Yom Kippur: On Behalf of His Wife: וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו- ביתו זו אשתו

Yesterday, I attended the joyous Lechaim for the engagement of my youngest son, who became a Chassan just before Shabbos.  The Chassan was prepared to say Divrei Torah and Divrei Bracha, but with all the excitement and comings and goings and reunions with old friends and meeting new friends (including the Divrei Chaim!), there really wasn't a moment to organize the crowd into a speech schema.

The Chassan is learning Maseches Yoma, and of course, the Aseres Yemei Teshuva is about to begin (see note #1), and the speech he prepared, I think, hit the trifecta, and deserves dissemination.

The Mishna in the beginning of Yoma says that the Kohen Gadol must be married when he does the avoda of Yom Kippur.  This is based on (Vayikra 16:6) וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו, he shall achieve forgiveness for himself and his household etc.  Chazal darshen that ביתו זו אשתו, the word "household" means his wife.  Since the formal vidui mentions his wife, he must have a wife in order to do the Avoda. Why?  What is the logic of requiring that the Kohen Gadol be married while he does the Avoda?  How does having a wife make any difference in his Avoda?

We find another instance where a public figure needs to have a family.  That is the Gemara in Sanhedrin (36b) that is brought by the Rambam in 2 Sanhedrin 3:  אין מעמידין בכל סנהדרין לא זקן מופלג בשנים ולא סריס, מפני שיש בהן אכזרייות, ולא מי שאין לו בנים, כדי שיהיה רחמן.  One may not appoint to the Sanhedrin one who is very old...nor one who has no children, because they will not have properly developed traits of mercy.  But if this is the logic behind the בעד ביתו of the Kohen Gadol, why a wife?  Why not a son?

We would like to suggest three possible answers.
(Update November 2014: Four.)

I
The Kohen Gadol must say Vidui for Klal Yisrael.  That he can do so is surprising, because vidui is a prime example of something one must do on his own, something one cannot ask someone else to do on his behalf.  (See Minchas Chinuch brought in note #2)  How can a Kohen Gadol say vidui for Klal Yisrael?  The answer is that only once the Kohen Gadol experiences the absolute empathy of ishto ke'gufo can he escape the prison of egotism, and only then can he move from the specific to the general, from the personal to the national, and come to level of ערבות that allows him to say vidui for Klal Yisrael as if he were intimately connected with each and every one of them, as if they were all כגופו.   Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach once went to the doctor with his wife, and told the doctor "עס טוט אונז וויי די פוס," our foot is hurting.  The Kohen Gadol can say the same regarding all of Klal Yisrael- but to come to that madreiga requires the first step of having a ריעך כמוך.

(See notes #3 and #4.)


II
The Kohen Gadol comes before Hashem and says, Ribono shel Olam, you described Klal Yisrael as יונתי תמתי, Your perfect dove (Shir Hashirim 5:2).  I, too, have a perfect dove, my own wife, and she is without any flaw or blemish or imperfection.  ועל כל פשעים תכסה אהבה  (Mishlei 19:12)  You, too, Hashem, look at יונתך תמתך and say כולך יפה רעייתי ומום אין בך.

When a person gets married, his shidduch is a matanah from the Ribono shel Olam, it is the zivug that was fated and intended for him from the moment he was created, and it is the perfect zivug for him.  There is nobody else, only יונתי תמתי, and he must thank the Ribono shel Olam for giving him this unique and perfect gift.
(See note #5)


III
The Gevuras Ari asks why do Chazal assume that Beiso means only his wife, when elsewhere the term might include his sons as well.  I would suggest that we find a particular characteristic that is essential to Kehuna Gedola, and that is Tznius.  Kimchis, as related in Yoma 47a, had seven sons that were Kohanim Gedolim, and she attributed this amazing accomplishment to her extraordinary Tznius.  It is clear that a mother's tznius is a condition precedent for the kedusha of Kehuna Gedola.  It is possible (See note #6) that it is also an element in the kedusha itself.  If so, it is logical to assume that the word Beiso refers to Kol kevuda bas melech pnima, the tznius of the wife of the Kohen Gadol.   Kohanim Gedolim knew that they could only marry a woman that exemplified and embodied the midda of Tznius, and only a Kohen Gadol that has a wife who embodies the midda of tznius can do the avoda.

