ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף שמות 24:11

(1) The first message from G'd to Moses was to tell him, that although on occasion, death can be due to the concept of bi-krovay ekadesh, that death need not occur due to a mortal sin, there had been mortal sin in the case of the death of the sons of Aaron. The cause had been the sin as spelled out in the Torah at this point. The second communication by G'd to Moses, though related to him at a later stage, is coupled here with the former, in order to make the point that access to the holy of holies is restricted even to the High Priest, and that G'ds Presence does not appear in public, only wrapped in a cloud. (2) Even amongst the good people, the physical usually outweighs the spiritual. The High Priest who personifies the most favourable mix of the physical and the spiritual, is nonetheless mostly matter. His sin offering is described already in Leviticus 4,4, and consisted of a bull. Most of this bull was burned outside Jerusalem, only a small part being offered on the altar, (verse 12 there) The ram, symbolising man's spiritual part, which becomes olah, a total offering, i.e. fit for consumption by the altar in its entirety, is the other half of the High Priest's offering. Since the majority of the people are guilty of very fundamental errors, due to their yetzer hara, evil urge, the he-goat for the azzazel does not qualify for being offered on the altar itself. The fact that even the he-goat was presented in front of the tabernacle first, alive, is to show that even the kind of person represented by this he-goat will be granted forgiveness on the Day of Atonement. This is a tribute to the fact that a good part of their erroneous conduct had been due to the nature of the human condition, i.e. their being physical beings, something over which they had not had any control initially. The lots to be drawn symbolise the very fact that no choice existed prior to one's having being born into this world. (3) Use of the device of drawing lots to determine anything at all, appears to be an outright denial of G'ds Providence, since the result that emerges after the drawing of lots will be viewed as coincidence. The fact is however, that the cumulative effect of the lot falling again and again on the same person, lends it significance. If until the time of Shimon the Just, the lot "for the Lord" was always drawn by the he-goat placed on the right, that surely tells us something about the meaning of the word "right." (the time frame under discussion is about fifteen hundred years!) Indeed, once that pattern had been broken, due to the fact that the Jewish people could not produce a High Priest who was a tzaddik, and whose merits would counterbalance the sins of the masses, the lot would have become meaningless even if it had fallen on the he-goat that had been placed on the right. When Pharaoh had dreamed the same dream twice, that fact told Joseph something about whether the dream had any significance, or whether it was merely a matter of coincidence. The very repetition enabled Joseph to draw some conclusions. This is even more so, when the repetition occurs more than once. This is the reason the sailors "threw lots" (plural) and not just one "lot" before they were satisfied that the storm that threatened to sink their ship was really on account of Jonah. (Jonah 1,7) Since the lot fell on Jonah each time they repeated the procedure, they were certain that they were not condemning an innocent person on the basis of a "chance" lot. There is an element of chance concerning which person turns into a sinner, since natural endowments have a great deal to do with the likelihood of someone being able to overcome such strikes against him as he has been born with. Hence, if the he-goat for the azzazel becomes the scapegoat by means of the lottery, we might all breathe a sigh of relief and say "here but for the grace of G'd, go I." For that reason, the halachah, Jewish law, requires that the two he-goats must look so totally alike, that they are indistinguishable from one another. When the Tanna Ben Heh Heh says that reward is in accordance with the pain and effort incurred in securing an objective, (Avot 5,23), that he who has to overcome strong natural impediments rates a special reward, he does not mean that lack of this special effort totally forfeits one's chance of rehabilitation. The "scapegoat," though unfit to be presented on the altar, does accomplish this rehabilitation even for persons who have not made a special effort to surmount handicaps they were born with. (4) The procedure of offering incense, required a special skill, and therefore the full concentration of the High Priest during its performance. The reason for this could have been the need to counter the natural tendency to get "a glimpse" of the shechinah, Divine Presence. After all, the Torah did say "for in the cloud, I will become visible on the lid of the holy ark." (Leviticus 16,2) The Talmud tells of a High Priest, who was a member of the sect of the Sadducees, who when performing the rites of incense, put same on the pan prior to entering into the holy of holies, (contrary to hatachah ) and who boasted about having seen the shechinah. He died shortly after coming out of the