| |
Friday, November 4, 2011
Just So Story
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Lech Lecha, Breishis 14:12-14. Og and Ulterior Motives.
Rav Meir Bergman, in his Shaarei Orah on Parshas Devarim, has an interesting discussion about Og's interaction with Avraham Avinu. It's not mine, but it's sharp and new to me.
וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת לוֹט.... וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי.... וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, כִּי נִשְׁבָּה אָחִיו וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ... וַיִּרְדֹּף עַד דָּן
Lot was captured, and the "Palit" came to tell Avraham what had happened, and when Avraham learned that his nephew had been taken captive, he unleashed his army and routed the captors and saved his nephew.
The Medrash in Parshas Devarim says
ויאמר ה' אל משה אל תירא אותו כי בידך אתננו אין כתיב כאן אלא כי בידך נתתי אותו. אמר הקב"ה כבר פסקתי דינו
מימות אברהם כיצד בשעה שנשבה לוט בן אחיו ובא עוג ובישר את אברהם שנאמר (בראשית יד) ויבא הפליט אמר ר"ל משום בר קפרא פליט היה שמו ולמה נקרא שמו עוג שבא ומצא את אברהם עסוק במצות בעוגות הפסח ולא בא לשם שמים אלא לשם נויה של שרה. אמר בלבו הריני מבשר אותו והגדוד הורגו ונוטל אני את שרה אשתו אמר לו הקב"ה אי רשע כך אמרת חייך שאני נותן לך שכר רגליך ומאריך לך שנים ומה שחשבת בלבך הריני הורג אברהם ונוטל את שרה ביד בני בניה עתיד אותו האיש ליפול.
Hashem told Moshe not to fear Og, the king of the Bashan, because he was long fated to fall to Moshe. His fate was sealed from the time that he brought the news of Lot's capture to Avraham. His name was not really Og, it was Palit. Why was he called Og? Because when he came to Avraham, he found him busy making Matzos- Ugos- for Pesach. He did not come with pure motives, but because he was infatuated with Sarah's beauty; he thought, I will tell Avraham about his nephew, Avraham will rashly confront the captors, and he'll be killed, and I will take Sarah! Hashem said, Ay, you miyuskait, that's what you think? I will pay you for having told Avraham about Lot; you will live a long life; and you will long enough to be killed by the descendants of the woman you wanted to steal from her husband.
Why is it so important to know that Avraham was baking matza when Og came? And even if we need to know that, perhaps so we should know that Avraham Avinu kept a form of Pesach, why did this pertain to Og to the extent that the Torah refers to him forever after as Og, in commemoration of the matzos/ugos?
Antibody or DNA testing can determine the presence or absence of yeast in baked products. A laboratory can determine with absolute certainty that a given baked item was totally unleavened. A perfect, beautiful Matza that was baked for general use and was later determined to be totally unleavened can not be used for the Mitzva of Matza. The halacha of Shimur is that the harvest and the milling and the kneading and the baking must be supervised with the intention of avoiding leavening so it can be used for the Mitzva of Matza. Without this specific intent, you certainly could use it on Pesach, but you would not be yotzei the mitzva.
When Og came to Avraham with his evil plan,he found Avraham baking Matza. Matza is the archetype of proper intent; without the proper intent, matza is just a flat piece of bread. If intent matters in a simple thing like a matza, how much more so in something so deeply powerful and beautiful, in a matter of life and death, good intent can make it even more meaningful, and bad intent can pervert and degrade the entire effect. Og could have learned the lesson of the Ugos. Unfortunately for him, he did not. He is like B'tzeikos shel Nachrim (Pesachim 40a), an example of lost potential for greatness. He was not a Matza, he was a Bulkeh. Bulkeh, the King of the Bashan.
Why is it so important to know that Avraham was baking matza when Og came? And even if we need to know that, perhaps so we should know that Avraham Avinu kept a form of Pesach, why did this pertain to Og to the extent that the Torah refers to him forever after as Og, in commemoration of the matzos/ugos?
Antibody or DNA testing can determine the presence or absence of yeast in baked products. A laboratory can determine with absolute certainty that a given baked item was totally unleavened. A perfect, beautiful Matza that was baked for general use and was later determined to be totally unleavened can not be used for the Mitzva of Matza. The halacha of Shimur is that the harvest and the milling and the kneading and the baking must be supervised with the intention of avoiding leavening so it can be used for the Mitzva of Matza. Without this specific intent, you certainly could use it on Pesach, but you would not be yotzei the mitzva.
When Og came to Avraham with his evil plan,he found Avraham baking Matza. Matza is the archetype of proper intent; without the proper intent, matza is just a flat piece of bread. If intent matters in a simple thing like a matza, how much more so in something so deeply powerful and beautiful, in a matter of life and death, good intent can make it even more meaningful, and bad intent can pervert and degrade the entire effect. Og could have learned the lesson of the Ugos. Unfortunately for him, he did not. He is like B'tzeikos shel Nachrim (Pesachim 40a), an example of lost potential for greatness. He was not a Matza, he was a Bulkeh. Bulkeh, the King of the Bashan.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Lech Lecha. Journeys and Odysseys. Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#7)
My wife and I just got back from Memphis, where we attended the wedding of a young man with whom our family has been very close. We drove there from Chicago, and that gave us the autonomy of deciding when to leave, and we chose to stay a second day. We were graciously invited by the eponymous culinary genius of Ricki's Cookie Korner to attend a Sheva Brachos she and her husband hosted that evening. Although I hadn't been asked to speak, my wife strongly suggested that I do so. She felt that because of our long and close relationship with the Chasan, it was important that I say something good and true about him. We stayed at the Peabody hotel, and while the history and ambiance were memorable, the sofa in the room wasn't particularly comfortable, and the options I faced were simple: speech, or sofa.
The morning after I delivered the speech, I was passing by an antiquities and collectibles store in the hotel lobby, the Samuel Nathan Gallery. As it happens, the owner, Ezra, is from Flatbush, and, smart businessman that he is, he blew a shofar as I walked by. It worked as he intended, like a moose call, and I went in to see who would be blowing a shofar in Memphis on a November morning. Ezra, who penetrated what I thought was a good disguise, perceived that I was some sort of rabbi, and asked me the question that I had addressed at the Sheva Brachos the night before. He sincerely thanked me for my explanation, and then, of course, sold me some tzatzkes. I thought that the coincidence implied that the message might be meaningful to someone, so I'm posting it.
Sometimes, a young man and woman go out for the first time in their lives, and they decide to get married. What a mazal bracha, what a gift from the Ribono shel Olam that can be! That is exactly what did not happen to his couple. Both the Chassan and the Kallah had their share of heartbreak and distress over the years. When they finally did meet, a few years ago, each knew that there was something special and unique here, but hope was defeated by anxiety and fear, and nothing came of it. Everyone around them told them that they needed to get together again, and finally, good sense and good mazal triumphed and they did get back together and are now married.
This reminded me of a stylistic distinction between the words 'journey' and 'odyssey'. (This distinction is maintained in the New York Times, but is not found in general dictionaries.) A journey is simply a trip from point A to point B. An odyssey is a long and difficult journey that ultimately brings the traveler back home. The Maharal says that Ray'ah means close friend, but is most used to mean spouse. He explains that while the standard etymology of Ray'ah does mean friend, it also alludes to the idea of the Tru'ah by Tekias Shofar, the broken sound. A spouse is more than a close friend. A spouse is a Ray'ah, a piece of the other person. They are two segments of one fundamental unit, the re-created Tzelem Elokim of the original form of Adam Harishon that exists only in a marriage. A long, long time ago, two souls were made one. שמח תשמח ריעים האהובים, rejoice, you two rejoined parts of a unitary soul, as you existed in Gan Eden. You have finally found what was missing from your life, and your teru'ah has become a song of rejoicing. Your long travail of seeking was not a journey, it was an odyssey. You have traveled and traveled, and now you have come home.
This highlights a strange thing we find in our Parsha about journeys and destinations. Hashem told Avraham Lech lecha, go to the land I will show you. Why didn't Hashem tell Avraham where he was going? Why did Hashem only tell him to go to the place He would name later? The answer is that Avraham was being taught a lesson. He was being taught that, as Ezra from the Samuel Nathan's gallery later phrased it, a Jew must know that he must never become part of the landscape. People fool themselves into thinking that life is about destinations, and that everything else is just a way of getting there. Hashem taught Avraham Avinu that this is not true. The purpose of life is growth and change and experience. All of life is a journey, and the journey is not merely a unavoidable precursor to a meaningful goal. Hashem put you in a circumstance so you can learn and grow and incorporate the lessons you learn into your identity. In the Navi Zechariah (3:7), Hashem tells the navi that he is being granted opportunity to grow: ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה I will give you a path among these that are standing. Man is called a הולך, a walker, while malachim, angels, are called עומדים, the stationary ones. A malach is what he is and he remains as he was created. Man walks. לֶךְ לְךָ. He rises, he falls, but he is never stationary. אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל למען סור משאול מטה (Mishlei 15:24, and see Gaon there- – שבכל דבר שקשור בנפש האדם, אם לא עולים – אז בהכרח יורדים, וכפי שמפרש רש"י על הפסוק: "וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם" (בראשית לז, כד) – "והבור רק אין בו מים – ממשמע שנאמר והבור רק, איני יודע שאין בו מים, מה תלמוד לומר אין בו מים? מים אין בו, אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו".). Life is all about that change, and a wise man will see every segment of life as a classroom and every step of his travels as a lesson. The Chassan and the Kallah intuitively knew this, and they are different for having experienced what they experienced- stronger, wiser, and better. They have finally come home, and their journey of discovery and growth continues. May they use this wisdom and strength to build their Bayis Ne'eman Be'Yisrael.
