Chasidut su Genesi 49:35
Kedushat Levi
Deuteronomy 31,1. “Moses went and spoke all these words to the whole people of Israel.”
This verse [seeing that the Torah does not tell us from where Moses walked to where, Ed.] may become easier to understand when we consider that our sages, when referring to the man leading the congregation in prayer sometimes refer to him as descending in front of the Ark, whereas on other occasions they describe him as עובר לפני התיבה, ”walking past” the front of the Ark.
When a tzaddik is engaged in prayer he needs to attach himself to the letters of his prayer, i.e. תיבות, [an alternate meaning of תיבה,] which in turn gives his prayer guidance and direction as a result of which his prayers focus better on their objective. There are some outstanding tzaddikim who are not in need of this guidance, but on the contrary, give deeper meaning to each of these letters and words. The latter type of tzaddik was Moses, who, in the celestial hierarchy represented the Matronita, as we know from the Zohar where Moses is described as the Matronita’s husband in the sense of “dominant companion of this Matronita who is portrayed as a combination of the emanation of malchut and Torah.”
At any rate, the expression יורד לפני התיבה, “descending beneath the Ark,” i.e. the word or letter, means receiving one’s spiritual inspiration from above, whereas people leading the congregation in prayer who are being described as עובר לפני התיבה, are presumed to be at least on the same spiritual level as the “ark,” so that they can inspire the Ark, i.e. words or letters, with some of their holiness. Moses was an individual belonging to this second group of tzaddikim, so much so, that after descending from Mount Sinai with the second set of the Tablets, his forehead exuded so much spiritual light that he had to “screen” it as it frightened the people who saw in him a supernatural phenomenon. We have explained repeatedly that the level of his prophecy was such that he saw clear visions whereas other prophets saw only unclear, murky visions. (Yevamot 49) This enabled him to relate the words G’d had spoken to him, verbatim, without having to paraphrase them.
Just as Yaakov lost his prophetic ability when he was about to reveal details of the eventual redemption to his children on his deathbed (Genesis 49,1-2) so Moses’ prophetic pre-eminence was taken away from him shortly before his death, as most of this was transferred to his successor Joshua. This is why his parting “song” האזינו, is full of allusions, many of which are difficult to decipher. Our verse above alludes to the process of the transition of Moses’ spiritual powers to Joshua.
This verse [seeing that the Torah does not tell us from where Moses walked to where, Ed.] may become easier to understand when we consider that our sages, when referring to the man leading the congregation in prayer sometimes refer to him as descending in front of the Ark, whereas on other occasions they describe him as עובר לפני התיבה, ”walking past” the front of the Ark.
When a tzaddik is engaged in prayer he needs to attach himself to the letters of his prayer, i.e. תיבות, [an alternate meaning of תיבה,] which in turn gives his prayer guidance and direction as a result of which his prayers focus better on their objective. There are some outstanding tzaddikim who are not in need of this guidance, but on the contrary, give deeper meaning to each of these letters and words. The latter type of tzaddik was Moses, who, in the celestial hierarchy represented the Matronita, as we know from the Zohar where Moses is described as the Matronita’s husband in the sense of “dominant companion of this Matronita who is portrayed as a combination of the emanation of malchut and Torah.”
At any rate, the expression יורד לפני התיבה, “descending beneath the Ark,” i.e. the word or letter, means receiving one’s spiritual inspiration from above, whereas people leading the congregation in prayer who are being described as עובר לפני התיבה, are presumed to be at least on the same spiritual level as the “ark,” so that they can inspire the Ark, i.e. words or letters, with some of their holiness. Moses was an individual belonging to this second group of tzaddikim, so much so, that after descending from Mount Sinai with the second set of the Tablets, his forehead exuded so much spiritual light that he had to “screen” it as it frightened the people who saw in him a supernatural phenomenon. We have explained repeatedly that the level of his prophecy was such that he saw clear visions whereas other prophets saw only unclear, murky visions. (Yevamot 49) This enabled him to relate the words G’d had spoken to him, verbatim, without having to paraphrase them.
Just as Yaakov lost his prophetic ability when he was about to reveal details of the eventual redemption to his children on his deathbed (Genesis 49,1-2) so Moses’ prophetic pre-eminence was taken away from him shortly before his death, as most of this was transferred to his successor Joshua. This is why his parting “song” האזינו, is full of allusions, many of which are difficult to decipher. Our verse above alludes to the process of the transition of Moses’ spiritual powers to Joshua.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 15,1. “Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi, and Datan and Aviram took, etc;”
[At this point there appears to me to be a major error in our editions when the author claims that Nachmanides wrote that the spies had been aware that the Israelites would not enter the Holy Land. According to my understanding of Nachmanides on 15,1 he refers to the people having been aware of this decree, seeing that the spies were dead already. Ed.]
Nachmanides writes that seeing that the (spies) people knew that the members of their generation would not enter the Holy Land, the Israelites’ love of Moses had already been undermined so that the people would be more receptive to criticism of him. This is also the reason why this episode was written in the Torah immediately following the story of the spies. There had been several instances since the sin of the golden calf when many people had died without Moses having been able to prevent this, so that Korach felt that an attempt at insurrection could meet with broad support.
Basically speaking, the generation of the Israelites who had left Egypt as adults was of a spiritual level that enabled them to perform the commandments by merely using their power of speech, i.e. prayer alone. The next generation was of a lower spiritual level, requiring action in addition to prayer.
[Presumably the difference of the spiritual level of these two generations was due to the older generation having been addressed by G’d directly at the revelation on Mount Sinai. Ed.] The author cites as proof of this distinction the fact that Joshua when battling the 31 kings of the land of Canaan, had to perform some action with the javelin signaling to the ambush (Joshua 8,19) in order to secure victory. Moses, on the other hand, did not have to perform such actions, but accomplished his task by utterances emanating from his mouth alone. If you were to argue that Joshua conquered Jericho relying only on דבור, the power of speech, as pointed out in the Jerusalem Talmud Moed katan chapter 2 halachah 4, the reason for this was that Jericho was captured on the Sabbath, and the Ari’zal has pointed out already that the intellectual capacity of the Rabbi on a weekday is attained by his disciple on the Sabbath. Similarly, the relationship between Moses’ intellectual capacity and that of Joshua was like that of the teacher compared to the student. Moses had been able to accomplish everything he set out to do by relying exclusively on the power of the word. [Perhaps Moses’ failing to speak to the rock when commanded to and striking it instead, represented this desecration of G’d’s name in public that G’d accused both him and Aaron of. Ed.]
Both at Ai as well as during subsequent battles, Joshua had to employ other parts of his body in addition to the power of speech.
The Torah Moses presented to the Jewish people reflected the power of the word used by G’d when He created the universe; however, in common with other forms of energy emanating from G’d’s essence which had to be “screened” in order that their impact would not prove harmful instead of beneficial, even in our world of the עשיה, where matter appears as if it is “real,” this is so only because what we see with our three-dimensionally oriented eyes has already undergone such a process of being screened before we see it. According to our author this has been alluded to when the prophet Isaiah 44,6 quoted G’d saying: אני ראשון ואני אחרון, “I am no different at the end from the way I was at the beginning.” [The usual translation, is, of course: “I am first and I am last,” but I changed it to fit the author’s interpretation. Ed.]
G’d meant that if He employed “screens” to protect us from His outpouring of Divine energy at the beginning of creation, He did the same when He came to the final stage of His creative activity, i.e. earth and man. The form that these “screens” take in our material world is the attributes through which we try to understand the nature of the Creator, His מידות.
When Korach had realized that the generation of which he was a part would not be granted residence in the land of Canaan, he no longer accepted Moses’ Torah as something to be understood as having been “screened” by G’d before He entrusted it to us in the format that we are familiar with.
When G’d punished Korach by making the earth open its “mouth” to swallow him and his followers alive, He actually paid him back מידה כנגד מידה, “tit for tat,” seeing that Korach had refused to believe that the earth as we see it is not the “real thing;” he was taught at the last moment of his life how wrong he had been, and that the earth had hidden dimensions he had never dreamed of.
This has all been hinted at when the Torah listed as Korach’s antecedents, i.e. Yitzhar-alluding to brightness, light, Kehat- and Levi. The word יקהת alludes to “unity” as we know from Genesis 49,10 where Yaakov blessed Yehudah by saying that the other tribes would rally around him. The word לוי derived from ילוה, when his mother Leah, at his birth, expressed her hope that this son would be the cause of her husband spending more time with her; (Genesis 29,34) When looking at the three names together, they suggest that Korach only believed in the world of the power of speech, the world that we know as the three-dimensional world, and could not believe that behind what we see with our physical eyes there is hidden another dimension, one which makes it far easier to relate to the home of the Creator and the army of angels with whom He has surrounded Himself. [some of these words are mine. When someone insists on believing that the world we see is all there is in the universe, so that physical death is the end of all life, he has made the beginning of life equally irrelevant. Ed.]
The words of Isaiah 44,6 are therefore most important if we wish to understand G’d’s actions in creating different sections in His universe.
[At this point there appears to me to be a major error in our editions when the author claims that Nachmanides wrote that the spies had been aware that the Israelites would not enter the Holy Land. According to my understanding of Nachmanides on 15,1 he refers to the people having been aware of this decree, seeing that the spies were dead already. Ed.]
Nachmanides writes that seeing that the (spies) people knew that the members of their generation would not enter the Holy Land, the Israelites’ love of Moses had already been undermined so that the people would be more receptive to criticism of him. This is also the reason why this episode was written in the Torah immediately following the story of the spies. There had been several instances since the sin of the golden calf when many people had died without Moses having been able to prevent this, so that Korach felt that an attempt at insurrection could meet with broad support.
Basically speaking, the generation of the Israelites who had left Egypt as adults was of a spiritual level that enabled them to perform the commandments by merely using their power of speech, i.e. prayer alone. The next generation was of a lower spiritual level, requiring action in addition to prayer.
[Presumably the difference of the spiritual level of these two generations was due to the older generation having been addressed by G’d directly at the revelation on Mount Sinai. Ed.] The author cites as proof of this distinction the fact that Joshua when battling the 31 kings of the land of Canaan, had to perform some action with the javelin signaling to the ambush (Joshua 8,19) in order to secure victory. Moses, on the other hand, did not have to perform such actions, but accomplished his task by utterances emanating from his mouth alone. If you were to argue that Joshua conquered Jericho relying only on דבור, the power of speech, as pointed out in the Jerusalem Talmud Moed katan chapter 2 halachah 4, the reason for this was that Jericho was captured on the Sabbath, and the Ari’zal has pointed out already that the intellectual capacity of the Rabbi on a weekday is attained by his disciple on the Sabbath. Similarly, the relationship between Moses’ intellectual capacity and that of Joshua was like that of the teacher compared to the student. Moses had been able to accomplish everything he set out to do by relying exclusively on the power of the word. [Perhaps Moses’ failing to speak to the rock when commanded to and striking it instead, represented this desecration of G’d’s name in public that G’d accused both him and Aaron of. Ed.]
Both at Ai as well as during subsequent battles, Joshua had to employ other parts of his body in addition to the power of speech.
The Torah Moses presented to the Jewish people reflected the power of the word used by G’d when He created the universe; however, in common with other forms of energy emanating from G’d’s essence which had to be “screened” in order that their impact would not prove harmful instead of beneficial, even in our world of the עשיה, where matter appears as if it is “real,” this is so only because what we see with our three-dimensionally oriented eyes has already undergone such a process of being screened before we see it. According to our author this has been alluded to when the prophet Isaiah 44,6 quoted G’d saying: אני ראשון ואני אחרון, “I am no different at the end from the way I was at the beginning.” [The usual translation, is, of course: “I am first and I am last,” but I changed it to fit the author’s interpretation. Ed.]
G’d meant that if He employed “screens” to protect us from His outpouring of Divine energy at the beginning of creation, He did the same when He came to the final stage of His creative activity, i.e. earth and man. The form that these “screens” take in our material world is the attributes through which we try to understand the nature of the Creator, His מידות.
When Korach had realized that the generation of which he was a part would not be granted residence in the land of Canaan, he no longer accepted Moses’ Torah as something to be understood as having been “screened” by G’d before He entrusted it to us in the format that we are familiar with.
When G’d punished Korach by making the earth open its “mouth” to swallow him and his followers alive, He actually paid him back מידה כנגד מידה, “tit for tat,” seeing that Korach had refused to believe that the earth as we see it is not the “real thing;” he was taught at the last moment of his life how wrong he had been, and that the earth had hidden dimensions he had never dreamed of.
This has all been hinted at when the Torah listed as Korach’s antecedents, i.e. Yitzhar-alluding to brightness, light, Kehat- and Levi. The word יקהת alludes to “unity” as we know from Genesis 49,10 where Yaakov blessed Yehudah by saying that the other tribes would rally around him. The word לוי derived from ילוה, when his mother Leah, at his birth, expressed her hope that this son would be the cause of her husband spending more time with her; (Genesis 29,34) When looking at the three names together, they suggest that Korach only believed in the world of the power of speech, the world that we know as the three-dimensional world, and could not believe that behind what we see with our physical eyes there is hidden another dimension, one which makes it far easier to relate to the home of the Creator and the army of angels with whom He has surrounded Himself. [some of these words are mine. When someone insists on believing that the world we see is all there is in the universe, so that physical death is the end of all life, he has made the beginning of life equally irrelevant. Ed.]
