Musings on Korbanot (Offerings)

Following are some of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our interpretations derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

The Book of Vayikrah

Vayikrah, the shortest of the five books of the Torah, is inaccurately translated as Leviticus (from Latin/Greek) which suggests focus on the Tribe of Levi, when in fact it is the Priests (Cohanim) who are the focal point. The first two Books of the Torah are narrative in nature, tracing the creation of the world to the building of a nation to our slavery and then Exodus to the Mt. Sinai experience to the building of the Mishkan.

Vayikrah is fundamentally different in that it is filled with Mitzvahs-- with the exception of two narratives (dedication of the Mishkan, including the death of Aaron’s two sons, Nadav and Avihu; and blasphemer who was executed).The Sages referred to Vayikra as Torat Cohanim, traditionally translated  as “the law guide for priests” but also meaning a manual for every one of us on how  to achieve the status of Cohen as in G-d’s promise that “You shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”.

Robert Alter notes that separation is a major theme. The concept of setting apart (havdil root) is repeatedly manifest in the broad range of ritual, dietary and sexual laws. By accepting these rules, we the Jewish people set ourselves apart from other peoples to become holy like G-d. The Torah repeatedly reminds us of the need to keep our distance from the sacred Mishkan; no unauthorized person may encroach (lo sikrav, do not come close).

Purification is another major theme. Profane pollutants that need to be avoided include bodily discharges; various skin conditions; mildew and other blights in buildings, utensils and fabrics.

Professor Alter cites anthropologist Mary Douglas’ focus on the four prime substances in the Mishkan and their global correspondence in Nature. Fire is about the Divine.G-d is manifest in Fire—burning bush; Mt. Sinai awesome pyrotechnic display; travelling pillar of fire at night; Olah offerings that are completely consumed by fire. Blood, which courses through the veins of the living, has a purgative effect whether spilled, smeared or sprinkled as part of the sanctuary ritual. The drinking of blood, the very life of the living, is prohibited. (Olive) Oil, a product of agriculture, is used for dedication of kings and priests. Water, existing in Nature without human intervention, is the universal symbol of purification and cleansing.

Korbanot

Throughout history man has felt the need to bring offerings to his deity. Primitive cultures employed these offerings (including human sacrifice) as a means of placating the deity or evoking blessings for successful agricultural harvests. But the spontaneous offerings recorded in the Torah  are different in that they are meant to express thanks and draw closer to G-d. To display gratitude Cain brings grain; Hevel brings sheep; Noah brings animal offerings when he emerges from the Ark.

In addressing the new-born Jewish nation upon its Exodus from Egyptian society, the Torah states " Adam ki yakriv mekem” ("Any man that brings close from you a Korban to Hashem”).The word Korban in Hebrew is related to the root-word Karov, which means drawing near. A Korban is a medium through which man builds or re-builds a relationship with G-d. Its offering comes from a sincere inner desire to reach out and become close to G-d. The eating of the Korban may be likened to “breaking  bread” with a friend or a celebratory business meal. Salt, for preserving meat and  used by the ancients for finalizing agreements, plays an important and symbolic role.

S.D. Luzzato (Shadal) the 19^th century Italian commentator sees Korban as an elevation of man’s behavior from addressing a human king to serving the Divine One. Offering a Korban on a fire converts the physical to the abstract. According to Shadal, the Hebrew word for holy (KoDeSH) derives from the Hebrew words yeKuD aySH (burnt by fire).

Rambam advocates a rational approach to Korbanot. The Jewish people, having grown up in and accustomed to a society in which animal sacrificial service was a universal method of worship, could not be expected to suddenly abandon this ceremony. They needed to gradually be weaned off this behavior. The animal offerings, as a first step, were designed to shift the focus away from a pagan deity to a deeper, meaningful relationship with G-d. The magic, magical incantations, blood drinking, violent and sexual orgies of the pagans were banned by the Torah. The Korban was confined to one place (Mishkan/Temple).

Rav S. R. Hirsch and others see  symbolism. Bringing an animal offering is a way of expressing the idea that in sinning, one somehow had lost his intelligence and behaved in an animal-like way. By his placing of his hands on the head of the animal being offered the person realizes that by right it is he and not the animal that should be punished. This insight may help prevent repetition of sinful behavior. Rabbi David Hoffman thinks that the animal offerings symbolize one’s complete surrender to the Will of G-d.

Over time the Korbanot degenerated from being the means for improving behavior and reconnecting with G-d  to  becoming an end to itself. The Prophets condemned these and all other empty ceremonies.

On a psychological level, Korbanot may reflect Man’s earliest aggressive murderous behavior, especially manifest in the offering of human sacrifices. In the depths of his soul (unconscious?) Man senses that killing is unacceptable and violates a sense of cosmic order. Gaining control over the guilt of killing entails repetitive ritualization of animal offerings. This shared experience may create a kind of universal bonding that enables us to better deal with these deep-rooted anxieties and guilt.

Teaching children Sefer Vayikrah

This  age-old custom in Jewish education of starting young children off with the study of Vayikra instead of Bereshit is based on the Talmudic dictum”…children are tahor (pure)and sacrifices are tahor. Let the tahor come and occupy themselves with tahor”.

The Lubavitch Rav explains that God’s unconditional love exists in both children and in Korbanot. The inherent bond between the Jew and G-d cannot become impure or soiled. He loves both the innocent child who has not yet studied Torah or performed Mitzvahs and the adult who “has gone off the path” but now seeks to mend his ways by bringing an offering to Him.

Dr. Yehuda Valladares observes that a child’s mind is like a blank piece of paper. By studying Vayikra the child is given a framework for coping with death, blood and other negativities  that he will confront in his life. Children also are being taught at an early age that there can be forgiveness even if the “purest” person sins.

