Chasidut sobre Exodo 25:41
Mevo HaShearim
Even in these days, everyone, even one who does not merit God speaking with him prophetically, should still perform the avodah of prophecy. Then God’s light and holiness will merge in everyone’s hearts and bodies alike. This is why, when it came to the receiving of the Torah, God did not merely command them with signs that the commandments issued from God (as He did in Egypt, where He gave them the first sign and then the second sign so that the people should believe that God appeared to Moses). Rather He spread forth His light until “and God descended unto Mount Sinai before the eyes of the entire nation...and they saw the God of Israel...and they envisioned God...and the glory of God (appeared) before all of Israel...”207See Exodus 24: 9-11, 16-17.and afterwards till “and they shall make for Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst,” as the Sages expounded “it does not say in it but rather in them (b’tokhom),” that the Holy One resides in the heart of each Israelite.208See Exodus 25:8. The interpretation, that God promises here to dwell within the people Israel themselves (rather than merely among them), is common in hasidic exegesis.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 25,2. “and they shall take for Me a contribution, each person according to how his heart moves him. And these are the contributions you are to accept from them: gold, silver and copper.” As we explained earlier, every person serving the Lord, must do so also by something tangible in addition to the lofty thoughts that he entertains while doing so. Allegorically speaking, the performance of a tangible מצוה, commandment, is considered as if man helps the Presence of the Lord to arise from the dust on earth [where it appears to have been buried. Ed.].
When keeping this in mind we can answer the enigma posed by the words כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו, “each person according to how his heart moves him.” These words form the link between the generous thought and the generous deed. By making a voluntary contribution, i.e. the size of the contribution is completely voluntary, it is not a tax as the half shekel in Exodus 30,13, the Presence of G’d on earth will become so much more manifest.
The words: וזאת התרומה, may be understood as if the Torah had written: וזאת ההתרוממות, “and this will constitute the “exaltation, elevation.” The examples of the materials that were to be denoted are symbolic of how lofty and generous thoughts are to be translated into “lofty” and generous deeds.
When keeping this in mind we can answer the enigma posed by the words כל איש אשר ידבנו לבו, “each person according to how his heart moves him.” These words form the link between the generous thought and the generous deed. By making a voluntary contribution, i.e. the size of the contribution is completely voluntary, it is not a tax as the half shekel in Exodus 30,13, the Presence of G’d on earth will become so much more manifest.
The words: וזאת התרומה, may be understood as if the Torah had written: וזאת ההתרוממות, “and this will constitute the “exaltation, elevation.” The examples of the materials that were to be denoted are symbolic of how lofty and generous thoughts are to be translated into “lofty” and generous deeds.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Me'or Einayim
"These are the records of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of the Pact, etc." For it is known that Torah is the names of the Holy Blessed One. The Name of the The Blessed One is, "Was, Is, and Will Be - Eternal, Alive, Everlasting for Eternity." And Torah is also this. So what does it mean that this was the time that the Tabernacle was made and what does it teach us about the path today? The Torah should be read in order to teach us to way we should go. Surely at every time and season the Torah is clothed for the needs of that particular time and season. There are those who say: God created the world for the sake of the Torah which is called (Proverbs 8:22) “The beginning (ראשית) of His (God’s) way”, and for the sake of Israel who are called (Jeremiah 2:3) “The beginning (ראשית) of His (God’s) increase’." This is explained by way of a parable: A King who has wise children, capable of running the kingdom bring the King more satisfaction and joy than if he were to run the kingdom himself. We are the children of the Ever-Present, and this explains the phrase "No good comes to the world except through Israel." (Israel) makes a path to bring down the abundant flow to the lower realms. This is "Ascribe might to God, whose majesty is over Israel" (Psalm 68:35) Israel adds strength to the Entourage of Above, and the Angels do not sing praises above until Israel is singing them below. "When the morning stars sang together and all the divine beings shouted for joy" (Job 38:7). Israel is likened to the stars, and thus aroused all of the Heavenly beings there. This is the intention of the Creator that created all that is found because of Torah and because of Israel. The content of this intention of the Holy Blessed One was that each person of Israel would be a "Tabernacle" of the Holy Blessed One. As it is written (Exodus 25:8) "Make for me a Sanctuary and I will dwell within them. Within "it" is not written, rather, I will dwell within the children of Israel. "The Temple of the Lord, the temple of Lord are these. (Jeremiah 7:4). But isn't it impossible for a person to be a Tabernacle of Hashem while the Evil Inclination is within a person? "The couch is too short for stretching out" (Isaiah 28:20). )(Rabbi Yonatan) said: This bed is too short for two counterparts. (Yoma 9b) Thus it is said "Turn from evil" (Psalm 34:15) That a person should burn the evil from within him and thus it could be that Hashem Baruch Hu who is called, "The Lord is good to all" (Psalm 145:9) will reside inside of the person. This happens after a person fulfills "Turn from evil" and thus makes the repair that the "Good of the Lord" will be within you. “All the end-times have passed, and the matter [now] depends only on teshuvah” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b). And what is teshuvah? For when a person was in his mother’s belly, God’s “candle burned over his head, and he saw from one end of the world to the other… and they taught him the entire Torah” (Niddah 30b); for he was a dwelling-place [mishkan] for Blessed God, and this is [the meaning of] the candle that was over his head. But after he came out of his mother’s belly sin crouches at the door (Gen. 4:7), and an angel comes and slaps him on the mouth and makes him forget so that he will have free will, so he will have reward and punishment. And a person must do teshuvah to bring God back to him as at the beginning. And this is [the meaning of] Then the LORD your God will turn back to your captives (Deut. 30:3) – it does not say “return,” but rather “turn back to,” meaning that after the teshuvah Blessed God will return to dwell [lishkone] within the person. Now, the essence of teshuvah is abandoning sin with a full heart and regret. For what is written in the Books, that fasts correct sin, is because it is impossible for him truly to abandon the sin and truly regret until after he has afflicted himself; and then his uncircumcised heart will surrender and he will be able to regret and abandon the sin truly. And the root of the matter lies in the human’s being created by God’s Word. And he is called “engraving” on account of his being surely hewn in supernal holiness. Now, when a person sins he is made into a corpse; for on account of the sin, Blessed God’s life-force left him. But after verbal confession, along the lines of (incomplete)*
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Me'or Einayim
The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting... There is to understand that the beginning could have only been "And He called" without explaining who was calling, bu after this it's explained "And the Lord spoke to him". The matter is that Hashem Yitbarach brought us out from Egypt and gave us immediately the commandments of Pesach and circumcision. After this (God) split for us the sea, and then brought us into the wilderness (under) a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. After this (God) gave us the Torah and after this commanded us to build the Mishkan as is said (Exodus 25:8) "And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them." In "it" is not written, etc. As a parable (states): One that was from the world in a dark place and never saw light in his days. If he were brought out suddenly to the openness of the world, he would not be able to stand the light. Thus, it's need to show it to him on the level that he can begin. Make for him a small crack that he can see from there a little light, and after this, widen the crack until it becomes a window, and only then bring him out to the openness of the world and show him the light. Thus Israel was in Egypt: they were sunk below 50 gates of impurity. If they were suddenly shown the rays of God's light, they would not have been able to stand it. Thus they need each level as it were. And the essence of the purpose (of these levels) was "Make Me a sanctuary, and I will dwell in them"
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 25,9.“in accordance with all the pattern I show you; the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings so you shall make it.” Rashi (Sanhedrin 16) comments on this verse that these instructions, i.e. that just as the building of the Temple was to be approved by Moses who represented all the judges of the High Court, the building of future Temples would also have to be approved and supervised by the judges of the High Court.