The morning after I delivered the speech, I was passing by an antiquities and collectibles store in the hotel lobby, the Samuel Nathan Gallery. As it happens, the owner, Ezra, is from Flatbush, and, smart businessman that he is, he blew a shofar as I walked by. It worked as he intended, like a moose call, and I went in to see who would be blowing a shofar in Memphis on a November morning. Ezra, who penetrated what I thought was a good disguise, perceived that I was some sort of rabbi, and asked me the question that I had addressed at the Sheva Brachos the night before. He sincerely thanked me for my explanation, and then, of course, sold me some tzatzkes. I thought that the coincidence implied that the message might be meaningful to someone, so I'm posting it.
Sometimes, a young man and woman go out for the first time in their lives, and they decide to get married. What a mazal bracha, what a gift from the Ribono shel Olam that can be! That is exactly what did not happen to his couple. Both the Chassan and the Kallah had their share of heartbreak and distress over the years. When they finally did meet, a few years ago, each knew that there was something special and unique here, but hope was defeated by anxiety and fear, and nothing came of it. Everyone around them told them that they needed to get together again, and finally, good sense and good mazal triumphed and they did get back together and are now married.
This reminded me of a stylistic distinction between the words 'journey' and 'odyssey'. (This distinction is maintained in the New York Times, but is not found in general dictionaries.) A journey is simply a trip from point A to point B. An odyssey is a long and difficult journey that ultimately brings the traveler back home. The Maharal says that Ray'ah means close friend, but is most used to mean spouse. He explains that while the standard etymology of Ray'ah does mean friend, it also alludes to the idea of the Tru'ah by Tekias Shofar, the broken sound. A spouse is more than a close friend. A spouse is a Ray'ah, a piece of the other person. They are two segments of one fundamental unit, the re-created Tzelem Elokim of the original form of Adam Harishon that exists only in a marriage. A long, long time ago, two souls were made one. שמח תשמח ריעים האהובים, rejoice, you two rejoined parts of a unitary soul, as you existed in Gan Eden. You have finally found what was missing from your life, and your teru'ah has become a song of rejoicing. Your long travail of seeking was not a journey, it was an odyssey. You have traveled and traveled, and now you have come home.
This highlights a strange thing we find in our Parsha about journeys and destinations. Hashem told Avraham Lech lecha, go to the land I will show you. Why didn't Hashem tell Avraham where he was going? Why did Hashem only tell him to go to the place He would name later? The answer is that Avraham was being taught a lesson. He was being taught that, as Ezra from the Samuel Nathan's gallery later phrased it, a Jew must know that he must never become part of the landscape. People fool themselves into thinking that life is about destinations, and that everything else is just a way of getting there. Hashem taught Avraham Avinu that this is not true. The purpose of life is growth and change and experience. All of life is a journey, and the journey is not merely a unavoidable precursor to a meaningful goal. Hashem put you in a circumstance so you can learn and grow and incorporate the lessons you learn into your identity. In the Navi Zechariah (3:7), Hashem tells the navi that he is being granted opportunity to grow: ונתתי לך מהלכים בין העומדים האלה I will give you a path among these that are standing. Man is called a הולך, a walker, while malachim, angels, are called עומדים, the stationary ones. A malach is what he is and he remains as he was created. Man walks. לֶךְ לְךָ. He rises, he falls, but he is never stationary. אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל למען סור משאול מטה (Mishlei 15:24, and see Gaon there- – שבכל דבר שקשור בנפש האדם, אם לא עולים – אז בהכרח יורדים, וכפי שמפרש רש"י על הפסוק: "וַיִּקָּחֻהוּ וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֹתוֹ הַבֹּרָה וְהַבּוֹר רֵק אֵין בּוֹ מָיִם" (בראשית לז, כד) – "והבור רק אין בו מים – ממשמע שנאמר והבור רק, איני יודע שאין בו מים, מה תלמוד לומר אין בו מים? מים אין בו, אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו".). Life is all about that change, and a wise man will see every segment of life as a classroom and every step of his travels as a lesson. The Chassan and the Kallah intuitively knew this, and they are different for having experienced what they experienced- stronger, wiser, and better. They have finally come home, and their journey of discovery and growth continues. May they use this wisdom and strength to build their Bayis Ne'eman Be'Yisrael.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Noach, Breishis 8:1. Changing Middas Hadin to Middas Harachamim. היפוך מדת הדין למדת הרחמים
The names of Hashem connote certain middos/traits. For example, Elokim implies Din/Judgment, while YKVK/Havaya implies Rachamim/Mercy. Although at various times one trait or the other might be dominant, we find that tzadikim can turn Din into Rachamim, and resha'im can turn Rachamim into Din. We find this in our parsha; in 8:1, it says ויזכור אלוקים את נח, and Rashi says
זה השם מדת הדין הוא, ונהפכה למדת רחמים על ידי תפלת הצדיקים, ורשעתן של רשעים הופכת מדת
רחמים למדת הדין, שנאמר (בראשית ו ה) וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם וגו' ויאמר ה' אמחה, והוא שם מדת רחמים.
Human Tefilla and ma'asim tovim have great power, and human sinfulness has, lehavdil, great power too. Our behavior influences worlds beyond number, elevating or corrupting the entire creation, even to the extent of changing the middah with which Hashem relates to the world.
But there's one case where it seems that this idea is applied in a very different way. Some of us are familiar with it from the tefilla on Rosh Hashanna, some from the pre-psukei d'zimra parshios that we say every day:
ותראה לפניך העקידה שעקד את יצחק בנו על גבי המזבח וכבש רחמיו לעשות רצונך בלב שלם כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך וישוב חרון אפיך מעמך ומעירך ומנחלתך
This, it seems to me, is very strange. Just as Avraham Avinu repressed and overcame his quality of mercy to do Your will at the Akeida, so too, Hashem, may Your Mercy vanquish Your anger. From the usual perspective of our behavior being mirrored with resonant and harmonious actions from heaven, how can Avraham Avinu's vanquishing of his mercy elicit the opposite from Hashem, that Hashem should vanquish His Middas haDin in favor of Rachamim?
This tefilla is ancient. It is brought in the Tur from the siddur of the Geonim in Hilchos Ta'anis, in Siman תקעט. The language of the Tur is as follows:
וכו' עד כי אתה ה' עונה ומציל פודה ומרחם בכל עת צרה וצוקה וקיים לנו ה' אלהינו את הברית ואת החסד והשבועה שנשבעת לאברהם אבינו בהר המוריה ותראה לפניך העקידה שעקד את יצחק בנו על גבי המזבח וכבש רחמיו לעשות רצונך בלב שלם כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך וישוב חרון אפיך מעמך ומעירך ומנחלתך מי שענה לא"א בהר המוריה הוא יענה אתכם וישמע קול צעקתכם ביום הזה בא"י גואל ישראל ועונים אמן ותוקעין תר"ת
This, in turn, probably stems from a Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi in Taanis 2:4 says:
דף י,ב פרק ב הלכה ד גמרא מכיון שנגאל יצחק כמו שנגאלו כל ישראל. רבי ביבי אבא בשם ר' יוחנן אמר אברהם לפני הקב"ה רבון העולמים גלוי וידוע לפניך שבשעה שאמרת לי להעלות את יצחק בני היה לי מה להשיב ולומר לפניך אתמול אמרת לי (בראשית כא) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע ועכשיו את אומר (בראשית כב) והעלהו שם לעולה. ח"ו לא עשיתי כן אלא כבשתי את יצרי ועשיתי רצונך כן יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שבשעה שיהיו בניו של יצחק בני נכנסים לידי צרה ואין להם מי ילמד עליהם סניגוריא אתה תהא מלמד עליהם סניגוריא. ה' יראה את נזכר להם עקידתו של יצחק אביהם ומתמלא עליהם רחמים מה כתיב בתריה (שם) וישא אברהם את עיניו וירא והנה איל אחר וגו'. מהו אחר א"ר יודה בי ר' סימון אחר כל הדורות עתידין בניך ליאחז בעונות ולהסתבך בצרות וסופן להגאל בקרניו של איל הזה שנאמר (זכריה ט) וה' אלהים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערות תימן. רבי חונה בשם ר' חיננה בר יצחק כל אותו היום היה אברהם רואה את האיל נאחז באילן זה וניתור ויוצא נאחז בחורש זה וניתור ויוצא נאחז בסבך זה וניתור ויצא אמר לו הקב"ה אברהם כך עתידין בניך נאחזים בעונות ומסתבכין במלכיות מבבל למדי ממדי ליון ומיון לאדום. אמר לפניו רבון העולמים יהיה כן לעולם א"ל וסופן להגאל בקרניו של איל הזה וה' אלהים בשופר יתקע והלך בסערות תימן
We also find this in the mekubalim in regard to Shiluach Hakan, which doesn't make it easier to understand. The fact is that we're asking for Rachamim on the basis of suppressing Rachamim: שם כבישת רחמים, וכאן בקשת רחמים.
