Parashath Ki Thissa’ (Exodus XXX,11-XXXIV,35) 3/7/12

A.

Our parasha begins with a commandment concerning one of the tërumoth discussed in more general terms in parashath Tëruma, two weeks ago; this one involves a census: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל בפקודיהם ונתנו איש כפר נפשו לד' בפקד אתם ולא יהי' בהם נגף בפקד אתם: זה יתנו כל העבר על הפקדים מחצית השקל בשקל הקדש עשרים גרה השקל מחצית השקל תרומה לד': כל העבר על הפקדים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה יתנו תרומת ד': העשיר לא ירבה והדל לא ימעיט ממחצית השקל לתת את תרומת ד' לכפר על נפשתיכם: (“For you will elevate the head of the bënei Yisra’él in their census, and each man will give a substitute for his life [kofer nafsho] to Ha-Shem when they are counted, and there will not be amongst them a plague when they are counted. This shall they give, each one who passes by the counting: Half a sheqel of the holy she-qel – twenty géra the sheqel – half a sheqel tëruma for Ha-Shem. Each one who passes by the counting, from 20 years and up, will give tërumath Ha-Shem. The rich will not give more and the poor will not give less than half a sheqel, tërumath Ha-Shem to atone for your lives [lë-chappér ‘al nafshotheichem]”; XXX, 12-15).

Note that the passage defines the coin to be given in great detail: Mahatzith ha-sheqel (“half a sheqel”), defining the sheqel in question as sheqel ha-qodesh (“the holy sheqel”) since, after all, the word simply means “weight,” to differentiate it from various other coins then in circulation with that or similar names, and defines the specific weight as twenty géra. Indeed, Hazal tell us that when G-d said, “This they will give”, he showed Moshe a fiery simulacrum of the coin to be donated (ירושלמי שקלים פ"א ה"ג).

It is thus evident that this specific coin and its half-sheqel weight is somehow crucial to the matter at hand. Why is this? What lesson are we to draw from it?

The ‘Arvei Nahal reports in the name of qëtzath mëfarëshim (“some commentators”) that the point of mahatzith ha-sheqel is שידע כל אדם שאין בו שום שלימות והוא רק חצי דבר וצריך מי שישלימו וזהו מדה טובה באדם וכמו שא"ה "הנני נשפט אותך על אומרך לא חטאתי" יורה כי אף שחטא אם יודע בעצמו חטאו ופחיתותו לא יכעוס ד' עליו כי זהו תחלת הרפואה מה שמכיר חסרונו וכמש"ה "כרפאי לישראל ונגלה עון אפרים" (“that every person should know that there is no perfection in him whatsoever, and he is only half a thing, and needs someone to perfect him; and this is a good quality in a person, and is as Scripture says, ‘Behold, I shall be judged with you, because you say, “I have not sinned” [Jeremiah II, 35],’ teaching that even if one has sinned, if he knows his sin and his shortcoming by himself, Ha-Shem will not be angry with him, for this is the beginning of healing, that he recognizes his own fault, as Scripture says, ‘When I heal Israel, and Efrayim’s transgression is uncovered’ [Hoshéa VII, 1]”).

This idea appears to find some support in our passage from the occurrence of such phrases as kofer nafsho and lë-chappér ‘al nafshotheichem, which link the mahatzith ha-sheqel to the concepts of reparation and atonement. But this begs another question: What has this mitzva to do with a census?

B.

To approach an answer to our questions, let us first consider the nature of the sacrifi-cial service. The ba‘alei musar tell us concerning the verse: והפשיט את העלה ונתח אתה לנתחי'

(“And he will strip the ‘ola and cut it up into its parts”; Leviticus I, 6) that this is indicative of the sort of self-analysis each of us must be continually engaged in. The ‘ola (feminine active participle of the verb ‘ala, “ascend”) is so called because the entire sac-rifice ascends in smoke on high from atop the altar. This is thus a fit metaphor for any feeling of superiority a person may have. Such feelings are often accompanied by ga’ava (“pride, arrogance”), and are best combated by stripping the feeling bare, and breaking it down into its constituent parts, analyzing it and coming to recognize it for what it us.

It is also true that the sacrifices generally stand in place of human beings, singly and collectively. There are some sacrifices which represent both the physical and the metaphysical, both body and soul, such as shëlamim, of which the blood and the hélev, the tallow in the animal’s hind-quarters, are burnt up completely, but the meat is given to the owners (cf. Leviticus III); and there are others, such as the ‘ola, which, being burnt up entirely, represents only the soul. Hazal tell us that the ‘ola is offered to atone for hirhu-rei ha-lév, improper thoughts or feelings (מדרש תנחומא פרשת תצוה ט"ו וצו י"ג וע"ע זוה"ק ח"ג רמז. ורנ"ד:), which are obviously matters of the soul; hence, in such matters, as much as in the case of actual actions, one must be careful to engage in a constant self-analysis, as suggested by our verse.

Whenever one has feelings of ‘aliya, then, one must “strip” them of their veneer, look underneath and analyze, “cut up,” dissect what one finds, to reveal the problems which still exist, to see what remains to be worked on. In that way, ‘aliya, elevation to some higher state, will not lead to ga’ava and can still be coped with.

With this, then, I believe that wee can proceed to answer the question of what all this has to do with counting Israel.

As has been argued in discussing the last two parashoth, the universe was brought into being according to the blueprint of the Torah, in order that Israel would accept the Torah, and the Torah would be properly observed in the universe, the goal being to elevate the physical universe, so profoundly alienated from its Divine source, back to a level where it would once again be in contact with that source, and resonate with it. To that end, Israel erected the miqdash, to set up a feed-back loop of qëdusha which would spiral ever higher, building up a “signal strength” such that the Shëchina would be implanted in the universe’s heart, that very miqdash, and overflow into the world at large.

Each individual human being, we asserted, is also constructed according to the blueprint of Torah, and there exists a one-to-one correspondence between all of the organs and limbs of the human body and the mitzvoth of the Torah. A little reflection will reveal that it is obviously true of the nation of Israel, as much as it is of each individual member of the Holy Nation.

Consider the 613 mitzvoth: There are many which each and every individual of Israel can observe: Shabbath, kashruth, kibbud av va-ém, and so on. Then, there are some mitzvoth which some merit and others do not: Not everyone happens upon a bird’s nest such that he can perform the mitzva of shilluah ha-qan, of sending away the mother bird in order to collect the eggs, for instance. And then there are entire classes of mitzvoth which can only be performed by certain people: Only the kohanim and Lëviyyim can serve in the miqdash, for instance, and their service there is not interchangeable; similarly, no kohén can engage in the mitzvoth of taharath ha-méthim, “cleansing the dead,” and burying them. Observance of the Torah with all its mitzvoth requires the entire nation of Israel.

So, just as it is necessary for each individual to look beneath his surface, to “strip” himself of his exterior and examine all of his parts, analyzing and judging which “limb” is performing its mitzva satisfactorily and which needs work, so too must the entire nation, as a nation, be subjected to such analysis. As we count our limbs to enumerate the mitzvoth to be performed and judge their performance, then, so was Moshe commanded to count Israel, to ascertain and demonstrate that there were enough of each category to proceed in the mission which Israel had been set.

D.

The mitzva of the half sheqel is still in effect today; the half sheqel was collected in every synagogue and béyth midrash in which the mëgilla was heard this Purim. The purpose of the tëruma remains the same: To demonstrate to us that we are all imperfect, and in need of someone to perfect us. To that end, our rebbé’im exist in each and every generation, teaching us Torah, providing us with living examples of how to conduct a life of Torah and mitzvoth, how to bring about again the great perpetual qëdusha machine which Israel and the miqdash (may it be rebuilt speedily in lour days) are meant to be.

Moshe was the first and greatest of our faithful rebbé’im, and taught all Israel. Thus, in his day, he was the “heart” of the nation. As the heart circulates life-giving nutrients to all the limbs and organs of the body, so did Moshe circulate the words of Torah, כי הם חיינו ואורך ימינו (“for they are our lives and the length of our days”), as we say with each ma‘ariv.

A census such as the one described in our parasha casts the harsh, actinic, prophetic light of din on all those singled out by the count, a light which throws into sharp relief every shortcoming and fault of every individual involved. This is the reason why one might expect a negef, a “plague”, as the result of such a census. By counting coins rather than people, the light is deflected somewhat, a measure of shade, as it were, is spread over the group being counted. If at the same time the coin bears the message that the people being so singled out understand that they fall short, that they are still a work in progress with “no perfection in them whatsoever” (to paraphrase the ‘Arvei Nahal’s wording), it deflects any Divine wrath altogether, as we have seen.

Some years ago, a family friend came to a Purim së‘uda dressed as a representative of “Queen Esther’s Cleaning Service,” wearing a sign on her back warning: “Only 30 cleaning days till Passover.” With this in mind, we can appreciate that the ‘Arvei Nahal provides us with a very clear reason for collecting the half sheqel on Purim.

For this does indeed mark the beginning of the season to begin cleansing every Jewish home of hamétz, of leavened material. Leavened bread is characterized by gases released as the yeast cultures ferment the dough, causing it to become puffed up. This, the sëfarim ha-qëdoshim tell us, is emblematic of what the yétzer ha-ra‘ does to the human soul; it is emblematic of ga’ava.

By stating at the very outset of the process by which we remove the hamétz from our souls simultaneously with cleaning the hamétz from our homes, we are, as the ‘Arvei Nahal assures us, beginning the necessary process of healing.

Parshath Ki Thissa’ (Exodus XXX,10-XXXIV,35) 2/18/11

A.

This week’s parasha tells of the golden calf incident, which arose from a tragic error. The Torah tells us: וירא העם כי בשש משה לרדת מן ההר וגו' (“And the people saw that Moshe was delayed in descending from the mountain....”; XXXII, 1). As Rashi explains, following the Talmud (שבת פ"ט.), Moshe announced that he was going up the mountain and would return in forty days; he meant forty twenty-four-hour periods, night and day. But he was misunderstood to include the day he ascended (whose night had already passed) in the count; when the “fortieth” day arrived, and Moshe had not returned, panic ensued.

So they rounded on Aharon: קום עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו לפנינו כי זה משה האיש אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים לא ידענו מה היק לו (“Get up, make for us gods who will go before us, for this man Moshe who brought us up [he‘elanu] from Egypt, we do not know exactly what has happened to him”; ibid.).

Faced with the panic-stricken people, Aharon told them to collect gold from their wives and children for the purpose. They brought him the gold, and he raised the image of a calf from the melting pot. ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים (“And they said, These are your gods, Israel, who raised you up [he‘elucha] from the land of Egypt”; ibid., 4). וירא אהרן ויבן מזבח לפניו ויקרא אהרן חג לד' מחר: (“And Aharon saw, and built an altar before it; and Aharon called out, 'A pilgrimage [hag] to Ha-Shem tomorrow!”; ibid., 5).

So Aharon melted their gold and made a golden calf; he heard them proclaim it to be elohim, and his response was to build an altar before it and declare a hag la-Shem!? What was he thinking? Where did he imagine this would lead?

B.

First we observe, with Ramban, that what went on was not a case of gross idolatry, כי אין טפש בעולם שיחשוב שהזהב הזה אשר הי' באזניהם הוא אשר הוציאם ממצרים (“for there is no-one in the world so stupid that he would think that this gold which had been in their ears had brought them out [hotzi’am] of Egypt”). Everybody in the frightened crowd gathered around Aharon had been there to hear that cataclysmic announcement at Sinai אנכי ד' אלקיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים (“I am Ha-Shem your G-d Who brought you out [hotzé’thicha] of the land of Egypt”; XX, 2; ע"ע בענין זה ראב"ע והכוזרי מ"א סי' צ"ז ). Ramban sees a vital distinction between the wording of G-d’s pronouncement, which everyone acknowledged, and what “they” said.

That the unique, omnipotent, omniscient Being Who addressed them at Sinai had engineered their liberation from Egyptian domination (hotza’a), nobody denied; yet every step of the way had been performed through Moshe, at his words and gestures. It was Moshe who had raised them up (ha‘ala’a) from the lowlands of the Nile valley to the high plain of Sinai. In their eyes, Moshe had been invested with powers [elohim] by Ha-Shem; indeed, G-d Himself had said to Moshe: ויאמר ד' למשה ראה נתתיך אלהים לפרעה (“And Ha-Shem said to Moshe, 'See, I have made you elohim for Pharaoh....'”; VII, 1). Elohim, in short, does not necessarily mean “gods.”

The Talmud tells us that our passage is מלמד שאוו לאלהים הרבה, “teaching that they desired many elohim”; סנהדרין ס"ג.). Ramban explains this to mean that they had no idea what they wanted or needed, but profoundly hoped that Aharon would be able to tell them. So what was Aharon thinking, that he proposed the golden calf?

To understand what follows, one must know that there are two sets of terms for the cardinal directions in the Holy Language, the words tzafon, darom, mizrah, and ma‘arav (“north, south, east, and west”), and another set which assumes an orientation facing eastward: sëmol, yamin, qedem, ahor (“left, right, front, back”), such that “left” and “north” are equivalents. Next, remember that the Sinai peninsula is generally north of most of Egypt; and finally that at Qëri‘ath Yam Suf all of the bënei Yisra’él saw the vision later shown to the prophet Yëhezqél (known as the Ma‘asé ha-Merkava), at a level of perception such that ראתה שפחה על הים מה שלא ראה יחזקאל בן בוזי בימיו (“A servant girl saw at the sea what the prophet Yëhezqél ben Buzi never saw in his life”; מכילתא בשלח סי' ב').

So Ramban tells us: והכונה לאהרן היתה מפני שישראל במדבר חורב שממה והחרבן ושממות עולם יבואו מן הצפון כדכתיב "מצפון תפתח הרעה על כל יושבי הארץ" כו' כי מן השמאל תבוא מדת הדין לעולם להשיב על כל יושבי הארץ כרעתם, והנה במעשה המרכבה אמר "פני שור מהשמאל לארבעתם" ולכן חשב אהרן כי המחריב יורה דרך מקום החרבן כי שם כחו הגדול ובהיותם עובדים לא-ל יערה רוח ממרום כאשר נאצל על משה וזהו שאמר "חג לד' מחר" שיהיו כל העבודות והזבחים לשם המיוחד להפיק רצון ממנו אל בעל הצורה וגו' (“And Aharon’s intent was due to Israel’s being in a desolate, desert wilderness, and world desolation and devastation come from the north, as it is written: ‘From the north the evil will be opened upon all the inhabitants of the earth’ [Jeremiah I, 14]... for from the left will come the measure of judgment to the world to repay all the earth’s inhabitants according to their iniquity; and behold, concerning the Ma‘asé ha-Merkava [Yëhezqél] says ‘the face of an ox from the left of the four of them’ [Ezekiel I, 10], and so Aharon reasoned that the destroyer points the way [to] the place of destruction, for his main strength is there, and whilst they were serving G-d, He would pour out a spirit from on high as had been emanated upon Moshe; and this is why [Aharon] said, ‘Hag la-Shem mahar,’ so that all the services and sacrifices would be for Ha-Shem, to draw down the will from Him to the owner of the form....”;ע"ע שמות רבה פ"ג סי' ב', פמ"ב סי' ה', פמ"ג סי' ח', נזיר ח:, שבת נ"ב., וויקרא רבה פ"י סי' ג' ).

Aharon, as much as anyone else, did not know what had happened to Moshe, but was ready to step up and fill the leadership position himself, if need be. Their location in the desolate landscape of Sinai led him to reason that the strict middath ha-din, through which punishment is brought to the world, reigned there, to the north of Egypt, which had so recently been judged. He understood from the Merkava that the “face,” the form of din, was that of an ox, a male calf, and was therefore inspired to make such a form to serve as a focal point, a metaphysical lens, so to speak, through which the kavvanoth of the “services and sacrifices” might be directed to bring the “outpouring of spirit” upon him, as it had previously been emanated to Moshe.

There was nothing wrong with Aharon’s approach in se, as may be discerned from a similar example, that of the copper snake which Ha-Shem Himself instructed Moshe to make (Numbers XXI, 8-9). The form of the calf was a temporary expedient to bring about Moshe’s replacement by Aharon, nothing more.

So what went wrong? Aharon forgot about the ‘erev rav.

C.

The ‘erev rav, the “mixed multitude” of ex-slaves who took advantage of the chaos engendered by the makkoth to leave Egypt with Israel, unlike Israel, had not been prepared by centuries of selective breeding from the Patriarchs on for all of the challenges and rigors of Mattan Torah. It was “they” who said, “These are your gods, Israel....” Their role may also be discerned from G-d’s words to Moshe: שחת עמך אשר העלית מארץ מצרים (“...your people whom you brought up from the land of Egypt have corrupted”; XXXII, 7). Your people – not Israel, My people – whom you, on your own permitted to accompany Israel, have corrupted; the pi‘él verb, shihéth, transitive by nature, requires a direct object (often implied, rather than stated); had He meant “been corrupted,” “become corrupted,” He would have said shahath. Here, the implied direct object is Israel.

But the ‘erev rav nonetheless were also there, had also directly experienced Ha-Shem’s pronouncement, and also knew where the gold had been only hours before. They were no more stupid than the bënei Yisra’él. To understand their mindset, we turn to the Or ha-Hayyim, who writes that they understood Aharon to intend: להכין בו בחינת האלקות שהוא המוציא ותהא העבודה לחלק מהכל והרי הם העובדים לכל והחלק הי' הולך לפניהם והוא יענה לניקח ממנו ולא הי' בעיניהם זרות, כי הלא יש באדם חלק אלקי ממעל, אלא כי לצד שהרכבתו אינה מין המתקיים הרוח תשוב אל האלקים, ונתחכמו לעשות הדבר להמשיך כח עליון בדבר המתקיים ויהי' תמיד לפניהם ולעולם לא עקרו "אנכי ד'" כו' אלא אמרו "אלה", ואולי כי לזה אמר "העלוך" לשון רבים לרמוז כח תחתון כעליון חס ושלום וגו' (“to establish in [the calf] the category of Divinity, Who is the Motzi’, and [their] service would be of the Part of the [Divine] Whole, such that they would be serving the Whole, and the Part would go before them, and He would surely answer [the Part] which had been taken from Him; and this did not seem idolatrous in their eyes, for is there not a Divine Part from Above [i.e., a soul] in every human being? But the human constitution is such that it is not permanent, and the spirit returns to G-d; so they conceived the idea to make a thing in order to draw a supernal power into a permanent object which would always be before them. So they never uprooted “I am Ha-Shem”...but rather said, “These,” and perhaps this is why they said he‘elucha, in the plural, to allude to [equal] lower and supernal power, has vë-shalom....”).

The ‘erev rav, in other words, turned the calf into an idol, in their desire to splinter His ineffable Divine Unity. and claim one of the pieces for themselves (cf. the A”z Yashir, Yithro 5771 for a fuller discussion of this aspect of idolatry).

D.

ובאהרן התאנף ד' מאד להשמידו ואתפלל גם בעד אהרן בעת ההיא" וגו', said Moshe later; “And Ha-Shem became very angry with Aharon and I prayed also for Aharon at that time (Deuteronomy XX, 20).” In this heartfelt plea, Moshe said: למה יאמרו מצרים ברעה הוציאם להרג אתם בהרים ולכלתם מעל פני האדמה שוב מחרון אפך והנחם על הרעה לעמך (“Why should Egypt say, 'With evil He brought them out to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them from the face of the earth?' Turn back from Your wrath and be comforted [vë-hinnahém] about the evil to Your people”; XXXII, 12).

I have translated he word hinnahém as it is normally understood regarding, e.g., comforting mourners, but the translation seems inapt here; what does the word really mean?

The Torah frequently employs it in this sort of context; for instance, when Yoséf’s brothers were confronted by the august personage whom they had sold into slavery, they begged his forbearance (Genesis L, 17); the Torah characterizes his response: וינחם אתם וידבר על לבם (“and he comforted [va-yënahém] them and spoke to their heart”; ibid., 21).

Rabbi Shimon Schwab זצ"ל suggests that these phrases mean two different things, and that it is the expression “speak to the heart” which conveys what we ordinarily think of as words of comfort or conciliation. Nëhama, he explains, is the complete overturning of one’s thoughts or intentions, a reversal of polarity, as it were, from ra‘ to tov, as Rashi explains our verse: התעשת מחשבה אחרת להטיב להם "על הרעה" אשר חשבת להם (“Consider another thought, to benefit them ‘over the evil’ which You had thought for them”; עיי' ספר מעין בית השואבה, פ' יתרו). Hence, nëhama, when we pay a shiv‘a call, should bring about tzidduq ha-din, the justification and acceptance of the judgment which has been rendered.

Does Rashi then mean that G-d changes His mind? Halila! Rather, it is the human perception of reality which changes. In Yoséf’s case, what had been an unpardonable crime became the vehicle of his father’s and brothers’ salvation from the ravages of the great famine. In our case, the incident and subsequent nëhama led to the implementation of mitzvoth (e.g., pidyon ha-bén) which, though written in the Torah, would, it seems, not otherwise have been realized.

כל דעביד רחמנא לטב עביד, Hazal tell us; “Whatever the Merciful One does, He does for good” (ברכות ס:). It is the point of view and mindset of the human observer that makes it bad or good here below, even as it does the physical position or velocity of he observed phenomenon (as Schrödinger and Bohr demonstrated); and it is possible to bring about a nëhama.

Parshath Ki Thissa (Exodus XXX,1-XXXIV,35) 3/13/09

A.

Our parasha tells the tragic story of the golden calf. The episode begins with an honest mistake: וירא הכם כי בשש משה לרדת מן ההר (“And the people [‘am] saw that Moshe was late coming down from the mountain....”; XXXII, 1). As Rashi explains it, when Moshe ascended the mountain, he announced that he would return at the end of forty days. The ‘am were left with the erroneous impression that the day of his ascent was included in the forty.

What difference did one day make? Remember that Moshe had not taken forty days’ worth of rations with him. Almost from the moment Moshe had returned to Egypt from Midyan, the ‘am had been thrust into a bewildering, even frightening world in which supernatural events alter-nated with the more familiar, “natural” ones. In this strange, new world, what Moshe had said would happen, had happened. On this basis, the ‘am had suspending disbelief, accepting that a man just might survive forty days without food and water on a hilltop. Nonetheless, the emotional strain must have been appalling.

As what they believed to be the fortieth day drew to a close with no sign of Moshe, something snapped in them: ויקהלו העם על אהרן ויאמרו אליי קום עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו לפנינו כי זה משה האיש אשר העלנו מארץ מצרעם לא ידענו מה הי' לו (“And the ‘am gathered about Aharon and said to him, 'Get up, make us gods which will go before us, for this Moshe, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has become of him'”; ibid.).

The sentence reveals a vast gulf between the perceptions of the ‘am and reality: A mere forty days before, they had all heard: אנכי ד' אלקיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית כבדים (“I am Ha-Shem your G-d; I brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves”; XX, 2). Yet here we have “Moshe, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt”! They were not asking Aharon to assume the mantle of leadership in Moshe’s absence; rather, they were seeking replacement of the man whom they had deified, “gods” to mediate with the incomprehensible forces around them.

Faced with such an unreasoningly panic-stricken crowd, Aharon tried to play for time, instructing them to bring him their wives’ and children’s golden jewelry. If anything, he underestimated the depth of their hysteria and the speed with whim they would work. In no time, he was presented with a pile of gold rings and urged to get on with it.

What was Aharon to do? Before we judge him too harshly, remember that Moshe was bringing the Torah with him. The concept of ייהרג ואל יעבור, that one should allow himself to be killed before violating some cardinal tenet of the Torah, had not yet been articulated. So he fought for time; surely Moshe would arrive; surely the ‘am would come to their senses.

The form of the golden calf emerged from the melting pot, ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים (“And they said, These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt”; v. v. 4). Here at last we learn the identity of this ‘am; as Rashi deduces, לא נאמר "אלה אלהינו", מכאן שערב רב שעלו ממצרים הם שנקהלו על אהרן והם שעשאוהו ואחר כך הטעו את ישראל אחריו (“‘These are our gods’ was not said; from here, [we learn] that it was the ‘erev rav, the ‘mixed multitude’ who had come up from Egypt, who had congregated around Aharon, who had made [the calf], and who afterward caused Israel to err after it”).

Aharon had only cast the gold into the pot and was working it with a tool to keep its state uniform. However, says Rashi, כיון שהשליכו לאור בכור באו מכשפי כרב רב שעלו עמהם ממצרים ועשאוהו בכשפים (“Once he had cast it into the fire in the furnace, the sorcerers of the ‘erev rav who had come up from Egypt with them, and made [the calf] with spells”).

Aharon made one final, last ditch effort to reach them: ויקרא אהרן ויאמר חג לד' מחר (“And Aharon called out and said, ‘A holiday for Ha-Shem [will be] tomorrow”; v. 5), ולא היום, says Rashi, שמא יבא משה קודם שיעבדוהו (“And not today; perhaps Moshe would come before they worshipped it”).
But it was too late; the panic spread and metastasized.

B.

The evident fact, then, that the term ‘am is being used in our parasha to refer to two different and disparate groups of people, to the ‘erev rav, on the one hand, and to the simplest members of Israel, most susceptible and vulnerable to external influences, on the other, serves to clarify an otherwise bewildering alternation of terms.

For instance, when G-d informs Moshe of what has happened at the foot of the mountain, He speaks of עמך אשר העלית מארץ מצרים (“your ‘am whom you brought up from the land of Egypt”; v. 9), and Rashi notes: "העם" לא נאמר אלא "עמך" ערבס רב שקבלת מעצמך וגיירתם ולא נמלכת בי ואמרת טוב שידבקו גרים בשכינה הם שחתו והשחיתו (“ ‘The ‘am is not said, but ‘your ‘am, the ‘erev rav whom you accepted by yourself and converted, and did not consult Me, and said, It is good that converts should cling to the Divine Presence; they have been corrupted and caused corruption”). Therefore, סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתים, “they, ‘am Yisra’él have swiftly departed from the way which I have commanded them”; v. 10). It was the corrupting influence of the mass-converted ‘erev rav, who in their unreasoning panic at Moshe’s apparent failure to show up had reverted to their idolatrous instincts, who had caused the damage.

It must be made clear that Moshe’s error in judgment concerning the ‘erev rav does not betoken that gérim, converts, are unwelcome in Israel. G-d forbid, the opposite is true, as the story of Yithro amply illustrates; but the fact is that there were so many of them, and the bnei Yisra’él themselves so recently redeemed from bondage to Egypt, spiritual as well as physical, and not yet subject to the discipline of Torah, which made the difference.

It was the lack of that anchoring discipline, since the Torah had not yet arrived with Moshe from the top of the mountain, which made possible the spread of the panic, and the spiritual rot, from the ‘erev rav.

C.

When G-d orders Moshe down from the mountain, He says, ועתה הניחה לי ויחר אפי בהם ואכלם ואעשה אתך לגוי גדול (“And now, leave Me and My wrath will rage against them, and I shall obliterate them and make you into a great nation”; v. 10). The Divine intent was to pass summary judgment on all those who had so swiftly “departed from the way which I had commanded them.”

So Moshe pleads for Israel: למה ד' יחרה אפך בעמך אשר הותאת מארץ ממצרים בכח גדול וביד חזקה: למה יאמרו מצרים לאמר ברעה היציאם להרג אתם בהרים ולכלתם מעל פני האדמה וגו' זכר לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל עבדיך וגו' (“Why, Ha-Shem, should Your wrath rage against Your ‘am, which You brought up from the land of Egypt with great power and a strong hand. Why should Egypt say, Malevolently did He bring them out, to kill [la-harog] them in the mountains and to obliterate them from the face of the earth.... Remember Avraham, Yitzchaq and Yisra’el Your servants....”; v. 14). Note: G-d’s wrath should not rage against His ‘am, just because Moshe may have misjudged the ‘erev rav.

Rashi follows the midrash in explaining Moshe’s invocation of the Patriarchs: אם לשריפה הם זכור לאברהם שמסר עצמו להשרף עליך באור כסדים, אם להריגה זכור ליצחק שפשט צוארו לעקידה, אם לגלות זכור ליעקב שגלה לחרן וגו' (“If [Israel are liable for sentence of] burning [sreifa], remember Avraham who gave himself over to be burnt because of You at Ur Kasdim; if [they are liable] for death by the sword [hariga], remember Yitzchaq, who bared his neck at the ‘aqeida; if [they are liable] for exile, remember Ya‘aqov, who was exiled to Charan....”).

In support of Rashi’s remarks, we note that sreifa and hariga (more commonly hereg) are two of the four death sentences authorized in the Torah (עיי' סנהדרין כ"א: במשנה), and that exile can also result from judicial action, e.g. in a case of negligent manslaughter, and that the ‘aqeida, when Yitzchaq was nearly slaughtered by a sword, took place on a mountain-top; hence Moshe’s subtle reference to hereg “in the mountains.” The Talmud advises us that klaya, “obliteration”, is best done through burning (עיי' פסחים כ"א:). The trial of Avraham at Nimrod’s hands, when he was cast into a kiln at Ur Kasdim, is recorded in Talmudic sources (עיי למשל עירובין ע"ג.), and in a comment on Genesis XI, 28, Rashi notes that Ur Kasdim was located in a biq‘a, a low-lying alluvial plain; hence the reference to “obliteration from the face of the earth.” Exile, of course, is a counterpoint to the Divine promises made to the Patriarchs that the Holy Land would belong to their heirs.

D.

The Maharal mi-Prag, in the Gur Aryeh, also takes note of this, and asks why Moshe did not mention the other two death sentences, sqila (“stoning”) and cheneq (“strangulation”). He answers that sreifa and hereg are the most likely sentences to originate in the Béyth Din shel Ma‘la, citing in evidence the deaths of Nadav and Avihu by heavenly fire (Leviticus X, 2); the deaths by Divine fire of the unwarranted complainers in the desert (Numbers XI, 1); and the destruction of Sdom and ‘Amora by fire and brimstone (Genesis XIX, 24). As for the rest: וכן הרג הוא גם כן מן השמים להביא עליהם מלחמות להיותם נאספים בחרב וכל הגלות (“And similarly, hereg is from heaven, causing wars to bring them together with swords, and similarly exile....”).

Moshe’s allusions to technical issues in the Torah, and specifically those most likely to result from a judgment in the Béyth Din shel Ma‘la, suggests that his plea was not only, or even prim-arily, a petition for clemency; it was. rather, a plea that G-d allow His Torah to function in this world as He intended it should, that now that it had been granted to Israel through their first Av Béyth Din, Moshe, that he be allowed to get on with it and administer it in this world. It was, as the Torah famously assures us, no longer in heaven (cf. Deuteronomy XXX, 12). This, after all, had been the Divine intent from the very beginning, when He made Creation conditional on Israel’s acceptance of the Torah (עיי' עבודה זרה ג: בין השאר).

וינחם ד' על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו (“And Ha-Shem was comforted [the literal meaning of the main verb] concerning the evil which He said He would do to His ‘am”; v. 14). G-d accepted Moshe’s argument, and recused Himself, to let Moshe handle the issue.

Parshath Ki Thissa (Exodus XXX,11-XXXIV,35) 2/22/08

A.

ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא בית ד' אלוקיך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו: טיאמר ד' אל משה כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית טאת ישראל(“The first fruits of your land shall you bring [to] the house of Ha-Shem your G-d; you will not cook a kid in its mother’s milk. And Ha-Shem said to Moshe, Write for yourself these words, for accord-ing to these words I have cut a covenant with you and with Israel;” XXXIV, 26-7).

The midrash evidently sees in their juxtaposition and the use of the conjunction “and” in the second verse justification of some connection between the two. The midrash begins by recounting that, when G-d made known His original intention to grant the Torah to Israel, the mal’achei ha-sharéth, the “ministering angels,” raised objections: Why should G-d grant so sublime a gift to mere physical flesh and blood? תנה הודך על השמים (”Bestow Your splendour upon the heavens!”). Now that Israel had sinned with the Golden Calf, one can only imagine how much more strongly they clamoured against the idea.אמר להם הקב"ה, אתם הם המקיימים את התורה?! תינוק מישראל מקיים יותר מכם! אברהם הניא לכם בשר בחלב ואכלתם! "(“Said to them the Holy One, Blessed is He: You are the ones who will be keeping the Torah?! A small child of Israel keeps more than you! Avraham brought you meat and milk, and you ate [it]!”’ פסיקתא דרב כהנא סוף פרשה כ"ו".)

The reference, of course, is to the three angelic visitors who came to Avraham whilst he was recovering from his circumcision, where we read: ויקח חמאה וחלב ובן הבקר אשר עשה ויתן לפניהם כו' ויאכלו' (“And [Avraham] took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared and put [them] before [the angels]... and they ate;” Genesis XVIII, 8).

What is striking to me, though, is G-d’s defense of Israel by citing the behavior of Israel’s children. Children, after all, are not obligated in any of the mitzvoth; their ability to understand is limited, and they are still being taught. Why did He not cite instead the conduct of Israel’s gdolim, our spiritual giants who are so painstaking and self-sacrificing in observing the mitzvoth?

The question seems especially stark in light of what G-d is recorded as having told these mal’achim in a different but similar context: וכי לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם בתורה והם מדקדקים על עצמם על כזית ועד כביצה"ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ד' אלוקיך' (“And shall I not lift up My countenance for Israel, for whom I wrote in the Torah ‘and you shall eat and be satisfied and bless Ha-Shem your G-d’ [Deuteronomy VIII, 10] and they are exacting on themselves [to say grace] over an olive’s volume or an egg’s;” :ברכות כ::).

B.

In discussing the parameters and ramifications of the Torah’s prohibition of eating meat together with milk (basar b’chalav), derived in part from the first of our two verses above, the Talmud notes: רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר, נאמר "לא תאכלו כל נבלה" ונאמר "לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו", את שאסור בנבלה אסור לבשל בחלב "(“Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili says, It is said ‘you will not eat any carrion [nevéla]’, and it is said [in the very same verse] ‘you will not cook a kid in its mother’s milk’ [both Deuteronomy XIV, 21]; whatever is prohibited [to eat] because of nevéla, it is forbidden to cook with milk;” .חולין קי"ג. במשנה, ע"ע בר"ן שם".)

So we see that Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili discerns an organic relationship between these two prohibitions from the fact that they are both clauses of the same verse.

Now, the halachic definition of a nevéla is any kosher animal or fowl which was slaughtered not in accordance with the laws of shchita, kosher slaughter (' עיי' רמב"ם הל' מאכלות אסורות פ"ד ה"א). With this in mind, we turn elsewhere in the Talmud, and find: "כי ירחק ממך המקום אשר יבחר ד' אלוקיך לשום שמו שם וזבחת נבקרך ומצאנך. אמר ר' עקיבא, לא בא הכתוב אלא לאסור להן בשר נחירה. בתחלה הותר להן בשר נחירה. משנכמסו לארץ נאסר להן' , (“’For the place where Ha-Shem your G-d will choose to place His name will be distant from you, and you will slaughter of your cattle and of your flock’ [Deuteronomy XII, 21]. Said Rabbi Aqiva, "The verse is only coming to forbid to [Israel] besar nechira, for at first besar nechira was permitted to them. From when they entered the [Holy] Land, it was forbidden them;” חולין י"ז. וע"ע רמב"ם הל' שחיטה פ"ד הי"ז שמובא שם להלכה ).

Besar nechira is literally meat produced by stabbing an animal. As Rabbi Aqiva understands the situation which existed in the desert, shchita was originally mandated in the desert to apply to animals offered in sacrifice in the Mishkan, and therefore to their meat (shlamim). The problem here, of course, is that people are not necessarily always metaphysically fit, often through no fault of their own, to partake of holy meat. Yet, they might still wish, or even have to, eat meat. This non-sacrificial meat is known by such technical terms as chullin (as opposed to qodashim, “holy” meat) or besar ta’ava (meat which one desires to eat).

As the Ha’âméq Davar notes in a comment on the verse cited by Rabbi Aqiva, “distant” does not necessarily refer to spatial distance; after all, if it did, the inhabitants of Yerushalayim would not have been permitted shchitath chullin, becdause they had the Temple on their doorstep, as it were. Rather, it refers to richuq ha-ma’ala, “distance in [metaphysical] status,” which could result from numerous circdumstances.

So, in the desert, when people were unable to partake of shlamim, the dispensation was that did not have to engage in shchita; any means of slaughtering the animal which would drain the blood away from the meat, such as stabbing it in a main artery, would suffice. Only after entering Eretz Yisra’él was the mitzva of shchita broadened to include not only shchitath qodashim but also shchitath chullin.

As Rabbi Yossi ha-Galili points out, however, this also has implications for the prohibition of basar b’chalav. Besar nechira, after all, is technically a nevéla, as we have established. If there is an issur d’Oraitha, a prophibition in the written Torah, of basar b’chalav only in connection with those things for which there is also an issur nevéla, and if in the desert there was no issur nevéla concerning besar nechira, then arguably the issur basar b’chalav in the desert was in effect only concerning the strictly literal meaning of the verse, that is, concerning a kid in its mother’s milk. This prohibition was broadened at the same time as the scope of shchita was broadened to include chullin as well as qodashim.

So it would appear that in the desert, eating a calf together with generic butter or milk, the violation of which G-d accused the mal’chim, would arguably have been permitted the average Israelite in the desert. To what, therefore, is G-d referring when He says that even a tinoq, a small child of Israel would be more observant than the mal’achim had been?

C.

The dispensation of besar nechira, and therefore of basar b’chalav outside the scope of a kid in its mother’s milk, obtained only for the forty years that Israel were in the desert. But why were they in the desert for forty years? Eretz Yisra’él is not that far away from Egypt.

In the Book of Numbers, we learn of the terrible incident of the m’ragglim, the spies whom Moshe had sent to make a reconnaissance of the Promised Land, and who returned much shaken by what they had found: a fortified country peopled by warlike giants. As a result, most of them issued a defamatory, despairing report on the country and their chances of success. Only two of the twelve dissented, Yehoshua bin Nun and Kalev ben Yefunneh.

Unfortunately, the defeatist attitude of the m’ragglim infected the bulk of the people, and the seeds of panic were swiftly sown and rapidly bore fruit. As a result, G-d decreed: “In this desert your carcasses will fall, and all of you were numbered, according to your whole number, from twenty years of age and older, [will die here].... And your children, whom you said would be for spoils, I shall bring them onward, and they will know the land....” Numbers XIV, 29-30).

Virtually all of those people who had known the dispensation of besar nechira and basar b’chalav would not see the Holy Land, and the full extension shchita and the concomitant issur. But their children, many of whom would be reaching majority only as they were about to cross into the Holy Land and embark on the Divinely ordained campaign of its conquest, would know it.

And they would be much more observant than those mal’achim had been, so many years before.
D.

Two things present themselves as lessons to be learnt from this. '

The first, and seemingly most esoteric, is the fact which it presents that in the world of ultimate truth, which surrounds and contains our world, and which is inhabited by the mal’achim, there are no temporal bounds. The mal’achim who visited Avraham were fully aware of what the Torah would ordain, perfectly sensitive to the metaphysical consequences of engaging in a physical violation of the Torah, and nevertheless allowed themselves to be negligent and fail. Only if all of this is so, could G-d have chided them eating basar b’chalav during their visit to Avraham.

The second goes to the heart of the matter of why the dispensation should have changed on Israel’s entry to the Holy Land. They were about to engage in several years of strenuous warfare against their Canaanite foes. Many times in the near future, Israelite soldiiers would be tmé’ei méth, metaphysically defiled because of unavoidable contact with the dead, and yet would now be most in need of the strength and nourishment to be derived from eating meat. Why should this new and apprently onerous extension of shchita come into effect now?

The answer is that in order to succeed when embarked on a holy cause, it is far better to proceed from a position of purity. An Israelite nation who eaters of nev’eloth, who, even theoretically, could engage in basar b’chalav as the issur was intended to be understood, would have been starting off with a deficit of merits derived from mitzva observance which was not, strictly speaking, necessary.

רצה הקב"ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, wished to confer favor on Israel, therefore He multiplied for them Torah and mitzvoth;” מכות כ"ג: במשנה). An object example of which we find in shchitath chullin and the issur basar b’chalav.