It may also be that the Rabbis want to expose the pure, unadulterated, clear-thinking minds of children to the profound human relationship concepts symbolized by and embedded in the Korbanot. Let them absorb these ideas (unconsciously?) before their minds develop psychological barriers like denial, rationalization, and sublimation. I think  it is significant that Avraham Avenu discovered G-d when he was only three years old. He found the Truth with clarity (“out of the mouth of babes”) before his conclusions and beliefs could be undermined by these psychological mechanisms.

Anthropomorphism

The Torah opposes any form of magic or superstition yet some phrases seem to point in the opposite direction. For example, when describing the Oleh the Torah uses an ambiguous phrase “V’nertza lo L’chapayr alav” (“it shall be accepted for him”). Nechama Leibowitz surveys how commentators understood this phrasing.

Ramban offers a number of approaches. The Torah may mean that the worshipper shall be reconciled to Him (G-d). Or it could mean that the sin will be “paid off” or expiated by him (Man). Alternately, it may mean that it (the sin) shall become acceptable to Him (i.e., pardoned by G-d).

Rabbi Y.Z. Mecklenburg, in his Ha-ketav Ve-hakabalah thinks the phrasing underscores Man’s efforts to purify himself, to make amends, to confess and show remorse. A Korban does not automatically bring forgiveness from G-d. The offering is a symbolic representation  of a person’s desire to repent and reconnect with G-d.

The phrase “Olah eyshey raiach nechoach lashem”(“a burnt offering by fire of a sweet smell unto G-d”)  seems to mean that, like humans, G-d can be pleased with and influenced by the appetizing smell of roast meat! How is that possible?

Ibn Ezra understands the phrase to mean that the worshipper is acceptable to God, in the same way a man is pleased by a sweet smell.

Professor Umberto Cassuto sees the phrasing as a metaphor alluding to the acceptance and approval of the inner intentions (gratitude/repenting) of the one bringing the Korban.

Rav E. Ashkenazi in Maasei Ha-shem stresses the idea that smell is among (if not the) most sensitive of our five senses. When one “smells something is in the air” it means he senses that something is about to happen. G-d‘s “smelling the Korban “ is a  poetic way of acknowledging the imminent positive changes the worshipper plans as a follow-on to his offering.

Korbanot in Parshat Vayikrah and Parshat Tzav

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag offers us an insightful explanation and helpful outline for understand the variations in order and detail.

Both parshiot deal with the individual (as opposed to communal) offerings. Parshat Vayikrah speaks to the Jewish people “If an individual among you wishes to offer a Korban…” then provides a listing of which  Korban is to be offered and for what reason. Those that are voluntary (N’dava) are  presented first, followed by those that are obligatory (i.e.,Chova, in the event a person sins).

Korban Nedava

·       Olah (entirely burnt on the Altar) from cattle, sheep or fowl.

·       Five types of Mincha (flour offering)

·       Shlamim (peace or complete), partly eaten by the owner, comes  from cattle, sheep and goats

Korban Chova

·       Chatat for general transgression (bull; male goat)

·       Chatat for specific transgression (female goat or lamb; two birds; plain flour)

·       Asham (always a ram) for taking from Temple property; or being unsure of  having sinned; or stealing

By contrast,Tzav begins with “Command Aaron and his sons saying this is the ritual (zot torat) for bringing the olah…” and then lists each type of Korban (from the higher level of Kedusha to the lower).Each section describing a different  category of Korban begins with the phrase zot torat, which means “this is the procedure”.

Parshat Tzav is aimed at the Cohanim and teaches them the mechanics of and procedures for offering the various Korbanot. It makes no distinction between N’dava and Chova. Certain details are included in both Parshiot because they must be known by both the Cohanim and the individual. Because the Cohen serves as an emissary of the individual bringing the offering, the procedures that only a Cohen can do are  also included in Vayikra. After slaughtering of the animal (which can be done by an individual), the rest of the  Avodah (service) at the Altar is  performed by the Cohan as representative of the individual.

The internal order in the Tzav is based on the amount of the offering that is consumed on the Altar.Olah is totally consumed. Mincha is either totally consumed or partly consumed with the remainder eaten by the Cohanim. The blood and fat of Chatas and Asham are offered on the Altar and the meat is eaten by Cohanim (as a gift from G-d, not the owner).

Shlamim meat is eaten by the owners after the blood and fat are offered on the Altar and after the thigh and breast are given to the Cohanim. This kodshim kalim (lower level of holiness) offering can be eaten anywhere in the camp --in contrast to the previous offerings that are considered to be of a higher level of holiness and can only be eaten in the courtyard of the Mishkan (and only by Cohanim) .

Korbanot in the Future

We pray daily for the speedy restoration of the Temple’s sacrificial service and note  the service’s connection to Jewish nationalism and independence. Even Rambam the rationalist rules l’halach that in the days of Moshiach, “all Korbanot will again be offered.”

The reason for this may be that the most profound aspect of Korbanot is the never-ending effort to build and re-build relationships between Man and G-d and ultimately creating a bonding and sense of unity between Man and Man. Also, I think that we are expressing our desire to experience the powerful emotions that accompanied and inspired the people bringing Korbanot.

Stu Dubner adds that there is a positive in allowing animal killing in a controlled environment (Mishkan or Temple) where relationship-building is the primary activity. This important combination will be as necessary in the future as it is now.

Some critics of Korbanot think that these “barbaric” ceremonies conflict with Society’s  supposed concern for “humaneness.” However, it is worth noting that it is in Judaism alone that there exists an unequivocal prohibition of blood shed, blood consumption and violent orgiastic ritual. As noted, Korbanot  fundamentally are about rechanneling  aggressive pagan and idolatrous behavior and about building and re-building relationships. Is it possible that societies that lack understanding of the rationale for and practice of animal offerings experience a return to primitive (and perhaps not so unconscious) murderous behavior???

