The Rebbe.org: Tetzaveh
The Rebbe.org: Tetzaveh
HarHaBayit:
'We failed! We didn't throw of the Mountain: Amalek's descendants and their Israeli friends! The Erev Rav! We must be at war until all terrorists are dead! In and around Eretz Yisrael. The day after, we need to vote for an Elohim fearing Government. Then let us start to Pray and to talk about a new government. Every Jew and non-Jew must accept and respect Jewish Law. Voting's yes, but a new high Court system Jewish Law in all Eretz Yisrael: Including Aza, Yudea and Samaria. So that we may become a real blessing for the whole world as it was in the time of the Kingdom of HaMeleg David. Yes, real Teshuva and Study our Source: The Torah. The Sifri (a treatise on the derivation of Torah law from the exegesis of the verses of Numbers and Deuteronomy, written during the time of the Mishnah by Rav) says, "The Jewish people were commanded three mitzvos upon entering Israel: appointing for them-selves a king, building themselves a Sanctuary and wiping out the descendants of Amalek."
Look Click: https://fb.watch/r0HhSftzj1/
Shemot (Exodus) - Chapter 25
8And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst חוְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם: And they shall make Me a sanctuary: And they shall make in My name a house of sanctity. וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ: וְעָשׂוּ לִשְׁמִי בֵּית קְדֻשָּׁה: 9according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do. טכְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אֽוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּֽעֲשֽׂוּ: according to all that I show you: here, the pattern of the Mishkan. This verse is connected to the verse above it: “And they shall make Me a sanctuary…” according to all that I show you. כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אֽוֹתְךָ: כָּאן את תבנית המשכן, הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה מְחֻבָּר לַמִּקְרָא שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ:
Eretz Yisrael in Jewish Scriptures Click: 
אבינו בשמים,
מבצר סלע וגואל ישראל -
לברך את מדינת ישראל,
הנבטה הראשונית של גאולתנו.
Our father in Shamayim (Heaven),
Rock-fortress and redeemer of Yisra’el —
bless the State of Israel,
the initial sprouting of our redemption.
Source (Hebrew) Translation (English)
The Tefilah l’Shalom Medinat Yisra’el (“Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel”) was composed by Rabbi Yitsḥak haLevi Hertzog (1888-1959), edited by Shmuel Yosef (S.Y.) Agnon (1888-1970), and first published in the newspaper Ha-Tsofeh on 20 September 1948.
This prayer was instituted at the time by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Hertzog and Rabbi Ben Tsiyon Meir Ḥai Uziel. According to the custom of the Ashkenazic communities, the time for reciting the prayer was set between the end of the Torah reading and the haftara for the return of the Torah scroll to its place in the Holy Ark. In Sephardic communities, it is customary to recite the prayer at the time of the removal of the Torah scroll from the Holy Ark. (At this point in prayer, it was customary the prayer “Hanoten Tshuah”, blessing the ruler of the state and their immediate family.)
Because the State of Israel is referred to as “the beginning of the sprouting/growth of our redemption,” the prayer was not universally accepted. This expression, and the reservations about the state in general, are some of the reasons why non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews do not recite it in their synagogues. In fact, the recitation of this prayer and, to a lesser extent, the prayer for the safety of IDF soldiers, became one of the main differences between prayer in Ḥaredi synagogues and prayers in National Religious Zionist synagogues in Israel and in the Diaspora.
מי שברך לחיילי צה״ל | Mi sheBerakh for the Welfare of Israel Defense Forces Soldiers, by Rabbi Shlomo Goren (1956); amended by Dr. Alex Sinclair (2012)
| 8And they shall make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell in their midst | חוְעָ֥שׂוּ לִ֖י מִקְדָּ֑שׁ וְשָֽׁכַנְתִּ֖י בְּתוֹכָֽם: | |
| And they shall make Me a sanctuary: And they shall make in My name a house of sanctity. | וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ: וְעָשׂוּ לִשְׁמִי בֵּית קְדֻשָּׁה: | |
| 9according to all that I show you, the pattern of the Mishkan and the pattern of all its vessels; and so shall you do. | טכְּכֹ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֲנִי֙ מַרְאֶ֣ה אֽוֹתְךָ֔ אֵ֚ת תַּבְנִ֣ית הַמִּשְׁכָּ֔ן וְאֵ֖ת תַּבְנִ֣ית כָּל־כֵּלָ֑יו וְכֵ֖ן תַּֽעֲשֽׂוּ: | |
| according to all that I show you: here, the pattern of the Mishkan. This verse is connected to the verse above it: “And they shall make Me a sanctuary…” according to all that I show you. | כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אֽוֹתְךָ: כָּאן את תבנית המשכן, הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה מְחֻבָּר לַמִּקְרָא שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה הֵימֶנּוּ וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מַרְאֶה אוֹתְךָ: |
אבינו בשמים, מבצר סלע וגואל ישראל - לברך את מדינת ישראל, הנבטה הראשונית של גאולתנו. | Our father in Shamayim (Heaven), Rock-fortress and redeemer of Yisra’el — bless the State of Israel, the initial sprouting of our redemption. |
| Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
|---|
The Tefilah l’Shalom Medinat Yisra’el (“Prayer for the Welfare of the State of Israel”) was composed by Rabbi Yitsḥak haLevi Hertzog (1888-1959), edited by Shmuel Yosef (S.Y.) Agnon (1888-1970), and first published in the newspaper Ha-Tsofeh on 20 September 1948.
This prayer was instituted at the time by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Hertzog and Rabbi Ben Tsiyon Meir Ḥai Uziel. According to the custom of the Ashkenazic communities, the time for reciting the prayer was set between the end of the Torah reading and the haftara for the return of the Torah scroll to its place in the Holy Ark. In Sephardic communities, it is customary to recite the prayer at the time of the removal of the Torah scroll from the Holy Ark. (At this point in prayer, it was customary the prayer “Hanoten Tshuah”, blessing the ruler of the state and their immediate family.)
Because the State of Israel is referred to as “the beginning of the sprouting/growth of our redemption,” the prayer was not universally accepted. This expression, and the reservations about the state in general, are some of the reasons why non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews do not recite it in their synagogues. In fact, the recitation of this prayer and, to a lesser extent, the prayer for the safety of IDF soldiers, became one of the main differences between prayer in Ḥaredi synagogues and prayers in National Religious Zionist synagogues in Israel and in the Diaspora.
Source (Hebrew) Translation (English)
In recent months, thanks to the combination of cell phone cameras and YouTube, we’ve witnessed Israel Defense Force soldiers acting in deeply troubling ways. We’ve seen soldiers standing by while a civilian shoots live ammunition at Palestinian protesters, we saw Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner assault an unarmed Danish civilian with the butt of a rifle, and, before that, the killing at close range of Mustafa Tamimi, a protester in the Palestinian village Nebi Saleh. Many of these occurrences are regularly reported in Haaretz, but they don’t find their way as often, or as prominently, into other media outlets.
The most generous explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals, in a series of isolated incidents, fail to uphold the IDF code of conduct. More sobering explanations point to a widespread culture in the IDF whereby such conduct is tolerated and routine. Indeed, when the Eisner case was reported, the most shocking aspect of the YouTube video was the utter indifference to Eisner’s act by the six or seven other soldiers milling around. What we saw as a horrific, unforgiveable, outrage, they saw as boring and un-noteworthy.
I was on the receiving end of such an incident last year, while I was observing a non-violent demonstration against the occupation in the West Bank, and got caught up in tear gas that was fired indiscriminately at women, children, and observers. Since then, I’ve found it hard to say the prayer for the IDF that appears in all Israeli prayer books, and which my community, like most synagogues in Israel, reads aloud every Shabbat.
The prayer, written by Rabbi Shlomo Goren in the early years of the state, does not, to my mind, adequately respond to the ethical challenges that IDF soldiers face in exercising power over civilian communities, where things are much more complicated than state-against-state war.
But our response to troubling issues cannot simply to be cease from engagement with the issue. That’s true if the troubling issue is, say, Eishet Ḥayil (the poem traditionally sung by a husband to a wife on Friday night; while parts of it are beautiful, parts of it are also rather sexist); and it is also true if the troubling issue is inappropriate use of force by the IDF.
As engaged Jews who love the Jewish tradition but are troubled by particular aspects of it, my wife and I sing an amended version of Eishet Ḥayil on Friday nights. In doing this, we join countless other Jews who try to develop an active relationship with liturgy that more closely reflects their values.
As engaged Jewish Zionists, the time has come to do the same with the prayer for the IDF. Above is my suggested amendation. The text is the regular version of the prayer as found in the popular Rinat Israel siddur. The middle section is my suggested addition.
The Biblical verse quoted is from the story of Sodom and Gemorrah, where Abraham berates God for seeking to harm innocent people along with the wicked. To my mind, it’s an extremely appropriate analogy to much of what goes on today: there are wicked people out there who seek to harm us, and it’s good that the army protects us from them. But all too often, some soldiers (and some Israelis in general) don’t do enough to distinguish between those who are genuinely evil, and innocent people (including Palestinians, left-wing Israelis, and internationals) who are legitimately protesting the occupation. Amending the prayer for the IDF is one way to raise awareness about that uncomfortable fact, and begin a public, Jewish, Zionist conversation about it.
| Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
|---|---|
In recent months, thanks to the combination of cell phone cameras and YouTube, we’ve witnessed Israel Defense Force soldiers acting in deeply troubling ways. We’ve seen soldiers standing by while a civilian shoots live ammunition at Palestinian protesters, we saw Lt. Col. Shaul Eisner assault an unarmed Danish civilian with the butt of a rifle, and, before that, the killing at close range of Mustafa Tamimi, a protester in the Palestinian village Nebi Saleh. Many of these occurrences are regularly reported in Haaretz, but they don’t find their way as often, or as prominently, into other media outlets.
The most generous explanation for this phenomenon is that individuals, in a series of isolated incidents, fail to uphold the IDF code of conduct. More sobering explanations point to a widespread culture in the IDF whereby such conduct is tolerated and routine. Indeed, when the Eisner case was reported, the most shocking aspect of the YouTube video was the utter indifference to Eisner’s act by the six or seven other soldiers milling around. What we saw as a horrific, unforgiveable, outrage, they saw as boring and un-noteworthy.
I was on the receiving end of such an incident last year, while I was observing a non-violent demonstration against the occupation in the West Bank, and got caught up in tear gas that was fired indiscriminately at women, children, and observers. Since then, I’ve found it hard to say the prayer for the IDF that appears in all Israeli prayer books, and which my community, like most synagogues in Israel, reads aloud every Shabbat.
The prayer, written by Rabbi Shlomo Goren in the early years of the state, does not, to my mind, adequately respond to the ethical challenges that IDF soldiers face in exercising power over civilian communities, where things are much more complicated than state-against-state war.
But our response to troubling issues cannot simply to be cease from engagement with the issue. That’s true if the troubling issue is, say, Eishet Ḥayil (the poem traditionally sung by a husband to a wife on Friday night; while parts of it are beautiful, parts of it are also rather sexist); and it is also true if the troubling issue is inappropriate use of force by the IDF.
As engaged Jews who love the Jewish tradition but are troubled by particular aspects of it, my wife and I sing an amended version of Eishet Ḥayil on Friday nights. In doing this, we join countless other Jews who try to develop an active relationship with liturgy that more closely reflects their values.
As engaged Jewish Zionists, the time has come to do the same with the prayer for the IDF. Above is my suggested amendation. The text is the regular version of the prayer as found in the popular Rinat Israel siddur. The middle section is my suggested addition.
The Biblical verse quoted is from the story of Sodom and Gemorrah, where Abraham berates God for seeking to harm innocent people along with the wicked. To my mind, it’s an extremely appropriate analogy to much of what goes on today: there are wicked people out there who seek to harm us, and it’s good that the army protects us from them. But all too often, some soldiers (and some Israelis in general) don’t do enough to distinguish between those who are genuinely evil, and innocent people (including Palestinians, left-wing Israelis, and internationals) who are legitimately protesting the occupation. Amending the prayer for the IDF is one way to raise awareness about that uncomfortable fact, and begin a public, Jewish, Zionist conversation about it.
תְּפִלָּה לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִם | Prayer for the Redemption of Israelis Taken Captive [during the war begun on Shemini Atseret 5784], by Rabbi Ofer Sabath Beit Halachmi (2023)
Source (Hebrew) Translation (English)
| Source (Hebrew) | Translation (English) |
|---|---|
This prayer for the liberation of abducted Israeli citizens and military personnel was offered by Rabbi Ofer Sabath Beit Halachmi in response to the war initiated by Hamas from Gaza on Shemini Atseret 5784. The English translation was prepared by Rabbi Dr. Rachel Sabath Beit Halachmi.
Introduction
It is a question yeshivah teachers commonly ask their students: “What is the only Torah reading in Shmos, Vayikra, and Bamidbar that does not mention Moshe’s name?”
When the students look and discover that it is Parshas Tetzaveh, the teacher cites the insight of Baal HaTurim: When pleading with G‑d to forgive the Jewish people for the sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe said,1 “If not, erase me, I beg of You, from Your book, which You have written.” Since “the curse of a Sage, even [if it is made] conditionally, will be fulfilled,”2 Moshe’s request to be erased from G‑d’s book, the Torah, had to be fulfilled at least to a certain extent, and it was fulfilled by the omission of his name in this Torah reading.
In the sichah that follows, the Rebbe explains the nature of Moshe’s sacrifice in being erased from the Torah and why he was willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of the Jewish people. He also explains why the omission of Moshe’s name was made in Parshas Tetzaveh and the connection Moshe shares with the different subjects described in this Torah reading. In doing so, the Rebbe clarifies the nature of the intrinsic soul connection shared by all Jews and the extent to which one Jew must sacrifice himself or herself for another.
Why Moshe’s Name Is not Mentioned
Baal HaTurim3 states that Parshas Tetzaveh is the only Torah reading – from Moshe’s birth until the Book of Devarim4 – where Moshe’s name is not mentioned. The reason for the omission is that Moshe, when pleading with G‑d to forgive the Jewish people for the sin of the Golden Calf, said,5 “If not, erase me, I beg of You, from Your book, which You have written.” Since “the curse of a Sage, even [if it is made] conditionally, will be fulfilled,”6 Moshe’s request to be erased from G‑d’s book, the Torah, was fulfilled in this Torah reading with the omission of his name.
אווֶעגְן פַּרְשַׁת תְּצַוֶּה שְׁטֵייט אִין בַּעַל הַטּוּרִים80, אַז דָאס אִיז דִי אֵיינְצִיקֶע סֶדְרָה "מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁנּוֹלַד מֹשֶׁה" אִין ווֶעלְכֶער עֶס ווֶערְט נִיט דֶערְמָאנט דֶער נָאמֶען פוּן מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ ("עַד מִשְׁנֶה תּוֹרָה"81). אוּן דֶער טַעַם אוֹיף דֶעם אִיז, ווַיְיל מֹשֶׁה הָאט גֶעזָאגְט "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ"82 אוּן "קִלְלַת חָכָם אֲפִילוּ עַל תְּנַאי בָּאָה"83 – אִיז דָאס נִתְקַיֵּים גֶעווָארְן אִין דֶער סֶדְרָה.
The Torah is very precise in each of its details. It is thus necessary to conclude that Parshas Tetzaveh was specifically chosen as the Torah reading in which Moshe’s request, “Erase me, I beg of You, from Your book,” was fulfilled. That request was made in the course of the events described in Parshas Ki Sissa, which chronologically took place after the commands in Parshas Tetzaveh.Hence, seemingly, it would have been more appropriate to allude to this matter – that Moshe’s request, even though made conditionally, was fulfilled – in one of the later Torah readings, when7 we already know that he made such a request.8 Thus, the fact that Moshe’s request was fulfilled in this Torah reading leads to the conclusion that, “Erase me, I beg of You, from Your book,” has a connection with the content of Parshas Tetzaveh.9
יֶעדֶער עִנְיָן אוּן פְּרַט אִין תּוֹרָה אִיז בְּדִיּוּק. דַארְף מֶען זָאגְן, אַז דָאס ווָאס דַּוְקָא פַּרְשַׁת תְּצַוֶּה אִיז אוֹיסְגֶעקְלִיבְּן גֶעווָארְן, אַז אִין אִיר זָאל אוֹיסְגֶעפִירְט ווֶערְן דֶער "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ" (ווָאס שְׁטֵייט אִין פַּרְשַׁת כִּי תִשָּׂאג)
[וּבִפְרַט, אַז לִכְאוֹרָה ווָאלְט מֶער מַתְאִים גֶעווֶען צוּ מְרַמֵּז זַיְין אָט דֶעם עִנְיָן – אַז אֲמִירַת מֹשֶׁה אִיז מְקוּיָּם גֶעווָארְן "אֲפִילוּ עַל תְּנַאי" – אִין אֵיינֶער פוּן דִי סֶדְרוֹת ווָאס קוּמֶען נָאךְ84 (אוּן ווֶען מְ'ווֵייס שׁוֹין ווֶעגְן) אֲמִירַת "מְחֵנִי נָא"85]
אִיז דָאס דֶערְפַאר, ווָאס דֶער עִנְיָן פוּן "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ" אִיז מַתְאִים צוּם תֹּכֶן פוּן דֶער סֶדְרָה86.
Seemingly, this Torah reading deals with unrelated subjects: the commandment to kindle the lamps of the Menorah, the fashioning of the priestly garments, the initiation of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood (kehunah), and the fashioning of the Incense Altar. Clarification is necessary to explain the connection Moshe’s request shares with the Torah reading as a whole.
דַארְף מֶען פַארְשְׁטֵיין: ווָאס פַאר אַ שַׁיְיכוּת הָאט דֶער עִנְיָן פוּן "מְחֵנִי" צוּם תּוֹכֶן פוּן פַּרְשַׁת תְּצַוֶּה, וואוּ עֶס רֶעדט זִיךְ ווֶעגְן דֶעם צִיוּוּי אוֹיף הַעֲלָאַת נֵרוֹת הַמְּנוֹרָה, עֲשִׂיַּת בִּגְדֵי כְּהוּנָּה, חִינּוּךְ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, אוּן עֲשִׂיַּת מִזְבַּח הַקְּטוֹרֶת?
The Essence, not a Name
Another point requires clarification:
The intent in the statement that Moshe was not mentioned in this Torah reading10 is not that Moshe is not referred to, but that his name is not mentioned. Indeed, Moshe is referred to in many verses in this Torah reading.11 Furthermore, the beginning of the Torah reading from which its name is derived – and, as is well known, the name of a Torah reading alludes to its overall content – is Ve’atah Tetzaveh,12 meaning, “And youshall command,” which refers specifically to Moshe. Moreover, as Kli Yakar13 states, ve’atah refers to the very core of Moshe’s essence. The core of a person’s essence is both loftier and deeper within his being than his name.
באוֹיךְ דַארְף מֶען פַארְשְׁטֵיין: דִי כַּוָּנָה אִין דֶעם ווָאס "לֹא הִזְכִּיר מֹשֶׁה בְּזֶה הַסֵּדֶר"87 אִיז (נִיט אַז דָא רֶעדט זִיךְ נִיט ווֶעגְן מֹשֶׁה'ן, נָאר) אַז מֹשֶׁה ווֶערְט נִיט דֶערְמָאנְט בִּשְׁמוֹ, אָבֶּער אִין דֶער סֶדְרָה רֶעדט זִיךְ ווֶעגְן מֹשֶׁה'ן, אוּן אִין אַ רִיבּוּי פְּסוּקִים88;
נָאךְ מֶער: דִי הַתְחָלַת הַסֶּדְרָה – אוּן שֵׁם הַסֶּדְרָה (ווָאס אִיז מְרַמֵּז, כַּיָּדוּעַ, אוֹיפְן תּוֹכֵן פוּן דֶער גַאנְצֶער סֶדְרָה) – "וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה"89, בַּאצִיט זִיךְ דַּוְקָא צוּ מֹשֶׁה'ן; אוּן זֹאת וְעוֹד – "וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה" מֵיינְט (כְּפֵירוּשׁ הַכְּלִי יָקָר90) "מִמַּהוּת עַצְמוּתְךָ", ווָאס מַהוּת וְעַצְמוּת פוּן אַ מֶענְטשְׁן אִיז טִיפֶער אוּן הֶעכֶער פוּן דֶער דַּרְגָּא אִין מֶענְטשְׁן ווָאס אִיז פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיטְ'ן שֵׁם:
A name enables one person to address another. However, the core of a person’s essence is so lofty and deep that it does not relate to others. Thus, it is above a name.14
עִנְיָנוֹ פוּן אַ שֵׁם אִיז בִּכְדֵי אַז אַ צְווֵייטֶער זָאל אִים קֶענֶען רוּפְן; אָבֶּער דֶער עַצְמוּת וּמַהוּת פוּן אַ מֶענְטשְׁן, אִיז הֶעכֶער אוּן טִיפֶער פוּן הָאבְּן אַ שַׁיְיכוּת צוּ אַ זוּלַת, וּבְמֵילָא הֶעכֶער פוּן עִנְיַן הַ"שֵּׁם"91.
Selections from Likkutei Sichos - Shemot (SIE)
Therefore, the manner in which Moshe is “erased” from this Torah reading is somewhat paradoxical. His name is not mentioned, however, the Torah reading begins, “You shall command,” referring to an even loftier dimension of his being than his name, Moshe.
קוּמְט לְפִי זֶה אוֹיס, אַז אַדְּרַבָּא, דֶער אוֹפֶן ווִי עֶס אִיז מְקוּיָּם גֶעווָארְן דֶער "מְחֵנִי" – אַז מֹשֶׁה ווֶערְט דָא דֶערְמָאנְט (נִיט בִּשְׁמוֹ, נָאר) דוּרְךְ דִי ווֶערְטֶער "וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה" – ווַיְיזְט אוֹיף נָאךְ אַ גְרֶעסֶערֶער מַעֲלָה ווִי שֵׁם מֹשֶׁה.
The Sacrifice Moshe Made
The above can be clarified by first explaining the great significance of Moshe’s request, “Erase me, I beg of You, from Your book, which You have written,” that, as Rashi states, refers to “the entire Torah.”15
גווֶעט מֶען דָאס פַארְשְׁטֵיין בְּהַקְדִּים הַבִּיאוּר אִין דֶעם גּוֹדֶל הָעִנְיָן פוּן בַּקָּשַׁת מֹשֶׁה "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ", וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י92 "מִכָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ":
Moshe is identified with the Torah – it was who he was – as reflected by our Sages’ statement16 that the Torah is called “the Torah of Moshe,”17 because “he dedicated his life to it.”14 From this we can appreciate that the request to “erase me… from Your book” – “the entire Torah” – affects the very core of Moshe’s being, the level at which he is one with the Torah.18
עִנְיָנוֹ פוּן מֹשֶׁה אִיז – תּוֹרָה, וּכְמַאֲמַר חַזַ"ל93 אַז (תּוֹרָה "נִקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ" ווַיְיל) מֹשֶׁה "נָתַן נַפְשׁוֹ עַל תּוֹרָה". דֶערְפוּן אִיז פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק, אַז דֶער עִנְיָן פוּן "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ – מִכָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ", רִירְט אָן דִי עֶצֶם מְצִיאוּת פוּן מֹשֶׁה'ן, ווִי עֶס אִיז אֵיינְס מִיט תּוֹרָה94;
Why did Moshe put this all at risk?
To secure atonement for the Jews who sinned by worshiping the Golden Calf, committing the most serious of all sins, one so severe that all subsequent sins and the punishment for them is connected to the sin of the Golden Calf, as reflected by Rashi’s interpretation of the verse,19 “On the day I make an accounting of their sins, I will take their sin into account.”
אוּן צוּלִיבּ ווָאס הָאט זִיךְ מֹשֶׁה אַזוֹי אַיְינְגֶעשְׁטֶעלְט – אוֹיף פּוֹעֵלְ'ן אַ כַּפָּרָה אוֹיפְן חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל, ווָאס חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל אִיז אַ חֵטְא הֲכִי חָמוּר, בִּיז אַז אַלֶע שְׁפֶּעטֶערְדִיקֶע חֲטָאִים אוּן זֵייעֶרֶע עוֹנְשִׁים זַיְינֶען פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר95 "וּבְיוֹם פָּקְדִי וּפָקַדְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם חַטָּאתָם".
This is very difficult to understand: How is it that Moshe – who is intrinsically bound up with the Torah – risked his entire being for those Jews who committed the sin of worshiping the Golden Calf? This included even those who made the Calf –who acted in contradiction of the commandment,20 “You shall not have other gods…. Do not make a graven image,” thus tearing themselves entirely away from the Torah.21
אִיז תָּמוּהַּ: ווִי קוּמְט עֶס, אַז מֹשֶׁה זָאל אַיְינְשְׁטֶעלְן זַיְין עֶצֶם מְצִיאוּת, ווָאס אִיז פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט תּוֹרָה, פַאר דִי טֵייל אִידְן ווָאס הָאבְּן חוֹטֵא גֶעווֶען בָּעֵגֶל, כּוֹלֵל דִי עוֹשֵׂי הָעֵגֶל ווָאס זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען הֵיפֶּךְ פוּן לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ גו' לֹא תָעֲשֶׂה גו', אִינְגַאנְצְן אָפְּגֶערִיסְן96 רַחֲמָנָא לִצְלָן פוּן תּוֹרָה?
More clarification is required:
What was meant by Moshe’s request, “If not, erase me, I beg of You, from Your book” – meaning, “from the entire Torah”? What is the connection between the two elements of Moshe’s request – that if G‑d does not forgive the Jews for the sin of the Golden Calf, He should erase Moshe from the Torah?22
אוֹיךְ דַארְף מֶען פַארְשְׁטֵיין: ווָאס אִיז דֶער תּוֹכֶן פוּן בַּקָּשַׁת מֹשֶׁה "וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ – מִכָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ": ווָאס אִיז דֶער קֶשֶׁר צְווִישְׁן דִי צְווֵיי עִנְיָנִים, אַז אוֹיבּ דֶער אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטֶער ווֶעט דִי אִידְן נִיט מְכַפֵּר זַיְין אוֹיפְן חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל, אִיז "מְחֵנִי" פוּן תּוֹרָה97?
In his commentary on the verse, Rashi explains23 that Moshe made this request so that “it not be said about me that I was unworthy to ask for mercy for them.” However, that interpretation appears problematic: From the wording of the verse, it appears that with this claim and demand of G‑d, Moshe sought to bring about atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf and not to protect his reputation, that “it not be said about me that I was unworthy.”
רַשִׁ"י98 אִיז מְבַאֵר99, אַז דֶערְמִיט הָאט מֹשֶׁה גֶעווָאלְט בַּאווָארֶענֶען "שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ עָלַי שֶׁלֹּא הָיִיתִי כְּדַאי לְבַקֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶם רַחֲמִים". אָבֶּער דֶער פֵּירוּשׁ אִיז לִכְאוֹרָה נִיט גְלַאטִיק, ווַיְיל פוּן לְשׁוֹן הַפָּסוּק אִיז מַשְׁמַע, אַז מִיט דֶער טַעֲנָה וּתְבִיעָה צוּם אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן הָאט מֹשֶׁה גֶעווָאלְט פּוֹעֵלְ'ן אַ כַּפָּרָה אוֹיף חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל אוּן נִיט צוּ בַּאווָארֶענֶען זִיךְ "שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ עָלַי כו' ".
Furthermore – and this is a fundamental point – when the issue involves G‑d “bear[ing] the sin”3 of the Jewish people, indeed, “a grave sin,”24 or, Heaven forbid, punishing them for it, what place is there for Moshe, “the faithful shepherd”25 of the Jewish people, to worry about what would be said of him?!
אוֹיךְ וְעִיקָר – ווֶען עֶס רֶעדט זִיךְ ווֶעגְן נִיט אוֹיסְפִירְן, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, "תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם" "חֲטָאָה גְדוֹלָה", ווָאס פַאר אַ תְּפִיסַת מָקוֹם הָאט בַּא מֹשֶׁה רַעְיָא מְהֵימְנָא ווָאס מֶען ווֶעט זָאגְן ווֶעגְן עֶם?!
The Deepest Connection
Moshe was utterly one with the Jewish people. There is no way he could be separated from the Jewish people as a whole or from any individual Jew. To quote Rashi:26 “Moshe is Israel and Israel is Moshe.”
מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ אִיז אֵיין זַאךְ מַמָּשׁ מִיט כְּלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, בִּיז אַז סְ'אִיז נִיט שַׁיָּיךְ צוּ אָפְּטֵיילְן אִים פוּן אִידְן בִּכְלַל וּבִפְרַט, וּבִלְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י100: מֹשֶׁה הוּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם מֹשֶׁה.
For that reason, the sin of the Golden Calf brought about a descent within Moshe. Thus, the phrase,27 “Go, descend,” our Sages read as,28 “Descend from your greatness.”
On the surface, there was no reason for this sin to affect Moshe. He had absolutely no connection with the sin of the Golden Calf; it was not even possible for him to have protested against the Jewish people’s sin. At that time, he was physically atop the mountain, Mount Sinai, and spiritually, he was in another realm entirely. Why, then, was he affected by that sin?
