Yehuda and Tamar: The Wedding Ring

The Peirush Baalei HaTosfos says that Yehuda gave Tamar his ring because he married her with it. In that he was a person of high status, he certainly had at least two people accompanying him, and they served as witnesses as he married her by giving her his ring.  She remained anonymous to him, as we see from the search for "the Kedeisha at the crossroad," but you don't have to know a woman's name to marry her, especially when you don't plan to see her after the first night.

ותאמר חותמך וגו', פירוש טבעתך שאתה חותם בה וקדשה בטבעת. ותימא לה"ר משה וכי מה הועילו הקידושין, והרי צריכים עדים, ואפילו שניהם מודים כדאיתא במסכת קדושין   ויש לומר דמסתמא אדם חשוב כיהודה לא היה יוצא לדרך בלא שנים, רעהו ואחר עמו, כמו תלמיד חכם, וקדשה בפניהם. ואם תאמר ואכתי היאך הועילו הקדושין,והלא לא מסר לה הטבעת אלא בתורת משכון, ואמרינן בקדושין )דף ח.( קדשה בפרוטה והניח משכון עליה אינה מקודשת. ויש לומר שהקנה לה הטבעת באותה שעה לגמרי, אמנם לאחר מכן התנה עמה שאם שולח גדי עזים שתחזיר לו הטבעת.

The idea that Yehuda was mekadeish Tamar is not unique to the Baalei HaTosfos; the Re'eim says this as well, and there's no reason to think it's inconsistent with the way the story is presented.  Even if she appeared to be a kedeisha, there was no reason Yehuda couldn't kasher the event through kiddushin.  What is surprising is the idea that Yehuda gave her the Chosemes because he wanted to be mekadeish her with a ring.  This is an anachronism.  The now universal minhag to do kiddushin with a ring is not mentioned anywhere in the Gemara or Medrashim other than the Zohar, as brought in the Rama EH 27.  The first general reference to this is in the Teshuvos of the Geonim. So if  you see it to mean that he gave her his signet ring somewhat like you give someone your driver's license to ensure that you'll come back, that would be fine.  But he learns that he gave her the ring because that's how people do kiddushin.

Of course, like all minhagim, everyone has an explanation and a holy symbology for using a ring.  They are all beautiful, and most of them are about as meaningful as the explanations for kreplach, but I want to point out that according to the Rogotchover's explanation, we can understand why Yehuda davka wanted to be mekadeish her with a ring, two thousand years before it became the common practice.

The Rogotchover offers a lomdishe reason for the minhag: the kiddushin has to be effected by an unrestricted gift.  If the man retains any rights in the object, the kiddushin is not valid.  At the time of the Mishna and Gemara, Kiddushin took place long before Nisuin, but now the two are simultaneous, because the kiddushin takes place beneath the chuppah (and according to some, the chupa actually precedes the kiddushin, in that the badeken is the chuppah; see EH 27.)  When the woman is married, her husband acquires the right to use her property and to keep the profits from that use- he has a kinyan peiros.  So when Kiddushin was long before Nisuin, there was no problem  He would give her an object of value, and it was totally hers, at least until the nisuin.  But now that the two are simultaneous, when he gives her the object, and she becomes his wife, he immediately acquires the right to use and invest it, and it cannot be said to be entirely hers.  The only way to avoid this problem is to give her something that he has no rights in- clothing or jewelry.  So the minhag of giving jewelry was encouraged by the Rabbanim.

Here is the Rogotchover on the Rambam Ishus 3:1

 אם בכסף הוא מקדש.  והמנהג שמקדש בטבעת  ולא בכסף. ונ'ל דהנה עי׳ בירושלמי פרק ה׳ דנדרים דהמקדש בספר תורה שלו אינה מקודשת וטעם כמ״ש הר"ן פרק א׳ דקדושין גבי מנה אין כאן דבדבר שלא יצא מידו לגמרי לא הוה קדושין והנה מבואר בב״ב ד׳ מ״ג דמן ס״ת אינו יכול לסלק לגמרי יע״ש ד׳ קנ״א ע״א גבי אם מיקרי נכסו ואף דהא בגיטין דף כ׳ אמרינן דאם גירשה בס״ת אם אקדים זוזא לספרא כו׳ הוה שייך גט התם כיון שנכתב לשם גט נפסלה הס"ת אבל בס״ת כשירה אינה

 מקודשת והנה כעת המנהג שמקדשים בשעת חופה ותיכף הוה נשואה וא״כ יהא לו בכסף קדושין פירות וא״כ לא הוה קדושין לכך תתקדש בכלי דהוה כלבוש ועי׳ כתובות ר' נ״ד ע״א וסנהדרין ל׳ קי״ב ומש" כ רבינו ז״ל בפרק א׳ מהלכות מלוה ה״ה וכ״מ בזה ועי׳ ירושלמי נזיר פרק ה׳ הל׳ ב׳ דאין בע״ח גובה מתכשיטין של אשתו

So according to the Rogotchover, in Yehuda's case, it was necessary that he give her  a ring- namely, a tachshit- for kiddushin, because the kiddushin and nisuin were simultaneous.

It's funny that Hagaon haRav Shernbuch brings this Baalei Hatosfos, and he brings the Rogotchover, but אגב ריהטא he doesn't make the connection- he didn't notice that the latter explains the former.

UPDATE:
Over Shabbos, I realized that the joke might be on me.  The din peiros is, obviously, a derabanan, and there is no reason to assume it existed at the time of Yehuda and Tamar.  
But I want to remind you that we're saying pshat in the shitta of the Baalei Tosfos.  Allow me to direct you attention to Tosfos in Gittin 47b, to wit-

ולביתך מלמד שאדם מביא בכורי אשתו. וא"ת והא מן התורה אין לבעל פירות בנכסי אשתו אלא תקנתא דרבנן בעלמא היא א"כ ע"כ גזירת הכתוב הוא ויש לומר דרך נשים שנותנות פירות לבעליהן וכי האי גוונא איירי קרא וכענין זה אמרינן בריש קידושין (דף ד.) אי כתב רחמנא מעשה ידיה לאביה דקא מיתזנא מיניה ואע"ג דמדאורייתא אינו חייב במזונות בתו אלא דאורחא דמילתא הוא שהוא זן אותה:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since I mention the minhag to use a ring, here is a list of the reasons I've seen- good, bad, and indifferent- that people use to give meaning to the minhag.  Someone might find this useful.  As I said above, I personally think that most of them are on par with the reasons people give for eating kreplach.

1.  There is one passuk in which the letter Mem in middle of a word is formed like a mem sofis, an end-of-word Mem, the passuk in Yeshaya 9:7-לםרבה המשרה ולשלום אין קץ.  The Tikunei  Zohar mentioned in the Rama in 27 says this letter Mem is ring shaped, and it alludes to the peace and fertility we portend for this couple.  The Gematria of לםרבה is Eizer and Zera.  This Zohar is also brought more clearly in the Levush here in siman 10.
2.  The Chinuch in 552, it is a reminder to her and to all that she is a married woman.  One assumes that she doesn't need the reminder on Shabbos, since the halacha used to be that it was assur to wear jewelry on Shabbos.  Unless this doesn't have a din of jewelry, which I doubt.
3.  In next week's parsha we will see that Pharaoh gave Yosef his ring as a sign of trust and high office and responsibility.  We find the same with Achashveirosh and Haman.  So, too, when a woman becomes the Akeres HaBayis, she receives the ring of honor, responsibility, and trust.  אוצר כל מנהגי ישרון
4.  A ring joins two objects, as do the taba'os of the Krashim of the Mishkan and of the Choshen and Eifod.  This ring joins the husband and wife.  לקוטי מהרי"ח
5.  A chain is made up of rings.  The creation of a new family forges another link in the chain of mesora of Klal Yisrael, the Shalsheles HaYuchsin.  ספר המטעמים אות לא
6.  Through marriage, the Shechina is shoreh in a house.  The ring is a symbol of the Shechina because it has no beginning and no end.
7.  The Rogotchover I mentioned above, to avoid the kinyan peiros problem where the kiddushin and the chuppah are simultaneous.
8.  I'm not sure this counts as a reason, but the Mordechai in Kiddushin 488 says that a 14 K gold ring is something that doesn't need evaluation, it has inherent value according to its weight.  (In fact, some communities use silver rings; it is possible that this is based on the din of כספא טיבעא.)  Perhaps that's why a gold ring is used, because clothing or gems or things need assessment.  Even coins used to vary according to whether they were used locally as currency.  The value of a simple piece of gold is pretty universal, the same all around the world, except, of course, in places of unusual circumstances like war or famine.  The Mordechai-   העם נהגו לקדש בטבעת של זהב בלא אבן יקרה בתורה משום דרוב בני אדם אינם בקיאים בשומא
9. , .טבעת בגימטריה קידושין
Not exactly, Taba'as is 481 and Kiddushin is 480.

Please note that the only one that addresses the fact that rings were not used until after Chasimas HaShas is the Rogotchover.

Honestly, there is no need to explain the minhag.  It's ancient and almost universal among races, religions, and cultures (the Puritans tried to stop it and gave the bride a thimble, but many of them cut off the top and wore it as a ring anyway) with the exceptions of China and Japan.  Still, we like to see significance in the things we do, so that's fine.  As they say, מנהג ישראל תורה.  The explanations remind me of the תפארת ישראל in פסחים פרק י' בועז אות ג that says

כשקבלו מלה יוונית לתוך לשוננו הקדושה הכריכוה להתיהד תחילה לכן שבשו את המלה במקורה בכוונה והסבו לקרותה באופן אחר דהיינו לפי הנאות לפרשה ע"פ דרך לשונו הקדושה

Why do I say it's not a specifically Jewish thing?  Maybe we thought of it first!  The answer is no, because
1.  That's just silly.
2.  We find plenty of historical evidence of this use among Gentiles long before there's any record of its use among the Jews.
3.  All these explanations only deal with the wedding band that we use for Kiddushin, and do not address the engagement ring, which is now universal among the Jews as well.  Even the Satmarer's takana only replaced the diamond with an artificial stone, (and here) but did not do away with the minhag to give a girl an engagement ring.