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Parshot Vayakhel-Pekudei

Following are some of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our interpretations derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

Moshe assembles the Jewish people…Appointment of Betzalel and Ohalieav…Contributions completed and construction of Mishkan (Tabernacle) begins…Walls are made…Apparatus and vessels are made…Courtyard and its vessels are built…Record  and accounting of materials used …Making of Priestly garments…Mishkan is brought to Moshe… Moshe sets up the Mishkan at G-d’s instruction…Cloud covers and the Glory of G-d fills the Mishkan

The Mishkan

The  book of Shemos starts with the history of the  Hebrews in Egypt—our servitude, our redemption by G-d (as promised  to Avraham Avenu ; continues with the Exodus and  splitting of Reed Sea, accompanied by cloud cover and pillar of fire; reaches its apex with the awesome defining Mt. Sinai experience that unified us and created an everlasting relationship with G-d;  continues with the Golden Calf incident that nearly destroyed this relationship; and concludes with  the building of the Mishkan(with its wide use of gold)  that served as a forgiveness for this sin (that involved gold).

The construction was a national working-through process that provided the opportunity for each person to give of himself; to be creative and productive; and to utilize his G-d-given skills. The combined effort created a sense of unity of purpose, interdependence and excitement to do what was necessary to remove the taint of the golden calf incident. As such, this can be seen as a first step in repairing the broken relationship with G-d. Gold used to sin is transformed into a positive material for creating good and for reaching out to G-d.

Once built, the Mishkan served as a mobile Mt. Sinai experience, according to Ramban, creating the visual reminder of the awesomeness of that moment. The Mishkan probably also reflected Man’s need for the concrete in his worship of the invisible, as evidenced by the demand for a leader to replace Moshe who seemed to have gone missing. Furthermore, having been steeped in Egyptian pagan religious rituals the people no doubt felt the urgency to have some concretization in their worship of the One and True G-d.  

The Mishkan is linked to both the Creation and to Shabbos through a number of common words and phrases and  by juxtaposition. Keruvim only appear first in the Creation story and then here. Martin Buber notes that the Hebrew words asay or laasos appear in both stories but many more times in the Mishkan construction. G-d rested on the seventh day of creation. Here Moshe was called up to G-d on the seventh day after he went up to Mt. Sinai. And here Moshe warns the people against violating Shabbos when building the Mishkan. The phrasing for completion of the Creation is “Va’yechulu hashmayim v’haaretz”- “the heavens and earth were completed”. The same root word is found here, “V’atechel…”

Perhaps the Torah is emphasizing that the nation of Israel was starting a New World, a new beginning. Reference to the Creation underscores the need for Man to be a partner with G-d in building and creating. And the lesson of Life, as Ramban points out, is that Man needs to be creative in his lifetime, to mirror the Creativity of G-d in His creation of the world.

Building of Mishkan is repeated five times.

First in Parshot Terumah and Tetzave, Moshe is commanded to invite the people to donate materials for the building of the Mishkan. Moshe retains Betzalel and provides him with an outline of what needs to be done. Then Moshe summarizes the proposal and solicits donations. The execution of the plans is described in detail and then the final, completed Mishkan is presented for review.

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag notes variation in the reporting. The Torah first focuses on the Ark and the table and menorah because these are the most important items and their purpose and function needs explanation. But in terms of actual construction scheduling, the courtyard and building came  first in order to house the items that were to be brought in.

Why the repetition? Ramban says this is a sign of affection and a way of demonstrating Divine appreciation. Ralbag sees repetition as an ancient writing style, as confirmed by archaeological findings. Manya Berenholz points out that repetition and rote are necessary and effective teaching techniques. Rabbi S. R. Hirsch thinks that the each part of the Mishkan has a symbolic significance that could easily be forgotten when dealing with the mundane tasks of building and placing them in the Mishkan. The repetition is designed to educate and to create an awareness of the items and their deeper, holier meaning. This is similar to a Scribe who, when writing a Sefer Torah needs to think clearly and even pronounce the words in order to maintain awareness of the Divine name and the holiness of the work.

Moses Mendelssohn observes that this is the first time in the Torah where mention is made of artistic and building skills. These talents are dedicated to the “holy work” of building the Mishkan. The repetition serves as a reminder to future generations when these skills will be put to practical use (to earn a living) that even the mundane connects to G-d and to holiness. Awareness of this reality gives us perspective on our place in the universe.

Sandra Gottesman asks if one ever tires of hearing “I love you”. Suzanne Diskind stresses that the newness of this relationship-building experience requires its repetition. Jennifer Stein thinks that this is a subtle reproach to the nation by pointing out over and over again how much good could have been done with the gold that was used to sinfully build a Golden calf. I think that there is a building excitement conveyed at the prospect of being loved again and building a parental-like relationship—similar to a child who is excited about and repeatedly talks about an upcoming event (e.g., ball game) that he will be sharing with a parent.

Shabbos

When Moshe gathers the nation to present the plan to build the Mishkan, he introduces the topic with “For six days Melacha (work) may be done, but the seventh day should be holy for you, a day of complete rest to G-d. Whoever does work on it should be put to death.”

Moshe is teaching the people about different types of holiness in the world. During the Creation, G-d established a day called Shabbos to be holy. Rabbi A.J. Heschel defines this as holiness in time. But now, as the people are preparing to build a place that is holy, Moshe cautions them not to violate the primeval, basic holiness of time which is universal; which is not limited to a single specific location; and which cannot be supplanted or interrupted for the sake of a holiness limited to one place.

Abrabanel thinks that the message here is that “resting” is as important a behavior as actively working in building a relationship with G-d

Melacha (Creativity) which is found in both Creation and Mishkan is banned on Shabbos, when G-d ceased being productive and creative.

Rabbi H.L. Berenholz

Musings on the structure, content and hidden meaning in the Megillah

Coming to your shul soon — Megillat Esther…


Don't miss this popular story of life in the Persian Court of Shushan in the fourth (or fifth) century BCE!


