to devote while consuming physical food.
_.48.1.2
"They will take a gift for Me."
_.48.1.4
Since the Torah has gone to some considerable length to underline that the Jewish people never saw an image at the revelation, meaning that G-d is completely abstract, the idea of building a tabernacle for such an abstract entity, seems completely baffling. The Rabbis moreover have made a point of referring to G-d as makom, place, on occasion. They wanted to drive home the point that G-d is not bound by space "place," but that He is the Maker of everything spatial, everything connected with "space" or "place." When we recite in the kedushah, emulating the angels in Ezekiel 3, 12, "blessed the majesty of G-d mi-mekomo," this may be understood as "because He is the foundation, basis of all." The word does not mean "from His place" as we commonly translate it in other contexts. It follows that the sanctuary we build here on earth is purely symbolic, though governed by the strictest halachot, rules of conduct. If the concept of the sanctuary is one that embodies ideas expressed symbolically, then details of the construction and everything else connected with it are also full of symbolism. The author treats the subject in detail. We summarise only some of the highlights.
_.48.1.5
When G-d said to Moses (25, 9) "in accordance with all I have shown you," Moses had some difficulty in comprehending. G-d therefore said to him that the tabernacle should reflect the structural peculiarities of the universe itself. This means that the sanctuary on earth is to be a microcosm of the universe at large. Expressed differently, we are to do on earth that which corresponds to what He did when He revealed Himself to the prophets, draped in "garments" such as perceived in the visions of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jacob and others. It is this that the Psalmist refers to when he says (Psalm 93 or 104) "G-d has begun His reign, He has robed Himself in Majesty." When the time had arrived for G-d to reveal part of His glory to His entire people, He commanded the tabernacle to be constructed as the means to reveal that part of Himself. The answer given to Moses can be understood thus. In theory, any thinking Jew can build a tabernacle, even though he may lack the proper materials to carry out the actual construction. This then is the allegorical meaning of "from any person who is of generous disposition" (25,2) Isaiah 66, 1, discussing "the house" G-d allows to be built for Him, suggests that the person deserving of the presence of the shechinah should possess three character traits. They are "ani, - necheh ru-ach, -chared el de-varee, “he should be of contrite heart, humbling himself before Me, he should be of a spirit that reveres Me and he should tremble at My word."
_.48.1.6
Meanings of some of the detailed instructions. 1) Since the tabernacle was built mostly from voluntary contributions, this parallels the act of kindness and generosity that the universe was created with by G-d. olam chessed yibaneh, the world is built by kindness. (Psalms 89,3) There were no preconditions which had necessitated that the universe come into existence. 2) Just as the tabernacle contained thirteen materials, so the universe consists of nine planets and four basic elements. (Actually fifteen materials are mentioned, but wool coloured three different ways may be considered the same material.) 3) Just as Moses put a stop to the amount of donations being offered, saying dai! enough, so G-d had exclaimed at the time He completed the sixth day of creation, "dai." Ever since His name has become shaddai the One who had said dai. The first item to have been constructed was the holy ark, repository of the tablets and the Torah. According to our Midrashic literature, the Torah had been created prior to the construction of the universe. Next came the lid of the ark, and the cherubs mounted on that lid. These represented the angels, the spiritual beings who are close to G-d, and by means of whom inspiration is conferred upon man. Scriptural proof for this function of the angels can be found in the very last verse of the Bible, Chronicles II 36, 23, in which Coresh reports about having been inspired to build a temple for the Almighty. That the destruction of the holy temple was due to the refusal to heed the angels, is documented in verse fifteen and sixteen of that same chapter. Third, we have the fact that the material used for construction of the cherubs was pure gold. This teaches that the angels are not composed of a variety of materials like human beings. The wings of the cherubs represent an attribute man desires, but has not been granted. See Psalms 55,7 "I said, O that I had wings like the dove! Then I would fly and have rest." The construction of the cherubs does not contradict the commandment not to make images, since in fact they are not physical. Therefore one does not violate the commandment not to reproduce a likeness when one fashions the cherubs. The reason that there are two cherubs, not one, notwithstanding the fact that they were made out of the same material, is to prevent someone making the error that there is more than one uniqueness in this world, namely G-d Himself. This is the reason that at the time of the pilgrimages, the curtain was opened to reveal to the multitude the holy ark and the cherubs mounted on its lid. (Yuma 54 ) The cherubs were seen embracing each other like man and wife. The people would comment that their love before G-d was like the love between man and his wife. The author quotes other sources illustrating that without the love relationship which exists between man and wife, i.e. families, the Divine Presence on earth cannot be expected to manifest itself. The upward lift of the cherub's wings points towards the source of all life, G-d. Nonetheless, the cherubs' stance in covering the holy ark, is indicative of their function to be the intermediary between G-d Himself the Essence, and earth.
_.48.1.7
The menorah, candelabra and altar of incense in the sanctuary symbolise the planetary orbits. The showbreads are presented on the Sabbath, to remind us of the fact that as soon as G-d had stopped creating, He turned His attention to the problem of providing parnassah, a livelihood, for all His creatures. The various tools, appurtenances of the table are reminders that we must not sit with our hands folded waiting to be provided for, but must do our share. We omit much of the commentary at this point, since it revolves around the premise of a universe with seven major planets, an outdated concept. The author also illustrates how different parts of the tabernacle legislation tie in with the seven day creation cycle.
_.49.1.2
The construction of the menorah, candelabra.
_.49.1.3
Midrash Shemot Rabbah 38, comments "when G-d instructed Moses regarding the construction of the menorah, Moses questioned "can Israel do this?" G-d replied "any ordinary individual in Israel is able to do this, since the Torah instructed "from each one whatever his heart is willing to donate" (Exodus 25,2).
_.49.1.4
The instructions concerning the details of the appearance of the menorah which are given before its construction, then again while its construction was in progress, and finally- at least partially- in Parshat Beha-alotcha when the lighting of the menorah is commanded, pose the problem "why all this emphasis on the details?" Since none of the legislation in the Torah contains superfluous detail, it must be that the details are very important if they concern nothing more than a vessel that serves as the vehicle of a mitzvah, not the mitzvah itself. Why do we need to be told at that point that the construction of the menorah conformed to its blueprint? Who was it that carried out its construction? The craftsman who made it is referred to only by the words "he made it." The subject is nowhere mentioned by name, however. Why does Aaron need to be praised for not making any changes? Were the problems of cleaning the menorah so extraordinary that changes in its construction seemed to have been called for? Even stranger is the Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat Beha-alotcha, according to which Aaron was told that lighting the menorah was a commandment which would never become redundant, whereas offerings on the altar would cease with the destruction of the holy temple. Did not everything cease at that time, including the lighting of the menorah? Maimonides' answer that the Midrash refers to the lighting of the Chanukah lights seems far fetched. Aaron's mind would hardly have been put at rest by being told that a minor Rabbinic ordinance in the future would compensate him for not participating in the offerings that had been brought by the princes in which his entire tribe had not been represented. This is especially so, since even during the seven days of the inaugural service in the holy tabernacle, when Moses himself performed the sacrificial rites, Aaron's mind had already been troubled. This in spite of the fact that he would perform many more such sacrificial rites in the future. We therefore have to look further in order to understand that particular Midrash. There is a basic difference between the way man looks at things and in the way G-d looks at things. Man begins with the phenomena that he sees and hears, and proceeds by means of those phenomena to comprehend or assume the existence of other less familiar phenomena. Such unfamiliar phenomena may exist only in the abstract, never to be perceived visually or aurally. G-d, on the other hand, proceeds in the opposite fashion. Sof ma=asseh bamachashavah techillah, the final product had been envisaged at the very outset. This is the way He operates. Every manifestation of any phenomenon represents merely a step planned and necessary to lead to the ultimate total structure. Having planned the final product, He comprehends the significance of every step, every constituent part, even if it is apparently unrelated to the whole. He is aware that such a phenomenon is indispensable, an integral part of the whole to be revealed later. On his way to the inner sanctuary, man, observing the sacrificial rites of the burning of animals which symbolise removal of sin etc., begins to comprehend that the inner sanctuary must be approached only in a state of purity, after washing himself from the copper basin placed in front of the sanctuary. Inside the sanctuary are found the holy vessels of which the menorah represents the concept of enlightenment, wisdom, which though one, seeing the menorah has been hammered out of single chunk of gold, nevertheless contains seven arms, branches. These seven arms suggest seven different disciplines of wisdom and knowledge. Indeed, the wisdom that Solomon (Proverbs 9, 1) refers to, is the Torah itself. We find this also in chapter six of Proverbs, where we read "a mitzvah is a light, whereas Torah is the source of enlightenment." The menorah of the spiritual forces in our world is represented by Torah. It guarantees meshivat nefesh, (Psalms 19,8-11), the return to eternal life by the soul. The six arms are mentioned alternatively left and right, representing the physical forces, (left) and the spiritual forces (right). The words "testimony, mitzvot and judgments," refer to the three arms on the left, whereas the words "mandates, reverence and more desirable than fine gold," refer to the three arms on the right of the stem of the menorah. Simple man does not dream of, or aspire to greatness- even in this physical world. "The testimony of G-d is faithful," teaches that this does not hold true in Judaism. An inferior position in this physical world, does not constitute a barrier to reaching one's perfection, Divinely inspired goals. Machkimat peti,” it makes even the fool become wise." Torah promotes that kind of inspiration. The princes which govern this physical world are the willpower and freedom of choice which enable man to aspire to lofty heights in spite of lowly physical surroundings. Since man may have suffered corruption due to other material forces that interact with him, pikkudim, mandates are needed to counteract the inroads made by the aforementioned forces. The purpose of these pikkudim, is to make the positive character traits the norm rather than the exception. mitzvah, are those commandments which ennoble our lives on earth by constituting a symbolic link with our destiny, our relationship with G-d. Examples are tefillin, (phylacteries), tzitzit (fringes), mezuzah, lulav and others. "Enlightening the eyes," refers to the thoughtful performance of the commandments. Yir-ah, refers to the reverence which we demonstrate when we perform commandments which we are unable to rationalise. We demonstrate our obedience to G-d whose superior wisdom we acknowledge by performing these mitzvot. Omedet la- ad, endures forever, means that part of the Torah remains an eternal moral and intellectual challenge. Mishpatim, judgments, refers to the penalties in store for those who choose not to observe the legislation of G-d as revealed in the Torah. This reference is made especially to past generations whose failure in this respect resulted in their being punished in a manner that fitted their crimes. Tzadku, were just. The justness of the punishment suffered by those generations is apparent to the student of history, i.e. the history described in the Torah. Hanechemadim, that are more precious than fine gold, refers to the statutes whose purpose it is to assure us a reward in the world to come, a reward far greater than any material possessions in this world. The symbolism contained in the merit, the right to kindle the menorah which represents man's attempt to perfect himself, becomes clear then. Keeping to the exact order in carrying out this task is laudable since so much depends on its outcome. Just as the name menorah for the whole candelabra suggests enlightenment, its parts, i.e. stem, arms, chalices, and flowers suggest their respective functions. The stem is used to acquire wisdom; the chalice to be the receptacle of such wisdom; the flower suggests additional wisdom sprouting forth once the fundamentals have been observed properly. The height of eighteen tefachim, handsbreadths, represents the height of a man of average height. The number eighteen is symbolic of the word chay, alive, i.e. its numerical value. Man's intellect is divided into two categories, each of which is subdivided into three parts. There is practical as well as speculative reason. The practical reason deals in the first instance with man's personal concerns, in the second instance with the concerns of his household, and in the third instance with matters affecting the society in which he lives. Similarly, speculative reason. In the first instance, man identifies his own feelings and senses. In the second instance, he learns to determine the validity of all these sensations, whether the information they convey to him is true. (i.e. can one trust one's senses?) In the third instance, man acquires the ability to understand the interrelationship between all these phenomena. This third stage is generally known as beenah, insight. The three arms on the right side of the menorah represent the three kinds of speculative reason, whereas the three arms on the left side of the menorah represent the three levels of practical reason. The "knobs" on the stems are to be seen as "way stations." Since attainment of insights is achieved only gradually, step by step, these knobs represent the steps in man's intellectual progress.
_.49.1.5
The Midrash explains that G-d does not need the light of the candelabra, but He wanted us to provide that light in the tabernacle so that He in turn could provide a great light for us in the world of the future. G-d also wishes to demonstrate to mankind at large that those who kindle lights for Him, deserve to have Him light the way for them. In order to enjoy the benefits of the natural guidance of G-d, one needs to be constantly aware of G-d’s guiding hand in history as well as His share in shaping the fate of individuals. The leaders of the people especially, need visible reminders of that. Therefore, leaders, i.e. Levites were encamped around the tabernacle. The priests would be reminded of G-d’s presence and intervention in the fate of man whenever they would look at the eternal flame on the altar. The holy ark was carried physically by the group of Levites of the highest moral fibre. By the awareness of the proximity of G-d, they in turn invoked the hashgachah peratit, Divine involvement at the personal level. This kept all the dangers inherent in an inhospitable climate such as the desert, away from the Israelites. (see our commentary in chapter 34)
_.49.1.6
This too is the meaning of Moses’s question quoted in the introduction to this chapter i.e. "can Israel do this?" The question was "how can man construct a dwelling that is to contain G-d?" The question is very similar to the statement by Solomon when dedicating the temple he had built. "heaven and the firmaments are not large enough to contain You." G-d’s reply however, explained to Moses that when viewed from the vantage point we mentioned earlier, any Israelite can both benefit and achieve the purpose for which the tabernacle and its furnishings were intended.
_.49.1.7
The Torah as an acquisition is quite different from other acquisitions. (Exodus Rabbah 33) Generally, he who sells personal property is depressed over the need to have had to do so. Not so the seller of Torah. He rejoices. Normally, once a purchase has been made, the owner is concerned about safeguarding it. Not so with Torah. Torah safeguards its keepers, those who own it. Normally, the idea that by purchasing an artist's product, one establishes a claim on the artist, is inconceivable. When acquiring Torah however, one does establish a claim on its Creator. "And they shall take a contribution for Me," (as if you were acquiring Me as a gift). (Exodus 25,2) In giving the Torah to Israel, G-d has handed over His most precious and versatile possession. He has given Torah scholars the key to guiding the world, to turn on and off benefits as one would use a key to lock or unlock a vault. All this G-d did joyfully, not regretfully. The relationship between G-d and Israel may be viewed in the following manner. A king had an only beloved daughter. When he married her off, he said to her husband: "I cannot give her up completely, since she is my daughter. I cannot ask you not to take her home, since she is your wife. My one request is that wherever you two go, have a spare room for me nearby, so that I can be near you." Similarly, G-d said to Israel: "Now build Me a house so that I can be near both of you (including the Torah) at all times." The concept, of course, is that since the mitzvot of the Torah concern themselves not with the abstract but with the physical, Torah belongs in the physical world. At the same time, however, since it had been the outgrowth of the world of pure spirit, it cannot be severed from that world either, and represents the link between the two worlds.
_.50.1.2
"You shall construct the tabernacle!"
_.50.1.3
Shemot Rabbah 34, states that the Lord said to Israel "you are the sheep and I am the shepherd" as is written in Ezekiel 34,31, "now you My sheep, sheep of My pasture, you are Adam." And I am the shepherd as is written (Psalms 80,2) "hearken O shepherd of Israel. Make for Me a shed so that I can tend you." Similarly, G-d is described as a watchman, Israel being His vineyard. Or, G-d is described in scripture as being the father, Israel being His children. It is an honour for a father to be surrounded by his sons, and it is an honour for the sons to be able to be near their father. Compare Proverbs 17,6, "grandchildren are the crown of their elders, the glory of children are their parents." Therefore: "Make Me an abode so that I can dwell amongst you" i.e. "they shall make a sanctuary for Me, and I will reside amongst them."