Tzav: Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#4) The Korban for Newlyweds.

This is Drush, and not intended for analysis with scalpels.

Rabbeinu Bachay in Parshas Tzav says (second column sixteen lines from the bottom) that newlyweds bring a Korban Todah.   He says that anyone that experiences a special joyous event should bring a Korban Todah, and in particular he says that a Chassan and Kallah should bring this korban.  Most importantly, Rabbeinu Bachaya is telling us that when the passuk in Yirmiahu (33:11-12) says that people will once again  bring the Korban Todah, it is referring to the beginning of the passuk that talks about the joy of the Chasan and Kallah, and the passuk means that Chassanim and Kallos used to- and someday soon will again bring- a Korban Todah.

כֹּה אָמַר ה, עוֹד יִשָּׁמַע בַּמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם אֹמְרִים חָרֵב הוּא מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה בְּעָרֵי יְהוּדָה  וּבְחֻצוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, הַנְשַׁמּוֹת מֵאֵין אָדָם וּמֵאֵין יוֹשֵׁב, וּמֵאֵין בְּהֵמָה.   קוֹל שָׂשׂוֹן וְקוֹל שִׂמְחָה, קוֹל חָתָן וְקוֹל כַּלָּה, קוֹל אֹמְרִים הוֹדוּ אֶת ה' צְבָאוֹת כִּי טוֹב ה' כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ מְבִאִים תּוֹדָה בֵּית ה:, 

I understand that the exuberant Chasan and Kallah would sing  הוֹדוּ אֶת ה צְבָאוֹת כִּי טוֹב ה כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ.  But the idea that Chasan and Kallah bring a Korban Todah is interesting, because we usually associate the korban with having survived some mortal danger.  The Gemara (Brachos 54b,  and see Rambam 10 Brachos 8 and OC 219:1) specifies four people who are obligated to bring this korban, and all are people who were saved from danger.  In fact, this idea is reflected in our Tefilla.  One who was saved from this type of danger makes the Bracha Birkas Hagomel.  For general celebration, you can bring a shlamim or an olah, and the appropriate bracha is She'hechiyanu.  So it's interesting that Rabbeinu Bachay says that a Korban Todah is brought to celebrate a joyous occasion.  More importantly, why does Rabbeinu Bachay single out being newly married as the archetypal circumstance of bringing the Korban Todah?

The Gemara (Sota 2a) says אמר ר' יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף שנאמר (תהילים סח) אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות, marrying people off is as "hard" as splitting the sea, as it says in Tehillim, G-d settles the solitary in a house; He frees those who are bound in "Kosharos," shackles.  (Rashi in Sotah, expanding on the interpretation of the verse as referring to the redemption from Mitzrayim, says that Kosharos means a season that is temperate, neither hot nor cold, because the geula from Mitzrayim was in the Springtime.)  The Gemara sees in this passuk a connection between marriage- "G-d settles the solitary in a house"- and the redemption from Egypt, "He frees those who are bound in shackles."  Thus, the Gemara equates a successful marriage and the splitting of the sea.

Rashi explains that the miracle of marriage is taking a boy, a yachid, and a girl, a yechida, and creating from these yechidim a completely new home, a new kingdom, and this is a miracle comparable to the splitting of the sea.  The ability of individuals to willingly and successfully cede their independence to a new mutual identity is only possible with divine assistance.

Although the Gemara focuses on the aspect of divine intervention- krias yam suf, one can see in the Gemara another thought.  The passuk is also telling us that that getting married is similar to being freed from a prison Motzi assirim.  In what sense is that true?  

Until someone is married, he is imprisoned by limited emotional horizons.  He suffers from the astigmatism of egotism; he has no idea what it means to care for someone else more than he cares for himself, he lacks the basic understanding of what it means to be a fully realized human being, he is in danger of being emotionally stunted, a Wagnerian Nibelung.  So, despite the Orwellian undertone, getting married really is like being liberated from prison.  

As the Netziv says, the Korban Todah is brought על שנחלץ מצרה; literally, the word צרה means travail, but it is related to the word צר which means tight and constrained.  So the best translation would be that the korban is brought on the occasion of "release from confinement."  That is certainly an apt description of marriage.    נחלץ מצרה means that he was granted expansion, an expansion that unbound him from his isolated strait.

That sentence deserves to be emphasized.   על שנחלץ מצרה means that he was unbound from his strait of isolation.  This is the foundation of the Korban Todah, and it is a perfect description of what marriage can give us.

People often talk of marriage as being bound, restricted.  Chazal tell us that marriage removes our bonds, it frees us.

(Update 3 22 24/Adar II pei daled: I just saw this in the Mirrer weekly. It's nice that he thinks of me as a Chacham.

(ואגב שמעתי מחכ"א לבאר דמה שחידש רבנו בחיי דחתן וכלה צריכים להביא קרבן תודה, יתכן שהוא נכלל בין הד' שצריכים להודות, והוא בכלל יוצא מבית האסורים. והטעם כי איתא במדרש )מד"ר ויקרא פ"ח א'( לגבי זיווגו של אדם וז"ל "קשה היא לפני הקב"ה כקריעת ים סוף, שנאמר )תהלים סח( 'אלוק' מושיב יחידים ביתה, מוציא אסירים בכושרות' מהו בכושרות בכי ושירות, דבעא אמר שירה, דלא בעא בכה, ומה הקדוש ברוך הוא עושה מזווגן על כרחן שלא בטובתן" הרי מבואר ש"מוציא אסירים בכושרות" נדרש הוא על זיווגו של אדם, דהיינו שכל עוד האדם יחידי הוא בבחינת "אסיר" וכאשר מוצא את זיווגו הוא בבחינת "יוצא מבית האסורים", ולכן שפיר נכלל חתן וכלה בכלל הד' שצריכים להודות.  ) 

GS point out that Rashi in Toldos, by Machalas bas Yishmael, brings the Yerushalmi that "Chasan mochlin lo."   If so, he says, the chasan certainly ought to bring a korban Todah.  So for one thing, he was spared the onshim of his aveiros.  Secondly, a spiritual hatzala is comparable to a physical hatzala.  (Similar to Megilla 14, where the Gemara says a kal vachomer, if from avdus to cheirus you say Shira, KV from death to life, so Chazal were kovei'a Megillas Esther as part of Kisvei HaKodesh.)

UPDATE, JUNE 2014
I recently prepared to speak at a SB, and said this over to my wife, Malkie shetichyeh.  She pointed out that I should emphasize something that's evident in the Gemara, especially in the way I'm learning the Gemara.  People naturally think of marriage as being bound, restricted, tied up.  You lose the freedom you had as a single, you have to answer to someone that knows what you're doing, you become responsible for someone else's welfare, and so on.  There is definitely an aspect of lost freedom when you get married.  But Chazal are telling you exactly farkert.  The passuk the Gemara in Sotah brings is (Tehillim 68:7)

 אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות 

The Gemara is darshening that the end of the passuk refers to Yetzias Mitzrayim; kosharos are chains, or it means Springtime, when the season is pleasant.  The first half of the passuk refers to marriage, and the Gemara says that the passuk teaches us a hekesh, an equation, between the two halves of the passuk.  So the passuk is telling you, you think marriage is a shibud?  You're wrong.  The marriage that the Torah envisions is liberating, just as Yetzias Mitzrayim was a the great liberation of Klal Yisrael.  I just have to find a good way to explain how marriage is liberating.  I do explain it here, but I think it can be done better.

As I mentioned above, the classic use of the Korban Todah is for a person that has has one of the following four experiences:  These can be remembered with the mnemonic Chayim, חיים..  That is, Chavush/freed from prison; ; Yeshurim/recovered from illness; Yam/returned from an ocean voyage; and Midbar/returned from travel in the desert.  Homiletically, one might say that all the elements of obligation for the Korban Todah are present when one gets married.  He was a is a choleh, because if a person doesn’t get married, the Gemara says (Kiddushin 29b), he deteriorates physically (tipach.)  He is like a traveler in the desert, as Hashem said that He remembers the love of our first relationship, when we followed Him into the desert, zacharti lach...lechteich acharai bamidbar, the willingness to risk everything because you love and trust your spouse..  He is like a prisoner freed from jail, because he has freed himself from the emotional prison of yechidus.  And he is like one who has returned from a sea voyage, because after the long and lonely odyssey as he searched, he has finally come into his home port.

In our time, a person who survives a danger stands at the Bimah (or a woman does this at home with a minyan) and makes the Bracha Hagomel.  One could support the notion that a Chassan and Kallah should do the same.  Of course, there is no such minhag.  But certainly, when they say Modim in Shmoneh Esrei, they should express their gratitude to Hashem for bringing them together and helping to create a new household.  It doesn't hurt to also have your marriage in mind when you say "Sim Shalom."

Note:  Besides the Korban Todah, in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, a Chassan would come to the Beis Hamikdash especially on Shabbos, because on the east side of the structure there was a gate made of white glass through which only newlywed men would enter.  When people would see a man come in through that gate, they would all bless him, saying "He Who dwells in this house, may he bless you with sons and daughters!"  (From Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer 17.  Although there is no mention of this gate in the Mishna in the first perek of Middos, which enumerates and describes all the entrances to the Beis Hamikdash, it is mentioned in Maseches Sofrim 19:12.)  As it says in Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer, even though now we have no Beis Hamikdash, we should do the same when the Chassan comes to Shul on Shabbos.

הנכנס בשער חתנים היו יודעים בו שהוא חתן והיו אומרים לו השוכן בבית הזה יברכך בבנים ובבנות

~

Beshalach, Shemos 17:16. Amalek and Marriage

This is from the translation I did for Artscroll/Mesorah of Reb Moshe's journal, with some changes and an addition.

 וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס קה מִלְחָמָה לַה' בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר     

And He said, the hand is on G-d's throne: G-d will be at war with Amalek for all generations. 