Ponder the deeper meaning of this satirical tale filled with greed, emotion, irony, comedy and tragedy. It's a story as relevant today as it was when it happened.


Read what some critics have to say:


A satirical work "laced with allusions to the fact that Am Yisroel does not answer the Divine call during the Persian time period" to return to their Homeland after the 70 year exile predicted by the prophet Jeremiah and the resultant Divine punishment for their apathy."


--Rabbi Menachem Leibtag


"As desperate as the situation is for Esther, Mordechai and the Jews of their generation, the story always closes again with a happy ending."


--Robin Treistman


"...Megilla reveals its profundity as well as many practical ramifications. As humorous as some of its images may be, the latent messages are rich in meaning and significance. "

--Rabbi David Nativ



Come to the MEGILLAH ESTHER readings for excitement, noise and fun. An event voted by Jews 'round the world as the place to be on Purim eve and Purim morn.


Meet the cast of characters as they come to life:


• KING ACHASHVEROSH (“IT’S GOOD TO BE KING") the seemingly foolish ruler of Persia who in fact is an anti-Semite. Fearing the Jews, their G-d and public opinion (how would it look for the King to order the murder of a significant portion of his citizens?), his Royal Majesty devises a clever strategy that employs Haman to execute (pun intended) his dastardly plot. And, of course, it is ultimately Haman the Evil One that is hanged (alongside his 10 sons) and the King who comes out looking like the Good Guy.


• HAMAN of Amalek (he wasn't even Persian but still went to the top) — the man who had it all but still wanted more! He was Chief Advisor to the King. He had wealth, honor, a good job and nachas from his ten kindah. But was that enough? Noooooo. He couldn't take it that one Jew (Mordechai) refused to bow down to, or even acknowledge, his presence. And, in the tradition of all anti-Semites, he decided on a punishment that "fit the crime" — killing every Jew because of his irritation with the one.


• VASHTI the queen reputed to be of royal blood (unlike her husband the King who possibly was not) who both strikes a blow for Women's Rights and manages to embarrass the King when she refuses the King's request to appear at the Royal Palace stag party wearing her crown (and nothing else). Her independence backfires, she pays for it with her life and the King issues a Royal Proclamation making every Husband the King of his home.


• MORDECHAI a really good human being ("Ish Yehudi") who was also pious, scholarly and a member of the Sanhedrin (High Court). Though a man of few words, he finds the right ones to catalyze Queen Esther into action to save the Jews.


• ESTHER the unassuming Jewish maiden destined to become Queen of an essentially pagan empire. In a dangerous and stressful situation (remember what happened to the King's first wife who spoke up?) she still manages to rise to the occasion and parties her way to save the Jews.


• CHARVONA is the opportunistic leech who just happens to be present at Esther's party when the King finds Haman sprawled on Esther's bed and just happens to remind the King of an Hanging Tree that was originally meant for Mordechai that just happens to be available.


• HASHEM appears nowhere but in fact is "Here, There, and Everywhere" (in the famous words of Uncle Moishy) as alluded to by the word Hamelech at the beginning of each column in the Megillah scroll.


Perspectives on the Megillah


Many scholars maintain that the King Achashverosh in the Megillah is King Xerxes I of Persia and that the Purim story occurred in about 474 BCE. (For historical perspective, the Second Temple was built about 516 BCE, some 42 years earlier.) Other scholars suggest that Achashverosh ruled immediately after King Koresh (Cyrus The Great) who allowed and encouraged the Jews of Persia to return to Yerushalayim and rebuild the Second Temple. This view1 places events in the Megillah in or about 519 BCE.


When the Megillah was written, and who the author is, are equally uncertain. Some maintain that Mordechai and Esther are the authors. Others maintain that the Megillah was written well after the actual events occurred, at a time when the holiday of Purim already was widely observed. The author certainly was someone familiar with the language, culture and court intrigue of Persia. Although a Braisa in the Talmud states that the Megillah was written by the Anshei Knesset HaG'dolah (supreme council during he Second Temple ), their influence lasted for many years, making it difficult to pinpoint an exact time.


The Megillah plays out like the plot of a comic opera. Parties and partying take up much of the story line—and are both the cause of, and resolution of, the Jewish crisis. Coincidences abound. Characters make their entry on cue. The author seems to go out of his way to mock the King, his royal court and their declaration of national policy immediately after a drunken stupor. Legislating male kingship over one's home is deemed a pressing issue, necessitating immediate action. Even clearly identified secondary characters in the drama have their role to play.


"Ish Yehudi haya b'Shushan habira u'shmo Mordechai..."
("In the capital city of Shushan, there was a Jewish man whose name was Mordechai..."). What kind of name is Mordechai for a good Jewish boy in Persia? Would any self-respecting Jew name a child after a Babylonian deity, Marduk? Also, the word Habira is interesting: it is mentioned in only one other place in Tanach and there it refers to the Holy Temple in Jerusalem!


The Megillah provides interesting detail on life in the Royal Palace. Materials described and vessels used in the Royal Hall -- where the King threw his wild parties --sound remarkably similar to those that existed in the First Holy Temple. The layout of the Palace and its environs closely resemble the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and its surrounding areas. The King's Palace consisted of different sections:

• Chatzar P'nimit, the inner chamber -- similar to the Kodesh Kedoshim (Holy of Holies) in the Holy Temple
• Chatzer Chitzona, the waiting area outside the inner chamber — Kodesh (holy) in the Holy Temple
• Sha'ar Bait HaMelech, where citizens congregate sounds like the Azara
• Rechov Ha'ir Shushan, the city streets in Shushan are similar to the streets of Jerusalem


Partly drawing on these observations, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag suggests that the Megillah was written as a critical satire on the behavior of the Jewish people during this most important time in their history. The Jewish people were offered the fulfillment of the promise to be redeemed from their 70 years in Exile and to return and rebuild their Homeland. But relatively few went. Instead, Jewish people in Persia made Shushan into their own "Bira" (= Holy Temple);preferred the Holy Temple- substitute (the Royal Palace) to the real thing in Jerusalem; preferred the partying (service) of King Achashverosh in his Royal Palace (=Temple) to the true worship of Hashem in Jerusalem. The near-destruction of our people at the hands of evil Haman as portrayed in the Megillah may be understood as a planned Divine punishment for the sin of Jewish apathy toward their Homeland. Jews became too comfortable in their surroundings in Persia. Perhaps it took the existence of the anti-Semites to get us to achieve our true destiny.