I have seen and heard six ways to understand this tefilla. After discussing them, I am going to introduce another interpretation.
1. It means overcoming a middah, or hipuch/היפוך. Through determined strength of will, Avraham Avinu overcame the primary Midda that defined his identity and his life's work, the Midda of Chesed. We ask that Hashem should overcome the midda of Din, which was originally intended to be Hashem's primary midda in relation to mankind. I've seen this in some mefarshim, and I am not worthy to criticize them, but this does not really appeal to me. If this is true, then the tefilla has nothing to do with rachamim per se, but instead with overcoming a middah, whatever middah it happens to be.
2. Another approach is that of the Dubner Maggid in his Ohel Yaakov., where he says that Avraham's actions didn't involve any diminishment of his love for his son, it actually involved his focusing and strengthening his overriding love for the Ribono shel Olam. Avraham Avinu overcame his natural resistance by intensifying his love for the Ribono shel Olam. You, too, Hashem, through our zechus avos, let your love for Klal Yisrael overcome any anger against them. Ahava and Rachamim are synonymous: in Aramis, Rachim means love. As a Rabbi david lau from Modi'in writes, echoing the Dubner,
אנו מבקשים מהקדוש ברוך הוא שיכבוש את כעסו, ושיעשה מעשה זה או מאהבתנו או מזכות האבות שבנו או למען
שמו הגדול.כך שההשואה אינה בין רחמים לרחמים, אלא בין כבישת רצון מפני דבר נעלה יותר
It means overcoming ahava for one because of greater ahava for the other. Hashem should overcome din out of ahava for klal yisrael, due to the zechus of Avraham Avinu and zechus avos.
3. We don't understand what Rachamim and Din mean; they may be fundamentally contextual and subjective, as the Rambam says in 11 Sanhedrin 7:
הַמַּסִּית, אֵין דִּינָיו כִּשְׁאָר דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת: מְכַמְּנִין לוֹ הָעֵדִים, וְאֵינוּ צָרִיךְ הַתְרָאָה כִּשְׁאָר הַנֶּהְרָגִין. וְאִם יָצָא מִבֵּית דִּין זַכָּאי, וְאָמַר אֶחָד יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמַּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה--מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ; יָצָא חַיָּב, וְאָמַר אֶחָד יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמַּד עָלָיו זְכוּת--אֵין מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאֵין טוֹעֲנִין לַמַּסִּית. וּמוֹשִׁיבִין בְּדִינוֹ סָרִיס וְזָקֵן וּמִי שְׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְרַחֲמוּ עָלָיו: שֶׁהָאַכְזָרִיּוּת עַל אֵלּוּ שֶׁמַּטְעִין אֶת הָעָם אַחַר הַהֶבֶל--רַחֲמִים הִיא בָּעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר לְמַעַן יָשׁוּב ה' מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ, וְנָתַן לְךָ רַחֲמִים
What appears to us to be Achzarius might be a form of rachamim, or vice versa. Doing the will of Hashem could define Rachamim, just as constructive and well motivated prevarication might be characterized as Emes. (Yevamos 62b גדול השלום שאף הקדוש ברוך הוא שינה בו, and Bava Metzia 23b תלת מילי עבידי רבנן דמשנו במלייהו. See note 1, below.)
UPDATE: As Eli points out in the comments, this approach doesn't seem to make sense. Saying that there is a commonality among middos does not explain our saying "Just as Avraham vanquished his Rachamim to do Your will, so too, Hashem, vanquish Your Din to do Rachamim." The point of the tefilla is that they are different and just as Avraham put the one aside to do the other, so too Hashem should.
Sometimes, the ideas that occur to me have some element of truth, although it takes time to divine what that truth is. But working on a post facto rationalization motivated by a presumption of infallibility is repugnant, so I'm putting this on the side. From what I've seen, this repugnance diminishes with increasing age, so maybe I'll come back to it.
UPDATE: As Eli points out in the comments, this approach doesn't seem to make sense. Saying that there is a commonality among middos does not explain our saying "Just as Avraham vanquished his Rachamim to do Your will, so too, Hashem, vanquish Your Din to do Rachamim." The point of the tefilla is that they are different and just as Avraham put the one aside to do the other, so too Hashem should.
Sometimes, the ideas that occur to me have some element of truth, although it takes time to divine what that truth is. But working on a post facto rationalization motivated by a presumption of infallibility is repugnant, so I'm putting this on the side. From what I've seen, this repugnance diminishes with increasing age, so maybe I'll come back to it.
4. One who does a mitzva at a cost of damage to a midda is granted repair of that middah, as we see in Devarim 13:18. After setting forth our obligation to destroy an Ir Hanidachas, the Torah says ונתן לך רחמים. I heard from my father in the name of the Alter of Slabodka, and later saw in the Chafetz Chaim ahl Hatorah, that after such a wretched and horrible event, it is inevitable that the souls and middos of the soldiers will be irreparably brutalized. Therefore Hashem grants a miracle, a special bracha of an infusion of Rachamim. Here, too, in order to do the Akeida, Avraham Avinu had to quash a midda that he had spent his life nurturing. To repair the result of that effort, Hashem granted him a special infusion of Rachamim, which we invoke here to be applied to Hashem's relationship with us.
5. The Talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov, with a Kabbalah oriented interpretation: I usually stay away from this sort of thing, but as you'll see, this one comes in handy later. The basic idea here is that Avraham Avinu cast away his "garment of Chesed," and Hashem took it and dresses Himself with that same garment.
וביאר הענין בהקדם מה שאפשר לדקדק בנוסח התפלה של זכרונות בראש השנה, וכן בהתפלה אחר פרשת העקידה שאומרים בכל יום אנו מתפללים "כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו מבן יחידו כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו ויגולו רחמיך על מדותיך", ולכאורה תמוה דהלא המשל אינו דומה להנמשל, שהרי אברהם אבינו כבש את רחמיו ונעשה אכזרי על בנו, ואנו מבקשים ההיפוך שהשי"ת יכבוש את כעסו ויתנהג עמנו ברחמים.
אלא הענין יובן על פי מה שפירשו תלמידי בעש"ט הק' את הפסוק ה' מלך גאות לבש (תהלים צ"ג) דהכוונה כי הנה תועבת ה' כל גבה לב, וכשהאדם משליך מעליו כל גדולה וכבוד והוא בענוה ובשפלות, אז כביכול השי"ת עושה לעצמו מלבוש מהגיאות הזה שהשליך האדם מעצמו, כמו איש שעושה לעצמו מלבוש מדבר החביב אליו, וזהו שאמר ה' מלך גאות לבש, שלובש עצמו בגיאותן של ישראל שהשליכו מעצמם עכת"ד תלמידי הבעש"ט זי"ע.
ופירש הוא ז"ל בזה מה שאמרו חז"ל (עירובין י"ג ע"ב) שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו, כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו, דכיון שמשליך מעליו הכבוד והגדולה, הקב"ה מתלבש עצמו במדה זו ונותן אותו בחזרה לאיש ההוא לגדלו ולנשאו, וכן אמרו חז"ל (זוהר בראשית קכ"ב) מאן דאיהו זעיר איהו רב ומאן דאיהו רב איהו זעיר, דמי שמקטין עצמו השי"ת חוזר ונותן לו הגיאות שהשליך מעליו ונעשה גדול ורב, וכן להיפוך.
וכתב עוד שם שכן הוא בכל המדות, כגון האדם שהוא בטבעו איש טוב ורחמן ובעבור כבוד שמו ית' הוא זורק את כל הרחמנות שלו ומתלבש במדת אכזריות כדי לעשות רצון קונו, אז השי"ת מתלבש באותו הרחמנות שזרק ומרחם בה על האדם הזה. ומפרש בזה מה שמבואר בתיקוני זהר על הפסוק מי יעלה לנו השמימה (פ' נצבים) דהר"ת הוא מיל"ה והסופי תיבות הוי', דהנה מצות מילה הוא מעשה אכזרי, כי עם ישראל בטבעם הם רחמנים בני רחמנים, ולקיים מצות הבורא ית"ש הוא כובש את רחמיו, ולכן מתלבש הקב"ה ברחמנות זו שהשליך מעליו, ואח"כ בעת הצורך הקב"ה מחזירו לו ומרחם עליו, ועל כן סופי תיבות הוי' דמורה למדת רחמים וחסד, כי מצות מילה מעוררת רחמים וכנ"ל.
ומיישב בזה דברי המדרש (פ' בשלח) אז ישיר משה, א"ז בגימטריא ח', בזכות מילה שניתנה לשמונה, כי מצות מילה סייע שיתלבש ה' במדת הרחמים שהשליכו בני ישראל עבור כבוד ה' ולהחזירם להם לרחם עליהם בשעת דוחקם. וזהו הכוונה במה שאנו מבקשים, כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו ורצה לשחוט את בנו, שהשליך מעצמו מדת הרחמנות ונעשה אכזרי על בנו, כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו, אותו הרחמים שהתלבש בו הקב"ה אז, יחזור ויתן לנו ויכבוש את כעסו מעלינו.