The verse uses an abbreviated form of the Hebrew word for throne, כֵּס, and the two letter Name of Hashem, קה, rather than the full name.  Rashi explains that the abbreviated forms indicate that Hashems' Name and Throne are diminished so long as Amalek exists.  

ומהו כס, ולא נאמר כסא, ואף השם נחלק לחציו? נשבע הקב"ה שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו, וכשימחה שמו יהיה השם שלם והכסא שלם

With this in mind, the Gemara in Sotah (17a) seems, at first, perplexing.  The Gemara says that Hashem placed the letter yud in the Hebrew word for "man" איש and the letter hei in the Hebrew word for 'woman' אשה so that the Name of Hashem (Yud and Hei) would be formed upon their union in marriage.  If Hashem desired that the union of husband and wife be graced with His Name, why would He choose the incomplete Two-Letter Name as the signature of His Presence?  

The answer is that while it is true that Hashem graces each Jewish couple with His Name, He provides only a foundation, upon which the couple must build a true Jewish home.  Hashem's contribution, while essential, is only a beginning.  It is only the good works of the couple that can complete the Name that is present in their home.  If they succeed in doing so, then true blessing will surely follow, as the passuk states in Shemos 20:21, בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ.  wherever I mention My Name, I shall come to you and bless you.  (here ends the slightly modified translation of Reb Moshe's dvar torah.)

A friend pointed out that the Name of G-d that is formed by the union of husband and wife is not a product of the letters aleph and shin, which they have in common.  It is a product of the letters yud and hei, the letters which they do not have in common.  Hashra'as Hashechina, the presence of the Shechina in a Jewish home, stems from harmony- the dynamic harmonizing of their differing emotions and thought processes and perspectives.  As the Aruch Hashulchan says in his introduction to his sefer (found in the beginning of Choshen Mishpat, which was the first volume that he published of the set.)

תפארת השיר כשהקולות משונים זה מזה וזהו עיקר הנעימות

The splendor of music is when the voices are different from each other, and that is the essence of its beauty.

Now, let's think about this a little more. 

What's the point of Reb Moshe's vort?

Does it really say anything at all?  Let's see.  It says that a nice peaceful house is good, but it's only a beginning, that the people need to do more, that Avodas Hashem never ends, that you have to build on a good foundation.  Is there any insight here, anything here at all that we didn't know?  Is it, chas veshalom, a platitude?

No, Reb Moshe never said platitudes.  His mind constantly worked on many levels, and careful attention to what he wrote and said revealed some of that thought process.  Here, Reb Moshe chose to emphasize the positive aspect of his observation - that if a person builds on the gift Hashem granted, then bracha will surely come to the house.  But he is teaching another implicit lesson here, and it's not a comfortable one.   The lesson is that a person who fails to take advantage of an opportunity, a person who rests on his laurels, a person who has achieved but can achieve more and fails to do so because he is lazy, that man is the brother of Amalek.  Whether passively diminishing by failing to do Hashem's work, or actively diminishing by doing wicked things - the result is the same.  This person is guilty of the same diminution of the Name of G-d as Amalek.  And this concept is expressed in Mishlei 18:9:

גַּם מִתְרַפֶּה בִמְלַאכְתּוֹ אָח הוּא לְבַעַל מַשְׁחִית

He, too, who is slack (weak) in his work is brother to the destroyer.

 As the Ramchal says in the Mesillas Yesharim on this passuk,

כי הנה העצל, אף על פי שאינו עושה רע בקום עשה, הנה הוא מביא את הרעה עליו בשב ואל תעש שלו. ואמר (שם יח, ט): "גם מתרפה במלאכתו אח הוא לבעל משחית" כי אף על פי שאינו המשחית העושה את הרעה בידיו, לא תחשב שהוא רחוק ממנו, אלא אחיו הוא ובן גילו הוא.

The lazy man, though not actively evil, produces evil through his very inactivity. We read further (Proverbs 18:9), "Also he who slackens in his work is a brother to the Destroyer." Though he is not the Destroyer who commits the evil with his own hands, let him not think that he is far-removed from him - he is his blood-brother.  (R' Aryeh Kaplan's translation)

So Reb Moshe's vort, properly understood, has a plangent resonance: A couple might say, our home is so pleasant and holy, why look outwards?  Why get involved in things outside of the house?  A person might say, "Look what I've achieved!  I've accomplished enough, I can relax, let others do the work."  These people need to know who is really talking.  That is the Amalek in our subconscious mind talking.  When you start thinking that way, remember that the mitzva of Mechiyas Amalek, the mitzva of restoring the Name and the Throne of Hashem, doesn't always involve taking a weapon in hand against 'the other'.

What does נישואין (Nisu'in) mean?

I spoke at a Sheva Brachos yesterday, and one of the things I talked about is the word "Nisu'in."  נישואין means marriage; it is the second stage of the Eirusin and Nisu'in marriage process, and it finalizes the marriage.  I want to know the meaning of the word itself.

I mentioned this question at the table Friday night, and Someone answered that it means "to become burdened," from רחיים בצווארו, a millstone around the neck, an idiomatic expression used in the Gemara to refer to the responsibilities of marriage.  This Person meant that נישואין/marriage is like שאת וספחת  by Metzora, two types of skin growths that symptomize Leprosy.  I asked This Person which of the parties is thus burdened, and she answered "The one who was chased."  Very funny, but I don't think that's the only answer, at least I hope not, and it's certainly not something you want to hear from one of your parents.  (Full disclosure: see Yevamos 63b:  אשה רעה צרעת לבעלה מאי תקנתיה יגרשנה ויתרפא מצרעתו)

אירושין, which is spelled ארוסין in the literature, Eirusin, is easier.  It's pretty obvious that Eirusin comes from the same shoresh as ארשת  שפתיו, which means speech or words; so, eirusin means to give your word, to agree or to pledge to marry.  The agreement is made binding through the kinyan, and the woman becomes prohibited to all other men, but the essence is the promise.  The word is identical with the English 'Troth,' which means to promise or to pledge.  Eirusin=betrothal.  Simple.  But what does Nesuin mean?  If you'll look around on the web, you'll see hundreds of people that say it means 'elevation.'  If anything, that's a raya that it doesn't mean that.  One clown makes an assertion, puts it on a website, and every lazy ignoramus assumes it's correct.  For a drasha, it's ok-- כל אדם שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה בלא ברכה בלא טובה... במערבא אמרי בלא תורה"—“ (Yevamos 62b.)  Or maybe it means the elevation of simcha.  But for pshat, I highly doubt it.


In any case, the question is particularly timely, because in the three parshios, Ki Sisa, Vayakhel, and Pikudei, we find the word used remarkably often, and in many different ways--

כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

כָּל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר נָדְבָה רוּחוֹ אֹתוֹ, 

 וְאֶל כָּל אִישׁ חֲכַם לֵב אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה'  חָכְמָה בְּלִבּוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ לְקָרְבָה אֶל הַמְּלָאכָה לַעֲשֹׂת אֹתָהּ,
אשר נשא לבן אותנה בחכמה, 

 נֹשֵׂא עָו‍ֹן וָפֶשַׁע וְחַטָּאָה,

 אַהֲרֹן וְכָל הַנְּשִׂאִים בָּעֵדָה

and many, many, more.

Please note that in musaf of Yom Tov, we also says "והשיאנו ה' אלוקינו את ברכת מועדיך." And there's  
וַיִּשָּׂא מַשְׂאֹת מֵאֵת פָּנָיו אֲלֵהֶם וַתֵּרֶב מַשְׂאַת בִּנְיָמִן מִמַּשְׂאֹת כֻּלָּם where it means a gift,
and ישא מדברותיו,
and  הֲלוֹא אִם תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת
and שאת וספחת
and others.  So, please tell me what you think it means in the context of getting married.  And please, I already did the drushy thing (Marriage is a gift  (מַשְׂאַת) from the Chasan to the Kalah, and from the Kalah to the Chasan, and from Hashem to both of them; Marriage is an opportunity to elevate (כִּי תִשָּׂא) yourself by learning to love another person more than yourself; Marriage is when you take on responsibility for a family; Marriage is when you have to listen to your heart (נְשָׂאוֹ לִבּוֹ) as well as your mind;  חתן דומה למלך and the word נישואין comes from נְּשִׂאִים because the Chasan and Kallah become a king and a queen (נְּשִׂאִים), and so on).  I'm looking for something rational.

In a salute to ingenuity, and since it's still Adar, let me point out that Devora in the comments suggested that nisuin is related to  נסיון, nisayon, a test.  Every marriage is a test. Rabbi Dr. SMS suggested in a conversation that Eirusin is related to ארס, eres, poison.  Also, see great unknown's law- "The Conservation of  Golomus" based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin.  These are people who, when I ask why we learn the dinim of kidushin from the dinim of buying a plot of land for a grave, don't understand what the kashe is.

AFTER THE UPDATES, YOU WILL FIND AN CONCISE VERSION OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN ON THIS TOPIC.  I ATTEMPTED TO EDIT THEM FOR LOGICAL FLOW.  THESE COMMENTS ARE HEREWITH MADE A PART OF THIS POST, AND WILL IMPROVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TWO UPDATES THAT PRECEDE THE EDITED COMMENTS.

UPDATE:
1.  Eli points out that the roots with the shin smalis and the shin yemanis have completely different meanings, so it's not likely that nisu'in would be pronounced with a smalis if it came from Nasha; it is more likely that the Midrash is homiletics, not etymology.

2.  More comments that came in on the topic (though I would prefer getting them in the comment section, I am happy to hear from you through any media):
a.  The Gemara in Sanhedrin 31b uses the root to mean "compel."

השיאוהו ויראה פנינו בטבריא. הכריחוהו והזקיקוהו לבוא כאן

b.  A connection to the expression "נושא בעול עם חבירו", which means to accept their burdens and duties as if they were your own.

