A Thought on Parshas Tzav

"...tzav es Aharon v'es banav..." "...command Aharon and his sons..." (6:2) This week, the Gan again takes a more midrashic approach in understanding our verse. He focuses on how the Torah here states that HaShem's commandment regarding the parsha's sacrificial rites was directed to Aharon, and his sons. In so many verses, the instruction goes to "the sons of Aharon" or at times simply to "the Kohanim." Our verse focuses directly on Aharon, the father, and then on his sons, and the Gan notes this. What is the message of our verse, with its altered focus? The Gan finds a midrash: Moshe declared before HaShem: Ribbono shel Olam, Master of the Universe, is the well despised but its waters are valued? You address the sons of Aharon yet never address Aharon himself! How can it be that You choose the waters of the well - the sons of Aharon - yet you overlook the great well itself - Aharon their patriarch? Do You mean to reject Aharon as if he is devalued? In the midrash, Moshe continues. "You have shown honor to the trees, as we have been taught that all types of trees can be used for the fire on the altar, except for olive wood and grapevine wood". Now, on that part of the midrash, the Gan needs to offer an explanation to make clear Moshe's point. He observes that there must be a reason that the wood from olive trees and grapevines is not used on the altar. There is no indication in the Torah that such wood is invalid on the altar. The Torah commands only that we have "atzei ma'aracha" but does not write conditions or limits as to the types of wood to be used. We would assume from this that when the Torah instructs us to use wood for the fire altar that this includes olive and grape wood too. All wood types, then, are given equal "honor" by the Torah's use of the generic term. Our Sages have taught, however, that all wood is valid except for those two types because there is a special role that olive trees and grapevines serve! Olive trees yield the oil which is used in many Temple rituals. Grapevines yield wine which has widespread ritual usage. Therefore, it is precisely because the products of those trees is so valued, that we are not allowed to burn their wood. Olive and grape wood is given great honor because of the products they produce, and rather than viewing them as unfit for the altar, they are actually too precious to be burned on the altar! Nonetheless, the Torah does not state that they are excluded from the category of "firewood", thereby giving them honor because they are the "parents" of a precious product. This gets them "included" in the verse, so to speak, because they should not be dishonored in any way. The bottom line, explains the Gan, is that when the Torah speaks about the wood of the altar fire, it explicitly does NOT exclude i.e. reject or despise, the olive wood and grapevine wood. That wood is not shamed or singled out by the verse because in fact it has an importance of its own, which is a higher purpose than that of being used for fire. It is a source for the oil which goes into the mincha offerings and a source of the wine which is in the nesachim offerings. Those offerings have an even greater value than the firewood used in incinerating them. Therefore, argued Moshe, Aharon needs to be mentioned, if not for his own sake but in the merit of his having been the "well" or source which produced the Kohanim! Why is his name omitted from the verses in VaYikra? He should be comparable to the olive wood and to the grape wood which is not dishonored by the Torah. The midrash goes on to say that HaShem told Moshe that his logic was accurate, and for this reason, in our verse, the commandment is given to Aharon, and then to his sons. Although the service in the Mishkan and later in the Batei Mikdash was done by the Kohanim, i.e. the tribal segment of priests, Aharon's name is included here to signify that he is the honored source for the entire concept of Kahuna. Wishing you an inclusive good Shabbos haGadol. D Fox

A thought on Parshas Vayikra

"..VaYikra el Moshe..." "...and He called to Moshe..." (1:1) Our verse opens up this new book of the Torah by telling that HaShem called out to Moshe. At the close of last week's parsha, at the end of Sefer Sh'mos, we read about how the Mishkan was the shrine where HaShem's Presence was most fully sensed, and now this following passage begins with how HaShem communicated with Moshe from within that consecrated place. This week, the Gan takes a more homiletic or midrashic approach, which he tells us that he heard from Rav Nosson ben Rav Yosef (I have not been able to identify who this scholar was. I did find that there was a contemporary named Rav Yosef ben Rav Nosson who was famous for his disputations with the French clergy, but the Gan uses the reverse names here so we just don't know to whom he refers). Rav Nosson ben Rav Yosef contrasted our verse, which depicts the communication between HaShem and Moshe as "calling to", whereas with Bilaam (Bamidbar 22:9) we find the Torah writes "va'yavo Elokim el Bilaam" - and The Lord came to Bilaam. How do we understand the difference between the two expressions? The metaphor would be about a king sitting in his palace who needs to confer with a leper. The king walks to the entrance of his palace to address that contaminated man, not wanting him to enter the palace and put others at risk or bring disease into the royal residence. When the king needs to confer with one of his trusted officers, however, he invites him into those royal chambers. So too, when the Torah writes (see last week's Parsha Thought) that the glory of HaShem filled the Mishkan (Shmos 40:35), we would understand that at that moment, Moshe would feel unable to venture in to this awesome chamber. This is why our verse now says "and He called to Moshe" - HaShem beckoned to Moshe to commune with His Presence, which was virtually entering the Palace. Bilaam, in contrast, was never invited in to attain that level of closeness. Rather, the Torah portrays his encounter with the Divine in what can now be understood as if there was a "Divine condescension". This is also how we are meant to understand the scene at Sinai. The Torah tells us that the Cloud of Glory covered the mountain. There too we have the passage (24:16) telling us that "HaShem called to Moshe from within the Cloud." This also gives us the image of HaShem beckoning to Moshe that he is welcome to draw near even where and when others may not tread. The Gan observes that the above explanation can be supported by the fact that our verse does not say "and HaShem called to Moshe" but rather "and He called to Moshe." From the fact that there is no proper noun mentioning HaShem explicitly, we are meant to understand that our verse is a continuation of last week's parsha. It was HaShem calling out from that place where His Glory filled the Mishkan. The calling out was an invitation expressly to Moshe. He was welcome and secure with a level of communion which lesser people could never attain. Good Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh Tov. D Fox

A thought on Parshios Vayakhel and Pekudei

"...u'kvod HaShem malae es haMishkan..." "...and the glory of HaShem filled the Mishkan..." (40:35) This verse has drawn the attention of virtually every Rishon whom I have studied over these many years. The difficulty many have with the words is that at a concrete level, the verse would seem to imply that HaShem's Divine Presence filled the holy sanctuary, as if that three dimensional chamber housed or enveloped the Kavayachol. That surely could not be, for HaShem is dimensionless and infinite. A room, now matter how large and no matter how sanctified, could never contain Him! The Gan writes that many verses in the Torah need to be understood as if the words are in a different sequence. The image with which we can best envision this verse would be that "the chamber was filled with HaShem's Presence." We can try to picture this in our mind, yet we would be misled into thinking that the Presence entered into that place, and that the place enclosed the Presence. By writing that the Presence filled the chamber, we need to understand that the Glory was greater than the chamber, and that the chamber was enveloped by the Presence. This is exactly what the Gan taught us last week with the Midrash which says that the universe is subordinate to HaMakom. When the Glory of HaShem was "in" the Mishkan, the Mishkan was within the Glory of HaShem. With these words, the Gan closes his commentary on Sefer Shmos. Many years ago, I took my wife for a walk along the beach at Corona del Mar, where I had often played as a boy. I wanted her to see the seaside cave. At low tide, we used to go in and pretend we were hunting for pirate treasure. At high tide, there was no cave, only the roiling water which took over that space, and turned the cave from shoreline into ocean. At the time, I taught my wife that this is what a Midrash explains about the Shechina in the Mishkan. The Midrash says that we can see where the shoreline ends and the sea begins, yet when the tide comes in, the shoreline disappears and it becomes the sea. When the tide is out, the cave is a cave but when the waves roll in, the cave is part of the ocean. This too captures the image of the Gan. When the Mishkan is a building, its chambers are rooms. When the Glory of HaShem is Present there, the chambers disappear and become subsumed within that Presence. That makom becomes subordinate to the Makom. With these words, I wish us all a Good Shabbos. D Fox The Gan was written by 13th century Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yosi haCohen, Baal Tosfos More pirushim presented by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Fox at http://thoughtonparsha.blogspot.com/

A Thought on Parshas Ki Tisa

"...ya'yomer HaShem hinae makom Iti..." "...and HaShem, "look, there is a place with Me..." (33:21) The overt meaning of our verse is that HaShem the Al-mighhty assures Moshe that He has a place set aside for Moshe's protection. The literal translation of the words is that "there is a place with Me." This is a difficult expression to make sense of, for the entire world, the universe, the cosmos, eternity and infinity, are His places. He made them and contains them, in a spiritual sense. What is the deeper meaning, then, of the Torah telling us that HaShem "has a place with Him"? Lest it be misperceived as superfluous, there must be a lesson for us about HaShem and His world. The Gan enlightens us. He shares a Midrash Tehillim (90:10). Asks the Midrash - "why is the name of HaShem referred to as "Makom" (Place)? Because He is the Place where the world is. But now we do not know if He is subordinate to His Place or if His place is subordinate to Him. This is why our verse says "behold, I have a place with Me." This teaches us that place, i.e. space, is subordinate to Him." HaShem determines the functions and significance of every place. Now, Rashi quotes a different Midrash, one more familiar to us. The familiar version is that "He is the Place of the world and the world is not His Place", which captures the image of HaShem containing all things but being beyond all things. The image of the Midrash cited by the Gan is different. Both midrashic approaches assert that HaShem is the Place wherein the universe exists. Rashi clarifies that the universe does not contain HaShem, meaning that three dimensional reality does not encompass or limit HaShem. The Gan's version, however, appears to add another facet. According to the Gan, the thought left by Rashi's Midrash about the universe not being HaShem's place would still leave us with the question as to whether or not HaShem is bound to His world, as in the "natural" forces which operate within it. Does the world function because He wills it to be a certain way, and oversees it, and in that sense, it is as if He is subordinate to all things once He has willed them? Or variously, does nothing exist with autonomy or actually even exist, other than His will, which exists because He wills existence itself, and this allows things to be? By stating that "He is the Place of the World but the world is not His place", we would seem to invite the first inquiry, whether there is an autonomous existence that does not contain HaShem yet which is also a "place" or reality. The clarification of the Gan's Midrash is that the "place" known as the universe neither contains HaShem nor does it comprise a "place" in and of itself. It is subordinate to Him without being a "part" of Him. Its existence is only in the sense that He wills its to be. It has no existence or autonomous function. When HaShem tells Moshe that He has a place for Moshe 'with Him', he means that He is the sole determining force as to a place's function. There is a "place" where Moshe can be in order that he have an encounter with the Divine Presence. That place takes on this function only when HaShem wills it so. I think that the Gan furthers this view on a later verse (34:11). The Torah tells us that Moshe's face shone or glowed with rays of light. The Gan focuses on the word "keren" which means "horn." He cites a verse in Chabakuk (3:4) "karnayim mi'yado lo" which refers to the Divine light which emanates from His Presence as "rays from His Hand". The Gan writes that when we come across the expression (see Tehillim 22) ayeles ha'shachar - the deer of the daybreak - the term refers to sunup when the early rays of dawn spread out in lines not unlike the branching antlers of a deer. Thus, the sun is capable of forming rays when the atmosphere permits, and the Supernal light can be perceived as if it too is refracted into select focused rays of light. This is not a natural phenomenon but rather a higher feature of the non-dimensional realm Above. Moshe's face did not glow but rather it reflected some of that focused emanation that demonstrated that he alone had encountered that higher reality, separate from the material and the "natural." HaShem willed that all of the Jewish people could also witness those rays in order to make it clear that they had erred in seeking another leader. No one but Moshe had encountered that closeness; only Moshe had experienced a glimpse of that "place" which HaShem has with Him. Good Shabbos. Purim Sameach. Geula Krova. D Fox The Gan was written by 13th century Rabbeinu Aharon ben Yosi haCohen, Baal Tosfos More pirushim presented by Rabbi Dr. Dovid Fox at http://thoughtonparsha.blogspot.com/