The words of Isaiah 44,6 are therefore most important if we wish to understand G’d’s actions in creating different sections in His universe.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 28,10. “Yaakov left Beer Sheva, etc.;” [I presume the connection to Chanukah the author makes here is based on his having composed this commentary for a Shabbat Chanukah sermon. Ed.]
The reason why the miracle of Chanukah, actually the miracle of the cruse of oil, is popularly known as the “miracle of Chanukah,” is due to the word חנוכה, being a derivative of חנוך, “consecration.” We find in Exodus 29,33 in connection with the consecration of the priestly garments, that before the priests were allowed to perform their sacred service they had to be provided with suitable vessels to be used, i.e. priestly garments. Wearing these priestly garments was so important that if they performed their duties improperly dressed (even missing one of these garments) this was a cardinal sin. (Maimonides 10,4 hilchot kley hamikdash) The container in which certain offerings were presented, were as integral a part of the ritual as the ritual itself. The garments are the “container” in which the priestly body performs his sacred task. It or they, are viewed like a חנוך, educational tool, consecration, that must precede the actual ritual in order for the priest to be truly a priest.
[Possibly, the emphasis on this in connection with the priests especially, is due to the fact that the priest was born to his status, and it would have been most unseemly for him not to undergo preparations before fulfilling his sacred tasks. Rabbis might not need this, as they were not born to the Rabbinate but had to study and pass exams before being granted their titles, ordination. Ed.]
Children are trained to perform the commandments before becoming legally of age, i.e. בר מצוה or בת מצוה, as the case may be, before being ushered into adulthood and all that this entails.
Our patriarch Yaakov had contemplated the awesome fact of the Unity of G’d from the day he was able to think, and he realized that the foundation of all parts of the universe was the Jewish people, i.e. if there were to be no Jewish people, G’d’s work of creating the universe would have been in vain.
Zohar I,24 (and elsewhere) states that ישראל עלה במחשבה בראשית, “the eventual existence of the Jewish people was the first thought that G’d entertained when contemplating the creation of this universe.” Numerous scriptural verses are quoted in support of this statement, one of which that concerns us especially being that Israel was also known as אבן as in “foundation stone,” seeing that the entire universe emerged from that origin. The Jewish people therefore are not only the “root” of mankind, but also in no lesser degree the founders of the celestial regions. While still in the stage of being only a thought in G’d’s mind, they were called אבן, “rock” in the singular mode, as at that point the true unity of the Jewish people and what they represent could be found.
Our ancestor Yaakov attempted with all the intellectual and emotional powers at his disposal to unravel the secrets of these concepts in order to convert Israel’s potential into an actual. As per Genesis 49,24 he wanted משם רועה אבן ישראל, “to lay the foundation stone of Israel,” as the shepherd of a nation consisting of 12 tribes that parallel the 12 bisections of the 6 sides of the cube when the universe is portrayed as a cube, dividing it into 12 triangles (compare Sefer Yetzirah, “Book of creation”) by bisecting each side from corner to corner. Each of the tribes of the Jewish people represents one of these “triangles.” In order for the celestial merkavah, Divine chariot, to be complete it must be comprised of 600000 components, the number of Jewish male adults that were redeemed from bondage in Egypt. According to our sages, the Presence of the Shechinah will not manifest itself as resting above the Jewish people when they number less than these 600000. According to our author, when the Torah in Genesis 28,11 describes how Yaakov took “stones” in order to prepare to spend the night, and he put his head on of the stones to serve as his “pillow,” the Torah merely illustrates the kind of thoughts that preoccupied Yaakov at that time, and how during his “dream” of the ladder he experienced Divine insights that had never been revealed to him.
Nonetheless, in view of the sages having said that no verse in the Torah must be explained in a way that departs completely from the written text and its plain meaning, we must pay attention to this also. [I believe that in accordance with the above Yaakov/Yisrael’s role as רועה אבן ישראל, “shepherd of the nucleus of the people” of Israel began here. Ed.]
According to the plain text there is no question that Yaakov placed his head on real stones, as he had no softer pillow at hand. Nonetheless while lying with these rocks as his pillow, he thought of matters far beyond his immediate and pressing terrestrial concerns. Perhaps this very fact qualified him for experiencing the first of his many Divine visions, although this time he was not certain for 34 years that it had indeed been a divine vision. According to our sages, during this night Yaakov’s mind foresaw the ruins of two Temples and the great anger that the Jewish people, his descendants, would provoke in G’d’s mind on numerous occasions.
The reason why the miracle of Chanukah, actually the miracle of the cruse of oil, is popularly known as the “miracle of Chanukah,” is due to the word חנוכה, being a derivative of חנוך, “consecration.” We find in Exodus 29,33 in connection with the consecration of the priestly garments, that before the priests were allowed to perform their sacred service they had to be provided with suitable vessels to be used, i.e. priestly garments. Wearing these priestly garments was so important that if they performed their duties improperly dressed (even missing one of these garments) this was a cardinal sin. (Maimonides 10,4 hilchot kley hamikdash) The container in which certain offerings were presented, were as integral a part of the ritual as the ritual itself. The garments are the “container” in which the priestly body performs his sacred task. It or they, are viewed like a חנוך, educational tool, consecration, that must precede the actual ritual in order for the priest to be truly a priest.
[Possibly, the emphasis on this in connection with the priests especially, is due to the fact that the priest was born to his status, and it would have been most unseemly for him not to undergo preparations before fulfilling his sacred tasks. Rabbis might not need this, as they were not born to the Rabbinate but had to study and pass exams before being granted their titles, ordination. Ed.]
Children are trained to perform the commandments before becoming legally of age, i.e. בר מצוה or בת מצוה, as the case may be, before being ushered into adulthood and all that this entails.
Our patriarch Yaakov had contemplated the awesome fact of the Unity of G’d from the day he was able to think, and he realized that the foundation of all parts of the universe was the Jewish people, i.e. if there were to be no Jewish people, G’d’s work of creating the universe would have been in vain.
Zohar I,24 (and elsewhere) states that ישראל עלה במחשבה בראשית, “the eventual existence of the Jewish people was the first thought that G’d entertained when contemplating the creation of this universe.” Numerous scriptural verses are quoted in support of this statement, one of which that concerns us especially being that Israel was also known as אבן as in “foundation stone,” seeing that the entire universe emerged from that origin. The Jewish people therefore are not only the “root” of mankind, but also in no lesser degree the founders of the celestial regions. While still in the stage of being only a thought in G’d’s mind, they were called אבן, “rock” in the singular mode, as at that point the true unity of the Jewish people and what they represent could be found.
Our ancestor Yaakov attempted with all the intellectual and emotional powers at his disposal to unravel the secrets of these concepts in order to convert Israel’s potential into an actual. As per Genesis 49,24 he wanted משם רועה אבן ישראל, “to lay the foundation stone of Israel,” as the shepherd of a nation consisting of 12 tribes that parallel the 12 bisections of the 6 sides of the cube when the universe is portrayed as a cube, dividing it into 12 triangles (compare Sefer Yetzirah, “Book of creation”) by bisecting each side from corner to corner. Each of the tribes of the Jewish people represents one of these “triangles.” In order for the celestial merkavah, Divine chariot, to be complete it must be comprised of 600000 components, the number of Jewish male adults that were redeemed from bondage in Egypt. According to our sages, the Presence of the Shechinah will not manifest itself as resting above the Jewish people when they number less than these 600000. According to our author, when the Torah in Genesis 28,11 describes how Yaakov took “stones” in order to prepare to spend the night, and he put his head on of the stones to serve as his “pillow,” the Torah merely illustrates the kind of thoughts that preoccupied Yaakov at that time, and how during his “dream” of the ladder he experienced Divine insights that had never been revealed to him.
Nonetheless, in view of the sages having said that no verse in the Torah must be explained in a way that departs completely from the written text and its plain meaning, we must pay attention to this also. [I believe that in accordance with the above Yaakov/Yisrael’s role as רועה אבן ישראל, “shepherd of the nucleus of the people” of Israel began here. Ed.]
According to the plain text there is no question that Yaakov placed his head on real stones, as he had no softer pillow at hand. Nonetheless while lying with these rocks as his pillow, he thought of matters far beyond his immediate and pressing terrestrial concerns. Perhaps this very fact qualified him for experiencing the first of his many Divine visions, although this time he was not certain for 34 years that it had indeed been a divine vision. According to our sages, during this night Yaakov’s mind foresaw the ruins of two Temples and the great anger that the Jewish people, his descendants, would provoke in G’d’s mind on numerous occasions.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Baal Shem Tov
Issachar is a strong-boned ass, crouching down between the stables (Gen. 49:14). In the name of Rabbi Israel Ba’al Shem, on the verse Issachar is a strong-boned [garem] donkey: that is to say, there is reward [s’khar] by way of that which the “donkey” causes [gorem]. (Tzava'at HaRivash p.12b)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,2. “gather around sons of Yaakov, and listen to Yisrael your father.” In order to understand why Yaakov appears to repeat himself, we must first turn to the Zohar III 196. With reference to Isaiah 50,10 מי בכם ירא ה' שומע בקול עבדו אשר הלך בחשכים ואין נגה לו יבטח בשם הה' וישען באלוקיו?, “Who amongst you that obeys the voice of His servant that walks in darkness and has no light? Let him trust in the name of Hashem and rely upon Elokim.” What is the meaning of the words: “that obeys the voice of His servant” in this verse? It has been explained that this is the tzaddik who offers prayers every day. He is therefore so familiar in those regions that if he fails to come to the synagogue for a single day, enquiries are made in heaven concerning why he has not appeared. Still, this does not explain the meaning of the words: “that obeys the voice of His servant?” Whose voice is that? If you were to say that “His servant” refers to a prophet or some other person, what is the relation between some other person and the prayer? G’d is perceived as listening, i.e. responding positively, to those who are truly His servants. When the Israelites are in a state of grace, זכאין, when they all gather together they can hear heavenly voices proclaiming that these are the sons of precious Yaakov and that therefore they deserve a hearing. When Yaakov appears to be repeating himself, this is not quite so; in effect he is encouraging his sons to not only be the sons of Yaakov, but to listen to him in his capacity of Yisrael, i.e. to rise to a higher spiritual level than that they had been on up until this moment. If they would be able to do this, they would indeed hear from his lips prophetic words concerning their future, words that would reveal to them some secrets about the prelude to the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Torah Ohr
AMONG THE blessings our forefather Jacob bestowed upon his sons before his passing, we find this statement addressed to Judah (Genesis 49:12): “[his] eyes are red with wine, and [his] teeth are white with milk.” This is a reference to the agricultural productivity of the tribe of Judah’s territorial portion in the Land of Israel: there would be enough grapes to redden the eyes from wine, and enough milk to whiten one’s teeth. On a deeper level, these two items were specified because they symbolize certain spiritual qualities; to appreciate the underlying significance of this, let us therefore examine the symbolism of “wine” and “milk.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 36,7. “for the stuff (materials contributed) they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, even too much.” [Clearly the meaning of the word מלאכה, used twice in this verse must have a different meaning each time. Ed.] The statement that the materials donated for construction of the Tabernacle first described as adequate, and, as an afterthought, as more than sufficient, poses a problem. Either it was adequate or it was overabundant.
The Or hachayim already deals with this problem, (compare this editor’s translation of that commentary on pages 906/7). Our author approaches the anomaly from a different angle.
One of the names of G’d is א-ל שדי, this name of G’d also appears to contain a contradiction within itself, seeing that the word א-ל refers to strength, power, as in Ezekiel 17,13 אילי הארץ, “the mighty ones of the land,” whereas the word שדי is a derivative of שדים (compare Genesis 49,25) a word used to describe the provision of sustenance for all living creatures. Seeing that the largesse emanating from G’d in His capacity as the Eyn Sof, will automatically keep increasing unless stopped, this term for G’d is used to describe Him as also the One Who called די, “enough,” to an ever expanding universe during the process of creation. A term comprising apparent contradictions is by itself not unique, therefore. [It might not be acceptable when applied to G’d’s creatures, but is certainly not strange when applied to the Creator, Who is the source of all phenomena in His universe. It nevertheless remains our duty to explore how the Torah could apply apparently contradictory terms to contributions made by man rather than by G’d. Ed.] The Talmud in Chagigah 12 sees in the word שדי, the attribute of G’d in His capacity of being able to call a halt to His initiatives, many of which had been assigned to His creatures such as to the oceans and the earth when they received instructions to produce living creatures in the waters and also vegetation on earth. (Compare Genesis 1,20 and 1,24 respectively) It was natural for these “agents” of G’d to use the powers entrusted to them freely, without restriction, so that G’d had to impose limits in order to prevent possible new “chaos” in the universe, one which He had set out to replace by order on the first day of creation. This is all part of the concept of צמצום, “restraint,” imposed by G’d both upon Himself and on those of His creatures not granted בחירה, free will, i.e. human beings. G’d had to impose these limits on His agents, as precisely because they were only agents, מלאכים, they had not been equipped with the ability to understand what G’d had intended in parts of the universe that were not within their parameters. When a creature is showered with too much largesse, it is not a blessing but is liable to prove destructive unless checked. (Compare Yevamot 47 where we are told that even the Israelites while living in their mortal shells on earth are not able to absorb all the goodness or punishment they deserve )
The Or hachayim already deals with this problem, (compare this editor’s translation of that commentary on pages 906/7). Our author approaches the anomaly from a different angle.