UPDATE:
LKWD GUY sent me a little note, to look at Rashi Sotah top of 9b.  What do you know! Another Rashi I forgot!  (And thank you Eli, for twisting the knife by pointing out that Rashi says exactly the same thing on top of Shabbos 146a.  I wonder what life would be like if I had a good memory.)

נחש הקדמוני נתן עיניו בחוה ובא עליה. והיינו דכתיב (בראשית ג) הנחש השיאני- לשון תשמיש ונשואין הוא

Now that we decided that Nisuin means "taking on," here we have a Rashi that throws the entire discussion up in the air again.  I could, of course, argue that Rashi is not referring to the denotation of the word "nisu'in" but instead to its connotation, but I need a while to convince myself that this might be true.  (writing a year later, I've decided that Rashi is purely Drush, it's homiletic and not interpretive.  But it's interesting that Rashi relates the word Hishi'ani to Nisu'in, since Hishi'ani primarily means deluded me, and so I suppose Nisu'in means delusion.  But that's just drush, right?  We all go into marriage with an completely accurate knowledge of whom we're marrying, right?)

LATER UPDATE:
I learned of a Tiferes Yisrael in Yevamos 7th perek comment #7 who asks this question, and, in Drush mode, suggests many of the answers that appear here, including some that I made fun of, and additional explanations as well. 

בת ישראל שניסת

[נ"ל לפעמים נקט שנשאת ופעמים שניסת, ע"ש ב' בחינות שבאשה, לעזר וכנגדו, בזמן שהיא לו לעזר. היא לו כמתנה, כמו וישא משאות מאת פניו, ובזמן שכנגדו היא לו לנסיון, או איפכא בזמן שלעזר היא כנס מתנוסס לבעלה, ואם לאו, היא כמשא עליו. או נ"ל דנישאת הוא ע"ש לא תשא שם ד"א לשוא, ובל"א "אנגעשווארען ווארדען", כמ"ד כי ה' העיד בינך ובין אשת נעוריך, וניסת הוא לשון למען ענותך לנסותך, שגם היא מורגלת ע"י הנשואין בדברים קשים, והם אעפ"כ להיטיב באחרית, כדכתיב הרבה ארבה עצבונך. ואח"כ תגל האם בפרי בטנה]:

AND here are the edited comments.

Eli said...

First it should be noticed that נישואין is not symmetric (grammatically), it's the man who is נושא and the woman נשאת, so the answer to your query to That Person is self-evident.  נשא in Tanach can mean many things, but the four common meanings are (a) to carry (b) to take (or, better translated, get hold on something) and, (probably derived from (a) and (b)), (c) to suffer (d) to forgive. As much as (c) and (d) might seem relevant, I guess the meaning here is (b). Just recall that the alternative form in Tanach to לשאת אשה is לקחת אשה.

Barzilai said...

You know, Eli, I thought about nisuin as 'taking', but I thought it was odd that we distinguish between the two steps of marriage by calling one eirusin and the second nisuin, while in Chumash, ki yikach refers to eirusin. It's odd that likuchin and nisuin are different forms of the same word. Unless the "taking" of nisuin is more firm or permanent that the "taking" of likuchin. But then there's the shitta of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon (brought in Tosfos Kiddushin 10 d'h Kol) that the word kicha (which we use for a gzeirah shavah to learn ha'ara'ah from arayos) refers to NISUIN, not EIRUSIN. That would make life easier. But, as Tosfos says there, Rabbeinu Nissim is very shver, because in all of Shas Kicha kicha from Sdei Efron means Kiddushin, not Nisuin. Still, I agree with you. It's like כאשר ישא האומן את היונק. You are taking someone to yourself, not just 'taking,' but committing yourself to follow through with full dedication. 

 

lesser unknown said...

i would argue/comment that eli left out the common meaning of the root of the word nissuin of "to elevate or to lift". and that to lift something includes the meanings of both to carry and to take. granted this is a bit of a semantical distinction, but i feel entitled considering the whole context here. In regard to the difference between kiddushin and nissuin, i was grappling with this a few months ago, as my yeshiva is currently learning kesuvos. Where I left off, is that kiddushin is not so much taking her to you as much as removing her from others, where nissuin is the actual taking of her to you as one entity/partnership.

 

Barzilai said...

I think Eli's (a), to carry, is close to your elevate. As for the difference between eirusin and nisu'in, I always explain that an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan. This is like buying an option on a property; you don't own it yet, but nobody else can buy it. I will be happy to hear what you have in the Rambam.   (I like lesser unknown's approach of Likuchin being taking in the sense of taking away, and Nisu'in also being taking in the sense of taking for yourself.)

Chaim B. said...

On the Rambam's definition of nesu'in: http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-marriage-yichud.html http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2007/11/rambams-definition-of-nesuin.html "an arusa is an eishes ish for the whole world except for the chassan" Achilas terumah? Get? But of course you will just tell me any halacha I conjure up stems from the idea of having an option, not from real ishus status.

Barzilai said...

Chaim, I like the posts from 2007, that even the Rambam will agree that chupa lipsulos shafs a greater degree of ishus than just eirusin, but it's not mattir bi'ah. I suppose that this can be true specifically according to the Rambam that even if she's meyuchedes to one man, like a pilegesh, it's still znus and an issur de'oraysa. So, having said that, you yourself are agreeing that ishus is incremental-- even ishus of nisuin. So what's wrong with saying that she's an eishes ish to the whole world but not to the husband? As far as hetter bi'ah, she's not muttar to her husband, but as far as ishus regarding other people, that degree of ishus is there. Of course it's not just an "option to buy." The kinyan of eirusin does create some madreiga of ishus. But as far as "eishes ish," she's not his eishes ish. For other people, she's an eishes ish and chayav missas beis din for znus. By the way, you know that the Rogotchover holds that every married woman is assur midin eishes ish even to her husband, except for the din hutrah for her husband. That's whats missing in an arusa- the hutra.

lesser unknown said...

First a correction from my earlier post. The Rambam, in 10:1, says that nisuin is "bringing her to your home, yichud, and yafreshena lo". I remember having trouble with what exactly those last two words meant. I was remembering incorrectly that they were a part of kiddushin, which is what I was referring to before, but clearly I was wrong. Which still leaves me with a question as to what he means by this... Now to comment on other points: I don't understand exactly what you mean by your option plan. Are you implying that there is no marital connection between them, even in regard to themselves? On a d'oraysa level they are allowed to have biah before nissuin. The Rambam (in the previously mentioned halacha) mentions that it is only an issur soferim with malkos mardus. In addition in yehuda, he couldn't claim ta'anus besulim since they regularly were misyachaid in her father's house and likely had biah already. Which is hard to hear if it was an issur d'oraysa, or even a lack of any ishus d'oraysa between them. And while I wouldn't ask from trumah or get like Chaim did, since an eved can also have trumah and needs a get, alternatively, after erusin she falls under the category of kinyan kaspo for trumah and a get is needed to matir her to others even if she isn't really an eishes ish for him. But the fact that he can be matir her n'darim or become tameh to her if he is a cohen might be better examples that show a real relationship. I don't remember seeing it, but if he is pasul as a witness after kiddushin, that would also show an intrinsic connection, more than just a bought future option... I didn't click the link that chaim posted, it is after midnight here, but from the end of 10:6 in the Rambam it seems clear he holds that chuppah with a niddah is better than nothing, and creates a level higher than erusin. I apologize if I'm just repeating what is already stated in the other link. Lastly, I would point out again that I do not think there is an intrinsic issur to be with ones erusa, but rather erusin would technically permit biah, but chazal imposed an external prohibition on them. I would appreciate (and not be surprised) if you can prove me wrong on this point.

lesser unknown said...

I forgot to mention in my last comment that the aruch ha'shulchan has a novel understanding of the Rambam, which removes the need to say that there are multiple degrees of nissuin. It is in even ha'ezer 61:4 (and also in sif 5 he further explains it)

Eli said...

Thank you, LU, elevate too. I also think my "suffer" should better be translated "burden" or something similar, as in ונשא עוונו. Yet, the relevant one for the present is "get". Re: RNG, it's actually the Tosfos that is shver. It's clear that in Tanach קיחה means the whole process of marriage, if not just Nissu'in: (a) we find Kicha before Matan-Torah, so it must be just מכניסה לביתו, the first instance I believe is ויקחו להם נשים מכל אשר בחרו, and many others follow. (b) The pasuk clearly says מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. As for understanding Tosfos, I guess what he means is not that the word Kicha in Tanach cannot mean Nissuin, but just that the *גזרה שוה* of Kicha does not refer to Nissuin.

Barzilai said...

LU, let me apologize for a possible misconception. I edited the post to say that the line so often repeated on the net about nisuin meaning elevation, and characterizing it as something a clown would say before you brought it up. Of course, you also didn't mean to say that's pshat in nisuin. Chaim B. did discuss exactly what you said, that even according to the Rambam, chupas niddah creates more ishus than eirusin. When I used the 'option' comparison, it was not meant as a perfect model. It's more like an option with a letter of intent. In the context of marriage, this creates a relationship such that she is considered to be a member of his household, a wife-in-waiting. Eli, nice that you pointed out מי האיש אשר ארש אשה ולא לקחה. I'm convinced that you're right about nisuin being another form of likuchin, a stronger form, meaning more commitment. Forgive the mashal hedyot, but there's a famous line that speaks to the distinction: “The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig is committed.”

great unknown said...

עי' טעם המלך ס"ק י"ד משכ' על החופת חתנים פרק י' בשער המלך דחופה אין לה מקור מן התורה. וכמובן היו אלה שלא בדיוק הסכימו - וכלשון הברוך טעם" שקר ענה in any case the gemora sanhedrin 22b says that a woman is a golem until she gets married; the marriage corrects that. however, note that there is conservation of golemkeit. guess whom marriage converts into a golem.

Barzilai said...