Along these lines:
The Sforno points out in Parshas Vezos Habracha that the Tribe of Asher was the most successful of the Shvatim and its members were very wealthy, and although most people resent wealth in other people, everyone loved Shevet Asher.  This is what is meant by "Retzui Echav."  The Sforno does not explain why this was so, he just says that it is an anomaly.  But perhaps we can explain it on the basis of the Rashi (Devarim 33:24) that says that Kohanim Gedolim married girls from Shevet Asher- שהיו בנותיו נשואות לכהנים גדולים הנמשחים בשמן זית- and this must be because they were tremendous Tznu'im, as we discussed above.  Properly evolved Tznius is not only a matter of modesty in dress, it includes placidity and silence; it certainly means that one avoids flashiness and arrogance and tumul.  This kind of tznius, concomitant with good yichus, is a tzniyus of עדינות ואצילות.  If Asher was so developed in the midda of Tznius, we can understand why everyone loved them and nobody was jealous of them- because of their tznius.


IV
(November '14)
I saw in the Vayoel Moshe on Parshas Chayei Sara that he brings the Mizrachi's question, if Yitzchak waited to marry Rivka till she was three and ra'ui l'bi'ah, why not wait till she was capable of bearing children?  The R'em says he wanted to be married in order to avoid improper thoughts, like the Gemara with Rav.  The Satmarer is not happy with that answer, obviously.  So he brings the Zohar that says that the reason a Kohen Gadol has to be married is that without a wife, he is a "Plag Gufa," half a body, and he is a ba'al mum.  In order to do the avoda of Yom Kippur, even that kind of mum passels the avoda.  So he shtells tzu to Yitzchak and says that Yitzchak's avoda, whatever it was, also required that he not be a ba'al mum, so he needed to be married.  (The Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur needs to be married, not just Kiddushin, as the Gemara says on 13a.  Here, too, although Eliezer was mekadeish her immediately, we're talking about nisu'in.)




The Chassan getting ready to propose.

Notes.

1.  I think Aseres Yemei Teshuva is singular and so I wrote "is about to begin" and not "are about to begin."  Aseres is not the same as Asara.  Aseres is a unit comprising ten items.  Like "a dozen eggs weighs around a pound."

2.  Regarding Vidui through a Shliach, see the Minchas Chinuch here.

3.  One might ask, how do I know that the din of בעד ביתו is specific to the Vidui?  First, because the passuk that says וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו is talking about the Vidui.  Furthermore, the Gevuras Ari is mashma that the requirement is specific to the Vidui.  It's not b'frierush in the Gevuras Ari, but evident from the fact that he says that he holds that as long as the Kohen Gadol is married during avodas Hapar, it doesn't matter if he's married during avodas ha'se'irim, which makes zero sense if he's talking about avodas hadam, because the avodas hadam of the Par and of the Se'irim is done together.  It only makes sense if he's talking only about the Viduyim, which are, of course, separate.  It is on that basis I say that the din of בעד ביתו is a din in the Vidui.  The relevant section of the Gevuras Ari: 

יש לעיין בהא דביתו, אי קפיד רחמנא בשעת כפרת פרו דוקא שיהיה לו בית, אבל בשעת

כפרת שתי שעירים לית לן בה אם אין לו בית, דהא  האי ביתו לא כתיב אלא גבי כפרת פרו, ואפילו לרי

 יהודה דס״ל ברפ״ק דשבועות (ב׳ ע״ב) דבשאר עבירות אחד כהנים ואחד ישראלים מתכפרים בשעיר המשתלח מ״מ אפשר לומר דלא קפיד קרא אביתו אלא בכפרתו שלו דהיינו פרו המיוחד לו, או דלימא אכולה מילתא

 קפיד אביתו, שכל עבודת יוה״כ צריך להיות בכ״ג נשוי ואפי׳ לר״ש נמי אע״פ שכל כפרתו בפרו ווידויו

See also the Gevuras Ari here in DH  מ״ מ אכתי.  

