A Thought On Parshas Tetzaveh

A Thought On Parshas Tetzaveh

"...es ha'urim v'es'ha'tumim..."
"...and the Urim v'Tumim..." (28:30)

The Kohen Gadol wore a bejeweled breast-plate, adorned with twelve gemstones. Each gem represented one of the twelve tribes, and etched on the metal plate was the name of that tribe, as well as some other words.

We sometimes find that the term Urim v'Tumim is used interchangeably with other terms which pertain to vestments worn by the Kohen Gadol. The reality is, we do not have a clear understanding of what it was (owing to both varying opinions and to it being a lost antiquity), nor do we know what the words themselves mean. Some contend that they mean "Lights and Perfections", or "Revelations and Truths", or "Explanations and Pairings." What is clear is that we are not clear about how to translate those two words.

The Bechor Shor observes that an "Ur" means a place or location, such as we find earlier in the Torah that Avraham came from "Ur Kasdim" (Bereishis 11:31). A "Tum" (not the antacid) means a border, similar to the word tehom (a vertical boundary or subterranean strata) or techum (horizontal limit or boundary). So according to the Bechor Shor, the Urim v'Tumim were "designated places and boundaries." This means that the breast-plate with its gems and tribe-identifiers was a symbol to designate that whereas the Jewish nation consisted of twelve interdependent entities, each one nonetheless needed to maintain its personal identity, and the unified nation needed to respect each other's respective boundaries.

The Bechor Shor elaborates that when the verse later says that "mishpat Benei Yisroel" - the status of the nation - is carried on that breast-plate, this refers to the immutable imperative that all Jews must accept and respect the rights and privileges of other Jews. Those rights are Divinely ordained, as revealed by the glimmering tribal stones and names which were borne by the Kohen Gadol in all of his sacred avoda. Part of being godly and living a life which is consecrated to HaShem lies in the preservation of human boundaries.

The Urim v'Tumim were a reminder of the sanctity of Jews respecting and protecting one another, including our protecting ourselves from each other's ill will, exploitation and manipulation. This is why the Kohen Gadol wore garments when serving HaShem which asserted that the Tribes of Israel deserve individual places (Urim) and sacrosanct boundaries (Tumim).

Wishing you a tolerant and respecting Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Tetzaveh

A Thought On Parshas Tetzaveh

"...es ha'urim v'es'ha'tumim..."
"...and the Urim v'Tumim..." (28:30)

The Kohen Gadol wore a bejeweled breast-plate, adorned with twelve gemstones. Each gem represented one of the twelve tribes, and etched on the metal plate was the name of that tribe, as well as some other words.

We sometimes find that the term Urim v'Tumim is used interchangeably with other terms which pertain to vestments worn by the Kohen Gadol. The reality is, we do not have a clear understanding of what it was (owing to both varying opinions and to it being a lost antiquity), nor do we know what the words themselves mean. Some contend that they mean "Lights and Perfections", or "Revelations and Truths", or "Explanations and Pairings." What is clear is that we are not clear about how to translate those two words.

The Bechor Shor observes that an "Ur" means a place or location, such as we find earlier in the Torah that Avraham came from "Ur Kasdim" (Bereishis 11:31). A "Tum" (not the antacid) means a border, similar to the word tehom (a vertical boundary or subterranean strata) or techum (horizontal limit or boundary). So according to the Bechor Shor, the Urim v'Tumim were "designated places and boundaries." This means that the breast-plate with its gems and tribe-identifiers was a symbol to designate that whereas the Jewish nation consisted of twelve interdependent entities, each one nonetheless needed to maintain its personal identity, and the unified nation needed to respect each other's respective boundaries.

The Bechor Shor elaborates that when the verse later says that "mishpat Benei Yisroel" - the status of the nation - is carried on that breast-plate, this refers to the immutable imperative that all Jews must accept and respect the rights and privileges of other Jews. Those rights are Divinely ordained, as revealed by the glimmering tribal stones and names which were borne by the Kohen Gadol in all of his sacred avoda. Part of being godly and living a life which is consecrated to HaShem lies in the preservation of human boundaries.

The Urim v'Tumim were a reminder of the sanctity of Jews respecting and protecting one another, including our protecting ourselves from each other's ill will, exploitation and manipulation. This is why the Kohen Gadol wore garments when serving HaShem which asserted that the Tribes of Israel deserve individual places (Urim) and sacrosanct boundaries (Tumim).

Wishing you a tolerant and respecting Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Terumah

A Thought On Parshas Terumah

"...v'asu aron..."
"...and they shall make an ark..." (25:10)

Our parsha is devoted to instructions about constructing the mishkan - the Shrine in the desert - which was the central place for our spiritual communion over forty years of travel. Verse after verse speaks about building and assembling - v'asisa this, v'asisa that. This word is second person singular imperative, as many different individuals were involved with the process, and were given this "individual instruction" to form, shape, design and make the utensils and structures which were housed in the mishkan.