That's strange. Bishlema you say that there are many alternative definitions of chupa, that's one thing. But this is something else entirely. Unless he means the canopy thingy. That I can hear. It would be nice to see someone that says that it's chukos ha'amim.

lesser unknown said...

gu: 1) I am assuming that you are kidding, but unfortunately since sarcasm/witty humor does not convey well through blog comments, in case you are being serious, I would argue that the gemara in sanhedrin you quoted is not at all referring to marriage itself, but rather the biah rishona, as evident by a) the pasuk the gemara brings down as a proof b) the maharsha on this gemara and c) the tosefos in kesuvos 4a that brings down this gemara as the reason that biah rishona is called bias mitzvah. 2) I thought it was before marriage, during courtship and engagement, that a man turns into a mindless fool. After marriage (or maybe at least after shana rishona) he begins to get some of his chochma back. although, maybe I am just in denial... The simplest translation is to take, as he is taking her to him as a wife. But at the same time, why is the root word of nasah being used instead of just the root of kicha? Because there is some form of elevation, at least potentially, going on here. Similar to a nasi, that doesn't become elevated by being a leader and doesn't elevate others by becoming a leader, there is intrinsic potential in this relationship for elevation. By fulfilling the role and responsibilities entailed the nasi becomes a better person that he could have been without the yolk of the masses upon him, etc... same as with marriage. there is great potential for growth because of the marriage that was not there when both are single. Especially considering that his Toarh isn't complete, his happiness isn't complete etc. as the gemara in yevamos (I think) says.

Barzilai said...

You know, I kind of agree that certain words become popular because of an inherent duality of meaning. It is possible that Nisuin was chosen because of its additional connotations, though I'm pretty convinced that its fundamental meaning is "taking," as Eli illustrated.

great unknown said...

the meaning of the word golem is basically unformed raw material. the wife is formed by the commitment of marriage (and hence is elevated into usefulness [i.e., kli status]), whereupon she immediately (if not sooner) proceeds to re-form the suddenly raw critter she just married. although as a great neo-platonic philosopher once said: the three most important words in a marriage are not, "I love you," but rather, "he'll never change." I think her name was broomhilda.

lesser unknown said...

GU: How would you fit that idea of her elevation due to her commitment to marriage into the pasuk the gemara quotes "ki BOALAYICH osayich"? And to the tosefos in kesuvos 4a which uses this gemara in sanhedrin to explain why biah rishona is called b'elas mitzvah and the maharsha on this gemara in sanhedrin which (if I remember correctly) clearly explains her golem/unfinished status referring to her inability to conceive while a besulah?

lesser unknown said...

I quickly scanned through both the Toras Moshe and the Chasam Sofer on Chumash in the beginning of Miketz and in Vayichi, and I cant find the point you are trying to make. Can you give me a hint?

LkwdGuy said...

See Sotah 9b first rashi.

Barzilai said...

lkwdguy, I see. This needs to be in the post gufa, and that's where I put it. See the end of the post. Yasher koach for your laconic comment.

Eli said...

My appreciation to LkwdGuy's impressive Bekiuss notwithstanding, it should be noted that הנחש השיאני is with right-Shin while נישואין is left-Shin (i.e. sin). While pronunciation of both might be similar, depending on your family tradition, they belong to completely separate roots. נשא with a right-Shin means to seduce/incite, as in זדון לבך השיאך or השא השאת לעם הזה etc. Obviously not all occurrences of this root can be related to נישואין. Thus, it seems the midrash brought in Rashi Sotah (and Shabbos 146a too, also first in Daf(!))is a midrash based on the similarity in written form of both words, but should not be taken as an interpretation of the word נישואין itself.

Barzilai said...

Metzudas Tzion on Yeshaiya 9:4 explains 'sa'on' to mean the same as 'sha'on,' and again in Yeshaiya 10:13 saying that 'shoshati' means the same as shosati'. Besides Rav Hirsch's use of this tool, I believe that many rishonim use it as well. Though it could be that davka Yeshaiya was a Litvak from Shevet Efraim.

Eli said...

actually Yeshaiya 10:13 *says* Shosati (with Sin), but 9:4 is a case in point. Yet, as we find across Tanach more than ten places where נשא with Shin means one thing, completely different than the many meanings of נשא with Sin, I think it's unlikely to merge them together.

Barzilai said...

There are times, though, when you have to be careful to use the right letter. I remember thinking about the pitfalls of being a Litvak one Rosh Hashanna. ותגער בשטן לבל ישטינני

Walking the Chasan and Kallah to the Chuppah

One of the issues that can arise during wedding planning is the question of the Unterfeuhrers, or the Shushvinim. That is, who should walk the chasan and kallah to the chupah-- fathers with the chassan and mothers with the kallah, or parents with each. As Reb Yakov Kaminetzky said, his minhag is to do whatever the mechutanim want. This was not because Reb Yakov was a foundling with no family traditions. He was certainly not. But his predominant family tradition was to have seichel and not make a fuss about trivial things.

That's fine for Reb Yakov. For most men, the minhag is to do what their wives tell them to do. This is a subset of Reb Yakov's minhag. But what about the rest of us, who live to argue about such things? What is the 'right' thing to do?

This question often evokes strong feelings. Speaking from experience, walking your child to the chuppah is one of the greatest moments of our time on Earth, on the order of sandeka'us for a grandchild, when you see, in your mind's eye, your father holding you, his father holding him, the unbroken chain of your ancestors all the way back to Avraham Avinu all doing the same for their children. So while it's easy to scoff at the fights that we often see, one must be cognizant of the strong emotions involved.

1. Brachos 61, Eiruvin 18b, Hashem was the Shushvin of Adam Harishon, which included walking him to the chuppah and to the yichud room afterwards (Hanesu'in Ke'hilchaso 12:14.)

2. Medrash Rabba Breishis 88, that Micha'el and Gavri'el escorted Adam to his chuppah. Doesn't address whether to go f/f (father/father) or f/m, because malachim have no gender as far as I know, but it's a makor for the idea of walking the chasan to the chupah.

3. Rama YD 391:3 (it's in Yoreh Dei'ah because he discusses whether an aveil can be a shushvin) says you go f/f with the Chassan, mother/mother with the Kallah, and that this is "our minhag," and this is quoted verbatim by the Aruch Hashulchan there.

4. Zohar Breishis 2:22 says father/mother for each, not like the Rama.

5. In Reb Moshe Feinstein's family, the minhag was f/m. The Satmerer is quoted as having said that if both sides have the f/f minhag, it is prohibited to change it to f/m. If, however, one side has the minhag of f/m, it is permissible. See also Mishneh Halachos 9 #287 and Da'as Sofer 2 #25.

5. Many don't walk a child to the chuppah if their original marriage ended, whether due to death or divorce (She'arim Metzuyanim Be'halacha147 note 12). This is because people are careful about simanim- omens and portents-  at a wedding. For example, many chasanim (See Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael vol. 8 page 71 note 11) don't knot the tie they wear under the chuppah because untying it later would be inauspicious. (However, it has become common for divorced parents to walk their child to the Chuppah. Usually, one or both parents will not be happy about it, but most often they can be convinced to deal with reality for the sixty seconds that it takes. The fact remains that they are both his parents, and their divorce does not change that fact; it also doesn't change the fact that the child in entitled to have both his parents walking with him.) My parents and Reb Chaim and Rebbitzen Freida Stein were in Samarkhand during the war, and after the war ended and people started to get married, my parents and the Steins agreed that whoever would get married first would bagleit the other couple to the chuppah, even though Reb Chaim's father in law, Uzder Rov, was still alive, because his first wife had died and he had remarried, and a remarried parent wasn't an unterfirer.

6. If the kallah's mother is visibly pregnant, She'arim Metzuyanim Be'halacha says she should not walk her daughter to the chuppah. (147 note 12, because of Ayin Hara, I suppose like a father and son getting consecutive aliyos)

7. Although the Rama is mattir, if the parents are r'l avelim, a rav must be consulted, because in our time music is played as they walk towards the chuppah, as the Aruch Hashulchan points out. Also, one should be aware that the Taz in 393 sk 4 is mattir even within shloshim for aveilim for relatives other than parents.

8. If you and the mechutanim cannot come to an agreement, because they want f/f and you want f/m, then add a pre-red-carpet walk; do father/mother as you walk from the prep room to the chuppah room, and when you are about to enter the chuppah hall, change partners and continue the walk re-organized. And if you can't come to a mature agreement about this, then brace yourself for knock down, drag out fights about naming babies, where the kids will be for yomtov, and where they're going to live.

Yasher Koach to Rabbi Henoch Plotnik of Chicago for many of the m'ms

Advice to People Making Brachos under the Chuppah

The Ritva in Kesuvos (7b d'h Venahagu) says that the brachos under the chuppa are like kiddush Friday night, and this is why they are made over a cup of wine. Thus, the idea of the wine is akin to giving a toast to fete an honoree or an occassion. That being the case, my habit is that when I get one of the last two brachos under the chuppah, I make sure that when I say the words Chassan and Kallah at the end of the brachos, I look at the Chassan and the Kallah, respectively, and raise the glass to them. Just make sure you don't mix up the ends of the last two brachos: Samei'ach ends with "Chassan ve'challah," while Asher Bara ends with "Chassan Im ha'Kallah. (It does make a difference. Rashi (Kesuvos 8a d'h Mesamei'ach) says that the sixth bracha is a blessing that the chassan and kallah should have lives of success and fulfillment, while the seventh and last bracha praises Hashem for granting mankind, and specifically this bride and groom, the wonderful opportunity to create a loving and joyous marital bond. It's very romantic.)

Now, in Shulchan Aruch OC 184:4 and OC 271, it says that when you make a bracha on wine after bentching, or when you make kiddush on wine, you should look at the cup of wine during the bracha. But this is where you made a borei pri hagafen, and so it is important that you not be distracted (meisi'ach da'as) from the words and purpose of the bracha. Here, on the other hand, certainly according to the Ritva, logic dictates that where the object of the bracha is the young couple, you should be looking at them, not the wine. But besides that, I find that, at least in the case of Chassanim whose rational faculties are functioning to some extent, they appreciate it, and it gives emotional import to what otherwise might be seen as a droning halachic formalism. Just don't make it into a circus by lifting the cup three tefachim or the kallah's veil so you can have more kavanah on the cheftzah shel mitzvah. We're fohrt not Irish. A glance and a little gesture are just as meaningful.

