King Solomon declared, “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven; a time to be born, and a time to die… a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).
Publicity is no different. It has its time and place. Ostentatious exhibition of oneself is unbecoming and contrary to proper Jewish conduct.
Modesty is a virtuous trait, as it says, “What does the Lord require of you… and to walk modestly with your G-d" (Michah 6:8). Also, modesty is the partition between us and the animal kingdom (Pele Yoetz, Volume 2).
However, when it comes to thanking G-d, publicity is an indispensable component. This is true on a macro level, such as drinking the four cups on Passover and lighting candles on Chanukah to publicize and thank G-d for the miracles that occurred in those respective times. (Maggid Mishnah, Laws of
Chanukah 4:12)
It is also true on a micro level, when one realizes salvation from a constricting or perilous predicament (Brachos 54b). Such an individual is required to publicly recite a special blessing of acknowledgement and thanksgiving for G-d’s salvation (Code of Law, Orach Chaim, 219).
In this week’s portion, Rashi (Leviticus 7:12) explains that these people have the option to vow a sacrifice called The Meal Offering of Thanksgiving to the Temple.
Regarding this sacrifice the Torah (Ibid, 12-15) states,
“Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mixed with oil, of fine flour,
fried… he shall offer for his offering leavened bread…. And the meat of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning.”
Rashi (ad locum) explains that this sacrifice had four different types of bread, as is clear from the verse; ten loaves of each type, totaling forty loaves. Four loaves (one loaf from each type), in addition to the thigh and the breast of the animal were offered to the kohen. This left the owner with thirty-six loaves of bread and the rest of the meat that had to be eaten in one evening.
The Netziv (Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, in Ha’emek Davar, ad locum) and Sforno raise an obvious peculiarity in the Torah’s dictum. Similar sacrifices had a two-night timetable for consumption. How can the Torah compel anyone to eat almost an entire animal and thirty-six loaves of bread in one evening?
The Netziv and Sforno explain that the Torah distinctively required the consumption of large amounts of food in a small amount of time so that this individual will be compelled to invite guests to his meal. Once a person invites people to this meal, he will be encouraged to share the reason for his sacrifice, which is the deliverance he experienced.
The sharing of this incident will inevitably lead to a public thanksgiving to G-d for his escape, because it will indeed be a thanksgiving offering that they will be eating. Therefore, when one emerges from severe travail as a survivor it is a mitzvah to make a meal of thanksgiving (Pri Megadim, Orach Chaim 452:9), invite friends and relate the story.
I recall the horrific incident of my father being hit by a car and flying through the street. With G-d’s help he fully recovered. A while later my parents made a thanksgiving meal that was like a wedding or bar mitzvah. I remember having a deep sense and awareness that we are all in G-d’s hands and under His careful watch.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Truma-To Become a Tabernacle
We live in a simple world. That is, as long as we don’t gaze beyond the veneer.
A closer inspection reveals that the world is immeasurably complex.
For example, an iceberg that is four hundred feet high above sea-level and weighs one million tons can be nine million tons beneath the ocean surface.
An ordinary desk appears to be a solid mass of matter. Actually, it is mostly empty space. Its constitution is of atoms. The gap between each nucleus of an atom and its electrons can be compared to the following. If you could scale up the nucleus of an atom to the size of a baseball and place it in the center of the fifty yard line of a football field, the electron cloud that orbits the nucleus would be all the way at the goal posts.
Above us we see the sky. But beyond that mesmerizing blue plane is a Universe that has more stars than the grains of sand on every beach and desert on our planet.
Similarly, the outer appearance of the Tabernacle is that of a sanctuary. But the homiletic and kabbalistic sources reveal that there are deeper layers.
-Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin (Nefesh HaChaim, gate 1, chapter 4, note)
writes that the Tabernacle is a crucible that encapsulates reality which contains the energies of all the spiritual and physical universes.
