He said that salt is a preservative, and it preserves the past. Lot's wife turned around, she turned wistfully to her past in Sedom when she should have been focused on the gift she was given, the opportunity of spiritual growth. That was the worst thing she could have done at that moment.
I think his idea is excellent. It's obviously true in the case of Lot's wife, who was leaving the depraved lifestyle of Sedom. But to some extent, it is true for everyone, even those that have a glorious past and live a Torah life. Our past informs and gives direction to our lives, but like all living things, we have to adapt to new circumstances. We have to think about what we can do in the future. Don't stagnate, move forward. Even Avraham Avinu was told Lech Lecha, and Rav Ahron Kotler, in his sefer, talks about life being l'maala l'maskil. Move forward and move upward, or fall - retain what is good of your past, and use it as a stepping stone to the future.
I've used that idea in many speeches, sometimes to the annoyance of Bnei Torah who dislike the idea entirely, and even more dislike quoting a goy. I quote either Basho or Jaurès:
Matsuo Basho, a very well known Japanese poet/philosopher.
Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.
or
Seek not to follow in the footsteps of men of old; seek what they sought.
Then, similar, from Jean Jaurès, a French socialist politician and a defender of Dreyfus:
"Être fidèle à la tradition, c'est être fidèle à la flamme et non à la cendre"
"To be faithful to tradition is to be faithful to the flame and not to the ashes"
Jaurès' words were paraphrased by Mahler as
"Tradition ist die Weitergabe des Feuers und nicht die Anbetung der Asche."
"Tradition is the handing down of the flame and not the worshipping of ashes".
We are commanded to bury the dead, to not preserve their bodies. The past needs to return to dust and earth, from which the future can grow.
(Rav Lau talks about this combination of fidelity to the past and adapting to new circumstances in his biography, quoting his father in law about the dual meaning of Ya'azove. I posted it in a drasha for a Sheva Brachos.)
(Rav Lau talks about this combination of fidelity to the past and adapting to new circumstances in his biography, quoting his father in law about the dual meaning of Ya'azove. I posted it in a drasha for a Sheva Brachos.)
This is a powerful theme in these parshiyos, where we see that despite the shleimus each of the Avos reached, their torch-bearers (as opposed to their less-than-worthy children) davka did NOT follow their specific path, but forged their own, en fidelitè à la flamme.
ReplyDeleteI did not think of using this to explain the difference among the Avos. Thank you.
DeleteI think there are two reasons people don't like this. First, you have the Rambam in Eduyos 1:3
שמעיה ואבטליון. הם רבותיהם של שמאי והלל כמו שמבואר באבות והיו גרים ונשאר בשפתם לעגי שפת העובדי כוכבים והיו אומרים אין במקום הין והלל היה אומר כן מלא אין כמו ששמע מהם והוא מה שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל חייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו
that if you want to be mushpa by a rebbi, you'll imitate him totally, down to the speech defect. Second, it's risky to think you know what tachlis is being sought; it's safer to just imitate every behavior. That has its risks, too - times change, children change, Yiftach b'doro, Choni ha'me'ageil, but l'maiseh, imitation is safer.
The Gra totally rejects the notion that one needs to imitate his Rebbi's speech defect; rather, he explains the Rambam that the word "melo" is unnecessary, as it would have been sufficient to say "hin mayim sheuvin". Shammai and Avtalyon, becaise of their inability to enunciate the h sound, were concerned that "'in mayim sheuvin" might be misinterpreted as "ein mayim sheuvin poslin es hamikvah", resulting in a major michshol. They added the word "melo" to eliminate this ambiguity. Their talmidim, while not suffering from the speech defect, used the same wording as their rebbeim.
DeleteAs to imitation, my rebbi is wont to quote the Brisker Rav: נאכצומאכען דארף מען זיין אדער זייער גרויס אדער זייער קליין - to imitate (one's rebbi) one must be either very great or the opposite.
I wonder what the Brisker Rov meant by that - the Briskers, no less than Chasidim, are extremely tradition bound and unwilling to entertain thoughts of change in any aspect of life.
ReplyDeleteI believe he meant what is indicated by the Gra's nuanced approach referenced above: to follow in the path of a Rebbe, using his derech and even repeating his words verbatim is a great thing for a talmid. Mimicry, however, is a different kettle of fish. For the truly great, it can be a form of dveikus. For the rest, however, it is mere mockery.
DeleteIn connection with this post, it is interesting to note that while salt on its own has no culinary value, it is extremely important in bringing out the taste in the food to which it is added. In terms of salt as a symbol of history, we may a similar idea, i.e. On its own, history is unimportant. But when it becomes the inspiration and guiding light for one's actions in the present, then it is indispensable. Perhaps we can connect this idea with the role of salt in korbanos. Fow while salt is never eligible to be a korban in its own right, the Torah tells us that every korban that is brought must have salt applied to it before it is offered.