6. The Belzer Rebbe's interpretation: The Satan accosted Avraham Avinu on the way to the Akeida and presented perfectly valid reasons that Avraham should not actually sacrifice his son. Avraham responded that he was on a mission which he received from Hashem directly and he would not stop till he heard from Hashem directly. He said, "My fundamental mission is clear, and I will ignore anything that interferes with that mission." So, too, we ask that Hashem disregard the accusations and lashon hara that Satan brings against us, because of the fundamental covenant of love between us and Hashem. I am unworthy to comment, and it is beautiful drush, but I don't think it was intended as pshat.
מה שאנו מתפללין במוסף לראש השנה ״ותראה לפניך עקידה שעקד אברהם אבינו את יצחק בנו ע״ג המזבח וכבש רחמיו לעשות רצוניך בלבב שלם, כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו וכו׳״ דלמה לן הדמיון ויותר קשה וכי אפשר לדמות רחמיו של בן אדם, גם אם הוא היותר גדול בעולם לרחמי הקב״ה שהוא אין סוף, ורחמיו הם בלי תכלית וגבול בלי דמיון כלל. ואמר מרן הקדוש רי״ד זי״ע מבעלזא דאיתא במדרש דכשנצטווה אברהם אבינו קח נא את בנך וכו׳ והעלהו לעולה בא השטן בטענות שונות לפתותו שלא יקיים מצוותו מפני שראה שמסתעף מזה זכות גדול לזרע אברהם עד סוף כל הדורות, גם אמר לו למה לך לשחוט את בן יחידך והלא לא נאמר לך רק והעלהו שם לעולה, ולא נאמר לך שחטהו, ואין אתה מחויב כלל לשחטו רק להעלהו לעולה ולהורידו,
וזה באמת דרש אמיתי וטענה צודקת כמו שפירש״י, אך אברהם אבינו לא רצה להכנס בשום דרשות ואמתלאות אפילו הם דרשות נכונות ולא ביקש שום תחבולה להמנע מלקיים מצותו יתברך ולא שת לבו לפתויי של השטן גם אם בא בטענות נכונות, ועד שלא שמע מהקב״ה ע״י המלאך שיקרב איל במקומו לא רצה בשום היתר ואמתלא בעולם, וכמו כן אנו מתפללים להשי״ת ביום הדין הנורא שיכבשו רחמיו את כעסו אף אם המקטריגים יקטריגו עלינו בטענות אמתיות כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו לעשות רצונך אעפ״י שהי׳ יכול להפטר בטענות אמתיות ודפח״ח
7. My contribution. I think the assumption that we based the question on was wrong. The question was that "Just as A, so, too, B" didn't make sense where B is diametrically opposed to A, and it certainly flies in the face of the idea of Midah Keneged Midah. I believe, however, that the focus on מדה כנגד מדה is misleading. Korbanos work on an entirely different principle: What we are Makriv becomes enhanced and receives a blessing.
Rosh Hashanna 16a:
תניא א"ר יהודה משום ר"ע מפני מה אמרה תורה הביאו עומר בפסח מפני שהפסח זמן תבואה הוא אמר הקב"ה הביאו לפני עומר בפסח כדי שתתברך לכם תבואה שבשדות ומפני מה אמרה תורה הביאו שתי הלחם בעצרת מפני שעצרת זמן פירות האילן הוא אמר הקב"ה הביאו לפני שתי הלחם בעצרת כדי שיתברכו לכם פירות האילן ומפני מה אמרה תורה נסכו מים בחג אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא נסכו לפני מים בחג כדי שיתברכו לכם גשמי שנה ואמרו לפני בראש השנה מלכיות זכרונות ושופרות מלכיות כדי שתמליכוני עליכם זכרונות כדי שיעלה זכרוניכם לפני לטובה ובמה בשופר אמר רבי אבהו למה תוקעין בשופר של איל אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא תקעו לפני בשופר של איל כדי שאזכור לכם עקידת יצחק בן אברהם ומעלה אני עליכם כאילו עקדתם עצמכם לפני
This is a visual teretz, so try to read it that way. Here, Avraham Avinu was commanded to be makriv his middas harachamim to Hashem. Being makriv the middas harachamim brings bracha to middas harachamim.
As it turns out, this might be what Rabbeinu Bachay means in Breishis 18:33, where he says
As it turns out, this might be what Rabbeinu Bachay means in Breishis 18:33, where he says
ואברהם שב למקומו - ...ועל דרך הקבלה, מדת החסד חזרה למקומה כשלא מצאה זכות, ופעלה מדת הדין. וזהו סוד הכתוב ויקח בידו את האש וגו', שמדת הדין עקודה לפני מדת הרחמים, שאלמלא כן תחריב את העולם, וזהו ביאור "רב חסד", שהיא מתגברת
And upon reflection, it's possible that this might just be another way of saying the pshat of the Talmidim of the Baal Shem Tov above in #5.
NOTES:
1. See also Rav Kook's Ein Ayah, where he says
כמו שכבש אברהם אבינו את רחמיו מבן יחידו, ורצה לשחוט אותו, כדי לעשות רצונך, בלבב שלם
הפלא הנצחי של נסיון העקדה, והשפעתו על העולם בכלל, הוא, מפני שהארת החיים באה שמה בכל מלואה. לא היה אצל האב שום רגש טבעי של המית אב שנכחד, להיפך, הכל היה פורח והכל חי. אבל בידיעה הברורה, שכל החי, וכל המתעלה, הכל נכון הוא ומוכרח הוא להבטל, ולהקשר קשר עליון, ברצונו ודברו של אל עליון קונה שמים וארץ, השופט כל הארץ, אבי כל המעשים, בהבנה קדושה, שכל מעשה וכל מצוי כלא הוא נחשב מצד עצמו, וכל שיווי ערכו וגדלות מציאותו איננו כ"א מצד מציאותו באלהי עולם קונה הכל, בשביל כך גם הרחמים כלפי הבן היחיד, שיש להם כ"כ ערך עדין מוסרי ומפואר, עם כל חזקת מציאותם, הם מוכרחים היו להכבש כדי למלא את דבר ד' ולעשות רצונו בלבב שלם. ובזה הרחמים בעצמם קנו להם את המקום היותר עליון, את מקומם במציאות העליונה, ברצונו של מקום, ששום דבר משם לא יכחד ולא יעדר. ועשית רצונו של מקום, בהחלט, או לפי הנוסחאות האחרות בלבב שלם, זוהי התכונה המקימת את הכל, את כל החיים ואת כל הרגשות. וגם את הרחמים הנכבשים עצמם, בהעלותם אל רום מעלתם.
הכעס האלהי הלא הוא צדק העולמים, מקיים ומבסס את המציאות בגבורתו הקדושה. אבל זאת התכונה בעצמה, במקורה האלהי, איננה משחיתה, אינה מהרסת וגם איננה זועמת, כ"א מלאה היא גבורה מפוארה לרומם את המעשים, להדרם לשכללם ולפארם. וכאשר לא הוכנו הנפשות לאותה הקליטה הרוממה, של כוון מהותם לעומת השרש העליון של הגבורה, ששם רחמי הקודש הם הם ההומים ומתגברים, אז נפגשות הן ונכשלות בהזעם החצוני ההורס ומכלה. אבל ההכנה הקדושה של העלאת הרצון האנושי למרום גובה קדשו, בשרש הצור של האומה, היא היא אשר פעלה, ופועלת בנו, את ההתכוונות כלפי שרש הקודש העליון של מדת הגבורה והצדק האלהי, המתגלה בחצוניותו בתור כעס. והננו בזה נושאים עין להתקדש במרום הקודש, באחיזת מדותיו של האב הקדוש, ע"פ האפשריות שלנו, והכנת יניקת קדשו. וכן יכבשו רחמיך, במרום עזם, את כעסך מעלינו, שיתעלה כח קדוש זה למקור תפארתו, שיביא בכנפיו מרפא וגבורת חיים וברכת עולמים.