In addition, Rabbi Yehoshua Heller (Ohel Yehoshua, drush 1, chapters 26-28) writes that the Tabernacle is a model of a human being.
Simply put, the Tabernacle is a sanctuary, a spiritual container of the universe and a simulation of humans.
Rabbi Heller brilliantly opines that a closer look at the Tabernacle’s structure and its vessels reveals the image of a face. The Holy of Holies is the forehead that surrounds and protects the brain which is the ark containing the Tablets of G-d. In the next chamber is the candelabrum which is the right eye and the showbread table which is the left eye. The incense altar in the middle is the nose which relates to scent. Outside of the main building is the sacrificial altar which is the mouth. Just as the mouth consumes victuals, so does the altar consume sacrifices.
The message of this representation is that we should model ourselves after the Tabernacle as we see in this week’s portion, ‘And you shall make for me a sanctuary and I will dwell in each of you.’(Exodus 25:8).
How do we make ourselves into a sanctuary of G-d?
The answer can be inferred from the Talmud (Bava Basra 25b)
which states: Rabbi Yitzchak said, (when one prays) if they want to become wise they should face the south. If they want to become rich they should face the north. And your symbol (to remember this) is that the showbread table was in the north and the candelabrum was in the south.
This signifies that the candelabrum represents the wisdom of the Torah while the table represents the physical bounty that G-d funnels into the world.
Thus, we can employ transitive logic. If our eyes are represented by the candelabrum and table, and they, in turn, represent Torah wisdom and G-d’s bounty, it follows that our eyes need to become Torah wisdom and G-d’s bounty. This is the way we can make ourselves into the Sanctuary of G-d.
We should control what our eyes see and our mouths ingest. We should see the wisdom of the Torah with our right candelabrum eye. We should understand what rightfully belongs to us with our left table eye. We should eat the right foodstuff with our sacrificial altar mouths.
From this perspective we are empowered by the idea that our every action constructs the tower of our spirituality and affects the world around us.
A closer inspection reveals that the world is immeasurably complex.
For example, an iceberg that is four hundred feet high above sea-level and weighs one million tons can be nine million tons beneath the ocean surface.
An ordinary desk appears to be a solid mass of matter. Actually, it is mostly empty space. Its constitution is of atoms. The gap between each nucleus of an atom and its electrons can be compared to the following. If you could scale up the nucleus of an atom to the size of a baseball and place it in the center of the fifty yard line of a football field, the electron cloud that orbits the nucleus would be all the way at the goal posts.
Above us we see the sky. But beyond that mesmerizing blue plane is a Universe that has more stars than the grains of sand on every beach and desert on our planet.
Similarly, the outer appearance of the Tabernacle is that of a sanctuary. But the homiletic and kabbalistic sources reveal that there are deeper layers.
-Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin (Nefesh HaChaim, gate 1, chapter 4, note)
writes that the Tabernacle is a crucible that encapsulates reality which contains the energies of all the spiritual and physical universes.
In addition, Rabbi Yehoshua Heller (Ohel Yehoshua, drush 1, chapters 26-28) writes that the Tabernacle is a model of a human being.
Simply put, the Tabernacle is a sanctuary, a spiritual container of the universe and a simulation of humans.
Rabbi Heller brilliantly opines that a closer look at the Tabernacle’s structure and its vessels reveals the image of a face. The Holy of Holies is the forehead that surrounds and protects the brain which is the ark containing the Tablets of G-d. In the next chamber is the candelabrum which is the right eye and the showbread table which is the left eye. The incense altar in the middle is the nose which relates to scent. Outside of the main building is the sacrificial altar which is the mouth. Just as the mouth consumes victuals, so does the altar consume sacrifices.
The message of this representation is that we should model ourselves after the Tabernacle as we see in this week’s portion, ‘And you shall make for me a sanctuary and I will dwell in each of you.’(Exodus 25:8).
How do we make ourselves into a sanctuary of G-d?
