A Thought on Parshas Tazria

"...isha ki tazria v'yalda zachar..." "...when a woman conceives and bears a son..." (12:2) This verse can seem intriguing by virtue of it referring to a woman who conceives yet it makes no prior statement about what occurred or who was responsible for her pregnancy. One might be tempted to wonder, if prone to thinking about such topics, just who the man was whose identity, whose very mention, is seemingly omitted from this verse. The Panae'ach Raza writes that this was precisely the line of thought enjoyed by the "minim sh'pokrim b'minus" ("min" is often understood as a rabbinic acrostic for "ma'aminnae yeshu notzri" and the root pkr is also found in the rabbinic term apikorus). The allusion made by the Panae'ach Raza is to heretics and apostates. During his time in Medieval Europe, those who misused the Torah as a resource for cryptic signs to support their doctrines pounced on the above verse. They claimed that the subtext of the verse is a "virgin birth." The woman who conceived with no mention of the man in her life and gave birth to a male child was, by their theological hubris, the scion of G-d Himself. The Panae'ach Raza cautiously examines this. He notes that the verse goes on to say that this woman is tamaeah, unclean, for seven days. He observes that the "woman" of our verse is declared tameah for seven days yet if her offspring had been a female, that time interval is doubled. Now, if the difference between "the woman" who gave birth to this cryptic male in contrast with ones who deliver little girls is that the latter conceptions were of mortal origin, what would double the unclean period into a fourteen day interval? If it was a function of her having had contact with a mortal spouse, we know that those tumos which are specific to men (namely, keri, zav and of course the generic tumas mais) only require one day or seven days, respectively, prior to their cleansing tahara. If so, the differential which the minim attribute to our verse would not parallel the laws and criteria of tuma. Thus, in context, deliveries of both male and female infants and the resultant tuma statuses point to the mortal origin of births, without exception. The Panae'ach Raza then observes that those other doctrines contend that the mother of this cryptic child is described as having bathed and washed him to preserve his putative purity. They declared that he was holy, given his immaculate origin (note that immaculate means clean of impurity). He adds that in any case, this is the "minhag shel ha'olam" to keep an infant clean. If so, he asks, that child would have contracted tuma anyway through physical contact with his mother, during the thirty three days of impurity (verse 4) which all mothers contend with. Moreover, that same verse asserts "b'kol kodesh lo siga" - she is not allowed to contact anything holy during that time. If so, queries the Panae'ach Raza, had our verse been referring to an infant to whom those doctrines ascribe holy status, that mother would have been forbidden to touch him. He thus rejects on reasoning alone any suggestion that our Torah hints at a concept inconsistent with its own principles, and inherently untenable according to those other doctrines. I recognize that this dvar Torah is somewhat different and cloaked in mysterious jargon. I selected it primarily because it is one of the more intriguing one's in the Panae'ach Raza's writings this week. Additionally, it demonstrates his courage in respectfully analyzing a thought which is foreign to our beliefs, and his boldly speaking out to his Jewish brethren during a time in history when theological debate and challenges to a host culture's beliefs were usually met with persecution, condemnation or death. Good Shabbos. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Shmini

"...va'yisa Aharon es yadav el ha'am va'yivarachem va'yeired..." (9:22) "...and Aharon raised his hands over the people, blessed them, then descended..." The sacrificial rites are fairly familiar to us, and we also know about the blessings which Aharon and the Kohanim bestowed unto the people. What is not clear from our verse is how those brochos link with the offerings which were brought by Aharon. Our verse relates that he had completed the ritual of bringing a chatas (sin offering), an olah (burnt offering) and a she'lamim (peace offering). Then, before descending from the altar and returning to his other duties, he turned to bless the nation. What is the connection between these two events? The Panae'ach Raza offers that each of the three blessings captures the nature of those three offerings. How so? We know that the first bracha is "yivarechecha HaShem v'yishmarecha" - may HaShem bless you and watch over you." The function of the sin offering was to guard one from repeating his or her sinful behaviors as it says (Shmuel I 2:9) raglae chasidav Yishmor - He guards the steps of those who fear him. That concept of safeguarding, then, makes that first blessing relevant to the sin offering. When we take steps to acknowledge and atone for our misdeeds, HaShem safeguards us from falling into more temptation. The second bracha says "ya'er HaShem Panav elecha" - may HaShem cause His Presence to shine for you. This corresponds to the burnt offering, which represents a person's enlightened recognition that he must offer himself entirely to the service of Hashem. That is the relevance, then, of the blessing of light to the bringing of an olah. When we attain perspective of our lowly place in HaShem's vast kingdom, we symbolize this enlightened awareness by igniting an olah on a pyre until it vanishes entirely in the bright fire. This illuminated act brings us the blessing of Divine enlightenment. The third bracha is "va'yasem lecha shalom" - and He will extend peace unto you. This parallels the message of the peace offering, she'lamim. Our acts and gestures about the primacy of peace are enunciated in the blessing about HaShem blessing us with peace. Wishing you a peaceful, enlightened and safe Shabbos. D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Vayikra

"...v'nasnu benei Aharon HaKohen..." "...and the sons of Aharon the Kohen shall place fire on the altar..." (1:7) The Torah reveals the order in which the Sacred Service was arranged. Each step, each task, was undertaken by the Kohanim. This set the pattern for all generations in adhering to the ritual avoda as instructed by HaShem. Throughout the verses here, we read about Kohanim doing this, Kohanim doing that. In our above verse, however, there is a slight change in the wording. When it came to igniting the fire on the mizbeach, the Torah refers to those Kohanim as Benei Aharon. We know very well, without that reference, that the tribe of Kohanim were the family and descendants of Aharon. Why didn't the verse say simply that "the Kohanim shall place fire on the altar"? The Panae'ach Raza first suggests that the precise set up and ignition of the fire was not a simple task. It required skill and planning, so the Torah may be enunciating that these fire-lighters were not from the rank and file Kohanim but were rather skilled artisans. Hence, they are referred to as Benei Aharon, which distinguishes them. He next asks about the further skills required in that task of fire lighting. He notes that the altar itself reached a height of five cubits - somewhere between 7 and 10 feet tall. He then reasons that to spread the fire's flames adequately, the Kohen would actually have to perch himself on top of that altar. Now, he ponders: this altar was made from copper. Copper is a heat conducting metal. This means that if the flames were burning atop the altar, the entire altar would heat up. As our Sages tell us, cham miktzaso cham kulo - when a part of something metal heats up, the entire item gets hot. The Kohanim, we know, did not do their sacred avoda wearing shoes or foot coverings. They worked barefoot in the Temple. If so, asks the Panae'ach Raza, how could any Kohen perch himself over that mizbeach ha'nachoshes - that copper altar? Wearing no shoes would have made it impossible to bear the heat! With this reasoning, not only was this particular avoda difficult --- it would have been virtually impossible! The Panae'ach Raza then offers that our tradition relates that the fire of the altar was not ignited by mortal hands. Rather, the flames descended from Above. The fire was a Heavenly fire. It had different thermodynamic properties than the heat which we are familiar with, and its heat did not spread but rather remained focused and bounded (think of the fire which rose from the "burning bush" (Sh'mos 3:2) which had flames yet they did not consume that bush in the desert). Thus, the area in which the flame burned may have been burning hot yet the metal surrounding that point of ignition did not carry that heat. Thus, the Sons of Aharon had the task of alighting atop the altar, spreading the flames which came down from Above, and maintaining a safe perch while focusing intently on performing the mitzva assigned to them. This balance of physical dexterity, mental concentration and spiritual devotion was decidedly the task of select Kohanim, and those who ascended to such responsibility deserved the designation "Benei Aharon HaKohen." Good Shabbos, D Fox

A Thought on Parshas Pekudei

"...u'kavod HaShem malae es ha'mishkan..." "...and the glory of G-d filled the mishkan..." (40:34) In this final parsha of Sefer Sh'mos, the Torah gives us a glimpse of the sacred shrine - the mishkan in the desert - and the implied interaction between Heaven and earth, between the Divine Presence and the material abode which was constructed after the giving of the Torah. There are a number of verses which require careful analysis in an attempt to form an image of that mystic scene of long ago. Each verse is like a piece of a puzzle, a mosaic, which sheds some clue as to what happened there. We read about clouds, about light, about serving HaShem in that place yet not being allowed to go there at all times. Our verse above, at a literal level, poses difficulties for us as well, since the Presence of HaShem is infinite and endless yet the verse seems to say that this dimensionless Glory of G-d somehow filled the mishkan. We know that HaShem is known as "Makom", about which our sages have taught us that "He is the Makom (place) of the world; this world is not His place. All that exists in form, in time, in space and in numinous essence, is contained within the Divine. The opposite idea - that the world contains HaShem - is a theological impossibility in Jewish thought. If so, what does our verse intend, with its initial implication that HaShem's Presence was contained within the physical mishkan? If the entire world, the entire universe, cannot contain or enclose His limitless vastness, how could this small structure do so? To resolve this enigma, the Panae'ach Raza writes that the verse must be understood in a different manner than the word sequence would imply. The verse should be understood as if saying "ha'mishkan malae es Kavod HaShem" - the mishkan was filled with HaShem's Glory. At those moments in time when the Presence was near to our senses, the space within the walls of that structure seemed filled with heightened sensitivity to His Presence. The Panae'ach Raza refers to this phenomenon with the kabbalistic term knows as tzimtzum - contraction. The Ain Sof - the HaShem who exists within Nothingness - makes His Presence present through a "mechansim" which the mystics termed tzimtzum. (I cannot go into this further herein. Those who want to grasp more of the concept can listen to the talk I gave last Shavuos at Aish Tamid which was not recorded owing to Yom Tov.) The earth and the heavens cannot enclose or encompass HaShem, nor could the tabernacle in the wilderness do so. However, those who encountered or entered that place knew that there was an elevated spiritual sensation there. Something seemed to envelop, rather than occupy, the three dimensions of the space within, just as something was present atop Sinai at the moment when the Divine Torah was brought down to earth in physical form. The Presence is always present, everywhere and at all times. As verse 35 says, there was always a "cloud" surrounding the mishkan, even when Aharon and his sons would enter there for daily devotions. However, there was moments when another "cloud" hovered within, and when that occurred, no one, even Moshe Rabbeinu, could enter there. The Torah calls that second cloud (verse 39) "the Cloud of HaShem." During those moments, the mishkan seemed filled with the Glory of HaShem. Good Shabbos. D Fox