UPDATE: i JUST SAW THE GAON IN KOL ELIAHU HERE
#17 כתב הגר"א בספר קול אליהו על בראשית פרק כב פסוק יב פרשת וירא
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=34797&st=&pgnum=11
יז) בפסוק כי עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלקים אתה וגו׳. ויש לדקדק מאי לשון עתה ידעתי והלא אברהם אבינו ע״ה היה צדיק גם מקודם לכן ועיין ברש״י. אמנם הענין כך הוא, על פי מה דאיתא במס׳ ברכות (לף ל״ג מ״ב) האומר על קן צפור יגיעו רחמיך וכו' משתקין אותו. והטעם מפני שעושה מדותיו של הקב״ה רחמים ואינן אלא גזירות וכו' ע״ש , ועיין במפרשים שם , ויש לבאר מ״ש (משלי ל') עין תלעג לאב ותבוז ליקהת אם יקרוה עורבי נחל ויאכלוה בני נשר. ומפרש בירושלמי עין תלעג לאב זו מצות כיבוד אב. ותבוז ליקהת אם זו מצות שילוח הקן לשלח האם , יקרוה עורבי נחל שהם אכזרים שאין להם הנאה אלא שמנקרים. ויאכלוה בני נשר שהם רחמנים. והכי פירושו שבכל ההורה לא נאמר אריכות ימים כי אם בשני מצוה הללו כיבוד אב ושילוח הקן, לפי שאין השלימות ניכר באדם אלא כשיש לו שני מדות הפוכות. כגון מדת רחמנות ואכזרות . לפי שכשהאדם נוהג במדה אחת אין מוכרח לומר שהוא צדיק אלא י״ל שכך הוא טבעו אבל כשיש לו שני מדות הפוכותכגון רחמנות ואכזרות אז מוכח שהוא צדיק, לכך נתן ד״שי״ת לישראל מצות של רחמנות דהיינו מצות כבוד אב שהוא רחמנות גדולה לפי שכשבאים לידי זקנה ואין להם מקום לנוח דין הוא שירחם עליהם ושוב נתן להם מצות שצריכין להתנהג בהם קצת באכזריות דהיינו מצות שלוח הקן שנוטל הבנים ומשלח האם דאיתא בירושלמי שכשמשלח האם לפעמים הולכת מחמת צער וטובעת במים א"כ הוא בודאי אכזריות גדולה לכו כתיב בשני מצוות אלו אריכות ימים לי שבשני מדות הללו נשלם האדם בתכלית הטוב וזה שאמר מני שעושה מדותיו של הקב"ה רחמים ואינן אלא גזירות ר"ל שבאמת אין זה רחמים רק שכך גזר השי"ת וזהו שאמר בירושלמי הנז"ל עין תלעג לאב זו כבוד אב דהיינו שרואה בתורה שכתוב בה אריכות ימים והוא לועג על זה ואינו מקיים ונוהג עצמו במדת אכזריות ותבוז ליקהת אם ר"ל שמבזה המצוה של שלוח הקן שצריך להיות בה אכזרי והוא מבזה לזה ונוהג במדת רחמניות ואינו משלח האם לכן יקרוה עורבי נחל כנגד מה שאינו מקיים כבוד אב ואם ונעשה אכזר עליהם לפיכך יקרוה העורבים שהם אכזרים שאינם רוצים לאכול ואף על פי כן מנקרים וכנגד מה שהוא בועט במצות שלוח הקן שנעשה רחמן לפיכך יאכלוה בני נשר שהם ג"כ רחמנים וזהו שאמר בתהילים לעשות נקמה בגויים וגו' הדר הוא לכל חסידיו ר"ל שאע"י שהם חסידים שמתנהגים במדת הרחמים אעפ"כ יעשו נקמה בשונאיהם שהיא מדה הפוכה וזה הדר להם
וזהו שאמר כאן בעקידה עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלוקים אתה לפי שקודם לכן לא היה אלא רחמן מאד שהיה מכניס אורחים וגומל חסדים אבל המדה של אכזריות ולכוף א"ע ולקיים מצות הבורא ית' עדין לא היה ניכר בו והיו יכולים לומר שאברהם אינו צדיק גמור ח"ו אבל בעקידה שעשה ג"כ מדת אכזריות שרצה בכל אוות נפשו לקיים מצות הבורא ולשחוט את בנו יחידו אשר בו תלוי כל חיותו א"כ עתה נשלם וניכר שהוא צדיק גמור
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Sukkos in the Fall
The Tur (OC 625) asks, if on Sukkos we re-enact our sojourn in the eponymous Sukkos in the desert, why does it occur in the Fall, when the event took place when we left Egypt, in the Spring. He answers that after a wet and cold Winter, many people find it pleasurable to eat outdoors as the weather improves. If we made the holiday in the Spring, it would not have the symbolic force that it does now. We make it in the Fall, when nobody else eats or sleeps outdoors, so that we should be emphatically reminded of our reason for doing so. As the Bach says, the mitzva of Sukkos requires a specific awareness of the reason for the commandment. (I apologize to my friends in the Southern Hemisphere for the Hemispheric chauvinism.)
The Rambam (Moreh 3:43) says exactly the opposite of the Tur: that this season was picked because it's neither too hot nor too cold for a Succah (in Eretz Yisrael's climate, of course).
These are unsatisfying answers. We are taught that our holidays are not mere tableaux vivants re-enactments, but instead a re-experience of the mazal and segula of the moment, a wellspring from which we draw spiritual strength. It is hard to accept the Rambam's and the Tur's assertions that Sukkos has no inherent temporal/spiritual relation to its place in the calendar.
Addressing this issue, the Vilner Gaon (born 1720) and the Chasam Sofer (born 1762) say identical answers. The Vilner Gaon is in Shir Hashirim 1:4, here. The Chasam Sofer is in his Drashos, page 29a, in the Drasha for Shabbos Shuva of תקצ"ד, D'H B'Yalkut, here.
Thank you, Heather H., for pointing out that today, October 17, is the Gaon's Yahrtzeit, 19 Tishrei Tof Kuf Nun Ches/1797. The Chasam Sofer's Yahrtzeit, 25 Tishrei Tof Reish/1839, is next Sunday, October 23. May they be meilitzei yosher for us and all Klal Yisrael.
They answer that the Clouds which (according to Rebbi Eliezer) the Sukkos represent, departed upon the sin of the Eigel. The Clouds only returned after we did teshuva and began building the Mishkan. When was that? Our teshuva was accepted on Yom Kippur, the tenth. On the eleventh, Moshe Rabbeinu gave us the commandment to build the Mishkan; on the twelfth and thirteenth, we collected the material and money we needed; on the fourteenth, the calculations, assignments and disbursements were made, and on the fifteenth of Tishrei, the work began. It is not just the Ananim we are celebrating- we're celebrating Hashem's return of the Ananei Hakavod as a sign of His love after we did teshuva. The Teshuva did not merely erase our sins, it reinstated Hashem's love. It is the great joy of the return of the ananei hakavod that we are celebrating.
The problem with this teretz is the pessukim in Nechemiah 9:19-20, which say
יח אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה ויאמרו זה אלהיך אשר העלך ממצרים ויעשו נאצות גדלות. יט ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם ביומם להנחתם בהדרך ואת-עמוד האש בלילה להאיר להם ואת-הדרך אשר ילכו בה
Even when they made the Eigel and said "This is your god that took you out of Egypt", and they did great blasphemies, You, in Your great mercy, did not leave them in the Desert. The Pillar of Cloud did not move away from them in the day to lead them on the path, nor the Pillar of Fire to illuminate the road they walked upon.
It appears that these pesukim, which clearly state that the sin of the Eigel did not cause the Cloud to go away, contradict the assertion of the Gaon and the Chasam Sofer.
The answer is, of course, that there is a difference between the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod. The Pillar of Cloud remained with them, but the Clouds of Glory, which covered and protected them, did disappear, and only came back when they began building the Mishkan.
You might disagree with this distinction. After all, the Aruch Hashulchan seems to commingle the two Ananim:
Also, we find that Chazal equate the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod, in Medrash Bamidbar Rabbah II:
Also, see (sorry about the transcription errors: my secretary stepped out for a moment...) Mechilta D'Rebbi Yishmael in Beshalach, 13:21, where it says very clearly
וה' הולך לפניהם יומם. את מוצא שבעה ענני כבוד היו, אלו הן: וה' הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן, הרי אחד. "ועננך עומד עליהם" (במדבר יד , יד), הרי שנים. "ובעמוד ענן" (שם), הרי שלשה. (שם ט, יט) "ובהאריך הענן", ארבע. "ובהעלות הענן" (שמות מ , לו), חמשה. (שם, לז) "ואם לא יעלה הענן", ששה. (שם, לח) "כי ענן ה' על המשכן", שבעה. ארבע מארבע רוחות: ואחד מלמטה, ואחד מלמעלה, ואחד מהלך לפניהם. כל הנמוך מגביהו, וכל הגבוה מנמיכו, ושורף נחשים ועקרבים, מכבד ומרבץ את הדרך לפניהם
It's possible that some ananim went away and some didn't. But the pashtus of the Passuk in Nechemiah is that all of the Ananim remained after the sin of the Eigel, even before Yom Kippur. So what's pshat in the teretz of Gaon and the Chasam Sofer? We can find the answer to this question in the Chasam Sofer, here, (Drashos, page 53b, D'H Sha'alah).
The Chasam Sofer asks, why does the Gemara in Sukkos 26b not suggest that women ought to be Chayav in Sukka because they were involved in the miracle no less than the men? He answers, as he said earlier, that Sukkos commemorates not the Clouds, but the return of the Clouds after Teshuva. He says that the Clouds did not actually disappear, but they ejected any sinner that attempted to enter into them. The men, who were excommunicated for their sin of the Eigel, remained outside of the cloud until they began building the Mishkan. The women, on the other hand, had never participated in the Eigel, and were never driven away from the Anan. While any man entering the Anan were spit out, the women were able to enter the Anan at will. Since for the women nothing changed, the redemptive experience of Sukkos did not apply to them at all, and we certainly could not say they're chayav on the basis of אף הן היו באותו הנס. They weren't באותו הנס at all.
According to the Chasam Sofer, we can understand the pesukim in Nechemiah to mean that the Anan never went away, and still guided them. But it did not allow the men to enter into it, it was poleit them. Only when they began building the Mishkan were the men allowed to enter into the cloud, and it is this redemptive experience that took place on the fifteenth of Tishrei that we celebrate.