Tossaphot on that folio already raises questions concerning this interpretation; they point out that the measurements of the altar of the Tabernacle did not correspond to the measurements of the altar in Solomon’s Temple (Kings I chapters 6-7) Nachmanides also found difficulty with Rashi’s commentary in Sanhedrin.
When you consider our explanation above (at the end of Mishpatim) that the words: וכן תעשו ומראה כבוד ה', refer to how a person can be certain that his manner of serving the Lord pleases his Creator, then the words: וכן תעשו, do not refer to the measurements of the Tabernacle or the Temple at all. There was no need for the Torah to repeat its instructions on these points as all the details had already been spelled out. Moses had received visual instructions from G’d, instructions that could hardly be “confirmed” by a human Court which had not been “shown” the dimensions G’d had shown to Moses. The entire Tabernacle must be viewed as the tangible symbol of holy thoughts expressed by the righteous when they worship the Creator, which, as we explained, need a כלי, visible, tangible instrument, in the form of a commandment to be performed by the worshipper, in order to give concrete expression to the נדבת לבו, the generosity of the heart, of which Exodus 25,2 speaks. The completed Tabernacle is the expression of the collective service of the Jewish people, or the לבוש, the “garment” behind which the holy nature of the collective soul of Jewish people resides.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 89 already explains that no two prophets convey the same message from G’d to the people using the same wording. There is an element of individuality which permits each prophet to “dress up” the message in a style that he considers appropriate to his listeners. He also receives the vision from G’d in a manner that allows for his individuality, one that G’d is thoroughly familiar with, of course. It follows that Moses and his generation received G’d’s instructions concerning the Tabernacle in a manner that was appropriate for them, whereas Solomon and his generation received the instructions in a manner appropriate for the level of their respective generation. The tangible expression of the difference between the spiritual level of these two generations, one a people wandering in the desert, the other a people that had lived in a sovereign Jewish homeland for over 400 years already was reflected in the size and appurtenances of their respective “Temples.”
When Rashi explained the word לדורות, to describe the meaning of וכן תעשו, he meant that the same yardsticks that applied in the desert when the Tabernacle was being built were also to be applied in future generations when a Temple will again be built. The tangible version of the people’s service of G’d is to conform to the manner in which the subject would be communicated to the prophet or High Court that is the highest spiritual authority of the people at the time.
Nachmanides’ critique of Rashi that the altars in the two Temples were of completely different sizes is completely out of place, as Solomon constructed the altar in accordance with specific instructions given to him, emphasizing further that what was appropriate in the desert was not appropriate in his time. G’d’s appearing to Solomon when he had completed the Temple (Kings I 6,11-12) is proof that although the measurements of that Temple were quite different (though proportionate), he had not deviated from the instructions given by G’d to Moses in our portion.
Tossaphot on that folio already raises questions concerning this interpretation; they point out that the measurements of the altar of the Tabernacle did not correspond to the measurements of the altar in Solomon’s Temple (Kings I chapters 6-7) Nachmanides also found difficulty with Rashi’s commentary in Sanhedrin.
When you consider our explanation above (at the end of Mishpatim) that the words: וכן תעשו ומראה כבוד ה', refer to how a person can be certain that his manner of serving the Lord pleases his Creator, then the words: וכן תעשו, do not refer to the measurements of the Tabernacle or the Temple at all. There was no need for the Torah to repeat its instructions on these points as all the details had already been spelled out. Moses had received visual instructions from G’d, instructions that could hardly be “confirmed” by a human Court which had not been “shown” the dimensions G’d had shown to Moses. The entire Tabernacle must be viewed as the tangible symbol of holy thoughts expressed by the righteous when they worship the Creator, which, as we explained, need a כלי, visible, tangible instrument, in the form of a commandment to be performed by the worshipper, in order to give concrete expression to the נדבת לבו, the generosity of the heart, of which Exodus 25,2 speaks. The completed Tabernacle is the expression of the collective service of the Jewish people, or the לבוש, the “garment” behind which the holy nature of the collective soul of Jewish people resides.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 89 already explains that no two prophets convey the same message from G’d to the people using the same wording. There is an element of individuality which permits each prophet to “dress up” the message in a style that he considers appropriate to his listeners. He also receives the vision from G’d in a manner that allows for his individuality, one that G’d is thoroughly familiar with, of course. It follows that Moses and his generation received G’d’s instructions concerning the Tabernacle in a manner that was appropriate for them, whereas Solomon and his generation received the instructions in a manner appropriate for the level of their respective generation. The tangible expression of the difference between the spiritual level of these two generations, one a people wandering in the desert, the other a people that had lived in a sovereign Jewish homeland for over 400 years already was reflected in the size and appurtenances of their respective “Temples.”
When Rashi explained the word לדורות, to describe the meaning of וכן תעשו, he meant that the same yardsticks that applied in the desert when the Tabernacle was being built were also to be applied in future generations when a Temple will again be built. The tangible version of the people’s service of G’d is to conform to the manner in which the subject would be communicated to the prophet or High Court that is the highest spiritual authority of the people at the time.
Nachmanides’ critique of Rashi that the altars in the two Temples were of completely different sizes is completely out of place, as Solomon constructed the altar in accordance with specific instructions given to him, emphasizing further that what was appropriate in the desert was not appropriate in his time. G’d’s appearing to Solomon when he had completed the Temple (Kings I 6,11-12) is proof that although the measurements of that Temple were quite different (though proportionate), he had not deviated from the instructions given by G’d to Moses in our portion.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 25,9.“in accordance with all the pattern I show you; the pattern of the Tabernacle and the pattern of all its furnishings so you shall make it.” Rashi (Sanhedrin 16) comments on this verse that these instructions, i.e. that just as the building of the Temple was to be approved by Moses who represented all the judges of the High Court, the building of future Temples would also have to be approved and supervised by the judges of the High Court.
Tossaphot on that folio already raises questions concerning this interpretation; they point out that the measurements of the altar of the Tabernacle did not correspond to the measurements of the altar in Solomon’s Temple (Kings I chapters 6-7) Nachmanides also found difficulty with Rashi’s commentary in Sanhedrin.