_.50.1.4
The pains taken when constructing a shelter reflect the purpose that shelter is to serve. If the shelter is to be no more than a temporary hut shielding shepherds against the heat of the sun, its materials and the care expended on its construction will be minimal. If, however, it is to serve as an all year residence, the utmost care will be taken to construct it of durable materials and to ensure precise workmanship. Similarly, bodily attributes such as hair, smoothness of skin, clarity of voice, none of which perform vital functions, often deteriorate at a rapid pace. Vital physical attributes such as the heart, digestive system, etc., will be observed to have been constructed of a far more durable nature. Nations whose continued existence in history G-d considered vital, have been given the Torah and commandments, whereas those nations whose future was considered marginal, were only given seven commandments, as if to indicate that their historic lease on life was relatively brief, when compared with that of Israel. Compare Isaiah 40, 15, "here the nations are like a drop fallen from the bucket." On the other hand, concerning Israel, G-d said "Place these My words on your hearts.. so that your days on earth will endure a long time. (Deut. 11,18-21) In view of the above, it becomes difficult to understand why the Torah has expended so much ink and parchment in detailing everything about the tabernacle, since it was not to be a permanent structure. Since the tabernacle was to serve only as a temporary abode while Israel was on the way to the holy land and until a permanent temple would be built, all these detailed instructions are hard to comprehend. Had it not been for the sin of the spies, Israel would have entered the holy land at once, and construction of the permanent temple would have begun at once. When one compares the brief reference in Chronicles concerning the blueprint for the permanent temple, the contrast becomes even more startling. One would have expected a wealth of detail either in the book of Kings or in Chronicles, if these events had been described according to normal usage, (compare Chronicles I chapter 28)
_.50.1.5
Furthermore, since construction of the temple was one of the three commandments to be implemented when Israel entered the holy land, (Jerusalem) (Sanhedrin 20), why was the order not given at once to David, just as Saul had been asked to wipe out Amalek, another of those three commandments? Not only was David not commanded to build the temple, he was actually forbidden to do so. (Samuel II chapter 7)
_.50.1.6
If David was denied because he had shed the blood of pagans, why would his son who worshipped idols, be granted that privilege, though scripture compares him unfavourably with his father? (Kings I chapter 11) Moreover, we do not find anywhere that Solomon was told by G-d to proceed with the structure David had been told to abandon.
_.50.1.7
When we examine the promise of the prophet Nathan to David concerning the future of his son Solomon, we find that G-d had almost precluded Himself from severing His covenant with Solomon even if the latter should be steeped in sin. (Samuel II 7, 12-17) We read there something that sounds like Solomon had been given carte blanche by G-d, come what may. Similarly, we see Eytan Haezrachi describe the absolute assurances G-d gave to David and his descendants. (Psalms 89,21-38) How does all this square with the statement "G-d is not mortal man that He deceives?" (Numbers 23, 19) Reading verses 39,53, in Psalms 89, certainly poses a difficult problem concerning the absolute nature of assurances from G-d. We also find Solomon being warned repeatedly that his kingdom would not endure if he failed to live up to G-d’s expectations of him. (Kings I chapter 9) Even though the tabernacle, i.e. temporary collapsible structure did endure long, -due to the sin of the spies-, G-d expressed His plan for residence on earth by giving all the instructions for such a residence. In G-d’s own good time, an enduring structure will be built, such as is envisaged in the concluding chapters of the book of Ezekiel. That however, will be when the Jewish people will have become so refined in character through having been persecuted in exile, that success can be ensured and the Divine Presence would not again be forced to withdraw. The entire book of Ezekiel can be viewed as concentrating on this subject, seeing that it commences with a vision of ma-asseh merkavah, i.e. G-d’s residence in the heavens, and concludes with visions of G-d’s residence on earth. The intervening chapters only provide the rationale why a permanent residence for G-d on earth had not been possible, due to the errant ways of G-d’s chosen people. Only after "and I shall sprinkle on you cleansing waters...and give you a new heart," (chapter 36) have the conditions been met that must precede the establishment of a permanent home for G-d on this earth. Interestingly, when Ezekiel mentions the date of his first vision, he begins with the exile of the Divine Presence,- when Jewish exile began-, only to mention the date of the day of Atonement, when forgiveness is granted as the last day in all his recorded visions. If G-d did not command building of a temple when Israel entered the holy land, it was because Israel did not remove all the vestiges of idol worship and idol worshippers from that land. They left in place many people and many objects that would cause them to sin at a later date. Even though David, of his own accord, proposed to establish such a temple, G-d asked "how could you do so unless I had commanded you?" As to the promise that his son would be chosen to do so, the son referred to, is not Solomon, but the Messiah. G-d emphasized that He never requested from Moses a permanent residence, neither does He request it at that time. (Samuel II 7,7) However, "your son" meaning the Messiah, "he will build it." David prepared blueprints etc., but he did not realise that it was not Solomon who had been meant by the words of the prophet Nathan, but that the descendant who would build the permanent house would do so many years after David's departure from this earth. Chronicles I chapter 17, confirms this interpretation. Verse 14 reads "I will make him stand in My house and My kingdom forever," a phrase that can certainly not be applied to Solomon. This is all in line with the prophecy in Isaiah chapter eleven, describing the nature of the Messiah. This is the person referred to already in David's time (Samuel II 7, 14) "I will be his father" etc. The kind of sins committed in those distant days will indeed be subject to forgiveness because the people will respond positively to teachings and rebukes. As the prophet Zecharyah (12,8) says "anyone that stumbles in those days will be equal to David; the house of David will be G-d like, like an angel before the Lord." G-d will not abandon them as He has not abandoned David himself." Nathan's prophecy to David referred in large measure to this distant future. Whether Nathan himself was fully aware of this, does not matter. When David refers to G-d’s promise for the distant future in gratitude, (Samuel II 7, 19) we notice that he was not unaware of the meaning of Nathan's message. David also understood that the very nature of man made it necessary for this process of refinement to extend over millenia. Chronicles I 17, 17, states "You have seen me and chosen me like the row (group) of men of the elite, Lord G-d." As the Talmud (Baba Metzia 114) says "man, i.e Israel will qualify for the term ADAM after going through long periods of trials and afflictions etc. before realising that the object of our hopes is the glory of G-d manifested by what He builds, not the glory of man manifested by what man has erected.
_.50.1.8
We find that Solomon tells Chirom that he has the task to build the temple of which G-d had told his father David that his son would build it. (Kings I 5, 19.) The Zohar points out that when G-d mentions the selection of a city for His temple and the appointment of a king, the fact that David was chosen king does not indicate that the time had arrived to build the temple. Since it was David's dearest wish however, and after him that of Solomon, G-d did not prevent Solomon from building the temple. The latter, however, had persuaded himself that he had been carrying out G-d’s desire. G-d Himself warns Solomon in Kings I chapter six, that the continued existence of the temple would depend on a number of conditions. Not so with the beyt olamim, the eventual temple, as we have demonstrated previously. The warning is repeated during the dedication ceremony.
_.50.1.10
The Midrash quoted at the outset of this chapter, listing a variety of comparisons for the Israel/G-d relationship, refers to the various temples. The first example, the shepherd and his dwelling, refers to the tabernacle in the desert. G-d’s function in the desert was to provide all the needs of the people directly. (Manna-water-meat) Solomon's temple,-since it did not endure-, was referred to as a hut, the need of the guardian to keep manning his observation post. Israel was referred to as the vineyard during that epoch. (Compare Isaiah chapter five or Song of Songs chapters one and eight) In the first chapter of Isaiah we find that after the destruction of Solomon's temple, Israel is described as having been abandoned like a hut in a vineyard. These various prophecies envisage the rebuilding of something permanent. None of the prophecies concerning rebuilding can be matched to historic events that have already occurred. A temple that lacked the holy ark, to mention but one of the many items missing in the second temple, and one that had been built at the direction of, or at least with the consent of a gentile government to which Israel owed allegiance, cannot possibly be something that manifests G-d’s reign on earth. Chaggai and Ezekiel clearly refer to the temple of the future. If it is an honour for the father to be surrounded by his children as the Midrash says, the small number of Jews that returned to Israel during the reign of Cyrus etc., surely cannot confer much honour on the father. This latter condition will only come about as we read in Psalms 126, "when the Lord returns to Zion we shall be as dreamers," during an era of which we can truly say "then our mouth will be full of laughter and our tongue will be filled with jubilation." That the expanded temple in the days of Herod- a slave of the Hasmoneans-, his hands bloodstained by much Jewish blood, could not be the temple envisaged by our prophets, goes without saying. One must therefore view the entire relationship between Israel and G-d as that between groom and betrothed. The proper husband/wife relationship is to be consummated when the permanent temple will be built. An alternate view of the opening Midrash would be that it refers to parts of the tabernacle. The inner sanctuary would be referred to as the house, the sanctuary proper, heychal, as the hut, and the courtyard as the enclosure, the pen. In the latter event, "enclosure," G-d has a claim on us because He provides food and shelter. In the case of "hut, He can demand more, since He has also given us the Torah. In the case of "house," since He is prepared to act as our father, providing All, He can expect that we prepare His abode accordingly. The author clearly refers the first approach.
_.51.1.2
"These are the garments"
_.51.1.3
The Talmud Erchin 67 states that the reason the portion dealing with the priestly garments is written next to the portion dealing with the sacrifices, is to inform us that just as the function of the sacrifices is to obtain atonement, so the function of the priestly garments also is to achieve a degree of atonement for the people. The breastplate atones for errors in application of justice between man and man; the ephod for errors in worship of other deities. The robe, me-il atones for slander, the tunic for bloodshed, the belt for rationalisation of intended licentious behaviour. The pants atone for incestuous conduct, and the headband atones for individual obstinacy vis a vis G-d.
_.51.1.4
Man's activities are divided into three categories. 1) Natural, involuntary activities, not subject to teaching, training and memory. Examples are our heartbeat, digestion etc. All these activities are carried on whether man is awake or asleep, none require an act of memory to activate them. When David exclaims "I have forgotten to eat" (Psalms 102,5) this is, of course, merely an exaggeration, expressing the thought that the body no longer functions properly. 2) Activities which result from education, instructions and may be either in agreement with or in opposition to man's natural urges and tendencies. These activities are subject to memory. As we say in Avot chapter 4, there are four categories of students, "some learn easily but forget just as easily." 3) Activities based on man's character traits. Kindness, excitability, generosity etc. are examples of such activities. These latter activities are subject to memory in the early stages of their development, but eventually become ingrained, i.e. like second nature. Once such activities have been fully developed, they are no longer subject to prompting, but occur from force of habit. "If I forget you Jerusalem may I forget my right hand," is an example of such an activity. (Psalms 137,5) Properly attuned, we cannot forget Jerusalem any more than we can forget our right hand. Isaiah 49, 16, has G-d saying "I have inscribed you on My right hand,your walls are always present in My thoughts". Or, (Psalms 77, 10) "Has G-d forgotten to show pity?" Reversal of acquired habits and traits can therefore only be due to one of the following three reasons A) impotence. B) Amnesia C) Change of mind and will. Since categories A and B can obviously not be applied to G-d, David raises the question whether G-d’s change of mind will persist forever. (Psalms 77,9)
_.51.1.5
From all the above we conclude that memory applies in the true sense only to those of our actions that are the result of teaching and instruction. If so, it is hard to understand that the Torah commands memory in connection with all the aforementioned three categories. If the mitzvah applies to things which are natural and automatic to us, the commandment to remember it, seems superfluous. If, on the other hand, it concerns matters opposed to our nature, if one remembers to perform such mitzvah all well and good; if one fails to perform it, what sin is there since memory itself is one of the things that is activated automatically and is not subject to willpower? How can we be culpable for lack of, or inadequacy of such brainpower? Just as no shame attaches to a person who loses his eyesight or his hearing, why should someone who loses his memory be considered as morally deficient? This is why our sages interpret Tamar saying to Yehudah "hakker na le-mee hachotemet" as meaning "give recognition to your Creator, make a confession etc." (Bereshit Rabbah 85,Genesis 38,25) If memory were subject to one's will, the meaning of the verse would simply be "examine the ring to see if it is yours!"
_.51.1.6
This problem is solved when the Torah instructs remembrances together with things which we had to learn. The Talmud (Berachot 20) says "everything which is subject to observance,becomes subject to remembrance." This means that every act such as Sabbath observance, triggers memory cells which reminds the one performing the commandment of the purpose of the Sabbath legislation and the process of creation by G-d. "Observe the month of spring, for during it you came out of Egypt" (Exodus 13,4) This means that the Passover observances will trigger memories related to the Exodus. Or, regarding the observance of Purim "these days will be remembered through their observance." (Esther 9,28) Remembering Amalek is especially underlined, since no specific act triggers the memory. This is why the commandment ends with the words "do not forget!" In the absence of a mitzvah act, the danger of forgetting is much greater. Reading the portion of the attack of Amalek substitutes for an act. In all the foregoing situations, the Torah provides the antidote to forgetting. In view of these memory aids provided, not remembering a commandment which mentions remembrance becomes culpable. People who fail to make notations of important events in their calendar can be faulted for not remembering them. This is why the chief of Pharaoh's cupbearers, of whom the Torah says that "he did not remember Joseph but forgot him," refers to this a a sin. (Genesis 41,9) One of the sins of the cupbearer referred to, was not remembering Joseph's request to be mentioned to Pharaoh as deserving release from prison. When David says in Psalms 119,45, "I swore I will keep Your words," he did so to remind himself of commandments he might otherwise have overlooked. The Talmud Baba Metzia 5, states that though a man's honesty may be suspect, his oath is believed. David swore to himself that if he were to be remiss, he would bear the additional burden of a false oath, a severe enough sin to jog his memory not to forget to observe the mitzvot in question. When Solomon says in Proverbs 10,5, "he who accumulates in summer is a wise person," he would apply this same kind of reasoning to him who reinforces his memory by vowing not to forget to keep the mitzvah. He who feels bothered by the fact that a certain mitzvah is incumbent upon him, has already reason to rejoice over taking the oath, just as a person taking a laxative realises joyfully that the medicine is about to help as soon as his stomach starts convulsing.