sanctuary .The Pharisees saw in this a punishment for his disobedience. The Saducees felt that it was bad manners to enter the holy of holies without having everything ready, whereas the interpretation of the Pharisees of the verse "for through having made the cloud, My Presence over the lid can become revealed" was that they considered the exact composition of the correct quantities and ingredients of the incense as being vital. Placing of the incense on the pan, however, is to take place only "in front of G'd," as per verse 13. The sprinkling of the blood inside the holy of holies was to atone for errors concerning the laws applying to the temple itself, whereas the placing of the hands on the he-goat was to atone for other sins. The fact that the he-goat was used, also demonstrated that it was not a deity, (as some nations believed) This is the reason there had to be a special injunction "they shall no longer sacrifice to the he-goats." (Leviticus 17,7) There was no better date to proclaim the unity of G'd symbolically, and the futility of worshipping anyone or anything else, than the Day of Atonement. This symbolic statement helped to obtain forgiveness for other sins also. Whoever would observe that the scapegoat was thrown from the rock, would realise that it had not been an object of worship. Even Satan, the perennial accuser before the throne of G'd, would have to admit that the Jewish people were quite unequivocal in their service to the Lord. This is the meaning of a statement in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer that we should present a bribe to Satan on that day. The sacrifice of the original Passover lamb in Egypt, was a similar statement of unequivocal commitment to G'd Therefore, the "great Sabbath," the Sabbath preceding the Passover holiday is conceptually related to the day of Atonement. For that reason Yom Kippur is also called Shabbaton The order of the confession, which according to the view of Rabbi Meir mentions the unintentionally committed sins first, and the intentionally committed ones last, was quoted in that order by Moses after the sin of the golden calf, when he remonstrated with G'd. Since Israel, at that time, had already done penitence, Moses made the point that due to the repentance, intentional sins had already been reduced to the status of unintentional sins. However, the normal process as found in the Bible on many occasions, is to first confess the intentional sins, including the ones that represent acts of rebellion against G'ds authority.

(3) The Nazir legislation addresses itself to the often debilitating effect of wine or strong alcoholic drink. The repeated references to various grape products correspond to the various ways in which drunkenness affects man. Most instances in the Torah in which drinking is discussed, refer also to the undesirable after effects of drinking wine. (Genesis 9,21, 43,34, the story of Lot and his daughters) We have numerous other examples in the books of the prophets. 1) The first effect of drunkenness usually is a loosening of inhibitions. A person's behaviour becomes unrestrained, lawless. 2) A second effect is that when the lawmaker is drunk, he may legislate unfair laws while under the influence of strong drink. The misunderstanding of the teachings ascribed to Tzaddok and Bayssus are examples of heresy that may have been due to their having studied Torah while under the influence of wine. (Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 5) Judges must not sit in Court after having drunk wine. This is alluded to in the words mishrat anavim a liquid in which grapes had been soaking. The Talmud illustrated this by the example of a Nazir who soaked his bread in wine. The Torah criticises the elders who, while having a vision of G'd, ate and drank at the same time. (Exodus 24,11) They are described as like people who while having an audience with the king, bite into their bread. (Exodus Rabbah 15) The fourth and worst result of drunkenness is the loss of one's religious faith. The allusion in our text is the reference to "either fresh or dried grapes." (6,3) This refers to the harbouring of as yet unripe thoughts. The former are the contemplating of sinful conduct, already at the surface of consciousness, awaiting only execution, whereas the "dried grapes" refer to those ideas that will need to incubate somewhat longer before being translated into deeds. Generally, these problems occur with advancing age, and the Torah lists them in corresponding order. Young people react negatively to any kind of restrictions imposed on them. Once they have become a little older, they realise the need for an ordered lifestyle, but they tend to draw their inspiration only from their own personal experiences. Still later in life, they get around to study other people's wisdom and experience, and they even study some of the proper sources, but not necessarily with a clear head. Finally, when facing death, and an accounting for the way they have lived their lives, they have to confront what is true faith and what is not. In order to distinguish between these different periods of their lives, the Torah each time commences with the words "all the days," to indicate that successive portions of one's life account for changing attitudes. The