And since I'm giving advice to Rabbi and honorees, here are some halachos that are not as well known as they should be:

Until when can you say the Sheva Brachos?  Until seven days have passed.  Day one is the day of the Chuppah, even if the Chuppa is five minutes before Shkiah.

Furthermore, Sheva Brachos depends on when you're saying the Sheva Brachos.  If you bentch after the seventh day is over, you do not make the brachos.  It is possible that if the last day was Shabbos, extending the Shabbos also extends the simcha of the seven days of nisuin, but most people don't hold like that.  Still, if your wife is going to kill you for speaking too long and ruining the whole Sheva Brachos, you can rely on the meikilim.  (Pischei Teshuva EH 62, Shevet Halevi 1:39.)

Korach, Bamidbar 16:1. Vayikach Korach. What a Difference a Good Shidduch Makes

I
The Gemara talks about the word ‘vayikach’, and why the story of Korach begins with this word. There are several pshatim in the Medrash and the Gemara.

Harav Dr. Akiva Eisenberg of (Queens) Manchester, NH, once said that the term "vayikach" alludes to the story brought in the Gemara in Sanhedrin 109b-110a. The Gemara brings the passuk in Mishlei 14 “Chachmos nashim bansah beysah, ve'iveles be'yadah tehersenu;" "The wise among the women build their home, and the crooked destroys it with her own hands." The Gemara tells us that Ohn ben Peles’ wife saved him(you’re not going to be the leader anyway, why join the rebellion?), while Korach’s wife goaded her husband into the fight (Moshe did what to you? And you let him get away with it? Are you any kind of man at all?). This, Rabbi Eisenberg explained, is why the Parsha begins with vayikach. Chazal tell us that in the Torah, marriage is always referred to with the term ‘kichah,’ as we know from the limud of kiddushei kesef “kichah kichah”. The wife of Korach agitated and incited him, while the wife of Ohn convinced him to withdraw from the fight with Moshe. It was Korach's "vayikach" that destroyed him, and it was Ohn Ben Peles' "vayikach" that saved him.

Many people are aware of the Gemara in Sanhedrin. But this insight highlights the idea that the very first word of the Parsha of Korach, the introduction to the tragedy, is the "Vayikach". Vayikach Korach ve'Ohn ben Peles-- it was their 'kichah's that sent one to his doom and saved the other from imminent death.

I noticed that the Gemara in Sotah 10b also brings a similar passuk about Avshalom; when he began his rebellion against his father, it says (Shmuel 2 18: ) “Ve’Avsholom lokach vayatzeiv lo matzeiva...”, and the Gemara asks, what did he take, and says various teirutzim, with the same nusach as the Gemarah in Sanhedrin. The same pshat can be applied there; in fact, there the passuk ends by saying that he set up ‘yad Avshalom’ because he didn’t have any children, and he wanted a zikoron for himself, that his wife influenced him to do what he did.

UPDATE 2019
At the Kiddush, I realized two fascinating things. First, that this applies equally well to people who are not married. Every person should have a friend that he respects and whose opinion matters to him -  and the friend should be a true friend, one that encourages when encouragement is needed, and criticizes when criticism is needed. Without that true friend, a person is apt to make mistakes, both of omission and commission, and both mistakes can ruin one's life. 
I then thought about the Mishna is Avos 1:6. 
יהושע בן פרחיה אומר, עשה לך רב, וקנה לך חבר
Do you notice that the expression קנה לך חבר is essentially identical with the concept of Kiddushin learned from the word כי יקח איש אשה? Kicha and Kinyan are synonymous. Chazal are telling us that the Kicha and the Kinyan both enable us to achieve Shleimus!


II
Who suffered the most from the rebellion of Korach? Who was punished most horribly as a result of this event? Was it Korach, who was swallowed up by the earth and buried alive? Was it the 250 supporters, who were burned? No. The most terrible fate was not the one suffered by those who were burned or those who were buried: it was the one suffered by the lone survivor, Ohn ben Peles.  Let me explain why.

Ohn Ben Peles' wife saw through Korach’s demagoguery about all men being equal, and she told Ohn, don’t be silly, don’t listen to that utopian nonsense about everyone being equal, he is going to make himself king, and you will be a follower once again. (Or, as Rabbi Dr. GS said, “you’re a loser no matter what.”) And Ohn says, but what can I do? I'm committed! So she says, leave it to me. She then proceeds to make him drunk, and scares away the Korach people that come to get him. You have to visualize what happened after that. The next day, Ohn is recovering from his bender, he probably still has a headache, and he and his wife are standing there, watching Korach and company confronting Moshe, and then they hear a rumble, a loud and sudden crack! and the earth opens, and Korach and his people fall into Gehinom. Ohn’s wife turns to him and says, “You see what would happen if I let you do what you wanted???” If Ohn Ben Peles would ever dare to disagree with his wife, all she would have to do is say, “You are disagreeing with me?  You also have an opinion?” Or she would just give him a look.

Korach was not the only man to fall, alive, into a Gehinom that day.  (This sounds even better in Yiddish.)

That is, of course, an easy joke, like Mothers in Law jokes. It is more important to reflect on how vital a spouse’s advice on ruchniusdike matters can be. Although the Gemara says that concerning ‘milli d’shmaya’ a husband should make the decisions, if a man is zocheh to have an “isha chachama,” only if he is a fool would he ignore the words of the wise wife Hashem blessed him with. The best example is that of Reb Akiva's wife, Rachel. In the recently published collection of Reb Akiva Eiger's letters, I saw a letter he wrote to his brother in law telling him that he had spent many hours during the night discussing mussar and hashkafa with his wife-- not teaching, discussing. If one is, heaven forbid, cursed with an ‘eishes Korach,’ he needs to act accordingly. But if he is blessed with an “eishes Ohn ben Peles,” he’d better learn to appreciate what he has.

Vayakhel, Shemos 38:8. The Mar’os Hatzov’os and the Kiyor. Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#8)

Women came to Moshe Rabbeinu and offered to donate their mirrors for use in the building of the Mishkan.

Rashi says that Moshe Rabbeinu initially refused to take them, because he considered them inappropriate for the Mishkan. (Although he had already accepted other intimate jewelry, the Kumozos, those were merely a minor ingredient of the keilim in which they were used, whereas here the Mar’os Hatzov’os were to be the only source of the raw material used in fabricating the Kiyor {Ramban.})

But Hashem told Moshe that when the Jewish men in Egypt were demoralized and exhausted and bitter, they were for all practical purposes emasculated, and they had no physical relationship with their wives. But the women would take out their mirrors, and sit next to their husbands and look at their reflections in the mirrors, and they would say, “I’m so much prettier than you are!” and they would slowly re-awaken their husbands’ interest in marital relations. This ultimately generated the great number of Bnei Yisroel that experienced the Geulah. These mirrors, said Hashem, are more precious than any other nedavah, and Moshe certainly should accept them and use them.

Rabbeinu Bachaye and the Ramban here bring the Chazal quoted by Rashi. Then, they bring “Rebbi Avrohom,” the Ibn Ezra, who says (as is also clearly stated in Onkelos) that these women were ‘tzov’os pesach ohel mo’eid’, because all they did all day was stand near the Mishkan and daven, and they had completely abandoned all interest in cosmetics and foolishness, and this is why they donated their mirrors, because they had no use for or interest in them. The two explanations seems utterly contradictory. The first pshat indicates that these mirrors were holy because of their role in contributing to marital relationship. The second seems to say that they had been abandoned by their owners, who now spent all their time in purely spiritual activity, and they no longer had any connection to their original use.

But there really is no contradiction. Two women could use the mirrors in exactly the same way, to enhance their marital relationship with their husbands, and have completely different motivations. The one who sees her relationship with her husband as a spiritual bond, and who sees their marital relationship as a means of generating the spiritual elevation through their love, and to create a spirit of simcha and hope into him, is kodesh. If the relationship is an egoistic arrangement which serves the hedonistic impulse, it’s not kodesh at all. The way to tell the difference is to see how they act when they get older. When they come to a point where they are free of the duties of raising children and running a household, and when the physical drives naturally diminish, what do they do with their time? Some will be at wits' end, and not know what to do with themselves. These women will desperately embark on a grotesque and pathetic odyssey, trying to resuscitate the appearance and follies of youth. When this becomes too bizarre even for them, Mahjong and shopping and soap opera will fill the vacuum. But others will find the change liberates them to give expression to the holiness that always dwelled within them, and they will spend their time in saying tehillim and other pursuits that enable them to come to a state of dveikus with dvarim shebikdushoh. The Mar’os Hatzov’os of such women are holy.

R’ Hirsch says that it is particularly fitting that the kiyor was used to wash the hands and feet, because this symbolizes being m’kadeish one’s actions and behavior. A person can, through dedication to Hashem’s will, infuse with Kedusha and transform the most mundane or prosaic or even sensual activity. One’s work, or play, or eating, or marital relations, can and should be elements in avodas Hashem, and thereby changed in character from gashmi to ruchni.

Many people think of these parshios as repetitive, arcane, and so obscure as to be boring. In fact, however, these parshios teach us the most important lessons about the meaning and importance of true love. There is the lesson of the Mar'os Hatzov'os, as explained above. And remember, the Shechina spoke to Moshe from the space between the kruvim, which were the images of a young man and woman. What exists in the space between a husband and a wife as they look at each other? That space holds their love for each other, and that is where the Shechina appeared, because, as Chazal say, bizman shehashalom beineihem, Shechina beineihem. They become the Keruvim, and their home is filled with the spirit of holiness. But this is only true when the Keruvim stand atop the Aron Kodesh, which contains the Torah. The Kiyor and the Aron Hakodesh teach us that a loving relationship between husband and wife that is based on the Torah is the conduit of bringing Hashro’as Hashchina to Klal Yisroel.

