Wednesday, April 27, 2011

A Thought On Parshas Kedoshim

A Thought On Parshas Kedoshim

"...lo sasu avel ba'mishpat...b'tzedek tishpot ami'secha..."
"... do not pervert justice...judge your people fairly..." (19:15)


This verse seems straightforward in its imperative for those who serve as judges to follow a just and strict ethic. A dayan or shofet or zaken - anyone who assumes authority in ruling on matters of Jewish law - must be impartial, objective and adhere to parameters of integrity.

An element of the verse which is not as straightforward is its grammatical structure. The first clause is written in the plural, as if speaking to a group of judges: lo sasu is second-person plural for "you shall not pervert justice." The later clause, however, shifts to second-person singular, as if addressing a solitary judge: tishpot - judge - is singular.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notices this change in the verse and analyzes it. Why would the Torah begin speaking to a group and then downshift to an individual here? He suggests that this is a hidden allusion to a pair of laws which have been introduced by Chazal. Our sages have noted that in addressing many matters pertaining to financial claims, and disputes involving business transactions, a court made of three intelligent laymen may convene if both litigants agree to this. These are known as hedyotos - a court of one's own peers, and have been referred to by Chazal almost euphemistically as "gimel ro'ae bakar" - three cowboys. As long as they are G-d fearing men who have a solid understanding of the issues involving the business dispute, they can serve as "judges" on that case. It is not always practical, nor necessary, our sages teach, to insist on a formal din Torah involving the complex perusal of learned scholars. Some matters can be dealt with by one's peers.

In contrast is the circumstance where two litigants can opt to seek an alternative to the formal din Torah by seeking arbitration from a lone expert. Rather than going before an official bais din tribunal, people may opt to select a single chocham mumcheh to arbitrate a matter within the framework of halachic adjudication. This is also an option, along with the "three cowboys" choice, when litigants seek to resolve a financial matter.

Now, one might think that once we have veered past the formal setting of a bais din and have opted for one of these convenient alternatives, the rules are relaxed and there is no longer a strict imperative to remain objective and straight. Perhaps those who arbitrate can rely on various tools and devices to adjudicate a case as they see fit. Perhaps there is a rationale for "situational ethics". Can the rules be bent to fit the demands at hand?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel hastens to observe that our verse suggests otherwise! The first clause, which speaks in plural, is referring to those alternative situations where "three cow-
boys" preside. It is written in plural to allude to their collective responsibility to preserve justice. The latter clause, written in the singular, incorporates those situations where a yachid mumcheh is appointed to settle the matter. He too must function with integrity and objectivity. With this insight, we now understand the precision of the verse saying "those people who settle disputes: they must not pervert the system and he must rule justly."

Once again, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel brings to light the wisdom of the Oral Torah through a careful analysis of the Written Word. Good Shabbos. D Fox

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

A Thought on Parshas Acharei Mos

A Thought On Parshas Acharei Mos

"...v'lo yizbachu od es zivcheihem la'sa'irim..."
"...and they shall no longer sacrifice to demons..." (17:7)

When the Torah instructs us to bring forth offerings to HaShem, we are also warned never to sacrifice to the "forces" and "spirits" with which the heathen nations were obsessed.

Uncharacteristically, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel comments on the writings of scholars who preceded him. He begins with the cryptic words of Ibn Ezra, who wrote about the Sa'ir haMishtalea'ach (16:8) at the begining of our parsha - "I will reveal to you some of its deep mystery. When you become thirty three you will know it."

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel notes that the Ramban cites this Ibn Ezra. He goes on to write

"I will be the peddler who reveals the secret.
When you reach "33" means when you count
thirty-three verses from the mention of the
sa'ir la'Azazel, you will then know that it relates to
the sa'irim to which we shall not offer sacrifices.


Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel explains that our verse is the thirty-third verse after the one which first mentions the "sa'ir la'Azazel." He writes that Ibn Ezra wants us to understand that there is a link between the Yom Kippur ritual of casting a goat to Azazel, and our subsequent verse which prohibits our sacrificing anything to a false deity or entity. The avoda of Yom Kippur involved offering a goat to HaShem, after first casting a goat to the barren valley of Azazel. There is no link between the two practices, for our verse cautions us that in no way should we engage in "offering" anything to any alien concept. Our verse reveals, to a degree, an aspect of understanding the casting of the goat to Azazel. It sheds light on the fact that in no way was that goat an offering or a sacrifice. That would be forbidden, as we see in our verse.

However, if Ibn Ezra seeks to "reveal the secret" through this cryptic counting of verses, why didn't he go ahead and explain the deeper secret? What does the Sa'ir la'Azazel represent if it is not an offering or a sacrifice? He reveals to us the allusion as to what it was not, but has not told us what it was!

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel asks us to pay closer attention to the "cryptic 33." He notes that those 33 verses start from the verse which follows the first mention of Azazel. Those verses form a trail of stepping stones to get us to the associated verse which addresses the ban on sacrificing to "forces." However, the original verse remains separate from the cryptic trail. It stands alone. What is the hidden meaning of this verse being disconnected from the rest?

This is to remind us that amidst the revelation of one secret, the Torah masks the deeper secret. The meaning of the Sa'ir la'Azazel remains hidden from us. Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel refers to it as sod HaShem li'rayav - one of the holy secrets which are revealed by HaShem only to those who fear him (Tehillim 25:14).

Good Shabbos and hoping to continue these thoughts after Pesach. D Fox

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

A Thought On Parshas Metzora

A Thought On Parshas Metzora

"...v'Nosati nega tzaras ba'beis..."
"...and I will inflict a blight sign on the dwellings..." (14:34)

The Torah forecasts how our nation might encounter peculiar events upon entering the Holy Land. HaShem says that different forms of tzaras affliction will surface, at times in the form of a strange blight affecting the dwellings. The stone houses would have to be demolished and could not be lived in nor their stones re-used.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel cites a tradition that having one's home torn down under those circumstances was not such a tragic event: Chazal have taught us that those homes were once the dwellings of pagans who had lived in the land. Many of them had hidden their treasures within the walls and foundation of their dwellings. When they left the area upon our reclaiming the land which had been promised for us in the days of our forefathers, they also forsook the hidden contents of those stone walls. When the houses became contaminated and could not be used further, and were torn down, their new residents found the precious artifacts left behind there. That way, the loss of the house was a blessing, for it was outweighed by the discovery of hidden wealth. The "dark cloud" had a real "silver lining." Just like a story out of the "Small Miracles" series.

However, asks Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, we have other sources in Chazal (see Avos D'R' Nosson 9:1) which suggest that having one's house destroyed because of these nega'im was a consequence one's misdeeds. Pious and righteous people did not live in houses which succumbed to the tzaras blight. If those who lost their homes were less than perfect, how is it that they deserved or merited to come out on top with the unearthing of valuables?

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel reasons that we must remember that all that befalls a person is decreed during the days between Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur. Good people may merit good tidings. Those who live lives of iniquity may fare less well. Those who are in between may experience something in between. He suggests that if someone discovers treasures, he must deserve them. He must have done some things right to earn such an unexpected reward. However, someone who is pure and good will make his profit in a way which is direct and dignified. The truly deserving person will find his riches without an ordeal or preliminary loss. One who has to loose his house as a precursor to getting his reward needs to examine the manner in which he was given his gift. If it came through a less savory and less pleasant means, there is a message in that as well.

It is not enough to rejoice in our bounty, even if we express our gratitude to HaShem. It is also important to ponder the ways in which good things happen to us, and to study their mode of presentation. Did everything flow smoothly, did wonderful events come to us quickly, or did good things happen only after we went through some difficult times? My great chavrusa Rav Dovid Brown zt'l used to quote the philosopher Marshall McLuhan who said, "the medium is the message." In looking at our life events, even the ones which turn out positively, Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel suggests that there is a message within the medium as well.

Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Tazria

A Thought on Parshas Tazria
"...yimol basar arlaso..."
"...his body shall be circumcised..." (12:3)

The Torah commands us to perform the covenant of bris mila here. The ritual of circumcision is well known to us and Jews have observed this commandment for centuries, baruch HaShem.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel cites a debate which took place between the Jews and the Christians - a controversy which has likely occurred time and again over the centuries - with regard to what the Torah intends by commanding "circumcision." The priests used to claim that it was a symbolic "softening of the heart." They looked at the term arla as used elsewhere in the Torah and Prophets and believed it to mean a removal of callousness and arrogance. They insisted that it could not mean the literal foreskin, since skin is orr in Hebrew and our verse says basar, which is the substance of the body. Since it could not mean that someone has their substantive body flesh removed (think Merchant of Venice), it must mean a symbolic part of the metaphoric "body", namely the psychological husk around the emotional heart. That was the claim of the Christian scholars.

He refutes their argument by showing that in many Biblical verses, bris mila involves using a flint or sharp instrument and if the Torah only intended it metaphorically, no tool would be needed other than that of a good "musar sefer" to help one learn how to overcome tough midos. (I guess it would have been known as bris mida rather than mila if they were correct!). Clearly, argues Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel, bris involves a physical change.

His final argument is that had the Torah intended the circumcision as an emotional change alone, rather than an actual surgery, why would women be exempt? Women too would have to "soften their callous hearts" according to the Christian interpretation.

Rabbeinu Chaim Paltiel was then asked to defend his own position, explaining why indeed the Torah only requires this covenant of men. Why are women not given an entrance into the covenant by way of some surgical procedure?

His answer has a mystical undertone to it. He first refers back to their contention that the Torah says basar which implies substantive flesh and not a minor strip of the outer skin.

He begins by asking a riddle: "Two partners share merchandise and one of them pays the taxes on it. Does the second partner have to pay as well?" He explains: according to the Biblical account in Genesis, "woman" was taken or created from the side (tzela) of "man." Every wife, he suggests, is symbolically the missing side of her husband, as Dovid HaMelech proclaims "u'v'tzali samchu v'nesafu" - for with my side they rejoiced and united (Tehillim 35:15). If so, he suggests, like the man who pays a tax to exempt his partner, when a male undergoes the covenant of bris, it is on behalf of the future partnership. The circumcision affects both the man and his missing "side". The woman who will one day be his life partner also enters into the covenant at the moment of bris mila. This is why, he darshans, the word in our verse is basar and not orr. The circumcision of orr actually affects the basar which was taken from man and formed into woman. The bris mila is called a bris basar arlaso because it is a covenant between HaShem and the fusion of man and wife.

Wishing you a good Shabbos bris olam. D Fox