When you consider our explanation above (at the end of Mishpatim) that the words: וכן תעשו ומראה כבוד ה', refer to how a person can be certain that his manner of serving the Lord pleases his Creator, then the words: וכן תעשו, do not refer to the measurements of the Tabernacle or the Temple at all. There was no need for the Torah to repeat its instructions on these points as all the details had already been spelled out. Moses had received visual instructions from G’d, instructions that could hardly be “confirmed” by a human Court which had not been “shown” the dimensions G’d had shown to Moses. The entire Tabernacle must be viewed as the tangible symbol of holy thoughts expressed by the righteous when they worship the Creator, which, as we explained, need a כלי, visible, tangible instrument, in the form of a commandment to be performed by the worshipper, in order to give concrete expression to the נדבת לבו, the generosity of the heart, of which Exodus 25,2 speaks. The completed Tabernacle is the expression of the collective service of the Jewish people, or the לבוש, the “garment” behind which the holy nature of the collective soul of Jewish people resides.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 89 already explains that no two prophets convey the same message from G’d to the people using the same wording. There is an element of individuality which permits each prophet to “dress up” the message in a style that he considers appropriate to his listeners. He also receives the vision from G’d in a manner that allows for his individuality, one that G’d is thoroughly familiar with, of course. It follows that Moses and his generation received G’d’s instructions concerning the Tabernacle in a manner that was appropriate for them, whereas Solomon and his generation received the instructions in a manner appropriate for the level of their respective generation. The tangible expression of the difference between the spiritual level of these two generations, one a people wandering in the desert, the other a people that had lived in a sovereign Jewish homeland for over 400 years already was reflected in the size and appurtenances of their respective “Temples.”
When Rashi explained the word לדורות, to describe the meaning of וכן תעשו, he meant that the same yardsticks that applied in the desert when the Tabernacle was being built were also to be applied in future generations when a Temple will again be built. The tangible version of the people’s service of G’d is to conform to the manner in which the subject would be communicated to the prophet or High Court that is the highest spiritual authority of the people at the time.
Nachmanides’ critique of Rashi that the altars in the two Temples were of completely different sizes is completely out of place, as Solomon constructed the altar in accordance with specific instructions given to him, emphasizing further that what was appropriate in the desert was not appropriate in his time. G’d’s appearing to Solomon when he had completed the Temple (Kings I 6,11-12) is proof that although the measurements of that Temple were quite different (though proportionate), he had not deviated from the instructions given by G’d to Moses in our portion.
Tossaphot on that folio already raises questions concerning this interpretation; they point out that the measurements of the altar of the Tabernacle did not correspond to the measurements of the altar in Solomon’s Temple (Kings I chapters 6-7) Nachmanides also found difficulty with Rashi’s commentary in Sanhedrin.
When you consider our explanation above (at the end of Mishpatim) that the words: וכן תעשו ומראה כבוד ה', refer to how a person can be certain that his manner of serving the Lord pleases his Creator, then the words: וכן תעשו, do not refer to the measurements of the Tabernacle or the Temple at all. There was no need for the Torah to repeat its instructions on these points as all the details had already been spelled out. Moses had received visual instructions from G’d, instructions that could hardly be “confirmed” by a human Court which had not been “shown” the dimensions G’d had shown to Moses. The entire Tabernacle must be viewed as the tangible symbol of holy thoughts expressed by the righteous when they worship the Creator, which, as we explained, need a כלי, visible, tangible instrument, in the form of a commandment to be performed by the worshipper, in order to give concrete expression to the נדבת לבו, the generosity of the heart, of which Exodus 25,2 speaks. The completed Tabernacle is the expression of the collective service of the Jewish people, or the לבוש, the “garment” behind which the holy nature of the collective soul of Jewish people resides.
The Talmud in Sanhedrin 89 already explains that no two prophets convey the same message from G’d to the people using the same wording. There is an element of individuality which permits each prophet to “dress up” the message in a style that he considers appropriate to his listeners. He also receives the vision from G’d in a manner that allows for his individuality, one that G’d is thoroughly familiar with, of course. It follows that Moses and his generation received G’d’s instructions concerning the Tabernacle in a manner that was appropriate for them, whereas Solomon and his generation received the instructions in a manner appropriate for the level of their respective generation. The tangible expression of the difference between the spiritual level of these two generations, one a people wandering in the desert, the other a people that had lived in a sovereign Jewish homeland for over 400 years already was reflected in the size and appurtenances of their respective “Temples.”
When Rashi explained the word לדורות, to describe the meaning of וכן תעשו, he meant that the same yardsticks that applied in the desert when the Tabernacle was being built were also to be applied in future generations when a Temple will again be built. The tangible version of the people’s service of G’d is to conform to the manner in which the subject would be communicated to the prophet or High Court that is the highest spiritual authority of the people at the time.
Nachmanides’ critique of Rashi that the altars in the two Temples were of completely different sizes is completely out of place, as Solomon constructed the altar in accordance with specific instructions given to him, emphasizing further that what was appropriate in the desert was not appropriate in his time. G’d’s appearing to Solomon when he had completed the Temple (Kings I 6,11-12) is proof that although the measurements of that Temple were quite different (though proportionate), he had not deviated from the instructions given by G’d to Moses in our portion.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Rabbi Moshe Alshich’s commentary on Exodus 25,8 in which G’d instructs the Jewish people through their leader Moses to build for Him a Tabernacle, (residence) on earth in their midst, was not intended to imply that this signaled G’d’s move from the celestial regions to earth, is well known. The purpose of the Tabernacle is to signal that the principal Presence of G’d was to be on earth, i.e. amongst the Jewish people, as is clear from the words: ושכנתי בתוכם, “I shall take up residence amongst them;” the operative word in that line is the word בתוכם, which ought to be translated as “within them,” within the hearts and minds of the Israelites, as opposed to G’d’s presence being confined to a Temple.
When commenting on Leviticus 1,11 ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה, “he is to slaughter it (the sheep or goat offered as a burnt offering) on the northern side of the altar,” our sages comment [seeing that it is quite unclear who is the subject of the word ושחט, Ed.] that it includes also a gentile who offers a burnt offering consisting of a sheep or goat. [I could not find the source of this statement. Ed.]
We need to explain what prompted our sages to make the comment we just quoted. It is generally accepted that the idea of animal sacrifice contains a large measure of symbolism, i.e. that the donor presents the animal in lieu of his own self, who if the sacrifice was in expiation of a sin committed by the donor, should have paid for this with his own life. The expression לכפר עליהם, “to atone on their behalf,” (or a similar formula) appears dozens of times in the Torah in conjunction with animal sacrifice. Our sages therefore saw fit to understand the subject in our verse of the word אותו as not being the animal, but the person presenting it as a sacrifice. They do not,- if I understand the author correctly,- consider this as an act of contrition by the donor of the burnt offering, [seeing that a burnt offering does not atone for transgressions of negative commandments, Ed.] but as an expression of the donor’s love for Hashem, his preparedness to prove that love with his own life.