I want to point out an irony. According to the Chasam Sofer, the reason that we wouldn't apply אף הן היו באותו הנס to obligate women to do the Mitzva of Sukka is because they never sinned, they never were kicked out, and they never earned redemption. Sukkos is the holiday that commemorates a fall and a return to Hashem's love. They never fell, and Hashem loved them all the time, so they have no reconciliation to celebrate. Although it sounds strange, it makes perfect sense. The descendants of an alternative Avraham Avinu who never said "Bamah Eida" would never have been redeemed from Mitzrayim. I recently read that a physician lamented how he spends half an hour teaching a patient about lifestyle changes that will ensure that his heart remains healthy, and a cardiac surgeon that repairs a heart damaged by by a bad lifestyle is paid thirty to forty times as much for his half hour. Somehow, that reminded me of the Chasam Sofer's teretz.
The Rambam (Moreh 3:43) says exactly the opposite of the Tur: that this season was picked because it's neither too hot nor too cold for a Succah (in Eretz Yisrael's climate, of course).
These are unsatisfying answers. We are taught that our holidays are not mere tableaux vivants re-enactments, but instead a re-experience of the mazal and segula of the moment, a wellspring from which we draw spiritual strength. It is hard to accept the Rambam's and the Tur's assertions that Sukkos has no inherent temporal/spiritual relation to its place in the calendar.
Addressing this issue, the Vilner Gaon (born 1720) and the Chasam Sofer (born 1762) say identical answers. The Vilner Gaon is in Shir Hashirim 1:4, here. The Chasam Sofer is in his Drashos, page 29a, in the Drasha for Shabbos Shuva of תקצ"ד, D'H B'Yalkut, here.
Thank you, Heather H., for pointing out that today, October 17, is the Gaon's Yahrtzeit, 19 Tishrei Tof Kuf Nun Ches/1797. The Chasam Sofer's Yahrtzeit, 25 Tishrei Tof Reish/1839, is next Sunday, October 23. May they be meilitzei yosher for us and all Klal Yisrael.
They answer that the Clouds which (according to Rebbi Eliezer) the Sukkos represent, departed upon the sin of the Eigel. The Clouds only returned after we did teshuva and began building the Mishkan. When was that? Our teshuva was accepted on Yom Kippur, the tenth. On the eleventh, Moshe Rabbeinu gave us the commandment to build the Mishkan; on the twelfth and thirteenth, we collected the material and money we needed; on the fourteenth, the calculations, assignments and disbursements were made, and on the fifteenth of Tishrei, the work began. It is not just the Ananim we are celebrating- we're celebrating Hashem's return of the Ananei Hakavod as a sign of His love after we did teshuva. The Teshuva did not merely erase our sins, it reinstated Hashem's love. It is the great joy of the return of the ananei hakavod that we are celebrating.
The problem with this teretz is the pessukim in Nechemiah 9:19-20, which say
יח אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה ויאמרו זה אלהיך אשר העלך ממצרים ויעשו נאצות גדלות. יט ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם ביומם להנחתם בהדרך ואת-עמוד האש בלילה להאיר להם ואת-הדרך אשר ילכו בה
Even when they made the Eigel and said "This is your god that took you out of Egypt", and they did great blasphemies, You, in Your great mercy, did not leave them in the Desert. The Pillar of Cloud did not move away from them in the day to lead them on the path, nor the Pillar of Fire to illuminate the road they walked upon.
It appears that these pesukim, which clearly state that the sin of the Eigel did not cause the Cloud to go away, contradict the assertion of the Gaon and the Chasam Sofer.
The answer is, of course, that there is a difference between the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod. The Pillar of Cloud remained with them, but the Clouds of Glory, which covered and protected them, did disappear, and only came back when they began building the Mishkan.
You might disagree with this distinction. After all, the Aruch Hashulchan seems to commingle the two Ananim:
ותניא (סוכה יא ב): "כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל" – ענני כבוד היו, דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי עקיבא אומר: סוכות ממש עשו להם.
והנה לדברי רבי אליעזר – וודאי דשייך לעשות זכרון לדבר הגדול הזה, שהקיפן בענני כבוד. וכמו שהתוודו בעלותם מן הגולה בנחמיה (ט), שאמרו: "אף כי עשו להם עגל מסכה... ואתה ברחמיך הרבים לא עזבתם במדבר, את עמוד הענן לא סר מעליהם..., ואת עמוד האש בלילה...". דבענני כבוד היתה התגלות אלקות ממש, כמו שאמר משה רבינו בעניינא דמרגלים: "אשר עין בעין נראה אתה ד', ועננך עומד עליהם, ובעמוד ענן אתה הולך לפניהם יומם, ובעמוד אש לילה"
Also, we find that Chazal equate the Amud Ha'anan and the Ananei Hakavod, in Medrash Bamidbar Rabbah II:
וכמה ענני כבוד היו מקיפין את ישראל במדבר
ר' הושעיה ור' יאשיה, ר' יאשיה אמר: חמישה. ארבע לארבע רוחות, וא' מהלך לפניהם. ר' הושעיה אמר: שבעה. ארבעה לארבע רוחות השמים, וא' מלמעלן, וא' מלמטן, ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם רחוק ג' ימים, והיה מכה לפניהם את הנחשים, ואת העקרבים, ואת השרפים, ואת הסלעים, ואם היה מקום נמוך היה מגביהו, ואם היה מקום גבוה היה משפילו, ועושה אותם מישור, שנאמר (ישעיה מ): כל גיא ינשא וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו. Also, see (sorry about the transcription errors: my secretary stepped out for a moment...) Mechilta D'Rebbi Yishmael in Beshalach, 13:21, where it says very clearly
וה׳ הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן מלמד ששבעה ענני כבוד היו עם ישראל
יומם בעמוד ענן הרי אחד . ועננך עומד עליהם (ב מ ׳ יד יד ) הרי שנים . ובעמוד ענן את ה הולך לפניהם יומם (שס) הרי שלשה. ובהאריך הענן (בפ׳ סיס ) הרי ארבעה. ובהעלות הענן (שמ׳ פ לו ) הרי המשה. ואם לא יעלה הענן (שם לז) הרי ששה. כי ענן ה׳ על המשכן יומם (שם לה) הרי שבעה. ארבעה 15 מארבע רותות ואחו מלמ עלה ואחד םלמסד . וא ח ד שמ ק ד י ם לפ נ י ה ם פ ת ק ן לה ם את הד ר כ י ם מג ב י ר . לה ם את הש פ ל ומ ש פ י ל לה ם את הג ב ו ה וע ו ש ה לה ס דר ך ס ר ס ומ י ש ו ר כע נ י ן שנ א י כל ני א י נ ש א וכ ל הר וג ב ע ה יש פ ל ו וה י ה הע ק ב לפ י ש ו ר וה ר כ ס י ם לב ק ע ה (ישע׳ פ ד) וא ו ם ׳ והיתד. פס ל ה לש א ר עפ ו אש ר יש א ר מא ש ו ר כא ש ר הי ת ה לי ש ר א ל כי ו ם על ו ת ו מא ר ץ פצ ר י ם (ישע׳ י א שז). הד י זה נ א כפ ל מ ד ו נ מ צ א למ ד מה לע ת י ד לב ו א כל גיא יג ש א וכ ל ה ר וג ב ע ה יש פ ל ו כך היד, לה ן בע ל י י ת ן 20 פא ר ץ מצ ר י ם . די א והי הל ך לפ נ י ה ם י ו מ ם ר׳ יו ס י הנ ל י ל י או מ ר אל מ ל א פק ר א כ ת ו ב אי אפ ש ר ל א פ ר ו כא ב שנ ו ס ל סו נ ס לפ נ י בנ ו וכ ר ב שנ ו ס ל פו נ ס לפ נ י עב ד ו . לל כ ת י ו מ ם ול י ל ה פק י ש נס י ע ת ן כי פ י ם לנ ס י ע ת ן בל י ל ו ת פ ה נס י ע ת ן בי פ י ם לא הי ו טח ו ס ר י ן או ר ה אף נס י ע ת ן בל י ל ו ת לא הי ו פח ו ס ר י ן או ר ה . מה נס י ע ת ן בל י ל ו ת לא יר ע ב ו ול א י נ פ א ו ול א יכ ם שר ב וש מ ש (י ש ע ׳ מם י) אף נס י ע ת ן בי מ י ם לא יר ע ב ו ול א יצ מ א ו ול א יכ ם שר ב וש מ ש .
וה' הולך לפניהם יומם. את מוצא שבעה ענני כבוד היו, אלו הן: וה' הולך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן, הרי אחד. "ועננך עומד עליהם" (במדבר יד , יד), הרי שנים. "ובעמוד ענן" (שם), הרי שלשה. (שם ט, יט) "ובהאריך הענן", ארבע. "ובהעלות הענן" (שמות מ , לו), חמשה. (שם, לז) "ואם לא יעלה הענן", ששה. (שם, לח) "כי ענן ה' על המשכן", שבעה. ארבע מארבע רוחות: ואחד מלמטה, ואחד מלמעלה, ואחד מהלך לפניהם. כל הנמוך מגביהו, וכל הגבוה מנמיכו, ושורף נחשים ועקרבים, מכבד ומרבץ את הדרך לפניהם
וה' הולך לפניהם יומם - נמצאת אומר שבעה עננים הם: "וה' הולך לפניהם יומם", וגו' (במדבר יד) "ועננך עומד עליהם", (שם) "ובעמוד ענן", (במדבר ט) "ובהאריך הענן", (שמות מ) "ובהעלות הענן", (שם) "ואם לא יעלה הענן", (שם) "כי ענן ה' על המשכן".
