Monday, July 25, 2011

A Thought On Parshas Masei

A Thought On Parshas Maasei

"...ad mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol..."
"...until the death of the Priest the High One..." (34:25)

One of the consequences of an accidental death, or manslaughter, is that the unwitting murderer must flee to a City of Refuge and remain there until the death of the High Priest. There are many interpretations of this Torah ruling. I am aware that I did not write "High Priest" in my translation of the above verse. Why did I write such an awkward title, "the Priest the High One"?

I wrote it that way because that is how it is written in the Hebrew. There is a "hae" (meaning "the") in front of the word Kohen and in front of the word Gadol. The literal translation of those words is the Kohen and the high (or Great) one. So the question here is not on my translation but on the verse's wording. What does the Torah convey by using a "the" in front of both noun and adjective?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel sees in this a remez, an allusion, which can also enlighten us as to the role attributed to the Kohen Gadol (note the omitted haes do not detract from the meaning of the noun and adjective). Somehow, he must die before the man can go free, as if he had some role in the events leading to the refugee's predicament and incarceration.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel reminds us that the letter hae equals the gematria of five, essentially because it is the fifth letter of the aleph bais. In the Sefer Torah, those hae letters have small crown appended to them (tagim). What significance does five have in the role of the Kohen Gadol?

He begins with a midrash which enumerates five qualities which the Kohen Gadol must exemplify in becoming the central spiritual figure who leads the holiest services. He must demonstrate wisdom, endurance, beauty, composure, and experience of venerable years.

The Kohen Gadol administers five forms of sacred service on Yom Kippur. He is the only person permitted to engage in those most holy of rites on that most holy day, within the most holy shrine of the holy Temple in the Holy City. Note that the word holy was used five times just now. That was my choice, not Rabbein Chaim Paltiel's. I just got into the idea.

The Kohen Gadol was in a position to ask for mercy for the entire Jewish nation. This includes the person who was killed, and the person who accidentally killed him. Blood has been shed which might have been averted. This has an impact on the souls of both of those unfortunate persons, and the soul has five dimensions or names: nefesh, ruach, neshama, yechida and chaya.

This may be why, writes Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, the Torah emphasizes the figure of the High Priest by prefacing both the noun and the adjective with a hae. Five qualities, five tasks, five levels of concern for each Jewish person. Those were the scope of the Kohen Gadol's responsibility. This is why his life and fate are intertwined with the life and fate of the refugee in that city of exile. The Torah hints this us with the crowned letters hae in a way that does not detract from the dignity and nobility of the Kohen Gadol but still gives over this illuminating message.

So ends the commentary of our Master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel on Sefer BaMidbar. May we know of no more tragedy among our people. May the ensuing Three Weeks herald better days ahead for us. Good Shabbos. D Fox

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

A Thought On Parshas Matos

A Thought On Parshas Matos

"...nachnu na'avor chalutzim..."
"...we will travel through armed..." (32:32)

Our parsha closes with the steps taken by each of the tribes and by the entire nation as they summed up their forty year journey and prepared to move on to the Promised Land. As the parsha merges with Masei, which will be read next week, we are presented with a review of the sojourn through sea, desert and oasis.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notes that mention of the Yam Suf leg of our journey uses first the words "and they passed through the sea" (33:8) then later "and they camped on the sea" (33:10). The verbs imply different experiences. Did we pass through the sea and then pass by the sea? He first offers an explanation in the name of his great-grandfather, Rabbeinu Yaakov of Provence, who suggested that we traversed the sea twice. This earlier sage said that we first entered Yam Suf to flee from the pursuing Egyptians, then back-tracked, then entered from a different side and crossed the water.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel does not accept this interpretation of the two verses, rejecting it on grammatical grounds as well as because we have no tradition of two such crossings of the sea. He offers instead a perspective which gives us a glimpse of his awareness of European geography.