There are four basic elements making up a healthy animal [of the categories fit for offerings on the altar], and the four elements each require a day’s observation before the prospective animal is approved. The four days therefore symbolize a progressive “spiritual” ascent in the fitness of such an animal to substitute for its owner. Only then is it slaughtered. Once the animal has passed the tests concerning its health, it is perceived as being as close to a human being as is possible, so that it is able to take the place of the human being on whose behalf its being offered.
The chapter that we are discussing described the state of the nation on the eight’s day of the consecration of the Tabernacle, (9,1) the first day of Nissan, a day on which the priests had already completed seven days of preparation. During the preceding seven days the need for an animal sacrifice to atone for the people or the priests did not exist, as both had been sufficiently refined spiritually during those days so that they were in a state of physical and mental purity. The only reason that these sacrifices were presented nonetheless, was to enable the people to rejoice in the presence of the Lord, so that as a result the Shechinah [which had not been manifest since the sin of the golden calf, Ed.] would once more manifest itself as being present among the nation. When the Torah therefore wrote in 9,3 that the people were to take (as a sacrifice) a he-goat, as a sin offering as well as a calf and a sheep as a burnt offering, there was nothing strange in this being done without the customary preparation for these animals for four days prior to their being slaughtered. In fact the words והקרב לפני ה', “and present as sacrifice in the presence of the Lord,” (verse 2) may be understood as specific permission to dispense on that occasion with the usual examinations and waiting period.
When commenting on Leviticus 1,11 ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה, “he is to slaughter it (the sheep or goat offered as a burnt offering) on the northern side of the altar,” our sages comment [seeing that it is quite unclear who is the subject of the word ושחט, Ed.] that it includes also a gentile who offers a burnt offering consisting of a sheep or goat. [I could not find the source of this statement. Ed.]
We need to explain what prompted our sages to make the comment we just quoted. It is generally accepted that the idea of animal sacrifice contains a large measure of symbolism, i.e. that the donor presents the animal in lieu of his own self, who if the sacrifice was in expiation of a sin committed by the donor, should have paid for this with his own life. The expression לכפר עליהם, “to atone on their behalf,” (or a similar formula) appears dozens of times in the Torah in conjunction with animal sacrifice. Our sages therefore saw fit to understand the subject in our verse of the word אותו as not being the animal, but the person presenting it as a sacrifice. They do not,- if I understand the author correctly,- consider this as an act of contrition by the donor of the burnt offering, [seeing that a burnt offering does not atone for transgressions of negative commandments, Ed.] but as an expression of the donor’s love for Hashem, his preparedness to prove that love with his own life.
There are four basic elements making up a healthy animal [of the categories fit for offerings on the altar], and the four elements each require a day’s observation before the prospective animal is approved. The four days therefore symbolize a progressive “spiritual” ascent in the fitness of such an animal to substitute for its owner. Only then is it slaughtered. Once the animal has passed the tests concerning its health, it is perceived as being as close to a human being as is possible, so that it is able to take the place of the human being on whose behalf its being offered.
The chapter that we are discussing described the state of the nation on the eight’s day of the consecration of the Tabernacle, (9,1) the first day of Nissan, a day on which the priests had already completed seven days of preparation. During the preceding seven days the need for an animal sacrifice to atone for the people or the priests did not exist, as both had been sufficiently refined spiritually during those days so that they were in a state of physical and mental purity. The only reason that these sacrifices were presented nonetheless, was to enable the people to rejoice in the presence of the Lord, so that as a result the Shechinah [which had not been manifest since the sin of the golden calf, Ed.] would once more manifest itself as being present among the nation. When the Torah therefore wrote in 9,3 that the people were to take (as a sacrifice) a he-goat, as a sin offering as well as a calf and a sheep as a burnt offering, there was nothing strange in this being done without the customary preparation for these animals for four days prior to their being slaughtered. In fact the words והקרב לפני ה', “and present as sacrifice in the presence of the Lord,” (verse 2) may be understood as specific permission to dispense on that occasion with the usual examinations and waiting period.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 25,15. “the staves shall remain in the rings of the ark; they shall not be removed from it” “you shall place within the ark the testimony (Tablets), etc.”
The reason why the Torah emphasized only in connection with the holy ark that the staves by means of which the ark will be carried must not be removed from it [although also the table was carried by means of such staves, and the boards of the Tabernacle itself were held in place by staves, Ed.] requires analysis.
The author says that in order to explain this he must give a lengthy introduction. He takes it for granted that man, i.e. a human being, is viewed as a microcosm of the universe
He also takes it for granted that the reader is aware that the 613 commandments are divided into 365 negative commandments and 248 positive commandments and symbolize the human body i.e. are expressions in tangible form of 613 different spiritual concepts, both 248 positive ones and 365 negative ones. Similarly, the various parts of the Tabernacle are also to be viewed as representing these 613 concepts that form part of the universe and are placed before our eyes as the universe in miniature. In other words, each component part of the Tabernacle represented one of the 613 commandments.
When analyzing these 613 commandments, the reader will find that not all of them are essential, in the sense that not all of them can be fulfilled by each Israelite, and some of them are in the nature of “rearguard actions,” i.e. when certain sins have been committed they are designed to repair the spiritual damage the universe, i.e. the collective soul of the Jewish people, has suffered and the performance of the commandment is designed to repair that damage. Other commandments are so important that we must never lose sight of them, and we are told to remember certain events on a 24/7 basis during all our waking hours. One of these is the commandment to remain aware that there is only one Creator and that it is He Who is the source of all the phenomena that we observe in the universe. The second such commandment is that He has no partners, senior or junior, and is the Only Deity. The third such commandment is that we are commanded to love Him, i.e. that it is our duty as an expression of our love for Him to perform acts that will please Him. The means we are to employ to please Him are observance of the laws of the Torah, turning to Him in prayer, performing charitable deeds for the needy, all of whom have also been created in G’d’s image. At the same time as loving G’d, we must also remain in awe of His presence, i.e. be on guard against transgressing any of the negative commandments in the Torah. Under no circumstances are we to commit acts that we know to contradict His expressed wishes. All the above-mentioned commandments are absolute and apply to each one of us at all times. Faith in the Lord includes that we remain constantly aware of these cardinal points of Judaism.
There are other positive commandments, i.e. wearing four-cornered garments with fringes, ציציות; putting on phylacteries, which are to be performed only during hours of daylight. The same applies to the offering of sacrifices, something that is not acceptable when performed at night. Nowadays, owing to our exile these commandments are incapable of being performed altogether.
The ארון, holy ark, represented the totality of all the commandments, [seeing that the written Torah was deposited within it in addition to the Tablets. Ed.]. In order to symbolize the concept that Torah is indispensable to the Jewish people at any time day or night, Sabbath or weekday, the staves which served as the supports for carrying the ark on the shoulders of the priests, (compare Joshua 3,15) therefore had to remain firmly attached to the rings that enabled them to perform their function.
There are still other words of G’d which are also hinted at in the text of the Ten Commandments, on the Tablets which were the principal item inside the holy ark. These too ought to be remembered at all times as if they were commandments that had been spelled out as such.