שבעה עננים: ארבע מארבע רוחותיהם, אחד למעלה ואחד למטה, אחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם, כל הנמוך - מגביהו, וכל הגבוה - משפילו, שנאמר (ישעיה מ) "כל גיא ינשא, וכל הר וגבעה ישפלו, והיה העקוב למישור, והרכסים לבקעה". והיה מכה נחשים ועקרבים לפניהם, מכבד ומרבץ לפניהם.
ר' יהודה אומר: שלשה עשר עננים היו: שנים לכל רוח ורוח, שנים מלמעלה ושנים מלמטה, ואחד שהיה מהלך לפניהם.
ר' יאשיה אומר: ארבעה: אחד לפניהם ואחד לאחריהם, אחד למעלה ואחד למטה.
ר' אומר: שנים.
The Chasam Sofer asks, why does the Gemara in Sukkos 26b not suggest that women ought to be Chayav in Sukka because they were involved in the miracle no less than the men? He answers, as he said earlier, that Sukkos commemorates not the Clouds, but the return of the Clouds after Teshuva. He says that the Clouds did not actually disappear, but they ejected any sinner that attempted to enter into them. The men, who were excommunicated for their sin of the Eigel, remained outside of the cloud until they began building the Mishkan. The women, on the other hand, had never participated in the Eigel, and were never driven away from the Anan. While any man entering the Anan were spit out, the women were able to enter the Anan at will. Since for the women nothing changed, the redemptive experience of Sukkos did not apply to them at all, and we certainly could not say they're chayav on the basis of אף הן היו באותו הנס. They weren't באותו הנס at all.
According to the Chasam Sofer, we can understand the pesukim in Nechemiah to mean that the Anan never went away, and still guided them. But it did not allow the men to enter into it, it was poleit them. Only when they began building the Mishkan were the men allowed to enter into the cloud, and it is this redemptive experience that took place on the fifteenth of Tishrei that we celebrate.
I want to point out an irony. According to the Chasam Sofer, the reason that we wouldn't apply אף הן היו באותו הנס to obligate women to do the Mitzva of Sukka is because they never sinned, they never were kicked out, and they never earned redemption. Sukkos is the holiday that commemorates a fall and a return to Hashem's love. They never fell, and Hashem loved them all the time, so they have no reconciliation to celebrate. Although it sounds strange, it makes perfect sense. The descendants of an alternative Avraham Avinu who never said "Bamah Eida" would never have been redeemed from Mitzrayim. I recently read that a physician lamented how he spends half an hour teaching a patient about lifestyle changes that will ensure that his heart remains healthy, and a cardiac surgeon that repairs a heart damaged by by a bad lifestyle is paid thirty to forty times as much for his half hour. Somehow, that reminded me of the Chasam Sofer's teretz.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Haazinu, Devarim 32:4, and Yom Kippur. Mishpat and Tzadka Yachdav. אין עול and צדקה יחדיו
I
No human, no Malach, can understand Hashem's judgment. Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabbeinu, the Malachei Hashareis, nobody can even begin to understand why and how. Even so, Chazal and our baalei hashkafa discuss such things. What follows is only in the spirit of Limud Hatorah, and is not an Icarus-like quest for the resolution of unanswerable questions (Chagiga 14b).
This first part is from Harav Meir Bergman, Rav Shach's son in law, in his sefer on Chumash, Shaarei Ora.
The discussion involves psukim, 32:3-4:
The Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona there mentions that the Rif also redacted it out of his iteration of the Gemara. Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona are not at all happy about this. They end by saying אע"פ שיש מיתה בלא חטא... כל דרכיו משפט והוא יודע למה עושה כן, even though death can be without mishpat, He knows why He does so.
The Chidushei Anshei Shem there discusses this, and says other surprising things, not directly in line with this discussion but worth reading.
Rav Bergman asks, how did these rishonim- the Bahag, the Rambam, and the Rif- understand the beginning of the bracha, which they leave intact- dayan emes, Keil emes, and so forth? And what do they do with our pesukim, that talk of ein avel and yashrus?
He answers that we have personal identities and a national identity. Heavenly judgment can take national identity as the predominant field of Din and Schar V'Onesh, even when it results in a judgment incompatible with certain individuals in the klal. Our dominant identity is as parts of an organism rather than as individuals; just as we judge a person as a whole, and not his individual parts, Hashem might judge Klal Yisrael as a whole, and not its individual parts.
Rav Bergman reads these two approaches to Din into the various interpretations of כל באי עולם עוברין לפניו כבני מרון in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 18a. According to one pshat, this means judgment of each individual; according to another, it means judgment of the nation as a whole.
He ends by quoting the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos there in Rosh Hashanna who ends the Mishna with the words "this statement is self explanatory, but its hidden aspect is extremely difficult." Rav Bergman says that the Rambam is alluding to the difficulty of correlating the judgment of individuals qua individual with judgment of Klal Yisrael as a whole.
The gist of this idea is that an individual might experience things that are not the result of his own behavior. If he were ajudicated on his own merits, his judgment would be X. But since he is a member of the klal, and the judgment on the klal was Y, he will (might? always? sometimes?) share in that judgment. So from the individual perspective, the decree is not Mishpat. But from the Klal perspective, it is perfectly just.
Rav Bergman's dvar Torah ends here. Now lets think about how this comports with Reb Yisrael Salanter's words about Din Shamayim.
Reb Yisrael Salanter is widely quoted as having said that אין עול teaches an essential difference between Hashem's judgment and an earthly court's judgment. If a man is guilty and deserves punishment, the consequences that his punishment will have on others are legally irrelevant. That executing him or incarcerating him will result in grief or financial distress to innocent people matters not at all to an earthly court. But Hashem takes all of this into consideration. With this, the Sefer Chakal Tapuchin explains the Gemara in Shabbos 106a that if a member of a group dies, all the members of the group should worry; he explains that if their friend died, then it must be that the Beis Din shel Maalah decided that all the members of the group deserved to experience the grief of losing a friend, which shows that they need to do teshuva. Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz in his Sichos here says that Reb Yisrael used this approach to explain the passuk in Tehillim (19:10) "משפטי ה' אמת צדקו יחדיו" Hashem's judgment is true, righteous together: this means that Hashem only punishes an individual when all the people affected by the repercussions of the judgment deserve those consequences. In fact, Reb Elia Lopian used to say that this is a good reason to develop a group of friends that love you and sympathize with you. Even if you deserve punishment, you might be saved because your good friends don't deserve the emotional distress that would result from seeing you suffer. (see, e.g., Mishulchan Gavoah and Lekach Tov on this passuk in Haazinu.)
It appears that Rav Bergman's and Reb Yisrael's ideas are fundamentally incompatible. Do you agree that they are inconsistent? Yes? I initially thought so too. You, as I, have just been taught a lesson: Instead of jumping to conclusions that there is a kashe, instead we should pay more careful attention. There is an enormous difference between the two, and there is no contradiction at all.
Reb Yisrael Salanter said that Reuven cannot suffer an undeserved repercussion of Shimon's punishment. Rav Bergman is talking about Reuven suffering as an undeserved consequence of a Tzibbur's sin. Reuven is by no means a part of Shimon. Reuven is, however, a part of the Tzibbur. Reuven's personal identity is not necessarily as important a consideration as his "part of tzibbur" identity. In fact, Reb Yisrael's pshat is based on the word יחדיו. He interpreted that to mean that Shimon cannot be punished when the punishment will cause undeserved suffering to Reuven. But the same word יחדיו tells us that we are not only individuals, we are also parts of a tzibur. When a member of a tzibur sins, the tzibur as a whole might be punished, including innocent Shimon.
II
There is certainly no contradiction between Rav Bergman and Reb Yisrael Salanter. But there is no evidence that Reb Yisrael would agree with Rav Bergman. Having said this, there is one very important point that everyone would agree to. There is one time when a person might be punished because his generation sinned, even when he himself did not share in their sin, and that is when he could have protested and he did not. The concept embodied in Arvus, in Lo Saamod ahl dahm rei'echa, in Arur asher lo Yakim, creates an ethical and halachic parity between Noninterference and Aiding and Abetting. Shabbos 54b-55a:
No human, no Malach, can understand Hashem's judgment. Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabbeinu, the Malachei Hashareis, nobody can even begin to understand why and how. Even so, Chazal and our baalei hashkafa discuss such things. What follows is only in the spirit of Limud Hatorah, and is not an Icarus-like quest for the resolution of unanswerable questions (Chagiga 14b).
This first part is from Harav Meir Bergman, Rav Shach's son in law, in his sefer on Chumash, Shaarei Ora.