He observes that when someone crosses the channel from England to Dunkirk, then travels over land to Brest and from there to La Rochelle, given that those three towns are all on the shore of the Atlantic, he has crossed the sea and traveled inland yet he is still said to be camping on the shoreline. In the same way, we have to recall that the Yam Suf had both a length and a width. We first crossed the width of the sea, which is what our first verse notes. The second verse notes that we then traveled ahead along the shore of the sea, lengthwise, and each of those sojourns were also "along the sea" although no longer traveling through it. Even in our common speech, in English, we will refer to a boat as being "on the water" but will also say that a home or a parcel of land is "on the water."

What struck me about the explanation was his use of places which are now familiar to us. Who knows? Might the turning point of the last world war, the events at Dunkirk, have been shaped in some small part by this Torah learning, which was illuminated by utilizing those places as examples? Was there some grain of merit associated with that place because it was used to illustrate the meaning of a Torah verse?

Or perhaps there is another reason that Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel selected those three places as examples. We have all heard of Dunkirk but we do not all realize that it had a much earlier role in Jewish history, as did Brest (not to be confused with Brest, Lithuania which we know as Brisk), and as did La Rochelle. Those communities had a Jewish presence since the times of the Romans. However, during the Crusades, Jews were massacred there. La Rochelle also hosted an infamous Jewish apostate during that period. Perhaps Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel referred to those places in another of his subtle allusions to the many challenges presented to our people by the ruling Christians during his time. He may be citing these towns as symbols of those places where the Biblical Jews passed through and passed by in their trek from Egyptian bondage towards the Promised Land. By using them to demonstrate how we passed through and passed by locations near the sea, he may have been offering hope to his frightened followers, encouraging them that our nation and religion would survive. Looking on a map of France, you will note the triangle which is formed between Dunquerque, La Rochelle and Brest. There are many large cities in between. It may well be that this glimpse into geography reveals a deeper lesson.

Wishing you a good and encouraged Shabbos as we begin the Three Weeks. Mazal tov to the Fox family on the birth of a son to my son Rabbi Uri Fox of Passaic. D Fox

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

A Thought On Parshas Pinchas

A Thought On Parshas Pinchas

"...u'v'Roshei Chadshei'chem..."
"...and on the first days of your months..." (28:11)

The latter half of our parsha introduces many of the offerings which were brought on festive and holy occasions. One of these, the passage with the Rosh Chodesh korbanos , is quite familiar to us since we read it at least once a month. For that matter, another passage, the Shabbos korbanos, is equally familiar to us but not because we read it every Shabbos. We don't. However, we do read it every Rosh Chodesh in the process of laining the monthly New Moon passage, which is prefaced with mention of the Shabbos offerings.

One might question the reason behind our not including this passage in our weekly Shabbos Torah reading. After all, all of the other days which include a korban mussaf - an additional offering - are commemorated through having their passage appended to the end of the regular laining. Moreover, we also incorporate those verses within the musaf prayers which we say on each of those days. Curiously, on Shabbos, we actually recite those korban musaf verses in our musaf prayer, yet we do not publicly read them during the Torah service which precedes musaf prayers. Why is Shabbos missing its respective korban verses? Why not take out a second Sefer Torah and read from Parshas Pinchas as we do on Rosh Chodesh and on yomim tovim?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel queries this as well, and he offers some halachic insights into our tradition. He notes that when Chazal instituted the practice of reading a selection from the prophets, known as haftara, which we continue to observe following the completion of the appropriate Torah portion, they selected a passage from TaNaCh which in some manner echoes some of the messages which were in the Torah reading. On those days when we have additional Torah segments, such as when two or even three Sifrei Torah are brought out, the haftara tends to parallel in some of its message the events or matters which make that special day stand out. Therefore, when we read the final Torah aliya, the maftir, you can generally count on the haftara which follows as being related to whatever verses were read at the close of that maftir.

