Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/
Showing posts with label Vayakhel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vayakhel. Show all posts

Monday, February 21, 2011

Vayakhel, Shemos 35:22. Rosh Chodesh, the Women's Holiday; and, Getting Things Done

The passuk says that the people donated wholeheartedly toward the Mishkan to the extent that Moshe Rabbeinu eventually had to tell them to stop bringing things.
וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים עַל הַנָּשִׁים כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז כָּל כְּלִי זָהָב וְכָל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֵנִיף תְּנוּפַת זָהָב 
The men came with the women; every generous hearted person brought bracelets and earrings and rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and every man who (donated a donation) of gold...

The Daas Zekeinim there explains that the women refused to donate their jewelry for the creation of the Eigel.  What they did give, they gave under duress.  Now, when the call went out for donations for the Mikdash, the men wondered if the women would be willing to give anything.  As it turned out, the women dragged their husbands with them and thronged Moshe Rabbeinu, insisting that he take their golden jewelry (as the Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and Rabbeinu Bachay also say).  Whereas they had to be coerced to give for the Eigel, for the Mishkan they were more enthusiastic than the men.


The Daas Z'keinim continues and says that if they had been unwilling to give their jewelry in both cases, it wouldn't prove anything.  Maybe they simply loved their jewelry and wouldn't give it away for any reason.  But their enthusiasm about giving to the mikdash conclusively proved that they were motivated by a spiritual refinement which led to an abhorrence of the Golden Calf and an enthusiastic nedivus for the Mishkan.  In commemoration of this spiritual greatness, they were given as an eternal holiday the day the Mishkan was erected, Rosh Chodesh Nissan.  Along with that Rosh Chodesh, they were given every Rosh Chodesh of the year as well.  The primary celebration, however, the Mother of the Yom Tov, is Rosh Chodesh Nissan.  (Much of this is not in the printed Daas Z'keinim.  It's an interpretive reading based on my expertise in his style of writing.)


There are many references to this odd yomtov.  The most famous is the Yerushalmi in Pesachim 4:1 and Taanis 6:1 that says that for such women who have a minhag to not work on Rosh Chodesh, it is a valid minhag.  This Yerushalmi is cited by the Rashba in Teshuvos 306 and the Rosh in Megilla 3:4 and the Mordechai in Shabbos 2:278.  Rashi also mentions it there in Megilla on 22b, and Tosfos brings the idea from the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer Perek 45.


The Yerushalmi does not explain the source of the minhag, but the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer does, referring to the events of the Eigel.  The part about their rushing more excitedly than the men to give away their jewelry to build the Mishkan does not appear in most editions of the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer.


Since women are mentioned several times as having spun wool and linen for the Mishkan, in many places the minhag eventually became limited to not spinning thread Rosh Chodesh.  Since nobody spins thread anymore, observing this Rosh Chodesh holiday has become rare, outside of Deformed Judaism.  Still, it is brought in OC 417, starting with the Tur.


From the Yerushalmi, it would seem that this is a din that needs a minhag.  In other words, a woman cannot choose to do this, it only has legitimacy if it is a minhag in her family from back in ancient times.  As the Yerushalmi says, if they do it, it is a legitimate minhag, but only If they have the minhag

But in fact, Rav Ovadia Yosef says that the minhag still exists and should be respected.  Women who choose to do this minhag should avoid heavy or tiring work.  They can turn on a laundry machine, but they should arrange heavier jobs for a different day.  This is based on a Pri Chadash, who says anyone can take this minhag upon themselves- פרי חדש' סי' תיז.  A woman can wake up one Rosh Chodesh and tell her husband, "Guess who's cooking today, honey!  I decided that I hold like the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer and the Pri Chadash!"  Which, of course, means they'll be eating out once a month.

UPDATE:  My mother shetichyeh told me that she remembers clearly that the women of the Talmud Torah community in Kelm did not sew on Rosh Chodesh.  