Sounding familiar?




Rabbi H.L. Berenholz (March 2003)



Sources:
The Megillah
"Daat Mikrah" commentary on the Megillah
"Psychobabble: An Analysis of the Megilla Characters"
by Robin Treistman
Yeshivat Har Etzion Virtual Beit Midrash

Musings on Parshat Terumah

Overview

Voluntary contributions to be brought to build the Mishkan (Tabernacle)…The Ark…The Kaporet and the Keruvim atop the Ark…The Table…The Menorah… Hanging tapestries and coverings…Interlocking beams (made from acacia wood) and sockets (silver) form the walls that enclose the Holy (20 x 10 amos, about 40’x 20’) and Holy of Holies (10 x10 amos, about four hundred square feet)…Copper altar…Courtyard of the Mishkan


When?

Some maintain that since the Torah does not always report events chronologically (but thematically) the edict to build the Mishkan occurred after the sin of the Golden Calf. Let the golden objects in the Mishkan be a reminder of and catalyst for forgiveness for that egregious sin that utilized gold. Thematically associating the Mishkan with the previous topic of Hebrews’ acceptance of G-d and his Torah is of greater importance than chronological accuracy.

Those who insist that the Torah reports things in a chronological order maintain that this in another instance of “G-d providing the remedy before the problem occurs”.

Why?

Man needs concrete reminders. Abravanel’s view is that the Mishkan serves to negate the view that G-d abandoned the world soon after He created it. Seeing the Mishkan is a reminder of His ongoing presence and involvement .Ramban maintains that the Mishkan was a mobile Mt. Sinai that offered the opportunity for its viewer to remember and re-experience that awesome, nation-defining event (fiery center, altar, offerings, the surrounding nation encamped from a distance).

The ancients built homes for their deities that included bedrooms. The Mishkan contains altars, menorah, table (for breads) but no bedrooms in order to avoid the sexual, licentious behavior that was part of many pagan cult rituals.

The very act of building the Mishkan so that G-d could “dwell” in the hearts and minds of the Israelites provided a unifying and creative effort that would also have an inspiring, positive impact on the nation. According to the Or Hachaim every person had a role to play-- underscoring how the Torah (Judaism) can only be fulfilled when each and every one of us joins in to unify the nation.

Mishkan and Creation

Martin Buber notes that the Hebrew words asay or laasos appear in both stories but many more times in the Mishkan construction. G-d rested on the seventh day of creation. Here Moshe was called up to G-d on the seventh day after he went up to Mt. Sinai. The phrasing for completion of the Creation is “Va’yechulu hashmayim v’haaretz”- “the heavens and earth were completed”. The same root word is found here, “V’atechel…”

Perhaps the Torah is emphasizing that the nation of Israel was starting a New World, a new beginning. Reference to the Creation underscores the need for Man to be a partner with G-d in building and creating. And the lesson of Life, as Ramban points out, is that Man needs to be creative in his lifetime, to mirror the Creativity of G-d in His creation of the world.


The Ark

This is the first of the Mishkan’s contents and the longest to be described. It was made of acacia wood then coated inside and out with pure gold and had a gold-rimmed edge all around. Its dimensions were 5’x 3’x 3’ (assuming an amah =2 feet).There were four golden rings, one for each corner. The Torah, or the tablets of the Asseres Hadibros, was placed in the Ark.

Poles made of gold-plated acacia wood were to remain permanently in the gold rings. Sefer Hachinuch theorizes that the need for the staves to be permanently attached is to avoid the Ark slipping in the event of a hasty departure. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch thinks that the message here is that we must always be ready to leave our surroundings at a moment’s notice and take the Torah (literally and conceptually) with us wherever we go.



Kaporet and Keruvim

The Kaporet, a lid for the Ark, was made of pure gold and measured 5’x 3’. Two Keruvim, winged forms molded from the same piece of gold, were hammered out at each end of the Kaporet. The wings were spread upwards, sheltering the Kaporet, as if they were ready to take off; they faced one another yet were tilted downward towards the Kaporet.

The Torah gives no information on the size or characteristics of the Keruvim. It is left to the Sages and the commentaries to flesh out this very sketchy description. The Talmud, based on an etymological analysis of the word Keruvim, concludes that Keruvim had the faces of children. The Zohar adds that there was one of each sex.

Some scholars think Keruvim were bird-like creatures with wings and with faces of human infants. Rabbi Günter Plaut notes the Egyptian influence. Egyptian Keruvim-like figures of animals with a human head were used to mediate between Man and his deity and to guard holy places. As an example, the Egyptian Sphinx had the body of a lion and a human face. The Pharaohs of Egypt insisted on being buried in gold, which they believed was the "flesh of the gods."


Rabbi Plaut theorizes that the Keruvim were images that reflected an unshakable ancient mythological tradition. They were purposely hidden away in a totally inaccessible place (Holy of Holies) so that the danger of their being worshipped was minimized. Though the existence of the Keruvim appears to run counter to the Torah’s prohibition of worshiping images, in fact there was never a time in Jewish history that the Keruvim were worshiped as deities. Rambam observes that they faced each other so that they would not be mistaken for a god.