The discussion involves psukim, 32:3-4:
הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט. אל אמונה ואין עול צדיק וישר הוא
The Gemara in Brachos 46b says that when Mar Zutra became an Aveil, a bracha was said. This is the generally known bracha of Dayan Ha'emes. The language of the bracha there, however, is much lengthier. Part of the bracha is "שופט צדק לוקח במשפט", righteous judge who takes (life) with justice. Tosfos there says that the Bahag (and the Rambam) excised the words "lokeiach bemishpat," because the Gemara in Shabbos 55b says יש נספה בלא משפט, even blameless men die, that men die without Mishpat, without justice. Therefore, one should not say that the person died with mishpat, because maybe he was one who died "belo mishpat." Tosfos ends by saying "however, that is not a reason to erase it." Tosfos does not explain what he means.The Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona there mentions that the Rif also redacted it out of his iteration of the Gemara. Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona are not at all happy about this. They end by saying אע"פ שיש מיתה בלא חטא... כל דרכיו משפט והוא יודע למה עושה כן, even though death can be without mishpat, He knows why He does so.
The Chidushei Anshei Shem there discusses this, and says other surprising things, not directly in line with this discussion but worth reading.
Rav Bergman asks, how did these rishonim- the Bahag, the Rambam, and the Rif- understand the beginning of the bracha, which they leave intact- dayan emes, Keil emes, and so forth? And what do they do with our pesukim, that talk of ein avel and yashrus?
He answers that we have personal identities and a national identity. Heavenly judgment can take national identity as the predominant field of Din and Schar V'Onesh, even when it results in a judgment incompatible with certain individuals in the klal. Our dominant identity is as parts of an organism rather than as individuals; just as we judge a person as a whole, and not his individual parts, Hashem might judge Klal Yisrael as a whole, and not its individual parts.
Rav Bergman reads these two approaches to Din into the various interpretations of כל באי עולם עוברין לפניו כבני מרון in the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 18a. According to one pshat, this means judgment of each individual; according to another, it means judgment of the nation as a whole.
He ends by quoting the Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos there in Rosh Hashanna who ends the Mishna with the words "this statement is self explanatory, but its hidden aspect is extremely difficult." Rav Bergman says that the Rambam is alluding to the difficulty of correlating the judgment of individuals qua individual with judgment of Klal Yisrael as a whole.
The gist of this idea is that an individual might experience things that are not the result of his own behavior. If he were ajudicated on his own merits, his judgment would be X. But since he is a member of the klal, and the judgment on the klal was Y, he will (might? always? sometimes?) share in that judgment. So from the individual perspective, the decree is not Mishpat. But from the Klal perspective, it is perfectly just.
Rav Bergman's dvar Torah ends here. Now lets think about how this comports with Reb Yisrael Salanter's words about Din Shamayim.
Reb Yisrael Salanter is widely quoted as having said that אין עול teaches an essential difference between Hashem's judgment and an earthly court's judgment. If a man is guilty and deserves punishment, the consequences that his punishment will have on others are legally irrelevant. That executing him or incarcerating him will result in grief or financial distress to innocent people matters not at all to an earthly court. But Hashem takes all of this into consideration. With this, the Sefer Chakal Tapuchin explains the Gemara in Shabbos 106a that if a member of a group dies, all the members of the group should worry; he explains that if their friend died, then it must be that the Beis Din shel Maalah decided that all the members of the group deserved to experience the grief of losing a friend, which shows that they need to do teshuva. Reb Chaim Shmuelevitz in his Sichos here says that Reb Yisrael used this approach to explain the passuk in Tehillim (19:10) "משפטי ה' אמת צדקו יחדיו" Hashem's judgment is true, righteous together: this means that Hashem only punishes an individual when all the people affected by the repercussions of the judgment deserve those consequences. In fact, Reb Elia Lopian used to say that this is a good reason to develop a group of friends that love you and sympathize with you. Even if you deserve punishment, you might be saved because your good friends don't deserve the emotional distress that would result from seeing you suffer. (see, e.g., Mishulchan Gavoah and Lekach Tov on this passuk in Haazinu.)
It appears that Rav Bergman's and Reb Yisrael's ideas are fundamentally incompatible. Do you agree that they are inconsistent? Yes? I initially thought so too. You, as I, have just been taught a lesson: Instead of jumping to conclusions that there is a kashe, instead we should pay more careful attention. There is an enormous difference between the two, and there is no contradiction at all.
Reb Yisrael Salanter said that Reuven cannot suffer an undeserved repercussion of Shimon's punishment. Rav Bergman is talking about Reuven suffering as an undeserved consequence of a Tzibbur's sin. Reuven is by no means a part of Shimon. Reuven is, however, a part of the Tzibbur. Reuven's personal identity is not necessarily as important a consideration as his "part of tzibbur" identity. In fact, Reb Yisrael's pshat is based on the word יחדיו. He interpreted that to mean that Shimon cannot be punished when the punishment will cause undeserved suffering to Reuven. But the same word יחדיו tells us that we are not only individuals, we are also parts of a tzibur. When a member of a tzibur sins, the tzibur as a whole might be punished, including innocent Shimon.
II
There is certainly no contradiction between Rav Bergman and Reb Yisrael Salanter. But there is no evidence that Reb Yisrael would agree with Rav Bergman. Having said this, there is one very important point that everyone would agree to. There is one time when a person might be punished because his generation sinned, even when he himself did not share in their sin, and that is when he could have protested and he did not. The concept embodied in Arvus, in Lo Saamod ahl dahm rei'echa, in Arur asher lo Yakim, creates an ethical and halachic parity between Noninterference and Aiding and Abetting. Shabbos 54b-55a:
כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו אמר רב פפא והני דבי ריש גלותא נתפסו על כולי עלמא כי הא דאמר רבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו ג) ה' במשפט יבא עם זקני עמו ושריו אם שרים חטאו
דף נה,א זקנים מה חטאו אלא אימא על זקנים שלא מיחו בשרים רב יהודה הוה יתיב קמיה דשמואל אתאי ההיא איתתא קא צווחה קמיה ולא הוה משגח בה א"ל לא סבר ליה מר (משלי כא) אוטם אזנו מזעקת דל גם הוא יקרא ולא יענה א"ל שיננא רישך בקרירי רישא דרישיך בחמימי הא יתיב מר עוקבא אב ב"ד דכתיב (ירמיהו כא) בית דוד כה אמר ה' דינו לבקר משפט והצילו גזול מיד עושק פן תצא כאש חמתי ובערה ואין מכבה מפני רוע מעלליהם וגו' א"ל ר' זירא לר' סימון לוכחינהו מר להני דבי ריש גלותא א"ל לא מקבלי מינאי א"ל אע"ג דלא מקבלי לוכחינהו מר דא"ר אחא בר' חנינא מעולם לא יצתה מדה טובה מפי הקב"ה וחזר בה לרעה חוץ מדבר זה דכתיב (יחזקאל ט) ויאמר ה' אליו עבור בתוך העיר בתוך ירושלים והתוית תיו על מצחות האנשים הנאנחים והנאנקים על כל התועבות הנעשות בתוכה וגו' א"ל הקב"ה לגבריאל לך ורשום על מצחן של צדיקים תיו של דיו שלא ישלטו בהם מלאכי חבלה ועל מצחם של רשעים תיו של דם כדי שישלטו בהן מלאכי חבלה אמרה מדת הדין לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע מה נשתנו אלו מאלו אמר לה הללו צדיקים גמורים והללו רשעים גמורים אמרה לפניו רבש"ע היה בידם למחות ולא מיחו אמר לה גלוי וידוע לפני שאם מיחו בהם לא יקבלו מהם <אמר> [אמרה] לפניו רבש"ע אם לפניך גלוי להם מי גלוי והיינו דכתיב (יחזקאל ט) זקן בחור ובתולה טף ונשים תהרגו למשחית ועל כל איש אשר עליו התיו אל תגשו וממקדשי תחלו וכתיב ויחלו באנשים הזקנים אשר לפני הבית תני רב יוסף אל תקרי מקדשי אלא מקודשי אלו בני אדם שקיימו את התורה כולה מאלף ועד תיו ומיד (יחזקאל ט) והנה ששה אנשים באים מדרך שער העליון אשר מפנה צפונה ואיש כלי מפצו בידו ואיש אחד בתוכם לבוש הבדים וקסת הסופר במתניו ויבאו ויעמדו אצל מזבח הנחושת מזבח הנחושת מי הוה אמר להו הקב"ה התחילו ממקום שאומרים שירה לפני ומאן נינהו ששה אנשים א"ר חסדא קצף אף וחימה ומשחית ומשבר ומכלה ומ"ש תיו אמר רב תיו תחיה תיו תמות ושמואל אמר תמה זכות אבות ורבי יוחנן אמר תחון זכות אבות ור"ל אמר תיו סוף חותמו של הקב"ה דאמר רבי חנינא חותמו של הקב"ה אמת
The dinim of Arvus and Lo Saamod mean that we cannot sit back and watch as others go down in flames: even if we, through mighty discipline and diligent care avoid every sin and do every mitzvah, even if we escape the tides of the times and do not fall prey to contemporary stupidity and sinfulness, in Dinei Shamayim we pay for the sins of the community. The only way to avoid this is by whole-heartedly throwing ourselves into an effort to improve the lives of others. The only way to avoid being tarred by the failures of others, the only way to avoid being lumped together with the community as a whole, is by trying your hardest to teach others to avoid sin. One might say that the only way to escape the community is by embracing it.
Monday, September 26, 2011
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.
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)