There is also an interesting Or Zaruah, who presents a novel interpretation of the last words of the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer. 
תדע לך שכל חודש וחודש חאשח מתקדשת וטובלת וחוזרת לבעלה והיא חביבה עליו כיום החופה כשם שהלבנה מתחדשת בכל ראש חודש והכל מתאוין לראותח כך האשה כשהיא מתחדשת בכל חודש בעלה מתאוה עליה וחביבה עליו כאשה חדשה
 אור זרוע הלכות ראש חודש תנד


The Shaagas Aryeh, in his Turei Even on Megilla there, doesn't like any of this.  He says that the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer is, in his words, דברי אגדה בעלמא.  This means that he thinks it's a nice story, but that is was intended to be non-halachic, an aggadic statement that has no halachic weight.  So he proposes an entirely different explanation.  He says that when the Beis Hamikdas was standing, not doing melacha on Rosh Chodesh was universal, because on the day that any person brings a korban, he may not do melacha (Tosfos, Ran and Rosh in Pesachim 50a, based on a Yerushalmi there, but see Rambam 6 Klei Hamikdash 10 that it's only derabanan).  Since on Rosh Chodesh the Korban Musaf was brought on our behalf, we cannot do melacha.  He brings a Yerushalmi that says that the only reason the Korban Tamid doesn't prohibit all the Jews from working every single day of the week is because of the passuk Ve'asafta deganecha, which allows melacha.  He says that a remnant of this old minhag is the fact that there are four aliyos on Rosh Chodesh, which we don't allow on weekdays because of bittul melacha.  This was instituted back when nobody worked on Rosh Chodesh, and stayed on the books even after the Churban Habayis.



So now: a question.  

How can the Shaagas Aryeh just blow away a Yerushalmi and a Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer?  "Just agadeta:"?  It seems to be a little too dismissive, even by Shaagas Aryeh standards. 


And this is how we come to the Kodshim part of this discussion.


The next part is succinct, but I think it's clear enough. 
  • Machtzis Hashekel provided the money from which community Korbanos were purchased.
  • Women aren't chayav in Machtzis Hashekel. 
  • The Korban Musaf of Rosh Chodesh is a community Korban that is commemorated in Tefillas Musaf.
  • Reb Akiva Eiger (Tshuvos 9 and OC 106) says that because women are not participants in the Korban Mussaf, they are not chayav to daven musaf.  Unlike Shacharis and Mincha, Tefillas Musaf focuses exclusively on the Korban Musaf, and should only be said by a person who is chayav to participate in the Korban Mussaf.  (This is also the opinion of the Tzlach in Brachos 26a, the beginning of the fourth perek, but for a different reason- because the davening of musaf is a zman grama and is not rachami, see Brachos 20b.)
  • Additionally, some achronim (like the Steipler in Zvachim #3) say that all the Korbanos Tzibbur are zman grama and so women are doubly pattur from Korbanos Tzibbur.   
  • According to the Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvos) that the purpose of the chiyuv of building the Mishkan/Mikdash is to make it possible to do the Avodah, and if you say that their  ptur from machtzis hashekel means they're unconnected to the primary avodah, the Avodas Korbanos Tzibur, why are women chayav to participate in the building of the mishkan (Rambam 1 Beis Habechira 12 and Minchas Chinuch 95:18)?  If Mishkan= avodah, and women are pattur from avodah, then they should be pattur from Mishkan!  Does it make sense that they should be pattur from the mitzvah and be chayav in the 'machshir'?


Answer- 
  • The question arises only because of a failure to understand an enormous and fundamental conceptual difference of Avodas Hashem between women and men.  The whole life story of women is that their greatest zechus is in supporting and enabling types of Avodas Hashem and mitzvos that they themselves are not chayav to do, like limud hatorah (hani nashi b'mai zachyan in Brachos 17a and Tshuvos Rashbash 324).  This concept is emphasized in what they did in donating their jewelry to the mishkan.  
  • So for men, the Yomtov aspect of Rosh Chodesh stems from the Korban Musaf, as I said above from the Shaagas Aryeh, based on the first Tosfos in Makom She'nahagu, that the day that your special korban is brought is a Yomtov for you.  For women, it can't stem from there, because they're pattur from the Mussaf.  So their din Yomtov stems not from the Korban, but from their love for the mitzva of building the Mishkan, from their enthusiasm for seeing to it that a mitzvah gets done even when they themselves were not chayav to do the mitzvah.  
  • So for men, with the Churban Habayis and bittul of the korban, no more issur melacha.  For the women, the yomtov was given without tna'im.  
  • Or, it is the men's nature of supporting the eigel that caused the churban.  As far as women are concerned, we would still have the Beis Hamikdash, so the ptur melacha that stems from the Korban Musaf still applies.
***************************  
N.B.
The Rogotchover in this week's parsha on this passuk does note that women ought to be pattur from binyan because of zman grama.  He also brings from Avos d"Reb Nosson that even children brought nedavos.  He explains that the 'chiyuv' to build the mikdash is not like other chiyuvim.  It is a chiyuv to see to it that they will have a place to bring korbanos, and it's that "machshir" aspect that obligates them.  So he uses the Rambam to answer the question, not to ask it.  I assumed that since they're pattur from avodas tzibur, then they should be pattur from binyan.  He says that since they will be chayav to bring personal korbanos, they have a chiyuv to see to it that a Mikdash is available for that purpose.  
I think the Rogotchover is really just saying that zman grama is not an absolute ptur, and it depends on what the taam hamitzva is, as we see in Mezuza in Kiddushin 34a, and Tefilla in Brachos 20b.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