Rav Hirsch sees the upward spread of the wings towards G-d hinting at the protective aspects of first five of the Ten Commandments that focus on Man’s relationship with G-d while the downward facial tilt points to the earthly rules between Man and Man embodied in the last five Commandments. Some argue that the wings covering the entire Kaporet and downward- looking faces are about averting one’s eyes from viewing the Divine. Others see the concept of T’shuva here, wherein a person has the opportunity deriving from G-d to change his ways and become “innocent as a new born babe”.

It is noteworthy that the first time the Keruvim appear in the Torah is when G-d installed “…the Keruvim and the twirling fiery sword to protect the way (or show the way) to Eytz Hachayim”. The Garden of Eden story describes a time when there was an ideal love-filled, close relationship between Man and G-d. Perhaps like their predecessors, the Keruvim in the Mishkan were meant to “show us the way” to rebuild relationships with G-d and with one another.

The winged Keruvim imagery merges the divine (upward sloping wings) with the earthly (cherubic infants or bird with a human face).The kaporet / keruvim, a separate and distinct vessel from the Ark, is like a computer interface that enables two totally different and incompatible operating systems to communicate with one another. This Divine venue permits interaction and communication between polar opposites (incomprehensible G-d and mundane Man--or Man and Woman).The Keruvim’s wings reach up to hear from above (they resemble animal ears) and their downward pointing faces draw up from below. The sound of G-d’s speech is heard from between the Keruvim.

Interaction leads to interdependence, awe, and absorption of positive attributes, closeness and love. This model of deep involvement is suitable for both Man/G-d and Man/Woman relationships. This deepest, holiest of truths is appropriately domiciled in the Holy of Holies and is visited by the Holy High Priest only once a year, on the Holy day of Yom Kippur.


Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Parshat Mishpatim

Overview

Contains 23 positive commandments and 30 prohibitions primarily civil and criminal laws relating to slavery; assault and kidnapping; negligence and theft; illicit and idolatrous behavior; helping widows, and orphans; judicial laws and avoiding favoritism…Shabbos, Yom Tov and Shemitah…Conquering the Land…Avoidance of idolatry…Entering a Covenant with G-d…Moshe ascends Mt. Sinai to stay for forty days.


A Giant Step Forward for Mankind

The impact and progressive nature of the commandments and prohibitions presented can be best understood in the context of society as it existed at that time. Slavery existed throughout antiquity and the newly-freed-from-slavery Israelites were warned to treat slaves as humans, not chattel. In ancient societies the altar was considered a place of refuge for a murderer. The Torah’s view is that there is no asylum for a murderer anywhere. Prohibitions of striking and insulting parents stand in contrast to prevailing societal attitudes about parental treatment. Efforts at building society, limiting revenge and curbing bloodthirsty behavior are manifest in the laws requiring financial restitution for bodily injury; establishment of an honest court system; and aiding even one’s enemy in his times of need. Stealing in all forms is prohibited and fines were developed to compensate victims for their losses .Protection of the weak and vulnerable in society is established as a hallmark of Jewish Ethics. Idolatry and cult worship, rampant in ancient times, are repeatedly outlawed in many obvious and even less obvious rules. Prohibition of working on the Sabbath (a radical, unheard of and often mocked idea) is stressed as a humanitarian effort, a respite for a person, his servants and his livestock.

On insulting one’s parents

If one behaves this way will “he most certainly will die”. The phrase means that one will punished by G-d when the Court cannot as, for example, in crimes committed in private. Relating to the sin of M’kallel aviv v’emo (vilifies, demeans or makes light of his parents) I think there is a punishment imposed even during one’s life. Treating one’s parents in a disrespectful way, considering them “lightweights”, and not coming to grips with one’s feeling/conflicts can lead to a kind of inner death (neurosis/psychosis)—a conflicted emotional state of mind that is the modern day manifestation of Mos Yumas.



On “Ayen tachas ayen” (“an eye for an eye”)

A first read of this statement seems to mean literal retribution; a legal authorization to inflict a punishment that is equal in kind and in degree to the injury. Throughout history, this Biblical rule has been cited to justify cruel retributive behavior was (and still is) used by critics to show the (alleged) barbaric behavior of Jews and of the Torah (in contrast to the Christian ethic of “turning the other cheek”).

But the Rabbis clearly understood this law to mean monetary compensation. The punishment needs to be commensurate with the crime and if the meaning is to literally blind the offender inequitable outcomes could result. For example, if the offender died during the removal of his eye, he would have lost both his eye and his life for poking out only one of the other person’s eyes. An injustice will occur if the offender was already blind in one eye and his good eye is to be removed because he will be left totally blind while the victim still has one good eye. How is one punished when he causes partial loss of eyesight in one eye?

Rabbi Benno Jacob finds the key in the word tachas, since that word’s use in other places in the Torah means approximate, or substitute for. For example, during the Akeda story Avraham offers a ram “tachas b’no” not an identical, not an exact equivalent, but something that is “in place of” or “instead of” his son. Here, too, the word tachas must mean something monetary that is a substitute for (or an approximation of) the value of the eye but absolutely not the eye itself. Under Torah law, retribution for physical damages is monetary compensation, except in the case of intentional homicide.

Rabbi Telushkin notes that “based on the earliest known Jewish records, Jewish courts did not blind those who deprived others of sight”. Robert Alter indicates that monetary compensation for these physical damages was widespread in ancient Near Eastern codes.

Rabbi Gunter Plaut thinks that the intention of this progressive advance in criminal law may be to limit private revenge, particularly in family and tribal feuds. These laws try to blunt the bloodthirsty search for revenge characteristic of primitive family and tribal feuds, in order to build a functioning and civilized modern society.

On Stealing

Unlike any other legal system, the Torah appears less concerned about jail time for the thief than with aiding the victim and discouraging stealing.

The thief is obligated to return the stolen object and then to pay the victim a 100% fine. In the event that an ox or sheep is stolen, the fine is five and six times the value, respectively, reflecting the importance of these animals in an agrarian society.