_.51.1.7
The upshot of all this (David's outpourings in Psalm 119) is that mitzvah performance must become as automatic to us as life itself. Therefore, the Mishnah in Avot 3, 10, says that "whosoever forgets part of his studies has sinned gravely," since the Torah has provided memory joggers. The word "Talmud" in that Mishnah refers to knowledge of the commandments and their performance. Unless a person has tried and failed to remember, he is guilty of a sin. If he did the latter, he is subject to the saving grace of pen yassuru mi -levavcha, lest they depart from your heart, as long as he did not contribute to forgetting them. (Deut. 4,9) G-d lays tefillin, phylacteries, or created the rainbow, so that His memory should be jogged by visible symbols. If, in the words of the Midrash, it is good enough for Him to jog His memory, it is certainly incumbent upon us to do so. The concept of "G-d’s Torah is perfect," (Psalms 119,8) implies that the law of G-d is beyond blemish at any time in history; nothing in it can therefore be devoid of purpose at any time. This is so even if the application of a particular commandment is restricted to certain individuals such as priests. Even the occurrence of a million to one shot such as a ben sorer umoreh, an obstinate gluttonous teenager whose parents take him to Court to be executed, or a commandment which by definition could only be performed once in history in the desert, has significance far beyond that unique opportunity to perform it. David assures us in the first of the Psalms that he who truly desires Torah and studies same, is like a tree securely planted next to a never failing water supply. Such a tree will not wilt etc. If this is true of the person who studies Torah, how much more must Torah itself be meaningful in all its details. This is the reason that the mitzvot of the tabernacle and priestly garments which are of limited duration, emphasize again and again "it is an eternal statute in front of Me forever," or the use of the word tzav. The Talmud in Kiddushin 29, states that any commandment associated with the word tzav is a commandment that applies forever. Examination of those laws reveals that there are many instances where this rule simply does not stand up in the light of history. We must understand the Talmud to mean that though the details of the commandments in question helped us fulfil them at times when they proved physically capable of fulfilment, we derive the major benefit from these commandments through the lessons we learn from the concepts that these mitzvot represent. It is these concepts that remain valid forever. This is the meaning of Deuteronomy 29,8, "observe the words of the covenant, carry them out so that you will gain insights from all that you do." Similarly Deut.4,6, "it is your wisdom and your insight." Unfortunately, as the Rambam already observes in his "Moreh," most people never concern themselves with such matters and want to get close to the king without ever having seen the king's palace, as it were. Granted that performance of the mitzvah, since it is G-d’s command, is praiseworthy. Nevertheless it is far from the ultimate that we are capable of achieving. Whatever the tabernacle teaches is as relevant today as ever, just as basic concepts do not lose their relevance because they cannot always be applied instantly. If the Torah commands that we help an enemy load his beast, thereby teaching important moral lessons, these lessons do not lose their relevance because we have no enemies or because we never encountered an enemy in circumstances where this commandment could be performed. David says in Psalms 51, 19, "the (real) sacrifice to G-d is a broken spirit." It is the spirit in which G-d is approached that matters. The Talmud Menachot 106, explains the verse in Leviticus 7,37, "this is the teaching of the Torah concerning the total offering, the gift offering and the peace offering," as meaning that he who labours studying the laws of these offerings, does not actually have to bring them in order to achieve the personality development that these offerings are meant to help us achieve. The idea is that just as performance plays its part in awakening the mind to what, why and how one is doing, so the study of the laws pertaining to these observances accomplishes the same thing. We should not therefore bemoan earlier times when through the performance of mitzvot such as yovel, the Jubilee year, we could come closer to G-d. Let us look now at the "memory" element surrounding the commandments of the priestly vestments. Concerning the ephod, apron it states "Aaron should wear the names of the children of Israel before G-d on his shoulders as remembrance." Concerning the choshen, the breastplate, we find a similar quote. A similar purpose is common to all the priestly garments. Clothing as such is symbolic of acquired traits. Already in the wording of the commandments there is a reference to the concepts of midot, character traits, which we discussed at the beginning of this chapter. (Leviticus 6,3) mido bad; or in Judges 3, 16, "under his madim;” or in Psalms 133,2, "descending according to midotav." So we observe the term midah being used for garments, illustrating the essential nature of garments, at least when worn by priests. The first impression that one receives when meeting another person is that of the clothes he wears. It suggests his occupation, certain of his behavioral traits etc. Even our prophets in praising the Lord, use the simile " You are garbed in Splendour." (Psalms 104, 1) Or, "resplendent in His garments" (Isaiah 63, 1) Secondly, people wear different sets of clothing for the Sabbath and weekdays. Even in ancient times, Esau had "his precious clothes" (Genesis 27, 15) or (Ruth 3,3) Ruth who put special garments for a special occasion. By wearing different clothing on the Sabbath, every Jew signals that he assumes different character traits on the Sabbath. In Hilchot Derech Eretz, the halachah stipulates that ordinary clothing be worn for the performance of mundane tasks, whereas festive clothing should be worn when performing mitzvot between man and His Maker. This is the meaning of Isaiah chapter 58. Compare also chapter 63. Thirdly, just as man is never completely nude, so he is never completely devoid of mitzvot. Therefore, all of Israel, priests and ordinary Israelites alike, have the duty to be garbed in special garments. This is why a whole nation is referred to as a kingdom of priests, to imbue all garments with a reminder of the symbolic significance of garments as such. Therefore, the Torah says in connection with the tzitzit, fringes, "when you see it, you will remember the commandments" (Numbers 15,39). "A garment adorned with tzitzit will remind you of all the commandments of G-d to carry them out, ibid." Whenever white garments are mentioned by our sages, it refers to the moral condition of the wearer of such garments. For instance, we have the parable of the king who invites his servants to partake of a meal in his palace without specifying the date and hour the meal is to take place. The intelligent servants remained within the vicinity of the king’s palace, saying that it would be foolish to roam around elsewhere since they had no urgent business elsewhere. The foolish ones carried on business as usual, citing as their reason that they would not receive any food for which they had not worked. Suddenly, the king issued a summons for his servants to attend the party. The intelligent ones entered the palace suitably attired, whereas the foolish servants arrived dirty and dishevelled. The king was well pleased with the first group, of course, but was very angry at the second group. Therefore, he seated the first group and left the second group to remain standing and watch the others partake of the feast. This is how Rabbi Meir's son-in-law explained the following verse in Isaiah 65, 13, "My sons will eat, and you will starve; My sons will drink, but you will remain thirsty." Another version explains the meaning of Kohelet 9,8, "at all times your garments should be white, and oil should be on your head," as referring to tzitzit and tefillin respectively. The Aggadah in Baba Batra 74, concerning the meal of the righteous in the future, featuring salted meat of the female leviathan and well aged wine, may also be understood allegorically as referring to the garments worn by the tzaddikim in their lifetime, namely Torah and Mitzvot. More about this Aggadah in chapter 60.
_.51.1.8
Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Parshah commence with the word "ve-attah," "and you," instead of simply with the word tzav, command!? 2) Why did the Torah not wait with commanding Aaron to light the menorah until the tabernacle had been built? 3) This whole passage is repeated in Parshat Emor with the exception of the word attah. Why? The Rabbis tell us that the making of these garments and wearing them is the prerequisite to kindling the menorah. Just as the High Priest in Zecharyah 3,4, who had faced the menorah in soiled garments, had to be dressed in clean garments before he could perform his functions,- a reference to the removal of sin,- so the Torah teaches this lesson in our Parshah. We observe in Zecharyah that the High Priest Voshua could not even notice the flame of the golden candelabra until after his garments had been changed. "I have removed your iniquities from you." Obviously, the candelabra had been there before, but Yoshua had to be awakened to its presence. All this teaches that proper study should be preceded by suitable character traits, (the other meaning of the word middah) (1+2) The commandment therefore means "You, who in the future will be instructing the Jewish people to provide the proper fuel, which in turn will be arranged by Aaron and his sons nightly, will need to bring Aaron close to you, appoint him and his sons as priests. It would not be fitting for them to appear michutz laporochet, facing the curtain in the sanctuary in everyday clothing. Therefore, you will make for your brother holy garments, beautiful and impressive, as outlined in the Parshah. Even though the exterior appearance of these garments reflected pomp and ceremony, the inner garments were symbolic of purity and holiness, seeing that they were made of pure white linen. The artisans were to use their G-d given skill and wisdom in their construction, and all those who saw these garments would recognise the message they were meant to convey. The Midrash which compared the sacrifices to the priestly garments needs explaining. Sacrifices were primarily for atonement, whereas the function of the garments is described in the Torah as "le-chavod u-letif-eret," “for splendour and for beauty." (28,40) How then are the two comparable? However, just as the preoccupation with the sacrifices achieves a certain restraint, minimises the chance of such a person committing sins, so study of the deeper significance of these garments helps to remove one's own soiled garments, i.e. one's character imperfections. It spurs the student to garb himself in clean clothing, in innocence. There cannot be any greater atonement than this. Even though the garments reflect acquisition of character traits, as opposed to say the table or candelabra, which represent acquisition of knowledge and understanding, among these garments are also found the breastplate, shoulder plates and the golden headband which are distinct from the remainder of the garments in that the holy name of G-d was engraved upon them. Our sages say that the breastplate is to atone for social injustices committed. Social injustices can occur in four different ways, as mentioned by Moses, Deut. chapter four. The Torah addresses primarily the judges. 1) Do not show favoritism to litigants. 2) Do not give preference to matters involving large sums of money, if the matter involving a smaller amount has come to your attention first. 3) Do not display fear of either litigant. 4) Do not appear to know all the answers, but refer to experts any matter you are not certain about. Concerning point number one, the names of the tribes on the breastplate were arranged in chronological order of their birth, to conform with the commandment "rise in the presence of a senior person." (Leviticus 19,32) We do accord honour to natural birthright. Concerning the matter of not dealing first with litigation of matters involving large sums at the expense of keeping a litigant suing for a smaller sum waiting, the four rows of gems on the breastplate were not arranged in the order of their respective values. Neither were distinctions made in the respective sizes of the twelve gems. All this teaches that all of them are equally important in the eyes of the law. Concerning the fear of certain litigants that a judge might have, the name of G-d was engraved to remind us that "justice is the Lord's." (Deut. 1, 17) Finally, concerning item four, the most common pitfall for all judges, the desire to appear all knowing, the urim vetumim the name of G-d on a parchment embedded in a pocket in the breastplate, was to remind the judge that there is always a last recourse, i.e. revelation of Divine wisdom, which is available if human wisdom has failed to arrive at a valid decision. For the above mentioned reasons, the function of the breastplate to atone for errors in administering social justice, is clear. Our sages have stated that the Ephod, apron, and shoulder plate, atone for idol worship. They quote Hoseah 3,4, "when there will be no Ephod and Teraphim" (idols). We need a source of inspiration. We observe from Judges 18, 17, that Michah had such an Ephod and Teraphim and was therefore elected as the guru of the Danites. The Torah commands that this Ephod be worn on the back of the High Priest, on the lower part of his body. However, it was to be anchored in the two shoulder pieces linked to the breastplate by chains. This was to convey the thought that not all human resources are concentrated in the seat of the reproductive organs, but rather are drawn directly from the seat of the urim ve-tumim, the seat of Divine inspiration. Such inspiration was granted only to Israel by way of prophecy. When viewed in this light, all tendencies to worship idols would be countered effectively. Because the gift of the breastplate and what it stands for represents a special kindness on G-d’s part, David says in Psalms 147, 19, "He issues His words to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel. He has not done so for any other nation." Aaron constantly carried the names of the children of Israel to remind G-d of us. The Ephod is symbolic of our gift to G-d by means of which we express that we are aware that we are different from all other nations. The two gems on the shoulder pieces of the Ephod are "as a remembrance to the children of Israel,” a reminder to us of His relationship with us. Breastplate and Ephod relate to one another in a manner similar to that described by Moses in Deut. 26,17-18 "You have avouched G-d this day.. and G-d has avouched you this day." This is followed by the statement of our being a nation of special treasure to the Lord. Because of the aforesaid, it is fitting that the Ephod had to be made first, in accordance with the principle (Psalms 85, 12 ) "truth sprouts forth from earth," i.e. we first have to do our part. After that "righteousness will come down from the heavens." (ibid.) The me-il, robe, was to atone for slander, wicked use of the tongue. Several quotations throughout the Bible indicate that this robe was a type of garment worn only by superior people, people who were known to be such. Samuel I 28, 14, shows that Saul who had previously met the prophet Samuel was convinced it was he as soon as he saw a person wearing such a robe. Similarly, Job, when insisting on his own righteousness, refers to it as worn "like a robe." (Job 29, 14) So we have G-d commanding that Aaron wear a garment reflecting his piety and purity. The bells on the lower hem of this robe had to announce his entering the sanctuary. Aaron's movements were to be like a sounding to the people to commence holy communion. "Let the sound produced by a holy man, wearing pure golden bells awaken you to the imperative to seek out holiness yourself," is the message of that garment. The golden bells were set among red and blue wool and linen pomegarantes, muffling most of the sound of the bells. This teaches three lessons. 1) Man should not publicly proclaim his piety and holiness. Whatever part of his saintliness becomes public, he should consider as trifling. This is why the bells were attached to the bottom of the robe. So whatever is said about a person should be like a pomegranate, which is so much more wholesome and precious on the inside than its shell would indicate. 3) The only things which become public, are heard, should be good things, kodesh. For this reason, the sages say "may something involving sound, come and atone for matters which involved publicity. The tunic, kutonet, is to atone for bloodshed. On the one hand the Torah tells us of Joseph's brothers dipping his tunic in blood. (Genesis 37,31) Violent wicked people have a habit of wearing short tuniccs, so that the leggings would not impede them if they want to make a fast getaway. The tunic described in the Torah here is a long garment, extending down to the heel. Its wearer could not take big steps. It was the kind of garment worn by virgins. When Tamar was raped by Amnon, (Samuel I 13) we find that her tunic was torn after she had been raped. People who normally stay at home, like Joseph, wore such long tunics. Jacob had such a garment made for Joseph, a garment which impedes movement, especially if it is made- as the Torah instructs here- chequered, worked in a manner which adds to its weight, thus further impeding movement. Obviously then, its wearer not only has no designs to shed blood, but rather such a garment would inspire fear of potential murderers in its wearers. This is why the sages use the above mentioned verse (Genesis 37,31) as indicating that wearers are liable to become victims of bloodshed. The mitznefet, mitre, atones for boastfulness, pride. The High Priest did not wear a fancy high hat, but a tightly fitting cap, allowing room for the tefillin and headband, tzitz. This is in contrast with the fools nowadays who wear high hats as attention getters. We can learn modesty from the High Priest, the holiest of men, and act accordingly.
_.51.1.9
The avnet, belt, was to atone for haughtiness, since it was worn with the Ephod across the heart. This suggests that even unexpressed haughtiness needs to be curbed, suppressed. The pants, michnassayim, atone for immorality. If pants had not been general attire, their symbolic value is clear. If pants had already been generally worn at that time, the priests' pants which extended all the way, down to the heel drew attention to the message they were to convey. Their function of affording perishut, distancing oneself from sin, makes them valuable to promote atonement. The tzitz, headband, atones for scornful defiance. When looking at the holy name of G-d engraved on this headband, one should lower one's eyes, become aware of the fact that man is not fit to behold the Lord. Our Rabbis teach that anyone quarrelling with his teacher is as if he were quarrelling with G-d, since the former represents G-d. Similarly, Aaron represented the shechinah here on earth.