One of the names of G’d is א-ל שדי, this name of G’d also appears to contain a contradiction within itself, seeing that the word א-ל refers to strength, power, as in Ezekiel 17,13 אילי הארץ, “the mighty ones of the land,” whereas the word שדי is a derivative of שדים (compare Genesis 49,25) a word used to describe the provision of sustenance for all living creatures. Seeing that the largesse emanating from G’d in His capacity as the Eyn Sof, will automatically keep increasing unless stopped, this term for G’d is used to describe Him as also the One Who called די, “enough,” to an ever expanding universe during the process of creation. A term comprising apparent contradictions is by itself not unique, therefore. [It might not be acceptable when applied to G’d’s creatures, but is certainly not strange when applied to the Creator, Who is the source of all phenomena in His universe. It nevertheless remains our duty to explore how the Torah could apply apparently contradictory terms to contributions made by man rather than by G’d. Ed.] The Talmud in Chagigah 12 sees in the word שדי, the attribute of G’d in His capacity of being able to call a halt to His initiatives, many of which had been assigned to His creatures such as to the oceans and the earth when they received instructions to produce living creatures in the waters and also vegetation on earth. (Compare Genesis 1,20 and 1,24 respectively) It was natural for these “agents” of G’d to use the powers entrusted to them freely, without restriction, so that G’d had to impose limits in order to prevent possible new “chaos” in the universe, one which He had set out to replace by order on the first day of creation. This is all part of the concept of צמצום, “restraint,” imposed by G’d both upon Himself and on those of His creatures not granted בחירה, free will, i.e. human beings. G’d had to impose these limits on His agents, as precisely because they were only agents, מלאכים, they had not been equipped with the ability to understand what G’d had intended in parts of the universe that were not within their parameters. When a creature is showered with too much largesse, it is not a blessing but is liable to prove destructive unless checked. (Compare Yevamot 47 where we are told that even the Israelites while living in their mortal shells on earth are not able to absorb all the goodness or punishment they deserve )
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,4. “unstable as water, you will not enjoy the additional portion due to the firstborn;” How could Yaakov deliberately ignore the commandment not to deprive even the son of a wife who was hated of the rights accruing to him as a firstborn? (Deut. 21,17) Nachmanides writes concerning this problem that Yaakov penalized Reuven in accordance with the nature of his sin.
Personally, I believe that Yaakov saw in his prophetic vision of the future what the Torah calls גוי וקהל גויים, “a nation and a community of nations,” (Genesis 35,11) a promise made to him by G’d at a time when he personally had concluded siring children, that another two tribes would become part of the Jewish people, so that in order for the number of tribes not to exceed the number 12, “something had to give.” He had not been aware that these two “tribes” would not be sons, but grandsons of his. The only way he was able to explain G’d’s promise of two more tribes was by assuming that an existing one would prove unworthy.
Personally, I believe that Yaakov saw in his prophetic vision of the future what the Torah calls גוי וקהל גויים, “a nation and a community of nations,” (Genesis 35,11) a promise made to him by G’d at a time when he personally had concluded siring children, that another two tribes would become part of the Jewish people, so that in order for the number of tribes not to exceed the number 12, “something had to give.” He had not been aware that these two “tribes” would not be sons, but grandsons of his. The only way he was able to explain G’d’s promise of two more tribes was by assuming that an existing one would prove unworthy.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis45,22. “he gave to each of them a change of clothes; to Binyamin he gave three hundred silver pieces and five changes of clothes.” Our sags in Megillah 16 ask: “is it really possible that Joseph erred in the same way as had his father when he showed Joseph preferential treatment? Was Joseph not aware that by what the Torah describes him as doing for Binyamin, he would arouse the brothers’ jealousy?” They answer that the Torah alluded to the five Royal garments that Mordechai, a descendant of Binyamin would be dressed in as we read in Esther 8,15.
Our author, clearly not too enthused with the Talmud’s answer, suggests a different way of understanding the Talmud’s answer. Our sages, understood that Joseph foresaw and hinted to Binyamin that Mordechai, a distant descendant of his brother Binyamin, would play a great part in the miracle of Purim. He intimated that he and Binyamin shared a similar experience, seeing that they were both the sons of the same mother, Rachel. He had attained high rank as a result of someone’s dream (Pharaoh’s) and Mordechai also rose to eminence as a result of a dream, as our sages in the Targum on the Book of Esther (chapter10) have told us. According to the Targum, on the night when the king could not fall asleep (again), he had been dreaming that Haman wanted to assassinate him. This is why he became angry at Haman and commanded him to dress Mordechai in the Royal robes, and paraded him throughout the capital on the king’s horse. Joseph had been paraded similarly. (41,43) Just as Joseph remained under the rule of Pharaoh at the time, so Mordechai would remain under the rule of Achashverosh. (Compare Rashi on 41,40)
This is another example of the approach of our sages to the details the Torah has revealed about the lives of our sainted forefathers, i.e. that they always were at pains to perform deeds that foreshadowed future, critical, events in the lives of their descendants. (Our author lists more examples of this theme when relating to Shimon and Levi’s killing the inhabitants of Shechem as being a forerunner of the Hasmoneans in the Chanukkah story). [I will omit the balance of the paragraph as, seeing this portion is also read sometimes on Chanukkah, the author felt compelled to introduce this subject here, although those events occurred in post-biblical times. It is somewhat forced, as it requires us to see in Levi rather than Shimon, the principal activist, otherwise the connection with the Hasmoneans who were priests is too tenuous. Ed.]
Our author, clearly not too enthused with the Talmud’s answer, suggests a different way of understanding the Talmud’s answer. Our sages, understood that Joseph foresaw and hinted to Binyamin that Mordechai, a distant descendant of his brother Binyamin, would play a great part in the miracle of Purim. He intimated that he and Binyamin shared a similar experience, seeing that they were both the sons of the same mother, Rachel. He had attained high rank as a result of someone’s dream (Pharaoh’s) and Mordechai also rose to eminence as a result of a dream, as our sages in the Targum on the Book of Esther (chapter10) have told us. According to the Targum, on the night when the king could not fall asleep (again), he had been dreaming that Haman wanted to assassinate him. This is why he became angry at Haman and commanded him to dress Mordechai in the Royal robes, and paraded him throughout the capital on the king’s horse. Joseph had been paraded similarly. (41,43) Just as Joseph remained under the rule of Pharaoh at the time, so Mordechai would remain under the rule of Achashverosh. (Compare Rashi on 41,40)
This is another example of the approach of our sages to the details the Torah has revealed about the lives of our sainted forefathers, i.e. that they always were at pains to perform deeds that foreshadowed future, critical, events in the lives of their descendants. (Our author lists more examples of this theme when relating to Shimon and Levi’s killing the inhabitants of Shechem as being a forerunner of the Hasmoneans in the Chanukkah story). [I will omit the balance of the paragraph as, seeing this portion is also read sometimes on Chanukkah, the author felt compelled to introduce this subject here, although those events occurred in post-biblical times. It is somewhat forced, as it requires us to see in Levi rather than Shimon, the principal activist, otherwise the connection with the Hasmoneans who were priests is too tenuous. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,8. “You, o Yehudah, your brothers shall praise;” The word אתה at the beginning of this verse poses a problem. Our author directs the reader to look at Kings I 18,36-37 where the prophet Elijah repeatedly prefaces part of his prayer by addressing G’d in direct speech, i.e. with the word אתה, “You.” The whole idea of a creature addressing the King of the universe with the word אתה “YOU,” as we do in our daily prayers, i.e. ברוך אתה ה' וגו', is hard to understand for us who would not dare to address a mortal king in such familiar, almost insulting language.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bnei Yissaschar
According to the order of their banners [in the wilderness], this month relates to the Tribe of Asher, about whom it is written: “Asher’s bread will be rich, [And he will produce delicacies fit for royalty]” (Gen. 49:20); and also, “May he dip his foot in oil” (Deut. 33:24), because there was much olive oil in his portion [of the land], and every place where olive oil is found, there Wisdom is found.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Another approach to help us understand the line ועשית בגדי קודש לאהרן אחיך לכבוד ולתפארת: We know that of the twelve months of the year 6 months belong to the season known as “winter”, whereas the other 6 months are known as “summer.” The twelve months correspond to the 12 lunar cycles each of which is identified by star patterns described as מזלות, “constellation of stars in the sky.” Each month another one of these constellations carries out its assigned tasks. The twelve constellations may be summed up as 6 holy attributes, part of the mystical אור ישר ואור חוזר, “direct light emanating from the source, and reflected light carrying the spiritual input by the creatures who had encountered it. The six holy attributes are: 1) man’s love for his Creator, and his desire to serve Him out of love so as to provide Him with pleasure from His creatures. 2) The awe in which man holds G’d; his dread of transgressing rules that outlaw certain activities and defy His wishes. 3) the glory of G’d that man must experience when he sees how G’d “boasts” of man’s good deeds, compare Isaiah 49,3: עבדי אתה ישראל אשר בך אתפאר, “You are My servant Israel in whom I glory.” 4+5) the faith Israel displays. These are two virtues, even though they have a common heading. [The author had on a previous occasion distinguished between faith which is totally oblivious of any advantage one might personally gain from it, and faith which is tied to certainty that G’d will reward one tangibly. Ed.] 6) The attribute of negating self interest by linking oneself unreservedly to G’d and being completely content with whatever it is that He has in mind for him.
The 12 constellations are represented in the gemstones of the breastplate of the High Priest where they symbolize the 12 tribes of the Jewish people, the holy nation.
The month of Adar corresponds to the tribe of Joseph from whom 2 of the twelve tribes emerged. This is why when there is a need to insert an extra month in the calendar to compensate for the 11 days plus, that the lunar “year” is shorter than the solar year, this month appears in our calendar as both Adar I and Adar II. The appropriate zodiac sign for this month is therefore that of דגים, fish, which are a symbol of fertility as we know from Genesis 48,16 where Yaakov blessed Joseph by predicting that his sons’ offspring would be as numerous as that of fish. Another example of Joseph’s numerous offspring is alluded to in the words בן פרת יוסף “Joseph is a fruitful son.” Genesis 49,22. Just as fish are safe from the evil eye, seeing they are not visible on the earth’s surface, swimming beneath the surface of the oceans, so the Talmud in B’rachot 20 understands the words עלי עין, in the same verse as the protection afforded Joseph’s offspring from the potential damage from the evil eye of people envious of them.
When the letters of the word דג, “fish” are inverted, the result is גד, a word related to מזל in the sense of good fortune. (compare Talmud Shabbat 67) There the sages accuse people who wish themselves “that their mazzal, גד (protective star), not be tired either by day of by night,” as uttering idolatrous phrases. In the case of Joseph, whose two sons were called מנשה and אפרים respectively, the former is an allusion to historically negative phenomena, whereas the word אפרים is symbolic of historically favourable occurrences. Joseph already presaged this when naming his sons (Genesis 41,51-52) when he saw in the birth of his first son a reminder of his years of suffering, whereas he predicted a better future as being associated with the birth of his second son. The month of Adar similarly symbolizes hard times for the Jewish people during the first half, until after the 14th when the nation during the reign of Ahasverus had been saved from Haman’s wicked plots.
According to the Talmud Shabbat 104, where positioning of the letters and its symbolic significance is discussed, the symbolism of the letters of the Jewish calendar telling us something through the sequence in which they appear, our sages see in the sequence גד an abbreviation of the words גומל דלים, “G’d at work in reversing the fate of the poor, (Jews in exile)” The letter ד is understood to refer to the initial subjugation of the Jewish people, whereas the letter ג is understood as the subsequent turn for the better in the fortunes of this people. This is used as a reversal of the normal interpretation of such pairings of letters when the letter that is later in the alphabet appearing first, is considered as a bad omen. It was reserved for G’d to demonstrate that when He, as opposed to astrological factors, i.e. mazzal, is involved, He can reverse the predictions of the astrologers based on idolatry. Besides, we must never forget that even when G’d subjects us to harsh measures, the ultimate objective is to bring about our repentance and subsequent redemption. The Purim story is the best example of this, although it was unique in that not a hair of a single Jew was touched on that occasion, the disaster having been warded off by the people’s repentance in time.
The 12 constellations are represented in the gemstones of the breastplate of the High Priest where they symbolize the 12 tribes of the Jewish people, the holy nation.
The month of Adar corresponds to the tribe of Joseph from whom 2 of the twelve tribes emerged. This is why when there is a need to insert an extra month in the calendar to compensate for the 11 days plus, that the lunar “year” is shorter than the solar year, this month appears in our calendar as both Adar I and Adar II. The appropriate zodiac sign for this month is therefore that of דגים, fish, which are a symbol of fertility as we know from Genesis 48,16 where Yaakov blessed Joseph by predicting that his sons’ offspring would be as numerous as that of fish. Another example of Joseph’s numerous offspring is alluded to in the words בן פרת יוסף “Joseph is a fruitful son.” Genesis 49,22. Just as fish are safe from the evil eye, seeing they are not visible on the earth’s surface, swimming beneath the surface of the oceans, so the Talmud in B’rachot 20 understands the words עלי עין, in the same verse as the protection afforded Joseph’s offspring from the potential damage from the evil eye of people envious of them.