UPDATE MARCH 2018:
I just saw this, from Bar Ilan. I liked the way it is written, and I give it to you in the original. (The only little he'ara I want to make is that the Magen Avraham in OC 147 sk5 says that to resolve the problem of v'yitnu li requiring that the material have never been in personal use and the donation of jewelry and the mar'os we have to say that they underwent a shinui tzura -

ועוד נ"ל דוקא כמות שהן אסור להשתמש בהן אבל אם שינה צורתן ועש' מהן כלי אחר שרי דהרי הכיור נעשה ממראות הצובאות)

Bar-Ilan University    

Parshat Hashavua Study Center

Parshat Vayakhel 5778/March 10, 2018  

This series of faculty lectures on the weekly Parsha is made possible by the Department of Basic Jewish Studies, the Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, the Office of the Campus Rabbi, Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity and the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.

Please feel free to like our facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/BIUParsha.

For inquiries, contact Avi Woolf at: opdycke1861@yahoo.com.

The Laver:  Sacred Worship and the Sanctity of Life

By Rafi Vaknin^[1]*

“He made the laver of copper and its stand of copper, from the mirrors of the women who performed tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Ex. 38:8).  What were these mirrors, these mar’ot tzov’ot, and how did they come to be in the Tabernacle?  According to Midrash Tanhuma, these were the mirrors that the Israelite women had used in Egypt, and by means of which they had enticed their husbands to stimulate their desire for them, which had been suppressed by hard labor.  The women thereby sought to maintain normal marital relations in a situation that was far from normal—a situation of cruel and harsh enslavement that broke down bodily and emotional strength. Therefore, the women's deeds are described in detail and with so much enthusiasm that even the Holy One, blessed be He, is portrayed as helping the women in their deeds:

They would take the mirrors and gaze at them with their husbands.  She would say, “I am better looking than you,” and he would say, “I am handsomer than you,” and thus they would work up their desire and would be fruitful and multiply.  The Holy One, blessed be He, would remember them forthwith…and by virtue of those same mirrors that they would show their husbands…despite all the hard labor, they made all those hosts [Heb. tzeva’ot].^[2]

Such deeds are considered desirable feminine behavior, as the Gemara says: “A woman who solicits her husband to the [marital] obligation will have children the like of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses.”^[3]  Moreover, sexual drive is even praised by the Rabbis:

Behold, it was very good refers to the Good Desire; and behold, it was very good, to the Evil Desire.  Can then the Evil Desire be very good?  That would be extraordinary!  But for the Evil Desire, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children.^[4]

Good Desire and Evil Desire are not contradictory forces that contend in a person’s soul.  Desire is one; it causes a person to build and create, as well as do evil and destroy.  It can lead a person to that which is detested and impure, and it can lead to creating and building; the good cannot be separated from the bad because we are dealing with the same force itself.  The emotional energy that pushes a person to acts of illicit sex is the same as that which pushes one to spiritual matters, as the sages of the Zohar concluded from this discussion: “Were it not for the Evil Desire, there would be no delight in Talmudic discussion.”^[5]  In other words, were it not for the Evil Desire, there would be no joy and pleasure taken in study.  Both actions, creating and desiring, require the same drive.  This is what the term libido in psychology signifies.  Its primary sense is sexual energy, psycho-sexual, but its broader meaning is an inclusive term denoting the emotional energy that drives a person in the realm of spiritual action.

Thus Moses was commanded to take the mirrors, “which they would gaze at with their husbands,” and to fashion from them “a copper laver with a copper base, for the priests, from which they would consecrate themselves.”^[6]  In other words, all the sanctity for the sacred service the priests would draw from the laver, made of the copper of the mirrors used by those women.  Scripture notes, exceptionally, whence the raw material came to make this object.^[7]

The laver was also special in the manner in which it was made.  Nahmanides says:

The point of this homily is that in all the work of the Tabernacle, jewelry was received from the women, as it is written, “and they came, both men and women” (Ex. 35:22).  They brought brooches, earrings, rings and pendants (Heb. kumaz), and the kumaz, according to the commentary, was the most abhorred, but there all the contributions were mixed in together.  But even to think of making a special vessel out of the jewel that was made for the Evil Desire—such a thing Moses would not choose to do, until the Almighty specifically instructed him.

Among the raw materials donated for making the Tabernacle were women’s jewelry, including the “most abhorred”—the kumaz which was interpreted as meaning “Kan (here) Mekom (is the place) Zimah (of unchastity).”^[8]  But they were swallowed up and mixed in with all the other materials.  This, however, was not the case with the laver, for it was made entirely “out of the jewel made for the Evil Desire.”

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says that the laver was the only one of the furnishings of the Tabernacle in which it was possible to identify clearly the raw material from which it was fashioned.  The mirrors remained in their original form, unprocessed, not changed in shape, or melted down.  He says:

It is deeply significant that the vessel of the Sanctuary which was to represent “the moral ‘keeping holy’ of one’s acts and efforts,” Kiddush yadayim ve-raglayim, was made out of the women’s mirrors.  Mirrors are articles which lay stress on the physical bodily appearance of people being an object of special consideration.  So that it was shown that the physical sensual side of human beings is not merely not excluded from the sphere which is to be sanctified by the Mikdosh, but that it is the first and most essential object of this sanctification.  After all at rock bottom, as Man has complete free will in moral matters, it is just this side of human nature which is necessary to come under the influence of the Mikdash, if the sanctification of life which is aimed at, is to be achieved…The wording, mar’ot ha-tzov’ot, can even be meant to say that the copper mirrors were not melted down but that the laver was made up of the mirrors fitted together almost without any alteration at all, so that it was recognizable that the basin consisted actually of mirrors.^[9]

The vessel intended for “keeping holy the hands and feet” was made of the women’s mirrors, which symbolized more than all else the sensuality and sexuality of human beings, and these mirrors were used in their original form, bringing them as such into the realm of sanctity.  There was no need to refine them; they themselves were holy.  Only through incorrect use or erroneous perception might a human being turn sensuality into something abhorrent, as Ramahal says:  “Behold, all those things that concern intimacy between husband and wife are themselves holy of holies; but the folly of human beings turns them into the highest level of impurity.”^[10]  Both these aspects of Desire came together in the laver; the mar’ot tzov’ot symbolizing sanctification of desire, and the water in the laver, used in the trial of a woman suspected by her husband of adultery.^[11]

The Maharam of Rothenburg^[12] notes that the word tzov’ot occurs in Scripture only one other time, in the story about the sons of Eli the priest, officiating in the Tabernacle at Shiloh:  “Now Eli was very old.  When he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who performed tasks at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting…” (I Sam. 2:22).  This singular word points to a connection between the two stories.  Regarding the actions of the sons of Eli, the Sages said:  “Because they postponed their offering of doves, so that they did not return to their husbands, Scripture regards them as if they had lain with them.”^[13]  Offerings of doves refers to the pair of pigeons or doves which a poor woman would bring as a sacrificial offering to purify herself after childbirth.  The sons of Eli would be lax in making these offerings, since the portion they received from such offerings was meagre, and would postpone these offerings, first offering those sacrifices in which they had a greater portion.

Generally a mirror is something into which a woman looks in order to see herself, and with its aid she cultivates her looks.  The midrash presents the mirrors as the vehicle through which the woman saw themselves and their husbands with them:  they would “gaze at them with their husbands” and “they would show their husbands.”  Their focus was on their husbands, not themselves.  It was in this respect that the sons of Eli failed.  Since they were so engrossed in looking out for their own benefit, they did not see the poor woman who stood before them, they put off her sacrificial offering, and delayed her return to her husband.  The way Eli’s sons delayed the women, keeping them away from their husbands an entire night, was considered a grievous sin:  since they prevented the women from cohabitating, Scripture relates to the sons of Eli as if they had raped those women.

Rav Kook, in his commentary on this question, points to the connection between worship in the Temple and the commandment to be fruitful and multiply:  “Bringing the offering of two doves makes fit life, sanctifying it.  Hence, how could the priest postpone offering the two doves?  How could he make little of the main objective—peace in the home, calm and good relations, such as the Lord desires in His world.”^[14]  In other words, the sons of Eli marred the connection between husband and wife, and in so doing they also marred the connection between the sacred service and the sanctity of life.

The tsov’ot mirrors were used by the women when they consecrated themselves for relations with their husbands, and from them was fashioned the laver, used by the priests to consecrate themselves before officiating in the Sanctuary.  Thus sacred worship connected with the sanctity of life.

Translated by Rachel Rowen

---

^[1] Eruvin 100b.

^[2] Genesis Rabbah (Theodore-Albeck) 9.7, Soncino ed., p. 68.

^[3] Midrash ha-Ne`elam, Vol. 1 (Bereshit), Parashat Toledot 138a.

^[4] Tanhuma (Warsaw ed.), Pekudei, 9.

^[5] Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl, Sihot le-Sefer Shemot, Beit El 1992, p. 385.

^[6] Shabbat 64a.

^[7] Samson Raphael Hirsch, commentary on Ex. 38:8, trans. Dr. Isaac Levy, p. 692.

^[8] Yalkut Yedi`ot ha-Emet 2, Tel Aviv 1965, p. 321.

^[9] Numbers Rabbah (Vilna ed.) 9.14, and in abbreviated form in Rashi’s commentary on Numbers 5:17.

^[10] His commentary can be found in Torat Hayyim Pentateuch.

^[11] Shabbat 55b.

^[12] Ein Ayah, Shabbat 2, Jerusalem 2000, p. 50.

^[13]

^[14]

AND THEN I SAW THIS FROM RAV FRAND, ALSO EXCELLENT.

Sanctifying the Mundane is Precious

Parshas Vayakhel Pekudei

Posted on March 8, 2018 (5778) By Rabbi Yissocher Frand | Series: Rav Frand | Level: Intermediate

These divrei Torah were adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher Frand’s Commuter Chavrusah Tapes on the weekly portion: CD #1024 – Turning Old Dress Into Cover for a Sefer Torah? Good Shabbos!