ווָאס דֶערְפַאר הָאט דֶער חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל גֶע'פּוֹעֵל'ט אַ יְרִידָה אִין מֹשֶׁה, כְּמַאֲמַר חַזַ"ל אוֹיפְן פָּסוּק "לֶךְ רֵד – רֵד מִגְּדוּלָּתְךָ"101. דְּלִכְאוֹרָה: מֹשֶׁה הָאט דָאךְ נִיט גֶעהאט קֵיין שַׁיְיכוּת כְּלַל צוּם חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל, אֲפִילוּ נִיט אִינֶעם גֶּדֶר פוּן "מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת", ווָארוּם עֶר אִיז דֶעמָאלְט גֶעווֶען בָּהָר (כִּפְשׁוּטוֹ, וּבִפְרַט וְעַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה – בְּמַצָּבוֹ בְּרוּחְנִיּוּת). הַיְינְט פַארְווָאס זָאל דֶער חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל אָנְרִירְן אִים?
In resolution: Since Moshe is utterly one with the Jewish people, he was endowed with greatness solely because of them, and the greatness he possessed was one with theirs. Accordingly, the sin of the Golden Calf and the descent it brought about within the Jewish people inevitably brought about a descent within Moshe.
נָאר ווַיְיל מֹשֶׁה אִיז אֵיין זַאךְ מִיט יִשְׂרָאֵל (וּבְמֵילָא – גְּדוּלָּתוֹ נִיתְּנָה אוּן אִיז גֶעווָארְן אֵיין זַאךְ מִיט גְּדוּלַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל), הָאט דֶער חֵטְא (הָעֵגֶל) אוּן יְרִידָה פוּן יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּדֶרֶךְ מְמֵילָא גֶע'פּוֹעֵל'ט אַ יְרִידָה אִין מֹשֶׁה'ן.
The oneness between Moshe and the Jewish people is even deeper than his oneness with the Torah. We find a similar relationship between the Jewish people and G‑d: “The Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He, are all one.”29 This is the inner meaning30 of our Sages’ statement31 that אָנֹכִי, the first word of the Ten Commandments, is an acronym for the Aramaic phrase,אֲנָאנַפְשִׁיכְּתָבִית32 יְהָבִית, interpreted as, “I have inscribed and conveyed My soul,” meaning that G‑d wrote down and invested33 His very Essence in the Torah. Nevertheless, the unity of the Jews with G‑d is even deeper and loftier, as indicated by our Sages’ statement,34 “Israel preceded” the Torah.
אוּן אָט דִי הִתְאַחְדּוּת פוּן מֹשֶׁה מִיט אִידְן אִיז נָאךְ טִיפֶער ווִי זַיְין הִתְאַחְדּוּת מִיט תּוֹרָה:
כְּשֵׁם ווִי מְ'גֶעפִינְט בַּיי דֶער פַארְאֵיינְצִיקוּנְג פוּן אִידְן מִיט דֶעם אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן, אַז אַף עַל פִּי אַז "אוֹרַיְתָא וְקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא כּוּלָּא חַד"102 (ווִי דֶער פֵּירוּשׁ הַפְּנִימִי103 פוּן מַאֲמַר חַזַ"ל104 "אֲנָא נַפְשִׁי כְּתָבִית105 יְהָבִית", אַז דֶער אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטֶער הָאט זִיךְ אַלֵיין ("נַפְשִׁי") "אַרַיְינְגֶעשְׁרִיבְּן" אוּן "אָפְּגֶעגֶעבְּן"106 אִין תּוֹרָה), פוּנְדֶעסְטְווֶעגְן אִיז דִי הִתְאַחְדּוּת פוּן אִידְן מִיט קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא נָאךְ טִיפֶער אוּן הֶעכֶער דֶערְפוּן, וּכְמַאֲמַר חַזַ"ל107 אַז "יִשְׂרָאֵל קָדְמוּ" לַתּוֹרָה;
As a result of this essential bond, the same is true regarding the leaders of the generations throughout history, as Rashi states,22 “the leader of the generation is equivalent to the entire generation.” Their unity with the Jews of their generation is even loftier than their unity with the Torah. “The tzaddikim resemble their Creator,”35 and they wholly invest themselves in their Torah teachings,36 particularly, in the new Torah insights they develop.37 Nevertheless, however deep that bond is, it does not compare to the bond they share with the Jewish people. In particular, this is true regarding those Jews with whom they share a special connection – and who are therefore their responsibility – “the poor of your city,”38 their children and students (to borrow the Torah’s words,39 “the souls they acquired…” meaning, the people they drew close to Divine service.)
עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה (וּכְתוֹצָאָה מִזֶּה) אִיז בַּיי נְשִׂיאֵי הַדּוֹר – ווָאס (בִּלְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"יכא) "נְשִׂיא הַדּוֹר הוּא כְּכָל הַדּוֹר" – אַז זֵייעֶר הִתְאַחְדּוּת מִיט דִי אִידְן פוּן זֵייעֶר דּוֹר אִיז נָאךְ הֶעכֶער פוּן זֵייעֶר הִתְאַחְדּוּת מִיט תּוֹרָה –
[אוּן אַזוֹי אִיז אוֹיךְ בַּיי צַדִּיקִים בִּכְלַל (ווָאס "דּוֹמִים לְבוֹרְאָם"108): אַף עַל פִּי אַז זֵיי "גִיבְּן זִיךְ אַרַיְין" אִין דִי עִנְיָנֵי תּוֹרָה109 ווָאס זֵיי לֶערְנֶען וּבִפְרַט זֵייעֶרֶע חִידּוּשֵׁי תּוֹרָה110, קוּמְט דָאס אָבֶּער נִיט צוּ זֵייעֶר פַארְאֵיינְצִיקוּנְג מִיט אִידְן, וּבִפְרַט דִי ווָאס הָאבְּן צוּ זֵיי אַ שַׁיְיכוּת (וּבְמֵילָא אַחֲרַיוּת) מְיוּחֶדֶת, עֲנִיֵּי עִירְךָ, בָּנִים וְתַלְמִידִים כו' (בִּלְשׁוֹן הַפָּסוּק111: הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ)].
For Whom Would Moshe Give Up His Life?
The above also explains Moshe’s request, “Erase me… from Your book” and the reason he put at risk the core of his being as it was connected with the Torah for the sake of even the Jews who made the Golden Calf.
הדָאס אִיז אוֹיךְ דֶער בִּיאוּר אִין בַּקָּשַׁת מֹשֶׁה "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ" אוּן דֶער טַעַם ווָאס עֶר הָאט אַיְינְגֶעשְׁטֶעלְט זַיְין עֶצם מְצִיאוּת ווִי זִי אִיז פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט תּוֹרָה צוּלִיבּ (אוֹיךְ) דִי עוֹשֵׂי הָעֵגֶל:
The fact that the oneness between Moshe and the Jewish people surpassed even his oneness with the Torah brought about two consequences:
ווִיבַּאלְד אַז דִי הִתְאַחְדּוּת פוּן מֹשֶׁה מִיט אִידְן אִיז נָאךְ הֶעכֶער פוּן זַיְין הִתְאַחְדּוּת מִיט תּוֹרָה, דֶערְפַאר אִיז דִי תּוֹצָאָה דֶערְפוּן גֶעווֶען אִין בֵּיידֶע עִנְיָנִים:
a) His mesirus nefesh for the Jewish people40 took precedence over and surpassed his mesirus nefesh for the Torah.
(א) אַז אוֹיךְ זַיְין מְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ פַאר אִידְן112 אִיז פְרִיעֶר אוּן הֶעכֶער פוּן זַיְין מְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ אוֹיף תּוֹרָה.
(To cite a story that is somewhat parallel:
Maggid Meisharim41 relates that it was decreed from Above that Rav Yosef Caro would merit to sacrifice his life in the sanctification of G‑d’s name. Nevertheless, this did not happen because he was punished regarding a certain matter and was not afforded that privilege.
[עַל דֶּרֶךְ ווִי עֶס שְׁטֵייט אִין מַגִּיד מֵישָׁרִים, אַז דֶער בֵּית יוֹסֵף הָאט גֶעדַארְפְט זוֹכֶה זַיְין צוּ מְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם113, נָאר צוּלִיבּ אַ גֶעווִיסֶער סִבָּה הָאט מֶען אִים מַעֲנִישׁ גֶעווֶען אוּן עֶר הָאט בְּפּוֹעֵל דֶערְצוּ נִיט זוֹכֶה גֶעווֶען –
Now, had he merited to sacrifice his life for the sanctification of G‑d’s name, he would not have been able to compose his entire Shulchan Aruch42 which serves as a source of Torah Law and instruction for the entire Jewish people. Nevertheless, this was a punishment because, no matter how lofty the heights of Torah knowledge he would be able to reach, that achievement would not equal sacrificing his life in the sanctification of G‑d’s name.43 Sacrificing one’s life in the sanctification of G‑d’s name means sacrificing one’s life because one is a Jew44 and will remain a Jew, at one with G‑d.)
ווָאס אוֹיבּ עֶר ווָאלְט אוּמְגֶעקוּמֶען עַל קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם ווָאלְט עֶר נִיט גֶעהַאט דִי מֶעגְלֶעכְקַיְיט צוּ מְחַבֵּר זַיְין דֶעם שׁוּלְחָן עָרוּךְ שֶׁלּוֹ כּוּלּוֹ114, שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ תֵּצֵא תּוֹרָה וְהוֹרָאָה לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִיז דָאס אַן עִנְיָן שֶׁל עוֹנֶשׁ, ווַיְיל ווִי הוֹיךְ סְ'אִיז דֶער עִילּוּי אִין תּוֹרָה, קוּמְט עֶס אָבֶּער נִיט צוּ מְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם115, ווָאס דָאס אִיז מְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ ווַיְיל מְ'אִיז אַ אִיד116 אוּן אַז מֶען זָאל זַיְין אַן אִיד – אֵיינְס מִיט הַשֵּׁם].
b) The unity of Moshe with the Jewish people encompasses – and as a result, he was willing to sacrifice his life for – every Jew, regardless of his spiritual standing, even those who made the Golden Calf. Since his bond with other Jews is loftier than his bond with the Torah, the fact that a Jew cuts himself off from the Torah does not nullify that bond, as our Sages state,45 “Even though he sinned, he [remains] a Jew.”
(ב) דִי הִתְאַחְדּוּת (וּבְמֵילָא – דִי מְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ) אִיז מִיט (אוּן פַאר) יֶעדֶער אִידְן, אִין ווָאס פַאר אַ מַצָּב עֶר זָאל נָאר זַיְין (אֲפִילוּ דִי עוֹשֵׂי הָעֵגֶל). ווִיבַּאלְד דָאס אִיז הֶעכֶער פוּן תּוֹרָה, ווֶערְט עֶס נִיט בָּטֵל דוּרְכְדֶעם ווָאס אַ אִיד אִיז אָפְּגֶערִיסְן פוּן תּוֹרָה, כְּמַאֲמַר חַזַ"ל117 "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא".
This is also the meaning of Moshe’s request, “If You bear their sin, but if not, erase me, I beg of You, from Your book.” Moshe was both asking and demanding, “If the sin of the Golden Calf is so severe that the Torah does not allow for this sin to be forgiven” – i.e., G‑d would be willing to grant atonement, but the Torah would, as it were, persist in its charges against the Jewish people and prevent atonement from being granted46 – then “erase me from Your book,” from the Torah. The erasure of Moshe’s name would reveal – without any veils at all – the essential oneness Moshe shares with the Jewish people and, through that, the unity of the Jews with G‑d that surpasses His unity with the Torah. The revelation of this essential unity would bring about atonement47 for the Jews’ sins, even the sin of the Golden Calf. Moreover, that unity would enable them to reestablish their bond with the Torah afterwards.
אוּן דָאס אִיז אוֹיךְ דֶער פֵּירוּשׁ אִין "אִם תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ גו' ": אוֹיבּ דֶער חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל אִיז אַזוֹי חָמוּר אַז תּוֹרָה גִיט נִיט קֵיין אָרְט אוֹיף "תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם" (הַשֵּׁם ווָאלְט מְכַפֵּר גֶעווֶען נָאר תּוֹרָה אִיז כִּבְיָכוֹל תּוֹבֵעַ אוּן מוֹנֵעַ118), אִיז מֹשֶׁה'ס בַּקָּשָׁה אוּן תְּבִיעָה: "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ" – פוּן תּוֹרָה; דַאמָאלְס שְׁטֵייט בְּגָלוּי, בְּלִי לְבוּשׁ כְּלַל מֹשֶׁה'ס עַצְמִיּוּת'דִיקֶע הִתְאַחְדּוּת מִיט אִידְן, אוּן דוּרְךְ דֶעם – דֶער יִחוּד פוּן אִידְן מִיט קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא ווָאס אִיז הֶעכֶער פוּן דֶער הִתְאַחְדּוּת מִיט תּוֹרָה, ווָאס מִצַּד דֶער הִתְאַחְדּוּת קוּמְט דִי כַּפָּרָה119 אֲפִילוּ אוֹיפְן חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל (אוּן דָאס פַארְבִּינְדט זֵיי דֶערְנָאךְ צוּרִיק אוֹיךְ מִיט תּוֹרָה).
The Essential Bond Generated by Moshe
Based on the above, it is possible to understand the connection between Moshe’s request, “Erase me,” and G‑d’s instruction, veatah tetzaveh, “And you shall command.”The unity between Moshe and the Jewish people as a whole – that transcends the Torah was manifest in Moshe’s request, “Erase me from Your book” – is expressed in the phrase,48 “You shall command the Jewish people.” Tetzaveh (תְּצַוֶה), “command,” shares the same root as the word צַוְותָא, meaning “bond” and “connection.” Accordingly, one of the interpretations49 of the phrase ve’atah tetzaveh is: “You” – the very essence of Moshe – “will bond and connect all the Jews, forging them into a single entity.”
ועַל פִּי כָּל הַנַּ"ל ווֶעט מֶען אוֹיךְ פַארְשְׁטֵיין דִי שַׁיְיכוּת פוּן בַּקָּשַׁת מֹשֶׁה "מְחֵנִי" צוּ "וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה":
אָט דִי הִתְאַחְדּוּת פוּן מֹשֶׁה'ן מִיט אַלֶע אִידְן ווָאס אִיז נָאךְ הֶעכֶער פוּן תּוֹרָה (ווָאס דְרִיקְט זִיךְ אוֹיס אִין דֶער בַּקָּשָׁה "מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ"), ווֶערְט אַרוֹיסְגֶעבְּרַאכְט אִין דֶעם120 "וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", ווָאס אֵיינֶער פוּן דִי פֵּירוּשִׁים אִין דֶעם אִיז: "וְאַתָּה" – דִי עַצְמִיּוּת פוּן מֹשֶׁה'ן – אִיז מְקַשֵּׁר וּמְחַבֵּר ("תְּצַוֶּה" לְשׁוֹן צַוְתָא וְחִיבּוּר121) אַלֶע אִידְן צוּזַאמֶען אִין אֵיין מְצִיאוּת.
The level of Moshe which is connected with a name – and that includes even as lofty a rung as the yechidah within the soul, for the yechidah is but only one of the five names by which the soul is called50 – reaches only the revealed levels of G‑dliness. Those levels are no loftier than the Torah (for “the entire Torah is composed solely of the names of G‑d”).51 Accordingly, such levels cannot bring about a bond and a unity that encompasses all Jews equally.
מִצַּד דִי מַדְרֵיגוֹת פוּן מֹשֶׁה ווָאס זַיְינֶען פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט אַ "שֵׁם" – ווָאס דָאס אִיז כּוֹלֵל אֲפִילוּ יְחִידָה שֶׁבְּנֶפֶשׁ, ווָאס אִיז אֵיינֶער פוּן די "חֲמִשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת נִקְרְאוּ לָהּ"122 (דִי נְשָׁמָה) – דֶערְגְרֵייכְט מֶען דִי גִּילּוּיִים שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה, ווָאס זַיְינֶען נִיט הֶעכֶער פוּן תּוֹרָה (ווָארוּם "כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּהּ שְׁמוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא"123); אוּן דֶערְפַאר קֶען מֶען מִצַּד דֶער מַדְרֵגָה נִיט אוֹיפְטָאן דֶעם צַוְתָא וְחִיבּוּר ווָאס נֶעמְט אַרוּם אַלֶע אִידְן בְּשָׁוֶה.
It is specifically through ve’atah tetzavah – the essence of Moshe that is loftier than any name or description, for the essence of the soul cannot be expressed through any of the soul’s five names – that a connection is established with Atah, the fundamental and true “You,” G‑d’s Essence.52 The use of the second person, “You,” implies that one is speaking to the other directly, face-to-face, as it were. In an ultimate sense, it is only G‑d’s Essence that can be addressed as “You.” He alone truly exists,53 and He alone can be spoken to directly, for His presence is everywhere and, indeed, felt by all, as evident from the fact that “G‑d’s name is in the mouths of all people.”54 As a result of the intrinsic bond that Moshe’s essence shares with G‑d’s Essence, he can “command the Jewish people,” i.e., unite and bring together the entire Jewish people, even those among them who made the Golden Calf.55
דַּוְקָא "וְאַתָּה (תְּצַוֶּה)", דִי עַצְמִיּוּת פוּן מֹשֶׁה ווָאס אִיז הֶעכֶער פוּן שֵׁם וְתוֹאַר (דֶער עֶצֶם הַנֶּפֶשׁ ווָאס ווֶערְט נִיט נִתְפָּס אִין דִי "חֲמִשָּׁה שֵׁמוֹת"), ווָאס פַארְבִּינְדט זִיךְ מִיטְ'ן "אַתָּה" הָעִיקְרִי וְהָאֲמִתִּי "אַתָּה" שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה, עַצְמוּתוֹ וּמַהוּתוֹ יִתְבָּרֵךְ124 (ווָאס בֶּאֱמֶת לַאֲמִתָּתוֹ אִיז דַּוְקָא נָאר אוֹיף עַצְמוּת שַׁיָּיךְ זָאגְן "אַתָּה"125, לְשׁוֹן נוֹכֵחַ, וְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם שָׁגוּר בְּפִי כֹל126 (– פּוֹעֵל'ט דֶעם "תְּצַוֶּה אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל", דֶעם צַוְתָא וְחִיבּוּר פוּן אַלֶע אִידְן – אֲפִילוּ דִי עוֹשֵׂי הָעֵגֶל127 – אִין אֵיין מְצִיאוּת.
This also explains the connection between ve’atah tetzaveh and the command that follows “They shall bring oil to you… to raise up a constant light.” On the surface, the kindling of the lamps of the Menorah was performed by Aharon. Why, then, were the Jews commanded to bring the oil to Moshe?56
אוּן דָאס אִיז אוֹיךְ דֶער קֶשֶׁר פוּן "וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה" צוּם הֶמְשֵׁךְ הַצִּיוּוּי "וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן גו' לְהַעֲלוֹת נֵר תָּמִיד" – דְּלִכְאוֹרָה: דִי הַעֲלָאַת הַנֵּרוֹת אִיז דָאךְ גֶעווֶען דוּרְךְ אַהֲרֹן, הַיְינְט פַארְווָאס אִיז דֶער אָנְזָאג "וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ" (צוּ מֹשֶׁה'ן)128?
As explained,57 the resolution of that question is that, inherently, Aharon, had the potential, through his kindling of the Menorah to empower58 Jews on the level of “lamps,” i.e., individuals who serve G‑d and are prepared to shine with “the lamp of mitzvah and the light of Torah.”59 However, bringing the oil to Moshe – who, as explained above, joins together and bonds all Jews – makes it possible for this to be accomplished by every Jew, even the most simple and undeveloped,60 enabling the essence of their soul to be revealed.61
שְׁטֵייט אוֹיף דֶעם דֶער בִּיאוּר129: אַהֲרֹן מִצַּד עַצְמוֹ אִיז פּוֹעֵל130 אוֹיף אִידְן ווֶעלְכֶע זַיְינֶען "נֵרוֹת", ווֶעלְכֶע (זַיְינֶען מוּכָן) לַיְיכְטְן מִיט "נֵר מִצְוָה וְתוֹרָה אוֹר"131 – עוֹבְדֵי ה'; אָבֶּער דוּרְךְ דֶעם ווָאס "וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן גו' " – צוּ מֹשֶׁה'ן, ווָאס עֶר אִיז מְצַוֶּה וּמְחַבֵּר אַלֶע אִידְן (כַּנַּ"ל) – ווֶערְט דָאס אוֹיפְגֶעטָאן אִין אַלֶע אִידְן ("אֲפִילוּ הַפְּשׁוּטִים בְּיוֹתֵר"132), זֵייעֶר עֶצֶם שֶׁבְּנַפְשָׁם ווֶערְט נִתְגַּלֶּה133.
How the Entire Torah Reading Reflects Moshe’s Influence
On the basis of the above, we can also explain the connection between ve’atah tetzaveh, the content of the Torah reading as a whole, and the reason Moshe’s name is not mentioned at all in that reading.
זעַל פִּי זֶה ווֶעט מֶען אוֹיךְ פַארְשְׁטֵיין דִי שַׁיְיכוּת פוּן "וְאַתָּה תְּצַוֶּה" צוּם תּוֹכֶן פוּן כְּלָלוּת הַסֶּדְרָה (ווָאס דֶערְפַאר ווֶערְט נִיט דֶערְמָאנְט שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה אִין דֶער גַאנְצֶער סֶדְרָה):
The Torah reading relates what exactly had to be done to initiate Aharon and his sons into the kehunah. Although the emphasis is on initiating Aharon, the Torah highlights that all the activities had to be performed by Moshe specifically. As it says at the very beginning of the passage,62 “You shall draw Aharon [your brother and his sons] close to you… so that they serve Me as kohanim … You shall make sacred garments for Aharon, your brother.” Similarly, the entire initiation of Aharon and his sons into the kehunah was carried out by Moshe specifically, as related in detail throughout the Torah reading.
אִין דֶעם גַאנְצְן סִיפּוּר ווֶעגְן כְּהוּנַּת אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו אִין דֶער סֶדְרָה אִיז מוּדְגָּשׁ, ווִי דָאס דַארְף גֶעטָאן ווֶערְן דוּרְךְ מֹשֶׁה'ן דַּוְקָא. ווִי עֶס שְׁטֵייט אוֹיךְ גְלַיְיךְ בְּהַתְחָלַת הָעִנְיָן134 "וְאַתָּה הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ אֶת אַהֲרֹן גו' לְכַהֲנוֹ לִי", "וְעָשִׂיתָ בִגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ גו’ ”; וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה אִיז דֶער גַאנְצֶער חִינּוּךְ לַכְּהוּנָּה פוּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו דוּרְכְגֶעפִירְט גֶעווָארְן דַּוְקָא דוּרְךְ מֹשֶׁה, ווִי דֶערְצֵיילְט בַּאֲרוּכָה אִין דֶער פַּרְשָׁה – ווָאס אֵיינֶער פוּן דִי בִּיאוּרִים בְּזֶה אִיז (עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַנַּ"ל בְּעִנְיַן נֵרוֹת הַמְּנוֹרָה):
One of the explanations for this is comparable to the concept explained above regarding the lights of the Menorah: Inherently, Aharon HaKohen was identified with the priestly office and the holiness of the Sanctuary. Therefore, it follows that his priestly service would primarily affect only those who serve G‑d, people who shared a revealed connection with the Menorah in the Sanctuary and the Beis HaMikdash. However, Moshe’s efforts, “You63 shall draw Aharon your brother [and his sons] close to you… to serve Me as kohanim,” had an effect on Aharon’s priestly service, causing it to impact all the Jews, even the most simple and undeveloped.
אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן מִצַּד עַצְמוֹ, אִיז עִנְיָנוֹ כְּהוּנָּה וּקְדוּשַּׁת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, וּבְמֵילָא ווָאלְט אוֹיךְ זַיְין עֲבוֹדַת הַכְּהוּנָּה גֶעהַאט אַ ווִירְקוּנְג (בְּעִיקָר) נָאר אוֹיף "עוֹבְדֵי ה' " ווָאס הָאבְּן אַ גָּלוּי'דִיקֶע שַׁיְיכוּת צוּם (מְנוֹרַת הַ)מִשְׁכָּן וּמִקְדָּשׁ; דוּרְךְ דֶעם אָבֶּער ווָאס "וְאַתָּה135 (מֹשֶׁה) הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ אֶת אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ גו' לְכַהֲנוֹ לִי", אִיז כְּהוּנַּת אַהֲרֹן בְּאוֹפֶן אַז עֶס טוּט אוֹיף אִין אַלֶע אִידְן ("אֲפִילוּ הַפְּשׁוּטִים בְּיוֹתֵר").
This is one of the reasons why immediately after describing the initiation of Aharon, the Torah proceeds to relate64 the commandment to make the Altar for the incense offering.65 On the surface, the commandment to make that Altar, which was placed in the Inner Sanctuary, should have been included in Parshas Terumah, together with the commandments to make all the other articles of the Sanctuary and the outer Altar.66
אוּן דָאס אִיז אוֹיךְ פוּן דִי טַעֲמִים ווָאס גְלַיְיךְ נָאךְ חִינּוּךְ אַהֲרֹן שְׁטֵייט136 דֶער צִיוּוּי אוֹיפְן "מִזְבֵּחַ מִקְטַר קְטֹרֶת"137 – דְּלִכְאוֹרָה הָאט דֶער צִיוּוּי אוֹיף עֲשִׂיַּת מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי גֶעדַארְפְט שְׁטֵיין פְרִיעֶר אִין פַּרְשַׁת תְּרוּמָה צוּזַאמֶען מִיטְן צִיוּוּי אוֹיף אַלֶע כְּלֵי הַמִּשְׁכָּן (כּוֹלֵל דֶעם מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן)138 –
The reason making that Altar is included in this Torah reading and not earlier stems from the fact that Aharon’s kehunah must be connected with every Jew, and this is expressed through the incense offering.67 As our Sages commented,68 “Any [communal] fast in which the sinners of Israel do not participate is not a [satisfactory] fast. [This is reflected by] the galbanum which produces an undesirable fragrance and yet is listed by Scripture among the spices of the incense offering.” The inclusion of the sinners – for whom galbanum serves as an analogy – in a communal fast relates to the concept stated previously, that Moshe sacrificed himself even for those who made the Golden Calf.69
נָאר ווַיְיל אָט דֶער עִנְיָן (אַז כְּהוּנַּת אַהֲרֹן דַארְף זַיְין פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט אַלֶע אִידְן) דְרִיקְט זִיךְ אוֹיךְ אוֹיס אִין דֶעם עִנְיַן הַקְּטוֹרֶת139, וּכְמַאֲמַר חַזַ"ל140 אַז "כָּל תַּעֲנִית שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מִפּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ תַּעֲנִית שֶׁהֲרֵי חֶלְבְּנָה רֵיחָהּ רָע וּמְנָאָהּ הַכָּתוּב עִם סַמְּמָנֵי קְטוֹרֶת" (עַל דֶּרֶךְ ווִי גֶערֶעדט פְרִיעֶר, אַז מֹשֶׁה הָאט זִיךְ מוֹסֵר נֶפֶשׁ גֶעווֶען אֲפִילוּ פַאר דִי עוֹשֵׂי הָעֵגֶל)141.
In particular, this is expressed openly in the incense offering of Yom Kippur70 and the service performed on the incense Altar that day is mentioned at the end of the Torah reading,71 “Aharon will perform atonement on its horns… over [the course of] your generations, he will atone upon it once a year.”72
אוּן בִּפְרַט קוּמְט דָאס אַרוֹיס בְּגָלוּי אִין עֲבוֹדַת הַקְּטוֹרֶת פוּן יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים142, ווִי עֶס שְׁטֵייט בְּסִיּוּם וְחוֹתָם הַסֶּדְרָה: וְכִפֶּר אַהֲרֹן עַל קַרְנוֹתָיו גו' אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה יְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לְדוֹרוֹתֵיכֶם143 גו'.
Not an Abstract Concept
The above leads to a remarkable lesson for each of us to apply in our service of G‑d: Moshe was prepared to give up everything – even the loftiest and most fundamental dimension of his being, his connection to the Torah – for the sake of the Jewish people, even for those who made the Golden Calf. This is a greater commitment than that mandated by the command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”73 For Moshe, loving someone “as yourself” meant “as the Torah,” because Moshe was identified entirely with the Torah. And yet, Moshe was willing to give up even his connection with the Torah in order to be entirely one74 with the Jewish people, including even those who had separated themselves from the Torah, Heaven forbid.