When the letters of the word דג, “fish” are inverted, the result is גד, a word related to מזל in the sense of good fortune. (compare Talmud Shabbat 67) There the sages accuse people who wish themselves “that their mazzal, גד (protective star), not be tired either by day of by night,” as uttering idolatrous phrases. In the case of Joseph, whose two sons were called מנשה and אפרים respectively, the former is an allusion to historically negative phenomena, whereas the word אפרים is symbolic of historically favourable occurrences. Joseph already presaged this when naming his sons (Genesis 41,51-52) when he saw in the birth of his first son a reminder of his years of suffering, whereas he predicted a better future as being associated with the birth of his second son. The month of Adar similarly symbolizes hard times for the Jewish people during the first half, until after the 14th when the nation during the reign of Ahasverus had been saved from Haman’s wicked plots.
According to the Talmud Shabbat 104, where positioning of the letters and its symbolic significance is discussed, the symbolism of the letters of the Jewish calendar telling us something through the sequence in which they appear, our sages see in the sequence גד an abbreviation of the words גומל דלים, “G’d at work in reversing the fate of the poor, (Jews in exile)” The letter ד is understood to refer to the initial subjugation of the Jewish people, whereas the letter ג is understood as the subsequent turn for the better in the fortunes of this people. This is used as a reversal of the normal interpretation of such pairings of letters when the letter that is later in the alphabet appearing first, is considered as a bad omen. It was reserved for G’d to demonstrate that when He, as opposed to astrological factors, i.e. mazzal, is involved, He can reverse the predictions of the astrologers based on idolatry. Besides, we must never forget that even when G’d subjects us to harsh measures, the ultimate objective is to bring about our repentance and subsequent redemption. The Purim story is the best example of this, although it was unique in that not a hair of a single Jew was touched on that occasion, the disaster having been warded off by the people’s repentance in time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,9., “Yehudah is like a lion’s whelp; you have grown from merely capturing prey, my son.” Rashi’s commentary on this verse draws attention to the fact that in the first half Yehudah is described as גור אריה, “an immature lion”, (as in Samuel II,5,2 describing David, while King Sha-ul was still alive, whereas later on when he was on the throne he is described as אריה, a fully mature lion).
We have explained repeatedly, that the principal purpose of the Jewish people having been sent into exile is to “save” some of the “sparks” that had descended from the “Shechinah” so that they could return to their celestial habitat. [Compare reference to this concept on pages 21-22. Ed.] As soon as this purpose of the exile will have been accomplished, and, as a result, evil will have been expunged from our regions, seeing that had it not been for Adam’s sin, it would never have been possible to feel “at home” on earth, the final redemption will follow in its wake.
We have explained repeatedly, that the principal purpose of the Jewish people having been sent into exile is to “save” some of the “sparks” that had descended from the “Shechinah” so that they could return to their celestial habitat. [Compare reference to this concept on pages 21-22. Ed.] As soon as this purpose of the exile will have been accomplished, and, as a result, evil will have been expunged from our regions, seeing that had it not been for Adam’s sin, it would never have been possible to feel “at home” on earth, the final redemption will follow in its wake.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
An alternate explanation of the line commencing with: גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית. We base this on a statement of our sages in Midot 4,7 where the Mishnah says: “just as a lion is broad in front and narrow in its rear, so the main structure of the Holy Temple, the one known as היכל, Sanctuary, was broad at its entrance, whereas the two Sanctuaries, including the קדשי קדשים at the rear of the structure, was narrow.” The symbolism derived from this appearance of the Temple is that when G’d appears to shower the gentile nations with all kinds of material blessings, the reason is that He wishes to reward them for whatever good they have done while on earth before they die, so that He does not have to recompense them in the Hereafter. The very opposite is the case in G’d’s relations with the Jewish people. G’d wishes to store up as much of the reward due to his faithful Jews for the Hereafter as is compatible with their lives on earth remaining tolerable. When Yaakov says to Yehudah that he had arisen, i.e. done repentance from his misguided treatment of his brother Joseph whom he had treated as if he were the loot captured in a hunt, this assured him of ample reward in the hereafter. We have confirmation of that concept when the Talmud in B’rachot 34 states that the ethical platform occupied by repentant sinners is far higher than the platform occupied by people who have never sinned, and who therefore never had to repent.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
This idea has been hinted at when the Talmud in Taanit 29 stated that משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה, normally translated as: “once the month of Adar has begun we experience an additional measure of joy in our lives.” The word אדר, is a short form of the word: אדרת, “cloak,” or mantle, a garment that envelops the wearer, a garment that the prophet Elijah is reported as having worn regularly. (Compare Kings I 19,19, Kings II 2,8, Kings I 19,13) The Talmud means that prior to the beginning of this month when the Jews tried to look at G’d, they were consumed by awe, as G’d had not draped sufficient protective “clothing” around His essence to enable those who worship Him to entertain feelings other than awe and fear.
One of the supports for such an interpretation is presumably the fact that all the miracles G’d performed for the Jewish people during that time, in the lifetime of Mordechai and Esther, were covert rather than overt miracles, i.e. G’d practiced הסתר פנים, a benevolent type of “hiding” His face, so that His creatures would not have to experience too much fear when turning to Him. The miracles performed at that time were in contrast to those performed when G’d split the sea at the time of the Exodus, using supernatural phenomena in doing so. In the Purim episode, not a single supernatural element was part of the chain of events that resulted in the salvation of the Jewish people. [It seems clear to this editor that the author chose this approach to his exegesis as this portion is read annually around the time of Purim. Ed.]
An additional reason may be that around this time, nature that had denuded itself and presented itself to us as awesome during the winter months, once again bedecks itself with foliage, arousing new hope and joy in the hearts of the people who have just experienced a harsh winter.
Quoting Genesis 49,11 where Yaakov blesses his son Yehudah, and zeroing in on the words: עירה ולשרקה, the author sees in the apparently extraneous letters ה at the end of the word עירה and שרקה, a mystical meaning based on the concept of צירוף אותיות, the ability to divine the deeper meaning of why certain letters have been combined, [an art that according to our sages enabled Betzalel, the master-builder of the Tabernacle to carry out his task, Ed]. The use of the two letters ה where they do not appear to be needed, is an allusion to the abundance of G’d’s largesse for His creatures in the universe, whereas the letters י and ו allude to looking at the overwhelming brilliance of light experienced when looking at the Creator. These four letters, of course, are the letters forming the tetragram of the holy name of G’d, י-ה-ו-ה. The system has been explained further by Shaar Hayichud vehaemunah in the writings of Tanya, (Rabbi Shneer Zalman of Ladii).
[Many of my readers are familiar with a mystical poem appearing before the recital of לכה דודי commencing with the line אנא בכח, where we find the respective first letters of each line printed separately at the end of that line. This is one of the best known examples of the system of צירוף אותיות having found its way into prayer books even of the Ashkenazi (Charedi) community which normally refrains from including passages that the average worshipper cannot understand. The reader may also be interested to know that this is the reason why in most Ashkenazi communities the entire portion of the Friday night service known as kabbalat Shabbat, and commencing either with the saying of לכו נרננה or the preparatory saying individually of the entire scroll of Song of Songs, was for hundreds of years resisted; even when and where accepted, the chazan recites it on the platform from which the Torah is read, to remind the congregation that this was not part of the original Friday night service, Ed.]
One of the supports for such an interpretation is presumably the fact that all the miracles G’d performed for the Jewish people during that time, in the lifetime of Mordechai and Esther, were covert rather than overt miracles, i.e. G’d practiced הסתר פנים, a benevolent type of “hiding” His face, so that His creatures would not have to experience too much fear when turning to Him. The miracles performed at that time were in contrast to those performed when G’d split the sea at the time of the Exodus, using supernatural phenomena in doing so. In the Purim episode, not a single supernatural element was part of the chain of events that resulted in the salvation of the Jewish people. [It seems clear to this editor that the author chose this approach to his exegesis as this portion is read annually around the time of Purim. Ed.]
An additional reason may be that around this time, nature that had denuded itself and presented itself to us as awesome during the winter months, once again bedecks itself with foliage, arousing new hope and joy in the hearts of the people who have just experienced a harsh winter.
Quoting Genesis 49,11 where Yaakov blesses his son Yehudah, and zeroing in on the words: עירה ולשרקה, the author sees in the apparently extraneous letters ה at the end of the word עירה and שרקה, a mystical meaning based on the concept of צירוף אותיות, the ability to divine the deeper meaning of why certain letters have been combined, [an art that according to our sages enabled Betzalel, the master-builder of the Tabernacle to carry out his task, Ed]. The use of the two letters ה where they do not appear to be needed, is an allusion to the abundance of G’d’s largesse for His creatures in the universe, whereas the letters י and ו allude to looking at the overwhelming brilliance of light experienced when looking at the Creator. These four letters, of course, are the letters forming the tetragram of the holy name of G’d, י-ה-ו-ה. The system has been explained further by Shaar Hayichud vehaemunah in the writings of Tanya, (Rabbi Shneer Zalman of Ladii).
[Many of my readers are familiar with a mystical poem appearing before the recital of לכה דודי commencing with the line אנא בכח, where we find the respective first letters of each line printed separately at the end of that line. This is one of the best known examples of the system of צירוף אותיות having found its way into prayer books even of the Ashkenazi (Charedi) community which normally refrains from including passages that the average worshipper cannot understand. The reader may also be interested to know that this is the reason why in most Ashkenazi communities the entire portion of the Friday night service known as kabbalat Shabbat, and commencing either with the saying of לכו נרננה or the preparatory saying individually of the entire scroll of Song of Songs, was for hundreds of years resisted; even when and where accepted, the chazan recites it on the platform from which the Torah is read, to remind the congregation that this was not part of the original Friday night service, Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,12. “his eyes are darker red than wine; his teeth are whiter than milk.” [These words clearly are hyperbole, as Yaakov on his deathbed would not indulge in poetry for poetry’s sake. Ed.]
It is an accepted principle that when a human being (Torah observant Jew) is desirous of obtaining the material blessings of this world, he is immediately overcome by the realization that in return for receiving such blessings he must intensify his attachment, דבקות, to his Creator Who has provided these blessings for him. Yaakov attempts to put the mind of such people at ease, basing himself on the statement in the Talmud Pessachim 112, that even though the calf is very anxious to drink from the milk of its mother, the mother cow is even more anxious to supply the calf with its milk. In this parable the “calf” is the Israelite, and the “mother cow” is the provider of the milk, i.e. G’d. Yaakov describes the overwhelming desire of G’d to bestow His largesse on His people. The satisfaction G’d derives from being able to do this for His “children,” exceeds even the joy of His children when receiving all these blessings.
It is an accepted principle that when a human being (Torah observant Jew) is desirous of obtaining the material blessings of this world, he is immediately overcome by the realization that in return for receiving such blessings he must intensify his attachment, דבקות, to his Creator Who has provided these blessings for him. Yaakov attempts to put the mind of such people at ease, basing himself on the statement in the Talmud Pessachim 112, that even though the calf is very anxious to drink from the milk of its mother, the mother cow is even more anxious to supply the calf with its milk. In this parable the “calf” is the Israelite, and the “mother cow” is the provider of the milk, i.e. G’d. Yaakov describes the overwhelming desire of G’d to bestow His largesse on His people. The satisfaction G’d derives from being able to do this for His “children,” exceeds even the joy of His children when receiving all these blessings.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,12. “his eyes are darker red than wine; his teeth are whiter than milk.” [These words clearly are hyperbole, as Yaakov on his deathbed would not indulge in poetry for poetry’s sake. Ed.]
It is an accepted principle that when a human being (Torah observant Jew) is desirous of obtaining the material blessings of this world, he is immediately overcome by the realization that in return for receiving such blessings he must intensify his attachment, דבקות, to his Creator Who has provided these blessings for him. Yaakov attempts to put the mind of such people at ease, basing himself on the statement in the Talmud Pessachim 112, that even though the calf is very anxious to drink from the milk of its mother, the mother cow is even more anxious to supply the calf with its milk. In this parable the “calf” is the Israelite, and the “mother cow” is the provider of the milk, i.e. G’d. Yaakov describes the overwhelming desire of G’d to bestow His largesse on His people. The satisfaction G’d derives from being able to do this for His “children,” exceeds even the joy of His children when receiving all these blessings.