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

Monday, March 8, 2010

Vayakhel Pekudei. Reification and Incorporeality


In my discussion of the breaking of the Luchos, I used what Linguists call Hypostatization, or The Reification Fallacy.  Briefly, these terms refer to the human tendency to ascribe physical reality, or personality, to concepts or spiritual beliefs; viewing the abstract as if it were concrete.  This can range from the benign conceptualization, such as "Lady Liberty," or "Lady Luck," to straightforward Avoda Zara.  I applied the idea, lehavdil, to the letters of the Luchos.  When the Luchos were broken, the letters were said to be flying in the air.  There were no letters; the engraved stone surrounded and defined empty spaces in the shapes of letters, not physical letters.  Nonetheless, the letters assumed a reality such that even after the Luchos were broken, they floated in the air.  I just came across a Gemara/Rashi that mentions this point, in Sanhedrin 26b: 
דבר אחר תושיה דברים של תוהו שהעולם משותת עליהם
 Rashi:

דברים של תוהו. דיבור וקרייה בעלמא. וכל דיבור אין בו גשישה ממש, כתוהו הזה, ואעפ״כ עולם משותת עליהם. ונוטריקון הוא תי״ו תוהו שייה משותת:
This week, I want to tell you about an irony involving this concept.

We Jews, starting with Avraham Avinu, were the first to grasp that  G-d is incorporeal.  The idea that the Creator of the universe, the Source of all reality, is intangible and incorporeal, was a great leap forward in mankind's spiritual evolution.  Even now, and even among the Jews, many find such an ethereal notion challenging, and prefer an anthropomorphic visualization.  Indeed, nevi'im were often shown visions of a human form, which seems to have been necessary to enable them to experience a 'conversation.'  (This is found, of many such examples, in Tosfos Yeshanim in Yoma 39b Nichnas Imi, from the Yerushalmi.)  Still, no one (cf comments below) can dispute the assertion that we absolutely reject, we abhor, the natural mental propensity and emotional preference to attribute form to Hashem.  As the Rambam (3 Teshuva 7) says,
חמשה הן הנקראים מינים... האומר שיש שם רבון אחד אבל שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה.... הוא מין
and see, on this topic, the Or Zarua in Krias Shma #7. 

It seems to me that hypostatization, which attributes physical form to the abstract, is incompatible (or, at least, incongruous) with the philosophical approach of the doctrine of incorporeality.  In that light, it is ironic to find instances of hypostatization in our Mesorah.   For example, the famous Menoras Hamaor, quoting a Medrash Tanchuma that he saw:


בספר מנורת המאור (ה״ב סוף פ״ה נר גי כלל הי) מביא מעשה נורא בשם המדרש תנחומא, וז״ל: מעשה
בחסיד אחד שהיה מתיחד במקום אחד והיה למד בו במסכת חגיגה, והיה מהפך בה ומהדרה כמה
פעמים, עד שלמד אותה היטב והיתה שגורה בפיו ולא היה יודע מסכתא אחרת מן התלמוד והיה שוגה בה כל
ימיו. כיון שנפטר מן העולם, היה בביתו לבדו ולא היה שום אדם יודע פטירתו. באה דמות אשה אחת ועמדה
לפניו והרימה קולה בבכי ומספד ותרבה אנחתה וצעקתה, עד אשר נתקבצו ההמון ותאמר להם, ספדו לחסיד
הזה וקברוהו וכבדו את ארונו ותזכו לחיי העולם הבא, שזה כבדני כל ימיו ולא הייתי עזובה ולא שכוחה. מיד
נתקבצו כל הנשים וישבו עמה ועשו עליו מספד גדול ועצום והאנשים התעסקו בתכריכיו וכל צרכי קבורתו
וקברו אותו בכבוד גדול. ואותה אשה בוכה וצועקת. אמרו לה, מה שמך, אמרה להם, חגיגה שמי. כיון שנקבר
אותו חסיד נעלמה אותה האשה מן העין. מיד ידעו שמסכת חגיגה היתה, שנראית להם בצורת אשה ובאה
בשעת פטירתו לספד לו ולבכותו ולקברו בכבוד, על שהיה שונה אותה תמיד ושוקד ללמד בה. והלא דברים
קל וחומר, ומה חסיד זה שלא למד אלא מסכתא אחת בלבד, כך, הלומד תורה הרבה ומלמדה לאחרים
ומעמיד תלמידים הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה.