_.51.1.10
These are the eight garments which the most perfect human being wore. He did not wear them just for ornamental, visual effect, but to help him achieve the moral perfection of which they were to remind both him and others. From that point of view it is obvious that their physical absence in our time, does not make these garments less important, since we can absorb the lessons that they represented. Moreover, these lessons can be absorbed by every Jew, since we are a nation of priests. Isaiah 61, 10, exclaims " My soul will rejoice with G-d, for He has clothed me in garments of salvation draped over me a robe of righteousness, like a bridegroom adorned with splendour." The Talmud Sotah 44, exhorts man to perfect himself as much as possible before he proceeds to take a wife and build a home. A proper wife helps man achieve the moral standard represented by the eight priestly garments. The union of Adam and Eve in gan eden before the fall, unfortunately had not resulted in man being morally elevated through his wife. Ever since then, the slow and gradual ascent from the fall was punctuated by the acquisition of simple garments, till at the end of time Isaiah envisions the "garments of splendour" as the ultimate, symbolising our emancipation from the sin of the tree of knowledge. When Rabbi Meir's Torah scroll is reputed as having spelled the words “kotnot or” the garments which G-d had provided for Adam and Eve, with the letter “aleph" in the word or instead of the traditional “ayin" if the word was to mean leather, skin, he wanted to indicate the ultimate purpose of these garments. These garments, according to Rabbi Meir, serve a dual purpose. They are a physical covering. They are also to serve however, as an ongoing reminder to regain the or the light that we lost when we sinned in the garden of Eden. The garments then are are a spiritual endowment provided by G-d to help us along that road. Now we understand why the priestly garments were worn only after the tabernacle had been consecrated. The sons of Aaron had first brought some sacrifices to attain the moral stature that enabled them to wear these garments. The symbolic meaning of these offerings during the consecration ceremonies may be understood in the following way. The par, bull, represents the body that is to be dedicated to G-d. The two male rams represent the two spiritual forces in man, the theoretical, speculative, and the practical. A person who puts all three powers at the disposal of the Divine, may wear the precious priestly garments, each according to his status. Only a minute part of the bull's blood was used for sprinkling on the altar, i.e. sacrificial service. The remainder was burned, since only insignificant parts of our body can rise to such noble heights. Of the rams, the one which was offered in incense and had all its blood sprinkled on the altar, represents the theoretical speculative, spiritual power in man, seeing it is all holy. The second ram however, representing holiness in action, was only used partially in the sacrificial rites. Corresponding to the famous "we shall hear and we shall do," (Deut. 5,24) the ear and upper leg became part of the sacrificial service. The balance of the ram was consumed by the owners, since by means of holy deeds inspired by holy thoughts, the body becomes sanctified to the extent that this is possible. All of the foregoing teaches all of us the order in which we are to proceed to achieve the highest level in the service of G-d.
_.52.1.1
How tabernacle/sacrifices/levy of shekalim correspond to "life/science/livelihood." On the purpose of the half shekel levy.
_.52.1.2
"Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul" etc.
_.52.1.3
Midrash Tanchuma on our Parshah writes that Moses had conceptual difficulties with three of G-d’s instructions. When G-d instructed that the half shekel was to be a kopher nefesh a soul's ransom, Moses queried "how can anyone ransom his soul by means of a financial donation?" G-d replied that He did not mean for the Jews to donate according to HIS yardsticks and ability, but according to their own yardsticks and ability. When G-d instructed that the Jews build a sanctuary for HIM, Moses queried how G-d who cannot be contained by the whole universe, could possibly be contained by such a miniscule structure as the tabernacle? Again G-d replied that contrary to what Moses thought, the Jewish people were asked to do only things which were in keeping with their own ability, i.e. twenty beams in the South, twenty in the North, etc. When G-d commanded the offering of daily sacrifices, described by G-d as "My bread," Moses wondered how there could possibly be sufficient livestock to satisfy G-d’s needs. G-d answered that the dimensions of sacrifice were commensurate with Israel's ability, not G-d’s capacity. Hence one sheep in the morning, one in the evening. This is the meaning of Job 37,23, "Though we cannot obtain a true understanding of the dimensions of G-d, He has proven through justice and righteousness that He does not oppress."
_.52.1.4
Unless there is gratitude for favours received, what would keep the world going? G-d created the universe as an act of kindness, and even though it is not within our capacity to return this kindness even minimally, especially since G-d is not in need of anything, ingratitude on our part would negate the act of generosity by G-d. "heavenly beings accord Him honour, gratitude." (Psalms 29,2) Human beings are similarly asked to do so, each according to their status and stature in the universe. The letters at the beginning of the verse in the nishmat Sabbath morning prayer which spell Yitzchak and Rivkah respectively, suggest that just as that pair of human beings was perfectly matched, so our praise of G-d has to match the nature of the gifts He has bestowed upon us. This rule applies even for beings not possessed of life as we know it. "All the trees of the forest will break out in jubilation" (Psalms 96, 12.) The world is arranged in such a way that all higher forms of creatures contribute to, and endow the lower forms of life, with some of their superior attributes and capabilities. The exchange of ideas, possessions, etc. is of course, most evident in the economic life of man. Since economic self sufficiency does not exist within any single individual, the species would face annihilation were it not for such mutual bestowing of benefits upon one another, albeit for mundane purposes. Therefore, ingratitude is the basest of all bad character traits. The Talmud in Taanit 8, states "rain descends on account of those who keep faith; it is withheld because of those who act wilfully and brazenly." All the favours received from G-d, fall under one of three headings. 1) Life; 2) wisdom, knowledge; 3) livelihood, sustenance, (compare chapter forty two in Isaiah, chapter two in Proverbs and chapter 145 in the book of Psalms) Our prayers reflect our gratitude for these three kinds of loving kindness shown us by G-d. A) "Elokai neshamah..." thanks to G-d for waking up alive each morning. B) "Asher natan lasechvee beenah,” who has endowed even the rooster with wisdom." C) "Malbish arumim, zokef kefufim," who provides clothing for the naked, helps those bent over to resume erect posture etc. This is the reason that we recite Psalm 100, a hymn of thanksgiving. Since it is obviously impossible for man to express his gratitude adequately, G-d commands us to give three times a half a shekel. In this way, we express symbolically that we owe gratitude for the three aspects of kindness received from G-d on an ongoing basis. This is what is meant by the expression kofer nefesh. We thank G-d for the gift of meaningful life, for the knowledge and reason granted, enabling us to lay the foundation of the tabernacle which represents the seat of Torah wisdom. Finally, we thank G-d for the legislation of sacrifices, by means of which we express our acknowledgment that He is the source of our food and sustenance.
_.52.1.5
Questions regarding the "half shekel" legislation. 1) We are warned that if counted physically, i.e. by means of a headcount, instead of by means of the coin, there would be a plague. Why should Israel have been subject to such a plague? Why should the numbering of the Israelites be dangerous for us when it does not seem to be a source of danger to any of the other nations? On the contrary, since the counting would be the fulfilment of a mitzvah, that very fact should act as protection! Even the count of the nation at the request of David, (Samuel II 24,4) did not produce a plague, since David had been offered three choices of punishment. That particular situation may have represented the three things a king is warned not to indulge in. They are (a) not to marry too many wives, (b) not to acquire too many horses; (c) not to accumulate too much money. All three prohibitions represent the temptation of self aggrandisement, i.e. "see how much I have!" The choice of punishment offered David would therefore be in line with these three prohibitions (let the punishment fit the crime) (a) hunger, famine. This means there is not enough money to buy food. (b) war; this entails a reduction in the number of horses one owns, in the size of one's army. (c) pestilence; this means that the wives would lose their raison d'etre if the children they bear in pain, will die as a result of the pestilence. 2) Even granted that the evil eye exercises some control over numbers, and that therefore the commandment not to count heads is a protective measure for Israel, why was not everyone ordered to contribute a whole item instead of a half shekel? Why the repeated emphasis on the nature of the shekel being merely a "half?" The Midrash suggests that the sin of the golden calf took place at midday, the day's halfway mark, and that therefore atonement should correspond to that fact, and that this is symbolised by the half coin. If this is so, why does the whole story precede the report of the golden calf? 3) What was the sin which needed to be atoned for, if the purpose was merely to protect against the consequences of a headcount? 4) Granted the efficay of this method in warding off the evil eye, why did this procedure have to take place annually, even when there was no apparent reason for counting the people in preparation for war or any other purpose? 5) Why the enumeration of the spices and oil for anointing also in "half" measures? 6) Why were Betzalel and Oholiav appointed by name? 7) Why is the portion of Sabbath observance adjacent to the portion dealing with the construction of the tabernacle?
_.52.1.7
(1) Unity and diversity are found in descending order in the story of creation. (a) G-d is absolute Unity, hence numbers do not apply to Him. (b) angels, though of uniform composition, of a single element, nevertheless possess an awareness of their purpose as well as an awareness of their Creator.(c) creatures aware of their existence consisting of a variety of elements. Our world is composed of a mixture of four basic elements. We are composites on the one hand, but Divinely inspired on the other hand. Our purpose is to subordinate the body to achieve unity with the spirit. Any emphasis on numbers would contradict this lofty objective. (3+4) Therefore, our ultimate destiny is jeopardised whenever we stress the numerical aspect of our being. It is the second half of us, the material side, which requires atonement for having been debased. What better way than to re-dedicate oneself annually to the concept that it is this half which needs to be elevated. Thus, when we are being reviewed by the Enumerator, it is rosh beney yisrael, the spiritual part of us, the Divinely inspired, which will be found to be our essence in such a review. (2) The silver used for the sockets of the tabernacle did not come out of the voluntary contributions, but from the half shekel money, representing our obligation to use our G-d given brainpower (the tenth of our endowments) on the tenth of the ten cubits of the beams. (5) The anointing of the High Priest also demonstrates that the two halves must be viewed at least as equal to one another. If we perfect the body to match our spirit, then we qualify for the holy oil. "This will be oil for a holy anointment for ME throughout your generations." G-d says "this is really MINE, and it may be used on an angel, a messenger, i.e. the High Priest, not on an ordinary man. Were you to make other oil like it, its singular significance would be lost. Perhaps the division of blood being sprinkled on the altar after the giving of the Torah reflects a similar approach. Doubtless, when it came to the half shekel, this concept is clear. This is the reason that the public sacrificial lambs are purchased from these funds, since they have as their objective man's atonement. G-d says "it shall be for the children of Israel as a remembrance before the Lord to atone for your souls." This is the answer to Moses’s query, namely that we are asked to do only in accordance with our ability. Therefore, all three, tabernacle, sacrifices and half shekel are for our benefit, not for His benefit or need. (6) The appointment of Betzalel and Oholiav by name underlines hashgachah pratit. A nation of bricklayers should certainly find amongst themselves many people capable of constructing the tabernacle. So the appointment of two people named by G-d, proves that G-d supervises all of us individually. (7) The reason for emphasising the Sabbath legislation is simple. Since the construction of the tabernacle is an affirmation of our acknowledgment of the act of creation by G-d, so is the Sabbath observance an acknowledgment of the act of creation by G-d. Therefore, desecration of the one through proceeding with the other, would demonstrate our being unaware of the testimonial nature of both commandments.
_.53.1.1
Motivation of idol worshippers, and lessons learned from the episode of the golden calf.
_.53.1.2
"And when the people saw that Moses delayed" etc.
_.53.1.3
The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 4, states in the name of Rabbi Joshua son of Levi, "Jews made the golden calf in order to give hope to repentant sinners, as per Deut. 5,26, "O that their heart would remain like this within them, to revere Me and observe My commandments forever." This too is the meaning of the saying of Rabbi Yochanan, who said that neither Israel nor David were really capable of such a deed, since it says "O that their heart... etc." David was not capable of that deed (Bat Sheva) because it says in Psalms 109,22, "my heart is dead within me." If this is so, why did they commit these respective sins? In order that if an individual were to sin in the future, one could point out to him David, who had repented successfully. In the event the community would become guilty of a sin, one could point to the episode of the golden calf and the successful repentance of the entire Jewish people. One would say to such a community "repent you likewise!"
_.53.1.4
Although there are occasions when the Torah exempts certain individuals from certain observances because of regard for the dignity of such individuals, such exemptions have to meet certain criteria. Based on Deut. 22,4, "you may hide yourself from them, "the Talmud Berachot 19, derives the ruling that old people or notables may ignore the commandment to catch stray animals and return them to their owners, so that their dignity should not suffer in the process. Nevertheless, demeaning oneself is in order when (a) the gain to be achieved thereby outweighs the loss of dignity involved, or (b) when the result desired is certain to be realised. To illustrate the principles: When a revered old man is seen carrying a beam on his shoulder in order to erect a fence, the loss of dignity would outweigh the benefits to be secured by carrying out the task personally. When however, said beam was meant to shore up the wall of a house in danger of collapse, the loss of dignity would certainly be minor compared to the benefit of saving the house from collapsing. Prompt personal attention then outweighs all other considerations. This is the meaning of Proverbs 1,29, "better he that is lightly esteemed and is his own servant, than he that stands on his dignity and is short of bread." When the above mentioned criteria to forego one's dignity do not apply, such as when the Jewish people traded their dignity and worshipped at the golden calf, one can only ask with Jeremiah (2, 11) "how can a nation trade a G-d for something which is not even a deity?" How then are we to explain this act of the Jewish people?
_.53.1.5
If we follow Rashi who says that the Almighty gave Satan control of the Jewish people at that time, then the punishment of the people as a whole, as well as the slaying of three thousand who had actually danced around the golden calf, seems unwarranted. If that were the meaning of the aggadah quoted at the outset, they should have been rewarded rather than punished. Besides, how can the power of repentance be demonstrated by the commission of an act that was not even sinful? If, on the other hand, the sin had been an outgrowth of an act of free will, who gave the Jews the right to make examples of themselves in order to demonstrate the power of repentance? Even assuming that the gates of repentance would remain open in such an event, did they not risk the possibility of eternal damnation versus the certainty of retaining their sanctity by remaining loyal to G-d throughout? Even if eventual forgiveness were to be certain, is it not better to remain untainted by sin? Could not the lesson of repentance and subsequent forgiveness be learned by means of some sin that had not been self-induced? Moreover, is it not a fact that a sin committed by someone who had formerly occupied a high moral platform and had thereby established a degree of intimacy with the lawgiver, will be dealt with far more harshly than if the sin had been committed by someone of average stature? If proof were needed for the last hypothesis, compare the punishment meted out to Adam in Paradise who had enjoyed an intimate relationship with G-d, and that of Jerobam ben Nevot who had erected the golden calves on the way to Jerusalem in order to prevent the people from making their pilgrimages to the holy temple, and had meant for these golden calves to act as substitutes. In the latter case, G-d’s retaliation was hundreds of year in coming, whereas Adam had been expelled from gan eden etc. immediately! Rabbi Yochanan's statement on the other hand, poses the problem that if the people did commit the sin, they had obviously been capable of such acts. How could a people who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai only forty days earlier, commit such an act of foolishness? Was this the famous dor dey-ah, the generation of insight? Man's relationship to the universe may be based on three different approaches. A) He realises that all that he observes in nature is subordinate to a higher source, and therefore he worships the source; B) He is so impressed with his own accomplishments that he feels worthy of adulation, such as Sancheriv and Nebuchadnezzar for instance. In that case he worships himself; C) He is so aware of his own frailty, in which case he worships anything that he imagines could be of help to him. The type described last, is so full of inferiority complexes that he feels that even animals are superior to man. He believes that the latter can intercede with G-d on man's behalf. He constructs images of animals, using materials that endure. Since these materials outlive their creator, he feels that these images symbolise a degree of permanence he himself lacks. The reason that animals rank higher in that concept is, that since their needs are fewer and less sophisticated, they are easier to fulfill. This is the reason the Egyptians worshipped sheep, i.e. they wished themselves a livelihood as easily attainable as that of sheep. In a pasture land such as Egypt, such symbolism had additional meaning. The Jewish people sensed that Moses was no longer among them, and they searched for a symbol of Divine protection that would outrank that of their one time masters and enemies, the Egyptians. As a result they had the king of the animals (the ox, according to Chagigah 17) constructed of the most precious material, (gold) by the most holy of men, (Aaron) hoping to ensure thereby greater help from the powers above than that which the Egyptians were able to call on. They might have chosen the lion instead of the ox, except it was horoscopically opposed to the lamb, the symbol of the Jewish people. Since our temple has twice been destroyed under the zodiac sign of the lion, ( month of Av) such reasoning can be understood if not condoned. The ox, on the other hand, was opposite the zodiac sign of the scorpion, one of the animals to which Pharaoh had been compared. In this manner, they believed that the ox symbolised the strength of the G-d of Moses.
_.53.1.7
Errors such as these, prompted Isaiah in chapter forty four, to present a detailed denouement of all the inadequacies inherent in the materials the idols are constructed of.
_.53.1.8
In order to comprehend what happened when Moses failed to return at the time expected, we must remember what the Torah tells us about the basic nature of man. We are told in Genesis 8,21, "for the impulse of man's heart is evil from its infancy." Even after man has absorbed the Divine teachings intellectually, his basic nature has not changed thereby. It is not in man's nature to become permanently free from sin so that we would have to view sin as a departure from his nature, and he would therefore forfeit his claim to a future in the hereafter. Sainthood is not demanded of man. What is demanded however, is that any relapse into sin be repaired through true repentance, in order for him to regain his stature as it was prior to his sin. This is the meaning of Exodus 34,6, "The Eternal, the Eternal is a merciful and gracious G-d." This means that G-d is saying "I am the Lord after you have sinned, just as I have been the Lord before you had sinned." The implication is that the likelihood of sin is about equal to the likelihood of saintly purity. Or, in the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 130,3) "if You would keep remembering sins, O Lord, who could possibly stand up before You?" (Rosh Hashanah 17) The purpose of forgiveness after repentance is described as "so that You may be revered" (Psalms 130,4) It is the person who does not repent who truly merits punishment. If our sages viewed the institution of repentance as chronologically preceding the creation of man, this underlines the concept that sin is an integral part of the world we live in. (Pessachim 54) The episode of the golden calf then provided Israel with a chance to do what G-d had said, (Deut. 5,26) "would that their heart would revere Me." Had it been possible to create the nature of man so that he could be totally good, Israel could not have made the golden calf, for no other nation even approached the ideal of humanity as closely as Israel did at that time. Even G-d had expressed the wish that they should be able to maintain that level of piety in order to reap the fruits of such conduct. Israel's action in making the golden calf was proof that it was unrealistic to expect such high levels of piety and belief in G-d to be maintained at all times. Rabbi Yochanan told us then that Israel was certainly not at a low enough level at that time to have indulged in that sin, nor was David so enslaved to sensuality that the affair with Bat Sheva would be expected of him; rather, in spite of their respective high levels of morality, the nature of man made such sins possible. This teaches us the lesson of repentance as a corollary. David represents a lesson for the individual sinner, whereas Israel provides the example that even collective guilt can be forgiven. The Midrash then only supplied the answer to the question of why a golden calf had to be the idol chosen. The basic answer about why the sin took place at all, lies in the fact that it is in the nature of man to regress spiritually from time to time. Isaiah 43,26, tells us that the discussion of our sins rather than an attempt at whitewash, will bring righteousness in its wake. The Talmud Megillah 25, discusses a series of events with which the Torah deals, and which may be read in public both in Hebrew and in the vernacular. This may be done, though in the process some of our most famous heroes such as Abraham, Yehudah etc. may appear discredited in the ears of the listener. The decisive consideration in all these instances where superficial perusal may reflect discredit on a deserving person is, whether the moral lesson to be learned from the story outweighs the side effect it may produce. The story of the golden calf, discussed in the Torah on two occasions in considerable detail, teaches so much about the ways of G-d, that the fact that it makes Aaron appear as an accomplice is a calculated risk the Torah had to take. Normally, our sages prohibit readings in the vernacular, when they believe that the uneducated masses would form negative impressions about people in the story who are really free from blame. In our situation, the first half of the golden calf episode is permitted to be read also in the vernacular, because the lessons about the power of repentance and forgiveness are derived from that story. However chapter 32,21, is not to be read in the vernacular, since it deals with Aaron's specific involvement, and would give the uneducated listener the impression that Aaron's error was far greater than it actually was. Conversely, this would lead the masses to conclude that the people's involvement in that sin was far less serious than had been the case.
_.53.1.9
Some problems in the text. 1) Exodus 32, 11, tells of Moses being late in returning from Mount Sinai. The time frame involved, according to our tradition, was a mere six hours. Yet we are told that Aaron was besieged by the people, that these people brought him their personal jewelry, having failed to persuade their wives to part with their jewelry. The crucible for melting down the gold seemed to be at hand, Aaron produced a golden calf. How could such a revolutionary change occur so suddenly within such a short space of time? Were there no people prepared to credit Moses with being a day late? 2) If the people were indeed convinced that Moses would not return, why did they not offer the now vacant leadership position to their beloved Aaron? Why did they demand "a G-d who will walk in front of us?" 3) Why did Aaron choose a golden calf as the symbol to be constructed? No materials or specific animal had been requested, after all? 4) Why did not G-d tell Moses that Aaron had made that calf? 5) Why did G-d say "leave Me alone, so that I can get angry"? The words "leave Me alone so that I can destroy them" would seem to have been more appropriate! 6) Moses’s question "why are You angry?" seems difficult to understand Could there have been anything that would have given G-d greater reason to be angry? 7) Why did Moses not get angry till he reached the camp? Had he not believed what G-d had told him? 8) Why did Moses burn the calf? Who burns metal objects? 9) The dialogue between Moses and Aaron is very strange. Aaron seems to deny responsibility, whereas Moses seems to have suggested to him an excuse by asking "what have the people done to you?" It seems as if the people were punished whereas Aaron went scot free? 10) When Moses confessed the guilt of the Jewish people, he avoided mentioning the fact that it was a calf that had been worshipped. Does not a proper confession require the spelling out of all the details of one's misdemeanour? 11) Since we had already read about the people having removed their jewelry, (verse 4) why did G-d instruct Moses to have the people remove their jewelry? (verse 5)
_.53.1.10
"And when the people saw that Moses delayed""
_.53.1.13
Ever since the estrangement of man from his Creator after his expulsion from Eden until the advent of Abraham, philosophers seem to have denied the involvement of the Creator in the individual fate of man. Some based their reasoning on their belief in the eternity of matter and the immutability of natural laws; others believed that the Creator had simply withdrawn from His handiwork as soon as he had completed it. Some of these beliefs which were deeply ingrained in the people's consciousness, were slow to die even amongst the Jewish people. All the miracles which had occurred and had been witnessed by the Jewish people had not been enough to eradicate all the traces of their former attitudes.
_.53.1.14
There were then two groups of people in the desert. Each group looked for confirmation of their respective beliefs in the events that had occurred during and after the Exodus. Group A were the believers, who saw corroboration of their beliefs in the events they had witnessed. Group B were the diehards of the old school, who had at best learned to adopt an ambivalent attitude to all the miracles they had witnessed. This group was still inclined to ascribe all those events to witchcraft. They remained ever ready to expose even genuine miracles as works of deception perpetrated by the master magician Moses.
_.53.1.15
It is in this context that we must understand the repeated references Moses made to the Jewish people at the burning bush, when he said to G-d that the Jewish people would not believe in him or his mission. Moses expected the same reaction from his own people that he had expected from Pharaoh. This is why he said "when they ask me for Your name, what shall I say?" (Exodus 3, 13) The miracle had been needed to demonstrate the existence of such a G-d. Whenever things went well, the people believed in G-d, Moses and his mission. Whenever difficulties arose, they saw in this proof that there was no free G-d, no Personal Providence, only superior showmanship by Moses, presently revealed as inadequate. Proof of all this lies in the fact that whenever they refer to the Exodus from Egypt, they ascribe it to Moses the man, not to G-d. (compare Exodus 14, 12; 16,3; Numbers 16, 12) Their admiration of Moses was based on Moses being an outstanding man rather than Moses as an instrument of G-d. (1) As soon as Moses was out of sight, not having announced when he would return, (possibly he had not known when he would return) the people wanted to see if they themselves could do what Moses had been doing all the time. Therefore, they had lots of time at their disposal to urge Aaron. The fortieth day was in fact only the last of many days that Aaron had been under pressure. (2) These people believed that the configuration of the ox might hold the secret of Moses’s power. Therefore they traded their own horoscope (that of the lamb) for that of the ox. This is the meaning of Psalms 106,20 "they themselves chose this trade, exchange." It was not Aaron's doing. No doubt, during those forty days the pressure on Aaron had been increasing steadily, the murder of Chur being part of that pressure. Had the Torah reported all this in detail, the impression that Aaron co-operated reluctantly would have been created, and the golden calf would have been viewed as the triumph of the belief in witchcraft over those who believed in G-d and His leadership. Now, that the text seems to suggest Aaron's enthusiastic co-operation, the whole episode can be seen as the creation of a symbol representing the ultimate that human art was capable of. (3+4) In this way, once the impotence of that symbol would become evident to one and all, the illusion that man could fashion a deity would be debunked once and for all. This was Aaron's reasoning when he decided to co-operate. He had no way of knowing that as soon as the calf would emerge, some Jewish lowbrows would commence dancing around it and proclaiming it as their new deity. When that happened, Aaron quickly built an altar for G-d, and tried to allow reason to prevail by postponing the celebration until the morrow, and by dedicating the altar to the Lord. He hoped all the time, of course, that in the interval remaining, G-d would tell Moses to return to the people in order to forestall tragic consequences. Even so, only three thousand people were enthusiastic enough to actually worship this idol before it had demonstrated powers equal or superior to those demonstrated by Moses. (This is why the rest of the nation was not punished by death) We see from all this, that far from precipitating or even participating in the sin, Aaron had used his best efforts to teach the people a lesson of faith in the Lord. This is why, at a later stage, G-d was able to say to Moses "You shall cause your brother Aaron to come close to Me, to be My priest" (Exodus 28, 1) (5) G-d indicated to Moses that if the latter were to pray, He would not then become angry, since the action of a fool acting out of foolishness does not warrant his master's anger. Nonetheless, even fools must repent and confess their errors. Psalms 25,8, and Hoseah 14,2 are some of the sources in scripture for the need to expiate. Sieverity of a sin is measured by three criteria. 1) The manner in which the Torah describes a sin, is a good indication of the view the Torah holds concerning such sin. Expressions such as "abomination, immorality" are used for acts which are especially serious. 2) Any kind of misdemeanour when committed by a person of high rank, becomes more serious, since the sinner's stature should have precluded such conduct on his part. 3) When the disobedience is directed against a supreme lawgiver, it is more serious than disobedience against a man made law. (10) Moses, admits in his confession, that "this nation" had come closer to G-d than any of its predecessors, and should therefore have known better. When he refers to "this great sin," he confesses that due to the people's elevated stature their sin had assumed an added degree of severity. He confesses the heinous nature of the sin when viewed objectively, when he refers to "the golden deity" that this nation had made. While confessing all this, Moses manages to inject powerful arguments about the extenuating circumstances surrounding this crime. Shemot Rabbah 28, clothes Moses’s arguments in the following words: (6) Moses to G-d "Your children have made an assistant for You, and You are angry? Did You not Yourself make the sun shine, and the latter bestows some of its light on the moon? (making it an assistant) Did You not make rain, which in turn promotes the growth of plants etc?" To this G-d replied: "You too are in error, since the golden calf is not capable of doing anything." To this, Moses replied: "in that case why do You get angry over a mere nothing?" Philosophically speaking, Moses presents the golden calf as incapable of offering competition to G-d, and therefore not deserving His concern. Concerning the second criterion for measuring the severity of a sin which we have mentioned, Moses refers to "this people." He refers to their having come out of Egypt. He implies that it is unreasonable to expect high standards of faith from a nation that had just left a country in which it had absorbed a totally wrong way of looking at the world for several hundred years. The Midrash describes it in this way. A father put his son in charge of a perfumery situated in a red light district. Naturally, both the location of the store and the type of customers he dealt with, combined with the son's personal character weakness to corrupt him. When the father finds out and is enraged and threatens to kill his son, the father's friend has to intervene. This friend berates the father, saying: "you have lost him because you have failed to teach him a trade that would bring him into contact with the upper classes of society. Not only that, but you have made him reside amongst harlots. How can you be surprised at the outcome?" Finally, since it was G-d’s declared purpose to use the Jewish people to aggrandize His name, and to make Egypt aware of this, (Exodus 9, 16) what would the Egyptians say when they hear that You have wiped out this nation?" We read in Joshua 7, 10 that G-d told Joshua that Israel's defeat at Ai was due to the nation having sinned, having transgressed the injunction not to appropriate any of the loot of Jericho etc. Actually, only one man, Achan ben Karmi, had committed those acts. (7) When G-d told Moses that the Jewish people had made themselves a cast calf, worshipped it etc, Moses may have thought that this could have been the act of a single individual, and that G-d had referred to the collective responsibility every Jew bears for the actions of another Jew. It had not occurred to Moses that the nation as a whole had been involved in this act.
_.53.1.16
The Midrash teaches that this is the source for the lesson never to condemn anyone until one had seen with one's own eyes. Even when the information originates with the Almighty Himself, this is not enough to condemn without personally investigating the facts. (8) Moses presumably burned the platform that must have been erected for the golden calf, not the calf itself. Chapter 32,20, may be understood in this vein: When Moses had observed the goings on in the camp, had smashed the tablets etc., he took the calf they had made, burned the trappings and ground the golden calf into dust, scattering the dust on the surface of the water, making the people drink from it. This would be in line with Deut. 9,21, "and the sin you had constructed together with the calf, I took and burned it, and I ground it into thin dust." Note that the Torah in our chapter had not stated "he took the calf and burned it," but rather "he took the calf they had made and burned in fire." (9) When asking Aaron "what did the people do to you that you have brought such a great sin upon them?" (Exodus 32,21) What Moses meant was: "what terrible pressures have you been subjected to, that you could even have had a part in this affair?" Aaron's reply was simply "you know the people's conduct when they are evil." The reason Aaron's part in this whole affair is so brief, is not a cover up, on the contrary, since his intention to steer them away from sin had misfired, he could not be given any credit for his intervention. Moses saw that the people's behaviour was totally unrestrained. This was due in part to Aaron's intervention however well meaning it might have been. As a result, non Jews and even some Jews might argue that if even Moses’s own brother had had a share in the sin, how could one blame the people at large for such a sin! It is in this context that we must understand Moses’s apparent accusation against Aaron. So, Moses positioned himself at the gate, and called for volunteers to deal with those who had danced around the calf. If Aaron's own tribe volunteered and killed three thousand of their fellow Jews and no one protested, this could only have been because they knew that Aaron's intentions had been pure, and that his involvement in the unhappy outcome had been due to circumstances he had not foreseen.