It is an accepted principle that when a human being (Torah observant Jew) is desirous of obtaining the material blessings of this world, he is immediately overcome by the realization that in return for receiving such blessings he must intensify his attachment, דבקות, to his Creator Who has provided these blessings for him. Yaakov attempts to put the mind of such people at ease, basing himself on the statement in the Talmud Pessachim 112, that even though the calf is very anxious to drink from the milk of its mother, the mother cow is even more anxious to supply the calf with its milk. In this parable the “calf” is the Israelite, and the “mother cow” is the provider of the milk, i.e. G’d. Yaakov describes the overwhelming desire of G’d to bestow His largesse on His people. The satisfaction G’d derives from being able to do this for His “children,” exceeds even the joy of His children when receiving all these blessings.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,14-15. “Issachar is a strong-boned donkey;” Yaakov sees in the name יששכר which contains the word שכר, “reward,” an allusion to the relationship between the body’s exertion in fulfilling the commandments on the one hand, and the spiritual reward resulting from this, on the other. The body pulls in one direction, earthward, whereas the reward compensates by pulling in the opposite direction, i.e. heaven-oriented.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Another explanation of this blessing and the hyperbole employed by Yaakov looks at the entire blessing as a single message; יששכר חמר גרם רבץ בין המשפתים וירא מנוחה כי טוב ואת הארץ כי נעמה ויט שכמו לסבול ויהי למס עובד, ”Yissachar is a bony donkey crouching between sheepfolds, He saw that repose is good and that his land is pleasant, so he bent his shoulders to bear and became a toiling servant.
When a person contemplates what is involved in serving Hashem, he is in a kind of mental turmoil as long as he has not formulated his thoughts into words. Once he has formulated his thoughts into words, he finds some “rest,” his mental turmoil subsides. The word יששכר in our verse alludes to the mental turmoil prior to the thoughts becoming organized into words, whereas the words רבץ בין המפתים, refer to the rest attained once these thoughts have been formulated to be contained within recognizable boundaries, words being the boundaries within which one’s thoughts are now contained, i.e. משפתים,”sheep-fold.” This latter word is similar to שפתים, “lips,” alluding to the spoken word so that what follows is a mind that is at rest, i.e. וירא מנוחה כי טוב, “he saw that ‘rest’ is a good feeling.”
When a person contemplates what is involved in serving Hashem, he is in a kind of mental turmoil as long as he has not formulated his thoughts into words. Once he has formulated his thoughts into words, he finds some “rest,” his mental turmoil subsides. The word יששכר in our verse alludes to the mental turmoil prior to the thoughts becoming organized into words, whereas the words רבץ בין המפתים, refer to the rest attained once these thoughts have been formulated to be contained within recognizable boundaries, words being the boundaries within which one’s thoughts are now contained, i.e. משפתים,”sheep-fold.” This latter word is similar to שפתים, “lips,” alluding to the spoken word so that what follows is a mind that is at rest, i.e. וירא מנוחה כי טוב, “he saw that ‘rest’ is a good feeling.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,19. “Gad shall be raided by raiders, but he shall raid at their heels.” We can best understand this blessing by referring to the Talmud shabbat 151 where we are told that when human beings demonstrate that they are merciful to G’d’s creatures, G’d in turn will have mercy on them.” Man’s actions trigger responses in heaven; in this instance, positive responses. What possible example of Gad’s having preformed acts of mercy do we know of? We have learned on folio 104 of the tractate Shabbat that the very sequence of the letters ג and ד which make up Gad’s name are an acronym meaning גומל דלים, “relating with loving kindness to the poor.” When a person deals charitably with the poor and he expects that G’d will in turn reward him for this by causing him to forget about the impending reward at the time the charitable deed is performed, so that this person has attained an even higher spiritual level thereby. Yaakov alludes to this when saying words which at first glance sound as if he is repeating himself, whereas actually he hints that certain actions inspired by one consideration may prove to be even more profitable (spiritually) when carried out altogether altruistically. The word עקב in our verse may be understood as in Deut. 7,12 והיה עקב תשמעון, “it will be as a result (automatic) of your hearkening to G’ds laws, etc.” In that verse G’d promises that He will honour the terms of His covenant with the Jewish people. The word גוד may be related to Daniel 4,11 (Aramaic) גודו אילנא, “cut down the tree,” i.e. when the Jewish people perform deeds of loving kindness their enemies will be cut down by G’d. According to Targum Onkelos on Deut.7,12 who renders עקב תשמעון as חלף תקבלון, “what you will receive in exchange,” this is what is meant in our verse as יגוד, “as reward for forgetting about any reward”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sha'ar HaEmunah VeYesod HaChasidut
There are those who criticize the Rambam for his commentary on the Ta’amei HaMitzvot (the meaning of the commandments), for at first glance it seems to give weak explanations. They dwell at length with such accusations. Besides that which is known to anyone possessing understanding, that the Rambam would conceal the depth of his intentions in the beauty of his language, and the depth of meaning is far more than what it seems to be in its external form, yet in addition to this, there is nothing irregular or strange about his words even at their face value. We have a principle, that all teachings on the Torah and mitzvot are dressed in the meager garments of this world. Who do we have who is greater than the RaDbaZ (Rabbi David ben Zimra, 1480-1573), who was both a master of the Talmud and a tremendous kabbalist, a leader of his generation? And in his work on the Ta’amei HaMiszvot, he introduces each commandment by quoting the Rambam’s explanation of its meaning as the basis from which to begin understanding. Then, for most of the mitzvot, the RaDbaZ explains the meaning provided by the Rambam according to the true inner meaning in the Kabbalah. Anyone who possesses understanding will clearly know that simple revealed meaning and the inner mystery are one, and join together as one. Anyone who asserts that the inner mystery is something other that the pshat,105פשט - Simple revealed meaning. of him it is said (Bereshit, 49:6), “let my soul not come into their council.” Even in a place where the RaDbaZ differed in his explanation from the Rambam, still he did not reject the Rambam’s words. Rather, he said that in this place the Rambam did not say enough, and it must be explained according to the sod.106סוד – the secret, or inner mystery. God willing, we will go on to explain how the simple revealed meaning is itself the inner meaning according to the mysteries of the Torah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,20. “Asher’s bread shall be rich, and he shall yield royal delicacies.” [Our author sees in these banal sounding words of Yaakov an allusion to something on a far loftier level; Ed.] Looking forward to a state of the nation on a far higher spiritual level, Yaakov uses a simile familiar to earth-bound people in order to allude to loftier concepts. The greatest satisfaction, pleasure, a human being whose primary occupation is to serve his Creator can experience, is that his Creator is pleased by his efforts. Yaakov foresees that the tribe of Asher, collectively, will succeed in attaining such an objective. He expresses it by foreseeing Asher as “serving delicacies to the King of Kings.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,21. “Naftali is a hind let loose, which yields word of praise.”
It is an accepted rule that When G’d displays that He has faith in one of His creatures, that creature responds by composing poetry extolling Him, thanking Him. It is also well known that the word רגלים also means אמונה, “faith,” as we know from the writings of the Ari’zal. When Yaakov describes Naftali as comparable to a hind let loose, i.e. let loose to use its legs to roam afar, this is also a sign of its confidence, faith. Confidence is invariably the result of profound faith in G’d. The results of this confidence/faith are the hymns of faith extolling G’d’s many attributes composed by such people. It is this that inspired the author of Targum Yonathan to inform us that the tribe of Naftali produced many poets who extolled Hashem in their poems and hymns.
It is an accepted rule that When G’d displays that He has faith in one of His creatures, that creature responds by composing poetry extolling Him, thanking Him. It is also well known that the word רגלים also means אמונה, “faith,” as we know from the writings of the Ari’zal. When Yaakov describes Naftali as comparable to a hind let loose, i.e. let loose to use its legs to roam afar, this is also a sign of its confidence, faith. Confidence is invariably the result of profound faith in G’d. The results of this confidence/faith are the hymns of faith extolling G’d’s many attributes composed by such people. It is this that inspired the author of Targum Yonathan to inform us that the tribe of Naftali produced many poets who extolled Hashem in their poems and hymns.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,22. “Joseph is a fruitful bough…….on the brow of the elect of his brothers.” The blessing of Joseph reflects that he is not exactly like any of the other tribes since his sons Menashe and Ephrayim were both counted as separate tribes. Joseph himself was described not as much as a son of Yaakov but as the father of Menashe and Ephrayim. This is why Yaakov adds as part of defining him the words נזיר אחיו, “the elect of his brothers.” His sons were included in the roster of the tribes in his place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49:22 “maidens stepped atop the wall.” This is a veiled allusion to the tradition that Joseph was immune to the “evil eye,” the reason being that he himself never was guilty of using the evil eye against anyone. [I am not certain that I conveyed the words of the author correctly in this instance. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Numbers 24,8. “it will consume nations that are its oppressors.” The meaning of this verse is that G’d’s intervention on behalf of His people Israel who are being oppressed by the gentile nations, occurs in order to glorify His name. He helps the Israelites in a variety of ways. All the people who have at one time jeeringly asked the Israelites: “where is your G’d?, will be shown G’d’s power when they observe the Israelites consuming all the “goodies” G’d provides for His people. Seeing that G’d will do all this for the sake of His glory, none of these acts of generosity of G’d will be offset against merits that the Israelites had previously accumulated. In other words, the Israelites benefit indirectly from the hostile actions of the gentile nations, as they will be more than compensated for their suffering.
“and they will crush their (enemies’) bones.” Bileam uses the word עצמות as a double entendre, to indicate that the very personalities, their independence, עצמיות, will be crushed. This will be a punishment for the uncalled for cruelty with which the gentiles treated the Israelites. G’d treats people according to the yardsticks with which the sinners had treated their victims.
Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons why the Torah describes G’d as being so angry at Bileam for going with Balak’s second set of emissaries, when a superficial reading of the text would have led us to believe that G’d had approved of Bileam’s journey.
The real reason why G’d was so angry at Bileam was –as the text clearly says- כי הולך הוא, “he went of his own accord, “ i.e. he signaled that he welcomed the opportunity to harm the Jewish people who had never harmed him. Cruelty is not always expressed physically. In the case of Bileam he expressed it, or tried to express it, spiritually, metaphysically. Whereas G’d always tried to “awaken” love and sympathy for Israel, as well as hatred against its enemies, Bileam, on the other hand, tried to do the opposite. No wonder that G’d’s anger was inflamed by this. It follows that a single attribute, i.e. loving kindness, can be split into two branches, love for Israel and simultaneous hatred against its enemies.
The word וחציו, literally translated as: “and its arrows,” in this instance is indicative of strife, as Rashi has already explained on Genesis 49,23 where Yaakov refers to the brothers’ hatred of Joseph. He explains the word as referring to divisions, basing himself on Onkelos who links חץ, “arrow,” to מחצה, “half.” Israel is able to divide the single attribute of חסד, love, into two halves, i.e. love for G’d and hatred toward G’d’s’ enemies. Rashi’s major contribution is that he considers the subject of the word וחציו, to be Israel.
“and they will crush their (enemies’) bones.” Bileam uses the word עצמות as a double entendre, to indicate that the very personalities, their independence, עצמיות, will be crushed. This will be a punishment for the uncalled for cruelty with which the gentiles treated the Israelites. G’d treats people according to the yardsticks with which the sinners had treated their victims.
Incidentally, this is also one of the reasons why the Torah describes G’d as being so angry at Bileam for going with Balak’s second set of emissaries, when a superficial reading of the text would have led us to believe that G’d had approved of Bileam’s journey.
The real reason why G’d was so angry at Bileam was –as the text clearly says- כי הולך הוא, “he went of his own accord, “ i.e. he signaled that he welcomed the opportunity to harm the Jewish people who had never harmed him. Cruelty is not always expressed physically. In the case of Bileam he expressed it, or tried to express it, spiritually, metaphysically. Whereas G’d always tried to “awaken” love and sympathy for Israel, as well as hatred against its enemies, Bileam, on the other hand, tried to do the opposite. No wonder that G’d’s anger was inflamed by this. It follows that a single attribute, i.e. loving kindness, can be split into two branches, love for Israel and simultaneous hatred against its enemies.
The word וחציו, literally translated as: “and its arrows,” in this instance is indicative of strife, as Rashi has already explained on Genesis 49,23 where Yaakov refers to the brothers’ hatred of Joseph. He explains the word as referring to divisions, basing himself on Onkelos who links חץ, “arrow,” to מחצה, “half.” Israel is able to divide the single attribute of חסד, love, into two halves, i.e. love for G’d and hatred toward G’d’s’ enemies. Rashi’s major contribution is that he considers the subject of the word וחציו, to be Israel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 49,27. “Binyamin is a wolf that tears his booty; in the morning he consumes his portion whereas by evening he will share out the loot.” We observe that as a rule persons who focus only on how to serve Hashem better will derive their principal pleasure/satisfaction from the very fact that they had succeeded in pleasing their Creator. If their concentration while serving G’d was not so single-minded that they could eliminate any other concerns, then they most likely think of G’d sharing out His bounty among all their peers in all directions of the globe. A single-minded focus on serving the Lord is called בוקר, “morning,” whereas a not so single-minded focus is described as ערב, “evening.” [The word ערב implies a mixture of light and darkness, so that it fits a person who divides his focus among different objectives. Ed.] The author sees in the word עד in our verse a reference to עדי, jewelry, as in Jeremiah 14,10, or בעדי עדיים, Ezekiel 16,7 where it traditionally applies to a woman’s budding breasts as her most appealing feature. At any rate the word applies to items causing pleasure in the onlooker. Undivided focus on serving the Lord i.e. בוקר, affords the worshipper greater pleasure than divided focus, ערב.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
We need to address the reason why the twelve sons of Yaakov are sometimes referred to as שבטים, “tribes,” and on other occasions as מטות, in our classical literature, as well as why both Yehudah and Joseph are referred to as “king” in our sources, and why our matriarchs named their children as representing symbols of our physical world rather than as symbols of the celestial spheres, when it is clear that they themselves were far from viewing our existence on this terrestrial part of the world as our real “life,” the very names the matriarchs gave their children reflect that their entire orientation was focused on spiritual values accompanied by prophetic insights. [If any of you have my translation of the commentary Tzror Hamor by Rabbi Avraham Saba, you will be able to read up on all this in his commentary on Vayetze. Ed.]