4.  It could be argued that Chazal understand the בעד ביתו later in the parsha as including all Kohanim, so it seems that it does not exclusively refer to his wife.  This is not a kashe.  The primary meaning of Beiso is his wife.  Secondarily, but only on the basis of apparent redundancy, it is understood to also refer to his brother Kohanim,  The fact that his brother Kohanim need special kaparah is not surprising, because the kapara here primarily involves Tumas Mikdash Ve'Kadashav.  The surprising halacha, which we are addressing, is that his wife needs to be included, and that if he does not have a wife, he cannot do the avodah.

5.  This is not how the Chassan was going to say it.  It would be inappropriate for someone that has just gotten engaged, or just gotten married.  It's more appropriate for someone that has been married for twenty years.  He was just going to say that his Kallah is a gift from the Ribono shel Olam and perfect for him, without all the mawkish יונתי תמתי business.

6.  Some readers wrote in saying that this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.  Please read the paragraph again.  What I said is that a mother's Tznius is a necessary factor in having children that become Kohanim Gedolim.  There are two ways to understand that:  either that Tznius avoids things that would ruin the children, or that Tznius lends an enhancement to the children.  That either Tznius is just a way of preventing a psul, or that Tznius is a way of investing a maalah.  I suggested that Tznius is not merely a shlilus of pritzus, it is a be'poeil of kedusha, and it is a necessary ingredient of being a Kohen Gadol, both in one's mother and in one's wife.

 As far as a shiduch being bashert, there is a nice Yalkut in Chayei Sara as follows:

ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו מה' יצא הדבר לא נוכל דבר אליך רע או טוב מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים שאין זווגו של אדם אלא מאת הקב"ה. מן התורה ויאמרו מה' יצא הדבר. מן הנביאים ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה' היא ומן הכתובים בית והון נחלת אבות ומה' אשה משכלת:

PInchas, Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#5)

The Medrash (בראשית רבה פרשה ס"ח:ג-ד, ויקרא רבה פרשה ח:א, במדבר רבה פרשה ג:ו)  tells the following story.

רבי יהודה בר סימון פתח (תהלים ס"ח) 'אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה'. מטרונה שאלה את ר' יוסי בר חלפתא אמרה לו לכמה ימים ברא הקב"ה את עולמו, אמר לה לששת ימים, כדכתיב (שמות כ') 'כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ'. אמרה לו מה הוא עושה מאותה שעה ועד עכשיו, אמר לה הקב"ה יושב ומזווג זיווגים, בתו של פלוני לפלוני, אשתו של פלוני לפלוני, ממונו של פלוני לפלוני.

Someone asked Rav Yosi ben Chalafta, if it took Hashem six days to create the world, how does He spend his time since then?  He answered that Hashem spends His time making shidduchim.

I wonder, given that shidduchim are important, are they so important that the Ribono shel Olam needs to spend time working on them?  And what would be so bad if they were just left to chance, like the rest of the world does it?

And the Gemara (Moed Kattan 18b) reiterates this lesson; whatever you think about hashgacha pratis, shidduchim are in the hands of the Ribono shel Olam, and only the most serious and concerted effort of tefilla (see Rashi there DH או איהו) can circumvent that will.

אמר רב משום רבי ראובן בן אצטרובילי מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים מה' אשה לאיש.   מן התורה- דכתיב (בראשית כד) ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו מה' יצא הדבר. מן הנביאים- דכתיב (שופטים יד) ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה' היא. מן הכתובים דכתיב (משלי יט) בית והון נחלת אבות ומה' אשה משכלת

In fact, the Medrash immediately before the one I quoted above says the same as the Gemara:

ר' אבהו פתח (משלי י"ט) 'בית והון נחלת אבות ומה' אשה משכלת'. רבי פנחס בשם ר' אבהו מצינו בתורה בנביאים ובכתובים שאין זיווגו של איש אלא מן הקב"ה. בתורה מנין (בראשית כ"ד) 'ויען לבן ובתואל ויאמרו מה' יצא הדבר'. בנביאים (שופטים י"ד) 'ואביו ואמו לא ידעו כי מה' הוא'. בכתובים היינו דכתיב (משלי י"ט) 'ומה' אשה משכלת'. יש שהוא הולך אצל זיווגו ויש שזיווגו בא אצלו. יצחק זיווגו בא אצלו, 'וירא והנה גמלים באים'. יעקב הלך אצל זיווגו, דכתיב 'ויצא יעקב'.

So what's so important about this?  Why, of all events in life, does the Gemara describe zivug as so vital, so essential, that the Ribono shel Olam can be said to spend all His time after Brias Ha"olam in organizing Shidduchim?

Chazal (Shavuos 30b, regarding Rav Huna's wife appearing in court before Reb Nachman) tell us that אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר, the wife of a Talmid Chacham must be shown the same respect as her husband.  Why is this true?  Simply, one might say that it is similar to honoring one's older brother, or a step mother, where the honor shown to them enures to the father.  I believe there is more to it than that.

מעשה בר"ש בן חלפתא שבא ערב שבת ולא היה לו מאן להתפרנס יצא לו חוץ מן העיר והתפלל לפני האלהים וניתן לו אבן טובה מן השמים נתנה לשולחני ופרנס אותה שבת אמרה אשתו מהיכן אלו אמר לה ממה שפרנס הקב"ה אמרה אם אין אתה אומר לי מהיכן הן איני טועמת כלום התחיל מספר לה אמר לה כך נתפללתי לפני האלהים וניתן לי מן השמים אמרה לו איני טועמת כלום עד שתאמר לי שתחזירה מוצאי שבת אמר לה למה אמרה לו אתה רוצה שיהא שולחנך חסר ושולחן חבירך מלא והלך ר' שמעון והודיע מעשה לרבי אמר לו לך אמור לה אם שולחנך חסר אני אמלאנו משלי הלך ואמר לה אמרה לו לך עמי למי שלמדך תורה אמרה לו ר' וכי רואה אדם לחבירו לעוה"ב לא כל צדיק וצדיק הוה ליה עולם בעצמו שנאמר (קהלת יב) כי הולך האדם אל בית עולמו וסבבו בשוק הסופדים עולמים אין כתיב אלא עולמו כיון ששמע כן הלך והחזיר

(Shmos Rabba 52:3)

Reb Shimon ben Chalafta needed money for shabbos, got a gem from shamayim, pawned it for money and bought food,  he brought it home and his wife asked him where'd you get the money for this stuff.  He told her what happened, and she said I won't eat a bite of  the food until you promise me you'll return the precious stone Motzei Shabbos.

This was the only time this happened; he always had money to buy shabbos, but this happened to be a bad week, and he thought he could use the miracle with nobody knowing.  His wife sniffed out the secret.  Not only did she sniff out his secret, she told him that she refused to benefit from a neis.  She said, everyone else will have full tables, and we'll have a hole in middle? Reb Shimon went to Rebbi, and Rebbi said, tell her I'll give you from my table in Olam Haba.  She said, I'm going to Rebbi with you, and we'll see.  She said to Rebbi, since when can a person get anything from another in OhB?  Everyone has his own world, no more and no less!  You can't go next door and borrow a cup of sugar in Shamayim!  When he heard this, he agreed to give it back.  (There is a similar story in Taanis 25a involving Reb Chanina ben Dosa and his wife.)

Do you realize who we're talking about here?   The greatest gedolim of the generation that wrote the Mishnayos, people who would have been nevi'im if their generation merited it.  They were geniuses and tzadikim that spent every waking moment in the Beis Medrash learning with all their strength from the gedolei hador, arguing, discussing, thinking, memorizing, with siyata dishmaya, and Mrs. Chalafta and Mrs. Dosa were at home changing diapers and sewing and doing the laundry.  And when it came to this very important matter of hashkafa, of what is right and what is wrong, of what a person ought to be doing and working towards in life, these women blew them all away and made it crystal clear to them that they were wrong.  They out-thought them and out-haskafa'ed them.  

This reminds me of the story with the Brisker Rov.  His Rebbitzen was over cleaning for Pesach, and he told her that she didn't need to do half of what she was doing.  She answered "If I would listen to you, we would have been eating Chametz at the Seder for a long time."

That is what the Netziv (Harchev Davar Breishis 2:18, and see Haamek Davar Breishis 4:19) calls an eizer k'negdo.  The netziv says, eizer k'negdo means that when you go off the track, your wife will help you by pointing out what you are doing wrong.  She will praise her husband when he should be praised, but also offer him insights that he would otherwise not have.  The latter, showing him his mistake when necessary, is the greater service.