When the above verse gives the instruction to construct the Ark, however, the word form changes to third person plural - and they shall make the Ark. This alters the flow of the verses significantly and begs interpretation.

The Bechor Shor offers that since the Ark housed the Torah, and everyone is responsible for learning and practicing the Torah, if follows that the verse wants all of us to feel that we are responsible for honoring and respecting the Divine contents of that Ark. Symbolically, then, the instruction to build the Ark of the Torah was worded as a group task, not something which can be relegated to just one person or another. We all must, then, make ourselves containers of Torah. Each of us is an "arkitecht".

The Bechor Shor adds that we must derive from this an additional lesson that when it comes to a Torah scholar - a talmid chacham - everyone is responsible to engage and interact with him in a supportive and constructive manner. Torah is not only the domain of select individuals. All of us share in studying and knowing its ways. The more one dedicates himself to Torah, the more we show honor for his Torah.

Wishing you a collaborative Shabbos! D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Mishpatim

A Thought on Parshas Mishpatim

"...me'im Mizbachi tikachenu..."
...take him away from My altar..." (21:14)

The Torah instructs us to deal judiciously with wrong doers. This is a theme throughout much of our parsha. Whether one commits financial misdeeds, slander, assault or other crimes, they are to be dealt with, and to be dealt with justly.

It seems curious, then, that in discussing a murderer that the Torah would insert the point that not only must he be tried and punished but he must be taken away from the sacred altar. This seems like such a tangential idea. Imagine if a rule book said "if you speed on the highway you will get a ticket, including if you are wearing your Shabbos clothes." What does one detail have to do with the other? What is the connection between committing a crime and not being allowed to hang around the temple altar?

True, there are some classical lessons taught by our sages as to the halachic ramifications of this verse, but is there another lesson, another layer of meaning, to this contiguity?

The Bechor Shor tempts us with an insightful inference here. We know that the Torah has commanded us to construct cities of refuge, arei miklat, to quarantine people who have committed manslaughter, unintentionally and unwittingly. Not only can they flee there for protection, but they are obligated to flee there. This shows us, explains the Bechor Shor, that those cities of refuge serve a sacred purpose. They are consecrated to protecting those unfortunate souls who have accidentally taken a life yet who seek to do HaShem's bidding, fulfilling His will by committing to societal exile for the uncorrectable damage which they have brought about. Those cities are sacred places. Yet, the halacha also states that one who savagely kills another or who murdered with malice may not seek refuge there. He cannot escape and retire to the sacred, protective walls of the Ir Miklat. He is expelled from there, for there is nothing holy about his attempt to evade justice.

The Bechor Shor derives this insight - that the Cities of Refuge are to be regarded as serving a sacred purpose - from the parallel which is apparent in our verse's forbidding the murderer to retreat to the holy Temple at its altar. This is the self-same law as that of the Torah restricting that murderer from the City of Refuge. This parallel sheds light on the obverse case - the accidental death - where one fulfills a commandment by fleeing to that place. Staying there is comparable to staying at the altar, in the sense that both can be regarded as fulfilling a sacred service.

This is an important perspective - fulfilling a commandment and adhering to Divine will, regardless of what mitzva and irrespective of which specific act - should be regarded as an elevated form of conduct, a holy act. The City of Refuge was "an altared state!"

Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas Yisro

A Thought on Parshas Yisro

"...Va'yichad Yisro..."
"...and Yisro had a reaction..." (18:9)

When Moshe Rabbeinu advised his father in law Yisro of the struggles and the triumphs of the young Jewish nation, the Torah writes that Yisro reacted. The actual meaning of the word "va'yichad" is ambiguous, which is why I took the easy way out and kept it generic. Yisro had some type of reaction to the news, yet the Torah has selected a word which might take on different (and opposing) meanings.

Many of us are familiar with the selections offered by Rashi, in the name of Chazal. The word's root might be chedva - glee; it might also be chad - sharp or pointed. This is why Rashi brings two views. On the one hand, Yisro was happy to hear the news of Jewish survival. Va'yichad Yisro means that he was overjoyed to learn of their miraculous escape. In turn, Yisro was a convert, and one who formerly had taken a strong supportive role in the deeds of the heathen world, of which Egypt was a member. Some of those Egyptians had once been known to him, so upon learning of their defeat and demise, Yisro had a strong reaction to this form of "bad news." His earlier history was still a part of him, and he could hardly have felt glee for the destruction of his erstwhile colleagues. Thus, Rashi offers two views of the word, each of which addresses the verse from a different angle. According to Rashi, if the word is referring to his reaction to Jewish events, he was happy. If it refers to his response to Egyptian events, he was troubled. Rashi's first interpretation is, he says, pshat - the overt message of the verse. He adds that his second interpretation is midrash aggada - a more homiletic perspective of a less obvious or sub-textual nuance.

The Bechor Shor, however, employs the word's ambiguity in what seems like a more deft usage of it's pshat in covering two aspects of the verse's overt context. How does he find a simple meaning at the level of pshat of the two conflicting facets of the word va'yichad?

The Bechor Shor offers that Moshe had just described the suffering and bondage of the Jews in Egypt, as well as their miraculous salvation (verse 8). This news had two features: the Jewish people had been enslaved; they were later saved. Yisro was reacting to both features simultaneously. He was overjoyed to hear that everything had worked out, yet he was deeply troubled to learn of the cruelty of the Egyptians who had singled out this small nation for years of torture and oppression.

Sometimes, when we hear about how horrible things come to a safe close, we do not know whether to cheer or to cry. We can shift rapidly between feelings of relief that the problem has ended, and feelings of anguish in knowing how bad the problem was. I remember how my great rebbe Rav Simcha Wasserman zt'l used to anticipate our probable reaction when golus comes to a close: we will beam with joy and relief yet we will puzzle and struggle with why we had to endure so much for so long. Dovid HaMelech writes in Tehillim (126:5) that we will plant with tears and sow with joy. This was the reaction of Yisro: he was elated with the good tidings yet disturbed with the woe and agony that we had endured.

Wishing you a contemplative Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought On Parshas BeShalach

A Thought On Parshas BeShalach

"...HaShem yimloch l'olam va'ed..."
"...HaShem shall rule for ever..." (14:18)

We have all recited, even yelled out, the words of the above verse. "HaShem will be King forever!" We have seen it phrased in past, present, then in this future tense, as we remember from the prayers of Rosh HaShanna, Yom Kippur and Simchas Torah - HaShem Melech, HaShem Moloch, HaShem Yimloch l'olam va'ed."

The words seem to be a proclamation of His sovereignty and majesty. Our nation called out after witnessing the miracles at the sea, "HaShem shall reign for all of eternity!" Only the G-d of eternity could bring about such wonders!

The Bechor Shor, however, understands the verse quite differently. This verse is not a declaration about what had happened at the Yam Suf. It is a prayer of hopefulness, looking forward rather than retrospectively. As the receding tides signaled our liberation from the slavery of Egypt, it dawned upon our small emerging nation that never would we want to be ruled by a foreign power. Rather, we accepted HaShem as out sole and permanent King!

The verse, explains the Bechor Shor, captured that hope and longing in a wishful prayer - We want only HaShem to rule over us forever! May HaShem Alone always be our King!

Each time that we come to this verse, then, we should consider reciting it as a request rather than as a statement. We want HaShem to remain our Sole and Sovereign King for all time.

Later in the parsha (15:4), when the nation asks for food, HaShem responds that He will "rain down bread from the Heavens." The Bechor Shor takes a related approach with that verse. When our faith seemed to waver, as if we had begun losing sight of our earlier plea that HaShem be our only King, the miracle of "bread from the Heavens" was in order to help us regain that feeling and longing.

Keeping the manna in the Heavens was a means of prompting us to once again turn to Him expectantly, acknowledging that only He is the source of all things, always. That prompt was a means of helping us recapture the earlier avowal that we seek HaShem Alone. Always.

Good Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas VaEra

A Thought on Parshas Va'era

"...v'yichazek lev Pharoah..."
"...and Pharoah's heart hardened..." (8:15)

I am in Jerusalem currently and I spent last evening with my rebbe
HaGaon HaAdmor M'Savraan shlit'a, Rav Yissachar Dov Hager. He told over
an original explanation on why, when Moshe asked Pharoah when he would
like the plague of frogs to end, the Egyptian king said "tomorrow"
(8:6). Many commentaries have puzzled over this. If one was beset by
troubles and had the ability to have them ended, surely one would
demand an immediate stop to them! The Rebbe explained that Pharoah
thought about himself, and simply had no real concern for the welfare
of others. His immediate response was a nonchalant "Just take care of
it tomorrow" since the problem was primarily outdoors affecting others.

I mentioned then to the Rebbe that the Bechor Shor offers a related
thought. The verse cited above refers to the plague of kinim, lice. We
do not find that Pharoah asked that this plague stop nor did he
entreaty Moshe to pray for help. What made the plague of lice less of a
problem in Pharoah's eyes? The Bechor Shor offers that King Pharoah
lived in his palace where the floors were made of marble. Marble gets
swept every day and as a result, there was no accumulation of dirt for
the lice to nest. As for the people outside, reasoned Pharoah, most of
them are poor workers anyway who are accustomed to dirt and to lice. He
decided to let them worry about themselves, and hence did not ask for
intervention nor turn to Moshe in panic.

The lesson to be learned from these similar interpretations pertains to
our own level of consideration and concern for others. When things are
well with us, do we sit back and relax, or do we appreciate our comfort
but then seek out the welfare of those around us? Are we content with
our personal circumstances, or are we concurrently moved by the plight
and needs of others, willing to intervene and help them despite risking
our own tranquility and ease?

Are we Pharoahs, or are we Moshes?

Good Shabbos and blessings from the Holy City.. D Fox