By naming their children, the matriarchs provide us with a model lesson on how to serve the Lord. Our matriarchs taught us how G’d, the Creator of the universe, in spite of the thousands of concerns that keep Him occupied around the clock, never neglects the problems of an individual creature of His on earth. Leah testifies that this Creator took time out to notice that she was relatively hated by her husband as a result of which He granted her children, in spite of her being barren by nature. (Genesis 29,32) The phrase: ויפתח רחמה in that verse makes it clear that she was barren, why else would G’d have had to “open her womb,” seeing that pregnancy is one of the most natural results of marital intercourse?
Another lesson we learn from the matriarchs is that the word, i.e. request, by a tzaddik, makes an impression in the celestial spheres and that he or she can draw down additional largesse from the Creator to these “lower” regions of the universe. We have explained that this is the reason that the אותיות, letters in the Hebrew alphabet, [when used as the Holy Tongue, Ed.] are called אבנים, “stones,” in the sense of “building blocks,” as the words formulated by the tzaddik in prayer enhance and improve the structure known as the תחתונים, “the lower regions” of the universe. These prayers, as we have demonstrated at the beginning of the last portion, are the real תולדות, enduring achievements by the righteous on earth. [Compare pages 139 and 140 on how a true תולדה is a son in his father’s image, i.e. Yitzchok being a continuation of the spiritual values represented by his father. Ed.]
The names given by their mothers to the founding tribes of the Jewish people retained their significance throughout our history, and this is why both Yaakov and Moses at the respective end of their lives confirmed this in their blessings.
When Leah explained why she called her firstborn son Reuven, she said: ראה ה' בעניי, “for the Lord has seen my affliction,” adding a prayer כי עתה יאהבני אישי, “for from now on my husband will love me.” This was an appeal for G’d’s largesse to be drawn down to her for her benefit. When the letters, words of a tzaddik are translated into “building blocks,” אבנים, they become transformed into אבנים, which translated into Aramaic is equivalent to אבהן, “fathers, founding fathers,” as in רועה אבן ישראל, (Genesis 49,24) When these letters ascend heavenwards, -mature- they become not only corner stones, but, as is customary with sons, eventually they themselves become “fathers,” אבהן. [The concept of letters being “stones” dates back to the Sefer Yetzirah chapter 6. Ed.] In Hebrew, the Holy Tongue, the word אבנים is a combination of אב, “father,” and בנים, “sons.” The progression in Leah’s insights is demonstrated when at the birth of her fourth son, יהודה, she no longer prays for her husband’s love, but is full of gratitude, הפעם אודה את ה', “this time I thank the Lord, etc.” (Genesis 29,35). [The author continues to demonstrate that Rachel also was on the same wavelength as her older sister when naming her children. I have omitted the details. Ed.]
By naming their children, the matriarchs provide us with a model lesson on how to serve the Lord. Our matriarchs taught us how G’d, the Creator of the universe, in spite of the thousands of concerns that keep Him occupied around the clock, never neglects the problems of an individual creature of His on earth. Leah testifies that this Creator took time out to notice that she was relatively hated by her husband as a result of which He granted her children, in spite of her being barren by nature. (Genesis 29,32) The phrase: ויפתח רחמה in that verse makes it clear that she was barren, why else would G’d have had to “open her womb,” seeing that pregnancy is one of the most natural results of marital intercourse?
Another lesson we learn from the matriarchs is that the word, i.e. request, by a tzaddik, makes an impression in the celestial spheres and that he or she can draw down additional largesse from the Creator to these “lower” regions of the universe. We have explained that this is the reason that the אותיות, letters in the Hebrew alphabet, [when used as the Holy Tongue, Ed.] are called אבנים, “stones,” in the sense of “building blocks,” as the words formulated by the tzaddik in prayer enhance and improve the structure known as the תחתונים, “the lower regions” of the universe. These prayers, as we have demonstrated at the beginning of the last portion, are the real תולדות, enduring achievements by the righteous on earth. [Compare pages 139 and 140 on how a true תולדה is a son in his father’s image, i.e. Yitzchok being a continuation of the spiritual values represented by his father. Ed.]
The names given by their mothers to the founding tribes of the Jewish people retained their significance throughout our history, and this is why both Yaakov and Moses at the respective end of their lives confirmed this in their blessings.
When Leah explained why she called her firstborn son Reuven, she said: ראה ה' בעניי, “for the Lord has seen my affliction,” adding a prayer כי עתה יאהבני אישי, “for from now on my husband will love me.” This was an appeal for G’d’s largesse to be drawn down to her for her benefit. When the letters, words of a tzaddik are translated into “building blocks,” אבנים, they become transformed into אבנים, which translated into Aramaic is equivalent to אבהן, “fathers, founding fathers,” as in רועה אבן ישראל, (Genesis 49,24) When these letters ascend heavenwards, -mature- they become not only corner stones, but, as is customary with sons, eventually they themselves become “fathers,” אבהן. [The concept of letters being “stones” dates back to the Sefer Yetzirah chapter 6. Ed.] In Hebrew, the Holy Tongue, the word אבנים is a combination of אב, “father,” and בנים, “sons.” The progression in Leah’s insights is demonstrated when at the birth of her fourth son, יהודה, she no longer prays for her husband’s love, but is full of gratitude, הפעם אודה את ה', “this time I thank the Lord, etc.” (Genesis 29,35). [The author continues to demonstrate that Rachel also was on the same wavelength as her older sister when naming her children. I have omitted the details. Ed.]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
In order to understand why Moses commences with the word וזאת, when commencing with Yehudah’s blessing, instead of simply commencing with: וליהודה, as he did when commencing the blessing of Levi or Joseph or Zevulun, etc., the author refers us to a verse in psalms 45,10 נצבה שגל לימינך בכתם אופיר, “the consort stands at your right hand, decked in gold of Ophir.”
This verse, or section of it, is discussed at length in Rosh Hashanah 4. The Talmud says that - [after discussing the meaning of the word שגל, or משגל, usually an uncouth term used by common people when speaking of sexual intercourse, Ed.]- the psalmist does indeed refer to a description of carnality committed with an animal, (female). When the sages of the Talmud react to this by asking how these words of the psalmist could then be interpreted as a welcome message, the answer given is that the prophet is telling the Jewish people that as a reward for their intense love of Torah, a love which if expressed in physical terms would be as intense as that experienced when gentiles climax in the sexual act, they would merit a similar proximity to G’d and would be treasured by Him as a husband who treasures his wife.
It is still difficult to understand why the Talmud chose precisely intensive Torah study as warranting this kind of reward, when there are many other cravings human beings experience that are as dear to them as indulging in the sexual act?
The answer is that by loving Torah, i.e. serving the One and only Creator, the observant Jew has demonstrated that rather than to be become addicted to some other less dominating influence, he has been intelligent enough to choose to become “addicted” to the King of Kings, instead of settling for second or third best. All other “ideals,” “deities,” “powers,” are transient, bound to disappear sooner or later, whereas G’d is both the origin, the purpose, and the meaningful content of all existence. Moreover, assuming one has craved for some other thing that people develop a craving for, and one has achieved an outstanding record of achievement in one’s chosen field, in the end one has achieved mastery in only one isolated field of human endeavor. Becoming a Talmid Chacham by applying oneself with the same devotion and singularity of purpose to Torah, results in one’s having mastered every discipline, for of Torah it is said that הפוך בה והפוך בה כי כולה בה, “keep turning over its pages again and again for everything you search for is contained in it.” (Avot end chapter 5) Seeing that this is so, true Torah study, when it is the result of a craving for getting closer to G’d, is the high road to succeeding in subduing all one’s cravings, as they are all inspired by the evil urge.
Although the path to G’d we have just described is a good path, it does not constitute the essence of true service of the Creator. The reason is that the person pursuing this path is still, in a manner of speaking, serving “himself,” i.e. with an ulterior motive, however noble that motive may be.
The truest service of the Lord is when one is concerned not with deriving pleasure- even spiritual pleasure from having done one’s duty- but when one’s sole purpose is to provide pleasure or its equivalent in celestial terms, to the Creator. The Creator is to derive satisfaction from His creature’s free willed actions, or in the words of Solomon in Proverbs 23,15:בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני, “My son, if your heart is wise, My heart too will be gladdened;” or in the words of the psalmist 104,31 ישמח ה' במעשיו , “may the Lord rejoice in His creatures’ deeds.” As a result of the Creator being pleased with the person serving Him in such a fashion, He, in turn will “play” with him much as a father plays with his children. This is the meaning of the verses quoted from Proverbs and psalms.
Indulging the various cravings available here on earth results in the person doing so receiving satisfaction, i.e. being turned into a recipient. At the same time man is aware that all such pleasures received on earth are transient in nature and will evaporate into nothingness, eventually.
The same is not the case when one indulges in marital intercourse with a view to producing offspring, posterity, that will replace the party doing so on earth after he has died. The male impregnating the female with his semen has become a “donor” at the very moment when he experiences fulfillment of his own sexual craving. The recipient is the woman in whom his seed has been implanted. To a certain extent, the husband experiences what G’d experiences when He is being worshipped on the highest level, as he has the satisfaction of providing his mate with pleasure.
This is what the Talmud had in mind when it compared the sexual act to the manner in which G’d craves the service of His creature, man, through Torah study. The Talmud wanted to stress the point that man, though merely a creature, is able to become a “donor,” when serving G’d. [This is a revolutionary concept, as we usually view ourselves as recipients of His largesse, especially so, as the relationship between us and our Creator is normally described as that of חתן andכלה , the creature being the כלה, the female of the “team,” i.e. at the receiving end. Ed.]
The Talmud describes how it is possible for Jews to sublimate something that when done by the gentiles is merely something physical, though also the male pagan is a donor when he provides his wife with physical satisfaction; however, since the metaphysical element is completely lacking in what the pagans do, even their most well intentioned efforts to please their partners are ultimately doomed to become extinguished, [as our sages have stated so eloquently when they referred to the letters י and ה respectively in the definition of איש and אישה as being what separates a true Jewish individual, as opposed to males and females of the gentiles in whom carnal desire ends up as being destructive fire, אש. Ed.]
This is also how the Talmud in Shabbat 140B in which Rav Chisda is reported as teaching his daughters ways of chastity is to be understood. He told his daughters to practice chastity even in their dealings with their husbands, such as not eating bread in front of their husbands, as they might be perceived as being too ravenous. This would revolt their husbands. Similarly, they were to be careful not to eat vegetables at night (evening) as this leaves an unpleasant odour coming from their mouths. Neither were they to eat dates or drink beer in the evening as this would lead to diarrhea. Also, when someone knocks on the door of their houses, asking to be allowed to enter, they should not ask מי הוא, “who is it?”, in the masculine mode but מי היא, “who is it,?” in the feminine mode.
As a further illustration of the value of the virtue of chastity, Rav Chisda held up one hand displaying a pearl, while in the other fist he held up a clod of earth until his daughters could no longer conceal their curiosity as to what their father had concealed in the second hand (fist).
When, to the dismay of his daughters, he displayed the clod of earth, he told them that their impatience to know what he had concealed in his fist was proof that people are drawn to worthless objects because they are concealed, whereas they look with disdain at precious objects, as these objects no longer arouse their curiosity. [What his daughters would conceal from their husbands for a while would intrigue their husbands, whereas what their husbands were familiar with about them would pale into insignificance.
You, the reader, have no doubt noticed that Rav Chisda’s last example about “chastity” quoted in the Talmud is totally different from the previous ones, and this is what prompted our author to resort to an allegorical interpretation, as the Talmud was not meant to provide us with “tidbits” about the personal lives of our Torah scholars.
Before presenting our author’s intriguing explanation, let me point out that the מאירי in his בית הבחירה on that folio in the Talmud offers a very good explanation without resorting to allegories. As his commentary had not been discovered until long after our author had died, he could not have been aware of it. Ed.]
A woman is equipped with two distinct sources of providing life/nourishment. 1) The visible source, her breasts from which the infant receives its life support and which fulfils all its needs. The invisible source is her womb. Her breasts are used to dispense loving kindness, whereas her womb is the location where she receives loving kindness.
If we substitute G’d as the speaker in the quotation from the Talmud of Rav Chisda to his daughters, and we see in the pearl Rav Chisda held in his hand, a simile for the manifest deeds of loving kindness performed by G’d for His creatures, this is an allusion to the first, and easy path for man to learn to serve his Creator. The impatience with which Rav Chisda’s daughters waited for their father to open his fist, represents man’s impatience for G’d to provide him with a “reason” to worship and serve Him by not merely being on the receiving end, but by being able to become “donors,” providing their Creator with satisfaction and pleasure. By providing Him with such pleasure, man also provides G’d’s celestial entourage with a measure of satisfaction.