_.53.1.17
Shemot Rabbah 42, answers the question from where Moses took the authority to kill Jews found worshipping the calf, by referring us to G-d’s own example on the occasion of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Tower of Bable respectively. In either case, G-d had proceeded to mete out punishment after He had investigated the facts. Similarly, Moses, G-d’s trusted servant, was expected to carry out this task as G-d’s messenger. When the Levites had completed their task, Moses addressed the nation exhorting them to remain loyal to G-d, and thus turn away His wrath. He pointed to the example of their fellow Jews the Levites, who had demonstrated such loyalty by disregarding family ties when the law required that their closest relatives be executed. He explained that all that is needed to qualify for G-d’s blessing, is loyalty. (Exodus 32,29) On the morrow, after the three thousand had died, Moses said to the people that they too had sinned gravely by having demanded proof of G-d’s existence and power. Also, they should have prevented the three thousand from dancing around the calf. Therefore, it was now necessary for Moses to ascend the mountain and plead for forgiveness. Moses uses both understatement and exaggeration in his plea, in order to present a credible defense. By describing the sin as the construction of a golden deity, he exaggerated its importance. By pointing out that it had been removed, and that the guilty had been punished, and that none of those witnessing the punishment had protested the death of the guilty, he prayed that surely the time had come to forgive the remainder of the nation for this episode. G-d’s reply "whosoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe out from My book," is not a direct response to Moses’s request. Moses had spoken about the book "You have written," meaning the Torah, whereas G-d referred to the book of life, a book which G-d retains for His own exclusive use. The people were to be punished by acts of G-d only, since no human witnesses were at hand to testify to their culpable participation in the construction of the golden calf. However, G-d reserved the right to exact such punishment whenever an occasion would arise in the future to punish them for other misdeeds. For the present therefore, G-d says to Moses "lead this people to the place I have said to you." We read in verse 35, "G-d smote the people because they had made the calf that Aaron had made." The repetition of the words "they had made...Aaron had made," indicates that the intentions of the people and the intentions of Aaron had been quite different from one another. Aaron's part in it had been merely incidental, the real culprit having been the people. Nonetheless, Aaron reproaches himself after two of his sons have died, saying "all these things have happened to me," when in fact we had not read of anything else happening to him. 11) Since the progress of the Jewish people from now on was to be under the guidance of an angel, (Exodus 33, 1-3) the people thought that the Divine Presence would no longer be among them. They mourned this news by failing to wear their jewelry. Since they had not actually removed their jewelry from themselves, there was reason for Moses to command them to "remove" it. Apparently, some of the people had put on their jewelry. Why did some people wear their jewelry, whereas others did not? If we follow the tradition that the "jewelry" were the phylacteries of the head, the latter could be viewed as a protective device while worn. When in mourning, wearing such phylacteries is forbidden. The Jews who did not wear their phylacteries considered themselves in mourning, having heard G-d’s decree. Others considered themselves in the category of "outcasts," and as such Jewish halachah requires the continued wearing of phylacteries. The difference between the two groups stemmed from which part of G-d’s stricture they considered as paramount. (33,5) If they considered the reference to them as "a stiffnecked people" as paramount, they would be in mourning. If they considered the words "I will not go up with you" as paramount, they would view themselves as outcasts. When G-d used the words "children of Israel," a term of endearment at one and the same time, this was proof to those who continued to wear their phylacteries that it was the danger to their souls that was the greater source of worry. G-d having rescinded His descision to abandon the Jewish people, they were told not to grieve more than their brethren who had mourned their physical fate and had therefore divested themselves of their phylacteries. The commandment to the last group to remove their phylactries also, is a commandment to downgrade the state of their despair to a level in which they only mourned the physical consequences arising out of the episode of the golden calf. When Moses realised that the people were in a state of banishment, he had to remove his tent from their midst, or he would have forfeited further communication from the shechinah, since the latter would not communicate with him as long as he was amidst the banished.
_.53.1.18
G-d’s instruction to Moses to return to the camp, (obliquely referred to by mentioning that his most trusted disciple Joshua had not departed from the tent) teaches us about the reciprocal relationship between Moses and (lehavdil) G-d. It was the former's task to assuage the latter when He was angry; on the other hand G-d would reciprocate when Moses was angry.
_.54.1.1
This chapter deals with the names G-d is known by,--His attributes.
_.54.1.2
"And Moses said unto the LORD: See, Thou sayest unto me" etc.
_.54.1.3
Shemot Rabbah 45, writes: This is a parable. A cave at the beach of the sea, is filled by the sea at high tide. Once filled, the water exchanged between what is inside the cave and what is in the sea outside, is reciprocal. This is how we must understand the verses "G-d spoke to Moses,..Moses spoke to G-d; or "G-d said to Moses..Moses said to G-d."
_.54.1.4
Some early philosophers in denying G-d’s attributes, insist that G-d knows only Himself, that this is the extent of His awareness. They take this position in order to preserve the uniqueness and unity of G-d, but forget that by doing so, far from according Him greatness, they denigrate Him, since His knowledge would be inferior to the lowliest of His creatures, who perceive things all around them. "Does not even the ox know his owner?" is the cry of Isaiah in chapter one. This proves that knowledge, awareness is considered a positive attribute. Its absence then is undoubtedly a shortcoming. How can one attribute shortcomings to the most perfect Being? Others ascribe to G-d only awareness of things immutable, never changing, as well as general principles. They deny that G-d has knowledge of personal experiences that change from day to day. Concerning such foolishness, David says (Psalms 94,8) "consider, you who are devoid of sense among the people! Fools!, when will you smarten up? Do you not realise that He who implants the ear should be able to hear, that He who shapes the eye is able to see?" We, who believe in the truth of the Torah that Moses has handed down to us, believe, of course, that He is omniscient. We can therefore attribute to G-d all faculties such as patience, kindness etc., without in the least diminishing our image of Him as unique, as "ONE." The four lettered name of G-d testifies to His Oneness; all other names indicate attributes that became noticeable as this universe was created. This is why it says in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3, "until He created the universe, He and His name existed alone." Details of this concept have been explained in chapter twenty one. Therefore, one must be careful. Remember the words of Isaiah 40,25, "To whom can you compare Me, to whom can I be compared, says the Holy One?" This has G-d saying "How can My specific uniqueness serve as basis for comparison to things which are not unique! The word "tedamyuni"refers to the quality of My existence, whereas the word "ve-eshveh" refers to the quantity of My existence. Since I do not conform to either, how can you compare Me to anything or anyone? Whenever our sages employ attributes used in our language, they do not thereby mean to compare G-d to something or someone whom we know, but they use such attributes to prevent misunderstandings. When G-d is described as "first," the meaning is not that He is first relative to somebody who is "second" or "third," but it is a statement that says NO ONE preceded Him. When we talk about His existence, we are not trying to define this in our terms, but we merely state that He is not missing or absent. This is the meaning of the verse in Exodus 33,23, "when I remove My hand, you will see My rear, but My face will not be visible." "Face" is an expression signifying something that is visible. "Rear" is an expression signifying the negative, the opposite of face. In gaining knowledge about ME, you will know what I AM NOT. As long as man is part of an earthly shell, i.e. alive, all knowledge about the essence of G-d is restricted to such negative definitions. Our perception increases through a process of elimination. By means of a continuous process of elimination, one can establish a semblance of the nature of what one wants to define.
_.54.1.5
This is what the Midrash about the cave had in mind. The cave had been empty to start with, until the sea filled it with water. After that, the onlooker gets the impression that the cave helps fill the sea with water; what the onlooker does not know is that this water is only returning to the sea which had supplied it originally. Human beings start out devoid of all knowledge, until G-d supplies them with brainpower. Ever since, it appears as if their brainpower contributes to the source of their brainpower. First "I filled him with the spirit of the Lord." (Exodus 31,3) This is parallel to the Midrash, i.e. G-d filled the cave. After that, man used the same terms when describing G-d, when describing the "sea," making it appear as if those terms could be applied with equal meaning to G-d Himself. Whatever attributes G-d equips man with, must of necessity be possessed by Him. So Moses in our Parshah uses a powerful argument. "We know You cannot be understood by man in Your essence. But You Yourself have made an exception to this rule when You said to me "I have known you by name," i.e. I gave you access to know My essence." (The word "name" refers to G-d Himself, not to the name of Moses) "You have also added, "you have found favour in My eyes." If You were able to make an exception to Your rule at that time, why not enable me to gain the insight I desire about Your mode of operation?" Let me become a partner to You the Creator, as is implied by the constant exchange of water from the cave to the sea and vice versa!
_.54.1.6
Shemot Rabbah 80, asks "whence did Moses get the "rays of glory" that illuminated his face and emitted rays? The Rabbis answer that he got them from the "cave," since it states "when you are in the hollow of the rock, when My glory passes by, I will place you there." (Exodus 33,22-23) Rabbi Berechiyah said that the tablets were six tefachim long and wide. G-d supported two, (tefachim=handsbreadths) Moses supported two, whereas the other two were in the center. This is the origin of the "rays of glory." Rabbi Yehudah bar Nachmayni says "G-d wrote with a pen, and a little of the ink that was left over touched Moses’s face, and that is where "the rays of glory" came from and this is why the Torah says "he did not know that his face emitted rays of light." (34,35)
_.54.1.7
The first explananation obviously refers to our parable of the cave and the sea. Moses became filled with the sea of wisdom. Combined with Moses’s own accomplishments, he emerges as a partner of the Lord. The second explanation reveals another aspect of the man/G-d partnership. It deals with the nature of the second set of tablets. Their composition consisted of three components, (a) the natural element, granite. (b) they acquired a finished appearance by means of work, polishing. (c) the Divine element, i.e. the inscription, as the Torah states "and the writing was the writing by the Lord." Each of the above items can be further subdivided into two, making the tablets have six facets. This is what the sages hinted at when they described the tablets as having the dimension of six tefachim. The word tefach is used in Isaiah 48, 13, as describing G-d’s workmanship. So we have the following: 1- A, a piece of granite, primeval matter. B, this primeval matter was condensed into a certain density. 2- A, the finished appearance, preceded by the tools needed to treat that raw material. B, correct size and shape. 3- A, writing material. B, the message, text. Moses, exclusively, provided the shaping of the tablets and the tools for the work. G-d, exclusively, contributed the writing material and the text. There remained therefore two tefachim that allowed for partnership. Those two tefachim became subject to combined influences. When Moses perceived the nature of the partnership with G-d, implied by the fact that both tablets had equal dimensions, he became happy, his face radiated his happiness that such is the nature of the partnership with the Creator. This is the meaning of the verse "and Moses went up to G-d," (Exodus 19,3) or the parallel statement in Psalms 68,19, "you went up to the heights." The author continues with an attack on Maimonides who restricts philosophic disagreements with Aristotele to the area of creation ex nihilo. Finally, the third view expressed in the Midrash, that of Rabbi Yehudah who ascribes the rays that emanated from Moses’s forehead as due to ink spilled inadvertently when G-d wrote on the tablets. This means that the leftover of the great mass of sea i.e. "ink" that entered the cave and receded, was to teach that once watered by G-d, irrigated so to speak, such inspiration does not evaporate but is reflected in the appearance of the recipient. All three Rabbis then comment on the interrelationship between man and G-d, and how same is illustrated by the rays of Divinity illuminating the face of Moses on his return from his summit meeting with G-d on Mount Sinai. The author questions the view of Maimonides that would have Moses pose two separate questions, and which if answered positively would have made a kind of deity out of Moses. He prefers to treat what appears as Moses’s two questions ( 33, 13 and 33, 18) as parts of a single question, meaning "let me know Your ways so that I will know more about You."
_.54.1.8
Some problems in the text our Parshah. 1) When Moses asks G-d "You have not let me know whom You are sending with me," G-d had said "Behold I send my angel before you," and explained details about that angel's function. Did Moses think that sinners should be rewarded? Besides, why the constant repetition of the word "YOU" in Moses’s questions? When one addresses someone in whose presence one stands, one does not need to employ this pronoun all the time! 2) Moses’s question "please let me know" in verse 13, seems unrelated to G-d’s answer "My Presence will go." (verse 14) Why did Moses continue "If YOU personally will not go,... etc," when G-d had already said "My Presence will go?" 3) Why did Moses continue after all this with "please show me Your glory?" (verse 18) 4) First, G-d had said "I will let all My goodness pass before you;" afterwards He said "you cannot see My face." Had Moses wanted to see what is not subject to being seen? 5) Why does G-d have to hide Moses in the cleft of the rock? Who was liable to attack him? 6) Why did Moses have to chisel out the tablets himself, not like the first time; why was no one allowed to accompany him to the mountain? 7) Concerning the thirteen attributes of G-d, if we count till the word nakkeh, it is against the plain meaning of the words; from the tone signs it seems as if this list should end with the words "venakkeh lo yenakkeh," similar to Jeremiah 46,28, "venakkeh lo anakkeh." If so, then lo yenakkeh is really attribute number fourteen, and upokeyd avot is number fifteen. If these expressions do not constitute G-d’s attributes, why mention them in that connection at all? Why would they be mentioned in Numbers 14, 18, in connection with the spies? 8) Why does Moses suddenly switch to using the word adon when referring to G-d? 9) What are the nifla-ot, miracles, that G-d refers to as something He would perform with Moses? (34, 10) 10) Why are all the commandments mentioned in the paragraph beginning with verse 11, repeated here? They have all been mentioned on previous occasions. 11) Why did Moses’s face shine when he brought the second set of tablets, whereas nothing of the kind is mentioned when he had received the first set? 12) It seems Moses wore the veil only when he was alone, not when he talked to G-d or when he talked to the people. Since they were afraid to approach him, why did he not wear the veil when he talked to them?
_.54.1.9
Some general rules about the workings of hashgachah.
_.54.1.10
A) Even though laws of nature have been appointed to govern the fates of the seventy nations of the world, this does not imply that G-d has totally relinquished control. Evidence is G-d’s direct interference at the time of the deluge, the tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom etc. In each of these events the Torah uses the term "seeing," an attribute of G-d which invariably precedes G-d’s effort to bring about a correction in His universe.
_.54.1.11
B) Concerning Israel, G-d does not wait until major problems require His personal intervention, but He displays constant concern and supervision. "May the Lord lift His countenance to you," or "I will turn towards you." We are informed of situations when G-d deliberately failed to intervene on our behalf. "I will turn My face away from them."
_.54.1.12
C) There is a special hashgachah for Tzaddikim to whom G-d relates as if they were part of His own Self. Whenever G-d’s personal intervention is mentioned, this suggests that it was occasioned through the merit of our forefathers. Redemption is due to the good deeds of our ancestors. For instance, when G-d talks about redeeming Israel from Egypt, keeping His promise to Abraham the tzaddik, He says "I shall pass through Egypt," which our sages interpret to mean that G-d personally, will do this, not by means of an angel, and emissary. (Exodus 12, 12) Or, "I shall make it rain bread from heaven." (due to the merit of Moses) There are numerous other examples of this. To sum up, hashgachah exists everywhere, but its specific manifestation varies according to the merit of the individual or people concerned. A similar thought is expressed in Psalm 33. a) "G-d frustrates the counsel of nations." b) "Hail to the nation which counts the Lord as its G-d." c) "Express jubilation to G-d, O righteous people." In the first instance hashgachah manifests itself negatively, preventing harm from befalling G-d’s people, preserving G-d’s master plan from being interfered with. Even when G-d exercises His personal hashgachah over the nations of the world, the objective is the preservation of His people." To save the life of His servants from death." (Psalms 33, 1) The four kings of Sodom that were saved, were saved for the sake of Lot, even though they themselves had long been guilty of death. Pharaoh was saved for the sake of Sarah. Clearly, whenever we have evidence of G-d’s personal interference in history, it is for the sake of the Jewish people or in order to save individual deserving Jews.
_.54.1.13
(1) Moses argues, that after confession of the sin and an advocate such as himself of whom G-d had said "I have known you by name," no further lack of grace should exist. Nevertheless, You have said "I will send an angel before you," i.e. not like the angel mentioned in Parshat Mishpatim. When talking about the function of this angel, no mention was made by You, that he would be like the angel that accompanied us up to now. Of the previous angel, the Torah had said "and the Lord was walking ahead of them by day and by night in a pillar of cloud...and during the night in a column of fire." (Exodus 13,21) (2) Now however, Moses argues "You state for I will not go up in your midst." (33,3) All this points to the fact that You are still angry, and that You are entrusting the supervision of my people to someone who is equivalent to those who supervise the fate of all other nations. Therefore, Moses asks "let me know Your ways, so that I will know You and be able to find favour in Your eyes, and this will demonstrate that this people is really YOUR people." G-d responds "My face, i.e. My personal hashgachah will lead you." Moses continues that G-d should not think that he was unaware that without "YOUR Presence we cannot even progress one step on the way," but I wanted You to assure me that by teaching me Your ways we qualify for the superior type of hashgachah reserved for the tzaddikim. How else would I know that not only I, personally, but also Your people have found favour in Your eyes? This could only be by means of veniflinu ani ve-amcha that both I and Your people will be granted miraculous distinctions! (3) G-d responded by saying that He would perform miracles in the presence of both Moses and His people, the like of which had never been performed. (34, 10) This would prove that all the Jewish people are under the protection of the third and most exclusive type of hashgachah peratit the most personalised supervision by G-d. This is also the meaning of "I will be gracious to whomever I choose to be gracious to;" (33, 19) it will be an act of grace, not entitlement or automatic response by Me. Since G-d had explained His response to the needs of the people already twice, Moses asks for a personal favour, an act of grace for himself, when he says "please show ME Your glory." He wanted to be shown this at once, not to have to wait until some future national crisis would trigger the need for that kind of revelation of G-d’s Majesty. The word na, is frequently used as prefacing a request for immediate fulfilment. Examples are Numbers 12, 13, "heal her now!," or Exodus 11,2, "speak now!" (4) G-d responds by saying "I will let all My goodness pass before you." You will then understand the relationship of all the things that exist, and how they are all traced back to Me, the original Cause of all existence and all happenings. I will proclaim the four lettered name before you" i.e. I will use the four lettered name of which I once said to you "this is My name and this is My memorial." (Exodus 3, 15) "I will reveal the significance of this name so that you will know that whosoever knows it and calls upon it, I will respond to such a person by performing miracles in this (otherwise) orderly world. In this manner I will demonstrate that I will bestow grace on those I decide to grant grace to." When G-d says "you cannot see My face," this is not to be construed as a denial of Moses’s request, but as a teaching and an instruction. The ultimate wisdom of the sage is to know what element of theology needs to remain beyond his understanding. This is the difference between a chacham, a wise man and someone who is still wiser than a chacham. The latter can add to his knowledge of "causes" without getting to know the essence. This is why G-d tells Moses that the highest level of his perception is to know that one cannot see "MY FACE," i.e. understand "My" attributes in a manner that would form a composite picture of "My" essence. As long as a human being is alive, i.e. ha-adam vechay, such perceptions are not possible. The nature of your life, Moses is told is the combination of matter and spirit. This precludes the comprehension of the essence of the pure spirit. Once you are no longer part of an earthly shell, part of a primitive form of life, you would be able to realise some of My positive attributes. Berachot 17, phrases it "In the world of the future, the righteous will sit with their crowns on their heads, and enjoy the outpourings of the Divine Presence." Put another way: as long as man has a normal intellect, cognition of My essence is beyond him, as we find in Numbers 21, 9, "when he would look at the copper snake he would live." When looking at the copper snake, some people were under the illusion that they had seen G-d. A blind man who has never seen light, sometimes imagines himself as competetnt to define light because he is not satisfied with his state of blindness and longs to advance beyond that stage. This may be what the prophet Isaiah 6,5, refers to when he said "woe unto me: I thought I was a person of unclean lips, dwelling amongst a people that are impure, for I have seen the Lord of hosts with my eyes." What is described here is a reference to this vision of the Divine entourage, merkavah which the prophet had experienced, in which he saw the throne of G-d. As Maimonides comments, the power of the prophet is that he can make relevant comparisons between the form and the Creator, between exterior form and inner content. (5) "He said, here there is a place near Me, stand there on the rock etc." Afterwards G-d said "you cannot see." G-d now explains how these matters relate to one another. "I can elevate you to a place from which you can look down on earth, then when My majesty passes, you will stand in this highest place that it is possible for man to achieve, and I will cover you with My hand." This will act as a lid to protect you from that part of Me that is not given to mortal man to understand. But afterwards, "I will remove My hand, and you will see My rear, "meaning the negative aspects of Me. This is the most any human can do. (33,22-23) In chapter 60 of his "Moreh," Maimonides explains this in the famous parable with the ship. The nikrat hatzur, is understood as the summit of the rock. Moses’s vantage point will be above the earth, so to speak. Since things created by G-d directly have no lasting existence, i.e. are by (6) their very nature created only for the brief moment they are needed, such as the manna in the desert, and since the second set of tablets needed to endure, they had to be constructed by human hands. As long as G-d contributed only the writing, the continued existence of these tablets was assured. The reason no one was to accompany Moses to the mountain was, that since the first time the objective had been to let the people hear "so that the people will hear when I speak with you," Aaron and the elders were to accompany Moses part of the way. The fact that Moses would be addressed directly by G-d had been demonstrated already, there was therefore no need for Aaron or elders to accompany Moses again. Animals also were not allowed on the mountain, to underline the sanctity of the site. After this, the Torah says "Moses rose early and ascended the mountain," conclusive proof of Rashi's opinion that conversation between G-d and people up to that time had taken place within his tent. Now Moses took with him the tablets which had as yet not been inscribed. G-d descended on the mountain, that is to the place previously defined as "there is this place with Me." Moses stood on the rock. "He proclaimed in the name of G-d," i.e. G-d now proceeded to instruct him in the thirteen attributes." G-d passed in front of him." This is the fulfilment of "I will let all My goodness pass before you." Normally, Moses would have experienced a transient revelation to be immediately forgotten, dreamlike; however, because G-d had added the words "I will remove My hand," He granted Moses a much longer lasting impression of the revelation that was to follow. Had G-d only stated "I will cover you with My hand," this would not have been the case. The whole revelation would be an indirect (negative) revelation, not a direct (positive) one, as would have been the case had there been a vision of G-d’s "face." At any rate, the comment "I will grant grace to whomsoever I shall decide to grant grace to," is the reference to the instruction in the thirteen attributes as outlined in the Talmud Rosh Hashanah 17. Rabbi Yonathan comments there that if it had not been for that verse, I would not have been permitted to explain it in that vein. G-d instructed Moses how to pray, wore a tallit and showed Moses that whenever Israel sinned, he should likewise drape himself in such a prayer shawl and G-d would be willing to forgive Israel. Rabbi Yehudah says that G-d made a contract with Moses that he would not return empty handed from any entreaty incorporating mention of G-d’s thirteen attributes. This is the meaning of "Here I conclude a covenant in the presence of the people." (34, 10)
_.54.1.14
The author now proceeds to explain the thirteen attributes in the traditional way, including their use by G-d with the earlier generations, i.e. ever since Abraham until the time of the exile in Egypt, since Egypt up to that point, and their use in the future. The first use of the four lettered name expresses the essence of G-d as the Creator, the only existence prior to and subsequent to the existence of the universe. From this, the Rabbis in Berachot 60, deduce that this name is the source of mercy since He is the father of all creatures, and we ask Him to "have mercy such as a father has on his children." Psalms 103, 13, mentions that G-d "exercises mercy on all those who revere Him." It was this attribute of G-d that Abraham proclaimed in his time to his contemporaries. Whenever we read in the Torah "He proclaimed in the name of the Lord," (using the four lettered name) this is the message that Abraham conveyed to his listeners. It was this attribute that G-d used in His dealings with Abraham, except on the occasion of the akeydah, when He commanded him to offer up his son. On that occasion, G-d employed the attribute of elokim. The second time the four lettered name is used in the thirteen attributes, it reflects the ongoing supervision of history as well as individual fates that G-d employs. Also, the fact that He relates to His creatures either with pleasure or displeasure, according to their deeds. This is why we find on occasion a combination of the four lettered name with the name elokim .(Deut. 3,24) By using the four lettered name, He excercises mercy on the sinner when the latter repents. Since no man is totally free from sin, our sages in Rosh Hashanah 17, express this in the words "I, the four lettered attribute, am the same before the sin as I am after man sinned and repented." In the words of David, "G-d has mercy on those who revere Him, since He knows our urges, our inner psyche." (Psalms 103, 13) The message then is that although man has sinned, G-d does not necessarily change His attitude to such a person. This is also the meaning of Samuel II 12, 13 "G-d has removed your sin from you." G-d employed this attribute with Isaac when the latter was lying bound on the altar. In the blessing that Isaac bestowed on Jacob, he used both attributes, to teach his sons that G-d employs both attributes in His dealings with man. The third attribute "keyl,” is an attribute denoting strength, such as when we read about eyle ha-aretz, (Kings II 24, 15); it also represents a form of the attribute of mercy, as we read "the Lord your G-d is an eyl of mercy." The same meaning is used in Psalms 22,2, "my eyl my eyl, why have You forsaken me?" This term is employed when G-d needs to employ the attribute of mercy in order to suppress the attribute of justice that seems to be called for. It would be used either to assist those who have not sinned, or those who have sinned and repented. This was the attribute G-d used with Jacob on a regular basis. G-d also used it when He blessed Jacob. (Genesis 31, 13) "I am the eyl of Beyt El, or (Genesis 33,20) "He called Him the keyl, Lord of Israel." The fourth attribute, that of rachum, merciful, is used when a person or group of people have expressed incomplete repentance. This attribute was employed in Egypt, when the Jews had not completely repented their former way of life. When David describes G-d as having extended this kind of mercy to the Jewish people who had erred so frequently, this was also before they had repented fully. (Psalms 106,46) When G-d responded to the first outcry of the Jewish people in Egypt, and the Torah states "G-d knew," that refers to the loving kindness implied in mercy. (Targum Exodus 2,25) We find that meaning of "He knew" also, in Ruth 2, 1, and other places. The fifth attribute, chanun, gracious, is used by G-d on people who have nothing to commend them. Our sages say that G-d showed Moses three treasures. Moses asked "why do You need three treasures?" G-d replied "one is for those who study Torah and perform the commandments. The second is for those who perform deeds of loving kindness. The third is for those who perform neither the one nor the other, to whom however, I wish to give an undeserved gift." This is the meaning of "I shall be gracious to whomsoever I shall be gracious to." (Midrash Rabbah Song of Songs 45) The Midrash in Parshat Va-etchanan says that "righteous people, though they may possess all kinds of merits, ask G-d for free gifts." This attribute was employed by G-d when the Jews were promised great wealth upon leaving Egypt. G-d had said "I will give the grace of these people in the eyes of Egypt." (Exodus 3, 21) Again, in chapter 12, 36, we read "and G-d had given the grace of the people in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they lent to them." In the Haggadah of Passover, in the paragraph known as dayeynu, we thank G-d for all the favours He had performed for us, seeing that they were totally undeserved. The sixth attribute is erech apayim, long delayed anger, and refers to G-d’s relationship with unrepentant sinners suffering from heavy burdens of sins. If G-d were to treat them according to the principle of justice, their punishment would result in their utter destruction. G-d therefore exacts the punishment only a little at a time, even when He does employ a measure of the attribute of justice. He hopes that in this way, such sinners may eventually repent the sins they have committed. The reason the word apayim appears in the plural, is that it may refer both to tzaddikim and wicked people. (Baba Kama 50) Both have errors to account for. Or, it may refer to both reward and punishment, the former sometimes being parcelled out sparingly, so that it may be saved up for the world to come. This attribute was employed in dealing with Pharaoh as well as with Israel, whenever either acted rebelliously in Egypt, at the sea, or in the desert. An expression of G-d using this attribute can be found in His exclamation "how long will this nation refuse to obey My commandments!" ((Exodus 16, 28) The seventh attribute is rav chessed, favouring kind deeds, allowing them to be weighty. This concerns the treatment of people whose merits and demerits are in balance, and who require a tipping of the scales in their favour. This can be accomplished by weighing down the merits which would raise the demerit side, or vice versa. (Rosh Hashanah 17) The logic is discussed in Midrash shocher tov on Psalms 62. Rabbi Nehoray is quoted as saying that since wickedness is sterile by definition, does not produce growth by itself, whereas goodness is dynamic, productive by definition, the latter when in balance with the former, will eventually outweigh the former. The eighth attribute, emet, truth ,refers to the truthfulness and reliability of fulfilling promises made. We read in Chabakuk 2,3, "if He tarries, wait for HIM, He will surely come, He will not be late." The Talmud Berachot 7, states that a promise of something good, even if given conditionally has never been withdrawn, as we know from Moses. One must realise, however, that this is based on the assumption that the recipient of such a promise has not meanwhile forfeited it through a change in his own behaviour. Proof can be found in Jeremiah 19. See also the discussion on this in chapter thirteen of this volume. G-d employed this attribute at the time the Torah was given to Israel, making good promises He had given to the ancestors and Moses. The ninth attribute is "He preserves His kindness to thousands of generations." Just as the children of the wealthy, if not enterprising themselves, would starve or die were it not for their parental inheritance, so man, if devoid of the accumulated merits of his forefathers, would not have any spiritual capital to draw on, and would quickly forfeit his claim to continued existence. David expresses this thought in Psalms 17, 14 "they will have lots of children and leave their abundance to their offspring." This attribute needed to be employed during the episode of the golden calf, when the attribute of "slow to anger" did not suffice, and Moses proceeded to invoke the merits of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Immediately he had done so, we read "G-d reconsidered." This is beautifully illustrated in Shemot Rabbah 44. "Moses asked G-d for permission to speak, which permission was granted. He said that if the Jewish people had violated the first half of YOUR commandment, will YOU violate the second half also?" Moses referred to the "you must not have any other deities," which had been violated by the Jewish people. He asked G-d "will You now violate Your commandment of "doing kindness for thousands of generations" (in the same commandment)? The tenth, eleventh and twelfth attributes "nosseh avon, va- fesha, ve-chata-ah," i.e. commuting various types of sins to levels that deserve less severe punishment, is usually understood as follows. avon is the sin committed deliberately, pesha is the sin that is committed to show one's rebellion against G-d’s legislation, whereas chata-ah is a sin committed unintentionally. During the episode of the golden calf, all three kinds of sin were committed. At any rate, G-d did not employ these attributes to forgive, merely to delay the punishment due for those sins, i.e. nosse, "carries." The punishment was meted out at another place at another time. It is important therefore to recite these sins in the proper order at the time one confesses them, i.e. vidduy. Accordingly, the plain meaning is that G-d tolerates not only deliberate sins, but even sins representing rebellion against Him. Naturally, He tolerates unintentional sin. The Midrash says that if repentance is forthcoming, the first two categories will be considered as if they had been like the third category, i.e. inadvertent. In other words, He raises them to the level of mere chet. This is the translation of Yonatan ben Uzziel in Chabakuk on the word al shigegotay, for my unintentional sins. However, in the Shulchan Aruch (Tur Or Hachayim 621), the ruling is that the confession is to be recited in the reverse order, commencing with the chet, the most minor category of sin, and to proceed progressively to the most major, the most serious. Each group of sin requires an additional attribute to save the sinner from the total consequences of each misdemeanour. Moses employed these attributes after the sin of the spies, when he said "as You have elevated the sins of the people ever since they came out of Egypt until now." (Numbers 14, 19) (7) The thirteenth attribute, venakkeh lo yenakkeh, He will consider innocent and yet not consider innocent. In our prayers, we separate the expression by a comma. There are serious doubts if that is the correct interpretation, however. We feel that there should not be a comma, that the whole expression is a single attribute, which is used in conjunction with any of the attributes ten, eleven or twelve. It means that G-d tolerates certain sins from time to time, without granting total forgiveness, since true pardon cannot take place without simultaneous repentance. Baba Kama 50, states that he who claims that G-d overlooks things, (ignores a