חדֶערְפוּן הָאט מֶען אוֹיךְ אַ הוֹרָאָה נִפְלָאָה אִין עֲבוֹדַת ה':
אַזוֹי ווִי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ אִיז גֶעווֶען גְרֵייט צוּ מְוַתֵּר זַיְין אוֹיף אַן עִנְיָן הֲכִי נַעֲלֶה וְעִיקְרִי שֶׁבּוֹ (זַיְין פַארְבּוּנְד מִיט תּוֹרָה) צוּלִיבּ אִידְן, אוּן אֲפִילוּ פַאר עוֹשֵׂי הָעֵגֶל – ווָאס דָאס אִיז נָאךְ מֶער ווִי "וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ"144: דֶער "כָּמוֹךָ" פוּן מֹשֶׁה'ן אִיז דָאךְ תּוֹרָה, זַיְין גַאנְצֶע מְצִיאוּת אִיז גֶעווֶען דוּרְכְגֶענוּמֶען מִיט תּוֹרָה; אִיז מֹשֶׁה גֶעווֶען גְרֵייט צוּ מְוַתֵּר זַיְין אוֹיף דֶעם כְּדֵי צוּ זַיְין אִינְאֵיינֶעם145 מִיט אִידְן – כּוֹלֵל ווֶעלְכֶע זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען אָפְּגֶערִיסְן רַחֲמָנָא לִצְלָן פוּן תּוֹרָה;
As the faithful shepherd of the Jewish people,75 Moshe desired and empowered every Jew in every place and every time to act in a similar manner. This was Moshe’s claim to G‑d:76 If You will not, Heaven forbid, “bear their sin,” but instead punish them – as implied by the phrase, “those who sinned against Me, I will erase from My book,” while Moshe would remain in G‑d’s book – then, Moshe argued, “it could be said that I was unworthy.…” In other words, Moshe said, “They will say I was not prepared to sacrifice myself for them to the extent that I would ask to also be ‘erased from Your book,’ and the people would take a lesson from this for all time.”
עַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה הָאט עֶר אַלְס רַעְיָא מְהֵימְנָא146, גֶעווָאלְט אוּן גֶעגֶעבְּן כֹּחַ יֶעדֶער אִידְן וּבְכָל זְמַן וּמָקוֹם עֶר זָאל זִיךְ אַזוֹי אוֹיפפִירְן.
אוּן דָאס אִיז טַעֲנָתוֹ: אוֹיבּ עֶס ווֶעט נִיט זַיְין חַס וְשָׁלוֹם "תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם" (וּבְמֵילָא – "אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי") אוּן עֶר ווֶעט בְּלַיְיבְּן "בְּסִפְרְךָ", יֹאמְרוּ עָלַי שֶׁלֹּא הָיִיתִי כְּדַאי כו' ווָארוּם עֶר הָאט זִיךְ נִיט גֶעווָאלְט מוֹסֵר נֶפֶשׁ זַיְין בִּיז מְחֵנִי מִסִּפְרְךָ – אוּן מֶען ווֶעט זִיךְ אָפְּלֶערְנֶען פוּן דֶעם לְדוֹרֵי דוֹרוֹת!
All the above provides a lesson that everyone of us must apply in our Divine service. It is not enough to have ahavas Yisrael for every Jew regardless of his or her situation or spiritual level77 and for that love to be “as yourself.”78 More is demanded of each one of us – to sacrifice ourselves for another Jew and for every Jew, and for that self-sacrifice to be expressed in “loving [all] created beings and drawing them close to the Torah.”79
הַהוֹרָאָה מִכָּל זֶה ווִי עֶס דַארְף זַיְין בַּעֲבוֹדַת כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד: סְ'אִיז נִיט גֶענוּג ווָאס מְ'הָאט אַהֲבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אוּן צוּ יֶעדֶער אִיד (אִין ווָאס פַאר אַ מַצָּב עֶר זָאל נָאר זַיְין)147, אוּן דִי אַהֲבָה אִיז "כָּמוֹךָ" – נָאר עֶס מָאנְט זִיךְ מְסִירַת נֶפֶשׁ פַאר אַ צְווֵייטְן אִידְן, אוּן פַאר יֶעדֶער אִידְן, ווָאס דַארְף זִיךְ אוֹיסְדְרִיקְן אִין "אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה"148.
Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 21, p. 173ff. Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh, 5740 [1980]
(משיחת ש״פ תצוה תש״מ)
Shmos 32:32.
Makkos 11a.
Baal HaTurim, Shmos 27:20. This teaching is also found in the Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim (60c); Rabboseinu Baalei HaTosafos and Rabbeinu Bachya, Shmos 32:32; Rosh, Shmos 27:20. See also Zohar, Vol. III, p. 246a.
Rosh, loc. cit.; added as a parenthetic statement in Baal HaTurim. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 675.
Shmos 32:32.
Makkos 11a.
This question is raised in the Zohar Chadash, loc. cit., which notes, “Moshe made this request after Ve’atah Tetzaveh.” The Zohar Chadash answers the question by quoting the principle, “The Torah does not follow chronological sequence.” See the following footnote.
On the surface, there are grounds to argue the reverse: that Moshe’s request be fulfilled specifically in one of the Torah readings that were already written. This would fit with the wording, “Erase me, I beg of You, from Your book which You have written.” (See also Rosh, loc. cit., which states that G‑d told Moshe, “I will go beyond the measure of the law, I will erase you [only] from the book which I have written, i.e., from [Parshas] Teztaveh, which I wrote before [Parshas] Ki Sissa.”
However, such an interpretation leaves room for questions. Firstly, according to several opinions – Rashi, Shmos 31:18, 33:11; Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Terumah, sec. 8; Zohar Chadash, loc. cit. – Parshas Tetzaveh was at least related by Moshe to the Jewish people after Parshas Ki Sissa. Even if one would say that Parshas Tetzaveh was communicated by G‑d to Moshe before Parshas Ki Sissa, it is clear that it was related to the Jewish people afterwards. In addition, Rashi, Shmos 32:32, explicitly interprets “from Your book” as “from the entire Torah.”
Therefore, we are forced to say that Moshe’s request, “Erase me, I beg of You, from Your book, which You have written” could be interpreted as referring to the entire Torah – including even later Torah readings – even though in actual fact, these portions of “Your book, which You have written,” were not yet written. See Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who discusses Rashi’s interpretation, raises questions concerning it, and offers two possible explanations, the second of which states that these words refer only to what was written until the Giving of the Torah. Juxtaposing that interpretation with Rashi’s words requires extensive clarification because Rashi explicitly states, “from the entire Torah.” See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, loc. cit.
Another explanation is offered by Gur Aryeh: that Rashi is referring to the Torah “that was inscribed with black fire… before G‑d, from time immemorial.” (See Rashi, Devarim 33:2. See also Rashi, Bamidbar 27:7.) That interpretation also explains the precision in the verse’s wording, “Your book, which You have written.”
Perhaps it could be said that the principle, “the curse of a sage, even [if it is made] conditionally, will be fulfilled,” applies only when the subject of the curse existed at the time the curse was issued and thus the curse could have fallen upon it. By contrast, when the subject first came into being after the condition was not fulfilled (and, as a result, the curse was nullified), it is not appropriate that a curse (which was already nullified) should affect it.
In their commentaries at the beginning of this Torah reading, Meor Einayim and othersexplain that Moshe’s name was omitted from Parshas Tetzaveh because, in most years, Adar 7, the day of Moshe’s yahrzeit, falls in the week of that Torah reading.
The Zohar Chadash, Shir HaShirim (60c), comments that because so many of the verses and commands in this Torah reading refer to Moshe, “Moshe’s name should have been written in connection with every single word and every single command there.” Thus, the omission of Moshe’s name reflects the effect of the curse. Nevertheless, it is clear that the omission of Moshe’s name must also share a connection to the content of the Torah reading. See the comments at the beginning of our Torah reading in Tur HaAruch, Panei’ach Razah, Shach al HaTorah,
See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 26, p. 204ff.; Sefer HaSichos 5749, Vol. 1, pp. 257ff., p. 271ff., et al.
Baal HaTurim, loc. cit.
See the wording of the Zohar Chadash, loc. cit.
The Torah reading is referred to in this manner in the Zohar, Vol. III, p. 246a, and the Zohar Chadash, loc. cit., and in several other sources. See the sources cited in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 16, p. 342, footnote 9.
Kli Yakar, Shmos 27:20. See also the maamar entitled Zos Toras HaBayis, 5689 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 1), secs. 10-11. See sec. 6, below.
True, “a name relates to the essence of the object [named].” Nevertheless, it results from “the name bonding the soul to the body.” However, “the soul itself, before entering the body, is not referred to by any name at all” (Likkutei Torah, Vayikra, p. 41c). Even so, further analysis is still necessary.
Shmos, loc. cit., based on Shmos Rabbah 47:9.
Mechilta to Shmos 15:1; Shmos Rabbah 30:4. See the sources mentioned there.
Malachi 3:22, et al.
Moreover, erasing Moshe’s name would also affect the very existence of the Torah, which is connected with Moshe (in a manner similar to the explanation above, that it is called “the Torah of Moshe”). See Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, chs. 8-9; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 179ff.
As explained in Rambam, loc. cit., one of the fundamentals of faith is that the identification of the Torah with absolute and eternal truth is based on the acceptance of the validity of Moshe’s prophecy. Thus, erasing Moshe from the Torah would affect the very essence of the Torah.
Shmos 32:34 and Rashi’s commentary. In that source, Rashi explains that, although G‑d withheld the full intensity of punishment for the sin of the Golden Calf, whenever He punished the Jews for other sins, He also added a certain dimension of retribution for the sin of the Golden Calf.
See Zohar, Vol. I, pp. 52b ff., 126b, Vol. II, p. 193b, which states that the sin of the Golden Calf caused the spiritual impurity generated by the sin of the Tree of Knowledge and dispelled at the Giving of the Torah to return. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 21, p. 151, footnote 52, which discusses this point.
Shmos 20:3-4.
See Shabbos 87a, cited by Rashi, Shmos 32:19. See, however, Tosafos, Shabbos, loc. cit., s.v., Umah Pesach.
By contrast, an explanation can be given according to the interpretation of the verse by Ramban, Abarbanel, et al. (see similar interpretations in Targum Yonason ben Uziel; Rosh HaShanah 16b), “wipe me out of the Book of Life,” i.e., that Moshe was willing to bear severe suffering for the sake of the Jewish people, or the like. See Mechilta, Shmos 12:1; Zohar, Vol. I, pp. 67b, 106a, 254b; Vol. III, p. 14b ff. See also the sources cited in footnote 14.
An alternate explanation is given in Shmos Rabbah 47:9, that Moshe protested to G‑d, “Throughout the Torah You gave me, [it is written,]… ‘Speak to the Children of Israel’…. If they are destroyed, what will I do with Your Torah?” However, based on this comment, this is not a request or a mandate. Instead, Moshe was emphasizing that if G‑d will destroy the Jewish people, his name would be erased from the Torah as a natural consequence.
Yafeh To’ar to Shmos Rabbah, loc. cit., interprets the passage slightly differently, “If so, every place [where it is written,] ‘Speak to the Children of Israel,’ would be irrelevant and would need to be corrected.”
Maharzav to Shmos Rabbah, loc. cit., writes, “If You destroy them, it will also be necessary to erase their name from the Torah. [If so,] erase also my name, because You only spoke with me for their sake.” According to that interpretation, Moshe’s request, “Erase me,” is an additional petition, i.e., a request that is not an automatic consequence of G‑d’s threat to destroy the Jewish people, but a further request, (i.e., Moshe asked G‑d to save the Jewish people and, if not, to erase him.) This still requires much further clarification. As the main text asks, “eras[ing] their name from the Torah” is a result of the primary matter, destroying the Jewish people. If so, why did Moshe ask only “Erase me from Your book,” i.e., from the Torah?
See Bamidbar 11:15, where Moshe asks G‑d to take to his life on another occasion. There, he does not mention anything about being erased from the Torah.
Shmos 32:31.
Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 69.
Rashi, Bamidbar 21:21.
Shmos 32:7.
26. Berachos 32a, quoted by Rashi to the verse, et al.
Zohar, as quoted in Tanya, ch. 4, the beginning of ch. 23. See Zohar, Vol. I, p.24a, Vol. 2, p. 60a; Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 6 (p. 21b) and tikkun 22 (p. 64a); et al.
See Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 48d.
Shabbos 105a.
This follows Ein Yaakov’s version of the passage.
See also Tanya, ch. 47.
Bereishis Rabbah 1:4; Tana D’Bei Eliyahu Rabbah, ch. 14. The intent is not chronological precedence, but rather that the Jews are more intrinsically bonded with Him than the Torah.
Rus Rabbah 4:3, Bereishis Rabbah 67:8, et al.
See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 17, p. 423, Vol. 27, p. 24ff., et al., which explains why, before he passed away, the Rebbe Rashab said, “I am going to Heaven, but [my] writings I am leaving you” – since the Rebbe Rashab invested himself in his writings, studying them enables one to bond with him.
Note, our Sages’ statement (Avodah Zarah 19a) that, as stated in the main text, when a person develops a new Torah concept, that Torah concept is identified with him.
Cf. Bava Metzia 71a. In that source, the Talmud explains that when giving tzedakah, precedence should be given to “the poor of one’s city.” Similarly, a teacher’s first responsibility is to those with whom he shares a connection.
Cf. Bereishis 12:5. See Rashi to the verse; Sanhedrin 99b; et al.
See the sources cited in footnote 20, above, that highlight Moshe’s willingness to sacrifice himself for the Jewish people.
Maggid Meisharim, the beginning of Parshas Tetzaveh. Similar statements are found at the beginning of Parshas Bereishis, s.v. halo lecha liminda, Parshas Emor, s.v., achar kach piresh li, Parshas Berachah, s.v. or liyom echad, et al.
As he writes at the end of each of the four sections of the Shulchan Aruch, Rav Yosef Caro completed his composition of the four divisions of the Shulchan Aruch during the years 5315-5323 (1555-1563), i.e., towards the end of his life. However, his maggid (spiritual mentor) had predicted that he would merit to die for the sanctification of G‑d’s name before he immigrated to Eretz Yisrael; (see Maggid Meisharim, the passages from the Parshiyos Bereishis, Tetzaveh, and Berachah cited above). Rav Yosef Caro immigrated to Eretz Yisrael in 5296 (1546) before he completed that work. Had the prediction been fulfilled, he would not have been able to complete that composition.
There is no contradiction of the above in Parshas Berachah of that work, that after stating, “I will enable you to merit to be martyred in Eretz Yisrael,” the maggid stated, “I will enable you to merit to complete your composition,” because that prediction concludes, “which will be called Beis Yosef,” i.e., referring to Rav Yosef Caro’s commentary on the Tur entitled Beis Yosef. This is also indicated by the words “complete your composition.” This prediction was conveyed to Rav Yosef Caro before he immigrated to Eretz Yisrael, while, as evident from several sources, he did not begin writing his Shulchan Aruch until after he immigrated to Eretz Yisrael. By contrast, he began writing his Beis Yosef in the Diaspora in 5782 (1532), as he states at the conclusion of his Beis Yosef to the Tur, Choshen Mishpat. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.
It was recently brought to my attention that in the section entitled Azharos VeTikunim ViSiyagim at the beginning of the aforementioned text, and in Parshas Beshalach, s.v. or leyom Shabbos, 11 Shvat, it is explicitly stated that Rav Yosef Caro would merit to sanctify G‑d’s name in martyrdom after completing “all your works, your interpretations, and your rulings… and printing them and disseminating them throughout the Jewish people.” If so, this includes also the Shulchan Aruch. In particular, this is evident from the statements in Parshas Tzav, s.v. or liyud dalet Nissan, “Your composition, in addition to the name which I first related to you, that it would be called, Beis Yosef, will also be called Shulchan Aruch.” This does not contradict the statements of the main text because, according to a straightforward understanding, the different predictions that the maggid made concerning Rav Yosef Caro over the course of many years – that he would merit to be burned in sanctification of G‑d’s name in reward for his Divine service – are not one “prophecy” but refer to several different situations: after he would immigrateto Eretz Yisrael, after he would complete his composition Beis Yosef, after he would complete all his writings, etc. The intent is not that the same prophecy was given repeatedly, sometimes in greater detail and at other times, more given concisely.
Instead, it is obvious that, over the years, Rav Yosef Caro’s spiritual level and state underwent various changes, including the fundamental change relevant to the matter at hand, that the privilege to be burned in sanctification of G‑d’s name was taken from him. Accordingly, it is necessary to say that there were also variations in the reward he would be granted as befitting the level of his Divine service.
Thus, every prediction of the maggid reflected a reward that was appropriate for his Divine service at that time. There are many different levels in mesirus nefesh and in mesirus nefesh for the sanctification of G‑d’s name (see Pesachim 50a regarding the martyrs of Lod, the introduction to the Tikkunei Zohar, p. 10b, Etz Chayim, shaar 39, d’rush 1, etc.) Conversely, there are very many levels that apply to Torah study. Furthermore, the spiritual state of Rav Yosef Caro underwent fluctuations over the course of time. At times, it was deemed appropriate that Rav Yosef Caro’s Divine service with mesirus nefesh to the point of martyrdom in sanctification of G‑d’s name be considered superior to his achievements in Torah study. Thus, he would die in sanctification of G‑d’s name before completing his landmark Torah works. At other times, the converse was true. His Torah study was deemed superior and G‑d’s intent was that he complete those works.
See Or HaTorah, Vayikra, Vol. 2, p. 549, Devarim, Vol. 5, pp. 2137-2138.
Thus, even the most unworthy Jews who have separated themselves from the entire Torah, sacrifice their lives for the sanctification of G‑d’s name (Tanya, ch. 18). See Sefer HaMaamarim 5659, p. 13, which states that the potential for self-sacrifice stems from the fact that the source of the souls of the Jewish people is loftier than the Torah. With regard to the advantage of self-sacrifice for the sanctification of G‑d’s name over the observance of the entire Torah, see the elaborate explanations at the beginning of Shaar HaEmunah, and Sefer HaLikkutim of the Tzemach Tzedek, erech mesirus nefesh (p. 890ff.) and the sources mentioned there.
Sanhedrin 44a. Rashi comments there, “Their holiness still rests upon them.” See the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 3, p. 1252ff., et al.
This parallels our Sages’ statement (Pesikta D’Rav Kahanah, Parshas Shuvah; Yalkut Shimoni, Yechezkel 18:4, Tehillim, psalm 25; see Talmud Yerushalmi, Makkos 2:6), “The Torah was asked, ‘A sinner, what is his punishment?’ The Torah replied, ‘He should bring a guilt-offering.’… The Holy One, blessed be He, was asked… He replied [that the sinner] should repent and atonement will be granted him.” See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1152, and the footnote there.
One this basis, it is possible to offer an interpretation from an inner, mystical perspective of G‑d’s answer to Moshe (Shmos 32:33): “Whoever has sinned against Me, him I will erase from My book.” Ramban (Shmos 32:32) questions the interpretation of “My book” as referring to the Torah. From an inner mystical perspective, it could be said in resolution that this statement also carries with it a positive message: The sinners are granted atonement that transcends the atonement granted by “My book,” the Torah.
Shmos 27:20. The main text has emphasized that Moshe’s connection with the Jewish people surpasses his connection with the Torah. Nevertheless, it must be noted that it is the Torah which makes known this truth, i.e., the Torah itself reveals the bond with the Jewish people that transcends the Torah. To cite a parallel: There is a well-known concept (contained in the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 3, p. 1408, et al.) regarding teshuvah. Even though it is loftier than the Torah – as manifest by the fact that it can compensate for lacks in the study and the observance of the Torah – it is the Torah specifically that reveals this very concept.
Torah Or, p. 82a; the end of the maamar entitled Zos Toras HaBayis cited above, the maamar entitled ViKibeil HaYehudim, 5687, sec. 4, (printed in Sefer HaMaamarim 5687 and Sefer HaMaamarim 5711); the maamar entitled Ve’atah Tetzaveh, 5741 (Toras Menachem, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 3, pp. 41-42).
Bereishis Rabbah 14:9; Devarim Rabbah 2:37.
Ramban’s introduction to his commentary on the Torah, based onthe Zohar, Vol. II, p. 87a.
See the maamar entitled Zos Toras HaBayis, loc. cit.
For “all existence… came into being solely from the truth of His being. If one would say… that He does not exist, no other entity could possibly exist” (Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:1-2).
See Torah Or, p. 14b; the maamar entitled Chochmos BaChutz, 5694, sec. 2 (Sefer HaMaamarim Kuntreisim, Vol. 2); et al.
See also Or HaTorah, Shmos, Vol. 5, p. 1551, that interprets ve’atah tetzaveh as a command to “connect and join… the two levels of G‑d’s name Havayah… so that you will illuminate the darkness of the latter generations who are on the level of heels.”
This question is raised by many commentaries.
The maamar entitled Zos Toras HaBayis, loc. cit., secs. 10-11. Note also the maamar entitled ViKibeil HaYehudim, loc. cit., and the maamar entitled Ve’atah Tetzaveh, loc. cit. p. 35ff, which explain at length the concept of Moshe serving as a “shepherd of faith.”
Aharon accomplished this through his service of kindling the lamps of the Menorah. In this way, he served as “one who accompanies the bride,” i.e., He enabled the Jews to come close to G‑d, and his kindling of the Menorah enabled all the Jewish souls to shine with G‑dly light.
As a whole, Aharon is identified with the attribute of “loving [all] created beings” (Avos 1:12), i.e., showing love to all Jews, even those who are merely on the level of “created beings,” i.e., even those whose only virtue is that they are G‑d’s creations (see Tanya ch. 32). Nevertheless, without Moshe’s influence, Aharon’s kindling of the Menorah would have affected only those Jews already involved in Divine service.
Mishlei 6:23.
Mishlei 6:23.
See Tanya, the end of ch. 18.
Shmos 28:1-2.
The word “you” in this verse resembles and has a similar effect as the word “you” in the phrase ve’atah tetzaveh.
More specifically, after the description of Aharon’s initiation, the Torah relates the commandment to bring the daily offering, also described as korban tamid, literally, “the continuous offering.” Note the maamar entitled Zos Toras HaBayis, loc. cit., which explains that the potential for a ner tamid, literally, “a continuous light,” one that is above change, is generated by Moshe specifically. Consult that source. See also the maamar entitled Ve’atah Tetzaveh, 5741 (Toras Menachem, Sefer HaMaamarim Melukat, Vol. 3, loc. cit. p. 42).
Shmos 30:1ff. Based on the concepts explained in the main text, the connection between the beginning of the Torah reading and its conclusion can be understood, (as Sefer Yetzirah 1:7 states, “the beginning is implanted in the end.”
This question is raised by several commentaries including Ramban, Seforno, and others.
Note that the word ketores, “incense,”is etymologically connected to the word kesher, meaning “bond.”
In his commentary at the end of this Torah reading, Tzror HaMor states that the incense offering “connects lower entities to the higher realms,” in a manner similar to the process of connection described in the main text regarding the word tetzaveh.
Kerisos 6b.
This relates to the inner Altar, because the inner Altar reflects the essence, the inner dimension of the heart, the attribute of yechidah within the soul. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 2, p. 675ff., and the sources mentioned there. This level is shared equally by all Israel.
See the lengthy explanations in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 302ff. Consult that text, where it is explained that it is possible to say that for this reason it is specifically on Yom Kippur when license is granted to pray with sinners (the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, and the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 619:1).
Shmos 30:10.
Note that the expression, “over [the course of] your generations,” is also mentioned at the beginning of the Torah reading (Shmos 27:21). See Or HaTorah, loc. cit.
Vayikra 19:18.
See Etz Chayim, Shaar 32, ch. 2: “As explained regarding the mystic secret implied by the phrase, … ‘your nation has become corrupt,” they were sparks of Moshe… Therefore, he troubled himself for their sake to such a great degree. He even died in the desert for their sake* because he desired to correct them.” See also Shaar HaPesukim, Parshas Shmos at length.
* See Devarim Rabbah 2:9; Zohar, Vol. II, p. 157a.
See Tanya, the beginning of ch. 42.
In the lines to follow, the Rebbe is answering one of the questions raised in sec. 3.
See the lengthy explanation in Kuntreis Ahavas Yisrael and in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 17, p. 216ff., and the sources mentioned there.
As mandated by Vayikra 19:18.
Avos 1:12. See the lengthy explanation in Likkutei Sichos, op. cit., p. 220ff.
ריש פרשתנו. וכן הוא בזהר חדש שיר השירים בתחלתו (ס, ג). רבותינו בעלי התוספות ובחיי תשא לב, לב. פירוש הרא״ש על התורה ריש פרשתנו. וראה זהר ח״ג רמו, א.
פירוש הרא״ש (ועל דרך זה הוסיפו בחצאי עגול בבעל הטורים). וראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ב ע׳ 675.
תשא לב, לב.
מכות יא, א.
וכמו שהקשה בזהר חדש שם "והא לבתר ואתה תצוה אמר משה האי מלה" (ומתרץ "אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה". וראה הערה הבאה).
לכאורה אפשר לומר להיפך, שצריך להיות דוקא בא׳ הפרשיות שכבר נכתבו, כדיוק הלשון "מחני נא מספרך אשר כתבת" (ראה גם פירוש הרא״ש שם: מן הספר אשר כתבתי כלומר מספר ואתה תצוה שכתבתי לפני כי תשא) –
אבל (נוסף לזה שלכמה דעות (רש״י תשא לא, יח. לג, יא. תנחומא תרומה ח. זהר חדש שם) פרשת תצוה על כל פנים נאמרה לאחרי כי תשא – הרי) בפירוש רש״י תשא (לב, לב) מפורש "מספרך – מכל התורה כולה", ועל כרחך צריך לומר שאפשר לומר "מחני נא מספרך אשר כתבת" אף שלא נכתב בפועל "ספרך אשר כתבת" [ראה רא״ם שם (ומה שכתב הרא״ם (בפירוש הב׳) שקאי רק על מה שנכתב עד מתן תורה – צריך עיון גדול, שהרי מפורש ברש״י "מכל התורה כולה"). וראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ב שם]. או כמו שכתב בגור אריה כאן שכוונת רש״י לתורה "שהיתה כתובה מאז לפניו באש שחורה כו׳" (רש״י ברכה לג, ב. וראה רש״י פנחס כז, ז). ועל פי זה מתרץ דיוק לשון הכתוב ״מספרך אשר כתבת״.
ואולי יש לומר, דזה שקללת חכם אפילו על תנאי באה, הוא רק בנוגע לדבר שהיה במציאות בעת אמירת הקללה (והקללה חלה עליו), מה שאין כן בדבר שמציאותו נתהוה לאחרי שלא נתקיים התנאי (ובמילא – בטלה הקללה), אין שייך שהקללה (שבטלה) תחול עליו.
במאור עינים ריש פרשתנו (ועוד) שזהו לפי שז׳ אדר – יום הסתלקות משה – חל (ברוב השנים) בפרשת תצוה. ובזהר חדש שם "דהוה ליה למיכתב שמיה דמשה בכל מלה ומלה ובכל פיקודא ופיקודא דתמן" – אבל מובן שצריך להיות שייכות גם לתוכן הסדרה. וראה טור הארוך, פענח רזא, וש״ך על התורה ריש פרשתנו.
וראה גם לקוטי שיחות חכ"ו ע׳ 204 ואילך. סה״ש תשמ״ט ח״א (ע׳ 257 ואילך. ע׳ 271 ואילך). ועוד.
לשון בעל הטורים כאן.
וראה לשון הזהר חדש שנעתק בהערה ז.
כן נקראת פרשה זו בזהר ח״ג וזהר חדש שם ובכמה מקומות (ראה הנסמן בלקוטי שיחות חט"ז ע׳ 342 הערה 9).
ריש פרשתנו. וראה גם כן ד"ה זאת תורת הבית תרפ״ט (בספר המאמרים קונטרסים ח"א) פ״י-יא. וראה לקמן סעיף ו.
כי גם זה ש"יש שייכות ממש להשם אל עצם הדבר", הרי זה ש"השם מקשר הנשמה בגוף", אבל "הנשמה עצמה קודם בואה בגוף אינה נקראת בשם כלל" (לקוטי תורה בהר מא, ג). ועדיין צריך עיון.
תשא שם, משמות רבה פמ״ז, ט.
מכילתא לבשלח טו, א. שמות רבה פ״ל, ד. ושם נסמן.
ויתירה מזו – גם במציאות התורה עצמה, שקשורה עם משה (על דרך הנ״ל שנקראת על שמו) – עיין רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה פ״ח-ט. לקוטי שיחות חי״ט ע׳ 179 ואילך.
תשא לב, לד ובפירוש רש״י שם. ובזהר (ח״א נב, ב ואילך. קכו, ב. ח״ב קצג, סוף ע״ב) שעל ידי חטא העגל חזרה זוהמתן. וראה לקוטי שיחות חכ"א ע׳ 151 הערה 52.
ראה שבת פז, א. הובא בפירוש רש״י תשא לב, ט (אבל ראה תוספות ד״ה ומה שבת שם).
מה שאין כן להפירוש (רמב״ן אברבנאל ועוד על הפסוק. וראה תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל על הפסוק. ראש השנה טז, ב) שמחני מספר החיים, שרצה לסבול עונשם וכיוצא בזה. וראה מכילתא לבא יב, א. זהר ח״א סז, ב. קו, א. רנד, ב. זהר ח״ג יד, ב ואילך. מקומות שצויינו בהערה יד.
על הפסוק.
בשמות רבה פמ״ז שם, "כל התורה שנתת לי . . דבר אל בני ישראל כו' אם הם כלים מה אני עושה בתורתך" – אבל על פי זה אין זו בקשה ותביעה, כי אם הדגשה שבאם ישמיד אותם בדרך ממילא יהיה "מחני" (אבל ביפה תואר שם: כל המקומות כו' דבר אל בני ישראל אין להם מקום וצריך להגיהם).