This idea has also been expressed by Hoseah 2,18 when he says concerning a time in the future: והיה ביום ההוא נאום ה' תקראי אישי ולא תקראי לי עוד בעלי, “when that day will arrive you will call Me ‘my husband,’ and you will no longer call me: ‘my Master.’” When one perceives of one’s husband as בעל, “master,” instead of as אישי, “my male counterpart,” my complement, then it is obvious that one does not perceive of oneself as a Donor, but only as a recipient. The vision of Hoseah in the verse quoted looks forward to the time when not only a few individuals are able to serve G’d in the manner described as the “second path,” i.e. unabashedly aware that they too are “donors” when serving the Lord, not only “recipients.” When we keep this point in mind we can understand the verse in Hoseah as not only referring to the relationship between husband and wife, but to the relationship between Creator and creature. The prophet implies that the “largesse” man receives from G’d is tailored to his ability to appreciate it, and to use it as a stepping-stone to improve his relationship with his Creator. [The exception, presumably, is when G’d is “forced” to recompense the wicked for the good they have done on earth, as they have no afterlife to look forward to where they can make use of their “reward.” Ed.]
No two people are identical in their ability to “cope” successfully, i.e. in a manner that builds their character, with the same amount of G’d’s “largesse.” Just as a doctor does not prescribe the same dose of medicine for all of his patients, so G’d does not dispense the same amount of largesse to two people. Each one receives what G’d alone knows to be ideal for his condition.
Nonetheless sometimes G’d dispenses His largesse to some people not based strictly on their deserts or ability to “digest” it constructively, but according to His independent wisdom, and the privilege He enjoys as being the creature’s “owner.” In other words, sometimes a person receives an “advance” on what he will be entitled to in the future, although he has not yet completed the preparatory steps for “deserving” what he is about to receive. This type of “advance payment” by G’d is dispensed only when the individual concerned is still on the level of serving the Lord according to what we have called “path one.” This level is known in kabbalistic parlance as עלמא דנוקבא, “the world in which the feminine element dominates,” i.e. a world dependent on external help, largesse from the Creator. Some people receive what the author calls “largesse” commensurate with the strength of a “wolf,” whereas others receive largesse according to the ability of a “lion” to make constructive use of it.
Once the recipient of G’d’s largesse has “qualified” to serve the Lord according to what we called “path two,” he is not in need of further assistance. The level these people have attained is known in kabbalistic parlance as עלמא דדכורא, “the masculine domain of the world”. [Once these people have come to understand that it is possible to be a “donor” vis a vis the Creator, they would not even appreciate it if G’d would “assist” them in their quest, as they would see in such “assistance” proof of their own inadequacy. Donors, by definition, are self-propelled. The last 6 lines are not the author’s but mine. The author proceeds along a somewhat different path, as you will see forthwith. Ed.]
This world of the masculine domain has been blessed by G’d with something known as כללות, a term that allows for the recipient of G’d’s largesse not to be restricted to his spiritual status. [The term כללות is not really appropriate as we no longer speak about domains in the terrestrial part of the universe. Ed.] It is a domain exclusively presided over by the אין סוף G’d in His capacity as the Eternal, unbounded by any limitations.. Seeing that this is so, anyone having secured access to this domain becomes privy to the רצון, the will of the אין סוף, a will that is not hindered from being executed by opposing forces, and he is able to achieve things in the spiritual domain that he was not able to achieve while bound by the limits of lower domains.
[The author now speaks, or rather alludes, to a domain of אותיות and two tiers of domains known as אמונה which I am not familiar with. Ed.] Suffice it for the reader to remember that just as the physical universe of which the Torah speaks at the beginning of בראשית, consists of three layers, i.e. בריאה-יצירה עשיה, so the spiritual disembodied universe known as עולם האצילות, also consists of various layers, tiers.
This verse, or section of it, is discussed at length in Rosh Hashanah 4. The Talmud says that - [after discussing the meaning of the word שגל, or משגל, usually an uncouth term used by common people when speaking of sexual intercourse, Ed.]- the psalmist does indeed refer to a description of carnality committed with an animal, (female). When the sages of the Talmud react to this by asking how these words of the psalmist could then be interpreted as a welcome message, the answer given is that the prophet is telling the Jewish people that as a reward for their intense love of Torah, a love which if expressed in physical terms would be as intense as that experienced when gentiles climax in the sexual act, they would merit a similar proximity to G’d and would be treasured by Him as a husband who treasures his wife.
It is still difficult to understand why the Talmud chose precisely intensive Torah study as warranting this kind of reward, when there are many other cravings human beings experience that are as dear to them as indulging in the sexual act?
The answer is that by loving Torah, i.e. serving the One and only Creator, the observant Jew has demonstrated that rather than to be become addicted to some other less dominating influence, he has been intelligent enough to choose to become “addicted” to the King of Kings, instead of settling for second or third best. All other “ideals,” “deities,” “powers,” are transient, bound to disappear sooner or later, whereas G’d is both the origin, the purpose, and the meaningful content of all existence. Moreover, assuming one has craved for some other thing that people develop a craving for, and one has achieved an outstanding record of achievement in one’s chosen field, in the end one has achieved mastery in only one isolated field of human endeavor. Becoming a Talmid Chacham by applying oneself with the same devotion and singularity of purpose to Torah, results in one’s having mastered every discipline, for of Torah it is said that הפוך בה והפוך בה כי כולה בה, “keep turning over its pages again and again for everything you search for is contained in it.” (Avot end chapter 5) Seeing that this is so, true Torah study, when it is the result of a craving for getting closer to G’d, is the high road to succeeding in subduing all one’s cravings, as they are all inspired by the evil urge.
Although the path to G’d we have just described is a good path, it does not constitute the essence of true service of the Creator. The reason is that the person pursuing this path is still, in a manner of speaking, serving “himself,” i.e. with an ulterior motive, however noble that motive may be.
The truest service of the Lord is when one is concerned not with deriving pleasure- even spiritual pleasure from having done one’s duty- but when one’s sole purpose is to provide pleasure or its equivalent in celestial terms, to the Creator. The Creator is to derive satisfaction from His creature’s free willed actions, or in the words of Solomon in Proverbs 23,15:בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני, “My son, if your heart is wise, My heart too will be gladdened;” or in the words of the psalmist 104,31 ישמח ה' במעשיו , “may the Lord rejoice in His creatures’ deeds.” As a result of the Creator being pleased with the person serving Him in such a fashion, He, in turn will “play” with him much as a father plays with his children. This is the meaning of the verses quoted from Proverbs and psalms.
Indulging the various cravings available here on earth results in the person doing so receiving satisfaction, i.e. being turned into a recipient. At the same time man is aware that all such pleasures received on earth are transient in nature and will evaporate into nothingness, eventually.
The same is not the case when one indulges in marital intercourse with a view to producing offspring, posterity, that will replace the party doing so on earth after he has died. The male impregnating the female with his semen has become a “donor” at the very moment when he experiences fulfillment of his own sexual craving. The recipient is the woman in whom his seed has been implanted. To a certain extent, the husband experiences what G’d experiences when He is being worshipped on the highest level, as he has the satisfaction of providing his mate with pleasure.
This is what the Talmud had in mind when it compared the sexual act to the manner in which G’d craves the service of His creature, man, through Torah study. The Talmud wanted to stress the point that man, though merely a creature, is able to become a “donor,” when serving G’d. [This is a revolutionary concept, as we usually view ourselves as recipients of His largesse, especially so, as the relationship between us and our Creator is normally described as that of חתן andכלה , the creature being the כלה, the female of the “team,” i.e. at the receiving end. Ed.]
The Talmud describes how it is possible for Jews to sublimate something that when done by the gentiles is merely something physical, though also the male pagan is a donor when he provides his wife with physical satisfaction; however, since the metaphysical element is completely lacking in what the pagans do, even their most well intentioned efforts to please their partners are ultimately doomed to become extinguished, [as our sages have stated so eloquently when they referred to the letters י and ה respectively in the definition of איש and אישה as being what separates a true Jewish individual, as opposed to males and females of the gentiles in whom carnal desire ends up as being destructive fire, אש. Ed.]
This is also how the Talmud in Shabbat 140B in which Rav Chisda is reported as teaching his daughters ways of chastity is to be understood. He told his daughters to practice chastity even in their dealings with their husbands, such as not eating bread in front of their husbands, as they might be perceived as being too ravenous. This would revolt their husbands. Similarly, they were to be careful not to eat vegetables at night (evening) as this leaves an unpleasant odour coming from their mouths. Neither were they to eat dates or drink beer in the evening as this would lead to diarrhea. Also, when someone knocks on the door of their houses, asking to be allowed to enter, they should not ask מי הוא, “who is it?”, in the masculine mode but מי היא, “who is it,?” in the feminine mode.
As a further illustration of the value of the virtue of chastity, Rav Chisda held up one hand displaying a pearl, while in the other fist he held up a clod of earth until his daughters could no longer conceal their curiosity as to what their father had concealed in the second hand (fist).
When, to the dismay of his daughters, he displayed the clod of earth, he told them that their impatience to know what he had concealed in his fist was proof that people are drawn to worthless objects because they are concealed, whereas they look with disdain at precious objects, as these objects no longer arouse their curiosity. [What his daughters would conceal from their husbands for a while would intrigue their husbands, whereas what their husbands were familiar with about them would pale into insignificance.
You, the reader, have no doubt noticed that Rav Chisda’s last example about “chastity” quoted in the Talmud is totally different from the previous ones, and this is what prompted our author to resort to an allegorical interpretation, as the Talmud was not meant to provide us with “tidbits” about the personal lives of our Torah scholars.
Before presenting our author’s intriguing explanation, let me point out that the מאירי in his בית הבחירה on that folio in the Talmud offers a very good explanation without resorting to allegories. As his commentary had not been discovered until long after our author had died, he could not have been aware of it. Ed.]
A woman is equipped with two distinct sources of providing life/nourishment. 1) The visible source, her breasts from which the infant receives its life support and which fulfils all its needs. The invisible source is her womb. Her breasts are used to dispense loving kindness, whereas her womb is the location where she receives loving kindness.
If we substitute G’d as the speaker in the quotation from the Talmud of Rav Chisda to his daughters, and we see in the pearl Rav Chisda held in his hand, a simile for the manifest deeds of loving kindness performed by G’d for His creatures, this is an allusion to the first, and easy path for man to learn to serve his Creator. The impatience with which Rav Chisda’s daughters waited for their father to open his fist, represents man’s impatience for G’d to provide him with a “reason” to worship and serve Him by not merely being on the receiving end, but by being able to become “donors,” providing their Creator with satisfaction and pleasure. By providing Him with such pleasure, man also provides G’d’s celestial entourage with a measure of satisfaction.
This idea has also been expressed by Hoseah 2,18 when he says concerning a time in the future: והיה ביום ההוא נאום ה' תקראי אישי ולא תקראי לי עוד בעלי, “when that day will arrive you will call Me ‘my husband,’ and you will no longer call me: ‘my Master.’” When one perceives of one’s husband as בעל, “master,” instead of as אישי, “my male counterpart,” my complement, then it is obvious that one does not perceive of oneself as a Donor, but only as a recipient. The vision of Hoseah in the verse quoted looks forward to the time when not only a few individuals are able to serve G’d in the manner described as the “second path,” i.e. unabashedly aware that they too are “donors” when serving the Lord, not only “recipients.” When we keep this point in mind we can understand the verse in Hoseah as not only referring to the relationship between husband and wife, but to the relationship between Creator and creature. The prophet implies that the “largesse” man receives from G’d is tailored to his ability to appreciate it, and to use it as a stepping-stone to improve his relationship with his Creator. [The exception, presumably, is when G’d is “forced” to recompense the wicked for the good they have done on earth, as they have no afterlife to look forward to where they can make use of their “reward.” Ed.]
No two people are identical in their ability to “cope” successfully, i.e. in a manner that builds their character, with the same amount of G’d’s “largesse.” Just as a doctor does not prescribe the same dose of medicine for all of his patients, so G’d does not dispense the same amount of largesse to two people. Each one receives what G’d alone knows to be ideal for his condition.
Nonetheless sometimes G’d dispenses His largesse to some people not based strictly on their deserts or ability to “digest” it constructively, but according to His independent wisdom, and the privilege He enjoys as being the creature’s “owner.” In other words, sometimes a person receives an “advance” on what he will be entitled to in the future, although he has not yet completed the preparatory steps for “deserving” what he is about to receive. This type of “advance payment” by G’d is dispensed only when the individual concerned is still on the level of serving the Lord according to what we have called “path one.” This level is known in kabbalistic parlance as עלמא דנוקבא, “the world in which the feminine element dominates,” i.e. a world dependent on external help, largesse from the Creator. Some people receive what the author calls “largesse” commensurate with the strength of a “wolf,” whereas others receive largesse according to the ability of a “lion” to make constructive use of it.