There was once a pious man who was secluded in a certain area and he studied Maseches Chagiga. He would study the Maseches over and over, until he learned it so well and he was so familiar with the Maseches. He did not know any other Maseches in the Talmud, and he would only study Maseches Chagiga. When he departed the world, he was alone and there was no one who knew of his passing. The apparition of a woman arrived and stood before him, and she raised her voice in wailing and eulogy. She moaned and cried so loud until a crowd gathered. She then told the people who had gathered, “Eulogize this pious man and bury him and show honor to his coffin and you will all merit the World to Come. The reason I ask you to do this is because he honored me his entire life and I was not forsaken and forgotten.” Immediately all the women came and sat with her and they made a great eulogy and the men took care of the deceased’s shrouds and all of his burial needs. They then buried him with great honor and the woman was wailing and crying. The people asked her, “What is your name?” She responded, “My name is Chagiga.” Subsequent to the man’s burial, the woman disappeared from view. Immediately the people understood that she was really Maseches Chagiga, who appeared in the image of a woman. She had appeared at the time of the man’s death so that he would be eulogized and cried over, and that he would receive an honorable burial. This was all due to the fact that he had constantly studied Maseches Chagiga and was diligent in studying it.

(This Menoras Hamaor is also brought down in the Chafetz Chaim's Ma’amar Toras haBayis chapter 6 in the footnote.)

We are giving human form to a masechta! And remember Brachos 47b, where there is a suggestion that two talmidei chachamim that vigorously discuss the halacha are counted as three for bentching- because their Torah counts as one towards the mezuman- אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין 

And this is not an isolated case.  Think about Shabbos: The Medrash in Breishis perek 11, echoed in Sanhedrin 58, says that Shabbos came before Hashem and said, "Every day of the week has a spouse, a pair, but I am the odd day, and I have no pair!  Hashem answered, Knesses Yisrael is your Ben Zug, as the passuk says, Zachor es Yom Hashabbos leKadsho (kiddushin)."  This idea is reflected in the Maharsha in Bava Kamma 32b, where he says that our Kiddush on Shabbos is like the Kiddushin of a Kallah (also in Nachlas Binyamin Mitzvah 31, who says that we say kiddush on a kos yayin, because it's like Birkas Eirusin.  Funny thing is that the Ritva in Kesuvos 8a that says we make Birkas Eirusin on a kos yayin because it's like kiddush on Shabbos.  You can't have it both ways, people!.)  Every week, we turn and greet Shabbos as if it were a queen, as if it were our bride.  It's not; it's a day of the week.  But we give it form and identity and personality.  We reify it, we hypostatisize it.

Also regarding Shabbos- the Hafla'ah in his pirush on Chumash, the Panim Yafos, brings the Mechilta in Ki Sisa 31:16 that says two things.
רבי אלעזר בן פרטא אומר כל המשמר את השבת כאלו עשה השבת שנאמר לעשות את השבת
and "ne'esah shutaf im HKB"H be'ma'aseh Breishis."  And he brings Rashi in Breishis that after the first six days, the world was lacking menuchah, so HKB"H created Shabbos.  He says that from these places, you see that refraining from doing melacha on Shabbos is a ma'aseh asiyah, not a shlili.

There are many more examples.  Let's see what turns up this week.

In the first comment, Reb Micha Berger said:
...R' Yosef Caro's Maggid was an embodiment of the Mishnayos. Not the soul of their author, a mal'ach formed of the book itself.

Micha's remark made me realize that the Rambam says that a malach is no more than Hashem's will given form, a condensation of the shlichus of Hashem.  That being said, it's similar to the Chazal that when we come to the final judgment, our mitzvos and aveiros will not just be listed; the mitzvos and aveiros themselves will come and testify.  Anything that has a shlichus, anything that has a tafkid, can be said to have a independent existence, an it-ness or a thing-ness. 
If you have a better word than it-ness, I solicit your suggestions.