Torah tells the Nazir that the discipline imposed on his lifestyle by not touching grape products, does not by itself guarantee progress towards his objective, but that he must not use a razor or shears to remove his hair. The lesson is that no individual is free to decide arbitrarily by himself what disciplines to impose upon himself. If the Nazir is to avoid ritual impurity during the currency of his vow of abstinence, this is to enable him to receive the full benefit of Torah study during that period. If his mind is to concentrate on matters spiritual, success can be guaranteed only when his body remains in a state of purity. Man's crowning achievement is the attainment of serenity based on his complete and unshakable faith in the goodness of his Creator, and his acceptance of whatever fate seems to have in store for him. Many great men, though guilty of individual acts of sinful behaviour, were saved from being entrapped by sin due to their all embracing faith in G'd and His Torah. A splendid example is Samson, whose dealings with Delilah, though sinful, did not turn him into a heretic or otherwise undisciplined person. Until Samson revealed that his strength lay in the hair of his head, at Delilah's fourth attempt, and that it represented spiritual powers and faith, he had been able to cope with all of Satan's (read Delilah's) efforts to drag him down. Once he desecrated the focus of his purity, he fell victim to the machinations inspired by Satan. (The Talmud suggests that the very name DELILAH means "weakening," watering down his strength) Shimon the Just, who is reported to have eaten only one Nazirite offering in his long career as High Priest, tells of an incident which he describes as a legitimate reason for adoption of the Nazarite's vows. (Nedarim 9) From his description it is clear that the reason he did not eat from other such sacrifices is not that none were at hand, but that he considered any other person in his lifetime who had taken upon himself Nazirite vows as having been frivolous.

(8) According to some, the promise that Abraham and Sarah would sire a child, made Abraham wonder if perchance Ishmael was destined to die, since otherwise his existence would have enabled G-d to fulfil His promise to Abraham to become the ancestor of a multitude of nations in a far more natural way. This consideration prompted Abraham to pray for Ishmael's continued existence. (6) When Abraham questioned G-d’s promise, his concern was legitimate, whereas when Sarah did so she had no such legitimate concern. Therefore, G-d criticized Sarah without criticizing Abraham. However, it is more likely that Abraham's remark was just as unseemly as Sarah's later, just as was that of Moses when he questioned G-d’s ability to feed all of Israel meat in the desert (Numbers 11,21). Since however, it was a day of glad tidings, a day on which Abraham had cheerfully accepted the commandment to circumcise himself, G-d did not want to spoil the occasion by criticizing him. Similarly, on the day the Torah was given, the leaders of Israel were not punished, although their conduct was deserving of punishment (Exodus 24, see Vayikra Rabbah 20). When G-d did criticize Sarah eventually for her similar lack of belief, He did so via Abraham. "Why does Sarah laugh?" (Genesis 18,13). He could have criticized Sarah without addressing Abraham on the subject. However, G-d wanted Abraham to get the message that he, too, had erred in a similar fashion on the same subject. (9) As it was, G-d’s answer was only meant to emphasize that Sarah deserved to bear a son. Ishmael's future was not in doubt at all. Abraham was to call the new son Isaac, as a reminder that he had considered his conception and birth as too amusing a flight of fancy to entertain seriously. G-d would let Ishmael become great, but the new covenant under discussion would be maintained with Isaac. (10) The statement that "G-d had finished speaking with Abraham" proves, that this whole vision had been of a superior nature compared to previous ones. This vision was more like the ones Abraham would enjoy from this point on, though in this instance we still find Abraham falling down due to the overwhelming impact of G-d’s Presence. The promptness with which Abraham carried out G-d’s commandment reflects the newly won awareness that he was as yet incomplete as a human being. Rabbi Berechya points out in Bereshit Rabbah 39 that in promising Isaac, G-d did not say, "I will place you," but rather "I will make you." This indicates a direct action on G-d’s part, similar to such actions by G-d during the creation of man. The meaning is "When I make a new creature out of you, be fruitful and multiply!" When G-d had made a covenant with Noach, the sign of which was the rainbow, He limited the power of the forces of water and assured the continued existence of man. He promised that the future of a nation based on Abraham and Isaac would be assured just as the future of mankind had been assured through the covenant with Noach. No matter what sins will call for retribution, the nation as a whole will not perish. This implies that Israel's character even amid persecutions due to its infidelity vis a vis the Almighty, will exhibit traits that will qualitfy it for eventual redemption.