The table, which was also equipped with rings and staves as a means to carry it, symbolizes other commandments, and the Levites were charged with carrying it by using them (Numbers 7,9). The table too, had to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites who were descendants of Kehat, not transported on the wagons like the boards and roof coverings of the Tabernacle. The commandment to carry certain parts of the furnishings of the Tabernacle on the shoulders of the Levites charged with performing service in or around the Tabernacle shows how these furnishings symbolized the commandments, i.e. what is most sacred to the Jewish people. During the wanderings in the desert when the Tabernacle and its constituent parts were being moved regularly, carrying these parts on the shoulders was the way the need to observe the commandments at all times was being demonstrated. The Levites were agents, messengers, of the Jewish people and at the same time agents, i.e. messengers of G’d. The holy ark which symbolized the most important commandments, the ones that apply on a year round basis to every Israelite reminded its carriers of this fact when they considered the prohibition to detach the staves by taking them out of their rings.
The reason why the Torah emphasized only in connection with the holy ark that the staves by means of which the ark will be carried must not be removed from it [although also the table was carried by means of such staves, and the boards of the Tabernacle itself were held in place by staves, Ed.] requires analysis.
The author says that in order to explain this he must give a lengthy introduction. He takes it for granted that man, i.e. a human being, is viewed as a microcosm of the universe
He also takes it for granted that the reader is aware that the 613 commandments are divided into 365 negative commandments and 248 positive commandments and symbolize the human body i.e. are expressions in tangible form of 613 different spiritual concepts, both 248 positive ones and 365 negative ones. Similarly, the various parts of the Tabernacle are also to be viewed as representing these 613 concepts that form part of the universe and are placed before our eyes as the universe in miniature. In other words, each component part of the Tabernacle represented one of the 613 commandments.
When analyzing these 613 commandments, the reader will find that not all of them are essential, in the sense that not all of them can be fulfilled by each Israelite, and some of them are in the nature of “rearguard actions,” i.e. when certain sins have been committed they are designed to repair the spiritual damage the universe, i.e. the collective soul of the Jewish people, has suffered and the performance of the commandment is designed to repair that damage. Other commandments are so important that we must never lose sight of them, and we are told to remember certain events on a 24/7 basis during all our waking hours. One of these is the commandment to remain aware that there is only one Creator and that it is He Who is the source of all the phenomena that we observe in the universe. The second such commandment is that He has no partners, senior or junior, and is the Only Deity. The third such commandment is that we are commanded to love Him, i.e. that it is our duty as an expression of our love for Him to perform acts that will please Him. The means we are to employ to please Him are observance of the laws of the Torah, turning to Him in prayer, performing charitable deeds for the needy, all of whom have also been created in G’d’s image. At the same time as loving G’d, we must also remain in awe of His presence, i.e. be on guard against transgressing any of the negative commandments in the Torah. Under no circumstances are we to commit acts that we know to contradict His expressed wishes. All the above-mentioned commandments are absolute and apply to each one of us at all times. Faith in the Lord includes that we remain constantly aware of these cardinal points of Judaism.
There are other positive commandments, i.e. wearing four-cornered garments with fringes, ציציות; putting on phylacteries, which are to be performed only during hours of daylight. The same applies to the offering of sacrifices, something that is not acceptable when performed at night. Nowadays, owing to our exile these commandments are incapable of being performed altogether.
The ארון, holy ark, represented the totality of all the commandments, [seeing that the written Torah was deposited within it in addition to the Tablets. Ed.]. In order to symbolize the concept that Torah is indispensable to the Jewish people at any time day or night, Sabbath or weekday, the staves which served as the supports for carrying the ark on the shoulders of the priests, (compare Joshua 3,15) therefore had to remain firmly attached to the rings that enabled them to perform their function.
There are still other words of G’d which are also hinted at in the text of the Ten Commandments, on the Tablets which were the principal item inside the holy ark. These too ought to be remembered at all times as if they were commandments that had been spelled out as such.
The table, which was also equipped with rings and staves as a means to carry it, symbolizes other commandments, and the Levites were charged with carrying it by using them (Numbers 7,9). The table too, had to be carried on the shoulders of the Levites who were descendants of Kehat, not transported on the wagons like the boards and roof coverings of the Tabernacle. The commandment to carry certain parts of the furnishings of the Tabernacle on the shoulders of the Levites charged with performing service in or around the Tabernacle shows how these furnishings symbolized the commandments, i.e. what is most sacred to the Jewish people. During the wanderings in the desert when the Tabernacle and its constituent parts were being moved regularly, carrying these parts on the shoulders was the way the need to observe the commandments at all times was being demonstrated. The Levites were agents, messengers, of the Jewish people and at the same time agents, i.e. messengers of G’d. The holy ark which symbolized the most important commandments, the ones that apply on a year round basis to every Israelite reminded its carriers of this fact when they considered the prohibition to detach the staves by taking them out of their rings.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
All this is alluded to in the words: אלה פקודי המשכן משכן העדות. The word עדות is a reference to the Torah and its commandments; the word פקד means that a connection was established, a union, much as when a husband joins his wife in the marital bed in order to jointly produce a child which is the visible symbol of their union. [We read in Genesis 21,1 that Hashem פקד את שרה , as a result of which she became pregnant. In other words, the union of Avraham and Sarah was finally completed when Sarah conceived Yitzchok. Ed.]
If, G’d forbid, attributes such as love and awe, etc., instead of being utilized in accordance with Torah principles are “wasted” on unworthy objects or ideas, the Torah, or its representative the Tabernacle, is perceived as not enjoying מנוחה a state of calm satisfaction; similarly, if these attributes are abused by being squandered on useless objects or alien concepts and their representatives, G’d is in a state of restlessness, His mind not being at ease.
There is still another aspect to this subject of the attributes of G’d and our duty to emulate them. When the attributes of G’d are constantly being emulated by His creatures, in this case by the Jewish people, this results in this “union” influencing the dispensation of G’d’s largesse due to the connection to our Divine source being a constant, never interrupted for even a brief period. Putting the various vessels of the Tabernacle to use on a daily basis, seeing that each represented part of a Divine attribute, the unbroken connection was assured. Only in the desert, or subsequently in Jerusalem, the site of the Temple, was it possible to ensure that unbroken contact with the Divine origin of these attributes, which served as a reminder to G’d that His people were serving Him by trying to emulate His attributes. The distinction possessed by the city of Jerusalem in this regard, was also accorded to Shiloh and other locations where the Tabernacle stood before Solomon built the Temple, though only on an ad hoc basis.
