A Thought On Parshas VaYak'hel

A Thought on Parshas VaYak'hel

"...es ha'mishkan...es ha'aron..."
"...the shrine... the ark..." (35:11-12)

The Torah instructed us to place the eidus - the testimony - inside the ark. It is known as the Ark of Testimony. The Torah also refers to the mishkan - the shrine which enclosed the ark and all of the articles used in the avoda service and rituals - as mishkan ha'eidus - the Shrine ("Tabernacle") of the Testimony. The Torah also refers to the shrine as simply mishkan without referencing the testimony. This seems to give two very different messages as to what the shrine enshrined, and what encased the "testimony" (testimony or testimonies is a reference to the tablets of the Torah which Moshe brought down from Sinai).

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel helps clarify the verses. Mishkan indeed means a shrine or a sacred enclosure. All which was sacred and consecrated for our supreme avoda needed to be enclosed within a shrine, for the shrine represented the metaphorical dwelling place (from which the word mishkan is derived) for the Shechina (which is the term which refers to the Divine Presence) which is more fully sensed within that enclosure, given that it is a place dedicated for serving HaShem.

However, there was a second mishkan concept. The ark which housed the Torah was also called a dwelling place. Within the ark dwelled the Holy Torah, the testimony. The Torah which was encased within the ark gave the ark a status of mishkan, since the Torah rested within it.

This gives us two very different understandings of a "sacred dwelling." The MIshkan proper, that is, the structure which enclosed the consecrated articles, was not called a shrine because of those objects which it surrounded, for they were objects and objects alone. It was a Mishkan because the objects which it housed were for devotional worship and this worship was a catalyst for the Shechina to be associated with that place. The Mishkan was a mishkan for the Divine Presence. The devotional service within that enclosure brought forth that sense of a "dwelling place" for the Shechina.

The ark, on the other hand, also housed an object yet it was the object, namely the Torah within, which imparted a status of mishkan to its container. Without the Torah, the ark was a box. Once it held the Torah, the ark became a mishkan.

The MIshkan was a catalyst for the Divine Presence to "dwell" within it when we demonstrated that we wanted to "dwell nearer to the Shechina". The Torah was a catalyst for the ark to become a mishkan simply by placing the Torah within it. Perhaps we can use Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel's analysis in understanding ourselves: when we build a house, if we seek for it to become a "home for kedusha" we need to furnish it with all of the appropriate objects but we also need to practice our devotion in order that our home become a catalyst to attract that sense of the Sacred. When we learn Torah, when the holy words of Torah are contained within us, the Torah alone serves catalytically to elevate us so that we become "containers of the testimony." We sanctify ourselves and have a standard to live up to. Torah permeates our being and alters our status.

Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Ki Tisa

A Thought on Parshas Ki Tisa

"...ha'ashir lo yarbeh..."
"...the wealthy may not give more..." (30:15)

Everyone in the desert had to donate to the community fund, and each one had to give the same amount. This was in order to determine, indirectly, the census of the nation by counting the coins, each one of which corresponded to one adult male, Hence, a rich man could not give more nor a poor man less. But - what if someone did not give? The census tally would be inaccurate.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel writes that Moshe Rabbeinu struggled with this possibility. He asked HaShem if there might be an independent measure, and external criterion, to compare with the coin total. Such a measure would either validate or not match the tally.

He puts together the following calculation, based on midrashic formulas: Moshe Rabbeinu was told by HaShem to take the first letter from each of the twelve tribal names. Reuven and Shimon begin with reish and shin which equal 500. From Naftali, Yehuda, Yissachar and Yosef, the nun with yud three times equals 80. So far that is 580. From Zevulun, Gad, Asher, Binyanim and Dan we have zayin, gimel, alef, bais and dalet which add up to 17 giving a grand total of 597. Now, we always say that there were 600 thousand men in the desert, but we know that three thousand of them perished post-egel. As for the lamed of Levi which would have represented 30 (meaning 30 thousand), this is not included in the validation formula since Levi was never counted in the census. The head-letter of each tribal head validated the head count.

* * * * * *
"...ach es Shabsosai tishmoru..."
"...but the Sabbath must still be kept..." (31:13)

Despite the supreme importance of building a mishkan, the Torah stresses that it may not be constructed during Shabbos. Given that the Shabbos involves serious work prohibitions, why might we have assumed that the mishkan might override its sanctity?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that we might have assumed that whereas the building of the mishkan is only a mitzvas aseh which does not have the power to override more complex prohibitions such as Shabbos, it is really in the category of "aseh gadol" - a great commandment (for example, bris mila and korban Pesach are in that category of "great mitzvos" and have the power to override Shabbos). Why might I have thought that the temple is also in that class of "great mitzvos"?

He answers that we learn in Pirkei Avos 1:2 that the world stands on three pillars - Torah, Worship and Kindness. I would have assumed that one could override Shabbos, if needed, in order to learn Torah, to be charitable, and to prepare for supreme worship as would have been facilitated through constructing a Temple. This is why we have our above verse, which teaches us that whereas those three pillars are supreme essentials, Shabbos takes precedence over them. This certainly sheds a magnificent light on how truly vital and precious our prayer, learning and kindness are. To think that they might have overridden Shabbos had it not been for this verse! Henceforth, regard your learning, helping, and praying as "great mitzvos"!

* * * * *
"... zachor l'Avraham l'Yitchak u'l'Yakov..."
"...please remember the three forefathers.." (32:13)

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel probes the deeper secrets of Moshe's plea to save the Jewish people. With what was he bargaining or negotiating that HaShem, ka'va'yachol might set aside the decree of annihilation r'l? Why does he single out three three patriarchs and ask that HaShem remember them?

Basing his interpretation on midrashic sources, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel considers that there might have been three forms of severe punishment which the Jews could have succumbed to: sraifa (death by fire), hereg (beheading) or galus (exile). This was his plea: if they are considered to be deserving of sraifa - remember Avraham who was willing to die by fire when he was cast into the furnace in Ur Kasdim. If they deserve hereg - remember Yitzchak who was willing to be slaughtered at the akeida. If they deserve galus - remember Yakov who endured exile as he left his father's home for the land of Charan. This was the meaning of Moshe's prayer for remembrance of the three Avos. He pleaded that their specific devotions serve as merits to set aside the need for their descendants to undergo parallel suffering r'l. As long as zchus Avos prevailed, we were protected from such national tragedies.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel demonstrates for us his skill with remez - the hidden allusions of the Torah, with drush - the homiletic expounding of the interface between the Torah's structural and moral lessons, and with sod - the foundational essences which run beneath the overt message of the verses. Food for thought; reflection for the senses; inspiration for the transcendent spark within.

Wishing you the delights of Shabbos, in mind, heart and soul. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Tetzaveh

A Thought on Parshas Tetzaveh

"...'kaha'no li..."
"...to serve Me..." (25:1)

"...le'shar'ess ba'kodesh..."
"...to serve with sanctity..." (25:43)

"...pituchei chosem..."
"...engraved like a signet ring..." (28:11)

This week, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel discloses for us another facet of his interpretative style. While decidedly a great Ashkenazi Rishon and typically presenting us with finely woven elucidations of the words and verses against backdrop of midrashic thought, he at times ventures into the area of remez - the hidden messages which offer further insight into broader applications of our Torah passages.

Some have suggested to me that he appears to have been "chassidish" before his time, in that he finds allusions and hints of the type which we often associate with later movements in the history of Torah thought. While he was likely associated with the movement known as Chassidei Ashkenaz, that early group of pious scholars preceded and was not part of the later movement we now know as Chassidim.

Nonetheless, this week we will examine his reflections on the above verses.

He first ponders the word li (to or for me) which is spoken by HaShem in instructing that the kohanim will serve Him. Why the word li? The verse would have been intact had it said "to serve". What is being added or hinted by this addition of "to serve Me"?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notes that the word appears not just here but in two other verses! We find li in verse 3 and 4 as well. He interprets this with a double meaning. The word is written three times, and its gematria (the numerical value of lamed is 30 and yud is 10) is forty. Why does the Torah allude three times to forty?

He writes that in our history, there were many Kohaim Gedolim - High Priests. We know of only three of them who served for forty years. One was Aharon, one was Eli (see the book of Shmuel I 4:18), and one was Shimon HaTzadik (Yoma 39b). Three great Kohanim Gedolim led our nation and secured their roles for four decades. HaShem makes mention of this future fact by inserting the word li three times into our parsha as it discusses the role and function of the Kohen Gadol.

Our second verse says that the kohen was outfitted so that he could serve in the sacred place in a sacred manner. He would be dressed in his vestments and would be trained in the ritual service. That is a lot of preparation, yet the former is external (one's attire) and the latter is behavioral or at best cognitive and behavioral (learning a ritual procedure).

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel observes that the first letter of each word (lamed of le'shar'es and bais of ba'kodesh) spell the word lev which means heart or emotions. He writes that the Torah is reminding the kohen that there is a deeper (and often hidden) component of consciousness which must also go into the holy avoda. This deeper component is the engagement of one's heart which must direct and govern the ritual process. The kohen is visibly attired and visibly engaged in the procedure yet he must also serve with the invisible presence of his higher consciousness attuned to what he is doing. This is his avoda b'lev.

The final verse describes how the tribal names were to be engraved within the jeweled ornaments worn by the Kohen Gadol. The Torah emphasizes how the writing was to be embedded in the manner of a signet ring. The names were to be engraved with a permanence.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel views the word pituchei (engraved) as an atypical conjugation. The Torah might have used a different form of the word without posing it in the dependant form modified with the follow-up word chotem. It would have read "engraved" rather than "engraved like a signet ring." What can we learn from this slight alteration of the word form?

He sees within pituchei two words: pito and chai. The former words means "his bread" (as in "pita"). The second means "life." Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel derives from here that one who shares his bread with another person is inscribed for the eternal life. This is the signet or seal of approval which HaShem grants those who help the needy. One who gives pito will be chasum (sealed) in the Sefer HaChaim.

Wishing you a Shabbos with deeper meaning. D. Fox

A Thought on Parshas Teruma

A Thought on Parshas Teruma

"...v'asisa sh'ny'im keruvim..."
"...and you shall make two cherubs..." (25:18)

The ornamentation in the Sacred Shrine included some unique items. One of the more puzzling commandments was that of constructing two golden "angelic" forms called keruvim which adorned the cover of the ark. Many commentaries have offered a view, a theological perspective, on the meaning of including two creature-like forms in the midst of such a sacred place. What did these keruvim symbolize that they should belong in a spot which was consecrated to the service of HaShem? What message were they meant to convey to us?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel offers a perspective. HaShem is One. His unity is like no other One-ness and our faith is founded on His Omnipresence and absolute unity. It is a human reality, perhaps an embedded short-coming, that we are wired to think in dualities. We are creatures of reason and analysis, and we contrast that which we experience against all else that we know, and against each concept's opposite. We define bad as the opposite of good. We label light as light because it is not dark. We do the same with bad and good, with holy and profane, and virtually everything that we encounter is understood through the dialectic of what it is and what it is not.

Our perception or our understanding of HaShem is also filtered through this limitation. This is how we look at life events and even though our spiritual understanding learns to attribute events to HaShem, we nonetheless dissect our reality sense of Him through our binary perception of Justice versus Compassion. This is how we have learned to understand Divine mechanisms as representing middas din versus middas rachamim. (This was an area that our study of the Recanati helped clarify when I worked on his commentary some years ago in these weekly parsha thoughts.)

Two keruvim forms were appended to the ark cover. They symbolized not the "reality" of the Divine, but rather our human experience of Divinely ordained events. We humbled ourselves by portraying the epitome of human endeavor, the crafting of the mishkan, as still being a very human endeavor. The human view and reality is to apprehend the Divine as if there are two middos. One cherub symbolized the perceived quality of Justice. One was to symbolize the perceived quality of Compassion. HaShem is one and Elokim is the same One, yet we associate the midda of Justice with the latter name, and the midda of Compassion with the former name. That is the way we are driven to understand HaShem Echad. Two keruvim represented our exalted yet imperfect effort to appreciate the Tzur Tamim.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel then ponders: in the book of Kings (Melachim I 6:23) we find that Shlomo HaMelech had not two but four keruvim crafted in the Bais HaMikdash which he designed. It is hard enough for us to grasp the idea of having two of something in a place meant to represent Divine One-ness. But to construct four forms in such a place seems curious!

He explains that with the descent of humanity, the dissecting of experience expanded. Not only do we struggle to make sense of the Justice versus Compassion dialectic; we even struggle to make sense of each of those two concepts on its own, since at times we see the good suffer, and are confused with "tzadik v'ra lo" - why bad things happen to good people. We wonder how Justice seems to go awry. When we see good things happen to good people, we assume that this is just a pure manifestation of compassionate good. When we encounter rosha v'ra lo - bad things happening to wicked people - we assume that this is an obvious manifestation of abject Justice. Yet when good things happen to the wicked, we wonder why Compassion went awry.

There is a middas din which we can connect to, yet there seems to be another manifestation of din which we cannot relate to. There is a middas rachamim which we can appreciate yet another manifestation of rachamim which we have trouble with. That is the human reality and the wise King Shlomo had this depicted as a sign of the further humbling of man who remains in awe of HaShem's ways yet also struggles with awe-full fear of the One Above.

Good Shabbos. D Fox