Now, reasons Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, if we were to take out a second Sefer Torah every Shabbos in order to append those korban musaf verses to the weekly passage, we would then have to find a selection from TaNaCh which speaks about Shabbos. He suggests that this would be difficult to do, and it would mean that virtually every week (other than those when Shabbos coincided with a yom tov), we would probably end up reading the same haftara. We would not get a broad and appreciable exposure to the other words of our great and holy prophets. For this reason, he suggests, the practice is to side step entirely the notion of reading as maftir the Shabbos musaf verses. Shabbos loses out in favor of maintaining the original intention of exposing our nation to the scriptural haftara selections.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel adds that when we happen to have two contiguous parshios on a single Shabbos, as often happens (i.e. Mattos-Masei), we generally select a haftara which echoes something in the second of the two. Another twist is when Shabbos occurs the day before Rosh Chodesh. You may recall that we always read a special haftara known as Machar Chodesh, a passage in the book of Shmuel which centers around an episode which began the day before the New Moon. Now, asks Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, if the idea behind haftara is to echo the Torah reading or the maftir on days which include a musaf, why would we read Machar Chodesh if it has nothing to do with the parsha and it is read on a day which is not even Rosh Chodesh, just the day preceding Rosh Chodesh?

He suggests that the answer may be that we all need to know when the New Moon (Month) begins and for this reason, that special haftara is used to broadcast this. Finally, he looks at one other twist. Many communities have the custom of reading a special haftara when there is a chosson (bridegroom) present. It is the Sos Tasis passage (Yeshayah 61:10) which depicts the bliss of newlyweds. Why would we insert such a passage since it has nothing to do with the Torah portion being read that Shabbos?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel offers a creative explanation: there is a halachic principle stating that gadol kvod ha'brios sh'docheh afilu lo saseh sh'b'Torah - human dignity is so great that it may supercede a Torah prohibition. He reasons that upholding a rabbinic practice is within the Torah imperative of "you shall not deviate from what your teachers instruct." That would include the imperative to read the regular haftara each week. However, a chosson deserves dignified treatment in honoring his special status. This is why we would prioritize him on his special Shabbos in lieu of maintaining the status quo of reading the regular Shabbos haftara. We set aside a standard principle because human dignity such as this is very precious.

With these lessons, our Master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel establishes himself as a clear as well as broad thinking sage. May we live to merit the return of avodas ha'korbanos. May our people never again suffer tragedy as has befallen us this week. Good Shabbos. D Fox

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

A Thought On Parshas Balak

A Thought On Parshas Balak

"...tamus nafshi mos yesharim v'tehi acharisi kamohu..." (22:10)
"... may my soul die the death of the righteous and let my end be as theirs..."

Some years ago I was talking with my physician during a check up. He is a religious man and we were talking about our respective yeshiva backgrounds. He said to me that one thing he had been working on for many years was why belief in an ultimate afterlife is so fundamental to our faith system, yet it is not an explicit commandment nor clearly sourced in our Torah. I told him that I had been accumulating material on this and would one day share my findings with him.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel focuses on the above verse. What kind of wish is this that the wicked Bilaam expresses? Here he is having a vision and what he dwells on is how he looks forward to dying like a Jew! What was going through the man's mind at the moment?

He suggests that this must be a proof from the Torah that there is an afterlife for us. Given that Bilaam was speaking as a conduit for the Divine (otherwise the entire parsha would not have been mentioned in the eternal Torah, nor would we have had verses which could actually glimpse into his thought process, something that no man-written passage could possibly do), he must have seen something profound and real in his vision. If what emerges in his vision is this wistful plea for a death like the righteous Jews, it must be that there is a goal which is attained with death. If it is not posterity or legacies which make death worth dying for, or life worth living for, it must be that transcendent form of immortality known as the afterlife of the soul.

He then notes that the phrase mos yesharim - death of the righteous - equals in gematria- value the words avos ha'olam - the eternal ancestors. This is of course an allusion to our patriarchal figures whose spiritual immortality lives on for us. A further allusion to their, and our, and Bilaam's aspired, afterlife can be found within part of the prior verse (23:9). Over there, Bilaam proclaimed that he foresaw "a nation which would dwell alone" - le'vadad yishkon. Those two words add up to 420. This equals precisely the gematria-value of the words b'yamei moshiach - in the times of the messiah. According to this interpretation, we have the theological axiom of an afterlife and of a messianic era within the overt words of Bilaam's vision, and within the latent remazim of those same words.

Once again, our Master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel has enlightened an aspect of our Torah reading through his insightful use of sod and his artful application of remez.

Wishing you a good Shabbos. D Fox