Rabbi Telushkin cites a later parallel in nineteenth century America when horse thieves were punished more severely than other robbers, because of the greater personal suffering experienced by the victim who was left with no means of transportation.

Stealing a person (kidnapping) with the intent of selling him into slavery is considered a capital crime, punishable by death.


On “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk”

This prohibition -- which encompasses cooking, eating and benefiting from-- is the basis of subsequent Rabbinic regulations relating to eating milk and milk products together with meat and meat products. Explanations for this restriction include avoidance of the magical; preservation of the milk-giving ability of the animal; health; humanitarian (to avoid causing an animal pain); prohibition of mixing of different kinds of seeds and material for garments.

Rambam suggests that the prohibition is about avoiding idolatry—an opinion supported by recent archeological findings (cited by Rabbi Günter Plaut) that describe a then-prevailing Canaanite sacrificial rite.



Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Shir Hashirim

This stirring love story is believed to have been composed by King Solomon (who also authored Proverbs and Ecclesiastes) as indicated in the opening passage, “The Song of Songs which is Solomon’s”.


Following is a summary of the narrative by Rabbi Dr. S.M. Lehrman (Soncino Press, 1952)

“The story describes the trials of a beautiful peasant maiden from Shunem, or Shulem, who was employed by her mother and brothers as a shepherdess to their flock of goats. She had fallen in love with a shepherd of the same village, but the brothers did not look with approval on the union. They, accordingly, trans¬ferred her services from the pasture to the vineyards, in the hope that there her meetings with her lover would not be possible. One day, as she was tending the vines, she was seen by the servants of King Solomon, when he chanced to pass the village on his way to his summer resort in Lebanon. Impressed by her beauty, they try to persuade her to accompany them. She refuses and is finally led away as a captive to the king's chambers. No sooner does the king behold her, when he, too, falls violently in love with her. He sings her beauty and uses all his endeavors to induce her to abandon her shepherd for the love and wealth he can shower upon her. The ladies of the court also join in trying to dislodge her love for her humble swain. Her heart, however, belongs to him and she remains steadfast.

During her stay in the palace, she yearns for her lover and is tantalized by the taunts of the ladies of the court that he has rejected her. In her agitated state of mind she speaks to him as if he was in her presence, and even dreams that he has come to rescue her and escort her back to her mother's home. Awaking from her dream, she rushes out of her chamber to seek him in the streets where she is roughly treated by the watchmen of the city, who misjudge her character. When the king is finally convinced of the constancy of her love for the shep¬herd, he dismisses her from his presence and allows her to return home. She is now joined by her lover and, leaning on his arm, approaches Shunem where a warm welcome awaits her. They come upon the scenes so dear to them, and she recounts the vicissitudes through which she had lately passed. The story ends on a triumphant note. Not only could her love not be extinguished by the temptations offered by the king, but she also assures her brothers that their solici¬tude for her virtue was unwarranted. She has proved that love is capable of heroic endurance. The tale she tells to their assembled friends makes a strong protest against the luxury and vice of the court, and pays testimony to the beauty and dignity of pure love and fidelity.”

The sages of the Talmud debated whether or not to include this Megilla in Scripture, presumably because of the uncertainty over whether the words were to be taken literally as the expression of love between a man and woman or whether this Book is allegorical, depicting the spiritual “marriage” between Israel and G-d starting with the Revelation at Mt. Sinai. Even if the former, matters relating to the marital relationship are steeped in holiness. Indeed, one of the seven blessings at a wedding concludes with the hope that G-d will “cause Zion to rejoice with her children”, thereby linking the religious ideas of redemption and Return to Zion with the earthly wedding ceremony. Rabbi Akiva ruled that all the Songs in the Torah are holy and Shir Hashirim is holy of holies.

Midrash, Targum and early medieval commentators understood the story allegorically. Even the rationalist Rambam gave homiletic meaning to many of its verses.

Rabbi Amos Chacham,in the Daat Mikrah commentary, is of the opinion that Shir Hashirim may be an organized collection of independent love stories (or poems recited at weddings) describing pure, unadulterated love and recording different situations experienced by the couple. An unnamed shepherd (referred to as “dod”) who wanders though the mountains of Israel is in love with an unnamed beautiful young woman (tall, dark complexion, and dark hair) referred to as “raaya” who appears to be from a wealthy family (pampering herself with many expensive perfumes) and whose brothers demand that she tend the family vineyards. There is no mention of G-d or religion. It is a Book that possesses a unity “of ardent love, abundance of imagery, vivacity of movement pleading tones and warm passions.” (Rabbi Lehrman)

The moral of the Megilla is that Love, one of Man’s strongest emotions, can also be its holiest. The moral is that Loving G-d has watched over His people Israel; and that over time Israel has maintained its loyalty to and faith in Him. Rabbi Chacham speculates that the reason that there is no mention of G-d is because of concern that this holy poetry might find itself in an “unholy”, profane environment (i.e., overindulgence at a wedding where the poems would be recited).


Rabbi H. L. Berenholz

Musings on Parshat Va’eira

Following are some of the ideas, insights and interpretations that emerge from our weekly Chumash learning group at the Young Israel of Oceanside, Long Island. We cite sources when possible. Some of our interpretations derive from ideas we may have seen elsewhere, possibly without attribution. Or we may simply have forgotten the source. For this we apologize. We invite your comments, observations and participation.

Overview

Continuing dialogue between G-d and Moshe…Moshe and his brother Aharon are appointed as redeemers…genealogy of Moshe and Aharon… G-d predicts that Pharaoh will refuse Moshe’s demands to send the children of Israel out of Egypt to worship Him in the desert…Moshe and Aharon are 80 and 83 years old, respectively, when they approach Pharaoh…Aharon turns a staff into a snake for Pharaoh, who remains unimpressed…The first seven plagues (each lasting a week?): the Nile turns into blood; infestation of frogs; infestation of vermin; infestation of insects/beetles (or wild animals, according to some); a cattle-killing disease epidemic; skin boils; hail that kills humans and animals.