The binah yeseirah that a woman has can grow without limit.  The only limit to its growth is the husband's madreigah.  In a properly constituted home, in a home where the husband and wife share ideas of avodas Hashem and mussar, the husband and wife will grow together.  The wife will grow from what she learns from the husband, and the husband will grow from what he learns from his wife, and the two will create a shleimus and kedusha far greater than the sum of what they could have created individually.  No matter what the husband's madreiga, his wife will have rachamim and bina yeseirah to offer that he should heed.  No  matter what the wife's madreiga, the husband will have chochma and gevura that the she should heed.  Avraham Avinu would have been different without a Sara.  Sara without an Avraham would never have come to a madreiga of nevua of כל אשר תאמר לך.  One without the other simply would not be a Tzelem Elokim.  (See note 1.)

Each party contributes their share to the Hashra'as Hashechina of a Bayis Ne'eman, and each contribution is unique and essential.

In Parshas Pinchas, Hashem counts the Jewish People again.  The Kli Yakar here (26:10), on the passuk .  Le'Chanoch, mishpachas haChanochi, le'Chetzron, etc, points out that the family names have an extra hei and yud, "haPalu'i, haChetzroni."  These two letters form name of Hashem.  Why does it appear specifically here?  Because Klal Yisrael was never suspected of pritzus, even the sonei yisrael knew that the Jewish family is kodesh kadashim.  But after Bnos Midian, the nations said "They’re no different than the rest of us, their blood was mixed when they were slaves in Mitzrayim."  So Hashem said eidus that they were pure.  The eidus is evident in the name of Hashem, the yud and the hei, which is the shechina that is brought about by a holy family life, the Yud from ish and and the Hei from isha.  They were each born from parents whose marriage created a hashra’as hashechina in their home. 

So why is the hei first?  The yud is the man's and the hei is the woman's contribution!  He answers that the as far as the right to inherit Eretz Yisrael, the women were more entitled than the men.  Their entitlement was based on two things in which they outdid the men of that generation- Tzniyus and the Love of Eretz Yisrael.  In 26:64, he explains that this is one of the reasons that the parsha ends by saying “uv’eileh lo hoyoh ish.”  Rashi- No Ish who had been counted earlier survived to be counted again, but many nashim.  Although the gzeira of the midbar affected the men, which is why Hashem counted them again, but there were plenty of elderly women who did enter Eretz Yisrael.  Rashi says that the reason is because they were lovers of Eretz Yisrael; when the men looked for excuses not to enter Eretz Yisrael, the women never gave up hope that they would be zocheh to live in Eretz Yisrael, so they weren’t affected by the gzeiras meraglim.  Rashi reiterates this in the beginning of the parsha of bnos Tzelafchad as to why they were nisyacheis to Yosef.  Yosef was also mechaveiv Eretz Yisrael- he said Veha’alisem es atzmosai.  Bnos Tzelofchod, descendants of Yosef, embodied the mesora of chibas ha’aretz.  Also, Yosef was famously chaste, and it was these characteristics that shone forth in the women of that generation.

So we see that the kedusha that is created in a Jewish home, in a home of hashra'as hashechina, a home in which both the husband and the wife learn from each other, that kedusha is a gift from the Ribono shel Olam that can be gotten nowhere but the hand of Hashem.  It's a shleimus that can't be achieved by yourself.  Yes, a man should be a man, dedicated to עמלות בתורה  and gevura,  and a woman should be a woman, nurturing, a paragon of צניעות and  בטחון.  But most importantly, the man and the woman must talk to each other, discuss spiritual matters with each other, share their growth with each other.  The husband learns from the binah and middos of his wife and incorporates and remakes them in his own distinctive masculine persona, and the woman learns from the chochma and gevura of the husband and incorporates and reinvents that chochma in her distinctive feminine character.  And that is how the true Tzelem Elokim is created. 

I suggest that this is the pshat in the first bracha of the Sheva Brachos, Shehakol Bara Lichvodo.  Hakol means disparate parts combined.  It is only with Hakol that Hashem's shechina can truly be revealed in the world.  The Hakol is the bond of kedusha and love and mutual respect and intertwined pursuit of shleimus between a husband and wife, the Shleimus of the Bayis Ne'eman that creates the Hashra'as Hashechina.