Once the recipient of G’d’s largesse has “qualified” to serve the Lord according to what we called “path two,” he is not in need of further assistance. The level these people have attained is known in kabbalistic parlance as עלמא דדכורא, “the masculine domain of the world”. [Once these people have come to understand that it is possible to be a “donor” vis a vis the Creator, they would not even appreciate it if G’d would “assist” them in their quest, as they would see in such “assistance” proof of their own inadequacy. Donors, by definition, are self-propelled. The last 6 lines are not the author’s but mine. The author proceeds along a somewhat different path, as you will see forthwith. Ed.]
This world of the masculine domain has been blessed by G’d with something known as כללות, a term that allows for the recipient of G’d’s largesse not to be restricted to his spiritual status. [The term כללות is not really appropriate as we no longer speak about domains in the terrestrial part of the universe. Ed.] It is a domain exclusively presided over by the אין סוף G’d in His capacity as the Eternal, unbounded by any limitations.. Seeing that this is so, anyone having secured access to this domain becomes privy to the רצון, the will of the אין סוף, a will that is not hindered from being executed by opposing forces, and he is able to achieve things in the spiritual domain that he was not able to achieve while bound by the limits of lower domains.
[The author now speaks, or rather alludes, to a domain of אותיות and two tiers of domains known as אמונה which I am not familiar with. Ed.] Suffice it for the reader to remember that just as the physical universe of which the Torah speaks at the beginning of בראשית, consists of three layers, i.e. בריאה-יצירה עשיה, so the spiritual disembodied universe known as עולם האצילות, also consists of various layers, tiers.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
The author now reverts back to Yaakov’s blessing of Yehudah in Genesis 49,10 where Yaakov said: לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחוקק מבין רגליו, commonly translated as: “the scepter shall not depart from Yehudah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet.” According to our author, if I understood him correctly, a King’s primary concern is the political freedom of the people under his rule and to ensure that they have adequate food supplies. Midrash Tehillim 80,2 alludes to this when it states that the provision of an adequate livelihood is more important than the provision of political freedom, גאולה, as the former is provided by G’d personally, whereas the latter has been entrusted to one of His angels. The author of the Midrash bases himself on Genesis 48,16 where Yaakov commands the “angel” who ensures political freedom, i.e. המלאך הגואל, whereas concerning the provision of adequate food supplies, i.e. livelihood, this is something that G’d personally is involved in, based on David in psalms 145,16 speaking of G’d opening His hand to all living creatures (to supply their needs). In Exodus 23,20 the Torah also writes of the angel that G’d will send ahead of the Jewish people,הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך לשמרך בדרך וגו' , whereas when it came to supplying the manna, the Israelites’ food, no mention is made of an angel being involved. This is also how we must understand Song of Songs 8,10, “then I was in his eyes as someone who has found an abundance of peace.”אז הייתי בעיניו כמוצאת שלום רב. According to the Talmud Pessachim, 87 the composer, Solomon, compares the “bride,” simile for the people of Israel, as feeling secure in the house of her husband, i.e. G’d. In this verse Solomon also distinguishes between the “bride,” and her “breasts” as two different parts of herself, an allusion to the Jewish people either serving the Lord as “recipients,” or as having attained a level where they are entitled to also feel as “donors” vis a vis G’d as we have explained . The bride’s father in law’s house is a simile for the עלמא דנוקבא, whereas when mention is made by the composer of בית אביה, “her father’s house,” this is an allusion to the עלמא דדכורא, “the predominantly masculine domain in the celestial spheres.” When the “human donor” has succeeded to provide his Heavenly Father with joy through the manner in which he serves Him, then, in the words of Rav Chisda, his daughters would provide enduring joy to their husbands.
Having appreciated this concept, we can also understand the verse in which גאולה, “political freedom”, as we termed it earlier, when discussing the comparison made between the relative worth of political freedom and an adequate livelihood in the two verses quoted in Midrash Tehillim, 80,2. This Midrash is based on Bereshit Rabbah 20,9 where two verses are cited, i.e. suggesting that גאולה “redemption” has to occur on two levels. Man has to be redeemed from the repercussions of Adam’s original sin, and we have to be redeemed collectively from the exile in which we have waited for the redeemer for 2000 years.
In the book ראשית חכמה, by the famous Rabbi Eliyahu Vidash, the point is made that due to man’s original sin he had acquired (sustained) a blemish on his soul as an integral part of his being. Just as physical man consists of 248 limbs and 365 tendons, muscular tissue, a total of 613 parts corresponding to the 613 commandments in the written Torah, so there is a parallel division between 248 plus 365 parts in the spiritual part of man, his soul. The “damage” inflicted on our souls is known as חלל. In other words, any sin committed by one of these 613 parts of his body results in commensurate damage, or חלל in his soul. In order to cleanse the soul of these “holes,” it has to spend a period of time in gehinom, purgatory, until this damage has been repaired. This is man’s fate if he has not repented for his sins prior to his death, of course.
When Moses, in Deut. 32,18 says צור ילדך תשי ותשכח אלמחוללך, where the name for G’d as both צור and א-ל is repeated, this is also an allusion to the two types of גאולה, redemption, we need in order to recapture the pure state in which original man had been created. When describing the impending redemption after the people have done teshuvah Moses says:, ושב ה' אלוקיך את שבותך ורחמך ושב וקבצך מכל העמים אשר הפיצך ה' אלוקיך שמה, “and the Lord your G’d will return with your captives and have mercy upon you; and He will return and gather you in from among all the nations that he had scattered you to.” (30,3) The word: ושב, appears to have been repeated twice for no good reason. Actually, this verse alludes to two separate “returns” from “exile,” the physical as well as spiritual exile suffered by the souls. We find that just as when it came to פרנסה, two verses describe that G’d looks after this directly, i.e. for the nourishment of the body as well as that for the soul, so when it comes to “redemption”, a prerequisite for our being able to serve the Lord with maximum devotion, both the body and the damaged soul will be redeemed separately. Alternately, the two verses allude to the concept that G’d is both dispenser of largesse and recipient of the joy and selflessness that some of His creatures display by serve Him.”
Having appreciated this concept, we can also understand the verse in which גאולה, “political freedom”, as we termed it earlier, when discussing the comparison made between the relative worth of political freedom and an adequate livelihood in the two verses quoted in Midrash Tehillim, 80,2. This Midrash is based on Bereshit Rabbah 20,9 where two verses are cited, i.e. suggesting that גאולה “redemption” has to occur on two levels. Man has to be redeemed from the repercussions of Adam’s original sin, and we have to be redeemed collectively from the exile in which we have waited for the redeemer for 2000 years.
In the book ראשית חכמה, by the famous Rabbi Eliyahu Vidash, the point is made that due to man’s original sin he had acquired (sustained) a blemish on his soul as an integral part of his being. Just as physical man consists of 248 limbs and 365 tendons, muscular tissue, a total of 613 parts corresponding to the 613 commandments in the written Torah, so there is a parallel division between 248 plus 365 parts in the spiritual part of man, his soul. The “damage” inflicted on our souls is known as חלל. In other words, any sin committed by one of these 613 parts of his body results in commensurate damage, or חלל in his soul. In order to cleanse the soul of these “holes,” it has to spend a period of time in gehinom, purgatory, until this damage has been repaired. This is man’s fate if he has not repented for his sins prior to his death, of course.
When Moses, in Deut. 32,18 says צור ילדך תשי ותשכח אלמחוללך, where the name for G’d as both צור and א-ל is repeated, this is also an allusion to the two types of גאולה, redemption, we need in order to recapture the pure state in which original man had been created. When describing the impending redemption after the people have done teshuvah Moses says:, ושב ה' אלוקיך את שבותך ורחמך ושב וקבצך מכל העמים אשר הפיצך ה' אלוקיך שמה, “and the Lord your G’d will return with your captives and have mercy upon you; and He will return and gather you in from among all the nations that he had scattered you to.” (30,3) The word: ושב, appears to have been repeated twice for no good reason. Actually, this verse alludes to two separate “returns” from “exile,” the physical as well as spiritual exile suffered by the souls. We find that just as when it came to פרנסה, two verses describe that G’d looks after this directly, i.e. for the nourishment of the body as well as that for the soul, so when it comes to “redemption”, a prerequisite for our being able to serve the Lord with maximum devotion, both the body and the damaged soul will be redeemed separately. Alternately, the two verses allude to the concept that G’d is both dispenser of largesse and recipient of the joy and selflessness that some of His creatures display by serve Him.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Genesis 21,25. “Avraham rebuked Avimelech on account of the well, etc.” Avimelech rejected the accusation, claiming he had not known about what his servants had done.
Normally, we have a rule that when a tzaddik engages in rebuking someone, he points out that the trespass committed by the wicked concerned was a sin against G’d and His Torah.
In this instance, Avraham accused Avimelech of having committed a wrong when it had been his servants who had stolen the water from Avraham. He reminded Avimelech that G’d created the world, and that He gave us laws by which to conduct ourselves, and that robbery was definitely forbidden. The person violating G’d’s law receives a warning in the form of the tzaddik rebuking him. The letters in the words uttered by the tzaddik when he rebukes the sinner light up in the face of the guilty party, thus affording him an opportunity to immediately do penance.
One of the names of G’d is: מי, as we know when Pharaoh challenged Moses by saying: מי ה'? This is what Avimelech meant when he said to Avraham לא ידעתי מי עשה את הדבר הזה, “I do not know of this מי who has done this;” i.e. “I have never heard of a Creator who has created the universe, hence I do not know of a prohibition to steal or rob.” Another one of G’d’s names is the word זה, as we know from Exodus 15,2 זה א-לי ואנוהו, “זה is my G’d and I will glorify Him.” We also find the word as a reference to one of G’d’s names when Isaiah 25,9 said זה ה' קוינו לו, “we have been hoping for the Lord זה.” Avimelech tells Avraham that he had heard of all this theology only from the mouth of Avraham, he had never previously been informed of this. He adds that even now he has not heard or “seen” the letters that make up the alphabet of the Torah from Avraham’s mouth, i.e. גם אתה לא הגדת לי. The word הגדת, derived from גד, is similar to גד גדוד יגודנה in Genesis 49,19, where it refers to “good fortune,” similar to what Gad’s mother proclaimed בגד, viewing herself as having good fortune seeing that she had born 6 of the twelve tribes. (Genesis 30,11) The word is a simile for good fortune in the sense of מזל טוב. Avimelech had not yet seen the letters that would trigger his doing teshuvah for the wrong he had been guilty of. The word אתה is an allusion to the letters from א to ת in the Hebrew alphabet, the letters of the Holy Tongue.
When Avimelech adds: וגם אנכי לא שמעתי בלתי היום, “and I also have not heard about all this until this day,” he uses the word אנכי, the first word of the Ten Commandments with which G’d revealed Himself at Mount Sinai, as meaning that on this day G’d’s sovereignty was revealed to him, and he could now perceive these letters of the Holy Tongue. On that day Avimelech had learned from Avraham about three aspects of G’d, i.e. מי, זה, אנכי.
Normally, we have a rule that when a tzaddik engages in rebuking someone, he points out that the trespass committed by the wicked concerned was a sin against G’d and His Torah.
In this instance, Avraham accused Avimelech of having committed a wrong when it had been his servants who had stolen the water from Avraham. He reminded Avimelech that G’d created the world, and that He gave us laws by which to conduct ourselves, and that robbery was definitely forbidden. The person violating G’d’s law receives a warning in the form of the tzaddik rebuking him. The letters in the words uttered by the tzaddik when he rebukes the sinner light up in the face of the guilty party, thus affording him an opportunity to immediately do penance.
One of the names of G’d is: מי, as we know when Pharaoh challenged Moses by saying: מי ה'? This is what Avimelech meant when he said to Avraham לא ידעתי מי עשה את הדבר הזה, “I do not know of this מי who has done this;” i.e. “I have never heard of a Creator who has created the universe, hence I do not know of a prohibition to steal or rob.” Another one of G’d’s names is the word זה, as we know from Exodus 15,2 זה א-לי ואנוהו, “זה is my G’d and I will glorify Him.” We also find the word as a reference to one of G’d’s names when Isaiah 25,9 said זה ה' קוינו לו, “we have been hoping for the Lord זה.” Avimelech tells Avraham that he had heard of all this theology only from the mouth of Avraham, he had never previously been informed of this. He adds that even now he has not heard or “seen” the letters that make up the alphabet of the Torah from Avraham’s mouth, i.e. גם אתה לא הגדת לי. The word הגדת, derived from גד, is similar to גד גדוד יגודנה in Genesis 49,19, where it refers to “good fortune,” similar to what Gad’s mother proclaimed בגד, viewing herself as having good fortune seeing that she had born 6 of the twelve tribes. (Genesis 30,11) The word is a simile for good fortune in the sense of מזל טוב. Avimelech had not yet seen the letters that would trigger his doing teshuvah for the wrong he had been guilty of. The word אתה is an allusion to the letters from א to ת in the Hebrew alphabet, the letters of the Holy Tongue.
When Avimelech adds: וגם אנכי לא שמעתי בלתי היום, “and I also have not heard about all this until this day,” he uses the word אנכי, the first word of the Ten Commandments with which G’d revealed Himself at Mount Sinai, as meaning that on this day G’d’s sovereignty was revealed to him, and he could now perceive these letters of the Holy Tongue. On that day Avimelech had learned from Avraham about three aspects of G’d, i.e. מי, זה, אנכי.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy