A Thought On Parshas Ha'azinu

A Thought On Parshas Ha'azinu

"...ha'azinu ha'shomayim..."
"...heed this, heavens..." (32:1)

In Moshe Rabbeinu's final song, he addresses the entire universe to serve witness to the Divine pact with the Jewish people. He forewarns us of the risks of forsaking our faith, and the world events which we will encounter throughout the centuries.

There seem to be two obvious omissions in the song of Ha'azinu. One is that Moshe's name is never mentioned. It is his salutation and farewell to his world and his people, yet he does little to personalize his message. The second mystery is that in addressing the heaven and the earth and the rain, dew, deserts and hills, it is quite a long while before we hear mention of HaShem. In fact, the song goes on for twenty-one words before we finally read the verse (3) ki shem HaShem ekra havu godel l'Elokeinu - when I praise G-d's name, praise Him for His greatness. That verse has become familiar to us because it prefaces our afternoon (mincha) prayer as well as our special mussaf (additional) prayers. It seems almost out of character for Moshe Rabbeinu, whose intimate connection with HaShem was unparalleled by any other human being ever, to speak with prophetic fervor yet to tarry before acknowledging the Al-mighty.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel addresses both observations. He notes that the first mystery, that Moshe's name is missing, troubled RabbeinuYitzchak bar Baruch, who found that every other Biblical song mentions the singer/author (I hesitate to say singer/songwriter). Az Yashir mentions Moshe and Israel, the Song of Devorah (Shoftim 5:1) mentions her, yet Ha'azinu does not mention Moshe. He finds an allusion in the form of an acrostic which adds up, in gematria form, to the numerical equivalent of Moshe. He suggests that the reason that his name is not written explicitly is because so much of this song is harsh in rebuking the Jews. Perhaps Moshe wanted to gently dissociate his name from that confrontation.

The second mystery, the delay before mentioning HaShem, is resolved by Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel somewhat mystically. A song can be a casual jingle or it can be a sacred code of binding the soul and the mind so that the latter's words blend with the former's chant in offering a hymn of praise and glory. Such was Ha'azinu - Moshe chose words and images which would build up as a sacred hymn to culminate in coronating HaShem with majesty and honor. For our own prayers, we select his crescendo line of Ki shem HaShem ekra as our starting place!

However, observes Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, there is something else significant within the verses: that 21-word build up is instructive for us in our own sacred prayers. In the musaf tefillos which we say on special days, we chant a long and mystical "Kedusha." It begins with the words na'aritzcha v'nak'dishcha k'sod siach sarfei kodesh -

we will revere and sanctify You as do the cadre of holy angels who sanctify
your Name in the Sacred Abode, as it is written by Your prophet,
"One calls out to another saying Holy! Holy! Holy! is HaShem..."

Our master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel counts the words from the opening through the third "Holy" and counts that same number, 21 words! Before we mention the holy name of HaShem, we too say a "21-word salute" just as Moshe did in his song. He then mentions that in the rite of German Jewry (which he labels Malchus Ashkenaz), they are accustomed to say a different 21-word hymnal preface: nakdishcha v'naritzcha Malkeinu ksod siach sarfei kodesh ha'makdishim es shimcha ba'kodesh kakosuv al yad neviecha v'kara zeh el zeh v'amar Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh. In their nusach, the trio of "Holy!"s constitutes a single word and makes a total of 21.

Now I note that in nusach Sfard, the wording is different. Their mussaf is altogether a different prayer, and their Shacharis for Shabbos and holidays begins with nakdishach but contains more than 21 prefatory words. I can only conclude that this was not one of the forms which Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel was familiar with, and in fact, many believe that it originated over time much later in our exile history. That is for another discussion, however.

The lesson for this week seems to be that we can pray to HaShem very directly yet when we seek to chant and sing, there must be a hallowed and reverent preparation. Our sages saw the 21-word preparation employed by Moshe, and incorporated it into our own prayer effort. Perhaps our own focus and concentration from now on can be on this concept of needing to build up our spiritual energy so that we can eventually sing to Him with fervor and focus.

Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshios Nitzavim-VaYelech

A Thought On Parshios Nitzavim-VaYelech

"...l'maan sfos ha'rovah es ha'tz'mea..."
"...let me equate the moist with the dry..." (29:18)

This poetic verse captures the frame of mind of those Jews who downplay the many rules and restrictions which the Torah asks of us. It portrays the rationalization people use when they want to make their own standards, feeling that Torah is not relevant for them in their times and culture. They do as they see fit and want to connect "the moist with the dry." What is that idiom all about?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel takes a discussion from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 76b) which cites examples of such misguided thinking. He examines what we now consider the Kantian Categorical Imperative that morality is based on a standard of rationality, rather than G-d given principles. He challenges this with a specific case: am I obligated to return to a pagan an object that he has lost? Some will argue that the moral principle of integrity is absolute, and that it is binding regardless of the persons involved. A Torah perspective, though, is that we distinguish a moral deed from a mitzva.

When the Torah commands us to return a lost object to its owner, no mitzva is fulfilled when that object was lost by a pagan. This is not to say that the act of returning that thing is not a good thing or is never to be done. It is intended, though, to illustrate that a Jew must learn about the G-d given commandments, and must know their applications and details. The formal commandment to return a lost object was given to Jews and refers to objects lost by Jewish persons. We do not rush to give back the item because it is the good thing to do, or the right thing to do, or the moral thing to do. We rush to perform the mitzva because the good and right thing to do is whatever the specific, precise mitzva requires. It is not a matter of being moral or doing moral acts. Our starting place is learning to do what the Torah asks us. That is why we return a lost object, and that is why the commandment is specific to objects lost by Jews.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that the "moist and thirsty" ones of our verse are the non-Jew and the Jew. The non-Jew is sated when it comes to serving our G-d. He does not feel a need to do it, as long as he is a moral person. Morals dictate his decisions and his values. That is enough for him. He is "moist", saturated with his own perceived righteousness. The thirsty ones are the Jews. We thirst for ways to serve HaShem. We may have our own moral system, but we go beyond those morals because we are still thirsty for the ultimate sense of doing right and doing good. Our ultimate standard is the way of mitzvos.

When a person equates the moist with the thirsty, he fails to distinguish between those who do what they do based on their personal (and circumstantial) set of values, versus those who march beneath the banner of Torah. This reduces Torah into mortal morality, and does not acknowledge the difference between a man-made system and the Divine one (that stance is part of the reason that Spinoza was excommunicated).

Based on this interpretation of our verse, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel ruled that on Purim, it is forbidden to give gifts to a non-Jew in the manner in which we are commanded to give mishloach manos on that day. Although our Shulchan Aruch rules somewhat differently with regard to giving donations to anyone who asks us on Purim, our master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel asserts this prohibition (as did Rashi and some other earlier authorities).

We must know the difference between what we think is right and just, and what the Torah instructs as. We need to feel the contrast between wet and dry, sated and thirsting. May this final Shabbos of the year 5751 find us still thirsting for the life sustaining waters of Torah, and may our parched souls be soothed by its teachings. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Ki Tavo

A Thought On Parshas Ki Savo

"...v'anu kal ha'am..."
"...and all of the people shall proclaim and say 'Amen!' (26:15)

The nation assembled near the Jordan and, in full view of ancient hills, followed a formula to pledge their allegiance to HaShem and to His Torah. A selection of blessings and curses was recited by the Levites. Each member of the Jewish people then embraced the theme of those blessings, or curses, saying 'Amen' in a show of agreement to adhere to the laws and to refrain from despicable deeds.

Examples of these pronouncements are not perverting justice, not misdirecting the blind, or not striking others in secret, to which the people voiced acceptance. Our verse, which is the first of the curses, forbids one from making an idol and concealing it. To this, the nation agreed and expressed their commitment with a resounding 'Amen." What is different about this first curse, however, is that the verse says that "all of the people shall proclaim." Unlike the other curse verses which employ the word "amar" ('they shall say"), our verse prefaces with the verb "anu" (proclaim, call out, respond). This seems to stress a more vigorous means of responding. What is the meaning of this variation?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that pledging to abstain from any contact with idols is tantamount to asserting yichud HaShem - the absolute acceptance of HaShem as One. In asserting yichud HaShem and Kiddush HaShem - the sanctification of HaShem's Name and Majesty - one must call out and proclaim his or her devotion in a loud voice.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel illustrates this by saying that there is a custom, at least on Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kipur, to recite the prayer Aleinu L'shabea'ach in a loud voice (this custom is recorded by the Mordechai - Rabbeinu Mordechai ben Hillel Ashkenazi, a 13th century German authority). Even though the Talmud (Berachos 24b) frowns on one raising his voice while praying, prayers involving the proclamation of HaShem's Unity, such as when a Kiddush HaShem must be made, are the exception. He traces this to the saga of Eliahu HaNavi atop Mt. Carmel, which records how the nation cried out "HaShem is our Lord" (Kings 1:18:39), just as it is written (VaYikra 9:24) "va'yar kol ha'am va'ya'ronu - and the people saw and cried out." Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel closes by adding "and this is how they are accustomed in France."

As I mentioned in parshas Matos, I suspect that our master Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel was well aware of the Crusades, and the tragic destruction caused to the Jews of his time in Western Europe. Surrounded as he was by a fierce Catholic host culture, he took caution in what he expressed and wrote. Perhaps his footnote "and this is how they are accustomed in France" is another such allusion. It is known to us that throughout our history of exile and persecution, the prayer of Aleinu has been chanted during times when Jews have had to make the ultimate sanctification of HaShem's Name. Thousands of our holy ancestors had to do that in France during the Crusades. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel reports to us that they called out to HaShem and could be heard chanting the Aleinu prayer to sanctify the Name of the One G-d.

This week, as we recite the ancient Aleinu prayer, be attentive to its words and their meanings. Feel a glimmer of the upcoming Yamim Nora'im when we will say this prayer with raised voice and fervor. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Ki Taetzae

A Thought On Parshas Ki Taetzae

"...ki yikach ish isha..."
"...when a man takes a wife..." (22:13)

This week we will look at a spritely thought of Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel. He wonders why the Torah places the above verse immediately following the section about tying fringes on our garments. He also looks at verse 16 which writes "es biti nosati l'ish" - I have given my daughter in marriage to this man.

The earlier verse (12) says "you shall place fringes on four cornered garments with which you cover yourself." How are fringed garments related to marriage? He suggests that the positioning of our verse with that of the garment fringes is a source for our custom to spread a tallis over the bride and groom at their chupa.

As for the verse which depicts marriage as a man giving over his daughter, he notes that the first letter of the first three words es biti nosati spell "even" which means a stone. The fourth word, l'ish is made of the letters lamed, alef, yud, shin. Those four letters when split into two segments spell lo yesh - "there is not".

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that this is a hidden reference to another wedding practice: under the chupa we do not use a ring which has a stone in it. We only use a plain wedding band.

Lastly for now, he offers a novel depth interpretation of a secret significance of the mitzva to refrain from using wool and linen together (22:11). He notes that in the book of Daniel (7:9), we find a prophetic vision of HaShem as if His Presence is cloaked in pure white wool. In contrast, the heavenly court of ministering angels is envisioned there (12:6) as if clad in robes of linen.

A symbolic lesson of our prohibition to mix wool and linen may be to signify how there are important divisions in the world and throughout the cosmos, including the celestial realms. HaShem is One and there is also a familia shel ma'ala*. The realm of His angelic forces, "the family above", is regarded as being a holy abode yet those angels are not Him nor are they His partners or equals or demigods. By keeping wool and linen separate, we signify that we understand this division. Even in the realm of the holy, such as when we are fulfilling Divine commandments, we assert that there is One Holiness and that it is separate, distinct and apart from all else, even from ofanim v'chayos ha'kodesh.

Good Shabbos. D Fox

* (probably the more accurate way of spelling the expression which Chazal use, which is colloquially pronounced pamalia shel ma'ala. Since the word is of Latin origin and means "family" which is familia, it is probably correct to write it as I did).