 Notes:
1.  The Abudraham brings from the Gemara in Kiddushin that the reason there are two brachos in Sheva Brachos on the same topic- Yotzer Ha'adam and Yatzar es Ha'adam BeTzalmo is that one refers to the first stage of creation and the other to the second.  He explains that the "second stage of creation" means after Chava was created- and that only then can we truly refer to humankind as having the Tzelem Elokim.  Man alone is not the Tzelem Elokim, and woman alone is not the Tzelem Elokim.  Only man plus woman is the Tzelem Elokim.  He, of course, is talking about the middos of gevura and rachamim and bina and so forth, which is the point of this Dvar Torah.

2.  The Netziv actually says that some people used to marry two wives, one for beauty and silence, and one as a peer that would advise and criticize when necessary.  The same is certainly true now.  Some women are just pieces of fluff with no involvement in their husband's spiritual or intellectual or financial life, and some men are totally unaffected by the middos of their wives.  Their intersection is purely utilitarian and does not change them at all.  When this happens, it's the fault of both parties.  That's why I said that the optimum arrangement, where each grows and the other grows with them, is a matter of sharing and discussion and empathy and only happens in a well-constituted home.  It's not automatic.

3.  Daniel, in the comments, writes that he doesn't believe that all marriages are bashert.  There are rishonim that agree with him.  The Gemara in Sotah 2b and Sanhedrin 22a goes like this:

כי הוה פתח ריש לקיש בסוטה אמר הכי :

'אין מזווגין לו לאדם אשה אלא לפי מעשיו' שנאמר :"כי לא ינוח שבט הרשע על גורל הצדיקים"(תהילים קכה')

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן וקשים לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף, שנאמר: "אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות"(תהילים סח').

 איני (האמנם)?

והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: ארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד בת קול יוצאת ואומרת בת פלוני לפלוני בית פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני?

לא קשיא. הא בזוג ראשון הא בזוג שני:

The Gemara contrasts the usual statement of shidduchim being a matter of fate with Reish Lakish'es statement that  a shidduch is a result of one's behavior and merit.  The Gemara answers that one is in regard to zivug rishon, the first match, and the other in regard to zivug sheini, the second.  What rishon and sheini mean is argued among the rishonim.  Rashi, of course, learns it means chronologically.  However, others hold exactly the opposite.  The Akeida and others learn that it means alternative models, one the preferred, and one not preferred.  So Yes, Daniel is right.  But there are things that are worth believing even if they are not true.

4.    Yes, I know that the Medrash also says אשתו של פלוני לפלוני, ממונו של פלוני לפלוני.  It's a vort, not the yud gimmel ikrim.  The main point is that אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר is not just a din in being mechabed the talmid chacham.  It is based on the spiritual resonance that develops between husband and wife in the marriage envisioned in the Torah.

5.  It's possible that what I'm saying about אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר is based on the concept of גדול שימושה יותר מלימודה (Brachos 7b, and see Tosfos Kesuvos 17a DH Mevatlin).  That's not very different than what I'm saying.

6. Someone wrote that this Dvar Torah is mawkish.  MAWKISH!  It's a sheva brachos drasha, so deal with it.  But it's nice to be excoriated with style.

7. Since we're talking about  אשת חבר כחבר, I'll share an experience of this morning, 11/14/22. I attended a bris of the grandchild of Rabbi Olstein in Chicago. He is the Menahel Ruchani of the Blitstein Institute for Women, a frum women's college. When he lived in Israel, he was certified as a dayan in choshen mishpat, so he knows how to learn. He and my wife respect and like each other very much, stemming from their interactions at the Blitstein Institute. I was honored with bentching at the bris, much to my surprise, and he told me afterwards that for all that he respects me, the zechus was because of  אשת חבר כחבר. Bishlema if he said אשתו כגופו, nu, meila. But using  אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר was novel, that I got the kibbud because of my wife. I wonder if there are any other such cases in Tanach or in divrei Chazal.

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 Vayishlach, 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

~

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