The difference between the status of Shiloh and Jerusalem was symbolised by the Tabernacle in Shiloh, which, though not being a collapsible structure as the one in the desert, did not have a permanent solid roof (although it functioned for more than 300 years). (Compare Zevachim 112) The Torah had alluded to this distinction when speaking of מנוחה and נחלה as separate concepts in Deuteronomy 12,9. The stage of נחלה, ancestrally owned territory, would not be reached until the erection of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. [The capital of Israel that had been captured only during the latter part of David’s reign, more than 450 years after Joshua crossed the Jordon with the people. Ed.] The author sees an allusion to this already in Exodus 25,15, where the Torah refers to the poles that were to be used to carry the Holy Ark were to remain permanently in the rings attached to the Ark for that purpose, and that they were not to be removed even temporarily under any circumstances. The reader will ask himself why the Torah added this restrictive clause as applicable only to the poles used to carry the Ark, and not to the poles used to carry the Table, for instance? Our author suggests as an answer to this question that we remember that he had described the very trek of the Israelites through the desert as a spiritual ascent, i.e. return of the “sparks” that had fallen from the Shechinah in disgrace on a previous occasion, and that it had been the act of dismantling the Tabernacle that had enabled these “sparks” to grasp an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. (compare pages 533-534). Clearly, the process of the fallen sparks could not continue indefinitely, for how long would G’d rebuke the same evildoers to return in penitence without finally giving up and subjecting them to their deserved punishment? On the other hand, it is perfectly plausible to hold up a reminder to sinners, that there is a method through which they could rehabilitate themselves.
The Holy Ark’s function is to serve as a reminder to man that at all times he must strive to repent and rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the Lord. The regulation that the poles that serve to carry the Holy Ark in the desert, [although once it had been positioned in the Temple, the Ark was never to be removed from there so that its poles became strictly symbolic in nature, Ed.] served as this reminder. The “sparks” themselves, are not only to be viewed as parts of the Shechinah which had somehow gone astray, but they symbolize parts of the human personality which had gone astray and were in need of rehabilitation. Man (and in the first instance the Jewish man) is supposed to be the “carrier” of the throne of G’d, in a sense similar to the poles of the Holy Ark on top of which were the cherubs between whose outstretched wings the Shechinah is presumed to reside while the Ark is within the Temple. [Some of these words are my own, but I am confident that they supplement the exegesis of our author. Ed.] It did not matter that the Ark, physically, once it had come to a place of מנוחה ונחלה as stated in Deuteronomy 12,9 would no longer be in motion. It is enough that we keep before our mind’s eye the picture of the Holy Ark to remind us of the need to constantly strive to rehabilitate any weakness in our personality that manifested itself through our not emulating one of G’d’s attributes by transgressing one of His commandments.
It is this thought that prompted our sages in Keritut 6 to state that whenever we pray we must always include the habitual sinners in our prayers, i.e. express the wish that they too turn to G’d for forgiveness of their sins by changing their lifestyles. This is our contribution to “repatriating” holy sparks that had gone astray.
If, G’d forbid, attributes such as love and awe, etc., instead of being utilized in accordance with Torah principles are “wasted” on unworthy objects or ideas, the Torah, or its representative the Tabernacle, is perceived as not enjoying מנוחה a state of calm satisfaction; similarly, if these attributes are abused by being squandered on useless objects or alien concepts and their representatives, G’d is in a state of restlessness, His mind not being at ease.
There is still another aspect to this subject of the attributes of G’d and our duty to emulate them. When the attributes of G’d are constantly being emulated by His creatures, in this case by the Jewish people, this results in this “union” influencing the dispensation of G’d’s largesse due to the connection to our Divine source being a constant, never interrupted for even a brief period. Putting the various vessels of the Tabernacle to use on a daily basis, seeing that each represented part of a Divine attribute, the unbroken connection was assured. Only in the desert, or subsequently in Jerusalem, the site of the Temple, was it possible to ensure that unbroken contact with the Divine origin of these attributes, which served as a reminder to G’d that His people were serving Him by trying to emulate His attributes. The distinction possessed by the city of Jerusalem in this regard, was also accorded to Shiloh and other locations where the Tabernacle stood before Solomon built the Temple, though only on an ad hoc basis.
The difference between the status of Shiloh and Jerusalem was symbolised by the Tabernacle in Shiloh, which, though not being a collapsible structure as the one in the desert, did not have a permanent solid roof (although it functioned for more than 300 years). (Compare Zevachim 112) The Torah had alluded to this distinction when speaking of מנוחה and נחלה as separate concepts in Deuteronomy 12,9. The stage of נחלה, ancestrally owned territory, would not be reached until the erection of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. [The capital of Israel that had been captured only during the latter part of David’s reign, more than 450 years after Joshua crossed the Jordon with the people. Ed.] The author sees an allusion to this already in Exodus 25,15, where the Torah refers to the poles that were to be used to carry the Holy Ark were to remain permanently in the rings attached to the Ark for that purpose, and that they were not to be removed even temporarily under any circumstances. The reader will ask himself why the Torah added this restrictive clause as applicable only to the poles used to carry the Ark, and not to the poles used to carry the Table, for instance? Our author suggests as an answer to this question that we remember that he had described the very trek of the Israelites through the desert as a spiritual ascent, i.e. return of the “sparks” that had fallen from the Shechinah in disgrace on a previous occasion, and that it had been the act of dismantling the Tabernacle that had enabled these “sparks” to grasp an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. (compare pages 533-534). Clearly, the process of the fallen sparks could not continue indefinitely, for how long would G’d rebuke the same evildoers to return in penitence without finally giving up and subjecting them to their deserved punishment? On the other hand, it is perfectly plausible to hold up a reminder to sinners, that there is a method through which they could rehabilitate themselves.
The Holy Ark’s function is to serve as a reminder to man that at all times he must strive to repent and rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the Lord. The regulation that the poles that serve to carry the Holy Ark in the desert, [although once it had been positioned in the Temple, the Ark was never to be removed from there so that its poles became strictly symbolic in nature, Ed.] served as this reminder. The “sparks” themselves, are not only to be viewed as parts of the Shechinah which had somehow gone astray, but they symbolize parts of the human personality which had gone astray and were in need of rehabilitation. Man (and in the first instance the Jewish man) is supposed to be the “carrier” of the throne of G’d, in a sense similar to the poles of the Holy Ark on top of which were the cherubs between whose outstretched wings the Shechinah is presumed to reside while the Ark is within the Temple. [Some of these words are my own, but I am confident that they supplement the exegesis of our author. Ed.] It did not matter that the Ark, physically, once it had come to a place of מנוחה ונחלה as stated in Deuteronomy 12,9 would no longer be in motion. It is enough that we keep before our mind’s eye the picture of the Holy Ark to remind us of the need to constantly strive to rehabilitate any weakness in our personality that manifested itself through our not emulating one of G’d’s attributes by transgressing one of His commandments.