The Torah tells us that the women donated their mirrors to the Mishkan building fund, and the mirrors were used to make the base of the Kiyor [Laver]. Rashi quotes Chazal that initially Moshe was hesitant to take this donation, because he felt that mirrors were a tool of the Yetzer Ha’rah [evil inclination]. Rashi uses a very strong expression. Not only did Moshe Rabbeinu reject these mirrors, “he was repelled by them” (haya mo’ays bahem). “How can the mirrors — which are made for sensual purposes — be used for a spiritual purpose in the Mishkan?” But the Almighty overrode Moshe’s objections, also using a very strong expression in instructing him: “Accept them; for they are more precious to Me than any other donation!”

Rashi explains that in Mitzraim, the men did not want to engage in the act of procreation, because they felt they were in a futile situation where it was not worth bringing additional Jewish children into the world. The women were not so pessimistic. They used their mirrors to beautify themselves, went out into the field, and enticed their husbands. As a result, the Jewish population continued to increase. By virtue of the fact that these mirrors were used for such a positive purpose, the Almighty told Moshe that He considered them to be the dearest donation of the entire Mishkan fundraising effort.

I saw an interesting question raised by Rav Dovid Kviat, one of the Roshei Yeshiva in the Mir Yeshiva. Tosfos says in many places in Shas that Talmudic disputes do not result from “sevaros hafuchos” [diametrically opposed lines of reasoning], where one opinion says “black” and another opinion says “white.” True, one point of view can be “mutar” [permitted] and another point of view can be “asur” [forbidden] or one point of view can be “Kosher” and another point of view can be “Treife“, but that is only the practical outcome of the dispute. However, the source of the underlying dispute cannot come from diametrically opposed logical positions. In other words, if one “person” says something makes sense, how can the disputant take the exact opposite point of view?

In effect, Rav Dovid Kviat is asking, what happened to Moshe Rabbeinu here? Moshe considers the mirrors repugnant — he is repelled by them — while the Almighty finds them to be His favorite and most precious donation. How can that be? Moshe usually has a keen understanding of the Will of Hashem. After all, he was Moshe Rabbeinu! How could he be so off base here with his reaction to the mirrors?

Rav Kviat answers that Moshe Rabbeinu was not off base. Moshe’s reaction was logical and totally understandable. However, Moshe Rabbeinu was missing a piece of information that the Holy One Blessed be He possessed. Moshe Rabbeinu, who was in Midyan at the time, had no way of knowing what happened in Egypt regarding the intimate relationships between the Jewish men and their wives. He had no way of knowing that the men were hesitant to have children, and that their wives used these mirrors to encourage their them.

This is a way in which it is possible to have sevaros hafuchos. The Ribono shel Olam knew the purpose that the mirrors served. Had Moshe had this same “inside information” regarding the history of these mirrors, he would also have felt the same way. Moshe saw the mirrors simply as tools to put on eyeliner and mascara. As such, he felt they were a totally inappropriate gift for use in the Beis HaMikdash. The Almighty told him, “Moshe, you do not know the whole story. The whole story is that the women built Klal Yisrael with these mirrors. These are more precious to Me than anything else.”

Chazal say, regarding the words “With all your heart,” [Devorim 4:29] that a person must worship the Almighty “with both his inclinations” (i.e., the Yetzer Ha’tovand the Yetzer Ha’rah). It is obvious how a person serves the Master of the Universe with his “Good Inclination.” How does a person serve Him with his “Evil Inclination?” One explanation is by conquering it. When someone has an urge to do something forbidden, he can subdue that urge, and thereby serve G-d by conquest of his Evil Inclination. However, there is a higher form of serving G-d through one’s Yetzer Ha’Rah. The highest form of serving G-d is to take that Yetzer Ha’Rah and turn it into a Davar Kodesh [Holy Item]. That is what these women did. They leveraged something that is in fact the Yetzer Ha’Rah. Lust for women, lust for sexual relations, can be internal drives that derive from one’s “Evil Inclination.” To take those urges, and to make them into an act of holiness, is the highest form of Divine Service. It gives special pleasure to the Almighty, and the tools used to accomplish this transformation became the most precious donation to HisMishkan.

A similar idea is found with the Tzitz [Headplate] worn by the Kohen Gadol [High Priest]. One of the eight garments of the Kohen Gadol was the Tzitz. The pasuk in this week’s parsha says, “And they made the Headplate, the holy crown, of pure gold, and they inscribed on it with script like that of a signet ring, ‘Holy to Hashem'” [Shemos 39:30]. The words “Kodesh l’Hashem” Were engraved upon the Tzitz, which was worn on the forehead of the Kohen Gadol. This is the only garment that has those words upon it. Why?

Chazal say that the Tzitz sat on the metzach [forehead] of the Kohen Gadol, and the word metzach is symbolic of the term azus metzach, which means chutzpah. On Yom Kippur, as part of the Al Chet confession, we confess for sins we have committed with “azus metzach.” Chutzpah is a terrible trait. The Mishna says “Az panim l’Gehinnom” [a person with chutzpah goes to Hell] [Avos 5:24]. The fact that they wrote “Holy to Hashem” on the metzach, which represents azus [chutzpah], is symbolic of the fact that sometimes the attribute of chutzpah can be transformed and sanctified. It can become Kodesh l’Hashem! The item which represents the bad and evil traits in man, when sanctified and transformed into holiness, represents the highest form of Divine Service.

Sometimes we need to stand up for principles, and take action that requires chutzpah. Such manifestation of chutzpah is called “azus d’Kedusha.” Of course we need to be careful, but to take chutzpah and use it for fighting Hashem’s battles can reflect a high level of spirituality.

Rav Tzadok comments on the famous Mishna at the end of Sotah. The Mishna writes that in the pre-Messianic era, “chutzpah will multiply.” This is certainly true on a simple level in our own time. The Kotzker Rebbe gives this Mishnaic statement a positive twist, and says that in pre-Messianic times we will need to have chutzpah to spiritually survive. We will be in such a spiritually hostile environment, that unless a person has a certain degree of chutzpah, he will melt away in the corrupt society in which he finds himself. The Mishna says that in the time before the imminent arrival of Moshiach, we will need to take that attribute of azus-chutzpah, and turn it into a tool for our spiritual survival. This is an instance of having the words Kodesh l’Hashem engraved on the metzach.

This concept can allow us to properly interpret a famous statement of Chazal. The pasuk in Parshas Pekudei says that they finished the Mishkan, and Moshe Rabbeinu gave them a blessing: “Moshe saw the entire work, and behold, they had done it as Hashem had commanded — so had they done! — and Moshe blessed them.” [Shemos 39:43] Rashi adds, “He said to them ‘May the Divine Presence dwell in the work of your hands.’”

The simple reading of the pasuk is that now that the work was all done, and the Mishkan [Tabernacle] was built exactly to specification. Moshe gave the people a blessing that the Shechina should now come down to the Mishkan and dwell therein. Why would they need a bracha for this? This is what they had been promised all along. It was part of the deal. The Ribono shel Olam guaranteed, “You build for Me a Mishkan, and My Presence will dwell therein!” [Shemos 25:8] So what is this blessing doing here after they did everything correctly? They had every reason to expect the Shechina now, without any new blessings!

I once saw an interpretation that the expression ‘May the Divine Presence dwell in the work of your hands’ means more than just that the Shechina would come down to the Mishkan. “Yehi Ratzon she’Tishreh Shechina b’ma’aseh yedeichem” means that the effect of the Mishkan — the effect of having the Ribono shel Olam in your midst — should turn all of your mundane acts into vessels for the Shechina.

“The work of your hands” is not referring only to the Mishkan, to the act of construction. Moshe’s blessing was that if you did this right and the Ribono shel Olamis going to dwell in your midst, consequently you will be different people. Your eating is going to be different, your sleeping is going to be different, your business is going to be different. Everything about you is going to be different because you are going to elevate yourselves. This is the ultimate tachlis [purpose] of the Mishkan. “Yehi Ratzon she’Tishreh Shechina b’ma’aseh yedeichem” is the highest possible level of spirituality. “Elu chavivim Alai min ha’kol.”

If you can take a mirror, if you can take makeup, if you can beautify yourselves and that becomes a mitzvah — and that becomes “G-d’s most treasured contribution” — that is because this is what Yiddishkeit is all about. “You shall be a holy people to me” [anshei kodesh…]. I want you to be human beings, but holy human beings. You should become different through your work and contributions towards establishing the Mishkan.

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch says that in Sefer Vayikra, which we are about to start next week, the first Korban [sacrifice] mentioned is the burnt offering (Korban Olah). The unique feature of the Olah offering is that it was Kulah l’Hashem — it is entirely burnt as an offering to G-d. At the end of Sefer Vayikra, the last Korban mentioned is ma’aser be’heimah [animal tithe]. This is a form of Peace Offering [Korban Shlomim]. It is almost entirely consumed by those who bring it.

In other words, the Toras Kohanim, the Book of the Law for the Priests (i.e., Vayikra), begins with an offering that goes entirely to G-d, but ultimately — at the end of Vayikra — the Torah demonstrates that it is possible to take something that is a Korban — Kodoshim Kalim — and enjoy it. We are supposed to eat it; we are supposed to take enjoyment from our consumption of this holy offering. It primarily belongs to the owners, and they are supposed to enjoy eating it as a spiritual experience.

That is what the Mishkan is all about, and that is what Toras Kohanim is all about. This is what having a Beis HaMikdash is all about. It is about giving us the capacity to elevate out handiwork, to elevate our lives above the mundane. We are charged with taking the profane and making it holy. We take the mirrors and make a Kiddush Hashem with them. We take Chutzpah, and use it for the Sake of Heaven. We take our possessions and our professions and make with them things which are holy. This is the blessing of “Yehi Ratzon she’Tishreh Shechina b’ma’aseh yedeichem“.

---

Transcribed by David Twersky; Jerusalem DavidATwersky@gmail.com

Technical Assistance by Dovid Hoffman; Baltimore, MD dhoffman@torah.org