Please note: the comments are more interesting than the post.  That's what I'm here for, to start fights.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Vayakhel, Shemos 36:28. Li'me’kutze’os Hamishkan. Love, Lions, and Corners

It has been said that cultures for whom certain things or concepts are particularly important will develop many separate words to describe relatively minor variations in these things or concepts. For example, instead of using one noun with a variety of adjectives, different nouns are created. This is known as Focal Vocabulary . The famous example, though I'm told that linguists dispute its truth, is that Eskimos have a many different words for snow. If that's your entire landscape, of course you will, over time, develop words whose meanings incorporate the various states of snow, such as hard, granular, soft, slippery, loose, slushy, etc. I assume that skiers have the same arsenal of nouns. In Hebrew, it's Sheleg, period.

In Hebrew, how many words are there for lion? Five: Ari, Kfir, Layish, Shachal, and Gur refer only to lions, which, evidently, are symbolically powerful in our culture. In English, there is only one-- Lion. How do you say you like or love? You like your neighbor? Ani oheiv oso. You love your wife? Ani oheiv osah. You like pizza? Ani oheiv pizza.

Having said this, let's look at the parsha. How many ways are there to say "Corner" in Hebrew? Pinah, or keren. But in this parsha, it appears in an unparalleled panoply of iterations.
36:28– by the krashim, Me’kutze’os.
37:3– by the Aron, Pa’amosav.  (By the way, the Ibn Ezra apparently got fed up with all these synonyms, so he translates "Pa'amosav" as feet.  According to him, the Aron Kodesh had feet, and didn't sit directly on the ground.  His raya is from "Mah yafu pa'amayich ba'ne'alim."  Of course, this is contradicted in the Gemara in the beginning of Sukkah, but do you think he cares?  Tosfos in Yoma says it had not four, but eight rings, four for the badim that actually carried it, and four for the decorative badim.)
37:13– by the Shulchan, HaPei’os.
38:2– by the Mizbach ha’olah, Pinosav.
(Karnos, of course, appear on the Mizbechos, but they really look like Karnayim, so I'll leave those out.)

So, if you want to talk about fighting, use Latin (bellum, pugna, macto, litis, certo). For love, Greek (agape, eros, storge, philia, thelema). For lions in corners, Hebrew is your language of choice.  (You might be interested in looking into the field called Phonaesthetics.)
(This actually is like the Yerushalmi in Megilla 1:9. The Yerushalmi there says "four languages are proper for the world to use;

א"ר יונתן דבית גוברין ד' לשונות נאים שישתמש בהן העולם ואלו הן לעז לזמר רומי לקרב סורסיי לאילייא עברי לדיבור

Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for elegy, and Hebrew for speech." The meforshim there learn לקרב means "to draw near, or convince," but I think it means "for war." There's no reason to think the list changes from nouns to verbs, and stam their pshat is tzarich iyun.)

What’s pshat? Why so many ways of referring to corners? After Parshas Teruma and Tetzaveh, where we were endlessly boxed, (Mishbetzos on the Choshen and the Eifod and the Kesones Tashbeitz), suddenly we are cornered.

Rabbi Yitzchok Resnik PhD (abd) said that these parshiyos, which describe the fabrication of the Mishkan and its contents, speak to craftsmen in their specialized language. Every craft, every profession, has its own lexicon, its own patois or jargon. For example, "A stretcher and a joint" has an entirely different meaning to a bricklayer and to a paramedic. Perhaps these are terms that are used variously by cabinetmakers, by goldsmiths, and by carpenters, and they express differences in how they are crafted or how they are used.

I said, just for homiletic aerobics, that intersections can have many different meanings. When two things that are moving in different directions meet, they might be unaffected by the meeting, they might simply end where they meet, or they might change completely, they might attain a new identity. A corner is the intersection of two sides, and maybe these different words express the various outcomes of intersection.


Previous postings on Vayakhel and Pekudei, every one of which is lots better than the above:

The Latent Holiness of Human Love

The Wisdom of Mussar and Seichel: This is not an Oxymoron.

Knitting our Brows about Why King David Couldn't Build the Beis Hamikdash

The Hidden Prophecy of the Destruction, and Rebuilding, of the Batei Mikdash

Sunday, February 24, 2008

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.


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

Posted on March 8, 2018 (5778) By Rabbi Yissocher Frand | Series:  | Level: 
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 dKedusha.” 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