The answer can be inferred from the Talmud (Bava Basra 25b)
which states: Rabbi Yitzchak said, (when one prays) if they want to become wise they should face the south. If they want to become rich they should face the north. And your symbol (to remember this) is that the showbread table was in the north and the candelabrum was in the south.
This signifies that the candelabrum represents the wisdom of the Torah while the table represents the physical bounty that G-d funnels into the world.
Thus, we can employ transitive logic. If our eyes are represented by the candelabrum and table, and they, in turn, represent Torah wisdom and G-d’s bounty, it follows that our eyes need to become Torah wisdom and G-d’s bounty. This is the way we can make ourselves into the Sanctuary of G-d.
We should control what our eyes see and our mouths ingest. We should see the wisdom of the Torah with our right candelabrum eye. We should understand what rightfully belongs to us with our left table eye. We should eat the right foodstuff with our sacrificial altar mouths.
From this perspective we are empowered by the idea that our every action constructs the tower of our spirituality and affects the world around us.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Noach-Serving Hashem with Unity in Context
Rabbi Channina the deputy High Priest said, “Entreat for the welfare of the government because if it were not for its fear, people would swallow each other alive.” (Avos 3:2)
R’ Hirsh explains the motivation behind the juxtaposition of this avowal to the previous mishnah.
It states: “Akavia ben be Mahalalel said, consider three things and you will not approach transgression. Know from where you came, where you are going and before whom you will face judgment and reckoning” (Avos 3:1).
R’ Channina is teaching us that the optimal devout state is to be cognizant of G-d. However, most of us lack such towering devotion. Therefore, one should supplicate the Almighty that at the very least the fear of the government should swathe them.
R’ Hirsh’s revelation that the correlation between these two mishnayos is intentional sheds light upon the commentary of Rabbeinu Yonah (ad locum) on this mishnah. He understands that when a building is destroyed in New York, a tsunami originates in the Indian Ocean, or an earthquake hits in Haiti, one’s consciousness needs to be saturated with concern for the plight of others. The righteous must feels their pain and rejoice in their triumph. Therefore, the mishnah mandates prayer for peace.
What is the connection to the previous mishnah of Akavia’s statement that one must be attentive of G-d’s presence? The answer is that certainly peace should be our priority.
However, it must be within the context of G-d’s existence in the world.
Peace is an ideal which can yield beautiful results provided it is utilized appropriately. For example, the generation of dispersion achieved peace for the purpose of rebellion by building the tower of Babylon G-d (Rashi, Genesis 11:9).
On the other hand, the Jews achieved peace amongst each other to leave Egypt (Aznaim LeTorah, Exodus 12:17) and to receive the Torah (Rashi, Ibid 19:2).
To illustrate the point, the same principle applies to character traits such as stubbornness and love. Rabbi Yosef Zevin (LeTorah U’LeMoadim, 10:1) writes that love is not inherently evil or good. One can love one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18) or love G-d (Deuteronomy 6:5). However, one can also love evil more than good. (Psalms 52:5)
One can be born with a proclivity to see blood. Nevertheless, they can choose to be a doctor, a ritual slaughterer, a circumciser or a murderer (Shabbos 156a).
Hashem provided people with a box full of tools such as love, peace, strength and courage. They encounter constant opportunities to use these tools to grow or to regress.
When presented with the challenge of how to use our tools, how will we respond?
Thursday, Feb. 18
R’ Hirsh explains the motivation behind the juxtaposition of this avowal to the previous mishnah.
It states: “Akavia ben be Mahalalel said, consider three things and you will not approach transgression. Know from where you came, where you are going and before whom you will face judgment and reckoning” (Avos 3:1).
R’ Channina is teaching us that the optimal devout state is to be cognizant of G-d. However, most of us lack such towering devotion. Therefore, one should supplicate the Almighty that at the very least the fear of the government should swathe them.
R’ Hirsh’s revelation that the correlation between these two mishnayos is intentional sheds light upon the commentary of Rabbeinu Yonah (ad locum) on this mishnah. He understands that when a building is destroyed in New York, a tsunami originates in the Indian Ocean, or an earthquake hits in Haiti, one’s consciousness needs to be saturated with concern for the plight of others. The righteous must feels their pain and rejoice in their triumph. Therefore, the mishnah mandates prayer for peace.
What is the connection to the previous mishnah of Akavia’s statement that one must be attentive of G-d’s presence? The answer is that certainly peace should be our priority.
However, it must be within the context of G-d’s existence in the world.
Peace is an ideal which can yield beautiful results provided it is utilized appropriately. For example, the generation of dispersion achieved peace for the purpose of rebellion by building the tower of Babylon G-d (Rashi, Genesis 11:9).
On the other hand, the Jews achieved peace amongst each other to leave Egypt (Aznaim LeTorah, Exodus 12:17) and to receive the Torah (Rashi, Ibid 19:2).
To illustrate the point, the same principle applies to character traits such as stubbornness and love. Rabbi Yosef Zevin (LeTorah U’LeMoadim, 10:1) writes that love is not inherently evil or good. One can love one’s neighbor as oneself (Leviticus 19:18) or love G-d (Deuteronomy 6:5). However, one can also love evil more than good. (Psalms 52:5)
One can be born with a proclivity to see blood. Nevertheless, they can choose to be a doctor, a ritual slaughterer, a circumciser or a murderer (Shabbos 156a).
Hashem provided people with a box full of tools such as love, peace, strength and courage. They encounter constant opportunities to use these tools to grow or to regress.
When presented with the challenge of how to use our tools, how will we respond?
Thursday, Feb. 18
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Vayaishev: The Life of the Bartender and the Death of the Baker
In this week’s Parsha we encounter Yosef’s experience with two apparently significant folks on the totem pole of the Egyptian monarchy.
One was the chief expert of fine baking and pastry arts on the planet who was the minister of the Tartlet cabinet providing all the delicacies for Pharaoh’s dining encounters. The other was the world’s foremost expert in wine, spirits and beverage science who personally
tended to the kings alcohol hankerings.
These fine gentlemen committed infractions whose repugnant nature resulted in their incarceration in the same penal colony as Yosef. As the story unfolds they both experience rather daunting dreams. Yosef who is a budding expert in dream analysis employs his talents to decipher the perplexities inherent in their visions.
Methodically, Yosef posits that the dreams foretell the eminent death of the baker and the reinstitution of the mixologist to his illustrious post. Yosef’s prognostications turn out to be correct as the events unfold with precise exactitude.
Yosef’s relationships with the two ministers result in his liberty from detention as is told in next week’s Parsha.
Aside from the main thrust of this story a tertiary query arises. Why did the bartender live and baker die? Is there a distinction in their behavior which is apparent in the text of the Torah that reveals the source of their fates?
Truth be told such questions are beyond our comprehension and not within the realm of our judgment as is eloquently elucidated by Rabbi Lipshitz in his commentary on Ethics of Our Fathers (Tiferes Yisrael 4:9).
The Mishnah states, “Rabbi Yonason said, ‘Whoever fulfills the Torah in midst of poverty will fulfill it with wealth. Whoever spurns the Torah in wealth will spurn it in poverty.’”
Rabbi Lipshitz inquires that experience demonstrates that the assurance of the Mishnah is simply not true. There are righteous people who remain poor even though they study Torah and there are evil people who remain rich even though they don’t study Torah?
He answers that the promise of this Mishnah can’t be greater then the pledge of the Almighty in his Torah in the Ten Commandments, “Honor your mother and father in order that you should have long life.”(Exodus 20:12)
The quandary with this pledge is identical to that of the Mishnah? Rabbi Lipchitz answers that we are not privy to all the reckonings of the Almighty. A specific outcome might be generated from a myriad of different variables.
Yes, it is true that honoring one’s parents yields life longevity and studying Torah a change in financial status. However, that is in a binary vacuum. In reality a good child or scholar might not live a long life or gain pecuniary bounty because of some previous infractions or destiny that is their lot.
Therefore, we can’t really authoritatively declare why the bartender lived and baker died. We can only speculate what might have been one of the reasons or contributing factors to their fates.
With that presumption I heard that following explanation to the aforesaid question. In 1992 someone told taught me that a careful analysis of the text will expose the rejoinder.
The Torah states that each of the ministers saw the interpretation of the other’s dream (see Rashi, Genesis 40:5).
That means that the bartender saw that the baker would die. The baker saw that the bartender would live. The bartender didn’t tell the baker that he would die. That was a considerate act of kindness to spare an individual physiological turmoil of his imminent demise.
The baker didn’t tell the bartender that he would live. That was an act of cruelty to leave the bartender in a state of anxiety, travail and worry about his future. Because of the manifest malice of the baker his termination was sealed.
One was the chief expert of fine baking and pastry arts on the planet who was the minister of the Tartlet cabinet providing all the delicacies for Pharaoh’s dining encounters. The other was the world’s foremost expert in wine, spirits and beverage science who personally
tended to the kings alcohol hankerings.
These fine gentlemen committed infractions whose repugnant nature resulted in their incarceration in the same penal colony as Yosef. As the story unfolds they both experience rather daunting dreams. Yosef who is a budding expert in dream analysis employs his talents to decipher the perplexities inherent in their visions.
Methodically, Yosef posits that the dreams foretell the eminent death of the baker and the reinstitution of the mixologist to his illustrious post. Yosef’s prognostications turn out to be correct as the events unfold with precise exactitude.
Yosef’s relationships with the two ministers result in his liberty from detention as is told in next week’s Parsha.
Aside from the main thrust of this story a tertiary query arises. Why did the bartender live and baker die? Is there a distinction in their behavior which is apparent in the text of the Torah that reveals the source of their fates?
Truth be told such questions are beyond our comprehension and not within the realm of our judgment as is eloquently elucidated by Rabbi Lipshitz in his commentary on Ethics of Our Fathers (Tiferes Yisrael 4:9).
The Mishnah states, “Rabbi Yonason said, ‘Whoever fulfills the Torah in midst of poverty will fulfill it with wealth. Whoever spurns the Torah in wealth will spurn it in poverty.’”
Rabbi Lipshitz inquires that experience demonstrates that the assurance of the Mishnah is simply not true. There are righteous people who remain poor even though they study Torah and there are evil people who remain rich even though they don’t study Torah?
He answers that the promise of this Mishnah can’t be greater then the pledge of the Almighty in his Torah in the Ten Commandments, “Honor your mother and father in order that you should have long life.”(Exodus 20:12)
The quandary with this pledge is identical to that of the Mishnah? Rabbi Lipchitz answers that we are not privy to all the reckonings of the Almighty. A specific outcome might be generated from a myriad of different variables.
Yes, it is true that honoring one’s parents yields life longevity and studying Torah a change in financial status. However, that is in a binary vacuum. In reality a good child or scholar might not live a long life or gain pecuniary bounty because of some previous infractions or destiny that is their lot.
Therefore, we can’t really authoritatively declare why the bartender lived and baker died. We can only speculate what might have been one of the reasons or contributing factors to their fates.
With that presumption I heard that following explanation to the aforesaid question. In 1992 someone told taught me that a careful analysis of the text will expose the rejoinder.
The Torah states that each of the ministers saw the interpretation of the other’s dream (see Rashi, Genesis 40:5).
That means that the bartender saw that the baker would die. The baker saw that the bartender would live. The bartender didn’t tell the baker that he would die. That was a considerate act of kindness to spare an individual physiological turmoil of his imminent demise.
The baker didn’t tell the bartender that he would live. That was an act of cruelty to leave the bartender in a state of anxiety, travail and worry about his future. Because of the manifest malice of the baker his termination was sealed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)