Chasidut su Esodo 25:18
וְעָשִׂ֛יתָ שְׁנַ֥יִם כְּרֻבִ֖ים זָהָ֑ב מִקְשָׁה֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֹתָ֔ם מִשְּׁנֵ֖י קְצ֥וֹת הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת׃
E farai due cherubini d’oro: li farai un corpo solido [non composto di parti separabili], alle due estremità del coperchio.
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