ReplyDeleteI read your comment too quickly the first time. Reading it more slowly, I realized that you were contributing an excellent insight. Before thinking more, I want you to know that the Chazon Ish holds that salt can be brought as an independent korban, much like Korban Eitzim. See חזו"א .מנחות סימן ל"ג ס"ק ט"ו
DeleteInterestingly, I just came across a source in halacha for the idea that salt, in spite of the fact that it is an essential ingredient in the offering of every korban, is still considered something that is "NOT ra'ui l'mizbe'ach":
DeleteRambam (hilchos Avodah Zara 7:16) states that if an item is found [on or near] an avodah zarah in the place where it is worshiped, that item is assur b'hanaah whether it is something that would be ra'ui l'mizbe'ach or whether it is something that would not be ra'ui l'mizbe'ach, and even if it is water or salt. The Kessef Mishnah (ibid - and the Beis Yosef explains similarly in Yoreh Deah 139 -) explains that even though water and salt are both things that ARE brought on the mizbe'ach (so why does the Rambam say "even" water and salt?), nevertheless, he says, and I quote (from the Beis Yosef, which I have in front of me):
אפילו מים ומלח שאינם דרך נוי ולא דרך הקרבה דאין דרך להביאם לבדם בלי...
דבר אחר דמלח פשיטא דאינו קרב בפנים לבדו ומים שהיו מנסכין בחג לא היו באים לבדן אלא עם ניסוך היין ואפילו הכי אסורים דכל שנמצא לפנים מן הקלקלים שהוא מקןם עבודתה ודאי שלא הכניסוהו שם אלא לתקרובת או לתשמישה
Thank you.
DeleteI'm missing the magnum opus on the din of melach in kodshim by my friend Shmuel Yeshaya Keller's son, so I did some searching on Otzar and came across this, from a Sefer Eizehu Mekoman by a פרידלס and he brings great m'ms on the topic, but does not bring yours! He says
ג האם יש קרבן מלח הרמב"ם תמו"מ ט י כתב דהמלח קודם לעצים ומשמע רס"ל דיש קרבן מלח וכ"כ החזו"א ל׳ג ט׳ו דמתנדבין מלח וכן נוטה המקדש דוד סוף סי' י"ג דכשם שאפשר להתנדב יין ושמן ה"ה דמתנדבין מלח וכ"ד הגרח"ק שליט"א בספר שיח השדה קונטרס הליקוטיס סוף סי' ח' ונוטה הגרח"ק דה"ה דצריך למלוח את המלח
אולם יעוי' בספר הליקוטים על הרמב"ם הנ"ל (הוצאת הר״ש פרנקל) דהגרי"ד אמר משמיה דהגרי"ז שאין קרבן מלח כלל וכוונת הרמב"ם למלח שהיה כבר על גבי האברים ופירש דחל עליו דין הקטרה עי' בדברינו לקמן בגמ' ריש כא וכן באור שמח מפרש דכונת הרמב"ם כגון שיחיד נדר להביא לבדק הבית מלח ועצים ואין לו להביא אלא אחד דיביא את המלח ולא לענין קרבן איירי ועל דרך זה כתב בחסדי דוד על התוספתא אלא שביאר כגון שאחד הביא לבונה בנדבה להקטרה ואחד הביא בנדבה מלח ליחן ללשכת המלח לצורך הקרבנות דנזקקים תחילה לקבל הלבונה וראה באבן האזל שם שהקשה על פירושיהם והוא מפרש באופ"א
Now I'm going to look to see if anyone brings down your K'M.
Very interesting. I would raise the following points for consideration:
Delete1) In hilchos Maaseh Hakorbanos 14:1, the Rambam writes explicitly that one may bring wine by itself as a korban, or levonah, or oil, or wood. However, he does not make any mention of salt. It seems unlikely that the Rambam saw a need to mention those four items but no need to mention salt. It would seem more likely that salt is not mentioned because it is not brought as a korban by itself.
2) In Maaseh HaKorbanos 16:11 the Rambam paskens (from Menachos 106b) that someone who says הרי עלי למזבח has to bring levonah as his korban, because there is nothing else that is brought entirely on the mizbe'ach as it is, except for levonah. The Gemara there considers and rejects a number of possibilities other than levonah that might have come under this category, including olah, olas ha'of, nesachim and minchas nesachim. Now, if salt could indeed be brought as an independent category, it would seem that it should qualify as an alternative to levonah for someone who says הרי עלי למזבח. Therefore, from this halacha in Rambam (Gemara) - and even more so from the fact that the Gemara doesn't even bring up the possibility of salt as an alternate korban - there does seem to be an indication that salt is not brought as a korban in its own right.
Brilliant
ReplyDeleteThank you. But I have a nagging feeling that it's missing something.
Delete