It is this thought that prompted our sages in Keritut 6 to state that whenever we pray we must always include the habitual sinners in our prayers, i.e. express the wish that they too turn to G’d for forgiveness of their sins by changing their lifestyles. This is our contribution to “repatriating” holy sparks that had gone astray.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 25,21. “and you are to deposit the Testimony inside the ark.” Rashi comments that he does not understand the repetition in this verse since the same instruction had been spelled out already in verse 16 where the Torah wrote: ונתת אל הארון את העדות, “you are to deposit (it) inside the ark the Testimony.” He attempts to answer this question by saying that the repetition indicates that the Testimony (Tablets, and Torah scroll) is to be deposited inside the ark even before the construction of the lid, the כפורת, details of which have been the subject of verses 17-20. Our author suggests that verse 21 simply explains why anyone removing the staves of the ark from its rings transgresses a negative commandment, i.e. that he would thereby interfere with the sacred contents of the holy ark. [The prohibition to remove the staves is an implied warning not to remove any of the contents of the ark, if I understand our author correctly. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 25,40.“and take a good look and follow the patterns for them that have been shown to you.”
Rashi explains these words as referring to the fact that G’d, while Moses was on the Mountain, had to give him a visual lesson in how the menorah would look when completed, as Moses had had difficulty in constructing for himself a mental image of it.
Why did Rashi feel that he had to give this exegesis when he did not do so when the Torah described other parts of the Tabernacle to be constructed also accompanied by the instruction ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, “in accordance with all that I show you?”
Furthermore, the entire premise that Moses would have had difficulty making a mental picture of what the completed menorah would look like is difficult to understand.
In order to understand this, it seems that we must realize that when the various “creatures,” or phenomena, that constitute the various parts of G’d’s universe look at their Creator and the brilliance that is beyond their ability to endure, they are so filled with awe that they have completely excluded any other feeling, attribute, they are capable of under normal circumstances. It is only when the Creator draws around His essence the veils that enable His creatures to look at Him without being harmed, that they can once more consciously experience such feelings as שמחה, joy, and any of the other attributes.
Rashi explains these words as referring to the fact that G’d, while Moses was on the Mountain, had to give him a visual lesson in how the menorah would look when completed, as Moses had had difficulty in constructing for himself a mental image of it.
Why did Rashi feel that he had to give this exegesis when he did not do so when the Torah described other parts of the Tabernacle to be constructed also accompanied by the instruction ככל אשר אני מראה אותך, “in accordance with all that I show you?”
Furthermore, the entire premise that Moses would have had difficulty making a mental picture of what the completed menorah would look like is difficult to understand.
In order to understand this, it seems that we must realize that when the various “creatures,” or phenomena, that constitute the various parts of G’d’s universe look at their Creator and the brilliance that is beyond their ability to endure, they are so filled with awe that they have completely excluded any other feeling, attribute, they are capable of under normal circumstances. It is only when the Creator draws around His essence the veils that enable His creatures to look at Him without being harmed, that they can once more consciously experience such feelings as שמחה, joy, and any of the other attributes.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sha'ar HaEmunah VeYesod HaChasidut
When the Rambam explains the visions of the Divine Chariot, in the sixth chapter of the third section of the Guide, he explains why Yehezkel revealed more details about his vision of the Divine than did Yeshayahu. There he quotes the Talmud (Hagiga, 13b), “Yeshayahu saw all that had been seen by Yehezkel. Yeshayahu is like a townsman who sees the king, Yehezkel is like a countryman who sees the king.”111There it is written: “The townsman, seeing that his neighbors know well how the king rides, simply tells them that he saw the king. But the villager, wishing to tell his friends that which they do not know, relates in detail how the king was riding, describes his followers, and the officers who execute his order and command.” The Rambam writes, “The generation of Yeshayahu did not require the detailed description. It was enough for him to say, ‘I saw God.’ The generation of the Babylonian exile needed to hear all of the details.” This is exactly according to the words of the Zohar (Shemot, 2b) quoted above.112See chapter 9 on the difference between the visions of Yehezkel and the visions of Yeshayahu. So if all the verses describing the Divine Chariot are only explaining the workings of astronomy, for what reason could Yehezkel have possibly had in thinking that knowledge of astronomy was more useful or of more interest to the exiles in Babylon? From this it clearly follows that the Rambam had possession of a true tradition of the mysteries of the Torah. Here is not the place to dwell on this point. Yet suffice to say that all who study this matter with a clear mind will know that he possessed a true tradition of Kabbalah. The Rambam claimed that there are four planets. The Abarbanel responds to this in saying that everyone knows that there are nine planets. How, the Abarbanel asks, could the prophet Yehezkel have made such a great error? One who studys the Eytz Hayim, in the introduction to the shaar tsiyoor haolamot, shows how the ten are divided into four sections. This is in line with the view of the Rambam. Further, the Guide (Section Two, Ch. 10) hints at the meaning of counting four planets. There you can find an answer to the query of the Abarbanel. Also, in the Pirkei Hatslaha printed in the responsa of the Rambam called, Pe’er haDor, he wrote to his student Rav Yosef Aknin, he explains how the Cherubs on each side of the Ark of the Covenant spread their wings. There he wrote, “just as breath is essential to the life of the heart … so do the Cherubs that jointly spread their wings over the Ark of the Covenant are really two. And know that the sanctuary of your heart is the Ark which holds within it the two Tablets of the Testament.” This exact idea is explained in the Zohar in the section of the Raya Mehemna (Zohar, Pinchas, 235a): For the heart is the seat of judgment, and the four Hayot who are its messengers are the two lungs and the two kidneys. The lungs are the secret of (Yehezkel, 1:11, “and their faces and wings were divided upwards,” reaching up to receive the king … … and the breath of air descends into the heart to cool off its heat, so it does not burn up the body. And when the breath descends, it descends in several directions, like a king and his soldiers. And the lungs receive the breath, which is king over it. This is as it is written (Yehezkel, 1:11), “and their faces and wings were divided upward,” (Shemot, 25:20), “and the wings of the Cherubs shall spread upward.” And in the Tikkunei Zohar (third additional chapter at the end, 140b): Of the lungs it is written (Shemot, 25:20), “and the wings of the Cherubs shall spread upwards, overspreading the covering (of the Ark) with their wings,” this is the covering of the heart.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Another approach to the thirteen nuances of the attributes of Love that G’d displays, listed here. According to the Ari z’al, the reason why this list commences (is headed by) with the name of the Lord, א-ל, and that these 13 “nuances” correspond to the thirteen exegetical tools of Torah interpretation listed by Rabbi Yishmael, and that the first such tool in Rabbi Yishmael’s list is the קל וחומר, “logic,” is the very fact that the essence of the Creator is beyond any creature’s ability to comprehend. In other words, it is beyond “logic.” (Compare Tikkuney Hazohar7 and 1) All that man can observe when trying to obtain a composite mental image of G’d, is that He possesses the attributes of “greatness,” “strength, heroism,” etc., etc.