sin completely) will cause his own life to be ignored. Psalms 25,8,states that "G-d is good and straightforward," meaning that He teaches the ways of repentance to sinners even after they have sinned. The explanation of how one can reconcile the apparent contradiction in "He visits the sins of the parents on the children," with the fact that G-d then not only punishes the perpetrators of the sins but also succeeding generations, lies in the delayed nature of the punishment. G-d waits until the fourth generation for actions that would give Him a reason to diminish the original punishment due the one who had perpetrated the sin. Therefore, this attribute is also one of mercy. This is why Moses mentions it at the time of the crisis with the spies. He asks: "are You going to kill this whole nation simultaneously, at once?" He continues "and now, let the power of G-d be great," (Numbers 14, 17) invoking this attribute revealed to him at Mount Sinai. Accordingly, we find G-d responding "I have forgiven according to your words." This means that by the time the land of Israel will have been entered, the punishment will have been exacted. The children suffered part of the punishment, having to wander in the desert for forty years. As the Torah states "and they will have to bear your harlotry." (Numbers 14,33) This means that the children will have to suffer the infidelity of the parents' generation. Concerning the question if the attribute of "visiting the sins on the children" is a "good" attribute or a "negative" attribute, there is a dispute between Nachmanides and Ibn Ezra. The author tends to agree with the view of the Tosephta in Sotah chapter 4, seeing that it is being contrasted with the attribute of extending the reward for up to two thousand generations. If one considers this a "good" attribute, then it is number thirteen, and the nakkeh ve-lo yenakkeh prior to it, must be understood merely as an adjective applicable to attributes ten, eleven and twelve, respectively. This cocludes the thirteen attributes which reveal the manner in which G-d relates to man in His dealings with him. At the time of this revelation, the "who elevates sins to a lesser level" had to be invoked to insure survival of the people after the golden calf. (8) Why then did Moses suddenly switch to the name of Adon, when he said to G-d "if I have found favour in Your eyes my Master, (adonay ) please walk in our midst" This is a name for G-d not mentioned in this whole Parshah! The sages of the Kabbalah teach us that this is the name which is the gateway to G-d, as we read in the shirat hayam the Jewish people offered as thanksgiving after having crossed the sea and seeing that the Egyptians had been drowned. "The temple of my Master, (adonay ) Your hands have firmly established." (Exodus 15, 17) The portal to the presence of G-d, the shechinah on earth, is via this appellation of G-d. This is why we preface the central prayer, the amidah with the words "my Master, please open my lips!" All supplicants enter via this name, this description of G-d. Sometimes the euphemism kol, all, is employed to describe G-d. This is to indicate that all is to be found within Him, that nothing is lacking. When Moses was told about the angel that would guide Israel towards the holy land in Parshat Mishpatim, the Torah says of that angel "for My name is within him," and the reference is to that name adon, the name by which he is nearest to us, easiest to be reached by the worshipper. So, when Moses prayed concerning his own personal plea to be allowed to enter the holy land in Parshat Va-etchanan, he also uses that name. "My Master, O Lord, You have begun to show Your servant ..." (Deut. 3,24.) Daniel in chapter nine, also uses that name on several occasions. It would appear that by using that appellation, forgiveness can be obtained, as proven from the quote in Daniel and also Psalms 86,3, and 15. After this new found knowledge, Moses asks G-d for His personal Providence, using the proper channels that had been revealed to him. He underlines the fact that the Jewish people are "a stiffnecked people," saying that because of this nosse avon, elevating their sin to a less serious level is not enough, that they require a complete pardon. An indication that Moses refers to this pardon is found in the request "forgive our sins, (of rebellion) our intentional sins, and let us take possession of Your inheritance." (34,9) The emphasis on this inheritance implies total and unconditional survival while in possession of the original promise of the land of Canaan. It was at this point that Moses had realised that the original angel was G-d Himself, in His function as elokim, attribute of justice. He realised that when G-d had said in Mishpatim 23,21, "be careful of this angel, listen to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not elevate your sins to a lesser degree of seriousness for My name is within him," that G-d had meant to tell him to be careful not to upset this method of Personal guidance by G-d, the attribute of not only elevating sin but the capacity to grant forgiveness. For this reason, during the episode of the sin of the spies, Moses said "let the power of the four lettered name be great," meaning "restore that kind of hashgachah to us!" If Moses says at the same time "and elevate the sin of this nation as You have done thus far," when he appears to refer only to G-d’s "weaker" attribute, he has in mind only the older generation of the Jewish people. For the younger generation he pleads for total forgiveness. G-d responds therefore by saying "I have forgiven, in accordance with your own words (request)." Moses’s further request, namely that G-d go with them, was because he wanted visible evidence that G-d had indeed forgiven them. This would be demonstrated by "Your walking with us." (33, 16) We find something similar when Abraham prayed for Sodom. When G-d responds that if fifty righteous people are found, He would save the town, the term "I will elevate" is used to describe suspension of judgment. G-d Himself appears as the four lettered name. He had not said "I will not do anything, but ve-nassati. When Abraham presses further, in the case of the forty five people, he omits reference to "will You not at least elevate," but simply asks "are You going to destroy?" At that point, G-d reassures Abraham without qualification "I will not do it." It is significant that Abraham had switched to the use of the adnut term for addressing G-d. In other words, Abraham wanted forgiveness not mere suspension of the penalty. G-d responded positively. When finally, at the end of the conversation, G-d departs from Abraham, the Torah describes the departure as the departure of the four lettered name, i.e. the attribute of mercy departing. This means that under the prevailing condition, the weaker attribute of mercy could no longer fulfil any function. Exodus Rabbah 32, quotes G-d as having said when He announced the appointment of the angel in Parshat Mishpatim "He who looked after the fathers, is now looking after the children." Similarly, Abraham had reassured Eliezer on his mission to Padan Aarm, that the G-d who had looked after him would also look out for Eliezer. (Genesis 24, 7) Further examples are quoted to show that all the authors of the various Midrashim are agreed in their understanding of the function of the angel mentioned in Parshat Mishpatim. (9) The "covenant" mentioned in 34, 10 was, that an appeal to the thirteen attributes of G-d now revealed to Moses would not remain unanswered. "I will perform miracles," as you Moses have asked. The Talmud Berachot 7, states that this implies that other nations will not have prophets to assist them. There are also many hints in this verse that future miracles that would be performed by men such as Joshua, who could arrest the orbits of the sun and the moon, would have the origin of their power in this authority granted Moses as a result of his prayer. See details in chapter thirteen. (10) Just as the name anee, I is used sometimes as a euphemism, kinnuy for "G-d," so G-d reassures Moses here that the same personal supervision that the Jewish people enjoyed prior to the sin of the golden calf, (the angel of Mishpatim) will be active in accomplishing the expulsion of the seven tribes residing in the land of Canaan. To make sure that this point is understood, we have a review here of the same duties that had already been spelled out in Parshat Mishpatim when we first encounter the angel. This is also why the paragraph ends with the injunction "do not make a cast image, a deity," as if to say "what is done is done, the episode has come to an end." The additional legislation of the peter rechem, the laws about the first born, relates to the new situation created after the firstborn had failed in their normal duties at the sin of the golden calf. The redemption of such firstborn is now required in lieu of their appearance in front of G-d performing their duties. (Zevachim 115) (11) We are told by this legislation that although the situation had returned to normal, they were not exactly as they had been, when after the sacrificial rites had been performed, the atzilim could have visions of G-d, or at least His entourage. Now they no longer possessed the power to behold even the rays of light emanating from the face of Moses. Numbers Rabbah 11, illustrates this point. "Behold the power of sin! As long as Israel had not sinned, the shechinah, though described as being "like a consuming fire," did not bother or frighten the people. As soon as they had committed the sin of the golden calf however, they were frightened even of Moses’s appearance. The "rays of glory" are the wisdom. This is true in even greater measure of a person who has communicated with G-d in a "face to face" manner. Solomon says already in Kohelet 8, 1, "a person's wisdom lights up his face." The Talmud Baba Batra 75, describes the face of Moses as resembling the face of the sun.
_.54.1.15
As mentioned in the introduction in the statement of Rabbi Berechyah, Moses took these rays of glory to show that he had become G-d’s partner, as indicated by the dimensions of the tablets. (12) Possibly, when he had come down with the first set of tablets, the people were even more terrified of him. However, circumstances at that time made any comment about that fact irrelevant. Supporting evidence for such a thought can be found in Moses’s own words when he describes the first descent. (Deut.9, 15) "I turned around and descended from the mountain, the mountain being burning fire, and the two tablets of the covenant in my two hands." This means that the rays of glory at that time were like "consuming fire." When Moses saw the sin, the fire went out as the letters on the tables "flew away," and he smashed the tablets. Do not think that the purpose of the veil was to enable the Jewish people to approach him, since in that event, Moses should have worn the veil when speaking with them, removing it when he finished speaking. We see that he did exactly the reverse. The matter of the veil seems to have worked as follows. When G-d would address Moses, he removed the veil to increase his receptiveness to the Divine message. When Moses spoke to the people, he removed the veil to impress the people even more with the fact that his message was Divine. Only on the infrequent occasions when Moses neither communicated with the people nor G-d with him, did he actually wear the veil. A careful analysis of the verses describing all this, will confirm this interpretation. The veil, in other words, indicated when Moses was preoccupied with the mundane tasks of life.
_.55.1.2
Parashat VaYakhel
_.55.1.3
"Observe My Sabbath days and revere My sanctuary!" (Leviticus 19,30)
_.55.1.4
"These are the words which the LORD hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall work be done" etc.
_.55.1.5
Exodus Rabbah 50, writes "G-d said to Israel: you have made for Me a tabernacle of goats' curtains, so I will protect you in the future, as it says in Isaiah 4,5, "and the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion and upon the assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and a shining flame of fire by night, for on all the glory shall be a Divine cover. Indeed, over all the glory shall hang a canopy which will serve as a pavilion for shade from heat by day and as a shelter for protection from drenching rain." The Midrash continues in this vein, promising the Jewish people rewards corresponding to the holy ark, the menorah etc.
_.55.1.6
Since man has not been created to sit idle, with his hands folded in his lap, it is fitting that his activities should be commensurate with the lofty status he occupies in this universe. The philosopher Aristotele illustrates this premise by two examples. In the first example he describes the relationship of superior beings to their inferiors. In the second example he describes the relationship of the whole to its constituent parts. If an artisan ruins his reputation by failing to live up to what is expected of a man of his calling, how much more does man forfeit his claim to superior status in this universe if he fails to employ the talents with which he has been endowed? Every part of the human body is designed and exists for the performance of some distinct function. Failure or inability to perform this function, robs that part of the claim to be what it is commonly called. A blind man's eye can hardly be termed "eye," since the ability to see, to have vision, is part of the definition "eye." Once devoid of its function, such parts retain their names only in the sense that they have been supplied to their respective owners. When "eye, ear, legs" are described in Psalm 115 as being parts of the idols, the Psalmist goes on to say "may those that would use them be just as these parts are themselves." This means that since the individual parts of the idols, i.e. eyes, mouth, legs etc. cannot perform the functions they were meant to perform, neither will the idol perform its function to be a deity, a protective power for those who worship it. "KOL asher boteach bahem," the whole in which one places one's faith. The whole relies on its parts to each fulfil its function; only then can the whole be conceived of, as living up to its title. If individual parts of the idol lack power and do not demonstrate such power, the idol as a whole is powerless, a sham. When man's individual parts fail to perform the various functions assigned to them, the term "man" can no longer be applied to its owners except in the sense of the lowest common denominator. This is why David says "KOL asher boteach" with the vowel cholam on the letter kaf rather than with the vowel kamatz under the letter kaf. When Solomon in Proverbs 21,25, states "the greed or lust of the lazy person will cause his death, since his hands refuse to do what he is supposed to do," he refers to the same idea. Man's inclination to inactivity leads him to be labelled "dead," as we find in Berachot 18, "the wicked are called dead during their lifetime (already)." Because they refuse to carry out their tasks, they have reached death prematurely; death after all, is merely a state of ultimate inactivity. Another way of explaining the same verse is that the desires of the lazy people are weak, express a wish to achieve their goals effortlessly. Therefore, when the time for action arrives, they fail to heed "the requirements of the hour, his hands refuse to do their share." This in turn leads to their death. It is beyond question then that a special task has been reserved for man. In general terms this task is described at the end of the story of creation. "He placed him in a garden in Eden, to work it and to preserve it." (Genesis 2, 15.) This verse is a reversal of a previous statement (2,5) "there was no human being to work the soil." Our sages comment on Deut. 15, 18, "He will bless you in all that you do." This verse is necessary so that we should not think we might sit and be idle. (Ketuvot 59) "Idleness leads to boredom." It causes spiritual emptiness and degeneration. The Torah illustrated that if even a small part of you, such as your hand, needs to perform its function, the idea that man as a whole could remain idle is obviously wrong. Solomon used many examples to decry and deplore idleness, laziness etc. From the above premise it is clear that all activity which does not lead to attainment of the goals and purpose of the person who performs it, is a useless activity. Such an activity would not be considered better than no activity. (Moreh Nevuchim section three chapter 25) However, the effort and diligence expended in pursuit of all categories of activities whose apparent goals are measured in quantity, weight or size, no doubt fall under the heading of "useless activity." The reason this is so is, that they are never ending, boundless. Those who pursue them never find rest, as someone who moves in a certain direction ought to find when he arrives at his destination. If this is so, the intensity with which these objectives are pursued do not make man any less idle or despondent. It follows that man's true activities must be the achievements that can be measured in terms of quality, not those that are measurable in terms of quantity. Real acquisitions would be knowledge, moral qualities etc. These acquisitions would be truly praiseworthy. Pursuit of such aims elevates man from a state of want and inadequacy to one of ever ascending status, until all his desires reach the stage of fulfilment. (menuchah, creative rest) All worthwhile objectives have strict limits towards which the aspirant strives. It is this which the wise Solomon defines as the perfect state of man. He proceeds from the premise that the soul is active in accordance with its superior moral status. The key to man's achieving his perfection lies then in the activity not motivated by lust, greed and phantasies, but by his moral imperatives. This is evident from the Torah's description of man's task in the garden Eden, which was the result of G-d blowing a living soul into him. (Genesis 2,7) It was at the point that we are told that Adam was endowed with a soul, that the Torah tells us what is his task. The poel, driving force, was to be the neshamah, soul. This is also what we must learn from the opening portion of our Parshah. "These are the words that the Lord said to them. Six days work shall be performed etc." (Exodus 35,2-3) When viewing the entire panorama of human activities which G-d commanded each one of us, one understands that just as G-d imposed activities upon Himself from which He desisted once He had achieved His objective, (compare "for during six days He created the universe, and on the seventh day He desisted and had a respite."-Exodus 31, 17) so all who model themselves after Him, will seek out activities that possess the distinction that toil and effort expended on them leads to margo-ah, serenity of their soul and personality, does not leave them feeling exhausted, unfulfilled, empty. When David says "when you eat of the labour of your hands, you will be happy and well off," (Psalms 128,2) our sages in Berachot 8, state that the word "happy" refers to this world, whereas the words "well off" refer to the world to come. It is clear that such activities are difficult for man to achieve, as explained in Moreh chapter 34, section 1. We would like to add another factor to those mentioned by Maimonides, one that is equal in importance to all those enumerated there. Most people view the acquisition of apparent wealth as the major accomplishment in their lives. This attitude leads to these people being under great strain, it preoccupies them so much that they have little time and energy left for the performance of good deeds. (Aristotele ethics chapter 17, statement 7) The "good fortune" of amassing such wealth, prevents true wealth, real happiness. Perhaps then material wealth is not really a "good fortune," if it leads someone astray who started out being a tzaddik before he became wealthy. "Watch yourself.. lest you eat, become sated,...and your heart becomes boastful..and you forget the Lord your G-d." (Deut 8, 11-15) See our commentary in connection with the manna in chapter 41.

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