[במהרז״ו שם, "וכשתשמיד אותם בהכרח שתמחה גם שמם מן התורה, מחה גם שמי שלא דברת עמי רק בשבילם". ועל פי זה "מחני נא" היא בקשה נוספת. אבל עדיין צריך עיון גדול (על דרך הקושיא שבפנים): זה ש"תמחה גם שמם מן התורה" הוא תוצאה מהעיקר ("שתשמיד אותם"); ואם כן למה היתה בקשת משה רק ״מחני נא מספרך״ – מן התורה. וראה בהעלותך יא, טו].
חוקת כא, כא.
תשא לב, ז וברש״י שם. ברכות לב, א. ועוד.
זהר הובא בתניא פ״ד, ריש פכ״ג. וראה זהר ח״א כד, א. זהר ח״ב ס, א. תקוני זהר תקון ו (כא, ב), תקון כ״ב (סד, א). ועוד.
ראה לקוטי תורה שלח מח, סוף ע״ד.
שבת קה, א.
כן הוא גירסת העין יעקב שבת שם.
ראה גם תניא פמ״ז.
ב״ר פ״א, ד. תנא דבי אליהו רבה פי״ד.
רות רבה פ״ד, ג. ב״ר פס״ז, ח. ועוד.
כמו שנתבאר כמה פעמים (לקוטי שיחות חי״ז ע׳ 423. ועוד) במה שאמר כ״ק אדמו״ר מהורש״ב נ״ע לפני הסתלקותו: איך גיי אין הימעל און די כתבים לאָז איך אייך.
להעיר ממאמר חז״ל (עבודה זרה יט, א) – כנ״ל בפנים – שתורתו נקראת על שמו.
לך יב, ה וברש״י שם. סנהדרין צט, ב. ועוד.
ראה במקומות שצויינו לעיל סוף הערה יח.
ריש פרשתנו. ועל דרך זה ריש פרשת בראשית סוף ד״ה הלא לך למנדע. פ׳ אמור ד״ה אח״כ פי׳ לי. פ׳ ברכה ד״ה אור ליום א׳. ובכמה מקומות.
שהרי סיום חיבור ד׳ חלקי השולחן ערוך בשנות שט״ו-שכ״ג (כמו שכתב הבית יוסף בסוף כל אחד מחלקי השולחן ערוך (נעתק בדפוס ראשון)) – סמוך לסוף ימיו; ואילו בשורת המגיד שיזכה לקדוש השם היה קודם עלייתו לארץ ישראל (ראה במגיד משרים שם פרשת בראשית תצוה וברכה הנ״ל), והבית יוסף עלה לארץ ישראל בשנת רצ״ו.
[ומה שכתוב בפרשת ברכה (בהמשך ל"אזכך לאתוקדא בארץ ישראל כו׳") "ואזכך למגמר חיבורא דילך", הרי מסיים שם ״דאקריא בית יוסף״ – בית יוסף על הטור. וכן משמע מהא שאמר "למגמר חיבורא דילך", והשולחן ערוך משמע בכמה מקומות שהתחילו לכתוב לאחרי שעלה לארץ ישראל (מה שאין כן הבית יוסף שהתחילו בשנת רפ״ב בחוץ לארץ, כמו שכתוב בסוף ספרו בית יוסף לטור חושן משפט)]. ואין כאן מקומו.
זה עתה העירוני אשר ב"אזהרות ותקונים וסייגים" שבתחלת הספר. פרשת בשלח ד״ה אור ליום שבת י״א שבט – מפורש שיזכה לקדוש השם לאחרי שיגמור "כל חיבוריך (ופרושיך) ופסקיך . . ולהדפיסם ולפשטם בכל גבול ישראל" – ואם כן נכלל גם השולחן ערוך. ובפרט על פי מה שכתוב שם בפרשת צו (סד״ה אור לי״ד ניסן): חיבורא דילך מלבד השם הראשון שאמרתי לך שיקרא בית יוסף עוד יקרא שולחן ערוך.
אלא שאיו בזה סתירה להמבואר בפנים השיחה, כי בפשטות, בשורות השונות מהמגיד להבית יוסף (במשך שנים רבות) שיזכה לאיתוקדא על קדוש השם כשכר עבודתו בתנאים שונים: לאחרי שיעלה לארץ ישראל; כשיגמור חיבור הבית יוסף; כשיגמור כל חיבוריו ועוד – אינן בשורה אחת (שפעם אמרה בפרטיות ופעם בקיצור)
– שהרי פשוט שבמשך השנים היו כמה וכמה שינוים בדרגות ובמצבו של הבית יוסף (ועד לשינוי העיקרי בנדון זה – שניטלה ממנו הזכות להשרף על קדוש השם) ובהכרח שיהיו שינויים גם בשכרו (בהתאם לדרגת עבודתו),
כי אם שכל בשורה היא שכר לפי ערך עבודתו אז, והרי כמה וכמה דרגות במסירת נפש ובמסירת נפש על קדוש השם – (ראה פסחים נ, א הרוגי לוד. הקדמת תקוני זהר (י, ב). עץ חיים שער ל״ט, ד״א ועוד), ולאידך – כמה וכמה דרגות בתורת ובמצב הבית יוסף,
ולפעמים היתה עבודתו במסירת נפש וקדוש השם נעלית על תורתו ולפעמים להיפך.
ראה בכל זה אור התורה אחרי (כרך ב) ע׳ תקמט. דרושים ליום הכפורים (אור התורה דברים כרך ה) ע' ב׳קלז-ח.
וכמו שמצינו ענין המסירת נפש על קידוש השם אפילו בקל שבקלים (תניא סוף פי״ח) שנפרד רחמנא לצלן מכל התורה. וראה ספר המאמרים תרנ״ט (ע' יג) שהכח למסירת נפש בא מזה שנשמות ישראל שרשן למעלה מן התורה. וראה בארוכה (במעלת מסירת נפש על קדוש השם – על כל התורה) שער האמונה בתחלתו. ספר הליקוטים לספרי הצמח צדק ערך מסירת נפש (ע' תתצ ואילך), ושם נסמן.
סנהדרין מד, ריש ע״א (וברש״י שם: עדיין שם קדושתם עליהם). וראה המשך תער״ב ח״ג ע' א׳רנב ואילך. ובכמה מקומות.
על דרך מאמר חז"ל (פסיקתא דרב כהנא פ׳ שובה. ילקוט שמעוני יחזקאל יח, ד. ילקוט שמעוני תהלים מזמור כה. וראה ירושלמי מכות פ״ב ה״ו) "שאלו לתורה חוטא מה ענשו כו׳ שאלו להקב״ה כו' אמר יעשה תשובה ויתכפר לו״. וראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ד ע' 1152 ובהערה שם.
על פי זה יש לפרש (בפנימיות הענינים) מענה הקב״ה למשה (תשא שם, לג) "מי אשר חטא לי אמחנו מספרי" להפירוש שקאי על ספר התורה (וכקושיית הרמב״ן) – שיש בזה גם ענין למעליותא, שנמשך להחוטאים הכפרה שלמעלה מ(כפרת) התורה ("ספרי").
על דרך הידוע (המשך תער״ב שם ע' א׳תח. ועוד) בענין התשובה, שאף שהיא למעלה מן התורה (שלכן בכחה למלאות מה שנחסר ב(לימוד ה)תורה כו'), הנה זה גופא נתגלה בתורה דוקא.
תורה אור פרשתנו פב, א. סוף ד״ה זאת תורת הבית הנ״ל. ד״ה וקבל היהודים (תרפ״ז) בסה״מ תרפ״ז ותיש״א פ״ד.
בראשית רבה פי״ד, ט. דברים רבה פ״ב, לז.
רמב״ן בפתיחת פירושו על התורה, על פי זהר ח״ב פז, א.
ראה סוף ד״ה זאת תורת הבית שם.
כי "כל הנמצאים . . לא נמצאו אלא מאמתת המצאו ואם . . (ש)הוא אינו מצוי אין דבר אחר יכול להמצאות" (רמב״ם בתחלתו).
ראה תורה אור יד, ב. ד״ה חכמות בחוץ תרצ״ד (בסה״מ קונטרסים ח״ב) פ״ב. ובכמה מקומות.
להעיר גם מאור התורה פרשתנו (ע׳ א׳תקנא) בפירוש "ואתה תצוה" – "שתקשר ותחבר . . ב׳ שמות הוי׳ . . להיות יגיה חשכי של דורות האחרונים דבחינת עקביים".
כקושיית המפרשים.
ד״ה זאת תורת הבית שם פ״י-יא. ולהעיר גם כן מד״ה וקבל היהודים הנ״ל על-דבר משה רעיא מהימנא (עיין שם באורך).
על ידי עבודתו בהעלאת הנרות, שושבינא דמטרוניתא – אף שבכלל מדתו "אוהב את הבריות" (אבות פ״א מי״ב).
משלי ו, כג.
ד״ה זאת תורת הבית שם. וראה אור התורה הנ״ל (הערה מח).
ראה תניא ספי״ח.
כח, א-ב.
כמו “ואתה תצוה”.
לאחרי הציווי על קרבן תמיד. ולהעיר מד״ה זאת תורת הבית שם, שהענין ד"נר תמיד” (למעלה משינויים) נעשה על ידי משה דוקא, עיין שם.
ל, א ואילך. – ועל פי המבואר בפנים מובן הקשר בין תחלת הסדרה וסיומה (דנעוץ תחלתן בסופן).
כקושיית המפרשים (רמב״ן, ספורנו ועוד שם).
גם להעיר דקטרת הוא לשון קשר והתקשרות (ובצרור המור סוף פרשתנו: ומקשר הדברים התחתונים בעליונים כו’), על דרך “תצוה” (כנ״ל בפנים).
כריתות ו, ב.
ושייך זה למזבח הפנימי – כי ענינו של מזבח הפנימי הוא עצמיות פנימיות הלב, בחינת יחידה שבנפש (ראה לקוטי שיחות ח״ב סוף עמוד 675 ואילך, ושם נסמן) שבזה כל ישראל שווין.
וראה בארוכה לקוטי שיחות חי״ט ע׳ 302 ואילך. ועיין שם שיש לומר שלכן ביום הכפורים דוקא מתירים להתפלל עם העבריינים (טור ושולחן ערוך ודאדמו”ר הזקן אורח חיים ריש סימן תריט).
להעיר גם מתחלת הסדרה (כז, מא) “לדורותם”, וראה אור התורה הנ״ל.
קדושים יט, יח.
ראה עץ חיים שער ל״ב פ״ב ״ניצוצין של משה בסוד . . שחת עמך . . על כן טרח בעבורם כל כך ומת במדבר בעבורם* כי רצה לתקנם”. וראה שער הפסוקים בפרשת שמות בארוכה.
*) להעיר מדברים רבה פ״ב, ט. זהר ח״ב קנז, סוף ע״א.
ראה תניא ריש פמ״ב.
ראה בארוכה קונטרס אהבת ישראל. לקוטי שיחות חי״ז סוף עמוד 216 ואילך. ושם נסמן.
אבות פ״א מי״ב. וראה בארוכה לקוטי שיחות שם ע׳ 220 ואילך.
Introduction
Our Sages teach,1 “[Pay] a sela2 for a word, but [pay] two for silence.”
As we grow and develop our characters, we learn the virtue of silence. We understand that it often says more than words and communicates more effectively. It is a skill not easily cultivated, but sorely needed. To still one’s heart and mind, to be able to listen patiently, to speak with one’s eyes, to refrain from speaking when it is not called for – these and other products of silence are talents with which generally we are not inherently gifted, but benefit from greatly.
Particularly in the presence of greatness is silence called for. When we are dwarfed by the mind and/or character of another person, it is fitting to take in, not to give forth, to hold still so as not to hinder him or her from expressing the qualities and attributes that we desire to learn and emulate.
If this is true when we stand in the presence of another mortal, it is certainly true in the presence of the Divine. In that vein, Scripture teaches,3 “G‑d was not in the thunder,” but in “the still, hushed voice.”
Nevertheless, when the Kohen Gadol entered the Sanctuary, he would wear his robe to the hem of which bells were attached. Why were the bells there? So that “its sound shall be heard when he enters the Holy [Chamber].”4
In the Holy Chamber, in the presence of G‑d, wouldn’t silence have been more appropriate?
In the sichah to follow, the Rebbe confronts that question. Building on an analysis of the difference of opinion between the views of Rashi and Ramban, he emphasizes the importance of silence. However, he also points out when sound is important. Take, for example, a person who is drowning – either physically or spiritually – he will shout loudly for others to save him.5 By contrasting these two modes, the Rebbe provides lessons for our Divine service in the present age, advising when our voices should and must be heard and when we should emulate G‑d’s “still, hushed voice.”
On the Edge of the Kohen Gadol’s Robe
The Torah describes the robe worn by the Kohen Gadol, stating,6 “You shall make pomegranates of techeiles7 on its hem… all around the hem, with bells of gold between them all around.”
אבַּנּוֹגֵעַ דֶעם מְעִיל, זָאגְט דֶער פָּסוּק73 "וְעָשִׂיתָ עַל שׁוּלָיו רִמּוֹנֵי תְּכֵלֶת גו’ עַל שׁוּלָיו סָבִיב וּפַעֲמוֹנֵי זָהָב בְּתוֹכָם סָבִיב".
Rashi explains that although the pomegranates were “round and hollow,”8 the intent of the phrase “bells of gold between them (bisocham),” is to clarify that the bells were not located within the hollow space of the pomegranates, but rather “between them all around. Between every two pomegranates, one bell was attached and suspended at the bottom of the robe’s hem.”9
אִיז רַשִׁ"י מְפָרֵשׁ, אַז כָאטשׁ דִי רִמּוֹנִים זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען "עֲגוּלִּים וַחֲלוּלִים"74, אִיז אָבֶּער דֶער פְּשַׁט פוּן "וּפַעֲמוֹנֵי זָהָב בְּתוֹכָם" [נִיט אַז דִי פַּעֲמוֹנִים הָאבְּן זִיךְ גֶעפוּנֶען אִינֶעם חָלָל פוּן דִי רִמּוֹנִים, נָאר] "בֵּינֵיהֶם75 סָבִיב, בֵּין שְׁנֵי רִמּוֹנִים פַּעֲמוֹן אֶחָד דָּבוּק וְתָלוּי בְּשׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל".
Ramban10 queries: According to Rashi, “the pomegranates served no [functional] purpose.11 If their purpose was purely decorative, why were they made like hollow pomegranates? Let them be made like golden apples.”
Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi12 comments on Ramban’s words, “I do not know why he chose apples over pomegranates.”13
פְרֶעגְט דֶערוֹיף דֶער רַמְבַּ"ן76: לוֹיט רַשִׁ"י'ס פְּשַׁט קוּמְט אוֹיס אַז "לֹא הָיוּ הָרִמּוֹנִים מְשַׁמְּשִׁין כְּלוּם"77; אוּן אוֹיבּ זֵיי זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען בְּלוֹיז "לְנוֹי" – "לָמָּה הָיוּ עֲשׂוּיִים כְּרִמּוֹנִים חֲלוּלִים יַעֲשֵׂם כְּמִין תַּפּוּחֵי זָהָב"? עֶנְטְפֶערְט דֶער רְאֵ"ם78: לֹא יָדַעְתִּי לָמָּה בָּחַר הַתַּפּוּחִים יוֹתֵר מִן הָרִמּוֹנִים.
Other commentaries,14 however, explain that Ramban’s question centers on the fact that the pomegranates were hollow.15 Since the bells did not hang in the hollow space of the pomegranates, why were the pomegranates made hollow?
מְפָרְשִׁים79 זַיְינֶען מְבַאֵר, אַז דִי קַשְׁיָא פוּן רַמְבַּ"ן אִיז בַּנּוֹגֵעַ דֶעם פְּרַט פוּן "חֲלוּלִים"80: ווִיבַּאלְד אַז דִי פַּעֲמוֹנִים זַיְינֶען נִיט גֶעהָאנְגֶען אִינֶעם חָלָל פוּן דִי רִמּוֹנִים, צוּלִיבּ ווָאס הָאט מֶען גֶעמַאכְט רִמּוֹנִים חֲלוּלִים?
Nevertheless, that does not resolve the matter entirely. The question remains: If Ramban’s question only concerned the fact that the pomegranates were hollow, why does he suggest, “Let them be made like golden apples”? [Why] change pomegranates to apples?16
עֶס בְּלַיְיבְּט אָבֶּער נִיט מוּבָן: אוֹיבּ אַז דֶעם רַמְבַּ"ן'ס קַשְׁיָא אִיז נָאר ווֶעגְן דֶעם פְּרַט פוּן "חֲלוּלִים" – פַארְווָאס דֶערְמָאנְט עֶר דָא בִּכְלַל אוּן אִיז נָאךְ מְשַׁנֶּה (אַנְשְׁטָאט "רִמּוֹנִים" –) "תַּפּוּחִים" ("יַעֲשֵׂם כְּמִין תַּפּוּחֵי זָהָב")81?
Are Apples More Attractive than Pomegranates?
Selections from Likkutei Sichos - Shemot (SIE)
On the surface, the following explanation can be given: The Menorah also included decorative features: “its goblets, its globes, and its flowers,”17 with the globes shaped “like apples.”18 Since Rashi understands that the pomegranates of the robe served only a decorative purpose, seemingly, they — like the globes, a decorative feature resembling fruit in the Menorah — should have been apple-shaped and not pomegranate-shaped.
בלִכְאוֹרָה קֶען מֶען דָאס מַסְבִּיר זַיְין: מֶען גֶעפִינְט אַז אִין דֶער מְנוֹרָה זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען – לְנוֹי – גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים82; אוּן דִי כַּפְתּוֹרִים זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען "כְּמִין תַּפּוּחִים"83; אוּן ווִיבַּאלְד אַז דִי רִמּוֹנֵי הַמְּעִיל הָאבְּן גֶענוּצְט (לְדַעַת רַשִׁ"י) בְּלוֹיז "לְנוֹי" – הָאבְּן זֵיי אוֹיךְ גֶעדַארְפְט זַיְין (נִיט בִּדְמוּת רִמּוֹנִים, נָאר) "כְּמִין תַּפּוּחִים" (בְּדוֹמֶה צוּם נוֹי (שֶׁבִּדְמוּת פְּרִי) פוּן דֶער מְנוֹרָה).
Nevertheless, there are still points that require clarification:
עֶס בְּלַיְיבְּט אָבֶּער נִיט פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק:
a) The fundamental issue requires explanation. Why is decoration associated with the shape of an apple?
א) דָאס גּוּפָא דַארְף הָאבְּן אַ בִּיאוּר – מִיט ווָאס אִיז "נוֹי" פַארְבּוּנְדְן דַּוְקָא מִיט "תַּפּוּחִים"?
b) According to Rashi, for what reason were pomegranates chosen as a decorative feature for the robe, but apples for the Menorah?
ב) לְדַעַת רַשִׁ"י – ווָאס אִיז דֶער טַעַם ווָאס בַּיְים מְעִיל זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען רִמּוֹנִים (לְנוֹי) אוּן בַּיי דֶער מְנוֹרָה תַּפּוּחִים?
Not Merely an Introduction
With regard to the purpose of the bells on the robe, the verse states,19 “its sound shall be heard when he enters the Holy Chamber.” This was a significant element of the Kohen Gadol’s service, indeed, so significant that the sound20 would protect him from death, as indicated by the conclusion of the verse,14 “so that he not die.” And as Rashi mentions here,21 “From the negative, one can deduce the positive.”22
גווֶעגְן צְווֶעק פוּן דִי פַּעֲמוֹנֵי הַמְּעִיל זָאגְט דֶער פָּסוּק84: "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ בְּבוֹאוֹ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ"; אוּן אוֹיף אַזוֹיפִיל אִיז דָאס גֶעווֶען נוֹגֵעַ אִין דֶער עֲבוֹדָה פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, אַז דוּרְךְ דֶעם ("וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ"85) ווֶערְט עֶר אוֹיסְגֶעהִיט פוּן "וְלֹא יָמוּת" ווָאס "מִכְּלַל86 לַאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵן"87.
Clarification is required: Why is the jingling of the bells a prerequisite for entering “the Holy Chamber”? Seemingly, the opposite would be called for. Quiet is intimately bound with holiness, as indicated by the verses,23 “G‑d was not in the thunder,” but in “the still, hushed voice.” Indeed, with regard to the Kohen Gadol himself, when he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, he would not wear his golden vestments,24 including the robe. Thus, his entry was not accompanied by the sound of the bells.25
דַארְף מֶען פַארְשְׁטֵיין: פַארְווָאס אִיז "וְנִשְׁמַע", דֶער קְלִינְגֶען פוּן דִי פַּעֲמוֹנִים אַ הֶכְרַח "בְּבוֹאוֹ אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ"? לִכְאוֹרָה אִיז אַדְּרַבָּה – "לֹא בָרַעַשׁ ה’ ", נָאר בְּ"קוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה"88; אוּן ווִי מְ'זֶעט עֶס בַּיְים כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל גּוּפָא, אַז זַיְין כְּנִיסָה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים (בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים) אִיז גֶעווֶען דַּוְקָא אָן (דִי בִּגְדֵי זָהָב89, וּבְמֵילָא אָן דֶעם מְעִיל מִיט) דֶעם קוֹל הַפַּעֲמוֹנִים90.
Ramban26 explains that the jingling of the bells was necessary because “one who suddenly enters a king’s palace is liable to incur the death penalty.” The sound of the bells is comparable to “requesting permission”27 to enter and perform service.
דֶער רַמְבַּ"ן91 אִיז מַסְבִּיר, אַז "הַבָּא בְּהֵיכַל מֶלֶךְ פִּתְאוֹם חַיָּב מִיתָה", אוּן דֶער קוֹל הַפַּעֲמוֹנִים אִיז אַזוֹי ווִי אַ "נְטִילַת רְשׁוּת"92 אַרַיְינְצוּגֵיין אוּן טָאן דִי עֲבוֹדָה
Based on that reason, one would think that all the more so the Kohen Gadol would need to “request permission” to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur! Nevertheless, this was not necessary because28 on Yom Kippur, G‑d demonstrates the unique distinction of the Jewish people, “that they do not require an agent.”29 Accordingly, on that day the Kohen Gadoldoes not need the bells to jingle and make known his entry, “like a person who sends an agent to announce his coming.”30
[אוּן דָאס ווָאס דֶער כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דַארְף נִיט קֵיין "נְטִילַת רְשׁוּת" בַּיְים אַרַיְינְגֵיין בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – דְּלִכְאוֹרָה ווָאלְט זִיךְ עֶס גֶעפָאדֶערְט בְּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר – אִיז דֶער טַעַם93, ווַיְיל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים ווַיְיזְט אַרוֹיס דֶער אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטֶער דִי מַעֲלָה פוּן אִידְן "שֶׁלֹּא הִצְרִיכָן הַכָּתוּב לְשָׁלִיחַ"94 (זֵיי דַארְפְן נִיט אָנְקוּמֶען צוּ דִי פַּעֲמוֹנִים "לְהַשְׁמִיעַ קוֹל כְּאָדָם שֶׁשּׁוֹלֵחַ שָׁלִיחַ לְהוֹדִיעַ שֶׁהוּא בָּא"95)].
According to that interpretation,31 it would appear that “its sound will be heard” is not part of the Kohen Gadol’s service, but merely a preface to and preparatory step for it. Nevertheless, there must be another motivating rationale for the inclusion of the bells on the robe. Every element of the Kohen Gadol’s service – particularly one for which he is liable for death – involves precise detail. The fact that the bells would also make their sounds during the Kohen Gadol’s service32 indicates that their sound was germane to the performance of the service itself.33
לוֹיט דֶעם פֵּירוּשׁ96 קוּמְט אוֹיס, אַז דֶער "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ" פוּן דִי פַּעֲמוֹנִים אִיז נִיט קֵיין חֵלֶק פוּן דֶער עֲבוֹדָה, נָאר בְּלוֹיז אַ הַקְדָּמָה וַהֲכָנָה צוּ דֶער עֲבוֹדָה;
ווִיבַּאלְד אָבֶּער אַז יֶעדֶער פְּרַט בְּשַׁיְיכוּת דֶער עֲבוֹדָה פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אִיז בְּתַכְלִית הַדִּיּוּק וּבְמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן אַזַא ווָאס אִיז פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט עוֹנֶשׁ מִיתָה, כַּנַּ"ל – אוּן דִי פַּעֲמוֹנִים הָאבְּן מַשְׁמִיעַ קוֹל גֶעווֶען אוֹיךְ בְּשַׁעַת הָעֲבוֹדָה גוּפָא97 – אִיז מִסְתַּבֵּר, אַז "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ" אִיז אַן עִנְיָן ווָאס אִיז נוֹגֵעַ דֶער עֲבוֹדָה גוּפָא98.
A Holy Commotion
To elaborate upon one of the explanations for the jingling of the bells: The Kohen Gadol performed his service as an agent for the Jewish people as a whole. This implies that, when he would “enter the Holy Chamber,” he would take with him the entire Jewish people.
דאֵיינֶער פוּן דִי בִּיאוּרִים אִין דֶעם:
דֶער כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הָאט גֶעטָאן זַיְין עֲבוֹדָה אַלְס שְׁלִיחַ פוּן כְּלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל; אוּן דָאס מֵיינְט בְּמֵילָא, אַז "בְּבוֹאוֹ", אִין זַיְין אַרַיְינְגֵיין "אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ", "נֶעמְט" עֶר מִיט זִיךְ אַרַיְין דֶעם גַאנְצְן כְּלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל "אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ".
As explained at length in several sources,34 the Divine service of baalei teshuvah, penitents– who are motivated by their distance from G‑d and seek to flee from evil – is carried out with a clamor. It is like one who bolts away from a life-threatening situation with shouts and an uproar.
עֶס אִיז פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק אוּן עֶרְקְלֶערְט בְּכַמָּה מְקוֹמוֹת בַּאֲרוּכָה99, אַז דִי עֲבוֹדָה פוּן בַּעֲלֵי תְשׁוּבָה – ווָאס אִיז מִצַּד הָ"רִיחוּק", עֶר אַנְטְלוֹיפְט פוּן רַע – אִיז מִיט אַ רַעַשׁ, אַזוֹי ווִי אֵיינֶער ווָאס אַנְטְלוֹיפְט פוּן סַכָּנַת מָוֶת – מִיט גֶעשְׁרֵיי אוּן שְׁטוּרֶעם.
Parallels to such Divine service exist for every Jew, even one who has not sinned. When he contemplates his spiritual state, he realizes that he is distant from G‑d, because:
The animal soul still exists within in him with its initial strength.35 His ego, his wants and desires motivate his thoughts. He is a yesh, a self-concerned entity, separate from G‑dliness.
Alternatively, his self-awareness may stem from the good within him, his G‑dly soul, a holy entity, but one that is conscious of its own existence and is not characterized by bittul, self-nullification.36
The awareness that his selfhood distances him from G‑d arouses him and he seeks to flee from that state with a loud clamor.37
וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה אִיז עֶס אִין דֶעם סוּג עֲבוֹדָה פוּן יֶעדְן אִידְן, אֲפִילוּ פוּן דֶעם ווָאס הָאט נִיט קֵיין עֲבֵירוֹת רַחֲמָנָא לִיצְלָן: בְּשַׁעַת עֶר טְרַאכְט זִיךְ אַרַיְין ווִי אַזוֹי עֶר אִיז "רָחוֹק" פוּן אֱלֹקוּת – צִי דֶערְפַאר ווָאס דֶער נֶפֶשׁ הַבַּהֲמִית אִיז נָאךְ בַּיי אִים בְּתָקְפּוֹ100 וּבְמֵילָא אִיז עֶר אַ יֵשׁ וְדָבָר נִפְרָד פוּן אֱלֹקוּת; אָדֶער אֲפִילוּ מִצַּד דֶעם הֶרְגֵּשׁ הַמְּצִיאוּת פוּן זַיְין טוֹב – נֶפֶשׁ הָאֱלֹקִית (טַאקֶע אַ מְצִיאוּת דִּקְדוּשָּׁה – אָבֶּער פָארְט אַ מְצִיאוּת, נִיט בִּיטּוּל*כח) – ווֶערְט עֶר נִתְעוֹרֵר מִיט אַ קוֹל רַעַשׁ גָּדוֹל101 צוּ "אַנְטְלוֹיפְן" פוּן דֶעם מַצָּב
In that vein, it is related that when the Baal Shem Tov was asked why chassidim make animated motions in the middle of prayer, he answered with an analogy38 to a person drowning at sea. He will make all sorts of wild gestures to save himself and shout with all his strength for others to save him. Certainly, no one seeing his gestures or hearing his shouts will find them humorous.
[מְ’הָאט גֶעפְרֶעגְט בַּיְים בַּעַל שֵׁם טוֹב ווֶעגְן דֶעם ווָאס חֲסִידִים מַאכְן תְּנוּעוֹת וכו’ בַּיְים דַאווְנֶען – הָאט עֶר גֶעעֶנְטְפֶערְט*כט*כט, אַז דָאס אִיז בְּדוּגְמָא ווִי אֵיינֶער ווָאס טְרִינְקְט זִיךְ אִין יַם מַאכְט עֶר אַלֶערְלֵיי תְּנוּעוֹת אוֹיף רַאטֶעווֶען זִיךְ אוּן שְׁרַיְיט בְּכָל כֹּחוֹ אַז מֶען זָאל אִים רַאטֶעווֶען, אוּן זִיכֶער לַאכְט קֵיינֶער נִיט פוּן זַיְינֶע תְּנוּעוֹת אוּן גֶעווַאלְדְן].
The clamor of such Divine service is not at all a contradiction to the virtue of stillness implied by the verse, “G‑d was not in the thunder.” The name of G‑d used in that verse is י-ה-ו-ה, Havayah,39 the name associated with G‑dliness that is utterly unlimited, transcending the worlds. To be a conduit for that level of G‑dliness, one’s Divine service must reflect a “still, hushed voice,” i.e., be carried out with consummate bittul.40
By contrast, Divine service that is still associated with fleeing yeshus, concern for one’s self and one’s own being, relates to the level associated with G‑d’s name Elokim,41 the name associated with the dimension of G‑dliness that allows for existence that feels separate from G‑dliness. Such Divine service involves a clamor,42 as explained above.
סְ’אִיז קֵיין סְתִירָה נִיט פוּן פָּסוּק "לֹא בָרַעַשׁ ה’ " – ווַיְיל דֶער דִּיּוּק אִין דֶעם אִיז "לֹא בָרַעַשׁ הֲוָיָ'"102: כְּדֵי צוּ זַיְין אַ כְּלִי צוּם שֵׁם הֲוָיָ’ (שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה מִן הָעוֹלָמוֹת) דַארְף דִי עֲבוֹדָה זַיְין אִין דֶער בְּחִינָה פוּן "קוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה" בְּתַכְלִית הַבִּיטּוּל103; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן ווֶען דִי עֲבוֹדָה אִיז (נָאךְ פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט אַנְטְלוֹיפֶען פוּן "יֵשׁוּת" וּ"מְצִיאוּת" – ווָאס זִי דֶערְגְרֵייכְט צוּ דֶער בְּחִינָה פוּן שֵׁם אֱלֹקִים104, ווָאס גִיט אַן אָרְט אוֹיף מְצִיאוּת – דִי עֲבוֹדָה אִיז, כַּנַּ"ל, פַארְבּוּנְדְן דַּוְקָא מִיט רַעַשׁ וכו’105.
This is the reason why the service of the Kohen Gadol throughout the year involved “its sound being heard.”43 He had to take the entire Jewish people with him into the “Holy Chamber,” including also those Jews whose entry to Divine service, the realm of holiness, is characterized by a loud clamor. The position of the bells on the hem – i.e., the lower edge – of the robe, and the jingling of the bells, alludes to the inclusion of Jews on the lowest levels44 whose Divine service involves approaching G‑d from afar, with a clamor, as explained above.
אוּן דָאס אִיז דֶער טַעַם ווָאס דִי עֲבוֹדָה פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אַ גַאנְץ יָאר אִיז גֶעווֶען אִין אַן אוֹפֶן פוּן "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ גו’ "106 – ווַיְיל עֶר דַארְף "אַרַיְיננֶעמֶען" מִיט זִיךְ "אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ" אוֹיךְ דִי אִידְן ווָאס זֵייעֶר סֵדֶר הָעֲבוֹדָה, כְּנִיסָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אִיז בְּקוֹל רַעַשׁ כו'; ווִי סְ’אִיז אוֹיךְ מְרוּמָּז אִין דֶעם ווָאס דִי פַּעֲמוֹנִים זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען בְּשׁוּלֵי (בְּתַחְתִּית) הַמְּעִיל – דֶער עִנְיָן פוּן "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ" אִיז פַארְבּוּנְדְן מִיט דִי נִידֶערִיקֶע107 מַדְרֵיגוֹת פוּן אִידְן, ווָאס זֵייעֶר עֲבוֹדָה אִיז מִצַּד הָרִיחוּק, כַּנַּ"ל.
For this, the Kohen Gadol was warned, “Its sound shall be heard… so that he not die.” His life as a whole was dependent on this sound being heard. If that was lacking, i.e., if he was not willing to include in his Divine service those Jews found on “the hem of the robe,”45 even if the reason for not doing so was because he sought the loftier Divine service associated with “a still, hushed voice,” his existence and his Divine service would be nullified. The reason is that the consummate fulfillment of the Jewish people as a whole depended on Divine service that includes all “600,000 Jews,”46 from “the heads of your tribes” to “your woodchoppers and water drawers.”47
אוּן דֶערְבַּיי אִיז דִי אַזְהָרָה "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ גו' וְלֹא יָמוּת" – אַז אִין דֶעם אִיז תָּלוּי דֶער כְּלָלוּת הַחַיּוּת פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל: אוֹיבּ בַּיי אִים אִיז נִיטָא דֶער "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ" – עֶר ווִיל נִיט כּוֹלֵל זַיְין אִין זַיְין עֲבוֹדָה אָט דִי אִידְן108 ווֶעלְכֶע זַיְינֶען אִין בְּחִינַת "שׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל" (אֲפִילוּ ווֶען דָאס אִיז דֶערְפַאר ווָאס עֶר ווִיל הַאלְטְן בַּיי דֶער הֶעכֶערֶער עֲבוֹדָה פוּן "קוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה") – ווֶערְט בָּטֵל רַחֲמָנָא לִיצְלָן זַיְין מְצִיאוּת (מִיט זַיְין עֲבוֹדָה); ווַיְיל דִי שְׁלֵימוּת פוּן כְּלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל אִיז תָּלוּי אִין דֶער עֲבוֹדָה ווָאס נֶעמְט אַרוּם אַלֶע שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא יִשְׂרָאֵל*לו, פוּן רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם גו' בִּיז חוֹטֵב עֵצֶיךָ וְשׁוֹאֵב מֵימֶיךָ.
When Silence is Heard
The above refers only to the service of the Kohen Gadol throughout the year that is carried out merely in “the Holy Chamber.” On that level, there is the possibility for distinctions – ranging from “the heads of your tribes” to “your woodchoppers and water drawers” – to exist within the Jewish people. For that reason, “its sound shall be heard,” i.e., such Divine service involves noise.
הדָאס אִיז אָבֶּער נָאר בַּיי דֶער עֲבוֹדָה פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּמֶשֶׁךְ כָּל הַשָּׁנָה, ווֶען כְּנִיסָתוֹ אוּן עֲבוֹדָתוֹ אִיז נָאר אִין "קוֹדֶשׁ" – דָארְט אִיז פַארַאן אַן אָרְט פַאר דִי חִילּוּקֵי דַרְגּוֹת אִין אִידְן, פוּן רָאשֵׁיכֶם שִׁבְטֵיכֶם גו’ בִּיז חוֹטֵב עֵצֶיךָ וְשׁוֹאֵב מֵימֶיךָ, אוּן דֶערְפַאר אִיז וְנִשְׁמַע – עֶס אִיז בְּרַעַשׁ;
By contrast, the service of the Kohen Gadol in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur was carried out without noise.20 On that day,48 the Jews are like angels who serve G‑d in silence.49 Moreover, the essential bond all Jews share with G‑d is revealed.50 Then, all Jews, even those “on the hem of the robe” are in a state of intimate closeness and oneness with G‑d, “one people affirming G‑d’s oneness.”51 Accordingly, their entrance into the Holy of Holies via the Kohen Gadol does not resemble the approach of one who is distant and trying to draw close that is accompanied by noise, but rather is characterized by consummate bittul, “a still, hushed voice.”
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן דִי עֲבוֹדָה פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אִין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים אִיז אָן אַ רַעַשׁיח, ווַיְיל דֶעמָאלְט109 זַיְינֶען דִי אִידְן כְּמַלְאָכִים110, דִי הִתְגַּלּוּת פוּן דֶער הִתְקַשְּׁרוּת עַצְמִית פוּן אַלֶע אִידְן מִיטְן אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטְן*לח; אוּן ווִיבַּאלְד אַז יֶעדֶער אִיד, אֲפִילוּ דִי ווָאס זַיְינֶען שַׁיָּיךְ צוּ "שׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל", שְׁטֵייעֶן דַאן בְּתַכְלִית הַקִּירוּב וְהַהִתְאַחְדּוּת מִיט אֱלֹקוּת – יְחִידָה לְיַחֲדָךְ – אִיז אוֹיךְ זֵייעֶר כְּנִיסָה לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים (דוּרְךְ דֶעם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל) נִיט ווִי אַ רָחוּק שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה קָרוֹב [ווָאס דַאן אִיז עֶס מִיט אַ רַעַשׁ כו'], נָאר בְּתַכְלִית הַבִּיטּוּל, בְּקוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה.
Universality or Consummate Virtue
Based on the above, it is possible to understand the differences in the approaches of Ramban, who maintains that if the pomegranates were intended as ornaments, “Let them be made like golden apples,” and that of Rashi, who maintains that pomegranates are required for decoration in this instance.
ועַל פִּי כָּל הַנַּ"ל ווֶעט אוֹיךְ זַיְין פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק דֶער חִילּוּק צְווִישְׁן שִׁיטַת הָרַמְבַּ"ן (אַז "אִם לְנוֹי . . יַעֲשֵׂם כְּמִין תַּפּוּחֵי זָהָב") אוּן שִׁיטַת רַשִׁ"י (אַז אִין דֶעם פַאל דַארְפְן זַיְין "רִמּוֹנִים" [לְנוֹי]):
Both apples52 and pomegranates are used as metaphors for the Jewish people. Apples are used when referring to Jews on lofty levels,53 while pomegranates are used when referring to Jews in a lowly state. This is indicated by our Sages’54 interpretation of the verse,55 “Your brow is like a split pomegranate,” as describing “the empty ones among you.”56 Even they, however, are filled with goodness and holiness, as our Sages conclude there, “Even the empty ones among you are filled with mitzvos, as a pomegranate [is filled with seeds].”
אִידְן זַיְינֶען גֶעגְלִיכְן סַיי צוּ "תַּפּוּחַ"111 אוּן סַיי צוּ "רִמּוֹן". דֶער חִילּוּק צְווִישְׁן זֵיי אִיז: דֶער דִּמְיוֹן צוּ תַּפּוּחַ אִיז מַתְאִים צוּ אִידְן ווִי זֵיי זַיְינֶען בְּרוּם הַמַּעֲלָה112; אוּן בְּחִינַת "רִמּוֹן" אִיז בְּשַׁיְיכוּת צוּ אִידְן ווָאס גֶעפִינֶען זִיךְ בִּשְׁפַל הַמַּצָּב "כְּפֶלַח הָרִמּוֹן רַקָּתֵךְ – רֵיקָנִין שֶׁבָּךְ"113, אָבֶּער אוֹיךְ זֵיי זַיְינֶען אָנְגֶעפִילְט מִיט טוֹב וּקְדוּשָּׁה – ווִי דֶער הֶמְשֵׁךְ וְסִיּוּם פוּן דֶעם מַאֲמַר רַזַ"ל "אֲפִילוּ רֵיקָנִין שֶׁבָּךְ מְלֵאִים מִצְוֹת כָּרִמּוֹן".
Rashi, whose commentary reflects the straightforward meaning of the Torah – i.e., viewing Jews according to their straightforward, outward appearance – sees the Jewish people in their totality, including also those on “the hem of the robe,” who are like “the empty ones.” Therefore, the ornaments have to be shaped as pomegranates,57 showing that even “the empty ones” and those on an even lower level, “the sinners of Israel,”58 could enter “the Holy Chamber” together with the Kohen Gadol. They are part of the Jewish people as a whole and, furthermore, “are filled with mitzvos, as a pomegranate is filled with seeds.”
אִין פֵּירוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י, פְּשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא – וואוּ דִי אִידְן ווֶערְן גֶעזֶען ווִי זֵיי זַיְינֶען בְּפַשְׁטוּת (בְּחִיצוֹנִיּוּת) – זֶעט מֶען דִי אִידְן שֶׁבְּ"שׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל" אִין אַ דַּרְגָּא פוּן "רֵיקָנִין"; אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער הָאבְּן גֶעדַארְפְט זַיְין דַּוְקָא "רִמּוֹנִים"114 – צוּ בַּאווַיְיזְן, אַז אוֹיךְ דִי "רֵיקָנִין" [אוּן אֲפִילוּ דִי ווָאס זַיְינֶען נִידֶערִיקֶער דֶערְפוּן – "אֲפִילוּ פּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל"115] זַיְינֶען אַרַיְין מִיטְן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל "אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ", זֵיי זַיְינֶען אַ טֵייל פוּן כְּלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אוּן נָאכְמֶער – מְלֵאִים מִצְוֹת כָּרִמּוֹן.
By contrast, Ramban, whose commentary includes not only the straightforward meaning of the Torah’s verses, but also “pleasurable concepts… for those who know grace,”59 highlights the inner dimension of the Jews. And a Jew’s inner dimension has no connection to sin whatsoever; “Your people are all righteous.”60
אִין פֵּירוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ן, וואוּ עֶס זַיְינֶען דָא (נִיט נָאר "פְּשָׁטִים", נָאר) אוֹיךְ "דְּבָרִים נְעִימִים . . לְיוֹדְעִים חֵן"116, אִיז דָארְט מוּדְגָּשׁ דִי פְּנִימִיּוּת פוּן אִידְן, ווָאס מִצַּד דֶעם הָאט אַ אִיד קֵיין שַׁיְיכוּת נִיט צוּ חֵטְא, וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים117 –
For this reason, Ramban interprets “its sound shall be heard” merely as a preparatory stage for the service the Kohen Gadol would perform afterwards,61 but not as an aspect of that service itself. The reason is that his entry into the Holy Chamber, as the agent of the Jewish people as a whole, was carried out on the level of the service of the righteous, with “a still, hushed voice.”62
[וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא אִיז דֶער רַמְבַּ"ן מְפָרֵשׁ אַז דֶער "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ" אִיז נָאר אַ הֲכָנָה צוּ דֶער עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ118 פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אוּן נִיט קֵיין עִנְיָן אִין דֶער עֲבוֹדָה גוּפָא – ווַיְיל זַיְין כְּנִיסָה לַקֹּדֶשׁ, אוֹיךְ אַלְס שְׁלִיחַ פוּן כְּלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִיז אִין אַ דַּרְגָּא פוּן עֲבוֹדַת הַצַּדִּיקִים, בְּקוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה119]
This is the meaning of his statement, “If [their purpose] was decorative…, let them be made like golden apples.” If the pomegranates were not made for a functional purpose, but merely for adornment – to reveal the beauty and positive virtues of the Jewish people – what should be highlighted is not the virtues possessed by the pomegranates, that “even the empty ones among you are filled with mitzvos, as a pomegranate [is filled with seeds],”63 but the positive, inner virtue that the Jews possess – that every Jew is a “golden apple;”64 Heaven forbid, to say he is “empty.”
אוּן דָאס אִיז דִי קוּשְׁיָא (לוֹיט זַיְין פֵּירוּשׁ): "וְאִם לְנוֹי . . יַעֲשֵׂם כְּמִין תַּפּוּחֵי זָהָב" – אוֹיבּ דִי "רִמּוֹנִים" זַיְינֶען (נִיט צוּלִיבּ שִׁמּוּשׁ, נָאר) אוֹיף אַרוֹיסְבְּרֶענְגֶען דִי שֵׁיינְקַיְיט, דִי מַעֲלָה פוּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל ("לְנוֹי") – דַארְף מֶען מַדְגִּישׁ זַיְין נִיט דִי מַעֲלָה ווָאס אִיז מְרוּמָּז אִין "רִמּוֹן" ["רֵיקָנִין שֶׁבָּךְ מְלֵאִים מִצְוֹת כָּרִמּוֹן"]120, נָאר דֶעם עִילּוּי פוּן אִידְן מִצַּד פְּנִימִיּוּתָם, ווָאס יֶעדֶער אִיד אִיז ווִי אַ "תַּפּוּחַ זָהָב"121 (אוּן נִיט קֵיין "רֵיקָן" חַס וְשָׁלוֹם),
This explains why the ornaments of the Menorah were shaped like apples. The lamps of the Menorah allude to Jews as they personify seven types of servants of G‑d.65 Therefore, for every lamp, there was an apple-shaped ornament, as stated above in sec. 2.
עַל דֶּרֶךְ ווִי אִין דֶער מְנוֹרָה – ווָאס אִירֶע ז' נֵרוֹת זַיְינֶען מְרַמֵּז אוֹיף (אִידְן ווִי זֵיי זַיְינֶען) דִי ז' מַדְרֵגוֹת אִין עוֹבְדֵי ה'122 – זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען אִין יֶעדֶער נֵר "כְּמִין תַּפּוּחִים" (כַּנַּ"ל סְעִיף ב').
Energy that Cannot Be Contained
Although from a straightforward and surface perspective, Divine service that involves “its sound being heard” reflects a lower level than Divine service that expresses “a still, hushed voice,” Divine service that produced noise possesses an advantage over Divine service characterized by bittul.
זאַף עַל פִּי אַז בְּפַשְׁטוּת וּבְחִיצוֹנִיּוּת אִיז דִי עֲבוֹדָה אִינֶעם אוֹפֶן פוּן "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ" נִידֶערִיקֶער פוּן דֶער עֲבוֹדָה בְּ"קוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה" – אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אִיז דָא אִין אִיר, אִין דֶער עֲבוֹדָה בְּרַעַשׁ, אוֹיךְ אַ מַעֲלָה לְגַבֵּי דֶער עֲבוֹדָה בְּבִיטּוּל:
Divine service that expresses “a still, hushed voice” is limited in nature. True, the person serving G‑d is characterized by bittul, but his service is settled in nature. Like light enclothed in a kli, a medium, it is defined and structured.
דִי עֲבוֹדָה בְּ"קוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה" אִיז מִיט אַ הַגְבָּלָה. אֱמֶת, דֶער עוֹבֵד שְׁטֵייט טַאקֶע מִיט אַ בִּיטּוּל, דָאס אִיז אָבֶּער אִין אַן אוֹפֶן פוּן אוֹר בִּכְלִי, מִיט אַ הִתְיַשְּׁבוּת.
By contrast, Divine service that involves “its sound being heard” reflects an unbounded quality. The loud noise made indicates that the person is going beyond the limits of his keilim, personal capacities. He cannot confine his excitement, and therefore expresses it by shouting vocally.66 This reflects one of the reasons why “In the place where baalei teshuvah stand, perfectly righteous men are incapable of standing.”67 The clamor that accompanies the service of teshuvah expresses the unlimited nature of the soul.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן דִי עֲבוֹדָה פוּן "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ", אִיז דֶער רַעַשׁ גָּדוֹל גּוּפָא אַ בַּאווַיְיז, אַז עֶר אִיז אַרוֹיס פוּן דִי הַגְבָּלוֹת פוּן "כֵּלִים", עֶר קֶען נִיט מַגְבִּיל זַיְין דִי הִתְפַּעֲלוּת אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער קוּמְט עֶס אַרוֹיס אִין אַ צַעֲקָה וְקוֹל123. אוּן דָאס אִיז אֵיינֶער פוּן דִי טַעֲמִים אוֹיף דֶעם ווָאס "מָקוֹם שֶׁבַּעֲלֵי תְשׁוּבָה עוֹמְדִין אֵין צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בּוֹ"124 – ווַיְיל דַּוְקָא אִין דֶעם "רַעַשׁ" פוּן עֲבוֹדַת הַתְּשׁוּבָה זָאגְט זִיךְ אַרוֹיס דֶער בְּלִי גְבוּל פוּן נְשָׁמָה.
A Spiritual Alarm Clock
The above provides a unique directive for our generation, the generation of ikvesa demeshicha, the era when Mashiach’s approaching footsteps can be heard. True, it is universally accepted that because of the low spiritual level that prevails in our time, it is necessary to take an active part in the spreading of the Torah and the strengthening of Yiddishkeit. A person cannot be content remaining in his own place, even if it is a place of Torah, and wait until someone approaches him and asks him to spread his Torah knowledge. Instead, it is necessary for him to go out to the street, to chutzah, the outer border, to find estranged Jews and transform them into baalei teshuvah. However, one might ask: Why is it so necessary to go out to the street with a loud outcry that Jews should put on tefillin, affix mezuzos on their doors, give tzedekah, or the like? A tumult about such matters was never made in previous generations.
חפוּן כָּל הַנַּ"ל אִיז דָא אַ הוֹרָאָה מְיוּחֶדֶת פַאר דּוֹרֵנוּ זֶה – דָּרָא דְעִקְבְתָא דִמְשִׁיחָא:
עֶס זַיְינֶען פַארַאן אַזֶעלְכֶע ווָאס טַעֲנֶה’ן: הֵן אֱמֶת, אַז מִצַּד דֶעם שְׁפַל הַמַּצָּב פוּן אוּנְזֶער דּוֹר מוּז מֶען זִיךְ פַארְנֶעמֶען מִיט הַרְבָּצַת הַתּוֹרָה וְהַחְזָקַת הַיַּהֲדוּת וכו’; אוּן אַז מְ’קֶען זִיךְ נִיט מִסְתַּפֵּק זַיְין מִיט זִיצְן אִין דִי אֵייגֶענֶע ד’ אַמּוֹת (אֲפִילוּ אִין דִי ד’ אַמּוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה) אוּן ווַארְטְן בִּיז מְ’ווֶעט זִיךְ ווֶענְדְן צוּ אִים אוּן בֶּעטְן עֶר זָאל מֵפִיץ זַיְין תּוֹרָה וכו’, נָאר מְ’דַארְף אַרוֹיסְגֵיין אִין "דְרוֹיסְן", אִין חוּצָה אוּן גֶעפִינֶען אִידְן "נִדָּחִים" אוּן פוּן זֵיי "מַאכְן בַּעֲלֵי תְשׁוּבָה" –
ווָאס אְיז אָבֶּער דֶער הֶכְרַח צוּ טָאן אָט דִי אַרְבֶּעט מִיט אַ קוֹל רַעַשׁ גָּדוֹל? פַארְווָאס אִיז אַזוֹי נוֹיטִיק צוּ אַרוֹיסְגֵיין אִין גַאס אוּן דָארְט אוֹיסְרוּפְן בְּקוֹל רָם, אַז אִידְן זָאלְן לֵייגְן תְּפִילִּין, אָנְקְלַאפְּן מְזוּזוֹת אוֹיף דִי טִירְן, גֶעבְּן צְדָקָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה – אַ הַנְהָגָה ווָאס מְ’גֶעפִינְט נִיט אַ שְׁטוּרֶעם בְּזֶה אִין דִי פְרִיעֶרְדִיקֶע דוֹרוֹת?!
The answer to the above: According to all the signs mentioned in the Talmud at the end of Tractate Sotah, we are presently in the era of ikvesa demeshicha, on the lowest levels, “the hem of the robe.” We must know that there must be bells on the hem of the robe.68 For the Jews represented by these bells to come under the wings of the Divine presence, it is necessary for “its sound to be heard.” It is specifically the noise produced by the service of teshuvah that reflects the zenith of Divine service, as explained above.
אִיז דֶער עֶנְטְפֶער אוֹיף דֶעם: לוֹיט אַלֶע סִימָנִים פוּן סוֹף מַסֶּכֶת סוֹטָה זֶעט מֶען אַז מִיר גֶעפִינֶען זִיךְ אִיצְט אִין דָּרָא דְעִקְבְתָא דִמְשִׁיחָא – אִין דֶער דַּרְגָּא הַיּוֹתֵר תַּחְתּוֹנָה – "שׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל"; דַארְף מֶען ווִיסְן זַיְין, אַז בְּשׁוּלֵי הַמְּעִיל דַארְפְן זַיְין דִי "פַּעֲמוֹנִים"125 – אַז דִי כְּנִיסָה פוּן דֶעם סוּג אִידְן "אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ", תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה אִיז אוֹיסְגֶעשְׁטֶעלְט אִין אַן אוֹפֶן פוּן "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ"; וְאַדְּרַבָּה – דַּוְקָא אִין דֶעם "רַעַשׁ" פוּן עֲבוֹדַת הַתְּשׁוּבָה אִיז דֶער תַּכְלִית הָעִילּוּי, כַּנַּ"ל.
Making Sure the Message is Heard
There is another element relevant to the above point: At present, to borrow our Sages’ wording,69 among “those who violate [G‑d’s] will,” “the sound of the multitudes of Rome” can be heard. All matters opposing holiness are not conducted in privacy, but rather with the most vocal publicity and are loudly broadcast.
טנָאךְ אַן עִנְיָן אִין דֶעם:
בְּשַׁעַת מְ’זֶעט אַז בַּיי "עוֹבְרֵי רְצוֹנוֹ" אִיז דָא "קוֹל הֲמוֹנָהּ שֶׁל רוֹמִי"126 – אַלֶע עִנְיָנִים פוּן לְעוּמַּת זֶה ווֶערְן גֶעטָאן נִיט בְּחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים, נָאר מִיט דֶעם גְרֶעסְטְן פִּרְסוּם וְרַעַשׁ –
The way to nullify the clamor raised by the forces of unholiness is to adopt “a similar and comparable [mode of conduct because]… ‘From the forest itself is taken the [handle for the] axe with which to fell it.’ ”70 When “those who follow G‑d’s will”64 carry out their Divine service in a manner that “its sound will be heard,” and do so in the same place as “the sound of the multitudes of Rome,” the negative effects of the clamor of unholiness will be nullified.
אִיז דֶער ווֶעג צוּ מְבַטֵּל זַיְין דֶעם שְׁטוּרֶעם פוּן סִטְרָא אָחֳרָא – "בְּמִינָהּ וְדוּגְמָתָהּ . . מִנֵּיהּ וּבֵיהּ אִבָּא לִשְׁדְּיָא בֵּיהּ נַרְגָּא"127, דָאס הֵייסְט דוּרְכְדֶעם ווָאס אוֹיךְ דִי עֲבוֹדָה פוּן "עוֹשֵׂי רְצוֹנוֹ" אִיז אִין אַן אוֹפֶן פוּן "וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלוֹ" אוּן דַּוְקָא אִין דֶעם אָרְט וואוּ עֶס גֶעפִינְט זִיךְ "קוֹל הֲמוֹנָהּ שֶׁל רוֹמִי";
Moreover, “if for those who violate His will it is so, [and they dwell in prosperity,] all the more so will this be true for those who follow His will.”64 The Jews will dwell “in security and tranquility”64 in their land. For “the great shofar will be sounded,”71 with “the sound of the herald, who will announce and proclaim”72 the advent of the Redemption. May it come in the immediate future.
אוּן דָאס ווֶעט בְּרֶענְגֶען צוּ "מַה לְּעוֹבְרֵי רְצוֹנוֹ כַּךְ לְעוֹשֵׂי רְצוֹנוֹ עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה"נד – אַז בַּיי אִידְן ווֶעט זַיְין "יוֹשְׁבִין בֶּטַח וְהַשְׁקֵט"נד עַל אַדְמָתָם, דוּרְךְ "יִתָּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל"128 דַּוְקָא, דוּרְךְ דֶעם "קוֹל מְבַשֵּׂר מְבַשֵּׂר וְאוֹמֵר" – מְבַשֵּׂר הַגְּאוּלָּה, בְּקָרוֹב מַמָּשׁ.
Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 16, p. 336ff. Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh, 5735 [1975]
(משיחת ש"פ תצוה תשל"ה)
Megillah 18a.
A coin of the Talmudic era.
I Melachim 19:11–12.
Shmos 28:35. (“Its” refers to the robe, whose bells produced sounds.)
In the talks on which this sichah was based, the Rebbe spoke on the importance of mitzvah tanks, the mobile outreach centers that would park on the streets of major cities and play Jewish music on loudspeakers to attract the attention of Jewish passersby.
Shmos 28:33.
Wool dyed sea-green or sky-blue; see p. 401 above.
See Rashi, Shmos, loc. cit., s.v. rimonei.
Rashi, Shmos, loc. cit., s.v. besocham soviv. See also Rashi, Shmos 28:34. This conception is also shared by Targum Onkelos here,* Rashbam, Ibn Ezra (in the name of “the early sages”), et al.
Besocham is usually translated as “in them.” Hence, it is necessary to clarify that the understanding of the term is different in this instance.
* However, in Parshas Pekudei (Shmos 39:25), Onkelos states that the bells were in the midst of the pomegranates. On both the verse here and the verse in Parshas Pekudei, Targum Yonason states that the bells were “in their midst, in the midst of the pomegranates.” This is not the place for further discussion of this matter.
Ramban, Shmos 28:31. Ramban states that the bells were inside, i.e., in the hollow space of the pomegranates.
According to Rashi, Shmos 28:33, the bells had clappers inside them. Tosafos (the end of Tractate Kinim) explain (like Rashi) that the pomegranates hung from the hem of the robe next to the bells. However, Tosafos maintain that the sound was made when the bells would strike the pomegranates (and was not made by the bells themselves). See Chizkuni and Midrash Lekach Tov on this verse, Rashbam, Shmos 28:35. Thus, as stated in the main text, according to Rashi, the purpose of the pomegranates was solely decorative, while Tosafos maintain that they were functional.
In his supercommentary to Rashi, here.
Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi is asking: Why are apples considered more attractive than pomegranates?
Nimukei Shmuel.
Significantly, Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi does not cite the word “hollow” when referring to Ramban’s question. See the following footnote.
It is possible to say that, in that era, ornaments made in the shape of pomegranates were hollow in contrast to apple-shaped ornaments that were solid. The question in the main text is: Since the function of the pomegranates was solely decorative, why make the ornaments pomegranate-shaped and therefore, hollow?
Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi’s question “Why did he choose…?” can thus be interpreted in this manner, i.e., why choose a solid apple-shaped ornament over a hollow ornament shaped like a pomegranate?
However, the matter requires further clarification: Why did Ramban have to add the statement, “Let them be made like golden apples”? Why did he not suffice with the question, “Why were they made like hollow pomegranates?”
Shmos 25:31. Rashi, s.v. gevieha states: “They were… solely decorative.”
Rashi, loc. cit., s.v. kaftoreha.
Shmos 28:35. Ibid. “Its” refers to the robe, whose bells produced sounds. See the following footnote.
Ibn Ezra (in his brief commentary) and Rabbeinu Bachya cite an interpretation that renders the words venishma kolo, translated as “its sound will be heard” in the main text, as “his voice will be heard,” referring to Aharon’s prayer. Nevertheless, according to a straightforward reading, the phrase refers to the sound made by the robe, as Rashbam, Ramban, et al. (Shmos 28:43)state. Even according to Rashi who understands the warning “so that he not die” as referring to a Kohen Gadolwho enters without wearing all the priestly garments, it can be said “its sound will be heard” is the rationale for the bells, as the supercommentaries on Rashi explain. See the following footnote.
Rashi to this verse. As mentioned, Rashi understands the warning “so that he not die” as referring to a Kohen Gadolwho enters without wearing all his priestly garments. See Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh, who explain that Rashi arrived at this interpretation because he considers the words, “so that he not die,” as associated with the word that appears earlier in the verse, leshareis, meaning “to serve.”
Even according to that understanding, since this warning was issued regarding the robe and following the command regarding the pomegranates, it is evident that the fundamental point in the command is a reference to the robe and pomegranates, as Gur Aryeh states in his commentary to the verse, “One should not think that the bells are not mandatory [for service] because their purpose is solely decorative…. If the Kohen Gadol enters while wearing the robe, but without bells, he is liable to incur the death penalty.”
Ramban, Shmos 28:43; Rikanti, Rabbeinu Bachya, Or HaChayim, et al., on ibid. 28:35, all explain that the severe negative consequence alluded to by the verse would result from the Kohen Gadol entering the Holy Chamber without the bells jingling to announce his entrance.
I Melachim 19:11–12.
Vayikra 16:4; Toras Kohanim and Rashi on that verse; Rosh HaShanah 26a, et al.
Note, however, Rashi (Yoma 44b), who explains the Talmud’s statement that although throughout the year the firepan used for the incense offering did not have a ring attached to it, on Yom Kippur, it did. Rashi states that the ring was attached so that it would “clang against the firepan, making a noise to fulfill [the charge], “the sound shall be heard when he enters the Holy Chamber.” See the commentaries of Rabbeinu Chananel, Tosafos, and Tosafos Yeshanim, Yoma, loc. cit.
Ramban, loc. cit. See also Rikanti, Rabbeinu Bachya, loc. cit.; Rabbeinu Chananeland Tosafos Yeshanim, Yoma, 52a. Note also Vayikra Rabbah 21:9, et al.
This is the wording of Rikanti andRabbeinu Bachya, loc. cit.
Rabbeinu Bachya, loc. cit., based on Rabbeinu Chananeland Tosafos Yeshanim, Yoma,loc. cit.
Yoma, loc. cit.
Tosafos Yeshanim, Yoma, loc. cit. Rabbeinu Chananel makes similar statements.
This relates also to the second rationale given by Ramban, loc. cit., and the rationale given by Abarbanel and others in their commentary on this Torah reading.
See Gur Aryeh, loc. cit., who interprets the phrase (Shmos, loc. cit.), “when he enters the Holy Chamber and when he departs,” as implying that their sound will be heard from the time he enters until he departs, i.e., throughout the time he performs his service.
See also the commentary of Baal HaTurim (Shmos, loc. cit.), which explains that“the sound will be heard” relates to the service as a whole.
Sefer HaMaamarim 5669, p. 2ff.; Sefer HaMaamarim 5702, p. 3ff.; Sefer HaMaamarim 5710, p. 4ff.
See Tanya, ch. 13.
See Tanya, ch. 35 (p. 44a ff.) and at length in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 9, p. 210ff.
See Yalkut Shimoni, Parshas VaEschanan, sec. 825, which states, “The angels… praise G‑d with a loud uproar…. Why? Because they are distant from the Holy One, blessed be He.” To illustrate with a material example: When refined and pure substances burn, they make little if any noise, but when coarse substances burn, they crackle loudly. Indeed, the coarser the substance, the greater the noise (Toras Menachem, Vol. 15, p. 317).
See also Kesser Shem Tov, sec. 215.
See the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 2, sec. 399.
See the introduction to Tikkunei Zohar, p. 3b, which identifies the “still, hushed voice” with the Shemoneh Esreh prayers, a level comparable to the Holy of Holies. See Yalkut Shimoni, loc. cit.
Such Divine service can also be associated with G‑d’s name Havayah, but only the letters hei, vav, and hei of that name, not the letter yud. The letter yud, associated with bittul, points to the fundamental dimension of the name Havayah (Tikkunei Zohar, op. cit.; the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, op. cit.)
See Sefer HaMaamarim 5708, p. 22, which explains that not only yeshus, but even its nullification involves a clamor.
However, it cannot be said that “the sound being heard” that accompanied the Kohen Gadol’s service throughout the year is the sound concerning which it is said, “There is thunder in which G‑d comes” (Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 18, p. 35b; Or HaTorah Nach, Vol. 1, p. 401, the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, loc. cit.). (Although such service reflects a lofty rung, the Kohen Gadol’s service on Yom Kippur in the Holy of Holies is loftier. Therefore, it is associated with the “still, hushed voice.” See footnote 35.)
The “thunder in which G‑d comes” stems from “an inner, inaudible voice” (the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, loc. cit.). By contrast, “the sound being heard” that accompanied the Kohen Gadol’s service was audible, as explicitly stated in the Zohar, Vol. II, p. 231a. As explained above, it reflected the “noise” associated with the efforts of a person characterized by yeshus striving to reach a state of bittul.
See the Zohar, loc. cit., which states that “the sound [of the bells] had to be heard for blessings to rest on the world.” See Or HaChamah to the Zohar, loc. cit.
See Rama (Orach Chayim 581:1) who writes that a sheliach tzibbur “must have in mind to fulfill the obligation of all people with his prayers. If he has an enemy whom he intends to exclude from his prayers, even those beloved by him do not fulfill their obligation thereby.” (The portions of the quote that are cited with an ordinary type-face are part of Rama’s words. However, in the original text of the sichah, the Rebbe merely referred to them with the abbreviation כו', so as to avoid using unfavorable wording.)
See Devarim Rabbah 7:8.
Cf. Devarim 29:9–10.
Tur (Orach Chayim 606) based on Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, ch. 46; Tur, andthe Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 619:9) based on Devarim Rabbah 2:36, Rama andthe Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch (the end of Orach Chayim 610). See the Liberman edition of Devarim Rabbah, loc. cit.
Among the angels, there are also some whose service involves noise, as we say in our prayers, “the ofanim and the holy chayos… with a great clamor… offer praise.” See footnote 32, above. Therefore, even on Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol carried out the service outside the Holy of Holies while wearing the robe whose bells’ “sound was heard.”
See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 4, p. 1153ff., where the concept is explained at length.
Sukkos liturgy.
Shabbos 88a (although Tosafos, loc. cit., interprets the term tapuach there as referring to an esrog), Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:3 (1), Zohar, Vol. II, Raya Mehemna, p. 120b, et al.
See Likkutei Torah,Vayikra, p. 49d; Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 1, p. 58a-b (see the sources mentioned there), et al.
Berachos 57a (see the sources mentioned there). See Or HaTorah, Bereishis, Vol. 3, p. 483b, Bamidbar, Vol. 1, p. 122, et al.
Shir HaShirim 4:3.
That interpretation is based on the fact that the Hebrew words rakaseich, “your brow,” and reikanin, “empty ones,” share two of the same root letters.
See Torah Or, p. 80c.
See Eruvin 19a and the conclusion of Tractate Chagigah, which uses such an expression. Some clarification is necessary because Torah Or, loc. cit., states, “The interpretation of ‘empty ones’ is not that they are sinners [who] rebel [against] G‑d, Heaven forbid.” See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 16, p. 437, footnote 25, which discusses this matter.
This is the wording Ramban uses in the introduction to his commentary on the Torah. חן, translated as “grace,” is an acronym for chochmah nistarah, “hidden wisdom,” i.e., the esoteric knowledge of Kabbalah that Ramban embedded within his commentary.
Yeshayahu 60:21.
Even having “the sound [of the bells] heard” in the midst of the Kohen Gadol’s service – for example, when he is carrying the blood – can also be understood as being intended to serve as preparation for the coming phase of service, i.e., carrying the blood and sprinkling it.
Alternatively, the sound made by the bells can be interpreted according to the explanations given in footnote 38, that there is thunder that stems from “an inner, inaudible voice.”
If the bells’ purpose was merely adornment, according to Ramban, how much more so would it be inappropriate for the ornaments to be made as “hollow pomegranates.” The hollowness would seemingly underscore the direct opposite of “the empty ones” being “filled with mitzvos, as a pomegranate is filled with seeds.”
This explains why Ramban used the phrase “golden apples,” (changing not only from pomegranates to apples, but also from techeiles to gold) It is difficult to say that the reference to “gold” is merely an allusion to a Biblical term (Mishlei 25:11). Instead, he is highlighting the inner virtue and prominence possessed by every Jew.
Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 29c.
As explained in the sources cited below, there is an advantage to the service of the ofanim that is accompanied by “a great clamor” over that of the seraphim, which is characterized by stillness. This is comparable to the advantage the love for G‑d experienced by the animal soul has over the inherent love for G‑d of the G‑dly soul. See Likkutei Torah, Devarim, pp. 74b-75d, and p. 75b-d, which emphasizes that this clamor is the great virtue of the service of teshuvah. These concepts are also explained in other sources in Chassidus.
Berachos 34b; Rambam, Hilchos Teshuvah 7:4.
See Sefer HaMaamarim 5702, p. 7, which states, “Those in a deep slumber must be aroused through [loud] noise and sound.”
Makkos 24a-b.
Tanya, ch. 31, citing wording from Sanhedrin 39b.
Yeshayahu 27:13. See the explanation of this verse in Likkutei Torah, Devarim, p. 58a ff.; Ateres Rosh, Shaar Rosh HaShanah, p. 22a ff.
The Hoshaana Rabbah liturgy.
פרשתנו כח, לג.
לשון רש"י ד"ה רמוני.
רש"י ד"ה בתוכם סביב (ועל דרך זה בפירוש רש"י פסוק לד). וכן הוא בתרגום אונקלוס כאן*. רשב"ם, ראב"ע (בשם "קדמונינו ז"ל") ועוד.
*) ובפקודי (לט, כה) תרגם "בגו רמוניא". ובתרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל פרשתנו ופקודי שם: במצעיהון, במציעות רומניא. ואין כאן מקומו.
פסוק לא.
כי לדעת רש"י הפעמונים הם "זגין עם ענבלין שבתוכם" – ולא כדעת התוספות (סוף קנים) שאף על פי שהרמונים היו תלוין בשולי המעיל אצל הפעמונים (כדעת רש"י), הקול יצא על ידי זה שנוגפים הפעמונים אל הרמונים (ולא מהפעמונים עצמם). וראה חזקוני ומדרש לקח טוב כאן. רשב"ם פסוק לה.
בפירוש רש"י כאן.
נמוקי שמואל.
ולהעיר שהרא"ם לא העתיק תיבת "חלולים" שברמב"ן. וראה הערה הבאה.
ואולי יש לומר כי תכשיטים בדמות רמונים בימיהם היו עשויים חלולים (מה שאין כן תפוחים). וגם כוונת הרא"ם בקושייתו "למה בחר כו׳" היא – למה בחר תכשיט מלא (תפוחים) יותר מתכשיט חלל (רמונים).
אבל עדיין אינו גלאַטיק כל צרכו, כי למה ליה להרמב"ן בכלל להוסיף התיבות "יעשם כמין תפוחי זהב" ולא הסתפק במה שכתב "למה היו עשויים כרמונים חלולים".
תרומה כה, לא (וברש"י שם ד"ה גביעיה).
רש"י שם ד"ה כפתוריה.
לקמן פסוק לה.
הראב"ע (בפירוש הקצר) ובחיי כאן מביא פירוש ד"ונשמע קולו" קאי על קול תפלתו של אהרן. אבל בפשטות קאי על קול הפעמונים (כפירוש הרשב"ם, רמב"ן (פסוק מג) וכו׳ על הפסוק). וגם לפירוש רש"י שהתיבות "ולא ימות" קאי על הנכנס מחוסר בגדים – מכל מקום, התיבות "ונשמע קולו" הם טעם על הפעמונים, כמו שכתוב במפרשי רש"י. וראה הערה הבאה.
לשון רש"י על הפסוק. – ברש"י שם, ש"ולא ימות" קאי על הנכנס מחוסר בגדים. וראה רא"ם (וגור אריה) שם, שלרש"י "ולא ימות" דבוק עם מלת לשרת. אבל מזה שנאמרה אזהרה זו גבי המעיל, ובהמשך להפעמונים – מובן, שעיקר החידוש בהציווי הוא בנוגע להמעיל ופעמונים, וכמו שכתוב בגור אריה כאן: ולא תאמר כי אין הפעמונים מעכבים שאינה רק לנוי כו' ואם נכנס במעיל בלא פעמונים חייב מיתה כו'.
ראה רמב"ן (לקמן פסוק מג). רקאנטי, בחיי, אור החיים ועוד על הפסוק.
מלכים א יט, יא-יב.
אחרי טז, ד. תורת כהנים (ורש"י) על הפסוק. ראש השנה כו, א. ועוד.
אבל להעיר מרש"י יומא (מד, סוף ע"ב) דביום הכפורים היה "טבעת . . שמקשקש ומשמיע קול משום ונשמע קולו בבואו וגו׳". וראה רבנו חננאל, תוספות ותוספות ישנים שם.
פרשתנו שם. רקאנטי ובחיי שם. וראה רבנו חננאל ותוספות ישנים יומא נב, ריש ע"א. וראה ויקרא רבה פכ"א, ח. ועוד.
לשון הרקאנטי ובחיי שם.
בחיי שם. והוא על פי (פירוש הרבנו חננאל ותוספות ישנים) יומא שם.
יומא שם.
לשון התוספות ישנים (ועל דרך זה ברבנו חננאל) שם.
ועל דרך זה לטעם הב׳ שברמב"ן וכו׳ שם. הטעם שבאברבנאל פרשתנו. ועוד.
להעיר מגור אריה שם, ד"בבואו אל הקודש גו׳ ובצאתו" פירושו מביאתו עד צאתו, היינו כל זמן העבודה.
להעיר גם מבעלי הטורים כאן, ד"ונשמע קולו" קאי על (כללות) ענין העבודה.
סה"מ תרצ"ט ע׳ 2 ואילך. סה"מ תש"ב ע׳ 3 ואילך. סה"מ ה׳שי"ת ע׳ 4 ואילך.
ראה תניא פי"ג.
ראה תניא פל"ה (מד, סע"א ואילך). ובארוכה – לקוטי שיחות ח"ט ע׳ 210 ואילך.
להעיר מילקוט שמעוני ואתחנן (רמז תתכה): שהמלאכים . . בקול גדול הן מקלסין . . למה שהן רחוקים מן הקדוש ברוך הוא כו'.
ראה גם כתר שם טוב סי׳ רטו.
המשך תער"ב פרק שצט.
ראה תקוני זהר בהקדמה (ג, ב) – שהוא ענין תפלת העמידה, קודש הקדשים. ולהעיר מילקוט שמעוני ואתחנן שם.
ובשם הוי׳ עצמו – רק באותיות הו"ה, ולא באות יו"ד דעיקר שם הוי׳ הוא היו"ד (תקוני זהר שם. המשך תער"ב שם).
ראה סה"מ תש"ח (ע׳ 22), דגם ביטולו של היש הוא ברעש דוקא.
אבל אין לומר שה"ונשמע קולו" דהכהן גדול הוא ה"רעש" שעליו איתא "אית רעש דייתי (הוי׳) תמן" (תקוני זהר תיקון י"ח (לה, ב). אור התורה לנ"ך ע׳ תא. המשך תער"ב שם) [אלא שעבודת יום הכפורים בקודש הקדשים היא למעלה (גם) מרעש זה, ולכן היא בקול דממה דקה (ראה הערה לא)] –
כי רעש זה הוא בחינת קלא פנימאה דלא אשתמע (המשך תער"ב שם), וכאן נאמר "ונשמע קולו", בחינת קלא דאשתמע, כמפורש בזהר (ח"ב רלא, א).
להעיר מזהר שם, דאיצטריך קלא דאשתמע וברכאן ישרון על עלמא. וראה אור החמה לזהר שם.
להעיר מרמ"א (אורח חיים ריש סימן תקפ"א): צריך שיוציא כל אדם בתפלתו ואם כו’ גם כו’.
ראה דברים רבה פ"ז, ח.
טור אורח חיים סימן תר"ו (מפרקי דרבי אליעזר פמ"ו). שם (ושולחן ערוך אדמו"ר הזקן) סימן תרי"ט, ס"ט (מדברים רבה פ"ב, לו). רמ"א ושולחן ערוך אדמו"ר הזקן שם סוף סימן תרי (וראה דברים רבה שם – הוצאת ליבערמאן).
וגם במלאכים – האופנים וחיות הקודש ברעש גדול כו׳ משבחים כו’ (וראה לעיל הערה כט) – לכן גם ביום הכפורים ישנה עבודה (בחוץ, שהיא) במעיל ונשמע קולו.
ראה בארוכה לקוטי שיחות ח"ד ע׳ 1153 ואילך.
שבת פח, סוף ע"א (אבל בתוספות שם דהיינו אתרוג). שיר השירים רבה פ"ב, ג (א). זהר חלק ב (רעיא מהימנא) קב, ב. ועוד.
ראה לקוטי תורה בחוקותי מט, ד. אור התורה נח (נח, א-ב. ושם נסמן). ועוד.
שיר השירים ד, ג. ברכות נז, א. ושם נסמן. וראה אור התורה בראשית (כרך ג׳) תפג, ב. במדבר ע׳ קכב. ועוד.
להעיר מתורה אור פ, סע"ג.
כלשון חז"ל – עירובין יט, א. חגיגה בסופה. וצריך עיון קצת מה שכתוב בתורה אור שם ד"ריקנים אין פירושו פושעים ומורדים חס ושלום". וראה לקוטי שיחות חט"ז ע׳ 437 הערה 25.
לשון הרמב"ן בה"פתיחה" לפירושו על התורה בסופה.
ישעיה ס, כא.
וגם ה"ונשמע קולו" שבאמצע העבודה (דהולכת הדם וכיוצא בזה), יש לומר דכוונתו ההכנה לחלק העבודה שלאחרי זה (דההולכה ולהזריקה).
או – כנ"ל הערה לד.
ומכל שכן שאין מקום לעשותם רמונים חלולים – היפך דמלאים מצות כרמון.
על פי זה תומתק הוספת הרמב"ן "(תפוחי) זהב", וגם בזה משנה מ"(רמוני) תכלת גו׳" (ודוחק לומר דנקיט לישנא דקרא משלי (כה, יא)) – להדגיש העילוי וחשיבות דבני ישראל.
לקוטי תורה ריש פרשת בהעלותך.
וכמבואר במעלת עבודת האופנים שהיא ברעש גדול לגבי עבודת השרפים, ועל דרך זה הוא העילוי בהאהבה של נפש הבהמית לגבי אהבת נפש האלקית (מצד עצמה) – ראה לקוטי תורה ד"ה האזינו (הג׳) פ"א-ד (ושם פ"ד, שזהו העילוי דעבודת התשובה). ובכמה מקומות.
ברכות לד, ב. רמב"ם הלכות תשובה פ"ז ה"ד.
וראה סה"מ תש"ב (ריש ע׳ 7): הנרדמים הצריכים הקיצה והוא על ידי רעש וקול כו’.
לשון הגמרא – סוף מכות.
תניא ריש פרק לא.
ישעיה כז, יג. וראה לקוטי תורה ראש השנה ד"ה והיה ביום ההוא (נח, א ואילך). עטרת ראש שער ראש השנה כב, א ואילך.
Introduction
One of the principles of Torah study is to minimize the number of differences between the positions of the Sages.1 Accordingly, if possible, it is desirable to explain the Sages’ statements in such a manner that they do not conflict – even when the simple understanding of their words suggests that their perspectives vary.
This is particularly true when it appears that the difference of opinion concerns a point of fact,2 for one of the fundamental axioms of Torah scholarship is that “these and these are the words of the living G‑d,”3 i.e., that when there is a difference of opinion between Sages, both approaches possess theoretical validity. Seeing how that axiom applies is challenging when the two opinions differ about a point of fact.
On the basis of the above concept, it is difficult to understand the difference of opinion in the Talmud4between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi regarding the manner in which the words Kodesh LaHashem (“Holy unto G‑d”), are to be written on the tzitz, the forehead plate worn by the Kohen Gadol. The Sages maintain that these two words should be engraved in two lines: Yud Hei above, and Kodesh and a lamed below. However, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi states, “I saw it in the city of Rome and [the words] Kodesh LaHaShem were written on it in one line.”
On the surface, since Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi was a respected Sage, why did the other Sages reject his testimony? Moreover, the halachah follows the opinion of the Sages. Seemingly, that contradicts the actual fact.
In the sichah that follows, the Rebbe analyzes this difference of opinions, explaining how it is possible for both opinions to co-exist. In doing so, he also explains why the conception of the Menorah as understood by Rashi and Rambam should be followed even though the depiction of the Menorah on the Arch of Titus is different.
Based on the principles he explains, he also shows how it is possible to maintain the validity of the accepted tradition regarding the manner certain words are written in Scripture, despite the archaeological discoveries of ancient scrolls that contain portions of the Tanach which appear to conflict with that tradition.
One Line or Two
Concerning the command to make the tzitz, the golden forehead plate worn by the Kohen Gadol, it is written,5 “You shall engrave upon it like the engraving of a seal,6 [the words] Kodesh LaHashem (‘Holy unto G‑d’).”
אאִין דֶעם צִיוּוּי אוֹיף עֲשִׂיַּת הַצִּיץ שְׁטֵייט אִין פָּסוּק43: "וּפִתַּחְתָּ עָלָיו פִּתּוּחֵי חוֹתָם קֹדֶשׁ לַה' " – אַז אוֹיפְן צִיץ זָאל מֶען אוֹיסְקְרִיצְן44 דִי ווֶערְטֶער "קֹדֶשׁ לה' ".
There is a difference of opinion in the Talmud7 between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer8 ben Yossi regarding the manner in which these two words are to be written on the tzitz. The Sages maintain that these two words should be engraved “in two lines: Yud Hei above, and Kodesh [and a] lamed below.” As Rashi comments,9 this means, “[G‑d’s] full name on the top line, and [the word] Kodesh and [the letter] lamed on the lower line.” However, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi states, “I saw it in the city of Rome10 and [the words] Kodesh LaHaShem11 were written12 on it in one line.”
אִין דֶעם אוֹפֶן ווִי דִי צְווֵיי ווֶערְטֶער זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען "כָּתוּב עָלָיו" אִיז פַארַאן אַ פְּלוּגְתָּא45 צְווִישְׁן דִי חֲכָמִים מִיט רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר46 בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: דִי חֲכָמִים הַאלְטְן אַז "כָּתוּב עָלָיו בְּב' שִׁיטִין, יוּ"ד הֵ"א לְמַעְלָה וְקֹדֶשׁ לַמֶ"ד לְמַטָּה" ("הַשֵּׁם שָׁלֵם בְּשִׁיטָה עֶלְיוֹנָה וְקֹדֶשׁ לַמֶ"ד בְּשִׁיטָה תַּחְתּוֹנָה"47). אָבֶּער רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי זָאגְט: "אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּעִיר רוֹמִי48 וְכָתוּב עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ לַה' בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת".
Rambam13 rules, “Upon it is written [Kodesh LaHaShem in] two lines…. If [however, the words] were written in one line, it was valid. There were times when they were written in one line.”
דֶער רַמְבַּ"ם49 פַּסְקֶ'נְט "וְכוֹתֵב עָלָיו שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין כו' וְאִם כְּתָבוֹ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת כָּשֵׁר וּפְעָמִים כְּתָבוּהוּ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת". דֶערְפוּן אִיז פַארְשְׁטַאנְדִיק אַז נִיט קוּקְנְדִיק אוֹיף עֵדוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאבְּן דִי חֲכָמִים נִיט חֲרָטָה פוּן זֵייעֶר דֵיעָה אַז "כָּתוּב עָלָיו בְּב' שִׁיטִין",
From Rambam’s ruling we see that, regardless of the testimony of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi, the Sages did not retract their position that the words are to be written in two lines. Therefore, Rambam rules according to the Sages.14 He merely adds that, “after the fact, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi’s words can be followed as halachah.”15
In stating, “There were times when they were written in one line,” Rambam is referring to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi’s testimony and emphasizing that it definitively indicates that, after the fact, a tzitz is also acceptable if these words were written in one line.
[אוּן דֶערְפַאר פַּסְקֶ'נְט דֶער רַמְבַּ"ם ווִי דִי חֲכָמִים; עֶס אִיז נָאר אַז "בְּדִיעֲבַד מִיהָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי"50, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁכּוֹתֵב הָרַמְבַּ"ם "וּפְעָמִים כְּתָבוּהוּ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת", מֵיינֶענְדִיק דֶערְמִיט דִי עֵדוּת פוּן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אוּן ווָאס מֵהַאי עֵדוּת אִיז מוּכְרָח צוּ זָאגְן אַז בְּדִיעֲבַד אִיז כָּשֵׁר אוֹיךְ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת].
Meiri explains:16 “Although [one of] the great Sages testified, ‘I saw it in Rome and [the words] Kodesh LaHaShem were written on it in one line,’ even [his] eye-witness testimony did not cause [the Sages] to contravene [a tradition] known to them.”
דֶער מְאִירִי51 אִיז מְבַאֵר, וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ: וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּגְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הֵעִידוּ אֲנִי רְאִיתִיו בְּרוֹמִי וְכָתוּב עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ לַה' בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת, לֹא הִכְחִישׁוּ אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ אֶצְלָם – אַף בְּעֵדוּת רְאִיָּה.
Selections from Likkutei Sichos - Shemot (SIE)
On the surface, this is difficult to comprehend: We are speaking about the eye-witness testimony of “[one of] the great Sages,” Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi. Certainly, there is no possibility of doubt – Heaven forbid – regarding the veracity of his testimony.
אִיז לִכְאוֹרָה תָּמוּהַּ: דָא רֶעדט זִיךְ דָאךְ ווֶעגְן דֶער "עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה" פוּן "גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים" פוּן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי (אִין ווֶעלְכֶער סְ'אִיז נִיט שַׁיָּיךְ קֵיין סָפֵק חַס וְשָׁלוֹם)?
In addition, according to the ruling of Rambam17 – as explained above – it follows that during those years when the two words were written on it in one line, the sacrificial service of the Kohen Gadol (– and the atoning effect the tzitz had even when not worn by the Kohen Gadolon his forehead –)18 was performed with a tzitz that was acceptable only after the fact.
Furthermore, when a practice performed in a given manner is acceptable after the fact, that license is of a temporary nature. As soon as it possible to perform it as required, one must do so.19 For example, in the case at hand, if a tzitz with the words Kodesh LaHaShem inscribed in one line was acceptable only after the fact, it would be acceptable only for the time it would take to inscribe the two words Kodesh LaHaShem in two lines on a golden forehead plate. That would lead to a conclusion that is difficult to accept – that the Beis HaMikdash was conquered by the Romans and the tzitz captured in this extremely brief period of time!20
וַאֲפִילוּ לְפִי פְּסַק הָרַמְבַּ"ם52 (לוֹיטְן פֵּירוּשׁ הַנַּ"ל) – קוּמְט דָאךְ אוֹיס אַז עֲבוֹדוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל יֶענֶע יָארְן (אוּן דָאס ווָאס הַצִּיץ מְכַפֵּר אֲפִילוּ כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִצְחוֹ53) – אִיז גֶעווֶען מִיט אַ בְּדִיעֲבַד צִיץ?! וְעוֹד – בְּדִיעֲבַד בְּכַיּוֹצֵא בְזֶה אִיז שַׁיָּיךְ צוּ זָאגְן נָאר אוֹיף דֶער צַיְיט ווָאס סְ'דַארְף נֶעמֶען צוּ אוֹיסְקְרִיצְן אוֹיף אַ טַס שֶׁל זָהָב דִי צְווֵיי ווֶערְטֶער קֹדֶשׁ לַה' – וְעַל פִּי הַנַּ"ל קוּמְט אוֹיס אַז בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה אִיז נִלְכַּד בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְנִלְקַח הַצִּיץ*יא!?
A Comparison to the Menorah
The above point can be clarified by comparison to a similar issue which was discussed on a previous occasion at length.21 On the Arch of Triumph — built in Rome for Titus, ימ"ש, after his conquest of Jerusalem — is engraved an image of a Menorah that some say depicts the Menorah from the Beis HaMikdash. That Menorah is shown with its branches rising upward from the center shaft, each pair forming a half-circle.
On the surface, this image is a direct contradiction to the statements of the leading Torah authorities concerning the form of the Menorah. Rashi22explicitly writes that the Menorah’s branches “would extend upward diagonally,” i.e., they would ascend at an angle in a straight line. Moreover, this is the meaning of the word kaneh, translated as “branch.” In both the Written and Oral Law, that word refers to a reed that grows upward in a straight line, as can be seen on the banks of any river.23
Similarly, Rambam – when personally drawing an illustration of the Menorah in his Commentary to the Mishnah,24 as evident from the manuscript copies of that work – depicts its branches as ascending diagonally. His son, Rav Avraham, gave testimony25 that his father’s depiction of the branches as rising “in straight lines… not as [semi-] circles” was intentional.
The view of these authorities runs contrary to the depiction of the Menorah on the aforementioned arch, which, on the surface, is based on eyewitness testimony.
בווֶעט מֶען דָאס פַארְשְׁטֵיין פוּן אַן עֶנְלֶעכְן עִנְיָן (ווֶעגְן ווֶעלְכְן מְ'הָאט שׁוֹין גֶערֶעדט אַמָאל בַּאֲרוּכָה54):
אוֹיף דֶעם "שַׁעַר הַנִּצָּחוֹן" ווָאס מֶען הָאט גֶעבּוֹיט אִין רוֹים פַאר טִיטוּס יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ – נָאךְ זַיְין נִצָּחוֹן אוֹיף יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אִיז דָא אַן אוֹיסְגֶעקְרִיצְטֶע (צִיּוּר פוּן אַ) מְנוֹרָה ווָאס יֶשְׁנָם הָאוֹמְרִים אַז דָאס אִיז דֶער צִיּוּר פוּן דֶער מְנוֹרָה אִין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ – אִיז דִי מְנוֹרָה דָארְט מְצוּיָּר בְּאוֹפֶן, אַז דִי שִׁשָּׁה קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה צִיעֶן זִיךְ אַרוֹיף (פוּנֶעם קָנֶה הָאֶמְצָעִי) ווִי חֲצָאֵי קֶשֶׁת (הַאלְבּ-קַיְילֶעכְדִיק).
וְלִכְאוֹרָה: רַשִׁ"י זָאגְט בְּפֵירוּשׁ55 אַז דִי קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה זַיְינֶען "בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן נִמְשָׁכִין וְעוֹלִין", ווָאס מֵיינְט, אַז זֵיי הָאבְּן זִיךְ גֶעצוֹיגְן אִין אַ גְלַיְיכְן שִׁיפּוּעַ, ווָאס דָאס אִיז דָאךְ דֶער אָפְּטַיְיטשׁ פוּן "קָנֶה" בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתַב וּבַתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה – אַ גְלַיְיכֶער צֶמַח, ווִי מְ'זֶעט עֶס עַל שְׂפַת כָּל יְאוֹר56; אוּן פּוּנְקְט אַזוֹי זַיְינֶען דִי קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה אוֹיסְגֶעמָאלְט גֶעווָארְן פוּן רַמְבַּ"ם (ווִי מְ'זֶעט עֶס אִין דֶעם צִיּוּר הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁבְּגוּף כְּתַב יַד קֹדֶשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם57, אוּן ווִי רַבִּי אַבְרָהָם בֶּן הָרַמְבַּ"ם אִיז מֵעִיד58, אַז דָאס ווָאס אָבִיו הָאט מְצַיֵּיר גֶעווֶען דִי קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה "בְּיוֹשֶׁר . . לֹא בְּעִיגּוּל" אִיז גֶעווֶען בְּכַוָּנָה) – שְׁטִימְט עֶס דָאךְ נִיט מִיט דֶעם צִיּוּר הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁעַל שַׁעַר הַנַּ"ל, ווָאס אִיז לִכְאוֹרָה אַן עִנְיָן פוּן "עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה"?
It is possible to give a straightforward resolution for this issue: The depiction of the Menorah on the arch is not an accurate depiction of the Menorah of the Beis HaMikdash. As can be seen, there are several other elements of that depiction which differ from our Sages’ description of the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash.26 A further indication of the inaccuracy of the depiction of the Menorah on that arch is that it includes an image of a dragon, which obviously was not included in the Menorah of the Beis HaMikdash.
וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר הַבִּיאוּר בְּזֶה – בְּפַשְׁטוּת: דִי אוֹיסְגֶעקְרִיצְטֶע מְנוֹרָה אוֹיפְן שַׁעַר אִיז נִיט דֶער (רִיכְטִיקֶער) צִיּוּר פוּן דֶער מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. אוּן ווִי מְ'זֶעט דָארְט אִינֶעם צִיּוּר נָאךְ כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה פְּרָטִים ווֶעלְכֶע שְׁטִימֶען נִיט מִיט תַּבְנִית הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ59, בִּיז אַז אִין דֶער "מְנוֹרָה" שֶׁעַל הַשַּׁעַר אִיז מְצוּיָּר אַ צוּרַת דְּרָקוֹן!
Therefore, it is logical to conclude that initially the depiction on the arch was not made as a copy of the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash, but rather as a copy of another Menorah27 that bore certain similarities to the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash.28
מִסְתַּבֵּר דֶערְפַאר צוּ זָאגְן, אַז צִיּוּר הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁעַל הַשַּׁעַר הָאט מֶען מִלְּכַתְּחִלָּה נִיט נָאכְגֶעמַאכְט דִי מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, נָאר אַן אַנְדֶער מְנוֹרָה60 ווָאס הָאט גֶעהַאט גֶעווִיסֶע עֶנְלֶעכְקַיְיטְן צוּ דֶער מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ*יח.
Since the Menorah in the Beis HaMikdash was a very important object, it was common for people to make Menoros which resembled it. The worshipers of false deities in particular would make such copies for their deities. (This explains why they added the image of a dragon, because the dragon was a false deity.)29 The depiction of the Menorah on the arch was made based on one of those Menoros.
ווִיבַּאלְד דִי מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הָאט גֶעהַאט גָאר אַ גְרוֹיסֶע חֲשִׁיבוּת, פְלֶעגְט מֶען מַאכְן מְנוֹרוֹת מִיט אַן עֶנְלֶעכְן אוֹיסְזֶען ווִי דִי מְנוֹרָה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבִפְרַט דִי עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶם (וְזֶהוּ הַבִּיאוּר דְּהוֹסָפַת צִיּוּר . . דְּרָקוֹן שֶׁהוּא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה61) – אוּן לוֹיט אֵיינֶער פוּן אַזֶעלְכֶע מְנוֹרוֹת הָאט מֶען גֶעמַאכְט דֶעם צִיּוֹר הַמְּנוֹרָה עַל הַשַּׁעַר.
What Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi Saw
Similar statements can be made with regard to Meiri’s understanding of the words engraved on the tzitz. Although Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw a tzitz in Rome, there is no conclusive proof that it was the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol. It is possible30 that it was an ornamental item that someone made in a form somewhat resembling the tzitz.31Afterwards, for whatever reason – perhaps to save the true tzitz from falling into the Romans’ hands – this ornament was placed together with the articles from the Beis HaMikdash that were taken to Rome.32 (Similar statements can be made regarding the Menorah.)28
געַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בְּנִדּוֹן דִּידַן – בְּעִנְיַן הַצִּיץ לְשִׁיטַת הַמְּאִירִי:
אַף עַל פִּי אַז רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאט גֶעזֶען אַ צִיץ אִין רוֹמִי, אִיז עֶס אָבֶּער נִיט קֵיין רַאְיָה בְּרוּרָה אַז דָאס אִיז גֶעווֶען דֶער צִיץ שֶׁל הַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. עֶס קֶען זַיְין62 אַז דָאס אִיז גֶעווֶען אַ תַּכְשִׁיט ווָאס אִימִיצֶער הָאט גֶעמַאכְט אִין אַ צִיּוּר ווָאס אִיז (קְצַת) דּוֹמֶה צוּם צִיץ63. דֶערְנָאךְ אִיז אָט דֶער תַּכְשִׁיט פַארְלֵייגְט גֶעווָארְן (מֵאֵיזוֹ סִבָּה שֶׁתִּהְיֶה – וְאוּלֵי כְּדֵי צוּ אַרוֹיסְרַאטֶעווֶען פוּן דִי רוֹמִיִּים דֶעם אֱמֶת'ן צִיץ64 – וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בְּהַמְּנוֹרָהכב) צוּזַאמֶען מִיט דִי כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ ווָאס זַיְינֶען גֶעלֶעגְן אִין רוֹמִי.
In particular, the above is plausible since the prohibition,33 “Do not make [an image] with Me…,” which our Sages34 interpret as forbidding making a house in the form of the Heichal, the inner Sanctuary of the Beis HaMikdash, or fashioning utensils identical to those used in the Beis HaMikdash, does not apply to the priestly garments. Therefore, it is possible that someone made an ornament that resembled the tzitz.
[וּבִפְרַט אַז אוֹיף דִי בִּגְדֵי כְּהוּנָּה גֶעפִינְט מֶען נִיט דֶעם אִיסּוּר פוּן "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי" – "בַּיִת תַּבְנִית הֵיכָל כו' "65, דֶערִיבֶּער אִיז מֶעגְלֶעךְ אַז אֵיינֶער הָאט פַאר זִיךְ גֶעמַאכְט אַ תַּכְשִׁיט ווָאס אִיז עֶנְלֶעךְ צוּם צִיץ.
Even if one would venture to say that the prohibition,35 “Do not make [an image] with Me…,” does apply in such an instance, it is possible that a non-Jew made a copy of the tzitz.27
וַאֲפִילוּ אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר אַז עֶס אִיז יֶע דָא בְּזֶה דֶער אִיסּוּר פוּן "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי"66 – קֶען דָאךְ זַיְין אַז אַן אֵינוֹ יְהוּדִיכא הָאט דָאס נָאכְגֶעמַאכְט].
Therefore, since the Sages had received the tradition – to quote Meiri,12 it was “a tradition known to them” – that the words, Kodesh LaHaShem were written in two lines, it is assumed that this was the way it was written. This accepted tradition compels us to say that the ornament Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw in Rome was not the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol.
אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער: ווִיבַּאלְד אַז דִי חֲכָמִים הָאבְּן גֶעהַאט אַ קַבָּלָה – בִּלְשׁוֹן הַמְּאִירִי: "יָדוּעַ אֶצְלָם" – אַז דִי ווֶערְטֶער "קֹדֶשׁ לַה' " זַיְינֶען גֶעווֶען גֶעשְׁרִיבְּן בב' שִׁיטוֹת, אִיז אַ דָּבָר בָּרוּר אַז אַזוֹי אִיז גֶעווֶען דִי מְצִיאוּת. אוּן דִי קַבָּלָה גוּפָא אִיז מַכְרִיחַ צוּ זָאגְן, אַז דָאס ווָאס רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאט גֶעזֶען אִין רוֹמִי אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען דֶער צִיץ פוּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi himself did not receive the above tradition from his teacher. Accordingly, when he saw the forehead plate in Rome, he was not obligated to accept such an unlikely possibility that a forehead plate from another place became intermingled with the instruments of the Beis HaMikdash, that the tzitz of the Kohen Gadol had not been copied, and the forehead plate he saw was not the real tzitz but rather an ornament that someone made that did not entirely resemble the tzitz. Therefore, he brought proof from his observation that the words Kodesh LaHaShem were engraved in one line on the tzitz.
– בַּיי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי עַצְמוֹ, ווָאס עֶר הָאט נִיט גֶעהַאט דִי קַבָּלָה פוּן זַיְין רֶבִּי'ן, אִיז בְּשַׁעַת עֶר הָאט גֶעזֶען דֶעם צִיץ בְּרוֹמִי, אִיז עֶר נִיט מְחוּיָּב צוּ אָננֶעמֶען אַזַא ווַיְיטֶע מֶעגְלֶעכְקַיְיט אַז צְווִישְׁן כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָאט זִיךְ אַרַיְינְגֶעמִישְׁט אַ צִיץ מִבַּחוּץ – דֶעם אֱמֶת'ן צִיץ הָאט מֶען נִיט מְצַיֵּר גֶעווֶען – וְהַמְּצוּיָּר אִיז דָאס נִיט דֶער צִיץ שֶׁל הַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, נָאר אַ תַּכְשִׁיט כו' ווָאס אֵיימִיצֶער הָאט גֶעמַאכְט – אוּן אַנְדֶערְשׁ פוּן דֶעם צִיץ; אוּן דֶערִיבֶּער קֶען עֶר דֶערְפוּן בְּרֶענְגֶען אַ רַאְיָה אַז "כָּתוּב עָלָיו קֹדֶשׁ לַה' בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת";
Nevertheless, since the Sages did have an accepted tradition regarding this matter, “even eye-witness testimony did not cause them to contravene [a tradition] known to them.” The rationale is that there is no possibility of doubt regarding the veracity of the accepted tradition. By contrast, regarding Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi’s eye-witness testimony, it is possible to say that the forehead plate he saw was not the tzitz from the Kohen Gadol.
ווִיבַּאלְד אָבֶּער אַז דִי חֲכָמִים הָאבְּן יֶע גֶעהַאט אַזַא קַבָּלָה, אִיז "לֹא הִכְחִישׁוּ אֶת הַיָּדוּעַ אֶצְלָם אַף בְּעֵדוּת רְאִיָּה" – ווַיְיל אִין דֶער קַבָּלָה אִיז נִיט שַׁיָּיךְ קֵיין סָפֵק, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנּוֹגֵעַ דֶער עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה קֶען מֶען זָאגְן אַז דָאס אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען דֶער צִיץ שֶׁל הַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, כַּנַּ"ל.
A Resolution that Satisfies Both Views
Based on the above, Rambam’s ruling – that the tzitz is valid after the fact, even though the two words were written in one line – requires serious analysis. In particular, this is true in light of what was said above regarding there having been a tzitz that was acceptable only after the fact in the Beis HaMikdash for an extended time. Rambam’s ruling is somewhat self-contradictory. On one hand, he accepts the testimony of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi. However, he accepts the Sages’ position as the initial preferred option. Now, if the tzitz that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw was in fact the real tzitz, how was it possible that it was used in the Beis HaMikdash for an extended time?
דעַל פִּי הַנַּ"ל – אִיז דָאךְ צָרִיךְ עִיּוּן גָּדוֹל לִכְאוֹרָה פְּסַק דִּין הָרַמְבַּ"ם, וּבִפְרַט – דֶער עִנְיָן פוּן הָאבְּן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּפּוֹעֵל אַ "בְּדִיעֲבַד צִיץ" אַ מֶשֶׁךְ זְמַן, כַּנַּ"ל?
It is possible to explain the above by first posing a rhetorical question. As mentioned, the hypothesis is that the forehead plate Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi saw was made to prevent the Romans from taking the actual tzitz. How could they be fooled into thinking that they were taking the tzitz by replacing it with a forehead plate that did not resemble one that been used in the Beis HaMikdash at any time? The question is reinforced by the well-known fact that the Romans describe the precise details of the Beis HaMikdash and its service in their books. Therefore, it can be said that Rambam was forced to say that such a tzitz is valid after the fact and that such a tzitz was actually worn, at least for a short time.
– וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר וּבְהַקְדִּים: ווִי הָאט מֶען גֶעקָאנְט אָפְּנַארֶען דִי רוֹמִיִּים דוּרְךְ אַ צִיץ ווָאס קֵיינְמָאל אִיז נִיט גֶעווֶען דּוּגְמָתוֹ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ – וּבִפְרַט לוֹיט הַיָּדוּעַ דִי בַּאשְׁרַיְיבּוּנְג אוֹיךְ בְּסִפְרֵיהֶם פוּן פְּרָטֵי בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְהָעֲבוֹדוֹת בּוֹ – וְלָכֵן יֵשׁ לוֹמַר אִיז דֶער רַמְבַּ"ם מוּכְרָח לְפָרֵשׁ אַז בְּדִיעֲבַד כָּשֵׁר אוּן סְ'אִיז גֶעווֶען אַזוֹי בְּפּוֹעֵל, עַל כָּל פָּנִים אַ זְמַן קָצָר.
Or HaChayim36 goes further and writes that even the Sages who rule that Kodesh LaHaShem should be written in two lines do not consider doing so as absolutely mandatory after the fact. “Hence, Rambam’s ruling in ch. 9 of Hilchos K’lei HaMikdash need not be questioned.”
וִיתֵרָה מִזֶּה כָּתַב הָאוֹר הַחַיִּים67, אַז "אֲפִילוּ לְתַנָּא קַמָּא (דִי חֲכָמִים) אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב וּבְזֶה לֹא יִקְשֶׁה בְּעֵינֶיךָ פְּסַק הָרַמְבַּ"ם פֶּרֶק ט מֵהִלְכוֹת כְּלֵי הַמִּקְדָּשׁ".
According to the above explanation,37 it is possible to offer – at least as a hypothesis – another (and perhaps preferable) reason for Rambam’s ruling, based on the principle that one should endeavor to minimize the amount of halachic differences of opinion.38 (This is especially true since a straightforward understanding of Meiri’s words implies that there was a difference of opinion with regard to a point of fact.)39
וְעַל פִּי זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר – עַל כָּל פָּנִים בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְשָׁר – נָאךְ אַ טַעַם לִפְסַק דִּין הָרַמְבַּ"ם (וְאוּלַי – עִיקָר) – שֶׁלֹּא לַאֲפוּשֵׁי בְּמַחְלוֹקֶת (וּבִפְרַט אַז לְפֵירוּשׁ הַמְּאִירִי כִּפְשׁוּטָם, אִיז עֶס אַ מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּמְצִיאוּת).
Thus, it is unnecessary to say – as hypothesized above – that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi did not receive the tradition that the two words should be written in separate lines. It could be said that he received that tradition, but considered it merely an initial preference.33 This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.
וּלְפִי זֶה דַארְף מֶען אוֹיךְ נִיט אָנְקוּמֶען צוּם חִילּוּק הַנַּ"ל אַז רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָאט נִיט גֶעהַאט דִי קַבָּלָה הַנַּ"ל וכו'. וְקַל לְהָבִין. וְאֵין כַּאן מְקוֹמוֹ.
A Lesson for the Present
There is a point of instruction from the above discussion that is relevant in our time. In recent years, entombed scrolls40 from portions of the Tanach have been discovered. There are a number of differences between the manner certain words are written41 in these scrolls and the accepted tradition that we follow.
המִכָּל הַנַּ"ל הָאט מֶען אוֹיךְ אַ הוֹרָאָה לְיָמֵינוּ אֵלּוּ:
בִּזְמַן הָאַחֲרוֹן זַיְינֶען נִתְגַּלֶּה גֶעווָארְן גְּנִיזוֹת פוּן מְגִילּוֹת מֵעִנְיָנֵי הַתְּנַ"ךְ אוּן דָארְטְן זַיְינֶען פַארַאן כַּמָּה שִׁינּוּיִים לְגַבֵּי אוּנְזֶער מְסוֹרָה בַּנּוֹגֵעַ לְחָסֵר וְיַתִּיר וכו'.
It must be known that although these newly discovered scrolls are seemingly “eye-witness evidence,” they do not have the validity of our tradition. This is especially true because there is no way of knowing whether or not the person who wrote the scroll was “[one of] the great Sages.” Furthermore, it is very possible that the reason the scroll was entombed was because it was written in a manner that is in opposition to Torah Law.42
– דַארְף מֶען ווִיסְן, אַז דִי "גְנִיזוֹת", כָאטשׁ זֵיי זֶעעֶן אוֹיס ווִי אַן "עֵדוּת רְאִיָּה", זַיְינֶען זֵיי כְּלַל נִיט אַזוֹי ווִי אוּנְזֶער מְסוֹרָה. וּבִפְרַט אַז מֶען קֶען נִיט ווִיסְן ווֶער זַיְינֶען מְחַבְּרֵי הַ"גְּנִיזוֹת" צִי פוּן "גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים" אָדֶער נִיט. נָאךְ מֶער: עֶס קֶען גָאר זַיְין אַז דִי מְגִילּוֹת זַיְינֶען נִגְנַז גֶעווָארְן טַאקֶע דֶערְפַאר ווַיְיל זֵיי זַיְינֶען גֶעשְׁרִיבְּן גֶעווָארְן דְּלֹא כַּהֲלָכָה68!
By contrast, the tradition we have received has been conveyed from teacher to student, generation after generation in a chain extending back to Moshe. We can thus be certain that this tradition is true.
מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן דִי מְסוֹרָה ווָאס מִיר הָאבְּן, ווֶעלְכֶע אִיז אִיבֶּערְגֶעגֶעבְּן גֶעווָארְן אִישׁ מִפִּי אִישׁ, דּוֹר אַחַר דּוֹר לְמַעְלָה עַד מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ – אִיז אַ דָּבָר בָּרוּר אַז זִי אִיז אֱמֶת.
Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 26, p. 200ff. Adapted from a sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Tetzaveh, 5743 [1983]
(משיחת ש"פ תצוה תשמ״ג)
See Sdei Chemed, Vol. 10, Darchei Shalom, K’lallei HaShas, sec. 257.
See Sdei Chemed, Maareches haMem, Klal 164 and sources cited there.
Eruvin 13b.
Shabbos 63b, Sukkah 5a.
Shmos 28:36.
See Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonason on the verse; Rashi to Shmos 28:11. See Rambam, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 9:2, and the comments of Ra’avad and other commentaries to that source. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.
Shabbos 63b, Sukkah 5a, et al.
This is the wording in the standard published texts of Shabbos and Sukkah, loc. cit. However, the commentaries of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon and Rabbeinu Chananel to Shabbos*, loc. cit., and Rashi, Yoma 57a, s.v. ani ra’isiha, state “Rabbi Elazar.” See Seder HaDoros, maareches Rabbi Elazar berabi Yossi ben Chalifta.
* Note that in his commentary to Sukkah, loc. cit., Rabbeinu Chananel states, “And Rabbi Yosi said….” K’nesses HaGedolah, Section Leshonos HaRambam (at the conclusion of Orach Chayim). Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, loc. cit., also follows that approach. Consult that source.
Rashi to Shabbos, loc. cit.
See Avos D’Rabbi Nasan 41:12, “However…, the Menorah…, and the tzitz are still stored in Rome.” Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi lived in the 2nd century CE, shortly after the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed and its sacred articles seized and taken as spoils to Rome.
Both the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi maintain that G‑d’s name י-ה-ו-ה was written in full.
Although Shabbos, loc. cit., states kasuv, meaning “written,” the intent is engraved. The terms are used interchangeably throughout the sources and, therefore, in our translation.
Rambam, Hilchos K’lei HaMikdash 9:1. This approach is also followed by Meiri, Sukkah, loc. cit. (Based on this, a question arises regarding the source for his statement in his commentary to Tractate Shabbos (quoted later in the main text) that presents a unique, novel thesis that a Sage’s testimony as to what he saw is nullified by the prevailing tradition. Moreover, it is difficult to understand how it is possible for there to be eyewitness testimony that contradicts Rabbinic tradition.
I.e., since theirs is the majority view, the halachah is decided accordingly.
Kessef Mishneh, Rambam, loc. cit. See Or HaChayim, Shmos 28:36, and the commentary by the same author, Rishon LeTziyon, Sukkah, loc. cit. Note also Chasam Sofer, Shmos, loc. cit.
Shabbos, loc. cit. His interpretation differs from that of Or HaChayim, which states that, even according to the Sages’ opinion, it is not absolutely mandatory to write the words on two lines after the fact. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi’s testimony is not a contradiction of the opinion that the two words should be written on two lines as an initial preference. See sec. 4 and footnote 31 below.
Similarly, Meiri in Sukkah, loc. cit., follows this opinion. Thus, the difficulty the main text raises regarding Rambam’s ruling applies also to Meiri’s commentary.
The main text follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon (Yoma 7b) and the first opinion in Rashi (Shmos 28:38) that the tzitz always caused a sacrifice that was invalid for several specific reasons to be accepted whether or not the Kohen Gadol was wearing it. The implication from Rashi’s commentary is that this is the straightforward way of understanding the verse. However, the halachic ruling follows Rambam (Hilchos Bi’as HaMikdash 4:8), who rules that the tzitz brought about this effect only when it was on the Kohen Gadol’s forehead.
See Encyclopedia Talmudis, Vol. 7, erech di’evad, which discusses when something that is acceptable after the fact must be corrected and when it is sufficient to leave it as is.
It is logical to assume that the tzitz taken to Rome was the tzitz used in the Beis HaMikdash directly before it was destroyed.
See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 21, p. 170.
Rashi, Shmos 25:32.
See Rashi, Shmos 2:3, Ibn Ezra, et al., to that verse.
Menachos 3:7 (a reproduction of that drawing is printed in Kappach edition). A wise man informed me that recently a copy of ancient manuscripts of Rambam’s Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 3:10 has been published that contains a reproduction of a drawing of the Menorah resembling that drawn by Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah. Accordingly, we can assume that Rambam included a similar drawing in his manuscript of the Mishneh Torah. However, the standard published editions of the Mishneh Torah omitted copies of these drawings.
Details regarding the manuscripts and these drawings are reproduced in Kfar Chabad, Parshas Terumah, 5744, and Chiddushim U’Biurim BeHilchos Beis HaBechirah (Kehot, 5746), Appendicesp. 166.
In his commentary to Shmos 25:32.
See the notes to Rav Kappach’s edition of Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachos, loc. cit.), where he mentions that there are other inaccuracies in the depiction on the arch including the fact that the base of the Menorah had feet, and on the arch, it is depicted as being flat.
Note Josephus, ch. 95, that states that they brought Titus two Menoros from the golden Menoros that were in the Beis HaMikdash. Based on the explanations in Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., footnote 46 (consult that source), which states that the ten Menoros that King Shlomoh had fashioned were not placed in the Second Beis HaMikdash, we are seemingly forced to say that at least one of these two Menoros was not intended for the service in the Beis HaMikdash. See, however, Chagigah 3:8, which states that there were duplicates and triplicates of all the sacred utensils of the Beis HaMikdash so that if one of them became ritually impure its duplicate could be used instead.
Note, however, the discussion (Pischei Teshuvah, Yoreh Deah 141:14, et al.) regarding whether it is permitted for an individual to make a duplicate Menorah of seven branches even if it is lacking one of the particulars that is a mandatory requirement of the Menorah of the Beis HaMikdash.
Avodah Zarah 42b.
Note Yoma 57a, “Perhaps…,” where the Talmud questions a supposition Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi made regarding what he saw in Rome.
Note Ibn Ezra, Shmos 28:36, who states, “Distinguished men of great stature make golden forehead plates.” Consult that source.
See, however, Avos D’Rabbi Nasan 41:12 that states, “The Menorah… and the tzitz [are still stored] in Rome,” implying that the original tzitz was taken to Rome, not a duplicate.
Shmos 20:20.
Avodah Zarah 43a (note the sources cited there); Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechirah 7:10; Tur, Yoreh Deah, sec. 141; Shulchan Aruch, the end of that section.
Shmos, loc. cit. Note that there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim whether the priestly garments are considered sacred utensils. See Encyclopedia Talmudis, erech bigdei kehunah, p. 335, and the sources mentioned there. See also Meiri (Avodah Zarah 42a) who discusses whether the prohibition mentioned above applies to the sacred utensils. See Tzafnas Panei’ach, Mahadura Tinyana, p. 67d. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.
See footnote 12 above. Perhaps the opinion of Or HaChayim can be explained as the opposite of what was stated above; i.e., his opinion is that the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi do not argue at all. On the contrary, they share the same view both before and after the fact: Initially, the two words should be written on two lines. After the fact, it is acceptable if they are written on one. See Or HaChayim’s commentary, Rishon LeTziyon to Sukkah, loc. cit.
It was explained previously that we are forced to say that a tzitz with the words Kodesh LaHaShem written on one line was used in the Beis HaMikdash. On that basis, as explained in the previous footnote, it could be proposed that there is no disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi. Therefore, Rambam ruled as he did.
This is a frequently referenced principle in Torah scholarship. See Sdei Chemed, Vol. 10, Darchei Shalom, K’lallei HaShas, sec. 257.
The Rabbis always endeavored to find explanations to avoid saying that differences of opinion mentioned in the Talmud concern points of fact. Although our Sages state, “these and these are the words of the living G‑d” (Eruvin 13b), i.e., that when Sages differ there is a theoretical basis for both opinions, it is difficult to explain a difference of opinion concerning a point of actual fact (a machlokes bemetziyus in Talmudic terminology). Hence, the Rabbis endeavored to explain differences of opinion in a manner that does not result in such an understanding. See Sdei Chemed, Maareches haMem, Klal 164 and sources cited there.
When the letters of scrolls of sacred writings have faded irreparably, a scroll was written incorrectly or torn, that scroll should not be cast away or destroyed but rather entombed. See the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, Vol. 11, Letter no. 3405, where the Rebbe discusses scrolls discovered by archaeologists and makes similar points.
The main text speaks of chasar viyasar, i.e., there are words that can be vocalized the same whether they lack or contain a given letter, e.g., a yud or a vav. For example, vechoshech (Bereishis 1:2) can be written וחשך or וחושך.
Note the words of Bach (Orach Chayim 34, s.v. seder hanachasan) regarding ancient tefillin that were discovered after being entombed whose passages are ordered according to Rabbeinu Tam’s understanding. Bach writes, as stated in the main text here, that the validity of a halachic position cannot be proved by objects found after they were entombed.
פרשתנו כח, לו.
ראה תרגום אונקלוס ותרגום יונתן על הפסוק. פירוש רש״י לעיל כח, יא. וראה רמב״ם הלכות כלי המקדש פ״ט ה״ב ובראב״ד (ונושאי כלים) שם. ואין כאן מקומו.
שבת סג, ב. סוכה ה, א. ועוד.
כן הוא בשבת וסוכה שם לפנינו. אבל בפירוש רב נסים גאון שבת שם, רבינו חננאל שם*, פירוש רש״י יומא (נז, א ד״ה אני ראיתי): רבי אלעזר. וראה סדר הדורות מערכת רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי בן חלפתא.
*) ולהעיר שברבינו חננאל סוכה שם: ואמר רבי יוסי. וכן הוא בכנסת הגדולה – לשונות הרמב״ם (שבסוף חלק אורח חיים) להלכות כלי המקדש שם. עיין שם.
רש״י שבת שם.
להעיר מאבות דרבי נתן (פמ״א, יב): אבל כו’ וציץ עדיין מונחין ברומי.
הלכות כלי המקדש ריש פ״ט. וכן כתב המאירי בסוכה שם (ועל פי זה קשה מנא ליה – בפירושו בשבת (דלקמן בפנים) – לחדש חידוש גדול דעדות ראיה בטלה לגבי המקובל – ושבכלל אפשרי דבר זה).
כסף משנה שם. וראה גם אור החיים פרשתנו כאן. ובספרו ראשון לציון לסוכה שם. ולהעיר מחתם סופר על התורה על הפסוק.
שבת שם. – ודלא כמו שכתב האור החיים “ואפילו לתנא קמא אינו מעכב” (שלכן אין עדותו של רבי אליעזר ברבי יוסי סתירה לדעתו שלכתחילה צריך להיות בשני שיטין). וראה לקמן בפנים סעיף ד והערה כד.
וכן המאירי בסוכה שם.
לדעת רבי שמעון (יומא ז. ב. ושם נסמן) ובפירוש רש״י תצוה (כח, לח) כפירוש ראשון וסתם – דתמיד ממש מרצה. אבל הפסק דין (רמב״ם הלכות ביאת מקדש פ״ד ה״ח) דאינו מרצה אלא בזמן שהוא על מצחו.
כי בפשטות הציץ שנלקח לרומי היה הציץ שהשתמשו בו קרוב לזמן החורבן.
לקוטי שיחות חכ״א ע’ 170.
תרומה כה, לב.
ראה פירוש רש״י שמות (ב, ג) ראב״ע ועוד שם.
בפירוש המשניות מנחות סוף פ״ג (נדפס בהוצאת קאפח). – והעירני חכם אחד שלאחרונה נתפרסם שכן הוא גם בכתב יד דספר היד בהלכות בית הבחירה פ״ג סוף ה״י (שהרמב״ם צייר שם המנורה כבפירוש המשניות), אלא – שנשמט על ידי המדפיסים. – וראה בפרטיות והציורים ב”כפר חב״ד” פ’ תרומה תשד״מ. חידושים וביאורים בהלכות בית הבחירה (קה״ת תשמ״ו) בנספחים (ע’ קסו).
בפירושו על התורה תרומה שם.
וכמו שהעיר הרב יוסף קאפח בהוצאתו דפירוש המשניות להרמב״ם.
ולהעיר שבספר יוסיפון (פצ״ה) איתא שהביאו לטיטוס שתי מנורות ממנורות הזהב אשר היו במקדש. ועל פי מה שנתבאר (לקוטי שיחות שם הערה 46. עיין שם) שבמקדש שני לא היו העשר מנורות שעשה שלמה, צריך לומר לכאורה שמנורות הנ״ל לא היו (שתיהם על כל פנים) לעבודה. אבל ראה משנה סוף חגיגה: כל הכלים כו’ שניים כו’.
אבל להעיר מהשקלא וטריא (ראה פתחי תשובה יורה דעה סימן קמ״א סקי״ד. ועוד) אם אסור לעשות מנורה של ז’ קנים “אפילו חסר איזה דבר המעכב”.
עבודה זרה מב, ב (במשנה).
להעיר מיומא נז, א: ודילמא כו’.
להעיר מפירוש הראב״ע כאן: והשרים הגדולים עושים ציץ זהב כו’. עיין שם.
אבל ראה אבות דרבי נתן (שבהערה ו): ומנורה . . וציץ . . ברומי.
יתרו כ, כ. עבודה זרה מג, סוף ע״א (ושם נסמן). רמב״ם הלכות בית הבחירה פ״ז ה״י. טור יורה דעה סימן קמ״א. שולחן ערוך שם בסוף הסימן.
להעיר מפלוגתת הראשונים אם בגדי כהונה נקראים כלי שרת (ראה אנציקלופדיה תלמודית ערך בגדי כהונה (ע’ שלה) ושם נסמן). וראה מאירי (לעבודה זרה מב, ב) דכל כלי שרת נאסרו ב”לא תעשון אתי” (וראה צפנת פענח מהדורה תניינא סז, ד). ואין כאן מקומו.
כנ״ל הערה ט. ואולי יש לפרש דעתו – שהיא היפך כל הנ״ל, דמפרש שתנא קמא ורבי אליעזר ברבי יוסי לא פליג כלל – הן לכתחילה והן בדיעבד. וראה ספרו ראשון לציון לסוכה שם.
להעיר גם מב״ח לטור אורח חיים סל״ד (סוף ד״ה סדר הנחתן) בנוגע לתפלין דרבינו תם.
Contact Us · Ask the Rabbi · Privacy Policy · Donate
© Copyright Chabad.org · 770 Eastern Parkway Suite 405 · Brooklyn, NY 11213
The people of Israel did not believe in Moses because of the miracles he performed. So why did they believe in him? Because when we stood at Sinai, our own eyes saw and our own ears heard the fire, the sounds and the flames, and how Moses approached the cloud and G-d's voice called to him...
–Maimonides
Why support the construction?Together, we can build the Temple for the benefit of mankind
Expressing the desire to build the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem and registering The thirdTemple.org, we are part of a collaborative movement. As our number grows so will our ability to influence the media and on world politics, and thus the project will be realized today.
Chat with our assistant about the Third Temple
Find answers to your questions thanks to the construction of the Third Temple: The project, the history, the legal and political situation but also the plans and the pontifical service which will be carried out at the Temple. Our assistants are here to listen to you.
Every Sunday AM 09.50 (IST) B”H we shall have our live streaming from the Har HaBayit, every Sunday, from here in Jerusalem….. Via a YouTube channel.
A call up for every Jewish and non-Jewish Torah observant to Pray for new good Jewish Leaders in Yisrael.
click:
Contact Us · Ask the Rabbi · Privacy Policy · Donate
© Copyright Chabad.org · 770 Eastern Parkway Suite 405 · Brooklyn, NY 11213
Why support the construction?
Together, we can build the Temple for the benefit of mankind
Expressing the desire to build the 3rd Temple in Jerusalem and registering The thirdTemple.org, we are part of a collaborative movement. As our number grows so will our ability to influence the media and on world politics, and thus the project will be realized today.
Chat with our assistant about the Third Temple
Find answers to your questions thanks to the construction of the Third Temple: The project, the history, the legal and political situation but also the plans and the pontifical service which will be carried out at the Temple. Our assistants are here to listen to you.
A call up for every Jewish and non-Jewish Torah observant to Pray for new good Jewish Leaders in Yisrael.
The Repetition of a Commandment
As is his practice in many Halachos in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam begins Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, “The Laws of [G‑d’s] Chosen House,” by stating the fundamental mitzvah upon which the entire collection of laws which follow is based:
It is a positive commandment to construct a house for G‑d, prepared to have sacrifices offered within.... as it is written,1 “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”
Significantly, the Rambam also mentions the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah, in Hilchos Melachim, “The Laws of Kings.” There, however, he focuses on the mitzvah in a different context, stating:2
The Jews were commanded regarding the observance of three mitzvos when they entered Eretz Yisrael: to appoint a king over them.... to wipe out the descendants of Amalek.... and to build [G‑d’s] Chosen House; as it is written,3 “You shall seek out His presence and come to that place.”
The commentaries question: What is the Rambam’s purpose in repeating the commandment to build a Sanctuary in Hilchos Melachim and why in that source does he link together the three mitzvos he mentions?4
The Bond Between These Three Mitzvos
In regard to the latter question, it can be explained that there is an intrinsic connection between these three mitzvos.5 Although they are three separate commandments, the fulfillment of one contributes a measure of perfection to the others. To cite a parallel: The arm tefillin and the head tefillin are two separate mitzvos.6 Nevertheless, when both of these mitzvos are performed together, each one is elevated to a higher level.
Similarly, in regard to the three mitzvos mentioned by the Rambam: The intent is not merely that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled in the chronological order mentioned by the Rambam.7 Instead, the linkage of three mitzvos teaches that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary can be fulfilled in the most perfect manner, only when first, a king is appointed and then Amalek is destroyed. Similarly, the fulfillment of the mitzvos of destroying Amalek and building a Sanctuary enhance the mitzvah of appointing a king, and the fulfillment of the mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is enhanced by the mitzvos of appointing a king and building the Beis HaMikdash.
This concept is supported by the verses8 cited by the Rambam in the halachah which follows in Hilchos Melachim:9 “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him, the king said to the prophet, Natan, ‘Behold, I am sitting in a palace of cedar, [while the Ark of G‑d dwells in curtains].’ ”
These verses indicate how the secure establishment of the monarchy, [“the king dwelt in his house”,] the destruction of Amalek, [“And G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,”10] and the building of the Beis HaMikdash [David’s request from the prophet Natan] are interrelated.11
Based on the above, we can appreciate a further point: The Rambam’s statements in Hilchos Melachim are based on the Midrash Tanchuma. Nevertheless, he alters the text of that Midrashic passage, choosing a different prooftext. In the Midrash Tanchuma, the prooftext cited for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash is the verse: “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”12 The Rambam, by contrast, substitutes the verse: “You shall seek out His presence...,” because the context of this verse in the Book of Devarim describes the Jews’ entry into Eretz Yisrael and their progress to a state when “G‑d will grant you peace from all your enemies around you and you will dwell in security.”13
Fulfilling a Mitzvah in Stages
The above concepts also shed light on another related point which has aroused the attention of the commentaries: As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the verse, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” as the prooftext for the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdash. This is problematic, for seemingly, this command refers to the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert and not to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash. The passage cited by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, by contrast, refers specifically to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, and indeed, is cited as the source for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash by our Sages14 and by our Rabbis.15
It is possible to explain16 that the commandment, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” is general in scope, applying to all the structures which were “a house for G‑d” [i.e., a place where G‑d’s presence was revealed] and “prepared to have sacrifices offered within” [a place for the service of the Jewish people].17 Throughout their history, the Jews fulfilled this commandment in several different ways, beginning with the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.
In this context, we can resolve a problematic point in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. Directly after stating the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam continues:
The Sanctuary which Moshe our teacher built is already described in the Torah. It was, however, only temporary in nature....
When [the Jewish people] entered Eretz [Yisrael], they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal for the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land]. Afterwards, they came to Shiloh and built a structure of stone....
When Eli died, it was destroyed and they came to Nov and built a Sanctuary.18 When Shmuel died, it was destroyed and they came to Givon and built a Sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the [Divine Presence’s] eternal home.
The place of such statements in the Mishneh Torah is problematic. Unlike the Talmud or the Midrashim which are general in content, the Mishneh Torah is exclusively a text of Halachah, Torah law. Points of ethics, philosophy, and history are mentioned only when they are themselves halachos, specific directives governing our conduct. Thus the question can be raised: What halachic points can be derived from the historical background to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash?19
On the basis of the explanation given above, we can, however, appreciate the sequence of these halachos: After the Rambam uses a prooftext which implies that the mitzvah of building a Sanctuary is not confined to one specific structure, he illustrates this point by citing the various different intermediate stages through which our people’s observance of this mitzvah underwent.
Intermediate Way-Stations On the Path to Jerusalem
To return to the concept explained at the outset: The linkage of the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary with the mitzvos of appointing a king and wiping out Amalek is also relevant with regard to the other structures mentioned by the Rambam.20 Our Rabbis state that “Moshe Rabbeinu served as a king,”21 and the construction of the Sanctuary followed the war in which Yehoshua defeated Amalek.22
The title “king” was also applied to Yehoshua23 who constructed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, and to Shmuel,24 who constructed the Sanctuary at Nov. We are unsure of the exact time of the construction of the Sanctuary at Givon. We may, however, assume that one of the following — Shaul, David, or Shmuel, all of whom either served, or were described, as kings — was involved in its construction. Similarly, at the time these structures were built, the people had reached progressively more developed stages of being “at peace from the enemies around them.” Nevertheless, just as the monarchy and Israel’s peace had not been established in a complete manner at the time of these structures, these structures did not represent a complete manifestation of the indwelling of the Divine Presence, nor did they fulfill the ideal conception of a center for the sacrificial worship of the Jewish people.
It was not until “the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,” i.e., David had securely established the monarchy and brought peace to the land, that it was possible to build the Beis HaMikdash.
The Ultimate Beis HaMikdash
Based on the above, we can appreciate one of the positive dimensions that will be possessed by the Third Beis HaMikdash. That structure will be built by Mashiach,25 the ultimate Jewish monarch, and will be constructed after he “wages the wars of G‑d, defeating all the nations around him.”26 Among these wars will be the total annihilation of Amalek.27 Thus, since in the Era of the Redemption, the other two mitzvos, the appointment of a king and the destruction of Amalek, will have been fulfilled in a perfect matter, this will contribute an added dimension of perfection to the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash.
We can hasten the coming of this era through our divine service. To explain: In chassidic thought,28 the appointment of a king is associated with developing inner bittul, nullifying oneself to G‑d. This in turn allows a person to “drive out” Amalek from his being, to free himself from pride, egotism, and other undesirable character traits. Such personal refinement allows him to proceed further and transform his person, his home, and his surroundings into a “sanctuary in microcosm,” in which the Divine Presence can rest.29
This will serve as a catalyst for change in the world at large. For each particular manifestation of the Divine Presence within the world hastens the coming of the time when the Divine Presence will again be revealed, and not merely in microcosm. At that time, “the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”30 May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
The Repetition of a Commandment
As is his practice in many Halachos in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam begins Hilchos Beis HaBechirah, “The Laws of [G‑d’s] Chosen House,” by stating the fundamental mitzvah upon which the entire collection of laws which follow is based:
It is a positive commandment to construct a house for G‑d, prepared to have sacrifices offered within.... as it is written,1 “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”
Significantly, the Rambam also mentions the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash elsewhere in the Mishneh Torah, in Hilchos Melachim, “The Laws of Kings.” There, however, he focuses on the mitzvah in a different context, stating:2
The Jews were commanded regarding the observance of three mitzvos when they entered Eretz Yisrael: to appoint a king over them.... to wipe out the descendants of Amalek.... and to build [G‑d’s] Chosen House; as it is written,3 “You shall seek out His presence and come to that place.”
The commentaries question: What is the Rambam’s purpose in repeating the commandment to build a Sanctuary in Hilchos Melachim and why in that source does he link together the three mitzvos he mentions?4
The Bond Between These Three Mitzvos
In regard to the latter question, it can be explained that there is an intrinsic connection between these three mitzvos.5 Although they are three separate commandments, the fulfillment of one contributes a measure of perfection to the others. To cite a parallel: The arm tefillin and the head tefillin are two separate mitzvos.6 Nevertheless, when both of these mitzvos are performed together, each one is elevated to a higher level.
Similarly, in regard to the three mitzvos mentioned by the Rambam: The intent is not merely that the mitzvos are to be fulfilled in the chronological order mentioned by the Rambam.7 Instead, the linkage of three mitzvos teaches that the mitzvah of building the Sanctuary can be fulfilled in the most perfect manner, only when first, a king is appointed and then Amalek is destroyed. Similarly, the fulfillment of the mitzvos of destroying Amalek and building a Sanctuary enhance the mitzvah of appointing a king, and the fulfillment of the mitzvah of wiping out Amalek is enhanced by the mitzvos of appointing a king and building the Beis HaMikdash.
This concept is supported by the verses8 cited by the Rambam in the halachah which follows in Hilchos Melachim:9 “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him, the king said to the prophet, Natan, ‘Behold, I am sitting in a palace of cedar, [while the Ark of G‑d dwells in curtains].’ ”
These verses indicate how the secure establishment of the monarchy, [“the king dwelt in his house”,] the destruction of Amalek, [“And G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,”10] and the building of the Beis HaMikdash [David’s request from the prophet Natan] are interrelated.11
Based on the above, we can appreciate a further point: The Rambam’s statements in Hilchos Melachim are based on the Midrash Tanchuma. Nevertheless, he alters the text of that Midrashic passage, choosing a different prooftext. In the Midrash Tanchuma, the prooftext cited for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash is the verse: “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary.”12 The Rambam, by contrast, substitutes the verse: “You shall seek out His presence...,” because the context of this verse in the Book of Devarim describes the Jews’ entry into Eretz Yisrael and their progress to a state when “G‑d will grant you peace from all your enemies around you and you will dwell in security.”13
Fulfilling a Mitzvah in Stages
The above concepts also shed light on another related point which has aroused the attention of the commentaries: As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the verse, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” as the prooftext for the mitzvah to build the Beis HaMikdash. This is problematic, for seemingly, this command refers to the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert and not to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash. The passage cited by the Rambam in Hilchos Melachim, by contrast, refers specifically to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, and indeed, is cited as the source for the commandment to build the Beis HaMikdash by our Sages14 and by our Rabbis.15
It is possible to explain16 that the commandment, “And you shall make Me a Sanctuary,” is general in scope, applying to all the structures which were “a house for G‑d” [i.e., a place where G‑d’s presence was revealed] and “prepared to have sacrifices offered within” [a place for the service of the Jewish people].17 Throughout their history, the Jews fulfilled this commandment in several different ways, beginning with the construction of the Sanctuary in the desert.
In this context, we can resolve a problematic point in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah. Directly after stating the mitzvah to build a Sanctuary, the Rambam continues:
The Sanctuary which Moshe our teacher built is already described in the Torah. It was, however, only temporary in nature....
When [the Jewish people] entered Eretz [Yisrael], they erected the Sanctuary in Gilgal for the fourteen years in which they conquered and divided [the land]. Afterwards, they came to Shiloh and built a structure of stone....
When Eli died, it was destroyed and they came to Nov and built a Sanctuary.18 When Shmuel died, it was destroyed and they came to Givon and built a Sanctuary. From Givon, they came to the [Divine Presence’s] eternal home.
The place of such statements in the Mishneh Torah is problematic. Unlike the Talmud or the Midrashim which are general in content, the Mishneh Torah is exclusively a text of Halachah, Torah law. Points of ethics, philosophy, and history are mentioned only when they are themselves halachos, specific directives governing our conduct. Thus the question can be raised: What halachic points can be derived from the historical background to the construction of the Beis HaMikdash?19
On the basis of the explanation given above, we can, however, appreciate the sequence of these halachos: After the Rambam uses a prooftext which implies that the mitzvah of building a Sanctuary is not confined to one specific structure, he illustrates this point by citing the various different intermediate stages through which our people’s observance of this mitzvah underwent.
Intermediate Way-Stations On the Path to Jerusalem
To return to the concept explained at the outset: The linkage of the mitzvah of constructing a Sanctuary with the mitzvos of appointing a king and wiping out Amalek is also relevant with regard to the other structures mentioned by the Rambam.20 Our Rabbis state that “Moshe Rabbeinu served as a king,”21 and the construction of the Sanctuary followed the war in which Yehoshua defeated Amalek.22
The title “king” was also applied to Yehoshua23 who constructed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, and to Shmuel,24 who constructed the Sanctuary at Nov. We are unsure of the exact time of the construction of the Sanctuary at Givon. We may, however, assume that one of the following — Shaul, David, or Shmuel, all of whom either served, or were described, as kings — was involved in its construction. Similarly, at the time these structures were built, the people had reached progressively more developed stages of being “at peace from the enemies around them.” Nevertheless, just as the monarchy and Israel’s peace had not been established in a complete manner at the time of these structures, these structures did not represent a complete manifestation of the indwelling of the Divine Presence, nor did they fulfill the ideal conception of a center for the sacrificial worship of the Jewish people.
It was not until “the king dwelt in his house, and G‑d brought him peace from all the enemies which surrounded him,” i.e., David had securely established the monarchy and brought peace to the land, that it was possible to build the Beis HaMikdash.
The Ultimate Beis HaMikdash
Based on the above, we can appreciate one of the positive dimensions that will be possessed by the Third Beis HaMikdash. That structure will be built by Mashiach,25 the ultimate Jewish monarch, and will be constructed after he “wages the wars of G‑d, defeating all the nations around him.”26 Among these wars will be the total annihilation of Amalek.27 Thus, since in the Era of the Redemption, the other two mitzvos, the appointment of a king and the destruction of Amalek, will have been fulfilled in a perfect matter, this will contribute an added dimension of perfection to the mitzvah of constructing the Beis HaMikdash.
We can hasten the coming of this era through our divine service. To explain: In chassidic thought,28 the appointment of a king is associated with developing inner bittul, nullifying oneself to G‑d. This in turn allows a person to “drive out” Amalek from his being, to free himself from pride, egotism, and other undesirable character traits. Such personal refinement allows him to proceed further and transform his person, his home, and his surroundings into a “sanctuary in microcosm,” in which the Divine Presence can rest.29
This will serve as a catalyst for change in the world at large. For each particular manifestation of the Divine Presence within the world hastens the coming of the time when the Divine Presence will again be revealed, and not merely in microcosm. At that time, “the world will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the ocean bed.”30 May this take place in the immediate future.
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Adapted from Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, Terumah
Donations:
Beit Yisrael International.Become a member.Get the MemberShip from Beit Yisrael! ‘How to become a Righteous of the Nations (Ultra-Orthodox Chassidic/Lost Tribes of Efrayim/‘Ger Toshav‘: Israelite by accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Chasidut, the teachings of CHaBaD, hearing and doing.)
Click: Beit yisrael international
Until........:
Isa 11:9 – 16 They do no evil nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain, for the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea.Rashi: knowledge of the Lord: [lit.] to know the Lord.10 And on that day, there shall be a Root of Yishai, standing as a banner to the people. Unto Him the nations shall seek, and His rest shall be esteem.Rashi: as a banner for peoples: that peoples should raise a banner to gather to him.11 And it shall be in that day that Adonai sets His hand again a second time to recover the remnant of His people who are left, from Ashshur and from Mitsrayim, from Pathros and from Kush, from Ěylam and from Shin‛ar, from Ḥamath and from the islands of the sea.Rashi: a second time: Just as he acquired them from Egypt, when their redemption was absolute, without subjugation, but the redemption preceding the building of the Second Temple is not counted, since they were subjugated to Cyrus.and from the islands of the sea: the islands of the Kittim, the Romans, the descendants of Esau.And he shall raise a banner: Perka, perche in O.F. [i.e., the verse is literally referring to the pole upon which the banner is attached.] And it shall be for a sign to gather to him and to bring the exiles of Israel to Him as a present.12 And He shall raise a banner for the nations, and gather the outcasts of Yisra’ěl, and assemble the dispersed of Yehuḏa from the four corners of the earth.13 And the envy of Ephrayim shall turn aside, and the adversaries of Yehuḏa be cut off. Ephrayim shall not envy Yehuḏa, and Yehuḏa not trouble Ephrayim.Rashi: Ephraim shall not envy Judah: The Messiah, the son of David, and the Messiah, the son of Joseph, shall not envy each other.14 But they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the west; together they plunder the people of the east, their hand stretching forth on Eḏom and Mo’aḇ, and the children of Ammon shall be subject to them.Rashi: And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west: Heb. בְכָתֵף. Israel will fly and run of one accord against the Philistines who are in the west of Eretz Israel and conquer their land. [כָּתֵף, lit. a shoulder, is used in this case to denote unity. The word שֶׁכֶם, also lit. a shoulder, is used in a similar sense.] Comp. (Hoshea 6:9) “They murder on the way in unison (שֶׁכְמָה) ”; (Zeph. 3:9) “One accord (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד).” And so did Jonathan rendered it: And they shall join in one accord to smite the Philistines who are in the west.and the children of Ammon shall obey them: As the Targum states: Will hearken to them. They will accept their commandments over them.15 And Adonai shall put under the ban the tongue of the Sea of Mitsrayim, and He shall wave His hand over the River with the might of His Spirit, and shall strike it in the seven streams, and shall cause men to tread it in sandals.Rashi: And… shall dry up: [lit. shall cut off] to dry it, so that the exiles of Israel will pass through it from Egypt.over the river: The Euphrates River, for the exiles from Assyria to cross.with the strength of His wind: Heb. בַּעְיָם. This is hapax legomenon in Scripture, and according to the context it can be interpreted as “with the strength of His wind.”into seven streams: into seven segments, for the aforementioned seven exiles: from Assyria and from Egypt, etc. Those from the islands of the sea are not from that side.and He shall lead: the exiles within it.with shoes: on dry land.16 And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, those left from Ashshur, as it was for Yisra’ěl in the day when he came up from the land of Mitsrayim.Rashi: And there shall be a highway: in the midst of the water for the remnant of His people.
Together we Triumphby Gal Einai February 28, 2024
"And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; together shall they spoil the children of the east; they shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moav; and the children of Amon shall obey them."(Isaiah 11:14)This verse refers to the days of Mashiach, when the Nation of Israel will defeat all its surrounding enemies. The verse is particularly relevant to us today, while we are fighting in Gaza. The Gaza Strip is the ancient “land of the Philistines.” Today’s “Palestinians” are the Arabs who live in Gaza, on Israel’s western flank, on the sea.To defeat the Philistines, we have to be united, as is written in the same prophecy about the ingathering of the distant members of the Nation of Israel and the unity between Judah and Efraim. “And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west.” Rashi explains: “Israel will fly and run with one shoulder upon the Philistines who are in the west of the Land of Israel and will conquer their land.” We have to be “with one shoulder” – united, shoulder-to-shoulder. Today, we can also add that “And they shall fly down” can be understood literally as the defeat of the Palestinians with Israel’s air force. Our soldiers will spread their wings and fly to destroy the enemy and assist the ground forces in their conquest of Gaza.We receive the power of “one shoulder” from Joseph, who is buried in Shechem (In Hebrew, Shechem is both the name of the city and means “shoulder”). Shechem is the city of the covenant, as we say in Psalms 80:2 “The shepherd of Israel, listen, He Who leads Joseph like a flock – appear, He Who is enthroned upon the cherubs.” (And in gematriah, עפו = יוסף: “shall fly” equals “Joseph”).The concept of “one shoulder” is connected to the ultimate Messianic purpose of rectification of the world, when all people will recognize God and the Torah of Moses: “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language that they may all call upon the name of God, to serve Him with one shoulder.”[1] The current war in the land of the Philistines in the west, on the shores of the Great Sea, is particularly associated with the clarification and rectification of the Western world and Western culture, reaching to the US on the other side of the world.Triumph in the land of the Philistines is the realization of the promise in the Torah, “And I will place your border from the Red Sea until the Sea of the Philistines and from the desert to the river, for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.”[2] This is our map of the “New Middle East’: “From the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines” including the entire Sinai Peninsula. (Surrendering Sinai to Egypt 45 years ago was the root of all further surrenders and retreats). “From the desert to the river” – From the Sinai desert in the southwest until the Euphrates in the northeast. This includes the elimination of the combined threat from Syria-Iraq-Iran. And so in Isaiah’s prophecy, “together shall they spoil the children of the east” – the defeat of the enemies to the east (such as the hostile nations on the Arabian Peninsula). “…for I will give the dwellers of the land into your hands and you shall expel them from before you.” This is the directive and our mission: to create a new Middle East, to expel Israel’s enemies from the Land of Israel – and to extend Israeli rule and benevolence to those non-Jews who desire the status of foreign resident in Israel.[1] Tzephania 3:9.[2] Exodus 23:31.
We like to invite you to join our new social network where you shall find good Torah and News Updates from Yisrael even translated Israeli Newspapers articles click:
Blessings
Bet Yisrael International From Gaddi and Ariel, Many Blessings to all the ShneymAsarHaShevatim (Twelve Tribes) in the Golus, Shalom!
click: Join our free email list,
Sign up for weekly updates from Beit Yisrael International, weekly Torah studies, updates about the development of Beit Yisrael International in an association of all groups and organizations within the 'House of Ephraim', not a new religious organization, but an association of the many in the 'House of Ephraim'.
Sign up for weekly updates from Beit Yisrael International, weekly Torah studies, updates about the development of Beit Yisrael International in an association of all groups and organizations within the 'House of Ephraim', not a new religious organization, but an association of the many in the 'House of Ephraim'.
Comments
Post a Comment