My great and revered teacher phrased it thus when he explained the meaning of the Talmud in Sukkah 5 which discusses Exodus 25,18, the figures on the lid of the Holy Ark. The Torah commands: ועשית שנים כרובים זהב, “you are to fashion two cherubs made of gold.” The cryptic comment on this verse by the Talmud is that the word כרובים is the plural mode of the Aramaic כ-רביא, “like a young innocent child.” Rabbi Dov Baer, the author’s teacher, clearly did not understand the Talmud quite in that sense, but saw in the word רביא a reference to the relationship between teacher and pupil. The teacher’s knowledge and understanding is obviously far above that of the student, and in order for the student to understand what the teacher is saying, the teacher must address him in words that are familiar to the student, i.e. he must be מצמם את עצמו, impose restraints upon himself in order for his message to become effective. As a result of the teacher’s restraining himself there will be two intellectually equal people studying. This is the message of the שנים כרובים, the two cherubs mounted on top of the כפורת, the lid of the Holy Ark. The moral lesson of this is that instead of both the minds of teacher and pupil being portrayed as adults in the Torah, they are portrayed as “small children.” The comparison to the exegetical tool known as קל וחומר is even more striking when we consider that one of the limitations of this method of exegesis is that it must never be employed to establish a new halachic parameter. It must content itself with stating that the result of the comparison of the קל to the חומר is that the “heavy” is definitely at least equal to the “light,” but not necessarily superior. To illustrate: if as a result of insulting one’s father the child is banished from his presence for seven days, it is logical that insulting “G’d,” cannot be atoned for by a lesser penalty, as “G’d” is the “heavy” in this comparison. If we were to conclude that the penalty for insulting G’d must logically be greater, this would be beyond the boundaries of the קל וחומר as a legitimate exegetical tool. (Compare Talmud Baba kamma 24.)
The Talmud discusses also if there is ever an exception to this rule, and if so what are the criteria for when it may be breached? Answer: if by applying the rule that a קל וחומר must not result in halachic conclusions beyond the parameters from which we have set out, the entire קל וחומר could no longer be applied, then that rule is ignored. If G’d were to exercise so much self restraint that He would make Himself truly equal to us His creatures, how could He serve for us as a role model or authority?
The author limits the parable to the Jewish people, i.e. the concept that G’d would similarly “restrains Himself,” in order to descend to the level of the gentile nations is quite erroneous. The reason why the Jewish people are afforded this advantage is that they have accepted His rule in spite of the many difficulties that have to be faced by living in our part of the universe in order to fulfill His commandments. Since the gentile nations never accepted these challenges, they are hardly in a position to request G’d’s help in overcoming them.
[The author refers to the Tikunney Hazohar interpreting the tone signs on the letters in the Torah suggesting that the one known as zarka, and the one known as pazer, both striving upwards as an allusion to the heavenly orientation of the Jewish people that entitle them to G’d’s help. I have not found this section of the Tikkunim. Ed.]
My great and revered teacher phrased it thus when he explained the meaning of the Talmud in Sukkah 5 which discusses Exodus 25,18, the figures on the lid of the Holy Ark. The Torah commands: ועשית שנים כרובים זהב, “you are to fashion two cherubs made of gold.” The cryptic comment on this verse by the Talmud is that the word כרובים is the plural mode of the Aramaic כ-רביא, “like a young innocent child.” Rabbi Dov Baer, the author’s teacher, clearly did not understand the Talmud quite in that sense, but saw in the word רביא a reference to the relationship between teacher and pupil. The teacher’s knowledge and understanding is obviously far above that of the student, and in order for the student to understand what the teacher is saying, the teacher must address him in words that are familiar to the student, i.e. he must be מצמם את עצמו, impose restraints upon himself in order for his message to become effective. As a result of the teacher’s restraining himself there will be two intellectually equal people studying. This is the message of the שנים כרובים, the two cherubs mounted on top of the כפורת, the lid of the Holy Ark. The moral lesson of this is that instead of both the minds of teacher and pupil being portrayed as adults in the Torah, they are portrayed as “small children.” The comparison to the exegetical tool known as קל וחומר is even more striking when we consider that one of the limitations of this method of exegesis is that it must never be employed to establish a new halachic parameter. It must content itself with stating that the result of the comparison of the קל to the חומר is that the “heavy” is definitely at least equal to the “light,” but not necessarily superior. To illustrate: if as a result of insulting one’s father the child is banished from his presence for seven days, it is logical that insulting “G’d,” cannot be atoned for by a lesser penalty, as “G’d” is the “heavy” in this comparison. If we were to conclude that the penalty for insulting G’d must logically be greater, this would be beyond the boundaries of the קל וחומר as a legitimate exegetical tool. (Compare Talmud Baba kamma 24.)
The Talmud discusses also if there is ever an exception to this rule, and if so what are the criteria for when it may be breached? Answer: if by applying the rule that a קל וחומר must not result in halachic conclusions beyond the parameters from which we have set out, the entire קל וחומר could no longer be applied, then that rule is ignored. If G’d were to exercise so much self restraint that He would make Himself truly equal to us His creatures, how could He serve for us as a role model or authority?
The author limits the parable to the Jewish people, i.e. the concept that G’d would similarly “restrains Himself,” in order to descend to the level of the gentile nations is quite erroneous. The reason why the Jewish people are afforded this advantage is that they have accepted His rule in spite of the many difficulties that have to be faced by living in our part of the universe in order to fulfill His commandments. Since the gentile nations never accepted these challenges, they are hardly in a position to request G’d’s help in overcoming them.
[The author refers to the Tikunney Hazohar interpreting the tone signs on the letters in the Torah suggesting that the one known as zarka, and the one known as pazer, both striving upwards as an allusion to the heavenly orientation of the Jewish people that entitle them to G’d’s help. I have not found this section of the Tikkunim. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tzidkat HaTzadik
[251] Through desire [a person] can become a vessel for the resting of God's Presence in his heart. This is the the reason for the offerings for the Tabernacle from "Each person according to the giving of his heart" (Exodus 25:2), that through the giving of the heart of the Israelites comes the building of the Tabernacle, bringing God's Presence below. Thus it is according to what each person develops in their heart, as one person's feelings are not comparable to his fellow's. For according to the giving of the heart and strength of his desire to grasp is the dwelling of God. And there is also the offerings of the bases and the sacrifices, of which is said "the rich will not add etc" (Exodus 30:15), in which rich and poor are similar in awareness, and feeling, and force of desire, since this is to atone for their souls as explained in the Text, and as the sages z"l explained in the Jerusalem Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim 1:1:6) that is to atone for the Golden Calf. Meaning, to clean the soiling of the evil desires from the heart. And so too, regarding the communal sacrifices, they z"l said "the Tamid offering of the morning atones etc" (Midrash Tanchuma Pinchas 13:1). And regarding the issue of distancing from evil all Israel are the same, that all are able to cleanse from evil in practice, the separation of levels is only applicable for the reaching out for good. And also, regarding the true cleansing of evil we arrive to the level of "the one who makes great and small equal" (Machzor Rosh Hashanah Ashkenaz, Musaf, First Day of Rosh Hashana, Kedushah 35). As it is known, there are circles, and directness, and separations on the levels to go from lower to higher, from the side of directness, but this is not so on the circle of "all are equal." ...
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy