A Thought on Parshas Shemini

A Thought On Parshas Shemini

"...u'v'nivlasam al tiga'u..."
"...and do not touch their carcasses..." (11:8)

Much of our parsha details the many laws of purity and ritual impurity. A good deal of the commentary of Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel focuses on halachic intricacies. Studying his words establishes him firmly among the great Rishonim, for we see his halachic precision in areas of Torah which are not homiletic.

He does offer a few insights, nonetheless, which we might view as more spiritually intimate. I will present two of them here.

Regarding the above instruction to refrain from touching the carcass of an unclean dead animal, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel wonders why the Torah would need to forbid eating an unclean carcass if even making contact (our verse) is prohibited. If we cannot even touch the dead animal, we would know on our own that we cannot eat it, since eating would require touching and our verse forbids touching alone. He then ponders a later verse: in Devarim 14:21 the Torah tells us that whereas we cannot eat the unclean dead animal, we are bound to "give it to the stranger in our gates that he may eat it." Giving implies handing something over. If our verse forbids us from touching the carcass, how could we then be ordered to give it or hand it to the resident alien, the stranger in our gates who is allowed to eat them?

He then concludes that the Torah is hinting at a well known Rabbinical adage: it is giving us aitza tova - wise counsel - that to assure that we not eat it, we should even refrain from any contact with it. This is the Talmudic saying "tell the Nazir to keep away from the vineyard" (Shabbos 13a), which advises us to make harchakos - avoidance precautions, to assure that we steer clear of whatever might tempt us in the forbidden zone. It is pious to set up fences for ourselves to assure that we not stray into the frontiers which border the banned.

"...v'heh'yisem kedoshim..."
"...you should become holy ones..." (11:45)

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel refers us to the many places in the Talmud where Chazal infer from this verse that "ha'bah l'taher me'syin oso; u'bah l'tamae poschin lo" - one who seeks to purify himself will be given (Divine) assistance; one who seeks to defile himself will find ways to do so. Whereas Chazal anchor this lesson to the above words, he elucidates it for us:

If we associate with those who live lives of piety and purity, we have an obligation to adopt their ways. If we adopt their ways and live by them, we are bound by them and must continue in the path of the pious. Since the verse says "and you should become holy since I (HaShem) am Holy", and it does not say "you shall make yourselves holy since I am Holy", we see that there are two levels of transcendence involved. The first does entail our making ourselves act with piety, and this is when we associate with people who live consecrated lives and we emulate them. The second level is not something which we can do, but rather is a matter of Divine assistance. We emulate those who conduct themselves with piety and then we will become holy ones for HaShem is the Source of Holiness. This deeper element of personal purity is because HaShem then will "associate with us." This is how Chazal knew that "one who seeks to purify himself will be given Divine accompaniment."

In turn, the other side of the adage is anchored two verses earlier. The Torah says "you shall not contaminate yourselves and you will become contaminated." It does not really parallel our later verse, for it could have said "you shall not contaminate yourselves for you would become impure." The Torah seems to be hinting that whereas we are urged not to become impure, we will nonetheless become impure! How could that be?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that the open ended clause of "and you will become contaminated" comes to remind us that if one seeks to be reckless and to forsake the needs of his soul, he will find even more ways to defile himself. There are paths which lead to piety but there are also paths which lead to impurity. One who seeks the former will be guided to them. One who longs for the latter will find them on his own.

Wishing you a Shabbos which is purely good. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Tzav

A Thought on Parshas Tzav

"...zos toras ha'olah...al ha'mizbe'ach ko ha'layla..."
"...this is the rule for the burnt offering...on the altar all night" (1:2)

The Torah spells out here the laws and order of bringing the korban olah - the sacrificial offering which was incinerated on the altar. It was unlike many of the other offerings in that it was burned entirely. Individuals bringing this type of korban did not partake of any portion of the meat. It was burned to a crisp until it was a pile of ashes. It was the burnt offering.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel sees in our verse another message, deeper than the obvious. He begins with the word zos - "this is" and says that this word is an allusion to the Jewish people. We are also referred to as "zos" as it is written in the Song of Songs "mi zos oleh" - who is this arising? - which is the lovely young woman of Solomon's metaphor for the Jews who seek the love of HaShem. So our verse saying "this is the olah which is brought on the altar" is a reference to how the other zos - the Jewish people - will be burned over and again in sanctifying the name of HaShem. Those Jewish souls who were taken by the crusades, the inquisition, the pogroms, the holocaust, Daniel Perl, the Fogel family in Itamar who were slaughtered in their sleep - are the ones who have their lives brought up on the altar as they die because they are Jews.

The verse says that the korban olah is brought on the altar kol ha'layla - all night long. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel adds that night is an allusion to exile, the long ordeal of galus. Throughout our exile, our spiritual dark night, our people will repeatedly sanctify the name of HaShem on one "altar" or another. The world reminds us that we are Jews. We express in our prayers that as Jews, we are prepared to sanctify His name. There are many ways in which we can bring about greater sanctity. During the exile, whether in the Diaspora or in the Holy Land, this is the task of our people.

Which altar will we choose as the means for bringing greater sanctity to this world?

Wishing you a good Shabbos and a joyous Purim, the holiday commemorating the many ways in which our people can achieve kiddush HaShem. May the ashes of those who have died al kiddush HaShem not be forgotten. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas VaYikra

A Thought on Parshas VaYikra

"...v'im haKohen haMashiach yech'eta..."
"...and if the anointed Kohen should sin..." (4:3)

We have begun the third book of the Torah. It deals with the sacrificial order in the times of the sacred beis ha'mikdash. We learn about the offerings which were brought at different times and under various circumstances.

Our parsha begins with the law of the High Priest who errs and how he must atone for this. The verses then proceed with similar remedies for the collective errors of a community, of a king, and of an individual. Each has a sacrificial formula to offer in attaining atonement. Each of the latter three is also given a means of slicha - forgiveness (verses 20, 26, 31-5).

The Kohen, however, is not presented with a means of slicha. Whereas our verse includes him in an atonement process, the more subjective fulfillment of being granted forgiveness is absent from the parsha. What sets him apart from his brethren who are promised slicha?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel wonders about this and offers another original thought. The Kohen Gadol is more than just a public figure. He is more than a commoner who follows, and more than a king who leads. He is there to instruct and to inspire. He is perceived by the Jewish nation as a symbol of active piety and righteousness, and ideally, he lives up to their expectation. He serves HaShem and is the one who facilitates atonement on the most sacred of days. He is the High Priest, the anointed one.

People turn to the Kohen Gadol with awe and reverence. They look to him as a guide. When he errs, even by accident, and commits a sin, this has a profound and devastating impact on people. Their emblem for piety and sanctity of spirit has become tarnished. This wounds the collective anima of the nation. This bruises their spirit.

Whereas the Kohen Gadol is afforded the right to atonement, which he deserves along with all others who err, he cannot fully achieve slicha through his offerings, for his sin has affected others deeply. The taint of his sinful mistake lingers among the nation and bringing atoning offerings does not bring about forgiveness at the level of his misdeed. His error has more profound ramifications.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that what we are dealing with here is chillul HaShem - a degradation of the concept of all which is Sacred. For the sin of chillul HaShem, he notes, Chazal have told us (Avos 4:4) that "whether intended or inadvertent, all are liable for the effects of chillul HaShem." He notes that in the twelfth mishna in that same chapter, we are told that "shiggas talmud oleh zadon" - there are times when accidental error is tantamount to willful sin. This is the case of the learned, pious High Priest who errs. His mistake is treated like a more serious offense, because of the impact it has on those who need to see him as a model of pious devotion.

I spoke recently for a group of rabbonim on bringing spirituality to their communities. We are entitled to believe that our rabbinic leaders are persons of piety who live consecrated lives of serving HaShem. We need them to fill this expectation. We need role models to inspire us to bring kedusha down into our own lives. As Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel laments, if we do not see a constant devotion to walking the holy path, any one of us might end up saying "if even he cannot do it right, how can I expect piety of myself?" That is chillul HaShem.

Wishing you a devout Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Pekudei

A Thought On Parshas Pekudei

"...v'lo yachol Moshe lavo...ki shochan alav he'anan..." (40:35)
"...and Moshe was unable to enter...for the cloud dwelled on the tent..."

Our verse implies that as long as the mystical Cloud hovered over the tent of communion (ohel mo'ed), it was off limits and even Moshe was unable to enter there.

Rashi and others are troubled by this, given that HaShem did speak to Moshe from within the tent. Based on Chazal, they conclude that as long as the Cloud hovered, Moshe could not enter and could not connect with the word of HaShem. When the cloud lifted, it was clear for him to enter there.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel has a different view of the verse. He wonders not only about the apparent barrier to connecting to the word of HaShem when the Cloud was present, but also about how the various forms of ritual avoda performed by the kohanim could have taken place - preparing the menorah lamps and arranging the loaves and lighting the incense - if the Cloud was a barrier to the mortal senses of sight and sound, movement, and olfaction.

He observes that further on (VaYikra 1:1) we learn that HaShem called to Moshe from the tent, which implies that even though the Presence was there, when HaShem gave him permission to enter, he was able to enter and commune with the Word. He further supports this with an earlier verse (Shmos 24:16) which says that "when the Glory of HaShem dwelled there along with the Covering Cloud then HaShem called to Moshe." From these verses, he argues, we see that the Presence and the Cloud presence were not barriers to Moshe communing and communicating with HaShem ka'va'yachol. What is the scope, then, of our verse which says that Moshe could not enter there beneath the Cloud?

He then notes that the words shochan alav he'anan - the Cloud hovered on it - begin with the letters shin ayin hea which spell out the word sh'ah which means "a short interval of time." We will recall that when Moshe ascended the mountain to receive the Torah, he is described as entering into the dark cloud in a way that no other person ever did. In this way, we can understand the scope of our verse as well. When the Cloud hovered over the tent, no one could enter. It was off limits in a manner reminiscent of Har Sinai. Even Moshe, who was "trusted in all of My House", was not able to enter there.

However, the difference was that for other persons, including Aharon and the kohanim, this was an unwavering reality. It was impossible to enter within and beneath the cloud presence. Moshe was able to enter there but only when beckoned. When HaShem spoke to Moshe from within the tent of communion, he had permission to enter within. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel sees the opening verse of VaYikra 1:1 cited earlier as historically contiguous with our verse above. When HaShem called to Moshe, Moshe could penetrate the void and enter beneath the cloud to commune with the Divine Presence.

No other person shared this status of being able to penetrate in that way, and it was thus only for "an interval of time" that such entry was conferred. Throughout the rest of our national history, no other person achieved that status. For all others, the sacred place was off limits under those conditions when the cloud was present.

Good Shabbos. D Fox