Structure of the Ten Plagues

Each plague increases in intensity, starting with the inconvenience and nuisance of the smelly dead fish when the Nile turned to blood; ratcheting up to bodily discomfort and attacks on person and property; and culminating in the most horrible discomfort of the final two plagues : terror of darkness (solitary confinement) and then death of the firstborn.

Rabbi Günter Plaut notes that the ten plagues can be divided into five groups of two. The first two deal with the Nile (blood and frogs); then vermin and insects followed by pestilence and boils (each similar to one another and aimed at attacks on person); hail and locust (both directed at crops); and then the grouping of darkness and death.

More familiar to us is the tripartite division in the Midrash Sifray on Sefer Devarim that is cited in the Haggadah: “Rabbi Yehudah would list the initials of the plague in acrostic abbreviation: Detasch (Dam; TZvardaia, Kinim); Adash (Arov; Dever; SHechin); and Be’achav (Barad, Arbe, Chosech, macas Bicoros).” But, as Rabbi B.S. Jacobson notes, the tenth plague is in a class by itself; it is the climactic event that lead to Israel’s liberation. The punishment of the firstborn is the Meda C’neged Meda payback for the cruel treatment of the Israelites, God’s “firstborn”, as Moshe announced at his first audience with Pharaoh before any plague is mentioned: “Israel is my son; my firstborn…let my son go so that he may serve me…I will slay thy son, thy firstborn”.

The plagues have a framework. Moshe announces plagues number one, four and seven (the first of each grouping) to Pharaoh in the morning on the banks of the Nile River. (Pharaoh exalted himself as master of the Nile Deity. Some suggest he was there to inspect the Nile River to determine its level and the quality of the water, since the Nile was so critical to Egypt’s agricultural economy.)The first two plagues in each unit came with a warning, whereas the third one took effect without warning.


The Purpose of the Plagues

As the confrontation between God and Pharaoh begins in earnest there is the need for a series of devastating events to punish the Egyptian pantheon; to demonstrate God’s infinite power and constant presence; and to teach the Israelites.

Although there appears to be no explicit mention of this execution of judgment, A.S. Yahudah (cited by Rabbi Jacobson) provides archaeological evidence to support the thesis that the plagues were in fact a “provocative punishment of the Egyptian pantheon”. (Abraham Shalom Yahuda (1877-1951) was a Biblical scholar who studied the language of the Torah and its relation to Egyptian society.)

The Nile was the foundation of the Egyptian economy (in that the agricultural society was dependent upon irrigation from the Nile) and, as such, was venerated as a major deity. Moreover, Pharaoh viewed himself as a deity (“the son of god, his own bones and flesh”).Turning the Nile into blood not only crippled the economy, but also demonstrated the failure of the Egyptian deity in the presence of Hashem, the Creator and Master of the entire universe.

The fertility goddess to protect midwives (whose image is of a woman with a frog head) is the object of the second plague. Pharaoh had ordered the midwives to kill Hebrew male babies. The frog/Egyptian deity that was a symbol of fertility and blessing turns into a widespread, dreadful affliction emerging from the Nile. Also, in Egyptian mythology frogs were considered to have life-giving powers. Now G-d has turned them loose to become a destructive force.

Unlike during the first two plagues, Pharaoh’s magicians were unable to reproduce plague number three, vermin, exclaiming to Pharaoh that “This is the finger of G-d”. This idiomatic expression connotes total helplessness in the face of an invisible dreaded enemy and is derived from a myth in which a particular Egyptian deity thwarted the plans of an enemy by dressing up as a hog, sneaking up on the enemy and scratching out one of his eyes with his finger without the victim realizing what happened. Vermin were prevalent in Egypt but Priests shaved their entire bodies to protect against contamination. Now, however, all precautions failed and these religious leaders were reduced to the same status as commoners. With the Egyptian deities unable to protect them, they suffered through the subsequent plagues like everyone else.

In addition to punishing Pharaoh and his people for their cruelty to the Israelites, the plagues fulfilled the Divine promise that “…against all of the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.”

Abrabanel opines that the plagues served to undermine the fundamental religious beliefs of the Egyptians. The first group of plagues was designed to establish G-d as the Prime Cause and Creator of the Universe. The second set was to demonstrate His involvement in worldly events and His role as Protector of Israel. The third set was to show His Omnipotence and the inability of any force to succeed against Him.


Did Pharaoh have free choice to act?

When G-d selects Moshe and Aharon to demand of Pharaoh that he free the Israelites, He tells them “I will harden (akshe) Pharaoh’s heart, that I may multiply My signs and marvels in the land of Egypt”. I think that this may be the Torah’s way of predicting for us that at some point in the future, after his multiple refusals to free the Israelites despite the enormous pain that will have been inflicted on him, Pharaoh’s harshness will have been so deeply ingrained and so dramatically influenced his persona that he will be emotionally unable to change his behavior. This real life personality dynamic is euphemistically communicated by the phrase “I (G-d) will harden his heart” because personality changes derive from G-d and how He created our psychological makeup.

After each of the first five plagues, Pharaoh elects to remain resolute in his refusal to free the Israelites. It is only after plague six that “G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” We are taught that S’char avera, avera”(“the reward for a transgression is another transgression”).This means to me that as one behaves improperly, a momentum of negativity builds within to a point where one no longer has the ability to change for the better (i.e., the choice of how to act no longer exists). This was Pharaoh’s situation.

The lesson for us is to focus on our behavior since ours is a religion of deed, not creed. “S’char mitzvah, mitzvah” (“the reward for a mitzvah is another mitzvah”) means to me that as one behaves properly, a momentum of goodness builds within to a point where one no longer has the ability to act inappropriately (i.e., the choice of how to act no longer exists). It is up to each of us to determine our behavior.

Rabbi H. L. Berenholz